Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Please let johnfitz44 write this paper. Here are the directions, after the directions im going to put the original essay (with the work cited page) that you need to rewrite/ expand on if you cannot get a primary source please email me and i will send one to you. Finally Please add 1 scholarly article. Again johnfitz44 wrote the original paper and I would prefer for him to write this one.

In most cases, the final essay in the first unit will combine the analyses of the first two essays. You will revise and expand your previous analyses to build on what you have learned about rhetorical analysis in the unit, and you will also develop your analyses by drawing upon at least one scholarly article on a related topic. We will work with several sample articles in the unit to give you a sense of how you can deepen and expand your analysis by doing research on rhetorical strategies, party constituencies, and political issues. The last part of the unit includes a class in which you will be introduced to how to find scholarly articles. In that part of the unit we will begin to work with the research strategies that you will continue to develop in the next unit. While the expanded rhetorical analysis will lead right into the next unit, the paper will also serve as the conclusion of the first unit. It will provide you with an opportunity to revise writings that may have been less successful than you had hoped, and that process will provide you with an opportunity to improve a range of writing skills that extend from the mechanics of punctuation to developing arguments with supporting quotes.


Original essay:
INTRODUCTION: The rhetorical situation with Mike Huckabee is very clear: He is a former governor of Arkansas, and also a minister from a conservative Christian genre running for president of the U.S. on the Republican side. His constituency is the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and in particular, he reaches out to so-called “evangelicals” (conservative Christians also known as “fundamentalists” – and includes the sects referred to as the Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movements). Therefore, to put his rhetoric into context, he uses the issues that resonate most with the far right wing of the Republican Party, and with the conservative Christian movement, so that he distances himself from the front-runner in the Republican Party’s presidential campaign, John McCain (known more as a “moderate” than a hard-line conservative).
Therefore, the way Huckabee frames his rhetoric is designed to make an emotional appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party, and to the conservative Christian movement. The issues that appeal to the groups Huckabee reaches out to with his rhetoric include: ending legal abortions; preventing the legalization of marriages between same sexes (he supports a constitutional amendment making it illegal for gays to marry); ending federal income taxes; promoting “faith” (religion); staying in Iraq and continuing the war; and his most strident rhetoric is directed toward immigration, which will be the focus of this paper. A rhetorical analysis of Huckabee’s position papers and his speeches reveals that he uses a number of hot-button words and provocative issues to frame his beliefs.
HUCKABEE ON IMMIGRATION: On his campaign website, Huckabee uses the term “national emergency” to describe the importance of dealing effectively with the immigration issue. This puts the immigration issue into the context of war, or a terrible crisis, that has the nation teetering on disaster. He uses the phrase “illegal aliens” rather than “undocumented workers” or “undocumented immigrants” because “illegal” and “alien” are far more powerful themes, allowing Huckabee to get the attention of conservatives more forcefully.
One way Huckabee develops his rhetoric is by framing the immigration problems in the context of terrorists, bringing to mind the horrific attacks on the U.S. in 2001. “In this age of terror, immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue,” he says on his website and in his speeches. “Those caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported,” Huckabee insists. By framing the problem in the “terror” context, what Huckabee has done with his rhetoric is make undocumented immigrants in the same group as terrorists. He doesn’t say precisely that, but when a politician uses the phrase “terror” the image of Osama bin Laden immediately comes to mind, along with bloody images of the most recent suicide bomber attack in Iraq.
And while Huckabee supports the $3 billion that the Senate has voted on for border security – including a 700-mile high fence, 300 miles of “vehicle barriers,” four “drone” airplanes, 105 radar and camera towers – he does not sound extremist by doing so. There are many moderate and even liberal American voters who think the 700-mile fence is a good idea. But when Huckabee says that he “…will not tolerate employers who hire illegals” he steps a bit further into radical right-wing rhetoric. He insists that “employers” (including the average American who hires a Mexican landscape crew to mow a lawn, trim trees, or clean the house – and doesn’t demand to see the papers proving those immigrants are “legal”) should be “punished with fines and penalties so large that they see it is not worth the risk.”
With that statement, Huckabee frames the American employer or homeowner who knowingly or unknowingly hires undocumented workers as criminals. So now the immigrant is a criminal and so is the person (corporate head, farmer, homeowner needing work done around the house) who hires the undocumented immigrant. Huckabee goes on to insist that if he is elected president, he will “…take our country back for those who belong here.” In this framework, he is suggesting that somehow Americans have either given their country away, or the undocumented immigrants have stolen it. He takes the argument to extreme levels with this rhetoric.
Huckabee makes a strong point in his speeches and on his website that he has signed the “No Amnesty Pledge.” By signing that pledge, candidate Huckabee has ratcheted up his rhetoric to a level that is not only part of the far right wing of the Republican Party, it is seemingly absurd and logistically impossible. To wit, the “Americans for Better Immigration” pledge states “The 12 million illegal immigrants now here will have to go home.” Huckabee doesn’t explain how the federal government is going to round up twelve million Mexicans and other immigrants who are here without authorization, and send them “home” – but in a campaign like he is running, getting tough on immigration issues could win him votes with conservative Christians and with the right wing of his party.
Meanwhile, Huckabee supports local political jurisdictions passing laws that punish undocumented immigrants, and he asserts those laws “protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life” for citizens in those communities. By using “physical safety” Huckabee frames this issue in the context that immigrants are criminals out to harm people. But the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) (Rumbaut, et al, 2007) reports that “Foreign-born Mexicans” had an incarceration rate” of 0.7% in 2000, “more than 8 times lower than the 5.9% of native-born males of Mexican descent.” And while the “undocumented population has doubled to 12 million since 1994,” violent crime in the U.S. has declined 34.2%, the IPC reports.
Moreover, according to the American Immigration Law Foundation (Esbenshade, 2007) local ordinances such as the ones Huckabee believes in (that make it illegal to rent to undocumented immigrants, for example) – if they conflict with federal immigration law – are unconstitutional. Why? Because in many cases these local laws “deny due process rights to renters and landlords.”
In CONCLUSION, Mike Huckabee has arranged his rhetoric to appeal to the basest instincts of voters – notably voters who are conservative Christians and on the right wing of the conservative movement and GOP. The way in which Huckabee frames his attacks on immigrants seems to be blaming a lot of American ills on this group, but if that gets votes, then it’s working.
Works Cited
Esbenshade, Jill. “Division and Dislocation: Regulating Immigration through Local Housing
Ordinances.” American Immigration Law Foundation. Retrieved 7 February 2008, from
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_sept07.shtml.
Guidelines for Writing a Rhetorical Analysis. “The Guidelines.” Retrieved 6 February 2008
From http://core.ecu.edu/engl/snyderh/1100/raguide.html
Huckabee, Mike. “Mike Huckabee President: Faith, Family, Freedom. Issues: The Secure
American Plan / Immigration.” Retrieved 7 February 2008 from
http://www.mikehuckabee.com.
Rumbaut, Ruben G; & Ewing, Walter A. “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox
Of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among native and Foreign-Born Men.” Immigration
Policy Center. Retrieved 7 February 2008 from http://www.alif.org.

Essay Instructions: I want Mocosteinman to write a one page of reflective essay about Stem Cells (ID: 44603). And I want writer Jordan Crystal to write a one page of reflective essay on Raising Teen Driving Limits (ID: 45460) and Immigration Issues (ID: 47053). Over all I need two pages.
* It's all about the circumstances and thought. Like how and from where got information. Or any thing that you are interested to write/leads you to write. Just give me your overall thought about your writing method.

Essay Instructions: What I am giving you here is the instructions and the article that I must reference. Other references will be used, if you can use the textbooks below, do so. But if you do not have access then use something else. The generalness of the materal referenced will probably be found anywhere. (dates).

Each student will write a 6-8 page essay (1,500-2000 words) based on historical understanding of a current ethnic or immigration issue.

Choose an article or editorial from a main-stream news source that addresses an ethnic or immigration issue. Clip out or print your article and be sure to note the name of the source and the date on the copy.

Use the article as the basis for an interpretive essay that addresses the following questions:

1. What particular ethnic or immigration issues are raised?
2 What questions about the past come to mind as you read the article?
3. How does a study of the past enhance our understanding of the issues you identified?

The fourth one is important
4. What specific historical information contributes to that understanding?

Use of quotations is appropriate, but as reference or emphasis, not as narrative. Be sure to put quotation marks around material taken from your sources and include the author and page number in parentheses at the end of the sentence.

Papers are evaluated on the insights they offer into how history can inform our understanding of current ethnic and immigration issues, on connections made between the past and present, and on organization and argument. Please give me a reference sheet in MLA style, I'm not sure if I need it or not.



Books Used in the Course
Required Texts:

Jon Gjerde, ed., Major Problems in American Immigration and Ethnic History (1998)
Thomas Dublin, ed., Immigrant Voices: New Lives in America, 1773-1986 (1993)
Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America (2004)

Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (1993), chaps. 2-5
Gary B. Nash, Red, White & Black: The Peoples of Early North America (2000), chap. 11










My Article

Time Magazine
April, 10, 2006
Should They Stay Or Should They Go?
As the divisive national debate on immigration heats up--security, identity and wealth all at issue--every side can agree on just one thing: the system is broken
By KAREN TUMULTY

Posted Sunday, Apr. 2, 2006
You wouldn't think the man who made his mark in Washington as the knight-errant of campaign-finance reform and whose name is rarely written without the word maverick attached would ever meet a cause he deemed hopeless. But that was pretty much where Arizona Senator John McCain was a couple of weeks ago in his quest to transform the nation's immigration laws and set on the path to becoming citizens the estimated 11 million people who are here illegally. When the proposition had been tested, as recently as December in the House of Representatives, the result was a bill that went just about as far as possible in the other direction, one that would build two layers of reinforced fence along much of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico and declare everyone a felon who is illegally on this side of it. But then, as the implications of that bill started to sink in, protesters began pouring into the streets of cities from Los Angeles to Philadelphia to vent their outrage. They were illegal immigrants, and their American-citizen children emerging from behind their shield of invisibility, plus legions of voters who count the newcomers as family, friends and neighbors, in numbers "bigger than the Vietnam War demonstrations," McCain says. "I never could have predicted that we would have 20,000 people in Arizona or half to three-quarters of a million in Los Angeles." Something almost as remarkable started to happen inside the Capitol. One by one, Senate colleagues started coming to him privately whom McCain had written off as "rock-ribbed" opponents to the legalization that he and Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy had been working on for a year. There were maybe 10 of them, McCain says, all asking the same questions: "Isn't there a compromise on this? Isn't there some way to come together on this?"
Then came something that McCain had even less reason to expect. With hundreds on the Capitol Plaza chanting "Let our people stay!" the Senate Judiciary Committee last week gave its imprimatur to legislation very much like the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill and sent it on to the Senate floor, where it stands a good chance of passing.
But the demonstrators were also sparking other reactions, especially after they ignored the pleas of rally organizers to wave only American flags. There was the scene in Apache Junction, Ariz., in which a few Hispanic students raised a Mexican flag over their high school and another group took it down and burned it. In Houston the principal at Reagan High School was reprimanded for raising a Mexican flag below the U.S. and Texas ones, in solidarity with his largely Hispanic student body. Tom Tancredo, the Republican from Colorado who has become Congress's loudest anti-immigrant voice, said his congressional offices in Colorado and Washington were swamped by more than 1,000 phone calls, nearly all from people furious about the protests in which demonstrators "were blatantly stating their illegal presence in the country and waving Mexican flags." Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, describing the marchers, used language usually applied to the tantrums of children: "When they act out like that, they lose me." Virgil Goode, a Republican Congressman from Virginia, said, "If you are here illegally and you want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico."
For nearly as long as the U.S. has been a country, the question of who gets to be an American has stirred our passions and conflicted our values as few others have. In 1886, the same year that the Statue of Liberty was dedicated in New York harbor to the ideal of taking in the tired, the poor and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, racist mobs rioted in Seattle and forced more than half the city's 350 Chinese onto a ship bound for San Francisco. That two chambers of Congress, both run by the same political party, should appear to be headed in such different directions on immigration tells you that the country is no less conflicted about the issue today. But the fact that for the first time in 20 years, lawmakers are even considering major legislation to do something about immigration shows there is one thing about which everyone can agree when it comes to the current system: it's broken.
The immigration overhaul in 1986 was supposed to have fixed the root problem of an uncontrolled influx by making it illegal for U.S. employers to hire undocumented workers and offering an amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been here for five years at that point. Instead, the best estimates suggest that since then, the number of illegal immigrants has more than tripled. Local governments are staggering under the costs of dealing with the inflow, and since 9/11, controlling who comes into the country has become a security issue as well.
The kind of comprehensive immigration reform being discussed by the Senate carries the potential of transforming the politics of the country by making citizensand therefore votersof millions of mostly Hispanic residents in relatively short order. Says McCain: "This legislation is a defining moment in the history of the United States of America."
And possibly in the history of the Republican Party, which helps explain why the politics of immigration is becoming so tricky for the G.O.P. The business interests in the party base don't want to disrupt a steady supply of cheap labor for the agriculture, construction, hotel and restaurant industries, among others. That's why business lobbyists broke into applause and embraced in the Dirksen office building as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 6 to send its bill to the Senate floor, with four of the committee's 10 Republicans joining all its Democrats in favor. So doubtful had been the outcome that there were gasps in the hearing room when Republican chairman Arlen Specter cast the final vote for it himself, giving the legislation extra momentum as it heads to the floor. But those same business interests had lost badly in the House, where social conservatives argued that illegal immigration has begun an uncontrolled demographic and cultural transformation of the country, threatening its values.
Where the President stands on the issue is likely to be a deciding factor. Immigration policy was one of the ways in which George W. Bush defined himself in his 2000 campaign as a different kind of Republican, a Texas Governor who believed that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." Once he got to the White House, he infuriated some social conservatives by proposing--and appearing to be serious about--an immigration plan that included a guest-worker program. It was an idea he shelved after 9/11, then put forward again as the first policy initiative of his 2004 re-election campaign. But in a private White House meeting with congressional leaders last year, Bush confessed that he had misjudged the politics of the issue and agreed to recalibrate, putting more emphasis on border security. The President has insisted, though, that he wants reform that includes both enhanced border enforcement and provisions for guest workers. His ideas, which focus on giving migrant laborers temporary visas, have never gone as far as the McCain-Kennedy proposal of offering citizenship to illegal immigrants and some future guest workers. Last week, as Bush met in Mexico with President Vicente Fox, he said, "We want them coming in an orderly way." He added, "And if they want to become a citizen, they can get in line, but not the head of the line."
In Bush's closed meeting with Fox, a senior Administration official says, the U.S. President told the Mexican one that there is an "unsettling" undercurrent of isolationist and protectionist attitudes in the U.S. "It's an emotional issue," Bush told Fox but predicted, "I think we will get something" out of Congress on immigration. The two talked nuts and bolts of legislative strategy, with Bush saying the plan is to get a comprehensive immigration bill from the Senate, then add some of those elements to the House's security bill when the two versions reach a conference committee. A White House official told TIME that once the bill reaches a conference committee, Bush will weigh in more heavily on the specifics that he wants in the final law.
Bush is keen to preserve for Republicans the gains that he is credited with having made among culturally conservative but traditionally Democratic Hispanics, who gave him 40% of their vote in 2004 and are believed to have been crucial to his re-election. Hispanics account for about half the population increase in the U.S. Florida Senator Mel Martinez, a Republican, warned his party last week that it risks losing ground with "individuals who share our values on so many different issues." Former Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie, a close adviser to the White House, said, "The Republican majority already rests too heavily on white voters, and current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future."
There is also a far more immediate reason for congressional Republicans to find some way to bridge their divide on immigration: they are short on tangible accomplishments in this midterm-election year. A law that would address the immigration mess would give them something to brag about as voters get ready to go to the polls. "We need to have a [presidential] signing ceremony on the border before the fall," says one of the G.O.P.'s top strategists. "We need to get it done."
A TIME poll conducted last week suggests broad support for a policy makeover. Of those surveyed, 82% said they believe the government is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country, and a large majority (75%) would deny them government services such as health care and food stamps. Half (51%) said children who are here illegally shouldn't be allowed to attend public schools. But only 1 in 4 would support making it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally, as the House voted to do when it approved the tough enforcement bill submitted by Wisconsin Republican F. James Sensenbrenner. Rather than expel illegal immigrants from the country, more than three-quarters of those polled (78%) favored allowing citizenship for those who are already here, if they have a job, demonstrate proficiency in English and pay their taxes.
Some House Republicans are starting to feel pressure at home over their hard-line stance. In Reading, Pa., a Hispanic lawyer named Angel Figueroa arranged a meeting last month for his Congressman Jim Gerlach--who faces a tight race this fall--and voters in his district who oppose the House bill, which Gerlach supported. The meeting included not only immigrant-advocacy groups but also the president of the local community college, the head of a federally funded labor-training-and-placement company, the personnel director of a mushroom-growing company and a local Catholic priest. After listening to their arguments, Gerlach appeared to be reconsidering his vote. "One of the saving aspects of our democracy is our ability to fix mistakes," he told his constituents. "I supported the House bill," he said to TIME. "But we need to move the ball forward, and I agree wholeheartedly that that is not the final policy coming out of Congress."
House leaders are also showing a new flexibility. "We're going to look at all alternatives," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who voted yes on the Sensenbrenner bill, said two days after the Senate committee's action. "We're not going to discount anything right now. Our first priority is to protect the border. And we also know there is a need in some sections of the economy for a guest-worker program." House majority leader John Boehner has begun talking dismissively about the feasibility of the 700-mile fence that the House voted to build along the border.
But many others in the House, seeing the direction that the Senate is taking, are only digging in deeper. More than a third of House Republicans belong to the anti-immigration caucus led by Congressman Tancredo of Colorado. (Only two Democrats are members.) After the Senate Judiciary Committee voted, more than a dozen of them held a news conference denouncing it. "It would be like a dinner bell. 'Come one, come all,'" said Colorado Representative Bob Beauprez.
Senate foes of loosening the immigration law are not giving up either, despite the Judiciary Committee vote. As debate opened last week, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe gave a taste of what is to come when he offered an amendment that would solve the problem of insufficient border surveillance by adding more border guards, deputizing retired police officers to patrol the frontier and authorizing citizen militias to hunt and capture illegal border crossers. Inhofe argued that the conditions in which captured border jumpers are held--he mentioned the provision of sports facilities and good food--are too pleasant to deter aliens from crossing into the U.S.
In the end, drafting a law acceptable to both the House and the Senate would mean finding common ground in three areas, each of which presents political challenges and real-world consequences of its own:
•TIGHTENING THE BORDER
There is only one thing on which all sides of this debate agree: America needs to get tougher about controlling its borders. If there is any easy part to writing an immigration law, this is it. Every proposal before Congress calls for more border-patrol agents, more jail cells and detention centers for captured illegal immigrants, and new technology to enable employers to screen employees to ensure that they are lawfully in the country.
All those measures are popular with voters, although in practice beefed-up enforcement can create as many problems as it solves. When the Clinton Administration began patrolling the California border more closely in the mid-1990s, the illegal traffic simply shifted eastward--increasing tensions in Arizona and New Mexico, where illegal immigration had largely been tolerated.
And for all the cry for more scrutiny of the border, none of the proposals under consideration would accomplish nearly as much, experts agree, as getting tough at the other end of the pipeline--on employers--by enforcing the law already on the books. Immigrants will continue to come to the U.S. as long as they know they can get jobs. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers and imposed penalties of up to $11,000 for each violation. But lawbreakers are rarely punished. In 2005 the government issued just three notices of intent to fine companies for employing illegal workers, down from 178 in 2000.
That may be in part because the number of federal immigration investigators dedicated to work-site enforcement fell from 240 in 1999 to just 65 in 2004, according to the Government Accountability Office. And what resources the nation's immigration police put toward enforcement were diverted after 9/11 to finding undocumented employees in security-sensitive sites such as airports and nuclear power plants--hardly the first places that illegal immigrants tend to look for work. On those rare occasions when employers are punished, the penalties are so small that they amount to little more than a cost of doing business. Both the Sensenbrenner bill and the draft the Senate is considering would increase sanctions and step up enforcement.


•ASSURING A LABOR SUPPLY
The country has welcomed so-called guest workers into the U.S. since World War I, during which tens of thousands of Mexican workers were allowed in temporarily to help on the nation's farms. The idea is that when harvest time is over, they return home.
Except that often they don't, which is why the House rejected President Bush's proposed guest-worker plan when it passed its immigration bill in December. But House leadership strategists say privately they believe this time, with a strong lobbying effort by business and some additional pressure by Bush, they may find the votes they need to support a guest-worker program in a conference bill. The Senate Judiciary bill would allow at least 87,000 guest workers a year to apply for permanent residency, a step toward citizenship--which may be more than House Republicans can swallow. But even if guests are explicitly temporary, there is always a great risk that they will nonetheless stick around after their papers expire.
•THE A WORD
And what of the 11 million illegal immigrants who are in the U.S.? Will they get a chance at the biggest prize--citizenship? No word in the immigration debate is more freighted than amnesty. Everyone who wants to reform immigration policy to legitimize a significant portion of those who are here illegally is quick to insist that what they are talking about is "earned citizenship." The bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, created a path to citizenship that would take 11 years and require that immigrants hold jobs, demonstrate proficiency in English, pass criminal-background checks and pay fines and back taxes. "This is an earned path," stressed South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the Republicans who voted for it. "Some will make it, and some will not. The only thing to me that is off the table is inaction."
It's easy to understand why the idea of an amnesty would spark such a negative reaction. The country tried one with the 1986 law. Nearly 3 million people took advantage of it, and the amnesty was followed by an explosion in illegal immigration. But not to offer some process by which illegal immigrants gain legitimacy is to keep them permanently underground. "To me, it goes to the core of your view and recognition of human dignity for everybody," says Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, another of the Judiciary Committee Republicans who voted for legalization. But to do it is to reward lawbreaking, says Texas Senator John Cornyn, who voted against the bill. "It will encourage further disrespect for our laws and will undercut our efforts to shore up homeland security."
So which way is really in the American tradition? In some respects, that's beside the point, because the immigration debate, like immigration itself, is a bet on the future. "Immigrants don't come to America to change America," says Florida Senator Martinez, who arrived from Cuba when he was 15. "Immigrants come to America to be changed by America." But either way, they come.

Outlines that we have used in the course – a quick reference to the basics of the covered material.

History 3310: Ethnic America
22 August 2006

II. Introduction: Slide show
Is there an “American” culture?
What are the symbols of “Americanism”?
Is the United States a “melting pot”?
Who is considered “foreign”? Are “outsiders” always from the outside?

A. What does it mean to be American and how has that changed over time?
Does immigration define U.S. history?
When did immigration begin?

B. Immigrants in U.S. history
Varying attitudes toward immigrants
Immigrants sorted into a racial ethnic hierarchy over time
1790 naturalization act limits citizenship to “free white persons”
1924 law creates immigration quotas that favor northern and western Europe

C. Fear of immigrants
Numbers and economic competition
Cultural/racial concerns
Fears expressed through popular magazines


III. What do you know about America’s ethnic history?

The following questions are related to themes and topics that we will cover during the semester. Think about each question and bring your ideas to class on Thursday, August 24.

1. When we refer to a group as having an “ethnic” identity, what does that mean?
2. What are the top five nationality/ethnic groups from which Americans claim descent?
3. When we refer to a group as having a “racial” identity, what does that mean?
4. Name the most prevalent racial groups in the United States. Give a percentage for how many people fall into the racial categories that you list.
5. How many native peoples lived in North America prior to immigration from other areas of the world?
6. Historically, what have been the largest sources of migration (geographic areas and countries) to North America and the United States for each of the eras: prior to 1820, 1820-1914, after 1941?
7. The largest number of immigrants arriving in the U.S came in which decade?
8. According to INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) statistics, which five countries sent the most immigrants to the United States in 2000?
9. Which five states have the highest percentage of foreign born residents?


History 3310: Ethnic America
24 August 2006
Ethnicity and U.S. History

A. primordial: shared ancestry (“symbolic ethnicity”)
B. interest group: instrumental (“emergent ethnicity”)
C. construction theory: assumes active participation and change (“invention of ethnicity”)

III. Characteristics of ethnicity

Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, Stephan Thernstrom, ed. (1980)
A. common geographic origin
B. migratory status
C. race
D. language
E. religion
F. ties that transcend kinship, neighborhood, and community boundaries
G. shared traditions, values, symbols
H. literature, folklore, music
I. food preferences
J. settlement and employment patterns
K. special interests in regard to politics in the homeland and in the U.S.
L. institutions that specifically serve and maintain the group
M. an internal sense of distinctiveness
N. an external perception of distinctiveness

IV. Levels of ethnic identity

The One and the Many: Reflections on the American Identity, Arthur Mann (1979)
A. total identifiers
B. partial identifiers
C. disaffiliates
D. hybrids

V. Theories of assimilation (Gjerde chap 1)

Assimilation = one group absorbed by another
Acculturation = cultural sharing

A. Oscar Handlin
B. John Bodnar
C. John Higham
D. Kathleen Conzen, et al

History 3310: Ethnic America
29 August 2006
Repeopling North America: Cultures Meet in America
Reading: Takaki

I. North America Before European Contact

A. Cultural Evolution and Reasons for Diversity
B. Pre-Contact Population
C. Native American/European Worldviews
Spiritual Beliefs
Land
Individualism and Collectivity
D. Defining “contact”
Discovery
Settlement
Colonization
Peopling
a Moving Frontier
taming a Virgin Land
civilizing a Wilderness
Contact
Encounter
Conquest
Invasion
Collision of Histories
Old World and New World
II. Early English efforts in Virginia

A. Walter Raleigh and Roanoke
B. Jamestown, 1607, tobacco
Powhatan - Wahunsonacock
Pocahontas
John Smith
John Rolfe
C. Changing balance of power
1622 attack - Opechancanough
1644 uprising

III. New England

A. Disease
B. Pilgrim landing, 1620
Squanto - Wampanoag
William Bradford
Narragansett
C. Puritans, 1630
John Winthrop
Pequot War - Mystic River, 1637


History 3310: Ethnic America
31 August 2006

I. Introduction: Preserving Political and Cultural Sovereignty

II. Native Resistance and Accommodation

A. Narragansett autonomy and Puritan expansion
New England Confederation, 1643
Treaty of 1645
B. Puritans and the “praying Indians”
C. Wampanoag leader Metacom (King Philip)
Loss of land and power
Building a resistance movement
D. Metacom’s War
Murder of John Sassamon
Native successes and defeat, 1676

III. Bacon’s Rebellion

A. Conditions in Virginia
Governor William Berkeley
Nathaniel Bacon
B. Dispute over Indian policy
Land
Susquehannock attack, 1675-1676
C. Bacon’s frontier movement
D. Aftermath of Bacon’s Rebellion

IV. Changing Balance of Power

Middle ground?
Cultural exchange
Struggle for political and cultural sovereignty

V. Discussion (see handout) “A Deed for Lands of the Sakonnets”

On Thursday, August 31, the class will divide into small groups to discuss a deed transferring ownership of Indian land in seventeenth century Rhode Island. To prepare for the assignment, print and read the handout, and bring it with you to class on Thursday. Think about the ways that Native Americans and early European colonists defined land ownership. How did the differing worldviews of Native American and European cultures help to determine these views? What were the consequences resulting from understanding/misunderstanding of ideas of landownership in the seventeenth century?

History 3310: Ethnic America
5 September 2006
Repeopling North America: Forced Migration
Reading: Takaki 3 (available on the course website “additional readings” or through Carlson library reserve)

Slide show

I. Development of Slavery in English North America

A. Slavery in world history
B. English slave trade
Royal African Company
1698, monopoly broken
C. Transformation of the labor force
Indentured servitude
Availability of African slaves
“Hidden” origins of slavery (Takaki)
Institutionalization of slavery
--legal codes
--cultural dehumanization

II. African Response to Slavery

A. Adjustment to slave life
Cultural diversity
Cultural construction: Religion and Family
B. Regional variations of American slavery
Chesapeake (Virginia and Maryland)
Carolina and Georgia
Northern colonies
C. Resistance
Variations in level of resistance
--“saltwater” Africans
--plantation slaves
--house slaves
--artisan slaves
Rebellion
--Stono Rebellion, 1739
--New York City uprising, 1712





History 3310: Ethnic America
7 September 2006
Repeopling North America: British Colonial North America
Reading: Gjerde chap. 2, Dublin 1

I. Growth of a Diverse Population
A. Europeans in the Atlantic colonies
1650 50,000
1700 250,000
1750 1,000,000 (plus 250,000 African slaves)
B. Ethnic origin
17th century: English, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Germans, Scotch-Irish, French, Africans
18th century: English, Germans, Swiss, Irish, Africans
C. Socio/economic backgrounds
Nobility (smallest group)
Gentry
Yeoman farmers/Artisan shopkeepers
Indentured servants

II. Diverse Settlements
A. Dutch in New York
New Amsterdam, 1621
Anglo-Dutch Wars, 1650-1675
B. Quakers
Pennsylvania, 1680s
William Penn
Swiss Mennonites, 1710-1711
German Protestants, 1717
Scotch-Irish, 1718
C. French
Canada
Mississippi Valley

III. Discussion

According to historian Philip Morgan, the British North American colonies were a society “framed by a mingling of strangers.” The readings assigned so far explore the lives of those diverse “strangers.” Based on those readings, each small group will create a character to represent an individual colonial experience (sometime between 1607-1785). The assignment includes both a description of the character (gender, age, race, ethnic background, country of origin, socio-economic class, religion, place and time of settlement, etc.) and an analysis of the opportunities and problems encountered within the colonization experience. While your groups are creating fictional characters, they must be based on historical information.

To prepare for the assignment, carefully read and review the following: outlines and notes from Aug. 22-24-29-30 and Sep. 5; Takaki, chaps 2-3; Gjerde, chap 1 and chap 2 (including all documents and both articles); and Dublin chap 1.


History 3310: Ethnic America
12 September 2006
Defining the United States: The Tri-Colored Revolution
I. Indian/White Relations after 1763

A. French and Indian War
Peace of Paris, 1763
Pontiac’s resistance
Proclamation Line of 1763
Policy of separation

B. Confederation Government
Northwest Ordinance of 1787
Theory of “conquered people”
Land treaties: Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1784

“The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their land and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress, but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.” --Northwest Ordinance of 1787

C. Indian Policy under the Constitution
Policy of segregation
1794 Treaty of Greenville
1802 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act
1819 Indian Civilization Act

II. African Americans after 1763

A. Impact of the revolutionary war
B. African Americans in the New Republic
Thomas Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1781)
Phillis Wheatley
Benjamin Banneker
Slaves in the Constitution
American Colonization Society, 1817

III. Mixing of Peoples

A. European/Indian Mixing
“half-breed”
“white Indian”
Euro/American policy of non-assimilation
B. European/African Mixing
legal definitions of race
C. African/Indian Mixing


History 3310: Ethnic America
14 September 2006
Defining the United States: American Identity
Reading: Gjerde 3


Introduction: Legacy of 18th century immigration

I. Creating a National Consciousness

A. Ideological nature of American nationalism: Revolutionary principles
Liberty
Equality
Government by consent
B. Differing interpretations
Nation of “yeoman farmers”
Commerce and manufacturing

II. Characteristics of American nationality

A. Ideological quality
B. Newness
C. Future orientation

III. Crevecoeur’s “Melting Pot”

IV. Politics of naturalization

A. Naturalization Act of 1790
B. Naturalization Act of 1795
C. Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
D. Naturalization Act of 1798
E. Naturalization Act of 1802

V. Discussion

During the Revolutionary era, Americans discussed the issue of diversity from a variety of perspectives. The documents included in Gjerde’s chapter 3 represent some of those points of view. In addition, the article by Arthur Mann emphasizes that the diversity of the U.S. necessitated the creation of an American identity based on ideology. James Kettner explores the process of defining citizenship and the process of naturalization.

What were the legal and cultural structures of U.S. citizenship that developed during the Revolutionary era and up through the early nineteenth century? How well did the diverse individuals and groups who encountered each other in North America during the 17th and 18th centuries, and their descendants, fit into the new definition of what it meant to be an American culturally and legally in the early U.S.?




History 3310: Ethnic America
19 September 2006
Defining the United States: Expansion and Indian Removal
Reading: Takaki 4 (available on the course website “additional readings” or through Carlson library reserve) and Handout (print the handout and bring it to class)


I. Georgia-Cherokee controversy

Cherokee land issues
Cultural adjustment
Expansion and defense of homeland

II. President Andrew Jackson

A. Attitudes toward Native Americans and removal

B. Removal and regulation

Strategies: land allotment and treaty
1830 Indian Removal Act
1834 Trade and Intercourse Act
1830 Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek
1832 Worcester v. Georgia
1835 Treaty of New Echota
John Ridge – Pro-removal faction
John Ross – Anti-removal faction

III. Trail of Tears

IV. Discussion (see handout) “The Indian Removal Act of 1830”

On Tuesday, September 19, the class will divide into small groups to discuss the Indian Removal Act of 1830. To prepare for the assignment, print and read the handout, and bring it with you to class on Wednesday. Read Takaki chap. 4 and review the previous material on the developing concept of an “American identity.” Think about the justifications for Indian removal. How did these justifications both reflect and contribute to the developing concept of “American identity” in the United States?



History 3310: Ethnic America
21 September 2006
Defining the United States: African-American Communities
Reading: Takaki 5 (available on the course website “additional readings” or through Carlson library reserve)

II. Free black communities

Richard Allen
African Methodist Episcopal Church
Racism in the north
Free blacks in the south

III. Slave culture

“Was Sambo Real?”
Resilience of African heritage

IV. Resistance and rebellion

A. Running away

Underground Railroad
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth

B. Revolt

Gabriel Prosser, 1800
Denmark Vesey, 1822
David Walker, 1829
Nat Turner, 1831

V. Abolitionism

Ending slave imports, 1808
William Lloyd Garrison
David Walker
Dred Scot case, 1857
13th, 14th, 15th Amendments


History 3310: Ethnic America
28 September 2006
Land of Opportunity: Century of Immigration
Reading: Gjerde 4, Dublin 2-3 and handout

I. Introduction: Century of Immigration, 1820-1924

A. World wide migration
B. America as Europe’s frontier
C. Two major peaks
“Old immigration” (northern and western Europe)
“New immigration” (southern and eastern Europe)

II. The Migration Experience

A. Push, pull, enabling factors
Economic conditions
Immigrant letters
Image of America
Chain migration
Return migration
B. Demographic characteristics: Age, Gender, Skilled/unskilled workers, Farmers

III. Confronting Capitalism

A. World capitalism after 1800
B. Capitalism as an agent of social change
Emergence of a world-wide market for labor
Heightened cultural exchange
Immigrants transplanted to America after 1820: “children of capitalism”

IV. Pioneers of the Century of Immigration

A. The Irish
Pre-famine migration
Creating an Irish Catholic American ethnic group
The famine years
Potato blight in Ireland, 1840s
Emigration as “exile”
Impact on American Catholic Church
B. The Germans
Emigration as a response to economic changes
Re-establishing traditions in America
German Jews
Language and culture


History 3310: Ethnic America
3 October 2006
Land of Opportunity: Nativism
Reading: Gjerde 5

I. Introduction

A. American identity and self image
B. Perceived threats to the ideal
African Americans
--American Colonization Society
Native Americans
--Indian Removal Act of 1830
Chicanos
--Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848

II. Pre-Civil War Nativism

A. Irish Catholics
Urban poverty
Anti-Catholicism
--Samuel F.B. Morse
--Maria Monk
Protestant reform movements
--temperance
--public schools
--abolitionism
Anti-Catholic violence
B. Know Nothing movement
American Party

III. Civil War era ethnic conflicts

A. Immigrant soldiers
B. Immigrant opponents of the war
New York City draft riots

IV. Discussion

The documents in Chapter 5 of the Gjerde book illustrate the development of a nativist movement in the decades prior to the Civil War that culminated in the creation of the Know-Nothing party. The writers express a variety of concerns among American-born whites in response to increasing immigration. Come to class prepared to discuss the concerns of each of the document authors. How did these individuals define what it meant to be American in the mid-nineteenth century?


History 3310: Ethnic America
3 October 2006
Land of Opportunity: Nativism
Reading: Gjerde 5

I. Introduction

A. American identity and self image
B. Perceived threats to the ideal
African Americans
--American Colonization Society
Native Americans
--Indian Removal Act of 1830
Chicanos
--Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848

II. Pre-Civil War Nativism

A. Irish Catholics
Urban poverty
Anti-Catholicism
--Samuel F.B. Morse
--Maria Monk
Protestant reform movements
--temperance
--public schools
--abolitionism
Anti-Catholic violence
B. Know Nothing movement
American Party

III. Civil War era ethnic conflicts

A. Immigrant soldiers
B. Immigrant opponents of the war
New York City draft riots

IV. Discussion

The documents in Chapter 5 of the Gjerde book illustrate the development of a nativist movement in the decades prior to the Civil War that culminated in the creation of the Know-Nothing party. The writers express a variety of concerns among American-born whites in response to increasing immigration. Come to class prepared to discuss the concerns of each of the document authors. How did these individuals define what it meant to be American in the mid-nineteenth century?


History 3310: Ethnic America
5 October 2006
Land of Opportunity: Networks of Migration
Reading: Gjerde 6, Dublin 4

I. Motivations and strategies

A. Industrial migration
homeland conditions
kinship and communal networks: chain migration
birds of passage (sojourners)
immigrant clusters: ethnic enclaves

B. Family economy
kinship associations: a cooperative ideal
--premigration traditions
--cultural homogeneity
--reality of the industrial workplace

II. The Church as an Ethnic Institution

A. Preserving ethnic identity: functions of the church
maintaining traditions and old world ties
collegiality and mutual assistance
parochial education
B. Divisions in church communities: Ethnic Catholics in America
establishment of national parishes
Irish hierarchy
leadership struggles
C. Other sources of fragmentation
old world background and status
differences over cultural retention
class stratification

III. Ethnic Organizations

A. Introduction: community aid for immigrants
B. Development of ethnic fraternal organizations
homeland mutual aid associations
early immigrant organizations in the U.S.
rise of organized leadership
competition for members
involvement in immigrant politics
growing strength and resources
support in the workplace
development of national organization and Americanization


History 3310: Ethnic America
10 October 2006
Land of Opportunity: Industrial Workers
Reading: Gjerde chap. 7, Dublin 5

I. Intro.: Increasing Immigration

II. Urban/Industrial Expansion

A. Finding employment
B. Growth of cities
living conditions
development of ethnic enclaves
--NYC Lower East Side
--Jacob Riis/tenement sweatshops
C. Ethnic industrial workforce
labor agents
recruitment and training/migration patterns
changing production process
ethnic clustering
D. Immigrant entrepreneurs and the middle class

III. Worker Organization

A. Skilled immigrants
B. Unskilled immigrants: tradition of cooperative activity
Use of “boycott”
--1902 protest of meat prices
Ethnic/religious traditions
--1910 Jewish shirtwaist workers oath
C. Ethnic diversity and labor unions
Did immigrant workers help or hinder the American labor movement?
D. Adjusting to new routines of labor
American/ethnic work values
E. Inter-ethnic cooperation
Japanese-Mexican Labor Association
F. Development of working class solidarity
Industrial Workers of the World
--William D. Haywood, 1905
Butchers in Chicago

IV. Discussion

The documents and readings in chapter 7 of Gjerde deal with the experiences of immigrants who moved into American cities and workplaces, both unfamiliar environments, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In an excerpt from his book, Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America, Herbert Gutman discusses “the frequent tension between different groups of men and women new to the machine and a changing American society.” To what “tensions” was Gutman referring? What strategies did immigrants develop to deal with these tensions?


History 3310: Ethnic America
12 October 2006
Immigrant Women
Reading: Gjerde 8, Dublin 6, Handout

I. Women as Immigrants

A. From minority to majority (see handout)
Numbers of women in the immigrant stream
Ethnic variations
B. Women and naturalization law
Derivative citizenship
Citizenship of Married Women Act of 1855
The Expatriation Act of 1907
Married Woman’s Act (“Cable Act”) of 1922
C. Finding women’s voices in the historical record

II. Immigrant Women and Work

A. Married women
Restraints keeping women at home
Forces pushing women to work outside of the home
B. Unmarried women
Haisa Diner: Why did Irish women marry late or not at all?

III. Immigrant Women in the Home

A. Wives/mothers as household managers
B. Immigrant daughters
Vicki Ruiz: What forces created tensions between generations in Mexican American homes?

IV. Urban Reformers and Immigrant Families

A. Jane Addams
B. Cultural conflicts
What differences between old world and new world values were revealed as immigrant families adjusted to life in the U.S.?


History 3310: Ethnic America
19 October 2006
Limits to Equality: El Norte Borderland
Reading: Dublin 7, handout (print and bring to class)

I. Mexican migration, 1910-1930

A. Immigration prior to World War I
railroad transportation
Mexican International Railroad
Mexican revolution
conditions in Mexico
U.S. demand for labor
agriculture: Newlands Act, 1902, migrant camps
urban work: canneries, steel mills, railroads
B. World War I era immigration
C. Areas of settlement

II. Life in the U.S.

A. Discrimination
segregation
differential wages
racialist attitudes/ethnic stereotypes
Texas Rangers
B. Labor struggles
1917 mine strikes
Mexican radicalism
Confederation of Mexican Labor Unions
Imperial Valley Workers’ Union
1933 San Joaquin Valley strike

III. Barrios: Mexican-American Communities

A. Increasing population
Texas
California
B. Mexican-American culture

IV. Discussion

(see handout) “Pedro Grada’s Speech before the Congreso Mexicanista (1911) Laredo, Texas”

On Thursday, October 19, the class will divide into small groups to discuss Ernesto Galarza’s narrative and a speech by Pedro Grada advising delegates at the Congreso Mexicanista that their problems could be solved if addressed in a spirit of unity. Read both documents before coming to class. Think about the problems faced by Mexican immigrants who came to the U.S. in the early twentieth centuries and the ways that both Galarza and Grada addressed those issues.


History 3310: Ethnic America
24 October 2006
Limits to Equality: Race and Separation in the U.S.


I. The Triumph of Racism

A. African-Americans

1. Disfranchisement
Fifteenth Amendment
Williams v. Mississippi 1898
2. Legalized segregation
Civil Rights Cases 1883
Plessy v. Ferguson 1896
Jim Crow Laws
Violence and lynching

B. Indians after the Civil War

1. Military clashes and peace policy
Sand Creek Massacre 1864
Indian Appropriations Act 1871
Francis Walker
Sioux in the Black Hills
2. Resistance: Ghost Dance Religion
Wovoka/Jack Wilson
Wounded Knee Massacre 1890
3. Dawes Severalty Act 1887
4. Carlisle Schools and Americanization
Gen. Richard H. Pratt
Indian Citizenship Act 1924

II. Imperialism and race

A. Anglo Saxonism and redeemer nation
John Fiske
Josiah Strong, Our Country 1885

B. Hawaii
Queen Liliuokalani
Sanford B. Dole

C. Spanish American Cuban Philippine War
USS Maine 1898
Treaty of Paris
Emilio Aguinaldo
Supporters and opponents of Philippine annexation


History 3310: Ethnic America
26 October 2006
Limits to Equality: Racializing Immigrants
Reading: Gjerde 9


I. Cultural racism: World’s Fairs

A. Columbian Exposition (1893)

B. St. Louis World’s Fair (1904)

II. “Scientific” racism: defining who is “white” in America

A. Madison Grant
“The Passing of the Great Race”

B. Eugenics movement
Charles B. Davenport

C. Legal definitions of “whiteness”
Ozawa v. United States, 1922
Thind v. United States, 1923

III. Discussion

The documents in Gjerde chap. 9 illustrate changes in ways of thinking regarding race and immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, Madison Grant and others promoted a new conceptualization of race that included making distinctions among European peoples. On Thursday, October 26, the class will divide into small groups to discuss themes of racialization during the early 20th century. To prepare for the assignment, read Gjerde chapter 9 and bring the book to class with you on Thursday. What differences between “races” do the documents describe? How were the criticisms of the “new immigrants” from Europe similar to those expressed about Chinese and Mexican immigrants?


History 3310: Ethnic America
31 October 2006
Limits to Equality: Immigration Restriction
Reading: Gjerde 10, Ngai 1
I. Introduction: movement toward restriction
II. Immigration restriction
A. The Page Law, 1875
B. Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882
C. Additional restrictions
Regulation of Immigration Act, 1882
--“convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself”
Contract Labor Law, 1885
Act of March 3, 1891
--“paupers . . . contagious diseases . . .polygamists”

D. Immigration bureaucracy
Bureau of Immigration
Ellis Island, 1892

E. Agitation for further restriction: politics, depression, labor
American Protective Association
Immigration Restriction League

F. Executive Order No. 589: “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” 1907

G. Dillingham Commission Report, 1911

H. Quota restrictions
Immigration Act of 1921
National Origins Quota Act of 1924

III. Symbols of Americanism

A. Statue of Liberty

B. Israel Zangwill’s “The Melting Pot”

C. Americanization in the workplace
Ford Motor Company

History 3310: Ethnic America
2 November 2006
Limits to Equality: Deportation and Defining “American”
Reading: Ngai 2


I. Introduction: Defining the border

II. Border crossings

A. Federal responsibility
Office of the Superintendent of Immigration 1891 Department of Treasury
B. Establishment of U.S. border controls
Immigration Service
Federal immigration station on Ellis Island, 2 January 1892

III. The southwest border

A. Bureau of Immigration transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor 1903
B. “Illegal immigrants” and “Mexican commuters”
C. Leonidas B. Giles, immigrant inspector on the U.S.-Mexican border

IV. Expansion of southern border control

A. Creation of Mexican Border District under Frank W. Berkshire 1907
B. Appointment of Marcus Braun to investigate illegal crossings 1907
Legitimate and illegitimate immigrants
C. Border crossings after the Mexican Revolution 1910
D. U.S. Border Patrol 1924


History 3310: Ethnic America
9 November 2006
Immigrants, Work, Community: America on Ethnic Terms
Reading: Gjerde 11 (and review John Higham, “The Varieties of Ethnic Pluralism in American Thought,” Gjerde pp. 332-341)


I. Intro.: Promise of Assimilation

A. Melting Pot: Israel Zangwill
B. Americanization
C. Cultural Pluralism: Horace M. Kallen, “Democracy versus the Melting Pot” (1915)

To what extent did any of the theories of assimilation apply to the reality of the immigrant experience?

II. Recreating Traditional Cultures

A. “a mediating culture of everyday life”
B. Folklife
Functional folkways
Song and dance
Theater
Folktales, proverbs, stories
C. Selective schooling
The Gary Plan, William Wirt
Religious and folk schools
D. Immigrant politics
Tied to concerns of family and community
Religion as a shaping force of politics
Homeland causes
Local level politics
The political boss and local machine politics


History 3310: Ethnic America
14 November 2006
Immigrants, Work, Community: Workers on the Margins
Reading: Ngai 3


I. Asian immigrants, agricultural growth, and the demand for labor

A. Chinese workers

B. Increase in Japanese workers

Settlement and agricultural development
Alien Land Law 1913

II. Asian Indians: Hindus

A. Patterns of worker migration

B. Discrimination and violence

Anti-Hindu riot in Bellingham, Washington 1907

C. Asian Indians on the margins

Thind case 1923
Dillingham Commission Report 1911
“Asiatic barred zone” 1917
“Aliens ineligible to citizenship” 1924

III. Filipino immigration

A. U.S. annexation of the Philippine Islands 1898

B. Filipino status in the U.S.: “non-citizen nationals”

C. Demand for Filipino labor and anti-Filipino discrimination

Creation of stereotypes
Differences from other Asian immigrants
Revising the miscegenation laws in California
Violence against Filipinos

D. Philippine independence and Filipino exclusion

Tydings-McDuffie Act 1934


History 3310: Ethnic America
16 November 2006
Immigrants, Work, Community: The Great Depression
Reading: Gjerde 12, Handout, (and review Lizabeth Cohen, “The Impact of the Great Depression on Local Ethnic Institutions in Chicago,” Gjerde pp. 360-370)


I. Reduction of immigration

A. Enforcement of restriction laws
B. Economic downturn

II. Impact on ethnic cultural retention

A. Increased use of English language
B. General ethnic unity in politics
Anton Cermak, Chicago mayor
Alfred E. Smith, New York governor
Franklin Roosevelt, U.S. president
C. Local ethnic communities

III. Maintaining restriction in an era of world crisis

A. Rise of Hitler
B. Opposition in U.S. to changing laws
labor unions
isolationists
racialists
Wagner-Rogers Bill 1939
Oswego refugees
C. European Americans during World War II
German Americans
Italian Americans
Alien Registration Act 1940

IV. Mexican Repatriation
increased oversight of immigrants
local laws barring immigrant labor
removal of Mexican immigrants
decline of Mexican population in the U.S.: Texas, California, Illinois-Indiana

V. Discussion

In her article “The Impact of the Great Depression on Local Ethnic Institutions in Chicago,” (Gjerde pp. 360-370), Lizabeth Cohen examines the ways that the economic downturn of the 1930s affected traditional community structures in ethnic neighborhoods. What impact did the Great Depression have on traditional ethnic institutions? How did these changes influence the retention of ethnic community identity?


History 3310: Ethnic America
21 November 2006
Immigrants, Work, Community: Braceros and Redrawing Class Lines
Reading: Ngai 4, Handout


I. Introduction: creating the “illegal immigration problem”

II. Depression and repatriation

Ridding the country of “workers no longer needed”
Racializing Mexicans: the 1930 census

III. Creating the Bracero program

U.S. and Mexico Bracero Treaty 1942
Continuation of the program 1948-1951
Public Law 78 (1951)
Braceros and “wetbacks”

IV. Migrant labor conditions in the U.S.

Farm Security Administration
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
G.I. Forum in Texas
National Farm Workers Association (NFWA)

V. Evaluation of the Bracero program

Importance to agricultural economy
Increased use of undocumented workers
No sanctions for U.S. employers
Operation Wetback 1954
Bracero program ends 1964

VI. Discussion

According to Mae Ngai: “Mexicans comprised a transnational labor force that included seasonal migrants as well as immigrants and U.S.-born Mexican Americans.” This labor force, she contends, represented an “imported colonialism” that resulted from U.S. immigration laws and practices. Based on your reading of chapter 4 in Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of America, write an essay that discusses the creation of a “migratory agricultural proletariat” in the U.S. Be sure to consider both legal processes and cultural understandings in your answer.


History 3310: Ethnic America
28 November 2006
Moving Toward Multiculturalism: World War II and Asian Americans
Reading: Ngai 5-6, Dublin 8 (and review the documents and articles in Gjerde chap. 12)

I. U.S. minorities and the World War II experience
A. Native Americans
Navaho Code Talkers
B. Mexican Americans
“Americans All” slogan
Zoot suit riots, 1943 Los Angeles
C. African Americans
Migration north
“Double V” campaign
Executive Order 8802 (1941)
Riots in Detroit and Harlem, 1943

II. Asian Americans and the World War II experience
A. Chinese Americans
Repeal of Chinese Exclusion Law, 1943
B. Japanese Americans
John L. DeWitt, Western Defense Command
Support of major politicians and the press
Calif. Governor Culbert Olsen (Dem.)
Calif. Atty. General Earl Warren (Rep.)
Los Angeles Times
U.S. Sec. of War Henry L. Stimson
U.S. Atty. Gen. Francis Biddle
FDR’s Executive Order 9066, 19 Feb. 1942
War Relocation Authority
Government loyalty tests
442nd Regimental Combat Team
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Civil Liberties Act of 1988

III. Discussion

Japan's attack on the U.S. naval station at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, propelled the United States into World War II (1939-1945). In February 1942, amid an atmosphere of panic, recrimination, and total mobilization, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 authorizing the evacuation of all Japanese-Americans and Japanese nationals living on the West Coast. They were sent to hastily erected internment camps in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas. Although Roosevelt closed the internment camps in 1945, the federal government remained unwilling to acknowledge its poor treatment of Japanese Americans. In 1980, Congress created the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. The commission summed up its findings in a book entitled Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, in which the internment was called a “grave injustice.” Later, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which compensated each Japanese American who had been interned with a $20,000 payment and a formal apology from the United States.

To prepare for the discussion, read and review the following: In preparation for the discussion, please carefully read "Yoshiko Uchida, A Japanese American Woman, Remembers her Family's Relocation During World War II" (Gjerde pp. 387-389), Roger Daniel's article "World War II and the Forced Relocation of Japanese Americans" (Gjerde pp. 395-404), “Kazuko Itoi: A Nisei Daughter’s Story, 1925-1942” (Dublin pp. 234-259), Mae M. Ngai chapter 5, and the excerpt from the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (below).

Think about the impact that internment had on Japanese American community and cultural retention as well as issues of citizenship. How did the U.S. government justify the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans, a large percentage of whom were American citizens? Were the apology and payment of compensation to former internees appropriate actions for the government to take in 1988? Why or why not?

Excerpt from: Civil Liberties Act of 1988

(U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 102, 1988, 903-4.)

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESS

(a) WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUALS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY.--The Congress recognizes that, as described by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II. As the Commission documents, these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. The excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for which appropriate compensation has not been made. For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation


History 3310: Ethnic America
30 November 2006
Moving Toward Multiculturalism: Changing the Rules for Immigration
Reading: Ngai 7 and Epilogue


I. Post World War II

A. Refugees
Displaced Persons Act 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
B. Maintaining the Quota System
Senator Pat McCarran
McCarran-Walter Act (Immigration and Naturalization Act) 1952
Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 1953
Rep. Francis Walter
Sen. Herbert Lehman and the struggle for reform

II. Cold War and Ethnic America

A. Anti-communist crusade
B. Republican ascendancy
C. 1950s: homogeneity or cultural diversity?

III. Toward Modern Ethnic America

A. 1960s-1980s modifying goals of assimilation
B. Abandoning old quota laws
Hart-Celler Act (Immigration Act) 1965
Refugee Act 1980
Immigration Act of 1986

IV. Nativism in the 1980s and 1990s

Discussion

According to Mae Ngai, in chapter 7 of Impossible Subjects, “the thinking that impelled immigration reform in the decades following World War II developed along a trajectory that combined liberal pluralism and nationalism.” The result was that the Immigration Act of 1965, traditionally interpreted as a liberal reform measure, contained both inclusionary and exclusionary features. What historical forces influenced the development of both post war liberal pluralism and nationalism? What were the main arguments that influenced the development of immigration reform in 1965? How did the law contribute to an increasing identification of “illegal aliens” as “Mexicans”?

History 3310: Ethnic America
5 December 2006
Moving Toward Multiculturalism: New Immigration and Diversity
Reading: Gjerde 13-14, Dublin 9-10


I. Introduction: Redefining Ethnic America

II. New Immigration in the 1970s and 1980s

A. Indochinese and Cubans
B. Dispersal policy

III. Race Relations and Ethnic Diversity

A. Political demand for public recognition
B. Court action and nonviolent protest
Brown v. Board of Education 1954
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
C. Militant movements and focus on African-American culture
Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Malcolm X

IV. Model for Cultural Diversity

A. Native Americans
American Indian Movement
Occupation of Alcatraz Island
Dennis Banks and Russell Means
B. Hispanics
Chicano movement
“Atzlan” 1969

V. Changes in Assimilationist Theory

A. Re-emergence of cultural pluralism
B. New ethnicity
“PIGS” 1972

VI. Student Evaluations


History 3310: Ethnic America
7 December 2006
Moving Toward Multiculturalism: Immigration Reform

Paper is due


I. Nativism in the 1980s and 1990s

A. Debate over immigration focused on Hispanics—“browning of America”
B. FAIR Federation for American Immigration Reform
C. US English: Dr. John Tanton
D. Arguments for restriction

II. Liberty weekend 1986

III. Legal reform

A. The Immigration Act of 1990
B. California’s Proposition 187

IV. Why immigration and assimilation remain issues in the U.S.

Essay Instructions: For this project you will write a paper that demonstrates your understanding US Immigration issues and offers a realistic solution to one aspect. . Now I do not expect you to solve this complex issue in your paper anymore than I expect you to find a solution to end war on our planet. I ask that you remark on your knowledge and perception of US Immigration issues prior to this class and how it has changed if at all. I suggest you pick one aspect to discuss and address. I have chosen the topic Migrant Workers and stay focused on that aspect and solution, please.