One concept that is central to the three books we studied is the concept of law. I would like to talk about a concept that is omnipresent in Marxist literature (for example in Gramsci’s philosophy), namely law as an element representing the social hierarchies. More than this previous aspect, according to the Marxist current, law is the instrument of the dominant social class and can only represent and pursue the interest of this dominant class.

In the books The Squatter and the Don, the author precisely describes a series of laws that cause the social downfall of Mexican families such as the Alamar families. Indeed, the law is profoundly illiberal in the sense that it favours squatters, who are Anglo-American, against the inhabitants of the southwestern territories, who are mainly of Mexican origin. The laws represent social hierarchy in that they are an expression of the political and numerical domination of Anglo-Americans over Mexican-Americans. More interestingly, the law is the instrument of a perpetuation of political inequalities that are rooted in historical events, principally Mexico’s defeat in the American-Mexican War and the subsequent Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The law, by questioning the validity of the propriety titles of that population and allowing de facto and de jure settlers to take the occupied lands according to the concept of Terra Nullius, is a crucial variable that explain the social downfall of the Mexican Families. More importantly, these laws are the first step in creating a pattern of economic inequality. Therefore, the laws perpetuate this domination by giving Anglo-Americans the instrument that allows them to consolidate their position in the expanse of Mexican America. Political inequalities are transformed into social inequalities which then perpetuate themselves.

In the Ballad of Gregorio Cortez, the Law is not criticized per se, but the unjust application of the Law represents an extension of the deeply illiberal character of the Law. In fact, the law, although expressed in general and non-discriminatory terms, does not appear to be applied in the same way to Anglo-Americans and Mexican Americans. For the former, the presumption of innocence seems to be respected, while for the latter, a presumption of guilt seems to be applied. Moreover, throughout the legal process, we can see how the application of the law is ambiguous and depends on the bias of the juries and the court. Moreover, not all the actors are not subjected to the Law. In fact, paradoxically, the executor of these laws, the Rangers, carries out extrajudicial killings against peaceful citizens for the sole reason that they are Mexican. This shows that the law empowers one class of citizens against another, perpetuating a pattern of discrimination. Social inequalities are thus the mere consequences of political and legal inequalities.

Last but not least, in Down These Means Street, the treatment of the law is subtle. In fact, it is not the application of the law against Piri that is criticized because he is a criminal who is punished fairly for these offences. Rather, the book narrates the social consequences of these legal discrimination. In fact, one point of critics is the tolerance of discriminatory and racially motivated actions and behaviour. Indeed, for example, when Piri is denied a job simply because he is black, this situation is quite unbearable. The application of the law in this context is flawed, as there is no mechanism to prevent this type of discrimination, which is at the root of the perpetuation of socio-economic inequalities.

Aurélien