Hector Uribe & What Makes A Texan?

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Mon May 17, 2010 at 06:31 PM CDT

In the email, referring to both Linda Chavez-Thompson (the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor) and me, I wrote the following phrase:

"Linda and I are both running so that we can represent all Texans."

We received hundreds of responses. Nearly all were positive. A few were not. One reply from a Mr. Thomas Lake, asked, "So, who exactly are you representing, and are they legal?"

You can read Uribe's full reply which is posted here, but I'll focus my discussion here on a couple lines of Uribe's response which I have posted below.

The Texans I said I want to represent? They're Texas Texans. Texans are Americans. Americans are, in the context you mean, legal citizens of the United States of America. Even citizens like you, Mr. Lake, are legal - at least unless they outlaw hate.

Lately, it has been hard to miss the fact that people who share Mr. Lakes's obvious views seldom pass up the opportunity to display their obsession with race and culture, couched in terms of citizenship status. Frankly, Mr. Lake, I'm sick of it. So are a lot of other Texans who agree with me that it's high time we focused on tackling the very real challenges Texas families are facing.

...

Mr. Lake, I will not apologize for my heritage, my ethnicity, or my culture. I am a proud Texan, following in my family's footsteps since the 1800's. But if my ethnicity bothers you, sir, I encourage you to not vote for me - because I'm proud of it.

I will not apologize for wishing folks a happy Cinco de Mayo, which incidentally, Mr. Lake, is in large part a uniquely Texas celebration, much more so than in Mexico.

I general agree with Hector Uribe here, and certainly there are plenty of folks out there that will against (and for) him simply because of his race or some perceived notion of which candidate they feel is more in line with their values, be that "Texan" values or otherwise. We have seen this already when Republican primary voters blindly vote against qualified Hispanic candidates like this spring when they tossed out incumbent Railroad Commissioner Victor Carrillo for no apparent reason other than he was "brown". Of course, Democratic primary voters are equally apt to vote in favor of Hispanic candidates in low information downballot races.

But that's getting away from the point I wish to make which is centered around the bolded sentences above. When Uribe writes "The Texans I said I want to represent? They're Texas Texans. Texans are Americans. Americans are, in the context you mean, legal citizens of the United States of America." he's drawing a path that defines being a "Texan" to legal U.S. Citizen. That's certainly a starting point, and maybe that's the extent of Uribe's definition for inclusion of the Texans he wishes to represent.

But what defines someone as a Texan is more complex. What's to say of those with permanent residency status, those with green cards, who have not been naturalized? Sure, many of those in Texas are from Mexico, but there are plenty from southern and eastern Asia. Growing up, I had relatives who had lived in Texas for decades who were permanent residents with German citizenship but who most certainly describe themselves as Texans. They don't have a vote, but neither do millions of unregistered Texans and everyone under 18. We expect our officials to represent all of these groups, not just those that are eligible to vote, or bother to actually cast a ballot.

What is it to be Texan? Is it simply living here? Is it working here? Does it have to do with birth in this state or length of residency? Is it about an identification with a particular cultural heritage? And which heritage is Texan heritage or culture?

These are complex questions which reflect our complexity, and diversity, as a state. If the United States is the melting pot of the world, we must recognize that Texas is as much a part of that national identity. It is born out of the peoples who pre-dated the birth of our nation and state, shaped by those that settled here be they Spanish, Mexican, German, Czech, or American, and enhanced by those who continue to move here from Latin America and Asia.

While Thomas Lake's question of "So, who exactly are you representing, and are they legal?" was likely posed with a tone of ill-intent, providing an acceptable and encompassing response is actually a bit of a challenge. The answer is similar to how most politicians promise after their election to serve "all of the people" of their jurisdiction. If "all" is simply an enumeration of each physical living body present within a given geographic political boundary, that could define "Texan" as including every man, woman, and child present inside of the boundaries of our state, regardless of citizenship status or cultural identity. But if "Texan" is defined by some shared culture or identity, the line is far more fuzzy, cutting across state lines, legal status, and longevity of residency.

For instance, I might more precisely identify as a Texas German even though the German in my family line is not from the settlers over 150 years ago, instead, just a quarter century old with grandparents that still live in the Bavarian countryside outside of Munich in Germany. I am also a Fredericksburger and tied to my hometown even if I am not a voting member of that electorate like my dad the Mayor is. I am also an Austinite, mostly Central, but also Eastern in nature.

I am a Texan, not just because I was born here or have lived here 95% of my life or identify with any number of elements of our oversized cultural ego. I am Texan because I am all of those other things as well. To be Texan, as it is to be American, is to be pluralistic. It's not about putting Mom's apple pie over Tia's enchiladas or Oma's goulash. It's about accepting all of those as part of what makes us Texan and recognizing that the oversized Texas ego wouldn't be possible without the grandiose personalities of all those that came before us, inclusive of race, ethnicity, and prior cultural identities.