in siskiyou county, california, lumber industry in 1909, complaints from immigrants reached an italian consular official who contacted the governor because italian americans were being treated as nonwhite. the governor replied frankly that the term “white” was one way people of that locality had of distinguishing “americans” from italians.
late european immigrants including irish, jewish, eastern european, and italian immigrants were often referred to as not being part of the “white race”. this can be attributed to the fact that race was a very muddled concept around the turn of the century. anthropologists, sociologists, politicians, courts, and the general population could not agree on what race truly meant. the lack of opportunities that late european immigrants faced is no way comparable to what people of color in the united states faced.
there were numerous ways to classify new immigrants: by nationality (the “italian race”), as a kind of racial mix with black or asian ancestry (as southern italians and hungarians were sometimes classified, respectively), or as white. in reality, race was not a concept of white and non white, but the general population instead picked up on social hierarchy that could be observed from public opinion surveys only in the early 1920s held that early white americans were at the top, followed by late european immigrants, then asian americans, and finally, black americans.
the racialization of white european immigrants was often dependent upon customs and culture, rather than purely appearance, as proven by early 20th century studies. a study of over 2,000 jewish men in new york city revealed that only 14 percent had the nose that is stereotypically referred to as a “jewish nose”. a study done before world war II showed that italians and jews in ethnic enclaves in new york city had very particular gestures and mannerisms, but this was only applicable to those who were not working class and unassimilated. the same could not be said about asian, black, or latino americans who were distinguishable on sight (with the exception of the few who passed for white). additionally, white immigrants could marry into “old european stock” and lose class markers through education and distinguishable surnames through marriage or name change.
the emphasis on racialization for white americans was on was on their class and cultural markers their desire to assimilate, the social problems associated with their arrival, and their english language and technical skills. as stanley lieberson notes, for black americans the main barrier was that they were castigated if they dared to leave their “place” or “station”, particularly with the “racial etiquette” present in the south. european immigrants, on the other hand, were actually encouraged to achieve. they were encouraged to assimilate and to become american (and white). black americans tried as hard as european immigrants but were considered to be biologically inferior and thus not suitable for many jobs or neighborhoods and even rights. chinese immigrants faced a different experience than european immigrants. they were unable to assimilate and were oppressed by other immigrants.
what european immigrants experienced was for the most part prejudice and effects of nativism. they were largely not denied access to institutions based on their race, and even when they were, they were considered better than people of color. courts decided that european immigrants were white before world war I (as it was necessary for citizenship). michael omi and howard winant believe that europeans’ race was actually settled by the 1890s. robert blauner believed that these immigrants were “viewed racially” but were not victims of racism. while the earlier experiences of white european immigrants were not ideal nor equal to those of earlier immigrants, they were also not the same as those of asian, black, latino, or native americans though it is important to note that racialization of many ashkenazi jewish immigrants was not the same as that of gentiles.
No comments:
Post a Comment