JUST SAYIN’-I pride myself in continuing my studies on a broad range of subjects, but am always surprised or even astounded when I come across a fact about which I had no clue, no concept, no inkling—not even a hint.
Thus, when I came across an interview regarding the book and film adaptation, Harvest of Empire by Juan González, I was blown away by what I learned.
If you have been following my series, “Who Are the Real Angelinos?” you may have learned a lot about the early Latino community in California and particularly in Los Angeles. I feel compelled, therefore, to add to the facts I shared at that time. Did you know how and why our southern boundary lines were drawn between the U. S. and Mexico?
Yes. No. Well, let me elucidate. . . .
The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe was the eventual conclusion (after many other failed proposals) to the “resolution” of many significant issues for the U. S.
A good number in Congress had wanted to extend slavery to add to “free” labor as new farmlands and construction for cities and railroads were being developed. Driving this movement was, in part, the desire to add to the trade and mining opportunities (think of the Gold Rush in California).
Early considerations for carving up Mexican Territory reflected the needs of the expanding railroad system to extend southward and westward to new territories and harbors.
The Trans-Continental Railroad (completed in 1869) would need connections to a southern port and then northeast (by-passing the Sierra-Nevada Mountain chain) to newly important places like Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago.
There were many in Congress along with their constituents who wanted to extend slavery all the way to the West Coast to add to the labor supply. They also wanted to move southward (think of General Walker). There were actually very real considerations to conquer all of Mexico (ideas eventually abandoned), in part to overturn that nation’s anti-slavery laws.
By drawing the southern boundary where it did--along the southern border of Texas (the Rio Grande) and westward to the Coast—the addition of the Gadsden Purchase (1854) was needed to provide a route for the Southern Railroad and added what are now the southern regions of Arizona and part of New Mexico.
Our contiguous border was kept north of major Mexican cities (thus, not having to bear financial and other responsibilities for their residents), allowing entrepreneurs (especially farmers and ranchers) to hire very cheap Mexican labor.
At the time of the American Civil War and after our war with Mexico, the Union prevailed. “New” territories which later became states were added to U. S. possessions: those include all or part of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, and, of course, California. Ultimately, the conclusion of the Civil War essentially put an end to existing and future slavery. So. . .from where would cheap labor come?
The fact is, in twenty-first century America (much like in the 1800s and 1900s), the vicissitudes in the labor market have held few surprises. Our current farmers, ranchers, and factory owners (because of the ever-increasing demand for manual and agricultural labor) still depend on labor they can exploit, pay minimum wage (or less), offer no job security, stability or benefits—while at the same time hypocritically denouncing the residence status of these same employees.
California tried the bracero (manual labor) program (1942-64) but when that concluded, many employers still enticed laborers to come across the border illegally and work for them. Currently, one-third of our working population here is Hispanic, yet somehow we choose to overlook the irony of our symbiotic relationship.
Remember the movie, A Day without a Mexican: We need you but don’t want you. Close the borders but somehow sneak across. Bring your families but don’t put your children in our schools (even when those children have proven over and over that most, when offered the opportunity, will go on to college or other occupational fields, to be productive, inventive, creative participants in our business and community milieux).
We can see just how duplicitous our employment and residence policies have been and continue to be. There are those who like to “cling to” their interpretation of our local laws and Federal Constitution to justify their anti-immigrant positions. Yet we simultaneously whisper through underground channels for workers to come across the border “by any means possible,” promising them lives that will be infinitely better than the torture, murder, rape, and desperate poverty they currently experience south of the border.
Yes, there are millions of us who are outraged by these double-edged policies and are actively trying to bring about sensible, logical, and justifiable change. We must no longer draw workers here and then turn our backs on them. We can’t use them up and spit them out. We can’t sap every bit of energy from them and leave them dried up “like a raisin in the sun.” Or as Willie Loman (the low man on the societal totem pole) decries, “A man is not a piece of fruit [that the field hand reaps] that can be eaten and discarded.”
{module [862]} {module [662]}
As for the recent influx of children, Bill Maher satirically noted, “Why should these children want to live in America when they can live in hell” right where they are? Let’s get on the same page and encourage compassionate policy that will take care of our undocumented workers who for so long have worked for themselves, for us, and for a better America. But let’s give special consideration to these precious children (most of whom have family in America already) who have also come here for a better life.
As the untitled poem so accurately states: “Push/pull. . .Where there is desire [for change], there are possibilities. . .concession is not surrender, surrender is not submission.” Let’s push for changes but the right and righteous ones.
And if you are still of the mind that these recently immigrated, desperate children should be sent back home, you be the one to hold their hands and lead them to the other side of the border!
Just sayin’.
(Rosemary Jenkins is a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance. Jenkins has written Leticia in Her Wedding Dress and Other Poems, A Quick-and-Easy Reference to Correct Grammar and Composition and Vignettes for Understanding Literary and Related Concepts. She also writes for CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 58
Pub: Jul 18, 2014