This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Denver]
On: 10 August 2011, At: 10:45
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Educational Studies
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20
The Nativistic Legacy of
the Americanization Era in
the Education of Mexican
Immigrant Students
René Galindo
a
a
University of Colorado, Denver
Available online: 01 Aug 2011
To cite this article: René Galindo (2011): The Nativistic Legacy of the
Americanization Era in the Education of Mexican Immigrant Students, Educational
Studies, 47:4, 323-346
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2011.589308
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 47: 323–346, 2011
C American Educational Studies Association
Copyright ISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 online
DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2011.589308
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
ARTICLES
The Nativistic Legacy of the
Americanization Era in the Education
of Mexican Immigrant Students
René Galindo
University of Colorado, Denver
Nativism is a forgotten ideology which nevertheless operates in the current era as
illustrated by the resurgence of anti-immigrant sentiment and restrictionistic policies
in response to growing Latino/a immigration. This response to Latino/a immigration
recalls a historic era from the early 1900s known as the Americanization period which
was also characterized by a strong nativist agenda and harsh restrictionistic policies.
Developments from the Americanization period continue to influence immigration
and education policies in the current era and are visible in the attacks against bilingual education, in mandated English-only laws, in locating struggles over national
identity in the schools, and in the narrow focus on the acquisition of English in
immigrant education. Identifying nativist themes from the Americanization era that
have been reinvigorated in today’s anti-immigrant climate makes visible a type of
discrimination directed at immigrants that is not often recognized as discrimination
due to a Black and White view of prejudice termed racial dualism. In addition to
identifying the influence of the nativist legacy of the Americanization period in the
current era, the implications of the conflict of legacies between the Civil Rights and
Americanization eras for the education of immigrant students are discussed.
Nativism has a long and negative history in the United States and yet is a
forgotten ideology whose legacy nevertheless continues to exert influence on
Address correspondence to René Galindo, University of Colorado, Denver, Campus Box 106, PO
Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364. E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
324
GALINDO
the education of immigrant students in the current era. Nativism is known more
generally as xenophobia which is understood as the fear of foreigners and as
anti-immigrant animus. Xenophobia makes distinctions of national belonging and
draws boundaries that define Others “who do not belong, or should not belong,
[or] who never can belong” to the nation (Hobsbawm 1992, 8). In the current
era of globalization, the growing negative reactions to immigrants in both Europe
and the United States hold the promise of making xenophobia the mass ideology of the day (Hobsbawm 1992). In the history of the United States, nativism
was especially prominent during the Americanization era in the early decades of
the twentieth century. Anti-immigrant themes and policies inspired by nativism
developed during the Americanization period continue to exert influence in today’s anti-immigrant climate. The examination of these Americanization themes
presented in this essay contributes to the resistance of current anti-immigrant sentiment and policies through a clearer understanding of the role of nativism in these
taken-for-granted Americanization themes.
In the current era, anti-immigrant attitudes, statements, and policies are often
labeled racist in the public discourse, but rarely nativist (Galindo and Vigil 2006).
Although racism may combine with nativism to produce racialized nativism when
immigrants are people of color (Higham 1999), labeling anti-immigrant actions
merely racist functions to conceal the long and unique history of nativist restrictionistic policies and negative societal attitudes toward immigrants that continue
to the present day. In the United States, nativism has been both an ideology and a
political movement which has ebbed and flowed across 150 years (Knobel 1996).
Unlike racism, which makes hierarchical distinctions of superiority and inferiority
among groups, nativism makes distinctions between true members of the nation
and “foreigner/aliens” who represent a threat to the nation through differences in
culture, language, political ideology, religion, or race (Galindo and Vigil 2004).
Classical examples of nativism include anti-Irish and anti-Catholic movements of
the mid and late 1880s (Mirel 2010), anti-German sentiment and legislation of the
World War I period, and segregated schools for Mexicans before and after the Great
Depression Era (Donato 2007). Examples of anti-immigrant legislation inspired
by nativism in the current era are California’s anti-immigrant Proposition 187; the
California, Arizona, and Massachusetts anti-bilingual education state initiatives;
the eighteen Official English state initiatives, and the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIA) and Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act (PRWORA) 1996 federal legislation (Olivas 2004; Yates 2004).
All of these current examples either restricted access to benefits for immigrants or
restricted the use of languages-other-than-English.
While the driving force of racism is prejudice that seeks to maintain a lower
societal status for a group considered to be inferior, the driving force of nativism is a defensive nationalism that becomes most visible during times of war,
demographic shifts introduced by immigration, economic recession, or periods
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
325
of nation-building (Higham 1999). Immigrants have been targeted during these
times and have served as convenient scapegoats. Nativism expresses itself in
restrictionistic laws that prohibit the full access of societal benefits by immigrants or their full participation in the nation’s civic/political life. Nativism has
also expressed itself in organized efforts to remove the source of the threats
represented by immigrants such as a language-other-than-English or a distinct
culture, religion, or political ideology. Nativism seeks a cleansing of any cultural/linguistic/religious/political/ethnic markers perceived as threats to the nation
and their replacement by the dominant culture and language on which the political
unity of the nation is thought to be based. Nativism espouses assimilation while
racism espouses a permanent exclusion through segregation. However, nativism in
practice for Mexicans resulted in segregation rather than assimilation due to their
racialization as aliens resulting from changes to immigration law in the 1920s
(Blanton 2004; Donato 2007; Gonzalez 1990; Ngai, 2005; San Miguel 1987).
A perceived failure to assimilate on the part of immigrant groups was not interpreted strictly in cultural terms, but in political terms as disloyalty to the nation.
The cultural was interpreted as political in establishing who counted as a “true
American” with a resulting narrow definition of true markers of national identity
and belonging. “America for Americans” (Knobel 1996) and “100% American”
(Higham 1975) were among the most memorable nativist slogans (for a more
detailed discussion on nativism see Galindo and Vigil 2004; Galindo and Vigil,
2006).
During the early 1900s, many native-born residents were fearful of the rate of
immigration of the new wave of immigrants and their ability to assimilate into
the dominant culture (Blanton 2004). One specific response to this fear was the
Americanization movement that addressed social issues presented by mass immigration from Europe by means of educational programs for adults and children
that across time became narrowly focused on a coercive assimilation as the means
to achieve cultural and linguistic uniformity in the nation. The Americanization
period is especially instructive for the current immigration era because a series
of ideas related to American identity, including how society responded to immigrants and the status of English in relation to other languages, developed during
this period. These ideas continue to guide current perceptions and attitudes in
the development of restrictive immigration and education policies (Ricento 2003).
The Americanization movement was eventually dominated by nativist and became
characterized by assimilationist themes including: an expectation that political loyalty to the nation would be demonstrated by a commitment to assimilate (rather
than acculturate), the denationalization of ethnic groups, privileging individual
identity over group identity, defining national unity on the basis of cultural and
linguistic uniformity rather than on the basis of democratic principles, the English
language as the primary symbol of national identity, and the characterization of
non-English languages and non-Anglo cultures as foreign and alien to the nation
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
326
GALINDO
(King 2002; Knobel 1996; Olneck 1989). Another historical pattern from the
Americanization period also found in the current era was the use of restrictionist
legislation to achieve nativist ends (Knobel 1996). Defining who and what counted
as “American” entailed legislative as well as symbolic actions.
Although the term “Americanization” is rarely heard in current education and
political discourse, due to its negative history, its influence continues to be felt in
the attacks against bilingual education, in locating struggles over national identity
in the schools, and in narrowing the school curriculum for immigrant students
around the acquisition of English. Additionally, the Americanization period remains relevant to the current era as a reminder that education is a nation-building
enterprise. This often forgotten aspect of education is indicated by the term “banal
nationalism” defined as the ideological habits that reproduce the nation through
the practices of everyday life including schooling (Billig 1995). Education played
a prominent role in constructing national identity during the Americanization era
as illustrated by harsh restrictionistic language policies which prohibited the use
of languages-other-than-English in the education of immigrants (Behdad 2005;
Schmid 2001). The role of education and immigration in nation-building were
evident during this period through major court rulings or legislation. The Supreme
Court case, Meyers v. Nebraska from 1923, which over turned the English-only
laws for public and private schools, and the National Origins Act of 1924, which
restricted immigration from certain countries in order to maintain a certain ethnic
national profile, resulted from this period.
Another legacy of nativism as a forgotten ideology is the lack of recognition
in the current era of anti-immigrant legislation as discriminatory. Discrimination
has typically been understood in a Black and White dichotomy, termed “racial
dualism” (Cameron 1997), that obscures the unique history of discrimination faced
by Latinos/as and other immigrants. For example, Latinos/as have been targeted by
proxy through attacks on the Spanish language that camouflages the discriminatory
effect and prejudicial origins of policies (Galindo and Vigil 2004). Expressions
of nativism in the current era can be challenged by identifying Americanization
themes in current anti-immigrant and education policies that reproduce historical
patterns of discrimination. The identification of Americanization themes makes
visible the history of discrimination and prejudice that Latinos/as have faced in
the past and continue to face in the present which is not recognized due to racial
dualism. Latinos/as, specifically those of Mexican descent, will be the focus of the
analysis in this essay due to the historic and current manner in which they have
been targeted by nativism (Donato 2007; Gonzalez 1990; San Miguel 1987).
During the Americanization period, education was viewed as the primary
means of addressing the social issues resulting from massive immigration by
integrating immigrants into society through assimilation (Mirel 2010). However
for Mexican-origin students, education during this period served the very different
purpose of reproducing their subordinated and racialized status in society through
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
327
segregated schooling. The racialization of Mexicans as an inferior race with limited intellectual abilities and as aliens and foreigners to the nation was inspired
by the nativism of the times. This nativistic representation of Mexicans was especially visible during Congressional hearings on a proposed immigration law where
questions were raised about the difficulty of Americanizing Mexican immigrants.
One scientist stated in the 1920s that “no degree of education or social action
can effectively overcome the handicap” of being “an inferior or distant race”
(Blanton 2004, 70). This nativistic representation of Mexicans was reproduced
in schools through an English-only and vocational curricula that did not prepare
Mexican-origin students academically but instead directed them towards a future
of expendable manual labor. The narrow focus on English-only education during
the current era represented by anti-bilingual education ballot initiatives illustrates
the continued racialization of Mexican-origin students and the reproduction of the
nativist characterization of Mexicans as aliens and foreigners. The racialization of
Mexicans in the 1920s based on targeting certain differences excluded them from
the nation, “the language and race of Mexican-American children reinforced each
other” (Blanton 2004, 69). Language difference was constructed as an inferior
racial difference that indicated belonging to a different national patrimony, and
that rationalized a segregated education.
The examination of the legacy of the Americanization period will begin by
briefly discussing the main concerns of Americanization. The topic of Americanization is broad and a definitional discussion will be offered rather than a review of
its developments across time; such as the restrictionistic language policies which
were critical to the nation-building work undertaken during this era (see Galindo
and Vigil 2004). Following the definitional discussion of Americanization, the
treatment and education of Mexican-origin communities during the Americanization period is examined. A discussion of the legacies of the Americanization
period on the education of current immigrant students follows. Finally, the conflict of legacies between the current post-Civil Rights era and the Americanization
period is presented.
AMERICANIZATION
The Americanization period started in the early 1900s, extended through World
War I, and ended in the immediate postwar years (Gleason 1980). However,
Mexican-origin communities continued to feel its effects through the Depression
era when they were targeted for repatriation and deportation (Hoffman 1974).
Americanization was an umbrella term that encompassed different groups and
programs as well as the different approaches adopted by these groups. Frances
A. Kellor, historically one of the individuals most closely associated with the
movement, defined Americanization as a science of racial relations dealing with
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
328
GALINDO
“the assimilation and amalgamation of diverse races in equity into an integral
part of its national life” (Kellor in Davis 1920, 625) In 1916, President Woodrow
Wilson defined Americanization as a process of “self-examination, a process of
purification, a process of rededication to the things which America represents and
is proud to represent” (King 2002, 89). Another government official, Secretary of
Labor James Davis who felt that more attention should be given to the education
of immigrants for citizenship, stated that “Every citizen should know the language
of the nation to which he owes allegiance. To speak our language, to know our
institutions and the principles and ideals for which they stand, and to learn to love
them—these alone constitute Americanization” (King 2002, 101).
In 1997 the term Americanization, which is sometimes currently used interchangeably for assimilation (Gleason 1980), was revisited by The United States
Commission on Immigration Reform (1997). The Commission defined Americanization in a manner that acknowledged both the contributions of immigrants
and their societal incorporation, “the process of integration by which immigrants
become a part of our communities and by which our communities and the nation
learn from and adapt to their presence” (6). The report further stated that “Americanization means the civic incorporation of immigrants, that is the cultivation of
a shared commitment to the American values of liberty, democracy, and equal
opportunity” (6). The Commission went to great lengths to rehabilitate the term
in 1997 due to its negative reputation and it explicitly acknowledged the nativistic
legacy of the term, “the word earned a bad reputation when it was stolen by racists
and xenophobes in the 1920s. But it is our word, and we are taking it back” (6).
During and after World War I, differences developed between groups over approaches and the desired ends of Americanization. Nationalist groups promoted
the assimilation of immigrants who were considered religious or political threats
(Jaworski 1950). These extreme nationalists feared factionism and promoted the
rapid and forced adoption of the dominant language, religion, and culture. A contrasting approach to Americanzation was provided by “humanitarian” Americanizers who sought the well-being of newcomers, supported their transition to a new
life, and protected them from exploitation (Gleason 1980). Across time the nationalist groups dominated the Americanization programs which became focused on
enforcing a particular view of the nation arising from the assumption that national
unity was based on cultural and linguistic uniformity that reflected the dominant
culture. The Americanization campaign assumed a core Anglo-protestant culture
on which a successful government had to be based (Knobel 1996). Americanization aimed to inculcate an outward conformity- through cultural and linguistic
assimilation that would create an inward conformity in affections, ideals, and
aspirations that were supportive of the nation (Davis 1920). The uniformity proposed under Americanization was a new doctrinal uniformity that was political
as well as cultural (Carlson 1975). During the Americanization period, political
loyalty was viewed as cultural conformity rather than as merely good citizenship
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
329
(McClymer 1991). Hyphenated immigrants, for example German-Americans, attracted the suspicions of Americanizers who felt that it was not possible to maintain
multiple national affiliations and that the hyphen represented split political loyalties. President Wilson expressed a similar idea, “You cannot become Americans if
you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of groups” (Knobel
1996, 244).
Americanization was a programmatic effort involving both public and private
groups in setting the pace and content of the assimilation of immigrants (McClymer 1991). Americanization promoted an Anglo-centric conception of the United
States and education for both children and adults was the primary vehicle used to
promote this narrow view. As an educational movement, “the Americanization effort stressed the desirability of the rapid assimilation of the millions of immigrants
who had come to America during the pre-war decades, through the attendance of
the newcomers at special classes, lectures, and mass meetings, where they might be
instructed in the language, the ideals, and outlook on life which had come to be accepted as the traditional American point of view” (Hartmann 1948, 7). Along with
transforming immigrants and their children into real Americans, Americanization
was a campaign to fix the public meaning of “Americanism” (McClymer 1991).
Among the debates during this period were competing definitions of Americanism ranging from an ideological process in which immigrants through education,
motivation, and training became like native-born Americans, to Americanism as
strengthened by the talents and cultures of immigrants who had much to offer
native-born Americans, to democracy as the essence of Americanism (Ricento
2003).
Americanizers believed that the greatest potential for the citizenship of the nation was found in the education of children but there were differences of opinion
regarding whether education or race played the most important role in determining whether immigrants could be assimilated (Mirel 2010). The public school
system took a leading role in Americanization efforts throughout the history of the
movement. Americanization was undertaken primarily through English language
instruction and by promoting American civic culture. As a result of Americanization programs, education for immigrants became focused less on basic education
and more on “cultural indoctrination, patriotic political science, and English language instruction” (Knobel 1996, 245). Challenging the view that Americanization
education was only concerned with assimilation, Mirel (2010) offered that immigrants and Americanizers found common ground across time through a long and
negotiated process. He noted the greater role that immigrants played in this process
during the later phases of the Americanization movement than had previously been
recognized in making educators more sensitive to diversity and to the contributions
of immigrants. Olneck (1989) offered yet another contrasting view arguing that
shaping the public meanings of an American civic culture that valued individual
identity over an ethnic group identity, not the transformation of immigrants, was
the important historical consequence of the Americanization movement.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
330
GALINDO
The public schools also engaged in the transmission of “national education”
through rituals containing symbolic content, such as the pledge of allegiance, intended to teach national values, beliefs, and cultural practices (King 2002). These
rituals were complemented by civic observances that included both children and
adults. For example, on the 4th of July in 1915, about 150 cities across the country
took part in a National Americanization Day promoted by Frances Kellor. In Pittsburgh, an audience of 10,000 immigrants listened to 1,000 children sing patriotic
songs and watched them form a giant American flag. The American flag was one of
the most potent symbols of loyalty used by Americanizers (King 2002). In teaching
civic culture to students, public schools often started the school day with a presentation and pledge of allegiance to the American flag. This was common practice
even before the Americanization movement but gained momentum during this
period. Civics curricula included the teaching of the nation’s founding principles
of freedom, liberty, justice, democracy, and capitalism. In addition, instruction in
hygiene, domestic science, and industrial arts were included in the Americanization school curriculum (Gleason 1980). According to Ramsey (2010), patriotism
in the schools sponsored by Americanization activities became a “fanatical effort
to end all elements deemed foreign” (151) and attempts to identify certain cultural
practices as un-American led critics of the Americanization movement to question the presumed links between the types of food an ethnic community ate and
becoming “a true American in mind, heart, and action” (Ramsey 151). Ultimately,
these organized efforts to instill or coerce patriotism failed (Knobel 1996).
Immigrant groups responded in contrasting ways to Americanzation efforts
including supporting different types of assimilation ideologies, opposing assimilation, and internalizing xenophobic attitudes (Pavlenko 2002). The ideological
agenda of Americanization camouflaged in the wrappings of public education
was recognized by immigrant groups who resisted political inculcation through
schooling. As Hochschild (1995) noted immigrant groups, “recognized that public schools often sought to beat foreigners’ children into Protestant docility rather
than to liberate their imagination through education. And they resisted, demanding schools in their own languages that would teach their own religions and
values” (233). Immigrant groups started their own private and parochial schools
which came to be highly criticized for the continued use of languages-other-thanEnglish. In response to these schools a more explicit form of Americanization was
advocated for these immigrant groups (King 2002).
MEXICAN-ORIGIN COMMUNITIES DURING THE
AMERICANIZATION PERIOD
Americanization efforts directed at Mexican-origin communities were spearheaded by the dual thrust of segregation and English-only instruction which was
based upon the racialization of Mexicans in the early twentieth century when they
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
331
were considered an inferior race (Blanton 2004). Prior to this period, Mexicans
were considered outsiders with a claim to citizenship but by the 1920s, they were
perceived as a foreign race without national belonging (Blanton 2004).
During the Americanization period, between 1910 and 1930, over one million
Mexicans migrated northward pushed-out by the economic and political turmoil
caused by the Mexican Revolution and drawn by jobs in the United States (Ruiz
2001). Within twenty years, Mexicans already residing in the United States were
outnumbered by Mexican immigrants. In Los Angeles for example, the Mexican
population ranged from 3,000 to 5,000 in 1900 and by 1930 there were 150,000
persons of Mexican birth or heritage. This population of Mexicans, both the recent
immigrants as well as the families that had resided in the Southwest for generations
were equally targeted for assimilation by Americanization programs (Ruiz 2001).
Mexican immigration during this time period was not limited to the southwest as
some Mexicans also labored in the Great Lakes region as auto and steelworkers
and as fishermen and cannery workers in Alaska (Gutierrez 1995). The Mexican
population during this time period was also younger than the rest of the population.
In 1930 the median age for Mexicans was twenty in contrast to twenty-six for
the rest of the population. Fifteen percent of the Mexican population was of
preschool age and 35 percent of school age in contrast to 9.3 preschool age and 30
percent for the rest of the population. As compulsory education extended its reach,
disproportional numbers of the poorest sector in the society, including Mexican
children, found themselves involved in the education enterprise (Gonzalez 1990).
The growth in Mexican immigration during the Americanization period raised
concern for nativists who argued that Mexican immigrants were even more racially
inferior and unassimiable than immigrants from southern and eastern Europe
whose entry was restricted under the National Quotas Act of 1924 (Gutierrez
1995).
Segregation, poverty, and low-wage labor characterized the experience of
Mexican-origin communities at the time of the Americanization period. Reports
from Colorado from the late 1920s and early 1930s documented the starvation
wages, exploitation of child labor, and the inferior housing of Mexicans communities (Donato 2007). By the 1920s and 30s in the southwest, Mexicans were
commonly segregated in residential areas as well as in most public facilities including swimming pools, theaters, schools and restaurants (Donato 2007; Menchaca
and Valencia 1990). During the early decades of the twentieth century, Mexican
immigrants filled a labor need especially in the areas of agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and railroads (Gutierrez 1995; Ruiz 2001). In 1922, 75 percent of the
fruit and vegetable workers and 50 percent of the cotton workers in the Southwest
were Mexicans. By the late 1920s Mexicans dominated most sectors of the low
wage work in the Southwest accounting for approximately 85 percent of the work
force in truck farming, more than 50 percent in sugar beet farming, 60 percent
of mine laborers, and 60 to 90 percent of railroad track crews (Gutierrez 1995).
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
332
GALINDO
The labor of Mexican immigrants not only involved long hours and physically
demanding conditions, they were also paid less than workers from other ethnic
groups for the same work under a dual-wage system (Velez-Ibañez 1996).
The economic disparities between Mexican and dominant communities were
accounted for by the supposed superiority of the dominant society and the inferiority of Mexicans that was portrayed in negative stereotypes. Mexicans were
viewed as “inherently backward, slow, docile, indolent, and tractable people” and
as “culturally and physiologically suited to perform arduous work” (Gutierrez
1995, 46). These stereotypes were used not only to justify the exploitation of
Mexican workers, but also the inferior education that Mexican students received
under Americanization programs which were based on the view that Mexican students were better suited for manual labor than for academic study. Americanization
programs reflected the majority community’s views of Mexican communities as
culturally inferior and in need of intensive education in “American values” for their
incorporation into a modern industrialized society as low-wage laborers (Sanchez
1993).
Mexicans became the primary targets of Americanization programs in California in the decade preceding the Great Depression where Americanization efforts
were originally focused on male laborers. However, their mobility and labor segregation made their acquisition of the English language difficult. The family,
especially women and children, were next targeted by Americanization programs
when it was realized that adults would never be “100% Americans,” but “the
second generation may be. Go after the women and you may save the second
generation” (Sanchez 1993, 98). Instructors termed “home teachers” who were
usually a single, middle-class Anglo women visited Mexican homes and taught
sanitation, the English language, household duties, and civic lessons. In addition
to targeting the second generation, the Americanization of Mexican women was
intended to produce workers for the service and domestic sectors. The home teachers however were not able to keep up with the growth and mobility of Mexican
families. The focus of Americanization programs then shifted focus to the schools
(Sanchez 1993). Similarly in Texas, Americanization shifted away from European
immigrants to Mexican immigrants who migrated in large numbers during the
1920s. One result of this shift was the English-only law of 1923 for Texas schools
(Blanton 2004).
There were several important differences between the Americanization efforts
directed at immigrants from Europe and those directed at immigrants from Mexico. While the Americanization movement espoused assimilation for European
immigrants, the Americanization efforts directed towards Mexicans occurred in
segregated school systems (Gonzalez 1990). In the Southwest, no other public
institution revealed the subordination of Mexican communities better than the
public school system which served to preserve political and economic disparities rather than help achieve societal integration and improve the conditions of
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
333
Mexican communities (Gonzalez 1990; Sheridan 1986). In Tucson, for example,
Mexicans helped pioneer private and public schools in the mid-nineteenth century but by the end of the nineteenth century, schools were firmly in the hands
of Anglo administrators and school boards. During the 1870s Estevan Ochoa
served on the school board but another Mexican did not serve until the 1935-36
school year. The lack of Mexican representation at the beginning of the Depression also existed among teachers in Tucson with only 2.7 percent of teachers
of Mexican background, while approximately 50 percent of the student population was Mexican (Sheridan 1986). The large disparity between the student and
teaching population created a school environment that was “foreign and intimidating” to Mexican students who suffered humiliation as the language and culture
of their families and homes were repeatedly denigrated (Sheridan 1986, 219).
Another difference in the Americanization of Mexicans was the rural settings of
many communities due to regional agricultural economies of the Southwest whose
labor force was predominately Mexican. The rural location retarded the assimilation process due to the wide-spread location of Mexican settlements (Gonzalez
1990).
Perhaps the most important difference between the Americanization of European immigrants from that of Mexican immigrants occurred during the Great
Depression. Both European and Mexican-origin immigrants were targeted by
Americanization, but only Mexican-immigrants went from being the targets of
assimilation to being the targets of repatriation. During the 1930’s, Mexican immigrants were turned into scapegoats for the country’s economic depression with
an average of approximately 80,000 foreign and native born Mexicans being deported to Mexico annually between 1929 and 1937. In 1931, this number rose to a
reported 138,519 (Hoffman 1974). Mexican families lived under fear during this
period and many individuals returned semi-voluntarily due to fear of raids in the
workplace or public areas such as parks (Griswold del Castillo and de Leon 1996;
Hoffman, 1974). Approximately 200,000 people returned to Mexico on their own
volition before1931. After 1931 the federal government organized deportation
campaigns (Griswold del Castillo and de Leon, 1996). State governments and vigilante groups also participated in repatriation efforts. The Governor of Colorado in
1935 ordered roadblocks on the New Mexico-Colorado border and every vehicle
entering Colorado was inspected for the immigration status of the passengers and
their destination (Donato 2007). Also in Colorado, a group called the Colorado
State Vigilantes distributed handbills warning, “all Mexicans and other aliens to
leave Colorado at once” (Donato 2007, 56). Between 1931 and 1934, an estimated
one-third of the Mexican population were either deported or repatriated to Mexico, even though approximately 60% were U.S. citizens (Ruiz 2001). Altogether,
approximately 458,000 Mexican-origin people were repatriated between 1929 and
1937 (Hoffman 1974). Of all the immigrant groups targeted by Americanization,
the only group also targeted for removal was Mexicans.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
334
GALINDO
The repatriation and deportation of Mexicans during the Great Depression
graphically illustrated the subordination of Mexican communities and their “commodity identity” (Velez-Ibañez, 1996). This term referred to the societal construction of the Mexican community as a devalued good that was intended to be cast
aside once it had been used for its labor. The perception of Mexicans as an expendable commodity was also evident in attitudes towards the education of Mexican
students that considered their education a waste of time and resources since they
were destined for manual labor.
THE EDUCATION OF MEXICAN-ORIGIN STUDENTS
DURING THE AMERICANIZATION PERIOD
Ironically, the education of Mexican-origin students under the assimilationist
agenda of Americanization took place in segregated schools. As enrollments
of Mexican students grew in the Southwest, segregated classrooms or schools
soon followed (Donato 2007; Gutierrez 1995; Menchaca and Valencia 1990; San
Miguel 1987). The segregation of Mexican students reflected the prejudices of the
Anglo population which viewed Mexican students as unmotivated, disease-ridden,
and intellectually inferior (Menchaca and Valencia, 1990). At the beginning of the
Depression era, more than 80 percent of school districts in California had segregated schools for Mexican students (Ruiz 2001). In Texas during the 1920s,
approximately 40 school districts had separate schools for Mexicans and by 1940
the number of segregated school districts had risen to 122 (San Miguel 1987). The
segregated schools not only offered a narrow curriculum but were also a means to
an inferior and less expensive education as the buildings of the Mexican schools
were often substandard facilities, some without running water or electricity and
with discarded school desks (Menchaca and Valencia 1990). The goal of assimilation espoused by Americanization as the rationale for the nature of the curriculum
offered in the Mexican schools was belied by the segregation of Mexican students
in separate and substandard schools.
Mexican parents opposed segregated schools but administrators defended segregation on the grounds that segregated schools could offer an education tailored
to Mexican students’ need to learn the English language (Gonzalez and Fernandez
2003; San Miguel 1987). Mexican parents were not convinced by the rationalization of segregation offered by administrators and fought against segregated schools
in some of the country’s earliest desegregation court cases. In Arizona, one family
in Tempe obtained a favorable ruling in 1925 in the Romo v. Laird case when the
children of a Mexican family were denied admission to a school that had been
designated for White children (Muñoz, 2001). In Texas in 1930, a group of families in Del Rio initiated a case called Independent School District v. Salvatierra
to fight against the expansion of a segregated school. The Texas Court of Civil
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
335
Appeals ruled in the plaintiff’s favor and granted an injunction but the Appellate
Court dissolved the injunction prohibiting segregation (Montoya 2001). In California, a group of parents in the San Diego area successfully fought a segregated
school in the state courts in a 1931 in the Alvarez v. Board of Trustees of Lemon
Grove School District case (Alvarez 1986). Although these court cases against
segregated schools represented important victories in the struggles of Mexican
communities for educational equity, segregated schools continued and the landmark federal court case in Mexican desegregation, Mendez v. Westminster, would
not be decided until after the Americanization period in 1947 (Valencia 2008).
This case helped set the legal stage only seven years later for Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954.
Schools during the Americanization period prepared Mexican students for
low wage labor (Ruiz 2001). The curriculum concentrated on the two areas of
English language instruction and vocational education at the expense of other
subject matter. The view of Mexican students as a racially defined underclass was
reinforced by the inability of many native-born and immigrant Mexican children to
speak English. Speaking English was considered more important than scholastic
aptitude in Spanish which was not taken into consideration. The language and
race difference of Mexican-origin children reinforced each other and made the
teaching of English the central focus of their schooling while other subjects were
neglected (Blanton 2004). Of the thirteen subject areas covered in a teacher’s
guide in a Texas district, Mexican students were to receive instruction only on the
English language and on reading during the first year of school (San Miguel 1987).
The English lessons were to be on pronunciation, articulation, enunciation, and
working vocabulary for the classroom and home environment. A 1930s teaching
guide from Texas recommended that children first learn vocabulary for objects
in the classroom and school; vocabulary for school materials and activities; and
vocabulary for the expression on the home, family, and self (San Miguel 1987).
Another Texas guide from 1936 suggested that students spend the entire first year
learning English and that reading only be taught during the last few weeks of
the school year (San Miguel 1987). The other area of the curriculum, vocational
education included domestic science, home management, handicrafts, and health
and sanitation (Donato 2007). In Texas, girls received home economics classes
starting in the fourth grade (San Miguel 1987). The vocational portion of the
curriculum reflected the popular assumptions regarding the limited intellectual
abilities and educational aspirations of Mexican students. The results of IQ test
administered in English were used to justify segregation since the scores “proved”
that Mexicans were intellectually weak and inherently less intelligent than whites
(Blanton 2004; Gonzalez 1990). However, in Los Angeles, some educators came
to question the test results of Mexican children and called for their interpretation
in light of economic and social status and school attendance (Raftery 1988). Other
popular assumptions were reflected in teachers’ beliefs that Mexican students
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
336
GALINDO
were gifted in art, music, and athletics (San Miguel 1987). Gonzalez (1990)
summarized the approach of segregated schools, “schools for Mexican children
taught a separate curriculum, emphasized English and American standards of
conduct, vocational over academic work, group discipline over individuality and
had lower expectations” (91).
The instruction of English in the segregated schools was not intended to provide access to an English curriculum and further study, but rather it was intended
to facilitate the assimilation of Mexican students into low-wage labor (Gonzalez 1990). The focus on the instruction of English also furthered an ideological
goal of Americanization programs of achieving national political unity through
assimilation. This goal was reflected in the following statement by the director of
elementary education for San Antonio, “the first step in making a unified nation is
to teach English to the non-English speaking portion of the population” (Gonzalez
1990, 41). The popular belief was that an understanding of Americanism could
only be achieved through knowledge of the English language. A school official’s
comments indicating that the Mexican child “is foreign in his thinking and attitudes” until he learns to “to think and talk in English” illustrated this point of
view (Gonzalez 1990, 41). The focus on English contrasted with the availability
of bilingual education in the late 1880s in Texas (Blanton 2004). Like the German
bilingual schools of St. Louis, bilingual education for Tejano students was viewed
as supportive of their eventual Americanization (Blanton 2004). Private schools
in Texas operated by Mexican Americans in opposition to segregated schools also
offered bilingual instruction. Anti-immigrant policies during the last decade of
the nineteenth century eroded support for bilingual instruction for Tejano students as did prejudicial views that Tejano students could not be assimilated due to
their alleged backwardness and ignorance (Blanton 2004). English-only laws in
1893, 1905, 1918, and 1923 signaled the shift away from bilingual education in
Texas.
In the schooling of Mexican students during the Americanization period, there
was little concern about their academic accomplishments and graduation from
high school. Once students learned English, they were supposed to transfer to
regular schools but many Mexican students left school around the 4th grade due
to the negative environment they encountered (Donato 2007). Those who did
attend the regular school were teased by Anglo children and also faced the low
expectations and prejudicial attitudes of teachers (Donato 2007). Furthermore, few
attempts were made to keep Mexican students in school as compulsory attendance
laws were rarely enforced (Blanton 2004; Donato 2007). In Texas, the lack of
enforcement of compulsory laws worked in favor of schools for White students
since funding for schools was based on a census count and not on attendance.
Funds were collected by school districts based on the number of Mexican children
on the census roster rather than the number of Mexican children who actually
attended schools. The funds collected on Mexican student counts were actually
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
337
spent on White schools since many Mexican students left school at a young age
(San Miguel 1987).
In addition to desegregation court cases, Mexican community organizations
fought the educational inequalities that Mexican students faced through political
means. An example of this struggle was Eleuterio Escobar who made educational
equity his cause in fighting against inferior and overcrowded schools in San
Antonio during the 1930s and 1940s (Garcia 1989). The San Antonio schools in
the Mexican neighborhoods were so overcrowded that thousands of students did
not attend school. Escobar documented the educational inequalities of the Mexican
neighborhoods in San Antonio concerning unequal funding; overcrowding; and
the utilization of auditoriums, library, and cafeterias as classrooms. Working with
the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Eleuterio Escobar and
his committee gained the support of 73 civic and labor organizations. This group
organized a meeting with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction that turned
out to be the largest meeting ever held by Mexicans in San Antonio with 10 to
13 thousand people in attendance (Garcia 1989). Following the success of this
meeting, a group separate from LULAC was formed called La Liga Pro-Defensa
Escolar (the School Improvement League) which started a bilingual newspaper
called El Defensor de la Juventud (The Defender of the Young) to keep the
community informed. This group lobbied the state legislature in 1935 for adequate
education for the San Antonio west side residents. The group discontinued its
advocacy efforts during WWII but resumed them once the war was over (Garcia
1989).
AN EXAMPLE OF AN AMERICANIZATION PROGRAM
The similarities between the education policy of Americanization programs and of
the current era are illustrated most clearly by English-only instructional programs
for Mexican students. While focused on language, these educational policies in
the past as well as in the present also contained a larger message regarding a deficit
view of Mexican communities that devalued the community’s resources including
its multiculturalism/bilingualism. Additionally, these programs positioned Mexicans as “foreigners” in the very land in which they had resided for generations.
The nation’s second anti-bilingual education ballot initiation approved by voters,
Proposition 203, was passed in Arizona in 2000. However, Proposition 203 was
not the first English-only policy implemented in Arizona schools. Proposition 203
was preceded 81 years earlier by the IC program in Tucson during the Americanization period. English-only instruction was mandated during the Americanization
era by a 1919 Arizona law which required that all schools be conducted in English (Sheridan 1986). The educational program developed in Tucson in 1919 was
called “Beginning English Classes,” but was more commonly referred to as the 1C
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
338
GALINDO
program. The 1C program was very similar to the structured English immersion
program mandated by Proposition 203 in that both of them were one-year English
instruction programs, they segregated students by English ability, and mixed students by age (Combs 2001). A major difference was that the 1C program was a
pre-first grade program that students needed to complete before they could begin
first grade. The 1C program began as a mandatory semester long program in the
1920s but by the early 1930s, it had become a year long program. It remained a
year long program for the remainder of its duration until 1965. The 1C program
was implemented in Tucson for nearly fifty years, from 1919 to approximately
1965 when it was eventually replaced by bilingual education programs (Combs
2001).
A series of reports from the Tucson superintendent during the 1920s documented the 1C program. In those reports the superintendent referred to Mexicanorigin students as “foreigners” and as “the foreign problem” even though some
families had resided in Tucson and the surrounding areas prior to the Gadsen Purchase of 1853 which transferred southern Arizona to the United States (Sheridan
1986, 225). Additionally, Mexican and Native American students were referred
to as “children of foreign blood . . . who could not speak a word of English at the
beginning of the school year” (Sheridan 1986, 223). The assimilationist agenda of
Americanization era was not only directed at students, but also their parents. The
Superintendent’s report of 1920–21 noted that parents needed, “to learn English
. . . and to assimilate the high ideals and customs of this country” (Sheridan 1986,
226). The Superintendent’s report also indicated that the Americanization program
in Tucson departed from common practice by advocating the IQ testing of students
in Spanish. The high scores in Spanish were contrasted with low scores in English
by the superintendent, “the non-English speaking children of Mexican parentage
are not at all inferior mentally to children from English speaking homes” (Sheridan 1986, 227). While Mexican students may not have been seen as intellectually
inferior, they were still perceived as culturally inferior and the superintendent
viewed Americanization as the means for Mexicans to adopt dominant models of
work, morality, and government which were believed to be superior to Mexican
values (Sheridan 1986).
The IC program was started by the Tucson school district superintendent at
a time when the Mexican-origin students comprised approximately 50 percent
of the elementary school population. Mexican students in Tucson schools were
facing low graduation rates (40 percent), were over age for their grade-meaning
that they were one year or more older than classmates, and were twice as likely to
be retained as other students. The 1C program was intended to address the high
retention rates of Mexican-origin and Native American students and improve their
school attendance. In 1920–21, two thirds of all students in Tucson were enrolled in
grades lower than those in their age would normally be enrolled in. By 1923–24,
63 percent were overage and in 1924 the overage percentage rose to 68 with
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
339
more than five hundred children enrolled in 1C (Sheridan 1986). Many students
remained in 1C for several years before dropping out of school without ever having
the opportunity to transfer to age-appropriate subject matter instruction. Sheridan
(1986) noted that many Mexican students left school after the fourth grade.
The 1C program was designed to provide initial English instruction for the
entire school year to students with limited or no English skills but even students
who spoke some English were also placed in 1C classrooms because placement
was done without formal assessment of English proficiency. The following year
the students were supposed to enter first grade although they would be a year
older than the other students. In practice the sink-or-swim methodology of 1C,
consisting of little more than vocabulary lessons, and the racially segregated
classrooms contributed to high rates of academic failure among Mexican students
(Combs 2001; Sheridan 1986). The 1C program continued for decades despite
high drop-out rates that were never less that 60 percent across its 47 year existence
and its history of having a high percentage of over-age students (Combs 2001).
Two former students who attended 1C in the 1930s recalled its negative environment. One commented on being punished, “When I was a kid, the teacher
would pull my ear and my pigtails if I spoke Spanish.” Another student described her feelings “I was always scared in school” (parentseyes.arizona.edu/
westside/problem.html). Other former 1C students interviewed by Combs (2001)
from the 1930s had a less negative view of 1C than former students from the
40s-60s. Former students from the 1940s had negative and bitter memories of 1C
and former students from the 50s and 60s remembered an oppressive environment
where they received harsh treatment from the teachers and were punished for
speaking Spanish. Combs (2001) concluded that in the 1930s placement in the1C
classes was automatic, whether students knew English or not, and all the children
from the neighborhood went into 1C thereby decreasing the stigma of being in a
separate educational program.
THE LEGACY OF THE AMERICANIZATION PERIOD ON
THE EDUCATION OF IMMIGRANT STUDENTS
The Americanization period is remembered for its harsh anti-immigrant attitudes
and discriminatory policies which meant segregation, a dual-wage labor system,
and deportation for Mexican immigrants. Current anti-immigrant sentiment and
policies toward Mexican immigrants reflect the negative and discriminatory attitudes of the Americanization period which are visible in the three anti-bilingual
education state ballot initiatives that recreated the tradition of banning the use
of languages-other-than-English for instruction in schools. These initiatives reflected the restrictionistic approach of the Americanization period in general and
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
340
GALINDO
anti-bilingual education policies in particular. Then and now, language restrictionism was the expression of nativism that sought national unity on the basis
of cultural and linguistic uniformity (Galindo and Vigil 2004). The presence of
the Spanish language in national-building efforts, such as schooling, was viewed
as a threat to national identity and raised questions regarding immigrants’ political loyalty (Galindo and Vigil 2004). Anti-bilingual education initiatives were
a response to the perceived threat of Spanish-English bilingual education. In the
current era, the stated purpose of the anti-bilingual education initiatives was the
acquisition of English, but these initiatives also reproduced the subordinate position of Latinos/as by devaluing languages-other-than-English, especially Spanish
and its associated Latino/a cultures, in the education of immigrant students (Blanton 2004). Historically, the public acceptance or rejection of bilingual education
has been tied to the ethnic community’s status in society as influenced by nativist
sentiment (Leibowitz 1971). Bilingual education is considered controversial and
attacked when it involves communities that are considered “politically and socially
unacceptable” and from a nativistic point of view are considered as “irreconcilably alien” due to “race, color, or religion” (Leibowitz 1971, 4). In a similar vein,
Moran (1987) indicated that the debates over bilingual education were about status
politics in which language was used as a proxy for the status of a community’s
culture, language, and values. The defeat of bilingual education through ballot
initiatives reestablishes the politically subordinate position of linguistic minority
communities and positioned them as outsiders to the nation. In the debates over
bilingual education during the Americanization period and in the current era, English functions as a symbol of national identity and the Spanish language and
Mexican-origin community are positioned as foreign and alien in the Southwest,
an area which abounds in Spanish and Native American place names.
The anti-bilingual education initiatives of the current era also directed attention
away from the broader questions of education for Mexican-origin students to a
narrow focus on the acquisition of English. The language question during the
Americanization period diverted attention from other important questions in the
education of Mexican-origin students including high retention rates, inequity in
school facilities and funding, negative teacher attitudes, and high student withdrawal rates. In the Americanization programs, the language issue was presented
as the most important education issue in the supposed mission of assimilation that
took place in segregated schools. The stated purpose of segregation was to allow
for the instruction of the English language in a manner that was tailored to the
needs of the Mexican students. In reality segregated schools reflected a reduced
curriculum, the subordinate position of Mexican students, and the prejudices of
the dominant community against the Mexican community (Donato 2007; Gonzalez 1990). The irony of segregation as the route to assimilation was not raised in
educational reports nor was the limited academic opportunities represented by the
vocational curricula.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
341
The anti-bilingual education ballot initiatives of the current era have maintained
the focus on language and assimilation for the education of immigrants that was
introduced during the Americanization period. Then and now a narrow educational
focus on language education diverted attention from other education issues that
were equally important for Mexican students which in the current era included
early childhood education, the need for culturally and linguistically competent
teachers, and extremely high drop-out rates from high school (Galindo 2004).
The current popular perception of language education as the primary issue in
the education of immigrant students was apparent in a study of 29 editorials
written across the country in response to one New York Times article on postProposition 227 test scores. Of the 29 editorials, only one of them discussed
other educational issues besides language education that were critical to Latino/a
educational success (Galindo 2004). The majority of editorials were not supportive
of bilingual education and they recommended the quick language assimilation of
immigrants. While the acquisition of English by immigrant students is critical to
their educational success, the potential of biliteracy to support immigrant student
success was only mentioned in a couple of editorials.
The educational success of immigrant students involves more than the acquisition of English. Language is the “how” of instruction, it is not the “what”. Given
the narrow instructional focus of the anti-bilingual education initiatives, one can
question whether these initiatives, which were all very similar in language, in
fact proposed immigration policy rather than education policy. The anti-bilingual
ballot initiatives directly addressed language assimilation through a restrictionistic approach but they did not address any related curriculum areas, nor broader
educational programmatic initiatives that would have supported the educational
success of immigrant students across their K-12 education. The narrow focus on
language education in the debates over the future of bilingual education as the key
in the education of Latinos/as was challenged by the authors of the book, “Beyond
Bilingual Education” (Gershberg, Danenberg and Sánchez, 2004) who argued for
broadening the issues under consideration in policy debates over immigrant education. The narrow focus on language acquisition has resulted in the treatment of
the diverse Latino/a student population in education policy discussions as a monolithic group. In their book the authors differentiated the experiences of recently
arrived immigrant students from those of English language learners; noting that
not all English language learners are recent immigrants. Although the two issues
of immigrant education and education for English language learners were interrelated, the authors stressed the differing educational needs of groups of Latino/a
students who vary in their amount of time in U.S. schools.
The second legacy of the Americanization era in the education of immigrant
students was the reminder that education was and continues to be a nation-building
enterprise. What was at stake in the education of immigrant students both during
the Americanization era and in the current era was the face of the nation. In other
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
342
GALINDO
words, questions regarding national identity, not only in terms of political values
and beliefs but also in terms of which ethnic groups would be considered “inside
the nation” and which groups would be “foreign to the nation.” The historical
response to societal diversity that was reinforced and reinvigorated during the
Americanization period was that national unity would be achieved on the basis
of cultural and linguistic uniformity obtained through assimilation (Carlson 1975;
Olneck 1989). The forging of national unity took place at the expense of ethnic
groups. The practice of assimilation as exercised during the Americanization
period exacted a price on Mexican students and families as Gonzalez (1990)
noted, “Through the program of Americanization, the Mexican child was taught
that his family, community, and culture were obstacles to schooling success” and
“the identification of the Spanish language and Mexican culture as contradictory
to educational success lost no ground in conventional theory and practice” (45).
Anti-bilingual education initiatives continued to identify education as an arena for
nation-building and for engaging in debates over the face of the nation by focusing
on the English language as a critical symbol of national identity during a time of
rapid demographic shifts introduced by Latino/a immigration.
The third legacy of the Americanization period was the reproduction of societal
attitudes towards the Mexican community in education policies for Mexican-origin
students. During the Americanization period, the attitudes of the dominant society
towards Mexicans were reflected in the Americanization curriculum that narrowly
focused on language and vocational education and which was offered in a segregated environment. The attitudes of the dominant society towards Mexicans also
led to the repatriations and deportations of the Depression period that negatively
affected entire families and the education of Mexican students; many of whom
were U.S. citizens. During the current era, Gonzalez (1990) commented that the
education of Mexican American communities, and its political relationship to the
dominant society, can not be separated from the international relationships linking
the futures of Mexico and the United States. For Gonzalez (1990), the debates
over the future of bilingual education raised foreign as well as domestic policy
questions. The questions of education for the Mexican-origin community are inseparable from the question of Mexican immigration and the societal reception
and status of Mexican immigrants (Gonzalez 1990). As in the Americanization
era, both recent Mexican immigrants as well as Mexicans who have resided in
the Southwest for generations are the targets of current assimilationist and nationbuilding educational policies developed in response to changing demographics
resulting from Mexican immigration.
The link between education and immigrant policies and how they reflect the
subordinate status of the Mexican community is illustrated in the current era
by the proposed federal DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for
Alien Minors Act) which would allow undocumented students to pay in-state
college tuition. Ten states have enacted state-versions of the DREAM Act while
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
343
the federal version, which would additionally provide a pathway to citizenship,
has yet to be passed (Rincón 2008). The question about access to K-12 education
for undocumented students was answered by the Supreme Court in 1982 in Plyler
v. Doe. However, the Plyler v. Doe ruling did not address affordable access to
higher education. The higher education question for immigrant students has been
addressed by state-versions the DREAM Act in only ten states but questions
about possible deportation and opportunities for legal employment once students
have graduated remain unanswered. The irony is that undocumented students can
receive a K-12 education, but they cannot be legally employed. Their path out
of low-wage labor remains blocked and consequently their subordinate position
is reproduced. As in the Americanization period, the education of undocumented
immigrant Mexican students prepares them for low wage labor. The proposed
DREAM Act illustrates the link between education and immigration policy in
the continued struggle for educational equity for Mexican-origin students and
other undocumented immigrant students who are currently confined to a future of
low-wage labor with limited opportunities for a higher education.
A CONFLICT OF LEGACIES
There have been few changes in underlying societal attitudes towards immigrants
in the past 70 to 80 years since the Americanization period as demonstrated by
popular support for anti-immigrant ballot initiatives and the 1996 passage of the
IIRIA and PWORA federal legislation that restricted the social benefits that immigrants may receive (Olivas 2004; Yates 2004). However one major difference that
distinguished the policy landscape of the current era from the Americanization era
was the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s that resulted in the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 which addressed the history of societal discrimination and the marginalization of communities of color. Along with the legislative gains of the 1960s in
the area of civil rights, communities of color during this period reaffirmed pride in
their roots and cultures. Also, across the country the contributions of communities
of color to the development of the nation began to be acknowledged in public
discourse and in public spaces.
Since the 1960s, the pendulum has swung back in the opposite direction resulting in the erosion of some gains made during the Civil Rights era such as
the weakening of affirmative action. In spite of recent setbacks in civil rights,
advancements across the past four decades have been made in how schools addressed societal diversity including the development and expansion of bilingual
and multicultural education programs/curricula. Given the historic impact of the
Civil Rights era and the emerging influence of multiculturalism on society in general, the legacy of the Americanization period should have been greatly weakened.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
344
GALINDO
That has not been the case and the current wave of neo-nativism and accompanying anti-immigrant sentiment that most recently was illustrated by Arizona’s SB
1070 seems to have jumped over the Civil Rights period and continued its march
from the Americanization period of the 1920s and 30s to the immigration period
of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s.
Questions can be raised concerning why the legacy and influence of the Civil
Rights era was not strong enough to counter the legacy of the Americanization era
as seen in the neo-nativism of the last three decades. The legacy of the Civil Rights
era which sensitized society to discrimination should have been strong enough
to influence voters to convincingly defeat anti-immigrant state ballot initiatives
as clear examples of discriminatory policy based on prejudice against Latino/a
and other immigrant communities. In addition to the recent setbacks to Civil
Rights, the critical reason why the cause of immigrant rights has not received
greater benefit from the legacy of the Civil Rights era is that nativism is often
unrecognized as a form of prejudice that can lead to discriminatory policies.
Nativism does not operate solely on the basis of race as does racism, but on the basis
of defensive nationalism which is more invisible to public perception than is race.
Because the legacy of the Civil Rights era has not prevented the implementation of
discriminatory policies directed at immigrants, discrimination fueled by nativism
and specific to the immigrant experience needs to be regarded as harmful as
discrimination fueled by racism. Discrimination against immigrants is not well
understood within a history of societal discrimination narrowly conceived in terms
of Black and White issues (Sanchez 1997). Viewing discrimination through a Black
and White lens, termed “racial duality,” obscures the history of discrimination and
nativism that is unique to Latino/a and other immigrant communities (Cameron
1997). Identifying themes from the Americanization era in current anti-immigrant
policies can contribute new perspectives on discrimination that make nativism no
longer a forgotten historical legacy but rather makes its negative effects visible
and better understood.
REFERENCES
Alvarez, Roberto. 1986. “The Lemon Grove Incident: The Nation’s First Successful Desegregation
Court Case.” The Journal of Sand Diego History, 32, 117–126.
Behdad, Ali. 2005. A Forgetful Nation: On Immigration and Cultural Identity in the United States.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Blanton, Carlos K. 2004. Strange Career of Bilingual Education in Texas. College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University.
Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Cameron, Christopher. 1997. “How the Garcia Cousins Lost Their Accents: Understanding the Language of Title VII Decisions Approving English-only Rules as the Product of Racial Dualism, Latino
Invisibility, and Legal Indeterminacy.” California Law Review, 85, 261–308.
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
345
Carlson, Robert. 1975. The Quest for Conformity: Americanization through Education. New York,
NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Combs, Mary. 2001. “The Historical Roots of English-only/English Immersion in Arizona: The 1C
Program.” Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics,
Washington, D.C.
Davis, Philip. 1920. Immigration and Americanization. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.
Donato, Ruben. 2007. Mexicans and Hispanos in Colorado Schools and Communities, 1920–1960.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Galindo, René and Vigil, Jamie. 2004. Language Restrictionism Revisited: The Case Against Colorado’s 2000 Anti-Bilingual Education Initiative. The Harvard Latino Law Review, 7, 27–61.
———. 2006. “Are Anti-Immigrant Statements Racist of Nativist?: What Difference Does it Make?”
Latino Studies, 4, 419–447.
Galindo, René. 2004. “Newspaper Editorial Response to California’s Post-Proposition 227 Test
Scores.” Journal of Latinos & Education, 3, 227–250.
Garcia, Mario. 1989. Mexican Americans. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gershberg, Alec, Danenberg, Anne and Sánchez, Patricia. 2004. Beyond Bilingual Education. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Gleason, Philip. 1980. “American Identity and Americanization.” Pp. 31–58 in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Edited by Stephan Thernstrom, Ann Orlov, and Oscar Handlin.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gonzalez, Gilbert. 1990. Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation. Philadelphia, PA: Balch Institute
Press.
Gonzalez, Gilbert and Fernandez, Raul. 2003. A Century of Chicano History. New York, NY: Routledge
Griswold del Castillo, Richard and de Leon, Arnoldo. 1996. North to Aztlán: A History of Mexican
Americans in the United States. New York, NY: Twayne Publishers.
Gutierrez, David. 1995. Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants, and the Politics
of Ethnicity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hartmann, Edward. 1948. The Movement to Americanize the Immigrant. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Higham, John. 1975. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. New York,
NY: Atheneum.
———. 1999. “Instead of a Sequal, or, How I Lost My Subject.” Pp. 383–389 in The Handbook of
International Migration: The American Experience. Edited by Charles Hirsschman, Philip. Kasinitz,
and Josh DeWind. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1992. Ethnicity and Nationalism in Europe Today. Anthropology Today, 8, 3–5.
Hochschild, Jennifer. 1995. Facing Up to the American Dream. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Hoffman, Abraham. 1974. Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona Press
Jarowski, Irene. 1950. Becoming American: The Problems of Immigrants and Their Children. New
York, NY: Harper.
Kellor, Frances. 1920. “What is Americanization?” Pp. 623–638 in Immigration and Americanization.
Edited by Philip Davis. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.
King, Desmond. 2002. Making Americans: Immigration, Race, and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Knobel, Dale. 1996. America for Americans: The Nativist Movement in the United States. New York,
NY: Twayne Publishers Leibowitz
Leibowitz, Arnold 1971. Educational Policy and Political Acceptance: The Imposition of English as
the Language of Instruction in American Schools. ERIC, ED 047321
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Denver] at 10:45 10 August 2011
346
GALINDO
McClymer, John. 1991. “Gender and the American Way of Life: Women in the Americanization
Movement.” Journal of American Ethnic History, 91, 3–18.
Menchaca, Martha and Valencia, Richard. 1990. “Anglo-Saxon Ideologies in the 1920s–1930s: Their
Impact on the Segregation of Mexican Students in California.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly,
21, 222–249.
Mirel, Jeffrey. 2010. Patriotic Pluralism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Montoya, Margaret. 2001. “A Brief History of Chicana/o School Segregation: One Rationale for
Affirmative Action.” La Raza Law Journal, 12, 159–172.
Moran, Raquel. 1987. “Bilingual Education as a Status Conflict.” California Law Review, 75, 321–362.
Muñoz, Laura. 2001. “Separate But Equal: A Case Study of Romo v. Laird in Mexican American
Education.” OAH Magazine of History, 15, 28–35.
Ngai, Mae. 2005. Impossible Subjects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Olneck, Michael. 1989. “Americanization and the Education of Immigrants, 1900–1925: An Analysis
of Symbolic Action.” American Journal of Education, 97, 398–423.
Olivas, Michael. 2004. “IIRIRA, the Dream Act and Undocumented College Residency.” The Journal
of College and University Law, 30(2), 435–464.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. “We have Room for but one Language Here”: Language and National Identity
in the US at the Turn of the 20th Century.” Multilingua, 21, 163–196.
Raftery, Judith R. 1988. “Missing the Mark: Intelligence Testing in Los Angeles Public Schools,
1922–32.” History of Education Quarterly, 28, 73–93.
Ramsey, Paul. 2010. Bilingual Public Schooling in the United States: A History of America’s “Polyglot
Boardinghouse.” New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ricento, Thomas. 2003. “The Discursive Construction of Americanism.” Discourse & Society, 14,
611–637.
Rincón, Alejandra. 2008. Undocumented Immigrants and Higher Education: Sı́ Se Puede! New York,
NY: LFB Scholarly Publications.
Ruiz, Vicki. 2001. “South by Southwest: Mexican Americans and Segregated Schooling, 1900–1995.”
Organization of American Historians Magazine of History, 15, 23–27.
San Miguel, Guadalupe. 1987. Let Them All Take Heed: Mexican Americans and the Campaign for
Educational Equality in Texas, 1910–1981. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Sanchez, George. 1993. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los
Angeles, 1900–1945. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
———. 1997. “Face the Nation: Race, Immigration, and the Rise of Nativism in Late Twentieth
Century America.” International Migration Review, 4, 1–30.
Schmid, Carol. 2001. The Politics of Language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sheridan, Thomas. 1986. Los Tucsonenses: the Mexican Community in Tucson, 1854–1941. Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press
United States Commission on Immigration Reform. 1997. “Becoming an American: Immigration and
Immigrant Policy: 1997 Executive Summary.” Washington, D.C.: United States Commission on
Immigration Reform.
Valencia, Richard. 2008. Chicano Students and the Courts. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Vélez-Ibañez, Carlos. 1996. Border Visions: Mexican Cultures of the Southwest United States. Tucson,
AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Yates, Laura. 2004. “Plyler v. Doe and the Rights of Undocumented Immigrants Education: Should
Undocumented Students be Eligible for In-state Tuition Rates?” Washington Law Quarterly, 82,
585–110.