Skip to main content

The Squatter and the Don: Citizenry and Citizenship


I really enjoyed reading this first half of the novel. Several themes and concepts resonated with me and I am still processing them as I read the novel. In this post I want to talk about the characters of Clarence and Don Mariano, and how they embody a notion of “loyal citizenship”.
I believe that Ruiz de Burton is a “Ciudadano Loyal” in the critique she makes against the law, underlined in the lives and experiences of the characters. Those that embody this idea of ideal citizenship are Don Mariano and Clarence. As the story unfolds these characters grow close to each other over agreeing on concepts of justice and good morals. Despite what the law was attempting to enforce, they persevere with their conscience that guides them to make good decisions out of care for their neighbour, county, and country. It is interesting for they are both members that belong to “opposing groups” to a fragmented community, one from the so called “Spaniards” and another from the “squatter” (or settlers as Clarence prefers). There is this conflict of identity between being confined in these stereotypical groups and each of them face pressure from their respective groups to conform. This also causes a rupture in the citizenry of San Diego. Are they truly citizens, if groups live under different "laws"/rules? If they interpret the law differently? If they are not united under the same rule of law? 
The moment that firstly and truly revealed Clarence’s loyal citizenship was in chapter 6 for Clarence states “(...) my faith in our law-givers is not so blind, my belief is that Congress had no more right to pass any law which could give an excuse to trespass upon your property, than to pass a law inviting people to your table. I feel a sort of impatience to think that in our country could exist a law which is so outrageously unjust.” (p.134) And he goes on to say that he is different from his father. There he distinguishes him from those that didn’t embrace change under the “American” identity. Clarence believes that it is out of blind patriotism that his father follows the law and praises Congress. Whereas he saw it as the duty of the American citizen to criticize and uphold the law. To have a say in how it was practiced, to have agency in the law. Those are, what he considers, the true aspirations of an American citizen,
In practice what has occurred in the county of San Diego is that the law is being used to appropriate property from the native “Spaniards”. And that the rule of law has taken over the agency of the citizen, it is what controls the citizen, without protest. For “It would be wiser to make laws that suit the county, and not expect that the county will change its character to suit absurd laws” (Ch.5) I would argue that it is the system and rule of law that plays the role of tyrant antagonist and Clarence and Don Mariano, the ideal citizens, the heroes. However this is merely hypothetical, I think this will only be clear by the end of the novel.
Another point I find intriguing is whether citizenry and feminism overlap in this novel. Whether they are mutually exclusive? Women are belittled, they are placed on the sidelines by squatters and the “spano-americans”. According to the idea of a citizen in this novel can a woman be classified as such? And according to the terms set by Clarence, can the squatters be considered citizens as well? Who is really upholding the law? Do the characters experience citizenry?


Comments

  1. Great post Maria! I had difficulties trying to understand the concept of Ciudadano Loyal, but after reading your post I have a clearer understanding of what it entails in the context of the story. I agree with you also, in that Don Mariano and Clearance are seen in this story as heroes or real citizens. I also like the idea of looking at a Ciudadano Loyal beyond the concept of: "if he/she abides to the rules and laws of society". Not being blind towards the unjust and sometimes terrible mistakes governmental institutions make is what should characterize a Ciudadano Loyal.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Hi Maria,
    Your comment on the definition of a "loyal Cuidadano" and the conditions to be fulfilled to be one, made me think about the conditions to be fulfilled to be considered as a citizen. According to you, Don Mariano is the archetype of a "Cuidadano Loyal". Nevertheless, you point out that the Squatter(s) and the Don interpret the law differently, which could mean that they do not belong to the same citizenship. The main problem is that Don Mariano is a “would-be” citizen and not a full citizen. Indeed, in a democracy, a citizen is not only a person who has rights and duties under the law. A citizen is also a person who belongs to the national community and participates in the creation of the Law. In the modern form of democratic government, representation and voting are the primary means by which a resident can be considered a citizen. For example, a temporary resident in Canada is not a citizen because he or she does not participate in establishing rights and duties. They are only subject to the law. However, theoretically, a citizen is involved in establishing these rights and duties. Therefore, the main problem is that unjust laws are being applied to former Mexican citizens who are no longer Mexican citizens, but who are not yet full U.S. citizens. The same problems apply to women, as you point out. If they are residents, they are not full citizens. Therefore, I believe that only squatters experience citizenry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a fnatastic post, Maria! Your thoughts are so intrigueing and opened my eyes to perspectives that I hadn't considered. I think it is very interesting how you view the Government and the law act as the tyrant antagonist and how Clarence and Don Mariano the heroes - this makes a lot of sense in my mind and I would have to agree. The law is ultimately what enables the characters to strip identites from one another and displace each other from their rightful land. It is also interesting to contast the ideas of the law with greedom and agency - was America not viewed as the country in which you could be free? Why is it, then, that such laws strip that freedom away? I realize that perhaps the idea of freedom in America may not have corresponded to the timeline of this novel. But it is an interesting concept nonetheless, which I think is evident even in today's world - the US prides themself for being the land of the free, and yet many laws restrict thet freedom and agency for people (e.g. the wall being built to hold Americans in and Mexicans out). It's an interesting thought to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Maria,

    Very true that laws (or lack thereof) can have a tremendous impact on ones life and change the social and political landscape around them. You make a good case that Ruiz de Burton is a "Ciudadano Loyal" as she brings attention to this issue of land ownership and how this law largely discriminates against the Mexican-American minority.

    I also liked how you thought of feminism in this book. There is often little said about the belittling and unequal treatment of women, but it is definitely a very crucial issue. So often than not, the women in this story are thrown to the wayside and only really come up with topics of love or motherhood. This really does say something about living in the 19th century, and one could argue that we still see the effects of this unequal society today.

    Well done,
    -Curtis HR

    ReplyDelete
  5. I really enjoyed reading your post Maria! You provided some very interesting and valid information and points of view about the text and some of the most important characters, Don Mariano and Clarence. I really liked how you pointed out to the fact that even though Clarence and Don Mariano belong to opposing groups with completely different identities and live in completely different situations in the United States they still connect and relate to each other due to the same values and morals that they share. They both relate to one another as they truly depict the meaning of a Ciudadano Loyal, meaning not those who just follow the laws but those that are able to question when these laws are unjust or discriminatory. In my opinion as well, this is the true meaning of being a Ciudadano Loyal one that is not afraid to question and fight against laws when it is being unjust and hurtful to others.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mrs. Darrell

One of the events that transpired in this second half of the book that impressed me was Mrs. Darrell’s speech on her views of the land laws. The whole event was revealing of her true nature, a nature that we have known as readers since the beginning of the novel. She was honest, showing integrity and firmness of spirit, and assumed responsibility in deceiving her husband and those involved. As it pertains to the author’s views on women, this character has voice and imposes her voice over that of men. However, the author makes it known that she has no seat among the men in the “colony” , for none offer her one, she simply steps in and speaks. That is a rupture in the behaviours set by women in the novel. Mrs. Darrell expresses a forward opinion of the Law, on matters of the land, on business, conscience and ethics. In contrast Dona Josefa, Mercedes, Elvira, Mrs. Mechlin (George’s Aunt) all seem to fit this “mold” of womanhood where matrons impose tradition and custom

Bless Me, Ultima: part I

As I started reading this novel, I was struck by the different mixture of belief systems. Not only in different moral systems but also in terms of choice of lifestyle. In a way, how Antonio follows his “destiny”, which we learn right from the beginning, that Ultima is the only one that truly knows where his future holds “ Only I will know his destiny”. Since his birth Antonio has been torn by the different expectations of his surrounding parental/mentor figures – his destiny traced for him: becoming a priest, becoming a vaquero destined to wander the llano, etc. This for me seems to be an overarching theme of the books we have read so far. To some capacity, we are torn between the concept of a self-made destiny and a predetermined destiny. Down these mean streets presents that conflict which we discussed in class. I am interested in how this can be applied to the general idea of Chicano culture in America. Antonio seems to be torn between different beliefs, moral systems, expectat