When I started this blog around Christmas, I had a series of topics planned, and none of them included the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on world affairs. Now, I have several in the works that relate to it. Seeing how the pandemic could intensify the fear of foreigners and provide fodder for those who desire to increase restrictions on immigration, nativism seems a relevant topic to explore. Historically related to nativism in the American setting is anti-Chinese sentiment, and since that appears to be on the rise as well, this post reflects on both concerns.
What is Nativism?
According to The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right, nativists believe:
… that the national borders and the state should be equivalent with the dominant ethnic group; that national preferences should be promoted; the homogenous nation is idealized; that ethnocracies are longed for; and that “enemy others” constantly threaten to tear the nation asunder and hence should be removed from the body politic. For the nation to be free, sovereign, and whole, the state must be cleansed of non-nativist influences and cultures [multiculturalism]. Immigrants, asylum seekers, and religious minorities (often Muslims, Jews, or Rom) are viewed as mortal dangers to the nation.1
The takeaway from the Oxford Handbook quote is that nativism is a form of nationalism with the goal of restricting immigration to maintain the political power of the majority ethnic group. A nativist divides the population of their country along native and non-native lines. Xenophobia, by definition, features largely in nativist discourse, but not all racists or xenophobes necessarily are nativists. It is also worth noting that a contemporary term used by many political scientists when discussing nativism is ethnic nationalism, especially in non-U.S. settings.2 Nativists rarely self-identify, often preferring to call themselves “patriots” instead.
Short History of Nativism in the United States
In the American context, nativist movements occur with such frequency that historians label it “an American perennial.”3 While nativist sentiment played a role in American history since its founding, the term was coined in the nineteenth century to describe the politics of the Know-Nothing Party in the Northeast who demonized Catholic German, Irish, and Italian immigrants and the anti-Chinese Workingmen’s Party in the West who promoted the “Yellow Peril” narrative.
Rise of Sinophobia
Sinophobia (a sentiment against China, its people, or Chinese culture) exploded as nearly 50,000 Chinese immigrants came to the American West for jobs in mining and railroads between 1850 and 1860.4 The massive wave of immigration quickly led to a popular backlash as native residents feared that newly arrived Chinese were taking their jobs, lowering wages, and relevant to today’s concern—bringing diseases with them.
Disease outbreaks in Chinatowns across the American West fueled medicalized nativism. Instead of considering the conditions in which Chinese immigrants were forced to live–underdeveloped districts with poor sanitation and infrastructure, the media of the day blamed Chinese culture. Ultimately, xenophobic propaganda fueled the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first law in the United States that barred immigration solely based on race.
Fast-forwarding to the Cold War, the perception of Chinese immigrants being a threat domestically merged with the “Red Menace” motif, which gave the impression that they also posed a threat from abroad. After the Communist founding of the People’s Republic of China and China’s intervention in the Korean War, the unpopular label of communist was added to the already existing racist perceptions of Chinese as “dirty” and “unassimilable.”
Rise of Islamophobia and Hispanaphobia
Nativism peaked at the turn of the twentieth century but continued to influence strict immigration laws and led to the creation of a quota system allowing only so many immigrants from various parts of the world. The quota system remained in place until 1965 when legislators replaced it with a preference system focused on family relationships and professional skills.
Mexicans and other immigrants from the Americas were mostly exempt from the quota system because of pressures from the agricultural sector. However, they were affected by the system that replaced it. With the robust growth of agricultural needs within the U.S. and with rising populations and stagnant wages at home, undocumented immigration from Mexico and other Latin American nations increased, peaking in the 1980s and 1990s.
While simmering under the surface for some time, Islamophobia gained momentum in the United States after 9/11. Echoing sentiments targeting the Asian community a century prior, nativist in the post 9/11 era voiced concerns that Muslims were too different from the native-born. They claimed that they clung too tightly to their culture, religion, and language without adapting to American culture—thus posing an existential threat to the Christian identity of the United States.
The Populist, Nativist Tea Party Movement
Out of revulsion of a black man holding the presidency, fear of Islam in America, and alarm over historic numbers of immigrants from Mexico and other countries in the Americas (as well as the expansion of rights to minority groups like the LGBTQ), the populist, nativist Tea Party movement burst onto the scene in 2009. Scholars note that the Tea Party era succeeded in radicalizing the Republican Party as it adopted their platform.5
The culminating point at which the Tea Party successfully took over the GOP is marked in 2015 when they forced the resignation of John Boehner, then Republican Speaker of the House. The Tea Party viewed Speaker Boehner as a moderate who ran counter to their no-compromise stance toward governing. With their successes, the Tea Party of today is less of a movement than the core of the Republican Party.6
Trump’s Nativist Support
As evidenced by Tea Party successes, widespread resentment against foreigners and globalization has been on the rise in the United States in recent decades, and there is little question that Trump rode that nativist tide to the White House. Throughout Trump’s campaign, his targets were primarily Muslims (he promised a Muslim ban) and Mexicans (who were so threatening that an impenetrable border wall was declared necessary to protect the U.S. from them). Some academics argue that even Trump’s vision of “making America great again” is a nativist one which promises a return to a time in which the government restricted immigration using national, ethnic, and religious criteria.7
COVID-19 and Sinophobia
America’s long history of Sinophobia from the “Yellow Peril” to the “Red Menace” and the recent rise of right-wing populism paved the way for renewed anti-Chinese sentiment when COVID-19 broke out. Sadly, examples of Sinophobia abound. It can be seen when President Trump uses the term “Chinese Virus” to deflect blame away from his early mishandling of the crisis, or when Senator Tom Cotton’s circulated the debunked conspiracy theory that the virus that causes COVID-19 was “a man-made bioweapon that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology”; and especially when White House trade advisor Peter Navarro described China as a “disease incubator.”8
Another echo of the past lies in the many headlines regarding the coronavirus that share the classic nativist imagery of “invasion” by a far eastern menace. It is not a far leap for many to conflate the outbreak with immigration or ancestry. Some media outlets contribute to Sinophobia with headlines with not-so-subtle racist overtones such as when they call the effects of the epidemic “pandamonium.” Even prestigious papers like the Wall Street Journal face criticism for a caption that read, “China is the Real Sick Man of Asia.” Worst yet, some outlets continue to use or defend the mislabeling of COVID-19 as “the Wuhan Virus” or the “Chinese Virus.” Racist nicknames proliferate for the virus, one of the least offensive of which is the “Kung-flu.”
COVID-19 and Nativism
While arguably Sinophobic, the answer to the question of whether anti-Chinese messaging from the White House and some parts of the news media is also nativist is not as clear. It is important to emphasize that mere racism does not a nativist make. For nativism to be present racist beliefs about immigrants and foreigners as a danger to the “purity” of a nation are tied with a desire for immigration restrictions. The hard closing of borders that we see as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a nativist dream. However, in times of pandemic, closing borders also make good public health policy.
Thus far, the policy and legislative focus of the White House and Congress appear to be addressing the health crisis directly and ameliorating the economic impact of policies put in place to slow down the spread of COVID-19. It is yet to be seen if advocates for nativist policies will succeed in using the COVID-19 pandemic as a rationale for tighter immigration controls or as an excuse to attack minority rights.
Consequences of Sinophobia
As a consequence of misplaced fear, people of Asian descent increasingly face racist attacks across the globe. Since racists generally cannot discern between Asian people, many reports show that even non-Chinese Asians fall victim to attacks. High profile examples of prejudice against Asians existed in my home state of Indiana, even before the shelter in place orders. National news covered the story of how in Plymouth, two Hmong men were forced to sleep in their cars overnight after two local hotels turned them away. Hotel clerks in two area hotels refused them lodging out of fears they were disease carriers. As is often the case, misinformation played a role in the encounters, as one clerk caught on video explained, “all Chinese have to be picked up and quarantined for two weeks.” Even popular Chinese restaurants are not immune to prejudice. Before all Indianapolis area restaurants were closed to dining-in, the Indianapolis Star reported how Chinese restaurants reported as much as a 30% drop in customers.
Alongside the rise in attacks against those of Asian ancestry, anti-Chinese sentiment distracts from addressing the genuine health risks posed by the COVID-19 outbreak. Scapegoating allows political leaders to deflect blame for their own mistakes in handling the crisis. In the U.S., Trump routinely blames China for its early down-playing of the disease outbreak as an excuse for him doing the same. He does this despite the evidence that countries including South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and New Zealand quickly responded to the crisis, undeterred by any actions taken by China.
A danger posed by Sinophobia (aside from personal threats faced by its victims) is that it can contribute to greater authoritarianism. With the increase of not just anti-Chinese sentiment but also rising fear of Hispanics, Muslims, and African Americans—highlighted by the rise of the Tea Party—indicate that America has ingredients a savvy authoritarian can use to erode democratic institutions and consolidate greater power. Another consequence to look for is the growth of the nativist that pits the majority ethnic group (WASPS9 in the U.S.), against minorities, and legislation that may be crafted out of a nativist framework that attacks vulnerable populations.
Responding to Nativism
In a nativist worldview, nations should be both culturally and ethnically homogenous. However, no nation on earth has such ethnic and cultural purity. Such a construct of nationhood goes against the central pillar of modern liberal democracies—pluralism—which holds that a society consists of separate groups with diverse and competing interests, each of which should be taken as legitimate.
To counter a nativist, one should address the reason why they fear foreigners in the first place. Polls help answer that question by consistently showing that anti-immigrant advocates fear being replaced or dislocated by culturally different groups. An oft-quoted survey showed in 2017, “Seventy-three percent of white Hillary Clinton voters say a white American who wants to reduce immigration to maintain his or her group’s share of the population is being racist, while only 11 percent of white Trump voters agree.” 10
In the marketplace of ideas, Trump and Hillary’s supporters need to communicate so they can understand each other’s viewpoints. Self-identifying liberals merely calling their conservative counterparts racist—without engaging them on a deeper level—is not productive. Rather than praising multiculturalism and diversity (trigger-words for many conservatives), discussing the economic gains from immigration, and offering a vision of cultural continuity should prove more effective since it frames the discussion in ways Conservatives are familiar. The alternative is the growth of right-wing populism and nativism.
NOTES
1 See Rydgren’s The Oxford handbook of the radical right. Oxford University Press, 2018.
2 The nature of academia is that there are always going to be those who will argue distinctions. Aitana Guia contends in “The Concept of Nativism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment in Europe” that while ethno-nationalism and nativism overlap, they are not the same thing since one could conceive of nationalist movements without strong nativist features.
3 See “Gerber & Kraut, Nativism, an American Perennial” in American Immigration and Ethnicity, 2005.
4 From Survey of American Foreign Relations, Charles Howland, 1929.
5 See Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates in the Political Science & Politics, Volume 47, Issue 4 October 2014 , by Juraj Medzihorsky, Levente Littvay, and Erin K. Jenne.
6 “Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket”; New York Times; August 12, 2012.
7 Read Julia Young’s “Making America 1920 again? Nativism and U.S. immigration, past and present” from the Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2017.
8 In the spirit of bipartisanship I searched long and hard to find examples that were not merely coming from Republicans, but failed to find any.
9 WASP stands for White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants.
10 See Kaufman’s Racial Self-Interest Is Not Racism in the March 2017 issue of Policy Exchange.
