The process of self-identification is complex and individualized with many layers contributing to one’s sense of self. This is particularly true for individuals separated from their heritage, those of mixed race or those marginalized by the greater community – all of which are true for many now residing on California’s Central Coast, especially those with genealogical ties to the Native Peoples of México. There are a wide range of perspectives regarding Mexican-American and Indigenous identities, including opinions on how or even if individuals should get to choose their own identities and whether there are proper or improper ways to self-identify.

1960’s

In the 1960’s, a melting-pot philosophy of colorblindness was popular among Mexican-American civil rights movements, which advocated for the Chicanoization of any whose families originated in the Americas (from México down to Chile), including Native Americans. Bebout examines the “diverse constellation of thought within the Chicana/o community,” specifically looking at Richard Rodriquez’s perspective of “the interactions of multiple, contradictory elements that constitute any individual” and “complex personhood” (2015). Rodriguez argues that one must “embrac[e] rejected aspects of the self: the working class, the indigenous and the queer” and that people “are not so easily compartmentalized” (Bebout, 2015). Specifically, Rodriguez wanted to initially disrupt the “black/white binary” of American race by adding a third category of “brown.” However, he eventually wanted to move to a post-racial society that would disregard the notion of “hypodescen[ce], the one-drop rule whereby ‘blood’ determines identity and strict notions of authenticity, which can be used to police an individual’s varied possibilities of being” (Bebout, 2015). Vasconcelos further lobbies for colorblindness through the creation of la raza cósmica, comprised of “interracial unions” at the top of the racial hierarchy (Bebout, 2015). Josefina Saldaña-Portillo counters critically that this would actually lead to further oppression of Indigenous Peoples, where she projects mestizos would become considered the “ideal citizen” (Bebout, 2015).

1970’s

The Chicano movement in the 1970’s continued to pursue the mestizaje concept, the merging of Indigenous, Mexican and American into one identity with many different compartments. Gloria Anzaldua explains that “the new mestiza copes by developing a tolerance for contradictions, a tolerance for ambiguity. She learns to be an Indian in Mexican culture, to be Mexican from an Anglo point of view. She learns to juggle cultures. She has a plural personality” (qtd. in Caminero-Santangelo, 2004). In this theory, each ethnic heritage within the individual is acknowledged and expressed, but are inherently distinct from each other.

1980’s & 1990’s

The 1980’s saw the rise of “more disparate, complex identity formations,” which recognized the complex interactions of the multiple layers that were unique to each individual’s heritage, context and self-identification process (Bebout, 2015). As identity began becoming more personalized within the movement, so too did a counter-reaction that continues today. This counter-movement promotes group identity as solidarity and an integral part of advocacy for civil rights and awareness of shared experiences. Activists say that the Mexican Indigenous diaspora within the U.S. must work together in “freedom struggles that seek to identify collective grievances and collective forms of redress” (Bebout, 2015). Caminero-Santangelo specifically examines the pan-ethnic term Latino/a, which broadly encompasses peoples of Central and South American heritage. She too acknowledges that this term creates a useful sense of solidarity, but asks that it be used sparingly in order to avoid “harboring a will towards covering over difference and specificity to establish some basic commonality” (qtd. in Dalleo, 2008). Individuals and communities seek to balance the sociopolitical power of a collective identity with the dissonance individuals experience as their personal identity clashes with aspects of the Chicano movement.

2000’s to Today

By 2013, those who self-identified as Hispanic (i.e. having origins in any Spanish-speaking country) amounted to 17% of the U.S. population, and will comprise one-third of the entire population by 2060 (Delano, 2015). However, Hispanics are still fighting “to enjoy full citizenship rights,” which Foley argues would result in “the making and remaking of American culture into something more democratic, more egalitarian, more accepting of difference – in short, more American” (qtd in Delano, 2015). This is essentially saying that the Chicano movement is quintessentially American, an idea growing quickly in popularity as more Hispanics choose to self-identify as White (Cohn, 2014). Based on the empirical research conducted, we’ve found that many Mexican-Americans on California’s Central Coast are choosing to preserve their Indigenous roots by identifying as Indígena or as a member of a specific Native community, tribe or nation. You can listen to some of their stories on identity in the video we produced below.