Recognizing Structural Racism
Structural Racism Against Latinos is Part of American History
Americans, partisans are split on recognizing its effects
Americans have recently awaken to the idea that the economic, legal, and health inequalities between White and non-White Americans are due to structural racism. Structural racism is a term coined by critical race scholars decades ago to label the various systems, institutions, and policies that interact to create and reinforce racial inequality. Yet, many Americans still do not understand this phenomenon and many others remained unconvinced that structural racism is real.
American history, however, is rich with examples of structural racism and its impact on minority communities. The institutions of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the current criminal justice system are examples that are probably most familiar to Americans. These are the cases that most people use when discussing structural racism in the U.S. Less familiar are examples of institutions and policies that negatively impact Latino communities within the United States although history is rife with these examples as well.
In our book Ignored Racism: White Animus toward Latinos, Professor David A.M. Peterson and I document numerous instances of institutions and policies that contributed to various forms of inequality among U.S. citizens of Latino ancestry. Starting with the caste systems during the early colonization of the Americas to “Mexican Schools” in the 1950s to modern day immigration policies, Latinos have been subjected to a broad set of discriminatory institutions that has shaped their social, economic, and political behavior. It has also impacted how White Americans perceive Latinos as a group.
One clear example of structural racism is the California Land Act of 1851.
The California Land Act allowed the President of the United States to appoint a three-member Public Land Commission to decide the property rights of land historically owned by U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. This legal institution created a new standard of proving property right claims that only applied to U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry.
Prior to the California Land Act, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Plume v. Seward concluded that when no legal title exists, those who could establish prior possession of land had a stronger claim than those currently occupying the land. The Plume v. Seward decision makes sense in the context of the Gold Rush where squatters were frequently occupying undeveloped land and then attempting to claim ownership rights when discoveries were made.
The California Land Act made it more difficult, and costly, for U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry to maintain their land holdings than if they were disputed under the California Court system and the Plume v. Seward ruling. The Public Land Commission placed the burden of proof on the landowners rather than the squatters or speculators trying to claim the land for themselves. Latinos were not allowed to contest land claims in the California court system like other citizens. Instead, they had to adjudicate property right claims in front of the Public Land Commission where the burden of proof was much higher for those with initial ownership than if the case was heard in the court system.
Discriminatory institutions like these illustrate the concept of structural racism and help explain many of the racial inequalities that we observe today. The loss of land disrupted the primary economic means of these U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry who mostly worked as farmers and rancheros. Many more Latinos faced debt and poverty due to decades long legal battles with the Public Land Commission. Yet, many Americans still deny that structural racism plays a role in the modern day lives of Latinos.
How many Americans contribute the difficulties faced by Latinos today to structural racism?
In order to get a better sense of this question, we conducted several national surveys of adult Americans between 2014 and 2018. Specifically, we asked if anti-Latino sentiment and racism have created conditions that make it difficult for Latinos and Hispanics to succeed in America.
In 2014, a mere 28% of Americans felt racism created conditions that hindered the success of Latinos. There is evidence of partisan polarization in recognizing the extent that racism contributes to the ability of Latinos to succeed with 43% of Democrats agreeing with the statement, while only 13% of Republicans agree with the statement. Yet, even a majority of Democrats did not feel that racial conditions limited the ability of Latinos to be successful.
In 2016, we observed a significant increase in the recognition of structural racism with 45% of Americans recognizing that racist conditions might make it hard for Latinos to succeed. Again, we see polarization between Democrats and Republicans.
It is noteworthy, however, that this increase in recognizing the effects of structural racism is not simply among Democrats. Almost twice as many Republicans in 2016 agreed with the statement than in 2014.
We found a similar number of Americans were able to recognize the effects of structural racism in 2018 as in 2016. Again, 45% of Americans agreed with the statement and agreement was greater among Democrats than Republicans.
In addition, 34% of Republicans recognized that the success of Latinos today might be limited by racism — a substantial jump from 2014. We suspect that the increased targeting of Latino immigrants, perhaps stories of family separation and images of Latino children in cages, made it more difficult for some Republicans to deny that discriminatory institutions and processes are hindering the ability of Latinos to achieve their American Dream.
The newfound attention to the idea of structural racism and its ability to hinder the economic, social, and political mobility of racial minorities will hopefully lead to greater recognition of structural racism as a problem for all minority groups. The inability to recognize the systematic sources of racism, both in the past and today, likely explains much of the failure of the United States to progress on issues relating to racial equality. And the failure to make progress on racial equality unequivocally means the nation does not make progress on addressing issues like poverty, drug addiction, education, and the environment.
