Weeks 10-11

Pre-World War II Asian Immigrant Community and Family (Weeks 10-11)

What Is Community?

  • Ethnic Community Formation Themes:

    • Focus on how Asians lived, developed social relations, and organized their communities.

General Characteristics of Asian Ethnic Community Formation

  1. Internal and External Forces at Work in the Process of Community Formation:

    • Cultural, Language, and Ethnic/National Differences (Internal): These factors tended to segregate individuals within their ethnic communities.

    • Racism & Exclusion from Mainstream Society (External): External forces led to the segregation of Asian immigrants.

  2. Community as a Source of:

    • Comfort, safety, and a sense of belonging.

    • Despite geographical separation from traditional areas like Chinatown, many immigrants remained connected through community organization networks.

    • Most individuals in these communities were working-class, often moving frequently due to economic pressures.

    • Korean churches: Central to Korean immigration; most early immigrants were Christians, leading to the establishment of churches that served as pivotal community organizations in early America.

  3. Patterns of Community Formation:

    • Spatial Organization and Physical Boundaries: Communities were organized within specific geographic areas.

    • Organizational Membership: Community formed through networks of organizations, which served as loci of ethnic identity and social ties.

    • Mental Identification: Concept of “imagined community” became increasingly significant in the context of postwar integration and suburbanization.

  4. Bases of Community Formation:

    • Preexisting/Primordial Ties: Existing ties based on ethnic or cultural backgrounds.

    • Pragmatic Interests: Necessity-driven connections among members.

  5. Roles/Functions of Ethnic Community Organizations:

    • Family-like Services: Provide emotional and material support, mutual aid.

    • Leadership and Social Control: Offer leadership roles that differ from traditional models.

    • Survival and Coping: Communities often represent solidarity against racism, highlighting the political significance of ethnic identity.

Major Ethnic Community Organizations

Chinese Community

  • Well-organized with a centralized power structure post-1882:

    1. Family/Clan Associations:

    • Focus on lineage and family ties which are primordial and socio-economic factors like ancestral veneration and credit schemes.

    • Provides job referrals and initial support for newcomers.

    1. “Huiguan” (Regional Ties):

    • Functions similarly to clan associations but on a larger scale (Sam Yup, Sze Yup, Heungshan established in 1851).

    1. Six Chinese Company (1862, San Francisco):

    • Assembly of major Huiguans that helps to adjudicate factionalism among regional groups.

    1. Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (1882 in San Francisco, followed by other cities):

    • Acts as an umbrella organization to promote political unity, enforce discipline within the community, and represent Chinese issues in public discourse.

    • Provides Chinese-language schools and maintains strong ties with Chinese diplomats.

    1. Trade Organizations:

    • Include various guilds for economic leadership, e.g., laundry and restaurant owners.

Japanese Community

  • Organizational structure centered post-1908:

    1. “Kenjinkai” (Prefectural Associations):

    • Regional ties providing community similarity akin to Huiguan but less crucial given the larger family networks.

    1. Japanese Associations (1908 San Francisco, 1911 Portland, etc.):

    • Function as community representatives, sponsoring legal challenges against racism, maintaining connections with diplomats, and run by diverse groups including intellectuals and farmers.

    1. Trade Organizations:

    • Focus on agriculture, urban small businesses, and fishing sectors.

    1. Religious Organizations:

    • Buddhist & Christian Churches present significant cultural and spiritual roles.

Korean Community

  • Unified after 1909:

    1. Christian Churches:

    • Serve multifaceted roles—spiritual, social, cultural, and educational—is vital for community cohesion; e.g., Korean Episcopal Church (1905).

    1. Sociopolitical Organizations:

    • Advocacy for homeland liberation and political representation across various councils.

South Asian Community

  • Lack of centralized structure:

    1. Sikh Temples:

    • Important for social/religious functions—however, less organized compared to other communities.

    1. Hindustan Association/Ghadr Party:

    • Focus on homeland liberation, active until WWI.

    1. Hindustan Welfare Reform Society (1918):

    • Social objectives emphasizing immediate needs over homeland politics.

Filipino Community

  • Not centralized:

    1. Filipino Federation of America (1925):

    • A conservative group advocating for moral living and assimilation.

    1. Filipino Catholic Churches:

    • Function as community hubs similar to churches in other ethnic groups.

    1. Community Response to Racial Violence:

    • No central organization, responses localized to specific areas.

    1. Labor Associations:

    • Including Filipino Labor Unions, often radicalized and divided along class lines.

Summary: Differences in Community Formation Patterns

  • Chinese: Centralized structure focused on family/regional ties with religious aspects being less crucial.

  • Japanese: Focus on trade associations, religious institutions, and a well-organized structure.

  • Koreans: Emphasized religion and nationalism in community organizing.

  • South Asians & Filipinos: Both lacked centralized leadership and focused on community-specific challenges.

Immigrant Women: “Americanization” of Gender Relations

  • Statistics of Gender Ratios:

    • Chinese: 27:1 (1890),

    • Japanese: 3:1 (1920),

    • Koreans: 3:1 (1920),

    • Filipinos: 19:1 (1920).

    • Asian Indians: Minimal data available.

Double Burdens of Immigrant Women

  • Conventional Gender Roles vs. New Economic Roles:

    1. Breakdown of traditional in-law controls leading to joint responsibilities.

    2. Involvement in family economy and community affairs.

  • New Roles and Community Engagement:

    1. Education and nationalist activities became new priorities.

    2. Shift in gender relations from subordination to partnership within families.

Second General Dilemma: Race, Culture, Citizenship, 1930s-1940s

  • Statistics on U.S.-Born Asians:

    • American-born Japanese (Nisei) populations sharply increased, e.g., 30,000 in 1920 from 4,500 in 1910.

  • Cultural Differences:

    • Major differences between first-generation immigrants and second-generation US-born due to educational systems.

  • Challenges for Second-Generation Asian Americans:

    1. Dual Citizenship Issues:

    • Contradictory legal frameworks between U.S. and ancestral countries, e.g., “jus sanguinis” vs. “jus soli.”

    1. Occupation Opportunities Limited:

    • Many were inheritance roles or limited to ethnic economies due to systemic barriers.

    1. Cultural Conflict:

    • Struggling between American public education and heritage education amidst stigma of hybrid identities.

Coping with Racism: Accommodation vis-à-vis Activism

  • Historical Context:

    • Adaptation of an accommodationist attitude, historically referred to as the model minority.

    • Efforts focused on self-help and quiet acceptance rather than activism against racism; leaders of ethnic organizations emphasized a peaceful way to navigate societal challenges.

Conclusion

  • Many second-generation Asian Americans espoused ethnic solidarity leading to social segregation as a strategy for survival, often embodied in various community organizations such as the Japanese American Citizens League or YM/YWCA.