In our class discussions and readings throughout the quarter, we have examined the issue of racial relations in a number of ways, and from a number of different angles. Despite the differing opinions and points of view, one thing has become abundantly clear. Regardless of what the Declaration of Independence says about “all men are created equal,” the implied meaning is that “all men” only applies to white males; all others, including women, need not apply. The basic doctrine of “white male power” was also discussed in depth, accompanied by the reasoning for it, and the various ways that white males attempted to keep themselves in power.

One of the many ways that white males had at their disposal was the force of law. Simply put, white males could simply pass legislation or laws that prevented minority groups from gaining power in the first place. Indeed, California was itself was no stranger to this concept. Beginning with the Gold Rush, California had practiced overt racism against Asians in general, and Chinese in particular, essentially putting them in he same class as Blacks and Indians. In 1882, the United States Government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred any immigration to the U.S., and prevented those Chines already in the country from obtaining citizenship.¹ In 1913, California enacted the “Alien Land Bill,” which effectively prevented Japanese from owning land in California.²

What is worth mentioning here is that the Alien Land Bill was pushed through the state legislature and signed into law by governor Hiram Johnson, one of the early California Progressives. Although California Progressives had as part of their political platform the idea of equality, and generally supported womens suffrage,³ the Progressive concept of equality did not necessarily extend to Asians. Why is this worth mentioning? Earl Warren, concerning the question of his own political philosophy, said, “I did not care to be categorized as either a liberal or a conservative…I believed in the progressivism of Hiram Johnson.”⁴

With the outbreak of World War II, Warren, then California State Attorney General, faced a dilemma concerning the Japanese. War fever was rampant, and California was declared to be a “Theater of War.” This action by the U.S. Military Command effectively placed California under military control. President Roosevelt then issued the famous, or perhaps infamous, Executive Order No. 9066, which called for the relocation of Japanese citizens.⁵ This action created not only one of the great travesties in the history of the United States (and there were many), it was a classic example of “racial profiling,” based on appearance, culture and language, at its worst. Lieutenant General John DeWitt, commanding officer of Western Operations and the Fourth Army, headquartered at the Presidio in San Francisco, in his Final Report to the Chief of Staff, entitled “Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast, 1942,” dated June, 1943, wrote, in part, The continued presence of a large, unassimilated, tightly knit and racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties of race, culture, custom and religion along a frontier vulnerable to attack constituted a menace which had to be dealt with… Because of the ties of race, the intense feeling of filial piety and the strong bonds of common tradition, culture and customs, this population presented a tightly-knit racial group…It was impossible to establish the identity of the loyal and the disloyal with any degree of safety… an exact separation of the “sheep from the goats” was unfeasible.

To his credit, Warren was highly critical of the order, saying that the state was discriminating between “naturalized citizens and citizens by birth of the first generation,” and citizens whose forbears have lived in this country for a greater number of generations.” Warren goes on to argue that, “a substantial portion of the population of California consists of naturalized citizens and citizens born of parents who migrated to this country from foreign lands.” Warren also considered these citizens to “represent the highest standards of American citizenship,” and that it was “cruel” to “question their loyalty or place them in a category different from other citizens.”⁶ Ten days later, acting in his capacity as Attorney General, Warren challenged the California State Department of Agriculture, which had revoked the licenses of “enemy aliens” to handle fruits and vegetables, arguing that the revocation of the licenses could violate the State Constitution, largely because the state had no clear method of identifying “enemy aliens.”⁷

Warren ultimately enforced the internment order for several reasons. One of them was his sense of patriotism, long a part of the Progressive ideal. Although he seemed to have no inherently racist leanings, given the nature of the situation, he probably could have been tried and impeached for aiding and abetting the enemy, had he chosen to defy the Executive Order. While Warren was generally acting at the state level in the enforcement of Federal directives, the same racist overtones and actions regarding the internment were also appearing at the local level.

Historian Scott Kurashige describes the attitude and feeling of Los Angeles Mayor Fletcher Bowron during the campaign for Japanese internment. Kurashige writes that local Los Angeles political leaders created a, “lethal combination by encouraging anti-Japanese racism as an expression of wartime patriotism.”⁸ Kurashige also writes that the Mayor Bowron’s own “racial paranoia”nullified any concern he may have previously held for the sanctity of civil liberties…and helped to escalate the magnitude of the “Japanese threat” in public eyes.”⁹

As we discussed in class, the entire episode of the Japanese interment, as reprehensible as it was, was certainly not the only instance of racial stereotyping. Segregation of African-Americans and, to certain extent Hispanics, was also rampant. In the case of African-Americans, segregation was not only common, but institutionalized by law. This was accomplished through the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the legal framework of “separate but equal.” As we have seen in our discussions, the “separate” part was certainly true, but it was anything but equal. In the case of Los Angeles, we have seen how local municipal codes and laws were rigged to segregate Blacks from whites, all in the name of “protecting the neighborhood.” Kurashige describes in detail the system of Municipal real estate codes that effectively barred Blacks from owning property in certain neighborhoods. These “racial restrictions” preventing White property owners from selling their property to Blacks, whether they wanted to or not. Kurashige writes, “Regardless of the their beliefs, they (white property owners) were required to uphold racial segregation.”¹⁰ As onerous as these policies were, they were merely microcosms of the segregation at large in the throughout the country, all designed to do one thing; keep whites in power and control, at the expense of all others.

Returning to Warren, after the World War II, he was elected to the second of three terms as governor. In April of1948, Warren wrote an essay for the New York Times, in which he answered the question, “What is Liberalism?” Although he did answer the question, it was more an exposition of his Progressive line of reasoning. At the time, Warren had no idea that he would soon, in a matter of six years, end up as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. What is fascinating about Warren’s essay is that it gives us an insight into the thinking that ultimately come later in Hernandez v. Texas, and Brown v. Board of Education, both decided literally weeks after Warren’s appointment. Warren writes, “The Progressive, however, realizes that democracy is a growing institution and that, if it is to succeed, we must have steady advances…to adapt it to human requirements on an ever-widening base.”¹¹

What is remarkable about this is the statement that we must have “steady advances,” which reflects his forward-thinking Progressivism. His thinking of “adapting to human requirements on an ever-widening base” could be taken to mean the inclusion racial minorities. The essay gets even better. Warren goes on to say, “The Progressive has faith in democracy. He is determined to work for its improvement and has the courage to develop it through trial and error, seeking to assure real freedom, not merely to a few, but for all, and to this end he is willing to subordinate his private interest to the common good.”¹²

These statements, coming in 1948, whether it was realized by the reading public or not, tell us a lot about what is to come, in terms of racial thinking on Warren’s part. Clearly, Warren is willing to take chances, through “trial and error,” and will have the “courage,” as he put it, to do what may have been unthinkable at the time. Just as clearly is Warren’s interest in freedom for all, not select segregated groups, or a select few. In essence, Warren is already thinking about the existing power base, and how to begin dismantling it. Finally, Warren’s last statement reflects his thinking that change may not come easy for some, especially for the existing white power base, but that acting for the overall good of all is preferable to a segregated society divided along racial lines.

As we all know, soon after Warren took the role of Chief Justice in 1954, within a a few weeks the Warren-led Court made two critical rulings, which began the process of desegregating literally centuries of segregation. In Hernandez v Texas, Warren, in the words of Ian Haney Lopez, “was the first Supreme Court case to extend constitutional protections to Mexicans.”¹³ Two weeks later, the Warren Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the ‘separate but equal” clause of Plessy v. Ferguson. It would be fair to say that both of these rulings laid the foundation for the Civil Rights movements of the 1960′s, and continues to this day.

The rulings also bring us to the idea of affirmative action, and it’s differing interpretations. Omi and Winant, in their essay supporting affirmative action, make a couple of interesting points. First, they make the argument that racism has been so entrenched in our society that we cannot simply declare ourselves to be “color blind.” To do so would be naive . Second, they make the argument that present day affirmative action policies, put into place to right previous wrongs, need to continue.¹⁴ Of course, as we discussed, this brings up the issue of “reverse racism,” and whether that is in itself constitutional. Or, to put it another way, do two wrongs make a right?

Legal historian and scholar G. Edward White, in discussing Warren’s thinking on affirmative action, writes, “Warren preferred affirmative government only when humans could not be expected to help themselves or one another, he retained some of the suspicion that he directed at powerful private interests for powerful organs of government…When he felt that government was in league with special interests, he would protest on behalf of the individual citizen…when he felt that government was was combating special privilege…he welcome affirmative action.”¹⁵

This then is the essence of the issue, and essentially what Omi and Winant are also arguing. When special interests, or those with special privilege, namely the government, use their power to cause harm or infringe on the liberties of those without power, it is the right of all to not only address it, but to correct it, by whatever means necessary. If this means affirmative action, then so be it.

Why would we view Hawaii differently than Puerto Rico, other than one is a state and one is not? What difference does marketing and tourism play in the image of the two?

One of the ways that sexuality has historically been constructed and reinforced throughout history has been through our Western, Judeo-Christian heritage. Simply put, the construction can be traced to the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Depending on how it’s read, and without quoting chapter and verse, woman was made from man, it was Eve’s fault that Adam got into trouble (the original “sin”), homosexuality could be interpreted to be a “sin,” and women are to be subservient to men (“wives submit to your husbands.”) This biblical framework set up the idea of male power and domination eons ago, and along with the anti-homosexual stance, created the societal “battle lines” that have been in place ever since.

Thankfully, some of the “male domain” began to crumble during World War II. Leisa Meyer, writing in “Creating GI Jane,” described some of the instances of women in the military moving into realms that were previously considered to be male. Simply getting into the workforce was one way, and the “Rosie the Riveter” story of women building aircraft in a factory assembly line is well known. Unfortunately, some of the gains were also overshadowed by the same social constructs that marginalized women in the first place. Meyer writes that in the Womens Army Corps, women were often blamed for “tempting” male soldiers in a sexual way, and women were often treated as nothing more than housekeepers, or the personal maids of male officers. Much of the treatment of the Wacs was done under the underlying assumption that women needed to be protected and weren’t capable of doing the work of male soldier, which was simply an underhanded way of maintaining male power and dominance.

Another way that sexuality has been socially constructed is from the top down model, meaning through the actions and force of laws of the U.S. Congress. Margot Canady, writing in “Building a Straight State: Sexuality and Social Citizenship under the G.I Bill,” describes how sexuality was defined by Congress with the exclusion of homosexuals from any benefits after WW II. With the declaration by the Army that homosexuals were “undesirable,” it was relatively easy for Congress to deny benefits to “undesirables.” In this way, Congress was able to define what was acceptable socially, and what wasn’t. Extending this concept even farther, after the war some members of Congress attempted legislation that went beyond the reach of the military. One House Representative, Miller of Nebraska, stated on the House Floor in 1950 that he authored the “Sex Pervert Bill” targeting homosexuals in the previous year, and saying that he “…would like to strip the fetid, stinking flesh off of this skeleton of homosexuality…where they worship at the cesspool and flesh pots of iniquity.” In other words, he wanted them out of the government, and I’m sure that he wanted them out of American society as well.

Another classic example of governmental attempts to define sexuality comes from Eithne Luibheid. Writing in “Looking like a Lesbian: The Organization of Sexual Monitoring at the United States-Mexican Border.” Luibheid tells the story of a Mexican National, Sara Quiroz, who had US residency status but was prevented by INS agents from entering the country based on “the way that she looked.” In essence, she looked like a lesbian, therefore she must be one. Given that homosexual tendencies were considered to be a “sexual perversion” as defined by Rep. Miller and others in government, Quiroz was effectively presumed to be guilty of homosexuality based on nothing more than appearance.

In spite of the obvious inequities and injustices over the years, there have been some signs of societal change. Women now take an active role in the military, are filling the ranks of Congress, and homosexuality is increasingly being accepted. This isn’t to say that we don’t have a long ways to go, but from a “big picture” point of view, were are slowly getting there. Now, if only knew what a “sexual deviate” is….

What are the advantages/disadvantages in analyzing history from a “transnational” perspective?

What role, if any, has modern media played in the way that history is viewed today?

To what degree does “cash over culture” influence what is presented?

The author indicates that there are two different types of Hulas performed. How and why do they differ?

The military has historically operated as a “society within a society,” with its own hierarchy, justice system, etc. In what ways were the Wacs viewed and treated differently within the military structure, as opposed to civilian society?

Why wouldn’t the local NAACP be more supportive of the black Wac medical technicians who walked out of the Army hospital at Fort Devens, after being called derogatory names and told that they wouldn’t be allowed to perform the jobs that they were trained for?

How could the U.S. Congress have acted differently under the social constructs of the post-war period?

How did family and honor influence social civilization?

What were some of the social constructs that the Sex Variants Committee faced?

Why did the objectives of the homosexual and the scientific communities conflict with each other?

How are sex and racism connected?

Has exclusion based on stereotypes ended in present conditions?

Freedman also writes that women in the 1930′s – 1950′s were often viewed as “symbolic victims,” who needed to be “protected” (presumably from the perverts). Could we draw a parallel to the actions of the Klan in the Reconstruction era as described by Hodes?