Anti-Cantonese event / 反粵事件


------------------------------

Rock Springs massacre / 岩泉大屠殺

The Rock Springs massacre (also known as the Rock Springs Riot) occurred on September 2, 1885, in the present-day United States city of Rock Springs, Wyoming, in Sweetwater County. The riot, between
Cantonese immigrant miners and white immigrant miners, was the result of racial tensions and an ongoing labor dispute over the Union Pacific Coal Department's policy of paying Cantonese miners lower wages than white miners. This policy caused the Cantonese to be hired over the white miners, which further angered the white miners and contributed to the riot. Racial tensions were an even bigger factor in the massacre. When the rioting ended, at least 28 Cantonese miners were dead and 15 were injured. Rioters burned 75 Cantonese homes resulting in approximately US$150,000 in property damage[1][2][3] ($3.65 million in present-day terms[4]).

Tension between whites and Cantonese immigrants in the late 19th century American West was particularly high, especially in the decade preceding the violence. The massacre in Rock Springs was the violent outburst of years of anti-Cantonese sentiment in the United States. The 1882 Cantonese Exclusion Act suspended Cantonese immigration for ten years, but not before thousands of immigrants came to the American West.

Most Cantonese immigrants to Wyoming Territory took jobs with the railroad at first, but many ended up employed in coal mines owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. As Cantonese immigration increased, so did anti-Cantonese sentiment from whites. The Knights of Labor, one of the foremost voices against Cantonese immigrant labor, formed a chapter in Rock Springs in 1883, and most rioters were members of that organization. However, no direct connection has ever established that the riot was caused by the national Knights of Labor organization.[1]

In the immediate aftermath of the riot, federal troops were deployed in Rock Springs. They escorted the surviving Cantonese miners, most of whom had fled to Evanston, Wyoming, back to Rock Springs a week after the riot. Reaction came swiftly from the era's publications. In Rock Springs, the local newspaper endorsed the outcome of the riot, while in other Wyoming newspapers, support for the riot was limited to sympathy for the causes of the white miners.[2] The massacre in Rock Springs touched off a wave of anti-Cantonese violence, especially in the Puget Sound area of Washington Territory.

[edit] Background

Chinese immigration to the United States at that time was neither uniform nor widespread. J.R. Tucker, writing for The North American Review in 1884, stated that the vast majority of the nearly 100,000 Chinese immigrants resided within the American West: California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington Territory.[5] The U.S. Minister to China, George Seward, had asserted similar numbers in Scribner's Magazine five years earlier.[6]

The first jobs Chinese laborers took in Wyoming were on the railroad, working for the Union Pacific company (UP) as maintenance-of-way workers.[7] Chinese workers soon became an asset to Union Pacific and worked along UP lines and in UP coal mines from Laramie to Evanston. Most Chinese workers in Wyoming ended up working in Sweetwater County, but a large number settled in Carbon County and Uinta County. Most Chinese people in the area were men working in the mine.[7][8] Racism against Chinese immigrants was widespread and largely uncontroversial at the time. J.R. Tucker, in the aforementioned 1884 article, referred to Asian immigrants as "...the Asiatic race, alien in blood, habits, and civilization". He also noted, "Chinese are the chief element in this Asiatic population."[5]

In 1874–75, after labor unrest disrupted coal production, the Union Pacific Coal Department hired Chinese laborers to work in their coal mines throughout southern Wyoming. Even so, Chinese population rose slowly at first; however, where there were Chinese immigrants, they were generally concentrated in one area.[2][9] At Red Desert, a remote section camp in Sweetwater County, there were 20 inhabitants, of whom 12 were Chinese. All 12 were laborers who worked under an American foreman. To the east of Red Desert was another remote section camp, Washakie. An American section foreman lived there amongst 23 others, including 13 Chinese laborers and an Irish crew foreman.[9] In the various section camps along the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad, Chinese workers far outnumbered any other nationality.[9] Though the 79 Chinese in Sweetwater County in 1870 represented only 4% of the total population, they were, again, concentrated. In Rock Springs and Green River, the largest towns along the UP line, there were no Chinese residents reported in 1870.[9]

Throughout the 1870s, the Chinese population in Sweetwater County and all of Wyoming steadily increased. During the decade, Wyoming's total population rose from 9,118 to 20,789.[10] In the 1870 U.S. Census, what the government today calls "Asian and Pacific Islander" represented only 143 members of the population of Wyoming. The increase during the 1870s was the largest percentage increase in the Asian population of Wyoming of any decade since; the increase represented a 539% jump in the Asian population.[10] By 1880, most Chinese residents in Sweetwater County lived in Rock Springs. At that time, Wyoming was home to 914 "Asians"; that number fell significantly during the 1880s to 465.[10]

Although most Chinese workers in 1880 were employed in the coal mines around Wyoming and Sweetwater County, the Chinese in Rock Springs worked mostly in occupations outside of mining. In addition to Chinese laborers and miners, a professional gambler, a priest, a cook, and a barber resided in the city.[9] In Green River, Wyoming, there was a Chinese doctor. Chinese servants and waiters found work in Green River and in Fort Washakie. In Atlantic City, Wyoming, Miner's Delight, Wyoming, and Red Canyon, Wyoming, Chinese gold miners were employed. However, the majority of the 193 Chinese residing in Sweetwater County by 1880 worked in the coal mines or on the railroad.[9]

[edit] Causes

The riot was the result of a combination of race prejudice and general resentment against Union Pacific.[2] In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act required that "…from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come."[11] In the years preceding the Rock Springs massacre, the importation of Chinese labor was seen as a "system worse than slavery."[12] The white miners at Rock Springs, being mostly Swedish, Welsh, Irish and Cornish immigrants, believed that lower-paid Chinese laborers drove down their wages.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

The Chinese at Rock Springs were well-aware of the animosity and rising racial tension with white miners. Previously, they had never taken any precautions, as no prior events led them to believe a race riot would be the end result.[3] Underlying the outbreak of violence were racism and resentment of the policies of the Union Pacific Coal Department. Until 1875, the mines in Rock Springs were worked by whites; in that year, a strike occurred, and the strikers were replaced with Chinese strikebreakers less than two weeks after the strike began.[2] The company resumed mining with 50 white miners and 150 Chinese miners in its employ. As more Chinese arrived in Rock Springs, bitterness from the white miners increased.[2] At the time of the massacre, there were about 150 white miners and 331 Chinese miners in Rock Springs.[2]

In the two years before the massacre, a "Whitemen's Town" was established in Rock Springs.[19] By 1883, the Knights of Labor organized a chapter in Rock Springs. The Knights were one group that spearheaded opposition to Chinese labor during the 1880s;[1][14] in 1882, the Knights had worked for the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act.[1] Even so, the Rock Springs massacre and the exclusion of Chinese workers were not the most significant events in the history of the Knights of Labor.[20] No evidence has been uncovered to prove that the national Knights of Labor organization was behind the massacre at Rock Springs.[1] In August 1885, notices were posted from Evanston to Rock Springs, Wyoming, demanding the expulsion of Chinese immigrants, and on the evening of September 1, 1885, one day before the violence, white miners in Rock Springs held a meeting regarding the Chinese immigrants. It was rumored that threats were made that night against the Chinese, according to the immigrants who were living there.[19]

[edit] The massacre

At 7:00 a.m. on September 2, 1885, ten white men, in ordinary garb and miner's uniforms, arrived at coal pit number six at the Rock Springs mine. They declared that the Chinese laborers had no right to work in a particularly desirable "room" in the mine; miners were paid by the ton, thus location was important to the miners.[3] A fight broke out, and two Chinese workers at pit number six were badly beaten. One of the Chinese workers later died due to his injuries. The white miners, most of whom were members of the Knights of Labor, walked out of the mine.[1]

After the work stoppage at pit number six, more white miners assembled near the town. They marched to Rock Springs by way of the railroad, carrying firearms.[19] At about 10:00 a.m., the bell in the Knights of Labor meeting hall tolled, and the miners inside the building joined the already large group.[21] There were white miners who opted to go to saloons instead of joining the gathering mob, but by 2:00 p.m., the saloons and grocers were persuaded by a Union Pacific official to close.[3]

With the saloons and grocers closed, about 150 men, armed with Winchester rifles, moved toward Chinatown in Rock Springs.[1][3] They moved in two groups and entered Chinatown by crossing separate bridges. The larger group entered by way of the railroad bridge and was divided into squads, a few of which remained standing on the opposite side of the bridge outside Chinatown. The smaller group entered by way of the town's plank bridge.[19]

Squads from the larger group broke off and moved up the hill toward coal pit number three. One squad took up a position at the pit number three coal shed; another, at the pump house. A warning party was sent ahead of the squads into Chinatown. They warned the Chinese they had one hour to pack up and leave town. After only thirty minutes,[9] the first gunshots were fired by the squad at the pump house, followed by a volley from those at the coal shed. Lor Sun Kit, a Chinese laborer, was shot and fell to the ground.[19]

As the group at coal pit number three rejoined them, the crowd pressed on toward Chinatown, some men firing their weapons as they went.[19] The smaller group of white miners at the plank bridge divided itself into squads and surrounded Chinatown. One squad stayed at the plank bridge to cut off any Chinese escape.[19] As the white miners moved into Chinatown, the Chinese became aware of the riot and that Leo Dye Bah and Yip Ah Marn, residents from the west and east sides of Chinatown, had already been killed. As the news of the murders spread, the Chinese fled in fear and confusion. They ran in every direction: up the hill behind coal pit number three; others, along the base of the hill at coal pit number four; others still, from the eastern end of town, fled across Bitter Creek to the opposite hill; and more fled the western end of Chinatown across the base of the hill to the right of coal pit number five. The mob came from three directions by this time, from the east and west ends of town and from the wagon road.[19] The Chinese immigrants present at the Rock Springs massacre presented their own grisly account of the mêlée to the Chinese consul in New York:

Whenever the mob met a Chinese they stopped him and, pointing a weapon at him, asked him if he had any revolver, and then approaching him they searched his person, robbing him of his watch or any gold or silver that he might have about him, before letting him go. Some of the rioters would let a Chinese go after depriving him of all his gold and silver, while another Chinese would be beaten with the butt ends of the weapons before being let go. Some of the rioters, when they could not stop a Chinese, would shoot him dead on the spot, and then search and rob him. Some would overtake a Chinese, throw him down and search and rob him before they would let him go. Some of the rioters would not fire their weapons, but would only use the butt ends to beat the Chinese with. Some would not beat a Chinese, but rob him of whatever he had and let him go, yelling to him to go quickly. Some, who took no part either in beating or robbing the Chinese, stood by, shouting loudly and laughing and clapping their hands.[19]
By 3:30 p.m. the massacre was well under way.[19] The women in Rock Springs had gathered in a group at the plank bridge, where they stood and cheered the rampage on. Two women present fired shots at the Chinese.[19] As the riot wore on into the night, the Chinese miners scattered into the hills, lying in the grass to hide. Between four and nine p.m., rioters set fire to the camp houses belonging to the coal company. By nine p.m., all but one Chinese camp house was burned completely. In all, 79 Chinese homes were destroyed by fire.[19] Damage to Chinese-owned property was estimated at around $147,000.[1][2][3]

Of the Chinese killed, some died on the banks of Bitter Creek as they fled, others near the railroad bridge as they attempted to escape Chinatown.[19] The rioters threw Chinese bodies into the flames of burning buildings.[19] Other Chinese immigrants, who had hidden in their houses instead of fleeing, were murdered, and then their bodies were burned with their houses.[21] Those who could not run, including the sick, were burned alive in their camp houses.[3][19] Many of the Chinese who were burned in their houses apparently tried "to dig a hole in the cellar to hide themselves. But the fire overtook them when about half way in the hole, burning their lower limbs to a crisp and leaving the upper trunk untouched."[22] One remaining Chinese immigrant was found dead in a laundry house in Whitemen's Town, his home demolished by rioters.[2][19]

The attacks at Rock Springs were extraordinarily violent, revealing a long-held, almost "feral," hatred of the victims.[23] The sheer brutality of the violence "startled" the entire country.[24] Besides those who were burned alive, Chinese miners were scalped, mutilated, branded, decapitated, dismembered, and hanged from gutter spouts.[23] One of the Chinese miners had his penis and testicles cut off and toasted in a nearby saloon as a "trophy of the hunt."[23][25] The events amounted to racial terrorism.[23]

The total number of Chinese killed in the massacre is not known with certainty. There were 28 confirmed deaths, and at least 15 miners were wounded.[3][7] But various sources assert that 40 to 50 fatalities might be a more accurate number, as some of those who fled were never accounted for.[26][27][28] The Chinese consul in New York City compiled a detailed list of the massacre's victims.

[edit] Outcome

[edit] Immediate aftermath

In the days following the riot, surviving Chinese immigrants in Rock Springs fled and were picked up by Union Pacific trains.[21] By September 5, almost all survivors were in Evanston, Wyoming, 100 miles (160 km) west of Rock Springs.[21] Once there, they were subjected to threats of murder and other crimes; Evanston was another area in Wyoming where anti-Chinese sentiment was high.[19][21] Rumors of the return of the Chinese to Rock Springs circulated since immediately after the riots. On September 3, The Rock Springs Independent published an editorial which confirmed the rumors of "the return", as a few Chinese began to trickle back into town to search for valuables.[29] The Independent said of the return of Chinese laborers to Rock Springs, "It means that Rock Springs is killed, as far as white men are concerned, if such program is carried out."[29] The massacre was defended in the local newspaper, and, to an extent, in other western newspapers.[21] In general, however, Wyoming newspapers disapproved of the acts of the massacre while supporting the cause of white miners.[2]

Wyoming territorial Governor Francis E. Warren visited Rock Springs on September 3, 1885, the day after the riot, to make a personal assessment. After his trip to Rock Springs, Warren traveled to Evanston, where he sent telegrams to U.S. President Grover Cleveland appealing for federal troops.[2] Back in Rock Springs, the riot had calmed, but the situation was still unstable.[1] Two companies of the United States Army's 7th Infantry arrived on September 5, 1885. One company, under the command of a Lieutenant Colonel Anderson, was stationed in Evanston, Wyoming; the other, under a Colonel Chipman, was stationed in Rock Springs. At Camp Murray, Utah Territory, a Colonel Alexander McDowell McCook was ordered to augment the garrison sent to Wyoming with six more companies.[1] On September 9, 1885, one week after the massacre, six companies of soldiers arrived in Wyoming. Four of the six companies then escorted the Chinese back to Rock Springs.[1] Once back in Rock Springs, the Chinese laborers found scorched tracts of land where their homes once stood. The mining company had buried only a few dead; others remained lying in the open, mangled, decomposing, and partially eaten by dogs, hogs, or other animals.[29]

The situation in Rock Springs was stabilized as early as September 15, when Warren first requested the removal of federal troops, but the mines at Rock Springs remained closed for a time.[1] On September 30, 1885 white miners, mostly Finnish immigrants who were members of the Knights of Labor, walked out of mines in Carbon County, Wyoming, in protest of the company's continued use of Chinese miners. In Rock Springs, the white miners were not back at work in late September, because the company still used Chinese labor.[30]

Rock Springs steadily became quieter, and on October 5, 1885 emergency troops, except for two companies, were removed. However, the temporary posts of Camp Medicine Butte, established in Evanston, and of Camp Pilot Butte, in Rock Springs, remained long after the riot. Camp Pilot Butte closed in 1899 after the onset of the Spanish-American War.[1]

The labor strike was unsuccessful, and the miners went back to work within a couple of months.[2] The national Knights of Labor organization refused to support the Carbon strike and the hold out by white miners in Rock Springs following the Rock Springs Riot. The organization avoided supporting the miners along the Union Pacific Railroad, because it did not want to be seen as condoning the violence at Rock Springs.[30] When the Union Pacific Coal Department reopened the mines, it fired 45 white miners connected to the violence.[3]

[edit] Arrests

After the riot in Rock Springs, sixteen men were arrested, including Isaiah Washington, a member-elect to the territorial legislature.[2] The men were taken to jail in Green River, where they were held until after a Sweetwater County grand jury refused to bring indictments.[2] In explaining its decision, the grand jury declared that there was no cause for legal action, stating, in part, that, "We have diligently inquired into the occurrence at Rock Springs.... Though we have examined a large number of witnesses, no one has been able to testify to a single criminal act committed by any known white person that day."[3]

Those arrested as suspects in the riot were released a little more than a month later, on October 7, 1885. On their release, they were "...met... by several hundred men, women and children, and treated to a regular ovation," according to The New York Times.[31] The defendants in the Rock Springs case enjoyed the same broad community consent that lynch mobs often received.[3] As a result, no person or persons were ever convicted in the violence at Rock Springs.

[edit] Diplomatic and political issues

The riot in Rock Springs had consequences beyond the confines of the mining industry, Wyoming, or even the broader American West. After the riot, the U.S. government hesitated to make amends to the Chinese for the massacre.[32] In China, the governor-general of the Guangdong region suggested that Americans in China might be the target of revenge for the events in Rock Springs.[32] Indeed, the American envoy to China, Charles Harvey Denby, and others in the diplomatic corps reported rising anti-American sentiment in Hong Kong and in Canton, Guangdong, following the riot.[28] The American diplomats warned their government that the backlash from the massacre could ruin U.S. trade with China; they also reported that British merchants and newspapers in China were encouraging the Chinese to "stand up for their oppressed countrymen in America."[28] Denby advised that U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Bayard obtain compensation for the victims of the massacre.[28]

The United States government agreed to pay compensation for the damaged property but not for the actual victims of the massacre, although Bayard was inclined to resist the requests for payments.[32] In a letter to the minister of China's Washington legation dated February 18, 1886, he expressed a personal view that the violence against Chinese immigrants was precipitated by their resistance to cultural assimilation, and that racism against Chinese was typically found among other immigrants rather than the majority of the populace:

Chinese immigrants... segregate themselves from the rest of the residents and citizens of the United States and... refuse to mingle with the mass of population... As a consequence, race prejudice has been more excited against them, notably among aliens of other nationalities...[33]
However, Denby's predictions caused Bayard to seek a Congressionally appropriated indemnity. At Bayard's urging, the U.S. Congress provided US$147,748.74 as an indemnity.[28] The compensation was made as a monetary gift and not as a legal decree of responsibility for the massacre and the outcome amounted to a minor diplomatic victory for China.[1][32][34]

In Wyoming, Governor Warren's reaction to the massacre was probably, in part, due to personal business holdings, as well as a desire to protect Chinese miners and it helped make his career as a politician.[26] Letters prove that Warren was close to Union Pacific officials during his term in office and that he petitioned the company for years to clear the titles on land he owned.[26] Warren condemned the riot as "the most brutal and damnable outrage that ever occurred in any country."[35][36]

[edit] Reaction

After the riot, rhetoric and reaction came from publications and key political figures concerning the events. The New York Times blasted the city of Rock Springs in the first of at least two editorials on the topic, stating, "the appropriate fate for a community of this kind would be that of Sodom and Gomorrah."[37] In another Times editorial on November 10, 1885, the paper continued to assail not only the residents of Rock Springs who were involved in the violence, but those who stood by and let the mob continue its behavior.[38] Newspapers in Wyoming, such as the Cheyenne Tribune and the Laramie Boomerang, reacted with sympathy toward the white miners. The Boomerang stated it "regretted" the riot but found extenuating circumstances surrounding the violence.[3]

In addition to newspapers, anti-Chinese sentiment and stereotypes came from other publications.[39] Religious publications, such as Baptist Missionary Magazine, depicted the Chinese as "heathens."[40] The Chautauquan: A Weekly Newsmagazine characterized the Chinese as weak and defenseless, stating in its coverage of the massacre: "To murder an industrious Chinaman is the same kind of fiendish work as the murder of women and children – it is equally a violation of the rights of the defenceless."[39]

Powerful Knights of Labor leader Terence Powderly wrote in a letter to W.W. Stone (excerpts of which he included in a report to the U.S. Congress) that, "It is not necessary for me to speak of the numerous reasons given for the opposition to this particular race – their habits, religion, customs and practices..." Powderly blamed the "problem" of Chinese immigration on the failings of the 1882 Exclusion Act. He faulted lax law enforcement, not those involved in the riots, for the attacks at Rock Springs. Powderly wrote that the U.S. Congress should stop "winking at violations of this statute" and reform the laws which barred Chinese immigration, which he believed could have prevented incidents such as "the recent assault upon the Chinese at Rock Springs".[14]

In December 1885, U.S. President Grover Cleveland presented his State of the Union report to Congress, and in it, his reaction to the Rock Springs massacre.[41] Cleveland's report pointed out that America was interested in good relations with China. He stated, "All of the power of this government should be exhorted to maintain the amplest good faith towards China in the treatment of these men, and the inflexible sternness of the law... must be insisted upon." Cleveland noted that "race prejudice is the chief factor to originating these disturbances."[42]

[edit] Post-massacre violence

See also: Anti-Chinese violence in Washington and Anti-Chinese violence in Oregon
The massacre at Rock Springs led to other incidents of anti-Chinese aggression, primarily in Washington Territory, though there were incidents in Oregon and other states as well. Near Newcastle, Washington a mob of whites burned down the barracks of 36 Chinese coal miners.[7] Throughout the Puget Sound area, Chinese workers were driven out of communities and subject to violence in cities and towns such as Tacoma, Seattle, Newcastle, and Issaquah (Squak). Chinese workers were driven out of other Washington towns, but sources indicated, as early as 1891, that the above events were specifically connected to the wave of violence touched off at Rock Springs.[7][24][43][44]

The wave of anti-Chinese violence in the western United States following the Rock Springs Riot spread further, to the state of Oregon.[7] Mobs drove Chinese workers out of small towns throughout the state in late 1885 and mid-1886.[7] Other states reported incidents as well: As far away as Augusta, Georgia, anger was expressed against the Chinese in response to the massacre at Rock Springs. According to The New York Times, the rioting in Rock Springs fueled the desire of anti-Chinese Georgians in Augusta to air their grievances.[45]

[edit] Significance and context

The Rock Springs massacre was seen by observers at the time, and by historians today, as the worst, most significant instance of anti-Chinese violence in the 19th century United States.[24][32] The riot received widespread media coverage from publications such as The National Police Gazette and The New York Times.[46] Among the events of anti-Chinese violence in the American west, the Rock Springs massacre is considered the most widely publicized.[13]

Today, nearly all historians hold the view that the prime factor which contributed to the riot was race prejudice.[47][48] However, a 1990 work on the Rock Springs massacre, written by journalist Craig Storti, marginalized the racial factor and put a stronger emphasis on the economic factors which contributed to violence.[20][48] His book, Incident at Bitter Creek: The Rock Springs Massacre, was widely criticized in reviews,[20][47][48][49] though Storti stated he represented the historical record as it stood.[50] There were labor considerations that contributed to the violence in Rock Springs, though they are generally seen as less significant.[20][47][48] The use of Chinese workers by the railroad during an 1875 strike created widespread resentment among the white miners, which continued to build until the Rock Springs massacre. Storti's book described anti-Chinese racism as "pervasive" even while downplaying its significance to the riot.[47] The failure of the Chinese to assimilate into American culture is largely a myth and long-perpetuated stereotype.[47] Regardless, the view was held historically and still carries weight within the modern-day interpretation of the historical record.[24][47]

Modern-day Rock Springs is no longer the mining town it was in 1885. With a population pushing 20,000, the former settlement is a full-fledged city. The area that once encompassed Camp Pilot Butte is located on the north bank of Bitter Creek, in the northwest part of the city. The camp covered 5½ acres of Union Pacific property; the parade ground was in the center of a present-day city block bounded by Soulsby Street on the west, Pilot Butte Avenue on the east, Bridger Avenue on the north and Elias Avenue on its south.[1] In 1973, the area where the army post once existed was listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places as an historic district. At that time, there were only two remaining original structures.[1] The two buildings were owned by the Saints Cyril and Methodius Catholic Church in Rock Springs.[51] The buildings are no longer extant, and the property is no longer listed on the National Register.[52] The area that was once Chinatown, just to the north of where Camp Pilot Butte once stood, had a public elementary school built over part of it. In general, the locations in Rock Springs associated with the massacre have been surrounded and absorbed by the city's growth.[1]

[edit] See also

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
Chinese massacre of 1871
Chinese Massacre Cove (1887)
Cultural assimilation
Lambing Flat riots (Australia)
List of victims of the Rock Springs massacre
Yellow Peril
[edit] Notes

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Camp Pilot Butte, National Register of Historic Places.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Larson, History of Wyoming, pp. 141–44.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Daniels, Asian America, pp. 61–63.
^ Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–2008. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved December 7, 2010.
^ a b Tucker, "Race Progress in the United States", The North American Review 1884, p. 163.
^ "Seward's 'Chinese Immigration'", pg 957.
^ a b c d e f g History of Washington State & the Pacific Northwest, "Lesson Fifteen".
^ The 1870 census showed that in Uinta and Sweetwater Counties, which at the time ran from the Utah–Colorado border to the Montana Territory border, the 96 Chinese "laborers" living there were miners; there were no other occupations listed for the Chinese nor were there any Chinese females.
^ a b c d e f g Gardner, Wyoming and the Chinese
^ a b c Historic Wyoming Census (1870–1990)
^ Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882.
^ The New York Times, "Labor Meeting at Buffalo".
^ a b Saxton, The Rise and Fall of the White Republic, p. 310.
^ a b c Stone, "The Knights of Labor on the Chinese Labor Situation", pg 1.
^ The New York Times, "The Rock Springs Massacre", pg 1.
^ The New York Times, "The Chinese Must Leave".
^ Max, "Not the Chinese, but the Land-Thieves", pg 4.
^ Shewin, "Observations on the Chinese Laborer", pg 91.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "History Matters", To This We Dissented.
^ a b c d Armentrout Ma, Incident at Bitter Creek.
^ a b c d e f Saxton, The Indispensable Enemy.
^ Thomas, David G., Chinese Riot by David G. Thomas as Told to His Daughter Mrs. J. H. Goodnough, Sweetwater County Historical Museum Archives
^ a b c d Courtwright, Violent Land, pp. 157–58.
^ a b c d Grant, History of Seattle, Washington
^ See also hunting trophy.
^ a b c Chollak, Mark "The Rock Springs Massacre – September 2, 1885," (Lecture outline), History 1251: History of Wyoming, University of Wyoming, spring 2006, Retrieved May 6, 2007.
^ Lyman, Stanford Morris. "The Rock Springs Riot: A Moment in Exclusion's Proactive History," Roads to Dystopia: Sociological Essays on the Postmodern Condition, (Google Books), University of Arkansas Press, 2001, pp. 132–34, (ISBN 1557287112), Retrieved May 6, 2007.
^ a b c d e Pletcher, The Diplomacy of Involvement, pp. 148–49.
^ a b c Rock Springs Independent, "The return!"
^ a b The New York Times, "The Rock Springs Massacre", pg 3.
^ The New York Times, "Anti Chinese Sentiment".
^ a b c d e Waley-Cohen, The Sextants of Beijing, pp. 176–77.
^ Bayard, Letter from Bayard to Cheng Tsao Ju
^ Tucker, "Limitations on the treaty-making power under the Constitution of the United States," pp. 271–73.
^ Fontes and Fontes, Wyoming, p. 14.
^ The U.S. National Archives holds dozens of letters to the Department of the Interior concerning Warren as governor of Wyoming that were written following the massacre. Many letters supported him, including one from UP President Charles Francis Adams, Jr., but there were many letters from political enemies which depicted him as "so deeply involved in business that he could not properly attend to the duties of his position." In the end, letters from two Wyoming lawyers charged that Warren illegally used federal funds when he appointed business associates to political positions. They also charged that he used his position to further his business interests in Wyoming. Warren nearly resigned his office as early as March 1886 but rescinded his resignation before it reached Cleveland; regardless Cleveland suspended him as governor on November 5, 1886 and appointed George W. Baxter to the position. See Jackson, "The Governorship of Wyoming, 1885-1889".
^ The New York Times, "Mob law in Wyoming".
^ The New York Times, "Protection of the Chinese".
^ a b "The Massacre in Wyoming." The Chautauquan: A Weekly Newsmagazine. November 1885, pg 113.
^ "Missionary News," Baptist Missionary Magazine, May 1887, no. 67, pg 144.
^ Before 1934, the State of the Union was usually given before the New Year, and between 1801 and 1912 the message was presented as a lengthy, written report to the U.S. Congress. See Peters, "State of the Union Messages"
^ The New York Times, "The Message to Congress".
^ Long, "Tacoma expels the entire Chinese community on November 3, 1885"
^ Long, "White and Indian hop pickers attack Chinese".
^ The New York Times, "The Chinese In Augusta".
^ "The Chinese Massacre," The National Police Gazette, September 19, 1885, No. 418, pg 2.
^ a b c d e f Chan, Incident at Bitter Creek.
^ a b c d Daniels, Incident at Bitter Creek, pp. 144–45.
^ Hardaway, Incident at Bitter Creek.
^ Roger Daniels, a scholar of Chinese immigration in his own right, criticized Storti's work; Daniels asserted that Storti believed the cause of the massacre was the "failure of the Chinese to become integrated into American culture." (See Hane, Asian America.) Storti responded to the review in a letter, stating, in part, "Mr. Daniels' numerous inaccurate statements rival those he claims to have found in my text." (See Storti and Daniels, Communication – Letter from Storti.)
^ This church was named after the Saints Cyril and Methodius and is part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne.
^ National Register Information System[dead link], National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. Retrieved May 7, 2007.
[edit] References

Armentrout Ma, L. Eve. Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre – Craig Storti, (Book review via JSTOR), The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 50, No. 4, November 1991, pp. 922–23. Retrieved May 5, 2007.
Bayard, Thomas F., Letter from Bayard to Cheng Tsao Ju, February 18, 1886, Microfilm M99, Notes to Foreign Legations in the United States from the Department of State, 1834–1906, China, National Archives Annex, College Park, Md.
Camp Pilot Butte," National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, Diocese of Cheyenne. Retrieved April 29, 2007.
Chan, Loren B. Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre – Craig Storti," (Book review via JSTOR), The Journal of American History, Vol. 78, No. 4, March 1992, pp. 1463–64. Retrieved May 5, 2007.
Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882, Text of Act, Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Courtwright, David T. Violent Land: Single Men and the Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City, (Google Books), Harvard University Press, 1998 (ISBN 0674278712). Retrieved May 7, 2007.
Daniels, Roger. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States Since 1850, (Google Books), University of Washington Press, 1990 (ISBN 0295970189). Retrieved April 30, 2007.
Daniels, Roger. "Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Massacre – Craig Storti; Rock Springs Massacre," (Book review via JSTOR), The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 1, February 1992. Retrieved May 4, 2007.
Hane, Mikiso. "Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States Since 1850 – Roger Daniels," (Book review via JSTOR), The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2. May, 1990, pp. 219–20. Retrieved May 8, 2007.
Fontes, Justin and Fontes, Ron. Wyoming: Wyoming, the Equality State, (Google Books), Gareth Stevens, 2003 (ISBN 0836853350). Retrieved May 8, 2007.
Gardner, A. Dudley. Wyoming and the Chinese, "Wyoming History," Western Wyoming Community College. Retrieved March 12, 2007
Grant, Frederic James. History of Seattle, Washington, (Google Books), American Publishing and Engraving Co., 1891. Retrieved April 29, 2007.
Hardaway, Roger D. Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre – Craig Storti," (Book review via JSTOR), The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, February 1992, pp. 102–3. Retrieved May 5, 2007.
Healy, Patrick Joseph and Ng, Poon Chew."A Statement for Non-Exclusion," (Google Books), 1905, pg. 238–39. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
"History Matters: A U.S. Survey Course on the Web," To This We Dissented: The Rock Springs Riot, George Mason University. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
History of Washington State & the Pacific Northwest, "Lesson Fifteen: Industrialization, Class, and Race: Chinese and the Anti-Chinese Movement in the Late 19th-Century Northwest," Center for Study of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. "The Governorship of Wyoming, 1885-1889: A Study in Territorial Politics," (JSTOR), The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 1944, pp. 1–11. Retrieved May 7, 2007.
Larson, Taft Alfred. History of Wyoming, (Google Books), University of Nebraska Press, 1990 (ISBN 0803279361). Retrieved April 30, 2007.
Long, Priscilla. "Tacoma expels the entire Chinese community on November 3, 1885," The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, January 17, 2003. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Long, Priscilla. "White and Indian hop pickers attack Chinese," The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, published by: History Ink, July 1, 2000. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Max, "Not the Chinese, but the Land-Thieves," Liberty (Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order), March 17, 1883
The New York Times. "Anti Chinese Sentiment," (ProQuest), October 8, 1885, pg. 1. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
The New York Times. "The Chinese In Augusta," (ProQuest), October 28, 1885, pg. 2. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
The New York Times. "The Chinese Must Leave," (ProQuest), September 29, 1885, pg. 1. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
The New York Times. "Labor Meeting at Buffalo—Opposition to the Introduction of Chinese," (ProQuest), November 3, 1870, pg. 1. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
The New York Times. "The Message to Congress," (ProQuest), (December 9, 1885, pg. 4. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
The New York Times. "Mob law in Wyoming," (ProQuest), September 19, 1885, pg. 4. Retrieved April 30, 2007.
The New York Times. "Protection of the Chinese," (ProQuest), November 10, 1885, pg. 4. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
The New York Times. "The Rock Springs Massacre," (ProQuest), September 26, 1885, Retrieved May 2, 2007.
Peters, Gerhard. "State of the Union Messages," The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Pletcher, David M. The Diplomacy of Involvement: American Economic Expansion Across the Pacific, 1784–1900, (Google Books), 2001, University of Missouri Press (ISBN 0826213154). Retrieved May 3, 2007.
Rock Springs Independent, The return!, (Editorial), September 3, 1885, via George Mason University, "History Matters." Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Saxton, Alexander. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California, (Google Books), University of California Press, 1971, (ISBN 0520029054). Retrieved April 30, 2007.
Saxton, Alexander and Roediger, David R. (Contributor). The Rise and Fall of the White Republic, (Google Books), Verso, 2003 (ISBN 1859844677). Retrieved May 7, 2007.
"Seward's 'Chinese Immigration'," Scribner's Monthly, April, 1881, no. 6.
Shewin, H. "Observations on the Chinese Laborer," Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, January 1886, no. 37.
Stone, W.W. "The Knights of Labor on the Chinese Labor Situation," Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, March 1886, no.39.
Storti, Craig and Daniels, Roger. "Communication – Letter from Storti" The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, November 1992, pp. 594–95. Retrieved May 4, 2007.
Tucker, Henry St. George. "Limitations on the treaty-making power under the Constitution of the United States," (Google Books), Little, Brown, and Company, 1915. Retrieved May 3, 2007.
Tucker, J.R., "Race Progress in the United States," The North American Review, February, 1884, no. 327.
U.S. Census Bureau. Historic Wyoming Census, (PDF), (1870–1990), "Wyoming Race and Hispanic Origin – 1870–1990," [1] Retrieved March 12, 2007.
Waley-Cohen, Joanna. The Sextants of Beijing: Global Currents in Chinese History, (Google Books), W.W. Norton & Company, 1999 (ISBN 0393320510). Retrieved April 30, 2007.
Wu, Jean Yu-Wen Shen and Song, Min, eds. Asian American Studies, (Google Books), Rutgers University Press, New Jersey: 2000, pp. 51–52, 64, 367. (ISBN 0813527260).
[edit] Further reading

The Chinese Massacre at Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory, September 2, 1885, Boston: Franklin Press – Rand Avery and Co., 1886.
Carroll, Murray L. "Governor Francis E. Warren, The United States Army and the Chinese Massacre at Rock Springs," Annals of Wyoming, 1987, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 16–27, (ISSN 0003-4991).
Crane, Paul and Larson Alfred. "The Chinese Massacre," Annals of Wyoming, XII:1, January, 1940, pp. 47–55. Reprinted in Daniels Rogers, ed., Anti-Chinese Violence in North America, op. cit.; and Storti, Craig, Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre.
Daniels, Roger, ed. Anti-Chinese Violence in North America: An Original Anthology, Arno Press, New York: 1979. (ISBN 0405112637).
Hata, Nadine I. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. Roger Daniels," (Book review) via (JSTOR), The Journal of American History, Vol. 77, No. 1, June 1990, pp. 304–5. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
Laurie, Clayton D. "Civil Disorder and the Military in Rock Springs, Wyoming: The Army's Role in the 1885 Chinese Massacre," Montana, 1990, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 44–59 (ISSN 0026-9891).
McClellan, Robert F. "The Indispensable Enemy. Alexander Saxton," (Book review) via (JSTOR), The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, November 1971, p. 176. Retrieved May 2, 2007.
Storti, Craig. Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre, Iowa State Press, First edition: 1990, (ISBN 0813814030), (ISBN 9780813814032).
Wei, William, Hom, Marlon K, et al., eds. "The Anti-Chinese Movement in Colorado: Interethnic Competition and Conflict on the Eve of Exclusion", Chinese America: History and Perspectives, 1995, San Francisco: Chinese Historical Society of America, 1995, pp. 179–97. (ISBN 0961419814).
Yep, Laurence. True Heroes, (EbscoHost), Academic Search Premier, Horn Book Magazine, November/December 2002, Vol. 78, Issue 6, (ISSN 00185078). Retrieved April 30, 2007.
[edit] External links

Chinese accounts of killings at Rock Springs (1885), (PDF): University of Colorado
Rock Springs, Wyoming: official site

------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Springs_massacre

Lambing Flat riots / Lambing Flat 暴動

The Lambing Flat riots were a series of violent anti-Cantonese demonstrations that took place in the Burrangong region, in New South Wales, Australia. They occurred on the goldfields at Spring Creek, Stoney Creek, Back Creek, Wombat, Blackguard Gully, Tipperary Gully, and Lambing Flat (now Young, New South Wales), in 1860-1861.


[edit] Antipathy on the Goldfields

Events on the Australian goldfields in the 1850s led to hostility toward Chinese miners on the part of many Europeans, which was to affect many aspects of European-Chinese relations in Australia for the next century. Some of the sources of conflict between European and Chinese miners arose from the nature of the industry they were engaged in. Most gold mining in the early years was alluvial mining, where the gold was in small particles mixed with dirt, gravel and clay close to the surface of the ground, or buried in the beds of old watercourses or "leads". Extracting the gold took no great skill, but it was hard work, and generally speaking, the more work, the more gold the miner won. Europeans tended to work alone or in small groups, concentrating on rich patches of ground, and frequently abandoning a reasonably rich claim to take up another one rumoured to be richer. Very few miners became wealthy; the reality of the diggings was that relatively few miners found even enough gold to earn them a living.

The Chinese generally worked in large organised groups, covering the entire grounds surface, so that if there was any gold there, the chinese miners usually found it. They lived communally and frugally, and could subsist on a much lower return than Europeans. The rural background of most of the Chinese diggers suited them very well to life as alluvial goldminers: they were used to long hours of hard outdoor work as a member of a disciplined team, accustomed to simple sleeping quarters and basic food, and were satisfied with a much smaller return of gold than the majority of Europeans.

European resentment of the apparent success of the Chinese first surfaced as petty complaints: Europeans made stereotyped claims that the Chinese muddied the water holes, they worked on the Sabbath, they were thieves, they had insanitary habits, they accepted low wages and would drive down the value of labour. There is no evidence that any of these things were true. But because the Chinese were distinctive in appearance, language and dress, they became classic targets for xenophobia, and surly resentment became systematic hatred.[1]

These pressures gave rise to several violent protests against government policies across Victoria and New South Wales in the late 1850s and early 1860s. The first anti-Chinese demonstration occurred in Bendigo in July 1854. Some of these incidents took the form of outright attempts at excluding the Chinese from a goldfield, or a portion of it. Disputes between European and Chinese miners flared into brawls at Daylesford and Castlemaine. A party of Chinese en route to the Victorian diggings from Robe discovered a new goldfield at Ararat, and were driven off their find by Europeans. Similar events occurred in New South Wales, which was just feeling the impact of significant Chinese immigration. European miners drove Chinese off the diggings at Rocky River in New England (Australia) in 1856. Serious confrontations followed at Adelong in 1857 and Tambaroora in 1858. In Victoria the Buckland River goldfield was the scene of repeated incidents, culminating in a major riot in July 1857.

[edit] The Burrangong Affair

The most notorious of these incidents, and the one which has generated more folklore than any other, was the so-called Lambing Flat Riot, actually a drawn-out series of incidents on the Burrangong Goldfield in New South Wales between November 1860 and September 1861. Several place names are sometimes used interchangeably when describing these events. Burrangong was the name of the gazetted goldfield, and its principal settlement later became the modern town of Young. Lambing Flat, the name which has attached itself most persistently to the events, was a sheep paddock where one of the more violent incidents took place.

Another important aspect of the story is the political events that were going on in Sydney, for the Burrangong affair was played out against the background of a contentious debate in the New South Wales Parliament over legislation to restrict Chinese immigration. Chinese numbers on the New South Wales goldfields had been relatively small, but were rising in the wake of restrictions imposed in Victoria. Restrictive legislation had also been proposed in New South Wales as early as 1858 in the wake of Victorian and South Australian laws, but the Premier, Charles Cowper, found his own party divided on the issue and the Bill failed. Then in 1860 the Chinese and British governments signed the Convention of Peking, a diplomatic agreement that subjects of the Chinese and British Empires would have reciprocal rights under their respective countries' laws. As the Australian colonies enacted British laws, it raised the question of whether New South Wales could legally exclude citizens of the Chinese Empire. A new Chinese Immigration Regulation Bill was being drafted for debate in Parliament while the first gold miners were arriving at Burrangong.

The events at Burrangong were well-recorded at the time, and have been analysed by a number of historians in recent decades.[2] The popular impression of the riots as a savage assault on the Chinese by European miners is a mere thumbnail sketch, greatly understating the complexity of what happened there. The Burrangong affair was arguably the most serious civil disorder that has ever happened in Australia, involving more people and lasting much longer than the Eureka rebellion at Ballarat six years earlier.

Trouble began late in 1860 with the formation of a Miners Protective League, followed by roll-ups (mass meetings) of European diggers evicting Chinese miners from sections of the field. These events involved the quasi-legal posting of notices to quit, and were carried out ceremonially, with a brass band leading the marchers. There was little violence at first. Most of the Chinese moved to new diggings nearby, and some returned soon afterward. This pattern of behaviour was to be repeated on several occasions over the next eight months; there seemed to be an understanding from early in the Burrangong events that the Chinese would be tolerated if they remained in certain areas of the goldfield.

[edit] The Lambing Flat Riots

In ten months of unrest at Burrangong, the most infamous riot occurred on the night of 30 June 1861 when a mob of perhaps 3,000 drove the Chinese off the Lambing Flat, and then moved on to the Back Creek diggings, destroying tents and looting possessions. About 1,000 Chinese abandoned the field and set up camp near Roberts' homestead at Currowang sheep station, 20 km away. There were two triggers for the violence: in Sydney the Legislative Council rejected the anti-Chinese bill, and a false rumour swept the goldfield that a new group of 1,500 Chinese were on the road to Burrangong. The police arrived in the days that followed, identified the leaders of the riot, and three were arrested two weeks later. The mob's reaction was an armed attack on the police camp by about a thousand miners on the night of 14 July, which the police broke up with gunfire and mounted sabre charges, leaving one rioter dead and many wounded.

The police briefly abandoned the field, but then a detachment of 280 soldiers, sailors and police reinforcements arrived from Sydney and stayed for a year. The Chinese were reinstated on the segregated diggings, the ringleaders of the riots were tried and two were gaoled. At the end of the affair, Burrangong was quiet and the Chinese were still there.

[edit] The Lambing Flat Banner

A banner from the period, painted on a tent-flap in 1861, is now on display at the Lambing Flat museum in Young, New South Wales. Bearing a Southern Cross superimposed over a St. Andrew's Cross with the inscription, 'Roll Up - No Chinese', the banner has been claimed by some as a variant of the Eureka Flag. It served as an advertisement for a public meeting that presaged the infamous Lambing Flat riots later that year. Painted by a Scottish migrant, it is a testimony to the transfer of cultural practices and values through migration. Though it has been claimed to be an example of Chartist art, the Chartist movement was not racial in nature and sought only to protect the poor from the rich. Nevertheless, along with the Eureka Flag it is a rare example of an historic Australian banner designed to rally support to a cause.

There are many conclusions to who designed the flag as some say it was 3 men's wives and some say it was a famous tailor.

[edit] References

^ Connolly, C.N., "Miners' Rights: explaining the 'Lambing Flat' riots of 1860-61" in Curthoys, A & Markus, A (eds) Who are our Enemies?: racism and the working class in Australia, Sydney, 1978
^ Carrington, D.L., "Riots at Lambing Flat 1860-1861", Royal Australian Historical Society Journal 46,1960; Walker, R.B., "Another Look at the Lambing Flat Riots, 1860-1861", Royal Australian Historical Society Journal 56,1970; Seith, P., The Government, The Chinese and the Europeans at the Burrangong Goldfield, 1860-61, Research Essay, Australian National University, 1971 (National Library of Australia MS 2907); Seith, P., "The Burrangong (Lambing Flat) Riots 1860-61: a closer look", Royal Australian Historical Society Journal 60, 1974.
[edit] See also

The Lambing Flat - a historical fiction novel by Nerida Newton set in and around Young at the time of the Lambing Flat riots
[edit] External links

Objects Through Time: Lambing Flats Roll Up Banner (NSW Migration Heritage Centre - Statement of Significance)
History of Young
ABC history page

---------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Lambing_Flat

Los Angeles massacre / 洛杉磯大屠殺

The Cantonese massacre of 1871 was a racially motivated riot on October 24, 1871, when a mob of over 500 white men entered Los Angeles' Chinatown to attack, rob and brutally murder Chinese residents of the city.[1] The riots took place on Calle de los Negros (Street of the Negroes), also referred to as "Nigger Alley", which later became part of Los Angeles Street.

[edit] Riot and massacre

The riot and massacre was triggered by the killing of Robert Thompson, a local rancher. He was caught in the cross-fire during a gun battle between two Chinese factions. This fight was part of a longstanding feud over the abduction of a Chinese woman named Yut Ho.[2]

The dead Chinese in Los Angeles were hanging at three places near the heart of the downtown business section of the city; from the wooden awning over the sidewalk in front of a carriage shop; from the sides of two “prairie schooners” parked on the street around the corner from the carriage shop; and from the cross-beam of a wide gate leading into a lumberyard a few blocks away from the other two locations. One of the victims hung without his trousers and minus a finger on his left hand.[3]

Practically every Chinese-occupied building on the block was ransacked and almost every resident was attacked or robbed. The county coroner confirmed 18 Chinese deaths at the hands of the mob, although some estimates ranged as high as 84.[citation needed]

[edit] Location

Calle de los Negros was situated immediately northeast of Los Angeles’s principal business district, running 500 feet (150 m) from the intersection of Arcadia Street to the plaza. The unpaved street took its name from the dark-complexioned Californios (pre-annexation, Spanish-speaking mixed-race Californians) who had originally lived there. Once home to the town’s most prominent families, the neighborhood had deteriorated into a slum by the time Los Angeles’s first Chinatown was established there in the 1860s.

Los Angeles merchant and memoirist Harris Newmark recalled that Calle de los Negros was “as tough a neighborhood, in fact, as could be found anywhere.”[4] Los Angeles historian Morrow Mayo described it as

a dreadful thoroughfare, forty feet wide, running one whole block, filled entirely with saloons, gambling-houses, dance-halls, and cribs. It was crowded night and day with people of many races, male and female, all rushing and crowding along from one joint to another, from bar to bar, from table to table. There was a band in every joint, with harps, guitars, and other stringed instruments predominating.[5]

Calle de los Negros was incorporated into Los Angeles Street in 1877. The adobe apartment block where the Chinese massacre occurred was torn down in the late 1880s. Today, the location is part of El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument.

[edit] Causes

The underlying causes are sometimes said to be economic. A growing movement of anti-Chinese discrimination in California climaxed in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.[citation needed] These root economic causes were the unstable economy after the American Civil War, which led to high unemployment in California and other Western American states.

[edit] Aftermath

Only ten rioters were ever brought to trial.[citation needed] Eight were convicted, but their convictions were overturned on a legal technicality. The eight convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to two-six years in San Quentin[6] were:

Alvarado, Esteban
Austin, Charles
Botello, Refugio
Crenshaw, L. P.
Johnson, A. R.
Martinez, Jesus
McDonald, Patrick M.
Mendel, Louis

The event was well-reported on the East Coast as newspapers there labeled Los Angeles a "blood stained Eden" after the riots.

[edit] Representation in Literature

Alejandro Morales recounts the massacre in his The Brick People (1988).

[edit] See also

[edit] References

^ [1]
^ Scott Zesch, "Chinese Los Angeles in 1870—1871: The Makings of a Massacre", Southern California Quarterly, 90 (Summer 2008), 109-158; Paul M. De Falla, "Lantern in the Western Sky", The Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, 42 (March 1960), 57-88 (Part I), and 42 (June 1960), 161-185 (Part II).
^ [2]
^ Harris Newmark, Sixty Years in Southern California, 1853—1913 (1916; 4th ed., Los Angeles: Dawson’s Book Shop, 1984), 31.
^ Morrow Mayo, Los Angeles (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1933), 38.
^ Paul R Spitzzeri, "Judge Lynch in session: Popular justice in Los Angeles, 1850-1875" Historical society of Souther California Quarterly 87, No. 2 (Summer 2005), 108
[edit] External links

LA Weekly Investigation of the Massacre'
Lesson plan and readings for Chinese Massacre of 1871
Newmark, Harris First Person Narrative of Massacre Library of Congress
Chinese American Museum - Statement of Remembrance
Heritage Parkscape
PBS History of the West
Library of Congress - The Chinese in California 1850-1925
USC Los Angeles History Project -- Chinese Massacre of 1871
Lou, Raymond. The Chinese American Community in Los Angeles: A Case of Resistance, Organization, and Participation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 1982.
East West Discovery

-----------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_massacre_of_1871

Head Tax 人頭稅

------------------------

(in Canada)

The Chinese head tax was a fixed fee charged to each Chinese person entering Canada. The head tax was first levied after the Canadian parliament passed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 and was meant to discourage Chinese people from entering Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The tax was abolished by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which stopped Chinese immigration altogether, except for business people, clergy, educators, students, and other categories.[1]

[edit] The tax

Through the early 1880s, some 15,000 labourers were brought from China to do construction work on the Canadian Pacific Railway, though they were only paid a third or a half less than their coworkers.[2] This immigration into British Columbia (BC) was large enough — some 3,000 Chinese, when the 1871 census counted only 33,586 in the province — to arouse concern. The provincial legislature passed a strict law to virtually prevent Chinese immigration in 1878. However, this was immediately struck down by the courts as ultra vires [beyond the powers of] the provincial legislative assembly, as it impinged upon federal jurisdiction over immigration into Canada.[3]

As a Dominion of the British Empire, Canada could only try to discourage, not completely eliminate, Chinese immigration at its borders. To do so, the federal parliament passed in 1885 the Chinese Immigration Act,[4] which stipulated that all Chinese entering Canada must first pay a $50 fee,[5][6] later referred to as a head tax. This was amended in 1887,[7] 1892,[8] and 1900,[9] with the fee increasing to its maximum of $500 in 1903.[6] Not all Chinese arrivals had to pay the head tax, however; some were presumed to return to China after "sojourning" to Canada because of their transitory occupation or background (students, teachers, missionaries, merchants, members of the diplomatic corps) and were therefore exempt from paying this fee.[4][10]

Not only did the Crown in Right of Canada collect about $23 million ($290 million in 2011 dollars[11]) in face value from about 81,000 head tax payers,[2] but the tax system also had the effect of constraining Chinese immigration; it discouraged Chinese women and children from joining their men, so the Chinese community in Canada became a "bachelor society".[2] This, though, still did not meet the goal, articulated by contemporary politicians and labour leaders, of exclusion of Chinese immigration altogether.[10] That was achieved through the same law that ended the head tax: the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which stopped Chinese immigration entirely, though with certain exemptions for business owners and others permitted some continued immigration.[1] It is sometimes referred to by opponents as the Chinese Exclusion Act, a term also used for its American counterpart.[12]

[edit] Movement for redress

The modern era redress movement may be traced back to 1984, when Vancouver Member of Parliament (MP) Margaret Mitchell raised in the Canadian House of Commons the issue of repaying the Chinese Head Tax for two of her constituents.[13] Over 4,000 other head tax payers and their family members then approached the Chinese Canadian National Council (CCNC) and its member organizations across Canada to register their Head Tax certificates and ask CCNC to represent them to lobby the government for redress.[14][15] The redress campaign included holding community meetings, gathering support from other groups and prominent people, increasing the media profile, conducting research and published materials, making presentations at schools, etc.

In 1993, then prime minister Brian Mulroney made an offer of individual medallions, a museum wing, and other collective measures involving several other redress-seeking communities. These were rejected outright by the Chinese Canadian national groups. After Jean Chrétien, in the same year, replaced Mulroney as prime minister, the Cabinet openly refused to provide an apology or redress.[14] Still, the CCNC and its supporters continued to raise the issue whenever they could, including a submission to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and eventually undertaking court action against the Crown-in-Council, arguing that the federal Crown should not be profiting from racism and that it had a responsibility under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law. In addition, the 1988 apology and compensation for the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War was regarded as a precedent for redressing other racially motivated policies. The Ontario court declared in 2001 that the government of Canada had no obligation to redress the head tax levied on Chinese immigrants because the Charter had no retroactive application and the case of internment of Japanese Canadians was not a legal precedent. Two appeals in 2002 and 2003 were unsuccessful.[16]

When Paul Martin was appointed prime minister in 2003, there was a sense of urgency as it became clear that there were perhaps only a few dozen surviving Chinese Head Tax payers left and maybe a few hundred spouses or widows. Several national events were organised to revitalize the redress campaign:[17] In 2004, Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, concluded that Canada should redress the head tax to Chinese Canadians and, in 2005, Gim Wong, an 82-year-old son of two head tax payers and a World War II veteran, conducted a cross-country Ride for Redress on his Harley Davidson motorcycle.[18]

[edit] Political campaigning

On November 17, 2005, a group calling itself the National Congress of Chinese Canadians announced that an agreement had been reached between 11 Chinese-Canadian groups and the federal Cabinet, wherein the Queen-in-Council would pay $12.5 million for the creation of a new non-profit foundation to educate Canadians about anti-Chinese discrimination, with a specific pre-condition that no apology would be expected from any government figure. This upset the CCNC and its affiliates, as this purported deal had been reached without their input, leading to the Department of Canadian Heritage's announcement on November 24, 2005, that the agreed upon funding would be reduced to $2.5 million. It was later revealed that Raymond Chan, the government official claiming to have negotiated the deal, had purposely misled both the ministers of the Crown and the public and some of the groups named as being party to the agreement stated publicly that their names had been used without permission; several other groups listed did not even exist. Regardless, bill C-333, a private member's bill, was tabled in the federal parliament in order to implement the deal in November, 2004, but this bill died when the government fell on November 28, 2005.

As they had done while campaigning for the federal election in 2004, the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois stated, during the leadup to the January 2006 election, their support for an apology and redress for the head tax.[citation needed] Similarly, on December 8, 2005, Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, released a press statement expressing his support for an apology for the head tax. As a part of his party platform, Harper promised to work with the Chinese community on redress, should the Conservatives be called to form the next government.[19] Before his party ultimately lost the election, Martin issued a personal apology on a Chinese language radio program. However, he was quickly criticized by the Chinese Canadian community for not issuing the apology in the House of Commons and for then trying to dismiss it completely in the English-speaking media on the very same day.[citation needed] Several Liberal candidates with significant Chinese-Canadian populations in their ridings, including Vancouver-Kingsway MP David Emerson and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Richmond MP Raymond Chan, also made futile attempts to change their positions in the midst of the campaign.

[edit] Apology

The 2006 federal election was won by the Conservative Party, though the government they formed was a minority one. Three days after the ballots had been counted on January 23, but before he had been appointed prime minister, Harper reiterated his position on the head tax issue in a news conference: "Chinese Canadians are making an extraordinary impact on the building of our country. They've also made a significant historical contribution despite many obstacles. That's why, as I said during the election campaign, the Chinese Canadian community deserves an apology for the head tax and appropriate acknowledgement and redress."[20]

Formal discussions on the form of apology and redress began on March 24, 2006, with a preliminary meeting between Chinese Canadians representing various groups (including some head tax payers), heritage minister Bev Oda, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Jason Kenney resulting in the "distinct possibility" of an apology being issued before July 1, 2006, to commemorate the anniversary of the enacting of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923.[21] The meeting was followed by the government's acknowledgement, in the Speech from the Throne delivered by Governor General Michaëlle Jean on April 4, 2006, that an apology would be given along with proper redress.[22]

From April 21 to April 30, 2006, the Crown-in-Council hosted public consultations across Canada, in cities most actively involved in the campaign: Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal, and Winnipeg. They included the personal testimony of elders and representatives from a number of groups, among them the Halifax Redress Committee; the British Columbia Coalition of Head Tax Payers, Spouses and Descendants; ACCESS; the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families; the CCNC; the Edmonton Redress Committee of the Chinese Canadian Historical Association of Alberta; and the National Redress Alliance.

On June 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered an apology and compensation only for the head tax once paid by Chinese immigrants.[23] Survivors or their spouses were paid approximately CAD$20,000 ($21.3 thousand in 2011 dollars[11]) in compensation. There were only an estimated 20 Chinese Canadians who paid the tax still alive in 2006.[24]

[edit] Today

Currently, the major issues revolve around the content of any future settlement, with the leading groups demanding meaningful redress, not only for the handful of surviving "head tax" payers and widows/spouses, but first-generation sons/daughters who were direct victims.

Some[who?] have proposed that the redress be based on the number of "Head Tax" Certificates (or estates) brought forward by surviving sons and daughters who are still able to register their claims, with proposals for individual redress, ranging from $10,000 to 30,000 for an estimated 4,000 registrants.

As no mention of redress for those children was made, the Chinese Canadian community continues to fight for a redress from the Canadian government. A national day of protest was held on July 1, 2006 in major cities across Canada, with several hundred Chinese Canadians joining in local marches.

[edit] See also

Chinese Canadian National Council
Anti-Chinese legislation in the United States
Japanese Canadian internment
[edit] References

^ a b James Morton. "In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia". Vancouver, BC: J.J. Douglas, 1974.
^ a b c Canadiana.org (2005), "Asian Immigration", Canada in the Making, http://www.canadiana.org/citm/specifique/asian_e.html, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ Todd, Alpheus (1894), Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies (Reprint ed.), The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., p. 194, ISBN 1-58477-617-X, http://books.google.com/?id=RG_rB9WVhng ... &lpg=PA194
^ a b Canada. Dept. of Trade and Commerce (1885), Chinese Immigration Act, 1885, http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/9_02345/0019, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ http://www.ccnc.ca/redress/history.html
^ a b http://www.vpl.ca/ccg/Head_Tax_Info.html
^ Canada. Dept. of Trade and Commerce (1887), An act to amend the Chinese Immigration Act, 1887, http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/9_02345/0024, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ Canada. Dept. of Trade and Commerce (1892), An act to further amend the Chinese Immigration Act, 1892, http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/PageView/9_02345/0025, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ Canada (1901), Act respecting and restricting Chinese immigration, http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/ItemRecord/9_03479, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ a b Vancouver Public Library (2007), Chinese Head Tax, http://www.vpl.ca/ccg/Head_Tax_Info.html, retrieved 2007-09-01
^ a b Canadian inflation numbers based on data available from Consumer Price Index and major components (current year) Statistics Canada. Retrieved December 7, 2010 and Consumer Price Index, historical summary Statistics Canada. Retrieved December 7, 2010
^ Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Canada, April 18, 2005, page 1100.
^ Most head-tax families haven't gotten a penny | Straight.com
^ a b Chinese Canadian National Council
^ PRM 2005 - Redressing the Past of the Lo Wah Kui
^ CanLII - 2002 CanLII 45062 (ON C.A.)
^ Redress: Justice In Time - News
^ GungHaggisFatChoy :: Gim Wong completes his "Ride for Redress" in Montreal - flying back to Vancouver for Wednesday
^ Conservative Party Of Canada
^ CCNC Press Release - Chinese Canadians welcome New Year's promise on Head Tax Redress from PM Designate Stephen Harper
^ CTV.ca | Chinese-Cdns. hail promise for head tax apology
^ "Throne speech promises crime crackdown, GST cut". CBC News. April 4, 2006. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/ ... 60404.html.
^ Canada (2006). "Address by the Prime Minister on the Chinese Head Tax Redress". Government of Canada. http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=2&id=1220. Retrieved 2006-08-08.
^ Sympatico / MSN : News : CTV.ca: PM apologizes in House of Commons for head tax
[edit] External links

Transcript of Prime Minister Harper's apology in Parliament
Podcast of government announcement and reactions (Quicktime)
National Post-Chinese Cdns Speak of Anger, Anguish - April 23, 2006
Chinese Head Tax & Exclusion Act Redress in Canada - www.redress.ca
Generasian Website-Redress Campaign www.generasian.ca/HeadTax2005.html
The CCNC Redress Campaign www.ccnc.ca/redress
National Post newspaper article on NCCC's November 17, 2005 announcement
Vancouver Sun newspaper article on Canadian Heritage's November 24, 2005 announcement
CBC British Columbia story on the Head Tax redress controversy, November 28, 2005
The Star newspaper article on CCNC award, November 29, 2005
gughaggisfatchoy.com's blog with advocacy about Head Tax redress
Political debates heats up over Chinese head tax. CBC.ca Canada Votes 2006, January 5, 2006.
HeadTaxRedress.org
Bill C-333 Chinese Canadian Recognition and Redress Act (First Reading), from the Canadian Parliament's Official Homepage, November 15, 2004
Bill C-333 Immigrants of Chinese Origin Exclusionary Measures Recognition Act (Reprinted as amended by the Standing Committee), from the Canadian Parliament's Official Homepage, November 4, 2005. Section 2 (Recognition) and Section 3 (Apology) were deleted after the amendments.
ChineseHeadTax.ca

------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_tax_(Canada)

------------------------

(in New Zealand)

New Zealand imposed a poll tax on Chinese immigrants during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The poll tax was effectively lifted in the 1930s following the invasion of China by Japan, and was finally repealed in 1944. Prime Minister Helen Clark offered New Zealand's Chinese community an official apology for the poll tax on 12 February 2002.[1]

[edit] History

Although Chinese immigrants were invited to New Zealand by the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce, prejudice against them quickly led to calls for restrictions on immigration. Following the example of anti-Chinese poll taxes enacted by California in 1852 and by Australian states in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s, John Hall's government passed the Chinese Immigration Act 1881. This imposed a £10 tax per Chinese person entering New Zealand, and permitted only one Chinese immigrant for every 10 tons of cargo. Richard Seddon's government increased the tax to £100 per head in 1896, and tightened the other restriction to only one Chinese immigrant for every 200 tons of cargo.

The poll tax was waived in 1934 by the Minister of Customs, following Japan's invasion of Manchuria, and the Act was finally repealed in 1944.

[edit] Impact of the head tax

An estimated 4500 people paid the poll tax, raising over £300,000 (worth about NZD28 million in 2001[citation needed]).

[edit] Compensation

As compensation, the government spent NZ$5 million in 2005 to establish a Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Trust to sponsor events that promotes:

learning and use of the Cantonese language
awareness and understanding of the history of Chinese in New Zealand
the recording and preserving of Chinese New Zealand history
greater public understanding of ethnic diversity with particular emphasis on the contributions of Chinese New Zealanders
Chinese arts and culture (including Chinese New Zealand creative and cultural expression).
People who paid the poll tax were not personally compensated.

[edit] See also

Chinese New Zealander
Model Minority
Sinophobia
White Australia policy
[edit] Notes

^ Helen Clark (2002-02-12). "Address to Chinese New Year Celebration". http://www.executive.govt.nz/MINISTER/h ... nese/1.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-12.
[edit] External links

"New Zealand Chinese Association Going Bananas Conference - History in the Making". http://www.goingbananas.org.nz/papers_2007.php.
"Follow up to apology to Chinese community". Office of Ethnic Affairs. http://www.dia.govt.nz/oeawebsite.nsf/w ... enDocument. Retrieved 2006-07-12.
Steven Young. "Poll tax". http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/chinesevoi ... lltax2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-12.
Chinese Poll Tax Heritage Trust

------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_head_tax

Cantonese Exclusion Act / 美國排粵法案


The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by Chester A. Arthur on May 8, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years. This law was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

[edit] Background

The first significant Chinese immigration to the United States began with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855, and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well-received.[1] As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being forcibly driven from the mines, most Chinese settled in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low end wage labor such as restaurant work and laundry just to earn enough to live. With the post Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[2] as well as by California Governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies" for depressed wage levels. Another significant anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of Caucasians with some 60 chapters statewide.[citation needed]

[edit] Chinese Gold Rush in California

Early on the California government did not wish to exclude Chinese migrant workers from immigration because they provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California.[citation needed] Only later, when there was enough money did the government cease to oppose Chinese exclusion. By 1860 the Chinese were the largest immigrant group in California. The Chinese workers provided cheap labor and did not use any of the government infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) because the Chinese migrant population was predominantly made up of healthy male adults.[3] As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants arrived in California violence would often break out in cities such as Los Angeles. By 1878 Congress decided to act and passed legislation excluding the Chinese, but this was vetoed by President Hayes. California, in its zeal for excluding the Chinese, declared a holiday on March 6, 1881, in order to hold widespread demonstrations to support the anti-Chinese legislation. Once the Chinese Exclusion Act was finally passed in 1882, California went further in its discrimination against the Chinese by passing various laws that were later held to be unconstitutional.[4] After the act was passed most Chinese families were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or go back to China to reunite with their families.[5] Newspapers around the country and especially in California started to discredit and blame the Chinese for most things, e.g., white unemployment. The police also discriminated against the Chinese by using the slightest opportunity to arrest them. Although there was widespread dislike for the Chinese, some capitalists and entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion based on economic factors.[6]

[edit] The Act

The Chinese Exclusion Act was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in U.S. history. The Act excluded Chinese "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining" from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation. Many Chinese were relentlessly beaten just because of their race. [7][8] The few Chinese non-laborers who wished to immigrate had to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate, which tended to be difficult to prove.[8] Volpp argues that the "Chinese Exclusion Act" is a misnomer, in that it is assumed to be the starting point of Chinese exclusionary laws in the United States. She suggests attending to the intersections of race, gender, and U.S. citizenship in order to both understand the restraints of such a historical tendency and make visible Chinese female immigration experiences, including the Page Act of 1875.[9]

The Act also affected Asians who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship.[7][8] After the Act's passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new homes.[7]

Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902.[8] When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."[8]

Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus.[10] In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.[10] Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy's petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. This ruling triggered a brief boycott of U.S. goods in China.

One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-slavery/anti-imperialist Republican Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts who described the Act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination."[11]

The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was unlimited during this period.[12]

On the other hand, many people strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the Knights of Labor, a labor union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low.[13] Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.[14]

[edit] Effects and aftermath

For all practical purposes, the Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882, and prevented it from growing and assimilating into U.S. society as European immigrant groups did.[7] Limited immigration from China continued until the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30% more who showed up were returned to China. Furthermore, after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed City Hall and the Hall of Records, many immigrants (known as "paper sons") claimed that they had familial ties to resident Chinese-American citizens. Whether these were true or not cannot be proven.

The Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to the first great wave of commercial human smuggling, an activity that later spread to include other national and ethnic groups.[15]

Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups.[7] Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life apart, and to build a society in which they could survive on their own.[7]

Furthermore, the Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers.[16] However, the Japanese were later targeted in the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration from east Asia entirely.

[edit] Repeal and current status

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. It also allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965. Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California that Chinese people were not allowed to marry whites was not repealed until 1948.[17][18]

Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed, "Exclusion of Chinese."[19] It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.

[edit] See also

Chinese Exclusion
Chinese American
Chinese American history
List of United States immigration legislation
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the Chinese Exclusion Act could not overrule the citizenship of those born in the U.S. to Chinese parents
Chinese massacre of 1871
Rock Springs massacre
Sinophobia
Yellow Peril
White Australia policy
Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, of Canada
New Zealand head tax
Head tax (Canada)
[edit] References

^ Norton, Henry K. (1924). The Story of California From the Earliest Days to the Present. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.. pp. 283–296. http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist6/chinhate.html.
^ See, e.g., http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C
^ Kanazawa, Mark. "Immigration, Exclusion, and Taxation: Anti-Chinese Legislation Gold Rush in California". The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 779-805. Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Economic History Association.
^ Cole, L. Cheryl."Chinese Exclusion: The Capitalist Perspective of the Sacramento Union, 1850-1882".California History, Vol. 57, No. 1, The Chinese in California (Spring, 1978), pp. 8-31. Published by: California Historical Society
^ Chew, Kenneth and Liu, John. "Hidden in Plain Sight: Global Labor Force Exchange in the Chinese American Population, 1880-1940". Population and Development Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 57-78.Published by: Population Council
^ Miller, Joaquin. "The Chinese and the Exclusion Act". The North American Review, Vol. 173, No. 541 (Dec., 1901), pp. 782-789. Published by: University of Northern Iowa
^ a b c d e f "Exclusion". Library of Congress. 2003-09-01. http://memory.loc.gov/learn//features/i ... nese6.html. Retrieved 2010-01-25.
^ a b c d e usnews.com: The People's Vote: Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
^ Leti Volpp "Divesting Citizenship: On Asian American History and the Loss of Citizenship Through Marriage" The Regents of the University of California. UCLA Law Review (2005).
^ a b Daniel, Roger, "Book Review"
^ Roger Daniels, Coming to America, p271.
^ Chin, Gabriel J., (1998) [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA Law Review vol. 46, at 1 "Segregation's Last Stronghold: Race Discrimination and the Constitutional Law of Immigration"]
^ Kennedy, David M. Cohen, Lizabeth, Bailey, Thomas A. The American Pageant. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002
^ Choi, Jennifer Jung Hee. The Rhetoric of Inclusion: The I.W.W. and Asian Workers
^ Zhang, Sheldon (2007). Smuggling and trafficking in human beings: all roads lead to America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 69. ISBN 9780275989514.
^ Alan Brinkley's American History: A Survey, 12th Edition
^ Chin, Gabriel; Karthikeyan, Hrishi (2002). Asian Law Journal vol. 9 "Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910-1950"
^ See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948).
^ US CODE-TITLE 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Bodenner, Chris. "Chinese Exclusion Act." Issues & Controversies in American History @ FACTS.com. 20 Oct. 2006. Facts On File News Services. 3 Nov. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com>.

[edit] External links

Chinese Exclusion Act
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) - Our Documents
Exclusion Act Case Files of Yee Wee Thing and Yee Bing Quai, two "Paper Sons"
The Yung Wing Project hosts the memoir of one of the earliest naturalized Chinese whose citizenship was revoked forty-six years after having received it as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
An Alleged Wife One Immigrant in the Chinese Exclusion Era
Collection of primary source documents relating to the Chinese Exclusion Act, from Harvard University.
Primary source documents and images from the University of California
The Rocky Road to Liberty: A Documented History of Chinese American Immigration and Exclusion

--------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

Cantonese Immigration Act, 1923 (in Canada) / 加拿大排粵法案


The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, known in the Chinese Canadian community as the Chinese Exclusion Act,[1] was an act passed by the Parliament of Canada, banning most forms of Chinese immigration to Canada. Immigration from most countries was controlled or restricted in some way, but only the Chinese were so completely prohibited from immigrating.

Prior to 1923, Chinese immigration was already heavily controlled by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885, which imposed a hefty head tax on all immigrants from China. After various members of the federal and some provincial governments (especially British Columbia) put pressure on the federal government to discourage Chinese immigration, the Chinese Immigration Act was passed. It went into effect on July 1, 1923. The act banned Chinese immigrants from entering Canada except those under the following titles:

Merchant
Diplomat
Foreign student
Under Article 9 of the act, "Special circumstance" granted by the Minister of Immigration (This is the class that former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson's family fell under).
The act did not apply only to Chinese from China: ethnic Chinese with British nationality were banned from entering Canada as well. Since Dominion Day coincided with the enforcement of the Chinese Immigration Act, Chinese-Canadians at the time referred to the anniversary of Confederation as "Humiliation Day" and refused to take any part in the celebration.

Due to both a feeling of horror after Nazi race-oriented deathcamps were discovered and a recognition of the contribution of Chinese Canadians to Canada during World War II, the Canadian Parliament repealed the act on May 14, 1947 (following the proclamation of the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 on January 1, 1947). However, independent Chinese immigration to Canada came only after the liberalization of Canadian immigration policy in 1967.

On June 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in the House of Commons. The first phrase of the apology was spoken in Cantonese, the most frequently spoken Chinese language among Chinese immigrants. He announced that the survivors or their spouses will be paid approximately $20,000 CAD in compensation for the head tax.

[edit] See also

Head tax (Canada)
Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)
Immigration to Canada
Moving the Mountain
White Australia policy
[edit] References

^ Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Canada, 2005-04-18, page 1100.

------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Im ... ct_of_1923

United States v. Wong Kim Ark / 黃金德 案


United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
Full case name United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Citations 169 U.S. 649 (more)
18 S. Ct. 456; 42 L. Ed. 890; 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1515
Prior history Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California; 1 Fed.Rep. 382
Holding
"A child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan · Horace Gray
David J. Brewer · Henry B. Brown
George Shiras, Jr. · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham · Joseph McKenna
Case opinions
Majority Gray, joined by Brewer, Brown, Shiras, White, Peckham
Dissent Fuller, joined by Harlan
McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of Wong (a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1870) was challenged[1] because of a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens,[2] but the Supreme Court ruled that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.[3]

The debate surrounding the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Although the Supreme Court majority chose to interpret the language of the amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil,[4] the court's dissenting minority believed that being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[5] – an interpretation which would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[6]

Since the 1990s, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants, and some legal scholars have argued that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally.[7] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress either to restrict birthright citizenship via statutory redefinition of "jurisdiction", or to override both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through a new amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal so far has ever succeeded.[8][9]

[edit] Background

Wong Kim Ark (黃金德; Taishanese: wong11 gim33 'ak3) was born in San Francisco. Various sources give his year of birth as 1873,[10] 1871,[11][12] or 1868.[13][14] His father (Wong Si Ping) and mother (Wee Lee) were immigrants from China and were not United States citizens.[15]

Wong traveled to China in 1890, and when he returned to the U.S., authorities granted him entry "upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States."[16] Four years later, Wong, who was employed in San Francisco as a cook,[17] sailed to China on another temporary visit in 1894. When he returned to the U.S. in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country, arguing that Wong "although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."[1]

In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, limiting entry into the United States of persons of the Chinese race. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. were allowed to stay, but they were ineligible for naturalization, and if they left the U.S., they needed to obtain approval all over again if they subsequently wished to return. Chinese laborers and miners were specifically barred from coming (or returning) to the U.S. under the terms of the law.[2] However, the "citizenship clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, states the following concerning citizenship: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[18] A federal district court sided with Wong, declared him to be a citizen,[19][20] and ordered him to be released from custody by immigration officials.[21]

The government appealed the district court decision favoring Wong Kim Ark to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the key question in the case to be "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States" via the Fourteenth Amendment.[22]

[edit] Opinion of the Court

In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."[23]

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law,[24] which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[4][25] The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth – namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[26][27])—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".[28]

Since Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."[3][29]

[edit] Dissent

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was joined by Justice John Harlan in a dissenting opinion which, in the words of one analyst, was "elaborately drawn and, for the most part, may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine".[30] Fuller argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one's native citizenship) and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.[31] The minority argued that the principle of jus sanguinis (that is, the concept of a child inheriting his or her father's citizenship by descent regardless of birthplace) had been more pervasive in U.S. legal history since independence.[32]

Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared to be citizens "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed", and which was enacted into law only two months before the 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress, the minority argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power'".[5] In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not".[6]

The dissenters acknowledged that other children of foreigners—including former slaves—had, through the years, acquired U.S. citizenship through birth on U.S. soil. But they still saw a difference between those people and U.S.-born individuals of Chinese ancestry, because of (1) strong cultural traditions discouraging Chinese immigrants from assimilating into mainstream American society,[33] (2) Chinese laws of the time which made acquiring a new citizenship or renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime,[34] and (3) the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.[35]

[edit] Subsequent developments

As a result of Wong Kim Ark's U.S. citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court, three of his four sons were subsequently recognized as U.S. citizens and allowed to come to the United States: Wong Yook Sue (黃郁賜, wong11 yuk3 ti33); Wong Yook Thue (黃沃修, wong11 yuk3 sliu33); and Wong Yook Jim (黃沃沾, wong11 yuk3 zim33). A fourth son—his eldest, Wong Yoke Fun (黃毓煥, wong11 yuk3 von22)—was rejected by U.S. officials, who claimed to see discrepancies in the testimony at his immigration hearing and refused to accept Wong Kim Ark's claim that the boy was his son.[36]

Before Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court had held in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) – a case involving an American Indian – that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship.[37] Current U.S. citizenship law acknowledges both citizenship through place of birth (jus soli) and citizenship inherited from parents (jus sanguinis).[38] Wong Kim Ark's case was subsequently cited in two major Supreme Court decisions on citizenship: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), involving a U.S.-born woman (Marie Elg) who was alleged to have lost her U.S. citizenship when her Swedish immigrant parents (naturalized U.S. citizens) took her back to Sweden with them when she was a baby;[39] and Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), involving a naturalized U.S. citizen who subsequently moved to Israel and was alleged to have lost his U.S. citizenship after voting in an Israeli election.[40]

Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents—not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence.[41] It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state[42][43] and added that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."[44]

[edit] Criticisms of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship

Since the 1990s, controversy has arisen in some circles over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship via jus soli to U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants. This has been controversially dubbed the "anchor baby" situation by some media correspondents and advocacy groups.[45]

John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, has argued that Wong Kim Ark does not entitle U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants to gain automatic citizenship, because being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States requires a status of "full and complete jurisdiction" that does not apply to aliens who are in the country illegally.[7] Eastman further argues that the Wong Kim Ark decision was fundamentally flawed in the way it dealt with the concept of jurisdiction.[46] A similar analysis of the jurisdiction question has been proposed by Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith of Yale University.[47][48] It has also been argued that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which followed Wong Kim Ark, would not have been necessary if Congress had believed "that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship merely by accident of birth."[49]

In response to fears that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit legal residency and eventual citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible to remain in the country, bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. As one example among many, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" — introduced as H.R. 1868 in the 111th Congress by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia — was a failed attempt to exclude U.S.–born children of illegal immigrants from being considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause.[8] Unsuccessful proposals have also been made to amend the Constitution to override the 14th Amendment's language and deny citizenship to such children. For example, S.J.Res. 6 was introduced in the 111th Congress by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, but like H.R. 1868, it failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress before the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010.[9]

[edit] See also

United States nationality law
Birthright citizenship in the United States
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 169
[edit] References

^ a b United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 650 (1898). Text
^ a b Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), ourdocuments.gov. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ a b United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 699 (1898). Text
^ a b Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review (Review Pub. Co.) 32: 559. http://books.google.com/books?id=_kgZAA ... &lpg=PA559. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ a b United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 721 (1898). Text
^ a b United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 715 (1898). Text
^ a b Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18 (Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation): 3. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... itizenship. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
^ a b H.R. 1868, "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (111th Congress), thomas.loc.gov, April 2, 2009, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1868.IH:, retrieved July 17, 2011
^ a b S.J.Res. 6, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship" (111th Congress), thomas.loc.gov, January 16, 2009, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.6:, retrieved February 27, 2009
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 649 (1898) (“This was a writ of habeas corpus ... in behalf of Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he ... was born at San Francisco in 1873 ....”). Text
^ In testimony given at a 1910 immigration hearing for his eldest son (Wong Yoke Fun), Wong Kim Ark gave his birthdate as "T.C. 10, 9th month, 7th day" — a Chinese imperial calendar date said in the transcript of the testimony to correspond to October 20, 1871. Document viewed November 25, 2005, at the Pacific Region office of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in San Bruno, California.
^ In an affidavit signed by Wong Kim Ark in November 1894 (before his trip to China), Wong said he was 23.
^ In testimony at a March 1925 immigration hearing for his second son (Wong Yook Sue), Wong Kim Ark said he was 56. Document viewed November 25, 2005, at the Pacific Region office of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in San Bruno, California.
^ In testimony at a July 1926 immigration hearing for his third son (Wong Yook Thue), Wong Kim Ark said he was 57. Document viewed November 25, 2005, at the Pacific Region office of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in San Bruno, California.
^ Elinson, Elaine; Yogi, Stan (2009). Wherever There's a Fight: How Runaway Slaves, Suffragists, Immigrants, Strikers and Poets Shaped Civil Liberties in California. Heyday Books. p. 51. ISBN 9781597141147.
^ McClain, Emlin (1900). A Selection of Cases on Constitutional Law. Little, Brown & Co. p. 965. http://books.google.com/books?id=SWtDAA ... &lpg=PA965. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
^ "The Progeny of Citizen Wong", SF Weekly, November 4, 1998 – an article about a great-granddaughter of Wong Kim Ark (a granddaughter of his son Wong Yook Jim). Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ Stimson, Frederic Jesup (2004). The Law of the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States. The Lawbook Exchange. p. 76. http://books.google.com/books?id=veDMy4 ... 6&lpg=PA76. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
^ In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382 (N.D.Cal. 1896) (“"From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion [sic] that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.”). Text
^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review (Review Pub. Co.) 32: 556. http://books.google.com/books?id=_kgZAA ... &lpg=PA556. Retrieved July 17, 2011. "From this refusal to permit him to land, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out in the United States District Court .... [T]hat court discharged Wong Kim Ark on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth in this country, and that the Chinese Exclusion Acts were therefore inapplicable to him."
^ Order of the District Court of the United States, Northern District of California, "In the Matter of Wong Kim Ark", January 3, 1896, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 653 (1898). Text
^ "Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law". The American Journal of International Law 8: 672. http://books.google.com/books?id=WiUt6s ... &lpg=PA672. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 654 (1898). Text
^ "Citizen". Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. 1. p. 490. http://books.google.com/books?id=0mo8AA ... &lpg=PA490. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 681 (1898). Text
^ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). Text American Indians were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress, in 1924, via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 650 (1898). Text
^ "Chinese". Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. 1. p. 482. http://books.google.com/books?id=0mo8AA ... &lpg=PA482. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ Woodworth, Marshall B. (1898). "Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case". American Law Review (Review Pub. Co.) 32: 560. http://books.google.com/books?id=_kgZAA ... &lpg=PA561. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 713 (1898). Text
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 709 (1898). Text
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 731 (1898). Text
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 725, note 2 (1898). Text
^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, p. 726 (1898). Text
^ As of November 2005, the immigration files for three of Wong Kim Ark's four sons were available for public viewing at the Pacific Region office of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in San Bruno, California. A copy of Wong Kim Ark's immigration file was also available for inspection at the same office (the original file was locked away for safekeeping). The immigration file for Wong Yook Sue was not available at this time for viewing at the San Bruno National Archives office, but could potentially be seen by filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
^ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). Text
^ "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the United States", U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM 1100 (August 21, 2009), p. 1. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
^ Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, p. 327 (1939). Text
^ Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, p. 254 (1967). Text
^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (note 10) (1982) (“Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term 'jurisdiction' was used. He further noted that it was 'impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ... as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" ...; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."'”). Text
^ Dunklee, Dennis R.; Shoop, Robert J. (2006). The Principal's Quick-Reference Guide to School Law. Corwin Press. p. 241. http://books.google.com/books?id=YsE3Fx ... &lpg=PA241. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (1982) (“In [the Texas government's] view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not 'within the jurisdiction' of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction'.”). Text
^ Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 (note 10) (1982). Text
^ "'Border Baby' boom strains S. Texas", Houston Chronicle, September 24, 2006: "Immigration-control advocates regard the U.S.-born infants as 'anchor babies' because they give their undocumented parents and relatives a way to petition for citizenship." Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18 (Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation): 4. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... itizenship. Retrieved July 2, 2011. "Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk [v. Wilkins], namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, allegiance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other."
^ "Indians and Invaders: The Citizenship Clause and Illegal Aliens". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 10 (3): 509. March 2008. http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conla ... 008%29.pdf. Retrieved July 17, 2011. "The Court has not revisited Wong Kim Ark, but Schuck and Smith offer a reading of the Citizenship Clause that connects the exclusions to birthright citizenship with a principle of reciprocal consent or allegiance."
^ "Rogers M. Smith Named to Endowed Chair at Yale", Yale News, March 24, 1999. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
^ Eastman, John C. (March 30, 2006). "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship". Legal Memorandum No. 18 (Washington D.C.: Heritage Foundation): 6. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... itizenship. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
[edit] External links

Works related to United States v. Wong Kim Ark at Wikisource
Text of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) is available from: Justia · Findlaw

-----------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ng_Kim_Ark

Legislation on Cantonian Indonesians / 印尼排粵


Indonesian law affecting Cantonian-Indonesians were conducted through a series of laws, directives, or constitutions enacted by the Government of Indonesia that affected the lives of Chinese Indonesians or Chinese nationals living in Indonesia since the nation's independence. The laws were considered discriminatory by some, who view them as laws made against Chinese Indonesians. Most of these laws are revoked following Reformation era under president Abdurrahman Wahid.

Contents

[hide]
1 1950
2 Presidential Regulation 10 of 1959
2.1 Background
2.2 Implementation, protest and counter action
2.3 Pro and cons
3 Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966
4 Presidential Decision 240 of 1967
5 Presidential Instruction 14 of 1967
6 1967
7 Ampera Cabinet Presidium Circular 6 of 1967
8 Other examples
9 Anomalies and exceptions
10 Current practice
11 See also
12 Notes
13 Bibliography
[edit] 1950

In the beginning of 1950 the Government of Indonesia (GoI) issued "benteng" (fortress), stating that only indigenous Indonesians (pribumi) were allowed to have licenses to import certain items classified as "fortress" items. During its implementation, this rule gave birth to the term "Ali Baba", meaning that underground trade activities with the combine cooperation between Chinese businessmen and Indonesians who have access in the bureaucracy were going on.[1]

[edit] Presidential Regulation 10 of 1959

Indonesian Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 10 Tahun 1959
Presidential Regulation 10 of 1959 (Indonesian: Peraturan Presiden Nomor 10 tahun 1959) was a law directive issued by Indonesian government and signed by Minister of Trade, Rachmat Mujomisero. The law prohibited foreign nationals from doing retail business outside urban areas (including rural areas) and required them to transfer their businesses to Indonesian nationals by 1 January 1960 or relocate to urban areas. This directive was approved by former President Sukarno. The rule became controversial since its implementation resulting in several people being killed in West Java (also known as racial riot of Cibadak) and triggered a huge exodus of Chinese Indonesians back to China.[1] Although the regulation merely mentioned that only "foreign citizens" were required to do the relocation and closure of business, the law affected many Chinese nationals and Chinese Indonesians. From the 86,690 foreign business retailer listed, about 90 percent of these were Chinese.[1]

[edit] Background

Right after the Indonesian Independence on 1945, the Indonesian people was overwhelmed by the euphoria of "freedom" and took over a lot of foreign companies: this action was referred to as "Anti-Dutch sentiment". Among others, one was a Dutch company Koninklijke Pakketvaart Maatschappij (KPM), a company serving in sea transportation from Netherlands to Indonesia. Marhaen, a labor group that later on become a political party, took over this company. Other foreign capital seized were also oil fields, by the oil laborer claiming themselves as "Laskar Minyak" (The Oil Defenders).[2]

After a while, the Government of Indonesia realized that unskilled and inexperienced Indonesians were unable to run the company. The Indonesians, referred to as Kaum pribumi", also did not have enough capital, and it was almost impossible to compete with foreign investment and the Chinese capital (before independence, the ethnic Chinese had more chances to do business from colonialist ruler).[2] These companies suffer losses after the seizure. As a solution, the Government of Indonesia signed an agreement during Dutch-Indonesian Round Table Conference in Den Haag, Netherlands, which stated that the government of Indonesia would return all seized foreign investment assets to its previous owner. In return, to strengthen up the weak Indonesians (pribumi), the Government of Indonesia had the right to issue a law or directive to protect the national interest and those who were "economically feeble".

On 19 March 1956, during Indonesian National Importer Congress in Surabaya (Kongres Importir Nasional Indonesia), Asaat Datuk Mudo made an opening oration that the Chinese had become monopolistic in doing their business by closing all possible entry routes for Indonesian nationals to join the trade market.

“ The Chinese as an exclusive group refuse other group to enter, specially in economy. They were so exclusive that in their practice they become monopolistic. ”
As a closing statement, Assat also added that he believes this was the time to have a special economy initiative to protect Indonesian (pribumi).[1]

Asaat's speech became the beginning of "Asaat movement" or "Pro Indonesian (term used was for Indonesian was Pribumi) movement" and had a huge impact on the following rules favoring it. On November 1959, PP Nomor 10 Tahun 1959 was issued.

In the 1950s, almost all retail stores in Indonesia were owned by Chinese or Chinese-Indonesians from grocery stores, hardware stores and even restaurants. Alwi Sahab, a Betawi culture expert stated that during his youth in Kwitang, Central Jakarta, the economic centre was in Jakarta fully dependent on the Chinese or Chinese Indonesian businessman.

“ Well, if you think there are Padang Restaurants or other restaurant like now, you really shouldn't, everything was owned by the Chinese then.[1] ”
[edit] Implementation, protest and counter action

Tempo magazine investigation published in year 2009 mentioned that during the implementation, the law affected 86,690 foreign retailers listed (90 percent Chinese) to about 500,000 were affected.[1] However, Waspada Daily in their commemorative anniversary published their story printed in the 1960s during the happening, and it had a different number, according to Waspada Daily only about 25,000 small groceries booths by foreign retailers (mainly) Chinese affected by PP No. 10.[3]

The sanctions specified in the directive were only property confiscation (all items must had to be given to Koperasi),[3] fines, and forced relocation, but, in practice, there were some offenders executed (Cimahi and Cibadak, West Java[1]) and their businesses were confiscated.[4]

In some places, the law was enforced by the military. The military shot dead two Chinese women, which triggered a riot in Cimahi, Jawa Barat. It was also noted that the Chinese were forced to leave their home and properties.[1] However, while, nationwide, the implementation of this law went smoothly,[3] in some places like Bandung and Medan, there were Chinese merchants trying to stop the implementation of PP 10 by hiding or emptying the stores and piling the goods in warehouses, causing price increases of main food materials. Specially, after another government directive wasissued about price adjustments, according to the Attorney General Special Instruction, in some areas, including North Sumatera, Economic Survaillance Teams were formed to watch certain issues in economy such as stabilizing prices and making appropriate actions to everyone who withhold the food program implemented by the government. The Economic Surveillance Team in North Sumatera manage to secure 200 warehouses in Medan consisting of food materials, the merchant being punished by imprisonment.[3]

The law was meant to strengthen the national economy in Indonesia, yet this law resulted in a tense diplomatic relation between Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China (PRC). During a meeting between State Minister Subandrio and Chinese Ambassador to Indonesia (Huang Chen) in Jakarta, the PRC insisted that PP No. 10 should be reviewed, and the request was denied.[3] Later on during a parliamentary hearing, State Minister Subandrio restated that there is no element of anti-Chinese related in the implementation of PP No. 10, the law being solely the beginning of nationalization and socialization in the Indonesian economy, and as part of the Indonesian revolution movement. On the nationalization part, PP No. 10 stated that foreign retailers must be closed outside ibukota kabupaten and the merchant had to live only in his property, which was not allowed to conduct any business activities. Foreigners had to close their business at the latest on 1 January 1960 and give all their assets to Koperasi.[3]

The Government of PRC was upset. On 10 December 1959, Peking radio announced a campaign for Chinese citizen to return to "The Warmth of Motherland". The PRC Embassy in Jakarta soon listed all Chinese citizens interested in returning to China. About 199,000 applied, but only 102,000 managed to be placed in a ship sent by the PRC government.[5][6] The tension between PRC Government and Government of Indonesia reduced after PRC Prime Minister Zhou Enlai met President Soekarno.

[edit] Pro and cons

According to Mestika Zed from Andalas University, Padang, West Sumatera, Asaat Datuk Mudo was a real nationalist and always reacted according to facts and reality. The economy of pribumi (Indonesian) after independence was weak with no one defending them. Meanwhile, even during Dutch Imperialism, the Chinese always had a better economy than the pribumi. After Indonesian independence, they took over the economy from small, middle, and large scale. Assaat's ideas were later adopted by Tunku Abdul Rahman and Mahathir Mohammad as the Malaysian economy policy to protect the majority and indigenous ethnic Malay in Malaysia, which was then faced with a similar economic situation.

From historical perspective, even in the beginning of Indonesian Independence the Chinese was always been suspected because they are divided into three groups: "Pro-Dutch", "Pro-Chinese Government", and "Pro-Indonesian Nationalist Movement". There are also Indonesian Chinese who agree that it was needed to do an assimilation or pribumization of Indonesian Chinese (also known as the Tionghoa) through religion (Islam and PITI) as Moslem organization. Hamka for example, is included in this group. They have given their support and chances to Chinese-Indonesians to prove that they want to become a "good Indonesian citizen". There is also a lot of cooperation between the Chinese and the Indonesians noted during Indonesian national movement. Even some of the prominent Chinese figures were trying hard to make the Chinese-Indonesian return to Indonesia. Yap Thiam Hien, a Chinese-Indonesian lawyer, famous for his Indonesian nationalist idealism, established Baperki (Indonesian Citizenship Discussion Body) on 1954. The organization's purpose was to make Chinese-Indonesians willing to be an Indonesian citizen, specially to those that take side to the Dutch and the Chinese Government. This body also gave a lot of contribution in proposing the Indonesian Citizenship Law 1958, which was implemented on the beginning of 1960.[7] The discriminative rule also noted as an attempt to maintain politics of divide and conquer.

Leo Suryadinata, a Chinese-Indonesian now teaching in NUS (National University of Singapore), thinks that both fortress rules or PP 10/ 1959 is a beginning anti-Chinese movement in Indonesia. According to Suryadinata, during colonialism by the Dutch, the Chinese-Indonesians were mostly small retailers, but after Indonesian independence, their position was strengthened, which is why pribumi think that they cannot compete and would like to take over the power by using the government.

[edit] Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966

Indonesian Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Keputusan Presidium Kabinet Nomor 127 Tahun 1966
Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966[8] (Keputusan Presidium Kabinet Nomor 127 Tahun 1966, 127/U/Kep/12/1966) was an Indonesian law passed in 1966 that suggested Indonesian-sounding names to be adopted by Indonesian Chinese. It was considered to be part of the anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia.[9] The resident Chinese community in Indonesia resented it because it forced them to lose traditional family names. However, some people thwarted the government efforts to some degree by incorporating their Chinese name into their new Indonesian name.[10] For example, the Chinese family name "Tan" was easily embedded in the Indonesian name "Sutanto".

[edit] Presidential Decision 240 of 1967

Presidential Decision 240 of 1967[11] (Keputusan Presiden Nomor 240 Tahun 1967, Keppres No. 240/1867) mandated assimilation of "foreigners" and supported a previous directive, 127/U/Kep/12/1966, for Indonesian Chinese to adopt Indonesian-sounding names.

[edit] Presidential Instruction 14 of 1967

Indonesian Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Instruksi Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 1967
Indonesian Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2000
Presidential Instruction No. 14/1967 (Inpres No. 14/196]) on Chinese Religion, Beliefs, and Traditions effectively banned any Chinese literature and cultures in Indonesia, including the prohibition of Chinese characters. Although Chinese names were not explicitly mentioned, "newly naturalized" Indonesian Chinese were strongly advised to adopt non-Chinese names. (Annulled by former president Abdurrahman Wahid in Keppres No. 6/2000[12]; annulment supported by former president Megawati Soekarnoputri in Keppres No 19/2002 by declaring Chinese New Year as national holiday.)

[edit] 1967

Laws affecting Chinese Indonesians proliferated under the New Order regime under former President Suharto's reign. Suharto was a strong advocate for Chinese assimilation rather than integration. As part of 1967's 'Basic Policy for the Solution of the Chinese Problem' and other measures, only one Chinese-language newspaper was allowed to continue, all Chinese religious expressions had to be confined to their homes, Chinese-language schools were phased out, Chinese script in public places was banned, and Chinese were encouraged to take on Indonesian-sounding names.[13] Most of this legislation were revoked following Suharto's fall from power in 1998. [1]

[edit] Ampera Cabinet Presidium Circular 6 of 1967

Ampera Cabinet Presidium Circular 6 of 1967 (Indonesian: Surat Edaran Presidium Kabinet Ampera Nomor SE-06/Pres.Kab/6/1967) was released on 28 June 1967. One of the points of contention is the selection of a proper term to describe Indonesian residents of Chinese descent. Accompanying explanatory text to Article 26 of the 1945 Constitution used the term Tionghoa to describe this group.[14] In 1948, the Communist Party of Indonesia began using Tionghoa in its terminology, prompting the beginning of an unofficial ban on its use.[15] By 1967, a cabinet circular enforced the use of the term Cina over Tionghoa and Tiongkok.[16]

[edit] Other examples

Cabinet Presidium Instruction No. 37/U/IN/6/1967, prohibiting further residency or work permits to new Chinese immigrants, their wives, or children; freezing any capital raised by "foreigners" in Indonesia; closure of "foreign" schools except for diplomatic corps and their families; requiaring the number of Indonesian students to be the majority and in proportion to "foreigners" in any state schools; and making implementation of the "Chinese issue" be the responsibility of the minister for political affairs.
Resolution of the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly No. 32, 1966 (TAP MPRS No. 32/1966), effectively banning the use of Chinese characters in newspapers and magazines.
Home Affairs Ministry No. 455.2-360/1988 on Regulation of Temples, effectively and severely restricting building or repairing Chinese temples.
Circular of the Director General for Press and Graphics Guidance in the Ministry of Information No. 02/SE/Ditjen-PPGK/1988, further restricting the usage of Chinese language and/or characters.
Instruction of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. X01/1977 on Implementing Instructions for Population Registration and the confidential instructions No.3.462/1.755.6 of the Jakarta government January 28, 1980, both authorizing special codes in national identification cards to indicate ethnic Chinese origin, the code being A01
Cabinet Presidium Circular SE-06/Pres-Kab/6/1967 on Changing the Term China and Chinese, requiring the usage of the term "Cina" (considered a derogatory term by many Chinese Indonesians) instead of "Tionghoa" or "Tiongkok" (used by ethnic Chinese themselves).
[edit] Anomalies and exceptions

There are exceptions to laws and regulations that ban the use of Mandarin. The use of Mandarin in traditional Chinese medicine prescriptions, for example, is not prohibited, since legal proceedings related to this case have been suspended after lobbying made to the Attorney General (Jaksa Agung) of Indonesia by INI (Ikatan Naturopatis Indonesia).

[edit] Current practice

During his tenure as president, Abdurrahman Wahid eradicated policies restraining Indonesian Chinese and made Chinese New Year as a national holiday. Today, Indonesian Chinese hold the same rights as other ethnic groups. They can practice their culture daily, the Chinese language being also now allowed. Metro TV became the first to air its news in Chinese.

Chinese schools are still prohibited because the Indonesian government uses only the Bahasa Indonesia language as the medium language of education and government affairs. Yet, Chinese may be taught as an optional extracurricular subject.

[edit] See also

May 1998 Indonesian riots
[edit] Notes

^ a b c d e f g h (Indonesian) "Peraturan yang Menggusur Tionghoa". Tempo: pp. 94–95. 13–19 August 2007. http://majalah.tempointeraktif.com/id/a ... 35.id.html. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
^ a b (Indonesian) "Nasionalisasi Berakhir Buntung". Tempo: pp. 88–89. 13–19 August 2007. http://majalah.tempointeraktif.com/id/a ... 32.id.html. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
^ a b c d e f (Indonesian) Berita Peristiwa 60 Tahun Waspada: Penduduk Cina Dipulangkan (1960). PP No.10 dan Masalah Pemulangan Hoakiao Hal 39
^ (Indonesian) "Sistem Nilai Kita Sudah Dirusak." Indonesia Media online. September 2000. Accessed 25 February 2008.
^ (Indonesian) "Terusir dari Kampung Sendiri". Tempo: pp. 96–97. 13–19 August 2007. http://majalah.tempointeraktif.com/id/a ... 36.id.html. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
^ (Indonesian) Arsip. Majalah Tempo 24 November 1990 dimuat pada Majalah Tempo edisi 13-19 Agustus 2007.
^ (Indonesian) Thung, Ju Lan (13–19 August 2007). "Empat Masa 'Persoalan Cina'". Tempo. http://majalah.tempointeraktif.com/id/a ... 37.id.html. Retrieved 2009-02-01.
^ Coppel 2002, p. 33
^ "Investigating the Grey Areas of the Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia" (PDF). Archived from the original on 2007-06-13. http://web.archive.org/web/200706130005 ... as_web.pdf. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
^ "Indonesian Chinese : about their names". http://sanggralokaindonesia.multiply.co ... al/item/37. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
^ Coppel 2002, p. 31
^ Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 6 Tahun 2000
^ Schwarz, A. (1994). A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s. Westview Press. p. 106. ISBN 1-86373-635-2.
^ (Indonesian) Penjelasan Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945.
^ (Indonesian) Toer, Pramoedya Ananta (1960). Hoakiau di Indonesia. Djakarta: Bintang Press.
^ (Indonesian) Surat Edaran Presidium Kabinet Ampera Nomor 06 Tahun 1967.
[edit] Bibliography

Coppel, Charles A. (2002), Studying Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, Asian Studies Monograph Series, Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies, ISBN 978-9971-9904-0-4.
Pompe, Sebastiaan, ed. (1992), Indonesian Law 1949–1989: A Bibliography of Foreign-Language Materials with Brief Commentaries on the Law, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 144–147, ISBN 978-0-7923-1744-9.

-------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chine ... _Indonesia