As with many stories, there are always two perspectives. In American History, the two perspectives are the white Americans versus the minorities (e.g. Latinos, Blacks, Native Americans, etc.). Different viewpoints are formed due to different backgrounds. As a result, people can exaggerate events and create misleading stories and beliefs unintentionally. This idea brings to mind a glaring question: Who’s story should we believe? In Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, historian and professor Rodolfo Acuña explores answers to this question. In this case, the two perspectives come from different Mexican heritage scholars and Acuña. He addresses the many myths and stereotypes of Mexicans that have been falsely created. Specifically, in Chapter 4, “Remember the Alamo: The Colonization of Texas,” Acuña argues that an increase in immigration from Mexico to Texas worsened racism and led to an increase in class divisions. He also describes some of the many myths that Historians are using to describe Mexicans. This thesis seems reasonable and historically grounded because Americans have had a pattern of discriminating against minorities with their idea of Manifest Destiny. Acuña brings a new perspective to history, specifically a minority perspective. Yet, some historians undermine his argument as he often highlights Mexicans as victims of Anglo treachery too much.
Acuña first addresses the effects of Texas annexation on Mexicans such as the sets of laws that were enacted to make Mexicans feel racially inferior. Here, Acuña provides readers with specific white leaders that discriminated against Mexicans. For instance, he specifically mentions that Charles Stillman “was the leader of the white cabal and he masterminded the left of the prime lands held by the old Mexican families.” Although Acuña supports his thesis, he, however, fails to provide readers with any primary or secondary sources from Stillman or the Mexicans who were affected by Stillman’s work. He simply just describes Stillman’s journey of monopolizing northern Mexico, a result which makes readers question whether these events and numbers are true or not. Second, Acuña discusses the false stereotypes that Historians have given Juan Cortina. Acuña explains that after a warning shot, Cortina shot Marshal Bob Spears who was whipping a Mexican with his pistol. Acuña argues that this was when “Cortina’s career as a revolutionary began” (Acuña 67). Like many other Mexicans, he believes that Cortina is a prominent leader who helped advocate for Mexicans. He gives readers a Historian’s perspective (a secondary source) to depict how people are falsely describing Cortina: “Lyman Woodman, a retired military officer, wrote a biography of Cortina, describing him as a “soldier, bandit, murderer, cattle thief, mail robber. . .” (Acuña 67). This source is effective for Acuña’s argument because it gives readers factual evidence of the false depiction. Readers are also forced to think about the other events or people that Historians are falsely describing. To further his argument that Cortina is being falsely depicted, he uses Cortina’s speech as a primary source: “My [Cortina] part is taken. . . the Lord will enable me, with powerful arm, to fight against our enemies” (Acuña 67). Instead of simply rewording Cortina’s speech, by quoting it, readers can get a better understanding of Cortina’s determination through his words.
Acuña makes some strong points in his argument and uses primary and secondary sources, but I believe that if he used more primary sources such as diaries or songs, it would make his argument stronger. Furthermore, Acuña name drops a couple of sources but never quotes what they say, he simply paraphrases. For instance, he writes, “The El Paso Evening Tribune reported that 3,000 rebels were marching on Guerrero, which was defended by 800 Mexican soldiers” (Acuña 79). His argument would be more effective if he specifically quotes what the newspaper reported word for word because they are primary sources who lived to report that event. To support his argument, Acuña mentions that “white newcomers formed their own neighborhoods, strictly segregating Mexicans to the older parts of the town” (Acuña 78). Although this is a strong point, I wish that he dived deeper by providing primary sources for what this meant for the Mexicans. Reading someone’s diary who was affected by segregation or a letter with examples of this segregation would make his argument stronger as readers can truly imagine the effects.
Acuña’s argument adds to the greater historical viewpoint as Historians hear a new perspective. This new perspective has spurred debates among other Historians as scholarly reviews about Acuña’s arguments have been mixed. They believe that Acuña is portraying Mexicans as victims of Anglo betrayal. Many prominent scholars, including Gregory Rodriguez, have questioned Acuña’s argument. In a Los Angeles Times book review, Rodriguez accused Acuña of being “perhaps among the first to openly declare that Mexicans did not come to the United States in order to improve their economic prospects” (Rodriguez). Furthermore, he argues that Acuña is too focused on “telling the story of Mexican Americans (the good guys) than. . . highlighting Chicano oppression at the hands of Anglo Americans (the bad guys)” (Rodriguez). In the case of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Professor Rolando Diaz and Acuña both agree that it was the cause of Mexican’s discrimination, but their arguments differ in the effects of Mexican immigration. Acuña claims that after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it “made Mexicans white, without which status they could not be equal or immigrate to the United States” (Acuña 79). In contrast, Diaz argues that after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexicans “don’t belong on either side of the U.S./Mexican border.” He also argues that “the feeling of alienation” not only comes from being considered a “perpetual foreigner in the United States,” but also considered “one who went north and abandoned his language, culture and history in Mexico” (Diaz 33). Here, Acuña blames the Americans for the inequality of Mexicans and never mentions the effects that Mexicans had on their own country.
In conclusion, Acuña’s Occupied America: A History of Chicanos makes some strong points about the effects of the Texas annexation to make Mexicans feel racially inferior and discriminated against. He highlights the many false stereotypes that Historians have depicted Mexicans, a perspective which adds to the history of America’s effects on minorities. Although I do agree with his argument, he fails to provide a sufficient amount of plausible evidence with some of his examples which made his argument weaker. These sources make readers question what is true and what is not true of the stories that people hear from a greater historical perspective. As there are two sides to the American and minority story, there are two sides to Acuña’s argument and other Historians’ argument who differ in the depiction of Chicanos. With that, it is possible that both stories can both be right because they have their own perspective.
Works Cited
Acuña, Rodolfo F. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. 8th ed., Pearson, 2015.
Mechica: Indigenous Origin of the Chicano Hybrid Identity.”What’s Right (and Wrong) with Chicano Studies: An Exchange.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 10 Sept. 2000, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-sep-10-bk-18712-story.html.
Dos Mundos Juntos 