Point Five: “It is strictly forbidden tornhold prisoners . . . they shall be shot immediatelyrnwithout any pretext.”rnPoint Seven: “Every North Americanrnover sixteen years of age shall be put torndeath; and only the aged men, the women,rnand the children shall be respectedrnPomt Eight: “THE APACHES of Arizona,rnas well as the INDIANS (REDrnSKINS) of the Territory, shall be givenrnevery guarantee; and their lands whichrnhave been taken from them shall be returnedrnto them to the end that they mayrnassist us in the cause which we defend.”rnPoint Ten: “The movement havingrngathered force, and once having possessedrnourselves of the States abovernalluded to, we shall proclaim them anrnINDEPENDENT REPUBLIC, laterrnrequesting (if it be thought expedient)rnannexation to M E X I C O . . . “rnPoint 11: “When we shall have obtainedrnindependence for the negroes…rnwe shall aid them in obtaining six Statesrnof the American Union, which Statesrnborder upon those already mentioned,rnand they may form from these six Statesrna Republic that they may, therefore, bernindependent.”rnPoint 12: ” . . . bearing in mind thatrnthis is a war without quarter; nor shallrnany leader enroll in his ranks anyrnstranger, unless said stranger belong tornthe Latin, the negro, or the Japanesernrace.”rnWith the exception of half a dozenrnJapanese, who apparently served as ordnancernexperts, participants in the Planrnde San Diego were exclusively Mexicansrnand Mexican-Americans. Althoughrnpoints eight and 11 had been included inrnthe manifesto to win the support ofrnAfrican-Americans and American Indians,rnboth communities refused to participate.rnOrganized into armed bands of betweenrn25 and 100 men with bases locatedrnin northern Mexico, the LiberatingrnArmy for Races and Peoples launched 27rnraids into the L’nited States, The guerrillasrnmurdered 33 Americans, wounded 24rnothers, destroyed thousands of dollarsrnworth of property, and “ethnicallyrncleansed” south Texas of thousands ofrnAmerican families, but they failed tornachieve any of the objectives stated inrntheir manifesto. By June 1916, 16rnmonths after the date for the general insurrection,rnthe Plan de San Diego hadrnbeen defeated by the military response ofrnthe Texas Rangers and the U.S. Army.rnIn the continental United States priorrnto 1930, everyone who today would bernofficially designated as “Hispanic” wasrnlegally classified as “white.” Virtually allrnwere of Mexican origin, although a sizablerncommunity in New Mexico steadfastlyrnmaintained, and still do, that theyrnare of Spanish origin. Even the segregationistrnstate of Texas, with its Jim Crowrnlaws against African-Americans, legallyrnclassified both Mexican immigrants andrnMexican-Americans as “white.”rnHowever, in the aftermath of thernfailed race war attempted under the Planrnde San Diego and amid fear that manyrnamong the neadv 700,000 Mexicans whornhad entered the United States betweenrn1910 and 1930 might possibly be fifthrncolumnists for continuing Mexican irredentistrnclaims to the Southwest, the federalrngovernment decided to ascertain thernnumber of Mexicans living in the UnitedrnStates. To do that, the 1930 censusrncounted “Mexicans” separately fromrn”whites” and defined them as everyonernwho was born or whose parents werernborn in Mexico and “who is not definitelyrnwhite.” Revised statistics for the 1910rnand 1920 censuses were presented to correspondrnwith this new classification.rnThe official designation of “Mexican”rnas a nonwhite group along with “Negro,”rn”Indian,” “Chinese,” “Japanese,” andrn”Filipino” was opposed by Mexican-rnAmericans, including the League ofrnUnited Latin American Citizens (LULAC),rnformed in 1929. They successfullyrnlobbied the federal government to reclassifyrnall Mexicans, immigrants andrnnative-born, as “white.” They did notrnlobby for the abolition of segregation.rnBetween 1940 and 1976, Mexicans remainedrnofficially classified as “white” inrnconformity to the expressed wishes ofrnthat community. However, after the introductionrnof affirmative action programsrnwith their polic)’ of discriminationrnagainst “whites,” Mexican-Americans reversedrnthemselves. They now successfullyrnlobbied the federal government, inrn1976 and 1977, to be classified as a nonwhitern”ethnic” minority for purposes ofrneligibility for all affirnaative action programs.rnIn 1976, the American GI Forum, thernLatin American Manufacturing Association,rnLULAC, the National Congress ofrnHispanic American Citizens, the NationalrnCouncil of La Raza, and SER—rnorganizations representing primarily individualsrnwhose ancestry was Mexican,rnbut including those with origins in Cuba,rnPuerto Rico, and other Spanishspeakingrncountries as well—successfullyrnlobbied for passage of Public Law 94-rn311. This legislation, signed into law onrnJune 16,1976, created an umbrella termrnentitled “Americans of Spanish origin orrndescent” for all those who can “tracerntheir origin or descent from Mexico,rnPuerto Rico, Cuba, Central and SouthrnAmerica, and other Spanish-speakingrncountries.”rnThis definition had two fundamentalrnflaws. First, it equated “state” with “ethnicity.”rnMexico is the state. Therefore,rnits inhabitants are ethnic “Mexicans.”rnAccording to this logic, the population ofrnBelgium is composed of ethnic “Belgians,”rnnot Flemings and Walloons; thernpopulation of Switzerland is composedrnof ethnic “Swiss,” not French, Cermans,rnand Italians; and the population of pre-rn1990 Yugoslavia was composed of ethnicrn”Yugoslavs,” not Albanians, Croatians,rnMacedonians, Serbians, and Slovenians.rnThe second flaw was assuming that arncommon European language as the languagernof government meant a commonrnidentity. Eighteen Spanish-speakingrncountries and Puerto Rico, with antagonistic,rnsometimes violent “national” rivalriesrn—Mexico and Cuatemala, PuertornRico and the Dominican Republic, ElrnSalvador and Honduras, Honduras andrnNicaragua, Nicaragua and Costa Rica,rnPanama and Colombia, Colombia andrnVenezuela, Colombia and Ecuador,rnEcuador and Peru, Peru and Chile, Chilernand Bolivia, Bolivia and Paraguay,rnParaguay and Argentina, and Argentinarnand Chile—were declared by Congressrnto constitute a common “national” identity.rnBy this logic, a common identityrnmust be shared by India and the Philippinesrnand by Canada and Haiti, sincernboth sets of countries have a commonrnEuropean language as a language of governmentrn—English for the former andrnFrench for the latter.rnPublic Law 94-311 further stated: “arnlarge number of Americans of Spanishrnorigin or descent suffer from racial, social,rneconomic, and political discriminationrnand are denied the basic opportunitiesrnthey desire as American citizens.”rnThis law thus mandated federal agenciesrnto “collect, and publish regularly, statisticsrnwhich indicate the social, health,rnand economic condition of Americans ofrnSpanish origin or descent.” In addition,rnthe Census Bureau was required to providernboth Spanish-language censusrnquestionnaires and Spanish-speakingrn38/CHRONICLESrnrnrn