sign in sign up
<<
Home , Americanization, Colonization, Independence, Indigenous peoples, Internal colonialism, Miscegenation

SREXXX10.1177/2332649214560440Sociology of and EthnicityGlenn 560440research-article2014

Current (and Future) Theoretical Debates in of Race and Ethnicity

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2015, Vol. 1(1) 54­–74 as © Sociological Association 2014 DOI: 10.1177/2332649214560440 Structure: A Framework for sre.sagepub.com Comparative Studies of U.S. Race and Gender Formation

Evelyn Nakano Glenn1

Abstract Understanding as an ongoing structure rather than a past historical event serves as the basis for an historically grounded and inclusive analysis of U.S. race and gender formation. The settler goal of seizing and establishing property rights over land and resources required the removal of indigenes, which was accomplished by various forms of direct and indirect violence, including militarized . sought to control space, resources, and people not only by occupying land but also by establishing an exclusionary private property regime and coercive labor systems, including chattel to work the land, extract resources, and build infrastructure. I examine the various ways in which the development of a white settler U.S. and political economy shaped the race and gender formation of whites, Native Americans, , , and Chinese Americans.

Keywords settler colonialism, , race, gender, genocide,

In this article I argue for the necessity of a settler to fight racial injustice. Equally, I wish to avoid colonialism framework for an historically grounded seeing affecting various groups as com- and inclusive analysis of U.S. race and gender for- pletely separate and unrelated. Rather, I endeavor mation. A settler colonialism framework can to uncover some of the articulations among differ- encompass the specificities of racisms and sexisms ent racisms that would suggest more effective affecting different racialized groups—especially bases for cross-group alliances. Native Americans, blacks, Latinos, and Asian In the latter regard, one implication of taking Americans—while also highlighting structural and settler colonialism seriously is to advance decolo- cultural factors that undergird and link these rac- nization as a necessary goal in the quest to achieve isms and sexisms. I offer here a first rough sketch race and gender justice. Indeed, the elaboration of of a settler colonialism–framed analysis of racial the settler colonialism framework has been closely formation in certain critical periods and places in paralleled by the development of decolonial cri- the . I engage with recent theoretical tiques of racial justice projects that aim to achieve work that views settler colonialism as a distinct liberal inclusion, rather than liberation, of transnational formation whose political and eco- 1 nomic projects have shaped and continue to shape of California, Berkeley, CA, USA race relations in first that were estab- Corresponding Author: lished through settler colonialism. My aim is to Evelyn Nakano Glenn, University of California, 506 avoid lumping all racisms together, even for the Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720.2570, USA. benign purpose of promoting cross-race alliances Email: [email protected] Glenn 55 subordinated groups. Theorists of decolonialism, and the end of Reconstruction, white supremacy such as Walter Mignolo (2007) and Nelson was reinstated in the former slave states by mea- Maldonado-Torres (2011), argue that the case for sures that subjected nominally free blacks to legal, liberal inclusion can only be made by working political, and economic conditions as close to slav- within the , logics, and epistemologies of ery as possible. Blacks were systematically disfran- modernism. Yet, these are the very narratives, log- chised, super-exploited, confined, and terrorized in ics, and epistemologies that undergird settler colo- multiple ways. Denied any freedom wages in the nial projects. Thus, strategies and solutions that form of land, freed people were ensnared in debt adhere to modernist concepts of progress, individu- bondage under the sharecropping system, arbi- ality, property, worth, and so on are fated to repro- trarily imprisoned and put to forced labor under the duce the inequalities that colonialism has created. convict labor system, and kept in check by legal Mignolo and Maldonado-Torres argue for the and vigilante terrorism. necessity of challenging and rejecting modernist Finally, a century after formal emancipation, concepts. They propose that the thinking with the gains won by the Civil Rights Movement and philosophy of women of color feminists offer in the United States and the growing ethnic, racial, counter-hegemonic narratives, logics, and episte- and religious diversity of the U.S. , espe- mologies that enable the imagining of liberation for cially as non-Hispanic whites have approached men and women of color. What I draw on from becoming a numerical minority, race scholars have decolonial theory is an intersectional perspective, shifted more attention to affecting other one that recognizes gender, sexuality, and race as groups, particularly Latinos, Asians, and Native co-constituted by settler colonial projects. Americans. Before further elaborating the settler colonial One strategy has been to cluster racialized framework, I will contextualize my project by groups together under an umbrella term, such as briefly reviewing previous efforts to develop con- “non-Whites,” “people of color,” or “ ceptual models to analyze and compare racisms minorities.” By identifying commonalities in their affecting varied racialized groups in the United experiences of subordination, exploitation, and States. exclusion, theorists hoped to promote coalitional organizing to fight racism. The Beyond the Black-White model, originally devised by Carmichael and Hamilton (1967) to account for the condition of Binary? African Americans, was elaborated by Robert American sociologists developed the concept of Blauner (1972) in his influential volume Racial “ethnicity” to refer to relations among groups Oppression in America to encompass African marked by cultural and language difference, while Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and Asian “race” referred to groups marked by supposed Americans. According to Blauner (1972:53), these somatically visible difference. These scholars rec- racialized minorities (Colonized Minorities) “share ognized that racial groups were also characterized a common situation of oppression” that differed by cultural distinctions, but in practice, the study of from the situation of European immigrants ethnic relations generally focused on intraracial (Immigrant Minorities), namely, “forced entry into relations, especially among whites from different the larger society” (as opposed to voluntary entry by national origins, while the study of race focused in European immigrants), subjection to various forms interracial group relations and inequality between of coerced labor (as opposed to participation in free and among groups marked as white and black. labor), and colonizer that “con- Indeed, the vast majority of sociological studies of strains, transforms, or destroys original values, ori- racism and racial inequality have focused on white- entations, and ways of life.” Racial Oppression black conflict and disparities. This attention was became a foundational text for students and schol- warranted given the long history of black subjuga- ars of -Latino, Native American, and Asian tion and the unique structural position blacks occu- American Studies during the 1970s and 1980s. pied as property under the regime of chattel slavery. A second approach has been to focus on the Jared Sexton (2010:46) noted, “Because Blackness common processes by which groups are formed serves as the basis of enslavement in the logic of a (and reformed) as racial groups—that is, are identi- transnational political and legal , it perma- fied by social and political institutions and self- nently destabilizes the position of any nominally identify as distinct races. This approach bypasses free Black population.” Indeed, after Emancipation the problem of mapping racialized groups in a 56 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) conceptual space or in a hierarchy of groups. Latinos (e.g., many ) are being Michael Omi and Howard Winant took this assimilated “downward” to become part of an approach in their seminal work, Racial Formation expanded category that he calls the “collective in America, originally published in 1989 and reis- Black.” sued in revised versions in 1994 and 2014. Omi and Still another approach has been taken by non- Winant argued that in the United States, “Race is a U.S. origin scholars who pioneered postcolonial fundamental axis of social organization.” At the studies (e.g., Bhabha 1994; Gilroy 1995; Hall same time, they recognized race not as fixed but as 2003) and by U.S. Latino/a thinkers who pioneered “an unstable and ‘decentered’ complex of social border studies and feminist decolonial studies (e.g., meaning constantly being transformed by political Anzaldua 2012; Lugones 2010; Sandoval 2000). struggle” (Omi and Winant 1994:13). Indeed, the These scholars have stressed the indeterminacy of last decades of the twentieth century saw racially racial categories and the fluidity and hybridity of defined groups engaging in political struggle to racial identities. Such conceptions make eminent challenge the structural and cultural violence of sense of a world where large swathes of popula- colonialism, , and racial-. tions emigrate and move across , where One result of these struggles is that “we have now borders are constantly contested and changed, and reached the point of fairly general agreement that where individuals and mix and merge. race is not a biologically given but rather a socially Moreover, some ethnic groups in the United States constructed way of differentiating beings” have long embraced a hybrid identity, most promi- (Omi and Winant 1994:55). Omi and Winant nently Mexican Americans, many of whom cele- (1994:63) caution, however, that “the transcen- brate their mixed Indigenous/Spanish heritage dence of biological conceptions of race does not (mestizaje), and . Regarding fluidity, provide any reprieve from the dilemmas of racial recent empirical work by Aliya Saperstein and injustice and conflict nor from the controversies Andrew Penner (2010, 2012) analyzes national over the significance of race in the present.” longitudinal data over two decades and finds that A third approach to the imperative for a more individuals’ racial self-identification and others’ comprehensive understanding of race has been to classification of them shift over time. Generally, retain the white-black as the anchors of a becoming successful and of high status leads to hierarchical U.S. racial system but to expand the shifts in self-identification and social assignment hierarchy to include other racialized groups toward “white,” while becoming unsuccessful and between the poles. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (1997) low status (including being incarcerated) leads to developed what he called a “racialized social sys- reassignment to “black.” A concurrent develop- tem” approach to analyzing how a society’s eco- ment has been the destabilization of sex and gender nomic, political, social, and political stratification designations and identities by feminist thinkers is structured by the placement of actors into racial such as Judith Butler (2006) and empirically stud- categories. In other writings (e.g., Bonilla-Silva ied by researchers such as Lisa Diamond (2009), 2009) he argues that U.S. racial stratification is which unfortunately I do not have space to elabo- undergoing transformation into a tri-partite rate on here. Yet, despite the increased recognition American style system consisting of blacks, whites, of the instability and ambiguity of race and gender and an intermediate category of . categorizations, they remain persistent and resilient Bonilla-Silva examines the ranking of various principles for organizing hierarchical relations Asian and Latino groups on an array of measures, within and between societies. How are we to including income, schooling, educational attain- account for this seeming contradiction? ment, occupational status, self-identity, attitudes toward blacks, rates of intermarriage, and residen- An Alternative Starting tial segregation. These rankings provide support for his hypothesis that some Asian groups (e.g., Point Chinese and ) and some (generally lighter I now turn to an exposition of settler colonialism as skinned) Latino groups (e.g., and an alternative starting point for a framework that Argentines) are being assimilated “upward” to can generate a more historically and structurally become accepted as whites or else are being grounded analysis of racial inequality in the United absorbed into an intermediate of “honorary States, one that pays attention to variation across whites.” Concurrently, other Asian groups (e.g., time and place while also being attentive to struc- Hmong and Cambodians) and darker skinned tures that link these differing cases. It is Glenn 57 a framework that is amenable to intersectional by the and its other . Goods and understanding because it is widely understood that raw materials, like colonists, follow a circular path colonial projects simultaneously structure race, in classic colonialism. gender, class, and sexual relations within and In settler colonialism, the object is to acquire between colonists and the colonized. Moreover, land and to gain control of resources. To realize since settler colonial projects are transnational in these ambitions, the first thing that must be done is scope, a settler colonialism framework invites to eliminate the indigenous occupants of the land. investigation of cross-national connections and This can be accomplished in a variety of ways: comparisons. genocide, forced removal from desired The concept of settler colonialism has been by white settlers, and confinement to reservations most clearly elaborated by scholars of indigenous outside the boundaries of white settlement. It can studies, especially in , , and the also be accomplished through assimilation. United States. It is a framework that highlights Assimilation can be biological (e.g., through inter- commonalities in the history and contemporary to “dilute” indigenous blood) and/or cul- situation of in many parts of the tural (e.g., by stripping indigenes of their culture world. However, although it may seem to be best and replacing it with settler culture). suited to explain the racialization and treatment of The second thing that must be done is to secure indigenous peoples, I agree with Patrick Wolfe the land for settlers. This can be accomplished by (1999) that settler colonialism should be seen not imposing a modernist property regime that trans- as an event but as an ongoing structure. The logic, forms land and resources (sometimes including tenets, and identities engendered by settler colo- people) into “things” that can be owned. This nialism persist and continue to shape race, gender, regime consists of such elements as mapping and class, and sexual formations into the present. marking boundaries to delimit an object that is to Scholars of settler colonialism argue that it is a be owned, a system for recording ownership, and distinct form of colonialism that needs to be theo- legal rules for ownership and sale of objects rized separately from colonialism more generally. defined as property. Indigenous people generally In contrast to classic colonialism whose aim is to understand the land and their relationship to it very take advantage of resources that will benefit the differently, viewing themselves as being provided metropole, settler colonialism’s objective is to for by the land and in turn as living in harmony acquire land so that colonists can settle perma- with the land and having a sense of responsibility nently and form new communities. Lorenzo for its welfare. Settler society does not recognize Veracini (2011) compares the arc of clas- indigenous conceptions and from their own per- sic colonialism and settler colonialism to the differ- spective of land as property, views indigenes as ence between a circle and a line. In classic failing to make productive use of it. colonialism, the narrative, as in the Odyssey, takes a circular form, “consisting of an outward move- The Logic and Practices ment followed by interaction with exotic and colo- nized ‘others’ in foreign surroundings, and by a of U.S. Settler Colonialism final return to an original location” (p. 205). In con- I turn now to the specific case of U.S. settler colo- trast, “the narrative generally associated with set- nialism. Walter Hixson (2013:29) argues that the tler colonial enterprises rather resembles the British settler colonial project in Aeneid, where the traveler moves forward along a was unique from those of its Spanish and French story line that can’t be turned back” (p. 206). Settler rivals: “Like the Spanish and the French, the colonists do not envision a return home. Rather, English embraced , private property, and they seek to transform the new into “home.” , but the emphasis on the settlement of The differing goals of classic colonialism and families and communities distinguished them.” settler colonialism lead to a second major differ- Spanish male colonists were spread thinly across ence: their confrontation with indigenes. In classic vast vistas of land. French traders and missionaries colonialism, the object is to exploit not only natural were surrounded by indigenous people with whom resources but also human resources. Native inhab- they had to coexist. The French also were over- itants represent a cheap labor source that can be whelmingly male and often took Indian mistresses harnessed to produce goods and extract materials and with whom they formed Metis (mixed) for export to the metropole. They also serve as con- communities. “By contrast European women sumers, expanding the market for goods produced migrated with men and children to settle in the 58 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1)

English colonies.” This family-based agreed to by Native Americans induced to sign by in combination with its rural character proved to be false promises and duress. During the presidency of advantageous, enabling “a steady westward migra- Andrew Jackson, and at his urging, the U.S. tion towards the agricultural as the threat of Congress passed The Act of 1830 Indian attack diminished” (Elliott 2006:43–44). (IRA). The IRA targeted the “five civilized ” of With regard to the elimination of the indigene, the southeast (Cherokee, Chickasaw, , settlers adopted all of the aforementioned policies Creek, and ), so called because they had at one time or another. Hixson (2013) documents gone furthest in adopting the culture and ways of life the almost continuous history of settler colonial of white settlers (including the ownership of black ethnic cleansing. Regular outbreaks of warfare slaves). Through , these tribes were prevailed occurred throughout the seventeenth, second half upon to cede their traditional lands in , of the eighteenth, and the nineteenth centuries as , , and Florida in exchange for land settlers pressed up against lands inhabited or used west of the Mississippi. The Choctaw, Creek, and by Native Americans first in the East and then in Chickasaw were the first to be removed, and they the Midwest and finally the West. Some genocidal suffered the loss of thousands of men, women, and campaigns were carried out by official military children who died en route to the West. Cherokees forces of the metropole or the colonies, while oth- waged a long legal battle that delayed removal until ers were unauthorized actions by settler vigilantes. 1838. At that point, the U.S. government sent in Attacks launched by vigilantes were likely to be 7,000 troops to force the Cherokee into stockades particularly brutal and to involve the slaughtering and then sent them on a forced march to the West of women, children, infants, and the elderly. Hixson with inadequate provisions. On the “Trail of Tears,” notes that in 1609 when hostilities broke out at least 4,000 Cherokees perished from hunger, cold, between the English settlers in Jamestown and and disease. The resisted militarily, wag- Native Americans in the , the leader of the ing two wars, the second of which did not end until colony, James Smith, “pioneered the tradition of 1858, at which point most Seminoles had been relo- irregular warfare in the ‘’ by burning cated to Oklahoma. Even so, one hardy band of and razing Indian homes and agricultural fields” Seminoles managed to hold out in Florida, where (p. 31). Warfare escalated during and after the Civil their descendants still live (Foreman 1974; Perdue War as American settlers pushed to occupy the and Green 2008). remaining land in the West and Native tribes fought Near the end of Indian armed resistance in the to preserve their ways of life. The Massacre at West in the 1880s, federal Indian policy turned Wounded Knee (1890) that resulted in the death of decisively toward assimilation, or as it was often 300 Sioux warriors was one of the last major bat- dubbed, “.” The aim was to phase tles and mostly ended Indian armed resistance out Indian and other special statuses so (Brown 2007:439–50). as to absorb indigenous peoples into settler society. A little known aspect of genocidal raids and The twin prongs of Indian assimilation policy were warfare was the enslavement of indigenous survi- land allotments and education. Under the Dawes vors, particularly women and children. In colonial Act of 1887, the federal government divided tribal New , the selling of Indian slaves on the land into individual allotments. Heads of house- international market in the and South holds were entitled to 160 acres, single individuals America helped defray the costs of the to 60 acres, and those under 18 to 40 acres (Debos Wars. Settler men spoke of their desire for Native 1973). By allotting larger holdings to heads of American women whom they could use as - households, the program was designed to encour- tic servants and sex slaves. In the South, according age the formation of heteropatriarchal nuclear to Alan Gallay (2009:57), “Only through warfare households. Proponents of allotment believed that could Carolinians obtain the slaves they desired to owning and cultivating individual plots would exchange for supplies to build their plantations.” In transform Indian men into citizen farmers and California between 1850 and 1863, Walter Hixson Indian women into farm wives. Importantly, the (2013:125) writes, “Some 10,000 Indians were large surplus left after allotments was made avail- sold into servitude. American slave traders often able to white settlers and railroad companies for killed the parents of Indian children so they might development. The net result of allotment policy be seized and trafficked.” was to dramatically reduce the amount of land Conflicts over were also resolved by owned by Indians collectively and individually. In removal and relocation under that were 1887, before the start of allotment, Indians owned Glenn 59

138 million acres; that amount was reduced to 54 his destruction has been an enormous factor in million acres by 1934 when the allotment program promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree was terminated (McDonald 1991). with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Special education for Indian children was meant Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill to complement allotment by preparing Indians for the Indian in him, and save the man. (Pratt new productive roles in American society. Starting 1973:260) in the 1880s, reformers’ designs for Indian children consisted of two components: child removal and The decades of the 1940s to the 1960s saw still placement in boarding . Education officials another shift in settler policy toward Native at the (BIA) favored com- Americans. The intent was to assimilate Native pulsory removal so as to limit the influence of Americans as individuals into settler society and to Indian mothers. Estelle Reed, a longtime break their communal orientation and tribal ties. In Superintendent of Indian Schools, explained, “The 1953 the U.S. Congress passed legislation termi- Indian child must be placed in before the nating the tribal status of many Indian groups. habits of barbarous life become fixed and there he Termination of tribal status meant the loss of legal must be kept until contact with our life has taught standing as a sovereign dependent and the him to abandon his savage ways and walk in the end of federal aid, protections, and services, such path of Christian ” (Superintendent of as health care, which had been provided by the Indian Schools 1900:426). Over a 24-year period Indian Health Service. Many reservations were from 1879 to 1902, the federal government estab- also terminated and reservation land sold off, pri- lished over 150 boarding schools, of which 25 were marily to non-Indians. Tribal members were unilat- off-reservation (Reyhner and Eder 2004). BIA erally made U.S. citizens, subject to taxes and state recruiters were hired to convince parents to enroll laws from which they had been exempt. Over the their children, with the promise that their children next decade the government terminated 109 tribes would be fed, housed, and educated so that they and removed 2.5 million acres of trust land (Fixico could improve their lives. 1986, 2000; Ramirez 2007). Once at school, Indian children were given hair- A linked policy was to disperse Indians away cuts and issued settler clothing. They were prohib- from reservations. The Indian Relocation Act of ited from speaking their native languages and from 1956 paid moving expenses and provided voca- practicing native religions and rituals. The curricu- tional training and job placement to Native lum focused on gender-typed vocational training. Americans willing to leave their reservations for 9 Boys were trained in farming and trades and girls government-designated urban centers (Chicago, in domestic skills. Even though most federal offi- Denver, Los Angeles, , San Jose, St. cials placed more emphasis on “civilizing” Indian Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Dallas). Indian men, they were persuaded to try to educate Indian men were tracked into low-, dead end jobs, girls under the tutelage of white female teachers. and Indian women were directed into domestic ser- They blamed Indian women for the “backward- vice in white households. Many relocated Indians ness” of Indian men. In their view, the fact that found that the promised jobs and stipends did not Indian women did heavy physical labor and were materialize and fell on hard times in the city; some ignorant of modern housekeeping methods returned to the reservation. The relocation policy accounted for Indian men’s laziness and disinterest resulted in the dispersal of the Indian population. in material progress. If Indian women could be An estimated 750,000 Native Americans migrated educated to focus on the household and to desire to cities between 1950 and 1980. Whereas in 1940 better furnishings, Indian men would be impelled only 8 percent of Native Americans resided in cit- to work hard to acquire material goods (Stremlau ies, by 2012, 70 percent did (T. Williams 2013). 2005). Thus, assimilation was intended to instill a In the city, Native Americans often found com- sense of gender-appropriate duties and obligations. munity with members of other tribes, leading to the Ultimately, the aim of Indian schooling was to development of a pan-Indian orientation; intermar- impose “social death.” Col. Richard C. Pratt, riage across tribes increased the proportion of founder and head of the Carlisle Indian School, Indians with multi- identities. With the rise of proclaimed in a speech given in 1892: the black civil rights movement, Native Americans began to organize for the cause of self-determina- A great general has said that the only good tion for . This activism included legal Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of challenges to termination and relocation policy that 60 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) eventually succeeded (LaGrand 2005; Smith and to the land itself, to the mythologized common Warrior 1997). experience of settlement, and often to the shared goal of self-government. Frontiersmen and women became symbols of what it meant to be American. U.S. Settler Colonialism This new identity helped to bridge differences of as a Race-Gender class, ethnicity, and that might other- Project: Development wise have divided them. Thus, there was greater of National Identity equality among than existed at the time among inhabitants of the metropole. European and Normalization of immigrants to the United States who moved west to Gendered Whiteness take advantage of inexpensive frontier lands were In this section, I describe U.S. settler colonialism quickly granted American citizenship rights and as a race-gender project. By that I mean that it considered equals among their peers in matters of transplanted certain racialized and gendered con- local government. ceptions and regimes from the metropole but also Some settlers also appropriated indigenous transformed them in the context of and experiences symbols, attributes, and skills, as in the case of in the New World. What emerged out of the settler American frontiersmen who wore buckskin and colonial project was a racialized and gendered cowboys, range-riders, and backwoodsmen who national identity that normalized male whiteness. adopted native trapping, , and riding tech- Since settlers initially were exogenous others seek- niques. Turner’s ([1893] 1920:4) essay refers to ing to claim rights to land and over frontiersmen discarding train travel for traveling by those who already occupied the land, they needed birch , wearing hunting shirts and mocca- to develop conceptions of indigenous peoples as sins, planting Indian corn, and even shouting war lesser beings, unworthy of consideration. They har- cries and taking scalps in “orthodox Indian fash- nessed race and gender to construct a hierarchy of ion.” Of course, the vast majority of white humankind. Conceiving of indigenous peoples as Americans did not actually ride canoes or wear less than fully human justified dispossessing them buckskin. However, they identified with fictional and rendered them expendable and/or invisible. or mythical characters (e.g., Leather Stockings, Land occupied or used seasonally by indigenes was Paul Bunyan) or emblematic exemplars who did conceived of as (empty land or land (e.g., Daniel Boone, Buffalo Bill). belonging to no one) and therefore available for Walter Hixson (2013:3) characterizes the emu- taking by white settlers. Simultaneously, settlers lations of indigenes as expressions of settler conceived of themselves as more advanced and ambivalence: evolved, bringers of progress and enlightenment to the . Masculine whiteness thus became The colonizer desired the colonized other, for central to settler identity, a status closely tied to example for his attunement with nature or ownership of property and political sovereignty. sexual liberation, and yet was repulsed by his The latter in turn articulated with heteropatriarchy, primitiveness and the dangers he posed. The which rendered white manhood supreme with slippages and uncertainty with the colonizer’s respect to control over property and self-rule. This identity, including taking on some of the entailed settler wives being denied an independent characteristics of the “savage,” produced legal identity; instead, her identity was merged into anxiety and instability. that of her husband, and her property and labor were under his control. Further, it was presumed Importantly, the of indigenous symbols that “heteropatriarchal nuclear-domestic arrange- and attributes differentiates settlers from residents ments, in which the [white] father is both protector of the metropole, whom settlers may scorn as and leader should serve as the model for social “over-civilized.” In the U.S. case, the appropriation arrangements of the state and its institutions” of indigenous symbols and practices contributed to (Arvin, Tuck, and Morrill 2013:13). the forging of a new national identity separate from Settlers may initially identify with the imperial that of the metropole and supporting the case for power and submit to its rule, but over time their self-government. interactions with indigenes and experiences in the Another element common to settler colonial- colony set them apart from the population in the ism, one that certainly characterizes U.S. settler metropole. American settlers attached their identity colonialism, is the “denial and disavowal of the Glenn 61 history of violent dispossession of the indigenes” official U.S. legal document promulgated by (Hixson 2013:12). Lorenzo Veracini (2010:14) the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of opines, . . . . [This] racist, organizing iconography of the Indian as irreconcilable and The settler hides behind his labour and hardship inassimilable savage other continued after the (the settler does not dispossess anyone; he Revolution as one of the core organizing beliefs “wrestles with the land” to sustain his inspiring the Founders’ vision of America’s family) . . . the settler enters a “new, empty land growth and potentiality as a new form of to start a new life;” indigenous people naturally expansionary White racial dictatorship in the and inevitably “vanish;” it is not settlers that world. (R. Williams 2005:39) displace them. While acknowledging the centrality of enslaved In short, “settler colonialism obscures the condi- blacks to the formation of white racial identity, R. tions of its own production.” Veracini adds that set- Williams argues that the Founders’ first Indian pol- tler colonialism’s need to disavow any foundational icy “was the inaugural step in defining a White racial violence is such that “even when settler colonial identity for the United States as a nation” (p. 48). narratives celebrate anti-indigenous violence, they do so by representing a defensive battle ensuring the continued survival of the settler community and The Logic and Practice never as a founding violence per se” (p. 78). of Racialized Slavery and The encounter with the indigene can be viewed as the founding moment for the formation of U.S. Exploitation whiteness. The “savage” and eliminable indigene is As stated in the earlier exposition on the defining racialized as “other” in contrast to the “civilized” characteristics of settler colonialism, U.S. settler sovereign settler, who becomes “white.” Whiteness colonialism has been driven by the impulse to gain also becomes synonymous with the nation. Aileen sovereignty over land, bodies, and labor by turning Moreton-Robinson (2008:85) explains, them into private property that can be bought, exploited, and sold. In this section, I analyze exam- The USA as a White cannot exist ples of how this impulse and the institutionalization without land and clearly defined borders, it is of property regimes affected not only Native the legally defined and asserted territorial Americans but also other racialized groups in the sovereignty that provides the context for past and present. Arvin et al. (2013:12) point out that national identification of Whiteness. In this way . . . Native American dispossession within settler colonialism, it is exploitation of indelibly marks configurations of White land that yields supreme value. . . . Extracting national identity. value from the land also often requires systems of slavery and other forms of labor exploitation. Melissa Lovell (2007:3) observes, “Settler colo- These simultaneous processes of taking over nialism is an example of an institutionalised or nor- the land (by killing and erasing the peoples with malised (and therefore mostly invisible) ideology of previous relationships to that land) and national identity.” She also points to the associated importing forced labor (to work the land as invisibility and normalization of whiteness. “White chattel slaves to yield high profit margins for people are able to define Whiteness as normality the landowners) produced the wealth upon and to position themselves as full citizens whilst which the U.S. nation’s world power is founded. pushing non- (including migrants and indigenous people) to the margins or even outside Initially, American colonists made use of of the boundaries of citizenship.” enslaved Native Americans, immigrant white Native American legal scholar Robert A. indentured servants and convicts, and enslaved Williams, Jr. goes further, attributing the establish- Africans. However, Americans came to favor black ment of a U.S. white racial dictatorship to settler chattel slaves, finding them more profitable, espe- resolve to erase Indians from the land: cially for plantation labor in the South. What emerged was a triadic system that brought together An overtly racist, hostile, and violent language the industry of the white settler, the land of dispos- of Indian savagery can be found in the first sessed Native Americans, and the forced labor of 62 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) enslaved Africans to produce European and white tempered” as long as blacks “continued to have value American wealth. Patrick Wolfe (2011:273) notes, as a source of super-cheap labour.” “Ubiquitously, colonizers have encoded and In more recent times, particularly since the orchestrated this complexity by reference to some 1980s, blacks have lost their value as labor due to version, however inchoate, of the doctrine of race. deindustrialization, globalized production, and In the sound-bite vocabulary of race, the three immigration of workers from the global south to points of the Atlantic triangle . . . , America provide even cheaper labor. Racial zoning of and became chromatized as Black, Red, American cities has hardened, and incarceration and White respectively.” rates of blacks, particularly black men, have soared. The establishment of black chattel slavery has Michelle Alexander (2012) has aptly dubbed the been fundamental to U.S. conceptions of race in phenomenon of mass incarceration of blacks as the black-white terms. The distinction between the “New Jim Crow.” Even more starkly, Wolfe (2006) eliminability of indigenous peoples (for land) and has proposed the term “structural genocide” to cover usefulness of blacks (as property and for productive a range of eliminatory practices from mass killing to and reproductive labor) held as long as slavery spatial removal to biological and cultural assimila- remained in place. Thus, rules governing racial tion, all of which have been employed to deal with classification of Native Americans and blacks dif- Native Americans and to some extent with blacks. fered. For Indians, miscegenation diluted indigene- Ruth Gilmore (2007) analyzes the massive ity such that mixed people were disqualified for growth of the California prison population dispro- tribal membership and therefore for coverage by portionately made up of African American men. treaty rights and entitlement to land allotments. She relates this growth to the diminishing demand Reducing the indigenous population entitled to for black labor by tracking the tandem rise in num- treaty rights and land served the interests of white bers of unemployed and of prisoners between 1973 settlers and capitalists by opening up more land for and 1996. them to own and exploit. In contrast, for blacks, Her analysis exposes the prison industrial com- miscegenation perpetuated blackness and increased plex as a key instrument of “structural genocide” the population of enslaveable people. The growth of directed against blacks. This notion is consistent the black slave population was consonant with the with Gilmore’s (2007:28) definition of racism as goals of increasing white property. The black-white “the state-sanctioned or legal production and exploi- binary came to be mapped onto other dichotomies tation of group-differentiated vulnerabilities to pre- that defined American identity: freedom-slavery, mature death.” Another prominent instrument of humanity-animality, owner of property–being prop- “structural genocide” is social and spatial contain- erty, and citizen-noncitizen. Given the transforma- ment in impoverished inner city ghettos. Gilmore tion of Native Americans into ghosts, it is not (2007:74) points out that the “concentration effect of surprising that everyday conceptions of race came sociospatial apartheid” includes “increased vulnera- to be organized around a black-white binary rather bility to intentional and accidental violence, leading than a red-white binary. to premature death from a variety of causes.” These contrasting positions of eliminable Native Americans and enslavable and exploitable blacks were rooted in historical circumstances that have Settler Colonialism and changed over time. With the dismantling of chattel Gendered and Racialized slavery and emancipation, blacks in some places and in some situations became positioned more similarly Others to Native Americans as surplus population, therefore I next turn to settler colonial mobilization of race more eliminable. Patrick Wolfe (2006:404) notes that and gender to manage “exogenous others” beyond prior to emancipation, “as valuable commodities, the indigenes and enslaved blacks. In contrast to slaves had only been destroyed in extremis.” Indeed, virtuous or potentially virtuous exogenous others historian Walter Johnson (2013) has calculated that on (typically European immigrants) who may be the eve of the , in 1860, the value of slaves selected for gradual inclusion, undesirable exoge- exceeded the value of all railroads and factories in the nous others (typically racialized immigrants) were United States. However, once slavery was abolished considered morally degraded, sometimes irredeem- and Reconstruction ended, the U.S. witnessed the rise ably so. Settler colonialism’s response to undesir- of Jim Crow terrorism, lynching, legally mandated able exogenous others has often swung (and still segregation, and criminalization- tar- does) between the poles of “elimination” and coer- geting blacks. Still, their “dispensability was cive “exploitation.” Glenn 63

In making connections between settler colonial in that way. But, as Mae Ngai (2004:131– treatment of undesirable exogenous others and the 32) points out, “When Anglos confronted Mexicans, treatment of Native Americans and African they perceived Mexicans as foreigners even though Americans, I am not assuming a commensurability the majority of the Anglos themselves had also between anti-black racism or anti-Indian racism migrated to the Southwest at the same time. and other racisms. The so-called Afro-pessimist I now turn to examine settler colonialism’s con- school of thought argues for the singularity of anti- frontation with Mexicans and Chinese, focusing on black racism, which is rooted in the unique condi- the specific racialization and control strategies tions of chattel slavery (Patterson 1985; Sexton aimed at these “undesirable exogenous others.” 2010, 2011; Wilderson 2010). In his exegesis of Afro-pessimism, Jared Sexton (2010) contends that : Settler despite the fact that some non-black groups have at times labored under conditions similar to blacks, Colonial Expansion into they have not been subject to the rule of slave law. the Southwest He goes on to argue “the ‘social death’ in which In many ways the confrontation between Anglo one is denied entirely by the force of law, is settlers and Mexicans in the American Southwest reserved for the ‘natal alienation’ and ‘genealogical was a continuation of U.S. settler colonialism’s isolation’ characterizing slavery” (Sexton 2010:41). restless expansion. As in the case of settler colonial Thus, the analogizing of people of color suffering takeover of Indian land, Anglo takeover of northern to black suffering “bear(s) a common refusal to was a race-gender project. In the settler admit to significant differences of structural posi- imagination, a feminized and backward Mexican tion born of discrepant histories between Blacks race was giving way to a freedom-loving, demo- and their political allies, actual or potential” cratic progressive Anglo-Saxon or “American” (Sexton 2010:47–48). race. Anglo settlers viewed Mexican men as weak, I agree that racisms targeting different groups pusillanimous, and above all, lazy. Simultaneously, are not identical and that different racisms cannot they depicted Mexican women as alluring and be made equivalent by drawing analogies between available, awaiting and welcoming Anglo-Saxon differing forms of subordination, for example men. The sexual of Mexican women as a between chattel slavery and labor exploitation. metaphor for political conquest was often quite However, I do argue that the structure of U.S. set- explicit (Almaguer 2008:60–62; de Leon 1983:9– tler colonialism rests on social, economic, and 10; Horsman 1981:233). political underpinnings that link racisms. In mak- Anglo settlers dispossessed Mexican landown- ing the argument, I eschew constructing or adjudi- ers and agriculturalists through a combination of cating a hierarchy of suffering but work at legal and extra-legal means: “taxation, boundary uncovering some of the underpinnings. manipulation, theft, and juridical means such as Among the groups that can be considered under delaying land grant claims” (Velez-Ibanez the rubric of “undesirable exogenous others” are 1996:62). The closing off and privatizing of com- Mexicans and Chinese. They are each single munal grazing lands and transformations in the nationality groups that are often subsumed under economy constrained the ability of ordinary broader designations, Hispanics/Latinos and Asian Mexicans to maintain their pastoral ways of life. Americans, respectively. For purposes of this anal- Mexican men were increasingly forced into sea- ysis, I hone in on the specific groups—Mexicans sonal migratory wage work initially as sheepshear- and Chinese—rather than the broader heteroge- ers, vaqueros, and later in railroad construction, neous groupings because of their long history in the mining, and agricultural field labor. Women and United States and their prominent representation in children remained in their home villages and and political-legal discourse. Also engaged in domestic production and subsistence relevant is that the period of these groups’ initial agriculture (Deutsch 1989). incorporation into the United States coincided with Up until the 1930s, the U.S.-Mexico border the westward expansion of U.S. settler colonialism remained highly porous. The movement of and its project of final elimination of indigenes dur- Mexican nationals into the American Southwest ing the second half of the nineteenth century. While (and back to Mexico) was not policed. Mexican the category of exogenous other seems to fit the immigrants entered freely and worked alongside Chinese, who were viewed and treated as inalter- Mexican Americans. After , agriculture ably alien, it may seem incongruent to characterize in California, , and boomed. The 64 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) mode of farming “shifted from small and medium and replaced them with “need” criteria, including family-owned and run farms and sharecropping to labor demand, family reunification, and political large commercial farms owned by banks, lawyers, asylum. While opening up immigration from previ- and merchant investors” (Ngai 2004:130). These ously barred areas, such as , the 1965 Act agribusinesses required a large mobile labor force severely reduced entry from Mexico and Central to move with the seasons for cotton, sugar beets, and . The restrictions did not deter vegetables, and fruit. They welcomed migrants economic migrants seeking to escape poverty, from Mexico to join the ranks of an exploitable however, so the number of “illegal” immigrants migratory workforce. from Mexico increased. Undocumented immi- Racialization of Mexican Americans was com- grants readily found employment in low wage jobs, plicated by the fact that under the terms of the 1848 but lack of legal status constrained their employ- Treaty of Guadalupe , the United States ment choices and left them unprotected and vulner- agreed to grant “the enjoyment of all the rights of able to wage theft and many other forms of citizenship of the United States to all of the varied exploitation. people recognized as citizens by the Mexican gov- For nearly a century after the U.S. takeover, ernment.” The settler colonial formula that required much of the lower Southwest constituted a broad whiteness as a condition of citizenship in some borderland where peoples and cultures mixed and sense dictated the reverse logic that if Mexicans merged to create distinct new styles of food, music, were American citizens they must be white. Thus, and arts. Residents continued to cross the interna- before the 1930s the U.S. government did not dis- tional border more or less freely to work, shop, and tinguish Mexicans from whites for official pur- visit friends and family, sometimes commuting poses, including the U.S. (Haney Lopez back and forth on a daily basis to jobs on the U.S. 1996; Reisler 1976). side and returning to homes on the Mexican side. However, everyday practices of Anglo settlers Towns and metropolitan areas also spanned national and local governments were based on different borders. The two largest binational metropolitan understandings. In some times and places, Anglos areas are the San Diego–Tijuana complex and the El differentiated between “Indian” and “Spanish” Paso–Ciudad Juarez–Las Cruces complex. The lat- Mexicans, based on skin tone and class; in other ter, with a population of 2.7 million, is the largest times and places, they considered all Mexicans to bilingual binational workforce in the Western hemi- be “” or “.” The Texas and New sphere. However, with the imposition of stricter Mexico gave citizenship rights to border control at the U.S.-Mexico line after 1965, “free Whites” and “citizens of Mexico,” while the Mexicanos could no longer move freely within their California and Arizona constitutions limited suf- traditional lands. Those who crossed without papers frage to “Whites” and “White” citizens of Mexico. became undesirable “illegal immigrants.” On an everyday level, Anglo interpretations of As undesirable exogenous others, Mexicans Mexicans’ race varied, but by the 1910s it was con- have been subjected to control by four main tech- verging toward lumping all Mexicans into the cat- nologies: (a) containment (separation and segrega- egory of “non-White” or “colored” (Almaguer tion), (b) erasure (), (c) 2008; Weber 1992). Ngai (2004:131) notes that the terrorism (violence, lynching), and (d) removal concentration of Mexican immigrants in migratory (expulsion, ). I will give brief examples agriculture “stoop labor” was central in their racial of how these technologies were deployed to control formation in the United States. They were branded Mexican Americans. by such epithets as “greasers” or “dirty Mexicans.” After World War II, particularly after the Civil Rights gains of the 1960s and 1970s, some U.S.- Containment born Mexican Americans were able to move into Mexican Americans in the Southwest were kept white-collar and professional occupations and mid- contained through segregation in almost all aspects dle-class neighborhoods. However, the ranks of of life. In many towns, they lived in designated Mexican Americans were swelled by new immi- areas that lacked enclosed sewers and paved streets. grants, who were drawn by the demand for labor in They worked in a segregated labor market that agriculture, gardening and maintenance, food ser- restricted them to the most menial jobs. Social vices, sweatshops, domestic service, and construc- spaces were organized to reinforce distance tion. In 1965, the U.S. Congress passed a new between Anglos and Mexicans. In public sites such immigration law that eliminated national quotas as stores, theaters, and restaurants, Mexicans were Glenn 65 allowed to be present only at certain restricted American society, development of good habits times or in segregated areas. For example, in some such as cleanliness and punctuality, and acquiring Texas towns, Mexicans were allowed only in the gender-appropriate vocational or domestic skills. balcony sections of theaters, to sit only at counters Mexican girls studied sewing and mending, while or to use take-out at Anglo-run restaurants, to use Mexican boys were trained in carpentry, repairing the municipal swimming pool on the day before the shoes, basketry, haircutting, and blacksmithing pool was cleaned, and to shop on the Anglo side of (Haas 1995; P. Taylor 1930). town only on Saturday mornings (Foley 1999; Haas 1995; Montejano 1987). School segregation was mostly , an out- Terrorism growth of segregated housing patterns. However, Perhaps the least known aspect of Mexican many school districts established separate schools American history is the extent of racial terrorism for Mexicans, even busing Mexican children to and mob violence against Mexicans. Combing data these schools. De jure segregation was technically from newspaper stories, photographs, letters, jour- illegal because the federal government and some nals, and diplomatic records, historians William state constitutions considered Mexicans to be Carrigan and Clive Webb (2013) were able to com- “white.” Mexican parents mounted legal chal- pile data on 547 Mexican victims murdered by lenges to separate schools for Mexicans. When Anglo mobs between 1848 and 1928. Reasoning Santa Paula, California, school officials were that only a small percentage of instances could be forced to admit Mexican students to two predomi- documented in surviving sources, they argued, nantly white schools in the mid 1920s, they had special showers constructed in which Mexican stu- From the California Gold Rush to the last dents were required to bathe each day. Using the recorded instance of a Mexican lynched in hygiene argument protected school boards in public in 1928, vigilantes hanged, burned and California districts from charges of illegal segrega- shot thousands of persons of Mexican descent tion because the board allowed admin- in the United States. The scale of mob violence istrators to bar children from attending school or to against Mexicans is staggering, far exceeding segregate them if they were “filthy” or “unhealthy” the violence exacted on any other immigrant (Hernandez 1983; Menchaca 1995). group and comparable, at least on a per capita basis to the mob violence suffered by African Americans. (Carrigan and Webb 2013:1) Erasure Regarding cultural erasure through assimilation, Carlos Velez-Ibanez (1996:66) describes education Removal of Mexican children in Arizona as conveying the During times when there was a demand for labor, message “that their considerable poverty stemmed Mexicans were desirable as a source of super- from their backward Mexican culture and lan- exploitative labor doing the dirty work that Anglos guage.” Their education in Anglo-taught schools considered beneath them. However, when work focused on was scarce, they were considered expendable, a threat to community stability, and a drain on the eliminating obviously ‘foreign’ accents in economy. During the , agriculture Spanish, prohibiting the language from being in the Southwest was especially hard hit, and hun- spoken, and advising that Anglo Saxon models dreds of thousands of farmworkers were thrown of work, morality, and government were to be out of work. In an effort to reduce welfare burdens, imitated. . . . The school curriculum was local officials organized mass “repatriation” drives. designed to erase language, culture, social Welfare officials would grant temporary relief to relations, food preferences and a sense of impoverished Mexicans on the condition that they cultural lineage. repatriate to Mexico at public expense. An esti- mated 350,000 to 600,000 Mexicans, many of them Curricula were aimed not at preparing Mexican born in the United States and therefore American children for assimilation into the middle classes but citizens, were put on trains and sent en masse to at training them for a limited future as reliable and Mexico in the 1930s (Guttierez 1996; Reisler diligent workers. Curricula for Mexican children 1976). A second large-scale expulsion took place emphasized learning basic English and arithmetic during 1954 under “Operation Wetback,” a U.S. skills, inculcation in the ideals and values of Immigration and Naturalization Service sponsored 66 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) campaign to apprehend and deport undocumented over under contracts with labor brokers that bound agricultural workers. INS officials boasted that them for a fixed term, usually seven years (Ling Operation Wetback had succeeded in apprehending 1912). When federal legislation was passed in 1862 and deporting some 1,300,000 “illegals” (Velez- outlawing contract labor, labor brokers switched to Ibanez 1996:289). a credit ticket system that bound workers until they A third era of mass deportation was ushered in could pay off their debts. by a series of new immigration and deportation Some men of the merchant class brought wives laws enacted between 1996 and 2003 that elevated or concubines, but the vast majority of Chinese militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border and inten- immigrants were laborers who came alone. Over sified surveillance in the interior of the United half left wives behind in . As “sojourners,” States. Different new laws increased they worked to send remittances to relatives and to by expanding the categories of non-citizens eligi- accumulate enough capital to acquire land in ble for deportation, restricting the ability of China. Many apparently succeeded in returning migrants to appeal deportation, eliminating judicial because according to the U.S. Census, the Chinese reviews of deportation orders, and creating a new population never reached more than 107,000 dur- agency, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs ing the nineteenth century. The Chinese population Enforcement (ICE) charged with “apprehending, remained overwhelmingly gender-skewed, with detaining and deporting ‘criminal and fugitive’ the ratio of men to women ranging from 18.58:1 in non-citizens long after their arrival” (Hagan, 1860 to 26.79:1 in 1890 (Glenn 1983). Rodriguez, and Castro 2011:1375–76). In 2013, Chinese labor filled demands in parts of the 369,000 undocumented immigrants were deported economy that in the American South would have (“America’s Deportation Machine” 2014). In 2009, been delegated to enslaved blacks. However, some 72 percent of deportees were from Mexico, of white settlers (as well as federal policy) opposed the which only 33 percent were for criminal violations. introduction of slavery into California and other As in the case of the Depression era deportations, western territories and states, and after Emancipation, most of those deported in this recent wave have white Californians opposed the entry of free blacks. strong ties to the United States such as long resi- Instead, they turned to imported labor from Asia. dence, a home, and/or family members. The Chinese immigrants were tracked into work gangs Department of Security (DHS) esti- laying railway tracks, clearing fields, and digging mated that close to three-fifths of undocumented ditches for irrigation; they were also recruited into immigrants have lived in the United States for agricultural field labor, mining, and manufacturing. more than a decade (Ewing 2014). Finally, they filled the need for reproductive labor for the largely male Western population, as cooks, laundrymen, and domestic servants. Perpetual Aliens in Our Chinese laborers were sometimes “negroized” Midst in popular culture due to their relegation to danger- Around the same time that Mexicans in the ous and backbreaking work usually assigned to Southwest were incorporated into the United States blacks and their roles vis-à-vis white workers under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, gold was (Aarim-Heriot 2003). However, they were more discovered near Sutter’s Mill in northern California often depicted through orientalist tropes. in 1848. Thousands of mostly young males rushed Advertisements, editorial cartoons, and popular in from the East and Midwest and from Latin fiction portrayed “Chinamen” doing “women’s America and Europe to prospect for gold or to sup- work” as laundrymen, houseboys, and cooks. ply goods and services to the miners. Among the Much excellent scholarship has documented, dis- motley and polyglot gold rushers, the largest group sected, and analyzed more than a century of of foreign workers was Chinese, comprising up to Sinophobia, including not only racist depictions of a quarter of miners in some counties (Kanizawa the Chinese in popular culture but also anti-Chi- 2005). These comprised the first cohort of immi- nese pronouncements by representatives of white grants who left Guangdong Province to work in labor, white politicians, and white officials, as well California and other parts of the West. Thereafter, as outbreaks of moral panics and health campaigns during a period of open immigration from 1850 to focused on Chinatowns (e.g., McClain 1994; 1882, over 300,000 mostly young men were Saxton 1975; Shah 2001). recruited to work on railroads and in agriculture, As undesirable exogenous others, Chinese were mining, and manufacturing. They initially came controlled via some of the same technologies as Glenn 67

Mexicans, specifically: (a) containment (separa- Chinese men were scalped, mutilated, burned, tion/segregation), (b) terrorism (mob violence), branded, decapitated, dismembered, and hanged and (c) removal (expulsion). For the most part, from gutter spouts.” there was little focus on assimilation aside from Christian missionary efforts to convert Chinese and to rescue Chinese women from . White Restriction/Disablement settler society viewed the Chinese as inassimilable, Perhaps the most characteristic technology employed and it strongly opposed miscegenation, especially to manage the Chinese was the use of legal restric- between white women and Chinese men. However, tions designed to disable Chinese immigrants from settler colonialism adopted two other powerful making a living, putting down roots, procreating, technologies to manage the Chinese: (d) restric- and acquiring property, in short to become long- tion/disablement and (e) exclusion. term and self-regenerating residents and citizens. The city of San Francisco, with the largest popula- tion of Chinese residents, passed several ordi- Containment nances to hobble Chinese laundries. The State of I will not elaborate on segregation because of the California passed laws that imposed special taxes well-known phenomenon of the concentration of on Chinese miners and fishermen and that barred Chinese in Chinatowns that were viewed as simul- Chinese from testifying in criminal or civil cases taneously unclean and vice-ridden and as exotic and from employment on county irrigation projects tourist attractions. There were also segregated (McClain 1994; Sandemeyer 1991). schools for Chinese children in San Francisco and Most disabling were laws banning Chinese for “Oriental” students in the Sacramento Delta immigrants from owning land. As early as 1879, region through the 1930s. Oregon’s first included a section grant- ing “White foreigners” the same rights in land as native citizens but added, “No Chinaman, not a Terrorism and Removal resident of the state at the adoption of [this] consti- I combine terrorism and removal because much of tution, shall ever hold any real estate or mining the white mob violence against the Chinese was claim” (Lazarus 1987:217). Such forthright racial aimed not so much at killing or lynching individu- language was made unnecessary by the passage of als but at destroying Chinese settlements and the federal Naturalization Act of 1870. This law expelling all Chinese from a neighborhood, town, limited the right to become American citizens to or city. Starting in 1850, with the driving out of “White persons and persons of African descent,” Chinese miners from the gold fields and the seizing thus barring Asians from becoming naturalized of their assets, white American settlers carried out citizens and creating a new category for them of more than 200 “roundups” and expulsions of “aliens ineligible for citizenship.” Thereafter, states Chinese over the next half-century. Jean Pfaelzer and municipalities could pass restrictive legislation (2007:xix) asserts, “Surely the term expulsion targeting Chinese (and later other Asians) without doesn’t fully represent the rage and violence of specific reference to race. Thus, California’s rewrit- those purges. What occurred along the Pacific ten constitution of 1879 extended land rights to for- coast, from the gold rush through the turn of the eigners of the “White race or of African descent century, was ethnic cleansing.” who were eligible to become United States citi- The ethnic cleansing drives peaked in the zens” (Lazarus 1987:216). Washington’s state con- 1880s, with Chinatowns in Los Angeles, San Jose, stitution of 1889 prohibited “ownership of lands by Seattle, and Tacoma being destroyed by white aliens, other than those who in good faith have mobs. Pfaelzer (2007) was able to find documenta- declared their intentions to become citizens of the tion for cases of mobs or vigilantes driving out United States” (Lazarus 1987:232). If property/ Chinese residents from nearly 200 towns in the land ownership was the defining entitlement of the Pacific states. “Following expulsions, mobs or vig- white settler, then the Chinese immigrant was the ilantes seized Chinese fishing boats, nets, vegeta- quintessential alien “other.” ble gardens, laundries, stores, and homes then they While settler culture valorized the heteropatri- burned down rural Chinatowns” (Pfaelzer archal family as the moral foundation of its society, 2007:253–54). David Courtwright (1996:158) white settlers restricted Chinese immigrants’ abil- wrote: “As with Indians to whom Whites often ity to form such families. The passage of the Page compared the Chinese, the way such killings were Act in 1875 prevented Chinese immigrant men carried out revealed a deep, almost feral hatred. who might otherwise have sent for wives from 68 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) doing so. Supposedly designed to prevent entry of This situation began to change during World Chinese, Japanese, and “Mongolian” prostitutes, War II. In 1943, in response to China’s position as contract laborers, and felons, the Page Act was a wartime ally, the U.S. government repealed the mostly used to bar Chinese women under the fic- Chinese Exclusion Act and created a token quota of tion that they were all prostitutes (Abrams 105 entrants per year. It also agreed to make perma- 2005:701). Alternatively, many Chinese sojourners nent residents eligible for citizenship. Opening the might have formed relationships with local women, gates wider were the Brides Act of 1946 that as Chinese male immigrants did in the allowed entry of wives and children of citizens and and Peru (Hunt and Walker 1974; Wong 1978). permanent residents and the Immigration Act of This avenue was closed by the passage of state 1953 that gave preference to relatives of citizens. anti-miscegenation laws that banned marriage For the first time in 60 years, sizable legal immi- between Chinese and whites (Pascoe 2009). gration flowed from China, and for the first time Together, the Page Act and state anti-miscegena- ever, the majority of newcomers were women. tion statutes served to worsen the gender imbalance Finally, the passage of the previously mentioned of the Chinese community and reduce its ability to 1965 immigration law that replaced national quotas maintain itself or grow through procreation. with need criteria strongly favored Chinese immi- grants, who disproportionately qualified under the family reunification and labor needs criteria. Exclusion These new immigrants entered at a time when The single most powerful technology employed to racial exclusion in housing and employment was manage the Chinese was legal exclusion. The earli- waning due to the implementation of anti-discrimi- est legislation to restrict Chinese immigration was nation laws passed in the wake of the Civil Rights the Page Act, which, as mentioned previously, cur- Movement of the 1960s. These reforms enabled col- tailed the entry of Chinese women but did little to lege-educated Chinese Americans and scholar pro- cut the flow of male Chinese laborers. This goal fessional immigrants to enter occupations and was finally accomplished with the passage of the industries previously barred to them and to live in 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese integrated neighborhoods and suburbs. However, the laborers from immigrating for a period of 10 years majority of Chinese immigrants were not middle and prohibited Chinese already in the United States class. Over half of the Chinese entering each year had from becoming citizens. The Chinese Exclusion been employed as service workers, operatives, crafts- Act ended a long era of open immigration and for men, or laborers prior to entry from or the first time regulated entry based on national ori- China. Moreover, a significant proportion of profes- gin. It foreshadowed later legislation that applied sional, managerial, and white-collar entrants experi- exclusion to other Asian groups and limited entry enced downward mobility into blue-collar and based on national origin. The Immigration Act of service jobs due to language and licensing difficul- 1924 prohibited immigration from an area defined ties. Approximately two-thirds of immigrant Chinese as the Asian Pacific Triangle and set limits on in the United States are not fluent in English. immigration from southern and Over the next five decades, the Chinese com- (Ngai 2004). munity in the United States grew dramatically, bal- Some Chinese men aspiring to immigrate man- looning from 236,084 in 1960 to an unprecedented aged to find a few loopholes in the law. For exam- 4,010,114 by 2010. Many Chinese Americans have ple, some were able to enter as “paper sons,” the fared well in terms of education, family income, supposed offspring of American-born Chinese and occupational achievement; however, others (Hsu 2000). Without these subterfuges, the Chinese have not. Chinese still confront or population in the United States might have disap- even Sinophobia in their dealings with white peared altogether. As it was, by 1930, the Chinese Americans. A consistent issue is that Chinese population in the United States had shrunk to Americans are often seen and treated as foreign- 74,954, three-quarters of whom were male. With ers—from somewhere else—by other Americans. the paucity of females, the growth of an American- A Pew survey conducted in 2012 found born generation entitled to citizenship was very that 72 percent of Chinese American respondents slow. Thus, Chinese exclusion “made [Chinese] felt that discrimination against their group was a into permanent foreigners and guaranteed they problem (Pew 2013). Within white settler society, would be but a small marginalized population in the relative success of some Chinese and other America for nearly 100 years” (Ngai 2004:18). have been assigned various roles: Glenn 69 as a that can act as a buffer Settler ideology justified elimination via the between whites and blacks, as a to belief that the savage, heathen, uncivilized indi- help hide the history of genocide/slavery, or as an genes were not making productive use of the land exotic other to display the nation’s tolerant or its resources. Thus, they inevitably had to give . way to enlightened and civilized Europeans. The difference between indigenes and settlers was simultaneously racialized and gendered. While Summary and racializing Native ways of life and Native Conclusions Americans as “other,” settlers developed their self- The most widely used sociological frameworks for identities as “white,” equating civilization and theorizing race relations in the United States have democracy with whiteness. Indian masculinity was focused on generating analyses that encompass not viewed as primitive and violent, while Indian just anti-black racism but also anti-Latino and anti- women were viewed as lacking feminine modesty Asian American racisms. What these frameworks and restraint. With independence from the metro- share is an appreciation that racial hierarchy and pole, the founders imagined the new nation as a inequality are not simply the products of individual white governed by and for white men. beliefs and attitudes but are built into American Second, in order to realize a profitable return social structure and that whites have historically from the land, settlers sought to intensively culti- benefited from racial inequality. I have found each vate it for agriculture, extract resources, and build of the major frameworks, internal colonialism, the infrastructure for both cultivation and extrac- racial formation, and racialized social systems, use- tion. For this purpose, especially on large-scale ful in my own work in comparative race and gender holdings that were available in the New World, studies. However, what these theories do not explic- extensive labor power was needed. As we have itly consider is whether and in what ways U.S. seen, settlers in all enslaved Native national and regional racial systems may be unique Americans, and the transnational trade in Native and/or idiosyncratic because they have grown out of slaves helped to finance the building of Southern distinct material, social, and cultural circumstances, plantations. However, in the long run, settlers could in this case, U.S. settler colonialism. not amass a large enough Indigenous slave work- I have offered the concept of “settler colonial- force both because indigenes died in large numbers ism as structure,” as a framework that encourages from European diseases and because they could and facilitates comparativity within and across sometimes escape and then survive in the wilder- regions and time. I believe that a settler colonial ness. Settlers thus turned to African slave labor. structural analysis reveals the underlying systems Slave labor power could generate profit for the of beliefs, practices, and institutional systems that owner in a variety of ways: by performing field undergird and link the racialization and manage- labor, processing raw materials, and producing ment of Native Americans, blacks, Mexicans and goods for use or sale and by being leased out to other Latinos, and Chinese and other Asian others to earn money for the owner. Americans that I have described herein. What linked land taking from indigenes and What are these underlying systems/structures? black chattel slavery was a private property regime First, the defining characteristic of settler colonial- that converted people, ideas, and things into prop- ism is its intention to acquire and occupy land on erty that could be bought, owned, and sold. The which to settle permanently, instead of merely to purchase, ownership, and sale of property, whether exploit resources. In order to realize this goal, the inanimate or human, were regularized by property indigenous people who occupy the land have to be law or in the case of chattel slaves, by slave law. eliminated. Thus, one logic of settler colonial pol- Generally, ownership entails the right to do what- icy has been the ultimate erasure of Native ever one wants with one’s property—to sell, lend, Americans. This goal was pursued through various or rent it and to seize the profits extracted from its forms of genocide, ranging from military violence use. to biological and cultural assimilation. British set- The elimination of Native Americans and the tler colonialism in what became the United States enslavement of blacks form two nodes that have was particularly effective because it promoted fam- anchored U.S. racial formation. Redness has been ily settlement right from the beginning. Thus, the made to disappear, such that contemporary Native growth of the settler population and its westward Americans have become largely invisible in white movement was continuous and relentless. consciousness. In contrast, blackness has been made 70 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) hypervisible, and blacks are constantly present as an The case studies of Mexican Americans and imagined threat to whites and the settler colonial Chinese Americans further illustrate the impor- social order. As pointed out earlier, Indianness is tance of paying attention to both the specificities thought to be diluted and then to disappear through and differences and the connections and common- miscegenation, while blackness is thought to be con- alities among and between the experiences of vari- tinually reproduced even through generations of ous racialized others. Some of the major miscegenation. In this respect as well as others, the technologies for control and management of racial- racialization of blacks—the irredeemability and ized groups were similar, most prominently the use dehumanization of blacks—has been incommensu- of terrorism. It could be argued that the continuous rable with the racialization of other groups. history of genocide against Native Americans Nonetheless, the racialization of certain (in helped to normalize the use of extreme violence Lorenzo Veracini’s term) exogenous others has been against non-white “others.” Extreme violence was a prominent feature of settler colonial societies. In rationalized as necessary to ensure settler security. the United States, some groups have been recruited As described, not only blacks, but also Mexicans and/or tracked into hard labor and super-exploited and Chinese were subjected to extreme and dispro- because they can be induced to work by need and portionate violence that might well be character- kept in place by restricted mobility. For a nation that ized as ethnic cleansing. And, as in the case of the purports to stand for freedom, opportunity, and denial of the founding violence against Native equality, the United States has had a long history of Americans, white settler culture either denied or imposing coercive labor regimes, social segregation, forgot its violence toward Mexicans and Chinese and restricted mobility on many of its residents. by magnifying the threat they posed not only to Racializing certain groups as insufficiently human individual whites but also to the nation. serves to justify subjecting them to oppression, sub- The technology of erasure through cultural ordination, and super-exploitation. Thus, conditions assimilation practiced on Native Americans was of compelled labor short of chattel slavery—con- also employed on Mexican Americans. In both tract labor, sharecropping, payment in scrip, wages cases, schooling was intended to prepare girls and paid only after completion of a long period of boys for gender-appropriate domestic and voca- work—were legally allowed and commonly tional skills. The speaking of children’s natal lan- imposed on racialized others even after the abolition guages was punished, and mainstream (white/ of slavery. These practices were designed to immo- Anglo) ways of living were valorized. Education bilize and disable workers’ ability to survive by was also intended to teach racialized children “their other means and thereby tie down theoretically free place” in American society, that is, to accept and be workers. These forms of coercion might be labeled satisfied with a limited future. The technologies de facto slavery because they do not involve owner- unique to Mexicans and Chinese were those of mass of the person and the enforcement of slave law. deportation and legal exclusion. Native Americans The experiences of national and local policies could be and were removed to remote reservations toward Mexicans and Chinese were examined in the United States and in a few instances driven herein to help illuminate the linked processes of across the Southern border into Mexico, but they racialization and super-exploitation in U.S. settler were not legally deported. Removal of freed blacks colonialism. Racialization has been integral to and resettling them in Africa was tried after the resolving the contradiction between settler ideolo- Civil War, but the number of those removed was gies of freedom, equality, and progress and the only a small proportion of the population. Whites in unfreedom, inequality, and denial of mobility and the South were able to re-impose a white suprema- citizenship rights to Mexican Americans in the cist order that could control and super-exploit black Southwest and Chinese Americans in the Far West. labor. However, once the transcontinental railroad The various technologies of control and manage- was completed, Chinese labor was not strictly nec- ment (segregation, cultural erasure, terrorism, essary in the West, and moreover, as immigrants, expulsion, and legal exclusion) served the interests the Chinese could more easily be subjected to of capitalism by enabling landowners, plantation expulsion and exclusion. In fact, the Chinese were owners, and railroad companies to super-exploit the first immigrant group subject to exclusion, first these exogenous others. At the same time, racial- through the Page Act of 1875 and the Chinese ization of “others” enabled white workers to reap a Exclusion Act of 1882 and then through the psychic reward, the so-called “wages of whiteness” Immigration Act of 1924 that extended exclusion to to succor the wounds inflicted by class inferiority. cover other Asian peoples. Glenn 71

As described earlier, for nearly a century after were more likely to be killed. Relatedly, Indian the U.S. takeover of the Southwest, Mexican women were also more likely to be brought into set- nationals and Mexican Americans were able to tler households to be sex slaves and domestic ser- cross back and forth across the southern border vants. As for the Chinese, although male laborers more or less freely. However, this situation began were eventually subject to exclusion, women had to change during the 1920s with the establishment been legally excluded earlier and more stringently of the U.S. Border Patrol. Because of high unem- on the assumption that all Chinese women attempt- ployment during the Great Depression, Mexican ing to enter were prostitutes. In contrast, Mexican Americans became the first group subject to mass women were sometimes viewed more favorably deportation. A second large-scale deportation than Mexican men and were thought to be appropri- occurred during another period of unemployment ate wives for Anglo men. As for enslaved blacks, in the 1950s under Operation Wetback. The first women were subjected to gender-specific violence decades of the twenty-first century saw the creation such as but not exempted from the same kinds and establishment of a vast federal machinery for of physical punishment and heavy field labor to “safeguarding” our borders, ostensibly to battle ter- which slave men were subjected. rorism. This machinery has been wielded primarily I will now briefly consider the implications of against Mexicans, who are viewed as constituting a the present analysis in relation to anti-racist poli- different kind of threat, a menace to “mainstream” tics. Given that many different groups have been American (white) culture. Thus, the majority of victimized by racial violence, exclusion, and dehu- deportees continues to be immigrants from Mexico. manization, coalitions among racialized minorities Throughout my historical analyses of settler are desirable and necessary. I suggest that coali- colonial structures and practices as they developed tions are best built by recognizing the specific his- in relation to Indigenous peoples, blacks, Mexicans, tories of racialized minorities other than our own. and Chinese, I have tried to apply an intersectional Our understandings ideally should reckon with (a) lens that views race and gender as co-formations. commonalities, (b) relations and connections, and The bulk of the discussion has perhaps focused (c) differences. All of these are highlighted by this greater attention on race and racialization; how- settler colonial analysis. Many commonalities have ever, gender has been present throughout the text. I emerged from the case analyses, including experi- pointed out that the settler project constructed vari- ences of genocide and terrorism that have been ous racialized gender and gendered racial dualisms. inflicted, justified, and “forgotten” or deempha- The white race was masculinized in relation to sized by settler society. Also having emerged are feminized black, red, or yellow races. Settler ideol- relations/connections in the experiences of differ- ogy also defined appropriate gender relations ent groups that complicate their positionality vis-à- within the settler family and community, variously vis one another. Thus, for example, the analysis using Indian, black, and “others” as negative foils. might lead us to ask whether and in what ways White settler society understood extreme gender racialized minorities might position themselves in differentiation as a mark of civilization and thus relation to the territorial dispossession of Native attempted to shape white womanhood toward Americans. Finally, some significant differences domesticity and dependency. Importantly, white have emerged; for example, only blacks were sub- women were viewed as needing to be protected by jected to chattel slavery, which is a condition of white men, particularly from the dangers posed by social death and subjection by slave law that even the primitive or perverse male sexuality of Natives, those who worked under conditions of extreme slaves, and exogenous others. Thus, for example, coercion did not share. lurid tales of Indian capture of white women and A final thought: in this article I have suggested their rescue by white soldiers circulated widely in that a settler colonialism framework for analyzing settler culture. Meanwhile, Indian, black, and and understanding race and gender in America will exogenous women were viewed variously as have certain advantages over other frameworks, shameless, docile, alluring, or unfeminine because most specifically in the strength of its historicity they did “men’s work.” and in a fuller incorporation of the role of Native Settler colonialism also had different effects on Americans in how racism and gender oppression men and women from subjugated groups as shown have developed and continue to operate. A question in several instances discussed in the main text. For with which I have not dealt is to what extent can a example, it was mentioned that Indian women were settler colonial framework relate to and interact more likely to be enslaved, while adult Indian men with other frameworks such as internal colonialism, 72 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1) racial formation, and racialized social systems. My Brown, Dee Alexander. 2007. Bury My Heart at Wounded belief is that there are significant insights and ana- Knee: An Indian History of the American West. 2nd lytical methods offered by each of the frameworks ed. New York: Holt McDougal. and that the addition of settler colonialism to the Butler, Judith. 2006. Gender Trouble: and the mix may help us to work toward a higher level theo- Subversion of Identity. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Carmichael, Stokely and Charles V. Hamilton. 1967. retical model that can be widely used by social sci- Black Power: The of Liberation in America. entists both in the United States and internationally. New York: Vintage. I suggest that a fruitful next task will be for us to Carrigan, William D. and Clive Webb. 2013. Forgotten explore and discuss the connections and relation- Dead: Mob Violence against Mexicans in the United among the various frameworks, with a new States, 1848–1928. Oxford and New York: Oxford awareness of the distinct historical, social, and cul- University Press. tural understandings brought to our table by the set- Courtwright, David T. 1996. Violent Land: Single Men tler colonialism framework. and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. De Leon, Arnoldo. 1983. They Called Them Greasers: Acknowledgments Anglo Attitudes toward Mexicans in Texas, 1821– I wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their 1900. Austin: University of Texas Press. thoughtful comments and suggestions, on which I relied Debos, Angie. 1973. And Still the Waters Run: The in revising the manuscript. I am, as always, grateful to Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes. Princeton, NJ: Gary Glenn for his excellent editorial advice. Princeton University Press. Deutsch, Sarah. 1989. No Separate Refuge: Culture, Class, and Gender on an Anglo-Hispanic Frontier References in the American Southwest, 1880–1940. New York: Aarm-Heriot, Najia. 2003. Chinese Immigrants, African . Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United States. Diamond, Lisa M. 2009. : Understanding Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Abrams, Kerry. 2005. “Polygamy, Prostitution, and the University Press. Federalization of Immigration Law.” Law Elliott, J. H. 2006. of the Atlantic World: Britain Review 105(3):641–716. and in America, 1492–1830. New Haven: Yale Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass University Press. Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness. Rev. ed. Ewing, Walter A. 2014. “More Immigrants Are Being New York: The New Press. ‘Removed’ from the United States Than Ever Almaguer, Tomas. 2008. Racial Faultlines: The Before.” Immigration Policy Center, American Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Immigration Council. Retrieved October 2, 2014 Berkeley: University of California Press. (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/ “America’s Deportation Machine: ‘The Great growth-us-deportation-machine). Expulsion.’” Economist, February 12, 2014. Fixico, Donald. 1986. Termination and Relocation: Retrieved October 2, 2014 (http://www.economist. Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: com/news/briefing/21595892-barack-obama-has- University of Mexico Press. presided-over-one-largest-peacetime-outflows-peo- Fixico, Donald. 2000. The Experience in ple-). America. Albuquerque: University of Anzaldua, Gloria. 2012. Borderlands/La Frontera: The Press. New Mestiza. 4th ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foley, Neil. 1999. The White Scourge: Mexicans, Blacks, Books. and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture. Berkeley: Arvin, Maile, Eve Tuck, and Angie Morrill. 2013. University of California Press. “Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections Foreman, Grant. 1974. Indian Removal: The Emigration between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy.” of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. Rev. ed. Feminist Formations 25(1):8–34. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. Gallay, Alan. 2009. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of and New York: Routledge. the English in the American South, 1670– Blauner, Bob. 1972. Racial Oppression in America. New 1717. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. York: Harper-Collins. Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 2007. Golden : Prisons, Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism.” Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing American Sociological Review 62(3):465–80. California. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2009. “The Latin Americanization Gilroy, Paul. 1995. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and of U.S. Race Relations: A New Pigmentocacy.” Pp. Double Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 40–60 in Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color University Press. Matters, edited by E. N. Glenn. Stanford, CA: Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1983. “Split Household, Small Press. Producer and Dual Wage Earner: An Analysis of Glenn 73

Chinese-American Family Strategies.” Journal of Colonialism_Multiculturalism_and_the_Politics_of_ Marriage and Family 45(1):35–46. Postcolonial_Identity). Guttierez, David G. 1996. Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Lugones, Maria. 2010. “Toward a Decolonial Feminism.” Americans, Mexican Immigants, and the Politics of Hypatia 25(4):742–59. Ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Maldonado-Torres, Nelson. 2011. “Thinking through the Haas, Lizbeth. 1995. and Historical Identities Decolonial Turn: Post-continental Interventions in in California, 1769–1936. Berkeley: University of Theory, Philosophy, and Critique—An Introduction.” California Press. Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Hagan, Jacqueline Maria, Nestor Rodriguez, and Brianna Production in the Luso-Hispanic World 1(2):1–15. Castro. 2011. “Social Effects of Mass Deportations McClain, Charles J. 1994. In Search of Equality: by the United States Government, 2000–2010.” The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(8):374–91. Nineteenth Century America. Berkeley: University Hall, Stuart. 2003. “ and .” Pp. of California Press. 233–46 in Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader, edited McDonald, Janet A. 1991. The Dispossesion of the by J. Evans Braziel and A. Mannur. Malden, MA: American Indian, 1887–1934. Bloomington: Indiana Blackwell. University Press. Haney Lopez, Ian F. 1996. White by Law: The Legal Menchaca, Martha. 1995. Mexican Outsiders: A Construction of Race. New York: New York Community History of Marginalization and University Press. Discrimination in California. Austin: University of Hernandez, Jose Amaro. 1983. Mutual Aid for Survival: Texas Press. The Case of the Mexican American. Malabar, FL: Mignolo, Walter D. 2007. “Delinking: The Rhetoric of Kreiger. Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar Hixson, Walter L. 2013. American Settler Colonalism: A of De-coloniality.” Cultural Studies 21(2):449–514. History. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. Montejano, David. 1987. Anglos and Mexicans in the Horsman, Reginald. 1981. Race and Manifest Destiny: Making of Texas, 1886–1986. Austin: University of the Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism. Texas Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2008. “Writing Off Hsu, Madeline. 2000. Dreaming of Gold, Dreaming of Treaties: White Possessions in the United States Home: and Migration between Critical Literature.” Pp. 81–98 the United States and South China, 1882–1943. in Transnational Whiteness Matters, edited by Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. A. Moreton-Robinson, M. Casey, and F. Nicoll. Hunt, Chester L. and Lewis Walker. 1974. Patterns Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. of Intergroup Relations in Various Societies. Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens Homewood, IL: Dorsey Publications. and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, NJ: Johnson, Walter. 2013. “King Cotton’s Long Shadow.” Princeton University Press. New York Times, December 13, 2013. Retrieved Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation June 15, 2014 (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes. in American. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_ Pascoe, Peggy. 2009. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0). Law and the Making of Race in America. New York Kanizawa, Mark. 2005. “Immigration, Exclusion, and and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taxation: Anti-Chinese Legislation in Gold Rush Patterson, Orlando. 1985. Slavery and Social Death: A California.” The Journal of Economic History Comparative Study. Cambridge: Harvard University 65(3):779–805. Press. LaGrand, James B. 2005. Indian Metropolis: Native Perdue, Theda and Michael Green. 2008. The Cherokee Americans in Chicago, 1945-75. Urbana: University Nation and the Trail of Tears. New York: Penguin of Illinois Press. Books. Lazarus, Mark. 1987. “An Historical Analysis of Alien Pew Research Report. 2013. The Rise of Asian Americans. : Washington Territory and State: 1853- Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 1889.” University of Puget Sound Law Review Retrieved October 5, 2014 (http://www.pewsocial- 12(1):197–246. trends.org/files/2013/04/Asian-Americans-new-full- Ling, P. 1912. “The Causes of Chinese Immigration.” report-04-2013.pdf). Annals of the American of Political and Pfaelzer, Jean. 2007. Driven Out: The Forgotten War Social Sciences 39:74–82. Against Chinese Americans. Berkeley: University of Lovell, Melissa. 2007. “Settler Colonialism, California Press. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Postcolonial Pratt, Richard H. 1973. “The Advantages of Mingling Identity.” Refereed Paper presented at the Indians with Whites.” Pp. 260–71 in Americanizing Australasian Political Studies Association the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of Conference, September 12-15, 2007. Retrieved May the Indian” 1880–1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 1, 2014 (http://www.academia.edu/610004/Settler_ University Press. 74 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1)

Ramirez, Renya. 2007. Native Hubs: Culture, Veracini, Lorenzo. 2010. Settler Colonialism: A Community, and Belonging in and Theoretical Overview. New York: Palgrave- Beyond. Durham: Duke University Press. MacMillan. Reisler, Mark. 1976. By the Sweat of Their Brow: Mexican Veracini, Lorenzo. 2011. “Telling the End of the Settler Immigrant Labor in the United States, 1900–1940. Colonial History.” Pp. 204–18 in Studies in Settler Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Colonialism: Politics, Identity, and Culture, edited Reyhner, John and Jeanne Eder. 2004. American Indian by F. Bateman and L. Pilkington. New York: Education: A History. Norman: University of Palgrave Macmillan. Oklahoma Press. Weber, David J. 1992. The Spanish Frontier in North Sandemeyer, Elmer Clarence. 1991. The Anti-Chinese America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Movement in California. Urbana: University of Wilderson, Frank B. III. 2010. Red, White & Black: Illinois Press. Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms. Sandoval, Chela. 2000. Methodology of the Oppressed. Durham & London: Duke University Press. : University of Press. Williams, Robert A., Jr. 2005. Like a Loaded Weapon: Saperstein, Aliya and Andrew M. Penner. 2010. “The The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights and the Legal Race of a Criminal Record: How Incarceration Colors History of Racism in America. Minneapolis: Racial Perception.” Social Problems 57:92–113. University of Minnesota Press. Saperstein, Aliya and Andrew M. Penner. 2012. “Racial Williams, Timothy (April 13, 2013). “Quietly, Indians Fluidity and Inequality in the United States.” Reshape Cities and Reservations.” The New York American Journal of Sociology 118:676–727. Times, April 13, 2013. Retrieved June 2014 (http:// Saxton, Alexander. 1975. The Indispensable Enemy: www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/us/as-american-indi- Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California. ans-move-to-cities-old-and-new-challenges-follow. Berkeley: University of California Press. html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). Sexton, Jared. 2010. “People-of-Color-Blindness: Notes Wolfe, Patrick. 1999. Settler Colonialism and the on the Afterlife of Slavery.” Social Text 28(2):31–56. Transformation of : The Politics Sexton, Jared. 2011. “The Social Life of Social Death: On and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. New York: Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism.” InTensions Cassell. Journal 5:1–47. Wolfe, Patrick. 2006. “Settler Colonialism and the Shah, Nayan. 2001. Contagious Divides: Epidemics Elimination of the Native.” Journal of Genocide and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Berkeley: Research 8(4):387–409. University of California Press. Wolfe, Patrick. 2011. “Race and the Trace of History: Smith, Paul Chaat and Robert Allen Warrior. 1997. Like For Henry Reynolds.” Pp. 272–96 in Studies in a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Settler Colonialism: Politics, Identity, and Culture, Wounded Knee. New York: New Press. edited by F. Bateman and L. Pilkington. New York: Stremlau, Rose. 2005. “To Domesticate and Civilize Palgrave Macmillan. Wild Indians: Allotment and the Campaign to Wong, Bernard. 1978. “A Comparative Study of the Reform Indian Families, 1875–1887.” Journal of Assimilation of the Chinese in and Family History 30(3):265–86. , Peru.” Comparative Studies in Society and Superintendent of Indian Schools. 1900. Report of the History 20:335–58. Superintendent of Indian Schools. In Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Taylor, Paul S. 1930. “Mexican American Labor in Author Biography the United States: Dimmit County, Winter Garden Evelyn Nakano Glenn is professor of Gender & District, South Texas.” University of California Women’s Studies and and Founding Publications in Economics 6(5). Director of the Center for Race and Gender at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Feb 2, 1848, Article IX. University of California, Berkeley. Her teaching and Retrieved September 9, 2014 (http://avalon.law.yale. research focus on race, gender, immigration, labor, and edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp). citizenship. She is the author of Forced to Care: Coercion Turner, Frederick Jackson. [1893] 1920. “The and Caregiving in America (Harvard University Press); Significance of the Frontier in American History.” Unequal Freedom, How Race and Gender Shaped Pp. 1–38 in The Frontier in American History. New American Citizenship and Labor (Harvard University York: Henry Holt. Press); and Issei, Nisei, : Three Generations of Velez-Ibanez, Carlos. 1996. Border Visions: Mexican Japanese American Women in Domestic Service (Temple Cultures of the Southwest United States. Tucson: University Press). She served as 2009–2010 President of University of Arizona Press. the American Sociological Association.