Black racial formation in Texas

Omi and Winant argue that racial categories are sociohistorical concepts that have both cultural ramifications as well as enforcing a definite social order. The manipulation of these constructions as they are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed is what Omi and Winant call race formation (Omi and Winant 54-55). As Montejano's work is an intricate sociological history of the "Mexican" race, it describes racial formation over time.

In Montejano, one example of racial formation of Texas Mexicans is in the transformation from a rancher to an agrarian society at the turn of the century. Under the old-timer ranchers, there was a paternalistic relationship with the Mexican vaqueros and peones. The rancher kept his people fed, housed, taken care of when sick, and protected when necessary. In response, the Mexican laborers and ranch hands held a loyalty to the rancher, turning out to vote for their rancher's preferred candidate in huge numbers, forming a political machine. The relationship between the Anglo rancher and his Mexican workers was congenial and friendly, even characterized by some as "loving" (Montejano 130). Even though this relationship was not one of equality, it was one of mutual respect, both individually and culturally. Most of the old-timer Anglo ranch elite were Mexicanized in their company, their culture, their food, their language, and just about every aspect of their life. In a way, the Anglo ranchers had integrated themselves into the Mexican way of life -- it served their needs under a "quasi-feudal" ranching socioeconomy almost perfectly. Accommodation characterized Mexican-Anglo relations under this economic structure.

As farmers moved into the border region, however, this accommodative structure of Mexican-Anglo relations was eroded. As ranches were eaten away tract by tract, once ranch-loyal vaqueros and peones were forced out of ranch work and had to resort to manual laboring in the fields of the farmers and growers. While the old ranch society had seen differences between old Spanish or "Castilian" families and the Christianized indians, the one as being the landed elite of European descent and the other as the lower class, laboring peones, these distinctions were thrown out by Anglo growers in favor of a more conclusive "Mexican" identity which included all Hispanics. This redefinition destroyed inter-Hispanic class and racial differences as a social-definitional force. Along the same lines, one did not become an Anglo until you set foot in Texas. Germans were distinct from Irish were distinct form other white ethnicities. These distinction also were redefined under a more expansive definition of "whiteness" which included all whites as "Anglos." This redefinition of what it meant to be Mexican or Anglo is an example of racial formation. This redefinition was a result of a political project of the increasingly agrarian economy. As agriculture became the dominant economy of the area, Mexicans were no longer life long loyal friends, but "dirty" field workers who performed contractual and impersonal labor for a wage. The resulting alienation of Mexican and Anglo and the destruction of the personal and cultural understanding of the ranch society caused this redefinition of the hegemony of the "Mexican" race.

Montejano argues that the impetus for the segregation of whites and Mexicans in Texas initially derived from the transformation of Texas from a ranch to an agricultural economy. The rise of segregation had three distinct elements: new, impersonal wage labor relations, the culture of "race-thinking," and basic labor problems.

As agriculture began slowly consuming ranch land and becoming the dominant economic and political force in south Texas, these social-economic relationships changed as well. The feudalistic and paternalistic model of the patron - peon relationships so well suited to the year round work of ranching was incongruous with the developing agricultural economy. The emerging economic relationship of wage labor and impersonal contractual work served to prevent the formation of sympathetic ties between the Mexican and Anglo grower that had evolved between the Mexican and Anglo rancher. The Mexican was no longer a life long loyal friend but, rather, a "dirty" field worker who probably didn't speak good English, couldn't understand politics, was inherently dumb or incapable of higher understanding, and was wholly un-American, regardless of citizenship.

A culture of race-thinking also became popular among the new farmers. Since the social interaction of farmer and Mexican were limited to the negotiation of wage contracts, no understanding of Mexican culture developed under the new grower society. While the ranchers were Mexicanized in their language, food, and culture due to intimate personal relationships between ranchers and the Mexican vaqueros and peones, no such understanding or accommodation developed under the farmers. The Anglo newcomers did not understand nor appreciate Mexicans or Mexican culture, nor did they wish to (Montejano 116). This alienation of Mexican and Anglo had severe consequences, but the effect it had on the consciousness of Anglo growers was immense.

In order to explain why segregation was natural and reasonable, the culture of race thinking arose. Biblical quotes, religious explanations, biological explanations, etc. were used to justify the subordinate position of Texas Mexicans. Texas history was rewritten to make the Alamo a battle of white vs. Mexican and an Anglo-Saxon nationalism uniting the pride and common interests of all whites became an important cultural element of south Texas. The "dirty" Mexican field laborer became diseased and infectious while schooling taught Anglo superiority and domination to both white and Mexican children.

The labor problems of south Texas were centered on how to keep the Mexican workforce tied to Texas soil without offering competitive wages. Cheap Mexican labor was one of the few advantages Texas farms had over other farming enterprises in America. In fact, the cheapness of Mexican labor turned out to be more powerful than the mechanization of farms for decades. Since the Patron - Peon relationship of the ranch society had largely disappeared, there was little to keep a migrant work force of field laborers from traveling north in search of better wages. Share croppers were immobilized through the use of debt, and in times of surplus their contracts would be terminated and their crop appropriated. Debt was ill-suited to migratory labor, however. To control migratory labor horsewhipping, chains, armed guards, near starvation diets, vagrancy laws, local pass systems, and labor taxes all contributed to the repression and control of migratory Mexican labor (Montejano 201). These methods served to control the labor force and reinforce the mentality of Mexican inferiority.

All three of these elements led to the convenient institutionalization of segregation. Segregation formed a perfect legitimization for labor control and repressive measures which supported the economy of the area that thrived on cheap Mexican labor. This convenient legitimization was justified by the culture of "race-thinking" and supported by the alienation of Anglo and Mexican due to the impersonal, temporary wage contract which undermined interracial interaction.

This segregated order, however, proved to be vulnerable. One vulnerability was that segregation and the necessary labor repression associated with it were not completely institutionalized. Each county had its own method of labor control and the attempts to unify this system of labor control failed. The fact that Texas was prone to federal mandates and court rulings was a part of this weakness. The less repressive urban centers and Mexican ranch counties also attracted thousands of Mexicans suffering under segregation and repression in the fields to areas of greater tolerance. This resulted in a loss of the labor pool available to farmers and an increase of labor generally available to urban industry (Montejano 161).