Chapter 6 - Myth and History

Social History and Mythology

Many forces worked to shape the United States we live in today. Racism in the United States did not start with Black slavery and it did not end with Civil Rights. From “first contact” of Europeans and the Peoples of the Americas, racism has been present and used as a tool. It is still present today.

I am including this chapter because I firmly believe that what we deal with today in terms of social stratification is built upon the foundation of the past. I see these as direct connections in at least two ways. First, in shaping the culture in the United States – shaping our beliefs, values, the ways we see ourselves, and the current forms and impacts of our social institutions. Second, that the issues and rhetoric that we experience today are strikingly similar to the issues and rhetoric of earlier times. We are indeed repeating ourselves - endlessly it seems. My experience personally and as a teacher inform me that there is a lot that we were not taught. Further, that what we don’t know keeps us from understanding our current environment.

I am not going to give an exhaustive review of U.S. history here, though I do offer sources at the end of the chapter for you to explore further for yourself. What I am going to share are those things that have helped me to best understand the construction of race in the United States today. Sex and social class were (and are) included in this shaping. We will be examining myth making and social history; what we are taught and what is real. We will be examining nativism in several guises. Nativism is a general term that refers primarily to social movements and public sentiment that is nationalistic, ethnocentric, and frequently racist. It has played a repeating role in shaping our environment and serves to pull together a number of disparate events in U.S. history.

The terms “nativism” and “nativist” in the social context are also somewhat confusing because the native peoples of this land are generically referred to as Native American. However, in the context of U.S. social history, these terms apply to primarily white colonizers who saw this land as their’s. “Immigration” of Europeans was encouraged to occupy this land – displacing its original population. While the exact time is unclear, at some point European colonizers saw themselves as the “native” people of the Americas, and those Europeans who followed them as “immigrants.” The more accurate statement would be that European colonizers encouraged more colonization and imported non-white labor (i.e. African, Chinese, Mexican, and Japanese) to help claim and control the land against its rightful “owners.” (I place “owners” in quotation marks in this context because most tribes did not have the concept of owning the land.) Because of the nature and use of the term “immigrant,” I have used the phrasing of “immigrants (colonizers),” or “immigrants” in quotes to show the questionable nature of this concept.

The myth of “American” ownership of Native American tribal lands is pervasive. There is a general belief today that Indians own relatively small tracts of lands called “reservations;” however, this is not the case. Please see the map on the following page which is from the U.S. government’s own records of what lands currently belong to various tribes (Churchill, 1994).

The white areas are lands that legally belong to the indicated tribes. The diagonally-hashed lands are lands still being legally contested, and the cross-hatched areas are those that were given up through recognized treaties between the U.S. government and tribes. Most people are surprised how vast the tribal holdings are. The map also raises the question of what the implications might be if the tribes reclaimed the land that the U.S. government says is legally theirs.

While we have discussed various components of identity formation in previous chapters, the purpose here is to examine the broader social and historical processes that have created the society we live in today. With the arrival/invasion of Europeans to this hemisphere a number of processes were set in motion. Europeans were looking for trade goods and to control trade routes and those goods. The ultimate focus was power and wealth, and securing the control of trade and territory.

Western Europeans and their descendants were and are continuously “discovering” things. Columbus “discovered” “America” and researchers are continuously “discovering” flora and fauna from around the world. In 1999, scientists “discovered” a new species of pygmy deer in the remote mountains of Vietnam. When we hear the word discover the first thing that comes to mind is the one that is most common: “to be the first to find out, see, or know about” (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Let’s look briefly at how “discover” is actually defined:

1to be the first to find out, see, or know about

2to find out; learn of the existence of; realize

3to be the first nonnative person to find, come to, or see (a continent, river, etc.)

4to bring to prominence; make famous

5a) [Now Rare] to reveal; disclose; expose b) [Archaic] to uncover

                                                      (Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus)

If we look at the “discoveries” above, it is clear that the “discoverers” were not the first to find out. There were already people in the “New World” and the mountain people of Vietnam certainly knew about the pygmy deer roaming their forests. Meaning number two might work. Meaning number three, is what is actually meant, and meaning number four ties directly to three. In the context of both historical and contemporary empire building, “non-native” essentially means “white,” and “making prominent and famous” refers to those same “non-native” people. We do not have to be told this. It is unconsciously assumed, and the general acceptance of it shows how deep the race ideology goes. Personally, I like the fifth meaning that is no longer in use - “to reveal; disclose; expose” as that is the intent of this text.

We are told that history is written by the victor. Perhaps in the context of this chapter, it would be more appropriate to say that history is written by those with power to support their power. History is not simply a series of events, though my experience with history throughout my 1^st grade through my Bachelors degree was one long string of “we went, we saw, we conquered.” Who was this “we?” It was “white” Americans and their ancestors. I’m sure I was taught this history with the belief that it was an accurate and complete narration, and certainly with an eye towards generating national pride. It was a depiction that was primarily “white,” overwhelmingly male (except for Betsy Ross and Florence Nightingale) and where the primary people were of an upper class, with lots of drudges like soldiers, and pioneers doing the foot work of their betters, and bravely scratching a life from a hostile land.

No, history is not simply a series of events. Formal history is also not simply a retelling of a series of events. Formal history occurs within a social framework and becomes the seeds of public perception. It shapes the lens through which we see the present. It may include us (race, sex, class, national origin) or it may not. It may include us, but not accurately. Whether and how we are included becomes the stuff of story, song, and the idealized cultural story. This story may be presented so pervasively within our culture that it becomes people’s belief that what we see in film and story and song must be what actually happened. In believing that what is portrayed is truth, it shapes our perceptions today. Over 100 years of stories about the “Old West” lead us to assume that cowboys were the primary characters, made a living wage, and were at the forefront of fighting Indians, protecting innocent settlers, spending their lives riding around after cows. Cowboys were the (white) “action figure” heroes with wild Indians their arch enemy. And like heroes of myth, they always won.

The reality is that cowboys were of most of the races present in the country at the time and the first cowboys were Mexican Vaqueros as the Spanish first introduced cattle to the “new” world (Library of Congress, 2000). They were not free agents “roaming the range,” but workers for hire -- workers who were paid little, and frequently not paid at all. In today’s world they would be called “tramps.” In 1881 President Chester A. Arthur sought congressional authority to go after “desperadoes calling themselves Cowboys.” By 1888 Theodore Roosevelt entered the presidency on his Cowboy image (Papanikolas, 1995:74). Writers and artists of the time painted a romantic image of the West that captured the imagination of the reading public -- and has held it ever since.

Even something as simple and captivating as Johnny Appleseed struggling across the country planting his beloved apple seeds reinforces the image of taming an untamed and unpopulated land. The sub-text which goes without notice is one of conquest and colonialism. Johnny Appleseed: man against nature; civilizing it, subduing it with a sweet crop. Paul Bunyan with Babe, clearing the virgin forests for white settlers and white farms, breaking his back (and Babe’s) in the spirit of a rapidly expanding “nation.” We do not need to be told that Johnny and Paul are “white.”

But before cowboys, before pioneers and settlers, before Johnny and Paul, we have not myth but history mythologized.

Columbus “Discovers” America

We can argue whether the Vikings or the Spanish got here first. What is inarguable is that the Spanish incursion marked the beginning of European empire building in the Western Hemisphere and in the Americas. The history we are generally taught is that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. He was looking for a trade route to the Orient, but top on his list was to find gold. Instead, he landed in what are now the Bahamas and found the Taino’s (Arawaks). Like most of the early European contact with the people of the Americas, the “explorers” were met in a friendly fashion and given hospitality (Zinn, 1995:1) Columbus noted in his log, as quoted by Zinn:

“They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.” ... “With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”

Columbus responded to this hospitality in a less than hospitable way. Columbus noted in his personal diary as quoted by Zinn (1995:1):

“As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.”

Columbus wanted to believe that there were significant amounts of gold in what he named “Espanola,” and when he returned to Spain he convinced Isabella and Ferdinand that this was the case. They made him Viceroy and Governor of the Caribbean Islands and mainland and sent him back. Upon arriving back in the Americas in 1493, he built a fort and enslaved the Tainos and murdered those who did not meet the tributes he set (Churchill, 1994). While he did not find large amounts of gold, he did send a number of enslaved Tainos to Spain. “In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto the ships” (Zinn, 1995:4). Only three hundred were to survive the trip. Columbus wrote later “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold (Zinn, 1995:4).”

In the eight years that Columbus was the Viceroy and Governor, the Taino population went from (an estimated) eight million people to less than 100,000 (Churchill, 1994). Some died by suicide, but the majority were brutally murdered by the Spanish. As noted by Churchill (1994:32):

“There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the treatment of the natives by ‘Spanish colonists (hidalgos) hanging Tainos en masse, roasting them on spits or burning them at the stake (often a dozen or more at a time), hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog feed and so forth, all of it to instill in the natives a “proper attitude of respect” toward their Spanish “superiors”.”

Columbus is officially and publicly honored in the United States. We learn the myth of Columbus in grade school and this myth impacts us today. The myth is reinvigorated each year while Native Americans and others protest that celebrating Columbus is celebrating genocide (Churchill, 1994). Meanwhile many in the United States, including the press, think that the “Indians” are being “sore losers.” Some would ask what difference it makes at this time whether Columbus was a valiant explorer or a murderous despot. Others would argue that it is critically important. The magazine “Rethinking Columbus” published for the 500^th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival (1991:3) makes the following argument:

“The Columbus myth is basic to children’s beliefs about society. For many youngsters the tale of Columbus introduces them to the history of this country, even to history itself. The ‘discovery’ of America is children’s first curricular exposure to the encounter between two cultures and to the encounter between two races. As such, a study of Columbus is really a study about us – how we think about each other, our country, and our relations with people around the world.”

“The Columbus myth teaches children which voices to listen for as they go out into the world – and whose to ignore. Pick up a children’s book on Columbus: See Chris; see Chris talk; see Chris grow up, have ideas, have feelings. In these volumes, the native peoples of the Caribbean, the ‘discovered,’ don’t think or feel. And thus children begin a scholastic journey that encourages them to disregard the perspectives, the very humanity, of people of color.”

Columbus set the tenor of what was to come for the native peoples of the Americas. The myths that pass themselves off as history still underpin the structure of race today, and fuel tensions between races.

The myth runs that Western Europeans originally came to this land to escape religious persecution. They met a few friendly “Indians,” but for the most part were in a hostile land surrounded by hostile savages. While there were not many Indians, they did pose a threat to these innocent, God fearing immigrants (colonizers). Dealing with the hostile natives required “killing a few” and “moving a few.” However, even “friendly Indians” proved traitorous and had to be dealt with.

Hence, we have the kind Indians that fed the poor pilgrims through their first winter at Plymouth Rock. When the colonists got on their feet they returned the favor, inviting all the Indians to a sumptuous feast – replete with turkey and all the trimmings -- and a good time was had by all.

The reality is not as simple and straightforward. There were not very many “Indians” left around Plymouth Rock. While the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they had been preceded by a British expedition in 1614 who took 24 people as slaves and left smallpox behind. By 1617, the population of the coastal tribes had been reduced by over 90%.

“John Winthrop, a founder of the Massachusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, “But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection.” (Revolutionary Worker, 1996)

One of the slaves taken in 1614 was Squanto who returned with the Plymouth Pilgrims. They established the Plymouth Plantation on the remains of the Wamponoag village Pawtuxet. Squanto helped the Pilgrims make a treaty with chief Masasoit of the Wamponoags.

The Puritans survived and were followed by many other Puritans, and villages and farms expanded, encroaching on the remaining tribal villages. The question arose as to land ownership. Those who argued that the land belonged to the Indians were excommunicated and exiled from the towns. Governor Winthrop determined that the Indians had not subdued the land (put it under cultivation) and so the land was public domain. This meant that land ownership went through the British crown (and the Governor who was crown’s representative) rather than through the Tribes already on the land.

The first Thanksgiving was in 1621 when the Governor declared a three day feast because the colony survived the winter. The next Thanksgiving was in 1637 [See Box 6.1]. Most of the “Thanksgiving Days” for the next 100 years were declared to celebrate victories against various Native American tribes. “The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota) (Revolutionary Worker)

More innocent immigrants (colonizers) came and settled in, eventually expanding across the “unexplored” (by “whites”) country: a land that was empty of all but space and natural resources (and a few hostile Indians). Word of the possibility of empty land ripe for the taking spread across the sea and people of Europe flocked to the opportunity.

Another prevalent myth about Native Americans in the years after first contact was that the dramatic decline in population was accidental. While there were accidents involved in the early spread of small pox and other diseases among the tribes, white politicians and military men certainly saw disease as a weapon. As noted by Churchill (1994:34) “... in 1763 history’s first documentable case of biological warfare occurred against Pontiac’s Algonkian Confederacy. Sir Jeffrey Amherst (a general) ordered a subordinate to infect the Indians with blankets contaminated with smallpox. “You will be well advised to infect the Indians with sheets upon which small pox patients have been lying or by other means which may serve to exterminate this accursed race (Amott and Matthaei, 1996:39.)” His subordinate reported back ‘... we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired affect (Churchill, 1994:34).’”

The Early Years

During the 1600s (prior to slavery) Black Africans came to these shores as indentured servants. They were not the only servants however. Black and white indentured servants shared jobs, quarters and lives. Children were a consequence of these conditions and were part of what prompted anti-miscegenation and other laws (See Box 6.2).

While history conveys to us that many people, especially in the south, owned slaves, almost 6% of slaves were held in northern states. We have the image of huge plantations with hundreds of slaves. In fact, there is a perception that the south was one huge blanket of plantations. While about 75% of white southern families owned slaves, by 1860 only twenty-five percent of slave owner owned more than fifty slaves (Amott and Matthaei, 1996: 145).

We have a belief that only African Americans were slaves and only whites owned slaves. Before the institution of the slave trade, many Native Americans were enslaved, and after the institution of slavery in the United States, some Native nations owned black slaves. Not all African Americans were slaves and some had black slaves.

There was a lot of traffic in slaves, and a lot of slaves. Somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of slaves who were brought from West Africa died in passage – mostly of starvation and disease. Even given the number who died, over 400,000 arrived between 1741 and 1810 (Ammott and Matthaei, 1996: 145). By this time Blacks made up almost 20% of the entire U.S. population (excluding Native Americans) and almost 50% in slave holding states.

In 1836 white colonists in Texas declared independence from Mexico. They had been drawn there, in part because Mexico allowed slavery, and declared independence in part because Mexico banned slavery. In 1843, the U.S. declared war on Mexico and in 1848 that war was ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which gave the United States all Mexican territories north of the Rio Grande River. Texas entered the Union as a slave state. Mexicans and Indian nations in the former Mexican territories came under the jurisdiction of the United States. As a part of the treaty, Mexicans in the now U.S. territory retained their rights to their land and customs. We will return to the implications of this later in this chapter.

Around the same time waves of immigrants (colonizers) (primarily English, German, and Irish) were arriving. Wave after wave of “immigrants,” were landing primarily in the northeastern ports and very few went south after landing. Cities were dirty and crowded. Job competition was high. The north was abolishing slavery and the south was not. There was expansion to the west: an ever expanding sea of migration decimating land, game, and Indian nations. The south and slavery were powerful primarily because northern states kept electing pro-slavery candidates (Holt, 1973).

There was an increasing sense of government corruption. Some looked at the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852 with the help of naturalized voters, and his selection of foreign born to various government and diplomatic posts, as a clear sign of the influence of outsiders. Prices and taxes were going through the roof (Billington, 1952). By 1855 “immigrants” outnumbered American born citizens in Chicago, Detroit, and Milwaukee, and would soon surpass the American born “natives” in NY, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Cincinnati. More than a third of the population of Boston, Pittsburgh, Albany, Rochester and Troy were immigrants (colonizers), and the levels were nearly that in Philadelphia and Newark. From 1845 to 1854, 2,900,000 Europeans came to the U.S. This was more “immigrants” than the previous 70 years combined (Anbinder, 1992). Feagin (1997: 19-20) characterizes this period as follows:

“In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the ‘white race’ emerged as a constructed social group for the first time in history.” ... “Early English invaders and their descendants saw themselves as culturally and physically different from Native and African Americans, the stereotyped ‘uncivilized savages.’ Moreover, by the early 1800s the importance of Southern cotton plantations for the U.S. economy had brought a growing demand for Native American land and African and African American slaves. Slavery was being abolished in the North, and the number of free black men and women was growing. In this period, the Anglo-Protestant ruling elite developed the ideology of a superior ‘white race’ as one way of providing racial privileges for poorer European Americans and keeping the latter from joining with black Americans in worker organizations. By the mid-nineteenth century, not only later English “immigrants” but also “immigrants” from Scotland, Ireland, and Germany had come to accept a place in this socially constructed ‘white race’ whose special racial privileges included the rights of personal liberty, travel and voting.”

Out of this climate of chaos came a third political party known as the “Know Nothings.” They arose out of a collection of citizen groups and clubs, but were tagged Know Nothings because whenever they were interviewed that was their response. At that time the two party system contained the Whigs (primarily northern) and the Democrats (primarily southern). The Whigs lost most of their credibility and popular support with the passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had said that states that lay north of latitude 36°30' were to be free states (slavery was not allowed). At the time of the Kansas Nebraska Act (1854) Stephen A. Douglas wanted to secure a northern route for the Transcontinental Railroad, and wanted to bring in Nebraska as a state. This would have upset the balance between free and slave states. Therefore, the territory was divided into two states and Nebraska came in as a free state and Kansas as a slave state.

The Know Nothings grew out of a secret society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. They were formally known as the American Party. They were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic and claimed to be champion of the rights of American male Protestant voters. The northern part of the party being anti-slavery and the southern part being pro-slavery (Anbinder, 1992; Billington, 1952). They took political control of many state and city governments from 1855 to 1860. They supported Millard Fillmore in the 1856 Presidential election and he took 21% of the popular vote and eight votes from the electoral college.

The American Party platform included the following:

      1.   Only native-born Americans could hold public office;

      2.   A 21 year waiting period before foreign-born could vote;

      3.   Restrict public schooling to Protestants and have the Protestant bible read daily in classrooms. (Anbinder, 1992)

So called “native” Americans, those white descendants of primarily western Europeans who had been born here, saw the “immigrant” influx as a threat in a number of regards. They saw them as racially and culturally different and inferior to themselves. Samuel Busey (1856) wrote a book called “Immigration and its Evils” in which he presented a detailed discussion of the inferiority of the “immigrants.” In the following passage he compares the illiterate American born to the illiterate foreigner.

“The ignorant natives who speak our language have been reared under our institutions, and are acquainted with the practical workings of our government; the ignorant foreigner is totally unacquainted with the language; has not enjoyed the advantages of experience and practical observation of the complex machinery of our government, and is consequently far inferior, intellectually, to the uneducated native. He cannot understand the theory of a free government, because he is destitute of the knowledge sufficient to comprehend its objects, purposes and blessings. He cannot acquaint himself with its practical operation and direct and immediate advantages to himself, because he wants the experience and observation, which birth and habits have taught; besides he is totally unacquainted with our language, and has been reared under institutions hostile to personal liberty, to free institutions, and to a Republican government; hence it is that foreigners are so prone to congregate together, to organize themselves into clubs, societies and even communities, occupying entire sections of a county, State, and of a country. These foreign organizations are dangerous to our established institutions; because, wherever they have been in our country, they have repudiated the fundamental principles of our government. (Bussey, 1856: 127-129).”

The anti-Catholic sentiment was in part a reflection that many of these “immigrants” (Irish and German, and later Italians) were Catholic. Rhetoric and name calling using terms like papist, pope-ridden, and popery, were common. Catholic churches and tenement houses were burned. The death toll is unknown. Not only were these “immigrants” largely Catholic, they were also largely supportive of slavery – possibly because that was the official political stand at the time and they wanted to fit in. That support was also most likely buttressed by job competition with freed slaves.

Men, respected then and now, were supportive of the basic anti-immigrant (Catholic and European) sentiment from the early 1800s into the mid 1900s. Men such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Edison, Millard Fillmore. Samuel Morse, and Henry Ford. Samuel Morse (the inventor of the telegraph) printed his own treatise on immigration and naturalization. See Box 6.3 for a brief excerpt.

To add to the confusion and politics of the time, gold was “discovered” in California in 1848 (which had just been acquired from Mexico.) This began the gold rush of 1849 with further political ramifications as the slave state/free state debate continued. A series of compromises ensued to keep the south in the Union. They included:

1.   Repudiation of the Wilmot Proviso (which sought to exclude slavery from all territories during the Mexican American War)

2.   A continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia;

3.   A strengthening of the fugitive slave law requiring Northerners to return escaped slaves to their masters.

None of these actions set well with Northerners, but they were the conditions required to have California become a “free” state.

With the “discovery” of gold, massive numbers of workers were needed and the U.S. government made an agreement with China for contract workers. Very specific conditions were placed on “coolies” (a word meaning “bitter labor”) including restricting them from bringing their families, or settling in the United States. The Chinese and China were not held in high regard in the U.S. even before the gold rush as is noted in the following quotations.

Ralph Waldo Emerson 1824 journal entry (Daniels 1976:212):

The closer contemplation we condescend to bestow, the more disgustful is that booby nation. The Chinese Empire enjoys precisely a Mummy’s reputation, that of having persevered to a hair for 3 or 4,000 years the ugliest features in the world. I have no gift to see a meaning in the venerable vegetation of this extraordinary (nation) people. They are tools for other nations to use. Even miserable Africa can say I have hewn wood and drawn water to promote the civilization of other lands. But China, reverend dullest hoary ideot!, all she can say at the convocation of nations must be – “I made the tea.”

Or from Samuel Goodrich a children’s textbook writer who wrote in 1833 (Daniels 1976:212):

“Few nations, it is now agreed, have so little honor, or feeling, or so much duplicity and mendacity. Their affected gravity is as far from wisdom, as their ceremonies are from politeness.”

The anti-Chinese sentiment is also captured in the following quote from Caleb Cushing who was the American commissioner to China in the 1840s (as quoted in Daniels, 1997:7):

“[We belong] to the excellent white race, the consummate impersonation of intelligent man and loveliness in woman, whose power and privilege it is, wherever they may go ... to Christianize and civilize, to command and be obeyed, to conquer and to reign. I admit to an equality with me ... the white man – my blood and race, whether he be a Saxon of England, or the Celtic of Ireland. But I do not admit as by equals wither the red man of America, the yellow man of Asia, or the black man of Africa.”

It did not take long for a more generalized antagonism against the Chinese to take hold. By 1854, the Supreme Court (People v Hall) ruled that Chinese could not give testimony in court. Because of the restrictions on Chinese workers entering the country, there was a tremendous sex imbalance which continued until 1920s. Over 90% of the Chinese population in the continental United States was male (Daniels, 1976). It did not take long for them to be seen as competitors in the white labor market. They were paid significantly less than white workers and were much more controllable because of their standing and visibility in the population. In 1865, they were recruited to complete the Transcontinental Railroad where they worked under incredibly harsh conditions that went beyond the physical labor. They also worked in agriculture and as domestics in places such as San Francisco. As the economy crashed in the 1870s the Chinese became prime targets in the West for the hostility of whites who saw the Chinese as taking jobs “their” jobs.

Rural areas in the West organized against Chinese in agriculture and mining and many were run out of towns. A Montana Journalist wrote “We don’t mind hearing of a Chinaman being killed now and then ... Don’t kill them unless they deserve it, but when they do - why kill em lots” Amott and Matthaei (1995:203). In the white Workingman’s Party an anti-Chinese campaign characterized the Chinese as “the most debased order of humanity known to the civilized world” (Amott and Matthaei, 1995:203). Western states, especially California, passed numerous laws barring Chinese from access to public services, property ownership, and equal treatment under the law.

In 1880, the U.S. and China agreed to significantly limit the number of Chinese workers allowed into the U.S., and California passed an anti-miscegenation law aimed at the Chinese. By 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was signed which prohibited all Chinese entry into the U.S. and this was largely in effect until the 1965 Immigration Act.

As sentiments worsened for the Chinese and they were excluded from the country, the United States turned to Japan for workers. By the early 1900s there were approximately 70,000 Japanese workers in the United States. They were overwhelmingly male and worked primarily in agriculture and as domestics. They were preferred as agricultural workers because they were seen as more docile and controllable than Mexican and Mexican American workers. Many of the restrictions instituted against the Chinese were applied to the Japanese. However, because of the “Gentleman”s Agreement” between Japan and the U.S., the entry of Japanese women as wives was allowed. The practice of “Picture Brides” where families in Japan would select a wife for their son and a ceremony involving the pictures of the bride and groom were performed. The wives then came to the U.S. to join their husbands. Since the picture marriages were not honored in the U.S. group weddings occurred on the docks upon the women’s arrival to the U.S. (Amott and Matthaei, 1995).

For Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos, Hawaii was a primary destination, as they were recruited to work on the sugar plantations. Hawaii had a plantation economy, not dissimilar to the South. While imported workers were not slaves, conditions were established to maintain control. Different nationalities were kept on different plantations to discourage workers from uniting and striking against working and living conditions. Plantations paid in plantation scrip which was not easily convertible into money. Even given these precautions by plantation owners, workers were able to successfully strike several times in the early 1900s to improve their conditions (Amott and Matthaei, 1995).

Meanwhile, there were the Mexicans inherited after the Mexican - American War (mentioned earlier). White settlers flooded into the new territory displacing the Mexican population. While the Mexicans’ rights were purportedly protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the U.S. made little effort to protect those rights. Most of the Mexicans were reduced to working for the “settlers.”

“By 1856, a massive change in land ownership had been effected. As a result of force, armed conflict, legislative manipulation, and outright purchase of much of the land was now in Yankee hands ... by the 1870s, Chicanos found themselves at the bottom of the socioeconomic order. Thus they went from being an elite ranchero class to being a source of cheap and dependent labor within the working class.” (Mirande in Amott and Matthaei, 1995:72-73).

With all of this “expansion,” the Native American tribal nations were also being decimated and displaced. The period between 1850 and 1880 saw the creation of the majority of the reservations. By force and by treaty, Nations were moved from their lands to reservation lands. Nations were mixed, sometimes with traditional enemies on the same reservation. Once on the reservations, they were barred from practicing their cultures or religions. While they were supposed to be supplied with food and necessities, this was frequently not the case as Indian Agents diverted much of the goods for their own economic benefit.

As noted earlier, horrific actions against the Indian nations were the norm, not the exception. George Washington, upon coming into office, referred to the Indians as “wolves” and ordered their extermination in 1783: “those remaining within the areas of the original thirteen states to be ‘hunted like beasts’ (Churchill, 1994:312).” The process of extermination, removal, and genocide continued to be the official policy of the United States well into the 1970s, and many would argue to the present day.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Andrew Jackson, who boasted of his personal involvement in the murder of Indian peoples, found wide white support for becoming the seventh President of the U.S. He was personally involved in the removal of several Eastern nations and the death toll of the removals is estimated to been over 55% of the peoples “removed.” It is worth noting how these actions were reported to Congress. In his first annual address to Congress on December 9, 1830, he stated:

“It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.”

“Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the General Government in relation to the State authorities. For the justice of the laws passed by the States within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this Government. As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a Government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.”

“Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and Philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the conditions in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?”

I must admit that given the realities of what was happening to the Indian Nations, the positive tone and image of the above address leaves me speechless. It is an excellent example of one view of the events of the times. The view of government policy towards the nations as “benevolent” perhaps points to the popular opinion at the time. The address also clearly outlines which “civilization” was overwhelmingly considered superior. However, the “benevolent” treatment of Indian nations did not end with Jackson.

The Homestead Act of 1862 opened lands, including some reservation lands, to white settlers. Citizens and aliens who had filed for citizenship could claim 160 acres for a $10 fee. Since Native Americans were neither citizens nor aliens eligible for citizenship they were excluded from this windfall. This however was not enough. As western expansion and “benevolent” government policies continued, the General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) was passed in 1867.

Most of the nations did not have a tradition of private ownership of the land. The Dawes Act was a tool to break up the reservations and force private ownership on Native peoples. It broke the reservations into tracts of 160 acres and divided them among the families. Lands that were not claimed were then sold to whites. Families were expected to farm and support themselves, so the level of material support from the federal government decreased. This forced many Native American families to sell their “allotment” in order to survive. This allowed further purchases of those lands by Anglos and reduced the area of the reservations by over fifty percent.

The Know Nothings lost popular support to the Republicans on their inability to resolve the “slave” issue. The Civil War ensued. Reconstruction of the South was initiated and dropped. African Americans were left with the semblance of equality, but the reality of massive inequality. The one-drop rule for determination of whether one was black or white persisted. African Americans in the South were still largely left without the vote because of voting restriction laws, and when pushed, instituted 3/5th laws. This meant that a vote by an African American only counted as 3/5ths of a white vote. This allowed Southern whites to maintain political control.

And They Came

And through it all they came – the (European) immigrants (colonizers). Through the 1800s and into the 1900s. Flowing across the land like a sea of army ants – “taming the land for the glory of God and Nation.” As has been noted earlier, even European “immigrants” were not well received.

And the story continues. “Immigrants” from all over the world come to these shores. The land of opportunity basically free for the taking, or the federal government offering land free (upon meeting certain criteria), or for a song (homesteaders).

For all the explicit and legislated racism of the period from the 1500s to the 1900s, Roger Daniels (1997:142) states:

“It is difficult to overstate the prejudice against immigrants and other minorities that flowered in the 1930s among all classes in the United States. When the liberal Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. spoke for the court majority in the case upholding the state’s right to sterilize women regarded as mentally defective, his elegant decision argued that ‘the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’ Although the three generations referred to a now-discredited study of poor white families, the overwhelming majority of such forced sterilizations were inflicted on minority women, African Americans and immigrants.”

It is indeed hard to believe that given the history of the U.S. prior to the 1900s that it could “flower” even more in the 1900s.

The early 1900s also saw the initiation of the Americanization Movement. This movement was characterized by a government supported push to strip European “immigrants” of their culture and “assimilate” them into “American” society. Forced educational curriculums, counseling in personal habits, and discipline to enforce compliance. Henry Ford was one of the most noticeable supporters of Americanization:

“The nation’s most famous capitalist, Henry Ford, pressed strongly for immigrant Americanization. Working with his firm’s executives, Henry Ford recruited southern and eastern European immigrants for his auto plants. The company set up a ‘Sociological Department’ with investigators who visited workers’ homes, providing strong advice on family matters and personal morality. In addition, the immigrant workers had to attend ‘melting pot school,’ where they learned English and a certain Anglo-Protestant values of great concern to men like Ford. Remarkably, during graduation ceremonies Ford’s employees, at first dressed as in their native countries, walked through a big pot labeled ‘melting pot’ and emerged in business suits holding American flags.” (Feagin, 1997: 25-26)

Coben (1964) argues that the “Americanism” following WWI was a reflection of a national loss of “equilibrium.”

“Runaway prices, a brief but sharp stock market crash and business depression, revolutions throughout Europe, widespread fear of domestic revolt, bomb explosions, and an outpouring of radical literature were disruptive enough. These sudden difficulties, moreover, served to exaggerate the disruptive effects already produced by the social and intellectual ravages of the World War and the preceding reform era, and by the arrival before the war of millions of immigrants. This added stress intensified the hostility of Americans strongly antagonistic to minority groups, and brought new converts to blatant nativism from among those who were not overtly hostile toward radicals or recent immigrants.” (Coben, 1964:59)

It was in this environment of asserting the supremacy of “Americans” that in 1919, Senator Kenyon of Iowa stated “The time has come to make this a one-language nation” (Coben, 1964:71).

Much of the “immigrant” surge at this time was from Eastern Europe, and with those “immigrants” came Eastern European Jews. While Jews had a relatively small population in North America from first contact onward, they had rarely come in for special attention until the late 1800s and early 1900s. With the increased number of Jews and Jewish “immigrants” in the United States, they were seen as a threat to the Anglo-Protestant majority. From 1877 onward, Jews were routinely denied entrance into clubs and college fraternities (Marger, 1996). This accelerated in the early 1900s with the “Red Scare” of the 1920's and the resurgence of such groups as the Ku Klux Klan who was not solely racist, but anti-Catholic and Anti-Jewish as well.

A massive labor shortage was created by WWI and Mexican workers were recruited to fill the gap. The southern border at this time was primarily held against Chinese and Japanese, not Mexicans, and Mexicans were not considered immigrants. Mexicans regularly crossed freely back and forth across the border for work and to visit family. The influence of the United States was also heavily felt in Mexico. By 1910, three-fourths of Mexico’s mines and half of its oil fields were owned by capitalists from the U.S. (Gonzalez, 1982). In the period from 1910 to 1920 migration went from roughly 10,000 to approximately 50,000 Mexican migrants a year, and by 1930, roughly one-twelfth of the Mexican population had moved to the United States (Gonzalez, 1982).

The Great Depression struck in the 1930s with unsurprising consequences for the Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the United States. Whites blamed the country’s economic problems on Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Migration restrictions were placed for the first time on Mexicans crossing the border. Mexicans, who for generations had crossed the border freely, were suddenly felons.

Nativist sentiment drove a movement to deport Mexicans and Chicanos from the United States. By the mid 1930s approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were rounded up and shipped via train and truck to Mexico (regardless of whether they were U.S. citizens or not). In a argument that we have heard much more recently, Los Angeles argued that it would be cheaper to deport a trainload of Mexicans ($77,800) than to keep them on welfare ($271,000) Social workers and caseworkers at relief agencies harassed and coerced both Chicanos and Mexicans to return to Mexico with their families (Gonzalez, 1982).”

The expulsion of and negative response to Mexican origin people was short lived as the labor shortages due to World War II soon increased the demand for cheap labor once again. The Bracero Program started in 1944 and through a number of extensions lasted until 1964. This program gave hundreds of thousands of Mexican workers temporary visas so they could enter the U.S. as manual laborers. Throughout this period Mexicans were drawn into the U.S. labor as needed and expelled when they were not. With the end of the war and labor shortages, Mexicans were once again targeted as “undesirable,” and mass expulsions began again under the name of “Operation Wetback” and millions of Mexicans and Chicanos were deported.

World War II was a traumatic time for many groups in the United States. Both German and Italian Americans came under intense scrutiny, and for a period of time Italian American men (especially in California) were detained for questioning. It was the Japanese Americans however, who bore the brunt of public suspicion and government infringement.

With the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. government immediately froze the assets of Japanese Americans and rounded up community leaders. There was a rumor of a “fifth column” in the United States. This “fifth column” was presumed to be Japanese Americans organized to support by subversion Japan in the War. There has never been any proof that such an organization ever existed, and no act of espionage or sabotage by Japanese Americans occurred during the war to the best of our knowledge. As is well known, President Roosevelt signed an executive order in 1942 authorizing the evacuation of the Japanese American population from what was termed the “Western Defense Command” which was made up of the coastal areas of Washington, Oregon, and California. They were given one week to dispose of their possessions, close their businesses and homes, and report to temporary assembly areas. At the assembly areas they were transported to 10 permanent relocation camps in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. The camps were isolated, fenced, and surrounded by armed guards. In most camps the detainees built their own shelter from materials provided and multiple families were housed in the barracks they built. Adults worked for low wages with professionals earning $19 and other workers $16 a week (Amott and Matthaei, 1995:228).

The camps began closing in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to detain loyal American citizens (Mitsuye Endo v. U.S. Government). Though they were released from the camps, they were not welcomed back into society. There was a high level of distrust and hostility towards Japanese Americans. It is estimated that the Detainees lost over $400 million in property through the actions of the U.S. government. While $38 million in reparations was granted to the detainees in 1948 this was small compensation for their loss. In 1988, then President Reagan, signed a reparation bill of $20,000 for each internee, but payment has dragged our with little actual funds being dispersed. Benefits were not authorized for descendants, only detainees and the longer payment can be withheld, the fewer detainees remain alive to receive reparations (Amott and Matthaei, 1995).

After release from the camps, many Japanese found there was nothing for them to return to and they spread out across the country, ending their concentration in the Pacific Northwest. This dispersal resulted in economic decline initially, and one of the highest rates of intermarriage with whites of any racial/ethnic group.

The ban on immigration from Japan was lifted in 1952, but only allowed 100 Japanese a year to immigrate. However, those who immigrated were now eligible for naturalization. This did not change until the 1965 Immigration Act, that opened Asian immigration by eliminating the quota system. Unlike other groups, there has not been a second large wave of immigration from Japan.

For all of the glorification of the United State’s entrance into WWII and our role in Germany that ended the Nazi reign and freed Holocaust victims, the government chose not to act on reports of the rounding up of Jews (and gypsies, and homosexuals, and Catholics) by Hitler’s army. The United States wanted to stay out of the war and probably would have if not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Even prior to the war anti-semitism in the United States was high. Henry Ford was very vocal in his sentiments against Jews (Marger, 1996: 214) going so far as to place anti-Jewish and anti-Communist flyers in the glove boxes of all new cars from his plants. It could be argued that the United States was not really distressed by Hitler’s actions. The U.S. was the only other Western nation with a government sanctioned eugenics program, and certainly our actions of detaining Japanese and Italian Americans was seen as prudent. Why would we be concerned about Germany doing the same?

As Leonard Dinnerstein notes (1981: 140-141) in his article about the period 1945-1950 there was little support for bring the victims of Hitler’s reign to the United States – especially Jews. Efforts to change immigration laws to allow an increase in Displaced Persons (D.P.) Met with little public or government support. This is reflected in an excerpt from a letter to a Congress person: “I’d admit all of the Displaced Persons except the Jewish D.P.s. I’d let in the Catholics, the Protestants, and those in between – but no more Jewish boys.” Instead, the U.S. and Britain tried to come to an agreement to resettle the displaced Jews in Palestine.

In 1945, Truman sent Earl Harrison to examine conditions in the Displaced Persons Camps in Germany. He reported the following back to the President:

“As matters stand, we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them. They are in concentration camps in large numbers under our military guard instead of S.S. troops. One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning Nazi policy (Dinnerstein, 1978: 12).

The Displaced Persons Act was passed in 1948. However it was structured to minimize the number of Jews who could enter the United States (Dinnerstein, 1981: 142). The bill was revised in 1950 to remove explicit and implicit barriers to European Jews. The public perception of Jews in the United States from the early 1900s onward was that they had too much power and influence. This has been a pervasive stereotype of Jews from the late 1800s onward. In 1938, forty-one percent of Americans polled felt that Jews were too influential, by 1945, that percentage had increased to 58% (Marger, 1996). These perceptions became less prevalent in the late 1960s and onwards, but are still at the forefront of militant right propaganda.

The return of soldiers ended the labor shortage in the United States that had drawn millions into the workforce including the welcoming of Mexicans, Chicanos, African Americans, and women. Many of these “auxiliary” workers lost their positions upon the return of WWII veterans who were primarily white (the armed forces still being segregated at that time). In the 1950s focus shifted to communism and the long hostility with Russia began. This birthed yet another “red scare” in the United States and ushered in what has been called the “McCarthy Era.” Anti-Jewish sentiment resurged, partially because of many Jews affiliation with labor organizing which was seen (as it had been in the 1920s) as a “communist plot.”

In the 1960s, Mexican migrant workers were prevalent, especially in California. They organized to improve wages and living conditions. In an effort to thwart the unionization efforts, many growers started switching to Asian agricultural workers because they were seen as less likely to “cause problems.” The union was successful in forming, partially due to the boycotting by people in the U.S. of those grocery chains that continued to purchase non-union harvested crops (particularly grapes). There was a resurgence in anti-Latino prejudice in the 1990s and continues into the present which is reflected in a number of anti-immigrant and anti-Latino legislation which will be discussed in Chapter 13.

The 1960s were a time of tremendous activism for various disadvantaged groups in the United States. We saw the pressures for equality and justice from women, African Americans, Chicanos, and Native Americans. Because these activities and resulting social change link so closely to current policy and perception, they will be discussed in more length in the chapters that follow.

Summary

What we see over and over in the history of the United States (and before the founding of the nation) is a series of themes. We could characterize this period of almost 500 years as being both racist and classist. We see recurring cycles of nativism whose underpinnings seem to vary little across the history of this nation. That lack of variance points to key aspects of both the historic and contemporary structure of social stratification in the United States.

First, is the belief in the “right” of “whites” as they were variously defined, to set the rules and protect their interests. At most times (historical and contemporary) it is a “right” so taken for granted that it is not even spoken. It is a “right” that is assumed over and over again until it is invisible.

Second is denial that anything untoward, unethical, or wrong is going on. This is frequently covered by what might be justifications, or more frighteningly, the accepted world view. For me, Andrew Jackson’s speech to Congress reflects this most clearly and chillingly. Jackson became President largely because of his reputation as an “Indian Killer.” He was outspoken about his “conquests” and the “scalps” he kept of every Indian he killed. Yet he characterized the actions of the government as “benevolent.” His vision of a country of cities and farms and the inferiority of Native nation’s ways of life I’m sure struck a common chord at that time in history.

Third is the myth-building of popular history and public perception. Whether those myths are of the Crown-hounded Puritans, the struggling pioneers, the rough and ready cowboys, the hardy miners, the entrepreneurs, or the hapless “immigrants” coming to our shores, they are glamorized to the point of unrecognizability. Their “foes” are painted universally negatively, or made virtually invisible. Contemporarily, we have the myth that “We are all immigrants.” But who is an immigrant? The term “immigrant” conjures up the image of people journeying by choice to set up a home in a new land. While this was the case for many European “immigrants,” others need not apply. The Chinese and Japanese came to the United States as contract laborers with specific restrictions on their ability to “settle,” and under the Chinese Exclusion Act (discussed in Chapter 5) were barred even from contract labor. The Mexicans were invited in and booted out as employers demanded. The Africans were brought here in bondage. Every attempt was made to totally eliminate the indigenous peoples of this land. “Immigrants” who did not fit the Anglo-Protestant mold were excluded, discriminated against, and/or literally “forged” to fit that model.

Related to this myth-building is the effort to exclude a more inclusive (and realistic) depiction of history. Multicultural education is under attack both politically and by “white” parents. Teachers who attempt to include the true events of the past have an “agenda.” It is interesting that those who wish to maintain the “official” version of history do not have an “agenda.”

The fourth theme is the response to perceived threats to those “white” entitlements – nativism. Threat is perceived (or scape goats found) whenever the times become insecure – politically, socially, or economically. Threat is perceived whenever numbers of “others” (whether of race or religion, or social class) become too “numerous.” Looking historically, that number seems to be when there is somewhere under a ratio of 80% to 20%. In other words, if a minority group (except for women) nears the 20% mark in population, they are seen as “being everywhere,” being a “problem,” or being a “threat.”

This seems to indicate an on-going low threshold for perceived threat. It is a perception that is reflected in current concerns about “whites” becoming a “minority” and the increase in anti-immigrant, anti-equality, and anti-welfare movements. It is also reflected in the perception that “others” are getting special rights, and the increase in both individual and organized hate activity. English as the “official” language and the shutting down of not just bi-lingual education, but the removal of foreign language classes from the public schools, also reflect responses to perceived threats to the dominant group.

My guess is that for many of you this chapter was emotionally very difficult to get through. I know that it was emotionally wrenching for me to write. It was not meant to be an exhaustive historical examination of the United States, or even of all of the events that might be included. There are literally thousands of pages written on each event brought forward in this chapter, and more that were not even touched upon. I included the chapter, not to make people uncomfortable, but because in my experience many people are never even introduced to what has been presented here. I firmly believe that it is impossible to grasp where we are today without looking at the foundations of where we have been. This lack of knowledge leads to the perception that “people of color” are “hanging onto” the past, while “whites are “creating the world.” each day. This is hardly the case, but we seem to have an ongoing struggle with different images of history. There is one history that is taught and that is carried forward in what is important within most “white” families, and there is the history that has largely been carried forward through family and community. While there is considerable documentation of the “real” events of U.S. history, it has remained real only to those “others” because of its exclusion from the “official” version and the belief that it’s not “important.” I feel that this difference of perception underlies much of the inability to resolve racial issues in the United States.

Looking Forward

This completes the Foundation Section. At this point you should have a good understanding of concepts related to social stratification in general, and sex, class, and race in particular. You have examined socialization and social structure and how they interact with each other. You have worked with the model of Maintenance of Stratification Systems for each of the components and should be fairly comfortable with it at this point. The idea of boundaries and how we enforce them on each other and more systematically through social structure should be relatively clear at this point.

By this time you may be feeling a bit overwhelmed at how big and deep inequality is. You may be looking at yourself and the world around you with a new perception, and perhaps not liking what you see. By this point, many of my students are asking how to fix the system, and I imagine many of you are as well. It is my belief that it is impossible to fix something that we don’t understand. There are so many interrelationships between components of the stratification system and how pervasive it is. I encourage you to start thinking about what kinds of changes you would make and what the consequences of those changes might be. Keep in mind what you have learned so far, and the more specific information you will encounter as you go through this text and your course. I firmly believe we can change, so hang in there.

In Section 2 we will examine social institutions as they interact with and maintain social stratification. As we move through the discussions of specific social institutions, add to the models you have already built in Chapters 3 - 5. By the end of Section 2 you should have a fairly detailed picture on the specific actions and functions of how social institutions help maintain and reproduce inequality in the current day and the future.

Suggested Reading and Resources

Anbinder, Tyler. 1992. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know Nothings and the Politics of the 1850s. Oxford University Press: New York.

Billington, Ray Allen. 1952. The Protestant Crusade 1800-1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism. Rinehart&Company, Inc.: New York.

Churchill, Ward. 1994. Indians are Us? Culture and Genocide in Native North America. Common Courage Press: Monroe, Maine.

Coben, Stanley. 1964. “A Study in Nativism: The American Red Scare of 1919-1920.” Political Science Quarterly, 79:1 52-75.

Daniels, Roger. 1976. “Majority Images-Minority Realities: A Perspective on Anti-Orientalism in the United States.” Prospects 2: 209-262.

Morse, Samuel. 1835. Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United States through Foreign Immigration and the Present State of Naturalization Laws. E. B. Clayton: New York. Copyright 1969 by Arno Press.

Perea, Juan F. (ed.). 1997. Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-immigrant Impulse in the United States. New York University Press: New York.

Pozezetta. George E. (ed.) 1991. Nativism, Discrimination, and Images of Immigrants. Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York.