Intermarriage compatriots certainly deserves preferential treatment. It has become a crucial factor - as an obstacle to rapid integration - in new approaches that attempt to sustain cultural pluralism. In reality, the results have been far from homogeneous. Broadly speaking, endogamy would have worked mostly in the majority groups and in major urban areas (Córdoba and Buenos Aires) but not so much in small towns or rural localities such as Tandil or Necochea. But at the same time - even in some of these studies - the influence and possible reasons for marriage on immigrant behaviour have recently been analysed from other perspectives. The high rates of endogamy would seem to be a consequence of the family and interpersonal social networks established in a pre-migratory phase rather than the result of other solidarities such as those emerging from belonging to the same national group.
On the other hand, studies on marriage selection have tended to simplify in part the process of migrant integration, leaving aside other variables; the use of nationality as the central criterion for analysis, without taking into account the role played by social factors, especially occupation and residence, is highly debatable. In any case, we can imagine different answers to explain the search for a partner among nationals. Apart from those who sent for their partner once they had settled in, marrying a fellow countryman could be another way of not committing oneself to the new place. Surely in the majority of immigrants the return must have remained latent and marrying a non-Basque or native immigrant was as much of an accelerator of rootedness as acquiring a property. Closely linked to this, the reunion of pre-existing couples in Euskal Herria must have made up a high percentage of the marriages we found in Argentina. It is also possible - given the young ages at which people emigrated - that many couples established themselves by means of letters without a courtship prior to departure. We have found references to such family strategies not only to maintain the profitability of the homesteads, but also in pursuit of a larger dowry.
But if what we are looking for is that the tree does not prevent us from seeing the forest, that is, that following the immigrant does not let us lose perspective of the scenario and the rest of the cast, it is interesting to cite some recent conclusions on the subject.
The family ‘pushes’ towards a more endogamous behaviour or - what seems more likely to us - the family multiplies the possibilities of sociability in such a way that when an individual arrives in the area, he or she is immersed in a network where contacts are, basically but not exclusively, with nationals. If this is not the case, the individual who arrives only has to create a space of sociability from scratch, which means that his or her possibilities of coming into contact with Argentines are greater. The tables presented in this section seem to confirm these ideas, observing the percentages of sexual composition, marital status and endogamy for each site. But it also seems clear that this must have worked differently in settings such as Lobería and Tandil or the city of Buenos Aires.
We have no doubt that, contrary to what one might suppose, the tendency towards endogamous attitudes must have been greater in the big cities. There, the weakness of the role of neighbour and the limited possibilities of participation in almost all spheres must have led to a more intensive search for mechanisms of rapprochement with nationals. It is also likely that the role of the families mentioned above functioned fully there; it is no coincidence, on the other hand, that the few Basque-speaking institutions of the period were born in the big cities. In the rest of the province, the inns and the frequent pilgrimages must have been - at least for those who lived in the village - almost obligatory places to go to. From there it was a short step to marrying Basque women -if there were any-.
But even if the percentage of marriages fellow countrymen was significant, this is not enough to conclude that there were obstacles to integration. Immigrants did not have the image of community that we analytically confer on them today. The attitude of leaving Euskal Herria rationally and strategically in search of material progress in America surely predisposed them emotionally to quickly accept a place in the new scenario, while at the same time stimulating individualism. This is mostly to be expected for the mentality of the second-in-command - an important component of the Basque flow - whose return to Euskal Herria was almost unthinkable.
On the other hand, the marriage did not determine -although it could act in the process of perception of the community- the course to be followed by each new couple in their relationship with their environment, on the road to assimilation. After the wedding, the Basque couple had to return to everyday life; if they came from the Pyrenees, they had to speak Spanish quickly, go shopping and share working hours with other people, go to mass or not, greet neighbours, accompany their children to school and bring their papers up to date with the Municipal Corporation. It is also very likely that their marriage booklet did not prevent them from being part of the commission that tried to light the streets and finish the church, or from being a witness at the wedding of a co-worker's daughter. Unfortunately, the census sources do not help in the recovery of provincial origins. It seems clear that the Basques, as far as possible - if there were women or if they could call them - preferred to build their couples with people from their small Euskal Herria (peninsular or continental); also that the Basques formalised their couples in such a significant number with other nationalities (Uruguayans, Argentinians) than with their peers beyond the Pyrenees.
Finally, the Basques also that the choice of partner had a certain correlation with the ‘available female/male supply’. Around 1870, as we move away from the port of Buenos Aires towards the interior, for example Tandil or Lobería, the number of cases with a Basque spouse increases, as does the endogamy Basques on both sides of the Pyrenees, for lack of other possibilities. Three decades later, Basque behaviour with regard to marriage ed some changes. The first thing that can be noticed is that -together with the homogenisation of space- the number of cases in which only one of the spouses is Basque has increased substantially, which reflects certain more exogamous behaviours. Couples now consist of Spaniards and natives, and to a lesser extent French; there are also a few cases of Orientals and Italians.
Everything seems to indicate that, as the data on the composition of the Basque immigrant group has n us, women rarely travelled adrift; in other words, the vast majority of them came with a more or less pre-arranged civil destination. If they did not already know their suitor, it is not hard to imagine that their brother, cousin or uncle, whom they had to look for on arrival, would have already done so for them.
But if observing the percentages of marriages Basques according to census records suggests a strong sense of endogamy, this is even more relativised when we proceed to analyse the composition of the couples in detail. Age is the first element that appears as a differentiating factor. A large proportion of the marriages nationals correspond to people over 40 years of age, while the marriages Basques and natives reveal young ages ( 20 and 30). Did those who arrived in Argentina very young or as children have greater problems - or are they not interested - in calling a Basque woman to form a couple? Or is it that towards the end of the 19th century - although it will increase later - the flow of immigration weakens and young Basques are not as strongly linked to ethnic social networks as their elders were? Part of the answer seems to lie in two other elements that come into play: the setting and the trades. Everything seems to indicate that the space where the actors moved around had a strong influence on the possibilities of choosing a partner. Our feeling is that Basques who worked or at least frequently visited the village had a greater chance of participating in the social networks - woven consciously or unconsciously by the Basques - and ending their days together with a fellow Basque. The vast majority of Basque and native couples live in rural areas. It is worth noting the number of cases in which the men are milkmen, dairy farmers or stallholders. Are these jobs with few possibilities for social participation, isolated from both their compatriots and the natives?
But as we have already mentioned, we are convinced that the measurement of marriages - in isolation from other behaviours - cannot give us a satisfactory final result on the social integration experiences of immigrants. The census cédulas, as a source for this analysis, have elements for and against them. The main obstacle lies in the arbitrary nature of the census-takers in taking the data in each dwelling, which makes it difficult to reconstruct the couples. But it has some advantages that we will not find in the parish marriage books. We can reconstruct couples, who have not been formalised before the law or the altar, who do not appear in those books. We can even intuit some mechanisms in the conformation of couples. It is remarkable - a fact that obeys the Basque tradition - the number of unmarried brothers and sisters-in-law who live together with many of those marriages, as well as the number of ed surnames that live nearby. This speaks clearly of the mechanism of chain immigration; but it also suggests that many of the couples were formed due to the proximity of the houses or the introduction of relatives.
Finally, observing Basque marriage behaviour over a period of thirty years -using marriage books- can also help us to understand part of the phenomenon. 1850 and 1880, Basques ‘from Tandil’ appear in 339 marriages, as spouses or witnesses. It is significant that in 67 cases, spouses and witnesses are all Basques; on 27 occasions, both spouses and a witness; and as many times, a spouse and both witnesses. These figures, as well as the 35 cases in which only the witnesses are Basque or the 30 links in which a spouse and a witness are Basque, seem to denote a certain ‘endogamy’ among the members of the Basque community. But at the same time, and supporting the idea that marriages nationals did not necessarily weaken integration, in more than 100 cases the Basques themselves appear to participate as witnesses for Argentine spouses and, to a lesser extent, for spouses of other nationalities. In short -especially in towns in formation- it is not contradictory that foreigners experienced a ‘rapid’ integration with the society, although this is not reflected in marriage patterns, which are endogamous.