Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Geopolitics of Eugenics and the Exclusion of Philippine Immigrants from the United
States
Author(s): James A. Tyner
Source: Geographical Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 54-73
Published by: American Geographical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/216140
Accessed: 24/09/2009 17:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ags.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Geographical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS AND THE EXCLUSION
OF PHILIPPINE IMMIGRANTS FROM
THE UNITED STATES
JAMES A. TYNER
ABSTRACT. From 1898 to 1936, Philippine immigrants were routinely excluded from the
United States,where incipient practicesof eugenic "science"and geopoliticswere informing
social policy. Concomitant with emergent theories of evolution, a geopolitically informed
eugenics forewarnedof possible racialcompetition and societaldegeneration.Immigration
legislation emerged as an effective social policy to exclude perceivedundesirable,and ra-
cially distinct, immigrant groups, ostensibly to protect race and state. Keywords:eugenics,
geopolitics,immigration,Philippines,racism.
AlfredRusselWallace,intimatedthat humansevolvedthroughvariousnaturallaws
of competition (Paul 1995).This reconfigurationof human evolution-and, by ex-
tension, of racialclassification-was adoptedby HerbertSpencer,who forthrightly
claimedthatpurposefulcrueltywasnature'smethod forbiologicalprogress(Tucker
1994, 26). The shift in racial research was ominous: No longer was the study of race
classificationmerelyan exercise.Abruptly,throughthe effortsof social Darwinists
like Spencer,raceswere thought to be engaged in a monumental competition for
survival (Haller 1995; Hawkins 1997). As the twentieth century approached, social
Darwinists in the United Statesevoked consternationthat society was tampering
with nature.Socialprogramsimplementedwithout the aid of sciencewere seen as
interferencewith the naturallawsof evolution.Progressin socialsciencewas needed
to understandthe implicationsof human interferenceand, if possible, providevi-
able solutions.Whatwas requiredwas controloverthe threefundamentalprocesses
of population change:fertility,mortality,andmigration.As Grantargued,"themost
practicaland hopeful method of race improvementis through the elimination of
the least desirableelementsin the nation by deprivingthem of the powerto contrib-
ute to futuregenerations"(1918,53).The emergentscienceof eugenicswas seen as a
viable remedy;from its outset, eugenics promised to link scientific advancement
and socialprogressby exercisingrationalcontroloverthe reproductiveprocessand,
hence, the very path of evolution (Tucker 1994, 55).
Although the eugenics movement reflected many variations within and among
countries, key similarities identify a eugenical discourse (Stepan 1991;Kuhl 1994;
Kevles 1995).Paramountin eugenical thinking was the presumptionof essential,
biological differencesamong races.Second, a eugenicaldiscoursemaintainedthat
the physicalproximityof disparateracesled inevitablyto both racialand societalde-
generation,aswell as to racialcompetitionand conflict.Lastly,a eugenicaldiscourse
counseledthatsocialprogramsshouldbe guidedbythe ameliorationof suchthreats;
for example,programsand solutionsshouldbe designedto staveoff racialdegenera-
tion and competition.
Eugenical solutions can broadly be classifiedas positive or negative (Stepan
1991;Kevles 1995). Positive eugenics include policies to increase the racial contribu-
tion of populations deemed the most desirable.In theirwidely used 1918textbook,
AppliedEugenics,PaulB. Popenoe and RoswellHill Johnsonarguedthat the birth-
rate of the Americanstock was too low and that, therefore,the most desirableseed
stockwas dying out and being supplantedby immigrants(1918,260). Citingstudies
on the fertilityratesof studentsand alumni of Vassar,BrynMawr,Mount Holyoke,
and WellesleyColleges,Popenoeand Johnsonconcludedthatthe most "fit"women
were delaying marriageand remaining single (p. 241). This was, they stressed,a
"greatharm"to the Caucasianrace.
Accordingto eugenicists,Nordics were not applyingproperbreedingphiloso-
phy, especially with regardto the selection of desirable mates (Davenport i1io;
GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS 57
the right to deprivethe murdererof his life so also it may annihilatethe hideous ser-
pent of hopelesslyvicious protoplasm.Hereis whereappropriatelegislationwill aid
in eugenics and in creating a healthier, saner society in the future" (1910, 16).
A geopolitically informed eugenical discourse demanded the identificationof
"inferior,""degenerate" peoples who threatenedthe securityof raceand state.Grant
capturedthese sentiments:"Thefundamentalquestion for this nation, aswell as for
the world atlarge,is forthe community ... to regulatebirthsby deprivingthe unfitof
the opportunityof leavingbehind posterityof theirown debasedtype. Our civiliza-
tion has mercifullyput an end to the cruel,wasteful,and indiscriminatedestruction
of the unfit by Nature,whereforeit is our duty,as exponents of that civilization,to
substitute scientific control, that civilization may be maintained" (1933, 353-354).
FIG. 2-The United States assumed the role of "benevolent" tutor to the Filipinos, as depicted in
this 1899 cartoon. (Illustration courtesy of the Jim Zwick Collection)
lPe rs Soap
throughout the media and Congressduring the late 1920S and early1930S over the
"Philippineproblem'"In manyrespects,the UnitedStateswas as dividedovergrant-
ing independenceto the Philippinesas it had been in debatingwhetherto colonize
the islands three decadesearlier.
Previousresearchhas examinedthe many nuancesof Philippineindependence
and Philippine exclusion, especiallythose argumentsrelatedto domestic politics
andeconomics (Friend1965; Brands1992; Golay1997). Whentheverdictcame,how-
ever, it had about it the air of reasoned authority,in a geopolitically informed
eugenical discourse that provided, ostensibly,scientific credibilityfor the policy-
makers'decisions.
GEOPOLITICS, EUGENICS, AND PHILIPPINE EXCLUSION
Pacific Coast" (1933,293). Specifically, Grant asserted that it was the immigration of
"45,ooo Filipinos [that] created serious problems in some regions, both by compet-
ing with native labor, and by paying attention to white girls, which is resented by the
Americans." To Grant, because few Filipinas immigrated, the Filipino men formed "a
socially undesirable and racially threatening element" (pp. 265, 294). In a telling
statement, V. S. McClatchy of the California Joint Immigration Committee wrote:
Thereis a basic racialor biological differencewhich does not permitof assimilation
or absorption of one raceby the other,and thereforethe presencein either country
of large groups of the other race must create friction and possible international
difficulty.The fault in such caseslies with neitherrace.The usual dislikeof one race
for another,frequentlyassumedto be purelya matterof prejudice,is perhapsreally
a wise provision of Nature,actingas a safe-guardagainstmiscegenation.(Quoted in
Brands1992, 149)
Between 1925 and 1931six court actions involving the question of Filipino inter-
marriage were filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. According to one of the
presiding judges in these cases,
the dominant raceof the country has a perfectright to exclude all other racesfrom
equal rights with its own people.... I regardthis question [of intermarriage]of far
reachingimportance.... Here we see a largebody of young men, ever-increasing,
working amongst us, associatingwith our citizens.... The question ought to be de-
termined whether or not they can come into this country and intermarrywith our
American girls or bring their Filipino girls here to intermarrywith our American
men.... The matter ought to be settled. (Quoted in Foster1932, 446)
In giving the court's decision, the judge ruled:
It is my full conviction, based upon what little scientific knowledge I have, and
mostly from my observation and from my readingof history,that the Negro race
will become highly civilized and become one of the great racesonly if it proceeds
within its own lines markedout by Natureand keeps its blood pure.And I havethe
same feeling with respectto other races.... I am quite satisfiedin my own mind ...
that the Filipino is a Malayand that the Malayis a Mongolian,just as much as the
white Americanis of the Teutonicrace,the Teutonicfamily,or of the Nordic family,
carryingit backto the Aryanfamily.Hence,it is my view that underthe code of Cali-
fornia as it now exists, intermarriagebetween a Filipino and a Caucasianwould be
void. (Quoted in Foster1932, 446)
Another judge, presiding in Watsonville, California, predicted that the "union of
East and West will produce a group that in all measures will be a detriment to the at-
tainment of a higher standard of man and woman-hood" (quoted in Almirol 1985,
400). Evocative of Ratzel's social Darwinism, the interracial relationships between
Filipinos and Whites were perceived to be harmful to both race and state. Remedy
was to be found in eugenic principles. The Immigration Study Commission of Sac-
ramento concluded that "immediate exclusion is tragically necessary to protect our
American seed stock" (quoted in Almirol 1985, 400; emphasis mine). Grant likewise
68 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW
ii.'' S ., I
FIG. 4-This 1899 stereoscope, entitled "ABetter Glassof Filipinos,"illustratesthe perception that
therewas more one "race"of Filipinos:the "better"class,who remainedin the Philippines and were
capableof self-government;and the "worse"class,who immigratedto the United States.(Illustration
courtesyof the Jim Zwick Collection)
designed to keep unwanted peoples from the shores of the United States, ostensibly
to retain the health and vigor of a dominant race. In 1924, following the Johnson-
Reed Immigration Act, U.S. Senator Albert Johnson wrote:
Ten years later we see that Philippine independence, granted by the Tydings-
McDuffie Act of 1934, also resulted from the culmination of nearly six decades of
racist sentiments and constitutes a manifest social control of space through restric-
tive immigration laws. In the words of Senator Millard Tydings, coauthor of the
Philippine Independence Act, "It is absolutely illogical to have an immigration pol-
icy to exclude Japanese and Chinese and permit Filipinos en masse to come into the
country.... If they continue to settle in certain areas they will come in conflict with
white labor ... and increase the opportunity for more racial prejudice and bad feel-
ings of all kinds" (quoted in Takaki1989, 331-332). Philippine independence, in other
words, originated out of fear of racial competition and conflict.
CONCLUSIONS
By 1946 Filipinos were no longer considered U.S. nationals and were immediately
subject to federal immigration law. Virtually all Philippine immigration was elimi-
nated; the Philippines was allocated an annual quota of just fifty migrants. This was
half the minimum quota that the 1924 act had established for all other non-Asian na-
tionalities (Hing 1993,35).Numerically, the effect of Philippine independence on im-
migration was dramatic. Whereas Philippine arrivals in the United States totaled
36,535 in 1931, only 72 entered in 1936 (Arnold, Minocha, and Fawcett 1987, Table 6. i).
Geopolitically, however, the United States entered into a period of neocolonialism
with the Philippines; independence was not intended to be detrimental to American
business interests (Shalom 1986).
The messages contained in this episode of U.S. immigration history extend be-
yond the events of the 1930s, and even beyond the international relations of the Phil-
ippines and the United States. The fear of racial and societal degeneration has not
disappeared. Western nations, in particular, are experiencing a disturbing resur-
gence of nativistic attitudes and discriminatory legislation, not unlike those es-
poused during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Throughout the
GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS 71
1980S and l990S, for example, the United Stateswitnessed a significant rise in the
number of organizationssupporting"EnglishOnly"movements,immigrationre-
strictions, citizenship reformmeasures,and the elimination of health careservices
(Tucker1994).Manyof these sentimentshavebeen introducedinto the popularme-
dia through diatribessuch as PeterBrimelow'sAlien Nation: CommonSenseabout
America's Immigration Disaster (1995).
During the autumn of 1996,accordingto the AssociatedPresswire service,Peter
Davis,the mayorof PortLincoln,Australia,said,"Ifyou area child of a mixedrace...
Asian-Caucasianor aboriginal-white,you are a mongrel and that'swhat happens
when you crossdogs or whatever."PaulineHanson,a memberof the AustralianPar-
liament, is also on recordas claimingthat Asiansare "swamping"the country.And
in France,Jean-MarieLe Pen, head of the far-rightNational Front,campaignedon
the France-for-the-Frenchtheme and statedhis belief in "racialinequality"and the
CCsuperiority of Frenchcivilization."
Accordingto David Sibley,"separationis partof the processof purification-it is
the means by which defilement or pollution is avoided"(1995,37). Jim Crow laws,
zoning restrictions,and antimiscegenationlawshavebeen employed to maintaina
separation of races. Immigration legislation, likewise, has historically been em-
ployed as a means of restrictingthe unwantedin the constructionof the state.A geo-
politically informed eugenical discourse provides, to the uninformed, scientific
credibilityto racist and discriminatorypracticesand policies.
REFERENCES