ANTI-ASIAN HATE
At one
time Japanese farmers thrived on Signal Hill, growing cucumbers which made
Signal Hill the cucumber growing capital of California.
Many believe the Japanese were forced off
their Signal Hill land because of the discovery of oil in 1921.
That is not the case. They were required to
leave when the Alien Land Law was passed by California voters in 1920. Since
owning land was one of the qualifiers for U.S. citizenship, this law prevented
them from becoming true Americans.
Today we are again facing anti-Asian
hate, thrust at all who happen to have a face that looks different from white
and black Americans. Perhaps the
anti-Japanese movement which started in California in 1905 is best
forgotten. It's not something we're
proud of, but I bring it up here because it was part of our history and it
helps to understand patterns and events that were to influence life in later
years. It’s a story with a long history, as this blog points out.
Looking back, the anti-Japanese movement was in many ways merely a
continuation of the long-standing agitation against the Chinese which began in
the early 1850s. At first the Asian
immigrants had been welcome, but later when the completion of the Central
Pacific Railroad threw most of these Chinese workers into an already depressed
labor market, there was an outcry against them.
In 1920 the same thing began to happen to the Japanese, but it had
earlier roots.
In May
1905 the Asiatic Exclusion League was formed in California. The League's immigrant leaders felt Europeans
such as themselves could be assimilated into the American melting pot, but were
convinced that assimilation could not cross the color line. From 1905 on the League continued to
introduce legislation excluding Japanese immigration to America. In 1920 they were successful in getting the
matter of land ownership to a public vote in California. There was much debate
surrounding the issue, including the following from Samuel M. Shortridge,
candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. senator from California. He spoke at the Long Beach Municipal
Auditorium in August 1920 before an audience of more than 350 persons:
“Let the bona fide Japanese travelers pass
through our territory, let their students attend our universities, if they
desire, and return to their own land to enlighten their own countrymen, but let
them not make their permanent home among us.
We do not need them; we do not want them; they are in no sense
industrially, morally or politically, a benefit to us; they will but irritate
and breed discontent and add to our domestic and international problems. Let them remain at home, cultivate their own
soil, develop their own resources or migrate to other lands whose people will
welcome them. We do not want cheap
labor. We want well-paid labor. We want intelligent, patriotic, contented
labor. We want homes and schools, libraries and churches. We want boys and girls with hope in their
hearts and smiles on their faces. We
want men and women erect, proud, self-sustaining, happy, and ready to die for
their country, glad to give their first-born to the defense of the flag. We
want no antagonistic races, we want no hostile classes, we want no castes, we
want no aliens incapable of republican government. We want an intelligent, self-respecting,
prosperous and loyal American citizenship which shall guide this nation upward
and onward and make of this republic the greatest, grandest brotherhood the
world has ever seen. We want no alien people in our midst.” LB Press 8/23/1920.
In
September 1920 the
Long Beach Press
indicated there was a real possibility of a general exodus of Japanese from
Long Beach if the general public voted for what was called Proposition 1. Many farmers had already left their farms on
Signal Hill to investigate living conditions in Mexico and Texas. On October 21st the Japanese issue was again
debated at the Municipal Auditorium.
James D. Phelan, U.S. senator for California took on the Reverend U.G. Murphy
in an interesting contest. Phelan was
angry that there was an effort to create a “pro-Jap” sentiment in Los Angeles
to try and defeat Proposition 1.
He felt this was being spearheaded by the Japanese, “persons who are on
our shores simply by sufferance, guests of the nation, organizing a movement to
obtain defeat of a measure initiated by the rightful citizens of the
state."
Phelan
went on to point out that in Japan foreigners could not own land so why should
Japanese here own American soil? Phelan
remarked that of the 3,856,000 acres of tillable land in California, 456,000
were in control of the Japanese. This
was one of every nine acres. The money
made from the land did not go into the usual trade channels, but went into the
shops of Japanese, for they only traded with their own people. Phelan claimed they were setting up a colony
for Japan in the United States, destined to create a commercial rivalry with
America. They had already doubled prices
by their monopolistic control of certain crops and they could dictate prices of
food.
The
Reverend Murphy defended the Japanese, claiming they were peaceable immigrants
and their American born children loyal to the teaching of American
idealism. He asserted the Land Exclusion
Act was one of "hysterical race prejudice." He pointed out that Californians refused to
tolerate the Japanese because it could not assimilate them but permitted the
Jews, who for 4,000 years had refused to permit marriages outside their own
race, to have every privilege.
Frequently
Murphy had to stop speaking because of the cat-calls, hisses and heckling from
the audience.
On
November 2, 1920, California voters went to the polls to decide on passage of
an act which excluded native born Japanese, the Issei, from owning land, a
qualifying factor in becoming a citizen.
Their children, the Nisei, born in the United States were exempt from
the legislation. Despite ads in the Long
Beach Press asking Californians to vote NO on election day, and attempts of
women like University of Iowa educated Mrs. Tatsu Kondo to Americanize the 1024
Japanese residing in Long Beach, the Alien Land Law passed.
 |
| Fish Harbor |
Stories
about the Japanese and their clannish ways continued to appear. In November 1920, following the passage of
the Alien Land Law, Japanese fishermen at the Long Beach harbor were subject to
several harassing allegations. White
fishermen asserted the Japanese fishermen monopolized the wharves and docks at
Fish Harbor to the absolute exclusion of the white men. Another accusation was that the Japanese
agreed to pricing among themselves, driving up the cost of fish. As a result, a bill was introduced in the
California Senate making it unlawful for Japanese to engage in the fishing
industry in California waters.
In
January 1921, Long Beach contractor W. Jay Burgin suggested restrictions against Japanese merchants
in Long Beach. He reported that in
Brawley the entire business district of the city was in the hands of
Asians. The anti-alien land law had
driven Japanese farmers into the city, and the same thing might happen in Long
Beach, Burgin stated, if action was not taken now. Burgin suggested a charter revision refusing
business licenses to aliens not eligible for citizenship.
The
Japanese were being forced out of their livelihoods. Many Japanese farmers on Signal Hill were
unable to renew their leases and forced to move out of California. There were rumors of a Japanese plot to control the coast of Lower
California by purchasing land holdings worth $5,000,000 from the Mexican
government. Local landowner W. L.
Porterfield, who had never supported the Alien Land Law, attempted to lease
eighty acres of land to Y. Mazino, the foreman at the Bixby ranch. The matter was taken to United States
District Court which ruled that any land contract with a Japanese alien was
illegal.
What was
left for the Japanese was garbage. Literally.
They contracted with the city to collect Long Beach's waste, paying the
city for the privilege. Mr. Sakomoto
paid the city $1.05 a ton for the garbage which he fed to hogs on land he got
to use free from the city . But there were complaints from Japanese
workers that homeowners were not obeying the rules about sorting garbage. When the men found refuse mixed with broken
glass, or liquids dumped into the garbage cans, making the garbage unsuitable
for hog feed, they refused to take it.
This brought verbal insults from residents. Public Service Director A.L. Ferver looked
into a number of complaints and found the Japanese completely justified in not
taking the garbage because of broken glass and other injurious substances
deposited in the cans. He advised that
rules be followed or the garbage would not be picked up .
In November 1922, the United States Supreme Court simplified
matters for the exclusionists by validating their long-standing contention that
Japanese were "aliens ineligible to citizenship." They based their decision on statutes
limiting naturalization to "free white persons and aliens of African
nativity." In 1924, the quota system
limiting immigration was extended and the California congressional contingent
was successful in getting Japanese exclusion included in the legislation.
The
Japanese government was seriously upset at this exclusion legislation. When two Japanese were found murdered near
Point Firmin on June 20, 1924, the Japanese Consul requested an official
inquiry into the deaths. The bodies of M. Yoshioka and Kachema Igarashi were
found lying in a pool of blood on the Point Firmin road leading to White’s
Point with a 32-caliber pistol lying nearby.
Several bullet holes punctured Yoshioka’s body, while Igarashi appeared
to have been shot once, through the right side of the face just above the
mouth. The third finger of his left hand
was nearly severed. Detectives disclosed both men were well known gamblers,
with a reputation of being crooked, who preyed on the Chinese community. They were last seen alive with four other
Japanese, who could not be found. Police surmised the slaying was solely the
result of a gamblers’ feud and had no bearing whatever upon them being
Japanese.
What must be realized in looking at the treatment of
Japanese during this time is that it wasn’t merely the work of a minority of
Americans. If the matter had been put to
a national vote in the 1920s there is little doubt that it would have been approved
by the vast majority of United States citizens.
The discriminations against the Japanese which I’ve mentioned here are
clearly blots on the democratic ideals which we so highly prize today. But the consequences of the anti-Japanese
movement were more than moral. The
existence of this prejudice helped to poison relations between the United
States and Japan and create the foundations of World War II.
Sources:
"Bar Japanese is urged by Shortridge speech." LB Press 8/23/1920, 111: 3
"Bids open for removal of garbage." L B Press 10/15/1921, 1:3
"California facing ultimate Japanese control, says Phelan." LB Press 10/22/1920, 21:7
"Japanese farmers on Signal Hill in movement to Texas." LB Press 4/6/1921, 13:4)
"Japanese tell of trouble." LB Press 8/12/1921, 25:1
