{"title":"Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910-1950","authors":"Hrishi Karthikeyan, G. J. Chin","doi":"10.15779/Z385G4Q","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay explores the relationship between Asian American population and applicability of anti-miscegenation laws to that group in the first half of the 20th Century, testing legal scholar Gilbert Thomas Stephenson's theory that racial restrictions would arise whenever non-whites of any race exist in considerable numbers. Several states prohibited Asian-white intermarriage even though the Asian American numbers failed even remotely to approach those of the white population in those states. These anti-miscegenation statutes were unique in the Jim Crow regime in the degree of specificity with which they defined the racial categories subject to the restrictions, using precise terms like Japanese or Mongolians, rather than broad terms like colored. Further, the number of statutes applicable to Asians more than doubled between 1910 and 1950, even though census data shows that the proportion of Asian population was stable or declining in these states, and in any event tiny. The proliferation of anti-Asian miscegenation laws raises important questions about the racial landscape of our country during this period. Correlating census data with the development of anti-miscegenation statutes suggests that population does have an impact on whether states would restrict Asian marriage, but in a more complex way than Stephenson proposed. In all states in which Asian-white marriage was restricted by race, so too was African American-white intermarriage; no statutes targeted Asians alone. But in virtually all states restricting African American intermarriage where there was a discernable Asian population - 1/2000th or more - Asian intermarriage was also regulated. The combination of a state's inclination to segregate, plus a visible Asian population, reliably predicts when Asians would be covered by a statute. This suggests that in the states where racially diverse populations were seen as threats appropriately subject to legal regulation, the nature of the problems presented by the various races was the same.","PeriodicalId":334951,"journal":{"name":"Asian American Law Journal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian American Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z385G4Q","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
Abstract
This essay explores the relationship between Asian American population and applicability of anti-miscegenation laws to that group in the first half of the 20th Century, testing legal scholar Gilbert Thomas Stephenson's theory that racial restrictions would arise whenever non-whites of any race exist in considerable numbers. Several states prohibited Asian-white intermarriage even though the Asian American numbers failed even remotely to approach those of the white population in those states. These anti-miscegenation statutes were unique in the Jim Crow regime in the degree of specificity with which they defined the racial categories subject to the restrictions, using precise terms like Japanese or Mongolians, rather than broad terms like colored. Further, the number of statutes applicable to Asians more than doubled between 1910 and 1950, even though census data shows that the proportion of Asian population was stable or declining in these states, and in any event tiny. The proliferation of anti-Asian miscegenation laws raises important questions about the racial landscape of our country during this period. Correlating census data with the development of anti-miscegenation statutes suggests that population does have an impact on whether states would restrict Asian marriage, but in a more complex way than Stephenson proposed. In all states in which Asian-white marriage was restricted by race, so too was African American-white intermarriage; no statutes targeted Asians alone. But in virtually all states restricting African American intermarriage where there was a discernable Asian population - 1/2000th or more - Asian intermarriage was also regulated. The combination of a state's inclination to segregate, plus a visible Asian population, reliably predicts when Asians would be covered by a statute. This suggests that in the states where racially diverse populations were seen as threats appropriately subject to legal regulation, the nature of the problems presented by the various races was the same.
本文探讨了20世纪上半叶亚裔美国人口与反通婚法对该群体的适用性之间的关系,检验了法律学者吉尔伯特·托马斯·斯蒂芬森(Gilbert Thomas Stephenson)的理论,即只要任何种族的非白人大量存在,就会出现种族限制。有几个州禁止亚裔和白人通婚,尽管在这些州,亚裔美国人的数量远不及白人的数量。这些反异族通婚法规在吉姆·克劳制度中是独一无二的,因为它们明确界定了受限制的种族类别,使用了像日本人或蒙古人这样的精确术语,而不是像有色人种这样的宽泛术语。此外,1910年至1950年间,适用于亚裔的法规数量增加了一倍多,尽管人口普查数据显示,亚裔人口在这些州的比例稳定或下降,而且无论如何都很小。反亚洲异族通婚法的泛滥引发了关于这一时期我国种族格局的重要问题。将人口普查数据与反异族通婚法规的发展联系起来表明,人口确实对各州是否限制亚洲人的婚姻有影响,但影响的方式比斯蒂芬森提出的要复杂得多。在所有亚裔与白人通婚受到种族限制的州,非裔与白人的通婚也是如此;没有法律只针对亚洲人。但实际上,在所有限制非裔美国人通婚的州,只要有明显的亚裔人口(占总人口的1/2000或更多),亚裔通婚也受到管制。一个州倾向于种族隔离,再加上明显的亚裔人口,可以可靠地预测亚裔何时会被法律覆盖。这表明,在那些种族多样化的人口被视为威胁的州,不同种族所带来的问题的本质是相同的。