The United States has a complicated relationship with its past. One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding American history is the place of language in that past and the country's overall identity. Rosina Lozano's An American Language works to unpack how we both identify and situate the role of language, more specifically Spanish, in the creation of both a country and its ideals. More so, the book centers language as a tool utilized to erase people's claim to that identity and space. Language, especially for the US Southwest, became embedded within a power struggle between a nation's past and the future it hoped to claim.

Recent national debates have continued to highlight the place of language, particularly Spanish, in conversations on citizenship and nationalism. Language has systematically been used to determine who belongs and who is excluded (or assumed to be excluded). Language, as we see in Lozano's text, has a deeper ingrained relationship to the history of the country, especially for those states along the US-Mexico border. As Lozano reminds us, “As the influence of Spanish as a language of government in the Southwest declined, Spanish became a language with competing political meaning” (p. 9).

Historians have long focused their work on the Southwest (post–Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) on the explicit and implicit role of citizenship and property rights in regards to the new “treaty citizens” (as Lozano refers to them) and the growing Anglo presence. What Lozano offers is a nuanced conversation on how language is at the foundation of any discussion on the genesis of the southwestern United States. Just as citizenship and other rights (such as property rights) varied from territory to territory, so did the place of Spanish. The question of citizenship for the newly acquired populations of northern Mexico (now the southwestern US states) has been contested since the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. And although it was clear that power would be transferred from Californios and nuevomexicanos to the new growing Anglo presence, “treaty citizens became the first group of people considered ambiguously white to gain collective citizenship in the United States” (p. 25). They would quickly learn that their legal status would mean nothing when it came to retaining property rights or exerting political power. Lozano reminds us, “For Mexicans in the Northern territories, language and culture served as the major markers of race and citizenship” (p. 25). At its core, An American Language maps out just how language for treaty citizens, their descendants, and other acquired Spanish-speaking populations was utilized to historically maneuver through the social, political, and economic hierarchies. But just like anything else across the history of the United States, that story and relationship is a complicated one and served groups of people quite differently.

The book itself weaves in and out of this narrative by framing individual territories’ (and subsequent states’) relationship to language in the years following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Language became a way for the new treaty citizens to attempt to retain their standing in the new territories, while language was targeted by those now in power to determine who belonged and would now be central to framing the territories and states new ideals. Dividing the book into two parts, Lozano creates a linear historical account of the Spanish language as it becomes both the language of politics (and power, I would add) and a political or politicized language (and one of disempowerment). For example, in California, where the ambiguity of the language in the Treaty itself set the stage for a struggle regarding property rights for the new treaty citizens. Similarly, Californios’ own participation in the new territories’ politics was threatened because of the language limitations in the years immediately after the Treaty. Both the struggle for property rights and political inclusion merged with discussions regarding translations. As Lozano reiterates, “Californios needed translations to aid fellow landowners, but translations also served as the only way for the larger treaty citizen community to become informed about laws” (p. 47). As Lozano argues, the business of translations was highly contested, decreased in the years preceding and following statehood in 1850, and was not meant to be a permanent solution, giving the new state of California a temporary bilingual identity. The temporality of a bilingual status for California aided treaty citizens in the transition, since without access to translators/translations, “californios who had held positions of leadership in Mexican California could not aid others with the adjustment to the new system of government, compounding the difficulties of the transfer of power” (p. 41). Language or access to translators would allow, temporarily, treaty citizens the opportunity to participate in the political decisions of the new state and also work to retain their property rights, even if they failed at both.

Lozano reminds readers that although history (and contemporary conversations) are clear on the disenfranchisement of treaty citizens and their descendants, New Mexico (and nuevomexicanos) had a very different experience with language and power compared to the other newly acquired territories. With a larger population base, nuevomexicanos exercised their political and economic power in a way that allowed them to prioritize Spanish. However, according to Lozano, “nuevomexicanos recognized that learning the language of their new nation would be a crucial weapon for transmitting and retaining power” (p. 77). Treaty citizens insisted on their children perfecting their Spanish while simultaneously learning English. Territorial schools would not be burdened with the need to satisfy the growing push for English acquisition while also meeting the demands of local residents who still wanted their children educated in their home language. Some early school superintendents, such as New Mexico's Amado Chaves, advocated on behalf of retaining Spanish while also understanding the need for English language instruction. As Chaves argued, “It is a crime against nature and humanity to try and rob the children of New Mexico of this … to deprive them unjustly [of the] advantages, great and numerous, which those have who command speech in two language” (p. 83). But as much as treaty citizens promoted and fought for bilingualism, history reminds us of how little power the newly acquired citizens had in enacting institutional changes in support of their language rights.

Lozano's intensive archival research puts many different players in conversation with one another. From congressional papers to the press (especially the Spanish-language press), Lozano beautifully documents the everyday struggles of treaty citizens, both elite and nonelite, in fighting to preserve their linguistic identity while also fighting to maintain some power in the territories. If there was one conversation that I would have enjoyed Lozano to expand on, and perhaps dedicate an entire chapter, it is to better bring Puerto Rico into the larger conversation, as the status of language on the island is almost a footnote in this narrative. Nevertheless, An American Language is a well-written and -researched account of the complicated history of language in the United States and its relationship to power and people. The text is well suited for both history of education and bilingual education classes.