Introduction
The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776. This year signifies the separation of the United States from Great Britain and the creation of an American independent nation. The formation of American identity was determined by “whitening”[1] of the citizens, and, therefore, precisely race determined inclusion and exclusion of ethnic groups in US society, which in the end led to social, educational, and residential segregation during 1776-the 1930s.
White Identity
While defining the American nation, “the first Congress convened under that Constitution voted in 1790 to require that a person be “white” to become a naturalized citizen of the US.”[2] Hence, it was vital for new coming immigrants to be naturalized and gain their civil rights. They needed to be accepted and included in a “white” American ethnical group. The idea that “becoming white insured greater economic, political and social security” dominated at that time. [3] This concept proved itself to be true in practice since non-whites were used “in the dirtiest and most unhealthy jobs.”[4] Therefore, to improve their standards of living, minorities were eager to surrender their ethnic differences to become true and naturalized Americans, meaning “white” ones.
Eugenics as Basis for Race Segregation
However, there was no clear definition of the term “white” in the Constitution. In fact, “racial classifications were based on selected and visible traits, including skin color, hair color and texture, and facial features.”[5] Thus, there was no identity between Europeans, for example, visibly there were three Caucasian groups, such as North and West Europe, Central Europe, South, and East Europe. [6] Still, the dominant white ethnical group was not clearly defined. For example, Irish together with Southern, Eastern Europeans, and Jews were “termed nonwhite.”[7]. Only in the 1850s did Irish “gradually fought, extended and voted their ways into the white race in the US.”[8] Thus, the United States needed a solid and definite basis for determination of a white ethnical American.
Therefore, following Sir Francis Galton’s “Eugenics Movement” and Herbert Spencer’s claim about the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon, Sir Henry Main introduced “the theory of the Teutonic origin” in the United States in 1870. [9] Hence, according to “eugenics movement” and “Teutonic origins theory” first European group, not Asian or Black, and then from all European groups Northern and Western one was chosen as the dominant white ethnical American group, namely Anglo-Saxon group. Nonetheless, racial ideology had to be supported on political, social, and religious levels to proclaim this theory for all Anglo-Saxon Americans.
Political justification of racial ideology
The United Stated’ victories in wars with Mexico and Spain in the late nineteenth century were seen as evidence of Anglo-Saxon supremacy, and they justified American racial ideology and expansion.
Mexicans were seen as a mixture of inferior races, namely South European (Spain) and Indian. Moreover, Mexicans lost in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Therefore, Anglo-Saxon Americans saw Mexicans as “simple-minded, carefree, indolent, halfway between savagism and civilization… being unable to protect their territory from the ingenious Anglo-Americans.”[10] Besides, many stories and legends, like “Black Legend”, [11] were created to support the idea of evil nature of Mexicans.
Another war of 1898 with Spain was also won by the United States. Thus, the defeat of an inferior South European (Spanish) race presented another evidence of Anglo-Saxon supremacy. The war lasted only a few months, and as a result of its victory, the United States had to decide the Philippines. Finally, “McKinley elected to retain possession of the Philippines for economic and geopolitical reasons.”[12] As a consequence, the Philippines started a war for independence. Although the United States had a purely political and economic interest in accessing the Oriental market from the Philippines, American politicians had to justify the annexation for their citizens.
Similarly to Mexicans, eugenics made it easy for the United States citizens to accept the annexation of the Philippines because it was the American mission to civilize “childlike and incapable of self-government” Filipinos. [13]
Justification of Anglo-Saxon supremacy theory was needed not only on a governmental but also religious and spiritual level because the role of world saviors is much more appealing and efficient than the one of invaders.
Religious Justification of Racial Ideology and Segregation
According to an idea of “Manifest Destiny”[14] of the United States, Anglo-Saxons were seen as “God’s “Chosen People.”[15] Thus, religion also justified racial ideology in regards to Mexican territories annexation as “God had forsaken the Mexicans because they were unworthy of keeping the valuable land.” [16] Moreover, protestant Josiah Strong being “a white supremacist pastor” claimed that it was “God’s plan to rid the world of the “lower” races and thus make room for the “superior” races.”[17] Even “less extremist pastors” suggested it was “God’s will to prevent the intermingling of the superior and inferior races.”[18] Therefore, racial non-whites minorities could not attend services in the Anglo-Saxon churches. According to eugenics, any physical or cultural mixture of different races led “inevitably to both racial and societal degeneration” and also to “racial competition and conflict.”[19] Therefore, in order to protect Anglo-Saxon purity, the citizens of the United States had to fear any race and cultural mixing with other races.
Social, educational, and residential segregation of Mexicans
The decisions about the exclusion of the race from the American ethnical group were made based on different reasons. In 1923 Supreme Court, for instance, made a decision about the denaturalization of an Asian Indian based on “common sense.”[20] Furthermore, many Asian Indians were denaturalized according to this decision.
However, not only commons sense but also political and economic interests influenced including or excluding the race from the United States society. Initially, the court in Indiana based on “the Encyclopedia Britannica… held that a “Mexican” should not necessarily be found to be a white person.”[21] However, in the early twentieth century, the United States made several treaties with Mexico in need of workforce. Therefore, the court of Texas declared that although “Mexicans would probably be considered non-white from the anthropological perspective”, “those treaties expressly allowed Mexicans to become citizens of the United States.” [22] Nonetheless, such new citizens of the United States were determined “white” only in law as they suffered from social, educational, and residential segregation.
The residential segregation of Mexicans “began as early as 1850 in northern California and southern California the process was completed by 1870.”[23] New areas for Mexicans were constructed in such towns as “in San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Cruz, and Monterey.”[24] Moreover, Mexicans were not allowed to move from these areas and by the beginning of the twentieth century they could not freely use “most public facilities including swimming pools, theaters, schools, and restaurants.”[25] Furthermore, by 1930 Mexican students were segregated in “85% of California schools surveyed by the state government.”[26] This segregation led, though, to “a cultural corollary to ongoing political struggles for dignity… jitterbugs. zoot-suiters and R&B lowriders exercised their right to freedom of assembly in public spaces.”[27] Music was an answer to the segregation, “perhaps the zoot suit conceals profound political meaning.”[28]
Opposed to race that is “presumed to reflect inherent biological classifications of people,” nations are “presumed to be natural spatial divisions.”[29] Therefore, national identity is supposed to unite all the citizens of the country despite their racial differences. However, the United States chose a different way of segregation and racial ideology in 1776-the 1930s.
References
[1] Roediger, Whiteness and Ethnicity in the History of ‘white Ethnics’ in the United States, 331.
[2] Ibid., 323.
[3] Martinez, Mexican Americans and Whiteness, 175.
[4] Roediger, Whiteness and Ethnicity, 335.
[5] Tyner, The Geopolitics of Eugenics and the Exclusion of Philippine Immigrants from the United States, 55.
[6] Ibid., 55.
[7] Roediger, Whiteness and Ethnicity, 327.
[8] Ibid., 327.
[9] Menchaca & Valencia, Anglo-Saxon Ideologies in the 1920s-1930s: The Impact on the segregation of Mexican students in California, 225.
[10] Ibid., 228.
[11] Ibid., 228.
[12] Tyner, The Geopolitics of Eugenics, 61.
[13] Ibid., 63.
[14] Menchaca & Valencia, Anglo-Saxon Ideologies, 228.
[15] Ibid., 226.
[16] Ibid., 228.
[17] Ibid., 226.
[18] Ibid., 226.
[19] Tyner, The Geopolitics of Eugenics, 56.
[20] Roediger, Whiteness and Ethnicity, 324.
[21] Martinez, Mexican Americans, 175.
[22] Ibid., 175.
[23] Menchaca & Valencia, Anglo-Saxon Ideologies, 229.
[24] Ibid., 229.
[25] Ibid., 229.
[26] Ibid., 229.
[27] Macias, Bringing Music to the People: Race, Urban Cultural, and Municipal Politics in Postwar Los Angeles, 694.
[28] Kelley, The Riddle of the zoot: Malcolm Little and Black Cultural Politics During World War II, 161.
[29] Tyner, The Geopolitics of Eugenics, 54.