>> my name is jaime sanchez jr, i will be guiding the discussion this afternoon. this is a theme that is central to the idea of remaking american political history. this is not to say that no one has ever thought of or written about latinos in american history. instead, it is about rethinking what political historians pay attention to. in an earlier panel, we asked an essential question. about the segregation of american history. there was a real barrier to what organizations and individuals are labeled as political or diplomatic actor actors. this panel seeks to shift the conversation as latino's being central -- forged in the fire of 19th

century warfare, boosted by constant mass migration, latinos have been part and parcel of modern american social fabric with over 150 years of history in the united states. latino's have made an indelible mark on u.s. politics. early in the u.s. history of the southwest territories and the long-standing significant political organizations and the protest movements of the sixties and seventies. latinos made u.s. politics their own. greeting the major synthetic works of history, or examining a syllabus, we are hard-pressed to find much representation of latino experiences in politics at all in mainstream legal history. it seems as though this calm prince is as suspicious and occasion as any to make the case for latino political history. traditional political history made --

written by earlier generation of historians has largely emphasized white men as the movers and she acres of american politics. newer works in political history have complicated our predecessors, we have seen more critical approach to race and politics. however race in politics in our field is often shorthand. though much has been done to illustrate the essential history of play scholarship has done little to move beyond white racial binary that dominates the narrative other fields have much better in their incorporation of latinos, including urban history, labor history, immigration and studies of the welfare state. in the context of city politics for example, urban history on cities such as chicago new york and los angeles are some of the best examples we have for any analysis. but what about the national? but more importantly where's

political history in this intellectual conversation? today's panel is a rallying call for political historians to rethink our historical engagement or lack thereof. and calling for a new research agenda of nuanced capacious and comprehensive latino and comprehensive history, we must first ask preliminary questions about what research has been done, is currently on the table or yet to be pursued. is there such a thing is latino political history? if so, what does it look like? what does mainstream political history stand to lose by not including latino actors and institutions? how would incorporating latinos into the discourse of american political history change the field and larger narrative? today, we will discuss some of the most pressing issues concerning the role of latinos and the american political past. joining us today and making the case for latino political history or some of the leading voices in this field.

rosy now lasagna is a historian of latino history with a research and teaching focus on mexican american history, the american west, migration and immigration, and comparative studies in race and ethnicity. she is the author of an american language, the history of spanish in the united states. it is a political history of the spanish language in the united states from the incorporation of the mexican succession to world war two. with some discussion of the following decades in present day concerns. an american language was published in 2018 by the university of california press. she is an associate professor at the department of history at princeton. our other colleague is history in of american borderlands his first book, standing on common ground, the making of the sun belt order land was published in 2013 by harvard university press and focused on the arizona borderlands since world war ii. he is now completing a book

about hispanic conservatism to be published in 2020 by echo press. he is the director of northwestern universities latina and latino studies program and an associate professor of history. benjamin francis allen to my right is a historian and teacher whose interests center on politics, immigration and ethnicity in the united states of america. the rise of the latino vote, his forthcoming book, examines how elected officials in party insiders attempted to forge mexican americans, puerto ricans and cubans into a nationwide political constituency, a process that proved pivotal to defining and institutionalizing latina role identity in the united states. it is due out in september of this year by harvard university press. very exciting. francis received his ph.d. from georgetown university and it's currently assistant professor history and coordinator of social sciences and education at western carolina university. and finally, my name is jaime

sanchez. i am a ph.d. -- my current project explores the history of the democratic national community as well as latino political organization. i am also the new host for and you host the organizer in moderator of today's roundtable discussion. we will try to cover as much ground as possible during our short time here and we will save time at the end for questions from the audience. with that said, we should get started in making the case for latino history. the first question i would like to open up to the panel is, what is latino political history in your view, and what is the most interesting issue in this field for you. if we can start with professor lasagna? >> thank you for organizing this and bringing us together on this important topic. i see as a broad category that includes many different fields and ties together issues that have been and remain important to the national politics of the

united states. so while many political history and stay more recent and focused on immigration, in my view latino political history begins in the early 19th century and includes larger debates of land ownership and lanyards and what is currently the u.s. southwest and other regions, even earlier than that in places along what became the midwest. i think it is a crucial to tie what has been largely considered as regional or local stories into the larger formation of the nation. i mention in my book, and thank you for plugging it in their. the political history of mexican americans includes how those who became u.s. citizens following the u.s. mexican war through the treaty, participated in the u.s. political system. i explain how these largely modeling most spanish speaking u.s. citizens began supporting the u.s. implementation -- into states like california, colorado and new mexico. by participating in politics and spanish, many also became devoted and patriotic u.s.

citizens. that includes being recognized by and participating and both major political parties. there is a lot more work to be done about the political involvement and the ways that those political parties recognize that they were there. they were the ones that were supporting their newspapers in spanish. they were the ones that were giving them money and funding to make sure that they were involved in the political process. in the 20th century, latino politics revolved largely around increasing latino political representation, immigration, civil rights, and it is really only in the 20th century i would argue that latino political histories inappropriate name. earlier histories of political participation and activism by and officials who may now call themselves latino or conducted almost entirely in isolation. while ethnic mexicans, puerto ricans and cubans may have been cognizant of one another even supportive, there is little evidence to suggest that they saw their struggles as one and the same. for me, it is the potential of the misnomer that yields one of

the most interesting historical questions or issues at this time. how does a latino political entity come to be? we've had a good start with books like christina making hispanics, but there is much more to uncover about this process and about where we are today in other ways that we look at the latino population. i will plug him is -- hopefully he will answer some of those questions. >> hello everyone. i would largely echo a lot of what rosanna said. a couple of things in particular, a story of latino politics and political history which stretch back to the 19th century and include a whole range of issues like land ownership. that to me suggests the necessity to have a kind of broad vision of what it means and also need to integrate

latino and american political history. kind of including in a much larger story of american politics. i did not think the title of the panel, making the case for latino political history is a little curious because my first responses why not? why would you not have. latino politics in american political history. it was curious to me that, you know, there is a need to make a case for it or something, and in made me wonder about the longer history of american political history that has maybe excluded it, that would necessitate its inclusion or necessitate our panelists making a case for it, because i do think that there must have been some chasm in the beginning of american political history, wherever we take it too and latino history that necessitates us bringing those things together now, so they did evolve as to separate things and now maybe there have

been recent evolutions and american political history at large that make the field more hospitable and thinking about and including something like latino history. the main two things i want to highlight is the difference between lip tea no political history and a history of latino politics. i think latino political history as i understand it is in a large degree, concerned with partisan political behavior and the involvement of latinos in the democratic party, or the republican party, or a third party for latino's. like texas in the 1970s. the history of latino politics would be a much longer forced inclusion in political life -- i don't just mean in terms of

parties, but recognition, civil rights, access to property and jobs. education. i would think of all of those things as part of the history of latino politics has been a real part of latino history and american history for a long time. i do think that both within american political history and the history of latinos and the united states -- histories of the involvement of latinos and partisan politics over a long period of time, is largely lacking. i think that there are individual books -- the bread and butter of the field of latino history as a field for a long time, has been community studies. i'm thinking about -- we will talk about books in a minute but, studies of texas and california. i think in those places, historians have looked at someone like edward roy for

whom it was important to register latino voters in los angeles in the mid 20th century. that is the story that gets told, but it is not part of a much part or history of the involvement of lip teen owes in partisan politics and i think that that is one major direction that the field of latino history will move in soon, i hope. as it does so, i think the story of latino political history and its involvement in american political history will come together more. >> a lot of what i will say reinforces some of that as well. i'm thinking about when most interests me, i am reminded of two things that the san antonio activist albert pina junior said in 1963.

first, well insisting on these people's americanism, he demanded that mexican americans would probably organize themselves as a distinct minority. if the irish in boston, the italians in new york can and the knee grows everywhere can do it, so can the mexican people of the united states. second, once they would adopt the ethnic posture, he said the price of their vote would be two things, recognition and representation. for me his remarks reveal that lip teen or political history and politics simultaneously as a vast project of ethnic soul searching and communal identification, practices that were for specific reasons you need to latinos as it unfolded, but also as a search for political inclusion that raises questions about jobs, access, patronage. in the first matter, he called to unabashedly ethnic politics raise questions well beyond texas. latino history invites us to

raise really big questions like how latino sought to harmonize local and state histories national origins and others self understanding to create durable forms of ethnic and solidarity. organizations capable of wielding power across a really vast expanse of the nation's latino political communities. how people attempted to mobilize individuals who claim descent from 16th century spanish explorers to new mexico. puerto rican migrants to the south in the 19 fifties and salvatore and rescue jeez in washington in the 1990s. and these questions are linked to the second half of his remarks that quest for recognition and representation. latino politics in an equal dialog with white elites from both major parties who support was needed to sponsor this project of integrating all of these communities and voices and mobilizing them for particular. causes most often the need to

fulfill some kind of destiny of a group of nationwide and scope. the question has to be asked about how these party elites, including u.s. presidents, use their abilities to reward or withhold, to influence the larger construction of the latino political community. it is that dance a validation between latino seeking to reimagine their community to cope with economic, social and political challenge pressures and the necessity of aligning those visions of community with an ever-changing set of candidates, ideologies and programs that i find so important and latino political history. jaime: there are a lot of interesting themes that we have heard from you three regarding ethnicity and the complications it brings, the earlier 19th century origins of latino political engagement from the get-go.

i think all of us would like to hear about your interest -- your interventions in this historical endeavor. can you tell us about your most recent work in the field of political history or the history of latino politics and how it is going. >> i am very excited to say, my first book is called the rise of the latino vote. i examined how mexican americans, puerto ricans and cubans came to be seen to some degree to see themselves as a single political constituency. in some cases, a people. i explained that the latino vote was not simply the inevitable consequence of immigration fueling democratic growth. nor was the emergence of an accepted pan ethnicity in

american life, the product of a top down position from washington bureaucrats who created a hispanic category. but rather, the book shows that how over couple of decades being beginning in 1960, and network of political activists from grassroots activists up to u.s. presidents, labored -- spanish beginning americans as the first call them into a single u.s. minority constituency. my book shows how the architects of latino politics devised new programs and platforms but relationships with each other and out collaborated -- elaborated ideas about what their peoples common needs were that were once kind of reflective of conditions underground but also that constituted new senses of i chose group identity how they. formed new organizations and devise new ways of distributing power among their populations, which was very unequal as to

size. it shows how they productively mind this ambiguity in whether they were coalition, building efforts, or whether they were seeking to transcend their national origins and pursue the creation of something in the community. it was this relentless and creative action of color blindness on the part of self described latinos democrats that drew both of their parties, liberals and conservatives into this kind of self reinforcing consensus that spanish speaking americans later hispanics, later latinos constituted a statistical population and electoral bloc. in so doing these activists and their elite patrons transcended the nations black and white binary and push the united nations. the united states into political multicultural

politics. even as they constitute even as they constructed the latino vote coming into existence, a national community and identity, the process of the work to undermine the stability of that latino political identity. , as i indicated earlier, the makers of the latino vote were dependent on party elites to support this project. powerful interests often thought more to control rather to empower the constituency. no surprise there. party leaders spoke of party of unifaction but when it but when it came down to it, they were more often ready to divide. it exacerbated internal hierarchies in the latino political community. party leads ensured while there is a vote, an independent

latino power was much more elusive. we went this way with the first question, let's go this way now. i am finishing a book right now about the history of hispanics in the republican party and republican hispanics and since about the 1960s it is important to say that we are calling on these voters -- hispanics this is what republicans call themselves for all kinds of reasons that we can get into. i know that is not exactly, you know, fashion within academia to call them hispanics. so, for me, the main question is why? why do hispanics vote for republicans?

as i explained before this is the first question i am always asked. it is a bit of a curiosity to many people. i wanted to explain why and whenever that question is asked of me, it is always with a very surprised tone that donald trump could have won as much as 30% of the hispanic vote or in the 2018 midterms, ted cruz or rick scott or rhonda santas could have won 40% of the hispanic vote. it is also -- always followed by surprise. it is always expressed as a surprise. it should not be a surprise because if you look at the republican party and hispanic voters over the past 50 or 60

years, especially since the reelection of richard nixon in 1972, the percentage of hispanics who have voted for the republican party has been around a third consistently. over a 50-year period, the republican party has built a hispanic voting base. if you compare that with african-american voters, at the same time period, if you graph these things, they are going in exact opposite directions. at the same time the african-american support of the republican party plummets, hispanics have shot upward. there is a relationship between those two facts.

i wanted to explain the long development of the hispanic base, republican base. i also want to correct what i have come to see as her as a misunderstandings about republican hispanics. the first, they're conservatism must be motivated by their kids system and traditional family values. their views of abortion, and marriage for example. i am not denying that is part of it but if we hang all of hispanic conservatism on that, then we may be missing a whole bunch. it's all system is more complicated than just conservatism. there's a kind of social justice motivated branch of good falls is i'm thinking just of the liberation of the edges. cut false isn't is trickier than just conservatism. the other thing is that they

must be cubans, cuban exiles. that just lets us off the hook. it allows us to dismiss, what we can't dismiss florida because it is a critical swing state, we cannot dismiss it but it allows us to ignore lots of other strains of hispanic conservatism that are just as important. i knew the story from the fact that it was more complicated than just could fall system among cubans from my grandpa who is a mix of panamanian, colombian, and filipino. and he lives in tucson arizona, predominantly mexican american place. he served in the military and became a citizen, because of his service in the military and voted for reagan for the first time because he was a minor, a silver miner in tucson arizona

when reagan was running in 1980. and he was promising to put more money back in his paycheck so my grandfather voted for a republican for the first time in 1980. he is not cuban, he is catholic, but never observed his face i don't know with the last time that he went to church was. i knew from my grandpa that there was other types of hispanic conservatives. win writing my first book, i wrote about a department store owner, a mexican america department store owner in tucson. i wrote a chapter about him and he was, staunchly catholic for sure, so he checked that box, but he was not cuban, his political upbringing was more about arizona's territorial politics, he was friends with barry goldwater, he was a businessman. he did not have a union in his

store because he thought his employees were so happy they didn't need a union. he hated cesar chavez, he saw him as a rival rose or. it let me down the path of wondering what the world of hispanic republicans identity was like. i think those two things, wanting to answer the question of why, and i think historic sizing that question, and looking at how political identity, has it developed over a long period of time. it is important because it will help us to stop scratching our heads in grasping in the dark for all of these reasons that hispanics would vote for republican and then wanting to complicate those two main ideas about cuba nationality and kept all system as being the two things that republican identity for hispanics is all about.

those are the things that let me down this path. >> i'm at the beginning of my second book project, it becomes out of my first book, and a larger sense when i teach comparative race ethnicity city there's a lot of discussion about native americans in the 19th century border lands and what it was like for them. then they kind of disappeared in a lot of the 20th century litters her. part of my desire with this book is to trace that longer history and to do it by looking in terms of the ways that the federal government and state governments had jurisdiction over individuals who were neither native americans or mexican americans. they have very different timetables as it relates to citizenship. they had very different relationships for the state and federal government.

that is where i am going with my second project. if people have more questions, i can answer them. i am finishing an article that examines the language minority extension to the voting rights act in 1975 and it uses a broad range of documents that include congressional records, the puerto rican and the commission on civil rights. aside from offering a comparative history importante puerto rican lobbying strategy, this research shows what -- >> and so bad and i will have some things to talk about because i have more of a 19th century historian. but my language my first book led me here and then i kind of got hooked. 20th century historians is a dilute of documents. i am enjoying it but it is very different for me. congress was really looking to extend language right in the

1970s in at the same time, that more restrictive legislation >> were being pushed through congress and being encouraged. while immigration was dominating the media, the voting rights act extension offers evidence that the federal government also solid latino's as citizens -- saw. by looking into that and there is a separate case that is happening at the same time. it does not come into play until 1978. to allow interpreters into bilingual courtrooms. to allow for courtrooms to become bilingual and have interpreters in there as well. trying to figure out out what is it that will allow for language minorities to be a categorization that would envelop anyone who is not black but a person of color? native american, asian american

as well as latinos, specifically meaning mexican americans and puerto rican. i will plug my works since you mentioned them earlier. my current dissertation is about the institutional history of the dnc and unlike the representation of african americans, in the national deck met crowded party, it is not until the 1970s where you even have conversations within the organization to think about hiring some sort of latino outreach representative it is shocking to think that it was not until the late 1970's where you have conversations about national democratic outreach to latinos. i think if we look at these

kinds of national institutions, there is a serious lack in the scholarship and the basic facts of presidential elections and latinos. before then, of course, this will be my segueway into the next question, the engagement between the dnc is very touch and in other places like chicago and you have independent lead and because somewhat quasi-formal relationships with the national party fund-raising for jfk. there is some work and i think that influences my perspective on things and seeing an

evolution of latinos and the national democratic party. that leads me to my next question. what are some of the key text that have informed your approach to the history of latinos in u.s. politics? thinking about that -- i think this is a good way to discuss ways in which we as political historians can diversify ourselves. >> i have lots of different answers to this. in one way, every book written in the field is an important touchstone for me because i think all of them and one way or another pick up on parts of the story. at the same time, nothing picks up on -- i would not point to any single thing as a political history of latinos at large. i think of the 1987 books,

angles and mexicans in the making of texas. there's politics throughout that from the texas revolution to the party, early efforts by the democratic party, and sheen box bosses in texas trying to recruit or by many cases of votes of mexican workers. there are moments of politics i think, also for me, i think conservatism more, although it is not expressed in this way. the book walls and mirrors, it is a kind of a political divide between mexican immigrants -- well basically it's about mexican americans accused of mexican immigration. that is politics but he doesn't frame it as political history. the groups he is mostly writing about our groups like glue lack, the league of united latin

latin american citizens. early civil rights organization founder corpus crispy christy in 1949. that is politics but none of these books talk about their actors in political terms as members of the republican party or the democratic party. they are engaged in politics but lou lack is a good example. i do not know that there's been a historian that has written about the political history of lulac, it has been engaged in all kinds of things but among the leadership of lulac, some are republicans and democrats. they are often taken by historians to be a kind a of conservative democrat organization where at least it was an early requirement in all of their members that they speak english, be american citizens, that they pledge

allegiance to the flag. lulac is a good example of a group whose identity and political terms have been debated, well there are politics or conservative, or they are moderate democrats. we do not know about the political leanings of their individual members. all of the books out there, and lulac is an example of how lots of history of latino and politics have been written but not of latino political history. for me, specifically, when it comes to republican hispanics, i do not know that i can really point to a scholarly text until the one that is coming out in september written by ben. he deals with republican hispanics a lot, but there are a lot of republican hispanics who have written memoirs that are really interesting, like linda chavez who was in the reagan administration, she was nominated to be george w. bush

is, i think labor secretary, but had to withdraw her nomination when it was discovered that she had employed undocumented immigrant. she wrote really, to kind of memoirs, out of the -- in 1991. that is a really good place to look for conservative latino positions on language issues, on affirmative actions, primarily that is kind of her hobby horse. then she wrote a second more after she had to withdraw her nomination called an unlikely conservative, parentheses, or how i became the most hated hispanic in america. that is good. a guy named lionel saucer who kind of organized soft reagan's media campaign for hispanics. he wrote a book called the america no dream.

he was the chairman of the -- four spanish being speaking people. her mere is wrote a fascinating member of his time in the white house called (speaking spanish) in the white house. i spent time in my first remarks how he was a hispanic and it was fascinating that he chose to call his book (speaking spanish). he had interesting ideas of identity politics. if you want to assign something about conservatism among hispanics i might look at some of those memoirs rather than a scholarly taxed. >> i've been influenced a lot by the coalition literature. there is something about the book blue texas. and puerto ricans an african americans in new york city. i've done a handful of essays by george sunshades describing how multi racial politics

worked in los angeles. these works were influential to me for two reasons. it introduces a world of urban multi-racial organizing post war american that is fascinating in its own right. particularly so because these unique communities were the ones that brought forth the people who would become the leaders of latino politics in the united states. people like edward of los angeles gonzalez of san antonio -- and new york city. respectively the first mexican american elected to the congress from california in the 20th century, texas and the first puerto rican congressman ever. what is really interesting about these folks is that they are elevated to a position of prominence by multi racial coalitions operating locally. but when viewed from the national level, they become the basis of a latino bloc, first beginning to crystalize --

appreciating the deeply embedded coalition ill experience and tradition of these latino political leaders does suggest what's the importance of coalition as a concept employed by their latinos by dealing with each other. in the making of latino politics during the seventies and beyond. latino leaders bore responsibility under the emergence of latinos as a national constituency. it was a reflection of these groups, americans mexicans, puerto ricans, recognizing their pre-existing and natural tides. what was more natural, blacks and living and organizing together or puerto ricans from harlem organizing informing allies with new mexicans and americans. viewing is coal -- moderates and liberals for example envision coalition typically as a search for common issues that they can work on so bilingual education,

affirmative action, equal access to the war on poverty. leftist had a different perspective. on the basis of the achievement -- puerto rican independence and recovery of land grants in the southwest. this was an approach the great radical labor organizer valentine, a puerto rican called (speaking spanish) worked together but not scrambled. latino coalitions who are really experimental on the very best to structure and sometimes they were one to one, that is mexican americans are a group and puerto rican sorry group and each one gets one vote. sometimes coalitions distributed power more and reflection of their population numbers. yet, even as latino's are really pursuing, i think what our coalitions among each other are still working on the lines of african americans, indigenous, pro whites. it is doubly coalition nature

of latino politics. and inciting -- that looks at the forties in the fifties in the sixties for a solid basis of thinking about where the next steps. >> great. i echo. i think that another place to look really as within labor histories themselves and to remember that immigrants are not coming without a political history of their own. they are active and becoming activists in their own home countries. they're bringing that activism into the united states and so there are numerous books that show this. one, and i'm blanking on his name. it is a biography of (speaking spanish) and the people that surround this person and you get a sense that not only is he yes talking about revolution in mexico, but he is also making heat and the others that are writing, a kind of radical newspaper are making pointed critiques of what is happening in texas and what is happening to workers all

throughout the united states as well. debra webber's is another -- other works that she has done as well shows the similar individuals are coming and you see them holding up signs during the great depression knowing the whole alphabet soup that we train our students to learn. those spanish speaking immigrants knew what they meant. they were pushing for those rights and to be included and those federal resources. labor rights are civil rights. it is another example of this sweeping 100-year history that shows political activism of immigrants and mexican americans and the labor sector and the ways that unions set their politicization as well. another new book that is important the city of inmates. it looks into the incarceration and the creation of a curse or all state and what that means

-- car sterile state and what that means for mexican americans. it has the origins of immigrant attention within it. it really has been wonderful for my students. they really enjoy reading that particular chapter and getting a sense of what it look like and why individuals were being held near los angeles. another book that is probably a little bit too long to assigned to classes, but a great place to get a sense of how long the history is in new mexico in particular in the political parties. is politica. it is an 800 page book that only covers the 19th century, mid to late 19 centuries. it talks about how they created both the democratic and republican parties and the ways in which they operated indifferent elections. it has chapters, sometimes three chapters on the same elections. you can really see the ways in which they are modeling the u.s. government system, again

largely in spanish but also just that political -- there is a reason new mexico is an outlier they continue to have governors and senators who have spanish surname's and had mexican and spanish origins. another one that is more in the legal field is by lori gomez. my students have found it incredible to think about what it means to have double colonization. what does it mean to have mexican americans to be citizens. you can see her influence in my second book project. over a group that they had already colonist. you have the native americans who were colonized by the mexican americans who are then colonized by the united states. >> i think the book you were mentioning about the return of comrade -- (speaking spanish). i want to go back to something that jerry brought up which is

the contentious nature of naming protocols and self identity. winds the politics of names? what do latinos call themselves? maybe they did not consider themselves latinos. you mentioned chicano in the white house, you mentioned. do you have a sense of the evolution of self identification in politics and i think this brings up one of the biggest conflicts in political history, that concept of latino politics even make sense. benjamin was talking about it. you have this balkanized set of communities. puerto ricans and mexicans. very separate groups that are united conveniently and coalitions, but maybe not as unified as we assume as

historians or in a public memory. >> i want to go back to the 19th century. i