TheRuleofLawandtheDevelopmentof Mexican-AmericanPublicIntellectualsExtract from the book, In Defense of My People: author, MichaelA.Olivas
Introduction
In2011,theUniversityofHouston,ArtePúblicoPress,throughtheRecovering theU.S.HispanicLiteraryHeritageProgram,theSpecialCollectionsDepartmentof theM.D. AndersonLibrary,andtheUHLawCenterannouncedthatthepapersof earlyTejanolawyerAlonsoS.Peraleshadbeenacquiredfromhisfamilyandwere availableforscholarlyexamination.AlonsoS.Perales(1898-1960)wasamongthe most important organizational figures and public intellectuals of his time, and was instrumental in early and mid-twentieth-century Mexican-American political developmentinTexas.PeralesgraduatedfromGeorge WashingtonUniversitySchoolof Lawin1925,makinghim one of the earliest Mexican-Americanattorneystopracticelawin Texas.Overtime,henotonlyhadasuccessfullawpractice,buthelped foundtheLeagueofUnitedLatinAmericanCitizens(LULAC),servedhiscountry in several diplomatic capacities and was a prolific writer and public figure, one who employedallthediscursiveavenuesavailabletohim.
TheUniversityofHoustonandArtePúblicoPress,throughtheRecoveringthe U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage Program, acquired his papers and archives in 2009, and this treasure trove, which had not been widely cited in significant scholarship, wasthe source of a scholarlyconference heldat the Universityof HoustoninJanuary12-13,2012,bymeansofsolicitationsandacallforpapersderivedfromthiscollectionthathaveresultedinthisbookproject.ThisconferencewasheldinconjunctionwithanM.D.AndersonLibrary-curatedexhibitofthepapers,correspondence, and other materials from the Perales Collection. Conference sponsors invited proposalsfromhistorians,legalscholars,politicalscientists,sociologists,literaryscholarsandothersfromthehumanitiesandsocialscienceswithaninterestinearlytwentieth-century Texaspolitical developmentconcerning Mexicans, Mexican Americans and other groups in the state and region, drawn from the collection and otheravailablematerials. Weinviteddoctoralstudents,scholarsofallranksand independent researchers with interests in this important period, particularly those with interests in the early Mexican-American social and political organizations, especiallyLULAC,OrderSonsof America(OSA)and100LoyalCitizens.Work derivedfromaccesstothesepapershadsuggestedthatMexican-Americanpolitical organizing and social consciousness arose much earlier than has been generally credited in the work of most historians, political scientists and other scholars. Whereas many scholars had placed these origins in the late 1920s, especially with theeventsleadinguptothe1929foundingofLULAC,inCorpusChristi,Texas,the Perales papers and materials reveal roots to predecessor groups and to events from theendofthedictatorshipofPorfirioDíaz,theMexicanRevolution,andtheearly ![]()
1920s. Thesefamily-heldpapers,nowavailableintheoriginalandonmicrofilmat UH Special Collections, promise to fill out the record on the structured role of Mexican-American men and women in these mutual aid societies and civic organizations, as well as the behind-the-scenes role of lawyers—in this instance, not primarily as litigators, but as civic leaders and elected officials. Perales also carried on an extraordinary correspondence with many Latino and Latina and other political figures,revealingwideanddeepcontactsandaffiliations.(ExamplesincludeAdela Sloss-Vento,GeorgeI.Sánchez,ArchbishopRobertLuceyandAnastasioSomoza.) Inaddition,he carriedona remarkable correspondence withordinaryMexican AmericancitizensandMejicanosdeafuera(MexicannationalsresidingintheUnited States), on a variety of cultural and religious topics, ranging from marital counseling, Catholic pieties and other affirmations of the race, designed to share his viewsand expertisewidelyanddeeply.Thereisvirtuallynootherparalleltothesignificantandfascinatingmaterialsnowarchivedandripeforexamination.
1920s. Thesefamily-heldpapers,nowavailableintheoriginalandonmicrofilmat UH Special Collections, promise to fill out the record on the structured role of Mexican-American men and women in these mutual aid societies and civic organizations, as well as the behind-the-scenes role of lawyers—in this instance, not primarily as litigators, but as civic leaders and elected officials. Perales also carried on an extraordinary correspondence with many Latino and Latina and other political figures,revealingwideanddeepcontactsandaffiliations.(ExamplesincludeAdela Sloss-Vento,GeorgeI.Sánchez,ArchbishopRobertLuceyandAnastasioSomoza.) Inaddition,he carriedona remarkable correspondence withordinaryMexican AmericancitizensandMejicanosdeafuera(MexicannationalsresidingintheUnited States), on a variety of cultural and religious topics, ranging from marital counseling, Catholic pieties and other affirmations of the race, designed to share his viewsand expertisewidelyanddeeply.Thereisvirtuallynootherparalleltothesignificantandfascinatingmaterialsnowarchivedandripeforexamination.Aseverysectionofthisbookprojectreveals,AlonsoS.Peraleswasafascinatingandcomplexman,onebest-identifiedbyhisunstintingeffortsonbehalfofMexican-originpeopleintheUnitedStates,especiallyinTexas,andhisunceasingsearch forthebestpublicorprivatevenueinwhichtoadvancetheseinterests.Hewaswithoutequaleither inhiscommunityor thatof thelarger community,findingextensive public involvement in his law practice, organizational involvement and leadership, the Catholic Church, efforts to gain elected office, diplomatic and international participation, lobbying and advocacy before governmental entities, private correspondence, writing op-eds and media venues, publishing books and recording public and private instances of discrimination and engagement in a number of other discourses that allowed him to seek equality and to improve the lot in life of his community, whathetermedhisraza.Unusualasitwasforhistime,approximately1925until his death in 1960, such a wide-ranging polity is rarely seen in his contemporaries or eveninthepresentday. Thecacheofpapersandmaterialshasunlockedmany unknown aspects of his long and distinguished career, and also fleshed out the more quotidianandpersonalaspectsofhischaracter.
TheOrganizationofThisBook
In his useful chapter where he explains the editorial approach and choices of whichresourcestoutilize,theaccomplishedseniorhistorianF.ArturoRosalessets outin“WritingaBiographyofAlonsoSandovalPerales”thedecisionsheisusing to organize and write the full-length biography that will result from these archives. He notes the several options available to him, including chronological and thematic means,andhehelpfullysetsouthischoices,weavingbothpublishedcommentary alreadyavailableonPeralesandthelettersandothermaterialshehasselectedto highlight.Hewrites:
This essay outlines the challenges which I will face in producing a biography ofAlonsoSandovalPerales.Althoughheisoneofthemostimportantfigures in Mexican-American civil rights history, his trajectory is relatively unknown, primarilybecause until recentlyhispaperswere unavailable ...I agreedto producethebiographybeforereviewingthecompilationofdata,imaginingthe content would provide thematic avenues. But after a preliminary but thorough assessment of the papers, the task became more daunting because the repository supports almost infinite pathways to understanding Perales. I have also examinedotherprimarysources,notinthecollection,butrelatedtoPerales, inMexicoCity,attheNational ArchivesinMaryland,attheBensonCollectionattheUniversityofTexasandinotherrepositories.Ithendecidedthatthe biographyshouldexplainpoliticalandideologicaltrendswhichinfluenced andmotivatedthisSanAntonioattorneyinthe1930s,1940sand1950s.
Besides appreciating and understanding the civil rights efforts Perales and hiscohortsmustered,thebiographyshouldfurtherdemonstratehowimportant it is for academicians to transcend post-1960s points of reference which have guidedmuchofourassessmentofthisgeneration. ActivistsoftheChicano MovementaccusedcivilrightsadvocatesofPerales’generationofdenying their“Mexicanness”andinsteadclaimedwhiteness.Thiseraalsoinfluenceda foundation for more serious scholarly appraisals which to lesser degree also viewedthegenerationnegatively.(Rosales,p.267)
My aim in writing the Introduction to this edited conference volume is more modestandless-comprehensivethanwasRosales’task:Iamattemptingtosortthe chapters that resulted from the UH conference into a framework, introduce the contributions, comment upon the themes that have emerged from this inter-disciplinary collection, add my own observations upon his legal practice (a topic that has not been examined before this project) and note the many promising avenues that can now be pursued, due to the availability of these materials in a collection far-too-rich foranyoneundertaking.Thechaptersfellintoseveralthematicniches,onesthatalso roughlytrackthechronologyofPerales’life.Accordingly,Ihavesituatedtheminto fivelargedomains:Organizing,CreatingLULACandTexasPolitics;TheMexican American Generation, Revisited; Religion and Race; Letters, Piety and Politics; Diplomacy,LawandBiography.
Organizing,CreatingLULACandTexasPolitics
Havinggrownupin Alice,andthenCorpusChristi,Texas, AlonsoS.Perales wasorphanedwhenhewasjusttwelveyearsold.Heleft TexasthenwentEastto join the military, and to attend college and law school, which he completed in 1925 bygraduatingfromthelawschoolthatlaterbecameGeorgeWashingtonUniversity (GWU,2012).Hereturnedto TexasasthethirdMexican-Americanlawyer,followingthefirsttwo,J.T.CanalesandM.C.Gonzales.CanalesgraduatedfromtheUniversityofMichiganLawSchoolin1899andlikewisereturnedto Texas,wherehe practiced law and entered politics; Manuel C. Gonzales attended law school at St. LouisUniversityandgraduatedfromtheUniversityof TexasLawSchoolin1924.
Notsurprisingly,bothinteractedwiththeyoungPeralesovertheyears.Therewasa small number of Mexican-American lawyers—even as late as the 1950s, there were onlyafewdozenin Texas,educatedbothout-of-stateandatthepremierpubliclaw schoolintheState,theUniversityofTexasatAustin.Asonehistoryoftheearlyhalf centuryof theUTLawSchool,thesiteofSweattv.Painter,the1950SCOTUScase thatstruckdownthemakeshiftparallellawschoolforNegroes,hasnoted,“TheUniversityof TexasSchoolofLawhaslonglivedunderashadowofracialdiscrimination.Foraperiodofoversixtyyears,theLawSchoolhadnoAfricanAmericanlaw studentsandlessthantwentyMexican-Americanlawschoolgraduates”(Barrera, 1998,p.108).ThatmostoftheMexican-Americanlawyerswentontodistinguished legal careers is evidence of how few they were and what remarkable careers they carvedout,againstallodds.Asasidebar,thishistoryofearly TexasMexican-Americanlawyersandother LatinoandLatinalawyersisverysketchyandincomplete,andcallsoutformorehistorical work. (That I have personally met several of these pioneers since my 1982 arrival inTexas is left-handed acknowledgement of how small andrecent the number was.) For some time, I had believed and written that the first Latinos to argue a case beforetheU.S.SupremeCourtwerethelawyersoftheHernandezv. Texascase,who didsoinearly1954(closetothetimethattheBrownv.Boardlawyersre-arguedtheir case).I have alsorecently written thatthe 2006VotingRightsAct casePerryv.Texas was thefirstSCOTUS case whereLatinos and Latinaswere on bothsides of thecase (NinaPerales,PuertoRican,ontheMALDEFside,andTeodoroCruz,Cuban,arguing on the side of the State). It turns out that I have been wrong in both instances. I amhappytocorrectthisrecord,evenattheriskofstillgettingitwrong.
There are likely some Puerto Rican lawyers who argued Puerto Rico cases that came to the U.S. Supreme court before 1950, and someone needs to examine these records.I have not done so,andwill consult others about this.One PuertoRican attorney who signed a number of the briefs on behalf of the Department of the InteriorincasesinvolvingNativeAmericanTribesbeforetheU.S.SupremeCourtwas Pedro Capó-Rodríguez. He was born on the Island, studied law in the States, and becameamemberoftheVermontbar.Itisunclearwhetherheactuallytriedthe cases.HepublishedarticlesonthecasesintheAmericanJournalofInternational Lawinthe1910s,afairlyunusuallevelofaccesstothispublicationforsomeonenot anacademic.TheremaybeotherLatinos/aswhoservedasgovernmentlawyersduring these years, and the identification of Latino ethnicity is, as always, problematic. This type of identificationis anart,not a science.(Ramirez,2011; Chavez,2011; Olivas,2006;2012)
In 1951, Manuel Ruiz, Jr. (1905-1986), a Mexican-American lawyer and civil rightsactivistintheLosAngelesarea,arguedBuckv.California, 353U.S.99 (1952),beforetheSupremeCourt.Ofcourse,thispredatestheHernandezarguments and decision in 1954. I have looked at the Manuel Ruiz, Jr. files, which are archived intheStanfordSpecialCollections—wheretheMALDEFcollectionisalsohoused, which I have used for several years to trace the Plylercase. (Olivas, 2005)The findingtool for the Manuel Ruiz,Jr.collectionis online at: http://www- sul.stanford.edu/depts/spc/xml/m0295.xml.
Interestingly,however,neithertheStanfordcollectionheadingsnorthe extensive introductorybiographyincludementionofhishavingarguedBuck,acaseinvolving taxilicenses.(Hisclientslostthecase,ina5-4decision.)Whilehiscivicinvolvement iswell-known,andhasbeenexaminedbyseveralleadingLatinoscholarsoftheperiod(suchasGeorgeJ.Sánchez,1993,p.250;andRichardGriswolddelCastillo, 2008,pp.148-158,amongothers),hisstatusasapparentlythefirstMexicanAmerican to argue before the SCOTUS is not mentioned.As a very minor footnote, he also appearsin1963publicrecordsasthefamilylawattorneytosocialiteJoan Tylerina paternity suit involving actor George Jessel, suggesting that he was a well-connected andsuccessfullawyeracrossseveralfields,certainlytranscendingcivilrightsandethniclitigation.IspokeabouttheHernandezcasequiteextensivelywithoneofthefour Mexican-American lawyers involved in the case, Judge James DeAnda, and he was of the impression that no Latino or Latina attorney had argued before SCOTUS prior to his case (Olivas, 2006). My recent discovery now leads me to believe he was mistaken, and it likely reflects the lack of a national Latino bar at the time, the non-civil rights nature of his practice, and the poor state of professional communications then, in contrast to the present day, where we are all so well-connected with thriving personal and professional networks and Google@ access to so many data sources. In contrast,Iwasrecentlyinvolvedinacomplexconferencecallwithnearlytwentyparticipants—virtually all lawyers of color—plotting strategy to submit amicusbriefs to theCaliforniaStateSupremeCourtonbehalfofanundocumentedlawgraduatebeing certifiedtopracticelaw(DeBenedictis,2012;Sloan,2012).
Harold R. Medina Sr., later federal Judge Medina, argued several SCOTUS cases,beginningwitha1922caseearlyinhislongcareer:NewYork,N.H. &H.R. Co.v.Fruchter.Medina’sfather,JoaquinAdolfoMedina,wasborninMerida,Mexico (Medina, 1959, p. v) but the son never self-identified—and was not widely identified—asbeingLatino.Interestingly,HaroldSr.’sson,HaroldJr.,alsoarguedacase beforeSCOTUS,withRichardM.Nixonasopposingcounsel(TimeInc.v.Hill, 1967). Some of this is, of course, very much an idiosyncratic matter of ethnic and racialself-identification,ascription,opportunity,politicsatthetime,etc.
WiththecaveatthatIhavenotbeenabletoreviewalltheSCOTUScasesargued on Puerto Rican issues, the first-known Latina to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have been Miriam Naveira de Rodon, then the Solicitor General of PuertoRico,whoarguedExaminingBoardv.FloresdeOtero,426U.S.572(1976) in1975.NaveiradeRodonarguedagainstMaxRamirezdeArellano,andbothparties were on the brief. I now believe this to be the first time two Latinos appeared on bothsidesofaSupremeCourtmatter.ThisrevisesmyearlierassertionthatPerryv. Texaswasthefirstsuchcase.FloresdeOteroisaninterestingimmigrationcase,well knowntoimmigrationteachers. Toanextent,PuertoRicanlawyersarguingPuerto Rican cases in the U.S. Supreme Court are a special jurisdictional category, but are no less important to the history of Latino/Latina lawyering. Following Naveira de Rodon’s argument,Vilma S. Martinez, the first known Mexican-American woman to appearbeforetheSupremeCourt,arguedEastTexasMotorFreightSys.,v.Rodriguez, 431U.S.395(1977).Atthetime,shewasthePresidentandGeneralCounselof MALDEF;atpresent,sheisPresidentBarackObama’s Ambassadorto Argentina. RecentresearchonLatinastoarguebeforethenation’shighcourt,from1950to2009, reveals that only fifteen known Latinas have argued before the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates(Mendoza,2011).
In sum, the total number of Latino and Latina lawyers at the peak of Supreme Court practice has been very small, even though several have had considerable professionalsuccess. TeodoroCruzandMiguelEstradahavebecomemembersofthe elite club who have argued several SCOTUS cases and also gained attention for their conservative politics (Goldstein, 2006; Batheja, 2012). I will also note, however, that the confusion also reflects the poor state of Mexican-American archives in this dimension,andtheresulting gapinChicanohistoriographyconcerningtheimportant roleofLatinoandLatinalawyers,notallofthemMexicanAmerican.Similarly,we donotknowthehistoryofAnglolawyerstakingupcasesforMexican-American clients in important civil rights litigation (Carpio, 2012). Until recently, I had not put twoandtwotogethertoconnecttheappearancesof A.L.Wirin,whoservedasco-counselinboththe1947Mendezandthe1948Delgadocases;forthatmatter,Ihad notknownhehadbeeninvolvedinlitigationfollowingtheearlierSleepyLagoonviolenceagainstMexicanAmericans,orthatafterward,hehadgoneontodotheLord’s workinArizona,orthathehadlaterarguedbeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt(Valencia,2006,pp.53-55alsomissedthisconnectioninhisdiscussionofGonzales v. Sheely,the 1951Maricopa County,Arizonadesegregation case).Through itsjourney totheNinthCircuit,Mendezdrewuponwhite,Jewish,AsianandAfricanAmerican lawyers,butnotasingleLatinoorMexican-Americanattorney.
 |
Pan American Round Table of Texas event (1940s) |
Inhissmalleruniverse,AlonsoS.Peralessetoutearlyinhiscareernotonlyto establishhislegalpracticeinSan Antonio,andlaterelsewhereintheState,butto become active in community work and organization-building, most notably in his effortstoconsolidateseveralfledgling TejanomutualaidandadvocacyorganizationsintoLULAC,theLeagueofUnitedLatin AmericanCitizens,in1929;he servedastheorganization’sNationalPresidentin1930-31.Asexaminedbyhistorian Cynthia E. Orozco in “Alonso S. Perales and His Struggle for the Civil Rights of LaRazathroughtheLeagueofUnitedLatinAmericanCitizens(LULAC)inTexas inthe1930s:IncansableSoldadodelCivismoPro-Raza”andpoliticalscientistBenjaminMárquez,in“InDefenseofMyPeople:AlonsoS.PeralesandtheMoralConstruction of Citizenship,” this central role in LULAC dominated the early career of Perales, and accounts for most of the available scholarly commentary on him. Marquez is among the leading scholars who have systematically looked at LULAC over the years (Márquez, 1993, 2003), while Orozco’s 1992 PhD dissertation and 2009 bookonthehistoryofLULACbothdrewfromthePeralesrecords.Assheexplains inthechapter,shehadvirtuallyunprecedentedaccesstothefamilyfiles, evenbefore they were acquired and processed by the University of Houston. (This access also showshowprodigioustalentandbeingintherightplaceattherighttimecanshape ascholar’scareer.) Orozco supplements our knowledge of the young Perales, who in 1933, joined theSan AntoniolawfirmofStill,Wright,Davis,andPeralesandalsoundertook workfortheBexarCounty Attorney’sofficein1934.Shecarefullydocumentshis organizational work in steering the many competing groups that merged to form LULAC in 1929, and she notes his selflessness in assisting others to cultivate their leadershipskills.Therecordmakesitclearhecouldhavebeenthesymbolicallysignificant first National President, but he encouraged Ben Garza to assume this position.The chapter contains new and fresh detailed information about the tenuousness of the first years of the group, especially its fragile finances, intermittent leadership andinternecinepolitics. Areaderalsocomesawaywithasenseoftheincredible manner in which he threw himself into the development of the organization, traveling the state, exhorting its members, flogging its early activities and engaging in the politickingrequiredforanynascentorganization. Afterhispresidentialyearended in 1931, he remained a Board member until 1937, when he essentially withdrew fromactivemembershipandthepoliticsoverasecondSan Antoniocouncil. Nonetheless, his vision took root, and LULAC remains a significant Latino organizationtothepresentday.
Although she makes many original contributions in this chapter, especially as shere-assesseshisworkinlightofallthematerialsnow availabletoher,perhapsher most useful contribution will be the way she maps how these papers will require other senior historians who have written about Perales without the access she had to revise and reconsider their earlier work. I urge all the persons (named by her but omittedhere)totakeintoaccounthergenerousquestionsandrecommendations.She summarizes,citingchapterandverse,literally: ThispaperbasedonthePerales archivessuggestsseveralneededChicanohistoryrevisions: First, LULAC’s work (and that of Perales) was primarily motivated by collectiveinterestsnotindividualinterests.
Second, LULAC did not abandon Mexican immigrants. LULAC was silent about deportations in the 1930s, but otherwise fought for immigrant rights, especiallytheir rights toattendschools andLULACpromotedtheir efforts to obtainU.S.citizenship.
Third, Perales should be honored for helping to found the School Improvement League for which Eleuterio Escobar has received most of the attention but which came out of Council 16, which Perales founded. Perales, not Escobar,initiatedthecallformajorschoolimprovements.
Fourth, LULAC waged a multi-faceted activist agenda not just legal desegregation work in the 1930s. Extending the traditional Chicano movement bias against LULAC framework, [one historian] wrote that the Liga Defensa was “more confrontational” than LULAC and that “Escobar challenged the San Antonio School Board directly.” He suggested “LULAC primarily addressed segregation through the courts.” But LULAC 16 initiated that struggle, Escobar was a member of Council 16 and it is Perales who must truly be credited forthateffort.
Fifth, LULAC addressed national policy/legislation in the 1930s not just localorstateissues.
Sixth,Perales (andthus LULAC) was not a super-assimilationist organizationdemandingEnglish-only.Perales should not be used as an example of internalized racism . . . Perales did not blame La Raza for its own oppression, but he did realize La Raza needed to take advantage of any educational opportunitiesavailableandneededtoempowerthemselves.
Seven, scholars must also consider gender when writing about the League and La Raza’s empowerment. Perales (and other LULACers) missed opportunities to empower women of Mexican descent. LULAC was gendered and Perales’mentoringoffutureleaderswastoo.Thispaperconfirmsactivist Sloss-Vento’s account of Perales. Sloss-Vento’s portrayal is not simply a laudatory, biased tribute by a friend. She did not exaggerate his achievements orsimplypayhomagetoalocalman.
Eight, this paper confirms research by [an historian] who accurately portrayedPerales’ideology.[He]wasunabletodocumentPerales’actionsinthe 1930sbecausethePerales’paperswerenot available.(Citationsomitted,Orozco,pp.24-25)
Benjamin Márquez, whose scholarship on the establishment of LULAC did not have access to these archives as Orozco had, has taken an opportunity to revisit his earlier work, and to resituate Perales as a complex transitional figure, particularly in his many efforts to thread the needle in a highly structured and racialized social hierarchythatwasJaimeCrowTexas—thepeculiarmixofsocialexclusionanddefacto segregationthatoccurredinpost-WorldWarITexas,theonlyjurisdictionintheSouth withsubstantialnumbersofAfricanAmericansandMexicanAmericans.Henotes:
As a founding member of LULAC and a political activist with a career that spannedalmostfiftyyears,Perales’wasapivotalfigureinthesedebates.He fought for equality before the law, equal employment opportunity, school desegregation and increased political representation. Perales argued Mexican Americans were Caucasian and rejected the option of a political alliance with African Americans. Atfirstglance,theseideasplacehimsolidlywithinthe LULACtraditionofbiculturalismandfaiththatMexicanAmericanswould soonbeincorporatedintoAmericansociety.However,itwillbedemonstrated that he departed from his organization’s ideological foundation in significant respects,enoughto warrantareexaminationoftherelationshipsearlyactivists had with one another and where they agreed or disagreed on these questions. GiventhecentralroleheplayedinthecreationofLULAC,itissurprisinghow pessimistichewasabouttheprospectsforsocialchange.Hedoubted Anglo Americans could be trusted or were willing to apply the ideals of equality and justicetoMexicanAmericans.Peralesendorsedtheideaofindividualresponsibilityfor one’s social mobilityinthe abstract,but placedmuchof the blame forMexican-AmericansubordinationontheAngloSaxon.Heaccusedthemof usingtheirnumbersandpoliticalpowertomaintainarigidracialhierarchy.
Indeed, race so profoundly determined one’s life chances that Perales often argued group identity and individual interests were virtually the same thing. (Márquez,p.30)
Hecarefullyusesthenewletterstoextendourunderstandingoftheextraordinary range of civic and political matters in which Perales was engaged, especially after he matter-of-factly exited from regular LULAC involvement. He cites dozens of letters, proceedings,opinionpieces,articles, testimonies, books,andothermaterialsthatconstitute the Perales correspondence. He admiringly documents the many intersections Perales carved out, and the unusual public intellectual aspects of his mission. Even whentherecordrevealswartsandall,especiallyPerales’growingconservatism,antiunion animusand anti-Communism fervor, hegenerously notes:“Scholars must take great care in generalizing about the political work of an individual, and in assessing theinfluenceofanindividualactivist—particularlyonewholivedmanyyearsbefore” (Márquez,p.44).Thus,hedeftlyescapesthemistakeofpresentismsoprevalentina wideswathofChicanohistory,whereitistemptingtousepresentdaypietiesandparadigms to assess complex historical records, accomplishments and events that seem so obvious in hindsight.With the light of day and this extraordinary record to reevaluate, Márquez leaves his subject with an admiring view, but he is by no means unawareofthemannerinwhichPerales’attachmenttothesestrongprincipleslikely blinded him to otherglaring inequalities andobscured his vision.He allows,“Another issue that merits further study is the way civil liberties and constitutional protections were understood by early Mexican-American civil rights activists. Given the severity of racial exclusion Perales experienced and witnessed, it is paradoxical that hewassointolerantofgroupsandideashedisliked”(p.47).
It is a remarkable event to note that these two scholars, whose important work has largely determined the scholarly trajectory concerning LULAC and how to understand that important time, are both absorbing the new materials and reconsidering their earlier work, in the service of all observers developing a more thorough andnuancedappreciationofthisimportantorganization. Thisprocessofreconsiderationislikelytoincrease,givenjusthowmuchmaterialisnowavailable,andhow many talented scholars, more senior and more junior, are engaged in the reevaluationofPeralesandhistimes.
TheMexican-AmericanGeneration,Revisited
Thesechapters,authoredbytwoseniorlawprofessorsandtwohistorygraduate students,allcovertheterrainearlierlabeledas“TheMexican-AmericanGeneration” byanotherauthor,historianMario T.García. Theterm“Mexican-AmericanGeneration” is not just any generic reference, but a nuanced and significant trope by historians, particularly Mexican-American historians, who have mined its meaning for over two decades, since García named the period in his masterful 1989 work, MexicanAmericans:Leadership,Ideology,andIdentity,1930-1960.Inthisimportant analyticbook,Garcíaidentifiedthesalienceofthisperiod,beforeandafter World WarII:
Possessingacomplexandheterogeneoushistory,MexicanAmericanshave evolvedthroughseveralhistoricalstages. Thisstudyconcernsoneofthese— what I call the Mexican-American Era . . . Recruited and exploited as a cheap laborforce,andindispensabletotheimportanteconomicgrowthoftheSouthwestduringthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,MexicanAmericans remained rooted in the working class, although their intraclass positions shifted by the 1930s and 1940s to more urban industrial and service occupations.Withurbanizationcameeducation.ArisingalthoughlimitedU.S.-born middle class likewise arose . . .The convulsions of the Great Depression combinedwithneweconomicandpoliticalopportunitiesduringWorldWarIIand with the historic discrimination in the Southwest against Mexicans and rising expectationsamongMexicanAmericanstogivebirthtoanewleadership,cognizantofitsrightsasU.S.citizensanddeterminedtoaddressthem.(M.T.García,1989,p.2)
Perales,whoseprofessionallifespannedthemid-1920sthroughhisdeathin 1960tracedthisarcof“risingexpectations,”hashistoricallybeensituatedasamong the most important and recognizable leaders of the Mexican-American Era. Now that the extensive archival materials can be employed to elaborate upon the existing record, it is likely that he will become even more identified with this period and his range of public obligations even better understood. Doctoral student Joseph Orbock Medina, in “The trials of Unity: Rethinking the Mexican-American Generation in Texas,1948-1960,”perceptivelynotes:
ScholarshaverightlyacknowledgedAlonsoS.Peralesasaleadingcrusaderin the fight to defend the essential dignity of the “Latin Race,” particularly with histreatiseEnDefensademi Raza.Likemanyofhisfellowactivistsofthe “Mexican-American Generation,” he had a diverse set of ideas on how to best achieve the specific business of reform. Perales also had political commitments, loyalties, and grudges that tempered the character of his involvement withotheractivistsandorganizations.
RatherthanviewAlonsoS.Peralesandhislegacyaspartofatriumphalteleology of mid-twentieth-century Mexican-American social and political progress, [I place] him within the volatile partisan politics and grand ideologicalbattlesofthepost-warera.Withsucharelativelysmallcadreofmovement insiders, personal relationships, and individual philosophies held great sway in the paternalistic organizations of the Mexican-AmericanGeneration.Pointed internal divisions among these leaders mirrored and reinforced broader (pan-) American debates on labor, social class, and identity. Compromise and contestationfromwithinwoulddefinetheMovement.(OrbockMedina,p.53)
With the deep resources now evident in these archives, scholars will be able to track and better analyze the details of his “personal relationships and individual philosophies” that “held great sway,” as have virtually all the authors in this preliminaryproject.Accordingly,lawprofessorLupeS.Salinas,whowroteearlieronthe careerandcontributionsoflawyerGustavo(Gus)García,(Salinas,2003,pp.159-160)canlocatemanytracesofPerales’lifeasanambitiousyoungmaninahurry, andin“LegallyWhite,SociallyBrown:AlonsoS.PeralesandHisCrusadeforJusticeforLaRaza,” hedetailstheremarkableriseofthisyounglawyerwho,withina fewyearsofhismembershipintheTexasbar,hadliterallytransformedthepolitical andorganizationallandscapeforMexicanAmericans:
FueledbyhisobservationsandexperiencesinTexas,Peralessoughttocreate a strong organization to protect “the best interests and welfare of our Race” and to strive “for their progress.” However, due to his youth and lack of training,severalyearspasseduntiltheideawentbeyondthediscussionstage.Once hereceivedhishonorabledischargefromtheU.S. ArmyinJanuary1920,he proceededto Washington,D.C.inordertopursuehisstudiesandhistraining tobe“equippedtohelpsolvetheproblemsofourpeopleinTexas.”Peralesand histwofriendsdiscussedtheideaforatimeandthencommunicatedbymail tofurtherthedreamofestablishinganorganizationthat wouldbecome“abulwarkfortheprotectionofallourRacialbrethren.”(p.78)
By tracing these activities, Professor Salinas helps clarify the many influences thatlatermanifestedthemselvesinPerales’ complexprofessionalbiography,most notably his high aspirations for group solidarity, organizational development and communicationskills(Salinas,p.78).
AarónE.Sánchez,in“Mendigosdenacionalidad: Mexican-Americanismand IdeologiesofBelonginginaNewEraofCitizenship, Texas1910-1967,”haseffectively used the archives to show how Perales and other colleagues were mythologizingMexicanAmericanstoinculcatetheirstories,includingstorieswiththeirorigins inMexico,intotheAmericannarrative,suchasJ.T.Canales’ retellingoftheJuan Cortinastory(JuanN.Cortina:BanditorPatriot?), strippingitofitsbandidofolk rootsandtheeffortsofRubenRendonLozano,aSanAntoniolawyerandLULACer whopublishedVivaTejas:TheStoryoftheMexican-bornPatriotsoftheRepublicof Texas. TheseprojectsofliteraryreconstitutionbyMexican-Americanlawyers attemptedtoreframethestoryoftheRepublicof Texastoonemoreconsonantwith themythicroleof Tejanosaspatriotsandcitizensoldiers,preparedtogotowarfor theircountry.Ofcourse,afterWorldWarII,whenitbecameclearthattheAmerican polityand Texasdecision-makershadnottradedunusualandferventpatriotismin exchange for improved civil rights in benefits, accommodations, and public acceptance, the Faustian bargain was cruelly revealed. Lawyer Perales then began his self-financedlarge-scaleprojectoftestimoniosandnotarizedstatementstodocumentthe gapbetweentherhetoricandtheactualconditions,whereeven TejanogenuinesoldierheroeswithCongressionalMedalsofHonorcouldbeexcludedfromrestaurants, theaters,andotherprivatespacesandpublicaccommodations,suchasveterans’housingandthelike. ThenationallypublicizeddustupwiththerefusaltohonorPrivate FelixLongoriaintheU.S.Cemeteryin ThreeRivers, Texas,andtheincidentwith Sgt.MacarioGarcíaandtheOasisCaféintheruralHoustonareagaveimpetustothe American G.I. Forum, founded by Corpus Christi Dr. Hector P. García to channel attentiontoveteranos(Ramos1998;Olivas,2008;I.García,2003,2008).
In a fresh and compelling way, one that will likely draw the attention of Latino and Latina literary scholars, historians, and linguists, doctoral student Sánchez recounts the new way that these early Mexican-American lawyers used the tricks of the trade, even with skill sets not often found in lawyers: literary criticism and folklore.Theirattempttoemploythisdiscoursewasoneofthemanyorganizedefforts toemployavailablediscursivefolkwaystoreconstituteMexican Americansaway fromforeign“others”tofullandactiveandpatrioticU.S.Citizens:
The intellectual project of reconceptualizing U.S.-Mexican belonging as an American ethnic was a departure from previous modes of imagining in U.S.-Mexicanthought.Thischangerequiredareformulationofthepositionof U.S.-Mexicans in the region, nation, and world. Calling themselves Mexican Americancamewithadirectintentandentailedanideologicalshift. They were responding to the global change in citizenship and the evolving homelandpoliticsintheSouthwestintheyearsaftertheMexicanRevolution.Many U.S.-Mexicansfoundthemselvesoutsideofthemainstream Americansocial imaginaryandexcludedfromtheimaginedcommunityofMéxicodeafuera. This forced many people on a search for belonging. For a group of U.S.-Mexicans,theywereAmericans—includingtheexclusiveracial,class,andlinguisticconnotationsthewordcarriedwithit. Theyemphasizedwhitenessand promoted a specific modernist worldview that underwrote racial and social hierarchies.LeaderslikeAlonsoS.PeralesandAndresdeLuna,aswellas organizationsliketheOrderSonsofAmericaandLULACcooperatedinideas that,whilenotnecessarilyhegemonic,weredefinitelyhomogenizing.
It would be impossible, and nearly foolhardy, to argue that citizenship did not provide U.S.-Mexicans with political and material benefits. Being recognizedascitizensgavethempowertoaccessalegalsystemthatofferedavenues ofprotectionandredress.Bybeingcitizens,U.S.-Mexicanscouldclaiminclusionintoanimportantimaginedcommunity.However,thechangetowardsthe emphasis on citizenship did indeed limit the intellectual and ideological possibilities of other human connections between people of the world. It is difficulttocriticizeMexicanAmericansforthesocialdistancetheykeptfrom AfricanAmericansduringtheperiod,buttheideologyofMexican-Americanism did not co-opt the racial regime of the twentieth century; it cooperated in its reproduction. For that reason and many others, Mexican-Americanism was alimitedand,attime,limitingideology.(Sánchez,p.114)
LegalscholarGeorgeA.Martínez,whosemostsignificantearlierworkhasbeen to examine closely the long and hidden history of Mexican-American litigation, especially in twentieth-century desegregation, public accommodations, and other areaswheredefactodiscriminationwasdeeplyimbedded,takesadifferentapproach in“AlonsoS.PeralesandtheEfforttoEstablishtheCivilRightsofMexicanAmericansasSeenthroughtheLensofContemporaryCriticalLegalTheory:Post-racialism,RealityConstruction,InterestConvergence,andOtherCriticalThemes.”
Here, he employs various postmodernist and critical theory frameworks to understand the complex web of exclusion, discrimination, and informal racism that permeated the Mexican-American existence in the Southwestern United States. He paintsaconvincingpictureofPerales’effortstoframetheissuesandtoengagein the discourse. His most convincing analysis is the dramatic explanation of why Perales, a lawyer and former court stenographer, used legal terminology and notarizedformatsinthe1948GoodNeighbors, anunusualvolumeforitssheerlevelof repeateddetailofthelivedandobservedstoriesbyWWIIveteranos,whichhethen turns into testimony for governmental hearings and legislative purposes. Martínez deftly suggests that this rhetorical device anticipated the qualitative and normative framing devices of the twenty-first century, or at the least, critical theory of the late twentieth-century: “Looking to the bottom—adopting the perspective of those who haveseenandfeltthefalsityoftheliberalpromise—canassistcriticalscholarsin the task of fathoming the phenomenology of law and defining the elements of justice.”Hespecifies:
 |
| Awarded Medal of Civil Merit by Spain, 1952 |
[W]e can observe that Perales has sought to invalidate and deconstruct the socially constructed reality of post-racialism—a worldview which holds that racismdoesnotplayasignificantroleinthelivesofMexican Americans.In its place, he substitutes a new more accurate reality based on the actual experiencesofMexicanAmericansinwhichtheydescribeanalternativerealitythat ispermeatedwithracismagainstMexicanAmericans.
ItisworthnotingthatPerales’taskofrealityconstructionisalargeone.In Perales’day,mostpeoplewereoperatingwellwithinablack/whiteparadigm regardingcivilrights—i.e.,“theconceptionthatracein Americaconsists, either exclusively or primarily, of only two constituent groups, the Black and theWhite.” Accordingly,civilrightsdiscoursefocusedprimarilyon black/whiterelations.MexicanAmericansfelloutsideofthisblack/whiteparadigm.Thispointishighlysignificant.AsphilosopherofscienceThomas Kuhn has explained, phenomena that do not fit within the prevailing paradigm or“normalscience”oftheday“areoftennotseenatall.” Accordingly,the phenomenaregardingMexican AmericansthatPeraleswasseekingtopublicize would generally be invisible or not seen because of the prevailing black/whiteparadigm.(Martínez,p.127)
This is exhilarating work, seeing the spores of later critical theory in these earlierwritings.Othernewevidenceontheoriginsofthis1948PeralespublishingprojectmayhavebeentheepistolarynatureofaWWIdiarypublishedbyPerales’friend andcollaboratorJosédelaLuzSaenz,withwhohehadtraveledtheRioGrandeValleyearlyinhiscareer.Saenzhadpublishedhisdiaryin1933withtheSanAntonio Spanish-languagepublisherArtesGráficas.Thisauthenticworkcollectedletters, editorials, souvenirs and wartime letters-from-the-front that appeared in La Prensa and elsewhere (Zamora, 2002, 2012). Inasmuch as many Chicano historians have, with some justification in the earlier and incomplete record, contested the Mexican-Americangenerationasconservativeandregressive—especiallythosewhohave projected more modern expectations upon older events—this may and likely will spur a complete reconsideration of the teleology and political economy of this importantcohort.
ReligionandRace
IfthereisanyconstantthemethatpermeateseverycornerofAlonsoS.Perales’life, evenmorethantheadvancementofhisraza,itistheadvancementofhisraza’sreligion, more specifically, Roman Catholicism. Not only was he a devout and practicing Catholic,buthisentireethosofrazaadvancementembracedastrictandconservative Catholicism that he urged as a feature of political action, personal behavior, organizationaldevelopmentandcommunityspirituality.InhisbookCatólicos:Resistanceand AffirmationinChicanoCatholicHistoryandintheco-editedMexican-AmericanReligions:Spirituality,Activism,andCulture(withGastónEspinosa),historianMarioT. GarcíahasdrawnthecloseconnectionsbetweenMexican-Americancivicandpolitical leaders(suchasPerales’closefriendandcompatriotCleofasCalleros)andtheirspiritual and religious moorings. In his important analysis of Catholic social doctrine, Garcíanotedthatthetenetsofthedoctrine“recognize[d]thehumandimensionofpeople— the incarnational—and, as such, further recognize[d] the social and political in human beings”(García,2008,p.55).
Evenbythesehistoricalstandards,theintegrationofPerales’personalpietyand his general theory of Mexican-American advancement were notable. In “Alonso S. Perales and the Catholic Imaginary: Religion and the Mexican-American Mind,” Garcíanotesthatthisreligious-politicdoctrinalblendstressed“humandignity,truth, justice, charity, freedom, and civil and political as well as social and economic human rights. In their many writings in both Spanish and English-language newspaper columns, in their correspondence, and in their praxis as civil rights leaders, Perales and Calleros identified with the principles of Catholic social doctrine. . . . [Y]oucannotfullyunderstandPeraleswithoutunderstandingthecentralrolethathis faith, Catholicism, played in his personal, social, and political formation and mindset. It is his Catholic imaginary—his imagining his world and the new world he soughtforMexicanAmericansthroughhisCatholicfaith—thatenvelopshislifeand career” (p. 52).After reviewing the dozens of letters, advice columns, and essays by Perales,hesummarizes:
But if Catholic social doctrine represented the more public face of Perales’ Catholicism, his foreign policy if you will, there is another and more personal side to his Catholicism that represents his “domestic policy” aimed not at an outsidenon-Mexican-AmericanaudiencebutatMexican Americansthemselves. Thatis,PeralesemployedCatholicsocialdoctrineasawayofinfluencing Anglos,especiallypolicy-makersaboutthecivilrightsconcernsof MexicanAmericansinawaythatgavehisviewsmorecredibilitybecausethey coincidedwiththoseoftheCatholicChurchitself. Atthesametime,he employed his more personal Catholicism and faith to socialize or attempt to socialize MexicanAmericans inTexas or his part ofTexas to observe, respect, andpracticetheirCatholicfaithnotonlyfortheirownredemption,buttoshow theoutsideworldthatMexicanAmericansrepresentedastrongandobservant religiousAmericanpeoplewhoassuchshouldbefullyacceptedandintegratedbyotherGod-fearingAmericans.InorderforPeralestoconvincinglyargue forintegrationandequalopportunitiesforMexican Americans,heneededto alsodisplaythatMexicanAmericanswereworthyofsuchinclusionbyshowing that they constituted a strong Christian community based, as with other Americans,onsolidChristianfamilyvalues. ThisdomesticsideofPerales’ Catholicism is especially observed in his many personal advice columns and otherwritingintheSanAntonioSpanish-languageCatholicnewspaperLaVoz duringthe1950s.(García,pp.152-153)
Whilehisreligiousadviceandpublicpietymaystraincredulityintoday’smore seculardiscourse,itisanoteworthyaspectofPerales’constantsearchfordialogic space:tobegoodcitizensandcommunitymembers,Mexican Americansmustbe chaste,pious,(RomanCatholic)God-fearingandonbestbehavior,tobeacceptedas goodandChristianparticipantsinthepolityandincommunityadvancement.Virtually no secular political figure occupied this niche, in either English or in Spanish; thus, Perales played all four corners of the court, as almost no Mexican-American leaderbeforeorsince.AsGarcíanotes,UFWleaderandiconicpoliticalfigureCésar Chávezcameclosestinhisblendofactivismandinvocationofreligiousvalues,even thoughtheywerenotasstridentorassingularlyCatholicasthoseofPerales.
Even allowing for the value of hindsight, it is clear that Perales lay down with dogsandwokeupwithfleas. ThisdisturbingcornerofPerales’life,wherehisvirulent anti-Communism and conservative Catholicism led him to make political alliances with a wide range of troubling and contested figures, whose intersection withhimwasallthemoreironicandremarkablefortheir ownconservatismandlack ofsolidarityontheoverarchingfeatureofPerales’ entirelife,theadvancementof MexicanAmericans,hasnotbeenwidelyknownoranalyzed.Inaremarkablestudy, “FaithfulDissident: AlonsoS.Perales,Discrimination,andtheCatholicChurch,” Virginia Marie Raymond has carefully filled out these interstices, drawing upon the newly available archival materials. He carried on correspondence and became politicallyinvolvedwithLatin Americandictator AnastacioSomoza,segregationist TexasGovernorAllanShivers,andotherswhoseownworkclearlyimpededthe progressofMexicanAmericans.Shenotes:
Perales was an outsider both in the secular and religious worlds in which he circulated.BothasaMexicanAmericanandlayperson,hefoundhimselfatthe margins of the Catholic Church. He was also outside some secular political circlesasaMexicanAmerican,aCatholic,orasocialconservative.
From one point of view, Perales’religious and political commitments might seemcomplicated:sometimesoverlappingoridenticalandatothertimestense. Even to assign “religion” and “politics” to separate categories, however, might betrayandmisleadus.ThispaperwillfocusonthedualpoliticalaspectsofMr. Perales’Catholicism.Imean“political”inthebroadestsense,thatis,havingto dowithpowerrelationsbetweenandamongpeople...
Our protagonist was a sometime ally of both the highest-ranking secular executive andthe highest-rankingmember of the Catholic hierarchyin Texas. TobeaMexican-Americancivilrightsadvocatepoliticallypositioned uncomfortablybetweenGovernorAllanShiversandArchbishopRobertE. LuceyistheessenceofthePeralesparadox.ThetrajectoriesofPerales’anti-communism, and the relationship of his anti-communism to his Catholicism, warrantcloseattention.(Raymond,pp.171-172)
Raymond’s “close attention” brings sunlight to the many progressive struggles wagedbyPerales;inthisinstance,againstthesegregationofCatholicparishcreation and ethnic siting for congregations, against segregated Catholic schooling and againsttheexclusionofpiousMexicanAmericansfromtheChurch’slayleadership. Someoftheseexamplesarestaggering,suchastheclearracialseparationamongthe racesbyCatholicpolicyandpractice,especiallyin Texas,wheresheshowsembarrassing details about the history of the Church, especially affecting the predominantlyCatholicMexican-Americanpopulation. Asanobserverofthelongstanding segregatory practices inTexas schooling, I was reminded more than once of that sad historyinherreadingofCatholiceducationandparish-formation.
Butastragicasthatrenderingis(SanMiguel,2000;Valencia,2008),Iconfess thatIwassquirmingasIreadinherchapterofPerales’cozyingupto TexasGovernorAllanShivers,whowascharacterizedinYellowDogsAndRepublicans:Allan ShiversAndTexasTwo-partyPolitics(Dobbs,2005)asbeingthesignificanttransitionalfigurewhotransformed Texasinthe1940sand1950sfromessentiallyaone party conservative Dixiecrat state to one that has become thoroughly Republican since. By 2012, not a single Democrat had held statewide office at any level for a decade(Dunhamand Wilkins,2012).Shiversaccomplishedthebeginningsofthis transformationinavarietyofracializedways,frominveighingagainstBrownv. Boardto supporting segregation efforts in schooling, in voting districts, and in dispensing political favors. Surely, dealing with the various secular and political leadersinTexasmeantthatanyonesuchasPeraleswouldhavehadtodealregularlywith unsavory persons, but he used this proximity and influence to bait in a way reminiscent of Sen. Joseph McCarthy at the national and international level, as when he wroteaprivatelettertoShiversin1954,severalmonthsaftertheHernandezand Browncases:“Shiversalsoaccusedhischallenger,formerJudgeRalphYarborough, of both being a Communist and an integrationist. Perales agreed, writing to GovernorShiversthatinhisopinion,bothYarboroughandstaterepresentativeMaury Maverick,Jr.,were‘soft’ oncommunism.Maverick,Jr.,hadopposedShivers’ attempt to make membership in the Community Party a capital offense” (p. 201). ShecitesafawningletterthatPeraleswrotetoShivers:
. . . [Y]ou jumped the fence and declared yourself unequivocally against communism,andthatisexactlywhatweAmericansmustinsistthateachandevery candidate do in determining whether [sic] or not we are going to support him; and that any candidate who refuses to do that is not deserving of our considerationatthepolls....Herearethenamesofsomepersonswhocampaigned againstYourExcellency[sic]recently:GusC.Garcia,Dr.GeorgeI.Sanchez, D,.[sic]HectorGarcia,J.J.Herrera,EdIdar,Jr.,VirgilioC.Rosel,TomasM. Rodriguez.(referencesomitted,Raymond,p.201)
It is sad duty to see the obsequious style (“Your Excellency”) and perfidious identification of extraordinary fellow Mexican-American legal and political leaders as if they were enemies for real or imagined transgressions against Perales. She is even-handed beyond warrant when she notes these strange bedfellows: “It might havebeenpossiblefor AlonsoS.Peralestohaveworked—inharmonywithother Mexican-American advocates—simultaneously for civil rights, against what he saw as the evils of communism, and within the Catholic Church until his death. His new politicalalliancesaswellashisdenunciationofotherMexican-Americancivilrights lawyers,complicatedthatpossibility”(p.203). Toseeitintheserviceofapolitical figurewhoactivelyopposedprogressforPerales’razaisjarringandnoteworthy, eveniflikelyacorollarytohisfierceconservatismandanti-Communism. Tocontrastthisletter-writingindictmentisallthemoreperplexingwhenthearchivesreveal a number of earlier letters written to create a discourse and purposive medium of exchange—endorsements of officials running for elected office to encourage their hiring named Mexican-American constituents in affirmative action and the appointmentsprocess(Márquez,pp.29-48).
Letters,Piety,andPolitics
WhenIbegantoreadthroughthethousandsoflettersandthewidespreadmaterials in the extraordinary Perales archives, I realized I had not read so many letters since a graduate seminar inthe epistolarynovel,takeninmyearly1970s stint as an English graduate student, when I had occasion to read letters in collections of NathanielHawthorneandJamesThurber.Ihadforgottenhowcomplexitwasto reconstruct a world through letters, especially if they are incomplete (one does not always know the denominator of the full correspondence), asymmetrical (not all the correspondents are collected, making the discourse lopsided), or bilingual (not all authors are equally fluent in two languages, introducing subtle issues of translation and nuance). Some of these problems exist in this archive, but given how organized Perales was and how complete his materials are, both sides are remarkably well archived. Moreover, they are real letters, not fictitious ones in a narrative discourse. Ithasbeensincetheearly1970sthatIreadliterarytheory(earningforeignlanguage creditsaswell,givenmyunfamiliaritywiththepostmodernistscholarshipontherise then), but in preparation for this section and overall access to this collection, I drank deeply from several scholarly books and articles on the genre. (I confess that these toooftenremindedmeofthejibe,“Q: Whatdoyougetwhenyoucrossamafioso withapostmodernist?A:Anansweryoucannotunderstand.”)ButIstartedwiththe obligatoryDerrida,andworkedmywaythroughuntilIunderstoodparts:
As Jacques Derrida observes, texts, particularly novels, usually contain unmistakablemarksindicatingtheirgenre.Thesemarksmayrefertoparticularbooks ortoamodeofdiscourse,suchasValmont’sgleaningsfrom“romans.”Their function in the text, however, extends beyond mere allusion: they constitute intertextual extensions of the narrative by investing the text with a second, alreadydetermined,narrative matrix,creatinga palimpsestic relationshipof narratedevents.Thusreferencestoearlierepistolarynovelsestablishananalogoustextualization(lettering)oftheevents,andsimilaroccurrencesatthelevel of event are in some degree overdetermined by the anterior text; moreover, the reader’s response is in some degree overdetermined. References to the “novel” or “romance” raise more complex epistemological questions, since a fictional discourseisbeingusedtomeasuretruthwithinanotherfiction. Thesegeneric references are often meta-textually significant both in constructing and in deconstructing the illusion of reality necessary for a sympathetic response to the textual society, just as the existence of real literary works in a fictional universebothgivesthatuniversecredibilityandopenstoquestionthefiction’srepresentationoflife.Athirdmeansofgenremarkinginvolvestheuseofspecific formalconventions,andepistolarynovelsareespeciallyadeptinapplyingsuch transmission conventions as reflexivity, enclosure, intermediary transmission, andtheconfidant.(BernardDuyfhuizen,1985,“EpistolaryNarrativesofTransmissionandTransgression”)
WhatItookwasthatthelettersformeda“relationshipofnarratedevents,”not TristramShandywritingtohisfamilyaboutlifeandsexorBramStoker’s1897 Dracula,buttheAlonsoS.Peraleslettersandmaterialsweresignificant,“bothin constructing and in deconstructing the illusion of reality necessary for a sympatheticresponsetothetextualsociety,”orTexasinPerales’times.Onthecompleteness aspectofthePeralesletters,theSamuelRichardsonscholar AlanD.McKillophas usefully written, “The writing of the letters is only the beginning; they are copied, sent, received, shown about, discussed, answered, even perhaps hidden, intercepted, stolen,altered,orforged. Therelationoftheearlierlettersinanepistolarynovelto the later may thus be quite different from the relation of the earlier chapters of a noveltothelater”(“Epistolary TechniqueinRichardson’sNovels,”inSamuel Richardson:ACollectionofCriticalEssays,ed.JohnJ.Carroll,1969,p.139).This isausefulorganizingprincipleforsuchasprawlingnarrativeasthesearchives.
IndependentscholarNormaAdelfaMouton,in“ChangingVoices:Approaching ModernityfromMexicantoMexican AmericantoChicanointheEpistolary Archivesof AlonsoS.Perales,”reviewsmanyofthetestimoniosandnotarizedlettersfromMexicanAmericanstoPeralesgatheredinAreWeGoodNeighbors?,having to do with the post-WW II treatment of these adults, particularly the veteranos whohadreturnedfromforeignfieldsofbattletoencounterincreasedAnglohostilityastheybegantoclaimtheirnewfoundstatusasfullAmericancitizensandmilitarypatriots:
The letters in the collection, when taken together chronologically, whether written by men or by women, present an increasingly bolder voice.The letters written before 1941 and making no reference to the military service rendered byMexicanAmericansduringWorldWarIItendtoacknowledgeatotalseparationorisolationfromthedominantAnglo-Saxonculture....Letterswritten during and after 1941, or those earlier letters mentioning military service duringthewar,tendtomakeclearerreferencetowaysinwhichindividualsare expected to suppress or eliminate their Mexican culture in order to be acceptedbytheAngloSaxonsaroundthem.
Thecasesofdiscriminationalsochangeafter World WarIIandafterlaws begantobeenactedthatchangethepoliticalstatusoftheMexicanAmerican by law if not by practice. Prior to 1946 most of the letters relate incidents of discriminationthattendtoattempttoeliminatetheMexican Americanfrom establishmentsreservedfor“whites”or AngloSaxons.DuringWorldWarII, MexicanAmericansbegintovoicetheirdispleasureathavingtosendtheir boystowarwhilebeingdiscriminatedagainstathome.Whenthosesameservicemen and women return home either after the war or while on leave, they too complain, and more vehemently, at the discrimination they must endure at homewhile fightinginthesametrencheswithAngloSaxonsatthebattlefront. AfterWorldWarIIandespeciallyafterthe1960s,whenthefewlawsthathave been passed to protect against discrimination gain wider recognition, the natureofthediscriminationbeginstochange.NolongercanMexicanAmericans be eliminated from participating in public forums and patronizing public establishments,soAngloSaxonsbegintopointouttheculturaldifferences that separate the two ethnic groups and belittle those values dear to the Mexican-American traditions. In all cases a “modernity of subtraction” applies. In the earlier letters it is a complete subtraction of the individual subaltern from the dominant culture, while in the later letters it is the subtraction of specific cultural traits of the subaltern that do not fit into the framework of the dominant culture. Just as the nature of the discrimination changes from subtraction ofthepersontosubtractionofculturalcharacteristics,sothevoiceoftheMexican-American protest changes from acquiescent and accepting to questioning and finally militant. Letters written after 1950 also begin to reflect a tendency todefendunknownvictims... Thischangehastakenthefocusfromdefense oftheindividualtodefenseofthecommunity.(Mouton,pp.235-236)
The letters became the backdrop for legislative hearings and governmental records. Asunusualasletterswereforsuchcivilrightslawenactment,sotoowas the discursive format of the op-eds and published letters to and from entreaties by Mexican-American Catholic women, as well as local men. Mouton has carefully trackedmanyofthelettersandmaterialsnotonlytokeepevidentthediscursivesynchronicity, but to situate them as a belated return to private life for so many MexicanAmericans.
LiterarytheoristDonnaM.KabalendeBichara,in“Self-WritingandCollective Representation:TheLiteraryEnunciationofHistoricalRealityandCulturalValues,” situatesPeralesinabroadnarrative anddiscursivetraditionof autobiography,even as it is clear that Perales is in a complex multilateral project, not in a narrow, singularactofautobiography:
AsIargueinthischapter,EnDefensademiRaza/InDefenseofMyPeople, providesthereaderwithinformationthatservesasastartingpointforcoming toamoreclearunderstandingofvariousaspectsofAlonsoS.Perales’life project which involves deconstructing systems of thought that attempt to radicallylimittherightsofMexicanAmericansascitizensoftheUnitedStates. This project takes on larger dimensions over time as it includes the support of thoseMexicansresidingintheUnitedStatesaswell.Soastobroadenthisinitial focus,the corpusof mystudyalsofocusesonlettersexchangedbetween AlonsoS.PeralesandAdelaSlossVento,thoseexchangedbetweenMarta Peralesand AdelaSlossVento,aswellasthoseletterswrittenbyMarta Perales. I suggest that these letters can be seen as literary artifacts embedded within a specific historical reality. My intention in this direction is a critical reading of a select number of letters so as to highlight the type of discourse productionevidentwithinthesetexts.Althoughliterarytheoristshavetended to marginalize letters as a sub-genre of autobiography, I propose that they clearlyinvolveatypeof self-writingthatrevealselementsthatcontributetoa culturalunderstandingofthewriterandhislifeproject.Mymajorgoal,therefore,istodemonstratethatthecontentoftheseletterspresentsself-writing that emanates from a cultural community; that is, these letters reflect the concerns of a collectivity of men and women of Mexican descent living in the UnitedStates....
ItisthroughtheletterswrittenbyAlonsoS.Perales,then,thatwefindatype of life writing which, as noted by Genaro Padilla, “transforms life history into textual permanence” in the form of “diaries, family histories, personal poetry and collections of self-disclosing correspondence” (Padilla, p. 4). It is precisely through various types of “self-disclosing correspondence” that the reader encounters information that focuses on specific dates and types of information that functions as a historical inscription of facts that represent “a major articulationofresistancetoAmericansocialandculturalhegemony.”(pp.242-243)
This section’s two nuanced, insightful chapters reveal the extent to which the Perales materials, particularly the voluminous correspondence and epistolary dialogues, have an organic and synoptic meaning, indicating the extent to which they are in a long-standing dialogic tradition, one often rooted in fictional narrative, but also showing the connectedness between his over-arching worldview in advancing his people’s cause and the many real historical events swirling around him in these importanttimes. Theseareimportantandthoughtfulcontributionstoourunderstanding of Perales the letter writer. Reading these chapters, however, also makes one realize that the full understanding of the archives is beyond the ken or reach of anyonescholar,inasmuchasitissuchalargecollectioncoveringsomanyyearsand subjects.Hisroleasapublicintellectualisyettobefullymeasuredorappreciated.
Diplomacy,Law,andBiography:AssessingAlonsoS.Perales
Inthefinalchapters,wereturntoPerales’biographerF.ArturoRosales—noted earlier—and historian Emilio Zamora (“Connecting Causes:Alonso S. Perales, Hemispheric Unity, and Mexican Rights in the United States”). I have gained the admiration usually reserved for extraordinary athletes and artists, considering just howshapeshiftingandmalleable AlonsoS.Peralesappears,nowthatwehavethe intellectualDNAthatmadeuphisnearlythirtyyearsofpublicdiscursivelife.
In what is perhaps the most novel treatment of the Perales papers, Zamora extracts the details of the final stage of his career, that of diplomat and international lawyer,playingonalargepost-WWIIstage.Henotes:
TheUnitedNationsconferenceheldatSanFrancisco’sVeteran’sWarMemorialBuildingbeganwindingdownasdelegationsfromfiftycountriesprepared totakepartinthesigningceremonyoftheneworganization’scharter.When itcametimeforNicaraguatosign,onJune23,1945,Dr.Mariano Arguello Vargas,MinisterofForeignAffairs,walkedtotheausterestageoftheHerbst Theatreandseatedhimselfatalargeroundtable. TherestoftheNicaraguan delegation, made up of government and military officials, stood between him andaraiseddisplayofnationalflagsastheofficialphotographersrecordedyet another nation committing to international cooperation for global peace, democracy,andjustice.
Although the event looked like all the other forty-nine signing ceremonies, Nicaraguanofficialshaddispensedwithtraditionandassignedoneofthecoveted positions in their delegation to a person who had been born and raised in theUnitedStates. AlonsoS.Perales,aco-founderoftheLeagueofUnited Latin AmericanCitizens(LULAC)andoneofthemostprominentU.S.civil rights leaders of the twentieth century, held the post of lead counselor to the delegation.Hisselectionandassignmentmayhaveseemedoddtoacasual observer,butnottosomeonewhohadfollowedPerales’extensiveanddistinguished diplomatic career for Nicaragua and the United States, or knew of his closerelationshipwiththeAnastasioSomozaregime.BythetimethefirstUN meeting took place, Perales had served as the Nicaraguan Consul General in San Antonio,Texasforelevenyears;healsohadparticipatedinatleastthirteenU.S.diplomaticmissionsinLatinAmericasincethe1920s....
With some exceptions, historians have overlooked the relationship between the heightened wartime attention to prejudice, racial thinking, and discrimination and the treatment of Mexicans in the United States, and they have failed to examinethiscommunityasapointwherelocalandhemisphericissuesbeganto correspond and connect. Building on my prior work on Mexicans in the United States, here I underscore the importance of Perales as an insightful, prescient, anddeterminedcivilrightsfigure. Throughhisroleinhemisphericdiplomacy, Perales brought international attention to the discriminatory treatment of MexicansintheAmericanSouthwest.(Zamora,pp.288-289,citationsomitted)
Insum,PeralesusedthenuancedandelegantofficesoftheU.S.andpan-Americandiplomaticworldashis finaldiscursiveproject,seizingthesedevelopingopportunities to gain traction for his lifelong dream, identifying anti-Mexican and antiMexican-Americanpoliticalstrainsandbuildingsupportfortheinternationalhuman rights and civil rights antidiscrimination projects that he had envisioned all his life, buildingLULACandotherorganizations,gatheringtestimonios,engaginginlitigation and legislative efforts to improve their lives, and above all, urging his people to meet their side of the bargain with the larger community: if we do our part and be goodneighbors,theywillacceptusoratleastnotactivelyopposeourcivilrights. Ofcourse,inanironicsense,thisstrategyrequiredtheracializingofthestruggle.As Zamoranotes, I suggest that just as government and non-government representatives elevated racial thinking to prominence in the diplomatic arena, civil rights activists in Mexican communities fromTexas also made the connection with a groundedcivilrightscauseastheirprincipalpointofdeparture.Thestoryofraceas a wartime issue, in other words, can be best appreciated by examining diplomaticrelations,theMexicancivilrightscauseinTexas,andtheirconnection inthepoliticalbiographyofPerales.(Zamora,p.289)
I characterize this as “ironic,” or perhaps better, “double-edged,” given the uneven relationship Perales and his contemporaries had with legal whiteness, their beinga“classapart,”andtheirinconsistentattemptstoadvancetheirrazawithout beingracialized. Aslegalhistorian ArielaGrosshasperceptivelynoted(alsousing the term “ironically”): “The notion of mestizaje, or racial mixture, also created a senseofthefluidityamonggroupsandreinforcedtheimportanceofcultureindefiningidentity:MexicanAmericansoftensawthemselvesandtheircultureasstronger because they were a mixed-race, or mestizo, people. Ironically, at the very moment that some Mexican-American advocates on the U.S. side of the border were claimingwhitenessstrategically,thenewlyindependentgovernmentofMexicowaspropagating the national mythos of la raza—the Mexican race uniquely strengthened by itscombinationofSpanishandIndian”(Gross,2007,p.345).
But for the first time in his life, diplomat Perales interacted routinely with educatedandpowerfulLatinAmericans,particularlyMexicans,inaclearattempttoelevatethequotidianracialviolenceandpoliticaloppressionfacedbyMexicanos de afueratothisbiggerandmorevisiblestage. Thathefailedtolivelongenoughto harvesthiseffortsinthesuccessfulcivilrightsantidiscriminationlegislationofthe
1960sisnofaircritique.PerhapswithoutequalamongMexicanAmericansand amongmost Anglos,hisdiscursivebehavior,civilrightsefforts,andlongstanding leadership marked the transition from the Mexican-American Generation, largely centered around post-WWII to the period where civil rights were the center of the polity,fueledlargelybyfellowTexanPresidentLyndonJohnson,whoseowntimeas a schoolteacher in a Mexican school seared him with anger and a desire for fairness (Pycior,1997).PeralesisnotWoodyAllen’sZelig,butheistheclosestanaloginthe Mexican-American community, and perhaps the U.S. biography of the time, certainly for a person who never held formal appointive or elected offices or a held full of diplomatic portfolio. He is also the person who combined being of Mexican originandbeingMexicanAmericaninafluidandtransformativefashion—bornaU.S. citizen,hehadalltherelativeadvantagesthatflowedtohiscommunity,buthisinteractionwithandadvocacyforMexicansinexiletransformedhimintoanadvocate whoneveracceptedhislotinlife.
EachofthesechaptersrevealsmoreoflawyerAlonsoS.Peralesthanweknew, asif the half centuryhisletterswere hiddennowenable ustosee hisgoodandbad sides, his generous importunings, selflessly advanced on behalf of his people, and hisweakreligiouspietiesdirectedatadvice-seekers,steepedinhisconservativecultural Catholicism. He could privately and publicly cultivate and serve as a mentor to others,evenasheoutedpoliticalenemiestoGovernor Shivers,inwhatcanonlybe fairly described as a creepy and mean-spirited fashion. But we come away with a certain sense of service and dedication to egalitarian principles, and insight into a manwhousedeverystrategypossiblyavailabletohimtoservehisraza.Heeven participates in the quintessential discursive act for a person politically inclined: he runsforofficehimself,unsuccessfully,fortheSan Antonioschoolboard,adisappointmentthatpavesthewayforGusGarcia’ssubsequentvictorytothatbody. The papers should lead to a fundamental reconsideration of this important transitional figure, and we are grateful to his family, these accomplished authors and the many otherswhohavemadetheseinsightspossible.
One regret is that the many legal documents that he must have accumulated throughhisyearsofpracticearenotwell-representedinthearchives. Thereare,to be sure, any number of such materials, but we do not come away with the fuller sense of Perales as a lawyer, dealing with poor clients, arguing cases in various tribunalsandlegal venues,collectingfeesanddealingwiththebusinesssideofasmall practice. Perhaps more such documents, which were likely removed for confidentialitypurposesuponhisdeath,willappearinarchivalformatorinthevariousplaces where they could be sequestered: old law office files held by his collaborators or librarieswheretheyhavenotyetsurfaced.Oragarage.
Even with this scant legal record—scant surely in contrast to his more fulsome andcomprehensivepackrattishprivaterecord—itispossibleto evaluatetheextentto which his legal career added value to his organizing and political efforts, and I have examinedall thecaseshetriedfor whichtherearepublishedopinions.Giventhe extent to which the early Mexican-American lawyers dominated the polity, his legal career is an exemplar of understanding the crucial role of Tejano lawyers in this history, and as Emilio Zamora and others have noted, his international legal practice wassubstantialandsuccessful.
In“The LegalCareer ofAlonso S.Perales,”I look at the recordhebuilt up as an attorneyinpracticefromapproximately1925through1960.Whiletherearescattered filesthatshedlightonhislonglegalcareer,regrettably,thecompletefilesandpapers of his practice have not survived, so observers of this interesting period of his career donothaveafullorclearrecordofhisthirty-plusyearsofpractice.However,hebuilt a substantial practice that allowed him and his family to enjoy a solid middle class life, one that was characteristically modest and that involved adopting children. He tried a number of cases that establish a record of both his general commercial practice, representing Mexican-American clients and his civil rights practice, trying to strike down punitive practices and discriminatory policies that harmed community members,suchasraciallyrestrictivecovenantsandexcessivepoliceforce.Theseparticularcasesweretriedinatwentyyearstretchfrom1939untilmonthsbeforehis 1960death,althoughtherecordrevealsinvolvementothercaseswherehewasnotthe trialattorneyofrecord,suchas1930sSalvatierrav.DelRioISD.Iamhopefulthat this preliminary work will lead to more research on the early Tejano and other Mexican-American lawyers and other professionals in other states (Muñoz, 2001; Valencia,2008;García,Yosso,andBarajas,2012).Theseleaderswhofigureinthis recordshowthecentralityoflawyersintheMexican-Americanstruggle,andreading theirstoriesfillsanyreaderwithasenseofoutrageandadmirationinequalparts.
 |
| Michael A. Olivas |
Michael A. Olivas, Esq., who edited this book on Alonso Perales, is the William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center and Director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at UH. This segment is taken from the introduction to In Defense of My People, which is available through Arte Público Press and the usual online sources for books.