Alexander Durie 23 May, 2024
The Cannes Film Festival this year showcased screenings from the Middle East and North Africa that captured significant attention.
The New Arab has curated a list of the top seven films premiered there, and we highly recommend giving them a watch.
The Seed of the Sacred Fig (2024)
Director Mohammad Rasoulof – Iran, France, Germany
In the bustling streets of Tehran, the life of Judge Iman takes a drastic turn when he discovers his gun missing, leading him to suspect his own family, including his wife and daughters. The film explores the intricate dynamics of familial relationships, as suspicion and distrust put their bonds to the ultimate test.
Despite facing an eight-year prison sentence in Iran, Director Mohammad Rasoulof's determination to present this story at Cannes highlights the enduring power of artistic expression in challenging times.
Norah (2024)
Director Tawfik Alzaidi – Saudi Arabia
Transporting audiences back to the conservative landscape of 1990s Saudi Arabia, Norah introduces us to Nader, a newly arrived teacher in a remote village, and Norah, a spirited young woman yearning for freedom. Their secret affair blossoms amidst the shadows of societal restrictions and impending danger, fueled by their shared passion for art and beauty.
Against the backdrop of a repressive society, the film serves as a reminder of the power of love and the human spirit's pursuit of liberation.
To a Land Unknown (2024)
Director Mahdi Fleifel – Palestine, UK, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia
To a Land Unknown tells the story of Chatila and Reda, two Palestinian cousins in Athens, Greece, aiming for a better life in Germany. They face tough challenges as refugees, pushing themselves to their limits. Their journey highlights the struggles of seeking refuge and finding hope in difficult times.
Across the Sea (2024)
Director Saïd Hamich Benlarbi – Morocco, France, Belgium, Qatar
Across the Sea follows Nour, a young immigrant who comes to Marseille, France, for a better life. He faces tough challenges surviving on the outskirts of society, getting involved in small crimes with an uncertain future. But meeting Serge, a charismatic but unpredictable cop, and his wife Noémie, gives Nour hope.
The story spans from 1990 to 2000, showing Nour's search for love, identity, and belonging in a world that's changing fast.
East of Noon (2024)
Director Hala Elkoussy – Egypt, Netherlands, Qatar
East of Noon welcomes viewers into a fantasy world rooted in Egyptian folklore. It follows young Abdou, a musical prodigy who defies tradition with his music. As Abdou's melodies resonate across the timeless landscape, he confronts the norms, embarking on a bold journey of self-discovery.
Director Hala Elkoussy's tale celebrates Egypt's cinematic heritage, with enchanting characters and captivating storytelling that transport audiences to a realm of limitless imagination.
The Brink of Dreams (2024)
Director Nada Riyadh & Ayman El Amir – Egypt, France, Denmark, Qatar, Saudi Arabia
In a remote village in Upper Egypt, a group of young girls breaks societal norms by forming a street theatre group. They dream of a life beyond their traditional upbringing. Through daring performances, they challenge the expectations of their Coptic families and local communities. Daughters of the Nile, filmed over four years, shows their journey from rebellious teens to empowered women.
This film is a powerful story of resilience and strength, capturing their universal longing for self-discovery and freedom.
Everybody Loves Touda (2024)
Director Nabil Ayouch – Morocco, France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway
In the charming villages of Morocco, Touda dreams of a life beyond what society expects. She wants to become a Sheikha, a traditional Moroccan performer. Despite facing criticism from her community, Touda finds comfort in her music, singing about resistance, love, and freedom. Every night, she performs in local bars, her voice filling the streets as she imagines a better future for herself and her son.
Driven by a desire to break free from tradition, Touda sets her sights on the bright lights of Casablanca, determined to make her own way in a world full of opportunities.
32 notes
·
View notes
John Tehranian, Is Kim Kardashian White (And Why Does It Matter Anyway)? Of Celebutantes, Racial Fluidity & the Law (forthcoming 2019)
Abstract
With the world’s most ubiquitous celebutante playing a starring role, this essay examines the peculiar role of the law in the construction of race and its implications on equal-protection and anti-discrimination jurisprudence.
The essay begins by assessing Kim Kardashian’s racial identity through three lenses: social, legal and historical. Through its analysis, the essay traces the dramatic transformation of both juridical and popular notions of racial identity over the course of American history, questions some of our most fundamental perceptions about race and provides a unique spin on issues of diversity, immutability and colorblindness. In the process, the essay not only highlights (for better or worse) the continuing relevance of race in American life but also brings to light the under-appreciated significance of racial fluidity (in a time when society is growing increasingly ‘woke’ about gender fluidity) and its potentially seismic impact on long-held, but rarely questioned, assumptions in constitutional and civil-rights law.
As Journalist Erin Keane once quipped, “Like a round, shiny mirror, [Kim] Kardashian’s butt reflects back to us our myriad cultural panics and anxieties, inviting us to oil them up and present them to the world.”1 Since no issue has defined American history more than race, it should come as no surprise that, even on this point, the most ubiquitous celebrity of our generation, Kim Kardashian, and her backside have relevance. For years, people have wondered whether Kardashian is white. By examining the radically different answers that law, history, and society give us, we may learn, at long last, the only remaining private detail of Kardashian’s life. Perhaps even more importantly, we can also shed light on the politics of identity, the vexing problem of race and the peculiar role of our jurisprudence in the racialization process.
What does history tell us?
In the popular imagination, race is an immutable trait and biological given fixed at birth. The Supreme Court agrees, having referred to “the fact that race is an immutable characteristic.”2 Indeed, our modern constitutional jurisprudence rests on the ubiquitous assumption that laws targeting race, because of (among other things) its immutability, must receive the most exacting scrutiny under equal-protection analysis.3 But reality betrays this immutability narrative. Indeed, history has shown that race is very much a mutable thing.
Consider the very idea of a ‘white’ race. It is a malleable concept whose meaning has changed dramatically since just the founding of the Republic. For those bent on originalism, one need look no further than the Framers for surprising proof of the supple definition of whiteness. To Benjamin Franklin, white racial identity belonged chiefly to individuals of English descent. As he once wrote, the Angles and Saxons alone made “the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.”4 He therefore had no compunction about challenging the whiteness of even the Swedes, whom he viewed—along with the Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards and Russians—as “generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion.”5
Franklin’s unusual musings about the swarthy Swedes are not as anomalous as they may first appear. American history is rife with examples of the shifting meaning of whiteness. In the 1800s, the Irish faced a century-long battle against persistent discrimination before finally achieving ‘acceptance’ as white.6 In the early part of the twentieth century, Italians,7 Greeks,8 Slavs9 and other groups were viewed as non-white. Race riots at the turn of the century in Nebraska pitted whites against Greeks.10 In parts of the segregated South, Italian children were often banned from whites- only schools.11 And seemingly tolerant outposts such as Southern California were far from immune. For example, segregation of public facilities in San Bernardino extended as recently as the 1940’s to individuals of Italian, Portuguese and Spanish descent—a fact recounted in Westminster v. Mendez,12 the famous lawsuit that ended segregation in California just a few short years before Brown v. Board of Education.
Thus, by the historical standards that prized Anglo-Saxon stock, as an individual of Armenian descent,13 Kardashian was decidedly not white. But then again, consider this: neither are most of you.
What does the law tell us?
The legal definition of white might also be surprising. Our modern classification system contains four broad racial groupings (American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black; and White),14 with the white category capturing “persons originating in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.”15 This scheme, formally adopted by the Census Bureau in 1980,16 has quickly spread in use, both legally and socially, making it “felt well beyond the arena of demographics into the civic, political, and economic life of the country.”17
A curious series of legal decisions from a century ago gave us this legacy. Until 1952, federal law dictated that only white or black individualsbcould qualify for naturalization.18 As a result, a wave of immigrants with racially “ambiguous” backgrounds—from Japanese19 and Indian20 to Arab21 and Armenian22—needed to earn judicial recognition of their whiteness before they could obtain citizenship. Whiteness not only gave them the vote; it also entitled them to a series of economic rights, including the ability to own land and to practice law, that were restricted at the time to citizens.23 In Minnesota, for example, even Finnish immigrants24 had to litigate their whiteness in court when the United States District Attorney denied them naturalization on the grounds that they were “Mongolian.”25 While the Japanese and Indians lost these absurd cases (before the Supreme Court, no less), Arabs, Armenians and other individuals from the Middle/Near East were narrowly (if not reluctantly) deemed white.26 Armenians, after all, literally hailed from the lands adjacent to the Caucasus Mountains which, through some hocus-pocus by a German ethnologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, gave birth to the term ‘Caucasian.’27
Thus, from a modern legal point of view, and in contrast to the historical view, Kardashian is undoubtedly white. Her descendants literally trace their origins to the Caucasus mountains, the site of Blumenbach’s most prized member of his skull collection. Indeed, the government defines anyone of European, Middle Eastern or North African as white. Of course, under this precedent, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Paris Hilton, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and, yes, Kim Kardashian are all white by law.
What does society tell us?
At the same time, in some ways, Armenian-Americans have been growing decidedly less white in the past two decades. Specifically, the law’s (purported) precision belies the inherent instability of social constructions of race. To put it bluntly, in the post-9/11 world, when individuals of Middle Eastern descent are at the airport, they are not white. When individuals of Middle Eastern descent are accused of a crime, they are not white. And while Steve Jobs (a Syrian-American) might be just another white male CEO, Ralph Nader (Lebanese-American) another white politician and Andre Agassi (Iranian-American) another white tennis player, no one calls Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Nidal Hassan or Syed Farook white.
Moreover, individuals of Armenian descent may be finding themselves officially changing race. Indeed, to better reflect popular perceptions, monitor discrimination and gain relevant socioeconomic data, the Census Bureau has been considering a proposal to create a new and separate (non-white) racial category for individuals of Middle Eastern and North African descent: MENA. The Bureau’s preliminary definition of MENA included nine illustrative examples that captured the three largest Middle-Eastern Arab nationalities (Lebanese, Syrian and Iraqi), the three largest North-African Arab nationalities (Egyptian, Moroccan and Algerian), the two largest non-Arab Middle Eastern nationalities (Iranian and Israeli), and a transnational, non-Arab group (Kurdish).28
Unsurprisingly, the MENA proposal comes with controversy. Some have hailed the new category as an important recognition of the distinct identity of individuals who trace their heritage to the Middle East and North Africa.29 In addition, adoption and use of the designation may help better align our bureaucratic classifications with popular perceptions, monitor discrimination (and remediation thereof) and produce valuable socioeconomic data. There are, however, reasons to be less sanguine about MENA. There are lingering questions to address about the preliminary exclusion of certain peoples (such as individuals of Turkish, Armenian, Afghani and Azeri descent) from the classification. Perhaps most significantly, some observers have questioned the government’s sudden, post-9/11 interest—after decades of categorizing such individuals as white—in getting a precise and disaggregated count of our Middle Eastern population.30 The timing is indeed suspicious, coming at a moment when the war on terrorism continues to dominate the public imagination and when our reigning presidential administration has implemented an immigration ban on individuals hailing from numerous Middle Eastern countries—a ban that was blessed (albeit by the thinnest of margins) as constitutional by the Supreme Court.31
All told, there are many serious questions surrounding MENA. But, putting aside inquiries about the motivations behind the policy and the issues it raises, the potential creation of the new MENA category highlights a salient point about the inherently volatile nature of the race-identification enterprise. In particular, MENA provides the latest instantiation of a trend that we have long ignored: racial fluidity.
Whether Armenians count in the MENA category is still unresolved. But the country of Armenia abuts the region often referred to as the Middle East, which many Armenians have historically populated. In the wake of the last century’s genocide, the Armenian diaspora has grown particularly large in such countries as Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
So while Kim Kardashian may be legally white for now, that may not be the case for much longer. As MENA illustrates, racial definitions continue to be fluid, even to this day—and not just by operation of law (i.e., what the federal government ultimately decides to do with the proposed MENA category) but also in social perception.
Thus, Kim Kardashian may soon accomplish something remarkable: change race. But fear not for Kardashian, as she will not have to make this fantastical journey by herself. Several million of Kardashian’s fellow Americans may also soon find themselves going to bed one night as white people and waking up the next morning as something quite different. With this in mind, our courts’ insistence on the immutability of race appears quixotic, at best.
Why does it matter at all?
Taking a step back, it is entirely fair to wonder why we are even entertaining such a discussion. After all, at a time when many wish that we would do away with the entire concept of race, such a project may appear hopelessly retrograde. Shouldn’t we be spending our energy breaking down racial barriers rather than creating new ones? Aren’t we, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia once posited, but one race—American?32
That would be nice, but one need look no further than the daily news to recognize the continued vexing relevance of race in modern American life. In our ostensibly post-racial environment, recent years have witnessed the controversial acquittal of George Zimmerman on murder charges for the killing of Treyvon Martin, law enforcements shootings of numerous unarmed African-American youths and subsequent rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore, a terrorist attack by a white supremacist against black parishioners at a church in Charleston, widespread furor over the semiotics of the Confederate Flag and recognition of historical figures with unsavory pasts on race-related issues. These events have made all but the most Panglossian prognosticators ask whether, in the post-Obama era, rumors of racism’s demise may have been a tad premature.
Perhaps no data point makes the tragic divisions that continue to plague our country more daunting than the racial wealth gap. The 2010 Census revealed that the average white family possesses a household wealth of $110,729.33 By stunning contrast, the average African-American family possesses a household just $4,995 and the average Hispanic household just $7,242.34 In other words, there is a stunning 22:1 wealth ratio dividing whites and blacks. And, contrary to the dominant narrative of progress (which certainly has some merit), the racial wealth gap is now at its largest point since the government began recording such statistics a quarter-century ago.35 Whiteness still matters. A lot.
But is Kim white?
If you have made it to this point, you, dear reader, have every right to expect an answer to the question at hand. But, regrettably, the issue may not be as simple as we think. And that’s precisely the point. Race has always been a malleable social construct. And it is not solely imposed from without. Whether consciously or not, even Kardashian herself plays a role in how she is racialized by wielding a level of control in the process. In some contexts—when she talks about her experience raising a “bi-racial” child and witnessing, for the first time, racism and discrimination36—she very much plays white. She grew up wealthy and privileged and her mother, Kris, is popularly perceived of as white. In other contexts—for example, when she ‘breaks the Internet’37 and monetizes her assets by presenting herself a bold and ‘exotic’ vision of beauty that stands in stark contrast to the waifish Anglo-Saxon blonde traditionally embraced by the fashion industry38—she plays ‘ethnic.’ To some, she even enjoys ‘honorary black’ status in the African-American community. With the (half) Armenian heritage that shapes her phenotype and aspects of how she presents herself (an underappreciated factor that impacts people’s perceptions of race), she might be viewed as non-white.
Either way, consider this fact: mainstream society has overwhelmingly embraced the right of Kardashian’s former step-parent, Olympian Bruce Jenner, to identify as a woman because of what Kaitlin feels on the inside. Yet society has not been as sanguine about a white woman (Rachel Dolezal) identifying as black.39 But isn’t there something particularly American about the right to shape one’s identity? If so, in a country dedicated to self-determination, Algeresque ascensions and Gatsbyesque reinventions, what matters most may be this: what Kardashian herself thinks.
As for the issue at hand, perhaps the single best word to capture the reality of Kardashian’s racial identity is fluid. Over time and in different contexts, she has occupied numerous spots along the American racial spectrum. And in enjoying, deploying and being subject to this fluidity, she is not alone.
Keeping (the law) up with the Kardashians
Although she is still in the process of obtaining her law license,40 Kim Kardashian has already made her seismic impact on the legal world felt far and wide. Besides her high-profile pardoning work,41 she has unmasked the significant tension between the de jure (and constitutional) assumption of racial immutability and the de facto reality of racial fluidity. To wit, as the racialization of Kardashian demonstrates, racial identities can morph in at least two different senses. First, race is malleable in that racial schemata themselves change, varying depending on time and place. Fluidity in this circumstance stems from without. Society, whether through a formal legal regime (MENA or the precedent-setting naturalization cases) or informal norms (post-9/11 racial understandings), determines racial classification. Under this version of mutability, although race is not formally an “accident of birth” since categories vary both temporally and spatially, it is almost entirely imposed upon the individual. Schemata may morph and an individual’s racial designation might shift as a result, but the individual—even one harnessing the power of social media like Kim Kardashian—is largely powerless to impact that classification.
However, at the same time, race is also fluid in a distinct, second sense, in that an individual’s place within a given racial scheme might change. In this second iteration of mutability, race is also not immutable, but there is greater personal agency in the process of racialization. Thus, racialization represents an intricate negotiation amongst at least three players: society, racialized groups and individuals themselves. There is agency (and, of course, a strong degree of white privilege) when Rachel Dolezal goes from white to black,42 Elizabeth Warren deems herself, in whatever capacity, an “American Indian,”43 or Kim Kardashian simultaneously plays white and ethnic. But such agency is not limited to those who enjoy white privilege. To be sure, not everyone possesses ethnic or racial options; but, to differing degrees, many individuals (both those racialized as ‘white’ and ‘of color’) exert at least some level of control over their racialization. And, based on the growing body of empirical data from recent sociological research, there is good reason to believe that the number is increasing.44 How the law grapples with this growing understanding of the racialization process is anyone’s guess, but it is high time for the law to abide. In other words, the law needs to finally keep up with the Kardashians.
Footnotes
Erin Keane, All the Things We Project onto Kim Kardashian’s Butt: How One Woman’s Rear-End Came to Mean Everything, SALON.COM (Nov. 12, 2014), available at https://www.salon.com/test/2014/11/12/all_the_things_we_project_onto_kim_kardashians_butt_how_one_womans_rear_end_came_to_mean_everything.
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 338, n.32 (2004) (emphasis added).
See, e.g., Fullilove v. Klutzbick, 448 U.S. 448, 519 (1980) (dictating that “[r]acial classifications must be assessed under the most stringent level of review because immutable characteristics, which bear no relation to individual merit or need, are irrelevant to almost every governmental decision”); Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 398 (1979) (referring to race as “a highly visible and immutable characteristic”).
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE INCREASE OF MANKIND (1751), reprinted in 4 THE PAPERS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 234 (Leonard W. Labaree et al. eds., 1961).
Id.
See, e.g., NOEL IGNATIEV, HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE (1995) (documenting the century-long struggle of Irish-Americans to obtain recognition of their ‘whiteness’ in the United States).
See, e.g., LEONARD DINNERSTEIN & DAVID M. REIMERS, ETHNIC AMERICANS: A HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION AND ASSIMILATION 36 (1982) (“Italians...were one of the most despised groups. Old-stock Americans called them wops, dagos, and guineas and referred to them as the ‘Chinese of Europe’ and ‘just as bad as the Negroes.’”). In the South, some Italians were forced to attend all-black schools, see id., and even endured lynchings. See Thomas A. Gugliehno, “No Color Barrier”: Italians, Race, and Power in the United States, in ARE ITALIANS WHITE? 29–43 (Jennifer Gugliehno & Salvatore Salerno eds., 2003).
See, e.g., Macomber v. State, 291 N.W. 674, 678 (Neb. 1940) (criminal trial involving brutal robbery, beating and forcible sodomization of Greek man with perpetrator goading the attack by declaring, “You * * * Greeks ain’t going to run this town, the white people are going to run this town.”); LAWRENCE H. LARSEN & BARBARA J. COTTRELL, THE GATE CITY: A HISTORY OF OMAHA 166 (1997) (describing 1909 race riot pitting ‘whites’ against Greeks, when thousand-man mob gathered in South Omaha and raided “Greek Town,” destroying businesses, burning buildings and assaulting individuals of Greek descent whilst authorities refused to intervene).
See, e.g., MARY C. WATERS, ETHNIC OPTIONS: CHOOSING IDENTITIES IN AMERICA 2 (1990) (observing that, at the turn of the century, individuals of Slavic and Mediterranean descent were viewed as a lower species of humanity, and certainly not as members of the ‘white’ race). As one candidate for political office wrote in 1920: “They have disqualified the negro, an American citizen, from voting in the white primary. The Greek and Syrian should also be disqualified. I DON'T WANT THEIR VOTE. If I can't be elected by white men, I don't want the office.” PHILIP K. HITTI, THE SYRIANS IN AMERICA 89 (1924). His views were not alone. For example, Senator Furnifold McLendel Simmons of North Carolina deemed these immigrant groups “nothing more than the degenerate progeny of the Asiatic hoards [sic] which, long centuries ago, overran the shores of the Mediterranean the spawn of the Phoenician curse.” John Hingham, STRANGERS IN THE LAND: PATTERNS OF AMERICAN NATIVISM 1860-1925, 164-65 (1971).
See supra, note 8.
See supra, note 7.
Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774, 782 (1947) (noting that, in the case of Lopez v. Seccombe, 71 F. Supp. 769 (S.D. Cal. 1944), San Bernardino county maintained a public pool that barred entry to “all persons of Latin descent” and that this included “not merely of Mexicans but of all Latins, that is of people from the score or more Latin American Republics and from Italy, Spain and Portugal.”)
For the purposes of this analysis, we are considering just Kardashian’s Armenian heritage.
See 28 C.F.R. § 42.402(e)(5). The classification stems from OMB’s Directive No. 15 (1977). See Office of Management and Budget, Directive No. 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (May 12, 1977). Per Directive No. 15, ‘Hispanic’ is considered a cultural/ethnic, rather than racial, category. See id.
Id.
See Helen Hatab Samham, Not-Quite-White: Racial Classification and the Arab-American Experience 209, 215, in ARABS IN AMERICA: BUILDING A NEW FUTURE (ed. Michael W. Suleiman) (1999).
Id.
Until 1952, one had to be either black or white—but nothing ‘W-between’—to be eligible for naturalization. See Naturalization Act of 1790, Act of July 14, 1870, ch. 255, S7, 26 Stat. 254, 256 (amending the naturalization statute to also include “aliens of African nativity and [] persons of American descent.”) This racial limitation on naturalization provoked a series of race trials, from the late eighteenth century until 1952, where individuals would litigate their whiteness in order to obtain citizenship. See John Tehranian, Performing Whiteness: Naturalization Litigation and the Construction of Racial Identity in America, 109 YALE L.J. 817, 818-20 (2000).
Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178, 198 (1922) (rejecting Takao Ozawa’s petition to be declared white by law and therefore eligible for naturalization on the grounds that individuals of Japanese ancestry were not Caucasian).
United States v. Thind, 261 U.S. 204, 209 (1923) (overturning a lower court holding and deeming Bhagat Singh Thind, a “high caste Hindu of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India,” not white, arguing that, while Indians might be technically ‘Caucasian,’ and “it may true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, [] the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them to-day”).
Compare Ex parte Mohriez, 54 F. Supp. 941 (D. Mass. 1944) (deeming an Arab male, Mohamed Mohriez, eligible for naturalization since he qualified as a white person) with In re Hassan, 48 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. Mich. 1942) (deeming an Arab male, Ahmed Hassan, ineligible for naturalization since he did not qualify as a white person).
United States v. Cartozian, 6 F.2d 919 (D. Or. 1925) (deeming Tatos O. Cartozian, an Armenian, white by law and therefore eligible for naturalization).
See, e.g., (upholding constitutionality of California’s Alien Property Initiative Act (Alien Land Law) of 1920, 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, Act 261 (Deering 1944 & Supp. 1949), which prohibited non-citizens from owning real property in California; United States v. Pandit, 15 F.2d 285 (9th Cir. 1926) (noting law preventing non-citizens from practicing law in California); Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948) (scrutinizing California law denying commercial fishing licenses to non-citizens).
Ironically, such Scandinavian immigrants are now hailed by white supremacists as precisely the “type” of immigrants we should welcome to our country. See, e.g., Julie Hirschfeld Davis et al., N.Y. TIMES, Trump Alarms Lawmakers with Disparaging Words for Haiti and Africa (Jan. 11, 2018), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/trump-shithole-countries.html (quoting Donald Trump as questioning why the United States should accept immigrants from “shithole countries” and expressing a desire for more immigrants from Norway).
In 1908, United States District Attorney John C. Sweet rejected the naturalization applications of John Sven and 15 other Finns. Their cases ultimately ended up in federal court and, on January 17, 1908, the Sweet’s decision was reversed by Judge William Cant, who held that Finns, despite claims of their “Mongol origins,” were white persons eligible for naturalization. See Aleksi Huhta, Debating Visibility: Race and Visibility in the Finnish- American Press in 1908, 4 NORDIC JOURNAL OF MIGRATION RESEARCH 168, 171 (2014); decision reproduced at https://brucemineincident.wordpress.com/historical-back-drop-for-novel/are-finnish-people-white-what/.
See supra, notes 21-22. It is worth noting that the largely Christian immigration from the region played a strong role in the process, as society often conflates racial and religious identity. After all, until the 1960s, the vast majority of individuals of Middle Eastern descent coming to the country were Christian. In 1924, there were approximately 200,000 Arabs living in the United States and approximately 90% were Christian. See Louise Cainkar, The History of Arab Immigration to the U.S., in ARAB AMERICAN ENCYCLOPEDIA (2000). Since 1965, 60% have been Muslim. See Karen Engle, Constructing Good Aliens and Good Citizens: Legitimizing the War on Terror(ism), 75 U. COLO. L. REV. 59, 75 (2004). This dramatic change in the religious composition of Middle Eastern immigrants has, perhaps, not coincidentally lead to renewed questioning as to whether individuals of MENA descent are white. For more on the conflation of race and religion in general, and Christianity and whiteness in specific, see JOHN TEHRANIAN, WHITEWASHED: AMERICA’S INVISIBLE MIDDLE- EASTERN MINORITY 28-29, 69-70 (2009); John Tehranian, Compulsory Whiteness: Towards a Middle-Eastern Legal Scholarship, 82 INDIANA L. J. 1, 12 (2007).
See JOHANN FRIEDRICH BLUMENBACH, ON THE NATURAL VARIETY OF MANKIND 98– 99 (Thomas Bendyshe ed., Bergman 1969) (1775); THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY, METHODS & RESULTS OF ETHNOLOGY (1868) (“Of all the odd myths that have arisen in the scientific world, the ‘Caucasian mystery’ invented quite innocently by Blumenbach is the oddest. A Georgian woman’s skull was the handsomest in his collection. Hence it became his model exemplar of human skulls, from which all others might be regarded as deviations; and out of this, by some strange intellectual hocus-pocus, grew up the notion that the Caucasian man is the prototypic ‘Adamic’ man.”). See also Dow v. United States, 226 F. 145, 146 (4th Cir. 1915) (noting how Blumenbach’s work, and his ‘Caucasian’ terminology, “became known” and “generally accepted” in the United States upon translation into English in 1807).
See 82 Fed. Reg. 12242, 12245 n.1 (March 1, 2017).
See, e.g., Arab American Institute, Support Adding a MENA Category to the U.S. Census (Oct. 18, 2016), available at https://www.aaiusa.org/support_adding_a_mena_category_to_the_u_s_census) (arguing that “[c]reating a separate aggregate response category for Middle Eastern or North African origin will better equip the U.S. to understand a growing constituency, allocate federal aid that addresses community-based needs and enforce civil rights law”).
See Khaled A. Beydoun, Boxed In: Reclassification of Arab Americans on the U.S. Census as Progress or Peril?, 47 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 693, 743-751 (2016).
See Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (overturning lower courts’ striking of the ban as unconstitutional).
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 239 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“Under our Constitution, there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is alien to the Constitution's focus upon the individual . . . . In the eyes of the government, we are just one race here. It is American.”).
Tami Luhby, Worsening Wealth Inequality by Race, CNN.com (June 21, 2012), available at http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/wealth-gap-race/index.htm.
Id.
See Rakesh Kochhar, Richard Fry & Paul Taylor, Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics, PEW RES. CTR. (July 26, 2011), available at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2069/housing-bubble-subprime-mortgages-hispanics-blacks-household-wealth-disparity.
See, e.g., Kim Kardashian, On My Mind (May 7, 2014), available at http://kimkardashian.celebuzz.com/2014/05/07/on-my-mind/ (To be honest, before I had North [her son with Kanye West], I never really gave racism or discrimination a lot of thought. It is obviously a topic that Kanye is passionate about, but I guess it was easier for me to believe that it was someone else’s battle. But recently, I've read and personally experienced some incidents that have sickened me and made me take notice. I realize that racism and discrimination are still alive, and just as hateful and deadly as they ever have been.”).
See e.g., David Hershkovits, How Kim Kardashian Broke the Internet with Her Butt, THE GUARDIAN (Dec. 17, 2014), available at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/17/kim-kardashian-butt-break-the-internet-paper-magazine (positing that “Paper magazine’s winter issue, with the cover shot of Kim Kardashian by Jean-Paul Goude, set out to #BreakTheInternet.”).
See, e.g., Savannah Munoz, Kim Kardashian and the Politics (and Privilege) of Being Racially Ambiguous, SUBSTANCE.MEDIA (Feb. 22, 2018), available at https://substance.media/kim-kardashian-and-the-politics-and-privilege-of-being-racially-ambiguous-bfa9cf1a2636 (arguing that Kardashian’s “body’s racial ambiguity allows her to move between her own whiteness and shallowly associate herself with people of color when she needs to be cool, relevant and ‘ethnic.’ Rather than genuinely engage with communities of color, Kim K morphs her body into any race and/or ethnicity she pleases. She’s Black when she needs publicity and relevance, Armenian when she needs to be ‘ethnic,’ and white when shit starts getting real.”).
See Mark P. Orbe, The Rhetoric of Race, Culture, and Identity: Rachel Dolezal as Co- Cultural Group Member, 6 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RHETORIC 23, 35 (2016) (“Comparisons of Dolezal and Jenner . . . resulted in contentious debate between individuals critical of the polarizing ways in which Dolezal’s assertions were largely rejected while Jenner’s public disclosures were embraced by many as living out her true, authentic self.”).
Staci Zaretsky, Kim Kardashian Plans to Become Lawyer, Will Take Bar Exam in 2022, ABOVETHELAW.COM (April 10, 2019), available at https://abovethelaw.com/2019/04/kim-kardashian-plans-to-become-lawyer-will-take-bar-exam-in-2022/.
Peter Baker, Alice Marie Johnson Is Granted Clemency by Trump after Push by Kim Kardashian West, N.Y. TIMES (June 6, 2018), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/trump-alice-johnson-sentence-commuted-kim-kardashian-west.html.
See supra, note 39, at 23 (arguing that Dolezal’s “insistence that she was not African American, but culturally Black triggered critical dialogue around the social construction of race in the United States, the one-drop rule, and agency issues surrounding assertions of authentic identity.”).
See Annie Linksey & Amy Gardner, Elizabeth Warren Apologizes for Calling Herself Native American, WASHINGTON POST (February 05, 2019), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html.
See, e.g., Aliya Saperstein & Andrew M. Penner, Racial Fluidity & Inequality in the United States, 118 AM. J. SOC. 676, 706 (2012) (documenting the unwitting results produced from a decades-long U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics longitudinal study that began in 1979 that found that, over the course of two decades, the reported race of a whopping 20% of surveyed individuals changed at least once (and, in many instances, more than once), with a strong correlation in changes to social status, as measured by income, incarceration, and martial and employment status); Leora F. Eisenstadt, Fluid Identity Discrimination, 52 AM. BUS. L.J. 789, 790 (2015) ( noting the “growing numbers of Americans identify[ing] as multiracial, multiethnic, postracial, transgender, gender nonconforming, and bi (or multi) religious” and, consequently, that “the number of individuals who refuse to identify in a single category is increasing exponentially.”).
0 notes