The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019

The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies

September 2019, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-16
ISSN: 2369-5986 (Print), 2369-5994 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). x. All Rights Reserved
Published by Institute for Middle East Studies,
Canada
DOI:

The Rationale behind the ‘Whiteness’ of the Levantine People in South Africa and
the United States
Guita Hourani, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Director of the Lebanese Center for Migration and Diaspora Studies, Faculty of Law
and Political Science, Notre Dame University-Louaize, Lebanon
Ghourani@ndu.edu.lb



Abstract


Levantines who emigrated to South Africa and the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries were agrarian people which made their material conditions, like the Irish, comparable to those
of the slaves. They arrived at “color-coded” societies in which colour was the determinant factor in
accessing rights. Prior to their migration, the Levantines were not familiar with the “racial” and “whiteness”
issues; they became white “only after they had successfully claimed whiteness, and when law and custom
confirmed it” (Gualtieri 2001). The success of their claim came about following two lawsuits in South Africa
and in the US. While the Dow case has been studied, the Gandur has not, consequently, the article highlights
the rationale of the judgment and at comparing the two cases in terms of commonalities. This article shows
how race is a social construct and how it can be interpreted to admit the “undesirables.”


Keyword: Levantine, Whiteness, Race, Syrian, Lebanese, South Africa, United States, Rights

*Corresponding author: Hourani, Guita, Notre Dame University-Louaize, Lebanon

Ghourani@ndu.edu.lb

Received May 2019; Accepted August 2019; Published, September 2019

Citation: Hourani, G (2019), The Rationale behind the ‘Whiteness’ of the Levantine People
in South Africa and the United States CJME (2019) 1-16

Copyright: © 2019 Hourani, G. this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

1
Guita Hourani
Introduction
When the Syrian and Lebanese
emigrants 1 left the shores of the
Mediterranean Sea journeying to the
new ‘lands of opportunity’, they were
not aware of whether their skin color
was white, black, or yellow or whether
they were racially Caucasoid, Negroid
or Mongoloid. Little did they know that
soon after they arrived in the new lands,
they would be faced, for the first time in
their lives, with the issues of ‘color’ and
‘race.’
Syrians and Lebanese were not
white before they came to South Africa2
or to the United States; they had come
from societies where social
classification was ingrained in religious
diversities which was in rooted in the
Ottoman ‘millet’ (religious community)
system. Officially, each ‘millet’ “was
granted autonomy in the regulation of
1
The Syrian and Lebanese immigration began
in the middle of the nineteenth century. The
3
immigrants were overwhelmingly
Christians. Reasons behind their emigration
ranged from the growth of population, to the
weakening of the silk industry due to
international competition and the
introduction of synthetic fabrics, to the
increase in educated population seeking
better opportunities, and to the religious and
political persecution following the
massacres of 1840 and 1860. At the same
time as the situation in Lebanon and Syria
impelled people to emigrate, the economic
and social development of the USA, South
Africa and other countries attracted them.
Archival records show that the Lebanese
began to settle in the USA as of 1880 and in
South Africa as of 1893. For detailed studies
4
on the Lebanese emigration see, A. Hourani Ex Parte is “a term literally meaning ‘from
& N. Shehadi, The Lebanese in the World:
A Century of Emigration, The Centre for
Lebanese Studies & I.B. Tauris & Co. Lt.,
London, 1992; for a brief history on the
Lebanese of South Africa, see Jimmy Lebos,
‘The Lebanese of South Africa – One
People, One Origin, One Destiny,’ The
Journal of Maronite Studies,
[http://www.mari.org/jms/october98].
2
Syrian and Lebanese migration to South
Africa began in c. 1892 (Ken Hanna, People
5
of the Cedars: A 20th Century insight into Shahid was born in Zahle, in Asia Minor, in
2
matters pertaining to civil status, such
as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
In practice, leaders of the different
‘millets’ controlled a much broader
administrative base, overseeing, for
example, education, charity and even
the collection of taxes. (Gualtieri 2008).
In the ‘lands of opportunity’3 race
was a social construct which was
developed within multifarious legal,
political, economic, and cultural
contexts. Whiteness was not only a
racial designation; it was the
quintessence of social citizenship and a
gateway to innumerable rights. The
Asiatic birthplace, Semitic racial
attributes, and material conditions made
the Levantine inevitably ineligible for
these rights; as such, they had to argue
their own racial identity in order to gain
access to rights such as land ownership
and citizenship.
Ex parte 4 Faras Shahid, 5 after
the Lebanese South African Community,
South Africa, 2011, p. 27).
Lands of opportunity where “Images of
material abundance, freely available land,
and an absence of artificial restraints on
human endeavor fused to generate an idea of
the United States as a new order in which the
poor could actually inherit the earth” (Adam
I. P. Smith, “Land of Opportunity?” in Axel
Körner, Nicola Miller, and Adam I. P. Smith
America Imagined), Palgrave Macmillan;
2012, pp 19-49). South Africa was also
considered a “land of opportunity in the late
19th century and received waves of migrants
from Europe and elsewhere (Patrick Barta
and Joel Millman, “The Great U-Turn,” the
Wall Street Journal, June 6, 2009,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB12442470
1106590613).
one side’; an application is ex parte when it
is made to a court or tribunal without
notifying or serving anyone else with the
proceedings. Because of the proceeding's
one-sided nature, applicants owe the
decision-maker a high duty of good faith; in
practice, this means they should reveal to the
decision-maker any objections that might
result in a decision adverse to them (Ex
Parte, Irwin Law,
https://www.irwinlaw.com/cold/ex_parte).
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
listening to the District Judge presiding
over his naturalization 6 case in the
South Carolina Federal Court in 1913
arguing the definition of ‘white’,
innocently questioned: “Then, what is
white?.” Shahid might be intrigued to
know that being ‘white’ continue to be
shaped and reshaped according to social
identities such as wealth, religion, and
gender and remain decidedly contingent
upon times, places and situations
(López 1996) as it did during his
lifetime.
Simultaneously, Moses Gandur, a
“Syrian” immigrant residing in
Johannesburg, South Africa was
refused the registration in his name of
two lots of land on the basis that “on the
ground that he was one of the persons
prohibited from owning fixed property
by Law 3 of 1885 of the Transvaal”
township of South Africa (Cape Times
1913). The law decrees that the right to
register land is not applicable to persons
belonging to one of the native races of
Asia including the so-called Coolies,
Arabs, Malyas and Mahommedans
subjects of the Turkish Empire…. The
decree further states that the persons of
these races shall not be capable of being
owners of fixed property in the
Republic (Rand Daily Mail 2013).
Gandur was denied the registration of
the land in his name on the ground that
“The Syrian people [are] included in
the expression ‘the Native Races of
Asia’ used in the law (National
Archives of South Africa 1910).
On September 18, 1914, George
Dow, a “Syrian” immigrant from
Batroun 7 (Ferris 1928) residing in
Syria. He immigrated to the USA in 1902.
He filed an application for naturalization in
1913 and was denied citizenship based on
Judge Henry Smiths’ ruling that the
“applicant should not be admitted upon his
own personal disqualifications.” López, Ian
Haney, White by Law, New York University
South Carolina in the US was refused
U.S. citizenship on the basis that he was
a “Syrian of Asiatic birth.” The judge
ruled that “The appellant, Dow, was
denied naturalization on the sole
ground that a Syrian of Asiatic birth is
not a ‘free white person’ within the
meaning of the naturalization statute
(Dow v. United States et al. 1915).
For an immigrant to feel that he
belongs to his adoptive country, he
needs to be fully accepted as a member
of the national community. Gaining
official recognition through
naturalization can only manifest this
acceptance; “the definitive test of status
within a society is the accessibility to
the rights of citizenship. For
immigrants, access to citizenship
signifies inclusion in the national
family. Naturalization not only defines
political status but is also ‘proof of
belonging” (Mansour 2002). But for
both Gandur and Dow and their
respective community members, it was
more than belonging and citizenship, it
was about the indignation of being
considered of lesser status and in the
context of that time -- for not being
‘white.’
In this article, we aim at highlighting
the different interpretations of the
words “Native Races of Asia” in the
Gandur case pronounced by the Judges
of the South African Supreme Court,
presenting the rationale provided by the
United States Court of Appeals in
determining the “whiteness” of George
Dow, revealing the arguments of the
defense in the two lawsuits, comparing
the two cases in terms of
commonalities.
Press, New York & London, 1996, 215-217.
6
“Naturalization is the conferring of the
nationality of a state upon a person after
birth by whatever means,” López, White by
Law, p. 227.
7
Batroun is a town in the northern part of
Lebanon.
3
Guita Hourani
These two cases were chosen
for the reason that they were landmarks
in conferring the status of ‘white’ race
on the Syrian and Lebanese immigrants
in both South Africa and the USA and
for setting precedence which facilitated
the ruling in comparable cases.
While the Dow case has been
studied many times over, the Gandur
one remained unexamined and is
studied in details for the first time. The
historic research methodology used for
this article involved finding, using,
interpreting and correlating information
within primary and secondary sources
obtained through the author’s own
research in both South Africa and the
US. In South Africa, the author
conducted research in the National
Archives in Pretoria, at the Durban
Archives Repository in Durban, the
Office of the Registrar of Deeds in
Pretoria, as well as at the archives of
Our Lady of Lebanon Maronite Church
in Johannesburg, and the Embassy of
Lebanon in Johannesburg. In the USA,
the author performed her research in the
National Archives, the Library of
Congress, and at Georgetown
University. In these various institutions,
the author consulted primary resources
which encompassed court judgments,
letters, diplomatic correspondence, and
reports, as well as secondary resources
which included books, academic
articles, theses and dissertations,
reports, and newspapers pieces.
The author authenticated the
primary sources by confirming that the
records used were created at the same
time of the event it described; the
author(s) were participants in or
witnesses of the original events; the
information in the records such as
8
The words ‘Turkish Dominion’, ‘Turkish
Empire’, ‘Ottoman Empire’, and ‘Turkey”
4
names, dates, places, events, and
relationships were logical and made
sense in the context of time, place, and
the people and case being researched;
more than one reliable source gave the
same information; no reliable evidence
was found that contradicts or conflicts
with what was found in the records, and
all the primary sources were original
documents.
The Gandur Case in South Africa
On May 9, 1913, Moses
Gandur, a “Syrian” immigrant residing
in Johannesburg appeared before the
Supreme Court of South Africa,
Appellate Division at Bloemfontein
waiting to hear the outcome of his
petition to register in his name two lots
of land. Judge Charles Ward in the
Supreme Court of South Africa,
Witwatersrand Local Division, had
already denied his petition because he
was deemed racially ineligible for
owning fixed property. Specifically,
Gandur was denied land ownership on
the grounds that being a “Syrian”,
“Syrians as a race belong to one of the
Native of indigenous races of Asia and
are therefore subject to the disabilities
of Law 3 of 1885… it would appear that
Syrians are unable of having
transferred into their names any fixed
property” (Right to Own Property
1913). The 1885 Law concerning the
Dutch policy toward ownership of fixed
property in the Republic by ‘non-whites
’decrees “This shall not apply to
persons belonging to one of the native
races of Asia, including the so-called
Coolies, Arabs, Malyas and
Mahommedans subjects of the Turkish
Dominion” (National Archives of
South Africa 1910).8
In South Africa and at the time
of the Gandur court case, South Africa’s
are synonymous to the same political entity
of the time and are used interchangeably.
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
population was grouped in four classes:
white, black, colored, and Asian.
Various discriminatory and segregation
laws including the Law No. 3 of 1885
were devised and enforced to maintain
these racial lines. Urban residential
segregation on a racial basis was
remarkably high in twentieth-century
South Africa (Christopher 1992). The
1907 Act mandated that non-whites
should obtain Trading Licenses and
restricted them to living in locations
[Non-Whites] could not hold landed
property nor remain in the Colony,
though born there, without special
permission…(Rochlin 1993)
established by the Capital Government.
The same Act required that colored
people obtain permits to enter and
reside in the Transvaal. However, the
law did not apply to the “Syrians”
(Gandur v. Rand Townships 1913). In a
response to a letter addressed by Fr.
Emmanuel El-Fadle, 9 P. G. Bigger,
Receiver of Revenue in Johannesburg,
wrote on December 31, 1907 “Syrian
Christians10 do not fall within the scope
of Asiatic Amendment Law Act 2 of
1907. Trading Licenses will, therefore,
be granted to such persons on their
application, provided that they produce
proof that they are Christians; your
certificate in these circumstances will
no doubt overcome the difficulty”
(Gandur v. Rand Townships 1913).
The Syrian and Lebanese
immigrants fell under the classification
9
In c. 1900, Maronite Patriarch Elias Boutros
Howayek sent Fr. Emmanuel El-Fadle to
South Africa. F. El-Fadle was from
Kfarhata-Elzawye of North Lebanon. Fr. El-
Fadle was “the first Maronite Priest to walk
on South African soil. After time as a
student in Rome and Paris, he began serving
the South African community on both
spiritual and social levels. He converted a
building in Johannesburg into a church and
residence. He left South Africa after 4 years.
On his return to Lebanon he died on 27 July
1909, a victim of the ill-fated ship, SS
of “Native Races of Asia” or Asians.
This classification became the main
issue in the matter of Moses Gandur
versus the Rand Townships Registrar
and the whole case pivoted around the
interpretation of the word “inboorling”
or “Native”. Judge Charles Ward
admitted that the “Syrians” are a White
Semitic Race that has been Christian,
and not a Mahommedan from very early
times. Consequently, members of this
group do not fall under any of the
special categories enumerated in the
1885 Law (Gandur v. Rand Townships
1913). However, Judge Ward found
also that the “Syrians” were “included
in the expression ‘the Native Races of
Asia’ used in the Law and the
application must be refused with costs”
(Gandur v. Rand Townships 1913).
W. J. Macintyre, the lawyer for
the Gandur, presented his defense with
the rationales based on
misinterpretation of the law when
translated from Dutch into English,
Legislature intent, legal precedent, lack
of other applicable legal restrictions,
Semitic racial belonging, religious
affiliation, equal treatment, and the
acceptance of Syrian and Lebanese in
other European and American societies.
Macintyre stated that “A
misunderstanding as to the meaning of
the said section (i.e. “This shall not
apply to persons belonging to one of the
native races of Asia, including the so-
called Coolies, Arabs, Malyas and
Waratah, which sunk at Okeanos, off the
coast of East London. No wreckage was
ever found” (Ken Hanna, People of the
Cedars: A 20th Century insight into the
Lebanese South African Community, South
Africa, 2011, p. 27).
10
The Levantine community of South Africa at
the time was composed of Christians who
hailed from Lebanon (Ken Hanna, People of
the Cedars: A 20th Century insight into the
Lebanese South African Community, South
Africa, 2011).
5
Guita Hourani
Mahommedans subjects of the Turkish
Dominion”) has arisen through a faulty
translation from the original to English
[…]. He further argued that “The
Legislature never intended to subject
the Syrian people of this country to the
harsh restrictions of this law; the word
“inboorling” was used to denote
colour; many Syrians here are
naturalized British subjects; several are
registered owners of fixed property
[…];” and that Syrians are not subject
to the restrictions of other laws and that
“Syrians are an ancient Semitic race in
whose land Christianity arose and
flourished and who were the first
disciples to Christianity […]. He further
thrust his reasoning stating that “The
members of the Legislature that passed
the said law being renowned for their
zeal for Christianity would not subject
another white Christian race to the
differentiations and restrictions
imposed by the said Law; it has never
been suggested that the Jews who are
also of a Semitic race and come from
the same country are subject to the said
Law, yet if Law 3 of 1885 applies to
Syrians it must be necessarily applied to
the Jews […]. He then concluded his
magnum opus that the Syrians […] have
furnished to the Catholic Church such
great men as St. Ephrem, St John
Damasenus, Jacob of Roha and several
Popes… that the inclusion of the
‘Mahommedan subjects of the Turkish
Dominion’ demonstrates the intended
exclusion of the Christians and other
subjects…” (Gandur v. Rand
Townships 1913).
Judge Ward’s decision to deny the
Gandur petition was based on the
grounds that the Syrian people are
included in the expression “the Native
Races of Asia.” He further argued that
he could not find any authority or any
11
We are indebted to Mrs. Dellie Allem
Masters, Ms. Wendy Jones, and Ms.
Alexandra Allam of Johannesburg for their
6
reason for holding that the word
“inboorling” means ‘native colored
races’. This ruling of the Judge can only
denote that Syrians were not ‘white’.
On the defense’s rationale that no other
restrictions for Asiatic were imposed on
the Syrians, Judge Ward said that this
seems irrelevant to him (Gandur v.
Rand Townships 1913).
This was not the first time that a
land registration issue arose in South
Africa. Based on documents obtained
from the National Archives of South
African in Pretoria, 11 we deduce that
lawyers and government agencies and
Syrian associations were addressing
this matter. Lawyers Sperryn &
Domissee wrote to lawyer S. B. Farah,
a Syrian whose registration of lots as far
as 1910 was refused by the reason of
Law No. 3, 1885, informing him that
they are refunding the money paid to the
seller A. Neave and requesting an
immediate cancellation of the sale and
the return of the property to the seller as
no Syrian is allowed to trade or live in
or in the Breyten Township. Should
Farah refuse to comply, he will be held
responsible for any and all damages and
costs which the seller may suffer as a
consequence (The Office of the
Registrar of Deeds in Pretoria, Ermelo
1910).
In a similar letter addressed to
Lawyer Farah dated October 3rd, 1910,
Lawyers Bekker & Bekker stated that
the lots purchased by Farah himself are
located in the Township of Breyten, the
Registrar of Deeds refused to transfer
the titles because the owners Abrams &
Sloot do not have the right to sell the
lots to a colored or Asiatic person and
that the latter does not have the right to
trade on our own or lease or otherwise
in this Township. The letter further
assistance in collecting some of the material
used in this article.
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
instructed Farah to close his business in
eight days or application will be made
to the Supreme Court to restrain him
(The Office of the Registrar of Deeds in
Pretoria, Ermelo 2010).
M. Simaane, President of the
Syrian Ottoman Society of
Johannesburg addressed the General
German Consul, Acting Consul for
Turkey in Pretoria on October 17th,
1910 regarding the issue of the above
two land ownership matters. Simaane
wrote “… This is a very great hardship
on my people, and on their behalf, I
respectfully urge you to make the
strongest representations to the
Government with a view to having the
law amended in such a way that all
Christian Syrians resident in this
Country can be permitted to purchase,
sell or transfer property” (The Office
of the Registrar of Deeds in Pretoria
1910).
The Gandur case was the
lawsuit that brought this whole matter
to the highest authorities in South
Africa. Following the denial of his
petition in the lower court, Gandur was
then compelled to file another petition
in the Appellate Division at
Bloemfontein. Three judges: J. Innes, J.
Solomon, and Lord C. J. de Villiers-
decided that the appeal should be
allowed with costs in all the courts in
favor of Gandur. The following are
excerpts of the judges’ interpretation of
the law that granted Gandur the status
of a white person and consequently his
rights to register his properties.
Judge J. Innes ruled in favor of
Gandur employing legislature intent
and common knowledge or general
knowledge. He stated that the lower
court identified the “Syrians” as
“White”, so that “The inquiry is
narrowed down to this – Are Syrians
‘personen heborende tot een der
inboorlingen rassen van Azie” [people
who belong to one of the natives of
Asia?] And the reply manifestly
depends upon the effect of the words
‘inboorling’. Using the Legislature
intent, Judge Innes reasoned that the
term “inboorling’ was not confined to
colored races, even a Jew from
Palestine would be relegated to a
location, be compelled to carry a
permit, and be subject to the stringent
restrictions of Act 2 of 1907 and similar
legislation (Gandur v. Rand Townships
2013).
He finally concluded by stating
that in his opinion “the words
“inboorlingrassen van Azie” […] mean
coloured native races of Asia and that
therefore they do not include the Syrian
Race” and that the appeal of Gandur v.
Rand Townships “should be allowed”
(Gandur v. Rand Townships 2013).
Judge J. Solomon concurred the
ruling of Judge Innes placing his
argument in favor of the appellant on
common knowledge and original intent
of the legislator. He reasoned that “[…]
The word “inboorling” or “Native”
has acquired a special meaning in
South Africa in a matter of common
knowledge… A South Africa
Legislature making use of the
expression “Native Races” would have
in mind the idea of colour, and that the
presumption is that the intention was to
refer not to “white” but to “coloured”
indegenious race.” (Gandur v. Rand
Townships 2013). Judge Solomon
concluded that the words Coolies,
Arabs, Malay and Mohammedan
subjects of the Turkish Empire” “do not
apply to the appellant” and that “the
appeal should be allowed with costs in
this court and the court below” (Gandur
v. Rand Townships 2013: 20).
Judge J. C. de Villiers, in
concurring with the decisions of Innes
7
Guita Hourani
and Solomon, remarked that he was
“satisfied that the Legislature used the
term “Native Races” in its secondary
meaning and intended to confine it to
the coloured races of Asia… and that
“the Appeal must therefore be allowed
with costs in this court and the court
below and the respondent must be
ordered to register the land in the
applicant’s name as prayed” (Gandur
v. Rand Townships 2013).
Gandur’s final appeal to the
Supreme Court of South Africa was
successful, the judges affirmed on
Friday, May 9th 1913 that the “Syrians”
were “white” and further ruled that the
word “inboorling” was intended to
mean the indigenous colored races of
Asia and not the white races.
Despite this historic win, as late
as 1928, the Syrians and Lebanese of
South Africa were still attempting to
litigate their racial status in the Union.
In his response to a entreaty by the
“Syrian (Lebanon) Christian
Association” in Johannesburg
requesting that the Union Government
does something definite to define the
race status of Syrians in the Union
(National Archive of South 1928), the
Secretary of the Interior C. S. Schmidt
wrote to the Commissioner of Police in
Pretoria on May 15 1928 a letter in
which he based his argument on the
Gandur Supreme Court decision that
the “Syrians” are white (National
Archives of South Africa 1928).
Although the “Syrians”
continued to be exposed to harassment
based on the misconception of their
racial status until the late 1920s and as
a result were forced to petition the legal
system in the Republic to rectify the
matter, the Gandur case established a
major legal precedent in favor of
12
Migration of Syrian and Lebanese to the
United States began in 1851 with the arrival
of Antonios al Bishallany (Gregory Orfalea,
8
“Syrian” whiteness and was referred to
in many subsequent cases.
The Dow Case in the United States
George Dow, a “Syrian”
immigrant from Batroun in Lebanon12
residing in South Carolina in the United
States of America appeared before the
District Court of the United States for
the Eastern District of South Carolina at
Charleston awaiting the outcome of his
petition for citizenship. Judge Henry A.
M. Smith presiding over his case
rejected his petition on the basis that
“Syrians are not white”, thus Dow does
not meet the racial requisites of the
United States law.
The Congress of the United
States first restricted citizenship to “free
white persons” in its Act of March 26,
1790; this Act “was reviewed and
repealed and reinstated numerous times
in the 19th century. As late as 1875,
Congress reinserted the words ‘free
white person’ in the naturalization law.
Later the term ‘free’ was dropped, but
“white” was retained” (Joseph 1999).
Even though the requirements for
citizenship changed repeatedly since,
this racial criterion to citizenship [i.e.,
being white] persisted and remained in
effect until 1952 (López 1996).
Congress restricted citizenship on the
foundation of race particularly as an
attempt to exclude Asians; this policy
lasted from the 1880s to 1965 (López
1996: 37).
In applying for their citizenship
in the first decade of the twentieth
century, the Syrian and Lebanese
eligibility to this privilege was seriously
contested. This challenge was not
aiming exclusively at the Syrian and
Lebanese but was rather in response to
the stringent directives of the Bureau of
“On Arab Americans: A Bibliographical
Essay,” American Studies International,
Vol. 27, No. 2 (October 1989), p. 28).
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
Immigration and Naturalization to
inhibit the naturalization of all
“undesirable” immigrants such as
Asians, Southern, and Eastern
Europeans (Samhan 1999).
Consequently, a surge in legal
proceedings occurred between 1909
and 1923 in what Ian Haney López
labels as the ‘racial prerequisite cases’.
These proceedings “arose out of the
changing nature of immigration, and
more particularly, out of the increased
immigration of persons not clearly
White or Black” (López 1996). A total
of twenty-five cases were filed between
1909 and 1923, five of which were from
Syrian and Lebanese litigants 13 whose
applications for naturalization were
challenged on the basis that they were
born in Asia. They were all judged
according to Act of March 26, 1790,
section 2169 of the amended act of
1870, which limited naturalization to
“white persons, and to aliens of African
nativity and to persons of African
descent" (Smith 2002).
Among these cases was that of
George Dow who was a “Syrian”
immigrant and who applied for
naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Dow’s
first application was denied by the
Federal Court of South Carolina on the
holding that “Syrians were not White”.
Judge Henry Smith’s rationale was
based on common knowledge rather
than scientific evidence and rejected the
equation of “white” and “Caucasian”
which was claimed by Dow’s defense
(López 1996). The Judge went on to
question whether a “Syrian” who “is of
Asiatic birth, a free white person within
the meaning of the Statute approved
March 26, 1790.” He further held that
“… Dow may be a free white person, he
was not that particular free white
13
Costa Najour (Mount Lebanon), Mudarri
(Damascus, Syria), Ellis (Ras Beirut,
Lebanon), Faras Shahid (Zahle, Lebanon)
person to whom the Act of Congress had
donated the privilege of citizenship, and
that the term “free white person” was
restricted to persons of European
habitancy and European descent (Ferris
1928).
Judge Smith said that Dow’s
color was “darker than the usual person
of White European descent and of that
tinge or sallow appearance which
usually accompanies persons of descent
other than purely European” (López
1996). He added that Dow “‘would
apparently from his intelligence and
degree of information of a general
character be entitled to naturalization’ if
racially qualified” (López 1996).
However, the Jude continued, that Dow
“being an Asiatic, did not come within
the terms of the Statute in the Judge’s
opinion, and accordingly, his
application was refused” (Ferris 1928).
The decision of Judge Smith
prompted Dow to request a rehearing
which was granted and was scheduled
on February 18, 1914. By this time, the
Dow case has become a community
issue surpassing sympathy with Dow to
avenge the honor of the “Syrians” in
America (Al-Hoda 1914). The
“Syrians” claimed humiliation and
mortification due to Judge Smith’s
ruling and united around George Dow’s
case in full force (Ferris 1928). Dow’s
case rallied the Syrian and Lebanese
community in unprecedented way
although it was not the first case to
provoke a community reaction
(Gualtieri 2001).
In the rehearing, the adjudicator
was also Judge Smith, who again found
that “Syrians are not White”. This time,
however, his reasoning was founded on
and George Dow (Batroun, Lebanon),
(López 1996, 204-206).
9
Guita Hourani
common knowledge and Legislator
intent.
Attorney T. Moultrie Mordecai
appeared for Dow and the Syrian-
America Associations before Judge
Smith and argued that “The term
“White persons” in the Statute meant
persons of the Caucasian Race” and
not persons white in Color; that Dow
was a Semitic or a member of one of the
Semitic nations; that the Semitic
nations are all members of the
“Caucasian” or white race; that the
matter had been settled in favor of the
Syrians as European Jews had been
admitted without question since the
passage of the Statute and that the Jews
were one of the Semitic people; and that
the history and position of the Syrians,
their connection through all times with
the peoples to whom the Jewish and
Christian peoples owed their religion,
made it inconceivable that the Statute
could be intended to exclude them”
(Ferris 1928).
Judge Smith reasoned “The term
‘White’ denoted color” (Ferris 1928).
Judge Smith rejected the definitions of
whiteness particularly as its means
Caucasian. He further stated that the
word “white” was used in terms of its
geographical meaning, that is to mean
European and that “white” was used in
the sense of European, and that the
Legislator intended the word to mean
the inhabitants of Europe and their
descendants. Additionally, Judge Smith
said that the meaning of “free white
persons” in the statute is free persons of
European habitancy or descent and
consequently only those persons are fit
to be naturalized (District Court, E. D.
South Carolina 1914).
Judge Smith declared that “in
his opinion, not only was the Syrian not
a member of the Caucasian Race but it
did not appear to him that a Syrian was
10
of the Semitic Race. […] An inhabitant
of Syria was not necessarily Semitic”
(Ferris 1928).
In his response to the defense
arguments that Christ appeared as a Jew
and spoke a Semitic language and that
the denial of White status to Syrians
would be synonymous to the denial of
the Whiteness of Jesus Christ (López
1996). Judge Smith responded that “The
pertinent statement rather is that a dark
complexioned present inhabitant of
what formerly was ancient Phoenicia is
not entitled to the inference that he must
be of the race commonly known as the
white race in 1790” (López 1996).
Judge Smith then ruled that the
“The applicant being an Asiatic does
not come within the terms of the statute,
and, whatever may be his other
qualifications, Congress has not seen fit
to endow him with the right to be
admitted as a citizen of this country
(District Court, E. D. South Carolina
1914). Hence, the Dow petition was
once more refused.
In his final words, Judge Smith “hoped
that an appeal would be taken to settle
this most vexed and difficult question”
(Ferris 1928). Dow and the Association
acted upon this suggestion and filed a
petition in the Circuit Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit. The Circuit Judges, who
ruled in this case, were Pritchard,
Knapp, and Woods. The court holding
found that “Syrians are White” basing
their rationale on scientific evidence,
Legislator intent, and Legal precedent
(López 1996). Dow’s lawyer argued
that Syrians were “the purest type of the
Semitic race” who had a “better claim
upon white race than that of the modern
nation of Europe”. However, “the
decisive factor in Dow’s favor,
however, was that he and other Syrian
immigrants were Christians (Spickard
2007).
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
Judge Woods delivered the
opinion of the court saying “In
extending the privilege of
naturalization to any ‘free white
person,’ it seems reasonable to think
that the Congress must have believed
that there were white persons natives of
countries outside of Europe…. In the
Dictionary of Races, contained in the
Reports of the Immigration
Commission, 1911, it is said ‘Physically
the modern Syrians are of mixed Syrian,
Arabian, and even Jewish blood. They
belong to the Semitic Branch of the
Caucasian race, thus widely differing
from their rulers, the Turks, who are in
origin Mongolian” (Dow v. United
States 1996).
Judge Woods stated that the
Syrians are closely related to their
neighbors on the European side of the
Mediterranean and as such they should
be classed as white and that they must
be held to fall within the term ‘white
persons’ used in the statute (Dow v.
United States 1996). Judge Woods
relied on analogical reasoning stating
that a large number of Syrians have
been naturalized without question and
that Congress has not seen fit to change
the law (Dow v. United States 1996).
The Circuit Court of Appeals found that
Judge Smith ruled based on the original
act of 1790 and not on the subsequent
amendments of that act. His decision
was reversed, and Dow’s petition for
naturalization was granted (Dow v.
United States 1996).
The triumph of the Dow case
established, as in the Gandur case of
South Africa, major legal precedence in
favor of Syrian and Lebanese
whiteness. However, the case that put
an end to the legal debate on the
whiteness of the Levantines was that of
F. W. Basha heard before no other than
Judge Henry Smith, who a decade
before ruled in the cases of Dow and
Shahid. Judge Smith denied Basha’s
petition for naturalization referring to
the Restrictive Immigration Act of
February 5th, 1917, Chapter 39, Sec. 3,
39 Stat. 874. Consequently, courts were
not willing to bestow the privilege of
naturalization on people who were
rejected as immigrants because their
birthplaces fell within the limits
designated in the said Act (Ferris 1928).
In the rehearing of the Basha case, it
was found “that no part of Syria
extends even anywhere near the fiftieth
degree East of Greenwich, which is the
Western limit of the barred area of
immigration, and is over five hundred
miles outside of the nearest exclusion
limit” (Ferris 1928). Basha’s petition
was then approved.
Discussion
Although in two different
continents and in two contrasting
environments, the Gandur case and the
Dow case had interesting similarities
whether in the holdings and rationales
of the lower courts, or in the arguments
of the defense, or in the judgments of
the higher courts. Both cases were
concerned with Levantine immigrants
in the second decade of the twentieth
century. Gandur entered a lawsuit in
1913, while Dow filed his in 1914. Both
were dealing with the issue of ‘race’ and
‘color’. Both were denied in the lower
courts on the grounds that the applicants
were Asiatics.
The similarities in the defense rested
mainly on a) Legislature intent; b)
Religious affiliation; c) Language
deficiency and general knowledge; d)
Semitic, Caucasian and ‘white’
equation or scientific evidence; and e)
Legal precedence or analogical
reasoning.
Legislature intent: Gandur’s
defense argued that the Legislature
11
Guita Hourani
never intended to subject the Syrian
people of South Africa to the harsh
restriction of this law, furthermore, that
the members of the Legislature who
passed the said law being renowned for
their zeal for Christianity would not
subject another white Christian to the
differentiation and restrictions imposed
by the said Law. Dow’s defense
claimed that the history and position of
the Syrians and their connection
through all times with the peoples to
whom the Jewish and Christian peoples
owed their religion, made it
inconceivable that the Statute could be
intended to exclude them.
Judge Innes was one of three judges
who ruled for Gandur in the Appellant
court. He used Legislature intent in
stating that if the intent of the
Legislature was to include within the
scope of the statute every “Asiatic”
race, it was not necessary for the use of
the word “Inboorling”. Judge Solomon
also used the same rationale stating that
in determining whether the meaning of
the expression “Inboorlingrassen” it is
not necessarily bound to give it is
etymological meaning but we must as
far as possible place ourselves in the
position of the authors of the Law.
Judge de Villiers was even more
forceful in using this reasoning
declaring that looking at the laws
relating to location, the Legislature in
passing Act 3 of 1885 would have been
horrified at the idea of confining white
men in locations, even if they come
from Asia Minor, like those set aside for
Coolies, Arabs, and other Asiatics. The
Legislature, he added, used the term
“Native Races” in its secondary
meaning and intended to confine it to
the colored races of Asia.
In the Dow case the three judges
Pritchard, Knapp, and Woods agreed
that when the act of 1790 was first
passed, immigration to the USA was
almost exclusively from Europe,
12
however, the judges argued, doubtless
the act was intended mainly to provide
for naturalization of aliens from Europe
and that in extending the privilege of
naturalization to nay “free white
person,” the Congress must have
believed that there were white persons
native of countries outside of Europe.
Further, the growth of the popular and
legislative conception of the meaning of
“free white persons” from 1790 to 1875,
the date of the last enactment on the
subject, is the controlling factor in
ascertaining the meaning legislators
intended should be given to the words
as they stand in the present law.
Religious affiliation: In the
Gandur case, the defense argued that
Gandur came from a land where
Christianity arose and flourished and
from a people who were the first
disciples of Christianity, fighting with
great loss and sacrifice against the
Turks during the Crusades and
remaining staunch defenders of the
faith to the present day. Moreover, the
Syrians have furnished the Catholic
Church with men like Saint Ephrem the
Syrian, Saint John of Damascus, and
Jacob of Roha and with Popes like Saint
Avaritos, Saint Inikotos, John the Fifth,
Saint Siniuss, Constantin and
Gregorius. In the Dow case, the defense
argued that the Syrians are
geographically from the birthplace of
Judaism and Christianity.
Language deficiency and
general knowledge: The defense in the
Gandur lawsuit stated that there is a
flaw in the translation of the sentence
“persons belonging to one of the native
races of Asia” from the original Dutch
to English which should have been
“persons belonging to any of the native
races of Asia.” As to the Dow case, the
defense declared that the language of
the Statute is about as open to many
constructions as it possibly could be.
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
General or common
knowledge: This rationale was
employed by Judge Innes in his
argument that the word “Inboorling”
means the black native population and
that a white person born in South Africa
would not in ordinary parlance be called
“Inboorling” and that the matter is one
of such general knowledge. He added
that the term “Inboorlingrassen”
therefore, as commonly understood in
South Africa would mean colored
native races and it is a fair inference that
the Legislator meant to give effect to the
same idea in applying the expression to
the races of Asia. Judge Solomon in his
turn argued that the word “Inboorling”
or “Native” has acquired a special
meaning in South Africa and that the
matter is of common knowledge on
which we require no evidence and that
it confined its application only to the
colored aboriginals of the country.
Judge de Villiers using the same
reasoning said that the word
“Inboorling” has attained a secondary
meaning by virtue of which it is
confined to the colored races of South
Africa.
In the Dow case, the judges
stated that the popular conception of
race division became more distinct as
time went on and that it seems to be true
beyond question that the generally
received opinion was that the
inhabitants of a portion of Asia,
including Syria, were to be classed as
white persons. The consensus of
opinion at the time of the enactment of
the statute now in force was that the
Syrians were so closely related to their
neighbors in Europe that they should be
classed as white.
A Semitic, Caucasian and
‘white’ equation or scientific
evidence: The Gandur defense affirmed
that the Syrians are an ancient Semitic
race and that Semitics are whites, hence
the Syrians are white. In the Dow case,
there were many more arguments
because the whiteness of Dow was
openly being challenged. The defense
affirmed that Dow was a member of one
of the Semitic nations, that the Semitic
nations are all members of the
‘Caucasian or white race and that the
term ‘white person’ in the Statute meant
persons of the Caucasian race and not
persons white in color.
Legal Precedence or
analogical reasoning: The defense in
the Gandur and in the Dow cases made
an allusion to the treatment of the Jews
in both countries to say that they ought
to be treated the same since both are
Semitic. In the Gandur case, the defense
stated that the law has never suggested
that the Jews who are also of a Semitic
race and come from the same country
are subject to the said Law. In the Dow
case, the argument was that European
Jews had been admitted without
question since the passage of the Statute
and that the Jews were one of the
Semitic people.
The judges in the lower courts
used the rationale of racial identity
based on the birthplace of the
applicants. Gandur was denied the
registration of his land on the bases that
he is an Asiatic; Gandur’s birthplace
determined in the judge’s eyes as his
racial identity. In the Dow case the
judge stated that since the petitioner
was born in Batroun in Syria, which is
in Asia, he is therefore not ‘white’
within the meaning of the naturalization
statute.
The judges of the higher courts
used the rationales: a) Legislator intent
and b) general or common knowledge
in ruling in favor of the two applicants
Conclusion
13
Guita Hourani
How did the Levantine both in
South Africa and the USA became
‘white’ has a lot to do with the way they
identified themselves when they were
faced with the issue of “whiteness” – an
issue that was not part of their psyche
until they left their homeland and came
to the land of their immigration. It was
rather a “compulsory whiteness” as
Tehranian puts it (Tehranian 2007). In
the new lands, the Levantines were
obliged to view themselves in relation
to others, in commonality with some
and in disharmony with others within
the sociopolitical context of the land.
One cannot be ‘white’ unless others are
not -- the contrast is needed, hence the
participation in the racialization of
others and in the case of the Levantines
– of themselves. Primarily, the
Levantines argued that they were
Semites and then equated the Semitic
race with the “Caucasian race” hence
with the “white race”.
The Levantines would have
cared less if they were white, black or
yellow if the systems in the host
countries were not so obviously
xenophobic about race and whiteness.
But when they had been faced with the
issue, they certainly worked hard to
claim whiteness simply because they
did not want to be considered ‘colored’
which meant at the time a lower race
and with fewer rights if any. Did they
have a choice? Not really, in the context
of the time in these two countries “to
enter the white race was a strategy to
secure an advantage in a competitive
society” (Ignatiev 1995).
The Levantines immigrants
although legally ‘white’, were not
completely accepted as full members of
their respective societies, they were
socially in an ambiguous situation --
they were not ‘colored’ but they were
not ‘white’. They might have felt both
’relatively deprived’ in comparison
14
with whites and ‘relatively gratified’ in
comparison with the ‘colored’ and the
‘non-whites’, they might have believed
that they may eventually be accepted by
whites and that they have difficulty
identifying with the broader colored
community (Morse and Peele 1974).
How and whether the
Levantines were, as a community or as
individuals, fully accepted in their
respective societies is beyond the scope
of this article. But these two identified
court cases did much for the
emancipation of the community
whether in South Africa or in the US.
The benefit of these two cases
surpassed the Levantine community to
the wider public. The lawsuits changed
not only the racial classification of the
Levantines in these two countries but
also their socioeconomic fate and that
of their offspring; they became
landmarks in conferring the status of
‘white’ race on the Levantine
immigrants in the two countries which
allowed them access to rights otherwise
denied to them; and they set precedence
which facilitated the ruling in
comparable cases.
This article shows how race is a
social construct and an important factor
in the determining of social position and
how it can be interpreted to admit the
“undesirables.” In the two cases
presented in this article, the Levantines,
in their attempt to changing their racial
classification, used their religious
affiliation as a rationale – a conduit that
was important to policy-makers.
The Levantines were not the
only group that was classified as non-
white, Irish, Greek, Italians, among
others, was to. Most of their stories have
not yet been heard because mainstream
literature addressed race through the
“black” and “white” divide. This article
voiced the stories of the Levantines in
 The Canadian Journal for Middle East Studies Vol3 (1) October 2019
South Africa and the US in early 20th
century to address the issue of
racialization beyond this divide and to
contribute to the understanding of
“whiteness” itself as it develops in the
social and legal domains.
Bibliography
1. ‘Chronological History of the Arab-
American Community’ (1992),
Arab-American Almanac,
California: the News Circle
Publishing House, 4th Edition.
2. Smith, Adam I. P. (2012), “Land of
Opportunity?” in Axel Körner,
Nicola Miller, and Adam I. P. Smith
America Imagined), Palgrave
Macmillan.
3. Al-Hoda (1914), 11 March, p. 3.
4. Barta P. and Millman, J. (2009)
“The Great U-Turn,” the Wall
Street Journal, June 6, 2009,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB12
4424701106590613.
5. Cape Times (2013), “Right to Own
Property: A Syrian’s Appeal,
Important Judgement,” Saturday,
10 May.
6. Christopher, J. (1992),
“Segregation Levels in South
African Cities 1911-1985,” The
International Journal of African
Historical Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3,
582.
7. Dow v. United States et al. (1915),
No. 1345, Circuit Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit, 226 F. 145; 1915
U.S. App. Lexis 2183, September
14.
8. Ferris, J. (1928), ‘Syrian
Naturalization Question in the
United States: Certain Legal
Aspects for our Naturalization
Laws’, The Syrian World, Part I,
2(8), February 1928, pp. 3-11.
9. Ferris, J. (1928), ‘Syrian
Naturalization Question in the
United States: Certain Legal
Aspects for our Naturalization
Laws’, The Syrian World, Part II,
2(9), March 1928 pp. 18-24.
10. Gandur v. Rand Townships (1913),
Judgment by Chief Justice Lord de
Villiers, Justice J. Solomon and
Justice J. Innes in the Supreme
Court of South Africa (Appellate
Division. Published under the
auspices of the Syrian Lebanon
Christian Association,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
11. Gandur, M. v. Rand Townships
Registrar (1913), Johannesburg,
South Africa.
12. Gualtieri, S. (2001), ‘Becoming
“White”: Race, Religion and the
Foundations of Syrian and
Lebanese Ethnicity in the United
States’, Immigration and Ethnic
History Society, Vol. 20, No. 4,
Summer.
13. Ignatiev, N. (1995), How the Irish
Became White. New York-and Lon-
don: Routledge.
14. Joseph, S. (1999), “Against the
Grain of the Nation—the Arab,” in
Arabs in America: Building a New
Future, Edited by Michael
Suleiman, Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
15. Hanna, K. (2006), People of the
Cedars: A 20th Century insight into
the Lebanese South African
Community, South Africa, 2011.
16. López, I. H. (2006), White by law:
The legal construction of race. New
York, NY: New York University
Press.
17. Monsour, A. (2002),
‘Whitewashed: The Lebanese in
Queensland, 1880-1947,’ in Arab-
Australians Citizenship and
Belonging Today, Edited by Gh.
Hage, Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press, 2002.
18. Morse S. J. and Peele, S. (1974),
‘Colored Power or Coloured
Bourgeoisie” Political Attitudes
among South African Coloureds,’
15
Guita Hourani
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 38,
No. 3, 317.
19. National Archives of South Africa
(NASA) (1910), JUS, Volume No
131, Reference 24965/10,
November 11, 1910. Moses Gandur
versus Rand Townships Registrar,
Johannesburg, South Africa, 1913.
20. National Archives of South Africa
(NASA) (1910), Source JUS,
Volume No 131, Reference
24965/10, November 11, 1910.
21. National Archives of South Africa,
Source SAP (1928), Volume No
171, Reference 2/65/28.
22. Orfalea, G. (1989), “On Arab
Americans: A Bibliographical
Essay,” American Studies
International, Vol. 27, No. 2
23. Rand Daily Mail (1913), “Christian
Syrians Cannot Hold Land.”
24. Samhan, H. H. (1999), ‘Not Quite
White: Race Classification and the
Arab-American Experience’ in
Arabs in America: Building a New
Future, Edited by M. Suleiman,
Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
25. Smith, M. (2002), “Race,
Nationality, and Reality: INS
16
Administration of Racial Provisions
in U.S. Immigration and Nationality
Law since 1898, Part 1.” Prologue
Magazine 34 (2). Available from
http://www.archives.gov.
26. Spickard, P. (2007), “Almost all
Aliens: Immigration, Race, and
Colonialism in American History
and Identity,” New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
27. Tehranian, J. (2007), “Compulsory
Whiteness: Towards a Middle-
Eastern Legal Scholarship,” Indiana
Law Journal, Vol. 82.
28. The Office of the Registrar of Deeds
in Pretoria, a letter from Bekker &
Bekker to S. B. Farah regarding the
registration of land to a colored
person, Ermelo (1910, October).
29. The Office of the Registrar of Deeds
in Pretoria, a letter from Sperryn
and Domissee to S. B. Farah
regarding the registration of land to
a Syrian, Ermelo (1910,
September).
30. The Office of the Registrar of Deeds
in Pretoria, a letter from the Syrian
Ottoman Society to the General
German Consul Acting Consul for
Turkey, (1910, October).