Asian Pacific American Law Journal

Race, including whiteness, is hard to define because different groups have used it differently, for their own purposes. Ian F. Haney López defines race as “a sui generis social phenomenon in which contested systems of meaning serve as the connections between physical features, faces, and personal characteristics . . . social meanings connect our faces to our souls.” Although López focuses his analysis on the othering of Mexicans, he is clear that “a Mexican might also be White, Indian, Black, or Asian.” He describeshow increasing social prejudice against Mexican people “quickly became legal [prejudices],” with laws being passed that both purported to define what a “Mexican” was, and labeled them as “not peaceable and quiet persons.” Ultimately, the “attempt to racially define the conquered, subjugated, or enslaved is at the same time an attempt to racially define the conqueror, the subjugator, or the enslaver.” By creating sub-classes of races, it follows that there would be a superior race. As Cheryl Harris writes, “being white automatically ensures higher economic returns in the short term, as well as greater economic, political, and social security in the long run. Becoming white meant gaining access to a whole set of public and private privileges that materially and permanently guaranteed basic subsistence needs and, therefore, survival.” Even as society evolves, whiteness continues to be the yardstick by which everything else is compared.

Here, I will focus on how the courts have legally developed and legitimated the concept of whiteness to achieve no other purpose besides exclusion. Part I will discuss case law in the mid to late 1800’s regarding Chinese people and Chinese Americans. Then, I will discuss case law in the same timeframe regarding Black Americans. The case law will be presented chronologically to showcase the development of the interpretation of law over time. Part II will then explore how the courts have weaponized the concept of whiteness by comparing how law is manipulated and interpreted to be exclusionary. I will examine how the repercussions of this legal history have manifested in various areas of law, such as immigration law. In Part III, I will discuss how this knowledge can be used moving forward.