Yuko Konno

Transnationalism in Education: The Backgrounds,
Motives, and Experiences of Nisei Students
in Japan before World War II（教育におけるトランスナショナリズム：
戦前に来日した日系アメリカ人二世学徒の境遇、動機、および体験の分析）
Yuko Konno*
SUMMARY IN JAPANESE: 本稿では、第二次世界大戦前、特に1930年代に就学目的で来日・滞在した日系アメリカ人二世の動機および経験に焦点を当て、アメリカ人としての意識を保ちながらも祖先の土地で言語および習慣を身につけようとあがいた二世のトランスナショナリズムとはいかなるものであったのかを検証する。トランスナショナリズムという枠組みを用いることで、二世をある一つの国家にのみ属する集団としてではな
く、日米両方から文化的・社会的影響を受けた複雑な存在として捉えることができる。しかし、北米の二世がすべて同じ条件
下に越境教育の恩恵を享受できたわけではない。従って、どのような背景の二世が日本で就学することを選んだのか、彼らはいかなる動機を持っていたのか、そして実際の体験が彼らにどのような意識の変化やアイデンティティの形成をもたらしたのかについての詳細な分析が必要である。
本稿では太平洋戦争中に日系人収容所にて行われた統計調査
を元に、二世の日本での就学経験の有無は、出身地域や語学教育へのアクセスによって左右されていたことを明らかにする。
また、おもに一世の観点から見た、時代背景を色濃く反映する
その他の要因についても論ずる。さらに、日本での教育を実際に体験した3人の二世の手記を読み解くことで、越境教育には苦労が伴ったこと、しかし、その経験の捉え方やアイデンティ
ティ形成においては、来日時の年齢や性別等によって大きな違いがあったことも指摘する。
* 今野

裕子 Ph.D. Candidate, United States History, Department of History, University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles, U. S. A.

81

Transnationalism in Education

Mass migration of Japanese immigrants to the continental United States
dates back to the late nineteenth century. As first-generation immigrants, theIssei, settled in North America and started to raise the second generation, theNisei, they encountered the problem of how to educate their children properly.
The so-called “Nisei problem” haunted Issei parents. In order to solve this issue,
many parents sent their children back to Japan for schooling. They did soincreasingly in the 1930s on the eve of the Pacific War.
How can we understand the transnational educational experience of the
Nisei—something that is peculiar to the children of Japanese immigrants? This
paper focuses on the educational experiences of second-generation JapaneseAmericans in Japan before World War II, using primarily three kinds of evidence
that are of importance in answering more specific questions, such as 1) what kindof people were educated in Japan?; 2) what were the reasons for their leaving?;and 3) how did their experience work in self-identifications? In answering thefirst, I chose to use statistical evidence so as to see the general tendency offamilies sending their children to Japan. But a simple trend does not adequately
explain certain material conditions, nor the psychological motivation behind thosefamilies’ decision. Here comes the second inquiry—the reasons for going toJapan—for which I relied heavily on a book written by an Issei journalist who
analyzed the issue in great depth. For the last question, I used three autobiographical essays and placed their experiences in historical contexts, along theway demonstrating how their perceptions of their years in Japan shaped theirambiguous and transnational consciousness.
I will argue that the motivation behind Nisei education in Japan was significantly affected by both material conditions and the transnational consciousnessof the Issei and Nisei, but that access to such education had regional variations. I
will also show that transnational education had its costs as well as benefits to the
Nisei who received it, but that the degree of suffering and how they identified
themselves varied depending on factors such as gender, age at departure, prioraccess to language instruction, and places of residence.

The Significance of the Transnational Paradigm
In the early 1990s, migration scholars found new significance in studying
immigrant experiences from a transnational perspective. Transnationalism chal82

Yuko Konno

lenges the bipolar model of immigration in which immigrants leave their countryof origin to settle in another country permanently. It emphasizes that migrants
continue to move back and forth freely between different cultures as well as
across international boundaries. According to Caroline B. Brettell, the idea generally refers to “a social process whereby migrants operate in social fields thattransgress geographic, political, and cultural borders.”1
The study of transnationalism, on the other hand, suffers from its fuzzinessin both theoretical and empirical terms. Scholars often do not agree on an exact
definition of the term. Moreover, different social scientists emphasize various
aspects of transnational experiences, and scopes and levels of analysis varysignificantly across disciplines.
In an effort to give some form to this chaotic situation, Steven Vertovec
categorized different areas of inquiry into six distinctive types: transnationalismas 1) a social morphology; 2) a type of consciousness; 3) a mode of cultural
reproduction; 4) an avenue of capital; 5) a site of political engagement; and 6) the(re)construction of “place” and locality. Transnationalism as a social morphology looks at social formations of ethnic diasporas while transnationalism as a
type of consciousness is heavily influenced by cultural studies and concernedwith dual or multiple identifications of individuals. “A mode of cultural reproduction” perspective emphasizes processes of cultural blending, syncretism,
creolization, and hybridity, while “an avenue of capital” approach allows scholars to investigate the activities of transnational corporations that dominate theworld’s economic system. Transnationalism as a site of political engagement
examines transnational political activities of migrants, and lastly, “the(re)construction of ‘place’ or locality” approach problematizes the conventional
understanding of people’s relations to space, and argues that there have emerged
new “translocalities.” While each of the paradigms looks at different issues fromvariegated theoretical and methodological perspectives, these are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. Many studies have used more than one of them, as José
Itzigsohn notes.2
How does the study of the “return” of immigrants’ descendents to theirancestral land fit into the model of transnationalism? More specifically, how can
we understand, from a transnational perspective, the experiences of secondgeneration Japanese Americans who went to Japan before World War II mostly
for educational purposes? Even though Vertovec, together with Alejandro Portes,
Luis E. Guarnizo and Patricia Landolt, describes transnationalism as a recent
83Transnationalism in Education

phenomenon in the age of globalization by stressing “the scale of intensity andsimultaneity of current long-distance, cross-border activities,” is it still possible
to apply one or more of the theoretical frameworks in Vertovec’s typology to thehistorical experiences of Japanese American youths?3
While some may argue that it is anachronistic to explain Nisei experiences inJapan entirely in line with Vertovec’s arguments, a couple of his conceptual
frameworks are useful, in illuminating the issues that second-generation JapaneseAmericans faced. The first two typologies, transnationalism as a social formation
and as a type of consciousness are particularly of relevance to the inquiry of thispaper. It is impossible to think about transnational educational practice without
the existence of ethnic diasporas in the first place. More importantly, secondgeneration education in Japan was informed by a type of transnational consciousness of the Issei and Nisei. The Issei’s decision to send their children to Japan or
Nisei’s interest in the country were a manifestation of such a consciousness,while the Nisei’s stay in Japan intensified their sense of belonging to two nations,because their encounters with Japanese people and society helped them realize
their differences from Japanese nationals and brought to light the issue of theiridentity.
These considerations make clear that transnationalism is a useful framework
to explain the Nisei experience because theirs is not simply a story about Americans visiting Japan; even with American citizenship, the Nisei eclectically tried toadopt Japanese ways in the United States by learning Japanese, but once in theirancestral land they could hardly contain their American-ness no matter how
Japanese they looked. The examination of the Nisei in Japan poses an importantquestion about who belongs to a nation in what ways.

The Nisei in Japan
Those Nisei living in Japan before the Pacific War are broadly categorized
into two groups. A considerable portion of them were brought to Japan as infants
or small children of elementary or early middle school age, while another large
group came to Japan in their late teens, frequently after their graduation from highschool, to receive higher education and learn Japanese. According to Yuji Ichioka,
the first group constituted the majority of the Nisei from Hawaii, the continental
United States, or Canada. Their parents either returned with them or sent them in84

Yuko Konno

advance to be raised by their relatives. This group was specifically referred to as“Kibei” (returnees) and formed a separate group from their Nisei peers if andwhen they returned to the United States after reaching adolescence. The minority
who arrived in their early adulthood came in search of better educational andemployment opportunities. Unlike Nisei children who generally lived in theirparents’ home villages in rural Japan, those who “returned” as grown-ups concentrated in major urban areas.4
No accurate statistics exist to show how many Japanese Americans lived inJapan before World War II. According to a Japanese government report, 18,000
Nisei were in Japan as of 1933. Ichioka speculates that the number of adultJapanese Americans was probably 2,000-2,500 out of a total Nisei population of
approximately 20,000 in Japan on the eve of the Pacific War. A different source
offers a rough estimate of a population of 40,000 Nisei that came as children, asof 1935. According to this source, such Japanese Americans settled in areas that
had sent a large number of immigrants abroad. In 1931, about 13,000 American
citizens of Japanese ancestry lived in Hiroshima Prefecture and 9,000 in
Yamaguchi. Both are southwestern prefectures that sent early immigrants to
Hawaii in the late nineteenth century. Since Japanese Americans were not especially required to report their residence to local governments, however, there is no
way of obtaining precise numbers.5
Even though no accurate numbers are readily available, suffice it to say that
there were indeed a significant number of Nisei in Japan in the 1930s. Not all ofthem were in Japan for schooling, but statistical evidence shows that educating
children in Japan was not uncommon in the Japanese community in the UnitedStates.

Backgrounds of the Nisei Who Went to Japan—Statistical Evidence
What kind of Nisei children actually went to Japan to attend schools? While
anecdotal evidence is useful in drawing a broad picture of them, quantitative datafrom The War Relocation Authority (WRA) Form 26 Data Set helps us understand their profiles statistically. In February of 1942, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt issued executive order 9066, which resulted in the mass removal of
110,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast of the continental United States. The WRA was established to run ten concentration camps in85

Transnationalism in Education

which Japanese Americans were interned. The WRA conducted a census labeled“Form 26.” The computer tape that I used for analysis in this paper retains 98%of the 1942 records.6 One of the limitations of using this data set is that it does notinclude a large number of Japanese Americans in Hawaii, although it does include
respondents who had been born in Hawaii and were interned in the mainland.
Many Nisei from Hawaii went to Japan as students before World War II. Nevertheless, the WRA data set still allows one to examine the backgrounds of asignificant number of Nisei who went to Japan from the continental United States
for schooling.
General descriptive statistics of the data set are in order. Of 109,377 individuals that responded to the census, 65%, or 71,014, were born in the UnitedStates and either one or both of their parents were Japanese. Of them, about 14%,or 9,835 people, had some educational experience in Japan. The average age ofthis group was 26.25, and the ratio of males to females is 57 to 43.
Table 1 shows the relationship between respondents’ gender and whether
they had any experience of education in Japan. The universe is those who wereborn in the United States and racially Japanese (one or both of their parents wereJapanese). While this includes a small number of the third generation, about 90%
are the Nisei:

Table 1: Education in Japan * Sex Crosstabulation
N = 71014

Male

FemaleNot educated in Japan

84.7%

87.7%

86.2%

Educated in Japan

15.3%

12.3%

13.8%

Total

36506
100.0%

34508
100.0%

71014
100.0%

Source: WRA Form 26.
Note: The actual probability of .000 demonstrates strong association between thevariables.

The table demonstrates that men were slightly more likely to have been educatedin Japan than women.
86Yuko Konno

Is there a difference between those who were educated in Japan and those
who were not in terms of their fathers’ occupations in the United States? Table 2
shows the relationship between respondents’ fathers’ occupations in the UnitedStates and whether they were educated in Japan or not. The universe is those
who were born in the United States, racially Japanese, and whose fathers’ occupations were known:

Table 2: Father’s Occupation in US * Education in Japan Crosstabulation
N = 63063

Not educatedin Japan

Educatedin JapanProfessional & semi-professional

3.2%

1.3%

1900

Managerial and official (except farm)

18.4%

16.7%

11479 (18.2%)

Clerical and sales

4.3%

1.9%

2538

(4.0%)

Service

4.9%

7.6%

3281

(5.2%)

Farm operators and managers

43.5%

46.2%

27656 (43.9%)

Farm laborers including foremen

14.6%

11.6%

8988 (14.3%)

Fishermen

1.7%

2.7%

1144

(1.8%)

Skilled craftsmen and foremen;semi-skilled operators (except farm)

8.2%

9.2%

5235

(8.3%)

Unskilled laborers (except farm)

1.2%

2.7%

842

(1.3%)

55695
100.0%

7368
100.0%

63063

Total

Total
(3.0%)

100.0%

Source: WRA Form 26.
Note: The actual probability of .000 demonstrates strong association between thevariables.

Among those who were educated in Japan, children with fathers whose occupations were professional and semi-professional (1.3%), managerial and official(16.7%), clerical and sales (1.9%), and farm laborers including foremen (11.6%)
are underrepresented. On the other hand, those whose fathers’ occupations wereservice (7.6%), farm operators and managers (46.2%), fishermen (2.7%), skilledcraftsmen and foremen or semi-skilled operators (9.2%) and unskilled laborers
87Transnationalism in Education(2.7%) are overrepresented. The finding indicates that the Nisei educated inJapan were most likely from working-class families. Intuitively, it appears quite
surprising that blue-collar fathers were able to afford their children’s education in
Japan as well as more willing than white-collar parents to choose this option. For
working-class Issei, however, sending their children back home was probably
cheaper than having them educated in the United States. They most likely sent
the Nisei for compulsory education in the areas they originated from. In that way
they could have avoided paying for room and board by leaving their children in thecare of their relatives; they also did not need to worry about tuition as the 1900
Elementary School Order stipulated that “tuition may not be collected in the caseof city, town, and village ordinary elementary schools.”7 Table 3, which shows
the respondent’s age when he/she was in Japan, partially confirms the theory.
The universe is those who had been born in the United States, were raciallyJapanese and educated in Japan (of whom more than 99% are the Nisei); those
whose fathers’ occupations were unknown are not excluded:

Table 3: Age at Time in JapanN = 9833

Frequency

Percent

0-9

186

1.9%

10 - 19904

9.2%

20 and over

94

1.0%

0 - 9 and 10 - 19

6167

62.7%

0 - 9, 10 - 19 and 20 and over

1917

19.5%

0 - 9 and 20 and over

15

0.2%

10 - 19 and 20 and over

513

5.2%

Unknown

37

0.4%

9833

100.0%

Total
Source: WRA Form 26.

The table shows that more than 62% of the respondents were in Japan both
between the ages of 0 and 9 and between 10 and 19, although it is unclear whether
they continuously stayed during all those years or moved back and forth across88

Yuko Konno

national borders. This suggests that the majority of Nisei educated in Japan were
there during elementary and middle school years.
Another source offers a different view of the occupations of parents of the
Nisei educated in Japan. In 1939, a group of graduating Nisei students at KeisenGirls’ School left a report based on their survey of the Nisei living in the vicinityof Tokyo. Table 4 is replicated from their study and slightly modified to include
the total and percentage:8

Table 4: Occupation of Parents
N = 368

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

North

9

25

5

South

31

28

11

Central7

1

1

Hawaii

15

39

26

Washington

12

29

5

1

6

3

3

(F)

(G)

(H)

7

7

California

147

CanadaOregon

2

8

Utah

3

3

Colorado

42

Nebraska

3

Arizona1

New York

2

1

12

3

11

10

104

3

4

54

1

1

14

3

1

14

2

10

2

6
1

4
1

3

1

4

Montana
Japan

Total

1
5

2

Total
87 14957
2
4Percentage 23.6% 40.5% 15.5% 0.5% 1.1%

1

1
1

9

4
39
26
368
1.1% 10.6% 7.1% 100.0%

Source: Nisei Survey Committee, The Nisei: A Survey of Their Life in Japan (Tokyo:
Keisen Girls’ School, 1939), 5.
Note: (A) = Agriculture, (B) = Commerce, (C) = Profession, (D) = Fishery,(E) = Forestry, (F) = Industry, (G) = Retired, (H) = Deceased89Transnationalism in Education

As the table shows, 15.5% answered that their parents were professionals, andonly 23.6% replied that their parents’ occupations were in agriculture. About
40% of the parents of respondents held occupations in commerce. The disparity
between tables 2 and 4—more than half of the fathers are in agriculture in the
WRA data set while less than a quarter belong to the same category in the Keisen
survey—possibly comes from the source bias in the report of Nisei Survey
Committee. Their survey covered only the Nisei in the metropolitan area. Thosestudents most likely enrolled in higher schools or private universities and lived indormitories. Their living and educational costs must have been much higher thanthose for a large number of rurally educated younger children—a group missing
from this survey.
Among those who were educated in Japan, is there a gender difference intheir fathers’ occupations? Table 5, produced from the WRA data set, offers ananswer:Table 5: Father’s Occupation in US * Sex Crosstabulation
N = 7368 (Educated in Japan)

Male

Female

Total

Professional & semi-professional

1.5%

1.2%

98 (1.3%)

Managerial and official (except farm)

15.6%

18.3%

1233 (16.7%)

Clerical and sales

1.9%

2.0%

141 (1.9%)

Service

7.7%

7.4%

558 (7.6%)

Farm operators and managers

46.2%

46.2%

3404 (46.2%)

Farm laborers including foremen

11.8%

11.4%

858 (11.6%)

Fishermen

2.8%

2.7%

202 (2.7%)

Skilled craftsmen and foremen;semi-skilled operators (except farm)

9.7%

8.5%

678 (9.2%)

Unskilled laborers (except farm)

2.8%

2.4%

196 (2.7%)4206
100.0%

3162
100.0%

Total

7368
100.0%

Source: WRA Form 26.
Note: The actual probability of .087 shows that there is an 8.7% chance that theassociation between the variables is due to random error.

90

Yuko Konno

The daughters of managers and officials (18.3%) were more likely to have been
educated in Japan than the sons of fathers in these occupations (15.6%). Conversely, the male Nisei whose fathers were skilled craftsmen and foremen or semiskilled operators (9.7%) are overrepresented while the women whose fathers’
occupations were in the same category are significantly underrepresented (8.5%).
Is there a correlation between Nisei’s birthplaces and whether they had
educational experience in Japan? Table 6 only shows the states with a significant
number of Nisei:

Table 6: Birthplace * Education in Japan Crosstabulation
N = 71013

Not educated in Japan Educated in Japan Total
Washington

85.9%

14.1%

Oregon

87.2%

12.8%

8927
2243

California

88.0%

12.0%

53789

Colorado

79.0%

21.0%

248

Idaho

74.0%

26.0%

204

Arizona

95.4%

4.6%

410

Utah

72.7%

27.3%

377

Hawaii, unspecified

53.4%

46.6%

208

Hawaii County

68.1%

31.9%

1351

Honolulu County

61.5%

38.5%

1623

Kauai County

72.7%

27.3%

443

Maui County

63.1%

36.9%

444

Total

61178
86.2%

9835
13.8%

71013
100.0%

Source: WRA Form 26.
Note: The actual probability of .000 shows strong association between the variables.

The table reveals that there is a regional variation in terms of Nisei’s educational
experience in Japan. The Nisei born in Hawaii tended to receive education in
Japan compared to the Nisei from other parts of the continental United States.
Interestingly, only 12% of Nisei in California received education in Japan. This is91Transnationalism in Education

lower than the average nationwide. Although California was a state where thelargest population of Japanese Americans lived in the continental United States,
the concentration did not necessarily lead to a proportionately greater number of
Nisei who went to Japan from that area.
What kind of explanation is possible for such a regional variation? Does thedifference have to do with access to Japanese instruction? Table 7 shows therelation between Nisei’s educational experience in Japan and their attendance inlanguage schools:

Table 7: Education in Japan * Attendance in Japanese Language School
Crosstabulation
N = 70991

Has not attended

Has attended

Total

Not educated in Japan

80.6%

19.4%

61161

Educated in Japan

97.0%

3.0%

9830

Total

82.9%

17.1%

70991

Source: WRA Form 26.
Note: The actual probability of .000 shows strong association between the variables.

As the table clearly demonstrates, a correlation exists between attendance inJapanese language schools and education in Japan. Only 3% of Nisei who went
to Japan for education attended language schools while 19.4% of Nisei who were
not educated in Japan attended language schools.
Finally, Table 8 shows the relationship between Nisei’s birthplaces andattendance in language schools:

92

Yuko Konno

Table 8: Birthplace * Attendance in Language School Crosstabulation
N = 70990

Has not attended Has attended

Total

Washington

84.2%

15.8%

8925

Oregon

84.1%

15.9%

2243

(A)*

California

82.3%

17.7%

53773

(B)**

Colorado

90.7%

9.3%

248

(A)

Idaho

93.6%

6.4%

204

(A)

Arizona

84.6%

15.4%

409

Utah

82.2%

17.8%

377

Hawaii, unspecified

95.7%

4.3%

207

(A)

Hawaii County

85.9%

14.1%

1351

(A)

Honolulu County

83.5%

16.5%

1621

(A)

Kauai County

81.5%

18.5%

443

Maui County

84.0%

16.0%

444

Total

58838
82.9%

12152
17.1%

70990
100.0%(A)

Source: WRA Form 26.
Note: The actual probability of .000 demonstrates strong association between thevariables.
*(A) Low attendance in language schools and overrepresentation of those who went
to Japan.
**(B) High attendance in language schools and underrepresentation of those whowent to Japan.

The highlighted rows include either the states with A) low attendance in language
schools and overrepresentation of those who went to Japan, or B) high attendance in language schools and underrepresentation of those who went to Japan,
compared to the average in the total row. Of California’s Nisei, 17.7% attended
language schools—a percentage slightly greater than the national average (17.1%).
This could be one of the reasons for a relatively small proportion of Nisei in
California who went to Japan for education because they did not need to cross the
Pacific to receive language education.
Although any decisive conclusions based merely on these statistics are pre93

Transnationalism in Education

mature, it is still possible to draw a general picture of the background of those
who were educated in Japan. They were most likely from farming or workingclass families; their ages while in Japan indicate that they were primarily sent
back to receive compulsory education in rural Japan, and if in metropolitan areas,
to attend institutions of higher education; and they tended to come from the stateswith less chance of attending Japanese language schools. However, it is unclear
from this evidence whether any personal motivation was at play other thansimple material conditions. What kind of benefits did the Issei and Nisei exactly
expect from education in Japan?

Motivation and Reasons for Going to the Ancestral Land
Why did those second-generation Japanese Americans who went to Japandecide to receive part of their education in their ancestral land? In the case of the
Nisei who “returned” to Japan as children, their parents’ judgment no doubt
played the primary part. Some parents left their children in the care of theirrelatives back home so that they would be brought up as Japanese rather than
Americans. Others returned to Japan together with their American-born children,
anticipating that they would not come back to the United States anymore. In
both instances, it is hard to imagine that such young children acted on their own
initiative.
Those who went to Japan for schooling as grown-ups, however, had eitherof the two reasons behind their decision. One group of students was selfmotivated with clear goals in mind. The other group simply followed theirparents’ orders. Although studying in Japan was not a new practice in the 1930s,
it became particularly popular during that decade. Journalist Soen Yamashita
viewed the Manchurian Incident of 1931 as the turning point. Earlier, he argued,
only a minority with special intentions and conditions decided to study in Japan,
and most of them were not necessarily encouraged by their parents. After the
Manchurian Incident that resulted in Japan’s takeover of Mukden, however,Japanese immigrants became greatly proud of the land of their ancestors, which
increased their interest in sending their children to Japan. Based on this observation, Yamashita believed that seven to eight out of ten second-generation students
who went to Japan in the 1930s acted according to their parents’ wishes.9
If so many second-generation Japanese Americans decided to study in Japan94

Yuko Konno

because of their parents’ encouragement, what prompted the parents to favor
Japanese over American education increasingly in the 1930s? Several explanations are possible, and they not only reveal practical necessities and material
conditions surrounding the parents’ decisions but also demonstrate the transnational
consciousness of the Nisei.
The first explanation is economic. It was cheaper for Japanese immigrantparents to educate their sons and daughters in Japan than in the United States. Asa Seattle Japanese noted, “Insomuch as an American dollar becomes nearly two
Japanese y[e]n, by a difference in exchange, it is cheaper to send children back toJapan than it is to send them to the town or city schools, away from theirparents.”10 Moreover, a depression in Japan caused the yen-dollar exchange rate
to plunge. At the beginning of 1932, the value of 100 yen was equal to 34.5038.00 dollars. By November of the same year, it had dropped to 19 dollars.
During the first half of 1933, the rate for 100 yen constantly remained below 24
dollars. Because of the depreciation of the yen, it became even more reasonable
for Issei parents to send their children to Japan. For instance, it may have cost
70-80 dollars a month to attend college in the United States while in Japan the
expense could be merely 18-25 dollars, including living costs.11
Nationalist sentiments also contributed to the increased interest in educationin Japan. As Yamashita noted, signifying events that marked Japan’s rise as aworld power aroused the pride of the first generation and a curiosity about Japanamong the second generation. Especially, the establishment of Manchukuo andJapan’s subsequent withdrawal from the League of Nations, which was referred
to as “honorable independence,” reinforced their conviction—particularly among
the Issei—that “Behind us is our strong country.” The Nisei may have been more
intrigued by local events. The 1932 Los Angeles Olympic Games offered an
opportunity for them to see Japanese athletes. The fact that those athletes
actually performed well provoked a sense of pride in the Nisei mind, which
helped intensify their interest in their parents’ native country.12
Some believed that their education in Japan would lead to better employment prospects in the United States. Because of racial barriers, it was rare forJapanese Americans to gain employment outside of the Japanese community. It
was also difficult for them to find jobs that matched the level of their training andeducation. Many Nisei helped with their family-owned businesses, held
agriculture-related jobs, or worked in domestic service. Despite their wish forwhite-collar jobs, their occupations were heavily blue-collar. For example, 70%95

Transnationalism in Educationof Nisei whose ages were 16 to 25 in Los Angeles in 1930 and 1935 worked inretail or wholesale produce markets. Others worked in businesses such as cleaning and laundry, nurseries, and gardening.13 By acquiring a good command ofJapanese, many Issei parents believed, the Nisei would benefit from enhanced
employment options, particularly because their chance of getting jobs in theirethnic community was high. Yamashita reported that around the middle of the
1910s, some second-generation Japanese Americans were ashamed of their blood
because of the socioeconomic disparity between white Americans and Japaneseimmigrants, and refused to speak Japanese, follow Japanese customs, and mingle
with Japanese friends. By the middle of the 1930s, at the time of his writing, theeconomic position of the Japanese community had improved, and the UnitedStates had increased its trade with Japan. Various occupations now required aknowledge of Japanese, and it was not uncommon for companies to seek applicants for clerical work with a mastery of the language. Hence an increased needfor language education, which was more readily available in Japan.14
A less material but no less important need is related to the Issei perception of
the Nisei as a bridge between American and Japanese cultures. The Issei realized
the necessity to fill the psychological gap between them and their children’s
generation. The Nisei should respond, Yamashita argued, by recognizing theirrole as a bridge of understanding between the two countries. Aside from their
American citizenship and fluency in English, he claimed, the Nisei should strive
to attain a command of Japanese so that they could spread the correct knowledge
about Japan. When Yamashita wrote this, he no doubt had in his mind thepossibility of having the Nisei defend Japanese militaristic activities in China. He
also believed that the second generation should appreciate the value and characteristics of the Yamato people—a name used for the dominant ethnic group in
Japan. In the local context of racial subordination, it was no wonder that Issei
parents had aspirations for their children’s education in Japan in the hope that the
Nisei could comprehend Japanese virtues and be proud of their heritage. Instruction at language schools was not adequate to fulfill such needs, which created ademand for education in Japan.15
A gender-specific reason came into play as well. This derived not only fromthe fact that pre-World War II Japan had different educational systems for maleand female students, but also from the different expectations of the Issei for men
and women in the Japanese community. The Issei especially viewed women as
the center of home life and held them responsible for providing rest and morality
96

Yuko Konno

for their family members. According to Yamashita, when first-generation immigrants struggled just to survive in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they were mainly concerned about their daily material needs and did not havethe luxury of caring about psychological satisfaction. As their socioeconomic
status improved, they suddenly realized that comfort at home was more important than any material gains. Such spiritual fulfillment was hard to attain, Yamashita
noted, because of the lack of domestic education, the harmonious fireside, and thesound, warm and modest atmosphere of home created mostly by housewives.
The second generation, as they grew up, increasingly thought little of their parents particularly because they were usually more educated, which additionallyexacerbated the already dissatisfactory mood at home. They detested the physical labor that their parents had endured. They even despised their parents forhaving resigned themselves to exploitation. In order to recover the good home, therole of women was critical. Many Issei must have agreed with Yamashita’s views.
They no doubt believed that, since Japanese women were known for their modesty, their daughters could learn this kind of virtue besides the language andvocational skills in Japan, and contribute to the betterment of home life after theycame back to the United States.16
The gendered expectations for female students were reflected in Japanese
school curricula. Girls’ higher schools (grade 7-10 or 7-11) placed special emphasis on “national morality and womanly virtues” as their educational goals. At
Keisen Girls’ School, for example, students in the Nisei program learned flower
arranging, the tea ceremony, womanly etiquette, and the arts of Japanese sewing,
dyeing and cooking. By acquiring Japanese virtues through such subjects, thestudents were expected to become good Japanese wives and mothers. According
to the Nisei Survey Committee’s report, 61 females compared to 25 males answered that they studied calligraphy. Fifty-three girls learned flower arrangement, surpassing five boys in number, while 54 females studied the tea ceremony
compared to only four boys. Even if one takes account of the fact that a slightly
larger number of female than male respondents answered the questionnaire, interms of proportion more girls than boys sought to acquire Japanese cultural
skills. Women’s colleges had a specific kind of curricula, and they tended to offer
fewer options compared to universities that male students attended. In 1937,
there were 50 women’s colleges in Japan, and they generally placed great emphasis on subjects such as language and literature, homemaking, and teacher training.
Women were also able to attend classes offered at a separate “women’s depart97

Transnationalism in Education

ment” in private universities.17
Aside from financial, psychological, occupational, social and cultural reasons for the increased enthusiasm for Nisei education in Japan, the role that
religious organizations played in promoting transnational training was also significant. Some religious groups not only had their own schools in the UnitedStates but also kept close contact with Japanese organizations and schools thatbelonged to their denominations. As of 1935, there were 168 Japanese language
schools in Hawaii, of which slightly more than 40% were managed by, or affiliatedwith, religious groups. In terms of enrollment, over 60% of the total student
population of 40,000 attended those schools that had relationships with religious
groups. Buddhist organizations especially did well in recruiting second-generation
students into their denominational schools in Japan. A Buddhist educator named
Konen Tsunemitsu particularly played a pioneering role in facilitating transnational
education. He surveyed the conditions of Japanese residents in Hawaii and thecontinental United States in the late 1920s, and noted the Issei’s demand for Nisei
education in Japan. Upon returning to Japan, Tsunemitsu established a boarding
school called “Nichibei Home (Japanese American Home)” that exclusively catered to Nisei boys’ and girls’ needs. It served as a dormitory for those who
commuted to regular Japanese schools in Tokyo, but it also had its own program
coordinated by Nihon Beifu Kyokai (the Japan, America, Hawaii Society) established in 1932. A variety of Japanese educators, religious leaders and farmers inJapan, the United States, Hawaii and Canada supported Nihon Beifu Kyokai. Its
own program was intended for those students who needed special preparation to
get into Japanese schools or who wanted to learn the language and culture ofJapan. The subjects taught in the program included etiquette, ethics, speaking,reading, writing, penmanship, martial arts or exercise, history and geography.
Nihon Beifu Kyokai sought to inculcate in Nisei students the idea that theyneeded to be good American citizens and representatives of the Japanese race atthe same time. This pedagogical goal was shared by community leaders andeducators including Tsunemitsu, his patrons, journalist Yamashita, and Japanese
consuls. Nihon Beifu Kyokai considered the Nisei to be specially commissioned
to introduce American culture to Japan and to present the essence of Easternculture to the United States. It also encouraged the Nisei to strive for better
occupational opportunities by taking advantage of their knowledge of both Japanese and English. Although the total number of students who received any benefit
from Nichibei Home was small, the efforts made by educators such as Tsunemitsu
98

Yuko Konno

and like-minded people should have played an important role in propellingtransnational education.18
Inadequate instruction at Japanese language schools may have been anotherreason why so many Issei parents wanted their sons and daughters to go to Japan
instead of, or in addition to, having them study Japanese at those schools. Language schools functioned not only as educational institutions that taught Japanese but also as adjuncts to American public schools for supplementing civic
education. One of the most important goals for such schools was to indoctrinate
their students with American values so that their non-English speaking parents
could also be properly “Americanized” through their children. Teaching Japanese
morals was not necessarily the foremost purpose of Japanese language schools.
Therefore, language schools sought to teach Japanese narratives, literature, history, customs, art and religions in quite a detached manner. They deemed ideal
those teachers who interpreted the language, philosophy and customs of Japan
objectively. In other words, instruction at Japanese language schools was notenough to make the Nisei understand the “spirit” of Japan from the Issei perspective. Another problem with language schools concerned the quality of theirteachers. Because a kind of Japanese used in the United States was a mixture ofseveral dialects from parts of Japan where a large number of immigrants originated, even language teachers were sometimes unable to speak standard Japanese.
Still another issue was physical access to language schools, as demonstrated by
the statistical findings in the previous section. There were no such schools inrural areas where the Japanese were only sparsely populated. Understandably,
Issei parents may have thought of sending their children directly to Japan.19
Finally, Issei parents could have given their children transnational education
for less obvious reasons. Even if they could afford to educate the Nisei in Japan,
they still had the option of not sending them there. Moreover, many parents did
not necessarily share, with community leaders or journalists like Yamashita, thelofty goals of raising their children as a “bridge of understanding” between the
United States and Japan or of having them spread correct knowledge about Japan.
One of the negative reasons for parents to send their children back home could
have been based on fear. Although they were now settled on American soil,
anything could happen that might impel them to return to Japan in the future. It
would not have been a bad idea to get their children into school in Japan beforehand so that they would be better prepared for such occasions. Allowing theirsons and daughters the luxury of higher education in Japan also satisfied some99

Transnationalism in Education

parents’ vanity. They felt proud of simply being able to do it and wanted to show
off to their relatives back in Japan. Their children also may have lacked respectable motivation. They could have been lured by the city life in Tokyo, or simply
pressured to follow the trend of going to Japan. Konen Tsunemitsu observed
such a tendency when he traveled to the United States and Canada in 1937. “If
the Nisei go to Japan simply because they are influenced by the current trend,” heaverred, “their purposes will never be readily fulfilled. The recent tendency
demands caution where some youths who went to Japan easily come back to theUnited States halfway.”20
The various reasons why the Nisei went to school in Japan reveal theirtransnational consciousness that was shaped by their parents’ hopes and expectations. Renewed patriotism for the country of their ancestry demonstrates that
the Nisei held dual identities that connected them to more than one nation. Even
though their choice of jobs was limited by racism, a new generation of Nisei
sought to make use of their heritage by acquiring language skills, unlike theirseniors who appeared to follow the path of “assimilation” by distancing themselves from the Issei. They also tried to live up to the Issei’s expectation of abridge of understanding by striving to learn things Japanese while simultaneously
using English and embracing American values. Japanese American culture particularly prescribed specific gender roles to women, which demanded a type oftransnational consciousness; the Issei expected Nisei women to internalize Japanese values while helping men make their life in America better. All these reasonsand necessities worked as the motivation for the Nisei to leave for Japan, coupledwith other conditions such as world economic situations, educational promoters’
passion, and adequate institutions that would receive them.
The factors that contributed to Nisei education in Japan were not mutually
exclusive, and probably many second-generation students chose to study inJapan for more than one reason. Whether they wished to become a bridge ofunderstanding between the two nations, sought better employment opportunities, wanted to spend their time usefully during the moratorium, or simply hoped
to please their parents, the Nisei “returned” to their ancestral land with anxiety as
well as expectations.

100

Yuko Konno

Experiences in JapanThe experience of second-generation Japanese Americans who received education in Japan varied for each individual. Multiple factors contributed to thedifference, including the person’s gender, age when he/she went to Japan, experience at language schools, degree of adaptability to American culture, living conditions in Japan, the kind of school he/she attended, whether or not he/she had
relatives, siblings, or parents in Japan, and whether or not he/she was thinking ofreturning to the United States eventually. While no generalization is possible
without further evidential support, even looking at a few accounts of these people’s
traumas and joy in living in Japan as Americans of Japanese ancestry helps one
understand the complexity of their experience as well as some important issues
that many of their peers may have had in common. Three biographical narratives—offered by three individual Nisei with different backgrounds and experiences in prewar Japan—illuminate some of the concerns that those people shared,or did not share.
Although they were sent to Japan at different stages of their growth, all three
Nisei admit that it was their parents’ decision, rather than their own, that placed
them in Japan. Frank Hirata was born and raised in Spokane, Washington, until
the age of nine. He enjoyed his early childhood in rural Spokane; he claims that he“spent a pleasant childhood free of racial prejudice” due to the small populationof Japanese there. In 1934 his grandfather decided to return to Japan, and his
parents sent him and his brother to receive their education there. “They [hisparents] coaxed me to go to Japan,” he remembers. Although it is not clear why
his parents chose to send him to Japan, undoubtedly his father was enthusiastic
about education. “My father had immigrated to the United States after he finished the 8th grade,” Frank testifies. “He always strove to improve himself.
While operating hotels, he took night classes at the Gonzaga University Law
School. He valued education highly and wanted us to do well in school.” Apparently, however, his father would not be satisfied if his children only excelled in
American schools and forgot their parents’ language. There were no Japanese
schools in rural Spokane. That could be the primary reason why Frank’s father
wanted his children to go to Japan. As the statistical findings demonstrate, there
was a strong correlation between the lack of language education in the UnitedStates and attendance at school in Japan (see Table 7).21
Mary Tomita, brought up in Central California, went to Japan in her early101

Transnationalism in Education

twenties because that was her parents’ order. “I went to Japan in 1939 because
my parents had previously sent my older sister and brother there after they hadfinished high school,” she states. Sending children for schooling in Japan after
high school graduation, then, was a family custom for the Tomitas. Her reference
to her father’s purchase of land suggests that he was a land-owning farmer in arural community that had only few Japanese people. Not only does her family
profile match those of the majority of Nisei whose fathers’ occupations were in
agriculture (see Table 2), but the rural setting where she grew up suggests that she
had little to no access to proper language education. She admits, at the same time,that the post-graduation time for her was a kind of moratorium. “I had finished
Modesto Junior College and was wondering what I could do with my life,” sheremembers. Her anxiety was not without a reason. “[P]rospects were quite dim
because Nisei were not accepted in any profession, even if they were well educated and qualified,” she claims. Perhaps her parents hoped that Mary’s education in Japan would add value to her college diploma and increase her chance of
employment, as Yamashita indicated. Without hopes for employment opportunities, Mary decided to leave for Japan.22
In the case of Nobuyo Yamane, the reason for going to Japan was peculiar,
although again this was her parents’ decision, not hers. Born in Tacoma,
Washington in 1921, she moved to Japan in her early teens to take care of her sickaunt with her sister. She arrived in Japan in 1935. Although she grew up in
Washington as Frank did, the area where she lived had a sizable Japanese community. “When I was a third grader, three Japanese boys, who had graduated juniorhigh school in Japan, entered my class,” she remembers. “These boys took
special classes to improve their English, enabling them to advance to the upper
grades. Many young Japanese immigrants started life in the United States in thisway.” Those boys were most likely Kibei with American citizenship, not Japanese nationals who had newly entered the United States, because the 1924 Immigration Act excluded Japanese immigrants with the exception of a small number ofprivileged individuals and former residents who had returned to Japan. Nobuyo
was, in a sense, already exposed to the transnational educational environment
through contact with pupils fresh from Japan, even before she went to Japan
herself.23
The places of residence and how they lived in Japan were significantly
different among the three individuals. Frank lived in Okayama Prefecture with his
grandfather, brother, and a few other children. “Their parents sent them to Japan102

Yuko Konno

with our grandfather. That meant he had his hands full keeping his eyes on five
kids: a teenage girl and four boys ranging from age eight to twelve,” he recalls.
Okayama had a tradition of sending Japanese immigrants to North America. The
parents of the children who lived with Frank in Japan should have been from
Okayama as well, and since these parents probably did not have immediate plans
for returning to Japan, they ended up leaving their children in the care of Frank’s
grandfather. Such practice exemplifies immigrant networks that crossed nationalboundaries—a central feature of transnationalism as a kind of social formation.
Mary Tomita, as a young adult student, lived in Tokyo. Her experiences varied
from staying with a liberal Japanese family to living with other Nisei roommates.
She enjoyed the night life in the metropolis and often went to restaurants, movies,
and concerts. Although her experiences in Japan were riddled with difficulty andtrauma, at least her exposure to urban life appears to have been a liberating
experience since, according to her, “it was the first time that I was so far awayfrom home.” Nobuyo’s life must have been much darker because she had to takecare of her sick aunt. Besides, the place where she lived was rural Oshima, “anisland of immigrants” which had produced a huge number of migrants bound for
Hawaii and the United States since the late nineteenth century.24
All three had some difficulty with Japanese, but their degree of masteryvaried because their learning experiences and the extent of exposure to the language while in the United States were different. Frank’s native tongue wasEnglish. His parents wished to speak and practice Japanese at home, and he andhis brother tried when they were behaving. “But we quickly switched to English
whenever our tempers flared up in an argument or fight,” he confesses. “We felt
freer and spontaneous using English.” Since he was reluctant to speak Japanesein the United States, he was not fluent. “I was so far behind in language proficiency that I had to join the 2nd graders who were a year younger than me,” herecollects. However, he was lucky enough to have a tutor. “[I]t did not take longfor me to catch up because I had a private tutor for whom my father madearrangements,” he states. His father was also concerned about their sons’ English,
so he made sure that they would not forget the language. “With the help of thetutor, my brother and I were able to keep up with some of our English.” Frankwas fortunate to have a father who was careful about his sons’ education. At thesame time, one of the reasons why he learned Japanese quickly could be his young
age. Like Frank, Mary also did not speak Japanese frequently while she was in
the United States. “I had to speak in Japanese to my parents; however, I was103

Transnationalism in Education

never close to them, and we seldom had any long conversations,” she confides.
Moreover, she was “never interested in talking to any Issei in Japanese.” Nobuyo
went to a Japanese language school in the United States. “I learned about Japanese culture through my study of the Japanese language,” she remembers. “Myexperiences at the Japanese language school helped me to adjust to elementary
school life in Japan.” Among the three, Mary was the least pressured—or simply
silent about such pressure—to learn the language after settling in Japan. This
could be due to the fact that she came to Japan as a grown-up; it makes sense thatshe did not feel much need to “adjust” to Japanese society because she possiblyplanned to stay only temporarily.25
Frank and Nobuyo showed more concern about adapting to the Japanese
way than Mary did. Frank recalls how he and his brother “looked strange in theeyes of the students and teachers” when they “first went to the village school toenroll” because they “had long hair and wore colorful sweaters, pants, and gloves.”“As our initial adjustment to Japanese school life, we had our hair cut short tolook like other students,” he states. “We also adopted the Japanese custom ofwearing black uniforms and caps with the school emblem on our forehead and ofcarrying knapsack on our backs.” However, he had the benefit of being a child ofa family that originated from the village. “Most of the people in our village had
been living there for generations. Our grandfather, uncle, and aunt were just like
them, even though they had lived abroad. There were many families with thesame surname indicative of a common ancestry,” he mentions. “They quickly
accepted and absorbed us into their collective village identity.” Helped by favorable local settings, Frank spent a less stressful time adjusting to Japanese customs
than he would have in an entirely new and unfamiliar environment. “Life in Japanwas quite different from the United States,” Nobuyo testifies. She also confides
that life was harder in Japan in general. “The most difficult thing was to sit on atatami mat on the floor,” she recollects. “But following the Japanese custom, I
eventually got used to it.” Even though adjustment to the Japanese way was noteasy for her, she did not question the need for such accommodation at all. Thiswas probably because she did not know when or whether she had a chance toreturn to the United States.26
In terms of education, Frank was the most influenced by Japan’s militarismof the late 1930s. This is due to the fact that he was quite assimilated to Japanesesociety and was a boy of school age. He has a vivid memory of nationalistic
education. The school activities included the celebration of national holidays
104Yuko Konno

associated with the Imperial Household. “We sang Kimigayo on every holiday
and important date on the school calendar,” he states. “The repeated singing of
the Japanese national anthem inevitably influenced my conception of the Japanese nation.” He was also exposed to shushin or moral education that sought tofoster personal character and good behavior in the nationalistic mold. Increasingly his experiences at school became more militaristic. “The Ministry of Education mandated that all male students participate in military drills from theseventh grade,” he testifies. “We wore gaiters and recited the Imperial instructions to the Army and Navy from a military handbook. The tenth and eleventh
graders trained with rifles and even engaged in target practice.” Such an environment “gradually molded my brother, cousin, and me into the Japanese collective
and nationalistic way of thinking,” he confides. He was reunited with his parents
who had returned to Japan in 1941, possibly in anticipation of war between the
United States and Japan. “We [he and his brother] used to argue with our parents
over who would win the war,” he states. After the outbreak of the Pacific War, he
noted a “new trend” that “evolved in the study of the Japanese language” thatstressed the classics. Middle schools also extensively used Shumei Okawa’s
nationalistic text The Essence of the Divine Nation.27
Unlike Frank, Mary and Nobuyo are not articulate about militaristic education (although Mary remembers encountering a teacher who told the students
about “the Japanese spirit in a high-pitched voice”); instead their recollections
reveal more about transnational educational environments with many other Nisei
students struggling in Japan. Mary at first attended Waseda International Institute that “prepared foreigners to enter Japanese universities.” “Most of thestudents in the school were Nisei boys from the States who had just graduatedfrom high school,” she mentions. She was exposed to the transnational space inwhich like-minded peers with American citizenship shared the common learning
experience in Japan. She was later admitted to Tokyo Women’s Christian University and continued studying until the war broke out. Nobuyo enrolled in the sixth
grade even though she was supposed to be an eighth grader because her Japanese
language qualification was not enough. Because of her attendance at the Tacoma
Japanese Language School, however, she managed to catch up. Another boy from
Seattle also attended her elementary school. Nevertheless, she had no chance totalk to him because “Girls were separated from boys in separate classes at thetime” and “We [girls] were not allowed to talk to the boys.” “If he had been a girl,I would have talked to her a lot to relieve my sense of loneliness,” she confides. It
105

Transnationalism in Education

was more difficult for Nobuyo than Mary to make connections or to feel a senseof bonding with other Nisei students.28
Despite their very different experiences, all three testify to their cravings at
the time for things American, especially food. “I recall how much I missed theAmerican food,” Frank states. Since Mary was living in Tokyo, she had theluxury of appreciating the taste of Western food in the prewar years. “We
especially enjoyed going to restaurants to eat American food,” she remembers.
Nobuyo did not know such enjoyment in the countryside. “I really missed
pancakes and cold cocoa,” she recollects. “There was no oven either, so I also
missed apple pies, custard pies and cakes.”29
All of them experienced some kind of discrimination and harassment during
the Pacific War due to their birth on American soil. “Since my birthplace was
America, I personally experienced some anti-American hostility,” Frank testifies.
“The teacher attributed my failure to do the homework to my being pro-American(Amerika kabure). He kept mocking me as an individualist and an egotisticalmaverick and branded me as kokuzoku or national enemy.” Frank’s personal
experience differed from Mary’s and Nobuyo’s; the two were scared and annoyedby the authorities primarily because of their American citizenship. Mary was an
American citizen and Nobuyo retained her dual citizenship while Frank obtained
exclusively Japanese citizenship to receive graduation certificates from his elementary school. “The Japanese police asked me where I would go, but did notdetain me because I looked Japanese,” Mary states. However, she continues, “I
had to keep a low profile so my American mannerisms and conspicuous speechwould not be obvious.” Her interpersonal conflict was even more shocking. She
suffered from cruel treatment by a Japanese woman for whom she worked as amaid. “Mrs. Sakai used to lord over me and boast about how Japan was winning
the war and looked down on me as the enemy.” Nobuyo was actually summonedby the police. “All Nisei living in Japan during the war were monitored by thepolice,” she recalls. “I received a police summons once to appear at the Yanai
police station. . . . I was scared because the police had great power and was
suspicious of the Nisei.”30
How did these Nisei’s experiences in Japan affect the way they identified
themselves? No generalization is possible, but different degrees of assimilation to
Japanese society partially explain the variation in their perception of Japan andthemselves. Overall Frank looks at his experiences in Japan in a positive light.
“My experience and education in Japan were not completely negative. . . . I can106

Yuko Konno

not only speak, read, and write Japanese well, but I understand the way theJapanese people speak, think, and behave,” he claims. It is not clear whether heidentifies more with Americans than with Japanese now at the emotional level,
but the fact that he reclaimed American citizenship after the war demonstrates his
firm determination to live as an American. Nevertheless, he feels a sense of
marginalization that other Americans would not be familiar with. “I feel marginal
to two ways: as an American of Japanese ancestry who lived in Japan and as a
Kibei-Nisei living in the United States,” he confides. “It was not easy learning to
speak English and adapting to American ways. My English is still imperfect.”
His limited ability to communicate in both English and Japanese is the cost oftransnational education.31
Mary felt isolated while she was in Japan, because she identified more with
Americans than with Japanese. She hated what Japanese culture appeared torepresent even before her arrival in Japan. “I first got my negative impression
about the Japanese, mostly due to our minister from Japan who tried to makequiet, submissive Japanese girls out of us tomboys,” she recollects. “We girls
certainly disliked him and his subservient wife, and determined never to be likeher.” During her stay in Japan in wartime, she experienced a paradoxical situationin which her looks saved her from trouble even though she was an American. “Itnever occurred to me to declare myself as an American citizen. I tried to becomeinconspicuous, and since I looked Japanese that was usually not hard to do as
long as I kept my mouth shut. Once I spoke, my accent gave me away as being
different.” Even though she could “fake” her Japanese-ness, however, Mary
could not help but sense a keen feeling of loneliness. “I was all by myself in aforeign country,” she recollects, despite the fact that she was married at that timeand living with her Japanese in-laws. After the war, the situation completelychanged—favorably for her. Now she did not need to hide her identity as an
American. “Our lives were completely reversed,” she states, “for in Japaneseeyes we were no longer the hated enemy. Rather we were identified with theconquerors who had plenty of food, cigarettes, and other scarce things. What a
joy it was to be liberated and speak in English as loudly as we wanted to and act
naturally!” She even started to despise the Japanese openly. “Kay [anotherNisei girl] and I used to speak of the native Japanese as ‘Japs’ in order to distinguish them from Japanese Americans.” It was now more obvious than ever that
she identified with fellow Americans. “When the occupation forces came in, we
immediately identified with them because they looked like the people we had
107Transnationalism in Education

grown up with and spoke the same language. We felt at home with them. It wasironic since we had been insulted when we had been called ‘Japs.’ In some way,
we were turning our anger against the Japanese by calling them the very pejorative
name we had suffered from while in the United States.” Even though—or because—she was familiar with the harsh reality of racism in the United States, she
could not stop distinguishing herself clearly from the Japanese.32
Nobuyo also fundamentally considers herself to be different from otherJapanese despite her long years of living in Japan, although her expression of“American-ness” is less conspicuous than Mary’s. Her sense of loneliness camemostly from limited opportunities to speak English and her disagreement overcertain cultural values with her Japanese relatives. “Since I didn’t have any friend
with whom I could speak in English, I felt lonesome,” she confesses. “But there
were some relatives in Oshima who had been in the United States. They were justlike my parents. I enjoyed talking about my family in the States with them. But
it would have been much better if I had a friend with whom I could talk freely. I
had several Japanese friends, but I could not express myself freely as a Nisei.”
Her looks did not help much in her adjustment to Japanese life. “What wascommon sense for the Japanese was not so for the Nisei,” she contends. “Despite
looking like a Japanese, it was not always easy to live in Japan for us.” Although
she tried hard to accommodate herself to the Japanese way of living, she refused
to conform to certain cultural expectations at times. “Japanese women generally
quit their jobs after marriage, but I never thought of quitting,” she recollects.
Consequently, she experienced some difficulties with her in-laws. “Because of
my American background, I expected them [her in-laws] to talk with me. On theother hand, they expected me to obey them.” Overall, however, her perception oflife in Japan is not too negative or too positive because she has “experienced thegood and bad of both Japan and the United States.” “Over the years I have fully
adjusted to life in Japan, but I have a strong sense of nostalgia for the UnitedStates. Life as a Nisei in Japan was not easy, especially for me as a woman livingin the countryside. But my spirit of independence, rooted in my American
upbringing, enabled me to endure and overcome all the hardships I encountered,”she concludes. She does not view herself simply as Japanese or an American. In
other words, Nobuyo sets herself in a separate category that should be termed“transnational Nisei”—a group that does not neatly fit into the classifications
based on one’s nationality.33
The three examples of Nisei experiences in Japan before, during, and after the108

Yuko Konno

Pacific War all testify to the formation of an ambiguous, transnational consciousness, albeit to different degrees. Because he was still a boy when he went toJapan, Frank was most easily exposed to Japan’s militaristic and nationalistic
education. He not only received military training in school but even got inducted
into the army once the war began. Living with families in rural Japan further
facilitated his adaption to Japanese culture and society. Yet his transnationalism
manifests itself in his way of dressing and desire for American food. Mary stands
in the opposite direction regarding the level of assimilation, being almost completely American and only nominally Japanese. This is because she left for Japanvery reluctantly as an adult who had no prior experience of language training, with
only a little contact with local Japanese she did not quite like; once in Japan she
entered a school in higher education instead of compulsory education that stressednationalistic teachings; she also lived in urban Tokyo and was able to communicate with other Nisei; and she most likely considered her stay in Japan would bea short one. Nobuyo somehow stands in the middle between Frank and Mary,although her age at that time in Japan, prior exposure to language training, living
conditions in Japan, and the kind of school she attended could have made her more
Japanese than American. Looking back at her life, however, she reveals her
ambiguous feeling of being used to Japanese ways but embracing American values
simultaneously. In her case, the hardships she had endured as a woman living ina rural area may have particularly worked to intensify her nostalgia for the UnitedStates.
The range of Nisei experiences in Japan illuminates the complexity of theirliving and schooling as they were specifically contextualized in the late 1930s
when the United States and Japan were on their way to war against each other.
Although further research into their lives is necessary to draw any definite conclusions, even a brief glance at several accounts helps one understand the cost andtrauma of transnational education—something that Issei leaders in the UnitedStates certainly did not expect.

Conclusion
Although the various transnational experiences of the Nisei can never be
generalized, several conclusions are possible. The Nisei who went to Japan weremore likely from areas in the United States where they had less chance of receiv109

Transnationalism in Education

ing language education. They were heavily from working-class families, but
youngsters with high school degrees and with parents who were professionals orin commerce had a better chance of attending schools or universities in the vicinityof metropolitan areas. Once in Japan, these people did suffer as well as benefit
from their transnational experience in a way the Issei would never have imagined.
If they went to Japan as adults, they had more difficulty adjusting to Japanesesociety. If they crossed the Pacific at a younger age, they were more likely toforget English. Men and boys would have been affected by (or forced to subscribe to) militaristic ideologies while women and girls would have been expectedby the Japanese to conform to traditional and constraining Japanese cultural
norms especially within the household. Despite the good intention of theirparents, the Nisei in Japan were affected by the cost of education in Japan. These
hardships served to intensify their ambiguous and transnational consciousness.
Even before leaving for Japan, they had already held a degree of multiple selfidentifications that linked them to different nations, either feeling proud of, orforced to cope with, their Japanese ancestry at the same time as being treated byother Americans as second-rate citizens. Once in Japan, however, they not only
learned that they were foreign in their ancestors’ land but also rediscovered their
American selves in the process of tackling discrimination by the Japanese andtrying to overcome cultural differences.
The total picture of Nisei transnationalism is still incomplete. More anecdotal evidence including interviews with those people who went to Japan for
education before World War II is necessary. A close reading of Japanese sources
about those who did not return to the United States is another possibility. Research into the Nisei in prewar Hawaii would also shed a new light on the studyof Nisei transnationalism. Further explorations of the problems that the Nisei aswell as the Issei encountered would illuminate the complexity of theirtransnationalism.
Notes
1 Caroline B. Brettell, “Theorizing Migration in Anthropology: The Social Construction of Networks, Identities, Communities, and Globalscapes,” in Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines, ed. Caroline B. Brettell and James F. Hollifield (New York: Routledge, 2000), 104.
2 Steven Vertovec, “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22,
no. 2 (1999): 447-62; José Itzigsohn, “Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Insti-

110

Yuko Konno
tution of Immigrants’ Political Transnationalism,” International Migration Review 34, no. 4 (2000):
1128.
3 Vertovec, “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism,” 448.
4 Yuji Ichioka, “Beyond National Boundaries: The Complexity of Japanese-American History,”
Amerasia Journal 23, no. 3 (1997): viii; Toyotomi Morimoto, Japanese Americans and Cultural
Continuity: Maintaining Language and Heritage (New York: Garland, 1997), 81-82.
5 Ichioka, “Beyond National Boundaries,” viii; Soen Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku
jijo [The State of Japanese-Americans Studying in Japan] (Tokyo: Bunseisha, 1935), 169-70.
6 Masao Suzuki, “Selective Immigration and Ethnic Economic Achievement: Japanese Americans
before World War II,” Explorations in Economic History 39 (2002), 277-78.
7 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Japan’s Modern Educational
System [CHAPTER 3 2 (2) a],” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology,
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpbz198103/hpbz198103_2_079.html.
8 Nisei Survey Committee, The Nisei: A Survey of their Life in Japan (Tokyo: Keisen Girls’ School,
1939), v.
9 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 3.
1 0 Quoted in Brian Masaru Hayashi, Democratizing the Enemy: The Japanese American Internment(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 46.
1 1 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 5-8; Yuji Ichioka, Before Internment: Essays in
Prewar Japanese American History, ed. Gordon H. Chang and Eiichiro Azuma (Stanford: Stanford
Un iver sity P re ss, 20 06 ), 3 3- 34 ; Az uma, B et we en Two E mp i res : R ac e, H i s to ry, an dTransnationalism in Japanese America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 137.
1 2 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 8-10; Ichioka, Before Internment, 33.
1 3 David K. Yoo, Growing Up Nisei: Race, Generation, and Culture among Japanese Americans ofCalifornia, 1924-49 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 32-33.
1 4 Ichioka, Before Internment, 33; Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 10-14.
1 5 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 14-18; Azuma, Between Two Empires, 138-39;
Morimoto, Japanese Americans and Cultural Continuity, 89.
1 6 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 18-22, 82-83.
1 7 Robert S. Anderson, Education in Japan: A Century of Modern Development (Washington: U.S.
Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1975), 47-48, 55-56; Azuma, Between
Two Empires, 143; Nisei Survey Committee, The Nisei, 10-11.
1 8 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 22-24, 32; Azuma, Between Two Empires, 14041; Nihon Beifu Kyokai, Nihon Beifu Kyokai yoran [the Japan, America, Hawaii Society] (Tokyo:
Nihon Beifu Kyokai, 1937), 3, 5, 8-13, 32-33; Hori to Hirota, 28 December 1934, Nikkei Gaijinkankei zakken (miscellaneous records on foreigners of Japanese ancestry, hereafter NGKZ) in Shôwa
Series, Diplomatic Records Office, Tokyo; Nakamura to Hirota, 15 February 1935, NGKZ.
1 9 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 48, 68; Ichioka, Before Internment, 20.
2 0 Yamashita, Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo, 24-26; Konen Tsunemitsu, “Amerika o megurite,”
1-2, Rafu Shimpo, 17-18 February 1937.

111

Transnationalism in Education
2 1 Frank Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War: ‘Molded to Conform, But. . . ,’” Amerasia Journal
23, no. 3 (1997): 145-49.
2 2 Mary Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” Amerasia Journal 23, no. 3 (1997): 165-66.
2 3 Nobuyo Yamane, “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” Amerasia Journal 23, no. 3 (1997): 183;
Suzuki, “Selective Immigration and Ethnic Economic Achievement,” 262.
2 4 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 148; Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” 166, 168; Yamane,“A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 184.
2 5 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 147, 149; Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” 165-66;
Yamane, “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 184.
2 6 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 149; Yamane, “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 184-85.
2 7 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 150-56.
2 8 Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” 167, 169-70; Yamane, “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 18586.
2 9 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 152; Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” 167; Yamane, “A
Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 185.
3 0 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 154-55; Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” 170-71;
Yamane, “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 189-90.
3 1 Hirata, “Fifty Years after the Pacific War,” 162.
3 2 Tomita, “Coming of Age in Japan,” 166, 170, 176, 178.
3 3 Yamane, “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan,” 186-87, 191-92, 195-96.

Bibliography
Manuscript Materials
Diplomatic Records Office, Tokyo
Shôwa Series
Nikkei Gaijin kankei zakken (NGKZ).

Newspapers and Periodicals
Rafu Shimpo (L.A. Japanese Daily News).

Electronic Data
War Relocation Authority. “Form 26: Evacuee Summary Data (‘Locator Index’).” Electronic Records.
National Archives. Washington, D.C.

WebsiteMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, “Japan’s Modern Educational System[CHAPTER 3 2 (2) a].” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. http://
www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpbz198103/hpbz198103_2_079.html (accessed 15
November 2009).

112

Yuko Konno
Primary Sources
Nihon Beifu Kyokai. Nihon Beifu Kyokai yoran [the Japan, America, Hawaii Society]. Tokyo: Nihon
Beifu Kyokai, 1937.
Nisei Survey Committee. The Nisei: A Survey of their Life in Japan. Tokyo: Keisen Girls’ School, 1939.
Yamashita, Soen. Nikkei shimin no Nihon ryugaku jijo [The State of Japanese-Americans Studying inJapan]. Tokyo: Bunseisha, 1935.

Secondary Sources
Anderson, Robert S. Education in Japan: A Century of Modern Development. Washington: U.S. Dept.
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1975.
Azuma, Eiichiro. Between Two Empires: Race, History, and Transnationalism in Japanese America.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Brettell, Caroline B. and James F. Hollifield, eds. Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. New
York: Routledge, 2000.
Hayashi, Brian Masaru. Democratizing the Enemy: The Japanese American Internment. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2004.
Hirata, Frank. “Fifty Years after the Pacific War: ‘Molded to Conform, But . . . .’” Amerasia Journal 23,
no. 3 (1997): 144-63.
Ichioka, Yuji. Before Internment: Essays in Prewar Japanese American History, ed. Gordon H. Changand Eiichiro Azuma. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.
———. “Beyond National Boundaries: The Complexity of Japanese-American History.” Amerasia
Journal 23 (Winter 1997-1998): vii-xi.
Itzigsohn, José. “Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institution of Immigrants’ Political Transnationalism.” International Migration Review 34, no. 4 (2000): 1126-54.
Morimoto, Toyotomi. Japanese Americans and Cultural Continuity: Maintaining Language andHeritage. New York: Garland, 1997.
Suzuki, Masao. “Selective Immigration and Ethnic Economic Achievement: Japanese Americans before
World War II.” Explorations in Economic History 39 (2002): 254-81.
Tomita, Mary. “Coming of Age in Japan.” Amerasia Journal 23 (Winter 1997-1998): 165-80.
Yamane, Nobuyo. “A Nisei Woman in Rural Japan.” Amerasia Journal 23 (Winter 1997-1998): 18396.
Vertovec, Steven. “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, no.
2 (1999): 447-62.
Yoo, David K. Growing Up Ni sei: Race, Generation, and Culture among Japanese Americans ofCalifornia, 1924-49. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

113