Asian Pacific Americans

Ethnic groups who stem their origins to the continent of Asia and the Pacific Islands. This article briefly describes the dispersion of Asian Pacific Americans, the impact of immigration and laws affecting Asian Pacific American immigration, and highlights the rural experiences of five important Asian Pacific American ethnic groups. It concludes with an examination of future trends affecting Asian Pacific Americans.

Number and Dispersion of Asian Pacific Americans

Although 94 percent of Asian Pacific Americans reside in metropolitan areas today, their initial association was with rural America. These immigrants played a pivotal role in the economic and agricultural development of the U.S., developed new agricultural crops and varieties, played major roles in agricultural unionization movements, and created vibrant ethnic communities. The story of the Asian immigrant groups in America in the first half of this century involved challenging many discriminatory barriers. In the process, each of these groups used or developed strategies for group survival that have relevance to questions related to rural and community development today.

Asian Pacific Americans are, by and large, heavily concentrated on the Western and Eastern seaboards of the U.S. In contrast to the earlier periods when occupations such as railroad construction, levee building, salmon processing, tenant farming, and farm labor associated the Asian presence with rural America in the West, Asian Pacific Americans are now concentrated in metropolitan areas where, compared to non-Hispanic Whites, a disproportionate number live in central cities.

Impact of Immigration and Immigration Laws

Asian Pacific Americans are affected by immigration more than any current racially-identified group. In comparison to the record high percentages of immigration during the 1980s and 1990s, Asian Pacific Americans never reached more than one-quarter of one percent of the total U.S. population before 1940, despite several waves of immigration from Asian and Pacific countries. Racist legislation that minimized Asian immigration was repeatedly passed and amended to bar Asians and Pacific Islanders of various nationalities and classes from entering into the U.S. and supposedly competing with native White workers.

There are many examples of such discriminatory anti-Asian immigration laws. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred most Chinese immigration, and was not repealed until 1943. The Gentleman’s Agreement of 1908 limited Japanese immigration, and was in effect until 1952. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 excluded Asian immigration because Asians were ineligible for citizenship. The Tydings-McDuffy Act of 1934 closed the door to Filipino nationals from entering the U.S. Substantial Asian and Pacific Island immigration to the U.S. did not begin again until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965.

Despite these discriminatory measures, many Asian Pacific Americans found labor opportunities in rural America; many became leaseholders and farm owners. These rural ethnic enterprises have been important to the development of Asian Pacific American communities and to the economic upward mobility of subsequent generations.

Chinese Americans

Chinese Americans were crucial to California’s agricultural development. They are credited with saving the state from economic disaster in the 1870s and 1890s, and provided 75 percent of California’s agricultural labor force. Chinese immigrant labor reclaimed 88,000 acres of rich swamp land in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta where they stayed as farm workers or tenant farmers. They introduced strawberries, sugar beets, celery, and asparagus–all part of the pantheon of today’s California agricultural exports. Horticulturalist Ah Bing bred a new cherry variety known across the country as the Bing Cherry. By 1877, Chinese American farmers produced two-thirds of all vegetables in California.

Japanese Americans

Discriminatory laws at the turn of the century drove Japanese into rural occupations. They settled on marginal lands, choosing crops requiring little capital or land. Overcoming obstacles and attaining moderate degrees of success led to resentment that fueled legislation such as the 1913 Alien Land Law that forbade persons ineligible for citizenship from leasing or owning land. Foreign-born Asian Americans were ineligible for citizenship due to the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalization and, concomitantly, citizenship and voting rights to immigrant White males. California’s 1913 Alien Land Law was specifically anti-Japanese. It was modified more stringently in subsequent enactments elsewhere in the West.

Nevertheless immigrant farmers from Japan played an important role in agriculture particularly on the West Coast. Japanese immigrant farmers responded to the Nation’s need for food when the U.S. entered World War I in 1917 with a prodigious output. They accounted for 90 percent of California’s production of celery, asparagus, onions, tomatoes, berries, and cantaloupes; 70 percent of the floriculture; 50 percent of the seeds; 45 percent of the sugar beets; 40 percent of leafy vegetables; and 35 percent of grape production. Half of all Japanese males were involved in some phase of farming on the eve of World War II.

They produced half of California truck crops in 1941. They produced all of the green beans, celery, peppers, and strawberries; 50 to 90 percent of artichokes, cauliflower, cucumbers, spinach, and tomatoes; and 25 to 50 percent of asparagus, cantaloupes, carrots, lettuce, onions, and watermelons. All of this was produced on a very small proportion of California’s farmland. Because of restrictions in the amount of land that they could lease and due to discrimination (having to pay much higher rental rates on prime agricultural lands), Japanese American farmers used practices that maximized what resources they had by developing lands that were considered unusable or marginal. Half a century ago, Los Angeles was California’s leading agricultural county. This was due in large part to the productivity of Japanese American farmers who sold from over 1,000 fruit and vegetable stands placed at their farm gates.

Japanese American farmers choose crops that brought the most income on the least space, used irrigation and fertilizers much more extensively than other farmers, used family labor, and sold directly to consumers. Similar concepts are part of the current efforts to promote a more sustainable system of food production.

Persons of Japanese ancestry were evacuated to concentration camps with the advent of World War II. Although some Japanese Americans returned to their rural or agricultural bases, they never recovered the dominance exhibited in places like Los Angeles County. Many lost too much capital and resources to restart farming operations. The most manageable start-up related to their past expertise was in garden care. Seventy- five percent of Japanese Americans in Los Angeles operated or worked in gardening and nurseries in the 1960s. Their influence on residential landscaping has been widespread.

Filipino Americans

Filipino Americans did not become a U.S. census category until 1950 although their settlements date back to the 18th century when “Manilamen” left the harsh treatment on the Spanish Galleons to settle around New Orleans. Chinese were recognized in the census in 1870; Japanese in 1890; Hawaiians in 1960; Koreans in 1970; and Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Guamanian, and Samoan in 1980. The “Other” category added in 1990 includes Cambodians, Hmong, Lao, and Thai. The first sizeable numbers to arrive in America went to the sugar plantations in Hawaii. Working conditions where Filipino immigrants have gone (e.g., Hawaii, Northwest salmon canneries, and West Coast farmlands) have been such to involve them in unionization movements in all these places. By the 1920s, Filipino Americans were the primary farm labor force in Hawaii and the West Coast. Several circumstances prevented Filipino Americans from moving up the agricultural ladder, from worker to leaseholder to owner. They were cut off from forming families by the blockage of female immigrants and anti-miscegenation laws. This restricted Filipino Americans to oppressive work stations; they resisted by organizing the Filipino Federation of Labor on the Hawaii sugar plantations, the Filipino Salmon Cannery Workers, and the Filipino Labor Union among lettuce pickers in Salinas, California. Farm labor organizing continued through the 1960s when Filipino Americans joined Mexican American workers to form the United Farm Workers led by Cesar Chavez and Larry Itliong.

In addition to the difficulties created by restrictive laws, discrimination, and oppressive working situations, was the lack of access to credit. Money was needed to move out of the labor cycle and in to small business and entrepreneurship. But mainstream lending agencies remained hostile to Asian immigrant requests. The rotating credit association, a social and cultural formation common to Asian Pacific immigrants, became an important source of start-up capital. Close friends or associates from a similar hometowns or regions pooled an agreed-upon amount each month to be loaned on a lottery or bidding system. As the money was repaid and the pool increased, others received loans. This system of money pooling goes by different names — tanomoshi in Japanese, hui in Chinese, bui in Vietnamese, hulugan in Tagalog, and gae in Korean. The main collateral in addition to the shares contributed was peer pressure and honor. This system of credit access was a key factor in starting small businesses in Asian Pacific American communities. A variation of this concept is now used by many developing and lowincome communities.

Sikh Americans, Hmong Americans, and Laotian Americans

Although the majority of Asian Pacific Americans are in metropolitan areas, particularly in central cities and suburbs, today there are unique pockets in rural areas. Two of these include the Sikh Americans in Yuba City and the Hmong Americans around Fresno, both in California’s Great Central Valley. The Sikhs are only two percent of India’s population but have been one of its major immigrant groups to America. Although no longer the dominant immigrant Asian Indian group, they still make up 30 percent of the South Asian immigrant population. The Sikhs from the Punjab were originally employed for their irrigation and farm labor skills. Many towns in California’s Central Valley are sites of a guardwara, a Sikh temple of worship. Yuba City in Sutter County, a rice and peach growing center, is home to some 10,000 Sikhs. Estimates place more than half of the peaches in Sutter County as being grown by Sikh Americans.

As a result of the aftermath of the Vietnam War, many Hmong and Lao refugees resettled in America, and have centered their communities in agricultural regions that reflect their past agricultural experience. Between 1980 and 1990, the Hmong American population in the U.S. grew by 1,631 percent and Laotian Americans grew 213 percent. Nearly half of the 90,082 Hmong immigrants live in California’s agricultural Central Valley. The largest concentration is a group of 18,000 around Fresno. In a recent survey, agricultural extension agents identified nearly 800 refugee farmers in Fresno county, the leading county nationally in value of agricultural production. Sixty-two percent of these farmers were Hmong American and 30 percent were Laotian Americans. Most had started farming within the last three years. The size of their operations range from three to five acres of rented land and have six family members helping on the farm. Most finance their operations themselves with loans from relatives. They market their produce with Southeast Asian wholesalers or, when the price is high, sell directly to buyers who come to their farm. These Hmong Americans and Laotian Americans re-established their traditional identity with rural and agricultural life that marked other Asian groups before them, but who have since moved to urbanized settings.

Future Trends

Population Growth. The Asian Pacific American population was estimated at 8.8 million in the 1994 Current Population Survey. In 1994, as in 1990, they were roughly three percent of the Nation’s population. Since 1990, the Asian Pacific American population has grown by an average of 4.5 percent per year. Eighty-six percent of the growth is attributable to immigration with the remainder due to natural increase. Asian Pacific Americans continue to become ever more urban. By 1994, 96 percent of all Asian Pacific Americans lived in metropolitan areas.

By the year 2000, Asian Pacific Americans are projected to reach 12.1 million and represent 4.3 percent of the Nation’s population. By the 2050, the Asian Pacific American population will increase five times its size from 1995. By then, it will comprise 10 percent of the total U.S. population and approach 60 million individuals.

Regionally, the Western states, and California in particular, will continue to be the favorite locations of Asian Pacific Americans. Between 1993 and 2020, there will be an increase in the Western Asian Pacific American population by eight million persons. By the year 2000, 40.5 percent of all Asian Pacific Americans will live in California, compared to 40.0 percent in 1995 and 39.1 percent in 1990. By the year 2000, California is projected to have almost 10 million Asian Pacific Americans. By 2020, Texas and New York will each have more than one million Asian Pacific Americans.

The rural-to-urban shift will not be solely because Asian Pacific Americans moved from rural areas to metropolitan cities and suburbs. Instead, former rural areas where rural Asian Pacific Americans reside will increasingly become subsumed by growing boundaries of urbanized areas. Historically, this happened for Japanese Americans, Filipino Americans, and Chinese Americans in Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties in California, and will likely happen for Hmong Americans and Laotian Americans in Fresno, Merced, and Stockton counties.

Intermarriage. Intermarriage adds another dimension of diversity to the Asian Pacific American population. Among Asian Pacific Americans, 31.2 percent of all Asian Pacific American husbands and 40.4 percent of all Asian Pacific American wives were intermarried in 1990. Among Asian Pacific American husbands, 18.9 percent were interethnically married and 12.3 percent were interracially married. Among the interracially married, 9.9 percent of these husbands married non- Hispanic Whites. Among Asian Pacific American wives, 16.2 percent were interethnically married, and 24.2 percent were interracially married. Among the interracially married, 20.8 percent of Asian Pacific American wives married non-Hispanic Whites. Japanese American wives and Filipino American wives had the highest proportion of interracial marriages (51.9 percent and 40.2 percent, respectively). The high proportion of interracial marriages among Japanese Americans is in part due to the large presence of wives of U.S. servicemen.

Acknowledgment of this aspect of Asian Pacific diversity shows in the emergence on various college campuses of student associations that go by such names as “Hapa” (meaning half Asian Pacific-half other) clubs. These groups are testimony to the important role bi-racial and multi-cultural identity play in the lives of a new generation of Asian Pacific Americans. There is also a rise in pan-ethnicity among Asian Americans that is beginning to play out in major universities in Asian American Studies and Ethnic Studies and in the development of AsiaTowns going beyond the more ethnically-specific Little Tokyos, Chinatowns, Manilatowns, Little Saigons, and Koreatowns. This pattern of pan-ethnicity is evidenced in the growing rates of interethnic marriages among Asian Pacific Americans.

Language. The diversity and challenge of Asian Pacific American groups are captured in the persistence of languages used. In California for example, there were 665,605 households that spoke an Asian Pacific American language. Among these, 32.8 percent were classified as linguistically isolated (i.e., no persons in the household over the age of 13 spoke English “well” or “very well”). Of those who speak an Asian Pacific American language, 18.2 percent aged 5 to 17 years, 24.0 percent aged 18 to 64 years, and 51.3 percent aged 65 years and over responded they speak English “well” or “very well.” Forty-one percent of persons age 65 and over are in a household where there is no one who speaks English “well” or “very well.” In California, 1990, languages spoken at home for persons five years and over included Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese, 575,447), Vietnamese (233,074), Tagalog (465,644), Korean (215,845), Japanese (147,451), Indic (119,318), and Mon-Khmer (59,622). Rural Asian Pacific American were slightly more linguistically-isolated than the general Asian Pacific American population (34.1 percent).

Forces Affecting Trends and Opportunities. There are growing class-divisions within Asian Pacific American ethnic groups and between Asian American sociocultural groups. Measures such as income, high school dropout rates, and educational attainment, for example, show marked differences between East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and South Asian (Asian Indian/East Asian) Americans in contrast to Southeast Asian (Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong) American and Pacific Islander groups. Filipino Americans and Vietnamese Americans appear between these two categories.

Asian Pacific Americans may see a major decline in fortunes in the next 10 years among unskilled or limited-English speaking immigrants. Many entrepreneurial opportunities in the past are being taken over by corporate concerns and are being affected by discriminatory licensing laws reminiscent of past anti- Asian laws. Examples of businesses where Asian American entrepreneurs have been adverse affected include video stores, liquor stores, small family-owned and operated grocery stores, dry cleaning establishments, and donut shops.

At the other end of the scale among the better-educated, successful Asian Americans, both Asian Pacific American females and males have yet to reach economic parity in pay or social parity in position with non- Hispanic White males. In effect, a glass-ceiling appears to limit their opportunities for upward advancement. Many Asian Pacific Americans have sidestepped the discrimination by starting their own ethnic corporate high-technology firms. Many of these firms have become successful and have contributed much to the regional and national economy.

Also, Asian Pacific American communities are increasingly pan-ethnic and transnational in character; choice of residence is increasingly on the West Coast or in New York City. As current immigration laws and preferences are threatened or modified, pressures for naturalization will increase substantially. Naturalization rates among Asian Pacific Americans are already higher than for any other immigrants. Partly because of these changes, the political participation of Asian Pacific Americans will increase markedly. With their metropolitan and Pacific Rim concentrations, their economic capacities and potential, and their growing rates of naturalization and voter participation, Asian Pacific Americans will become a powerful political force in the U.S. in the upcoming decade.

— Isao Fujimoto and Larry Hajime Shinagawa

See also Cultural Diversity; Culture; Employment; Ethnicity; Family; Inequality; Marriage; Migration; Rural Demography

References

Chan, Sucheng. Asian Americans: An Interpretive History. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1991.
Chan, Sucheng. This Bittersweet Soil: The Chinese in California Agriculture, 1860-1910. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986.
Chuman, Frank F. The Bamboo People: The Law and Japanese Americans. Del Mar, CA: Publishers Incorporated, 1976.
Gall, Suan and Irene Natividad. Reference Library of Asian America. Detroit, MI: Gale Research, 1995.
Hing, Bill Ong. Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993.
Hune, Shirley, et al., eds. Asian America: Comparative Global Perspectives. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, 1991.
Ilic, Pedro. “Southeast Asian Farmers in Fresno County: Status Report 1992.” Fresno, CA: Fresno County Office of University of California Cooperative Extension, 1992.
Iwata, Masakazu. Planted in Good Soil: A History of the Issei in United States Agriculture. New York, NY: P. Lang, 1992.
Kitano, Harry H.L. Asian Americans: Emerging Minorities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988.
Ng, Franklin, ed. The Asian American Encyclopedia. New York, NY: Michael Cavendish, 1995.
Shinagawa, Larry Hajime and Pang, Gin Yong. “Asian American Pan-Ethnicity and Intermarriage.” Amerasia Journal 22, no. 2 (1996): 127-153.
Shinagawa, Larry Hajime and Michael Jang. Atlas of American Diversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications/ Altamira Press, 1996.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population Profile of the United States, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Asian and Pacific Islander Population in the United States: March 1991 and 1990. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics, P20-459. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Survey of Minority-Owned Business Enterprises: Asian Americans, American Indians, and Other Minorities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1991.