鄉關何處：華裔美國人的跨國家族與多重認同--從1842到1943年
 |
| Speaker: Dr. Emma Teng |
在全球化的今日，不同族群國家的人們相戀通婚、混血兒的存在早已廣泛被接受與認同，很難想像在近150年前，跨種族的婚姻如何遭受歧視與限制。
在這場波士頓哲學非星期五的活動，MIT的Dr. Emma Teng帶我們回到1842到1943年間，用幾則生動的故事，一窺當年移民到美國的中國人與西方人通婚的景況。
在1849年後，大量的中國移民湧進美國，這批移民多為男性。除了為這片新大陸帶來不同的專業與技能並改變了美國人口組成的分佈，他們低微的工資也衝擊著美國的勞工市場。幾乎無法讓女性移民的政策也阻擋了這群中國男性移民在美國與華人女子結婚的機會，被迫與非華人的女子通婚。
1861年起，針對中國人的反種族通婚法令也紛紛在各州通過，時期分為1861-1910年間以及1910-1950年間兩波。這些法令不僅因州而異，法令內容更是朝令夕改。在這個時代，反對種族通婚的理由是沒有事實根據的，像是認為混血兒在生物科學上而言可能會有不孕、智力低下、壽命減短等等的基因缺陷；宗教上，更搬出上帝將不同人種分別安排在五大洲以水（海洋）隔開，一定是想阻擋這種現象的神諭。
儘管限制重重，在各個時期都都依然可聽聞種族之間通婚並組織家庭的事例。一般認為，種族通婚是民權運動大量發生後才有的現象，但在此之前就已發生，只是早期為了要保有門風，常常會隱瞞種族通婚下混血兒的血緣真相。像是歐亞混血兒第二代的Lady Clara Ho Tung （何東爵士夫人，1875-1938），常被認為是中國人。以及於1930-1940年間在香港出生長大的Eric Peter Ho （何鴻鑾），在1940年間因為他叔叔 Walter Bosman的出現，才突然被他父母告知他具有英國和荷蘭血緣。他們為與國外惡魔 ［foreign devils 〕有所連結而感到羞恥，所以傾向隱匿異族通婚身份來飽足顏面。因此，異族通婚後代的身份在這個時期仍然多不被公開。
然而，早年的重重困難並沒有阻擋種族通婚，其中最大驅動力大概就是「選擇權」的緣故了。所謂「選擇權受限」的因素，歸咎於只開放中國男性移民、卻對中國女性移民諸多阻撓的移民政策，加上中國傳統上男主外女主內的觀念束縛了女性離開家門，導致美國的中國移民族群出現男女比例極度不均的現象。
那麼，這些歐亞混血兒（Eurasian）又或是跨種族婚姻家庭中的小孩（Eurasian 的歐亞混血兒），在那個時代中成長又面臨什麼樣的處境呢? 以上海為例，歐亞學校（Eurasian school）的設立就是刻意將這些具有美國或歐洲血統、天主/基督教背景的孩子們區隔出來，對他們特別實施西方英語的天主/基督教育。但同時也將他們與「純正的歐洲後裔 」（pure European descent）完全分隔出來。
Dr. T eng也舉了幾個種族通婚的例子可以讓我們探討反種族通婚法的影響：
容閎（Yung Wing），在1854年於耶魯學院畢業，是第一個在美國大學畢業的中國人。他在1875年和美國白人女子Mary Kellogg結婚。由於當時社會反對異族通婚的情節較薄弱，他們的婚姻還刊登於當年的紐約時報上，該報並大肆報導婚禮的華麗隆重，像是婚禮禮服使用中國進口的蠶絲且做工精細。另外，基督教師 Rev. J.Twichell的主婚，對於如此的種族通婚留下正面的影響，也順道完成了Twichell將基督教精神傳播至美國之外的宏願。雖然若干年後，Yung Wing還是受反種族通婚法（於1882年通過）影響，其國籍身分也遭質疑。
 |
| Mae Watkins and her children |
另一個故事，是Mae Watkins和黃天福的婚姻。當時兩位都還是密西根大學得學生。當他們於1912年結婚時，當地的報紙以醜聞的方式報導他們的婚姻，導致密西根大學逼迫就讀的兩人退學離校。之後，夫妻倆被迫回到中國，因為根據1882年針對移民勞工的「排華法案」（Chinese Exclusion Act）黃天福無法拿到美國國籍。但是回到中國後，黃天福夫婦又面臨中國反對留學生與外國人通婚的法令問題。所幸，黃家接受了外國媳婦，Mae本身也相當努力融入中國傳統文化，不只學了中文和廈門話、也學習用筷子吃飯、接受中國食物等等。Mae Watkins和黃天福夫妻倆在1918年，因舊金山的一個機會回到美國。不幸黃天福在此次家族返美的旅行中得到西班牙流感而過世，不久後，Mae也患病去世，留下身分國籍極具爭議的孤兒子女們。孩子們最後搬回密西根與祖父母Watkins一同居住，但由於「排華法案」的關係，他們一直未能歸化美國籍，直到1940年間才有定論。
中美通婚的演進，由1842年至今有幾個重要的里程碑：1860 年代，居住美國的華人族群中只有5%為女性，這個數字在1920年代也才上升到了12％。這男女比例懸殊的數字，促成男性中國移民必須與不同種族的女子通婚。19世紀中期以後，紐約的中國城內，異族通婚的比例成為大宗。在1908-1940年間紐約中國城總計有50 %是跨種族的夫婦，同時期波士頓亦有異族通婚的現象。直到1965年，「移民與國籍法」（Immigration and Nationality Act）的通過，廢除了1920年對移民人數的總額限制（約100人/年）。另外，具有劃時代意義的民權法案判決是美國最高法院在1967年6月12日的Loving v. Virginia判例，讓人種為一黑一白的Mildred和Richard Loving夫婦有合法的婚姻，同時也宣告反種族通婚的法令無效。到了2010年的近代，27.7%的亞裔新婚夫妻為異族結合。美國的普查資料也顯示人口自我認同為中為「混血」的比例自2000年至2010年增長了32 %。
本次哲五討論中也提到，除了跨種族婚姻的比例隨時代增加，其組成比例也有所不同。早年因為中國移民美國的男性受限於男女比例的不均，於是「中國男性+非華人美國女性」的婚姻組合占多數，而這些女性並不限於白人，他們包含了歐裔美籍，非裔美籍，墨西哥裔與美國原住民。二次世界大近年由於戰後，由於美國開放軍人帶亞裔外國妻子返鄉，以及移民的開放等等，造就「美國男性+中國女性」的婚姻比例上升。
這些曾經遭受排擠阻礙的種族通婚，漸漸隨著時代以及全球化的影響成為被接受、被慶賀的事情。Mary Kellogg & Yung Wing以及Mae Watkins & 黃天福的後人也都以先祖為箇中先驅而引以為榮。
In today’s globalized world, there are many interracial relationships and marriages as well as children of mixed racial background. Interracial marriages as well as mixed racial identities have been widely accepted in the discourse of the mainstream society nowadays. In this context, it is difficult to imagine a reality that interracial relationships were discriminated against, and in fact illegal in many states, less than a century ago. The May, 2015 Cafe Philo offered a historical review looking at the context that fostered certain identities of Eurasian children between 1842 and 1943, introduced by Dr. Emma Teng.
After 1849, large numbers of male Chinese immigrants started to came to the US. They not only brought new technologies and skills, but also changed the demographic make-up of the US population. In addition, they were accused of being "cheap labor." Legal restrictions that made it difficult for Chinese women to immigrate to the US resulted in an unbalanced sex ratio in Chinese American communities. Chinese immigrant men who wished to form families in the US often had little choice but to marry outside their own racial group.
Beginning in 1861, anti-miscegenation laws against the Chinese were passed in various States, roughly with two waves between 1861-1910 and 1910-1950. The laws were diverse with respect to the legal definitions of what constituted miscegenation for each State. The language of the laws also changed frequently. To boot, the reasons behind anti-miscegenation laws were often unfounded. For example, some scientists during that time argued that mixed-race children are genetically inferior, thus are more likely to be infertile, mentally impaired, and/or short-lived. To complicate matters further, many religious leaders also promoted the idea that there was a reason that God divided the different races on five different continents and separated them by water, citing it as evidence of God’s gesture and intention to separate different races and to eliminate interracial contact.
Despite all the support surrounding anti-miscegenation legislations, interracial unions, albeit infrequent, still can be found during that period of time. While modern perception considers mixed marriages as a post Civil Rights phenomenon, it had occurred much earlier. The identities of the offsprings of these marriages were often hidden or made invisible because of shame and stigma. Examples of this include Lady Clara Ho Tung (1875-1938), who was a second-generation Eurasian, but considered by many to be Chinese. Eric Peter Ho, too, was born and raised in Hong Kong in 1930s, and he was not aware of his mixed racial background until 1940 when his uncle Walter Bosman appeared, and his parents suddenly informed him of his mixed British and Dutch heritage. This stemmed from the fact the family was deeply ashamed of their connection to "foreign devils," and preferred to keep their mixed racial identity a secret to save face.
Difficulties during this early era did not stop miscegenation, however. In addition to individual preferences, a major driving force of interracial marriages is the "limit of choices”: immigration policies of the day severely limited the number of Chinese women who could immigrate to the US. Combined with the traditional Chinese social value that considers men as the breadwinner of the family and women as homemakers, women were kept from leaving their home to explore the world, resulting in an overwhelming imbalance of male-to-female ratio within immigrant Chinese communities in the US.
The question remains, what happened to the Eurasian children, namely, the children from the families of interracial marriages? What challenges did they faced growing up in that era? In Shanghai, for example, a Eurasian School was deliberately established to segregate children of American or European (i.e. mixed-raced) descent, giving them a Western and Christian education while keeping them completely separated and differentiated from the children of so-called "pure European descent."
Dr. Teng also presented some examples of early interracial marriages to explore the impact of the anti-miscegenation laws:
Yung Wing is the first Chinese university graduate in the US, who graduated from Yale University in 1854. In 1875, Yung Wing married Mary Kellogg--a white American woman. With minimal anti-mixed marriages sentiment, their wedding was reported in the New York Times with the main focus on praising the luxuriousness of the wedding, such as the intricate nature the wedding dress using fine silk imported from China. The fact that the Rev. J. Twichell presided the wedding had a positive impact and paved the path for interracial marriage. This marriage also helped Twichell fulfill his goal of bringing Christianity beyond American lands. However, several years later, Yung Wing was still affected by the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, and his US citizenship was called into question.
Another story is Mae Watkins and Tien-Fu Huang’s marriage, who were both students in university at the time of their marriage. They were married in Michigan in 1912. Unfortunately, the local newspaper painted a scandal-like picture of their marriage, which also resulted in the university administration forcing them to drop out. Tien-Fu Huang was unable to naturalize as a US citizen based on the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law, leaving the couple with no choice but to return to China. After returning to China, the couple faced another problem of Chinese policy prohibiting students studying abroad from marrying foreigners. Fortunately, Huang’s family accepted Mae into the family. Meanwhile, Mae made huge efforts to fit into Chinese culture, such as learning the language and dialects, using chopsticks and accepting Chinese cuisine, and conforming with social norms for women of that time. The couple returned to the US in 1918, for an opportunity in San Francisco. Tien-Fu unfortunately contracted the flu shortly after their family’s pilgrimage back to the US, and passed away. Mae also fell ill during that time, and their children were soon became orphaned. The children ended up moving back to Michigan with their grandparents, the Watkins. Despite having spent most of their time growing up in the US, due to complications with the Chinese Exclusion Act still, they were nation-less until the 1940s, when they were finally naturalized as US citizens.
There were a few milestones of the evolution of mixed Chinese-American families from 1842 until now. In 1860, the Chinese population in the US was only 5% female, and by 1920, this had only risen to approximately 12%. Therefore, early Chinese immigrant men had little choice but to marry outside their group. Beginning in the mid-19th century, interracial marriage became the dominant form of marriage among Chinese in New York's Chinatown. On average between 1908 and 1924, approximately 55% of married Chinese in New York were in mixed marriages. These marriages took place in the Boston area as well. In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated the national origins quota system. Along these lines, the decision of the US Supreme Court regarding Loving v. Virginia invalidated the law prohibiting Mildred and Richard Loving’s interracial marriage on June, 12, 1967, achieving a civil rights landmark. In 2010, 27.7 % of Asians first-time newlyweds are in interracial marriages. Nationally, people who identify themselves of mixed-raced background grew by 32% from 2000 to 2010, based on the US Census data.
In the discussion of this month’s Cafe Philo event, it was mentioned that as the percentage of interracial marriages increased, the racial makeup of these marriages has also skewed with time – in the early days, Chinese immigrant men mostly married Euro-American, African-American, Mexican, and Native American women. After World War II, the trend has shifted because returning veterans were allowed to bring their spouses from Asia back to the US, and the immigration law loosened, increasing the ratio of the unions between an American man and a Chinese woman.
Interracial marriage was once under many restrictions and hindrance. Over time, it has become something that is celebrated today. The stories of the pioneers, like Mary Kellogg & Yung Wing and Mae Watkins & Tien-Fu Huang, have greatly honored the progress of their era.
 |
| 與會合影
文摘：Margaret Way, Meng Chun Chiang, Chia-Chun Chung, Herbert Chang, Yi-ying Chou
攝影：Chia-Chien Wu
|
