|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ji, Mary | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8East, Humanities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aliens vs. Big Noses | 3DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Many people came to America in search of freedom, money and a better life. But instead they were left out of work, education, and most of all, opportunities. The Anti-Chinese settlement and the unfair treatment in the US lead to resistance. Court cases such as, The People vs. Hall, Chae Chan Ping vs US, and Lick Wo v. Hopkins all show that the Chinese weren't allowed to participate in government issues and that their testimonies will not have any affect on their decision. Where that will lead to sanctioning [agreement] violence against the Chinese residents. Pun Chi a Chinese immigrant appeals to congress to protect the rights of the Chinese telling them about the ways the Chinese were treated, giving graphic accounts of the mining tax collectors' abuses and murder of Chinese miners. Where more than just their rights have been taken away, their hopes and dreams of being free are gone. Pun Chi and the Chinese Six Companies spoke out against how unfair laws were, and how biased they where. They spoke out against how unequal the laws were made, specifically targeting the Chinese. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Court Case were brought due to the discrimination and hatred against the Chinese. Such court cases are like, The People vs. Hall, was brought into court because a Chinese man was murdered by a white man with no reason at all. They take sides depending on their language, color and their physical appearance. George W. Hall, killed Ling Sing who had came to his cousin's aid. Supreme Court of the State of California (1854) wrote, "The testimony of a Chinese man who witnessed a murder by a white man was inadmissible, largely based upon the prevailing opinion that the Chinese were "a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history shown; differing in language, opinions, color and physical conformation." This explicit voice from the Supreme Court of the State of California tells you that even though a Chinese person witnessed a murder by a white man, they have no say in it, they cannot testify against them so they are limiting their rights. Chinese couldn't testify against the white when they have witnessed a murder, but the People have won and Hall was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, so the only reason the Chinese have won was because of the response from the Supreme Court. Court case, People vs. Hall talks about how the facts where framed so the testimony was inadmissible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Chinese Six Company represented the Chinese against all the discrimination against them. The Chinese Six Company are Chinese complaining to the government, wanting mayor Bryrant to give Chinese more protection because the Chinese weren't protected from mob attacks. Mayor Bryrant was with Anti-Chinese so that's why he doesn't want to protect the Chinese. The Chinese Six Company help to protest and insure the safety of the Chinese community. Dennis Kearney was one of the many who spoke out against Anti-Chinese. Kearney (1877) stated, ";We have made no secret of our intentions. We make none. Before you and before the world we declare that the Chinamen must leave our shores. We declare that white men, and women, and boys, and girls, cannot live as the people of the great republic should and compete with the single Chinese coolie in the labor market." (p. 3). Kearney is trying to defend the Chinese as you can read, spoke out in Anti-Chinese rallies against the discrimination of the Chinese. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pun Chi and The Chinese Six Company fought for the same purpose. They fought for the rights of the Chinese. Pun Chi was a Chinese merchant who appealed to congress to protect the rights of the Chinese. He reminded Congress that Chinese immigration was encouraged. So then they should be the ones who should protect the Chinese. Ping (1860) argues that, "To the death of how many of us had it lead! In the case that brought before your offices of justice, inasmuch as we are unable to obtain your people as witnesses, even the murderer is immediately set free."(p. 6). Explicitly states that the Chinese should receive the same respect and rights, from what they have contributed to the United States. Where the congress want to ender Chinese immigration, Pun Chi said that it was their fault that the Chinese came, and said that since it was there fault, then they should be the one who are protecting the Chinese. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Yick Wo v. Hopkins a court case are undergoing many outcomes of the event. Lee Yick the owner held the laundry in San Francisco and he passed the limits of the city, so Sheriff Hopkins imprisoned him because he didn't pay the ten-dollar fee. The Chinese won after they appealed their case to the highest court and won. The US Supreme Court (1886) wrote, "For no legitimate reason this body by its action has declared that it is lawful for 80-odd persons who are not subjects of China to was clothes for hire in [wood] frame buildings, but unlawful for all subjects of China to do the same thing." Basically Lee Yick won because of this specific phrase which tells them that the Chinese are allowed to wash clothes in wood buildings, but not every Chinese person could do the same thing. This overturned a discriminatory S.F. law aimed at restricting Chinese laundries and established that a law is in violation of equal protection when it discriminates in practice against a racial minority. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chae Chan Ping was a subject of the Emperor of China. He left for China is 1875, but was not allowed to re-enter the United States because of the new legislation, which he believed violate the existing treaty with China, that allowed him to go back to the United States. The Congress believes that the Chinese are endangering the security and independence in the society. The court (1889) sided, "He resided at San Francisco, California, following his occupation, from some time in 1875 until June 9, 1887, when he left for China on the steamship Gaelic, having in his possession a certificate." The court mentioned that Chae Chan Ping carried in his procession his certificate, which allowed him to re-enter the US but while the new legislation was in play he wasn't allowed in. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The whites want to ruled out the Chinese because of labor, where the Chinese work harder for less pay while they work not as hard while they get more money, thinking that the Chinese came to steal their jobs. How the whites discriminate against the Chinese is unconstitutional because they are taking their rights away when the China and US had a treaty that says they are suppose to protect the Chinese. History textbooks leave all the important information out, where they want us to have a positive view of America, and to think that Chinese immigration was easy, where it really wasn't. Since the textbook is a secondary source, it is biased, where the important information is missing. Why are these not mentioned? These information is not mentioned because it will show America at its worst, is a form of censorship, brainwashing young people into believing certain myths and because it is a model to resist unfair and unconstitutional acts or behaviors that come out against Asians and other people of color. While the people don't know the truth on how the Chinese have suffered, its just wrong, spreading biased information out. Haven't you ever wonder why there are so many biased and untrue things happening in the United States? Haven't you notice the different types of stereotypes put out against the Chinese, and where they just suck in all the prejudice information without even thinking about the truth behind all the lies being spread around? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bibliography | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "The People, Respondent, v. George W. Hall, Appellant." (1854) retrieved on Nov 18, 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| from http://www.cetel.org/1854.Hall.html | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wang, Wel-Min. (1886) "Appeals to Congress." Pg. 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| http://Uts.cc.utexas.edu/~lpaj144/tk/thesis/chapter2.html | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wang, Wel-Min. (1886) "The Need for a Louder Voice." Pg. 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~lpaj144/tk/thesis/chapter3.html | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "The United States Supreme Court." (1886) retrieved on Nov 18, 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| from http://www.cetel.org/1886_vickwo.html | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "Chae Chan Ping v. United States."(1889) retrieved on Nov 18, 2002 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| from http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Chae | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hakim, Joy. (1997), "Reconstruction And Reform." Pg. 126-129 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back to Humanities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||