Chinese Immigrants Confront Anti-Chinese Prejudice (1885, 1903) Study Notes

Mary Tape and the Fight Against Educational Segregation (1885)

  • Context of the Case: Mary Tape, a Chinese immigrant mother, engaged in a legal and social battle to integrate public schools in California for her daughter, Mamie Tape.
  • Tape v. Hurley (1885):
    • The case reached the California Supreme Court in 1885.
    • The Court issued a favorable ruling for the Tape family, suggesting that Chinese children should be allowed to attend public schools.
    • Administrative Resistance: Despite the court ruling, the San Francisco Board of Education circumvented integration by building a segregated "Chinese school."
    • Resolution: Mamie Tape was forced to attend the segregated school rather than the integrated Spring Valley School she initially sought to enter.

Protests Against the San Francisco Board of Education

  • Letter to the Board of Education: On April 16, 1885, Mary Tape published a letter in the Daily Alta California protesting the denial of her daughter’s entry into Spring Valley School.
  • Theological and Human Rights Arguments:
    • Tape questioned the morality of segregation, asking, "Is it a disgrace to be Born a Chinese? Didn’t God make us all!!!"
    • She challenged the Board's right to bar her children based solely on "chinese Decend," noting there was no other "worldly reason" for the exclusion.
  • Critique of Christian Values: Tape pointed out the hypocrisy of the Board members who attend church on Sundays but perform what she termed an un-Christian act by compelling children to travel long distances to a segregated facility.
  • Cultural Assimilation and Identity:
    • Tape argued that her children did not dress like "other Chinese" and would look out of place in a Chinese school.
    • She noted that Mamie's playmates had been Caucasians since she could "toddle around," arguing that if she was good enough to play with them, she was good enough to study with them.
  • Financial and Institutional Critique: Tape accused the Board of expending "Public money foolishly" just to exclude one child.
  • Personal Grievances and Persecution:
    • She identified Mr. Moulder (the Superintendent) as having a specific grudge against eight-year-old Mamie Tape.
    • She characterized the Board's actions as "persecution" and stated that Mamie would "never attend any of the Chinese schools of your making! Never!!!"
    • Tape asserted her daughter's identity, stating, "I guess she is more of a American then a good many of you that is going to prevent her being Educated."

Lee Chew and the Experience of Chinese Immigrants (1903)

  • Biographical Background: Lee Chew immigrated from China at the age of 16.
    • His career path included working as a domestic servant for an American family in San Francisco, starting a laundry business, and eventually running an importing business in New York City.
  • Critique of International Treaties:
    • Chew referred to Americans as "foreign devils" regarding their diplomatic conduct.
    • He argued that the U.S. broke its own treaty, which had guaranteed free movement between both countries. While China opened its doors, the U.S. "broke the treaty… by shutting the Chinese out."
  • Challenges in the Laundry Business:
    • Commercial Fraud: Customers would claim parcels they did not own, claiming they lost their tickets, and would resort to violence if not given the items.
    • Legal Injustice: Chinese laundry owners were often taken before Magistrates and fined for "losing" shirts they had never actually seen.
    • Financial Success: Despite the hardship, Chew noted he could send home 33 a week and still save approximately 1515.

Labor, Prejudice, and Economic Exclusion

  • Work on the Railroads: Chew observed that railroad construction gangs were rough and prejudiced, mirroring the atmosphere in big Eastern cities like New York.
  • Occupational Restriction:
    • Chew argued that Chinese immigrants were forced into the laundry business because it required little capital and was one of the few opportunities left open to them.
    • He claimed that "jealousy of laboring men of other personalities"—specifically naming the Irish, as well as Germans, Englishmen, and Italians—led to the exclusion of Chinese workers from farms, factories, railroads, street making, and sewer digging.
  • The "Cheap Labor" Scare:
    • Chew attacked the "cheap labor" argument as a falsehood, stating that Chinese labor "always commanded the highest market price."
    • He argued that bosses preferred Chinese workers because they were more "honest, industrious, steady, sober and painstaking."
    • He famously stated that Chinese people were persecuted "not for their vices, but for their virtues."

Social Harassment and Cultural Preservation

  • Physical Violence and Police Negligence: In New York, Chinese laundries were forced to put wire screens in front of windows to prevent breakage by "street boys," an act the police allegedly treated as a "joke."
  • Opium and Gambling:
    • Chew defended his community against American stereotypes regarding opium and gambling.
    • He argued that opium use was less common among poor immigrants than Americans imagined, and that it caused less harm than the "liquor that the Americans drink," stating, "There’s nothing so bad as a drunken man."
  • Preference for Traditional Attire:
    • Chew explained that Chinese immigrants kept their traditional clothes (coats, shoes, and hats) because they were superior in comfort, warmth, and utility for work.
    • He described American clothes as making the wearer feel as if they were "in the stocks."

The Limits of American Justice and Citizenship

  • Geopolitics of Prejudice: Chew argued that the U.S. mistreated the Chinese only because China was not a "fighting nation." He suggested the U.S. would not dare treat Germans, English, Italians, or Japanese in the same manner for fear of war.
  • Barriers to Citizenship and Family:
    • He estimated that more than half of the Chinese in the country would become citizens if allowed.
    • Legal Barriers: Immigrants were prohibited from bringing wives from China, and those who married American women faced social outcry.
  • Political Inaction: Chew criticized Congressmen for acknowledging the injustice of the treatment of Chinese people but failing to act, stating they have "no backbone."
  • Conclusion: Due to the lack of substantial friendship and the prevalence of race prejudice, Chew questioned how he could call the U.S. "home" and expressed a desire to take his money and return to his village in China.