A Scholarly Review of “The Very Recklessness of Statesmanship: Explanations of Chinese Exclusion”
Passed in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the apex of more than thirty years of advancing racism. Anti-Chinese sentiment began with the great migration from China during the California gold rush. White miners and prospectors began imposing taxes and laws that inhibited the Chinese from successfully panning for gold in the rivers. Soon enough, Chinese immigrants began to occupy other jobs and partially created more competition in the job market. Originally, the only law passed was the fifteen passenger law, but the Chinese Exclusion Act was much worse. By 1882 the Chinese were hated enough to be banned from immigrating; the Chinese Exclusion Act, initially only a ten year policy, was extended indefinitely, and made permanent in 1902. Naturally, the Chinese felt aggrieved, but for the most part remained calm and quiet. The Act would not be repealed until 1943 when China would be a strong ally against Japan. The article, “The Very Recklessness of Statesmanship: Explanations of Chinese Exclusion”, is exactly what it sounds like—an argument for why Chinese Exclusion was acceptable. From a modern 2012 viewpoint, most would say that Chinese Exclusion was a terrible part of history (and of course it was) but reading the article from a scholarly viewpoint, it is not so wrong to say that the author had the right idea. Also, one must look for any bias commentary, which there seems to be plenty of in this rhetoric. And finally, one must look to see if there are any mistakes from the past that we can use to learn about current events. Therefore, the point of this paper is to appraise in a scholarly manner The Very Recklessness of Statesmanship to put the article into historical context, evaluate written biases, and to learn from past mistakes and critically apply them to todays’ social problems. Despite the fact that American Historians would prefer to swipe the negative parts of our history under a rug and forget about it, they cannot. James G. Blaine was most definitely the most outspoken congressman for Chinese Exclusion and arguably the leader for Chinese Exclusion. In fact, in 1879, James G. Blaine said, “I feel and know that I am pleading the cause of the Free American laborer and of his children and of his children’s children.” Basically, he is saying that he knows that he is hating on the Chinese and he does not care. However, he sugar coats it by arguing for the laborers. He also uses the argument that everything he says is that he is fighting for freedom in America. During this time in history, nationalism is very important, so he is using another strong argument. The author of this article has a very biased tone throughout his rhetoric. There are many mentions of Republican congressmen, but no mention of Democrats. The rhetoric used to describe Republicans is basically negative, making it seem like only Republicans are for Chinese Exclusion. Historically though, Democrats and Republicans actually agreed on many things during that time period, including immigration policy. One can argue then, that more than likely, the author is Democrat. It is often said that History repeats itself. If this is true, then why don’t people take the time to analyze current events in a historical context? I believe it can be argued that people of Hispanic descent, especially Mexican, are going through an ordeal very similar to the Chinese. The United States has apologized to African-Americans, Japanese, Native Americans and Hawaiians for wrongs in the name of government. Now it has made that rare apology to Chinese-Americans for discriminatory laws adopted 130 years ago. Doesn't it sound like we'll be doing the same thing in another 130 years to Mexican peoples? Apologizing for imposing severe restrictions on Mexican immigration and naturalization and denied Mexican-Americans basic freedoms because of their race? I guess it's different this time.