Source: Discussion Section, Prof Victoria Robinson
Tags: exclusion, virtual internment, racial profiling, terror, loyalty, assimilation, orientalism, Chinese exclusion, Japanese internment, War on Terror, citizenship renunciation, carceral technology
This discussion connects three historical threads of racial exclusion in the United States: the gendered exclusion of Chinese immigrant women, the internment and loyalty testing of Japanese Americans during WWII, and the post-9/11 surveillance and racial profiling of Arab and Muslim communities. The throughline is that the state defines belonging by deciding who counts as a threat, and that process is always racialised. Orientalism provides the ideological frame that ties all three together.
Exclusion (gender-specific)
The targeted restriction of Chinese women from immigrating to the US, driven by both legal barriers and cultural structures that kept women in China.
Sojourner's mentality
The assumption (held by both Chinese immigrants and American policymakers) that Chinese labourers were temporary migrants, not permanent settlers. This framing justified not bringing families and reinforced exclusion of women.
Loyalty questionnaire
A survey administered to interned Japanese Americans during WWII, asking them to declare loyalty to the US and renounce allegiance to Japan. The core contradiction: demanding loyalty from people whose rights had already been stripped.
Citizenship renunciation
The process by which some Japanese Americans formally gave up US citizenship, often under duress or coercion, during internment.
Virtual internment
A post-9/11 form of control over Arab and Muslim communities that operates globally, without physical camps. It is intangible, undocumented, and functions through surveillance, suspicion, and mental pressure rather than barbed wire.
Racial profiling
Targeting individuals for suspicion, detention, or surveillance based on racial or ethnic appearance rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
Orientalism
A framework (drawn from Edward Said) in which the West constructs its own identity by defining itself against an "Eastern other." The East is cast as inferior, irrational, or dangerous, which justifies Western intervention and control.
Carceral technology
A mechanism of confinement or control. In this context, Orientalism itself functions as a carceral technology: it confines communities within categories of suspicion and otherness without needing physical walls.
Exclusion of Chinese women was gender-specific, layered on top of broader Chinese exclusion laws
The sojourner's mentality meant many male labourers viewed their time in the US as temporary, which reduced pressure to bring wives or families
Joint family structures in China meant women were often controlled by parents-in-law and expected to remain behind to care for elders
Many Chinese women who did come to the US were forced into or funnelled toward prostitution, in some cases earning more than male labourers
This created a feedback loop where the presence of Chinese women in sex work was used to justify further exclusion
The loyalty questionnaire exposed a fundamental paradox: the government demanded allegiance from people it had already stripped of rights and freedom
How do you answer a loyalty question about something you never had in the first place?
Japanese Americans navigated dual cultural influences, Japanese and American, while being asked to prove exclusive allegiance to one
Some Japanese Americans volunteered for military service as a way to demonstrate loyalty under impossible conditions
The government segregated "loyals" from "disloyals" within the camps, creating internal divisions
A large proportion of those interned were legal American citizens, which made the entire programme a violation of constitutional rights on its face
Post-9/11 surveillance and control of Arab and Muslim communities represents a new form of internment
Global in scope (extending into third-world countries)
Not physical or tangible: no camps, no fences
Undocumented and "under the radar"
The operating logic is guilt by association: community membership or religious identity becomes grounds for suspicion
The state exercises mental control, keeping communities in a state of anxiety and self-policing without needing to physically detain them
Terror, at its core, is coercion and intimidation
The War on Terror contains an internal paradox: using violence to eliminate violence
The concept of "terror" was classified and racialised, applied selectively to certain communities and acts
When the American government uses violence, it is framed as security; when others do, it is framed as terror
This selective framing means the state can engage in what might be called terrorising behaviour while never being labelled as a perpetrator of terror
Profiling is based on appearance: Arab and Muslim individuals are stopped and detained at airports on the basis of how they look
A clear double standard operates in media and government framing of violence:
When a white male commits a mass shooting, the narrative centres on individual mental instability (the "lone wolf")
When a brown or Black person commits violence, the entire community is held responsible and demonised
Racial profiling operates across multiple dimensions: public opinion, government policy, and business practice
Orientalism connects directly to profiling: the West's sense of superiority grants itself the perceived right to police and surveil others
The discussion raised the point that, by these definitions, the government itself is doing the terrorising
The West defines its identity negatively, by what it is not (Asian, Middle Eastern)
This process of defining the "other" is what makes exclusion, internment, and profiling feel rational to the people enforcing them
Orientalism functions as a carceral technology: it confines people within categories of suspicion and inferiority without requiring physical structures
⚠️ The loyalty questionnaire paradox is a likely exam topic: understand why demanding loyalty from people without rights is inherently contradictory.
⚠️ Be able to trace the line from physical internment (Japanese Americans) to virtual internment (post-9/11 Arab and Muslim communities). Know what changed (form) and what stayed the same (racialised suspicion, guilt by association).
⚠️ Orientalism is the connective tissue across all three case studies. Be prepared to explain how Said's framework applies to Chinese exclusion, Japanese internment, and the War on Terror.
⚠️ The double standard in framing violence (lone wolf vs. community threat) is a concrete, testable example of how racial profiling works in practice.
⚠️ Know the distinction between physical and virtual internment, and be able to explain why virtual internment is still a form of state control even without camps or fences.
Q: Why was the loyalty questionnaire administered to Japanese Americans during WWII considered paradoxical?
A: It demanded loyalty from people whose basic rights had already been taken away. Internees were being asked to pledge allegiance to a government that had imprisoned them without due process, many of whom were legal US citizens. The questionnaire assumed a loyalty that the state had already undermined by its own actions.
Q: How does "virtual internment" differ from the physical internment of Japanese Americans, and what do the two forms share?
A: Virtual internment operates without physical camps or official documentation. It is global, intangible, and works through surveillance, suspicion, and the mental pressure of being treated as a perpetual suspect. What both forms share is the underlying logic: racialised guilt by association, where community or ethnic identity becomes grounds for state control.
Q: How does Orientalism function as a "carceral technology"?
A: Orientalism confines communities within categories of otherness and suspicion. By constructing the East as inferior or threatening, it provides the ideological justification for exclusion, internment, and profiling, effectively acting as a mechanism of control that does not require physical walls.
Q: Explain the double standard in how mass violence is framed depending on the perpetrator's race.
A: When a white male commits a mass shooting, media and government narratives tend to frame it as the act of a mentally unstable individual, a "lone wolf." When the perpetrator is brown or Black, the framing shifts to collective responsibility: the entire racial or religious community is demonised and treated as a source of threat.
Q: What role did the sojourner's mentality play in the exclusion of Chinese women?
A: The sojourner's mentality framed Chinese labourers as temporary migrants rather than settlers. This reduced the impetus to bring families, and combined with joint family structures that kept women in China caring for elders, it meant very few Chinese women immigrated. Those who did were often funnelled into prostitution, which in turn was used to justify further exclusionary policies.
Chinese Exclusion Act, Page Act, gendered immigration, sojourner's mentality, Japanese American internment, WWII internment camps, loyalty questionnaire, citizenship renunciation, 442nd Infantry Regiment, virtual internment, War on Terror, post-9/11 surveillance, racial profiling, Islamophobia, guilt by association, carceral state, Edward Said, Orientalism, othering, racialised terror, lone wolf narrative, state violence, ES21AC, UC Berkeley, ethnic studies