Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In the late 1960s, the concept of Aztlán became a powerful, temporarily unifying force within the Chicano Movement. Chicano nationalists articulated a lineage to the indigenous Aztecs and contended that Aztlán, the Aztecan ancestral homeland, was located in the U.S. Southwest. This discursive strategy functioned as a counterhistory to U.S. master narratives that located Chicanos as always already foreign regardless of juridical status. Through Aztlán, Chicanos positioned themselves as linked to the land—immigration, in this framework, was merely a return to one’s ancestral home. But Aztlán was more than a home of the past; it became the model for Chicano nation-building projects (Anaya and Lomeli 1991). At the 1969 Denver Youth Conference, this Chicano homeland became articulated in “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán,” where the Chicano nation was populated by a “Bronze Brotherhood” that found unity between Chicanos, Mexicans, and recent immigrants. Since the height of the movement, Aztlán has come under critique for its patriarchal and heteronormative construction, limited scope, and political inefficacy (Anzaldúa 1987, Chávez 1984, Pérez-Torres 1995).

As this paper will explore, Aztlán has recently resurfaced in the unexpected place of nativist discourse. Anti-immigrant groups and cultural workers have adopted and adapted Aztlán not as a near utopic “Bronze Brotherhood.” Rather as evidenced in Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Chicano claims to a cultural homeland are re-scripted to depict a cultural and racial invasion (2006). This nativist redeployment of Aztlán is a significant development for those who seek to understand the relationship between discourses of history and power. Traditionally, narratives of aggrieved peoples have been read as counterhistories to the master narratives (Saldívar 1990, Peterson 2001). The nativist use of Aztlán, however, operates as a counterhistory to Chicano nationalism, relying upon and reifying U.S. hegemony. Notably, this manifestation of Aztlán has become synthesized with that which it was supposed to contest: U.S. Nationalism.

This paper will investigate how Aztlán has moved from Chicano nationalism to contemporary nativist discourse. At the heart of this effort is not so much an effort to illustrate the radical change over time, for those alterations are clear. Rather, I seek to investigate the commonalities within these manifestations and explore the limits of nationalist discourses. Finally, this paper will argue that these disparate deployments of Aztlán may work at cross-purposes, but they both erase the material conditions and lived-experiences of the immigrants invoked in articulations of a “Bronze Brotherhood” or a “brown invasion.”

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Late nineteenth and early twentieth century nativist opposition to Asian, and particularly Japanese, immigrants in California centered upon fears that these immigrants would undermine the perceived civic values of white labor and white land ownership. This rhetoric contrasts sharply with the often more paternalistic reception accorded to Mexican immigrants in the same time period. The character of these claims cannot be explained by a leading account of racial antagonism, which roots racial conflict in the creation of a split labor market. In order to move towards a more complete explanation, this paper analyzes the discourse produced by an important nativist organization between 1907 and 1913. The analysis suggests that white perceptions of immigrants were shaped in large part by common meanings of land, community and whiteness, which were drawn from the broader culture of the United States, rather than by local economic conflicts.

Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Our paper will investigate the underlying determinants of individuals’ reaction to nativist rhetoric. In particular, do general anti-immigrant critiques lead to the activation of nativism among non-Latinos but ethnic pride among Latinos? Does the country of origin of immigrants moderate this effect? Does this then affect not only immigration reform attitudes but also policies relevant to Latinos more generally (such as bilingual education, English Only, birthright citizenship, affirmative action, NAFTA, and US-Mexico relations)? In answering these questions, our paper will add to the small but emerging field of Latino political psychology. It will also contribute to the limited work on spreading activation in this area and will help to more generally understand support for or opposition to immigration and Latino-relevant policies. The project also goes beyond simple treatment-effect designs to better understand the political effects of contemporary anti-immigrant rhetoric.