WHO IS ELIZABETH PERATROVICH?

Elizabeth Peratrovich, Who Fought for America's Earliest  Anti-Discrimination Law, to Become 1st Alaska Native Featured on U.S.  Currency | KTLA
Elizabeth Peratrovich; pic creds: KTLA

Asking you to give me equal rights implies that they are yours to give. Instead, I must demand that you stop trying to deny me the rights all people deserve.

Elizabeth Peratrovich (1911-1958)

Today’s (Wednesday, December 30) Google Doodle honors Elizabeth Peratrovich a civil rights activist who advocated and fought for equality for Native Alaskans. During the 1940s, Peratrovich and her husband, both members of the Tlingit nation, were instrumental in the passing of Alaska’s Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 which was the first state or territorial anti-discrimination law enacted in the United States in the 20th century. As Alaskan Natives, Peratrovich and her husband encountered discrimination while trying to secure housing and trying to gain access to public facilities; at the time, it wasn’t uncommon to see door signs that read “No Natives Allowed,” and upon seeing one with her husband, they wrote a letter to Alaska’s governor and gained his support.

The Act was proposed earlier but failed to pass; however, on February 5, 1945 following years of perseverance, a second anti-discrimination bill was brought before the Alaska Senate. Both Peratrovichs, as the Presidents of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood, advocated and testified for the bill. She famously spoke in response to territorial senator Allen Shattuck, who had earlier asked “Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites, with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?,”

I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them, of our Bill of Rights.

Elizabeth Peratrovich when testifying for the Anti-Discriminatory Act of 1945

The Senate voted 11-5 in favor of the Act. The bill was signed into law in 1945, nearly 20 years before the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making Alaska the first territory or state to end “Jim Crow.” In honor of Peratrovich’s legacy, the Alaska Legislature declared that February 16 (the day in 1945 on which the Anti-Discrimination Act was signed) as “Elizabeth Peratrovich Day.”

To be honest, I had no idea who was Elizabeth Peratrovich until I saw the Google Doodle for today. But, after I researched more about her, I knew I had to share this activist who was a catalyst for equality! If you want to learn more about her and her legacy, I would recommend checking out today’s Google Doodle and some of the other sites that I will be linking down below!

https://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-elizabeth-peratrovich

Also, I am sorry that I have been slacking with posts recently. I will be coming out of my hiatus soon and reverting back to my regular Wednesday posts! I have been caught up with applications and finals, but they will soon be over. I have many ideas for more posts, so please look forward to them!

VOTER SUPPRESSION

How to Make Sure Your Vote Counts This November in Texas – Texas Monthly
Remember to Vote! Picture Credentials: Texas Monthly

In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. This act was created to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that ensured that minorities, primarily African Americans, would be unable to exercise their right to vote which was given to them through the 15th Amendment. The 15th Amendment states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment XV

This amendment, which was ratified in 1870, prevented states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Nevertheless, state legislators sought loopholes and used various discriminatory practices to prevent African Americans from exercising their right to vote. Some examples of these practices are literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses (laws that made men eligible to vote if their ‘grandfather’ had been able to vote before African-Americans were allowed to) or outright lying. Black people attempting to vote would often be met with an election official telling them that they had gotten the wrong day/location/time or that they would need to take a literacy test. Due to oppression and insufficient schooling, black people had a much higher rate of illiteracy compared to white people. So, they were often forced to take literacy tests and if they failed, would be sent away. The Voting Rights Act banned the use of literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and “good character tests.” After the Act had been passed, voter turnout amongst black people significantly jumped. In Mississippi alone, it had jumped from a mere 6% in 1964 to 59% in 1969.

In June 2013, the supreme court altered the section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in a case called Shelby county v. Holder. In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the landmark law that required certain states and localities with a history of discrimination against minority voters to get changes cleared by the federal government before they went into effect would be removed. This removal would mean that discriminatory voting policies could not be blocked before they harmed voters. Immediately after the decision, Republican lawmakers in Texas and North Carolina, who were both previously covered by the law, moved to enact new voter ID laws and other restrictions meant to spur voter suppression. These types of discriminatory practices fly under the radar of the federal court because they are not able hear about the local changes, let alone stop them.

Here are some ways that voter suppression has surged since this ruling:

  • Polling Place Closures
    • Between 2012 and 2018, there were 1,688 polling place closures in states that were covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the video I embedded below, the New York Times team details the discriminatory practices that Georgia uses to suppress their black voters. In the video, in a predominately black area, a man had to wait 7 hours, 45 minutes, and 13 seconds just to vote. Comparatively, a polling place in a predominately white, suburban area had to wait 20 minutes to vote.
  • Voter ID Laws
    • In every state that were restricted before, Black and Latinx voters were more likely not to have a government issued photo ID, which is why Republicans are pushing for stricter voter ID laws.
  • Proof of Citizenship

WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY

White Australia policy | National Museum of Australia
Brass “White Australia” protection badge, 1906; source: National Museum of Australia

White Australia policy, formally known as the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, effectively stopped all non-European immigration into Australia.

“That end, put in plain and unequivocal terms… means the prohibition of all alien coloured immigration, and more, it means at the earliest time, by reasonable and just means, the deportation or reduction of the number of aliens now in our midst. The two things go hand in hand, and are the necessary complement of a single police – the policy of securing a ‘white Australia.'”

This, alongside other policies discriminating against BIPOC, developed from the racist ideas and criticisms against non-white groups that generally depicted those groups as less advanced than white people in all ways, especially morally and intellectually. This idea primarily aimed at people of Asian descent but applied to all BIPOC, including Indigenous Australians. Ironically, Australia saw itself as a utopia and a working man’s paradise. Thus, they aimed to attract a well-paid, male, white, and skilled labor force to uphold this image. Consequently, BIPOC and even working women were seen as a threat to this ideal and would be paid less.

The Immigration Restrication Act gave immigration officers the power to make any non-European migrant sit a 50 word dictation test. Since the language chosen for the dictation test was chosen by the immigration officer, it was easy to ensure failure for all migrants deemed undesirable. For example, a South Asian that knows English could be given a test in French, German, or, if need be, Lithuanian. The test was administered 1359 times prior to 1909, and only 52 people were granted entry to Australia. After 1909, not one migrant that was forced to take the test passed.

These policies would continue with full fervor until the late 1940s. After the Second World War, Arthur Calwell, the Chifley government’s immigration minister, started to relax the policy to allow refugees to come to Australia. However, the majority of the refugees reflected the White Australia ideal with only limited numbers of migrants from other backgrounds. In the 1970s, the Whitlam government completely eliminated the acts with the introduction of policies like the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975.