History- General
A walk down the Freedom Trail
Gilberto Hinojosa
Walking Boston’s Freedom Trail after Thanksgiving, I reflected on the PBS special Liberty! and Pauline Maier’s American Scripture, which explored the colonial elites who sparked the American Revolution. Leaders like Thomas Paine promoted ideas of individual liberty, but even then, social mobility had limits — especially for African Americans, Native Americans, and even many white colonists, as society remained stratified.
Merchants like Samuel Adams worked to protect their interests and manipulate public opinion, but once the idea of freedom was planted, its implications couldn’t be fully controlled. Though elites feared empowering common people, the call for equality inspired unity in the 1770s.
That struggle for equality was imperfect then and remains unfinished today. Yet, in paying taxes, voting, defending freedom of expression, and striving for opportunity for all, we continue to walk our own Freedom Trail.
Return of the robber barons
Gilberto Hinojosa
Today’s corporate executives — like those at Enron, Global Crossings, and Kmart — resemble the “robber barons” of the 19th century, enriching themselves while their companies collapse. These modern titans have used their influence to weaken regulations and avoid accountability.
Historically, industrialists gained wealth through government favors — tariffs, land grants, and anti-competition policies — and bought political influence. Though reform movements under leaders like Theodore Roosevelt tried to rein in corporate power, business influence returned, peaking in the 1920s before collapsing in the Great Depression.
Today, we're seeing a repeat. The 1990s boom led to deregulation and tax breaks for the wealthy, and even recent reforms have done little to curb money’s role in politics. Despite growing inequality and public frustration, few leaders seem willing to challenge corporate power. With no Roosevelt in sight, the new robber barons have reestablished control — backed by wealth and influence.
Federal reform may not cut back on government
Gilberto M. Hinojosa
While reformers claim to reduce government, their real aim is often to reshape it to benefit powerful interests — not to cut spending or bureaucracy overall. Initial cuts tend to target the poor, with the middle class likely next.
Historically, reform movements like the New Deal and Progressive Era aimed to protect the public, but over time, regulations often served elite interests. Today’s anti-government rhetoric masks an agenda that may end up hurting middle-class Americans, who already shoulder a heavy tax burden.
Despite talk of fiscal responsibility, entrenched interest groups — veterans' organizations, retirees, the defense industry, and agribusiness — continue to receive government support, often inefficiently. These groups are shielded by strong lobbying, while meaningful reform rarely touches them.
In the end, whenever reforms are made, the rules tend to favor the already powerful. And it’s the middle class who often pays the price.
Changing economic realities increasingly squeeze middle class
Gilberto Hinojosa
“The economy is fine, but most Americans are not — and the ideal that once defined how we lived is gone,” is the subtitle of “Who Killed the Middle Class?”
It’s an insightful article by John Cassidy in the Oct. 16 issue of the New Yorker magazine that summarizes various important studies.
During most of the past 100 years, wages for American low- and semi-skilled workers went up consistently. This was particularly true during the “Golden Era” between 1947 and 1973, the period of great industrial expansion, when incomes across the board rose, thus creating the middle class.
That has come to an end. From 1973 to 1993, incomes in real dollars tumbled 14.7 percent for high school graduates who did not go to college and came from lower middle school groups.
This creates an “underclass,” something unthinkable for a nation of constant economic growth virtually since its foundation.
And what is left of the middle class is barely hanging on. In Cassidy’s article, 20 prototypical middle class households were studied over the past two decades (1979–1993), during which period real income fell sharply. One of these families occupied the White House, and even San Francisco 49ers team owner Edward DeBartolo Jr. experienced a loss in yearly paychecks the last one year for an amount $23 less than the first one.
Frustrations created by this income stagnation are being exploited by congressional demagogues bent on cutting assistance to the poor and elderly, hoping that breaks to the rich and demagoguery will come back to haunt us if the fortunes of the middle class continue to slide.
What has caused that downward slide of the middle class?
One: a redistribution of income upward. According to the Census Bureau, Cassidy explains, “In 1973, the richest fifth of the nation’s households received 44 percent of the gross household income. By 1993, their share had increased to 49.2 percent. At the same time, the poorest fifth’s share had decreased from 4.2 percent to 3.6 percent.”
Two: free trade. The exportation of industrial jobs began even before the North American Free Trade Agreement. It will certainly increase with the fall of the peso. Still, the export trade only comprises one-ninth of the economy, and all wages have been falling.
Three: the decline of the union movement. The ratio of unionized laborers fell to a third of the workforce to close to a tenth. Without their political pressure, on behalf of all Americans, everyone’s wages have dropped.
Four: “The rise in immigration. Newcomers tend to undercut earnings and threaten the bottom of the economic scale and even of some in the middle class.”
Mexican-Americans have problems with this issue because anti-immigrant sentiment in the nation is currently aimed at Mexicans. And yet, by extension, we are all viewed as Mexicans — whether born in the U.S. or not.
Fifth: competition from outside. anti-immigration members of Congress and others.
Six: technological improvement. There was a time, at the turn of the century, when the new machines needed many unskilled laborers. Not so today. A lot of today’s immigration from Eastern Europe arrived by the millions.
By World War I, American jobs were filled by the greatest number of unskilled, acculturated children doing those jobs.
Those jobs now are unskilled and therefore low-wage. Tasks are simpler but require more education. Highly skilled jobs have increased; those that require little training have shrunk. It’s easy to understand the frustrations of workers no longer needed.
Seven: education. More and more, education is a problem — not just the lack of it. There is access, but it costs money, and there is a strong, anti-government, anti-tax movement among the middle class whose taxes have risen as wages have fallen — due to the process of a not-so-flat tax.
Based on that, middle class Americans are not happy with having to pay for education that helps others’ children succeed. In short, they don’t believe that education is the answer to their problems.
So when taxes increase for something that doesn’t benefit them in the short run, frustration builds. And the more politicians tell them what they want to hear, instead of the truth, the worse it will get.
That’s what politicians have been doing — feeding on the frustrations of those Americans. That is what has killed the middle class.
At St. Joan of Arc School in Weslaco, students memorized the Constitution’s preamble as a sacred ritual. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence was meant to be read aloud, with Thomas Jefferson marking stresses in the text to guide its proclamation.
Over time, Americans have lost appreciation for the power of spoken, proclaimed words. Today’s media is filled with constant chatter, drowning out meaningful expression. Scholar Jay Fliegelman reminds us that Jefferson saw the Declaration as a public performance meant to inspire and persuade.
Despite being a quiet man, Jefferson designed the Declaration with musical rhythm and emotional resonance. It called on leaders to speak directly to the people, promoting civic virtues like honesty, prudence, and sincerity.
The document also emphasized personal responsibility and used "We the people" to highlight shared obligations. Jefferson and others opposed the idea of just blaming the government for societal issues.
As we celebrate Independence Day, we should revive the tradition of reading the Declaration aloud and reconnect with its truths and ideals.
Mexican War Series
Sparks Needed Debate
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the U.S.-Mexican War. PBS is commemorating the
event with a four-part series, The U.S.-Mexican War, 1846–1848, airing
Sept. 13 and 14 on KLRN.
The war radically reshaped North America, making the U.S. a
continental power. Through the treaty, the U.S. acquired California, Nevada,
Utah, and parts of several other states. Yet the significance of the war goes
beyond territorial gain—it shaped how Americans have viewed Mexicans and
Mexican Americans ever since.
While the series is engaging and includes poignant personal
accounts from soldiers, it sidesteps larger, more troubling questions. It
echoes a traditional, triumphalist view of the war—presenting U.S. expansion as
destiny, rather than deliberate conquest.
What’s missing is context. By 1846, the U.S. was rapidly
industrializing and seeking new markets, especially access to Pacific trade
through ports like San Francisco. These economic ambitions were central to the
war, yet the series barely mentions them.
The war was not simply about settling empty lands. After the
Texas Revolution, U.S. leaders claimed the Rio Grande boundary to gain
strategic trade routes and territory. President Polk even drafted his war
message before the first shots were fired—an inconvenient fact for the myth of
American innocence.
Also missing is the Mexican perspective. Relying heavily on
U.S. soldier narratives, the series lacks balance and fails to fully address
the racial and cultural superiority fostered by the war—attitudes with
consequences that persist to this day.
Despite its shortcomings, the PBS series may open the door
to a deeper conversation—one that challenges the comforting myths surrounding
this pivotal and painful chapter in U.S.-Mexican history.
‘Real’
Texans have historically Mexican roots
The Western Hero, “The Texan” — even the
Texas Rangers — are not as Texan as they first appear! How can this be?
Read about it in “Tejanos and Texas Under
the Mexican Flag, 1821-1835” (Texas A&M Press, 1994) by Professor Andres
Tijerina. This award-winning book is about Tejanos (Mexican Texans) and the
transfer of their culture to Texas culture.
When Tijerina studied Texas history in
the seventh grade, he was told that all things Mexican were bad. Later, as an
academic, he discovered the importance of the Tejanos’ Mexican heritage and how
it was changed, declared to be “Texan” and “good.”
Some of this heritage is forgotten. Take,
for example, the tradition of living in the countryside on a ranch and
maintaining a home in the town to continue active participation in the
community.
Anglo-Americans first encountered and
adapted to the semi-arid West in the Mexicans’ Texas. There they took up the
Mexican custom of assigning land in “prolonged quadrangles” that gave equal
access to water to all landowners. Anglo-Americans also inherited irrigation
systems, complete with detailed laws governing the taking of turns for the saca
de agua, the drawing of water.
The clearest impact of Mexican traditions
on Anglo-Americans was the ranching traditions. To begin with, the word “ranch”
was not part of the English language until Anglo-Americans found Mexicans
living and working on ranchos. The whole concept of the open range with
cattle and horses running wild and equal access to cattle was new.
The rodeo (in Spanish pronounced with the
spoken stress on the “de”), or roundup, of mestenas (mustangs) indicates
the cultural transference that took place. Branding, the registering of brands,
and all procedures regulated by a juez de campo (duties that later fell
to county and cattlemen’s association officials) were also already well
organized before Anglo-Americans got to Texas.
Traditional Texans may have to swallow
hard to accept that the Texas Rangers had their origin in the compañías
volantes, the flying squadrons that patrolled the despoblado, or
open country. The compañías volantes addressed the problem of Indian
raids and banditry on the ranchos, much as the Texas Rangers would do in later
decades.
There was a big difference, however.
Members in the compañías volantes belonged to fully organized
soldier-settler communities where they intermarried with local residents. This
settled character of the compañías volantes prevented the units from
becoming a cover for lawless individuals such as those who often joined the
Texas Rangers.
The chapters on “Statehood Under
Coahuila” and “The Emergence of Tejano Politics” provide excellent, fresh
insights into the development of the Texas Revolution.
President Antonio López de Santa Anna
interfered with states’ rights when he consolidated his power in 1835 and began
to demand greater compliance with the dictates of the central government. This
began the momentum for the revolution.
The outcome of the revolution and the
rise in power of the newcomers unfamiliar with Mexican traditions had
disastrous consequences for Tejanos, even for those who had fought for Texas
independence. Their lands were taken from them, and they were deprived of
political rights.
While the Mexican traditions of Tejanos
were incorporated into Texan culture, Mexican heritage as such was denigrated
or pushed aside amid post-revolution anti-Mexican sentiments. Sadly, it has
been generally overlooked by historians. Tijerina’s research makes up for that.
His book is scholarly and well-researched, yet easy to read.
Interestingly and very importantly,
Tijerina’s study reveals how very Mexican “real” Texans actually are.
Gilberto M. Hinojosa is dean of
humanities and fine arts at Incarnate Word College.
Los Tejanos “Auténticos” tienen raíces
históricamente mexicanas
El héroe del
Oeste, the Texan (“El tejano”) – e incluso los Texas Rangers – ¡no son
tan tejanos como parecen! ¿Cómo puede ser esto?
Léelo en Tejanos
and Texas Under the Mexican Flag, 1821-1835 (Tejanos y Texas bajo la
bandera mexicana) de la editorial Texas A&M Press (1994), escrito por el
profesor Andrés Tijerina. Este libro explora como la cultura de los tejanos
(mexicanos en Texas) fue transferida a lo que ahora se considera Texan.
Cuando Tijerina
estudió historia de Texas en séptimo grado, le enseñaron que todo lo mexicano
era malo. Más tarde, como académico, descubrió la importancia del patrimonio
mexicano de los tejanos y cómo este fue modificado, declarado “Texan” y, por eso,
“bueno”.
Parte de este
legado ha sido olvidado. Tomemos, por ejemplo, la tradición de vivir en el
campo en un rancho mientras se mantenía una casa en el pueblo para seguir
participando activamente en la comunidad.
Otro tema: Los angloamericanos se encontraron por
primera vez con el Oeste semiárido en el Texas mexicano, donde adoptaron la
costumbre mexicana de asignar tierras en “cuadrángulos prolongados” para
garantizar el acceso equitativo al agua para todos los propietarios. También
heredaron los sistemas de irrigación, con sus leyes detalladas que regulaban
los turnos para la “saca de agua.”
El impacto más
claro de las tradiciones mexicanas en los angloamericanos fue en la ganadería.
Para empezar, la palabra “rancho” no existía en el idioma inglés hasta que los
angloamericanos encontraron a los mexicanos viviendo y trabajando en ranchos.
La idea de la pradera abierta, con ganado y caballos corriendo libres y con
acceso libra al ganado, era completamente nueva para ellos.
El rodeo o roundup
de mesteñas (mustangs) demuestra esta transferencia cultural. La marcación del
ganado, el registro de marcas y todos los procedimientos regulados por un juez
de campo (funciones que posteriormente asumieron los funcionarios de los
condados y las asociaciones de ganaderos) ya estaban bien organizados antes de
la llegada de los angloamericanos a Texas.
Para los Texans
de hoy en día más tradicionales, puede ser difícil aceptar que los Texas
Rangers tienen su origen en las compañías volantes, los escuadrones móviles que
patrullaban el despoblado (territorio abierto). Estas compañías atendían el
problema de los ataques indígenas y el bandolerismo en los ranchos, tal como lo
harían después los Texas Rangers.
Sin embargo,
había una gran diferencia. Los miembros de las compañías volantes pertenecían a
comunidades de soldados-colonos bien organizadas y solían casarse con
residentes locales. Este carácter de las compañías volantes como pobladores
evitaba que sus unidades se convirtieran en refugios para individuos fuera de
la ley, como sí ocurrió con los Texas Rangers en varias ocasiones.
Los capítulos
“Statehood Under Coahuila” y “The Emergence of Tejano Politics” ofrecen una
visión novedosa y profunda sobre el desarrollo de la Revolución de Texas.
El presidente
Antonio López de Santa Anna interfirió con los derechos de los estados cuando
consolidó su poder en 1835 y comenzó a exigir una mayor obediencia a las
órdenes del gobierno central. Esto impulsó el inicio de la revolución.
El resultado de
la revolución y el ascenso al poder de los recién llegados quienes desconocían las
tradiciones mexicanas tuvieron consecuencias desastrosas para los tejanos,
incluso para aquellos que lucharon por la independencia de Texas. Sus tierras
les fueron arrebatadas y se les negó de sus derechos políticos.
Si bien las
tradiciones mexicanas de los tejanos fueron incorporadas a la cultura Texan, la
herencia mexicana como tal fue denigrada o relegada debido al sentimiento
antimexicano posterior a la revolución. Tristemente, este legado ha sido en
gran parte ignorado por los historiadores. La investigación de Tijerina llena
ese vacío. Su libro es académico y bien documentado, pero también accesible y
fácil de leer.
Lo más
interesante e importante es que el estudio de Tijerina revela cuán
profundamente mexicanos son, en realidad, “auténticos” Texans.
Comments
Post a Comment