american geographical society

American Geographical Society

The Geopolitics of Eugenics and the Exclusion of Philippine Immigrants from the UnitedStatesAuthor(s): James A. TynerSource: Geographical Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 54-73Published by: American Geographical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/216140Accessed: 24/09/2009 17:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ags.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Geographical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGeographical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/216140?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ags

THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS AND THE EXCLUSION OF PHILIPPINE IMMIGRANTS FROM

THE UNITED STATES

JAMES A. TYNER

ABSTRACT. From 1898 to 1936, Philippine immigrants were routinely excluded from the United States, where incipient practices of eugenic "science" and geopolitics were informing social policy. Concomitant with emergent theories of evolution, a geopolitically informed eugenics forewarned of possible racial competition and societal degeneration. Immigration legislation emerged as an effective social policy to exclude perceived undesirable, and racially distinct, immigrant groups, ostensibly to protect race and state. Keywords: eugenics, geopolitics, immigration, Philippines, racism.

God gave the nonassimilable Asiatics a place in the sun and thatplace is the Orient.

I have no racial prejudices.

-Representative Richard Welsh of California, 1932

Qeographers and other social scientists are increasingly interested in the interlaced constructions of "race" and "nation" (Anderson 1991; Jackson and Penrose 1994). A large part of this interest turns on observations that race and nation are perceived to be natural divisions of humanity-one social, one spatial. Races are presumed to reflect inherent biological classifications of people; nations, conversely, are presumed to be natural spatial divisions, often defined by racial homogeneity. These divisions, whether racial or national, are made practicable and reified: Racist ideologies build social boundaries; nationalist ideologies contribute to spatial boundaries. Rac- ist and nationalist ideologies are also dialectic, each reinforcing the other: Social boundaries are manifest spatially; spatial boundaries are manifest socially.

The scientific study and control of populations has been, and continues to be, central to the construction of race and nations. An armory of segregation policies, immigration legislation, antimiscegenation laws, sterilization programs, relocation schemes, and, ultimately, euthanasia programs were tangible weapons in the ideological battlegrounds of pre-World War II society. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, numerous social-reform policies throughout Germany, South Africa, Latin America, and the United States were formulated around the exclusion of undesirable populations (Burleigh and Wippermann 1991; Stepan 1991;

Dubow 1995; Paul 1995; Tyner 1998). A eugenical discourse greatly informed these

policies. As a putative science, eugenics sought to understand human heredity; as a reform movement, eugenics justified social policies by encouraging the reproduction of "fit" individuals while denying any reproduction-biological or social-to "unfit" individuals (Stepan 1991, 1).

fit DR. TYNER is an assistant professor of geography at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242.

The Geographical Review 89 (1): 54-73, January 1999

Copyright i 1999 by the American Geographical Society of New York

GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS 55

In today's society, sterilization and euthanasia programs have largely been dis- carded, although some observers suggest that current policies, such as the denial of preventive and prenatal health care or even attempts to block undocumented immigrants' access to public school education, are designed to achieve the same goal (Roberts 1997). Various policies, programs, and laws have been instigated to preserve the purity of races and places. So would Madison Grant write in 1933 that the "vast tide of immigration [has] greatly impaired our purity of race.... America's first duty is to herself and to the people already here" (pp. 5-6); and in 1995 Peter Brime- low wrote, "The American nation has always had a specific ethnic core. And that core has been white" (quoted in Kanstroom 1997, 301).

The statements of both Grant and Brimelow reveal a spatially informed notion of eugenics; truly, what is advanced is a geopolitics of eugenics. The confluence of geopolitics and eugenics posits a competitive worldview in which racial proximity and territorial expansion are presumed to contribute to both societal and racial degeneration (Tyner 1998). Geopolitically informed eugenical discourses are powerful ideological weapons in the conduct of statecraft. The decision to exclude Philippine immigrants was a defining moment in the historical evolution of an American geopolitically informed eugenical discourse.

During the late 1920S and early 1930S a public outcry demanded the exclusion of Philippine immigrants, the latest victims of "yellow peril" hysteria. The movement to exclude Filipinos was complicated by the status of the Philippines as a colony of the United States. Legally U.S. nationals, Philippine immigrants were exempt from immigration legislation and remained so for as long as the Philippines was in the possession of the United States. Immigration and political independence were inextricably twined.

FROM COMPARISON TO COMPETITION

Ideological formations are inseparable from historical and geographical contexts. Contemporary "Western" theories of race originated in an emerging science during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as after-the-fact rationalizations for colonialism (Miles 1989; Tucker 1994; Haller 1995). Initially, racial classifications were based on selected, and visible, traits, including skin color, hair color and texture, and facial features. Especially common was a hierarchical racial division, consisting of three Caucasian subgroups ("Nordics" from northern and western Europe, "Al- pines" from central Europe, and "Mediterraneans" from southern and eastern Europe), followed by Asians (also referred to as "Mongols" or "Orientals"), and Blacks. Frequently, racial classifications were based on climatic differences and other environmental factors (Livingstone 1993). During the latter part of the nineteenth century, classifications based on phrenology-cranial size and shape-became more popular and, ostensibly, more scientific and objective (Gould 1981; Tucker 1994). Never, however, did the overall racial hierarchy change.

The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) undermined fixed biological categories of race. Significantly, Darwin's work, along with that of

56 THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Alfred Russel Wallace, intimated that humans evolved through various natural laws of competition (Paul 1995). This reconfiguration of human evolution-and, by extension, of racial classification-was adopted by Herbert Spencer, who forthrightly claimed that purposeful crueltywas nature's method for biological progress (Tucker 1994, 26). The shift in racial research was ominous: No longer was the study of race classification merely an exercise. Abruptly, through the efforts of social Darwinists like Spencer, races were thought to be engaged in a monumental competition for survival (Haller 1995; Hawkins 1997). As the twentieth century approached, social Darwinists in the United States evoked consternation that society was tampering with nature. Social programs implemented without the aid of science were seen as interference with the natural laws of evolution. Progress in social science was needed to understand the implications of human interference and, if possible, provide viable solutions. What was required was control over the three fundamental processes of population change: fertility, mortality, and migration. As Grant argued, "the most practical and hopeful method of race improvement is through the elimination of the least desirable elements in the nation by depriving them of the power to contribute to future generations" (1918, 53). The emergent science of eugenics was seen as a viable remedy; from its outset, eugenics promised to link scientific advancement and social progress by exercising rational control over the reproductive process and, hence, the very path of evolution (Tucker 1994, 55).

THE EUGENICAL DISCOURSE

Although the eugenics movement reflected many variations within and among countries, key similarities identify a eugenical discourse (Stepan 1991; Kuhl 1994; Kevles 1995). Paramount in eugenical thinking was the presumption of essential, biological differences among races. Second, a eugenical discourse maintained that the physical proximity of disparate races led inevitably to both racial and societal degeneration, as well as to racial competition and conflict. Lastly, a eugenical discourse counseled that social programs should be guided by the amelioration of such threats; for example, programs and solutions should be designed to stave off racial degeneration and competition.

Eugenical solutions can broadly be classified as positive or negative (Stepan 1991; Kevles 1995). Positive eugenics include policies to increase the racial contribution of populations deemed the most desirable. In their widely used 1918 textbook, Applied Eugenics, Paul B. Popenoe and Roswell Hill Johnson argued that the birth- rate of the American stock was too low and that, therefore, the most desirable seed stock was dying out and being supplanted by immigrants (1918, 260). Citing studies on the fertility rates of students and alumni of Vassar, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, and Wellesley Colleges, Popenoe and Johnson concluded that the most "fit" women were delaying marriage and remaining single (p. 241). This was, they stressed, a "great harm" to the Caucasian race.

According to eugenicists, Nordics were not applying proper breeding philoso- phy, especially with regard to the selection of desirable mates (Davenport i1io;


Popenoe and Johnson 1918). Miscegenation, in particular, was viewed as a horror. Grant condemned interracial unions, stating that miscegenation should be re- garded as "a social and racial crime of the first magnitude" (1918, 6o). Popenoe and Johnson were still more blunt: "If you have mixing, you produce a mongrel.... The blending of the two destroys the purity of the type of both and introduces confu- sion" (1918,147). The presumed inferiority of interracial unions was thought to carry two unacceptable consequences: a financial and social burden on the dominant society, and an overall deterioration of the dominant race and society. Popenoe and Johnson professed that "if the choice of a proper life partner is to be eugenic, random mating must be as nearly as possible eliminated, and assertive and preferential mating for desirable traits must take place" (p. 218). Although eugenicists identified prejudice and racism as nature's way of preventing the union of different races, there also existed a belief that nature alone was not sufficient to prevent these births. Al- though Nordics supposedly "long ago reached the instinctive conclusion ... that [they] must put a ban on intermarriage," the "taboo of public opinion [is] not sufficient and should be supplemented by law" (pp. 294, 296). Grant concurred: "Laws against miscegenation must be greatly extended if the higher races are to be maintained" (1918, 60).

The basis of negative eugenics was to reduce the biological contribution of the least desirable populations, including all non-Nordics, as well as those singled out as criminals, deviants, or mentally ill persons (Tucker 1994; Kevles 1995; Paul 1995). The sociologist Edward A. Ross, for example, in 1914 warned of "conquest made by child- bearing" of Blacks and immigrants (quoted in Tucker 1994, 60). Grant likewise alerted readers to the high fecundity levels of immigrants (1933, 274). For many eugenicists, the increased fertility of undesirable populations was inextricably related to a decrease in mortality rates. Especially pronounced was a popular belief that welfare and charity programs were counteracting the "bloody hand" of evolution. Rather than succumbing to nature's law of "the survival of the fittest," mis- guided philanthropy-including minimum wages, set working hours, free public education, and public health reforms-was enabling inferior peoples to live longer and to reproduce (Tucker 1994; Haller 1995; Paul 1995).

Eugenicists in the United States, unlike those in Germany, tended to favor sterilization and segregation over euthanasia and other, more extreme "solutions" (Proc- tor 1988; Burleigh and Wippermann 1991; Burleigh 1994; Kuihl 1994). Popenoe and Johnson, for example, believed that "to put to death defectives or delinquents is wholly out of accord with the spirit of the times, and is not seriously considered by the eugenics movement" (1918, 184). However, Edward Eggleston, in The Ultimate Solution of the American Negro Problem (1913), did suggest that if Blacks and Whites were forced into open economic competition, the superior Nordics would win out and that within a few generations the "Negro race" would die out. As William H. Tucker asserts, this "ultimate solution" may not have been planned with the same efficient brutality as the "Final Solution" in Germany, but the two were close relatives, sharing a goal of genocide and justified by similar scientific rationales (1994,


31). Even more disturbing is a statement by the British eugenicist Wicksteed Arm- strong, in his 1930 book, The Survival of the Unfittest: "To diminish the dangerous fertility of the unfit there are three methods: the lethal chamber, segregation, and sterilization" (quoted in Stepan 1991, 29).

THE GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS

Contemporaneous with the emergence of eugenical thought was the development of geopolitics. Like eugenicists, geopoliticians were profoundly influenced by evolutionary thought. Borrowing liberally from social Darwinism, geopoliticians incor- porated ideas of competition, survival, and health into state theory. The geopoliticians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were divided into two schools, geostrategists and proponents of the organic state (Glassner 1996).

Geostrategists emphasized the importance of fixed geographical positions, such as oceans and landmasses, at a global scale. Both Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford Mackinder fall into this school (Mahan 1890; Mackinder 1904). A naval historian, Mahan's writings profoundly influenced the development of U.S. foreign policy, especially developments in the Philippines. In his work, Mahan stressed commercial expansion through sea power and advocated a strong navy. A country's "national will" was also important to Mahan; he generally took the view that a state could only survive by being fit, and he defined fitness chiefly in terms of military strength and people's moral and martial fiber (Glassner 1996).

Conversely, the organic-state school was typified by Friedrich Ratzel and Ru- dolf Kjellen. Ratzel's political geography was based on the concept of lebensraum, or living space. Heavily influenced by social Darwinism, Ratzel argued that states, like living organisms, require a specific amount of territory from which to draw sus- tenance (Bassin 1987, 477).

Ratzel's message, much like those of the geostrategists, was an argument for imperialism. The phrase Kampf ums Dasein, or struggle for existence, effectively captured this attitude (Bassin 1987,479). The international arena was viewed as "a jungle of competing state organisms, struggling against each other for their bare survival" (pp. 476-477). The problem was that, as European colonialism continued at a fren- zied pace, virtually all of the habitable spaces of the earth were appropriated. The great empires of Asia, such as China and Japan, were being sliced like so many mel- ons; Africa was systematically divided in the "Great Game of Scramble" (Hobsbawm 1989; Griffiths 1995). If states were unable to expand, they would, it was believed, inevitably die.

The confluence of geopolitics and eugenics foreshadowed a dangerous world, in which racial proximity and territorial expansion would lead to racial and social degeneration, with the potential for race wars. To ensure survival, many policymakers advocated the retention of a healthy, vigorous population; this to them tended to imply a racially homogenous population. Consider the statements of a leading American eugenicist, Charles Davenport: "Where the life of the state is threatened[,] extreme measures may and must be taken.... Society must protect itself; as it claims


the right to deprive the murderer of his life so also it may annihilate the hideous ser- pent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm. Here is where appropriate legislation will aid in eugenics and in creating a healthier, saner society in the future" (1910, 16).

A geopolitically informed eugenical discourse demanded the identification of "inferior," "degenerate" peoples who threatened the security of race and state. Grant captured these sentiments: "The fundamental question for this nation, as well as for the world at large, is for the community ... to regulate births by depriving the unfit of the opportunity of leaving behind posterity of their own debased type. Our civilization has mercifully put an end to the cruel, wasteful, and indiscriminate destruction of the unfit by Nature, wherefore it is our duty, as exponents of that civilization, to substitute scientific control, that civilization may be maintained" (1933, 353-354).

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

The development of U.S. immigration legislation reflects a geopolitically informed eugenics. Racial and societal degeneration was to be prevented through spatial separation. Whereas sterilization programs, segregation laws, and antimiscegenation laws were designed to keep separate the various races already in residence in the United States, immigration policy was seen as a means of preventing the entry of undesirable races and, by extension, of interracial marriages. According to Popenoe and Johnson, "The question of the regulation of immigration is ... a question of weighing the consequences.... Looking only at the eugenic consequences, we can not doubt that a considerable and discriminatory selection of immigrants to this country is necessary" (1918, 316-317). Edward Drinker Cope, a leading biologist in the United States, believed that interracial unions would result in a "mixed and enfee- bled people" who would destroy the very fabric of Western civilization (quoted in Gould 1981, 49).

In the United States, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the theoretical basis and scientific credibility of a geopolitically informed eugenics merged easily with the racist and nationalist development of federal immigration policy. As Eliot Norton wrote, "The World is a difficult place in which to live, and to establish moral standards has been one of the chief occupations of mankind.... Na- tional character can only be formed in a population which is stable. The repeated in- troduction [immigration] into a body of men of other men of different types cannot but tend to prevent its formation" (1904, 163). Any immigrant who was considered a threat to the fitness of the United States was subject to exclusion. Popenoe and John- son declared, "If America is to be strong eugenically... it [must] slow down the flood of immigrants who are not easily assimilable" (1918, 306). The definitions were drawn increasingly along racist and nationalist lines. Southern and eastern Europe- ans, and Asians, were regularly portrayed as deviant, diseased, or both, and theywere seen as threats to the purity and security of race and state (Kraut 1994).

A chronology of U.S. immigration legislation indicates the increasing clarity of who was to be included in or excluded from American society. In 1875 Congress passed the Page Law, which marked the beginnings of direct federal regulation of

6o THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

immigration (Hutchinson 1981). This act identified Chinese women and criminals as potential threats to the United States. Seven years later Congress passed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese immigrants from naturalization and denied entry to Chinese laborers. The Immigration Act of 1891 excluded persons suffering from contagious diseases, felons, polygamists, and persons convicted of misdemeanors. The Immigration Act of 1893 excluded crippled, blind, and other "physically imperfect" persons unless proof of their support by relatives could be established. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1907, further "excludable" classes were defined, including imbeciles, feebleminded persons, children who were not accompanied by their parents, and women who came for immoral purposes. The Immigration Act of 1917 denied entry to all illiterates-a measure aimed at excluding southern and eastern Europeans-and designated an "Asiatic Barred Zone": All persons native to the lands between India, Australia, and Japan were declared in- admissible. Four years later Congress passed the Quota Law of 1921, a temporary act that represented the first quantitative immigration law based on national origin.

The quota system was made permanent with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 (popularlyknown as the Johnson-ReedAct). This act represented the most re- strictive immigration law and would remain the dominant feature of U.S. immigration policy until 1952. Clearly, the evolution of U.S. immigration legislation reflected a geopolitical vision designed to maintain the purity and security of the nation. Amer- ica was to be a "White" America. John Rogers Commons, after nearly fifty years of immigration legislation, would interpret these acts accordingly: "All of our legislation governing immigration should be described as improvement of immigration rather than restriction of immigration" (1920, 231). He continued, "The object has always been to raise the average character of those admitted by excluding those who fall be- low certain standards." James Herbert Curle echoed these sentiments: "America has had a fright: first about the quality of her immigrants, and now the quantity. Realising that her own soil will soon be needed by her own people, she has now closed her doors to Northern Europeans in great part, to Southern and Eastern Europeans almost completely, and to Asiatics entirely" (1926,182). Curle was only partially correct, however: The shores of America were still trod upon by an Asiatic group, Filipinos. It is this immigration stream, viewed within the geopolitically informed eugenical discourse of racial and societal degeneration, that merits special examination.

U.S. COLONIALISM AND PHILIPPINE IMMIGRATION

Large-scale Philippine immigration to the United States began in Hawaii (Ander- son, Coller, and Pestano 1984; Pido 1986). Since 1852 American entrepreneurs had been developing sugar plantations in the Hawaiian Islands. Considerable sums of moneywere to be made, especially through the 186os and 1870s, as plantation owners poised to reap the benefits of a potential economic boom bolstered by the blockage of Southern sugar growers during the American Civil War. As in other colonial cir- cumstances, however, plantation owners in Hawaii recognized the importance of an uninterrupted supply of cheap labor. Native Hawaiians were unable to provide this

GEOPOLITICS OF EUGENICS 6i

labor, in part because diseases had decimated them. Confronted with a labor scarcity, plantation owners recruited workers from elsewhere. Between 1852 and 1909 nearly 220,000 laborers were imported to Hawaii. More than half of them came from Japan, with other large contingents from China, Portugal, and Puerto Rico (Teodoro 1981, 8-9). Not until plantation owners in Hawaii were affected by U.S. federal immigration law was the recruitment of Filipinos seriously considered.

In August 1898 Hawaii was annexed to the United States; on 13 June 1900, the passage of the Hawaiian Organic Act made Hawaii subject to U.S. labor laws, effectively ending much of the supply of contract labor. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese laborers from entry into the United States; the 1907 Gentlemen's Agreement between the United States and Japan prevented the entry of Japanese laborers. Geo- political and geoeconomic motives of U.S. immigration legislation curtailed the economic growth of plantations owners in Hawaii. Faced with the possibility of acute labor shortages, Hawaiian plantation owners sought workers elsewhere. Fili- pinos, classified as U.S. nationals, were exempt from federal immigration law, which provided a solution.

In 1898 the United States went to war with Spain, motivated by a desire to protect U.S. business interests in Spain's colony of Cuba. Not much later, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt sent the U.S. Navy to the Philippines-itself a colony of Spain-to engage the Spanish fleet stationed in the Pacific archipelago. Roose- velt's decision was based on his acceptance and agreement with his most senior geostrategist, Mahan.

Within months the United States defeated Spain and was nominally in possession of the Philippines (Miller 1982; Welch 1987). Throughout the summer and autumn of 1898, President William McKinley was confronted with a strategic decision: What to do with the Philippines? One solution was to simply give the islands back to Spain. However, the question arose as to why the United States should relin- quish territory it had acquired through war. A second possibility was for the United States to cede the Philippines to another colonial power, such as Germany or Japan. Both of these countries were eager for colonial expansion in Asia; Germany, in particular, was seeking additional lebensraum. This proposal, however, would have denied the United States the possibility of economic expansion in Asia. A third outcome was to grant the Philippines its independence. This was discredited on the grounds that Filipinos would be in no position to defend their country and would be subject to colonization by another imperial power. No doubt the appearance of Ger- man warships off Manila Bay added to this apprehension (Figure 1).

McKinley elected to retain possession of the Philippines for economic and geopolitical reasons, a choice that ultimately led to the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). His decision, based on having a strategic coaling base in the Pacific and, hopefully, access to the lucrative China market, raised the first of a series of contra- dictions and paradoxes that would continue throughout the United States-Philip- pines colonial relationship and, later, would intrude on the debates surrounding Philippine immigration (Tuason 1999). Having acquired the Philippines, McKinley


UNCLE SAM -(ucss I'll keep'em!"

FIG. i Having acquired the Philippine Islands following the Spanish- American War, the United States elected to retain possession of the archipelago for political and economic motives, as revealed in this 1898 political cartoon. (Il- lustration courtesy of the Jim Zwick Collection)


THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN.-TheJournal, Detroit.

FIG. 2-The United States assumed the role of "benevolent" tutor to the Filipinos, as depicted in this 1899 cartoon. (Illustration courtesy of the Jim Zwick Collection)

and the supporters of U.S. expansionism had to legitimate how the United States, a country that had fought for its independence against a colonial power, could subju- gate a foreign people and deny Filipinos their independence.

The solution was found in the perceived biological character of Filipinos and was made easy for many Americans to accept (Welch 1987; Stephanson 1995; Vergara 1995). Filipinos were considered childlike and incapable of self-government; described as such, they were classified with such other groups as women, Blacks, and Native Americans-and thus were not privy to the ideal that "all men are created equal" (Stephanson 1995, 91). The United States was to become a benevolent tutor and help the Filipino people mature. It was America's duty to "civilize" the Filipinos for, as Anders Stephanson concludes, "nothing could be more negligent than leaving them in anarchy" (p. 88) (Figure 2). Most important, the American imperialists argued that independence would be granted when, and if, Filipinos evolved to the point that self-government was possible (Figure 3). In the meantime, American business interests were to take advantage of newly acquired Asian marketplaces and resources.

The U.S. colonial venture in the Philippines provided Hawaiian plantation owners with a new source of cheap labor, unimpeded by U.S. immigration legislation. Large-scale recruitment of Philippine laborers began in 1909; in the next two decades, some 120,000 Filipinos migrated to Hawaii to work on the plantations (Teo- doro 1981,14). Many of these Filipinos would then undertake a secondary migration


TefirSt lptoWaLrds ltigtening

riii WhiteN Manr's Burdeni

is. thlroughi teachinglc the virtuies o-f cleanlliniess.

lPe rs Soap

is a j)otent fa-ctor inI lrignhteningi thec (lark corne-rs of thve earthi as civilizatioi acvatces. whale amonast the cultured of all nations it holds- thec higrhe.st placc---it is the ideAl toilet soap.

FiG. 3-Independence was promised to the Filipinos when they became "civilized:' In the meantime, the United States strengthened its economic and political presence in the Pacific. (Illustration courtesy of the Jim Zwick Collection)


to the continental United States, obtaining employment in a variety of settings, including California agriculture-especially throughout the Sacramento and San Joa- quin Valleys-and Alaskan fisheries. As social networks were forged and recruiters in the United States became more active, direct immigration from the Philippines to the United States was established. Gradually, a permanent Philippine population formed throughout Hawaii and the Pacific Coast states. The 1930 U.S. Census re- ported approximately 45,ooo Filipinos residing on the mainland and more than 63,ooo Filipinos in Hawaii (Hing 1993,62). Although many Filipinos were transitory, shifting employment sites with the changing agricultural seasons, large concentra- tions emerged, especially in the California farming areas of Stockton, Fresno, and Delano. Other Filipinos established communities in Chicago and farther east.

Philippine immigrants, like other ethnic groups arriving in the United States, en- countered racial discrimination. Racism and prejudice were especially pronounced in the western United States during the 1920S and early 1930s. A public clamor for Philippine exclusion found a distressingly familiar fit within the historical practice of anti-Asian discrimination (Takaki 1989; Chan 1991; Hing 1993). With virtually all immigration from Asia denied (following the 1875, 1882, 1917, and 1924 immigration acts), questions arose as to why Filipinos, classified as Orientals, were still coming to the United States. Roy Malcolm argued that "America has successfully dealt with the threat of Chinese immigration ... [and] the immigration of Japanese labor. How will it meet this third wave of Oriental immigration that beats so persistently upon its western shores?" (1931,726). Paul Scharrenberg noted, "It is extremely puzzling to the average American worker ... [who] does not understand why the Filipino had been made a privileged character under the immigration laws" (1929, 50). Grant was not so circumspect about the newest iteration of the "yellow peril." He warned that "the swarming of the Filipinos into the Pacific States brings with it a repetition of the Chi- nese problem of sixty years ago. California is determined that the white man there shall not be replaced by the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mexican, or the Filipino" (1933,

354).

Ironically, W\hite racism also sprang from the success of Filipinos in their assimilation, especially their marriage and integration with Caucasian women (Almirol 1985; Hing 1993). Historically, Philippine immigration had been male dominated, reflecting a sojourner mentality among early Filipino immigrants and the selective practices of American labor recruiters. Sucheng Chan identifies the contradiction of Philippine assimilation: Although Asians, especially the Chinese, were faulted for not assimilating, when Filipinos did mix sociallywith White women, California and doz- ens of other states modified existing antimiscegenation laws that prohibited Black- W\hite intermarriage to apply also to Filipino-White intermarriage (Chan 1991, 54).

One simple solution to the nonexclusion of Philippine immigrants lay in granting the Philippines its independence. Were this to happen, Filipinos would no longer be considered U.S. nationals and would thus be subject to federal immigration laws. Philippine immigrants, therefore, would be excluded under the Asiatic Barred Zone provision of 1917. This solution, however, was far from likely. Debates proliferated


throughout the media and Congress during the late 1920S and early 1930S over the "Philippine problem'" In many respects, the United States was as divided over granting independence to the Philippines as it had been in debating whether to colonize the islands three decades earlier.

Previous research has examined the many nuances of Philippine independence and Philippine exclusion, especially those arguments related to domestic politics and economics (Friend 1965; Brands 1992; Golay 1997). When the verdict came, however, it had about it the air of reasoned authority, in a geopolitically informed eugenical discourse that provided, ostensibly, scientific credibility for the policymakers' decisions.

GEOPOLITICS, EUGENICS, AND PHILIPPINE EXCLUSION

Congressional and public debates of the 1920S and 1930S took on Philippine independence and exclusion. Arguments for either exclusion or independence were framed within contexts of evolutionary progress and racial purity. Filipinos were classified as Oriental or Mongolian; their ready mixingwith Caucasians was perceived by some as a threat to the purity and security of the United States. Conflicts between indigenous American workers and immigrant Filipino workers, for example, were considered inevitable because, despite intermarriage and considerable elements of Hispanic influence in many Filipinos, essential geographical differences between the two "races" were thought to exist. The theme was brought home in the 1930S statements of Representative Richard Welsh of California: "[The Filipinos'] presence in competition with the white workingmen has so roused the latter that he has resorted to unlaw- ful violence and bloodshed. We of California deeply deplore such occurrences, but we must admit that we foresaw them as inevitable" (U.S. Congress 1932, 379).

Another Californian, U.S. Senator Samuel Shortridge, explained the geopolitics of race relations: "There are less than 2,000,000,000 human beings on this earth, and practically one-half of them live over yonder across the Pacific in what we may term 'the Orient.' Speaking generally, we belong to the Caucasian branch of the human family. They of the Orient to another and different branch of the human family; and, for reasons which I need not go into, these two branches of the human family are not assimilable" (Congressional Record 1930, 7511). Senator Shortridge elaborated that "we now have enough-too many-race questions in the United States. We have the Negro race question ... the Chinese problem ... [and] the Japa- nese problem" (p. 7512). He continued, "If we do not stop Philippine migration, there will be hundreds of thousands and millions of them here" (p. 7517).

Conforming to a geopolitically informed eugenical discourse, miscegenation between Filipinos and Caucasians was posited to contribute to the racial and societal degeneration of the United States. Senator Shortridge warned that Filipinos and Caucasians "never have lived and they never will live in harmony on the same soil" and that "it is not wise that there should be mongrel or hybrid races" (Congressional Record 1930, 7511). Grant likewise observed that "since the end of the [First] World

War the immigration of Filipino young men has become a disturbing problem on the


Pacific Coast" (1933, 293). Specifically, Grant asserted that it was the immigration of "45,ooo Filipinos [that] created serious problems in some regions, both by competing with native labor, and by paying attention to white girls, which is resented by the Americans." To Grant, because few Filipinas immigrated, the Filipino men formed "a socially undesirable and racially threatening element" (pp. 265, 294). In a telling statement, V. S. McClatchy of the California Joint Immigration Committee wrote:

There is a basic racial or biological difference which does not permit of assimilation or absorption of one race by the other, and therefore the presence in either country of large groups of the other race must create friction and possible international difficulty. The fault in such cases lies with neither race. The usual dislike of one race for another, frequently assumed to be purely a matter of prejudice, is perhaps really a wise provision of Nature, acting as a safe-guard against miscegenation. (Quoted in Brands 1992, 149)

Between 1925 and 1931 six court actions involving the question of Filipino intermarriage were filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. According to one of the presiding judges in these cases,

the dominant race of the country has a perfect right to exclude all other races from equal rights with its own people.... I regard this question [of intermarriage] of far reaching importance.... Here we see a large body of young men, ever-increasing, working amongst us, associating with our citizens.... The question ought to be determined whether or not they can come into this country and intermarry with our American girls or bring their Filipino girls here to intermarry with our American men.... The matter ought to be settled. (Quoted in Foster 1932, 446)

In giving the court's decision, the judge ruled:

It is my full conviction, based upon what little scientific knowledge I have, and mostly from my observation and from my reading of history, that the Negro race will become highly civilized and become one of the great races only if it proceeds within its own lines marked out by Nature and keeps its blood pure. And I have the same feeling with respect to other races.... I am quite satisfied in my own mind ... that the Filipino is a Malay and that the Malay is a Mongolian, just as much as the white American is of the Teutonic race, the Teutonic family, or of the Nordic family, carrying it back to the Aryan family. Hence, it is my view that under the code of Cali- fornia as it now exists, intermarriage between a Filipino and a Caucasian would be void. (Quoted in Foster 1932, 446)

Another judge, presiding in Watsonville, California, predicted that the "union of East and West will produce a group that in all measures will be a detriment to the at- tainment of a higher standard of man and woman-hood" (quoted in Almirol 1985, 400). Evocative of Ratzel's social Darwinism, the interracial relationships between Filipinos and Whites were perceived to be harmful to both race and state. Remedy was to be found in eugenic principles. The Immigration Study Commission of Sac- ramento concluded that "immediate exclusion is tragically necessary to protect our American seed stock" (quoted in Almirol 1985, 400; emphasis mine). Grant likewise


affirmed that "it is the duty of all Americans... to face the problem boldly and to take all eugenic means to encourage the multiplication of desirable types and abate dras- tically the increase of the unfit and miscegenation bywidely diverse races" (1933,352).

DUTY, DEFINITIONS, AND DISCOURSE

Geopolitically informed eugenical discourses legitimated racist policies under the guise of nationalis m. As such, population-control policies were utilized as strategic tools to preserve the purity of race and the security of the state. Congressional and popular debates regarding Philippine exclusion clearly reflected this admixture of racism and supranationalism-portrayed as one's duty. Representative Joe Crail of California desired exclusion because he believed that Filipinos were racially distinct and, by implication, were harmful to the United States. He declared, "I am not for Philippine independence merely for the purpose of excluding immigration from the Philippine islands, but I do believe that exclusion is vitally important to our welfare in the United States" (U.S. Congress 1932,124; emphasis mine). Senator Shortridge ex-

plained that "it is our duty to guard the citizenship of the United States of America, and to guard it by seeing to it that those races not familiar with or devoted to our form of government shall not come here to interfere with the administering of that Gov- ernment, shall not be here to cause racial conflicts and hostilities imperiling that Government" (Congressional Record 1930, 7511). The senator later affirmed that Congress owes "a duty to the present and to the future, and that duty is to prevent the growth of another race problem in the United States" (p. 7512).

The spatial separation of the races, coincident with a decolonization of the Phil- ippines, was therefore alleged necessary to protect the United States from racial and societal degeneration. Grant effectively captured the logic: "As a safeguard to [the United States'] own racial welfare, it may become necessary to give the Filipino his independence" (1933, 294). However, to preserve the racial purity of the United

States, a redefinition of the Philippine peoples was required. Granting independence to the Philippines necessitated an admission that Filipinos were capable of self-government. And yet, paradoxically, if the Philippine people had "evolved" enough that self-government was possible, then on what grounds could U.S. policymakers justify a near complete exclusion of Filipino immigrants? Quite simply, the solution was to claim that there was more than one "race" of Filipinos (Figure 4). Representative Ralph Horr of Washington explained:

We have either spoiled the Filipinos [in the United States] ... or else we have a lower type of Filipino.... Morally, they have not made a very high contribution to our city [Seattle]. They have aligned themselves with people of extremely low morals, par- ticularly of the feminine sex of our city.... Now, I do not attribute [the negative characteristics] of Filipinos, as a people, but we have either gleaned a very poor product from the islands, or else in their association with our people they are occu- pying a place thatwe do not like to have them occupy. (U.S. Congress 1932,271-272)

Representative Horr claimed to identify a distinction between Filipinos resident in the Philippines and immigrant Filipinos in the United States: "I am not talking


about your intellectual dass that we have [in the Philippines]. They are a wonderful people, but I am talking about the dass that is brought over in the steerage to com- pete with American labor, who do not assimilate, who take on the worst characteristics of our race" (U.S. Congress 1932, 273). Senator Shortridge explained that among the "io,ooo,ooo people of the Philippine Islands we see humanity from a low up to a high degree of civilization.... The Philippine people are made up of many tribes, representing many grades in the scale of what we are pleased to call civilization"

ii.'' S ., I

FIG. 4-This 1899 stereoscope, entitled "A Better Glass of Filipinos," illustrates the perception that there was more one "race" of Filipinos: the "better" class, who remained in the Philippines and were capable of self-government; and the "worse" class, who immigrated to the United States. (Illustration courtesy of the Jim Zwick Collection)

(Congressional Record 1930, 7512). Representative Welsh saw the same distinction: "I advocate ... independence because I do not judge the Filipinos by the undesirable types that make their homes here [in the United States], and I advocate Filipino exclusion because the types that come here will inevitably ruin the standards of living that have been so laboriously achieved by our American workingmen and women" (U.S. Congress 1932, 379).

Placing these debates in a wider context, we see that the issue of representation, a question of who the Filipinos were, was an important component of the geopolitical decisions of colonization and immigration legislation. Certainly the pressing economic considerations and the pressure of U.S. industry and labor unions influenced the drafting of legislation. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that Philippine independence arose, in principle, because of racist sentiments in the United States as a means of barring the only remaining Asiatics with ready access as citizens. This episode of U.S. immigration history reflects a continuation of a half-century of laws


designed to keep unwanted peoples from the shores of the United States, ostensibly to retain the health and vigor of a dominant race. In 1924, following the Johnson- Reed Immigration Act, U.S. Senator Albert Johnson wrote:

Today, instead of a well-knit homogenous citizenry, we have a body politic made up of all and every diverse element. Today, instead of a nation descended from generations of freemen bred to a knowledge of the principles and practice of self- government, of liberty under law, we have a heterogeneous population no small proportion of which is sprung from races that, throughout the centuries, have known no liberty at all.... Our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions, re- specting the relations of the governing power to the governed.... It is no wonder, therefore, that the myth of the melting pot has been discredited.... The United States is our land.... We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended. (Quoted in Daniels 1990, 283-284)

Ten years later we see that Philippine independence, granted by the Tydings- McDuffie Act of 1934, also resulted from the culmination of nearly six decades of racist sentiments and constitutes a manifest social control of space through restric- tive immigration laws. In the words of Senator Millard Tydings, coauthor of the Philippine Independence Act, "It is absolutely illogical to have an immigration policy to exclude Japanese and Chinese and permit Filipinos en masse to come into the country.... If they continue to settle in certain areas they will come in conflict with white labor ... and increase the opportunity for more racial prejudice and bad feel- ings of all kinds" (quoted in Takaki 1989, 331-332). Philippine independence, in other words, originated out of fear of racial competition and conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

By 1946 Filipinos were no longer considered U.S. nationals and were immediately subject to federal immigration law. Virtually all Philippine immigration was eliminated; the Philippines was allocated an annual quota of just fifty migrants. This was half the minimum quota that the 1924 act had established for all other non-Asian na- tionalities (Hing 1993,35). Numerically, the effect of Philippine independence on immigration was dramatic. Whereas Philippine arrivals in the United States totaled 36,535 in 1931, only 72 entered in 1936 (Arnold, Minocha, and Fawcett 1987, Table 6. i).

Geopolitically, however, the United States entered into a period of neocolonialism with the Philippines; independence was not intended to be detrimental to American business interests (Shalom 1986).

The messages contained in this episode of U.S. immigration history extend be-

yond the events of the 1930s, and even beyond the international relations of the Phil- ippines and the United States. The fear of racial and societal degeneration has not

disappeared. Western nations, in particular, are experiencing a disturbing resur-

gence of nativistic attitudes and discriminatory legislation, not unlike those es-

poused during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Throughout the


1980S and l990S, for example, the United States witnessed a significant rise in the number of organizations supporting "English Only" movements, immigration restrictions, citizenship reform measures, and the elimination of health care services (Tucker 1994). Many of these sentiments have been introduced into the popular media through diatribes such as Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation: Common Sense about America's Immigration Disaster (1995).

During the autumn of 1996, according to the Associated Press wire service, Peter Davis, the mayor of Port Lincoln, Australia, said, "If you are a child of a mixed race ... Asian-Caucasian or aboriginal-white, you are a mongrel and that's what happens when you cross dogs or whatever." Pauline Hanson, a member of the Australian Par- liament, is also on record as claiming that Asians are "swamping" the country. And in France, Jean-Marie Le Pen, head of the far-right National Front, campaigned on the France-for-the-French theme and stated his belief in "racial inequality" and the CCsuperiority of French civilization."

According to David Sibley, "separation is part of the process of purification-it is the means by which defilement or pollution is avoided" (1995, 37). Jim Crow laws, zoning restrictions, and antimiscegenation laws have been employed to maintain a separation of races. Immigration legislation, likewise, has historically been employed as a means of restricting the unwanted in the construction of the state. A geopolitically informed eugenical discourse provides, to the uninformed, scientific credibility to racist and discriminatory practices and policies.

REFERENCES

Almirol, E. B. 1985. Exclusion andAcceptance of Filipinos inAmerica.Asian Profile 13 (5): 395-408. Anderson, K. J. 1991. Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980. Montreal and

Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Anderson, R. N., R. Coller, and R. F. Pestano. 1984. Filipinos in Rural Hawaii. Honolulu: University

of Hawaii Press. Arnold, F., U. Minocha, and J. T. Fawcett. 1987. The Changing Face of Asian Immigration to the

United States. In Pacific Bridges: The New Immigrationfrom Asia and the Pacific Islands, edited by J. T. Fawcett and B. V. Carinio, 105-152. Staten Island, N.Y.: Center for Migration Studies.

Bassin, M. 1987. Imperialism and the Nation State in Friedrich Ratzel's Political Geography. Progress in Human Geography 11 (4): 473-495.

Brands, H. W. 1992. Bound to Empire: The United States and the Philippines. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Brimelow, P. 1995. Alien Nation: Common Sense about America's Immigration Disaster. New York: Random House.

Burleigh, M. 1994. Death and Deliverance: "Euthanasia" in Germany, c. 1900-1945. Cambridge, Eng- land, and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burleigh, M., and W. Wippermann. 1991. The Racial State: Germany, 1933-1945. Cambridge, Eng- land, and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chan, S. 1991. Asian Californians. Sparks, Nev.: Materials for Today's Learning. Commons, J. R. 1920 [1907]. Races and Immigrants in America. New York: Macmillan. Congressional Record. 1930. Proceedings and Debates of the Second Session of the Seventy-First Con-

gress of the United States of America. Vol. 72, part 7. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Curle, J. H. 1926. Our Testing Time: Will the White Race Win Through?NewYork: George H. Doran. Daniels, R. 1ggo. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. New

York: HarperCollins.


Davenport, C. B. 1910. Eugenics: The Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding. New York: H. Holt.

Dubow, S. 1995. Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa. Cambridge, England, and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eggleston, E. 1913. The Ultimate Solution of the American Negro Problem. Boston: R. G. Badger. Foster, N. 1932. Legal Status of Filipino Intermarriages in California. Sociology and Social Research

15: 441-454. Friend, T. 1965. Between Two Empires: The Ordeal of the Philippines, 1929-1946. New Haven, Conn.:

Yale University Press. Glassner, M. I. 1996. Political Geography. 2d ed. New York: J. Wiley. Golay, F. H. 1997. Face of Empire: United States-Philippine Relations, 1898-1946. Manila: Ateneo de

Manila University Press. Gould, S. J. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton. Grant, M. 1918. The Passing of the Great Race, or The Racial Basis of European History. 2d ed. New

York: C. Scribner's Sons. . 1933. The Conquest of a Continent or The Expansion of Races in America. New York:

C. Scribner's Sons. Griffiths, I. L. 1995. The African Inheritance. London and New York: Routledge. Haller, J. S., Jr. 1995 [1971]. Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority 1859-

1900. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Hawkins, M. 1997. Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 186o-1945: Nature as

Model and Nature as Threat. Cambridge, England, and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hing, B. O. 1993. MakingandRemakingAsianAmerica through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990. Stan-

ford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Hobsbawm, E. J. 1989. The Age of Empire, 1875-1914. New York: Vintage. Hutchinson, E. P. 1981. Legislative History of Amerncan Immigration Policy, 1798-1965. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press. Jackson, P., and J. Penrose, eds. 1994. Constructions of Race, Place, and Nation. Minneapolis: Univer-

sity of Minnesota Press. Kanstroom, D. 1997. Dangerous Undertones of the New Nativism: Peter Brimelow and the Decline

of the West. In Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and theAnti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by J. F. Perea, 300-317. New York: New York University Press.

Kevles, D. J. 1995. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kraut, A. M. 1994. Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes, and the "Immigrant Menace." New York: Basic Books.

Kuhl, S. 1994. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Livingstone, D. N. 1993. The Geographical Tradition: Episodes in theHistoryofa ContestedEnterprise. Oxford, England, and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Mackinder, H. J. 1904. The Geographical Pivot of History. Geographical Journal 23 (4): 421-437. Mahan, A. T. 1890. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783. Boston: Little, Brown. Malcolm, R. 1931. Immigration Problems on the Pacific Coast (part III). CurrentHistory 33 (Febru-

ary): 726-728. Miles, R. 1989. Racism. London and New York: Routledge. Miller, S. C. 1982. "BenevolentAssimilation": The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Norton, E. 1904. The Diffusion of Immigration. Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and So-

cial Sciences 24 (July): 161-165.

Paul, D. B. 1995. ControllingHuman Heredity 1865 to the Present. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humani- ties Press.

Pido, A. J. A. 1986. The Pilipinos in America: Macro/Micro Dimensions of Immigration and Integra- tion. New York: Center for Migration Studies.

Popenoe, P., and R. H. Johnson. 1918. Applied Eugenics. New York: Macmillan. Proctor, R. 1988. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.


Roberts, D. E. 1997. Who May Give Birth to Citizens? Reproduction, Eugenics, and Immigration. In Immigrants Out! The New Nativism and the Anti-Immigrant Impulse in the United States, edited by J. F. Perea, 205-219. New York: New York University Press.

Scharrenberg, P. 1929. The Philippine Problem: Attitude of American Labor toward Filipino Immi- grants and Philippine Independence. Pacific Affairs 2: 49-54.

Shalom, S. R. 1986. The United States and the Philippines: A Study of Neocolonialism. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

Sibley, D. 1995. Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West. London: Routledge. Stepan, N. L. 1991. The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America. Ithaca, N.Y.:

Cornell University Press. Stephanson, A. 1995. Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New York:

Hill and Wang. Takaki, R. 1989. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Boston: Little,

Brown. Teodoro,L.V.,Jr.,ed. 1981. OutofThis Struggle: The Filipinos in Hawaii. Honolulu: UniversityofHa-

waii Press. Tuason, J. A. 1999. The Ideology of Empire in National Geographic Magazine's Coverage of the

Philippines, 1898-1908. Geographical Review 89 (1): 34-53. Tucker, W. H. 1994. The Science and Politics ofRacialResearch. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press. Tyner, J. A. 1998. The Geopolitics of Eugenics and the Incarceration of Japanese Americans.

Antipode 30 (3): 251-269. U.S. Congress. 1932. Hearing before the Committee on Insular Affairs, House of Representatives,

Seventy-Second Congress, First Session on H.R. 7233, A Bill to Providefor the Independence of the Philippine Islands. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Vergara, B. M., Jr. 1995. Displaying Filipinos: Photography and Colonialism in Early 20th Century Philippines. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Welch, R. E., Jr. 1987. Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

american geographical society

Documents