Chicago Studies

Editorial Board Thomas Baima Melanie Susan Barrett Lawrence Hennessey John Lodge David Olson Martin Zielinski

Founding Editor George Dyer

CHICAGO STUDIES is edited by members of the faculty of the University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary for the continuing theological development of priests, deacons, and lay ecclesial ministers. The editors welcome articles and letters likely to be of interest to our readers. Views expressed in the articles are those of the respective authors and not necessarily those of the editorial board. All communications regarding articles and editorial policy should be addressed to [email protected]. Indexed in The Catholic Periodical & Literature Index and New Testament Abstracts.

Cover Design by Thomas Gaida

Copyright © 2019 Civitas Dei Foundation

ISSN 0009-3718

1 Developing Ideas

Editor’s Corner Fall 2018/Winter 2019

By: Very Rev. Thomas A. Baima, S.T.D.

This issue of Chicago Studies presents essays which were originally public lectures. The first two essays summarize the papers of the 2018-19 Chester and Margaret Paluch Lecture Series at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake. The third and fourth essays were originally keynote addresses at the Diaconal Convocation of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Both represent an important exercise in “the development of ideas.” The Paluch Professor of Theology, Elizabeth Y. Sung, is an Evangelical theologian in the Reformed tradition. Fr. John Kartje invited her to serve as a visiting professor at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake to help us as an academic community to engage the 500th anniversary of the Reformation with some depth and nuance. To do that meant that she had to approach Catholic Christianity with similar depth of engagement. She did this by studying the work of two previous visiting distinguished scholars at Mundelein, Dr. Christian Smith and Bishop Robert McElroy. The Paluch professorship allows a visiting professor time for research and writing. Dr. Sung has used this time to work on two books, one on racism and one on theological anthropology. Her lectures share the fruits of that research. In the first essay offers us a sustained engagement of one of the issues that has been a struggle since long before the establishment of the American Republic, racism. This is a hard topic. We confront it daily in the media, in the workplace and in our neighborhoods and parishes. We know racism has a long history. We are all aware the attitudes about race and inseparable from power and privilege. But Dr. Sung traces the origins and institutionalization of “race” in the United States, exposing just how embedded this idea is in our culture. I worked for five years as assistant to Msgr. John J. Egan, one of the leaders in urban affairs in the 20th century. After many advances in racial equality were encoded in law in the 1960’s and 1970’s church-related social action began to change. With Msgr. Egan, we evolved the Chicago Conference on Religion and Race into the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago, to give the religious institutions a clearing house for public action. But now, fifty years after the height of the civil rights movement, we still see serious problems of inter-group relations and prejudice, and on a surprisingly wide scale, here and abroad. Throughout these years, scholars of social science have been exploring questions of race from new perspectives. Aided by these data, theologians are engaging racism in new ways, especially through the lens of theological anthropology. Dr. Sung will take us to that intersection between social science and theology and there drop us on our heads with the contention that “race” as we have understood it, does not exist. And she will point us toward an alternative that is biblically and theologically sound. In the second essay, Dr. Sung engages two different goals. The first is to offer a fresh view of love through an analysis of two biblical terms, agape and eros. The second is to explore the unique methodology of Evangelical theology which she terms “scriptural discourse.” First, she sets up her theological methodology, realizing that her audience is almost entirely Catholic, with a careful definition of the relationships of authority between the sources of theology: scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I found it interesting to see that the fundamental difference between myself as a Catholic theologian and Dr. Sung as an Evangelical theologian did not lie in

2 different sources, but in the relationship of the sources to each other. When she says scripture is the ultimate authority, she echoes Pope Saint John Paul II when he writes about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. He calls Sacred Scripture “the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God.” (Ut Unum Sint, no. 79) There is an interesting conversation Catholics need to have in our own house about whether in our discomfort with sola scriptura we have neglected to grant scripture the highest authority. Dr. Sung’s argument about methodology, even if we disagree in the end, is an occasion for mutual enrichment. She herself is certainly looking for such mutual enrichment. In developing her exploration of Agape and Eros, she analyzes the work of three bishops and a philosopher. Two are Protestant (a Lutheran and an Evangelical) and two are Catholic (both Bishops of Rome). Dr. Sung’s own contribution comes in the synthesis she offers from her method of scriptural discourse. In the end, she takes us to the point of understanding more deeply what it means to flourish in God’s love for humankind. The third and fourth essays in this issue are my own. They were delivered as lectures at the Diaconal Convocation of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, at Saint Paul the Apostle Parish in Racine, Wisconsin, March 11, 2017. The represent some theological issues around the restored diaconate. I have been involved with promotion of the restored diaconate since I was a deacon. As an ecclesiologist with interests in Eastern Christianity, I have always envisioned the sacramental ministry of the Church as three-fold. As I first read the Documents of Vatican II the teaching on the diaconate as a permanent order resonated with what I knew from Eastern Orthodoxy. It seemed to me to be an example of the sister churches mutually enriching each other. When I was ordained a deacon as part of formation for priesthood, I personally discovered the depth and richness of this order, such that when asked “When were you ordained?” I always answer saying “I was ordained a deacon in 1979 and then to the priesthood in 1980.” Throughout my priestly ministry I have served in parishes with exemplary deacons. In fact, I am always somewhat surprised to go to a parish that does not have the ministry of deacons. Yet, the understanding of the diaconate is a developing idea. Unlike the Eastern Church, which never abandoned the diaconate as a permanent order, the Western Church had to re-learn how a permanent diaconate fit into the sacramental life of the Body of Christ. In my two essays, I try to offer a different approach to the theology of the diaconate shaped by my study of Eastern Christianity from one side and the developing theology of the baptized from the Western side. From these two vantage points, I focus on a rarely articulated fact: The Catholic Church chooses her priests, (presbyters and bishops) solely from the order of deacons. Any theology we have needs to make sense of that fact.

3 Understanding the Roots of “Race” and Racism in U.S. Society: A Historical and Sociological Perspective By Elizabeth Y. Sung, Ph.D.

Introduction

This essay is the first of a two-part series addressing the concept of “race”1 as a topic within the purview of theological anthropology, albeit one seldom treated in systematic theology. The initial study examines the origins of the concept of “race” that underpins the social beliefs and practical norms by which human beings are understood and everyday life is organized in the contemporary world, with special attention to the societal context of the United States as an exemplar.2 As such, it lays the ground-work for a subsequent essay, which appropriates several important sociological concepts to analyze some of the principal effects of the racialization of society, with a view to engaging in specifically theological reflection upon the claims and practices associated with “race” in relation to beliefs about Christian identity (already formed in a modern individualist culture and a racialized society). The latter will be developed drawing on resources from moral theology in dialogue with Scripture. In focusing specifically on race and racialization, this essay also offers a perspective that complements—even as it overlaps with—the fundamentally ethnic lens through which United States history and society is interpreted in Bishop Robert McElroy presentation. Although the terms “race” and “ethnicity” are often used interchangeably, or in a conflationary manner, their referents are quite distinct, as will be seen.

On Recovering a National Identity: Bishop Robert McElroy

Bishop Robert McElroy begins his Cardinal Meyer lecture, “An Errand into the Wilderness: The Vocation of the Catholic Community in Healing Our Nation,”3 by recalling two important moments during the colonial period as emblematic standards of reference. First, he draws attention to the claim that John Winthrop made in a 1630 sermon casting a vision of the ideal society to be created by the New World-bound company of English Separatist immigrants.4 Winthrop mined Old and New Testament teaching to draw numerous analogies between the Israelites’ call and ensuing history and the Puritan colonists’ project: establishing their own covenantal community as “a model of Christian charity.”5 The consequences of maintaining a fervent constancy toward God and diligently walking in his ways would be far-reaching:

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.6

By invoking these biblical themes, Winthrop claimed for “this work we have undertaken” a kind of religious and moral significance on the world-stage akin to that of Israel and the church in redemptive history.

4 In a programmatic essay, An Errand into the Wilderness, historian Perry Miller argues that the first-generation Puritan colonists were self-consciously English: the aim of their “errand” into the hinterlands was to establish the cause of Calvinist Protestantism in a “new England,” vindicating it before a European audience. But this ambitious project had lost steam by the 1650s and 60s: an irreparable division developed between Congregationalists and Presbyterians, and Puritanism had weakened in the England after the Civil War. In his 1670 election-day sermon, “A Brief Recognition of New England’s Errand into the Wilderness,” second-generation Puritan minister Samuel Danforth lamented the religious and moral change in the “temper, complexion and countenance of the churches” of his day as a deviation from the original “Cause.”7 For Danforth and other leaders, the state of the Puritan “errand in the wilderness” raised painful questions about the causes of drift from the founding vision, and spurred a reassessment of their reason for existence. According to Miller, “having failed to rivet the eyes of the world upon their city on the hill, they were left alone with America,”8 forced to rework inherited forms and to assemble new ones to make existential and practical sense of the conditions of life on the frontier. Miller thus treats the biblical image of a Christian society as a “city on the hill” commanding worldwide admiration (the first-generation settlers’ aim) and the state of disarray of that “errand in the wilderness” (creating an identity crisis for their descendants) as defining motifs and moments in the history of the United States. Together, they form part of a larger frame for interpreting the building of the nation as marked by movements of progress or decline toward realizing the ideals articulated and shared by English colonists from the outset. Bishop McElroy cites them as a kind of hermeneutical key that illumines our own situation. Specifically, he suggests that the current state of society, seen in the rancorous discourse and actions of a bitterly divided population, resembles the latter: the body politic is at war with itself in no small part because the nation has, to a significant degree, lost its historic moral bearings. He proposes that U.S. Catholics can contribute to the healing of the nation’s soul—corroded by a resurgent tribalism fueled by hyper-partisanship in the public square—if they face the crisis in contemporary political culture unflinchingly. The task is to “reforge ties of unity and purpose,” and it consists of three “errands into the wilderness.” The first errand is to recover the once-inarguable consensus that the unique national identity of the United States lies in its composition as a nation of immigrants. American Catholics—a quintessentially immigrant church—can lead the way in recalling and bearing witness to this identity. Affective conversion can be fostered—within and beyond congregational boundaries—by drawing on the resources of Catholic social teaching and promoting cultural celebrations and the sharing of narratives. The second errand requires turning-away from the temptation to over-identify with political parties as such. If Christians were to embrace a proper “homelessness” vis-à-vis the political landscape, they would thereby refuse to allow narrowly defined ideological worldviews and underlying interest group-driven agendas to displace the values and practices of the Kingdom, or to define outgroups as enemies, or to eclipse the “Catholic political imagination” that upholds the universal dignity of the human person and consequently seeks the common good in solidarity with others, following where the Gospel leads in the possibilities afforded in the local, particular contexts of lived experience (subsidiarity). The final errand is to “enshrine authentic greatness and patriotism in our national culture,” in keeping with the lived virtues and values and legacies embodied by leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Dorothy Day, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Thomas Merton, whose contributions Pope Francis highlighted in his address to the United States Congress on September 24, 2015.9 To

5 address “the need for a unifying narrative in American life,” “a nation of many untold stories” must retrieve them. This exchange of narratives is twofold. The sharing of personal backgrounds and stories among individuals and in small groups should be encouraged and facilitated. A broad national conversation about what it is to be the American people must also take place, engaging multifarious stories with a view to affective conversion and consensus-building. McElroy affirms that what distinguishes the United States is its identity as a nation of immigrants whose shared political vision is expressed in “the Creed of 1776,” which asserts fundamental claims about the nature of human beings with rights conferred by God. Rightly understood, the path to realizing a valid aspiration to national greatness lies not in military might, but in a shared resolve to celebrate the noble elements and to acknowledge and amend the defects of the past and present as the American people pursues the project of realizing the high ideals of the Creed. This essay takes up and develops one of the insights suggested by Bishop McElroy: that the telling of narratives offers a way forward. He proposes that the retrieval and recounting of the “many untold stories” comprising the story of America as a nation of immigrants and the celebration of cultures holds great redemptive potential. While I fully agree with this fundamental insight, I submit that the task of “reforging ties of unity and purpose” and creating solidarity and a will for the common good—among professing Christians, as well as among fellow-citizens of good will—is considerably complicated by the historic and contemporary realities of the racialization of U.S. society. An account of racialization follows a different line of inquiry, even if in the case of the historical formation of the United States as a nation-state, ethnic formation and racial formation are inseparable.

“Race,” “Racism,” and “Racialization”: Defining Basic Terms

It is almost universally taken for granted that distinct human “races” exist, grounded in objective and observable differences among people groups to which individuals belong— differences that are “given” in the order of nature. I have described this prevailing view elsewhere as “biological racial realism.”10 Biological racial realism holds that racial categories correspond to the ontological reality of human persons because “natural and separate divisions, akin to subspecies, exist within humankind.”11 Thus, “‘races’ denote discrete human groups possessing determinate, distinguishing traits rooted in biological constitution. Bodily features are but the most visible markers of the innate natural endowments that differentiate the respective races.”12 More specifically, an inherited “racial make-up is a fundamental determinant of the unique set of inborn qualities, capacities, cultural and moral proclivities … possessed by individuals and groups.”13 In actuality, however, the use of “race” as a research paradigm in the natural sciences— e.g., in human biology, evolutionary anthropology, physical anthropology, and similar disciplines—began to unravel with its falsification in genetics in the early decades of the twentieth century. More recently, among the findings reported by the Human Genome Project upon its completion of the sequencing of the human genome in 2003 is the signal conclusion “that— contrary to what phenotypic variation (observable bodily features) seems to suggest—human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic make-up.14 In other words, the difference in genetic material carried by any pair of persons on the planet is one tenth of one percent, and these differences occur not between genes but at the level of alleles (i.e., the variations that occur in the expression of a gene due to mutations, either deleterious or beneficial).”15

6 Ongoing research in genomics and human population variation continues to confirm that attempts to analyze human persons by assigning to discrete racial groups are based on fallacies in earlier models in the history of biology. “At present no single trait or set of traits has been identified that is necessarily manifested by all members of a population group, nor have traits been found that are restricted to a single population group. For [numerous] reasons, most geneticists and biological anthropologists now concur with the view that biologically determinate ‘races’ corresponding to traditional racial taxonomies do not exist.”16 The classification of human persons in “races” as rooted in innate biological group differences has been refuted. What, then, accounts for the prevalence and power of racial beliefs and their real-world manifestations in contemporary society? “Racism” is the most commonly invoked explanation, and in typical usage, it is construed in psychological and attitudinal terms, as does the Oxford Dictionary definition of racism: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”17 This essay, however, suggests that the sociological concept of “racialization” is the most illuminating framework with which to understand the arrangement and conditions of society: the construction of the social world as a set of institutions based on shared assumptions and practices. Within this frame, Michael Emerson and Christian Smith define racialization as denoting a situation in which “race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities and social relationships” because the system is organized by racial ideas and values and reinforces it. “Due to the origins of the idea of race, the placement of people in racial groups always means some form of hierarchy. … A racialized society ‘allocates differential economic, political, social and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines: lines that are socially constructed.’”18 The following sketch of historical actions and events demonstrates how the relatively recent, contingent idea of “race” and racial logic came to acquire not only social meaning but concrete existential force through its use to create a hierarchical society. The institutionalization of “race” is best seen and understood by examining the historical policies undertaken—especially through the enactment and enforcement of laws—with respect to the status, opportunities and constraints of the various people groups in society relative to one another. The construction and application of race, i.e., racializing logic, is clearly evinced in the historical development of the United States as a nation-state, beginning in the colonial era. This history extends into and clearly explains a major cause of the contemporary conditions of life in this society.

The Origins and Institutionalization of “Race” in the United States: An Historical Overview

The following historical account is selective, both in substance and in scope. It highlights a series of significant actions and events pertaining to the experiences to a number of the principal groups representative of the many that now comprise the people of the United States, in relation to the process by which the social world they entered, inhabited, and developed became an increasingly racialized order. To bring the principles and dynamics of racialization into sharp relief, this narrative treats the laws and social policies that were enacted and implemented in roughly chronological order. Thereby the development of the objective societal system as a racialized system is traced from the colonial era to more recent events.

7 European “Discovery” and the Backdrop of Colonialism (1436-1600) Accounts of U.S. history sometimes begin by noting that the first Europeans known to have set foot in the New World were Vikings, led by Leif Eiriksson, who christened the land “Vinland” (present-day Newfoundland). Several groups settled there around 1000, but it was abandoned after clashes with the indigenous people. Since the site was discovered only in 1960,19 it has been common to credit Christopher Columbus with discovery of the Americas when—nearly 500 years later—he made landfall in the Caribbean Islands. Initially believing he had reached Asia, Columbus’s report of the lands and goods he claimed for Spain in 1492 included “Indians,” who, he “seized” and “took by force” as slaves. Eight of them survived the voyage to be presented— with gold and other booty—to the court upon his triumphant return in 1493.20 Columbus’s voyage was financed by the Spanish crown. Behind it lay political machinations successfully securing ecclesiastical authorization: papal bulls granting to the Iberian kings the right to expand into the Canary Islands, Africa, and the Atlantic, for “conquest, slave- raiding, and trade.”21 In the first decree, Romanus pontifex (1436), Eugenius IV was persuaded by King Duarte of Portugal that the Pope’s universal spiritual lordship made him guardian over infidels. Accordingly, Eugenius “authorized Portugal to convert the Canary Islanders and to control the islands on behalf of the Pope.”22 In Dum diversas (1452), an edict concerning a North African region ruled by Saracens (Moors), Pope Nicholas V granted to King Alfonso V of Portugal

free and full power … to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established, the Kingdoms…and any other possessions,…and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms…possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal.23

Another bull gave to Portugal all lands, peoples and goods in Africa already “acquired and that shall hereafter come to be acquired,” and authorized establishment of churches and monasteries for administration of the sacraments. As all violating “these orders” incurred excommunication,24 Spain turned elsewhere for expansion. After Columbus’s return, Pope Alexander VI confirmed in Inter caetera (1493) that the Spanish crown owned and held “free power, authority, and jurisdiction of every kind” over the lands Columbus discovered, and all future territory not already possessed by a Christian ruler. Inter caetera II drew “a line of demarcation from the north pole to the south pole, 100 leagues west of the Azore Islands,” conferring on Spain all lands “‘discovered and to be discovered’ west of that line,” and “‘the holy and praiseworthy’ work of conversion so that it would contribute to the spread of the Christian rule.”25

Native Americans and Spanish and English Colonists (1607-18) Spanish colonists preceded the English arrival in North America. Juan Ponce de Léon laid claim to the Florida peninsula in 1513, and other explorers expanded the Spanish territory of La Florida, which eventually stretched as far as Virginia and Texas. In 1565, Admiral Pedro Menéndez de Aviles founded the first permanent European settlement in North America: St. Augustine. Further west, Santa Fe was founded by the second Spanish governor of New Mexico in 1607.

8 That same year, the English arrived in Virginia, home to over 14,000 Powhatans. An agrarian people, they grew corn in fields as large as 100 acres, lived in “palisaded towns with forts, storehouses, temples and framed houses covered with bark and reed mats,” cooked with ceramic pots, and had a sophisticated numeric system and a calendar with five seasons.26 120 English immigrants arrived at Jamestown, but the first winter was extremely harsh. Thirty-eight survived “the starving time” because the Powhatans gave them food. Several hundred more colonists arrived the next year; as another lean winter began, and some desperate folk were reduced to cannibalism, the English obtained food by attacking tribal villages, with hostilities ensuing. In 1609, British Gov. Thomas Gates came with orders dictating that the Indians serve the English and render annual payments of corn and animal hides—brutally enforced. The colonists’ early farming efforts turned little profit until 1613, when their first tobacco shipment to London proved lucrative. Tobacco-planting greatly multiplied; a major influx of immigrants swelled their ranks in Virginia, growing ten-fold in five years (1618-23).27 As English immigration and competition for resources increased, native Americans began to be depicted in racializing terms. Although Virginian and southern New England tribes were farmers with “highly developed agricultural systems,”28 the English represented them as hunter-gatherers, which, it was claimed, nullified their land-ownership. An evolving “ideology of ‘savagery’”29 went hand-in- hand with racialization of Indians: earlier seen as backward but educable, they were increasingly portrayed as inheriting both unfavorable physical traits (e.g., darker skin) and a nature incapable of being civilized. Leading Puritan ministers (e.g., Cotton Mather, Increase Mather) contributed to the construction of race in oppositional religious terms.30 As the Indians were the principal external threat to the “errand in the wilderness,” their decimation by new diseases31 and (according to Increase Mather) their “Devil driven … unjust and bloody war upon the English … issued in their speedy and utter extirpation from the face of God’s earth.”32

The English and Africans: The Evolution of Labor Practices (1619-1705) Seventy-five percent of the European immigrants to 17th-century Virginia were indentured servants that came from the underside of society in England, Ireland, and Germany (indigents, convicts, etc.).33 However, they were not adequate to the labor-intensive enterprise of tobacco- farming. English settlers’ attempts to create a large work force by enslaving Indians proved unsuccessful. In 1619, a Dutch slaving ship arrived in Jamestown; twenty Africans were purchased as bond-servants.34 At that time, they—like their far more numerous European counterparts—were eligible for release upon completing a four-to-seven year term, thereafter, becoming freemen.35 Coming from different shores, white and black laborers in Virginia had very limited understanding as well as negative notions of each other, and natural feelings of fear and hostility undoubtedly existed. Still, both groups occupied a common social space—a terrain of racial liminality that had not yet developed rigid caste lines. White and black, they shared a condition of class exploitation and abuse: they were all unfree laborers.36A common lot of degradation and misery bred solidarity among white and black laborers. Court records detail collaborative escape attempts and couples crossing racial lines. Twenty years after the first Africans arrived, colonial laws began to confer privileges on European servants over against black servants. The 1640 Virginia legislature decreed that “a negro [bond-servant]…shall serve for the time of his natural Life.” In 1669, slaves were defined as “property” belonging to their owners’ “estate.”37 The racializing term “white” entered the official

9 vocabulary: a 1661 statute prohibited “English or other white” unions with “negroes, mulattos, or Indians.” Other laws sanctioned racialized violence: a 1680 law allowed whites to attack non-white slaves with impunity: thirty-one lashes on the bare back were prescribed if the latter tried to “lift up his hand in opposition to any [white] Christian.”38 That law also denied free blacks the right of assembly and freedom of movement, and in 1691, they were stripped of the right to testify in court, to vote, and to hold office.39 In 1705, the Virginia Assembly passed the Servants and Slaves Act. It made slave-trading legal and decreed that “all servants” not already “christian” were “slaves.”40 It forbade black and “mulatto” freedmen from employing white servants. It also levied fines and jail-time for sexual relations among white and non-white persons. The Act also ordered Anglican priests to refuse to marry interracial couples, and to ensure that women who transgressed racial boundaries and became pregnant paid a fine and served five years of bond-servitude, while their children “of abominable mixture and spurious issue” were required to serve as unpaid laborers until age thirty-one. Church wardens were ordered to seize free blacks’ and slaves’ farm animals, applying the “profit to the use of the poor [whites].” All weapons were outlawed for blacks.41 Thus, “the poor” whites were enriched by the mass transfer of blacks’ property into their own hands. The law also provided white servants completing their terms fifty acres of land, ten bushels of corn, thirty shillings and a musket.42 The Virginia elite then leveraged the denial of weapons to blacks and issuing of firearms to freed whites, “using landless whites to put down slave revolts.”43 By these laws, the white land-owning elite contained the growing threat to the colonial order: by the 1660s, up to 25% of the population consisted of “discontented indentured servants, slaves, and landless freemen, both white and black.”44 The 1676 Bacon’s Rebellion of poor whites (later joined by poor blacks) against the colonial authorities was a wake-up call. The above laws were an ad hoc solution to a class-based problem. These measures gave limited rewards to lower- class whites and created a sense of superiority over and antagonism toward non-whites (blacks, “mulattos,” and others). As historian David Roediger observes, “In this slaveholding republic, where independence was prized … the bondage of Blacks served as a touchstone by which dependence and degradation were measured. Racial formation and class formation were bound to penetrate each other at every turn.”45 The colonial elite “reorganized society on the basis of class and race,”46 transforming it into a racial hierarchy that was enforceable and concrete in its effects.

“The American Creed” and the Foundations of the Republic (1776-91) Two of the nation’s earliest documents, framed at the outset of the War of Independence and at the beginning of U.S. history proper, comprise the basis of “the American Creed”47: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. First and foremost, of course, is the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which begins:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.48

10 It proceeds to state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.49

That rationale is complemented by a list of actions in the “history of repeated abuses and usurpations” by the King, no longer tolerable by his colonial subjects. Among them is the charge that he “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” This characterization is a telling indication of the prevailing image as well as the state of Native American-white settler relations.50 The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of the States, signed by all thirteen states in 1781, bound them in “a league of friendship.”51 After the War of Independence was won and Britain ceded its territory in 1783, twelve states appointed 55 delegates to convene in Philadelphia in 1787 to strengthen the existing agreement. The product of their deliberations was the Constitution of the United States. The Preamble “[unites] its citizens as members of a whole, vesting the power of the union in the people.”52 It affirms:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.53

The Convention’s deliberations were contentious. Because several northern states had already abolished slavery, and nearly 90% of all slaves comprised almost 30% of the total population of Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, deep sectional differences over slavery became a flash-point. The Constitution was adopted by a majority on September 17, 1787, and—with a promise to add a bill of rights—the last state, Rhode Island, ratified it on May 29, 1789.54 Its passage was attained only by several compromises protecting proslavery interests. First, the ratio counting five black slaves as equivalent to three (free white) men to determine a state’s House seats and tax burden increased slave states’ representatives. Second, the slave trade was extended until 1808, giving slave-owners twenty years to expand. Third, the federal government collected a duty on each imported slave. The founders’ dividedness over trading and holding blacks in permanent servitude, and the concessions favoring slavery, would continue to shape the nation’s development. The 1790 Naturalization Act, passed just one year after the Constitution, is also noteworthy: it reserved citizenship for “any Alien being a free white person.” The Bill of Rights was ratified and appended to the Constitution in 1791: the original ten Amendments guaranteed political rights and freedoms to (free) individual citizens. Slaves, bonded laborers, and non-white persons remained vulnerable to exploitation and oppression.

Territorial Expansion: Native American Peoples, the U.S., and White Citizens (1823-38) Land-ownership was the prime objective for all. White settlers acquired property in the

11 aboriginal peoples’ lands in various ways, through sale, swindling, or forcible appropriation. The federal government owned the Northwest Territory and held treaties with various tribes, but white settlers’ increasing encroachment on Indian lands in the Ohio Valley provoked fierce conflict, which the government tried to avert by purchasing from tribes blocks of land which it set aside for whites. And in the Southeast, the 1807 invention of the cotton gin made cotton an enormously profitable crop, creating intense interest in acquiring more land for plantations. In 1823, the first lawsuit defining the nature of Indian nations’ self-rule and territory was brought before the Supreme Court. In Johnson v M’Intosh, the Court ruled that the proper owner of a disputed parcel of land was not the Indian tribe who originally sold it to a settler, but the U.S. government which bought it later and sold it to another. The argument cited “the grant of the Pope” to Spain as establishing the precedent that all Europeans had observed in “appropriating” the New World:

discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it [and] the rights of the original inhabitants were… necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were…the rightful occupants of the soil…but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished…Discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; & also…a right to such degree of sovereignty, as circumstances…would allow them to exercise.55

In 1827, gold was discovered in Cherokee lands; the tribe enacted a republican constitution asserting sovereignty over its lands. In 1830, the Georgia legislature annexed the coveted areas. That same year, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act. The Cherokees challenged the legality of these actions in three lawsuits before the Supreme Court. The 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision upheld Cherokee sovereignty, but neither the federal nor the state governments observed the ruling: forced removal proceeded. In 1835, a Cherokee faction signed a treaty with U.S. officials, ceding land and accepting relocation. However, most stayed, relying on the 1832 Supreme Court decision. Many then were killed as armed whites claimed and looted “ceded” farms and property. In Winter 1838, 16,000 Cherokees were driven from their farms by the Army on a forced march to the reserved “Indian Territory” west of the Mississippi River. On this Trail of Tears, over four thousand people (25 percent) died of cold, disease, and starvation.56 The dispossession and removal of the Cherokees was the template for the federal policy toward native American peoples in general. “By 1837, the Jackson administration had removed 46,000 Native American people from their land east of the Mississippi, and had secured treaties which led to the removal of a slightly larger number. Most … of the five southeastern nations [the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole peoples] had been relocated west, opening 25 million acres of land to white settlement and to slavery.”57

Mexicans and Whites in the National Expansion in the Southwest (1810-48) Expansion into the Southwest (discovered by Spain, acquired by Mexico in 1821) proceeded apace. In 1810, the United States annexed western Florida. In 1835, a group of white colonists and Tejanos in the Mexican state of Texas rebelled, forming the Republic of Texas. In 1845, the U.S. government annexed the entire state of Texas; the following year, it declared war when Mexico refused its offer of $25 million for California and New Mexico. Also, in 1846,

12 thirty armed settlers arrested General Vallejo, annexing California and renaming it as the Bear Flag Republic. In the 1847 treaty ending the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded California, New Mexico, Nevada, and parts of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona for $15 million, losing (with Texas) half its previous holdings. To retain their lands, 100,000 Mexicans were required to change nationality. Subsequently, they endured abuse and lynchings and became out-numbered by settlers drawn by federal policies (e.g., the 1862 Homestead Act) rewarding whites’ westward migration to fulfill the nation’s “Manifest Destiny.”58 As Walt Whitman opined in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, “We pant to see our country and its rule far-reaching…What has miserable, inefficient Mexico…to do with the great mission of peopling the New World with a noble race?”59

Irish Immigrants, Chinese Immigrants, and American Blacks and Whites (1845-54) Large-scale immigration from Ireland began in 1854 as one million people fled a catastrophic potato famine. In the United States, the Irish found themselves the object of scorn, unwelcome aliens “stereotyped as ignorant and inferior.”60 In northern cities where they lived in close quarters with other marginalized groups (including blacks), they banded together as exploited workers, forming labor organizations.61 In Massachusetts, the largest Irish union (the Crispins) went on strike for higher wages and an eight-hour workday. The owner replaced them with seventy-five Chinese workers, who, proving more productive, were touted as the solution. The Crispins tried to unionize the Chinese in a separate lodge, but “based on self-interest rather than an ideological commitment to class solidarity, this attempt…quickly collapsed. At a meeting in Boston, [Irish] workers turned against the Chinese laborers, condemning them for reducing ‘American labor’ to ‘the Chinese standard of rice and rats.’”62 When in Ireland, many saw similarities between the centuries of oppressive British rule they endured and black slaves’ oppression in the U.S. In fact, 70,000 Irish had signed an 1842 anti- slavery petition calling Irish-Americans to “treat the colored people as your equals, as brethren.”63 However, the earlier “Irish sympathy for black slaves seemed to disappear with the Atlantic Crossing. In America, many became anti-black.”64 Often competing with free blacks for jobs, they began to promote “their own whiteness and white supremacy.”65 “‘In a country of the whites where [we] find it difficult to earn a subsistence, what right has the negro either to preference or to equality, or to admission?’” Facing white “Protestant nativist hatred identifying them as Catholic, outsiders, and foreigners, the Irish newcomers sought to become insiders, or Americans, by claiming their membership as whites. A powerful way to transform their own identity from ‘Irish’ to ‘Americans’ was to attack blacks.”66 Many Irish Americans strongly opposed Lincoln’s addition of abolition to the objectives of the Civil War.67 Despite the hardships the first wave of Irish immigrants endured, three million more arrived between 1855-1920. Unlike disfranchised blacks and Chinese immigrants, “what greatly enabled the Irish to ‘merge’ into the mainstream was the fact that they were ‘white’ and hence eligible for [naturalization]. Their rates for becoming citizens and voters were the highest of all immigrant groups.”68 One third settled in northern cities, where, by promoting “Green Power,” “by 1890, the Irish had captured most of the Democratic Party organizations”: political bosses awarded municipal jobs and public works projects to Irish construction firms, who employed Irish tradesmen in highly unionized occupations. “Irish ‘ethnic solidarity’ and influence in the unions enabled…the Irish exclusion of racial minorities from the skilled and high-waged jobs, [representing] what historian David Roediger called ‘the wages of whiteness.’”69

13 Whites and Free and Enslaved Blacks, Pre-Civil War (1830-61) In the 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v Sanford, the plaintiff, a slave, sued for freedom, having resided with his owner on free soil before returning to Missouri (a slave state). The question was:

Can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?70

The Court ruled that no descendants of African slaves were U.S. citizens; thus, the Bill of Rights did not apply to any blacks, even freedmen in free states. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney cited colonial statutes and the nation’s founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution) as warrants. It also ruled unconstitutional the 1820 Missouri Compromise, opening all territories to slave-holding. Abraham Lincoln criticized the Dred Scott decision. He cited the dissenting view of Justice Benjamin Curtis, who wrote that “in at least five of the then thirteen States [free “colored persons”] had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of [the] adoption” of the Constitution. Lincoln also insisted that the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal,”

intended to include all men… [The framers] defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This they said, and this they meant…[They intended] to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.71

He concluded that free blacks were U.S. citizens, and that gradually emancipated slaves were entitled either to remain in the South or be “repatriated” to other countries. His famous “House Divided” speech in 1858 and campaign debates with Stephen A. Douglas brought him to national prominence and eventually election to the White House on November 16, 1860.

The Civil War and Abolition (1861-65), Reconstruction )1865-70), Jim Crow (1870-1954) In 1862, eighteen months after the Civil War began, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation decreeing that as of January 1, 1863, “all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” It also opened the military to black men: over 200,000 served in the Union Army and Navy, considerably strengthening its might.72 As the war neared its end, in January 1865, Gen. William Sherman signed an order allocating 400,000 acres in South Carolina and Georgia—which an Act of Congress had declared “abandoned” by rebels against the nation, hence the property of the federal government—to be divided into plots of “40 acres of tillable ground” for rental or sale to freed slave families and refugees.73 The Freedmen’s Bureau Act created the agency to oversee distribution of the plots and

14 administer other forms of aid for one year. It is estimated that 40,000 families were resettled on these parcels. Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, only five days after Gen. Robert E. Lee had surrendered to Gen. Ulysses Grant at Appomattox, Virginia. Over four million slaves were freed at the close of the war. In May, President Andrew Jackson proclaimed pardon and amnesty for Southerners swearing an oath of allegiance to the Union, and he acceded to their demands for return of the lands distributed by the government. He also refused to sign a bill extending the Freedmen Bureau’s existence. Soldiers then evicted families; those who stayed were required to sign labor contracts returning them to a life of poverty in dependency on their former owners, working on plantations as share-croppers for basic subsistence.74 During “Reconstruction,” three Constitutional Amendments were passed. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery (1865); the Fourteenth granted citizenship to all U.S.-born or naturalized persons and extended the Bill of Rights’ “equal protection under the laws” to former slaves (1868); and the Fifteenth barred disfranchisement “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (1870). With the achievement of legislated equality, federal supervision receded; the “Jim Crow” era began. In the end, it was former slave-owners who received restitution; the majority of the 4 million formerly enslaved African Americans received limited or no aid. Post-Reconstruction, white Southerners’ racial hostility and refusal to accept equality was implemented by recreating a racial hierarchical system that subordinated and excluded blacks in housing, jobs, transportation, schools, health-care, cultural institutions, and the like—prescribed by state and local laws and enforced by intimidation and violence by civil authorities as well as groups like the Ku Klux Klan (founded in 1865). Contravening the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, state and local laws were passed, imposing literacy tests and levying poll taxes to prevent blacks from voting. Such discriminatory practices were ruled constitutional in the 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v Ferguson: “separate but equal” facilities could continue to apportion the goods of the community inequitably, along racialized lines.

Chinese Immigrants: Recruitment, Restriction, Exclusion (1848-82) In the 1840s, U.S. businesses sent agents to China to recruit indentured laborers for gold mines, factories, and the transcontinental railroad. Sought-after by bosses for their work ethic and exploitability, Chinese workers were persecuted by Americans in an increasingly nativist climate. They were blamed for the 1870 economic recession: anti-Chinese violence erupted across the country, including the largest mass lynching in U.S. history in Los Angeles, when a mob of whites and Latinos pillaged Chinese families’ homes and shot and hanged eighteen to twenty men and boys. California law barred Chinese from testifying in court; eventually eight men were tried, but their sentences were overturned on technicalities. The 1870 Naturalization Act barred Chinese persons from eligibility for naturalized citizenship (the first group to be excluded by federal law) and forbade entry to Chinese women, creating “bachelor colonies.” The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act halted all immigration from China; businesses turned to Mexico and Japan for cheap labor. The 1917 Asiatic Barred Zone Act forbade entry to peoples across the Asia Pacific region. The absolute ban on Chinese immigration held for sixty-one years; when lifted in 1943 as a concession for China’s World War II alliance, the annual maximum was 105 individuals from the global Chinese diaspora.

15 Hawaii: From Sovereign Nation to Territory of the United States (1846-98) In 1846, the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii established diplomatic relations as sovereign nations. On January 17, 1893, U.S. Minister to Hawaii, John Stevens arranged for a naval warship to land in Honolulu and armed Marines and sailors to station themselves at the consulate and other U.S. government offices, aiding a plot to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy. Backed by U.S. soldiers and its own mercenaries, an annexationist group of U.S. and European businessmen and some native Hawaiian leaders75 seized power, arrested Queen Lili’uokalani, and declared themselves a “Committee of Safety.”76 The Queen appealed the treaty breach to the U.S. government; President Grover Cleveland withdrew the annexation treaty approved by his predecessor, William Henry Harrison, and ordered an investigation. Based on the Blount Report (1893), he declared the take-over an illegal “act of war” and ordered Dole to return power to the Queen. But Dole refused to comply, and when the Queen refused to grant the conspirators amnesty as a condition for U.S. support, she was forced to abdicate. Minister Stevens had declared Hawaii a U.S. “Protectorate” two weeks after the coup; in 1894, the “Provisional Government” declared it an independent “Republic.” Mass protests by native Hawaiians were suppressed. In 1898, with its naval base at Pearl Harbor established, the United States annexed the Republic of Hawaii. In 1900 it became a U.S. Territory: its citizens (predominantly white, landed males) became American citizens, while the majority indigenous Hawaiians and Asian Hawaiian residents remained disfranchised.77

Native American Citizenship and a Revised National Immigration Law (1924) 1924 proved a fateful year. While Congress granted U.S. citizenship to Native Americans, some states quickly passed laws barring them from voting. Moreover, the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act—supported by the Ku Klux Klan and the American Federation of Labor, opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and businesses—was passed by 323-71, and was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge.78 Among the dissenters was Detroit Republican Congressman, Robert Clancy, forcefully objected to the bill, passionately defended his Jewish, Italian, and Polish immigrant constituents, and argued for a non- “xenophobic” definition of Americans.79 Henceforth, 86.5% of those granted visas were Western Europeans and Scandinavians; 11.2% Southern Europeans (e.g., Italian Catholics, Greek Orthodox) and Eastern European peoples (Catholics, Orthodox, and Jews); and 2.3% non-Asian “Others.”80 (The 1917 Asiatic Barred Zone Act had already banned entry for everyone in the Asia-Pacific Triangle—the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeastern Asia, and East Asia—except for Filipinos). The Act also decreed that only persons of white or black descent were eligible for naturalized citizenship. The Office of the Historian of the State Department summarizes the bill’s motive: “In all its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity”:81 a nation of Northern and Western European whites.

Whites and Blacks between the Great Depression and World War II (1929-45) The Great Depression, which began with the 1929 stock-market crash, was exacerbated by the “Dust Bowl,” a drought in the Midwest and Plains states (1931-39). President Franklin Roosevelt acted to create dozens of federal agencies and programs to bring relief to the poor and the unemployed, and economic recovery through nationalized job creation. The 1934 Housing Act created the Federal Housing Administration to spur recovery of the construction and mortgage industries. The agency institutionalized segregation in the national

16 housing market by its underwriters’ manual, which created maps of major cities using color-coded categories to rank neighborhoods. A key criterion was the number of properties with “housing covenants” (clauses in titles barring sale to blacks) in a given zone; zones with aging properties and no housing covenants (i.e., open to non-white residents) were shaded red. Realtors steered white home-buyers to upscale, “homogeneous” zones, and non-white buyers to red ones. Lenders also red-lined, denying mortgages more frequently to non-white applicants, and granting fewer loans in lower-ranked neighborhoods. The Social Security Act (1935) created the nation’s social welfare system, giving governmental assistance to vulnerable citizens: a pension system for the aged; unemployment insurance; and welfare benefits for the disabled and children in single-parent households. But historian Ira Katznelson shows that to secure the votes of powerful Southern Congressmen, Roosevelt allowed the programs to be state-administered. Southern lawmakers and agency officials then excluded farmworkers and domestic workers—the vast majority of African Americans—from eligibility to participate in the program.82 Alongside the Social Security Act, the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act was one of the most influential social programs of the twentieth century. The G.I. Bill allocated government monies to fund a range of benefits for all World War II veterans on active duty at least 90 days and honorably discharged: a free post-secondary education; low-interest loans for housing and for business start-ups, and unemployment compensation. Katznelson observes: “Even today … the G.I. Bill … qualifies as the most wide-ranging set of social benefits ever offered by the federal government in a single, comprehensive initiative.”83 However, in the era of legitimized segregation, although all veterans were eligible to receive all of the Bill’s benefits, they were never distributed equally. Educational options for African Americans were extremely limited; without regulation, many for-profit schools bilked veterans of tuition funds. Thus, the Bill actually widened the gap in educational attainment, which correlates closely to earning potential. Lending institutions also discriminated against black veterans, making it difficult to obtain low-interest mortgages and impossible to buy into the new suburban housing developments being built. “The Veterans Administration, established under the G.I. Bill, adopted all of the FHA racial exclusion programs when it began to insure mortgages for returning veterans. Big developments…built after World War II were financed by the Veterans Administration…with the same racial restrictions.”84 Katznelson observes, “Missed chances at home ownership… compound over time.”85 By 1984, when most G.I. Bill mortgages had matured, the median white American household had a net worth of $39,135; the comparable figure for black households was $3397, or 9% of white holdings. “Most of this difference was accounted for by the absence of homeownership…Black Americans who were not homeowners possessed virtually no wealth at all…Over time, it is harder to make up gaps in wealth than in income.”86 Katznelson concludes, “On balance, despite the assistance black soldiers received, there was no greater instrument for widening an already huge racial gap in postwar America than the G.I. Bill.”87 Thus, in the era of legal segregation, implementation of the federal “New Deal” programs and the post-war G.I. Bill did not treat eligible individuals and groups impartially and equitably. Instead, in Katznelson’s pithy summary, the government-subsidized social welfare programs— especially the G.I. Bill, which “advanced momentum toward suburban living, mass consumption, and the creation of wealth and economic security, [creating] created middle-class America”— comprised, in fact, the era “When Affirmative Action Was White.”88

17 Scapegoating and Detention: Japanese American Citizens During World War II (1942-46) After Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941, the U.S. entered World War II. In February 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing creation of military areas on the West Coast and removal of “any or all persons” deemed security threats. Ultimately everyone of Japanese descent was removed—122,000 people, two-thirds citizens, and the others legal “resident aliens.” Multi-generational families had three to fourteen days to report for “voluntary relocation.” Permitted only the belongings they could carry, given no details about their confinement, and pressed by deadlines, many were forced to give away or abandon whatever they could not sell at fire-sale prices—their homes and goods, farms, and businesses. Families were shipped to and housed in temporary quarters until the “permanent relocation” sites were ready: internment camps in remote locations. The internees were held in rude facilities, living under armed guard, surrounded by barbed-wire, for three years. Concurrently, over 33,000 young men (2100 from the camps themselves) voluntarily enlisted for military service. Young men and women entered all branches of the military and served in combat units, military intelligence services, and the Women’s Army Corps. Upon their release in 1946, each family was issued $50 plus train fare. Having lost their homes, property, and businesses, many never returned to their prior communities of residence.89

Mexican Americans and Mexican Migrant Workers During World War II (1940-56) Half a million Mexican American young men—nearly 20% of the entire population in the U.S.—enlisted in World War II. Casualty rates were high, but Mexican American soldiers served with distinction and many were decorated for bravery. Women also contributed to the war effort, especially defense industry factories producing steel and building and repairing armaments and aircraft.90 The increasingly restrictive immigration laws between 1870 and 1924 did not affect Mexican migrant workers and immigrants traveling to the U.S. for short-term travel and work opportunities.91 Building on this history, the U.S. initiated the 1943-56 Bracero guest-worker program with the Mexican government to remedy the World War II labor-shortage. U.S. businesses recruited two million contract laborers from Mexico, who worked in 38 of the 48 states (primarily in agriculture, but also in the railroad and mining industries) and returned when their terms ended. While gainfully employed, Mexican workers were frequently exploited. Contract violations of their rights seldom were enforced, and as demand for low-wage labor rose, many employers hired individuals directly, attracting would-be workers without visas. Texas’s expulsion from the program for non-compliance did not deter businesses from recruiting and relying on undocumented workers. After World War II, opposition from organized labor and small farmers grew. In 1954-56, the military-enforced Operation Wetback program rounded up and deported 1.1 million people; tens of thousands left voluntarily.92

Jewish Americans, European Jews, and White America During World War II Four and a half million Jewish people lived in the United States when Hitler entered office in 1933. The white American majority proved, at best, indifferent to the plight of European Jews. This apathy was expressed in polls and in blocked legislative proposals to make exceptions to the quota system to admit Jews into the country. Popular opposition and official unwillingness to act despite known atrocities included, e.g., lawmakers’ failure to pass a Congressional resolution to grant entry to the relatives of American Jewish citizens fleeing persecution (1933). Even after

18 condemning Kristallnacht (November 1938), President Roosevelt and Congress did not support a bill to admit 20,000 German Jewish refugee children (1939), and FDR ignored a final plea from 907 asylum-seeking transatlantic passengers in imminent peril (1939), 254 of whom eventually died in concentration camps.93 Even when Germany’s genocide program was revealed, “the press did not cover the shocking news as a major story.”94 Roosevelt flatly rejected proposals to grant refugees temporary asylum, insisting on a “rescue-through-victory strategy.” By the time the Allies liberated prisoners in the death camps in June 1945, six million Jews had been murdered.95

African Americans and Whites: The Post-War Struggle for Civil Rights (1954-68) Americans of all racialized and ethnic groups contributed to victory in World War II, making the racism and disparities in their homeland difficult to ignore. The pioneering sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois had rendered this diagnosis nearly a half-century earlier: “the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.”96 African Americans’ daily struggles with racial subordination, segregation, and poverty, under the constant threat of violence—codified and enforced by state power—made rising political movements promoting communism and socialism as the pathway to equality and social solidarity an attractive alternative. At the end of World War II, in his summary of a Carnegie Foundation report on blacks’ lives in the segregated South, the sociologist Gunnar Myrdal argued that to win the “ideological war,” the nation needed to recognize the similarities between the societal systems it had fought and its own condition:

Fascism and Nazism are based on a racial superiority dogma—not unlike the old hackneyed American caste theory—and they came to power by means of racial persecution and oppression…When in this crucial time the international leadership passes to America, the great reason for hope is that this country has a national experience of uniting racial and cultural diversities and a national theory, if not a consistent practice, of freedom and equality for all…The main trend in its history is the gradual realization of the American Creed.97

Segregation—the creation of two separate and unequal societies—prevailed both de jure and de facto since the end of the Civil War, despite the “Congressional Reconstruction” Civil Rights Amendments. Small inroads began to made on several fronts, in various ways. The armed forces in World War II were organized as racially segregated units. Over 900,000 African Americans served, but—in a continuation of the post-Civil War history of racial violence and terror inflicted blacks—veterans again were denied benefits and disability pay, and targeted by white mobs for beatings, whippings, torture, shootings, and hangings.98 Pressing for black veterans’ rights, equality and civil rights amid resurgent racial violence, A. Philip Randolph (who founded the first black labor union and successfully confronted FDR to ban racial exclusion in the defense industry) warned President Harry Truman that “Negroes are in no mood to shoulder guns for democracy abroad, while they are denied democracy here at home”; he planned to lead a mass action of non-violent civil disobedience if inequality continued.99 Truman’s Executive Order 9981 stated that “there should be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services.”100 Resistance continued in several branches, but the full integration of the military was completed in 1954.101

19 Military desegregation was followed by action in relation to public education. In 1954, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education struck down Plessy v Ferguson, which deemed constitutional the creation of segregated schools 58 years earlier. Refusal to implement Brown continued; a 1957 “Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom” met in Washington, D.C. to encourage the federal government to act. Four months later, President Dwight Eisenhower deployed Army troops to oversee the enforcement of desegregation by the Arkansas National Guard, which had previously prevented nine African American students from entering Central High School in Little Rock, as ordered by Governor Orval Faubus.102 On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks—NAACP member since 1943 and activist on behalf of victims of racial violence—took a stand against “the color line.” She invited a white bus driver to have her arrested for refusing to yield her seat in the “Colored” section to a white passenger. The Montgomery Bus Boycott began, and it spurred men and women across the South to engage in local campaigns to protest racial discrimination and call for equality and integration in their communities: sit-ins at segregated lunch-counters, boycotts, and other actions. On August 23, 1963, a quarter of a million people (190,000 blacks and 60,000 whites) took part in a “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” to publicly, peaceably protest racial discrimination and show support for a federal civil rights bill securing fair wages and complete integration of schools.103 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s closing address invoked the Emancipation Proclamation and the nation’s charter documents as unfulfilled “promissory notes,” and concluded by confiding his famous dream. The national coverage and King’s powerful speech gave momentum to President John F. Kennedy to introduce a bill with strong provisions. In the Summer of 1964, local organizers and Northern students joined forces to empower blacks in rural Mississippi to exercise their suppressed voting rights by conducting registration drives and offering “Freedom School” programs. Three young civil rights volunteers (a black Catholic Mississippian, and two white New Yorkers) were murdered. By the end of “Freedom Summer,” only 1,600 of 17,000 voter applications were accepted by registrars.104 These events led to increased support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning segregation in public accommodations and employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibited restrictive state and local laws and tactics preventing blacks from voting. On April 4, 1968, while visiting Memphis, Tennessee, to support a sanitation workers’ strike, Dr. King was assassinated. The abrupt, violent extinguishing of his life robbed those committed to a society marked by racial justice, equality, integration and unity of an incomparably compelling moral leader, long before the nation had fulfilled its “promissory note” to its African American citizens. As shock and grief gave way to fear, anger, and despair, rioting erupted in over one hundred cities nationwide. The deep unrest spurred Congress to pass the then-stalled Fair Housing Act: it prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of property due to race, religion, national origin, or sex.105

Immigration and Intermarriage: Reform in Federal and State Laws (1965-2000) In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act. It superseded the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which had modified the 1924 quotas favoring northern and western Europeans and severely restricting others in establishing national admission quotas and eligibility for citizenship. The new act replaced the latter and eliminated national-origin quotas. The new criteria were desired skill sets for employment and family reunification.

20 Interracial marriage had been a prosecutable offense since the colonial era (e.g., the 1691 and 1705 Virginia laws). An 1880 California law forbidding whites to marry a “negro, mulatto, or Mongolian” typified legal codes across the country. In the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v VA, “anti-miscegenation” laws were ruled unconstitutional. However, such statutes remained on the books in sixteen states. In 1998, South Carolina repealed its ban on interracial marriage; in a 2000 referendum, Alabama voters were the last in the nation to repeal their law, by a 59%-41% majority.

Official Recognition and Redress for Historic Acts of Wrong (1970-2011)

Executive Order 9022: War-time Internment of Japanese Americans and Aleut Islanders Another campaign for civil rights sought an apology and restitution for the 122,000 Japanese American citizens and legal resident aliens relocated and incarcerated during World War II. In 1976, President Gerald Ford terminated Executive Order 9066 of 1942.106 In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed a Commission to investigate the claim that the wartime detention of Japanese Americans and Aleuts was necessary. Its 1982 Report, “Personal Justice Denied,” concluded that the Executive Order was unwarranted, based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”107 In view of detailed evidence that the internees suffered severe losses, it recommended that monetary compensation be provided. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act. In it, “the Congress recognizes” and “apologizes on behalf of the Nation” for “fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry.” Acknowledging “enormous damages,” “incalculable losses,” and “significant suffering” inflicted on the 122,000 internees, it authorized restitution payments of $20,000 to living survivors of the camps. The Act of “the Congress” also “recognizes” that the United States “failed” the Aleut internees, and established a trust fund to provide benefits to various groups and the community as a whole, including a payment of $12,000 to each survivor for personal property losses.108

Apology for the Annexation of the Nation of Hawaii On November 23, 1993—a century after the coup d’état and take-over of the independent Kingdom of Hawaii—President William Clinton signed U.S. Public Law 103-150. Based on the 1893 Blount Report of the House Committee and official statements by President Grover Cleveland (who tried to negotiate restoration of the Hawaiian constitutional monarchy), this “Apology Resolution” acknowledges that the U.S. government was complicit in the illegal acquisition of Hawaii:

the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further…the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum.109

Biological Experimentation on African American Men On May 16, 1997, President Bill Clinton officially acknowledged that, in 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service created a study, selecting 600 black men in Macon County, Alabama as subjects. The men were told that they had “bad blood” (a popular term for fatigue, anemia, rheumatism, and stomach problems) and were recruited to a program promising free exams,

21 medical treatments, and burial insurance. The original goal was to gather data on men with syphilis—the fourth leading cause of death among all Americans prior to World War II110—“in hopes of justifying treatment programs for blacks.”111 When the study began, 399 men had syphilis, while 201 comprised the control group. In 1936, the agency extended the study for the purpose of observing the progress of the untreated disease. In 1945, penicillin was confirmed as the treatment of choice, and before 1946, the government established 36 Rapid Treatment Centers to make it widely available.112 However, the Tuskegee men were never informed that an effective treatment was discovered, or that they could obtain it through other government programs. In the 1960s, Peter Buxtun, an epidemiologist, heard about the study, obtained documentation, and filed official protests with the national division, which met with indifference. Repeated reporting to others was to no avail.113 Only after he leaked the story to the press in 1972 was the program halted.114 The following year, Congressional hearings established that the 600 men were never informed of the program’s purpose: “The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” Thus the 399 men with syphilis were deceived by doctors assuring them their “bad blood” was being treated, while withholding penicillin. Not only did the men’s lives and bodies break down as blindness and neural, heart, liver, and brain damage set in, but their wives and children were also exposed to the congenital disease. A class-action lawsuit also was filed that year. In 1974, the government settled out of court for $10 million and agreed to give lifetime medical benefits and burial services to participants. In 1975, wives, widows and offspring were added to the program; and it was augmented by health benefits coverage in 1995.115 In his 1997 speech, Clinton acknowledged and apologized to eight survivors and their families:

The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens…What was done cannot be undone. But we can end the silence…We can look at you in the eye and finally say on behalf of the American people, what the United States government did was shameful, and I am sorry…To our African American citizens, I am sorry that your federal government orchestrated a study so clearly racist. That can never be allowed to happen again. It is against everything our country stands for…The legacy of the study at Tuskegee has reached far and deep, in ways that hurt our progress and divide our nation. We cannot be one America when a whole segment of our nation has no trust in America. An apology is the first step, and we take it with a commitment to rebuild that broken trust. We can begin by making sure there is never again another episode like this one.116

Recognition of Exceptional Military Service: Japanese American Veterans On October 5, 2010, President Barack Obama signed Public Law 111-254, which commended and conferred the Congressional Gold Medal collectively on three groups of Japanese American veterans who served with extraordinary distinction during World War II: the 442nd Regimental Combat Team (the most-decorated unit in U.S. military history), the 100th Infantry Battalion, and 6000 Military Intelligence Services soldiers. The Congressional resolution affirmed that “The United States remains forever indebted for the bravery, valor, and dedication to country

22 these men faced while fighting a two-fronted battle of discrimination at home and fascism abroad.”117

Redress of Federal Mismanagement of Native American Lands and Trust Funds Elouise Pepion Cobell, “Yellow Bird Woman” (1945-2011), an accountant who founded the first bank owned by a Native American tribe, grew up in a humble home on the Montana Blackfeet Indian reservation. She knew the ironic reality that many Native people are “land-rich” but live “dirt-poor.”118 As Treasurer for the Blackfeet Nation, Cobell saw that despite much oil extraction from the reservation, the income from companies leasing the lands was meager. Discovering that “no accounts-receivable system was in place,” she began to research and to raise questions at agency meetings;119 however, reporting the issue to officials repeatedly fell on deaf ears. The 1887 Dawes Act had authorized the President to set aside areas on reservations divided into individual parcels; persons accepting them became U.S. citizens.120 The Department of the Interior managed a Trust program on their behalf, by issuing leases of parcels for mining, grazing, drilling for oil and gas, and placing the revenues in Individual Indian Money accounts, from which regular pay-outs would be sent to the individuals.121 Cobell discovered that the “government trustee who managed the leasing…had never given Indians an accounting of their royalty payments. Not once over the course of a century!”122 After all efforts to obtain trust account records were blocked, she filed a class-action lawsuit in 1996.123 Cobell v Babbitt charged that the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Treasury mismanaged the Indian Trust Funds per the 1887 Dawes Act, by “administrative errors, diversion of money to other programs and even outright theft…The government took the position that it owed them little or nothing.”124 In 2009, after fourteen years of litigation, the government agreed to a $3.4 billion settlement.125 It provided a $1000 payment to each land-holder, with the remaining monies going to a scholarship fund for Native American postgraduate students and a tribal land consolidation program.126 When the bill (signed by President Obama in 2010) was approved by a federal judge in 2011, another round of appeals began, during which Cobell passed away from cancer. After the Supreme Court denied Justice Department lawyers’ petition for review, the settlement became final in 2012.127 President Obama posthumously awarded Elouise Cobell the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2016. The recent settlement of the Indian Trust Funds case provided some redress to the Blackfeet Nation. But other Native American peoples have also suffered under the implementation of the federal legislation. It is now evident that this U.S. policy and its application dealt a host of serious wrongs and set-backs to the lives of many Native Americans. Much of this stems from their historical deprivation of political power in relation to the federal government. Here the observations of Federal Judge Royce Lamberth (a Republican, Reagan appointee who presided over Cobell vs. Salazar from 1996-2006) are telling:

[The case] serves as an appalling reminder of the evils that result when large numbers of the politically powerless are placed at the mercy of institutions engendered and controlled by a politically powerful few. It reminds us that even today our great democratic enterprise remains unfinished. And it reminds us, finally, that the terrible power of government, and the frailty of the restraints on the

23 exercise of that power, are never fully revealed until government turns against the people.128

Conclusion

Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith define a racialized society as one in which

race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities and social relationships. … Due to the origins of the idea of race, the placement of people in racial groups always means some form of hierarchy. … A racialized society “allocates differential economic, political, social and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines: lines that are socially constructed.”129

This overview of selected historical actions and events that created the United States as a society has illustrated the great extent to which the diverse groups now comprising the American people were assigned differential positions within a racialized society created early on: one that, for most of its history, has consistently bestowed political, economic, and social rewards on those among our forebears able to attain the status of whiteness, while withholding them variously from racialized non-white others. Racial ideas acquired their concrete force because of their articulation and enforcement in the system of laws created from the colonial period onward, and is even inscribed in the nation’s charter document, the Constitution of the United States. Christians who understand God’s desires for his world and who desire to be agents of his work of redemption in bringing his reign to bear upon the present world need to come to grips with the macro-history of their nations’ development (of which the United States is but one exemplar). Thus, the measures Bishop McElroy proposes—the retrieval and exchange of familial and ethnic communal stories with others in conversations at multiple levels, and collective celebrations of the diverse cultural heritages—are indeed invaluable resources contributing to a way forward for a society that shows signs of having lost our way. However, these experiences, struggles and accomplishments unfolded within the larger structural realities established by our nation’s racialized societal institutions. The former must be complemented by the latter. “Even today our great democratic enterprise remains unfinished.”130 It is the continuing political, economic, and social inequities created by these historic racializing policies in our shared society must be addressed by Christians and Christian communities in solidarity and partnership with our neighbors, in order to realize the promise of “the American Creed.” It is hoped that the critical framework above provides readers with additional clarity and incentive to commit to rectifying the instances of injustices that we encounter which hinder the “forging [of] a more perfect union,” in the course of seeking the common good according to the opportunities each of us has to participate with God the Holy Trinity in enacting “loyal love, justice, and righteousness on earth” where he has placed us (Jeremiah 9:23-24).

1 The use of scare quotes with the term race indicates the view that the relation of the concept to its referent in reality is problematic. However, sociologists and others employing this convention typically omit the scare quotes with related forms (racial, racism, and the like). 2 The choice to examine “race” with respect to the United States takes a case-study approach. Choosing a particular instantiation is necessary because the specific ideas associated with “race,” the set of racial categories in use, the criteria applied to distinguish the “races,” and the consequences of racial classification vary with communities and their sociopolitical, economic, and cultural circumstances across space and time. See George Fredrickson, Racism:

24 A Short History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002). Examination of this exemplar is intended to be instructive for studying “race” in other contexts. 3 Bishop Robert McElroy, “An Errand into the Wilderness: The Vocation of the Catholic Community in Healing Our Nation,” University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary, Mundelein, Illinois, March 15, 2018. 4 Daniel T. Rodgers, As a City on a Hill: The Story of America's Most Famous Lay Sermon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018). 5 John Winthrop, “Christian Charity: A Modell Thereof,” in Alden T. Vaughn, ed., The Puritan Tradition in America, 1620-1730 (Lebanon, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1997), 138-46. 6 Ibid, 146. 7 Samuel Danforth, “A Brief Recognition of New England’s Errand into the Wilderness,” Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1670, in The English Literatures of America: 1500-1800, ed. Myra Jehlen and Michael Warner (New York: Routledge, 1997), 467. 8 Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1956), 15. 9 Pope Francis, “Address of the Holy Father,” Visit to the Joint Session of the United States Congress, September 24, 2015. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa- francesco_20150924_usa-us-congress.html. 10 Elizabeth Y. Sung, “‘Race’ and Ethnicity Discourse and the Christian Doctrine of Humanity: A Systematic Sociological and Theological Appraisal.” Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois (2011), 136. 11 Elizabeth Y. Sung, “Culture, ‘Race,’ and Ethnicity in Christian Perspective: Theoretical and Theological Foundations for Multi-Ethnic Ministry” (Chicago: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, 2001), 85. 12 Elizabeth Y. Sung, “‘Racial Realism’ in Biblical Interpretation and Theological Anthropology: A Systematic-Theological Evaluation of Recent Accounts,” Ex Auditu 31 (2015), 6. 13 Ibid. 14 Francis Collins and Monique K. Mansoura, “The Human Genome Project: Revealing the Shared Inheritance of Humankind,” Cancer 91 (2001): 221-25. 15 Sung, “‘Racial Realism,’” 10. 16 Ibid., 11. See Deborah Bolnick, “Individual Ancestry Reference and the Reification of Race as a Biological Phenomenon,” in Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, ed. Barbara A. Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Sarah S. Richardson (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008), 70-85; and John Dupré, “What Genes Are and Why There Are No Genes for Race,” in Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, ed. Barbara A. Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Sarah S. Richardson (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008), 39-55. 17 “Racism.” Oxford Dictionary online. www.en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism 18 Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 7, 8, citing Robert Woodberry and Christian Smith, “Fundamentalism et al.,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 25-26. 19 Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, rev. ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 2008), 23-24. 20 Christopher Columbus, Epistola Christofori Colom…de Insulis Indie Supra Gangem. www.gilderlehrman.org/content/epistola-christofori-colom-de-insulis-indie-supra-gangem-exploration. 21 John Thornton, Africa and Africa in the Making of the Atlantic World: 1400-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 29. 22 Robert J. Miller, Lisa LeSage, and Sebastián López Escarcena, “The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile,” Nebraska Law Review 89, no. 4 (2010), 832. 23 Catholic Church, Pope, Bullarium patronatus Portugalliae Regum in ecclesiis Africae, Asiae atque Oceaniae bullas, brevia, epistolas, decreta actaque sanctae sedis ab Alexandro III ad hoc usque tempus amplectens, vol. 1 (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library, 1868), 22-23. English translation: http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html. 24 Nicholas V, Romanus pontifex. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/nichol05/romanus-pontifex.htm. 25 Miller, LeSage, and Escarcena, “International Law of Discovery,” 833, 834. 26 Takaki, Different Mirror, 33. 27 Ibid., 35. 28 Ibid., 38. 29 Ibid., 44. 30 Ibid., 37-43. 31 Ibid., 39-40.

25 32 Ibid., 43. 33 Ibid., 54. 34 Ibid., 53. 35 Ibid., 53, 54. 36 Ibid., 55. 37 Ibid., 66. 38 Ibid., 67. 39 Ibid., 69. 40 Ibid., 60. 41 An Act concerning Servants and Slaves. www.encyclopediavirginia.org/_An_act_concerning_Servants_and_Slaves_1705. 42 Takaki, Different Mirror, 66. 43 Ibid., 67. 44 Ibid., 62, 63. 45 David Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, rev. ed. (New York: Verso, 1999), 20. 46 Takaki, Different Mirror, 63. 47 Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1962; original publication: New York: Harper Brothers, 1944), 1021. 48 “Declaration of Independence.” www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 “Articles of Confederation.” Library of Congress Research Guide. www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/ articles.html. 52 “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription.” National Archives. www.archives.gov/founding- docs/constitution-transcript. 53 Ibid. 54 “Observing Constitution Day.” National Archives. www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution- day/ratification.html. 55 Johnson v M’Intosh. www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21/543. 56 Takaki, Different Mirror, 93-98. 57 “Indian Removal: 1814-58.” www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html. 58 Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935), 112. Cited in Takaki, Different Mirror, 163. 59 Reginald Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1981), 235. Cited in Takaki, Different Mirror, 164. 60 Takaki, Different Mirror, 142. 61 David Roediger, Wages of Whiteness, rev. ed. (New York: Verso, 1999), 134. 62 Takaki, Different Mirror, 140-41. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.,142. 65 Roediger, Wages of Whiteness, 133, 137. Cf. Noel Ignatiev, How Irish Became White (London: Routledge, 1996). 66 Takaki, Different Mirror, 142, 150, 151. 67 Ibid., 142, 144-45. 68 Ibid., 152. 69 Ibid., 154. 70 Scott v. Sanford. Legal Information Institute. www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393. 71 Abraham Lincoln, “Speech on the Dred Scott Decision,” June 26, 1857. www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/. 72 The Emancipation Proclamation. National Archives. www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured- documents/emancipation-proclamation. 73 “General Sherman’s Order Providing Homes for the Freed Negroes.” New York Times (January 20, 1865). www.timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1865/01/29/78737924.html?pageNumber=1.

26 74 “Forty Acres and a Mule.” www.thoughtco.com/forty-acres-and-a-mule-1773319; cf. “Forty Acres Promise to Blacks Was Broken.” New York Times (October 25, 1994). www.nytimes.com/1994/10/25/opinion/l-40- acres-promise-to-blacks-was-broken-628816.html. 75 Ernest Andrade, Jr., Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880–1903 (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 1996), 130. 76 Merze Tate, The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 235. 77 “Newlands Resolution (Annexation of Hawaii).” www.law.cornell.edu/topn/newlands_resolution_annexation_of_hawaii; “The 1897 Petition Against the Annexation of Hawaii.” www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition. 78 Steven G. Koven and Frank Götzke, American Immigration Policy: Confronting the Nation’s Challenges (New York: Springer, 2010), 133; “The Immigration Act of 1924,” www.history.house.gov/Historical- Highlights/1901-1950/The-Immigration-Act-of-1924/ 79 “The Immigration Act of 1924,” www.history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The- Immigration-Act-of-1924/. 80 “Who Was Shut Out? Immigration Quotas, 1925-27.” American Social History Project: Center for Media and Learning (CUNY) and Center for History & New Media (George Mason University) http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078. 81 “The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” Office of the Historian of the State Department of United States. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act. 82 Ira Katznelson, When Affirmative Action was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth- Century America. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. 83 Ibid., 113. 84 Richard Rothstein and Terry Gross, “A ‘Forgotten History’ of How the U.S. Government Segregated America.” May 3, 2017. www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=526655831. 85 Katznelson, When Affirmative Action was White, 163. 86 Ibid., 164. 87 Ibid., 121. 88 Ibid., 113. 89 “A Brief History of Japanese American Relocation During World War II.” www.nps.gov/articles/ historyinternment.htm. Cf. “Japanese American Internment,” Encyclopedia Britannica www.britannica.com/event/ Japanese-American-internment#ref1201801. 90 Takaki, Different Mirror, 361-67. 91 Nicholas De Genova, “Immigration Policy, Twentieth Century,” in Suzanne Oboler and Deena J. González, eds., The Oxford History of Latinos and Latinas in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 2: 353. Cited in “Depression, War, and Civil Rights: Hispanics in the Southwest.” https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions- and-Publications/HAIC/Historical-Essays/Separate-Interests/Depression-War-Civil-Rights/. 92 Juan Roman García, Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1980), 217, cited in “Depression, War, and Civil Rights: Hispanics in the Southwest.” https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/HAIC/Historical-Essays/Separate- Interests/Depression-War-Civil-Rights/; Kitty Calavita, Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration and the I.N.S. (New York: Routledge, 1992), ii; Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 93 Takaki, Different Mirror, 371-80. Cf. “Voyage of the St. Louis,” Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. www.encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-the-st-louis. 94 Takaki, Different Mirror, 376. 95 Ibid., 378. 96 W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches (Chicago: A. C. McClurg, 1903), v. 97 Myrdal, An American Dilemma, 1004, 1021, emphasis added. Cited in Takaki, Different Mirror, 340. 98 “Lynching in America: Targeting Black Veterans,” Equal Justice Initiative. www.eji.org/reports/online/lynching-in-america-targeting-black-veterans. 99 Takaki, Different Mirror, 385. 100 “Desegregation of the Armed Forces.” Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum. www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=bg. 101 “Military Integration Timeline.” www.archive.defense.gov/home/features/2008/0708_integration/military_integration_timeline.pdf.

27