Positively No Filipinos Allowed: Building Communities and Discourse (Asian American History & Cultu)

273 Pages·2006·1.05 MB·English

by  Antonio Tiongson

P1:OTE/SPH P2:OTE
TUPB013-Tiongson February3,2006 23:15
Positively No Filipinos Allowed
i
Positively No Filipinos Allowed
Intheseries
Asian American History and Culture,
editedbySuchengChan,DavidPalumbo-Liu,MichaelOmi,
K.ScottWong,andLindaTrinhVõ
SuchengChan,ed.,ChineseAmericanTransnationalism:TheFlowofPeople,
Resources,andIdeasbetweenChinaandAmericaduringtheExclusionEra
KeithLawrenceandFloydCheung,eds.,RecoveredLegacies:Authorityand
IdentityinEarlyAsianAmericanLiterature
RajiniSrikanth,TheWorldNextDoor:SouthAsianAmericanLiteratureandthe
IdeaofAmerica
LindaTrinhVõ,MobilizinganAsianAmericanCommunity
FranklinS.Odo,NoSwordtoBury:JapaneseAmericansinHawai’iduring
WorldWarII
JosephineLee,ImogeneL.Lim,andYukoMatsukawa,eds.,Re/collectingEarly
AsianAmerica:EssaysinCulturalHistory
LindaTrinhVõandRickBonus,eds.,ContemporaryAsianAmerican
Communities:IntersectionsandDivergences
SunainaMarrMaira,DesisintheHouse:IndianAmericanYouthCultureinNew
YorkCity
TeresaWilliams-LeónandCynthiaNakashima,eds.,TheSumofOurParts:
Mixed-HeritageAsianAmericans
TungPokChinwithWinifredC.Chin,PaperSon:OneMan’sStory
AmyLing,ed.,YellowLight:TheFloweringofAsianAmericanArts
RickBonus,LocatingFilipinoAmericans:EthnicityandtheCulturalPoliticsof
Space
Alistofadditionaltitlesinthisseriesappearsatthebackofthisbook
Positively No
Filipinos
Allowed
Building Communities and Discourse
Editedby
ANTONIO T. TIONGSON, JR.,
EDGARDO V. GUTIERREZ,
AND RICARDO V. GUTIERREZ
ForewordbyLISA LOWE
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Philadelphia
TempleUniversityPress
1601NorthBroadStreet
PhiladelphiaPA19122
www.temple.edu/tempress
Copyright(cid:2)C 2006byTempleUniversity
Allrightsreserved
Published2006
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
(cid:2)∞ThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstherequirementsoftheAmerican
NationalStandardforInformationSciences—PermanenceofPaperforPrinted
LibraryMaterials,ANSIZ39.48-1992
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
PositivelynoFilipinosallowed:buildingcommunitiesanddiscourse/editedby
AntonioT.Tiongson,Jr.;EdgardoV.Gutierrez,andRicardoV.Gutierrez;forewordby
LisaLowe.
p. cm.–(AsianAmericanhistoryandculture)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN1-59213-121-2(alk.paper)—ISBN1-59213-122-0(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.FilipinoAmericans—Ethnicidentity. 2.FilipinoAmericans—History. 3.Filipino
Americans—Socialconditions. 4.Communitylife—UnitedStates. 5.UnitedStates—
Racerelations. 6.Racism–UnitedStates. 7.UnitedStates—Relations—Philippines.
8.Philippines—Relations—UnitedStates. 9.Imperialism—Socialaspects—Philippines.
10.UnitedStates—Insularpossessions. I.Tiongson,AntonioT.,1968–. II.Gutierrez,
EdgardoV.(EdgardoValencia),1969–. III.Gutierrez,RicardoV.(RicardoValencia),
1971–. IV.Series.
E184.F4P682006
305.89(cid:4)921073—dc22
2005049888
2 4 6 8 9 7 5 3 1
Contents
Foreword vii
LISALOWE
Acknowledgments xi
Introduction:CriticalConsiderations 1
ANTONIOT.TIONGSON,JR.
I IMPERIALLEGACIESANDFILIPINOSUBJECTIVITIES
1 PatternsofReform,Repetition,andReturnintheFirst
CentennialoftheFilipinoRevolution,1896–1996 17
JODYBLANCO
2 OnFilipinos,FilipinoAmericans,andU.S.Imperialism
InterviewwithOscarV.Campomanes 26
ANTONIOT.TIONGSON,JR.
3 FilipinoBodies,Lynching,andtheLanguageofEmpire 43
NERISSAS.BALCE
4 “JustTenYearsRemovedfromaBoloandaBreech-cloth”
TheSexualizationoftheFilipino“Menace” 61
RUBYC.TAPIA
II PUBLICPOLICY,LAW,ANDTHECONSTRUCTIONOFFILIPINOS
5 LosingLittleManila
RaceandRedevelopmentinFilipina/oStockton,California 73
DAWNBOHULANOMABALON
6 FilipinoAmericans,ForeignerDiscrimination,andtheLinesof
RacialSovereignty 90
ANGELON.ANCHETA
vi CONTENTS
III RECONFIGURINGTHESCOPEOFFILIPINOPOLITICS
7 OnthePoliticsof(Filipino)YouthCulture
InterviewwithTheodoreS.Gonzalves 111
ANTONIOT.TIONGSON,JR.
8 ColonialAmnesia
RethinkingFilipino“American”SettlerEmpowermentinthe
U.S.ColonyofHawai’i 124
DEANITSUJISARANILLIO
IV RESIGNIFYING“FILIPINOAMERICAN”
9 “AMillionDeaths?”
Genocideandthe“FilipinoAmerican”Condition
ofPossibility 145
DYLANRODR´IGUEZ
10 ReflectionsontheTrajectoryofFilipino/aAmericanStudies
InterviewwithRickBonus 162
ANTONIOT.TIONGSON,JR.
11 DoYouMis(recognize)Me
FilipinaAmericansinPopularMusicandtheProblem
ofInvisibility 172
ELIZABETHH.PISARES
12 ADifferentBreedofFilipinoBalikbayans
TheAmbiguitiesof(Re-)turning 199
S.LILYMENDOZA
Notes 215
AbouttheContributors 245
Index 247
LISA LOWE
Foreword
Writers, artists, and scholars—from Alfrredo Salanga, Angel Shaw, and Carlos
Bulosan to Oscar Campomanes and Reynaldo Ileto—have commented that for-
getting characterizes the Filipino encounter with the United States, both in the
PhilippinesandintheUnitedStates.Nations,collectivities,andindividualshave
forgotten wars, eras of colonial rule, sojourns, settlements, sufferings, and sur-
vivals. With memories left unrecorded, locations destroyed or abandoned, and
sequencesofeventsdisrupted,thepastislosttonarrativehistory.Yetwhileapast
definedandconstitutedbysuchforgettingcanneverbemadeavailablewholeand
transparent, it may often reappear in fragments. It may perhaps be read in the
culturalpractices,socialspaces,scholarlyandpoliticalworkofimmigrantforma-
tions.Theimmigrantpresenceinthemetropolisitselfmaybetherevisitingofthe
empirebyitsimperialpast.
TheessayscollectedhereinPositivelyNoFilipinosAllowedarewrittenagainst
theinjunctiontoforget.Theyareeloquenttestamentstothedialecticalnecessity
thatinscribestheprojectofremembering,committed,asWalterBenjaminwas,to
theideathat“nothingthathaseverhappenedshouldberegardedaslosttohistory.”
The work here discusses the legacy of U.S. colonization of the Philippines, the
manongasaU.S.immigrantlaborforceintheearlypartofthetwentiethcentury
orthatofthefemaledomesticlaborerinthelatterhalf,orthemanysocialspaces
ofpoliticalactivismandorganizingbyFilipinoimmigrantsintheUnitedStates.In
doingso,theessaysdemonstratethathoweverdelayed,partial,orallegorized,the
socialidentityofFilipinoAmericansforcesareckoningwiththepast,arevisiting
ofU.S.empire.ThesituatedknowledgesofFilipinoAmericansmediatethehistory
ofU.S.empirethroughthememoriesof“differentialinclusion”asimmigrantsor
foreign nationals and as a racialized labor force within the United States. All
toooften,theperiodizationofimmigrationtotheUnitedStatespresumesAnglo-
Europeanimmigrationasthenation’soriginarypast,whileracializedimmigration
istemporalizedasifitisarecentevent,followingtheImmigrationandNationality
Act of 1965. The history of Filipinos in the United States demonstrates, to the
contrary, that the long-standing phenomenon of racialized Filipino immigration
isindeed,alongwithU.S.empire,partofalongerhistoryofthedevelopmentof
modern U.S. capitalism and democracy, a longer, more notorious past in which
a nation intersected over and over again with the international contexts of not
only the Philippines, but also Puerto Rico, Mexico, Samoa, Guam, Korea, and
Vietnam.IhavearguedelsewherethatthemateriallegacyofAmerica’simperial
viii Foreword
pastisborneoutinthe“return”ofimmigrantstotheimperialcenter.Anumberof
theessayscollectedheresuggestthatmemoriesofU.S.imperialismarerefigured
as alternative modes in which Filipino immigrants to the United States are the
survivorsofempire,itswitnesses,itstestifiers.
Thus, the essays here presume that the legacy of U.S. colonialism in the
Philippines can be “read” in the circumstances of Filipino immigration to and
settlementintheUnitedStates.Furthermore,numerousessaysalsodiscusshow
FilipinoAmericanshavebeenconstitutedasanobjectofdisciplinaryknowledge,
andmanyframethequestionoftheintelligibilityofFilipinoAmericanformation
asapressingquestionforstudentsofrace,culture,law,andlaborintheU.S.uni-
versity.TheyspecifytheimmigranthistoryinwhichFilipinoshadbeen“included”
assubjectsofU.S.colonialism,thenexcludedandrepatriatedas“aliens,”andthen
“differentially included” in the United States as racialized labor. Yet the essays
are directed asking why the Filipino American racial formation continues to be
relativelyillegiblewithintraditionalscholarlydisciplinesintheuniversity,likehis-
tory,anthropology,sociology,law,orliterature,andevensomewhatstillobscurein
emergentinterdisciplinaryfieldslikeethnicstudies,Americanstudies,andAsian
Americanstudies.AndwithrespecttothediscoursesinwhichFilipinoAmericans
are legible, these authors query the reasons that the status of Filipino American
formation is often one of analogue or duplicate, treated as similar to rather than
distinctfromotherAsianAmericanorotherU.S.minorityorimmigrantgroups.
Why is Filipino American formation not treated as an object of knowledge that
requiresatransformationofthemethodsandtheresearchquestionscustomarily
employedbydisciplinaryformations?Theseessaysboldlyinsistonthistransfor-
mation.Theyaskdifferentresearchquestionsthanthosepreviouslyaskedofother
racializedandimmigrantgroups,andtheirmeansofansweringdonotmerelyun-
coveranddocument“new”factsaboutFilipinoAmericansasasocialidentity,but
alsocontributesignificantlytowardthereworkingofexistingmethodsandobjects
withinthetraditionalfieldsofknowledgeinwhichFilipinoAmericanshavebeen
eitherpreviouslystudiedorpreviouslyobscured.
With respect to Asian American studies, the field within which the study of
Filipino Americans has often fallen, I have commented that the force of recent
workinAsianAmericanstudieshasnotbeenaimedexclusivelyattherestoration
of a cultural heritage to a social identity. Rather, I understand much of the most
importantworktoarguethatthehistoricalspecificityofAsianimmigrantswithin
thehistoryoftheUnitedStateshighlightsaseriesofconvergencesinwhichU.S.
nationalismhasbeenexercisedthroughracialexclusion,genderedviolence,and
laborexploitation.The“case”ofAsianAmericans,inotherwords,providesaset
ofhistoricalmaterialsthatenablesustoconsiderthechanginginstitutionofU.S.
citizenshipintermsofthehistoryofracializedlaborimmigration.Theessaysin
PositivelyNoFilipinosAllowedpursueasimilarhermeneutic,thatis,readingand
LISALOWE ix
interpretingthespecificcaseofFilipinoAmericans,andunderliningthemannerin
whichitsdifferencecontributesto,andinauguratesarevisionof,thecritique.The
authorsaskwhatthespecificityofFilipinoAmericans—asformerU.S.colonized
subjectswhoimmigratetotheUnitedStatestobecomearacializedandgendered
laborforce—bringstothe“table”ofAsianAmericanstudies,whatthisformation
addstothatcritique.Theydemonstratethatthedifferentlygenderedexperienceof
FilipinomenandwomenintheUnitedStatesshedslightonageneralunderstanding
oftheintersectionsofrace,work,gender,andsexuality.Intheworkcollectedhere,
theimpactoflegislationontheFilipinoimmigranttotheUnitedStates—fromthe
AlienLandLawsandtheTydings-McDuffieActtoantimiscegenationlawsandthe
ImmigrationandNationalityActof1965—notonlyrevealstheroleofthestatein
determiningrace,gender,class,andlaborinthedevelopmentoftheUnitedStates,
butalsotestifiestotheongoingeffectsofU.S.colonialisminthePhilippineson
thelivesofimmigrantsintheUnitedStates.StudiesofmenandwomenofLittle
Manilas—inStockton,LosAngeles,orSeattle—orinpopularyouthculturetoday,
tellusmuchaboutcommunitymemoryasaforceofunrecordedunofficialhistory,
and the role of work and play in Filipino political movements and community
building.Takentogether,theessaysinPositivelyNoFilipinosAllowedvigorously
pursue Filipino American critique. They insist that the forgetting that renders
the Filipino American “lost to history” must be made visible and intelligible.
Theydirectthestudentandscholartolocatethatintelligibilityinstitutionally,and
theyquerywhatformsofpracticemustnecessarilyissuefromitsemergenceinto
intelligibility.