Chapter 10--Nativism

After reading chapter 11, I was struck by the section that discussed women (p. 281) and aspects related to their voting rights as well as other aspects related to immigration. I, like many of us, was aware of the Nineteenth Amendment, which (finally) gave women the right to vote. This was particularly important as well because the act of voting was such a huge part of what constituted being a full-blown citizen; an actual human being with a mind, with opinions. It seems like the right to vote acknowledged a woman as being independent of her husband—in the past husbands voted on behalf their wives. So, this was undoubtedly a major progression towards human rights, not just “women’s rights”.

So, many of us know this. But how often do we hear about the rights of early immigrant women? The book mentions how immigrant women and their rights were just not a priority for Congress. This is not entirely surprising considering the prevalent anti-immigrant attitudes of the time (or at the very least, the need-to-minimize-immigration attitudes).  And, of course, throughout much of history women were viewed as being inferior when compared to their male counterparts. Thus, if immigrants in general struggled for rights and acknowledgement in the United States, as women in general did, women immigrants (being from two minority groups) indeed must have additional struggles. And they also had no real voice that would have been heard by a discriminating society and male Congress.

I also took note of the Expatriation Act, which penalized American women who married foreign men by relinquishing their citizenship. Two things come to mind here: 1) Why should such an act be implemented in the first place, with the emphasis on punishing or minimizing a woman’s right to choose a marital partner?  2) Why wasn’t there a similar law outlining the result of an American man who married a foreign woman?  Interestingly, foreign women who married citizen men automatically became citizens. That was deemed acceptable. Yes, eventually, women were allowed to marry foreign men without facing the automatic resignation of their citizenship (although the Cable Act had other hidden agendas pertaining to Asians). Yet, it says something that the act was implemented in the first place. Women weren’t readily looked upon as having the same rights as men at the time. As it was and continues to be for other subjugated groups in society, rights seem to come with fights. It’s amazing to me just how slow-moving equal rights were for many of America’s minority groups.

As a nation, we have been so shockingly slow to progress and even when progression seems apparent on the surface, a closer look often reveals otherwise. Negative attitudes persist for decades. And so many groups have been ostracized.  I was surprised to learn, for example, about the anti-Catholic movements.  I had no idea about how churches and convents were at the brunt of some rather violent attacks (e.g. the burning of the Ursuline Convent).  And then there was a lot of propaganda surrounding “corrupt” priests making inappropriate sexual advances on nuns. Indeed, it’s amazing how inventive people can become in their hatred towards particular groups.