URL originale : https://books.openedition.org/pup/21599

Orientalism in the Cosmopolitan City. Constructing Sanitary Exoticism in San Francisco before World War II
p. 71-80
Résumé
« L’Orientalisme dans la ville cosmopolite : mise en place d’un exotisme hygiénique à San Francisco avant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale »
Bien que caractérisée par une atmosphère libérale et cosmopolite, la ville de San Francisco a une histoire de violence et d’hostilité à l’égard des immigrants en provenance d’Asie au moins jusqu’à la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Cet article propose d’examiner la relation entre le cosmopolitisme de San Francisco et l’histoire des immigrants en provenance d’Asie. L’afflux de ces immigrants, qui a commencé vers le milieu du XIXe siècle, a instauré une nouvelle hiérarchie raciale à San Francisco et dans d’autres villes de la côte ouest. Les Chinois et les Japonais entraient dans la catégorie des « Orientaux », ce qui signifiait exotique et non blanc. Considérés comme membres des groupes de races indésirables, les « Orientaux » devinrent l’une des cibles du nativisme. À San Francisco, l’une des représentations les plus saillantes de l’image de l’« Oriental » était Chinatown. Pour les citoyens américains de la ville, la ville chinoise représentait jusqu’au début du vingtième siècle le vice, un danger pour la santé publique, une menace pour la main-d’œuvre blanche, ainsi que la pauvreté.
L’image de Chinatown a cependant évolué à partir des années 1930, la ville immorale et malsaine cédant la place à l’image d’un endroit sain qui attirait les touristes. Ce qu’il convient de noter dans le Chinatown de San Francisco, c’est que ce sont les immigrants chinois et leurs descendants qui ont participé activement à la reconstruction de Chinatown. Au lieu de masquer leurs différences et d’essayer de se conformer radicalement à l’image de l’American Way of Life, ils ont choisi comme stratégie pour survivre dans la société américaine de se servir des images et stéréotypes raciaux de manière positive. Quoique hygiénique et attirant, l’exotisme représenté par Chinatown n’a néanmoins pas suffi à en faire un passeport permettant de transcender les frontières raciales de la citoyenneté américaine. Cela dit, cette stratégie a permis aux immigrants et à leurs descendants de trouver leur place dans la ville cosmopolite. Le succès de cette stratégie tient à l’absence d’hégémonie anglo-saxonne à San Francisco avant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. La structuration multi-ethnique du pouvoir politique à San Francisco a rendu possible la participation active des dirigeants de la communauté chinoise à la politique de la ville.
Texte intégral
1Since the gold rush of the mid-nineteenth century, the influx of immigrants from almost every continent had created cultural diversity in San Francisco. By 1880, San Francisco was the ninth largest city in the country and the one with the largest percentage of foreign-born residents: 44.6 %. Although most large cities in the United States had a more or less multiethnic population, the distinctive character of San Francisco before World War II was the lack of Anglo-Saxon hegemony. By the early twentieth century, Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants and their descendents who were marginalized in many other American cities at that time became a part of the ruling elite. This ethnic composition developed a heterogeneous and culturally pluralistic city that attracted bohemian residents and people who were inclined to defy the establishment or hierarchy. Thus, San Francisco developed a liberal and cosmopolitan atmosphere. The proposal of this symposium notes that San Francisco is a multiethnic city and is “famed for its tolerance and open-mindedness.” The proposal, however, adds that the history of violence and hostility toward immigrants from Asia at least before World War II was the exception to “the tolerance and open-mindedness” of San Francisco. Is this hostility toward immigrants from Asia just an exceptional anecdote in the history of this cosmopolitan city? This essay would like to rethink the relations between the cosmopolitanism of San Francisco and the history of immigrants from Asia.
Oriental
2San Francisco was one of the few large American cities that had received an influx of immigrants from Asia by the early twentieth century. In San Francisco County, the Chinese population was approximately 10 % of the total population in 1880. As the number of immigrants from China and other Asian regions increased, the hostility toward them in San Francisco and other areas in California was exacerbated. In the 1870s, mobs began to terrorize Chinese and other colored residents in San Francisco. Not only irrational violence, but also laws and public policies overtly threatened their lives. The San Francisco Cubic Air Ordinance of 1870, which required each adult to have at least five hundred cubic feet of living space, essentially made it illegal to be poor and to be Chinese because most of the immigrants could not acquire such living space. The Sidewalk Ordinance of 1870 banned Chinese immigrants from carrying vegetables and laundry in baskets hanging from shoulder poles. Laundry ordinances outlawed wash-houses in wooden buildings. And at a national level, in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. It is obvious that the primary cause of this hostility was economic competition and a segmented labor market. Since the 1860s, for instance, the workingmen of San Francisco had joined the national movement for an eight-hour workday. In California, however, this national cry for an eight-hour day was reframed as an attack on Chinese immigrants; white workingmen believed that Chinese immigrants worked longer hours for less pay. However, any newcomer intensified the competition at the labor market at that time. This explanation, therefore, does not fully illuminate why only Asian immigrant workers were targeted. (Pfaelzer 2007)
3It should be noted that San Francisco and other cities on the West Coast received the influx of immigrants from Asia before establishing white/black relations. As compared to other cities in the South or the Northeast, these cities on the West Coast needed to construct their own racial hierarchy in the late nineteenth century. In this racial hierarchy, immigrants from Asia and their descendents were categorized as one group called yellow, Mongolian or Oriental, even though immigrants from China, Japan or other Asian areas found little sense of commonality or similarity among their cultures. For instance, following the antimiscegenation laws of the South, in 1880, California amended its Civic Code to prohibit marriage between a white person and “a Negro, Mulatto, or Mongolian.” By the turn of the century, some politicians and activists asserted that “the yellow peril” would be a threat to the American nation, the white race and the American family. It is also well-known that the San Francisco Board of Education ordered ninety-three children of Japanese immigrants to attend “the Oriental Public School” along with the children of Chinese immigrants after the earthquake of 1906. In the 1920s, sociologist Emory S. Bogardus pointed out that Orientals – that is, Chinese and Japanese – were not regarded as individuals but as members of an undesirable race in California. (Matsumoto 2007)
4The basis for this categorization was skin color and genealogy. It is true that some missionaries, reformers and intellectuals advocated a cosmopolitan ideal that included all; but even in this ideal, the centrality of whiteness was always hidden. The Immigration and Naturalization Acts granted the right of naturalization to “a free white person.” But did not define who the free white person was. Immigrants from Asia had tried to appeal to the courts for naturalization since the late nineteenth century, but these appeals ended in failure in most cases, throwing light on who could not be considered “a free white person”. These unsuccessful legal cases made it clear that the color line in American society ran not between black and white but between whites and people of color. Americans, including citizens of San Francisco, regarded immigrants from Asia as racial others and denied them the full membership to American society at least before the end of World War II.
5Even though the color line ran between whites and people of color, it is true that immigrants from Asia were not always regarded as belonging to the same group as that of African Americans. In the new racial hierarchy established by San Francisco and other cities on the West Coast, immigrants from Asia were categorized as Oriental; meaning exotic and non-Occidental as well as non-American. During the late 1960s, Chinese and Japanese-American activists called attention to the term Oriental as derogatory, because it connoted not only exotic but also non-civilized and inferior. (Lee 1997; Yu 2001)
Chinatown and Orientalism
6In San Francisco, one of the salient representations of the image of the Oriental was Chinatown. As the nineteenth century wore on, Chinese immigrants and their descendents were driven from California’s countryside, from mining and agriculture, and forced to mass together in Chinatowns on the West Coast. Among these Chinatowns, San Francisco’s–dating back to the 1850s–was the oldest, largest and most active. In the 1880s, approximately twenty-five thousand Chinese immigrants lived in eight or twelve city blocks in the shadow of the millionaire enclave on Nob Hill.
7At the outset, Chinatown was just a poor neighborhood in which Chinese immigrants were forced to live because of segregation and poverty. As the population increased, however, Chinese immigrants built their community and network within Chinatown. Chinatown provided Chinese immigrants with everything they needed–work, food, mutual aid organizations, religious establishments, medical care, entertainment, and newspapers. Chinatown in San Francisco, in particular, became the cultural, economic, and administrative hub of Chinese America. In 1880, 20.4 % of the Chinese population in the United States resided in San Francisco. (Yung 2006)
8Chinatown was not a foreign village surrounded by “the great wall.” (Raushenbush 1926) It was more like a center where Chinese Americans migrated in and out to work and play. Nevertheless, white people in San Francisco constructed imaginary boundaries around Chinatown. Chinese immigrants and their descendents were confined within these imaginary boundaries and regarded as a “problem.” For white middle-class reformers, business people, labor leaders and politicians in San Francisco, Chinatown represented vice, a risk to public health, a threat to white labor, and poverty. Chinese immigrants, for instance, were accused of introducing foreign diseases to whites. This imaginary boundary was in fact a social barrier that isolated the Chinese immigrants and their descendents. (Shah 2001)
9One of the most exotic “problems” was the situation of Chinese immigrant women in Chinatown. In the early twentieth century, respectable domesticity and the commitment to permanent residence were considered the manifestation of immigrants’ will for “assimilation.” In this way, the woman’s role was important to immigrants becoming Americans. As women constituted barely 10 percent of the San Francisco Chinese population before 1920, however, it was considered impossible for Chinese immigrants to achieve desirable gender relations. In addition, the image of Chinese immigrant women was strongly linked with prostitution. Since 1895, Donaldina Cameron, a Presbyterian missionary, had run a famous mission home for “rescued Chinese slave girls” in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Activities like this reinforced the stereotypes of Chinese women. They projected the image of bonded slave girls victimized by the heathen Oriental culture. The fact that this moralistic crusade targeted only Chinese girls in Chinatown and ignored white prostitutes down the road, indicated how much these rescued girls were the symbol of exotic and heathen Orientals. Cameron asserted that the Chinese would never abolish the practice of buying and selling women as it was “born in their blood”. Being prepossessed by this stereotype, they did not regard these girls as mature immigrant women who wished to become Americans. They provided Chinese food for their rescued girls and kept them in Chinese clothing. All mission home residents had to take Chinese language classes even though some of those born in the United States were not very enthusiastic about learning Chinese. (Mazumdar 1996; Pascoe 1990)
10Thus, by the early twentieth century, exotic Chinese women and an “evil” Chinatown became an integral part of San Francisco. However, for whites, the exoticism of Chinatown was not only a problem, it was also an attraction. Chinese immigrants and their descendents were excluded for being exotic and different, but at the same time they were valued for the same reasons. Among the Chinatowns on the West Coast, the Chinatowns in San Francisco and Los Angeles became famous exotic spots for tourists who sought “adventure.” For instance, one of the most sensational destinations for tourists was the opium den; tourists wanted to observe the den’s clients smoking. Historian Norman M. Klein points out that the myth of the Chinese underground complete with prostitution and opium came out of “white civic policies for tourism.” In Los Angeles, prostitution and drug dens were run even by whites. The image of the Oriental as a threatening and exotic presence was structured in the dominant culture’s imagination. (Klein 1990; Berglund 2007)
11The reconstruction of Chinatown after the earthquake of 1906 clearly demonstrated that this was the case. Right after the earthquake, city leaders and the Association for the Improvement and Adornment of San Francisco tried to seize this opportunity to materialize their city plan. For this purpose, the city tried to move Chinatown to Hunter’s Point. But faced with stiff resistance from Chinese merchants and white landowners, Chinatown was rebuilt in its original location. City officials, white landlords, and Chinese merchants aimed at building a safe and sanitary tourist spot in order to attract white middle-class families. The San Francisco Real Estate Board suggested to white landowners and Chinese merchants that all Chinatown buildings should be constructed in an Oriental-imitation style: that is, the style that Americans assumed to be traditional Chinese (dragon decorations, etc.).
12Because of this foreignness, the city authority could be justified in increasing the level of oversight and control of Chinatown. City planners widened streets and created “easily policed” thoroughfares. In 1919, for instance, San Francisco police burned confiscated opium in the middle of the rebuilt Chinatown. This public burning represented not only the display of civic authority and vigilant surveillance of Chinatown, but also its exoticism. (Yung 2006)
13The Survey’s article of 1926 recounted that the flow of visitors from the Middle West began pouring into Chinatown at nine o’clock in the morning, and did not ebb away again until ten or eleven o’clock at night when the Chinatown shops closed. This article also introduced the image of the Oriental. For instance, it described the Chinatown bachelor as having three passions: gambling, gossip and food. In a word, the image of Chinatown was reconstructed as a sanitary but still exotic spot. (Raushenbush 1926)
14In the analysis of another article written in 1934, the “cultivated strangeness” of Chinatown was not “the real China”, but “like chop suey–made for the curious American.” According to this article, a picture of Chinese vice in the U.S.A. was accepted as fact and as typical of Chinatown through the yellow press and novels. Tourists took the bus there to get a thrill out of seeing at first hand the “vice dens” and opium joints that they had read so much about. (Beach 1934)
15The international expositions disseminated the image of the Oriental to visitors from home and abroad. At the California Midwinter International Exposition, which was held in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park in 1894, the main buildings had Oriental styles. As the first exposition ever held west of Chicago, it underscored the significance of the city, California, and the West Coast to local, national, and international audiences. The adoption of the Oriental style demonstrated not only the significance of the West Coast as the Pacific Rim but also the power to control Chinese, Japanese and other Asian areas. The Exposition also exhibited Chinese buildings and a Japanese tea garden. The promotional literature of the Exposition invited the visitor to experience the mysterious Japanese tea garden and the attractive features of the “Chinatown” “under much pleasanter conditions” than the real thing. (Lipsky 2002)
16The Panama-Pacific International Exposition that celebrated the completion of the Panama Canal was held in San Francisco in 1915. It celebrated the “directly westerly route from Europe to the Orient” and emphasized America’s contribution to world harmony. The exhibits portraying races according to the theory of “the law of survival,” however, demonstrated not the harmony but the possibility of America’s expansion into lands occupied by “barbarous races.” At the Race Betterment Conference held during the Exposition, eugenicists proposed a new scale for measuring racial intelligence. Recent imperial conquests of the Filipinos and the Samoans portrayed these peoples as the nation’s “little brown brothers;” in the “Oriental Village,” an underground Chinatown and an exotic Oriental garden were constructed. (Brown 1993)
17By the 1930s, the image of Chinatown shifted from an immoral and diseaseinfected place to a sanitary and relatively safe place. Contemporary journalists and scholars, however, continued to criticize the poverty of its inhabitants and the activities of its underworld. Despite the masquerade of modernity, Chinatown remained outside of the “authentic” culture. Secluded, the foreign Chinatown became one of the indispensable sights of cosmopolitan San Francisco.
18Some scholars argue that the framework of “Orientalism” proposed by Edward W. Said can be applied to the history of “Oriental identity” in San Francisco and other cities on the West Coast. Said emphasizes that the term Orient and the concept of the West are made up of human effort, part affirmation, part identification of the other. From this standpoint, Said asserts that Orientalism was and is a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over “the Orient” (which is the Middle East in his argument). At the same time, Said argues that Orientalism helps the mind to intensify its own sense of self by dramatizing the difference and distance of the other. According to Said, Orientalism formed the backdrop against which European nation-state identities and cultures were formulated and strengthened. Recent works which analyze “Orientals” in the United States–that is, mostly the Chinese and the Japanese (Koreans added in the later period)–argue that Orientals filled the same role for American identity as “Arabs” did for European identity. The American version of Orientalism placed the Asian immigrants and their descendents in a new racial hierarchy, and at the same time assured the self-identity of the modernity and rationality of American civilization in contrast with the exotic, enigmatic and inferior cultures of Asian immigrants. (Mazumdar 1996; Lee 1997)
Sanitary Exoticism
19What is notable in this American version of Orientalism is the fact that people who were treated so much as others could in fact participate actively in constructing Orientalism. In the old Chinatown before the earthquake, tourists hired Chinese guides to explore the exotic cultural frontier. Chinese merchants and guides showed tourists what they wanted to see, being aware all the time that what they were showing was neither real life nor their culture.
20In the Midwinter Exposition, the Chinese Building was designed by a local architectural firm and financed by the city’s Chinese merchants. In this building, Chinese craftsmen exhibited their skills and Chinese guides explained the meaning of these artworks. One episode especially exemplified how immigrants from Asia selectively constructed Orientalism. The jinrikisha (or rickshaw) was a man-drawn Japanese conveyance. The committee of the Exposition planned to use this conveyance as a means of transportation during the Exposition, but the Japanese immigrant community opposed the plan as degrading. In the end, jinrikishas were drawn by white men costumed in face-paint and Japanese garb. On “the Japanese Day,” many Japanese immigrant women rode in jinrikishas drawn by white men. (Berglund 2007)
21At the Exposition of 1939 in San Francisco, Chinese immigrants and their descendents also actively participated in constructing the Chinese village. They tried to exhibit “the genuine China” by creating the Peking Palace entrance, Chinese gardens and so on.
22The reconstruction of Chinatown after the earthquake distinctly demonstrated the active participation of Chinese immigrants in constructing the sanitary exoticism of San Francisco’s Orientals. One Chinese-American entrepreneur took the lead in creating the pseudo-Chinese façade of buildings in Chinatown by hiring American architects and engineers. He instructed them to make it look “emphatically Oriental.” One of the bazaar buildings had a pagoda tower on top and dragon trademarks below the tower. (Yung 2006)
23Why did Chinese merchants and leaders actively participate in constructing the image of the Oriental? It goes without saying that Chinese merchants were primarily interested in pursuing profit for survival. It is also understandable that leaders of the Chinese immigrant community and Chinese Americans were attempting to remake their self-image in order to curb racial stereotypes such as vice and opium. However, when we compare their history with that of Japanese immigrants who were also categorized as Orientals in Los Angeles, it becomes clearer that the strategy of the Chinese immigrants to win greater acceptance from the dominant society was idiosyncratic.
24Japanese immigrants came to California in the late nineteenth century. After the earthquake in San Francisco, the majority of Japanese immigrants moved from Northern California to Southern California; Los Angeles became the center for Japanese immigrants. In Los Angeles, Chinatown had also accomplished sanitary exoticism. Japanese immigrants and their descendents made a different choice, although they suffered the same discrimination and segregation. It is certain that the Japanese community leaders made attempts to construct the exotic Little Tokyo for a short period during the 1930s, impressed by the prosperity of Chinatown. The Japanese Association of Los Angeles discussed plans to attract more customers to Little Tokyo in 1932. They invited members of the State Chamber of Commerce and city officials to a tour of Little Tokyo. In order to attract tourists, they illuminated Chinese characters on the stores of Little Tokyo. For Nisei (the second generation of Japanese immigrants) Week Festival, Nisei children wore Kimono and danced in parade with the aikoku Koushinnkyoku (the Patriotic March). Half of the spectators were whites and a white policeman led the parade. Nevertheless, the plan to make the Litte Tokyo a “pure Japanese town” was opposed by members of the Japanese immigrant community as well as by American society and the campaign declined rapidly in 1935. (Fujii 2003)
25We can set forth various reasons for this difference between the Chinese immigrant community and the Japanese immigrant community. One is the long history of the Chinese overseas. They built Chinatowns all over the world and developed various ways to survive in foreign countries. International relations also contribute to explaining this difference. When Chinese Americans pursued patriotic activities for their mother country, they knew that their patriotic activities were positively accepted by American society. On the other hand, in the 1920s and 1930s Japanese imperialism was criticized in the United States, and placing emphasis on the fact of being Japanese could possibly carry risk of adverse effects.
26Above all, we should consider that the difference between the two cases was related to how each group perceived their racial situation in American society and how American society responded to them. The Chinese immigrant leaders and Chinese American activists, as well as Japanese immigrant leaders, advocated adaption to the “American Way of Life” in the early twentieth century. Even though they made efforts to become Americanized, however, they realized that it was impossible to acquire full membership in American society. Once they realized that they were put outside of the racial boundary of full American citizenship, Japanese immigrant leaders in Los Angeles tried to eradicate their stereotyping as Orientals and emphasized their ability to accommodate to American society. Even during the 1930s, when Japanese immigrant leaders urged Japanese immigrants and their descendents to participate in patriotic activities for Japan, Japanese immigrant leaders appealed that their “morality and racial superiority” could make them good Americans. In a word, Japanese immigrant community leaders utilized their own logic of racism, and this incurred more resentment among white Americans. On the other hand, Chinese immigrant leaders and Chinese Americans utilized their racial image or stereotype positively in order to survive in American society. Even though it was sanitary and attractive, the exoticism could not become a passport for transcending the racial boundary of American citizenship. Nevertheless, it seems that their strategy succeeded in making them gradually accepted. The sanitary exoticism of Chinatown was a strategy by the Chinese American community to find their place in American society.
Cosmopolitanism and Orientalism
27Finally, it is necessary to return to the question of the cosmopolitanism of San Francisco. The comparison between San Francisco and Los Angeles will clarify the cosmopolitanism of San Francisco. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have large Chinatowns and both Chinatowns constructed sanitary exoticism. While Chinese merchants and the Chinese community could lead in constructing Chinatown and sanitary exoticism in San Francisco, the city planners in Los Angeles led the reconstruction of Chinatown in the early twentieth century with the assistance of Chinese merchants. The difference in these power relations can be partly explained by the ethnic composition of the political and economic elites in these cities. Los Angeles was a multiracial city at that time, but was not considered a cosmopolitan city. This is because the Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony had relatively stronger control over Orientals and other racial groups in Los Angeles. In this city, the pressure of Americanization and anti-Asian movements in the early twentieth century was much stronger than in San Francisco and social segeregation in residential areas and the job market was more delineated even after World War II, whereas in San Francisco, the lack of Anglo-Saxon hegemony made violence toward Asian immigrants tougher but at the same time allowed more room for Chinese immigrant leaders to maintain their standpoints. In other words, the cosmopolitanism of San Francisco made it possible for Chinese immigrant leaders to more efficiently utilize the American version of Orientalism as their own strategy.
28As the construction of a new racial hierarchy brought forth the American version of Orientalism, hostility toward immigrants from Asia was not an exceptional anecdote but the basis for the social structure of San Francisco. While cosmopolitanism does not mean “a world of citizens,” rather the “coexistence of elements from all over the world,” the American version of Orientalism was and is not an exception but an integral part of the cosmopolitanism of San Francisco.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.
Works cited
Beach Walter G., “Race Segregation in California”, Sociology and Social Research, XVIII, March-April, 1934.
Berglund Barbara, Making San Francisco American: Cultural Frontiers in the Urban West, 1846-1906, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 2007.
Brook James et al. (ed), Reclaiming San Francisco: History, Politics, Culture, San Francisco, City Lights Books, 1998.
Brown Bill, “Science Fiction, the World’s Fair, and Prosthetics of Empire, 1910-1915”, in Kaplan Amy and Donald Pease (ed), Cultures of United States Imperialism, Durham, Duke University Press, 1993.
Chun Gloria Heyung, Of Orphans & Warriors: Inventing Chinese American Culture & Identity, Chapel Hill, Rutgers University Press, 2000.
Daniels Roger, Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1988.
Fujii Sei, Beikoku ni sumu nihonnjinn no sakebi (Protesting of the Japanese in the United States: 40 Years of My Stay), The Kashumainichi Cie, 1940, reprinted by Bunnseishoinn, 2003.
Kaplan Amy and Donald Pease (ed.), Cultures of United States Imperialism, Durham, Duke University Press, 1993.
Klein Norman M., “The Sunshine Strategy: Buying and Selling the Fantasy of Los Angeles” in Klein Norman M. et al. (ed.), 20th Century Los Angeles: Power, Promotion and Social Conflict, Claremont, Regina Books, 1990.
Kurashige Lon, Japanese-American Celebration and Conflict: A History of Ethnic Identity and Festival, 1934-1990, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2002.
Lee Robert G, Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1997.
Lipsky William, San Francisco’s Midwinter Exposition, Mount Pleasant, Arcadia Publishing, 2002.
Matsumoto Yoko, Tsukurareru amerika kokumin to tasha (Constructing the American Nation: Boundaries of Citizenship in the Age of Americanization), Tokyo, Tokyo University Press, 2007.
Mazumdar Sucheta, “Through Western Eyes: Discovering Chinese Women in America” in Milner II Clyde A. (ed.), A New Significance: Re-envisioning the History of the American West, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996.
Pascoe Peggy, Relations of Rescue: The Search for Female Moral Authority in the American West, 1874-1939, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990.
Pfaelzer Jean, Driven Out: The Forgotten War against Chinese Americans, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2007.
Raushenbush Winfred, “The Great Wall of Chinatown”, The Survey, vol. VI, no3, May 1, 1926.
10.4324/9781003320609 :Said Edward W., Orientalism [1978], Penguin Books, 2003.
10.1525/9780520935532 :Shah Nayan, Contagious Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001.
Wrobel David M. et al., Many Wests: Place, Culture, & Regional Identity, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1997.
Yu Henry, Thinking Oriental: Migration, Contact, and Exoticism in Modern America, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.
10.1525/9780520922877 :Yung Judy, Unbound Voices: A Documentary History of Chinese Women in San Francisco, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999.
Yung Judy and the Chinese Historical Society of America, San Francisco’s Chinatown, Mount Pleasant, Arcadia Publishing, 2006.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
San Francisco, à l’ouest d’Éden
Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org
San Francisco, à l’ouest d’Éden
Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.
Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org
Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.
Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.
La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.
Référence numérique du chapitre
Format
Référence numérique du livre
Format
1 / 3