The Study of Racialism

In another thread, Wide Sargasso Sea asked me to post a synopsis of U.S. Supreme Court flip-flops on whether East Indians and/or Arabs are White. The source for all these cases is Ian F. Haney-Lopez, White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (New York: New York University, 1996).

Eleven U.S. Supreme Court Cases Ruling on Whether Arabs are White

• In re Najour. (This case is reported in its entirety in every U.S. law library under the index 174 F. 735.) Ruled in 1909 that Syrians are White. Decision based on scientific evidence.
• In re Mudarri. (176 F. 465) Ruled in 1910 that Syrians are White. Decision based on legal precedent (the precedent being Najour).
• In re Ellis. (179 F. 1002) Ruled in 1910 that Syrians are white, despite scientific evidence presented showing that they are not true Caucasians. Decision based on "common knowledge."
• Ex parte Sahid. (205 F. 812) Ruled in 1913 that Syrians are not White, never have been White, and that all prior decisions granting them Whiteness were in error. Decision based on "common knowledge."
• Ex parte Dow. (211 F. 486) Ruled in 1914 that Syrians are not White, and cannot become White by assimilation or intermarriage. Decision based on "common knowledge."
• In re Dow. (213 F. 355) Ruled in 1914 that Syrians are not White. Decision based on the Court’s understanding of Congress’s intent as to the definition of Whiteness.
• Dow v. United States. (226 F. 145) Ruled in 1915 that Syrians are White, have always been White, and that all prior decisions denying their Whiteness were in error. Decision based on scientific evidence presented showing that they are true Caucasians.
• United States v. Ali. (7 F.2d 728) Ruled in 1925 that Punjabis are not White, not even the Punjabi in question who was born an Arab in Arabia and simply moved to Punjab. Decision based on "common knowledge."
• In re Feroz Din. (27 F.2d 568) Ruled in 1928 that Afghanis are not White, not even the Afghani in question whose family moved to Afghanistan from Arabia. Decision based on "common knowledge."
• In re Ahmed Hassan. (48 F.Supp. 843) Ruled in 1942 that Arabians are not White, have never been White, and that all prior decisions granting them Whiteness were in error. Decision based on legal precedent.
• Ex parte Mohriez. (54 F.Supp. 941) Ruled in 1944 that Arabians are White, have always been White, and that all prior decisions denying their Whiteness were in error. Decision based on legal precedent.

Thirteen U.S. Supreme Court Cases Ruling on Whether East Indians are White

• In re Balsara. (171 F. 294) Ruled in 1909 that East Indians are “probably not White.” The court said that it was up to Congress to pass a law regarding the Whiteness of East Indians, and that it could not decide on its own. The court did tentatively approve Balsara’s naturalization, however.
• United States v. Dolla. (177 F. 101) Ruled in 1910 that East Indians are White. Since Congress had refused to pass a law, as requested in Balsara, the Court ordered Dolla to roll up his shirtsleeve and the justices proceeded minutely to inspect the man’s skin. They then ruled that his skin was white so, in the absence of any statute, they ruled him to be White.
• United States v. Balsara (180 F. 694) Ruled in 1910 that East Indians are white. After one year of Whiteness, Mr. Balsara had been dragged back into court to defend against an appeal by the U.S. government to the decision of 1909. Armed with a Congressional resolution decreeing him to be White, he won again. Decision based on the Court’s understanding of Congress’s intent.
• In re Akhay Jumar Mozumdar (207 F. 115) Ruled in 1913 that East Indians are White. Decision was based on a logical chain. The court relied on legal precedent that “White” and “Caucasian” were legally synonymous. They then decided that Mozumdar was Caucasian because he claimed to be “a high-caste Hindu of pure blood, belonging to what is known as the warrior caste, or ruling caste.” Having decided that his caste made him a Caucasian, his being a Caucasian then made him White.
• In re Sadar Bhagwab Singh (257 F. 496) Ruled in 1917 that East Indians are not White. Congress had finally answered the Balsara question by closing the door to Whiteness against Sikhs (and any other East Indians). Decision based upon Congressional resolution.
• In re Mohan Singh (257 F. 209) Ruled in 1919 that East Indians are White, despite Congress’s intent. Scientific evidence was presented showing that East Indians are true Caucasians, no matter what they look like, and so the court ruled that Congress lacked the authority to overrule scientific evidence.
• In re Thind (268 F. 683) Ruled in 1920 that East Indians are White. Decision based on legal precedent (Mohan Singh).
• United States v. Thind (261 U.S. 204) Ruled in 1923 that East Indians are not White. After three years of Whiteness, Mr. Thind was dragged back into court to defend against an appeal by the U.S. government to the decision of 1920. This time he lost. The court ruled that the Mohan Singh case (on which Thind’s 1920 win was based) was in error, and that the U.S. Supreme Court lacked the authority to overrule Congress based merely on scientific evidence.
• United States v. Akhay Jumar Mozumdar (296 F. 173) Ruled in 1925 that East Indians are not White. After twelve years of Whiteness, Mr. Mozumdar was also dragged back into court to defend against an appeal by the U.S. government to the decision of 1913. This time he lost. Decision based on legal precedent (Thind 1923).
• United States v. Ali. (7 F.2d 728) Ruled in 1925 that Punjabis are not White, not even the Punjabi in question who was born an Arab in Arabia and simply moved to Punjab. Decision based on "common knowledge." (This case is also included among the “Arab” cases.)
• United States v. Gokhale (26 F.2d 568) Ruled in 1928 that East Indians are not White. Decision based on legal precedent.
• Wadia v. United States (101 F.2d 7) Ruled in 1939 that East Indians are not White. Decision based on common knowledge.
• Kharaiti Ram Samras v. United States (125 F2d 879) Ruled in 1942 that East Indians are not White. Decision based on legal precedent.

That is all interesting. It is not the reality. On many applications (job, health ins., surveys, school, etc.) the choices are something like this:

White ( European in origin not of Hispanic in origin or any of the groups of Mexico, Central, South America.

Asian( including all groups of Far East in origin)

Hispanic ( from any of the groups in Mexico, Central and South America in origin)

Black ( of African origin)



If there is not the choice, Other, I do not mark anything. I am sure the person who sees me goes on and marks it for me. I always mark the choice Other if it is available. If I am doing something where no one can see me, like an app. on-line, I mark White for the hell of it.

I was just at my doctor's office this week and these were the choices and I left it blank. I am not Black, 100 % , with origins directly in Africa.
---------------------------------------------

Link, for example-
www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/racethclin.htm

Yes. The courts have always strained to shoehorn people into the categories demanded by the legislators, and they continue to try. Trying to apply stupid 3-to-5 category laws to the messy reality of infinite human variety is what courts do.

FWIW, every federal agency enforces its own set of categories. No two federal agencies agree what what those categories are. The forms that ordinary employees most often see are employment forms, produced to comply with EEOC. But other forms, that employers see (homeland security, small business, immigration, etc.) are different. Furthermore, school matriculation forms come under state and local jurisdiction and they vary also. Here in Florida, each county school district makes up its own "racial" categories into which their new children must fit.

The only consistency I have ever found in U.S. "racial classification" forms is that every two-bit bureaucrat has the power to insist that his/her form is the only True Form and you either comply of suffer the consequences.

I agree. I forgot to mention that my doctor was a private doctor affiliated with a private hospital so the doctor could have listed whatever she wanted. I am sure the office personnel at the desk checked off for me, Black or African American( in origin of one of the groups of Africa).

Why is "Other" not a choice even sometimes on private forms?

This was a private doctor with two other private doctors of a private hosptial, but I am sure the data is used to see how many of each doctor's patients are White, Black, etc. The office was shared by three doctors and I am sure the hospital uses this data.

____________________
Members, I have edited two of my last posts. Nothing was removed, but I just had to go back and add a link. I have been reading and posting without leaving a link first. Sorry. There are so many good threads around these days.

This is really starting to drift off-topic, but I honestly think that the medical field will change quickly. Accurate, reliable autosomal tests have become convenient and their prices will plunge as soon as DNAPrint's technical monopoly on the AIMs is broken. I expect that within a few years, physicians will routinely DNA-test their patients. The forms will continue (as forms do) but will be used only to track legally mandated self-identity and nothing else.

...

Askhar,
I have done that a few times depending on where I am knowing it is an absurdity! It is going to be some great horrors!! when an Arab is suing a Euro person for discrimination when they are both legally "white' as it were, or a Euro attacking an East Indian or Arab because they are stated to smell funny or dress funny! That is whiteness for yah!!

...

speaking of checking of the race boxes.......until i came here i thought i was the only one who messed with the answers on the government forms. I remember one time i was filling out a form and it asked for my race and gave me a small novel worth of races to choose from. There was african american...african carribean...african/hispanic...african....hispanic....hispanic/ carribean...asian/japanese...on and on and on...so i checked off every single box and then at the end there was the choice for "other" and a place to write in what the "other" was, so i made up a name. Spleenean/Gonad.

In the 90s, a roommate once told me that according to federal law, if you have 3 grandparents of the same race, you could put that race down (White included). I looked it up and found some fed. website that confirmed this. I tried looking for it last year, but couldn't find it. I'll try again and post it if I can find this source/citation.

She also had a nephew who was legally White (per birth certifcate), having a Creole/LSB father and a White mother. This was in California though. But, I even heard of this in Louisiana, although, its easier to do if the mom (giving birth) is White.

My sister was asked for the race of my niece at her hospital birth. I guess this must be the law - to ask the parents.