aas writing

AAS322 - #7 March 10, 2021 M Hom

I

Reading Sui Sin Far Stories – a few selected pointers

On “Wisdom of the New” and “Americanizing Pao Tsu”:

These two stories share the same thematic treatment about the arrival of a young woman as the wife of a successful young Chinese merchant. The husband’s “Americanization” is superficial on the surface, still maintaining a dominating male chauvinist mindset toward his wife, despite wanting the wife behave differently:

Sankwei wants Pao Lin to be subservient and obedient, not allowing her to live her own life; Lin Fou wants Pao Tsu to obey him to be a surrogate of Adah Raymond, his white woman friend. Both dismiss and disrespected their wives opinions, while seeking advices and showing respect to the white women friend.

Pao Tsu and Pao Lin yield to their husband’s dictates reluctantly; but both would fight back fearlessly when they realize that their love for and devotion to their husband were not reciprocated and their lives were threatened with what they considered the white woman (Adah Charlton, Adah Raymond) intrusion and interference.

1. Pao Lin’s newborn son died and she blames it on Adah Charlton’s evil spells; she was horrified that old son Little Yan might become a young version of his father, being Americanized and betraying her.

2. Pao Tsu felt devastated that husband Lin Fou sacrificed her Chinese woman’s modesty when she became ill, she felt she was crucified by husband’s Americanization.

Outcome for both stories is the loss of hope for the Chinse wives. Pao Lin poisoned her son so the latter would not grow up like his father, betraying her. Pao Tzu asked for a divorce so that she could be free from a loveless marriage with Lin Fou.

The two white women, the Adahs, were portrayed as “superior women” with wisdom and compassion in comparison to the “suffering” Chinese women who live the life of defensive territorial isolation.

The conclusion that both San Kwei and Lin Fou, after being chastised by the two Adah for mistreating their good wives, contemplated leaving America to return to China, reveals Sui Sin Far’s pessimistic view: Chinese culture and American cultural are mutually exclusive. You can’t be American, and behave like a Chinese as in the roles of the husbands, and you can’t be a Chinese to live in America, as in role of the wives.

Points to ponder: Is Pao Tsu’s letter asking for a divorce a credible story treatment? 1) She resists husband’s urge for her to acquire an American way of life. 2) Divorce was never an option for Chinese woman before the 1910s; it means humiliation of her womanhood, and she would commit suicide instead. 3) Is this a writer’s “artistic flaw”—imposing the American Suffrage

value on the Chinese characters who are not exposed to that contemporary social movement in America?

On “The White Woman Who Married Chinese” and “Her Chinese Husband”

(I have provided extensive pointers to read the stories, so I will be brief here.)

In this two-part short story, the first person narrative technique emphasized a personal perspective of two conjugal relationships of a white woman, Minnie. Her marriage with an abusive white man, and later another marriage with a considerate Chinese man, brought forth a pertinent concern for womanhood in the discourse of the Suffrage Movement: What does woman want and what’s best for a woman?

SSF’s depiction of Minnie emphasizes that woman may not be strong and independent if her spouse is not supportive of her, as seen in the Minnie’s marriage with Jamese Carson; but in Liu Kanghi, Minnie finds comfort, security and support despite Liu is not perceived as a physically strong man. In this story, SSF attempts to redefine “manhood” and “masculinity” from a woman’s point of view: “masculinity” is not abusive macho- ness, but the spiritual grandeur in a man.

Points to ponder: Liu’s sudden death at the end of the story is not good plotting since there isn’t foretelling of such a thing may happen. It is quite an unexpected twist. It can be read as a writer’s “artistic flaw” as in seen in the story of “Americanizing of Pao Tsu”; but more likely it is also a Freudian slip: SSF accepted the institutionalized racial segregation of her time, and can’t overcome the social norm of anti-miscegenation practice. By ending Liu’s life and the story unnaturally, SSF offers no solution or challenge to the prevailing racism in America in her days.

On “Lin John”

Lin John toiled in hardship to save enough money to help her sister, who was in a bondage as a prostitute. Lin John would do his best so that their family honor would not be in disgrace because of her ill-reputed profession.

The sister stole his money. Lin John would promise that he would continue to work hard to save money and help her out of the bondage. The sister, wearing a new mink bought with the stolen money, called her brother a “fool.”

Points to ponder: Why would Sui Sin Far write such a short stories during the time of the Suffrage Movement that the unnamed woman, a prostitute, being obsessed with materialism and dismissive of her brother’s tireless effort to “save” her? This portrayal of womanhood would be seen as counter-productive to the Suffrage Movement – women’s emancipation.

Of course, Lin John wants to save his sister and return home to China without bring shame to the family. 1) What would be the sister’s status back in China in the imperial and feudal days of her time? In China Chinese woman lived a life of subjugation by men, a life no different from being living in bondage. 2) Did Chinese woman have equal status in feudal Chinese family? 3) If a woman lives in bondage, what would be her better choice: live in subjugation and poverty in China, or live in bondage with materialist life in America? This was Sui Sin Far’s muse in this story: Woman is smarter than her oppressor (man) to make a choice for herself.

On “The Land of the Free”

The immigrant merchant Hom Hing decided to send his pregnant wife Lae Choo back home in China so that his son will be born a “real” Chinese. And he also wanted Lae to take care of his aging parents left behind in China. The son was born and she stayed home in China for several years until the parents-in-law died. Then she returned with her little boy to America to join her husband.

Upon arrival, the American immigration official detained her son as an undocumented new arrival, and would release him to his parents when Hom Hing provided proofs to secure the little boy’s release.

Many months passed and the little boy was not returned to them, despite Hom Hing and Lae did their best to seek his release. They were taken advantage for their misfortune, until a friend finally offered assistance and help.

As they went to the orphanage to reclaim their young son, the little one no longer remember them as parents, and hid behind the caretaker and told them: go away.

Points to ponder: Sui Sin Far writes too obviously as a social critic: 1) The American immigration laws against the Chinese during the Chinese Exclusion Act era was harsh towards the innocent, as seen in the case of the young boy being denied permission to enter. 2) Hom Hing wanted to live like a filial Chinese son to his parents and his wish to have his son born in China as a “real” Chinese is an impossible wish in a society where Chinese and American cultures are mutually exclusive. It is impossible and futile in trying to live a Chinese way of life in America.

II

On Reading The 1936 Chinese American Essay Contest – a background

By the 1930s, the native born, i.e., the American born, generations of Chinese Americans have come of age. As young adults, their predicament is the feeling of non-belonging in the country of their birth: Chinese Exclusion Act was firmly in place. Chinese Americans were living in a segregated Chinatown community and there isn’t social interaction beyond the confine of Chinatown. Chinese were excluded for many jobs despite they might have a qualified education. There was this common saying in America during the exclusion period: “Chinaman’s chance”, meaning “zero chance.”

Meanwhile, the Chinese Americans with U.S. citizenship were eager to demonstrate their American birthright loyalty, as early as in 1909, in San Francisco they established the first Chinese American civil rights organization called the “Native Sons of the Gold State” and later renamed it “Chinese American Citizens’ Alliance” to promote many aspects of the American way of life, including participating/voting in elections, despite all the outright prejudices against them from the politicians and government officials.

The American-born population demonstrated that they were mostly bilingual; they have attended American public school and the Chinese language school in their ethnic community. Some attended college after high school graduation. However, their job opportunity was bleak. For instance, San Francisco State University, formerly a

teacher’s college, would not admit any Chinese to its teacher training program because there was no teaching jobs available to Chinese trained in education. Alice Fong was the first and only Chinese American accepted only because she said she planned to teach in China, not in America, after graduation.

Many Chinese Americans with a college education would stay in Chinatown and work in their family business because there was no job available to them outside of Chinatown. They became a concentrated group American born Chinese in an immigrant-dominated Chinatown. They were eager to demonstrate that they were different from the Chinese immigrants from China. They would pool their energies and resources together to publish an English weekly newspaper-magazine The Chinese Digest to advocate and share with each other their American social identity and interests.

This essay contest, a national debate, was the product of a Chinese American effort to confront institutionalized prejudices against the Chinese Americans and to share among themselves on how to navigate their future in America, with a poignant question: Where will be my future – in America or in China?

PLEASE FOLLOW THE EMAIL INSTRUCTION FOR THIS WEEK’S WRITING ASSIGNMENT