A tour through time.

SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT AUSTINAracely Dovalina

St. Edward’s University, Austin, Texas

CONTENTS

5 Introduction

9 The Image of the City

23 The Texas Capital

25 About Austin: History/Heritage

30 Hispanic Americans in the United States

32 Austin, the #1 U.S. City for Hispanics

34 An Adventure in Hispanic Culture and Values

38 Hispanic Society and Culture

41 Etiquette and Customs of Hispanics

42 Experiencing the Culture

44 Mexican Culture

50 History of East Austin

56 East Austin Gentrification

60 Mexican Americans

72 The Mexican American Second Generation

91 Hispanic Quality of Life Initiative

93 References

5

Hispanic Life in Austin

IN THE HEART OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, THE ESSENCE OF HISPANICS LIVE. A FIRST LOOK TO NOT ONLY AUSTIN AND ITS STORY BUT THE LIVES AND CULTURE OF THE HISPANICS

LIVING IN EAST AUSTIN.

AUSTINAND THE HISPANICS

6

7

8

The Image of the City

The Image of the EnvironmentLooking at cities can give a special pleasure, however commonplace the sight may be. Like a piece of architecture, the city is a construction in space, but one of vast scale, a thing perceived only in the course of long spans of time. City design is therefore a temporal art, but it can rarely use the controlled and limited sequences of other temporal arts like music. On different occasions and for different people, the sequences are reversed, interrupted, abandoned, cut across. It is seen in all lights and all weathers.

At every instant, there is more than the eye can see, more than the ear can hear, a setting or a view waiting to be explored. Nothing is experienced by itself, but always in relation to its surroundings, the sequences of events leading up to it, the memory of past experiences.…Every citizen has had long associations with some part of this city, and his image is soaked in memories and meanings.

Moving elements in a city , and in particular the people and their activities, are as important as the stationary physical parts. We are not simply observers of this spectacle, but are ourselves a part of it, on the stage with the other participants. Most often, our perception of the city is not sustained, but rather partial, fragmentary, mixed with other concerns. Nearly every sense is in operation, and the image is the composite of them all.

Not only is the city an object which is perceived (and perhaps enjoyed) by millions of people of widely diverse class and character, but it is the product of many builders who are constantly modifying the structure for reasons of their own. while it may be stable in general outlines for some time, it is ever changing in detail. Only partial control can be exercised over its growth and form. There is no final result, only a continuous succession of phases. No wonder, then, that the art of shaping cities for sensuous enjoyment is an art quite separate from architecture or music

Kevin Lynch

9

or literature. it may learn a great deal from these other arts, but it cannot imitate them.

A beautiful and delightful city environment is a oddity, some would say an impossibility. Not one American city larger than a village is of consistently fine quality, although a few towns have some pleasant fragments. It is hardly surprising, then, that most Americans have little idea of what it can mean to live in such an environment. They are clear enough about the ugliness of the world they live in, and they are quite vocal about the dirt, the smoke, the heat, and the congestion, the chaos and the monotony of it. But they are hardly aware of the potential value of harmonious surroundings, a world which they may have briefly glimpsed only as tourists or as an escaped vacationer. They can have little sense of what a setting can mean in terms of daily delight, or as a continuous anchor for their lives, or an an extension of the meaningfulness and richness of the work.

Although clarity or legibility is by no means the only important property of a beautiful city, it is of special importance when considering environments at the urban scale of size, time, and complexity. To understand this, we must consider not just the city as a thing in itself, but the city being perceived by its inhabitants.

Structuring and identifying the environment is a vital ability among all mobile animals. Many kinds of cues are used: the visual sensations of color, shape, motion, or polarization of light, as well as other senses such as smell, sound, touch, kinesthesia, sense of gravity, and perhaps of electric or magnetic fields. Psychologists have also studied this ability in man, although rather sketchily or under limited laboratory conditions. Despite a few remaining puzzles, it now seems unlikely that there is any mystic “instinct” of way-finding. Rather there is a consistent use and organization of definite sensory cues from the external environment. This organization is fundamental to the efficiency and to the very survival of free-moving life.

10

To become completely lost is perhaps a rather rare experience for most people in the modern city. We are supported by the presence of others and by special way-finding devices: maps, street numbers, route signs, bus placards. But let the mishap of disorientation once occur, and the sense of anxiety and even terror that accompanies it reveals to us how closely it is linked to our sense of balance and well-being. the very word “lost” in our language means much more than simple geographical uncertainty; it carries overtones of utter disaster.

In the process of way-finding, the strategic link is the environmental image, the generalized mental picture of the exterior physical world that is held by an individual. This images is the product both of immediate sensation and of the memory of past experience, and it is used to interpret information and to guide experience, and it is used to interpret information and to guide action. The need to recognize and pattern our surroundings is so crucial, and has such long roots in the past, that this image has wide practical and emotional importance to the individual.

Obviously a clear image enables one to move about easily and quickly: to find a friend’s house or a policeman or a button store. But an ordered environment can do more than this; it may serve as a road frame of reference, an organizer of activity or belief or knowledge. On the basis of a structural understanding of Manhattan, for example, one can order a substantial quantity of facts and fancies about the nature of the world we live in. Like any good framework, such a structure gives the individual a possibility of choice and a starting-point for the acquisition of further information. A clear image of the surroundings is thus a useful basis for individual growth.

A vivid and integrated physical setting, capable of producing a sharp image, plays a social role as well. It can furnish the raw material for the symbols and collective memories of group communication. A striking landscape is the skeleton upon which many primitive races erect their socially important myths. Common memories of the “ home town” were often the first and easiest point of contact between lonely soldiers during the war.

11

A good environmental image gives its possessor an important sense of emotional security. She can establish an harmonious relationship between herself and the outside world. This is the obverse of the fear that comes with disorientation; it means that the sweet sense of home is strongest when home is not only familiar but distinctive as well.

Indeed, a distinctive and legible environment not only offers security but also heightens the potential depth and intensity of human experience. Although life is far from impossible in the visual chaos of the modern city, the same daily action could take on new meaning if carried out in a more vivd setting. Potentially, the city is in itself the powerful symbol of a complex society. If visually well set forth, it can also have strong expressive meaning.

It may be argued against the importance of physical legibility that the human brain is marvelously adaptable, that with some experience one can learn to pick one’s way through the most disordered or featureless surroundings. there are abundant examples of precise navigation over the “trackless” wastes of sea, sand, or ice, or through a tangle maze of jungle.

Yet even the sea has the sun and stars, the winds, currents, birds, and sea-colors without which unaided navigation would be impossible. The fact that only skilled professionals could navigate among the Polynesian Islands, and this only after extensive training, indicates the difficulties imposed by this particular environment. Strain and anxiety accompanied even the best-prepared expeditions.

In our own world, we might say that almost everyone can, if attentive, learn to navigate in Jersey City, but only at the cost of some effort and uncertainty. Moreover, the positive values of legible surroundings are missing: the emotional satisfaction, the framework for communication or conceptual organization, the new depths that it may bring to everyday experience. These are pleasures we lack, even if our present city environment is not so disordered as to impose an intolerable strain on those who are familiar with it.

12

It must be granted that there is some value in mystification, labyrinth, or surprise in the environment. Many of us enjoy the House of Mirrors, and there is a certain charm in the crooked streets of Boston. This is so, however, only under two conditions. First, there must be no danger of losing basic form or orientation, of never coming out. The surprise must occur in an over-all framework; the confusions must be small regions in a visible whole. Furthermore, the labyrinth or mystery must in itself have some form that can be explored and in time be apprehended. Complete chaos without hint of connection is never pleasurable.

But these second thoughts point to an important qualification. The observer himself should play an active role in perceiving the world and have a creative part in developing his image. He should have the power to change that image to fit changing needs. An environment which is ordered in precise and final detail may inhibit new patterns of activity. A landscape whose every rock tells a story may make difficult the creation of fresh stories. Although this may not seem to be a critical issue in our present urban chaos, yet it indicates that what we seek is not a final but an open-ended order, capable of continuous further development.

Building the ImageEnvironmental images are the result of a two-way process between the observer and his environment. The environment suggest distinctions and relations, and the observer—with great adaptability and in the light of his own purposes—selects, organizes, and endows with meaning what he sees. The image so developed now limits and emphasizes what is seen, while the image itself is being tested against the filtered perceptual input in a constant interacting process. Thus the image of a given reality may vary significantly between different observers.

The coherence of the image may arise in several ways. There may be little in the real object that is ordered or remarkable, and yet its mental picture has gained identity and organization through long familiarity. One man may find objects easily on what seems to anyone else to be a totally disordered work table. Alternatively, an object seen for the first time may be identified and related not because it is individually familiar

13

but because it conforms to a stereotype already constructed by the observer. An American can always spot the corner drugstore, however indistinguishable it might be to a Bushman. Again, a new object may seem to have strong structure or identity because of striking physical features which suggest or impose their own pattern. Thus the sea or a great mountain can rivet the attention of one coming form the flat plains of the interior, even if he is so young or so parochial as to have no name for these great phenomena.

As manipulators of the physical environment, city planners are primarily interested in the external agent in the interaction which produces the environmental image. Different environments resist or facilitate the process of image-making. Any given form, a fine vase or a lump of clay, will have a high or a low probability of evoking a strong image among various observers. Presumably this probability can be stated with greater and greater precision as the observers are grouped in more and more homogeneous classes of age, sex, culture, occupation, temperament, or familiarity. Each individual creates and bears his own image, but there seems to be substantial agreement among members of the same group. It is these group images, exhibiting consensus among significant numbers, that interest city planners who aspire to model an environment that will be used by many people.

The systems of orientation which have been used vary widely throughout the world, changing from culture to culture, and from landscape to landscape. the world may be organized around a set of focal points, or be broken into named regions, or be linked by remembered routes.

Varied as these methods are, and inexhaustible as seem to e the potential clues which a man may pick out to differentiate his world, they cast interesting side-lights on the means that we use today to locate ourselves in our own city world. For the most part these examples seem to echo, curiously enough, the formal types of image elements into which we can conveniently divide the city image: path, landmark, edge, node, and district.

14

Structure and IdentityAn environmental image may be analyzed into three components: identity, structure, and meaning. It is useful to abstract these for analysis if it is remembered that in reality they always appear together. A workable image require first the identification of an object, which implies its distinction from other things, its recognition as a separable entity. This is called identity not in the sense of equality with something else, but with the meaning of individuality or oneness. Second, the image must include the spatial or pattern relation of the object to the observer and to other objects. Finally, this object must have some meaning for the observer, whether practical or emotional. Meaning is also a relation, but quite a different one from spatial or pattern relation.

Thus an image useful for making an exit requires the recognition of a door as a distinct entity, of tis spatial relation to the observer, and its meaning as a hole for getting out. these are not truly separable. the visual recognition of a door is matted together with its meaning as a door. It is possible, however, to analyze the door in terms of its identity of form and clarity of position, considered as if they were prior to its meaning.

Such an analytic feat might be pointless in the study of a door, but not in the study of the urban environment. to begin with, the question of meaning in the city is a complicated one. Group images of meaning are less likely to be consistent at this level than are the perceptions of entity and relationship. Meaning, moreover, is not so easily influenced by physical manipulation as are these other two components. If it is our purpose to build cities for the enjoyment of vast numbers of people of widely diverse background—and cities which will also be adaptable to future purposes—we may even be wise to concentrate on the physical clarity of the image and to allow meaning to develop without our direct guidance. the image of the Manhattan skyline may stand for vitality, power, decadence, mystery, congestion, greatness, or what you will, but in each case that sharp picture crystalizes and reinforces the meaning. So various are the individual meanings of a city, even while its form may be easily communicable, that it appears possible to separate meaning from

15

form, at least in the early stages of analysis. This study will therefore concentrate on the identity and structure of city images.

If an images is to have value for orientation in the living space, it must have several qualities. It must be sufficient, true in a pragmatic sense, allowing the individual to operate within his environment to the extent desired. The map, whether exact or not, must be good enough to get one home. It must be sufficiently clear and well integrated to be economical of mental effort: the map must be readable. It should be safe, with a surplus of clues so that alternative actions are possible and the risk of failure is not too high. If a blinking light is the only sign for a critical turn, a power failure may cause disaster. the image should preferably be open-ended, adaptable to change, allowing the individual to continue to investigate and organize reality: there should be blank spaces where he can extend the drawing for himself. Finally, it should in some measure be communicable to other individuals. The relative importance of these criteria for a “good” image will vary with different persons in different situations; one will prize an economical and sufficient system, another an open-ended and communicable one.

ImageabilitySince the emphasis here will be on the physical environment. as the independent variable, this study will look for physical qualities which relate to the attributes of identity and structure in the mental image. this leads to the definition of what might be called imageability: that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer. It is that shape, color, or arrangement which facilitates the making of vividly identified, powerfully structured, highly useful mental images of the environment. It might also be called legibility, or perhaps visibility in a heightened sense, where objects are not only able to be seen, but are presented sharply and intensely to the senses.

Half a century ago, Stern discussed this attribute of an artistic object and called it apparency. While art is not limited to this single end, he felt that one of its two basic functions was “to create images which by

16

clarity and harmony of form fulfill the meed for vividly comprehensible appearance.” In his mind, this was an essential first step toward the expression of inner meaning.

A highly imageable (apparent, legible, or visible) city in this peculiar sense would seem well formed, distinct, remarkable; it would invite the eye and the ear to greater attention and participation. The sensuous grasp upon such surroundings would not merely be simplified, but also extended and deepened. Such a city would be one that would be apprehended over time as a pattern of high continuity with many distinctive parts clearly interconnected. The perceptive and familiar observer could absorb new sensuous impacts without disruption of his basic image, and each new impact would touch upon many previous elements. He would be well oriented, and he could move easily. He would be highly aware of his environment. The city of Venice might be an example of such a highly imageable environment. In the United States, one is tempted to cite parts of manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, or perhaps the lake front of Chicago.

These are characterizations that flow from our definitions. the concept of imageability does not necessarily connote something fixed, limited, precise, unified, or regularly ordered, although it may sometimes have these qualities. Nor does it mean apparent at at glance, obvious, patent, or plain. The total environment to be patterned is highly complex, while the obvious image is soon boring, and can point to only a few features of the living world.

The imageability of city form will be the center of the study to follow there are other basic properties in a beautiful environment: meaning or expressiveness, sensuous delight, rhythm, stimulus, choice. Our concentration on imageability does not deny their importance. Our purpose is simply to consider the need for identity and structure in our perceptual world, and to illustrate the special relevance of this quality to the particular case of the complex, shifting urban environment.

17

Since image development is a two-way process between observer and observed, it is possible to strengthen the image either by symbolic devices, by the retaining of the perceiver, or by reshaping one’s surroundings, You can provide the viewer with a symbolic diagram of how the world fits tother: a map or a set of written instructions. As long as he can fit reality to the diagram, he has a clue to the relatedness of things. You can even install a machine for giving directions, as has recently been done in New York. While such devices are extremely useful for providing condensed data on interconnections, they are also precarious, since orientation fails if the device is lost, and the device itself must constantly be referred and fitted to reality.…Moreover, the complete experience of interconnection the full depth of a vivid image, is lacking.

You may also train the observer. Brown remarks that a maze through which subjects were asked to move blindfolded seemed to them at first to be one unbroken problem. On repetition, parts of the pattern, particularly the beginning and end, became familiar and assumed the character of localities. Finally, when they could tread the maze without error, the whole system seemed to have become one locality. DeSilva describes the case of a boy who seemed to have “automatic” directional orientation, but proved to have been trained from infancy (by a mother who could not distinguish right from left) to respond to “the east side of the port” or “the south end of the dresser.”

Shipton’s account of the reconnaissance for the ascent of Everest offers a dramatic case of such learning. Approaching Everest from a new direction, Shipton immediately recognized the main peaks and saddles that he knew from the north side. But the Sherpa guide accompanying him, to whom both sides were long familiar, had never realized that these were the same features, and he greeted the revelation with surprise and delight.

Kilpatrick describes the process of perceptual learning forced on an observer by new stimuli that no longer fit into previous images. It begins with hypothetical forms that explain the new stimuli conceptually, while the illusion of the old forms persists. The personal experience of most

18

of us will testify to this persistence of an illusory image long after its inadequacy is conceptually realized. we stare into the jungle an see only the sunlight on the green leaves but a warning noise tells us that an animal is hidden there. the observer then learns to interpret the scene by singling out “give-away” clues and by reweighting previous signals. the camouflaged animal may now be picked up by the reflection of this eyes. Finally by repeated experience the entire pattern of perception is changed and the observer need no longer consciously search for give-aways, or add new data to an old framework. he has achieved an image which will operate successfully in the new situation, seeming natural and right. Quite suddenly the hidden animal appears among the leaves, “as plain as day.”

In the same way, we must learn to see the hidden forms in the vast sprawl of our cities. We are not accustomed to organizing and imaging an artificial environment on such a large scale; yet our activities are pushing us toward that end. Curt Sachs gives an example of a failure to make connections beyond a certain level The voice and drumbeat of the North American Indian follow entirely different tempos, the two being perceived independently. Searching for a musical analogy of our own, he mentions our church services, where we do not think of coordinating the choir inside with the bells above.

In our vast metropolitan areas we do not connect the choir and the bells; like the Sherpa, we see only the sides of Everest and not he mountain. to extend and deepen our perception of the environment would be to continue a long biological and cultural development which has gone from the contact sense to the distant sense and from the distant senses to symbolic communications. Our thesis is that we are now able to develop our image of the environment by operation and on the external physical shape as well as by an internal learning process. Indeed, the complexity of our environment now compels us to do so.

Primitive man was forced to improve his environmental image by adapting his perception to the given landscape. He could effect minor changes in his environment with cairns, beacons, or tree blazes, but

19

substantial modifications for visual clarity or visual interconnection were confined to house sites or religious enclosures. Only powerful civilizations can begin to act on their total environment at a significant scale. The conscious remolding of the large-scale physical environment has been possible only recently and so the problem of environmental imageability is a new one. Technically, we can now make completely new landscapes in a brief time, as in the Dutch polders. Here the designers are already at grips wit the question of how to form the total scene so that it is easy for the human observer to identify its parts and to structure the whole.

We are rapidly building a new functional unit, the metropolitan region, but we have yet to grasp that this unit, too, should have its corresponding image, Suzanne Langer sets the problem in her capsule definition of architecture: “it is the total environment made visible.”

It is clear that the form of a city or of a metropolis will not exhibit some gigantic, stratified other. It will be a complicated pattern, continuous and whole, yet intricate and mobile. It must be plastic to the perceptual habits of citizens, open-ended to change of function and meaning, receptive to the formation of new imagery. It must invite its viewers to explore the world.

True enough, we need an environment which is not simply well organized, but poetic ad symbolic as well. It should speak of the individuals and their complex society, of their aspirations and their historical tradition, of the natural setting, and of the complicated functions and movements of the city world. But clarity of structure and vividness of identity are first steps to the development of strong symbols. By appearing as a remarkable and well knit place, the city could provide a ground for the clustering and organization of these meanings and associations Such a sense of place in itself enhances every human activity that occurs there, and encourages the deposit of a memory trace.

By the intensity of its life and the close packing of its disparate people, the great city is a romantic place, rich in symbolic detail. it is for us both splendid and terrifying, “the landscape of our confusions,” as Flanagan

20

calls it. Were it legible, truly visible, then fear and confusion might be replaced with delight in the richness and power of the scene.

In the development of the image, education in seeing will be quite as important as the reshaping of what is seen. Indeed, they together form a circular, or hopefully a spiral, process: visual education impelling the citizen to act upon his visual world, and this action causing him to see even more acutely. A highly developed art of urban design is linked to the creation of a critical and attentive audience. If art and audience grow together, then our cities will be a source of daily enjoyment to millions of their inhabitants.

21

22

Our story as Texas capital began in the mid 1800s. The time brought tremendous growth to the tiny settlement formerly known as Waterloo that had been carved out of the wilderness. The 1850s saw the first building boom with the construction of the first permanent, limestone Capitol building (1853), as well as the Governor’s Mansion (1856). A second building boom occurred in the 1870s with the arrival of the railroad in 1871. After a fire destroyed the limestone Capitol, the current granite Capitol was built and, after seven years, opened in 1888. At 302 feet high, it stands 14 ½ feet taller than the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. and is the largest of the nation’s statehouses. The late 1880s also served as another boom period in Austin. The area’s settler population, originally comprised of immigrants from Germany, Sweden and Mexico, quickly grew. An impressive skyline began to take shape. The spectacular Driskill Hotel opened, which remains one of the city’s most distinctive landmarks. And Austin became a college town, with the founding of the University of Texas at Austin.

Austin’s population historically doubles every 20 years. And much of the city’s most recent growth is a result of a technology boom. For the past two decades, Austin has made history as a leader in both technology and creativity. From the launch of Dell, a Fortune 500 company, to the growth of Austin as a music and film center, Austin is on the move. And gaining attention worldwide as a hub for education, business, health, green living and as a welcoming community.

23

24

When Republic of Texas Vice President Mirabeau B. Lamar accepted an invitation from his friend Jacob Harrell for a hunting trip to Central Texas, the buffalo were running aplenty around Harrell's trading post alongside the Lower Colorado River. As Lamar surveyed the verdant, rolling landscape, he mused about all great cities following Rome's tradition of being built on seven hills. On that fall day in 1838, Lamar declared, "This should be the seat of future government." When he succeeded Sam Houston as president a few months later, Lamar immediately set out to move the seat of government from Houston to the settlement that would soon be named Austin for Stephen F. Austin, who brought the first Anglo colonists to the area in 1821. Work on a new Capitol began in May 1839, and the first 306 lots for the newly platted city sold on August 1, 1839.

The limestone hills and peridot-colored waters have always and continue to define Austin's legacy and charm. The original settlers, Tonkawa or Tickanwatic tribes who called themselves "those most like humans " followed deer and buffalo herds to the fertile land. Spanish explorers first arrived in 1709. They returned in 1730 to build a mission at the free-flowing, artesian-fed Barton Springs. Since prehistoric times, the springs have remained the lifeline, and according to most Austinites, the soul of the town.

The hills that circle the city and the play of sunlight on those hills inspired short story writer O. Henry, once a resident of Austin, to describe the town as looking as though it wore "a violet crown." That purplish haze still settles over the city at sunset to paint a spectacular view, particularly from Mt. Bonnell. At 785 feet, it is one of the highest points within the city limits. Mystery, romance and tragedy surround the craggy landmark. Tales of ill-fated lovers leaping to their death from the precipice inspired the legend that the first time a couple climbs the 99 steps to the top of Mt. Bonnell, they fall in love. On the second trip, they get engaged. ...But, beware, the third climb could prove fatal.

About Austin: History/Heritage

25

After winning independence from Mexico in 1836 and remaining an independent nation for a decade, Texas achieved statehood in 1845. During the Republic of Texas era, France sent Alphonse Dubois de Saligny to Austin as its charge d’affaires. Monsieur Dubois purchased 22 acres of land in 1840 on a high hill just east of downtown to build a legation, or diplomatic outpost. The French Legation stands as the oldest documented frame structure in Austin.

The mid-1800s brought growth to Austin, as the population increased from 629 in 1850 to nearly 3,500 in 1860. A flurry of construction on Capitol Hill resulted in several new landmarks - a new limestone Capitol (1853), the Governor’s Mansion (1856), and the Old General Land Office (1857).

After fire destroyed the old building, a gleaming new State Capitol opened in 1888. Built of distinctive Texas Sunset Red granite quarried in nearby Marble Falls, the $3.7 million building stood, then and now, as the largest of the country’s statehouses. In dedicating the Capitol on May 16, 1888, Sen. Temple Houston declared, “Here glitters a structure that shall stand as a sentinel of the years.”

The 1880s signaled a boom period for Austin. In 1886, an impressive skyline began to take shape even prior to the start of construction on the new state Capitol when cattle baron Col. Jesse Driskill opened the spectacular Driskill Hotel. Touted as “one of the finest hotels in the whole country,” the Victorian structure remains one of the city’s most distinctive landmarks. The hotel figures prominently in the careers of both U.S. Presidents with Austin connections. President Lyndon Johnson and Lady Bird shared their first date at the Driskill, and he also awaited results from the 1964 presidential election from the hotel. In 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush set up office at The Driskill while he awaited results from the contested election.

In 1839, the Congress of the Republic ordered a site set aside for a “university of the first class.” Not until 1882, however, did the construction begin on that university. From its humble beginnings as a

26

single building on the original “Forty Acres,” the University of Texas now ranks as one of the largest public universities in the nation. Some 50,000 students attend classes each year on the sprawling campus.

Long regarded as a cultural, political, environmental and educational center of Texas, Austin attracts a diverse mix of writers, musicians, politicians, teachers, environmentalists and average citizens—all looking for a place where the water is clean, people are tolerant, the quality of life ranks higher than average and where pockets of small, unique neighborhoods exist within a larger, urban city.

By the late 1800s and into the early part of the 20th century, Austin’s rolling hills to the west gave way to several prominent enclaves. Hyde Park, Travis Heights, Fairview Park, Tarrytown, Enfield and Pemberton Heights continue to be the preferred addresses for upscale living. Tucked away along the outskirts of the Old Enfield neighborhood was Clarksville, a community settled in 1871 by Charles Clark. Clark, a freedman, and his family settled on two acres of land that became the nucleus of Austin’s African-American community. Only a few descendants of Clarksville’s

27

original residents still live in the neighborhood today. The city’s African-American community largely migrated east of downtown, and, from here, greatly influenced one of Austin’s most bankable commodities. The early jazz and blues clubs that sprang up in the late 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s birthed Austin’s music scene. The late blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughan professed to honing his unique talent in East Austin haunts such as Victory Grill.

From the beginning, Austin’s population has been made up of a variety of immigrant groups. Germans, Swedes and Mexicans were most prominent in the early years. The Mexican influence became even more prominent during the mid-1900s as large numbers of immigrants fled unrest during the Mexican Revolution. That community continued to grow rapidly during the last part of the 20th century. Hispanics now make up nearly 35% of Austin’s population.

Throughout its history, Austin has doubled in population every 20 years. The past two decades were no exception. With 657,000 people living within the city limits, Austin now ranks as the country’s 16th largest city. The total metropolitan area includes 1.2 million. Much of the city’s most recent growth is a result of a technology boom. In 1967, Tracor Industries set up shop in far northwest Austin. Others soon followed—IBM, Texas Instruments, 3M, Motorola, Advanced Micro Devices, Samsung, Dell. From buffalo chips to computer chips, the little trading post by the river has emerged as the focal point of the Silicon Hills.

For the past two decades, Austin has made history as a leader in both technology and creativity. The same entrepreneurial spirit that led 19-year-old Michael Dell to launch a Fortune 500 company from his University of Texas dorm room has also propelled Austin as a music and film center. Austin City Limits continues as the longest-running music show on television. As the location of such feature films as Alamo, Spy Kids, Friday Night Lights and Secondhand Lions, Austin ranks as the top filmmaking city in Texas and second most popular in the country.

28

29

In 1994, there were 26.4 million Hispanic Americans living in the Continental United States: 64 percent Mexican Americans, almost 11 percent Puerto Ricans, over 13 percent were from Central and South America and the Caribbean, almost 5 percent were Cuban Americans, 7 percent classified as "other." An additional 3.7 million were Puerto Ricans living on the island of Puerto Rico, bringing the nation's total Hispanic American population to over 30 million. Although Hispanic Americans live in every part of the United States, they are more heavily concentrated in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Puerto Rico, and Texas. Mexican Americans. Today, while the majority of Mexican Americans live in urban areas, significant numbers comprise the three agricultural migrant streams that flow from the south to the north across the country, often twice annually.

Hispanic Americans in the United States

Historically, Mexican Americans have been both an urban and rural population. Since the 1600s, Mexicans were the first Americans to establish homesteads in the territories that became Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Since before the turn of the century, Mexican Americans literally built the great southwestern cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, Albuquerque, Dallas, and San Antonio. Also, in the 1800's, Mexican American workers participated significantly in the massive industrial expansion in the midwest, from Kansas to Michigan, by building the railroad systems and steel mills. Few Mexican American families, however, received formal education. As Mexican Americans began to attend public schools in significant numbers, starting early in the 20th Century, students faced discrimination due to language, socio-economic, and cultural barriers.30

Poor Mexican Americans have always faced de facto segregation through attending schools outside of the white system. Even today, Mexican Americans are likely to attend segregated schools. Untold numbers of U.S.-born Mexican American citizens have suffered civil persecution since the 1800s, which continues to this day. The treatment of many Mexican American children in the public education system perpetuates unequal treatment. No system (not even in the Southwest) comparable to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) was established for Mexican Americans. Hispanic Serving Institutions or "HSIs" have only recently emerged as a distinct category of postsecondary institutions. In spite of very limited educational opportunity throughout the 20th century, Mexican American individuals have distinguished themselves as statesmen, writers, artists, and professionals. However, there has been minimal educational progress for the majority of Mexican American citizens. Even today, most educational services in urban and rural areas where Mexican Americans go to school lack sufficient resources to provide excellence in education.

31

Austin named #1 U.S. City for Hispanics

Press Reliease “B

est

Cit

y fo

r H

isp

anic

s to

Liv

e In

.”

32

The most recent issue of Hispanic magazine lists Austin as the “Best

City for Hispanics to Live In.” The hip, groovy and cool characteristics

that have long propelled Austin into the national consciousness

succeeded once again in landing Texas’ Capital City as the leader in

the magazine’s annual listing of Top 10 Cities. This marks the third

consecutive year for Austin to appear among the three most popular

places in the U.S. for Hispanics to live and work. Citing the city’s 26

percent Hispanic population, average household income, home values,

low unemployment and “Hispanic coolness,” the magazine’s editors

agree that Austin is “the most manageable city in the country with the

highest quality of bilingual life.” In compiling the list, they looked at job

growth, good schools, reasonable living costs, political power and culture.

“There is no question that Hispanics have had a significant economic,

political and cultural impact on Austin. This influence will only become

more dramatic as the proportion of Hispanics in the city continues to

grow. The designation by Hispanic magazine is a great honor for Austin

and a testament to the manner in which the city has embraced this

vital segment of the community,” says Austin City Councilman Raul

Alvarez. The article also singles out the city as headquarters of Whole

Foods, which Fortune magazine named as one of the best companies

for minorities, and home to the University of Texas McCombs School

of Business, which has 14 percent Hispanic business majors. “It is a

great honor for Austin to be tapped as the best place in the country for

Hispanics to live, work and raise their families. Our diversity and the

unlimited cultural activities available to all segments of the population

help draw attention to our city and enhance the quality of life for

residents and visitors alike,” says Bob Lander, President and CEO of

the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau. 33

Hispanics are encouraged at an early age to be independent and to develop their own goals in life. They are encouraged to not depend (too much) on others including their friends, teachers and parents. They are rewarded when they try harder to reach their goals.

Hispanics uphold the ideal that everyone “is created equal” and has the same rights. This includes women as well as men of all ethnic and cultural groups living in the U.S. There are even laws that protect this “right to equality” in its various forms.

The general lack of deference to people in authority is one example of equality. Titles, such as “sir” and “madam” are seldom used. Managers, directors, presidents and even university instructors are often addressed by their first or given name.

Equality Individuality

An Adventure in Hispanic Culture & Values

34

Hispanics like their privacy and enjoy spending time alone. Foreign visitors will find Mexican homes and offices open, but what is inside the Mexican mind is considered to be private. Hispanics do however, like to spend time with their families as well.

Hispanics take pride in making the best use of their time. In the business world, "time is money". Being "on time" for class, an appointment, or for dinner with your host family is important. Hispanics apologize if they are late. Some instructors give demerits to students who are late to class, and students at most universities are not institutional permission to leave the classroom if their instructor is 10 or 15 minutes late.

In reality, when it comes to family reunions, they are almost always late.

Privacy Time

An Adventure in Hispanic Culture & Values

35

The Hispanic lifestyle is generally casual. You will see students going to class in shorts and t-shirts. Male instructors seldom wear a tie and some may even wear blue jeans. Female instructors often wear slacks along with comfortable walking shoes. Although, this used to be different decades ago.

Greetings and farewells are usually short, informal and friendly. Students may greet each other with “hi”, “how are you”? and “what’s up”? The farewell can be as brief as: “See you”, “take it easy”, or, “come by some time” (although they generally don’t really mean it). Friendships are also casual, as Hispanics seem to easily develop and end friendships.

The foreign visitor is often impressed at how achievement oriented HIspanics are and how hard they both work and play. A competitive spirit is often the motivating factor to work harder. Hispanics often compete with themselves as well as others. They feel good when they "beat their own record" in an athletic event or other types of competition. Hispanics seem to always be "on the go", because sitting quietly doing nothing seems like a waste of time.

InformalityAchievement & Hard

Work Play

An Adventure in Hispanic Culture & Values

36

Hispanics try to work out their differences face-to-face and without a mediator. They are encouraged to speak up and give their opinions. Students are often invited to challenge or disagree with certain points in the lecture. This manner of direct speaking is often interpreted by foreign visitors as rude. However, they are also thaught to respect their elders and listen to their older siblings from an early age

Children are often asked what they want to be "when they grow up"; college students are asked what they will do when they graduate; and professors plan what they will do when they retire.

Hispanics are attending more and more colleges or being encouraged to go no matter what. Or are migrating to the U.S. for the “American Dream”

Change is often equated with progress and holding on to traditions seems to imply old and outdated ways. Even though Hispanics are recycling more than before many purchased products are designed to have a short life and then be thrown away.

Direct & AssertiveChange & the

Future

An Adventure in Hispanic Culture & Values

37

Hispanic Society and Culture

The family is at the centre of the social structure. Outside of the major cosmopolitan cities, families are still generally large. The extended family is as important as the nuclear family since it provides a sense of stability. Mexicans consider it their duty and responsibility to help family members. For example, the will help find employment or finance a house or other large purchase. Most Mexican families are extremely traditional, with the father as the head, the authority figure and the decision-maker. Mothers are greatly revered, but their role may be seen as secondary to that of their husband.

Mexican Family Values

Hierarchical Society

Mexican society and business are highly stratified and vertically structured. Mexicans emphasize hierarchical relationships. People respect authority and look to those above them for guidance and decision-making. Rank is important, and those above you in rank must always be treated with respect. This makes it important to know which person is in charge, and leads to an authoritarian approach to decision-making and problem- solving. Mexicans are very aware of how each individual fits into each hierarchy--be it family, friends or business.It would be disrespectful to break the chain of hierarchy.

Machismo

Machismo literally means 'masculinity'. There are different outward behaviours to display machismo. For example, making remarks to women is a stereotypical sign of machismo and should not be seen as harassment. Mexican males generally believe that nothing must be allowed to tarnish their image as a man.

38

39

The Hispanic population has exhibited tremendous growth in the importance of honor, good manners, and respect for authority and to others.

40

Etiquette and Customs of Hispanics

Meeting Etiquette

When greeting in social situations, women pat each other on the right forearm or shoulder, rather than shake hands. Men shake hands until they know someone well, at which time they progress to the more traditional hug and back slapping. Wait until invited before using a Mexican's first name.

Gift Giving Etiquette

If invited to a Mexican's house, bring a gift such as flowers or sweets. Gift wrapping does not follow any particular protocol. Do not give marigolds as they symbolize death. Do not give red flowers as they have a negative connotation. White flowers are a good gift as they are considered uplifting. Gifts are opened immediately. If you receive a gift, open it and react enthusiastically.

Dining Etiquette

If you are invited to a Mexican's home: Arrive 30 minutes late in most places (check with colleagues to see if you should arrive later than that). Arriving on time or early is considered inappropriate. At a large party you may introduce yourself. At a smaller gathering the host usually handles the introductions.

Table manners

Always keep your hands visible when eating. Keep your wrists resting on the edge of the table. When you have finished eating, place your knife and fork across your plate with the prongs facing down and the handles facing to the right. Do not sit down until you are invited to and told where to sit. Do not begin eating until the hostess starts. Only men give toasts. It is polite to leave some food on your plate after a meal.

41

Experiencing the Culture

One of the best ways to sample local Hispanic culture is through tasty, authentic cuisine. Authentic dishes such as pollo en mole and pescado veracruzano are found at popular eateries such as El Sol y La Luna or the Sunday brunch at Fonda San Miguel. Still looking to satisfy your taste for Tex-Mex? No problem. Ask a local for their favorite spot. There's great food to be found at every turn.

For a cultural experience like no other, head to the University of Texas at Austin campus. The university's Blanton Museum of Art, an awe-inspiring 180,000-square-foot museum complex at MLK Boulevard and Congress Avenue, boasts one of the most comprehensive collections of contemporary Latin American art in the country. Featuring more than 2,000 works by 600 artists from Mexico, South and Central America, and the Caribbean, the collection demonstrates the rich diversity of the region.

At the Mexic-Arte Museum, revolving exhibits pay tribute to traditional and contemporary Mexican, Latino and Latin American art and culture. The museum also sponsors the city's largest Day of the Dead celebration — a Mexican holiday held on November 1 — to honor the memory of deceased ancestors. Festivities include street festivals, live music, theatrical performances, costume contests and a spirited parade.

More Latino and Chicano art is available at La Pena. Part art gallery, part educational organization and part cultural center, La Pena features rotating exhibits by well-known artists such as Nivia Gonzalez, Sam Coronado and Ester Hernandez. La Pena also sponsors film festivals, musical performances, instructional lectures and literary festivals.

Still looking for more? The annual Cine Las Americas, held every spring at various venues throughout the city, features an international festival of new Latin American cinema. For laughs, check out the Latino Comedy Project, a Tejano Spanglish-speaking touring sketch-comedy troupe, which performs at different locations throughout Austin.

42

Austin is recognized nationally as one of the best cities in the U.S. for Hispanics to live and work.

75,000 visitors each year tour this museum in the heart of downtown Austin to experience Mexican, Latino and Latin American art and culture.

Pachanga is a Latin-themed festival like no other with 20 bands across a dozen

genres.

A nine-day annual event showcasing an average of 100 films and 35 filmmakers from all over the world.

Mexic-Arte

Pachanga Festival

Cine Las Americas

43

Mexican CultureCELEBRATIONS

A quincenera is a special ceremony that a girl has when she reaches the age of 15. It is a sign of showing that she is becoming a woman . The ceremony is an optional part because usually you have a cermony because you get blessed by the priest also while that part of the ceremony you can write a paper about being sorry for all the sins you did and read it aloud to the whole church(your guests) . The party part is where you get to show of your dance skills before the quincenera you learn how to dance any kind of dance you want hip hop, break dancing, merengue, so on. After you choose what type of dance you have to gather some boys who will be willling to dance at your quincenera. Apart from those boys you have to choose a special guy to accompany you for the waltz.

Before you have the ceremony of your first communion, you have to take classes to teach you all the prayers they are called Dotrina in Spanish. Every child has to take two years of Dotrina before they can recieve the bread and wine you recieve in your Communion ceremony. Dotrina takes place on Saturdays and it lasts only about an hour. So after you take the Dotrina classes you start getting ready for your first communion ceremony. Usually the first communion ceremnonies are in May. For this grand ceremony you must pick 1-2 godparents and they will pay for your dress, tiara or crown, your bracelet/necklace, and your party (which takes place after your ceremony). You can invite as many people as you want to your ceremony. After the ceremony most people take pictures with the girl/boy in front of the church where there are flowers and beautiful decorations. When you have your ceremony it's not just you and the pope in private, it is a whole group of people recieving the bread and wine of god. After your ceremony you have the choice of having a party or not, most people like to celebrate the occasion. They don't invite many people though, just the people that went to the ceremony. The party is the best part. You get to have cake and hit a pinata and much more.

Quincenera

Primiera Comunion (First Communion)

44

Mexican CultureHOLIDAYS

January 6th and 7th: Dia de los Reyes MagosGift giving for Mexican families. We have special bread that has frosting and special toppings. Someone cuts a slice per family. There will be a small toy baby in it. Whoever gets the baby has to make a special mexican feast for everyone.

February 14: El Dia Del Amor y La Amista (Valentine's Day)

March 1: Benito Juarez Birthday He was the first indigenous president of Mexico.

May 5: Cinco de Mayo

A celebration of love and friendship.

The Mexicans won the Battle of Puebla against the French.

September 16: Mexican Independence DayCelebrating the nations independence from Spain

November 1 and 2: Dia de los MuertosMexican holiday that honors Mexicos dead souls returning to the cemetary. People decorate the tombstones and put out food for the dead. This is not a sad holiday but a celebration.

December 12: Dia de la Virgen de Guadalupe The day of the Virgin Mary is when the Virgin Mary appeared to Juan Diego. On this day Mexican people go at 4:00 to the morning mass.

45

Mexican Culture

TamalesIt has dough that is made out of corn which is called masa. The masa is wrapped in corn husk

EnchiladasA tortilla that is covered with red chili. In the inside you could put pork, or chicken. You then roll it. On the top you could put strips of white cabbage and queso fresco.

SalsaIt has green or red chilis. In the green salsa you put green tomatoes, and in the red salsa you put red tomatoes. You put salt, water, and cilantro.

PosoleIt is kind of like a soup with hominy and pork in it. When you serve it you can put strips of white cabbage, salsa, and lemon.

MenudoIt is almost the same as posole but insead of putting hominy and pork you put cow stomach.

FOODS

46

Mexican Culture

Mini pelonTamarind soft candy. It is a a hot, spicy, gooey candy that is eaten in many different ways.

Pica fresa and Pica GomaPica fresa is a strawberry and sweet candy. It's hard and chewy in the inside. Pica goma is a very spicy candy that is also hard in the outside and chewy in the inside.

Chirris RebanaditasIt is a watermelon shape candy. It is spicy in the outside and sweet watermelon flavor in the inside.

Vero ElotesPowder chili in the outside and yellow sweet hard candy on the inside. Some are sweet while others are hot.

Vero MangoSpicy on the outside and mango flavor on the inside. One of the many favorite amongst children.

CANDY

47

48

SAY SOMETHING HERE

49

Hispanic Life Defined

More than Just East Austin...

History of East Austin

Although racism is less explicit today than it was just 50 years ago, Austin remains a racially and economically segregated city with an uneven distribution of environmental risks and benefits. While the city of Austin has heralded its high quality of residential life and environmental resources, these benefits have not been equally available to Austin’s African American and Mexican American residents. The environmental justice problems facing East Austin today are the direct legacy of the racist policy decisions of city leaders in the early 1900’s and are closely interwoven with other contemporary social and economic justice issues. Over the past fifteen years, PODER and other East Austin activists have emerged victorious in some important environmental justice battles and have expanded “environmental justice” to include social and economic justice concerns such as affordable housing and educational opportunity.

The Mexican American population, which began to grow rapidly in the early 1900s,experienced similar – though oftenless blatant – discrimination. Neighborhoods such as Hyde Park were advertised as “Exclusively for White People” and restrictive covenants gave legal standing to discrimination in housing by the 1920s and gradually relegated African and Mexican Americans into East Austin. While blatant racism became institutionalized by city leaders, vibrant African American and Mexican American communities took root and flourished in East Austin. While the rest of the city benefited from a growing intellectual economy tied to the University and Capitol, East Austin residents receiving mostly inferior educational opportunity were limited to low-wage, low-skhousing programs in 193912 as well as the construction of Interstate Highway 35, which created a significant physical and visual barrier between East Austin and the rest of the city. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 made such segregationist policies unenforceable, Austin remains a largely segregated city, as can be seen in current maps of racial, ethnic, and economic distribution, as well as placement of industrial and post-industrial toxic sites. The U.S. Census(2000) shows that while only 16% of Austin’s population lives in East Austin, 29% of the total Hispanic

50

population and 46% of the total African American population live there.Today, industrial uses and abandoned brownfields are scattered throughout the East Austin’s residential neighborhoods, which remain the home of most of Austin’s minority and low-income residents. Neighborhood schools and playgrounds are still located close or adjacent to industrial land uses, exposing children to environmental risk. Austin’s high-tech growth has increased jobs for elite, well-educated workers, but companies like Sematech, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), and Motorola are less “clean” than originally expected and have chosen to locate in predominantly low-income, minority areas.14 Thankfully, over the past fifteen years, People Organized in Defense of Earth and her Resources (PODER, a local grassroots organization) and other East Austin activists have been holding outside companies accountable to environmental regulations and challenging city zoning policies that perpetuate incompatible uses in their neighborhoods. While Austin continues to grow rapidly, these activists fight for their right to stay in their neighborhoods in the face of gentrification, and to keep the toxic pollution of high tech industries and other locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) at bay.

Drawing on the pride of their resilient communities, engaging in local politics, and collaborating with national and international environmental justice networks, these activists have won many impressive victories. These include: forcing the 1993 relocation of a Tank Farm (a fuel storage facility whose toxic emissions led to chronic disease in the residential neighborhood it abutted) and later (1997) down-zoning the property; calling attention to the negative impacts of a seven-acre recycling facility and forcing its relocation (1997); establishing the East Austin Overlay Ordinance which notifies residents when an industrial facility plans to locate or expand; and saving a treasured neighborhood park from becoming the site of the industrial Green Water Treatment Plant (2006). They have also led a campaign to close down the Holly Street Power Plant, located in the middle of a Central East Austin residential neighborhood. Of course, this quick list of environmental justice highlights does not honor the steadfast efforts of these activists, or the challenges and obstacles they overcame to win these victories.

51

The role of zoning and planning decisions in environmental justice. While all of the victories highlighted above contributed greatly to the quality of life in East Austin, it is important to discuss the role local land use and zoning policies have played in creating, resolving, and reinventing environmental justice problems in East Austin. As described earlier, the 1928 Master Plan and its 1931 zoning regulations laid the foundations of environmental racism in Austin. Unfortunately, this situation became worse in 1986 when the City Council decided to switch from “cumulative zoning” (where any land use would be allowed up to the one zoned – with industrial being the highest) to “restrictive zoning” (where only the specific land use indicated by the zoning map is permitted). For instance, under cumulative zoning, residential homes could be built on land zoned industrial, but under restrictive zoning, only industrial facilities are allowed to be located on land zoned industrial.

On the surface this change may look harmless: it seemingly creates a more transparent zoning code. In practice, however, this meant that owners of homes in land zoned industrial could no longer secure home equity loans since banks will not lend if land use is inconsistent with zoning. In turn, this made it harder for these homeowners to repair and maintain their homes. Also, if the house of one of these residents burned down, they could not even get the permits necessary to rebuild. Since much of the land in East Austin had been zoned industrial or unrestricted, the new restrictive zoning secured much more land for industrial and commercial use only. It also encouraged disinvestment and decline in East Austin neighborhoods. Partly in response to this problem, in 1997 PODER and El Pueblo (another community organization) pushed Austin’s first “Green” City Council to establish an East Austin Overlay district that would 1) allow land to be rezoned consistent with its existing use, 2) minimize incompatible uses, and 3) provide extensive notification to local residents whenever a new use is proposed that is more intense than commercial use.

The East Austin Overlay district, along with Austin’s Neighborhood Planning process that began in 1996, gave East Austin residents significantly more control in zoning decisions for their neighborhoods.

52

Unfortunately, many industrial and commercial land-uses inconsistent with residential neighborhoods were “grandfathered in” – i.e., they were allowed to continue as nonconforming land uses because they were there before the zoning changes took effect and had “vested rights” to remain. Environmental Politics, Smart Growth and Gentrification Around the same time the “Green” City Council approved the East Austin Overlay district and began its process of Neighborhood Planning, a new set of environmentally-minded city plans triggered a new type of environmental justice problem for East Austin: gentrification. Unfortunately, as environmental activists worked to limit growth in environmentally sensitive and recreationally revered parts of town, the City of Austin chose to make Central East Austin – conveniently located adjacent to the urban core – the “targeted development zone” where it would steer future growth. While this planning focus meant that cleaning up brownfield sites and reducing LULUs in East Austin would finally be a priority for the City, it also meant that rapid new development would threaten to displace families and businesses established in those neighborhoods. As Austin’s economy began to boom beginning in the 1970s, an environmental movement emerged to protect Austin’s treasured landscapes, natural resources, recreational spaces and quality of life.17 In 1990, Austin became famous for its

53

S.O.S. (Save Our Springs) Ordinance that emerged from an all night public hearing in which 900 Austin environmental activists challenged a large development project slated for the Barton Springs Watershed.18 The S.O.S. Ordinance ultimately failed to prevent much development over the sensitive watershed since Texas law easily “grandfathered in” development. However, its passage was a watershed moment in Austin’s planning history, with developers and environmentalists fighting over private and public property rights. The environmental activists devoted themselves to preventing development in West Austin, home of several vulnerable species of amphibians and = birds (including the endangered Barton Springs Salamander), as well as the Edwards Aquifer, an important water source. From these conflicts, in 1997 a new “Smart Growth” policy emerged, designed to acknowledge the desirability of growth while directing its path to meet other public needs. This policy – which established Central East Austin as the targeted development zone described above – was developed behind closed doors, in a meeting with environmentalists, developers, and city staff. Members of East Austin communities were notably missing.

Although increased private and public investments in East Austin have brought some benefits, they have also rapidly increased property values in the area, which in turn have increased residential property taxes. According to a research team of the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas, the median sales price of homes in Central East Austin (zipcodes 78702 and 78741) increased from $58,000 to more than $119,000 (more than 100 percent in value) between 1999 and 2005 – a rate more than double the citywide 30 percent median price increase.21 In 1998, single family homes in the East Cesar Chavez neighborhood (just East of IH-35 and just north of Town Lake) were paying an average of $706 annually in property taxes, but in 2004 this average rose to $1,614, a 123% increase.22 Elderly residents – usually on a fixed, low income – paid an average of $323 in 1998 and $735 in 2004, a 128% increase.23 Unfortunately, property taxes have increased more than many long time East Austin residents’ ability to pay. The LBJ study found that East Austin accounts for only 15% of Austin’s housing stock, but has 47% of the city’s tax delinquent properties and 72% of

54

its foreclosures. Unfortunately, the clean up of industrial hazards and toxins from East Austin will not be enjoyed by its residents if they are priced out of their own communities.

Recognizing the importance of “affordability” and economic justice in “environmental justice,” PODER’s leaders also work for expansion of affordable housing, opportunities in education, and other aspects of social and economic justice in East Austin. New economic growth in the area will not benefit East Austin residents unless its children receive the education they need to be able to secure jobs in these new “clean” companies. Revitalized brownfields and beautiful new parks will not be enjoyed by residents if they can’t afford to live there.

In East Austin, like other cities around the country, environmental justice activists must at once fight to eliminate toxic land uses and promote solutions to their neighborhoods’ increasing affordability problems. It is from within this historic context that this environmental justice partnership between the University of Texas, PODER andZavala Elementary School began.

55

East Austin Gentrification

In 1993 Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton wrote: “The segregation of blacks and whites has been with us so long that it seems a normal and unremarkable feature of America’s urban landscape.” Austin bore the evidence of this truism back in 1928 when the Koch Proposal was presented to an accepting audience of City of Austin leaders. Their response was to create a segregated East Austin, a favored destination for non-whites to make their homes and lives.

Today the pressure of gentrification is bearing down on the old community like never before. Will the future East Austin remain a true home to non-whites, thrown against the pressure of rising property values and development?

East Austin has been a neglected corner of the Austin community for many years. While much of the city has grown with power and profitability, the pace of progress in East Austin has offered a striking contrast. But now, decades after its creation, the ebbing tide has become a near avalanche, and gentrification has become more than a contentious word in Webster’s dictionary.

Non-whites lived all throughout Central Texas before the City of Austin created East Austin after a Dallas planning team’s proposal found sympathetic, racist ears in 1928. Segregated black schools had already located to the area, and by 1930, Rosewood Park became the first city-provided recreational facility for African Americans. (A 1932 City of Austin report said that the 12 acres in Rosewood Park and the 9.52 acres in Zaragosa Park “are given the same care and attention as the other [urban] parks and playgrounds.”)

Dr. Charles Urdy is a former professor at Huston-Tillotson University—and a former Austin City Council member—who has seen the change with his own eyes. In mid-20th century his family left the nearby country and arrived in East Austin to make a better future for themselves. Urdy remembers well the texture and tone of East Austin then:

56

“East 11th and East 12th Street were the heart and soul of East Austin. Practically everything we needed or wanted was either on those streets or near to those streets. It was sort of the business hub for East Austin. And it is where most people spent most of their time outside of work. Most people only left East Austin to go to work.”

A thriving, close-knit ethnic enclave become an ill-fitting, blighted area by the middle 1960s as integration became the law of the land. Opportunities for living and working led many blacks beyond the traditional boundaries of East Austin, which had a way of dissipating its synergy. In the old neighborhood, commerce declined, crime increase, schools became worse, marginalization all around. (In fact, old Anderson High School on Thompson, a point of pride in old East Austin, was closed by the Austin ISD in 1972.) In the wake of integration in Austin, the beneficiary was overall progress, but the loser was East Austin. The black community seemed powerless to respond to the loss of its traditional livelihood. Despite an urban renewal effort that was begun in the 1960s (and arguably never completed) and plenty of infrastructure improvements since then, Austin has been unable to restore an all-over glow on what used to be a bright but segregated spot in Texas and the South.

For years the separation between whites and East Austin was nearly palpable. Dr. Robert Jensen is a Journalism professor at the University of Texas and author of a book, The Heart of Whiteness, which addresses his observations about white privilege in America. Jensen advocates that white power is a problem that can drive deep fissures into our landscape and our society. In an interview he said:

“When I came here in 1992, well-intentioned white liberals, colleagues of mine here at the University of Texas, quickly advised me don’t bother looking for a house on the east side of the interstate. These were people who thought of themselves as anti-racist, thought of themselves as liberal. Well, that tells you how deeply woven into the fabric—not only of U.S. society, but also of Austin—white supremacy is.”

57

The geographical nearness to downtown, the simple economics of still-affordable property and a retreating social stigma about East Austin have led to urban gentrification. Economics are starting to reduce to ability of indigenous families to maintain their stand in Central East Austin. White families and businesses are becoming downright popular.

The example of Clarksville in West Austin serves as the direction that things will no doubt go in East Austin. As a white youth, Jake Billingsley grew up with black families because his dad was the minister at St. James Episcopal Church in East Austin. Billingsley moved to Clarksville in the 1970s after a black co-worker sold him a house. Living in the same house today, which is appraised at a magnitude more than the original cost, Billingsley is a community organizer. He recalls the history:

“[Clarksville] was founded by Charles Clark in approximately 1870. Governor Peace of Texas had deeded land to some of his former slaves. And some of that plantation land also formed that first settlement of Clarksville. Because this community thrived so much and was known as this ‘freedom town,’ in the 1970s it became recognized by the National Register, which registers national historic places and sites in the United States, as one of only two, really, black national historic districts in the entire United States. The other one is Martin Luther King’s birthplace in Atlanta, Georgia.”

Pauline Brown moved to Clarksville at an early age (from Wheatville, another black enclave that didn’t survive too long). The community thrived at that time, centered around the Sweet Home Baptist Church and family relationships, though they had to get many services, like schools, miles away in East Austin. Brown recalled that the comfortable life in Clarksville suddenly gave way when the MoPac Expressway came to life off the drafting table:

“Clarksville started seeing a change when the city council decided to build an expressway on the west side of town. That included coming across the whole area of Clarksville.”

58

MoPac’s construction eviscerated the heart of Clarksville. The remaining families, those whose properties weren’t in the path, eventually found development knocking on their doors and sold out long ago. Ms. Brown is probably the oldest original resident of the neighborhood who still lives there, but the cost to join her as a neighbor is quite expensive now. Since the mid-1950s Ms. Brown has soldiered on, striving to protect as much of the old neighborhood and its history as she can.

Dr. Emily Skop teaches Geography at the University of Texas. While standing on one of the oldest streets in Clarksville, lined with tidy to luxurious houses, she offered her prediction about East Austin of tomorrow:

“In 30 years, this is probably what East Austin is going to look like. The pressures of development and the tremendous amount of change that is going on in that part of the city, suggest to me that this is indeed what is going to happen. We’re going to see an entirely different landscape, different everything happening in that part of the city.”

The cost of developing in East Austin is lower than many neighborhoods, but it is rising steadily, according to the rules of gentrification. The paucity of new “affordable” housing in East Austin is another factor that will drive some of the older families out. But one proposed tool that might help some families to survive the imminent changes is the proposed Homestead Preservation District, now winding its way through the state and city government.

On another front, the Austin Revitalization Authority, of which Dr. Urdy is the current chairman, seeks to protect and promote healthy commerce in the historic E. 11th and E. 12th business districts.

There are also a number of neighborhood organizations and community-based corporations that have pledged to look out for the people who have a voice and little else.

59

Mexican AmericansPeople of Mexican descent in Texas trace their biological origins to the racial mixture that occurred following the Spanish conquest of Mexico in the 1520s. During the Spanish colonial period, population increases occurred as Spanish males mixed with Indian females, begetting a mestizo race. By 1821, when Mexico won its independence from Spain, the mestizo population almost equalled the size of the indigenous stock and that of Iberian-born persons. Mexicans advanced northward from central Mexico in exploratory and settlement operations soon after the conquest, but did not permanently claim the Texas frontierland until after 1710. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the French became increasingly active along the Texas Gulf Coast, and in response, the viceroy in Mexico City made preparations for the colonization of the Texas wilderness. The first expedition in 1716 peopled an area that subsequently became the town of Nacogdoches; a second in 1718 settled present-day San Antonio; and a third established La Bahía (Goliad) in 1721. During the 1740s and 1750s, the crown founded further colonies along both banks of the Rio Grande, including what is now Laredo. At this early time, the crown relied primarily on persuasion to get settlers to pick up and relocate in the far-off Texas lands. Those responding hailed from Coahuila and Nuevo León, though intrepid souls from the interior joined the early migrations. In reality, few pioneers wished to live in isolation or amid conditions that included possible Indian attacks. They feared a setting that lacked adequate supplies, sustenance, and medical facilities for the sick, especially infants. Frontier living inhibited population growth so that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Spanish Texas neared its end, the Mexican-descent population numbered only about 5,000.

Between then and the time of the Texas Revolution in 1836, the number of Hispanics fluctuated, but then increased perceptibly, so that the first federal census taken of Texas in 1850 counted more than 14,000 residents of Mexican origin. Subsequently, people migrated from Mexico in search of agricultural work in the state, and in the last half of the century, moved north due to a civil war in the homeland (the

60

War of the Reform, 1855–61) and the military resistance against the French presence (1862–67). But they also looked to Texas as a refuge from the poverty at home, a condition exacerbated by the emergence of President Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911), whose dictatorial rule favored landowners and other privileged elements in society. The Mexican Revolution (1910–1920) increased the movement of people across the Rio Grande. Mass relocation persisted into the 1920s as agricultural expansion in the southwestern United States also acted to entice the desperately poor. The total Mexican-descent population in Texas may have approximated 700,000 by 1930. The Great Depression and repatriation efforts and deportation drives undertaken during the 1930s stymied population expansion. Growth resumed during the 1940s, however, as labor shortages in the United States induced common people from Mexico to seek escape from nagging poverty in the homeland. Many turned to Texas ranches and farms, but also to urban opportunities, as the state entered the post-World War IIqv industrial boom. Their presence, combined with births among the native-born population, augmented the Spanish-surnamed population to 1,400,000 by 1960. Though economic refugees from Mexico continued to add to the expansion of Tejano communities after the 1960s, the majority of children born since that date have had native-born parents. The 1990 census counted 4,000,000 people of Mexican descent in the state. Fewer than 20 percent of that population were of foreign birth.

In 1836, when Texas acquired independence from Mexico, Tejanos remained concentrated in settlements founded during the eighteenth century, namely Nacogdoches, San Antonio, Goliad, and Laredo. Other communities with a primarily Mexican-descent population in 1836 included Victoria, founded by Martín De León in 1824, and the villages of San Elizario, Ysleta, and Socorro in far west Texas. Spaniards had founded these latter settlements on the west bank of the Rio Grande during the 1680s as they sought to claim New Mexico, but the villages became part of the future West Texas when the Rio Grande changed course in the 1830s. Population dispersals until the mid-nineteenth century occurred mainly within the regions of Central and South Texas. In the former area, Tejanos spread out into the counties east

61

and southeast of San Antonio seeking a livelihood in this primarily Anglo-dominated region. In South Texas, they pushed from the Rio Grande settlements toward Nueces River ranchlands and still composed a majority of the section's population despite the increased number of Anglo arrivals after the Mexican War of 1846–48. In the years after the Civil War, Mexicans moved west of the 100th meridian, migrating simultaneously with Anglo pioneers then displacing Indians from their native habitat and converting hinterlands into cattle and sheep ranches. By 1900, Tejanos were settled in all three sections. They formed a minority in Central Texas and a majority in South Texas; they held a demographic advantage along the border counties of West Texas, but were outnumbered by Anglos in that section's interior.

The rise of commercial agriculture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries summoned laborers for seasonal and farm work, and both recent arrivals from Mexico and native-born Tejanos answered the call by heading into South and Central Texas fields. During this period, they also made for Southeast Texas and North Texas, searching out cotton lands as well as opportunities in large cities such as Houston and Dallas. Between 1910 and 1929, migrant workers began what became a yearly migrant swing that started in the farms of South Texas and headed northward into the developing Northwest Texas and Panhandle cottonlands. They settled in smaller communities along the routes of migration, and by the 1930s the basic contours of modern-day Tejano demography had taken form. With the exception of Northeast Texas, most cities and towns in the state by the pre-World War II era had Tejano populations. Tejanos relied on a wide spectrum of occupations in the nineteenth century, though most found themselves confined to jobs as day laborers and in other unspecialized tasks. They worked as maids, restaurant helpers, and laundry workers, but the great majority turned to range duties due to the orientation of the economy and their skills as ranchhands and shepherds (pastoresqv). A small percentage found a niche as entrepreneurs or ranchers. After the 1880s, Texas Mexicans turned to new avenues of livelihood, such as building railroads and performing other arduous tasks. During the agricultural revolution of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, many worked

62

grubbing brush and picking cotton, vegetables, and fruits, primarily in the fields of South Texas, but also migrated into the other regions of the state as farmhands. In the urban settlements, an entrepreneurial sector-comprising shopowners, labor agents, barbers, theater owners, restaurateurs, and the like-ministered to Mexican consumers in familiar terms. Even as Texas society experienced increased urban movements following World War I, Tejanos remained preponderantly an agrarian people. In towns, many faced labor segregation and took menial jobs in construction work, city projects, railroad lines, slaughterhouses, cotton compresses, and whatever else availed itself. After World War II, however, increased numbers of Tejanos left agricultural work and found opportunities in the industrializing cities. Most found improvements in wages and working conditions in unskilled or semiskilled positions, though a growing number penetrated the professional, managerial, sales, clerical, and craft categories. Presently, the great majority of Tejanos hold urban-based occupations that range from high-paying professional positions to minimum-wage, unskilled jobs. An unfortunate minority remains tied to farm work as migrating campesinos (farmworkers).

Since the initial settlements of the early eighteenth century, a sense of community has given Tejanos a particular identity. On the frontier, common experiences and problems forced Texas Mexicans to adjust in

63

ways different from those of their counterparts in the Mexican interior. Tejanos fashioned an ethic of self-reliance, wresting their living from a ranching culture, improvising ways to survive in the wilderness expanse, and devising specific political responses to local needs despite directives from the royal government. In barrios (urban neighborhoods) and rural settlements in the era following the establishment of American rule, Tejanos combined tenets of Mexican tradition with those of American culture. The result was a Tejano community that practiced a familiar folklore, observed Catholic holy days and Mexican national holidays, spoke the Spanish language, yet sought participation in national life. But Tejanos faced lynching, discrimination, segregation, political disfranchisement, and other injustices. This produced a community at once admiring and distrusting of United States republicanism. The arrival of thousands of Mexican immigrants in the early years of the twentieth century affected group consciousness as now a major portion of the population looked to the motherland for moral guidance and even allegiance. Recent arrivals reinforced a Mexican mentality, as they based familial and community behavior upon the traditions of the motherland. Many took a keener interest in the politics of Mexico than that of the United States. By the 1920s, however, birth in Texas or upbringing in the state produced newer levels of Americanization. Increasingly, community leaders sought the integration of Mexicans into mainstream affairs, placing emphasis on the learning of English, on acquaintance with the American political system, and acceptance of social norms of the United States. In modern times, a bicultural Hispanic community identifies primarily with United States institutions, while still upholding Mexican customs and acknowledging its debt to the country of its forefathers.

In truth, Tejanos are a diverse group, even divided along social lines. During the colonial era, a small, elite group that included landowners, government officials, and ambitious merchants stood above the poverty-stricken masses. Though the American takeover of Texas in 1836 reversed the fortunes of this elite cohort, Mexican Americans devised imaginative responses in their determination to maintain old lands, buy small parcels of real estate, found new businesses, and develop political

64

ties with Anglo-Americans. This nineteenth-century social fragmentation remained into the early 1900s, as even the immigrants fleeing Porfirio Díaz and the Mexican Revolution derived from different social classes. The lot of the great majority of Tejanos remained one of misery, however. Most Mexican Americans lived with uncertain employment, poor health, and substandard housing. Out of the newer opportunities developing in the 1920s, however, emerged a petit bourgeoisie composed of businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals; from this element descended the leaders who called on the masses to accept United States culture during the 1920s. According to the 1930 census, about 15 percent of Tejanos occupied middle-class positions. After World War II, social differentiation became more pronounced as numerous Tejanos successfully achieved middle-class status. By the 1990s, nearly 40 percent of the Tejano labor force held skilled, white-collar, and professional occupations. The majority, however, remained economically marginalized.

Tejanos faced numerous obstacles in their efforts to participate in the politics of the nineteenth century. Anglos considered them unworthy of the franchise and generally discouraged them from voting. Where permitted to cast ballots, Tejanos were closely monitored by Anglo political bosses or their lieutenants to ensure that they voted for specific candidates and platforms. Members of the Tejano landholding class cooperated in this procedure. The status quo for them meant protecting their possessions and their alliances with Anglo rulers. Despite efforts to neutralize Tejanos politically, Texas Mexicans displayed interest in questions of regional and even national concern. Especially in the counties and towns along the Rio Grande and in San Antonio, they joined reform movements and attempted to mobilize people behind economic issues that bore on the wellbeing of barrio residents. Some held offices as commissioners, collectors, or district clerks. Moreover, they took stands on the divisive issues of the 1850s, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Gilded Age politics. During the early decades of the twentieth century and continuing until the late 1940s, political incumbency took a downturn. The Democratic party institutionalized the White Primary during this period, the legislature enacted the poll tax, and demographic

65

shifts occurred that diluted the majority advantage held by Tejanos in South and extreme West Texas. The nineteenth-century bosses who had compensated Mexican voters with patronage suffered setbacks from the Progressive challenge and were removed from power during the teens. Some Mexican-American politicians in the ranch counties of South Texas-Webb, Zapata, Starr, and Duval-did manage to retain their positions, however.

In the post-World War II years, Anglo political reformers solicited Mexican-American cooperation in efforts to establish improved business climates in the cities. Due to a more tolerant atmosphere and political resurgence in the barrios, Tejano politicians once more gained access to political posts; in 1956 Henry B. Gonzalez became the first Mexican American to win election to the Texas Senate in modern times. In the mid-1960s a liberal-reformist movement spread across Tejano communities, led by youths disgruntled with barriers in the way of Tejano aspirations and inspired by a farmworkers' march in 1966. Anglo society became the object of militant attacks. Out of this Chicano movement surfaced the Raza Unida party with a plank that addressed discriminatory practices and advocated the need for newer directions in Texas politics. For a variety of reasons, this political chapter in Tejano history ended by the mid-1970s and was succeeded by more moderate politics, led by leaders wanting to forge workable coalitions with liberal Democratic allies. The 1970s and 1980s saw a dramatic rise in the number of Tejano incumbents. Federal legislation and court decisions, a more open-minded Anglo society, and the impact of the Chicano movement brought successes.

Clubs with political leanings existed throughout Texas in the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth century, although no large successful organization appeared on the scene until 1929, when activist members of a small but growing Tejano middle class founded the League of United Latin American Citizens. Though LULAC was nonpolitical, it sought to interest Texas Mexicans in politics (by sponsoring poll tax drives, for instance) and worked to change oppressive conditions by investigating cases of police brutality, complaining to civic officials

66

and business proprietors about segregation, and working for a sound educational system. Along with the American G.I. Forum of Texas, which was founded in 1948, LULAC utilized the judicial process to effect changes favorable to Mexican Americans. During the Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s, these two organizations turned to the federal government to get money for needy Mexican-American communities in the state. Both pursued a centrist political position after the Chicano period. In 1968, civil rights lawyers founded the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund to fight for legal solutions of problems afflicting Mexican Americans. By the 1970s, MALDEF had gained distinction by winning judicial victories in the areas of diluted political rights, employment discrimination, poor educational opportunities, and inequitable school finance.

As descendants of Spaniards who brought their religion to Mexico, the majority of Texas Mexicans belong to the Catholic faith. Generally, Texas-Mexican Catholics have observed doctrine and received the sacraments by marrying in the church and having their children baptized and taught religion, though their adherence to Catholic teaching is far from complete. Recent surveys indicate that many Mexican-American Catholics view the church as a place for worship but not an institution readily responsive to personal and community needs. Close to 60 percent believe themselves to be "good Catholics." Protestants have proselytized among Texas Mexicans with general success. Many barrios in the larger towns featured Protestant places of worship by the 1870s, and newer enclaves in the twentieth century had several "Mexican" Protestant churches. Protestant work among Mexican Americans has

67

been constant in the twentieth century; Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Jehovah's Witnesses have made special efforts to convert Mexican-American Catholics. Approximately 20 percent of Mexican Americans in the United States belong to Protestant communions.

Anglo-American society in the nineteenth century did not concern itself over the education of Texas-Mexican children, since farmers and ranchers had little need for a literate working class. Where public schooling might exist, however, Tejano families urged their children to attend. Those who could afford it, on the other hand, enrolled their youngsters in private religious academies and even in colleges. Select communities established local institutions with a curriculum designed to preserve the values and heritage of Mexico. Not until the 1920s did government take a serious interest in upgrading education for Tejanitos, but even then, society provided inferior facilities for them. Texas-Mexican children ordinarily attended "Mexican schools" and were discouraged from furthering their education past the sixth grade. Attendance in these schools, however, did have the effect of socializing and Americanizing an increased number of young folks whose parents were either foreign-born or unacculturated. Though Texas Mexicans had protested educational inequalities since the second decade of the century, it was not until the 1930s that they undertook systematic drives against them-namely as members of LULAC, but also through local organizations such as the Liga Pro-Defensa Escolar (School Improvement Leagueqv) in San Antonio. Before World War II, however, the educational record for Tejanos proved dismal, as poverty and administrative indifference discouraged many from regular attendance. The children of migrant parents, for example, received their only exposure to education when the family returned to its hometown during the winter months. After the war, the G.I. Forum joined in the struggle to improve the education of the Mexican community with the motto "Education is Our Freedom." With LULAC, the forum campaigned to encourage parents and students to make education a priority. Both organizations also worked through the legal system and successfully persuaded the courts to desegregate some districts. During the 1950s, indeed, Tejanos witnessed slight improvement in their educational status, though this may have been

68

partly due to the rural-to-urban transition of the time. City life meant better access to schools, better enforcement of truancy laws, and less migration if heads of families found more stable employment. The gap between Mexican-American and Anglo achievement remained wide, however, and after the 1960s, MALDEF leveled a legal assault on issues such as racial segregation and the inequitable system of dispersing public funds to school districts. Concerned parents and legislators also strove for a better-educated community by supporting such programs as Head Start and bilingual education. In more recent times, however, Mexican-American students still had the highest dropout rate of all ethnic groups. In part, this explained the fact that Mexican-American students average only ten years in school.

Within the social space of segregated neighborhoods or isolated rural settlements, Tejanos carried on cultural traditions that blended the customs of the motherland with those of the United States. They organized, for instance, an array of patriotic, recreative, or civic clubs designed to address bicultural tastes. Newspapers, either in Spanish or English, informed communities of events in both Mexico and the United States. Tejanos also developed a literary tradition. Some left small autobiographical sketches while others wrote lay histories about Tejano life. Creative writers penned narratives, short stories and poems that they submitted to community newspapers or other outlets; some were in Spanish, especially those of the nineteenth century, but works were also issued in bilingual or English form. Civic leaders compiled records of injustices or other community concerns, and academicians wrote scholarly articles or books. Among the latter may be listed Jovita González de Mireles, Carlos E. Castañeda, and George I. Sánchez,qqv who published after the 1930s. Painters, sculptors, and musicians have made some contribution to Tejano traditional arts, though not much is known of such contributions before the 1920s. During the 1930s, Octavio Medellín begin a career as a sculptor of works with pre-Columbian motifs. After World War II, Porfirio Salinas, Jr., gained popularity as a landscape artist, and during the 1960s some of his paintings hung in Lyndon B. Johnsonsqv's White House. More recent is José Cisneros, known for his pen-and-ink illustrations of Spanish Borderlands historical

69

figures. The workers of Amado M. Peña, a painter from Laredo, and the sculptor Luis Jiménez of El Paso reveal a border influence but go beyond ethnicity. Numerous musicians have established legendary careers in Spanish; several Tejanos have topped the American rock 'n roll charts, and some have earned Grammys. Folklore, much of it based on the folk beliefs of the poor in Mexico, flourished in Mexican communities in Texas. While reflecting many themes, it especially served to express feelings about abrasive confrontations between Tejanos and Anglos. Corridosqv of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, for example, criticized white society for injustices inflicted on barrio dwellers or extolled heroic figures who resisted white oppression.

In the nineteenth century, the dominant language in the barrios and rural settlements was that of Mexico, though some Tejanos also attained facility in English and thus became bilingual. Various linguistic codes characterize oral communications in present-day enclaves, however, due to continued immigration from Mexico, racial separation, and exposure to American mass culture. Some Texas Mexicans speak formal Spanish only, just as there are those who communicate strictly in formal English. More common are those Spanish speakers using English loan words as they borrow from the lexicon of mainstream society. Another form of expression, referred to as "code-switching," involves the systematic mixing of the English and Spanish languages. Another mode of communication is caló, a "hip" code composed of innovative terminology used primarily by boys in their own groups.

Friction has characterized relations between mainstream society and Tejanos since 1836. Mechanisms designed to maintain white supremacy, such as violence, political restrictions, prohibition from jury service, segregation, and inferior schooling caused suspicion and distrust within the Mexican community. Repatriation of Mexican citizens during the depression of the 1930s and Operation Wetback in 1954 inflicted great anguish on some of the communities touched by the drives, as Tejanos perceived them to be racially motivated. In more recent times, conflict between the two societies has persisted over such issues as immigration, the right to speak Spanish in schools, and the use of public money to

70

support the Tejano poor. Even as Anglo-American society attempted to relegate Tejanos to second-class citizenry, Mexican Americans have sought to find their place in America. Middle-class businessmen have pursued integration into the economic mainstream, and the politically minded have worked for the involvement of Tejanos in the body politic. Such were the objectives of organizations as LULAC, the G.I. Forum, and MALDEF. Though recent immigrants wrestle with two allegiances, their children have ordinarily accepted the offerings of American life. Indeed, Texas Mexicans have proven their allegiance toward the state on numerous occasions, especially during the country's several wars. Seldom have drives toward separatism gained support across the spectrum of the community. Probably the most prominent movement emphasizing anti-Anglo sentiments was the Chicano movement, but even its rhetoric appealed only to certain sectors of the community. In the Lone Star State, Mexican Americans stand out as one of the few groups having loyalties to the state while simultaneously retaining a binary cultural past.

71

The Mexican American Second Generation:Yesterday, Today... and Tomorrow

The Mexican American "new" second generation shares many points in common with the other cases included in this volume. They display much the same complex pattern of partial acculturation and ambivalent ethnic identity that is typical of other new second generation youth. They are socially defined as "non-white," though race is for them a source of confusion and ambivalence. They feel caught between, on the one hand, the demands of their parents, who are struggling to build new lives in the United States, and on the other hand, their own struggles to combat what they perceive as a hostile environment and their need to construct a new identity that will allow them to face that environment with confidence.

But in other ways the Mexican-American case stands apart. They and their parents lack many of the resources that have allowed other recent groups of newcomers to the United States to thrive. The majority of Mexican immigrants come from the humblest sectors of Mexican society On average they have only a few years of schooling, limited urban job skills and little or no knowledge of English. Immigrant Mexican communities are by no means "disorganized" in the old-fashioned sociological sense of the term; two-parent households and high levels of labor force participation are the norm. But in comparison to many other immigrant communities, they lack the web of organizations and practices that have allowed those groups to utilize traditional culture to help children achieve. The children of Mexican immigrants generally do poorly in school and their occupational prospects are bleak. Their socioeconomic disadvantages and dismal school performance are particularly striking in Austin, where most other contemporary immigrant groups are notable for just the opposite. If Mexican American youth were just another in the vast array of new second generation groups, there would be only modest cause for concern regarding their below average achievement and future prospects. It would be nice if all of America's ethnic groups and all its children were, as in Lake Wobegon, above average; in the real world some have to fall below the mean. But in Austin and the

72

Southwest, Mexican Americans are not "just another" immigrant-origin ethnic group. They are instead by far the largest "minority" and are rapidly becoming the single largest ethnic group, destined to outnumber whites sometime in the next century. Mexican Americans and other Latinos today constitute the single largest ethnic group among Austin's school children, and four out of five are the children of immigrants. Mexican American youth are also much more likely to be in blue collar/working poor families than whites, Asians or even African Americans. It would be no exaggeration, then, to say that the Mexican American second generation is on its way to becoming the single largest segment of Austin's population, when it is broken down along the three dimensions of ethnicity, generation and class.

Here we tell the story of the "new" Mexican American second generation, drawing from Census data and other research as well as from the CILS surveys of Mexican American youth in Texas. As concerned as we are with understanding the challenges facing adolescents growing up second generation and the vagaries of their ethnic identity, our primary goal is to understand the trajectory of socioeconomic adaptation and advancement for this rapidly-growing segment of the population. Our focus is on Austin, since the Mexican American CILS sample comes from Texas, and because immigration and the children that are its result are more immediately consequential for Austin than for the Southwest or the rest of the United States. We begin with a discussion of the unique importance of the Mexican case and some of the difficulties involved in comparing it with other "new" second generation groups. We then provide a description of the Texas Mexican-American community and the sample of Mexican American school children in Texas that provides much of our data. In Part III we turn to the thorny question of race and felt discrimination among Mexican Americans, which we consider to be a key issue that is usually over-simplified. Part IV reviews the socioeconomic status and accomplishments of second generation Mexican Americans, from the school and labor force accomplishments of an earlier second generation, through the school performance of second generation youth in Texas and Austin today.

73

The Unique Importance of the Mexican Case

In addition to poverty and sheer numbers, two additional important characteristics set the Mexican-American case apart: historical depth and racial ambiguity and negative stereotypes. Today’s is by no means the first Mexican-American second generation. The very roots of Austin and the Southwest are of course Mexican, and Mexicans have continuously inhabited the region for hundreds of years. In the early part of this century these tiny traditional Mexican/Hispanic populations were overwhelmed by migration from Mexico, migration that produced its own “second generation” that came of age forty years ago. Indeed, a discernable third generation was coming of age when large-scale immigration began again in the 1960s.

It is instructive to compare the age/generation profiles of Austin’s Mexican American population in 1960 and 1996. 1960 was the low point in the proportion foreign-born, and the high point in the proportion “native of native.” The compositional differences are equally striking: in 1960 only 20 percent of the state’s Latino population was foreign-born, and the median age of the foreign-born was 42; only 5 percent were school-age children and immigrants constituted two-thirds of the aged. The second generation was one-third of the total Latino population, but nearly half of those in their prime working years, 25-44; it was the core of working-age adults. Nearly half of all Austin Latinos were native-of-native, overwhelmingly third generation in Austin; but they were mostly children, and constituted two-thirds of all Latinos under the age of 16. By 1996 these patterns had been reversed. Immigrants are a much larger proportion of the total, but the sharpest contrasts come when the data are organized by age band: fully 69 percent of those 25-44 are immigrants, and two-thirds of the children are second generation, which has an average age of 10. In 1960 it made some sense to think of the generational categories as actual generations, as demonstrated by the median ages of each group. In 1996 Austin’s Latino population is actually an overlay of two quite different groups: a numerically predominant recent and continuing immigrant population, which provides most of the workers and most of the school children, and an

74

aging population whose immigrant origins tracing back 70 years into the past.The pre-existing Mexican-American community serves as an important part of the “context of reception” for new immigrants, but beyond this it is important in understanding today’s second generation for two reasons. First, their social and economic attainments provide a rough guide to the fate of today’s second generation, and perhaps tomorrow’s third. The Mexican socioeconomic origins and context of reception for Mexican immigrants today are not all that dissimilar to what immigrants from Mexico faced 80 years ago. Economic conditions and attitudes about race have certainly changed, but these changes are complex, and there is no reason to believe that the net effect of these changes is to make social assimilation and success easier today for Mexican Americans than in the past. Second, the status of the pre-existing Mexican American population inevitably determines the expectations and stereotypes that others apply to this new generation of Mexicans in the United States. The largely negative and highly racialized stereotypes associated with Mexican Americans provide an additional and heavy burden for the new second generation. Another

75

important difference from other immigrant groups today is racial ambiguity and the negative stereotypes attached to being Mexican in America: by official statistics Mexicans and other Latinos are white, black, Asian or Native American, but in practice “Latino” and especially “Mexican” serve as quasi-racial terms. However ambiguous race may be on the individual level for Mexican Americans, on the group level Mexicans are very much a stigmatized and despised group in Austin and the Southwest. Just as Mexican immigrants early in this century inherited the traditional status of Mexicans in the United States, so today’s immigrants and their children are inheriting the inner and outer burdens of Mexican “color” as they developed throughout the twentieth century. We believe that these four distinctive characteristics__poverty, group size, historical depth and racial stereotypes__interact to create special barriers to upward mobility for Mexican American youth, in such a way that their school performance and socioeconomic trajectories cannot be simply analyzed by individual-level quantitative measures.

Thirty years ago, in their massive study The Mexican-American People, Grebler, Moore and Guzman (1970) argued that the future of Mexican Americans might go in either of two directions: they might proceed along a somewhat delayed path of assimilation and increased economic equity, like Italians and other Euro-American ethnic groups; or they might share the caste-like fate of African Americans. The answer was to be found in the future, as third and fourth generation Mexican Americans became the majority of the group’s population. What Grebler and his associates did not foresee was the great revival of immigration that has taken place in the past 35 years. The Mexican-American People appeared just as the “Old” second generation was hitting its peak earning years, and their children were moving into young adulthood. As we shall see below, their mixed success, under economic conditions generally considered better than today, does not support optimism about the economic futures of today’s emerging “New” second Generation.

Much of our description and analysis revolves around the question of low academic achievement and its long-run consequences for Mexican Americans and for Austin. We believe that this is one of the gravest

76

policy questions facing the state and the Mexican American/Latino community at the dawn of the millennium. But in the historical context of immigration to the United States it is not a particularly interesting sociological question. We are not shocked and amazed about dysmal academic performance by children of Polish peasants and Italian farm laborers a century ago. Why expect the children of Mexican campesinos to do any differently? They arrive with the same meager resources as Polish peasants and Italian agricultural laborers, as well as the added burden of being socially non-white and identified with oppressed and low-achieving pre-existing Mexican American population.

Most immigrant groups in the past took at least three generations to reach socioeconomic parity with older ethnic stocks. Low second generation achievement was the norm; it is the rare high achieving second generations that require explanation. The success of groups like Jews has been explained in terms of the interaction between their backgrounds and their specific “context of reception.” Conversely, groups like Poles and Italians lacked those special characteristics and conditions, but this was the normal state of affairs for most immigrants; there was no reason for special theories to explain why they and their children had to work their way up slowly, generation by generation. As was the case with Jewish second generation success, there is also a lively debate about the causal significance of specific cultural traits above and beyond the clear socioeconomic advantages of today’s Asian high-achieving second generation groups. This debate is fascinating, but not really relevant to understanding low achievement among the Mexican second generation, which appears to be following much the same pattern as European groups in the past.

To reiterate, the Mexican example reflects the normal run of things in American immigration history: the children of peasants who migrate get the minimal education offered by their new homeland, and find jobs somewhere between the dirty work their parents did and the “careers” of more privileged groups. Their parents found work, hard and ill-paid, to be sure, but better-paid than what they left in Mexico; and if their children’s education and occupational prospects may be modest by U.S.

77

standards, they are vastly superior to what they could have expected in Mexico. In relative terms, there may be more upward mobility among the Mexican American second generation than in the case of a Taiwanese engineer whose son goes to Stanford, or a Korean college graduate whose daughter goes to Harvard. There is, therefore, no reason to invoke cultural values to explain the modest success of the current Mexican-American second generation in schools. If the burden of enduring racial stereotypes is added to their socioeconomic disadvantages, then low Mexican-American achievement levels become all the more comprehensible.Why, then, is there such an obsession about “explaining” Mexican American “low achievement,” an obsession that we admittedly share?

We see three reasons:first, today’s Mexican-American second generation happens to be growing up alongside the truly unusual Asian American second generation groups, among whom even many poor children do well in school, and they are inevitably compared unfavorably with them. Even if achievement differences between Asians and Latinos could be explained by statistically controlling

78

socioeconomic factors (and it appears that they cannot), the general public cares little for multivariate analysis, and focuses on the group differences, not their causes;

second, the previous conditions that faciliated second and then third generation mobility in the past, particularly the availability of good, unionized manual jobs that do not require high levels of formal education, simply do not exist today. In contrast to the increasing industrial productivity of the 1940s and 1950s, we live today in an increasingly service-oriented economy, with an increasingly bifurcated job market. These are sociological platitudes, of course, but what is not always made clear is that this structural change is really a problem only for those groups entering the U.S. job market at the bottom, and Mexicans are the only large immigrant group that does so today. The emerging Mexican American second generation will not be satisfied with jobs on the bottom, but will have difficulty competing for jobs on the top, and it is not clear that they will be satisfied with whatever remains in-between;

third, there is substantial evidence that the older Mexican American third generation did not experience the same levels of upward mobility and social assimilation as that experienced by Italians and other European ethnics, but rather seems stuck near the bottom, along with African Americans. As with African Americans, a small middle-class segment is doing just fine, but a substantial portion seems to be left behind, albeit not in quite the dire straits of the black “urban underclass.” This suggests that today’s Mexican-American “new” second generation may not serve as a transition between their parents and their fully integrated and assimilated children, but rather represent the transition from a permanently disadvantaged minority to a permanently disadvantaged majority in Austin and the Southwest.

While we stress the uniqueness of the Mexican American case, we believe that it fits neatly within the general “segmented assimilation” theoretical framework of the CILS project that frames the potential for success in terms of background resources, labor market conditions and fit, and the

79

general political/social context of reception. The Mexican-American case demonstrates the importance of cultural and material capital, or rather their absence. Today, as throughout the twentieth century, labor market conditions have played an important role in both attracting Mexican labor, and also in determining the social fates of Mexican Americans raised in the United States. Even more so does it underline the importance of the cultural as well as material dimensions of the “context of reception,” into which immigrants arrive, which in turn sets the stage for the world in which their children grow up. In the case of Mexican Americans this includes expectations based on historically-rooted “racial” stereotypes that are more complex than white attitudes towards African Americans or Asians, but no less consequential.

The Mexican “Race:” Ambivalence, Ambiguity and a Sense of Discrimination

The major students of European assimilation and its discontents in American life__such as Milton Gordon (1964), Richard Alba (1985) and Stephen Steinberg (1989)__all emphasized the disjunction between the typical Euro-American experience and that of racially-distinct groups, by which they principally meant African Americans, but with less certainty included Asians and Latinos as well. It would not be inapposite to say that African Americans have faced the ultimate in negative “contexts of reception,” generation after generation. In their recent work Alba and Nee (1997) are skeptical about the significance of non-whiteness per se as a barrier to assimilation, as indeed they would have to be in the face of the evidence: Asian immigrant groups today demonstrate cultural and economic assimilation more rapid than Europeans a century ago, and their rates of social assimilation more closely approximate the European experience than the exclusion that faced all non-whites fifty years ago, and that still is the norm for African Americans. Middle-class Black anglophone Caribbeans seem to outpace native African Americans, though poor black Puerto Ricans are among the most marginalized “immigrants” in the continental United States. Clearly not color per se, but rather the background characteristics of specific populations as well as the specific stereotypes and discrimination

80

that they face are decisive, as segmented assimilation theory emphasizes.In addition to the complexities of class, among Mexicans race is particularly variable and ambiguous. In the popular press Mexicans are sometimes depicted as just another ethnic group (“like Italians”), on the same path towards assimilation. Chicano activists, often twisting the meaning of the Spanish term “la raza,” are equally certain that Mexican Americans are uniformly an oppressed racial group. The Census Bureau has never known what to make of Mexicans. Variously identified by mother tongue and surname in the past, in the last three decennial censuses they have been identified through a distinct “Hispanic Origin” question, separate from the question on race on which Latinos must identify themselves as white, black or Asian. If they insist on writing in something like “Mexicano” race it is re-coded as white. This results in two separate definitions of the nation’s white population: all classified as white on the race question and the real white population, which the Census Bureau awkwardly but revealingly refers to as “non-Hispanic whites.” One can write in “Mexican” on the ancestry question, but only Europeans and miscellaneous other whites are included in publications based on this ethnic definer; Mexicans and other Latinos are relegated to separate publications and tables, just like Blacks and Asians.

It is perhaps unfair to chide the Census Bureau, since race among Mexican Americans is confusing. Race is both a variable and a constant for Mexican Americans. Those who fit the mestizo/Indian phenotype, who “look Mexican,” cannot escape racial stereotyping any more than African Americans, though the stigma is usually not so severe. The sizeable minority that looks essentially Euro-American has at least the potential to “pass” as individuals, but to the degree that they continue to be identified as Mexicans they are subject to much the same stigma as their darker brothers and sisters. The complexity of this stigma has two sources: U.S. attitudes towards Mexicans as a “race” nearly as despised as Africans, and ideas about race brought from Mexico itself.In nineteenth century Austin and the Southwest, Mexicans formed something of a middle group between whites and non-whites...Asians, Africans and Indians...and internal color/class distinctions within the Mexican population were explicitly recognized. White Mexican property

81

owners mixed socially with Yankees, while “greasers,” working-class mestizos, were considered little better than Negroes or Chinamen. As the old Mexican elites declined, the acceptance of “High-class Mexicans” declined as well, but never totally disappeared. Mexicans were defined as non-white and restricted by miscegination laws, laws that tended to not be enforced against whiter and middle-class Mexicans. With the onset of mass immigration from Mexico early in the twentieth century, social prejudice against Mexicans was reinforced by white working-class fears of competition. Social prejudice and discrimination against Mexicans in early twentieth century Austin was somewhere in-between the situation of blacks and the lastest Southern European arrivals in Northeastern cities. But to say that it was “in-between” hardly means that it was minor: Italians and other Southern Europeans were themselves despised in quasi-racialist terms, and suffered social prejudice the remnants of which are still with us today.

However varied the actual experience of individual Mexican Americans may have been, negative stereotypes among the general population were well-crystalized by the 1930s. The poverty and limited prospects for upward mobility through education were reinforced by strong anti-Mexican attitudes. During the Depression, job competition heightened these feelings, and led to mass deportation of Mexicans, including some who were legal citizens. This antipathy reached its head during World War II in the “Zoot Suit Riots,” in which white servicemen attacked “cholos” who affected the baggy dance garb of the time, and the attackers were applauded by the press who saw the cholos as draft-dodgers. The fact that Mexican Americans, both naturalized citizens and the vanguard of the first second generation, volunteered and died during World War II in record numbers was either unknown or of no consequence.Anti-Mexican attitudes attenuated somewhat in the Postwar period, but by no means disappeared. The term “Mexican” continued to be associated in the public mind with a host of negative characteristics of status and of character. Residential and social segregation were not as uncompromising as that faced by Blacks, at least in the context of Austin. Data from the 1960s suggested a marked upturn in social assimilation

82

as measured by intermarriage rates. Though difficult to prove, we believe that this partial decline in discrimination was the result of two processes: a modest general decline in anti-Mexican attitudes, and the fact that as Mexican Americans became more middle-class they were more accepted, as they had been in the past.

The very acceptance of “white” Mexicans holds within it the key to continuing resentment about racism and the internalization of self-deprecation, even among those Mexican Americans who have personally experienced little direct racism: the experience of being told that one does not “look Mexican” or having well-meaning friends say things like “I thought you were Spanish” might lead an individual lacking in ethnic pride to hide his Mexicanness, but it also has the effect of reinforcing negative stereotypes. When even a well-meaning individual uses the term “Mexican” or “Latino” in opposition to “white,” she is explicitly categorizing them as non-white, with all the negative baggage that that implies in American culture.

Mexicans like to accuse North Americans of racism, with some justice, but Mexican culture itself is

83

as racist any: the white/mestizo/Indian caste-like divisions on which Mexican society was built for four hundred years still broadly describe the physiognomy of the upper, middle and lower classes, in both fact and cultural representations. The mestizo/Indian distinction is as much cultural as it is based on phenotype, making it possible for individuals to move “up” through education and intermarriage; but they do so within this firm racialist structure. On this has been grafted a twentieth century nationalist ideology emanating from the Mexican Revolution that glorifies the Indian past and centers “being Mexican” as being mestizo. Mexican social scientists have long noted the contradiction between the cultural idolization of indigenas in Mexico and the inexcusable ways in which they are actually treated. They have been much more hesitant to publically discuss racism as it affects mestizos in Mexico.

Mexican immigrants bring with them a set of conflicting racial attitudes about themselves that reflect the contradictory role of race in their homeland. On the one hand they are imbued with a strong nationalistic pride in “la Raza,” which is really a cultural term referring to all Mexicans and Mexican culture; on the other hand, as mestizos they cannot escape the color prejudice inherent in Mexican culture, even if that prejudice be directed against themselves. Spanish language television serves to remind them of the color hierarchy, since news and entertainment show hosts are white, as are the middle-class and elite characters portrayed in telenovelas, the Spanish-language soap operas that continue to be the most popular form of Spanish-language programming. Mexican color prejudices, we believe, reinforce and support anti-Mexican attitudes encountered in the United States. Like African Americans, Mexican Americans bear internal as well as external burdens of color, but their internal burdens are brought at least in part from Mexico.

The racial stigma of the Mexican-American population provides a particular challenge to understanding the role of race in the process of segmented assimilation. We believe that today race and racism is more consequential for this racially-ambiguous population than it is for the more racially-straightforward East Asian immigrant populations. On the one hand race among Mexicans and other Latinos is more ambiguous at

84

the level of individuals; on the other hand the stereotypical asssociation between low socioeconomic status and being of Mexican “race” is more ingrained and enduring. For at least the last forty years there has been no clear association in the American mind between being Asian American and being poor and poorly-educated; indeed the reverse has increasingly been the case. We do not mean to imply that Asians do not experience racially-based discrimination and prejudice; of course they do, and they are the special victims of the sort of racial lumping that ignores distinctions among Asian subgroups. But they do not struggle under stereotypes that relegate them to the status of “greasers” or “niggers.” We believe that anti-Mexican racism, in both its external and internalized forms, is an important factor in explaining the continued low status of second and third generation Mexican Americans in the United States.

We argue that a special burden of the new Mexican American second generation is that they inherit this pre-existing stigma, and it is reinforced by their own life experiences. Their parents, struggling to “ganar la vida,” are probably less affected by U.S. anti-Mexican attitudes, though we believe that they do convey the contradictory message about race that they bring from Mexico. Portes and Bach argued that, in a sense, a heightened awareness of discrimination can be seen as an indicator of increased participation in and understanding of American society. In other words, when children learn what it means to be “Mexican” in Austin they are undergoing precisely what Gordon meant by “acculturation,” learning, though not necessarily internalizing, and certainly not benefitting from, the norms of the dominant society. The severe poverty of their parents reinforces the caste-like stereotype of being Mexican, both in their eyes and in the eyes of others. We believe that it helps explain otherwise puzzling findings regarding identity and felt discrimination, to which we now turn. As Rumbaut has pointed out, coming to grips with discrimination and prejudice can be much more psychologically damaging to adolescents than for adults.

The degree of damage depends on individual factors, as well as on the strength of family and community networks and when the available

85

support comes from peer groups rather than families, the result can be a general rejection of schooling and other “white” institutions and goals. The resulting oppositional culture and sub-society is an important, if ultimately destructive form of segmented assimilation. As Rumbaut points out, there can be a great diversity of adaptive responses within the same community, depending on individual as well as social heterogeneity.

Putting aside the individual factors, which do not concern us here, it follows that the comparatively low level of social heterogeneity in the Mexican American Texas sample would lead us to expect comparatively little heterogeneity in adaptive responses among them. The rates of perceived discrimination among Texas Mexican American youth, divided according to language dominance. We chose this dimension of internal variation because it came closest to yielding distinct groups. Perhaps the most striking finding is the degree to which perceptions of discrimination and racial conflict are pronounced across all three groups. Even among the Spanish dominant, who are generally the most recently-arrived from Mexico, 88 percent agreed that there is racial

86

discrimination in America, and 67 percent report having personally experienced discrimination. As Ruggiero and Taylor (1997) have pointed out, it is common for individuals of all groups to report higher levels of discrimination directed against their group than against themselves. The figures on these two measures are similar for the other two groups, with a slight tendency for the more bilingual to have slightly lower pereceptions and experiences of discrimination. All three groups also agree that there is considerable racial conflict in America with, again, a slight tendency for bilinguals to agree at a lower rate. When the sample is divided by gender there is a very slight tendency for boys to preceive higher levels of racial conflict and discrimination.

As impressive as these rates of perceived discrimination are, they are not much different than the rates among other second generation youth in the Texas surveys. Eighty percent or more of ALL groups agree that discrimination and racial conflict are common, and two-thirds of each group report personal experiences of discrimination.

What does it mean when minority adolescents report discrimination? There is a well-established body of scholarship on the phenomenon that minority students tend to attribute any negative academic feedback to discrimination, and use this explanation as an shield for their self-esteem. Persuasive though this literature may be, we do not find strong evidence in support of it in the Texas data. For example, all sub-groups, including the Mexican-American, were split more-or-less evenly on the question of whether or not non-whites had an equal opportunity to get ahead in the United States. We suspect that much of the research tradition on “minority youth,” which traditionally has been carried out among African Americans, with some studies including Chicanos and Puerto Ricans as well, has only limited applicability to understanding today’s second generation youth, particularly Asians and others who do not come with a heavy burden of negative racist stereotypes.Of all the groups in question, we continue to believe that these negative “vicious circle” effects are most likely to impact Mexican-American youth, but we do not find compelling evidence for (or against) this hypothesis in the Texas data. However, in a separate study carried out by

87

the second author in a large urban high school in Southern Austin, strong evidence that Mexican American students feel discriminated against did emerge. Two-thirds agreed that Latino students suffer prejudice and discrimination in schools, at the hands of teachers and staff, and only 14 percent disagreed. On the other hand, the same sample generally agreed that Latino students did have an equal opportunity with others to achieve at school. How might this seeming contradiction be explained? We believe that a strong ethic of individualism and self-reliance pervades inner city high schools, just as it does American society generally. Mexican-American students are willing to acknowledge prejudice and discrimination, but apparently are not willing to consciously blame poor school performance on it. Stanton-Salazar (forthcoming) found that both students and school counselors had a very narrow conception of the range of support students should receive, and stressed unrealistic norms of self-reliance over more communitarian and holistic approaches that employed social support networks.

Educational Aspirations and Achievement

Educational aspirations and expectations, as well as the role of significant others in shaping these orientations, are a principal link between socioeconomic background and eventual attainment in adulthood (Duncan, Featherman, and Duncan, 1972; Wilson and Portes, 1976). Since aspirations have been theoretically tied to the encouragement and moral support of parents and other significant members of a young persons social network, aspirations have played an important role in accounting for those minority youth from low-SES communities who do experience academic success and educational mobility (Velez, 1989). Kao and Tienda (1995), examining a large national sample of eighth graders, found that relative to the children of U.S.-born parents, the children of immigrants had higher educational aspirations. Most telling was the pronounced hopes of immigrant parents, expressing aspirations for their children that even exceeded those of the children themselves.

The Mexican-American youth in our Texas sample reported uniformly high educational aspirations for themselves, and reported that their

88

parents had even higher aspirations. For example, 67 percent of the U.S.-born aspired to complete college, and reported that 84 percent of their parents wanted them to at least complete college. Obviously these expectations are highly optimistic, and in fact when asked what level of schooling they realistically expected, rates were markedly lower, though still unrealistic, given that only 10-20 percent of this sample will probably actually finish college. Occupational aspirations were equally unrealistic (60 percent hoped to have professional or managerial jobs). Aspirations varied little by gender, though girls had modestly higher educational aspirations, and multivariate analysis yielded no clear pattern of determinants of aspirations in this sample.

Rather than interpret these high aspirations causally, we prefer to view them as a recognition among Mexican-American youth of the importance and desirability of educational achievement as an essential step towards occupational success. Other studies (e.g. Kao and Tienda, 1995) have reported similar high aspirations among Mexican-American youth and their parents, with recent immigrants often having even higher aspirations. In the Texas study other ethnic groups reported even higher aspirations. The irony is that the higher aspirations of the other (mostly Asian) youth might actually be more realistic: in Austin today Asians are attaining truly spectatular rates of college attendance and graduation.

The importance Mexican immigrant parents place on higher education is also reflected in the survey and qualitative research by the second author mentioned above. He found that adolescents had a strong sense of the unequivocal value their parents place on education, but it was also clear that immigrant parents typically had only vague ideas about what higher education actually was or how to help their children actually attain it. Parents repeatedly told tales of hardship and sacrifice, including their own lack of educational opportunities and their determination that their children would succeed. They were relentless in their exortations. Well-meaning as such exortations are, in themselves they are not likely to be effective motivators. In both the Texas survey and in Stanton-Salazar’s

89

field work, parents overwhelmingly reported that they spoke with their children about school work and the importance of studying. Stanton-Salazar found that, at the same time that they talked about the importance of education, parents also put various duties and pressures on their adolescent children that militated in the opposite direction. Their attention was often shifting to their younger children, and they expected their teenage children to help out with childcare, housework, dealing with the outside world, and often contribute to the family income. They were often simply unable to help their teenage children with homework, and the children often spoke of the divide between the world of school and the world of home.

In sum, educational success is valued by Mexican-American children and their immigrant parents, but the scarce material and educational resources parents bring to the table means that in many cases they are not able to translate those values into effective educational support for their children, especially as they confront the difficult years of adolescence. Though we lack the data to support it, we are certain that Mexican immigrant parents stress education much more than immigrants from Poland or Italy 80 years ago, if only because higher education was much less pervasive in those days. The tragedy is that exhortation alone will not move today’s Mexican-American second generation into the middle class.

90

Hispanic Quality of Life Initiative

Austin’s exciting culture of different ethnicities, diverse ideologies and vibrant communities is a major contributor to Austin’s unique and attractive way of life. The City of Austin is committed to making Austin a place where its high quality of life is available to and accessible for all of its citizens – and the Hispanic Quality of Life Initiative is an important part of that effort.

There are currently more than 460,000 Hispanics living in the greater Austin area, representing the largest minority group. Our Hispanic population is rapidly growing and has increased 35 percent since 2000.

In 2005, the City of Austin launched the African American Quality of Life Initiative, identifying areas for improvement and resulting in a number of significant recommendations. Great interest was expressed in a similar process for the Hispanic and Latino community. On May 8, 2008, City Council approved Resolution No. 20080508-050 directing a Hispanic/Latino Quality of Life Initiative be implemented.

The Hispanic/Latino Quality of Life Initiative is a multi-phased process and includes demographic research, trend and data analysis; community engagement and understanding through public forums; community input using print and online surveys; and oversight team review culminating in a final recommendations report. The intent is to be as inclusive as possible. Bi-lingual communication and translation services will be available.

Ensures that the quality of life for Hispanics in Austin markedly different from the quality of life experienced by Hispanics in other cities.That the quality of life experience by Hispanics significantly different from the quality of life experienced by the rest of Austin and other demographic groups. That the City of Austin providing program services, financial assistance and other opportunities to enhance the quality of life for Hispanics.

91

92

93

REFERENCES

“About Austin | History & Heritage | Www.austintexas.org.” Austin, TX | Austin Hotels, Events, Attractions, Things To Do & More | AustinTexas.org. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.austintexas.org/visitors/about_austin/history__heritage/>.

“Austin Named #1 U.S. City for Hispanics - Austin Texas.” Austin, TX | Austin Hotels, Events, Attrac-tions, Things To Do & More | AustinTexas.org. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. <http://www.austintexas.org/media/press_releases/press_release?id=16>.

“City of Austin - Hispanic Quality of Life Initiative.” City of Austin - Austin City Connection: Home Page. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/hql/default.htm>.

“Hispanic Americans | Experiencing the Culture | Www.austintexas.org.” Austin, TX | Austin Hotels, Events, Attractions, Things To Do & More | AustinTexas.org. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.austintexas.org/visitors/about_austin/diverse_austin/hispanic/>.

“KLRU: Austin Now Politic/Economy Gentrification.” KLRU-TV, Austin PBS. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. <http://www.klru.org/austinnow/archives/gentrification/index.php>.

“Lesson in American Culture and American Values.” Study in the US | US College and US Universi-ties. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. <http://www.internationalstudentguidetotheusa.com/articles/culture.php>.

“MEXICAN AMERICANS | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA).” Texas State Historical Association (TSHA) | A Digital Gateway to Texas History. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqmue>.

“The Mexican-American Second Generation: Yesterday, Today...and Tomorrow -- David E. Lopez - Research & Seminars.” Migration Dialogue. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. <http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rs/more.php?id=48_0_3_0>.

“Mexico - Langage, Culture, Customs and Etiquette.” Professional Translation Services | Interpret-ers | Intercultural Communication & Training. Web. 2 Nov. 2011. <http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/mexico-country-profile.html>.

“Mexico - Langage, Culture, Customs and Etiquette.” Professional Translation Services | Interpret-ers | Intercultural Communication & Training. Web. 2 Nov. 2011. <http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/mexico-country-profile.html>.

“Things to Do in Austin | Austin, TX Experiences | AustinTexas.org.” Austin, TX | Austin Hotels, Events, Attractions, Things To Do & More | AustinTexas.org. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.austintexas.org/timeline/?currentActivity=7>.