argues in The American Indian in Western Legal Thought, “The colonial legal order… assumed that the lands of the New World were terra nullius, empty lands, available for European appropriation, regardless of the presence of indigenous inhabitants.” This quote is appropriate because it directly illustrates how legal and political institutions adopted a framework that literally denied the legitimate occupation and ownership of Native lands, thereby denying the full humanity and established societies of Indigenous peoples. The underlying concept of terra nullius is a legal mechanism of dehumanization, framing Native peoples as less than human—or even non-existent—in order to justify their displacement and the theft of their resources.
Further reflecting this dehumanization is the forced assimilation policies, particularly the Indian boarding school system. These institutions were designed to “kill the Indian to save the man,” a chilling phrase attributed to Richard Henry Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. He famously stated, “All the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” This direct quotation is a powerful example of dehumanization because it explicitly calls for the annihilation of Native American identity, culture, and spirituality. The policy aimed to strip children of their languages, traditions, and family ties, viewing these integral parts of their being as “savage” and undesirable. By attempting to eradicate “the Indian” within each child, the system denied their cultural worth and treated their distinct heritage as something that needed to be purged, thereby reducing them to a less-than-human state that required “saving” through forced conformity to white American norms. This policy reflects the institutional belief that Native Americans were inherently flawed and needed to be remade in the image of the colonizer, a clear act of dehumanization.
How have Black Americans been othered compared to whiteness?
Black Americans have been subjected to pervasive othering compared to whiteness through institutional racism, which has historically constructed them as fundamentally different, inferior, and external to the norm of American citizenship and humanity. This process involves defining whiteness as the standard and then marginalizing Blackness through various social, economic, and political mechanisms, often rooted in the legacy of slavery.
A primary example of this othering is the racial segregation enforced through Jim Crow laws and practices. These laws created separate and unequal systems for Black Americans in virtually all aspects of life, from education and housing to public transportation and healthcare. As Michelle Alexander details in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, “The legalized racial segregation and discrimination that characterized the Jim Crow system was not just a custom; it was a comprehensive system of laws and customs that made it impossible for blacks to live as equal citizens.” This quotation is appropriate because it highlights how institutionalized segregation legally and socially marked Black people as distinct and inferior, denying them the rights and opportunities afforded to white citizens. The othering here is explicit: Black people were forced into separate spaces, symbolically and practically signaling that they did not belong in the same sphere as white people, reinforcing a racial hierarchy where whiteness was the norm and Blackness was the deviation.
Another significant example of othering is the stereotyping and criminalization of Blackness, which has deep roots in slavery and continues through modern policing and the justice system. The historical construction of Black men as inherently dangerous or hypersexual, and Black women as immoral or overly nurturing (e.g., the “Jezebel” or “mammy” stereotypes), served to justify oppression. Even after slavery, these stereotypes contributed to disproportionate arrests, convictions, and harsher sentences. As Bryan Stevenson argues in Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, “America’s history of racial injustice is not an aberration; it is a feature.” This quote, while broad, is appropriate because it underscores the systemic nature of how racial injustice, including the criminalization of Black people, is embedded within the fabric of American institutions. The concept of criminalization itself is a form of othering, as it disproportionately associates Blackness with criminality, thereby positioning Black individuals as inherently suspect and outside the perceived moral and lawful bounds of society, a boundary often defined by whiteness. This othering allows for the justification of oppressive practices, like mass incarceration, by framing Black bodies as inherently threatening and thus needing control.
How have Chicana/x/o and Latina/x/o Americans been othered compared to whiteness?
Chicana/x/o and Latina/x/o Americans have been othered compared to whiteness through institutional racism by being positioned as perpetual foreigners, culturally deficient, and economically exploitable, regardless of their citizenship or generational ties to the United States. This othering often intersects with issues of language, immigration status, and perceived cultural differences, constructing them as outside the “American” norm, which is implicitly white.
A key example of this othering lies in the persistent language discrimination and the pressure to assimilate culturally. Despite Spanish being spoken in North America for centuries, and in regions now part of the U.S. before English, the use of Spanish is often viewed with suspicion or as un-American in institutional settings. As Gloria Anzaldúa describes in Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, “Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity—I am my language. Until I can accept my language for what it is, I cannot accept myself.” This quote is appropriate because it highlights how the rejection of Spanish in institutions, such as schools or workplaces, directly attacks the core identity of Chicana/x/o and Latina/x/o individuals. The concept of language discrimination serves as a powerful mechanism of othering, implying that only English is acceptable or “American,” thus positioning Spanish-speakers as inherently foreign or less legitimate within the national identity. This institutional pressure to shed one’s native language reinforces the idea that their cultural background is inferior or an impediment to belonging, effectively marking them as not truly “American” in the same way whiteness is defined.
Another significant way Chicana/x/o and Latina/x/o Americans are othered is through the criminalization of immigration status and association with illegality. Even for those who are U.S. citizens, the mere appearance of being Latina/o can lead to assumptions of undocumented status, particularly in regions with high Latinx populations. This institutionalized suspicion is evident in racial profiling practices by law enforcement. As Douglas S. Massey and Nancy Denton argue in American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, “Racial stigmatization continues to mark black and Hispanic people as ‘others’ whose presence must be controlled or restricted.” While their focus is broader, this quotation is appropriate here because it speaks to the general process of racial stigmatization applied to Hispanic (Latina/o) individuals, leading to their being perceived as needing “control.” This institutionalized suspicion and the subsequent racial profiling based on perceived immigration status, regardless of actual citizenship, serve to other Chicana/x/o and Latina/x/o individuals by consistently associating them with criminality and a lack of belonging. It reinforces the notion that their presence in the U.S. is conditional or illegitimate, contrasting sharply with the assumed inherent belonging of white citizens.
How does institutional racism against Asian Americans reflect othering compared to whiteness?
Institutional racism against Asian Americans reflects othering compared to whiteness by casting them as perpetual foreigners, despite generations of presence in the U.S., and by simultaneously holding them to contradictory standards of success (the “Model Minority” myth) while denying them full acceptance and belonging. This othering often manifests in the form of exoticization, cultural appropriation, and the denial of their unique experiences of racial discrimination.
One prominent example of this othering is the enduring “perpetual foreigner” stereotype. Regardless of their birthplace or citizenship status, Asian Americans are frequently asked “Where are you really from?” or are assumed to not speak English, even if they are fluent. This persistent questioning reflects an institutional mindset that views them as inherently foreign to the American national identity. As Frank H. Wu highlights in Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White, “The primary experience of Asian Americans is still being treated as perpetual foreigners, no matter how long their families have been in the United States.” This quote is appropriate because it directly addresses how deeply ingrained the “perpetual foreigner” concept is in the institutional perception of Asian Americans. The othering occurs by denying them the assumed status of “belonging” that is readily granted to white individuals. This constant questioning of their origins and legitimacy fundamentally positions Asian Americans as outside the normative American identity, regardless of their contributions or length of residency, reinforcing whiteness as the default and Asian American identity as a deviation.
Another significant way Asian Americans are othered is through the “Model Minority” myth. While seemingly positive, this stereotype is a harmful form of othering because it sets impossibly high and generalized expectations for academic and economic success, often used to dismiss their experiences of discrimination and to create wedges between Asian Americans and other racialized groups. As Ellen D. Wu explains in The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority, the myth served “to uphold the meritocratic ideal and to deny systemic racial inequality.” This quote is appropriate because it reveals the insidious institutional function of the “Model Minority” myth. The concept of the Model Minority otherizes Asian Americans by using their perceived successes to invalidate their claims of racism and to frame them as an exception to general racial discrimination. It positions them as a “different” kind of minority, one that doesn’t fit the established narrative of racial oppression in the U.S. This not only ignores the diverse experiences and socioeconomic realities within the Asian American community but also strategically isolates them from other racial justice movements, further solidifying whiteness as the unchallenged norm against which other groups are measured and often found wanting.
