AS205: Inbetween Peoples

As the twentieth century was approaching, America continued to challenge itself in creating its own separate identity amidst the nations of the world. The concept of an “American identity” was in a sense fostered by native-born whites’ need to differentiate themselves in the political, economic, intellectual, and social realms of society, from the immigrants and African-Americans. Once again, the distribution of power came into question as the United States worked to maintain a stable and strong presence and sense of authority within this growing identity.

The late nineteenth into the early twentieth century was a period not only when the social construction of race reared its ugly head in the face of non-white people and immigrants, sometimes known as “not-yet-whites” (Roediger 143), but also when the language and notions used to exclude these “outsiders” was changing to hold the status quo of native-born power. This blending of diction over time, alongside an inconsistency within the reasons given for restrictions and the immigration reforms, is what I find most interesting among the three articles. In the attempt to justify the continuing restrictions placed on immigrants and African- Americans, the meanings of race and nationality were shifted to deem people unassimilable and unworthy of citizenship.
Roediger, in his chapter on “Inbetween Peoples”, points to the fact that as “racial and national identities intertwined” (Roediger 138), the “inbetwee-ness” (Roediger 141) and inferiority of the immigrants solidified, essentially barring them from easily attaining the status of a white citizen. Throughout his study though, he illustrates how the United States’ government and political systems in place consistently went against their own rulings and did allow people to be naturalized as white citizens. As an example, even President Theodore Roosevelt spoke of the “swamping of the ‘old stock’” by immigrants in addition to his seemingly contradictory promotion of the all-inclusive “meting pot” (Roediger 145). Roediger also points out that southern and eastern European migrants, seen as more white than others, were held to different standards than those people grouped together as Asians in the attempt to be known as citizens, even though the two groups were both immigrants. The decisions mandated by Congress for immigration restrictions became questions of race, not just understandings of “national origin”. In forming the American identity, white-natives also sought to justify the idea that a “racial transformation” (Roediger 147) would endanger the process of Americanization.

The passage of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was the culmination of the legal construction of race as it solidified the categories of people based on nationality through the enactment of a flawed quota system. Ngai’s article clearly argues that with this Immigration Act, Congress again tries to justify restriction by “reconstructed racial categories…disaggregated and realigned in new and uneven ways” (Ngai 2). Similar to this, Pascoe illustrates how rescue home women reconstructed terms to fit their various causes. By employing these revolving terms, the United States government could essentially argue any position they pleased in order to keep those who they found to be inassimilable or undesirable in adding to the structure of an American identity.

While most of the country held a certain prejudice against the immigrants and African-Americans becoming citizens, therefore utilizing a variety of definitions of race and national identity to prove their point, I find it interesting to know people such as Franz Boas defended contrary interpretations to the “assumptions of innate racial inferiority” (Boas 1). While the Roediger and Ngai articles illustrate the United State’s fear of instability within the growing country on varying levels, Boas’ beliefs shake up their theories of superiority by justifying the actual instability and “plasticity of human types” (Boas 3).

Ngai’s is a comprehensive analysis of the Immigration Act of 1924, but the way she presents it is convoluted, which takes attention away from the content.  She intends to use a different group (Eastern Europeans, Asians, and Mexicans), to make each of three main points.  However, with each separate group on its own independent timeline, without any interweaving, the article as a whole seems out of chronological order (because she goes through each timeline separately). It is difficult for a reader to keep a center of focus in mind while reading.  While her purpose is to analyze racial construction in light of the Immigration Act, her essay is more like three separate ones, each having to do with that, rather than one, cohesive essay that makes her point. 

However, I did like the way she described the notions of race in terms of history; that just as history is dynamic, so have been the concepts of race/national origin/ethnicity/nationality, etc.  Most of us know exactly what each of those words mean…or at least what they mean today.  It is worthwhile, then, to look back and pay attention to how these terms were created, and how they have evolved, in light of legislation, geopolitics, religion, labor relations, etc.  Ngai examines these factors and how they affected the definitions of the aforementioned terms up to the Immigration Act, albeit in a convoluted manner. 

With the Ngai’s history of the construction of race in mind, I found Boas essay, “The Instability of Human Types” compelling, not so much for what he had to say, but more because of the time and place in which he said it.  When he wrote the essay in 1911, it was accepted as fact that members of certain nationalities/races/ethnic groups (?) were born inferior to members of others, based on their blood.  When read with this context in mind, I was struck by how bold and schocking his claims that culture, not nature, is the reason for differences among humans, must have sounded to his audience. I tried to research what the reactions of his contemporary colleagues and public were to these claims, but I wasn’t successful in that search.  It was difficult to put any real weight on his information about the growth and shape of heads of foreign- versus American-born people, since he did not include any data in the essay, though he did acknowledge that while not enough research had been done to draw any real conclusion, it was apparent that hereditary superiority was being challenged, if not disproved.  Again, though, the real aspect of Boas’ essay that is most worthy of note is the fact that he made those claims in the context in which he did; it was a controversial topic with broad implications, in a very highly charged atmosphere.  

 Like Ngai’s, Roediger’s article also presents the struggle to define race and nationality, with a focus on the immigrant labor force, as a marathon, not a sprint, noting that,  ”The state of whiteness was approached gradually and controversially” (144) and with his use of the term “not-yet-white.”  He describes different groups’ Americanization and journey to whiteness, concluding that it wasn’t until the Johnson-Reed act which restricted immigration in 1924 that new immigrants “haltingly [found] a place in the ethnic wing of the white race” (168).  Furthermore, his usage of the word “haltingly” implies that even then, they didn’t quite find it.

All three of these articles emphasize that the process of defining race (and nationality, and ethnicity, and national origin, etc.) was just that, a process, which changed and evolved over time.  Therefore, it is necessary to examine the complex historical context in order to fully understand just how dynamic that process was (…is?). 

            “White” is a very dynamic adjective.  Throughout American history, we have constantly changed its meaning.  From the earliest English settlers looking down on the French to the “native” Americans of the early 1900s, the “whites” have always looked down on the “not-yet-whites” (Roediger 143).  The latter part of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries were characterized by the need to form an American race.  Because of the social and cultural thinking of the time, American race meant white Americans.  The separations that existed between “natives” or “natural origins” and immigrants and African Americans were slight, yet social institutions of the time depended on them. 
            Despite the fact that citizenship was not granted to many non-Europeans because they were “nonwhites,” many Europeans also had to suffer as nonwhite.  There was stratification among the groups, especially after quota laws came into effect – “At one level, the new immigration law differentiated Europeans according to nationality and ranked them in a hierarchy of desirability. At another level, the law constructed a white American race, in which persons of European descent shared a common whiteness that made them distinct from those deemed to be not white” (Ngai 2).  Science was eventually called upon and used as a scapegoat – certain groups were more likely to be better at one thing than another, certain groups were allergic to specific dirts.  The census was also thought to be an objective scientific fact that differences existed between whites.  Boas eventually used science to prove that while the men were different culturally, they eventually began to resemble each other due to environmental changes in America.  Over time, generations of the same ethnic “race” begin to be different sizes, similar to those of other ethnicities around them.  In this way, Boas proves that Americans were forming a new race.  Roediger argues that the only other way they came together was in the labor unions (who eventually tried to get rid of them) and their Catholicism.  What then brought whites together?  Their need to differentiate from “Negroes.”
            In the eyes of white/native America, “Negroes” were the very bottom the ladder – along with them were immigrants from the Far East.  In order to try to climb the ladder, European immigrants learned to look down on African Americans, even though they were doing the same labor.  Jobs and wages were competitive with European immigrants getting better jobs than African Americans but not as good as natives.  Immigrants wanted to leave behind their inbetween-ness and become white.  Even though they were considered the white Americans’ “temporary Negroes” (143), they attempted to distance themselves from the African Americans.  These ideas were new to them – in Europe they were used to centuries old prejudice between regions and races – but they were not naturally inclined to look down on the Negro.  Roediger shows this in the story of the new immigrant working and living with the Negroes who demanded a change when “he learned the position that the Negroes occupied in this country” (163).  Others were horrified by the treatment of Negroes, but as one immigrant told another, “’You’ll soon learn something about this country…Negroes never get a fair chance’” (153).  Immigrants left behind the Negroes, just as women had left them behind in an effort to garner their rights.  As Suffrage movements grew out of Abolition movements, many women forgot about their once-partners – as evidenced at the World’s Columbian Exposition when blacks asked the women’s board for help.  The Negro’s history in America is one of constantly be left behind at the first chance at success by people in similar situations. 
            As immigrants tried to Americanize and become white, they took up every part of America, even adopting prejudices.  To be white meant to not be black to the emerging American nation in the beginning of the twentieth century.   

In conjunction with our reading for this week, I thought that you might be interested to know that the Stanford University Libraries have digitized the entire 41 volumes of the Dillingham Commission Reports. The Commission provided a wealth of statistical evaluation on immigration for the 61st Congress (1910-1911). Perhaps the most interesting part of this collection, is the “Dictionary of races or peoples.” You’ll need a browser plug-in to read the documents, but it’s worth a look.

As it turns out… also available from Google Book.

America was clearly changing in the early twentieth century. A variety of factor, including the influx of immigrants, contributed to this upheaval. Race was one of the ways in which people attempted to establish order. The Johnson-Reed Act and the quotas it contained exemplifies this. However, because race was not an objective, unchanging way to categorize people, some, mainly Southern and Eastern European immigrants were left in a position in which they were not quite apart of any racial categorization, although eventually, as Roediger explains, they are accepted as part of the white race. (Roediger P. 168)

The uneasiness felt as part of a changing society coupled with the rising authority of statistics, led to optimal conditions for the restructuring of race and the development of ideas of nationality and national origin. With the increasing numbers of diverse people living in America, came a rising need to sort out who belonged where, in an effort to maintain some sort of social order. The solidification of racial categories through the Immigration Act was one way in which this sorting happened. While the new immigration law did not explicitly discuss race, it was integral in the formation of racial categories as the idea of citizenship and who was eligible for it was central to the formation of white as a race. The discussion of national origins starting with the Nationality Act of 1870 and carried into the new immigration act also was racialized. All of these contributed to the formation of racial categories in the US.

What I find most interesting, is that even though the legislation reaffirmed the idea that race and racial categories were objective realities, based on solid scientific research and backed by statistics, the reality of the situation proved to be quite the opposite. Questions still arose about who could and could not be a citizen, the racial status of Eastern and Southern Europeans was uncertain, and even as science was claiming that race was immutable, Franz Boas illustrated through methodical research that in fact, race was not stable. The question then arises, if everyday experience demonstrated that racial categories were not based on objective reality, why did they continue to be persuasive ways of thinking to the extent that they carry over into the present day at least to some degree?

I think one of the main reasons that the categories became solidified arose out of the need to ground the dominant group’s power in a manner that was perceived to be stable over time. Race was an available way to determine the social order and to maintain at least a semblance of stability in a rapidly changing nation. Science, especially statistics, became the mechanism by which this process could be legitimatized. Although reality did not quite match with the ideas being promulgated, eventually the European immigrants who largely made up the racially in-between population became white by the standards developed during this time, clearly indicating the powerful sway of the racial thought underpinning the new immigration law and informing the nation’s social relations.