From Gang-Bangers to Urban Revolutionaries: The Young Lords of Chicago

Abstract

You can arrest us, You can burn us, You can kill us, But you can't stop us-cha cha jimenez The Young Lords was a flamboyant revolutionary Chicago-based group that was comprised mainly of second generation Puerto Ricans. Although the organization had a flair for the dramatic, its impact was felt far and wide. Very little of a scholarly nature has been written about this important piece of Illinois history, however. Most of what has been written is in the form of popular magazine articles and memoirs that lack the objectivity and rigor expected of a scholarly study.1 This essay helps to fill that void. It addresses the origins of the Young Lords, the aims, inner-workings and objectives of the group, the impact the organization had on the Latino community, and the factors that contributed to the Lords' demise?2 Puerto Rico became an United States territory in 1898, after the Spanish-American War. It was a colony from 1898 until 1952, when it became a commonwealth. Immediately following the American acquisition, Puerto Ricans were in a state of limbo; they were neither citizens of the United States nor citizens of an independent nation. To make matters worse, the presence of American corporations on the island weakened Puerto Rico's economy.3 Consequently, many Puerto Ricans immigrated to the United States in search of better economic prospects. A number of Puerto Ricans ventured to Chicago. The first massive immigration of Puerto Ricans to the windy city occurred between 1950 and 1965.4 From the outset, most Puerto Ricans were forced to live in the most run-down sections of the city. Many of them settled in an area around Ohio to North Avenue with Street as its nucleus. Among Puerto Ricans this barrio was known as La Clark. Most of La Clark consisted of dilapidated hotels and mansions that were divided into kitchenette apartments and single rooms.5 Gambling, drugs, and prostitution were prevalent. By 1970 nearly 250,000 Latinos lived in Chicago. Some were able to find decent-paying jobs, but changes in the labor force reduced the number of jobs available to those with low levels of education and limited skills. Those who were able to find work were often under paid.6 Employers could pay Puerto Ricans less because they were aware that many of them lacked alternative employment prospects. Not only were these jobs low-paying, involving dirty and unsafe working conditions, but they were often temporary and had little advancement potential. According to the 1960 United States Census Report on the Social and Economic Data for Persons of Puerto Rican Birth and Parentage, the majority were employed in the business sector as messengers and deliverymen or in stock rooms. Others found jobs as janitors and in restaurants as busboys and waiters.7 While Chicago in some ways offered opportunities to Puerto Ricans, discrimination thwarted their progress.8 In fact, throughout most of the twentieth century, most people of Spanish descent were relegated to the lowest paying and most menial jobs. And because Puerto Ricans were relatively small in population and did not vote in large numbers, they were unable to elect representation that could help provide better housing, more educational opportunities, and better paying jobs. Unlike other major cities such as New York where Puerto Ricans were able to elect some of their own into office as early as the 1930s, Puerto Ricans in Chicago had no political representation.9 Furthermore, with the exception of Los Caballeros de San Juan, there were no organizations that championed Puerto Rican causes.10 And, since Puerto Ricans wielded little political influence, those in power often overlooked their interests. By 1966 things began to change. That summer, a White police officer shot Arcelis Cruz, an unarmed twenty year-old Puerto Rican man. Parts of the Puerto Rican community erupted. People looted and burned neighborhood businesses, particularly those that were White-owned. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.