Author: Matthew Torres

The readings and the film had similar criteria for U.S. citizenship. The common factor for both was really that you had to be a white person. But being a white person wasn’t exactly set in stone. In “Write by Law: The Legal Construction of Race”, Lopez explains how being “white” isn’t something that is concrete. The law had made It that white people were those who were classified as Caucasian because of Ozawa’s defense for his right to be an American citizen. Ozawa made many valid points as to why he should be a citizen, but ultimately it came down to race. His defense was that he had white skin, therefore he was white and was owed citizenship. The court determined that his white skin wasn’t enough to classify him as white since his physical characteristics were not those of a white person. They then made the term “white” synonymous with the word “Caucasian” to combat the defense made by Ozawa and future Japanese people. The Thind came along and claimed that he deserved citizenship, as an Indian American, since Indians were classified as Caucasians. The court once again decided that although he was considered Caucasian, he too did not share the physical attributes that white people do. Therefore, making it that he was not deserving of American Citizenship. The biggest take away from this is that the criteria, during those times, to be an American citizen was to be a white person. Namely a person of European descent. The person also needed to look the part. It wasn’t enough just to share ancestry with Europeans. The criteria were created to benefit white people and only white people. The requirements were constantly altered to avoid having Asians become American citizens.

I believe what makes a person citizen today is totally different. It isn’t based solely on one’s skin color. To me, citizenship today is based on how long one has lived in this country. For example; I have a very good friend who is an undocumented immigrant. This is not his fault, but that of the system which still makes it extremely hard for immigrants to receive citizenship. I consider this man to be an American citizen. He has lived in the U.S. for all but 2 years of his life. He has no recollection of the country which he originally came from. He grew up in this country. He only went to school here. All of his friends he has met here and are mostly citizens themselves. He has never left the country since coming here, which is something I myself have done and I was born a citizen. He works here and has plans to continue living his life in this country. I believe all of this makes this man a citizen. I also believe that many others in this country are in similar situations, therefore making them citizens as well. I think those who want to make a living in this country and contribute to it in a positive should be and are considered citizens. To be a citizen of somewhere means that you are loyal to it. That you are here to improve yourself and continue to improve the land we love. I believe that although in the eyes of the law you are not a citizen, if you share these beliefs, then you too are a citizen. I think the definition of a citizen should be those who love this country, even if the love isn’t reciprocated by the country itself. I think it should mean that you are looking for ways to contribute to society and make it better for all.

I actually learned quite a lot from the Lee reading and the film about the histories of Asian migration to the Americas. Europeans were extremely interested in Asia. They thought of it as the “polar opposite” of them since they had heard about Asia’s resources, riches, and culture. What really surprised me was that the transcontinental railroad was funded by Asians. Like they said in the video, many knew that an influx of Asians came to this country to work on the railroad, but what was not widely known is that Asians backed the project financially. They were advised to invest in the United States because of how the nation was formed. The nation was won from the tyranny of England, who had imposed their way upon Asian nations. The man most notable from the victory, George Washington, didn’t become emperor of the nation once it was free from British rule. This was new to Asian nations, so one would assume that these nations saw potential in the U.S.’s future. What I believe motivated Asian groups to move to the Americas was imperialism. European influence spread across Asia, as well as Japan trying to compete. Countries such as England, Spain, The Netherlands, and Portugal had traveled to Asia and began taking over. In order to escape this imperialistic influence, many Asians migrated to the Americas. Other Asian migrants were shipped to the Americas as slaves and indentured laborers. These groups of people included those from China and The Philippines. The groups landed in Mexico, Cuba, and Peru after their voyage.

I believe these stories compare very similarly to the stories we here about immigration today. We often hear stories about people of certain nations seeking refuge in other nations. This can be said about many countries, not just those from Asia. The difference is that it is not too often we hear about slaves, indentured laborers, and sex workers. Although, that may be what the media is feeding to us. I think the reason for migration have changed today because those migrating to another country may be doing so seeking what they perceive to be a better life. They may hear stories from people they know who have migrated to another country and believe it is better than the life they are currently living. They may believe that this new land is full of opportunities for them to grow and for their family to live comfortably. What I believe has stayed the same is that people might be migrating in order to escape something. I believe that there are horrible things going on around the world and some people may no longer want to deal with that. The only way to escape that is to leave the only place you have ever known as home.

Bahadur’s process of researching her great grandmother’s history was a bit unorthodox, given the fact that she is a journalist. You would think that a journalist has this extensive network of resources which makes information easily accessible. But that isn’t the case for her. It isn’t possible because her great grandmother is from a period in time where history about women wasn’t recorded. A period where women weren’t seen as anything without a man. In order to get the information she sought, Bahadur had to go to greater lengths. She had to turn to unofficial sources such as oral traditions and visual traces. These oral traditions include digging deeper into the meanings of folk songs, oral histories (storytelling), photographs, postcards, and analyzing traditional tattoos. Since the period of time didn’t allow the history of women to be recorded officially, it had to be passed down through generations, by families and village members. I believe that Bahadur’s way of finding out her great grandmother’s history worked quit well. If I were to construct an archive of my own family, I would go about it in a very similar way. I would speak to different family members about the info I’m seeking. I would use photographs, letters, videos. A source of information that I can find which somehow connects me to my past family members. I found Bahadur’s method to be very similar to the oral history I studied. I studied a man named William Leong. He is a Chinese American who is a descendant of railroad workers. His family’s roots in the United States can be traced back to 1865. His roots in this country confirm the idea I had about some Chinese Americans. I had the idea that some Chinese Americans immigrated to this country due to the construction of the transcontinental railroad. In William’s family’s case, that was true. What surprised me was how his family decided to stay in the California area and never venture out, other than returning to China. What I found similarities between the reading and the oral lesson is the fact that a woman’s history is not told in either culture. In the oral history, William talks about his family history, but it’s only about the men in the family. Even when he talks about his own mother, he is unsure of the year and place she is born. He can only make the assumption based off of his father’s history. I first listened to William’s story, then read Bahadur’s article. As I was reading, I instantly connected this missing history, due to the fact that she stresses how little information is available about women. I enjoyed how both of these works could be connected in such a way, given the fact that I personally selected the oral history piece and it wasn’t assigned.