2
The Making of a People

Rubén G. Rumbaut

Americans have their leveling ways: La Ciudad de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciúncula has become, in one hundred years, L.A.

—Richard Rodríguez (1993)

In 2003 the Hispanic population of the United States reached 40 million—or 44 million if the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are included (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b). Only Mexico (with a population above 100 million) is larger among Spanish-speaking countries today. The rapid growth of the Hispanic population—which had been estimated at only 4 million in 1950—has been stunning (Table 2-1).1 Its current growth rate is four times that of the total population. The U.S. Census Bureau (2004a) has projected that, given continuing immigration and moderate levels of natural increase, Hispanics will grow by 2050 to an estimated 103 million people and account for 25 percent of the national total, significantly exceeding the proportions of other ethnic or racial minorities. And while Hispanic Americans now account for one of every seven persons in the United States, their impact—social, cultural, political, and economic—is much more profound because of their concentration in particular states and localities. The origins, present status, and complex trajectories of this population thus merit careful analysis.

1  

The Hispanic population (as variously defined over the years and estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau) grew from 6.9 million in 1960 to 9.1 million in 1970, 14.6 million in 1980, 22.4 million in 1990, and 35.2 million in 2000. In 1960, Hispanics accounted for only 3.9 percent of the total U.S. population; that proportion tripled to 12.5 percent in 2000. For a detailed analysis of the growth of the U.S. Hispanic population between 1960 and 1980 and of the problems of measuring it (and of adjusting for census undercounts and intercensal comparability), see Bean and Tienda (1987). For its growth from 1980 to 2000, see Table 2-1.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America 2 The Making of a People Rubén G. Rumbaut Americans have their leveling ways: La Ciudad de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciúncula has become, in one hundred years, L.A. —Richard Rodríguez (1993) In 2003 the Hispanic population of the United States reached 40 million—or 44 million if the inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are included (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b). Only Mexico (with a population above 100 million) is larger among Spanish-speaking countries today. The rapid growth of the Hispanic population—which had been estimated at only 4 million in 1950—has been stunning (Table 2-1).1 Its current growth rate is four times that of the total population. The U.S. Census Bureau (2004a) has projected that, given continuing immigration and moderate levels of natural increase, Hispanics will grow by 2050 to an estimated 103 million people and account for 25 percent of the national total, significantly exceeding the proportions of other ethnic or racial minorities. And while Hispanic Americans now account for one of every seven persons in the United States, their impact—social, cultural, political, and economic—is much more profound because of their concentration in particular states and localities. The origins, present status, and complex trajectories of this population thus merit careful analysis. 1   The Hispanic population (as variously defined over the years and estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau) grew from 6.9 million in 1960 to 9.1 million in 1970, 14.6 million in 1980, 22.4 million in 1990, and 35.2 million in 2000. In 1960, Hispanics accounted for only 3.9 percent of the total U.S. population; that proportion tripled to 12.5 percent in 2000. For a detailed analysis of the growth of the U.S. Hispanic population between 1960 and 1980 and of the problems of measuring it (and of adjusting for census undercounts and intercensal comparability), see Bean and Tienda (1987). For its growth from 1980 to 2000, see Table 2-1.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America TABLE 2-1 Size (1000s) and Growth of the Hispanic Foreign-Born Population of the United States, by Spanish-Speaking Country of Birth, 1980–2000 Country of Birth Year of Census % Population Growth 1980 1990 2000 1980–1990 1990–2000 North America and Caribbean Mexico 2,194 4,263 9,177 94 115 Puerto Ricoa 1,011 1,180 1,437 17 22 Cuba 617 738 873 20 18 Dominican Republic 166 344 688 107 100 Central America El Salvador 95 465 817 392 76 Guatemala 64 221 481 246 118 Honduras 37 106 283 185 166 Nicaragua 44 168 220 282 31 Panama 60 83 105 38 26 Costa Rica 29 31 72 3 134 South America Colombia 147 287 510 95 78 Ecuador 88 139 299 57 116 Peru 57 144 278 155 93 Argentina 68 95 125 40 32 Venezuela 32 42 107 29 157 Chile 37 56 81 54 43 Bolivia 14 30 53 119 79 Uruguay 14 22 24 58 10 Paraguay 3 6 12 90 101 Spain 54 78 87 44 12 Total 4,831 8,498 15,786 76 86 aPuerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are included here as foreign-born. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3; 1980, 1990, and 2000 Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, at http://www.ipums.org. The making of this population needs to be understood from three vantage points. Hispanics are at once a new and an old population made up both of recently arrived newcomers and of old timers with deeper roots in American soil than any other ethnic groups except for the indigenous peoples of the continent.2 They comprise a population that can claim both 2   Many Latin Americans mix indigenous pre-Columbian ancestries with European, African, and even Asian roots. In the islands of the Caribbean, the aboriginal populations were virtually extinguished after the coming of the Europeans, as were Amerindian languages and

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America a history and a territory in what is now the United States that precede the establishment of the nation. At the same time, it is a population that seems to have emerged suddenly, its growth driven both by accelerating immigration from the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America—above all from Mexico, which shares a 2,000 mile border with the United States—and by high rates of natural increase. Indeed, 45 percent of the total Hispanic population of the United States today is foreign-born, and another 31 percent consists of a rapidly growing second generation of U.S.-born children of immigrant parents. Table 2-1 shows the growth of the foreign-born Hispanic population from 1980 to 2000 by country of birth. Already by 1990, for the first time in U.S. history, Spanish-speaking Latin Americans formed the largest immigrant population in the country—larger than the flows from Asia and Europe combined. By 2000, Mexican immigrants alone were more numerous than all European and Canadian immigrants combined, and more than all Asian, African, and Middle Eastern immigrants combined. And the label itself—“Hispanic”—is new, an instance of a pan-ethnic category that was created by official edict three decades ago. The ethnic groups subsumed under this label—the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Colombians, Peruvians, Ecuadorians, and the other dozen nationalities from Latin America and from Spain itself—were not “Hispanics” or “Latinos” in their countries of origin; rather, they became so only in the United States. That catchall label has a particular meaning only in the U.S. context in which it was constructed and is applied, and where its meaning continues to evolve. This chapter reviews each of these three aspects—the classificatory, the historical, and the contemporary. The chapter highlights differences that most clearly distinguish the Hispanic population from non-Hispanics—especially in history and language, as well as place, race, national origins, immigration, generation, citizenship, and social status.3 Moreover, the chap-     cultures, above all in Cuba; for three centuries, African slave labor was brought in successive waves. In the continent, native American populations were concentrated especially around two agrarian empires in what are now Mexico and Perú; their physical and cultural continuities have been preserved by their descendants in the mainly Nahuatl and Maya speakers of Mexico and Guatemala, and the mainly Quechua and Aymara speakers of Perú, Ecuador, and Bolivia. For a population history and an analysis of current ethnic profiles and Amerindian survivals in each of the countries of the region, see Collier, Blakemore, and Skidmore (1985, pp. 127–160). 3   To sketch those contemporary profiles, the chapter relies on data from the 5 percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of the 2000 census, focusing on demographic factors, ethnic and racial self-identification, immigration and citizenship, generation and language, and socioeconomic status. The analysis of linguistic acculturation and social mobility will compare the foreign-born first generation of Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations against

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America ter takes account of the differences between the largest Hispanic ethnic groups, emphasizing that Hispanics as a whole are not a homogeneous entity and should not be presumed to be so. However, despite those group differences, the tens of millions of persons so classified do share a common label that symbolizes a minority group status in the United States, a label developed and legitimized by the state, diffused in daily and institutional practice, and finally internalized (and racialized) as a prominent part of the American mosaic. That this outcome is, to a considerable extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy does not make it any less real. I raise and address a number of questions about Hispanic Americans: Who are they, where did they come from, and when? In what ways can their diverse peoples be considered a unique population? How do they differ from non-Hispanics in the United States? Do a common language and cultural tradition, as well as a shared history once in the United States, make the essential difference in the maintenance of a pan–Latin American ethnicity? Is there a Hispanic or Latino ethnic group, cohesive and self-conscious, sharing a sense of peoplehood in the same way that there is an African American people in the United States?4 Or is it merely an administrative aggregate devised for statistical purposes, a one-size-fits-all label that subsumes diverse peoples and identities? Is the focus on Hispanics or Latinos as a catchall category misleading, since it conceals not only the enormous diversity of contemporary immigrants from Spanish-speaking Latin America but also the substantial generational differences among groups so labeled? How do the labeled label themselves? How do the     the U.S.-born second-and-beyond generations. Since 1980, the decennial censuses have been constrained by the deletion of the parental nativity question that had been asked from 1870 to 1970—making it impossible to distinguish the first and second (foreign parentage) generations from each other and from the third-and-beyond (native parentage) generations. Fortunately, since 1994 the annual Current Population Survey (CPS) has included items on maternal and paternal country of birth, permitting such intergenerational analysis. For this reason, several of the chapters in this volume make use of the CPS as a primary data source. However, the CPS has its own limitations—including the fact that, unlike the decennial census, it does not collect data on languages spoken, level of English proficiency, or linguistic isolation. Given the central importance of language in the study of Hispanic Americans, in this chapter the 2000 census is used as the primary data source. 4   Douglas Massey (1993) has argued that “There is … no Hispanic population in the sense that there is a Black population…. The only thing reasonably certain is that the person in question or some progenitor once lived in an area colonized by Spain.” But in fact not even that is the case. The Philippines, named after Philip II, were colonized by Spain for three centuries (until the United States replaced it as the colonial power in 1898), its population of more than 80 million people today are largely Spanish-surnamed Catholics (though not Spanish speakers), and Filipinos are the second largest immigrant group in the United States (after Mexicans), yet they are not considered Hispanics but classified racially as Asian under Directive 15 of the Office of Management and Budget.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America quintessential markers of group difference in the American experience (phenotype, language, religion, nationality, citizenship, ancestry) differentiate Hispanics or Latinos as a whole from other pan-ethnic or racial aggregates (the non-Hispanic white, black, Asian, and American Indian populations)? I begin with a discussion of the origin of the category itself and its use in official ethnic and racial classification. I then examine the historical origins of the Hispanic presence in the United States, tracing the roots of its three oldest and largest groups (Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans). Finally, I highlight a set of salient characteristics and contexts that distinguish the contemporary Hispanic population as a whole from non-Hispanics and the major Hispanic ethnic groups from each other—issues elaborated in greater detail in the chapters that follow. THE MAKING OF A CATEGORY Beginning in 1850, the U.S. Census Bureau relied on objective indicators, such as country of birth (or decades later, parent’s birthplace, mother tongue, or Spanish surname), to identify persons of Mexican origin in its decennial counts.5 A century later, in the 1950s, the Census Bureau first published information on persons of Puerto Rican birth or parentage; tabulations on people of Cuban birth or parentage were first published in 1970. Efforts to demarcate and enumerate the Hispanic population as a whole, using subjective indicators of Spanish origin or descent, date back to the late 1960s (Bean and Tienda, 1987). At that time—in the context of surging civil rights activism, new federal legislation that required accurate statistical documentation of minority group disadvantages, and growing concerns over differential census undercounts—Mexican American organizations in particular pressed for better data about their group (Choldin, 1986). The Nixon White House ordered the addition of a Spanish-origin self-identifier on the 1970 census (it was included only in the “long form” sent to a 5 percent sample, since 109 million copies of the “short form” had already gone to press); to test it, the same question was inserted in the November 1969 CPS (the first time that subjective item was used).6 In 1976, the 94th Congress of the United States passed a remarkable 5   Mexicans were classified as a “race” in the 1930 U.S. census, but Mexican Americans, with the support of the Mexican government, demanded not to be so designated. That usage was eliminated in subsequent censuses. 6   Later analyses by the Census Bureau, comparing the results nationally of the (subjective) Hispanic self-identification in the CPS versus the (objective) use of Spanish surnames, found wide-ranging differences between the two measures, raising questions of validity and reliability. For example, in the Southwest, only 74 percent of those who identified themselves as Hispanic had Spanish surnames, while 81 percent of those with Spanish surnames identified

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America bill—Public Law 94-311 (see Box 2-1), a joint resolution “relating to the publication of economic and social statistics for Americans of Spanish origin or descent.” It remains the only law in the country’s history that mandates the collection, analysis, and publication of data for a specific ethnic group, and it goes on to define the population to be enumerated. The law, building on information gathered from the 1970 census, asserted that “more than 12 million Americans identify themselves as being of Spanish-speaking background and trace their origin or descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries”; that a “large number” of them “suffer from racial, social, economic, and political discrimination and are denied the basic opportunities that they deserve as American citizens”; and that an “accurate determination of the urgent and special needs of Americans of Spanish origin and descent” was needed to improve their economic and social status. Accordingly, the law mandated a series of data collection initiatives in the federal departments of Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare, specifying among other things that the Spanish-origin population be given “full recognition” by the Census Bureau’s data collection activities through the use of Spanish language questionnaires and bilingual enumerators, as needed; and that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “develop a Government-wide program for the collection, analysis, and publication of data with respect to Americans of Spanish origin or descent.” In May 1977, as required by Congress, OMB’s Statistical Policy Division, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, issued Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting to standardize the collection and reporting of “racial” and “ethnic” statistics and to include data on persons of “Hispanic origin.” Directive 15 specified a minimal classification of four “races” (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, black, and white) and two “ethnic” backgrounds (of Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin) and allowed the collection of more detailed information as long as it could be aggregated within those categories. Since that time, in keeping with the logic of this classification, census data on Hispanics have typically been officially reported with a footnote indicating that “Hispanics may be of any race.” Tellingly, however, the term led to the development of another category, “non-Hispanic white” (a catchall for persons who identify as white but whose ancestry does not include a Spanish-speaking nation), which has     themselves as Hispanic; in the rest of the United States, only 61 percent of those who identified as Hispanic had Spanish surnames, and a mere 46 percent of those with Spanish surnames identified as Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 1975).

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America BOX 2-1 Americans of Spanish Origin—Social Statistics Public Law 94-311 [H.J.Res. 92]; June 18, 1976 Joint Resolution relating to the publication of economic and social statistics for Americans of Spanish origin or descent. Whereas more than twelve million Americans identify themselves as being of Spanish-speaking background and trace their origin or descent from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish-speaking countries; and Whereas these Americans of Spanish origin or descent have made significant contributions to enrich American society and have served their Nation well in time of war and peace; and Whereas a large number of Americans of Spanish origin or descent suffer from racial, social, economic, and political discrimination and are denied the basic opportunities they deserve as American citizens and which would enable them to begin to lift themselves out of the poverty they now endure; and Whereas improved evaluation of the economic and social status of Americans of Spanish origin or descent will assist State and Federal Governments and private organizations in the accurate determination of the urgent and special needs of Americans of Spanish origin or descent; and Whereas the provision and commitment of State, Federal, and private resources can only occur when there is an accurate and precise assessment of need: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the Department of Labor, in cooperation been typically set against the term “Hispanics” and the other racial minority categories, conflating the distinction. In the news media, academic studies, government reports, and popular usage the “ethnic” constructs “Hispanic” or “Latino”7 have already come to be used routinely and equivalently alongside “racial” categories such as Asian, black, and non- 7   The terms themselves are contested and there is no consensus on usage, although neither “Hispanic” nor “Latino” is a term of preference used by Latin American migrants in the United States to label themselves; rather, the research literature shows that they self-identify preponderantly by their national origin. To what extent their U.S.-born children or grandchildren adopt such made-in-the-USA pan-ethnic labels as their own remains to be ascertained definitively, but longitudinal studies of the second generation suggest that only a small minority (about one in four) tends to adopt a pan-ethnic identity, although they are much more likely than their parents to accept “Hispanic” or “Latino” as a racial self-identifier (see Castillo, 2003; Fears, 2003a; Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Sachs, 2001).

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America with the Department of Commerce, shall develop methods for improving and expanding the collection, analysis, and publication of unemployment data relating to Americans of Spanish origin or descent. SEC. 2. The Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Department of Agriculture shall each collect, and publish regularly, statistics which indicate the social, health, and economic condition of Americans of Spanish origin or descent. SEC. 3. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce and with the heads of other data-gathering Federal agencies, shall develop a Government-wide program for the collection, analysis, and publication of data with respect to Americans of Spanish origin or descent. SEC. 4. The Department of Commerce, in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and various population study groups and experts, shall immediately undertake a study to determine what steps would be necessary for developing creditable estimates of undercounts of Americans of Spanish origin or descent in future censuses. SEC. 5. The Secretary of Commerce shall ensure that, in the Bureau of the Census data-collection activities, the needs and concerns of the Spanish-origin population are given full recognition through the use of Spanish language questionnaires, bilingual enumerators, and other such methods as deemed appropriate by the Secretary. SEC. 6. The Department of Commerce shall implement an affirmative action program within the Bureau of the Census for the employment of personnel of Spanish origin or descent and shall submit a report to Congress within one year of the enactment of this Act on the progress of such program. Approved June 16, 1976. Hispanic white, effecting a de facto racialization of the former. It is now also commonplace to find newspaper articles that report matter-of-factly that the country’s first Hispanic astronaut was Franklin Chang-Díaz, a Chinese Costa Rican, or that the first Latina chancellor of a University of California campus (Silverstein, 2003) is France A. Córdova, a French-born physicist who majored in English at Stanford, whose mother is an Irish American native New Yorker and whose father came to the United States as an 8-year-old from Tampico.8 8   For those so classified, the subjective meaning of such labels, and whether they are situationally asserted as an ethnic self-identity, remain open empirical questions. Contexts shape the meanings of identity assignments and assertions, and the present historical context—of civil rights, affirmative action, and ethnic revivals—stands in sharp contrast to the way immigrants were treated during the heyday of hegemonic Americanization in the early 20th century, and in particular to the opprobrium meted out to assertions of a Mexican ancestry. An instructive example involves Ted Williams, universally known as one of baseball’s

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America Later criticism of the categories led to a formal review of Directive 15, beginning in 1993 with congressional hearings and culminating in revised standards that were adopted in 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997; see also Fears, 2003b; Snipp, 2003; Wallman, Evinger, and Schechter, 2000; Wright, 1994). The changes now stipulated five minimum categories for data on “race” (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Asian, black or African American, and white); offered respondents the option of selecting one or more racial designations (an option used for the first time in the 2000 census); and reworded the two “ethnic” categories into “Hispanic or Latino” and “not Hispanic or Latino.” “Hispanic or Latino” was defined as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, ‘Spanish origin,’ can be used in addition to ‘Hispanic or Latino.’” The notice in the Federal Register of these revisions to OMB Directive 15 (as adopted on October 30, 1997) pointedly added that “The categories in this classification are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature…. The standards have been developed to provide a common language for uniformity and comparability in the collection and use of data on race and ethnicity by Federal agencies.” Nonetheless, Directive 15’s definitions of “racial” and “ethnic” populations are used not only by federal agencies, but also by researchers, schools, hospitals, business and industry, and state and local governments—and are conflated, abridged, and diffused through the mass media, entering thereby into the popular culture and shaping the national self-image. THE MAKING OF A PAST The Hispanic Prologue Despite the seemingly sudden emergence of Hispanics or Latinos as a new, prominent—and official—part of the American mosaic, it is also the case that, with the sole exception of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas, the country’s Spanish roots are much older than those of any other groups. They antedate by a century the creation of an English colony     greatest hitters but not as a Latino player: his mother, May Venzer, was a Mexican American Baptist who married a soldier named Samuel Williams and moved to San Diego, where Ted grew up and May came to be known as “the Angel of Tijuana” for her Salvation Army work there. In his autobiography, Ted Williams (2001) wrote that “if I had had my mother’s name, there is no doubt I would have run into problems in those days, [with] the prejudices people had in Southern California.”

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America in North America and have left an indelible if ignored Spanish imprint, especially across the southern rim of the United States, from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Fernández-Shaw, 1972; Fuentes, 1992; Jiménez, 1994; Sánchez, 1991; Weber, 1992). In U.S. popular culture and in official narrative and ritual the American past has been portrayed as the story of the expansion of English America, suppressing if not silencing the Hispanic presence from the nation’s collective memory (see Walton, 2001). But past is prologue, and no understanding of the Hispanic peoples in the United States today or of the category under which they are now grouped can ignore the historical and geographic contexts of their incorporation. The Spanish origins of what is now the United States date to 1513, when Juan Ponce de León first came to La Florida, as he named it. Spanish explorers drew the first maps of the Texas coast and of the northern Atlantic coast through Georgia and the Carolinas (where a colony was established in 1526) and up to the mouths of what would later be named the Hudson, the Connecticut, and the Delaware rivers; in 1570 Spanish Jesuits established a mission in Virginia, decades before Roanoke and Jamestown. By the early 1540s they had sailed up the California coast as well, and other explorers—among them Albar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and Esteban de Azamor (a black Moor), Hernando de Soto, Coronado—had walked across what are now Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas (ubiquitous “Coronado was here” historic markers can still be found alongside roads in these states). By the time of the American Revolution, Spain had cast a wide net of Hispanic culture and communities stretching from San Diego and Los Angeles to San Francisco on the west coast; throughout the Southwest from Tucson to Santa Fé, El Paso, and San Antonio; along the Mississippi River from St. Louis to New Orleans; and eastward through towns that stretched to Florida’s Atlantic coast by way of Mobile, Pensacola, and Tallahassee. Between the two coasts, as the historian David Weber has noted (1992), Spain claimed much of the American South and the entire Southwest—at least half of the present U.S. mainland—and Spain governed these areas for well over two centuries, a period longer than the United States has existed as an independent nation. When in 1763 Louisiana (until then French) came under Spanish rule, the Mississippi River divided most of what is now the continental United States into two enormous zones: one, to the east, English; one, to the west, Spanish.9 In 1783, when Florida was returned to 9   These events need to be placed in the context of the 18th century race for empire among Spain, Britain, and France. In 1763, as part of the Treaty of Paris that ended the French and Indian War (itself part of the wider Seven Years War in Europe), Britain gained Canada and all lands east of the Mississippi from France and gained Florida from Spain in exchange for

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America Spain, the entire southern corridor from California to Florida was once again Spanish-ruled—but Spain’s hegemony in the Americas would decline soon after. Thousands of place names, from Sacramento to Cape Cañaveral—including six states—silently testify to these Spanish antecedents, as well as others for whom the Spanish derivation is not so obvious: for instance, Key West derives from Cayo Hueso (literally Bone Key), words that English speakers would mispronounce and misspell (Weber, 1992). Coast to coast, there are regions of the country in which every town and village bears a Spanish name, and in them can be found the first missions, ranches, schools, churches, presidios, theatres, public buildings, and cities in U.S. history (Rumbaut, 1978). Spanish St. Augustine in Florida, founded in 1565, is the oldest city in the United States; San Miguel Church in Santa Fé, New Mexico, has been used for Catholic worship since 1610. The New Mexico missions, one for every pueblo, were flourishing by 1630. San Antonio was founded in 1718, with a mission that would play a key role in Texan and American history more than a century later: El Alamo. San Diego, California, was founded in 1769, with the first in a chain of 21 missions extending to San Francisco, founded in 1776. In the United States, the collective memory of these silent antecedents remains clouded by remnants of prejudices and stereotypes whose roots go to colonial rivalries in the 16th century between Spanish America and English America. Anti-Spanish propaganda in Protestant Europe and America built into the leyenda negra (black legend), now centuries old, whose original intent was to denigrate Catholic Spanish culture throughout the world and to portray Spaniards as a uniquely cruel and depraved race (Jiménez, 1994; Maltby, 1968). That legend was kept alive whenever conflict arose between English- and Spanish-speaking societies in America in the 1800s, especially during the Texas Revolt (1836), the U.S.–Mexican War (1846–1848), and the Spanish American War (1898). Two wartime slogans—“Remember the Alamo!” and “Remember the Maine!”—and the     Havana (which the British armada had captured the year before). English Florida did not join its 13 sister colonies during the subsequent American Revolution of 1776; in fact, many English loyalists (Tories) fled to the Florida settlements at the time. When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, Britain was forced to give up most of its American possessions; the Second Treaty of Paris returned Florida to Spain in return for the Bahamas (which had been captured by Spain after it declared war on England in 1779 during the American Revolution). The Tories who had earlier fled to Florida now moved to the Bahamas to remain under the British crown. In 1819, after years of diplomatic wrangling, Spain signed the Adams-Onis Treaty, ceding Florida to the United States and drawing a definite border between Spanish land and the Louisiana Territory; that treaty was not ratified by the United States and the new republic of Mexico until 1831.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America TABLE 2-12 Linguistic Isolation in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Households in the United States, by Generation, 2000 (Persons Five Years and Older) Ethnic Identity First Generation (Foreign-Born) Second+ Generations (U.S.-Born) Not Linguistically Isolated Linguistically Isolated Not Linguistically Isolated Linguistically Isolated Not Hispanic N 14,842,048 3,505,125 219,177,673 1,244,351   % 80.9 19.1 99.4 0.6 Hispanic: N 9,474,134 6,000,378 16,289,498 2,610,582   % 61.2 38.8 86.2 13.8 Mexican % 57.3 42.7 84.7 15.3 Puerto Ricana % 76.2 23.8 93.5 6.5 Cuban % 61.5 38.5 94.0 6.0 Dominican % 63.1 36.9 76.5 23.5 Salvadoran, Guatemalan % 57.9 42.1 67.8 32.2 Central American, other % 69.0 31.0 82.1 17.9 Colombian % 65.8 34.2 84.4 15.6 Peruvian, Ecuadorian % 67.5 32.5 83.6 16.4 South American, other % 74.8 25.2 91.3 8.7 Other Spanish, Hispanic, Latino % 78.9 21.1 90.6 9.4 Total N 24,316,182 9,505,503 235,467,171 3,854,933   % 71.9 28.1 98.4 1.6 NOTE: Linguistic isolation is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as “a household in which no one age 14 or older speaks English very well.” aFor Puerto Ricans, “foreign-born” includes those born on the island of Puerto Rico, and “U.S.-born” refers to those born on the mainland. SOURCE: 2000 U.S. Census, 5% Integrated PUMS.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America tion there was a complete reversal, with 4 percent speaking Spanish only at home, 12 percent using both, and 84 percent shifting to English only. Among the men, the pattern was similar except that their shift to English by the second generation was even more marked. More recently, the 2002 National Survey of Latinos—with a large representative sample of first-, second-, and third-generation adults age 18 and older—confirmed these generational differences in language preference and dominance, which in turn were found to shape attitudes and ethnic self-identities (Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002). The findings of these studies strongly indicate that the linguistic outcomes for the third generation—the grandchildren of today’s immigrants—will parallel the age-old pattern in American history: the grandchildren may learn a few foreign words and phrases as a vestige of their ancestry, but they are most likely to grow up speaking English only. The shift to English may actually be occurring at a more accelerated rate today. Arguably, the atrophy of these children’s ability to maintain fluency in the language of their immigrant parents is a significant loss of scarce and valuable bilingual resources both for the individual and for the United States in a global economy. Labor Migration and Human Capital Group differences in acculturation and linguistic isolation are rooted in very significant differences in the overall educational attainment of Hispanics and non-Hispanics, especially among the foreign-born. By far, both the most educated and the least educated groups in the United States today are immigrants, a reflection of polar-opposite types of migrations embedded in very different historical contexts (Rumbaut, 1992, 1994). That point is made in Table 2-13, contrasting two poles of educational attainment among foreign-born and U.S.-born Hispanics and non-Hispanics age 25 or older: those with less than a high school education, and those with a four-year college degree or more. Among the foreign-born, non-Hispanics (many of whom are Asian-origin professionals, such as the flows from India, Taiwan, China, and Korea, as well as others from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa) are four times more likely to have college degrees as Hispanics—36 compared with 9 percent. Conversely, nearly three-fifths of Hispanic adults have less than a high school education, compared with only one-fifth of non-Hispanic immigrants. This comparative disadvantage in human capital of Latin American immigrants vis-à-vis their non–Latin American counterparts is reduced but not eliminated by the U.S.-born generations. Intergroup differences in the Hispanic population are particularly pronounced, especially between Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan immigrants and other groups—although by the U.S.-born generations, these same groups (who in

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America TABLE 2-13 Educational Attainment of Foreign-Born and U.S.-Born Hispanics and Non-Hispanics in the United States, 2000 (Persons 25 Years and Older) Ethnic Identity First Generation (Foreign-Born) Second+ Generations (U.S.-Born) Less Than High School College Graduate or More Less Than High School College Graduate or More Not Hispanic N 3,213,973 5,388,741 23,821,393 37,132,874   % 21.3 35.7 16.0 25.0 Hispanic: N 6,724,296 1,007,105 1,964,135 903,691   % 58.5 8.8 29.1 13.4 Mexican % 69.9 4.4 31.0 11.6 Puerto Rican % 46.4 10.9 23.2 14.8 Cuban % 40.9 18.8 13.3 34.2 Dominican % 51.8 9.5 19.3 21.4 Salvadoran, Guatemalan % 64.7 5.2 26.7 22.9 Central American, other % 42.9 13.2 13.5 33.2 Colombian % 27.9 22.0 10.7 38.3 Peruvian, Ecuadorian % 29.5 17.6 9.3 36.1 South American, other % 19.0 31.7 7.5 46.6 Other Spanish, Hispanic, Latino % 28.2 28.5 30.1 12.8 Total N 9,938,269 6,395,846 25,785,528 38,036,565   % 37.4 24.0 16.6 24.4 SOURCE: 2000 U.S. Census, 5% PUMS.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America the immigrant generation constitute the least educated population in American society) make a very substantial gain in educational attainment. These intergroup differences in education are vividly reflected in their occupational status. Table 2-14 presents census data for employed persons age 16 and older, using the Duncan socioeconomic index (SEI) to rank occupations into two polar types: (1) professional, managerial, and technical occupations with SEI scores above 50 and (2) low-wage labor, indexing jobs with SEI scores below 25. It becomes immediately clear that the foreign-born Hispanic population of the United States is disproportionately concentrated at the bottom of the occupational structure, with 61.5 percent of workers in low-wage labor (more than twice the 30 percent of non-Hispanics working at these jobs). The presence of highly educated professionals from Mexico and elsewhere (Alarcón, 2000) is dwarfed within this overall profile. It bears underscoring that this figure is driven by the extraordinarily high proportions of three nationalities in particular: Mexicans, among whom more than 4.5 million immigrants, or 69.7 percent of all Mexican-born workers, labor in the lowest paid jobs of the U.S. economy; and Salvadorans and Guatemalans, among whom two-thirds (65.6 percent) are low-wage laborers. Dominicans follow in this hierarchy (54 percent), then Peruvians, Ecuadorians, Colombians, and Puerto Ricans (all between 45 and 49 percent), Cubans (38 percent), and finally “other” South American and other Spanish (33 percent)—but even these latter groups have a higher proportion of low-status workers than do all non-Hispanic immigrants as a whole. That central fact—the entry of migrant workers into the bottom rungs of U.S. labor markets, who fill the vast demand for low-wage labor in an “hourglass” economy—is a defining characteristic of the Latin-origin foreign-born population, especially of its largest component (the flows from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala, especially of undocumented laborers). It has profound long-term implications for the social and economic prospects of their children’s generation, and it is also the basis for common stereotypes that disparage and stigmatize the population as a whole. Still, among the U.S.-born generations, the gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the proportion of all workers who are at the bottom of the occupational hierarchy closes substantially, to 36 versus 30 percent, respectively—a 6-point differential that is five times smaller than the 31-point gap observed among the foreign-born. Conversely, non-Hispanic immigrants as a whole are far more likely than Hispanics—by a 3-to-1 ratio (46 to 16 percent)—to be employed in professional status positions; indeed, their high levels of educational and professional attainment significantly surpass the norms for non-Hispanic white natives in the United States, and generally reflect the “brain drain” character of immigrant flows from these regions. That gap is also reduced by the U.S.-born generations between

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America TABLE 2-14 Occupational Statusa of Foreign-Born and U.S.-Born Hispanics and Non-Hispanics in the United States, 2000 (Employed Persons 16 and Older) Ethnic Identity First Generation (Foreign-Born) Second+ Generations (U.S.-Born) Low-Wage Labor Professional, Technical, Managerial Low-Wage Labor Professional, Technical, Managerial Socioeconomic Index Score:   (SEI < 25) (SEI > 50) (SEI < 25) (SEI > 50) Not Hispanic N 3,888,636 5,895,344 41,137,385 54,681,470   % 30.1 45.7 30.2 40.1 Hispanic: N 6,760,643 1,752,934 2,899,023 2,287,386   % 61.5 15.9 36.4 28.7 Mexican % 69.7 10.1 38.0 27.2 Puerto Rican % 46.2 25.7 32.6 30.9 Cuban % 38.2 34.1 21.2 44.3 Dominican % 54.2 19.0 27.3 31.3 Salvadoran, Guatemalan % 65.6 11.9 33.0 26.0 Central American, other % 52.2 21.0 26.0 38.4 Colombian % 45.0 29.5 23.5 40.3 Peruvian, Ecuadorian % 49.6 24.4 22.8 41.6 South American, other % 33.3 41.7 21.6 45.2 Other Spanish, Hispanic, Latino % 34.3 41.4 38.3 28.9 Total N 10,649,279 7,648,278 44,036,408 56,968,856   % 44.6 32.0 30.5 39.5 a Occupations ranked by their SEI (Duncan socioeconomic index) scores. SOURCE: 2000 U.S. Census, 5% PUMS.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America Hispanics and non-Hispanics, to 40 versus 29 percent, but it is not eliminated. Again, as with education, intergroup differences within the Hispanic population are quite pronounced, especially between Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan immigrants on one hand (groups from three countries adjacent to the southern land border, with the fastest overall growth rates over the past two decades and the largest proportions of undocumented immigrants) and other groups on the other—although among the U.S.-born these ethnic groups make very substantial gains in occupational attainment overall. Nonetheless, the continuation of present trends portends widening social and economic inequalities in the Hispanic population, segmented by national origin and generation. CONCLUSION Four decades into a new era of mass immigration, it has become commonplace to observe that the United States is undergoing its most profound demographic transformation in a century. Whether in terms of its size, growth, composition, or spatial concentration, the sheer magnitude of the phenomenon is impressive. This new immigration is overwhelmingly non-European in national origin; half of it hails from Spanish-speaking Latin America. The immigrant stock population of the United States today numbers around 70 million people—that is, persons who are either immigrants or U.S.-born children of immigrants—a figure that accounts for nearly a fourth of the total national population and fully three-fourths of the Hispanic population. The latter has been growing much faster than the national population, both through continuing immigration and natural increase, and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This chapter has focused on factors that distinguish the Hispanic population of the United States from non-Hispanics—their histories and geographies of incorporation, national origins, racial categorization, immigration, citizenship, and especially language, as well as the crucial human capital disadvantages of the first generation compared with non-Hispanic immigrants generally and their implications for a rapidly growing U.S.-born second generation. The confluence of these factors, influencing one another in a process of cumulative causation, shapes a distinctive profile for Hispanics as a whole—a profile that reflects the numerical dominance of the Mexican-origin population, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total. However, I have also accented differences between the foreign-born and native-born generations, underscoring the dynamic changes taking place in their acculturation and integration, and among the largest Hispanic-origin ethnic groups, emphasizing that Hispanics or Latinos as a whole are not a homogeneous entity and should not be presumed to be so. It is also true that the tens of millions of persons so categorized do share

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America a common label symbolizing a minority group status in the United States. Although the official pan-ethnic category is only about three decades old, and the diverse peoples subsumed under it are largely newcomers who identify with their national origins, the labels “Hispanic” or “Latino” are now used pervasively throughout the society (alongside “Asian,” “black,” “non-Hispanic white”), entering into the popular culture and shaping the national racial-ethnic discourse and hierarchy. Moreover, the Spanish roots of what is now the United States are older than those of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent. In that sense Hispanic Americans share the legacy of a distinct history that both precedes the founding of the nation, and, most notably as a consequence of two defining wars (the U.S.–Mexican War and the Spanish-American War), of the expansion of the nation in the 19th century. In particular, Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans—the two largest Hispanic groups and two of the three largest ethnic minorities in the country—are peoples whose incorporation originated largely involuntarily through conquest, occupation, and exploitation, followed by mass immigration during the 20th century, setting the foundation for subsequent patterns of social and economic inequality. The Cubans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Colombians, and other Latin Americans are of more recent and varied vintage, but their distinct histories too shape their modes of incorporation. The past, as William Faulkner observed, is never dead; it is not even past. But the past, while prologue, need not be the epilogue too. That epilogue is being written today largely by hard-working newcomers of diverse Latin origins seeking to make their way and looking ahead to their children’s American futures. In the process they are transforming American society even as they themselves are being transformed into the newest Americans. This volume seeks to offer a systematic assessment of their collective enterprise. REFERENCES Alarcón, R. (2000). Skilled immigrants and cerebreros: Foreign-born engineers and scientists in the high technology industry of Silicon Valley. In N. Foner, R.G. Rumbaut, and S.J. Gold (Eds.), Immigration research for a new century: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 301–321). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bailey, B. (2001). Dominican-American ethnic/racial identities and United States social categories. International Migration Review, 35(3), 677–708. Barrera, M. (1979). Race and class in the Southwest. South Bend, IL: University of Notre Dame Press. Bean, F.D., and Tienda, M. (1987). The Hispanic population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Black, B. (1988). The good neighbor. New York: Pantheon. Bonilla, F., and Campos, R. (1981). A wealth of poor: Puerto Ricans in the new economic order. Daedalus, 110, 133–176.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America Cardoso, L. A. (1980). Mexican immigration to the United States, 1897–1931. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Castillo, J. (2003). Latino? Hispanic? Chicano? American Statesman, July 26. Choldin, H.M. (1986). Statistics and politics: The “Hispanic issue” in the 1980 census. Demography, 23(3), 403–418. Collier, S., Blakemore, H., and Skidmore, T.E. (Eds.) (1985). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Latin America and the Caribbean (pp. 127–160). New York: Cambridge University Press. Deutsch, S. (1987). No separate refuge: Culture, class, and gender on an Anglo-Hispanic frontier in the American Southwest, 1880–1940. New York: Oxford University Press. Deverell, W. (2004). Whitewashed adobe: The rise of Los Angeles and the remaking of its Mexican past. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fears, D. (2003a). Latinos or Hispanics? A debate about identity. Washington Post, August 25. Fears, D. (2003b). The roots of Hispanic: 1975 committee of bureaucrats produced designation. Washington Post, October 15. Fernández-Shaw, C. M. (1972). Presencia Española en los Estados Unidos. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica. Fitzpatrick, J.P. (1987). Puerto Rican Americans: The meaning of migration to the mainland (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Foley, N. (2004). Straddling the color line: The legal construction of Hispanic identity in Texas. In N. Foner and G. M. Frederickson (Eds.), Not just white and black: Historical and contemporary perspectives on immigration, race, and ethnicity in the United States (pp. 341–357). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Fuentes, C. (1992). The buried mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Gamio, M. (1930). Mexican immigration to the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. García, M.C. (1996). Havana USA: Cuban exiles and Cuban Americans in South Florida, 1959–1994. Berkeley: University of California Press. Garvey, M., and McDonnell, P.J. (1999). José moves into top spot in name game: Favorite choice for boys in California, Texas last year marks major shift. Los Angeles Times, January 8. Grenier, G.J., and Pérez, L. (2003). The legacy of exile: Cubans in the United States. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Griswold del Castillo, R. (1984). La familia: Chicano families in the urban Southwest, 1846 to the present. South Bend, IL: University of Notre Dame Press. Gutiérrez, D.G. (1995). Walls and mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican immigrants, and the politics of ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Inter-American Development Bank. (2004, May). Latin American immigrants in the United States to send $30 billion to homelands in 2004. Available: http://www.iadb.org/exr/remittances/images/map2003English.pdf [accessed June 2004]. Itzigsohn, J. (2004). The formation of Latino and Latina panethnic identities. In N. Foner and G. Frederickson (Eds.), Not just black and white: Historical and contemporary perspectives on immigration, race, and ethnicity in the United States (pp. 197–216). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Jiménez, A. (Ed.) (1994). Handbook of Hispanic cultures in the United States: History. Houston: Arte Público Press. Johannsen, R.W. (1985). To the halls of the Montezumas: The Mexican War in the American imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America La Feber, W. (1993). Inevitable revolutions: The United States in Central America. New York : W.W. Norton. Landale, N.S., and Oropesa, R.S. (2002). White, black, or Puerto Rican? Racial self-identification among mainland and island Puerto Ricans. Social Forces, 81, 231–254. Langley, L.D. (2001). The banana wars: United States intervention in the Caribbean, 1898-1934 (2nd ed.) Wilmington, DE: SR Books. Langley, L.D. (2003). The Americas in the modern age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. López, D.E. (1978). Chicano language loyalty in an urban setting. Sociology and Social Research, 62, 267–278. Maltby, W.S. (1968). The black legend in England: The development of anti-Spanish sentiment, 1558–1560. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Massey, D.S. (1993). Latinos, poverty, and the underclass: A new agenda for research. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 449–475. Massey, D.S., and Espinosa, K.E. (1997). What’s driving Mexico-U.S. migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 102(4), 939–999. Massey, D.S., Alarcón, R., Durand, J., and González, H. (1987). Return to Aztlán: The social process of international migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press. Massey, D.S, Durand, J., and Malone, N. (2002). Beyond smoke and mirrors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Moncada, A., and Olivas, J. (2003). Hispanos 2000. Madrid: Ediciones Libertarias. Montejano, D. (1987). Anglos and Mexicans in the making of Texas, 1836–1986. Austin: University of Texas Press. Moore, J., and Pachón, H. (1985). Hispanics in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Musicant, I. (1990). The banana wars: A history of United States military intervention in Latin America from the Spanish American War to the invasion of Panama. New York: Macmillan. Passel, J. (2002). New estimates of the undocumented population in the United States. Migration Information Source. Available: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=19 [accessed May 22, 2002]. Pérez, L.A., Jr. (1990). Cuba and the United States: Ties of singular intimacy. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Pérez, L.A., Jr. (1999). On becoming Cuban: Identity, nationality, and culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation. (2002). National survey of Latinos. Available: http://www.pewhispanic.org/site/docs/pdf/LatinoSurveyReportFinal.pdf [accessed December 2002]. Pitt, L. (1971). The decline of the Californios: A social history of the Spanish-speaking Californians, 1846–1890. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pitts, L., Jr. (1999). José is just as American as baseball, apple pie, and John. Houston Chronicle, January 15. Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley and New York: University of California Press and Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, A., and Stepick, A. (1993). City on the edge: The transformation of Miami. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rivera-Batiz, F.L., and Santiago, C.E. (1998). Island paradox: Puerto Rico in the 1990s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Rodríguez, C. (1991). Puerto Ricans: Born in the USA. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America Rodríguez, R. (1993). Days of obligation: An argument with my Mexican father. New York: Penguin. Rumbaut, R.D. (1978). The Hispanic prologue. In D. Cardús (Ed.), A Hispanic look at the bicentennial (pp. 5–22). Houston, TX: Institute of Hispanic Culture. Rumbaut, R.G. (1992). The Americans: Latin American and Caribbean peoples in the United States. In A. Stepan (Ed.), Americas: New interpretive essays (pp. 275–307). New York: Oxford University Press. Rumbaut, R.G. (1994). Origins and destinies: Immigration to the United States since World War II. Sociological Forum, 9(4), 583–621. Sachs, S. (2001). What’s in a name? Redefining minority. New York Times, March 11. Sánchez, G.J. (1993). Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, culture, and identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900–1945. New York: Oxford University Press. Sánchez, J.P. (1991). Hispanic American heritage. In H. J. Viola and C. Margolis (Eds.), Seeds of change: A quincentennial commemoration (pp. 173–185). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Sánchez Korrol, V.E. (1983). From colonia to community: The history of Puerto Ricans in New York City, 1917–1948. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Sánchez Korrol, V.E. (1994). In their own right: A history of Puerto Ricans in the USA. In A. Jiménez (Ed.), Handbook of Hispanic cultures in the United States: History (pp. 281–301). Houston, TX: Arte Público Press. Schoultz, L. (1998). Beneath the United States: A history of U.S. policy toward Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shipman, D.E. (1992). Spanish Texas, 1519–1821. Austin: University of Texas Press. Silverstein, S. (2003). Chancellor tackles image problems. Los Angeles Times, May 27. Smith, P.H. (1999). Talons of the eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, W.S. (1991). Portrait of Cuba. Atlanta, GA: Turner. Snipp, C.M. (2003). Racial measurement in the American census: Past practices and implications for the future. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 563–588. Thomas, H. (1971). Cuba: The pursuit of freedom. New York: Harper & Row. U.S. Census Bureau. (1975). Comparison of persons of Spanish surname and persons of Spanish origin in the United States. Technical Paper No. 38. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Census Bureau. (1997). Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/Ombdir15.html [accessed May 2004]. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004a). Census Bureau projects tripling of Hispanic population in 50 years. Available: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001720.html [accessed May 2004]. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004b). Hispanic and Asian Americans increasing faster than overall population. Available: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/race/001839.html [accessed June 2004]. Vargas, Z. (1993). Proletarians of the North: A history of Mexican industrial workers in Detroit and the Midwest, 1917–1933. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wallman, K.K., Evinger, S., and Schechter, S. (2000). Measuring our nation’s diversity. American Journal of Public Health, 90(11), 1704–1708. Walton, J. (2001). Storied land: Community and memory in Monterey. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weber, D.J. (Ed.). (1973). Foreigners in their native land: Historical roots of the Mexican Americans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

OCR for page 16
Hispanics and the Future of America Weber, D.J. (1982). The Mexican frontier, 1821–1846: The American Southwest under Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Weber, D.J. (1992). The Spanish frontier in North America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Williams, T., and Pietrusza, D. (2001). My life in pictures. Kingston, NY: Total Sports. Wright, L. (1994). One drop of blood. The New Yorker, July 24.