Author Howard Bryant and reviewer Louis Masur, in their excellent historical review of baseball racism ["Raceball in Boston," Oct. 28], perpetuate the myth that Jackie Robinson was the first African-American in the majors. Definitely not, and, as Casey said, you can look it up. The first was Bobby Estalella, who was born in Cardenas, Cuba, in 1911 and played in the Bigs for the Philadelphia A's and Washington Senators from 1935 to 1949. In contrast to his parents, he was light-skinned, and his racial background was ignored then and since. There is a bronze plaque for Estalella in Cardenas.
It seems that, like the one proposed for marking Roger Maris's breaking of the Ruth home run record back in 1961 with an asterisk to denote the 162-game season, the record books should also record all statistics before and after 1947. Before, obviously, many of the best players were denied the game, so the Babe Ruths never had to face the Satchel Paiges or the Walter Johnsons throw to the Josh Gibsons.
DON SLOAN
Nation intern Eric Ditzian reports: Bobby (Roberto) "Tarzan" Estalella, a mulatto Afro-Cuban, was the first baseball player to cross major league baseball's color line. But when Estalella came to the Washington Senators in 1935, the team assured everyone that he was not black but Cuban. As Baseball Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey says, "If you were a Latino player and your skin was light enough, you could play in the major leagues before 1947. Bobby Estalella...is an example of that." Estalella's grandson, also named Bobby Estalella, currently plays catcher for the Colorado Rockies.
--The Editors
Before El Duque There was Luque
and Before Robinson There was Estalella
Posted: Mon 11 Jul 2005 13:58 Post subject: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
Quote:
Author Howard Bryant and reviewer Louis Masur, in their excellent historical review of baseball racism ["Raceball in Boston," Oct. 28], perpetuate the myth that Jackie Robinson was the first African-American in the majors. Definitely not, and, as Casey said, you can look it up. The first was Bobby Estalella, who was born in Cardenas, Cuba, in 1911 and played in the Bigs for the Philadelphia A's and Washington Senators from 1935 to 1949. In contrast to his parents, he was light-skinned, and his racial background was ignored then and since. There is a bronze plaque for Estalella in Cardenas.
I notice here they use African American (a supposed ethnic term) and black interchangeably: Jackie Robinson is not the first African American in the majors, a Cuban is(?).
Also, in Cuba, Afro Cuban, which Estalella is claimed to be, doesn't have the same meaning African American has in this society.
I still see some of this confusion when discussing baseball today. Dominican baseball players, like Pedro Martinez, are rarely referred to as black when issues of race in baseball are discussed, despite the fact that many are as "black" as many American players like Barry Bonds. They are usually referred to as dark or brown.
Posted: Mon 11 Jul 2005 14:47 Post subject: Re: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
Powell wrote:
Quote:
DON SLOAN
Nation intern Eric Ditzian reports: Bobby (Roberto) "Tarzan" Estalella, a mulatto Afro-Cuban, was the first baseball player to cross major league baseball's color line. But when Estalella came to the Washington Senators in 1935, the team assured everyone that he was not black but Cuban. As Baseball Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey says, "If you were a Latino player and your skin was light enough, you could play in the major leagues before 1947. Bobby Estalella...is an example of that." Estalella's grandson, also named Bobby Estalella, currently plays catcher for the Colorado Rockies.
--The Editors
Before El Duque There was Luque
and Before Robinson There was Estalella
I wonder if the writers would see Estalella's grandson who plays in the majors as black.
I take issue with the theme of the article, Before El Duque There was Luque and Before Robinson There was Estalella. The author implies that white Cubans baseball players like Adolfo "Dolf" Luque and light-skinned mulattos like Estalella paved the way for Jakie Robinson. How? Both the white Cubans and Estalella were seen as white.
Luque's being called a "Cuban nigger" in the early part of the 20th Century could be seen in the same vein as Italians and Jews being seen as non-white during the same period in this country. It's not clear that he faced opposition to his playing from baseball fans or owners because he might have been "black".
Estalella's African ancestry was ignored or people were unaware of it. He obviously didn't bring it up, so how did these players pave the way for Robinson?
In order for them to have paved Robinson’s way, they would have had to be seen as “black”, as well deal with the racism of team mates and fans directed at them as black people. Neither Luque nor even Estalella had to suffer the indignities that Robinson and other black baseball players would suffer later on. And Even if Manuel Hidalgo (the Chinese Cuban player) made it to the majors, as a person of Asian background, he wouldn't have been treated the same way as someone who was black and seen as such.
It is more accurate to claim that Robinson paved the way for players of color, especially black ones, including those from Latin America who were more obviously African in appearance like Minny Minoso.
Posted: Fri 07 Oct 2005 12:46 Post subject: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
Arnaz was definitely white. He may have had some African ancestry, but personally I doubt it. His father was the mayor of the Cuban city of Santiago.
The idea that Lucy and Desi were an interracial couple has much to do with people in this country (the U.S.) believing that Hispanics consititute a distinct race of people, regardless of their appearance or ancestral backgrounds.
Posted: Sat 08 Oct 2005 01:00 Post subject: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
Also, the concept of white in the U.S. is rooted in ideas of racial purity, or at least being free of any African ancestry. Additionally, anyone with African ancestry is seen as black (sort of).
In Cuba, whiteness isn't based on ideas of racial purity; many white people have recent African ancestry. Furthermore, the Spaniards who settled Cuba came from places like Adalucia, the Canary Islands, etc. These people had an appearance similar to Arnaz's. Greeks and Southern Italians have a similar appearance to Arnaz's as well.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 08 Oct 2005 01:44 Post subject: Re: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
G-Man wrote:
Also, the concept of white in the U.S. is rooted in ideas of racial purity, or at least being free of any African ancestry. Additionally, anyone with African ancestry is seen as black (sort of).
In Cuba, whiteness isn't based on ideas of racial purity; many white people have recent African ancestry. Furthermore, the Spaniards who settled Cuba came from places like Adalucia, the Canary Islands, etc. These people had an appearance similar to Arnaz's. Greeks and Southern Italians have a similar appearance to Arnaz's as well.
Hi,
Yes. You are right !
Half europe look like that. I include myself too, because most of my ancestors came from southern Europe.
People forget that there are lots of ligth brown skin people in southern Europe in places like Andalucia, Portugal, southern France, Sicilia, Greece, and even in Austria and Germany. People forget that even some famous germans had that aspect, like phylosopher Martin Heidegger for instance.
In that particular sub-groups of southern Europeans is very common the curly hair and also a color of eyes that is so dark it shines like a mirror: those are called moorish eyes. And they also forget that most Greeks of classical times were represented like curly people.
Yes. Lots of people in Southern Europe does not fit at all the pattern of the Germans, Sweedish and Anglo saxon classical complexion. And they are as much Europeans as the former.
But it is curious, also, that even the British have lots of dark looking individuals in the past, like Francis Drake, for instance, that had an arabic aspec in a picture I saw once.
The truth is there is not a clear cut between the "white race" and the "black race" or the "Yellow race", and never existed. People of south of the Sahara and from Scandinavia look very different, but if we cross that region by feet, jumping at Gibraltar or following the Middle East coast, we will discover that there is a continuoum from North to South and that Blacks become White (or viceversa) very slowly. And that nobody knows were one start and the other ends.
That region has been like that since thousands of years ago. And it is curious that the place were ancient civilizations started was not in the extreme north or south but in the middle. In the places were north south and east get together.
...and as for Desi Arnaz and if he has some African ancestry - any Cuban will tell you "We ALL have a little of it in us."
Moreover, Desi was from Santiago, which is an area known to have the highest concentration of mulattoes/blacks - so that makes it even more likely.
That doesn't change the fact that I am certain he identified as white. People keep forgetting, - no place but America identifies a person as black based on known African ancestry. The rest of the planet does it by the look.
Posted: Sat 08 Oct 2005 12:23 Post subject: Re: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
oevega wrote:
The fact that most of the Americans are from Germanic descent, does not mean that every European look Germanic at all.
Oddly enough, Omar is correct. Americans apparently are mostly of German heritage. At least that is what they report on the census. The most popular choices of ethnicity on the U.S. decennial census long form are: German (23.3%), Irish (15.6%), English (13.1%), African-American (10.0%), and Italian (5.9%).
German-Americans (at left) in 1751 Pennsylvania were seen as too dark-complexioned to pass for White. According to Benjamin Franklin in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. … The Germans are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion. … The English make the principle Body of White People of the Face of the Earth."
....
German-American whitening came only when (although continuing to support abolition) they socially distanced themselves from free African-Americans. After three generations, German-Americans finally acquired political strength in Pennsylvania's legislature. They promptly outlawed Black-White intermarriage and revoked African-American citizenship. Pennsylvania's Blacks were first prevented from voting in 1822 and formally disfranchised in 1837. Subsequently, Pennsylvania's colored "Germans" re-labeled themselves as White "Pennsylvania Dutch."
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 08 Oct 2005 18:55 Post subject: Re: Baseball and the Latino Escape Hatch
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
The fact that most of the Americans are from Germanic descent, does not mean that every European look Germanic at all.
Oddly enough, Omar is correct. Americans apparently are mostly of German heritage. At least that is what they report on the census. The most popular choices of ethnicity on the U.S. decennial census long form are: German (23.3%), Irish (15.6%), English (13.1%), African-American (10.0%), and Italian (5.9%).
Hi Frank!
Yes. I got it ! Oddy enough I am right this time
I would like to remember to the members of this group that in Europe there is racial divide that comes from prehistoric times. Is the line that divides Mediterraneans from Germanics in the south and Slavs and Mongols from Germanics, this time in the East. One can understand a lot of historical events if take that in consideration.
The idea of a "white" race is just a myth. Europe, the home of the "white" race has never been a single genetic and cultural entity.
I would like to remember, as well, that Germanic peoples (Anglos an Saxons included) were the primitive and savages of Northern Europe for most of ancient history, and that their descendents only are in power since the XVI century. More precisely, since the defeat of the Spanish Armada.
Today the peak of the "white" Germanic culture has reached its cenit and only decline can follows. Who know what the future would bring.
I hope that only the recognition we are all human beings, and that people deserve to know their past in a healthy manner.
Posted: Sun 09 Oct 2005 03:00 Post subject: the concept of white in the U.S.
Quote:
Also, the concept of white in the U.S. is rooted in ideas of racial purity, or at least being free of any African ancestry. Additionally, anyone with African ancestry is seen as black (sort of).
Actually, if that were really true, Latinos as a group would be "black." It is an open "secret" that Latinos and Arabs usually have some sub-Saharan or "black" ancestry. The gentleman's agreement is that you don't publicly claim it. In Frank's research on racial classification trials, your "black blood" was frequently less important than your perceived relationship with blacks and mulattoes.
It is difficult to say what the "American" definition of "black" is because it changes all the time and often depends on circumstances. The same can be said for "white." Examples:
Latinos: Not "black" because of political power and ethnic solidarity on this issue. Some exception for Latinos who claim they are "black Latinos." Intermarriage far more with "whites" than "blacks."
Arabs and others from Muslim countries: Not "black" because of ethnic solidarity and federal policy of classifying such people as "white" regardless of color or phenotype. Can easily become non-white and victims of racism when their native countries are seen as enemies of the U.S.
Melungeons: Not "black" because mostly white-identified despite acknowledged African ancestry. Few direct family ties with publicly identified "blacks." Marriage partners are usually "white."
Lumbees: Not "black" because of state-sanctioned identification as an Indian tribe and ethnic solidarity.
Cajuns: Not "black" because of ethnic solidarity and determination to be "white" in traditionally racist Louisiana. There has been unacknowledged intermarriage and concubinage with Creoles, and many Americans consider Cajuns a bit "off-white."
Creoles: Usually seen as exotic types of "blacks" because they lack solidarity in regard to upward caste mobility. Too many Creoles have presented themselves as "black," "African American" or "Negro" leaders and their public image "blackens" the whole group. I will say that Anatole Broyard probably wouldn't have been "blackened" after death if he had left family willing to defend him against the "passing" charge raised by blacks such as Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Unfortunately, his widow and children were too "white liberal" - meaning that they looked to blacks for "wisdom" on "race" issues instead of using their own common sense.
"Free-lance" victims of the ODR. In order to be a victim while living, you must internalize the ODR and police yourself. This is what Gregory Howard Williams, August Wilson, Judy Scales Trent, Adrian Piper, and others have done. These people tend to be very confused and have little knowledge of the "impurity" of the "white" racial classification in America. They almost never mention Latinos, because their existence contradicts the ODR. (What "white racist" worth his salt claims that the dreaded "black blood" is welcome to "pollute" the "white race" as long as it came from an African who was taught Spanish instead of English or French?). They generally claim that American "society" has "forced" them to be "black" and that they "choose" to be "black." They condemn "whites" for allegedly "forcing" them to be "black" and also for REFUSING to see them as "black." They claim that blacks accept them, reject them, and question their "blackness."
The ODR is also enforced when American blacks claim as members of their "ethnic" group people who have no ancestral ties to them beyond some sub-Saharan African ancestry. So, if you're raised completely by white relatives (Barack Obama), an immigrant from England (Alice Jones Rhinelander). a British citizen (Thandie Newton), or a German immigrant (Boris Kudjo), you get labeled as "African American" (which is synonymous with "Negro" and hardly ever used for real immigrants from Africa, who are labeled as part of the "Negro" group).
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 09 Oct 2005 13:49 Post subject: Re: the concept of white in the U.S.
Hi Mrs. Powell,
Reading your comment make me to believe you don't know the racial make-up of Europe. Don't you know half Europe is not Germanic, or "white" as you preffer to say?
It would be very interesting to apply your one-drop theories about blackness to Europeans, and wait for what they have to say
Most of the South of Europe look as "black" as what you say are one- droppers black Latinos
Yes. You will find a lot of Negros passing as white in Europe. I tell you
I will comment you now,
Powell wrote:
Quote:
Also, the concept of white in the U.S. is rooted in ideas of racial purity, or at least being free of any African ancestry. Additionally, anyone with African ancestry is seen as black (sort of).
Actually, if that were really true, Latinos as a group would be "black." It is an open "secret" that Latinos and Arabs usually have some sub-Saharan or "black" ancestry.
What's the secret? Latinos have always say they have its roots in three races: Europeans, Indians and Blacks, in that order. There are many Latinos that have some Black ancestry, and what? Besides, the Hispanic culture is proud of the Moorish past, which also have some "drops" of Black ancestry.
What is not very smart, though, is to claim that Latin America is pure African. Actually there are a lot more Blacks in the United States than in Latin America as a whole. And, for what is worth it, the Latin American black is (in average) a lot lighter than the U.S. Black, because there is not a racial divide down south.
If someone really want to know Latinos start for recognizing they descend from Europeans and Indians in the first place, because that make more than the 90% of their genetics. Only when that is done one can begin to study the African minorities south of the border
Quote:
The gentleman's agreement is that you don't publicly claim it.
I don't know where that gentlement agreement started. But I am actually quite sure no Latino was consulted about it.
Quote:
Latinos: Not "black" because of political power and ethnic solidarity on this issue. Some exception for Latinos who claim they are "black Latinos." Intermarriage far more with "whites" than "blacks."
Latinos are not considere Blacks because of the following:
(a) Most are actually not Blacks.
(b) Latinos don't want to be asociated to either Blacks or Whites of the United States. Latinos don't want to be confussed with the Anglos, which came in colors white and black.
Quote:
Arabs and others from Muslim countries: Not "black" because of ethnic solidarity and federal policy of classifying such people as "white" regardless of color or phenotype.
Most Arabs ARE NOT blacks either. At least, they don't look like Nigerians.
Quote:
They almost never mention Latinos, because their existence contradicts the ODR. (What "white racist" worth his salt claims that the dreaded "black blood" is welcome to "pollute" the "white race" as long as it came from an African who was taught Spanish instead of English or French?). They generally claim that American "society" has "forced" them to be "black" and that they "choose" to be "black." They condemn "whites" for allegedly "forcing" them to be "black" and also for REFUSING to see them as "black." They claim that blacks accept them, reject them, and question their "blackness."
Why to force a "Black" Hispanic to be something they are not.
Black Hispanics carry Europeans and Indians genetics as well. Many of them, regardless of the color of skin, have the same face features of the rest of Latinos. The fact they got dark skin is just an "accident" that has anything to do with a Black identity.
Posted: Tue 11 Oct 2005 05:37 Post subject: "One Drop" genetics
The purpose of my last posting was to show the contradiction and hypocrisy inherent in the "one drop rule" advocated by American blacks and those who THINK they are "black" because they have been taught they are not good enough for the rest of their ancestry.
Yes, most Latinos and Arabs are not "black." Neither are Anatole Broyard, Charles Chestnutt, Gregory Howard Williams, Jean Toomer and thousands of other "gringos" who are claimed by blacks (based on a doctrine of "inferior" or stigmatized black blood) but do not have the shield of the Hispanic escape hatch.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 12 Oct 2005 01:24 Post subject: Re: "One Drop" genetics
Powell wrote:
The purpose of my last posting was to show the contradiction and hypocrisy inherent in the "one drop rule" advocated by American blacks and those who THINK they are "black" because they have been taught they are not good enough for the rest of their ancestry.
Yes, most Latinos and Arabs are not "black." Neither are Anatole Broyard, Charles Chestnutt, Gregory Howard Williams, Jean Toomer and thousands of other "gringos" who are claimed by blacks (based on a doctrine of "inferior" or stigmatized black blood) but do not have the shield of the Hispanic escape hatch.
Hi,
Mixed people has to develop a personality!
I recall a famous American golf player, Tyger Woods, that is mixed African and Asian and that he stand for both his heritages.
That's the way to do it, I guess. Latinos attitude is that as well.
Posted: Wed 12 Oct 2005 23:03 Post subject: Re: "One Drop" genetics
Powell wrote:
Yes, most Latinos and Arabs are not "black." Neither are Anatole Broyard, Charles Chestnutt, Gregory Howard Williams, Jean Toomer and thousands of other "gringos" who are claimed by blacks (based on a doctrine of "inferior" or stigmatized black blood) but do not have the shield of the Hispanic escape hatch.
This notion of the "latino escape hatch" (that you keep bringing up), in which the african ancestry of Latin Americans is completely ignored is 100% false, and complete nonsense. Before the "latino/ethnic" ethnic category was created (in 1970), Latin American people were subject to the same racial standards as everybody else. The race of Puertoricans and Cubans was generally considered to be either "white", "negro", "oriental", or "indian" ect ; just like people of all national origins . In the days on Anatole Broyard, and Jean Toomer, Arthur Schomberg(puertorican), and all other Latinos known to be of african descent were also considered to be "Negro".
The "One Drop rule" applied (just as strictly) to Cubans and Puertoricans. Those that could not prove 100% europeans ancestry, could not play in the major leagues.....and many were playing baseball in the negro leagues. Estalella was the first to get away with ambigous looks.
This story is all about the Cubans, and the American confusion between race and ethnicity and the racist notion of the "one drop rule." At the heart of the story is the fact that Caucasian Cubans who could prove pure European ancestry were allowed to play in the United States, and many American white players played professional winter baseball in Cuba......................
In 1900, a Cuban player named Luis Padron (who as a pitcher had lead the Cuban league in wins and also in hits) was asked to try out with the Chicago White Sox. However, when doubts as to his racial purity were raised, the White Sox immediately released him and he never played. A couple of years later, John McGraw brought to the US a Cuban player named Luis "Anguilla" Bustamante, who he called "the perfect short stop." Unfortunately for Bustamante, who was half black, his timing was off by half a century. Hearing of Bustamante's prowess, around 1903-4, Clark Griffith, then with the New York Highlanders (later the Yankees), had Bustamante brought up for a try-out. As soon as Griffith saw Bustamante, according to Angel Torres, author of "The Baseball Bible," Griffith ended the try-out and simply said: "Too chocolate."
Cuban baseball legend has it that when August Herrmann, the president and owner of the Cincinnati Reds, went to the train station to meet them, he gasped when he saw two young black men come out of the train, and that he even approached them first. But they were not the Cubans. The two Cubans had an escort who had brought them to Cincinnati, and he in turn approached and spoke to a shaky Herrmann, who then met the Cubans for the first time. Herrmann was pleased and relieved about their appearance. They were not, as it was incorrectly reported in the next day's paper, "small and swarthy in complexion," [but showed] "practically no effects of the tropical heat and sun." The Reds appeased the alarmed fans by assuring them that both of these players were of pure European blood. In fact, this was true, as according to Cuban sources and accounts of the times, Marsans was the son of Catalan immigrants to Cuba, and Almeida the son of Portuguese immigrants.
To make matters worse for Marsans and Almeida, it was customary with Cuban and other Latin American players, regardless of race, to play in the US Negro Leagues. In doing so, players could play year round: summer in the US and winter in Cuba. Both Marsans and Almeida had earlier played in the Negro Leagues.
This probably complicated things for Herrmann, and to further appease the fans, the Reds required that both Cubans bring notarized paperwork from the Cuban authorities, certifying that Marsans and Almeida were indeed white of unmixed blood.
Luque was the first true Latin American star of the Major Leagues. He won nearly 200 games, played in nine World Series, and in 1918 had an astonishing 27 and 8 record with a 1.93 ERA while playing with the Cincinnati Reds. He was also a man who did not take insults from anyone, and according to Gonzalez Echavarria, he was a "snarling, vulgar, cursing, aggressive pug, who, although small at five-seven, was always ready to fight." These characteristics served Luque well in the racist environment of the early 20th century MLB. Although he was very fair and blue-eyed, and no one could distinguish him from the other white players until he opened his mouth, Luque was nonetheless the butt of many racial insults, to which he usually responded with brutal beanballs.
The race of latinos has only been ingored since 1970, when the "one drop rule" no longer applied to ANYBODY anyway..... before then latinos with obvious african ancestry were "black" like everybody else.
Posted: Wed 12 Oct 2005 23:35 Post subject: Re: "One Drop" genetics
Phil345 wrote:
Before the "latino/ethnic" ethnic category was created (in 1970), Latin American people were subject to the same racial standards as everybody else. <snip> The race of latinos has only been ingored since 1970, when the "one drop rule" no longer applied to ANYBODY anyway..... before then latinos with obvious african ancestry were "black" like everybody else.
Phil345 is correct that Caribbean Hispanics of obviously visible African admixture were generally considered Black during the Jim Crow era. I would add three points to the explanation, however.
First, Phill345's explanation seems to use the federal census as indicator of overall U.S. acceptance of Hispanics as non-Black. If this is the measure, then I would say that the change happened in 1960, not 1970. The 1960 census was the first where each individual chose his/her own race, rather than have it assigned by a census taker. Despite the lack of a "Hispanic" question in 1960, 90 percent of Caribbean Hispanics chose to be White in that census (or wrote in something equivalent). I remember this vividly because according to Cornell University records, I was officially Colored (Puerto Rican) when I matriculated in 1958 but I was officially White (still Puerto Rican) when I graduated in 1964.
Second, the custom of seeing visibly mixed Euro-African Caribbean Hispanics as Black only arose around 1920. Before then, they were not seen as Black. Hundreds of court cases were held between 1780 and today to determine which side of the color line someone was on. Except for the 1920-1960 Jim Crow period, one of the most common ways of proving your Whiteness was to show that you had Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. In fact, James Weldon Johnson tells a hilarious anecdote, in his autobiography, of being accepted into a train's Whites-only smoking car by deliberately speaking with a fake Spanish accent.
Finally, I would not say that since 1970, "the one-drop rule no longer applied to ANYBODY anyway." On the contrary, it is very important today. Indeed, since affirmative action and EEOC discrimination rulings depend upon which side of the color line a litigant is on, it may be more important than ever. See Features of Today’s One-Drop Rule for details.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 17 Oct 2005 04:05; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu 13 Oct 2005 15:25 Post subject: Latinos and Whiteness
An official designation as "white" or at least nonblack has always been a great advantage, even if many whites didn't agree with it. Mexican-Americans in this country were often treated as blacks (especially in Texas), but they responded to this discrimination by demanding to be classified as whites. They were not interested in promoting the equality of non-Hispanics who fell into the "Negro" classification.
LULAC's Milestones
What follows are some of the milestones accomplished by LULAC in its history. These milestones offered many difficult struggles, at times – life threatening, that LULAC and its members endured to get equality in justice, employment, housing, health care, and education for all Hispanics.
1929
Feb. 17, 1929: The League of United Latin American Citizens is formed in Corpus Christi, Texas.
1930
Desegregated hundreds of public places throughout Texas, such as barber shops, beauty shops, swimming pools, restrooms, water drinking fountains, public dinning places, and hotels.
1931
Provided the organization and financial base for the Salvatierra vs. Del Rio Independent School District case, the first class action lawsuit against segregated "Mexican Schools" in Texas.
1933
Formed a committee in San Antonio which led to the formation of the Liga Defensa Pro-Escolar, later known as the "School Improvement League" that fought for better schools and better education.
1936
Pressured the U.S. Census Bureau to reclassify persons of Mexican descent from the designation of "Mexican" to "White". The 1940 census count reflected the change.
Mexican Americans were not allowed to vote because in many instances they could not understand the English language, because they were not allowed to learn it. Finally, when Mexican American were able to vote, they had to pay for this right. Many were not able to pay, instead their anglo bosses paid this charge and told them who to vote for.
Many Mexican Americans were denied jobs because they were perceived as lazy, poorly dressed, dirty, ill educated, and thieves. In the end, many Mexican men and their entire families worked in the fields, farms, and ranches and their children never went to school.
American children had to attend segregated schools known as "Mexican Schools. "In those days "Mexican Schools" were legal in the southwest. These schools were staffed with the worse of teachers and the buildings were in deplorable conditions.
Discrimination against Mexican Americans was awful. One of the best kept secret in American history is that in those years there were more Mexican Americans hung then the total number of blacks that had been hung during the civil war. One famous anglo gunfighter was once asked how many men he had killed. His response was that each notch on the handles of his guns represented one kill and that he had twenty seven notches, not counting Mexicans. However, discrimination did not know any age limit. In one incident a young Mexican American girl who was eating a dry tortilla had choked to death because her peers were not allowed to get her a drink of water from a "whites only" water fountain. In another incident, LULAC members on a weekend recruitment journey, stopped at a hamburger place. One of the men went to the takeout window and placed an order. When the food was ready, he was told that he had to go to the black section to eat his food. When he told the food handler that he was Mexican and not black, the food was taken away and he was asked to leave.
Writing this year in Journal of Negro History Adrian Burgos, a graduate student at the University of Michigan, says that the U.S. idea of "race" was problematic for Latinos who had to learn to negotiate this American reality.
According to Burgos, "They were neither [B]lack nor white as so defined in U.S. racial terms." Socially, for example, Black Cubans who played in the United States were not considered "Negroes," but as foreigners or Latin Americans. Black Cubans and non-white Latinos, however, were generally not permitted into the major leagues. This was particularly true prior to World War II. (Burgos was able to find 11 Latino baseball players who played in both the Negro Leagues and the major leagues.)
While Latino baseball players were generally segregated on the baseball field, they were subjected to less societal discrimination than African Americans, says F61ix Masud-Piloto, director of the Center for Latino Research at De Paul University. For that reason, says Masud-Piloto, some members of the Negro leagues often tried to pass themselves off as Cubans when seeking lodging or meals. There were also times when Latinos on the Black teams would have to order food for everyone to ensure they all were fed.
Most of these Latino players had African, European, and indigenous blood flowing through their veins. Their appearance defied America's narrow, black or white, definition of race. In fact, José Acosta and Jacinto Calvo, both Cubans, pulled an amazing feat--first playing in the old Negro Leagues in 1915 and then "passing" in the segregated big leagues five years later.
Why have they been forgotten?
Because many early Latino players, with their "un-American" skin colors, were treated like novelties and slipped under the U.S. racial radar. But the best Latino players, whose African ancestry was evident, were barred from the big leagues, along with legendary Negro Leaguers like Hall of Famer Josh Gibson.
Those who slipped into the big leagues were sworn to lie about their African heritage and barely made a dent in the public consciousness before fading into oblivion. For centuries, the U.S. refused to forthrightly deal with the raism it visited upon African Americans. And Latinos were rendered invisible.
Posted: Thu 13 Oct 2005 19:10 Post subject: Re: Latinos and Whiteness
Powell wrote:
An official designation as "white" or at least nonblack has always been a great advantage, even if many whites didn't agree with it. Mexican-Americans in this country were often treated as blacks (especially in Texas), but they responded to this discrimination by demanding to be classified as whites.
Quote:
1936
Pressured the U.S. Census Bureau to reclassify persons of Mexican descent from the designation of "Mexican" to "White". The 1940 census count reflected the change.
Its very misleading when people say "mexicans used to be white", as if all the brown and obvious non-white persons we are used to seeing, were somehow classified as "white". Only white Mexicans were classified as "white".
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
