The Chinese Must Go
Page 32
ious survival.61 The legal and extralegal devaluing of Chinese lives produced
profound and par tic u lar forms of vulnerability, including mass displacement,
perpetual alienage, and psychological trauma. Unfortunately, the historical
archive offers only a fragmentary vision of this aftermath.62
Mass displacement of the Chinese seems the most obvious outcome of a
movement predicated on expulsion. Yet unreliable sources and problematic
AFTERLIVES UNDER EXCLUSION
215
scholarly assumptions have made this forced movement difficult to perceive.
Historians have often observed that the Chinese were always in motion but
most have attributed this to cyclical migration and seasonal employment,
not involuntary displacement. The pervasiveness of anti- Chinese vio lence
demands that we reconsider the nature of Chinese mobility in the late nine-
teenth century. Did vigilantes successfully drive out the Chinese from West
Coast towns and cities? And if they did, where did the displaced go? To these
simple questions, there are many answers.
Vigilantes had more success in some towns than others. The rec ords of
the Sanborn Fire Insurance Com pany, which regularly surveyed and mapped
towns, offers a glimpse of the impact on individual Chinese communities.
Sanborn agents marked all Chinese- occupied buildings on their insurance
maps, perhaps due to assumptions that Chinese occupancy raised the risk
of fire. In some locations, surveyors happened to map a town in the years
“Vacant China Town” in Eureka, California (1886). This detail from a Sanborn
Insurance map shows buildings formerly occupied by Chinese residents. A year after
the expulsion, Eureka’s Chinatown still stands vacant. Sanborn Map Company, May
1886. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division, Washington, D.C.
Chinese- Occupied Buildings in
Seattle (1884). This reconstruc-
0
100 ft
tion of a Sanborn Insurance
map shows the location of
buildings where Chinese
residents lived and worked
Dock
before Seattle’s expulsions
began.
COMMERCIAL STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
CKSON STREET
MAIN STREET
JA
ASHINGTON STREETW
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
6TH STREET
Chinese- Occupied Buildings in
0
100 ft
Seattle (1888). This reconstruc-
tion of a Sanborn Insurance
map shows the location of
Chinese- occupied buildings
following the expulsions.
Dock
Dock
Seattle’s Chinatown has
contracted and consolidated,
with fewer Chinese residences in
tighter proximity.
WEST ST.
COMMERCIAL STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
CKSON STREET
MAIN STREET
JA
ASHINGTON STREETW
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
6TH STREET
7th St
8th St
9th St
P
13th St
ros
Vine St.
pect
Mulberry St.
Av
.
.
.
.
Lime St.
.
Lemon St.
Orange St.
15th St
Main St.
.
Market St.
Cypress Av.
14th St
Almond
St.
Chesnut St.
.
Walnut St.
Locust St.
Brockton Av.
Cedar St.
Pine St.
Tequesquite Grand Vie
A
w
v.
Av.
0
900 ft
Spring Brook
Santa Ana River
Orange St.
14th St
Brockton Av.
.
7th St.
8th St.
9th St.
TequesqAv
Main St.
.
0
300 ft
uite
Riverside Chinatown in 1895
0
300 ft
Market St.
Riverside Chinatown in 1884
Chinatowns in Riverside, California. In 1885, local anti- Chinese ordinances
and harassment forced Chinese residents to relocate from the center of
Riverside to the outskirts. Map based on Sanborn maps from 1884 and 1895.
AFTERLIVES UNDER EXCLUSION
219
immediately preceding and following an expulsion. Though these maps do
not directly rec ord the size of the Chinese community, they reveal changes
in the built environment that imply population shifts. In some towns in
California, including Marysville and Nevada City, the maps show no per-
ceptible change in Chinese businesses and residences during the peak of
expulsions in 1885 and 1886. In other towns, however, the expulsions liter-
ally wiped the Chinese off the map. In Tacoma, Chinese buildings were
scattered across town in 1885, but dis appeared in the 1888 update. In Eu-
reka, buildings where the Chinese once lived were marked “vacant” in 1886.
In Cloverdale, California, they have simply vanished. In some cities, such
as Riverside and San Jose, expulsions appear to have moved the Chinese
enclave from the town’s center to its outskirts. Seattle shows a pattern of
contraction and consolidation; by 1888, the city’s Chinese- occupied build-
ings were fewer in number and in tighter proximity.63
The erasure of Chinese- occupied buildings on the Sanborn maps hints
at the financial toll of expulsion. For Chinese merchants and labor contrac-
tors, the destruction of businesses meant the loss of real estate, merchan-
dise, rents, and fees on labor contracting. But this destruction did not only
impact the merchant elite, since it was customary at the time for Chinese
workers to entrust their savings and future remittances to local Chinese busi-
nessmen. In other words, when the Tacoma Chinese listed thirty- five busi-
nesses “destroyed by fire,” they were describing the financial devastation of
the entire Chinese community. And when Chinese merchants in the Pacific
states and territories demanded $424,368.49 in redress, they were relating
the economic ruin of tens of thousands of Chinese workers. Lost earnings
meant time lost for workers and lost remittances for their families across the
Pacific. Though the United States granted indemnity to China for some of
the expulsions, there is no indication that the mi grants themselves received
a portion of this redress.64
Like the Sanborn maps, census data offer indications, but not certain-
ties, about the extent of Chinese displacement. Though the federal census
was only recorded every ten years, Washington Territory happened to con-
duct population surveys in 1885 and 1887. By enumerating the Chinese popu-
lation immediately before and after the peak of anti- Chinese vio
lence, these
surveys capture the mass displacement of Chinese mi grants. In King
County, which includes Seattle, there were 967 Chinese recorded in 1885
“ These Buildings All Burned” (1886). Following the Tacoma expulsion,
Chinese merchants compiled a list of destroyed businesses in order to seek
redress. The original list is double- sided and includes thirty- five companies.
University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections, Pacific Northwest
Historical Documents, Watson C. Squire Papers, Accession No. 4004-001,
Box 2124. UW29605z.
AFTERLIVES UNDER EXCLUSION
221
and only 142 in 1887. In Pierce County, which includes Tacoma, there were
959 Chinese recorded in 1885, while only one man remained in 1887. In
other words, at least 1,781 Chinese departed from the two most populous
counties in Washington Territory at the height of expulsions.65 More lightly
populated counties in western Washington, including Lewis, San Juan,
Clarke, Kitsap, Pacific, and Skamania counties, also saw a dramatic reduc-
tion in the Chinese population. Government reports suggest that displaced
Chinese found their way to California, Oregon, British Columbia, and China.
But they also found new jobs within Washington Territory. The census sug-
gests that Chinese fled western counties where the anti- Chinese movement
was strong, pouring into eastern counties with expanding opportunities in
agriculture, mining, and ranching.66
There were exceptions to this trend. In Pierce County, the one Chinese
man left behind became a local legend. At the time of the expulsions, he was
a laborer working for a local white farming family. Two years later, he pur-
chased a six- acre berry farm, married a white woman, and eventually adopted
a white child. “China Joe” became proficient in En glish, converted to
Chris tian ity, and continued to reside in Puyallup Valley until his death in
1916. In his obituary, he was remembered as an honest, dependable, and
out spoken man who declared the water “too damn cold” during his bap-
tism. Instead of seeing his cultural transgressions as threatening, the com-
munity proved willing to tolerate this solitary “Chinaman who turned
white man.” In a county that continued to celebrate the anniversary of
Chinese expulsion for de cades, this man managed to integrate into the
white community through religion, language, marriage, and fatherhood.
His singular experience of ac cep tance contrasts with the stark rejection ex-
perienced by hundreds of displaced Chinese.67
While the more frequent Washington Territorial census makes pos si ble
direct comparison before and after the peak of vio lence, the decennial fed-
eral census does not allow similar precision. Between the federal censuses
of 1880 and 1890, the West Coast experienced a sudden spike in Chinese
migration, including 39,579 mi grants in a single year, and a systematic move-
ment to expel the Chinese in at least 168 communities. The former phenom-
enon masks the latter. With no census data on Chinese populations at their
height, it is easy to underestimate how many Chinese were displaced. In ad-
dition, existing population data are deeply problematic. Census takers’
222 EXCLUSION
haphazard transliteration of Chinese names makes it nearly impossible to
track individuals across census years. Some surveyors did not even bother to
rec ord Chinese names, and instead only logged estimates of the Chinese
population in each area. To further complicate the matter, all detailed
schedules of the 1890 census were damaged by fire in 1921 and subsequently
destroyed, limiting the data available for that year.68
Still, a close reading of census data reveals telling patterns, especially in
California where vio lence was most widespread. Between 1880 and 1890, a
few counties saw a precipitous loss in Chinese population. The most dra-
matic case is Northern California’s coastal Humboldt County, home to
Eureka and seven other towns that engaged in expulsion. There, while the
county’s total recorded population doubled, the Chinese population fell
from 241 to 10. Anti- Chinese fervor ran high in much of Northern California,
including Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Del Norto, Mariposa, and
Shasta counties, which together lost more than 60 percent of their Chinese
population in a single de cade. Historians have attributed this movement to
the declining lumbering and mining industries in these areas. While these
northern counties lost population, however, the Chinese population declined
at roughly twice the overall rate. The shifting economy and swelling vio-
lence worked in tandem to reduce the number of Chinese in northern Cali-
fornia. Evidently, anti- Chinese expulsions were more successful in areas
where economic conditions rendered Chinese labor unnecessary.69
Central and Southern California, where agricultural areas were experi-
encing rapid growth, saw the inverse of this trend. Counties such as San Ber-
nardino, Monterey, Ventura, Tulare, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara were
in desperate need of farm laborers, and in these counties the Chinese popu-
lation grew at a faster rate than the overall population between 1880 and
1890. Historians have attributed this movement to economic incentives,
but the demand for farm labor in these areas may also have meant less
anti- Chinese vio lence.70 Finding relative safety in the fields of southern Cali-
fornia, Chinese flocked into agricultural areas. Significant labor shortages,
especially in the summer of 1887, prompted local, white agriculturalists to
guard their Chinese workers and tenants more carefully. In all likelihood,
expulsions accelerated the movement of Chinese from north to south, from
declining mining regions to flourishing agricultural areas, and from the
center of anti- Chinese vio lence to its periphery. Chinese displacement trans-
formed the racial landscape of California.71
AFTERLIVES UNDER EXCLUSION
223
While many expelled Chinese fled to agricultural areas, others looked to
urban Chinatowns for sanctuary. The federal census reveals that the coun-
ties of San Francisco and Los Angeles gained 4,088 and 3,264 Chinese, re-
spectively, between 1880 and 1890. Con temporary observations suggest that
San Francisco’s Chinese population may have temporarily swelled far be-
yond census counts. Local papers reported that by early 1886, expulsions
had sent 7,000 or 8,000 “destitute” Chinese to the city. While an 1885 city
report counted 30,360 Chinese in San Francisco’s Chinatown, a prominent
lawyer for the Chinese, Lyman R. Mowry, estimated that the population
grew to 50,000 in the spring of 1886. These figures may be exaggerated, but
all estimates suggest that thousands of Chinese sought safety in this urban
enclave. De cades later, Chinese merchant J. S. Look remembered the year
when “the American people became incensed at the Chinese race” and “the
refugees came to San Francisco.” As the population of Chinatown reached
rec ord numbers, the Chinese in San Francisco also experienced new heights
of segregation.72
Altogether, more Chinese mi grants fled California. In the period from
1880 to 1900, California experienced a net loss of greater than 30,000 Chi-
nese. Some of these men and women left the country, with out- migration
peaking from San Francisco harbor in 1885 and 1886. During the previous
de cade, the recorded annual departure rate averaged 7,668 mi grants, but in
1885, 15,185 departed from San Francisco, followed by 16,915 in 1886. This
difference suggests that anti- Chinese vio lence drove more than 15,000
Chinese from the United States, at least temporarily. Nationally, the Chi-
nese population dropped precipitously, from an estimated high of 132,300 in
1882 to 107,488 in 1890 and 89,863 in 1900.73 Years later, Law Yow recalled
living through the vio lence in Portland, Oregon, and hearing rumors of
“riots all over the country.” He explained to an interviewer, “If I had enough
money then[,] I think I go back to China.” Even mi grants who did have
funds for a return ticket to China faced an unenviable decision. Should
they forgo higher wages in the United States to seek safety in China? With
Guangdong periodically torn apart by interethnic feuds, famine, and un-
rest, it seemed unlikely they would find peace in either location.74
In short, years of expulsion and exclusion engendered patterns of segre-
gation and migration. Much like the vio lence and laws of the Jim Crow
South, which crowded African Americans into segregated urban spaces and
drove a “ great migration” north, the anti- Chinese movement created two
224 EXCLUSION
Table 7.2 Chinese Population in the United States, 1860–1920
Continental U.S.
Western States & Territories*
Year
No.
No. (% of total)
1860
34,933
34,933 (100%)
1870
63,190
62,831 (99%)
1880
105,465
102,102 (99%)
1890
107,488
96,844 (90%)
1900
89,863
67,729 (75%)
1910
71,531
51,934 (73%)
1920
61,639
38,604 (63%)
*Includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Data Source: Fourteenth Census of the United States, vol. 2, Population 1920:
General Report and Analytical Tables (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 1922), 29, 31, 37.
distinct patterns of movement within the United States. By the turn of the