The relevant scientific literature appears to have begun with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish became white”, and he left from there. But what the authors concerned mean by white is ahistorical. They refer to a stylized, sociological or anthropological understanding of “whiteness”, which means either “fully accepted socially as equals of Americans of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic descent”, or, in the more politicized version, “part accepted by society. the dominant ruling class in the United States.
These may be interesting sociological and anthropological angles to explore, but they have nothing to do with whether or not the groups involved are considered white.
Here are some objective tests for determining whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to attend “whites-only” schools in the South, or to benefit from another manner of the advantages granted to whites? under Jim Crow? Were schools ever segregated by law anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws prohibited interracial marriage in many states (not just the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would it have been illegal? Some unions limited their membership to whites. Do these unions exclude members of the group in question? Have members of this group ever been completely excluded from immigrating to the United States, or have they faced any special bans or restrictions on becoming citizens?
If you use such objective tests, you will find that Irish, Jewish, Italian, and other white ethnic people were indeed considered white by law and custom (as in the case of unions). Indeed, some lighter-skinned African Americans of mixed descent “passed” as white by claiming to be of Arab origin, which explained their relative dark skin, showing that Arab Americans, another group whose “whiteness” was questioned, were considered white. In contrast, people of African, Asian, Mexican, and Native American descent faced varying degrees of exclusion from public schools and unions, prohibitions on marriage, and direct restrictions on immigration and citizenship.
You can also get a sense of who was considered white by examining whether Americans considered a particular marriage to be interracial; only 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage until 1958. Yet white Anglo-Americans were not ostracized by polite society for marrying Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans. Famous Jewish Hollywood stars, such as George Burns, not only married Gentiles, but also openly associated with them in their careers. We know that light-skinned Cubans were considered white at least from 1950 onwards because (despite studio concerns) the public accepted Lucy and Ricky in a way that they would never have accepted a black couple. -white or Chinese-white. American Indians were considered non-white, but if they assimilated and married whites, their children were generally accepted as part of white society. Did you know Will Rogers was Cherokee 9/32?
When I point this out to people, they often respond that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries people often referred to the “Irish race”, the “Italian race”, the “Jewish race”. . This is true, but they also referred to the “Anglo-Saxon race” and the “Teutonic race”, the latter two generally considered superior. The racist pseudo-science of the time divided Europeans into different races based on nationality or perceived nationality, and often created a hierarchy between these groups. But this was a racist hierarchy within the white group, not evidence that these groups were not considered white. This point is often obscured by adherents of whiteness studies, because racism within a white hierarchy conflicts with their understanding of American racism as solely a matter of “whiteness.”
Racist writings attacking “ethnic” Americans can also be found in terms that are consistent with the more conventional form of American racism, such as references to the need to exclude “swarthy” Jews and Italians from the United States. But these critiques focused on what is perceived as “swarthy” precisely in an attempt to persuade Americans that contrary to accepted norms, these groups were not in fact “white” and should be treated as non-white.
Note that this does not mean that Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Arabs, etc. have not faced discrimination, hostility, assertions of inferiority and sometimes even violence. They did it. But historically, they were also considered white.
UPDATE: The comments are interesting and show that the whiteness studies perspective has been so influential that many people cannot fathom the idea that the Irish, Italians, Poles, Slovaks, Jews, Greeks and other immigrants to the United States might have faced enormous discrimination from the Northeast European establishment and yet they are still considered white. People also don’t seem to understand that “ethnic” white people could have been considered white, but also be subject to racism, because people believed that there were subraces within the white category.
