V.‘\\:-(fl-‘Ip“.‘;‘:‘ A m: ' u?
ultra}. - :I‘q 14“.:
:l‘: an‘ I I‘

.\

\' ‘(I {'15
{‘51 W
:IIB . 'rv
“ "I: an; IQ "'
v-IWII $921: w
. “II )\ #7.}, "'l ";'
a. ‘- \VJ!Q~

I

     
 

 
 
    
     

3,.
,‘VH‘
. ‘1

:".Il

  
 
  

  
    
      
 
 
   
       
     
 
 
  
 
          

'4:

 
 
   

.I‘.‘
J

   

,4
4
I'C‘.
.
=3

   
   
  

with;

    
   

      
 

 

3‘?’
r

3,1
II;

:1
J -37"; 4-?" "H;-
: s ,
- I

. .

.‘ .11 . ‘
3'13: 2-3}:

 
    
         
    
  
    

:1 ‘- R;
l

' I n
X": I'Auat‘. ‘0‘} 5):: ‘
V L“? - ~

  
 

   
 
  
     
   
   
 
    
  

   

{fivsir
3fvggiz
21:! . J
m!

Ufa.) \\"I‘ '

  
  
  
  
  
 

 
 

  
  

75-63,

~

 

  

3:.
‘7

- .‘7
'1
I11

74
-4

(.1:

1a J‘s , v'
‘ ‘- 4'?!
"‘2‘.

if

if?

.— ...-;-‘

 
 

"‘»*”-'1’.J-[é

 

:1 h. N.“ .
'i'nw

    
   
   
     
  

. |..~

 

1‘. '1 "I

L {:1 I '-
LL-‘v \fsyix-II;

 
     
 

I- ‘1‘)

 
    
     
  

> I.“ .'I"_

l,f'9.-l-"

.""' "-::.\.\y‘

' '\ :r'flffiv-‘
'

 
 

  
  

X‘I

 

,. :m-, 3-4

I

.- '..ru...4,.._.fin»-

may-MM
l o I . .' ‘
,
7

 

2H7";

II:\ ’
' "‘II J. '..I
”Ili

l'

:'
mi

I.‘ I “ H

I" :1" u - I

, :4. . ' I ‘l y I ‘ ,‘
., 3g , I
l 7. , I;
( no: I ' I‘
1 # I I

:L

'm

    
 

l
O
I.

II I
I“ .II ...‘

   

L13\T-‘.. . - u ,
.9...“ .‘fmrs ‘- -: ‘.) MAI, év'u'm-u;

"v- I-‘:!- ”00';‘ H

 

Illminimum:Milli:Milli: ‘t

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Migration, Settlement Pattern, and Social Organization:
A Midwest Mexican-American Case Study

presented by

Jane Bushong Haney

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph.D. degree in Anthropology

Major professor

 

0-7 639

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE_ DATE DUE DATE DUE

35 mu

 

. ‘*.-‘

 

(‘1‘:

             

Of‘gmufipe '
‘7‘.» '

 

r
.‘4.5'
1“! g ‘

Q‘s.

M 6.1” m

 

BY

Jane B. Haney

A DISSERTATION f

   

Submitted to

' " fiqjlchigan State University
firth fulfillment of the requirements
- for the degree of

h _ ' hithod 4 .4 - .. '

  
  
    
 
 

$315M.

away-

_ . .. , _-

Wt 9i Anthrogology
””15375‘ * '

‘ fies, 54%.“ ~ .7 “41.59 v~ , Huang:

and! in am.- wax m "1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

o
- x .. .
‘ '-\‘~_
.'.
0-. 9
. .
u. ‘
‘~~\. ~
“s 0"
. \“-. -
‘m. -
v... '
,“
\ '..’-u~.
.. -
o.,..
v
c._ .
, ..
~ .
a. .\
o
0
.
.
- W .
..._..
.
n
t.
‘ u.
4;
o
u.
x
‘ I
u I
n
..
‘v
‘
‘-.
v.‘ .
n
a."
I. _
‘.
.
-.~.
‘.
e
w,‘ u“
:‘u \
.._.
J'
b" . .
o.
'. H
"o a
l
it.
x.- .,,
.' __._-
v ..
C.
.I.

 

ABSTRACT

   
   
  
 
 
  

"Apron, SETTLEMENT PATTERN, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION:
* ‘ A nmwasr MEXICAN-AMERICAN CASE STUDY

by ’

Jane B. Haney

“‘8' ~attuicly is a‘comparative analysis of the growth and integra— 2 g
.' l Chicano populations of Flint and Lansing, two Michigan
Mfls‘ig'gest that three interrelated processes are crucial to . i -
j‘E'Io'ml differences in urban minority populations in gen— -

- l _ .
:I‘cn, settlement pattern, and social organization. It 15 my

 

ére'r'ural or small town people. It is

 

 

 

 

 

.o
..
u
.
.u
..-
.. , t
.l"'
,..
t ..
‘o
_ ,...
u. 0‘
ll. 0‘ ‘
I 5v-'

.,. o.-.

 

cu
.-
-—.-— ,.‘

 

s.
a.
”‘-
a ‘ 1
~..,.. -.
.
.
'I... .
v ' O
““ ‘I‘
w .
..
'.
“\_
.., A
.
. .._.
s. . '0
.,‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\‘
.'.
O
._.t
..
'h
u
.‘w
~
. .,
vs. ‘ u
.
. '0.‘
s
\_ ‘. .
.. -
:."..
a
.“w«
is] 4
U. I
‘Q
\ -:
I ‘ ‘
‘-
u
x
K‘ ‘
.'n_
.__
_ .
a I .
on
o 5.
~
‘ “

 

Jane B. Haney

  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  

.. tirthese differences in migrant selectivity are linked to
2"“.WOf Michigan industries which have fluctuated over
'imsfilint most Chicano household heads are factory workers
. .
-_ "lev‘range in income. or educational attainment; in Lansing there
'g’lutruesuthe clients and the professionals. The client cate-
ifilming is concentrated in the barrio (Chicano neighborhood)
Vittorprofessional category is not. When combined with differ—
in region of origin, these current class divisions become an

maintervening variable in the development of Chicano formal

" -- mmizations. The agencies, all based in the barrio, are
7 ipalactors in local Chicano factionalism. Individual involve-

“388111831 personalistically, as has been noted in other studies
"1le organization. I suggest that Chicano personalism in
' animations in Lansing is not the primary reason that fac-
‘1' .ucontinues, however. It was found that the agencies are set
tifil- to each other through competition for resources, parti-
' funding from public and private sources. The agencies were

‘Wtsmers and their internal form is often a major

 

3'9:

 

 

 

 

 

Jane B. Haney

Antagonism between the two is mitigated by the following factors. The
leaders deliberately work together and try to prevent hostilities from
reaching the notice of local powerholders; the black population is very
large, segregated, and visible while theirs is not; and since Chicanos
in Flint are not very different from the ”average" most do not want to
be singled out for attention as an ethnic group.

I conclude that Chicano intra-group political competition is
encouraged in Lansing by the structure of funding sources available as
a result of the city's role as capital of state government. Flint is
a heavy one-industry city with a company town atmosphere. There
Chicanos are only one of many waves of immigrants which has settled in
and are far less visible than local blacks. In both cities, Chicano
agencies are outside structures to which individuals adapted in tra-
ditional ways. However, it was found that their overall effectiveness
for Chicanos is tempered by the local power structures and the manner

hiwhich Chicanos are integrated into these.

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the predoctoral research grant which permitted me to
A carry out the bulk of the research upon which this study is based.
'There are also many individuals to whom I owe thanks. To my major
professor, Scott Whiteford, I am grateful for years of guidance and
encouragement and for the fact that he diligently read and critiqued
the rough draft while he himself was conducting a project outside the
country. I also wish to thank the other members of my committee, from
whom I learned a great deal about both theory and methods--Richard C.
Hill, Arthur J. Rubel, and William Derman. My husband Joe I owe thanks
for his patience, confidence, support, and research assistance. Of
course, I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to the Chicanos of Lansing
and Flint who allowed me into their homes, meetings, and places of

employment; answered my questions; and to whom this study is dedicated.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

    
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
 
    
   
 
 
   

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM AND THE LITERATURE. . . . . 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .

Levels of Articulation. . . . . . . . . . . 5
Introduction . . . 5
The International Level'. Center and Periphery . . 6
The National Level: Center and Periphery . . . 8
The National Level: Class and Ethnicity . . . 12

The National Level: The Corporate and Public
Sectors . . . . 18
The Regional and Local Levels: Political Economy . 20
The Local Level: Demography . . . 22

The Local Level: Resource Competition or the
Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Footnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Site Selection . . . . . . 31
LeVels of Articulation as Levels of Inquiry . . . . 33
Comparative Method. . . . . . . . 35
Research Strategies . . . . . . 36
Limitations of the Statistical Data Base . . . . . 38

-Footnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Q
4‘.

...q.

 

'-....

"eo.

.a..-
.

 

 

Chapter

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO DIVERSE URBAN POLITICAL ECONOMIES .

Introduction . . . . . . .
Lansing and Flint Before the Auto Age. . . . . .

Lansing .
Flint.

The Beginning of the Auto Era

Lansing .
Flint.

The Economic Sectors of Contemporary Lansing and Flint .

Sociopolitical Milieus.

Introduction
Lansing . . . .
Flint.

Summary. . .
Footnotes .

4. Migration.

Intrdduction .
Periods of Migration: The Migration Cohorts.

Introduction

Labor Recruitment and Periods of Immigration: The
Evidence from Agriculture . . . . . .

Introduction

Early Depression Cohort (1923— 1931).

Pre World War II Cohort (1932— 1941). .

World War II and Early Postwar Cohort (1942— 1950)

Early (1951—1955) and Late (1956- 1964) Bracero
Cohorts . . . .

War on Poverty Cohort (1965-1971) .

Post Vietnam Recession Cohort (1972— 1976).

Chicano Population Growth in Flint and Lansing.

Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flint. . . . . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . .

iv

 

 

Page

43

43
45

45
47

49

49
52

56
63

63
63
69

72
74

76

76
77

77

115

115
121

126
128

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

.o'
,u—
0"
/

.

. "
.
--
,, .
...

.
-
a
-v—
a...
.. .

 

r‘. .—

 

 

Chapter
5. CLASS AND MIGRANT SELECTIVITY .

Introduction . .
Place of Origin of Migrants .

General Comparison
Analysis.

Chicanos and the Opportunity Structures of the Cities

Introduction

Occupations of Chicanos and the Occupation Structures
of the Two Cities .

Education and Income of Chicanos in the Two Cities.

Occupation Histories of Chicano Migrants .

Social Characteristics of the Chicano Populations.

Domestic Group, Family, and Kinship.
Language. . . . .
Religion.

Summary.k .
Footnotes .

6. SETTLEMENT PATTERN.

Introduction .
Studies on Population Distribution in Cities

Introduction .
Segregation Studies .

Chicano Segregation and Centralization in Lansing and
Flint and Relationship to the Black Population .

Chicano Residential Distribution and Metropolitan
Centralization . . .
Chicano Residential Segregation .

Housing and Physical Characteristics of Chicano and
Non-Chicano Regions . . . . . . . . .
.Chicanos and Neighborhood.

Neighborhood Selection . . . . .
Perceptions of Neighborhood Characteristics . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

Page

130

130
131

131
139

143
143
144
149
154
158
158
162
164

165
169

171

171
172

172

173

175

175
183

195

210

210
213

219
221

 

 

Formal Organization Case Study 1: Factionalism in the
Barrio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction .
Lansing Chicano Organizations in History. .
Current Pattern of Chicano Organizations in Lansing .

Agencies.
Other Chicano Organizations

Competition and Cooperation .

Individual Involvement .
Principles of Recruitment .

Funding and Derivative Power Sources . .
Health Care Provision for the Chicano Poor: A
Political Issue

Background of the Issue. .

CSS and the Health Department.

Chicano Cooperation . .

The Barrio Clinic as a Chicano campaign Issue

Summary. .
Footnotes . . .

Formal Organization Case Study 2: Factors Which Mitigate
Against Factionalism . . . . . . . . .

Introduction .

History of Chicano Organizations in Flint

Contemporary Flint Chicano Formal and Corporate
Operating Units . . .

Competition and Cooperation .

Individual Involvement .
Bases for Factionalism and Cooperation .
Sources of Funding and Sources of Derivative Power.

The Project: Negating Factionalism Among a DisPersed
Population . . . . . .

Introduction
Competition within the Agency.

Summary. . .
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . .

vi

 

Page

223
223
224
232

232
236

237

237
239

245
253
253
254
258
260

264
266

268

268
269

275
279

279
282
288

291

291
293

303
305

 

 

 

   

 

.
I
,5.
M "
' .1» '
~
4"
.--’
.
o v,
.
.Io-"“
.\
.
,Nr'
4-.
-.---
a.-

.r ‘
.
.. _.
o u
.. .
..
4.. --
-0.

_ Page
"Igmcmcwsrons. . . . . . . . . . . . 307

    
  

tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
-' and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Research Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . 316

..g 1%! gofi“,

'ilii; . Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
‘ F5.1.,-,ii

¥.;~;rpl Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . 334

\ «I. USe‘Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

'.‘ ipant Observation . . . . . . . . . . . 341

iJon History Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 345

Innatu.

~fitf.
_ees in Hay:
2111f

~31! lloa I: E. -‘. 2".»1: . . 11

, 5 .- . ‘ K '
-~ 1 - . 4.. .-‘ --‘v_ _ .~ LUCK-m f

 

 

-¢-—. -—.-

 

 

 

-
..‘
v-
*~->.-
-
' u
.o .
n...- .—
' ' .na
.~..-..,
,p- .‘ '
t,, .
-V
0
“fi
.
' I
'- 1
\' .‘ ..
H— _‘
‘ ‘7..-
II C
o.
1.. _, .
..._‘ v
I
5— .
‘-.‘ 0
.‘.
a 2'; _
.,. a
. __ _
I

.. .‘

. ‘o. .
.
~..'_.
.._
I., .
o.‘ ‘
.‘.-
. . O
u , '
'~.‘ .
I. . ‘
n. .
~
- , ‘
“st-
1.. .
‘p
u
4
1
..
'._ .‘
» a
‘ o
.

   
  
  
  
 
  
  
  

LIST OF TABLES

éi k Experience, Prior Midwest Experience, and
1 Born by Migration Cohort, Flint, Percentages

" k Experience, Prior Midwest Experience, and
: Born by Migration Cohort, Lansing, Percentages.

C
.r Beet workers in Mid-Michigan by Factory
.7 kt, 1939 o o o o I o o

-itqees in Harvest Productivity . . . .

If.EgrAACre in Selected Crops . . . . .

a ”of Mid-Michigan Beetworkers, 1941 . .

Page

50
55
57
60
81
84

85

91
106

110
116
122

133

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. a”

\v....

,...-
' .. 4.
.U‘ .
..
.. .
' a.
'4»...
-. -
.......
..
' O
..

" >a.
_‘ .
. \
"...
.,, -
.
—.

 

..
4
so. .
' .
‘. ‘.
. . -

". [-

~. _'I

' o
“—-

' u

"uau. .

   
  
  
  
   
  
 
   
   
   

Page
{are Household Heads Born, Lansing . . . . . 137
A ‘EfiPloyod per Occupation, Flint and Lansing,
7................146
Reusehold Income and Percent Unemployed per
, Tract for Selected Tracts, Flint and Lansing,
-...............153
='=~'-° Family Size in Flint and Lansing by Selected
s Tracts, 1970 . . . . . 162
 ~4-0 Population Range in Census Tracts, Flint and
mg. 178
: cum ‘
’3‘- i Deficit Measurement of Segregation for Chicanos
' 4m I‘Anglos, Flint, Michigan 1970.. . . . . . 184
*Deficit Measurement of Segregation for Chicanos
Anglos, Lansing, Michigan 1970 . . . . . . . 185 ‘
‘1‘:
W Housing and Neighborhood Type by Population Size 201 i3 . '
U. -., sParish Size, Average Sunday Mass Attendance, .
gCollections, 1962- 1972. . . . . . . 229 i
a. 5
. Involvement by Occupational Strata in Lansing. . 238
9; ,.
”ailment by Occupational Strata in Flint . . 281

 

 

 

   

 

 

~>
. ‘-
o
u? .
_ o
. -- ~4
..-v~ v
,-

 

. 0-0-.

 

_. . o.-.

awcu.-.‘

u...-
\_.
'-
,,
7..., .

.-, u... _

 

 

 

 

 

--
. -,.
...
..,
J
-
4a.
.,‘
. -,
17-,“
.g.
x
..
..
-o
o..
' r ’4 '§
‘.b.
-..
e.
4.
'D
v
.5.
~.
4
"l '\ a

LIST OF FIGURES

     

Figure
Chapter 3

1. Flint and Lansing Sectorial Development, 1920-1970 .
Chapter 5

1. Region of Origin of Flint Chicano Migrant Household
Heads . . . . . . . .

2. Region of Origin of Lansing Chicano Migrant Household
Heads . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 6
1. Chicanos in Flint by Census Tract, 1970.
2. Chicanos in Lansing by Census Tract, 1970 .
3. Chicanos in Genesee County by Census Tract, 1970.
4. Chicanos in Ingham County by Census Tract, 1970 .

S. Lorenz Curve of Chicano— —Anglo Segregation Index,
Flint, Michigan 1970 . . .

6. Lorenz Curve of Chicano- -Anglo Segregation Index,
Lansing, Michigan 1970..

7. Blacks in Flint by Census Tract, 1970
‘8. Blacks in Lansing by CenSus Tract, 1970.
9. Blacks in Genesee County by Census Tract, 1970

10. Blacks in Ingham County by Census Tract, 1970.

 

 

3. Education of Chicano Heads of Household Sampled, 1976 .

Page

61

136

138

150

176
177
179

180

187

188
190
191
192

193

Page

    
  
    
     
   

1,193 of Recruitment and Cohesion for Lansing
m- Forlnal and Corporate Operation Units . . . . 241

_ erg Sources for Lansing Chicano Formal and Corporate
.a'tingUnits...... 246

1 ~_‘. .
g-ipIes of Recruitment and Cohesion for Flint
Formal and Corporate Operating Units . . . . 284

L'\.

‘ , Sources for Flint Chicano Formal and Corporate
tingUnits.............. 289

i“ ‘ ‘ii‘r‘e‘POHer Sources for Flint Chicano Formal and
”at; Operating Units . . . . . . . . . . 289

. .11 1.11..
rials)?
' '4 him...

Atus n:

‘- *3. ”hit -1

0‘ 1 .
_- 119$ haze l"‘.' ' ,

 

hi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
.q
.0.-
v
a
a »..
- 0..
-o 1
o ..
..
‘ r.,..
'o
‘4
‘-¢~.
w.
'-
M‘.
‘
0
~.
' I
s
pn.
.‘.
.'z
' a
I
'o
'1‘.
<
._ I
...
a
u
a“ '
“
‘4.

CHAPTER 1

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  

INTFKMNUCYTION: THE PROBLEM AND THE LITERATURE

. '- I?" ‘ W
{J
‘

4 mm study is a comparative analysis of the growth and integra-
,‘: ' ; Chicano. populations of Flint and Lansing, two Michigan
3 in the following chapters I examine three processes that I
u'fiflrb‘crucial to understanding local differences in urban
" populations in general: migration, settlement pattern, and

. ;~:Fignnization.2 I contend that these processes are interrelated
1 ”which operate dialectically; each influencing the course of
o5soach acting as an independent variable in one situation and
int variable in another. It is my hypothesis that one con-
1 11, however, is invariably independent and appears to
V “tetanus of the three related variables noted above. This

ital economy at the local and at several supralocal levels.
I - ice the time of de Tocqueville (1835) it has been said
Baasociations have the potential to wield considerable
{Carin the United States. Social scientists who have
‘ ’epumunities have tended to note that Chicanos either

lain or have fleeting, impermanent voluntary

“nJ-l,explanatiOns have been tendered for this

 

L
'44: .

 

-—
1... . -
_ -
- .-
.0 ~' Y
’. ,
O
o v.
.po
.p.
.
'.c-
O ..
5‘. .- -
. - ~o
.7 I~s :-
, .o"’
,-o
n H' .a-O
_ .- -
_,...,.- a
.
. . .
‘

 

 

.- ‘-u ‘

 

-' o .
n..- u,. -.;.
‘v..‘.~:
“' s‘ .
\‘t ._
t. N“ \..“
.'
Q
J .
‘

 

 

r ' .
"\\v._ ~
.,__ . ,‘
.._‘
. “‘U
.‘ ‘ w ..
'~._‘. I
.U 1

 

'b.‘ ..
u..-
'.
x . ‘
t .- o.
a“ V- a.
A4. \
~—
‘ ,
.‘ .
“a .
'I a “_
'vl
'-
.
n
\
‘. u.
-. _ u..
. t. ‘
‘u‘u ..

 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  

- jig-(9‘8” Madsen 1964, who noted that individualism is a

[1" Wit-“1‘31 ideal that impedes cooperative endeavors), or they
5 :'_- -,. to link lack of participation in voluntary associations to
-caass StaIJJS (e.g., Lane 1968, who showed that lower class

' g‘did not participate in voluntary associations while middle
' Memos did, and that Chicano voluntary association leaders were
,1 111141110 class). In recent years Chicano social scientists have
‘ ”to take these viewpoints to task for failing to note, for example,
,h cry of (fliicano involvement in labor organizing (e.g., Leobardo
. ABVS, Rosales and Simoni 1975, and Zamora 1975). The fact
1 however, that Chicano organizations do not appear in general
’4sachieved the position of political pressure groups.
.-loth the culture and class explanations that have been tendered
C.have some validity but both types explanation fail to deal

0. ' - ’91)! with a major aspect of Chicano formal organization. I argue
a": I < ~
‘KL‘ '

T'ihenselves, a reflection of the structures of politico-
War? in which they must operate. Chicanos are in' general a
w» , ation in the contemporary United States. In most parts

‘ fry they remain economically and socially underprivileged

911111;. pressure groups which could lobby on their own

@1119 wrongs they have suffered.' When we find that

 

 

 
 

    

not even cemprise a unified pressure group at the local level in most
cities we are tempted to suggest that the explanation must lie within
the Chicano population itself. I suggest that this type explanation
fails to take into account a major point. That is that Chicanos are a
national minority population, and minority status implies not only
economic but politicoeconomic powerlessness. In general then, the
reason that Chicanos have not yet been effectively politically organized
lies outside their own population.

This broad generalization pertains to local level developments
as well. This study was designed to explore the manner in which power
structures at various levels articulated with the Chicano populations
of Flint and Lansing, Michigan to influence their migration into,
integration in, and formal organization within these cities. Com-
pariSOn was chosen as the major method of inquiry in order to delineate
differences in the Chicano population itself that developed in response
to particular politicoeconomic processes in local urbanization.4 I
suggest, then, that the process of Chicano formal organization in a
given city cannot be understood without reference to the growth and
integration of Chicano population in that city and the way this growth
reflects the historical development of the city within the national and

international scene.

Theoretical Framework

 

, Introduction
' Certain assumptions are basic to understanding my analysis of

.“Eflifl¢_and Lansing Chicano formal organization. It must be stated at

 

 

 

~p‘

..—..-

;
w J‘.‘
v C

,« .n .
Os
5... .
. o¢--

... .
n... ‘_
~ Q

m~..

‘-

 

‘.
..‘
-
'.
‘ .
‘o .
‘1
..
~ ‘ ‘
a. \
~-
N,
.~ “
‘.
.
0"
u
'.
.
1‘ '-
‘.
’u
1
_‘
0'.
a. a
u
’-
‘x ‘ -
K. I
u
-I‘
.‘ ‘f
‘ -.

codes, and beliefs but also as a process--a process of adaptation,

 

 

recombination, and change. Culture includes the technoeconomic,

social, and ideological realms and comprises the major adaptive

. . . 5
mechanism for human soc1et1es:

Culture is man's most important instrument of adaptation. A
culture is made up of the energy systems, the objective and
specific artifacts, the organizations of social relations, the
modes of thought, the ideologies, and the total range of
customary behavior that are transmitted from one generation
to another by a social group and that enable it to maintain
life in a particular habitat (Cohen 1968: 1).

Since culture is in general an adaptive mechanism, change as well as

maintenance is a major characteristic of culture. A conceptualization

which I find useful due to its stress on process is that of Eric Wolf

(1964: 61):

The understanding of the process of cultural development, however,
must involve not only a knowledge of aggregated forms, of styles,
or of world view, but also a sense of the relation between
environment and culture, of the struggle of social groups and
their dynamic accommodation to one another, and implicitly of

the emergence, distribution, and containment of power in a
system(

Basic to understanding any cultural phenomenon then, are the histori—

cal dimension of the phenomenon and the context in which it has

occurred or is occurring.

Formal organization among Chicanos is one aspect of their total

adaptation to Flint and Lansing. This cultural phenomenon had

developed in a context that is similar at several supralocal levels but

. divergent at the local level. The context of Chicano formal organi-

zation in Flint and Lansing is complex but can, I think, be effectively

viewed.as and analyzed from different levels of structural inequality.

 

 

.u --
w ...,.r

.- . .-.
u
.o
.0.
u
.
.
-
o h ‘
' I .....
l-

.
. . _.
. ._ \ 1‘ I
' a
~.. ..- ’
«
~ o. o.‘,
’ l
.... .v .N.
‘ ‘ or I
. -‘
(I M‘s.
.4--
""‘e r.
h _"QD‘.

 

. 7
“h“ .
es... ..

 

 

 

   

 

 

‘ '0 s. ‘
,.. c. “n. ‘
a. .

. ‘1‘, a
. s ..‘1-‘

~§...5‘. ‘..‘

' ‘\\.- a
n ‘ I

‘.' T‘Vu. I

‘A -..‘ C

. b

"~.. 10‘ .h.‘

I. ..4 ._ ~"

{‘ . \.

i-..‘ ~u».l.

—.‘
we.._‘

\

. . .I‘

. ‘ ‘

I‘ 'c. .- \.

o v.

\ ‘ .

.\.: ‘;;‘ I.‘

-..‘-.S
s‘ .
‘v.

-. ‘ .‘-

.."‘ C.
._. ‘

x, .

‘n. d‘ '-'.
‘ 1
'5 ‘~"‘.

‘.‘
._-. -
‘ u.
'n“
-v“
I

. .Aa ‘

L‘ _ .

I‘.' 4‘
.4".

\

‘e

“w .i, ..
4..

‘ v-..
.
.‘ ,
v‘ . A..
t.“

  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

”-irulation

"h:ihtroduction.--There are different levels above the local at
~Eégiiticoeconomic power is unequally distributed which affect
4‘31, migration, settlement, and integration. These different
"fs;itgwhich competing groups can cooperate or enter into conflict
'iihpen referred to as "levels of articulation" (Adams 1966, 1970).

:zflnvels may be generally conceived of, working from the smallest

jeihle to the largest unit, as "individual," "family,” "local,"

' important to any analysis varies with the situation and the

;; I'lienon under consideration.6

i Leeds (1969) has pointed out that in general the amount or

of causality of a phenomenon is linked to its level in this

wt thical arrangement. Thus he notes that the primary or basic

Eu 9 occurs at the national level, the secondary variables occur on

.;$Qgional level, while the tertiary variables--dependent upon the

 

i and secondary—-occur at the local level. In Leeds' case, the
:1... under consideration was the occurrence and continuance of
I“} ‘quuatter settlements. He suggested that the primary or basic
ileading to squatments is the transformation of the national
;itgm mercantile to industrial capitalism, which results in un-
'3‘urban growth. A secondary variable is the kind of industry
nuin;the local labor market which marks its integration into
‘Applitical economy. At the tertiary level local variables

7;tion of the squatment Visea-vis the central business

 

 

  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  

>‘J- Exactly the same sort of nested hierarchy of interrelated vari-
ables is reSponSible for the pattern of Chicano migration and fomal

organization in Flint and Lansing.

The International Level: Center and Periphery.--Various authors
have noted the inequality between nations since the beginning of the
development of western industrial capitalism and its expansion into
world hinterlands, and the terminology used to describe and explain
this process include ideas of "dual economies" in developing nations,
metrOPOIiS-satellite development, development-underdevelopment, and
secondary development. Johan Galtung (1971: 81) refers to the phenomenon
simply as imperialism:

This theory takes as its point of departure two of the most glaring
facts about this world: the tremendous inequality, within and
between nations, in almost all aspects of human living conditions,
including the power to decide over those living conditions: and

the resistance of this inequality to change .

These facts are a result of a world order in which:

The world consists of Center and Periphery nations; and each
nation, in turn, has its centers and periphery . .

and between these,

. . . imperialism is a system that splits up collectivities and
relates some of the parts to each other in relations of harmony

of interest, and, other parts in relations of disharmony of interest,
or conflict of interest.

 

’The United States has been a Center nation in respect to Mexico
for all of this century and most of the last, i.e., during that time a
dependency relationship has existed between the two nations. Multiple
examples of the relationship exist; one will suffice here. "Mexico is

gen: foIn'th largest customer; it purchases about 63 percent of its

I
I
D
{Iv

. .
Q l .0-
"' ,
a. .'.L
.. . u—
_|...‘ ' "
ID- -_.
' . ...-
...

‘I .— .n h‘
-o.. u " ’ '
.

.v 0. .’

0...... -.. .

 

‘-. -..

‘nvo. 1| .'

 

 

-
u
‘-
..
‘..
‘s. ‘-
. -;- ‘___

'u‘.-.‘

 

 

‘.
’h. '
~. . b '-. A
‘0. 4 s
a: 4‘
\ a u
\e.‘ C’- A
.0].-
"J
‘.
-. ~
._ .
‘\- .5.
k. .3
e..‘
‘~
.. 4
. u
- 'e - s
5-1‘ ‘
.r
\‘ :‘_‘ “
.
. ‘
.,~.‘;
L' I
\n o
‘ -, u
' h-
‘n‘
u

 

 

   

'c 1“,
.~ * ’
:‘e~ . .
‘A
d
.‘k
e I.
‘\ .'-- ‘
’9. r h
'u L‘-
. .
-"
‘w' -.
.
w.
a p
a. .
~ ‘-
‘9
n
e
I
. ,
‘ u-
‘-
.
\
‘- .
5“ 'J
‘3, ;

  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
     
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

.Qi’iho‘l'e‘rer, the trade balance is unfavorable. In 1976 Mexico's
ll'Ithe' US showed a deficit of $1.4 billion" (U.S. Department of
3.31- The economy of the periphery is characterized by low wages
35:"? “ion to prices and profits, which brings about a dual labor

. ‘ ~51th includes both employment (corporate and state) and under-

:‘7‘5.2x on: (competitive) sectors. Thus, the streams of rural-urban

1 tend to be employed but in low-paying industries and services

‘ aprices remain high and profits are drained off by management and

LnVopment of underdevelopment" in Mexico and Latin America has been
auzfiomented-I- and will not be dealt with explicitly here. Under—

: this relationship is important, however, for coming to grips

M Mexico and the U.S. and continues today.
'x'; \'
' International labor migration from a Periphery nation to a

ist development prevails. This pattern has been particularly
1: in 'the development of the modern agricultural industry
t the world, and cases of international agricultural migration

hédmnstrate the utility of "underdeveloped" areas as labor pool
rm ‘
33’ to the "developed" nations.8 The best-known case is that of

”t labor stream" are not so well-known. This is parti-
.. "areas outside the five-state (Arizona, California,

" co, and Texas) Southwest region where both former

”witch-intensive corporate industrial sector. The chronicle of the

 

.‘
.v' '1
’0‘

.
~ Ii.-
.
_.- u..-
- ..a-
‘5‘. “.- .
. ..p
.o-a "
a -
.-§ ‘ "'
’ ._'.,-.¢¢-o'
- I
. -o-o '
- ‘ .
»....-c
. .-n '-
o .F " '
._.v~ a.» 0'

 

 

e...-
. .. . ,..o
\ -\ '

u .1... ¢~.-¥-
't ¢-~—
. -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u.
.n.
>.. ..
I ' ’.- ~
_., .3 J --‘
$.-
- 0
§ .-, -
.
I»...
‘. ,
§‘ \ ‘ '-..
~v_~ .
a
I
\ ‘ I‘
K c '
u.“. ‘..
'I
.3. I .
. .. . .
w. o-
...u . ~o
"O...
\‘i‘ '
t R
u ' " \
5“ '.
U.
.D-
'0
\. . ‘
"5:. u. ‘.‘
0“.
D”.
‘;
.
a
'J
\I _
. .
“ .5 I
‘n .'.:,‘ c.‘
..‘l‘
\o". .
‘~,,-':-..,
'-
.."t 1
Q
3‘. -
'. .
‘. _ .
a. ._ .
.
".“.
‘Q
.. .
s ‘ -,
...: :--
J
u‘
\
'..
'\

 

 

      
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
   
  
  
  

‘ \
Datives whose ancestors were Southwest residents before

4
-

n:
’ « §mgbecame part of the U.S. comprise a significant segment
:3.-

fumlation.

{Ifi‘lehapt'er 4 of this study documents the way in which laborers
‘Horn were recruited into mid-Michigan agriculture through

. .' ' ens-which waxed and waned from informal to corporate and back
This aspect of the overall pattern of the migration of Chicanos
313m; and Lansing is a consequent of the center—periphery relation—
Igbgtween Mexico and the U.S. whereby selected U.S. industries (both

35;le, ltural and manufacturing) are able to draw on the surplus labor

'gflhich is a result of the inability of Mexico to employ its masses

' " W.-—At the national level
"i. 1.8;0 some important factors which have bearing on this case. First
(Fir 1, unequal development within a nation or the presence of centers
lgfiphery which has been amply documented for Latin America9

$93111 the U.S. as well. The Northeast and North Central regions

‘ .jIIQ ‘5‘ most highly economically developed regions in the country
thgperiod of expansion of industrial capitalism (i. e., "The

Revolution" of the nineteenth century). Most of the heaVy

  

lice! . ,
,I head
“‘ggiy the country depended on different production mainstays, and

«an r:
health was determined by fluctuations in these industries. .

Quarters located in the developed areas as well. Other

in belt, a dairy region, and even tourist centers. .

.IsI. érc
, . 2 - or, the northeast and north central ("Midwest")

.
-‘_. -o
,u' \ __
.
' ”—u-
_.‘ .vo .-

..' no“ ""

 

, .
,w. . .-. -
.. . \ . x
,g.... a in -

 

a .
- ~a Oa- 0“
o-

a. i. o..’- IA'A

. ~.-..-..'
'5 ' \
- 'tuiblobillb-

a... .,.

 

. -‘ u
‘ "“-—.-

v
o
“.‘Ovn .e.‘

~~.... ‘
. - _
‘e.."._.~ 1 ‘
' t. .0“

v

 

.rs. .
N. ‘ .H ‘-
“...I ‘

‘.na
..N, ‘
..I .
‘1'; '- "‘ ‘1:
“V...“ J
.
“. ‘
. _~
.1. A $0,. .’

 

‘
., G“ ~.
~v”..

3‘

 

 

‘fi..
.— ‘q
\u \-
:‘~-._ n
05‘
u
I
.- -
~~."' ‘-

 

a
, .
n“~ ‘..
'l n
-¢‘~‘E‘
\.
\ "'-
: e.
“‘n .Q' .-
" \.
.. ,
'In‘n‘ ~;.
. ‘..‘_
o
‘i
K‘" .
.
"‘e :- m-
U. ‘JV‘
.
'\
_. ._.
\
‘ -
w. ‘1.‘1

 

   
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  

’ i ‘ Inst 0f the industry, controlled much of the wealth, and

1?- did the bulk of the decision-making for the country as a

- 1 frhe Southeast suffered a "development of underdevelopment" with
‘ Ration of post-Civil War Reconstruction policies which drained

"trials and skills. The economic depression of the Southeast and

(33111 of the northern industrial center led to the migration of

. ’, descendants of slaves from the earlier plantation economy, and
poor whites. The arid Southwest always had a low population
i.:fl:little‘to <>ffer to sustain a larger one except occasional mineral
,CaliforniaPS boom can be attributed to the growth of large-

. flfiirrigation~agricu1ture, which occurred in southern Texas as well,
lfiéeo~o€her climate—related industries including movies and television.
'1151 ality and importance of the vagaries of climate in deter-

' uvthe health of Southwest industry combined with the pull of the
Inped North to attract the Chicano. The situation was definitely
.iyggdlays so benign, but labor recruitment and discrimination aside,
fligiifhoor inequality in regional wealth is important in understanding

Viskj u«' presence in the Midwest.
. 1h recent years, attempts have been made to illustrate that
i$§.;ldnprities.represent internal colonies within the "mother
rTha two center-periphery relationships (international and
‘ zonal) which I have outlined were the mechanisms which resulted
.A ‘gfflid be considered both Chicano "colonialism" and Chicano
“colonialism" (cf. Acuna 1972; Blauner 1969). The Treaty of
5130 of 1848 had much the same result as imperialist
3 resulted in colonies abroad: although the local

Yelicits of leaving, sacrificing loyalty to and “ av‘}

'._. , fl.“ -

‘. ~. ov-

,‘ed

 

 

-
.o
a, , o...
v .
. ""‘
‘-
.. o‘..-v
-
. .. f-
o
.o-so. G.‘

 

 

.‘ “ 00.-
‘-- ._-'..

 

 

 

 
 

.V
--
-; "T .';
~ "”'.'A.
d
c, u
u . ;_¢ ~ . ‘
. \
..._‘,

 

§
~.. .
‘n I .‘
... a
‘4
'i
.
“ .I .
'. .“-

 

 

-
.0
.“ ., u
.. L . _
.vl: V
“»
A
\
3“. ‘-

 

 

\
.. 1
'v
‘n‘ ‘—
'l. c."
‘.
.2
I"
1 o
. a .
\ .A“ 4
o

   
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
    
 
   

10

_pmotection from their own nation—state, they ultimately became politi-
cally powerless in a new nation (and many had been powerless in
Mexico). The waves of Mexican immigration prompted by the development
of U.S. agribusiness and transportation, the influences of the Mexican
Revolution, and two world wars brought powerless mobile rural prole—
tariat into the very center of the Center, thus although recruited
"voluntarily" they became an economically dependent colony within the
"mother country."

Since the Great Depression of the 19305 and particularly since
World War II, however, the regional spread of wealth in the U.S. has
been changing in accompaniment to the process of change from industrial
to monopoly capitalism. Capitalist growth is now occurring through
entrenchment or capital accumulation while in the past it occurred
through expansion. For example, pre-World War II agriculture was
labor-intensive but the war brought about not only the legislation
which prompted considerable Chicano and Mexican migration as field hand
labor but also hastened the mechanization or capital intensive expan-
_sion of agricultural output.

'The economic bases and resultant local power structures of
cities are having to change from industrial city form--characterized
by the development of heavy manufacturing plants--to metropolitan city
form--characterized by a growth of bureaucracy or service industry
(see Thompson 1968). Now, what is more, manufacturing industries are
fleeing the 61d industrialized regions to begin again in southern towns

, where they are welcomed by favorable zoning, tax ordinances, and low

:'“!Qndunionizedeages for workers. As a result of both developments, 3
-‘-.'._¢' >

a:

11

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
    
 
 

firlworker is a part, remains at least temporarily in the old industri-
alized centers. Many retain factory employment and a few are able to
continue farmwork (the latter due largely to kin and patron ties), but
as industries move southward and agriculture mechanizes unemployment
and welfare rolls expand in the old industrial heartland.

Therefore streams of Chicano labor migrants were encouraged to
enter Michigan in the earlier decades of the twentieth century by
economic opportunity and were even br0ught in deliberately by Michigan
industry. Chicanos began to come to Flint and Lansing mainly in
response to the labor needs of regional agriculture early in the
century. Depending upon what figures are used, agriculture still ranks
either second or third in importance in the Michigan economy following
the auto industry, with tourism taking the other position. Events in
Michigan agriculture are closely related to the development of the
Chicano populations of the two cities as is detailed in chapters 4 and S.
Chicanos soon became employed in the auto industry in Flint while
maintaining agricultural employers in Lansing to a greater extent.

Both industries needed large numbers of unskilled laborers in their
early development before World War II, and the continued involvement
of the U.S. in various wars beyond that time continued the employment
opportunities for awhile.

However, since World War II manufacturing and agriculture alike
have been growing through technological improvements and real employ-
lent opportunity for unskilled workers has been declining. In spite
bisehls trend Chicanos have continued to migrate to Michigan in recent

: genteel This is partly because in the 19705 Michigan remains a center

' 3.1.3} V ‘
I, I .peetnto southern Texas and partly because there is already a

J___‘

 

 

 

 

I w
4“" U
u' \ ‘
—l'»
pi. .'
,.—u-"'

.
.

... .

_- ‘.-

,_- ..e

..- .-...

a .V-o
--- s-
-,.o.....

-
.
.0, _.
-_.__
Q
o
‘
~_ '
..,‘
5‘ ~.
N- ‘.
--.

 

'
.e
‘-

~s,
.._‘

 

 

 

-
A
. .
c-‘-
a

 

 

 

 

 

    

  

12

sizable number of Chicanos in Michigan which can act as brokers in
various ways for the newcomer. Social aspects of chain migration are
therefore intervening in the general pattern of migration.

At the national level, then, the relative development of Michigan
vis-a-vis the Southwest, especially southern Texas, and the change of
urbanization from industrial to metropolitan city form that accompanied
the post World War II centralization of capital have affected Chicano
migration to Michigan.

There is another set of variables at the national level that is

pertinent to this study: class and ethnicity.

The National Level: Class and Ethnicity.--One difficulty

 

involved here is the need to distinguish between ethnic variables and
variables which are related to class. As Pierre VanDenBerghe (1975: 72)
has said,
Ethnicity and class are interrelated but analvtically distinct
phenomena. The fact that different social classes most commonly
show subcultural differences and, conversely, that ethnic groups
living under a common government are more 0 ften tha.n not ordered
in a hierarchy of power, wealth, and status does not make class
reducible to ethnicity, or ethnicity to class.

This applies to Chicanos and other U.S. minorities. Much has
been made of the U.S. as a ”melting pot" for various ethnicities as the
population consists of many immigrants from various world areas.

Common wisdom has always indicated that ethnic differences do not
stratify us horizontally but rather vertical]y--i.e., the lines of
ethnicity cut through American society but do not form any hierarchy.
When awareness of racism as a process of institutionalized inequality

reached national consciousness in the 19605 some began to equate

gethhitity with horizontal strata, indicating that "white is right"
‘7.- ' .

 

 

..

 

. -..--o~ ~o

, s
a” <........
l

...y.b..- .0
. . .- \
.u-‘Q'D'\Ifihb

..
,. ....... .
.
-........1... a
' I
vas.
\

r9

0 ~u. ..

u
‘u.

‘.‘ .ll -“‘
n
., ‘
. -’ u.‘ _
t, .
. u. “‘IA~-o.

 

: u 0 u

w‘" d. \‘~u .
~ UV.--

‘I.

. g _ '
‘ \" g.
k ”y...-

0.

 

. ..
u ..\ “at
I.»

 

 

._.
~~
v' \ \.
, .d ..
q‘
\
.
..
o‘.

 

 

 

  
   
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
   
  
  
    
    

13

l'fi.e., "white" or Anglo persons were at the top of the hierarchy) while
blacks and other minorities were permanently locked into lower hier-

- archical positions based on the ascribed characteristics of ethnicity.
These characteristics have been considered by some to be causal vari-
ables in Chicano organization inefficacy. V

I submit that there is regional and local variation in Chicano
cultural adaptations even though in general Chicanos share the common
cultural traditions developed in rural mestizo Mexico. The vast
majority of Chicanos are the descendants of poor rural migrants from
Mexico or are themselves recent migrants and at best are many generations
removed from elite positions. The bank of traditional cultural
knowledge of social practices, norms, and values will therefore be
similar in some broad general ways. However, Chicanos whose ancestors
have lived in East Los Angeles for three generations will have developed
their own distinctive ways of dealing with life that will be different
from the adaptations of rural Texans because the contexts in which they
have developed are different. Therefore similarities in the patterns
of formal organization encountered between the two populations must be
explained by something other than a common cultural adaptation unless
there are in fact structural similarities in those contexts.

Chicanos do not comprise a single undifferentiated class

either, as Some have suggested, for example:

' The basic fact is that the Chicano is a working man, a laborer, a
,worker. Everybody, of course, knows this, but with a few notable
- 'exceptions that I do not have to mention, few bother to say it, or
x reflect on it, whether at Moratorium speeches or in the writing of
7 . grant proposals for Higher education. Whether male or female,
Alhaubl‘l" collar or white collar, Chicanos stand in a relation of .
' ..¢dopendency to the ownership of the means of production. This 15

'r'k4‘ 55lfifibr the employed and the unemployed, for the children being
" "“his minute and for the students at the University. No

  
 
  

 

 

 

‘ - n-
I.’ o “‘ I
“c .“v.
‘n .._.. .
A _ p
can ..t.:. I
"'o W
~

«K-
p.-
“. ~l.’ buy...
‘ .‘«
.V
n‘
“a. a..“

 

I
E" M A “O.
u :A“‘~“
I

":4 .A- ‘
\M‘L. RUG:
\-‘ -‘. .

In.

no. avg 14"-

 

.
.:‘3‘ q“ M
b "’t...,‘
t
.‘. .‘
l.‘ .'-,‘.

lu- .
a. b" :‘:.:“
ed‘.‘vl‘.
‘5
i's._
.’ ,A
<.gl: ng‘fi‘.
'~_. ‘
‘-
"J ‘
.‘: ‘35 . A
vc‘Jv‘kl
e...
‘ .i. -
tit-:41 ,‘
A d.
.h‘
.‘. -

14

   
    
 
  
   
 
 
    
 
   
   
  
 
  

Zihiiuiiifcih‘éffii‘f Efiiiaé‘hlififil‘fiifilt:5.i°.:§1f;:”i§i§?‘d§’£225f’

ences, are a people of Mexican descent (and in some cases, of

Latin American descent). The ”Raza" is thus inseparable from its

socio-economic role, and any analysis that overlooks this fact is
bound to be unrealistic (Blanco 1971: 1).

However, Chicanos do not have the same class position. They do
tend to occupy positions in the less powerful classes, but some purchase
the labor power of others through investments11 and only at the most
general level can white collar workers who can make such investments
and blue collar workers who do not have such interests be considered
the same class category. Real class societies seldom contain only two
classes, those who own the means of production and those who produce,
although ".'. . the two fundamental classes of any social formation are
those of the-dominant mode of production in that formation" (Poulantzas
1975: 22). There is an obvious class difference between a farm owner
and a farmworker in the agriculture industry: the farmer does own the
means of production and the relations of production clearly reflect that
basic fact. However, classes may also consist of segments or fractions
which do not have such a clear differentiation but may be of real
importance for the formal organization of the members. For example,
.Uithin the class of industrial workers in Flint there is a large segment
employed at corporate sector high-wage factories which offer unioniza-
tion but which also have strong central control; and another smaller
segment consistent of the far less articulated employees of various
scoopetitive sector low-wage factories.

C I

The problem in analysis comes about when the differentiation

 

.\
D-

 

 

-.‘

 

'\~ ---
._.._ e».
.“ we

u...‘ V
.

.“‘" .
‘u .-
5n.

1 ‘\\-1:
v~.‘~"

 

 

 

I..
‘ "a
' 1
-~.: I'

 

 

1..
a".
1

~«
~
'\
2‘.
n‘ .
.> ‘g
’1
'. 7‘
‘~
'o

 

 

15

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  

unchanged for over a generation. In such situations, the cultural
adaptations made to the structural conditions which first could be
viewed as temporary adaptive strategies become incorporated as cultural
codes and blend with some and replace other cultural codes to which the
new generation is enculturated. In cases where ethnicity and class do
seem to meld, two major kinds of processes appear to be responsible:

(l) discriminatory pressure from outside-—in which ethnic criteria are
used to assign persons and groups to different structural categories or
class positions; and (2) conditions of resource competition based on
ethnicity where individuals or groups can exercise some choice in what
ethnic identity they will maintain. Some examples should clarify these
processes.

As an example of the first, there really is no such ethnic group
as "American Indian"--various indigenous native societies with quite
distinctive linguistic and kinship structures and widely divergent
technoeconomic adaptations are subsumed by the category. American
Indians are, however, as a result of the historical expansion of Anglo
settlement and resultant colonialism and even extermination of some
cultural groups, a contemporary U.S. ethnic minority. They did not
share a common cultural system but as a result of similar historical
circumstances they occupy a particular structural position; due to
shared history and legislation they also share more cultural similari-
ties than their ancestors would have. In much the same manner Chicanos
have become a national minority group, as detailed above. There is
.less heterogeneity among the regionally distinct sectors of the Chicano
population than is the case with American Indians due to their Mexican

lfififiyfikground--albeit many generations ago in some cases—-shared by the

 

A "~ ‘
a .0
—' -
..o~"-
~ _.-
you-
a“ .
’.-- '
u
b
A
0‘ O ‘
. q

mo... I

 

0... -_

H. "O

1..- -
n. "

-
hc_-._.‘

 

;‘ ‘.
J .

t.

.i
, a
'>
‘. ’
'5‘.
I.
. _ n

‘—4

 

'11

 

. ‘o.
a"

    

  

16

vast majority of Chicanos. However, historical circumstances and overt
discrimination have made of the diverse Chicano population a national
minority.

Perhaps the best-known example of the second kind of process
is that studied by Abner Cohen, the Hausa in Yoruba Nigeria, which he
considered a case of "retribalization.” His analysis ". . . discusses
the processes by which, under certain structural circumstances, an
ethnic group manipulates some values, norms, beliefs, symbols, and
ceremonials from its traditional culture in order to develop an informal
political organization which it uses as a weapon in its struggle for
power with other groups, within the contemporary situation" (Cohen 1969:
ix). Cohen's study detailed the ways in which the Hausa used their
Hausa-mess to gain and maintain the control of the lucrative long-
distance trade in cattle and kola.

To some extent, ethnicity is ascriptive. An individual is
enculturated within his family or domestic group, which is the primary
unit responsible for imparting cultural tradition. Chain migration,
in which one immigrant to a new area sends for other family members and
more distant kin and friends after he has successfully adjusted to the
new environment, accounts for the presence as well as the persistence
of some ethnic groups and their cultural patterns. In this manner
certain Chicano cultural traditions have been maintained in areas far
apart geographically yet socially close such as Texas and Michigan.
Likewise, institutional racism can meld diverse peoples into a single
minority pepulation. Such processes are largely involuntary for the

actors involved, who are not consciously developing their own ethni-

 

17

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
 
   

f'L'to what popular notions of ethnicity stress, ethnicity can
”-1YdaChieved." That is, ethnic symbols.and traditions can be
fed in innovative ways both to cope with difficult new situations
ito maintain distinctiveness in order to have exclusive claim to an
ortant resource such as the case studied by Cohen. Other popular
.examples are New York City's Irish policemen and Jewish merchants
L imany other parts of the country. In some cases, people who have
‘ kittens identified as an ethnic minority through discrimination may then
"g§ttempt to apply traditional cultural practices favorably to a new

3 fifltuation, and various kinds of social movements often attempt such
It‘lu ,

gaggmbolic inversion (see e.g., Aberle 1966).
'cf .L'.

3"“
jgpr are they completely homogeneous in cultural background. However,

I suggest that Chicanos are not all members of the same class
general Chicanos have been forced to remain in the lower social
"_s in the United States and their cultural adaptations have

' 7§mrgely been, although seasoned with regional flavor, adaptations to

' A“

*Seeioeconomic powerlessness. Chapter 5 discusses the differences in
:” Aig- wvnal and class background and the contemporary class pattern of
:canos in Flint and Lansing and suggests that these are in fact

‘ltsl of migrant selectivity by industry. In chapters 7 and 8 the

I in which Chicano formal organization has been and continues to be

egt.t0'constraints frOm outside are reviewed. In this study the
Er‘.'l‘ ~

the stress in this study is as it is for Connell's study of
31L-7_ ‘

ruling class:

 

 

    

    

18

The streSs here is on the processes producing social groupings,
rather than the categories they produce, and on the activity of
people, not merely their location in social space (Connell 1977: 5).

The National Level: The Corporate and Public Sectors.-—Chicanos
are generally restricted to the less powerful classes, can be considered
a colonized minority, and are presumably struggling, however success-
fully, to improve their structural position. What, then, is the
general profile of the power structure12 they confront?

Some social scientists argue that the state organization itself
in a state level society controls legitimate access to power and the
use of force and is therefore the most powerful social form in the
society (e.g., Service 1962: 1973-174). Others indicate that in modern
monopoly capitalist states multinational corporations control power that
transcends national boundaries (e.g., Hymer 1971). There is ample
documentation that many multinational corporations control far greater
resource bases than those harnessed by most nation-states (e.g., Barnet
and Mfiller 1974). Such corporations are not only powerful but also
extremely important to minority populations. The corporate sector
offers the best—paid and frequently the most stable blue—collar employ-
ment available (as compared to competitive sector industry) even though
it is in general also responsible for maintaining a degree of unemploy-
ment in order to have a ready reserve of labor at hand. Corporations
also have a major investment in national and local government (see
below). Industries in the corporate sector in general can be crucial
causal factors in creating a supply of workers and in dominating local
community organization. Kornblum (1974), for example, has demonstrated

how the labor needs and relations of production of the major steel
%Q:V

 

 

_ .o .
-\

a. '-'

,.. u

a...

-h.‘ . .

0‘

a.. ,_O
V ~..
"" ‘9

~.' 0.
-‘\
K 0.-

 

 

.

x. A.
, .

.._ ~.

v " —-
.-

‘ .0.

.. ~.-.
‘.,‘.

..

   

'9
~._ .
a, .
*...n
3‘.‘
1'». _
-._
. '\

 

 

‘5

 

 

    

  

19

mills of south Chicago have been responsible for the succession of
various ethnic minorities in the area as a labor pool. Multinational
corporations can be considered the ultimate operating units13 in
monopoly capitalism. They compete and cooperate with each other at the
highest possible point in any hierarchical power structure: the supra-
national, and therefore are among the most powerful units any local
operating unit can confront.

However, the state apparatus or government in advanced capitalist
countries is itself a social form with considerable influence on the
less powerful. The public sector is a major employer of white—collar
workers-~both elected and appointed—~and is a more realistic target for
many desirous of upward mobility than private corporations due to
greater visibility. Secondly, government generally serves the inter—
ests of the powerful and therefore is a crystallization of dominance
which exists outside the political sphere (see Poulantzas 1975: 24-28).
Industry may be responsible for migrations, for example (as will be
argued herein), but government is also an important locus of power which
in many ways supports the needs of private industry. Gaining access to
government has been a major focus of the mobilization of the lower
classes in many areas (see e.g., Connell 1977) and is an important
facet of Chicano formal organizations and their conversion into pressure
groups. Government can prevent access to new resource bases as well,
however, and entrench existing economic relationships thereby (see,
e.g., Eckstein 1977).

In general, then, the corporate sector and the public sector
hold the most power in a capitalist state and tend to cooperate with

each other. These are the real organizational loci of power, and the

 

.0
0'
4. .b’

a...

 

 

." 0- l
“‘1‘"
U
‘ :‘Q;
N u."
1
H 5‘
" he.
7: ; ‘;_..
' "'¢Q
.!‘
~V

 

 

 

.‘ _‘ _‘
\
”' ‘c~.‘
—
t
Q" h
A
Q”

 

 

 

 

 

    

  

20

upper class consists of those who are in positions of control of the
highest levels of these organizational loci. Less powerful operating
units often become dependent on the power structure by deriving power
from it, but regardless of the amount of power available or the amount
of wealth generated the structure is not changed by such relationships.
Capital accumulation, the production of surplus value, is the
driving force of a capitalist society. By its very nature,
capital accumulation necessitates expansion of the means of
production, expansion of the size of the wage labor force,
expansion of circulation activity as more products become
commodities, and expansion of the realm of control of the
capitalist class (Hill 1975: 3).
Although the amount of "good things in life" available in the society
at large may have increased over time, the structural relations tend
not to. Thus in the United States the level of income and education
have been rising with each decade, but the proportions controlled by
the highest percentages versus the lowest percentages of the population
' have not changed (see respectively Hill 1973 and Sennett and Cobb 1973
for discussions of these developments).
There are features which intervene at the regional and local
levels which may either obscure this general power structure or may

represent a crystallization of it and tend to mold the power structure

faced most directly by Chicanos in their formal organization behavior.

The Regional and Local Levels: Political Economy.--Among its

 

various attributes aside from the obvious demographic ones (e.g.,
population size, heterogeneity, and density: Wirth 1938) the manner in
' which the city and its hinterland are integrated into the national
economy has an important effect upon the_loca1 power structure and

minority access to it. A city is a location for human habitation and‘

 

 

 

21

interaction which exists and grows by virtue of its function as central
place (Christaller 1966 [1933]) for production, consumption, communi-
cation and redistribution, and administration. What is produced and
administered will depend on variables at supralocal levels: the kind of
state—level society in which it exists, the position of the city in

the national urban hierarchy, international linkages, the natural and
human raw materials available, and the energy sources available.
Functions, like power, can be social and ideological as well as
material; and the larger and more strategic a city is, the more
numerous albeit interrelated are its functions apt to be.

The political economy of the United States has been becoming
increasingly centralized, as noted above. Urban growth in the post
World War II U.S. reflects this change. The function of the industrial
city was productive manufacturing, and Flint and Lansing both developed
around the turn of the twentieth century as centers for the manufacture
of a major durable good-~the automobile. However, the metropolitan
city's economic base is not its manufacturing complex but rather is
expressed by its services. Flint's development was intensely dependent
upon the auto industry, while Lansing's was a product of a more diverse
economic base which included agriculture and government. Chapter 3
reviews these divergent developments and demonstrates that Lansing's‘
mixed economy has different consequences for Chicano migration and
integration than does Flint's industrial base.

Another local power-holder which is, like industry, and govern-
'ment, linked to higher levels is the Roman Catholic Church. Most

Chicanos are at least nominally Catholic, and the way the church has

 

 

 

 

,—
l'.

L.. ..

,.

“A ~-
. o

 

 

 

 

I‘Ar

u

 

 

\‘ ‘.
.K

‘.

‘ I

22

    
  
  
   
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 

viewed them over time and actual church policies towards Chicanos have
been important factors in local Chicano organization (see chapters 6—8).
Local patterns of Chicano class and ethnicity will differ as
adaptations to the conditions of migration and integration in that

city. However, structured inequality at the national and international
levels as discussed above act to influence the local power structures

which are in fact articulated with the higher levels.

The Local Level: Demography.—-Studies of localized Chicano

 

populations in various parts of the country have found that they tend

to reside segregated from other segments of the local population and

that they form a distinct neighborhood which is located in an undesirable

or deteriorating sector of the town or city. What is more, the Chicano

populations which live in such circumstances are overwhelmingly found

to be from the lower classes (see e.g., Achor 1974; Macklin 1963; Rubel

1966; Samora and Lamanna 1967; and Shannon and Shannon 1973). In an ‘

examination of the effects of local public policy on Chicano housing in

West Fresno, California, Dagodag (1974) found that the residential

concentration of Chicanos in that area was directly tied to the need

for inexpensive housing generated by continued agricultural employment

in the rural hinterland and the destruction of other substandard but

needed housing in adjacent neighborhoods. It has been found in the

case of black settlement concentration that the policies of loan and

insurance agencies and local real estate boards are often responsible

for their continued segregation (see e.g., Blauner 1969). Therefore
discrimination and/or public policy may increase Chicano segregation

which had begun as an outgrowth of poverty.

 

 

I):

o-
1
...
-'
c.
x
0.

~..

.,,.‘

 

    

  

23

In the two cities selected for this study Chicanos had differ-
ent patterns of residential concentration. It was hypothesized that
these patterns were a reflection of differences in migrant selectivity
by the different industrial labor markets in the two cities as well as
a reflection of divergent public policy or "political milieu" regarding
minorities in general and Chicanos in particular. It was also expected
that the differences in settlement pattern would have had some influ-
ence on Chicano formal organization behavior.
Thus, one of the intervening variables of interest to this
study is the impact of territory on formal organization. Considerable
effort in the social sciences has been expended in efforts to link
"community" to either territory (common land or common residence) or to
society (social relations). Most community studies are predicated on
the notion that a territorial base is a necessary precondition to a
"community," just as it is for closed corporate peasant villages (Wolf
1957). On the other hand, Pilcher (1972) has studied an "occupational
community" which had no territorial base but instead centered on a
social institution. Boissevain has pointed out that where both social
institutions and common territory overlap communities in both senses of
the word exist:
As soon as the number of activity fields involving the same people
increases, as must occur in a bounded community in which people
live, worship and work, the multiplexity and density ratios will
also increase. In such communities we can also expect persons
to have an excellent perception of the structure of the social
networks of others (Boissevain 1974: 72).

On the other hand, where territory and social relations do not overlap,

such as occurs among most metropolitan urbanites, networks that are

low in density and multiplexity--i.e., consisting of single-stranded

-“5a..

 

,.
4"
' \
,.--
. .. .
_.,_ o.
.o —
”ov.‘
,.
, . I
an. ,
.. .-
o

" o ..
‘- ..
V
‘1
~~.\
'. ‘u.
a. ’
>4.
5.._

'0

o. '
a .'K
~.
..
-.

 

 

. ~
‘4-
‘-
v
‘ .
.‘ .
in-

 

‘C. Q
g n

w
‘c

 

 

 

'1‘
III

24

ties to large numbers of people--will develop. Clearly both territory
and social institutions can become organizing foci for the development
of an interacting "community." Chapters 7 and 8 demonstrate the organi—
zational loci for Flint and Lansing Chicanos. It will be suggested

that where territoriality exists it will become important, and that

when government policy declares that minority populations possess a

distinctive territory that its lack can be problematic.

The Local Level: Resource Competition or the Struggle.—-Chicanos
are not Well represented among the "power elite" in the United States nor
are they, as will be demonstrated in chapter 5, in Flint or Lansing.

Are they then utilizing formal organizations in the struggle for more
control? Voluntary associations and formal organizations in general
are thought, as suggested above, to be among the major access routes to
new power bases. Other researchers have indicated that minority popula—
tions which lack such formal organizations are not necessarily dis—
organized but rather organized along more informal lines. Liebow (1967),
for example, found that black street-corner men were linked together
into flexible networks rather than formal groups. Networks are based
on a series of one-to—one ties and therefore resemble the ”dyadic
contract" typical of Mexican mestizo peasantsz.
The dyadic contract model postulates an informal structure in
which the really significant ties within all institutions are
largely achieved (hence selective) rather than ascribed (hence non-
selective). . . . In other words, the formal institutions of
society provide everyone with a panel of candidates with whom to
interact; the individual, by means of the dyadic contract mechanism,
selects (and is selected by) relatively few with whom significant
working relationships are developed (Foster 1967: 214).

the filexibility of a network permits contact with a range of organi—

i-agfifions~and extends through many realms of interaction. For example,

 

 

 

5.
‘-

 

 

 

 

A

' " 25

in Mexico and the United States both, kinship is bilaterally determined
and so contains the element of choice and selectivity characteristic of
networks.14

Perhaps the most important dyadic relationships for resource
distribution are patron-client ties. Such ties link individuals in
different social strata in ways which allow the less-powerful dyad
member access to the derivative higher-level power of his patron while
accruing prestige, a vote, deference, a link to a new region, or some
other resource to the patron. A special kind of patron is the culture
broker or mediator. The broker is a specialist in power relations that
serves as a contact point between the essentially powerless and those
with control at a higher level. It will be suggested in chapters 7
and 8 that many Chicanos do become involved in formal organizations
through such informal networks and that leaders of certain organizations
may act as brokers between their adherents and either the public or
corporate sector.

Kerri (1972: 44) defines a voluntary association as ”. . . any
private group voluntarily and more or less formally organized, joined
and maintained by members pursuing a common interest, usually by means
of part-time, unpaid activities." He further indicates that the
voluntary aspect of membership--non-mandatory and unpaid-—does not
appear to be a defining feature of this type organization. Kerri also
indicates that ethnic associations are different from voluntary
associations but both involve common interest. Ethnic associations are
organized'specifically for the purpose of promoting ethnic consider-
ations (Kerri 1976: 24). What appears to me to be of greater impor-

a ‘tlacc than the goals of the association as stated is the kind of power

 

 

.
.p- I
'v v u

 

 

-

nv—v 0'

”1.. O.

.... -o‘
- ‘

.u.. -51

a .0 .

v

-..‘.a o

—¢I~.~.«-1
4
~s~--.'u'

 

u;.\

“p.

"'\o. '

 

 

 

 

 

I
I
_‘ . I
“'a! ‘
4
‘1
1.
'I
.I ‘
. l‘.:‘
‘t.,v‘
‘ e
. .
. a
‘
5"~
-: "~-

 

— ,‘
"a. ..
A

u". J-
“L‘.
' “ M'S

hu‘

0

 

 

 

.‘ .'
a » .
HQ»,
'a
.
z» .
"1' e_
A

26

base and access to vertical linkages that it controls and the way in
which it articulates with other organizations. It will be suggested
that individuals become involved in associations for different reasons
but one factor emerges as important in the use of Chicano associations
in the struggle for upward mobility through formal organization
activity: the association is viewed as a source of power by those who
participate in it.

Wolf has suggested that there is an interstitial informal
structure that parallels the formal framework of politicoeconomic power
within the state and that many organizations within the parallel
structure not only compete with each other but with the "sovereign
power" of the state itself (Wolf 1966: l-2). This competition is a
struggle for power, and the ”informal structures" Wolf describes are
involved in the parallel non-mainstream structure of Chicano organi-
zations described herein. These parallel structures can compete with
each other, or as Wolf has noted, also compete with the state or at
least attempt to gain formal recognition and public resources from it.
When this is the focus of a formal organization, it may become a politi—
cal pressure group or, on the other hand, it may become a parallel
service organization dedicated to problems not directly the province of
government itself. It is the latter type organization which has marked
Chicano organization in the 19705 and is the focus of processual
analysis in chapters 7 and 8.

This study examines the formal organizations of the Chicano

populations of Flint and Lansing. There are essentially two questions

 

to answer regarding this cultural phenomenon. First of all, are

.Qflhicano formal organizations in these cities principally instrumental
3’

 

-...

\
.6.-
.~‘-

....

a.

DC'V
.

 

 

0..
‘ I
" .... .
c‘,.v _
..._‘-
. V
.. ‘ ‘.
o.“

 

27

  
 
 
 
    
    
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

units involved in a power struggle on behalf of the local Chicano
population? Oliver Cox has suggested that resource competition always
marks-ethnicity:

This occurs because ethnic groups are sociocultural entities, which,
while inhabiting the same state, country, or economic area, con-
sider themselves biologically, culturally, linguistically, or
socially distinct from each other and most often view their rela-
tions in actual or potentially antagonistic terms (Cox 1970, as
cited in Skinner 1975: 131).

Secondly, what explains whether or not Chicano organizations are in
fact involved in a power struggle? This question has been dealt with
at length in the presentation of the hierarchy of variables above.
Chapter 2 presents the methodologies and major research
strategies employed in gathering the data on which this study is based.
It also includes a discussion of some of the statistical sources
utilized. Chapter 3 describes the historical development of Lansing
and Flint and discusses their resultant divergent political economies.
Chapter 4 explores the streams of Chicano migration to Flint and
(Lansing over time and discusses the relationship between these changing
migration patterns and national and local economic trends. Chapter 5
discusses current class and ethnic differentiation within the Chicano
populations of Flint and Lansing and links these to the history of
Chicano migration in as responses to different industrial bases.
Chapter 6 describes the differences in Chicano settlement pattern
between the two cities and links this to the different urban political
economic climates. Then in chapter 7 historical and contemporary trends
in Lansing Chicano formal organization are discussed and a case study
of organization in prOgress is presented which demonstrates the crucial

role for Chicano organization of different units in the local power

 

 

 

28 ".

   
    

;“ain describes the interplay of Chicano groups with the

.mm’ie. The final chapter summarizes the research and ' L

2:81.116...
' 03 unit ,
*9 ad puln
5; ties‘ 4..

H5itp has be. .31 'el'-__.“c:: i,

‘ , Delhitz. ..I;.-:': , i. ‘ L'!‘:':'"m 9.
Argentinr cnnc '1'. 14:26.“ .'-.; . ’;;:_r..‘."‘
' secure (couom x’vtuy: "nan

:‘fifiarians 1r. their mm : rmry (mun.

~ _\~
I! "s

‘5 5' e; Cornell!“ and Truebmoj 1197-1;

 

5": -
a
_ we -
.;’1 .-
q, ‘~ ‘ a.
. K ‘ ‘5'
a' ‘ . . ‘ . --: - 4
r ., -
- ‘ 5“ . ..

 

29

Footnotes

    
   
   
   
 
 
   
   
    
   
 
   
 
 
   
 
 
  

1Throughout this study the terms "Chicano" and "Mexican—
American" will be used interchangeably to refer to persons of Mexican
ancestry in the U.S. Most of the persons of Mexican ancestry in Flint
and Lansing refer to themselves as Mexican or mexicano and Chicano is
generally a term used by the politically active. The term "Anglo" will
be used in reference to English-speaking non-Chicanos, while Afro-
Americans will be referred to as "black."

2I use social organization in the Firthian sense--i.e., as the
process of forming social networks and groups, as opposed to social
structure--the observable pattern of organization existing at one point
in time at a particular place (Firth 1951).

31 discuss political economy as an unseparable system through—
out this study. Politics may be power behavior and economics the mode
and means of production; but power is ultimately economic as well as
social and symbolic.

4Urbanization is ”. . . the movement from a simple highly
localized unit to the complex territorially extended system of economic,
social and political relationships predicated upon centers of settle-
ment--cities" (Hill 1973: 11).

5Leslie White (1949) first delineated these major divisions.

6Other anthropologists have also noted the need to deal with
different supralocal levels of social relations. Starr (1954) had
noted in Vera Cruz that there were ever—wider levels of relationships
which were important to her informants: the household group, the door-
yard group, the village, the municipio, and the state. Wolf (1967)
discussed the same kinds of ever-wider levels of social relations.
Steward (1955) had about the same time as Starr delineated various
kinds of social systems as themselves representing different levels of
sociocultural integration.

7e.g., by Frank (1967) and Latin American Perspectives (1976).
This relationship has been referred to by Adams (1967) as "secondary
development" in Latin America.

8For example, Bolivians migrate to Argentina to harvest sugar-
'cane because the Argentine cane industry offers regular though seasonal
employment, a more secure economic future than available to most
Bolivian rural proletarians in their own country (Whiteford 1975, n.d.).

. 9See, for example, Cornelius and Trueblood (1975) and Gonzalez
CaSanova (1970).

 

..
' a.
. .

.
... c."‘.

. .
-.O O v
.......v

,. ~— -
u
s -' b
o ‘ I
I .
f .
.. ..-

 

”ho‘I‘

 

 

:o--._

“ no).

t

u

\-

'.‘ .- ..

a. ' \
‘~-....

.._. c

‘ \

“—I l

.I'Q. ‘.

"1“. .

V- ..
.‘ 4...

,~;

“'Ov

 

 

n
'J;‘ ~o
~. :

u
q
1
U
'Q
. \
~. . ‘.a
N...‘ .
~._‘
‘I
I
“

 

- . .
-. -
«. “‘6
~u
.‘a .‘
5
.
.
\ .‘a
3 _"§
-..
”5.

 

 

10For purposes of this study, I will define ethnicity as the
self-identification by individuals or their identification by others as
pertaining to culturally-distinctive divisions of the general popula-
tion that exist due to migration, isolation, history, and/or imperialism.
Other anthropologists (e.g., Aronson 1975) consider ethnic groups self-
identified units only. In contrast, I will define class as a position
or category of people who share lifestyle and ideological similarities
based on control of a shared means of production (see Marx, especially
1967 [1894]). Others (notably Kahl 1957) view classes as social groups
possessed of class identity and awareness and, most importantly, marked '
by intraclass interaction.

11"They [David Rockefeller et. al] are not rich and powerful,
in other words, because they themselves are producing goods or services
at a faster rate than others, any more than was the feudal lord. They
are where they are because they are able, through their ownership of
vast means of production, to exploit staggering numbers of other human
beings. This is what 'making investments' means: it means buying means
of production and applying labor-power to it in the exploitative
transaction outlined above . . ." (Newcomer 1977: 118).

2When one party in a power relationship has greater control
over the environment (i.e., access to resources) of a second than the
second has over the environment of the first, the two operate in a
power domain (Adams 1966: 39). Although one party may clearly have
power over another, the subordinate party always has some control over
the environment of its dominator. The entire organization of such
relations, particularly at the national level, is the power structure.
"Power structure appeals as a network that is extensive, penetrating,
salient, and definitive for the kinds of society under study, the
nation-state" (Adams 1970: 7).

13”Operating unit" is a blanket term for the range of social

forms from category through corporate group which each possess a power
base and different degree of internal organizational complexity (Adams
1970; Whiteford and Adams 1973). Operating units which control quite
different amounts of power cannot compete. In order for an operating
unit to compete with a more powerful opponent it must augment its own
resource base and a common method is to establish vertical ties to
obtain derivative power from a higher level.

14Examples of relationships built out of interpersonal ties
abound in the literature on Mexico and Latin America. Ritual kinship
based on the Catholic ceremony of sponsorship for baptisms and other
sacraments which are rites of passage stress the co-parent bond (Mintz
and Wolf 1950). Peasants have established other means to assure
horizontal stability such as the cargo cycle of ritual offices (Carrasco
1961; but cf. Cancian 1965) and to achieve vertical integration through
patronage (Friedrich 1965; Wolf and Hansen 1967).

7"" «-.

Wu.“ v.. n

v
5n
to.
. - .
‘ O- ‘v- .I
‘ '5'. ~..
-
a.‘
' o
.‘ a. a.“
.u '
.. v.‘
. '.‘ Y
.o.“:’ 1
". '.._
u
a ‘ ‘
N ‘. “ ~
o,‘. \‘
‘10... V.
" “~
‘
..'I
\..“
\H; ‘ ‘
. .‘~ k

 

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Introduction

 

The research design was a controlled comparison of the Chicano
populations located in two different Michigan cities. Two character-
istics mark the research methods that were necessary in this research
situation: flexibility in data gathering techniques and historicity.

In this chapter the selection of the research sites, the logic

of the investigation, and specific techniques utilized are explained.

Site Selection

 

During thetwentieth century there has been a selective migra-
tion of Chicanos mostly from Texas into the Midwest (the states of
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin), a region which by
the 1970 census had the second-highest concentration of Chicanos in the
nation. Most of these migrants had come as migratory seasonal farm-
workers. Although the major industrial attraction for all labor
migrants to Michigan has been the automobile and auto-related manu-
facturing, Chicano immigrants to the state have been involved in the
railroad, construction, and agricultural industries as they were in
most other parts of the country. As a result of the growth in the auto

industry and war-era expansion in agriculture, by 1970 there were over

31

32

150,000 Chicanos in Michigan, second in the Midwest only to Illinois;
and almost 70 percent lived in urban areas of over 50,000 population
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972).

It was my intent to select two research sites in which I could
hold regional variations in Chicano culture, total urban population
size, and Chicano population size constant and yet have different urban
political economies in order to examine whether Chicano formal organi-
zation would indeed be constant. The research sites chosen were Flint
(Genesee County) and Lansing (Ingham County), Michigan. These cities
were selected for by the following criteria. First of all, they are
medium-sized cities, a category which accounted for more Chicano rural-
urban migration between 1950 and 1960 in the Southwest than did metro-
politan cities (as defined by the census), and this size city also
accounted for 70 percent of the urban Michigan pepulation. The total
populations of the two cities are broadly similar: the 1970 total for
Flint was 193,317 while that for Lansingefiast Lansingl was 179,169.
Their Chicano populations are also similar: around 7,000 permanent
residents in Flint and approximately 8,000 in Lansing.2 The major
industry in both cities is auto manufacturing. _80th cities are located
in central Michigan and are secondary industrial centers within the
sphere of influence of metropolitan Detroit. Finally, the greatest
percentage of Chicanos in both cities were in 1970 employed in the auto
industry.

There is a major difference between the two, however. In
Lansing there is a physically-distinguishable neighborhood which both
Chicanos and others consider Chicano territory and some smaller con-

centrations. In Flint the Chicano population resides dispersed

33

throughout the city and indeed had been referred to in one study as an
"invisible minority” (Choldin and Trout 1969).3 Basing my supposition
on the segregation literature in sociology and geography (see chapter 6)
I suspected that Flint Chicanos did not reside in a spatially distinct
area while Lansing Chicanos did because of differences in the local
power structures, in Chicano migration history to these cities, or

both. In either case, the variables in question would be the type

which I wished to examine.

Levels of Articulation as Levels of Inquiry

 

Although my focus of inquiry was at the local level, my
theoretical orientation as outlined in the previous chapter required
that I gather data about variables at supralocal levels that impinged
upon the three processes-~migration, settlement pattern, and social
organization--in question.

At the international level, I relied on a variety of sources to
elucidate the process of Mexico-U.S. migration. [It was not my intent
to investigate the disparity between the U.S. and Mexican economies as
a major part of my research but rather to demonstrate its importance
for this international migration. I interviewed labor contractors and
truckers who brought seasonal farmworkers to Michigan from both Mexico
and Texas; collected the oral histories of Mexican residents in
Michigan; included a number of questions on migration and related
employment history in the general questionnaire I administered in both
cities (see below and Appendices A and B); and reviewed documents from
a number of sources, most useful of which were various government

agencies.

 

 

 

 

 

..

.v
.\v

34

Many of the same sources were important in illuminating the
process of internal migration at the national level. Furthermore, it
was necessary to be cognizant of national events of importance to the
process of development of class and ethnic awareness. Therefore, I
also referred to newspaper archives, historical accounts, and the works
of other social scientists.

At the regional level, the development of the auto industry
proved to be a major historical event. It was also necessary to pursue
the differences in agricultural deveIOpment between Flint and Lansing.
For information on these industries I referred to reports of particular
companies, annual reports of local and state government agencies
responsible for monitoring particular economic sectors, and pertinent
U.S. census reports as well as Specialized histories of these industries.

A wide variety of techniques was utilized to gather data at the
local level. Many of the strategies outlined above were also useful
for gathering information on certain local features: political systems,
patterns of occupations, levels of employment over time, growth of
local industries, kinds of social service programs available, and local
social service funding sources. I spent a great deal of time in the
traditional anthropological tool of participant observation. This
technique was absolutely essential for understanding Chicano formal
organization behavior both synchronically and diachronically. I was
able to be involved over a period of time with organizations in both
cities and do both processual and situational analyses of formal
organization behavior.‘ I collected data on Chicano-Anglo intermarriage,
Chicano arrests and sentencings, high crime areas in both cities,

Chicano involvement in black organizations, and black spatial

 

 

 

..
. .
‘,-.o~
~
._.~ov

 

“on."

 

v.

n..
0‘ ‘
~ .ug

 

 

 

.

.

' a
\.‘

'h.‘.

-I‘ .

"-l“

:95-

.,

, .

\

 

 

.1
d

n;

no.

J._ a

35

distribution as well in order to illuminate the dynamics of Chicano
relations with other ethnic groups. Furthermore, I went to government,
school, and industry offices to gather information on mainstream per-
ceptions of the local Chicano population. I also performed two surveys
in each city--one to obtain a representative sample of Chicanos with
which to compare the data obtained from informants, the other to dis-
cover the kinds of neighborhoods in which Chicanos lived in comparison

to all localities available in the two cities.

Comparative Method

 

Comparison was used in several different ways in this research.
The most obvious, carefully controlled use of this method was the
selection of two research sites for comparison. As explained above,
I chose two cities in which other variables were held as nearly constant
as possible in order to examine the causes for different settlement
patterns.

Throughout the investigation I was careful to gather information
from the same kinds of sources in both cities about the same topic.
In some cases this could not be done, but I compensated with data as
nearly comparable as possible. I interviewed the same kinds of people,
asked similar questions, and participated in similar Chicano social
events. *I referred to data bases for statistics that had been
gathered in the same manner in both cities--e.g., the U.S. census, and
figures from the Michigan Employment Security Commission.

The two surveys were conducted to ensure comparability of the
data as well. I wanted to examine housing and neighborhood options in

both cities in order to understand where Chicano housing fit within the

.0

.oc'

.o....

\
uh...»

.
u...

 

"‘Q§;,

 

 

-..
I

u...

 

-
u

36

total possibilities. Census materials on Chicano housing by census
tract were not available although data on housing value and condition
by census tract for the total population was. I used this information
to supplement the findings of my land use survey. Both this survey and
the questionnaire were coded by census tract in order to ensure unit
comparability with the 1970 U.S. census, which was the best body of
statistical data available.

The general questionnaire was designed principally to elucidate
migration history, but included questions on settlement location
decisions, familyand kinship, employment history, and Chicano organi-
zations as well. It was essential to survey a random sample of the
Chicano pOpulation in both cities since these populations included some
7,000 individuals per city and I could not hOpe to come to know them
all personally. I waited to administer the survey instrument until I
was sure it included questions on all the topics about which I needed
to know, and pre-tested it twice to make sure the questions actually

asked for the information I needed.4

Research Strategies

 

A number of specific research strategies were utilized which
will be enumerated here. These fit under three broad general headings:
historiography, compilation of a statistical data base, and participant
observation. Historiographic and ethnohistorical techniques included
archival research, reviewing private document collections, searches of
business and government records, and open-ended interviews with various
selected informants in the manner which has come to be known as the

collection of oral history.

37

Another strategy was the compilation of a statistical data
base. This included gathering of data through the administration of my
own surveys as well as use of sources detailed above. I collected
school censuses, met with the directors of other surveys that I thought
might be of use, and kept continuous files of statistical information
which had bearing on my problem.5 The manner in which the surveys were
administered is presented in detail in Appendix A.

Both situational (holistic exposition of one time period) and
processual (historical development) analyses of the variables in question
were utilized. I indicated in the previous chapter that I consider
culture dynamic and dialectical. Therefore holism and history are both
elements in the ongoing process of culture.

Participant observation was the major research strategy used to
illuminate Chicano formal organization behavior in both research sites
and to bind the various threads of data gathered in other manners
together. The project required slightly over fifteen months to complete
and participant observation in both cities continued even while other
specific techniques were being utilized. It was through participant
observation, for example, that I gathered most information on networks.
This was supplemented with direct questioning of informants.6 Hortense
Powdermaker (1966: 19) has indicated that in participant observation,
"The anthropologist is a human instrument studying other human beings
and their societies." I myself was a major research tool at the local
level, as my observations of behavior and relationships, my friendships
with Chicanos in both cities, my involvement in ongoing political
issues centered at Chicano organizations in the two cities, and

Chicanos' reactions to me were all data. Issues of establishing

38

rapport, reciprocity, and work with factions in a pepulation cognizant

of anthr0pological research are explored in Appendix A.

Limitations of the Statistical Data Base

 

The three major sources of statistical data in Flint and
Lansing utilized were the U.S. census collections, annual post—season
farm labor reports of the Michigan Employment Security Commission
(M.E.S.C.), and the migration history survey I conducted in 1976. (For
a discussion of this survey see Appendix A.) Care was taken to gather
a representative sample that was large enough to be valid in both
cities, and an estimated 3 percent of the Chicano population was
surveyed in each city. The major limitation with this research tool is
that the population from which the samples were drawn tended to include
the most stable, longest-term residents in both cities whose names
appeared on public registers or were known to agencies which serve the
population. Using this latter strategy was employed in attempt to add
poor families to the population. However, the samples for both cities
may well overestimate the socioeconomic position of the local Chicano
population. Attempts were made to cross-check the data gathered in the
survey by observation, interviews, and reference to other data bases
such as state agency surveys and the 1976 sample appears, based on
these controls, to be fairly representative.

The annual farm-labor reports of the M.E.S.C. present the
numbers of intrastate and interstate workers employed per month in
state agriculture and for pertinent years gave monthly figures for all
legally contracted Mexican workers and "Texans” (which undoubtedly

included some illegal Mexican nationals as well since the term was

39

used categorically to refer to Texans of Mexican descent). I have not
given total annual agricultural employment figures based on the sum of
all months, however, because individuals may move from place to place
within the state following the crops and may therefore be counted
numerous times. Instead, the figures used throughout this study are
either all workers, Mexican contracted workers, or Texas Chicanos by
month of peak employment; that is, the number of whatever category is
under consideration which was employed during the month of greatest
overall employment. M.E.S.C. statisticans have indicated to me that
even using these figures there may be an error of a few percent,
particularly in comparing figures from the earliest years to the most
recent years. No computations requiring an adjustment in the statistics
have been made based on these figures, however; their use has been
restricted to comparison. Although these figures again likely missed
numbers of undocumented workers and those with the less stable employ-
ment conditions, this data base demonstrates the relative differences
in the use of field hand labor in the two areas under consideration and
for different periods of time.

Figures on Michigan Chicanos were available from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census materials only for the 1970 census. Demographers
are generally agreed that the figures on Spanish language population
(see footnote 2, this chapter) are an undercount (U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights 1974). Again, as with the sample survey conducted in
1976, those undercounted were likely the poorest, most mobile, un-
employed, and newcomer members of the p0pulation. Only the total

number of Mexican-born residents of Flint and Lansing were available

40

from census materials before 1970 so historical data on Chicanos was
limited to oral history and to other documents.

Also, the historical comparison of the economic sectors of
Flint and Lansing that appears in chapter 3 was based on census
materials from 1920 to 1970. There is a margin of error of up to
three percentage points between the primary sectors and tertiary
sectors because professional-administrative level employees were not
separated by industry except for manufacturing after the 1950 census.
However, the comparative difference over time between the two cities
does emerge clearly from the data.

It is, I suggest, necessary in a complex research design to
utilize the various strategies that make up the anthrOpological method--
participant observation, holism, and comparison.7 Holism, comparison,
or participant observation may require the borrowing of some speCific
research technique from another discipline. In this study a number of
such techniques were used in order to carefully delineate the processes
of Chicano migration, settlement pattern, and social organization in

two Michigan cities.

 

 

\
u-vo

~u.

 

 

 

41

Footnotes

1Although Lansing and East Lansing are separate formal politi-
cal entities, they form a continuous city for all practical purposes.
East Lansing is not a physically distinct suburb of Lansing as is
Okemos, or as is Swartz Creek a suburb of Flint, in spite of its
socioeconomic similarity to these suburbs. .

21970 was the first year the U.S. census of pepulation included

a category for Spanish language population in the Midwest. For Flint
this figure was 3,322, of which 119 were Puerto Rican and 122 Cuban; for
Lansing the figure was 5,070 of which 25 were Puerto Rican and 198
Cuban. Chicano agencies indicated there were about 12,000 Chicanos in
Lansing and at least 10,000 in Flint; but I estimate that the figures
of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (1973) census update probably
accurately reflect the permanent pOpulation at that time. They showed
7,208 in Genesee County and 8,044 in Ingham County. These figures are
much like those which I estimated based on my surveys (see chapter 5).

3After verifying the invisible nature of Flint's Chicano popula—
tion, I searched for another city which was Comparable to Flint except
for Chicano settlement pattern. 0f the other southern-peninsula medium-
sized cities, Grand Rapids' Spanish language pOpulation although fairly
concentrated included sizable numbers of Puerto Ricans and was not
appreciably larger within the central city than the Spanish language
population of the urban fringe; Saginaw's Chicano population was far
too numerically significant vis-a-vis the total population; and the
total populations of Ann Arbor, Bay City, Jackson, Kalamazoo, and
Muskegon were too small to compare to Flint.

4English and Spanish versions of the questionnaire appear as

Appendix B.

5I kept a log of apartments and houses available if the cost
was listed and by broad geographic region of the city (N.S.E.W. and
C80) and of jobs available by type, experience and educational creden-
tials required for each Wednesday of a six-month period until February
1976. I found my work to have been of little utility for the following
reasons. First of all, the majority of Chicanos in my surveys con-
ducted later in both cities did not refer to newspaper listings to
obtain housing-~15.4 percent in Lansing and 18.5 percent in Flint did,
while over 20 percent in both cities relied on friends and over 30 per-
cent used a realty agent. Secondly, the employment structure is not
accurately represented by newspaper listings in either city. Rather,
these listings tend to offer employment in peripheral areas such as
temporary and part-time work that are used as strategies in a crisis
or act as under-employment. .

 

.o’

obi

42

6Collecting the complete network of any individual has proven

to be an extremely time-consuming task and its utility has been
questioned when some of the best network analysis used in a broad
structural study such as mine has been based on more traditional
ethnography (see Whitten and Wolfe 1973 for examples).

7See Eames and Goode 1977 for a review of studies of complex

situations which failed to use these various strategies.

 

 

L.’

n“-

 

CHAPTER 3

THE DEVELOPMENT OF Two DIVERSE URBAN

POLITICAL ECONOMIES

Introduction

 

Flint and Lansing, Michigan are both secondary cities within
the sphere of influence of Detroit, the metropolitan heart of Michigan.1
The major industry of modern Michigan-—the automobile--had its start
in Detroit. -It is still centered in that city administratively and
functionally, but now the auto manufacturing realm includes other
medium-sized cities in the Midwest, particularly in Michigan. Flint
and Lansing are two of these. The importance of the auto industry in
the economic structures of both cities is considerable, as reflected
in overall employment figures (see below). Choldin and Trout (1969)
noted that in both cities auto and auto parts manufacturing employed
the most statistically significant proportion of the contemporary
Chicano population as well. Although Flint and Lansing are now both
predominantly industrial cities, there are differences between them
that have developed over time which were of importance to the migration,
settlement pattern, and formal organizations of the Chicano popula-
tions in them.

There has to date been little interest in delineating differ-

ences that exist between such industrial cities. Sociologists have

43

44

mainly concentrated on similarities in social process or in spatial
distribution (e.g., Hawley 1971) while some have been concerned with
the inapplicability of the major models to pre-industrial or colonial
cities (e.g., Sjoberg, 1955, 1960). Anthropologists have for some time
been aware of the impact of features of the particular city on migrant
populations (e.g., Leeds 1969), and urban anthropologists have come to
refer to this phenomenon as ”urban context" (Rollwagen 1975).

It is my contention that the major difference between Flint and
Lansing which was of importance to Chicano migration and integration
was local political economy. Both cities were industrial centers
involved in the switch from industrial to monopoly capitalism, a change
which places emphasis on the tertiary or service sector. I argue that
this transformation had not occurred unilineally in both cities but was
- instead much more highly deveIOped in Lansing, while Flint remained
dependent on its industrial base. I suggest that the historical
development of these different economic bases and the resultant politi-
cal and social climates were the crucial "context" within which and to
which the migrant Chicano populations were adapting.2 This chapter
details the development of the divergent political economies of Flint
and Lansing. It is my hypothesis that these developments form a
basic independent variable in this study. I will indicate in succeeding
chapters how the migration and integration of Chicanos into these
cities occurred in response to the divergent development of the two

local political economies.

4s

Lansing and Flint Before the Auto Age

 

Lansing3

Lansing, Michigan began as a land swindle. In the 18305 the
largest settlement near what was to become the Lansing metropolitan
region was Jackson, forty miles south, a busy trading center of a
thousand inhabitants. In 1836 two brothers from New York state settled
in Jackson, hired a surveyor, and drew up blueprints for a planned
urban center which was to be built at the point where the Red Cedar
and Grand Rivers join. The rivers form a rapids as they join, and
these rapids became important later as a power source for the Lansing
auto industry.

Although actual building of the city was never begun, it was
widely publicized and the brothers sold lots in ”Biddle City," as they
named it, to buyers from New York and Illinois who came to farm.
Another such scheme existed in eastern Ingham County at the same time.
Through the 18405 settlers filtered into the area in hopes of estab-
lishing themselves near these supposedly flourishing cities. What they
found upon arrival were some homesteads standing in a forest clearing.
Some stayed, however, and the settlement came to be known as Lansing,
after a village in western New York from which a number of the new
residents had come.

Lansing might never have overtaken Jackson as the urban center
of mid-Michigan except for one event: the state capital relocated from
Detroit to the site. In 1847 Lansing was still a small pioneer
settlement with less than a hundred inhabitants. That year there was a

debate in the state legislature regarding selection of a new site for

46

location of the state capital. The state constitution of 1835 required
that the capital be relocated in some central site although Detroit was
then the only major settlement in the southern peninsula. Detroit had
been made the capital when the state was admitted to the union in 1837
as it was the only incorporated city in the state. Due to its easy
access to Lake Erie and the resultant water connection to the east,
Detroit was always vulnerable to attack. Prior to statehood, for
example during both the War of 1812 and the "Toledo War,"4 the city was
sacked and burned. This stopped the regular sessions of the territorial
legislature and destroyed some records. Except for legislators from
Detroit itself, there was almost unanimous support for removal of the
capital to some interior location. When the vote came for relocation
no other city could gain a majority of the votes and a legislator who
owned a large tract of land in the Lansing area offered to donate
twenty acres for the capitol site.

His half-humorous peacemaking gesture was successful and Lansing
was named the new state capital. At the time there were no railroads
for miles, only a small settlement, and few all-weather roads. By
January of 1848 enough small temporary buildings had been erected that
the legislature was able to open for its regular session at the new
location.

Lansing had not grown much by 1855 when another legislative act
occurred which was of considerable importance to economic and political
development of the area. That year Michigan Agricultural College was
established under the provisions of the Morrill Land Grant Act. The
college, located three miles east of the Capitol, was run by the

Michigan State Board of Agriculture and actually opened in 1857. At

47

that time the state government was concerned with improving agri-
cultural technology because it was presumed that farmland would remain
the mainstay of the state's economy.

Thus when Lansing was incorporated as a city in 1859 two
economic interests were already of importance: agriculture and govern-
ment. In 1860 there were just over 3,000 people in the newly incor-
porated city, nearly three times as many as lived there a decade
earlier. It was not until the introduction of railroads to the area in
the late 18705, however, that any industrial activity not strictly
related to farming came to be of importance. Even then the two early
economic interests were not replaced entirely by industry. This will
be demonstrated in a section to follow and is critical to understanding
the different patterns of Chicano migration and integration which

occurred in Lansing and Flint.

3.1.9.25

Flint had a somewhat earlier and more auspicious start than did
Lansing. A fur trading post was estabished in 1819 on a wide, shallow
spot in the Flint River where the Chippewa crossed on the Saginaw
Trail. This was the route from the forests around Saginaw Bay to the
City of Detroit. Soon a tavern, hotel, and ferry center were added to
the trading post and travelers began to settle permanently. By the
late 18305 Flint had a post office, bank, saw mill, two physicians and
a lawyer, and had become seat of Genesee County. When Flint was
officially incorporated in 1855 it had some two thousand permanent
.residents.

Even in those early days Flint was becoming an industrial

center. From the 18605 to around 1880 the area around Saginaw Bay,

48

over three million acres of giant white pine forest, was the center of
a major extractive lumber industry. Flint became a processing and
transportation hub in the industry because the Flint River, on which
the city was located, connected with a network of rivers which
traversed the Saginaw country. The first industry in the city was the
saw mill and during the Michigan lumber era mill after mill located in
Flint. The first railroad in Flint was built during this period to
provide transportation out for the products of the mills. There were
nine such mills operating in 1870 with five hundred employees, but by
1880 the boom was over. The primary forests were devasted and re—
forestation plans were years in the future. Only three mills were left
in Flint that decade.

Lumber had been responsible for considerable population growth
as well as economic growth: by 1880 there were over eight thousand
permanent residents in the city. These people did not become unem-
ployed when the lumber era came to a close, however. In the late 18605
a carriage shop had opened and soon a wagon shop was established. There
were also other wood-working industries making furniture, fence posts,
and tool handles. It was the vehicle shops which were to become the
mainstay of the Flint economy. By the 18805 the Durant-Dort Carriage
Company, the Flint Wagon Works, and the Paterson Carriage Company were
the major shops in Flint. Durant-Dort alone produced 50,000 carriages
a year, and Flint became known throughout the country as "Vehicle City."

Then in the 18905 and early 19005 the invention of gasoline-
powered engines and their application to carriages transformed Flint's
carriage industry to automobile production, and Flint continued its

position as a leader in vehicle manufacture. Thus from quite early in

49

its development Flint's economy was oriented to and dominated by the

vehicle industry.

The Beginning of the Auto Era

 

Lansing6

The auto industry in Lansing had its beginnings in the late
18005. Ransom E. Olds built the first steam-powered horseless carriage
there in 1887. Olds's father, an Ohio blacksmith who moved his family
to Lansing when Olds was in his teens, had developed a steam engine for
which there was soon so much demand that he began producing the engines
in his smithy. Olds found the steam engine heavy and bulky for appli—
cation to a carriage so in 1896 he built a carriage powered by a
lighter gasoline engine. The following year, 1897, the Olds Motor
Vehicle Company was organized in Lansing under the general management
of R. E. Olds.

By that time there were over two hundred small manufacturing
firms in Lansing, including the steam engine shop of Olds's father.
The first car the Olds Motor Vehicle Company sold went to EurOpe and
the result was favorable publicity. With the national stock market
crash of 1893 nearly half the shOps were closed and some Lansing
residents who depended on employment in those small industries emigrated
(see Table 1). Money was a continual problem for the new Olds vehicle
shop since it opened just as local businesses were recovering from the
depression. Therefore in 1898 the Olds Motor Vehicle Company was
reorganized with backing from a Detroit financier.‘

In 1900 a plant was opened in Detroit although production con-

tinued in Lansing as well. By the following year the factory was

50

Table l.~-Lansing Population, 1860-1970.

 

 

Year Total Population Year Total Population
1860 3,074 1920 57,327
1870 5,241 1930 78,397
1880 8,319 1940 78,753
1890 13,102 1950 92,129
1900 16,485 1960 107,807
1910 31,229 1970 131,629

 

Note: Based on figures from U.S. Bureau of the Census 1864,
1883, 1901, 1923, 1932, 1943, 1952, 1962b, and 1971b.
turning out a simple, easily Operated low-cost motorized vehicle. The
same year the Detroit factory suffered substantial damage due to fire.
In 1903 Olds left the company. He wanted to continue producing small,
low-cost cars but the financers were more interested in luxury vehicles.
Then Henry Ford Opened a competitive shop in Detroit in 1904, and Olds
returned to Lansing. As a result, Olds car production in both Detroit
and Lansing declined.

Olds soon established a new auto shop in the city and in 1906
the new company was named the Rec Motor Car Company, using Olds's
initial R.E.O. since his surname was still in use in the Detroit plant.
In 1908 Reo began making trucks as well as cars and by 1910 expanded
into production of heavy—duty commercial vehicles. In 1908 Olds Motor
Car Company became a division of the newly formed General Motors
Corporation (see below). In 1909 Reo had an output of 6,600 cars
while Olds in both cities produced only 1,750 and Buick in Flint
manufactured 16,500 autos, second in car production only to Ford of

Detroit (Crabb 1969: 250). This first decade of the twentieth century

51

marked the greatest population growth in Lansing history as peOple
came in to work in the newly expanding vehicle industry.

As the industry developed, secondary plants were established as
spinoffs. In 1916 Duplex Truck moved to Lansing. In 1919 Fisher Body
Company, which became a subsidiary of General Motors the same year,
opened an auto body shop in Lansing to supply Olds. The following year
two smaller companies merged into the Motor Wheel CorpOration to
produce automobile wheels. Four drop forges were established in the
city from 1906 to 1923 to produce various auto parts which were then
assembled in the auto plants. These factories all developed to supply
the auto plant originally established by Olds and his new factory.
Then the depression struck and passenger car production was suspended
at Reo in 1936. In 1940 the factory reopened as a manufacturer of
trucks. In 1957 Reo became a division of White Motors of Cleveland,
Ohio. The tOp truck production at Reo was reached in 1966, when 781
vehicles were produced (Wards 1968: 118). Production stOpped in 1974
and the factory was sold in 1975.

Meanwhile, agriculture was undergoing important changes in the
rural hinterlands. With World War II more foodstuffs were needed and
the Lansing area became an important producer of truck crops. In the
19505 truck cr0ps continued in importance and the pickling cucumber
came to dominate the industry. The location of rich mucklands north
of Lansing led to the region becoming a major peppermint—farming area
in the 19505 as well (O'Donnell, et al. 1960). All of these develop-
ments in local agriculture required large numbers of hand laborers and

large numbers of Chicanos came in response to this need (see Chapter 4).

52

Although Lansing pOpulation growth in the twentieth century
was linked predominantly to the development of the auto industry, the
growth pattern in the city has been one of steady increase over time
(see Table 1). Factories Opened, closed, and consolidated and Lansing
came to be a secondary production center of the General Motors Corpora-
tion. By 1975 there were six major auto and auto parts plants in
Lansing: five GM plants, of which three were Oldsmobile forge, parts
and assembly factories; and a separate company which supplied GM parts.
In addition, however, the four independent drop forges were still in
Operation. Furthermore, as will be outlined in a succeeding section,
both the primary and tertiary sectors continued to be important in
industrial Lansing. The local pattern of auto industry development was

the takeover of small Lansing industries by larger non—local firms with

some small local plants still in Operation in the 19705.

5.1.1.227

The history of the auto age in Flint is the history Of General
Motors Corporation. In the 18905 and first decade of the twentieth
century when R.E. Olds was deve10ping his gasoline-driven car, parallel
events were occurring in Flint. A judge built a horseless carriage at
home in 1900. His is considered the first car made in Flint. The
following year, 1901, the Flint Auto Company was established to build
the immediately popular "Flint Roadster." This company went out of
business as a result of legal problems after just two years' production
of 52 cars. In 1901 David Buick also built his first automobile and by
1903 the Buick Motor Company was incorporated in Detroit. Late that

year the Flint Wagon Works bought out the Buick 5hOp and moved

53

operations back to Flint. In late 1904 William Durant, a Flint native
and son of the co-founder of Durant-Dort Carriage Company, was elected
to the board of directors of Buick. Durant quickly foresaw that the
auto would replace the carriage and became the major figure in the
development of General Motors and in the evolution Of Flint as an auto
manufacturing center.

Durant-Dort's biggest production of carriages was 56,000
vehicles, achieved in 1906. The company was out Of business by 1917,
pushed out by the popularity of the horseless carriage. Meanwhile, the
auto industry in Flint was growing. In 1907 Buick car production was
moved to Flint exclusively and the plant that had Opened two years
earlier in Jackson closed. Weston-Mott, a factory from Utica, New York
which manufactured axles for Buick cars, was moved to Flint in 1907 as
well. Charles Stewart Mott, founder and Flint manager of Weston-Mott,
was also the founder of the Mott Foundation. He was the director of
General Motors for sixty-one years and served three terms as mayor of
Flint.

In 1908 General Motors Corporation was born in Flint. William
Durant organized the consolidation of several independent companies under
the control of Buick. These included Olds in Lansing and Buick and
Weston-Mott in Flint. That year Buick had the greatest output of autos
in the world with 8,820 cars turned out. The following year Buick
production was up to 14,606 and in 1910 it was 30,525 (Gustin 1973: 87).
In 1909 Durant had arranged for Albert Champion to move his company from
Boston to Flint and the Champion Ignition Company was added to GM. Also
in 1909 the Oakland Motor Car Company of Pontiac was added to GM. By

1910 Durant had secured controlling interest in Buick of Flint, Olds of

S4

Lansing, Oakland of Pontiac, Cadillac of Detroit, Champion of Flint, and
twenty-seven other auto assembly and parts plants in Michigan, New York,
Ohio, and Ontario. This huge consolidation led to a bank takeover of
the corporation in 1910 so Durant had to temporarily cease expansion of
GM interests.

The following year Chevrolet Motor Works was organized by Durant
and Louis Chevrolet, a race-driver and mechanic, in Detroit. By 1914
Chevrolet and Durant had quarrelled and Durant moved the factory to
Flint and began production. In 1915 Durant regained controlling inter-
est of General Motors Corporation from the bankers through the purchase
of GM stock by the Chevrolet company. By 1918 Durant and GM had gained
control of all the individual companies which became the modern GM
divisions: A-C (Champion), Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Fisher Body,
Oldsmobile, and Pontiac.

Referring to Table 2, the biggest pOpulation boom in Flint
history occurred from 1900 to 1920, particularly from 1910 to 1920.
This was a result of the geometric growth of GM. In 1908 when GM was
founded there were 4,499 blue-collar factor workers in Flint. In 1909
there were 10,265, and in 1910 over 15,000 (Gustin 1973: 911). The
explosion of labor migrants to Flint during the first few years of the
auto industry consolidation created an incredible housing shortage.
Squatter settlements sprang up on vacant land throughout the city. The
largest and best-known squatment, referred to as "Tent City," developed
at Oak Park on the northern side of the city near the Buick plant. In
1909 the county health department ordered the park evacuated (Rodolf
1949: 500). However, the most famous photograph of "Tent City" was

taken the following year. By 1919 the situation was so critical that GM

55

Table 2.--Flint Population, 1860-1970.

 

 

Year Total Population Year Total Population
1860 2,930 1920 91,599
1870 5,386 1930 ~ 156,492
1880 8,409 1940 151,543
1890 9,803 1950 163,143
1900 13,103 1960' 196,940
1910 38,550 1970 193,317

 

Based on figures from U.S. Bureau of the Census 1864, 1883, 1901, 1923,
1932, 1943, 1952, 1962a, and 1971a.

executives decided to take action. They established the Modern Housing
Corporation division of GM, which built 950 new worker houses that year
(Rodolf 1949: 503). As the post-World War I boom died down building
was discontinued until 1923, but the second construction phase lasted
until 1933. AltOgether over 3,000 houses were built (Rodolf 1949: 503).
The houses were sold on contract to GM workers, who had no real alterna—
tives. None were rented until after the Depression when many were
vacated as a result of unemployment, and no more were built.

The pattern of Flint's population growth and decline during the
auto age reflects the nearly complete dependence of that city on the
auto industry. This industry is very sensitive to cycles of boom and
bust and the fluctuations in the Flint pOpulation mirror that sensiti-
vity. During the 19305 Flint experienced its first population decrease
as the lack of auto production drove out many unemployed workers (see
Table 2). The second population decrease occurred between 1960 and
1970 and was a result not only of national and international economic

trends but also of the increasing mechanization of the auto plants.

56

The development of Flint during the auto age, particularly the
history of worker housing, also reflects the dominance of GM in the
city in realms not purely industrial. This point will be dealt with in
more detail below. Flint's introduction to the auto age was therefore
quite different from that of Lansing. Flint is the home town of one of
the nation's major multinational corporations and the migration and
integration of Chicanos into Flint cannot be understood without taking
that fact into account.

The Economic Sectors of Contemporary
Lansing and Flint

 

 

Contemporary Flint and Lansing have divergent local political
economies as a result of the factors described above. Lansing has an
economy which is heavily influenced by government, education, services,
and local agriculture as well as industry. Such interests in Flint, on
the other hand, are clearly subordinate to industry. The various
sectors of the Flint and Lansing economic structures are compared in
this section.

Table 3 presents the percentages of persons employed in both
cities by occupational category by decade from 1920 to 1970, the period
of Chicano migration and integration. Certain general differences can
be noted between the two cities during this fifty year period. First,
agriculture employed a relatively greater percentage of Lansingites than
Flintites throughout the period. Although farm laborers and foremen
comprised 3 percent or less of all the employed in either city during
the time period in question, only during the enumerations of 1920, 1950,
and 1960 were the percentages of farm laborers employed in the two cities

equal. It was during these periods that Chicano immigration was

57

.5 new «HHQH we“ .5 use «NSQH .NmmH .mvaH .NmaH .mNQH msmcuu on» we saoasm .m.: co gowns

.ommHuonH uom xuomoumo :xuumavcH o>Huoauuxoz...u.o co>Hu xuououau Hosuo Ho voumHH no: :oHuam:OOO+

.uno» peg» doumuoenco HOZa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnHmm momma ~om~v mommn mHomo ommmm NNva mommm uonv mmmwm onHom vmome noonaeu
Hdsuum Hnuoh
u- u: n m m H m H m m H H +Hozuo
H Hv .. -u H H N H n N H H .conuow sham
.muouoan sham
mH NH HH m oH m m m 1- -n u- -u ouH>Hom
cH H meH nH N OHMN. HH H oH N NH v NH v vH u- m -u m :u n .n pHozomso: oun>HHd
v v -u u- -- u- -u -- m m m m mo>Hunpoao
coHpauuoamcmnH
cm v me m cm m we v mm m mm v mm m cm m av -n m .. Ho us on u- muouonaH
mH om mH on HN mm ON Hm as -- o8 -- om -- mo -- mosauaaoao
mH qH vH vH vH 0H vH oH u- -- u- -u wouvcHu .:oaosoa
.cosmuwnku
n o a n m n u: u -u an u- -- moHnm
a
0. mm Hm?H mm om ommmH mm oH mH HH mm -1 wH . NH -u vH -u mm .. mH’wu HmuHHoHu
n m n o m o m n n- s- -u «u- o>HumuuchHev<
-Howmcnz
mH NH NH HH MH 5 0H m w m m v HmoHccooh
uHaconmououm
uchcmH ucHHm mchcwH ucHHm mchcdH ucHHm mchcmH ucHHm mchcmq ucHHm mchcmH unHHm
:oHpeQSUOO
onoH oomH ommH oemH emmH cmmH

 

.coHuuanuuo an noonmEu oceanom "ohmHuomaH uchcaH.vcm ucHHm .mousuuauum :oHuamsuOOI-.m oHpaP

58

greatest in Flint (see Chapter 4). At all other census enumerations
from 1920 to 1970 one-third to one-half again as many persons were
employed as farm laborers in Lansing as in Flint. These employment
figures document the greater relative importance of agriculture to the
Lansing economy over the fifty year period of Chicano immigration.
During the decades of greatest Chicano immigration to the hinterlands
of both cities as farm workers, the 19505 and 19605, the growth of
employment in other economic sectors was greater. These sectOrs offered
more stable, lucrative, or prestigious employment to Michigan natives,
who began to leave farm employment. This helps to explain why Chicanos
were recruited into mid-Michigan agriculture even though its importance
was declining in the two urban areas in question.8

Likewise, professional-technical and managerial-administrative
occupations consistently comprised a larger percentage of Lansing
employment from 1920 to 1970 than was the case in Flint. One of the
reasons for the difference in this category is that more individuals
are employed in state government positions in Lansing than in Flint.9
The slightly higher proportion of Lansingites employed in professional,
managerial, and service categories is likely due to the fact that
Lansing is the state capital and state jobs are available. The greatest
di5parities in these categories between the two cities occurred in 1950,
immediately following the second World War. This disparity can be
explained when these figures are compared with those on factory
Operatives. In Lansing, only 1 percent more of the total were employed
as Operatives from 1940 to 1950. In contrast, in Flint 7 percent more
of the total were employed as factory operatives in that decade. It

was during the war years that Flint factories attracted large numbers

59

of unskilled workers for employment in war materials production at the
auto plants (see chapter 4).

On the other hand, reference to the categories craftsmen, fore-
men, Operatives, and laborers reveals that a far greater percentage of
all employed Flintites worked in these occupations than was the case in
Lansing throughout the fifty year period. The disparity in these blue-
collar factory positions between the two cities was greatest in the
years from 1940 to 1950 when the Flint factories were producing war
materials. What the difference of an average of ten percentage points
means in real numbers of persons employed is shown by Table 4.

This table demonstrates not only that far greater numbers of persons
were employed in the auto factories in Flint than in Lansing at all
time periods but again reflects the fluctuations in Flint employment.
Auto production was down in 1972 as a result of a minor recession and
plummeted farther the following year with the onset of the energy
crisis. Employment in Flint auto plants was down 2 percent in 1972.
One additional Lansing factory, Reo, employed 5,877 workers in 1944
during the war but employment was down to only 81 in 1954. When the
plant closed in 1974 there were about 900 employees.

The relative importance of these different sectors of the Flint
and Lansing economies over time is portrayed graphically in Figure 1.
In both cities the importance of primary sector industries--agriculture,
mining, forestry--has declined sharply since 1920. However, from 1930
to 1970 the decline has been steady and fairly gradual in Lansing while
it drOpped suddenly in Flint from 1930 to 1940 when Flint experienced a

decline in all industries due to the depression.10 In 1970, primary

'Table 4.—-Employment at GM Plants, Flint and Lansing, 1934-1973.

 

Flint Auto Plants

 

Lansing Auto Plants

 

 

Year
Actual Employees* % Increase Actual Employees+ % Increase

1934 -- —- 10,934 --
1940 42,500 -- -— --
1944 -- -- 20,470 98
1950 54,600 22 -- ~-
1954 -- -— 20,605 1
1963 59,500 8 -— --
1964 -- —— 21,154 3
1972 58,100 -2 -- --
1973 -- -- 28,159 33

 

*Figures from Beynon 1940 and Michigan Employment Security
Commission document.

+Figure5 from Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce.

sector industries accounted for some 3 percent of the Lansing economy
and 2 percent of the Flint economy.

A far greater disparity between the two cities is revealed in a
comparison of the importance of secondary sector industries—-manufacturing
--over time. This sector has declined in both cities over the period in
question, but the decline in Lansing was sudden from 1920 to 1930, when
local Lansing industries were purchased by larger firms, and steady
until 1970. In contrast the secondary sector grew in Flint until 1950
and then experienced a rapid decline to 1970. The growth was largely
due to the production of materials for both world wars and the rapid
decline which appears on the graph marked a shift back to civilian
manufacture. By 1970 almost half of the Flint economy was taken up by
, secondary sector industries, which accounted for only slightly over a

third of the Lansing economy.

61

Percent
Employed
15 4

10 _

   

\ Percent
Employed

6O

 

O l l I 1 l

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 197056

40

Percent
Employed

TERTIARY SECTOR
6O ‘ ’

55- ,/

 

,’ 30 ' 1

50 ' /’
45-4 ,,’

40 ~ ,I

35..

30 ‘

 

l 1 1 J #4

251920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

Figure 1.

SECONDARY SECTOR

I l L 1

, 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

KEY:
Flint

' "" Lansing

Flint and Lansing Sectorial Development, 1920—1970.

Based on figures from the U.S. Bureau of the Census 1923, 1932, 1952,

1962, and 1971a and b.

62

Finally, both cities have experienced a sharp increase in the
tertiary sector--commerce and service (including government)--5ince
1920. This is a normal pattern in the contemporary U.S. The national
political economy is now in the monopoly capitalism stage marked by
metr0politan urbanism. It passed through industrial capitalism and
concomitant industrial urban development with the end of World War II.
The function of the industrial city was productive manufacturing, and
Flint and Lansing both grew as centers for the manufacture of the auto-
mobile. The metropolitan city's economic base is not its manufacturing
complex, however, but rather is expressed by its services: ". . . in the
creativity of its universities and research parks, the sophistication
of its engineering firms and financial institutions, the persuasiveness
of its public relations and advertising agencies, the flexibility of
its transportation networks and utility systems, and all the dimensions
of 'infrastructure' that facilitate the quick and orderly transfer from
old dying bases to new growing ones" (Thompson 1968 as quoted in Hill
1975: 9-10). Lansing is making this transition better than Flint since
it began as a center of government and has, as a result, always had a
diversified economic base. Referring again to Figure 1, the tertiary
sector has grown steadily in Lansing to comprise over two-thirds of the
1970 Lansing economy. Growth of the tertiary sector in Flint was fitful
as this sector like the others was more adversely affected by World War
11 than its Lansing counterpart. The tertiary sector comprised just
over 50 percent of the Flint economy of 1970.

\

The contemporary Flint and Lansing economic structures reflect

the differences that have existed between the two urban political

economies since their inception. Although both are basically industrial

63

cities that are expanding their urban services as they become metro-
politan, Lansing is making the transition more quickly. This is because
Lansing has always had a more mixed economic base than Flint and was the
seat of state government. The divergent economic structures of these
two cities are the bases of the "contexts" of these urban areas to which

migrants must adapt.

Sociopolitical Milieus

 

Introduction

 

As a result of the development of divergent economic structures
in Flint and Lansing the political ideology and social milieu of these
cities is also different. The resultant "sociopolitical climate” or
local ideological framework, to be outlined below, has had considerable
impact on the integration of Chicanos in the two cities and upon their

patterns of formal organization behavior.

Lansing

Lansing serves two major apparently conflicting political ideo-
IOgies that have importance for the local Chicano population as a result
of its economic base. One of these is conservative Republicanism--the
principal political stance of both agribusiness and heavy manufacturing.
In this capacity Lansing—-capital of a state which has been Republican
since its founding (Dunbar 1970: Ch 18), service and administrative
center of an important truck farming region (see chapter 4), site of a
center for higher education which has innovated in agriculture, and

major auto manufacturing center--serves to disseminate the traditional

. . . . 1
political Views of these interests. 1

64

On the other hand, Lansing as capital of the state is also the
center of every possible political pressure group in the state as all
have to maintain some contact with the legislators and chief executive.
The ready availability of an audience for any point of view which is
created by the city's housing various interest groups andlobbies make
Lansing appear to have a liberal, "open" political system. Individuals
seem to have considerable upward mobility due to political patronage,
which further "proves" that openness. This leads to an atmosphere of
competition and free enterprise in the politicoeconomic realm.

Lansing is also something of a showcase since it is the capital.
Urban renewal was not an important influence as it was in Flint (see
chapter 6) until implementation of funds from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban DeveIOpment in the mid 19705. Even the "blighted"
neighborhoods in Lansing are far from the physically deteriorated areas
characteristic of inner-city areas in major metropolitan centers.12

It is easy to understand that when Michiganders outside the
city of Lansing say, ”We heard from Lansing," they mean that they have
gotten word from the state government. Lansing is not only the locale
or seat of Michigan state government, it is also the ideological
embodiment of Michigan government. There was a Michigan state capital
at Lansing in 1847 but there was not an incorporated city there until
1859. Until 1880, when economic functions of the city were still
allied with serving the capital, local politics were intense and local
leaders were also involved in state politics (Ray et a1. 1966).

Lansing was really just a small town with business and commercial

interests established to serve the local farmers and state legislators.

65

In the early part of the twentieth century Lansing industrializa-
tion grew steadily as secondary industries began to locate innthe city
to serve the needs of the growing auto factory which had come to the
city in 1904. From 1920 until 1940 growth was largely accomplished
through consolidation, non—local takeover, and enlargement of existing
auto and auto-related plants. During that period the major industries,
banks, and businesses shared interlocking boards of directors and what
is more, these influentials were largely in control of city politics
(Ray et a1. 1966).

Then from the 19405 on overt control of city politics by
business and industry ceased. Economic growth after that period came
largely from the consolidated corporate industry sector (GM) with
national and international interests and absentee directors. Local
politics tended to continue to be run by persons who were administra-
tors and lawyers from the major bloc or small businessmen directly
involved in local politics. They were therefore less visible as spoke-
men for the major companies although they continued to follow policies
of the earlier influentials. At the time of my study, the city executive
and councilmen with highest seniority were from local businesses (owners
or managers) or were administrative staff in industry and all were
staunch Republicans. The Republicans had not courted the Chicano vote
in the past. This party has been identified nationally and locally
with the interests of owners and managers, and Lansing Chicanos were
not owners.

Democrats, the party of labor in the U.S. two-party system,
tended to vie for ward city council position5--those seats which are

tied to a locality-~more often than at-large positions.13 Chicanos

66

had not run in city elections but in contrast there had been Chicano
Democrat candidates in county elections where the barrio (Chicano
neighborhood) was not split into several districts since 1970. Until
1976, several Chicanos would run in the Democratic primary for the same
position and just "at the last minute" a gringo (Anglo) candidate would
appear and take the election. The first successful Chicano candidate
won his county seat as a Democrat just as I finished my fieldwork (see
chapter 7).

After 1950 the student population of Michigan State, the land-
grant university, swelled as a result of the "baby boom" and relative
postwar economic prosperity, and the study cited above (Ray et al. 1966)
found that the economic impact of white-collar jobs at the university
increased. These positions may have been even more influential than
their economic contribution would indicate as they are stable in the
face of economic recession compared to positions in durable goods
manufacturing. The university also represented a direct link to the
agriculture industry of the Lansing region as noted above. It was
founded as a land-grant college for the purposes of studying agriculture
and applied agricultural technology and still maintains strong agri-
cultural interests. For example, the university complex includes
several agriculture-related departments, an agriculture experiment
station, and research farms. Furthermore, faculty from the university
serve as consultants and board members in various community affairs.

In this capacity they can exert considerable influence in events con—
cerning Chicanos. For example, in chapter 4 reference is made to the
fact that a professor suggested a flat-fee payment be paid to Michigan

welfare recipients to entice them to "go home" in the 19705. Earlier,

67

Mexicans in Lansing had difficulty in establishing their own Catholic
parish and one informant named two professors who had been influential
in preventing that development. I found that these faculty members had
served on the state farm labor commission.

State government represents another link to local agriculture
as legislators are not all urbanities and those from rural agricultural
counties are often farm owners. Farm owners have tended to be uninter-
ested in welfare, retraining, and health programs applied to Chicanos
unless these are of benefit to agricultural interests as well. E.g.,
food stamps for temporarily unemployed farmworkers may tend to keep them
on the farm between cultivation and harvest, helping the farmer as well
as the worker.

Farmers are not the only ones represented at the state level,
however. There were at the time of the study several state-level
organizations--commissions, fact-finding groups, task forces--which were
concerned with migrant farmworkers and/or the Spanish-speaking which
also had their headquarters in Lansing. Certain legislators (all but
one were Democrats) espoused the Chicano cause and could be counted on
to vote for, publicize, or draw up bills favorable to various concerns
of interest to Chicanos. Furthermore, every other interest group--
conservative, liberal, local, nationa1--with a cause in Michigan is
represented in the capital city. For example, in 1977 the PIRGIM
(Public Interest Research Group in Michigan) advised news media that
health lobbyists had among the strongest and best—funded organizations
at the capital.

The pOpulation of Lansing includes many southerners--Chicanos

from Texas, blacks from the Southeast, whites from Appalachia and the

68

Southeast--the vast majority of whom came as workers. There have not
been large numbers of diverse "white" ethnic groups important in Lansing
history and blacks first began entering the city when it was just
developing, largely from nearby northern states. Beginning with World
War II more southern blacks migrated in and the natural increase of the
population began to be important (Meyer 1970). By 1950 there was a
"black ghetto" on the West side (which began dispersing by the late
19605), and the Chicano barrio was already solidifying then. In 1959
when Lansing celebrated its centennial as a city, there was an "ethnic
festival" as part of the celebration. Chicanos who were in the city by
that time recall that they and/or their parents, who participated in
the festival through their Catholic parish organization, had the largest
food booth and most impressive display of all the groups involved and
that only the Italians rivalled their dance group displays. There was
not another "ethnic festival" in Lansing until the national bicentennial
in 1976, although there has been such an event annually in Flint for
decades. Lansing's distinguishable ethnic groups are too distinguish-
able--they live in different neighborhoods and appear to be different.
Ethnicity is not something that one celebrates annually, but is rather
a fact of daily life.

As a result of the two political ideologies of Lansing—~that
of capital city center of interest groups and that of center of state
and local traditional political ideology--Chicanos and others seeking a
vertical linkage to power are faced with the appearance of easy access
Ito power. Yet business-industrial conservatism, white-collar ties to

agricultural interests, and the conservative tradition of state

69

government combine to make politics less than receptive to urban
proletariat and rural farmworker population concerns and highly com-

petitive.

5129.2
Flint would appear to be more heterogenetic, using the Redfeld-
Singer term, than Lansing because the city population consists of a
blend of a large variety of cultural groups and does not represent any
continuous historical link to Michigan political tradition. The
establishment of an institute to facilitate assimilation and adjustment
by various foreign-born workers at the beginning of the second decade
of the twentieth century as well as the contemporary "invisibility" of
the Chicano population would lend credence to the viewpoint that Flint
had successfully adjusted to its heterogeneity. The blend of many
nationalities is over—shadowed, however, by the fact that Flint is in
many ways a company town. All the major industrial plants, where the
vast majority of Flintites work, are subsidiaries of General Motors
Corporation and even non—economic, "cultural" institutions are at root
part of the company. The motor company maintains the GM Institute in
Flint. It is an educational facility for engineers and technicians.
Much of the housing in the city of Flint was built by General Motors
(see above). Many projects for "minority group advancement," libraries
and recreational services, school improvements, artistic endeavors,
and even grants to private educational and artistic institutions owe
their existence to the Mott Foundation. This is a private foundation
named for its founder and three-term mayor of the city, one of the

motor company pioneers. Even local union organizing exists by virtue

70

of the company's presence. The history of Flint's heterogeneous
population growth is directly tied to the history of the motor com—
pany's development, and local politics are related to both of these.

As was noted above in reference to the Mott Foundation, ties
between administration of the motor company and control of local
politics have often been overt. The influence of the company's
business orientation placing emphasis on efficiency and professionalism
have also been felt in political decisions and voting behavior in the
city. During the depression years, the Flint city charter was changed
from a mayor-council government to a city manager—council government,
with the city manager an appointed position. After forty-six years of
city manager government the Flint city charter was revised again and in
1975 during my fieldwork there was a mayoral election. The contenders
were the recently-retired police chief and the county register of
deeds. The retired police chief, who won the election, had a history
of work in an impressively automated, computerized, efficient police
department that has been considered a national exemplar of the way
modern police departments should run. This department typifies the way
the business-industry ideology permeates the city.

There are actually two quite different political ideOIOgies
represented by various segments of the Flint population which might be
called the labor view and the business view. The labor view is espoused
by unions, political liberals, some minority group representatives, and
some of the factory workers. This view stresses housing stock improve-
ment, social welfare programs, full employment and the like. The
business view is espoused by business and industrial management, by most

civil servants, and by some of the factory workers. This view stresses

71

government efficiency and fiscal responsibility, progress in industrial
growth in the city, encouraging high productivity and output in local
business and industry, etc. In the section on Lansing politics above,
it was noted that in that city these divergent political ideologies
generally were in charge of separate branches of city government and
that since the state government centered at Lansing as well as city
administration has been historically most influenced by conservative
interests, local politics remained largely in control of business-
industry interests. In Flint, there has been considerably less ideo-
logical split between branches of the city government at least partly
because administration until recently was headed by an appointed pro-
fessional. What is more, the welfare of even those who espouse the
labor view is closely tied to the economic fitness of the motor company
since the vast majority of the Flint employed work in auto or auto-
related enterprises.

Local politics merely reflect the character of industrial Flint
which I referred to above as the company town. The company controls
most employment Opportunities and local politics, but it is not pub-
licly insensitive. Social improvements for the workers have been
undertaken and conscious efforts have been made continuously to point
out publicly how the disparate ethnic groups which make up the city may
have different languages and culture but Flint is a successful "melting
pot" (see e.g., Flint Journal 1976b). The tenor of public relations
espoused by local media and politicans make the company appear paterna-
listic yet predominantly a benefactor to the people of Flint, which is
true inasmuchas many owe their employment to the company. However, the

paternalism of leadership with company business views has made

72

successful collective bargaining and political protest difficult at
best.14 A famous exception to that rule was the sit—down strike of
1936—1937, in which Flint auto workers laid the foundation for modern
industrial unionism (see chapter 8).

Both economically and politically Flint is an industrial city
with a major stake in only one industry and its spinoffs. This industry
is in durable goods, which is more readily influenced by economic
recession than soft industries or services. The political ideology of
the city reflects the vulnerable one-industry character of the local
economy and the total dominance of the city by its major corporation.
Many workers and even the poor, who might be at odds with local leader-
ship over social services, are generally supportive of local industry-
controlled government and the ideology of the melting pot as there are
no viable alternatives for employment. As another researcher also found,
in Flint the public at large thinks and says, "What happens to GM

happens to me" (Fine 1969: 107). There is little competition in a com-

pany town.

Summary
Lansing and Flint, Michigan are today both industrial cities
which depend primarily on auto manufacture. However, Lansing has a
mixed economy in which the primary and tertiary sectors, particularly
agriculture and government, play important roles. Flint, on the other
hand, is far more dependent on its auto industry and as a result is
more sensitive to national and international economic cycles than is

Lansing.

73

Flint is the home town of General Motors Corporation and GM
administrators have always been the power holders in Flint. The
history of Flint is, as a result, the history of GM. Lansing is also
administered by pro—GM interests but the ties are more covert. The
Lansing political arena reflects the diverse interests of Lansing's
hinterland although the auto industry dominates local politics.

It was demonstrated in this chapter that the trend toward these
divergent political economies has existed since the founding of these
cities. Lansing began as a farm settlement and soon had the fortune to
become the capital of the state. Flint began as a lumbering center;
lumber converted to carriage production; and the carriage industry
transformed into horseless carriage manufacture. Since Lansing is the
capital it is the center of diverse political interest groups, but
local politics remain solidly aligned with the interests of local
industry. Flint does not even have the appearance of political diver-
sity that Lansing has and in many ways is a company town. Succeeding
chapters will discuss the manner in which these important differences
in political economy have influenced Chicano migration and integration

in Lansing and Flint.

74

Footnotes

1In Michigan, Detroit is the "primate city," a term which has
been applied to the capital cities in Latin American nation-states.
Detroit serves as the center of an urban hierarchy which includes not
only other Michigan cities but centers for the production of steel and
rubber in other Midwest states as well. There is a massive urban
proletariat resident with great service needs, located there as a result
of its centrality in the auto realm. For a more complete develOpment of
the regional role of Detroit in the auto industry, see Sinclair 1972.

2Smith (1975) describes two New England cities with different
political economies in which Portuguese migration and integration was
different. However, she discusses these processes as a result of the
historical divergence in rates of immigration, structural and cultural
"fit," and Portuguese visiblity.

3For more detail on this period in Lansing History see Darling
1950, Dunbar 1970, and Lansing history 1960.

4 .
As a result of this argument the area around Toledo went to
Ohio and the new state of Michigan was admitted with the inclusion of
the upper peninsula as compensation.

5For more information on this period see Crow 1945, Dunbar 1970,
and Flint Board of Education n.d.

6For further information on this era in Lansing see Crabb 1969
and Lansing History 1960.

7For more details on this period see Crabb 1969, Gustin 1973,
and Rodolf 1949.

8See chapter 4 for more details of this development.

9During 1975 the classification section of the Michigan Depart-
ment of Civil Service registered 13,188 persons in all job classifi-
cations employed in state government in Ingham County (Lansing) while
only 1,139 were employed in Genesee County (Flint).

For more details on the develOpment of agriculture and its
importance for the Chicano pOpulation, particularly in Lansing, see
chapter 4.

11In this sense it may be said to have an orthOgenetic function

to some extent--i.e., it serves to spread the traditional ideology of
the founders (Redfield and Singer 1954).

75

12One section of the city which remains a thorn in the side of
local politicians is the "sin strip" or redlight district which lines
the major street entrance to the capitol building.

13One well-known Democrat former city employee and antagonist
of the mayor was successful in his bid for an at-large council seat

during my fieldwork.

14The following example is illustrative of the situation. A
Chicano who has worked for GM for ten years has often served unoffi-
cially as arbitration board member and as interpreter for Chicanos with
grievances. For two years he has been president of the local chapter
of the Latin American Labor Organization (pseudonym) which draws its
membership from Chicano GM employees, automatically members of the
official labor union, and acts essentially as a lobby both to GM and
to the union. Although the organization has no legitimate power, it
has served as a sounding board for complaints against the company.
Company managers have acknowledged his informal spokesman role for their
Chicano employees, but he was only recently approved a pay raise to
which he felt he was entitled several years ago.

CHAPTER 4

MIGRATION

Introduction

 

Migratory seasonal farmwork brought the majority of the
Chicano pOpulation to Michigan. Whether or not they-were former
migratory farmworkers, Chicanos in Flint and Lansing were largely
migrants.1 What is more, most Chicanos in Flint and Lansing were labor
migrants. They migrated into these cities in search of both seasonal
and temporary employment. In this chapter I will delineate the patterns
and time periods of Chicano migration to Flint and Lansing. It is my
hypothesis that these migrations were responses to the fluctuations in
labor needs of the agriculture and auto industries, components of the
Lansing and Flint political economies. I suggest that these fluctua-
tions were, furthermore, conditioned by national and international
economic cycles. As such responses, these Chicano migrations can be
considered the results of the interplay of structural inequality at
different levels which were outlined in chapter 1. Understanding that
the U.S. and Mexico as well as Michigan and Texas are in center-periphery
relationships to each other is crucial for coming to grips with the
patterns of migration which are described in this chapter. Both
Mexican and Texas Chicanos2 have immigrated to Michigan since the

19205 and continue to do so in smaller numbers even now. It has been

76

77

argued that Chicano immigration from Mexico helped offset the Mexican
trade deficit with the U.S. (see Hancock 1959) and also that the
migrations created social problems in Mexico (Samora 1971). In addition,
Texas Chicano migration permitted Michigan agriculture and industry to
develop rapidly and permitted the continued dependence of Texas on
primary industries.

Since the Great Depression of the 19305 and particulary since
World War 11, however, the regional spread of wealth in the U.S. has
been changing in accompaniment to the process of change from industrial
to monopoly capitalism. This period of transition coincides with the
period of Chicano migration in question. Capitalist growth is now
occurring through entrenchment or capital accumulation while in the
past it occurred through expansion. This development is evident in
Michigan not only in the growth of the auto industry but also in agri-
culture. Pre World War II agriculture was labor-intensive. The war
brought about not only the legislation which prompted considerable
Chicano migration to Michigan as field hand labor but also hastened the
mechanization or capital intensive growth of agricultural output, which
was to slow down Chicano migration. In the following sections it will
be demonstrated how Chicano migration has reflected these economic
changes.3 Resultant features of migrant selectivity are detailed in

chapter 5.

Periods of Migration: The Migration Cohorts

 

Introduction

 

Generation of migration has been used to explain social change,

particularly in the barrios of South Texas and California. For example,

78

it has been suggested (Alvarez 1973) that the immigrants of the first
decade of the twentieth century were the Migrant Generation, born in
Mexico. The first native U.S.-born generation included veterans of
World War II who managed some upward social mobility and were the
Mexican American Generation. Then there was social consciousness of
the late 19605 among the young Chicano Generation, which largely con-
sisted of the children of the Mexican American Generation (i.e., they
were third generation immigrants).

It has also been noted that sex and life cycle are important
variables in the migration of Mexicans to the United States. Not only
have Mexican immigrants in most periods been male--either single or
without their families--and less skilled but also younger than most
immigrants from other countries (Grebler et a1. 1970: 69). These
factors tend to be correlated with lower incomes than those prevalent
for immigrants from other countries. As a result, chain migration and
continued importance of the extended although geographically dispersed
family may be important adaptive strategies for individual and group
survival. As will be discussed below and in chapters 5 and 6, Chicano
newcomers in Lansing and Flint relied on a network of kin and friends
to secure initial housing and employment. Similar adaptations have been
recorded among newcomer urbanites in various world settings.4

In Flint and Lansing Chicano migration has not been a steady,
cumulative process, as might be suggeSted by an exclusive consideration
of selected features of the migrant pOpulation itself. International
and intranational migration combine with natural increase of the mid-
Michigan Chicano pOpulation. The result is a complex stratification

of Chicanos into categories that include elders who were Mexican-born

79

and are Mexico-oriented, elders with similar ties to Texas hence the
United States, long-time Michigan residents, young newcomer Mexican
nationals, and English-speaking Michigan-born teenagers. These popula-
tion segments are not homogeneous in their formal organization behavior
or in their political ideology (see chapters 7 and 8). I suggest that
the reason they differ in those areas is that they have been exposed to
different sociopolitical climates in their divergent time periods and
geographical areas. There are, then, two features of Chicano immigration
which are related to periods of time. These are the cycles of migration
to the target cities and the different strata which migrants from the
divergent cycles represent.

The use of migration cohorts can help sort out these facts.
Cohort analysis was used extensively by Balan, Browning and Jelin in
their study of social mobility in Monterrey:

Cohorts may be defined as groups of people who are exposed to the
same general environment at the same time. Most often cohorts are
identified by time of birth, but other bases are possible, as for
example our construction of cohorts by time of arrival in Monterrey.
We define age cohorts as groups of men who were born within a given
period of time, generally five- to ten-year intervals" (Balan et a1.
1973: 27).

Using decades based on time of arrival in Flint and Lansing as
the cohorts, some significant differences are discernible between the
two cities. In all decades from 1920 through 1977 the average age at
final immigration to the city for those heads of household surveyed in
1976 tended to be higher for the Flint sample than for the Lansing
sample. The only exception was for the decade of the 19305; however
the Lansing sample for that decade was too small to be reliable, as was

the 19205 sample for Flint. In all decades except the 19705, Chicano

migrants in Lansing showed higher percentages of chain migration--going

80

to Lansing because another kinsman was already there--then did the

Flint sample. If those who went to the target city because a close
friend or compadre (ritual kinsman) from the home town had preceded them
are included as chain migrants (refer to the figures in parentheses)
generally more Chicanos in Flint than in Lansing were chain migrants.
From this comparison of age at immigration and percent chain migrant by
decade of migration it emerges that Flint Chicanos tended to be slightly
older at immigration and more migrated following friends there than did
Lansing Chicanos. Another difference evident in the table is the per-
centage of the total sample which settled in each city per decade. The
Flint sample was not only older but also had a longer history in the
city than did the Lansing sample. The Flint sample immigrated more
evenly throughout the time period with a tapering off in the 19705,
while the Lansing sample built pyramidically with the largest percent

of migrants per decade occurring in the 19705. What factors can explain
not only the differences in patterns of migration between the two cities
but also the differences over time within each city?

Within the time period from 1920-1976 several significant events
occurred nationally and regionally which appear to closely correlate
with those migrant characteristics which changed over time. Since a
major thrust of this dissertation is just such locating of the target
cities within a larger framework, migrant cohorts based on these events
rather than decades have been devised to bridge the regions Texas-
Mexico and Michigan during the period under investigation. There were
seven cohorts so defined for Flint-Lansing, four of which were nine
year intervals while the other three were five and seven year intervals.

These cohorts were as follows:

81

.quo wouooHom egg ow wouwanEEH pm: mHonEoE xHHEmm segue poems memo 0:3 omega mm HHoz mm czouoeo:
HHocu Eosw mpcmHum onHom ow mama on: mpcmpmHE omega pcomohmoh momocpcepmm :H moHSMHa«

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho.von.mm mm HH.moVo.ov mm "mwOHHom oEHu HHw u<
HVNV HAN\NNV Hm.0v mev HmM\oNV Ha.wv

mwchcmH\ucHHu :H among

Hq.movo.om om mm\mH A.mm Ho.man.Ne mm em\om o.HH moamH

Ha.NaVo.mo 4N os\m m.kN Hm.wa8m.sm mm wm.oH m.n~ moomH

Ha.ooao.mm om mm\H m.NN HH.Hovm.wm mm He\o H.0N mommH

m.me 4H AN\N A.w HH.emvk.mm NN we\4 m.om mosmH

o.o mm m~\mm m.H oo.ooH mH mm\e m.m mommH

-- -- -- o.o 0.0 m m\m m.~ monH
ucmstz . new: omcmm onEmm ucmasz see: omcmm onEmm

:Hm:u w :oHumeHEEH um om< w :ngu w :oHpmHmHEEH um om< w apnoea

mnemems paHHa

 

.memuoo sm «.ucmemHz cemcu Rogues: new coHpmemHz em ow<--.H oHnms

82

l. The Early Depression Cohort (1923-1931)S began with the earliest
Flint permanent immigrants (although the earliest date en-
cOuntered in the survey was 1927) and ended the year before
the depression-era repatriations began.

2. The Pre World War II Cohort (1932-1941) began with the first
year of the repatriations and ended the year before the War
Emergency Farm Labor Program began.

3. The WW II and Early Postwar Cohort (1942-1950) began with the
War Emergency Farm Labor PrOgram and ended the year before
PL 78--the binational farm labor agreement known as the ”bracero
program"--was enacted.

4a. The Early Bracero Cohort (1951-1955) began with PL 78 and ended
with the final year of Operation Wetback, the prOgram of
deportation which took place during 1954-1955.

4b. The Late Bracero Cohort (1956-1964) began with the year follow-
ing Operation Wetback; it ended with the end of PL 78.

5. The War on Poverty Cohort (1965-1971) began with the year
following the close of the bracero program; it ended with the
last full year of the first Nixon term, thus including the last
years of the domestic anti—poverty programs. The War on
Poverty was declared by President Johnson in 1964.

6. The Post Vietnam Recession Cohort (1972-1976) began with the
winding down of the Vietnam War; it ended with the year of my
migration history survey.

These cohorts closely parallel the chronology of Mexico-U.S.
migration designed by Samora, Bustamante, Cardenas, and Samora (Samora

1971: Appendix B). Beginning with 1920, their chronology revolved

83

around the establishment of national quotas of EurOpean immigrants, the
Great Depression, World War II, bracero legalizatiOn of illegal Mexican
immigration, the Korean War, and the close of the bracero program.
Although the migration cohorts designed in this manner are not
even intervals, they are more closely correlated to the migration
patterns than are decades. Referring to Tables 2 and 3, the percentages
of the sample per city were somewhat different per migration cohort
than they were per decade. In Flint it is clear that World War II was
a strong impetus to immigration. It was during this period that the
auto plants expanded production again after the Depression and began
manufacture of materials for the war. One-third of the Flint sample
migrated to that city during the bracero period, and although many came
for farmwork most stayed for factory employment. An extremely small
percentage of the Flint sample entered the city during the past few
years, a time of auto production recession. In contrast, although over
a third of the Lansing sample also entered the city among the two
bracero cohorts, a full 26.3 percent had immigrated to that city within
the past four years. During the latter period Lansing area agriculture,
although rapidly becoming a capital-intensive industry, offered one of
the few employment Opportunities remaining to the unskilled labor pool
of the border region. As will be discussed below, voluntary response
to "economic Opportunity" was an earlier impetus to Chicano migration
in Flint while actual labor recruitment, although informal in nature,

remained more important in Lansing.

84

.xuomeumo mHnu :H peszocH ewe: meueum umezqu :a shop ecomnea
.ono :H omHe use :eMH:OH2 :H 0:300 HeHHeEm ecu :H eoceHseaxe we; emech
uHHemxe umeanz HoHum was 0:3 emocu mo uceonem eencp ucHom ugmHenxuMHu

.mHOmeccHz use .ecechH
.mwexuozsneMIxe e0e3 eoce
.quu AeHEH pee wchmmezu me

HHez we mHHomeecsz pee .oeeHOH .uHOHueo .3echem pepsHocH umeszz ecu :H memmeuewe HoHpm+

.euomeccH: 0:0 .ovenoHoo .eHc00mHHeo msHm .ucHHm epHmuso :mmngHz pevaHoaH meomHm Menace

 

 

 

 

H0.000 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 H0.00H0 00000

0.00 m.Hm we mewepceouea

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- H0.00 H0000 000000
H0000-N0000

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 000000000 000000> 0000
H0.000 H0000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000>00 :0 00:
H0.000 H0000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0000000 0000
H0.000 H0000-H0000

0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000
H0.000 H0000-00000

0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0030000 00000 000 002:
H0000-~0000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00 003 0000: 000
H0000-0~000

0.0: 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0000000000 00000
uceanz +ume30H2 enecpo mexeh OOerz Hexnoz Hexpoz eHmEem w unocou

:Henu w poHpm :Hom ewes: .500m .500m 00 uhozou :oHanmHz

00 00000 000000

 

.memeuceopem

.ucHHm .uponou :oHpmpsz xn :uom ewes: use .eoceHhemxm umeszz noHHm .eocefiuemxm Hwosahemun.m eHneH

.nmmH :H mchcmH :H wepmemmm museuwHEEH uceceEpem pmeHHnee enhn

.xhomeuee mHau :H wensHecH ewe: umeszz ecu

:H cues 0comned .Hmuceane-co: mchsHech mHocHHHH :H “deepen m.mH 0:0 .oHco cH uceopea n .seszeHz

:H eeeczemHe seen we: useeuem oo eHch HmucepwHE geeuow eye: memmepppe umeszz HOHHQ :qu emozu mo
uceouem ow 000e0003500m pcepmHE xe mecHEHe230e>o eye: eoceH0emxe umezeHz uezuo £003 emonb+

.oHco 0cm .000» 3ez .oonez 3ez .eceucoz .Hmeepm HeysuHsopre :H 0:300
HH050 e0e3 cOan mo umoev cmeneHE :H 0:300 Hezuo .mHocHHHH .mcoNH0< pepsHocH meoeHm 0e:uo«

 

 

85

 

 

 

00.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0000 00000

m.mm n.mm mo memeuceOHem

- - - - - - - H0.00 H0000 00000000
00.000 00000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 000000000 E00000> 0000
00.000 00000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0000>00 :0 00:
H0.000 00000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 0000
00.000 H0000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000
00000-00000

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0030000 00000 000 00::
00000-00000

0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 00 003 00003 000
00000-00000

- - - - - - - no.0 :onmepmea xHHem
“gnaw“: +um®3fiw2 «.HOLHO mmxoh oowxmz mehoz HOV—H03 GHQ—0mm v0 HHOSOU

chgu w poHum 0 -5000 -5000 we phenom coH000MH2

FHom 0H9? mo fiHfiSU Hofihon—
.meweuceopem

.mchcmq .uuocou :OHueumHz 0n :uom eyes: use .eeceHHemxm umeszz 00000 .eeceHueaxm xnozepem-.m ereh

86

Labor Recruitment and Periods of Immigration: The
Evidence from Agriculture

 

 

Introduction

 

Farmwork was a major inducement to Chicano migration to Flint
and Lansing at all time periods and in all cohorts (see Tables 2 and 3).
In Flint 52.4 percent of the total sample had worked in the Flint area
prior to settling in Flint or had come to the Flint area as farmworkers
and another 7.7 percent of the sample were the children of such farm-
workers. In Lansing 64.0 percent of the sample had been farmworkers in
the Lansing area and another 16.0 percent had been children when their
parents came to the Lansing area as farmworkers. In the following
sections, cycles of employment in the agricultural industry therefore

play a significant role in the analysis.

Early Depression Cohort (1923-1931)

Two point nine percent of the sample surveyed in Flint had
migrated permanently (see footnote 1) to that city during the early
depression period before 1923 (refer to Table 2)--those in the sample
had entered the city from 1927 on. None of the Lansing sample came that
early (see Table 3). The earliest permanent immigrants to Flint came
prior to that, however. In 1923 a German fieldman from the Saginaw
plant of Michigan Sugar Company contracted five families in San Antonio,
Texas to work in fields in the northern part of Genesee County. All of
these workers were natives of northern Mexico who had gone to Texas
looking for work since northern Mexico was still economically unstable
following activities of the Revolution. Three of the families stayed

in Genesee County and were able to secure foundry work in Flint that

87

winter. The fieldman also married a Mexican girl who was one of these
early immigrants and settled in the city.

The associations which recruited Mexican workers into mid-
Michigan agriculture evolved from informal into formal organizations
and devolved again during the following decades. Mexicans were first
recruited to work in sugar beets during the 19205. Sugar beets had
become a profitable crop when the Tariff Act of 1890 established a cash
bounty on beets to be paid directly to the growers and at the beginning
of the twentieth century California and Michigan were the principal
beet-producing states (Elac 1972: 57). The Michigan Sugar Company was
the major processor of sugar beets in the area surrounding both Lansing
and Flint, opening a refining plant in Lansing as well as one just out-
side Saginaw and another in Owosso (between Lansing and Flint) during
the first decade of the twentieth century (Ball 1960). During this
period Michigan processing companies and growers sent to places such as
Cincinnati, Chicago, and Cleveland and as far away as Lincoln, Nebraska
for European immigrants to do the hand labor required. The immigration
laws of 1917 (which prohibited those "likely to become public charges")
through 1929--especially the act of 1924 (which set annual quotas by
nationality)--specifically excluded Mexico'(Elac 1972: 32-29). From
1930 on Mexicans were the principal beet workers in Michigan, and
according to the 1930 census Michigan was eighth of all U.S. states in
population of Mexican birth.

In the 19205 and early 19305 recruitment was informal and
depended on the networks which individual sugar company fieldmen could
establish. By 1939 there were thirteen "factory areas”-—multiply-county

regions served by one beet refinery--in the state. Nearly three-fourths

88

of the twelve thousand beet farmers in the state lived in the counties
where these beet factories were located. Only two or three per hundred
farmers hired their own beet workers directly during these years. The
task of obtaining the Chicano laborers needed for most farmers was the
lot of the sugar company fieldmen.

What the fieldmen did was to fulfill two primary functions:
(1) they obtained contracts from the farmers to grow beets for their
employer company and acted as crOp specialist and advisor to the
growers; and (2) they obtained laborers for the farmers, assigned them
beet acreages, arranged credit at local stores, and provided housing
and transportation for the workers. The fieldman was responsible for
the amount of money a worker could make: this depended on the number of
acres he assigned. One fieldman interviewed in 1939 indicated that a
family would have to be assigned seven acres per worker to meet their
expenses (Thaden 1942: 12). A later estimate of labor needs indicated
that each ten acres of beets required one worker for a six to eight week
period from May through July to thin and hoe, and again from October to
mid-November for the harvest (Davenport 1948: 3), yet acreages ranged
from two to three acres per worker to as high as twenty-seven per worker
(Thaden 1942: 13). Thus acreage assignments were in general insuffi-
cient to provide the needs of the workers. In addition, there was
little coordination of workers from farm to farm and factory area to
factory area. Therefore there was little to keep them between the May-
July thinning and the fall harvest.

The average number of years service for the same company per
fieldman in 1939 was ten (Thaden 1942: 11) and the fieldmen were skilled

recruiters. Yet by fall many workers would have been forced to move on.

89

There was no work to do over the summer unless the farmer also had a
few acres of snap beans or another vegetable crop. The reason that
there was little coordination was that each fieldman simply recruited
as many workers as he could at the beginning of the season. Fieldmen
operated as individuals, not as nodes in a larger network.

By the end of the time period covered in the Early Depression
cohort, farmworkers were beginning to settle permanently into Flint and
were obtaining employment at the local GM factories. The earliest

Lansing settlers came in the following cohort.

Pre World War II Cohort (1932—1941)

The first permanent immigrants to settle in Lansing began
migrating to the area in 1932 and 1933, but the families did not settle
there until 1937. Three point seven percent of the Lansing sample came
to that city in the period just prior to World War II and 5.8 percent
of the Flint sample did (see Tables 2 and 3). By this time the recruit-
ment patterns were beginning to diversify and included increasingly
formal recruitment mechanisms. The first migrants to Lansing had
originally been recruited by a sugar company fieldman in San Antonio
(which was to become the center of Michigan farm labor recruiting
activities) but had from then on taken it upon themselves to contact
the farmer for whom they worked the first season to ascertain the time
to travel to Michigan. One of the earliest families continued to work
the beets and regularly came to the Lansing factory, stayed overnight
in the company housing on the grounds, and was transported the following
day to the field they had been assigned. Not all of the earliest

Lansing settlers remained beetworkers. Another family found a farmer

90

in a county north of Lansing who grew mint and needed the labor of only
one family so they became regular seasonal workers for him. Close
patron-client ties were established between the farmer, the worker, and
his family. Such early primary social ties that develOped in both cities
led to the feeling among older residents that the 19705 migrants with
”radical” political phi1050phy were trying to undermine their lives'

work with anti-Anglo rhetoric (see chapters 7 and 8).

During the pre World War 11 period, growers' associations
developed labor-procuring corporations which worked in conjunction with
employment agencies in south central Texas. In 1938 the Michigan Sugar
Company's growers formed the Beet Grower's Employment Committee to
obtain and employ field workers. Growers contracted to other sugar com-
panies also set up employment associations that year as in 1937 not
enough Mexican workers had been available--perhaps as a reaction to the
repatriation drive five years prior (see below). Local Works Project
Authority and county direct relief clients had been hired as field
laborers but they proved unsatisfactory to the farmers. Agreements were
reached in 1938 between several employment agencies--all located in San
Antonio, Texas--and the employment associations of the various Michigan
sugar companies as follows. Michigan Sugar Company (of Lansing,

Owosso, Carrolton, et al.) used the Frank Cortez employment agency.
Great Lakes Sugar Beet Growers‘ Employment Committee (of Blissfield,
southeastern Michigan) used the Simon Vasquez agency, Isabella Sugar

(of Mt. Pleasant) used the S. P. Acosts employment agency, while Monitor
Sugar (of Bay City) used the F. DeLaGarza agency (Thaden 1942: 19).

Most of the workers so recruited were Chicanos although considerable

91

numbers of former EurOpean immigrants were still employed in the

Saginaw-Bay City plants (see Table 4).

Table 4.--Chicano Beet Workers in Mid-Michigan by Factory District, 1939.

 

 

Percent

Total Chicano* Chicano

Company Factory District Workers Workers Workers
Isabella Sugar Co. Mt. P1easant+ 1,366 1,032 76.0
Michigan Sugar Co. Alma 937 624 67.0
Caro 1,191 811 68.0
Carrolton (Saginaw) 1,035 527 51.0
Lansing 1,035 752 73.0
Monitor Sugar Co. Bay City 1,900 450 24.0

 

*Both Texas and Mexican born.

+Mt. Pleasant and Alma are located due north of Lansing over an
hour's drive from that city; Caro is located twenty miles east of
Saginaw; and Bay City and Saginaw are slightly under an hour due north
of Flint.

Adapted from Thaden 1942: 14.

The Texas side of the Mexican labor migration to Michigan during
this period was presented in the article ”Mexicans to Michigan"
(McWilliams 1941). At the time of that study, Frank Cortez (employed
by Michigan Sugar) was the major labor recruiter in San Antonio.6
According to McWilliams, he had himself been a migrant laborer, as had
most labor recruiters operating across state lines. Mr. Cortez would
sign up workers, who had to undergo a physical examination and personal
interview before signing the contract for the Michigan Beet Growers

Employment Committee, the association of Michigan Sugar Company.

Cortez received a $1 fee for each worker contracted (of which there were

92

an average 6,000 annually), while the workers had 25¢ each deducted
from their pay for the health exam. A special kind of worker was
recruited: "The companies are particular: they want rural Mexican
families, not the urbanized proletariat" (McWilliams 1941: 6). Once
contracted the workers remained in limbo in San AntOnio until the go—
ahead signal to Cortez arrived from Michigan. Then they moved north-
ward--by private car, by truck, or by train.

The provision of train transportation in this period was a
product of the increasing bureaucratization of labor recruitment. From
this time until the termination of the bracero program in 1964 the
recruitment mechanisms became increasingly more formal and the contact
networks more complex. Examples of this began to appear as the employ-
ment associations began their Operations. No longer would a worker get
his check in the name of the farmer but rather in the name of either
the company or the growers' employment association. In 1940 Michigan
Sugar Company brought a trainload of Chicanos and Mexicans north to
their factories at a rate of $15 per worker and in 1941 some 1,800
workers were brought by train (Thaden 1942: 25). Transportation had
previously been provided by the workers themselves, paid for by advances;
by truckers who charged $9-15 per worker; or even occasionally by the
fieldmen. The company and association found that trains ensured the
workers' arrival and prevented their premature departure. The workers
brought by train came without their families, another change which was
to continue as the pattern of recruitment became more formalized and
workers became increasingly dependent upon a range of middlemen.7

Around 1940, earnings per beet worker ranged from $35 to around

$400, with the average worker making $135 for the entire season;

93

approximately five months. This meant a monthly wage of $27, while the
prevailing monthly wage for regular farm labor was $42 (Thaden 1942:
27). Fortunately for the beet workers, some beet growers at this time
began to grow a few acres of truck crops, especially pickling cucumbers,
which required hand labor and kept the workers busy in the summer period
before beet harvest and prevented their having to lose money searching
for work during the interim. This was to be of great importance for
Chicano farmwork employment in future years. The earliest Chicano
permanent residents of Lansing came to the city during this pre World
War 11 period, while some Chicanos continued to migrate to Flint. The
Flintites as in the earlier cohort secured urban employment, while
Lansing Chicanos urbanites retained farm employment.

World War II and Early Postwar Cohort
(1942-1950)

 

 

The war years provided the impetus for the greatest migration
of Chicanos to Lansing and Flint, which occurred during the two periods
which followed. In Lansing, agriculture remained of primary importance
in this migration. At first, only sugarbeet growers for the mid-Michigan
sugar companies tapped the Texas-Mexico labor source. By the 19405 the
market for this labor pool had expanded to include truck farmers. 2
Growers of truck crops and sugarbeets in Midwest states temporarily
worked together in larger associations-—e.g., the S.P. Acosta agency
was employed by a temporary committee of representatives of various
Michigan and Ohio growers as a group in 1941. By the early 19405,

Nearly 12,000 Mexican workers came from Texas each year to work
in Michigan sugar beets, cherries, snap beans, cucumbers, and
tomatoes from May through November. Another 3,000 Texans work

in the onion, celery, carrot, and mint fields (Love and Gaston
1947: 5).

94

Two new employment associations had been formed that became
important during the war years: Michigan Field CrOps, Inc., organized
by the processors of sugar beets, pickling cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet
corn and snap beans, which was to place at least 10,000 workers
annually; and Michigan Farm Labor Services, organized by the growers of
bush, vine and tree fruits and muckland vegetable crOps (e.g., onions,
celery), which was to employ 12,000 workers annually (Love and Gaston
1947: 10).

By 1942 the national farm work force had been reduced by nearly
one—third and Chicano workers were not readily available for farmwork.
Some had entered the Mexican army when Mexico entered the war in 1942;
the Mexican economy was temporarily improved by war export production;
some Mexican immigrants were involved in the U.S. armed forces; and
some had obtained urban factory work, especially in Flint (see chapter 5).
In August of that year an executive agreement between the U.S. and
Mexico was therefore ratified by the U.S. Congress which provided for
government-regulated temporary farmworker recruitment. In the spring
of the following year, the Emergency Farm Labor Supply Act became law
(PL 45 of the 78th Congress). The Cooperative Extension Service of the
War Food Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Cooperative Extension Service of the state agricultural colleges were
charged with the responsibility ". . . for assisting in providing an
adequate supply of workers for the production and harvesting of agri—
cultural commodities essential to the prosecution of the war" (U.S.
Congress 1943: 70).

The farm labor associations and Cooperative Extension Service

did not work at cross purposes but rather cooperated to form an

 

.p*'

w-

5"

Ab.

 

 

 

 

95

impressive network of labor contracting and regulating organizations
linked directly to the national farm policy administration apparatus
in control of international temporary labor migration. The processor-
grower associations had the following functions:

1. Using and operating foreign labor camps,

2. Running placement and reception centers and moving workers from

one crOp to the next,

3. Securing housing and transportation for the workers, and

4. Setting prevailing wages for the workers.

The county agents of the extension service helped farmers obtain
sufficient tires, gas and oil from the rationing boards to Operate their
farms, inspected housing for the Mexican workers, assisted farmers with
obtaining apprOpriations to build worker housing, recruited workers
directly, and acted as middlemen between the workers and the farmer or
association. In short, they performed much the same sort of mediator-
facilitator services which the sugar company fieldmen had performed in
the earlier decades. In the mid—Michigan area the extension service at
Michigan State College performed these middleman services. One county
agent summed up the personal ties which develOped between the agents
and the workers:

Because we had treated these peOple decently, each of the fieldmen
had his own following of people. I have talked to crew leaders and
had them ask me where I would be stationed and after I told them
they informed me that they would follow me . . . because they
believed that they would get a square deal wherever I was. It was
the same with all the other liaison men. They had learned to know
us and what we stood for (Davenport 1948: 21).

In 1943 the county extension service recorded over 3,500 Texas

Chicanos and 185 Mexicans working in Michigan fields while in 1944

there were over 5,700 Texans and over 3,000 Mexicans (Love and Gaston

96

1947: 19—21). Even more came in 1945: over 7,600 Texans and over 3,600
Mexicans. By 1947 only slightly over 1,600 Mexicans but over 13,000
Texas Chicanos worked in Michigan fields.

At this time Michigan farmworkers were generally able to secure
the minimum pay allowed by the federal government for the particular
crop. For example, this level for sugar beets was $13 for thinning,
$4.50 for the first hoeing, $3.00 for the second hoeing, or a total of
$20.50 a spring work season per acre (Davenport 1948: 24). At an
average of ten acres per worker that meant that a worker could earn
$205.00 for the spring season or an average of $25.63 per week. In
comparison, pecan-shellers in San Antonio, Texas in 1938 were only
averaging $2.73 per week per worker (Shapiro 1973: 93). Therefore there
was a possible nine-fold economic gain to be made by seasonal migration
to the mid-Michigan fields.

With the end of the war, the binational labor recruitment agree-
ment between Mexico and the U.S. was temporarily allowed to expire and
farm labor recruitment was returned to the various state employment
agencies under the provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933. In
1948 the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission (now Michigan
Employment Security Commission) took over farm labor recruitment and
management through its Farm Placement Section. This division continued
to work in cooperation with Michigan Field CrOps, Inc. In 1948 the
Unemployment Compensation Commission counted 12,000 Texas Chicanos and
952 Mexican contract laborers working in Michigan sugar beet, cucumber,
snap bean, and tomato production although 35 percent-of the sugarbeets
in the state were harvested mechanically that year (M.U.C.C. 1948). In

1949, there were no formally contracted Mexicans but some 16,000 Texans

97

(M.U.C.C. 1949). Doubtless some of these were actually Mexicans but
were not formally contracted according to PL 45. In both years growers
suffered a labor shortage in August when the cucumbers were ready for
harvest as many international and interstate workers would leave after
the slack period in June between beet thinning and blocking and the
cucumber harvest beginning in July or August. In 1950 there were no
contracted Mexicans in Michigan fields but again over 16,000 Texas
Chicanos (M.E.S.C. 1950). Labor needs had not slackened noticeably yet
the formal labor recruitment structure had again been returned to state
government hands as there was no war emergency.

Referring again to Tables 2 and 3, only 7.5 percent of the
Lansing survey sample of Chicanos immigrated to that city during the war
and early postwar period, yet 100.0 percent of these were either farm-
workers when they migrated or were the children of such farmworkers.
They included both Mexican and Texas born individuals. A full 20.3 per-
cent of the Flint sample entered that city during this period yet only
57.1 percent of these were farmworkers or farmworkers' children at
immigration, and much of the history of Flint Chicano immigration must
-be explained by reference to the develOpment of the auto industry (see
below). The World war II cohort included Lansing Chicanos who were
recruited into the growing truck farming industry while Flint Chicanos
in the cohort entered war materials production in the auto plants.

Early (1951-1955) and Late (1956-1964)
Bracero Cohorts

 

The fourteen year period which marks the re-institution of the
binational agreement begun as the war emergency farm labor supply

program accounts for exactly one-third of the Flint survey sample of

98

Chicano migrants and slightly over that (33.7%) for the Lansing sample
(refer to Tables 2 and 3). In 1951 there were 2,230 Mexican contract
laborers and more Texans than in 1950 working in Michigan crops. The
1951 post season farm labor report broke down the placement of workers
by crop area, indicating that for the twelve months of 1951 only 738
workers were reported to be employed in agriculture and food processing
in the Flint area, while there were 6,767 reported employed during the
year in the Lansing area (M.E.S.C. 1951). Clearly the immigrants were
not predominantly Mexican braceros8 themselves as during the early years
of the period only 18.2 percent of the Flint heads of household who
migrated to that city and 30.8 percent of those in Lansing were born in
Mexico. Only 16.7 percent in Flint and 21.4 percent in Lansing of those
who migrated during the late bracero period were Mexican-born (see
Tables 2 and 3). However, the trend noted for the years between the
termination of the original Mexican contract labor program and the
second--i.e., l948-1950--continued: Texas—born Chicanos far outnumbered
Mexican-born contract laborers in Michigan fields. It is likely that
this was because of the provisions of the agreement itself.

PL 78 (1951-1964) provided that standard work contracts with
certain stipulations would be signed between growers and workers before
their admission. Among the provisions of the contracts were the
following guarantees to the worker:

I. A minimum period of employment,
2. At least three—fourths full-time work during that period,

3. No-cost housing, and

99

4. Both health insurance and workmen's compensation; the cost of
the former to be deducted from his wages, the cost of the

latter to be borne by the employer (U.S. Congress 1951).

What is more, a farmer was required to demonstrate that local and
domestic labor was unavailable for hire before braceros would be
allotted to him.

During this period, however, just as in previous periods,
Mexican workers not formally contracted as braceros as well as Texas—
born workers entered the Michigan labor force individually and in crews
with truckers. McWilliams described what happened in an earlier period
to those who were rejected by the associations: "These 'culls' usually
go to the beet fields of other states or seek out a 'bootlegger' agent
and arrange to go north with him" (McWilliams 1941: 7). It had become
even easier by the bracero cohorts since growers of crOps other than
sugarbeets made use of the Texas-Mexico labor pool. Also, some pro-
spective migrants had a twenty-year knowledge of Michigan agriculture
or exposure to others who did.

By the early 19505 sugar beet production had begun to undergo
mechanization. The sugar companies were finding that fewer refineries
were more efficient as operations could be centralized and expanded
through the use of machine energy. Liquidation was begun of the Lansing
plant in 1952 and it closed by 1958 (Pioneer New 1956). The only
refinery serving the two regions of interest to this study remained at
Saginaw by the end of the decade (Ball 1960). Therefore, in 1952 there
was less use of seasonal workers in sugar beets than in the past
although sugar beet growers remained among the primary employers of

seasonal farmworkers. More beet growers made use of new machinery

100

designed for planting and weeding the crOp. The largest acreages of
pickling cucumbers in 1952 occurred in Manistee and Lansing, with snap
beans which also required considerable field labor important in Lansing
as well for the next two years (M.E.S.C. 1952, 1953). In 1954 Michigan
employed 6,300 braceros and 19,000 Texans (M.E.S.C. 1954). That same
year, however, in a program called "Operation Wetback" some 1,075,168
illegal Mexican immigrants were apprehended nationwide and sent to
Mexico (Elac 1972: 27). Only 353 were reportedly deported through the
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service center at Detroit (U.S.
Department of Justice 1954: table 29), but considerable fear was in-
stilled in witnesses of the alien roundups and families were disrupted
by the deportations.

Although there were "alien scares" throughout the country
before Operation Wetback and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service was active in Michigan as well as in other states with large
numbers of Mexican residents and workers, the 19505 was not a period of
forced emigrations of masses of Chicanos from the Lansing and Flint
areas. Instead, the 19505 was a period of immigration. There were
large numbers of braceros and other Chicanos in Michigan fields in 1954
and even more the following year and by 1956 nearly 10,000 braceros
alone were employed statewide (M.E.S.C. 1955, 1956). In 1957 there was
the highest demand for seasonal agricultural labor in the state's
history, a record which was never broken. During the month of peak
employment, there were 106,000 recorded workers employed including
14,600 braceros (M.E.S.C. 1957). These demands in agriculture came
from the increased acreages in strawberries, cherries, blueberries,

snap beans, and pickling cucumbers-that had been developing since-1948.

101

In the Lansing area, the increased acreage in pickling cucumbers would
be the major impetus for Mexican and Chicano immigration through the
19705.

From 1958 through 1964 braceros were used in Michigan predomi-
nantly in pickling cucumbers and in blocking and thinning sugar beets.
During those years, numbers of braceros per year ranged from around 9,000
in 1958 to 14,500 in 1960 with 13,225 employed in 1964 (M.E.S.C- 1958-
1964). Pickles and beets using contracted laborers were grown mostly in
east and central Michigan, including the Lansing and Saginaw areas. Chi-
canos were also used in those crops and they and a few braceros contracted
directly from Mexico were also employed in snap beans and muck crOps
such as lettuce, onions, mint, and celery, all of which were grown in
the Lansing area.

Throughout the bracero period, labor management was carried out
by state employment agencies which were also responsible for placing
braceros in their states to fulfill the pre-season orders they had
placed with the immigration services. Chicano labor recruitment was
not subject to the same formal organizational interest, however, and
relied on several alternatives discussed above, which were in use
before the war in the recruitment of Mexican citizens. Among these”.
was a reliance on patron-client ties, where a "good" farmer and a
trusted worker agreed the worker was to return with his spouse and
children annually. The worker wrote or called the farmer to affirm the
time he should arrive. Frequently the worker would do special chores
for the farmer not really required by the job; the farmer would loan
money to the worker, and sometimes would even loan his car. Also,

there was dependence on other relationships of trust, such as those

102

which develOped between a crew leader or trucker and his crew. The
trucker provided transportation; the crew leader provided middleman
services between the work crew and the farmer.9 Trust would develOp
between the crew leader and the farmer if the former had provided
sufficient field "hands,” kept their problems solved, and provided
transportation and supervisory services for the farmer who then re-
quested that he return the following year. In such cases the neces-
sarily lasting relationship was between the farmer and the crew leader.
This personalistic, informal relationship was similar to that of the
fieldmanand the worker which was so crucial to recruitment of the
pre-World War II Chicano cohort. In both cases, the role of the field-
man or crew leader was middleman between worker and employer.

Another mechanism used was for the worker to directly contact
the job placement agent at a farm labor association or at a processing
plant. In the latter case, the placement agent would then contact
farmers who had contracted with this employer processing factory or
association to determine who needed the laborers most. The worker
might have checked with the Texas state employment office in his home
town before leaving to ascertain if there were any work orders in for
particular growers or a given growers' association. Finally, a worker
might just arrive in Michigan at what previous experience told him was
the appr0priate time and apply at a branch or mobile unit of the
M.E.S.C. Farm Placement Service. There a seasonal farm placement
specialist could advise him what farmer had work in the area or might
tell him there was no work to be had there and refer him to another

part of the state where labor was needed.

103

The greatest percentage of the sample of Chicano household heads
surveyed in Flint and Lansing were members of the bracero cohorts.
That is, the milieu when they came to mid-Michigan included a formal
structure for the planning and control of recruitment of Mexican
nationals into agriculture. Other Chicanos, including illegal Mexican
immigrants, doubtless came in even greater numbers following the same
sorts of informal channels that were develOped earlier. Most of those
that came to Flint during this period entered factory work shortly after

arrival; more newcomers to Lansing retained farm employment.

War on Poverty Cohort (1965—1971)

 

In 1964 when the Governor's Commission on Migratory Labor was
appointed they discussed the probable termination of Public Law 78,
which was a subject of great concern to most Michigan growers that year
(M.E.S.C. 1966: 8). They had always had difficulty with labor shortages
even with bracero labor. At the same time that 13,225 unskilled Mexican
contract laborers had been employed (M.E.S.C. 1965), however, a trend
toward upgrading labor skills as a corollary to increased mechanization
in certain agricultural specialties was developing. For example, a
survey in the Muskegon area (western Michigan) concluded there were.)
openings for 250 skilled year-round dairy hands--a statewide average of
1,250 was considered reasonable-~and at the same time twenty men were
about to complete a 48-week course on farm machinery repair at Bay City
(M.E.S.C. 1964: 7).

During the last few years of the bracero program the crOps in

which.hkxxican contract laborers were employed in Michigan were pickling

lO . .
cucumb6115: sugar beets, and truck crops--all crops important either

104

at present or historically in the Flint and Lansing regions. The final
year of the bracero prOgram, pickles were the crop employing the third
highest number of all seasonal workers in Michigan-—l6,309. Truck
crOps that year were sixth, with 7,760; and sugar beets were seventh,
with 5,760 (M.E.S.C. 1964).

Following the end of Mexican contract labor importation many
farmers found that local labor costs were so high that other means of
production had to be substituted to continue the same profit margin:

The major alternative to rising labor costs is said to be a con-
tinuing substitution of capital for labor. Even the most effi-
cient farms will find it necessary to improve their labor effi-
ciency by 25 percent in the next 10 years (M.E.S.C. 1967: 9).
As a result, the farm labor service estimated that there would be a
60 percent reduction in farm labor needs from 1960 to 1980 from 215,000
actual workers to 89,000 (M.E.S.C. 1967: 10). Most of this worker
reduction was to be made possible through capital-intensive methods--
i.e., mechanization.

The major problem facing Michigan farmers was how to replace the
over 13,000 Mexican workers employed in the pickle and late vegetable
crops. At first there was a largescale attempt to replace the braceros
through other labor channels. The Farm Placement Section of the
M.E.S.C. began a public relations-advertising campaign to entice local
high school youth, housewives, the retired, and temporarily unemployed
factory workers into summer farmwork. For example, the U.S. Department
of Labor sent letters to all high schools about Athletes in Temporary
Employment.as Agricultural Manpower (A-TEAM), suggesting that summer
fan“ emplcnnnent was good preparation for fall sports. The M.E.S.C.

also triexi'unsuccessfully to encourage temporary farm employment for

105

the large Chicano permanent pOpulation in Mt. Pleasant (M.E.S.C. 1966:
1). None of these attempts met with much success.

Since 1964 Chicanos have continued to perform most seasonal
farmwork in Michigan. For example, official records of the Michigan
Employment Security Commission indicated that in 1965 some 80,000
interstate workers were employed throughout the state; and 52.5 percent
or 42,000 were Chicanos.11 The pickling cucumber harvest in 1965 was
down 32 percent from the previous year and there was an estimated
13,600 tons left on the vines unharvested at the end of the season
principally because contract laborers were no longer available. Peak
of season employment in pickles was down 29 percent from the previous
year (M.E.S.C. 1965: 18-19). Peak employment in sugar beet cultivation
was down 10.5 percent although the harvest was only 3.5 percent below
the 1959-1963 average. Although production of truck crops was up 3 per-
cent from 1964, the number of seasonal workers at the peak of harvest
was down 5 percent (M.E.S.C. 1965: 22-23).

The decline in seasonal labor use continued in 1966 with only
45,513 interstate workers of which 73.8 percent were Texans. In 1967
labor use was up again-~there was a 12 percent increase in the use of
seasonal labor in the pickle harvest, an increase of 30 percent in
sugar beet cultivation and harvest, and a 50 percent increase in truck
crops from the previous year (M.E.S.C. 1967: 21-24). Then in 1968,
labor use was down about 6.7 percent at peak, and from that year on the
decline has continued. It is correlated to several factors, among these
the increasing trend toward largescale farms. The U.S. Department of
Agriculjnxre indicated there had been a 3.3 percent decrease in the

rmmber oi?.farm5 in Michigan from 1967 to 1968, while the total land in

 

106

farms had only decreased 1.5 percent; and the average size per farm had
also increased from 149 acres in 1967 to 152 acres in 1968 (M.E.S.C.
1968: 12). '

Another trend linked to the decline in labor use was mechanical
and technological innovations in agriculture. In 1966 there were
several mechanical once—over pickle harvesters in use in Michigan fields,
and in 1967 Michigan State University developed a strain of pickle which
could be planted closer together and bear a more even-sized fruit--
important characteristics for the increased use of mechanical harvesters.
The relative productivity of mechanical harvesting versus manual har-
vesting differs from crop to crop but is particularly important in the
case of pickling cucumbers, the major employer of Chicanos in Michigan
fields. Referring to Table 5, although mechanical harvesting of apples
is only 3.8 times as productive in terms of actual quantity of fruit
harvested than is hand picking, for pickling cucumbers the machine-man
ratio is 50 to l--i.e., a machine can harvest fifty times the amount of

a man.

Table 5.--Differences in Harvest Productivity (Pounds per Manhour).

 

 

CrOp Handpicked Machine Picked Machine/Man Ratio
Apples 340 1,320 3.8/1
Cucumbers 100 5,000 50.0/1

 

Adapted from Hall 1969: 74.

At the sanma‘time mechanical harvesters were used increasingly in the

Cherry CITH) and as early as 1965 some 60 percent of the blueberry crop

107

was harvested by use of a hand-held vibrator and catching frame. Sugar
beet thinning and harvesting had been reduced by developments in Special
seeds, space planting, and herbicides.

Improvements in productivity as a result of mechanization and
technical developments combined with the tendency toward increasing
consolidation of small farms to reduce the use of hand labor. In 1970
only 25,530 interstate workers were employed at the peak of the harvest
and only 1,425 of these were in pickles. By 1971, there were only 977
workers employed at the peak of the pickle harvest although the pickle
harvest was up from the previous year (M.E.S.C. 1971).

In 1971 the Farm Placement Section of M.E.S.C. began to con-
centrate on labor maximization and discouragement of labor migration.
The placement specialists contacted employment services in southern
states asking that they refer to Michigan only those migrants with
solid work commitments; made sure farmers really did need workers who
contacted them about work with a particular farmer; asked farmers who
had hired migrants previously to write crew leaders and family heads
advising them if they were not needed; and discouraged beet and pickle
processors from advancing travel money to migrants working for their
contracted growers (M.E.S.C. 1971: 15).

However, 23.3 percent of the sample survey in Flint and 22.5 per—
cent of the surveyed heads of household in Lansing migrated to those
cities among the War on Poverty cohort (see Tables 2 and 3). Over
80 percent of these in Flint were Texas born yet over 50 percent in
lensing were Mexican born, with less than 50 percent in Flint former

flumworkers yet over 70 percent in Lansing former farmworkers.

108

Farmwork was still bringing migrants to Lansing in particular, but
instead of remaining "in the migrant stream" they were settling into
urban life.

The reasons for that were multiple. The disparity between
Michigan and Texas in economic base had not lessened and Texas
Chicanos were still largely dependent on the seasonality inherent in
agriculture-related industry. Other factors were important as well,
however. Among these was the develOpment of social awareness that was
part of-the War on Poverty and Civil Rights era. This awareness was
first extended to seasonal migratory farmworkers during this period--a
crucial time for them to become recognized as a special population since
their way of life was rapidly being eradicated throughout the country.
Church groups had long been interested in Michigan's migratory farmworkers
--in 1940 the Home Missions Council of North America formed the Michigan
State Migrant Committee to provide for some of the immediate physical
needs of migrants and in the early 19505 the Catholic church had numer-
ous Spanish-speaking priests and seminarians involved in mission pro-
grams in the migrant camps.12

Yet it was not until the mid—19605 that certain important
federal legislation took place that was to change the character of
migratory farmwork for those still so employed in Michigan. The
Migrant Health Act of 1962 provided that local health departments would
offer health services to migrants, yet the first health care program
especially for migrants in Michigan was arranged by a local health
department in the southwestern part of the state in 1966. In 1965 the
Lmiform Housing Standards Act provided for health department licensing

of labor camps where five or more migratory laborers lived; the Michigan

‘k

109

licensing program began in 1966. In 1967 the Fair Labor Standards Act
was extended to some agricultural laborers, making them subject to
minimum wages and compensation. In 1967 the state-wide migrant services
agency (MMA) was established to carry on the dual functions of providing
for emergency needs of seasonal workers and retraining and placing them
in non-agricultural industries. This manpower policy had the important
consequence of increasing the Lansing Chicano population, as will be
noted below.

Post Vietnam Recession Cohort
(1972-1976)

 

 

The same trends noted for the War on Poverty cohort continued
into the mid-19705. Manpower needs were getting smaller and smaller
nationally in agriculture and Michigan remained consistent with the
trend. For example, in several crOps important in mid-Michigan agri-
culture the manhours required per acre production ranged from 36 to
70 for harvest and 50 to 126 for total cr0p production yet in 1975 the
manhours for harvest ranged from 5 to 64 and total crop production
required only 15 to 112 manhours (see Table 6). In the case of pickles,
during the period 1964-68 it took an average of 70 manhours per acre
including cultivation to get the pickles to market. By 1975 it took
only 37 manhours per acre for harvest and 73 manhours per acre including
cultivation to market the same amount of pickles.

Labor recruitment was no longer a goal of farmworker organi-
zations-—MMA was concerned with social services and retraining, MESC
was concerned with maximization, and informal methods of labor recruit-
ment prevailed in contrast to the highly structured methods of the

bracero period. Smaller farmers still needed hand labor to compete

110

Table 6.--Manhours Per Acre in Selected CrOps.

 

% Change in
Manhours/Acre,
19605—1975

Manhours Per Acre

Crop Harvest Total "

 

1964-68 1975 1964-68 1975 Harvest Total

 

Apples 68 64 126 112 —6 -ll
Cucumbers 7O 37 110 73 -47 -34
Onions 7O 41 120 86 -41 -28
Snap beans 36 5 50 15 -86 -7O

 

Adapted from Davis 1969: Tables 7, 10.

with capital-intensive agribusiness or to convert to largescale enter-
prises. Contacts made with workers during the earlier period became
important links in recruitment networks. The state employment agency
was still officially in charge of farm labor recruitment andtmanagement,
but a telephone call just prior to the harvest season from a worker to
a grower for whom he had worked before became the surest method of
securing farm labor and the best means of ensuring work for oneself and
one's kin and friends. In this new stage informal mechanisms using
kinship and friendship networks of the laborers themselves and the
reliance on patron-client ties with farmers largely replaced the com-
plex structures developed earlier.

A small percentage (5.8) of the Flint survey sample entered the
city among this cohort but the largest single percentage (26.3) of the
Lansing sample did so (see Tables 2 and 3). This was a period of post-
war recession and although opportunities were not great in Michigan

they were somewhat better than available in Texas. Farmwork continued

111

to offer a bridge to Michigan from Texas and Mexico: a full 57.1 per-
cent of permanent Lansing migrants came as farmworkers (see Table 3).
The migration histories of two Chicano Lansingites among this cohort
are exemplary of the pattern.

One of these, Maria Estela Barrientoz, was a twenty—two-year-
old mother of two. Maria had been born on "el otro lado" of Laredo
(i.e., Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas) because her mother discovered at the
time for her delivery that her husband had apparently abscounded with
the doctor's fee she had been hiding in a jar in the kitchen. She went
to Mexico to have a partera (midwife) deliver the infant, a much less
expensive alternative. Maria was a pachuca (urban ”tough") when at
home in Laredo and a migrant worker in the Midwest in the summertime.
She quit school before finishing the seventh grade and married the
first boy, Eduardo Barrientoz, who asked for her hand. They migrated
to southeastern Michigan to work in the tomato and cucumber fields in
the Blissfield area and secured cannery work there permanently following
the floods in Texas in 1973. Maria became involved with the local
migrant council, eventually becoming a member of the board of directors
of Michigan Migrant Agency. This caused problems between Eduardo and
Maria, and he returned to beating her daily, a practice he had dis-'V
continued in Michigan. When Maria found that he and her closest girl-
friend were having an affair, she packed the children and some clothes
into the car of the padrino (godfather) of her eldest child and asked
to go to Lansing. She had visited the city on migrant council business
and therefore knew it had a large number of Chicanos. Maria and her
children moved into the home of a friend from the migrant agency and

she worked nights and went to a part—time school to get her high school

112

diploma. She had been in the city three weeks when we met. Maria's
involvement with one of the federally-funded "migrant programs" which
first began to develop during the War on Poverty was responsible for
her ultimate settlement in Lansing. Her migration to Michigan had been
in response to economic need, but her residence in Lansing was a result
not only of continued need but also of her involvement with the migrant
agency and informal primary-group relationships she had established
through that involvement.

Candelario Gutierrez, 42, was also born in Mexico but had lived
on the border, maintaining at least a post office box on the Texas side,
for years. He had had a little cantina in Nuevo Leon for awhile, but
had been forced to become a migratory farmworker to support his wife
and daughter when he was in his early thirties.13 At first he worked
only in Texas, doing farmwork and hauling produce and people in his
ancient pickup truck. Then a respected acquaintance in Weslaco, Don
Pedro--a carpenter in the winter and crew leader in the summer--suggested
that he consider coming along to Michigan to the pickle farm for the
summer as the wages were pretty good. So in 1972 Candelario and his
family drove to the Gilbert farm in Baton County to work with Don Pedro
for the summer. The patron, Mr. Gilbert, was quite paternalistic and
kept an eye on everything his "hands" did. Candelario's downfall was
that he liked a beer now and then yet Mr. Gilbert allowed no drinking
in his camp. Candelario went to the camp for a second season, but got
in trouble with the patron over the beer. He successfully located
another employer in the same county. This farmer, Mr. Oscar, owned
several ranches and employed one or two Mexican families to take total

care of each. Candelario moved into the smaller of two seasonal

113

houses on the farm, the larger being occupied by a trucker and his
family who worked as an agent for Mr. Oscar to the pickle processing
company in another town. When I met Candelario, he and his family had
worked for Mr. Oscar two seasons. In 1975 Candelario's daughter, then
19, got a scholarship to attend the local community college through the
assistance of the local migrant welfare worker. The winter of 1975—1976
he and his wife stayed in Lansing in the barrio, renting a room from
friends they had met earlier while working at Gilbert camp who had since
settled into the barrio. Candelario worked during the winter as a
janitor on a special grant to a Chicano agency.

Candelario was a "green carder" or "communter." He had a form
I-lSl which allowed him to work in the U.S. while preparing for
naturalization as a citizen. He had begun his international migrations
as a "visitor" on a border-crossing card, form I-l86, however, and was
not at all clear about what was required of him to maintain legal status
in the U.S. He therefore travelled at least twice a year to the border
and carried out business dealings that would be sure to establish his
legal presence on the U.S. side of the border region although that was
not required.14

When the spring of 1976 came, Candelario returned to Mr. Oscar's
farm. In 1977 Candelario had moved into the larger migrant house at
Mr. Oscar's, had bought himself a newer truck, and had brought another
family up from Texas-~distant relatives of his wife--who then occupied
the smaller house in which they used to live. Both Candelario and
Maria represent one type of post-Vietnam War migrant to Lansing: the
poor, unskilled, and undereducated type which was to join the "client"

stratum in the Lansing Chicano population.

 

114

In Flint, a slightly different pattern was apparent. The farm-
worker immigrant can be exemplified by Roberto and Maria Martinez, who
had lived in that city since 1974. Roberto, 34, was born in San
Antonio, graduated from high school there and served in the army in
Vietnam. He was wounded in this service, returned to San Antonio and
attended one year of college there on the GI bill. Then he and Maria
were married. He moved with her to her hometown, a little town outside
San Antonio, but found it difficult to support them as he could only
get farmwork there and it was painful for him as he had schrapnel in
his legs. They then moved to Flint, as her older sister lived there
and invited them for a visit. Roberto got a job at a local GM plant
through the aid of a veteran's officer, who also got him admitted to
the nearest VA hospital for consultation and treatment. Maria spends
the summers in Minnesota with another sister, and they work for a couple
of months in the sugarbeet fields before she returns to Flint in the
fall. She uses her summer earnings to buy clothing for the children
and to buy "extras" for the house.

Flint has not had a stream of professional-level Chicano
migrants settling in during the 19705 as has Lansing. As will be dis-
cussed in chapter 6, the demographic variables that make Flint Chicanos
appear invisible also make them appear to be more problem-free than
their Lansing counterparts. What is more, Flint Chicanos fit the mean
of the local occupational and income structures better than do Lansing
Chicanos (see chapter 5). So in relative terms fewer of them do suffer
from economic problems generally served by social service agencies

which employ the type of professionals that have come to Lansing.

 

 

 

115

The following sections present a historical overview of the

growth of the Chicano populations of Flint and Lansing.

Chicano Population Growth in Flint and Lansing

 

Lansing

Lansing officially became capital of the State of Michigan in
1847 but was not incorporated as a city until 1859. The local economic
base combined agriculture and government from the inception of the
city. These two economic sectors continued their importance in the
local economy even with the twentieth century development of the auto
industry (see chapter 3). By the bracero period of the 19505 a full
century after urban incorporation, the area surrounding Lansing had
become an important truck crop region with among the highest yields of
pickling cucumbers in the country.

Some Lansingites indicate that the first permanent Chicano
settlers came to Lansing in the decade between 1910 and 1920 (e.g.,
Quinto Sol 1976). Chicanos who have lived in Lansing since the 19305
indicate that although a few families had come earlier to work on the
farms near the city and some had come as workers on the railroads, the
earliest permanent families came in the 19305. The census of 1910 did
not include the category ”Mexican" or list Mexico as a possible place
of birth in any tables for Flint or Lansing. In 1920 Mexico was listed
as a possible choice for country of birth for foreign-born whites
(refer to Table 7) but there were no Mexican-born persons recorded in
Lansing city that year. In the Lansing tri—county area there were no
Mexican-born persons in Clinton or Eaton Counties but two in Ingham

County (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1923). These were probably migrants

116

Table 7.--Mexican-Born Population in Lansing and the Tri-County,

 

 

1920—1970.
Total Mexican-born Mexican-born
P0pulation, Population, Population,

Year Lansing Lansing Tri-County
1920 57,327 0 2
1930 78,397 5 52
1940 78,753 7 72
1950 ' 92,129 68 100
1960 107,807 1,138 1,352*
1970 6, 131,629 1,426 2,079*

 

*SMSA figure.

Based on figures from the U.S. census, 1923-1971b.

working in the onion fields in the southeastern part of the county as
these fields have been important foci for Chicano labor most of this

century. By 1930, the U.S. census showed five Mexican-born residents
in Lansing city, twelve in Ingham County, another sixteen in Clinton,
and twenty-four in Baton Counties.

One of the "first five" heads of household in Lansing was born
in Chihuahua, Mexico and came to the "winter garden area" of south-
western Texas at age fourteen. This was during the beginning of the
depression when work was scarse so his family began going north to
Michigan to the sugar beet fields for a few summer months. They were
contracted to enter the mid-Michigan area in 1933 and 1934 and he
returned in 1937, got married, and stayed. He recalled that the Spring
of 1936 in Crystal City, Texas there was an outbreak of tuberculosis,
and only those Mexicans who were nationalized U.S. citizens were

treated at hospitals. Other Mexicans who contracted the disease were

117

isolated in huts on their own property at their own expense. The
threat of the loss of income if one became ill combined with the
apparent uncaring attitude of the health authorities alarmed him. The
next season he and several relatives and friends formed a small auto-
mobile caravan and headed north to Michigan since they had previous
satisfactory work experiences there. They settled in north Lansing
near the beet refinery which employed them their first few seasons in
Michigan. Other Chicano settlers in Lansing also lived near the sugar
refinery. Later immigrants often moved into the same general area for
social as well as economic reasons, so the north side where the sugar
refinery was located became the center of Chicano population concentra-
tion.15
During the depression years the sugar refinery in Lansing, which

had opened during the first decade of the twentieth century, was closed
(Pioneer News 1956). It was not in full operation again until near the
end of the decade. With the Depression, a trend which had existed in
Lansing in prior years became more evident. That was a tendency to view
Chicano migrants as undesirable. In 1926 an elderly Chicano currently
resident of Flint went to Lansing to visit, and offered the following
description of the care other Chicanos seem to have taken to blend into
the local scene:

I was hungry when I arrived and I walked up and down the streets

looking for a place that would sell me a cup of coffee and a

doughnut (all he could say in English) and suddenly I heard some—

one calling to me in Spanish . . . he took me inside and pulled

the blinds before talking to me, he was so careful that nobody

would hear him. He said his name was Roberto Tercero, but that

he was married to an Anglo woman named Smith so he had changed

his name to Robert Smith.

During the period that production was down, there was no need

for further immigration of workers into the area, and other crops and

 

118

industries could not employ the extra workers as they had similar
difficulties. Some beet workers sought relief from the welfare depart-
ment, and as a result there was considerable public opinion in favor of
programs to return them "home." The Michigan State Welfare Department
developed a program for their return, defining repatriation as appli-
cable to ". . . the alien who by reason of his age or physical con-
dition, is unable to become rehabilitated in the economic situation of
today . . ." and further declared
The prospective Repatriate is a person on relief in Michigan, still
having citizenship in a foreign country. Chances for further
immediate employment being very small, winter nearing, the alien
relief client looks upon the immediate future with fear; perhaps in
the native land, friends, relatives, or even property would insure
a safer and easier road. Yet due to the lack of necessary funds
the alien remains estranged from his world, with security just out
of his reach (Michigan State Welfare Department n.d.).
It is clear in the reference to ”winter nearing" and "chances for future
immediate employment being very small" that repatriation was designed
for unemployed seasonal workers, primarily farm workers, although rail-
road workers in Flint were also repatriated as will be noted below.
Since over half of the beet workers in Michigan by 1939 were of Mexican
descent (not all of whom were native Texans although they may have come
to Michigan from Texas) and probably a similar proportion of workers
in other agricultural products requiring seasonal workers were also
Mexican it is not surprising to find that Form R-103 of the Repatriation
Service was designed specifically for the processing of Mexican
repatriates during the depression. By 1940 there were seven persons
of Mexican birth in Lansing (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1943), only two

more than had been counted in the 1930 census, and only two out of

eighty household heads I surveyed had moved to the city during the

119

19305. This was a reflection of the general lack of economic oppor-
tunity as well as a fear of "repatriation” directed against Mexican
nationals.

Shortly before and during the war, however, another develOpment
was taking place in Michigan agriculture which would have a long—range
effect on Mexican immigration into the Lansing area. Regional speciali-
zation and intensive farming develOped and expanded as cheap transporta—
tion and refrigeration facilities became widely available. In 1950
Lansing had 68 Mexican-born residents (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1952)
and my sample included seven household heads out of eighty who had moved
to Lansing during the 19405. There were two Mexican restaurants
established during the 19405 in Lansing as well, and one is still
operating in the same location after thirty years. Despite centrali—
zation and mechanization of sugar beet production, some workers were
still needed for that crop as well as the other vegetable crops which
were becoming increasingly important in the Lansing region. My sample
included nineteen heads of household who moved to Lansing during the
19505. In 1951 Public Law 78, the bracero program, was enacted. As
described above, most migrants to the area were not braceros but the
labor needs of local agriculture were met by both the contracted
workers and by other Chicanos.

Twenty—one of the eighty heads of household in my sample
settled in Lansing during the 19605, with the greatest number coming
in 1966 shortly after the termination of Public Law 78. As a result
of the recruitment of Chicanos into the fruit and vegetable industries,
there were 1,138 persons of Mexican origin recorded in Lansing city

in 1960, compared to only 68 the previous decade, with a total of 1,352

120

within the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1962b).

Following the end of the contract labor era, Michigan farming
began to mechanize and consolidate and the use of seasonal migratory
laborers began a rapid decline (see above for details). In reSponse,
the Michigan Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service of the Michigan
Employment Security Commission c00perated with nine other states in the
Texas Migrant Experimental and Demonstration Project beginning with
the 1969 crOp season (M.E.S.C. 1969). The prOgram was designed to assist
migrant families in moving into other kinds of permanent employment, but
the second year of the project found just a dozen families who wanted
to "settle out of the migrant stream” in Michigan. Most had multiple
reasons for not wanting to stay in Michigan, including perception by the
migrants of a hostile attitude on the part of Michigan residents who
considered the resettled migrants a burden on local social service rolls
(M.E.S.C. 1970: 7). There is evidence that this perception may have
been accurate. In 1974 approximately one thousand migratory farmworkers
and their dependents received emergency services from the Lansing tri-
county office of the migrant services agency due to low employment in
agriculture in the area. In the 1970 census, the Mexican—born popula-
tion of Lansing was 1,426 or just under 300 persons greater than in
1960 but the Spanish language pOpulation, largely Chicano, was 5,070.
Twenty-eight heads of household in my survey had moved to Lansing during
the 19705. In 1975 a consultant from Michigan State University to the
director of the Michigan State Department of Social Services at Lansing
suggested that welfare recipients in the state be paid a bonus of

$5,000 to leave the state. It was suspected that many came to Michigan

from other states just to receive welfare due to Michigan's relatively

high welfare payments (Lansing State Journal 1975).

F_1_2_n_t_

In contrast, Chicano migration to Flint is more a reflection of
the development of the auto industry than of agriculture. The develop-
ment of Flint as an important industrial center began with the esta-
blishment of lumber mills during the logging boom years between 1870
and 1880. The presencé of lumber and sawmills and the function of the
city as a transportation hub also encouraged development of wagon and
carriage manufacture. During the next decade Flint became known as the
"vehicle city" for its carriage manufacture. When the first car was
built in the city in 1900 the stage was set for the automobile age.
From 1900 to 1930 the pOpulation of the city increased well over 1000
percent due to the tremendous'growth of the auto industry (see chapter 3).

Many of the workers recruited into this new industry were
foreign-born. According to the U.S. census, there were no Mexican-born
residents in Flint in 1910, but by 1920 there were 82, with 8 more in
the tri-county area (Genesee, Lapeer, and Shiawassee Counties) and by
1930 there were 635 with 110 more in outlying areas (see Table 8). One
of the heads of household in my survey, which included sixty-nine
households in Flint, had come to the city during the 19205 and four had
moved to the city during the 19305.

The first Mexican families to come to Flint who still live
there came in 1923. These were families contracted in San Antonio,
Texas by an agent of the beet factory in Saginaw to hoe and thin sugar

beets in the northern part of Genesee County. The heads of these

122

Table 8.--Mexican—Born Population in Flint and the Tri-County,

 

 

1920-1970.

Total Mexican-Born Mexican-Born

Population, Population, Population,

Year Flint Flint Tri-County
1920 91,599 82 90
1930 156,492 635 759
1940 151,543 103 145
1950 163,143 128 152*
1960 196,940 687 1,055*
1970 _ 193,317 957 1,656*

 

*SMSA figure.

Based on figures from the U.S. Census, 1923-1971a.

households are retired from the major auto factory following over
thirty years' employment there. A single Chicano came to Flint in 1924
to do farmwork but soon got a job laying stones for intracity tracks
with the railroad. Most Chicano residents of Flint were not farmworkers
as early as 1939: in Genesee and Oakland Counties they worked in Flint
and Pontiac foundries (Thaden 1942: 16).

The depression years and the repatriations of the 19305 had
more impact on the Flint Chicano population than they did in Lansing.
This was partly because the population was already more sizable and
partly because it was less mobile, due to greater reliance on industrial
employment. Total Michigan auto and truck production in 1929 was
5,337,087 but by 1932 was down to 1,331,860 vehicles (Dunbar 1970:

567), representing a tremendous decrease in industrial employment
potential for cities like Flint which were dependent on auto production.

One young Lansing Chicano recalls hearing about the time his father, a

’ 123

railroad employee, was deported from Flint. He had only a temporary
work permit which had long since expired, but had followed the track
work north. He was put on a train headed south and taken to a town in ‘
southern Coahuila to find his own way home, which happened to be a
border town on the Rio Grande just across from Texas. Many others, who
had come during the boom years, found themselves either unwelcome or
unable to find work and by 1940 the Mexican-born population of Flint
was down to 103 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1943), a loss of 532 persons.

Then production was shifted over to war materials as the second
world war began. From 1939 to 1945, according to Dunbar (1970: 574),
Michigan manufactured 39 percent of the aircraft and aircraft parts,

30 percent of the military vehicles and their parts, and 13 percent of
the tanks produced in the country. The largest plant devoted to war
material production in Flint was the Tank Arsenal, which had labor
needs that could not be met by Flint residents. Many Flintites were
in the armed forces so women, rural residents, and the first waves of
southerners came to work in the factory. From 1940 to 1950 the census
shows an increase of only 40 more persons of Mexican origin in Flint.
Thirteen of the heads of household in my survey came to Flint during
the 19405--a1most twice as many as the comparable Lansing figure for
the same period out of a smaller total sample. This was likely due to
the opportunities for employment in war industries.

When the war was over, the auto plants again began producing
civilian vehicles. Before the demand which resulted from the war
backlog could be met, the United States entered into the Korean War,
and from 1950 to 1955 production continued at all-time high levels.

Between 1940 and 1955 Michigan had one of the highest rates of

124

population growth in the country, most of which came from immigration
rather than natural increase. Flint was no exception. By 1960, the
Flint population of Mexican-born persons had increased to 687 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1962a) and 20 out of 69 heads of household, the
largest number in any decade counted in my sample, came to Flint during
that period. Of these, the largest number moved to Flint in 1955.

Once again there was a decline in the auto industry following
the decline in war production as there had been after the world war.
Defense contracts began to go to other states, foreign competition
began,and in 1958 the worst economic recession since the 19305 occurred.
Chicanos continued, like other southerners, to immigrate to Flint in
hope of securing permanent stable employment, but the huge demands for
labor would never again be the same, due not only to factors noted
above but also to developments in the mechanization of auto production.
During the 19605 another nineteen of the Chicano heads of household
survyed immigrated to Flint, but these moved in evenly scattered
throughout the years of the decade. During this period, some migrant
camps were still in use in the county and some of the newcomers, as in
previous decades, undoubtedly came for agricultural employment but
remained due to industrial employment.

By 1970 the Flint population of persons born in Mexico was 957
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1971a), an increase of 270 over 1960.
Nineteen seventy was the first year the census bureau used a category
for Spanish language population and that year there were 3,322 persons
whose mother tongue was Spanish (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1971a),
most of whom were Chicano. Part of the increase noted in foreign-born

Mexican population may be due to an improvement in sampling. Recent

125

studies of the 1970 enumeration indicate a sampling error for Spanish-
speaking people which may be as high as 30 percent for some cities due
to problems such as language and mail-return surveys (U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights 1974). These sampling problems can be assumed to have
been even greater in past years when no attempts were made to offset
them, particularly since in Flint Chicanos have been an ”invisible"
minority group.

During the 19705, cycles of production in the auto industry
continued to effect the Flint Chicano population as they had in the
past. Due to the post-Vietnam recession, the energy crisis of 1973,
»and the resultant changes in demand, unemployment in the auto industry
has been higher than in the past decade. In 1975, for example, overall
unemployment in Flint was 15.1 percent due to the fact that over one-
third of all jobs in the city were in auto, truck, and auto-part
factories (Verway 1976: 2). Only eight of sixty-five Chicano household
heads in my sample had moved to Flint during the 19705, and these were
relatives of long-time residents.

Throughout the period of Chicano immigration to Flint there was
no large settlement concentration. Early Chicano settlers indicate
there were sections which served as entry points for newcomers, where
slightly higher numbers of Chicanos resided but there was never a
"Chicano neighborhood” such as existed in north Lansing. Flint Chicanos
had come to the city during periods when large numbers of other immi-
grants also came, and settled throughout the city as their numbers
grew. As will be delineated in chapters 5 and 6 Chicanos who migrated
to Flint were able to settle dispersed throughout the city because they

were similar to many other labor migrants to that city.

126

Summary

Chicanos have been settling in Flint since the 19205 and in
Lansing since the 19305. The amount of migration to each city has
fluctuated over time, however. It was argued in this chapter that
the patterns of Chicano migration to Flint and Lansing were reSponses
to a combination of economic disparity between Michigan and the border
-region and actual recruitment of labor migrants by Michigan enterprises.
The changes in migration streams over time were correlated to important
national and international economic cycles as described above.

More than half of all the Chicano permanent migrants to Flint
and Lansing came as farmworkers or the children of farmworkers. Some
of these were actually recruited into mid-Michigan agriculture while
others entered Michigan in a less formal manner. Regardless of whether
or not a particular Chicano came as a formally-recruited labor migrant,
the majority of Michigan Chicanos were farmworkers. Both official and
unofficial policies toward farmworkers therefore formed an important
social element in the time period during which individual Chicanos were
migrating. This social milieu was discussed in terms of migration
cohorts. The earliest cohorts were marked by one-to-one personalistic
labor recruitment into Michigan agriculture. Then came World War II and
greater numbers of Chicanos sought economic advancement in Michigan
industries that were keyed up for war production. During the 19505 and
19605 Chicano migration occurred in the context of formal, planned,
controlled migration of Mexican nationals as field hand laborers. When
the bracero program was terminated in 1964, development of social ser-

vice programs and a national awareness of minority civil rights was

127

changing the context of Chicano migration. By the 1970s federal social
service programs were a crucial feature in Chicano migration.

These general patterns of migration context had somewhat
different impact in Flint and Lansing due to the divergent political
economies of these cities which were examined in chapter 3. In Lansing
the impact of agriculture and its fluctuating labor needs continued in
importance into the 19705. Chicanos were still employed in farmwork in
the Lansing area in the 19705 when government programs were also having
significant impact on Chicano migration and settlement. In Flint the
vagaries of the auto industry had far greater influence on Chicano
migration, which tended to coincide with auto industry boom and bust
cycles as well as with overall develOpments in mid-Michigan agriculture.
As a result of these local differences in migration in response to the
divergent politicoeconomic bases of the two cities, Chicanos in Flint
and Lansing have somewhat different internal class and status differ-

entiations. These will be discussed in the ensuing chapter.

128

Footnotes

11 use the terms migrant and immigrant to refer to Chicanos who
were resident in Flint and Lansing but were born elsewhere. The vast
majority of Chicanos surveyed in both cities were born in Texas or
northern Mexico (see text). It is not very useful to distinguish
between "temporary" and "permanent" migrants to the research sites, as
a number of the "permanent" Michigan residents I knew in 1975-1976 had
returned to Texas in 1978. However, in both cities there were Chicano
residents who had been in that city for at least twenty consecutive
years.

2Official statistics distinguish between Mexican and Texas
Chicanos and official policies differed for these segments of the
Chicano pOpulation (see text). I therefore indicate which segment of
the Chicano population is under discussion where pertinent.

3This chapter is based on a number of sources: oral histories of
informants in both cities, interviews with persons at various government
and non—profit organizations involved with migratory farmworkers,
reports by pertinent individuals and agencies, and the migration history
questionnaire I administered in both cities.

4A considerable literature exists on urbanite adaptations. See
e.g., Mangin 1970 for a compilation of articles on regional associations,
squatter settlements, formal organizations and rural-urban differences.
Also MacDonald and MacDonald (1964) suggest that chain migration has a
stronger influence on ethnic neighborhood formation than does discrimina-
tion, and Stack (1974) demonstrates the reciprocity of kin networks in
the city.

5This cohort is named for the latter part of the nine year
interval it encompasses-~it was actually a "boom and bust" period.

6According to McWilliams (1941: 6) much of the use of Mexican
labor in Michigan beet fields could be traced to the formation of a
local Agricultural Workers Union among European immigrants at Blissfield
which struck for higher wages in 1935.

7One Lansingite who settled there permanently in 1937 recalled
going with a local church group to meet the trains during the early
19405 taking clothes, blankets, and coffee to the workers. Thus the
pattern of settled Chicanos becoming an assistance pool for newcomers
was established early.

8A bracero is a hand laborer, specificially a farm laborer, but
has come to mean Mexican-born laborers recruited under the auspices of

the bracero program. It is in the latter sense that I will use the
term here.

129

9See Friedland and Nelkin 1971 for a more complete discussion
of the trucker and crew leader positions.

10The "pickle belt" is a 60-mile stretch running diagonally

across the state from Holland to Bad Axe and includes both Lansing and
Flint.

11There have been three major migrant streams in the U.S. during

the 19605 and 19705. This study is of a branch of the largest of these
--the Central States stream. For an account of the migrant labor
stream largely consistent of blacks which moves north and east from
Florida annually see Friedland and Nelkin 1971. The third stream moves
northward out of California (see Shenkin 1974: ch 3).

12Such migrant mission programs formed the basis for the
Chicano Catholic parishes which exist to this day in both Flint and
Lansing.

13Farmwork tends to be one of several options available to the
Chicano labor migrant. For more detailed studies of the kinds of
strategies employed by such migrants, see Bustamante 1971 and Galarza
1971.

14The border crossing card was originally meant for people to

use within a 150 mile limit of the border for purposes of shepping and
visiting and was restricted to four years. The regulations on visitors
were changed in the early 19705 to an indefinite time limit but the
geographic region was restricted to a 25 mile range from the border.
The commuter card has no such restrictions. Samora suggests that the
green card has been substituted for the bracero contract as an alien
work permit (Samora 1971: 22). See Samora 1971 for more details on
these regulations.

15This was in census tract 2. This tract currently has the
second-highest Chicano population concentration but still serves as a
major center for newcomer settlement. See chapter 6.

CHAPTER 5

CLASS AND MIGRANT SELECTIVITY

Introduction

 

Most Chicanos in Flint and Lansing came to those cities seeking
economic advancement in the form of improved employment conditions or
wages. It has already been demonstrated in this study that they
migrated in response to the shifting labor needs of different local
industries. Chicanos in Flint and Lansing have a range of income,
education, and occupation levels but each of these factors tends to
display the same pattern in the same city. In addition, the regions
of origin of Flint and Lansing Chicanos are somewhat different and
these differences are related to the socioeconomic features discussed.
Chicanos in Flint and Lansing are clearly not an undifferentiated ethnic
group nor are they all a single class in both cities. Instead,
distinctive patterns of stratification have emerged within each Chi-
cano pOpulation. The two distinctive patterns within the Chicano
populations of the two cities appear to be a result of the operation of
migrant recruitment to satisfy local industrial labor needs1 and the
operation of local structures into which these migrants had to fit.

As noted in chapter 1, studies of Chicano formal organization
have tended to indicate that the causal variable in ineffective Chicano

organization is either their cultural background or their working-class

130

131

position. It is not my intention in this chapter to delineate internal
stratification of the Chicano population in order to explain ineffectual
formal organization thereby, but rather to demonstrate that this strati-
fication is an intervening variable. I suggest that the Chicano class
patterns discussed herein are a result of the larger processes of
structural inequality that put into motion the differential Chicano
migration to the two cities. Succeeding chapters discuss the ways in
which the position of Chicanos in general vis—a-vis the local "power
elites" and internal differentiation of the Chicano population act to

influence Chicano organization behavior and success.

Place of Origin of Migrants

 

General Comparison

 

There were at least 7,000 Chicanos in Flint and 8,000 in Lansing
in 1970.2 The survey conducted in 1976 sampled approximately 3 percent
of these populations (see Appendix A).3 Between those populations one
of the most striking differences encountered in the survey was the
place of origin (defined as the place of birth) of the household heads.
A far greater number of Lansing household heads were Mexican-born than
was the case in Flint. Referring again to Table 1 chapter 4, it can-
be seen that 71.5 percent of Chicano migrants to Flint at all periods
in the 1976 sample survey were Texas-born while 19.0 percent were
Mexican-born with 9.5 percent born in other places. The earliest
cohorts showed the highest percentages of Mexican-born migrants. In
Lansing, Table 2 chapter 4 demonstrates that only 53.3 percent of
Chicano migrants to that city at all periods were Texas-born and

exactly one-third were Mexican-born. A full 13.4 percent were born in

132

other places, and most of them migrated to that city among the most
recent cohort. What is more, these recent migrants were mostly pro-
fessionals who came to serve the poorer Chicanos. The ratio of Mexicao-
born to Texas—born was fairly constant in Lansing except during the War
on Poverty period, at which time more migrants were Mexican-born. This
period was marked by the first development of federal programs to aid
seasonal farmworkers and was the first period following the termination
of the bracero program. The Mexican-born migrants to Lansing during
this period were mostly seasonal farmworkers who were offered social
service assistance for the first time. In addition,many were doubt-
less then illegal immigrants as most surveyed indicated that they had
prior employment experience in the area but had had to return to Mexico.4
One of the most valuable services offered by Lansing Chicano social
service agencies was and still is assistance in processing immigration
papers.

The regions of Texas and Mexico from which the migrants came
were also different for the two cities and this difference was important
for their integration into Flint and Lansing. Referring to Table l, the
places of birth of Flint household heads were predominantly in Southeast
central Texas. The San Antonio region accounted for 20.7 percent of
all migrants, while the Corpus Christi and gulf coast region accounted
for 11.5 percent with a total for the general region of 39.4 percent.
The highest percentage of migrants from a single location came from
San Antonio, with 10.2 percent, while Pleasanton (just south of San
Antonio) accounted for 6.0 percent. The clustering of migrants to
the same city from the same town of origin occurred through chain

migration, but the selection of regions occurred not only due to chain

133

Table l.--Places Where Household Heads Born, Flint (Percentage of Sample,
Rounded to Nearest Tenth).

 

Michigan: 11.4
Flint 7.2
Chesaning 1.4
Pigeon 1.4
Detroit 1.4

Other States Besides Texas: 5.6

 

California 1.4
Colorado 1.4
Minnesota 1.4
Ohio 1.4

Mexico and Texas, Outside Major Regions: 8.8

 

Amarillo, TX 1.4

 

 

 

Mexico City, DF 6.0
Zacatecas, 2A 1.4
Southeast Central Texas:* 39.4 The Valley, South Texas,
North Mexico: 33.8
Center 1.4
The Valley: 17.7
Austin 3.0 Valley (TX) 3.0
Valley (MX) 3.0
San Antonio region: 20.7 Brownsville 1.4
San Antonio 10.5 Mercedes 3.0
New Braunfels 1.4 Weslaco 4.5
Seguin 1.4 Mission 1.4
Pleasanton 6.0 La Villa 1.4
Floresville 1.4
' Laredo 6.0
Cuero 1.4 Nuevo Laredo,
TM 4.5
Ganado 1.4

Monterrey, NL 1.4

Corpus Christi region: 11.5 Sabinas Hidalgo,
Corpus Christi 1.4 NL 1.4
Sinton 1.4
Goliad 1.4 Uvalde 1.4
Robstown 1.4 Crystal City 1.4
Alice 4.5
Benavides 1.4

 

*Unless otherwise indicated, all towns listed without a state
abbreviation following are located in Texas.

134

migration but due to migrant selectivity by industry and time period

as well. For example, the earliest immigrants to Flint were beet-
workers, and a 1941 survey of the place of origin of beetworkers
revealed the following information (see Table 2). Over 57 percent of
all mid-Michigan beetworkers selected at that time were from San Antonio
and altogether 64.24 percent of them came from the fairly urbanized

south central Texas region around San Antonio.

Table 2.--Place of Origin of Mid-Michigan Beetworkers, 1941.

 

Town of Origin Number Percent

 

 

San Antonio -- 57.50
(plus other Bexar County) 4,386 58.00
New Braunfels 140 1.84
Poteet 160 2.11
(Corpus Christi area) -- -—
Robstown 174 2.29
(Winter Garden area) (1,221) (16.07)
Laredo 200 2.63
Eagle Pass 220 2.90
Cotulla 308 4.05
Crystal City 493 64.9
(Others) (1,510) (19.69)
Total 7,597 100.00

 

Based on Thaden 1942: 23.

The earliest Flint immigrants who came as beetworkers were from just
these areas, and they were followed by other kin and friends, accounting
for the large numbers of Flintites from the San Antonio area.

The second-highest percentage of Flint migrants in the sample
were from a fairly large region including and surrounding the Rio Grande

Valley: "The Valley," i.e., the lower Rio Grande valley from just east

135

of Laredo to Brownsville; a parallel strip on the other side of the Rio
Grande—-Ve1 otro lado del Valle"; northern Mexico as far south as
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon; and South Texas outside the valley. This latter
region more specifically is the Southwest central Rio Grande valley and
the Winter Garden area of Texas-~a strip which runs northwest from
Laredo to at least Del Rio. These regions of origin are presented in
Figure 1.

Referring to Table 3, a different pattern of place of origin of
Lansing heads of household sampled in the survey emerges. Southeast
central Texas accounted for only 12.7 percent of Lansing migrants, while
”The Valley" and the other side of the valley supplied 20.5 percent, the
Southwest central Rio Grande and Winter Garden areas 36.6 percent, and
the town of Crystal City a full 10.0 percent of the sample. This dis-
tribution is presented in Figure 2.

Those Chicano immigrants to Lansing who were Mexican-born were
mostly from small towns and cities in the immediate vicinity of the
border. Unlike Mexican-born migrants in Flint, places of origin such
as Monterrey and central Mexican states represented "other regions"
rather than continuous extensions of migration regions in Texas. The
state of Tamaulipas on the other side of the winter garden region
accounted for the greatest number of Mexican-born migrants: Lansingites
from the winter garden were apt to have relatives in the state of
Tamaulipas and vice versa.5 It was demonstrated above that these differ-
ences in region of origin were linked to the divergent economic bases
of Flint and Lansing and their resultant labor markets (refer to

chapter 3).

136

 

    
   

Amarillo

 

 

Galveston

 

 

M E x I C O 729§3&$&3§%§E'rownsville-

.Zacatecas

San Luis Pot

  

~si

Mexico City
0

g 1: San Antonio region 20. 7° 11: The
Valley 17.7%; 111: Corpus Christi
area 11.5%

E, Southeast Central Texas 39.4%
South Texas-North Mexico 33.8%

Figure 1. Region of Origin of Flint Chicano Migrant Household Heads
(Percentage of Sample).

137

Table 3.-—Places Where Household Heads Born, Lansing (Percentage of
Sample, Rounded to Nearest Tenth).

 

 

 

Michigan: 10.1 Mexico and Texas, Outside Major
Regions: 11.5
Lansing 6.3
Albion 2.5 Ballinger, TX 1.3
Alma 1.3 College Station,
TX 1.3
Other States Besides Texas: 9.1 Michoacan 2.5
Monterrey, NL 1.3
Arizona 1.3 Pecos, TX 1.3
California 1.3 San Luis Potosi 2.5
Illinois 1.3 Zacatecas 1.3
Montana 1.3
New Mexico 1.3
New York 1.3
Ohio 1.3
The Valley, South Texas,* Southeast Central Texas: 12.7

 

 

North Mexico: 57.1

 

San Antonio area: 4.6
The Valley: 2 San Antonio 2.5
Valley (TX) San Marcos 1.3
Weslaco Cuero 1.3
Rio Grande City
La Villa . East Texas area: .6
(El Otro Lado del Val e Eagle Lake 1.3
Valley (MX) Galveston 1.3
Tamaulipas
Altamirano, TM Corpus Christi area: 6.3
Comales, TM Alice 1.3
Ciudad Guerreo, TM Falfurrias 2.5
Ciudad Mier, TM Robstown 2.5

Agualeguas, NL

SW Central Rio Grande val and
Winter Garden area: 3
Laredo .
Nuevo Laredo, TM

Encinal

e

04040400401001 040010“ (N mmwwoomvmmmoom

Eagle Pass

Piedras Negras, COA
Zaragoza, COA
Coahuila (border)
Crystal City
Carrizo Springs

Del Rio

Sonora

H
HHHOHHU‘IN HMO‘OHHNHHHMHHHHHWO
.0. O O O O O. .0

 

*Unless otherwise indicated, all towns listed without a state
abbreviation following are located in Texas.

138

Amarillo

TEXAS

C
Pecos

d.Acu 3‘ ' alveston

  
     
 
  
 

Piedras 1- rgs'
5 Corpus Christi

Laredo-
Nuevo Lareda

-fi},”Brownsville-

. "L
M E x l C o Monterrey 73" Matamoros

_Zacatecas

.San Luis Poto 1

.Mexico City

WE Southwest central Rio Grande valley
'7” and Winter Garden 36.6%
Lower Rio Grande valley 20.5%

Southeast Central Texas 12.2%

 

Figure 2. Region of Origin of Lansing Chicano Migrant Household Heads
(Percentage of Sample).

139

Analysis

There are crucial differences in the backgrounds of Chicanos
in Flint and Lansing which the major regions of origin provided, and
there are important differences among the Chicanos of each city due to
region of origin. In general terms, the major regions of origin of
Flint and Lansing Chicano migrants are different: Flintites are from
more urbanized Texas areas and Lansingites are from the small towns of
the border area.

"The Valley" and the "winter garden” have been studied by other
social scientists, and studies in two communities, one per region, are
important as background to this research. John Shockley (1974), a
political scientist, did an analysis of the development of La Raza
Unida in Crystal City while Arthur Rubel (1966) had earlier carried out
an ethnography of the Mexican side of New Lots (pseudonym), Hidalgo
County. Crystal City and New Lots had many similarities. Both were
"new towns" which developed during the first decade of the twentieth
century in response to the rise of irrigation agriculture following the
Reclamation Act of 1902 (McWilliams 1968: 175). Until irrigation,
livestock raising had been the primary economic concern in south Texas.
With the rising importance of agriculture, a number of small towns ,.
grew up in the area between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers, which had
never been a heavily populated region. The "new towns" were comprised
of two vastly different sectors. The Anglo sector consisted of resi-
dences, businesses, and a full array of services largely catering to
the Anglo landowners. The other sector was composed of the town's
industries as well as the residences and small businesses of the

Mexican population, most of which came to do Stoop labor in the fields.

140

Rubel referred to the Mexican section as that part of the town ”across
the tracks." In the case of New Lots this was literally true and in
other "new towns” such as Crystal City the situation was figuratively
true. Both Crystal City, in the winter garden area, and New Lots, in
"The Valley," were predominantly Chicano numerically, but the large
landholdings were Anglo-owned. The social and political structures of
the towns, i.e., the separate and distinct Angle and Chicano sectors,
reflected the new economic mainstay of the towns. The labor—intensive
nature of Anglo irrigation farming led to the importation of Mexican
laborers. Although the Chicano sections of the two towns have experi-
enced different recent political development, the early history and
structural similarity of the towns provide an insight into the back—
ground of many of the Lansing migrants. They came from an area where
Chicanos and Anglos were separated socially, culturally, and institu-
tionally and where separation was manifested in "dual towns." Further-
more, the vast majority of Chicanos in these areas had come to them as
mobile rural proletariat6 or the children of such mobile agricultural
laborers, and had then moved into the Midwest engaged in the same
endeavor.

In contrast, San Antonio was an early outpost of the Spanish
colonial government, first established as a mission and colony town in
1719; whereas the "new towns" were twentieth century phenomena.
Although Mexicans have been the only "minority group" evident in San
Antonio since the Anglo takeover of Texas in 1848 (Grebler et a1.
1970: 300), their longer history in the city and the position of
Spanish-Mexicans as founders is a different milieu from the "new

towns" of the Rio Grande region. Migrants to Flint were also

141

predominantly former farmworkers as were migrants to Lansing and they
were not descended from old landed gentry either. However, they did

not come from regions where "Mexican" was automatically equated with
"farmworker." What is more, of those born outside Texas or Mexico,

most Lansing Chianos were born in other farming regions while, except
for the earliest cohorts, Flint Chicano immigrants came from Saginaw,
Detroit, Toledo, Minneapolis and other urban areas. This difference is
borne out by research based on the 1970 census materials as well: while
only 37 percent of Lansing's immigrant Chicano population in 1970 had
come from other parts of Michigan, 46.9 percent of those in Flint had
lived elsewhere in Michigan prior to the move to Flint (Darden and

Haney n.d.). Only the Post Vietnam Recession found many prior urbanites
migrating to Lansing. Finally, a slightly higher percentage of Flint
heads of household surveyed were born in that city than were born in
Lansing (8.7 vs. 6.3), which correlates with the somewhat longer history
Chicanos had in Flint.

A greater number of Flint Chicano migrants were former urbanites
from Texas and the Midwest and more were native-born Flintites than was
the case with Lansing Chicanos. The latter were mainly rural-urban
migrants and more of these were Mexican-born. The differences in
region of origin and background of the migrants in turn had two impor-
tant effects on their integration into Flint and Lansing. In Flint,
Chicano migrants and natives were more homogeneous in background than
apparent in a description of the diversity of their ages and places of
birth. Most of them were accustomed to urban life and the vast
majority were U.S. born, therefore they had no legal status problems.

When combined with the socioeconomic variables detailed below,

142

Chicano migrants to Flint were much closer to the mainstream or
"average" Flintite than was the case in Lansing. Chicano migrants to
Lansing had become more diversified in recent years but included a
larger number of Mexican-born unskilled laborers than did the Flint
migrant population. When combined with the socioeconomic profile de-
tailed below, it becomes clear that some Lansing Chicanos formed a
"lumpen proletariat" or "problem" pOpulation in social work terms that
was not as sizable in Flint.7

Region of origin played several roles in stratifying Chicanos
within the target cities as well. These roles were more apparent in
Lansing. First, the differentiation between Mexican-born and U.S.-born
in Flint was to a considerable extent a function of generational
differences. In contrast, Lansing included not only the "oldtimer"
first-generation Mexican migrants but also considerable numbers of
very recent Mexico-U.S. migrants. There were therefore more Oppor-
tunities for disagreement on the benefits of assimilation, working
"within the system," and political action in general than would be the
case in a population with a more homogeneous origin and background
socialization. Secondly, most of the recent Mexican migrants were
poorly educated and unskilled. Thus the problems as well as the
cultural heritage were being continuously renewed in the Lansing
Chicano population.8 In recent years educated Chicanos had begun to
migrate to Lansing to serve the needs of the very poor, particularly
the newcomer Mexican migrant. Most of them were from Texas cities and
young local Chicanos who had gone through the Lansing educational
system and their parents who had sacrificed for their children's edu-

cation often resented the intrusion of these professionals into

143

positions which they considered rightfully theirs. Finally, the fact
that Lansing Chicano migration has continued from the border region
for more than forty years means that migrants from the same town may
become pitted against each other in Lansing as a result of historical
developments in the border region. People in Lansing from the Crystal
City of the 19305 and newcomers from the Crystal City of La Raza Unida
daysg were particularly antipathetic towards each other since the
former often assumed that the latter were "raving radicals" and the
latter in turn often assumed the former were "tio tacos" (sell-outs).
This stratifying role was also of importance in Flint and formed part
of the basis of the two factions of local Chicanos.

Chicanos and the Opportunity Structures
of the Cities

 

 

Introduction

 

The framework of occupational, educational, and of course
income improvements available in a given city can be considered the
local Opportunity structure. There is an implicit assumption that a
local opportunity structure is equally open to all residents——i.e.,
there is said to be equality of opportunity. Upward social mobility
through the opportunity structure in the United States is generally an
individual phenomenon which proceeds through occupational and edu-
cational advancement. Groups move upward in the socioeconomic hierarchy
through investment in the succeeding generation. Similarly, there is
an implicit assumption that the opportunity structure of the United
States is Open to all in general. However, the "good things in life"

such as formal education and real income are distributed unequally

144

among groups in the United States and the inequality is not decreasing.
In fact, Hill (1973) found that:
. . . while the real income of families has risen since World War
II, the degree of inequality in the distribution of income among
families has remained roughly constant and the relative income gap
between the richest and poorest segments of the white male labor
force has increased (Hill 1973: 98).

The way in which individuals and groups are integrated into a
local opportunity structure depends on whether or not they are dis-
criminated against in seeking those opportunities and upon their back-
grounds, which may be a result of migrant selectivity. The way in which
they are integrated may lead to greater disparity between the lowest
and highest segments of the local population just as has occurred at
the national level.

Occupations of Chicanos and the

Occupation Structures of the
Two Cities

 

 

 

The manner in which Chicanos fit into the occupation structures
of the two cities was different, as has been suggested previously. Chi—
canos did not fit into the "power elite," i.e., those with political and
economic control, in either city but were internally differentiated by
occupation in both. As will be demonstrated in succeeding chapters,
these strata were important categories along which social cohesion and
competition occurred. What is more, the pattern of Chicano occupational
differentiation was markedly different in the two cities.

In 1970, the census recorded 12 percent more (38%) of the Flint
Chicano pOpulation employed as factory operatives than of the total
city population (26%) while in Lansing 19 percent more Chicanos than the

population as a whole worked as factory operatives (18% more for

145

Lansing-East Lansing: see Table 4). A smaller percentage of Chicanos
were employed in service occupations than the city mean in Flint yet
7 percent more Chicanos in Lansing worked in service positions than
the city mean. At the same time, Chicano professionals equalled the
city mean in Flint and were 9 percent under-represented in Lansing.
Fewer Chicanos in both cities were employed as laborers in Lansing and
2 percent more in Flint than the cities' means. In summary, in 1970
the Chicano occupation pattern in Flint more nearly approximated the
pattern for all employed in the city than did the Lansing population,
which was heavily over-represented in the low-skill, low-pay occupa-
tional categories.

In 1976 when I conducted the migration history survey I found
that in Flint 45.6 percent of the household heads surveyed were employed
in jobs at the auto or auto-parts factories. The next highest per-
centage (8.8) was employed in supervision in those factories. Four
point four percent were employed in construction, another 4.4 percent
in unskilled service sector jobs and 4.4 percent were teachers or
counselors. There were 2.9 percent employed as "service" professionals
(mostly social workers) and a like percent was employed in administra-
tion. Chicano service professionals were mainly employed by government
or government-funded agencies. Most white-collar workers in Flint were
therefore employed in traditional positions--teaching, business manage-
ment, counselling, and health care.

A further 4.4 percent were self-employed. Those who were self-
employed had a range of small businesses, including tax and insurance
accounting, construction, restaurants, repair stores, a small grocery,

and a bar. Most self-employed who were involved in Chicano formal

146

.n.aHamH an.moamH msmcoo and mo smousm .m.= :0 woman.

 

 

H o H H H H ooH>Hom
eHoaomso: oue>HHd
mH ON HH vH mH NH ooH>pom
H H o H cano H swap H can» mo>Hpmuomo 59mm
mmoH mmoH mmoH one mnouoan Sham
oH HH 5 m w m muononmq
m m w m w v mo>HumHomo
:OHumpHommcmHH
om am mm NH mH om Hsuopuamg mo>HuaHoao
OH OH oH HH mH 4H HeoHpusupm
Icou mowsHoch
:oEoHomncoEmummHu
OH HH a NN mm mH Hucoecao>ou
mowsHoch HmoHpoHu
m m N n n 0 monm
H H o N n m ucoecue>ou use
eosoHaam-HHom
mowsHoch Rowena
-chHEv<unowmcmz
oH v NH ON mH NH Hmochooh
-Hm:0Hmmomonm
mchcmH ummm wchcmH ucHHm mchcmH ummm mchcmH chHm
uwcamcmH -wchcmH
. :oHummsooo

 

weonmEm mocmonu

 

voonQEm HmHOH

 

¥.can uwszcmH paw ucHHm .coHuamsooo hem woonmEm ucoouomuu.v oHan

147

organizations were only self—employed part—time, however, and also had
factory jobs. A final 2.9 percent were employed aS salesmen. At the
same time 7.4 percent of the sample was retired and 4.4 percent was
unemployed but receiving disability, educational bonuses, or other
social security payments.

In Lansing in 1976 there were two occupations which employed
17.5 percent of the sample heads of household each: auto factory work
and construction. The next highest category was 8.8 percent who were
service professionals, a far higher percentage than found among the
Flint sample. Following that were 6.3 percent in service sector un-
skilled work. Five point zero percent were employed as professionals.
Three occupations employed 3.7 percent each of the sample heads of
household: supervision in the auto factories, farmwork, and teachers
or counselors. This survey again clearly reflected the continued
importance of agriculture to the Lansing Chicano population. There
were a number of heads of household in the city employed in farmwork,
and one of the most frequent occupations was construction work, a
field which was often a first position in the settling-out process of
a migrant farmworker. One point two percent were employed as adminis—
trators, another 1.2 percent as sales persons, and 1.2 percent as
clerks. There was a smaller range of businesses run by Chicanos in
Lansing than in Flint, and by far the most numerous were the six
Mexican-style restaurants, all of which were run as family enterprises.
Thirty-one point nine percent of Flint heads of household were veterans
of the armed services (thus eligible for various veterans' benefits)

while only 16.2 percent of Lansing heads of household were veterans.

148

Five point zero of the Lansing sample was unemployed but receiving some
sort of benefits, while only 2.5 percent were retired.

The 1976 survey demonstrates several facts. Flint Chicanos
are mostly factory workers while Lansing Chicanos are employed in a
wider range of occupations including construction and even farmwork.
There are more retired Chicano household heads in Flint than in Lansing,
reflecting the slightly longer Chicano migration history to that city.
More Flint Chicanos are veterans than is true in Lansing at least in
part because more of them are U.S. born and therefore have been
eligible for the draft. Their status as veterans then makes them
eligible for various educational and loan benefits not available to
most of the Lansing sample. Small businesses in Lansing are family
affairs but in Flint they are supplementary part—time jobs.

Finally, the data from the 1976 survey indicates much the same
pattern as does the 1970 census data outlined above. That is, in
Flint Chicanos like most of that city's employed are primarily blue-
collar workers and most of these work in the factories. That is
apparently due to the preponderance of auto plants in Flint and the
position of that city as nucleus for General Motors Corporation. In
contrast, in Lansing a much smaller total percentage of Chicanos are
employed in the auto plants while an equal number are construction
workers and a greater number than in Flint are employed in unskilled
jobs. At the same time, a larger number recently have become employed
as professionals serving the socioeconomic needs of the lower strata
of their own ethnic group. This occupational pattern reflects three
factors: (1) the greater importance of the primary and tertiary

sectors in Lansing (see chapter 3), (2) the over-representation of

149

Lansing Chicanos in the less-Skilled occupational categories, and

(3) the emergence particularly in the capital city of a group of white—
collar Chicanos employed directly or indirectly by mainstream govern-
ment to service their own ethnic group. In general, the occupational
stratification of Chicanos in both cities reflects the divergent urban
political economies.

Education and Income of Chicanos
in the Two Cities

 

 

The Lansing population sample included a wider range of edu-
cation and income levels than in Flint just as it did in occupations.
In education, reference to Figure 3 reveals that 31.3 percent of the
Lansing heads of household had no formal schooling in the U.S. at all
(although some of these had received from a few weeks to most of grade
school in Mexico but did not report it) while only 19.1 percent of
the Flint sample had a similar lack of formal education. Despite this
difference between the two cities' Chicano populations, in both cities
a far greater percentage of Chicanos had no formal education than was
the case for adults in the city as a whole. In Lansing, just .95 per—
cent of all adults10 had no formal education in 1970 (U.S. Bureau of
the Census 1971b) while in Flint 1.0 percent were uneducated (U.S. N
Bureau of the Census 1971a).

At the other extreme, none of the Flint Chicano sample had had
20 years of schooling (a Ph.D. or M.D.).and there were no heads of
household in the sample which had over 16 years of schooling, or a
B.A.-B.S. In Lansing 1.2 percent of the sample had had 20 years of
formal education while another 1.2 percent had 19 years and 7.5 percent

had 18 years or an M.A.-M.S. There were none with 17 years education

150

Percent

A: Flint, Michigan

 

education in years

Percent

50_.1 B: Lansing, Michigan

 

” ? ... a: N. ha: .. '-*- W...V. ".~‘
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
education in years

Figure 3. Education of Chicano Heads of Household Sampled, 1976.

151

‘in Lansing. There were fewer in Lansing with a four year college
degree than in Flint, fewer with more than high school but less than
four years, and fewer with any level of high school except ninth grade.
The percentages for the grade School years were not remarkably differ-
ent. The median years of schooling for all Flint adults was 11.8 in
1970 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1971a) while for Chicanos surveyed in
1976 the median was 8.3 years of schooling. In Lansing, the median
years of schooling for the total 1970 adult pOpulation was 13.4 years
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1971b) while for Chicanos in 1976 it was
7.4. However, the range of formal education of Chicano household heads
was more critical than the average. Both high and low extremes were
found in Lansing to a greater degree than in Flint, just as was found
in the occupational patterns.

Income per household in the sample for the past year ranged
from $2,700 to $26,300 in Flint with a mean of $11,741 and a mode of
$11,000 in 1976. The census of 1970 showed a city mean of $11,350,
similar to the Chicano average six years later. Census data are com-
piled with an open-ended income category at the tOp (over $50,000) but
although the high Chicano income sampled in 1976 was $26,300, in 1970
322 families in the city had incomes over $50,000 (that is, slightly
over six—tenths of a percent of all families had this level income).
Correlating the Chicano income data with address (see Table 3) tracts
with the lowest Chicano mean incomes in Flint included the tract with
the highest Chicano concentration and two small inner-city tracts in a
transitional region (see chapter 6). That is, the poorest Chicanos
lived in poor residential neighborhoods and tended to be concentrated.

Flint Chicanos had incomes that ranged from the lowest to the next to

152

highest of the income categories utilized by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, but no Flint Chicanos were among the truly wealthy of that
city.

In Lansing the Chicano income range in 1976 was from $2,412 to
$35,000 with a mean of $9,227 and a mode of only $5,000. The census
of 1970 found a city median income of $10,805, somewhat higher than
the average Chicano household income six years later.‘ Just as in Flint
none of the Chicano households surveyed were among the wealthiest
families in the city with over $50,000 annual income, of which there
were only ninety-one (but another 195 lived in East Lansing; U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1971b). The tracts in which Chicanos with the
lowest income resided included two inner city tracts with moderate
Chicano populations and two tracts on the periphery of the barrio (see
Table 5). The tracts with the households with the highest income were
all located near the suburban fringes of the city. Again, a greater
range of income was found in the Lansing sample. A point to remember
about the income data is that during the time of the survey the auto
factories were at one of the high points of employment following the
energy crisis of 1973. A downswing in auto sales would bring about
layoffs and "last hired--first fired" Situations for many of the
respondents, particularly in Flint. Yet the figures obtained for
Chicano household income were not dissimilar to those obtained six
years earlier for Chicanos in the U.S. census (refer to Table 5). In
Lansing, just as in Flint, Chicano incomes were somewhat below the
average.

In 1976 a full 22.5 percent of the Lansing heads of household

surveyed was unemployed while only 5.8 percent of the Flint sample

153

Table 5.--Chicano Household Income and Percent Unemployed per Census
Tract for Selected Tracts, Flint and Lansing 1970.*

 

 

 

 

Flint Lansing
Mean 1 Mean
Household Household
Tract # Income % Unemployed Tract # Income % Unemployed
12 $10,530 0 8 $8,270 2.6
33 2,170 15.8 2 7,660 2.0
16 20,210 0 1 8,050 12.0
11 10,800 0 7 6,910 4.6
34 14,250 0 13 8,420 2.4

 

*Only tracts with greater than the mean percentage of Chicanos
were selected.

Based on U.S. Bureau of the Census 1970a,b.

was unemployed. In only 29.0 percent of households in Flint did more
than the head of the household work while 37.5 percent of the Lansing
respondents indicated that more than the household head was employed
and these were generally the households with very low incomes. Thus it
took several workers to garner the family's meager income. As a
result, in Flint 10.1 percent of respondents indicated that they
received either some sort of welfare or food stamp supplements while
in Lansing a full 27.5 percent indicated that they did. ”El Welfare"
and food stamps are a part of life for the poorest segments of the
Chicano population of both cities. There is, however, indication that
these institutions are not necessarily accepted. For example, two
middle-aged Chicanas on separate occasions burst into tears when
explaining that they were unable to support themselves in the city,
their husbands were in poor health, and they had had to request

assistance from the welfare. Also, a disc jockey in Flint indicated

154

that she had had a number of complaints when she played the selection
"El Cheque” by Texan Wally Gonzales which presents dependence on welfare
and food stamps humorously.

This poorest segment of the population had numerous physical
and social needs and formed the clientele for the various service
agencies manned by Chicanos in the two cities. They formed a larger
percentage of the Lansing population than they did in Flint, and more
agencies had been able to secure funding in Lansing to minister to
their needs since there was a sizable "problem" population in that
city. These agencies were staffed by the "service professionals" noted
above, who also existed in greater number in Lansing than in Flint
although Flint had more traditional kinds of professionals. In fact,
much of the formal organization behavior in Lansing revolved around the
class dichotomy formed by ”the social workers" and "their clients"

(see chapter 7).

Occgpational Histpries of the
Chicano Migrantsll

 

 

The occupational histories of Chicano migrants to Flint and
Lansing reveal more about the patterns of Chicano stratification in
the two cities. In Flint those heads of household who are currently
employed as auto and auto parts factory workers include people with
quite varied work histories. A full 71 percent of all former farm-
workers in the sample survey were employed in these factories. Sixty
percent of the total sample had worked at an auto or auto parts
factory in the city at one time or another. In contrast, only 20 per-

cent of those employed in administrative or professional positions had

155

ever been farmworkers and only one head of household who was currently
self-employed had ever done farmwork.

A full 17 percent of the sample had worked in construction at
one time or another, including respondents in all cohorts. Only 5 per-
cent had ever worked for a railroad and all of these were older heads
of household who had lived in the city for several decades. As was
indicated in chapter 3, a full 52.4 percent of the sample had come to
Flint as farmworkers. Most of the former farmworkers further indicated
that farmwork was their first type of employment, but 11 percent of
them had been employed in farmwork as a temporary work strategy between
some other jobs. In these cases farmwork was a transitional occupation
between service positions or construction work in Texas and factory
work in Michigan.12

There were two respondents to the survey who had held over
seven different types of positions. One of these was employed at the
time of the survey in a factory. He had worked at the same factory at
two different discontinuous time periods, had been a driver for several
different kinds of company, had worked in a small repair business, and
had been both a farmworker and a railroad worker. The farmwork job
occurred following his stint with the railroad, which had brought him
to Michigan some ferty years earlier. The other individual (also male)
was then employed as an administrator but had worked in several
different Flint factories, at a grocery store, and selling houses
before obtaining his position. He was born in the Midwest.

In Lansing a much smaller preportion of the sample had had

work experience in the auto and auto parts factories: only 39 percent

of the former farmworkers were employed at these factories, while

156

another 24 percent were employed in construction. Altogether some

25 percent of the sample had worked in construction at one time or
another. Only one respondent had ever been employed by a railroad.

A full 76 percent of all former farmworkers (which accounted for 64.0
percent of the sample) indicated that farmwork was their first type
employment but the other 24 percent had used farmwork as a temporary
work strategy just as the smaller percentage had in Flint. Again,
farmwork generally represented a transition between Texas and Michigan
but not necessarily a step into a factory job.

A somewhat larger proportion of Lansing administrators and
professionals had at some time done farmwork than their Flint counter-
parts. Most of these were employed by social service agencies Special-
izing in Chicanos. There were two respondents in the Lansing sample
who had had at least eight different positions. Both of these were
former farmworkers employed in administration. One who had worked as
a farmworker at different periods had also worked in construction, as
a janitor, in a factory, as a social worker, and as an administrator.
The other had also been employed in farmwork at different periods
between other jobs including skilled and unskilled factory work,
administration, and social work administration. He was currently
employed as a consultant for the state.

Both the employment histories and the current pattern of
Chicano employment indicate that Chicanos in Lansing and Flint were
Stratified by occupation and that the patterns of Chicano occupational
stratification differed in these cities. In Lansing there were three
important occupational strata: the professionals (e.g., teachers,

social workers, state-employed administrators); the unemployed and

157

under-employed (e.g., welfare recipients, persons employed as laborers
and service workers in minimum-wage competitive sector firms); and the
workers (e.g., laborers and equipment operators at auto and auto-
related factories). The unemployed and under-employed stratum was
linked to the professional straum in a number of ways which reflected
their differential access to various resources. Most important for
the study of formal organizations was the patronage relationship
characteristic of "the social workers" and "their clients." An impor-
tant factor in this relationship was that some persons occupied as
professionals or administrators had themselves been employed in
occupations such as those of the "client" stratum. This also was a
factor in the development of bad feelings toward newcomer professionals
who lacked such shared experience. The worker stratum, numerically
important, was relatively uninvolved in "Chicano" organizations. That
is, the workers tended to identify themselves by ethnicity less than
the other strata.

In Flint, this middle stratum was all-important numerically
and as will be demonstrated was also of primary importance in Chicano
formal organizations. Many Flint Chicano factory workers seem to have
recognized early that they shared their working class position with
people of many other ethnicities. They were involved in early Flint
union activities and in cultural assimilation and had only begun to
stress their Chicano-ness during the past decade as one attempt to
improve their structural assimilation (Gordon 1964), i.e., trying to

achieve upward social mobility (see chapter 8).

158

The following sections explore certain social characteristics
of the Chicano populations themselves that also led to some internal

stratification.

Social Characteristics of the Chicano POpulation

Domestic Group, Family, and Kinship

 

Visiting patterns differed in the two cities and the differ-
ences reflected the greater importance for the Lansing Chicano of the
geographically dispersed kindred. I suggest that this is due to Flint
Chicanos' greater integration into the local mainstream in a number of
ways, including the economic (discussed above). Almost half of the
Flint respondents indicated that the only relatives outside the home
which they visited lived in Flint. Another 17.9 percent indicated the
only relatives they visited lived either in Flint or in another area
of Michigan, 1.5 percent visited other relatives in the Midwest, and
9.0 percent visited no relatives.

In Lansing only 35.4 percent indicated the relatives they
visited lived in Lansing, and another 6.3 percent had relatives they
visited only in Michigan. Very few (1.3%) visited only within the
Midwest, and 5.1 percent indicated they had no relatives they visited.
Lansing Chicanos visited more in Texas and Mexico than did Flint
Chicanos. A full 39.3 percent of the Lansing sample visited relatives
in Texas and/or Mexico (some of these also visited Midwest relatives),
while only 17.9 percent of the Flint sample did so.

Visiting patterns demonstrate that the Lansing sample had more
close ties in Mexico and Texas than the Flint sample, and that far

more Flintites had all of their closest relatives in the Flint area

159

than did the Lansing sample. These patterns are partly indicators of
the differences in region of origin of the two samples but also appear
to reflect the greater importance of the extended though geOgraphically
dispersed bilateral kindred to Lansing Chicanos. Some examples should
illustrate this point.

‘ An elderly Lansing man who had lived in the city for many years
died during the fieldwork period. Not only did sons and daughters from
various parts of the United States fly in for the funeral, but even
cousins from as far away as northern Mexico were present. In another
case two young professional women and their husbands would spend part
of every summer with their parents and other relatives still in south
Texas, and some of these relatives (not only the parents) would come to
Lansing to stay sometime during the winter. Another young Chicana and
her daugher regularly Spent the summers with her parents in Texas,
leaving her husband to work in Lansing. The only comparable situation
which I encountered in Flint was the young woman who spent the summers
with her sister in Minnesota working in the fields. Although life
crisis situations, particularly death, almost always brought together
geographically dispersed extended family members, the degrees of
relationship tended to be predominantly restricted to parents and
siblings in Flint while extended outward to other kin in Lansing.

This data highlights two points. First of all, Lansing Chicanos
who were poor, poorly educated and recently arrived from the border
maintained ties with the border region because reciprocal obligations
with kin and friends there were still important to them. This is
linked to the fact that many Lansing Chicanos actually plan to and

some hope to return to either Mexico or Texas after a few years' work

160

in Michigan. Secondly, more Flint Chicanos see their futures in
Flint, which is partly due to the fact that more of their close
kinsmen also reside in the area and partly because they have obtained
stable employment.

Chicanos stress the strong extended family ideal (see Grebler
et al. 1970; Rubel 1966) which is also important in peasant Mexico.

An extensive survey in Mexico found that the statistically most prevalent
family in Mexico was the nuclear family (Nutini 1967). Likewise, in my
sample survey of Chicanos in Flint and Lansing nuclear families con-
sisting of parents and children were predominant: they comprised 71.0
percent of the Flint sample and 60.8 percent of the Lansing sample.
Within most households or domestic groups there were children under 18
years of age: 71.0 percent of the Flint sample and 77.5 percent in
Lansing. There were more extended families in the Lansing sample--
12.7 percent versus 7.2 percent in F1int—-and more mother-child
families--15.2 percent in Lansing versus 8.7 percent in F1int--as well.
There were no father-child families in Lansing yet 2.9 percent of the
Flint sample consisted of such families. Nearly equal percentages of
households included unrelated persons-—l.4 percent in Flint and 1.3
percent in Lansing--while 8.7 percent in Flint and 10.1 percent in
Lansing consisted of single persons only.

Nuclear families ranged in both cities from young couples and
one or two small children to older couples with as many as six or
seven children still in the household while several older children had
married and established separate domestic groups. The extended family
situation I encountered most frequently was actually a stem family: a

married son or daughter (more commonly a daughter) and Spouse, infant

161

or children living in the same household as the parents and other
Siblings. Almost as frequently a parent of either partner resided
with the couple and their offspring.

Due to the fairly high prOportion of single person households
in my samples, resultant mean household size was lower than the family
size figures available in the 1970 census (refer to Table 6). The mean
household size for my sample was 4.18 for Flint and 3.97 for Lansing.
The far higher incidence of mother-child families in the Lansing sample
was correlated with the higher incidence of welfare and social
assistance recipients in that city: most of the mother-child families
received their major income from such sources. The greater incidence
of single person households encountered in the Lansing sample occurred
as more single males "drifted" in or out of the barrio seeking work
contacts than was the case in Flint. Nearly equal portions of the two
samples were single person households consistent of an elderly indi—
vidual whose other kin had established new domestic groups and whose
spouse had died. The vast majority of household heads in both samples
were male: 85.5 percent in Flint and 80.5 percent in Lansing.

Figures obtained from the Genesee and Ingham County offices of
vital statistics13 showed a more recent trend toward Chicano-Anglo
intermarriage in Lansing than in Flint, demonstrating differences in
integration into the mainstream and the longer history of permanent
Chicano residence in Flint. In Flint, there were no recorded inter—
marriages before 1957 while in Lansing the first occurred in 1966.
Chicano—Anglo intermarriage could also be expected to influence family
size and extended family patterns. In Flint, such intermarriage had

been occurring one generation longer than in Lansing so the "mainstream"

162

Table 6.--Chicano Family Size in Flint and Lansing by Selected Census
Tracts, 1970.

 

 

Flint Lansing
Mean 4.9 5.3

Tracts with high Chicano

Population, in descending

Order of population
4.8 4.9
4.8 5.7
5.8 7.8
5.0 4.6
4.3 4.0

 

Based on U.S. Bureau of the Census 1970a,b.

ideal of the small nuclear family had had more time to reinforce the
pattern in the Chicano population than was true in the case of
Lansing.

In Lansing Chicano kinship, family, and domestic group patterns
tended to reflect their lower average income and higher unemployment

in comparison to Flint Chicanos.

Language

Most Flint and Lansing Chicanos were able to converse in both
Spanish and English. Many had a preference for one language or the
other, however. For example, the migration history survey was conducted
by bilingual interviewers and the language used was left to the dis-
cretion of the respondent. Over 50 percent of the respondents in Flint
chose Spanish and only 40 percent did so in Lansing; while nearly
30 percent in Lansing responded in both languages and only about

11 percent did so in Flint. The sample survey in Flint included more

163

retired persons and the mean age of the head of household surveyed was
somewhat higher in Flint (43.4 years) than in Lansing (37.0). I found
that older Chicanos tended to prefer Spanish in both cities, as did
recent migrants from Mexico. More of those who responded to the
questionnaire in Spanish in Flint were housewives who had less exposure
to English than their Spouses who used the language at work. Only the
young and professionals of all ages preferred English in either city.

The use of Spanish—only communications media indicate the con-
tinued importance of Spanish language to both populations. There were
Spanish—language programs on all of the major radio stations in Lansing,
offering a variety of programming from ranchera and polka music to
church services. There was also a local television program broadcast
in Spanish. Furthermore, there was a newspaper which printed articles
of interest to Chicanos in both languages. In Lansing, over 90 percent
of those I surveyed formally indicated they made regular use of these
information and entertainment sources.

There were fewer radio programs, although equally diverse in
content, no regular television program, and no bilingual newspaper in
Flint. In both cities the social service agencies directed to the
Chicano population printed bilingual newsletters, and in Flint this.
was the only local printed media designed for Chicanos. However, in
that city as well as in Lansing nearly 90 percent of the sample surveyed
formally indicated they relied on the Spanish-language sources for
regular information and entertainment. Finally, over 70 percent of
the Chicanos surveyed in both cities indicated that they attended

churches which offered measses or services in Spanish.

164

In general, use of Spanish exclusively was limited in both
cities to the elderly, to housewives with little outside exposure, and
to recent Mexican arrivals. Most Chicanos tended to prefer a combination
of both Spanish and English rather than use of either language ex-
clusively, but Spanish language communications media were heavily used
in both cities. Spanish language use presented a barrier between
teenagers, who were much more fluent in English and often spoke no
Spanish, and their parents. There was little stratification based on
language use in either city, but middle-aged and elderly peeple involved
in formal organizations professed anger and frustration at the poor
command of Spanish which many of the better—educated young people
possessed. This was more important in Flint than in Lansing as the
conservatives in Flint were generally linked to the Catholic church,

which was a focal point for the Spanish language.

Religion
The Roman Catholic Church exerted great influence on the
Chicano population of both cities in two important areas.
1. The presence of the church helped to foster and preserve
behavior and ideals that are part of the cultural heritage of
Mexico, in this manner serving as a conservative or "tradi-
tional" stronghold.
2. Church policy and certain local church officials were instru-
mental in determining part of the course of Chicano organi-
zation history and much of the direction of current organi—

zations in both cities.

165

The great importance of the Catholic church in the Same areas has been
documented for Latin America in general (see Wolf and Hansen 1972) and
for persons of Mexican origin in the United States (see Grebler et a1.
1970). The reason that the church could have such influence was that
most Flint and Lansing Chicanos were at least nominally Catholic. For
example, of those surveyed who had some church affiliation 87.5 percent
in Flint and 91.5 percent in Lansing were Roman Catholic. Although
there were several Chicano Protestant churches in both cities and

10.9 percent of the Flint sample and 8.5 percent of the Lansing sample
were Protestant, Catholicism as an ideology and as a social structure
directly affected most Chicanos in both cities.

The dual role of Catholicism as a vital part of Chicano culture
and at the same time the power of control held by church hierarchy is
extremely important. In both cities, Catholic missionizing efforts were
directed to Chicano migrant workers early in the evolution of these
local populations. Some of the earliest Chicano organizations were
developed with Catholic church affiliation. Catholic—affiliated groups
remained among the most powerful of Chicano organizations in both cities
in the 19703. Church doctrine and direct intervention by administrators
within church hierarchy were important mechanisms of direction and con-
trol in Chicano organization. These linkages will be dealt with in

greater detail in the following chapters.

Summary
The Chicano populations of Lansing and Flint are internally
differentiated by occupation, education, income and region of origin.

These various factors are triangulated in the following manner. In

166

Flint, nearly half of all Chicanos are blue-collar employees of the GM
factories. They are actually prototypical of working-class Flint: most
of them have several years of or have graduated from high school, they
earn about the same amount as the "average" Flintite, and more Chicanos
are blue—collar factory workers than "average" for that city. Many
Chicanos who head households are veterans of the armed forces, and most
Flint Chicanos are U.S. natives. Most are migrants to the city, but
they are not novices at urban life.

There are also some very poor, uneducated, and poorly employed
Chicanos in Flint. Many of these are also elderly monolingual-Spanish-
speaking. Many of these are the Mexican-born migrants. This population
segment clearly is to be differentiated in class terms from the vast
mass of workers. In addition, there are some Chicanos who are college-
educated and work as teachers, counselors, administrators, and in other
traditional lower-level white—collar occupations and a few who are
employed to service the Chicano ethnic group by government-funded
agencies. These are the local Chicano elites, but they are clearly not
elite in Flint city as a whole. They are not GM executive-lawyer level
white-collar professionals and administrators with graduate school
educations and the top-level incomes of the city who influence political
decision-making in Flint. Although Flint Chicanos are not all the same
class, they do in fact all fall into the less powerful classes in the
Flint social scene. In addition, their largely shared U.S. nativity,
Catholic religion, preponderance of localized kin ties, and generally
shared employment mask some of the differences and give many of them a

feeling that they truly have a stake in Flint.

167

In Lansing a large proportion of the Chicano pOpulation is
employed in construction and other kinds of unskilled manual labor
while many more are under—employed in various kinds of service and
competitive sector jobs. They tend to earn somewhat less than the
city ”average" in income, and are either totally lacking in formal
education or have had a few years of elementary school. In addition,

a sizable preportion of the population is unemployed and most of this
segment receives some sort of social service benefits. Many of the
unemployed and underemployed are Mexican born and most of the rest are
from the border region. The vast majority are former farmworkers and
are from rural areas. A major characteristic of this stratum is the
diversity yet instability and undesirability of the work they do. This
segment of the Chicano population is the mostpowerless yet largest of
all, and the actual size of the un- and underemployed Chicano popula—
tion of Lansing is probably greater than statistics indicate. Although
most analysts would distinguish between the nominally employed and the
unemployed, these sectors of the Lansing Chicano population share an
important feature. They are.a11 subject to uncertainty, even if they
are dependent on transfer payments for their subsistence.

The corporate type factory worker class fraction of the Lansing
Chicano population is much smaller than in Flint, and the factory
worker segment includes those at factories which are not major monopolis-
tic industries. Therefore there is much less homogeneity and solidarity
based on shared work place and work situation within this population
segment than in Flint.

Finally, most of the Lansing Chicano elites are newcomers to

the scene and are employed by government-sponsored agencies to service

168

their own ethnic group. A number of the new elites are formerly from
the un- and underemployed classes, and these tend to be long-time
Lansing residents. Even among this service professional class fraction
there is, therefore, considerable heterogeneity. In Lansing, even
shared religion does not help ameliorate these differences between the
strata since the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is outside the Chi-
cano poulation and views the latter as a problem to service just like
the government—sponsored agencies (see chapter 7).

There is therefore class differentiation within the Chicano
populations of Lansing and Flint as has been found among other Chicano
populations (see e.g., Lane 1968; Madsen 1964; Rubel 1966; and Shannon
and Shannon 1973). A comparison of two very different Midwest Chicano
populations by Weeks and Spielberg (1973) indicated that a socio-
economically undifferentiated small town population was factionalized
while a less homogeneous urban population was not. The authors hypothe-
sized that the homogeneity led to factionalism because all organizations
which did arise were differentiated from the rest of the Chicano popula-
tion along artificial lines rather than along lines of real interest
groups. Other variables were also at work in Flint and Lansing as well.
In chapters 7 and 8 it will be demonstrated that Chicanos of all classes
do have differential involvement in Chicano formal organizations, but
these organizations are subject to interests from outside the ethnic
group. The following chapter demonstrates that the physical delineation
of Chicano residences and their ”visibility" in comparison to other ethnic
groups in the two cities, like their internal differentiation, acts upon

their formal organizations and is a response to politicoeconomic forces.

169

Footnotes

1Labor recruitment often results in a stream of migrants with
similar skills, work histories, and demographic characteristics. This
phenomenon has been referred to as migrant selectivity (Browning and
Feindt 1969).

2These figures are a triangulation of several pOpulation counts.
The U.S. Census Showed 3,322 for Flint and 5,070 for Lansing in 1970
but the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (1973) indicated that totals
of 7,208 and 8,044 for, respectively, Genesee and Ingham Counties, were
more accurate. My survey population included 4,728 for Flint city and
6,496 for Lansing city (see Appendix A). I suspect that the higher
figures obtained are more accurate since my sources were mainly re-
stricted to those which would sample the less mobile, higher socio-
economic levels of Chicano residents.

3Flint ceased receiving large numbers of Chicano migrants in
the late 19605. The number of new migrants to Lansing each year is
relatively greater but small in comparison to earlier years. It is
therefore likely that the total Chicano populations of the two cities
had not grown considerably between 1970 and 1976.

4 . . . . .
See chapter 4 for a discuSSion of immigration documents.

SWhiteford (1977) has described the border region as an "extended
community" in which the border acts not as a barrier to migration but
rather as a permeable membrane.

6Shadow (1977) indicates that 57 percent of permanent migrants
in the U.S. from a village in Jalisco were landless or owned under 5
hectares of land.

7The official view of such a class segment seems to vary in

different cases but in general the "urban mob" of unemployed, whether
native or migrant, is considered a potentially disruptive and likely
violent force. For example, Gutkind (1974) tells us that African
colonial administrations reacted ambivalently to native rural-urban
migration out of fear of their potential political violence and radi-
calism yet the continued need for their labor power.

Grebler et a1. 1970 indicate that continued migration from
Mexico is one of the reasons Chicano culture has remained so viable
in the five Southwest states.

9La Raza Unida all-Chicano party won city government posts in
1963 and 1969 and is now a major political power in Lavala County
(see Shockley 1974).

170

10The census included as adults with no formal education all
those individuals who were twenty—five years of age and older.

11One section of the migration history questionnaire dealt with
the employment history of the head of household. The data obtained
through this survey instrument demonstrated certain patterns of occupa-
tional history that had also been illuminated as I gathered information
through interviews with selected informants and observation in the two
cities.

12This finding supports the proposition by Spielberg 1977: 15
that farmwork may be a temporary strategy rather than a career.

13Marriage license applications housed in these offices include
the place of birth of the applicants. I considered an applicant
Chicano if he/she had a Spanish surname and was born in the Midwest,
Texas, or Mexico but not in places such as Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the
Philippines. All others were grouped as Anglo except in the earliest
decades in which blacks were referred to as Negro on the forms. I
reviewed these applications for selected months for all years back to
1930 in both cities. The results are therefore approximations.

CHAPTER 6

SETTLEMENT PATTERN

Introduction

 

There was a twenty to thirty block rectangle in northeast
Lansing (McAleenan 1973) where most early Chicano immigrants settled
which provided housing in an area convenient for and familiar.to farm-
workers who had come to work in the boot fields. Once a population
nucleus had been formed, newcomers to town settled in the area for work
at the beet factory, to be near other family members and friends who
had come earlier, or to be near others with the same culture and
language. Since the area was old, some dwellings had been converted to
rooming houses and offered a relatively inexpensive habitation to the
new arrival as well. The north Lansing area therefore served both
social and economic functions in its development as the Chicano barrio.1
Since Flint never developed a Chicano population concentration visible
to both residents and outsiders, these functions were performed for
immigrant Chicanos by other institutions in the city. In this chapter
the spatial distributions of the Chicano populations of both cities
will be measured and their development over time will be presented.
The differences in certain physical and social characteristics prevalent
in areas with high and low Chicano population concentration, informants'

reasons for moving to the area of residence, and their perceptions of

171

 

.
or
5..

172

their neighborhood2 vis-a-vis other neighborhoods will also be pre-
sented. It is my intention to demonstrate the dialectic or feedback
which obtained between the labor needs and political stance of auto and
agriculture interests and the settlement patterns of Chicano farmworkers
and factory workers in Lansing and Flint.

These data were derived from a variety of sources: a land—use
survey I conducted in each city, the migration history survey, open-
ended interviews with selected informants, and materials from the 1970

census and local police departments.

Studies on Population Distribution in Cities

Introduction

 

Settlement pattern, or the spatial distribution of the Chicano
population in the two cities, is a major variable in this study. I
consider it dependent upon the significant differences in migration
history and migrant selectivity in the two sites and contributory to
the pattern of Chicano organization behavior——i.e., independent. The
linkage between the spatial parameters of pOpulation and resultant
social organizational patterns have been debated in the literature on
the concept of community. For my purposes, it is important to distin—
guish community from simple spatial configuration. Therefore I will
use the term community to indicate ". . . the maximal group of persons
who normally reside in face-to-face association" (Murdock 1949: 79)
or a group which is in association, while settlement or neighborhood
is ”. . . an aggregate of people living in the same locality” (Tringham
1972: xxi). Community, then, refers to social relations while neighbor-

hood is a locality.

173

The human ecology school of sociology places stress on Spatial
distributions of component population in urban places as indicative of
types of interrelationship between populations (e.g., Hawley 1968: 331).
I do not consider such social relations as given but rather as phenomena
to be studied. The importance for social relations of the residential
separation of Chicanos from other groups in a study site have not been
dealt with in much detail. A notable exception is found in the work of
Arthur Rubel (1966) whose study of a small city in south Texas described
‘the physical separation of the Chicano and Anglo populations whose
boundaries were demarcated by a railroad track. A move of a Chicano
"across the tracks" was an indicator of his improvement in economic
circumstances, and might be taken by his friends and kin on "the other
side" as a symbol of his rejection of them. What implications resi-
dential separation may have for Chicano formal group organization has
not been studied. I reject the assumptions of stasis and equilibrium
that lie behind considering social relations as given, yet I consider
the techniques of measuring spatial relationships between pOpulations
which have been utilized by human ecologists and cultural geographers

valuable descriptive tools.

Segregation Studies

 

In 1965, Karl and Alma Taeuber published an important work on
black segregation which represented a continuation of the Chicago studies
in human ecology begun in the 19205. In this work, the Taeubers com-
puted indexes of segregation not only for blacks in a number of urban
areas but also for Chicanos in three Southwest cities. For 1960,

Chicano-Anglo segregation ranged from 37.3 percent in San Francisco

174

through 57.4 percent in Los Angeles city to 63.6 percent in San Antonio.
Segregation indexes over 50 percent are generally regarded as high.
In all three cities Chicanos were more segregated from blacks than
they were from Anglos. The Taeubers had earlier (1964) found that the
same pattern held true in Chicago, where Chicano-Anglo segregation was
54 percent. The most expansive study of Chicano residential segregation
was done as a part of the University of California, Los Angeles Mexican-
American Study Project (Moore and Mittelback 1966; Grebler et a1. 1970).
Chicano—Anglo and Chicano-black segregation indexes based on the 1960
census were computed for thirty-five cities in the five Southwest
states (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas) where the
majority of the Chicano population resides. Among the more pertinent
findings of this study were:
11 Black—Anglo segregation was greater than Chicano-Anglo segre-
gation.
2. In only nine of thirty-five cities was Chicano-Anglo segregation
greater than Chicano-black segregation.
3. Where black-Anglo segregation was high, Chicano-Anglo or

Chicano—black segregation was also apt to be high.

4. In cities where Chicano "familism" (large family size) and/or

”traditionalism" (many Mexican born) prevailed Chicanos were

apt to be segregated from others.

A few studies undertaken since the 1970 census materials became
available have dealt with Chicano segregation. Bacon (1975) found as
earlier studies had that black-Anglo segregation was higher than
Chicano-Anglo segregation. Guest and Weed (1976) found that Chicano

segregation had decreased in Boston and Seattle from 1960 to 1970 but

175

had increased during that time in Cleveland. The Darden and Haney
(n.d.) study was also based on 1970 census materials and will be
reviewed below. This literature demonstrates that segregation is a
spatial reflection of minority integration into a city. It suggests
that Chicanos tend to be better integrated than blacks. These points
are important to the present Study because in Flint, Chicanos appeared
to be better integrated in other ways than Lansing Chicanos (see
chapter 5); and I will demonstrate in chapter 8 that the large black
population of Flint was important in Chicanos' relative invisibility
as well as in their formal organization as a minority group.

Chicano Segregation and Centralization in Lansing
and Flint and Relationship to the Black Population

 

 

Chicano Residential Distribution and
Metropolitan Centralization

 

 

The following data were derived from the 1970 census of popula-
tion using the category "persons of Spanish language,” including persons
of Spanish mother tongue (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973: 11). Although
other Latinos are included in that category, the vast majority of the
Spanish language population in both cities is of Mexican descent.3
Referring to Figures 1 and 2, comparison of the actual pOpulation
figures by census tracts reveals some interesting differences. In
Flint none of the tracts with the largest actual Chicano population
were contiguous to each other, but in Lansing there was one section of
the city where most of the tracts with high Chicano populations were in
close approximation. Also, in Lansing there were 11 tracts out of a

total of 46 with no Chicanos and another 12 with up to 50, while in

176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C1 0 z' 151-200
1. 1-50 ea 201-250
HI 51-100 an 251-300
101‘150 E3 30l-over

Figure 1. Chicanos in Flint by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971a.

177

        

0 3000 6000 9000 :
.___4_____L——-’ : '
feet

N

1

Key:
D 0 133 201—250
1—50 {:2 251—300
51-100 9;} 301-350
101—150 a: 351-400
151-200 E; 401-over

Figure 2. Chicanos in Lansing by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971b.

178

Flint there were 10 of a total of 47 tracts with none and 18 with

up to 50 (see Table 1).

Table l.--Chicano Population Range in Census Tracts, Flint and Lansing.

 

 

Spanish Language Population Flint Lansing
0 10 11
1-100 24 18
101-200 11 8
- 201-300 1 5

Over 300 l 4

 

Also, according to the census Chicanos comprised only 1.7 per-
cent of the total Flint population4 and the greatest deviation from
this in any tract in the city was 6.3 percent. In Lansing the greatest
deviation from the city mean of 3.9 percent Chicano was 13.9 percent.

This illustrates that the Chicano pOpulation in Lansing was
more highly concentrated into one central location than the Chicano
population of Flint. Referring to Figures 3 and 4, further indication
of the central city concentration of Chicanos compared to the outlying
county can be seen. In Flint, there appears to have been an outward
spread of Chicanos from the center of Flint into regions just outside
the city limits within Genesee County. There were three tracts located
just outside Flint City limits which had Chicano populations as high
as the second—greatest within the city itself. There were two others
also close to the city preper which had moderately large Chicano popula-

tions as well. However, the Chicano pOpulation was fairly evenly

179

Saginaw Co

Tuscolo Co.
32

     
    
 

 

Saginaw Co.

Shiawassee Co.

 

Lapeet Co.

Swan:
Creek

128

 

 

Oakland Co

 

 

Miles
N
.Lmnqston Co.
Key:
1:] 0 521* 151-200
[:1 1-50 1211 201-250
{:3 51-100 251-300
101-150 m 301-over

Figure 3. Chicanos in Genesee County by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971a.

Clinton Co.

   

180

Shiawassee Co.

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

 

 

 

 

Eaton Ca

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joc kson Co.

 

51-100
101-150
I151-200

 

0 9000
L______J
feet

g3 201-250
251-500

301-350
351-400

401—over

Figure 4. Chicanos in Ingham County by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the

Census 1971b.

Livingsmn CO.

181

dispersed throughout most of the rest of the county. Outside the
Lansing City limits there was one tract, not incorporated in any city
within the county, which had a Chicano pOpulation as high as any within
the central city. Most of the rest of Ingham County had relatively few
Chicano residents. In the southern part of the county where much of
the agriculture which still requires field hand labor exists, most of
the tracts included Chicano populations of up to 150.

The Index of Metropolitan Centralization (see Taeuber and
Taeuber 1965: 58) was computed for the Chicano pOpulation for both
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. This index is obtained by sub-
tracting the percentage of non-Chicanos within the total SMSA which are
located in central city from the percentage of Chicano within the total
SMSA which are located in central city (i.e., the formula is %C in cc
- % NC in cc = IMC). In the Flint SMSA, 48.7 percent of Chicanos resided
in the central city while only 31.5 percent of non-Chicanos did, while
in Lansing 61.1 percent of Chicanos resided in the central city and
32.1 percent of non-Chicanos did. Therefore the index demonstrates that
Flint Chicanos were only 17.2 percent centralized while Lansing Chicanos
were 29.0 percent centralized. In comparison, the index of metropolitan
centralization for Flint blacks was 57.9 percent while for Lansing
blacks it was 51.1, demonstrating that Chicanos were more centralized
in Lansing than in Flint while for blacks the reverse was true.

Darden and Haney (n.d.: 18) indicated that black-Anglo segrega-
tion was higher in Flint (77.7%) than in Lansing (59.2), while it will
be demonstrated below that Chicano-Anglo segregation was higher in
Lansing (68%) than in Flint (52% . It was also found in the same

article that migration status, based on place of residence in 1965 and

residence during the 1970 enumeration, had an influence on those levels
of segregation. In Flint, black-Anglo segregation appears to have
increased over time while continued residence in the city decreased
Chicano-Anglo segregation and Chicano-black segregation was quite high
between non—migrant blacks and Chicanos. In Lansing, the same pattern
appeared to pertain with Chicano-Anglo segregation declining over time
and black-Anglo segregation increasing with increased length of resi-
dence. Slightly over 40 percent of Chicanos in both cities were non-
immigrants within the five-year period, a higher percentage non-local
pOpulation than either blacks or Anglos.

Returning to my own research, the high percentage of non-
immigrants counted in the census may be due to the fact that once in
the city.Chicanos tend to move to be near family and friends more than
to change location because of a change in neighborhood condition. Sig—
nificant differences were found within 1970 immigrant status categories:
while only 37 percent of Lansing's immigrant Chicano pOpulation in 1970
had come from other parts of Michigan, 46.9 percent of those in Flint
had lived elsewhere in Michigan prior to the move to Flint. Another
difference existed between foreign (Mexican) immigrants in the two
cities: in Lansing 4.7 percent while in Flint only 2.4 percent of
Chicanos were foreign immigrants. This is similar to the pattern found
in my migration history survey. The greater segregation of Lansing
Chicanos and the greater number of Mexican-born Chicanos in the same
city would tend to support the correlation between "traditionalism" and
segregation found by the UCLA project, while the larger family size of

Lansing Chicanos (5.32 vs. 4.93) is further support.

183

Chicano Residential Segregation

 

For blacks, it has been found that high centralization and a
high degree of segregation are not necessarily linked (Taeuber and
Taeuber 1965: 55-64). Centralization, as indicated above, refers to
the concentration of the target population inside the central city as
opposed to the ”suburban ring" outside the central city which also con—
stitutes the SMSA. Segregation, on the other hand, refers to the extent
to which the target pOpulation resides separated from other population
components within the city. Generally, the various indexes of segrega-
tion are computed for blocks or tracts within the central city rather
than for larger units.

In order to determine if segregation and centralization were
linked for the Chicano populations of the two research sites, the first
tool for measuring segregation computed was the racial deficit per
census tract between Chicanos and other whites or Anglos in the two
cities (see Darden 1973: 2-3). The first column in Tables 2 and 3 give
the percent of the total Chicano population of the city which resided
in each tract, and the percentages for the 47 Flint tracts and the 46
Lansing tracts were arranged in descending order. The percentage of the
total Anglo population of the city which resided in the same tract 1
appears in the second column. The final column represents the racial
deficit, i.e., the difference in the two percentages per tract. This
percent racial deficit shows that there was greater Chicano segregation
in certain tracts in Lansing than in any Flint tracts. In the tract
with the highest positive Chicano deficit the figure was 10.0 percent,

while in the tract with the highest Anglo negative deficit the figure

was 3.8 percent. These figures mean that in the first case, 10 percent

184

Table 2.——Racial Deficit Measurement of Segregation

for Chicanos and Anglos, Flint, Michigan 1970.

 

Percent Racial

% Total

ta1

7;Te

Defic1t

.glos

l

Chflxmos

 

~382filqlol 4P30740~L62219 719712530186128921340219050
. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o g o o o o a a o o o o o
6.4” 21“. 02311112222 401 «.4114 l 121 l 442

p33175181u.p33p090202613991881517811618735225402190p30
o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o.

a o a O
«(1631—3—31 2122154 2&1 l 32 S 211 1221 1 4nd”?—

019987498664.216432098774432110877554432

9655.3rHS33333332222211111111111 00000000

12345678901
11

 

185

Table 3.--Racia1 Deficit Measurement of Segregation for

Chicanos and Anglos Lansing, Michigan 1970.

 

Percent Racial

% Total

7 Total
Chicano

'0

Deficit

lo

7
t)

All

 

00.4295nvos4110601843729611413 L2731634H8281741911

o o o o o o o a o o o o o . o . o o o o o. o o o
nUopLSA” 31211 1 l 11111.131113 21 1213 3 2 o
l

1.30733826949374358676223512794.940679281741911
O b I O O i O 0 O I O O O O. I C I. O u I O O O. O O .0 O C 0....
31224132523121213 3 33420524” 221

0 O O.
2213 3 2 0

144928882039973111997r032109877654331
.0 O O O I O O. O O O O

3776:)44444a32220522211111111

1

0000000000

1234567890123
1111

 

186

of the Chicanos in that tract would have to relocate into other parts
of the city for the tract to have an ethnic balance equal between
Chicanos and other whites, while in the second case 99.9 percent of
the Anglos in the tract would have to move to achieve this balance.
The comparable figures for Flint were 6.5 and 4.5 percent.

Based upon these figures, graphs were prepared of the Lorenz
curve for Chicanos and Anglos. This curve illustrates the approximation
of the settlement of the target pOpulation to the ideal of equal distri-
bution throughout the city.5 Referring to Figures 5 and 6 the diagonal
X=Y represents the ideal where the cumulated percent of the Chicano
population per tract as they were ordered, indicated an axis Y, is
equal to the cumulated percent of the Anglos per tract, as indicated on
axis X. In neither research site did the curve approximate the ideal,
but it did so more nearly in Flint than in Lansing.6 In Lansing, 49.6
percent of Chicanos resided with 18.7 percent of the Anglos of the
city, while in Flint 51.5 percent of the Chicanos were concentrated
with 27.2 percent of the Anglos.

The final index computed for the two sites was the Index of

Dissimilarity. This index is based on the formula:

D = é— (Cl/C-Al/A)
C1 is the total number of Chicanos who resided in all tracts with
Chicano percentages higher than the city average (1.7% in Flint and
3.9% in Lansing), C is the total Chicano population of the city, Al is
the total number of Anglos who resided in the tracts enumerated for

Chicanos, and A is the total Anglo population of the city. For Lansing

the index of dissimilarity was 68 while that for Flint was 52. The

187

ICC —

«m‘-

33'—

is ’T 0:52
75~—-

7o _

C5 --

(0—

Percent

Anglos

Q}.

 

Ill'lllllllllllll'

S. ’0 /5 10 «£5. 5" 3'; #0 ('5 5'0 55 60 (*5 7C 73‘ 3’0 5'5- ‘70 95— IL'O

Percent Chicanos

(3

 

Figure 5. Lorenz Curve of Chicano-Anglo Segreation Index, Flint,
Michigan 1970.

Percent
Anglos

Figure 6.

188

 

/co~#*

9:—

52'—

73‘ .—
70 .-
63" _.

60

 

    

     

 

llJ

 

1|j

 

o A ulnllJIJII

5‘ 10 IS' 10 :33" 35 .JJ‘ V0 (IS 6‘0 53 ‘0 ‘9 7c 73‘ i0 85' Se 95' ’00

Percent Chicanos

Lorenz Curve of Chicano-Anglo Segregation Index, Lansing,
Michigan 1970.

       
 

 

189

index of dissimilarity, like most indexes of segregation, is considered
to show relatively high segregation with values above 50.

As was indicated above, blacks were both more centralized and
more segregated in Flint than in Lansing, but Chicanos were more segre-
gated from Anglos than were blacks in Lansing and were also more
centralized than were Flint Chicanos. Referring to both Figures 1 and 2
(Chicanos per census tract, Flint and Lansing) and 6 and 7 (blacks per
census tract, Flint and Lansing) it can be seen that in neither city
did the areas of heavy concentration of blacks and Chicanos overlap.
The same pattern can be seen in the outlying areas of the counties
(refer to Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10). Although black settlement pattern
appeared to be quite different in Flint and Lansing, and in fact blacks
were more segregated in Flint than in Lansing, another important con-
sideration for Chicanos in the two cities was actual size of the black
population. In 1970 the black population of Flint was 54,237 or 28.1
percent of the total population (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1971a) while
that of Lansing was 12,234 or only 9.3 percent of the pOpulation (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1971b).7 As a result, there was a large section
of Flint where blacks represented the majority of the total population,
whereas blacks were a majority of the population in only two tracts in
Lansing.

In Flint there was only one tract which had no black residents—-
a tract which was in the category of third highest Chicano pOpulation
per tract. There were 21 tracts with 1-100 blacks, and these included
the tract with the largest Chicano population as well as three others
in the third-highest category. There were five with 101-1000 blacks-—

these tracts had a range of Chicano residents from none to 101-150.

190

 

 

Cl 0 601-1000

1-50 g» 1001-2000
50-150 3;; 2001-3000
E3 151-300 E‘iii 3001-4000
301-600 it"; 400l-over

Figure 7. Blacks in Flint by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971a.

191

       

0 3000 6000 9000
feet

N

l

 

Key:
C] 0 E?! 601-1000
1‘50 BEE 1001-2000
51-150 ES. 2001-3000
::::;:; 151-300 2‘; 3001-4000
E23 301-600

Figure 8. Blacks in Lansing by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971b.

192

Saginaw Co.

  
 
 
    
     

Saginaw Co.

Shiawassee Co.

Lapeer Co.

 

Oakland Co.

 

 

 

4 o 4
, Miles
N
Livingston Co.
[:1 0 301-600
1-50 Em 601—1000
1233 51-150 ES; 1001-2000

151-300 fl 2001-3000

Figure 9. Blacks in Genesee County by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 19713.

193

Clinton Co.

     
   

Shiawassee Co

   

Jackson Co.

N 0 9000
. L___.J
[ Key' ' feel
D o {:3 51-150
1-50. 151-300
Figure 10.

Blacks in Ingham County by Census Tract, 1970.

Source: Jane B. Haney 1977, based on data from U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971b.

L ivingsion C0-

194

There were six tracts with 1001-2000 blacks where the Chicano populations
of these ranged from 1-50 through 201—250. There were 7 tracts with
black populations from 2001-3000; 6 with black populations from 3001-
4000; and 1 with over 5000. The Chicano populations of these tracts
ranged from 1 to 101-150. The tracts with the highest black populations
were mostly located in a zone in the north central portion of the city
and were contiguous to each other. The eastern boundary was formed by
the Flint River and a railroad. Except for one small, densely populated
tract located at the southern edge of this area, the tracts with high
Chicano populations were all located to the east and south of the area
of black concentration. The high visibility and numerical importance

of the black population Vis-a-vis the opposite characteristics of the
Chicano population was an important demographic variable in Flint
affecting Chicano formal organization.

In Lansing there were no complete tracts which had no black
residents. There were 23 tracts which had 1-100 blacks, and these
represented a wide range of land use and housing types in the city.
There was a large grouping of tracts in the southeastern portion of the
city with few blacks, and the north central area where most of the
Chicano population was concentrated had black populations of 1-100 per
tract. There were 17 tracts with black populations from 101-1000,
including tract 8 which had the highest Chicano population. These
tracts were, however, mostly concentrated in the southwest part of the
city in a ring around the central business district. There were three
tracts in Lansing with black populations over 1000, and these were all
located in the downtown area or just west of downtown. The Chicano

populations in these tracts was under 51. Therefore, Chicano population

195

was not concentrated in the same tracts as the black population in
either city. The physical separation of ethnic groups in Lansing has
been noted by others:
The three broad sections of Lansing share an atmosphere of mutual
suspician and racial ethnic tension. The white-dominated area
that forms south Lansing is business-oriented and makes the

crucial housing decisions for the whole community. Immediately
to the west and the north of the central business district are

n-

the densely populated black and Chicano sections (Crowe 1971: 3).

In summary, Chicanos in Lansing were both more centralized in

the central city and more segregated from Anglos than were Flint Chi-

canos. The dispersion and relative lack of segregation of Flint Chi-

canos was in direct contrast to the black population of that city as
well as to the Chicanos of Lansing.

Housing and Physical Characteristics of Chicano
and Non-Chicano Regions

 

It is generally assumed that segregated populations live in the
physically least desirable sections of a city. This is further presumed
to be a result of discriminatory practices of realtors, mortgage
lenders, and general social pressure. I therefore conducted a land use
survey in both cities and include also some figures from the 1970 census
of housing to examine the physical characteristics of Chicano neighbor—
hoods. For each census tract the following data was recorded:8 land
use, housing type and age, housing density of applicable, accessibility
of residential streets, and notable features if any.

Much of the central city housing which exists in the city of
Lansing today dates to the 19405 and before, when housing tracts con-
sistent of single-family dwellings were developed during the period of

highest immigration due to auto industry growth. Although housing unit

I96

construction had increased yearly from about 500 in 1962 to more than
800 in 1964 (Crowe 1971: 3), much of the housing in the central city
and downtown areas was constructed in the decades soon after the city's
incorporation in 1859. Much of north Lansing, which was the original
central business district and is now the Chicano barrio, was built
before 1900. As a result, areas near downtown Lansing have a problem
with housing "blight." One report indicated that ". . . in this north-
south strip only 24 percent of the housing stock is sound" (Crowe 1971:
3).

Flint, although incorporated as a city just four years prior to
Lansing's incorporation, had develOped as an administrative and trading
center earlier than Lansing. By 1900 Flint had become the ”vehicle
city” producing first buggies then autos. World War I provided the
first stimulus to growth in the Flint auto industry and as was noted in
a previous chapter the motor company built extensive tracts of single—
family dwellings during the 19203. Much of the housing available in the
downtown and transitional areas near the industrial plants in central
city Flint was demolished during a vast urban renewal project begun in
the 19605. The project was still underway in 1976, and whole sections
of older residential buildings had been razed. However, in the down-
town and near-downtown areas to the west of a north-south corridor
which was under renovation much of the housing stock dated to the era
of population growth mentioned above and even earlier. Also, in one of
the regions close to downtown which was not yet under redevelopment,

much of the housing dated to the nineteenth century.

197

There are several factors to bear in mind when discussing

physical features of high—Chicano and low-Chicano tracts in both cities:

1.

Central city housing in both cities, just as in most U.S.
industrial cities, was older and less desirable than suburban
housing located in newer residential areas surrounding the
central city. Most houses in both cities were built before
1940 and the average value of single-family houses in both
cities in 1970 was between $10,000 and $14,999 (U.S. Bureau of
the Census 1971a, 1971b).

Both cities experienced eras of population growth and housing
stock develOpment between the 19205 and the 19405, resulting in
some uniformity of central city housing age and condition.
Flint had lost much of its most dilapidated housing stock due
to urban renewal. However, renewal was not yet complete and
there were sections of the city where vacant or partially-razed
structures stood beside inhabited buildings and the general
appearance in these sections was similar to the aftermath of a
bombing. Renewal was never begun in Lansing on the same scale
as it was in Flint, so there were areas of older housing, but
the small-scale renewals were results of the encroachments of
highways and construction and the results were cleared away
soon after building began.

In the following paragraphs, descriptions of the physical

features of each census tract which were obtained through my land use

survey will be given for the tracts with the largest Chicano population

in each city first. Certain data on housing obtained from the housing

census will also be given for these tracts. The description will

198

proceed through other tracts with fairly high Chicano populations ending
with those tracts in each city which did not have any Chicanos enumerated
in them in the 1970 census. It will be helpful to refer to Maps 1 and 2
while reviewing the physical descriptions.

In Flint, tract 12 had the largest Chicano population of any in
the city (over 300) according to the 1970 census. It was internally
accessible but one side was bounded by a river and the tract was there—
fore not easily accessed from other parts of the city; it largely con—
sisted of single-family dwellings and older multiple—family residences
but included a few small retail stores, churches and schools; there was
a broad range of dwelling type but largely housing was Type III and

9

IV; and the vast majority of the houses were built in the 19205 or

before. According to the 1970 census of housing in tract 12;10 half
again as many persons owned their own housing as rented, while in Flint
City nearly twice as many owned as rented. Only 3 percent of housing
units lacked some plumbing or kitchen facilities while 4 percent was
the city mean, but 23 percent of houses in the tract were valued at
$10,000 or under while 10 percent was the city mean.

In Lansing, tract 8 had the largest Chicano population in the
city (over 600). It was internally accessible but bounded on one side
by a railroad which was not crossed by any of the streets in the tract.
It included part of a major industrial plant which made access im-
possible from another side. It consisted of single family houses and
former single-family dwellings converted to apartments as well as a few
newer apartment buildings, schools, and retail stores. Most of the

dwellings were Type III and most housing on one boundary consisted of

large single-family dwellings owned by absentee landlords who had

199

allowed them to deteriorate physically; and most of the dwellings were
built in the 19205 or earlier. According to the 1970 census of
housing, almost twice as many persons in tract 8 owned their houses as
rented, which was average in Lansing. Fewer housing units lacked some
plumbing or kitchen facilities than the mean in the city, but nearly
18 percent of all houses were valued at $10,000 or under while only
about 7 percent had that value in the whole city (U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1971b).

As can be seen from comparing the above, the two tracts with
the highest total number of Chicano households in both cities were
quite similar in housing stock. Both consisted largely of single-family
houses which were built during the first part of the twentieth century
through the 19205, and were bounded in such a way that they were not
completely accessible on all sides. More residents owned than rented,
but more houses had low sales values than the city average.

Lansing had a total of three other census tracts (numbers 2, 7,
and 12) which included more Chicano households than the tract in Flint
with the highest total. One of these (trace 12) was almost entirely
inundated in a major flood in 1975 and consisted largely of single-
family houses ranging in age from the 19205 through 19405. There were
twice as many owners as renters in 1970, 16 percent of housing units
lacked some plumbing or kitchen facilities and nearly 20 percent of
houses were valued at $10,000 or less (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1971b). The other two tracts had fairly to extremely poor access due
to major one-way through streets, cross—cutting freeways, and railroads.
One consisted largely of single-family houses but the other was com-

pletely mixed in land use including rooming houses, business, and small

200

industry. The age of dwellings ranged from pre—1900 to the 19405.

In tract 2, more persons were renters than owners according to the
1970 housing census, while in the city as a whole twice as many owned
as rented. Nearly 20 percent of all housing units in tract 2 lacked
some plumbing or kitchen facilities (4 percent was the city mean) and
nearly 10 percent of all houses were valued at $10,000 or under (com-
pared to a city mean of 7 percent). There were twice as many renters
as owners in tract 7, about 10 percent of housing units lacked some
plumbing or kitchen facilities while 3 percent of houses were valued
at $10,000 or less. In tract 12, most single—family houses were the
fairly small one-to-three bedroom "bungalow” style ubiquitous in both
cities. In tract 7 most were also of this type, but tract 2 included
larger, older houses.

There were similarities between the physical features and land
use patterns in all of these tracts (see Table 4): single-family
dwellings prevailed for the most part but the tracts were part of a
transitional area and included everything from schools and neighborhood
stores to large industry. Also, the houses were generally about fifty
years old and somewhat deteriorated.

The tract with the second-highest Chicano population in Flint
(tract 33) included over 200 Chicanos. This tract was somewhat larger
than most; but was notable for its extremely poor internal accessibility
due to freeways, railroads, one-way highways, streets arranged diagonally
to contiguous tracts, and boundaries which included a park and a small
lake. Land use was quite mixed and considerable older single-family
housing had been converted to office use. The existing multiple-family

as well as single-family dwellings were mostly Type III, and the age of

 

Hecoflufimcwnp :zouczoe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oman
muofluumfiv memso: xfifiemw camcflm
Hmfluseeflmew :nsfio xwucsoo: Hecfiw 30: pew Heeflo wepsaocfi HH OH eco:
Hmwuceeflmen wcflxfiuso
omam
HmCOwuHmcepu czouczoe mmcwmfieze xfifleem eHmcflm .weeao NH ma omiH
memso: veczo xHflEwm echfim hose:
adducewfimew :weHHoo mean: 00 memso: eozzo esfim> ewmhe>m
ow Hmcoflpflmceuu Eoww womcew :ecu uezoa .aeefio Eowm eewcmw NH NH omHiHm
cacao xfiflemm echfim
moema-momma msoaomam
Hefluceeflmeu woze: omHm
emfle eeczo xfifleew momno: eeczo
He:0fiuflm:ewu eawcwm mecca esfie> ewepe>m
1. Hmwpcovfimep wofiueem xfiemcee imoemfl msofiemmm cusp Hosea .Hevflo N m comiHmH
MW .mumm eEoocfl
30H eEom .eeczo kHflEww
oaaeam.mmmmfi-memafi
Oman
Hefluceeamou H020: esflm> ewmue>m swap
Oman Hezefi .eoucep .memso: xaflemw
Hecofipflmsmeu woxfie xpo> eflafluflse w oflwcfim unuom xaume m H momiaom
esz> ewmwe>m
Hmfluceeflnew :mnp wezoa .memso: woczo
xfipcwcfieoeepm .Hmcofluflmceap xaflemmioHucflm uzuom xapeo v H oomA
mnemcmq peed; madman; pcflfim madman; ucflaa xhowepmu
euflm coaumflsmom
cake woocwonzmfiez mowumfiwepemwmzu wcflmso: muoewh a occofinu

 

1

.xwomeumu eNHm cofiumHzgoa xe omxk eooahonzwfiez new wcflmso: osmoflzoul.v vague

!,I

202

these ranged from pre-1900 through the 19205. The tract included a
small portion of the central business district. In tract 33, the 1970
housing census encountered more renters than owners and more housing
units lacking some plumbing or kitchen facilities (7%) than the city
mean (4%). What is more, 15 percent of all houses were valued at
$10,000 or under compared to a city mean of 10 percent.

There were five tracts in Lansing with similar-sized Chicano
populations (tracts 1, 13, 20, 36.01, and 37). All had fairly poor
internal access from one street to another and one was cut in half by a
railroad which sometimes made access difficult. In two of the tracts
this was not due to encroachment of factories and highways but rather
due to the presence of parks and to street layout which included dead—
ends and winding roads. Three consisted almost entirely of single-
family houses, one consisted largely of apartment houses, and one was
extremely mixed; housing in one tract was predominantly Type II; in
another was Types I and II, but in two was mostly Type III; and the age
of dwellings ranged from the 19205 through the 19605. These Lansing
tracts represented two very different neighborhoods: three were located
in transitional areas but two were located intthe newer residential
region outside the immediate downtown area. It is important to note,
however, that this newer residential region included the large flats
of government—subsidized apartment houses built for low—income families.

Those tracts in Flint which had the next—highest Chicano popula-
tions (from 151 to 200) were five in number (tracts ll, 16, 22, 34, and
47) and ranged from extremely small and densely populated to very large
and sparsely populated. They were all located outside downtown. Three

of these were located at the edge of the city. The small, most densely

203

pOpulated tract was located in an older residential area of the city
and consisted largely of single-family dwellings and older apartment
houses; dwellings were Type III and IV, and were constructed in the
early 19005.

The larger tracts, however, were not in older deteriorating
residential zones. They included one older working-class residential
neighborhood with predominantly smaller single—family dwellings and a
small business district, housing itself was generally Type II but there
was little vacant land between buildings, there was good access, and
most dwellings were built from 1920 through the 19405. Also included
was a tract which had poor internal and external access due to a winding
scenic road layout. The tract included a private golf club and lake;
but other than the golf club land use was exclusively residential and
consisted predominantly of spacious single-family dwellings most of
which were constructed in the late 19505 through the late 19605. All
of the larger tracts with 151-200 Chicanos in Flint were in well-kept
residential areas with few physical problems. One tract did include
the municipal airport--although there were noise and traffic diffi-
culties the tracts offered modern single—family housing.

In Lansing there were only two tracts with this size Chicano.
population (4 and 36.02). One was located in the area outside down-
town where two of the previous tracts including the one with low-income
apartments noted above were located. It had almost no north-south
access due to street layout; both segments consisted almost exclusively
of single-family dwellings; the condition of housing in the tract was
uniformly Type I built from the late 19405 to the present. This tract,

like the larger ones in Flint with 151-200 Chicanos, was not located

204

in a transitional zone but rather in a suburban-style residential area.
The other was an older, non-transitional residential area.

There were twelve tracts in each city with from 51-150 Chicanos.
In Flint, all but two of these were quite small, densely populated
areas located just north of the central business district. The others
were contiguous and located at the city's edge. Two of the most densely
populated were located next to each other and had good to extremely
poor access due to street layout and the location of services such as
schools and hospitals in the center of the tract. One of these had
very mixed land use with little housing while the other consisted
largely of single family dwellings. The tract with mixed use had older
dwellings constructed in the early part of the century while the other
had houses built during the 19205 through 19405. The other small tract
was located next to the two above-mentioned and had good access. It
consisted of single family houses which were built from the first part
of the twentieth century until the 19405. These tracts represented
a transitional zone, where the tract with greatest proximity to down—
town had extremely mixed land use and deteriorated existing housing
while the others were older working-class residential areas. Two other
tracts located north of downtown had good internal and external access,
included large parks, consisted predominantly of single-family houses,
the majority of which were constructed in the 19205. One tract con-
tained many vacant houses. The two contiguous larger tracts had ex-
tremely poor access due to street layout--both could be entered by
only one street. One included a lake; there was considerable Open land
and few buildings of any kind but some residential sectors; the age

of housing ranged from the 19205 through the 19605 building date.

205

Both had major highways passing through them which had commercial and
light industrial uses on either side. As can be seen, tracts with this
level of Chicano population in Flint represented a range of residential
types but generally were either transitional in land use or represented
"blue collar" residential zones.

The twelve tracts in Lansing with 51-150 Chicanos included four
average-sized tracts located at the edges of the half circle around
downtown formed by the Chicano BEIEEE: Three of these had good external
accessibility and the fourth could be reached only by one street; all
consisted largely of single—family houses but included a few retail
stores, warehouses, light industry and services such as schools and
churches; housing was Type II and III. The other tracts were fairly
sparsely populated with large areas uninhabited. There was mixed land
use in all three but there were residential zones separate from the
commercial areas lining major highways. There were both single-family
dwellings and apartment complexes, ranging in building period from the
late 19405 through the present in the larger tracts. As can be seen,
tracts in Lansing with Sl—lSO Chicanos also represented a broad range
of residential options, and included some newer residential areas than
comparable tracts in Flint.

There were eighteen tracts in Flint with up to 50 Chicanos.
They ranged in size from very small to moderately large. They were
located throughout the city, but were mostly not located on the city's
edge. They included all kinds of housing options, from older elegant
single-family dwellings through the bungalow to the modern mobile home
or trailer. Land use ranged from exclusively residential to mixed and

heavy industry. Age of housing ranged from pre-19005 to the present.

206

In general, it can be said that the smaller tracts located closer to
downtown were older and housing was in poorer condition with more
mixed land use including industry; while those farther from the central
business district were newer, housing was in better condition, and
outlying business and shopping areas were close by.

There were only twelve tracts in Lansing with up to 50 Chi-
canos. These ranged in size from very small to the largest tracts in
the city. The smallest were segments of larger tracts, as Lansing has
numerous Split census tracts which lie partly inside the city limits
and partly outside. One tract located near downtown was largely
residential with single-family houses built during the 19205 through
19405 and included many office buildings; was easily accessible; and
had the highest total black population in Lansing. The rest of the
tracts were largely residential with some newer shOpping centers, parks,
small industry and warehouses, Type III and IV housing of very mixed age.

There were ten tracts in Flint with no Chicanos according to
the 1970 census. My land use survey showed that these included one
largely commercial downtown tract, one older mixed land use tract with
fairly deteriorated housing, one largely residential older area, and
several predominantly Anglo areas with Type I housino. One of the
latter was the country-club district with some of the finer older
single-family dwellings in the city.

In Lansing there were six complete and five more partial tracts11
with no Chicanos. One of these included the state office complex and
another included a major industry; both were located in the central
business district. Two others were located on the city periphery and

had few dwellings. Another had a major highway with commercial

207

establishments along both sides cutting through the center of the
tract. The final tract included the country club with some of the most
elegant single-family houses in the city.

It is necessary to examine the city of East Lansing12 in order
to understand the kinds of zones in which the Chicano population was
not concentrated in the Lansing area. Most housing in the city of
East Lansing is newer, constructed of durable materials, and in sound
condition in comparison with Lansing because East Lansing is not only a
suburb-like area but it is also a "college town.” East Lansing and
Lansing are two separate incorporated municipalities; however, for most
of the boundary there is no clear dividing line between the two. At
one point an unincorporated sector lies between the two cities.
According to records of the Catholic diocese this area contained a
sizable number of Chicano families in the early 19605, but these have
apparently moved as the concentration in this general area was, at the
time of the 1970 census, inside the Lansing City limits in tract 12.

As noted in the section on Chicano centralization above, there was
another unincorporated area with an East Lansing address which had an
extremely high number of Chicano families as well. In 1976 land use
there was predominantly residential and dwellings were somewhat
deteriorated; the streets were unpaved and tended to stand in water
following a rain. Within the city limits of East Lansing five tracts
had no Chicanos and five had up to fifty. All of these were pre-
dominantly residential tracts but included schools and other services.
The age of housing ranged from the 19405 through the late 19605 for the
most part. Two tracts within the East Lansing City limits had Chicano

populations from 51—100. These had somewhat more mixed land use and

208

housing was of varied age and of Types I and 11. These tracts included
the major portion of the central business district of the city. There
were only two tracts with Chicano populations over 100 in the City of
East Lansing. These were situated on the university campus. One of
these tracts consisted of the graduate dormitory while the other in-
cluded apartments for married students. Both of these housing options
included a number of residents from Latin America and other non-
Chicano Spanish-speaking students. Most of these were only temporary
residents of the tracts.

Several decades ago, Burgess (1929) in his study of Chicago
developed a model of five major concentric zones which he postulated
existed in any northern industrial United States city. These ranged
from the central business district out to the suburb. The zone just
outside the central business district, the zone of transition, was
said to include older residential areas deteriorating due to the
encroachment of business and industry from the central business
district and was expected to house first-generation immigrants in
"colonies" as well as rooming-houses and ”homeless men" areas. The
high-density Chicano population settlement in Lansing in 1970 was
located in a zone just outside the central city which corresponded
physically to Burgess' description of the transition zone.

In the cast of Flint, the second most populous Chicano area was
also in a transitional zone, but the tract with highest Chicano popula-
tion and others with sizable Chicano populations did not include major
industry. Although transitional in age and appearance, these tracts
corresponded more closely to what Burgess called the "Zone of Inde-

pendent Workingmen's Homes," and some to the "Zone of Better Residences.”

209

Second-generation immigrants were expected in the Burgess model to be
found in the zone of "Workingmen's Homes” while middle class native-
born were to be found in the "Better Residences" zones. As was dis—
cussed above, Flint Chicanos have been in the city at least a decade
longer than Lansing Chicanos and have been more fully integrated into
the industrial economy of the city as well. Lansing Chicanos included
many who had recently settled into the city after coming as seasonal
farmworkers, while Flint had been the host to fewer such farmworkers
in recent years. More Chicanos in Flint were born in that city as
their parents have spent most of their adult years there, and many of
these second-generation Chicanos have surpassed their parents in edu—
cation and income and thus in settlement location possibilities.

In Flint and Lansing, Chicano settlement seemed to correspond
rather closely to the Burgess typology. What this typology assumed
but did not explore, however, were the reasons why first-generation
immigrants tended to concentrate in older, industrializing areas in any
city: low incomes, language barriers, lack of saleable skills; and the
need for kinship and friendship networks. Presumably, given equal
opportunity and lack of discrimination in housing, education, and
occupation succeeding generations would move out into other residential
zones, hence second-generation immigrants would be found in working-
class zones and natives born of native parents would be fully assimilated
into the middle class. Chicano settlement in Flint and Lansing corre-
sponded to the Burgess model for industrial cities, but the tenets which

it assumed are the very processes which are being explored here.

210

Chicanos and Neighborhood

 

Neighborhood Selection

 

There was a group of questions in the migration history question-
naire which dealt with neighborhood. Respondents were asked to indi-
cate what they considered the boundaries of their neighborhood and if
there were any problems in it; if the neighborhood had improved, gotten
worse, or stayed the same during their residence; how long they had
lived at that address and what the prior same-city address was if
applicable; and why they chose that particular house or apartment in
which to live.

In Flint, 18.7 percent of respondents in 1976 were residing in
the three census tracts with the highest Chicano pOpulations according
to the 1970 census but only 4.3 percent of these resided in tract 12,
the one with highest Chicano population per tract in Flint in 1970.

In contrast, in Lansing, 39.0 percent of respondents to the question-
naire resided in the three census tracts with the highest 1970 Chicano
population with 15.0 percent residing in tract 8, where the largest
Chicano population lived that year. In both cities, the largest per-
cent of the sample per tract occurred in different tracts than those
with highest Chicano populations in the 1970 census. It cannot be said
with certainty whether these differences were a result of the fairly
small sample size or a result of a change in settlement pattern. In
the case of Flint, informants indicated the latter was probably true

as there has been a movement out toward the suburbs particularly to the
north of the city, which has always had some Chicano residents, and

13.0 percent of my respondents lived at the north central edge of the

211

city. No such movement appears to be occurring in Lansing, but 16.0
percent of my respondents lived in tract 2, which included a somewhat
more mobile Chicano population segment than did tract 8.

The average length of residence at the current address in Flint
was eight years while in Lansing it was five years. I asked the prior
address of Chicanos who had lived elsewhere in the same city and a
full 39.4 percent of those who had in Flint had a prior address in a
tract with a high Chicano population in the 1970 census. In Lansing,
however, 31.3 percent had lived previously in tracts with low 1970
Chicano populations. These figures may indicate that not only did
differential immigration to each city account for the initial spatial
distribution of Chicanos in Flint and Lansing but also persons who have
lived in those cities for a period of time may be moving within the
city in a manner which intensifies the concentration in Lansing and the
dispersion in Flint.

The reason given for choosing the particular house or apartment
in which the respondent was living was overwhelmingly stated to be
price in Lansing (29.5%) while the second consideration was suitable
size (23.1%), and a fairly large number (17.9%) indicated the dwelling
was simply available when needed. Most respondents indicated there.'
were multiple reasons for the selection in both cities, and price and
size were the most commonly stated concerns. In Flint, size was the
primary consideration (for 32.3%), price was secondary (15.4%) and
location near work was rated equally (15.4%). In Flint a full third
of the sample found their current housing through the assistance of a
realtor while equal percentages-~30.0 percent each--found their housing

in Lansing with the help of friends or family and through a realtor.

212

These differences reflect the fact that Flint Chicanos are owners while
Lansing Chicanos are renters: while only 23.2 percent of the sample in
Flint are renters, 57.5 percent in Lansing are. Yet according to the
census in both cities as a whole, owners predominate over renters.

This difference again reflects the greater poverty of some Lansing
Chicanos.

The fact that nearly a third of Lansing respondents found their
housing through the assistance of friends or family reflects the social
and cultural importance of the barrio. Many of those who found their
housing through network ties lived in or peripheral to areas of Chicano
concentration. The economic importance was noted above~-the barrio in
Lansing had housing with lower values, therefore lower payments for
owners who could get loans, and higher numbers of rental units than the
city as a whole—-but many moved to the barrio to be near family and
friends as well as through their assistance. What is more, one
respondent in tract 8 said their house was ”. . . owned by another
Mexican (known to the informant) who first rented then sold it to us."
Another in tract 1 just north of tract 8 indicated that he thought his
neighborhood was ". . . nice, especially for Mexicans." A young
Chicana secretary who recently moved with her husband and small children
into tract 8 said they had done so to be "near other Raga_(Chicanos)."
If this process continues, segregation of Lansing Chicanos may increase
rather than decrease.

Most Chicanos did not conceive of their neighborhoods in terms
of specific physical boundaries. They would give generalized geo-
graphic locations such as "the north side,H but particularly in Lansing

directions were seldom bounded. Even when asked specific directions

to a place they were given not in terms of physical markers so much

as in terms of personal referents. For example, one middle-aged
Chicana whose daughter had just gotten an apartment in the city tried
to tell us where it was located in the following terms: "Well, you go
over by Lupe's house and then you drive past the university and you
keep going until you get there——it's in back of Jaime's church there."
Most often, people who lived in the barrio when probed for an answer
to a question such as ”where do you live" or "where is your neighbor-

hood” would respond, "§E_nuestro lado" (on our side), "Aqui en_el_

 

pueblo" (loosely, here in the Mexican part of town), or "Aqu£_§n_el
barrio (or colonia)" (here in theneighborhood).l3 Some attempts have
been made to capitalize on the symbolic significance of the barrio to
Lansing Chicanos-~local Chicano radio programs often carried announce-
ments for businesses located "right here in the barrio" and organizations
frequently pointed to north Lansing as ”Chicano town" (see chapter 7

for more details).

Perceptions of Neighborhood
Characteristics

 

 

Respondents were asked to indicate whether their neighborhood
had improved, deteriorated, or remained the same during the time they
had lived there. Overall, more people felt that their neighborhoods
had remained the same than thought they had changed either for better
or worse (43.5 percent in Flint and 46.2 percent in Lansing). In
Lansing, more respondents in the five tracts with highest Chicano
population indicated their neighborhood had remained the same than

changed, and there was a fairly even split between those who felt the

neighborhood had improved and those who thought it had deteriorated.

214

It is interesting to note that in the entire city, only one person
living in 1976 in a census tract which had a low 1970 Chicano popula-
tion expressed difficulty in obtaining a house loan yet most residents
of tracts 8, 2, and 7 with high Chicano populations indicated that
obtaining loans for purchase and repair of houses was difficult. One
respondent in tract 2 indicated he was forced to get a co-signer in
order to purchase his home while another indicated she went without
homeowners' insurance for some time because several companies would not
write a policy in her neighborhood. She nearly lost her home as a
result. A respondent in tract 8 emphasized that her neighborhood was
deteriorating ”each day" as stable peeple left and housing was allowed
to deteriorate.

North Lansing was one of the urban neighborhoods in the state
in which charges of discriminatory practices in mortgage, home—repair
loans, and homeowners' insurance were lodged which led to the establishe
ment of the Governors' Task Force on Redlining in 1976. Their findings
were revealing:

The major factual finding_of the Task Force is that no standards
exist governing mortgage lending decisions as they relate to the
availability of credit, and, consequently, of housing Opportunity,
in a geographic area. Laws exist to prohibit discrimination by
race and sex, but not by geographic location. Lender decisions
about location are based on perceptions of risk. However, in-
ability to definitively measure risk in urban areas has given rise
to charges of excessively subjective appraisals and lenders' self-

fulfilling prophecies (Michigan Department of Commerce 1976: ii;
emphasis theirs).

 

 

 

 

Most of those who indicated that house loans were hard to obtain also
indicated that schools and other public facilities were in poor con-
dition, as is to be expected in physically deteriorating neighborhoods

with eroding tax bases.

215

Equal numbers of respondents in the two census tracts (12 and
33) with highest Chicano populations in Flint said their neighborhood
had improved as said it remained the same. A slightly higher number
indicated the neighborhood had deteriorated yet one respondent when
asked if there were any problems in his neighborhood said, ”No, like
what?” and when the suggested possibilities were listed replied, "None
of the above-~that's why I've stayed here twenty-two year!" Most of
those respondents in the entire sample who listed numerous problems
resided on the north central edge of the city or in the small densely-
pOpulated tracts just north of the central business district. Two
respondents living in predominantly Anglo census tracts on the southeast
side of the city stated they had moved from homes in the north because
there were "too many blacks." Although it appears there is a movement
into the north central section, Chicanos were not very pleased with the
location and it is likely it will be a transitional zone for them
between the central city and northern suburbs and outlying small towns.

One of the problems associated with living in physically
deteriorating neighborhoods is a high incidence of crime. Much of the
crime is economic in nature and is a result not of the physical
deterioration but of the low incomes associated with deteriorating
housing. I encountered a statistically and conceptually significant
difference in reSponse to the question on "problems in the neighborhood"
included in the migration history questionnaire. In Lansing, the major
problems enumerated were related to the physical conditions in the
neighborhoods: dangerous traffic, little for young people to do, and
difficulty in obtaining a house loan. In Flint the major problem noted

was a need for more police protection, with little for young peeple to

216

do a second concern. In both cities, at least a third of all respon-
dents indicated there were no problems in their neighborhoods. There
was considerable difference between the two populations on the question
of police protection: only 7.5 percent in Lansing thought that there
was a lack while in Flint 31.9 percent did. I felt that while this
difference might reflect a higher crime rate in Flint than in Lansing,
it might also reflect Chicanos' greater approximation to "the norm" in
Flint, assuming that middle-class America does indeed feel a need for
greater "law and order" as is often stated.

I asked the police departments in both cities, therefore, for
any statistics which they might have on crimes by area of the city which
might be reflected in residents' attitudes toward the need for increased
police protection. Such crimes as homicide and even assault are fairly
uncommon statistically in these two medium-sized cities, but robberies
and breaking and entering occur frequently and make a lasting impression,
both law enforcement representatives indicated, on residents' per-
ception of police protection in their neighborhoods. Both police
departments divide their cities into "reporting areas,"14 geographically
distinct sectors of the city.

Figures obtained from the Flint police department show that in
1974 in reporting area #5, an area which contained 11.7 percent of the
total population of the city (roughly census tracts 21 through 27)

16.2 percent of all the robberies and breaking and entering in the city
occurred. Combined with area #1 (roughly tracts l and 2) and area #3
(tracts l9 and 20) these high-crime reporting districts accounted for
36.9 percent of all these crimes in the city for 1974 (there were 7,073

such crimes in Flint that year) but only 23 percent of the pOpulation,

217

a difference of 13.9 percentage points. This corridor corresponds very
closely to the area not of Chicano population concentration but of black
population concentration.

It is extremely difficult to draw comparisons on the crime
figures for both cities since the reporting areas were not drawn up
in the same manner, but observations can be made. The reporting areas
with highest individual percentages of the total robberies and breaking
and enterings in Lansing for 1975 (of which there were 9,328) were area
#17 (roughly tract 19 and the eastern halves of 15 and 18) with 7 per-
cent, area #12 (roughly tract 14 and a little of 6) with 6 percent, and
areas #15 and #3 (most of tracts l and 2) with 5 percent each, while
area #19 reported 4 percent of those crimes for 1975. Areas #17 and
#12 were the central business district and state capital complex and
included the eastern portion of the only real black residential con-
centration in the city but did not include all of it or did they include
areas of high Chicano concentration. Area #15 was a shOpping center
located outside the city limit. Area #3, however, included part of the
Chicano barrio, particularly the area where the most transient portion
of the population resided as well as some of the businesses (including
bars) which catered to a Chicano clientele. Area #19 included that
area of secondary Chicano concentration located just east of downtown.

Therefore there seems to be no correlation between actual crime
problems and Chicano perception of the need for increased neighborhood
police protection but rather an inverse relationship exists. This may
be at least partially explained by the fact that in areas of high
Chicano population concentration police protection may not mean pro-

tection of Chicanos but rather protection against them. The vast

218

majority of respondents in both cities said there was not too much
police presence in their neighborhoods but two out of 69 in Flint and
three out of 80 respondents in Lansing indicated there were too many
police in their neighborhood. All five respondents lived in census
tracts with high Chicano pOpulation concentrations. There were several
publicized accounts of false arrest and police harassment which I heard
about from the participants or their friends during my period of field-
work in the Lansing barrio, and although I was told about similar
incidents in Flint these had not occurred shortly before the narration
as they had in Lansing. I had kept a file of the sentencings in cir-
cuit court actions for both cities from March 1975 to May 1976 and
during that period 1.98 percent of the total persons sentenced in
Genesee County were Spanish—surnamed, while 1.4 percent of the county
population according to the 1970 census was Chicano. The difference
could be accounted for by the census undercourt of Spanish—speaking
peeple in Flint or by Chicano population growth from 1970 to 1976 and
likely does not indicate that Chicanos were being sentenced in any
greater proportion than their proportion of the population. In Ingham
County, on the other hand, 8.2 percent of sentences went to Spanish-
surnamed individuals while only 2.7 percent of the population was
Spanish language or Chicano. There appears to be a real problem with
crime in the Chicano barrio of Lansing-~as one informant put it, "We
have pure drugs and prostitutes in this neighborhood now, and it has
gotten this way in the iast few years." But it may well be just as
another informant stated, ”We have lots of police here but for all the
wrong reasons." It appears that in Lansing Chicanos are a visable

minority group with a Chicano section of town to be held up as a

219

"problem neighborhood” physically and socially. In Flint the presence
of a large, equally visable black population combined with the dispersed
settlement pattern of Chicanos seem to have contributed to their "in-

visibility" and to the equation of "minority" to black, not Chicano.

Summary

Chicanos in Lansing were found to be more segregated from Anglos
and more centralized in the city than were Flint Chicanos. The group
of census tracts with high Chicano pOpulation and high Chicano segre—
gation which were located in northeast Lansing formed the Chicano
barrio which served both economic and social functions for the popula-
tion. Flint Chicanos resided more dispersed throughout the city and
were less segregated from Anglos than were Lansing Chicanos. Chicanos
in both cities lived in different neighborhoods than did blacks, but in
Flint my questionnaire showed a possible Chicano population movement
into the near north side of the city since the 1970 census, an area
which had a very high black population. In both cities, the census
tracts with the largest Chicano populations were located in older,
deteriorating residential areas. In Lansing, these tracts included
industry and fit the "transitional zone" type of the Burgess model of
urban land use while in Flint one of the tracts included businesses but
no industry and the other was more nearly representative of the "work-
ingmen's homes zone." In both cities, census tracts with high Chicano
pOpulations included more houses with lower sales values than the mean
in the city. In both cities, the tract with the second-highest Chicano
population in the 1970 census had more renters than owners, but the

tracts with highest Chicano population had more owners than renters.

220

In Lansing the tract with highest 1970 Chicano population was the
nucleus of the barrio. It included long-time Chicano residents of the
city, who were mostly homeowners, and some of the most recent arrivals
in the city, who were renters. In Flint, the tract with highest 1970
Chicano population was almost exclusively a homeowners' neighborhood
and was not a newcomers' settling-out location.

Although the Lansing barrio began largely as a response to
economic criteria and agricultural labor recruitment, it came to be
significant in future settlement decisions by newcomers. As many
Lansing Chicanos found housing through the help of friends as through
more formal channels while the reverse was true for Flint. Some
informants indicated they thought of their neighborhoods as Chicano
neighborhoods and others said that they had moved there because of that.
The settlement concentration of Chicanos into a barrio in Lansing worked
as a feedback mechanism. In both cities, settlement pattern had an
effect on organizational behavior, which will be examined in more

detail in the two chapters which follow.

Footnotes

1Whenever possible the term barrio will be substituted for the
general north Lansing area of high Chicano pOpulation concentration.
Some local Chicanos use the term in this manner; others refer to the
area as "el pueblo" or "nuestro lado.” See the text below.

2The term "neighborhood" will be used to indicate the general
locality surrounding a given informant's house.

3The other most important regions of origin for the Spanish
language pOpulation of Michigan were Puerto Rico and Cuba. Of a total
Spanish language population of 5,070 in Lansing in 1970 only 25 in the
central city declared themselves Puerto Ricans and 198 Cubans; while
of the 3,322 Spanish language persons in Flint 119 were Puerto Ricans
and 122 Cubans (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1971a,b). They were not
concentrated in the same census tracts as were those of Mexican origin
but were scattered throughout the cities. They did not have a signifi-
cant impact on the spatial distributions discussed here and their
numbers were subtracted from the figures. The term ”Chicano" will
henceforth be used in place of ”Spanish language population."

4Although some researchers indicate the minority undercount was
likely as high as 10 percent, some demOgraphers estimate it to be as
high as 30 percent for Chicanos in some areas (see U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights 1974: 41—55). I suspect the undercount was higher in
Flint than in Lansing due to the diSpersed settlement pattern and
”invisible" nature of the pOpulation. This seems to be borne out by
1973 estimates of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (Michigan Civil
Rights Commission 1973).

5The more concave the curve, the greater the segregation of the
target population from the control population.

6For a more complete explanation of the computation of the index
of dissimilarity as well as other indexes utilized here, see Taeuber
and Taeuber 1965: Appendix A.

7Although the figures are open to question just as was the
Chicano enumeration, the black undercount was likely not as great in
Flint as the Chicano undercount as this population is more highly con-
centrated and visible; has formal organizations concerned with accurate
counts; and has been the target of other research.

81 used census tracts as the territorial units for the land use
survey conducted in both cities so that the resultant data could be
compared to the census figures used herein.

222

9Refer to Appendix A for a dicussion of the types. Type I and
Type II were built of durable materials, in sound structural condition,
and generally had more than the required space between houses. Types
III and IV were generally the type known as ”working men's homes."

0The computer tapes for characteristics of housing for heads
of household who were of Spanish language by census tract had all data
suppressed in both cities and consultation with other users of this
data and with the census bureau itself proved the data would be im-
possible to obtain. However, the figures presented here (from U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1971a,b) are illuminating, although for the
general population, as tract boundaries are selected to make tracts
reasonably homogeneous in their socioeconomic characteristics.

11Many tracts in Lansing are split between the city and the
outlying county.

On Figure 4, East Lansing's Chicano population was averaged
at under 50 percent.

13Other anthropologists who have worked in Latin America have

recounted similar experiences with Latin spatial orientations in
conversation.

14In Flint these are 20 precincts. They are sectors of the

city which can be patrolled by one car the boundaries of which are
close enough together that the car can respond to an emergency at the
opposite side within about five minutes. In Lansing an attempt has
been made to draw up reporting areas based on population but they do
not correspond to census tracts, also based on population. As a result,
there are forty-four reporting areas in Lansing.

CHAPTER 7

FORMAL ORGANIZATION CASE STUDY 1:

FACTIONALISM IN THE BARRIO

Introduction

 

A remarkably similar description of formal organizational
behavior of a political nature has been recorded for places as diverse
as village Sicily (Blok 1974), Italy (Banfield 1958; Silverman 1975),
Mexico (Foster 1967; Lewis 1951), and Vietnam (Hickey 1964); for
Boston Italian-Americans (Gans 1962; Whyte 1943) and South Texas Chicanos
(Madsen 1964; Rubel 1966) and even for a small town in Wales (Franken-
berg 1957). These works describe a situation in which there is a con-
stant power struggle within formal organizations and furthermore,
organizations which do exist may be in conflict with each other over
exactly the same goals or membership. Explanations for this type
behavior include considering ineffective politics a part of working
class culture (Gans 1962), a peasant world view in which all good is
limited (Foster 1967), the view that these adaptations become part of
the cultural tradition of the people which then impedes change (Madsen
1964), and the suggestion that such societies are structurally
atomistic (Banfield 1958; Rubel 1966).

I found a very similar situation which will be described in

this chapter in the Lansing Chicano barrio. There was an abundance of

operating units which ranged from clubs whose membership was linked by
common interest or by kinship, to social service agencies. A number
of these were involved in competitive Opposition to each other and
individual members were aligned as factions.1 It is my hypothesis
that this organization behavior was a response to the low structural
position of Chicanos as a whole within the high resource availability
of the capital city ”open society." It is my contention that this
structural position was, as outlined in previous chapters, an out-
growth of migration tempered by the labor needs of local agriculture.
I also suggest that Chicano organization behavior was influenced by one
intervening variable: the barrio settlement pattern of Lansing
Chicanos--visible symbol of the Chicano presence in the city.

In this chapter I will describe the range of Chicano formal
organizations which existed in Lansing at the time of my study, the
historical development of this pattern, and present an illustrative
case study of political behavior in which I became directly involved

as a participant observer.

. . . . . . 2
Lansing Chicano Organizations in History

 

When the first permanent Chicano settlers came to Lansing in
the 19305 they were not entirely welcome as permanent residents. One
early settler in the city recalled that some rooming houses and
restaurants in the north side had signs posted indicating that Mexicans
were not wanted. Chicanos banded together to form a Sociedad

Mutualista (mutual aid society) early in 1946 as a response to

 

hostility from such local businesses. The mutual aid society became

utilized more when discrimination appeared on other fronts as well.

For example, Jose Cruz, one of the founders of the mutual aid society,
attempted to have an infant daughter baptized at the Catholic Church
which he attended regularly, but the priest refused to perform the
sacrament. His grounds were that this Chicano family belonged to a
Texas parish, not to his. Mission activities were sporadic during these
early years of Chicano settlement in Lansing so there was no alternative
for Jose.

In 1947 most of the members of the mutual aid society elected
to expand their goals and change their name. They also took in new

members at this time. The resultant organization, the ComisiOn de

 

Mexicanidad (Mexican Commission), was directed to several related

 

purposes. First of all, the major goal of the commission was to
foster, preserve, and instill pride in the young for the Mexican cul-
tural and linguistic heritage of their parents, the original founders
of the group. The second purpose of the club was to demonstrate to the
larger Anglo community the positive aspects of Mexican people and their
culture. This was to be accomplished through the promotion of fiestas
in celebration of Mexican national holidays (particularly the Battle of
Puebla, May 5, and Mexican Independence Day, September 16).

The Comisién de Mexicanidad still existed at the time of my

 

study and was the oldest formal Operating unit3 among Lansing Chicanos.
From its inception in 1947 it had become increasingly formalized and by
some time in the late 19605 or early 19705 (informants did not recall
the exact year) incorporation papers were requested from the state and
the group became a non-profit corporation. Most of the officers were

the original founders or members of their families. The president had

226

married into one of the founding families. There were few young members
and individuals indicated privately that they were concerned the com-
mission might die out within a few years because the young were no
longer interested, as they put it, " . . . in preserving our patriotic
heritage." There were certain factors which could account for the lack
of interest on the part of the young, however. These factors included:
(1) the "old guard” controlled the club, (2) membership was by invi-
tation only, (3) the organization met infrequently and then only to
promote fiestas around patriotic holidays, and (4) many Chicanos not
involved in the commission felt that members were using the club to
make a profit for themselves. There seemed to be evidence to support
their suspicion. Whenever a fiesta was held money was made from the
sale of tickets for the queen candidates,4 and sale of food and handi-
craft items brought in money through booth rental paid to the com-
mission. It was widely thought among other Chicanos that the members
Of the commission pocketed the money. They had been in existence over
thirty years and must have therefore amassed quite a fortune since,
" . . . no one had ever seen anything that had come from the money."
However, most of the club members were, if not actually poor and living
on retirement income, simply factory workers. The individual with
highest occupational status outside the commission was a frontline
supervisor at one of the local auto factories. There was only a
handful of members in the club by 1975, and most of the previous year's
proceeds had to be spent on supplies for the gala occasions of that year.
The early history of Chicano formal organization behavior in
Lansing appears to parallel that developed in other areas of the world

by various rural-urban migrants. The mutual aid society and the

227

ComisiOn de Mexicanidad, for example, served as solidarity groups in

 

the face of strangers and hostility, and maintained traditional cul-
ture much as did regional associations of immigrants to Lima, Peru

(Doughty 1970). The Sociedad Mutualista served not only as a support

 

group but also functioned irregularly as a "simple" rotating credit

association (see Geertz 1962). About the time that the ComisiOn de

 

Mexicanidad was developing, other clubs-—mostly for entertainment or

 

recreation, were also started. The most long-lasting of these was an
organization of young men who formed a baseball team around 1946 or
1947. These men played various other city teams for several years and
then the organization died down. By the 19705 the club had been
revived and the original members got tOgether a new ball team of
"oldsters" to play other local city teams. A prerequisite for member-
ship was purported to be that one had to have been a member of the
original team, and yet a number of Chicano notables were also invited
to join.

In the 19505 various organizations devoted to Catholic reli-
gious interests—-altar societies, special church-organized service
clubs, religious study and self-improvement circles--were added to the
Chicano recreational and support group Operating units. Most of these
were outgrowths of the Catholic missionizing effort. These clubs met
at the Catholic student center which served students of Michigan State
University. In the late 19505 the student center moved from a small
house into a larger building and the Chicano groups moved with it.

It was in 1959 that the first ethnic festival was held in Lansing in

connection with the Lansing Centennial celebration (see chapter 3), an

event in which the Chicano clubs which met at the student center parti-
cipated. Things remained much the same in the early 19605 but the
Chicano population had swelled considerably and included many newcomers
who had not been involved in either church activities or in other
long-established clubs.

In 1962 when it began to be clear that the bracero period was
drawing to a close, the Chicano Catholics in Lansing had reached such
numerous prOportion that they were able to get their own separate
parish established and moved into a formerly Protestant church building
outside the barrio. There was a succession of several priests, all of
whom spoke Spanish and were highly popular with the Mexican parishioners
(although only one was of Latin American origin). There was consider-
able involvement by large numbers of Chicanos in celebrations, social
work outreach for the church, and pastoral programs. Lansing Chicanos
who knew this time describe it much in terms of "paradise lost."

Movies taken of Mexican celebrations held at the church document pic-
torially that which Chicanos who lived in the Lansing of the period
describe wistfully. It is clear that a greater percentage of the
Chicano population was involved in Chicano events in the mid-1960s than
occurred in the mid-19705, although by the 19705 the population had
again increased considerably. Table 1 further documents the post-
parish decline in attendance in pastoral services.

In 1965 the priest who was then pastor of the Mexican parish
suggested to the bishop of the local diocese that the parish be
replaced with a social service center and that the center be prepared

to serve a multi-ethnic population. His rationale was that the

229

Table l.--Mexican Parish Size, Average Sunday Mass Attendance, and
Collections, 1962~1972.

 

 

Member Mexican Actual Ave. at Annual
Year Families Families Persons Sunday Mass Collections
1962 200 190 1200 350 $2700
1963 300 280 1800 400 8100
1964 570 550 3000 400 10900
1965 850 815 5000 -- 13100
1966 1000 990 5500 -- 9400
1972 200 190 550 (under 50)* 7900

 

* estimate based on later figures.

Chicano population continued to be a "problem" population with social
needs as well as spiritual ones, a freeway was about to pass through

the Mexican church, so transformation to a social service center would
be advisable when a move was forced. Documents do not indicate the
reason for the stress on multi-ethnicity but it is probable that the
priest and/or other church officials assumed that the Chicano pOpulation
would cease growing with the end of the bracero period and would show
more natural increase than immigration. If they reasoned in this
manner, their decision was clearly an attempt to deal with the Chicano
population in such a manner that they could be fully integrated into

the Lansing social structure not as a separate and distinct ethnic

group but as an assimilating immigrant group. As a result, the

building which housed the Mexican Catholic community of faith was closed;

the building was, as one informant puts it, ”buried”; and the money

to
(A
O

was used to purchase land in the barrig upon which the new center for
social services would be erected.

The late 19605 in the U.S. was a time for liberals. Consider-
able strides had been made for civil rights in the early part of the
decade. Black Americans were talking about ways to achieve "black
power" and appeared to be making headway in the directions of educa-
tional advancement, occupational Opportunity, desegregation, and poli-
tical activity. Students across the country were protesting the war
in Vietnam, and various oppressed groups were planning strategies to
liberate themselves.

In the Lansing Of the late 19605 to be a minority was suddenly
"in"—-not necessarily acceptable, but a possible road toward more equal
distribution of resources. Affirmative action guidelines to hire
minorities began to be applied. Government funding opened up new jobs
for minorities. Government grants were available for minority busi-
nesses and minority—run service organizations. In this climate Lansing,
the capital of Michigan, was center for a number of pilot programs for
minority and "disadvantaged" pOpulations and a center for collection
and redistribution of grants from various national and state-level
departments of government.

Michigan Migrant Agency (MMA) was founded during this period.
At the close of the bracero program, the forerunner to MMA was develOped
as a multiple church-sponsored outreach program to minister to the
social and religious welfare of the presumed final migrant stream.

In 1965 MMA was incorporated and Obtained a sizable grant from several

anti-poverty programs. The organization was reorganized under a

231

new director with a much smaller budget and a new name in 1967,
following a year in which the funding sources found fiscal management
by MMA unsatisfactory. MMA was administered by non-Chicanos from its
inception until the 19705.

At about the same time Chicano Social Services (CSS), the
Catholic social service agency, opened its doors in the barrio with
combined social and religious functions which were to become proble-
matic. Chicano priests were not available for the pastoral arm, but
the services administration was early headed by Chicanos. MMA opened a
Lansing branch office in the CSS building soon after its opening, as
the MMA central offices had been moved to a location outside the
capital city.

Various news and entertainment segments in Spanish began to be
developed by local Chicanos at this time on local radio stations. The
most comprehensive and long-lasting commitment was to come from a small
station outside the city. A newsletter was developed at CSS and at
least one abortive attempt at a local Chicano newspaper was begun
either at CSS or in the basement of a CSS employee. A local entrepre-
neur began bringing Mexican moving pictures to town on a regular basis
as well. This entrepreneur, the newspaper editor, several promoters.
who engaged Texas bands to play for dances in the Lansing area, and one
Mexican restaurant owner formed a businessmen's association in the
early 19705. The organization was short-lived, however. Members had
thought the organization could serve purposes similar to those of the
Chamber of Commerce; but the association had few resources, no outside

funds, and no staff and could not fulfill this desired function.S

h.)
(N
N

Current Pattern of Chicano Organizations in Lansing

Agencies

When I began my research in 1975 I encountered five Chicano
organizations at the highest level of internal complexity. These were
corporate Operating units6 which had a membership, a separate funding
source or sources, and employed workers for the Operation of some sort
of social and/or information service for the Chicano pOpulation of
Lansing. All of these organizations, which I will henceforth refer to
as agencies, had offices located in the heart of the barrio. Each of
these agencies specialized in a particular aspect of information or
social services for Chicanos; especially the poor, newcomer, and tran-
sient barrio dweller. Chicano Social Services (CSS) provided religious
and mental health counseling; cared for physical needs including emer-
>gency food, clothing, and medical help; and served essential crisis
intervention for both the newcomer and the chronically poor. Funds for
these programs came from several sources, particularly the Catholic
diocese and the Lansing united fund office. Michigan Migrant Agency
had a branch office in Lansing administered by the central office
located outside Lansing. Funds for MMA's operations came primarily
from the U.S. Department of Labor, but several programs were funded

locally. El Grito de Michigan (Grito) was principally concerned with

 

publication of a bilingual newspaper of the same name as well as other
materials concerned with either the Spanish-speaking or with migratory
farmworkers. It was self-supporting but had originated with Model
Cities funds, and by the end of my field work had obtained a local

grant again. Finally, Aztlan del Norte (A del N) directed its efforts

 

I' J
(N
0*!

toward drug and alcohol abuse among Chicanos while its parent agency,

La Patria Aztlan (PA) operated a separate program for former prisoners

 

returning to the city. All of these agencies Operated with total bud-
gets that were much smaller than would actually be required to properly
carry out their stated goals for the size pOpulation which was their
target.

What is more, there were several organizations which had member-
ships and legal non-profit status which were competing with these
agencies for funding from various public and private sources. These
were clubs or formal operating units which had sought and obtained the
legal status required to apply for funds which could provide them exclu-
sive control of some aspect of services to Chicanos. These clubs
included a women's group whose members were primarily administrative
and professional Latinas,7 organized and legally incorporated during
my fieldwork; and Chicano Association of Social Workers (CASW), whose
members were graduate social work students at the university, also
organized during my research. These two clubs Operated like sex-
Specific branches of the same club, with involvement in many of the

same activities. The Comisidn de Mexicanidad (CM) and the oldsters

 

baseball team were both interested in setting up their own social
centers and offering "something for the community” as well, but did not
draw up prOposals to compete for funds, as did all the other units
listed.

At least one and possibly three of the existing agencies were
actually splinters from already-established agencies which had ori-

ginally been such clubs. The membership of one of the current clubs

234

included many prior board members of one of the already-established
agencies, and may eventually become another agency itself. There was a
tendency for every Chicano club of any size to draw up legal non-profit
corporation papers in Lansing. The reasons for this were: (1) such
legal status meant a club could apply in its own right for funds from
private and public sector sources, and (2) models existed which indi-
cated one successful pattern of evolution was from a club, through
incorporation, to agency status.

All of these Chicano organizations were parties in the nearly
constant quarrelling, competition, charges, counter-charges, and poli-
tical factionalism that formed the pattern of "agency envidia" in
Lansing.8 Parties to the discord could see that their struggles were
sometimes counterproductive, yet they would explain that the Chicano
simply has a bellicose nature. The following parable was recounted to
me several times to prove the point:

Imagine a crowd of gringos [Anglos] stuck in a deep pit with
steep sides. They would stand on each other's shoulders and
form a human ladder, with the first one out pulling the next one
up, who would help the following, and so on. Such is American
ingenuity. Imagine a crowd of mexicanos stuck in the same deep
pit, however. They would stand around arguing about who was
going to get to be top of the ladder and never get out. That's
the Mexican--so full of envidia he never gets anywhere.
This was the emic explanation of the situation. As indicated in the
first chapter, Chicanos did use formal organizations as though they
consisted of multiple dyadic ties. To the leader, followers were
attached in patron-client relationships; to other members there were
other ties including primary ones such as kinship and pre-existing

relationships based on shared region of origin. That is, as Rubel

noted for New Lots, Texas Chicanos " . . . participate in secondary

235

associations as if they were of a primary nature" (Rubel 1966: 140),
or as Macklin noted " . . . one votes with brothers and compadres, not
according to issues” (Macklin 1963, as quoted in Rubel 1966: 140).

What this kind of participation resulted in was a kind of
factionalism in which there was constant competition over the scarse
resource of public funding. Thus what Chicanos called agency envidia
was generally carried out in the following ways: (1) attempts by an
agency or club to "steal" a social service prOgram already funded or
in the process of funding finalization from another agency by sub-
mitting a proposal to the same funding source and applying pressure
through the news media or pickets; (2) charging the administrator of
some program or agency with lack of concern for Chicanos, corruption,
or simple mismanagement; and (3) constant gossiping in the barrio along
those lines of fracture that could be utilized by interested parties
to form actual factions. The professionals and managers employed at
the agencies in question juggled prOposals and programs, either they
or outsider Chicano managers manipulated news events, while the un-
and underemployed followers grumbled to all who would listen about the
ineffective leadership of Fulano.

The Chicano population of Lansing was by no means an inter-
acting social community and yet the two spoken symbols most frequently
called upon in these power struggles were "the Chicano barrio" and ”the
Chicano community." It is not difficult to understand the importance
of the first: the barrio was visible, large, and an economic resource
because local programs administered with money from Community DeveIOp-

ment were based on target neighborhoods, of which the barrio was one.

236

There appears to have been a tacit assumption between both Chicanos and
interested Anglos, particularly Anglo funding sources, that the two
were coterminous; i.e. that those Chicanos who had a stake in the agen-
cies and their programs lived in the north side. Yet although most of
the "client" category did indeed live in the barrio, less than half of
the ”professional" category did. Many of the Chicanos involved in
agency envidia did not have a stake in the struggle by virtue of resi-
dence, property ownership, or propinquity to the barrio. Rather, their
interest appears to have been due to the fact that Chicano agencies were
a source of power. Barrio residents who were the clients of the agen-
cies were well aware of the fact that their clientship was a route to
upward mobility to the agency leaders. Some long-term residents were
distressed as well that many of the professionals involved in the power
struggle were ”outsiders" to Lansing as well as to the barrio--people

recently arrived from Texas with college degrees and political contacts.

Other Chicano Organizations

 

There were also a number of clubs which were not usually
involved in the competition. These included Chicano Veterans (Chi Vets),
a full array of Protestant and Catholic religious clubs, and baseball
and bowling teams--some of which were actually appendages to the agen-
cies or clubs important in political maneuvers.

In addition to this array of Chicano organizations, some Chi-
canos did belong to other operating units. As is noted below, Chicano
professionals and administrators were often involved in the governing
boards of mainstream social service agencies and in the advisory boards

of local funding sources. These were important vertical linkages

237

that could be mobilized in a power struggle (see the case study
below). Lansing Chicanos were not involved in black associations or
agencies although there was no antagonism between them.

Finally, many Chicano factory workers were nominal members of
labor unions. Plants in the corporate sector in Lansing were "closed
shops" with obligatory union membership for employees which had passed
the initial probation period. Chicanos did not tend to involve them-
selves in "union politics," however. I only knew one Chicano with
aspirations to a position in his union, and he became the steward for
his section of the midnight shift at an auto parts plant. He was born
in El Paso, had a more urban background than most Lansing Chicanos, and

was married to an Anglo girl.

Competition and Cooperation

 

Individual Involvement

 

Individual Chicanos became involved in the various Chicano
agencies and clubs for a number of reasons. There were several impor-
tant themes which did link individuals into networks and into the
formal and corporate operating units involved in intra-barrio anta-
gonism, although each individual would join those organizations which
were most important to him for his own reasons.

The role an individual might fill within any Chicano agency
was closely linked to his occupational stratum. Referring to Table 2,
the un- and underemployed service workers and seasonal farmworkers
formed the clientele for both the Chicano agencies and for mainstream

government agencies which dealt with the Chicano population. Factory

238

Table 2.--Agency Involvement by Occupational Strata in Lansing.

 

Role in Agency

 

Occupational Stratum Chicano Agency Other Agency

 

Un- and Underemployed, Clients Clients
Seasonal Farmworkers

Factory Workers Not Involved, Not Involved
Board Members

Administrative, Employees, Board Members,
Professional for Board Officers Not Involved
Chicanos

Administrative, Not Involved, Employees, Board
Professional, Board Officers Members, Board
Mainstream Officers

 

workers tended to be uninvolved in either Chicano or mainstream agencies

but might serve as board members for Chicano groups, and Comisi6n de

 

Mexicanidad members were mostly factory workers. Chicano-employed pro-

 

fessionals served as employees and board officers for the Chicano agen-
cies and board members for government or mainstream agencies; while
Anglo-employed professionals were employees, board members, or board
officers of Anglo or government agencies and either officers for Chicano
agencies or completely uninvolved in Chicano Operating units. Chicanos
did not participate in agencies run predominantly by and for blacks
except for youth recreational programs.

This breakdown by class strata appears to generally agree with
the findings of Lane (1968) and Barbosa-DaSilva (1968). Lane indicated
that Chicanos in San Antonio participated in a wide range of voluntary

associations, while leadership was confined to the upper classes of

239

Chicanos, whose incomes compared favorably with those of Anglos.
Barbosa-DaSilva found that the highest rate of participation in such
associations was by Chicanos with "high economic" and "low family”
indexes-~no extended family demands and high incomes. What is more,
Barbosa-DaSilva found that high educational levels were correlated to
voluntary association participation.

In Lansing, the less-educated, poorer Chicanos--including the
seasonal farmworkers--tended to be unemployed or underemployed. Their
involvement with Chicano organizations was limited to the corporate
operating units, where they were clients. This occupational stratum
consisted mainly of newcomers to town--especially those from Mexico who
lacked documentation, language or job skills, and education, and older
long-time residents who lived on fixed incomes and spoke little
English. Neither male nor female factory workers were active in Chicano
organizations as they spent most of their time at work or in shOpping
and family activities. Unemployed wives of factory workers were, how-
ever, Often active participants in both Catholic and Protestant reli-
gious clubs. The well-educated more generously-paid managers and pro-
fessionals, especially those employed outside the Chicano agencies

themselves, formed the elite of Chicano organizations.

Principles of Recruitment

 

Beyond the simple occupational principle, however, individual
recruitment to Chicano organizations followed different principles for
each organization and formed the basis for cohesion within the operating
unit. Formal Chicano organizations in Lansing tended to be semi-

isolated units, each with its own familia of clients and followers.

240

Since the formal organizations were egocentric and the familias

tended to consist of kin, clients, or friends of the central figure,
they were organized similarly to factions. Referring to Figure 1,
individual operating units tended not to share membership and to
recruit partisans through different principles. For example, Chicanos
involved in the Spanish-language Protestant churches and their club
activities were not members of other Chicano organizations. Members of
Chicano Veterans, which was a local branch of a national veterans

group which was founded following World War 11, did from time to time
participate in sports clubs, and several were board members of Chicano

Social Services or La Patria Aztlan. Members of the ComisiOn de Mexi-

 

 

canidad had been active in the Mexican Catholic parish but boycotted
its successor, CSS, and were not formally involved with other groups.
One member Of the commission had been a founder of Patria but was
actively Opposed to its current direction and had recently been
appointed to the board of Grito. The major principle of recruitment
for the Protestant clubs, the Chicano Veterans' club, and the various
sports clubs was common interest in the association.10 The sports
clubs further drew members by generation--e.g. the "oldsters" were
mostly men in their 40's and 50's who were first generation Mexico-
Lansing migrants. The ComisiOn was devoted to promulgation of Mexi-
canness and was only Open for recruitment to the "first five" Chicano
families, their descendants, and affines or friends deliberately
recruited by members. In its stress on ethnicity, this unit was

closer in goals to the agencies than to the other clubs.

oOmOchH mocHH coxoun HcHwHuo season m
nocecm muHc: oz» OueuHecH mocHH vHHom .

.muHc: ucHuekoao cumuoauou can Heeuom oceOHau

mchcmH mom :onosou can uceepHsueoz mo moHaHocHua .H ownuHm
eemHeUHz oe ouaau Hm a coupe
oucoz Hoe cmHuu< u 2 How <
cwHuu< ekuem m4 u <a
.chmuonEoE counzm wapHceeHze: on cmeHnou u :u
muoxwoa HmHuom mo :oHuaHOOmm< ocequu u xm<u
Aucow< ucngE 53,433.: u 5.3.
mOOH>uem HeHuom.O:noH:u n mmu
azapeuo> Ocnonu u mue> qu mwmw

 

 

aaeweeonu Hm
esueaum HecoHueQSOOO Am
:Huwuo Mo :onon AH

umoaoucH :OEEOO Am
:OHunuo:em.AH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
4
oz
eanofi 2 How < n <L mnzHu muuoem
\6\ ii \. \, \x.
\ \ / / \ A
\\.\. \\ \\. // \\ a
\\ \\ // .\
\ \ \ / \ c
\\ mafia soak A \\ x, I.
\ ._ H. . w m \ \ / H
.x.\. chaste do cannot Hm aaewec0aam Hm maemecoacm Hm //
mazmfieeauw mm enuenum sewagem omcconune Am umeHQHCH H
. deeded A“ anoHuagseOO AH HecoHueazeeo AH aHzmxHH AH coaaoe AH umouaucH conned AH
_ mpsHu
:u 295 “ <5... “I I l l .I. in II mwu ll .l .I ll 36> Eu £9.35 ucnumouou;

 

 

 

 

 

 

242

Continuing with Figure l, the agencies had different recruit-
'ment principles. Chicano Social Services had a familia of supporters
and clients who were tied to each other through real and fictive kin-
ship, patronage, and friendship. The CSS staff included Hernando
("Harry”) Fuentes, his executive secretary, a caseworker, a social work
supervisor (non-Chicano), a receptionist, and a janitor. There were
students placed in part-time clerical work and clients of government
"re-training” programs placed in part-time janitorial and grounds-
keeper activities as well. Harry Fuentes was born in northern Mexico
but moved directly to Lansing, where his older brothers were already
established, when he was in elementary school. His secretary had

lived in Lansing most of her life and she and her parents had been
active members of the earlier Mexican parish. They were strong sup-
porters Of the social services programs Offered at the ”new" CSS. She
and Harry became compadres (co-parents) when she asked him and his wife
to be baptismal godparents of her son, who was born shortly before she
was employed at CS8. The caseworker was a Texas-born former sergeant
in the U.S. army who had done clerical—administrative work in the
service. He rejoined the army during my period of fieldwork and was
replaced by a Mexican-born man who had been working with the migrant
ministry in a nearby town who had gotten Harry's assistance in
obtaining continued funding for that position. The receptionist had
been employed by MMA when their offices were still at C85. The janitor
was a former migrant who had moved to Lansing to assist a daughter
whose husband had deserted her, leaving her with several small children

to raise. The janitor was a few years short of retirement or social

243

security age, and was essentially unemployable in the regular labor
market due not only to his age but also to the facts that he was
uneducated, monolingual Spanish—speaking, and not a citizen.

Several organizers and/or current staff members of La Patria

Aztlfin and El Grito de Michigan had at one time been employed at CSS.

 

In this manner CSS had served as the "parent" for numerous offshoot
organizations and as a training ground for relatively unskilled Chicanos
who moved from clerical and casework positions there up into city and
state government positions at far higher salaries. By the time of my
investigation the newer agencies were also performing these functions.

Aztlan del Norte (A del N) split from Patria, and members of Chicano

 

Association of Social Workers became board members there and at Grito.
A former organizer of Patria became director of Michigan Migrant Agency
and another executive from that office became a board member at CSS.
Patria was originally founded by people from Crystal City, Texas, site
of the birth of La Raza Unida party (See Shockley 1974). Newcomers to
the organization tended to be friends of the organizers or at least
former residents of Crystal City. At the very least they were former
factory workers currently employed in entrepreneurial activities, as
was the best—known of the founders. Michigan Migrant Agency's clients
were rigidly defined according to U.S. Department of Labor Standards;
the clients of the sister Aztlan agencies were "hard core”--prisoners
or individuals with substance abuse problems. CASW's members were
social workers, mostly students who had been recruited by the local
university, who became avid workers in the programs of A del N and

Grito.

244

Leaders of most of these newer Operating units (the sister
Aztlan organizations, Grito, and CASW) espoused a cultural nationalist
stance. They frequently made public disparaging references to
"gabachos" (similar in intent to "honkies”) and "the gringo system"
and several published poetry in which, for example, Chicanos with

"white" wives were taken to task for being "traitors” to Chicanismo.

 

Their rhetoric alienated many Lansing Chicanos as well as those Anglos
who happened to hear it. Many long-time Chicano residents of the city
had Anglo sons- or daughters-in law, and had spent many years trying to
build a good public image for Chicanos. These peOple found the rhetoric
threatening and even racist. They would say, "We know there is still
much discrimination in Texas and Fulano just came here from there, but
it's different here and we have worked hard to get along with our
American [sic] neighbors.”

The nature of individual involvement in formal and corporate
operating units in Lansing was not remarkably different from that
noted for similar organizations in Mexico. Both leaders and followers
appeared to be integrated by the same principles with which functionally
equivalent individuals in Mexico might have been. For example,
leaders tended to be men who had a large enough network of real and
fictive kin and friends to develop "strongman" positions from their
footholds in their respective agencies and to organize formal higher-
level ties. That is, leaders were men who could recruit a faction
around them. This appears to be the same kind of phenomenon as
cacique organization so important in pre—Revolutionary Mexico which

survives, although restricted, today (Friedrich 1970; Genz 1975).

245

Furthermore, individuals from the client stratum often looked at
agencies as giant patrons and referred to each agency by the name of
its director (e.g., MMA was "La oficina de Raul"). When a client's
request of the agency was not forthcoming, then, "Raul no le me quiso
dar" ("Raul didn't want to give it to me"). Agency as patron there—
fore maintained vertical integration between the client and professional
Chicano strata. Dealing with the agencies in this highly personalistic
manner was similar to the personalism encountered in formal organi-
zational behavior in a South Texas town (Rubel 1966). A tendency for
immigrants to adapt to the structures of their new social setting by
adaptation of traditional means had been noted in many parts of the
world and does not appear to be specific only to Chicanos (see, e.g.,
Gallin and Gallin 1977 for a study of the molding of fictive kin to
new structures).

In spite Of the multiplex ties which existed through shared
board membership, recruitment principles, and shared origin these
agencies became involved in struggles over programs, clientele, and
funds on a regular basis. The major reason for this appears to be not
simply that they were adapting in a traditional manner however; but
that they were competing for many of the same resources for their

continuance as well.

Funding and Derivative Power Sources

 

Referring to Figures 2 and 3, it should be clear that there was
considerable overlap in funding sources between agencies in the Lansing
barrio yet quite different derivate power sources were available to these

diverse Operating units. For example, Patria Aztlan-Aztlan de Norte,

246

 

 

 

 

Funding Source Qperating Unit
Membershi- -.___ Sports clubs
“r-CM and Chi Vets
Chicano populatio ‘ '
“\‘§5\_ _, Religious organizations,
Larger city, area population Catholic G Protestant

’- .

Private funding organization --‘Q; g 3,1:57r CSS

 

 

City funds—4'" ;/ ‘ PA - A del N
County funds N ' Grito

State funds \‘ MMA

Federal Funds ///////, CASW (none yet)

Figure 2. Funding Sources for Lansing Chicano Formal and Corporate -_
Operating Units

 

 

 

 

   
    
     

Agency Power Structure Operating Unit
CSS - Private agency PA-A del N
\ City officialfl MMA
City agency ‘/
‘County official/4.
CM County agency 7;; Grito-CASW

State officia/

State agency
National official

Figure 3. Derivative Power Sources for Lansing Chicano Formal and
Corporate Operating Units

Key: CM = Comisidn de Mexicanidad
_-—' Chi Vets = Chicano Veterans
CSS . = Chicano Social Services
PA = La Patria Aztlan
A del N = Aztlan del Norte
Grito = E1 Grito de Michigan
MMA = Michigan Migrant Agency
CASW = Chicano Association of Social Workers

247

MMA, and CSS all had city and county funds and several had turned in
competing proposals for exactly the same funds in the past. Yet CSS
remained tied to its barrio base in local Lansing: its highest level
funding sources were the county and local Catholic diocese. The other
agencies, including Grito, received direct federal funds as well. The

sports clubs, Comision de Mexicanidad, and religious clubs depended

 

largely on member donations and all but the Sports club also regularly
tapped the Chicano population and area people for funds through fiestas
and other fundraisers. From time to time the agencies would also have
dances or fiestas to raise money, which put them in direct competition
with the less powerful clubs for the same resouces--a constant source
of irritation to the clubs. The latter, however, did not think the
agencies should be annoyed if they then competed with them for grant
money.

As a result of the differences in funding sources and of the
personal network ties of the units' elite, the formal and corporate
operating units in question had access to different sources of deriva-
tive power. Patria-Adeln, MMA, Grito and CASW had ”friends" on the
city council, at city agencies, on the county commission, in county
agencies, in state legislature, at state governmental offices, and even

in Washington. The Comision d§_Mexicanidad only had two city officials

 

upon which to call for assistance, while CSS's sphere was restricted
to local and county power sources.

As is always the case with a power relationship, the donors of
such derivative power had something to gain from the Chicano Operating
units. A state official had obtained his office through initial

success in a county election in which he carried the barrio vote in

248

spite of the opposition of two Chicano candidates in the primary. He
was an important power source in his own right and broker to even more
powerful persons and groups. He owed much of his success in the barrio
to friends from the Patria-Adeln alliance, so he could be counted on
for support of their causes.

An even more important point to remember is that the agencies
involved in this power struggle did not exist until the late 19605
even though sizable numbers of Chicanos had been in the city for over
twenty years by that time. The agency type operating unit was not an
"indigenous" social structure for Lansing Chicanos. It was a form
imposed on them by the outside and run by outside rules. Rules for
governing boards and client recruitment were not in the hands of Chi-
canos but were made instead by government officials far removed from
local circumstances.

Even CSS was an outside product and clearly suffered ineffec-
tiveness from its own internal structure. It could have been a powerful
focus for Chicano activity fusing religious and socio-political inter-
ests, but the pious considered the building hence its occupants
sacriligeous and the ”radicals" considered its leadership papist,
orthodox, and weak. It is not clear whether these two opposing sides
among the potential supporters of the operating unit develOped accord-
ing to the designs of the church architects of CSS or not, but their
evolution kept the agency too involved in its own internal turmoil to
pose any threat to real powerholders in Lansing.

The imposition of this type corporate operating unit on
Lansing Chicanos and their subsequent inability to c00perate for the

same goals although all ostensibly were run by and for Chicanos was

249

similar to the situation found by Roberts (1973) in Guatemala City.
These agencies appear to have been developed not to help Chicanos
organize themselves into a viable political force or even to foster
largescale social mobility. Rather, this level of organization was
imposed by the outside as an attempt to provide a structure with which
the more powerful could deal with the less powerful barrio. The
structure was maintained in two ways: (1) each agency's budget was kept
low while the service population remains high, continuing a certain
degree of ineffectiveness; and (2) formal and corporate Operating units
were encouraged to compete for the same resources in the public and
private sectors alike by use of something of a quota system by which
only X amount was set aside for Chicano programs. In this manner
agencies were kept constantly in search of new funding sources; the
amount of money to be spent by any one source on Chicano projects was
kept finite and determined by that source; and one agency's success
invariably meant another's failure. 2

Agency envidia was thus a response to the structural constraints
on funding resources, just as Acheson (1972) found that the "image of
limited good" held by some Mexican villagers was a rational expression
of their limited good or resources. The image of limited good model as
develOped by Foster (1965, 1967, and 1972) indicates that people who
are relatively successful will expect aggressive behavior, even witch-
craft, from their peers who they suspect will be envious of that
relative success. It is precisely this sort of explanation which I have
indicated was applied to operating units, not individuals, in Lansing.

Operating units, however, tended to be the Special provinces of certain

250

individuals: these leaders who were centers of each and around whom
the "familias" clustered.

The "familias" of clients, on the other hand, gossiped about
how the various leaders had betrayed them but did not indicate that
they considered themselves part of the conflict. They did not, for
example, make statements such as, "Oh, they (at X agency) are just
envious of us (at Y agency) because we have a big grant and they don't."
This kind of statement was, as noted above, commonly made by the
leaders. The clients were more involved in obtaining services and
favors-—the province of good patrons, the function fulfilled by the
agencies--than in competing with other agencies. Because they responded
to the agencies and certain clubs as though they were patrons, they
were generally loyal to them. Only leaders and those who did not
require services, i.e., board members and employees, were involved in
more than one Operating unit. These cross memberships linked the
leadership of certain agencies into at least temporary coalitions
(e.g., the network of leaders and board members which was mobilized to
get Epifanio Mata elected: see text below).

In a review of the contrasting predictions made by Foster's
image Of limited good model and the sociO-psychological model 0f the
reference group theorists, Rubel (1977) indicates that an understanding
of reference group theory may require a change in the limited good
model. This is because an individual's membership group and his group
of social referents may not be the same. Reference group analyses of
U.S. minorities (e.g., Aberle 1906) indicate that in a modern industrial
society with a generally high standard of living such as our own these

with less material goods may have feelings of deprivation relative to

some presumed mean, a situation not apt to occur in more isolated
village settings. These feelings of deprivation lead not to fear on
the part of the relatively wealthy but rather to desire for improvement
of their conditions on the part of the relatively poor. I suggest that
this explanation is applicable to most Lansing Chicanos, especially
those who were not only relatively but also absolutely deprived: the
clients of the agencies, those too poor to seek out patrons at all, and
those employed in frequently emotionally and/or physically debilitating .
competitive sector and service jobs. Both the clients and Lansing
Chicanos uninvolved in Chicano formal organizations were on the whole
less concerned with the efficacy of ethnic organizations than with their
own chances at economic security and possible upward mobility. Lansing
Chicanos on the whole were relatively deprived socioeconomically. In
chapter 5 it was demonstrated that on the average their mean income and
occupations were below the city norm while their family size was
slightly higher. Most had as their primary concern either Obtaining or
maintaining permanent employment, securing better wages, and making a
major improvement in lifestyle. Not many perceived involvement in
Chicano formal organizations as a route to such improvement, and many
referred to such involvement by acquaintances in derogatory terms. 2
On the other hand, this full range of Chicano agencies which
offered alternatives to the mainstream social services institutions,
although it provided relatively little in services to the poor, did
offer an Opportunity for the more fortunate to obtain experience in
white-collar positions and mainstream politics. It also effectively
diffused real protest through "co-optation" of leadership (see Berry

1971 for this argument). The greater the number of Chicano agencies

252

the greater the chance for employment, so leaders stood to gain

from the factionalism since it often led to the development of a new
agency. This factionalism appears, although explained in emic terms
as envidia, to have been a response to the need of the mainstream,
particularly the public sphere, to organize Lansing Chicanos into a
workable system.11 This system masked the real problem: the fact that
money for social service needs of the Chicano population was not deter-
mined by their needs but by formulas of the funding sources themselves.
That agency factionalism worked against Chicanos as a category while
working for individual Chicanos in their quest for upward mobility
should come as no surprise.

The structure into which Lansing Chicanos fit was one of group
powerlessness. Chicano migration into Lansing as a labor source for
local industry had resulted in the selection mainly of the rural poor
and powerless. In Lansing they largely continued to fit into the less
powerful classes, and the most visible and potentially powerful of their
formal organizations were actually outside structures. The barrio was
the focus and location of the agencies and the segregation of poor
Chicanos in a physically deteriorating neighborhood made them a "pro-
blem" population to the various funding sources. In Lansing there was
a lack of overt and clearcut local centralized control of power,
although such power remained in fact largely in the hands of industry.
There was an appearance of funding abundance due to the presence of
many interest groups there due to the capital functions of the city,
yet actual money available was quite limited. The "Open society" of
the capital city where numerous interest groups were available as

funding or derivative power sources for Chicano Operating units is

253

similar in outline to the structure of power described for Sicily (Blok
1974). In that case there was a weak central government which en-
couraged local autonomy and strongman behavior as long as its own
ultimate authority was not in jeopardy.

In the following section I will demonstrate by situational
analysis the manner in which the lines of Chicano cohesion and com-
petition could be brought into play around a political issue.

Health Care Provision for the Chicano Poor:
A Political Issue

 

 

Background of the Issue

 

CSS--the Chicano organization most visible to outsiders--had
been the site of a half-day per week adult health care clinic for two
years when I began my research. When the adult clinic Opened, it
operated directly under the auspices of the Ingham County Health
Department—-becoming the first "neighborhood clinic" in the county-~and
nursing staff was provided from the public health division of that
department. In June of 1975, the physician who had been with the clinic
since its inception discontinued practice at the CSS clinic and was
replaced by another doctor. In July of 1975 the nursing staff of the
clinic was replaced by personnel from the Community Health Services,
formerly Model Cities Health Services, which had just become a branch
of the Ingham County Health Department that same month. The staff was
also reduced from five nurses, aides, and support people to three: a
nurse, a nurse's aide, and a receptionist. The nurse's aide and
receptionist were Chicanas who had originally been active in the Mexican

parish but were related to the officers of the Comisién d3 Mexicanidad,

 

254

who considered Harry Fuentes (CSS director) personally reSponsible for
its demise and the substitution of secular CSS. At the same time, a

sliding-scale payment schedule was instituted in place of the strictly
nO-pay system which had been in effect. By July 23, a third physician
was treating clinic patients at the site. Although the day of the week
that the clinic was held remained constant throughout the personnel and
organizational changes, by mid-July the average number of patients seen
per clinic had dropped drastically. From an average of 20.7 per clinic
day for the first three months of 1975, the patient load had declined

to a total of eight on July 16 and five on July 23.

CSS and the Health Department

 

The takeOver of the clinic by the Community Health Services
(CHS) occurred when the director of CHS, Lorraine Smith, indicated to
the county health board that her division could administer the CSS
clinic more efficiently than could the public health division. Although
there was logic to her contention because all except CSS and two other
clinics for the poor in the entire metropolitan area were under her
administration, it was also a political move. The city council was
meeting at the time to consider whether to continue various model
cities programs under their own auspices or to drop them altogether.
"Model cities” ceased as a federal urban develOpment plan in 1975 and
in June of that year all programs had to be taken over by local govern-
ment under Community Development grants from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or phased out. Adding the CSS
clinic to her hegemoney would increase the CH5 target area thereby

increasing the possible grant allocation from Community DeveIOpment.

255

Mrs. Smith's contention of greater efficiency therefore would aid her
own division's continuance and add to its resources, but was not corre-
lated to any real inefficiency at the CSS clinic.

I interviewed members of 22 out of 33 families of different eth-
-nicities which had used the CSS clinic four or more times during the past
year and found that all of the fourteen Chicano frequent—user families
had other ties to CSS. They attended mass or belonged to related
religious clubs there, were relatives or compadres 0f CSS employees or
board members, or received other important social services there such
as immigration assistance. Four of these Chicano families who had also
attended the clinic since the CH8 takeover noted they did not like all
the paperwork since the clinic personnel had all changed, and one
stated, "If it's a free clinic why do they want a check stub and all
that?" Another noted that he did not like the girl with the adding
machine to be the first person he had to see. Furthermore, fer most
patients the physician and his staff represented the clinic itself.

Many respondents asked, "Why did they let Dr. J go? He was such a good
doctor and he knew my whole family." Others expressed bewilderment at
the change and stated, "The nurses always met me at the door and said,
'Good morning, Mrs. LOpez' and made me feel right at home." Those who
had been attending through June and July indicated that they were dis-
tressed that there were two different physicians during that time, and
would say, “Who knows who the doctor will be next week?"

These patients were doubly distressed due to their personal
ties to C88, and attributed this impersonal, bureaucratic attitude of
the new clinic staff to the CSS board of directors staff, and ultimately

to Harry Fuentes himself. In other words, they felt betrayed. This

256

was because they were quite unaware of the structure of CSS. This
agency not only consisted of a social service administration arm and
pastoral program but in addition contracted for a vast array of pro—
grams funded and staffed by larger mainstream agencies. Although one-
third of the CSS board members were Anglo influentials who belonged to
both major political parties, most of whom knew Harry or other board
members through their board involvements at Anglo agencies, two-thirds
of the members were Chicanos. These were also personally tied to CSS

through kinship, compadrazgo, religious participation, or patronage to

 

Harry or long-standing members of his sphere of influence. For this
reason, these board members were considered Harry's pawns when problems
such as the clinic changes arose and they were unable to remedy the
situation.

There was a general feeling in the barrio that CSS was pro-
fitting financially from the clinic, although that was not the case, and
Anglos who were aware of the clinic controversy also shared this errone-
ous assumption. For example, the new clinic staff indicated that there
were important inadequacies in layout, plumbing, and ventilation in the
CSS facilities, so Harry had a Chicano contractor rebuild that area of
the building which housed the clinic. All the renovation was done at
CSS expense, but the Chicana clinic aide said to me, "Now Harry can rent
out the little rooms (closets) we don't use and make more money." Just
before the first hearing on the clinic held by the health board (to be
described below) a local politician asked Harry Fuentes, "Just how much
rent does the health department pay you a month for the clinic?” and
was incredulous when advised that the facility was provided free of

charge.

257

Chicano Social Services was not blameless in the eyes of other
observers. As noted, there was a general feeling that CSS was pro-
fitting financially from the clinic. What is more, since Harry Fuentes
was involved in the issue his reputation preceded him and caused some
desire by the health department for mediators. At the same time that
the clinic was a problem, another subcontractor at CSS was about to pull
out because the youth program they had funded and staffed there had
become a contact point in a local drug sales network. Harry did not
consider himself responsible for the problem since the staff member
in question was not on his payroll or under his supervision, but the
subcontractor considered Harry responsible for all prOgrams held "under
his roof" and because the staff member was Chicano; hence the pull-out
threat. Harry's reSponse was to call the president of their board, a
long-time friend and fellow member of another board, suggesting that
they be sure to continue providing services in the Chicano barrio with
a Chicano staff person-~even if not at the CSS location. The board
president suggested that Harry put his thoughts on paper, so he did:
he sent COpies to the board president, the welfare department, his
local congressman, and the civil rights office. The presence of two
Chicanas who disliked and distrusted Harry on the clinic staff also
contributed to his reputation with their superiors at Community Health
Services, some of whom came to refer to him privately as "Harry the
horrible.”

Several months after the original managerial changes, the
Community Health Services began requiring a $2 payment per person for
preparation of a chart above and beyond any charge that they might have

as a result of the sliding scale fee. What is more, the Chicana

258

nurse's aide had to enter the hospital the following week, and she and
the Chicana receptionist were replaced by one English-speaking-only
black receptionist for several weeks. Furthermore, the clinic was
closed for a holiday one week during the period although CSS was open
that day, and there were no signs posted at the clinic explaining why
it was closed nor had there been previous notice that it would be

closed for the holiday.

Chicano Cooperation

 

Six months after the original changes occurred in the clinic,
Lorraine called a meeting of the county health board to explain her
recommendation to close the CSS clinic. Harry Fuentes had not been
officially invited to the meeting, but Clive Johnson, the county com-
missioner from the district which included the Chicano barrio, had
called to advise him of the meeting. Clive was a Democrat who was
purported to be strongly supportive of La_§ap§a}2 in general. He and
the local state representative had been asked by Harry at the outset
of the clinic issue to intervene with Dr. W., health department
administrators, Lorraine Smith, and the Health board. They had both
written letters to these individuals indicating that they sympathized
with CSS in the matter.

CSS was represented at the health board conference by Harry
Fuentes; Jaime Dania, the vice-president of his board of directors;
and the director of one of the subcontracted programs housed at CSS,
who also happened to be a second-level leader of La Patria Aztlan.
Community Health Services was represented by Lorraine Smith, her

assistant, the director of a special clinic at Lorraine's headquarters,

259

a nurse from Dr. W's staff (who was to become the acting director of
the health department when Dr. W left), and Dr. W himself. Clive
Johnson and the health board members were also there. A

It is important to understand certain network linkages between
actors in this confrontation. The CSS board vice—president was a
member of the Community Development advisory board which approved funds
for all social prOgrams which had been part of Model Cities. Harry
Fuentes was a member of the board for several private social agencies
which were funded by the united fund and also sat on a special advisory
board for the county. Clive Johnson was one of the powers behind the
newly—developing faction in Lansing Chicano politics which was to get
its candidate elected to local office at the end of my fieldwork. The
CSS subcontractor, as noted above, was a figure in a competitive
Operating unit in the barrio. All of these spoke on behalf of the needs
of the people in the barrio for the clinic. Harry Fuentes demonstrated
that the health department, through provision of the CSS clinic staff
and physician salaries, had invested less in the clinic than CSS, which
had donated the facility remodeling, rent-free use of space, phone,
staff and janitorial services.

The health board went on record unanimously opposed to closing
the CSS clinic and reprimanded the health department for poor adminis-
tration in letting the situation get so totally "out of control."
Lorraine was quite distressed at the outcome-~she had been trying to
expand the community development grant to CH8 through proving that even
a small satellite clinic such as CSS worked a financial and personnel
hardship on her division, cognizant of the fact that Harry would mobilize

his extended network to prevent closure of the smaller "hostage”

260

clinic. The plan backfired because the health board was composed of
various local politicians who were sensitive to particular pressure
groups. Through Harry's ties to other agencies, county government, and
linkages of his supporters to even more officials he was able to exert
pressure on the board. The board then supported the CSS contention
that the health department had deliberately or through mismanagement
caused the confusion that led to faltering patient use of the clinic.
All parties were to meet again in one month.

Lorraine and Dr. W had not done the paperwork which the health
board had requested by the next meeting and as a result the board began
to question administration of other health department programs. In six
weeks Dr. W left his position for a similar one in another state citing
as his reason for leaving that he found it, ". . . difficult to be part
of certain developments that I conscientiously object to," and the nurse
who always strongly supported Lorraine Smith was named the temporary
health department director.

In the meantime, the clinic itself was finally left unchanged
for several months, a Chicano medical student from the university began
to volunteer time at the clinic, and CSS placed one of their part-time
employees at the clinic to translate and to do "follow-up" of individual
problems. With these events the number of patients increased to pre—
change levels and some patients were even turned away because there was
not enough time to see them.

The Barrio Clinic as a Chicano
Champaign Issue

 

 

A full month after the final health board meeting, an article

appeared in the local newspaper with the headline, "Client lack may end

261

clinic at Chicano Social Services." The article was written by a
Chicano who was to become a strong supporter and public relations node
in the coalition which was mobilized to elect the Chicano County Com-
missioner. This Commissioner took the seat of Clive Johnson, who was
the source of the newspaper article. In it, Clive said that ". . .
both CSS and the health department mutually shared the responsibility
for the clinic's deficiencies" although he had been at both meetings and
knew that the health board decision had indicated the clinic was not to
be closed and CSS was not to be held accountable for its low patient
use. What is more, by the time the article appeared the "patient load"
had returned to its pre-change level. The article infuriated Harry
Fuentes and his supporters, as it made CSS appear to be at least as
responsible for the problem as the health department, and the wording
suggested that CSS might have been even more to blame than the health
department.

A few days after the article appeared in print Jaime Banda, the
CSS board vice-president, announced his candidacy for the commission
seat being vacated by Clive Johnson, who was entering the race for a
higher position. At this press conference, Jaime brought up the clinic
at CSS as a prime example of the sort of services needed in the north
Lansing neighborhood and indicated that he had been involved in keeping
the clinic open for some time and would continue to work with the
health department on this and related matters. A few days before
Jaime's announcement Pedro Martinez announced; then the following week
Epifanio Mata announced his candidacy for the same position. Both of
them cited the need for expanded health care services in north Lansing

and the inability of existing agencies to provide them among the major

 

262

planks in their political platforms. Pedro Martinez was the right—hand
man of the center of the Patria Aztlan organization. By the time of my
fieldwork, Patria was splintering into other units and was no longer a
powerful organization. The experienced Crystal City politico who had
been its major founder had successfully organized a school walkout in
Lansing in 1970 following an incident between a Chicano junior high
school student and his gym teacher. Epifanio Mata, the successful
candidate, had the support of the incumbent Clive Johnson, the local
newspaper reporter, Grito-—the Chicano newspaper, Aztlan del Norte,
some of the MMA contingent, and both CASW and most of the members of
the Latinas' group. Thus both successful Anglos and successful Chicanos
interested in cultural nationalism made up his coalition.

These declarations of candidacy came at a time when CSS was
having other problems besides the clinic. Not only was there the old
drug sale scandal still hanging over the agency but also Harry's
secretary had just quit to take a position with the state civil service
at much higher pay. She was the unofficial assistant director, was
well—liked, and a capable organizer. The day her resignation was
formally announced the receptionist, who had been with the agency over
five years as had the secretary, received a call about a job for which
she had not even applied and was soon hired out of a field of twenty—
seven applicants. The call came from a personnel officer of the agency
where she was hired, who also was a member of the central core of the
faction to which Pedro Martinez belonged. Harry was in negotitions at
the time with one of his two major funding sources. He was having
difficulty getting a small budget increase to offset inflation because

the director of that funding source had been upset at a series of

263

newSpaper articles written the previous year by Clive Johnson and
Epifanio Mata’s journalist friend in which a conflict between Harry and
another executive who had been attached to CSS for many years had been
outlined in intricate detail. The articles cast doubt on Harry's
character as well as on his administrative abilities. Needless to say,
Jaime Banda received the least votes.

In July, a full year after the clinic issue began, another
meeting was held at the health department with the new director Dr. G.
The meeting went very poorly, covering all of the same points which had
been covered many times in the past. The CSS clinic was put on in—
definite probation but no standards were set by which to judge whether
it had successfully met the conditions of parole.. Six months later-—a
full year and a half past the initial change in clinic operations-~the
clinic was reopened as a political issue because Epifanio Mata, the new
county commissioner, was appointed to the health board and had just
heard that there was "a lack of patient attendance" at the clinic.

This issue not only illustrates the way in which the competition
and cooperation actually operated among Lansing Chicano organizations.
It also highlights two extremely important events which the literature
on factionalized Chicano populations had led me to believe would not
occur in Lansing. One of these was the manner in which Harry Fuentes
was able to call in his network-~even peeple who were normally enemies
--to pressure the health board into acquiescence, thus continuing
health services to his agency's clients and proving his own strength.
This is not political behavior of the powerless. Secondly, Epifanio
Mata was able to develop a faction composed of members of all the most

powerful units which operated in the barrio. He used this powerful

264

coalition not to become a traditional strongman in "the Chicano com—
munity” but rather to successfully obtain a seat in mainstream local
government which had already been demonstrated to be a route to upward
mobility into national politics. In other words, in at least these two
important cases Chicano factionalism may have been nothing more or less

than good political behavior.

Summary

The first formal organizations which Lansing Chicanos developed
were mutual benefit and ethnic associations designed to promote the
positive aspects of their cultural heritage and to assist individual
members with problems of discrimination. During the 19505 when large
numbers of Chicanos and contracted Mexican laborers began to enter the
Lansing area agricultural industry both Protestant and Catholic churches
began missionizing activities with the population. With the advent of
public national level consciousness of minority populations in the
19605 some federal legislation set the stage for the contemporary
pattern of Chicano formal organizations in Lansing. In the late 19605
agencies began to develop whose goals were to alleviate Chicano social
and economic inequality. By the mid 19%05 these corporate operating
units or agencies had become the most notable form of formal organization
among Lansing Chicanos. They had been proliferating through involve-
ment in factionalism which led to splits and the formal incorporation
of new agencies. Individual involvement was very personalistic: leaders
tended to be individuals who could command a large personal following
of family, clients, or friends and most of the followers were linked

to the leader through patron-client ties. A familia of clients and

265

their leaders-~service professionals——formed the core of each agency.
The agencies were then set in opposition to each other in spite of
frequently shared board membership, recruitment mechanisms, and interest.
It was suggested herein that the competition came not only from
the alignment of individuals into factions because of the primary type
ties which followers had to leaders, but also from the very nature of
the mainstream power structure with which these agencies were articue
alted. These agencies were really outside structures. They had been
designed by outsiders and their internal form was often a major
stumbling block to their effectiveness as political tools for the
Chicano population as a whole. What is more, they were set in opposi—
tion to each other both at the level of community dances and festivals
and at the level of funding from public and private sources not only
for growth and accrual of power but simply for their own survival.
Individual Chicanos, however, were sometimes able to effectively
manipulate these structures for their own benefit and some appeared to

be becoming successful mainstream politicians-

266

Footnotes

lA faction is a coalition of followers recruited personally but
along diverse principles on behalf of a person in conflict with another
person, with whom he was formerly united, over honor or the control of
resources (Nicholas 1965: 27-29; Boissevain 1974: 192).

2All Chicano organizations and individuals discussed in this

chapter have been given pseudonyms.

3A formal operating unit has a delegated administrative spe-
cialist or council and controls a greater resource base than the com-
bined resources of the individual members (Adams 1970: 52), such as the
funds derived from annual fiestas for the Chicano pOpulation.

4The way that a local girl could become queen of a patriotic
fiesta was to be nominated by a sponsor who put up a donation of money.
She would then sell tickets on her winning ability to anyone in the
city willing to buy one. The girl who brought in the most money won.

5Other members charged that one of the founders was using the
association for his own betterment. This member was also widely
suspected among Lansing Chicanos of using his legal business as a
"front" for an illicit import operation and was spoken about with both
fear and envy.

6A corporate operating unit is a social unit which has a dele-
gated administrative specialist or council, controls a greater resource
base than the combined resources of its individual members, including
the exclusive control of some strategic resource which thereby harnesses
even greater power (Adams 1970: 53). I consider the agencies listed
here corporate in that each had exclusive control of a particular ser-
vice from a specific funding source for the Chicano population.

7I.e., the members were not exclusively Chicanas but were from

several Latin American countries as well.

Several informants from different operating units used the
term envidia, which loosely translates to envy and distrust, in refer-
ence to the inter—agency discord. E.g., an important figure at CSS
brushed off criticism of a program at that agency by a leader at PA
with the comment, "Oh, he's just suffering from envidia of my agency."

9This story brings out the Chicano's presumed inability to work

together, while another parable (Rubel 1966: preface) demonstrates the
chip-on-the-shoulder individualism attributed to Chicano character by
Chicanos themselves. Both are aspects of envidia.

10As noted in chapter 1, Kerri (1972: 44, 1976: 24) has defined
a voluntary association as a private group joined voluntarily and
maintained by members pursuing a common interest by means of part-
time, unpaid activities. He distinguishes these from ethnic associ-
ations, which are groups formed solely for the purpose of promoting
ethnic considerations (Kerri 1976: 24). The Comisi6n de Mexicanidad
would be classified as an ethnic association. —-

 

11Jorgensen (1972: 146-173) documents a similar case in which
the Utes' tribal organization was elected and maintained by the BIA
and Business Committee, which also successfully maintained intra-
tribal factionalism similar to the agency factionalism I observed.

12Chicanos in both Lansing and Flint used this term to refer to
the generalized struggle of Chicanos to attain equality. For someone
to support L3_Causa, then, was for someone to take the Chicano side.

CHAPTER 8

FORMAL ORGANIZATION CASE STUDY II: FACTORS

WHICH MITIGATE AGAINST FACTIONALISM

Introduction

 

Most studies of Midwest Chicano urbanites have dealt with segre—
gated populations living in barrios (e.g. Salas and Salas 1971; Sanora
and Lamanna 1967; Shannon and Shannon 1973). Among such porulations it
appears that high visibility, maintenance of cultural distinctiveness,
discrimination, and a larger percentage population with low socio-
economic indicators than the norm are part of the structural conditions
of which formal organizational behavior is a reflection. The Flint
Chicano pOpulation is not segregated and due to migrant selectivity
by local industry more closely approximates the mainstream of that city
than most Chicano pOpulations studied. It therefore represents a unique
test case of my proposition that the political economy of the host city
into which the Chicano pOpulation must fit will condition their formal
organization behavior.

The historical development of Chicano formal organizations, the
contemporary pattern of such organizations, and factors which divide
the pOpulation as well as principles of cohesion will be described in
this chapter. Also included is situational analysis of formal organi—

zation behavior through description of the develOpment of a social

268

269

-work outreach program at a Chicano agency in which I was a partici-

pant observer.

History of Chicano Organizations in Flint1

 

In the late 19205 Flint Chicanos had formed a Sociedad

Mutualista (mutual aid society) with a separate women's branch. In

 

1927 these clubs sponsored the first annual celebration of the six-
teenth of September, Mexican Independence Day. Ironically, in 1975 the
Mexican flag was raised near city hall to celebrate the first annual
observation of Mexican Independence Day. Another informant indicated
that September 16 was observed in this manner off and on during this
almost fifty year period, and one leader of a religious club recalled
that the first celebration of the holiday was in 1939. The Sociedad

Mutualista did not survive beyond the initial years of Chicano settle-

 

ment in Flint. There were also attempts during the early years to

develop youth recreation like the Club Recreativo (recreation club)

 

but it, too, was unsuccessful.

In 1920 an International Institute had been established near
the northeast area of Flint which was then known as "Little EurOpe"
due to the various EurOpean nationalities which lived there. When
Mexicans began to immigrate to Flint they also settled near "Little
EurOpe" and went to the International Institute for English language
lessons and citizenship assistance.

Flint Chicanos were also involved with workers of various
other ethnicities in the sit-down strike against the General Motors
plants of the city during 1936-1937. The strike began on December 30,

1936 and ended forty-four days later. One plant takeover known as

270

the "Battle of the Running Bulls" on January 11 ended with thirteen of
fourteen hospitalized strikers suffering from gunshot wounds and a
dozen police injured by thrown objects (Flint Journal 1976a). Men who
would become famous national union leaders used the strike as proof of
union strength-~the Reuthers and John L. Lewis. The benefits won by
the strikers--improvements in wages, fringe benefits, and grievance
procedures--were to set precedents in auto factories and for collective
bargaining nationally. Estimates by city officials and strikers
involved indicate that probably only about a thousand workers were
actually strikers, but Chicanos were among them.2 One Chicana recalled
her deceased father telling about the strike when she was a child like
some men tell war stories. There was pride among the children of
strikers for their parents' involvement, and Chicanos who had not taken
part in the strike did not discuss it. Many workers, including some
Chicanos, were not strikers, but most Chicanos were at least sympathetic
to the cause. All Flintites were not, of course, sympathetic to the
strike, and a vigilante patrol consistent of almost as many men as the
striking workers was organized.

The earliest Chicano organization which became permanent was the
parish for Mexican Catholics. The first Spanish-speaking priest to
minister to them came in 1929, offering the mass in whatever church was
available. This priest was a Spaniard and was well received by the
dozen or so northern Mexican families in Flint. Several of these are
still resident Flintites. The third Spanish-speaking priest in Flint
was the first at the Church of the Mexican Madonna (which I will refer

to as the Mexican Catholic Church or MCC). The women of the altar

271

society had visited the bishop in 1953 attempting to convince him there
was a need for a Mexican church. When a devastating tornado touched
down in northern Flint in the Summer of 1953, the Chicano community

of faith was able to obtain a church building that was vacated as a
result. The Mexican parish was eventually founded in this building

and by 1957 was formally Operating. That year the men's religious
group, Knights of St. Joseph, was founded. It remained the largest
Chicano men's voluntary organization in 1976.

The priest who was first assigned to MCC was a missionary who
went out to the migrant camps at the extreme northern edge of Genesee
County. By 1966 the Flint Mexican Catholics had their fifth Spanish-
speaking priest. He also went out to the migrant camps for the
several years they remained in operation, but was not a missionary. He
was assigned to the Mexican parish exclusively. This priest, a Latin
American refugee, remained in Flint and was extremely influential in
molding Chicano opinion over the following decade. It was under his
leadership that Flint Chicano Catholics achieved the near impossible:
they built and autonomously_maintain their own church. They raised
money to build a new modern church building, pay daily expenses
through tithes and contributions, and did not seek funds from the
diocese. Some 400 member families were able to raise just over
$100,000 at one time which paid better than one—third of the building
costs. They financed the rest and pay the loan through a combination
of annual fundraisers and tithes. The new building, which included a
stained glass window and a cloth hanging of the Virgin of Guadalupe

(patroness and symbol of Mexican Catholicism)--0pened in 1973. It was

272

the Opinion of the priest that the Opening of the new church building
marked the turning point in Flint Chicano ethnic pride.

From the 19205 to the 19705 the Catholic Church and its repre-
sentatives to the Flint Chicano population played a crucial role in
their formal organizing. The Knights of St. Joseph still had over
sixty members in 1976. Another club devoted to other aspects of the
Catholic faith was fifteen years old at the time of my study and had
twenty active members, while the women's altar society was similar in
age and membership. There were also several smaller clubs which met
to serve charitable needs of both Catholic and non-Catholic Chicano
Flintites. The longstanding and continued importance of the Mexican
Catholic community of faith is reflected in selected stanzas from a
poem authored by a Mexican seasonal migratory farmworker who was
employed in the area in the early 19605:

. The barracks where we live

Doesn't know sadness,
Because here we came to know
The purity of the Church.

. Therefore when we learned

About the Mexican Virgin

We headed to Flint

To see her . .

That her benediction spreads
And inflames the hearts

Of all the destitute

In the United States

Is the wish of a bracero

Who came seeking money

And, not finding it, 3
Made peace with God (my translation).

273

Also during the early 19505 the first Spanish language radio
programs began to be aired regularly on a local educational channel.
Mexican movies were never screened on a weekly basis as they came to be
in both Lansing and Saginaw, and Flint Chicanos had been driving to
both of those cities to view them for many years. Dances with local
Chicano musical groups and occasional big-name attractions from Texas
were held fairly often, sponsored by different clubs in the city.

During the 19605 several non-church organizations were
developed. These included a local chapter of Chicano Veterans and a
ladies' auxiliary composed of wives or relatives of members. These
were the only clubs which survived into the 19705.

Then in the 19705 the Latin American Labor Organization was
established at one of the GM plants, and a small number of Flintites
formed a Latin American Citizens' League. Both were local chapters
of national organizations, and both were devoted to improving the
position of Chicanos in the larger society with the understanding that
this would be beneficial to the city as well as to Chicanos.

In 1969, another significant event occurred in Flint Chicano
organization. A group of eighteen Chicanos met with an interested
local sociologist late in the year to form a board of directors for a
proposed social service agency for Chicanos. A grant was obtained
from Model Cities and the Raza Services and Referral Group (Razas)
opened its doors the following year. The first executive director of
Razas was a young man who was interested only in youth—oriented pro-
grams, had the staff members outfitted in brown berets (symbol of

Chicano Power movements), and kept large posters of Che Guevarra on

274

the wall. He was investigated by the board following complaints from
Older Flint Chicanos who were disturbed by the image the agency was
giving to all Chicanos in the city. As a result of the investigation
he was fired. The second director was a Peruvian woman with a Ph.D.
who reputedly took advice from no one, but did not speak enough English
to write proposals or deal with local politicians or funding sources.
She was replaced after only three months by a middle—aged activist born
in the lower Rio Grande Valley who had lived in Flint for over twenty
years. He became quite anticlerical as he heard the priest had told his
parishioners that those born to poverty were meant by God to remain
poor, and the director could not abide this fatalism. His board of
directors consisted mainly of Chicano factory workers who saw board
membership as a powerful position from which to direct the activities
of others, instead of taking orders as they had to do on the job.

They were, however, also loyal Catholics and soon hamstrung the
director by refusing him permission to leave the premises. When he
resigned, the current director was hired.

Following establishment of Razas, several other organizations
were formed. A woman employee of Razas organized several parents to
form a cooperative nursery for the use of working parents, but its
continuance was largely a function of her own personal influence. In
1973 Parents and Teachers for Education (PTE) was formed to raise money
for Chicano scholarships, and although few Chicanos were ever involved,
members were recruited from the various Chicanos club and agencies in

the city. The ComisiOn de Mexicanidad, active intermittently for ten

 

to fifteen years, was re-organized to include delegates from all the

275

other formal and corporate Chicano Operating units about the same time.
Finally, Chicanos for Youth DeveIOpment (CHYDE) was organized as a
separate agency with the same board of directors as Razas the year
before my fieldwork began. The agency was to assist youth in "finding
a place in society" and the original grant was oriented toward drug
use rehabilitation. The agency was constantly in a funding bind, as
was its parent unit.

Contemporary Flint Chicano Formal and
Corporate Operating Units

 

 

During the period of my fieldwork, the corporate operating units
actually consisted of an agency bloc headed by Razas as delineated
above. By this time Razas had a twenty-member board of directors which
included both at-large board-appointed individuals and elected repre-
sentatives from Chicano clubs. All the board members were Chicano and
few had expertise in urban planning, social services, grantsmanship, or
administration. The staff consisted of seventeen full-time employees,
but only four of these were over 30 years of age and most had recently
graduated from high school and had no prior work experience. Pepe
Vasquez, fourth and current director of Razas, a native of a small town
near San Antonio, Texas, had lived in Flint for eleven years but had no
prior agency experience. He had been a salesman before he was hired
at Razas. The inexperienced board and staff were expected to fulfill
the agency's philosophy of general community action for Chicanos--i.e.
alleviating immediate social problems, developing Chicano civil rights,
and even gaining access to the policy-making process in government.

Razas was located on the major North-South artery in the city

but was in a deteriorated commercial district with a high incidence of

276

robberies and breakins.S Furthermore, most residents in the surrounding
area were black. A number of Chicanos confided to me that they would
never visit the agency because they were_afraid of the neighborhood.
However, Razas was the major contact point with Chicanos for non-
Chicanos in Flint just as CSS was in Lansing. Razas was originally
funded through the Model Cities program, but in 1975 Model Cities was
phased out. Social programs were evaluated for continuation under
Community Development grants of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. At that time, Razas was temporarily continued as a
city program under one of these grants. The agency had difficulty with
its funding source because Chicanos in Flint lived dispersed throughout
the city and even into the outlying county while Community Development
grants hinge on pOpulations located in "target areas," i.e. concentrated
pOpulations.

The remainder of the agency bloc consisted of CHYDE, which was
located in a separate building in what used to be "Little Europe"
although it shared the Razas board of directors; Parents and Teachers
for Education (PTE); and the COOperative nursery, which expected to
serve about twenty children in 1976. In short, the agency bloc con-
sisted of Razas-CHYDE. CHYDE not only had separate facilities but was
also begun with a distinct grant from local funds earmarked for drug
abuse programs, which came ultimately from the same source. CHYDE,
like its parent agency, was constantly in jeopardy of closing, however.
A large scale fundraiser was inaugurated one month prior to expiration
of the grant in the spring of 1976, and the agency remained Open a few

months by virtue of this effort.

277

There were also several Chicano formal Operating units. The
Latin American Labor Organization and the Latin American Citizens
League both met irregularly according to the wishes of members. There
was a Chicano students' club at Mott Community College and another at
University of Michigan-Flint (although the two institutions shared the
same physical campus) and there was in addition a Mexican folkloric
dance group at the latter. There were also several Sports clubs,
particularly bowling and basketball teams, among Flint Chicanos.

Chicano Veterans (Chi Vets) was one of the largest and strongest
of the non religious Flint Chicano clubs. There were some seventy active
members altogether in its men's and women's branches. The formal goal
was to eliminate discrimination against Chicano veterans and to ensure
that they received the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

These goals had been established by the national organization of which
the Flint clubs were chapters. Mostly, however, the organization served
sociability functions. One of the major activities annually was admini-
stration of a queen contest which was ostensibly held to raise money for
a scholarship competition. The scholarship had never been large enough
to defray more than partial college tuition costs for the first year for
a given student. The queen contest terminated with a fiesta day which
was generally held in conjunction with the Battle of Puebla (May S)
celebration. It was a major Chicano social event. The day was capped
by a dance at which the queen was crowned, held at the Chi Vets hall.
This hall was rented year-round and was the only facility other than

the church and the buildings that housed Razas-CHYDE that was used

exclusively by Chicano Operating units in Flint.

278

The Knights of St. Joseph, the ladies' altar society, and
several other clubs related to the Mexican Catholic Church were strong
and viable formal operating units during my fieldwork. In fact, the
church served as an institutional focus for Chicano traditional culture
in Flint much as the barrio did in Lansing. Not only were the longest-
standing formal organizations church affiliated. There were also
dinners following Sunday mass. Couples who attended other churches
were married at MCC. Different age groups came together regularly and
the young were thereby immersed in the language and customs of their
parents and grandparents. The senior Citizens' hot meal program was
held there. Close organization ties were maintained between the church
and a number of associations and programs with which it was not con-
nected. For example, the announcers on the Chicano radio programs
kept the audience informed of church activities, and one of the three
announcers had been operating a booth for the church at the annual
ethnic festival held by the International Institute for years. Pepe
Vasquez from Razas and the priest had a cordial working relationship:
Pepe sought support and sometimes advice from the priest, who in turn
appreciated Pepe's publicly pro-Church stance.

Despite the strength of the church in Chicano organization and
maintenance of cultural traditions, pentecostalism was making small
inroads among Flint Chicanos. There were two predominantly Chicano
congregations of a few dozen faithful followers each. The attraction
of these religions appeared to be in the personal contact with the
divine which they offered in contrast to mediation by a priest. Faith
healing and miracles during prayer were attested to by pentecostal

informants.

279

Some Chicanos were also involved in an entire category of
operating units in which Chicanos had no interest in Lansing: black
organizations. A few Chicanos were members of black social service
agency boards. Also, the first Chicano policeman, hired in 1974,
appalled Anglo policemen when he joined the black police officers' asso-
ciation. They considered him "white," and could not understand why a
white man would join a club for black men. He explained that in Texas
he had not been considered white and simply assumed that black officers
would have more in common with him than white ones. His action caused
a number of policemen, who had hitherto considered Chicanos just another
white ethnic group like the local Poles, to re-consider what Chicanos
might be.6 As a result, he was sent personally to investigate any

complaints filed by persons with obviously Spanish surnames.

Competition and COOperation

 

Individual Involvement

 

Factory workers comprised the majority of the Flint Chicano
population and were far more significant participants in Chicano formal
and corporate operating units in that city than in Lansing. They were
members of the religious clubs, sports clubs, Chicano Veterans, PTE,
and were both clients and board members or officers for Razas-CHYDE.

Some factory workers were not involved in Chicano organizations at all
and some of them were members of other organizations. These latter
included mainstream agencies and groups and black organizations. Factory
workers were also members of Latin American Labor Organization, which

served arbitration functions, albeit informally, normally fulfilled by

280

a labor union. The un- and underemployed, which included no part-time
farmworkers as it did in Lansing, were either clients of some of the
agency bloc, clients of mainstream agencies, or uninvolved in agencies
at all. Fewer numbers were clients than in Lansing because there were
fewer un- and underemployed Chicanos in the city. Many of the
individuals in Flint in this category were elderly. The smaller number
of underemployed was due to the fact that fewer young immigrants were
drifting in and out in search of work, attracted by local farmwork, and
the decline in the auto industry in recent years, which had slowed labor
immigration. Figures of the department of social services for September
1975 indicated that 414 Chicano families received Aid to Dependent
Children (ADC); 62, Aid to the Disabled; 41, Aid to the Aged; and ano-
ther family received Aid to the Blind in Ingham County (Lansing). That
same month in Genesee County only 150 families received ADC; 16, Aid to
the Disabled; and 7, Aid to the Aged.7 Since the Chicano agencies in
Flint were not in competition with each other, clients of one were
generally clients of the other or members of a family who used its
services.

Chicano professionals and administrators played similar roles
in Flint agencies to-those played by their Lansing counterparts (see
Table 1). There were fewer professionals and administrators employed
in Chicano agencies in Flint than in Lansing but some of these parti-
cipated in mainstream and black agency boards of directors. There
were also fewer Chicano professionals employed in state offices in
Flint than in Lansing since the latter is the state capital. Those

professionals in mainstream positions in Flint were generally employed

281

Table l.--Agency Involvement by Occupational Strata in Flint.

—--.‘

Occupational Stratum

Role in Agency

 

Chicano Agency

Other Agency

 

Un- and Underemployed

Factory Workers

Administrative,
Professional for
Chicanos

Administrative,
Professional,
Mainstream

Clients, Not
Involved

Clients, Board
Members, Board
Officers, Not
Involved

Employees, Board

Officers

Not Involved,
Board Members

Clients, Not
Involved

Board Members,
Board Officers,
Not Involved

Board Members,
Board Officers,
Not Involved

Employees, Board
Members, Board
Officers

 

by private industry or by city or county educational institutions,

government, or in independent professions.

The fact that fewer

Chicanos from the upper occupational stratum were involved in Chicano

organizations directly or through state government was undoubtedly an

important factor in the Chicano political picture in Flint. Chicano

leaders or strongmen rooted in an agency with a familia of followers

were scarse. There were actually only two leaders in the city--at

Razas and MCC—-which could have played the role used by the Lansing

'agency leaders to advance their own interests, and one of these was

the priest.

Chicano businessmen in Flint did not constitute an important

category of actors in Chicano formal organizations. Most Chicano

businesses owned by Chicano organization participants were part-time

affairs run by individuals who were employed by factories or government
during the day. Those that were full-time operations were usually not
prosperous and remained open due to reliance on family employment and
continued patronage of Chicano friends. Most Chicano businessmen,
including the full-time self-employed, were at least nominal members
of the Mexican Catholic Church, and some were active members of the
religious clubs there. The only full-time Chicano businessman who was
an active Chicano agency board member was a construction contractor.
Although the role played by an individual and the probability
of playing a role at all within these units depended to some extent
upon the occupational stratum of that individual in Flint just as it
did in Lansing, the pattern of participation was different. This was
in large part due to the greater statistical prevalence and economic
impact of the factory worker in Flint. There was not a dichotomy
between the professional Chicanos and their clients, each intent upon
involvement in the Chicano agencies for their own ends. Instead, most
Chicanos--like other Flintites--were factory workers concerned with
making a living and pursuing recreation and consumer activities in

their leisure time.

Bases for Factionalism and Cooperation

 

There was no proliferation of Chicano agencies in Flint.
When new clubs formed they did not immediately seek private non-profit
status as did clubs in Lansing. The only operating units which could
have formed the bases of factions or could have entered into invidious
competition with each other were the two agencies, one of which was the

planned offspring of the other, and the Mexican Catholic Church.

283

Although there was tension between the agencies and the parish, it was
largely confined to two spheres: (1) competition for support from the
"whole community," and (2) conflict over ideals. The parish and the
agencies alike not only desired but also needed support--emotional and
financial--from the total Chicano population. Both were keenly aware
that most of the time they were taken for granted, but a larger number
claimed them in a crisis. The priest indicated that he was frequently
called to the hospital to minister to Chicanos who were not his regular
parishioners. Likewise, Chicanos who had been heard to inveigh
bitterly against Razas would apply there for housing assistance later
"with no shame." Both the agencies and the parish appealed to the
Chicano pOpulation which was normally uninvolved in their affairs at
fiesta time for support.

Referring to Figure l, the pattern of recruitment and Cohesion
among the various Flint Chicano formal and corporate operating units
was quite different from that in Lansing. The agencies, Razas and
CHYDE, obtained their employees through kinship and friendship. Since
CHYDE was the offspring of Razas, some former clients of Razas had
gotten employment there as well. The board of directors was the same
for both agencies, and members were mostly friends or relatives of
Razas or CHYDE employees. An effort was being made to expand the
board to include outsider professionals because the majority of the
current board members were poorly equipped for the position. Much
valuable time was lost in needless arguments. This situation closely
paralleled the case of the state-level board for Michigan Migrant

Agency.

rmuch mcHuauoao ouwwompou van Hwfiuom ocMOqu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ucme pow conoxou ace useEuHsuoom mo moHuHocth .H OHSMHH
.LmeHonfioE ponczm oumochw
mocHH noxoun HcHuHLO :oeaco a
wouusm muHc: ox“ oumoHch mocHH pHHow «
coHumuchmLo monnH cmOHaofi< cHumH ”04¢H
mcuu0uo> ocmonu “muo> qu HHm Eoum HHm
cchcnuonr 0v anercu “no muoneoe Eoum muoproe
nousxu OHHoxuau :nono: “um:
coHueusvH HOH muozuuok vac museum; ”we; .I
. . - EU d.\u\ HFQ
uccnaoHc>oo Lune» now mecccqu "ucwzu .\\ \1v\ \\
anon. can- )/ and m-ua>po) mun. n;.:. xvi ; \uv \
o a L: .. .. . u a if; \\\ \//\\\\\ \ \ _ _
:me \\ \ \ ca / \ \ _ _
\\. \\\ \\. \\\ (\ \P, _ _
no \\ \\ \AV \uV\ . \\ emacouanu mm
2 \\ .\ \\\\ \ a .1. . ... _
\ x \ \ 218.7: 7
\\. \\.\dv\ \\\ \\\\\ \\ aHsmcwx mH _
\\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ —
\ \ \\-\ \ \ \ \ / . .
\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ l 2.55
\\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ lull ‘4 III. _
\ \\ \v \ \ \ \.\\ /. _ _
\V \ \ \ \\\ \l \l \\ \\ / .
\ II“ II‘
\\ Coilfioofil \-\\n.\ \ ullalll|\ul\|.:|.ll..||..ll.lu.kl.||“
P \k‘lxl‘l ll. 'IIII'! \ II.‘ III. C / _
“mououcH can oo Hm Enuawum amoroucH :oHuauouc; Hm _
coHpncecou HH anoHummzooo AH conrcu AH amonoucH coagou HH umoaoucH cacaoo AH mHzmv:0HaH Hm _
922$ 2 _
mi _ mnaHu :upsxu mpaHu muH .lllll
.33.; _ I 83 _ 33 Eu 2338.: e5. 8; .l I l .I I I I l. I. |_ 22sz
ll. Fifi.
. — —

'iIiII‘III-lllll'llllli

lll'llnlllllllllll'lll

285

The parallel was not an accident. In both cases, the outside
funding source under which the agency had been established had required
a certain type composition for the board. In the case of MMA over fifty
percent of board members had to meet criteria as seasonal migratory
farmworkers; the board of Razas was to consist of Chicanos from the
Flint area who had a wide range of social service needs as well as
representatives from Chicano "interest groups.” Both boards were to
act as "advisors" or informants regarding the problems of the target
population but were also to propose and monitor programs. The board
was then caught between two conflicting roles: that of advisor and that
of policy-maker. Board members spent much of their meeting time dis-
cussing personality conflicts and perceived slights by personnel, be-
lieving this to be their proper function as "advisors." Initiation
and monitoring of programs was largely left to staff. In the case of
Razas that was doubly problematic since all but the supervisory staff
were young and inexperienced.

Parents and Teachers for Education was tied to Razas-CHYDE
through common membership and origin. PTE also had members from all
the other Chicano formal operating units in Flint. The president of
PTE was very concerned that it would not last, however, because most of
the members were such in name only. The other organization which drew
its membership from all the Chicano clubs and agencies was the ComisiOn

de Mexicanidad. Unlike its counterpart in Lansing, this club was not

 

old and members were not suspected of using it to get rich. It was
developed through recent COOperation between the church and agency with

the express purpose of promoting pride in the Mexican heritage of Flint

Chicanos through fiestas celebrating the sixteenth of September and
the fifth of May. The club acted as organizer for the festivities but
did not collect large sums of money.

Most Chicano factory workers in Flint were employed in corporate
sector plants. These plants, particularly the all-important auto
factories, were ”closed shops" just as were their Lansing counterparts.
Chicano employees were therefore at least nominal labor union members.
Although they were involved in organizing activities right from the
inception of unionizing in Flint, in the 19705 most Chicano informants
indicated that they considered union officials "pro-management" or even
”out for themselves." The local chapter of Latin American Labor Orga-
nization had not been organized as an alternative union, since its
members were members of a recognized bargaining unit, but rather served
as a support group and as a pressure group both to the union and to
management. Latin American Labor Organization had no formal status
with either.union or management (see Chapter 3) but was recognized
informally since nearly one third of the Chicano factory workers were
affiliated with it.

There were also a number of sports clubs whose members joined
because of common interest in the games they promoted or due to their
similarity in age. These included various youth teams centered at
CHYDE. There were also clubs related to religious develOpment, per-
sonal introspection, and social service at the Chicano Protestant
churches. Membership was drawn from their congregations. Neither

the sports clubs (except for those at CHYDE) nor the Protestant clubs

were closely interrelated with either major camp of the Flint
Chicano organizations.

Chicano Veterans, however, the large and visible club,8 was
linked by board membership and friendship to Razas. Although members
of Chicano Veterans were also members of the Mexican Catholic Church,
many members of the latter considered them automatic "devils" or
heathens because they had their own clubhouse where they held dances
and sold alcoholic beverages.

There was a network of strong clubs centered at the church.
Members of the various pro-integrationist Chicano clubs were involved
at the church as well. Total membership in these clubs was comparable
to the numbers involved at Razas-CHYDE, but when backed by the entire
parish membership (some 400 families) the impact of the church-affi-
liated clubs could be great.

As indicated above, there were two broad camps or networks of
Operating units within the Flint Chicano pOpulation. These two camps
were acknowledged by all my informants, one of whom called them "193

cristianos y los diablos" (the Christians and the devils). The parish

 

and Razas were respective centers of these networks. These networks
of operating units were potential political factions, but had not cry—
stallized into that pattern. Although hostility was always present,
there was relatively little actual internecine warfare between the

two camps. The calm was due to (1) strong leadership, particularly by
the priest; (2) overlap in membership among most of the Flint Chicano
formal operating units involved in both camps; and (3) demographic

variables. The demographic variables included the balance in numbers

288

between regularly involved members of both camps, and Chicanos' rela-
tive unimportance numerically and situationally in Flint. The latter
factor led to Chicano leaders' attempts to establish broker ties to
higher levels of articulation—-particularly such brokers as local
Anglo politicians. It also encouraged some Chicanos to align them-
selves with the black organizations, and as will be demonstrated below,

for some leaders to attempt to compete with them.

Sources of Funding and Sources of Derivative Power

 

Referring to Figure 2 it becomes evident that Flint Chicano
operating units were almost totally dependent on local sources of funds
while, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, a number of Lansing
Chicano organizations received funds from mOre powerful governmental
levels. Not only were sports, religious, and veterans' clubs——common
interest associations--dependent on membership dues, contributions, and
fundraisers among the larger Chicano and city pOpulations but so were
the agencies. This resource competition may have bolstered existing
antagonisms along the cleavage lines outlined above. As will be noted
below, however, leaders of both camps attempted to understate their
differences when it became clear that resources might be withheld from
one of the Operating units by an outside funding source. Thus conflict
was limited both by circumstances and by design to squabbles between
the two camps of which outsiders would not be aware. This was in direct
contrast to the Lansing situation, where new organizations would incor-
porate overnight in order to vie for a grant for which another unit had
already applied and where the ”dirty laundry" of established Chicano

operating units was aired in the mainstream communications media.

289
Funding Source Operating Unit

Membership Sports clubs, LALO
V
Chicano populationva x a Chi Vets 8 CM

‘V '—

Larger city, area popu\lati\ A

Private funding organization

 

 

 

 
  

 

Religious org'ns,
Catholic (MCC)
Religious org'ns,

Protestant

City funds RAZAS, etc.
County fundsHr—~"T'fl'"”fifla"'fir’wgflflflafflpfi—

State funds

 

 

Federal funds

Figure 2. Funding Sources for Flint Chicano Formal
and Corporate Operating Units.

 

 

 

Operating Unit Power Source Operating Unit
RAZA-CHYDE, Private agency=:H———————MCC and its clubs

 

dependents \\\“~H\~‘\\\‘\Clty official
c:\\\\:T\\\\T\\\\City agency \\\\\\‘*Chi Vets
County official

\County agency

\State official
\\ State agency

‘Federal official

Figure 3. Derivative Power Sources for Flint Chicano
Formal and Corporate Operating Units

KEV; LALO: Latin American Labor Organization
Chi Vets: Chicano Veterans
CM: ComisiOn de Mexicanidad
MCC: Mexican Catholic Church
RAZAS: Raza Services and Referral Group

CHYDE: Chicanos for Youth Development

290

Derivative power sources, like funding sources, were largely
local. Although the agency bloc9 had state and federal level power
sources, these were individuals, not departments. Since they were
mostly elected officials they were able to command very loose coali-
tions at their respective levels. In contrast, some Lansing organiza-
tions had contacts with administrators in state and federal bureau-
cracies which could place the power of their own organizations behind
their Chicano dependents.

The sources of derivative power for the agency and church-
centered camps were different: with the exception of Chicano Veterans,
the agency-centered operating unit network had allies at supralocal
levels in the public sector. The church—centered network was limited
to the hierarchy within the Church itself. Those contacts were some—
what circumscribed since the Mexican Catholic Church was not funded by
the diocese, and was therefore not completely within its control.

Several factors impinged on Chicano organization development in
Flint which stemmed from the primary dependence of Chicano operating
units on local funding and power sources. First of all, demography was
even more crucial for Flint Chicano organizations than for Lansing
ones. Their dispersed settlement pattern meant that programs funded
through local administration of Community DeveIOpment money tied to
target neighborhoods were difficult to obtain. Their numerical
minority vis-a—vis blacks meant that organizations of the latter were
far more visible as pressure groups. Their statistical similarity to
the Anglo mean in income and occupation made any demand for more
Chicano-run or Chicano—staffed social service units--a major minority

organization building block at this time-~appear unrealistic.

Another important factor stemming from the locality of Flint
Chicanos' power base was the need to work within the local system--i.e.
to operate prOperly in a company town. _Flint was not the center for
divergent interest groups as was Lansing. Chicanos in Flint found it
necessary to adapt to the town's interests, because city officials were
not apt to accommodate theirs if radically different. Also related to
the local nature of Chicano power bases was the importance of main-
taining a good image in the mainstream communications media. Bickering,
charges and counter—charges aired in the local press might have had a
truly disastrous impact in Flint. Finally, it is likely that the local
nature of the power bases was not only an independent variable--causing
stress on numbers and working within the system--but also a dependent
one. That is, Chicano operating units were predominantly able to effect
vertical ties to the least powerful local and regional levels of the
public sector. This in turn was due to the variables noted as depen—
dent above--demography and the company town ideology.

In the following section the manner in which these variables
came into play with the implementation of a social services outreach
project for Chicanos will be described.

The Prgject: Negating Factionalism Among
A Dispersed Population

 

 

Introduction

 

Proyecto Outreach was a program designed to locate potential
clients of Razas who were as yet unaware of services available there.
The purposes of the project were (1) to locate Flint city residents

with pressing physical or social needs, (2) to service those needs as

I.)
'0
N

soon as possible through the Razas social workers, and (3) to refer
more fortunate Chicano Flintites to other agencies for provision of
less-than-immediate needs. Proyecto Outreach was funded separately
from Razas by a grant from the Genesee County Community Action Agency
and was headed by its own director, Ann Rios. Unlike subcontracted
programs at CSS in Lansing, however, staff of Proyecto Outreach were
under the supervision of the Razas director and were accountable not
only to Community Action Agency but also to him. From the outset,
there were problems between the funding agency and the staffing agency.
Pepe Vasquez, Razas' director, had sought funding from Community Action
Agency because it administered Genesee County programs for "minorities,"
but in fact dealt almost exclusively with blacks. Razas wanted Flint
Chicanos located, because staff experiences had told them that city
resident Chicanos had more social and economic problems than did Chi-
canos who lived outside the city limits but within the county. Commu-
nity Action Agency wanted "out—county" Chicanos located because the
county commission, the political body to which they were accountable,
had recently taken them to task for servicing the county unequally,
devoting more time and expending more funds on central city clients
than on out-county ones. Since, on the other hand, Razas was funded
by a city program the referrals of Proyecto Outreach brought in clients
with needs to be met who did not "count" as far as in—city "target
areas" were concerned but demanded time and fiscal expenditures none-
theless. A total of one hundred families were to be located during
the nine—month project period.

The initial contacts were made through referrals. For example,

the affines of Proyecto Outreach's caseworker knew of several families

293

who were fellow Mexican Catholic parishioners who did not receive
assistance of any sort from Razas. From the beginning, the project
remained a few interviews behind schedule. It often took numerous
telephone calls to locate potential reSpondents, who were not always
at home once the interviewer arrived for an appointment. Simply
appearing at the door was never done, as the questionnaires took an
hour to administer briefly. Back in the office, an impressive amount
of paperwork had to be done just for one respondent even if he had
required no referrals.

After the first two months Marie Mufiiz, a young woman active
in the church who was due to have her first child soon, was hired as
a clerk. She was asked to arrange interviews by telephone so that the
caseworker, director and volunteer outreach workers could administer
the questionnaires, do the referrals, data compilation, and reports.
Unfortunately, Maria disliked telephoning, was a poor typist, and
could not file. Ann Rios spent the rest of the six month program
period trying to get her other staff members to do last-minute secre-
tarial chores which Maria had not done. Maria was not fired, however,
because all of the staff members of Proyecto Outreach-~from Ann down--
were hired by Pepe Vasquez. As Ann said, "Maria has lived here all
her life, is a good church member, and Pepe can't just fire someone

because he has to face them outside the center too."

Competition Within the Agency

 

Because of his realization that he was accountable to Chicanos
outside his agency Pepe worked well with the parish-centered network,

which might be considered "traditional” in comparison to Razas. He

[\J
k0
is

even called the presidents of various clubs to advise them when he

was making a statement to a government agency or the press. However,
in spite of his deliberate intergroup solidarity, there was friction
between him and his supporters within Razas and one of his board mem-
bers and her considerable familial and affiliative connections within
the "traditional" sector outside Razas. This board member, Celia
Trask, considered Pepe a "dangerous radical" with "communist leanings,"
a possible carryover of the agency's founding image, who was using
Razas to better his own finances and political aspirations. She con-
sistently sabotaged intra-agency unanimity and successfully encouraged
a split in the board and staff into Pepe supporters and anti-Pepeists
which endured for several months. This split encouraged Pepe's hesi-
tancy in the Maria case, and the split lasted until further funding
crises eliminated a large number of staff members.

Within Razas, the lines of loyalty stressed kinship, ritual
kinship, and patronage ties. Pepe was the center of the Razas
liberals--interested in social service programs, government assistance,
minority rights, inter—ethnic programs in the schools, bilingual edu-
cation, and the like. They were not opposed to confrontation with
city officials or to publicity regarding various kinds of injustices
to Chicanos found in Flint. Pepe's supporters included the Dominguez
family (his office manager, secretary, and the director of Proyecto
Outreach) to whom he was linked by a combination of friendship and
patronage; the board president, an educated Puerto Rican raised with
Flint Chicanos, and his several well-educated-friends on the board;

several board members who were long-time members of other organizations

295

like Chicano Veterans, related through baptiSmal and marriage
compadrazgo ties to either Pepe or the Dominguezes; and several
employees who had no ties other than employment to any of the other
Vasquez supporters.

The Razas "cristiano" conservatives centered on Celia Trask,
and included all Razas staff and board members who had similar ties
with her and her husband, a construction contractor, or her brothers,
who were GM employees. This faction professed similar goals for
Razas to those of the liberals but held a different political action
philosophy. They thought that persons affiliated with Razas in any
way should pursue those goals while "keeping a low profile” in the
city.

When Celia's attempt to get the board to ask for Pepe Vasquez's
resignation--spurred on by employees not aligned to Pepe and resentful
of the nepotism they saw--failed, Pepe's life was threatened at a
dance the following week by one of her brothers. Even the anti-Pepeists
were somewhat alarmed at this serious escalation of the conflict, and
I heard comments such as, "We're getting to be as bad as Saginaw."10
In spite of the escalation, however, blacks and Anglos uninvolved
with Chicano operating units remained unaware of the struggle.

About this time, Pepe was pressing Ann to do more interviews of
city residents as her reports were not showing the kinds of needs that
Razas workers served. Then he received a call from Jan Lacrosse,
director of Community Action Agency, indicating that Proyecto Outreach
was three interviews behind schedule and that there should be no more

interviews done on in—city residents for the duration of the project.

Ann dissented as she agreed with Pepe that the needier Chicanos lived
inside the city whereas those better off economically became part of
the pattern of "white flight” to the suburbs. At this time, slightly
over one half of the one hundred interviews had been completed,
Proyecto Outreach and Razas itself were evaluated by their respective
funding sources the end of November, and as a result of positive
evaluations Razas expanded physically the first of the month into a
new facility which gave Proyecto Outreach more office space.

By this time, Maria Mufiiz was in the final months of pregnancy
and spent all her time making arrangements for the baby's arrival. She
could not be counted on to maintain a regular schedule in the office.
What is more, Ann Rios had been invited to join in an honorary asso-
ciation of young business and service executives, and this association
promptly made use of her talents in administering questionnaires to
minority businesses. Ann was also a member of the advisory boards of
a number of mainstream organizations and maintained other organiza-
tional ties through a black social service agency where she had been
employed before she was hired at Razas. Her many commitments were
time—consuming and caused her to delay things that should have been
done much earlier and to draft other peOple to do various tasks for her.
She was, however, interested in maintaining good relationships both
with potential clients through careful empathic interviews, and with
other groups and potential factions within the Chicano population.

Ann supported Pepe within the agency due largely to friendship between
the two families but she herself was a member of the more conservative

cristianos outside and was known to have maintained a close long-

 

lasting friendship with the priest.

297

The week following the move to the new offices, a notice that
the city program evaluation team found that Razas made "no significant
effect on the environment” appeared in the Flint newspaper. Razas'
board of directors interpreted the notice as a warning that Razas'
funding was again in peril although they had just been favorably eval-
uated and moved to improved facilities. This interpretation was bol-
stered by the fact that they had also just received notice that six
employees on city-level CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act)
funds were secure of their positions for only one month. The notice
was the result of an "environmental analysis" of selected city-funded
social service programs which was ordered by the newly-elected mayor.

Pepe immediately began calling the presidents of Chicano reli-
gious, sports, and social clubs to advise them of the situation. When
Razas funding had been in doubt the year before, he had called all of
these club presidents and the priest. The latter told his parishioners
that the services that Razas provided to poor Chicanos were important
and that whether or not a given individual had need of them, the
agency was important. As a result of the advertising by club presi-
dents and the priest's homily, the mayor and city council were shocked
to find their chambers flooded with Chicanos the night of the vote on
Razas funding. Needless to say, the strategy was effective in a city
where Anglo officials would say, "We have a few Spanish families here,
but not many.”

The department manager of the city's program evaluation depart-
ment indicated that the Razas administration should not interpret the

notice as a threat to their funding. His findings did not mention the

398

social effects of the agency, which were considerable, but only indi-
cated that Razas was not a program of housing rehabilitation or other
physical improvement. Pepe was not convinced, but said, ”Well, at
least we're safe for awhile.”

At the last moment, the six employees were extended another
two months, and Razas and Outreach both proceeded smoothly over the
winter months. In March, five months after inception of the program,
Ann received a call from Jan Lacrosse directing her to prepare a report
and exhibit on Proyecto Outreach for the county commission meeting the
following day at 5:00 P.M. The major points of her report were as
follow. First, the Chicano population of Flint and Genesee County
had been underserved because federal and local monies allocated for
programs to the poor distributed funds on the basis of population per-
centage so the Chicano undercount in the federal census had been sig-
nificant for services provision. Second, Proyecto Outreach had been
designed as a needs assessment survey and provision of actual services
to individuals had been difficult so only real emergencies had been
dealt with. Finally, the report indicated that some sort of ongoing
system needed to be implemented for dealing with out-county Chicanos
because the Proyecto Outreach staff could not serve their general
needs. Jan Lacrosses was not pleased with Ann's report. She con-
sidered Proyecto Outreach itself an important service to the Chicano
population of Genesee County. Pepe had read the report and had it
delivered to the county commissioners as he did not trust Jan to do

so. They had little to say about the report or about the project,

299

but voted to consider refunding once the original contract period
expired the following month.

Ann was asked about this time to become involved in prepara-
tions for Chicano Day, which was to be held at Mott Community College.
Anglo politicians, leaders of important black organizations, Chicano
and Anglo educators, and Pepe Vasquez were asked to speak. Ann and
other Razas staff prepared a slide presentation and poem narration
of Flint Chicano history. Letters of invitation were sent to the
parents of all Chicano students in the public and parochial school
systems, invitations were sent to the clients and mailing lists of
the agency bloc and to leaders of all Chicano clubs, open invitations
were extended in the college paper, and announcements were posted at
businesses and public places throughout the city. The speeches were
well prepared, Mexican food was catered by a local restaurant at
lunchtime, and students from both colleges presented Chicano theater
in the afternoon. Throughout the day, however, fewer than a dozen
people other than the speakers themselves attended the sessions.

The Chicano population of Flint was in general uninterested
in self-identification as "different," which participation in activi-
ties such as Chicano Day would have been. They called themselves
Americans; few of their children spoke much Spanish; and Mexican-mess
was mostly reserved for traditional holidays, church activities, and
dances. Even parties often included a blend of Anglo and Chicano.
For example, local Chicano groups which played at parties and dances
had a repertoir from "Chicano sounds”--a combination of border and

rock music--to 19503 "golden oldies." Furthermore, Flint Chicanos

were mainly conservative politically. A Chicana teacher from Detroit
had been befriended by a couple who were active in the Socialist
Workers' Party, and some Chicano parents threatened to petition her
dismissal as a "communist." It was known that activities such as
Chicano Day usually included some radical rhetoric, and few Chicanos
were interested.

The end of June marked the termination of the extended Proyecto
Outreach contract and the end of employment for the six CETA employees
who had been getting extensions for some months. One of these
employees included Pepe's secretary, one of the Dominguezes. Proyecto
Outreach remained in limbo for the month of July but in August Ann was
back at work, designing ways in which various social services' could be
offered to Genesee County Chicanos to meet the needs uncovered by the
survey. In November, several more Razas employees were terminated
from county CETA employment, and in December the agency evaluation was
again positive but tentative. At the time of this writing, Razas
finances remain as tenuous as ever but Proyecto Outreach has become
incorporated into the social services department of the agency.

Razas personnel's development of Proyecto Outreach exemplifies
a very different kind of adaptation to agency structure than that
encountered in Lansing. In Flint, the agency structure was also
imposed by the outside. This structure was responsible for difficul-
ties an inexperienced board and staff had with program administration
and for dissention within the agency. Funding source requirements
also led to considerable tension as a result of fiscal insecurity

and prevented the hiring of more experienced workers. However, the

 

Flint Chicano agency bloc was fighting a battle on two fronts simul-
taneously. Not only were they fighting external constraints but they
were also trying to undo several decades of acculturation. Not only
were Chicanos in Flint far more Anglicized in language, kinship,
interests, and even identification than their Lansing counterparts.
They were also better integrated: socially--through intermarriage,
economically-—as fellow factory workers, and politically—~as "good
citizens." Even several of the Chicano operating units claimed as
their major goals ngt_the maintenance of Chicano culture or pride in
Mexican heritage but rather an equitable share of the American
lifestyle.

Even the operating unit that was most indigenousll--the
parish-~was laboring to create ethnicity. The priest thought Chicano
ethnicity as a category worthy of pride, not discrimination, developed
coterminously with the building of the new church facility. He indi-
cated that parishioners who had heard all their lives that they were
good for nothing but work in the fields or "on the line” at a factory
could now say, "We're good for building our own church."

Both the construction of the new church and the development
of the agency bloc-—occasions for creating Chicanismo-occurred during
the 19705 following nearly fifty years of Chicano settlement in Flint.
Chicanos had been accepted as similar to European immigrants-—confined
to the worker strata at the factories, but no lower than other
workers. During the Depression some of them had been deported, but
others participated in a sit-down strike at the auto plants that had

long-lasting national consequences for labor organization. The

302

Spanish-speaking Catholic missionary had always been a focus for
maintaining cultural tradition, and establishment of the distinct
Chicano parish in the 19505 may have been the single most important
event in Chicano history in Flint. Without that center, Chicanos in
Flint would likely have remained a dispersed population with no insti-
tutional focus for their cultural distinctiveness into the 19705.
The agency bloc, with its unstable funding, would probably have folded
without the support of the church members.

With the advent of the Civil Rights and southwestern Chicano
Power movements in the late 19605 and 19705, the resultant heightened
awareness of Chicano distinctiveness led to development of an agency,
which further crystallized Chicano ethnicity. This newfound Chicano-
ness is different from the Chicano-ness developed decades ago as
part of "Little Europe" and the "melting pot," however. The new
Chicano ethnicity can be bewildering or threatening to others, as the
Chicano policeman proved. The new Chicano pride—~different from a
sort of class fraction pride that came with the strike of 1936-1937--
is just as unsettling. The company town atmosphere stressing equality
was a facade designed to ensure satisfaction with the life of a factory
worker. Any development of radical ethnicity or class identificatiOn
would undoubtedly be damaging to the smooth Operation of the industry.
Since most Flintites identify their own interests with those of the
company, it is not surprising that many Chicanos are unwilling to ally
themselves with such a movement.

This new Chicano pride developing in Flint is like the status
cleavages between the various ethnic populations of the mill-worker

neighborhoods of South Chicago studied by Kornblum (1974). Kornblum,

303

like Blauner (1969) indicates that competition between the different
ethnic populations prevents the development of class unity among the
workers, yet the involvement by members of all the ethnic populations
in South Chicago steel mill workers' unions is a source of prestige.
Flint Chicanos seem to be confronting the same problem. Alignment
with the new ”radical" ethnic wave may improve one's individual
chances at advancement or it may cause trouble at the factory. On
the other hand, negation of one's ethnicity and a conscious alignment
with working-class organizations may leave one Open to criticism at
church and at other ethnic activities. Flint Chicanos appear to be
deve10ping one novel idea, however: the "new ethnicity" is in some
cases establishing ties with the larger and somewhat more effectively
organized black pOpulation. Whether they become a coalition of
"peOple of color" opposed to all things white or whether they will
become aligned with white workers to form some larger class organiza-
tion remains to be seen. It is also possible that neither will take

place and instead the budding organization may wither.

Summary
Chicano organization activity in Flint began in the 19205 with
a mutual aid society. There was a Spanish-speaking Catholic
missionary from the first decade on, and in the 19505 a Mexican
Catholic parish was established that was to become the institutional
focus for maintaining Chicano traditional culture in the city. A
number of Chicano clubs were affiliated with the church, including

one begun in 1957--the oldest Chicano formal operating unit in the

city. Chicano factory workers, most numerous occupational stratum

in Flint, participated in the entire range of Operating units. The
church and church-affiliated clubs formed one camp in potential
factionalism in the city. The other camp consisted of a large

social service agency for Chicanos and a subordinate but separate
smaller agency. The leaders of these two camps worked together to
prevent antagonisms from reaching Anglo recognition and also supported
each other at crises in their respective camps. Chicanos were early
integrated into the city as just another ethnic group. They were
involved in the Depression era sit-down strike at GM. Then in the
19705 a new kind of Chicano-ness began to develop with the construction
of a modern building for the Mexican Catholic church and the develop-
ment of the agency camp. It is suggested that this new Chicano pride,
just as the earlier strike, represents a potential threat to the

smooth Operation of the company town.

305
Footnotes

1As in the previous chapter, all individuals and Chicano
Operating units have been given pseudonyms.

2 . ' . .

NO figures are available on the actual number Of Chicanos who
were strikers. I was able to locate several strikers or their children
to interview.

3The original reads as follows:

La barraca en que vivimos Que su bendicion derrame

NO conoce la tristeza En los Estados Unidos

Porque en ella conocimos Y que a1 corazon inflame

De la Iglesia su pureza. De todos los desvalidos.

Por eso cuando supimos Es el deseo de un bracero,

De la Virgen Mexicana, Que vino, de los dolares en pos,
Hacia Flint nos dirigimos Y no conseguira dinero

A ver la Guadalupana. Pero se reconcilio con Dios.

(Tomas Napoles Ponce, written about 1962, unpublished.)

4As indicated in footnotes 3 and 5, chapter 6, corporate and
formal operating units have a delegated administration and greater
resource bases than the sum of the individual members. Corporate
operating units also have exclusive control of some resource (Adams
1970: 52—53).

5Someone entered the building during lunchtime and stole
portable valuables while I was working with the agency.

6The results may eventually be negative for the Chicano popu-
lation. One officer told me that just recently the local police have
begun to notice that Chicanos appeared to be becoming involved in the
heroin traffic in Flint. He suggested that policemen who were aware
of the Chicano Officer's "rejection" of whites appeared to be more
apt to investigate Chicanos allegedly involved in such traffic than
others.

7

'These figures are problematic. Whether or not a family was
listed as Chicano depended on the caseworker's observation of a
Spanish surname or "Mexican” physical characteristics. The figures
probably reflect the pattern Of assistance to Chicanos accurately,
even if the actual figures are questionable.

8Thirty-one point nine percent of the sampled household heads
in Flint were veterans while only 16.2 percent of the Lansing heads
of household I sampled were. ~

9LALO was a ”dependent” of the agency bloc, which could be
counted on to contact a powerful friend to make known a LALO grievance
if necessary. This had only happened once, however.

10The Chicano barrio of Saginaw, Michigan was racked by killing
and counter—killing in the mid-19705. Law enforcement Officials attri-
buted it to conflict over a brisk trade in Mexican heroin. Chicanos in
Flint and Lansing, while cognizant of the drug angle, attributed the
violence to heightened conflict between groups normally in conflict.
They said, "There it's always been family against family."

11I.e. indigenous in the sense of "traditional Chicano culture."

CHAPTER 9
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

 

This study was a controlled comparison of the develOpment and
integration of the Chicano populations of two Michigan cities—-Flint
and Lansing. It was my hypothesis that three dialectically inter-
related processes important in that development--migration, settlement
pattern, and social organization--were dependent upon the power struc-

tures of the target city and several supralocal levels.

Summary and Conclusions

 

Flint was found to be a company town dependent upon manufacture
of one durable good—-the automobiles-and its spinoffs. In contrast,
Lansing, also an auto manufacturing center, was also found to be the
center of an important truck farming region and, as capital of the
state, was also the center for government Officials and grants.

Chicanos in Lansing and Flint were mainly migrants to those
cities, and over half of them in both cities were migratory farmworkers
or the children of farmworkers at immigration. However, the auto
industry in Flint became the major Chicano employer as soon as Chicanos
settled into the city. In contrast, some Lansing Chicanos retained
agricultural employment even after permanent settlement in the city

although a statistically greater number did become factory workers.

307

I conclude that the patterns of Chicano migration to Flint
and Lansing occurred in response to the changing labor needs of the
auto and agriculture industries. The labor needs of these industries
fluctuated with changing regional, national, and international economic
cycles. Therefore, Chicanos began to migrate to both cities by the
19305 to perform hand labor in sugarbeet cultivation and harvest as
the immigration laws of the 19205 made Mexicans an available labor
pool. Likewise, Chicanos migrated to Flint along with thousands of
other workers during the 19405 to work in the auto plants, which were
turning out huge orders of war materials. Following World War II both
Flint and Lansing were faced with the need to diversify as city growth
in the country was being channelled along metropolitan lines. Flint
was not as successful as Lansing and the poor economic health of the
city during the energy crisis of 1973 reflected its dependence on the
auto industry. Lansing was more fortunate mainly because its capital
city functions ameliorated its industrial dependence. Following the
general trend, agriculture in the Lansing area was maintaining its
economic health by becoming increasingly capital-intensive.

Although the history of Chicano settlement in Flint and Lansing
dates to the early decades of the twentieth century, the contemporary
population configuration in both cities began to develop during the
19505. During this era Mexicans were imported as contract laborers
through a complex network of formal organizations carrying out inter-
national recruitment of workers. There was also a recession at the
end of the 19505 and Chicanos from less—develOped Texas came in greater

and greater numbers to work in mid-Michigan fields and factories.

During the 19605, however, the mechanization of Michigan agriculture
escalated and by the end of the decade the demand for hand labor was
reduced to a fraction of its earlier level. The pattern of Chicano
migration between under-developed southern Texas and northern Mexico
and developed Michigan had been set, however. Through contacts with
kin, friends, and former employers Chicanos continued to migrate to
the state. Relatively few Chicanos except relatives of permanent
residents entered Flint in the 19705, but many Texans and Mexicans
were still migrating to Lansing attempting to join the local labor
force through the strategy of temporarv agricultural employment.
Establishment of settlement pattern was largely dependent upon
migration. The auto and agriculture industries selected different
Chicano migrants: those in Flint were mostly native-born and a number
were veterans of the U.S. armed forces, while those in Lansing included
Mexican nationals and many unskilled, uneducated workers. Early farm-
workers settled near their employment in Lansing. Early farmworkers
in Flint were contracted by a fieldman from another city. More Flint
Chicanos had had prior urban experience, and may have been more suited
to spatial integration by this and other factors of migrant selectivity
(cf. Frielich 1970, who suggests Mohawk warriors are predisposed to
skyscraper construction due to their training in fearlessness). Once
established, the Chicano settlement concentration in Lansing mushroomed
as the negatively selected migrants settled near others with similar
background and language. Outsiders came to hold negative images of
the barrio as demonstrated by the higher number of Chicano arrests

than their proportion of the population. Discrimination may have also

310

contributed to further settlement by newcomer Chicanos who wished to
avoid conflict with Anglos. One of the variables which appears to
determine the local evaluation of a given ethnic population is the
visibility of the minority pOpulation and, related to this, its size.
Lansing Chicanos were segregated, culturally distinct, and visible.
Blacks in Lansing did not comprise a much larger percentage of the
total population than Chicanos. In Flint, over one fourth of the
total population was black, and blacks were quite segregated and cen-
tralized. Chicanos, dispersed and less significant numerically, were
invisible in comparison. Economic and social features of the popula-
tion that resulted from differential industrial selectivity of
Chicano migrants exacerbated the trends in the two cities.

Chicanos in both cities had developed mutual aid societies,
support groups to confront discrimination, and ties to local Catholic
parishes oriented to their population early in their adaptations. In
Lansing, the Mexican Catholic parish was pulled out from under its
parishioners in the early 19605 and was replaced by a social service
agency. Feelings against the move were still strong, and some Chicanos
suggested that factionalism among city Chicanos dated to that event.
In Flint, financing of the Mexican Catholic parish was removed from“
diocesan control in the early 19705 by successful fundraising to
build a modern church facility. In this manner Flint Chicanos gained
a measure of control over their church. However, the priest kept
tight reins on his flock and the political as well as moral impact
of his leadership was immense. The church in Flint served as a

conservative focus to formal organization activity. In Lansing, the

311

Catholic church hierarchy had effectively destroyed a similar center
of organization.

Chicano ethnic identity in Lansing was found to be predominantly
ascribed while in Flint it was achieved. In Lansing, Chicano-ness was
maintained by continued visiting with Texas and Mexican relatives, the
influx of new Texas and Mexican immigrants, and the presence of the
barrio which served as a symbol of cultural distinctivness. These
factors continued Chicano visibility but also performed supportive
functions for the overwhelming majority of poor, uneducated, Mexican-
born, and underemployed negatively-selected Lansing migrants. Chicanos
were the objects of discrimination, which fUrther heightened their dis-
tinctivenss, but they did qualify for various kinds of government
assistance programs due to the recognition of their minority status by
local officials. Quite the opposite was true in Flint, where Chicanos
were a somewhat older immigrant group and resided dispersed throughout
the city. Recent attempts to prove the need for Special services to
Chicanos had largely fallen on deaf ears.

In both cities, the structure Of Chicano corporate Operating
units--agencies--was imposed from above. In Lansing the poorer, more
recently arrived, least acculturated Chicanos adapted to these agencies
by using traditional personalistic mechanisms common to their Mexican
heritage. They would establish vertical linkages to a patron at an
agency, become a loyal member of his "family" Of clients, and react to
the agency as though it were an individual. They gained visible
improvements in their resource control in this manner, as the

agencies--though Operating on severely limited budgets--did provide

312

various direct gifts of goods and services to their clients. These
clients were able to maintain life in the barrio through reciprocal
relations with kin, friends, and compadres and the addition of an
agency patron to help out in emergencies. Thus, they appeared to be
preadapted to the role of "agency client."

The professionals—administrators in Lansing were interested in
the Chicano corporate operating units because these could be used as
a base for support, services, and clients. As was demonstrated, one
professional had attained a local mainstream public office through his
manipulation of his network of agency supporters. Similar mechanisms
of adaptation and manipulation of ethnicity have been noted in other
world areas (e.g. Grillo 1974). It has been suggested that the incor-
poration of some members of an oppressed group into the "ruling
circles" of the system (i.e. into the center of the Center) in this
manner is akin to the policy of "indirect rule” which was maintained,
for example, in the British colonies in Africa. Caulfield (1973: 190)
gives the example of the Cherokee "Chieftain" in Oklahoma who is also
an executive in Phillips' Petroleum Company, who makes decisions for
the tribe which are more in the interests of the "white upper class"
than the Cherokee nation. The Chicano professionals serving the client
stratum at the agencies were largely fulfilling this function.

Chicanos in Flint had adapted to the imposed agency structure
through kinship and patronage as well. Leaders were constrained to
manipulate the agency differently, however, because of the differences
in local political economy, particularly local political ideology. In

Lansing, there was factionalism among the corporate operating units

313

which was encouraged and maintained by the following. The very
structures of the agencies themselves required inclusion of ineffec-
tive policy makers on governing boards who were more interested in
personal conflicts than in administration. There was an appearance
of an ”Open society" in which any pressure group could get funding for
its program, when in actuality funds for any given project for
Chicanos were limited. In Flint, factionalism was mitigated by coop-
erative leadership and comparative invisibility which required cooper-
ation for the survival of operating units at all. Flint agencies did
suffer from internal structural difficulties, but since the agencies
were few in number and interlinked this did not lead to competition
among them but rather within them. Both the agency bloc and the
church supporters in Flint appeared to be building culture (Blauner
1969: 422). Flint Chicanos had been through fifty years of "melting
pot" but were structurally integrated-~integrated into the local
political economy, as opposed to integration by language or identifi-
cation--at the lower levels. They were developing an awareness of
their Chicano-ness and stressed local aspects of the Chicano
experience-~such as participation in the sit-down strike of the 19305--
in their ethnic pride, which had strong overtones of working-class
fraction identification.

The majority of Chicanos in both cities lacked an awareness
of the operation of systems of power, particularly government and
government-funded institutions. They would relate to these formal
organizations like they adapted to the migration experience in

general--through manipulation of their own personal network. Since

Chicanos tended to relate in network terms, much of the competition for
resources took the form of power struggles between leaders of different
"families" of followers. However, a greater range of derivative power
sources was available in Lansing and as a result a number of Chicano
agencies were maintained there. The major benefits of these agencies
were the provision of white-collar positions and minimal though impor—
tant social services. Although these agencies did provide services

to their clients they were hampered from real effectiveness by the
constant competition for resources in which they were engaged. There
was just enough power available to Chicanos through their access to
local derivative power sources to keep one major agency open in Flint.
The agency was forced to present a united front with the church sup-
porters tO local power holders if it was to survive.

The overall effectiveness of these outside agency structures
for Chicanos in general was therefore tempered by the local power
structures and the manner in which Chicanos were integrated into these.
At all levels and in all the processes involved in Chicano population
development and integration in Flint and Lansing, however, there were
power relationships operating over which Chicanos had little control.
As a result, in Lansing Chicanos were a recognized minority group out of
which some individuals were becoming integrated to the mainstream
through manipulation of the agencies. In Flint, Chicanos were creating

ethnicity to achieve mobility.

Policy Implications

 

A cursory reading of this study might indicate that the most

effective way to eliminate factionalism, discrimination, and poverty

315

among the Chicano population of Lansing would be to relocate Chicanos
from the barrio into all the census tracts in the city. I suggest that
this would be rash, however. The barrio serves as a mechanism through
which a Chicano newcomer with poor English language skills, little
employment potential, and few friends can secure housing, emergency
aid, and often temporary employment until he has a chance to learn
some of the requirements for life in the urban mainstream. Therefore
it would be more advisable to assist the newcomer with achieving

those requirements--language, employment training, and formal
education--than to relocate him, although relocation might be a
desirable long-term individual goal. It would be helpful to mount

an education campaign in the city stressing the positive aspects of
Chicano-mess, but it is doubtful that local government would be open
to such a movement unless it were in the form Of an annual festival
such as the "patriotic" fiestas which already take place.

In Flint, there are Chicanos who desire the services of an
agency and are willing to use the existing agency bloc. These are
constantly in funding peril due to the Community Development require-
ment that target neighborhoods be served. Chicanos in Flint are a
target but dispersed population. Furthermore, in both cities the
agencies do offer a way for Chicanos to gain employment experience and
move out into the mainstream. They therefore perform a valuable
service not only for Chicanos but also for the city. as these individ-
uals tend to lose their identification as part of a "problem”

population.

Future Research Suggestions

 

There are a number of areas for future research to which this
study points. One area for research is in donor locales. Considerable
research in Mexico has suggested the impact of migration to the U.S.
on rural Mexican villages (e.g. Lewis 1951; Shadow 1977) and Texas
towns (e.g. Rubel 1966). We are beginning to understand specific
linkages—-kinship, economic necessity--that enable an individual to
make the international migration and what prevents others in the same
village from doing so, but more work is needed.

It would be useful to examine Chicano formal organization in
settings radically different from the Southwest. Such an examination
might be done, for example, in a city in Arkansas-~a state with
Southeastern culture but located just north of Texas. Blacks have
historically been "the minority" in the Southeast just as they have
been in Flint. It would be worthwhile to determine if Chicanos
in Arkansas have been integrated into the mainstream but at the lower
levels, as they were in Flint. I suspect examination would show
that they were.

Another area for study is Chicano elites. Studies of the
descendants of Mexican elites in the United States have dealt with.
the now landless heirs to the New Mexico land grants (e.g. Leonard
1970), but most Chicano studies have been with labor migrants. We
do not know if all Chicanos in California and New Mexico, for
example, who have attained political positions or business interests
are the children of labor migrants. We do know that many local

elites in the Mexican northwest lost most of their land following

failure to implement provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

(see Acuna 1972). It would be useful to examine the contemporary
Chicano elites of several cities in diverse Southwest states to
determine the actual extent of powerlessness that resulted from the
Mexican American War. It is possible that some landowners were able to

become successful urbanites before their fortunes changed irreversibly.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Aberle, David F.
1966 The peyote religion among the Navaho. Viking fund publication
in anthropology #42.

Acheson, James M.
1972 Limited good or limited goods? Response to economic opportunity
in a Tarascan pueblo. American anthropologist 74(5):1152-ll69.

Achor, Shirley

1974 Of thorns and roses: Variations in cultural adaptations among
Mexican Americans in an urban Texas barrio. Ph.D. Southern;1
Methodist University. -.«-

Acufia, Rodolfo
1972 Occupied America: The Chicano's struggle toward liberation. San
Francisco: Canfield.

Adams, Richard N.
1966 Power and power domains. America Latina 9(2).

1967 The second sowing: Power and secondary development in Latin
America. San Francisco: Chandler.

1970 Crucifixion by power: Essays on Guatemalan national social struc-
ture, 1944-1966. Austin: University of Texas.

Alvarez, Rodolfo

1973 The psycho-historical and socioeconomic development of the
Chicano community in the United States. Social science
quarterly 53(4).

Andrews, Wayne
1967 Architecture in Michigan: A representative photographic survey.
Detroit: Wayne State University.

Aronson, Dan R.
1976 Ethnicity as a cultural system. Ethnicity in the Americas, F.
Henry, ed. 9-19. The Hague: Mouton.

Bacon, Robert S. -
. 1975 Ethnic and racial community space in Denver. Great Plains Rocky
Mountain geographic journal 4:9—16.

318

' 319

Balan, Jorge, Harley L. Browning, and Elizabeth Jelin
1973 Men in a developing society: Geographic and social mobility in
Monterrey, Mexico. Austin: University of Texas.

Ball, John
1960 Changes in sugar beet production in Michigan, 1899-1958. Papers
of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters XLV:137-
~ 144.

Banfield, Edward C.
1958 The moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe, IL:Free Press.

Barbosa-DaSilva, J. F.
1968 Participation of Mexican-Americans in voluntary associations.
Research reports in the social sciences 2: 33-43. Notre Dame.

Barnet, Richard J. and Ronald E. Muller
1974 Global reach: The power of the multinational corporations.
NY: Simon and Schuster.

Berry, Carol Willis
1971 Latin leadership bases in Michigan and the variables which affect
them. M.A. Michigan State University, Department of Sociology..

Beynon, Erdmann Doane
1940 Handbook of employment information, A guide for persons seeking
employment in Flint, Michigan. Flint, MI: Mott Foundation.

Blanco, Carlos
1971 Unidad del trabajo y la vida--Cinco de Mayo, 1971. Aztlan 2(1):
l—S.

Blauner, Robert
1969 Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt. Social problems 16(4):
393-408.

Blok, Anton
1974 The mafia of a Sicilian village 1860-1960: A study of violent"
peasant entrepreneurs. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Boissevain, Jeremy
1974 Friends of friends: Networks, manipulators, and coalitions. NY:
St. Martin's Press.

Browning, Harley L. and Waltraut Feindt
1969 Selectivity of migrants to a metropolis in a deve10ping country:
A Mexican case study. Demography 6(4): 347-357.

Burgess, Ernest W.
1929 Urban areas. Chicago: An experiment in social science research.
113-138. Chicago: University of Chicago.

u)
Ix)
O

Bustamante, Jorge A.
1971 'Don Chano': Autobiografia de un emigrante mexicano. Revista
mexicana de sociologia 33(2): 333-374.

Cancian, Frank
1965 Economics and prestige in a Maya community: The religious cargo
system in Zinacantan. Stanford: Stanford University.

Carrasco, Pedro

1961 The civil-religious hierarchy in Mesoamerican communities: Pre—
Spanish background and colonial develOpment. American anthro-
pologist 63:483-497.

Caulfield, Mina Davis
1969 Culture and imperialism: Proposing a new dialectic. Reinventing
anthropology, D. Hymes, ed. 182—212. NY: Pantheon.

Choldin, Harvey M. and Grafton D. Trout

1969 Mexican Americans in transition: Migration and employment in
Michigan cities. East Lansing, MI: Rural Manpower Center,
Michigan State University.

Christaller, Walter
1966(1933) Central places in Southern Germany. Carlisle W. Baskin,
trans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cohen, Abner
1969 Custom and politics in urban Africa: A study of Hausa migrants
in Yoruba towns. Berkeley: University of California.

Cohen, Yehudi
1968 Man in adaptation: The cultural present. Chicago: Aldine.

Connell, R. W.

1977 Ruling class, ruling culture: Studies of conflict, power and
hegemony in Australian life. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Cornelius, Wayne and Felicity Trueblood, eds.

1975 Urbanization and inequality: The political economy of urban and
rural development in Latin America. Latin American Urban
Rsearch 5. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Cox, Oliver C.
1970 Caste, class and race: A study in social dynamics. NY: Modern
Reader Paperbacks.

Crabb, Richard
1969 Birth of a giant: The men and incidents that gave America the
motor car. Philadelphia: Chilton.

Crow, Carl
1945 The city of Flint grows up. NY: Harper and brothers.

321

Crowe, Richard G.
1971 The Lansing housing problem. Michigan state economic record
13(4):3-6. ‘

Dagodag, W. Tim
1974 Spatial control and public policies: The example of Mexican
American housing. Professional geographer 26(3): 262-269.

Darden, Joe T.
1973 Afro-Americans in Pittsburgh: The residential segregation of a
people. Toronto: Lexington Books.

Darden, Joe T. and Jane B. Haney

n.d. Measuring adaptation: Migration status and residential segre-
gation among Anglos, blacks, and Chicanos. Forthcoming in
East Lakes geographer.

Darling, Birt
1950 City in the forest: The story of Lansing. NY: Stratford house.

Davenport, Carl D.

1948 Texas-Mexicans in sugar beets, vegetables and fruits: A report
on improved relations between migratory farm workers and agri-
cultural employers in North Central and Great Plainsstates
1943-1947. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Farm
Labor Program.

Davis, Velmar W.

1969 Labor or capital--the road ahead. Fruit and vegetable harvest
mechanization: Manpower implications, B. F. Cargill and G. E.
Rossmiller, eds. 113-152. East Lansing, MI: Rural Manpower
Center, Michigan State University.

de Tocqueville, Alexis
1966(1835) Democracy in America. J. P. Mayer and Max Lerner, eds.
NY:Harper and Row.

Doughty, Paul L. ..

1970 Behind the back of the city: "Provincial" life in Lima, Peru.
Peasants in cities, W. Mangin, ed. 30-46. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin.

Dunbar, Willis F.
1970 Michigan: A history of the wolverine state. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans.

Eames, Edwin and Judith Granich.Goode
1977 Anthropology of the city: An introduction to urban anthropology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Eckstein, Susan
1977 The poverty of revolution: The state and the urban poor in
Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University.

Elac, John C.

1972 Employment of Mexican workers in U.S. agriculture, 1900-1960:
A binational economic analysis. San Francisco: R G E Research
Associates.

Ferguson, Ann, Jane Haney and Timothy Ready

1974 Culture, environment and work: A study of health and health care
among Spanish-speaking migrant workers in the Mid-Michigan area.
Mimeograph, Department of AnthrOpology and College of Human
Medicine, Michigan State University.

Fine, Sidney
1969 Sit-down: The General Motors strike of 1936—1937. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.

Firth, Raymond
1951 Elements of social organization. Boston: Beacon Press,

Flint Board of Education
n.d. The work we live by. Manuscript.

Flint Journal
1976a A pictorial history of Flint, Michigan. Flint, MI: Flint Journal,
for the Genesee County Bicentennial Commission.

1976b The melting pot flowed in Flint. 4—4-76zB-l8.

Foster, George M.
1965 Peasant society and the image of limited good. American Anthro-
pologist 67:293-315.

1967 Tzintzuntzan: Mexican peasants in a changing world. Boston:
Little Brown.

1972 The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current
anthropology 165-202.

Frank, Andre Gunder
1967 Capitalism and underdeveIOpment in Latin America. NYzMonthly
Review Press.

Frankenberg, Ronald
1957 Village on the border: A social study of religion, politics, and
football in a North Wales community. London: Cohen and West.

Friedland, William H. and Dorothy Nelkin
1971 Migrant: Agricultural workers in America's Northeast. NY:HOlt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Friedrich, Paul
1965 A Mexican cacicazgo. Ethnology 4(2): 190-209.

323

1970 Agrarian revolt in a Mexican village. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Frielich, Morris

1970 Mohawk heroes and Trinidadian peasants. Marginal natives:
AnthropolOgists at work, M. Frielich, ed. 185—250. NY: Harper
and Row.

Galarza, Ernesto
1971 Barrio boy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.

Gallin, Bernard and Rita S. Gallin

1977 SociOpolitical power and sworn brother groups in Chinese society:
A Taiwanese case. The anthropology of power: Ethnographic
studies from Asia, Oceania, and the New World, 89-97. NY:
Academic Press.

Galtung, Johan
1971 A structural theory of imperialism. PRIO publication 27(1).Oslo:
International Peace Research Institute.

Gans, Herbert J.
1962 The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian
Americans. NY: Free Press.

Geertz, Clifford
1962 The rotating credit association: A ”middle rung" in development.
Economic development and cultural change 10: 241-263.

Genz, George A.
1975 Entrepreneurship and caciquismo: A study of community power in
a Mexican gulf coast village. Ph.D. Michigan State University.

Gonzalez Casanova, Pablo
1970 Democracy in Mexico. NY: Oxford University.

Gordon, Milton M.
1964 Assimilation in American life. NY: Oxford University.

Grebler, Leo, Joan W. Moore and Ralph C. Guzman
1970 The Mexican-American people: The nation's second largest
minority. NY: Free Press.

Grillo, B.D.

1974 Ethnic identity and social stratification on a Kampala housing
estate. Urban ethnicity, A. Cohen, ed. 159-186. London:
Tavistock.

Guest, Avery M. and James A. Weed
1976 Ethnic residential segregation: Patterns of change. American
Journal of sociology 81: 1088-1111.

324

Gustin, Lawrence R.
1973 Billy Durant: Creator of General Motors. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans.

Gutkind, Peter C. W.
1974 The emergent African urban proletariat. Centre for Developing
Area Studies, occasional paper 8. Montreal: McGill University.

Hall, Carl W.

1969 Potentials in engineering technology. Fruit and vegetable harvest
mechanization: Manpower implications, B. F. Cargill and G. E.
Rosmiller, eds., 69-80. East Lansing, MI: Rural Manpower Center,
Michigan State University.

Hancock, Richard H.

1959 The role of the bracero in the economic and cultural dynamics
of Mexico: A case study of Chihuahua. Sanford, CA: HiSpanic
American Society.

Hawley, Amos
1968 Human ecology. International encyclopedia of the social
sciences 4:328-337.

1971 Urban society: An ecological approach. NY: Ronald Press.

Hickey, Gerald D.
1964 Village in Vietnam. New Haven, Conn: Yale University.

Hill, Richard Child
1973 Urban income inequality. Ph.D. University of Wisconsin.

1975 Capital accumulation and urbanization in the United States.
Revision, paper presented at the annual meeting, American
Sociological Association, San Francisco.

Hymer, Stephen

1971 The multinational corporation and the law of uneven development.
Economics and the world order, J. W. Bhagvati, ed. 113-140.
NY: World Law Fund.

Jorgensen, Joseph G.
1972 The sun dance religion: Power for the powerless. Chicago:
University of Chicago.

Kahl, Joseph
1957 The American class structure. NY: Rinehart.

Kerri, James N.

1972 An inductive examination of voluntary association functions in a
single-enterprise based community. Journal of voluntary action
research 1:43-51. '

1976 Studying voluntary associations as adaptive mechanisms: A review
of anthropological perspectives. Current anthrOpOlOgy 17(1):
23-47.

(A
to
U1

Kornblum, William
1974 Blue collar community. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lander, Arthur R.
1947 Lansing, unlimited. NY: American Book—Stratford Press.

Lane, John Hart Jr.

1968 Voluntary associations among Mexican Americans in San Antonio,
Texas: Organizational and leadership characteristics. Ph.D.
University of Texas.

Lansing History
1960 Pamphlet on file at the local history room, Lansing public
library.

Lansing State Journal
1975 Welfare exodus urged. 7-13-75: A-l.

Latin American Perspectives
1976 Dependency theory and dimensions of imperialism. Special issue
LAP 3(4).

Leeds, Anthony
1969 The significant variables determining the character of squatter
settlements. America Latina 12(3):44-79.

Leobardo Arroyo, Luis
1975 Chicano participation in organized labor: The C10 in Los Angeles,
1938-1950: An extended research note. Aztlan 6(2):277-303.

Leonard, Olen E.

1970 The role of the land grant in the social organization and social
processes of a Spanish-American village in New Mexico. Albuque-
que: C. Horn.

Lewis, Oscar
1951 Life in a Mexican village: Tepoztlan restudied. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois.

Liebow, Elliot
1967 Tally's corner: A study of Negro streetcorner men. Boston:
Little Brown.

Love, A. B. and H. P. Gaston
1947 Michigan's emergency farm labor: 1943-1947. East Lansing, MI:
Extension Service, Michigan State University, bulletin 288.

Macklin, Barbara June
1963 Structural stability and culture change in a Mexican American
community. Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania.

MacDonald, John S. and Leatrice D. MacDonald
1964 Chain migration, ethnic neighborhood formation, and social
networks. Milbank memorial fund quarterly 42:82-97.

tn
N
0

Madsen, William
1964 The Mexican-Americans of South Texas. NY:HOlt, Rinehart, and
Winston.

Mangin, William
1970 Introduction. Peasants in cities: Readings in the anthrOpology
of urbanization, W. Mangin, ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Marx, Karl

1967(1894) Capital: A critique of political economy. Volume 3: The
process of capitalist production as a whole. NY: International
Publishers.

McAleenan, John
1973 Chicanos given hope. Lansing State Journal 3-25-73: B-l, B-3.

McWilliams, Carey
1941 Mexicans to Michigan. Common ground ll(l):5-l8.

1968(1948) North from Mexico: The Spanish-speaking people of the
United States. NY: Greenwood Press.

M.E.S.C. (see Michigan Employment Security Commission)

Meyer, Douglas K.
1970 The changing Negro residential patterns in Lansing, Michigan,
1850-1969. Ph.D. Michigan State University.

Michigan Civil Rights Commission
1973 Michigan community profiles. Unpublished memorandum of the
commission.

Michigan Department of Commerce
1976 Final report of the governor's task force on redlining. Report
of the task force.

Michigan Employment Security Commission
n.d. Employment by industry: Absolute numbers, Genesee County.
Unpublished report.

1950-1971 Post season farm labor report. (Annual by year). Employment
Service Division.

Michigan State Welfare Department
n.d. Repatriation. Unpublished report of the department.

Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission
1948-1949 Post season farm labor report. (Annual by year). Employment
Service Division.

Mintz, Sidney M. and Eric R. Wolf
1950 An analysis of ritual co-parenthood (compadrazgo). Southwestern
journal of anthropology 6: 341-368.

327

Moore, Joan W. and Frank G. Mittleback

1966 Residential segregation in the urban Southwest. Advance Report
4. Los Angeles: University of California, Mexican-American
Study Project.

M.U.C.C. (see Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission)

Murdock, George P.
1949 Social structure. NY:Macmillan.

Newcomer, Peter J.
1977 Toward a scientific treatment of "exploitation": A critique of
Dalton. American anthropologist 79(1):llS-119.

Nicholas, Ralph W.
1965 Factions: A comparative analysis. Political systems and the
distribution of power, M. Banton, ed., 21-61. LondonzTavistock.

Nutini, Hugo
1967 A synoptic comparison of Mesoamerican marriage and family
structure. Southwestern journal of anthropology 23(4):383-404.

O'Donnell, John L., Richard C. Henshaw, John P. Henderson and Eli P. Cox
1960 Economic and pOpulation base study of the Lansing Tri-county
area. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of
Business.

Pilcher, William
1972 The Portland longshoremen: A dispersed urban community. NY:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Pioneer News
1956 A history of Michigan Sugar Company. Lansing, MI: Michigan
history collection, State of Michigan library.

Poulantzas, Nicos A.
1975 Classes in contemporary capitalism. London: NLB.

Powdermaker, Hortense
1966 Stranger and friend: The way of an anthrOpologist. NY: W. W.
Norton.

Quinto Sol, Inc.
1976 La Raza in Ingham County. Mason, MI: Ingham County Bicentennial
Commission. -

Ray, Paul H., Saghir Almad, William Ice and Leon Shilton
1966 A political profile of Lansing, Michigan. Report of the Urban
Regional Research Institute. Unpublished.

Redfield, Robert and Milton Singer
1954 The cultural role of cities. Economic development and cultural
change 3(1): 53-73.

328

Roberts, Bryan
1973 Organizing strangers: Poor families in Guatemala City. Austin:
University of Texas.

Rodolf, Frank
1949 An industrial history of Flint. Flint: The Flint Journal.

Rollwagen, Jack R.
1975 The city as context: The Puerto Ricans of Rochester, New York.
Urban anthrOpology 4(1): 53-59.

Romano V., Octavio Ignacio
1960 Donship in a Mexican-American community in Texas. American
anthropologist 62: 966-976.

Rosales, Francisco A. and Daniel T. Simoni
1975 Chicano steel workers and unionism in the Midwest, 1919-1945.
Aztlan 6(2): 267-275.

Rubel, Arthur J.
1966 Across the tracks: Mexican-Americans in a Texas city. Austin:
University of Texas.

1977 'Limited good' and 'social comparison': Two theories, one
problem. Ethos 5(2): 224-238.

Salas, Gumecindo and Isabel Salas
1971 The Mexican community of Detroit. La causa chicana: The movement
for justice. M. Mangold, ed. 161-178. NYzFamily Service Assoc.

Samora, Julian, with Jorge A. Bustamante and Gilbert Cardenas
1971 Los mojados: The wetback story. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame.

Samora, Julian and Richard Lamanna

1967 Mexican—Americans in a Midwest metrOpolis: A study of East
Chicago. Advance report 8. LA: University of California,
Mexican-American Study Project.

Sennett, Richard and Jonathan Cobb
1973 The hidden injuries of class. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Service, Elman R.
1962 Primitive social organization: An evolutionary perspective.
NY: Random House.

Shadow, Robert D.

1977 Differential out—migration: A comparison of internal and inter-
national migration from West Mexico. Paper presented at the
annual meeting, American Anthropology Association, Houston.

Shannon, Lyle and Magdaline Shannon

1973 Minority migrants in the urban community: Mexican-American
and Negro adjustment to industrial society. Beverly Hills,
CA: Russell Sage.

Shapiro, Harold

1973 The pecan shellers' strike in San Antonio. To see ourselves:
AnthrOpology and modern social issues, T. Weaver, ed., 91-96.
Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Shenkin, Budd N.
1974 Health care for migrant workers: Policies and politics.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Shockley, John S.
1974 Chicano revolt in a Texas town. Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame.

Silverman, Sydel
1975 Three bells of civilization: The life of an Italian hill town.
NY: Columbia University. '

Sinclair, Robert
1972 The face of Detroit: A spatial synthesis. Detroit: Wayne State
University.

Sjoberg, Gideon
1955 The preindustrial city. American journal of sociology 60: 438-
445.

1960 The preindustrial city: Past and present. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.

Skinner, Elliot

1975 Competition within ethnic systems in Africa. Ethnicity and
resource competition in plural societies. Leo Despres, ed.
131-157. The Hague: Mouton.

Smith M. Estellie
1975 A tale of two cities: The reality of historical differences.
Urban anthrOpology 4(1): 61—72.

Spielberg, Joseph

1977 Illness and disability as factors promoting dependence on
seasonal agricultural labor among Chicanos within the Midwestern
migratory stream: A pilot study. Unpublished research proposal.

Stack, Carol B.
1974 All our kin: Strategies for survival in a black community. NY:
Harper and Row.

330

Starr, Betty W.

1954 Levels of communal relations. American journal of sociology
60(2):125-l35.

Steward, Julian , _
1955 The theory of culture change. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Taeuber, Karl and Alma Taeuber

1964 The Negro as an immigrant group: Recent trends in racial and
ethnic segregation in Chicago. American journal of sociology
69: 374-382.

1965 Negroes in cities: Residential segregation and neighborhood
change. Chicago: Aldine.

Thaden, J. F.

1942 Migratory beet workers in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University,
special bulletin 319.

Thompson, Wilbur
1968 A preface to urban economies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University.

Tringham, Ruth

1972 Introduction: Settlement patterns and urbanization. Man,
settlement, and urbanization. P. Ucko, R. Tringham, G. W.
Dimbleby, eds. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

U.S. Bureau of the Census
1864 Eighth census of the United States: 1860.

1883 Tenth census of the United States: 1880.

1901 Twelfth census of the United States: 1900. Population 1(1):
Michigan. .

1913 Thirteenth census of the United States: 1910.

1923 Fourteenth census of the United States: 1920. POpulation 4:
occupations. Table 19.

1932 Fifteenth census of the United States: 1930. Population 3(1):
Table 20.

1943 Sixteenth census of the United States: 1940. Population 3(3):
Michigan.

1952 U.S. Census of population: 1950. Characteristics of the popu-
lation 2(22):Michigan. Table 35.

Weeks, John R. and Joseph Spielberg

1973 The ethnodemography of Midwestern Chicano communities. Paper
presented at the annual meetings, POpulation Association of
America, New Orleans.

White, Leslie A.
1949 The evolution of culture. NY: McGraw Hill.

Whiteford, Linda -
1977 The border as extended community. Paper presented at the annual
meeting, American AnthrOpological Association, Houston, Texas.

Whiteford, Scott
1975 Urbanization of rural proletarians: Bolivian migrant workers in
Northwest Argentina. Ph.D. University of Texas.

n.d. Migrant labor, urbanization, and agricultural development:
Bolivian workers in Northwest Argentina. Forthcoming from
University of Texas.

Whiteford, Scott and Richard N. Adams

1973 Migration, ethnicity and adaptation: Bolivian migrant workers in
Northwest Argentina. Paper presented at the International
Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Chicago.

Whitten, Norman E. and Alvin W. Wolfe
1973 Network analysis. Handbook of social and cultural anthropology,
J. Honigmann, ed., 717-746. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Whyte, William F.
1943 Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum.
Chicago: University of Chicago.

Wirth, Louis
1938 Urbanism as a way of life. American journal of sociology 44:
1-24.

Wolf, Eric R.
1957 Closed corporate peasant communities in Mesoamerica and central
Java. Southwestern journal of anthropology 13: 1-18.

1964 Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1966 Kinship, friendship, and patron-client relations in complex
societies. The social anthropology of complex societies,

M. Banton, ed., 1-22. ASA monograph 4. London: Tavistock.

1967 Levels of communal relations. Handbook of Middle American
Indians 6: 299-316. Austin: University of Texas.

 

 

332

1962a U.S. census of population and housing:1960. Census tracts,
Flint, Michigan. PHC(l)-47.

1962b U.S. census Of population and housingzl960. Census tracts,
Lansing, Michigan. PHC(l)-73.

1970a Census of population fourth count population and housing tables,
magnetic tape display, Genesee County.

1970b Census of population fourth count population and housing tables,
magnetic tape display, Ingham County.

1971a Census of population and housing, Census tracts, Flint, Michigan
SMSA. PHC(l)-70.

1971b Census of population and housing, Census tracts, Lansing,
Michigan SMSA. PHC(l)-70.

1972 Census of population: 1970, PC(1)C24, General social and economic
characteristics, Michigan.

1973 Census of Population: 1970, Subject reports, Final report PC(2)-
lC: Persons of Spanish origin.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

1974 Counting the forgotten: The 1970 census count of persons of
Spanish speaking background in the United States. Report of
the commission.

U.S. Congress
1943 Public law 45. U.S. Statutes at large 57(1):70-73.

1951 Public law 78. U.S. Statutes at large 65:119-121.

U.S. Department of Justice
1954 Annual report of the immigration and naturalization service.
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of State
1977 US-Mexico relations. GIST, Bureau of public affairs, May.

VanDenBerghe, Pierre L.

1975 Ethnicity and class in highland Peru. Ethnicity and resource
competition in plural societies, L. Despres, ed. 71-85. The
Hague: Mouton.

Verway, David I.
1976 Michigan forecast: 1976. Michigan state economic record 17(6):
1-8.

Ward's Automotive Yearbook
1968 Detroit: Ward's Reports, Inc.

333

Wolf, Eric R. and Edward C. Hansen

1967 Caudillo politics: A structural analysis. Comparative studies in
society and history 9: 168-179.

1972 The human condition in Latin America. NY: Oxford University.

Wu, Yun S.
1976 Summary manpower indicators, 1974 Manpower surveys. Lansing:
Michigan Department of Labor, unpublished report.

Zamora, Emilio J.
1975 Chicano socialist labor activity in Texas, 1900-1920. Aztlan
6(2): 221-236.

APPENDIX A

THE GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX A

THE GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Pre-Tests

A pre-test of the migration and employment history question-
naire was conducted in a small town outside Lansing. In 1970 the
town had a total population of 4494. There were only ten Chicano
households in the town, but these included 58 persons or 12.8 percent
of the total pOpulation. I was able to administer the questionnaire
in seven of the ten households, was refused in one, and was unable
to find anyone at home in two. The major problem I encountered was
the length of time required for administration of the questionnaire.
Based on the pre—test I estimated that a maximum Of two questionnaires
could be administered per day by one surveyer. The questions were
completely open-ended and often required explanation. I revised the
most difficult questions and changed the format, adding possible
responses to be used as ”prompters." Following these revisions a
second pre-test was conducted with the Chicano employees of a migrant
services agency in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Seven questionnaires were
completed and no further difficulties were encountered with the

survey instrument.

335

The Instrument*

 

The questionnaire was designed to gather the following data
on a random sample of the Chicano populations of both cities:
1) Migration history

When they came and why
Employment history, current employment
How they knew about the city

2) Demographics and economics

Sex, age of household head
Number in household
.Education

Number in household employed
Income

Stability

3) Spatial considerations

How found housing

Why selected particular housing
Cost of housing

Perceptions of neighborhood

4) Social organization
Religion
Visiting
Hopes to return to Texas/Mexico
Club membership
5) Stratifying variables

Where born, length of residence

Language

Occupation, occupational history, education
Neighborhood

Sample Design

 

A sampling specialist at the University of Michigan Institute
for Social Research (ISR) was contacted regarding the implementation of

the plan to sample by block saturation. It was pointed out that in

 

* See Appendix B for the questionnaire.

336

census tracts where Chicanos reside dispersed time would be lost in
trying to locate potential interviewees. This specialist had been a
consultant to Choldin and Trout (1969) on their state-wide Chicano
survey and suggested that I use the method which they had employed.
That method was to devise a list of households from known sources such
as agencies, public directories, welfare Offices, churches, and such.
The major limitation to such a survey design is that the population
from which the sample is selected shares the biases of its sources.

A list of names was drawn up for each city utilizing various
sources including city and telephone directories and those organizations
which served the target pOpulation which were able to provide mailing
or client lists. The names and addresses of individuals with Spanish
surnames were taken from publicly available directories, cross-
checking with several lists of Spanish surnames. Those names obtained
from organizations were not cross-checked. Care was taken not to
duplicate households. Persons with the same surname and the same
address were listed only once. Residences known to be outside the
city limits were excluded. Each name was recorded on a separate
card, filed in alphabetical order, and the cards were then numbered
consecutively. For Flint the resultant census included 1182 cards and
for Lansing there were 1624. Multiplying these numbers by 4.0, the
mean number of persons per household for households of Mexican origin
in urban Michigan (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973), the total census so
derived was 4728 persons for Flint and 6496 persons for Lansing.
Attempts to add recent immigrants to the list were made with the

assistance of individuals who work with new arrivals in the city.

337

However, it is assumed that these figures were undercounts and that
they probably represented the more stable, better-Off persons in both

cities.

The Survey

 

A random sample of 90 numbers was derived by computer from all
possible numbers on the cards which comprised the census of households
for each city. Three assistants were hired to administer the survey
in each city. Each interviewer was given a list of 30 names and
addresses. It was anticipated that it would be possible to complete
a questionnaire at 20-25 of each 30 addresses. Questionnaires were
completed for each household on the list which was Chicano rather than
using the lists as guides to individuals.

In Flint the refusal rate was slight. There was considerable
mobility encountered, but in fewer than five of any list of thirty
had the houses so enumerated ceased to house Chicanos. Two non-Chicano
Latinos were encountered in the sample. A total of 69 usable interviews
were completed, for a total of 290 persons, or slightly more than a
5 percent sample of my population (4728 persons) and more than a 3
percent sample of the estimated Genesee county population (Michigan
Civil Rights Commission 1973).

In Lansing the refusal rate was slight in areas outside the
Chicano barrio but interviewers encountered vacant houses, broken
appointments, and outright refusals in almost 50 percent of the house-
holds listed in the random sample in the barrio. At first I doubted
the interviewers, but I then tried the sample myself with similar

results. Even when I had a referral from a trusted acquaintance of

338

the potential interviewee I was sometimes refused entry. I was
reminded by neighborhood residents that the area is sample by peOple
from the university "all the time." This complaint can be readily
verified by examination of theses and dissertations in the fields of
education, sociology, and social work. Furthermore, a major survey
had just been completed the previous summer by the state of Michigan
on manpower and employment of selected minorities (see Wu 1976). The
Lansing barrio had been selected as the site representative of Michigan
Chicanos and a total of 628 households were interviewed between July 16
and August 31, 1974 in the barrio (Wu 1976: i). The survey instrument
was lengthy and included numerous questions on past periods of employ-
ment, salary, and unemployment. Similar questions on my survey instru-
ment were often met with fear or reluctance to answer in both cities.*
Armed with this information, I returned to the block saturation
method. I hired a woman who lived in the barrio as an assistant and
she and I sampled all the dwelling units in a four-block area in the
heart of the barrio at which there was a respondent willing to answer
the questions. Her prior acquaintance with many of the residents
gained entree for her which would not have been possible for others.
The number of questionnaires completed in this manner closely approxi-
mated those not obtained through the list sampling attempted earlier.
Only three non-Chicano Latinos were encountered on the lists in

Lansing. The final sample of usable questionnaires totalled 80

 

* I encountered several good reasons for fear--a family which
had failed to report a small outside income to the welfare office,
undocumented Mexican nationals, and a man with two wives and two house-
holds. Those persons volunteered the reasons for their fears, but
others would ask, "Who wants to know and why?" even though the purpose
of the study had been explained at the outset.

339

households including 318 persons. This total is 7 persons short of a
5 percent sample of my Chicano census, but is well above a 3 percent

sample of the estimated Ingham County pOpulation (Michigan Civil Rights

Commission 1973).

The Land Use Survey

 

A traverse was drawn diagonally across the longest extension
of each census tract in each city and those structures which appeared
on that traverse were the sample. In order to simplify the procedure,
street blocks which most closely approximated the traverse were
selected for the sample units. For each block sampled in a given
census tract the following data was recorded:

1) land use,

2) housing condition,

3) housing age,

4) relative size of the census tract and density of housing units
based on observation,

5) accessibility of residential streets to each other and to major
through streets,

6) notable physical features, if any.

This strategy was pursued as I had originally suspected that
differences in housing and employment could account for the different
Chicano residential distribution. I expected to find that if Chicanos
were considered a minority as in Lansing.they would live in less
desirable housing, while in Flint where they were "invisible" they
would reside in housing that approximated the mean for the city. Cen-
sus tracts were chosen for the units of comparison as they are designed

to include areas of housing which is similar as well as to include

340

populations with similar socioeconomic characteristics. 1 found that
this was generally the case unless major renovation had taken place
since the last census.

The city assessor's office was consulted in both cities to
- ascertain the average age of houses in various sectors of the city and
to view photographs of dwellings of representative age. I also
referred to Andrews 1967 for architectural style changes since 1900.
Land use per census tract was listed as residential, commercial,
industrial, or mixed based on the block surveys.

Dwellings were designated Type I, II, III, or IV based on
current condition and original construction. The typology was
designed for single-family dwellings since these predominate in both
cities. Dwellings were designated type I if they were constructed
of durable materials; were sizable and situated on more land than a
regulation city lot; tended to include landscaping; and were in good
repair, lacking maintenance problems such as peelingvor missing
paint, and were structurally sound to cursory inspection. Type II
were like type I but smaller or located on smaller lots. Dwellings
were classed type IV if they were constructed of materials such as
"insulbrick" (asbestos siding) which must be replaced and has been
used historically on the homes of the working poor; were situated on
regulation city lots, which allow for very little vacant Space
between houses; and were restricted in size to the small "bungalow"
style (although very old larger houses were classed as type IV if
they were structurally unsound or Otherwise in poor condition); and

had structural defects such as falling porches, missing or broken

341

doors and windows, roofs broken through, other parts of the house
sagging or skewed, or had not been painted for such a long period that
the wood was weathered. Type III were intermediate--they were like
type IV but appeared to have only maintenance problems, or were like
type II but in similar condition to type IV. The typology was sub-

jective and meant to indicate the range of dwellings available.

Participant Observation

 

I already had friends at the universities and in broadcasting
in East Lansing and Flint so I began expanding my own network of
Chicano friends by following linkages out to the new potential members.
I had difficulty at the outset overcoming resistance due, depending
on the organization or individual, to my researcher role, my ethnicity,
or both. These issues will be addressed below.

I would have had serious difficulty entering into the social
life of Flint and Lansing Chicanos at all without the prior experience
with migrant farmworkers that I had had in the area. Through that
research experience I had made some invaluable contacts in the Lansing
Chicano barrio and had proven through an applied or directed research
project and the resultant report (Ferguson, Haney, and Ready 1974) that
I was concerned not only with my own academic advancement but also
with the people I had studied. The final report provided me with as
sure a reference to certain Chicano groups in both cities as did a
letter of introduction from my chairman to some mainstream agencies.
The use of these credentials and contacts were important in several

instances.

 

342

Contacts with local Chicano influentials I met through the
migrant study were important instant references to new associations.
For example, early in the research I attempted to make an appointment
with Lansing's Chicano Social Services' director. His secretary told
me, "I couldn't fit you in his schedule," although I did not press for
an immediate appointment. I contacted the social work supervisor at
the migrant agency, who told me to use her name as a reference and to
call her counterpart at Chicano Social Services, who advised me to
come the very next morning. When I arrived I found that the director
himself was waiting for me as the social work supervisor had told him
about my interest. Further investigation proved that the gatekeeper
function of his secretary, and of secretaries at other agencies,
discouraged some from trying to make the contact and was effective in
limiting outsider access.

The written report of the migrant project was even more
important as a reference. I provided copies to the directors of
various programs and associations in both cities, particularly those
who were hesitant to discuss their programs. For example, I met an
educator in Flint who was quite hostile to "do-good white liberals"
and would not discuss her program. She told me that she thought the
white liberal in charge of Native American studies at the college
where she was employed was a nice person but that his curriculum
was incredibly poor as well as heavily pro-white biased (which it was,
if her description was even fairly accurate). Her conclusion was that
whites should not teach Native American or Chicano courses as they

could not possibly "know what it is like to be a Chicano." Although

343

I came with a recommendation from a colleague of hers, she was hostile
and reluctant to answer questions. I asked for a second interview at
"a time of greater convenience" to her, and promised to mail a copy of
the migrant study report before the second interview. She planned to
take a folk dance group out to some migrant camps and was interested

in the camp descriptions. The second interview had a totally different
ambience. She was, although not warm and friendly, helpful and COOper-
ative and provided numerous references to local Chicanos whom I might
interview. At the end of the interview she remarked, "The only

reason I saw you was because you sent the report like you said you
would, and besides, it was pretty good."

Another problem of accessibility developed as my involvement
with the Chicano population of the two cities deepened. Once I met
the director of Chicano Social Services I became enlisted as an
"official volunteer" of CSS through performing a needs and use assess-
ment of the health clinic there. I was accorded immediate acceptance
in those Chicano organizations that were part of or peripheral to
Chicano Social Services' sphere of influence and those members of the
vast, uncommitted majority who at one time or another became CSS
clients. I also became identified rather quickly with CSS even
though I had prior experience with and had made friends in rival
Lansing agencies. This was always a problem throughout my research
particularly in that city. With time my utter refusal to be put in
the position of taking sides with one Chicano organization against
another coupled with my willingness to assist any Chicano organization

against any non-Chicano outsider gained me at least minimal acceptance

344

with most of the various social sectors of the Chicano population.
It also likely set me off as an obvious stranger, despite my under-
standing of the language and culture, as no Chicano would have been
permitted to remain inside yet outside so many competing operating
units. 1 was often told parables whose point was not lost on me,
such as the story about the man who wore so many hats he was never
sure which one he had on; the puppy who ran from dog to dog looking
for one he could follow; the poor cook who had a spoon in every pot;

and the child who could not find his mother.

 

APPENDIX B

MIGRATION HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Name of house

census tract

APPENDIX B

MIGRATION HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE h)

Number

MIGRATION HISTORY QUESICXNAIRE

hold head on back)

 

street address

respondent:

 

 

 

date
interviewer
language of interview
__ Spanish _ English

 

phone

oral consent obtained

 

household head __p
spouse
other

 

34E;

developed by
hmeB.Hmmy
1976 HUD contract
H-2367G

 

346

MIGRATION SISTORY QUESTIONN IRE 1976
Jane B. Haney

CONSENT FORM

(Interviewer will first identify him/herself). Employment, good wages, friends and
relatives, and schools and churches all encourage people to settle in a particular city.

I an administering a questionnaire that deals with these factors.

(Provide business card). Mrs. Haney is writing a report on the settlement of Mexican-
Anericans in this city, and an important part of this study is a history of which factors
were more influential in encouraging people of Mexican descent to settle in Lansing/Flint.
Is this family of Mexican descent? Would you be willing to assist us by
answering the questions on this questionnaire?
In :rder to insure your privacy, only the name of the household hes will be fathered so
that if Hrs. Haney wishes to discuss a particular question with you she may. The infor-
mation you give will be put together with the answers given by all other people who answer
to fern a general picture of the history of settlement and employment in the city, and
your answers will not be provided to anyone else. You are free to check this form over
when we finish to make sure I have your answers.noted correctly, and you may decide not

to continue if you wish.

 

2547

 

(1)Eow long have you lived at this address?

 

weeks
months
'ears
all life

0

(2)

 

___household head get job here
___pther family member got job here
.___came to attend school
___came as heard schools good

1 ‘___came as heard social services give
much aid

 

ZIDid you live at another address in this
city before moving here?

yes no

If yes, what was that address?

 

 

‘___moved here to be near other family
members here

___moved to be near friends from there
who had come here

___didn't have enough money to leave
hgard there are better opportunities

__'otner

 

(Comments:

 

(31Wha: factors were most important in your
decision to move to your present address?

 

 

 

 

price
location near family
location near friends from home state
location near friends from this city
house/apt was available

location near work
‘___size of house/apt

other
,Comments:

I

 

 

 

 

 

LT

 

7 (If moved due to better opportunity)
How did you know 'ansinz/Plint was the
place to go for this?

 

 

___yisited friends from home who live
here

___yisited other family members who live
here

___heard from friends who live here

___heard from other family who live here

___heard from people who have been here
before

___yorked in or near city before

___heard from employment agent

 

(4}when did you move to Lansing/Flint?

 

___weeks ago
___;Onths ago
___years ago
lived here all life
Comments:

 

 

heard from guidance counsellor
other
(Comments:

 

 

- '- ‘Tl.

(8)How did you locate this howso/apt?

 

friends
family
newspaper

 

 

(S)Where did you live before moving to
Lansing/Flint?

 

 

born in Lansing/Flint
other place in Michigan
other Midwest state
Texas

other SW state

Mexico

other

 

 

 

 

social service agency
realtor

drove by

other

 

 

(9)Do you '
own
rent ?

 

(6)Why did you move to Lansing/Flint?

 

 

 

 

2548

 

(10)Hhen do you think this house/buil-
ding was built?

 

 

 

(11)Do you think the appearance of the
neighborhood where you live has
___improved
___remained same
___deteriorated
during the time you have lived here?

I

(3)

 

poor school

J

 

' (12)If someone asked you where your
neighborhood was, what would you say?

 

 

 

___fiorth side

___3ast side

___§outh side

___yest side

___just this block
___§everal blocks around
F l___other

too much

hard to

other
Comments:

(13)In your neighborhood do you have
problems with any of the followinr?

___too little police protection
too danrerous to walk at

police

little for young people to do

dangerous traffic

get house loan

___too many people in neighborhood

night

 

 

 

 

 

(14)Sow many people live in this house?
+ Please list each as follows:

Relationship to head Age Where born
of household

Primary language

Education(yrs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\OWQO‘UIJ-KNNH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

349

 

(4)
(1S)Pcr persons who live here who are presently employed or who have worked during the
past year, please list the following:
Relationship to head Occupation Employer How long employed
of household Weeks Months Years

 

 

(16)Have any of these persons had any other jobs this year? yes ___no
If yes, indicate below:
Relationship to head Occupation Employer How long employed
of household Weeks Months Years

 

 

 

 

(17)Did anyone currently employed have difficulty getting his/her job? ___yes ___no
If yes, what was the reason?
education requirement old employer recommendation
experience requirement other

 

personal recommendation

 

 

(18)Do you have children, brothers or sisters, or parents who do not live with you?

 

yes no
(19)}ibout how often are you able to visit with them?
Relationship to head Where they live Frequency of visits

of household Per day'Per wk. Per mo. Per yr. Other

 

 

 

 

 

350

 

 

 

 

 

( 5)
(ZOlWhere were you born”
___hichigsn
__Texas
___pther 31 state
___2-'.exico

 

other
FT>YJWhere were your parents born?

 

____I:ichi 332:1
___Iexas
___other SN state
___Iiexico
___pther

 

 

 

“22 (if other than household head is respon-
dent Jhere was the head of the household
born?
___flichigan
___Iexas
___other 57 state
___yexico

other
1HT33 Stnere were his/her parents born?

 

 

 

 

 

Ziichi :an
____Texas
other 5% state

hezico
other

 

(34}15 the head of the household a veteran?
Could you tell me about the kinds of Jobs he7she has had during his/her wc rkinc years?
I would like to know what each job was that you can remember, about how long he had
it, and if there was a big increase or decrease in pay that was important for any.
Occupation and Location Length of Time Notable change in P3V°
weeks Months 'Years Increase Decrease

 

 

 

 

 

3551

 

(6)?
(25)Yhich of the followirr act vities How often?
have you participated in during the i wkl ' moly less
past year? How often? wkly
bi :l'l moly less clini
“kl? couns
_ __ __ __ healt.
dances,3".anish __ __ __ __ emerg.rocm
church activities ____ ____ ____ :food stamps
___po:mun'ty -local :overnmcnt
organizations meetings
PTA

mo"ios, Spanish

 

 

III
III
III

 

 

II
II
II

 

,M.‘ . - :other school

,_0_ 3 any of'tne io Ml vrin; reasons prevent prorrams
your farticipc ti on in such activities? welfqre

___}ack of time .;-bthcr
lick of interest

II
III
III

 

 

 

' » v ' r- “a '.‘lsr

lacs of money I? C Does o-r family bolo.. to a . rticu

‘”'5-be- church? ves no
If yes, is i

Catholic

 

of

 

 

 

-rotestant

 

. :n v-
'27'Hove vou participated in any of the the a i ?
. . i A "y e 'r “i

1‘

the past year? Few often? Ves no
bi w‘ ly mol" less

 

VJ "1 1r
1 .

d [3133ther than yO'Ir rfamily members who

live here with you, with whom do you

spend more time?

 

 

fail", “ot in same house
neirhoors

reopl e from work
club/or:eni:ation members
church members

other

I

 

(32}90 you have any plans to move from
Lansing Flint? fives no
If yes, where dofl you plan to move?

 

other fiidwest city
farm near here
"eras

other SN state
hexico

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

Other

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII‘IIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

Other
If yes, when do you plan to :0'2'

"

I

n \ u
i8;3o you rcouiarly use any of the follow-
in: services in Spanish?
radio

 

this year

next year

within the next five years
when the children are rrown
when retired

other

a

or other T! in ojanish

____'?lint) newsletter
0thcr

El
I

 

 

 

(393”hich of the following community services I~ H337
ha'c you participated in durins the past " '
year?

yo on rent "our rhousc,do "cu have
a lease, or just pay per month?
lease nor month

How much per month?

 

 

 

 

 

 

3&52

 

flow often? “5)"

I (?53Hhich of the following activities wEinkly moly less

have you participated in during the

o clinics
I past year. counselling or co::un.mental
How often? -__health

bi wkly moly less
wkly

s:org.roon
___food stamps

local government
--mee n

63

movies,Spanish
dances,3panish

I

I

_’#
~—’—
———

II IIIIII
II IIIIII

church activities PTA

community other school

organizations programs
welfare
other

 

 

(26)Do any of the following reasons prevent
your participation in such activities?
___lack of time ~

lack of interest

[30)Does your family belong to a particular
church? yes no
If yes, is it

 

__. ___patholie
lack of money Protestant
Aether Other

 

 

 

Does it offer services in Spanish?
yes no

 

(27}Snve you participated in any of the
following community organizations during
the past year?

 

(31)0ther than your family members who
live here with you, with whom do you

How often? spend more time?

bi wkly
wkly

 

H

‘33

m

 

___fanily,not in same house
___neighbers

people from work
___club/or§anization members
___phurch members
___pther

 

(32)Do you have any plans to move from
Lansing Flint?
as no

If yes, where do you plan to move?

L

III
IIIII III IIIIIIII

 

III IIIIIIIII

other hidvest city
farm near here
Texas
other SW state
Mexico
Other
If yes, when do plan to move?

h

 

IIIII III IIIIIIII:

IIIII III IIIIIIII

 

 

(28)Do you regularly use any of the follow-
ing services in Spanish?
____radi o
____ or other TV in Spanish

 

this year

next year

within the next five years
when the children are grown
jFlint‘ when retired

newsletter
other other _

 

 

(29)Hhich of the following community services
have you participated in during the past

 

year? (33)If you rent your house, do you hive I
' a lease, or just pay per nonth?
lease oer month

 

 

How much per month?

 

 

3Ei5

 

(34)(If you rent)Did you have to pay a
deposit? ___yes ___po
Was 1t
_less than
___pame as
___pore than
one month’s rent?

(3572f you are buying your house, how did
you arranjo your monthly paymevts?

 

___paii full price

___financed thru bank

___have land contract(pay landlord
directly)

___yeterans loan

___?HA loan

___pther

How much is the monthly fayment?

 

 

 

 

 

(36)Approximately what was your family
income during the gast year?

 

___pnder 32999
___;3000-4999
___;5000-6999
___;7000-?999
___310,000-14.999
___315,OOO-24,099
‘___pver 325,000

-* A—LA A...‘_ __

_‘.‘

 

‘32:};

 

 

thl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)
iumber
KIGRATIOU HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE
’naze of household head on back) date
census tract interviewer
street address language of interview
Spanish English
phone oral consent obtained
respondent: household head m f
spouse
other

 

developed by
Jane B. Haney
1976 HUD contract
H-2367G

355

MIGRATION HISTORY QUESTICflflAIRB 1976
Jane B. Haney

FCRNA DE CCXSEJTIHIBITO

(Interviewer will first identify him/herself). Empleo, buen sueldo, amigos y parientes, y
escuelas son factoree que motivan gente establecerse en una Ciudad singular. Estoy
administrando un cuestionario que trata de estos factorea.

(Provide business card). La Sra. Haney esta escribiendo un reporte del eatablicimiento de
la comunidad Hexicanoamericana en esta Ciudad, i una gran parte de este estudio sera'una
historia de cuales factores tuvieron mas influencia en el establecimiento de esta
comunidad en Lansing/Flint.;EBs esta familia de descendencia mexicana? Estarfa

Ud. dispuesto ayudarnos por contestar las preguntas en este cuestionario?

 

Para asegurar su anonimidad, pondré'nomas el nombre del jefe de familia en esta forma para
que la Sra. Haney podrfa hablarle tocante una reepuesta ai quere. La informacion que Ud.
provee y las resouestas de todas las otras familias eetarén unidas para former una repre-
sentacion general de la historia de empleo y establecimiento del Mexicanoamericano en esta
Ciudad, y ninguna de sus respuestas se darén a nadie mas. Ud. tiene e1 derecho examinar
esta forma cuando terminamos para aeegurar que he notado sus respuestas correctamente, y

Ud. tiene el derecho decidir terminar la entrevista si quere.

3£56

 

(13}Por cuento tiempo han vivido Uds. en
“esta casa/apartamento?
seeanas
meses
afibs
toda la Vida

(2)

383% do familia encontrd trabajo

_i;ptro miembro de familia encontrd
trabajo aquf

___}legaron para asistir esouela

___}legaron porque se dice las escuelas
son buenas

___l1egaron porous se dice que hay

 

(ZTEPuvieron Uds. otra direcci6n en esta
Ciudad antes de que se mndaron aquf?
I
81 no

{Fara "s’")l§ue fue?

 

 

mucha ayuda de los servicios sociales
___l1egaron para estar cerca de otro
miembro de familia aquf
___l1egaron para estar cerca de otro
amigo de allf’que ya llego

 

no tuvo suficiente de dinero para
irse

 

(3,é935398 rGZODeS fueron los mas importan-
tes en 31 deteminacio’n de moverse a su
direccion presente?

 

 

___precio

___pbicaci5h cerca de familia

__;ubicaci5n cerca de amigos de su estado
natal

‘___pbicacion cercs de amigos de esta Ciudad

___pasa/apartamentoeSt3b8 desocupado

___pbicacion cerca de trabajo

.___tamafio

___otro

( omentario:

 

 

 

 

se dice que hay nejor oportunidad soul
otro _
(Comentario:

 

 

_*Y

L

 

(7)(Si se mndaron para mejor oportunidcd)
lpémo supieron que Lansing/Flint tuvo
esta oportunidad?

 

 

___visitaron amigos de allf'que
viven aquf

___yisitaron otro miembro de familia
que vive aquf' .

___amigo que vive aquf'lo dijo

___ptro miembro de familia que "ive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ aquf lo dijo
' trabajo en 0 cerca de aouf
agents de empleos lo dijo
(4) Lfiuando llegaron a Lansing/Flint? ___p:nse3ero de una escuela lo dijo
o ro
hace semanas .
hace meses (Eomentario:
hace afibs ~——Y
ha vivido aquf toda su "ida
iCcnentario:
I;

 

(8)¢Como encontraron esta case/apert.?

 

(Sllbonde vivieron antes de mudarse a Iansing/
Flint?

 

 

naci6 aqui

otro luear en Michigan
otro estado en el nideeste
Texas

otro estado en el Suroeste
México

otro

 

 

 

 

 

___amigos

__familia

__perio’di.co

___agencia de servicio social
___agente de venta de cases
___}a pasamos a vuelta
___ptro

 

 

(9X£Son Uds.

 

 

(GléPorque se movieron a Lansing/Flint?

 

 

duefiba
renteros
aqui?

 

 

 

 

1557

 

I O ’ ’ o
(10) En an opinionLcuando fue construido
I o I
esta case.edific10?

 

 

 

(11) Durante el tiempo que Uds. han vivido
en esta vecindad,‘Lcree Ud. que en vista
{faica ha

mejorado

durado sin cambiar

deteriorado?

 

pregunto donde esta'su

(12) Si alguien 1e
lo dirfa?

vecindad, A oue’

 

 

 

la area del
a area del
la area del
a area del oeste

la area del oeste

este bloque(o eallel

rarios bloques (o calles)oercanos
otro

norte
esta
sur

 

 

(13) En su vecindad,itienen al7unos ie
103 siguientes problemas?
___escuela mala
___;alta de proteccion policial
___denaciado peligro para ander en

la noche
___demaciado policia
.___fa1ta de recreo para los jovenns
___tr5fico pelicroso

diffcil obtener prestamo dn casa
demaCiado gents en la vocznsad

-otro
Comentario:

 

 

441

 

 

 

(14)lCuanta gents vive en esta casa?
Note el siruiente para cada una:
Farentesco al Edad Bonds naci5
jefe de familia
1

WM

 

O‘OCnQChU'Ib-

—.
-.

N-‘d‘ddu—‘d‘
OQCDQChU'IbuN

Lengua principal

       

Educacidn(lhaste d6nde
llego?)

 

 

 

£558

 

1

(4)
(ISTPara las personas que viven aquf que tienan trabajo ahora o que han tenido empleo
durante el ano pasado, note el siguiente por favor:,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parentesco al Ocupacidh Patron ‘ Por cuanto tiempo trabajo alli?
Jefe de familia 1 Semanas Moses Ado:
2
3
4
5
I
—i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(103mm tenido unas de estas personas otro empleo este ago? __3{ __no
(Para "si")Indique:
Parentesco a1 Ocupacion Patron :LPor cuanto tiempo trabajo alli?
jefe de familia Semanas {eses Anbs
(17)'Tuvc alguien que tiene enpleo ahorrita dificultad en obtener este empleo? ___s{'___po
(Para "sf“)lQue fue el notivo? ”
requisite do eduoacion recommendacidh de otro patr6r
renvisito do orperinncia otro

 

 

. I
recommendaCion personal

 

 

(18)2Tienen_Uds. hijos, hermanos y hermanas, o padres que no viven con Uds.?

si no
(19‘3Con que frecuencia los visitan, mas o menoe?
Parentesco a1 Donde viva La frecuencia de visitas

Jefe de familia Por dfa For semana Por mes por aha Otro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1559

 

(5}
(:o\\n6nde nacio Ud.?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Xichiban
Texas
otro estado en Suroeste
Xéxico
___ __ otro

 

 

(?1,235nde nacieron sus padres?

 

Xichigan

Texns

otro estaio en Suroeste
flexico

otro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(22)(Si otro querjefe de familia esta con-
testando)iDonde nacio el jefe de familia?

 

 

Kichigan

Texas

otro estado en Suroeste

Merico

___ __ otro
(.3 3' ads nacieron sus padres?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U
u\

 

H

{ichigan

Texas

otro estado en Suroeste
u’

uGXiCO

otro

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2.0323 e1 jefe do familia veterano? __sf ___no
'Podrfa Ud. decirme alga tocante los tipos de empleo que el jefe de familia ha tenido
durante sus anos de trabajo? He gustarfa saber cada trabajo que Ud. so aoncrda,mns o
menos cuanto tiempo lo duro] y si uno represento gran aumento o diminucion de page en
comparaci6n con otros. '
CcupaciSn y Ubicaci6h Durncidh iCambio notable do page? I
somanas Hesea Afibs Aument6 Diminuo

 

 

 

 

 

O

6()

 

(ZSEEn c'nles de las actividades siguien-

tea han participado durante e1 ano
pisado? Con que frocuencia?
masque seman- mens- men-
sesan. almen. ual. os
___pelQulcs, en
espanol __ _ _ __
_bai‘os,esp. _ __
___actividndes do la
icletia __ __ __ _
_orgsnizaciones de

la comunidad

(6)?
(29)'En cuales de los servicios para la
comu idnd han participado duranto ol ano
pasado? Con one ’recuencia?

L

masque seman- mens-
soman. almen. sual.

men-

as
_clfnicas
_consejos o clfnica de salud
mental

___cuarto de emer-
concia

___pstampillas de
alimento __

___Juntas del gobierno
local

 

{26§i;on ants do 105 siguientes
:revienen su participicion
ectividadcs?

___falta de tiempo

.__;fal ta de interes
___falta do dinero

C.I‘O

motivos que
en tal

 

 

___PTA
___otra actividad
escolar
___yelfare
'___ptro

 

 

 

.J

esia? _sf

'J.

r}

(30zlfe “.tenecen’pds. a una

 

(27);?an partim rode on unas de las si mientes
crjanizaciones de la comunidad durante el ano

___no {Para ”51"-Bs ella
.__pat§1ica
Protestants
tra_
frece la misa7servicio en sepanol?

no

l)"

 

O

'00

 

I
(31) Con la excepcion do 103 mieabros de su
familia cue viven con Uds.,écon quien
pasan mas tiempo?

 

___familia. no
_vecinos
rwants do on trabajo
_miembros de un club/organizacion

___miombros de su iglesia

___ptro

en esta casa

 

 

 

 

 

psszdo? Con que frecuencia?
masque seman- mens— men—
seman. almen. sual. os
Ctro
(28) Crdinariamento usan uno o todos do 103
serricios espafibles siguientes?
radio 4’
___. o otro programs espanol
(Flint) periodico
Otro

 

(32X;Tienen algunos planes fijados para
moverso de lensing/Flint?_ s ___po
Si la respuesta fue positiva,1a don-
do piensan moverse?

 

otro ciudad en el Nidoeste
rancho cercano
Texas

otro estado on Suroeste
Mexico
otro

LY cuando piensan moverse?

 

 

 

 

este ano
e1 ano que entra
dentro do cinco anos

 

 

(cont'd)

 

 

3651

 

(25)é3n cualos de las actividades
siguientes han participado duranto
ol ago pasado?
ACon que frocuencia?
mas que aeman- :ens- men-
seman. almen. ual. oo
___;elfculas.
en espanol
___bailes,eop.
___nctividades
do la iglosia___
___orcanizac iones de
la comunidad ____

 

(% fléSon unos do 103 siguientes motivos que
provienen su participacion on tal
actividades?

_falta do tiompo
:falta de interes
___;alta do dinero
___ptro

 

 

(6)L
(29); En cuales de los servicios para la
co unidad hon participado durante 91 an?
pasado? ACon que frecuencia?

agenda 3 non- n-rs- ren-
gem; a Son. nil. os

_élinicss
:consejos o clinica do salud
mental

___puarto do emer-
gencia

[___estampillas de
alimentc ____

___Juntas del gobierno
local

___PTA .

___ptra aotividad
escolar

__wolfaro

otro

 

 

 

(27 )IEan participado on unas do las siguientes
organizaciones de la comunidad duranto el
gab pasado? Con que frecuencia?

mas que seman- mens- me:-
alnen. ual.

,Lcc

.MSU

O

I
II
II
II
H

l
l
I
|

HI.
Mill
Hill
lllll
lllll

___Dtro

 

“

(30)'[Pertene econ Uds. a una islesia?___sf
“___po (Para "31") Es ella

 

___patolica
___?rotestanto
___ptra °
lpfrece la miss/servicio on esp~.rcl?
3 no

 

(31) Con la excepcion de los mic. bros do
on familia que vivon cor Ud. .écon
quien pasan mas tiempo?

 

 

fanilia,no en esta casa

vecinos

canto do on trabajo

miembros do un club/or-anizacion
miembros de su iglesia

otro

Ill

 

 

 

\ ' . .
(28/é0rdinariamento usan uno o todos de los
aervicios espafibles sicuientes?

radio
0 otro prejrama eapafiol
___fPlint) poriodico
Otro

 

 

 

(32)&Tienen algunos planes fijndos para
moverse do lensing/Flint?_ 31_ _rn
81 la respuesta fuo positifl" .23 don-
de riensan moverse ?

 

otra ciudad en o1 Midoeste

___rancho cercano
_Texas
:otro estado en Suroesto
:hoxico
”otro

ZY cuando piensan moverso ?

 

 

este an
‘V
cl ano que ontra

dontro do cinco afios (cont'dl

 

 

 

 

I362

 

_ A. I
cuando los ninos esten grandee
cuando jubilado
otro

 

 

(7)

 

(33) Si ostén rentando,2tienen un contrato
o pagan por mos? contrato por mos
XCuanto pagan por mes?

 

(34) 31 satin rentando'Tuvicror que pagar
on enganche? __sz ___ro
'éFue menos que
igual
mas que la rcnta de un mes?

 

-x... '
(33,9; ostan comprando,écomo arreglaron sus
pagos?

 

 

pagaron el precio completo
Urostamo del banco
tienen contrato con el duefio(pagan
e1 duenb directamentc)
prestamo do veterano
pre’stamo do FHA
otro

ACuanto pagan por mes?

 

 

 

(36)ég proximadamente cuanto fue_ol ingreso
e an familia durante e1 ano pasado?

 

menos que $2999
33000-4999
35000-6999
37000-9999
310,0CO-14,999
315,000-24.999
mas que 325,000

 

 

"Il'l'illllll'lflllllllT