Opinion Archive

Agustin Barrios Gomez, president of SolutionsAbroad.com, has been commissioned by the newly-relaunched English-language daily The News (www.thenews.com.mx) to produce a weekly opinion column on Mexican current affairs. The column is published every Wednesday in the paper and also here online. Our president is a member of the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs and is an analyst of politics in North America with a degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University. 

What to Make of the "Browning" of America

January 9, 2008

Despite the stereotypes, prevalent on both sides of the border, that being Mexican automatically means that one is Mestizo, Mexico’s population cannot, and should not, be defined by one race only. As Mexican-American singer Linda Ronstadt once remarked, “like the US, Mexico is a land of immigrants.” A good rule of thumb is to see Mexico as 80% Mestizo, 10% Native American and 10% White. In fact, two of Mexico’s most famous figures, multi-billionaire Carlos Slim and Hollywood star Salma Hayek are of Lebanese descent and our previous President was partly of Anglo-American descent which explains the Irish surname, “Fox”. Even in terms of Mexican migration to the US, which has usually been a Mestizo phenomenon, the recent waves of middle-class migration have taken Mexican Whites to the US, as can be seen on Univisión, with anchor Jorge Ramos.

Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the preponderance of the Mestizo race in Mexican cultural/ethnic identity and as a major factor in the debate taking place in the United States regarding illegal immigration. It would be hard to imagine so much talk-radio vitriol against illegal immigration if all Mexican immigrants looked like Ronstadt, or Ramos. Hence the ambiguous term, the “browning” of America, which for some is a rallying cry and for others is simply an observation of a demographic shift that includes 26 million people in the US (most of them US citizens, by the way).

It has always been thus

Despite the universality of its impressive Constitution, the US was born obsessed with the role of race in the social order. Not only were some of the Founding Fathers slave owners, but the indigenous population was immediately relegated to the physical and cultural margins of the colony. European families arrived to these shores looking to establish a “City on a Hill”; an ideal community far from the religious persecution of Europe, but which did not include equality for non-Europeans.

The contrast with Mexico’s colonization is striking. There, European males arrived with the express Mission of converting the local population to Christianity. It was the Catholic Church, with its explicit acceptance of Amerindians as children of God, which encouraged the intermingling of the races. And the Spaniards mingled with gusto.

Take the land, leave the people

In Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans and Vagabonds, Mexican-American author and LA Times editorialist, Gregory Rodriguez argues that this clash of races helped define the United States as a nation. He notes that the first problem of “acculturation” in this part of the world was, in fact, the issue of Anglo assimilation into Mexican Texas: “In 1825, the Congress of Coahuila y Tejas agreed to grant Anglo settlers additional land if they married Mexican women… to facilitate Anglo assimilation into Mexican culture.”

After the US occupied Mexico City, Rodriguez notes that the debate changed to whether the US should annex all, or just the northern half, of Mexico. It was a debate about the future of the American experiment itself, as congressman Wick of Indiana remarked, we “do not want any mixed races in our Union, nor men of any color except white, unless they be slaves.” Senator Lewis Cass was more direct: “We do not want the people of Mexico, either as citizens or subjects. All we want is their [uninhabited] territory.” Despite the fact that, as Senator Calhoun noted, some Mexicans had “Castilian blood in their veins – the old Gothic, quite equal to the Anglo-Saxon in many respects – in some respects superior”, the browning of America by the Mestizo majority was then unacceptable. The experience proved definitive, as Rodriguez says, “US expansion into heavily populated areas thereafter would be achieved either by way of economic penetration or colonial mandate. Americans were eager to exert economic control over other areas of the world, but they were not willing to absorb nonwhites into their body politic.” The American empire was to be different from those that came before it, a difference that plays itself in Iraq today.

Migration in North America: a triumph of people over politics

The Mexican government was unsuccessful in keeping Anglo settlers out of its northern territories. Given the scope of consolidated Mexican migration, it can be said that the US government was largely unsuccessful in keeping out eager Mexican immigrants. For those of us who believe that people, not governments, ought to choose where to live, this is a good thing. For those who dislike the intermingling of the races and nations, this is a threat.

Interestingly, census figures show that Mexican-Americans continue to intermingle, showing some of the highest rates of inter-racial marriage in the US. At the same time, more Americans are moving to Mexico. Perhaps the browning of America should be seen as just one side of the intermingling of North Americans, free to decide for themselves where, and with whom, to live - beyond racism and politics.

Return to top