Political history. This is not to say that no one has ever thought of or written about latinos in politics and history. The conversation follows in the footsteps of many major works and scholars. Instead is about rethinking what historians paid attention to. In an earlier panel they asked an essential question about segregation. There is a real barrier to what organizations and individuals are labeled as critical or diplomatic actors. This panel will shift the conversation towards a discourse other than peripheral. Their fortune the fire of the 19th century warfare and boosted by mass migration. They have an parcel of modern social fabric. Which will over 100 years of history in the United States. They have made a double mark on u. S. Politics. In the early legislative history at the selfless territories. They make u. S. Politics their own. And reading the major synthetic works of american political history we are hardpressed to find much representation of experiences and politics in mainstream political history. This conference is making the case for Latino History. Based in the president ial synthesis written by historians have emphasized elite white men of american politics. Newer works in history have complicated our processors. We seen a critical approach, however they often shorthand for policy. They illustrate the importance. It done little to pervade the dominant narrative of the old and new political history. Other fields have done much better in their corporation and the narrative of u. S. History including urban history, labor history, immigration, and studies of the welfare state. This is the best examples weve had for any analysis of politics. What about the national . More importantly, wears political history in this intellectual question . This is a rallying call to rethink our engagement or lack thereof. This is the Largest Community of color in the United States. In calling for a new Research Agenda or conference of political history we must ask preliminary questions on what research has been done and is currently on the table or yet to be pursued. Is there such a thing of latino political history . If so, what does it look like . How would incorporating latinos in the discourse change the field with a larger narrative . We will discuss some of the most pressing issues concerning the role of latinos in the american political past. Joining us today and making the case for the political history are leading voices in this nations field. This is a historian with a research and teaching focus on ask again in american history. Is the history of spanish in the United States. Which is a political history of the Spanish Language in the United States from the incorporation of mexican session in 1848 for world war ii. Their publishing 20 team of university of california. They were in the department at princeton. Is a historian of latinos in the United States american borderlands and racial politics. The making of the sunbelt portal and is published in 2013 by harvard university. And focused on the arizona borderlands since world war ii. Hes completing a book. An imprint of harpercollins. Is the director of the latina and latino cities program, and an associate professor in history. Benjamin francis is to the right. Is the politics of immigration in the United States of america. His forthcoming book, a history examines how elected officials attempted to forge Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and cubans into a nationwide political constituency. A process approved pivotal to defining and institutionalizing latino identity in United States. Is due out in september of this year. Francis received a speech from Georgetown University and is an assistant professor of social sciences education. Finally, i am a phd the department of history. We explore the history of the committee. I have new hosts to the podcast. An organizer and moderator of this roundtable discussion. Will try to cover as much ground as possible. We should get started in making the case. The first question i would like to open up to the panel is what is political history in your view . We can start with professor. Thank you for bringing us together on this important topic. Is a broad category that includes different fields and ties together issues that remain important to the United States. In my view up little history begins in the 19th century. Other regions earlier than that are placed along what became the midwest. Is crucial to see whats been considered as the nation. The political history of mexicanamericans includes how those who became u. S. Citizens following the u. S. Met mexican through the participated in the u. S. Political system. The implementation of the u. S. Political system states. By participating in politics in spanish, many became devoted and patriotic u. S. Citizens. That includes being recognized by and participating in both Major Political parties. Theres a lot more work to be done. They recognize that they were there. They were the ones that were supporting the newspapers in spanish. They were the ones that were giving the money and funding to make sure they were involved in the political process. This is increasing immigration, civil rights, and its only in the 20th century i would argue that political history is an appropriate name. Earlier histories and activism by individuals who make themselves called latino conducted in isolation. Well they may have been cognitive of one another and supportive of the efforts, there is little evidence that its one in the same struggle. Is the potential political history thats one of the most interesting historical questions or issues at this time. How does they come to be . We had a good start making hispanics, but theres much more to encumber about this process and about where we are today and the ways that we look at the latino population. Hello everyone. I would largely echo a lot of what she said, a couple things in particular. A story of latino politics and political history with stretch back to the 19th century and include a range of issues like land ownership. That is me. Suggesting the necessity to have a broad vision of what it means. And also the need to integrate latino and american political history. With including a much larger story of american politics. I think the title of the panel of the political history, just because my First Response is like why not . Why wouldnt you have latino politics . It was curious to me that there is a need to make a case for it or something. It made me wonder about the longer history of american political history that has excluded it, that would necessitate our panelists making a case for it, because i do think there must had been some cabin in the beginning of american political history. They did evolve. The main two things that i wanted to highlight is the difference between Latino History and latino politics. I think political history as i understand it is in a large degree concerned with Political Behavior and the involvement of latinos in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Then the history of latino politics would be a much longer struggle for inclusion. And american political life. I dont just mean in terms of the parties, but recognition civil rights, access to property. Its largely lacking, and i think theres individual books and the breadandbutter of the history of the field for a long time. Its to the community studies. And we will talk about books in a minute. I think in those places historians have looked at someone like for whom it was important to register a latino voter in los angeles. That the store if it gets told. Is not part of a much longer history of the involvement of latinos in the partisan politics. I think that is one major direction in the field of Latino History that will move in soon. As it does so, i think the story of latino political history and its involvement in history will come together more. It reinforces some of that. I am reminded of two things. He was speaking through political activists. They demanded that Mexican Americans would proudly organize themselves as a distinctive minority block. As the italians in new york and the everywhere could do it, and so could the mexicans United States. Once they adopted an f posture the prize of the road would be two things, for me its revealed that the politics develop simultaneously with ethnic soulsearching with identification. And has a search for political inclusion that we raised questions that were applicable. The first matter they are called to an ethnic polyp politics. We want to consider really Big Questions like how latinos will harmonize the diverse local, and state histories National Origins to create durable forms of ethnic. And theyll put it another way, how people attempted to moralize through new mexico through the bronx in the 1950s. Their link to the second half of the remarks through representation of the latino politics and that not equal dialogue who support the sponsor the project of integrating all of these Community Voices for particular causes. They will fulfill the kind of destiny. Question has to be asked how do these party elites including u. S. President s use their ability to reward or withhold to influence the construction of the community . Is that dances validation to reimagine the community to cope with economic, social, and political challenges, and the necessity of aligning the visions of community with a changing set of candidates. I think theres a lot of interesting things that we have all heard from you three. Theres political engagements from the get go. I think all this would like to hear about your interventions on this historical in denver. Could you tell us about your most recent work in the field of the political history or the history of latino politics, and how its going. My first book is called the rise of the latino vote. I examined how Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and cubans could see themselves as a constituency. I explained the latino vote was through demographic growth. There is a product and washington bureaucrats. A network of political activists from grassroots labored into a single minority constituency. They show how the architects they will elaborate ideas on what their people were going to reflective of conditions on the ground. It shows how they formed new organizations and new ways of distributing power that were unknown equal to size. It shows how they lined this. They pursue the creation in the new community. It was relentless and creative through colorblindness with the republicans alike. Doing these and their patrons transcended the nations black andwhite binary and pasted them firmly into the age of politics. Even as constructed they summon into existence a National Political community and identity of the process it worked to undermined the stability of that political identity. As i indicated earlier they were dependent on national leads to support this project. Theres more to control rather than to empower, no surprise there. Party leaders spoke of hispanic unification. When it came down to it they were willing to divide rank or exclude from one another as they were to vote their solidarity. They often exposed or exacerbated that were blatant in the party elite let about accepted as fact power was a much more thing. We went this way with the first. We can go this way now. I am finishing a book right now about the history of hispanics in the Republican Party. About the 1950s. Its important to say that at least in my case this is why republicans call themselves for all kinds of reasons. I know this is not exactly the fashion for them to call the hispanics. For me the main questions were why . Why do they vote republicans . I was the first question i am always asked. It is a bit of a curiosity too many people. I want to explain why, and whenever that question is a gasket of me its a very surprised tone that donald trump could have one as much as 30 of the hispanic votes or in the midterms they could have one 40 of the vote. Its a surprise followed by some attempt to maybe undercut those numbers by calling into question the differences between the exit polling versus what might be a more accurate polling of latino communities. I think part of my answers is should be a surprise if you look at the Republican Party and the hispanic voters over the past 50 or 60 years, its actually the real action of richard nixon, the percentage of hispanics who voted for the Republican Party has been around a third consistently. Over a 50 year period the Republican Party has built hispanic voting base of about one third of hispanic voters. If you compare that with africanamerican voters at the same time period if you craft these things by going in the exact opposite directions of the support for the Republican Party and its consistently remained Single Digits or double digits for the past 50 years, hispanics have shot upward. There is a relationship between those two i think. I want to explain the Long Development of the hispanic base or republican base. I want to correct what i had come to say. The first is that there can services him might be motivated by their catholicism. And traditional family values their views of abortion and marriage for example. I want to deny that is part of it, but if we hang all of hispanic conservatism, is more complicated than just conservatism. There is social justice motivated branch of content solecism thinking of liberation. Catholicism is trickier. They must be cubans, they must be cuban exiles. I think that lets us off the hook a lot. It allows us to dismiss. We cant dismiss it, but it allows us to ignore lots of other strains of hispanic conservatism which are just as important. Think is more complicated than just catholicism catholicism. He was a minor in tucson arizona or outside of tucson arizona when reagan was running in 1980 and was promising to put more money back in his paychecks so my grandfather voted for a republican for the first time. He is catholic, but never observed. I knew from my grandfather at least. There is other kinds. When writing my first book i wrote about a department on the Mexican American Department Store owner. I wrote a chapter about him. He was catholic for sure. But he wasnt cuban and his political upbringing was more about early statehood politics. He was a businessman and he didnt have a union because he thought all his employees were so happy that they didnt need a union. This individual led me down the path of wondering what the wider world of hispanic republican partisans and identity was like. I think why do they answer the question of why, and i think prioritizing that question and looking at how elliptical identity has developed over a long period of time. Its important because it will help us stop scratching our heads and grasp the dark for all of these reasons that hispanics would vote for republican, and then i think wanting to complicate these two main ideas about cuban nationality. Those are the things that led me down this path. I am at the beginning of my second book project. It comes out of my first book project and there is a larger races in the city. Theres a lot of discussion about native americans. And what its like for them. And they kind of disappear and a lot of the literature especially in a comparative sense. A part of my desire with this book is to trace that a long history and to do it by looking at it in terms of the way the federal government and State Government had jurisdiction over those individuals who are either native american or mexicanamerican, because they have very different timetables in terms of citizenship and they have different relationships to the federal government and the State Government. The people have more questions i can answer them. Im finishing an article that i can talk a little more about that examines the minority extensions to the Voting Rights act. Is a broad range of documents that include congressional records. Aside from offering a political history of mexicanamericans, and strategies in front of congress its a way that Congress Works through the political life of the u. S. Think we will have things to talk about because i am more of a 19th century historian. I kind of got hooked, and historians in the late 20th century is a delusion. I been enjoying it, but its very different for me. Theyre looking to extend language in the 1970s to increase the voting at the same time that more restrictive immigration legislation against and theyre being pushed through congress and being encouraged. They dominate the media and it continues today. It offers evidence that the federal government is supportive of extending the Voting Rights and other civil rights. By looking into that, and also there is a separate case that is happening at the same time. Is starting to be discussed in 1975. It will allow interpreters into bilingual courtrooms. It allows for courtrooms to become by legal. Trying to figure out what is it that allows for language minorities that would envelop everyone that is not black. They separate those two are separate, and Asian Americans have a broad category for language. As well as initially letting latinos. My current history of the dnc, and unlike the representation of African Americans is the Democratic Party is not until the 1970s were you even have the 1970s conversations within the organization to think about hiring some sort of latino outreach representative. Is shocking to think that it wasnt until the late 1970s were you have conversations about National Democratic parties. I think if we look at these National Institutions are party organizations, there is a serious slack with basic facts of president ial elections. Before then thisll be my segue into the next question. The engagement between the dnc or president ial elections is very touch and go. We see that in viva canady. They spread it out mostly in texas. You have independent he led. And formal relationships with the National Parties fundraising for jfk. There is some work. I think it influences my perspective on things and seeing and evolution of latinos in the Democratic Party. That leads me to my next question, what is some of the key text that formed my approach . Thinking about that, i think this is a good way to discuss ways in which historians can diversify. And one away every book written in the field is an important touch, because i think all of them in one way or another pick up on parts of this story. At the same time, nothing picks up. I wanted pick up on a political history at large, but i think of the mexicans in the mythmaking of texas. Theres politics throughout that from the Texas Revolution to early efforts by the Democratic Party or the machine bosses in texas trying to recruit or buy the votes of mexican workers, so theres moments of politics, i think also for me i think conservatism or although thought expressed in this way they put walls and meal mears and the political divides between mexican immigrants basically if not a Mexican American view of mexican immigration, but politics. He doesnt frame it as a political history. This is the league of latin american citizens. Thats politics, but none of these books talk about their actors in political terms of members of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party they are engaged in politics, but i dont know that there has been a historian that has written about the political history. Some are republican, some are democrat. They are often taken by historians to be a conservative Democratic Organization where at least it was an early requirement that all of their members speak english and they be american citizens that they let allegiance to the flag. Is a group whose identity has been debated that there politics are conservative or their moderate democrat. We dont know about the political meetings of the individual members. I look at all of the books out there about how lots of history has been written, but not of latino medical history. For me specifically when it comes to republican hispanics there are some, i dont know that i can point to a scholar text until one is coming on september. Theres a lot of republican hispanics who have written memoirs that are really interesting. She was nominated to be george w. Bushs i think labor secretary. Should withdraw when she employed documented immigrant. She wrote to memoirs. This is a really good place to look for conservative latino positions on language issues on affirmative action primarily her hobby i would say. And she wrote a second memoir after she had to withdraw her nomination called an unlikely conservative parentheses or how i became a hispanic in america. Thats good. He organized reagans Media Campaign for hispanics and wrote a book called the americano dream. The chairman of the committee on opportunities for Spanish Speaking opportunities. They wrote a fascinating memoir of his time in the white house called the white house. I spent some time talking about using the term hispanic and i find it fascinating that he chose to call his book there. He had really interesting ideas. I would look to see if you wanted to assign something about conservatism among hispanics. I might look at some of those memoirs rather than a scholarly text. There is a handful within los angeles, these works were influential for two reasons. It introduces multiracial and post america and its own. Is particularly so because these unique communities were the ones that brought forth the people who became the leaders of politics and United States. First mexicanamerican elected to the congress from california in the 20th century, the first congressman ever. Was really interesting about these folks, and their elevated by correlations operating locally. And on the National Level they become the basis of a latino block. Appreciating the embedded correlation experiences and traditions of the latino leaders does other work. This is assumed that they board responsibilities here. It was just a reflection of these groups of mexicanamericans, Puerto Ricans, and cubans recognizing their natural and previous store times. Was more natural was them organizing together Puerto Ricans organizing and fining allies among the spanish americans. Giving politics is correlational rather than natural helps us appreciate the collective schism. Is a search for common issues that they can work on. Is equal access to the one on poverty. They viewed it as the basis of the separate objectives for independence from the southwest. Is an approach that the organizer called us together, but not scrambled. And coalitions, sometimes they were 11. Each gets one vote. Sometimes they distributed power and reflection of their population numbers. Yet even as latinos are pursuing, i think youre still working on alliances. I think its doubling through latino politics to interrogate. I think another place to look is in labor history. Immigrants are not coming without a political history of their own. They are active and become activists in their home country. They bring activism into the United States. Theres numerous books that show this. Is all of the people that surround and within it you get a sense that not only is he talking about revolution, but is also making and the others that are writing radical newspapers are making critiques about whats happening to workers throughout the United States as well. s other works that she has done that shows this is similar. Individuals are coming and you see them holding up signs during the great depression. Though spanishspeaking immigrants knew what they meant and theyre pushing for those rights and to be included in those federal resources. This is an example of a 100 year history that shows Mexican Americans in the labor sector where they organize. I think another new flux is city of inmates. It looks into the incarceration on the creation of a karsh rural state. What that means for Mexican Americans, it has the origins of immigrant detention within it that has been wonderful for my students. The enjoy reading that particular chapter in getting a sense of what looked like and why individuals were being held in los angeles. Another book that is probably a little too long to assign two classes but a great way to give a sense of how long history is in new mexico particular is politico. It covers the 19th century or the mid to late 19th century. Talks about how they created the ways in which the operated chapters sometimes three chapters and you can see the ways in which they are modeling that system. Theres a reason that new mexico is an outlet. Their senators and governors of Mexican American origin. Gomez works in a more historical way. My students find it successful to see what it means to have double colonization. What is it mean to have Mexican American citizens . You can see her influence in my second project over a group they uh
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.