Week 2 – The Squatter and the Don 1

The Squatter and the Don, written by MarΓ­a Amparo Ruiz de Burton (1832- 1895), under pen-name C Loyal, is a book about the construction of the American identity. If it describes several elements of this nation-building process, such as the entrepreneurial spirit, I strongly believe that the Law is the main element of this identity. Indeed, this book, through its characters and the description of the conflicts between the Californian Spaniards owner(s) and the White American settlers, shows the importance of the Law in the transformation of individuals into citizens, the complexity and the contradiction of the law which is at the root of an unequal society, and the need to change the Law so that the American democracy could meet its promises.

The law is the main debate in the book because it raises a contradiction. Indeed, the Law allows to convert people into citizens and to build a peaceful Nation but at the same time it is an instrument of oppression.

The Law transforms the individual into citizen for three reasons. First, throughout the first half of the book the conflicts between the landlord(s) and the settlers are solved through legal procedures and not through interpersonal violence. Even when the law seems unfaire, by depriving Don Mariano of his property, the victim tries to resolve the conflict through legal claims, the use of lawyers and private agreements. It thus appears that the Law is the main instrument to move from a pre-modern or Hobbesian society to a modern society where the Law is the symbol of the Social Contract (Lock, Rousseau).Β  Secondly, the Law defines people as citizens because they have the duty to respect, apply and interpret the laws of Congress. It is worth mentioning that Mr. Darrel (Sr.) considers as an element of patriotism the need to strictly apply the laws of Congress. It shows that the law must define rights and duties that are the same for all citizens and that citizens must respect the rights and duties of other people. Third, the Law is the main product of the democratic system. Indeed, the characters of Clarence and Don Mariano repeatedly explain the role of the citizen in monitoring legislators and influencing the law. Therefore, according to the book, the citizen has a role to play in the elaboration of the Law that must be promulgated in the sole interest of this citizen.

Nonetheless, the book depicted the complexity of the Law as opposed to the moral. Indeed, it describes the oppressive history of Mexican-American life after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which ended the war between Mexico and The U.S. The biased interpretation of this treaty whose spirit was not respected and applied in good faith by the U.S. Congress led to unfair laws described in the book. Through a detailed description of these laws that targeted the conquered people and challenged their property rights, Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton criticizes the lack of morality of the Law. It seems that she advocates the necesity for a democracy to realize its moral ethos, i.e. the need to create the same rights and duties for all citizens. The solution of the book is not the civil disobedience as advocated by Thoreau in Resistance to Civil Government (1849) but the social reforms. The book affirms the necessity to modify the Law in order to end this injustice and to recognize the oppressive history of post-treaty Mexican American life.

3 thoughts on “Week 2 – The Squatter and the Don 1

  1. Jon

    These are all good points: it’s true that the law makes citizens. But the law also makes criminals (or outlaws), doesn’t it? Isn’t part of the problem here the tension between the law and its continual suspension, which leaves both the squatters and the Don in a kind of limbo: they are not (yet) fully integrated, but nor are they fully outside. And perhaps that’s a suitable figure for the Chicano population as a whole, with the added twist that it is also somehow the fate of the squatters, too.

    Or perhaps another way to put it would be to say that the “Spano-Americans” are citizens but somehow, without effective representation, they are not in effect fully citizens, or cannot yet enjoy all the benefits of citizenship. And yet at they cannot turn to Mexico. This is why they are compared to “orphans”: individuals without any one place to belong.

    Reply
  2. craig campbell

    Hey Aurelien,

    I find your point of view interesting, even if I disagree with it πŸ˜‰

    More specifically, I’m intrigued by the notion of Don Mariano as a landlord. I guess he becomes a sort of landlord in the novel, but not by choice. He woke up one day to find that there were some people living in his yard (granted, it was a huge yard). I think to quell any potential conflict he receives payment for these people who showed up one day.

    I also find your point about citizenship interesting. I am heavily interested in genealogy and came across my family’s US Naturalization papers from when they arrived in the US from Prussia in 1854. It is a very strange document in which my gggrandfather swears no allegiance to the crown of his home country. This whole naturalisation process was (perhaps still is?) required to become an American citizen. Back to the novel, it makes me wonder what the chicano folks were required to do to become American citizens. They didn’t chose to come to the USA; the USA basically came to them.

    Anyways, your blog post gave me much to think about, if even on the surface I disagreed…but this is how we learn different things in the world πŸ™‚

    Have a good day,
    Craig

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *