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

M lX E D -B L O O D S , M E S T IZ A S , A N D PINTOS: R a c e , G e n d e r , a n d C la im s t o W h it e n e s s in H e l e n H u n t J a c k s o n ’s R a m o n a a n d M a r í a A m p a r o R u iz d e B u r t o n ’s Wh o Wo u l d H a v e T h o u g h t I t ? M A R G A R E T D . JA C O B S Since the 1980s, a growing number of scholars in widely different fields have discredited race as a self-evident category of human social relations. Alongside the work of scientists who have found no genetic or biological basis for racial categorization, critical race theorists have looked to changes in legal definitions of race and citizenship to conelude that race is socially and culturally constructed. Historians have contributed to the field by analyzing the history of Whiteness and the so-called White race. Many groups considered “White” today were once deemed non-White; it was only through renouncing common cause with other similarly stigmatized “races” that certain Americans such as Irish and Jewish immigrants were able to attain White status and privilege.1Of course, “choosing” to become White has not been an option for some Americans whose skin color is not light enough to allow them to pass for White. But as George Frederickson argues, it is not from color alone that race is constructed. He asserts that “the essential element [in notions of race and racism] is that belief, however justified or rationalized, in the critical importance of differing lines of descent and the use of that belief to establish or validate social inequality” (55). The social construction of race played out in myriad spaces: in brightly lit courtrooms and dark bedrooms, in factories and fields, in movie theaters and swimming pools, in classrooms and offices, in fastmoving trains and plodding city buses. The realm of literature as well became a space in which various Americans sought to envision and enforce their notions of race. The literature of the American West offers a particularly rich bounty of competing constructions of race. Until recently it has been all too common in the fields of both west­ ern American literature and western history to study AngloAmericans ’ views of the West and its peoples. A growing number of scholars, however, have challenged the ethnocentrism and cultural M a r g a r e t D. Ja c o b s 213 hegemony of this approach. Significantly, though, we are not the first to engage in such a cri­ tique of Anglo-Americans’ portrayals of the West. Even as Easterners flooded bookstores and literary journals with their accounts of the West in the nineteenth century, an elite and well-educated Califomiana, Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton, penned her own challenge to such representations. In 1872, countering Anglo notions that Californios were a “half barbaric” race who were unfit to govern themselves, to hold property, or to occupy professional positions, Ruiz de Burton published Who Would Have Thought It?, a political satire dressed up as a romance novel. Although written twelve years before one of the most famous Anglo novels about nineteenth-century California, Helen Hunt Jackson’s Ramona, Ruiz de Burton’s novel nevertheless reads like a sharp retort and a satire of Jackson’s view of California and the West. A number of literary scholars have found much to compare between Jackson’s Ramona and Ruiz de Burton’s other novel, The Squatter and the Don.2 Both take place in nineteenth-century California and provide contrasting views of Californio and indigenous cultures. A comparison of Who Would Have Thought It1 and Ramona, however, yields further crucial insights into how Ruiz de Burton critiqued Easterners’ views of the West. Rather than situating this novel in the West, Ruiz de Burton locates it primarily in...

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1948-7142
Print ISSN
0043-3462
Pages
pp. 212-232
Launched on MUSE
2017-10-04
Open Access
No
Archive Status
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.