US courts redefined race socially to permanently exclude Asians from whiteness and citizenship

Evidence

In Ozawa v. the United States, he argued that his skin was actually lighter than many white people’s, so if Italians and other Europeans could become US citizens, why not Asians? The Supreme Court ruled that race was an issue of blood, not skin color, and that no matter how light an Asian person’s skin, they could never be considered “white,” but would always be “foreign.” One year later in 1923, an Asian-Indian immigrant, Bhagat Singh Thind, argued that he had the right to be a US citizen because he was an upper-caste Hindu, descended from white Aryans who had settled in India. Thus, his blood was white. The Supreme Court responded in United States v. Thind that race was not a scientific category but a social one and that no matter how much white blood an Asian might have, he was still “foreign” and could never be an American. The court gave up on using expert testimony and stated that the “common” American simply knew Thind was not white. “Common speech” and “popular understanding” were to be the new tests of whiteness. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 966

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s book_so_far claim: ‘US courts redefined race socially to permanently exclude Asians from whiteness and citizenship’ (ch15) — this chapter delivers the concrete Ozawa and Thind mechanics. — connects to: The US Supreme Court manufactured whiteness to permanently exclude Asians from citizenship — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 951; US courts redefined whiteness as common sense to exclude Asian immigrants; American courts restricted miscegenation between whites and Asian Americans. — David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 6095 (+6 more)
  • DEFINE: Shows the two contradictory definitions of race—blood science vs. social common sense—courts deployed instrumentally against different Asian plaintiffs.

Broader Connections