White by Law 10th Anniversary Edition: The Legal Construction of Race

Critical America

by Ian F. Haney-López

White by Law was published in 1996 to immense critical acclaim, and established Ian Haney López as one of the most exciting and talented young minds in the legal academy. The first book to fully explore the social and specifically legal construction of race, White by Law inspired a generation of critical race theorists and others interested in the intersection of race and law in American society. Today, it is used and cited widely by not only legal scholars but many others interested in race, ethnicity, culture, politics, gender, and similar socially fabricated facets of American society.
In the first edition of White by Law , Haney López traced the reasoning employed by the courts in their efforts to justify the whiteness of some and the non-whiteness of others, and revealed the criteria that were used, often arbitrarily, to determine whiteness, and thus citizenship: skin color, facial features, national origin, language, culture, ancestry, scientific opinion, and, most importantly, popular opinion.
Ten years later, Haney López revisits the legal construction of race, and argues that current race law has spawned a troubling racial ideology that perpetuates inequality under a new guise: colorblind white dominance. In a new, original essay written specifically for the 10th anniversary edition, he explores this racial paradigm and explains how it contributes to a system of white racial privilege socially and legally defended by restrictive definitions of what counts as race and as racism, and what doesn't, in the eyes of the law. The book also includes a new preface, in which Haney Lopez considers how his own personal experiences with white racial privilege helped engender White by Law .

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Race, Law, Politics, Social Justice, Sociology

264 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

Reviews

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Filled with interesting detail but pretty hard to read. Lopez is really trying to do two things here. First, tell the story of the legal construction of race, particularly the legal construction of the 'white' race, through court cases from the 1880s through the 1930s. Second, he is trying to connect that first bit with a vision for what he predicts will happen with race consciousness in this country in the future. His discussion of the court cases is fascinating, I never knew this before, but the only people who could naturalize as citizens in the US until the 50s were white people or black people. This led to many court cases in which Japanese people, Syrians, Armenians, Indians, Chinese people and others tried to prove that they were 'white' so that they could naturalize. But determining who counts as 'white' turns out to be pretty tricky, and Lopez uses the arguments in the court decisions to show how Americans of European descent tried to invent a plausible and controlled definition of 'whiteness'.
The problem is that Lopez is constantly jumping around in his argument, and trying to bring in predictions for the future, and suggestions for how white people can (and must) subvert the concept of 'whiteness', and the book gets harder to follow. It is worth reading just for the interesting history of the naturalization cases though, which really show just how ridiculous the whole idea of 'race' is.

[Jez · Rating 5 out of 5]

if you want to understand race in the U.S., and how totally messed up it is, read this book.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really appreciate this book's attention to the utter arbitrariness of race, as well as how the highly nonsensical legacy of race has become unquestionable common sense today (e.g., we would never think of a Japanese person as white today even though back in the 1800s there was great debate invoking explicitly racist ideology and appeals to long debunked race science and that debate we have now internalized as if there is no other way to see the world). I also appreciate how the book points out that we are active agents in the social construction of race (i.e., to some extent race is what we want it to be). Too often people say (passively) race is socially constructed without stopping to consider that each and every one of us is constantly making choices that contribute that to construction.
My only slight quibble is with the notion that we not only can but must use these same racist concepts of race to undo the damage that race caused in the first place (e.g. race-based affirmative action as a solution to the damage caused by race-based slavery and Jim Crow). Seems more likely to me that we might be able (à la Sally Haslanger) to decide what we want race to be and use our new conception of race as a means of achieving social justice. However, the conclusion which suggests that the key is actually first dismantling whiteness is a provocative alternative. Not to mention my appreciation of the point that simply saying that race works differently (or excluding race from our vocabulary altogether) without taking any further action will not actually lead to material change, which should be our true goal.

[erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ian Haney-Lopez's White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race is a stunning, deep analysis of race and law in the U.S. Be forewarned, this is definitely written by an academic, but the payoff is so amazing I would not hesitate to recommend it.

In White by Law, Haney-Lopez takes an intense look at how the U.S. treated early citizenship prerequisite cases. He carefully describes the ideology that goes into deciding who is white, and so, who can be a U.S. citizen. Chapters 2-4 dragged for me, and I found myself increasingly frustrated with what seemed to be the author's deep devotion to the academy (reflected in word choice and such a careful laying out of precedent that it seemed both repetitive and plodding). However, as soon as I hit Chapter 5, Haney-Lopez's analysis kicked in, and it was smooth sailing.

Haney-Lopez's understanding of the construction of race through law and the ramifications that construction had/has sparkles with innovation. I especially enjoyed his in-dept analysis of colorblindness and the value of whiteness. Haney-Lopez explodes race through his dogged deconstruction, and then explains the salience of race to U.S. society. He makes a convincing case for both social constructionism and conflict/Marxist theory in terms of contemporary importance of race. Further, the author makes one of the most convincing arguments for the harms of whiteness for "whites" that I have ever read.

This book changed my perspective on race in a way that no other book has. It is important and pertinent and more than worth the effort.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haney-López's experience as an undergrad in St. Louis motivated his engagement with this topic. [I like the idea of reading this as a sad commentary on life in St. Louis.:]

[Gwen Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are studying race in America,I recommend this book. Read this book with a dictionary,can't wait to discuss in class.

[Knight Of · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was interesting to see how people who saw themselves as white used whatever excuses to keep those they did not view as white out of citizenship, no matter how little sense it made.

[Jaime Rispoli-Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really find his idea of a “colorblind white dominance” interesting. (xviii) Even when as a society we talk about assimilation, or the Americanization of immigrants, we mean immigrants should embrace the dominant (White) culture, and celebrating cultural differentness, is somehow wrong, because everyone should strive to be ‘colorblind’. However, Lopez’s definition says that when Americans say ‘colorblind’, it really means living in a white superior society. Although Lopez claims we no longer live in a society where it’s “culturally legitimate” to overtly express this white superiority, it is manifested in many other ways. (xviii) Some people might honestly believe they are colorblind, even while looking down at any expression of cultural difference (like the gentleman my husband works with who prays every day at sunset, making many of their co-workers uncomfortable).

Lopez sees the “dominance of whites” in areas such as politics and economics as indicative of the fact that colorblindness, a self-righteous ideology wrapped “in the raiment of the civil rights movement,” claims to want to want to rid the world of racism, but does so by explicitly defining prejudices and discriminations BY RACE. (xviii) In addition, Colorblindness condemns affirmative action as racist (or against colorblindness), and completely ignores what Lopez calls the “disparities” in institutions like education and healthcare, as long as race isn’t invoked. (xviii) Again, he argues that this colorblindness ideology is grounded in law, is a social construct, created BY LAW, and he argues that it will have the effect of cementing white dominance. (xviii)

Many of these concepts have been floating around in my head for the past few years, and although I could see that institutions and law contributed to the issue, Lopez really opened my eyes to ways legal precedence affected/affects the definition of white and non-white. I appreciate that he took the time to say that he realizes lumping all “Whites” together is homogenizing, and that differences do exist in what it means to be white, based on sexuality, gender, class, religion (politics!) etc. Additionally, he recognizes that what it means to be white is not static. Rather, he uses the term “White” (with a capital W) to point out how the legal construction of race has shaped society, in terms of institutions, and in particular, that it creates an “other” that exists as inferior or undesirable.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

As recent events have reminded us, race is far from extinct as a concept or a social organizer of American life. Ian Haney López's prescient book from the 90s examines the legal construction of 'whiteness' and the centrality of this category to the creation and maintenance of (utterly fictional) racial categories.

Honestly, every white person (yes, especially you, "I don't see myself as white because I don't see race") should read this book or something like it. Whiteness only exists because courts and policymakers have fallen all over themselves to construct an exclusive, oppositional category - with clear material benefits - to which few are admitted. Particularly mind-blowing is the exposé on courts' inconsistent, racist 'logic' that always conveniently excluded undesirables from getting citizenship (because yes, once upon a time in America only whites could be citizens). The book gets into the nitty-gritty of these 'prerequisite' legal cases and often loses itself in tunnel-vision legalese, but the overall arguments are incredibly important, so stick with it.

Sadly, with the gutting of the VRA, it seems like we're headed towards what Haney López predicts: the upholding of inherently unfair systems that privilege white people with the excuse that mentioning race makes you the real racist. But who says there's no overt racism anymore? Have you seen Twitter these days? I think the next step from this book is to read more on how whites can deconstruct their identity in favor of racial justice, instead of wishfully pining for colorblindness.

[Matthew Rohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting look at the use of turn of the Gilded age through WWI immigration law in determining standards of racial identity in the US. The latter portion of the book deals with broader sociology about race in the US which is far less unique but still well explained. The bulk of the book dealing with the prerequisite cases is definitely worth reading and appendixes provide really solid source material on the cases for anyone using this for research

[Jocelyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The next time someone rhapsodizes to me about the foresight of the Founding Fathers and their buddies, I am going to go on a long rant on the enduring mischief begun by putting the words "white persons" in the 1790 naturalization statute and thereby creating the world's biggest, longest-running game of "us versus them."

[RK Byers · Rating 5 out of 5]

great arguments but doesn't suggest AT ALL that those unfortunate enough not to be considered privileged have the option of rejecting privilege altogether - which they do.

[tartaruga fechada · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Race exists alongside a multitude of social identities that shape and are themselves shaped by the way in which race is given meaning. We live race through class, religion, nationality, gender, sexual identity, and so on. Whether one is White therefore depends in part on other elements of identity -- for example, on whether one is wealthy or poor, Protestant or Muslim, male or female -- just as these aspects of identity are given shape and significance by whether or not one is white. Moreover, like these other social categories, race is highly contingent, specific to times, places, and situations. Whiteness, or the state of being White, thus turns on where one is, Watts or Westchester, Stanford University or San Jose State; on when one is there, two in the afternoon or three in the morning, 1878 or 1995 ... "

"The operation of law does far more than merely legalize race; it defines as well the spectrum of domination and subordination that constitutes race relations."

"Race can be understood as the historically contingent social systems of meaning that attach to elements of morphology and ancestry. This definition can be pushed on three interrelated levels, the physical, the social, and the material."

"As laws and legal decision-makers transform racial ideas into a lived reality of material inequality, the ensuing reality becomes a further justification for the ideas of race."

"The diacritical relationship between White and minority identities condemns the idea of a positive White race-consciousness and it suggests instead that a deconstructive one is necessary ... White identity is a hierarchical fantasy that requires inferior minority identities."

"When confronted with the falsity of White identity, Whites tend not to abandon Whiteness, but to embrace and protect it. The value of Whiteness to Whites almost certainly ensures the continuation of a White self-regard predicated on racial superiority."

"Citizenship, easily granted and easily withheld, is a tenuous concept on which to hang social privileges such as the right to attend school or to receive medical care. It is made even more untenable as a basis for social distinctions when one understands ... that citizenship easily serves as a proxy for race."

"Race is often seen in fixed terms, either as a biological given or a static social category. However, as the debates about race at the turn of the century demonstrate, racial categorization is a fluid process that turns not only on prejudice, but also on factors ranging from dubious science to national honor."

"By the end of the nineteenth century anthropologists had tried and failed to fashion practical physical typologies along various axes besides skin color ... None of these physical indices could support the division of humankind in into the races people already knew to exist ... If even skin color, that most evident and most powerfully identified feature of racial difference, could not in practice be relied upon to determine a person's race, then what physical basis could there be to the concept?"

"Race is purely a social construction, and the science of race is purely the science of social myth."

"In all of this violence, the law not only relied on but also constructed racial distinction. To say that law constructs races is also to say that races are the product of, not just the excuse for, violence. James Baldwin remarks that "no one was white before h/she came to America. It took generations, and a vast amount of coercion, before this became a white country."

"To reify racial categories means to transform them into concrete things, making the categories seem natural, rather than human creations."

"The inequitable economic and social effects of segregation testify every day in a thousand ways to the existence of races and racial differences in the United States. Race is not an immanent phenomenon located only in our heads, but an injurious material reality that constantly validates the common knowledge of race. These material differences are in large part the creations of law: the segregation that confirms racial differences was and is legally fashioned and legally maintained. Through law, race becomes real becomes law becomes race in a self-perpetuating pattern altered in myriad ways but never broken."

"Never forced to experience or reflect upon the petty indignities and intentional slights of racism, most Whites are free to act in the world with energies undiminished by the anger and self-doubt engendered among racism's victims. A result of privilege, transparency also confers privilege."

"The insistence that Whiteness is common knowledge, even against considerable evidence that it is a complex and ill-defined category, obviates and deflects inquiries about race. Race need not and cannot be interrogated because its essence is immediately and already known, particularly among Whites, who possess the repository of common knowledge about Whiteness. Through these various forms of naturalization, Whiteness becomes transparent, a protected status that one either has or does not have, but about which one need not think."

"It is irrelevant that there is no transhistorical reality underlying races. The absence of an objective basis for racial distinctions .... does not mean that ignoring race or refusing to discuss it will make racial divisions go away."

"[M]ost Whites continue to falsely suppose presumptions of worth are accorded them because they are valuable in themselves, rather than because they are White."

[Lael Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read (most) of this for class — a fantastic analysis of the social, legal, and cultural construction of race and whiteness. One of my biggest takeaways was how it provides fluency in essential prerequisite court cases that help understand these constructions. Wish I had more time with this book!!

[aarya]

Not rating academic assignments. Read via library.

[Bryan Mcquirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had to read this book as part of my studies. It lays out a concise and easy to understand history of the race laws in the United States, and how they came about. It discuss several key court decisions that effected how non whites were able to be considered white.

[Colleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant, essential work of critical race theory- the historical insight provided by Lopez was powerful in that it laid out naturalization laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and segregation laws as having sealed the nation’s racial makeup for years to come. Such laws literally constructed race on multiple levels by controlling who was or was not welcome into the white nation, who could have sexual/marital relations with who, and who could conduct their daily lives in which neighborhoods.

This book is basically a call for white people and "honorary white" POC to think beyond small interpersonal slights to the wider system of oppression. If you closely examine the historical role of law in preserving racial categorization and hierarchies put forth in this book, you will understand that race is nothing but a social construction fueled by racial and cultural prejudice. However, the material disadvantages resulting from that social construction are very real for minorities. The sooner we can understand this, the sooner we can dismantle racial hierarchy and the notion of Whiteness (which white supremacists and nationalists- who have no one's interests but their own at heart- are viciously trying to protect).

[Merrill Pecci · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book. I've read a lot of historical books on race and politics, all with the basic understanding of how race is a social construct. This book goes in depth into how that construct occurred in the first place through a series of naturalization cases and provides the explanation for a how whiteness is oppressive and empty in identity as a result. It's a bit of a haul to get through the initial prerequisite cases, but it is necessary for the well-constructed argument that follows. I also appreciate the ideas for deconstructing whiteness, and the critiques on colorblindness being more in-depth and digestible than I've read in the past. Really well done.

[Kymberlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating account of how racial designations have changed throughout U.S., their implications for peoples' rights, and the historical and political context. If you're looking for an argument for race as a social construction, read this.

[jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hard read and dry unless you like reading law and race politics but eye opening and intellectually rigorous

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazingly informative text.

[Namuun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very persuasive book!

[jenny · Rating 1 out of 5]

wow....this guy really hates white people.

[Patrick Brennan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic discussion of Race in America and the standard of "whiteness" that allowed for equal treatment under law.

[Mike Mena · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an awesome book on the construction of Whiteness overtime in our American legal system. Great book and accessible to most readers :)

[Travis Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a foundational text.

[SoKawaiiBebe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book talks about the construct of whiteness and that it entails and it's a good but hard read

[Alex Milton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ian Haney-López’s White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race is a comprehensive legal history of concepts of race in twentieth century America. While How Race is Made in America asserts that racial stereotyping enforced by courts is the foundation of race in America, White by Law asserts that judicial and congressional concepts of whiteness are contradictory. The book theorizes that court precedent and legal statutes are the foundation of race as a social construct within the United States. Rather than formulating race into categories, Haney-López argues that race in the United States is best understood relationally to concepts of whiteness. Focusing on legal documents and legislation, she asserts that courts were flexible and contradictory in their definition of whiteness. Courts focused on using their decisions to enforce racial hierarchies rather than enforcing consistent definitions of whiteness.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was recommended by a friend of mine. This is really interesting book about the history of other cultures (Mexicans, Asians and Indians) to claim the status of "white". According to Ian F. Harvey-Lopez race is a social construct. This book talks about the landmark supreme courts dating back to the beginning of the United States. This book is based on the re Ay-Yup case from 1897 which claims that Chinese American (Mongolian) in which he was denied United States citizenship and then talks about the Ozawa (Japanese -American) and the Thind (Indian) supreme court cases. This is a really interesting history of race in America and other cultures claiming the status of "white" and challenging the Aryan myth of who is white in the US and the rights associated with it. I like the Appendices in the back that list all of the cases and whether or not they reached the supreme court. The book talks about "passing" as black and the effect it had on the person. Being that my father is white like Ian Harvey Lopez is, I understand that there are privileges that have been earned on the backs of a lot of struggle and that it is still a struggle for the eugenics and race as a social construct has affected my life. This book is a good historical perspective on the "where are you from" and equity. This is the 10th revised version of the book but has a bearing today. I learned a lot from this book.

[Joe Schiro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just blew my f*cking mind. It is a textbook and dense read for people who are less familiar with legal history but it is well worth the journey.