Race, Mexican-Americans, Hispanics, Texas and the first Latino president

Historically, Mexican-Americans have generally been considered “white” in Texas; they served in white units of the segregated military, including the National Guard, and were allowed, during the Jim Crow years, to marry white (but not black) partners. In the early ’40s, the Texas Legislature even passed a “Caucasian Race Resolution,” which affirmed their status as white. Today the U.S. Census treats “Hispanic,” “Latino” and “Spanish origin” — terms that apply to anyone of Spanish-speaking background — as an ethnic category. Race is a separate category, with various options, including a nonspecific “some other race.” In 2000, about half of all Hispanics checked “white” for race. Castro told me that he was planning to check “some other race” in 2010. He is uncomfortable referring to himself as “brown,” and he doesn’t use the term “people of color” when he discusses Mexican-Americans.

From the May 9th New York Times Magazine piece profile on Julián Castro. Castro, 35, is the current mayor of San Antonio, Texas and a rising political star in the Democratic Party. A few observers think he has a good shot at being the first Hispanic — though the piece suggests he prefers ‘Latino’ — president of the United States.

Though the piece is about Castro, it’s also about Hispanic/Latino political influence, Chicano versus Hispanic/Latino identity, and assimilation (Castro doesn’t speak Spanish). Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants make up 60 percent of all Hispanics. Border and immigration issues often dominate the Hispanic agenda, even though Cuban-Americans largely arrive(d) here legally as defectors, and Puerto Ricans are American citizens. Plus race means that Afro-Latinos, Asian Latinos, and aboriginal Latin Americans may form different identity-based political alliances.

For Castro to win national office, he will have to be a bilingual Obama. Like Obama, he will need to reassure white voters that he is sufficiently American and doesn’t secretly hate white people. He will also need enough Chicano-ness to woo Mexican-American voters without alienating other Hispanic/Latino voters. And finally, he will need to woo black voters in places like Georgia and California where blacks and Latinos often compete for jobs and neighborhood presence.

Also see: Liza Sabater’s excellent 2007 post On why I hate Hispanic Heritage Month for an explanation of ‘Hispanic’ versus ‘Latino.’

Way tangential point, though related to Liza’s piece: even the “Latin American” label is problematic. It makes sense, I think, to group countries by language or colonial power. Grouping countries where Spanish is the official or predominant language is understandable. But ‘Latin America’ also includes Portuguese-speaking Brazil and French-speaking Haiti while excluding the English-speaking South American country Guyana. It includes the French departments Martinique and Guadeloupe, but excludes English-speaking Dominica, which lies between the islands. It includes Puerto Rico and Haiti, but not Jamaica. And yet, the region as a whole shares a history of colonialization, subjugation or extermination of aboriginal Americans, and varying degrees of participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. So how useful is it to draw those linguistic boundaries, and where should we draw them?