Anti-Asian agitation is a general sentiment that refers to opposition, discrimination or hostility against the Chinese people or rather people of Asian origin. This topic is interesting because it has somehow gone unnoticed over the years until the modern days. It involves discrimination of the Asian traditions, culture, and even politics. One may tend to think that this sentiment is a modern day issue. However, it began in the 19th century, in the yellow peril, and was further extended to the Cold War times and even more heightened by McCarthyism.
The Asians, precisely the Chinese, thought they had found a land free of war and starvation. They were welcomed at first but when they were not needed anymore, they were seen as enemies, and they had to fall into the merciless hands of a discriminative society. They were discriminated against and ill-treated in many ways on various instances. The Government and leaders of that time were meant to be role models in terms of justice and fairness amongst all citizens of the nation whether immigrant or not. However, it was unfortunate that the government and leaders played a significant role in fuelling anti-Asian agitation in California, San Francisco.
It all started with the decline of the Qing Dynasty, and the Chinese had to migrate to other places for a more stable life. A good number of them immigrated to the United States and became gold miners. They entered California during the Gold Rush, at around 1849, the shores of China was nearer to the Californian shores (Norton). At that time, many gold seekers flocked California, San Francisco to be precise, because of the gold excitement. The Asians were welcomed because they were seen as good laborers. They were known as coolies, which meant lending out muscles. They worked as miners, carpenters and so on. The Asians, precisely the Chinese, felt like they were in the land of milk and honey. However, the joy and comfort were short-lived because when the gold was depleted, they were seen as thieves who stole the gold. This created negative sentiments and many people viewed them as thieves. The word spread across San Francisco, and it was perceived as though they were taking up the jobs of the locals, so that also added to the hatred.
The Asians became a conspicuous part of the community; it is unfortunate that they fell in the hands of anti- foreign persecution, which received a lot of governmental support. At that time, the state government was sympathetic to the anti-foreigner plea. At around 1850, the Foreign Miners Law was passed. It involved imposing high taxes of up to twenty dollars on foreigner miners (Norton). The Chinese faced a challenge since they could not pay their taxes and they were not allowed to have jobs. This resulted in them becoming poor. In such a case, the government should have stepped up to defend the foreigners. This led to a large population of penniless foreigners, especially the Asians since they immigrated to San Francisco in large numbers.
Politicians used anti-Chinese sentiments as political assets. In 1851, a governor by the name John Bigler was elected on an anti-Chinese platform (Norton). Ordinarily, one would expect a leader to represent the needs of the people without any discrimination. Instead, Governor Bigler sent a message to the legislature, terming the Chinese as the source of the ills of in the society like prostitution, gambling and opium smoking. He referred to them as coolies, which was an ignorant and demeaning name used to refer to the Chinese. He then renewed the Foreign Miners law, which was not a fair way to treat foreigners in the country. It is only right for leaders and the government primarily to handle members of the society with fairness despite their race.
In the 1850s, the Anti-Chinese movement was formed, and its activities continued up to the 1870s (Buck). It was developed because of anti-Chinese sentiments. It became a success as it helped the federal government pass a legislative law in restricting Chinese immigration and even more restricting re-entry of those who briefly left. The movement enabled the Unites States to strengthen its anti-Chinese stance. At that time, the government passed an approval allowing for the expulsion of Chinese laborers, who either had wives in the country or owned property in the country.
Congress also passed the Scott Act in 1988, which banned the immigration of Chinese workers to the United States and also the return of the Chinese who had briefly left the United States. In 1892, the movement was also successful in the renewal of the Chinese Exclusion Act (Buck). In 1902, they later established a permanent ban, which remained active until 1943. It is, therefore, so unfortunate that a government would wholly support actions of discrimination against the Chinese just because of a mere attitude that was spread through the country (Buck). A government should be a role model of the society. In my opinion, the Chinese did not bring negativity to the country; discriminating against them can only be termed as racism since their reasons left a lot to be desired. A government should rule without racial discrimination.
In 1877, Denis Kearny, a man who was successful in the draying business took control of the Workingmen’s Union of California Party (Brekke). At that time, he was quite radical at agitating for a new constitution. He formed a committee to draft anti-Chinese provisions. The draft mainly banned the immigration of Chinese, and those who were already living there would not be protected by the law. The draft denied the Chinese access to courts, employment, and even state licences. It even denied the Chinese the right to vote and allowed the locals to discriminate and segregate the Chinese (Brekke). It is the responsibility of a leader, especially that of a labor union, to protect the needs of workers of the nation. Kearny did the opposite; he was mainly fighting the Chinese instead of advocating for the needs of employees. It is ironical that he advocated for the passage of a draft that would deny them employment. I still stand by the claim that a leader should work for the needs of the citizens despite their race.
In 1854, the Supreme Court termed the Chinese under the same category as Indians and Black. They were denied the rights to be able to testify against white men in a Court of Law. This was also another kind of discrimination against the Asians that could have been handled by the government if only it were a fair process to the foreigners. It is also important to note that the racial segregation of the Chinese did not only remain in the 1800s, it has also spread through the years to the modern day. The Chinese and the Asians at large have faced so much discrimination in the United States.
In conclusion, despite the many illustrations provided in this document, it goes without saying that any leader whatsoever should rule with justice and fairness to all citizens. Americans, especially those in San Francisco, did not appreciate the goodness of diversity. They did not have a good reason to discriminate against the Chinese people. They mocked them as coolies, which meant renting out muscles. They did not appreciate the efforts that the Chinese put in as they always worked. Even more unfortunate, the government and its leaders played a significant role in segregating them. It is only right if not fair for any leader at whatever level of leadership to dedicate their duties towards serving their people without any form of discrimination, and racial discrimination in this case. They should uphold the rights of individuals as humans and as citizens of a country and not as those of a favored race. The Government and the leaders should be ruling for all and not just for non-foreigners!
References
Brekke, Dan. "Boomtown, 1870S: ‘The Chinese Must Go!’ | Boomtown | News Fix | KQED
News". KQED News. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
Buck, David. "Anti-Chinese Movement." Immigration to the United States. N.p., 2016. Web. 9
Apr. 2016.
Norton, Henry Kittredge. "Gold Rush and Anti-Chinese Race Hatred - 1849." Sfmuseum.org.
N.p., 2016. Web. 9 Apr. 2016.
