The Squatter and the Don (Part 2)

I found it very interesting that the characters focus so heavily on the law as being (without a doubt) the point of reference, yet there are times throughout the novel where a different attitude towards the law is exposed.  For example, on page 224, Mr. Darrell is conversing with Gasbang about who has seen a certain record.  Gasbang states that he himself has seen the entry that was made by the notary.  Darrell then replies: “Well the notary lies, that’s all.”  There is more dialogue between the two and some others, and then Darrell states: “Then the Don lied, and I’ll tell him so.”  This exchange made me think about the role that lies/accusing someone of lying play in this novel.  On the same page (224), Mathews asks Darrell: “Are you sure that Mr. Clarence did not buy the land unbeknownst to you?”  Here, (ironically) Darrell becomes super offended by this comment – he is shocked that somebody would think that his own son would put his father in a position like that, yet he himself (Darrell) had just previously made a comment about how he was ready to confront the Don and accuse him of lying.  He previously accused the notary of lying as well.  This then made me think about the role family plays – it seems to me that Darrell thinks that because Clarence is his son, he would never lie to him or put him in an uncomfortable position; however, with the Don and the notary, he actually accuses them of lying without hesitation.

I noted various times Clarence blaming his father for problems with his relationship with Mercedes.  For example: “… because my father has lowered me.  I am not the same Clarence I was two days ago.  You cannot feel proud of me now.” (261).  It’s interesting here that Clarence admits his father has “lowered him” or let him down; however, Mr. Darrell doesn’t believe that his son could ever do something to him that would “lower him”.  It’s also interesting that Clarence himself admits that he is not the same as he was 2 days ago; he clearly then begins to question himself and his worthiness, and even suggests that he is unreasonable and that he should go.  This scene (where him and Mercedes discuss marriage) was super dramatic, but it was Clarence who made it dramatic.  Mercedes seemed to be the voice of reason here, while Clarence acted very insecure and confused.  Here, we see the theme of blame quite clearly: Clarence blames his father for lowering him, which in turn supposedly (according to Clarence) leads to Mercedes no longer being proud of him.  Clarence, very dramatically, continues to blame his father on the next page: “She must naturally hesitate to marry the son of a man who can act and has acted as my father did.  I cannot blame her.  I ought to respect her for it. / Farewell, happiness for me.” (262).  

The Squatter and The Don – A Patriarchal and Racist Society

It was interesting for to see the patriarchy and aspects of racism that were interweaved in The Squatter and The Don. This novel took place in the 19th century – a time where women lived in a patriarchal society. However, as demonstrated by this book, we see how women found a stance of authority within the confounds of a man-driven society.

For instance, we see within the first pages of the novel how Mary Darrel has a grasp on William Darrel when they discuss moving to San Diego. Mary voices to William that she does not want to be squatterand if he chooses to acquire the land without purchasing it, she will not “willingly” go and will only go if he “compels” her. William responds with “compel you! Compel you, when you know I have obeyed you all my life”. This quote demonstrates how Mary has a sizable influence over William and holds an authoritative position within their marriage. I think this is rather interesting, because as modern readers we normally have a predisposed view of women in the 19th century as being submissive and timid. However, Mary demonstrates quite the opposite by showing her fearlessness in voicing her opinion and not letting her husband merrily make decision for her. That said, Mary says that she will not “willingly” gowith her husband, demonstrating that she is aware of the bounds set by a patriarchal society and that she must follow William even if he acquires the land as a squatter.

 Subsequently. William became a squatter on Don Mariano’s land against his wife’s wishes even though he claimed to obey Mary all his life; William is aware that, as a man, he is in a place of power and authority and that he can do as he wishes in this patriarchal society. As such, William believes that as a man in the marriage and as a white citizen in the US, he has the right to squat on another’s land. Thus, he believes that being an Anglo male entitles him to various claims and grants him authority and power over women and Californios.

As such, Ruiz de Burton addresses aspects of hierarchy and racism. She constructs a hierarchy as defined by whether you participate in work or labour, which groups people into upper and lower classes and white and non-white. For instance, Californios (such as the Alamars) are able to claim white status because of their work, while Indians are unable to claim whiteness as they are labour. Throughout the novel, it is clear that Ruiz de Burton wishes the reader to see the Alamars as white due to Don Mariano’s wealth and “kindly spirit”, for example. However, there is still unfair treatment that occurs towards the Californios; Don Mariano is successful and owns his own property, while William is not as successful and resorts to squatting. Yet, William is viewed as more privileged and of a higher class due to the colour of his skin and birthplace. William’s belief of his elite position in society is further reinforced when he exiles Clarence from his home and attempts to horsewhip Don Mariano after he discovered that Clarence had bought the land behind his back. In this case, Clarence had undermined his father’s patriarchal position and William’s reaction further solidifies his patriarchal and elite view of himself.

Unfairness and racism towards the Alamar family is further demonstrated by how Doña Josefa was kicked off her own land and forced to move to San Francisco, even after her daughter had married Clarence. She states “let the guilty rejoice and go unpunished and the innocent suffer ruin and desolation. I slander no one but shall speak the truth.” This is likely a direct feeling of what Ruiz de Burton had felt while she was suffering through this hardships; even though the Alamar family should have been considered an upper class family and treated as such, they suffered numerous injustices and were taken advantage of because of their race. While the squatters walk away with not even a guilty conscious, the Alamars can do nothing about it.

The Squatter and the Don II: Business and Honour

The second part of the Squatter and the Don brings certain misfortunes for the families residing on the San Diego county. The biggest of these misfortunes is the denial to construct the Texas Pacific Railroad. Indeed, this decision meant an important economic loss for the Alamar and the Mechlin families, who were expecting the approval of this construction for guaranteeing their economic future. Much of the thematic and conversations in this part of the book revolve around the construction of the railroad. Business and money are two topics that are continuously touched in this story as well. One of the reasons for which these families talk a lot about money and business is because all of them are considerably wealthy. They seek for the continuation of their business, and in so doing they relate to each other, marry each other and start new business together with the hope of increasing their earnings. However, the construction of the railroad also represents for all these families an incredible amount of inconveniences with the political and legal authorities in charge of such duties. Corruption, bribery, legal injustices, false promises, etc, are the kind of things they have to face in their attempt to get the railroad done. San Diego county is relegated as a place not worthy yet of trading or taking important commercial decisions.

Another important and prevalent theme in this second part of the story is honour. Honour is presented as a pivotal ingredient for the dignity of families and also for each of their individual members. For instance, we can see honour at play when Mr.Darrell get so furious with his son and his wife; once he discover they have paid Don Mariano for the land without his authorization. He got so angry he wanted to hurt Don Mariano; yet, he was unlucky and it was he the one who resulted harmed. All this was such a pain in his pride, that he suffered all this alone, denying himself the option to get love and care from his own wife. Moreover, we can also see how important is honour for Mercedes`mother, who advise her daughter that the most appropriate thing to do will be to postpone her marriage with Clearance, due to the atrocities Mr. Darrell has said about her. The squatters also try to conserve their honour by doing almost the impossible for acquiring the land of Don Mariano as of their own. When they feel threatened, they attack in order to maintain their honour. For example, Mathews usually shoots Don Mariano`s cattle, and he even shot George in a fit of anger.

These are the two topics I see recurrent in the second part of the book. Love, of course, still appears in the story together with all the legal matters; but these were topics I already talked about in the last blog.

Pamela Chavez.

The Squatter and the Don II: Business and Honour

The second part of the Squatter and the Don brings certain misfortunes for the families residing on the San Diego county. The biggest of these misfortunes is the denial to construct the Texas Pacific Railroad. Indeed, this decision meant an important economic loss for the Alamar and the Mechlin families, who were expecting the approval of this construction for guaranteeing their economic future. Much of the thematic and conversations in this part of the book revolve around the construction of the railroad. Business and money are two topics that are continuously touched in this story as well. One of the reasons for which these families talk a lot about money and business is because all of them are considerably wealthy. They seek for the continuation of their business, and in so doing they relate to each other, marry each other and start new business together with the hope of increasing their earnings. However, the construction of the railroad also represents for all these families an incredible amount of inconveniences with the political and legal authorities in charge of such duties. Corruption, bribery, legal injustices, false promises, etc, are the kind of things they have to face in their attempt to get the railroad done. San Diego county is relegated as a place not worthy yet of trading or taking important commercial decisions.

Another important and prevalent theme in this second part of the story is honour. Honour is presented as a pivotal ingredient for the dignity of families and also for each of their individual members. For instance, we can see honour at play when Mr.Darrell get so furious with his son and his wife; once he discover they have paid Don Mariano for the land without his authorization. He got so angry he wanted to hurt Don Mariano; yet, he was unlucky and it was he the one who resulted harmed. All this was such a pain in his pride, that he suffered all this alone, denying himself the option to get love and care from his own wife. Moreover, we can also see how important is honour for Mercedes`mother, who advise her daughter that the most appropriate thing to do will be to postpone her marriage with Clearance, due to the atrocities Mr. Darrell has said about her. The squatters also try to conserve their honour by doing almost the impossible for acquiring the land of Don Mariano as of their own. When they feel threatened, they attack in order to maintain their honour. For example, Mathews usually shoots Don Mariano`s cattle, and he even shot George in a fit of anger.

These are the two topics I see recurrent in the second part of the book. Love, of course, still appears in the story together with all the legal matters; but these were topics I already talked about in the last blog.

Pamela Chavez.

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