Progressive Era Reform and Jim Crow in the Southwest

Mexicans in the United States, 1897-1920

Major Themes Progressive Era “Reform” in the Southwest often

meant segregating Mexicans. Racialization is a process that occurs locally,

regionally and nationally. Individuals, civic groups, courts and governments all

had an effect on how Mexicans were racialized. Mexicans contested their subordinate position. For Mexicans there were significant benefits to

claiming “legal whiteness” and denying Indian ancestry.

Women of all groups were key participants in shaping Progressive Era “reforms”.

Key Questions What is the Progressive Era? What was a “racial prerequisite?” During the Progressive Era individuals from which

racial groups could become citizens? What did the In Re Rodriguez case establish? What is de facto segregation? de jure? What was a Mutualista? What role did historical memory play in racializing

Mexicans?

The Progressive Era, 1890s-1920

Reform through laws and government regulation.

Nadir of race relations

From Upper Left: March Supporting Voting Rights for Women, 12 Year Old Mill Worker in

Vermont, March of 40,000 Ku Klux Klan members in Washington, D.C. 1925

Racial Prerequisites, Desirable Citizens and Racialization

Name of Case and Year

Decision of Court Rationales (Justifications

cited in the court’s decision)

In re Ah Yup (1878)

Chinese are not White.

Scientific evidence Common knowledge Congressional intent

In re Camille (1880)

Persons half White and half Native American are not White.

Legal precedent

In re Kanaka Nian (1889)

Hawaiians are not White.

Scientific evidence

In re Hong Yen Chang (1890)

Chinese are not White.

Legal precedent

In re Po (1894)

Burmese are not White.

Common knowledge Legal precedent

In re Saito (1894) Japanese are not White.

Congressional intent Common knowledge Scientific evidence Legal precedent

In re Gee Hop (1895)

Chinese are not White.

Legal precedent Congressional intent

In re Rodriguez (1897)

Mexicans are White.

Legal precedent an International treaty

In re Burton (1900) Native Americans are not White.

No explanation

In re Yamashita (1902)

Japanese are not White.

Legal precedent

Name of Case and Year

Decision of Court Rationale (Justifications

cited in the court’s decision)

In re Balsara (1909) Asian Indians are probably not White.

Congressional intent

In re Najour (1909) Syrians are White. Scientific evidence In re Halladjian (1909)

Armenians are White.

Scientific evidence Legal precedent

United States v. Dolla (1910)

Asian Indians are White.

Visual inspection of skin color

In re Mudarri (1910) Syrians are White. Scientific evidence Legal precedent

In re Alverto (1912) Persons three-quarters Filipino and one-quarter White are not White.

Legal precedent Congressional intent

In re Young (1912)

Persons half German and half Japanese are not White.

Legal precedent

In re Dow (1914) Syrians are not White Common knowledge Congressional intent

Dow v. United States (1915)

Syrians are White. Scientific evidence Congressional intent Legal precedent

In re Mallari 1916) Filipinos are not White. No explanation In re Sadar Bhagwab Singh (1917)

Asian Indians are not White.

Common knowledge Congressional intent

In re Thind (1920) Asian Indians are White.

Legal precedent

United States v. Ali (1925)

Punjabis (whether Hindu or Arabian) are not White.

Common knowledge

In re Feroz Din (1928)

Afghanis are not White. Common knowledge

In re Cruz (1938)

Persons three-quarters Native American and one-quarter African are not African.

Legal precedent

In these tables are a sampling of the 52 racial prerequisite cases decided in various state, district and federal courts between 1878 and 1952. Information adapted from White by Law by Ian Haney-Lopez.

In Re Rodriguez (1897)

Ricardo Rodriguez Seeks Citizenship

Jim Crow and the Segregation of Mexicans

De Jure=By Law De Facto=By Practice Disenfranchisement Segregation in Education,

Housing and Public Facilities

D.W. Glasscock

Arizona Orphan Incident

Photos From Left: Mexican Miners, Mexican Miner’s Family (both in Clifton-Morenci area around turn of the century), Clifton in 1903.

Mutualistas Focused on

Mexican identity, nationalist

Based in reciprocity and altruism

Many went beyond self-help and organized against exploitation

Adina de Zavala vs. Clara Driscoll

Mexican Immigrants 1900 Census

Mexican Immigrants 1920 Census

Further Reading Bederman, Gail. Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the

United States, 1880-1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Flores, Richard R. Remembering the Alamo: Memory, Modernity, and the Master

Symbol. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002.Frankel, Noralee, and Nancy S. Dye. Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the

Progressive Era. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994.Gonzalez, Gilbert G. A Century of Chicano History: Empire, Nations, and Migration. New

York: Routledge, 2003.Gordon, Linda. The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard

University Press, 1999.Haney-López, Ian. White by Law. New York: New York University Press, 2006.Lomelí, Francisco A., Víctor A. Sorell, and Genaro M. Padilla. Nuevomexicano Cultural

Legacy. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002.Menchaca, Martha. Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black,and White

Roots of Mexican Americans. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.Painter, Nell Irvin. Standing at Armageddon: United States, 1877-1919. New York: W.W.

Norton, 1987.Zamora, Emilio. The World of the Mexican Worker in Texas. Texas A&M University

Press, 1993.