 First, especially in the early period of the Chicano Movement there was comparatively little systematic concern for articulating a theoretical framework that encompassed Latinos more generally. Second, a good deal of the symbolic framework of the movement did not readily generalize to other groups of Latinxs. For example, the mestizo racial narrative has proven to be problematic in a variety of ways and it does not readily extend to all Latinx groups (cf. Velazco y Trianosky 2009; Gallegos forthcoming). Moreover, documents like the Treaty of Guadalupe, and the appeal to an indigenous—especially Aztec—past, cannot be used in the same way to anchor a shared identity with other Latinx groups (or even those groups of Mexican-descended people who cannot trace their ancestry to the Aztecs). Third, it would be something of a cold irony for one strand of the cultural-nationalist (and sometimes separatist wing) of the Chicano movement to be thought of as having constituted the origins of a broader, pan-Latinx intellectual project. Those strands of the Chicano movement were often animated by a resistance to anything that failed to recognize the cultural specificity of Chicanxs. On such views, acceptance of a Latinx identity necessarily entails a risk of cultural dissociation from the specifically Mexican roots of Chicanx identity, and brings with it an impermissible homogenization via a pan-Latinx  category.[7]  For that reason, it would sound strange to some activists and theorists to frame Chicanx thought as an early exemplar of Latinx philosophy.