Meet Bill, Billy, Will, and William

Yesterday, I worked through a finding aid for anthropologist Carleton S. Coon (1904-1981). Coon's legacy in the place of American anthropology is highly contested and I'm interested in his influence on other scholars who worked with human remains.

It turns out Coon was highly fond of nicknames. As a historian, I strongly dislike nicknames. Nicknames make it hard to keep track of individuals and narratives, especially when they are used inconsistently or without reference to a full name. Imagine my feelings when I read the following from Coon's finding aid.

"Identification of the person with whom Coon is corresponding is not always clear. In much of the correspondence, the writer failed to give his last name (obviously being well acquainted with Coon). Then, too, Coon seems to have been very fond of nick-names, which were often used instead of a person's real name. By comparison with other letters, it has been possible to identify many of the writers lacking a full name. Further complicating matters, Coon seems to have had many friends with the same first names, particularly: Bill (14), Ted (6), Fred (5), and George (4)."

For the record, I have a few acquaintances named Bill (7) and Ted (2) myself (at least according to Facebook).

Hat tip:

The Papers of Carleton S. Coon are housed at the National Anthropological Archives.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to give a shout out to a web exhibit organized by the Human Studies Film Archive. The exhibit focuses explores The John Marshall Film Collection, which was recently added to UNESCO Memory of the World Register. In particular, the online exhibit features some interesting information about film archives more generally.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About U.S. Temporary Labor Policy (1917-1990)

There seems to be shockingly little written on the history of temporary labor visas in the U.S., (with the exception of the bracero program, which began during WWII, and was separate from the temporary labor categories of nonimmigrants created in the 1950s.)

As far as I can piece together, the basic history is as follows: (and here I am drawing heavily on Lowell, 2000 and 2001, and Briggs, 1988.)

1917: The Immigration Act gave the Secretary of Labor the power to waive exclusion prohibitions (like the literacy test,) for those in the Western Hemisphere to be admitted as temporary workers. This power was invoked during WWI, mainly for Mexican workers in the Southwest, and operated through 1921.

1942: In response to WWII and labor shortages, Congress authorized the Mexican Labor Program, popularly known as the Bracero program. The first program officially ran through 1947, though it was informally extended through 1951. The program was then officially revived, and operated through 1964. (Unlike the 1917 provisions , the bracero program was never a part of permanent immigration law.)

1952: Congress creates a class of non-immigrant visas under the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sec. 101(a)(15)(H). At the time, three groups, all of whom were required to be intending to return to their home country, could qualify under the new "H" visa:
i. Those of exceptional merit and ability coming to perform temporary services "of an exceptional nature"
ii. Those coming to fill temporary positions, if such labor cannot be found in the U.S.
iii. Industrial Trainees.

1965: The major postwar reforms to immigration law, which ended the national origins quota system, did not touch on the system of temporary visas.

1970: Congress abolishes the double-temporary provision of the "H" visas, allowing temporary labor immigrants to fill permanent positions. Admission is still contingent on intention to return to the home country.

1980s: Temporary labor programs (specifically the H-2 visas) form a major part of the debate over the passage of immigration reform, culminating in the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). According to Briggs (1988), while the final bill contained an amnesty provision, instead of new and/or expanded temporary labor programs (as had been proposed in earlier versions of the Act,) it did create the H-2A category to help facilitate the entry of agricultural labor.

1989: Congress creates the H-1A category for foreign registered nurses under the Immigration Nursing Relief Act, which runs through 1995.

1990: Congress further defines the H-1B category and establishes a cap of 65,000 visas per year, while also requiring employers to certify that they would meet labor standards.
--

The kicker for me is that legislators placed the original temporary labor visas (101(a)(15)(H)) in the 1952 Act with almost no discussion of possible ramifications. They did not revisit the issue at all in 1965, even as they limited permanent labor migration to only 20% of all Legal Permanent Resident (green card) visas. In my mind, this shift in 1965 to a system of heavy emphasis on family reunification (74% of all LPR visas,) with far less for labor, coupled with the stringent labor certifications put in place in 1965, and strengthened in 1976 (*), all but ensured that the bulk of the foreign labor force would arrive through temporary labor categories. (Temporary work visas remain controversial, especially as comprehensive reform again enters the realm of political possibility. See, for example, Papademetriou et al., 2009) Yet as Lowell illustrates, H-1's were barely utilized before the late 1980s, and only rose above the 60,000 p/y mark after 1995. Similarly, Briggs's figures show that from 1971 through 1984, no more than 22,000 H-2s were certified by the Department of Labor for agricultural work in a given year, and no more than 13,000 for non-agricultural work (with an average of far fewer numbers in both cases.)

Admittedly many of the changes in utilization of temporary labor categories stem from the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, and Lowell points out that only after the H-1s became popular in the late 1980s, did Congress impose restrictions on its use. Likewise, with the rise of a more global labor market, different hiring practices, increased flexibility and portability of skills, and the IT boom, H-1s have become even more popular. Still, I think this situation is a good indicator of the unintended consequences of immigration reform - how a little known category at the time of creation later became one of the mainstays of immigration policy.
--

(*) After 1965, immigrants applying for occupational preference categories (permanent visas) were required to obtain labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL), attesting to the fact that there were not adequate laborers/professionals in the U.S., and that their admission would not adversely affect the American workforce or prevailing wages. Prior to 1965, labor migrants were excluded only upon certification of the DOL; after the change, every laborer required certification. At the end of 1965 the DOL published a Schedule A of occupations that could receive automatic certification, and a Schedule B of oversupplied occupations in the U.S., that could not receive certification.

At the time, only those entering under the 6th preference (skilled and unskilled workers entering in occupations underrepresented by U.S. workers,) and nonpreference applicants required a job-in-hand prior to immigration; 3rd preference workers (Professionals and highly skilled workers) were exempt from this provision. Additionally, the DOL decided labor certifications on the basis of the economic situation of the U.S. as a whole - i.e. what occupations were needed / not needed across the country.

In response to economic downturns, in 1976 Congress first passed the Eilberg Act, which required that all labor migrants have a job-in-hand prior to immigration, and also changed the requirements for labor certification. Now the DOL certified labor migrants on the basis of conditions and availability of U.S. labor at the workplace (i.e. micro-level,) rather than across the country (macro-level). Second, they passed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act, which removed physicians and surgeons from the DOL Schedule A, and required all but those attending US or Canadian medical schools to pass the Medical Boards prior to entrance. (See: Yochum and Agarwal, 1988.)

(Schedule B was abolished in 2005 with the creation of the Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) system for labor certification.)
--

Sources:

Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., "The "Albatross" of Immigration Reform: Temporary Worker Policy in the United States," International Migration Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Winter, 1986).

B. Lindsay Lowell, "The Foreign Temporary (H-1B) Workforce and Shortages in Information Technology" in Wayne Cornelius (ed.), The International Migration of the Highly Skilled: Demand, Supply, and Development Consequences in Sending and Receiving Countries. San Diego: University of California, 2001.

----. "H-1B Temporary Workers: Estimating the Population." UC San Diego: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, Working Paper No. 12, May 2000.

Demetrious G. Papademetriou, Doris Meissner, Marc R. Rosenblum, and Madeleline Sumption, “Aligning Temporary Immigration Visas with US Labor Market Needs: The Case for a New System of Provisional Visas.” Migration Policy Institute, July 2009.

Gilbert Yochum and Vinod Agarwal, "Permanent Labor Certifications for Alien Professionals, 1975-1982." International Migration Review Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer 1988).

The Immigrant Multiplier in Historical and Contemporary Contexts

I've been thinking a lot lately about the immigrant multiplier, a term used to refer to the number of other people that ultimately enter the country with, or because of, a single migrant. Many of the discussions revolve around trying to produce accurate figures for chain migration (through family reunification,) to understand not simply the number of people admitted each year for legal permanent resident status, but also the net immigration gain.

As comprehensive reform once again enters the political discourse, estimating the actual multiplier is bound to play a role. As an example of the power of the chain migration, many commentators point to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act [among other factors] as causing many of the extreme backlogs in family preference categories today, as IRCA's amnesty provisions created a large number of new residents and citizens who could then petition for their family members to enter.

So what is the actual multiplier? In his theoretical account of the immigration reforms of 1965, David Reimers has shown that one student (on nonimmigrant status,) can enter the country, and within ten years, bring over 18 others. This multiplier of 18 is certainly the high point, and more empircally based studies have found the actual number to be far less. Jasso and Rosenzweig,* for instance, estimate the multiplier at only 1.2 other people per migrant, out of a cohort of 1971 labor migrants. The most up-to-date figures come from Bin Yu, using a wider sample size, and a slightly different methodology, which combines reunfication (i.e. those coming through chain migration,) and reproduction (2nd generation, etc..) Yu's figure is still far lower than Reimers, at only 4.3.

So how does this factor into my dissertation on the development of immigration policy in the 1950s and 1960s? The evidence that I have found in the archives so far indicates that policymakers in the 1950s and early 1960s based their estimates for divising immigration reform on studies of the first postwar piece of immigration legislation, the Displaced Persons Act (DP Act,) which worked to bring in those people affected by WWII and the Holocaust. Over and again in the debates over reform, legislators and bureaucrats referred to a multiplier of 2.4 family members per immigrant (though the term immigrant multiplier had not yet been coin.) This figure of 2.4 had significant weight when it came to proposals to widen immigrant admissions, as liberals and restrictionists fought over a slew of reform proposals. It also played into the creation of immigration/refugee bureaucracy, as policymaker decided where to open consulates, refugee centers, etc.

I am still trying to figure out how exactly to fit this information into my narrative of the rise a new preference system that heavily favored family reunification over all other categories (especially labor market needs,) but it strikes me that 2.4 is a rather small figure, which could help to account for some of the "unintended consequences" of the 1965 Immigration Act. It also makes me think that legislators were actually much more concerned with net migration than scholars have acknowledged.

Found in the Archives...

Congressional Record, Sept. 15, 1961, pgs. 19650-19651

Pastore: “The senior Senator from Rhode Island will never be satisfied until there is a real liberalization of the immigration laws. But it can be safely said here today that this is a very real step forward in bringing about the liberalization of the naturalization laws. I do not agree with every feature of the bill.”
Eastland: "Has the Senator ever agreed with every feature of every bill?"
Pastore: “There have been times. I have agreed with the Ten Commandments. But I know the Senator is jesting.”
Eastland: But the Ten Commandments have never been before the Senate in Bill Form.”

Dog Skeletons, Bigfoot, and American Intellectual History

This evening I finished reading a book by an anthropologist named Grover Krantz (1931-2002). The book, Only a Dog, is somewhat of a rare volume. I only learned of it from an intern at the National Anthropological Archives, where I am currently working on my dissertation. Krantz is most well-known for being one of the only professional scientists who supported the belief in the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch, a mysterious, human-like creature in the Pacific Northwest. Upon his death, Krantz donated his own body, and the body of his beloved Irish Wolfhound, Clyde, to science. Much of the book takes place in Berkeley in the 1960s, when Krantz worked at what is now the Hearst Museum of Anthropology. The book's honesty impressed me, as Krantz's story of his wonderful relationship with his dog is punctuated by struggles with alcohol. The vast majority of the book, however, fancifully centers on the enormous size of the dog. Perhaps due to the fact that I'm a graduate student at Berkeley or the fact that I miss my own dog, I was interested enough to read the book. The little, seemingly frivolous volume forced me to spend a little time contemplating how we view public intellectuals historically.

Krantz's book ends with an emotional description of the decline and death of his beloved dog, Clyde. The book details the emotional emptiness Krantz felt after Clyde's death. Krantz struggles though the dark weeks and months that followed. He broods through life, ending relationships, talking aimlessly to himself, and returning to booze. Eventually, Krantz returns to the site of Clyde's burial and he begins to disinter the grave of his beloved pet. Krantz recognized the value of Clyde's enormous skeleton and he hoped to add it to his growing collection of animal remains for study and teaching purposes. The process of digging up his deceased pet proved so emotional for Krantz that he forced himself back into his house before consuming a full gallon of wine, mustering up the courage to continue the work. Krantz's emotional difficulty in the task of digging up his former pet is understandable, he explains that prior to his acquisition of the dog, his life was virtually directionless. After ten years with his companion, he was an established scholar and less of a slave to alcohol.

Upon his death, Krantz donated his own remains to the Smithsonian Institution, with the condition that the remains of his dog be placed with his own in the museum. Today, Krantz's remains can be seen at the end of the Smithsonian's Written in Bone exhibit. In his book, Krantz details his amusement in seeing the reactions of passers by in observing his dog's enormous size, so I like to think Krantz would have appreciated the reaction of most visitors to his remains, which are articulated along with Clyde's skeleton; befuddlement, amusement, and interest. I am only so bold as to assume this because I recently spent some time observing visitor reactions to his remains at the Smithsonian.

Krantz's career in anthropology began in the 1960s and he therefore falls outside of the purview of my dissertation, which concludes at the end of the Second World War. What interests me about Krantz is the manner in which he is perceived by those interested in the history of anthropology. Krantz made several important contributions to the study of ancient man and played a role in the court proceedings surrounding Kennewick Man. Krantz also wrote extensively about the concepts of race and human evolution. He also built extensive personal collections of human and animal remains that would add to the collections of other public institutions upon his death. If pressed, my guess is that most contemporary physical anthropologists would recognize some of Krantz's intellectual contributions to their field, yet they would also probably chide his belief in the existence of Bigfoot above all else.

Contemporary physical anthropologists may not be alone in this assessment. When historians finally attempt to take Krantz into account in their own narratives (I've yet to see a treatment of his career by a historian of anthropology) my guess is that they, too, will focus mainly on his interest in Bigfoot Studies. Krantz's role as a public intellectual, frequently appearing on TV, popular magazines and in newspapers, typically surrounded this belief in the existence of Bigfoot. His embrace of the role of as "Scientist for Sasquatch," will no doubt shape his public memory.

As a student of intellectual history, I struggle with the tendency to place various intellectuals into boxes, or at least the desire to fit the ideas of specific intellectuals onto flash cards. As historians we often fail to draw more complete portraits of individuals unless we provide them with more extensive treatment in the form of intellectual biography. More often, intellectuals are represented in our works as representative of key ideas being espoused at particular moments, as pieces of evidence to prove our thesis. It is tempting to include details about the life history of intellectuals into our work, as though every scrap of information about their childhood informs their later intellectual contributions. Instead, perhaps it is best to aim for a broader understanding of the intellectuals we study, while informing our readers of our close reading of personal intellectual developments. No doubt, this is easier said than done.

A reminder that a controversial intellectual like Krantz was more than a Bigfoot theorist, or an expert witness in a heated trial, or an articulated skeleton at the end of an exhibition - is probably a good thing. My hope is that this more rounded portrait isn't lost on historians who hope to fit Kantz into their stories. Krantz's personal life was deeply afflicted his relationship to drink, and it was something as seemingly as trivial as a dog saved his entire life and career.

NARA II Screenings

Lordy…it has been a while since my last post, but in the time that’s passed, I have managed to finish off my research in the State Department records at Archives II. From everything I had been lead to believe, the State Department records are some of the worst-cataloged and difficult-to-navigate collections imaginable. The finding aides are in multiple parts, depending on the year (Prior to 1949 has one system, 1949-1963 has another, and 1963- a third,) or department.

But at least there are finding aides.

Having moved on from State, I was hoping to look at the Department of Justice and Bureau of the Budget Records. A substantial portion of the DoJ files have been declassified, but pretty much anything after WWII has to go through another round of security review before you can even see any of the files. (Why the initial security review was not sufficient, who knows? The staff certainly doesn’t!) This review can take up to six weeks to even get a case number assigned, and an indefinite amount of time for the actual review to take place. And to make matters worse, the bulk of the finding aides are classified. It is almost impossible to figure out what departments are where (i.e. how do I even request the Office of Legal Counsel files, to have them reviewed?) It seems as though these requirements are to maintain the privacy of case files, but I am only interested in administrative records, pertaining to immigration policy. I have contacted the archivist who works on the collection, but I’m not entirely optimistic that I will see any of the files anytime soon.

The Bureau of the Budget records also have no comprehensive finding aids. Instead, there is an alphabetical list of the sub-record groups (i.e. Department of State Budget Records, 1949-1952, Legislative Files, 1939-1970), that points to the Master Location Registry (MLR) for the record group (51). Aside from the fact that a number of the entries in the alphabetical list do not match up with the MLR, the only way to get to the finding aides for each sub-record group is to find the collection in the MLR, and then request box #1, which supposedly contains the finding aid.

The catch? Each box (Even the ones containing only finding aides) has to be reviewed onsite before they will give them to you (something they do not tell you in advance.) So while at least the records are reviewed as you order them (hopefully), there’s not telling how long that review can take.

All in all, if you plan a trip to Archives II, make sure to leave yourself ample time, and understand that you might not see the boxes you want on the first trip…

How Many Bodies?

The subject of my dissertation is the history of the practice of collecting, researching, and displaying human remains in the United States. For those unfamiliar with the history of anthropology, medicine, and the American West, this may seem to be somewhat of an esoteric subject. On the contrary, I argue that the practice of collecting, studying, and displaying bodies was central in the development of ideas about race in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

I recently strolled through the Smithsonian's new exhibit Written in Bone. I plan to write more about this exhibit either here or elsewhere, but I pinky swear that you will be the first to know. The public displays of human remains made me ponder their history; other than recent, traveling blockbuster exhibits such as Body Worlds, museums in the United States have been hesitant to display remains in their public exhibitions. While a complex history informs this hesitation, the new exhibits did cause me to think anew about the scope of human remains collections in the United States. Believe it or not, I am asked this question quite often at cocktail parties. If I had to venture a guess, I would think that when most people think of bodies in museums they first think of Egyptian mummies. Mummified bodies from Egypt, certainly, are a component of the overall number of bodies in museums in the United States. But they are vastly outnumbered by the remains of American Indians and other indigenous groups from around the world.

But just how many sets of human remains are in museums in the United States? I've struggled to find a single, clear estimate of the total number of remains in the US, but several major museums give an estimate of the number of human remains they have in their collections. This information is relatively easy to find via Google searches, but I thought it might be interested to explore nonetheless.

A 2000 report from the Hearst Museum of Anthropology lists 9,600 sets of remains (some of these catalogue numbers may reflect more than one individual).

The Smithsonian Institution’s website explains that when the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was initially passed in 1990, the museum possessed 33,000 sets of human remains. 18,000 of these remains were of Native Americans. The Smithsonian claims that since 1990, 5,400 sets of remains have been offered for return and a total of 3,652 of these have been successfully repatriated.

The American Museum of Natural History possesses a collection of nearly 12,000 individuals collected from around 50 countries.

Numerous other museums and universities possess collections that range from a handful of remains to several thousand bodies. Certainly, statistics that attempt to size up these collections fail to tell the whole story, which is exactly why I get to write a dissertation on the subject of human remains collections.