VITAL SIGNSrnPOLITICSrnThe Politics ofrnHispanic Identityrnby Joseph E. FallonrnThe federal government officiallyrnrecognizes “Hispanic”—an artificialrnand arbitrary concept devoid of ethnic,rnracial, cultural, or linguistic meaningsrn—as a legitimate collective identityrnfor two reasons. Domestically, it is torncreate a “Hispanic nation” within thernUnited States, to inflate the numericalrnsize of that “nation,” and to have allrnmembers of that “nation” eligible for affirmativernaction programs. Internationall-,rnit is to legitimize “Hispanic” powerrnin the 18 Spanish-speaking countries inrnthe Western Hemisphere by recognizingrnthe population of each as a homogenousrn”ethnic” group, thereby denying the existencernof non-Hispanic peoples and enablingrnthe suppression of their languages,rncultures, and religions.rnAchieving the domestic objectives,rnwhich virtually guarantees the realizationrnof the international one, requiredrnrewriting the history of the UnitedrnStates. As George Orwell recognized inrn’Nineteen Eighty-Four: “Who controls thernpast controls the future; who controls thernpresent controls the past.” According tornthis historical revisionism, a significantrnMexican population lived in what is todayrnTexas and the Southwest of the UnitedrnStates before the arrival of the Americans;rnMexican-Americans have alwaysrnbeen loyal to the United States; and thernstatus of Mexicans and Mexican-rnAmericans in the United States hasrnhistorically been more comparable tornthat of African-Americans than that ofrn”yvhites.”rnBetween 1820 and 1900, the averagernannual number of Mexican nationals immigratingrnto the United States was onlyrn350. The demographic impact of suchrnnumbers on the Mexican-Americanrncommunity was negligible since as manyrnMexican nationals departed as entered.rnThis changed dramatically after 1900,rnespecially during the two decades spanningrnthe “Mexican Revolution” and itsrnaftermath. Between 1910 and 1930,rnnearly 700,000 A-iexicans crossed thernborder into the United States—approximatelyrnthree percent of the entire populationrnof Mexico.rnMost entered Texas. It was this post-rn1910 immigration which for the firstrntime establi.shed a significant Mexicanrnpresence in Texas. In 1821, when Americanrncolonists began to arrive, there werernonly an estimated 3,000 Mexicans in thernentire Mexican province of Texas, andrnmost of them lived southyvest of presentdayrnColorado. By 1834, Americans outnumberedrnMexicans by ten to one. Inrn1860, there were only an estimatedrn12,000 ethnic Mexicans living in all ofrnTexas—less than two percent of a totalrnpopulation numbering over 600,000. Byrn1900, the estimated number of ethnicrnMexicans living in Texas was onlyrn70,000—^less than tliree percent of a totalrnpopulation in excess of three million.rnIn San Antonio, ethnic Germans outnumberedrnethnic Mexicans.rnThe estimated number of ethnicrnMexicans living in the other Southwesternrnstates in 1900 was similady low: Arizonarn—14,172 out of a total populationrnof 122,931, or less than 12 percent; Galiforniarn—8,096 out of a total populationrnof 1,485,053, or less than one percent;rnand Neyy Mexico—6,649 out of a totalrnpopulation of 195,310, or less than fourrnpercent.rnBetween 1910 and 1920, the politicsrnof the Mexican Revolution followed thernwax’c of Mexicans into the United States.rnIt consisted of acts of violence by rivalrnMexican warlords—principally VictorianornHuerta, Venustiano Carranza, andrnFrancisco “Pancho” Villa—and by Mexicansrnliving in the United States—such asrnAgustin S. Garza, Luis de la Rosa, AnicctornPizana, and Esteban Fierros, all fromrnTexas. Those perpetrated by the formerrnincluded armed raids into Texas andrnNew Mexico, as well as threats of a generalrnwar against the United States. Thoserncommitted by the latter centered on thern”Plan de San Diego,” which called for arngeneral insurrection by Mexicans livingrnthroughout the Southwest of the UniteclrnStates and the extermination of European-rnAmerican males residing in thatrnregion.rnMany historians believe the Plan dernSan Diego had a foreign, chiefly Mexican,rncomponent to its origin. Some considerrnit to have been part of a conspiracyrnfor returning the deposed Mexican dictatorrnHuerta to power. In any e’ent, thernplan was then used by the reigning dictatorrnof Mexico, Garranza, as a tool for extortingrnofficial recognition for his governmentrnfrom Washington, which is whyrnmany maintain that the Plan de SanrnDiego originated with Garranza from thernstart. Further disagreement centers onrnthe role, if any, of the Imperial GermanrnGovernment—which was endeavoringrnto keep the United States out of WorldrnWir I—in formulating or funding thernproposed insurrection.rnI lowever, several historians, includingrnthose who believe that Huerta and/orrnGarranza were invoKed in the conspiracy’,rnjudge the plan to have been “an authenticrnproduct of the border region.”rnGhampioning this opinion, the militantrnHispanic publication AZTLAN; Chicanornjournal of Social Science & The Artsrnprinted in its Spring 1970 issue: “Mexicans,rncitizens of the United States andrnMexico, conceived, wrote, and attemptedrnto implement a manifesto of liberationrnentitled the Plan de San Diego.”rnThe article included an English translationrnof the plan and justified its 15rnpoints, “harsh as they may seem,” on thernground that Mexicans in the UnitedrnStates had historically suffered from “thernracism, brutality, and fear of the Anglornpopulatioir.”rnPoint One; “On the 20th day of Februaryrn1915, at two o’clock in the morning,rnwe will arise in arms against the Governmentrnand country of the United States ofrnNorth America . . . we will proclaim thernindependence and segregation of thernStates bordering upon the Mexican Nation,rnwhich are: TEXAS, NEW MEXICO,rnARIZONA, COLORADO, ANDrnUPPER CALIFORNIA, OF WHICHrnStates the Republic of MEXICO wasrnrobbed in a most perfidious manner byrnNorth American imperialism.”rnPoint Two: Our “army shall be knownrnbv the name of: ‘LIBERATING ARMYrnFOR RACE AND PEOPLES.”‘rnNOVEMBER 1997/37rnrnrn