7 Race: Being Asian, Indigenous, and Latinx in the United States

It is essential to understand that systemic racism plays a significant role in contributing to social injustice in the United States. Racial injustice, which has roots in slavery and genocide, remains an essential issue in the United States today. Achieving social justice requires Americans to recognize and address systemic racism. This chapter explores the social concept of race, examining its historical evolution and impact in the United States through the lens of three racial populations.

Race as a Social Construct

Race is not rooted in biology; it is a social construct created by humans. The current concept of racial categories is a relatively recent development in human history (Kendi, 2016). In the English colonies, before racial categories had solidified, religious beliefs often determined people’s social status (Wilkerson, 2023). However, “the foundations of race and racist ideas were laid” (Kendi, 2016, p. 18). In the United States, racial categories are so deeply embedded in humans’ collective consciousness that even when confronted with science, “some human beings continue to perceive other human beings as excluded from the moral order of personhood” (Zimbardo, 2008, p. 307).

The National Human Genome Research Institute defines race as “a social construct used to group people. Race was constructed as a hierarchical human-grouping system, generating racial classifications to identify, distinguish, and marginalize some groups across nations and the world” (Bonham, 2024, para. 1). Categories of race, as used today, classify people into different groups based on observable and arbitrary physical characteristics, genetics, or other cultural differences (Bonham, 2024; Burton et al., 2010). Additionally, because race is a social construct, categorical definitions have been fluid, with determining factors based on need versus fact (Burton et al., 2010). In the United States, racial categories were created based on “European cultural values and traits, and hierarchy-making was wielded in the service of a political project: enslavement” (Kendi, 2016, p. 83).

Populations

Racism permeates the experiences of those living in the United States. Although race is a social construct, its construction has “created racial realities with real effects” (Burton et al., 2010, p. 444). While race has no biological basis, it has historically been used to stratify society and impact access to resources. Socially constructed identities such as race are critical factors in predicting life experiences, including education, income levels, health and healthcare access, and access to other resources. Stratification based on race has led to oppressive systems and significant issues with racism in the United States and throughout the world (Grzanka et al., 2019).

Racism can be overt and systemic as well as covert and individualized. An entire book could be written dissecting these issues, and many have been. While acknowledging that there are stories and experiences from all racial groups in the United States, we have chosen to focus this chapter on those of Asian, Indigenous, and Latinx people in the country.

Being Asian in the United States

Historically, the term Asian has been used to broadly define people from East, South, Central, and West Asia. Examples include people from China, Vietnam, Japan, and Malaysia. People from the Asian continent have been immigrating to the United States since colonial times, bringing their culture and religious beliefs with them (Ling, 2023). Being Asian in the United States is complicated by historical events, including Westward Expansion, legislation, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese internment, racism, and recent events such as anti-Asian hate associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As with other sections of this textbook, entire books can be written on this topic. We have chosen to highlight four dominant Asian groups in the United States: Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and Indian.

Historical Aspects of Being Chinese in the United States

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, both Europeans and colonists wanted Chinese goods. Tea, silk, and porcelain were all status symbols, and demand was high. As soon as America became independent, the government began direct trade with China. “Trade routes between the United States and China were well established by the 1830s” (Ling, 2023, p. 11). Asian immigration, however, is generally seen as more of a trickle until the 1850s, when gold was discovered in California.

The gold rush of the 1850s brought large numbers of Chinese immigrants to the United States. Most were men, and most arrived in California, specifically San Francisco (Lepore, 2018). “In the early 1850s, the number of Chinese in America increased dramatically—2,716 in 1851 and 20,026 in 1852. By 1882, when the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act ended large-scale Chinese immigration, there were about 300,000 Chinese living in the United States” (Ling, 2023, p. 18).

As with other ethnic and racial populations, stereotypes and rumors accompanied the Chinese men to the United States. Many saw Chinese laborers as a replacement for White laborers, and the term “yellow peril” came into fashion to describe this fear (Ling, 2023, p. 32).

“Yellow peril” referred to Western anxieties that Asians, particularly the Chinese, would take their land and undermine Western morals and values such as fairness, religion, and innovation. Additionally, stereotypes brought back from China by merchants, diplomats, and missionaries fueled anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. These stereotypes portrayed the Chinese as peculiar, eating dogs, cats, and rats, being dirty and arrogant, practicing infanticide, and being un-Christian.

The marginalization of the Chinese during the 1800s and 1900s involved more than just discrimination and slavery. Laws, policies, and taxes aimed at Chinese immigrants also impacted their experience in the United States. The first was a tax levied in California called The Foreign Miners’ License Tax. This tax required foreign miners to pay $2.50 a month to the government of California. While originally meant to exclude all foreign miners, this tax ended up becoming directed specifically against Chinese immigrants. “Between 1850 and 1970, the state collected five billion dollars, with nearly 95 percent paid by the Chinese” (Ling, 2023, p. 34). Nevada also taxed foreign miners, and Ling (2023) estimates as much as 96% of Chinese immigrants’ income was used to pay taxes during that time.

In 1860, inspired by the Foreign Miners’ Tax, a tax on Chinese immigrant fishermen was levied in California. Following this, other taxes targeting Chinese immigrants continued to be levied, such as taxes on small mass shrimp nets and laundromats, and head taxes, which taxed Chinese people coming into the harbor. In addition, alien land laws discouraged Chinese immigrants from settling in rural Western and Midwestern areas. California enacted the Alien Land Law in 1913, and many Chinese farmers had to put land in their children’s names or form a corporation under White attorneys to own land. Some scholars speculate that this may be why many Chinese immigrants ended up in more urban areas (Ling, 2023).

In addition to racist tax policy, exclusionary legal precedent also occurred during this time in United States history. Ling (2023) points out that hundreds of Chinese men were murdered during the first five years of the gold rush. One of those was Ling Sing. On August 9, 1853, a White miner named George Hall shot and killed Ling Sing, who was also a miner. Hall was convicted of the murder. Hall appealed his conviction, and the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Hall that “Asiatics” could not testify against White citizens in court (Ling, 2023, p. 36). The California Supreme Court then overturned Hall’s conviction. This decision was based on existing law that prevented both Black and Indigenous people from testifying in court (Blakemore, 2024, April 23).

People v. Hall set the stage for violence without consequence against Chinese immigrants. Tax collectors would tie up Chinese miners, often with their hair, and steal their tools, boots, and belongings. White miners would assault and murder Chinese men without consequences and often resorted to arson. Violence erupted in many Western cities, including Los Angeles, Denver, Tacoma, Seattle, and Bellingham (Washington), and Rock Springs (Wyoming) (Ling, 2023).

Racist attitudes soon spread to the urban areas of California as well, and Chinese immigrants were often forced to live outside city limits.

In 1858, the mayor of Mariposa, California, ordered that no one rent to the Chinese, as they cooked over open fires, lit firecrackers on holidays, and burned joss sticks before their gods. He declared Chinatown a fire hazard and that it should be demolished (Ling, 2023, p. 36).

Immigration Policy and Exclusion

The first national exclusion law aimed at Asian immigration was the Page Act of 1875. The Page Act was aimed at preventing both laborers and women from entering the United States from the Asian continent, but was primarily enforced against Chinese immigrants. It was commonly believed that most Chinese women coming into the United States did so as prostitutes. The Page Act required all women entering the United States to prove they were not prostitutes, and this often led to invasive and humiliating questions from United States immigration officials, who were given the power to admit or deny immigrants. The Page Act was relatively effective, and the gender imbalance in Chinese communities continued to skew male in the late 1800s. In addition, Chinese men were often discouraged from marrying outside their race, so many remained unmarried or returned to China (Rotondi, 2024).

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. This was the first law to ban a specific ethnic group from entering the United States, barring the entry of Chinese laborers for 10 years. Merchants, diplomats, students, teachers, and travelers were exempt. Under this law, Chinese laborers were required to get certification to enter the United States, and Chinese immigrants were excluded from United States citizenship (Ling, 2023).

On October 1, 1888, Congress passed the Scott Act, which expanded the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Scott Act suspended the system of reentry for Chinese laborers who had left the United States and wanted to return, establishing a system where Chinese laborers had to get a certificate from the United States government to return. Many struggled to gain reentry, even with the certificates, and it is estimated that the racist implementation of this law prevented the reentry of 20,000 Chinese laborers.

The Geary Act of 1892 expanded the Chinese Exclusion Act even further, extending the exclusion of Chinese immigrants for 10 more years. It mandated that all Chinese residents in the United States carry their certificates, and thus placed the burden of proof to remain in the United States on them. The Geary Act continued to target Chinese women under the assumption that they were coming to the United States to engage in prostitution. The 1882 Exclusion Act was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act, and again in 1902 when the restrictions on Chinese immigration were renewed indefinitely. The Geary Act regulated Chinese immigration well into the 20^th century (Ling, 2023).

Following World War I, Congress established a new immigration policy based on the 1890 census, utilizing quotas based on national origin. The limit for new immigrants was 2% of the nationality already living in the United States. In 1943, the Magnuson Act repealed all the Chinese Exclusion Acts, as China was a member of the Allied Nations during World War II. However, the quotas remained unchanged, and the annual limit for Chinese immigrants to the United States at that time was 105 (National Archives, 2023).

The Immigration Act of 1965 changed the quota system. Instead of focusing on Chinese immigrants, the United States set a limit of 170,000 immigrants from outside the Western Hemisphere, with a maximum of 20,000 from any one country. Factors that influenced approval included needed skills and the need for political asylum. In 2011 and 2012, the House and Congress condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act (National Archives, 2023).

Resistance to exclusionary law and policy came both officially from Asian governments and unofficially from protests of those affected. To protest the Chinese exclusion laws and the violence against people of Chinese descent in the United States, China began a nationwide anti-American boycott. Millions of Chinese in China and abroad responded to the call to boycott American goods. On September 22, 1892, nearly 200 English-speaking Chinese from the East Coast rallied at the Cooper Union in East Village in lower Manhattan to form the Chinese Equal Rights League (Ling, 2023).

Wong Chin Foo was not the only person voicing opposition. There were a multitude of court cases filed in response to the exclusionary legislation. Two cases often cited in the literature are Takao Ozawa v. the United States in 1922 and the US v. Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923. Takao Ozawa was born in Japan but grew up in California. He was Christian, spoke English, and fully integrated into the culture of the United States. Ozawa filed for citizenship in 1922, arguing that he should be considered White because of his acculturation. The United States government argued that White refers specifically to those who are Caucasian, which does not include people from Japan. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Ozawa and held that White people and Caucasians were the same (Tanaka, n.d.).

In 1923, Bhagat Singh Thind applied for United States citizenship. Thind was an Indian Sikh living in the United States who had served in World War I for the United States. Thind argued in the US v. Bhagat Singh Thind that he was scientifically part of the Caucasian race as the racial classification at the time considered Aryan individuals to be Caucasian, and Thind identified as Aryan. The government countered with the argument that Whiteness should be interpreted as the common understanding of White in American culture, not the scientific classification. The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Thind (Tanaka, n.d.).

Historical Aspects of Being Japanese in the United States

The Japanese population in the United States experienced discrimination to their Chinese counterparts in the late 19^th century. However, there were significantly fewer Japanese people in the mainland United States during that time. That said, between 1850 and 1920, more than 300,000 Asians emigrated to the Hawaiian Islands, most of them Japanese. Sugar production demanded labor, and much of that need was met by Japanese and other Asian workers. In the late 19^th century, going to Hawaii to earn money to pay off debt became popular amongst Japanese farmers. Many Japanese people went to Hawaii and, in lesser numbers, the mainland United States as contract workers. Between 1895 and 1908, private companies brought more than 130,000 Japanese workers to the United States. Most of these workers, 85%, were male (Ling, 2023).

In 1908, after one and a half years of negotiation, the Japanese and American governments came to a gentleman’s agreement on immigration. This non-binding, non-legal agreement stated that the Japanese government would control emigration and would no longer send laborers to the United States. It could, however, send business professionals, students, and family members of people already residing in the United States. The United States agreed to ensure better treatment of Japanese immigrants already living in the United States and promised to address discriminatory practices impacting Japanese immigrants (Ling, 2023).

One consequence of the gentleman’s agreement was the practice of bringing a picture bride to the United States. To enter the United States, a Japanese woman would marry her future husband in Japan by proxy and then join him in the United States as his wife. By 1908, more than 20,000 Japanese women had come to the United States as a picture bride. Starting in 1920, the Japanese government stopped issuing passports to picture brides (Ling, 2023).

Despite the gentleman’s agreement, life on the sugar plantations was hard. The living and working conditions were poor, and pay was low. By the 1870s, Japanese laborers significantly outnumbered the native Hawaiian and Chinese workers and were paid $10 to $15 a month. This contrasted with the average of $50 a month on the mainland. Plantation workers also lost wages to fines that were established to “discipline” them (Ling, 2023, p. 65). Drinking, gambling, fighting, insubordination, refusing work, trespassing, and breaking materials were all behaviors that could be fined. In addition to fines, Japanese workers faced whippings, beatings, and interethnic inequities intended to cause strife among workers as a form of control (Ling, 2023).

While systemic racism was used to control Japanese workers on sugar plantations, many still protested. Some resisted by calling in sick, minimizing their workload, or deserting their work before their contracts expired. Many Japanese workers also engaged in collective action, including multiple strikes. Generally, the strikes were organized by Japanese workers; however, at times, they collaborated with other Asian workers, including Chinese and Filipino workers. In response, plantation owners began to import workers from Korea. Korean workers did not engage with the Japanese workers due to animosity from Japan’s recent colonization of Korea, and the plantation owners took advantage of this (Ling, 2023).

Many Japanese workers moved to the mainland United States when their sugar plantation contracts expired. Between 1902 and 1906, almost 34,000 left Hawaii and settled in California and the Pacific Northwest. To support themselves, they sold fresh vegetables and fruit, engaged in retail work, or provided domestic service (Ling, 2023).

Japan entered World War I on the side of the Allied powers and became a global power due to its involvement in the war (Kiilleen, 2021). Japan and the United States had a history of diplomatic conflict over China and immigration; however, they came together for World War I. Once the war was won, however, conflict again erupted between the two nations (Office of the Historian, n.d.).

World War II began in 1939 with Germany’s invasion of Poland. While the United States did not immediately enter the war, it supported the Allied powers politically and financially. Tensions with Japan continued due to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and their full-scale invasion of China in 1937. In July of 1941, the United States imposed an embargo on oil exports to Japan in response to their aggression in Southeast Asia. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, a United States Navy base in Honolulu, Hawaii. The next day, the United States entered World War II by declaring war on Japan (History.com, 2010).

Ling (2023) points out that all Asian immigrants had faced discrimination in the United States; however, with the onset of World War II, public perceptions changed. “Chinese were now viewed as brave, heroic, honest, and hardworking allies, whereas Japanese were scorned as cowardly, conniving, and despicable enemies” (Ling, 2023, p. 107). Anti-Japanese sentiment reached “hysterical” levels (Ling, 2023, p. 108) following the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japanese American communities were subjected to government searches and confiscation of personal belongings in the name of national security.

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans. With Executive Order 9066, more than 40,000 Japanese people living on the West Coast of the United States and 70,000 of their American-born children were forced from their homes into internment camps. This event occurred under the guise of military necessity; however, it was heavily influenced by both political and public pressure (Ling, 2023).

In March of 1942, the military declared that all enemy aliens in Washington, Oregon, California, and part of Arizona had to move. This included people who were German, Italian, and Japanese. The Japanese order also included anyone with Japanese ancestry. In practice, few Germans and Italians were forced to move. However, the Wartime Civil Control Authority forced the evacuation of more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry (Ling, 2023).

Japanese Americans who were removed from the West Coast were given a week to prepare for evacuation and internment. They were only allowed to take what they could carry with them. The military moved them on buses and trains to assembly centers, often racetracks or fairgrounds, to be sorted into camps. Ten permanent internment camps were established, mainly in the desert and mountain areas of the West (Ling, 2023). Two camps were also located in Arkansas (The National WWII Museum, n.d.). Each camp was built to accommodate an average of 10,000 people (Ling, 2023).

Life at the camps was brutal. The camps were surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. Internees lived in army-style barracks, which offered little privacy or protection from the elements. Food and bathroom facilities were communal. Some Japanese men had jobs, including outside the camps, as farm workers. However, their compensation was significantly less than standard wages. As time went on, internees lost their homes and farms back home as they defaulted on mortgages (Ling, 2023).

While the Japanese internees had initially been cooperative with internment, resentment built over time. Protests erupted at the camps. The first occurred in November 1942, at Poston, Arizona. As internees performed most labor in the camps, the protest and subsequent strike were impactful. A larger mass protest broke out at Manzanar, California, on December 6, 1942 (Ling, 2023).

Interestingly, internment only occurred where Japanese people lived in small numbers. Japanese people in Hawaii did not face internment, as their removal would have devastated the Hawaiian economy. Ling (2023) also points out that

there were over a million unnaturalized natives of the Axis powers resident in the United States…all of whom were potential internees. However, Japanese people, two-thirds of them native-born citizens, were the only ones singled out for mass internment because of their smaller population and racial background. (p. 114)

In 1943, Japanese internees were subjected to loyalty tests. They were asked to renounce the Japanese emperor and state whether they would serve in the United States military. Many American-born Japanese people resented these tests and refused to cooperate, saying no to both questions. Those who did so, usually under protest, were labeled as disloyal and separated further from their families. As time went on, questions began to arise about why those who were deemed to be loyal were still interned. Pressure mounted for President Roosevelt to end the internment programs. He did so in December 1944 (The National WWII Museum, n.d.).

Most people released from the internment camps returned to the West Coast of the United States. When they returned, many had lost everything. Homes had been looted, businesses and farms seized. Anti-Japanese racism continued, and the newly released internees faced daily harassment and abuse, including violence. In addition, many were turned away at local businesses. In response, many Japanese Americans resettled again, building communities in Salt Lake City, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit (Ling, 2023).

On April 12, 1945, President Roosevelt died, and Harry Truman became his successor. In May 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered. However, Japan continued fighting and continued to inflict significant casualties on United States troops (History.com, 2010). In July 1945, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China met in Potsdam, Germany to discuss the terms for the end of the war. As part of these discussions, they called for Japanese to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. When Japan rejected the declaration, the United States retaliated with two atomic bombs (Atomic Heritage Foundation, n.d.)

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. On August 9, 1945, the United States dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered to the United States on August 15, 1945. Estimates suggest that more than 210,000 people were killed, either immediately or in the aftermath of the bombings (History.com, 2010). Following the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States occupied Japan until 1952 (Ling, 2023).

Historical Aspects of Being Indian in the United States

The initial emigrants from India to the United States came from the Punjab region. When the British annexed Punjab in 1849, they levied cash taxes on the local population, and many farmers lost their land. In response, people from Punjab either joined the British army or became migrant workers. Some of these migrants made the long journey from Punjab to the United States, where early Sikh migrants worked in lumber and railroads in California. Later, they turned to agriculture (Ling, 2023).

Much like other Asian populations, migrants from the Punjab region were primarily men. Due to racial marriage laws and the lack of Sikh women in the United States, many Sikhs married Mexican women (Ling 2023).

Many Sikh men worked in railroad construction at the turn of the century. Between 1903 and 1908, 2,000 Punjabi laborers worked on the Western Pacific Railroad in Northern California, building the section between Oakland and Salt Lake City. Most of these laborers were single men who lived in bunkhouses and provided their own food in collective cookhouses (Ling, 2023).

Prior to 1965, there was a very small population of Sikh or Punjabi immigrants in the United States. Post-World War II, most immigrants from India were professionals or students, and fewer were laborers. When Congress abolished national origin quotas in 1965, Indian immigration to the United States increased rapidly. As of 2022, Indian immigrants are the second largest immigration group, following Mexicans. Interestingly, the United States has recently seen a significant jump in unauthorized Indian arrivals at the United States-Mexico border (Hoffman & Batalova, 2022).

Historical Aspects of Being Filipino in the United States

One of the oldest Asian American communities in North America was a Filipino community established in the 1760s, when a group of Filipino sailors established a settlement in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana (Ling, 2023). In 1898, the United States annexed the Philippines from the Spanish for $20 million at the Treaty of Paris. The Filipinos objected to this and rebelled. This led to the Philippine Insurrection, or the Philippine-American War, which lasted three years. In 1916, Congress promised the Philippines would have eventual independence and, in 1946, the United States granted the Philippines independence (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2023).

Because the Philippines was an American territory, Filipinos were considered American nationals. As racist immigration policy took hold at the turn of the century, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese laborers were no longer coming to the United States. Hawaiian sugar plantations saw Filipinos as affordable labor and began to recruit Filipino workers. By the 1930s, more than 20,000 Filipinos had emigrated to Hawaii and more than 30,000 Filipinos re-emigrated from Hawaii to the mainland in the 1920s and 1930s after their initial labor contracts ended (Ling, 2023).

In 1934, Congress passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, otherwise known as the Philippine Independence Act. This act began the process of Filipino independence and reclassified all Filipinos as aliens. It also established a quota of 50 Filipino immigrants per year to the United States. This loss of national status for people from the Philippines led to a significant decrease in Filipino immigration. In 1935, the Filipino Repatriation Act offered free passage for Filipinos back to the Philippines. More than 2,000 Filipinos returned to their homeland this way (Ling, 2023).

The Contemporary Experience of Being Asian in the United States

Currently, the Asian population continues to grow in the United States. Between 2000 and 2019, Asian populations doubled, and the Pew Research Center states that by 2060, there will be more than 46 million people of Asian descent in the United States. Of these, the largest group is Chinese, followed by Indian Americans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans, and Japanese. Nearly half live in the Western half of the United States, with a third living in California. Asian immigrants, in general, are younger, less likely to live in poverty, and more likely than the average United States citizen to have a bachelor’s degree (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021).

Stereotypes and the Model Minority Myth

Since the 1960s, Asian Americans have been quite successful in the United States. Many have achieved educational, political, and occupational success. This was first noted in the press in 1966 with two articles detailing the socioeconomic achievements of Asian Americans, and this press coverage continued well into the 1980s (Ling, 2023). This success and the press response to it resulted in the stereotype of the “model minority” to describe Asian Americans. Ling states “Promoted by the popular press, the model minority image has since become a stereotype describing the socioeconomic success achieved by Asian Americans through hard work, respect for traditional values, and accommodation” (p. 181).

Ruiz et al. (2023) state that the model minority stereotype characterizes Asian Americans as high achieving, deferential to authority, intelligent, economically successful, and good at math and science. That said, many Asian people living in the United States do not identify or align with these characteristics, and many find this myth to impact both mental health and academic performance. Of the Asian Americans surveyed by Ruiz et al., only 44% of those surveyed had heard of the term “model minority” (p. 2). However, 63% stated that they have experienced someone thinking they were good at math or science in their day-to-day life. Many expressed that the stereotype has been harmful. Reasons include social pressure to succeed, all Asians being lumped into a monolithic culture, and stereotyping in the school environment.

The model minority stereotype also impacts other marginalized communities. This stereotype surfaced during the civil rights movement in direct contrast to Black and Latinx individuals fighting for equality (Ruiz et al., 2023). Often, the story of Asian American success in the United States is used to contrast the lack of success in Latinx and Black people in the United States, thus pitting different racial groups against each other (Ling, 2023; Ruiz et al., 2023). Ling (2023) states “The model minority theory has proven to be a useful and effective tool to triangulate race politics in America” (p. 182).

While seen as a model minority, Asian Americans also experience significant discrimination in the United States. Ruiz et al. (2023) state that 57% of Asian adults say discrimination is a major problem, and 33% say it is a minor problem. Examples of discrimination include offensive name-calling, suspicion of dishonesty, housing discrimination, workplace discrimination, and intimidation. In addition, participants discussed being bullied and harassed. Indian and Muslim Asians also report racial profiling regarding terrorism both by day-to-day people and airport security. They report this racial profiling has significantly increased since the September 11^th terrorist attacks (Ruiz et al., 2023).

The COVID-19 Pandemic

Asian Americans were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a multitude of ways. One survey found that 51% of Chinese restaurants closed due to the pandemic, a significantly higher percentage than other types of restaurants. Much of this has been attributed to stereotypes about Chinese Americans and the origin of the COVID-19 virus (Ling, 2023). According to federal statistics, there has been a spike in hate crimes against Asian Americans since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, peaking in 2021 (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2023). Ling states “On February 9, 2021, Stop AAPI Hate reported over 2,808 cases of hate crimes against Asian Americans from March 19 to December 2020 in forty-seven states and Washington, D.C.” (p. 243). Incidents included bullying, shunning, physical assault, spitting, and using terminology such as the “Chinese Virus” or “Wuhan Flu” to describe COVID-19 (Ling, 2023; Ruiz et al., 2023). In addition, Asian Americans reported being targeted because they were perceived as Chinese, even if they were not (Ruiz et al., 2023).

Being Indigenous in the United States

Acknowledging the complex history of the Indigenous peoples of North America can help us fully understand the history of the United States. Indigenous peoples have rich, independent histories that predate colonization and the formation of the United States. Despite this, Indigenous people are often reduced to “one-dimensional stock figures, their complexity and differences pressed flat for dramatic purposes” (Hämäläinen, 2022, p. xi). While many lump Indigenous people into one homogeneous group, there are actually 574 federally recognized, distinct tribes. The United States is home to a little over four million people who identify as American Indian (AI) or Alaska Native (AN) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023a, 2023b).

The attempted genocide of the Indigenous people of North America is one of the most shameful chapters in United States history. “America did not conquer the West through superior technology, nor did it demonstrate the advantages of democracy. America ‘won’ the West by blood, brutality, and terror” (Treuer, 2019, p. 94). That said, portraying Indigenous history solely as one of loss undermines the resilience and agency of Indigenous peoples (Blackhawk, 2023). Despite the United States government’s attempts at genocide, Indigenous communities not only survived but continue to thrive and resist today. This section aims to intertwine aspects of Indigenous histories with key moments in United States history, providing a more nuanced understanding of both through a social justice lens.

Initial Contact between Colonists and Indigenous Peoples of North America

Initial contact between Indigenous people of the Americas and European colonists occurred in the Caribbean Islands in 1492, where Christopher Columbus and 88 other people encountered the Taino. The Taino welcomed Columbus and his men with gifts and food. However, Columbus and his men sought gold, silk, and spices, not kinship. This initial meeting started the colonization of the Caribbean and, in time, the Americas. In the 1400s and 1500s, Spain dominated the Caribbean. Spanish colonists exploited Indigenous goods and people, often brutally (Hämäläinen, 2022).

From the Caribbean Islands, Spanish colonists continued north, and in the 1500s, they arrived in Florida to a coordinated and successful resistance. They also moved into what is the modern-day Southwest region of the United States from Central and South America. Again, they were met with effective resistance. By the late 16^th century, the Spanish continued to be unsuccessful in colonizing North America, and the continent remained primarily Indigenous (Hämäläinen, 2022).

Colonization of the East Coast

In the 1500s, many European traders regularly arrived along the East Coast of what is now the United States and Canada to fish and trade. Occasionally, they would come ashore and attempt to establish colonies. However, the Indigenous population was often not receptive to this, preferring to keep the Europeans at arm’s length. Skirmishes between the French and Spanish colonists in Florida started to manifest over land disputes, even though none seemed to be able to colonize the Indigenous space successfully (Hämäläinen, 2022).

In 1607, three ships anchored off the coast of what is now Virginia. One hundred men came ashore and built a fort in what is now considered to be the first permanent English settlement in North America. They called their settlement Jamestown. The colonists at Jamestown had a tumultuous relationship with the Indigenous people of the area. The local Indigenous leaders tried to incorporate the colonists into their vast empire but were met with brutal resistance (Hämäläinen, 2022).

In addition to losing lives in conflict with Indigenous people, the colonists suffered from malaria, starvation, and the elements. By 1615, tobacco began to be exported from Virginia. Tobacco was widely popular in England, and the colonies’ economic value began to grow. In 1619, the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia, and tobacco production surged (Hämäläinen, 2022).

During the 1600s and 1700s, interactions between Indigenous populations and European colonists remained complex. Conflicts with the colonists and the diseases they brought with them affected Indigenous populations’ demographics. Additionally, Indigenous populations participated in trade and formed alliances with European colonies, resulting in frequent cultural clashes and conflicts (Hämäläinen, 2022).

The Revolutionary War

At first, Indigenous populations opted to remain neutral in the conflicts between the colonists and England, perceiving their conflict as infighting between a king and his subjects. However, as tensions increased and the war began, indigenous populations took sides (Makos, 2021). Many took the side of the British in hopes that it would send colonists back to England (Hämäläinen, 2022). For example,

The Cherokee nation was split between a faction that supported the colonists and another that sided with Britain. The Iroquois Confederacy, an alliance of six Native American nations in New York, was divided by the Revolutionary War. Two of the nations, the Oneida and Tuscarora, chose to side with the Americans while the other nations, including the Mohawk, fought with the British. Hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence and cooperation between the Six Nations came to an end, as warriors from the different nations fought one another on Revolutionary War battlefields. (Makos, 2021, para. 4)

After the Revolutionary War, the British gave the new United States all British territory located east of the Mississippi and south of Canada. This decision did not elicit the input of the Indigenous tribes who had fought on their side and lived on those lands. As Westward expansion began, many Indigenous populations faced White—and often brutal—colonists who believed all Indigenous people had sided with the British coming into their territories. When Indigenous people resisted or fought back, they found no support from their supposed allies in England (Makos, 2021).

Reservation Era

The United States government had various justifications for its genocidal campaign against Indigenous nations. However, the primary reason was greed. Indigenous nations occupied the land that the United States wanted for westward expansion. Two specific governmental policies ensured that the United States would take possession of Indigenous lands. These were the Doctrine of Discovery and the establishment of reservations (Blackhawk, 2023).

Doctrine of Discovery – Part 1

Pope Alexander VI issued the Doctrine of Discovery on May 4, 1492, for the Catholic Church. It stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available for discovery and claim. The Doctrine of Discovery was intended to overthrow pagan nations and spread Christianity worldwide. In 1823, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. M’Intosh that the discovery doctrine gave the United States the right to own the land on which Indigenous people lived (Charles & Rah, 2019). The case arose from a land dispute in which Thomas Johnson bought land from the Piankeshaw Nation, and William M’Intosh claimed the same land through a United States governmental grant. Johnson v. M’Intosh established the rights of Indigenous tribes to live on their lands, but not to sell or transfer land without the approval of the United States Government (Blackhawk, 2023).

In 1823, President James Monroe stated in his annual speech to Congress that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to further European colonization. This declaration later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe declared that the United States would not tolerate interference from any European nation and that any interference would be seen as a sign of aggression toward the United States. This also meant that Indigenous nations could no longer rely on their European allies against the United States (Blackhawk, 2023).

By the late 1820s, many White Americans, especially in the South, viewed Indigenous nations as “simply in the way” (Blackhawk, 2023, p. 186) of westward expansion and Southern states needed Indigenous land to continue expanding cotton production. The United States government saw the Indigenous populations as a problem and sought a solution. That solution was to remove Indigenous people from their land and establish reservations (Hämäläinen, 2019).

Indian Removal Act

In the 1820s and 1830s, Georgia passed a series of legislation aimed at the Cherokee Nation. These laws invalidated Cherokee law, took Cherokee land, banned Cherokee people from testifying in court against White people, and banned Cherokee people from meeting in groups (Brown, 2022). In response, the Cherokee Nation appealed to the federal government for protection.

Instead of protection, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The Indian Removal Act authorized the relocation of Indigenous tribes from their current land to land further west in current-day Oklahoma. The federal government claimed the power to exchange Indigenous land east of the Mississippi for land in the West. While the Indian Removal Act authorized negotiations and voluntary relocation, relocation was often achieved through coercion, deception, and force (Kiel, 2017). The Indian Removal Act proved to be a “brutal, sustained campaign of ethnic cleansing executed by often corrupt and inept patronage government employees” (Hämäläinen, 2019, p. 210) and had long standing consequences for multiple Indigenous tribes. In the years between 1830 and 1850, “more than 125,000 Indians…were forcibly removed to territory west of the Mississippi, mostly on foot and in wintertime. At least 3,500 Creek and 5,000 Cherokee and many from other tribes died along the way” (Treuer, 2019, p. 35).

Post Civil War

Between the Civil War and constant fighting with Indigenous tribes, the cost for the United States government to continue “an extended campaign of genocide” (Native American Rights Fund [NARF], 2019, p. 6) against Indigenous populations was no longer feasible. The United States had already spent over $750 million on war since 1840 (Hämäläinen, 2019). In addition, Americans were tired of war, both with each other and Indigenous tribes.

By the late 1800s, the sentiment of the American public shifted from fear and hatred to sympathy for Indigenous people. Even members of the United States military struggled with continued physical aggression towards a seemingly defeated Indigenous population (Cozzens, 2016). General George Cook stated:

when Indians see their wives and children starving and their last source of supplies cut off, they go to war. And then we are sent out there to kill them. It is an outrage. All tribes tell the same story. They are surrounded on all sides, the game is destroyed or driven away, they are left to starve, and there remains one thing for them to do-fight while they can. Our treatment of the Indian is an outrage (Cozzens, 2016, p. 7).

Although the United States government’s ultimate objective to acquire Indigenous lands remained unchanged, its strategy evolved. According to Hämäläinen (2019), this shift represented an attempt by the federal government to adopt a more refined approach to imperialism. Rather than resorting to violence and conflict, it aimed to manage and reshape Indigenous peoples (Adams, 2020).

President Ulysses S. Grant recognized the failures of previous policies around Indigenous tribes and introduced a new strategy known as the Peace Policy. This initiative, which spanned the late 1860s and early 1870s, aimed to reform relations with Indigenous communities and address the shortcomings of earlier approaches. Grant’s approach aimed to shift from aggressive expansion to a more humane interaction with Indigenous populations. In addition, the policy included an intentional effort to assimilate Indigenous populations into mainstream American culture. As part of this, indigenous agents would be appointed to the BIA. Grant appointed Ely S. Parker of the Seneca Nation to head the BIA. He served from 1869-1871 and advocated for Indigenous rights (National Park Service, n.d.).

After the Civil War ended, White nationalism was at an all-time high and westward expansion in the United States continued. While the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia had established that Indigenous nations were sovereign, many in the United States felt that Indigenous people were now, with the advent of reservations, reliant on the United States government and should no longer be sovereign. In 1871, the Indian Appropriations Act was passed with a rider, which invalidated Indigenous sovereignty. Thus, the United States government would not negotiate further treaties with Indigenous tribes. The Indian Appropriations Act also gave the United States Congress more power to establish policies regarding Indigenous people. “This new phase of federal Indian policy was known as assimilation, and as bad as the years of warfare and treaty making had been, assimilation would be immeasurably worse” (Treuer, 2019, p. 114). The new policies were built upon three fundamental pillars: Christianization, education, and the promotion of private property (Grinde, 2004).

Christianization

The American public’s sentiment shift was partly influenced by the rise of social reform movements in the United States. During the 1880s, “a chorus of voices from the pulpit, press, and Congress were again calling for a major overhaul of Indian policy” (Adams, 2020, p. 10). Social reform organizations, such as the Women’s National Indian Association (WNIA) and the Indian Rights Association (IRA), focused on the plight of the Indigenous people. According to these social reformers, the only way to save the Indigenous people was to civilize them through Christianization (Adams, 2020).

Education

Education was a vital component of the United States government’s assimilation strategy (Adams, 2020). The Secretary of the Interior, Carl Schurz, “estimated it cost nearly a million dollars to kill an Indian in warfare, whereas it cost only $1,200 to give an Indian child eight years of schooling” (Adams, 2020, p. 23). Education made economic sense and complied with the federal government’s needs.

During the 1800s, the common school movement increased Americans’ appreciation for education (Adams, 2020). Social reformers, such as Horace Mann, believed government-supported education created “a more useful citizen in the community” (Vinovskis, 1970, p. 562). Many social reformers viewed education “as a seedbed of republican virtues and democratic freedoms, a promulgator of individual opportunity and national prosperity, and an instrument for social progress and harmony” (Adams, 2020, p. 21). Therefore, social reformers believed that education was the most efficient route to civilizing Indigenous people, specifically Indigenous children. Three education models were employed in attempts to assimilate Indigenous children. These were the reservation day school, the reservation boarding school, and the off-reservation boarding school (Adams, 2020).

Reservation Day School Model

The first educational model used to assimilate Indigenous children was the reservation day school. Initially popular, 48 reservation day schools were in operation in the United States by the 1860s. Typically located near or on Indigenous reservations, reservation day schools allowed Indigenous children to arrive in the early morning and go home to their families at the end of the day. The reservation day schools provided elementary-level education and focused on English language instruction and vocational training (Adams, 2020). Additionally, “the day school curriculum also provided for lighter activities such as singing and calisthenics, the former offering a perfect opportunity to introduce the Christian message in the form of hymns” (Adams, 2020, p. 33).

Some of the advantages of the reservation day school model were that the schools were inexpensive to operate and that Indigenous parents were less resistant to them. In addition, social reformers hoped that Indigenous children would bring what they learned home to their parents (Adams, 2020). However, this was not the case. The reservation day school model was eventually deemed an ineffective “instrument of assimilation” (Adams, 2020, p. 34).

Reservation Boarding School Model

The failure of the reservation day school model led to the idea that “sustained confinement was…the key element in the civilization process” (Adams, 2020, p. 36). As part of President Grant’s Peace Policy in 1869, boarding school policies were implemented as a model to assimilate Indigenous children (NARF, 2019). The Boarding School Policy “authorized the voluntary and coerced removal of Native American children from their families for placement in boarding schools run by the government and Christian missionaries” (NARF, 2019, p. 7). By the late 1870s, with the reinforcement of the Boarding School Policy, the reservation day school model was replaced by the reservation boarding school model (Adams, 2020).

Reservation boarding schools were typically located near BIA offices on the reservation and were under the domain of the local BIA agents. Reservation boarding schools included four elementary grades and four advanced grades. Like the reservation day schools, the curriculum at the reservation boarding schools focused on instruction in the English language and vocational training. Indigenous children were required to remain at school for nine months a year and only allowed to visit their families during summer vacations. For government officials and social reformers, the primary advantage of the reservation boarding school model was the increased control over Indigenous children’s lives (Adams, 2020).

BIA agents, government officials, and social reformers expressed concern that reservation boarding schools allowed Indigenous children too much access to their culture due to the schools’ proximity to Indigenous reservations (Adams, 2020). BIA agents were frustrated that when Indigenous children went home for the summer, they reverted to their “savage mode of life” (Adams, 2020, p. 37). NARF (2019) points out that “mere education was not enough…Separating children from their family, their tribe, their culture, and their homes on the reservations was necessary to [sic] larger goal of assimilating them into the majority culture” (p. 6). BIA agents, government officials, and social reformers concluded that the only path to complete assimilation of Indigenous children was to remove all influence of their cultures. This conclusion led to the rise of the third educational model, the off-reservation boarding school (Adams, 2020).

Off-Reservation Boarding School Model

The first off-reservation boarding school, the Carlisle Indian School (Carlisle), was founded in 1879 by Captain Richard Pratt (Adams, 2020; Treuer, 2019). Pratt’s military style of education became the model for Indigenous education across the United States (Treuer, 2019). “In fact, for several years philanthropists looked upon Pratt as a sort of Moses for the Indians” (Adams, 2020, p. 60). Pratt’s success at Carlisle proved that the off-reservation boarding school model solved the United States government’s Indian problem. By 1894, approximately 100 off-reservation boarding schools existed in the United States (Treuer, 2019). Unfortunately, not all boarding schools were the same. Carlisle “under Pratt’s supervision and congressional scrutiny…was better staffed and better run than others around the country, which seem hellish in comparison” (Treuer, 2019, p. 137).

Although Pratt believed Indigenous people were “capable in all respects as we are, and that he only needs the opportunities and privileges which we possess to enable him to assert his humanity and manhood” (Treuer, 2019, p. 134), he also believed that they were culturally inferior to White Americans. Pratt’s educational philosophy was based on his famous phrase, “Kill the Indian in him and save the man” (Adams, 2020, p. 56). Pratt believed, like so many other White Americans, that cultural erasure was the only way for Indigenous people to assimilate into society (Adams, 2020; Treuer, 2019).

Cultural Erasure

The boarding school model was designed to erase all traces of Indigenous identity from Indigenous children (Adams, 2020). “From the policymakers’ point of view, the civilization process required a twofold assault on Indian children’s identity” (Adams, 2020, p. 109). The first identity assault was the removal of any outward Indigenous cultural markers. The second identity assault was instruction on how to assimilate into White American culture. Pratt believed that complete immersion into White American culture would transform Indigenous children. According to Pratt, “We make our greatest mistake in feeding our civilization to the Indians instead of feeding the Indians to our civilization” (Adams, 2020, p. 57).

Indigenous children were sent far from their tribal lands to their assigned boarding schools. They traveled on trains, steamers, and wagons to cover great distances. Their journeys were unaccompanied, without their families, and often without knowing the other children they traveled with. Remarkably, some of these children were as young as 4 years old, and many had little to no prior exposure to White American culture (Adams, 2020).

Indigenous children experienced a dramatic cultural shift at the boarding schools. Everything from their clothing, religious beliefs and practices, and concepts of nature, time, and space were expected to change (Adams, 2020). Immediately upon their arrival at a boarding school, Indigenous children were required to bathe “to scrub away the filth that whites ascribed to Native home life” (Adams, 2020, p. 109). The children’s traditional clothing was replaced with school uniforms, suits for the boys and dresses for the girls. “No child was permitted to blend gender roles, cross-dress, or alter their physical appearance to resemble that of the opposite gender” (Smithers, 2022, p. 94).

Indigenous boys were required to submit to short haircuts because of the “belief that the children’s long hair was symbolic of savagism; removing it was central to the new identification with civilization” (Adams, 2020, p. 110). However, hair had sacred meaning for some Indigenous cultures, such as the Sioux. For many of the Indigenous boys, it was traumatic to have their hair cut, and some older boys chose to run away rather than submit (Adams, 2020).

Indigenous children’s identity was also removed. Children with traditional Indigenous names were renamed by the BIA agents serving as boarding school superintendents (Adams, 2020). For many Indigenous cultures, traditional names had significant meaning, and “the fact remains that it constituted a grave assault on Indian identity” (Adams, 2020, p. 119) to change them. However, renaming was seen as necessary to assimilate Indigenous people into White America.

Failed System

By 1900, the United States government had spent over $45 million, primarily on boarding schools, to assimilate 20,000 Indigenous children. By 1901, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, William Jones, reported that the last 20 years of policies regarding Indigenous education were a failure. This began the campaign to end boarding schools (Adams, 2020).

Instead of just eradicating the boarding school system, education officials attempted to modify the operation of the boarding schools. The first change attempted was to adjust the boarding schools’ curriculum (Adams, 2020). By 1916, almost all boarding school curricula shifted from, at least theoretically, a balance of academic and vocational focus to nearly all vocational. The next change was integrating small amounts of Indigenous culture into the boarding school programs. This included allowing Indigenous children to sing songs in their own languages, draw pictures of some Indigenous legends, and engage in Indigenous arts and crafts (Adams, 2020).

Further changes to the indoctrination of Indigenous children included re-engaging with on-reservation schools and transferring the responsibility for Indian public education to public schools. These changes substantially impacted the boarding school system. By 1918, the first off-reservation boarding school, the Carlisle School, was closed, and by 1925, the number of federal off-reservation boarding schools decreased from 25 to 18 (Adams, 2020).

In 1928, the Secretary of the Interior, Hubert Work, commissioned an investigation into the Indigenous policies of the United States. The investigation produced The Problem of Indian Administration report, also known as the Meriam Report. Included in the Meriam Report was a section on the Indigenous education policies of the United States as well as the current status of the education system. The Meriam Report’s recommendations included a complete overhaul of the education system and its pedagogy (Adams, 2020). “For the first time in fifty years, the possibility for a new era in Indian policy… had been put forward as official policy” (Adams, 2020, p. 364).

Consequences of Boarding Schools

In 1967, the United States government acknowledged concerns about Indigenous education, and Congress established a subcommittee to investigate the Indigenous education system. In 1969, they delivered their report (Treuer, 2019). “The verdict was dismal: Indian education was a tragedy” (Treuer, 2019, p. 333). In response to the report, Congress passed the Indian Education Act of 1972 to overhaul the Indigenous education system. The Indian Education Act of 1972 included funding and required local education agencies (LEAs) to consult with Indigenous parents and educators. “At the same time, the scope of the legislation was broad enough to deal with many issues that extended beyond cultural differences and curricular sensitivity: transportation, nutrition, providing eyeglasses, and dental work” (Treuer, 2019, p. 334), all necessities for children to learn.

On June 22, 2021, the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, directed the Department of Interior agencies to investigate “the Federal Indian boarding school system to examine the scope of the system, with a focus on the location of the schools, burial sites, and identification of children who attended the schools” (Newland, 2022, para. 1). On April 1, 2022, Bryan Newland delivered the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report to Haaland. In his cover letter, Newland (2022) wrote, “This report confirms that the United States directly targeted American Indian…children in the pursuit of a policy of cultural assimilation that coincided with Indian territorial dispossession” (para. 4).

The report confirmed that Indigenous children were forced to do manual labor that left them “with employment options often irrelevant to the industrial U.S. economy, further disrupting Tribal economies” (Newland, 2022, p. 8). Additionally, the report highlighted that boarding schools enforced rules “through punishment including corporal punishment such as solitary confinement; flogging; withholding food; whipping; slapping; and cuffing” (Newland, 2022, p. 8). The report went on to state that “approximately 19 Federal Indian boarding schools accounted for over 500 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian child deaths. As the investigation continues, the Department expects the number of recorded deaths to increase” (Newland, 2022, p. 9).

The off-reservation boarding school model had extensive and far-reaching detrimental consequences for Indigenous tribes. One significant impact was the spread of the myth that Indigenous people had disappeared from the United States, erasing their presence and contributions from the national consciousness (Mays, 2021). This narrative not only undermines the visibility of Indigenous communities but also contributes to erasing their cultural identities, traditions, and ongoing struggles. Additionally, the boarding school system’s efforts to assimilate Indigenous children further worsened the marginalization and disenfranchisement of Indigenous populations, and the consequences of this are still felt by Indigenous people today.

Legislation Impacting Indigenous Populations

From the late 19^th century to the present day, many governmental policies and legislative actions have impacted the experience of being Indigenous in the United States. Relevant legislation includes the 1885 Major Crimes Act, the 1887 Dawes Act (General Allotment Act), the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, the Meriam Report in 1928 (as discussed earlier in this chapter), the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the 1953 Public Law 280, and the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The 1885 Major Crimes Act

The 1885 Major Crimes Act changed how major criminal offenses on tribal lands are prosecuted. Before this, tribal courts had primary jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by Indigenous people on reservations. However, the Major Crimes Act granted the United States federal jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by Indigenous people on reservations (Office for Victims of Crime, n.d.). This changed the power dynamic on the reservations and in tribal courts. The Major Crimes Act remains a topic of discussion and controversy, particularly in debates about the balance of federal and tribal authority, the rights of Native Americans, and the effectiveness of the federal criminal justice system in addressing crime on reservation land.

The 1887 Dawes Act (General Allotment Act)

Signed into law on February 8^th, 1887, the Dawes Act, or the General Allotment Act, exemplified the shift towards assimilating Indigenous people. The Dawes Act focused on breaking up reservations and allotting reservation land to Indigenous individuals instead of tribes. The Act encouraged Indigenous individuals who were allotted land to start farms as a first step to assimilation into White culture. Many tribes were excluded from the Act; however, as time went by, subsequent events extended the provisions of the Dawes Act (National Archives, n.d.).

The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act

The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, or the Snyder Act, granted citizenship to all Indigenous people born in the United States. While this was a step towards inclusion, many Indigenous people still faced discrimination, particularly around the right to vote, which was managed by the states until 1957 (Library of Congress, n.d.-b).

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, or the Wheeler-Howard Act, ended allotment and encouraged tribal governments to develop and instill United States-style governance on reservations. During reservation, boarding schools, and allotment, many tribes struggled to maintain their traditional style of governance. The IRA encouraged tribes to organize governmental systems and adopt constitutions (National Library of Medicine, n.d.).

The 1953 Public Law 280

The 1953 Public Law 280 allowed certain states to assume the authority once held by the federal government in prosecuting major crimes. Initially, this authority was given to six states: California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Alaska. Other states were later allowed to choose to opt into the law. This law again impacted the power balance on reservations and increased state presence on tribal lands. Later amendments allowed states to return cases to federal courts if needed and allowed the tribal government to request the Attorney General intercede on cases (Office for Victims of Crime, n.d.).

The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968

The Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 limits tribal governments from creating or enforcing laws that violate certain individual rights. It is often compared to the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. Specifically, the ICRA protects freedoms such as religion and speech, prohibits double jeopardy, and prevents self-incrimination in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the law allows federal courts to get involved in disputes within tribes to ensure that these rights are respected, thereby balancing individual rights with tribal sovereignty (Library of Congress, n.d.-c).

Indigenous Activism

Since colonial times, Indigenous peoples have fought for their right to exist and resisted oppressive systems in the United States. People such as Arthur Parker (Seneca), Laura Cornelius Kellogg (Oneida), Charles Eastman (Dakota), and Annie Mae Aquash (Mi’kmaq) have all been involved in Indigenous activism (Blackhawk, 2023).

During the 1960s, many Indigenous people participated in the Civil Rights Movement. In 1968, Indigenous leaders of the National Indian Youth Council, including Hank Adams (Assiniboine), Mel Thom (Walker River Paiute), and Tillie Walker (Mandan-Hidatsa), participated in the Poor People’s Campaign initiated by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Mays, 2021). For many Indigenous activists, “fighting for the basic needs of Native people, especially the poor, did not stand in contradiction to their goals of tribal sovereignty” (Mays, 2021, p. 119). On May 1, 1968, Hank Adams stated:

We have joined the Poor People’s Campaign because most of us know that our families, tribes, and communities number among those suffering most in this country. We are not begging, we are demanding what is rightfully ours…Our chief spokesman in the Federal Government, the Department of the Interior has failed us…The Interior Department began failing because it was built and operates under a racist and immoral and paternalistic and colonialistic system. There is no way to improve racism, immorality, and colonialism. It can only be done away with. (Mays, 2021, p. 119)

Red Power

During the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, Indigenous people struggled to establish themselves as American citizens and as members of sovereign nations. Like the experiences of young Black Americans and the formation of the Black Power movement, young Indigenous people became “disenchanted with the conservative values of their parents’ generation” (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019, p. 103).

For Indigenous activists, the call for Red Power was “an assertion of Indigenous sovereignty, a declaration that Native people were there to stress to the white settlers that they were reclaiming their right to sovereignty” (Mays, 2021, p. 110). Some Indigenous groups, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM), used strategies similar to those of the Black Panther Party (Mays, 2021).

American Indian Movement (AIM)

In 1968, Dennis Banks (Ojibwe), Clyde Bellecourt (Ojibwe), Vernon Bellecourt (Ojibwe), George Mitchell (Ojibwe), and Harold Powless (Oneida) established AIM in Minneapolis, Minnesota. AIM was modeled, in part, on the Black Panther Party and its militant style. AIM members, like Black Panther Party members, believed in self-defense, and members often carried weapons to protect themselves. AIM patrols, like the Black Panther Party patrols, followed Minneapolis police and documented any indication of unwarranted brutality (Treuer, 2019).

In 1970, AIM occupied an abandoned naval air station and a Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation dam. The first occupation was to bring attention to the need for improved Indigenous education, and the second occupation was to recoup reparations for the illegal flooding that had affected the Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation (Treuer, 2019). The following year, AIM occupied the BIA headquarters in Washington D.C. “to protest BIA policies and paternalism” (Treuer, 2019, p. 301). Although AIM’s occupation efforts produced little tangible results, they gained some national attention.

In 1972, AIM took part in the Trail of Broken Treaties caravan sponsored by Robert Burnette, the chairperson of the Rosebud Reservation (Treuer, 2019).

[Burnette] gave voice to the idea of a caravan that would travel from reservation to reservation across the country in order to draw media attention to the struggles of Indians there and to the federal government’s failure to address them or to meet its treaty obligations to sovereign Indian nations. (Treuer, 2019, p. 301)

Once again, AIM gained national attention and even some support from other national organizations such as the Native American Rights Fund and the National Council on Indian Opportunity.

The Trail of Broken Treaties caravan ended its journey in Washington, D.C. When they arrived, AIM members found that they had no place to stay and that the protest permits they had applied for had been denied (Treuer, 2019). AIM members went to the BIA’s office and held a press conference. Russell Means (Oglala) gave a speech in which he stated, “You can see the frustration here, in the young people, and even in the old. Our full-bloods, the chiefs of our tribes, are saying it’s time to pick up guns” (Treuer, 2019, p. 303).

AIM members refused to leave the BIA’s office and, at first, demanded to meet with a representative of President Richard Nixon. Eventually, the AIM members demanded to meet with Nixon himself (Treuer, 2019). Protestors gathered outside of the BIA in support of AIM, and although the United States marshals were also present, they did not engage in any violence.

The protest continued for a few more days until Nixon’s administration obtained a court order to evict the AIM members. When they learned of the court order, they vandalized the BIA office. The damages cost over $2 million (Treuer, 2019). Although furious, Nixon conceded to the AIM members and gave them $66,650 to return home. Once again, although accomplishing nothing, AIM gained national attention. And, more importantly, they encourage pride in their heritage.

[AIM showed] Indians around the country that they were proud of being Indian, and in the most uncomfortable ways possible for the mainstream. Indians from reservations and cities alike were, for the first time, pushing back against the acculturation machine that was a part of America’s domestic imperial agenda, and doing it loud and proud. (Treuer, 2019, p. 307)

Pine Ridge – Part 1

In 1972, Dick Wilson (Oglala) was elected to be the chairperson of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Wilson, like many other Pine Ridge Reservation chairs, used his power to engage in nefarious dealings (Treuer, 2019). Wilson had his own “ever-growing private security force, who was aided and advised by Nixon’s domestic commando force, the Special Operations Group” (Treuer, 2019, p. 320), known as the Guardians of the Oglala Nation or GOONs. Members of the Oglala tribe requested AIM to intervene.

In 1973, Wilson was impeached, but the charges were dismissed due to technicalities. “Wilson remained in office and the village of Pine Ridge became increasingly militarized, packed with GOONs, Special Operation Group forces, U.S. marshals, and FBI agents. Tribal headquarters were sandbagged and crowned with a .50 caliber machine gun” (Treuer, 2019, p. 321).

On February 27, 1973, Russell Means (Oglala) along with other AIM members and approximately 200 members of the Oglala tribe seized control of the town of Wounded Knee. AIM and the Oglala tribe members declared Wounded Knee the Independent Oglala Nation “and said that as a sovereign nation it would negotiate directly only with the U.S. secretary of state” (Treuer, 2019, p. 322). Their purpose was to protest Wilson and the militarization of Pine Ridge.

Law enforcement immediately surrounded Wounded Knee and, at first, only intermittent gunfire was exchanged (Treuer, 2019). However, as the protest continued, the exchange of gunfire intensified.

Despite the fact the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act forbade using the military against American citizens, even before the siege began on February 27, General Alexander Haig authorized the use of APCs [armored personnel carriers] and the U.S. Air Force at Pine Ridge. (Treuer, 2019, p. 324)

The AIM and the Oglala tribe members were armed with shotguns and deer rifles.

A series of negotiators met with members of AIM and the Oglala tribe to try to end the standoff. However, gunfights continued and the “cycle-violence, demands, negotiation, breakdown, more violence” continued (Treuer, 2019, p. 325). At the end, it was the Oglala tribe members who stopped the protest. Two leaders of AIM, Dennis Banks and Russell Means were arrested and charged with conspiracy and assault, but the charges were dismissed due to United States’ officials mishandling of evidence and witnesses.

In total, the occupation of Wounded Knee lasted for 71 days. Two protestors were killed, and one was severely injured. One FBI agent was shot, possibly by friendly fire, and was paralyzed. Yet, Dick Wilson continued his corrupt reign over Pine Ridge (Treuer, 2019).

Pine Ridge – Part 2

In 1975, AIM members returned to the Pine Ridge Reservation and engaged in a gunfight that left three people dead (Treuer, 2019). Wilson and his GOONs had continued to terrorize Pine Ridge. Over 50 murders were committed between 1973 and 1976, many of which neither Wilson nor the FBI ever investigated. Some AIM members, including Leonard Peltier, continued to visit and live near Pine Ridge Reservation.

Peltier, along with some friends, was staying on the Jumping Bull Ranch located on the Pine Ridge Reservation (Treuer, 2019). Peltier was not only a member of AIM but also a federal fugitive. Two FBI agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams, and two BIA Officers, Robert Ecoffey (Oglala) and Glen Little Bird (Nez Perce), were patrolling the area. The agents and officers thought they had located a suspect, and drove onto the Jumping Bull Ranch. Instead, they encountered Peltier. According to forensic reports, Coler and Williams

didn’t make it farther than the middle of a ten-acre pasture before the Indians ahead of them took position on higher ground and fired more than 125 rounds into the agents’ cars. The agents fired a total of four times with their .38 service revolvers and once with the .308 rifle. (Treuer, 2019, p. 352)

Both FBI agents died. Peltier, who had fled to Canada, was extradited and charged with murder. Peltier was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences and remains in prison today (Treuer, 2019).

After the shootout at Jumping Bull, the majority of AIM leadership was either in prison or on the run. “The Jumping Bull incident was largely the end of AIM’s efficacy as a prod to the nation’s conscience” (Treuer, 2019, p. 356). By 1979, many Indigenous people wanted nothing to do with AIM or the violence that followed it.

Indigenous Female Activism

Many of the Red Power group members were young, urban males who were unaware of the matrilineal histories of their tribes. These men were highly acculturated to White society and often excluded women from the Red Power Movement (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019). In 1974, a group of female AIM members established the Women of All Red Nations (WARN) in response to the patriarchal structure of AIM.

WARN focused much of its efforts on Indigenous women’s health issues, “especially exposing that the federal government had forcibly sterilized thousands of Indian women without their knowledge” (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019, p. 117). WARN focused national attention on the high rates of birth defects, cancer, and miscarriages caused by the uranium extraction of the Black Hills on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

WARN also brought national attention to the fact that up to 35% of Indigenous children were removed from their homes and placed in foster care, put up for adoption, or placed in institutions. In 1978, WARN’s advocacy led to the Indian Child Welfare Act, which was created to

protect the best interest of Indian Children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children and placement of such children in homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture. (Indian Child Welfare, 1978)

Other Indigenous female activist groups were established to address a myriad of issues. In 2004, the Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers was founded as “an alliance of prayer, education and healing for our Mother Earth, all Her inhabitants, all the children, and for the next seven generations to come” (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019, p. 119). In 2012, the Idle No More Movement, specifically established to fight against a group of Canadian laws, caught on in the United States as an environmental rights movement. In 2015, a group of Indigenous women created the Indigenous Women of the Americas—Defenders of Mother Earth Treaty. “The treaty links the violence done to the Earth with the violence done to women, naming the crisis of missing, murdered, raped, and enslaved women in Indigenous communities worldwide” (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019, p. 120).

No DAPL Movement

In 2016, Indigenous activists, many of whom lived on the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, began protesting the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Part of the DAPL’s route was to go underneath the Missouri River upstream of the Standing Rock Reservation (Treuer, 2019). This part of the route made the DAPL a violation of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty between the United States government and the Sioux Nation. In the treaty, the United States government recognized that the Black Hills were a part of the Great Sioux Reservation and, therefore, belonged exclusively to the Sioux people.

“Massive global resistance to Big Oil, decades of political organizing by Native people, networking across multiple spheres of interest, and sophisticated use of social media all account for the groundswell that made the Standing Rock convergence possible” (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019, p. 121). During the protest, crowds of protesters numbered up to 13,000 people (Gillio-Whitaker, 2019; Treuer, 2019). Indigenous people from over 300 tribes attended the protest and “it was the largest gathering of Indians in the United States since the same tribes…formed the tribal armies that defeated the U.S. Calvary at Little Bighorn” (Treuer, 2019, p. 435).

The Standing Rock protestors were non-violent. However, others were not. Private security teams hired by Energy Transfer Partners, the contracted developer of the DAPL, used violent methods on the protestors. The methods included pepper spray, the use of attack dogs, water cannons, and rubber bullets. Hundreds of protestors were arrested (Treuer, 2019).

The Standing Rock protest ended after ten months in February of 2017. Donald Trump took office as President and issued an executive order that construction of the DAPL was to resume. On May 14, 2017, the DAPL began carrying over 400,000 barrels of oil per day “…from the Bakken oil fields in northern North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois, over 1,172 miles, across four states, and under the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers” (Treuer, 2019, p.432).

Native Lives Matter

After the re-emergence of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in 2020, some Indigenous people used the phrase Native Lives Matter to bring attention to the fact that “they, too were murdered by police and continued to suffer all sorts of violence related not just to racism but the ongoing forms of dispossession they experience every day” (Mays, 2021, p. 164). In fact, Indigenous people have been disproportionately murdered at the hands of police more than any other racial group in the United States. “For every one million people in the United States, an average of 2.9 Indigenous people were killed in an interaction with law enforcement, primarily police shootings, in the years between 1999 and 2015” (Mays, 2021, p. 164). That rate was 12% higher than for Black Americans during the same time.

Doctrine of Discovery – Part 2

In 1964, Vine Deloria, Jr. (Standing Rock Sioux) was elected as the head of the National Congress of American Indians (Lepore, 2018). In 1972, Deloria wrote An Open Letter to the Heads of the Christian Churches in America (Jones, 2023). In the letter, Deloria stated:

We have been placed beyond the remedies of the Constitution of the United States because the Doctrine of Discovery has never been disclaimed by either the government of the Christian nations of the world or by the leaders of the Christian churches of the world. And more especially by the leaders of the Christian churches of this country…No effort has been made by Christians to undo the wrongs that were done, albeit mistakenly, and which are perpetuated because Christians refuse to…appraise the present situation in its true historical light (p 182).

In 2007, after 20 years, the United Nations passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Jones, 2023). Article 8.1 of the Declaration (United Nations, 2007) states, “Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture” (p. 10). The United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were the only countries in the United Nations that voted against the Declaration (Jones, 2023).

Immediately after the Declaration passed, over 12 Christian organizations denounced the Doctrine of Discovery. In a released statement, the Episcopal Church in America repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery and asked that the United States change its vote against the Declaration. “On December 16, 2010, bowing to international and domestic pressure, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would reverse its position, becoming the last of the four holdout states to affirm the declaration” (Jones, 2023, p. 271).

Since 2010, the World Council of Churches (WCC), a group of more than 350 churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the United States, and dozens of other Christian organizations have also denounced the Doctrine of Discovery (Jones, 2023). The Catholic Church nullified the Doctrine of Discovery back in the 1500s, but the damage was done as it seeped into colonialism in the Americas. In 2023, the Catholic Church again nullified the Doctrine of Discovery. Pope Francis stated, “Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others” (Chappell, 2023, para. 19).

The Contemporary Experience of Being Indigenous in the United States

Indigenous people have fought for their rights as sovereign nations and for their rights as individual human beings since the first White European explorer landed on the shores of North America. And Indigenous people continue to fight. According to Mays (2021), it is crucial “to understand the relationship between literal dispossession and symbolic dispossession through representations of Native people within popular culture” (p. 84). Nordel (2021) goes on to say, “The discrimination Native Americans face…often takes the form of not being considered at all” (p. 10).

In October of 2021, Joe Biden was the first sitting President to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day (Jones, 2023). Biden wrote:

It is a measure of our greatness as a Nation that we do not seek to bury these shameful episodes of our past—that we face them honestly, we bring them to light, and we do all we can do to address them. (Jones, 2023, p. 265)

Being Latinx in the United States

Latinx history in the United States is both rich and complex, having been shaped by colonization, migration, and the westward expansion of the country. It is no wonder that the Latinx population’s historical ties to the United States run so deep, when you consider that until the late 19th century states like Texas, New Mexico, and California were part of Mexico.. Over time, the Latinx population in the United States has continued to grow through migration, especially from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Central America. This migration was driven by economic opportunities, political upheavals, and labor demands, which still exist today. Despite marginalization and discrimination in the United States, the Latinx population has significantly influenced American culture, politics, and society.

Inter-Group Diversity

According to Ramos (2020), the experience of being unsure of identity is common within the Latinx population. While she identifies strongly with the term Latinx and feels it is inclusive of her queerness, she also acknowledges that not all people of South American/Caribbean descent feel this term to be accurate. We will primarily use the term Latinx in this text due to the author’s preference. However, this discussion of terminology mirrors the struggle of writing this section of text—the Latinx population is large, diverse, and growing in the United States.

While many assume all Brown people or Latinx folks are Mexican and that they share a single distinct culture, the Latinx identity in the United States includes people from numerous other countries of origin such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Colombia. These groups each bring unique cultural traditions, histories, and languages to the broader Latinx community. For example, Puerto Ricans have a distinct history as United States citizens since the early 20^th century. In contrast, Cubans have a long migration history shaped by political shifts such as the Cuban Revolution (Duany, 1999). In addition, a substantial portion of the Latinx population in the United States were born in the United States and thus consider themselves American nationals.

Language also plays a role in the Latinx identity. The embrace of Spanglish, a combination of English and Spanish, particularly used among younger generations, reflects the hybrid nature of modern Latinx identity while simultaneously challenging the traditional ideas of linguistic purity. The use of Spanish, Spanglish, and Indigenous languages continue to evolve, serving both as a symbol of cultural pride as well as identity. There is also a growing population of United States-born Latinx individuals who do not speak Spanish at all (Sanchez, 2018).

Early History of Latinx Populations in the United States

Before the colonization of the United States, there were no borders between the Indigenous populations of what is currently the United States, Central America (Mexico), and South America. The borders that feel familiar today did not exist in the pre-Spanish colonization world. In 1492, Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas, marking the beginning of Spanish colonization. Spanish explorers, such as Juan Ponce de León (1513) and Hernan Cortes (1519), followed and began conquering and colonizing the Caribbean, Central America, and the current day United States Southwest (Gonzales, 2022).

When the English and Spanish arrived in the Americas in the 1500s, they encountered various Indigenous tribes each in different phases of civilization. Some, such as the Aztecs, had highly developed civilizations that rivaled those in England and Spain. Some, such as the Anasazi and Pueblo tribes, were less organized and were scattered among regions along the Gulf Coast and throughout what is now the Southwest United States. Indigenous tribes varied widely in their languages, traditions, alliances, and religious beliefs (Gonzales, 2022).

The Spanish established settlements, missions, and trade routes throughout current-day Mexico and the Southwestern part of the United States. Often these early settlers are seen historically as unsuccessful in their attempts to colonize the Americas. However, their influence and impact on Mexico and the Southwestern portion of the United States was significant. This colonization blended into the Latinx populations that exist in those areas today. The mixing of the Spanish and Indigenous populations led to Spanish becoming the predominant language in the area and influenced the naming of the towns, rivers, and other landmarks. In addition, the relentless pursuit of resources and conversion to Christianity led to the loss of Indigenous lives in astounding numbers (Gonzalez, 2022). Gonzales (2022) states that in the current United States, “An average of more than one million people perished annually for most of the sixteenth century” (p. 45). Causes of these deaths included direct massacre, enslavement, and diseases such as smallpox and measles, for which the Indigenous population had no immunity.

Spanish settlements served as centers of government and military defense. The settlers’ focus was twofold: to convert Indigenous populations to Christianity and to steal Indigenous resources (Gonzales, 2022). Spanish settlements facilitated the extraction of resources, most notably silver and gold. In addition, they were launching points for further resource exploitation. Notable Spanish settlements in North America included St. Augustine, Florida (1565), Santa Fe, New Mexico (1610), and San Diego, California (1769).

In 1810, Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla delivered a speech entitled Grito de Dolores (Cry of Dolores) encouraging a revolt. This marked the start of the Mexican independence movement from Spain. Hidalgo rallied Indigenous peasant miners in the Bajío region of Mexico against the oppressive Spanish government and marched across central Mexico, capturing towns and gaining support. However, Hidalgo was not well organized and did not have the military experience to be successful. Spain captured and executed Hidalgo in 1811. Hidalgo’s movement, however, was continued by other Mexican leaders utilizing decentralized guerilla tactics (Beezley, 2008).

In 1821, Augustin de Iturbide and Vicente Guerrero worked together to issue the Plan of Iguala, which outlined Mexico’s independence from Spain. In addition, the plan designated Catholicism as the official religion of Mexico and included equal rights for Spaniards and Mexicans. This united many factions and generated a broad coalition of support for Mexican independence. On August 24, 1821, the Treaty of Cordoba was signed, and Spain recognized Mexico’s independence (Beezley, 2008).

Following the revolution and independence, Mexico faced many challenges in establishing itself as a country. One was removing the emperor of Mexico, and adopting a federal constitution (modeled after the United States of America). This was accomplished by 1824. The first president of the United Mexican States was Guadalupe Victoria. Victoria struggled to unify the country, and power struggles between federalists and centralists marred the early decades of independence. In addition, Mexico faced significant economic challenges (Guardino, 2017).

Throughout the 1820s, many settlers from the United States moved to current-day Texas under the Mexican empresario system, which granted land to immigrants in exchange for them becoming both Mexican citizens and converting to Catholicism. Many of the settlers, who were primarily Protestant, resisted Mexican laws and did not integrate into Mexican culture. In particular, the settlers often brought enslaved Africans with them, which was illegal in Mexico (Guardino, 2017).

In 1834, Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna established a centralized government. This further alienated Texans as disagreements over language, religion, and legal issues plagued Texan settlers. The first armed conflict between Texas and Mexico occurred in October, 1835, when Mexican troops attempted to retrieve a cannon from settlers in Gonzales, Texas. The settlers resisted. Texan forces captured San Antonio, driving out the Mexican troops. In March, 1836, Santa Anna led Mexican troops to reclaim Texas. They attacked the Alamo, which was being defended by approximately 200 Texans, and won the battle . Despite that defeat, Texas eventually won independence and declared itself an independent republic on March 2, 1836. The Republic of Texas existed for nine years before the United States approved the annexation of Texas amid fears of war with Mexico. Texas entered the United States as the 28^th state on February 19, 1846, despite Mexico still claiming ownership of Texas (Guardino, 2017).

In 1846, the Mexican-American War began. The Mexican-American War was driven primarily by territorial disputes around both the annexation of Texas and westward expansion. Many in the United States felt it was the destiny of the United States to expand across the North American continent. Mexico disagreed. The United States even attempted to purchase California and New Mexico from Mexico. Mexican leaders refused. In April, 1846, Mexican troops ambushed a United States patrol in the disputed territory, sparking Congress to declare war on Mexico on May 13, 1846. The United States fought and won many battles against Mexico and eventually captured Mexico City. Ultimately, Mexico lost the war and ceded vast amounts of land to the United States. This included present-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado, resulting in the United States acquiring about 500,000 square miles of land. The Rio Grande was established as the official border between Texas and Mexico in 1848 (History.com, 2023; Guardino, 2017).

World Wars I and II

The Latinx population has always been involved in the wars fought by the United States. However, there are few records of how many actually fought, because, up through World War I, Latinx were considered white, not their own distinct race. However, “Ramirez, a history professor at Laredo College, said he’s documented at least 5,000 men from Texas with Spanish surnames who served during the Great War” (Contreras, 2023, para. 13). Contreras (2023) states that returning veterans who were Latinx were essential to the Latinx civil rights movements which followed, as they brought home experiences of discrimination from the battlefields of World War I.

By World War II, there was a much higher population of Latinx people living in the United States, particularly those of Mexican descent. Approximately 500,000 Mexican American soldiers served in World War II. Many were in integrated units. However, they still faced significant discrimination which was primarily based on their skin tone. Puerto Ricans also served in both World War I and World War II in large numbers and also faced discrimination based on skin tone and were often sorted into Black and White regimens arbitrarily (Oropeza, n.d.).

Legislation Impacting the Latinx Population

The Latinx population, like other marginalized communities, has endured significant systemic discrimination due to social policies, legislative actions, and legal frameworks in the United States. These measures have shaped their access to education, housing, employment, and healthcare, often reinforcing systemic inequalities and societal barriers.

Immigration Policy and Law

When the Mexican Revolution started, people from Mexico began crossing the border into Texas with El Paso serving as a gateway. The Library of Congress (n.d.-a) refers to El Paso at that time as the “Mexican Ellis Island” (para. 1). It is estimated that Mexican immigration tripled during the Mexican Revolution. However, counting the number of immigrants proved to be difficult as many travelled back and forth between the United States and Mexico, and there was a great deal of immigration that occurred illegally.

One of the first legislative acts which impacted the Latinx population was the Immigration Act of 1924, also called the Johnson-Reed Act. This legislation established quotas on immigration, which highly favored European immigration. The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed at the height of the eugenics movement, the belief and practice that certain groups had more desirable hereditary genes than others, and reinforced existing racial hierarchies and stereotypes about Latinx people. The Immigration Act of 1924 also established the visa requirement and the United States Border Patrol, significantly impacting Latinx immigration historically and today (Diamond, 2020).

In 1920, the Immigration Act of 1924 was revised to criminalize undocumented entry into the United States. This led to the use of the term “illegal” to describe immigrants who came into the United States outside of the new visa system. By 1930, these policies resulted in repatriation drives, and between 1930 and 1940, 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were sent “back” or repatriated to Mexico. Approximately 40% of these individuals were American citizens (Morales, 2018).

As the United States entered World War II, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there were significant workplace shortages in the United States. To address this, the United States and Mexico negotiated to allow Mexicans to work in the United States on a temporary basis in order to fill jobs. This agreement, called the Bracero Program, brought over 4.5 million Mexican workers into the United States between 1942 and 1964. Laborers from Mexico, under the Bracero Program, were mainly used for agricultural work in California and Texas. These laborers faced brutal working conditions for low pay in the fields and lived under the constant stress of deportation. In addition, they faced discrimination and were often used to break picket lines when strikes occurred. The Bracero Program drove agricultural wages down and circumvented governmental labor policy by exploiting noncitizen workers well beyond World War II (Hernandez, 2006; National Park Service, 2024).

Following World War II, many workers from the Bracero Program remained in the United States. In addition, hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers had come to the United States outside of the Bracero Program (Hernandez, 2006). These individuals were working on farms throughout the American Southwest and California. In response to this, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Commissioner Joseph Swing of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) authorized Operation Wetback. Operation Wetback was a governmental policy initiative backed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which authorized the deportation of undocumented immigrants (Hernandez, 2006).

Operation Wetback, implemented in 1954, was a military-style mass deportation that utilized the Border Patrol to deport upwards of one million Latinx individuals out of the United States, some of whom were United States citizens. Border Patrol Agents “engaged in a coordinated, tactical operation to remove immigrants. Along the way, they used widespread racial stereotypes to justify their sometimes brutal treatment of immigrants” (Blakemore, 2024, August 20, para. 5). Mass raids were conducted across the United States, and immigrants were often deported to unfamiliar cities. Family separation was common. During Operation Wetback, Mexican immigrants were deported by bus, plane, and boat. Often, boats sent individuals further into Mexico, assuming it would be harder for them to return that way. “In Texas, 25 percent of all of the immigrants deported were crammed into boats later compared to slave ships, while others died of sunstroke, disease and other causes while in custody” (Blakemore, 2024, August 20, para. 6).

Immigration policy has continued to be varied and complex for the Latinx population. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 set an annual cap on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, creating new challenges for Latin American immigration. The 1980 Refugee Act established a system for admitting refugees into the United States. While some Latin American refugees were able to immigrate under this act, it has been and continues to be biased based on the status of United States allyship throughout the world. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act granted amnesty to around 2.7 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom were Latinx. However, ongoing labor demands influenced the continued unauthorized immigration into the United States, which persists today (Massey & Pren, 2012).

In 1996, there was a shift in immigration policy with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which expanded grounds for deportation. It also established a punitive policy around detention and re-entry bans for those unlawfully caught in the United States. This act reinforced the negative stereotyping of undocumented immigrants as criminals, and undocumented life became further criminalized (Massey & Pren, 2012).

In 2001, the first of many Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Acts was introduced. The goal of the DREAM Acts was to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented youth who had come to the United States as children. These youth, often called “Dreamers” in the proposed legislation, had not chosen to enter the United States but were instead brought there by their undocumented parents. In 2012, President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects undocumented youth from deportation. DACA allows work permits for undocumented youth; however, it does not include a path to citizenship. It has benefitted over 800,000 individuals, primarily from Latin America (Rosenblum & Ruiz Soto, 2015).

From 2017 to 2021, policy again shifted with the Trump administration, and zero-tolerance policies led to highly publicized border incarceration and family separation. Videos of children in cages sparked outrage as the Trump administration increased deportation and attempted to repeal DACA (History.com, 2023). In addition, there was increased focus on building a border wall between the United States and Mexico to control immigration. These highly politicized policies, exacerbated by media coverage, led to increased fear and uncertainty among Latinx communities and to increased reports of discrimination towards Latinx people in the United States (Noe-Bustamante et al., 2021).

In 2021, Joe Biden was elected president, and policy towards immigration from the Southern Border again shifted. The Biden presidency worked to protect DACA and create a means for legal immigration from Latinx countries. In addition, the Biden administration focused on family reunification for those separated at the border (Krogstad & Gonzalez-Barrera, 2022). With the 2024 election and another Trump administration looming, many Latinx individuals are again facing discrimination and fear around promised mass deportation (Garsd, 2024).

Employment Law and Policy

As the United States grew, legislation impacted employment, and various employment laws were enacted. In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act, or the Wagner Act, established the right of workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain with employers. This act also generated the National Labor Relations Board, an independent agency tasked with enforcing labor laws, resolving employment disputes, and overseeing union elections. While the right to unionize was a decisive shift in United States employment law, the National Labor Relations Act had some very specific exclusions, which still impact the workforce today. One that was particularly impactful for Latinx populations was the exclusion of domestic and agricultural workers. At the time, the majority of Latinx workers in the United States were farmworkers or domestic workers, and this exclusion left them working difficult jobs with no federal protection (National Park Service, 2024).

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established additional protections for workers in the United States. It established a minimum wage for workers, overtime rules, and child labor protection. Once again, domestic workers and farmworkers were exempted. These exclusions, often lobbied for by owners of large farms, were deeply rooted in racism and bias, as they disproportionately affected individuals from marginalized populations (National Park Service, 2024).

Other Relevant Legislation

Mendez v. Westminster played a pivotal role in the desegregation of public schools in 1947. At the time, many school districts in California were exercising discriminatory practices of separating Latinx children from White children. Mendez, along with other parents, argued that the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause made this segregation unconstitutional. In 1946, the United States district court ruled that school segregation based on national origin was indeed unconstitutional. This ruling was significant because it occurred before the more famous Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 setting a precedent for desegregating schools in California and paved the way for the later national movement to end school segregation (Hanigan, 2022).

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 aimed to criminalize discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Before the Fair Housing Act, many Latinx families faced discriminatory practices like redlining, racial covenants, and restrictive zoning laws, which prevented Latinx families from living in predominantly White neighborhoods. As a result, Latinx individuals often lived in substandard, overcrowded housing with limited access to services and education. The passage of the Fair Housing Act prohibited these exclusionary practices. While it provided legal recourse for discrimination in housing, the impacts of the Fair Housing Act were limited by enforcement issues and loopholes. For example, many landlords and real estate agents still found ways to circumvent the law through unofficial redlining practices. Over time, however, the changes sparked by the Fair Housing Act did increase housing access for many Latinx families. This led to a gradual integration of residential areas in cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago (Yzaguirre et al., 1999).

The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 had a significant impact on the Latinx community. The Bilingual Education Act helped lay the foundation for bilingual education programs that would later be expanded in the 1970s and 1980s. These programs provided language support and cultural learning to Latinx children. For Latinx families, the Bilingual Education Act was a critical step toward gaining access to better educational opportunities. However, implementing the Bilingual Education Act faced challenges, such as limited resources, resistance from some educators, and political pushback (Garcia & Sung, 2018).

The Voting Rights Act of 1975 expanded the 1965 Voting Rights Act and was specifically aimed at improving the voting rights of minority communities, including Latinx voters. One significant feature of the 1975 amendment was the provision requiring bilingual ballots and election materials in areas with large populations of United States citizens who  were non-English speakers. The law was a response to the growing consensus that language should not be a barrier to voting. The 1975 amendment profoundly impacted the Latinx community, as it led to the creation of bilingual election programs in jurisdictions with significant Latinx populations, particularly in the Southwest and parts of Florida, where many Puerto Rican communities were located (Cartagena, 2005).

Proposition 187, passed in California in 1994, was a highly controversial initiative aimed at restricting access to public services, including education and healthcare, for undocumented immigrants. Specifically, the measure denied public benefits to individuals not legally residing in the United States. Examples of these benefits included non-emergency healthcare and public schooling. The proposition was overwhelmingly supported by White voters and faced significant opposition from immigrant communities. The Latinx community, a substantial portion of California’s immigrant population, viewed Proposition 187 as a form of racial and ethnic discrimination. Proposition 187 sparked widespread protests, activism, and a shift in political alignments among Latinx people. Proposition 187 galvanized Latinx political engagement in California as Latinx individuals formed advocacy groups to oppose the proposition and mobilize Latinx voters. Despite its support by White voters, the proposition was eventually ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in 1997. Ultimately, Proposition 187 had the unintended effect of mobilizing a generation of Latino voters and activists, shaping the political discourse around immigration in the years that followed (Arellano, 2024).

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, often referred to as “welfare reform,” had a significant impact on low-income Latinx populations. This law, signed by President Bill Clinton, fundamentally altered the nation’s welfare system by eliminating the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). One of the critical aspects of the PRWORA was its emphasis on work requirements and time-limited assistance, which meant that individuals had to find employment to continue receiving benefits (Center for Public Impact, 2017). For the low-income Latinx community, the law’s impacts were harsh. Latinx families, particularly immigrant populations, were disproportionately affected by PRWORA. While PRWORA’s supporters argued that it encouraged self-sufficiency, advocacy groups and community leaders within the Latinx community criticized the law for being discriminatory, arguing that it unfairly targeted immigrant families, exacerbated poverty, and pushed many families into deeper economic hardship (Lovato & Abrams, 2023).

Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), passed in 2010, was one of the most controversial state-level immigration laws in recent United States history. Officially known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” SB 1070 required law enforcement officers to question individuals about their immigration status if there was reasonable suspicion that they were in the country illegally. For the Latinx community, SB 1070 had an immediate impact. Many in the community, including citizens and legal immigrants, feared racial profiling by law enforcement. The passage of SB 1070 sparked widespread national and international condemnation, including protests in Arizona and other parts of the United States. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court partially struck down SB 1070, ruling that certain provisions, including the “show me your papers” section, were unconstitutional. However, the court upheld the idea of allowing police to check immigration status during lawful stops, which left much of the law intact (Serratos, 2017).

The Civil Rights Movement

The Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century represented more than just a quest for African American equality; it also significantly impacted the civil rights struggle of Latinx individuals. The 1964 Civil Rights Act catalyzed multiple civil rights movements within Latinx communities. Protests and activism erupted around systemic discrimination in housing, education, labor, and voting rights.

The Chicano Movement

The Chicano Movement, also known as “El Movimiento,” was a civil rights movement that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. It advocated for the rights and empowerment of Mexican Americans and was part of the broader wave of civil rights movements during this era. The Chicano Movement sought to address issues of inequality, discrimination, and cultural marginalization faced by Mexican Americans in the United States (Kraz, 2021).

Some of the key issues the Chicano Movement addressed were education reform, political empowerment, labor rights, land rights, anti-war activism, and cultural pride and identity. Some of the key individuals in the movement included César Chávez, Dolores Huerta, Reies López Tijerina, Rodolfo Gonzales, and José Ángel Gutiérrez. The Chicano Movement made a lasting impact. It led to reform in education, inspired the development of Chicano studies at universities, highlighted intersectional struggles for Latinx individuals, and cultivated a sense of pride in being Latinx (Kraz, 2021).

The Bracero Program, which began in the 1940s and 1950s, laid the foundation for the Chicano Movement. Farmers’ unfair practices in utilizing labor from the Bracero Program led to consistent issues regarding fair labor and labor rights. Working conditions in the fields continued to be difficult. In the fields there were no toilets; water was often not provided or had to be shared; and farmworker housing had no cooking facilities or running water, despite the workers being required to pay rent (United Farm Workers, n.d.).

In 1962, Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA), later renamed the United Farm Workers (UFW). Cesar Chavez, who was the son of farmworkers, spent three years going from farm to farm, talking to and recruiting farmworkers to organize. In 1965, the NFWA organized two small-scale strikes. Despite winning some wage demands, the NFWA still wanted to be recognized as a union, which the farmers refused. Around the same time, a similar organization, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), led a walkout of grape pickers in the Coachella Valley. Again, the farmers gave in to demands regarding pay but refused to accept any attempts at unionizing (United Farm Workers, n.d.).

As the summer of 1965 waned, the grapes were ripening in the Delano area of California. Propelled by their success in the walk-out at Coachella Valley, many migrant workers again demanded a fair wage. When their demands were not met, strikes organized by AWOC occurred at nine farms. As farmers began to bring in Chicano scabs, AWOC approached Cesar Chavez and asked the NFWA to join the strike, which mainly consisted of Filipino workers. While Chavez himself was apprehensive, the vote was overwhelming to join and the NFWA joined the strike. The NFWA brought many more members than the AWOC, and by late September, more than 30 farms were impacted by the strike. Again, the farmers attempted to concede on wages but refused to accept unionization. This time organizers were prepared for this, and any attempts at wage negotiation without unionization were rejected (United Farm Workers, n.d.).

The Civil Rights Movement of the time brought public attention to the issue of racism, and the timing of the strikes, which effectively used public outrage, bolstered its success. Chavez called upon the public to support the farmworkers by refusing to buy non-union grapes, and the public obliged.

By 1970 the UFW got grape growers to accept union contracts and effectively organized most of that industry, claiming 50,000 dues-paying members—the most ever represented by a union in California agriculture. Gains included a health clinic and health plan, credit union, community center, cooperative gas station, higher wages as well as a union-run hiring hall The hiring hall meant an end to discrimination and favoritism by labor contractors. (United Farm Workers, n.d., para. 22)

Current Experience of Being Latinx in the United States

The United States Census Bureau (2023) states that the Hispanic population in the United States reached 63.7 million in 2022. The Hispanic population is the nation’s second-largest racial or ethnic group behind non-Hispanic White people. This racial group is also among the fastest-growing groups in the United States. Since 1970, the Hispanic population has grown more than sixfold (Funk & Lopez, 2022) and represents over 19% of the total population of the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

Discrimination

According to a 2021 Pew Research Study, more than half of the Latinx population reported experiencing discrimination in 2020. Examples cited included being criticized for speaking Spanish, being told to go back to their country, fearing for their safety, being called offensive names, and being unfairly stopped by the police (Noe-Bustamante et al., 2021). Respondents also stated that they have experienced discrimination from both Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike and that younger Hispanics experience more discrimination than older individuals. In addition, Noe-Bustamante et al. found that often in the Hispanic population, darker skin usually equals increased discrimination, stating “Hispanics view skin color as a driver of advantage when it comes to getting ahead in the U.S.” (para. 19).

In addition to the generalized discrimination discussed by Noe-Bustamante et al. (2021), Afro-Latinx individuals face unique challenges related to their African heritage and Latinx identity. They often navigate experiences of racial discrimination within their Latinx communities while also facing marginalization as people of color in broader society (Pujols, 2022).

Indigenous Latinx people also experience distinct discrimination challenges as they contend with the erasure of their culture and languages within both the larger Latinx community and the dominant society. Indigenous identity within the Latinx community is often overlooked. And because Indigenous populations frequently have darker skin and speak Indigenous languages, Indigenous Latinx individuals are often discriminated against within the general Latinx community (Urrieta & Calderon, 2019).

Discrimination and Mental Health

Studies show that Latinx youth experience higher levels of depression related to discrimination than their other marginalized counterparts (Ramos, 2020). According to Ramos (2020), depression is prevalent among Latinx youth, and 50% of Latinx youth feel perpetually sad or hopeless. This statistic has often been linked to the experience of racism despite 80% of Latinx youth under 35 being United States citizens. Ramos attributes these statistics to being labeled a “perpetual foreigner” (p. 82) in the United States. She argues that the experience of constantly being treated as if one does not belong where one was born and lives leads to some of the highest depression rates in the United States.

While farmworker advocacy may feel like an issue rooted in the past, this is not the case. According to Ramos (2020), “There are approximately 2.5 million farmworkers across the country. More than half of them are undocumented, and more than 70 percent identify as Latino” (pg. 23). Being undocumented leaves many Latinx workers vulnerable to exploitation, poor working conditions, and limited access to legal protections. Addressing these challenges requires both policy reform and grassroots organizing. For example, contemporary efforts by organizations like the UFW and advocacy groups for undocumented immigrants emphasize securing better wages, working conditions, and pathways to citizenship (United Farm Workers, n.d.).

Being Latinx in the United States is a complex, multifaceted experience shaped by a rich cultural heritage, systemic challenges, and enduring resilience. The persistence of stereotypes, such as the “perpetual foreigner” (Ramos, 2020, p. 82) narrative, highlights the need for a broader societal understanding of the Latinx community’s historical and contemporary contributions to the United States. Despite these obstacles, the community has shown resilience and fostered solidarity by advocating for systemic change through grassroots activism, cultural expression, and political engagement.

References

Adams, D. W. (2020). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875-1928 (2^nd ed. Rev.). University Press of Kansas.

Arellano, G. (2024, November 12). Column: We now live in a Prop. 187 America: What’s next? Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-11-12/proposition-187-donald-trump-victory

Atomic Heritage Foundation. (n.d.) Potsdam: The crossroads of atomic science and international diplomacy. Atomic Heritage Foundation. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/potsdam-crossroads-atomic-science-and-international-diplomacy/

Beezley, W. H. (2008). Mexican national identity: Memory, innuendo, and popular culture. University of Arizona Press.

Blackhawk, N. (2023). The rediscovery of America: Native peoples and the unmaking of U.S. history. Yale University Press.

Blakemore, E. (2024, April 23). Chinese Americans were once forbidden to testify in court. A murder changed that. History.com. https://www.history.com/news/chinese-exclusion-act-yee-shun-legal-rights

Blakemore, E. (2024, August 20). The largest mass deportation in American history. History.com. https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation

Bonham, V. L. (2024, September 26). Race. National Human Genome Research Institute. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race

Brown, D. S. (2022). The first populist: The defiant life of Andrew Jackson. Scribner.

Budiman, A., & Ruiz, N. G. (2021, April 29). Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-americans/

Burton, L. M., Bonilla-Silva, E., Ray, V., Buckelew, R., & Freeman, E. H. (2010). Critical race theories, colorism, and the decade’s research on families of color. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 440-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00712.x

Carasik, L., & Bachman, J. S. (2019). In J. S. Bachman (Ed.), Cultural genocide: Law, politics, and global manifestations (pp. 97-117). Routledge.

Cartagena, J. (2005). Latinos and section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: Beyond black and white. National Black Law Journal, 18(2), 201-223. https://www.national-consortium.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/8467/latininos.pdf

Center for Public Impact. (2017, October 30). The 1996 personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act in the US. https://centreforpublicimpact.org/public-impact-fundamentals/the-1996-personal-responsibility-and-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-in-the-us/

Charles, M., & Rah., S. C. (2019). Unsettling truths: The ongoing dehumanizing legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery. InterVarsity Press.

Chappell, B. (2023, March 30). The Vatican repudiates ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ which was used to justify colonialism. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/30/1167056438/vatican-doctrine-of-discovery-colonialism-indigenous

Contreras, R. (2023, September 5). Search for lost soldier shows how little we know about Latinos in World War I. Doughboy Foundation. https://doughboy.org/search-for-lost-soldier-shows-how-little-we-know-about-latinos-in-world-war-i/

Cowie, J. (2022). Freedom’s dominion: A saga of white resistance to federal power. Basic Books.

Cozzens, P. (2016). The earth is weeping: The epic story of the Indian Wars for the American west. Knopf.

Deer, S. (2015). The beginning and end of rape: Confronting sexual violence in Native America. University of Minnesota Press.

Diamond, A. (2020, May 19). The 1924 law that slammed the door on immigrants and the politicians who pushed it back open. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1924-law-slammed-door-immigrants-and-politicians-who-pushed-it-back-open-180974910/

Duany, J. (1999). Cuban communities in the United States: Migration waves, settlement patterns and socioeconomic diversity. Pouvoirs dans la Caraibe, 11, 69-103. https://doi.org/10.4000/plc.464

Funk, C., & Lopez, M. H. (2022, June 14). A brief statistical portrait of U.S. Hispanics. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/06/14/a-brief-statistical-portrait-of-u-s-hispanics/

Garcia, O., & Sung, K. K. (2018). Critically assessing the 1968 Bilingual Act at 50 years: Taming tongues and Latinx communities. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(4), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2018.1529642

Garsd, J. (2024, November 19). Trump’s threats of mass deportations lead to hard discussions for families. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/19/g-s1-34736/trumps-threats-of-mass-deportations-lead-to-hard-discussions-for-families

Gillio-Whitaker, D. (2019). As long as the grass grows: The Indigenous fight for environmental justice, from colonization to Standing Rock. Beacon Press.

Gonzalez, J. (2022). Harvest of empire: A history of Latinos in America. Penguin Books.

Grinde, D. A. (2004). Taking the Indian out of the Indian: U.S. policies of ethnocide through education. Wicazo Sa Review, 19(2), 25-32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1409496

Grzanka, P. R., Gonzales, K.A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2019). White supremacy and counseling psychology: A critical-conceptual framework. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(4) 478-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019880843

Guardino, P. (2017). The Dead March: A history of the Mexican-American War. Harvard University Press.

Hämäläinen, P. (2019). Lakota America: A new history of Indigenous power. Yale University Press.

Hanigan, I. (2022, April 14). Mendez v. Westminster, which ended forced school segregation, concluded 75 years ago today. OCDE Newsroom. https://newsroom.ocde.us/the-final-ruling-in-mendez-v-westminster-which-ended-sanctioned-school-segregation-came-75-years-ago-today/

Hernandez, K. L. (2006). The crimes and consequences of illegal immigration: A cross-border examination of Operation Wetback, 1943-1954. Western Historical Quarterly, 37(4) 421-444. https://doi.org/10.2307/25443415

History.com. (2010, February 9). World War II. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/world-war-ii-history

History.com (2023). Hispanic history milestones: Timeline. https://www/topics/hispanic-history/hispanic-latinx-milestones

Hoffman, A., & Batalova, J. (2022, December 7). Indian immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states-2021

Indian Child Welfare, 25 U.S.C. § 21 (1978). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title25/chapter21&edition=prelim

Jones, R. P. (2023). The hidden roots of white supremacy and the path to a shared American future. Simon & Schuster.

Kendi, I. X. (2016). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America. Bold Type Books.

Kiel, D. (2017). American expansion turns to official Indian removal. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/american-expansion-turns-to-indian-removal.htm

Kiilleen, A. (2021). Japan’s victory in World War I. Naval History, 35(3). https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/june/japans-victory-world-war-i

Klein, C. (2023, July 12). What happened at the Wounded Knee Massacre? History.com. https://www.history.com/news/wounded-knee-massacre-facts

Kraz, J. (2021, September 23). El Movimiento: The Chicano movement and Hispanic identity in the United States. National Archives. https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2021/09/23/el-movimiento-the-chicano-movement-and-hispanic-identity-in-the-united-states/

Krogstad, J. M., & Gonzalez-Barrera (2022, January 11). Key facts about U.S. immigration policies and Biden’s proposed changes. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/11/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-policies-and-bidens-proposed-changes/

Lepore, J. (2018). These truths: A history of the United States. Norton.

Library of Congress. (n.d.-a). A growing community. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/mexican/a-growing-community

Library of Congress. (n.d.-b). Indian Citizenship Act. https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/

Library of Congress. (n.d.-c). Legislation. https://guides.loc.gov/american-indian-law/Legislation

Ling, H. (2023). Asian American history. Rutgers University Press.

Lovato, K., & Abrams, L. S. (2023). An examination of Latinx immigrant families’ social service needs following a deportation. Child Welfare, 100(4) p 113-152. https://cimmcw.org/wp-content/uploads/Lovato_Abrams_pdf.pdf

Makos, I. (2021, April 13). Roles of Native Americans during the Revolution. American Battlefield Trust. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/roles-native-americans-during-revolution

Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2012). Unintended consequences of US immigration policy: Explaining the post-1965 Surge from Latin America. Population and Development Review, 38(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00470.x

Mays, K. T. (2021). An Afro-Indigenous history of the United States. Beacon Press.

Morales, D. (2018). 100 years of back-and-forth immigration policy. Sin Barreras. https://www.sinbarrerascville.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/100-Yrs-of-Immigration-History.pdf

Moslimani, M., Lopez, M. H., & Noe-Bustamante, L. (2023, August 16). 11 facts about Hispanic origin groups in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/16/11-facts-about-hispanic-origin-groups-in-the-us/

National Archives. (2023). Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act

National Archives. (n.d.). Dawes Act (1887). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dawes-act

National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). 1934: President Franklin Roosevelt signs the Indian Reorganization Act. Native Voice. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/452.html

National Park Service. (2024, October 17). Thirty years of farmworker struggle. Cesar E Chávez National Monument. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/a-new-era-of-farm-worker-organizing.htm

National Park Service. (n.d.). Ely Parker. https://www.nps.gov/people/ely-parker.htm

The National WWII Museum. (n.d.). Japanese American incarceration. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-american-incarceration

Native American Rights Fund. (2019). Trigger points: Current state of research on history, impacts, and healing related to the United States’ Indian industrial/boarding school policy. https://www.narf.org/nill/documents/trigger-points.pdf

Naval History and Heritage Command. (2023). Naval bases in the Philippines. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/organization-and-administration/historic-bases/philippine-bases.html

Newland, B. (2022). Federal Indian boarding school initiative investigative report. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline-files/bsi_investigative_report_may_2022_508.pdf

Noe-Bustamante, L., Gonzales-Barrera, A., Edwards, K., Mora, L., & Lopez, M. H. (2021, November 4). Half of U.S. Latinos experienced some form of discrimination during the first year of the pandemic. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2021/11/04/half-of-u-s-latinos-experienced-some-form-of-discrimination-during-the-first-year-of-the-pandemic/

Nordell, J. (2021). The end of bias: A beginning: The science and practice of overcoming unconscious bias. Metropolitan Books.

Office for Victims of Crime. (n.d.). Laws & policies. https://ovc.ojp.gov/program/victims-crime-act-voca-administrators/laws-policies

Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Japanese-American relations at the turn of the century, 1900-1922. U.S. Department of State. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/japanese-relations

Oropeza, L. (n.d.). Fighting on two fronts: Latinos in the military. In National Park System Advisory Board (Ed.), American Latino heritage theme study (pp. 251-271). https://www.nps.gov/articles/latinothememilitary.htm

Pujols, J. S. (2022). ‘It’s about the way I’m treated’: Afro-Latina Black identity development in the third space. Youth & Society, 54(4), 591-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20982314

Ramos, P. (2020). Finding Latinx: In search of the voices redefining Latino identity. Vintage Books.

Richardson, H. C. (2010). Wounded knee: Party politics and the road to an American massacre. Basic Books.

Rosenblum, M. R., & Ruiz Soto, A. G. (2015). An analysis of unauthorized immigrants in the United States by country and region of birth. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/analysis-unauthorized-immigrants-united-states-country-and-region-birth

Rotondi, J. P. (2024, April 23). Before the Chinese Exclusion Act, this anti-immigrant law targeted Asian women. History.com. https://www.history.com/news/chinese-immigration-page-act-women

Ruiz, N. G., Im, C., & Tian, Z. (2023, November 30). Asian Americans and the ‘model minority’ stereotype. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2023/11/30/asian-americans-and-the-model-minority-stereotype/

Sanchez, R. (2018). Spanglish and identity in modern Latinx communities. Linguistic Studies, 24(4), 455-471.

Serratos, O. (2017, November 17). Generation SB1070: These Latino millennials grew up under controversial immigration law. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/generation-sb1070-these-latino-millennials-grew-under-controversial-immigration-law-n821806

Smithers, G. D. (2022). Reclaiming Two-Spirits: Sexuality, spiritual renewals, & sovereignty in Native America. Beacon Press.

Tanaka, E. (n.d.). Inconsistencies in the court (Ozawa v. Thind). H2O. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/7606-asian-americans-and-us-law/resources/3.10-inconsistencies-in-the-court-ozawa-v-thind/

Treuer, D. (2019). The heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the present. Riverhead Books

United Farm Workers. (n.d.). UFW history. https://ufw.org/research/history/ufw-history/

United Nations. (1951). Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

United Nations. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

Urrieta, L., Jr., & Calderon, D. (2019). Critical Latinx indigeneities: Unpacking indigeneity from within and outside of Latinized entanglements. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 13(2), 145-174. https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.13.2.432

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). About the topic of race. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023, August 17). Hispanic heritage month: 2023. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2023/hispanic-heritage-month.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023a). Facts for features: American Indian and Alaska Native heritage month: November 2023. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2023/aian-month.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023b). Native American heritage day: November 24, 2023. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/native-american-heritage-day.html

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2023, September 26). U.S. commission on civil rights releases report: The Federal response to anti-Asian racism in the United States. https://www.usccr.gov/news/2023/us-commission-civil-rights-releases-report-federal-response-anti-asian-racism-united

Vinovskis, M. A. (1970). Horace Mann on the economic productivity of education. The New England Quarterly, 43(4), 550-571. https://doi.org/10.2307/363132

Wilkerson, I. (2023). Caste: The origins of our discontent. Random House.

Yzaguirre, R., Arce, L., & Kamasaki, C. (1999). The Fair Housing Act: A Latino perspective. Cityscape: A Journal of Public Development and Research, 4(3), 161-170. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Periodicals/CITYSCPE/VOL4NUM3/yzaguirre.pdf

Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.