2
Montejano called it “The Mexican Problem,” that is, what is the conqueror to do
with the conquered? What are “we” (an Anglo “we”) to do with the Mexican?
Throughout the history of the Southwest, there appears to be one major and consistent
strategy for dealing with the Mexican – the formation of Borders. At times these Borders
are the physical ones, fences that divide one nation from another. Yet at others, Borders
are largely symbolic constructions, changeable boundaries that separate one people from
another, without regards to national allegiance or citizenship, culture or contribution. By
looking at how Borders are formed and maintained over time and under different
circumstances for Mexican (Americans), we can better understand the intersections
between race and nation in a country with both vast racial diversity and vast racial
inequality.
Race and racism are an integral part of the formation of physical and symbolic
boundaries, for they provide both the criteria and the justification for exclusion from
legitimate citizenship. Benedict Anderson argues that nations are “imagined
communities,” and racism erases the nation (1983:148). But exploring the history of the
Mexican (or other racial minority populations) in America illustrates that Anderson
underestimated the power of racial ideology to draw upon and reinforce racial images of
who constitutes the nation. Anderson writes, “…nationalism thinks in terms of historical
destinies, while racism dreams of eternal contaminations, transmitted from the origins of
time through an endless sequence of loathsome copulations: outside history” (1983:149).
However, nationalism and racism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the two concepts
tend to rely on each other to differentiate between those included and those excluded (in
the nation, by virtue of race). Citizenship operates on many levels, which is made
Convention