Democrats, slavery, Irish, and Indians

[PochoPatriot]

I know I am late this thread, but I was wondering if you could site any sources for the arguments made in the initial post?

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

I know I am late this thread, but I was wondering if you could site any sources for the arguments made in the initial post?

You can start with The Cousin's Wars by Kevin Phillips, Five Points by Tyler Anbinder, and perhaps the first half of Who Are We? by Samuel P. Huntington. There is a hodge podge of sources from which I put my stuff together, I'll make another post to further describe my methodology.

I've gone off on different tangents in this thread due to the whim of the moment and there are things alluded to in the first few posts of the thread that I need to get more of a look at before I enlarge the view - and I've learned a lot more about the issues which are brought forth in the first post than I knew then. Most of us like the simple explanation, but it's actually much more complicated than black or white and even shades of gray in most cases.

For example (and off the top of my head), the first person to own a black man in the colonies in a permanent manner was a black man in 17th century New England (even went to court to affirm his claim).

90% of the black slaves who were transported to the New World were obtained through trade with a black west African slave culture. There was not a great pounding through the African jungle by Europeans to capture black African slaves like the popular narrative likes to state.

You can google Cherokee slaves and get quite a narrative concerning the subject of Cherokees who owned black slaves.

I have since found that many of the Cherokee moved west decades before Jackson forced the rest out, some even wound up in Mexico and the Cherokee played a role in Spanish, Mexican, and American Texas.

Some things I need to look more into but seems to have happened:

The Blackfeet of the northern western plains were pushed out from east of the Great Lakes before European contact, and seems to have been moving south about 1800. The Sioux were pushed out of Minnesota into the plains by the Chippewa. There was a general migration of the southern plains Indians towards what became New England. The Apache and Navajo may have originated in Alaska, but the Comanches from what became Wyoming drove the Apaches out of Texas and raided to within 120 miles of Mexico City. The Pawnee may have practiced a small scale form of Human Sacrifice for crop fertility. There was more than a lot of inter-tribal barbarism and warfare over territory and food sources (and women) long before European contact and white expansion - nothing new concerning Manifest Destiny except the scale of territory taken and migration into the territories taken.

The 1675 King Phillip Indian war (the kill ratio was more than the Civil War) and use of Indians by the English and French against the colonists may have been a large and lasting factor of white American perception of Indians down through the 20th century. I believe there was some attempt to assimilate Indians prior to Andrew Jackson's policy of removal, but I may have been mistaken as to the extent as expressed in the first post. Indian and white interaction was much more complex than the simplistic "white racism" or "Indian Savages" explanations, and I would like to explore more of it and contrast it with the Spanish Colonial system. It seems to me that both mission and reservation systems, at least originally, had a vision of assimilation and eventual participation in mainstream society, but this was primarily sabotaged by both Spanish friars and crooked reservation agents.

I'm not a professional historian, I don't get paid to go to distant locations and rummage around in obscure, minute notes of the ancients to reach conclusions directly from the source. But I read a lot, and while there are different focuses and interpretations (as well as outright dishonest, biased bunk from any direction) I put a picture together of what reasonably really was. I've concluded that history (like a divorce) has four sides to every story - what one says, what the other says, what everyone else involved or not says (who's dog is in the fight or what there is to "prove"), then there's what really happened and here are the causes.

There is some wisdom in the modern biographer of Confederate president Jefferson Davis who said that there was a lot to dislike Jefferson Davis for, but that he wasn't going to judge the man according to modern society. The same could probably said for just about anyone who played a part on any side of the post 1492 New World - doesn't matter what name the hero or villain went by or culture he came from.

[ilbegone]

Addendum to the previous post:

I've always been somewhat interested in history and became more interested since about 2005 with all the marches, rallies and the media running to self appointed, racist Latino spokesmen for a whole race (regardless of nationality and individuality) for pulp fodder. It was a lopsided media narrative with all "the borders crossed us", "stolen lands", and "nativist bigots" rhetoric. If the same standards of "journalism" were applied to 19th century western expansion Sitting Bull would have been a xenophobic, nativist race hater rather than a currently perceived noble defender of his territory and way of life.

I try to get past cultural legend to find the truth within its setting.

For example, during my childhood there were all the books, movies, and stories about the 19th century frontier filled with adulation of western bound people and a picture of the times which was romanticized and populated with heroes instead of regular people who had characters which were both faulty and extraordinary.

There is no perfect person.

The same is true of the general Mexican cultural version of history.

Jim Bowie was a hero of Santa Anna's Alamo massacre, an American cultural freedom fighter who's popular story blurred place and time in cultural legend. Jim Bowie of fact not only died in the ridiculous (maybe even stupid) defense of a cut off, isolated, non stratigic location (which Santa Anna could have bypassed and easily achieved victory) but was also a slave smuggling, land speculating drunkard who sometimes dispensed fraudulent land titles and who had no qualms about bribing the court. Bowie had both American and Mexican citizenship and was fluent in Spanish. And, the Alamo of the period was in Mexico until the beaten down revolution was won by a fluke - exploitation of an overconfident Santa Anna and his army sleeping in at San Jacinto. And, most of the fighting participation was done with a minority of the population.

Davy Crockett was a story telling failed eastern politician who came to Texas to reinvent himself, something different than the tales I absorbed as a child. The frontiersman schtick was largely a political gimmick employed back east (he did hunt and trap and had other woodland skills, nothing unusual for the times) and which subsequently became a major part of his legend.

Not all Anglos in Texas were for independence from Mexico, and there were Mexican Tejanos who fought alongside Sam Houston. Things were a lot more complicated than "us versus them" 180 years ago. There wasn't anything mentioned about the 1824 Mexican constitution or Mexican centralists and liberals when I was a kid. It's not a black and white tale either way

On the other hand, Pancho Villa is a Mexican hero with all the corridos, tales, and all the exaggeration of greatness to be expected from a national figure. The Villa of fact was a bipolar mass murderer who knew how to butter his bread with his base - until the butter ran out, his base abandoned him, and he turned on the base. He loved children and, being illiterate himself, sought to provide education. He was a curious mixture of generosity and malevolence. The man was an inveterate woman chaser and arranged a number of fraudulent marriages - which caused a lot of confusion and fighting after his death over who truly was his real wife. And, he could never learn that cavalry charges were futile against machine guns behind barbed wire.

Both Bowie and Villa would be rotting in jail if they were from our time in America and did the same things now.

I do a lot of reading and compare for similarities and differences of accounts. Naturally the writings of Californios Osio, Sepulveda, and Vallejo will have a general view which might be quite different than Fremont and Stanton's views. However, there will be some differences in the accounts of the Californios and one might fill in an unexplained part of another account. An individual account might not discuss something which might be embarrassing or maybe change the facts of an event. That's natural and to be expected of most eyewitnesses, and some parts of the accounts will be contradictory. And would the accounts be somewhat different if they had been written before and not, in some cases, decades after the Mexican American war?

I like professor David Weber's books on the Spanish and Mexican northern frontiers. The forwards and conclusions (to me) support the Chicano movimiento, but the pages in between contradict many of the fables and spins any number of ethnic studies professors throw out.

If someone talks about Mexicans herding cattle in Oregon before 1848 it's a false statement, didn't happen, and it casts suspicion on the work. Professor George Sanchez' book Becoming Mexican American seems to be an honest work - it's chock full of dry statistics and contains the priceless statement that when Mexicans moved into Los Angeles, the Californios moved out.

I don't think that many Mexican historians address the northern frontier much beyond the cultural grievances because it is such a black eye to the Mexican national consciousness.

I've gotten to where I read the notes of a book. I've found that some cherry pick their citations out of context to support their work, and I've seen one who extensively cites his own previous writings to support statements. A book I no longer have (written by a professor with a northern European surname) dishonestly alleges that racism was the founding principal in everything Anglo Americans accomplished or sought to accomplish from the Pilgrims to the present. It seems every other word in the book was either "racist" or "racism".

They say that to plagiarize from one is stealing, but to steal from many is called research.

A lot of books are biased either way. I do the best I can to sort through it all to reach a reasonable conclusion, and it isn't always comfortable to my previous beliefs. It seems that the more I learn, the more questions there are. It was much easier watching Fess Parker play Davy Crockett on that old snowy black and white TV you had to thump on every now and then to make it work.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

Addendum to the previous post:

I've always been somewhat interested in history and became more interested since about 2005 with all the marches, rallies and the media running to self appointed, racist Latino spokesmen for a whole race (regardless of nationality and individuality) for pulp fodder. It was a lopsided media narrative with all "the borders crossed us", "stolen lands", and "nativist bigots" rhetoric. If the same standards of "journalism" were applied to 19th century western expansion Sitting Bull would have been a xenophobic, nativist race hater rather than a currently perceived noble defender of his territory and way of life.

I try to get past cultural legend to find the truth within its setting.

For example, during my childhood there were all the books, movies, and stories about the 19th century frontier filled with adulation of western bound people and a picture of the times which was romanticized and populated with heroes instead of regular people who had characters which were both faulty and extraordinary.

There is no perfect person.

The same is true of the general Mexican cultural version of history.

Jim Bowie was a hero of Santa Anna's Alamo massacre, an American cultural freedom fighter who's popular story blurred place and time in cultural legend. Jim Bowie of fact not only died in the ridiculous (maybe even stupid) defense of a cut off, isolated, non stratigic location (which Santa Anna could have bypassed and easily achieved victory) but was also a slave smuggling, land speculating drunkard who sometimes dispensed fraudulent land titles and who had no qualms about bribing the court. Bowie had both American and Mexican citizenship and was fluent in Spanish. And, the Alamo of the period was in Mexico until the beaten down revolution was won by a fluke - exploitation of an overconfident Santa Anna and his army sleeping in at San Jacinto. And, most of the fighting participation was done with a minority of the population.

Davy Crockett was a story telling failed eastern politician who came to Texas to reinvent himself, something different than the tales I absorbed as a child. The frontiersman schtick was largely a political gimmick employed back east (he did hunt and trap and had other woodland skills, nothing unusual for the times) and which subsequently became a major part of his legend.

Not all Anglos in Texas were for independence from Mexico, and there were Mexican Tejanos who fought alongside Sam Houston. Things were a lot more complicated than "us versus them" 180 years ago. There wasn't anything mentioned about the 1824 Mexican constitution or Mexican centralists and liberals when I was a kid. It's not a black and white tale either way

On the other hand, Pancho Villa is a Mexican hero with all the corridos, tales, and all the exaggeration of greatness to be expected from a national figure. The Villa of fact was a bipolar mass murderer who knew how to butter his bread with his base - until the butter ran out, his base abandoned him, and he turned on the base. He loved children and, being illiterate himself, sought to provide education. He was a curious mixture of generosity and malevolence. The man was an inveterate woman chaser and arranged a number of fraudulent marriages - which caused a lot of confusion and fighting after his death over who truly was his real wife. And, he could never learn that cavalry charges were futile against machine guns behind barbed wire.

Both Bowie and Villa would be rotting in jail if they were from our time in America and did the same things now.

I do a lot of reading and compare for similarities and differences of accounts. Naturally the writings of Californios Osio, Sepulveda, and Vallejo will have a general view which might be quite different than Fremont and Stanton's views. However, there will be some differences in the accounts of the Californios and one might fill in an unexplained part of another account. An individual account might not discuss something which might be embarrassing or maybe change the facts of an event. That's natural and to be expected of most eyewitnesses, and some parts of the accounts will be contradictory. And would the accounts be somewhat different if they had been written before and not, in some cases, decades after the Mexican American war?

I like professor David Weber's books on the Spanish and Mexican northern frontiers. The forwards and conclusions (to me) support the Chicano movimiento, but the pages in between contradict many of the fables and spins any number of ethnic studies professors throw out.

If someone talks about Mexicans herding cattle in Oregon before 1848 it's a false statement, didn't happen, and it casts suspicion on the work. Professor George Sanchez' book Becoming Mexican American seems to be an honest work - it's chock full of dry statistics and contains the priceless statement that when Mexicans moved into Los Angeles, the Californios moved out.

I don't think that many Mexican historians address the northern frontier much beyond the cultural grievances because it is such a black eye to the Mexican national consciousness.

I've gotten to where I read the notes of a book. I've found that some cherry pick their citations out of context to support their work, and I've seen one who extensively cites his own previous writings to support statements. A book I no longer have (written by a professor with a northern European surname) dishonestly alleges that racism was the founding principal in everything Anglo Americans accomplished or sought to accomplish from the Pilgrims to the present. It seems every other word in the book was either "racist" or "racism".

They say that to plagiarize from one is stealing, but to steal from many is called research.

A lot of books are biased either way. I do the best I can to sort through it all to reach a reasonable conclusion, and it isn't always comfortable to my previous beliefs. It seems that the more I learn, the more questions there are. It was much easier watching Fess Parker play Davy Crockett on that old snowy black and white TV you had to thump on every now and then to make it work.

"They say that to plagiarize from one is stealing, but to steal from many is called research"(quote)

Now that was funny!!!!

[ilbegone]

Another post on the whim of the moment, what results from baggage people from other nations bring with them. Might ramble a little ... but there's a point.

There are plenty of examples in America from the very beginnings of English colonialism to a couple of centuries after independence. For example, consider the San Patricios - Irish immigrants who deserted the American Army to fight on Mexico's side during the Mexican American war. I believe the desertion had more to with the fact that America was founded on English Protestant dissident values while Ireland was a Catholic Island. There had been centuries of blood spilled between Irish and English, including massacres perpetrated by both sides, before there was potential invasion of England from Ireland founded on a pact between Irish Catholics and English royalists after the English Civil War. Puritan Oliver Cromwell wielded a heavy protestant hand in a 1649 invasion of Catholic Ireland killing non combatants as well as executing captured prisoners.

Protestant America was engaged in war with Catholic Mexico in 1846 and Irish immigrants who had no loyalty to Anglo America switched sides. Irish Catholic nationalism and cultural memory much more than any number of exaggerated tales of fire breathing atrocity spun by modern Hollywood screen writers was primarily the reason for Irish immigrant desertion.

Which brings me to modern America.

A woman who was born into the upper class in El Salvador has a last memory of El Salvador of their house being bombed and the family fleeing to the United States when she was about 11 years old.

The woman is now middle aged, has a lucrative income, is much more familiar with Pinot Noir than Pupusas, and is very Americanized. Her uneducated and ignorant yet high class El Salvadoran mother lives with her.

They have a maid from El Salvador who is from the bottom class. The mother runs roughshod arrogant over the maid, treating her like shit. The maid, used to being treated like shit in El Salvador takes it. Often, while "mom" is finding something more for the maid to do, the daughter will send the maid home for having done enough to clean the house.

The maid likes to graze while cleaning and found the daughter's stashed marijuana cookies, secretively eating 13 when two will do (maid didn't know what they were and thirteen were missing from the hidden stash) before she left. The next time the maid came back she talked about losing her brains on the way home from the last visit and had been to a curando who blew smoke on her and gave her a magic hat to keep her brains from flying out of her head. She wears that hat everywhere she goes, might even wear it while she's sleeping.

The daughter, having had access to money and education, is American. The maid's children, who will probably grow up in relative poverty and superstition, will also become Americanized to a great degree while being propagandized into class warfare (not a great leap due to parental origins) and have a "Latino" political consciousness drummed into their heads by an American educational system co-opted by "diversity". Note that people who are described as "Latino" (without regard to personal national origin) have the highest drop out rate as a group.

Last night I asked a kindergartener what she was learning in school. She counted to twenty in Spanish, recited the tens to cien, and sang a couple of songs in Spanish. Her family hasn't spoken Spanish in the home for four generations. This little girl is like a grand daughter to me, what is her future?

I am somehow reminded of the City of Bell scandal. The city is crammed full of people born in Latin America who are used to being fleeced and taken advantage of by politically corrupt governments, there is no other political system where they come from. Until outsiders intervened, the City council and city administrators siphoned off millions of dollars while perpetrating voter fraud and all the rest. It was primarily possible by baggage the city of immigrants brought with them.

Now consider that "the path to citizenship" leads directly to Democrat voter registration without having to know much if anything at all about American democracy, American history, America itself, or even the English language.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

Another post on the whim of the moment, what results from baggage people from other nations bring with them. Might ramble a little ... but there's a point.

There are plenty of examples in America from the very beginnings of English colonialism to a couple of centuries after independence. For example, consider the San Patricios - Irish immigrants who deserted the American Army to fight on Mexico's side during the Mexican American war. I believe the desertion had more to with the fact that America was founded on English Protestant dissident values while Ireland was a Catholic Island. There had been centuries of blood spilled between Irish and English, including massacres perpetrated by both sides, before there was potential invasion of England from Ireland founded on a pact between Irish Catholics and English royalists after the English Civil War. Puritan Oliver Cromwell wielded a heavy protestant hand in a 1649 invasion of Catholic Ireland killing non combatants as well as executing captured prisoners.

Protestant America was engaged in war with Catholic Mexico in 1846 and Irish immigrants who had no loyalty to Anglo America switched sides. Irish Catholic nationalism and cultural memory much more than any number of exaggerated tales of fire breathing atrocity spun by modern Hollywood screen writers was primarily the reason for Irish immigrant desertion.

Which brings me to modern America.

A woman who was born into the upper class in El Salvador has a last memory of El Salvador of their house being bombed and the family fleeing to the United States when she was about 11 years old.

The woman is now middle aged, has a lucrative income, is much more familiar with Pinot Noir than Pupusas, and is very Americanized. Her uneducated and ignorant yet high class El Salvadoran mother lives with her.

They have a maid from El Salvador who is from the bottom class. The mother runs roughshod arrogant over the maid, treating her like shit. The maid, used to being treated like shit in El Salvador takes it. Often, while "mom" is finding something more for the maid to do, the daughter will send the maid home for having done enough to clean the house.

The maid likes to graze while cleaning and found the daughter's stashed marijuana cookies, secretively eating 13 when two will do (maid didn't know what they were and thirteen were missing from the hidden stash) before she left. The next time the maid came back she talked about losing her brains on the way home from the last visit and had been to a curando who blew smoke on her and gave her a magic hat to keep her brains from flying out of her head. She wears that hat everywhere she goes, might even wear it while she's sleeping.

The daughter, having had access to money and education, is American. The maid's children, who will probably grow up in relative poverty and superstition, will also become Americanized to a great degree while being propagandized into class warfare (not a great leap due to parental origins) and have a "Latino" political consciousness drummed into their heads by an American educational system co-opted by "diversity". Note that people who are described as "Latino" (without regard to personal national origin) have the highest drop out rate as a group.

Last night I asked a kindergartener what she was learning in school. She counted to twenty in Spanish, recited the tens to cien, and sang a couple of songs in Spanish. Her family hasn't spoken Spanish in the home for four generations. This little girl is like a grand daughter to me, what is her future?

I am somehow reminded of the City of Bell scandal. The city is crammed full of people born in Latin America who are used to being fleeced and taken advantage of by politically corrupt governments, there is no other political system where they come from. Until outsiders intervened, the City council and city administrators siphoned off millions of dollars while perpetrating voter fraud and all the rest. It was primarily possible by baggage the city of immigrants brought with them.

Now consider that "the path to citizenship" leads directly to Democrat voter registration without having to know much if anything at all about American democracy, American history, America itself, or even the English language.

That last sentence is exactly was concerns me. Now consider that "the path to citizenship" leads directly to Democrat voter registration without having to know much if anything at all about American democracy, American history, America itself, or even the English language. And after that we are that much closer to looking like the country they tried to escape from.__________________

[ilbegone]

You know how "Latino activists" like to harp on such things as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and other such that no one alive today had anything to do with?

Yep, just like like the blather about pre-1865 slavery in the U.S and all that hot air about slavery being outlawed in Mexico by this clause from the 1820 Plan de Iguala and the very short lived 1st Mexican Empire:

Todos los habitantes de la Nueva España, sin distinción alguna de europeos, africanos ni indios, son ciudadanos de esta monarquía con opción á todo empleo, según su mérito y virtudes.

When the truth is that inherited involuntary servitude (perpetual multi-generational peon slavery) continued on Mexican haciendas until the late 1920's. Cesar Chavez's grandfather escaped slavery from an hacienda in the 1880's by fleeing to the United States. There were continued slave raids on northern frontier Indian tribes for the southern Mexican "domestic servant" trade to at least the mid 19th century.

So, it should come as no surprise that people with Chinese ancestry had a rough time in Mexico up until the mid 20th century, including deportation and splitting up families - not across a mere border, but across an ocean.

I need to look at it more and flesh it out a little better than this offering...

However...

I knew that the railroad companies were recruiting in Mexico for laborers for U.S. railway construction and maintenance during the 1880's, and I knew that the Chinese Exclusion Act was in 1882, but I didn't know that American railroad builders took Chinese into Mexico to work on railway construction and in American owned mines in Mexico beginning in the 1880's. It all fits into the puzzle - Chinese imported from the U.S. and China to Mexico and Mexicans into the U.S. where they had never geographically been before.

I also knew about some of the race hatred towards Chinese in Mexico, but not much beyond a couple of local family anecdotes and some documentation concerning Chihuahua. However, I had no idea of why any Chinese would ever go to Mexico, of all places.

There was a lot of resentment in Mexico over the presence of foreign labor, and it appears that what happened to Chinese in California in the mid to late 19th century also happened with more vehemence to Chinese in the late 19th to the early to mid 20th century in Mexico. There was a lot of murdering of Mexican Chinese during the 1910 Mexican revolution, with Pancho Villa's bunch probably the most sanguinary, I think they killed every Chinaman they found. I believe this had not just to do with taking jobs from the locals, but suspicion about those who, in a land of rich and poor with no one in between, moved from foreign laborer to prosperous foreign merchant in a relatively short period of time.

Then there were the mass deportations where almost 3/4 of the Mexican population of Chinese, their Mexican wives, and their mixed Mexican/Chinese children were simply dumped across the northern border (with a U.S. re-deportation to China) or directly put on ships headed from Mexico to China. Some of these deportations were as late as the 1930's.

There was eventually some repatriation of the Mexican women and their mixed children, but those of unmixed Chinese blood were not allowed to return (I believe this to also be true for native born Mexican Chinese, but there would probably be few of those - Just like in the United States they generally didn't bring women with them, which in the United States begat a trade in Chinese prostitutes - unless they were the children of Chinese prostitutes also brought to Mexico. There was 50 to 70 years of this stuff).


An article I found just now Chinese-Mexicans celebrate repatriation to Mexico http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-mexica...064302534.html

A review on a book titled “The Chinese in Mexico, 1882-1940” I'm going to order has these statements:

...“There’s this rich history of the Chinese in Mexico that’s been forgotten for the most part,”...“It’s been forgotten because it’s a dark chapter in Mexican history, unfortunately.”...


...“Despite the violence perpetuated against Chinese immigrants, they continued to persevere and have contributed to Mexico’s diversity,” Romero said. “It is a great testament to their courage and will to survive in spite of great adversity and prejudice against them.”...


...Maderista forces entered Torreón on May 13, 1911, and two days later, they defeated the Mexican army. On May 15, Madero’s forces and civilian mobs targeted Chinese homes and businesses.

Many Chinese residents were killed and robbed. Their private residences and business were ransacked and destroyed. About 300 Chinese lost their lives. Romero said that this was the worst [single] act of violence committed against any Chinese diaspora of the Americas during the 20th century...

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...ed-179351.aspx

Another book that might be interesting:

MAMI


by Rebeca Lau

Mami: My Grandmother’s Journey is the unconventional story of a Chinese woman in the southern border city of Tapachula in Mexico in the 20th century. Her arranged marriage, her escape from the Japanese Army, her life in a country so distant and so different from her own, her struggles and successes, her internal conflicts. It is a story that interweaves the past and present of three generations living under one roof filled with cultural clashes between Chinese and Mexican traditions.

Rebeca Lau

Another one:

Chinese Mexicans: Transpacific Migration and the Search for a Homeland, 1910-1960

At the turn of the twentieth century, a wave of Chinese men made their way to the northern Mexican border state of Sonora to work and live. The ties--and families--these Mexicans and Chinese created led to the formation of a new cultural identity: Chinese Mexican. During the tumult of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, however, anti-Chinese sentiment ultimately led to mass expulsion of these people. Julia Maria Schiavone Camacho follows the community through the mid-twentieth century, across borders and oceans, to show how they fought for their place as Mexicans, both in Mexico and abroad.

Tracing transnational geography, Schiavone Camacho explores how these men and women developed a strong sense of Mexican national identity while living abroad—in the United States, briefly, and then in southeast Asia where they created a hybrid community and taught their children about the Mexican homeland. Schiavone Camacho also addresses how Mexican women challenged their legal status after being stripped of Mexican citizenship because they married Chinese men. After repatriation in the 1930s-1960s, Chinese Mexican men and women, who had left Mexico with strong regional identities, now claimed national cultural belonging and Mexican identity in ways they had not before.

There's another book I found about Chinese in both the U.S and Mexico but it had the cliche "vibrant community" and what appeared to be excessive race baiting rather than presentation of a study in the review (reminiscent of Howard Zinn), so it's probably a sensationalist crock of far left, frothing at the mouth ethnic studies professor, "social justice", masturbating to the mirror bullshit.

To conclude, just about anything negative about American history trotted out by "Latino activists" to make a case about long term, persistent, continuing white racism can find an equal or more negative parallel in Mexican history, and no one has to cherry pick, exaggerate, or manufacture the facts.