The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology Volume 8|Issue 1 Article 1 March 2016 The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited Philip Q. Yang Texas Woman's University, [email protected] Kavitha Koshy California State University, Long Beach, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps Recommended Citation Yang, Philip Q. and Koshy, Kavitha (2016) "The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited,"The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology: Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at:https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1 This Refereed Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please [email protected]. The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited Cover Page Footnote An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Denver in August 2012. We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers of the JPPS. This refereed article is available in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology:https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/ vol8/iss1/1 Yang and Koshy: “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited Abstract1 The claim that some non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews became white in historical America has largely been taken for granted these days, but we see a need for a qualified rectification of this thesis. Did these non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups really become white? We argue that the answer to this question depends on how “becoming white” is defined. We have found no evidence to support the “becoming white thesis” in terms of change in the official racial classification of these groups in the record of social institutions such as U.S. censuses, naturalization laws, and court cases. Changes in the meaning of race in U.S. racial and ethnic lexicon explain why there is a discourse on how these non-Anglo-Saxon European groups changed their “races” to white. If “becoming white” did happen to these groups, its real meaning was a change in their social status from a minority group to part of the majority group rather than in racial classification. Evidence lends credence to this argument. Our findings help settle a debate about if some non-Anglo- Saxon European immigrant groups became white and have implications for race relations today and its pedagogy. Keywords becoming white, non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups, the Irish, Italians, Jews, race 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association in Denver in August 2012. We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers of the JPPS. Published by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University, 2016 1 The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 1 INTRODUCTION As the argument of the social construction of race gains wide acceptance in the academic community these days, the claim that some non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews arrived in America as nonwhite but later became white has often unquestionably been embraced by scholars and educators. We see a need to revisit this so-called “becoming white thesis” for three reasons. First, this re-assessment will help settle a debate over whether these non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant groups really became white in historical America. There are two camps in this debate. The assertive camp argues and documents that these non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant groups became white from separate races historically. This camp is best represented by such scholarly works as The Wages of Whiteness (Roediger 1991), How the Irish Became White (Ignatiev 1995), How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America (Brodkin 1998), Whiteness of a Different Color (Jacobson 1998), and Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White (Roediger 2005). The dubious camp casts doubt upon, and challenges, this “becoming white” claim (see, for example, Arnesen 2001; Fields 2001; Guglielmo 2003; Reed 2001). In particular, Arnesen (2001) argued that by manipulating definitions and putting words into historical subjects’ mouths, some historians first made certain European immigrant groups “nonwhite” and then made them “white.” However, Arnesen’s (2001) article, as well as Fields’s and Reed’s, is commentary in nature but provides scant evidence, much less systematic empirical examination. Guglielmo (2003) did offer empirical evidence that Italian immigrants to Chicago between 1890 and 1945 were white on arrival, but his evidence is confined to Italian immigrants in one city during a limited period of time. Much more systematic evidence for more European groups in a broader scope and a longer period of time is called for. At the present, this ongoing debate remains inconclusive. One important reason for the lack of consensus is that these scholars have different concepts of becoming white in mind and do not share a common language. For example, Roediger, Ignatiev, and Jacobson speak about becoming white as a change in social status, but Arnesen and Gugliemo see becoming white as a change in racial classification, and Brodkin talks about becoming white as a change in both racial classification and social status. Second, we need to reassess the “becoming white thesis” because this debate has implications for the ongoing discourse on racial hierarchy and relations in America. “Contemporary debates over whether some Asian Americans, Arab Americans, and Latinos are or might become white have given this literature an urgency and edge,” as David Roediger (2005:7) put it (see, also, Alba and Nee https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1 2 Yang and Koshy: “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited 2003; Bonilla-Silva 2004; Gans 1999; Kim 2007; Yancey 2003; Yang 2006; Zhou 2004). Third, we need to revisit the “becoming white thesis” because this research has important impact on the teaching of race and ethnicity courses. Because of the nebulous and various meanings of becoming white in the original whiteness writings (e.g., Arnesen, 2001, Barrett and Roediger 1997; Brodkin, 1998; Gugliemo, 2003; Ignatiev 1995; Jacobson, 1998; Roediger 1991, 2005), textbooks and instructions based on the literature are even more ambiguous or sometimes erroneous. Quite a few sociology textbooks on racial and ethnic relations often accept the assertion that these non-Anglo-Saxon European groups in America became white, without elucidating the meaning of becoming white (see, for example, Cornell and Hartmann 2007; Feagin and Feagin 2011; Luhman 2002; Schaefer 2013). Some instructors including graduate student instructors and assistants who often may not have read the original whiteness writings fare even worse than textbook authors. The simplistic, less-nuanced, or even erroneous notion of becoming white is being passed on to students. We believe that a qualified rectification needs to be made in order to reveal historical facts, to preclude the transmission of erroneous information, and to rethink about racial hierarchy and relations in America today. Did some non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews really become white in historical America? We argue that the answer to this question is contingent upon how becoming white is defined. If becoming white refers to change in the official racial classification of these groups, it has never happened. However, if becoming white means change in social status from a minority group to part of the majority or dominant group, that had definitely transpired. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the “becoming white thesis” and to provide evidence to support our argument. In the remainder of this paper, we pithily depict our data and methods. We then show historical evidence on whether there was any change in the racial classifications of these non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups, bring to light why there exists a discourse about the changed race of these groups to white, and decipher what becoming white really means in the literature if it indeed occurred. We discuss the implications of our findings in the concluding section. DATA AND METHODS To support our argument, we use two methods. The first method is historical and archival analysis (see Pitt 1972). Our data consist of census questionnaires and documents, naturalization laws, and rulings of federal court cases. We analyzed the official racial categories in the census questionnaires from the first census in Published by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University, 2016 3 The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 1 1790 to the latest census in 2010 and relevant documents. We also analyzed the naturalization legislation from 1790 to 1952 and the rulings about who was and was not white in the federal court cases from 1878 until 1944. In addition, we examined the four United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) statements of race issued in 1950, 1951, 1964, and 1967. The historical and archival analysis is most appropriate for answering our research question. The second method is textual analysis. Textual analysis is a research method that is designed to describe and interpret the content, structure, and functions of messages in texts such as books, journals, films, TV programs, advertisements, and so on, and it is a way to make sense of the world (Frey, Botan, and Kreps 1999; McKee 20030). There are different types of textual analysis. In this study, we focus on qualitative content analysis and try to uncover the meanings of texts. Textual analysis was used mainly for revealing the real meaning of “becoming white” in relevant existing publications. It can show what is documented and what is not in the extant publications. DID THE RACIAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOME NON-ANGLO-SAXON EUROPEAN IMMIGRANT GROUPS CHANGE? Race is a legal construction (Honey Lopez 1996), and official racial classifications largely, albeit imperfectly, reflect and shape popular racial categorizations. Hence, it is essential and important to examine how whiteness is legally or officially constructed by U.S. social institutions. We found no evidence from U.S. censuses, naturalization legislation, and court cases that the racial categorization of some non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews changed to white. They were legally white and always white, and there was no need for them to switch to white. U.S. Censuses Racial categories have been used in every U.S. population census (Nobles 2000). Racial classification in U.S. population censuses represents official racial categorization and can reveal if changes in the categorization of non-Anglo-Saxon European groups have taken place over time. As shown in Table 1, since the first population census in 1790, U.S. racial categories have changed very frequently. For example, in the 1790 Census the categories included “free white males,” “free white females,” “all other free persons,” and “slaves.” “All other free persons” was changed to “all other free persons, except Indians not taxed” in the 1800 and 1810 Censuses. The “free colored persons” category was added in the 1820-1840 https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1 4 Yang and Koshy: “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited Table 1. Racial Classifications in the U.S. Censuses, 1790-2010 Census Racial Racial Categories label 1790 None Free White males, Free White females, All other free persons, Slaves 1800 None Free White males, Free White females, All other free persons (except Indians not taxed), Slaves 1810 None Free White males, Free White females, All other free persons (except Indians not taxed), Slaves 1820 None Free White males, Free White females, Free Colored persons (except Indians not taxed), Slaves 1830 None Free White persons, Free Colored persons, Slaves 1840 None Free White persons, Free Colored persons, Slaves 1850 Color White, Black, Mulatto 1860a Color White, Black, Mulatto 1870a Color White, Black, Mulatto, Chinese, Indian 1880a Color White, Black, Mulatto, Chinese, Indian 1890b None White, Black, Mulatto, Quadroon, Octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, Indian 1900 Color or White, Black, Chinese, Japanese, Indian race 1910c Color or White, Black, Mulatto, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, race Other 1920 Color or White, Black, Mulatto, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, race Filipino, Hindu, Korean, Other 1930 Color or White, Negro, Mexican, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, race Filipino, Hindu, Korean, Other 1940 Color or White, Negro, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, race Hindu, Korean, Other races-spell out in full 1950 Race White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Other races-spell out 1960 Color or White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, race Filipino, Hawaiian, Part-Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo, (etc.)? 1970 Race White, Negro or black, Indian (Amer.), Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Other (Print race) 1980 Race White, Negro or black, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian (Amer.), Asian Indian, Hawaiian, Guamanian, Samoan, Eskimo, Aleut, Other Published by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University, 2016 5 The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 1 (Specify) 1990 Race White, Negro or black, Indian (Amer.), Eskimo, Aleut, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Samoan, Guamanian, Other API (Asian or Pacific Islander), Other race 2000 Race White; Black, African Am., or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native (Print name of enrolled or principal tribe); Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian (Print race), Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander (print race); Some other race (Print race). Mark one or more races 2010 Race White; Black, African Am., or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native (print name of enrolled or principal tribe); Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian (Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on), Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander (print race); Some other race (Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on). Mark one or more races Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002, 2014). a “Mulatto” includes quadroons, octoroons, and all persons having any perceptible trace of African blood. b The word “black” refers to persons who have three-fourths or more black blood; “mulatto,” persons who have from three-eighth to five-eighth black blood; “quadroons,” persons who have one-fourth black blood; “octoroons,” persons who have one-eighth or any trace of black blood. c The word “black” includes all persons who are evidently full-blooded negroes while the term “mulatto” included all other persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of negro blood. Censuses. The “free white males” and “free white females” categories were merged into a single category “free white persons” in the 1830 and 1840 Censuses. The “white” category has appeared in census questionnaires since 1850, although in 1850 and 1860 census enumerators were instructed “in all cases where the person is white leave the space blank” (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002). “Mulatto” was inserted between 1850 and 1920, except for 1900. “Chinese” and “Indian” were added since 1870. However, despite the changes, non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans were always lumped under the “white” category. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1 6 Yang and Koshy: “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited They had no other option but “white” on the race question in the U.S. census (Lee 1993). Of course, not all whites were treated equally. Anglo-Saxon whites were considered superior to non-Anglo-Saxon southern and eastern Europeans (Nobles 2000). There were concerns about the degeneracy and inferiority of certain white races resulting from racial mixture with nonwhites. The southern and eastern European groups encountered harsh prejudice and discrimination (Dinnerstein and Reimers 1982; Higham 1955; Lewis 1971). Nevertheless, intrawhite racial differences, albeit real and consequential, were deemed less important by the late 1920s. The evidence shows that “In any case, the census had always counted European immigrants as ‘white,’ although enumerators’ instructions never defined white” (Nobles 2000:72). Naturalization Legislation Naturalization legislation provides another important source that substantiates no need for non-Anglo-Saxon European groups to become white as they were always eligible for U.S. citizenship. As is well known, nonwhite minorities were made ineligible for naturalization and gradually gained their right for U.S. citizenship in historical America. People of African descent were ineligible for U.S. citizenship until the Naturalization Act of 1870 based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution granted them the right for citizenship. Native Americans were not eligible for U.S. citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Chinese immigrants were deprived of citizenship right until 1943 when all Chinese exclusions laws were repealed. Indian and Filipino immigrants were ineligible for U.S. citizenship until the Luce-Celler Act of 1946 was passed. Japanese immigrants did not gain their citizenship right until 1952. However, none of the European groups has ever been excluded from U.S. citizenship because they were always considered “free white persons.” In the early stage of the republic, at least three states restricted citizenship to “white persons”: Virginia in 1779, South Carolina in 1784, and Georgia in 1785 (Kettner 2005). The Naturalization Act of 1790, the first naturalization law in the United States, granted citizenship only to “free white persons.” Subsequent legislation until 1870 upheld the 1790 act. For the foreign-born, in 1870 citizenship was only open to “aliens being free white persons.” In other words, in the 1870 legislation, foreign-born whites had access to U.S. citizenship upon entry. In fact, Haney Lopez (1996) found that despite many subsequent changes in naturalization requirements, the “white person” prerequisite was included in every naturalization act from 1790 to 1952, with one exception—an accidental error of omitting the phrase in 1870 but corrected in 1875. Baum (2006) listed the legal cases between 1878 and 1923 that called upon the U.S. federal courts to interpret the phrase “free white person” in the U.S. naturalization laws passed between Published by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University, 2016 7 The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, Vol. 8, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 1 1790 and 1870. What is significant here is that the traits that have been taken as what Baum (2006) called “the defining criteria of racial difference” vary across time and space. This lack of consistency on who is white can be seen in the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that made references to “lesser European races” meaning the Jews, Italians, Poles, and Greeks. And yet, there was no law that disqualified non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrants for U.S. citizenship because these European groups were always considered Caucasian and white. As Roediger (2005:121) put it, “the new [European] immigrant could claim whiteness via naturalization and naturalization via whiteness.” No wonder Guglielmo (2003), who set out to uncover how Italian immigrants became white, eventually came to the conclusion that Italian immigrants at the turn of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were “White on Arrival,” the title of his book. Court Cases Coupled with naturalization legislation, rulings of U.S. courts about cases pertinent to “free white persons” also offer another source of support for our argument that the Irish, Jews, and Italians need not become white. The first reported whiteness ruling was made in 1878 in a federal case concerning Ah Yup’s race in California (Haney Lopez 1996). From 1878 to the end of World War II, U.S. courts had ruled on fifty-two legal cases germane to who was white and who was not (Table 2). Among these rulings, the courts ruled consistently that Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Burmese, Hawaiians, Native Americans, and Afghanis were not white, while Armenians and Mexicans were white; but the court oscillated over whether Syrians, Arabians, and Asian Indians were white. The courts simply equated the white race with Caucasians. For example, in delivering the opinion of a Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of US v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), Justice Sutherland stated, 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…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 clear that the courts almost always treated Caucasians or those from Europe as whites. Although there were doubts about the racial status of some https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1 8