Unequal Freedom Summary

Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Unequal Freedom: Response
In her book Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor Evelyn Nakano Glenn examines citizenship and labor as the key structures through which gender and racial inequalities were shaped, contested, and evaluated in the United States of America. The author has organized the book into seven to elucidate the complex relations between dominant groups and their subordinate counterparts in three different areas of the country: Mexicans and Anglos in the Southwest, Japanese and Haoles in Hawaii, and blacks and whites in the South. Considering the conflict between the two groups, Glenn dedicates chapters 4, 5, and 6 to explore the various efforts
made by the non-whites to advance their citizenship rights and resist White control.
The central claim in chapter four is that the African Americans in the South were construed as anti-citizens.
According to Glenn, the South was extremely affected by the depth as well as the scope of structures that maintained coercion and harassment in the labor markets and denied political and civil citizenship rights (142). From this paragraph, I understand that black men faced systematic removal from any form of property ownership as well as voting, while women were enslaved. Consequently, a resistance ensued through the local contestation sites; they congregated to fight disparities premised on stereotypes (135). Thus, by identifying key areas of inequality, blacks in the South were well-positioned to challenge white oppressors.
The author dedicates chapter five to evaluate the various aspects of discrimination against the Mexicans in Southwestern America. Considering race, the Mexicans held an ambiguous position because they are naturally white; hence the color implied either Indian or black people. As I think, the Mexicans are not purely white. Furthermore, Anglos referred to them as unfree labor because of their low-class and ambiguous appearance. Consequently, this created uncertainty regarding their status and citizenship
rights.
Finally, Glenn discusses how Hawaii remained a racial paradise in the 19th and early 20th centuries America in the sixth chapter. Compared to the South and the Southwestern regions, the country was not characterized by blatant colour barriers. Despite its relative racial tolerance, Hawaii still experienced some elements of colour-based hierarchy (Glenn 192). For instance, Haoles deprived the Japanese workers of their citizenship status and rights. As a result, the approach was employed as a powerful tool for amassing political power and providing the inexpensive and tractable work supply.
Additionally, chapters 4, 5, and 6 feature key sociological concepts for understanding the history and role of labor and citizenship in shaping gender and race in the U.S. including segregation, class, and society. Broadly, the concept of segregation is important because it helps me grasp how differences witnessed in local economies determined the way whites subordinated blacks. Moreover, the class is a critical concept in chapter 5; it has allowed me to gain more insight into the reasons why the Mexicans were considered unfree labor and ambiguous race. Finally, the concept of society is vital in enhancing my understanding of Hawaii as a relatively tolerant multicultural social setting and community. While they may appear complex, the notions play a fundamental role in building comprehensive arguments.
Overall Glenn expounds the role played by non-whites in the clamour for their rights. However, the author’s arguments mainly infer racial inequalities without detailing the gender aspect. As I think, this muddiness results from Glenn’s decision to perform the complex task of pulling together relational categories, race and gender, which are more often considered and scrutinized separately. Nonetheless, the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of the book are insightful in understanding the origin of gender and racial inequality in the U.S