(cross-posted at Synergism)
“Most Americans are not familiar with the Exclusion Act — which wasn’t repealed until 1943 — and the extraordinary levels of discrimination against Asian Americans.”
The news of the proposed legislation to express regret for the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act popped up on my radar, probably because a ton of my friends are interested in these topics, so I did a little poking around to see what it was about. I had a hard time finding any American news sources that were covering it; ironically, the most common sources were things like Xinhua, CCTV News (China), CRIEnglish.com (Chinese), Bangkok Post, Angry Asian Man, Sino Daily, etc — clearly from the Asian side — though it was in AFP, Chicago Times, and a few Californian news sources, though I had an easier time turning up California’s own resolutions to apologize for the exclusion laws. In short, I was a little surprised at the lack of coverage for the resolution. It feels like the resolution was slipped in without much fanfare, and from the wording of the AFP article, it’s clearly a nod to election politics and getting AA votes. Hearing about this resolution makes me glad in a way that it’s coming up, but I’m surprised at the few comments that I am seeing on this topic. Many people wonder what the point of it is — “it’s water under the bridge.” Maybe this is a topic that will pick up more momentum as the resolution is discussed, but the handling of it seems so strange to me.
Whenever I saw these types of resolutions apologizing for history or affirming it, I used to wonder what the point was. I remember not understanding why governments would issue things like an affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, since it seemed obvious that it happened, but after doing more reading, I realized that the politics around the issue made the perception of the event different to different sides. (Just think about all the media attention when Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust.) Especially when it’s a situation where the perpetrators or their ancestors may diminish the magnitude of the event, I can understand why people will get so upset when history is construed in different ways. Wars will happen and alliances will shift, but their ancestors have to go about the aftermath gracefully and rationally in order to keep up a functioning international arena. I’ve read that in Germany, generations who have never witnessed the Holocaust are taught to treat the issue with sensitivity, without any denial of the crimes that happened. While I wouldn’t call it a “sense of guilt” exactly, there is no blame shifting or belittlement of the atrocities that happened during the wars. (Can’t cite that off the top of my head, so I can’t verify that it’s true or not — I think I heard that from a conversation with my German teacher.)
Rep. Chu argued “that a statement of regret was more appropriate for a congressional decision more than a century ago, saying: ‘You can only apologize for what you did yourself.’” This kind of apology makes more sense in the context of the 1988 apology for WW2 Japanese internees after much lobbying by Japanese Americans. The resolution is still remembered by Japanese Americans today (article is about the 20th anniversary of the resolution). Considering that this Chinese Exclusion Act was in 1882, I see where most of the surprise about this bill comes from. It was in 1882, and though the documentation and imagery and wording of the resolution were horrifically racist and untrue, so were most publications about minorities at the time. Though this has undoubtedly been lobbied for years, I bet people are wondering, “Why now?” or “Why bother?”
But, what I am most surprised about is why so few people care. This is a formal governmental apology for a purposeful and concentrated racial exclusion that affected the lives of thousands, and left a stain on the way Chinese American immigrants were perceived for years. For Chinese immigrants at the time, the act felt like an ultimate betrayal. After immigrating like all other groups in search of better economic opportunities, working on railroads and other menial labor, the exclusion act broke up families and left the Chinese remaining in America basically out to dry. Political sentiment against these convenient workers had clearly turned sour, and the exclusion act wasn’t repealed until 1943, 61 years later, and only done so for wartime convenience. Immigration restrictions to non-Europeans were only fully removed in 1965.
My problem with the act, since I can claim zero effect of that exclusion act personally on me or my ancestors, is in the attitudes toward Chinese Americans it perpetrated. The act set the tone for over a century of policies that seemed to fluctuate based on the political convenience of the country at the time. When times were good and the economy could use extra labor, the Chinese were welcomed. When times were bad and they continued to persevere, they were reviled for taking up space and precious resources that could not be afforded to waste. When homeland politics made China the enemy, the Chinese in America were seditious and put under constant surveillance. When China was an ally, public sentiment would once again do backflips, issuing statements advising “How to Tell Your Friends from the Japs” (December 22, 1941 issue of Time). Even now, fears of the “wakening dragon” or whatever has sent politicians in a dither about China’s economic threat. Much of the changes in environment happen to all immigrants, and for the Chinese, not all of it can be attributed to the exclusion act. But considering the limitations on restriction, citizenship laws, miscegenation laws, and general racist climate at the time, the 83 years of immigration restrictions could not have helped this environment.
Asian American minorities have always had a puzzling place in America, unable to fit into a “black or white” discourse and in a doubly complicated situation by their implications in homeland politics. I’m glad to see a resolution that will offer at least some official stance on a matter that has mostly been ignored by politics, politicians, and history. I’m a little worried that unless there is more visibility on this, even a resolution expressing regret for its actions will go largely missed except by people who felt affected by it — and I’m talking about the same news sources that are publishing news about the topic. It’s been too long for anyone who was affected very directly to have their wounds salved by such a resolution, and though people interested in the matter may hear about it from these focused channels, I think the resolution loses its full effect. Ideally, if this were to be passed, this could be a positive step in changing the schizophrenic attitudes towards Chinese immigrants that dampens the ability to feel like true Americans. I can only keep following what’s going on with the news, though I doubt anyone would be too opposed — how do you reject a proposal to express regret for history without seriously pissing people off?