Author Archives: Syndicated User

The Squatter and the Don Part 1:

In The Squatter and the Don, María Amparo Ruiz de Burton uses the storyline to educate the readers on life after and the effects of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for Mexicans. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which marked the end of the Mexican-American War meant that many Mexicans would go through an identity and cultural change. Those who decided to stay and live on their lands in the new territories of the United States suffered many changes, ill-treatment and discrimination. These territories which were once their homeland and representation of their identity started going through changes, therefore, they had to become accustomed to the customs, ways of thinking, laws and people of their new country.

Through this time of change Mexicans were forced to fight and prove the right for their lands, protect their identity and become accustomed to a place where their power and importance was not respected. Once Mexico signed the treaty with the United States, the Mexicans who stayed on these lands had no protection whatsoever from their own nation and were forced into a circumstance of displacement and uncertainty. It is interesting how Ruiz de Barton uses a classical story of romance in order to explain and mask historical content within it. She creates a story involving distinct characters to make the reader understand the consequences and life after the signing of the treaty in a more personal perspective.

It is interesting how the land and space create somewhat of a relationship between the Don and the squatter and also play a role in demonstrating the ill treatment Mexicans received after the transfer of lands from Mexico to the United States. Throughout the first twenty chapters it is evident how the laws that referred to land ownership did not take into consideration the Mexicans that owned their lands from before the treaty. The law enabled it to make it easier for the squatters to take over a property without taking into consideration its rightful owner. The laws worked to benefit the Anglos and in lessening the power and land control of the Mexicans. The Anglos have no respect for the original inhabitants and even go as far as criticizing Don Mariano and implying that these inhabitants do not know how to do business well and take good care of their lands. These divisive laws create a clear division between the two nationalities and their position in society and the law. I look forward in continuing this novel and examining how two coasts and two distinct nationalities start to coexist and form relationships together.

-Stephanie

The Squatter and the Don I

The title page of María Amparo Ruiz de Burton’s first novel, Who Would Have Thought It? (1872), omits mention of any author, though Rosaura Sánchez and Beatriz Pita tell us that in the Library of Congress it is listed under Ruiz de Burton’s married name, “H. S. Burton” or “Mrs Henry S. Burton.” No doubt there are good reasons why the first Mexican-American novelist to publish in English–a woman, what is more–should wish to be coy about her identity, not least (Sánchez and Pita point out) because “the novel is a bitingly satirical novel, a caustic parody of the United States during the period of the Civil War” (12). It may have seemed wise to hide behind the protection of anonymity, or at least to stress the author’s association with her husband Burton, an officer in the US Army who had led a detachment of volunteers during the Mexican-American War, and later served as commander of the military garrison at San Diego, just north of the new border drawn between the USA and Mexico in the war’s aftermath.

ruiz-de-burton_squatterThirteen years later, for her second novel, The Squatter and the Don, Ruiz de Burton employs a pseudonym that both occludes and hints at her identity: the book was published, in San Francisco, under the name “C Loyal.” As Sánchez and Pita explain, “The ‘C.’ stood for Ciudadano or ‘Citizen,’ and ‘Loyal’ for Leal, i.e. Ciudadano Leal, a ‘Loyal Citizen,” a common letter-closing practice used in official government correspondence in Mexico during the nineteenth century” (13). So here, while the author’s gender is hidden (or left ambiguous), the fact that the initial “C” stands in for a Spanish word, and that the phrase as a whole alludes to a Mexican practice, suggests–at least to the reader already somewhat in the know–that the author may not be so straightforwardedly an American citizen. Indeed, for all the protestations of loyalty, the hybrid formulation, half-English and half-Spanish, is perhaps better read as a double betrayal, or at least as indicating a position that straddles the line that newly demarcated the divide between Mexico and the swathes of territory (including all of what is now California) that, under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it ceded to the United States.

The Squatter and the Don is all about the consequences of that treaty, and the ways in which (in Ruiz de Burton’s view) the USA subsequently reneged on the guarantees it gave to the former Mexican citizens who stayed put while the border crossed them. Specifically, the novel is concerned with the property rights of the Californio landowners, represented here by the “Don” of the title, one Don Mariano Alamar, who has a large ranch outside of San Diego. The problem is (as Ruiz de Burton details at length) that post-war legislation determined that all existent property claims in California should be subject to lengthy legal investigation. While this investigation (and any appeals that it might generate) is under way, other potential claimants are permitted to establish themselves on the land, marking out their own territory, building a house and ploughing fields etc. These squatters (who may well see themselves as legitimate “settlers,” simply carrying out the US state’s expansionist drive) wreak havoc on the economy of the ranches they take over, legally corralling or illegally but with impunity killing any of the ranchers’ cattle that are drawn to their growing crops. As the legal limbo drags on, even if they ultimately are able to prove their rights, the original landowners gradually lose the basis of their livelihood while they hemorrhage funds on taxes and legal fees. This is the fate facing Don Mariano, who when the novel opens has still, almost quarter of a century after the signing of the treaty that supposedly guaranteed his rights, not finally established definitive legal proof of the status of the property on which his family has been living since long before the border moved south.

By the novel’s midpoint, Don Mariano’s legal suit is finally (it seems) at an end. But there is no guarantee that the gang of squatters who have taken residence on his land will be in any mood to respect the judgment. Meanwhile, a new figure has entered the scene and increasingly taken center-stage: one of the squatters’ sons, a Mr Clarence Darrell, has fallen for and become engaged to one of Mariano’s daughters, Mercedes. Moreover, unlike his father (and the other squatters), Darrell not only is prepared to socialize and even inter-marry with the Californios, he also indicates that in any case there are other ways to make money than either ranching or small-holding. He has invested in mining, and now is minded to found a bank in San Diego, to take advantage of the economic activity that will arise when the railroad arrives and an East-West axis replaces North-South tensions. He suggests, in short, that the semi-feudal ways of a Don such as Mariano are inevitably doomed, not simply because of unjust laws or avaricious carpet-baggers, but because of the industrial modernization that is always the ace in the United States’s hand. In the meantime, or for the time being, Ruiz de Burton’s novelistic sympathies are interestingly balanced between the virtues of “Spano-American” tradition and manners, and the generative possibilities of honest entrepreneurship incarnated in Clarence, a fantasy of the American Dream if ever there was one.

Week 2 – The Squatter and the Don 1

The Squatter and the Don, written by María 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).  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.

The Squatter and the Don: Citizenry and Citizenship


I really enjoyed reading this first half of the novel. Several themes and concepts resonated with me and I am still processing them as I read the novel. In this post I want to talk about the characters of Clarence and Don Mariano, and how they embody a notion of “loyal citizenship”.
I believe that Ruiz de Burton is a “Ciudadano Loyal” in the critique she makes against the law, underlined in the lives and experiences of the characters. Those that embody this idea of ideal citizenship are Don Mariano and Clarence. As the story unfolds these characters grow close to each other over agreeing on concepts of justice and good morals. Despite what the law was attempting to enforce, they persevere with their conscience that guides them to make good decisions out of care for their neighbour, county, and country. It is interesting for they are both members that belong to “opposing groups” to a fragmented community, one from the so called “Spaniards” and another from the “squatter” (or settlers as Clarence prefers). There is this conflict of identity between being confined in these stereotypical groups and each of them face pressure from their respective groups to conform. This also causes a rupture in the citizenry of San Diego. Are they truly citizens, if groups live under different "laws"/rules? If they interpret the law differently? If they are not united under the same rule of law? 
The moment that firstly and truly revealed Clarence’s loyal citizenship was in chapter 6 for Clarence states “(...) my faith in our law-givers is not so blind, my belief is that Congress had no more right to pass any law which could give an excuse to trespass upon your property, than to pass a law inviting people to your table. I feel a sort of impatience to think that in our country could exist a law which is so outrageously unjust.” (p.134) And he goes on to say that he is different from his father. There he distinguishes him from those that didn’t embrace change under the “American” identity. Clarence believes that it is out of blind patriotism that his father follows the law and praises Congress. Whereas he saw it as the duty of the American citizen to criticize and uphold the law. To have a say in how it was practiced, to have agency in the law. Those are, what he considers, the true aspirations of an American citizen,
In practice what has occurred in the county of San Diego is that the law is being used to appropriate property from the native “Spaniards”. And that the rule of law has taken over the agency of the citizen, it is what controls the citizen, without protest. For “It would be wiser to make laws that suit the county, and not expect that the county will change its character to suit absurd laws” (Ch.5) I would argue that it is the system and rule of law that plays the role of tyrant antagonist and Clarence and Don Mariano, the ideal citizens, the heroes. However this is merely hypothetical, I think this will only be clear by the end of the novel.
Another point I find intriguing is whether citizenry and feminism overlap in this novel. Whether they are mutually exclusive? Women are belittled, they are placed on the sidelines by squatters and the “spano-americans”. According to the idea of a citizen in this novel can a woman be classified as such? And according to the terms set by Clarence, can the squatters be considered citizens as well? Who is really upholding the law? Do the characters experience citizenry?


The Squatter and the Don: Citizenry and Citizenship


I really enjoyed reading this first half of the novel. Several themes and concepts resonated with me and I am still processing them as I read the novel. In this post I want to talk about the characters of Clarence and Don Mariano, and how they embody a notion of “loyal citizenship”.
I believe that Ruiz de Burton is a “Ciudadano Loyal” in the critique she makes against the law, underlined in the lives and experiences of the characters. Those that embody this idea of ideal citizenship are Don Mariano and Clarence. As the story unfolds these characters grow close to each other over agreeing on concepts of justice and good morals. Despite what the law was attempting to enforce, they persevere with their conscience that guides them to make good decisions out of care for their neighbour, county, and country. It is interesting for they are both members that belong to “opposing groups” to a fragmented community, one from the so called “Spaniards” and another from the “squatter” (or settlers as Clarence prefers). There is this conflict of identity between being confined in these stereotypical groups and each of them face pressure from their respective groups to conform. This also causes a rupture in the citizenry of San Diego. Are they truly citizens, if groups live under different "laws"/rules? If they interpret the law differently? If they are not united under the same rule of law? 
The moment that firstly and truly revealed Clarence’s loyal citizenship was in chapter 6 for Clarence states “(...) my faith in our law-givers is not so blind, my belief is that Congress had no more right to pass any law which could give an excuse to trespass upon your property, than to pass a law inviting people to your table. I feel a sort of impatience to think that in our country could exist a law which is so outrageously unjust.” (p.134) And he goes on to say that he is different from his father. There he distinguishes him from those that didn’t embrace change under the “American” identity. Clarence believes that it is out of blind patriotism that his father follows the law and praises Congress. Whereas he saw it as the duty of the American citizen to criticize and uphold the law. To have a say in how it was practiced, to have agency in the law. Those are, what he considers, the true aspirations of an American citizen,
In practice what has occurred in the county of San Diego is that the law is being used to appropriate property from the native “Spaniards”. And that the rule of law has taken over the agency of the citizen, it is what controls the citizen, without protest. For “It would be wiser to make laws that suit the county, and not expect that the county will change its character to suit absurd laws” (Ch.5) I would argue that it is the system and rule of law that plays the role of tyrant antagonist and Clarence and Don Mariano, the ideal citizens, the heroes. However this is merely hypothetical, I think this will only be clear by the end of the novel.
Another point I find intriguing is whether citizenry and feminism overlap in this novel. Whether they are mutually exclusive? Women are belittled, they are placed on the sidelines by squatters and the “spano-americans”. According to the idea of a citizen in this novel can a woman be classified as such? And according to the terms set by Clarence, can the squatters be considered citizens as well? Who is really upholding the law? Do the characters experience citizenry?


The Squatter and The Don (Part I)

María Amparo Ruiz de Burton addresses many issues in The Squatter and the Don, ranging from class, gender, race, national identity and land ownership. The novel is written around the time that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, which forced proof of land ownership and was a time during which Mexicans experienced an extreme loss of identity, power, and land to the American government and the so-called “squatters”. In this sense, the treaty displaced the Mexicanos rather than act as a law of protection. As such, The Squatter and the Don explores the unjust ways in which Mexicanos were forced to protect their own land, and therefore a central theme is displacement. Interestingly, Ruiz de Burton minimally addresses the Indians and their roles in society at this time, beyond the fact that they are servants on the ranches (why is that?). The author does, however, allude to the displacement of squatters (specifically the Darrel family), but primarily focuses is on the displacement and disempowerment of the Mexicanos (specifically the Alamar family).

A main argument of Ruiz de Burton seems to be that the US Government is the main player in the dispossession of the Mexicanos throughout the southwest of the US. The power was stripped from the Mexicanos and translocated to Anglos, which was due, in part, in their ability to own property. Ironically, the courts were created in order for the Mexicanos to uphold their claims, when in reality, they worked against the Mexicanos. For instance, Ruiz de Burton references the Land Act of 1951, in which the “No. 189. An Act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California. And by a sad subversion of purposes, all the private land titles became unsettled. It ought to have been said an Act to unsettle land titles, and to upset the rights of the Spanish population of the State of California”.  As we see here, there is extreme critique against the US government and how they failed to protect the Mexicano population.

Such laws, however, were beneficial to Anglos as demonstrated in Mr. Darrel’s comments on how simple it was to squat in another’s land; “the stakes having been placed, Darrel felt satisfied. Next day he would have the claim properly filed, and in due time a surveyor would measure them. All would be done ‘according to law’ and in this easy way the land was taken form its legitimate owner”. This quote is interesting, as it emphasizes the perspective of Anglos and the benefits such laws have towards them, whilst highlighting a passive aggressive and hurt undertone of the author – a Mexicana – by putting “according to law” in quotations and blatantly stating how land was taken from the rightful owner.

The author also draws an interesting connection between the Anglos and Mexicanos , specifically through Clarence, who seems to be one of the only squatters with a conscious and sympathy for what the Mexicanos are going through. This is clearly seen through his critique of the “no fence law” where he comments “this no fence law the most scandalous, bare-face outrage upon the rights of citizens that I even heard of… “it is like setting irresponsible trespassers loose upon a peaceable people and then rewarding their outrage….It is shameful to the American name. I am utterly disgusted with the whole business, and the only thing that will make matters a little tolerable to me will be for you to do me the favor of permitting me to pay for the land we have located.”

Thus, Ruiz de Burton cleverly demonstrates many perspectives of the individuals who experienced this time in history – those who were displaced and lost their identities (e.g. Mexicanos), those who “wrongfully” claimed lands and another identity (e.g. Anglos), and those who are one identity but have the mentality of another (e.g. Clarence). It will be interesting to see how this all plays out!

-Madeson

The Squatter and The Don Chapter I-XX

In reading the first twenty chapters of The Squatter and the Don, I was confronted with two reoccurring themes. One was of an “us vs them” ideology, even within specific ethnic groups which escalated as the book progressed, and the second was the idea of love and friendship in spite of being of seemingly distinct backgrounds.

The divisive and often destructive mindset of “us vs them” begins early in the book, as Mr. and Mrs. Darrell are arguing over the morality of squatter laws, which we will see is a tremendously important issue. This continues as the squatters, while discussing their “lawful appropriation” of Don Mariano’s land, speak poorly about him, saying he has been lazily handling his land title, and that “Spaniards will never be businessmen”. These beliefs are said to normalize and endorse squatter laws, which in fact, are argued to be discriminatory themselves. The squatters, directed by vague and misleading law, believe land to be unsettled until proved good, which sponsors the appropriation of rich land in California predominantly held by families of Mexican decent. I found it interesting that in spite of the hardships faced by the Don because of haphazard laws, women do not have suffrage (as found in Chapter XIII). It’s upsetting that, even though The Squatter and the Don is a call to action for fixing biased laws, it glosses over that half of the population has quite literally no voice in legal society.

Despite the constant reaffirmation of in-group/out-group thinking, themes of both friendship and romance shine through the cracks of San Diego’s discriminatory beliefs and practices. In the first couple of chapters, we learn that the Don does not view squatters in an unsavoury way, but understands that they are simply “victims of a wrong legislation”. Furthermore, the generous Don offers to donate cattle to each squatter family in exchange for them to build fences around their property. The Don is amiable to all people, regardless of previous behaviour, and soon befriends Clarence, the son of Mr. Darrell. This proves that even though the inequalities of class and ethnicity yearn to divide, the power of companionship speaks louder than societal difference. Further supporting this is the romance of Clarence and Mercedes, whose profound love for one another sees Clarence abandon his home of San Diego (all be it for a short time) to be with his “Mercita”. These interactions, as insignificant as they may seem, demolish societal restrictions imposed on the divided people of 19th century America. It’s in Ruiz de Burton’s novel that we see these small relationships have cascading effects on simpatía y compasión irregardless of ethnic or political difference.

-Curtis, SPAN 322

The Squatter and the Don: Between love and the law

The Squatter and the Don reflects two main dynamics that are developed according to the thread of the story. These dynamics are: love and the law.

The story begins by talking about the Darrell family, and how Mr. and Mrs. Darrell fell in love and later on get married. However, immediately after introducing the love story, political matters, specifically those related to the legal system, come to the story as well. The story then begins to refers us in a more historic way to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and how this phenomenon represented a concern for the negotiations and economy of the Darrell family. As the story continues, we find more characters such as the Alamar family. The book portrays them as a  family full of color and live, and optimistic; despite the fact they have lost many of their cattle as a consequence of the economic, political and  legal constraints of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Later on, we see how the characters become more and more interrelated between each other, and specifically we come to center our attention to the romance between Clearance (son of the Darrell family) and Mercedes (daughter of the Alamar family). It is as if the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has come to join this two families for a reason. Or, we can see it as a way in which these characters use the legal and political issues around them to forge their own love stories. Or is it that love comes out of nothing but destiny?

The book certainly plays a lot with these two dynamics around the story. We see how romance  is usually intertwined with the law issues that both families have to handle due to the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty.  We also see how these legal issues become problematic for the lives of both families, interfering in their economy and in their love life. These complex legal problems even come to impose a label on each family, accordingly to how each one relates to the Treaty. In other words, one is the Squatter and other is the Don.

This complex ambivalence and shifts between the dynamics of love and the law, even makes  look this story as in the border between fantasy and reality; being fantasy more in accordance with the love dynamic, and reality more related with the law one.

Pamela Chavez (19417161)

Week 2—The Squatter and The Don (part i)

So many things fill my cabeza upon reflection of this novel. The first thing I’ll mention is Amparo Ruiz de Burton (ARB)’s use of the word ‘unmolested’ on page 27 (in the edition I’m reading) or in Chapter III…when she mentions Darrell avoiding the travellers; that he is “think[ing] of home unmolested”. When I first read this, I chuckled thinking about when my husband and I arrived in Cuba the first time and he saw the ‘do not disturb’ sign on the hotel room door, finding it quite amusing to see the word ‘molestar’. Thinking back to what Jon mentioned in our first class, that there are examples in the writings that we’ll be looking at of Spanishisms brought to English and vice versa. Of course, ARB didn’t mean the English sense of ‘molest’ as we know it today; rather, the more antiquated definition to “pester or harass (someone) in an aggressive or persistent manner” https://www.lexico.com/definition/molest . If I didn’t have an awareness of Spanish, this would have been rather shocking appearance in the text, wondering where Darrell was that molestation (in the current sense) would be an issue.

My main thoughts are on the notion of liminality. I could go on for pages about this, but I will try to keep this as succinct as possible. ARB was a native Spanish speaker, writing in English. Yet there are some idiomatic expressions and syntactical structures used that demonstrate her Spanish knowledge as she applies her thoughts in an English context. Regardless of which language structures or thoughts originate, they culminate in this narrative as something we, the reader, can relate to—regardless of our experience with either language. That’s pretty amazing to be able to do that.

Liminality also comes into play about the ancestry/ nationalism of the setting of the novel. Don Mariano’s family has been on their land for some amount of time prior to the beginning of the story—when the land was part of Mexico. Then the Mexican–American War happened and suddenly the limits/ borders of each country changed. Even though Don Mariano’s property didn’t move, the national boundary did…so too did the governance, language, cultural and social norms, each of which have their own figurative limits. The landowners and residents had no say in this, yet it was their limits that were changing, at the will of someone else. And as we see, outsiders are now entering this space, without limit/ border/ boundary, and taking it as their own, because they can.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I am most curious to see how liminality exists in our readings…limits re: identity, culture, beliefs, space. It seems to be a prevalent notion in Latin American literature.

 

 

Introduction

Hello! My name is Rachel Cervantes and I’m in my last semester of my undergraduate studies. I am majoring in Spanish. For the first few years of my undergrad, I was in the Engineering/Math department but then realized my love for languages. I have served as an intern in different countries like the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Burkina Faso (West Africa), and France. It is during this time that I realized that I like languages and I then started learning Spanish and French. I realized that language opens doors to communicate with people and it is a life skill that I can use wherever life takes me. I am hoping to get a deeper understanding of the people represented in the studies of US Latino/ Chicano Literature.