was talking about this earlier and

the US v Thind case is just ... fascinating

in part because it resulted in supreme court caselaw which explicitly defined whiteness to be a social construct, but also because of the nature of Thind's argument

(tw racism, old race theory)

so, some background on race and naturalization in the US. After 1870 precisely two groups of people could naturalize:

- "free white persons of good character" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790)
- "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1870)

the latter one is obviously part of the abolition of slavery: while the 14th amendment established unconditional jus soli, it didn't necessarily grant citizenship to former slaves who were not born in the country

related: if you're here, you may want to also read Aditya's thread on jus soli and decolonization https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1057392716563263488

anyway, after 1870 if you wanted to get naturalized you had to either argue you were "white" or "African" (or of African descent).

Some East and South Asians did manage to get (inconsistently) naturalized under this by convincing an official/judge that they were "white"

Ozawa v US (1922) changed this: A Japanese immigrant, Takao Ozawa, was denied his petition for naturalization, and brought it up to the Supreme Court. SC didn't want to allow Japanese naturalization, so they ruled that "white" actually meant "Caucasian"

Bhagat Singh Thind was an Indian immigrant, who had been naturalized multiple times. Once in 1918 and again in 1920, with the citizenship being revoked both times.

The second time, it reached the Supreme Court.

In US v Thind (1923), Thind argued that he fit within the definition of "Caucasian", based on (Blumenbach's) academic definition of the term at the time, and his assertion of his racial heritage. there was also something more in his argument, which I'll get to

so I want to preface this with something: the term "Aryan" is/was an endonym for the Indo-Iranians, predating Nazi ideas. Like the swastika, it was coopted for more sinister purposes.

At the time, the term could be used to mean Indo-Iranian or Proto-Indo-European

Anyway, Thind argued that he was an Aryan, which was considered a subclass of Caucasian. Alright, hoisting SCOTUS by their own petard with the precedent set in _Ozawa_

He then went one bit further into some extremely casteist and racist stuff. His argument was that he was a "high caste Hindu", and because of societal prohibition against caste-mixing he would definitely be "pure blooded"

(not all South Asians fall under Caucasian by Blumenbach's definition, however Indian caste is linked to race in complex ways so a lack of caste-mixing can imply a lack of race-mixing)

but, before he gets there, his argument includes this really racist bit:

look closely. it's bolstering his point about blood purity, but it's also saying this:

"hey look, we consider ourselves racially superior, just like you do! we're the same!"

to some extent the argument being made here is: "the only thing that defines whiteness is its perception of abject racial superiority. that's us! too!"

it's .... not _completely_ wrong. if this were a satire i'd be screaming OOH SICK BUURRN at this point

but it's not, it's an extremely racist argument being made by someone who probably* actually believes in it

it's a part of my history as an Indian-American, and I'm ashamed of it, but I still have to recognize it for what it is: Indian-Americans have been complicit in white supremacy all the while being oppressed by it. it continues to this day in other forms

(*n.b. it's worth noting that given Thind's life many believe he didn't actually believe in these racist things, and it was just the only viable argument to make at the time. which .... yeah, living under white supremacy can do that, but i'm not really sure what to believe)

but anyway I find that argument *fascinating* because it chips away at the nebulous construct of whiteness to reveal a glimpse at what it really is: self-defined perceived racial superiority

in other words, it's saying that the thing that brings people of different ethnic backgrounds under the single umbrella of "white" is that they believe that they, as a group, are superior to all those not in the group

and the court didn't even contest any of this! He lost the case, but not because his arguments were racist af or because they painted a brutal caricature of whiteness

no, his arguments were struck down because the court determined that "Caucasian" was meant to be the "common sense definition" ("european", i guess)

the caselaw produced retroactively denaturalized many other Asian-Americans

So, basically, the Supreme Court set explicit precedent that "white" is a social construct, and restricted immigration to "whites" and "Africans" only.

(Some individual races would get a pass later on; Indian-Americans were allowed to immigrate under a quota after 1946)

This immigration policy stuck around until 1965 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) when the racial provisions were removed. other forms of discrimination still existed in naturalization law, and there's plenty of de facto discrimination in immigration law today

(i don't actually think the precedent over what "white" means was ever overturned, they just removed uses of the term from law, so it might not be inaccurate to say that SCOTUS still defines whiteness to be a social construct today!)

But anyway, the whole thing just fascinates me. It's a sober reminder of Indian-American complicity in American white supremacy, but it also paints a stark picture of *what whiteness is*, and it also defined whiteness as a social construct in the context of US law

one case, three definitions of whiteness:

- based on old race science
- "whiteness is a social construct"
- whiteness as a self-defined perceived racial superiority

fascinating

worth mentioning: while at the time of the Thind case S/E Europeans were considered "white", this is not to say there was no institutional racism against them, and shortly after _Thind_ a different law would establish a racist quota https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

racism is multilayered

oh, while some of the screenshots are from case files ( http://www.pages.pomona.edu/~vis04747/h21/readings/thind.html), the others are from Ian Lopez' _White By Law_

I've not read the entirety of that book, but I've read parts and it's pretty good