From: ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu)
Subject: Indian-American Historical Notes (was Re: FAQ)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:11:20 GMT

In article <MDAY.93Jan9133400@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu> mday@jukebox.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) writes:
>   ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu) writes:
>
>   [similarities between South-Asian Americans and East-Asian Americans: ]
>
>   Historically, these groups were both imported as cheap agricultural
>   labor in the 19th century.  They were both targetted by white racist
>   groups, and they were both excluded from immigration.
>
>This was interesting -- I wasn't aware of any significant importation
>of people from South Asia for agricultural labor.  What's a good
>source to find out more about this?

Upon rechecking my sources, I realize I overstated the case somewhat.
From Takaki's _Strangers from a Different Shore_,

Workers from India began arriving on the West Coast in 1907.  Two
years later, immigration officials started restricting Indian immigration.
[p. 62]  In 1917, immigration from India was cut off. [p. 298]  Altogether,
only 6,400 came to the US in this first wave, about the same number as
Koreans.  [p.62, 65]

US racists had a hard time because the Indians were Caucasian.  They
eventually rationalized grouping Indians with East Asians:
	The Asiatic Exclusion League agreed [with the AFL], blaming the
	Japanese and the Asian Indians for the violence directed
	against them:  ``In California the insolence and presumption of
	Japanese, and the immodest and filthy habits of the Hindoos
	[the term then for Asian Indians] are continually involving
	them in trouble, beatings....  In all these cases, we may say
	the Oriental is at fault.'' [p.296]

	Two years later, in _Forum_ magazine, Herman Schefauer conveyed
	a similar message in sterner, more hysterical language.  Asian
	Indians, he warned, represented the spectre of a new ``Yellow
	Peril.'' [p.297]

>
>   Like other non-white immigrants, both groups were legally prohibitted
>   from becoming naturalized US citizens by a 1790 (+/- a few years) law
>   that remained on the books until 1952.  This had enormous social
>   repercussions, such as being prohibited from owning land in
>   California.

Federal law from 1790 reserved naturalized citizenship to ``whites''
only. [p.298]  Since Indian Americans were Caucasian, could they
naturalize?  The Asiatic Exclusion League argued no:

	The ``forefathers'' of white Americans ``pressed to the
	west, in the everlasting march of conquest, progress,
	and civilization,'' while the ``forefathers of the Hindus
	went east and became enslaved, effeminate, caste-ridden
	and degraded.'' [p.298]

In 1910 US v. Balsara and 1913 Ajkoy Kumar Mazumdar, US courts ruled
"that Asian Indians were Caucasians and hence entitled to be considered
``white persons'' eligible to citizenship under the 1790 law." [p.298]
But in 1923 U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the US Supreme Court ruled that
Indian immigrants could NOT naturalize, since the law said ``white persons'',
not ``Caucasians''. [p.299]

>
>   Both groups have immigrated in much greater numbers in recent years,
>   thanks to revisions in immigration law in 1965.  As a result, both
>   groups are majority foreign-born.  With the immigrant generation being
>   highly educated because of the immigration preference given to
>   professionals.
>
>   Second generation Asian Americans of both groups must struggle with
>   the conflict between a highly-developed, conservative, and ancient
>   culture and the reality of growing up as an American in America.
>
>   Both groups are presumed foreign by the US media and establishment.
>   Both groups are perceived as a foreign, un-American threat whenever
>   their numbers increase.  Both groups are targetted for violence by
>   neo-Nazi groups.
>
>The trouble I have with the rest of the post is that it doesn't really
>distinguish between Asian Americans and Arab Americans.  Or does
>"Asian American" include Arab Americans as well?  From these examples,
>it certainly should.  The geography then gets a little problematic,
>since a number of Arab countries are definitely outside Asia.
>
>I know that there is a group of Americans who share the background and
>concerns that you describe.  I just wonder if "Asian American" is the
>right name.
>
>--Mark Day
>
>mday@lcs.mit.edu

Sure, precise naming issues can always be problematic.  Witness the
demise of terms like "Oppressed Third World Brothers and Sisters."
I guess I'd rather spend my time exploring personal and social issues
than wondering what to call a group.
						--Alan Hu
----------
I know Arthur Hu.  Arthur Hu is a friend of mine.  And I can tell you
this:  I am no Arthur Hu.  :-)