Who do White Americans actually see as White? Footnote 1 Figuring out how Whites decide who fits into their group is key to understanding the social and political place of those living on the edges of Whiteness. In the US, Whites hold the dominant ethnoracial spot and carry certain privileges because of it. Footnote 2 Being White brings both psychological comfort and material advantages (Galonnier Reference Galonnier2015b). These perks range from easier access to housing and loans (e. g., Thurston Reference Thurston2018), healthcare (e. g., Hoberman Reference Hoberman2012), job opportunities (e. g., Kalleberg, Reskin, and Hudson Reference Kalleberg, Reskin and Hudson2000), education (e. g., Farkas Reference Farkas2003), to even cleaner air (e. g., Ash and Boyce Reference Ash and Boyce2018). W. E. B. Du Bois (Reference Du Bois1935, 700) called this the “public and psychological wage” that Whites get: “They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were [W]hite.” But central to these “wages of Whiteness” is figuring out who counts as White. The line between those considered White and those not keeps power and privilege mostly for those seen as sufficiently White. And it’s mainly White Americans themselves who decide who gets included or left out.
To truly gain these benefits tied to Whiteness, people have to be recognized as White not just by non-Whites but by other Whites too. A lot depends on others’ social, economic, or political choices-like in giving credit, medical treatment, hiring decisions, rules enforcement-and whether they think someone is White. Since Whiteness is a tricky social idea without clear boundaries, understanding how folks make these judgments helps explain both privilege for some and exclusion for others with unclear racial identities.
One way to look at how Whites apply Whiteness is through racialization-the process where society attaches racial meaning based on traits like religion or origin region then sorts people into broad groups (Miles Reference Miles2004, 102). There’s been a bunch written about religious racialization especially regarding Muslims (Al-Saji Reference Al-Saji and Lee2014; Aziz Reference Aziz2022; Bayoumi Reference Bayoumi2006; Beydoun Reference Beydoun2013; Considine Reference Considine2017; Fourlas Reference Fourlas2015; Galonnier Reference Galonnier2015a; Garner and Selod Reference Garner and Selod2015; Jamal and Sinno Reference Jamal and S. H. Sinno2009; Meer Reference Meer2013) or people from Middle Eastern or North African areas (MENA; Ajrouch Reference Ajrouch2005; Ajrouch and Jamal Reference Ajrouch and Jamal2007; Awad, Hashem, and Nguyen Reference Awad, Hashem and Nguyen2021; Beydoun Reference Beydoun2013; Cainkar Reference Cainkar2009; Gualtieri Reference Gualtieri2009; Maghbouleh Reference Maghbouleh2017; Naber References Naber2000 & 2012). This article adds new data from a survey experiment showing how religion combined with country affects whether someone is seen as White – focusing on Muslim & MENA cases. The study finds that when deciding who’s White, many White Americans look at both where a person comes from AND their religion.
MENA folks are an interesting example since legally they’ve been classified as White in the US since 1909-and officially in 1977-but due to being racialized alongside Muslims (Bayoumi et al.; Beydoun et al.; Lajevardi et al.; Maghbouleh et al.; Naber), society often doesn’t treat them that way broadly speaking. Muslim identity itself blurs lines: while it’s religious by nature it often acts like a racial label too-meaning MENA Muslims AND white converts to Islam are technically “racially white,” yet they’re also part of a racialized religious group-and for MENA Muslims also a marginalized ethnic group. Both identities hover at the edge of whiteness but don’t really get its full benefits. Footnote 3 Indeed many face more hate crimes, surveillance checks by government agencies, school discrimination, and worse COVID outcomes than other non-MENA whites. Without an official MENA category distinct from white it’s harder to track their experiences well.
By looking at court rulings alongside survey data I show religion matters just as much as ancestral background when shaping if someone is labeled white or not. Being Muslim lowers chances that whites will call you white – same goes for coming from a MENA country when all else is equal. Specifically European Muslims tend not be seen as white compared with Christian Europeans. But even though Islam faces heavy racialization there’s still difference within that: Russian Muslims get assigned whiter status more often than Iranian Muslims which shows country still plays a role here too. And region alone can’t explain everything – Christian Iranians are more likely labeled white than Iranian Muslims proving religion weighs heavily too in setting whiteness boundaries which even influence skin tone perceptions: regardless of actual skin color whites tend to see muslims darker than Christians.
Framework and Hypotheses
Next up I’ll dive into what research says about Islam’s racialization along with Middle Eastern/North African individuals’ experience plus history behind how religion influenced MENA’s legal status as white here in America before laying out hypotheses for my study.
Racialization means “the extension of racial meaning to something previously unraced” per Omi & Winant’s definition (Reference Omi & Winant 2015). Racial classification forms the backbone of race-based systems – without sorting people by race you can’t build hierarchies based on race alone so understanding this process sheds light on power dynamics linked with race stuff happening socially & politically. But Omi & Winant’s description might miss newer ways groups change races over time or reclassify old groups(Garner & Selod). Footnote 4 For example many Muslim folks already fit into existing races like Asian/Black/White while MENAs are legally classified ‘White’. Here I expand ‘racialization’ beyond original sense-it’s about adding new meanings too. Including religion gives us extra insight into modern ethnicity politics + whiteness though studies have long explored religious groups’ racialization.
The Racialization of Islam
Scholars have focused much lately on how religious communities get treated racially especially around Muslims(Al-Saji et al.; Aziz et al.; Bayoumi et al.; Beydoun et al.; Considine et al.; Fourlas et al.; Galonnier et al.; Garner & Selod ; Jamal & Sinno ; Meer ). When religions like Islam get racialized it means beliefs/practices become tied closely with cultural traits acting almost like biological features(Aziz 2022). So Islam stops being just protected faith under First Amendment but turns into fixed trait folks judge you by(Garner & Selod ; Gotanda ).
Religion wasn’t always seen this way back then though-in medieval Europe Jews/Muslims faced discrimination but conversion could ‘cleanse’ them(Meer ; Thomas ). Over time differences became permanent so conversion couldn’t erase bloodlines(Bayoumi ; Goldstein ; Jordan ; Maryks ; Meer ; Soyer ; Thomas ). Spain’s Purity Of Blood laws targeted Jewish/Muslim converts claiming impurity despite baptism(Maryks ). Religion got locked together with ideas about body traits – Jews/Muslims viewed “black”/’unclean’ vs Christians “white”/pure(Meer ; Thomas ). This link between physical traits + religion laid groundwork for today’s ideas connecting race+religion. Meer writes “race was co-created alongside religion,” explaining how religious groups ended up getting treated through lens similar racism today. Aziz , Beydoun , Desmond-Harris , Garner/Selod , Said , Selod/Embrick note modern discrimination targeting non-Christians echoes racist patterns. This means religion now acts like fixed inherited characteristic(Aziz , Omi&Winant).
If religion can’t change easily then what does that mean when Muslim identity overlaps other races? Like can skin color alter perception if someone identifies Muslim? Questions arise around identifying non-Muslims mistaken for Muslim e. g., some South Asians or MENAs. And what about white converts? Footnote 6 These questions matter because they shake up traditional views on whiteness. Aziz puts it simply:”Whiteness shapes around faith just like skin color/hair/face”. That happened historically among Jewish/Muslim/Mormon Americans(Aziz , Goldstein , Moshin/Crosby , Reeve ) contrasting usual story USA tells about freedom/religion choice. Does choosing your faith equal changing your race?
This paper isn’t here simply saying “does religion affect whiteness?” but pushes further presenting evidence linking faith + origin region effects showing inclusion/exclusion via experimental methods using case studies around MENAs + Muslims. For instance do all Christians count automatically? Do all Muslims stay outside? My experiment tests if religious clues help shape boundary-setting around whiteness amid other factors.
The Racialization of MENA Individuals
People often mix up Muslim identities with Middle Eastern/North African ones but they’re different stories. Their removal from whiteness followed separate paths despite overlapping timelines. Even though courts legally made MENAs ‘White,’ public perception changed during mid-late twentieth century. Before WWII most Arab immigrants were Christian(Awad ; Cainkar ; Naber ), post-WWII saw more Muslim Arabs arrive. This shift mattered because Christians could integrate better among U. S Christian whites(Naber ). Courts generally allowed citizenship via whiteness easier for Christian Arabs. Muslims meanwhile stayed outsiders culturally(Kalkan/Layman/Uslaner, Lajevardi, Naber, Spruyt/Elchardus). So Islam partly explains why MENAs drifted away from being accepted as fully white-but wasn’t only factor.
Much came down to geopolitics between U. S./Middle East. For instance after Arab-Israeli war ’67 supporting Israel meant Arabs got painted anti-Israel which affected views inside U. S.(Naber) Although Israelis are mostly considered ‘white,’ conflict framed Arabs differently-more ethnic/religious enemies rather than two equally ‘white’ groups. Tensions kept rising through ’70s-‘80s including oil crisis where Arab nations hiked prices punishing U. S. for backing Israel triggering widespread negative stereotypes. US media started portraying MENAs/tied religions negatively particularly linking Iranians/Iranian revolution/oil shock/Iran hostage crisis(Naber).
By ’90s polls showed strong feelings Arabs = fanaticism(Cainkar) reflecting not just ethnic/race issues but tangled lines between ethnicity + belief. Post-9/11 things worsened drastically increasing attacks/surveillance against anyone identified/islamic/MENA(Abdelkarim, Ibish, Ibish&Stewart, Kaplan).
Again MUSLIMS ≠MENAS despite shared experiences/race-making processes. Public tends blur categories but research finds distinctions(Adida/Lo/Platas, Calfano/Lajevardi/Michelson, d’Urso/Bonilla). Question remains: if most whites think faith = choice(Aziz) yet origins aren’t changed, is country alone deciding inclusion? This article experimentally checks this using place-of-origin cues testing borders defining menas/muslims’ access/removal from whiteness.
This marginalizing relationship flows partly because menas associate strongly w/muslims. I next trace history showing early reliance on religiosity when courts decided menas = whitish legal status.
The Role of Religion in MENA Classification as White
MENAS legally counted as whites starting early 1900s officially confirmed mid-1970s. Today lots want distinct category instead, but back then many pushed hard seeking legal advantages granted only via ‘whiteness’: naturalized citizenship etc. After Naturalization Act1870 limited naturalizing rights largely only blacks+whites, many menas petitioned courts claiming their rightful inclusion. As court rulings determined ethnic classifications called “racial prerequisite” cases, this mainly involved asian, south east asian, middle eastern immigrants. Focus here only lies w/cases involving mena petitioners. I expanded prior work adding petitioner religions via judges notes/news stories. Table1 lays out major court rulings involving mena petitioners highlighting significance attached relating whitnesses eligibility linked directly w/religion(Footnote7).
Every single case featuring christian mena petitioners ended granting citizenship through claimed whitenness(Footnote8).
Table 1 MENA Prerequisite Cases
The earliest rulings favored mena petitioners consistently. Footnote9 Up until1925 every one granted citizenship considering petitioners christian. They regularly noted Christianity explicitly during coverage/judgments. Example case Halladjian1909Judge Lowell said,“A reasonable modesty may well remind Europeans that the origin.. was born in Palestine”(In re Halladjian1909).. No logic justified admitting Jews while excluding Syrian christians. Late1920smuslim immigration began notably(Gualtieri, Naber references).
Two later cases post1925 In re Feroz Din(1928)and In re Ahmed Hassan(1942) denied whitenness due chiefly cuz these were muslim males.
Judge Tuttle ruled Hassan dark skinned yet didn’t reject claim solely based pigmentation. He pointedly said arabs weren’t white due muslim culture gap relative europeans making assimilation unlikely(In re Ahmed Hassan1942).
Only one muslim deemed legitimately white was Ex parte Mohriez1944-a Saudi Arabian. If he’d been judged strictly apart geopolitical interests favoring saudi relations unclear he’d win otherwise(Bayoumi, Beydoun references Footnote10)
Court findings sparse yet precedent influential offering insights into historic ethnoracial assignments scholars studied histories(Bayoumi, Gualtieri Lopez Tehranian.)My addition highlights critical role played by petitioner’s faith throughout judicial reasoning.
This analysis suggests white americans have long used religion alongside ethnicity/background signals deciding who qualifies within whitishness categories. Yet do current whites follow same pattern considering ongoing benefits tied inclusion. It impacts peoples standing security livelihood although law designates them uniformly.(..)
Hypotheses
Literature supports idea muslims&menas faced exclusion despite formal legal ‘white’ tag. Court records point strongly toward combining birthplace+religion jointly maintaining barriers controlling access. But it’s unclear exactly which weighs heavier nor whether both together shape decisions. How do common americans use these clues assigning ‘white’?
First focus place birth. Many rely heavily seeing countries source info hinting at ethnicity eg Kenya→ black China→Asian Footnote11. Menas fall under legal ‘White.’
H1 : Respondents less likely assign individual born m enacountry versus European country ‘White,’ ceteris paribus.
This hypothesis compares primarily against Europeans base since literature centers mostly eurocentric definitions relating whitness identification.
Religion should affect assignment accord historical/legal patterns. Even person born nation recognized ‘white’, being muslim reduces chances rated similarly compared christian peers. Foot note12. Religion functions secondary signifier affecting evaluation among ostensibly ‘white’ origin populations.
H2 : Respondents less likely assign muslim individuals ‘White’ relative christians controlling other variables.
Christian base comparison chosen cause extant research indicates mainstream view links Americannness tightly w. white christianity(Citrin/Sears Devos/Banaji.)Even origins rooted countries presumed ‘white’, muslims remain relegated lower ranks relative christian counterparts.
Expect additive effect combining birthplace+faith. Literature stresses islam merges ethnicity geography creating intersecting markers implying simultaneity. Mensamembership conflated muslimgroup membership expected. Oppositely no variation predicted comparing : nonmuslim mensa/nonmensamuslim/both. If mutual exclusivity applies presence muslim status least favors whitness rank within mensa membership controlling constants :
H3 : Additive impact whereby dual muslimgroup mensamembership associates strongest likelihood rejection whitish assignment relative singular memberships ceteris paribus.
Perceptions assigned impacts hierarchical positionality Americalife. Curious whether responses reflect societal norms acceptance levels purely symbolic gesturing. Or respondents project origin+religious info onto assumed physical features. Image perception offers proxy measurement capturing orientalist stereotypes(Said Orientalism Ref.). Media perpetuates trope portraying orientals darker/backward/dangerous particularly towards muslim community(OSKOUII DANA BARRETO.)Testing perceived pigmentation measures manifestation bias assumptions connecting appearance/religiosity/geography. White assigned ratings expected align H1-H3 outcomes holding constant :
H4 : Perceived skin shade correlates positively inversely proportional rating likelihood individual assigned ‘White.’Specifically :
H4.1 : Originating mena country increases perceived darkness versus european counterpart controlling covariates.
H4.2 : Muslimgroup perceived darker than christian peer net confounds held constant.
H4.3: Additive interaction whereby dual muslin-menacombination receives darkest pigmentation rating compared singular factors adjusted controls.
Data Methods
I tested hypotheses using original survey experiment(described appendix online ethics practices detailed.)Participants told performing census recoding training randomly given profiles describing hypothetical persons whose nationality filled incorrectly under generic ‘other race.’Factors varied crossed design included nationality(Russia/Iran) plus Religion(muslim/christian).Experiment ran May52020-May92020 Lucid national quota sample1091 non-hispanic-non-mena whites. Pre-screen age check consent asked self-id demographics random assignment balanced sociodemographic variables. Detailed summary table two presented Appendix online. Demographic moderators modeled Appendix online.Each participant shown composite facial image blending Black-white-asian-latino http://faceresearch. org male face chosen avoiding confound hijab use female gender future work suggested explore gendered effects related religiosity/perception changes.Two main dependent measures collected: white assignment plus perceived skin pigmentation(scales General Social Survey lightest coded 110 darkest higher values mean darker tones).-For assignment respondents select best fitting category response coded binary indicating probable whitening sample sizes large enough detect moderate effect sizes reliably.
The same composite photo shown across treatments removed visual bias. Participants tasked assessing individuals general population would encounter real census coding environment minus real-life context participants knew task hypothetical reducing realism concerns. Potential noise randomizes across conditions affecting results conservatively. No pure control condition needed comparison treatment focuses test variations judging roles origins +religion simultaneously. By including Mena option avoids forcing misclassification allowing purer test role religions cues influencing classification. Informed consent adherence ethical standards maintained throughout study duration detailed appendix online.<H2 Class=A ResultsFindings support hypotheses123 partial support hypothesized skin tone variations(Hypothesis set four). Strong proof found confirming unique independent role played by religiosity beyond mere geography. MENAMUSLIM labels differ clearly demarcated separating iranian russian christian musulmans distinctly evaluated unlike full equivalence prediction. Substantial implications follow concerning enduring power structures embedded over centuries manifest today shaped perceptions determining belonging/disadvantage experienced minorities.<H3 Class=B Who Is Considered “White”?Figure two illustrates hypothesis one confidence intervals confirm place birth matters iranians significantly less likely categorized cistern russians regardless beliefs see appendix table nine regression detailed statistics. Russians chosen whitelist percentage high71percentvs Iranian51percent margin significant medium effect size rejecting null expectations confirming geographic basis sharp evaluator difference.Figure three reveals pronounced influence doctrinal preference impacting labeling patterns confirming hypothesis two Muslims consistently marked less frequently within whitelist scope comparative Christians detailed stats appendix ten regressions Christians nearly70percent marked Muslims near54percent gap significant small-to-medium magnitude. effect size confirms profound impact belief system coloring minority categorizing tendencies./PT />
Hypothesis three posits additive regional-belief interaction evident figure four depicting every subgroup breakdown Russian-Christian top chance eighty-one percent Iranian-Muslim lowest forty-four percent spread notable dsize great statistical strengthhighlighting joint forces shaping internal categorizations appendix eleven regressions clarifying patterns./ PT >
Examining conditioning reveals iranian-muslims far less likely whitelisted versus russian-muslim surprisingly suggesting birthplace retains sway independently confirming coexisting influence contrary total overlap assumption statistics solid appendix six tables15differencesmeans./ pt />Likewise contrasting iran-christians v iran-muslims affirms greater likelihood whitelist given faith remaining intact regardless shared roots opposite holds true implying meaningful weight attributed specifically ethos variable enhancing explanatory model./ pt />One notable discovery shows russian-muslim v iran-christians indifference statistically suggesting counterbalancing effects affirm additive rather than redundant explanatory model reinforcing major argument here./ pt /><H33 Class=B Who Looks Lighter Or Darker?Respondent judgments extended pigment assessments validating conceptual linkage tying coloration perceptions directly aligned categorization trends supporting fourth hypothesis subsets. Country influences show Russians lighter tint iranians slightly darker statistically borderline directional test acceptable theoretical expectations explained appendix twelve regression output./ pt />
Religious affiliation significant predictor lighting shades christians lighter avg score33 vs32muskum39overall scale units located qualitative position somewhat subtle yet supported confidently Appendix13 details multiple regression estimates showcase statistiquallyvalid finding./ pt />
Combined effects visible figure seven highlight iran-muslim rated darkest consistent cross comparisons disparities persisting regarding intercountry-religion intersections statistical table fourteen available appended./ pt />No significant differences appear comparing russian christians/mulsims likewise iran-christ supervised appear subdued contrasting intergroup findings emphasizing nuanced combinations important interpreting evaluations broadly./ pt />Summarizing key takeaways results confirm initial theoretical claims highlighting importance plural characteristics guiding ethnoracial assignments empirical evidences partially aligning pigment observations expanding interpretive frameworks recognizing deep-rooted intertwined socio-political-cultural bases informing current behaviors./ pt />Future work should consider respondent diversity beyond only-white perspectives explore black/multi-racial perspectives incorporate various nations include additional religions increase intersectionality add qualitative psychological mechanisms underlying observed phenomena importantly conduct longitudinal tracking observe evolving attitudes over time promising avenues emerge addressing complex realities inherent identity construction/social categorisation processes reflected herein./pt /><h2 Class=A Conclusion
This study confirms previous works illustrating prominence role played by religiosity besides geographical roots shaping popular understandings defining who belongs within American whiteness. Religious markers weigh heavily lowering odds recognition amidst otherwise seemingly homogeneous backgrounds evidenced markedly declining ratings amongst Iranian musicians vis-a-vis Russians underscoring divergence between official legal classifications societal everyday practices. Reasons traced historically tracing back century-old judicial precedents revealing continuity strengthening notion exclusive gatekeeping enforced relying complex dynamic incorporating cultural heritage beliefs frequently overlooked components influencing hierarchy positioning minority subjects residing precariously borderlines majority construct. Menamuslum american citizens find themselves caught paradoxically occupying liminal zones lacking full embrace unity notwithstanding statutory provisions facilitating external appearance integration. At core systemic benefits tied majority persist uneven application fueling disparities harms ranging societal inclusion protections health inequities educational biases institutional profiling consequent uneven opportunities experienced disproportionally undermining collective advancement. Notably ambiguous self-identification complicates disentangling voluntary distancing verses imposed segregation mechanisms calling attention further examination required clarifying boundaries continually contested crucial acknowledging sociological fluidity characterizing ethnoracial phenomena contemporary contexts. Broadly questioning taken-for-granted assumptions pertaining American-whitenesevidently necessary unpack layers fostering exclusive hierarchies revealing interplay multifaceted dimensions operated consciously subconsciously among diverse actors. Research illuminates need reassessing categorical rigidity opening dialogues promoting inclusiveness cognizant persistent structural inequalities demanding deliberate intervention multi-sector cooperation ensuring equitable participation everyone regardless subjective criteria externally imposed reaffirm fundamental democratic ideals underpinning national fabric responsive adaptive capable embracing complexity empowering all citizens equitably regarded respected accord dignity merits individuality collectively enriched coexistence thriving diversified society.
Source link
