in both sites: school and classroom observations; in-:erviews with teachers, program specialists, and school administrators; and iocuments describing relevant policies md programs. German fieldwork activi-ies also included home-family observa-ions and interviews, and interviews vith government and community agen- ies that served guestworker and other ithnic communities.
California Ethnic Nationalism: territorial Displacement and Structural Exclusion
tee two events described in the opening 1 this article are each grounded in hisses that can help us understand the nnilar evolution and common meaning 1 current phenomena apparently sepa-ated by geography, culture, and nation. Or instance, Proposition 187 can be un-erstood as a form of ethnic nationalism fed Ch maj rity ethnic group sin-out undocumented immigrants, s 2 rePresent a  foreign  ethnic group,   e source of California s recent so-oeconomic problems, and who then re defined as  not belonging  in the lety of which they have been a part u a century and a half. These two as-mP1*008 beared the way for an official ;si?S10nary movement against illegal ess6 ftS  wh'ch culminated in the suc-of Proposition 187. But for Mexi
42.
cans, the main group targeted, this is not a new experience. They know their own history in the United States, including their periodic subjection to this kind of treatment since the arrival of the United States in the Southwest.
California ethnic nationalism, as exemplified by Proposition 187, is grounded in the earliest contact between Northern European Americans and previously settled American Indians and Mexicans. The early 19th century marks the beginning of substantial contact between whites and the settled people of the Southwest. In the 1800s the  Indian problem  was being resolved through U.S. government policies of territorial displacement, cultural destruction, and genocide a treatment that ultimately resulted in the relegation of small numbers of surviving American Indians onto a reservation system. This treatment of American Indians had been politically and morally justified by the ideology of U.S. Manifest Destiny:
Manifest Destiny had its roots in Puritan ideas, which continue to influence Anglo-American thought to this day.... Anglo-Americans believed that God had made them custodians of democracy and that they had a mission.... Their destiny made manifest was to spread the principles of democracy and Christianity to the unfortunates of the hemisphere. [Acuna 1988:13]
But while Manifest Destiny was largely successful in the removal of American Indians, Mexicans presented another kind of problem.
When people from the United States reached Mexico in the early 1800s, they found a people struggling toward nationhood after its 300-year legacy of Spanish colonial rule. As a nation left destitute and politically chaotic from centuries of Spanish plundering and dominance, the government not only allowed but invited U.S. Americans to help Mexicans settle their northern territories (Acuna 1988). From present-day Utah to Texas, and in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California, the newcomers came in contact with Spanish creoles, Indians, and the numerically dominant mestizos, all citizens of the young Mexican nation.
But the Mexican policy of open borders and peaceful cooperation met its demise when the new settlers and their government quickly turned to Manifest
Resurgence of Ethnic Nationalism
Destiny and the supremely grounded right to appropriate all territory to the Pacific Ocean. To make a very long story very short, the United States pressured, threatened, made war, and then assumed this control through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the annexation of the northern territories of the weakened Mexican nation. Mexicans resisted this forced incorporation through both political and violent means, but to no avail. Under the new regime, U.S. Americans systematically abrogated the treaty, illegally appropriated most Mexican land-holdings, and relegated Mexicans to the lowest ranks of the political economy and social order (Acuna 1988).
Since that time, Mexicans have been subjected to a  love-hate  relationship with U.S. society. When in favor with the dominant majority, Mexicans are welcomed, employed as a needed labor force, and are allowed to make their lives peacefully in the United States. But at other times, they have been singled out for persecution, blamed for society s problems, and targeted for deportation. For example, through the early 20th century, the U.S. border with Mexico was open, and Mexicans crossed it freely, back and forth. Mexicans in this period, as today, were the largest non-European ethnic group involved in the development of the U.S. Southwest. Their skills and labor ensured the building of the transcontinental railroad, helped mine the region s natural resources, made farming a lucrative enterprise, and made ranching a traditional hallmark of U.S. American culture. In fact, the entire  cowboy  culture for example, horses, leather, livestock, rodeos, the barbecue, chili, and the guitarstrumming, singing cowboy was taken from the already existing Mexican  charro  subculture and ensured the successful adaption of U.S. Americans to the harsh and expansive West. But by the early 1900s a deep anti-immigrant sentiment permeated the national mood, with the most severe actions coming in the form of the Chinese Exclusion Act (Takaki 1993). With restrictions now also established for Mexicans, European immigrants came under the more generous quotas reserved for them.
A brief period of interest in Mexicans and other  Latins  took place in the 1920s and 1930s within U.S. popular culture. The oversexed  Latin lover,  the saucy  hot senorita,  and the uncouth  Mexican bandit  epitomize the type of superficial, romantic, and negative im-
217
8. ETHNIC FACTOR: INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGES
ages that dominated the cinematic, printed, and other popular media of that period. But the Mexican masses remained exotic and foreign enough to still be relegated to the lowest ranks of society and its institutions. Another flipflop in relations occurred after the 1929 Wall Street crash that marked the beginning of the Great Depression. In 1930 Herbert Hoover began a program of deportation of Mexicans in which thousands were  repatriated  to Mexico without due process, many as legal citizens and residents of the United States. Thus, government policy to the effect that Mexicans  do not belong  in the United States coincided with a peak in immigration, economic decline, and the negative stereotyping of certain groups selected for scapegoating as the source of the nation s problems. Through the 1950s, conditions for Mexicans in the Southwest did not change substantially. For instance, Mexicans were allowed to hold only agricultural, manual labor, and service jobs that paid substandard wages under the poorest of working conditions. Those who broke this pattern often capitalized on their light skin color, changed their names, or otherwise managed to pass the barrier of being Mexican. While illegal, segregation in housing and education was systematic and effective. Their treatment at the hands of the U.S. public ranged from stereotyping to violent attack. Mexicans rejected these conditions as they have resisted their oppression since the intrusion of the United States a century and a half ago. Labor strikes were a common form of protest, as were legal challenges to school segregation. A few local victories were won, but with little systematic change.
World War II and its aftermath included a few expressions of  normal relations  between U.S. Americans and Mexicans. A labor shortage in that period led to the importation of temporary workers from Mexico through the Brac-ero Program, an international agreement that lasted through the 1950s. After its conclusion, many braceros who had decided to stay and work were periodically rounded up and deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The societal lot of Mexicans remained marginal as a result of their systematic exclusion from opportunities for economic mobility, political power, and the education that would lead to these.
Since the 1960s, some measure of social progress has resulted from the in
itiatives of the Civil Rights movement, but a period of regression began in the early 1980s with two trends: (1) the return of a fundamental  American  social ideology and politics, with Californian Ronald Reagan its banner carrier and (2) a dramatic rise in illegal immigration from Mexico and other nations experiencing economic and political hard times. The present period thus represents a cyclical resurgence of a complex of dominant group beliefs about and behavior toward Mexicans that has taken place against the backdrop of U.S. national development, and within a history of intimate, conflictual experiences between the two groups.
The Cycle of Mexican Educational Exclusion, Inclusion, and Back
The chaotic World War I era marked a period of large-scale migration to the United States. Europe s conflict of empires and nations caused waves of displaced humanity to land on U.S. shores, while in America the aftermath of the 1916 Mexican Revolution pushed hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals across the border. While reaping the benefit of abundant, cheap labor, the nation also faced the task of integrating millions of newcomers into society. Thus, systematic public schooling came to be offered to Mexicans and other immigrant groups, just as the sociopolitical ideology of  Americanization  gained dominance.
Americanization was grounded in a set of ideas current at that time. For instance, nationalistic fervor had resulted in the ethnic conflicts of World War I, but if everyone were uniformly  American,  with a common national identity and loyalty, we could avoid political conflict. Also, a common socialization for work and citizenship would benefit immigrants and society. Moreover, the popular  melting pot  idea held that immigrants should give up their cultures, languages, and all other foreign attributes.
Americanization thus became the dominant policy for immigrant education. Throughout the Southwest, Mexican children attended Americanization schools to receive English instruction, citizenship training, and preparation for work. The latter curriculum stressed non-skilled job training, for example, home economics and factory work. Citi-
zenship involved a dose of U.! and saluting the flag. English ii used the  sink or swim  metho explicit rejection of Spanish.
Beyond its logic, however, 1 ric of Americanization was bol dictory and extreme in prac instance, Americanization sc classrooms were implemented school districts but were s from  regular  ones and, thus, equitable in terms of resources ity. In addition, lack of coi interaction with peers in m schools precluded a full soc experience that would enhance skills and competencies in soci the main purpose of this pro; to teach  American  cultural v behavior, the incorporation of cultural knowledge and skills i a consideration. Moreover, the personal treatment given studi forced the formal program, ant regularly meted out verbal hi and corporal punishment to sti speaking Spanish, for their e havior, for their physical appe: other words, for being Mexicai Mexicans were to give up all their foreign heritage in order t  American.  This brand of was designed to culturally : Mexican children, bring the control, while preparing then tinue in the lowest strata of t economic order.
Mexican parents resisted this Individuals sometimes petitio schools to allow their childrei regular program; other times group action. The documentary Lemon Grove Incident depicts case of school segregation in wherein a Mexican community gal action against the local si trict and wins (Espinosa California court ruled for th who claimed that their childre gated school provided an inf