"Issei"

I-Schaefer-45503.qxd 2/18/2008 4:12 PM Page 764 764———Issei However, some scholars have concluded that the whole concept of Islamophobia is controversial, and have dismissed it as a myth or a form of intellectual blackmail. They argue that the term is unhelpful in the complex context of Muslim minorities in the West because the onus is on Muslims themselves to adopt the dominant public values of the society in which they live. These scholars claim that the term Islamophobia is being used to deflect and silence legitimate critical scrutiny of Islam and its values. From this view, the Danish cartoons should not be considered as Islamophobic, but as an example of a long-standing Western tradition of satire, and raising issues such as wearing the veil as a matter for debate is not Islamophobic but, rather, a necessary approach in a liberal, multicultural society. Claiming that Islamophobia is responsible for the low achievement of Muslim students is also dismissed as an excuse; students should accept responsibility for their own levels of achievement. Though the term may sometimes be misapplied to anything that Muslims do not like, fear, hatred, and prejudice toward Muslims are widespread in the contemporary Western world, and treating these views and emotional responses as natural or as necessarily the fault of the Muslims themselves (because they refuse to change their own beliefs and values) is not a helpful response. States and organizations that claim to base their practices on justice, equality, and freedom must be willing to review policies and procedures to avoid discrimination against, and promote equal opportunities for, Muslims and to ensure that harassment and hostility are not part of the daily experience of Muslims living in the West. J. Mark Halstead See also France; Intergroup Relations, Surveying; Muslim Americans; Muslims in Canada; Muslims in Europe; Prejudice; Racism, Cultural; Religion, Minority; Veil Further Readings Allen, Chris and Jorgen Nielsen. 2002. Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU After 11 September 2001. Vienna, Austria: European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Bhatia, Amir 2003. The Fight Against Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Bringing Communities Together. Brussels, Belgium: EU Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs. Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. 1997. Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. London: Runnymede Trust. Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. 2004. Islamophobia: Issues, Challenges and Action. Stoke-onTrent, UK: Trentham Books. Vertovec, Steven. 2002. “Islamophobia and Muslim Recognition in Britain.” In Muslims in the West, edited by Y. Y. Haddah. New York: Oxford University Press. ISSEI First-generation Japanese immigrants/emigrants are called Issei, literally, “first generation” in Japanese. In the United States, the term typically refers to the migrants from Japan who entered Hawai‘i and the U.S. mainland between 1868 and 1924. Official migration began on a large scale following the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act and an agreement between the Japanese government and the Hawaiian monarchy; it officially ended with the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act. Most emigrants to Hawai‘i were from farming families in rural areas of southwestern Japan, in particular Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Kumamoto, Fukuoka, and later, Okinawa prefectures. Japanese who migrated to the United States after World War II are included as Issei but sometimes referred to more specifically as Shin-Issei or “new (postwar) Japanese” to distinguish between the major prewar and postwar waves of Japanese migration. As with other firstgeneration immigrant groups, understandings of Issei in the United States have changed with shifts in scholarship on race and ethnicity. This entry looks at immigration patterns, points out the differences between Issei in Hawai‘i and on the U.S. mainland, and summarizes trends in research on the Issei. Patterns of Migration Official Japanese migration to what is now the United States actually began to a place that was not part of the United States at the time: the Kingdom, Republic, and later, U.S. territory of Hawai‘i. Between 1885 and 1894, there were three different periods of migration from Japan, according to Alan Moriyama. From 1885 to 1894, married couples and single men emigrated as government-sponsored contract laborers to work I-Schaefer-45503.qxd 2/18/2008 4:12 PM Page 765 Issei———765 primarily on sugar cane plantations. From 1894 to 1908, migrant sponsorship shifted from the Japanese government to private emigration companies based in Japan. Finally, between 1908 and 1924 was a period of primarily “independent” emigration, meaning most people were not sponsored by the government or private emigration companies and, instead, had the support of relatives already in the United States. Meanwhile, patterns of migration to the U.S. mainland are generally divided into two major periods, according to Yuji Ichioka. From 1885 to 1907, migrants were mostly single male dekasegi (sojourners) who took on wage labor in mining, lumber, canneries, and agriculture. In large cities such as San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, they often worked as “schoolboys,” attending school while also working as domestic servants. The passage of the 1907–1908 Gentlemen’s Agreement marked the end of prewar labor migration from Japan to the United States. From 1908 to 1924, more settled immigrant communities began to develop around urban centers and farming areas. After Hawai‘i became a U.S. territory in 1900, thousands of laborers left the islands for the mainland, presumably to escape the harsh plantation conditions and to access the relatively higher wages available on the West Coast. Issei women are probably best known as “picture brides.” This refers to the practice of arranged marriage between women in Japan (and Korea) and their countrymen living in Hawai‘i and on the U.S. mainland. In most cases, the wives had seen only pictures of their husbands before meeting them upon arrival in the United States. Picture bride migration peaked between 1908 and 1924 and enabled the formation of Japanese (and Okinawan in Hawai‘i) communities based on the development of families and women’s additional paid and unpaid labor. Four major patterns of migration explain how Japanese migrants ended up in the United States. First, some went to the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, settled there, and Hawai‘i itself became part of the United States. Most people in this group came from poorer farming backgrounds. Second, some emigrants went directly to the U.S. mainland. This group tended to come from slightly higher class backgrounds compared with the first group. Third, some people migrated to Hawai‘i then saved money for the passage to the U.S. mainland and made a second domestic migration after Hawai‘i became a U.S. territory. Finally, a smaller number of Japanese went to Canada or Mexico, then crossed the border to the United States. U.S. Mainland Versus Hawai‘i: Differences Issei experiences and identities have been shaped by different social histories and demographics in Hawai‘i and on the U.S. mainland. Starting in 1900, Okinawans also began migrating to Hawai‘i and eventually their numbers became the largest. Okinawa had been an independent kingdom until it became a prefecture of Japan in 1879. Some Okinawans also went to the U.S. mainland, but their numbers remain most concentrated in Hawai‘i, where they represent a large proportion of the Japanese American population today. In contrast to the U.S. mainland, where they are commonly subsumed as Japanese, in Hawai‘i, Okinawan ethnic identity was shaped by plantation experiences and persists, possibly because of their large numbers; Okinawans have distinct cultural and linguistic differences from other Japanese and a history of discrimination by Naichi (mainland Japanese). Perhaps the most significant difference occurred during World War II. People of Japanese ancestry experienced a mass removal and internment by the U.S. government, but this did not occur in Hawai‘i. In the islands, Japanese priests, schoolteachers, and other community leaders were incarcerated at Honouliuli and Sand Island camps on O‘ahu and in U.S. mainland camps, but most Japanese Americans in Hawai‘i were not interned, ostensibly because of their large population and their significance for the territory’s economy. Developments in Scholarship on Issei Frameworks for conceptualizing and discussing Issei have shifted in recent years. In earlier periods, Issei were studied primarily in terms of their lives in the United States—within what might be called a U.S. ethnic studies framework. This type of research largely assumed that migration was unidirectional and stressed the rightful inclusion of Issei as Americans regardless of citizenship (for which they were ineligible until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952). It focused on their experiences as immigrants who left their homelands, families, and former lives to start new ones in the United States. More recent scholarship, however, takes a more transnational or global approach, looking beyond Issei experiences in the U.S. domestic context to examine ways in which they I-Schaefer-45503.qxd 2/18/2008 4:12 PM Page 766 766———Italian Americans continued to be influenced by Japan, the country they supposedly left behind. This perspective re-situates Issei as living more multifaceted lives with complicated and multiple allegiances that were not based only in the United States. This shift can be explained by the convergence of several factors. First, a growing awareness and condemnation of Japanese American internment history in mainstream U.S. discourse is changing the way that Japanese Americans as a whole can be, and are being, discussed. Possibilities are opening up to talk about Issei identifications in more complex ways. Instead of dwelling on bifurcated loyalties to either the United States or Japan, discussions can move on to other issues and don’t need to linger on proving the “Americanness” of U.S. residents of Japanese ancestry. Earlier scholars undoubtedly avoided this kind of framework because of the previous need to emphasize the Americanness of Japanese immigrants. The transnational perspective is quite controversial, given the propaganda and discourse that justified the internment of Issei and their U.S.-born children based on continued ties to Japan that supposedly posed a military threat. This discursive shift reflects similar trends in Asian U.S. studies, immigration studies, and racial and ethnic studies. This understanding of the world as more interconnected than previously imagined is affecting the way that contemporary studies are being conducted and the ways in which we understand history. Another contributory factor is the increasing amount of bilingual research being conducted. In addition to studies that previously examined English language documents by and about Issei, a growing body of scholarship also accesses documents in Japanese by and about Issei. Accessing these additional documents is leading to new understandings of Issei lifestyles and attitudes. Scholars producing work on Issei are coming from increasingly diverse backgrounds. More and more scholars in and from Japan are contributing to the body of knowledge about Japanese immigrants/ emigrants. Most work on Issei in the United States was originally conducted by people greatly influenced by the politics of ethnic studies programs; that, too, is changing. Broader interpretations of Issei and other Asian American histories and experiences are leading to what some are calling the denationalization and depoliticization of the field. Finally, Issei experiences are being examined not only in the context of other immigration histories in the U.S. context, but also in relation to other Japanese emigrants and as part of a larger Japanese diaspora. Increasing interaction between ethnic Japanese communities and scholars in Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico, among other countries, is resulting in more of this type of research from a more global perspective. Through comparisons of Issei experiences in North and South American countries, for example, the different ways in which each government shaped the racial (and ethnic) formation of Japanese immigrants and their communities is being better understood. Jane H. Yamashiro See also Chinese Exclusion Act; Gentlemen’s Agreement (1907–1908); Haole; Hawai‘i, Race in; Hawaiians; Internment Camps; Japan; Japanese Americans; Nisei Further Readings Azuma, Eiichiro. 2005. Between Two Empires: Race, History, and Transnationalism in Japanese America. New York: Oxford University Press. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1986. Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three Generations of Japanese American Women in Domestic Service. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Hirabayashi, Lane Ryo, Akemi Kikumura-Yano, and James A. Hirabayashi, eds. 2002. New Worlds, New Lives: Globalization and People of Japanese Descent in the Americas and from Latin America in Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ichioka, Yuji. 1988. The Issei: The World of the First Generation Japanese Immigrants 1885–1924. New York: Free Press. Kikumura, Akemi. 1992. Issei Pioneers: Hawaii and the Mainland, 1885–1924. Los Angeles, CA: Japanese American National Museum. Kimura, Yukiko. 1988. Issei: Japanese Immigrants in Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Moriyama, Alan Takeo. 1985. Imingaisha: Japanese Emigration Companies and Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. ITALIAN AMERICANS Nearly 16 million strong, Italian Americans are often identified with the tide of poor immigrants who arrived in the early 20th century and built cohesive communities