Mexican American Identity: Regional Differentiation in New Mexico

Abstract

Existing research inadequately addresses the variation in Mexican Americans’ patterns of ethnic identification. Drawing on 78 interviews, I address this question by exploring how conceptions of ancestry and nationality shape ethnic identification among New Mexico’s long-standing Mexican American population, Nuevomexicanos. I find that Nuevomexicanos emphasized their ties to Spanish heritage within the history of New Mexico to explain their ethnicity and to construct their identity in opposition to Mexican immigrants. Although Nuevomexicanos varied in their claims to Mexican ancestry, they generally prioritized their roots in the original Spanish settlement of New Mexico to emphasize distinctions in ancestry, nationality, and regionality from Mexican immigrants. Moreover, despite Nuevomexicanos’ persistent claims to Spanish ancestry, they did not perceive themselves as racially White. Instead, Spanish ancestry was integral to Nuevomexicano identity because it enabled them to highlight their regional ties to New Mexico and long-time American identities. Thus, I argue that Nuevomexicanos’ enduring claims to Spanish ancestry represent a defensive strategy to enact dissociation from stigmatized Mexican immigrants. Overall, these findings show that Mexican Americans’ dissociation strategies are contingent on how they define themselves as members of an ethnic and national community. These findings also indicate that “Mexican American” as an identity term is a loosely maintained membership category among “Mexican Americans” because of their intragroup heterogeneity.

Keywords

Mexican Americans Hispanics New Mexico heterogeneity identity

Mexican Americans are the largest segment of the Latino population in American society and second only in size to African Americans (Stepler and Brown 2016). Among sociologists, Mexican Americans constitute a distinct ethnoracial group (Gómez 2007; Telles and Ortiz 2008). Sociological accounts of Mexican Americans’ ethnic identification, however, have demonstrated that there are inconsistent and contested understandings in how they define themselves ethnically (Dowling 2014; Gonzales 1993; Telles and Ortiz 2008). The substantial heterogeneity among Mexican Americans, as a group, in particular, has shaped the wide variation in their racial and ethnic identities. Notably, Mexican Americans’ history of conquest and immigration as distinct forms of incorporation into American society, and categorization as White and non-White over time and place, has contributed to their diverse racial and ethnic claims (Foley 1998; Fox and Guglielmo 2012; Gómez 2007; Gonzales 2000). Furthermore, both conquest and immigration have not been monolithic experiences; each has involved variations in experience and adjustment into American society for Mexican Americans (McWilliams 1949). Taking this pattern into analytical consideration is necessary for a clearer comprehension of the complexity of Mexican Americans’ ethnic identification.

Among the various ethnic labels within the Mexican American population, “Spanish” and “Spanish American” are the most controversial, particularly in New Mexico, where they are most often used (Gonzales 1997; Horton 2010; Nieto-Phillips 2004). At the time of New Mexico’s struggle for statehood between 1880 and 1912, Mexicans native to the territory, so-called Nuevomexicanos, adopted “Spanish” as a publicly expressed identity to prove that they merited statehood (Gómez 2007; Gonzales 2000). This tendency grew as Mexican immigration to the Southwest became more visible, which, in turn, decreased Nuevomexicanos’ social status because they were mistaken for immigrants. Consequently, Nuevomexicanos prioritized their Spanish ancestry that originated in the Spanish colonization of the territory in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries over their indigenous roots and ties to Mexico (Gonzales 2000). This enabled them to stake claims to New Mexico territory and enact dissociation from immigrant coethnics. Therefore, unlike other Mexican Americans, the legacy of Spanish heritage among Nuevomexicanos permits the usage of “Spanish” as a form of identification along with other subsequent terms such as “Mexican American,” “Chicano,” and “Hispanic” (Gonzales 1993).

Although Spanish identification initially constituted a particular political and publicly expressed identity, the term’s popular usage among present-day Nuevomexicanos prompts sharp disagreement over the validity of their claim to Spanish over Mexican ancestry (Gonzales 1993). The pervasive idea that Nuevomexicanos prioritize their Spanish heritage and fail to claim their “true” Mexican heritage relies on the belief that ethnicity is essentially rooted in genealogy (Nieto-Phillips 2004). Yet ethnicity is a relational and situational construct, as members of ethnic groups distinguish themselves from one another on the basis of claims of “us” versus “them” (Nagel 1994; Wimmer 2008). Thus, Nuevomexicanos’ conceptions of ethnicity are about how they view themselves with regard to their long and complex history in the United States and how they think others perceive them under certain circumstances. Quite significantly, and as this article aims to show, it is also about how Nuevomexicanos see themselves in relation to other Mexican-origin people.

Mexican Americans, including Nuevomexicanos, often define themselves in opposition to Mexican immigrants, especially when they are misidentified as immigrants with whom they share ethnoracial markers. Consequently, they may engage in dissociation strategies, such as prioritizing their American identities, to manage expressions of nativism (Dowling 2014; Garcia Bedolla 2005; Jiménez 2008; Vega 2014). However, it remains unclear whether and how the presence of Mexican immigrants shapes Nuevomexicanos’ identity construction, because they may not perceive themselves as ethnically Mexican. Specifically, Nuevomexicanos may contest their Mexican ancestry because of the historical legacy of Spanish heritage as a publicly expressed identity in New Mexico. Nuevomexicanos may also resist identifying as “Mexican” because it eclipses the significance of their ties to New Mexico. Thus, the Nuevomexicano case specifies how Mexican Americans’ intragroup heterogeneity can lead to differences in how they view and define themselves as members of an ethnic and national community, which, in turn, shapes how distinct subgroups among Mexican Americans see themselves in relation to one another.

This article examines how conceptions of ancestry and nationality shape ethnic identification among Nuevomexicanos living in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Among historians and social scientists, Nuevomexicanos belong to the greater Mexican American category (Saenz and Morales 2015; Vargas 2011). From this perspective, I explore how historical and regional differences among Mexican Americans can shape their conceptions of ethnicity and nationality. I demonstrate how Nuevomexicanos construct their identity in opposition to Mexican immigrants by highlighting differences in ancestry, nationality, and regionality. All three distinctions show that Nuevomexicanos’ roots in the original Spanish settlement of New Mexico were central to their explanations of ethnicity. Furthermore, despite their persistent claims to Spanish ancestry, Nuevomexicanos did not view themselves as racially White. Instead, Nuevomexicanos’ claims to Spanish ancestry enabled them to highlight their regional differentiation from other Mexican-origin people and to avoid being stigmatized as “Mexican.” Overall, these findings point to the significance of Mexican Americans’ intragroup heterogeneity in forming their ethnic identities.

In this article, “Nuevomexicano” refers to study participants who are the descendants of the first Mexican Americans who remained in New Mexico following the U.S.-Mexico War in 1848. While “Hispanic” is the most common identifier among participants, I deploy the term “Nuevomexicano” because “Hispanic” is one of the many referents used by participants to describe in-group members. And while “Hispanic” is commonly understood as a panethnic term, Nuevomexicanos use “Hispanic” as an ethnic category to refer to themselves. Throughout the text, I specify when usage of “Hispanic” is an ethnic or panethnic category. “Mexican American” refers to people who were born in the United States with Mexican ancestry, including Nuevomexicanos, and Mexican immigrant refers to people who were born in Mexico and now reside in the United States. Lastly, “Latino” is a panethnic term that describes people of Latin American ancestry, whether immigrant or native born, in the United States.

Negotiating Ethnic and National Identification among Mexican Americans

Mexican Americans deploy a range of ethnic labels that vary by context and audience (Dowling 2014; Gonzales 1993; Ochoa 2004). Nevertheless, ethnic label choice coexists with racial constraints, as Mexican Americans often deal with externally imposed labels (Dowling 2014; Jiménez 2008; Vasquez 2010). Specifically, the legacy of racialization rooted in American colonization of northern Mexico and continuous Mexican immigration to the United States constrain Mexican Americans’ ethnic labeling options. Similarly, Nuevomexicano identity is shaped by out-group members’ assumptions that they are immigrants, and undocumented. Yet unlike most Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos do not exclusively claim Mexican ancestry or have recent immigrant backgrounds (Gonzales 1997). This is because their ancestors have been present in the territory since before the creation of Mexico as a nation-state and American conquest of the Southwest. Therefore, the Nuevomexicano case extends our understanding of how Mexican Americans’ ethnic and national identification is shaped by historical and regional differences.

Research on Mexican Americans’ national identification focuses on the relationship between claiming the label “American” and perceptions of racial inclusion and exclusion. Notably, Mexican Americans may be less likely to identify as American because of their historical and contemporary experiences of racial exclusion, as well as the implicit meaning of whiteness in the American label (Golash-Boza 2006; Oboler 1995; Rodriguez 2000). However, Mexican Americans who experience racial discrimination can also choose to identify as American by minimizing their experiences of exclusion in order to emphasize their similarity in racial status with Whites (Dowling 2014; Gómez 2007; Vega 2014). Nevertheless, unlike other Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos have historically conflated their ethnic and national identities; that is, being Spanish meant being American or from the American southwest (Chávez 2012; Gonzales 1997, 2000). These national and regional claims indicate that present-day Nuevomexicanos may simply identify as American because their ethnicity is connected to their multigenerational status in New Mexico. Therefore, the Nuevomexicano case may demonstrate variation in the meanings behind Mexican Americans’ ethnic and national identification.

Continuous Mexican immigration to the United States exacerbates and complicates the constraints on Mexican Americans’ ethnic labeling choices. Mexican Americans often encounter expressions of nativism when they are mistaken for Mexican immigrants with whom they share ethnoracial markers (Gutierrez 1995; Jiménez 2008). Mexican Americans may begrudge having a large population of unauthorized labor migrants as coethnics, seeing them as a source of status degradation (Garcia Bedolla 2003, 2005). Therefore, they may engage in boundary-making strategies to avoid nativist hostility and to maintain a positive association with their ethnic group (Tajfel and Turner 1986; Wimmer 2008). Mexican Americans, for example, may emphasize their American nationality or speak English to manage expressions of nativism (Jiménez 2008; Vasquez 2010). Yet prior research inadequately accounts for Mexican American’s intragroup heterogeneity. Unlike most Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos do not exclusively claim Mexican heritage, because of the historical legacy of Spanish heritage as a publicly expressed identity in New Mexico. Thus, Nuevomexicanos can contest their Mexican heritage, reinforcing the pervasive narrative that they never were of Mexican national or cultural descent.

Among Nuevomexicanos, ethnic identification is grounded in categorical distinctions, as they often define themselves by describing who they are not, mainly “Mexican” and “foreign” (Gonzales 1997; Metzgar 1974). According to Gonzales (1997), “categorical awareness” is a means to resolve uncertainty about the appropriate way to describe one’s own ethnic heritage and history. While “Spanish,” “Chicano,” and “Hispanic” remain important identifiers among Nuevomexicanos (Trujillo 2010), we know less about the relationship between categorical awareness and usage of each term. Nonetheless, research on Hispanic identification suggests that the term strategically distinguishes Nuevomexicanos from Mexican immigrants (Dowling 2014; Nieto-Phillips 2004). The low percentage of other Latino groups in New Mexico, including Mexican immigrants, contributes to an exclusive definition of Hispanic as native born. However, it remains unclear why Nuevomexicanos continue to differentiate themselves from the Mexican category. It may be the case that Nuevomexicanos do not have recent immigration histories and/or they experience “Mexican” as a stigmatized identity in New Mexico.

History of Ethnic and National Identification among Nuevomexicanos

The Nuevomexicano case demonstrates that Mexican Americans’ ethnic identification depends on context and historical period, as particular identities have appeared with varying degrees of distinction without completely supplanting the others (Gonzales 1993; Metzgar 1974). At the time of New Mexico’s struggle for statehood (1880–1912), Spanish and Hispano terms rose to prominence as publicly expressed identities to combat Anglo-American racism and marginalization from expanding American institutions (Gonzales 2000; Montgomery 2002). This tendency grew as Mexican immigration to the Southwest became more visible, decreasing Nuevomexicanos’ social status because they were misidentified as immigrants (Gómez 2007). To secure political rights in the United States, Nuevomexicanos prioritized their Spanish ancestry that originated in the Spanish colonization of New Mexico in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries over their indigenous roots and ties to Mexico. This enabled Nuevomexicanos to stake claims to New Mexico territory and enact dissociation from immigrant coethnics. Thus, Nuevomexicanos redefined their public expressions of ancestry as a strategy to confront Anglo-American racism, to facilitate a claim to whiteness by emphasizing similarity in European ancestry to Anglo-Americans, and to gain acceptance upon New Mexico’s entry into the U.S. polity (Gonzales 2000, 2016).

While Spanish identification constituted a specific political and publicly expressed identity among Nuevomexicanos, the increase in nativism and pressure for assimilation during the eras of World War I and World War II furthered the meaning of “Spanish” by emphasizing the commonalities between Spanish and American cultures (Deutsch 1989; Gonzales and Massmann 2006). Primarily, Nuevomexicanos adjusted the image of their Spanish heritage to coordinate with American symbols of wartime patriotism and made essential home-front contributions to each war (Gonzales and Massmann 2006). The increase in stable employment during World War II also assisted in the consolidation of a small, activist middle class that was committed to warding off the stigma that Nuevomexicanos were “Mexican” (Gómez 1992). While an American-oriented philosophy in meaning and practice was central to Spanish identification, the term remained a publicly expressed identity to protect Nuevomexicanos’ political rights.

During the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, a newly politicized ethnic consciousness emerged among Mexican Americans. The term “Chicano” became popular and projected a collective representation of Mexican-origin people across the southwest that shared a history of oppression by American colonialism and imperialism (Acuña 1972; Gómez-Quinones 1990). In New Mexico, “Chicano” challenged Spanish heritage, questioning any dissociation from Mexico and indigenous ancestry. Some Nuevomexicanos, for example, legitimized claims to their Mexican heritage by arguing that Spanish heritage was an anachronistic carryover from New Mexico statehood and a false claim to “being White” (Gonzales 1993; Nieto-Phillips 2004). Other Nuevomexicanos, however, asserted that although New Mexico was part of Mexico for a short period of time, it largely existed in isolation from Mexican rule and its promotion of mestizaje (i.e., the celebration of indigenous alongside Spanish ancestry), and therefore, Nuevomexicanos were always a distinct people and culture. Together, the Spanish heritage narrative obscures Nuevomexicanos’ and Mexican Americans’ history of racial mixture between Spanish and indigenous peoples and association with Mexico.

By the 1980s, the term “Hispanic” had become prevalent across the United States as census officials, Spanish-language media, and ethnic organizations worked together to popularize and legitimize the category across distinct Latino groups (Mora 2014; Oboler 1995; Rodriguez 2000). These practices enabled state officials, market managers, and ethnic leaders to embark on projects that targeted the broader Latino community. Similarly, “Hispanic” gained traction among ethnic organizations in New Mexico, as they were no longer restricted by the labels “Spanish,” “Mexican,” and “Chicano” (Gonzales 1993). Yet grassroots organizations tended to reject the term because it was perceived as an imposed category by the government. While “Hispanic” became prevalent among ethnic organizations, its meaning and usage among Nuevomexicanos remains unclear. The popularity of “Hispanic” may be appealing to Nuevomexicanos for two reasons: (1) “Hispanic” is a catch-all term that is inclusive of their contested Spanish and Mexican heritages, and (2) “Hispanic” may be synonymous with “Spanish,” despite the fact that the terms originated in different contexts with distinct meanings. Therefore, “Hispanic” may provide Nuevomexicanos the flexibility to identify with either Spanish or Mexican heritage or avoid specifying their heritage altogether.

Today, “Spanish,” “Chicano,” and “Hispanic” continue to compete and contest one another in the public arena, as these terms evoke conflicting definitions of peoplehood (Gonzales 1993; Horton 2010; Trujillo 2010). Yet the extent to which these terms represent identification with Mexican and/or Spanish heritage remains in question. Additionally, Nuevomexicanos are relatively unique to other Mexican Americans because of their historical claims to Spanish/European heritage to gain equal treatment from Anglo-Americans (Gonzales 2000). Still, complicating matters, the Nuevomexicano case is similar to other Mexican Americans, as their desire for acceptance from Whites continues to shape their identity claims (Dowling 2014; Gómez 2007). Thus, the Nuevomexicano case provides a sharper portrait of how Mexican Americans see and define themselves as members of an ethnic and national community, and how time and context matter for the emergence and maintenance of distinct identities among Mexican Americans.

Methods

This study draws on 78 in-depth interviews taken with Nuevomexicanos in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I conducted research in Albuquerque because it has the largest concentration of Nuevomexicanos. According to the 2016 American Community Survey, New Mexico’s population is majority Latino (48 percent), followed by Whites (39 percent), Native Americans (9 percent), and other ethnoracial groups (4 percent). Among Latinos, the majority have Mexican ancestry (65 percent), followed by Spanish ancestry (15 percent) and other Latin American ancestry (20 percent). Furthermore, most Latinos reported native-born (85 percent) versus foreign-born (15 percent) status. Unlike other southwestern states, New Mexico has a higher proportion of native-born Mexican-origin people because of the region’s lower levels of Mexican immigration (Gómez 2007). Overall, U.S.-born people of Mexican and/or Spanish ancestry, including Nuevomexicanos, have sizable demographic representation in New Mexico. This context may bolster participants’ Spanish ancestry claims because of their long history and substantial representation in New Mexico.

I recruited participants from leading institutions that serve the Albuquerque community (i.e., government, churches, and nonprofit agencies). At each site, I obtained participants through posting flyers, making announcements at community meetings, and relying on referrals from key informants. Most participants were recruited through announcements and key informants. While I applied snowball sampling to seek referrals from initial participants and key informants, I obtained only one or two names from each recommender in order to minimize sample selection bias. Recruitment content asked whether middle-aged people with U.S.-born parents were interested in participating in a study on Hispanics in New Mexico. I used “Hispanic” in recruitment materials because it is a widely accepted form of ethnic identification among Nuevomexicanos.

Each participant had two Nuevomexicano parents. Moreover, approximately one fourth of participants traced their ancestry to Spanish settlers of New Mexico. These participants reported that their families originated from old village communities that were present before Mexican and American occupation of New Mexico. However, most participants reported having grandparents or great-grandparents who were born in New Mexico or were familiar only with relatives who were born in New Mexico. Thus, participants’ claims to Spanish ancestry may be tenuous because most could not trace their ancestral ties to Spanish settlers. While specifying ancestry can be challenging for other later generation people, participants’ narratives obscure Nuevomexicanos’ and Mexican Americans’ history of claiming Spanish ancestry as a publicly expressed identity in order to assert whiteness and secure political rights upon New Mexico’s entry into the American polity (Gonzales 2000).

I interviewed 38 men and 40 women between 40 and 60 years old, with roughly two-thirds of participants between 45 and 55 years old. I selected middle-aged participants to explore the maturation of ethnic identification over time compared with young adults (Phinney 2008). I selected people who varied in educational background to assess whether self-identification differed by educational status. The interview sample included 22 participants (12 women and ten men) with less than a high school diploma or general equivalency credential, 30 participants (17 women and 13 men) with a high school diploma or some college education, and 26 participants (ten women and 16 men) with a four-year college degree or higher. Additionally, each participant had attended high school and resided in the Albuquerque metropolitan area.

I created a skin color measure and coded participants’ skin color according to a five-point scale (1 = racially White, 2 = light brown, 3 = medium brown, 4 = dark brown, and 5 = racially Black). I adapted the scale from the skin color card used in the Mexican American Study Project (Telles and Ortiz 2008). While participants clustered into light brown (22 people), medium brown (25 people), and dark brown categories (21 people), few participants appeared racially White (six people) or Black (four people). Therefore, similar to other Mexican Americans, most Nuevomexicanos varied in brown skin tone and did not pass as racially White (Ortiz and Telles 2012). Linguistically, participants reported that their parents were fluent in English and Spanish. However, among study participants, 28 people reported English and Spanish bilingual fluency, and 50 people reported English monolingual fluency. While participants varied in Spanish fluency, each participant explained that they primarily spoke English at home and at work.

I conducted 78 interviews between November 2014 and December 2015. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two hours and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview information on self-identification addressed four themes: family narratives of ancestry, ethnic labeling preferences, recognition of Mexican heritage, and racial and ethnic identification on the 2010 U.S. census.¹ I analyzed the interviews in two phases using HyperResearch, a qualitative data analysis software package. First, I created codes that described recurring themes in participants’ explanations of ancestry. During the first phase, I noticed that participants prioritized their nationality and regionality in explaining their ancestry. Therefore, in the second phase, I examined how participants described the relationship between their ancestry, nationality, and regionality. Overall, I uncover the degree to which participants identified with Spanish and/or Mexican heritage, whether participants had a positive or negative association with Spanish and/or Mexican heritage, and the extent to which participants’ nationality and regionality were important in expressing their self-identification.

Findings

To understand the variation in participants’ explanations of ethnicity, it is necessary to note the classic meaning of Spanish heritage in the early twentieth century. Constructed by the likes of Eusebio Chacón (Gonzales 2000), Aurelio Espinosa (1914), and Angélico Chávez (2012), Spanish identity among Nuevomexicanos consisted of several claims: (1) they descended from Spanish colonizers that “founded” New Mexico; (2) they did not miscegenate with indigenous tribes; (3) they practiced traditional, Spanish village culture; (4) they were not culturally or nationally Mexican; and (5) they were committed to New Mexico statehood and adopting American identities. Conversely, participants reported partial conceptions of this classic interpretation and explained that their ancestors were living in New Mexico before Mexican and American occupation of the region. Therefore, participants often do not pay any significance to New Mexico’s history of racial mixture between Spanish and indigenous peoples and association with Mexico. Moreover, while Nuevomexicanos’ history of ethnic identification demonstrates that participants can use “Spanish,” “Chicano,” “Hispanic,” and “Mexican American” to define themselves ethnically, they generally avoided Mexican-origin labels because the word “Mexican” discounts their regional distinctiveness and is a stigmatized identity in New Mexico.

Overall, participants’ explanations of ethnicity clustered into two major themes: ancestry and nationality. The ancestry section details the extent to which participants identified with Mexican heritage. The nationality section describes how participants conveyed their American nationality to out-group members. These themes were subsumed under the term “Hispanic,” which was the most common and preferred identifier among participants (see Table 1). Participants used “Hispanic” to differentiate themselves from other Latino groups in New Mexico, particularly Mexican immigrants. Other popular referents were “Chicana/o” and “Spanish,” which were often used interchangeably with “Hispanic” to refer to in-group members in conversation. A few participants identified as Latina/o, Mexican American, or New Mexican. However, each participant understood that “Hispanic” was the most common identifier among in-group members and particular to New Mexico. Prior research has also documented the usage of “Hispanic” among Mexican Americans in Texas as a similar regional form of identity to differentiate Mexican Americans from Mexican immigrants (Dowling 2014). Mexican Americans in Texas reject the label “Mexican” to distance themselves from the negative attributes associated with immigrants who are stereotyped as unauthorized. Accordingly, Mexican Americans can deploy “Hispanic” to avoid being misidentified as Mexican immigrants.

Table 1.

Percentage Distribution of Ethnic Labeling Preferences among Nuevomexicanos (n = 78).

Ethnic Label	% (n)
Chicana/o	9 (7)
Hispanic	72 (56)
Latina/o	3 (2)
Mexican American	1 (1)
New Mexican	3 (2)
Spanish	13 (10)

Education, gender, and phenotype differences regarding participants’ ethnic identification were limited. Generally, participants spent a considerable amount of time detailing how they differed from Mexican immigrants. This is because out-group members often questioned participants’ Mexican heritage, countries of origin, and immigration status. While participants primarily constructed their identities in opposition to Mexican immigrants, they also distanced themselves from other Mexican Americans because identifying as “Mexican” eclipses the significance of their long history in New Mexico. Therefore, while participants varied in their claims to Mexican heritage, they typically emphasized that their ties to the original Spanish settlers of New Mexico and long history in the region distinguished them from other Mexican-origin people. Additionally, participants’ claims to Spanish heritage do not indicate membership in the White racial category. Participants are keenly aware that they are not viewed and treated as White, especially as they are often mistaken for Mexican immigrants. Instead, participants’ claims to Spanish heritage enable them to enact dissociation from stigmatized Mexican immigrants.

Conceptions of Ancestry: Spanish, Mixed, and Vague

The extent to which participants identified with Mexican heritage shaped whether they reported Spanish, mixed, or vague conceptions of ancestry. Despite this variation, all participants used “Hispanic” as their preferred identifier. According to Table 2, most participants claimed Spanish (40 percent) over mixed (27 percent) or vague (33 percent) conceptions of ancestry. Participants who asserted Spanish ancestry clarified that their ancestors migrated to New Mexico directly from Spain. Conversely, participants who reported mixed ancestry emphasized New Mexico’s history of racial mixture between Spanish and indigenous peoples. Moreover, a substantial number of participants provided vague explanations of ethnicity. These participants questioned the legitimacy of their claims to Spanish over Mexican heritage because identifying as Mexican is a stigmatized identity in New Mexico. Generally, other Mexican Americans do not question their ethnicity because it is associated with Mexico. However, unlike other Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos recognize that their multigenerational status in the Southwest is tied to the original Spanish settlement of New Mexico.

Table 2.

Percentage Distribution of Ancestry among Nuevomexicanos (n = 78).

Ancestry	% (n)
Spanish	40 (31)
Mixed	27 (21)
Vague	33 (26)

Spanish Ancestry

Participants who reported that their ancestors originated from Spain explained that the Spanish presence in New Mexico stemmed from the conquest and settlement of the Americas (see Table 2). While participants claimed Spanish ancestry, they did not claim that they were White. Instead, they used Spanish ancestry to enact dissociation from the stigmatized Mexican category. For example, Roy, a 52-year-old with a master’s degree, emphasized that his Spanish ancestors were in the region before Mexican and American occupation of New Mexico. When asked about the meaning behind his usage of “Hispanic,” Roy responded:

Mainly coming from Spanish heritage. . . . A lot of people would argue that some of my ancestry was Mexican, but my ancestors have lived in the Albuquerque region for almost 200 years. At one time, it was Mexico, but they [my ancestors] were part of the territory, part of New Spain way back when the Spanish explorers first got here.

Roy often provides historical explanations of his Spanish heritage when out-group members question whether he possesses Mexican ancestry. Notably, he emphasizes that his ancestry dates back to New Spain, which refers to the colonial territories of the Spanish empire during the 1500s and 1800s. Given this historical fact, Roy specifies that he does not have Mexican ancestry, as his ancestors were in the Southwest before the creation of Mexico as a nation-state. Similarly, other participants emphasized that they were the direct descendants of Spanish settlers in New Mexico. Yet these participants assumed no mixture with indigenous populations in the region or had no knowledge of indigenous ancestry. Consequently, people who identified as Spanish generally do not recognize their indigenous ancestry or the history of racial mixture in New Mexico or give it any significance in the stories of their own ethnic heritage.

While many participants provided historical narratives that justified their Spanish heritage, other participants emphasized that their Spanish roots were intimately connected to their long-standing presence in the region. Therefore, while participants’ claims to Spanish heritage were not necessarily grounded in the details of their family history, their accounts highlighted that their family’s multigenerational presence in the territory indicated Spanish over Mexican ancestry. For example, Jeremy, a 50-year-old with a high school degree, explained:

Jeremy:

I’m Spanish, my background is Spanish, but I’m not Mexican, I’m not from Mexico. As far as I know, my mom and dad and their grandparents were born and raised in Santa Fe [New Mexico].

Interviewer:

Have you ever identified as Spanish?

Jeremy:

I identify as Spanish, but basically Hispanic is Spanish to me, so I say I’m Hispanic.

Jeremy contrasted his Spanish ancestry with Mexican ancestry to foreground his family’s multigenerational presence in New Mexico. Although the region of New Mexico was part of Mexico from 1821 to 1848, Jeremy dissociated himself from any affiliation with Mexico or Mexican-origin people to highlight his Spanish heritage and generational ties to New Mexico. Other participants also explained that they were “not Mexican” or that they were “born in the United States” in describing their ancestry to thwart any assumption that they were “Mexican” or “foreign.” Moreover, Jeremy clarified that the terms “Spanish” and “Hispanic” are interchangeable, as “Hispanic” in New Mexico often signifies Spanish heritage. In particular, the relatively low percentage of other Latino groups in New Mexico contributes to an exclusive definition of “Hispanic” as having Spanish ancestry and distinguishing immigrants from U.S.-born people (Nieto-Phillips 2004). Overall, participants who emphasized Spanish ancestry conveyed that they did not have indigenous or Mexican heritage, and/or affiliation with Mexico, even though it is clear that their Mexican heritage is rooted in their colonial history of racial mixture between Spanish and indigenous ancestry and association with Mexico (Gómez 2007; Gonzales 2000).

Mixed Ancestry

A smaller percentage of participants conveyed mixed indigenous, Mexican and Spanish ancestry (27 percent). The term mestizo refers to people of combined European, indigenous, and African ancestry, particularly across Latin America. While participants did not deploy the term mestizo to describe their mixed ancestry, they explained that their “Latin background” was similar to that of Mexican-origin people. When asked about the degree to which she identifies with Spanish or Mexican terms, Marlene, a 55-year-old with a four-year college degree, explained:

It doesn’t matter if someone calls me Mexican, Mexican American or Chicana. I don’t mind any of those terms. . . . My belief is that I probably have Native American and Mexican American blood. We don’t have direct relatives from Mexico. . . . I can’t point to any place in Mexico because we’ve been here [in New Mexico] for so long. . . . What we have in common [with Mexican-origin people] is our Latin and Native background.

Despite the negative connotation associated with the word “Mexican” in New Mexico, Marlene embraced Mexican and Mexican American labels because she recognized that Nuevomexicanos and Mexican-origin people share similar ancestry. Moreover, while Marlene cannot directly trace her ancestry to Mexico, her account suggests that her family’s generational ties to the region are a defining factor that distinguishes her from Mexican-origin people with more recent immigration histories. Other participants also acknowledged that Nuevomexicanos possessed similar ancestry to Mexican-origin people and were more likely to perceive Mexican-origin people as coethnics. While other Mexican Americans do not question their shared ancestry with Mexican immigrants, they do make distinctions among in-group members to highlight variations in the Mexican American experience (e.g., generational status) (Jiménez 2008). Therefore, Nuevomexicanos generally avoided “Mexican” or “Mexican American” as primary identifiers because identifying as “Mexican” discounts their established presence in the region.

Additionally, other participants specified that they possessed mostly Spanish ancestry relative to their indigenous and Mexican ancestry. For example, when asked about the meaning behind his usage of “Hispanic,” Peter, a 47-year-old with a general equivalency degree, explained:

Peter:

Spanish, Hispanic origin. . . . We’re pretty much mixed because there’s Indian blood in our family. My grandma has Indian blood.

Interviewer:

Have you ever identified as Mexican or Mexican American?

Peter:

Mexican is fine. I’m sure down the line my grandpa or someone came from there, but a lot of our relatives are from Spain.

Despite foregrounding his Spanish ancestry, Peter conceded that he possesses mixed ancestry because of the possibility of indigenous and Mexican lineage. Consequently, the term “Hispanic” encompasses his mixed ancestry, mostly Spanish with some indigenous or Mexican heritage. While other Mexican-origin people generally understand that their heritage is composed of the racial mixture between indigenous and Spanish, participants like Peter made distinctions between Mexican ancestry and the mixture of Spanish and indigenous ancestry. The absence of mestizo terminology among participants points to the classic interpretation of Spanish heritage that emphasized Nuevomexicanos’ isolation from Mexico and its promotion of mestizaje, as well as isolation from indigenous groups (Gonzales 2000). This interpretation was part of Nuevomexicanos’ broader agenda of dissociation from Mexico in order to maintain political rights upon New Mexico’s entry into the American polity. Therefore, participants often do not make the connection that their mixed ancestry is similar to that of other Mexican-origin people. Overall, similar to participants who exclusively identified with Spanish ancestry, participants who emphasized their mixed ancestry preferred Hispanic to Mexican-origin labels. This is because the label “Mexican” discounts their complex history of racial mixture in New Mexico.

Vague Ancestry

Lastly, a substantial number of participants questioned whether they could only claim Spanish over Mexican ancestry, because the New Mexico region neighbors Mexico, and identifying as Mexican is a stigmatized identity in New Mexico (33 percent). For example, when asked about the meaning behind her usage of “Hispanic,” Regina, a 56-year-old with a trade degree, described that her ancestry is similar to other Latin American groups but debated whether she had genealogical ties to Spain or Mexico:

I have no real idea. I just know that we’re Latin descent some how. I used to say “Spanish,” but I can’t say that my descendants are directly from Spain, [but] that’s what everyone used to say. It was a big deal because either you were Spanish or Mexican. People seemed to feel that being called Mexican was a slur. To me, it was just trying to describe where your family came from. Most people have an easy time because their last names are common . . . [in] Mexico or Spain. [But] mine is unique. I’ve looked it up online . . . it’s all over the Latin countries.

Regina was accustomed to using the label “Spanish” because people in her community often claimed Spanish heritage. However, she suggested that people often identified as “Spanish” because identifying as “Mexican” was perceived as a racial slur. Consequently, Regina called into question the legitimacy of her claim to Spanish over Mexican heritage. Instead, Regina asserted her Latin American background because her last name is popular across Latin American countries. For Regina, usage of “Hispanic” captures her ambiguous yet Latin American ancestry. In general, participants’ hesitancy or indecisiveness in conceptualizing their ancestry mirrors prior research showing that rhetorical incoherence increases when people discuss sensitive subjects (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Gonzales 1997). Because identification with “Spanish” or “Mexican” is generally a controversial debate in New Mexico, participants’ responses are often unclear because discussing identity issues may make them feel uneasy.

Other participants struggled with defining their ancestry altogether. These participants stressed nativity in the United States and familiarity with both English and Spanish languages to differentiate themselves from other racial or ethnic groups. For example, when asked about the meaning behind her usage of “Hispanic,” Sonia, a 49-year-old with less than a high school degree, initially responded, “I don’t know. I never really thought about it.” As she continued:

Sonia:

I’ve always used Hispanic or like at work, because I work with a lot of Mexican women, they’re like, ‘What is Hispanic or Chicana?’ It’s just somebody that understands Spanish and English.

Interviewer:

How do you know that you’re Hispanic or Chicana and not something else?

Sonia:

It’s just the way I was raised. My mom and grandma and everybody . . . we’ve always lived here in the neighborhood and never lived anywhere else. I figured, okay, everybody around here is Hispanic or Chicano.

Similar to Regina, Sonia initially expressed uncertainty in explaining her ancestry, especially because both Mexican-origin people and Nuevomexicanos can speak both Spanish and English. Thus, Sonia differentiates herself from Mexican-origin people by explaining her neighborhood’s demographic history. Notably, she is from a neighborhood that dates back to one of the original Spanish settlements in Albuquerque. Prior work has also shown that Nuevomexicanos emphasize categorical differences (e.g., phenotype, language) between in- and out-group members as an alternative to a well-defined conception of heritage (Gonzales 1993). While these categorical distinctions did not signify key differences between Nuevomexicanos and other Mexican-origin people, participants perceived that these distinctions were important to their conceptions of ancestry. Moreover, while “Chicano” commonly refers to Mexican-origin people, participants deployed the term because it signals their U.S.-born status. In New Mexico, “Chicano” can refer to those of Spanish heritage and does not have an exclusive association with Mexican heritage.

Overall, participants’ fragmented conceptions of ancestry indicate that they remain hesitant about their Mexican heritage (see Table 2). Specifically, while participants who exclusively claimed Spanish ancestry assumed no racial mixture with indigenous people, participants who reported mixed ancestry avoided Mexican-origin identifiers because they eclipse the significance of their established presence in the region. Moreover, participants who provided vague conceptions of ancestry typically identified as “Hispanic” to avoid specifying their ethnicity altogether. These findings demonstrate that participants preferred Hispanic to Mexican labels because identifying as “Mexican” discounts their long history in the region and is a stigmatized identity in New Mexico. Despite participants’ persistent claims to Spanish ancestry, they did not perceive themselves as racially White. Alternatively, claims to Spanish ancestry enabled participants to highlight their regional differentiation from other Mexican-origin people, especially Mexican immigrants.

Conceptions of Nationality: Dissociation from Mexico and Regional Association with New Mexico

Participants could have used their multigenerational status in the region to identify as Mexican because New Mexico was once occupied by Mexico, and in the Spanish colonial period, New Spain was known as Mexico. Instead, participants prioritized their American nationalities because the question of ethnicity implicated controversial debates about their Mexican heritage, country of origin, and immigration status. Therefore, participants defined the content of their ethnicity by highlighting their American identities in two significant ways: dissociation from Mexico and regional association with New Mexico (see Table 3). While participants reported more than one theme to emphasize their American identities, they were slightly more likely to convey regional association with New Mexico (62 percent) than dissociation from Mexico (55 percent). Participants’ perceptions that their Spanish heritage is connected to the territory of New Mexico likely explain the slightly higher number of messages regarding regional association with New Mexico. Additionally, while participants recognized that their established presence in the United States differentiated them from other ethnoracial groups, they prioritized explanations regarding differences between Mexican immigrants and themselves. Thus, participants typically do not pay any significance to New Mexico’s history of Mexican occupation because they never developed a sense of belonging to the nation of Mexico.

Table 3.

Percentage Distribution of Conceptions of Nationality among Nuevomexicanos (n = 78).

Conception of Nationality	% (n)
Dissociation from Mexico	55 (43)
Regional association with New Mexico	62 (48)

Note: Frequencies do not equal total number of participants, as many reported more than one theme for nationality.

Dissociation from Mexico

Participants prioritized their American nationality by stating that their ancestors were living in the Southwest before the formation of Mexico as a nation-state. Namely, participants detailed the ways in which they were “not Mexican,” “not from Mexico,” or had “no Mexican relatives” to emphasize their long-time American identities. For instance, when out-group members inquired about his hometown, Gus, a 56-year-old with a professional degree, stated:

I tell them, “I’m from New Mexico.” “Oh, you’re Mexican?” “No, I’m not Mexican, I’m New Mexican [respondent’s emphasis]. I’m from New Mexico.” It doesn’t insult me that somebody thinks I’m from Mexico, just like it wouldn’t insult me if they said I was from Canada. It just isn’t true. I’m not from there. My family moved [to the Southwest] before Mexico even existed. I don’t identify at all as being Mexican, the nationality of Mexican.

Gus’ account highlights that out-group members confuse the nation of Mexico with the state of New Mexico. Nevertheless, the Mexico–New Mexico confusion did not bother Gus, because he considered it a simple error of perception, not a major violation of his American identity. As a result, he elaborated that his ancestors were in the southwestern territory before Mexico’s government was established, particularly in the early 1800s. Other participants also reported that they provided routine scripts to address out-group members’ assumptions of having ties to Mexico. These participants emphasized that they had only U.S.-born relatives, they did not know anyone in Mexico, or they could only trace their ancestry to Spanish relatives.

Participants also asserted that being Hispanic is synonymous with being American because their family has lived in the United States for many generations. In this way, participants stressed that they did not want to be identified as Mexicans but as long-time Americans. For instance, 55-year-old Camila with an associate’s degree and 44-year-old Louis with a high school degree explained that being American is key to their Hispanic identity.

Camila:

As far as I’m concerned, we [my ancestors] have always been in North America. . . . Mexico is right there. I realize that. I’m not from Mexico and my people are not from Mexico. I don’t identify with Mexicans either. I’m an American.

Louis:

My ancestors and everybody we’re Americans . . . that’s where we get a lot of confusion between the Mexicans and the Hispanics. Being labeled as “from Mexico.” I’m not from Mexico. I’ve never been there. No disrespect to them, but I’m an American.

Camila and Louis underscored their family’s established presence in the region and relinquished any association with Mexico or Mexican ancestry in order to highlight the centrality of their American nationality to their ethnic identification. While some participants recognized that some of their ancestors might have been born under Mexican occupation of the Southwest, they generally emphasized that having only U.S.-born relatives or being “born and raised in the United States” was fundamental to their ethnic identification. Consequently, participants prioritized their American identity to foreground their long-standing presence in the region and to distance themselves from any affiliation with Mexico and Mexican-origin people.

Regional Association with New Mexico

Participants who foregrounded their established connection to the Southwest were also quick to assert that being New Mexican meant being American and that these terms were synonymous. These participants explained that the “border crossed them” or that they inherited their American citizenship. Notably, these participants emphasized that their regionality was a key aspect of their identity because their ancestry is intimately tied to the historical and political circumstances of New Mexico. For example, when asked why generational status was significant to his self-identification, Samuel, a 60-year-old with a four-year degree, explained:

As long as the United States has been here, okay. The standard thing in New Mexico has always been, “We never cross the border. The border crossed us.” And that has to do with the history of New Mexico and how it is significantly different than other immigrants who came through Ellis Island. I’m New Mexican and by the way, that also means I’m American, that’s us completely, as it always was. Again, back to the history. . . . We were never Mexican. We were New Mexico, before Mexico ever existed.

For Samuel, identifying as “New Mexican” is an alternative form of signaling his American nationality because his ancestry is linked the region’s geopolitical context. Moreover, while Samuel explained that Nuevomexicanos and European immigrants acquired their citizenship differently, he belabored the point that Nuevomexicanos have no affiliation with Mexico. Therefore, Samuel deployed the “border crossed us” slogan to highlight Nuevomexicanos’ regional differentiation, and to further distance the group from Mexican-origin people. Ironically, while immigrant and “Chicano” civil rights activists use the slogan to contest the “foreign” membership of Mexicans in the United States, study participants deployed the slogan to contest their membership within the Mexican category. Overall, participants stressed their regionality to convey that they did not have recent immigration histories to the United States or that they did not have any other family history with any other territory except for New Mexico.

Participants also emphasized regionality to highlight their long-time presence in the Southwest before Anglo-American migration to the region. While participants mostly constructed their identities in opposition to Mexican immigrants, very few participants emphasized that their regionality differentiated them from Whites. Notably, when asked about his usage of “Spanish,” Roger, a 50-year-old with less than a high school degree, stated that the misconception of Nuevomexicanos as immigrants, especially on the part of Whites, reinforces his Spanish identity:

It means we’re from the north [or north of the Mexico-U.S. border], from New Mexico. Before Mexico, before the United States, we were here. For hundreds of years this [region] was part of Spain, then Mexico for a few decades and then the United States. . . . For Whites, there’s no north or south [of the Mexico-U.S. border]. A White person just thinks Mexico. . . . They think that we’re immigrants, but they came later.

For Roger, the term “Spanish” indicates that the Mexico-U.S. border is simply a regional marker separating Nuevomexicanos and Mexicans and that Nuevomexicanos were in the Southwest before Mexico and the United States as nation-states. Roger also highlights that Whites often ignore these distinctions and assume that Nuevomexicanos are Mexican immigrants. Thus, Roger’s usage of “Spanish” is defensive, as he challenges claims that Nuevomexicanos are exclusively of Mexican ancestry, foreign born, and possibly unauthorized. While very few participants made territorial claims to the Southwest to explicitly address discrimination on the part of Whites, active dissociation from Mexican immigrants was the salient narrative in shaping participants’ ethnic identities. Accordingly, participants generally asserted their regionality to further distance themselves from the foreign-ness associated with Mexican-origin people.

Overall, participants legitimized their American identities by establishing that (1) they were never Mexican, because their Spanish ancestors were living in the Southwest before the formation of Mexico as a country, and (2) they have regional claims to their American nationality because their long-time citizenship is linked to New Mexico’s history of statehood. Given the pervasive assumption that Nuevomexicanos have ties to Mexico, participants constructed their identities in opposition to Mexican immigrants to directly challenge such claims. In fact, many participants simplified or reduced the explanations of their ethnicity to other factors such as regional association with New Mexico in order to enact dissociation from Mexican immigrants.

And while few participants recognized that their long history in the Southwest also differentiated them from Whites, dissociation from Mexico and Mexican immigrants was the most salient narrative in shaping participants’ ethnic identities. Therefore, participants generally did not pay any significance to the history of Mexico as a colonial power of New Mexico because they were focused on combating the misconception that they were Mexican immigrants.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, I showed that regional distinctions are prominent to Mexican Americans’ conceptions of ethnicity. Among Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos prioritized their ties to Spanish heritage within the history of New Mexico to explain their ethnicity. At the time of New Mexico’s struggle for statehood (1880–1912), Spanish identification constituted a particular political and publicly expressed identity that enabled Nuevomexicanos to enact dissociation from Mexico and Mexican immigrants. In comparison to this classic interpretation, I found that present-day Nuevomexicanos varied in their recognition of Mexican heritage. Yet they largely remained hesitant about their claims to Mexican ancestry because identifying as “Mexican” eclipses the significance of their regional differentiation from Mexican immigrants and carries a negative connotation in New Mexico. Nuevomexicanos’ fragmented conceptions of ancestry and the absence of family narratives of immigration from Mexico further bolstered their reluctant claims to Mexican ancestry. As a result, Nuevomexicanos continue to dissociate themselves from Mexican immigrants regardless of their shared membership within the broader category of “Mexican American.”

Furthermore, despite Nuevomexicanos’ persistent claims to Spanish ancestry, they did not view themselves as racially White. Instead, Nuevomexicanos’ claims to Spanish ancestry enabled them to highlight their regional differentiation from other Mexican-origin people and to avoid the hostility aimed at Mexican immigrants. Consequently, I argue that Nuevomexicanos’ enduring claims to Spanish ancestry represent a defensive strategy to enact dissociation from the stigmatized Mexican category (Garcia Bedolla 2005; Tajfel and Turner 1986; Wimmer 2008). This strategy is rooted in Mexican Americans’ history of dissociation from Mexico and Mexican immigrants in order to combat anti-Mexican racism (Foley 1998; Gómez 2007; Gonzales 2000). However, unlike other Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos’ dissociation strategies are extreme and plausible because they do not have family narratives of immigration from Mexico.

Research has shown that Nuevomexicanos often define themselves by describing who they are not, mainly “Mexican” and “foreign” (Gonzales 1997; Metzgar 1974). The emphasis on making categorical distinctions (Gonzales 1997) is a way to resolve uncertainty regarding one’s own ethnic heritage and history. While Nuevomexicanos remain indecisive about how to explain their ethnicity, I found that they varied in their recognition of Mexican ancestry, indicating variation in perceptions of Mexican immigrants as coethnics. The increase in Nuevomexicanos’ association with Mexican heritage suggests that the dominance of exclusively claiming Spanish heritage has diminished over time. Yet because there exists no uniform narrative of who they are ethnically, Nuevomexicanos rely heavily on their regional history to explain their ethnicity. They also remain hesitant to embrace Mexican ancestry because it discounts their regional distinctiveness from other Mexican-origin people. These reluctant claims to Mexican ancestry persisted, despite differences in education, gender, and phenotype among Nuevomexicanos. Since identifying as “Mexican” is a stigmatized identity, Nuevomexicanos’ emphasis on dissociation from Mexican immigrants can obscure education, gender, and phenotype differences in conceptions of ancestry.

In addition, Mexican Americans often define themselves in opposition to Mexican immigrants, especially when they encounter nativist hostility. Within this context, Mexican Americans typically prioritize their American nationality to enact dissociation from Mexican immigrants (Garcia Bedolla 2003, 2005; Jiménez 2008; Vega 2014). While Nuevomexicanos’ assertions of American nationality mirrored the dissociation strategies of other Mexican Americans, Nuevomexicanos further explained that their ancestry and nationality were tied to New Mexico’s history of American statehood. Furthermore, while very few Nuevomexicanos emphasized that their regionality and inherited citizenship distinguished them from Whites and other Mexican Americans, dissociation from Mexican immigrants was integral to their identity construction. Other Mexican Americans were not a salient reference group for Nuevomexicano identity because they are more socially and residentially integrated into the Nuevomexicano population than Mexican immigrants in Albuquerque. Overall, the Nuevomexicanos case shows regional variation in Mexican Americans’ nationality claims.

The term “Hispanic” in New Mexico and Texas often differentiates Mexican Americans from Mexican immigrants (Dowling 2014; Nieto-Phillips 2004). In New Mexico, the relatively low percentage of other Latino groups, including Mexican immigrants, advances an exclusive definition of “Hispanic” as native born. Unlike prior research, I found that the term was integral to representing Nuevomexicanos’ conceptions of ancestry and nationality. While participants often simplified their explanations of ethnicity to stress their regional differentiation from other Mexican-origin people, they generally viewed their ethnicity in bland terms, and as another form of being American. Nonetheless, their identity claims were situated within an anti-immigrant context, clarifying to participants that they were seen as foreign and non-White. Thus, among Nuevomexicanos, “Hispanic” represents an American-oriented identity that facilitates a favorable redefinition of their group in order to enact dissociation from Mexican immigrants. Additionally, Nuevomexicanos were bold in their nationality claims in their usage of “Hispanic” because of their long history and demographic dominance in New Mexico. This is distinct from Mexican Americans who are two or three generations removed from the immigrant generation because they cannot claim regionality in the same way as Nuevomexicanos.

The Nuevomexicano case demonstrates that other Mexican Americans can contest their ethnic and national membership with Mexican immigrants, resulting in a weak form of identification with the term “Mexican American.” Namely, Mexican Americans may enact dissociation in ethnic membership by emphasizing their distinct cultural, linguistic, and social experiences in the United States. Therefore, Mexican Americans may perceive their association with Mexican heritage on a spectrum, ranging between strong and weak, which enables them to claim or contest the ethnic category of Mexican. Furthermore, Mexican Americans may enact dissociation in national membership by emphasizing their country of origin, immigration status, and regionality. Altogether, these findings challenge scholarly assumptions that “Mexican American” is a widely, accepted form of identification among in-group members. Notably, the Nuevomexicano case indicates that “Mexican American” is a weak form of identification because of the historical and regional differences among Mexican Americans. Since there is no consistent understanding in how Mexican Americans label themselves ethnically, these findings suggest that “Mexican American” is a loosely maintained identity category among in-group members.

Given Mexican Americans’ intragroup heterogeneity, whether and in which contexts they deploy the term “Mexican American” remains in question. A systematic investigation of Mexican Americans’ ethnic labeling preferences will enable researchers to further explain how Mexican Americans define themselves in relation to in- and out-group members. Since Nuevomexicanos varied in their recognition of Mexican ancestry, my findings also indicate that the dominance of Spanish ancestry has diminished over time. Researchers should further specify how Nuevomexicano identity differs by temporal and contextual factors to examine the prevalence and situational nature of Spanish identification. Lastly, since the U.S. government, Spanish-language media and ethnic organizations worked together to legitimize the Hispanic category (Mora 2014), researchers should examine the extent to which other Latino groups embrace “Hispanic” and whether they assert a distinctive set of claims in their usage of the term.

In closing, regional location and distinctions are prominent to Mexican Americans’ ethnic identification. The Nuevomexicano case shows that they continue to prioritize their Spanish roots to explain their ethnicity and to differentiate themselves from other Mexican-origin people. While steadfast in their claims to Spanish ancestry, Nuevomexicanos did not view themselves as racially White. Instead, I argue that Nuevomexicanos’ claims to Spanish ancestry represent a defensive strategy to combat the stigmatization of Mexican immigrants. Overall, these findings caution against scholars’ assertions that structurally assimilated Latinos are more likely to identify as racially White (Dowling 2014; Vargas 2015). Despite their notable levels of incorporation into American society, Nuevomexicanos deployed Hispanic over White identities to assert their American-ness. The Hispanic category represents an American-oriented identity that facilitated a favorable redefinition of their group because they were viewed as foreign and non-White. Future researchers should document the variation in how other Latinos conceptualize their race, ethnicity, and nationality to deepen our understanding of their self-identification.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Phillip (Felipe) B. Gonzales, whose invaluable feedback assisted in moving this article forward. I am grateful to Vilma Ortiz, Laura E. Gómez, Karina Chavarria, Andrew N. Le, Celia Lacayo, members of the Race and Immigration Research Group at UCLA, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. A special thank-you to the research participants who generously shared their stories. This research was funded by UCLA’s Institute of American Cultures and UCLA’s Chicana/o Studies Research Center.

Notes

Author Biography

Casandra D. Salgado is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research examines identity and group formation, stratification, and inequality, particularly among Latina/o populations in the United States.

References

Acuña

Rodolfo

. 1972. Occupied America: The Chicano’s Struggle toward Liberation. San Francisco, CA: Canfield.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2010. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Chávez

Angelico

. 2012. My Penitente Land: Reflections on Spanish New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Deutsch

Sarah

. 1989. No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on an Anglo-Hispanic Frontier in the American Southwest, 1880–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dowling

Julie A.

2014. Mexican Americans and the Question of Race. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Espinosa

Aurelio M.

1914. “Comparative Notes on New-Mexican and Mexican Spanish Folk-tales.” Journal of American Folklore 27(104):211–31.

Foley

Neil

. 1998. The White Scourge: Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Fox

Cybelle

Guglielmo

Thomas A.

2012. “Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945.” American Journal of Sociology 118(2):327–79.

Garcia Bedolla

Lisa

. 2003. “The Identity Paradox: Latino Language, Politics and Selective Dissociation.” Latino Studies 1(2):264–83.

10.

Garcia Bedolla

Lisa

. 2005. Fluid Borders: Latino Power, Identity, and Politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

11.

Golash-Boza

Tanya

2006. “Dropping the Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American through Racialized Assimilation.” Social Forces 85(1):27–55.

12.

Gómez

Laura E.

1992. “The Birth of the ‘Hispanic’ Generation: Attitudes of Mexican-American Political Elites toward the Hispanic Label.” Latin American Perspectives 19(4):45–58.

13.

Gómez

Laura E.

2007. Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race. New York: New York University Press.

14.

Gómez-Quinones

Juan

. 1990. Chicano Politics: Reality and Promise, 1940–1990. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

15.

Gonzales

Phillip B.

1993. “The Political Construction of Latino Nomenclatures in Twentieth-century New Mexico.” Journal of the Southwest 35(2):158–85.

16.

Gonzales

Phillip B.

1997. “The Categorical Meaning of Spanish American Identity among Blue-collar New Mexicans, Circa 1983.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 19(2):123–36.

17.

Gonzales

Phillip B.

2000. “‘La Junta de Indignación’: Hispano Repertoire of Collective Protest in New Mexico, 1884–1933.” Western Historical Quarterly 31(2):161–86.

18.

Gonzales

Phillip B.

2016. Política: Nuevomexicanos and American Political Incorporation, 1821–1910. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

19.

Gonzales

Phillip B.

Massmann

Ann

. 2006. “Loyalty Questioned: Nuevomexicanos in the Great War.” Pacific Historical Review 75(4):629–66.

20.

Gutierrez

David Gregory

. 1995. Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican immigrants, and the Politics of Ethnicity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

21.

Horton

Sarah B.

2010. The Santa Fe Fiesta, Reinvented: Staking Ethno-nationalist Claims to a Disappearing Homeland. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.

22.

Jiménez

Tomas R.

2008. “Mexican Immigrant Replenishment and the Continuing Significance of Ethnicity and Race.” American Journal of Sociology 113(6):1527–67.

23.

McWilliams

Carey

. 1949. North from Mexico: The Spanish-speaking People of the United States. New York: Greenwood.

24.

Metzgar

Joseph

. 1974. “The Ethnic Sensitivity of Spanish New Mexicans: A Survey and Analysis.” New Mexico Historical Review 49(1):49–73.

25.

Mora

G. Cristina

. 2014. “Cross-field Effects and Ethnic Classification: The Institutionalization of Hispanic Panethnicity, 1965 to 1990.” American Sociological Review 79(2):183–210.

26.

Montgomery

Charles

. 2002. The Spanish Redemption: Heritage, Power, and Loss on New Mexico’s Upper Rio Grande. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

27.

Nagel

Joane

. 1994. “Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture.” Social Problems 41(1):152–76.

28.

Nieto-Phillips

John

. 2004. The Language of Blood: The Making of Spanish-American Identity in New Mexico, 1880s–1930s. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

29.

Oboler

Suzanne

. 1995. Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity and the Politics of (Re)Presentation in the United States. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

30.

Ochoa

Gilda L.

2004. Becoming Neighbors in a Mexican American Community: Power, Conflict and Solidarity. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

31.

Ortiz

Vilma

Telles

Edward M.

2012. “Racial Identity and Racial Treatment of Mexican Americans.” Race and Social Problems 4(1):41–56.

32.

Phinney

Jean S.

2008. “Ethnic Identity Exploration in Emerging Adulthood.” Pp. 65–84 in Adolescent Identities, edited by Browing

D. L.

New York: Routledge.

33.

Rodriguez

Clara

. 2000. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. New York: New York University Press.

34.

Saenz

Rogelio

Morales

Maria Cristina

. 2015. Latinos in the United States: Diversity and Change. Malden, MA: Polity.

35.

Stepler

Renee

Brown

Anna

. 2016. “Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

36.

Tajfel

Henri

Turner

John C.

1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Pp. 7–24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Worchel

Austin

W. G

. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

37.

Telles

Edward M.

Ortiz

Vilma

. 2008. Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation and Race. New York: Russell Sage.

38.

Trujillo

Michael

2010. Land of Disenchantment: Latina/o Identities and Transformations in Northern New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

39.

Vargas

Nicholas

. 2015. “Latina/o Whitening? Which Latina/os Self-classify as White and Report Being Perceived as White by Other Americans?” Du Bois Review 12(1):119–36.

40.

Vargas

Zaragosa

. 2011. Crucible of Struggle: A History of Mexican Americans from Colonial Times to the Present Era. New York: Oxford University Press.

41.

Vasquez

Jessica M.

2010. “Blurred Borders for Some but Not ‘Others’: Racialization, ‘Flexible Ethnicity,’ Gender, and Third-generation Mexican American Identity.” Sociological Perspectives 53(1):45–72.

42.

Vega

Irene I.

2014. “Conservative Rationales, Racial Boundaries: A Case Study of Restrictionist Mexican Americans.” American Behavioral Scientist 58(13):1764–83.

43.

Wimmer

Andreas

. 2008. “Elementary Strategies of Ethnic Boundary Making.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(6):1025–55.