Lately, there has been increasing discussion about the "ethnic pride" of minority groups, including the Mexican American. Such discussions, however, are sometimes handicapped because of confusion about what it is that makes a person a member of an ethnic group whether it is his culture, his national origin, his language, his skin coloration, or some combination of these factors.

The confusion is particularly pronounced in discussions about the Mexican American. For example, can one be middle class and still be called a Mexican American? Or can one be an intellectual and still be a Mexican American? The answer to both these questions is, of course, yes but an accurate ethnic definition of a Mexican American has been clouded be

cause of the wide acceptance of

a wide range of stereotypes that project a false image of what it is that constitutes being Mexican American.

Basically, there are three sets of qualities, or attributes-often hard to define associated with being a Mexican American. The first set is not true at all; the second is true, in that it does describe the essence of the Mexican American; and the third is true in a limited sense, insofar as it does describe many Mexican Americans, but has really nothing to do with their being Mexican American.

With rare exception, every time

social scientists have studied "Mexican Americans," they have ended up describing poor Mexican Americans, not Mexican Americans as they exist in toto. These social scientists have chosen to study that segment of the Chicano (an expression probably derived from "Mexicano," currently being used to designate the Mexican American) population that Ralph Guzman refers to as "the quaint," ignoring Mexican Americans who are middle class. The net result of this extraordinary scientific oversight is the perpetuation of very damaging stereotypes of the Mexican American.

The chart that appears on page 25 shows those qualities which have been invalidly attributed to Mexican Americans as part of their ethnicity.

In reality, as the title of the chart indicates, the attributes are actually those of people in poverty but these regularly cut across ethnic lines.

The first item says that, in general, Mexican Americans spend a larger proportion of their socialization time with relatives and with other people living nearby than do individuals from the middle class. And, indeed, a certain proportion of Mexican Americans do possess this attribute. Two, Mexican Americans are said not to generally join voluntary associations,

which include educational, fraternal, church, and political associations. (Fortunately, though, the Mexican American is increasingly learning to join political organizations.)

Three, Mexican Americans are said to prefer the old and the familiar. They are reluctant to engage in new situations or to form new social relationships. They appear to be especially hesitant to initiate social interactions with strangers. Four suggests that they generally demonstrate an anti-intellectual attitude and have little admiration for writers, intellectuals, artists, college professors, and the like. Thus, Mexican Americans are seen as demonstrating a lack of behavioral support for the school activities of their children.

Five, the male of the species is said to demonstrate manliness, "machismo." "Machismo" comes from the word "macho," which simply means "male." The average Mexican American male is supposed to demonstrate a great deal of "machismo" instead of, for instance, intellectualism or interest in the arts. Men who show "machismo" are alleged to brag a great deal about their male conquests, and to regularly refuse to do womanly things such as dishwashing, cooking, diaper-changing, or minding the children.

Six, Mexican Americans are often said to use physical force to settle arguments or to punish disobedient children.

Seven, Mexican Americans have been described as being unable to postpone gratification. Most are said to live on a day-to-day basis and few make plans or provisions for long-range activities.

Lastly, the Mexican American is said to be very fatalistic in his

view of the world, feeling that he has very little control over nature, over institutions, over people, or

over events.

As I stated earlier, while these eight attributes have been used to characterize Mexican Americans, they are really characteristic of people living in poverty, in the lowest socioeconomic level. In this context they do have validity. The danger lies in assigning these attributes as the unique possession of one ethnic group-as has been done with the Mexican American -instead of viewing them in their proper light, as the products of the "Culture of Poverty," a phrase borrowed from Oscar Lewis.

By "Culture" in the phrase "Culture of Poverty," Lewis means, in part, the ready-made set of behavioral solutions for everyday problems that continually emerge: a style of life, a way of thinking, a series of attitudes and beliefs which emerge when an individual is forced to get along in his everyday activities without money. He does this by a unique and different way of using people. "Using" is not meant in a derogatory negative sense, but rather utilizing them. The reason is simple: If you don't have money, you have to have people. They simply do what they can to help each other. To give of themselves to each other, to lend emotional support, to help physically, this is the poor person's "money." Consequently, when poor Mexican Americans, or for that matter poor blacks or poor Puerto Ricans, don't have money, generally they must spend a larger portion of their time with relatives and other people living nearby than do middle class people.

Similarly, the poor generally don't join voluntary associations.

The reason for this is probably wrapped up with the whole business of hopelessness which will be discussed in detail later. Thus poor Mexican Americans feel that joining an association will not do any good, because they have learned to live with hopelessness. In the past few years, however, Mexican Americans, as well as other ethnic groups, have increasingly been joining action groups when they have found that at times it does

pay off.

Because they have had a poor education-thus a narrow and limited exposure to the world and its experiences-many seem to prefer the old and the familiar, rather than striking off in new directions, with new dimensions and new ideas. And, they don't like to form new social relationships, probably for the identical reasons that the more educated person sometimes feels awkward when walking into a completely new situation. Only the poor have many more such instances.

Poor people evidence anti-intellectualism in part because they haven't been well educated. People in poverty settings typically have no more than an eighth grade education, and quite often even less. It would be unusual for a man to be an intellectual without having had a relatively good exposure to "book learning". True, many poor have read a great number of books. But, in the main, the large portion are non-intellectual or anti-intellectual. Consequently, they don't have the feeling that school is really that necessary for success in life. Certainly, a high proportion will not see a college degree as necessary for success.

The males demonstrate manliness, "machismo," perhaps as an

too. This is regularly what happens to a man who comes from a poverty home. He simply has stopped trying because it has not done him—and others he has seen a great deal of good to have tried.

The eight qualities just outlined are then basically the qualities or attributes of people from the culture of poverty, not the culture of Mexico. These same qualities have been used to describe blacks, American Indians, and Puerto Ri

cans.

From a combination of these stereotypes have arisen some totally false attributes of the Mexican American. And these stereotypes do not escape even the Mexican American himself. The following is a statement made by a Mexican American writer:

The Mexicano, or mestizo, a racial amalgamation of resigned stolid Indians and lighthearted Spaniards, has based his romanticism on the reality of the present and its relation to the past. The future is attacked with a fatalism, an indefinite term, mañana, which expresses a remoteness missing from 'tomorrow.' He lives an improvised, spontaneous existence. He never puts off for tomorrow what can be enjoyed only today. He is not lazy, but he works only enough to support his meager needs.

What then are the real qualities of being a Mexican American? Or, to put it another way, what constitutes the second set of attributes noted at the beginning of this article, those that accurately describe the essence of being Mexican American?

One, they have come or their parents or grandparents have come from Mexico (or from Spain in

the case of the Hispano of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado) and brought with them many customs and many traditions. Secondly, they speak Spanish and many have a noticeable accent. These two qualities alone, I feel, comprise the major portion of the essence of being Chicano or Mexican American.

On another level, but also within the valid set of attributes, we know that the vast majority of Mexican Americans is Catholic. Of course, as is true of any group, insofar as it practices a given religion, much of its behavior is influenced by that religion. So, much of the behavior of the Mexican American is allied with his Catholicism. A simple example of this might be the 'Dia de Santo," the Saint's Day, where a small feast is planned to honor the Saint on whose day the youngster was born. It is very much like a birthday feast.

Lastly, in the group of five attributes, many Mexican Americans have darker skin and hair, and thus they are easily distinguishable. Many have what sociologists call "high visibility."

Here are in review-in my mind anyway the true qualities or attributes of most Mexican Americans: They have come from Mexico, or perhaps from Spain via Mexico; they speak Spanish, many with an accent; they are Catholic; and, many have dark skin and hair. These are the things that a "true Chicano," a "real Mexican" must possess. These attributes are the things that make him Mexican.

Viewing three of these from a different perspective, however, we can see that you don't have to be a Catholic to be a Chicano; even less so, have darker skin, because dark skin is not a criterion for

being Mexican, although many Mexicans have it. More essence

comes from the first two characteristics: that their ancestors camewith their many customs and traditions from Mexico and Spain and that they spoke Spanish.

Is it not the customs and language that make most people a particular people? If you are of Greek descent and you share Greek customs and speak Greek, then you can be said to be a Greek American. If you are Chinese, and you share Chinese customs and speak Chinese, then you are a Chinese American. Likewise, should a Mexican American identify himself as being Mexican American, the essential qualities that he must have are the language and customs that he has brought, or his forefathers have brought, from Mexico: that is his heritage. Some of the more tangible items from this heritage are reflected in such things as the Mexican music that Mexican Americans love so dearly, and obviously, Mexican food.

The third and final set of attributes are those that are true for the majority of Mexican Americans, but only in a limited sense. The first of these is that perhaps 80 percent of their five to six million live in the five Southwestern States of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and California. The second is that the average Mexican American (over age 25) can be described as having an educational level of less than 8 years. Now mind you, that says average, which really means that roughly 50 percent have even less than an eighth grade education, an appalling situation. The third is that between 30 and 40 percent of the families earn less than about $3,