Blogging from Shanghai, part 13

March 14, 2009

Vigilante racism and de-Americanization of Asians and Latinos. I have explained to my students here that the blatant exclusion of Chinese and other Asian immigrants ended on the heels of World War II. However, even though immigration categories no longer permit blatant racial and ethnic discrimination, selection policies and philosophies of the past have set the tone for much of what I call the “de-Americanization” of Asian Americans and Latinos that goes on today. Immigration policies, especially after 1965, have permitted the entry of immigrants from many parts of the world, and naturalization rules now permit immigrants, irrespective of ethnic background, to become U.S. citizens. So Americans come in all different shades and ethnic backgrounds.

Yet, the words of the Supreme Court eighty-five years ago perhaps best capture who many Americans – certainly vigilante racists – continue to regard as true Americans. In 1923, the right to citizenship through naturalization continued to be limited, as it had since 1870, to “White persons” and those of “African descent.” That year, in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the Court was confronted with a case involving an immigrant from India, who was a high caste Hindu of full Indian blood, who wanted to be naturalized. Thind offered ethnological evidence that high-class Hindus belong to the Aryan race, and that the Aryans came to India around 2000 B.C. Thus, Thind could establish, at least on the basis of the science of his day, a line of descent from Caucasian ancestors. The Court acknowledged that the phrase “White persons” and the word “Caucasian” are synonymous. But the unanimous Court essentially threw up its arms and held that there was no way that Congress intended to extend naturalization rights to any immigrants from India:

”What we now hold is that the words ‘free White persons’ are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word ‘Caucasian’ only as that word is popularly understood. As so understood and used, whatever may be the speculations of the ethnologists, it does not include the body of people to whom the appellee belongs. It is a matter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus render them readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized as White. The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry. It is very far from our thought to suggest the slightest question of racial superiority or inferiority. What we suggest is merely racial difference, and it is of such character and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought of assimilation.”

When the Court wrote “”free White persons’ are words of common speech … . As so understood and used, whatever may be the speculations of the ethnologists, it does not include the body of people to whom the appellee belongs,” the Court essentially said that irrespective of science, a Hindu from India was not White.
When the Court wrote “It is a matter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus render them readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized as White,” the Court might as well have substituted the word “American” for “White.”

When the Court wrote: “The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of their European origin,” the Court was essentially limiting the ethnic backgrounds of who could become a real American to those who could merge into the masses, namely, English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other Europeans.

When the Court wrote: “the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry, [and w]hat we suggest is merely racial difference, and it is of such character and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought of assimilation,” the Court appeared to endorse a vision of true Americans being able to reject certain races with which to commingle.

In other words, the Court was saying to Thind, “We know an American when we see one, and you’re not one.” The Court endorsed a Euro-centric vision of Americanism that has endured in the psyche of much of the country. This Euro-centric vision, dominant throughout history, still pervades America, as is evidenced by the thoughts and actions behind those who engage in vigilante hate speech and crimes.