Giselle Hewitt

LITR 4333 2003 research project

Effects of Institutionalized Racism on Assimilation of Minority Immigrants

               I.      Journal Purpose

The goal of early immigrants is very similar to the goal of modern immigrants crossing over today.  In fact, the immigrant narrative has become the “American Dream” – the thing every American wants to reach for (objective 1: story of immigration as a fundamental narrative of American lit. and culture).  Splashed across billboards and television screens we are told to “be the best we can be”, “reach for the stars”, and be a little more “like Mike” – the idea being to better our station in life, make it rich, be known, on top of the world, and thus be free of worry.  In order to reach this “American Dream” one must first be considered an American. 

The purpose of this journal is to look at immigration through U.S. Supreme Court cases which focus on who qualifies to become a citizen.  Americans look to the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and understand the “founding fathers”.  I was curious as to how U.S. Supreme Court cases have affected public opinion of immigrants and minorities, and hinder the assimilation process through their cases.  If the U.S. Supreme Court – a representative of the dominant group – says a group doesn’t qualify based on their physical appearance or ethnic background, have they helped to create a system of unfair advantages for the dominant group?  I will attempt to look at several U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with immigration, and then look at the possible affects of these cases on the immigrant narrative of those who are outside of the dominant group.

             II.      What is Institutionalized Racism?

An institution as defined by Webster is “an established law, or system such as an organization or government”.  Therefore institutionalized racism is inherent racism within the structure, regulations and function of an institute.  Institutionalized racism is when a group of authority uses its power to mistreat any other group through its laws.  The United States Supreme Court is a group with the power to interpret our Constitution.  (This is not to imply that the US Supreme Court and the US Government are racist institutions merely that such groups have the power to shape the structure to fit agendas of certain groups if they so choose.)  Institutionalized racism can be used to deny equal access to basic areas of daily life--services, opportunities and education. 

            III.      What is Race?

Race is commonly defined as a “group of people of common ancestry, distinguished from others by physical characteristics, such as hair type, color of eyes and skin”.  The first use of the word “race” was in a William Dunbar poem from the 1500’s, and referred to “the line of kings”, but the first use of the word, as we know it was here in the U.S. in early colonial laws.  Race is a label that has been given to people in order to categorize them according to their appearances (not a biological definition – in fact, all humans today are 99.9% genetically identical).   In 1776 Johann Blumenbach in his book “On the Natural Varieties of Mankind” – set up a hierarchy of “races” with the Caucasian or “white” race at the top.  In the same year the United States won independence and was founded on freedom and liberty as “natural rights of man”.  Blumenbach’s book helped clear the conscience of many by creating this idea of racial superiority.  How else could a nation built on the idea of freedom have slaves?  Most of our “founding fathers” believed in racial hierarchy – as Thomas Jefferson once said, “I advance it therefore… that Blacks…are inferior to whites in the endowments of body and mind”. 

http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

         IV.      Who is allowed to be a U.S. Citizen?

            It is these ideas on race that led to the laws that excluded many immigrants from becoming citizens of the United States.  In 1790 the Naturalization Acts were written saying that citizenship was to be limited to “free white persons”.  In 1868 the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment led to the inclusion of those of “African nativity or decent” for citizenship, but it wasn’t until 1924 that Native Americans were allowed to be U.S. citizens and then all other immigrants outside of what the U.S. Supreme Court defined as white were excluded until 1954 with the passing of the McCarren-Walter Act.   (There are many other laws that helped discriminate and create advantage for those of the “white” race such as quota systems that favored immigration of those from Northern and Western Europe however the main focus of this journal is to look at the question of citizenship only.)  Being denied citizenship meant being denied access to many benefits such as the ability to own land, and be educated.  It is very hard to “get ahead” while being held down. 

           V.      Who is to be defined as “free white persons”?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to “free white persons”.  Who is to be included in the term “white”?  We know by the word “free” that citizenship was to be limited to those who were not considered to be “slaves” or “property” and we know by “persons” that animals need not apply, but who is to be defined as “white”.  In two separate cases, the United States Supreme Court was asked to help with this definition. 

·        Takao Ozawa v. U.S., 260 U.S. 178 (1922)

In 1914 Takao Ozawa an immigrant from Japan applied for citizenship in Hawaii and was denied.  Ozawa had graduated from high school in the United States and had attended the University of California.  He had lived in the U.S. for 20 years, and spoke only English.  His children had all been born and educated here.  It was noted by the U.S. District Court of Appeals that they believed he “qualified by character and education”, however they had a problem deciding whether Ozawa – a man born in Japan – could be considered a “free white person” so they sent the case to the United States Supreme Court (1922). 

            They question sent to the court was if the term “white” was meant merely to exclude those who were not “free”.  Since Ozawa clearly “owned’ himself, and was clearly not “black” or “Indian” could he be considered?  The U.S. Supreme Court noted that these “two races” was probably what was meant by those who were not “free”, and were thus to be excluded.  However, “the provision is not that Negroes and Indians shall be excluded, but it is, in effect, that only free white persons shall be included”.  They then go on to say in their opinion that if it had been the intention of the framers to include “the brown and yellow races of Asia” the language would have expanded to include them.  And that the term “white person” was meant to be limited those of the “Caucasian race”. Ozawa was denied citizenship, and it was noted that those of Japanese descent weren’t to be included as candidates for citizenship because they were not “Caucasian”.

·        United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)

Bhagat Singh Thind a “high-caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India” applied for citizenship in the state of Oregon and was granted.  The U.S. Naturalization Examiner appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the certificate.  It was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Thind was able to show that he had ancestors who were “Caucasian” therefore had been given citizenship by the lower courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court in their opinion then showed how they felt the “framers” had meant the loose meaning of the word Caucasian to be used – not the “scientific terminology”—and that Caucasian was meant for only those who were clearly “white”.  They state that “it may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today.”  In other words, we know the difference between white skin and brown skin – you are not fooling us.  Thind was denied citizenship, and it was noted that not all who are “Caucasian” are “white”.

www.findlaw.com  (Both cases can be found on this site, under U.S. Supreme Court opinions)

         VI.      What are the affects of these decisions?

Both Ozawa and Thind had shown they were great candidates for citizenship.  But due to the color of their skin they could not reap the full benefits of being in the United States.  They could live and work in the United States, but they were not American.  Not only were they able to show they were men of great character, but they had followed all the proper procedures involved in applying.  But they were told no.  They were told that all of their hard work wasn’t enough because they lacked the correct physical appearance needed to be included. 

• The all “white” U.S. Supreme Court was superior.
• Their skin was too dark to be considered.
• They were not equals, they were not “white”.

Everyone who did not fit the definition “white…Caucasian” was to be automatically excluded, until otherwise noted.  This then created a system of institutional racism, since only one “racial group” was allowed to be citizens and reach for the “American Dream”.  It was know obvious which group was considered better.  The only way to gain acceptance was by showing how “white” they could be.

        VII.      How has the Minority Immigrant Narrative been affected?

One’s acceptance into the American culture relates directly to the idea of assimilation.  Even though citizenship is no longer denied, the affects of these cases can still be felt. It may no longer be an issue of “whiteness”, but the dominant “white” group is still the group today’s immigrants strive to join.  The faster assimilation occurs the faster acceptance is reached.  In order to reach assimilation the “old world” has to be severed leaving behind “markings” of that culture.  The idea of assimilation also shows how the dominant belief of superiority has been created – if one has to separate from their old culture and blend into the new culture to have acceptance then one culture must be better than the other, right? 

A major theme throughout the narratives linking to the idea of assimilation is that of assimilation of appearance.  (If one looks, smells, and sounds like an American—they must be American.)  As shown in Yezierska’s “Soap and Water”, to be clean and “kept” is synonymous with acceptance.  The dean of the college decided to keep her diploma because of her “personal appearance” and said she wasn’t suited to be a teacher (role model) to children – who were to be taught how to fit in as well.  The emphasis on soap seems to be showing the importance of washing away the old world.  The idea of assimilation through appearance is also seen in Mohr’s “The English Lesson” through Mrs. Hamma the teacher of the Basic English class.  Mrs. Hamma was not only teaching English to the students, but also tried to teach them the “correct way” of speaking – which is an attempt to get rid of their “markings”.  It is not enough to know the language -- you must also speak like the Americans to gather acceptance. 

Mrs. Hamma also shows the importance of dress, manner, and pronunciation through her approval of the professor of music – she showed the class through her enthusiasm that she approved because she knew he was of a higher class and would assimilate easier – thus assimilation of appearance is seen as better.  It is evident that it is very important to separate from such “markings” in order to fit in fully, not be marked as “other”, and reach the “American Dream” (there are exceptions of course).  For some immigrants it will simply be easier to assimilate.

      VIII.      Who are the “Others”?

Those who choose to resist assimilation are seen as outsiders, the “others”, or radicals.  Resistance to the system of assimilation is often seen as a result of one’s original social contract with America.  Many Americans are not living the American Dream rather they are involved in the American Nightmare – or a new version called “The Dream” (MLKjr) focusing on equality and acceptance rather than making it big (objective 1a: American Dream vs. American Nightmare).  Those who resist will always be considered as outsiders who do not fit.  This group often includes African Americans and Native Americans who are also associated with crime and violence – perhaps because of their resistance. 

These “others” are seen as problems to the law to the dominant group while the law is seen as untrustworthy to them.  As seen in Erdrich’s “American Horse” Buddy is taken from his mother and uncle because the poverty and problems surrounding the house were seen as not fit to dominant culture standards.  (Why were they in poverty in the first place?)  The minority culture has a tendency to resist the law and other dominant institutions.  (The dominant group took their land away, and then denied them citizenship into their new group.)  Buddy whispering to his mom says, “cops suck the worst because they’re after us” – even as a child he understands the relationship between dominant and minority culture and knows that he is seen as lower in status.  The authority figures are not seen as protectors, but as disrupters because they are symbols of the dominant culture, who have tried to take away their culture and give them a new one.  To assimilate would be to agree with the dominant cultures view of superiority and so they must resist.  “The Dream” is to be treated as equals in the dominant world while holding onto one’s own culture. 

         IX.      Ambivalence?

Another important narrative in America is that of the “Ambivalent Minority” – or those who tend to dance between traits of both narratives (immigrant and minority). The “Ambivalent Minority” narrative stories helps show how these groups often live double lives, and double cultures – in the dominant culture, and inside the home.  Examples of the “Ambivalent Minority” are Mexican Americans and Afro-Caribbean’s.  Mexican American’s are seen as minorities because a large portion of what is now America was at one point Mexico, but was taken away from them.  However, many Mexican Americans also come to America in search of the “American Dream”.

Another possible ambivalence in the narrative of many Mexican, Afro-Carribbean, and Hispanic Americans can be seen in their confusion in filling out a U.S. Census form.  A coworker of mine said she never knows what to fill out.  She knew she wasn’t Asian, and she knew she wasn’t “black”.  Her father she said had warned her to not get “too much sun” because then she would look like one of “them”.  This was important for her to remember because he wanted her to be accepted.  Her parents were both affected by segregation.  They were not considered “white”, even though on her birth certificate it was clearly marked “white” by the hospital staff.  If her parents were not “white”, then why was she supposed to mark “white”.  And if she is “white” then why is she expected to know Spanish?  If it had been her ancestors in the U.S. Supreme Court would they have defined them as “white”? 

           X.      Conclusion

Institutions such as the United States Supreme Court have an obligation to read and interpret the Constitutionality of the law based on what they felt the “founders” intended.  Based on the idea of racial hierarchy believed in by many of these “founders”, the US Supreme Court in the cases of Ozawa and Thind probably interpreted “free white persons” as the original writers had intended the words.  However, this does not make their decisions right.  They had the opportunity to make a change, but decided not to.  This decision gave many an unfair advantage based purely on the color of their skin.  I believe they used their power to promote their own “race”.  In Thind’s case, he had already been given a certificate of citizenship, but the USSC chose to take this away from him even though he was able to show his link to the “Caucasian race”.

Just like Ozawa and Thind many have been told that they do not quite fit into the right mold.  In order to gain acceptance we are taught to conform to not look, or talk differently.  We are taught to assimilate.  (America is not the only country teaching this.)  Those who chose to hold on to parts of their culture, or language are pushed to the outside.  And even at times are considered to be radicals.  If you do not fit the box perfectly at least pretend.  “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  We even expect tourist visiting our country to be a little assimilated.  As a coworker once said, “He didn’t even speak English… what did he think he was going to be able to do here?”  I remember thinking that by that standard the majority of Americans should never be allowed to travel outside of English speaking countries.  In fact, the majority of Americans should not be allowed to leave the United States, even visitors from England can’t understand our English.  I guess overall I am merely suggesting we ask a few more questions before we accept things for the way they’ve “always” been.