restricted access Notes
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes introduction 1. Although other such primary figures would include Julian Samora (sociology), Ernesto Galarza (public policy), George I. Sánchez (education), and the New Mexican /Coloradoan folklorists, Aurelio M. Espinosa, Juan B. Rael, and Arthur J. Campa. 2. María Herrera-Sobek (2000) offers a very useful article-length review of most of Paredes’s work, although she necessarily could not devote extended attention to its individual aspects. 3. Appearing as it did in 1994, Bruce-Novoa’s criticism could not have taken account of my own 1994 (76–94) critical commentary on Paredes. 4. See, for example, Alonzo 1998; DeLeon 1983, 1997; Montejano 1987; Tijerina 1994; and Zamora 1995, 2009. 5. Paredes also wrote a series of short stories with a south Texas setting during his earlier, prewar period in Brownsville. I treat these in a chapter of a book in progress, Neither Friends, Nor Strangers: Mexicans and Anglos in the Literary Making of Texas. 6. We must, however, also take account of a relatively new, recent resurgence of immigration from Mexico into the United States, substantially and largely since the 1970s, mostly in undocumented status and in unskilled occupations, producing two distinct groupings in the United States. As one later-generation Texas Mexican American , or Tejano, social commentator put it in less than generous terms: . . . the rift between the recently arrived Mexican immigrant and the old time Tejano community has widened and deepened. Aside from being Americans of Mexican descent, we have little in common. We speak, read and think in English while they do not. Other than the desire to fulfill the American dream we are far apart socially, politically and economically. . . . The majority of the new immigrants are the dishwashers, construction workers, gardeners, day laborers, etc. The Tejanos are the Senators, Congressmen, Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, « 194 » Notes to pages 7–27 PhDs, Realtors and Authors that also participate in the political process. (Arellano 2007) 7. Following the general practice in the academy, Mexican-American studies consists of three broad disciplinary areas: the social sciences and education, historical studies, and cultural studies, the latter including literary criticism, anthropology, arts criticism, and folklore/popular culture analyses. Cultural studies and history often overlap, but rarely with the social sciences. See Soldatenko 2009. 8. It will not escape the discerning reader that I have switched ethnic nomenclature here, from “Mexican American” to “Chicano.” In the 1960s we see the ideologically motivated self-conscious adoption of “Chicano” and later “Chicana” not only by members of the Chicano movement, but also by those—often the same—fomenting the establishment and development of academic programs focusing on the Mexicanorigin peoples of the United States. Recognizing the prevalence of the term for naming these specific practices, especially in California, I now use it here and wherever appropriate for naming such practice. Elsewhere, I discuss the origins of the term Chicano, the ideological uses to which it was put, and the limitations and contradictions of those uses (Limón 1981). chapter 1 1. Here, of course, I allude to the foundational text for “resistance” readings, Barbara Harlow’s Resistance Literature (1987). 2. Paredes greatly admired Emma Tenayuca and was clearly aware of her activities in San Antonio, Texas. He told me, and later Ramón Saldívar, that, in his words to Saldívar (2006: 91), “my own politics were really quite radical. I’ve often thought that if there had been a Communist Party cell in south Texas at the time, I would have joined it.” 3. To be sure, some important Mexican-American Democratic Party elected officials into our own time did have an initial formation within the college-based Chicano movement, but not all, and those who did had to adjust their politics to the liberal “center.” A case can also be made for a Mexican-American left-liberal political tradition independent of the Chicano movement and sometimes at odds with it, as exemplified by Congressmen Henry B. González and Edward R. Roybal of Texas and California, respectively. 4. Paredes is presented with a problem in his construction of Feliciano. On the one hand, he can make a stronger case for Feliciano’s outstanding personality if he keeps him single and totally and unselfishly devoted to María and her children. On the other, he crafts him as such a good man—and an attractive one—that is hard to imagine that he would not be sought after as an eminently marriageable bachelor, one who “longed for a wife and...