ABSTRACT SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS AS FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS OF A NON-WHITE IMMIGRANT MINORITY: THE CASE OF THE PILIPINOS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A. By Antonio J. A. Pido Most studies on voluntary immigration have focused on the individual immigrants as the major active agents in the immigration process. Until recently, most of the studies on immigration reflected the use of the order- consensus model and a structural/functionalist approach, usually using one (micro) level of analysis. This often resulted in normative, rather than actual descriptions, of the perceptions and experiences of the immigrants and/or the immigration process. This study was undertaken to demonstrate that a conflict and change model is a more realistic approach in understanding race and ethnic relations in general and in the immigration process in particular. It posited that although the immigrants in voluntary immigration are the ultimate actors in the immigration process at the micro level, this action is precipitated by structural factors at the macro level over which they may have no control. Antonio J. A. Pido The study used a conflict and change model of society and a multi-level analysis in examining Pilipino immigration to the United States. It examined the historically-developed macro structures that may have precipitated the immigration of Pilipinos and the interac- tion of these structures with micro level factors. It focused on the new Pilipino immigrants who are associated with the "brain drain" and have higher social economic characteristics than their earlier predecessors. An exploratory approach rather than a test pre- structured hypotheses was used. It made extensive use of historical data, Census data, and other reports on Pilipino immigration to the United States. Field data was secured from a sample of fifty-one (Sl) Pilipino adults residing in a medium-sized Midwestern U.S. city, referred to in this study as “Midwest City". The sample represented sixty-six percent (66%) of a possible universe of seventy- seven (77) Pilipino adults in Midwest City during 1974 and the middle of 1975. The results of the study suggest the following: (a) At the macro level, the "voluntary" immigration of Pilipinos to the U.S. was precipitated by historically- developed structures and/or systems of relationships over which the immigrants had little or no control. These macro structures also determined the patterns of interaction Antonio J. A. Pido between the immigrants and American society and institutions. (b) The individual structural "brain drain" characteristics of the new immigrants, coupled with the changes in the macro structures in the U.S. at the time of their immigration, eliminated their having to confront some cross cultural conflicts usually associated with interna- tional immigration. (c) The new immigrants, partly because of their educational credentials, try to manage to avoid cross- cultural and/or identity conflicts that tend to impede their attainment of their aspirations. Those that give more meaning to their lives are retained. (d) Until recently, most Pilipinos did not asso- ciate themselves with the other non-White minority groups in the U.S. because of their cultural trait of avoiding interpersonal conflicts and their perception that their immigrant status places them in a category different from the other non-White minorities. Whereas the latter may have the Light to make demands on the U.S. social, politi- cal, and economic system/s, the Pilipino immigrants perceive that their being in the U.S. is a privilege which can be voided if they are not satisfied with the treatment accorded to them by the host society. Antonio J. A. Pido Lastly, the results of this study suggest that conceptual and empirical studies on race and ethnic relations in general and on immigration in particular will produce more meaningful information if they are conducted on a comparative, multi-level perspective, utilizing a conflict and change model of analysis. The studies should not only be cross-cultural; they should also be inter-generational, with a historical perspective; and should include the examination of the macro structural and micro levels of interaction. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS AS FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS OF A NON-WHITE IMMIGRANT MINORITY: THE CASE OF THE PILIPINOS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A. By ,,. Lh( lu . . \‘ . Antonio J. A. Pido A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1976 Copyright by ANTONIO J. A. 1976 PIDO Look you always upon your countryman as something more than a neighbor. See in him the friend, the brother, or at the very least, the companion to whom you are bound by single fate, by the same joys and sorrows, and by common aspira- tions and interests. ... As long as frontiers of nations exists ... to him alone should you unite in perfect solidarity of views and inter- ests, in order to gather strength, not only to fight the common enemy, but also to attain all the goals of human aspirations. Apolinario Mabini ACKNOWLEDGMENT The two persons most responsible for my having completed my doctoral studies were Professors John Useem and Ruth Hill Useem. They managed to temper their standards of academic excellence with patience and human understanding. The concern and assistance extended to me and my family went beyond what was required of them as academic tutors. Being separated from my extended family in my own country, John and Ruth Useem became in fact, our surrogate extended family in the United States. To both of them, my family and I are greatly indebted not only for helping make my further education possible, but also for making our lives in the United States less difficult and more pleasant. As my advisor and dissertation director, Professor Ruth 5. Hamilton has provided me with firm and uncompro- mising commitment to scholarship, tempered with patience and understanding. I am indebted to her for making my last years as a graduate student a truly rewarding scholastic and human experience. I also acknowledge my indebtedness to Professors James B. MacKee and Christopher Sower who provided ii u. constant inspiration and advice during my studies. Their approach to sociology has influenced me towards the view that the social sciences, as science and art, should be used for people, and not just be about people. I acknowledge my gratitude to Professors William A. Faunce and Jay W. Artis, who were Chairmen of the Department while I was a student, for their concern for my welfare as a student and a person. The help extended to me by Dr. John A. Millar, Dr. Christopher K. Vanderpool, Mrs. Marilyn Lovall and the staff of the Department of Sociology, was of inestimable value in my learning how to cope with the University bureaucracy. I am also indebted to Professors Frederick Waisanen and Bernard Finifter whose confidence in me, enabled me to secure financial assistance from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Comparative Sociology Program. I am thankful to Dr. Kay A. Snyder and Dr. Harry L. Case for their advice and critique of my work, particularly that relating to the Philippines. Not being Pilipinos, but with ample knowledge and experience about the Philippines, they provided alternative views which I as Pilipino would have missed. Several individuals were very helpful in my research and in the final phases of my dissertation. I am indebted to: Mr. Clinton Lockert, International iii Bibliographer, Mrs. Eleanor Boyles, and Ms. Carol Manning of the Document Section of the University Library. I am likewise thankful to Professor Frank Shulman, Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan; Dr. Shiro Saito, Librarian, University of Hawaii; Dr. Chester L. Hunt, Professor of Sociology, Western Michigan University; and Mr. Royal F. Morales, author of Makibaka (T974), the latest published work on Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. I am also grateful to Dr. Lydia A. Beltran and Mrs. Teresita S. Torres for their assistance in the final editing and typing of the dissertation manuscript. I am also grateful to several institutions. They are: the Department of Commerce and State Library of the State of Michigan; United States Immigration and Natural- ization Service (Detroit Office); Committee on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives; the Offices of the Commer- cial and Labor Attaches, Philippine Embassy, Washington, D.C.; the Library of Congress; the Philippine Consulate 'General, Chicago; and my former colleagues at the Division of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Science Development Board, Manila, Philippines. I am grateful for the financial support I received for my doctoral education in the United States from: The Department of Sociology, the College of Social Science, and the College of Urban Development of Michigan State iv University for the various graduate assistantships; the National Institute of Mental Health for a fellowship in Comparative Sociology; the Asia Foundation; the National Science Development Board; and the Aquinas Fund, for other forms of financial assistance. I also wish to thank my friends and fellow graduate students for the various ways in which they contributed to my education and made my sojourn in the United States a pleasant one. My close association with them has greatly reinforced my positive impressions and perceptions of Americans. Without the understanding, cooperation and parti- cipation of the Pilipinos in the selected field site and elsewhere, this study could not have been possible. Unfortunately, to protect their identities and conditions for their participation, they shall have to remain anonymous. I shall continue to be indebted to them long after this study shall have been forgotten. To them and to the Pilipino immigrants to the United States and elsewhere, I dedicate this study. I continue to be indebted to my parents, Pablo T. Pido and Luisa Alvarez de Pido. They have provided me with encouragement and went beyond their obligations as parents to provide me with some financial assistance from their retirement incomes. Last, but not the least, I V am deeply thankful to my wife, Maria Theresa and our children: Pablo III, Antonio Jr., Maria Teresita, Ignatius Denis and Juan Jose. The decision to go back to school in the middle of my career and at my age could not have been possible without their willingness to deprive themselves of the attention of a husband and father, as well as the necessities and comforts that they deserve and to which they are entitled. vi COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following for permission to use and/or quote from published materials used in this study. Robert Blauner, Racial Oppression in America, (i) 1972 Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y. p. 41. Emory S. Bogardus, "American Attitudes Towards Filipinos." Sociology and Social Research, 59-69. (Q) 1929 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Onofre D. Corpus, The Philippines, (i) 1965, pp. 27-28. Reprinted by permission of Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Lewis Coser, "Some Sociological Aspects of Conflict,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills, l968: Cromwell Collier and MacMillan, Inc., pp. 232-236. Ralf Dahrendorf, "Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Social Analysis," American Journal of Sociology, 115-127, (g) 1958 University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. MacMillan,Publishing Company, (i) 1930, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, p. 281. Carey McWilliams, Brothers Under the Skin, (i) 1964 Little Brown and Company Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 236-237; 239-240. Royal F. Morales, Makibaka: The Pilipino American Struggle, (g) 1974 Mountainview Publishers, Inc., Los Angeles, California. John Leddy Phelan, The Hispanization of the Philippines: Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press; (3) 1959 by ghe Regents of the University of Wisconsin), p. 6. Pilipino Development Associates, The Pilipino Immigrants, (g) 1975, Pilipino Development Associates, Los Angeles, California. Jeffrey Prager, "White Racial Privilege and Social Change: An Examination of Theories of Racism," Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 117-150, (c) 1972 Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Berkeley, California, p. 146. Robert Redfield, Ralf Lintin and Melville J. Herskovits, "Memorandum for the Study of Anthropology," Reproduced by permission of the American Anthropolo- gical Association from the American Anthropologist 28:149; I936. Jonathan H. Turner, The Structure of Sociological Theory, pp. 26; 44. (gjl974 The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT LIST OF TABLES PART I CHAPTER I II PART II CHAPTER III THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS: AN OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION Problems and Perspectives . Direction and Scope of the Study Approach and Methodology Summary and Organization of the Study . CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Competing Perspectives of Majority- Minority Relations Conceptualizing Immigrants in the Majority- Minority Framework The Immigrant as Part of a Macro and Micro System and Process . . The Macro Level The Micro Dimension The Brain Drain Summary . STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN - THE PHILIPPINES . . . The Philippines: Land and Pe0ple Page ii 34 58 60 61 72 78 81 B3 CHAPTER Page Contour of the Philippine Social Structure . . . 90 Dimensions of Pilipino Personality and Interpersonal Behavior . 106 Colonialism in the Philippines 111 The Spanish Colonial Experience 111 The American Colonial Experience 131 New Perspectives 145 Summary and Implications 151 Structural Implications for Immigration . . . . . . . . . . 158 IV CHANGING SOCIAL STRUCTURES, PATTERNS, AND PROCEDURES 0F PILIPINO IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES . . . . 163 Agro-Industrial Evolution of the U.S. Economy and the Need for Non-White, Non-Slave Labor Patterns of Pilipino Immigration to the U. S. . . . . . . 173 The New Pilipino Immigrants . . . . 192 The Pilipino in the United States: A Minority Among the Minorities . . . 212 Pilipino Ethnicity in America . . . . 224 Overview and Implications of the Pilipino Immigrant Experience . . . . 231 PART III CASE STUDY OF NEW PILIPINO IMMIGRANTS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A., 1974-75 CHAPTER V PILIPINO IMMIGRANTS AS ACTIVE AGENTS IN THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS . . . . . . 250 Midwest City, U.S.A., 1974 . . . . . . 250 The Pilipinos in Midwest City . . . . 251 The Significance of Being a Pilipino in an International Setting . . . . . . . . 276 The Shift from Majority to Minority Status and the Implications of Being a "Pilipino Ethnic" . . . . . . . . . 287 Summary and Implications . . . . . . . 301 viii CHAPTER VI PART IV CHAPTER VII THE SETTLING-IN PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION: PATTERNS OF PARTICI- PATION AND SOURCES OF TENSION, STRAIN, AND CONFLICT . . Linkages with the Philippines Familial Relations and Related Areas As centers of Change and Conflict . . . CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS RESOLVING HUMAN/SOCIAL CONFLICTS THROUGH MIGRATION Structural Conditions Related to Immigration . . Conceptual and Empirical Implications of Pilipino Immigration to the U.S. Recommendations . BIBLIOGRAPHY FOOTNOTES APPENDIX I II III SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . . . . METHODOLOGY AND FIELD NOTES ix Page 307 324 330 355 356 383 391 399 425 432 441 461 Table LIST OF TABLES Number Of Immigrants Admitted To The U.S. From All Countries, Asia And The Philippines For The Periods Ending June 30, 1960, 1970, 1972 and 1973 . . . . . . Number of Persons Admitted To The United States As Professional, Technical And Kindred Workers From All Countries, Asia And The Philippines For The Periods Ending June 30, 1960, 1970, 1972 and 1973 Number Of Pilipinos Admitted As Immigrants To The United States By Major Occupation Groups For The Periods Ending June 30, 1960, 1970, and 1973 . . . . . Number Of Pilipinos Admitted As Immigrants To The United States, By Selected Age- Groups And By Sex, For The Period Ending June 30,1973 . . . . Age And Sex Distribution Of The Pilipino Population In The United States, 1970 Years Of Schooling Completed By Pilipinos Sixteen (16) Years And Older By Sex In The United States, 1970 . . . . . . . . . Employment 0f Pilipinos Sixteen (16) Years And Older, By Major Occupational Groups And By Sex In The United States, 1969 Population Size And Rural/Urban Distribution Of Selected Minority Groups In The United States, 1970 X Page 196 198 202 203 213 215 217 221 Table 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Mean And Median Incomes Of Indivi- duals Sixteen (16) Years And Older And Family Incomes Of Selected Minority Groups In The United States, 1969 . . . Median Costs Of Owned Residences And Monthly Contract Rents Of Selected Minority Groups In The United States, 1970 Percentage Of Individuals And Families Whose Incomes Are Below The Poverty Level Of Selected Minority Groups In The United States, 1969 . . . . . Percentage Of High School And Median School Years Completed By Selected Minority Groups Of Persons Sixteen (16) Years And Older In The United States, 1970 Rural/Urban Origins Of P1 11 no In Midwest City, U.S.A., 19 pi 74 Occupational Status Of Pilipinos In MIdWESt C1t)’:.U.S.A.,In The Philippines,And The United States ‘Individual And Family Median Incomes Of Whites And Non-Whites In The United States, Midwest States And Region, And Pilipinos In Midwest City, 1974 . . . . . Desired Place Of Retirement Of Midwest City Pilipinos Disposition Of Midwest City Pilipinos On Divorce . . . Disposition Of Midwest City Pilipinos Towards Family Planning Without Abortion And Abortion xi Page 222 223 223 224 254 257 260 328 340 341 Table 19 20 Page Perceptions Of Midwest City Pilipinos On The Status Of Philippine And American Women . . . . . . 346 Disposition Of Midwest City Pilipinos On Wives Having Better Occupations (Pay, Rank, Status, etc.) Than Husbands . . . . . . . . . . . 347 PART I THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS: AN OVERVIEW CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER II: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problems and Perspectives Over the last few years, there has been increasing attention given to the so-called rise of ethnic conscious- ness even among third generation Americans. However, a closer look at the history of immigration to America will show that ethnic consciousness, or what Gordon calls a "sense of peoplehood", is not as recent as it is believed to be (Gordon 1964:23-30). Indeed, there have been groups of immigrants, such as the Germans, who wanted to establish a "new Germany" in the United States midwest in the Nine- teenth century (Gordon 1964:132-134; Hawgood 1970; 125-141). History will likewise show that such efforts were resisted by the people who preceded them. The pressure to make the immigrant conform with the American ethos reached its peak in the Americanization movement during World War I and .1asted up to the 1930's (Hill 1919:609-642; Aronovici 1920: 695-730; Hartman 1948). What would seem a paradox is that the movement to Americanize the foreign born and the native American existed along with efforts to prevent them and other 1 minorities from participating economically, socially, and politically in the American system. As far as some of the racial minorities were concerned, there was even no pretense of wanting them to assimilate, much less to par- ticipate. However, regardless of the patterns by which the majority approached the full, partial, or nonintegra- tion of the minorities, there has always been an underlying assumption that the latter were disposed and/or were willing to "assimilate" with the former's institutions and assume the majority's values and norms. There are two general patterns by which people immigrate to the U.S.: voluntary and involuntary. The involuntary immigrants may be exemplified by the original Black slaves who were forcibly brought to the American continent. Most Americans, with the exception of the indi- genous populations, were voluntary immigrants. The first wave of immigrants to the U.S. were mostly of Anglo-Saxon origins. By the 17th Century, they had firmly established an American version of Anglo-Saxon political, economic, social, and cultural system in the country. In other words, they became the established dominant and ideal social order, just as the Hispanics were in Central and South America, hence the desire and consequent efforts to have all other succeeding immigrants as well as the indigenous population conform to their social order. However, not all Americans were descended from Anglo-Saxon origins. By the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries, there were more immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Mediterranean Europe and Ireland, in addition to the non-White immigrants such as the Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Pilipinos, and others. The immigrants, regardless of where they came from, were more than just warm bodies moving from one country to the U.S. They also brought with them their own cultures or what Tomasi calls, "immigrant culture" (Tomasi 1973:3). It is reasonable to assume that when people have willingly taken a major step of pulling out social and cultural roots and transplanting themselves elsewhere in a new environment, they may be predisposed to changes in their lives and beliefs. However, traditions and culture are not a set of clothes that one can easily discard for another. It can be surmised that immigrants have come to America with both positive and negative attributes of their own ethnic and cultural identities. These were either reinforced or weakened as they tried to confront the manner by which they were received by those who had preceded them. Some may have immigrated to the U.S. disposed to assume new identities, i.e., to become Americans, and may have been prevented from doing so by institutional constraints operating within the American system. Others may have decided to immigrate to the U.S. for political, economic and other reasons, but wanted to retain their own cultural identities as much as possible. In the case of the Blacks and other non-White immigrant minorities, there was an attempt to bring them to the U.S. as individuals (commodities in fact) rather than as families and/or ethno-cultural entities. The Blacks were forcibly brought to America as slaves, with a deliberate scheme to prevent them from carrying over or developing any sense of group identity (Bryce-Laporte 1971:167-177). Other non-White minorities such as the Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, and Pilipinos were brought to Hawaii, the U.S. West Coast, and fishing canneries of Alaska as contract labor, often with specified periods of time (Lasker 1931; McWilliams 1943; 1964). In effect, the slaves and other non-White immi- grants were brought or induced to immigrate to the United States under clearly defined economically motivated condi- tions. They were therefore perceived as different or inferior to the dominant Anglo-Saxon majority. As a conse- quence of their designated position in American society, they were stereotyped as fit to do only certain kinds of work, incapable of having lofty aspirations, and unable to attain the achievements of the dominant society. Thus, at the onset of initial contact with America, there was no pretense of attempting to make them equal with Americans. They were neither urged to actively participate in Ameri- can institutions and society. For example, most of the non-White "free" or "voluntary" immigrants, specifically the slaves, were not free to sell their labor and skills in the market, regardless of what their qualifications and abilities were. Until recently, moSt studies on U.S. majority- minority relations, particularly those directed at studying the immigration experience, have used a structural/func- tional approach based on an order-consensus model of society. The model assumed that the dominant Anglo-Saxon society established by the first immigrants is the ideal world social order, and as such, should also be the idealized social order of the succeeding immigrants and the indigenous population. Consequently, conflicts in majority-minority relations were perceived as individual differences at the micro level of interaction, and that these could be resolved by consensus among the individuals involved. The same perspective was applied to the immigra- tion experience. Voluntary immigration was perceived as the result of individual decisions and actions of the immigrants. The contact between the immigrants and the host peoples were principally viewed as the interaction of individuals at the micro level, without considering the macro structures that constrained the interaction at the micro level. The differences between the immigrants and the host society were viewed as mere matters of adjustment and consensus (usually by the former) and that assimilation of the immigrants to the majority's idealized social order would just be a matter of time. The voluntary immigration of peoples to the U.S. did not occur in a historical vacuum. The immigrations occurred within certain political, economic, social, and cultural structures in both the immigrants' countries' of origin and the U.S. Throughout history, there have been a few people, an international elite or what is sometimes referred to as the "jet set", who could and did move about purely for convenience or personal gratification. However, the majority of "voluntary” immigrants may have migrated under certain circumstances and within certain constraints over which they may not have had any actual or perceived control. An example would be the war or political refu- gees such as the Cubans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, or the Asians expelled from Uganda. These people were compelled to leave their countries of origin in large numbers because of perceived or actual danger to their lives, economic status, or political freedom of choice. A larger number of “voluntary" immigrants which may typify most of the immigrants, are those who may also have been compelled to leave their countries, but with more deliberation and/or under less radical or traumatic circumstances than the aforementioned refugees. Many of the studies on U.S. immigration place too much emphasis on the immigrants going to the U.S., and less attention on the reasons of their emigration and their choice of the U.S. In addition to the U.S., most white immigrants could have also immigrated to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, and most South American countries. In fact, for a while, Australia offered to pay the fares of immigrants with certain skills and their families. One consequence of such an American- oriented view of immigration is the apparent assumption that the immigrants' personal, social, and cultural histo- ries started the day they landed on American soil. Furthermore, immigration to America did not occur independently of the changes that occurred in America nor the generational differences of the immigrants, even those from the same countries of origin. Every generation of immigrants from one country was different from the one that preceded it, since emigration may be for different reasons and during different political, economic, and social eras in U.S. history. For instance, each generation of Irish immigrants left Ireland during a certain period of that country‘s history, hence each group may have had different qualifications and outlooks from those that preceded them and were immigrating during a different period in U.S.‘s history. Therefore, all Irish immigrants to the U.S. may not have encountered the same experiences, although they all came from the same country of origin. In short, most of the studies and popular litera- ture based on an order-consensus model of society have an ethnocentric American (or Anglo-Saxon) perspective of majority-minority relations and the immigration process in America. Little or no consideration is given to the macro structures that precipitated the immigration process, nor of the pre-immigration histories and characteristics of the immigrants. These are factors which could affect the perceptions and experiences of the immigrants at the micro level of interaction. Hence, the reasons for the nonassi- milation of the immigrants or their apparent failure to meld in the "melting pot“ are perceived as individual differences between the immigrants and the host society, which have their genesis at the very time the former landed on American soil. Moreover, viewing the immigration pro- cess in a spatial and historical vacuum makes difficult if not impossible, the understanding of the immigration expe- rience across time and space. New Structures, New Immigrants The traditional immigration process is commonly perceived as a transnational or cross-cultural phenomenon affecting peoples from two nations and cultures. Recent "brain drain" studies indicate that the process has become an international phenomenon involving more than two nations and cultures. And that professional networks and/or uni- versal outlooks, attitudes, and lifestyles rather than ethnicity, national or political origins, and affiliations have become the linkages in interpersonal sociations. If some of the immigrants to the U.S. in the last two decades have the "brain drain" characteristics, then it can be assumed that their immigration experience as well as their status in the U.S. will take on an additional or different dimension (Adams 1968; Lerner and Gordon 1969). Unlike the earlier or traditional immigrants who have to straddle two cultural or national identities, the new immigrants may already have pre-immigration cross- cultural, nonnational and apolitical outlooks and orienta- tion. The "intellectual" or “modern" characteristics of the new immigrants should link them to Americans with similar characteristics and who may feel "closer" to these immigrants than they are with fellow Americans with more traditional characteristics. Furthermore, the new immi- grants' "brain drain" educational and occupational 10 credentials may no longer place them at a disadvantage in dealing with the host society and institutions. Their credentials could provide them with wider international options for employment and professional advancement. In other words, culturally and/or ethnically, they may see no need to "Americanize" in order to maximize their economic and occupational participation in the system, and search for more meaningful lives (Gordon 1954-55: 517-554; Seeman 1958:25-35; Lipset 1959:460-486). On the other hand, a theoretical as well as empirical question that may be posited is: To what extent has these "brain drain" creden- tials and presumably "modern" or "intellectual" outlook affected the new immigrants' ethnocentricity towards their own traditional values, norms, social institutions, and patterns of interpersonal behavior? (Schlesinder, Jr. 1959: 487-588; Deutsch 1959:488-491; Reisman 1959:491-493; Parsons 1959:493-495; Bell 1959:495-498). Other dimensions that should be considered are the macro structural changes that have been occurring in the immigrants' countries of origin and the U.S. during the period of immigration. History has shown that massive immigration of unskilled peasant and proletariat-origined persons to the U.S. took place during the period when the country was emerging as an industrial nation and developing its frontiers. It was also the period in European history 11 where the Continent's traditional structures and institu- tions were undergoing radical changes, often through wars and revolutions. The peasants and the urban proletariat (who were feeling the implications of an emerging capitalist system) were no longer satisfied with their states of deprivation. Thus, the emigration from Europe provided the U.S. with a pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labor at a time when it needed them. The U.S. 1965 Immigration and Natu- ralization Act, which discriminates in favor of the skilled, professionals, and persons of middle and higher social economic status, is providing the U.S. with a pool of highly skilled manpower at the time when it was moving from an industrial to a post-industrial or technological society (Fortney 1972:50-62). In summary, it has been argued that most of the so-called "voluntary" immigrants to the U.S. may not have had much choice in their decision to immigrate. More attention should be directed toward the study of the intra- racial or intra-ethnic and inter-generational differences among the immigrants themselves and within the host society during the history of immigration to the U.S. In other words, in studying the immigration process, it is no longer sufficient to focus attention on the racial, ethnic, or national origins of the immigrants. One should also 12 consider the type of persons they are in terms of educa- tional, occupational, social, and economic characteristics. Consideration should also be given to the period of history during which such immigrations take place. Direction and Scope of the Study Theoretical and Empirical Considerations More recent studies on race and ethnic relations in the U.S., including those directed at understanding the immigration experience of non-White immigrants, have used different models of analysis and approach. They have been based on conflict and change models using multi-level ana- lysis, generally with a historical perspective (Van Den Berghe 1967; Kurokawa 1970; Marx 1971; Yetman and Steele 1971; Blauner l972; Tomasi 1973; Morales 1974). This study was directed at examining certain aspects of race and ethnic relations in America, particu- larly as they affect the non-White "voluntary" immigrants, by using a conflict and change model and multi-level analysis. In general, the study addressed itself to examining the macro and micro structures that precipitated the "voluntary" immigration of a group of non-White immi- grants to the United States. It also examined the manner and/or constraints by which these structures influenced the immigration process itself, as well as the interaction 13 of the immigrants with American institutions and the host society at the micro level. The decision to focus the study on one group was dictated by conceptual, empirical, and practical considera- tions. Preliminary review of the data on the three major Asian immigrants (Chinese, Japanese, and Pilipinos) indi- cated similarities in their initial patterns of immigration to the U.S., although each had different pre-immigration histories and experiences. It should also be noted that the Chinese, Japanese, and Pilipinos were the largest Asian groups in the U.S., as reported in the 1970 U.S. Census of Population. It was therefore posited that focussing on any one of these groups might be sufficient to produce generalizations upon which general and particular hypotheses may be drawn for future studies involving the other groups or others similarly situated. Since the study intended to use a participant- observer method of investigation, it was argued that the use of one group would allow securing more meaningful per- sonalized-type information, compared with quantitatively large but "cold" data that a large survey-type research would yield. The method would likewise reduce the size of the universe and sample to conform to the competence and resources of the researcher. 14 The Choice of Pilipinos The groups chosen for the study were the Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. in general, and a group of new (or post 1965) immigrants in particular. At this juncture, it may be appropos to explain the use of the term "Pilipino'l in this study, instead of the common "Filipino" when referring to the inhabitants or citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. The Philippines was named "Las Islas Filipinas (Philippine Islands) after Felipe (Philip) II of Spain (1527-1598). During the Spanish colonization of the country, Spaniards born of Spanish parents in the Philip- pines were called "Espafioles Filipinos" (Philippine Spaniards) or simply "Filipinos" to distinghish them from Spaniards born in Spain which were called "Espafioles Penin- sulares" (Peninsular Spaniards), or simply, "Espadoles" (Spaniards). Persons of mixed native and European parent- age were called "mestizos" and the pure blooded natives as "Indios" (Indian). When the United States took over the Philippines from Spain, its name was Anglosized to "Philippines", although the non-European and non-Chinese were referred to in the Hispanic "Filipino" for male and "Filipina" for female. None of the major Philippine languages has an "f" sound. Therefore, the people refer to their country as 15 "Republika Ng Pilipinas" (Republic of the Philippines) or simply "Pilipinas", and themselves as "Pilipinos" (masculine) and “Pilipinas"(feminine). This study will retain the English Philippines when referring to the country, and will use the native term "Pilipino" when referring to the people.1 The choice of the Pilipinos was likewise influenced by conceptual, empirical and practical considerations. Firstly, the Pilipinos were the only ones with a colonial experience among the three Asian groups, part of which was under the U.S. sovereignty. Secondly, in spite of the so-called “special relations" between the Philippines and the United States and the commonly held notion that the Pilipinos are the most "Westernized" or "Americanized" people in Asia, the U.S. Census of 1970 indicated that in terms of social economic status, the Pilipinos ranked the lowest among the three. Thirdly, the racially liberalized U.S. Immigration Act of 1965 which facilitated the immigra- tion of the highly educated and professionals was theoreti- cally supposed to be racially or nationally indiscriminate. However, immigration data indicate that the Pilipinos have persistently been the highest number of Asian immigrants adnfitted to the U.S. since after 1965 up to the 1970's, in spite of the fact that the Philippines is not the ‘1argest country in Asia in terms of population or territory. 16 And, compared to the two other countries, it is the least industrially and economically developed.2 Fourthly, there have been more studies on Pilipino immigration to the U.S. (Whitney 1972:73-83; Shiro 1974) even if most were based on a structural/functionalist approach and generally with little historical considera- tions. The work of Bruno Lasker, Filipino Immigration to Continental United States and to Hawaii (1931) was the first comprehensive study on Pilipino immigration to the U.S. which included some historical data and pre-immigra- tion characteristics of the immigrants. Since the middle of the 1920's until the late 1930's, Emory S. Bogardus of the University of Southern California has produced numerous studies and papers on various aspects of the Pilipino immigrant experience in the U.S. and so did his Pilipino graduate student, Benecio T. Catapusan. Most of their work were published in Sociology and Social Research. Although their work produced valuable information on the Pilipino immigration experience, they typify the structural/func- tionalist approach with one (micro) level analysis. Brothers Under the Skin (1964) by Carey McWilliams used a conflict and change model whth a multi-level analysis, which included pre-immigration historic information on the 3 immigrants. What makes McWilliams' work particularly interesting and useful in understanding majority-minority 17 relations is that it examines all the non-White minority groups within the context of race and ethnic relations, using a macro analysis with a historical perspective, in which the minority groups are examined as the willing and unwilling pawns in a capitalist and imperialist structure. America is in the Hearth (1973) by Carlos Bulusan and I Lived With the American People (1948) by Manuel Buaken are personal accounts of the authors as immigrants in the early 1930's.4 What makes the two works interesting are the authors' pre-immigration backgrounds. Both came to the U.S. during the same period and both became writers. However, Bulusan came from rural peasant and illiterate origins, while Buaken came from the upper-middle profes- sional class. The theme in these and their other writings is the divergence between what they were made to believe about America by their former American tutors in the Philippines and their actual experience. Their works also follow the structural/functionalist tradition. Two most recent works are Filipinos in America (1971) by Alfredo N. Mohuz and Makibaka (1974) by Royal F. Morales. Mohuz, a journalist, also uses the structural/ ‘ functionalist approach. Moreover, the theme of his work seems to be telling America and the world, that the Pili- Pl'nos had"made it" too in the American system, and that the earlier difficulties of Pilipinos were brought about 18 by misunderstandings between Americans and Pilipinos and by some racist or prejudiced Americans. Makibaka (freely translated as "struggle") uses a conflict and change model and historically examines the struggle of the Pilipinos in the U.S. from the turn of the century to the 1970's. How- ever, it fails to consider the macro structures that precipitated the immigration of Pilipinos, nor the pre- immigration histories and experiences of the immigrants which may have affected their struggle. The Focus of the Study The focus of this study will be new or post 1965 Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. These are the Pilipinos, who because of their high educational/occupational creden- tials, were able to immigrate with greater ease under the U.S. 1965 Immigration Act. Theoretically, their educa- tional and professional qualifications places them in the "brain drain" category, which has been identified as a Philippine problem since after 1965. As a matter of fact, most post 1965 studies on Pilipino international migration are more on the "brain drain problem", rather than on general Pilipino migration (Keeley 1965:157-169; 1972: 177-178; Bello gt 31. 1969:93-146; Cortes 1969; Jayme 1971; Gupta 1973:167-191; Smith 1974; Card 1974; Asperilla 1974; Abad 1974; Parel 1974). 19 If most of the post-1965 Pilipino immigrants have the "brain drainf characteristics, then it can be posited that they will have a different experience from their earlier predecessors. For instance, it can be posited that they would have a different outlook and perception of themselves than earlier immigrants. It can be assumed that they would be better informed of the environment they would be moving into, and therefore can reduce the difficulties associated with cross-cultural adjustment. It can also be posited that, because of the high marketability of their skills not only in the U.S. but in the international labor market, they may no longer feel that they have to commit themselves culturally and/or politically to any one host country. For instance, they may feel that theydo notneed to "Americanize" in order to attain their full economic and/or professional potentials. If they cannot attain them in America, then they have the option of moving elsewhere. They may in fact, be sojourners in various places across the world for periods of time, rather than traditional immigrants who are more committed to resettle into another society on a permanent basis. It is therefore posited that there is a need for another study on the Pilipino immigration experience, using a multi-level and historical approach based on con- flict and change model of society. Moreover, the study 20 (or studies) should also include the macro structural changes that have been occurring in the Philippines, the U.S., and the world across time, as well as the differences in the types of Pilipino immigrants and Americans. Finally, a rationale for selecting the Pilipinos as the focus of the study was the practical advantage it offered to the researcher, being himself a Pilipino national with more than ten (10) years experience in the Philippine government service and academia, as well as having been a professional social scientist. As such, he could discern the nuances peculiar to the Pilipino, which a non-Pilipino or a person not familiar with Pilipino values, norms, social institutions, and patterns of beha- vior would most likely miss. On the practical side, the fact that his professional and/or ethno-legal (Philippine citizenship) networks provided him with ready access to information, both in the Philippines and the U.S., made data-gathering easier to conduct. His ethnicity, coupled with three years residence in the selected field site of the study, eliminated the often long and difficult process of gaining entry and establishing personal and professional credibility in the community, especially among the res- pondents of the study. 21 The Parameters of the Study More specifically, the study examined the following: 1. The historical development of the macro structures and the transnational and/or international systems of relationships that precipitated the immigration of Pilipinos, across time and space. 2. The history of Pilipino immigration, including the types of Pilipino immigrants throughout the history of Pilipino immigration to the U.S.; the changes in the societal structures and institutions in the U.S. during the periods of Pilipino immigration; and the processes by which the macro structures that precipitated and constrained Pilipino immigration to the U.S. influenced the immigration process at the micro level of interaction between the immigrants and the host majority, and between the immigrants and minority groups. 3. The general patterns of Pilipino immigration during the last two decades especially as these relate to "brain drain" educational/occupational credentials. 4. The perceptions and experiences of a group of Pilipino immigrants in a medium-sized, midwestern city in the U.S. during 1974-75. 22 The Selected Respondents The selected respondents for this study were the Pilipino residents of a medium-sized midwestern agricul- tural and industrial state in the U.S. The estimated population for the state in 1974 was 9,075,887, and the site's population was 200,000. This included one major city and five other adjacent smaller cities and towns. For purposes of this study, the field site shall be referred to as "Midwest City”. An initial listing of Pilipino residents was taken from the rooster of the local university-connected Pilipino Club, to which several more names were added, providing an initial tentative list of ninety-three (93) Pilipino adults, eighteen (18) years and older. However, upon field veri- fication, a final list comprised seventy-seven (77) adults, of which thirty-six (36) were males and forty-one (41) females, eighteen (18) years or older. This group comprised twenty-seven (27) married couples or families, nine single males and fourteen (14) single females. In this study, the term single (male or female) refers to those who never married, were widowed, divorced, separated, or those who did not have their families with them in the U.S. during the field work. Among the married, five were of mixed marriages. They were four Pilipino women married to five foreigners (four Americans and one Asian) and one 23 Pilipino male married to an American. In addition to the practical advantages, the selection of the Pilipinos in Midwest City as the popula- tion of the study was also dictated by conceptual and empirical considerations. Firstly, preliminary investi- gation indicated that most of the Pilipinos in the selected field site had at least some college experience, a few having had higher graduate and professional educa- tion. Most were post World War II immigrants; most immigrated during the 1960's. Among others, these are major characteristics of the "brain drain“ type immigrants. Secondly, the social and geographical location of the community offered a unique situation in that it is not a large urban center, nor is it a state or area where there is a large concentration of Pilipinos. In fact, the Pilipinos are approximately less than one percent of the area's 1974 estimated population of 200,000. In effect, Midwest City is not "typical" of where Pilipinos are commonly known to congregate such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Stockton (California), Chicago, and the New Jersey-New York area. From the preceding, it was concluded that the results of studying the group would permit some general- izations relevant to the central concerns of the study, 24 as well as those peculiar to the group. Among them are the "brain drain" type immigration experience and the alledged Pilipinos' conservatism on the racial conflict in areas where they are an "invisible" minority. Approach and Methodology It was decided to use an exploratory approach and hopefully make this a pilot study. Therefore, rather than test or measure data against preconceived hypotheses, the researcher used an open-ended approach, the purpose of which was to explore extant data and draw generaliza- tions. From the latter, it would then be possible to construtt general and specific hypotheses which could be tested using larger samples or universe. Data Gathering Procedures and Analysis The study examined and reviewed the various approaches that have been used in analyzing majority- minority (or race and ethnic) relations in the United States in general, and the immigration processes and experiences of immigrants to the U.S. in particular. Historical and current data were extensively used to analyze the patterns of Pilipino immigration to the U.S. from the turn of the Century to the middle of the 1970's. In addition to the works of Lasker and McWilliams cited 25 eairlier, the following were also reviewed: The Philip- pilnes and the United States (1951) by Grunder and Livezey; Fristory of the Filipino People(l967) by Agoncillo and Al fonso; Little Brown Brother (1961) by Leon Wolf; and The Philippines (1975) by Onofre 0. Corpus. As noted earJier, the works of Bogardus and Catapusan on the experiences of earlier Pilipino immigrants were also valuable resources. Data was also taken from the U.S. Congressional Record, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, annual and special reports of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Department of Labor. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Detroit Office), the Depart- ments of Defense and the Navy, the Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C., and the Philippine Consulate General in Chicago provided direct information in response to speci- fic and direct inquiries fromthe~researcher. The latter two Philippine sources in the U.S. also provided data and reports (published and unpublished) from the Philippines. The following also provided information directly from the Philippines: National Science Development Board (NSDB), lkpartment of Education and Culture, National Museum, Hm Graduate School for Public Administration and Statis- Hcal Center, University of the Philippines, Institute of 26 Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, and the Departments of National Defense and Foreign Affairs. In addition to professional journals and unpublished technical papers, information was also secured from the papular media both in the U.S. and the Philip- pines. Among these from the former are: Time Magazine, New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, and U.S.-based Philip- pine media such as The Philippine Times (Chicago), the Philippine Chronicle (Chicago) and the Balitaan (Los Angeles). From the Philippines, the following were con- sulted: Manila Times, Sunday_Times Magazine, Philippine Free Press, and the Philippine Quarterly (magazine). The information from the Manila Times and Philippine Free Press are more recent history than current information. These publications were among those closed by the Philip- pine Government upon the imposition of martial law on the country in September of 1972. Copies of the publica- tions consulted by the researcher were lent by American and Pilipino colleagues and friends. The field data was provided by the respondents chosen for this study. Not all of the seventy-seven(77) Pilipinos in Midwest City chose or could participate in the study, five were out of the country at the time of the study. The participation rate of the respondents is as follows: 27 Universe and Total Males Females Married Couples Final sample or Families Original size of universe 77 36 41 27 Final size of sample 51 27 24 20 Percentage of response or size of sample 66.2% 75.0% 58.5% 74.0% To the extent that the respondents may be repre- sentative of Pilipinos similarly situated elsewhere in the U.S., they can be considered a selected, purposive or nonrandom sample of Pilipinos in a medium-sized, mid- western U.S. City. Field Data Gathering and Analysis The field data was collected through a combina- tion of a self-administered questionnaire and an interview schedule. The questionnaire portion of the instrument was used to secure demographic and biographic data. The res- pondents were requested to furnish this information themselves, prior to the interview to save time. The interview portion contained close and open-ended "attitudinal" type questions. There were two sets of instruments. One was laddressed to individuals and the other to families. The 28 interview portion of the two sets was also constructed in such a way as to allow the respondents the opportunity to respond to them without being interviewed.6 In general, the field work was accomplished with little difficulty. The respondents, like most persons, are not very prone to respond to mailed or self-adminis- tered questionnaires. There has to be some prodding and convincing to make them participate and react to the questions. A little less than half of the respondents agreed to be interviewed; about a third were interviewed over the telephone and the rest preferred to answer the instruments themselves and maintain absolute anonimity. Since the final sample was smaller than originally anticipated, electronic and even hand-sorted punch cards were not used. Biographical and other quantifiable data were transferred by hand from the instruments unto 5"x8" cards. Nonquantitative, qualitative, and other kinds of information from field observations were likewise recorded on the cards. Each individual respondent had approxi- mately an average of four cards. These information were coded and transferred to code sheets for manual tabulation Quantitative and aggregate data were tabulated on dummy tables for purposes of statistical analysis. 29 Summary and Organization of the Stogy Summary This Chapter raised some theoretical and empirical questions on the issue of U.S. majority-minority (or race and ethnic) relations, especially as these affect the immigration experience of the voluntary non-White immi- grants. The need for studies on the issue, based on a conflict and change model of society with a multi-level analytical approach and historical perspective, was proposed and discussed. The focus of this study were the Pilipino immi- grants to the U.S. in general, and the "new immigrants" who were assumed to have different characteristics from the earlier ones, in particular. The group selected for the study were the Pilipinos in a medium-sized, midwestern U.S. City, referred to in this study as "Midwest City". Historical and current published and unpublished materials inere used to provide the historical and general informa- tion on Pilipino immigration to the U.S. Information on the perceptions and experiences of the respondents .selected for the study were secured through the use of a ccnnbination of self-administered questionnaires, interview s<:hedules, and participant-observation techniques. 30 Organization of the Study This study is organized into four parts. The parts and the corresponding Chapters are as follows: Part One: The Problem. Chapters I and II consti- tute the first part of the study. Chapter I presents the problems and issues that are of central concern to the study, as well as the rationale to support the necessity of its conduct and the choice of its subject and method- ology. Chapter II examines anddiscussesin more detail the conceptual framework of the study. This includes a review of the literature on race and ethnic relations in general, and on the immigration experience in particular. The major approaches and models used in studying the pheno- mena central to this study were examined and discussed, including the rationale for using a conflict modeland multi-level analysis. Part Two: Structural Components of The Immigration l’rocess. Part II is composed of two Chapters. Chapter III provides a description of the traditional Philippine swacial structure, including the values, norms, and pat- ‘terms of Pilipino interpersonal behavior. It also examines tflie historical development of the Philippines and the development of the macro structures that precipitated the ennigration of Pilipinos. Chapter IV examines and discusses 31 tlie» historical development of certain macro structures in tlie United States that led to the voluntary immigration (Jf 11on-White peoples, including the Pilipinos. It also examines and discusses the historical structural relation- strips between the Philippines and the U.S., their effects ("1 theimmigration of Pllipinos, and the manner by which ‘the latter interacted with host institutions. The Chapter 2,150 examines the various generations of Pilipino immi- grants to the U.S. and compares the 1970 Pilipino popula- tion with selected minority groups in the country. Part Three: Case Study of New Pilipino Immigrants in Midwest City. Chapters V and VI examines closely the perceptions and experiences of the Pilipino respondents to this study. More specifically, Chapter V examines their pre- and post-immigration perceptions toward the U.S., the Philippines, and themselves. It describes their pre- and post-immigration demographic characteristics and the implications these have on their decisions to immigrate, together with their efforts at securing employment and professional advancement in the country, particularly in lHdwest City. Chapter VI examines and discusses the settling-in process of the respondents and how this can be a source of conflicts, tension, and strain. Among the areas examined are: the respondents' patterns of 32 recreation and leisure; their sources of assistance in times of financial and other needs; organizational parti- cipation in professional, civic, religious and community groups; their perceptions and experiences in raising children in the U.S. vis-a-vis the Philippines; and their perceptions, experiences, and views on the racial issues. Chapter VI also examines the respondents' linkages with the old Country and culture and their views on such issues as divorce and family planning with or without abortion. And lastly, the Chapter examines the respon- dents' perceptions, experiences and views on the status of women in the Philippines vis-a-vis the U.S. in general, and how these affect or may affect their personal and family lives. Part Four: Conclusions and Implications. The last portion, Chapter VII, reviews the major issues posited in this study in the light of the findings. Among these are: how certain historical developments of macro structures in the Philippines and the U.S. link, thereby precipita- ting Pilipino immigration to the U.S. and the manner by which these influenced the interaction of the Pilipino immigrants with American society and institutions. The Chapter also suggests conceptual and empirical generali- zations generated by the study, which tend to support the 33 theoretical, conceptual, and empirical issues discussed in Chapters I and II. The Chapter concludes with recom- mendations on directions, scope, and methodologies for future studies on race and ethnic relations in general, and in particular, on studies on the immigration expe- rience, not only of the Pilipinos but of other Asian and non-White immigrant groups as well. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Competing Perspectives of Majority-Minority Relations A large proportion of the literature on race and ethnic or majority-minority relations has been dominated by those perspectives which emphasize views related to the concepts of assimilation and acculturation. In so- ciology, assimilation has been used interchangeably with acculturation, a concept associated with anthropology. Anthropologists contend that assimilation is only one form of acculturation. They define acculturation as: . phenomenon which results when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture of either or both groups. (Redfield gt 11. 1939:149). Robert K. Park defines assimilation as: . the process or processes by which peoples of diverse racial origins and different cultural heritages, occupying a common territory, achieve a cultural soli- darity sufficient at least to attain a national existence.( (ESS, Vol. 2, 1930:281). Arnold Green (1952:64-66) uses a modified version of Park's definition, but makes a distinction between 34 35 cultural behavior and social structure. Moreover, he elab- orates further on the fact that assimilation is a two- way process involving two or more cultures. It is usually the host culture that sets up or opens barriers that facil- itate, retard or result in full, selective or limited social participation by the minority group or groups. Based on these two distinctions Milton M. Gordon proposed two general categories or types of assimilation. One he calls structural assimilation, which refers to the absence of any barriers at all, in all levels of interac- tion (interpersonal or primary and secondary). He con- tends that the ultimate indicator of full structural as- similation is the absence of any hindrance to intermar- riage, and that once this level of assimilation is attained, all other forms of assimilation will follow (Gordon 1964:79-82). There is, however, a question of whether a marriage between individuals coming from diverse races and/or cultures is, in fact, a measure of ”assimi- lation,“ as the term is commonly understood, since the term implies an intergroup phenomenon. Indeed, it is not unusual for individuals who marry outside of their own group to encounter negative and even hostile reactions from the group they marry into as well as from their own group. 36 On the secondary level of interaction, i.e. through institutions, Gordon proposed what he calls beha- vioral assimilation or acculturation, and contends that this is perhaps what is happening in America. The con- cept implies that minority groups (particularly the immi- grants) assume some of the cultural characteristics and values of the majority which are sufficient to allow their maximum participation in the institutions necessary for existing in the host culture (Gordon 1964:67; 70-71). An earlier concept which prevailed at the turn of the century until the 1930's and which was one of the basis for the movement to "Americanize" the foreign-born and Native Americans was Anglo-Conformity, whereby a mino- rity is made to assimilate with and on the majority's terms. This was later replaced by the melting pot con- cept, which closely resembles the anthropological defini- tion of acculturation, whereby two or more societies shed parts of their culture, adopt parts of another, resulting in a new culture. Another concept is that of cultural or structural pluralism, in which the Canadian situation is often used as a model. This is a process by which divergent racial and/or ethnic groups adjust to the central institutions of the majority group sufficient to attain some national stability, but retaining those racial and/or ethnic 37 aspects most central to their human and cultural survival. The majority group accepts as given the differences of people without denying them their cultural integrity. A major principle of this concept is equality of opportuni- ties in the larger society by all divergent groups and peoples (Gordon 1964:132-159). Largely influenced by the work of T. W. Adorno and his colleagues, The Authoritarian Personalipy (1950), a psychological or social-psychological perspective on the study of majority-minority relations also developed. The major position of this approach is the concept of preju- dice and/or the prejudiced person as the locus of the problem (pathology) rather than the structure. The gene- ral accepted conclusion is that racism in a discriminating society is a conglomeration of prejudiced persons, or that discrimination is the product of prejudice. Among the suggested solutions to the problem was more communication between the races and/or the reduction of the pathologi- cal state of the prejudiced person. Bernard (1971:30-31) points out the shortcomings of this contention, by dis- tinguishing between interpersonal and intergroup relations and pointing out that prejudice is not the cause, but rather a tool used for discrimination. The notion that prejudice causes discrimination is further challenged by, among others, the works of 38 Carey McWilliams: Factories in the Fields (1939) and Brothers Under the Skin (1964). His studies show how the virtues of Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Mexicans and Pilipinos were extolled when their cheap labor were needed by the economy. However, when they were no longer needed or were perceived as threats by cer- tain sectors of the economy, they became "problems". These precipitated intense negative stereo-typing which created prejudices and eventually overt acts of discrimi- nation. Sidney M. Wilhelm in his study, Who Needs the Ngg£p_(1970), documents how the intensity of prejudice and discrimination against the Blacks varied and followed closely the various stages of the historical economic de- velopment of the U.S. Raab and Lipset contend that pre- judiced behavior is not a product of a prejudiced person, but that it is brought about by the dynamics of a per- son's personality and the social environment, and that it can be learned (Raab and Lipset 1965:366-371). Kitano (1966:23-31) argues that the pathology model may be use- ful in explaining the behavior of those who are consi- dered to be in the extremes in manifesting hostile beha- vior, but it is inadequate in explaining the persistence of what he calls the "passive discrimination" by the "normal person". 39 Both the structural-functional approach and so- cial-psychological perspectives have been largely in- fluenced by the functional-structural model of society. In fact, most studies on the immigration/assimilation issue have, until recently, been influenced by this ap- proach. Among them are: The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918) by William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki; An American Dilemma (1944) by Gunnar Myrdal; Race and Culture (1951) by Robert E. Park; Assimilation in American Life (1966) by Milton M. Gordon; and Beyond the Melting Pot (1970) by Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan. In brief, the functionalist-structural approach to studying society came to prominence in the 19th century, at the time when Darwinism was in prominence in the life sciences. This approach espoused the organismic analogy in attempting to study social systems. One of its major proponents, Herbert Spencer (1860), attempted to systema- tically list ways by which society can be comparable with an organism. Durkheim (1933), using the same theoretical framework, developed the notion of functional needs of a social system in reference to the normal or pathological states of a social system. These views were later supplemented by an anthro- pological view of functionalism as espoused by Radcliff- Brown (1935:58-72) and Malinowski (1935). Radcliff-Brown 40 introduced the term "structuralism" in lieu of function- alism with the idea that society must be viewed as a system composed of various parts. An understanding of the parts and the manner by which they are integrated or unintegrated to a system was necessary in order to under- stand how a system is adjusted or maladjusted. Turner (1974:26) summarizes this European theoretical and ana- lytical framework of the functionalist perspective thusly: l) The social world was viewed in systematic terms. For the most part, such systems were considered to have needs and requisites that had to be met to assure survival. 2) Despite their concern with evolution, thinkers tended to view systems with needs and requi- sites as having "normal" and "pathological" states, thus connoting systems equilibrium and hemostasis. 3) When viewed as a system, the social world was seen as composed of mutually interrelated parts; the analysis of these interrelated parts focused on how they fulfill requisites of systemic wholes and, hence maintained a system normality or equilibrium. 4) By typically viewing interrelated parts in relation to the maintenance of a systemic whole, causal analysis frequently became vague, lapsing into tautologies and illegi- timate teleologies. Probably the greatest impact that the functional- ist perspective had on American social thinking was Talcot Parsons' The Structure of Social Action (1937). While Parsons used the essential elements of the function- alist approach, his concepts took the form of functional 41 empiricism in which one of the key assumptions was the element of voluntarism. An application of the Parsonian concepts to social change is also summarized by Turner (1974 44) as follows: 1) Increasing differentiation of system units into‘patterns of functional interdependence; 2) Establishment of new principles and mecha- nisms of integration in differentiating sys- tems; and 3) Increasing survival capacity of differen- tiated systems in relation to environment. The use of the structural-functional approach to the study of American society is pervasive in sociologi- cal literature (Yetman and Steele l97l:vii and Coser 1971: 14-15). Horton contends that this is principally due to the fact that studies of social "problems" were conducted by professional social scientists who came from middle or upper-middle social class backgrounds and brought with them a conservative bias in their commitment to an exist- ing social order (Horton 1971:15-18). Conflicts, or ex- ternal and internal differences were generally defined as deviations from the social order and perceived as social “problems" to be corrected by the "keepers of the social order". Myrdal, for example, perceived the American "dilemma" partly as the attempts and the failure of Blacks to attain the status of the middle-class Whites, the ideal members and "keepers of the social order". 42 Consequently, terms like "integration", "assimilation", and "melting pot" are normative. That is, they describe desired, rather than actual behavior and situations, es- pecially as the latter are preceived and experienced by the minorities (Horton 1971:28-29). One of the underlying assumptions of scholars using the ideal social order based on a consensus of val- ues and norms, Gunnar Myrdal for example, is that there is a perfect or ideal American structure (ethos or creed) that most individuals in American society desire to at- tain. Furthermore, part of this ethos or creed is that all the people should be given the opportunity to attain them, which includes assimilation. Even minority groups share in these ideals and would also like to assimilate and/or attain them. Hindrance to these goals is caused by some pathologies in the system. Hence, the liberal thrust in civil rights was to undertake some changes in some aspects of the social structure and body-politic that were construed as barriers to assimilation or attain- ment of these goals. Horton (1971:15-25) contends that the structural/functional approach from conservative and liberal perspectives assumed an elitist stand on the superiority or desirability of the dominant culture. The conservatives want to prevent minority peoples from be- coming like them, while the liberals argue that minorities, 43 in fact all peoples, should be given the opportunity to attain such status. The underlying assumption is that the minorities want to assume the "superior" status of the majority. Is there in fact, an American ideal or ethos such as Myrdal contends? What is superior about American val- ues and norms that the minorities desire to acquire them, at the expense of their own values and norms? The struc- tural/functionalist approach assumes that the immigrants and other minority groups are inferior or are cultural vacuums to be filled by American culture. Studying 200 industrial concerns and 1400 foreign-born Whites, Gosnell reported that the major motives for naturalization (Ameri- can citizenship) was economic (i.e., access to better jobs and social services), whereas, "to be identified with the community and the right to political participa- tion were the lowest motives for becoming U.S. citizens (Gosnell 1924:930-939). In 1936, Bernard reported that length of stay in the U.S. and ethnicity were not the major factors associated with the naturalization of the White immigrants he studied. Other factors, such as socio-economic status, occupation, etc., were just as powerful motives for naturalization (Bernard 1936:943- 953).' It should be noted that these were periods (1914 to 1930's) when the movement to "Americanize" the 44 foreign-born and Native American was at its height. The consensus based on structural/functionalist approach has been instrumental in bringing attention to what is believed to be an ideal American society, if not to Americans, at least to foreigners and future Americans. Myrdal's American Dilemma (1944) did highlight the inad- equacies and/or failure of the American body-politic to achieve its own declared ideals and goals. Glazer and Moynihan (1970) brought attention to the shift of inter- personal and intergroup relations from one based on eth- nicity to one based on religion, albeit this was confined to Whites. Gordon's concept of behavioral assimilation may be the closest appraisal to what has been happening to race and ethnic relationsin the U.S., particularly to the non-White and even to some White immigrant minority groups (Gordon 1964:70-71). Furthermore, his advocacy of structural pluralism seems to indicate some departure from the previously held notion of Americanizing all the people in the U.S. and expecting them to conform to what is idealized in the existing social order (Gordon 1964: 159; 235-241; 261-265). He has likewise brought atten- tion to what has been described as the "new immigrant", namely the intellectuals, professionals,and highly skilled (Gordon 1964:224-232). 45 On the other hand, the structural/functionalist approach has not been able to adequately explain the per- sistence of ethnicity, or for that matter the inequality of relationships within and among peoples. This study maintains that this approach cannot grapple with the dy- namics of power and the historical dimensions as well as the eco-systems that bring about situations of conflict and disparities in majority-minority relations. In contrast to the above perspectives based on the structural/functional model and assumptions of an ideal consensus-based society are those concepts and frameworks which are based more on the conflict and change model. This latter approach has been largely associated with the Hegelian and Marxian thinkers of the 19th cen- tiry, particularly those of the "German school". Among the most influential theoreticians of the conflict and change model were Karl Marx and George Simmel. Today,the model is used widely by political activists as well as academic social scientists. Among the former are Stokely Carmichael (1967), Malcolm Little (l970),and Eldrige Cleaver (1970). Among the contemporary social scientists advocating a conflict and change model are Max Glucman (1956), Lewis Coser (1956), Ralf Dahrendorf (1957), Jessie Bernard 11957), Minako Kurokawa (1970), and Robert Blauner (1972). Although their thinking was greatly 46 influenced by Marx, Simmel and earlier conflict theorists, they have developed their own interpretations and perspectives. Marx's basic proposition was that economic organi- zation was the major determinant of societal organization and action. Class structures, institutional arrangements, values, religious beliefs, norms, etc., ultimately reflect the economic organization of society. Except in the ulti- mate communistic society, the inherent differences of in- terests between classes, i.e. the exploiters vis-a-vis the exploited inherently generate conflict which is bi- polar. The exploited classes eventually become aware of their interests thereby forming revolutionary political movements that would have to confront the propertied class (owners of production). Turner (1974:80) lists a set of assumptions from a Marxian perspective that chal- lenge the functionalist model: (a) While social relation- ships display systemic features, these relationships are rife with conflicting interests; (b) This fact reveals that social systems systematically generate conflict; (c) Conflict is therefore an inevitable and pervasive feature of social systems; (d) Such conflicts tend to be manifested in the bipolar opposition of interests; (e) Conflict most frequently occurs over the distribution of scarce resources, most notably power 47 (emphasis supplied); and, (f) Conflict is the major source of change in social systems. Like Marc, Simmel viewed conflict as an inevita- ble part of the sociation process. He differed from Marx in that he did not perceive the social systems as a con- flict between super-ordination and subordination. Marx emphasized the divisiveness of conflict, Simmel viewed conflict as an important aspect of the integration pro- cess. He focused his attention on the form and conse- quences of conflict, once initiated, rather than on the structural causes of conflict. He also posited that the clearer the goals (or causes of conflict) between contend- ing parties, the more likely that the conflict will be viewed as a means to an end (integration), thereby redu- cing the possibility of prolonged destructive type of conflict (Simmel 1955). Coser, a contemporary sociologist largely in- fluenced by Simmel also maintains that hostile attitudes do not necessarily lead to conflict. He makes a distinc- tion between "realistic" and "nonrealistic" conflict, realistic conflict being the product of people clashing in pursuit of goals and expectations of some gain, and unrealistic conflict as arising from ... ... aggressive impulses that seek expression no matter the object, allows no functional alternative means, since it is not aimed at 48 the attainment of concrete results but at the expression of aggressive impulses (Coser 1971:16). He gives scapegoating as an example of nonrealistic con- flict, since the object of the attack is second only to the need for the attack. He further posits that these types of conflicts should be considered as ideal types and that actual situations may actually be a combination of the two. Dahrendorf considers the major variables of a con- flict model to be constraint, conflict and change. Societies are held together not by consensus, but by constraint, not by universal agreement but by coercion of others. It may be useful for some purpose to speak of the "value- system" of a society, but in the conflict model such characteristics as values are ruling rather than common, enforced rather than accepted. And such conflict generates change, so constraint may be thought of as generating conflict. We assume that conflict is ubiquitous since constraint is ubiquitous... In a highly formal sense, it is always the basis of constraint that is at issue in social conflict (Dahrendorf 1958:127). Regardless of varying viewpoints however, one no- tion central to conflict theory is power and authority. Marx attributes power to the property-owning class or those in control of the means of production. The compe- tition or contest for power has been the major themes of the works of Sorel (1925), Mosca (1939), Michels (1949), and Pareto (1963). Current conflict theories direct their attention to what is now popularly known as the 49 "establishment" or the gate-keepers of the existing so- cial order. Consequently, control or the possession or exercise of power has become one of the major issues in a conflict model towards examining the issue of majority- minority relations in contemporary society (Coser 1971: 14-19; Eaton and Yinger 1971:142-146; Bernard 1971:25-30). Another important idea basic to the conflict and change model, is that social changes are an integral part of life, rather than deviant phenomena. A conflict theory proposes a continuous struggle between groups with diverse or different views, goals,and ideals. It also idealizes some state of equilibrium and mental health of individuals and groups. But to attain this, what is needed is change and growth rather than adjustments to a predetermined social order. Social problems are not brought about by the failure of individuals to adjust to a system that may oppress them, but rather a failure of a social system to recognize and/or adjust to the changes, goals, needs,and aspirations of individuals and groups. On the issue of race and ethnic relations, Blauner suggests: ... the logic of racial oppression denies mem- bers of the subjugated group the full range of human possibility that exists within a society and culture. From this standpoint racism is a historical and social project aimed at reducing or diminishing the humanity or manhood 50 (in the universal, nonrestrictive meaning of the term) of the racially oppressed (Blauner 1972:41). One assumption underlying a conflict model, is ‘that racism and/or discrimination is institutionalized in the major structures (political, economic and social) of a dominant society. Prejudice becomes a tool used to maintain institutionalized discrimination (Knowless and Prewitt £3 31. 1969; Kurokawa g; 31. 1970 and Blauner 1972). Analysis of the methods and strategies the subju- gated groups used to respond to institutionalized barriers have captured the attention of a number of writers. Rose, for example, suggests that the subjugated group responds in four general ways, namely, by submission, withdrawal, avoidance,and integration. In submission, the minority group accepts the position designated to them by the do- minant group. In withdrawal, the subjected group (or individuals) accept their subordinate status and deny themselves social and cultural identity. On the other hand, when groups refuse or avoid any contact with the majority and demand or establish distinct institutions paralleling those of the majority, such reactions may be an indication of avoidance. In integration, the subjec- ted group rejects its segregated and inferior roles and demand integration with the majority and its institutions (Rose 1970:6070). 51 Taking a different tract, Henderson posited that mmmg others, and under certain conditions, some minority gnmps also institutionalize their responses against the in- stitutionalized subjugated position in which they find them- selves by such means as protest movements, peaceful resis- tance, civil disobedience, etc. The counter response of the dominant groups is also to institutionalize the manner by which these movements can be contained, confined,or managed through the political institutions, in such manifes- tations as desegregation laws, affirmative action programs, racial quotas, etc. Although some "gains" and concessions are achieved by the minority group, the overall institu- tional values and structures and idealized social order (i.e. capitalism) which brought about the disparities in the first place is maintained (Henderson 1970:301-310). This can partly explain the persistence over a long period of time of superordinate-subordinate positions of groups in the U.S. and elsewhere, in spite of "historical", "dramatic”, "radical",and other changes in the political-legal statutes of the societies concerned. Erwin D. Rinder (1970:43-54) observes that majority- minority relations are maintained by spatial and social ter- ritorial boundary maintenance systems, the common interest beiiig one major criterion for maintaining a boundary. More- ove1~, two opposing forces are constantly at work to maintain a b<3undary. Those forces that bind individuals to a group 52 byretaining their identities are centripetal forces, while thosethatzalienate or separate individuals by denying or removing their identities are centrifugal. Among the more liberal or even perhaps radical stu- dents of race and ethnic relations, there is a strong sup- port for the view that racial and/or ethnic conflict is an important function of a capitalist-imperialist system. Their major position is that discrimination based on race or ethnicity is a form of exploitation, whereby race or ethnic differences become a useful tool to increase the profits of the exploiters and extract labor and other re- sources from the exploited. Tabb (1971:431-444) contends that as long as the lower classes (White and non-White) are in constant conflict, they will tend to overlook the common exploitation that they are all subjected to. Reich (1971) suggests that racim is in the economic interests of the ca- pitalists and/or the ruling classes at the expense of the poor. Similarly, racism is viewed as a modern phenomenon associated with the rise of capitalism and the industriali- zation of Europe and America. Racial exploitation is then an aspect of the "proletarianization" of the laboring classes regardless of race, in which capitalism uses any device to keep labor and other resources exploitable. In suDport of this contention, Cox (1970) compares the colo- niz:ation of the U.S. by its first settlers and the 53 colonization of parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America by European powers. Prager (1972-3:117-146) is critical of the con- flict perspective that emphasizes too heavily on an econo- mic approach, in which racism is viewed mainly as a means of exploitation. He questions the implications that the rich benefit from racism at the expense of the poor Whites and non-Whites. He argues that although racism is intertwined with class and economic structure, it has to be examined as a separate and viable ideology. He is in- fluenced by Sarte's (1967) and Fanon's (1969) concept of racism and colonialism, in which privilege is the central issue, wherein those in positions of superordination (Whites, both rich and poor) benefit in one form or ano- ther from racism and subjugation of Third World peoples. He concludes: Racism transcends these arrangements (economic). The virulence of White racism today, expressed in many different forms, is a reflection of racist arrangements, both historical and contem- poraneously, which have played a dynamic role in this (American) society. Racism, like the racial arrangements, is much part of the histo- rical and cultural fabric of the nation that the ability to root it out becomes a problematic issue. Neither concerted individual efforts nor change in the social structure assures the eli- mination of racism (l972-3:146). Another related conflict perspective receiving an increasing amount of attention is based on the colonial analogy, as reflectedin the works of Harold Cruse (1967), 54 Robmw:L. Allan (1969)and Robert Blauner (1972). In gene- ral,the exploitation of people or resources, through ra- cialdiscrimination or by other means is a worldwide pheno- mena. Minority peoples are subjected to some form of ex- ploitation by their own majority groups. Similarly, nations or groups of people in certain nations are likewise exploi- ted by nations (Galtung 1971:81-117). Furthermore, the con- cept of Third World nations has been expanded to Third World "pe0p1es". Thus, although the U.S. does not belong to the Third World, nor is it a developing country as the term is commonly used, it does have people who share the same subordinate position (exploited) in the economic, poli- tical and social structures in the U.S. with people in Third World nations, within the international body-politic (Blauner 1972:51-53). It is argued, therefore, that the object of racism is to convert the colonized into objects to be used for the benefit of the exploiters, and that economic imperialism is associated with cultural and other forms of imperialism (Blauner 1972:103; 151-155; 172-174; 272-273). Furthermore, the contention that the current situation of Blacks and non-White minorities can be compared to the ear- lier White immigrants has been challenged (Van der Berghel 1967:111-150; Blauner 1972:86-88). First of all, the ear- lier"immigrants were White and although some were at one tfirne discriminated and had subordinate status, they could at “least physically pass off as among the White majority. 55 Sealey, except for the Irish, most did not have any colo- nialexperience. Another difference between the earlier White immi- grants and the non-White minorities was the manner by which the latter came into social contact with America and Ameri- cans. The Blacks were brought into the American continent as slaves. The Native Americans and Spanish-speaking in the West and Southwest were subjugated in situs. The Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Pilipinos and a few Indians) were re- cruited as cheap labor for certain types of work and for specific durations of time. They came to the U.S. on their own "free" will and were never perceived as immigrants in the traditional sense, much less as future Americans. Once in the U.S., they were not as free as the White immigrants to sell their labor, nor participate fully in the American system. They were, in fact, brought to the U.S. for specific types of work only. Their geographical and so- cial mobility and interaction within the American economic, political, social and cultural structures and institutions were controlled and limited. Thus, whether in their own na- tive land or in the new world,they continued to maintain their colonial minority (subordinate) status. The statuta- tory (differences between the Blacks and other non-White mi- natMFties were eliminated when the formal institution of sla- veru/ was abolished (Blauner 1972:51-81). Therefore, rather thari compare the non-White minorities with the White ethnic 56 immigrants, it would be more apropos to compare the former with the situation of colonized Third World (non-White) peoples. Some of the White immigrants were exploited, but the non-Whites were exploited and colonized. The preceding discussion can be summarized as follows: The structural/functionalist approach to examining majority-minority relations which is influenced by the order-consensus model of society does not adequately ex- plain the persistence of ethnicity and/or inequalities of relationships between peoples. Among others, the model focuses its attention on the interaction of individuals and Moreover, the model groups at a given point in time. assumes that the existing social order is idealized by all Differ- the people (majority and minorities) in a society. ences or inequalities are perceived as resulting from some defects in idealized system; or deviations among the uninte- grated or among those who refuse or cannot assimilate. Also, the approach does not take into consideration the larger historical and structural factors that precipitate the contact of peoples at the micro level of interaction. 111 otfl1er words, majority-minority relations is perceived as the interaction of individuals or a collective of indivi- duals at a given time, rather than the interaction of hi stori cally conditioned structures in which the indivi- duals are merely the ultimate actors. 57 On the other hand, the conflict and change model of amflysis takes into consideration the historical and struc- uHal factors that lead to the cross-cultural and therefore inter-personal and inter-group relationships of people. The conflict and change model views conflict and constraints and their resolution in one form or another as the major sociation agent. The history of majority-minority rela- tions in the U.S. has been marked by the persistence of conflicts and their resolution rather than by consensus. However, a narrow Marxist, purely neo-colonial or racial in- terpretation of the conflict and change model are by them- selves insufficient to fully explain the complexity of majority-minority relations. Economic, social and intel- lectual exploitation is the major reason for the dominance of a group of people over others. Colonization is one way by which this is achieved and maintained. Racial or ethnic differences add a dimension in the forms of superordinate- subordinate relationships. And, in some cases racial and ethnic difference becomes the raison d'etre for the domi- nance of one group over others. This study focused on a non-White immigrant group whicfl1 requires a conceptual framework or orientation that wi”L1 permit a critical analysis of their status and rela- ti onships within the U.S. host society. Consequently, the following discussion attempts to examine several key .Ip-A- - In. '1 l ‘ I , .. ... . . ..1 ol 1‘ .~_ Q 'n 1 U D. a | ‘i a 'u ‘\ u i . .v. ‘. . n . a p ' q. .l I ‘ e . .‘ . ... ‘1 fl . \ e . ' s 58 cmmqfis and ideas to facilitate this end. ComgptualizingyImmigrants in the Majority-Mi nofi ty Framewo r1? The majority groups, in addition to establishing andimposing their version of the idealized social order, almaset the terms under which immigrants can enter and in- teract in the host society. Moreover, immigration is per- ceived as the individual free decisions and actions of im- migrants going into an idealized social order rather than goingyaway from another social order. Consequently, theo- retical concepts and empirical investigations on the immi- gration process used a micro conceptual framework focusing on individual immigrants at their point of entry in the U.S. Very little consideration is given to the immigrants' pre- immigration status and the larger structural networks that may irrfluence or constrain the "free" movement of pe0ple from one society to another. Immigration involves more than the contact and in- terakrtion of immigrant with the host peoples. It is also a ccnitact and interaction of one social structure and cul- ture with another. The relative status of these structures to each other determines the pattern of the social contact A case in point is arid iriteraction of the people involved. the three major Asian immigrant groups to the U.S. Blauner 59 (1972:73) contends that one reason why the Japanese have the highest social economic status compared with the Chi- nese and Pilipinos was their noncolonial and pre-immigra- tion status and the fact that Japan was a relatively devel- oped country and a recognized military power. China was never a colony in the classical sense, i.e., politically, economically, socially and culturally dependent and domi- nated by a colonial power. Theoretically, it had maintained its political, military and cultural sovereignty. However, from the beginning of the Twentieth Century until the 1960's, when it broke away from Soviet dominance, China had been economically exploited and to some degree politically subjugated by various colonial powers including Japan and the U.S. Thus, although it was supposed to be politically a sovereign state it had to tolerate the presence of troops from foreign countries who were there to protect these countries' interests (economic) in China and Asia from the Chinese, and of course, from each other (MacEwan 1972: 410-4201- The Pilipinos had the longest pre- immigration colonial experience. It, therefore, becomes an empirical question if the ethnic and cultural differences between the non-White peoples are the sole determinants of their relative status in American society. ' 'vlb l‘ ... I... ‘ 60 'The Immigrant as Part of a Macro and Micro System and Process The process of international immigration, with the exception of mass movements of refugees, is to some extent ultimately a process in which the most active agents are the immigrants themselves. However, migration patterns are influenced by and/or operate within socio-historical, eco- nomic, political and military institutional framework, with international, trans-national (between two countries) and regional dimensions. These are variables that could deter- mine the patterns of immigration as an international pheno- menon, as well as the movement of one group of people from one country to another vis-a-vis other countries. Moreover, these historical, economic, political and military variables on an international level or between the source of immi- grants and host country could also influence the manner by which the social-cultural contact between the immigrating and host cultures occur. The extent to which a more realistic understanding of immigrants and immigration networks and relationships develop will depend on a more holistic orientation and approach. It is, therefore, not enough to look at the im- migrant minorities at their point of entry in the host so- ciety although they are the ultimate actors in the process of immigration. It is also essential to understand their 61 pre-immigration status and patterns of relationships. At another level, it is likewise important to understand the interaction of institutional and interpersonal factors as these intertwine to affect the nature and characteristics of immigrant communities in America. It is, therefore, proposed that a more accurate conceptual and empirical ana- lysis of immigration include dimensions of macro and micro systemic relationships and processes. The Macro Level At the macro level are larger networks and systems of relationships that have been historically conditioned. For instance, major international events such as World Wars I and II, and the consequent changes in the international power structure, also contributed to international and trans-national immigration patterns. An example would be the change in the destination of Hebrew immigrants from the U.S. to the new (1948) state of Israel. Other examples are the massive migration of Eastern Europeans to Europe and America, and the migration of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees to the U.S. Although the East Europeans (particularly Hun- garians), Cubans,and Vietnamese were all supposed to be fleeing from Communism, the differential treatment accorded the Vietnamese was notable. Some of the negative reception accorded to the Vietnamese can be attributed to their 62 arrival in the U.S. when the country was experiencing a recession, while some of it to racism. However, the re- sentment against the Vietnamese immigrants can also be at- tributed to the fact that they symbolize the nation that gave the United States its first internationally embarras- sing defeat and political debacle. A critical concern is the political and economic re- lationship that brings about change and conflict between societies resulting in the domination of a nation or region by other nations or power alliances. One such structural relationship that has a direct bearing on immigration is colonialism. Under the colonial system, initial immigration was usually from the colonial country to the colonized ter- ritories. Although the immigrant-colonizers may belong to various social classes of the mother country, they assumed superordinate positions over the colonized pe0p1es. One pattern was to rule a territory indirectly through the na- tive elite, many of whom were "educated" by the colonial administrators (some in the mother country), thereby making them more effective brokers between the colonizers and the rest of the population. Paradoxically, some of the native elite educated by their colonial masters, having absorbed liberal, progressive,and socialist ideas in Europe, became the leaders of the nationalist movements and revolutions that eventually severed the colonial ties. 63 However, regardless of their social and political positions in their own country and in spite of their edu- cation, the native elite continue to have a subordinate status whether they were in Europe, in the colonizer's country,or in their own. In other words, by the struc- tural subordinate relationships of the colonized natives, regardless of any superior personal attributes that they may have, they are still perceived and treated as inferiors by the colonizer. Indeed, in addition to economic advan- tages, an attribute of colonialism and structural racism is the privilege that even the lowest White man (coloni- zer) has over the highest colonized native elite (Fanon 1968; Prager l972-73:117-150). The end of the colonial era brought a change in migration patterns between the colonized and colonizers. Except for the U.S., Canada and Australia, it is now the former colonized peoples who immigrate to their former mother countries. Nevertheless, except for a few, the immigrants from the former colonies still maintained an inferior status in their new countries, in spite of the fact that "independence" is supposed to have given equal status with former colonial masters (Hunt and Walker 1974:298-327). This is partly due to the fact that the independence achieved by decolonization was replaced by neo-colonialism, whereby the emphasis was on continued economic dominance, albeit in more subtle forms. Whereas 64 colonialism was maintained by military fiat, neo- colonialism is maintained by treaties and by bilateral or regional agreements between the developed (former colonizers) and underdeveloped (former colonies) countries. The status of dependency in neo-colonialism is often maintained in the concrete by multinational corpo- rations. Although these corporations often enjoy the protection of the former colonial governments, their whole orientation is accumulation of profits without regards for the interest of the Third World countries as well as their own. While they may provide capital investments and some employment, the fact is that by the very nature of their capitalist corporate structure they take more from Third World countries than they put in. In addition they extract and deplete the natural resources (along with cheap labor) of Third World countries and often cause irreparable damage to the environment and ecology as they did in their own countries (Jalee 1968; Edwards _t _l., 1972:409-457). Colonial rule, even with the collaboration of ele- ments of the native elite, had to be maintained by naked force since it was resisted by the majority of the colo- nized peoples. The domination of multinationals is more subtle, as it gives the appearance of providing benefits and therefore, is accepted and even desired by the people 65 adversely affected by it. In the short run, a large cor- porate operation in a Third World region, in addition to providing employment, develops infrastructures (ports, roads, airports) and provides government revenues which otherwise would have to be raised through taxes. On the long run, the multinationals do not benefit the host countries. More often than not their operations are aimed at world markets and often irrelevant to the needs of developing countries. Furthermore, the operations would benefit the host countries more if they were owned and operated by natives (Barnet 1974). The structural networks of inequality between na- tions and regions, which are brought about by colonialism, neo-colonialism or international and national events such as wars and revolutions, have a direct effect on national structures. For instance, they retard the development of Third World nations into economically and politically viable nation-states. In effect, they create and perpe- tuate the structural factors that precipitate emigration. Structurally,they lead to the creation of an interna- tional pool of reserve labor, who are ready and willing to go wherever and whenever they are needed. If potential immigrants have little or no control over the factors that precipitate their emigration from their countries of origin, they may even have less 66 control over the structural factors that precipitate and constrain their immigration to another country or coun- tries. These structures are also historically conditioned by events and/or manipulated by the networks, countries or regions that gain the most from international immigra- tion. They are the international, regiona1,and bilateral agreements between countries as well as unilateral immi- gration laws that determine the movement of people from one country to another. An example would be the advent and expansion of international and regional organizations such as the United Nations and its agencies, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European Common Market ("EEC"), As- sociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), etc., and the “multinationals". These networks have created bureau- cracies wherein people of divergent origins, race,and orientations are able to work and live together in a cross-cultural atmosphere. Unlike the traditional immi- grants who may change their nationalities, these people have become the international bureaucrats or technocrats, or as in the case of those connected with the EEC, the "Eurocrats" (Lerner 1969). These are people whose immediate and primary con- cerns and perhaps loyalties are with the organizations they are connected with, be it an intergovernmental 67 organization or a multinational, rather than any one na- tion. Many are not even immigrants in the normal defini- tion of the term, but move from one part of the world to another and are transient residents of any country where their organizations send and want them to be. For most, their only national identity are their passports. Since their interpersonal relationships are based on profes- sional networks, rather than on ethnicity, religion and politics, the individual or societal effects of these re- lations on their social and cultural perspectives may take on a different dimension. They may in fact belong to what the Useems and Donoghue call the "third culture"; i.e.,people who straddle two or more cultures and some- times find themselves uncomfortable in any one culture (Useem, Useem and Donaghue 1963:169-179; 167:130-1143). It can and has been argued that persons connected with developmental-type organizations such as the United Nations and other agencies (World Bank, etc.) do contri- bute to regional development as well as to individual countries, in addition to which these persons give pres- tige to their countries of origin. It is doubtful, how- ever, if people connected with the multinationals will be concerned for their own country's development over their organizations' profitability. Aside from absorbing some of the skilled manpower needed by a country, there is the 68 possibility that the persons hired by the multinationals often become the agents by which these corporations pre- vent the development of native enterprises and national movements that prevent or reduce the margins of profits of the foreign corporations in Third World countries (Adams 1968; Bello g£_gl. 1969:93-146; Baran and Sweezey 1972:435-442; Weisskopf 1972:443-457; Pomeroy 1974). Another example would be the immigration laws of individual countries as well as regional arrangements on the international movement of nationals, such as the re- lative freedom of movement of pe0ple between the countries belonging to the EEC, or those belonging to the British Commonwealth of Nations, which has recently been unila- terally restricted by Britain. Another example is that,although the U.S. was al- ways a desired place to immigrate to by Third World peo- ples, they were prevented from doing so by U.S. immigra- tion laws which limited the number of non-Whites that could be admitted to the country as immigrants. On the other hand, because of former colonial ties, most Third World immigrants had to immigrate to their former Euro- pean mother countries, who had more liberal immigration laws on their former colonials. U.S. Legal-political structures that control en- try of immigrants to the U.S. have been and are dictated 69 by economic and political development of the country, with some sprinkling of concern for the "poor, the sick and the tired“. This is evident by the inconsistencies of the immigration laws controlling the entry of non-White immi- grants. When Blacks were allowed and even encouraged to compete with Whites in manufacturing and service indus- tries, Orientals and Mexicans were allowed, in fact re- cruited,to perform gang labor in the mines, railroads and agricultural "stoop" labor (McWilliams 1939; 1964; Wilhelm 1970). Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to be attractive to peoples of all races from all over the world. First of all, in spite of the economic difficulties the U.S. has gone through such as the depression of the 1930's and the effects these had on non-White or poor people in the U.S., it is still preferred than the situations that pre- cipitate emigration. Barriers to their economic advance- ment in their own country are institutionalized and ac- tually experienced, in contrast with the popular image of America as the land of equal opportunities. Racism in America may have been discussed in aca- demic, intellectual, political circles and in the urban media. However, except perhaps in Socialist/Communist countries or in those regions with strong anti-American political ideologies, the racial issues in the U.S. hardly 70 filter through to the rest of the population, if at all. Consequently, in spite of their experience with institu- tional racism or social discrimination in their own coun- tries, potential immigrants from Third World regions still perceive the racial issue in the U.S. as being caused by racist or prejudice persons who are "sick" or illiterate. Their sources of information, the popular media and "Gone with the Wind" type movies, whether imported or the local versions, still depict the social-psychological pathology model of racism. Racism is admitted and deplored, but generally presented as individual actions and localized to the hillbillies of the South. As a matter of fact, it was not until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's when a larger number of Americans began to have a differ- ent view of the racial issues in the U.S. Regardless of the racial image Third World peoples have of the U.S., the fact is that it is one of the, if not the most, pre- ferred country to immigrate to. This is evidenced by long waiting lists of visa applicants and the backlog in pro- cessing visas by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. An ocular examination of any U.S. Consulate where there are no control on emigration will show lines of people waiting their turn just to get the appropriate immigration application forms. 71 Also, the U.S. is the only major protagonist in the two World Wars that did not suffer defeat and physical destruction. As a matter of fact, the country enjoyed economic booms every time it went to war (Magdoff 1972: 420-426). The advent of the bipolarization of the world between the Communist countries and the "free" world, in which the U.S. was perceived as the leader of the latter, and most likely to survive in a shooting war with the Communist from among the non-Communist nations, contribu- ted to the attractiveness of the U.S. to most peoples of the world seeking a new and better life. While a great attention has been placed on the immigration of people to the U.S., very little has been done to examine the emigration from the U.S. Prior to the Immigration Act of 1907, the U.S. Government did not even bother to record the number of permanent departures of people from the U.S. Even after 1907, the data is not as accurate nor is the phenomenon as adequately investigated as the one involving immigrants. How many of the emi- grants were indigenous people seeking a better life else- where out of the U.S. and how many were former immigrants who returned matheir countries of origin or immigrated elsewhere (Wilcox 1940; Axelrod 1972:31-49)? Using nongovernment and suspect data prior to 1907, there were studies that showed a movement out of 72 the U.S. The net immigration (arrivals minus departures) ranges from 59% in 1899 to 27% in 1908 (Axelrod 1972:39). Emigration is likewise conditioned by structural networks which may change over time. An example would be the emi- gration of.American Jews (who may or may not be U.S. Citi- zens) to Israel. A more recent phenomena are the cam- paigns aimed at Americans of foreign heritage to return and retire (and spend their retirement dollars) in the country of their forefathers, without giving up their U.S. Citizenship. There are also the “voluntary" exiles, such as artists and missionaries. Last, but not least, are those who leave the U.S. for political reasons and/or to escape from criminal (and political) persecution, such as the military disserters and draft evaders as well as the known criminal elements. ,lflgyMicro Dimension The macro structures that create the push and pull factors that determine immigration invariably impinge on internal national structures and ultimately the societal network of the individuals affected. Thus, societal, psychological and conflicts with the environment that heretofore may have been resolved internally are now per- ceived as soluble only by emigration and immigration to a new (and alien) society. 73 At the individual (micro) level were those indivi- dual goals, aspirations and societal value systems that may have precipitated migration. They include significant sources of conflict at the personal or familial level, which may be resolved by migrating; for instance, indivi- dual profession or intellectual aspirations which may be constrained by political, social, economic and value sys- tems in the home country. Or they may conflict between acquired "Western" or "modern" with the traditional values and norms. Moreover, they influence the immigrants' per- ceptions and patterns of contact and interactions in the host society. Among these are the following issues and questions: 1. Who are the immigrants, as they define them- selves? Was leaving their country and immi- grating to the U.S. prompted by conflicts in their country of origin? What levels of conflict were at play? Were they at the macro, intermediate or personal levels? To what extent did they perceive that these conflicts could be resolved or minimized by emigrating and immigrating to another country? 2. To what extent have their perceptions of the situations they had to face in the U.S. as individuals and as members of an ethnic group changed over time? What price must they pay in terms of their cultural integrity and identity to resolve or minimize conflicts they encounter in fulfilling needs and attain- ing aspirations for themselves and their children? What were their perceptions of Ame- icans before they came to the U.S.? Have these changed, why and how? 74 3. What changes and/or conflicts emerge as a re- sult of competing identities as ethnics in a heterogeneous society? Is it possible and can they distinguish between loyalty to a nation-state (their country of origin) and loyalty to a cultural heritage? Is this a problem? If not, why not? If so, how so and at what levels (macro, micro)? How do they confront each situation or level? How do they identify with other minority groups or the majority, and at what levels? Thus it would seem that the interaction of forces emerging from the macro and micro levels are critical in understanding the institutional, behavioral attitudinal factors that operate among immigrants in the new environ- ment. They will be related to their definitions and per- ceptions of the necessary social action needed to resolve or minimize conflicts and demands which they confront: (l) the manner by which they are received by the new en- vironment and (2) the degree and breadth of their cultural and social commitments and obligations. The Brain.Drain Another more recent critical issue which relates to broader consequence of immigration for the larger international system and of particular importance for the host as well as country of origin is the "brain drain." Broadly defined the brain drain refers to persons of high qualifications and skills of one country being utilized elsewhere. Another narrower "economic" definition of the 75 phenomena refers to those persons whose education and training have been possible through the efforts of one country, but whose services are utilized by another (Bello ng_1. 1969:93-146). The brain drain illustrates: (l) the manner by which external structures affect the individual's decision and abilities to immigrate and (2) how the macro network changes over time and dictates the type and nature of the immigrants. Until the promulgation of the U.S. 1965 Immigra- tion and Naturalization Act, the brain drain was mostly a European problem and to a certain extent some of the former European colonies. For instance, one of the major political issues in Britain in the 1960's was the emigra- tion of the highly educated from Britain to the American continent (U.S. and Canada), Australia and New Zealand. At the same time, Britain was making full use of doctors and nurses from former colonies (principally India and Pakistan) who were willing to work for less in Britain's National Health Service, than the British doctors would. What is more significant was the net effect the brain drain had on the source countries, which was not precipi- tated but merely expanded by the new U.S. Immigration Law. This meant that the developing countries were and are losing the people they need most for their development, and those that are left (who are barred from emigrating 76 and immigrating elsewhere because of their low qualifica- tions or skills) are those that cannot help themselves, much less their countries' development. The net effect of the international migration of the talented and skilled or brain drain is an additional loss to the countries of origin and gain for the developed countries (particularly the U.S.) and the international organizations that engage their services. The promulgation of the U.S. Immigration and Natu- ralization Act of 1965 changed the pattern of interna- tional migration particularly as this affected the Third World nations. The new U.S. Immigration Law removed that national quotas of immigrants from non-White nations and replaced them with quotas by hemisphere. Although the quota from the Eastern Hemisphere, where most non- White immigrants came from, is larger than the Western Hemisphere, admission of immigrants from the former tends to be selective towards those with higher educational or occupational qualifications. This law not only radically increased the number of immigrants admitted to the U.S. from most Third World nations but also the type of immi- grants. In less than a decade after the effectivity of the Act, the majority of immigrants to the U.S. were coming from Third World nations and had replaced Europe as the major source of immigrants. Moreover, they were 77 no longer the "poor and the tired" and unskilled, but better educated and from higher social classes in their own societies (Keely 1971:157-169). They were more typi- cal of the post World War II international migrants also referred to as the "brain drain." The brain drain problem suggests that the study of immigrants not only has important conceptual and re- search implications, but also relates to questions of national and international policies. At the micro level is the new and different type of immigrants from those before World War II. The higher their qualifications, the wider are those professional and personal networks which may transcend ethnic and/or national boundaries. Their perceptions of the universe are wider and deeper, and they are in a better position to sell their labor (talents) in a competitive market. Conceptually, race, ethnicity, and/0r traditional social structures, values and norms become less important in establishing social relationships. At the macro level, containing the brain drain becomes the burden of the countries negatively affected by it. However, their status of economic, political and military dependence on developed nations and the multi- nationals prevent them from creating the economic, poli- tical,and intellectual climate that would induce the 78 immigrants from leaving their countries, other than an outright curtailment of individual freedom to travel. Most countries do not resort to this, BDC the few that do are severely criticized for doing so (i.e. most socialist countries). Most countries tolerate the brain drain with the hope that it will somehow contribute to the country's development. Among the justification for tolerating the brain drain: it will decrease the problem of unemployment among the educated who are more "dangerous" than the un- educated; and that remittances of dollars earned abroad will contribute to the countries' balance of payments. On the long run these are untenable aspirations. First of all, the dollars the brain drain remit back to their coun- tries do not compensate for the investment in their edu- cation. Moreover, these people's contribution to their countries' development had they stayed would have been more significant than the money they remit back to their countries (Weisskopf 1972:442-475). Summary In summary, it is suggested that studies in majority-minority relations which focuson immigrant.ethnic groups should be extended conceptually. The traditional approach of focusing on the individual immigrants as the sole and principal actors in the process of immigration 79 should be modified. Analysis should include examination of conflicts that may be generated at various levels and how these change temporarily and spatially -- before the immigrants leave their country of origin and after they arrive in the new environment. Furthermore, understand- ing of the process of the immigrants' attempts to adjust to a new culture should expand beyond the interpersonal relationships of the immigrant and host peoples. They should include a closer look at the larger structural networks across time and space that determine or constrain the types of personal interactions in majority-minority relations involving immigrants and host peoples. This study, therefore, took the position that the extent to which immigrants are faced with competing demands, conflicts,and constraints in American society may be a consequence of their individual status, intra- group, intergroup and cross-cultural perceptions, expe- riences,and relationships. These competing demands, con- flicts,and constraints may have their genesis in the coun- try of origin, hithe host country,and/or in an interna- tional system and/or systems. This research examined the key concepts and ideas discussed earlier as these were perceived and experienced by a small group of non-White immigrants to the United States, using a conflict and change model of analysis. 80 At the micro level the study examined the perceptions and experiences by the group as individuals and as members of an ethnic group and the various multilevel conflicts that precipitated their immigration and have to confront in the new environment. At the macro level, the research also examined the historical, economic and cultural situa- tions in their country of origin, the U.S., and the world across time and space, which may have precipitated their immigration and affected their patterns of behavior in the new environment. PART II STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS CHAPTER III: SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN - THE PHILIPPINES CHAPTER IV: CHANGING STRUCTURES AND PATTERNS OF PILIPINO MIGRATION TO THE U.S. CHAPTER III SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: THE PHILIPPINES The United States Census of Population for 1970 reported that the Pilipinos comprised the smallest ethnic-racial group in the U.S., from among the minority groups that were separately and distinctly counted as racial or ethnic groups.7 However, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported that next to the Mexicans, Pilipinos have been the largest group of immi- grants admitted to the U.S. during the last two years via the "normal" procedures, i.e., exclusive of such massive movememts of refugees such as the South Vietnamese and Cambodians (INS 1973; 1974). Undoubtedly, most if not all of this immigration was brought about by the decisions and actions of the immigrants themselves at the micro level. The next Chapter will discuss in more detail how the change in the U.S. Immigration Laws in 1965 became the immediate cause for this large number of Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. What is crucial at this point is that the new immi- gration law applied to all peoples who want to immigrate to the U.S. and who are within the purview of the Law. 81 82 The Philippines is not the largest country source of immigrants to the U.S. In fact, several countries in Southeast Asia such as India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Burma, have larger populations and terriroties, and whose people could also immigrate to the U.S. The U.S. immigration laws and/or any agreements between the Philippines and the U.S. controlling the flow of Pilipino immigrants to the latter, are political mechanisms by which the flow of immigrants is regulated. They do not cause the immigration of Pilipinos in such large numbers. It is therefore posited that the "free“ individual deci- sions and action to immigrate are precipitated by struc- tural network of relationships at the macro level; its effects on the internal structures and institutions in the Philippinesgand their changes across time. This Chapter suggests that there are three major factors critical to the understanding of the nature of this interaction. First is the changing relationships of the people to the land and geo-political structure;second is the changing patterns and contours of Philippine social structures and interpersonal behavior; and third is the multi-dimensional nature of the Philippines under Spain and the U.S., and the resulting status of the Philippines in an international network of relationships across time. 83 The Philippines: Land and People The Philippines is composed of 7,000 islands and islets of which about 800 are inhabited. From its north- ernmost islands of Batanes one can see on a clear day across the North China Sea the contours of the outlying islands of Taiwan; and its southernmost islands (the Tawi-tawi group and Palawan) are a few hours by fast boat to Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, Malaysia (formerly British North Borneo). Its closest neighbor to the west across the South China Sea is Indochina and to the east across the Pacific Ocean is the U.S. island of Guam. There are three major island groups. The largest is Luzon to the north; thesecond largest is Mindanao to the south; and in between are the smaller island groups called the Visayas. The Philippines has a land area of 114,830 square miles and the whole archipelago is criss-crossed with rivers, streams and mountain ranges of volcanic origin, some of which continue to be active. It has a tropical climate and its average temperature throughout the year is 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Most of the land is fertile and the tropical climate permit year-round cultivation. Its seas and fresh water bodies provide most of the people's food. Every school child in the country is told that the Philippines is endowed with rich natural resources and 84 climate so that it can support twice its present popula- tion of a little over 40 million. The Spaniards, upon their arrival, called it "Las Islas del Poniente“ (Island of the Western Breeze). The Pilipino scholar and national hero, Jose Rizal, in his poem "My Last Farewell" which he wrote the night preceding his execution by Spanish autho- rities, called it "La Perla del Oriente" ... the Pearl of the Orient-Sea. From an airplane,one can see the patterns of human settlement. They are along the sea coast, river deltas, the plateaus of Mindanao,the plains of Central Luzon and the Island of Panay. There is some geological evidence that the Philippines was once connected to the mainland of Asia through land bridges which disappeared at the coming of the ice age. What seems to be a stronger evidence of the land bridge theory is the existence of a group of people that are racially identical with the Pygmies of Africa. They are,in fact, the oldest known inhabitants of the archipelago. The Spaniards called them "Negritos" (little Negroes) and the name has since stuck among the educated Pilipino, although they are also called "Ate", “Ayta'I and "Dumagats" (Rahman 1963:137-157). Like most tribal or "primitive" peoples, the “Negritos" and other tribal minorities are now in a nume- rical minority through genocide and disease. They have 85 3 E/Dflfi‘ls SOUI‘HEAS‘I‘ ___AS_IA 7 Pacific Ocean $15 (H'ulippines) a New- In 13 1) Sat-Lamas (Ceylon) \ India I 3) China '4; Korea 5 Japan 5) Taiwan 4 MEN—E3. Burma q Batanes Islands 8) 'Ihailand 9) madam (Vietnam, Laos, Canbodia) IO) Malayaia Luzon lO:-A Sabah, Malaysia Bormo) l3) Austmlia 1'4) New Zealand 'Iisayas 9% ;( (Visayan Islands) my... FIGJRE I. FAR w, SOUTHEAST MIA AND THE PHIIIPPINES 86 been driven from their ancestral lands and fishing grounds by "advancing civilization" and in general, have suffered the same fate as the original natives of the American con- tinent. However, since the late 1960's, the Government has given them protection, including restoration of some of their lands and granted them reservations where they will not be disturbed, but where they can have access to health facilities and educational opportunities (PANAMIN 1970; MacLeish and Conger 1972:220-225).8 The majority of the population are basically of Malay stock with some intermingling of foreign blood such as the Chinese, Spanish, American and Indian. The Malays were supposed to have come from what is now Malaysia and Indonesia, and migrated to the islands in large numbers some 7,000 years ago (Sawyer 1900; Kroeber 1928; Landa- Jocano 1965; 56-78). The present Pilipinos belong to eight major ethno-linguistic groups, to which are added 200 dialects (Fox and Flory 1974). The eight major groups are: the Tagalogs, the Ilocanos, the Pampangos, the Pangasinans and the Bicolanos in Luzon; and the Warrays, the Hiligay- nons and the Sugboanons in the Visayan islands. The Muslims in the Island of Mindanao have their own language and cul- ture, and to these were added the major languages from the rest of the islands as a result of internal migration. The 87 mixed bloods (with foreigners) are known as "mestizos". If they have foreign racial heritage other than Spanish, they are identified by their foreign racial heritage. Thus those with American blood are "American mestizos", those with Chinese blood are "Chinese mestizos", etc. The term "mestizos" by itself connotes Spanish heritage, which implied some social status during the Spanish colonial era. This will be examined later. Pilipinos also have their own notions of their own racial superiority as this apply to their brownish complexion. A legend that almost every child is taught, dwells on how God ("Bathala") created the first human being. The legend also reflects the ancient art and technology of pottery. God fashioned the first human being to his image from clay and placed it in the kiln to be fired. He let it stay too long and the image was burnt black, and thus was the first Black person created. At the second attempt, God was too cautious and did not get the right temperature and.firing time. The image was "uncooked" and too pale, and became the first White per- son. In his third attempt, "Bathala" had the right mix- ture of clay and had the kiln temperature and firing time just right. The result was the creation of the first man that was truly in the image of God, the Brown man. 88 There are some covert differences between the major groups in terms of food, customs, and traditions and the modes of dress. But the major discriminating differ- ences between the groups are language and how they iden- tify themselves. If a person spoke Tagalog and identified him/herself as Tagalog, then he/she is accepted as Tagalog. There is a strong regional-linguistic consciousness. When Pilipinos meet, the first thing they do is identify them- selves by their regional or language affinities. Many of the gesselschaft-type organizations in urban centers are based on regional and language origins. Just as American students normally segregate themselves by race, the Pili- pinos do so by language group and/or regional origins. However, aside from language, any major distinc- tions in race and cultural traits disappear. Fox (1961: 6-9; 1963:342-346) contends that the distinction is geo- economic rather than linguo-cultural. There is a differ- ence in lifestyles between those who live in the coast and make their living in fishing and commerce from those who live in the interior and make their living on the land. Corpus uses a rural-urban dichotomy, associating cultural traits with major economic activity. About forty percent (40%) of the population are in urban areas; these are educated and/or make their living through a money market 89 system. About 60% are in rural areas and make their living on the land, some of whom are still in the barter economy. Thus there is a dual economic system and cul- ture (Corpus 1965:2-13). Pre-Western (Spanish) cultural influences came from China, Japan, India, Indochina and Arabia. The religion and nation of Islam are the dominant religious and cultural influences prior to the coming of the Spaniards. However, through political and military actions, Spanish colonization aborted the spread of the religion beyond the island of Mindanao. Today the Muslims comprise about 4% of the population. Among all the Pili- pino groups they are the only ones who have resisted any foreign cultural or political incursion or domination during the close to four centuries of colonization by Spain and the U.Sqthey' continue to do so to this day against the present government. The Philippine Constitution and various laws were passed to recognize their distinctive- ness from the rest of the population. But their continued insistence on economic, cultural and political autonomy, which includes skirmishes with the military, constitute the "Muslim problem" in the nation's body-politic (Majul 1973). Over 80 percent of the population are Christians of which about 10% are of various Protestant (foreign 90 and native) sects and the rest are Roman Catholics. Most of the literature on the Philippines, be it a grade school text, encyclopedia or tourist brochure, describe the Philippines as the only Christian nation in the Orient and the Pilipinos as the most "westernized" people in Asia. Scholarly as well as popular discussions on the racial and cultural composition of the Pilipinos depend on which side of the nationalist/traditionalist or "modern" spectrum one is. One contention is that the Pilipinos and Pilipino culture have been westernized. Another view is that foreign (particularly western) cultural and institutional incursions have instead been "Filipinized" to fit existing social structures, values, and norms. However, there is almost a universal agreement that there is no longer such a thing as pure native Pilipino culture, except perhaps for the Tasadays, a "stone-age" people discovered in the rain forests of Mindanao in the early 1970's (Corpus 1965:2-12; Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967:4-21; MacLeish and Launois 1972:219-250; Nance l972). Contours of the Philippine Social Structure The basic unit of Philippine society is the nuclear family. From the nuclear family, it extends to a larger group through affinity and consanguinity and through other networks to an extended family system and I. 91 larger group. The latter includes alliances of families (Fox 1961:6-9). Around the family and the extended group evolves Philippine social and individual life. It demands an almost absolute loyalty and allegiance throughout a person's lifetime, so much so that it is almost possible to predict deviant individual behavior. Conflicts of interests between the individual and the family or group is almost always resolved in favor of the latter. The family or group offers material and emotional support and the individual expects it as a matter of right. This partially explains the existence of very few orphanages and homes for the aged, in spite of the existence of poverty among large portions of the population. The family extends bilaterally through marriage, for marriage is not only the union of two individuals but an alliance of families or groups. A family does not "lose" a son or daughter in a marriage, but rather it gains a son or daughter, plus of course, an alliance with another group. Prearranged nuptials are very rare, but young men and women are consciously or subconsciously aware of the boundaries within which to seek marriage partners. Indeed, the desire for an absolutely "free choice" of a marriage partner is one of the causes of intragroup conflicts that individuals often have to 92 confront. The family does not make absolute demands nor narrow the choices, but if the couple expect the support of both families after the marriage, they must marry those whom both families can at least tolerate, if not actually like. Potential and real marital problems involve a more complex intergroup conflict, affecting not only the Spouses concerned but the alliance as well. The societal val ue on the viability of marriage and the family is reF‘l ected in the society's legal structures by the absence of a divorce law. the Until 1972 when Congress was dissolved, few attempts at enacting some form of a divorce law never succeeded. This does not mean that marriage never break up because marital problems that would end in divorce else- Where are resolved in two ways: annulments ("from bed and board") which defines parental obligations and property l‘l'ghts of the estranged parties but does not allow any rema rriage during the life of one of the spouses; and by "Iagal separation", an arrangement by mutual consent rather than by the sanction of law. However, the legal sanctions, such as the one against remarriage are in force. MO"eover, divorces obtained outside the Philippines dis- SPIVing marriages contracted in the country are likewise "0t recognized. The illegality of divorces obtained I \II I\- 93 outside the Philippines and affecting marriages contracted in the Philippines has been recently reiterated by the Phi 1ippine Secretary of Justice and the Philippine Consu- late General in Los Angeles (Balitaan July l974:7). Unions or confederation of families and groups formed a larger unit known as the "barangay", the social, economic, political, and military unit of pre-colonial Phi ‘l ippine society.9 Prior to its colonization by Spain, most of what is now the Philippines did not constitute a nation-state or kingdom, compared with other countries in the region, such as the Siamese kingdoms in what is now Thailand and Khmer empires in what is now Vietnam, Laos, 311d Cambodia. OY‘ The Archipelago was inhabited by barangays confederation of barangays. Larger ones comprised small kingdoms under a king or a "datu" (chief), allied 0" in conflict with each other. Thus it was and still 15. that from the nuclear to the extended family and to the barangay, socialization was oriented towards coopera- tion and communal welfare, rather than towards indivi- dualism and individual competition or achievements within the boundaries of the family and the barangay. Not that Indi vidual efforts and/or achievements are discouraged; rather, achievements of the individuals are to be shared with the group, just as the group is expected to rally behind the individual in times of need (Fox 1961:6-9; Larlda-Jocano 1972:59-79). 94 The pre-colonial barangay was a stratified society composed of the nobles, the warriors, the freemen, and the $1 aves. The power relationships between the classes was paternalistic. Conflicts were with other barangays alwld not between the classes in the barangays. Spain, and ‘lai‘ter the U.S., ruled the country through the local esta- b'l ished elite. The former also introduced plantation tjyjoe agriculture, where a few Spanish and native elites liaitd control of the country's wealth. Until recently, 'tII'is stratification (minus the slaves which the Spaniards alotalished) continued to exist. Although much of the bases of power and wealth has since shifted from the land t<> industry, real estate and business, they are still Very much in the hands of the same and few families. Dtlrfing the last fifty (50) years there has been an emer- qence of a middle class composed of those from the pro- fGessions, trade, and private and government bureaucracies. Like the pre-colonial barangays, power is based 0'! factions or alliances of factions (barangays) that cut Vertically across the social classes. Once in a position 01’ power, the faction will use the barangay to its advan- tage to maintain and expand that position. Maintenance 0" power is dependent upon the support of the masses (1 .e., peasants, lower classes, etc.) who traditionally 1°dentify with the elites of their own barangay rather 95 than with those of the same (lower) classes. This is a structure that resembles the traditional feudal system. Although the elite tend to exhibit paternalistic concern towards those who serve them, they have and are not adversed to using their power to destroy perceived or real disloyalty. Those in the lower classes believe that it is to their interest to identify and ally themselves with those in power in their barangay, rather than with those who are similarly situated but who may belong to a different group (barangay). In empirical situations, this means that one's chances of survival and getting ahead in society is better if one is allied and identified with those in power, rather than being an "independent nobody". For instance, a personal chauffeur of a powerful person or family may actually feel more secure and have more advan- tages than a highly educated professional who does not belong nor is allied or identified with a powerful figure and who wants to confront the world on his/her "own merits". The Pilipino does not compete as an individual and, as described earlier, individual interests are often superceded by group interests. Rather, Pilipinos compete with and between groups. The conflict and competition for status and power between groups, which sometimes result in violence and tragedy, is as continuous as life 96 itself and is carried in all aspects of Philippine inter- personal and social life (Hollnstiener 1963). How then are these factions and alliances acquired, expanded and maintained? In addition to intermarriage between groups, among the most often used mechanisms to acquire, expand and maintain the group alliances are the highly valued norms of reciprocity and the "compadrazco" system. Reciprocity or "utang na loob", is a very highly valued social norm. It is a social debt incurred for materials or services received from another, regardless of whether the extrinsic value of the original goods or services is returned or repaid. “Payment" is not always explicitly demanded, but it is expected, but not always in the same value or manner for which a "debt" is in- curred. Nor are the reciprocal obligations confined to the two original contracting parties. For instance, "collecting" or "payment" of the "debt" is expected or demanded in terms of support in an interfactional conflict, even if the original debt was in a form or manner entirely different from the payment expected. Payment of these debts does not eliminate the contractual obligations, it only transfers the same obligation to the most recent beneficiary of the goods or services. Thus the recipro- cal obligations are maintained almost indefinitely (Kaut 1961:256-272; H011nstiener 1970:22-49). 97 Another important social mechanism by which kin- ship or alliances are expanded is through the "compa- drazco" system or what Fox and Lynch call "Ritual Co- Parenthood". The term "compadre" or "comadre" is derived from the Spanish “padre“ and "madre" meaning father and mother. When the Spaniards introduced Catholicism in the Philippines, among the rituals introduced was the re- quirement of Godparents in baptism and confirmations. This merely added or christianized the Pilipino's propen- sity to acquire new or expanded kinship groups and al- liances. In addition to baptisms and confirmations, the Pilipinos have made Godparents or sponsors parts of al- most any quasi-religious ceremonies such as ordinations, weddings, house blessings,and so on. If the Church would allow multiple baptisms and confirmations, the Pilipinos will gladly have children baptized or confirmed several timesin their lives, in order to expand their alliances. By Church law and tradition, the requirement of Godparents are not just rituals. With it are established contractual obligations between the Godparents and the Godchild. Principally, the Godparent has the obligation to assume the child's moral education should the real parents fail to do so. But as adopted and used by Pili- pinos, these obligations are more than just education or moral upbringing. Moreover, they also extend to 98 obligations between the co-parents (child's real parents and Godparents). Both families are, therefore, allied through this ritual. Although the Godparents normally are the ones obligated to help the Godhcild, the reverse is also true. The contractual obligations are multidirec- tional. They are based on who needs the help and who can give it within the boundaries of the alliances incurred under this mechanism (Fox and Lynch 1956:424-430). The Status of Philippine Women The sex structure in the Philippines is egalita- rian and ascendancy is bilateral and can be extended in- definitely. Women hadand continue to have equal status with the men in fact, although in law there are still some vestiges of its former colonial domination. For instance, at one time both husband and wife could own properties in their own name and children could inherit from both directly. Another example is in the area of employment as well as participation in economic, political and social activities. Not only is there an absence of explicit discrimination against employment of women in any capacity, but women may even have advantages over the men. Employed married women are entitledto from forty(40) to ninety (90) days maternity leave with pay, without loss of seniority, in addition to the regular sick and vacation 99 leaves. Moreover, the recently amended labor code re- quires employers (at their expense) to provide day care centers for women employees with children. Under the principle of equality between the sexes, the revised la- bor code also provides "paternity leaves" to husbands while their wives are having babies -- on maternity leaves. However, the government has since limited the maternity leave rights to the first three children (or pregnancies) for demographic reasons, i.e., reduce the birth rates which is one of the highest in the world. Marriage and "homemaking" can be pursued simulta- neously with a career or activities outside the home. In addition to statutes favoring the employment of women, the extended family system provides babysitters or surrogate parental care. The upper middle and upper classes can afford to hire servants, and those who cannot, can avail the use of day care facilities. Considering the statutatory provisions on mater- nity leaves and day care centers, employers (mostly in the private sector) find subtle means of discriminating against women's entre and advancement in their organiza- tions, not for sexist but for purely economic reasons. However, if they can avoid it, married women prefer not to engage in economic activities that take them away from the home and their families (Carrol 1968). 100 Rape carries a mandatory capital punishment and the burden of proof is on the accused rapist, often to the detriment of his civil liberties. If the law does not punish the accused rapist, the victim's family does and punishment is usually more unpleasant than the law. The issue in a rape case is the involuntary seduction of the woman in a particular incident, irrespective of pre- vious circumstances. A prostitute can sue for rape. A wife can sue a husband for rape. The Western-imposed double standards of morality has been eliminated. A woman can kill a husband caught in the act of adultery and expect the law to be lenient. The egalitarian status between the sexes predated contact with the West. In pre-colonial society, women slaves had the same status as male slaves, just as the women in the noble class had the same status as the men in the same class. In some instances, women assumed leader- ship positions in the society (Blair and Robertson 1903: 133-135). Nance (1972:219-240) reports that in many instances the spokesperson of the Tasadays was a woman. Agoncillo and Alfonso (1967:42) contend that: Women (Pilipino) before the coming of the Spaniards enjoyed a unique position in society that their descendants during the Spanish occu- pation did not enjoy. Customary laws gave them the right to be equal of men, for they could oWn and inherit property, engage in trade and industry, and succeed to the chieftainship 101 of a barangay in the absence of a male heir. Then, too,they had the exclusive right to give names to their children. As a sign of deep respect, the men, when accompanying women, walked behind them. It was contact with the West (Spain and the U.S.) that precipitated the limitation of women's activities "outside the home“. The Malolos Constitution of 1899 re- cognized the rights of women to vote and hold public office (elected or appointed). On the other hand, the U.S. imposed Constitution of 1935 disfranchised the wo- men. However, the limitation of women's participation in economic and political activities outside the home was more than compensated by the abolition of slavery and polygamy. Political independence did not curtail interac- ting with a Western-dominated society, where the core of power and authority is still a man's world. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to de-emphasize the power and authority that women have. But whether in formal positions of power or not, their power and autho- rity has always been felt, be it in the family, the cor- porate board room or in the body-politic (Maria Paz Mendoza-Guanzon 1928; Wood Cameron-Forbes Commission 1929:20; Felipe Landa-Jocano 1970:59-79). While other countries (including the U.S.) have been recognizing and extending rights to its women, the Philippines,in 102 conjunction with its observance of International Women's Year,are restoring the rights that Philippine women lost through colonization. Among the women's rights being restored was the ancient right of women to own and dis- pose of property in their own name without the consent of the husband, and the right to engage in activities (i.e., profession) in her own name. Since the Philippines does not have a matriarchal structure or a matrilineal system, the most viable expla- nation for the equal status between the sexes is the very high value the societies place on the nuclear and extended family. Any member of the family (or group) who 15 an actual or potential source of status and power for the grOup, regardless of sex, will be given due recognition, deference, and opportunities to develop his/her potential, just as any individual in difficulties can also count on the family or group for support. (An instance of the latter would be rape, which is not only an assault on a particular woman but is also an affront against the .woman's family and family honor. Ethnicity and Social Status During the Spanish rule and for a few decades thereafter, the "mestizos" occupied positions of power and economic advantage over the rest of the population. Early 103 reports of the Philippine social stratification system also reported that among the eight ethno-linguistic groups, the Tagalogs had higher economic status and that they monopolized positions in the bureaucracy in the public and private sectors (Sawyer 1900; Kroeber 1928). In addition to ruling the country through the existing political structure, the Spaniards instituted a stratification system based on race. At the top were the "Espaholes Peninsulares" (Spaniards born in Spain); below them were the "Espaholes Filipinos" (Spaniards born in the Philippines); who were followed by the mestizos (half Pilipino-Spanish). They were followed by the "quartero- nes" (one-fourth Spanish blood) and so on down to "Indio puro (Pure Indian). Access to economic Opportunities, education and prestige depended on where one was in the complex stratification, which cut across the native so- cial structure. Thus a traditional chief or a person of the noble class may have lower status than one who was not, but who had some Spanish blood, and who may even have been a bastard. In fact, the term "Filipino" was not used to refer to Pilipinos until the end of the Spanish rule when it was used by the Pilipinos themselves (Corpus 1965:33-34; 69; Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967:4-6; 133-34; 150-151; Abella 1971).H 104 The pre- and post-colonial stratification system and power relationships were not based on the superiority of any of the major ethnic groups over the others. The apparent monopoly of the Tagalogs and some other groups to positions of power, particularly after the colonial era, was by historical accident. It was brought about by the choice of the Spaniards on where to locate their ad- ministrative and political capital for their Pacific colony. The Spaniards chose Manila, which was in the Tagalog-speaking region. Manila became the administra- tive, political, economic and cultural center, in short the metropolis of the region. Thus,from colonial times to the present, anyone who wanted to be anything, from getting a good education to access to commercial opportu- nities and occupational advancement, had to go to Manila, regardless of whether one was a Tagalog or not. Being in Manila (and in the center of things) meant being a little bit more sophisticated and better informed, than those who were in the country regardless of one's education or social-economic status. Pilipino political leaders, eco- nomists, scholars,and business leaders came from all over the country. But all of them either went to school in or have had some exposure to the cosmopolitan-metr0politan environment of Manila. It was and is not unusual for the provincial rich or politicians who want to be on the 105 national and international network to have residences in the Manila area, in addition to the ones they had or have in their own provinces. Being exposed to or part of the urbanization pro- cess which was going on in Manila, rather than being a Tagalog,became important in upward mobility of indivi- duals as well as organizations. Since Manila was geogra- phically located in the Tagalog-speaking region, then more Tagalogs were more exposed to the process than those who were far from Manila. In fact, Tagalogs who were not exposed to the sociology of metropolitan Manila fared no better than the non-Tagalogs who were similarly situated. The first president of the First Republic, Emilio F. Aguinaldo, and a few members of the Cabinet, were not Ta- galogs. They came from another linguistic-cultural re- gion, Cavite, but which was geographically in the peri- phery of metropolitan Manila. The revolutionary govern- ment, the short-lived First Republic, the American colo- nial administration,and the post-colonial government and nongovernment leadership were monopolized by the Tagalog- speaking. Next to Spanish and English, Tagalog became the lingua franca of the educated and the sophisticated. The current national language, called "Pilipino" uses Tagalog as its basic grammatical construction and incor- porates all other languages (native and foreign). 106 The social stratification system in the Philip- pines can be summarized as follows: the Spaniards attempted to maintain power and rule through the existing power structure, except that they introduced a stratification system based on race and the centralization of the capital in one area, Manila, meant that those closest to the me- tropolitan center of the nation had better access to op- portunities for advancement. At the end of colonial rule (both by Spain and the U.S.), those who have had the op- portunities such as the elite and their children, whether from Manila or not, and those who have been exposed to the urban center had a better advantage than those who have not. In other words, being or having been a "Manileho" rather than any ethnic natality gave the advantage in a modernizing society. Dimensions of Pilipino Personality and Interpersonal Behavior These societal arrangements to a great extent, determine Pilipino personality and interpersonal behavior, particularly with those outside the family and group. Acceptance by the family is assumed as a birth right. Interaction within the family (nuclear and extended) are governed by norms, often accompanied by rituals which are determined by one's genealogical and social position in the family. Interpersonal relations outside one's family 107 or group is often determined or based on the Pilipino's concept of self-esteem. Self-esteem can best be repre- sented by the term and concept of "hiya". There is no exact equivalent of the term and its connotation in the English language. The most approximate equivalent would be what is commonly known as loss of face or shame. Al- though the Pilipino is psychologically and socially con- ditioned to behave as part of a group, he/she also values treatment of an individual as a separate person and as a member of a distinct group. What is therefore perceived as an affront or insult is resented and thus evokes anger not only by the individuals concerned but also by the other members of the group, since such action is perceived as a threat to an individual's self-esteem. A threat to an individual's self-esteem is considered a threat to the family's collective self-esteem, name, and honor. The individuals, as well as the family, are placed in a posi- tion of "hiya" or loss of face (Bulatao 1964:424-438). The importance of self-esteem makes social accept- ance a very highly valued social norm. Almost any society places some value on social acceptance by other persons as a basis for interpersonal relations. In general, so- cial acceptance is the norm that guides the social inter- action of Pilipinos. Basically, this means accepting and therefore treating individuals for what they are, for 108 what they think they are, or for what they claim they are. In empirical terms, this means that if a person claims he/she is a professor, then that person should be treated as such, regardless of any private reservations one has about the claim. To show some doubt in a covert manner or to fail to extend to that person the treatment expected would subject the "professor" to "hiya". On the other hand, Pilipinos want to be treated as persons rather than as adjuncts to roles. They resent interaction based on purely "official" or "business" basis. Claims to status and power must be as realistic as possible. Dishonesty, deceit and false representations are resented and avoided. The concept of "hiya" acts as a built-in check against exaggerated claims. It is be- lieved that by claiming less than what one really is, one can eventaully be exalted for having been humble. However, claims that are different or beyond realities stand the risk of being uncovered, and the claimant humbled, which would subject the person and the family to "hiya" (Guthrie and Azores 1968:57-59). In general, social acceptance is reflected in the day-to-day social interaction, where maintenance of "smooth interpersonal relations" or "SIR" is the norm. SIR is supposed to reduce interpersonal stresses by de- emphasizing differences and by avoiding direct face-to-face 109 confrontations, or by not "facing the issues squarely in the face"- This means agreeing (or at least appear not to disagree) in face-to-face situations or publicly, regard- less of how one feels privately, thereby, reducing ten- sion, avoiding possible situations of interpersonal con- flict and maintaining SIR. To disagree publicly or on a face-to-face situation might subject the other person to "hiya". Another illustration would be involving "delicate" negotiations between two persons or groups, especially if they do not belong to the same "barangay". These negotia- tions can range from a request for a personal loan or ser- vice, assistance in seeking a job, an approach for a group (power) alliance, or seeking a daughter's hand in marriage. It is always desirable to have a third party or interme- diary handle the negotiations. By avoiding a face-to-face situation, the petitioner does not have to risk "hiya" by "humbling" him/herself before somebody else. At the same time, if the need or request cannot be accommodated, then the second person is spared the ordeal of making the re- jection directly, thereby preserving SIR and the self- esteem of all parties concerned. Another form by which social acceptance is mani- fested is in the phenomenon of "pakikisama" or getting along with the group. A person who is not involved or shows indifference to the interests, welfare and activities of the group is viewed with suspicion and distruSt, which 110 is one manifestation of the emphasis of the supremacy of the group over the individual. An individual is there- fore compelled to agree or go along with the group or at least give that impression, since the consequences would be alienation, a situation that most Pilipinos dread (Guthrie and Azores 1968:1-63; Lynch 1970:1-75). To summarize, Pilipinos have been socialized to perceive themselves as individuals, but more than that, as part of a larger group which may extend beyond the nu- clear family, a group that demands loyalty and allegiance but on whom one can expect the same. 'Although these so- cietal arrangements are suppose to last during a person's lifetime, a person can belong to several groups as he/she goes through life, or even change allegiances to other nonfamily groups. Pilipinos fear alienation. Since Pili- pino life has always been in concert and with the support and control of the group, they become uncomfortable when they have to act individually. Geographic or social dis- tances from their families or groups result in more acute loneliness or homesickness, since they are separated from those whose presence ordinarily provide support and direction (Guthrie and Azores l968:9). 111 Colonialism in the Philippines From among the countries in the region, the Phil- ippines had the longest colonial experience under Western powers. It was a Spanish colony for three centuries and an American colony for about half a century. The Ameri- cans referred to the country as a U.S. territory and/or "ward" but never as a colony. As to whether the Philip- pines continued to be a "neo-colony" of the U.S. long after its "independence" in 1946 continues to be the subject of debate in the Philippines and elsewhere. This will be discussed later in this study. At this point, suffice it to say that Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. come from a society with a long colonial history, of which almost half a century was with the United States. The Spanish Colonial Experience Political Restructuring The Philippines was a colony of Spain from 1565 to 1898. The Spanish explorers and colonizers did not "discover" an Asian nation-state or empire characterized by advance settlements with large public buildings and temples, nor a nationwide political system. What they found and tried to rule for three centuries were scat- tered settlements and small kingdoms trading with Asian neighbors, such as the Chinese, Indians, the peoples of 112 Indochina and some Arab traders from the southern part of the archipelago. In each of these settlements, however, they found an elaborate stratification system, codified laws, and a system of writing which resembled a combina- tion of Hindu sanskrit and Arabic script. They attempted to use the classic colonial pat- tern of administration by superimposing their rule over the existing political structure. However, the absence of a national power structure made this task difficult since they had to accomplish this by dealing with indivi- dual kingdoms, either by conquests or by treaties. What facilitated the political and administrative unification and colonization of the islands was the introduction of a common religion, the Catholic faith. Except for the Muslims in the south, this was almost universally accepted by the natives as manifested by the number of people baptized to the Faith (Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967:23-38). Unlike the British, the Dutch, or the French, one of the aims of Spanish colonization was the propagation of the Catholic faith. Every Spanish expedition and subsequent colonial administration was invariably accompanied by mis- sionaries and ecclesiastical authority as part of the colonial administration. Thus, the Church and State became inseparable in Spanish colonial administration although at various times, leaders from the two institu- tions were often engaged in conflicts of power. 113 Spanish colonial settlements required the esta- blishment of "pueblos“ (towns) which became the centers of political, civil, military and ecclessiastical administra- tion. Facing each other in the town plaza (square) were the church, town hall, local garrison, principal homes of Spanish and local elites, expanding into regular grid pat- terns for the rest of the population. This meant that the pre-Spanish scattered settlements of the barangays had to be brought together "under the church bells" which not only tolled the hours of worship, but also served as the town time and alarm system (Corpus 1965:25-27). The Spa- niards were consciencious urban planners. From the first settlement in Cebu to Manila, every Philippine town was carefully planned and laid out using the "plaza complex" (Hollnstiener 1969:147-174). Corpus in his work,The Philippines (1965:27-28)cap- sulized the Spanish colonial political and administrative rule of the Philippines, and how the Pilipinos responded. The old "barangays" and their members were brought bodily into the new scheme of municipal organization. The folk of the "pueblo" were divided into "barangays“ each under its own head or "cabeza". This traditional leader therefore became an administrative functionary of the colonial regime and his position remained hereditary, as before. The "cabeza's" chief responsibility was to collect the levies, called "tributos" from each adult member of the "barangay" and to see to it that the personal labor services called "polos y servicios" a system of forced labor for supposed public 114 purposes -- were rendered. In recognition Of this service and of his social status, the “cabeza” was exempted from the "tributo" and first sons were given the same exemption. The "cabeza" of the town collectively made up the "principalia" or leading citizens. From among them the "gobernadorcillo" or "little governor" was chosen as town head. The "principalia" as a local aristocracy became a durable social institution. The "cabezas" and the "gobernadorcillo" did not count for much in the eyes of the Spanish colonial community. They were ill recompensed for their onerous responsibilities, terrorized by the Spanish friar who was the parish priest, and victimized by the Spanish provincial gover- nor and his retinue of fellow Spaniards. In the eyes of their fellow natives, however, their sociopolitical status remained as exalted as before, and some of them succumbed to tempta- tion of emulating their Spanish superiors, in- dulging in graft -- from the tribute collections and other sources -- on their own account. Their role in the large society of Filipinos and Spaniards was that of political shock absorbers and cultural middlemen. It turned out to be an important role. The demands of the Spanish offi- cials and friars were transmitted to the masses of the Filipinos, through the "principalia Since these demands were invariably burdensome and vexatious, the "principalia" justified them to their own people; in turn, they represented the natives' difficulties to the rulers. It was a natural process, and there was nothing high- flown and noble about it. To preserve their sta- tus with the masses below, the "cabezas" and "gobernadorcillos" sought in effect to moderate the regime's impositions. To preserve their pre- rogatives in the colonial order, they cooperated and collaborated. The outcome was a "modus vivendi" between the native community and the Spanish com- munity. In practice, the Filipino masses complied incompletely or only externally -- evaded where possible -- the rigorous exactions of the colonial order. The friars and officials of the regime tried to get more compliance, but accepted what they in fact got. It was not a perfect relation- ship, but it could have been much worse. The Spa- nish occupation rested, and lasted, on this equilibrium. 115 For their part, the ordinary people were of no consequence to the Spaniards except as the source of revenue. The avenues of social mobility were closed. Politics was not available to them. Edu- cation was rudimentary and intended for nothing but unquestioning acceptance of the friar's inter- pretation of Christian faith and morals. Economic entrepreneurship was impossible in the provinces; government policies reduced them to stagnation until the late eighteenth century. In the cities, the Chinese, who had been coming in increasing numbers as resident craftsmen and traders, monopo- lized the service trades. Indeed,a perverted sys- tem of values developed in which assignment to menial tasks in the service of the friar or of some Spaniard was accorded social distinction -- but even these lowly services were reserved for the families of the "principalia". The colonial order froze the Filipino masses to permanent impotence. A significant importance of Spanish colonial rule was the power of the clergy, particularly the members of the religious orders, the friars. They were directly responsible to the Crown through their mother organiza- tions either in Spain and in Rome and not the Spanish colonial civil and military administrators. In some in- stances, they served as buffer between the natives and the abuses of other Spaniards, although it was often in the spirit of "protecting God's innocent little children. In other instances,they were the Spanish colonial autho- rity in the towns who did not have any civil or military administrators. Later they became so powerful that they often clashed with the more "liberal" nonclergy adminis- trators. Most religious orders became landholders under the semi-feudal system introduced by the Spaniards. Some 116 became oppressive landlords and reactionaries to any re- forms that were being introduced with the exception of the Jesuits. Thus towards the end of Spanish colonial rule, the friars, together with the "guardia civil" (civil guard, a para-military national police), became the most hated personalized symbol of oppression (Agoncillo 1956:135; 152-154; 168-169). Economic Ramifications One of the most lasting,if not permanent,effects of Spanish colonization was the restructuring of the eco- nomic systems of the Philippines. Spain introduced the Pilipinos to the money economy and to a wider network of world trade, compared to a pre-Spanish barter-trading with their Asian neighbors. Any form of production (agriculture, fishing and cottage industries) were con- trolled by the colonial government. Foreign trade was a government monopoly and local retail trade was relegated to the Chinese under the careful supervision of the authorities. In 1834, foreign (European) firms were allowed to trade in the Philippines. For more than two centuriesathe principal domes- tic and international economic activity of the Philippine colony was the galleon trade. The Manila-Acapulco (Mexico) or galleon trade as it was commonly known, 117 followed the monopoly merchantilism typical of colonial economic activity. Only Spaniards could engage in whole- sale and/or international commerce. Even they, were res- tricted from trading directly with any Asian countries or with the natives. They had to trade through the govern- ment agencies or through agencies designated by the autho- rities. The Chinese and other Asian traders brought their goods to designated outlets from where the Spanish traders bought them and resold them to Mexico via the port of Acapulco at as much as 100% profit. Only a few Philip- pine goods such as cordage, hemp and hand-woven textiles, and towards the end of Spanish rule, Philippine sugar and tobacco, were exported. Most of the goods shipped through Manila via the galleon trade were silks from China, rugs and carpets from Persia, and spices from India and East Indies. There was only one galleon on the Manila-Acapulco and one on the Acapulco-Manila run. Since there was more goods to be shipped and traded than‘ space available on the trips, getting shipping space on the galleons became highly competitive and a source of corruption. The profits from the trade helped finance some of the public works and charities in the colonies. However, it became such a lucrative undertaking that it soon bred corruption among the Spanish colonizers. Colonial 118 administrators (civil, military,and ecclessiastical) soon neglected their duties and concentrated their efforts on getting their "piece of the action" from the galleon trade. The Pilipinos were the least benefited from the trade, in fact, it was profitably conducted at their expense. First of all, the galleons were built in the Philippines by conscript labor. Secondly, the Philippine products in- cluded in the trade were bought cheaply and resold to Mexico at tremendous profits, all accruing to the Spanish traders and colonizers. Thirdly, since the Spaniards were too busy concentrating on the galleon trade, they failed to notice, much less control,the increasing parti- cipation and later monopoly of the Chinese in retail trading and money lending businesses. These had a long- run negative effect towards the development of native business and economic independence (Corpus 1965:30-31; Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967:89-93; 109-110). Spanish agricultural policy was restrictive, op- pressive and exploitive, although a beneficial effect of Spanish rule was the introduction of new methods of farm- ing and what was scientific agriculture at the time. The immediate beneficiaries of such innovations were not the Pilipinos howeveru Among the agricultural innovations was the introduction of cash crops such as sugar, tobacco,and abaca for hemp. Not only were the Pilipinos limited in 119 their marketing through the Spanish monopoly; they were also prohibited from cultivating other crops that were not within the scheme of the colonial agro-economic system. Pilipinos were reluctant to produce more than what they needed for subsistence and what was required of them, for fear that the fruits of their efforts may not be fairly compensated by the monopolized marketing system; or worse, that these will be confiscated by a local colonial admi- nistrator or friar (Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967:110-112). The most damaging innovation was the restructuring of the land use and tenure system by the introduction of the "encomienda" patterned after the feudal system in Europe. The encomienda was a royal title to large tracts of land, not of ownership, but of the right to collect tribute and benefit from the inhabitants of the land covered by the title, in return for keeping the peace and propagating the faith. Thus, in addition to producing for their own needs, the people in the encomiendas had to produce for the needs of the "encomiendero" which included so many days of free labor per week in whatever agricultural or industrial enterprise the encomienda was engaged in. The encomiendas were given to Spaniards in recognition of services to the Crown; and to the diocesan Church and religious orders, for their maintenance in lieu of subsidies from the Royal treasury and/or 120 from Rome. The latter encomiendas became notoriously known as the "friar lands" and these were coveted by American agro-business and the native rich. They were of course, the most fertile and beautiful lands. The system became so oppressive that towards the end of colonial rule, it had to be abolished; that is, the titles to the encomiendas could not be inherited by heirs when the original grantees passed on. But by that time, the encomienderos or their heirs were too economically and politically powerful to be dislodged from "their" land. Thus, what was intended to be a trust on Royal lands, be- came in fact, titles of ownership. Since the majority of the Pilipinos were and still are dependent on agriculture as their main means of livelihood, the eccomienda system, more than anything else, had the most lasting effects on individual, family, and societal economics. From a com- bination of communal and "private" landownership, pro- ducing what they needed and for barter, the Pilipinos became tenant sharecroppers in what was once their own land and not even getting a fair share of products of their labor and former land. Moreover, the encomienda was the precursor of the "hacienda" (Plantation-type) agriculture, which continued to be a major social problem in the country until the 1970's (Corpus 1965 32-34; Agoncillo and Alfonso 1976:85-86; 525-526; 596-598). 121 Cultural Effects The most significant cultural incursion was in the introduction of the Catholic religion, if measured by the fact that about 80% of the Pilipinos were baptized into the faith. Nevertheless, the depth of the Pilipinos' theological and philosophical commitment to the faith has since been questioned. It has been contended that except for a minority from among the educated, by and large Ca- tholicism in the Philippines took the form of folk Chris- tianity where pre-Spanish festivals were substituted with Catholic holidays or feast days of saints,and native ri- tuals with Catholic rubrics. Not only was the teaching of the faith superficial, but quite often its teachersJ the friars were, as noted earlier, symbols of Spanish oppression. For the rural unschooled Pilipino, the op- pressor was not the colonial system, the governor-general in Manila, Spain, or the Spanish Sovereign, whom he never saw much less interacted with. The colonial oppressor was the local Spanish friar or parish priest with whom they interacted with everyday. Although the official policy of the Crown for co- lonization, among others, was "to bring the true faith to the heathen“, its local application was interpreted in the volume of body counts of those baptized, rather than in teaching the faith. For most Pilipinos this meant 122 being baptized as soon as possible to the true God of the Spaniards. The other possible alternative was to see God sooner than they wanted (Corpus 1965:34-42; Bulatao 1966). However, Christianity was the vehicle through which Western education and ideas reached the natives. First of all, at the parish level, the Pilipinos learned the rudiments of the three "R's", together with their re- ligion and later, through the establishment of secondary schools, colleges,and universities which were ran by re- ligious orders. The introduction and adoption by the Pilipinos of Latin grammar and the Roman alphabet in lieu of the Pilipino syllabary meant the loss of an im- portant cultural heritage. However, this also meant that the Pilipinos were now exposed to world literature and therefore were able to establish intellectual cross- cultural linkages. Higher education was initially limited to the children of Spaniards, the mestizos, the native elite,and a few "promising" young men who were slatedfor'the priest- hood. For the poor, the only way to get an education was to be a priest (or at least pretend to have a vocation). There was in fact, a local policy to limit the education of the natives to the religion at the most elementary level (i.e., without theology or philosophy); and to the basics, i.e., enough to get by and understand their 123 obligations to the colonial masters. The reasons ranged from intellectual superiority (the natives were not capa- ble of higher learning) to political -- lest the natives be exposed to fallacious and seditious literature (Corpus 1965:34-56). Nevertheless, the few natives and mestizos who were able to pursue higher education in the Philippines and Europe became the nuclei from whom European ideas and philosophies on nationalism and liberalism were dis- seminated to the rest of the population. They also be- came the spokespersons of the Pilipino cause in European intellectual and liberal political circles. Reforms, Nationalism, Revolution, and a Taste of Independence In his work, The Revolt of the Masses (1956), Teodoro A. Agoncillo contends that the major cause of the Philippine revolution against Spain was economic, and that it was initially and principally a plebian movement. There have been,throughout centuries of Spanish colonial rule,sporadic uprisings throughout the islands. In fact, the "discoverer" of the Philippines, Fernando Magallanes, a Portuguese in the service of Spain,was killed in 1521 in the island of Mactan by the island's king, Lapu-lapu, who refused to be baptized in the new religion,much less 124 acknowledge the sovereignty of a foreign ruler. None of these oppositions against Spain could be considered a national movement, much less a revolution, until 1896. The middle and upper classes considered the oppressive colonial administration as abuses of local officials and reactionary elements among the clergy, rather than as inherent matters in a colonial structure. The initial "nationalist" movement was directed at effecting reforms in the colonial administration, among which was the perception and demand that the Philippines be made a Spanish province (instead of a colony) and be represented in the Spanish Cortes (Parliament). The mid- dle and upper classes suffered economic and political de- privation compared to the spaniards. Reforms would have given them a more equitable position. It was the masses who suffered near absolute economic deprivation. For them,reforms meant rising the status of some Pilipinos to the level of the Spaniards, without any effects on their lives. The only escape from their economic and so- cial bondage was through a complete political indepen- dence, whereby as a free people they could assume control of the means of livelihood and determine their own fate. It took the "Katipunan" to galvanize these individual and regional aspirations into a national movement and revolution. 125 To understand the "Katipuan is to understand the Philippine revolution. "Katipunan" is short for "Kataastaasan Kagalang-galangan Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan". Freely translated,it means the Society of the Highest and Most Illustrious Sons of the Motherland. It was founded by Andres Bonifacio, a man of very little edu- cation with lower class origins. Compared to other orga- nizations such as the "Lega Filipina" (Philippine League), which was opposing abuses in the colonial administration, the "Katipunan" or "KKK" was a radical organization in that it was based on the belief that the only way out of oppression was through political independence by armed conflict. Its internal structure and administration fol- lowed closely that of free masonry,rep1ete with secret initiation and other rites. The "Katipunan" became the first national movement in that it attracted membership from all regional-linguis- tic groups as well as a few from the middle classes and intelligentsia. Some of the middle classes opposed it and the rest watched it with interest from a safe distance. The rich and church authorities opposed it; the civil and military authorities viewed it with some apprehension, but did not consider it serious enough to be given more attention than similar movements in the past, to the chagrin of the ecclessiastical authorities, who demanded 126 that drastic measures be taken against the "Katipunan". For the first time in Philippine history, the natives were opposing and fighting a common oppressor, not as Tagalogs, Visayans or Ilocanos, but as Pilipinos. To be a "Katipunero“ was to be revolutionary. The first open armed conflict with the Spanish authorities came on the last week of August 1896, and quickly spread throughout the country. The neutral or even pro-Spanish position of the rest of the middle class and the rich did not save them from retaliation by the Spanish authorities. As far as the latter were concerned all Pilipinos were suspect. This was further exacerbated by the fact that the "Katipuneros",upon failure to get the voluntary support of the rich,tried to implicate them with the movement before the Spanish authorities.12 In the meantime, political reforms came, but it was a matter of too little and too late. The Katipunan denounced it and the struggle continued. Spanish resistance in the provinces started to collapse. More of the population in- cluding the intellectuals, the middle class, the rich,and progressive and liberal elements in the European community, started to support it. On June 12, 1898, the independence of the Philip- pines was declared at Cawit, Cavite. On June 18 and 23, the Revolutionary Congress convened at the Church of 127 Malolos, Bulacan, and the Malolos Constitution which was patterned after the French and U.S. Constitutions was adopted. The civil government under the Republic was operating in most of the country, while the symbolic remnants of Spanish rule were surrounded and besieged in Manila. Spanish rule of the Philippines was coming to an end when the Spanish-American war broke out, and the American Asiatic Squadron, under the command of Commodore George Dewey, sailed into Manila Bay on May 1, 1898. It did not take long before the Pilipinos had to fight again for their independence, this time against the Americans whom they thought were going to help them secure their freedom from Spain. In the meantime, a power conflict developed between factions in the Katipunan and the revo- lutionary government. The conflict climaxed in the trial and execution of Andres Bonifacio by the revolutionary government on May 10, 1897, and with him, the Katipunan died (Agoncillo 1956:238-258; 267-273). Highlights and Implications of Spanish Colonization Although the motives for colonizing the Philip- pines may have been the same as those in the American continent, the former turned out to be different from the Spanish colonies in the Americas. The geographical, social, and cultural heterogeneity of the Philippine 128 archipelago made the administration of the colonies difficult. Moreover, compared with South America, the Philippines had not been as profitable to the business interests of the Crown as the former had been. The only substantial source of revenue was the foreign trade mono- poly and limited exports of cash crops. The resistance of the Pilipinos to produce agricultural and light industrial productsfor the benefit of the colonizers, the corruption of colonial officials, and the increasing cost of maintain- ing peace and order contributed towards making the Philip- pine colony an economic burden on the Spanish government towards the end of the 19th century (Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967). Furthermore, the Philippines was considered the last frontier of the Spanish Empire. It was such an undesirable place that Spaniards of ”good quality" refused to go there and the posting of Spaniards (civil, military, and Church officials) to the colony was often a form of punishment or demotion (Abella 1971). The colony was not even administered directly from Spain, but indirectly through Mexico, and the Spanish Governor- General was responsible to the Viceroy of Mexico instead of to the Sovereign, although towards the end of Spanish rule, the situation was changed. Except for its African colonies, the Philippines was the only Spanish colony where the native population 129 outnumbered the Spanish population at the end of Spanish rule. At the turn of the nineteenth century, there were only 4,000 Spaniards and "mestizos" (mixed bloods), com- pared with 2,500,000 natives. At the time Spain left the Philippines, less than one percent of the population was Spanish, the rest were natives and other races, such as Chinese (Abella 1971). The impact of Spanish on Pilipino culture, com- pared to South America,was minimal. Spanish language and cultural influenceswere limited to a minority among the urban population, although they also filtered down to the rest of the population in some form or another. However, Spanish penetration into the native social structures, institutions, values and norms took on some form of cross- cultural detente. The observations of Phelan in his His- panization of the Philippines describes the general overall effects of Spanish colonization on Pilipino cul- ture (Phelan 1959:26). . The Filipinos were no mere passive re- cipients of the cultural stimulus created by the Spanish conquest. Circumstances gave them considerable freedom in selecting their res- ponse to Hispanization. Their responses varied all the way from acceptance to indifference and rejection.... [and] they adapted many Hispanic features to their own indigenous culture. Pre- conquest society was not swept away by the ad- vent of the Spanish regime.... . significant elements of the old culture blended into the new society emerging under Spanish auspices, and in many cases took forms 130 contrary to the wishes of the new regime.... Although partially hispanized, they never lost that Malaysian stratum which to this day re- remains the foundation of their culture. The most significant impact of Spanish coloniza— tion was economic and political. The Spaniards restruc- tured the ecological balance between the people and the environment. From an economic system based on subsistence and a little surplus for trade by autonomous settlements, the islands became an agricultural factory in order to sustain the colonial government, which also linked the islands to an international commercial network. Instead of improving the economic lot of the Pilipinos, the inter- national commercial linkages subjected them to further exploitation. In addition to producing to sustain the colonial government, the Pilipinos had to produce more to supply the requirements of the colonizer's international trade activities. The Spanish colonial economic system also contributed to the development of an economic and political elite and bourgeois who were a little better off than the rest of the population. The majority of the peo- ple became indentured sharecroppers and urban proletariate. The political effects of Spanish colonization of the Philippines resulted in a historical geopolitical phenomenon which the Spaniards could not have planned, much less desired. The urbanization of the islands, the centralized political, military, civil and 131 ecclessiastical administrative structure, combined with universal exploitation and oppression of the natives; led to the development of racial and national consciousness from among an ethnically heterogeneous people living in autonomous settlements. The empirical manifestation of this consciousness was a national revolution which ended Spanish colonial rule and gave birth to a nation -- the Philippines.13 The American Colonial Experience The Spanish-American War (1898) in which the os- tensive reason for American involvement was to help the Cubans gain their independence. gave the United States the opportunity to expand its "sphere of influence" in the Pacific area (Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967:226-241). The Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898 ended the Spanish- American War and ceded the Philippines to the U.S. in ex- change for 25 million dollars. However, possession of the Islands by the U.S. was resisted by the Pilipinos and it took four years of savage guerrilla-type war before the whole country was relatively pacified. Moreover, acqui- sition of the Philippines was also bitterly opposed in the United States itself. The principal opposition came from the fanti-imperialists" who based their opposition on moral and constitutional grounds. They were joined by 132 those who even had less concern for the fate of the Pili- pinos. Among them were agricultural interests who feared competition from Philippine agricultural products, such as sugar and coconut oil; organized labor who were appre- hensive about the possible entry of cheap labor; and the chronic racists who were appalled at the notion that those brown people may become U.S. citizens, and worst, dilute the purity of the Anglo-Saxon race (Grunder and Livezey 1951:27-50; Wolfe 1960:141-219). The armed resistance by the Pilipinos combined with the opposition in the U.S., influenced the abandon- ment of any aims of annexing the Philippines to the U.S. The official American position on the Philippines was that the U.S. was to prepare the country for independence which included development of the country's military capa- bilities so that it could defend itself from other coun- tries' aggression. The political and economic strategy was to have a friendly ally in Asia that can be depended on to provide "coaling stations” for U.S. warships and a bridge to the Asian trade market. President McKinley assuaged the racist elements by emphasizing that the U.S. aims for the Philippines was economic rather than social assimilation; through a delegation of Methodist clergy he told the U.S. Protestant Church that it was the duty ofthe United States to Christianize the Pilipino (who have been 133 Catholics for three centuries) (Grunder and Livezey 1959: 27-50; Wolfe 1960:173-176). In the meantime, the military commanders and later military governors were crushing the armed resistance of the Pilipinos. Civil government was restored to pacified areas, with Pilipinos who took the oath of allegiance to the U.S. taking the reins of govern- ment, except the military and police. The Philippine Supreme Court was restored in which the majority including the Chief Justice was Pilipino. The administration of the Philippines was removed from the military and on July 4, 1901, William Howard Taft who later became the 27th President of the United States took his oath of office as the first civil governor general of the Philippines before the Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, Sehor Cayetano Arellano. Thus the official American policy of developing the Philip- pines for its eventual "independence" was set into motion (Grunder and Livezey 1951:67-83). Political Ramifications of the U.S. Policies and Administration The announced policy for the Philippines, followed by acts implementing that policy, mooted any aspirations for political independence. The issue was how and when the independence was to be achieved and to maximize Pili- pino participation in the U.S. administration of the 134 islands. Restoration of the civil government was followed by "Filipinization“ of the Philippine government. Basic individual rights to life, property, expression, and poli- tical activities (not contrary to the U.S. policy) were guaranteed. In 1902, the "Organic Act" ratified all pre- vious executive orders and instructions regarding U.S. administration of the Philippines. In 1907, an elective Philippine Assembly was established; this later became the lower legislative body and the appointive Philippine Com- mission became the upper legislative body. The latter was expanded and Pilipino members outnumbered the Americans. The task of pacifying the islands and maintaining peace and order nationwide was turned over to the newly organized Philippine Constabulary, composed of American and Pilipino officers and men, which later became an all Pilipino establishment. In the United States, the continued U.S. presence in the Philippines and the manner by which the U.S. was administering the islands continued to be a political issue. By and large, the Democrats, regarded as "anti-imperialists" were the defenders of Philippine interests while the Republicans pursued an imperialist position. However, within each party were those who pursued U.S. interests at the expense of the Pilipinos and those who were on the opposite side. It is historical 135 that any actions by the U.S. Government favoring the Pili- pinos and the Philippines were accomplished during Democrat administrations and/or when they controlled the U.S. Con- gress (Grunder and Livezey 1951:85; 146-209; Wolfe 1960). The Cultural Impact of the U.S. Presence: "Americanizing" the Philippines Among the declared policies of the U.S. for the Philippines was the education of the Pilipinos and their preparation for self-government. These were carried out principally through a massive education program. They established a nationwide public school system patterned after the American model, in which the first teachers who in a way, were the precursors of the Peace Corps, were known and remembered with nostalgia as the "Thomasites".14 In addition, the already existing nongovernment schools were likewise Americanized. Part of this thrust was the use of English as the medium of instruction from the first grade through higher education. The first text- books were American. Later books reflected Philippine characteristics, but idealized American models, from the family to government and economics. Values and norms were likewise affected. To prefer traditional or "native" norms and values was considered a sign of illiteracy. Being an educated Pilipino meant preferring apple pie in a country where there are no apples and wearing American 136 sui ts where the temperatures never went lower than seventy (70) degrees fahrenheit. American political figures (Washington, Lincoln, etc.) were idealized and native pa- tr‘i ots who fought for their country's independence were portrayed as "bandits", "insurgents", and "hostiles". The Americanization of the Pilipinos, whether by des i gn or accident, begun to have its results and these imp ‘i nged not only on the native culture but also on the economic, political, and world outlook of the Pilipinos as W81 1 . American models, whether in government, manner of dress, or lifestyles became the ideal, whereas anything P11 ‘5 pino or Asian were considered outmoded or inferior. Most of the urban Pilipinos and to some extent, even those in 1:he countryside, regardless of their social and econo- mic status, were becoming cultural hybrids. Aping Ameri- can lifestyles meant desiring American-made consumer's prOducts, not just similar products manufactured in the Phi1ippines, but those with the label "made in U.S.A." The Pilipinos, whether they could afford it or not, were becoming a consumer-oriented society. In other words,the little brown brothers were being converted from being "homines socialis" to "homines economicus", sometimes at great social and cultural cost. Rizal's lamentations of the Westernization of the Pilipinos may have been over- stated as far as Spanish influence was concerned. But 137 these prophesied the effects that America had on the Pili- pinos half a century after he wrote that the Pilipinos..15 -.. gradually lost their ancient traditions, their recollections -- they forgot their vuritings, their songs, their poetry, their laws, in order to learn by heart other doctrines which they did not understand; other ethics, other tastes, different from those inspired in their race by their climate and way of thinking. Then there was a falling- off, they lowered in their own eyes, they became ashamed of what was distinctly their own in order to admire and praise what was foreign and incomprehensible; their spirit was broken and they acquiesced. Eco nomic Ramifications While U.S. official political policy and programs for‘ the Philippines had been established, the economic rani‘ifications of the U.S. presence in the Philippines beC:Eime more complicated. The immediate concern of the Americans was to restore and expand the Philippine economy to [arevent the Islands from being a burden on the U.S. treEisury. Massive public works programs, such as construc- tiorl of roads, ports, and harbors were undertaken. Trans- por“tation and communication networks were established. Scieence and technology which during the Spanish regime was alnmast exclusively an activity of academia and a few indi- vichdal scientists, became a major government activity. The Bureau of Science was established and soon begun to get international recognition, until its destruction 138 during World War II. Whereas initial commercial potential of’ ‘tlne Philippines was merely as a trading post to China a11cl 'the rest of Asia, certain American interests begun to see the Philippines as a potential economic colony, i.e., sup>F>liers of raw materials and consumers of American goods (Gt‘lander and Livezey 1951:28-29; 40-41; Wolfe 1960: 152 —160). The Americans inherited the oppressive land tenure SYES item from the Spaniards, upon which most of the Pilipi- nOES were seeking out a living. Some of the encomiendas anci the friar lands were brought by the U.S. government anci became public lands. The Organic Act limited the accIuisition of public lands for purchase or lease at 1,024 hecz1tares for corporations and sixteen (16) hectares for ind “i vidual homesteaders .16 U.S - There was a move from certain interests to increase the size of land that could be pur‘<:hased or leased to corporations and to allow foreigners (Ameericans) to develop them. The rationale was that cash crop) agriculture could not be operated efficiently on sma‘ll holdings and that there was not enough local capital to cievelop plantation-type, mechanized agriculture. The move: was opposed by Pilipino and American political leaxiers both in the Philippines and in the U.S. It was feared that the move would open the way for economic exploitation of the Philippines. Some Americans in the Philippines (administrators, military commanders, and 139 those in academic and church institutions) knew that land tenure was the major social-economic problem. And that, unless there was a change in the land tenure system, the situation will get worse, regardless of whether the Phil- ippines became a part of the U.S. or an independent nation. The land and tenancy system was not resolved during the American administration; neither was it resolved after the administration ended. The encomiendas either passed on to heirs or were sold to new landowners (fami- lies and corporations), and since they were not public lands, they were not subject to the size limitations. Some of the friar lands were subdivided and sold or leased to former tenants. But eventually, most of them ended up in the hands of the ruling elite families. Introducing an equitable land tenure system was one innovation that the Americans could have initiated and done for the major- ity of the Pilipinos since they had the political clout to carry it out. They failed to do this. The intentions and efforts were there, but they were no match to the economic and political interests, both in the Philippines and the U.S., who wanted to keep the old system. The Pilipino landowners refused to give up their economic advantages. Byand Large, the Americans in the U.S. were unenthusiastic about land reforms since this was an internal matter. In other words, the land tenure problem 140 wasaaPilipino problem that did not impinge on American hnmrests, and therefore was left to the Pilipinos to resolve (Grunder and Livezey 1951:80-82; 127-136; Corpus 1965:33-34). American action (or inaction) on the Philippine land tenure problem typified American posture on its eco- nomic policies on the Philippines vis-a-vis the U.S. The American body-politic supported and enacted measures that were to benefit the Philippines (and many did benefit the Philippines), but only as long as they did not conflict with American governmental or private economic interests. Even those actions that benefited the Philippines went only to the elite and the urban centers, and rarely filtered to the rest of the people (Grunder and Livezey 1951:104-121; McWilliams 1964:246-247; Pomeroy 1970:172-228). Highlights and Implications of the American Experience Regardless of the American motives for the develop- ment of the Philippines, the fact remains that compared to (rther Asian and African countries, the country was far more developed economically and politically at the time of its pnalitical independence from the U.S., than the Asian and African colonies were at the time of their own independence. For instance, at the end of the American Administration, all governmental structures were in the 141 hands of Pilipinos. Most of the supervisory-level, some decision-making and all lower-level positions in American business and industry, were occupied by Pilipinos. Com- pared with three centuries of Spanish colonization, the half century of formal dominance and colonial rule of America was more thorough and effective. Technological advances in the communications media also had a signifi- cant contribution towards the Americanization of the Phil- ippines. The spread of the written media and radio (par- ticularly the transistor radio) allowed the dissemination of information and ideas even in geographically isolated areas of the country. Also through the same media, in- formation and ideas critical of the U.S. were disseminated throughout the country, whereas they have been previously confined to high-level political and academic circles. It has often been said that where Spanish arms . failed, Spanish religion succeeded, thus the Philippines inas conquered by the cross rather than by the sword. One car1 therefore draw the same conclusion about American pre- sence and domination of Philippine life. Where American gtuiboats failed, the American educational system, adver- irising, and the soft-shell approach succeeded in seducing at: least a generation of Pilipinos to the "American way", if’ not by choice at least by perceived necessity. As late .as 1970, a group was organized in the Philippines whose airn was to have the Philippines returned to and eventually 142 bemmm a state of the U.S. The movement never acquired simfificance in the country, much less in the U.S., but it was reported to have been able to recruit six million members, supporters, and even financial contributors. Continued Dominance of the United States independence in 1946 did not end American immediately Formal domination of the Philippines. For instance, after independence was granted, the Philippine constitu- tion was amended to allow American citizens the same rights as the Pilipinos in the exploitation of national resources and operation of certain businesses. Succeeding agreements and treaties retained and/or expanded American domination of the Philippines, although the language of the treaties and political rhetoric gave them a national- istic flavor. U.S. Foreign "aid" to the Philippines, starting with the Philippine Rehabilitation Act by the U.S. Congress, were tailored to suit U.S. economic and political interests, rather than Philippine needs (Grunder and Livezey 1951:248-275; McWilliams 1964:245-248; Diokno 1968:11-19; Pomeroy 1974). Another example of U.S. dominance of the Philip- 1Iines is the continued existence of U.S. military bases ir1 the country. Clark Air Force base, headquarters of the U.S. 13th Air Force Command, is the largest U.S. air 131111;}..5; 143 installation outside of continental U.S.A. The U.S. naval base at Subic Bay, Zambales, is the only deep-water base large enough in that part of the Pacific to contain all the principal ships of the U.S. 7th Fleet. The threat of an internal Communist-backed take-over of the country iflfich was principally an agrarian and nationalist movement, the Korean War, and the defeat of the Frensh in Indochina pushed the Philippines into closer military dependence on the U.S. and non-Communist regional organizations such as the U.S.-sponsored Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The mere presence of a foreign military base on one country does not necessarily connote military, poli- tical, and economic dominance of the former. It cannot be disputed that military installations, regardless of where they are located, do provide civilian employment and revenues in their localities. But the agreements govern- ing the U.S. military bases in the Philippines have been and continue to be affronts to Philippine sovereignty and nationalist aspirations. The fact that they are there to protect U.S. interests and only incidentally, Philippine interests if at all, only adds injury to the insult. The time span of the original agreement between the Philip- pines was for ninety-nine (99) years. The bases were considered U.S. territory and American servicemen vicxlating Philippine laws in and/or out of the bases Binge»... .133. ‘3‘... un~ 144 werermt subjected to Philippine jurisprudence, but they were guaranteed the protection of Philippine laws. Later, the agreements were amended to twenty-five (25) years, and crimes committed by American servicemen outside the bases were subject to Philippine laws; the latter was more symbolic than actual however. The modus operandi was to set free on bail, and/or release to the custody of their military superiors American servicemen accused of violating Philippine laws. While waiting trial, the accused are reassigned out of the country. Official outrage was assuaged by official apologies but public outcry was never even considered. Internal politics and foreign affairs, even as late as the 1960's, were very much identified with America. Being nationalistic was identified with being anti-Ameri- can and being anti-American as being communistic and bor- ders on treason. To run for public office on an anti- American position was courting political disaster at the polls. As early as 1900, when all political parties were banned, the U.S. colonial administration encouraged the organization of a political party (Federal Party) whose declared platform was "peace and perpetual fealty to and eventual union with the U.S.". (Corpus 1965; Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967). Common experiences in World War II, 145 thematized by Gen. Douglas MacArthur's "I shall return" staummnt, only increased the idealization of America. Afun‘independence in 1946, Philippine international rela- tions were, until the 1970's, very much tied to the U.S. in a “common fight against the perils of world communism". It must be noted that almost from the beginning of American entry in the Philippines up to the present, the Pilipinos continued to have the support of Americans, both in the Philippines and the U.S. Many of these American supporters had or still have personal, professional, and other linkages with Pilipinos. However, many do not, and these oppose American imperialist policies, regardless of who the victims are. In the case of the Philippines, it can even be posited that the American supporters of Philippine interests may have muted in one way or another the surrender of some of the Pilipino leaders to the U.S. dollar. New Perspectives By the 1950's, the Philippines was joined by new 'Hmations" who were freed from the classical colonialism knit were still somehow linked to former colonizers or to world powers. In April of 1955, the new nations of Africa and Asia convened the first African Asian conference whitfi1 excluded all former colonial and existing world power blocks at Bandung, Indonesia. The "Bandung 146 Conference of 1955" declared to the world that the African and Asian nations would do their best to oppose any form ofimperialism, be it from the East or West. It set the motion towards the establishment of cultural, trade, and economic networks among the Third World nations instead of through the world powers. Unfortunately, many of the intentions of the Bandung Conference could not be imme- diately implemented. For one thing, some of the new nations such as the Philippines were committed in one way or another to their former colonizers, or driven to closer ties with power block nations due to the perceived mili- tary confrontation between the Communist and "free" world. In the 1960's, the Philippine government begun to take a more independent position from the U.S. in foreign affairs. The critical attitudes towards the U.S., espe- cially by the college youth, press, organized farm and urban labor, and even by the "man in the street" were pre- cipitated by several international structural changes, events, and attitudes. Among these was the acknowledged viability of the international concept of two worlds, i.e., that the Communist or the "free" world in which people or nations have to belong without alternative choices was no longer tenable; there was a deeper and wider understanding of the nature of neo-colonialism, whether it is of Communist or capitalist variety, by ‘ 1.v9‘ la._'- . . a. 147 ThiNiWorld peoples; and the unpopularity of the U.S. involvement in Indochina (both in the U.S. and the world community). In the Philippines, anti-American feelings and aspirations for a more independent posture were begin- ning to gain national and universal following. These were coming to a head when President Ferdinand E. Marcos de- clared martial law and suspended civil liberties in September 1972. The American Chamber of Commerce was the first and the only foreign business group that congratu- lated President Marcos for “restoring order". The embarrassing withdrawal of the U.S. from Indo- china precipitated a more independent posture of the Philippine leadership, at least in foreign affairs. These included opening cultural and economic channels to the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries and the esta- blishment of diplomatic relations with the Chinese Peo- ple‘s Republic in lieu of the Nationalist Government in However, the Philippines was one of the few Third for the reten- Taiwan. World countries that voted with the U.S. tion of the Chinese Nationalist government in the United There has also been expansion of international The parity Nations. trade with countries other than the U.S. amendment has since been repealed and substituted by more eqtritable agreements. Although foreign investments are encouraged, certain activities are retained by nationals. 148 lfimever, in spite of the fact that the Philippines is no ‘nger an exclusive American preserve in international tramL American corporations still represent the largest flneign investments in the country. However, in the MHlar volume of imports and exports, Japan had replaced the U.S. as the major foreign trader in the Philippines by by 1973 (up to 1975) (Central Bank of the Philippines 1975: 7-11' 14). Government and political leaders also foresee a larger volume of trade with China for Philippine products particularly sugar, in exchange for light machinery, oil, and consumer's products. The ancient commercial, social, and cultural ties betweenthe Philippines and its Asian neighbors which were severed by almost four centuries of Western intervention, are now being gradually restored. Like any country in the world today, the Philip- pines cannot survive as a nation without being dependent in one form or another to an international system and network. For instance, this was dramatically, almost tragically demonstrated during the oil embargo and the Iconsequent radical increase of the price of crude oil, upon vvhich most of the country's development depended. The suspension of public debate in the country prevents a more realistic appraisal of the degree of its dependence, (or"independence) particularly on U.S. domination. Ne- vertheless, a few structural changes have been observed. 149 Mmmg them, as earlier noted, is its more independent pmsture in foreign affairs, which includes a wider inter- national trade relations. The present regime has co-0pted the nationalist movement by channeling it towards the development of self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter and substitution of imported with locally produced consumers' products. Most foreign investments are now in partnership with local entrepre- neurs and capital. With regards to emigration of Pilipinos, there are now more alternative places other than the U.S. for poten- tial immigrants. These are Canada, Australia, and certain South American countries, although the U.S. is still the most preferred country (Smith 1974; Abad 1974; Parel 1974; Byrne 1974). What is crucial however is not the expansion of alternative destinationslyfimmigrants, but the develop- ment of a climate that will prevent further emigration of Pilipinos and induce immigrants to return. In the last three years, the Philippine government has been working towards that goal, since in spite of the limitation of civil liberties, it has not been able to restnrict emigration of nationals as other countries have done, thereby avoiding international criticism. Among lathers, it has instituted a homecoming ("balik-bayan") program whereby it subsidizes the fares of emigres who 150 who wish to return to the old country for a visit. Those vvhc: decide to return permanently are allowed to bring in tools, instruments, books, materials of their trade and prwafession, and household items including some banned luxu- ri es (provided they are for personal or family use) free 01’ duties and taxes. Regulations on government employment lmave been amended to induce scientists and technocrats to join the service. Moreover, the suspension of the tradi- tional political process has permitted a more active par- ticipation of professionals (scientists, technocrats, etc.) in the decision-making process inthe bodypolitic vis-a- vis the politicians. In fact, one of the complaints against the present regime is that the technocrats who have "no real understanding of the feelings of pe0ple are now running the show". In effect, the new regime has introduced major in- novations in the economic and professional-employment structures that may stem the brain drain and even induce emigres to return. In addition, there has been intensi- ‘fied appeals to nationalism and patriotism. A major struc- uHal change, which may have negative effects,is the con- thwed suspension of certain civil liberties among which isthe freedom of expression. Barring any radical changes inthe international sumctures of relationships as well as in the internal 151 si:r11ctures in the Philippines and the U.S., only time vvi'll tell if the current attempts of the Philippine government to improve its own internal structure and status-relationships with the world of nations will have an effect on the structures that affect the "free" inter- national immigration of Pilipinos. Summary and Implications The Pilipinos come from an island nation in the Southeast Pacific area. The majority of the current po- pulation is of basic Malay racial stock, with interming- ling of other Asian and Occidental races during the last four centuries. There are eight major ethno-linguistic groups and about 200 dialects. However, the differences are more geographical and economic, rather than socio- cultural. Prior to Spanish colonization, there was no national political structure, instead, the archipelago ins composed of independent settlements that were either Mzwar or at peace with each other. Trading with some of flmir Asian neighbors was maintained. Many of the larger seUflements had more sophisticated stratification systems, cmms of law, and a syllabric writing which resembled hMian sanskrit and Arabic script. The traditional Philippine social structure is ofiented towards the family and group. So much so that 152 conflicts between the interests of the individual and the group are often resolved in favor of the latter. This structure partly explains the existence of an egalita- rian sex structure, which was later undermined through Western domination and influence. Underneath the formal sexist structure however, women continued to exercise their power and authority in almost all aspects of Philippine life. The traditional social structure contributed to both the development of Pilipino personality and the pat- terns of interpersonal behavior. Pilipinos are not com- petitive as individuals. However, competition between groups (which sometimes results in violence) for status aand power is part of Philippine social life. Pilipinos tare very highly social persons and have been socialized t<> confront the world as members of a group. Although ttiis offers emotional and other forms of support to the iridividual, it also makes the individuals uncomfortable when they have to act autonomously. Physical or social Cristances such as loneliness or homesickness become acute. An aspect of Pilipino personality that guides iriterpersonal behavior is the high value placed on self- es teem. Consequently, interpersonal interaction is always geared towards preserving "smooth interpersonal relations" or "SIR". One manifestation of SIR is 153 agreeing with a discussant during a face-to-face interac- tion, even if there is a strong disagreement. Another is to avoid manifesting a disinterest or disagreement with group interests and action. Like most Third World countries today, the Phil- ippines' expanded participation in the international net- work of relationships was brought about through coloniza- tion. From a group of small nations interacting as inde- pendent societies with Asian neighbors, it became a domi- nated society and part of a larger empire. The Philip- pines was a colony of Spain for three centuries and a "territory" of the U.S. for approximately fifty (50) years, Three centuries of Spanish colonial rule brought significant economic, political,and cultural changes in both the region and the institutions of the population. From a people capable of sustaining themselves with some surplus for trade, the Pilipinos became a totally economi- cally deprived and dependent people. Although the Spaniards linked the Philippines to international com- merce, this brought more economic deprivation to the average Pilipino who now had to engage in cash crop or plantation agriculture without benefiting from it, and at the same time depriving him of the products to meet his own needs. A major structural change was the introduction of a feudal system of land tenure, which was hardly changed until the 1970's. 154 Spain introduced the Catholic religion and Western education. The majority of the Pilipinos were baptized to the Catholic faith. However, in spite of the fact that the Philippines is the most Christian nation in the Orient, the Catholicity of most of its people is mostly nominal. This is due to the fact that the Spaniards did not believe the Pilipinos capable of understanding the theological and philosophical basics of the religion and therefore taught them only its rudiments, which mostly consisted of rituals and obligations. Furthermore, many of the Spanish clergy, especially those in the religious order (the friars), assumed the responsibilities of administration and were just as oppressive as the civil and military colonial administrators. Therefore, they became the personified symbols of colonial oppression. The Roman alphabet was introduced through a hap- hazard public school system ran by the priests and friars. Only the children of the elite were allowed or could afford secondary and higher education. Thus, at the end of Spanish rule, there was in effect a dual economic and cultural system. One consisted of a minority of Pilipinos, urbanized and western educated, who took over the economic domination of the rest of the population. The other con- sisted of those who had retained pre-Spanish values and norms and survived either on subsistence agriculture as 155 sharecroppers in what was once their own land, or as urban proletariat. Nevertheless, it was Western education from a few of the intelligentsia, that gradually reached the masses. Spanish colonial administration necessitated the relocation of autonomous settlements into larger urban centers. They also introduced a centralized civil and political system. These innovations, combined with West- ern education and the universal oppression and exploita- tiontrfthe people, resulted in a national revolutionary movement which led to their downfall and the birth of a new nation. However, the Spaniards also created a peasant class, proletariat and bourgeoise. They started the transformation of a paternalistic-oriented gemeinschaft- type ruling elite into a gesellschaft-oriented capitalist class. On the other hand, fifty (50) years of direct Ame- rican colonial rule had a more thorough and lasting effect on the Philippines and the Pilipinos. If the Americans were failures as colonizers in the classical tradition, they were the forerunners of modern neo-colonialism. Armed resistance by the Pilipinos and opposition in the U.S. to American colonial design on the Philippines diluted the original imperialist intentions of powerful elements in 156 the U.S. The declared rationale for American presence in the Philippines was to prepare the country for political independence in order to have a friendly ally in the Paci- fic and a bridge to Asian trade, rather than an unfriendly colony. Therefore, as far as the nationalist movement was concerned, independence no longer was the issue,it was how and when. Almost immediately,the Americans started expanding the infrastructure of the country, at the same time allowing the Pilipinos to take over the administra- tion of the Islands, first by appointive officials and later through local and national elections. The American-style education, the benevolent colo- nial administration dictated by good and ulterior motives, the common experiences during World War II, and military dependency on the U.S. against real and perceived threats from communist domination, combined to seduce generations of Pilipinos to the "American way". Pilipino interests were associated with American interests, so much so that the country became a virtual American preserve in world trade and commerce. Even after its formal independence from the U.S. in 1946, international and bilateral agree- ments with the U.S. and other countries always placed the Philippines on an unequal status with the U.S. As onerli- pino scholar described the American experience, the Ame- ricans successfully coopted the Pilipino's nationalist 157 aspirations by linking Philippine interests with those of the United States (Corpus 1965:65-72). Efforts to undertake social and agrarian reforms by some Pilipino leaders as well as some Americans both in the Philippines and the U.S. were resisted by the Pilipino economic and political elite, with the encouragement and support of imperialist elements in the U.S. Consequently, the reforms which the Pilipinos had fought so hard for remained unresolved until the 1970's. The evolution of a capitalist class from a pre-colonial stratified society may be compared to the modern formal educational process. The pre-colonial social structure provided the primary and secondary education to the native rulers towards their education in becoming capitalists. The Spaniards provided the undergraduate portion and the Americans the graduate portion of their education. By the time the U.S. granted formal "independence" to the Philippines, they have become full-pledged capitalist "Ph.0's". And like good “Academicians” they have since been taking post-graduate training and maintaining ties with their former tutors on how to make more profits out of the rest of the Pilipinos. The unpopular U.S. involvement in Indochina and later its unflattering withdrawal from the conflict, combined with a wider and deeper awareness of the effects of neo-colonialism on peoples' and nations' 158 on peoples' and nations' development, precipitated a more critical appraisal of Philippine-United States relations by a newer generation of Pilipinos. However, before the nationalist aspiration could be expressed more concretely, President Ferdinand E. Marcos suspended civil liberties and ruled the country under martial law. Although the government is still committed to protect and encourage the entre of foreign investments, it has become more indepen- dent of the U.S. in foreign affairs and is now engaged in wider trade and other relations with other countries. Structural Implications for Immigration The major concerns of the average Pilipino at the turn of the century was economic security (mostly through land reform), educational opportunities for themselves and their children, social justice, and later politicai independence. The inequities of the tenancy system which kept them perpetually in debt did not provide any hope for them in the foreseeable future. Some attempted to supplement their income by wage employment during off- seasons or by sending members of the family to urban cen- ters for low-wage labor or as domestic servants, all of which were to no avail. The short-lived Republic at the end of Spanish colonization was followed by almost four years of 159 conventional and later guerrilla-type war against the Americans. The end of the war and re-establishment of a civil government in which Pilipino participation was maxi- mized,provided political stability. However, the pre- American agrarian unrest and economic deprivationpersisted The Spanish "encomiendas" were formally abolished, but the same oppressive and exploitive system conti- nued under a new name, the "hacienda" or plantation-type agriculture, this time under the native elites in colla- boration with American business interests. There was a marked improvement in the overall eco- nomy of the country in terms of new infrastructures and increased revenues from international trade. But these were mostly confined to the metropolis and the benefi- ciaries were mostly the elites and a middle class growing from commerce and expanding bureaucracies. The majority who lived on the land continued to be economically de- prived, and many migrated to urban centers thus adding to the large number of unemployed and underemployed unskilled labor force. The taking over of the Philippines by the United' States from Spain provided the linkages that precipitated the immigration of a large Pilipino pool of surplus labor that had been building up prior to the establishment of the immigration linkages. The emigration of large numbers 160 of Pilipinos from economically depressed areas, sectors where the mode of agriculture was under the tenancy ("hacienda") system, and from the urban proletariat, helped relieve some of the pressures on the Philippine body politic and leadership, thus curtailing action or immediate and drastic agrarian economic reforms. By the 1930's, the Pilipino leadership began to be concerned about the immigration of Pilipinos to the U.S. Although the term "brain drain" had not yet been conceived, Philippine authorities were already concerned with the drain of the "youth of the land" as well as the semi- skilled industrial workers (Lasker 1931:273-283). More- over, they were also concerned with the discrimination and hostilities the Pilipinos were encountering in the U.S. Some of the agrarian pressure was relieved when new lands were opened in the island of Mindanao, where former tenant sharecroppers were given their own homesteads. Unfortunately, this was the era before agricultural exten- sion, rural credit, and all the support that small farmers need in a modern economy. A good number of would-be landowners had to abandon their homesteads, and they drifted to urban areas to join a growing army of proletariat or became sharecroppers again. In the meantime, a large number of new generation Pilipinos were getting an American education. l61 This resulted in higher or different life expectations. Many no longer wanted to make a living on the land as their parents did, even if the land were made available. This was compounded by the fact that the land never did become available, as the old land tenure system continued to prevail. In addition to having a different occupational outlook, this new generation of Pilipinos were also having different lifestyle expectations. In other words, the Pilipinos were becoming consumer-oriented towards American products, and at the same time the national economy was not developing fast enough to allow satisfaction of real and perceived needs. The only way to live like Americans was to be in America. Thus, immigration continued to persist until l940, although the actual flow of immigrants was restricted in l935 by U.S. immigration laws. The economicand political dislocation brought about by World War II only exacerbated the situation. Philippine political independence in l946 did not change the situation much. Land tenure continued to be a problem and the best perceived way of getting a better living was getting out of the land or going into an occu- pation and this could only be done with an education. Thus, the Philippines underwent an “educational boom" in the decades following World War II. By the l960's, the Philippines had the second highest number of college l62 students at l,560 per l00,000 of the population and was exceeded only by the U.S. at 2,840 per l00,000 of its population (UNESCO l968). The Philippine economy was showing some "improvement" in terms of gross national product (GNP) type statistics. But for the rest of the people, especially the growing army of college-trained, the situation was getting worse. Once again, immigration was perceived as a way out. Only this time it was for a large pool of "educated proletariat" that had been building up during the decades following World War II. The next Chapter will examine certain features of the developments in the United States and how these structures were linked to the Philippines across time, precipitating and facilitating the "free" immigration of Pilipinos to the country. CHAPTER IV CHANGING SOCIAL STRUCTURES, PATTERNS AND PROCEDURES OF PILIPINO IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES This Chapter will examine the structural changes that were occurring towards the end of the Nineteenth and the start of the Twentieth Centuries that set the pattern of Pilipino immigration to the United States. Among them are: the changes in U.S. agriculture and its competitive- ness in world commerce; the abolition of slavery and the need for certain types of labor that could not be met by domestic sources; the difficulties involved in the use of aliens for certain types of labor; and the structural linkages that facilitated the use of Pilipino labor in the U.S., and its attendant domestic and trans-national (Philippine-United States) implications. Agro-Industrial Evolution of the U.S. Economy and the Need for Non-White, Non-Slave Labor Several structural changes were occurring in the U.S. towards the middle of the l9th and the start of the 20th Centuries that would eventually affect the immigra- tion of Pilipinos to the U.S. The era of reconstruction I63 164 following the Civil War led to the development of the Uni- ted States from an agricultural to an industrial country and a world industrial and economic power. Industries were expanding in the East and the North and in some areas in the Midwest. The West was expanding, particularly in mining and railroads. The industries in the East, North and Midwest were absorbing the White immigrants and some of the freed slaves, who also provided low-skilled service occupations in the urban centers. Most of the Whites who could not be accommodated in industrial urban labor moved to the West and Midwest as farmers to try their fortunes in the frontiers in the West. A good num- ber of free slaves stayed on in southern plantations as tenant sharecroppers or as independent marginal farmers. There was a need for a highly mobile unmarried male gang labor to provide the low-skilled work in the railroads, mines and service occupations in the frontier towns. Chinese "coolie" labor provided the solution to this problem. The concept of using Chinese labor was not new. The European colonizers used them effectively in their colonies in the American continent, Asia and Africa. At one time, the U.S. Southern planters considered the Chinese as a substitute for the freed slaves and/or Black tenant sharecroppers. However, due to the economic and political ramifications that the idea entailed, it was abandoned and the Chinese were used as gang labor in the T65 railroad construction, mining operations and in providing low-wage service labor which neither the Blacks or poor Whites could or wanted to provide. The Chinese became "problems" when they were no longer needed and they started becoming independent entrepreneurs (McWilliams l964: 89-lOl). In the meantime, California and Hawaiian agricul- ture was undergoing changes. Whereas family-operated farms initially provided the agricultural needs of the nation, there was a need for an agricultural system that would make the U.S. competitive in world markets for certain cash crops such as wheat, sugar and cattle. The operations had to be better organized and at a larger scale than the anti- bellum plantations. Family-type operations could not meet the demands of the export markets. Thus the concept of factory-type agriculture, or "agro-business" was adopted. Hawaii and California provided the initial testing grounds for this type of agricultural operations. This precipita- ted the forcing out of family farms and settlers, followed by buying out estates from some Spanish landowners, and later through the connivance of local and State officials, the taking over of large tracts of public land by large farmers or corporations (McWilliams l939:ll-66). Initial labor was provided by poor mobile male Whites, who became a unique American social phenomenon. These were the "shiftless", "lazy", etc. -- American «thing a. T66 "hobo" who provided the seasonal labor. They were supple- mented by Indians and Mexicans during and in-between seasons. Needless to say the latter groups were paid less for the same work than the White hobos were. However, the Indians soon became unreliable, and the hobos were also becoming less available; and there was a threat of cutting off immigration from Mexico. Thus the unwanted Chinese at the railroads, mines.and urban centers were readily ab- sorbed into the agricultural "factories" of California and Hawaii. Additional Chinese immigrated to fill this need. The Chinese, followed by the Japanese and Pilipinos turned California and Hawaii into an "oriental agriculture" in the U.S. (McWilliams l939:8l-l33; Jamieson l945). The problem of the Chinese was that they were never satisfied in being wage laborers. It did not take them long before they started being independent entrepreneurs in California, thereby depriving the economy of cheap coolie labor. As more and more Chinese immigrated to the U.S., the threats they posed to the economic domination of the Whites, became more evident hence evoked chambers of horror perceptions to the chronic racists who envisioned the "yellow peril" as threats to the purity of the White race. Thus the economic and racial factors against the Chinese led to the enactment of the first U.S. Immigration Law in l882. 167 The Pattern of Anti-White Immigration Laws Prior to l882, there was no U.S. Federal Immigra- tion policy, much less any laws regulating the entry of immigrants. Anyone who could afford the fare to the U.S. were welcomed. It was the threat of the "yellow peril" that precipitated the first immigration (exclusionary) acts by the U.S. directed at excluding or limiting non- White immigration to the U.S. which continued until the middle of the l960's. Moreover, the U.S. racially-based immigration acts set the pattern for similar acts in the "new world", Soon after the Immigration Act of l882, Aus- tralia, New Zealand and countries in Central and South Ame- rica also enacted anti-oriental immigration laws (McWilliams l9642l68-l69; l70-228; North l974:6-7). The Immigration Act of l882 may have saved U.S. civilization from the "yellow peril", but they again created labor shortages in Hawaii and California. Moreover, California agriculture was shifting from wheat, cotton,and cattle to vegetable and fruit horticulture, which needed specialized male and less mobile workers who could be counted on to return to the same fields every season. Enter the Japanese The Japanese policy of isolationism was partially broken by Commodore Perry in l834. Part of the Japanese T68 policy of isolation was the prohibition of the emigration of their own peOple, from l638 to 1854. Upon the efforts of the sugar planters in Hawaii, the U.S. government per- suaded the Japanese government to relax on their restric- tive emigration policies. Thus in l854, the Japanese started immigrating to the sugar plantations of Hawaii and later to the West Coast. They were initially welcomed and any stereo-typing of the Japanese were generally favorable. The Exclusion Act of l882 was interpreted as being directed at the Chinese; and moreover, the Japanese immigrants were farmers and fitted nicely into the scheme of things. Like the Chinese, the Japanese started becoming "problems" when they started to improve their economic sta- tus at the "expense" of the economy. They saved their money, kept to themselves and on their free time started developing marginal land which nobody wanted, which they 7eased or "squatted on". Nobody minded this since they were developing areas that were the breeding grounds of disease (i.e., swamp land, etc.) and were producing for their own needs. The problem was when these orientals started adopting the American "ethic“ of hard work and com- petition, their farms were getting productive and their produce competing with those of American farmers. Briefly this meant that Japanese farm labor were no longer avail- able to U.S. agriculture in Hawaii and California, and those that were, were now getting organized into labor T69 unions. Also, the small farmers perceived them as threats in the produce industry. Generating anti-Japanese feelings was not diffi- cult, since the anti-oriental feelings of the "yellow peril" had not really disappeared, but merely subsided. The anti-Japanese movement started with the prohibition of land ownership, cultivation and even expropriation of Japa- nese farms. In T907, President Theodore Roosevelt stopped the immigration of Japanese from Mexico and Canada by Exe- cutive Order. This was soon followed by the "gentlemen's agreement between the United States and Japan whereby the latter agreed to stop the emigration of Japanese who were bound for the U.S. The Immigration Acts of l920 and 1924, ended and/or severely limited the immigration of Japanese to the U.S. (McWilliams l939:lOl-l33; l964:l40-l69). The eJKClusion of Japanese was once again creating labor short- ages in Hawaii and California, when the United States ac- ooaired the Philippines from Spain. Structural Components of Pilipino Immigration The "Little Brown Brothers" provided the solution to the agricultural labor problems of Hawaii and Califor- 17 Here was a people nia and the fish canneries of Alaska. who, although from the Orient, were not exactly Orientals the way the Chinese and Japanese were. U.S. policy 170 on the Philippines had not yet been crystallized and the Philippines was then considered a territory of the United States. Whereas the movement (immigration and exclusion) of aliens such as the Chinese, Japanese and Mexicans in- volved dealings with foreign governments, the movement of Pilipinos in and out of the U.S. was an internal migration problem. Moreover, centuries of Spanish oppression and exploitation had created a large labor pool upon which the agricultural interests could draw upon. This would not only solve the agricultural labor shortage in the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii, but would also relieve the pressures for immediate social and economic reforms in the Philip- pines, a situation the Americans inherited from their Spa- nish predecessors. The Pilipinos were the most logical solution to the agricultural problems of Hawaii and Cali- fornia. They were in fact effectively used in breaking the Japanese strikes in the sugar plantations of Hawaii in 1909 and 1919 (Lasker l93l:159—l68 ; McWilliams 1964zl86). Thus a basis was established for the large scale entry of Pilipino immigration to the U.S. Pilipino immigration to Hawaii and the U.S. main- land were further facilitated through massive recruiting efforts by the sugar industry in the Philippines. Some of the planters even established recruiting centers to faci- litate the immigration of Pilipinos to Hawaii. The 171 inducements were a three-year contract with wages ranging from $2.00 to $4.00 per day, free passage to Hawaii and housing. McWilliams (l964z234-236) contends that the massive and often deceptive recruiting of Pilipino laborers created a pull rather than a push factor in the initial immigration of Pilipinos to the U.S. and Hawaii. However, there is some doubt as to whether the attractiveness of the recruitment efforts alone were responsible for the im- migration of the Pilipinos. Undoubtedly, as the "America- nization" of the Pilipinos began to take effect, the U.S. became more attractive. There is however, more evidence to indicate that other forces were also operating to encourage the immigra- tion of Pilipinos. For instance, by the middle of the 1920's, it was no longer necessary for the recruiters to offer passage money. Potential immigrants were not only willing to pay the passage themselves, but even lay out more money to the recruiters to assure their being chosen as immigrants from among many applicants. This was fur- ther supported by the fact that most of the immigrants came from economically depressed areas; sectors of the Philip- pines where the tenancy system predominated and from the urban proletariat. Except for some students and a few semi-skilled blue and white collar workers, the immigrants were mostly of rural and peasant origins with little or no formal education (Lasker l93l:l45-l47; 230; 237-24l). In 172 other words, there were more potential immigrants than were needed in Hawaii and California. This situation added one more problem to the Pilipino immigrants. In addition to being bilked by recruiters in order to be in- cluded as immigrants, they were overcharged for their fares and for the "preparation of travel papers." The agricultural interests of Hawaii and California got their cheap source of labor, the recruiters, travel agencies and steamship companies made more money; all at the expense of the Pilipino immigrants (Lasker l93l:203—2l7; Catapusan l94l:ll-24; McWilliams l964:234-236). The national, international and Philippine-U.S. structures that precipitated the immigration of Pilipinos to the U.S. may be summarized as follows. First of all, centuries of Spanish colonial rule followed by years of war for independence helped in the development of a large pool of economically deprived rural and urban labor sur- plus in the Philippines. Secondly, U.S. agriculture, in order to maintain its competitiveness in world commerce was changing from family-size farm and slave-labor planta- tions to large scale agricultural/horticultural “factories" or "agro-business," particularly in Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast, which precipitated the need for cheap, nonslave labor for certain types of agricultural work. And thirdly, the acquisition of the Philippines by the U.S., whereby the Philippines became a territory or "ward" of the latter, 173 provided the political, economic and social linkages that allowed the "internal" migration of Pilipino labor to the U.S. territories and the mainland without the domestic and diplomatic difficulties associated with the immigration of alien workers such as the Chinese, Japanese and Mexicans. Patterns of Pilipino Immigration to the U.S. The first major recruiting for Pilipino labor for Hawaii and the U.S. was between l905 to l929 (Lasker 1931: 3-6; Catapusan l940:ll-l7). By l929 the estimated Pili- pino population in the U.S. was 80,000. By l940 there were 125,000 Pilipinos in the U.S., and by l960 there were l76,000 (Morales l974:70). Not all Pilipinos in the U.S. came as laborers. A minority were students supported by the U.S. Government or Church related or missionary groups, some of whom elected to stay after their studies. Prior to 1935, there were no limitations on the number of Pili- pinos that could move in and out of U.S. territories, since they were not considered aliens. In fact, Pilipinos leaving the Philippines were issued U.S. passports. McWilliams reports that the first Pilipinos to come to the U.S. before l920, were students. They were easily accepted by the academic communities and became show- cases of how Americans treated their new wards in the Pacific. And of course, it was then chic to have Pilipino 174 5 (students paying for their own education). The cruitment was initially for Hawaii which later over to the mainland. By the l920's more laborers ectly recruited to the mainland or went there on n. This was particularly so after the passage of gration Acts of l920 and l924, which barred the ion of Japanese. Thus, according to McWilliams, T907 and l930,an estimated 150,000 Pilipinos emi- rom the Philippines, of which a little less than e in the U.S. mainland and the rest were in Hawaii ams l964:234-235). he peculiar or "Special" relations between the nes and the U.S. had its repercussions in the U.S., arly on the Pilipino residents on the mainland or territories. Unlike other non—White foreigners in (Mexicans, Chinese,and Japanese) who were also to the U.S., the Pilipinos were not considered ut "nationals" (vis-a-vis citizens) of the U.S. ntly, they could not be deported or excluded from ritory, whenever and wherever they became 5". To have done so would not only have viola- then existing U.S. laws, but would have also been tent with the policy of keeping the Philippines of the U.S. (Lasker l93l; McWilliams T939 and tapusan l94lz74; and 82—89; Konvits 1946:101-106; l970:268-284). It was argued that exclusion of 175 Pilipinos from the U.S. was the price they had to pay for independence. One of the strongest supporters for Philippine independence was U.S. organized labor, since this was the most effective way of excluding Pilipinos from the U.S. labor force (Lasker l93l:298-3l7; Grunder and Levezey l95lzl9542l9). In July of l935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Welch Bill (H.R.6464), which appro- priated $300,000 to pay the fare of Pilipinos who volun- tarily returned to the Philippines. Very few took advan- tage of this. Among the reasons stated for its failure to attain its objectives of repatriating Pilipinos was that by l936 the economic situation in the U.S. had im- proved, allowing for more and better jobs to the would-be repatriates; Pilipino leaders both in the U.S. and the Philippines saw it as an insult to the Pilipinos and a back-handed way of getting them out of the U.S. Another reason was that Pilipinos who accepted some form of aid from the government were ostracized by their own people both in the U.S. and in the Philippines. There was.some apprehension on the part of the potential repatriates that although the repatriation was voluntary, the fact that it was not paid for by the repatriate himself but by the U.S. Government, might be perceived as a failure of the person's sojourn in the U.S. (i.e., did not become Tand return rich); and/or the stigma of deportation was 176 associated with a government-paid ticket home (Bogardus 1936:67-71; Catapusan l936:72-77). In T935 when the Philippines was granted common- wealth status prior to "full independence" in l946, the entry of Pilipinos to the U.S. as immigrants was limited to fifty (50) persons per year, following a quota system based on national origins, pursuant to the existing im- migration statutes. At the time of Philippine indepen- dence in l946, the quota of allowable Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. was increased to lOO per year. These inclu- ded only the Pilipinos admitted as immigrants directly from the Philippines. Special laws and bilateral agree- ments between the Philippines and the U.S. governed the status of Pilipinos already in the U.S. in 1935 and l946 (Grunder and Levezey l95l:205; 26l-264). This system re- mained in force until the promulgation of the U.S. Immi- gration and Naturalization Act of l965. The chronology of Pilipino immigration to the U.S. may be summarized by several periods related to various stages of Philippine-U.S. relations. The first period was l905 to l935 where there was unlimited immigration of Piippinos; T935 to 1940 where the number was limited to 50 persons per year; and suspension of direct immigration from the Philippines during l940-46 during World War II, but during which a number of Pilipinos in the U.S. Armed Services and those stranded in the U.S. were later granted 177 immigrant status. The fourth period was between l946 to T964 where the number of immigrants from the Philippines was increased from fifty (50) to a hundred (l00) persons per year; and the fifth period was from l965 to the pre- sent (1974) during which Pilipino immigration was governed by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of l965. However, in terms of numbers and types of Pilipino immigrants admitted to the U.S., the most significant periods were those between l905 and l935, and l965 to the present. The number of immigrants between l936 and l965 were too few to have a significant impact on both the Philippines and the U.S., compared to the two periods (l905-35 and l965 to the present). For purposes of this study, the Pilipinos that immigrated to the U.S. between l905 and l964, will be referred to as the early Pilipino immigrants or simply early immigrants, and those who came after l965 will be referred to as the new Pilipino l8 immigrants or simply new immigrants. The Early Pilipino Immigrants: Characteristics and Behavioral Profile The contract workers bound for Hawaii were usually met at the docks by labor contractors and/or employers and brought to their place of employment (plantations). However, most of the Pilipinos who came to the U.S.main- land did not have such a pre-immigration network. The 178 modus operandi was to establish pre-immigration networks in the U.S. with relatives, friends or townmates that pre- ceded the would-be immigrant. The latter not only met the immigrants at the docks in San Francisco, but also provided the initial residence, money (gifts or loans) and in general,tips on how to get along in the system. In some instances,they also provided the first links to jobs. McWilliams aptly describes the fate of those who did not have such pre-immigration networks. Filipino immigrants were caught in a weird California whirligig from the moment of their arrival in San Francisco. For years,fly-by- night taxi drivers transported newly arrived Filipinos from the Embarcadero to Stockton -- one of the large Filipino concentrations. The taxi fare for a group of four or five Filipinos would be around $65 or $75, while the regular train or bus fare would have been about $2.00 per person. Taxi drivers, rooming- house operators, labor agents, and Filipino contractors -- all were on the lookout for the "Pinoy" as they arrived in San Francisco full of curiosity about the land of Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln and William Howard Taft (McWilliams 1964:236-237). Pilipino immigrants returning to the Philippines, either for a visit or permanently who did not have rela- tives or friends meet them at the docks and later at the Manila International Airport, met the same fate. They had a reception committee composed of taxi and "colorom" drivers (private cars for hire), pimps and all types of shysters, who for fees offered to help them clear customs T79 and have a "good time" in Manila before driving thenior put- ting them on the boat (or plane) to their towns and homes. Except for a few students and government (civil and military) personnel training in the U.S., most of the early immigrants were those that were recruited as cheap contract labor. The majority were unschooled, unskilled, and came from rural and lower social economic status (SES) in the Philippines. Most were employed in low- skilled agricultural labor ("stoop work"), the same kind of work they left in the Philippines. Between the agri- cultural seasons or when work was unobtainable in the farms, they would go to the fishing canneries of Alaska (which was also seasonal and coincided with off-season in agriculture); and in low-wage service work in the cities (waiters, busboys, etc.). Some found work as domestic help, i.e., houseboys, gardeners, etc. (Lasker l93lz33-9l; Catapusan l940:25-26). Those employed in cities were gen- erally better off than the farm workers. For a while, 4,000 were employed in the merchant marine. However, a 1937 law requiring that crew of U.S. Flag vessels be at least 90 American citizens closed this source of employ- ment. 0f the over l00,000 Pilipinos in the U.S. in l930, only 635 were classified as being in "general trade." One rather unusual case was a Pilipino inventor who set up a shop in New York employing several dozen Pilipinos T80 and Americans (Lasker l93lz83; l36; McWilliams 1964: 236-237). Like most non-White minorities, the Pilipinos were stereo-typed and channeled to certain kinds of work. In urban employment.it was the service type and in culinary occupations. In agriculture, they were perceived as suit- able for asparagus, lettuce, carrots,and sugar beets. It was the common belief that the Pilipinos were not bothered by the peat dust upon which asparagus grew, and that since they were smaller like the Japanese, they could stoop more easily than bigger or taller workers, hence their suitabi- lity for "stoop labor" (McWilliams l964:239-240). However, upon closer examination of the type of the crops and ope- rations involved, it was found that they were . the type in which family labor cannot be utilized; children and women can pick peaches, apricots, and cherries, but they cannot cut asparagus. To cut asparagus, an army of single men is needed and, for greater efficiency, this army must be tied to the cutting of asparagus so that it will return year after year to the same work. Denied other types of work by pre- judice, and always in debt to the Filipino labor contractor -- usually for a gambling debt -- the single Filipino makes the ideal asparagus cutter precisely because he can be, and is, ostracized. The basis of this ostracism is really not racial or cultural or social; it is economic. Instead of saying that Filipinos are set apart because they are "different," it would be more accurate to say that they are regarded as different because they cut asparagus. Actually, "asparagus" has more to do with their status than “race" or "culture" (McWilliams l964:240). 181 Last but not least was the tactic of allocation of certain types of farm labor or locations to various ethnic groups. For a long while this proved effective in making them compete with each other thereby retarding any unification of all agricultural workers regardless of their race or ethnicity. When occasions warranted, one ethnic group was used to break the unionization movements and work stoppages or strikes of another (Jamieson l945). However, there were instances where the Pilipinos were able to secure some gains through organized action. Another factor that retarded the Pilipinos' efforts at improving their working conditions was that they were not hired directly by the planters but by labor contrac- tors, many of whom were Pilipinos and were also their gang or raw bosses. Technically therefore, grievances should be directed at the contractors rather than the planters. The Pilipino worker's relationship with the Pilipino contractor, gang, or raw boss made it difficult for the former to demand better working conditions from the latter. First of all, the contractors determined who could or could not be hired and fired. Secondly, the la- borers were more often than not, in financial or social debt to the contractors who provided them with the jobs and loans, mostly to pay gambling debts (Lasker l93l:85-9l; 182 McWilliams l964:240). Last but not least was the fact that the one group that could have helped them the most, U.S. organized labor, was one of the groups that opposed the immigration and espoused exclusion of Pilipino labor from the U.S. Initially, they thought that the major barrier to their getting better jobs was their low educational background and/or skills. In due time they began to realize that their inability to secure better employment or their ill-treatment from employers were only manifestations of the status they had in the larger society. This was manifested in the similarity of the patterns by which they were treated with those of the other non-White minorities. Among the most blatant were: getting paid lower wages than Whites doing the same work; being jumped over by Whites in employment or promotions who had lower qualifi- cations and/or seniority; and being rejected in employment when they had the announced qualifications that the jobs required (Lasker l93lz8l-84; Catapusan l940:29; McWilliams 1964:240—241; Bulusan l946; Buaken l948). One of the most acute social-psychological pro- blems that early immigrants had to confront was the sepa- ration from their families. Less than one third of the Pilipino population were women. Most of the immigrants were single males who were either bachelors, or married 183 but who did not bring their families with them. This was because most did not intend to stay away from the Philip- pines indefinitely, but only came to the U.S. to earn enough money to go back to the Philippines and get a new start in iife‘g (Lasker 1931:94-95; 117; Catapusan 1940: 68-70), The social life of the Pilipinos in the plantations consisted of playing cards, exchanging stories and singing after the work day. Few had any private transportation to get to the towns. Most could not afford and/or did not know enough English to have the night or weekend in town. However, on a few occasions, such as between seasons, a few managed to go to urban areas where Pilipinos were known to congregate. And, like the urban Pilipinos,they found themselves discriminated against in pursuance of some social life. They were also barred from most good restaurants, hotels, bars, etc., except in some Eastern and Midwestern urban centers such as New York City, Washington, 0.0. and Chicago. Their eagerness to deveTOp acquaintances with the women gave them a reputation for being women chasers, a charge that sent the racists to hysterics. About the only "decent" social life they had was through the social centers, clubs and lodges, some of which were church- sponsored such as the YMCA. 184 Moreover, years of American tutelage on the Ameri- can ideals of equality and their perceptions of the "special" relations between the Philippines and the U.S., aggravated by the rosy propaganda of labor recruiters, made them believe that they would be treated equally by the majority, at least better than the Blacks and other minorities. In other words, they claimed equal status with the Whites, which only intensified the hostile feel- ings against them since they did not "know their proper places" in American society (Bogardus l939:59-69; l929: 469-479). The Pilipinos who attempted to marry "decent" white women became cause celebres, since this was per- ceived as violations of anti-miscegination laws. Inter- estingly enough, their insistence of their right to marry white girls and those of the American population that sup- ported their claims were racially based. The issues in- volved were not the right of Pilipinos to marry as persons, but that the Pilipino racial stock (Malay) made them dif- ferent (presumably better) than those covered by the anti- mascegination laws, i.e. "negroid" or "mongoloid“ races (Bogardus l93l:32; 274-279; Foster l93l:32; 44l-454; Lasker l93l:169-l97). The early immigrants had very little contact with the Blacks and Indians, principally because there were few Blacks and Indians where there were large concentrations it... 13431.4: 185 of Pilipinos. Their contacts with the Chinese and Japa- nese were hardly friendly. Contacts with these two Asian groups consisted of competition for jobs and as customers at bars, dance halls, pool halls,and "recreation centers" most of which were fronts for gambling and operated by either the Chinese or Japanese. In addition to this, Pilipinos already had a pre-immigration prejudice against the Chinese. The only non-White groups with whom the Pilipinos had some substantial contacts were the Mexicans, in spite of the fact that they too were competitors in the labor market. Both the Pilipinos and Mexicans seemed to have some racial and social affinity. Both came from rural and lower class backgrounds, Roman Catholics,and observed sim- ilar religious and social traditions derived from their common Spanish cultural heritage. The Mexicans were the only racial groups with which many Pilipinos intermarried. There was also the belief that being Catholics, having similar racial stock,and social backgrounds, Mexican wives would be more acceptable to their families in the Philippines (Catapusan l940:76-88). In effect, the early Pilipino immigrants became socially psychologically isolated in an alien environment, a situation which could have negative effects on almost anyone. But for the Pilipino who was psychologically and 186 socially conditioned to confront the world as a member of a group, the experience must have been psychologically and emotionally devastating. They were initially emotionally sustained by the thoughts of enduring their difficulties with the expecta- tion that they were not going to be in the U.S. for the rest of their lives. Over time, they soon realized that the same prejudice and discrimination that isolated them from integrating with American society was also prevent- ing them from achieving their goal of earning money to re- turn to the Philippines. Ethnic pride as well as fear of returning to the Philippines without having achieved the purpose for which they had left, prevented many from re- turning to the Philippines, even at the expense of the U.S. Government, making the situation they were confronted with in the U.S. preferable. For their physical, social and psychological survival, they had to resort to cheap, exploitative commercialized entertainment. In addition to the Pilipino based lodges and social clubs, the only other social life the Pilipinos had by way of entertainment was in pool and dance halls and gambling. Dance hall women and prostitutes were the only white women most Pilipinos could interact with, without causing racial hostilities. The usual charge at the dance halls was ten cents for one minute of dancing, which could accumulate to a tidy sum 187 for an evening of dancing. Pilipinos also acquired the reputation for gambling and the pool table became a cul- tural artifact associated with Pilipinos. At the first official Pilipino Convention in America in l937, it was reported that the amount derived from Pilipinos in gambling and prostitution was estimated at two million dollars a year, which was a large sum considering that they came from the little earnings of less than one hundred thousand Pilipinos (Lasker 193lzl3l-l4l; Catapusan l940:72-76; McWilliams l964:238-239). One other way by which the early immigrants managed to survive was through Pilipino organizations, which ranged from lodges and social clubs to economic and/or politically oriented groups such as farm labor unions. This was not surprising since the use of groups to fulfill needs and achieve goals was a cultural trait the Pilipinos brought along with them to the U.S. A common complaint against the Pilipino farm labor was that compared with the Chinese, Japanese and Mexicans, the Pilipinos were quick to organize, make "unreasonable" demands, and threatened or actually walk out of their jobs at the most inoppor— tuned times, i.e. during harvests (Bogardus l929:59-69). Compared therefore to other non-White minorities, the Pilipinos were among those who have had the longest ex- perience in the use of groups and group power to achieve 188 goals. Why then have Pilipino organizations have little impact on improving their situation? Part of the problem was because they had no poli- tical process and therefore could not deliver votes. Ano- ther problem was that any attempts by Pilipinos to orga- nize on a larger scale and for motives other than social, was immediately perceived as threats by the White majority and efforts were exerted to stop or minimize their effects (Gonzalo l929:l16-l73; Mariano l933z66-7l; Rojo l939: 447-457; Catapusan l940:54l-549). In addition, most of the early immigrants did not have the education to enable them to manage the effective use of organizations in a modern industrial society. Exacerbating the structural problems that hampered the effectiveness of Pilipino organizations was their own cultural trait on organizational and group behavior -- namely the "barangay syndrome". Any Pilipino organization or inter-organizational activity, be it a bible study group, lodge, social club or labor group, was racked with factional rivalries and power conflicts. The factional conflicts prevalent in Pilipino organizations often led to two negative results. Firstly, it diluted their effectiveness in pursuing organizational goals, since the organizations' energies and resources were expended in resolving internal conflicts. Secondly, 189 they precipitated in the splitting and creation of du- plicate organizations pursuing the same goals but in ri- valry or conflict with each other. Moreover, this Pilipino organizational trait was carried over to their interracial and inter-organizational relations with the rest of the population, creating an unfavorable image of Pilipinos in other interracial organizations and the Pilipino nation as a whole (Bogardus l929:59-69; McWilliams l964:l88-189). Nevertheless, under intense pressure from their alien environment or when working conditions became intol- erable, the Pilipinos managed to set aside the intra- and inter-organizational rivalries and put up a united front. This was manifested at the rallies and protests against the mob violence directed against them and bombing of Pilipino properties and police brutality (Lasker l93l: 358-368). Pilipinos were likewise successful in creating work stoppages and walk-outs in California and Hawaii (McWilliams l939:2ll-229; l964:l87-189; Jamieson 1945). No sooner were the movements successful, when the factio- nal rivalries were again resumed, diluting any sustaining action that the movements could have pursued. Other Experiences of Early Pilipino Immigrants McWilliams (l964:24l) contends that the seasonal and high geographical mobility of the Pilipinos, except 190 those on long-term agricultural contracts, prevented the development of permanent Pilipino settlements such as the "Chinatowns" and "little Tokyo's“. The so-called "little Manila's" in San Francisco and Los Angeles were in fact, nothing more than "service centers" similar to the "porter towns" along the major rail lines, where Pilipinos congre- gate between jobs or when they were "in the town." There were few Pilipino homes. Most Pilipinos lived in rooming houses owned by Pilipinos, Chinese or Japanese. Thus the Pilipino "community" in the U.S. was more of a blood or racial brotherhood or a community of consciousness, rather than a geographical ghetto. One of the adjustment problems the early immigrants had in the U.S. was the disparity between their pre-immi- gration perceptions of the U.S. and the actual situations they had to confront. In addition to the U.S. official propaganda and the allurements of labor recruiters, ano- ther source of information which could have provided a more realistic appraisal of the situations the Pilipinos were encountering in the U.S. was often also misleading. These were the Pilipinos who were already in the U.S., who in their letters home mentioned only the "good" things that were happening to them and their "successes'. The Pilipinos in the U.S. were aware that their families, re- latives and friends in the Philippines had the same 191 misconception of the racial barriers as they had before they came to the U.S. The prevalence of racism in the U.S. was widely discussed and debated in the press and in political and academic circles, but these did not filter back to the rural towns and villages where most of the im- migrants came from (Anthony l93l:150-l56). The immigrants were therefore apprehensive that if they told their folks at home that they could not get better-paying JObS(and therefore could not sendback any nor as much money as they should), they may not be believed. But instead, may be interpreted as an excuse for indivi- dual shortcomings, such as laziness or worse, for squan- dering their earnings on "good times" (Bogardus l929: 469-479; Gonzalo l929zll6-l73; Rojo l940:54l-549; Burma l95lz42-48). Sending money back was one of the major con- cerns of the immigrants since it was the major reason for having gone to the U.S. Many did manage to send back money either on a regular basis or from time to time, and only at great personal deprivation (Lasker l92l:25l-254). The title of one of the latest works on the Pilipino im- migration to the U.S. by Royal F. Morales (T974) aptly describes the experience of the early Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. The title of the book is "Makibaka", meaning struggle. 192 The early Pilipino immigrants were also ill- informed of the changes that were undergoing in the Philip- pines during their absence. Other than news about their families and the village gossip (through letters from home) the only other possible source of news concerning the Philippines available to them in the U.S., mostly covered the problems of Pilipinos in the U.S. and the Philippine independence movement. When some of these immigrants re- turned to the Philippines (permanently or on visits) after one or more decades of absence, they experienced a "reverse culture shock" upon discovering that they had returned to an environment that is socially, economically, politically, and culturally different from the one they left. The New Pilipino Immigrants Implications of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of l965 A study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) in l974 reported that the T965 Immigration and Naturalization Act has been designed to meet three goals. Theserare: to facilitate the unification of fami- lies, allow admission of workers needed by the economy, and permit the entry of a limited number of carefully de- fined refugees (North l974zl). Theoretically, the racial- Origin quotas have been replaced by quotas from the Western and Eastern Hemisphere. The quota from the 193 Western Hemisphere is l20,000 per year and the Eastern Hemisphere is l70,000. No one nation in the Eastern Hemi- sphere is allowed more than 20,000 immigrants per year allotted from the total of l70,000. However, since the Eastern Hemisphere immigrants are also admitted under the "preference" system, actual immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere often exceed the l70,000 quota and certain na- tions such as the Philippines often exceed the 20,000 na- tional quota per year. Another reason for the excesses in quotas is that in addition to national quotas of 20,000,there are also quotas under each preference system. The "preference" system is a set of criteria by which immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere are allowed to enter the U.S. as immi- grants in consonance with the three immigration policy goals noted above.20 Basically, they are: First Prefer- ence -- unmarried adult children of U.S. Citizens; Second Preference -- spouses, unmarried adult children of resi- dent aliens, and their children; Third Preference -- immi- grants in the professions, their spouses and their chil- dren; Fourth Preference -- married children of U.S. citi- zens, their spouses and children; Fifth Preference -- siblings of U.S. citizens, their spouses and children; Sixth Preference -- Skilled workers, their spouses and children; Seventh Preference -- refugees, their spouses 194 and children; and an eighth category called "Non—Prefer- ence", which is a catch-all category for all those not covered by the seven preferences. The Immigration Act also places quotas of immigrants that could be admitted under each of the preference categories the total of which should be within the 170,000 annual ceiling. However, in the im- plementation of the Act, a "fall down" is allowed in the issuance of immigrant visas. This means that unused slots under one preference can be used by the next lower prefer- ence category. There are no preference categories for Western Hemisphere immigrants. People simply apply and are admitted within the 120,000 annual quota from this Hemisphere (North l974z6-9; 6l).21 In general, the Immigration Act of l965 tended to favor immigrants from certain nations, as well as certain types of immigrants over others. For instance, by nation- ality the Act tended to favor immigrants from Italy, Mexico and the Philippines where there are more applicants for immigration than there are slots allotted to them, under the national and preference quotas. The Italians and Pilipinos always fill up their annual 20,000 annual quotas. The former are favored by the Fifth Preference (siblings of U.S. citizens, their spouses and their chil- dren), while immigration of Pilipinos is facilitated by the Third Preference (professionals, spouses and children). 195 Also, the excess of immigrant applicants with high qualifi- cations over the available slots tended to be very selec- tive of those with the highest qualifications. Thus, of the 46,l5l admitted as professionals in l970, the majority came from Asia and the largest single group came from the Philippines. In general, the qualificational selectivity of potential immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere tended to make the immigrants from this area professionals and from more affluent backgrounds (North 1974:8; l6-l7; 33). Keely (197lzl57-169) reported that the l965 Immigration Act had shifted the main sources and number of immigrants from Western Europe to Southern Europe, Asia and Oceania, parti- cularly the underdeveloped areas of these regions (see Table 1). From a 5,000 sample of l970 immigrants North repor- ted that in general, the immigrants were a competitive group in the U.S. labor market, over a period of time from their arrival in the U.S. There were however, some pre and post immigration factors that affected immigrants' entry into the labor market vis-a-vis the native labor force. For instance, those who entered the U.S. with the lowest occupational qualifications entered at the lowest occupations and tended to go up over a period of time (i.e., domestic servants who moved up and out of that occu- pation to enter in better paying service work). On the 196 .Nmnm~m_ momumamp ”manoem_ "mmuomm_ macaque _m===< mzH ”muczom Axm.emv ANN.¢NV Axo.mmv A&M.N_V Am_m< to “emotmav A&~.~V Aao.kv Aaq.mv ANP._V A_auoh to acmucmav mm~.om mkm.em moN._m emo.~ mm=_aa_P_;a Axo._mv ANP._MV AN¢.¢NV Afio.mv APMBOH to Hematmav om_.eNF mmo._m_ c_m.mm www.mm awm< moo.oov www.4mm omm.m~m mam.mom A_muo»v ma_t8==oo __< mum. mkm_ o~m_ oom_ =_mtto to aepesoo\m=oemmm mum, uc< .Nmmp .omm— .ooo. .om mesa u=_e=u muo_tma 8;» Lou mmcwaa__wga asp u=< mwm< .mmwtueaou P_< sate .m.= use op umup_su< muemem_es~ to cassaz .P m_amh 197 other hand, those who had high occupational qualifications in their countries of origin (particularly the profes- sionals) tended to enter into lower or parallel occupations in the labor market and tended to work their way upwards or out of their pre-immigration occupations but to better paying jobs. There are some exceptions such as those who move from a high occupation in their country of origin to a high occupation in the U.S. (usually academics) and even rarer, are those from low occupations in their country of origin moving into a higher occupation in the U.S. Table 2 indicates that the total number of immi- grants classified as "Professional, Technical and Kindred ' Workers", increased significantly from l960 to the l970's. The percentage coming from Asia and the Philippines even increased more dramatically. By 1969 or four years after the Immigration Act took effect, India and the Philippines had replaced all of the European countries as the leading source of scientists, engineers and physicians for the U.S.,with the Philippines as the main source of physicians (Morales l974:7l). Gupta (l973zl67-l9l) reports that the leading professional or occupational groups admitted as immigrants to the U.S. from the Philippines were doctors, surgeons, dentists and those classified as "technologists and related fields", The latter include: natural and social scientists, nurses and student nurses, para-medical 198 .mmnmump momuman “menon_ mmwuoomp mugoamm .m:==< muw>cmm =o_um~__mgzumz use cowumcm_eem .m.= “ougzom 8.4m ~.w~ m.km m.np awm< cu mmcpaaw_wga m.o~ 4.x. _.ON m._ .mp8h o» mm=_aa_.wga o.eo 0.48 ©.Nm m.m Peach 08 e_m< mo mmwucmucmm upo.w Nem.m NoN.m omm ma=_aaw_p;a mmm.e~ mom..m mam.em mkm._ atm< ~¢_._¢ “mm.me _mF.c¢ oem._~ A_moopv mmweuczou __< mem. «Nap cum. com. cww_to to =o_wa¢\»cu==oo mem— new «km. .o~a_ .oom_ .om mesa o=_u=m muo_ema asp Lou mm=_aa_._;a ugh u=< m_m< .mmwguczou __< seem mgmxgoz cmgu:_x uc< pmuwczumh ._m=owmmmCOLa m< mmumom empwca ash op emuuwsn< m=0mtma to Lassa: .N m_aep T99 occupations, technicians, journalists, lawyers, judges, professors, instructors, teachers (elementary and second- ary), religious workers, social workers, and other unclas- sified professional, technical and kindred workers (Gupta l973:l72). Moreover, the greatest demand are in medicine and the health-related professions, such as physicians, nurses, pharmacists, medical technologists and institutional food professionals (food technologists, dieticians and nutri- tionists). Except for physicians where females almost equal the males, all of these professions are dominated by women in the Philippines. Women are therefore the quali- fied applicants for immigration whether they are single or married. If married, women carry the primary immigrant status with their husbands and children entering the U.S. as “dependents", particularly if the husband's profession is low on the preferred reference lists (Keely l97l:l57- l59; l972:l77-l87; Asperilla l974; Parel l974). A study of post l965 Pilipino immigrants in the U.S. East Coast showed that pre-immigration support net- works were no longer very important, especially for the professionals. Many had pre-arranged employment and even housing before immigrating to the U.S., without the help of relatives and friends who had preceded them. Proximity to relatives and friends was still desired, but no longer 200 a hindrance to mobility. Occupational opportunities elsewhere made it necessary for the new immigrants to move away from relatives and friends and establish their own networks instead (Requiza l974). If the group typified the new immigrant, and indications are that they do, this means that ethnic-based pre-immigration networks are no longer an important aspect of the immigration process. It is also most likely that considering the educational/occu- pational qualifications of the new immigrants, they would have some pre-immigration arrangements (other than family or ethnic based), or at least would be able to take care of themselves better upon their arrival in the U.S. and not be subjected to the “California whirligig” to which the early immigrants were subjected. The l965 Immigration Act has likewise affected the age and sex composition of the new Pilipino immigrants. The prospects of better employment in the U.S., coupled with easier credit for fares has also had an impact. Whereas earlier immigrants barely had passage money for themselves, it is now possible for the new immigrants to take their families with them or join them to the U.S. in a short period of time. Table 3 indicates that from l960 to l973, the category "Housewives, Children and Others with no Reported Occupations", have constantly composed about half of the Pilipino immigrants admitted to the U.S. 201 Table 4 also indicates that except for the age group nine years and younger, there were more women than men admitted as immigrants in l973. The preponderance of women among the new Pilipino immigrants may be due to the operation of the 1965 Immigration Act and/or a combination of the pre- immigration qualifications of the immigrant themselves. Since the Act favors the immigration of whole families, this means that male immigrants can also bring in their wives and children and if unmarried their parents (mothers) and siblings (sisters). Secondly, since there are more college trained and/or women in the professions in the Philippines compared with other immigrants, it is most likely that a good number of Pilipino women on their own qualifications are admitted as immigrants under the Third Preference. For the period ending June 30, l973, 6,ll9 Pilipi- nos who were in the U.S. under various types of nonimmi- grant visas, such as students, visitors, tourists, etc., were adjusted to permanent resident (immigrant) status. The total number of immigrants admitted directly from the Philippines in addition to the "adjustees" for the same period was 36,9l8 (INS l973:32). 202 msoppessuus Ao.emV Noo.Ap A~.mmV ope.op Am.omV pmo.op Am.eAV opm.N oopsooos oo eosz moosoo use smsuppsu .mm>pzmmso: ANA Ao.o V pep AA.o V NAN Ao.p V eoo A~._ V om oops use ages psmoxm .msmsoses App AN._ V me Am.— W umm Mm.N w NAN Am %W m smsmsos use msmsoses sses Aop Am.p V pom Ao.p mom m.p Aom : om voooooos pseuxm .msmxsoz wup>smm Am AN.N V mmm Ap.m V pom Am.p V Nam Ap.p V mm msmxsoz uposmmso: mpe>pss Am Ao.p V ope o.p V mom Am.p V moo AA. A V we osoxsos umsuspx use mm>ppesmso AN AA.A V Ame Ap.p V men Am.A V mpo : V we msossoz ootoops use smsmsos .smsmppesu Au Am.o V cup Au.o V mop Ao.o V Amp Au. 0 V m_ msmxsoz mmpem Am Au.m V mo_.p Am.m V NNo.p AN.N V NNN Am. N V Nu msmxsoz umsuspx use peupsmpo As Ao.A V ewe Am.p V ooo o.p V NNm : .o V AN osopopssoss ooe mpepopppo .msmmesez Mm u- w mo Ap.o V up AN._ cum AN .o W o msmmesez ages use msmsses N m.NN Npu.m Am.omV NNm.w AN.mN NuN.m AN .: omm msoxsoz umsuspx use peupssump .pesopmmwposs A— AxoopV amp.om AxoopV uum.mN Ages—V mON._m Axes—V smm.N pepop mNmp Nump cusp sump mssosw suppemwuoo some: mmmp use NNmp .ommp .oum_ .om mssu aspusm muopsms esp sou mssosw suppessouo tones Am ooooom ooopos oop op mooosopssp ms oooopsoe moopopsps so toosoz .m opoop 203 Table 4. Number Of Pilipinos Admitted As Immigrants To The United States, By Selected Age—Groups And By Sex, For The Period Ending June 30, l973 Percent Age Groups Total Male Female Female Total 30,799 l22446 l8,353 gag 9 years & yonnger 6,088 3,054 3,034 49 l0 - l9 years 4,328 2,107 2,22l 5l 20 - 29 years 9,495 3,037 6,458 68 30 - 39 6,387 2,564 3,823 59 40 - 49 l,942 757 l,l85 6l 50 - 59 1,211 406 805 ' 66 60 - 69 986 350 636 64 70 and older 362 l7l l9l 52 Source: U.S. Immigration And Naturalization Service Annual Report. l973:42-43. 204 Employment and Occupation As of this writingsthere has been no large scale study showing the employment and/or occupational status of post 1965 Pilipino immigrants, other than the U.S. Census of Population of l970. There was no way of determining how many of the Pilipinos enumerated in the occupational categories in the l970 Census were pre- and how many were post-l965 immigrants. However, a study of Pilipinos in the Chicago area based on the l970 U.S. Census of Population, in addition to the post l965 studies of Pilipinos cited in this study, may provide suggestive information on the em- ployment and occupational characteristics of the new immi- grants (Samaralan 1974; Mohuz 1971 121-153, Cortes 1974; Asperilla l974; Kasperbauer l974; Fernandez l974; Buduhan l974; Morales l974). In general, the new immigrants are competitive on the labor market over a period of time after their arrival in the U.S., which is usually two years or more. The gen- eral patterns of initial entry in the labor market was in a lower, different or parallel occupation in the Philip- pines and then move upwards either in the same occupation or diagonally in a different occupation. Physicians, surgeons,and nurses usually had pre-immigration arrange- ments with health-delivery institutions. There were a few exceptions wherein the immigrants with high occupations 205 and/or status in the Philippines move into the same or higher status occupation in the U.S. These were a few academics, the very wealthy and/or those in business in the Philippines who were able to establish their own busi- ness in the U.S. Since the media of instruction in the Philippines from high school to higher education is English the lan- guage problem is minimized. The major barrier to getting employed in a parallel occupation from the Philippines is the licensing regulations. Other than law, this is not an insurmountable problem, since licensing examinations can be taken which requires self-study and review, in addition to residence requirements. Lawyers either go into a dif- ferent occupation or to a similar one such as in legal de- partments as researchers and/or staff, but not as lawyers. Some Pilipino doctors who have been licensed, take advan- tage of the shortage of private practitioners in rural areas and inner cities and set up their own practice. Some start in business as sales persons in insurance, real estate and other commodities, a good number of which end up having their own agencies or businesses as sole owners or in partnership with Pilipinos as well as non-Pilipinos. By and large, regardless of whether they get a lower, parallel or different occupation in the U.S. than the ones they had in the Philippines, their incomes and 206 standards of living in the U.S. are relatively higher. Ex- cept for those who have pre-immigration pre-arranged em- ployment, the manner by which jobs are acquired vary. They range from person-to-person contacts (usually for the first job) who may be Pilipinos or colleagues and friends, direct applications, response to announcements and a few by direct offers of employment. In areas where there is a large concentration of Pilipinos (i.e., California) discrimination, albeit more covert,continues to persist. At lower level positions.the Pilipinos have to compete with other minorities as well as with Whites. However, since the new immigrants have higher education than the minorities, they usually have the ad- vantage, except when citizenship is a requirement for em- ployment. It is therefore not usual to have highly quali- fied Pilipinos occupying jobs for which they are over qualified. The propensity to discriminate continues to per- sist, at least below the surface, since civil right laws and affirmative action programs prevent their overt mani- festation. As long as the Pilipinos are not perceived as threats to the competitive advantage of the majority, they most likely will not encounter gross discrimination. There are also the subtle and not so subtle allegations that aliens are taking away "millions" of jobs from Americans. 207 Whether by design or not, these allegations often put the Pilipinos and other immigrants against the non-White non- immigrants, such as the Blacks, Spanish-speaking, Native Americans, and the unemployed and/or poor Whites. The extent to which the legal immigrant alien constitutes a threat to the U.S. labor market remains doubtful. The non- White immigrants, especially those with language problems and/or with low or no educational qualifications,occupy jobs which most U.S. workers (especially the Whites) avoid. On the other hand, North contends that it is the illegal aliens, i.e.,those who slip across the U.S. borders, or who are in the U.S. on nonimmigrant status,who may consti- tute a threat to jobs that could be occupied by the legal immigrants and American workers (North l974z47-48; 54; U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary 1975). Social Relationships and Organizational Behavior The one big difference between the early and the new immigrants in terms of social-psychological adjustment in the new environment is that the latter are able to bring their families with them, or have their families join them after they immigrate. Thus the new immigrants do not have to confront the problem of social and psycho- logical isolation in an alien environment. Other than the 208 overt discrimination in employment in selected areas noted earlier, there does not seem to be overt discrimination in housing. Pilipino residential patterns do not present a discernable model. They range from inner city apartments and public housing to a few luxurious homes in exclusive neighborhoods. The majority of the housing are middle to lower-middle cost, with a few at both extremes. Nor is there a neighborhood concentration of Pilipinos, even in areas where there is a large Pilipino population. The types of homes and areas of residence are usually determined by factors other than racial discrimination or segregation. Among them are: cost of the homes; type of desired neigh- borhood; and proximity to work and/or desired schools for their children. There are as many Pilipino organizations in the U.S. today as there are reasons to organize them. South- ern California has seventy (70), the Los Angeles area has approximately eighty (80), San Francisco Bay area has at least fifty (50), the Chicago area has about eighty (80) and the Detroit area is reported to have seven. A number of these organizations represent the Pilipinos as a nation- ality or ethnic group or ethnic sub-groups of larger non- racial organizations, such as lodges, labor unions, civic groups and professional groups. There is hardly any city, town or areas with Pilipinos that do not have at least one 209 organization. Most of the organizations are locally based and are concerned with local issues. None has been known to claim to represent all the Pilipinos in the U.S. It is possible for Pilipinos to belong to several Pilipino organizations in one area, exclusive of membership in non-racial organizations. One can be a professional group, a lodge, a sports or recreation club, a Philippine ethno-linguistic group, and of course a "Pilipino" organi- zation, represeniing all the Pilipinos in the area. This study does not have evidence to indicate how many of these organizations are splinter groups and/or du- plications. It does not mean however, that there is har- mony among and between them. Some seem to be duplications. For instance, Tagalog is one of the major ethno-linguistic groups comprising close to ten (l0) provinces in the Phil- ippines. Yet, instead of having one Tagalog organization, there are as many organizations identified with as many provinces represented in the Pilipino population of an area, all Tagalog. With regards to intra- and inter-orga- nizational conflicts, current Pilipino immigrants in the U.S. are no different than those in the Philippines and earlier Pilipino U.S. organizations. They are still racked with intra and inter-organizational conflicts. Many of these conflicts are reported in the U.S. published Pilipino news media as news item, in addition to which the 210 contending factions present their side of the issues, often through paid space-advertisement. A few examples will illustrate the major difficulties that Pilipino organiza- tions are faced with. The Philippine Medical Association of Chicago (PMAC) and the Women's Auxilliary of the Philippine Medical Association of Chicago were reported to be in turmoil. This was evident in the news reports in at least two of the Philippine newspapers in Chicago (Philippine Chronicle April 8, l975:8). Elections of officers were preceded by large and expensive advertisements, with each faction stating its position and soliciting support from the mem- bership. An election-picnic was held in one of the resort cities of Illinois. The Philippine Times (July 14, 1974: B-l) reported that the affair was "friendly and peaceful"- The point is that, why shouldn't a semi-social affair of an ethnic group, of the same professional interest, in an alien land be "friendly and peaceful, The news item is reminiscent of previous political elections in the Philip- pines, which were sometimes reported as relatively "peaceful", since only "x" number of people were killed. In San Salcedo, California, the Pilipinos were the only ones among four minority groups that failed to get some ethnic and community manpower development funds (about $185,000). While the Chinese, Koreans and Spanish 211 had their own ethnic organizations to represent them and help administer the program, the Pilipinos had three orga- nizations bitterly fighting each other for control of the Pilipino portion of the program. The officials in charge prudently stayed out of the intra-ethnic controversy by not releasing any funds (Philippine Times December 16-31, 1975: 9). The election of officers for a Pilipino-American or- ganization in Los Angeles precipitated such a bitter con- flict that it had to resort to the courts. Inter-ethnic youth gang conflicts are not unusual occurrences in certain urban areas of the U.S. In the San Francisco Bay area, Pilipino youth gangs are at war with each other, sometimes resulting in violence and tragedy (Philippine Times February 15, l975:8-5 and B-7; August 16-31, l974:1 and 19, and November 16-30, 1974:13). The disunity among the Pilipino organizations in the U.S. is widely reported by returning Pilipinos and the press in the Philippines (Villarva 1965:30; 30). There is little reaction and surprise, since the participants are Pilipinos and intrafactional and inter-organizational con- flicts are "part of the Pilipino way of life", namely the Pbarangay syndrome" in operation. The implications of this phenomenon will be discussed later. At this point, suffice it to point out that the manifestations of this syndrome on the new immigrants are hardly any different 212 from those of the early immigrants who were less educated and presumably less sophisticatedin the management of modern organizations. The Pilipinos in the United States: A Minority_Among_the Minorities The surviving early immigrants and their heirs and the new immigrants constitute the Pilipino population in the United States in the 1970's. Of the 336,371 Pilipino population in the U.S. in 1970, more than half (178,371) were born outside the U.S. There were 90,292 heads of households of which 6,119 (or 6.7%) were women. A majority of the Pilipinos (74.3%) were concentrated in the U.S. West Coast out of which a little less than one half (40%) were in the State of California. Table 5 indicates that they were relatively young. They are concentrated in urban areas, whereas the older Pilipinos were concentrated in rural (farm and nonfarm) areas, a reflection of the pat- terns of Pilipino migration to the U.S. (U.S. Census of Population: 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS PC(2)-1G. 1973:120; 122; 127). The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported that in 1960, 2,085 Pilipinos were natu- ralized, the second highest group of Asians naturalized that year and were exceeded by the 4,189 Japanese that 213 were naturalized. In 1970 the Pilipinos were the largest group of Asians to be naturalized (5,469). For the years 1972 and 1973, the largest group of Asians to be natural- izedwere the Indians, the second largest were the Pilipi- nos (INS 1960:80; 1970:110; 1973:104). Table 5. Age And Sex Distribution Of The Pilipino Population In The United States, 1970 Age and Sex D1str1but1on Percent of Age Groups Total Males Females Females Total All Ages 336,731 183,175 153,566 46% Under 5 years 38,724 20,398 18,326 47 5 to 9 years 35,453 18,177 17,276 49 10 to 14 30,616 16,045 14,571 48 15 to 19 25,004 12,769 12,235 51 20 to 24 30,262 14,054 16,208 53 25 to 29 34,504 15,179 19,325 56 30 to 34 29,180 13,824 15,356 53 35 to 39 22,293 11,133 11,162 50 40 to 44 18,424 8,901 9,523 52 45 to 49 12,871 6,278 6,593 51 50 to 54 8,228 4,392 3,836 47 55 to 59 13,867 10,857 3,010 22 60 to 64 16,056 13,816 2,240 14 65 to 69 11.100 9,211 1,889 17 70 to 74 5,733 4,924 809 14 75 to 79 2,602 2,078 524 20 80 to 84 883 538 247 28 85 years & over 931 503 429 46 Median Age 26.2 28.3 24.5 Source: U.S. Census of Population: 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS PC(2)-TG. 1973:120122. 214 Although not central to the concerns of this study but very much part of the immigration process is the number of aliens deported and/or requested to leave the U.S. For the years 1960 and 1973, the Pilipinos were the highest number of Asians who were either deported or asked to leave the U.S. for various reasons or causes. The reason under which the highest number of Pilipinos were deported or asked to leave the U.S. were for noncompliance with the conditions of their non-Immigrant stay in the U.S. which means that they were not immigrants (INS 1960:56-57; 1970: 86-87; 1973:80-81). Socio-Economic Characteristics Table 6 gives a detailed picture of the educational profile of the Pilipinos in the U.S. An interesting item is that the women had higher educational qualifications than men in both the percentage of those who completed high school and the median of school years completed. If it can be assumed that a large number of these women were post 1965 immigrants, these figures can be attributed to the possibility of their being nurses or in health related occupations, categories that has and continue to be in de- mand in the U.S. For instance, the processing of poten- tial immigrants in some occupational groups has been sus- pended or altogether stopped, but not for physicians, I“ .9713, r ‘A 215 .mmAAMAoA oA-ANVos mpsoses poeomom .voAuovovooos po mooooo .m.= ”oosoom Nu.mu Ne.m¢ mmpesueso Aoosum sap: psmusms u.NA m.AA umpmAseou msemA Aoosum sepumz A.Nm Am.uNW uAN.uN Ms.sAW NON.NA AN.ONV st.ms egos so msemx s N.us Am.oA ome.oA m.mA muA.uA AA.mAV mmA.Am msewx m up A "emmAAou N.mu AN.NNV uum.NN Am.ANV moo.AN Ao.NNV mum.os msemx e o.Ns Am.uAV «Ao.AA Au.wAV mom.MN Am.AAV mAm.oe msema m up A HAoosum sap: m.Nm Am.m V NAm.m Am.s V NeA.u Am.m V mAA.NA msem» w A.Nm AN.N V Asm.m Am.oA muA.mA MN.m V moA.NN msemx A up m m.uN AN.A V uAm.A AA.uA muN.oN A.NAV www.mN msemx m sesp mmms ”asepsmsmAm so.oo AsooAV oNA.ooA NeooAV omA.mNA AsooAV oeo.o- pooop Aepop.op muAeEmm As mmAesms mmAez AmAeEms w mAezV asp so u ummeMHMW mmepsmusms .A s m p voA .mooopm ooopss osp oA xom Am sovo us< msew> AuAV smmpxpm mospsAAAs Am umpmAsEou msAAoosum Ac msemA .u «Asep 216 nurses and health related occupations. Seventy nine percent (79%) of the men and 55.2% of the women were gainfully employed. Of these, 102,707 were employed as wage and salaried workers in the private sec- tor, 30,655 were employed with the Government (Federal, state and local), and the rest (4,694) were either self- employed or unpaid family workers (U.S. Census of Popula- tion: 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS PC(2)-1G 1973:131). Barring such constraints to employment as discrimination, it can be assumed that in a relatively free society, such as the U.S., the educational attainment of the members of the labor force will be indicative of their type of employment. Table 7 indicates that the majority of the Pilipinos in the labor force in the U.S. are in occupations that require at least some high school education and more. The Table also indicates that Pilipino women were employed in occu- pations in which women have been traditionally associated with, namely: clerical and kindred workers, sales workers and private household workers. However, they also exceed the men in the professional and technical occupations, a category that at least in the U.S. has been associated with men. This leads to the speculation on how many of these women are nurses, assuming that those who are formally trained as nurses are employed as such. The data 21 7 .mo.uon. .s.-ANVss wAsoses posessm .oA . =o..o.ooos so mooooo .m.= ”oosoom n..e MN.N A so... Am.s AAN M... noo.. moossos ersoooos odo>.ss AA. o.om o.o. moo.e Ao.o. .oo.m. A.s. oNo.oN e.osoooos usmuxm .msmxso: oup>som Ao— e.e Ao.. V er As...V s.o.s Ao.A V m.s.s oososo. eoo ososooo. asos Ao ..e. AN.s V NN. AA.s V Noe Ao.s V «As osooooo: sso. oso “tosses As A.m VA.s A son M..s A soo.o ..m sms.o asos osooxo .ososooo. AA m.mm ..s. Noo.m N.o. .NN... e.N. m.o.o. psosososp osAusAusA .mo>Auesmso Au m.m A... V Noe Ao.o.V oom.o. A~.e V Ame.o. moossos ooseo.s use smsmsam .soamuuesu Am o.Ao Ao.o~V mom.o. AN.o V .AN.A A~.A.V ooo.- ”Lossos eosoo.s oso .ooALoAQ Mo s.mm A." A .eo.. As.N V s.o.. A..N oom.m ososso: ovom e s.sm A.. Ass As.m V «No.N AN.N ems.e ates osooxo .osoo -essmAsAEu< use «somese: AN ..oe AA..mV meA.e. Ao.e.V eMN.o. As.mmV eNs..m mooxoo: eoseo.x oso AeuAssumA .AesOAmmoAOss AA NAJNN Amos.V mAe.Me 4mmm~4-soo.mw AnmmAqlmwm.ama .ooop -luieAemmA 1- 1-11:1, (1:11:11111 o. mwAeswu Au usousos AesoAAessuuc :1- mAex Aesop assess soAsessuso some: wresew1 mAeAOA so mmeasmusws use msusaaz mumA .mosesm umpAs: usA sA xmm Am us< masosu some: mm .smuAc us< mseoA AuAV samuxAm mosAsAAAs Ao usuaonssm .A mAseA 218 indicating that the greatest number of Pilipinos are em- ployed in the top occupational groups might be impressive within the context of affirmative action programs and the ideology that everyone, regardless of race, has an equal chance to get meaningful employment. However, it does not indicate how many of those employed in lower level occupa- tions (i.e., clerical and service workers, etc.) are under- employed or "overeducated” for the occupations they are able or allowed to engage in (Morales 1974:82-89; 127-131). The major indicators of social economic status (SES) will be presented and discussed in the next section. However, at this point it may be indicated that mean and median incomes of Pilipinos in 1969, sixteen (16) years old and older and their family incomes was lower than the White majority, but higher than the Blacks, Spanish-speaking and the Native Americans. An interesting information is that although there were more Pilipino women employed in the highest category (Table 7), the mean and median incomes of the Pilipino men were higher ($5,711.00 and $5,019.00) than the Pilipino women ($4,013.00 and $3,513.00 respectively). This suggests that the Pilipino women who may have equal or higher educational/professional qualifications than the men do not fare any better with regards to sex differen- tiation in compensation in the American system. 219 Over thirty-nine percent (39.7%) of the Pilipinos owned the homes they lived in. The median cost of the Pilipino owned home ($24,600.00) was higher than the White majority ($22,000.00); although the median monthly contract rent ($96.00) was lower compared to the White majority's 2 $105.00 per month. 2 Pilipinos in Comparison with Other Minorities Table 8 indicates that in 1970, the Pilipinos were the smallest minority group in the United States.23 Al- though the three Asian groups (Japanese, Chinese and Pili- pinos) were the smallest minority groups in the U.S. in 1970, their social and economic characteristics reveal a different picture. The largest Asian group were the Japa- nese which exceeded the Pilipinos by about a quarter of a million people. All the groups except the Native Ameri- cans were heavily concentrated in urban areas. Among the Asians, there were more Japanese and Pilipinos in rural areas (farm and nonfarm), especially among the older peo- ple. This is a reflection of the earlier immigration pat- terns of these people to the U.S. Whereas the Chinese were mostly recruited as unskilled labor in mines, rail- roads.and low skilled urban service type occupations, the Japanese and Pilipinos were brought to the U.S. 220 (principally in Hawaii and West Coast of continental U.S.) as agricultural workers (McWilliams 1943). Tables 9, 10 and 11 indicate that although the Japanese, Chinese,and Pilipinos constitute the smallest populations among the selected minority groups, they also had the highest social economic status compared with the others. Historically, these three peoples came to the U.S. much later than the others, although the data indicate that compared with those groups that came before them, they seem to have "gotten ahead" in the American system. It is commonly acknowledged that education by type as well as by number of years of schooling affects a per- son's chances of getting ahead in the American system as well as in any industrialized society, even if such varia- bles as race or ethnicity are controlled. Table 12 tends to support this contention, since the three Asian groups that had the highest SES characteristics also had the high- est educational attainment, higher in fact than the White majority. Nor was this the only instance where they ex- ceeded the majority. The Japanese and the Chinese had higher individual and family incomes and the three Asian groups had the highest costs for the homes they owned, compared with the rest of the population. .P'Qo'lll' 221 A.uA>mV Assou AAesm>o use sA weeps: sAAz ueusAosA use: sAmAco smAsesm Ac omega musAm nocA o. wuseAes aos AAA: mAequAM Ax_1.__> ...Au .so .omwAusoAueA:sos As msmseu .m.:V smAsesm use seuAsmE< sasom cOAuse Aesasmu .msessu .mseuAm oases; .mseque: we msAaAso pAmsA ueseuAusA cs: eusAusA msAmAso smAsesm\m -lszsAmm-. .oem-. .NAo. Acossom mooo.m ooo.os..s-ApAse1zDAAMAmsss esp so ms.pm.sspsAusA .e.o-. .epe-. .eoe-. .Ame-. .oee-puepo. Asossom moooom ooopoo .. ps .zo.p mso. ..m. m.o. .NA .oo .oN up Now. ..o p. .oe mom e. ..N. ..e o. .NA ..o m. .mpo. ANVos mpsoses pssoesm .opo. oopoopooos so moosoo .m.= .epoz ”museum eeo.o o.eom.p. o.MAm.o o.vo.m Aoptooos oops: o.eo..m o.moo.o o.o.o.e o.o.o.m mooo.sos< ospooz Ao o.Nme.m o.Ame.o o.emo.m o.ooo.e oopsooom-oo.ooom Am o.eoo.e o.Aoo.A o.oo..m o.oNo.m msoo.e Ao o.e.e.o o..mo.o. o.moo.o o.Noe.o moo.op..s Ae o.o.o.o. o.o.~.~. o.oeo.o o.mo..m oooo.oo AN o.e.m.m.e o...e.e.e o.moo.ms o..oo.eA oooooooo A. seAumz sew: sepumz see: messes. xApses messes. Aesup>pusA mssosw Appsos.z ooooopom mumA .mmpepm umpps: esA sA mssosw Appsospz umpumAmm po mesons. AAAEeA us< smqu us< msemA AuAV smmprm mAesup>pusA Ac messes. sepumz us< see: .m mAneA 223 Table 10. Median Costs Of Owned Residences And Monthly Contract Rents Of Selected Minority Groups In The United States, 1970 Selected Minority Cost of Owned Monthly Contract Groups Residences Rents 1) Chinese $29,300.00 $100.00 2) Japanese 27,900.00 113.00 3) Pilipinos 24,600.00 96.00 4) Spanish-Speaking *13,700.00 83.00 5) Blacks 10,800.00 73.00 6) Native Americans 9,000.00 72.00 _ White Majority 22,000.00 105.00 Source: U.S. Census of Population 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS PC(Z) 1973;18:153; 1C:83; 1E:94; 1F:73; 10:46; 105; 1970 CENSUS OF HOUSING, Vol. 5, Residential Finance 1973:116-117. Note: Residence is limited to one-family homes on less than ten (10) acres of land. It excludes any business on the property. Table 11. Percentage 0f Individuals And Families Whose Incomes Are Below The Poverty Level Of Selec- ted Minority Groups In The United States,l969 Selected Minority Groups Individuals Families 1) Native Americans 38.3 33.3 2) Blacks 34.8 29.9 3) Spanish-Speaking 24.3 21.2 4) Pilipinos 13.7 - 11.5 5) Chinese 13.3 10.3 6) Japanese 7.5 6.4 White Majority 10.9 8.6 Source: . . Census of Population 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS U S PC(Z) 1973;18:53; 1C:53; 1E:94; 1F:46; 105; 176. P(C) -lC:l-400. 224 Table 12. Percentage Of High School And Median School Years Completed By Selected Minority Groups 0f Persons Sixteen (16) Years And Older In The United States, 1970 Selected Minority Percentage High Median School Groups School Completed Years Completed 1) Japanese 68.8 12.5 years 2) Chinese . 57.8 12.4 3) Pilipinos 54.8 12.2 4) Blacks 34.8 9.8 5) Native Americans 33.3 9.8 6) Spanish-Speaking 32.1 9.1 White Majority 54.5 12.1 Source: . Census of Population 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS U S. PC(2) 1973: 18:20; 1C:32; 1E:34; 1F:18; 68; 127; P(C)-Clzl-386. Pilipino Ethnicityiin America A person's commitment to a cultural or social identity may be indicated by the answer to the question, "Who am 1?". Gordon (1964:20-30) attempted to illustrate the American minorities' perceptions of their social and/or ethnic identities in American society with five concentric circles. The innermost circle he calls self, followed by national (ethnic) origin, race and the outer- most circle, "nationality" (American). Kitano contends that as far as ethnic minorities are concerned, the less integrated or cohesive a people are within their own racial or ethnic group, the greater the possibility of 225 "integrating" with the larger structure, although he was vague on the term "integrating" (Kitano 1960:23-33). Erikson defines social or ethnic identification of minority groups as a sense of belonging to a group (or groups) with positive and negative historical actualities impinging on these identities (Erikson 1966:163-170 The Pilipino experience in America does not sup- port Gordon's contention and is closer to Erikson's defi- nition. First of all, it must be noted that Gordon was referring to White immigrant minorities, which the Pili- pinos are not. Secondly, the Pilipino is most likely to identify with a group than with self. In other words, in terms of social or even individual identity, the Pilipino will most likely feel more comfortable in reacting to the question, "Who are we?" in terms of the family and/or "barangay", than "Who am 1?". Moreover, it is not just a matter of whether the Pilipinos wanted to assimilate or not; or whether pre-immigration social structures and institutions facilitate or retard integration as Kitano contends. But also, to what extent, if at all, does the host society allow integration and at what cost. At a Congressional hearing during the early years of Pilipino immigration, an American scholar (Emory S. Bogardus), who has been a defender of Pilipino immigrant interests in the U.S., contended that if economic participation is 226 allowed and the social atmosphere is receptive, the Pili- pinos will easily assimilate. The contention was that the "assimilability" and "loyalty" (presumably to America) of the Pilipinos is largely dependent on American society.24 The problem was in the American social struc- tures and/or certain elements in it, that prevented the orderly "Americanization" of the Pilipino immigrants. This was a typical liberal order-consensus perspective, albeit in favor of the Pilipinos. Like other non-White immigrant minorities such as the Chinese and the Japanese, the attempts of the Pili- pinos to integrate with the majority were rejected and prevented. Therefore, for their physical as well as psychological and social survival, they had no choice but to retreat to themselves (Hayner and Reynolds 1937: 630-637). The lack of social interaction with the rest of the population prevented the Pilipinos from adopting some of the cultural ethos and traits of the generalpopu- 1ation, even in such an elementary cross-cultural vehicle as learning the language. The Pilipinos themselves did not have a common language and they initially associated with other Pilipinos of the same ethno-linguistic group. Outside of resorting to the use of exploitative commer- cial entertainment, Pilipinos had to depend on themselves for their recreation and leisure. This consisted of 227 celebrating Philippine feasts or holidays, where Pilipino food was and is always the major attraction (a respite from hot dogs), parties and dances, and through Pilipino clubs by and for Pilipinos (Gonzalo 1929:166-173; Lasker 1931:131-141; Catapusan 1940:541-549; 1940:50-52; 61-76; Bulusan 1946). Another means by which the Pilipinos in the U.S. were kept informed of each other and on what was happen- ing to the Philippines was through the Pilipino publica- tions in the U.S. Philippine publications in the U.S. started as early as 1904 with the publication of the "Philippine Review" by the University of California at Berkeley. Over the years there has been continuous ef- forts at publishing Philippine or Pilipino-oriented pub- lications, which were hampered by the attendant diffi- culties of such efforts. Among the difficulties (and perhaps the most significant) was the rivalry and dupli- cation of efforts among the actual or would-be Pilipino publishers (Bogardus 1934:581-585; Catapusan 1940:105- 106; 118-110; Bulusan 1946). There are today several publications in the U.S. that are Pilipino or Philippine- oriented. They range in content and type of publication. Among them are: regular or tabloid-size weekly, bi- weekly or monthly newspapers; SOphisticated magazines, one of which is financed by the Philippine Government; 228 scholarly publications on researches, surveys, etc., of Pilipinos in the U.S. and abroad; and "underground" type publications critical of the Philippine Government. Briefly, it may be posited that the early immi- grants may have been disposed towards assimilating with the mainstream of American society. However, their co- hesiveness, ethnic pride,and the barriers against their attempts at assimilating combined in preserving their ethnic identity. Pilipinos do not find any conflict between their loyalties as American citizens and preserving their cul- tural heritage. They resent it when their loyalties to the U.S. is questioned, since like other disadvantaged minorities, they have demonstrated their loyalty by fighting and dying for and in American wars since World War I. They are Americans when they are with Americans and Pilipinos when they are with Pilipinos (Mo’fiuz 1972: 51-56; 65-70). Unlike the Spanish-speaking, the Pilipi- nos feel that they can participate fully in the economic system without endangering their cultural integrity (Cafferty 1972:191-202). The conflict between the older and the younger generations of Pilipinos was more of a political problem than an identity crisis. The younger ones want to be more vocal in their advocacy, after taking the cue from the Black and civil rights movement; 229 while their elders felt that by not rocking the boat and antagonizing the majority, they could maintain their cultural integrity better. Following the Blacks, American Indians and Spa- nish-speaking, the Pilipinos in the 1960's started to speak out and demand what they felt was due them as a people, with some visible effects. In areas such as Cali- fornia where there is a heavy concentration of Pilipinos, educating children to their cultural heritage is no longer a burden on the individual families. There are centers where Pilipino children can be taught their cul- tural heritage. Moreover, they are partly funded by government affirmative action or bi-lingual programs. For the first time in its history, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, reported the Pilipinos as a distinct ethnic popu- lation in the U.S. in the 1970 Census of Population. During his last term of office, Governor Ronald Reagan of California signed into State Law Assembly Bill No. 3553, which requires that the State of California shall iden- tify Pilipinos as such in all state documents and trans- actions, and no longer under such categories as "Asians" or "other minorities." The uniqueness of the Pilipino as an ethnic group, and their entitlement to being Ame- ricans has been established, if not in the consciousness of the majority of Americans, at least structurally, or 230 in the political-legal realm on the national level and in states and localities where there are large concentra- tions of Pilipinos. The next step to being recognized as a people was awareness that like other non-White minorities, Pili- pinos were getting fair treatment in American society, in addition to which,as Pilipinos,they also had problems pe- culiar to their race. In California and Washington states, Pilipinos are included in all affirmative action type programs, just like the other non-White minorities, in addition to programs designed specifically to meet the needs of Pilipinos (Mohuz 1972:104-105; 167-170; Morales 1974:96-130). As the second and succeeding generations of Pilipino immigrants spread out into the mainstream of American life, they may no longer have to confront the problem of grappling with their American vis-a-vis Pili- pino identities. Pilipinos are now discarding the hy- phenated "Filipino-American" and are instead asserting themselves as Americans who are Pilipinos. Being a Pili- pino in America as the latter completes its 200th anni- versary may no longer connote the bitter experiences of the P111'PTOOS of earlier-immigration vintage, which Carlos Bulosan poignantly described. In spite of everything that happened to me in America, I am proud to be a Pilipino. When I say 'Pilipino' the sound cuts deep into my 231 being -- it hurts. It will take years to wipe out the sharpness of the word, to erase its notorious connotations in America. And only a great faith in some common goal can give it fullness again. I am proud that I am a Pilipino. I used to be angry, to question myself, but now I am proud. Overview and Implications of the Pilipino Immigrant Experience Overview The Pilipinos in America in the 1970's represent three quarters of a century of psychological, social, economic, and cross-cultural conflict and change. They re- present generations of Pilipinos from varied backgrounds and during various stages of Philippine history who came to America during seventy-five (75) of its ZOO-year history. Each generation of Pilipino immigrants had to confront common problems that other generations had to confront, as well as those problems unique to their generation and the period of their immigration. As a non-White minority, they also had to confront similar problems that other non-White minority groups had. As Pilipinos, they had their own immigration and integration problems. They are generated by: the nuances peculiar to their culture; the structural position of the Philippines in an interna- tional system of relationships and the unique relation- ships betweenthe Philippines and the United States; and 232 the reasons and roles for which they were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. This study chose to segregate the seventy-five (75) years of Pilipino immigration to America into two types of immigrants. The early immigrants who came to the U.S. between 1905 and 1965, and the new immigrants who came after 1965. Regardless of which group they be- long to, as non-White immigrants and as individuals who "freely" chose to immigrate to the U.S., they all had to struggle, change and adapt. Thus the experiences of the early and the new immigrants may be summarized into seventy-five (75) years of what it means to be a Pilipino in America. The Pilipino interracial relationship with the majority population was no different from the other ra- cial minorities. They ranged from covert discrimination to overt hostility,replete with mob and individual in— stances of violence (Lasker 1931:7; 135; 197; Catapusan 1940:29; 46; Bulosan 1946; Buaken 1948). They were even prevented from intermarriage by anti-mascegination laws. Several factors precipitated the prejudice and discrimi- nation against the Pilipinos, some of which were built-in in the social structure and institutions of the host so- ciety, and some may have been generated by the Pilipinos themselves. 233 The Pilipinos felt superior to the Blacks, since unlike the latter who were originally slaves, they came to the U.S. as free men. They had very little contact with the Native Americans and their image of the Indians were no different from the rest of the U.S. population or the world, i.e., the "How the West was Won " variety. They also brought with them their own prejudice against the Chinese, a discriminated group in the Philippines (Eitzen 1971:117-138; Tan 1972; Hunt and Walker 1974:93- 127). Moreover, the planters in the West Coast attempted to create hostilities between the groups, by using one to break the protests and strikes of the others, even be- tween the Pilipinos and the Mexicans, the two groups that seemed to get along, at least socially (Catapusan 1940: 76-87; McWilliams 1939; 1942; Daniels and Kitano 1970: 78-79). Aside from the structural barriers that prevented the Pilipinos from interacting with the other minorities, they felt that they had their own problems to contend with and that the problem of the Blackman was not that of the Brownman. They argued that associating themselves with other discriminated minorities would only bring more hostilities from the majority (Mofiuz 1971:69). Daniels and Kitano also contend that some of the non- White minorities (particularly the Asians), because of 234 their culture, religion, etc., tend to be conservatives in their racial outlook and keep away from racial move- ments so as not to rock the boat (Danield and Kitano 1970:30). The Pilipinos' manifestations of superiority over the other non-White minorities (and equality with the Whites) exacerbated the hostilities against them, since unlike the other minorities, the Pilipinos did not know "their proper places" in American society (Bogardus l929:59-69; 1929:469-479; Catapusan 1940:49-50). The differential attitudes of Pilipinos towards other minorities was also reinforced by the U.S. Govern- ment's official treatment of transient Pilipinos travel- ling or sojourning in the U.S. for short periods. These were the government officials (civil or military), stu- dents, businesspersons,and the few tourists, Pilipinos who had higher educational qualifications and SES back- grounds than the immigrants. The latter were informed that when confronted with a racial issue while in the U.S., they should consider themselves "White". Driver's licenses and other forms of identification they used while in the 0.5., also identified them as "Whites". An example is a handbook issued to Pilipino military offi- cers on temporary duty in the U.S. It advises them to consider themselves "White" (Department of National De- fense, Republic of the Philippines 1952). Last but 235 not least of the causes of the Pilipinos' lack of produc- tive interaction with other minority groups was their own disruptive cultural traits on organizational and inter-group behavior. Over the last decade there has been a change in the disposition of Pilipinos towards other minorities. For instance, the Blacks were once commonly referred to as "egoy“ a Pilipino equivalent to "nigger."25 Today, the term is no longer used among "educated" Pilipinos or in "good company“, and has been replaced by the term “itim" meaning Black. At one timesthe term "Americano" meant White. Today, distinctions are made between "Ame- ricanong puti" (American White) and "Americanong itim" (American Black). What may be significant is that the favorable attitudes towards the other minorities may have their origins in the Philippines. Pilipino college youth in the 1950's began to have favorable attitudes towards Ame- rican non-White minorities. In addition, there seems to be evidence that this change in attitude was and is rela- ted to U.S. foreign policy in Asia and the Philippines (Berreman 1956:105-115; Stoodley 1957:553-560; Hunt and Lakar 1973:497-609). It is most likely that some of these students in the 1950's were part of the new immi- grants or "brain drain" of the 1960's. During the last 236 decade, Pilipinos have not only joined with other Asians, but with other non-White minority groups in common efforts to improve their situations, and these efforts are beginning to show some effects (Daniels and Kitano 1970:78-79; Almirol 1974; Hernandez 1974; Morales 1974: 95-130). Another aspect of the immigration experience of the Pilipino immigrants are those between the various generations of immigrants, in this case the early and new immigrants. The individual attributes of the early immi- grants combined with the structural configuration in the U.S. at the time of their immigration made them the group that had to undergo the greatest difficulty in the U.S. And yet, they were perceived with some amusement (i.e., equivalent to "hill billies"), by the later gene- ration of better educated immigrants. The early immi- grants were often referred to in the Philippines and elsewhere as "Pinoys" (derived from "U.S. Pilipinos"), "old timers" (in the U.S.) or simply "OT's". As the years wore on, the early Pilipino immi- grants had established linkages in the U.S. with other groups and from among themselves and at the same time diminishing the onesin the Philippines. They view the younger immigrants as upstarts and snobs. They also feel that the new immigrants are now harvesting what 237 they have invested in sweat, tears and blood, while the new immigrants perceive them as brown "Uncle Toms". The pre- and post immigration differences between the two generations of immigrants widened the gaps for interac- ting. Nevertheless, simply because the early immigrants are older.they are still treated with deference and res- pect by the new and younger immigrants in face-to-face situations (Pena 1961:20-21; Pope 1968:30—31; MoNuz 1971: 85-89; Morales 1974:35-64). Over the last decade,there have been some changes in the relationships between the l'OT's" and the new immi- grants. Morales starts his book, Makibaka (1974) with an account of how a younger and better educated Pilipino im- migrant convinces an "OT" that there is nothing wrong or shameful in getting some government assistance through welfare, a situation avoided by Pilipinos out of ethnic pride and "hiya", and relates how the younger Pilipino helps the old man go through the bureaucracy to obtain the assistance. Most of the "OT's" are now retired and their plight is different from those of the elderly or retired people in the U.S., in the sense that it is worse. Most live only on social seturity since the discriminatory barriers that prevented them from getting better and se- cured employment also prevented them from participating in good pension plans. 238 The problems of the early (and now older) immi- grants are being recognized by the younger Pilipinos and the community, and steps are being taken to help them in every way possible. These steps are being undertaken by younger Pilipinos as individuals and/or through the formal Pilipino or community organizations who are better equipped and in a position to help them. For in- stance, the latter determine what benefits the elderly Pilipinos are entitled to and act as intermediaries in securing the benefits (Morales 1974:117-123). A cultural personality and societal trait the Pilipinos brought along with them hampered their efforts in the use of formal organizations to improve their con- ditions. On the surface,this may seem a paradox since Pilipinos have been socialized to confront the world not as individuals but as members of a group. Divisiveness and factionalism in organizations is not a unique Pili- pino phenomenon, since organizations are composed of in- dividuals and sub-groups lacking in power relationships. The same phenomenon can be observed in most organizations in the U.S. For instance, contrary to the common belief of a united front presented by the U.S. organized labor, its history is replete with divisiveness based on poli- tical, economic, ideological and racial heterogeneity (Spero and Capzoola 1973:120-126). What makes the 239 Pilipino organizational divisiveness unique is that it is almost always based on leadership personalities, per- sonal, familial, regional/linguistic linkages and/or highly personalized gemeinschaft-type networks, rather than ideological and/or structural differences. In addition to fulfilling individual and group needs through strong social relationships and networks, Pilipinos have a high regard and desire for status and power. For instance, possession, access to and control of economic resources are only desired as means by which societal networks can be cemented further and to the ex- tent that they are useful in acquiring, maintaining and expanding status and power. And so are organizational goals and ideologies. The Pilipino perceives his/her own group ("barangay"), rather than individual efforts in conjunction with other individual efforts of "strangers" as the most effective way of achieving group status and power which will be shared by the members of the "barangay". Consequently, there is a strong or even a 'total commitment of individual efforts and resources towards the pursuit of the interests of the sub-groups, thus exacerbating the divisiveness of organizational con- flicts (Hollnsteiner 1963; Coser 1969:18-221). But when the interests of the individuals and sub-groups ("barangays") are confronted by a larger and 240 external threat, the intra-organizational conflicts are temporarily suspended and are resumed when the external conflicts have been resolved. This has been demonstrated by the ineffective individual and locally isolated pro- tests against three centuries of Spanish rule; the suc- cessful national revolution that ended it; and the return to factional and regional divisiveness when the common oppressor was overthrown. This was likewise demonstrated by the early Pilipino immigrants, when on a few occasions they set aside their factional differences and unified their efforts in confronting their difficulties in the plantations in Hawaii and California and the naked dis- crimination they had to confront. Pilipinos and Pilipino organizations in the U.S. are beginning to learn that they are just one of the minority groups and among the smallest at that. They will just have to unify their efforts more, first with each other and with other minorities, if they are to help themselves and contribute to the advancement of all the minorities. There has been some news of having a unified or national (U.S.) association of Pilipino nurses in the U.S. Several autonomous organizations of Pilipino doc- tors in the U.S. are heading towards the formation of a confederation or council at the national level (Philip- pine Times 1974; 1975). Pilipino organizations are also 241 joining efforts with other minority groups, particularly with fellow Asians and with the Spanish-speaking and the Blacks (Daniels and Kitano 1970:78-79; Almirol l974; Hernandez 1974; Morales 1974:95-130). Until recently, unlike the other disadvantaged groups (minorities and poor Whites), the Pilipinos had avoided any form of assistance (government and private) other than selected fellow-ethnics. This was partly due to pre-immigration cultural trait on self or family es- teem and ethnic pride. The Pilipino perceives birthright to assistance and support as limited to the family and one's group. If assistance from "other" families or groups cannot be avoided, the assistance is sought through third-party intermediaries to avoid possible si- tuations of face-to-face shame ("hiya"); first by admit- ting the need for assistance from outside one's group (and therefore a reflection of the petitioner's group's inability to help their own),and second, by avoiding the -face-to-face situation for asking the assistance and risk the shame ("hiya") of being refused. The same syndrome can be applied to interracial relations in the U.S., especially as they apply to public assistance. The charity-orientation of the sources of assistance (government or private philanthropic organi- zations) and the condescending and patronizing manner 242 by which the assistance is extended are simply intoler- able to Pilipino individual, family and ethnic pride. So much so that Pilipinos in dire traits preferred to resort to petty crimes and extra-legal activities to survive rather than seek assistance. Last but not least of the reasons behind avoiding "welfare" (which is synonymous to all forms of assistance) was the fear of its being known by other Pilipinos in the u.s. and in the Philippines (family, relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.) who may interpret the need for assistance as a shortcoming of the person needing it. Thus, as MoNuz contends ..... "The American in him will make him want to do things himself; the Filipino will make him want to help and be helped in the true spirit of "bayanihan", a Pilipino concept conno- ting cooperation or people helping people (Lasker 1931: 100-106; Catapusan 1939:546-554; Mohuz 1971:116; Morales 1974:13-34). However, the Pilipinos' attitudes towards seeking assistance from outside one's family or group has changed, and those in need and are entitled to it, now seek it. Pilipinos have invested themselves in America and their contributions deserve some comment. For instance, California and Hawaiian "oriental agriculture" are what they are today because of the skills and hard labor of Chinese, Japanese and Pilipino immigrants. The first 243 major agricultural strike in the West Coast which led to the grape boycott in San Joaquin valley was led by Pili- pinos, and which generations later was used by the United Farm Workers to improve their own conditions. The stilt- like contraption used in the Apollo Spacecraft was inven- ted and developed by a Pilipino scientist in San Jose, California (The Pilipino Immigrants 1975:13). Like the other minority groups, the Pilipinos also served in the U.S. Armed Forces, most of whom were volun- teers or enlistees. As were the other minorities, they also encountered discrimination in the Service. Although those who were not U.S. Citizens could not legitimately be commissioned, all were relegated to do certain types of work. The Pilipinos' stereo-typed reputation of being waiters, stewards, busboys, cooks (in addition to "farm hands") followed them in uniform. Pilipino stewards and cooks from the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard were detailed to the White House and have been serving U.S. Presidents since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Lasker 1931:61-64; Wingo 1942; Martin 1961; Duff and Ranson, Jr. 1967 836-843; Orias 1969; Mohuz 1971:107-108). Implications: Dependency Relations and Institutional Networks The changing structures in both and between the Philippines and the United States, as well as in the 244 international network of relationships have shaped the patterns of Pilipino international migration, particularly immigration to the U.S. The taking over of the Philip- pines by the U.S. from Spain did not result in any signi- ficant change in the Philippine economic and social struc- tures. The same oppressive primarily agrarian constraints that prevented the majority of the Pilipinos from pursuing a better life prevailed. At about the same time, the U.S. was on the way towards becoming an industrial society which included ex- pansion of its agricultural industry in the West Coast and Hawaii. The need by the U.S. for cheap agricultural labor provided the Pilipinos a perceived alternative to their deplorable conditions. Low or unskilled labor were re- cruited from the countryside and from the urban proleta- riat. Thus, from the turn of this century to the present, Pilipino immigration to the U.S. was established. The first group of immigrants which came from 1905 to 1965 were referred to as the early immigrants. As a non-White minority group,the Pilipinos were subjected to discrimination and exploitation like other minorities. However, the Pilipinos were different from other minorities, particularly the immigrants, in a legal and sociological sense. First of all, they were not aliens but "nationals" of the U.S. (vis-a-vis citizens), 245 and were in fact, issued U.S. passports when travelling outside the Philippines. Secondly, most did not intend to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, but merely to earn enough in the U.S. to allow them to return to the Philip- pines to start new lives. Therefore, unlike other immi- grants they did not bring their spouses and families with them, and were more concerned with immediate fulfillment of their needs and goals, rather than with their futures in an adopted country. From 1935 to 1964, the immigration of Pilipinos to the U.S. was limited on racially-based quotas. The passage of the U.S. Immigration and Naturali- zation Act of 1965 changed the pattern of Pilipino immi- gration to the U.S. Not only was the number of Pilipino immigrants increased significantly, but they were now better educated and came from better SES backgrounds. They became the Philippines' "brain drain". These per- sonal attributes, combined with a changed atmosphere in the U.S. towards cultural pluralism, gave them wider opportunities for participating in the American system, although they are still subjected to some discrimination, but which is less overt than it used to be. Unlike their predecessors, the new immigrants were more likely to stay indefinitely out of the Philippines and immigrate to the U.S. or elsewhere. 246 Briefly, the patterns of immigration of Pilipinos to the U.S. were constrained or influenced by several structural and cultural episodes that cut across time and space. The early immigrants came to the U.S. during an era of its historical development; and the new (and dif- ferent) immigrants came at another era of U.S. histroy. The need for Pilipinos to seek a better life coin- cided with the need for cheap labor in the development of U.S. agriculture in Hawaii and the West Coast. These created a symbiotic relationship between the ruling elite in the Philippines and the agro-business interests in the U.S. Pilipino emigration relieved the former of their responsibilities to institute reforms in the country and provided the latter with a cheap source of labor. As the U.S. moved into the post—industrial stage, it again was in need of cheap but skilled labor. The existing conditions in the Philippines, which was partly due to its status of dependency, again provided the needed manpower finnthe U.S. The brain drain not only deprives the Philippines of needed skilled manpower, but its skilled manpower employed by the multinational corporations often become the means by which these corporations prevent the development of competitive national enterprises. Thus, the status of dependency of countries (in the case of the Philippines) on other countries is perpetuated from 247 colonialism to neo-colonialism. This pattern is demon- strated by the pattern of Pilipino international migration and immigration to the U.S. In other words, international or transnational migration is an effect of and/or used to create and perpetuate the status of international dependencies. Not only has the status of dependency of the Phil- ippines on the U.S. created the structural components of Pilipino immigration to the U.S.; it has also influenced the manner by which the Pilipinos interacted with the host society. The Chinese, Japanese, and Pilipino immi- grants were individuals "freely" moving into the U.S. But among the three, the Pilipinos were the only ones who did not come from a free country, i.e., a sovereign nation-state. Pilipinos as well as their American supporters in the Philippines and the U.S., as well as the U.S.-sponsored Philippine Government, protested the treatment of the Pilipinos in the U.S. But unlike the Chinese and the Japanese, the Philippines did not have the political, economic, and even military leverage to back up their protestations. The Pilipino immigrants' experience in the U.S. supports the institutional vis-a-vis pathological model of racism. The Pilipinos (as well as the Mexicans, Native Americans, pre- and post-Emancipation Blacks, Chinese and 01 St 111 248 Japanese) were tolerated and even liked as long as they were not perceived as competitive threats to the economic, political, social and cultural dominance of the White majority, the hysterics of the chronic racists notwithstanding. The Pilipino immigrants (early as well as new) were favorably accepted as long as they were needed and knew "their proper places" in American society. The problem of inequality is not uniquely American, nor is it purely based on race. The problem boils down to one group of people maintaining their advantaged position at the expense of others. And, history demonstrates that neither is it a modern,much less a capitalist phenomenon. In Northern Ireland, it is the Protestants over the Catho- lics; in the Philippines and Lebanon, it is the Christians over the Muslims; and in America it is the White Anglo- Saxons over the other Whites (non-Anglo-Saxons), and all the Whites over the non-Whites. The Philippines is no longer within the "sphere of influence of the United States". But like all countries (developed and underdeveloped), it has to depend on an in- ternational network in order to survive in a narrowing world. The issue that has to be faced by the Philippines and other Third World nations is not total independence from other developed countries but stronger national independent capabilities and positions so as not to put 249 them at a disadvantage in their relations with other na- tions. In terms of international migration, people, re- gardless of where they are or.want to be, should be able to find the means to achieve their own development and fulfill their aspirations and thereby contribute to the development of a better world. The materials examined in this Chapter also demon- strated the inadequacy of the order—consensus (i.e., "assimilationalist", "melting pot" etc.) models used in explaining the situation of immigrants, particularly the non-White immigrants in America. These conceptual models asuumed that the immigrants wanted or want to "assimilate" and that this is reciprocated by a non-racial, non-discri- minatory open-door stance of the host society. Such is not the case of the Pilipinos in both instances. Even in instances where and when they did not encounter any racial barriers, the Pilipinos did not completely "Americanize", even those in succeeding generations who were born and raised in America. The Pilipino immigrants in America, either "Americanized" some Pilipino traits or "Filipin- ized" some American traits in their struggle to pursue a more meaningful life. The next two Chapters will examine more closely a contemporary group of Pilipino immigrants as they live through their American experience in the 1970's. PART III CASE STUDY OF NEW PILIPINO IMMIGRANTS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A., 1974-75 CHAPTER V: PILIPINO IMMIGRANTS AS ACTIVE AGENTS IN THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS CHAPTER VI: THE SETTLING IN-PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION: PATTERNS OF PARTICIPATION AND SOURCES OF TENSION, STRAIN AND CONFLICT CHAPTER V PILIPINO IMMIGRANTS AS ACTIVE AGENTS IN THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS Midwest City, U.S.A., 1974 The selected site for this study was a medium- sized metropolitan area in a U.S. midwestern agricultural and industrial state. The 1970 U.S. Census of Population reported that the state had a population of 8,875,083, of which 88% were Whites, 10% Blacks and 2% other minority groups. From among the two percent were reported 3,657 Pilipinos. The site was composed of a major city and five other adjacent towns and cities. Its 1970 popula- tion was 193,936 of which 26.6% were non-Whites. From among the latter were 137 Pilipinos composed of sixty (60) males and seventy—seven (77) females. The 1974 es- timated population for the state was 9,075,887, an in- crease of two percent from its 1970 population, and the estimated population for the site for the same year was 200,000. Aside from being a government administrative cen- ter and the site of one of the country's major indus- tries, the area also encompasses a major state 250 251 university and a community college. Consistent with the practice of preserving the anonymity and privacy of the respondents (Pilipinos) selected for this study, the site shall be known and referred to as: "Midwest City, U.S.A." or simply "Midwest City". The Pilipinos in Midwest City Demographic Characteristics The respondents included in this study were com- posed of fifty-one (51) adults, eighteen (18) years and older, of which twenty-seven (27) were males and twenty- four (24) were females. The total population from this group was eighty—eight (88), with forty-four (44) persons for each sex. This included the fifty-one (51) respondents and their children who were below eighteen (18) years old. As noted earlier, the respondents (51 adults) consisted a sixty percent (60%) sample of the estimated universe in Midwest City for 1974. The age and sex distribution of the group did not deviate very much from the U.S. Pilipino population in 1970 (Table 5). The mean age for the group (male and female) was 27.1 and median age was 26.9. The women were slightly younger than the men. The median age of the group (male and female) may be compared with the reported l974 median age for the U.S., for all races, as well as for 252 Whites and Blacks (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975:26), as follows: U.S. Population Midwest City26 All Races and Sexes Whites Blacks Pilipinos 28.7 years 29.5 23.5 26.9 The average size of the family was three and the average number of children per family was two. In addition to their places of birth, the reSpond- ents were also requested to identify themselves in terms of the eight major ethno-linguistic groups in the Philip- pines (Fox and Flory 1974). Six of these groups were represented in the sample with the Tagalogs forming the largest group (14 males and 12 females). Two respondents (male and female) of Philippine parentage were not born in the Philippines, but spent part of their lives in the country and identified themselves with one of the Phil- ippine groups. Three categories were devised to classify the respondents' rural/urban origins in the Philippines. The major criterion for this classification was where they grew up, rather than where they were born. The classifications or categories are: Urban, representing metropolitan Manila and five major urban areas in 253 the Philippines; "Rurban", for smaller metropolitan areas, medium-sized cities, ports, commercial/transpor- tation centers and provincial capitals; and "Rural", for smaller towns and barrios (villages) with populations of 50,000 or less. There were forty-one (41) Roman Catho- lics (26 males and 19 females), three Protestants (one male and two females) and one male and two females who declared themselves as "Aglipayans”. The name of their religion is the Philippine Independent Church, a Chris- tian sect which broke away from Rome in the early part of this century. It was founded by former Roman Catho- lic Bishop Gregorio H. Aglipay (1860-1940). Church mem- bers are also known as "Aglipayans", after the founder of the Church (Achutegui and Bernad, 1960; 1971). Four (3 males and one female) did not declare their religious affiliations. Educational Qualifications Only two (male and female) of the respondents did not report their educational attainments. Among the forty-nine (49) who did, only five reported that they did not complete college. From these, two females com- pleted two-year college certificates, and two (male and female) were currently pursuing their college education. From among those who completed college or more, two had 254 Table 13. Rural/Urban Origins Of Pilipinos In Midwest City, U.S.A., l974 Rural/Urban Origins Totals Males Females 19331; 100% (st1y 100% (n:27) ' 100% (nz24) Urban 37 (T9) 44 (12) 29 (7) Rurban 29 (15) 26 (6) 33 (8) Rural 27 (14) 26 (6) 33 (8) Othersa 5 (3) 7 (2) 4 (1) aIncludes one American born in New York married to a Pilipina and two Pilipinos born in San Francisco and Europe but spent part of their lives in the Philippines. completed professional degrees (medicine and law), five (two males and three females) had Ph.D.'s and five (one male and four females) had masters degrees. The rest had college degrees requiring from three to five years, distributed among twelve (12) different areas or special- ties. The men dominated the areas of commerce and archi- tecture and the women the areas of health and liberal arts. Insufficient supplementary data and the differ- ences in the educational systems between the Philippines and the U.S. does not allow a comparison between the 255 respondents and the U.S. population on high educational attainment. However, comparing the educational level of the respondents to the U.S. population in terms of median school year completed, the former would be higher. The median school year for the U.S. (all sexes) for 1974 was: 12.3 years for all races, 12.4 years for Whites and 10.7 for Blacks (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975:118). On the other hand, exclusive of the two respondents who chose not to report their educational qualifications, all of Midwest City Pilipinos had completed high school, and only two reported to being or ever in College. Consider- ing that except for three adults who were not born in the Philippines, none of the respondents were in the U.S. longer than sixteen (16) years, their educational attain- ments place them in the category of new immigrants or brain drain. Occupational Characteristics Attempts were made to establish occupational com- parable categories between the Philippines and the 0.5. Both countries have different systems of classifying occupational categories, although there are also some similarities. The respondents were asked to mention the titles of the positions they occupied both in the Philippines and the U.S. In consultation with informants 256 who are knowledgeable about occupations in both countries, the occupational classification developed and used in this study is mostly based primarily on the positions in the organizational hierarchy where the respondents were em- ployed. The self-employed were likewise classified into categories based on the nature of the self-employment. Table 14 shows the distribution of the occupational status of the respondents when in the Philippines and currently in the area (U.S.). The study also tried to determine any shifts and changes in occupational status from the Philippines to the U.S. The data showed that there were some changes across the two countries. Among these were: those who were working in the Philippines came into the U.S. as students and housewives in the Philippines became working persons in the U.S. Some had higher status occupations in the Philippines and some had the opposite and are in higher status occupations in the U.S. Or, a respondent may have a high status position in the Philippines such as a private practice, but may be employed in middle level position in the U.S. There were no discernible patterns in these distributions to indicate that any one variable had any major influence in these changes in occupational status. It can be assumed that neither educational qualifications nor length of stay in the area 2557 111-11.11111 1111111111111 19., .|,11|1I1:11|Tl .[1111' '1'. 1111' 1| 1, ANV e A.V n An. m AeV me AoV me A~.V me AeV em A.V e AoV A. AmV om A..V oo Ae.V .e AeV N. AoV mm A..V .e AoNV poo. AANV “so. A.mV moo. erEes mAez.1. Aeuom .m.= mga sA uswEAcAsEm moo.ss...es esp o. .<.m.= AAV v AmV @— AoV AA omsoamoz oz Am AoV e. AeV .. ApV e. .ooo .evoAsEoos wmwmwm -sum .me>A3mmso= .mpesso Ae AeV uA AAV m AmV a .uee.ueAsAsEm-AAem eases— swzo. .msexso: AeuAseAu .msmxsoz uoue_eu mam muA>sem "Am>e. sozo. Am A..V mo AN.V oo AeNV mo .ooo .memssz .AmAe>eA smon use useusouomV msesueeA .AAe>eA emeAAouV esopussum 1:. .mwAem .mLOmA>sms:m so me>AA=oexN Ae>mA ITIITII I'lTIIullulll o.eo.s ”.oso. o.oe.s AN AoV e. AeV em Ao.V so. o.ooo.ooosoes to otooo.o -Auuess mue>Ass use msem -esez .sosmA: use mscmme» loss usesmAmm< .mssuuwm eue>Ass use uswsssw>oo use sA me>AusuexM sup .mAesoAmmeAsss .Am>e.-mmm AA AoNV "so. AANV nos. A.mV use. Aoooos so tooson o.ooop P eAeems 0mm: IlAeusp mmAsomeueu AesoAaessuuo mos-ssAAAss use sA usesonsEN vo. .ooooom eoo.os esp ees .Ao.s .oose.s s. moo.o...s so moooom .oovoosooos .o. o.oop 258 of the U.S. but a combination of these and other factors such as the job market were the major determinants of the occupational status of the persons in the U.S. vis-a-vis the Philippines. It can also be assumed that a high status position in the Philippines does not guarantee the same in the U.S. Nevertheless, the occupational charac- teristics of the respondents in both countries and how these are perceived to influence emigration and immigra- tion perceptions and behavior of the respondents are crucial to the concerns of this study and shall be discussed later. Income and Related Information It was not possible to compare income levels and SES of the respondents in the Philippines and the U.S. on purely economic terms. This is due to the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the Philippine peso, the dis- parity in the cost vis-a-vis the standards of living in both countries, and the variation of inflation rates be- tween the two countries during the different periods of time the respondents left the Philippines and came to the U.S. Attempts towards this end were abandoned, what was examined instead was U.S. income and related information as reported by the respondents. To assure methodological uniformity in getting the income information, the 259 respondents were requested to report their gross income as reported on their U.S. Federal Income Tax Returns for 1973. Table 15 shows a comparison of the median incomes of the White and non-White population of the U.S., Mid- west State (all races).and Midwest City Pilipinos for 1973. The individual median incomes of the respondents by sex was $10,000.00 for males and $6,666.00 for females. The mean income for the group was $10,111.00 for the men, $7,467.00 for the women,and $8,909.00 for both. The mean family income was $18,146.00. On the surface, the data indicate that Midwest City Pilipinos have a much higher income than the White majority and the Blacks. It must be noted however, that the respondents are a highly selected group in terms of their educational and occupational qualifications. The' income information for the U.S. and Midwest State were computed from the general population which included those with high and low occupations and income. It would be more realistic to compare the incomes of the Whites and Blacks having the same educational and occupational attributes as the respondents. It can therefore be posited that the individual median income ($8,337.00) for this highly educated group is in fact low. The median family income of $14,249.00 is even lower when one considers the high educational 260 and occupational qualifications of the women who are wives and are also employed. In short, the individual and family incomes of Midwest City Pilipinos (Table A4) is not commensurate with their educational and occupational credentials (Table A3). This means that re- gardless of their educational/occupational qualifications, Table 15. Individual And Family Median Incomes 0f Whites And Non-Whites In The United States, Midwest States And Region And Pilipinos In Midwest City, 1973 Individuala Family Incomes Incomes U.S. Whites $4,270.00 $12,595.00 Blacks 3,191.00 7,596.00b Region (all races) 5,439.00 11,947.00 Midwest City Pilipinos 8,333.00 14,249.00 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. ‘Statistical Abstracts of the United States. 0019 1974: 380-385. aFigures for U.S. and Midwest State are for unrelated individuals sixteen (16) years and older. bFamily income is for the region where Midwest City is located. Individual income distributions by sex are in Table A4 and family income distributions are in Table A5, Appendix I. 261 Midwest City Pilipinos do not fare any better than post 1965 immigrants (White and non-Whites) in the U.S., in getting jobs and/or compensations commensurate with their pre-immigration credentials, at least during their first years in the U.S. (North 1974:35-46). It was likewise impractical to compare the value of the homes in both countries, due to differences in currency values and in housing requirements. Moreover, only seven respondents (families) reported owning homes in the Philippines. The average cost of homes owned in the Philippines was P57,875.00 ($8,142), the lowest was P15,000 ($2,142) and the highest was PlO0,000.00 ($14,285).28 The average number of bedrooms of homes owned in the Philippines was three. Fourteen (14) respondents (families) reported owning fifteen (15) homes in the area or elsewhere in the U.S., three of whom also owned homes in the Philippines. The average cost of homes in the U.S. was $25,000.00 (the lowest was $13,000 and the highest was $50,000). The average number of 28 For those who did not own any homes. bedrooms was 2.7. the average monthly rent was $132.00. Residential pat- terns did not show any clustering of the Pilipinos in one geographical location or section in the area. Resi- dential patterns were dictated by economic reasons, con- veniences (i.e., work location) and preferences of some 262 schools over others for their children. Geographical Mobility Even those who came from rural origins in the Philippines (Table 13) reported having spent part of their lives in urban areas. None of them came directly from rural areas in the Philippines to the U.S. Fifteen (15) respondents (29.4%) reported having had previous foreign travel experience, excluding their trip to the U.S. as immigrants and return trips to the Philippines. The areas travelled to were: Europe, U.S. (before coming as immigrants), Asia and South America. One person re- ported having had several trips to Europe, Asia and South America as a tourist and student. Thirteen (13) families reported coming directly to the area from the Philippines and fifteen (15) resided in and came from other cities in the U.S. before moving to the area. The intermediate areas were: San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Colorado, Kansas, South Dakota, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The average length of stay in the U.S. was seven years, with 5,5 years in the area. The reported reasons for moving into the area as measured by the number of frequencies were: economic opportunity; came with spouse or family; got a better job offer in the area; to study;and preference for less urban 263 (i.e., New York, Chicago, etc.) environment. More than half of the respondents reported that they would still prefer to remainin the area, even if offered a better option (jobs, higher pay, better working conditions, etc.) elsewhere. Among the reasons stated for not want- ing to move out of the area are: satisfaction with pre- sent employment and lifestyle, dislike for "highly urbanized" environment (such as New York, Chicago, De- troit, etc.); do not wish to start all over again; fear of loss of seniority or pension benefits and the presence of peace and order in the area. Exclusive of those who have and used pre-immigra- tion networks, the data suggest that as far as the Pili- pino immigrants in this study are concerned, Midwest City does not offer an attractive disembarkation point in the U.S. Although the majority professed to have re- latives and/or friends that preceded them to the U.S., less than half (10) of the families claim that they had used these pre-immigration networks. The Decision to Migrate; Perceptions and Definitions of the Philippines and the United States Midwest City Pilipinos were requested to declare their reasons for emigrating from the Philippines and for their choice of the U.S. to immigrate to. They were 264 likewise asked to define their perceptions and defini- tions of the situations in the Philippines and the U.S. The data show that the declared reasons for migration were related to their definitions and perceptions of the Philippines and the U.S. Reasons for Leaving the Philippines and Immigrating to the U.S. At a more specific level the respondents' reasons for immigrating to the U.S. complemented their reasons for leaving the Philippines. The reasons fall into two general categories; structural and socio-cultural. As used in this study, structural refer to those aspects of the Philippines and the U.S. that are more removed from individual and social relationships, such as: forms of government, infra-structures, state of the technology, climate, geography, etc. Socio-cultural are the psychol- ogical and/or social aspects of human experience such as culture, values, norms and social relationships and behavior. The reasons for leaving the Philippines and immi- grating to the U.S. that had the highest number of fre- quencies are related to economic concerns, especially occupational opportunities and job offers. However, these 265 apparent economic motives connote more than what the terms normally imply. For instance, it is known that four families in the area come from very wealthy families in the Philippines and continue to maintain their high status there. They are not political refugees. Although they might be making more money here in absolute dollars, especially when the exchange rate is considered, they were actually having a better life in the Philippines in other respects. They had bigger homesin the Philippines, never did any housework since they have servants (one only learned to drive in the U.S., since in the Philip- pines the family always had chauffeurs), and most of all, the family had a very high prestige, status and power in the community which they do not have in the U.S., at least in Midwest City. Some of the reasons for leaving the Philippines may be illustrated by some remarks by the respondents. In the Philippines when you become successful and make money, relatives, friends, organiza- tions think you are obligated to help them. In the Philippines it is difficult to determine the reasons of your success. Is it because of your own abilities, or is it because of the help you got along the way? When you are suc- cessful, all those who have given you help, also think that you owe them something for your success. Of course, we owe others for what we are. That is the essence of Pilipino life com- pared to here. Anyone who can help is obligated to help those who need it. I do not mind that. 266 But sometimes this obligation is interpreted to mean we have to do what the family wants. We are happy to give our family and relatives anything we have. But just because they help us does not mean they tell us what life to ve. We really did not intend to stay out of the Philippines indefinitely. In fact, before martial law (September 1972) we could have gone back and had a better life with servants to do all the work. Now with martial law, we do not know if we will ever go back. (Couple) My choice was joining the family business or practice my profession. I wanted to earn a living independent of the family business. The job market in the Philippines for my profession is bad and the pay is low. So I left. (Male professional) It's hard to plan for one's life and your own family (wife and children) in the Philippines.. You also have to consider helping parents, bro- thers, sisters and other relatives who are less fortunate than you, sometimes at the expense of your own personal advancement. I was making alright for me and my children, but not enough to help others, in exchange for what others did for me. So I had to leave to earn more. We had servants and I did not even have to drive since in addition to the office car with driver, we also had our own family driver. But from what I read and hear about the Philippines, it seems it was good that we left. (Male professional) I think I can only stay here for six more years and with God's help another six in Canada. But I can earn much more during that time than I could in 30 years in the Philippines. I do all kinds of overtime work and substitutions ("cover- ing" up or doing the work of colleagues in exchange for the pay) in order to make enough money to take back. When I can get back, I can set up a small business that will help my mother and sisters make a decent living. Then I do not have to worry about money for them and I can practice my profession, even if the pay is small. (Female professional) 267 Forty-five (45) respondents or 88.2% (23 males and 22 females) said that their reasons for leaving the Philippines have been met by leaving it. Seventy-six percent (20 males and 19 females) said they would have still left the Philippines, even after knowing what they now know. Seventeen (17) males and nineteen (19) females or 70.5% expressed a desire to return to the Philippines if their reasons for leaving it and social, economic,and political conditions are favorable. This hope is sup- ported by the number of respondents who expressed a de- sire to retire in the Philippines, a notion which will be discussed later. Perceptions of the Philippines and the United States The decision to migrate is linked to the respon- dents' perception of the Philippine and U.S. situation. In order to determine the respondents' perceptions of the Philippine and U.S. situations, they were asked to de- clare what theyliked most and what they liked least about the Philippines and the U.S. The information indicated that the decision to migrate was closely associated with their perception and definition of the situation in the two countries. Their perceptions (what they liked most and/or least) of the countries which had a major 268 influence in their decision to migrate revolve around structural economic conditions (job opportunities, better income, opportunity to practice profession); lifestyle; interpersonal relations: and ecological or physical reasons. Under the umbrella of structural economic condi- tions or what they liked most about the U.S. are: better job opportunities, higher standard of living, advanced state of technology, and overall advanced economics and market system that permit a wider and more efficient use of one's resources. Consequently, even if one has a parallel relative SES and occupational station in the Philippines, the efficient management of facilities and availability of consumer's products allows one to have a better lifestyle in the U.S. vis-a-vis the Philippines. What the respondents liked the least about the U.S. and liked the most about the Philippines were the social structure, values, and system of social relation- ships. First of all, they do not like the materialistic values of American society that puts more emphasis on material possessions and efficiency over social relation- ships. At the same time, it is the lack of stronger social relationships in the U.S. that allows them more personal freedom and wider mobility in pursuing alterna- tive lifestyles. These conflicting perspectives set the stage for the choice they have to make in order to pursue 269 meaningful lives for themselves and their families. The following comments illustrate the conflicting perspec- tives (i.e., Philippines vis-a-vis U.S. societal relation- ships) confronting the respondents, and the reasons for their choice, It is hard enough to get a job in the Philip- pines if you do not know anyone powerful enough to help. But here, you can enter into a job on your own. Your progress and promotion in the U.S. depend on you. Not on who can push or pull you. There are jobs in the U.S. for all the members of the family. Even our children can work in jobs like dishwashers or janitors and it will not be considered disgraceful. In the Philippines I was Chief of a division and an executive in the . . . (government institu- tion). My wife was a supervisor in our provin- cial schools. We had a hard time financially. We were behind in payments on our house and lot. Here, working only as a . . . (lower position than the one in the Philippines) for only three years, we were able to pay off our house and lot in the Philippines, most of our debts and I am now paying for a house here. I can afford to take my family on vacations. When in the Phil- ippines, we could not even go to the province where our parents are. Even if a doctor can have the "pull" (influence or connections) to be a chief of a hospital or head of a large unit in the Department of Health, he will still not make enough compared to a resi- dent here. If you are chief, they expect you to be free with helping others. Here, since you are just a resident, no one expects you to have money. Doctors, nurses,and people who help others are not appreciated in pay and benefits. It's the lawyers and the businessmen and politicians who make the 270 money even if they are the major cause of the problems of the country. Here it is not disgraceful to get a good job with a good salary, even if it is below your professional qualifications or social class. In the Philippines, an engineer would prefer to be jobless rather than work as a foreman with higher pay. Everyone wants to be chief or manager in the Philippines. They all want to go to work in a tie or barong (Pilipino formal attire for men) even if the pay is less. Even if there is a better living on the farm, they prefer to be starving as clerks in the city, but at least be dressed well for work. There are, during "normal" employment situations in the Philippines certain blue collar occupations that pay more than those with higher prestige, such as a machine shop foreman or an "engineer" in one of the gov- ernment bureaucracies. However, social constraints pre- vent many people from accepting positions even with good pay, if they are not commensurate with what is considered to be the person's qualifications and social class. In agriculture there is shame in being a "farmer", even if living conditions for being one would actually be much better. Only rural and uneducated people are farmers. On the other hand, many would not mind being "hacienderos" (owner-operator of large scale plantation or "planter"), if they could. Failure to get a job commensurate with one's qualifications and social class is viewed in the 271 Philippines as a failure of the system to provide such jobs. But being employed in a job considered lower than one's educational qualifications is considered a short- coming or failure of the individual. In effect, a person is faced with a choice of getting a better paying job with lower prestige or one with prestige but on a hand- to-mouth existence. The situations become more pressing, when one considers that those who "made it', such as finishing a profession, have the obligation to help those who have not. In a cross-cultural perspective, it means getting a lower status job in the U.S. with enough com- pensation to be able to live a better life and still help family members, or staying on in the Philippines with a prestigious occupation, but with lower pay. A negative perception in the Philippines and the U.S. is peace and order, although more people perceived it as a Philippine rather than a U.S. problem. A nega- tive perception of the Philippines that all respondents mentioned were graft and corruption in the government. A possible explanation for their condemnation of this as- pect of Philippine life is that prior to 1972, there was never a day where some form of graft was not reported in the media. Furthermore, the phenomenon is directly ex- perienced by most people through petty-type graft. Whereas, multi-million dollar scandals do not directly 272 affect people, petty graft from getting a driver‘s li- cense to not getting a traffic ticket is part of daily urban life. People grumble, but accept it as part of dealing with government. There is graft in the U.S. at all levels but it is experienced less or not at all by the Pilipinos, i.e., where giving a clerk "cigarette money" is expected as part of the cost for getting a dog's license.30 Another set of perspectives concern the ecology in terms of climate and cleaner environment (i.e., cleaner streets and public buildings, etc.). Almost all respon- dents perceived and experienced cleaner streets, build- ings, facilities, etc., in the U.S. Most respondents mentioned climate as one of the things they like best in the Philippines and least in the U.S., although the lat- ter refers to Midwest City, which has long and often cold winters. It is obvious that climate is not a deter- rent factor in migration, since this is an aspect of the U.S. which the respondents can do something to remedy themselves. From the preceding,it is apparent that the major immigration determinants of the Midwest City Pilipinos were the structural constraints in the Philippines which prevented a fuller expression and pursuance of their 273 occupations, inability to earn higher incomes, and the per- ception of the absence or lessening of such constraints in the U.S. A minority also expressed some apprehensions on the psychological and social constraints that Philip- pine values and norms place on the individual. A stricter societal control over individuals is not an exclusive Philippine cultural trait. Some people feel less constrained if they are farther from those that know them. In fact, the desire for anonymity and less societal control has been one of the major influences in rural-urban migration across time. This is so specially among the youth, who prefer miserable living conditions in urban slums to more comforts at home, but with paren- tal or family control. The respondents are not against the societal norms that require them to help family members, nor do they resent doing it, since they too expect to be helped if they need it. In fact, the conflict is between this societal obligations and the structure which does not allow them to practice this obligation.) In other words, they would like to help their family members and rela- tives and stay close to them too, but the structure in the Philippines does not allow this. They have to leave the country to earn more (perhaps at a lower prestige job) in order to fulfill their familial obligations. 274 Another determinant in the decision to immigrate is the reciprocal occupational structures in the Philip- pines and the U.S., especially among the professionals. The Philippine structure does not adequately compensate those who wish to practice their professions (i.e., M.D.'s) so they leave the country and get employed in U.S. hospitals in positions that White doctors do not wish to work in and get lower pay. Foreign-trained doctors are welcome provided they do not compete with American doctors. In absolute dol- lars,a lower paid M.D. in a U.S. hospital is still higher than a chief of hospital in the Philippines. In a rela- tive sense, the immigrant professional's situation is no different from the illegal alien who slips across the Rio Grande. It is a well known fact that the Mexican "wetback" is willing to work at jobs and/or under condi- tions that no American (much less a White) is willing to do. But by depriving himself, he can still make more money and improve the living conditions of his family, than if he stayed home. In fact, even the professionals or the highly skilled who are illegally in the country, or whose conditions for staying in the U.S. (i.e., tou- rist, student, visitor, etc.) do not allow them full em- ployment, are in a similar situation. 275 The latter group may fill the jobs that should have gone to those who are legitimately entitled to them (U.S. citizens and immigrants) but who may in fact, have lower qualifications. Employers are just too happy to hire a foreign-trained accountant (who may or may not be an “illegal" alien) to perform an accountant's work and pay them the price of a clerk; or hire a foreign nurse, dentist or doctor or a medical technologist for lower positions at lower pay (Anderson 190:46602-46604; Waldie l973:E095-EO96; Morales 1974). None of the respondents were illegally employed. The graduate students were "employed" as graduate assist- ants as part of their graduate training and/or conditions 3] Even for getting financial educational assistance. those who do part-time work or whose sponsors were em- ployed did so with the appropriate permission from the authorities. However, a good number of the respondents are in jobs or doing work at a lower pay than an Ameri- can would. At a glance, the relatively high income of Midwest City Pilipinos compared with the rest of the po- pulation is impressive. However, considering that they are at least college graduates coupled with their ex- perience, the reported average annual income of a little over $8,000 is not that impressive. ’A few respondents re- ported having to do the leg and/or brain work where they 276 work, but not the decisions. They realize the situations they are in, but at the moment they would rather be em- ployed than not. In general, the perceptions and experiences of Midwest City Pilipinos complement some of the findings of the study on post 1965 immigrants cited earlier. Namely, that what the immigrants liked most about the U.S. was the wider opportunity to pursue occupational/professional goals, earn higher incomes, and more individual and political freedom. And, what they liked the least about the U.S. was the atmosphere of materialism and lack of meaningful social relationships (North 1974:38-41). The Significance of Being a Pilipino in an International Setting The identification of the Pilipino to a smaller group rather than to a larger abstract social construct such as a nation-state has been and continues to be de- bated. One of the announced aims for the suspension of the political process under martial law in the Philippines is the possibility that the elimination of the devisive- ness of partisan politics might channel the Pilipinos' attention towards the nation instead. It is contendedthat regardless of how the Pilipinos identify themselves in the Philippines, being a Pilipino takes a different dimension 277 when they are not in the Philippines. Experiences with Pilipinos abroad (Europe, Asia, U.S. and elsewhere) indi- cate that geographical, social and cultural distance from the Philippines tends to make them identify more to a national entity (i.e., the Philippines, or being a Pili- pino) than with smaller groups within the Philippines. Changes and shifts in international networks likewise affect the people's identifications with other peoples beyond their national boundaries. During colo- nization and immediately after, colonized Third World na- tions identified or aligned themselves with former "mother countries". Pilipinos identified with the U.S. '(or Spain); Indonesia with the Netherlands, India with Britain, etc. The division of the world into a "commu- nist world" vis-a-vis the "free world", again shifted the perceived alliances and extra-national identification of peoples,except for India which pioneered in the policy of "nonalignment" in the region. The effect the spirit of nationalism that guided national independence did not extend to Asian neighbors until the Bandung Conference of 1955. This cross-national identification also affected the Filipino immigrants. The early U.S. Pilipino immi- grants identified themselves as Pilipinos, Americans or 278 as "Filipino-Americans" a term that gained more acceptance during World War II, with the highly publicized war ex- perience of the "Filipino-American Forces", fighting a common enemy (Japanese) (Romulo, 1946:65-66; 139-140; Manuz, 1972:115-120). Unlike the post-Bandung "brain drain" immigrants, the early immigrants have not identi- fied themselves as Asians, "Southeast Asians", etc. The recent attempts by Asians in the U.S. to unify their ef- forts are more confined to their common U.S. experiences; more like "Third World peoples" in an internal colonial system, rather than people from Third World nations wi- thin a wider international system of colonialism or neo- colonialism. How have changes in the international sys- tem affected the social identification of the new immi- grants as perceived and experienced by Midwest City Pilipinos? Social Identification An attempt was made to determine how the respon- dents identified themselves socially before they left the Philippines and after they came to the U.S. From a list of most likely social-identity categories, they were asked to select the three categories in order of prefer- ence (first, second and third) that came closest to how they identified themselves before they left the Philip- pines and after they came to the U.S. 279 Before they left the Philippines. The social identity category that received the highest percentage of frequencies for first, second and third preferences was the family, with eighty percent (80%), for both men and women. Seventy percent (70%) was for first prefer- ence and three and seven percent for second and third preference. The category Pilipino had the second highest highest percentage at sixty-six percent (66%), followed by Philippine language group with fifty percent (50%). Religion had thirty-one percent (31%).32 After they left the Philippines and came to the U;§; The same technique was used to assess how they identified themselves after they left the Philippines and came to the U.S. A few categories were added, they were: (1) Asian, (2) Pilipino-American, (3) American White, (4) American minority, and (5) just American. The cate- gory receiving the highest percentage of frequencies was Pilipino with sixty-two percent (62%), of which twenty- nine percent (29%) were for first and second preference each, and only three percent (3%) for third preference. The next category was identification with the family with forty-seven percent (47%), of which forty-three percent (43%) was for first preference and only one percent (1%) each for second and third preference. The third category to get the highest percentage of frequencies was Asian 280 with thirty-three (33%), of which three percent (3%) was for first preference, seven percent (7%) for second and twenty-one percent (21%) for third preference. The changes inthe pre- and post-immigration social identification of Midwest City Pilipinos may be summarized as follows: (1) identification with the family changed from first to second, (2) "Pilipino" became first prefer- ence from a pre-immigration second preference, (3) Phil- ippine language group dropped from a third pre-immigra- tion preference to fifth and was replaced by 53131, (4) religion remained the fourth pre- and post-immigra- tion preference, although slightly more respondents iden- tified with religion in the Philippines than they did in the U.S. At the individual or psychological level, over ninety percent (90%) of the respondents declared the nuclear and/or extending family as their significant others. These are the people that help shape the indivi- dual's personality of which he becomes a part. A per- son's outlook in life and behavior are guided by what the person perceives as the judgment of the significant other. Significant others are a person's reference groups when making judgments about himself -- what he ought to be and should be. 281 Although the significant others are primarily the persons with whom the individuals normally group up with, they need not be intimate such as family members. People's significant others can change across time and space. They can be a teacher, work colleagues, or even enemies or persons that are already dead. What is im- portant is that the significant others shape the indivi- dual perceptions of himself, his relations with other people and the manner by which he confronts the world (Shibutani 1961:339-341; 421-425; 508-514; Newcomb ££._l- 1965:145-149). Midwest City Pilipinos' significant others conti- nue to be their nuclear and extended families. The im- plication of this is that in an alien environment and in the absence of most of the extended family (parents, siblings, etc.), the latter are influential in their per- ceptions and behavior even if the significant others are not near to offer the emotional and other support that may be needed as a consequence of their being significant others. In a new culture wherein they may not fit or may be confused by its values and norms; where they may en- counter social barriers and/or a dirth of meaningful so- cial relationships; the ultimate judge and reference per- sons are their families, regardless of where they are. These may be illustrated by the following remarks: 282 In the long run, the only thing that matters is the family and family honor. Nothing or no one is worth the loss of a family and family honor. One of the major reasons for leaving the Philip- pines was for more personal freedom from family direction or influence. Even if they are not here and even if they do not actually tell us what to do, we still act as if they are here. When planning major action for the family, we still automatically think of how the family would approve or disapprove. Even in the Phil- ippines, our family did not actually dictate, but we just automatically considered what is good for the family. What others think of me is only secondary to what the family thinks. The family is the best security system. When things are really bad, in terms of money, com- fort and moral support, it is the family that one can depend on. That is why we owe loyalty to the family. Midwest City Pilipinos' Third World Perspectives The respondent's "Third World views or perspec- tives" were elicited by asking them to respond and ela- borate on statements which were either patently pro or anti "imperialist" or "neo-colonialist", The statements were reconstructions from the common rhetoric on the issue as they appeared in the media, specially at the height of the Indochina Conflict. They were devoid of 33 theoretical arguments or empirical data. The responses showed that a good majority (about 70% for both men and 283 women) were anti-"imperialist" or "neo-colonialist", about a fourth expressed no views either way, and only one individual leaned towards an imperialist or neo-colo- nialist perspective. These views are not the results from a sophisticated attitudinal test, they are the 39 Egg views of the respondents. However, some of their elaborations on the issue tend to support the findings. It's about time we stop thinking as Pilipinos, but as Asians. The notion of Asian Communist and non-Asian Communist only divide us as Asians. The ones that benefit are the leading Communist and non-Communist countries. We should stop the powerful nations from taking advantage of us individually and feeling that we cannot survive without them. Actually, if we Asians unite like the Arabs, the powerful nations cannot survive without us. The apparent anti-imperialist and anti-neo-colo- nialist orientation of Midwest Pilipinos may be explained by several factors. First of all, because of their high educational qualifications,they may be more interested and have more access to the literature and inforamtion on the subjects than the average American or Pilipino, in addition to or other than the popular media. This allows them to discern the contours of neo-colonialism and see the meanings behind the veneer of such concepts as the "Communist world" versus the "free world", As noted earlier, Pilipino college youth in the late 1950's and 284 early 1960's were more critical of U.S. foreign policies than their earlier predecessors. And, the demographic characteristics of Midwest City Pilipinos indicate that they belong to that group. Secondly, the “Black is beautiful" concept gene- rated by the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960's, coupled with the emergence and ascertions of Third World (non-White) nations and peoples, was expanded to all non- Whites as beautiful, thereby allowing them to reassess their non-White identities and cross-national and intra- racial identities with some pride. Preferred Marriage Partners for Their Children The respondents' inter-racial perceptions at the micro or individual level showed some departure from ethnocentricity as reflected in their expressed preference of marriage partners for their children. From a list of possible marriage for their children, the respondents were asked for their three preferences for future spouses for their children. Because of the egalitarian sex struc- ‘ture in the Philippines, attempts were made to determine if there were any distinctions between what the fathers preferred as spouses for their sons vis-a-vis their daughters; and what mothers preferred for their sons 285 vis-a-vis their daughters.34 The highest number of choices (percentage of fre- quencies) by both fathers and mothers for their sons and daughters was for the category, "No preference at all, let them marry whom they want." This was followed by: (l) Pilipino/a of the same religion, (2) Pilipino/a raised in the Philippines, and (3) Pilipino/a regardless of religion. In general mothers tend to be more discri- minating on their preferences of future spouses for their children. Both mothers and fathers are more discrimina- ting about the future spouses of their sons, than they are for their daughters.35 The following remarks may provide some clues to the differential attitudes on marriage partners between sons and daughters. I have seen more divorces between Pilipinos married to American women than foreign men married to Pilipinas. (Male) Pilipinos (men and women) are more adjustable to American ways of life. Can American women adjust to Pilipino life as our men and women can adjust to theirs? (Male) It is the men who carry the name and honor of the family. Therefore, it is important whom they marry. (Male) If they (foreign women) live in the U.S., or even in the Philippines provided they are rich and can afford a comfortable life, it is okay to have a foreign wife. But American women cannot adjust to the ordinary Pilipino way of life. (Male)36 286 ilipino woman divorced by a foreign husband 1 not bring dishonor to the family. A ipino divorced by a foreign wife will. (Husband and wife) A P wil Pil The Americans are more independent and less likely to be loyal to the family or to anyone that does not benefit them directly. Their criteria for a marriage is "what is in it for me," and not what shall we all benefit from it. It is therefore important that the wife and mother should be the strongest supporter of the family, its tradition and honor. (Summary of discussion by several males and females.) Although the numerical data (Tables A7 and 8A) indicate a trend towards "modernity". i.e., less ethno- centric among Midwest City Pilipinos with regards to pre- ferred spouses for their children, the remarks and ethno- graphy indicate that the Pilipinos in Midwest City con- tinue to rely on the Pilipino woman to hold the family together and preserve family honor vis-a-vis a non-Pili- pino wife and mother. These findings are in concert with the equal, if not dominant position that women have in Philippine society. Nevertheless, insistence by Midwest City Pilipinos to have more control or direct the lives and futures of their children will be difficult, if not impossible since this value and norm will not be suppor- ted by the social environment they live in. 287 The Shift from Majority to Minority Status and the Implications of Being a "Pilipino Ethnic" One of the significant impacts of the immigration process is the shift from a majority status in their countries of origin to a minority status in the new country.37 Such was the case of the Pilipino immigrants to the U.S., which as noted earlier, are not only a mino- rity, but a minority among the minorities. This shift in status has placed them in a position where they interact with the majority and with other minorities as individual persons and as members of an ethnic minority group. These are reflected in their perceptions, dispo- sitions and experiences as implications of being a - "Pilipino ethnic". Perceptions and Experience on Assimilation, Anglo-Conformity, and/or Cultural Pluralism Earlier studies on the issue of citizenships of earlier White immigrants showed that economic rather than any other reasons was the major motivation for becoming U.S. citizens. It must be noted that this was during the period when there was a strong move to "Americanize" the foreign born and the native American (Gosnell 1928:930- 939; 1929:847-855; HiTT 1919:609-642; Bernard 1936:949- 953; Hartman l948). 288 Thirty-three (33) adult respondents (17 males and 16 females) were not U.S. citizens; this represents 72% of the sample. Among this group, only four were in the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas (exchange students or visitor). Ten (10), including one American, were U.S. citizens and eight chose not to give information on the subject. From among the twenty-nine (29) who are not, but could be U.S. citizens, fifteen (15) said they would consider being U.S. citizens, seven (7) said they would not and the same number (seven) were undecided. The most mentioned reason for wanting to be a U.S. citizen is to assure a better protection of their rights and access to jobs and social services. Twenty-eight (28) respondents reacted to the issue of citizenship for their children. Among these, only four (4) did not want their children to be U.S. citizens, eleven (11) said it was up to their children.38 A recent study of Philippine medical graduates in a large U.S. eastern city showed that a majority of them have expressed a desire to return and set up prac- tice in the Philippines. The proportion of those who in- tend to stay indefinitely abroad (from the Philippines) are higher among those who intend to apply for U.S. citi- zenship and who prefer to raise their children in the 289 U.S. (Griffiths 1974). Among the respondents in this study who did not intend to or were undecided about be- coming U.S. citizens were those who expressed apprehen- sion that by becoming U.S. citizens they may lose the op- tion of returning and re-establishing themselves in the Philippines. Some expressed a desire to become U.S. citizens, but keeping one or more of their children as Philippine citizens in whose names any properties or business they may have in the Philippines could be 39 placed. A few remarks by some respondents on the issue of citizenship, although not representative of the entire group, are insightful to the concerns of this study. If some U.S. born citizens, such as minorities and even Whites can be deprived of their rights, how much more for those who are not. It is a must to be a U.S. citizen. Even then you cannot be assured of equal treatment, but at least you have the right to compalin as a citizen. It is only right that only U.S. citizens be given more privileges than those who are not. After all, this is their country and they can dictate the terms. In the Philippines we have a saying, help your own first before you help others. Americans are extended privileges in the Philip- pines. They can engage in business and even get better jobs outside the government, without be- coming Philippine citizens or immigrants. Why should I? If the Philippine government can limit the acti- vities of aliens in the Philippines, the U.S. 290 has also the right to limit the activities of those who are not U.S. citizens. We probably have more freedom here and less harassed than the Chinese are in the Philippines. Here you are either allowed to stay or asked to leave or at most deported. Immigration officials do not harass you to get bribes like they do the Chinese in the Philippines. The preceding tend to support the findings of earlier studies on the issue of citizenship in relation to U.S. immigrants' efforts in adjusting to the U.S. sys- tem. Namely, that the major motivations to become U.S. citizens were for pragmatic rather than for emotional or other considerations. In the light of the removal of the legal barriers to employment of non-U.S. citizens (but whose status in the country allow them to be gainfully employed), there is even less motivation for immigrants to be U.S. citizens. A majority of the respondents (84%) were disposed towards the cultural pluralism perspective. There was no way of determining how much of these perspectives were influenced by the respondents' own convictions or by the general change in the climate in the U.S. on the issue. A few remarks from the field work may shed some informa- tion on how some of the respondents felt on the issue, although at this point they should be considered as sug- gestive rather than definitive. If the Blacks and Chicanos can manifest their being different and still be Americans, why can't we? 291 Before any American can question my loyalty between the U.S. and the Philippines, they better question the Jews first. We all started the same way as the Jews, Italians, Poles, Japanese, Chinese and other immigrants. Some of us are better and others are not, but politically as ethnics we are a minority. The Jews dictate American foreign policy on the Middle East, on what is good for Israel. 00 you see the Italians dictating American policy on Italy or the Poles on Poland? Why should we be more American than the Ameri- cans? If Americans can question the policies of their country, why can't we? The test of loyalty is how far one does for a country. This was proven by the blood of Pilipinos who fought for America and were not appreciated. Just because I do not agree with some of their habits, does not mean I am not loyal to America and the principles that founded this country. In fact, I believe I am more loyal to America than those who shout about it, but their true flag is the American dollar. They are no dif- ferent than the so-called patriots in the Philippines who make money in the name of nationalism. Almost all the respondents claimed that people (friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc., and even strangers) had asked them questions about the Philippines on almost every aspect of life, from food to politics. None of the respondents was formally asked to speak about or present something about the Philippines during the six months pre- ceding the field work. Most respondents claimed to have been misidentified as belonging to nationalities other than Pilipinos. The ethnic, racial.or national group with which they were identified in order of frequencies 292 are: Chicanos; Chinese; Korean; Japanese; American In- dian, and American White. None expressed any resentment over having been misidentified with other ethnic, racial or nationality groupings. However, the respondents ex- pressed surprise at the limited knowledge that even edu- cated Americans have about U.S. and world history, geo- graphy.and politics. Interracial Perceptions and Experience of Midwest City Pilipinos Less than half (41%) of the respondents claimed they have encountered some form of prejudice and discri- mination since their arrival in the U.S., three of which claim that these were encountered in Midwest City. Al- though forty-one percent (41%) of the respondents claimed to have encountered difficulties in employment and pro- fessional advancement, only three claimed that this was due to prejudice and discrimination. Two of these pre- ferred to move to other less rewarding jobs rather than confront the issue, even if they had some legal basis for staying on their jobs and for future advancement. The follbwing remarks may illustrate how the respondents per- ceive and confront the issue of prejudice and discrimination. 293 Of course the Americans are prejudiced. But after all, this is their country and they can do what they want with it, as long as they do not harm me or my family. Before I got married, I used to go with American girls. I can feel that many people did not like it, by the way they looked at us and the girls also told me. Well, if I am not good enough for their girls, they are not good enough for me either. I went back home and married a Pilipina. I know I am more qualified than those ... ("expletive"). I know it. My family and friends know it and those who are prejudiced against me know it. That is why they are prejudiced. I feel sorry for them. But it is still better than being in the Philippines. As long as they do not harm me, I do not care about their prejudice. I know that those who are prejudiced are very inferior compared to me, otherwise they would not be prejudiced. (Elabo- rating on the term "inferior.") They may have two cars, TV, boat and take vacations to Florida and so on, but as far as their manners and breeding are concerned our servants in the Philippines are better. They are like the new rich in the Phil- ippines, they think their money or diplomas make them superior. The men are more racist than the women. But as long as you do not challenge their manhood, they are okay. If they want to feel like God, let them feel like God, as long as you know by yourself that they are not. Americans are prejudiced. But so are we against the Chinese and the "natives" (tribal minorities) in the Philippines. For every racist American there are a hundred who are not. There is some prejudice against non-Whites. But compared to the Negroes and Indians we are better off. After all, no one forced us to come here. The Negroes were. The worst are the Indians. This was their country and now they are nothing in their own country. 294 When I got my Ph.D., I was lucky to get a good job and pay. My experience is that White male colleagues, my bosses, cannot tolerate a non- White woman coming from an underdeveloped country who seems to know more than they. After a while, I just gave up trying to show my abilities in spite of the contrary advice of my friends (White and non-White, male and female). So I made it appear that any worthwhile idea or work coming from me is theirs. I got apprecia- ted and promoted. The White males are so imma- ture and insecure. But what is important is that my ideas get adopted regardless of who gets the credit and of course as long as I get good pay for it, let them get the honor. Anywhere you go you find discrimination as long as people want to take advantage of other people. Here discrimination is by race. In the Philip- pines it is by class, except for the Chinese. Over there (Philippines) we discriminate against the Chinese, but they exploit us. If only they (Chinese) do not exploit us and our resources, maybe we will not be prejudiced against them. The preceding may be indicative of several pheno- mena that are related to the interracial perceptions of Midwest City Pilipinos in particular and the new Pilipino immigrants in general. Some of the remarks indicate that some respondents have the socio-psychological per- spective of prejudice and discrimination. It is also evident that they are aware of the existence of prejudice and discrimination, but it does not bother them as an abstract issue, as long as it does not affect them directly. They minimize the risk of interracial con- flict by avoiding situations where they are most likely to encounter any prejudice. When they cannot avoid it, 295 they try to minimize the risk of open hostility by "Uncle Tomming" which is best demonstrated in the work place. This consists of not openly challenging claims of superiority by the White man thereby getting more out of him, since they feel secure in their own capabilities and superiority. As one respondent put it, I'I did not come to be liked, I came to earn dollars". The implications of these reactions to perceived or experienced prejudice and discrimination is that, they are more preferred than the factors that motivated their immigration. Whereas, the structure in the Philippines was too limiting for their needs, hence the need to emi- grate, they feel that the structures in the U.S. give them a wider latitude -- to maneuver and avoid or minimize con- flicts, among which is prejudice and discrimination. The strategy of minimizing open confrontation with racism is also reflected in their attitudes and perceptions with other racial or ethnic groups. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the respondents ex- pressed positive attitudes towards Blacks and other mino- rities, 22% refuse to commit themselves, and 20% showed some prejudice towards Blacks and other minorities. Their remarks on the issue will illustrate their attitudes. 296 Negroes, Indians and Chicanos are oppressed and so are we. But not as much as they. For us to join them in their struggle against oppres- sion might put us in the same position. There is more reason for Blacks to fight for their rights than we. They are here and this is their country more than ours. If we join them or demand more, the Americans can tell us to go back where we came from. We are guests and as guests we have to tolerate as much as we can the owner of the house. We do not have the same problems as the Pilipinos in California. Besides, we are small in number to be anything. In California, they have reasons to fight discrimination and have the numbers to be effective. We have enough problems of our own, without adding the problems of others. The findings indicate that although Midwest City Pilipinos have a strong empathy with the problems of other minorities, they are not disposed or prepared to join the latter in their militancy. This covert associa- tion with the other minorities' problem may be explained by their avoidance of situations where prejudice and dis- crimination is likely to exist. An overt association with the civil rights protests of other minorities would place them in the forefront of the racial conflict. Several implications may be drawn from the prece- ding. First of all, avoidance of conflict situations is a cultural trait of the Pilipino personality. If Pili- pinos, when interacting with each other and people they know generally avoid situations where they may be shamed 297 (Phiya"), the more they would avoid being subjected to the same situation by strangers, much less non-Pilipinos, in a foreign environment. Any overt manifestation of prejudice and discrimination would not only bring shame to the individual and his/her family honor, but would also be perceived as an affront to the race. Pilipinos may risk racial slurs when they are in a majority (i.e., in the Philippines), since they would be in a position to redress the shame. However, their minority position in the U.S. does not allow them the means to redress any personal, family, or racial shame that they may be subjected to. Therefore, they will tend to avoid such potential situations. 1 Midwest City Pilipinos' overt interracial ambi- valenCe tend to manifest the attributes of what Stonequist and others contend as typical of culturally marginal in- dividuals or groups. Among them are: tendency to ration- alize their positions; skills in perceiving the contrac- tions and hypocricies of the dominant culture; and being conformists (Stonequist 1937; Goldberg 1941:52-58; Green 1947:167-171; Kerckhoff and McCormick 1955:48-55). Ano- ther explanation is that being Asians and middle class, the Pilipinos in Midwest City would tend to be conserva- tive on the racial issues (Daniels and Kitano 1970:30). 298 A more realistic explanation of the respondents' overt conservatism on the racial issue, and which was sup- ported by some of their remarks, is their awareness of their minority position in the majority-minority struc- ture of relationships in the U.S. Avoidance of open con- frontation with a dominant group is not uniquely Pilipino. Acceptance of a subordinate position instead of challeng- ing it (at least covertly) has been resorted to by indi- viduals and groups to avoid more unpleasant or tragic alternatives (Simmel 1969:135-139). In fact, Blacks and other minorities resorted to avoiding overt resistance to prejudice and discrimination prior to the 1960's, such as by "Uncle Tomming", noted earlier, not only to get more from the White man, but simply to survive (Poussaint 1971:348-356). It took the Pilipinos more than three centuries to finally challenge colonial oppression, pre- judice and discrimination. American history is not with- out lessons on what happens to people who oppose the do- minant group. The resistance of many of the Native Ame- ricans to White domination and opperssion almost resulted in their biological, social,and cultural annihilation. Pilipino immigrants as typified by the respondents of this study are under heavier constraints than the other minorities who have been in the U.S. longer, or are Americans by birthright. Midwest City Pilipinos are well 299 aware that they are not only one of the minorities in American society, but an immigrant and perhaps tolerated minority. This position further limits their boundaries for interpersonal and intergroup behavior. The privilege to immigrate to the U.S. with some leeway for individual freedom and choices, especially to better employment and professional opportunities, is therefore preferred to being right on the racial issue. The Invisible Minority Midwest City Pilipinos' posture of avoiding an overt position on the racial issue can also be explained by the concept of an "invisible minority". Other than their friends, colleagues, neighbors, and a few others, the rest of the population of the area are not aware of the existence of Pilipinos as a minority group. In a sociological sense, they are an "invisible minority". As such, they manage to integrate and participate in or be discriminated against by the system as individuals by individuals under particular situations. Moreover, they cannot be perceived as threats by the majority, thus allowing for smoother integration as individuals rather than as a people through legal sanctions, compared for instance, with the Pilipinos in California. 300 Being an invisible minority also offers certain advantages other than easier economic integration. For instance, they can maintain their cultural integrity or even compromise on certain traits with the majority cul- ture with more freedom and/or less feelings of betrayal of their cultural heritage. An immigrant minority whose existence in an alien environment depends on the tolerance of the host-majority society is not in a strong position to overtly insist on maintaining their cultural integrity, especially if this is perceived as a threat to the cen- tral values of the host culture. To do so would mean risking a cross-cultural confrontation in which the minor- ity groups will end the losers, by having to confront two alternatives. One, the minority group may have to accept the cultural dominance of the majority at the lat- ter's terms and at the expense of those aspects of their culture that they value most; and two, the minority group may withdraw entirely from the environment (U.S.). Any acculturation by the Pilipinos as an invisi- ble minority will be by individual choice rather than by group necessity. The less they are known, the more free- dom they have to maintain their own culture or adopt as- pects of the dominant cultUre that they feel will give more meaning to their lives. Interracial advocacy of Pilipino culture in the area is positive through 301 cultural-type presentations by request. In other words, as an invisible minority, Midwest City Pilipinos can project, instead of justify or defend, their being Pilipinos. Summary and Implications Pilipino residents in a medium-sized city in a U.S. midwestern state were examined. It was established that all were first generation immigrants, and most came to the U.S. after World War II. Except for two who were in college at the time of the study, all had at least a college education; the average individual and family in- come of the group for 1973 was higher than those of the rest of the population for the U.S. and the area. All these are characteristics of the new immigrants or Philippine brain drain.40 Their decision to migrate was precipitated by the social-economic structures in both the Philippines and the U.S., as these are perceived and experienced by the immigrants. These are centered around the following: opportunities for economic and professional advancement; the values and norms that guide social relationships; and ecological factors. Choices had to be made between the positive and negative perceptions and experiences between the two countries. Whereas they miss the meaningful 302 system of social relationships in the Philippines, they were also attracted by the structural opportunities for economic advancement in the U.S. Thus, the overriding consideration to migrate was the perceived benefits the immigrants and their families (both in the U.S. and the Philippines) will derive from such a move. The motives behind their immigration to the U.S. influenced their attitudes and behavior in the new envi- ronment; thus the tendency to maximize the reasons for immigration. These include avoiding situations where prejudice and discrimination is likely to exist; or when it cannot be avoided, attempting to resolve the conflict by minimizing interpersonal or interracial friction or overt hostility. They maintain a conservative position in the American interracial conflict, although they covertly empathize with the problems of the other minority groups, some of which they also share. Strong identification with the family is main- tained, although they tend to have relinquished control on the choice of marriage partners for their children. Beyond their family, the social identification of Midwest City Pilipinos changed over time and space, from identi- fying with a smaller group in the Philippines to the larger ethnic-national construct "Pilipino" in the U.S. 303 Coming from a society where families are closely knit and transplanted in one where it is not, maintenance of strong family ties becomes more crucial. The apparent relinquishment of control by Midwest City Pilipinos over the choice of spouses for their children may in fact be a device to maintain closer family ties dictated by the constraints in their new environment. In the Philippines, children who openly rebel against the nuclear and extended family, risk alienation and even condemnation for a wider network of social relationships. Therefore, families (parents) are more confident that nonconforming members will somehow, at some time, eventually "tow the line". However, as immigrants they live in a social structure that favors less (including familial) control over individuals. An open break from the family may en- tail some alienation from the nuclear or even extended family, but not from the larger society. In other words, the psychological, emotional, and social stress of being a family rebel is less acute in the U.S. than it is in the Philippines. Consequently, Pilipino parents in the U.S. may prefer to relinquish some control and direction over their children and count on the latter's reciprocal individual emotional attachments and loyalty to the family, rather than risk losing them completely by insisting on strong family controls and direction. 304 Allowing for more individual freedom and choices and less family and/or societal control is also an aspect of human behavior often associated with "modernity", as well as a function of social class and level of education (Mayer 1955; Psathas 1957:415-423). Midwest City Pilipinos are a highly educated group. They are middle calss, if not by their income, at least by their lifestyles. These attributes, in combination with their urban-cosmopolitan origins in the Philippines and their exposure to a modern technological society, should make them more modern- oriented than the traditional village-oriented Pilipino. The preceding also explains the change and expan- sion of the respondents' social/ethnic identification from a smaller group in the Philippines, i.e., ethno- linguistic or regional origins, to a larger ethno-national construct ... ”Pilipino", in addition to which is the emergence of a new and more independent (i.e., anti- neo-colonial) form of nationalism in the Philippines during the last two decades. I The findings support similar findings of studies on brain drain migration on the international and trans- national level, which in this case is between the Philippines and the United States. For instance, condi- tions in the Philippines are good predictors of the causes of emigration, while perceived conditions in the 305 U.S. are also good predictors of the destination of Pili- pino migrants. Midwest City Pilipinos still encounter instances of discrimination in more subtle forms, such as unequal rather than barriers to participation in the system. Instances of prejudice and discrimination are perceived and confronted as conflicts that have to be resolved as a price for the larger conflicts that precipi- tated migration. Maintaining a low racial or ethnic profile in the community is one way by which they achieve their needs and pursue their goals. Furthermore, it also permits more freedom in preserving their cultural inte- grity. Ethnicity is maintained through a community of consciousness of the individuals rather than a visible group action. This requires being "Americans" if and when they have to, in order to be Pilipinos. This Chapter examined the structures that led to the immigration and settlement of a group of Pilipinos to Midwest City, U.S.A., as these were perceived and experienced by the group. It also examined the demographic‘ and cultural characteristics of the group and how these affected their perceptions and experiences as immigrants. The next Chapter will look further into the manner by which the structures that precipitated their immigration and the groups' characteristics affect selected aspects 306 of their settling-in process in Midwest City in particular and in America in general. CHAPTER VI THE SETTLING-IN PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION: PATTERNS OF PARTICIPATION AND SOURCES OF TENSION, STRAIN, AND CONFLICT It has been established that the structural con- straints, both in the Philippines and the United States, set the patterns by which the immigrants maximize their participation in the U.S. economic and social system. Although economics was the major determinant for migra- tion, this comprised only a third of the time and energies spent in settling in the new environment. More than half of the migration and settling-in process and experience requires their participation, as individuals and as families, in the sociological and ecological communities they are settled in or are in the process of settling in. Some of these experiences may not be different from the rest of the population. However, as racial and cultural transplants, they will encounter problems that the "natives" do not. One possible source of conflict is the difference between their traditional patterns of interpersonal behavior from those of the U.S. social structures, values, and norms. The patterns of participation and concerns 307 308 related to the settling-in process experienced by Midwest City Pilipinos that were examined are: leisure and recreational behavior; organizational or group participa- tion; mutual aid; and linkages with the old country. Leisure and Recreation The persons or groups of persons the respondents interacted with for most of their leisure and recreation were their fellow ethnics. This included relatives in 4] The second the area, and other Pilipinos in general. most preferred group was non-Pilipinos (together with Pilipinos) of the same occupation, employment, and social class. Exclusive of family ties, the basis for sociation in recreation is mutual interests and congeniality, regardless of race. A person may spend more time with his poker group which may include non-Pilipinos, than he would with other Pilipinos or even relatives. Parties and socials held in homes at which friends and relatives are expected to be invited and expected to attend are common.‘ On the other hand, friends and relatives do not resent not being invited to parties at home, if the events are nonpersonal or nonfamily affairs, such as office parties or professional socials. There is also a great deal of reciprocal travelling to other cities and states to visit relatives and friends. Parties and socials are 309 occasions by which the out-of-town Pilipinos get to know the rest of the community; and if those of mutual interests meet, addresses and phone numbers are exchanged, thus establishing another network with Pilipinos in ano- ther U.S. city, state or even Canada.42 A non-Pilipino trait adopted at social events is the "pot luck" i.e., where guests bring some food to the party. Another change from the Philippine way is helping in the preparation for and cleaning up after the events. There is a great deal of unconvincing protestations of "leave everything to us" but a persistent offer is accepted and appreciated. In the Philippines, contribu- tions in kind, services, and even cash are sometimes expected from close relatives or from the larger group, depending on the event and the resources of the hosts. Others who are invited never think of making offers of goods and services to a host. To do so would be an affront to the hosts' capacity to hold such an event and subject the latter to ”hiya" (shame). Respondents who have been longer in the U.S. and have considerable inter- action with Pilipinos in other areas in the U.S. report that the Pilipino trait of putting up fronts in social events by taking care of everything themselves is still observed by some. The small number of Pilipinos in the area and the close contact they have with each other 310 make it possible for almost everyone to know who everyone is. Putting up fronts is unnecessary and will be resented. It might also risk alienation from the community. A common remark made among Pilipinos is that Americans have parties all the time, at which hardly anything is served and to which guests even bring their own refreshments. In the Philippines, no one puts up a party without serving a sumptuous feast. To invite people to one's home and offer potato chips and beer would subject the host and the guest to "hiya" (shame). Indeed, it has been often argued that one of the causes of the slow development of the individual income base of the Pilipinos and a national capital formation is the Pilipino syndrome for partying. Using a year's savings or even going into debt to put up a fiesta is not unusual (Manglapus 1964:89-102). Good food is still desirable at Pilipino parties in the area, although they are not as overriding a concern as they would be in the Philippines. When more than usual "American" variety of food is served, the remarks are ... "it's just like in the Philippines". People go to other cities and states (or Canada) to get Pilipino food and condiments. At parties, the offer of services by others to cook certain dishes are appreciated and in some instances requested, with the host offering to pay all or part of the expense involved. 311 There is very little entertainment outside the home, such as in restaurants, except for purely family affairs and small groups. When a potential host's home is too small, another is used. Entertaining outside one's home has never been a traditional Pilipino trait. The custom has been an imported trait which urban and better economically situated Pilipinos have readily adopted. The traditional Pilipino hospitality involves a large investment in self and family esteem wherein one tries to put the best foot forward. To refuse what is offered for 'almost any reason is to insult the person offering. En- tertaining outside one's home can be interpreted to mean that the host is ashamed of his home or that the guests are not welcome to it, shades of the phenomenon of "hiya" operating both ways. Lately, however, entertainment in commercial establishments has become a status symbol. Entertaining in one's home is generally cheaper than in restaurants, as one is never short of friends and rela- tives (who often outnumber the guests) willing to help in the cooking, serving, and "mopping up" operations. It is however, the expense involved in entertaining in commer- cial establishments that gives it status. Another Pili- pino trait is bringing home from the party, leftover food and delicacies. At almost all parties and dinners, the host invariably provides containers and wrappers 312 (or guests are told to bring their own) so that guests can take back to their homes food from the party. The practice is commonly called "pa-balot" (to wrap) or "bring-house" (a Pilipino derivation of the English, bringing food to one's house from another's). This is another reason why public places are not always used for entertaining in the Philippines. Most of the non-Chinese restaurants in the Philippines frown on the "pa-balot“ or “bring-house" custom. On the other hand, aside from the attraction of Chinese food itself, the "pa-balot" system is one of the major attractions of Chinese restaurants.43 Midwest City Pilipinos prefer to entertain in their own homes. Another reason is that area restaurants do not serve "good food" (as defined by them) and that entertain- ing in them is of course more expensive than entertaining at home. Several times a year, the Pilipino community holds picnics and parties. The latter are held either in larger homes or in rented spaces in private clubs, churches, or educational or community halls and parks. Most of the Pilipinos and non-Pilipinos look forward to these occa- sions to eat Pilipino food and delicacies, but most of all, these affairs are occasions where they can get together as friends and as Pilipinos and where they can shed their "Americanized" traits as they enter the door. Except for a few, the non-Pilipinos (mostly Americans) 313 attending these parties are very familiar with Philippine customs and Pilipinos, and therefore, also look forward to the ethnic atmosphere of these socials. There are very few Pilipino mixed marriages to allow a realistic examination of their patterns of behavior vis-a-vis the other Pilipinos. The only discernible pat- tern of behavior is seen at Pilipino parties and presen- tations, in which most of the non-Pilipino spouses parti- cipate. There are undercurrent feelings about mixed Pilipino marriages; these are hinted at, implied, but never quite expressed in the open, and they reflect expressed preferred marriage partners for the Pilipino children. Although all Pilipinos are very protective of Pilipino women in general, there is a feeling that it is the Pilipino husband who may be in trouble in a mixed marriage, whereas the women can take care of themselves. None of the respondents could give any reason for this "feeling“ except the observations that there have been more broken marriages between Pilipino husbands with foreign wives, than the other way around, although these actual experiences may have been exceptions rather than the rule. Although there is a general disfavor of "henpeckedness" inter-racially, a henpecked Pilipino husband of a foreign wife is resented, just as a wife abused by a foreign husband is,for these are considered as assaults on the race. 314 Participation in Organizational Behavior Midwest City Pilipinos have taken advantage of the use of formal organizations, not only to enhance their economic and professianal/occupational goals and careers, but also to have some participation in those concerns that affect their day-to-day lives as members of the communi- ties they live in and as Pilipino ethnics. Eleven respondents, or twenty-one percent (21%) said they belonged to professional organizations in the Philippines and thirteen,or-twenty-five percent (25%) said they belong to professional organizations in the U.S. The majority of these had academic oriented or professional educational attainments. Forty-five percent (45%) said they kept in touch with the latest developments in their profession in the Philippines and fifty-four percent (54%) said they did so in the U.S. In addition to membership in professional organizations, other ways of keeping in touch with their profession was by subscriptions to pro- fessional literature, attending conventions, seminars and meetings, and by direct personal contacts. As in member- ship in professional organizaitons, the majority of those who kept in touch with the developments in their profes- sions were those with graduate and professional degrees. 315 Compared with other minorities in the area, such as the Blacks and Spanish-speaking, the Pilipinos do not be- long to any single parish or church. They are affiliated with various parishes or churches. At least one member of the family belongs to a parish, a community or a school (PTA, etc.) organization, and some have been or are offi- cers of these organizations. Some belong to civic or fra- ternal organizations such as the Jaycees, Knights of Co- lumbus, etc. The patterns of organizational and commu- nity participation of Midwest City Pilipinos, is also in- dicative of their choices and capabilities in terms of areas of residence. They are not concentrated in any one section of the area, and their residential patterns are dictated by such choices and capabilities as proximity to school, places of work, and price range of the homes rather than by geographical segregation. Some EXPFESSEd a wish to have a Pilipino center where Pilipinos could get together more often and where their children can be socialized with the old culture. But they were in a very small minority. There is however a local Pilipino Club which was originally organized as a campus organization for the transient Pilipino students at the University. The Club is also open to non-Pilipinos, most of whom are Americans who have been to the Philippines and/or who maintain networks with Pilipinos in the area 316 and in the Philippines. Since the number of Pilipino students never exceed thirty (30) at any one year, most members have been nonstudents, although students have been traditionally elected as officers. The Club serves as the means by which Pilipino residents moving to the area and students get introduced to the Pilipino community. Another function of the Club is to provide a rallying point and leadership whenever the University or community requests for presentations or representation from the Philippines on social, cultural and civic events. It has very few socials a year, which is one of the complaints against it. Once the students and new residents get introduced to the community, they develop their own societal networks among the older resi- dents which are based on various factors discussed ear- lier. It does not take long for the students to acquire "host" families among the Pilipino residents. There are only two Pilipinos in the area who could be classified among the early immigrants.44 Their being from another era does not set them apart from the current younger group of immigrants since they also belong to pre- ferential and congeniality groupings and participate in Pilipino affairs when they can. During the four years that the researcher has interacted with Midwest City Pili- pinos, as well as during the field work and interviews, 317 there had been no negative or even condescending atti- tudes expressed by the new immigrants towards the old timers. In fact, any reference to them is always in awe and admiration for what they had to live through. When the "OT's" recall their early experience, it is never referred to as "the good old days" but rather as those terrible early years. Mutual Aid and Assistance The persons, group of persons or organizations that were approached most for individual or family pro- blems involving finances were financial institutions (banks, credit unions, finance companies, etc.). The second preference were relatives in and out of the area, followed by Pilipino friends in the area. The strong preference for relatives (in and out of the area) as the persons to approach for financial assistance still re- flects the Pilipino expectations from the family. The high preference for gesellschaft-type organizations, is dictated by several factors. Among them is the change in the structural network. of sources of financial assistance from the Philippines to the U.S., such as the lack of relatives that would be in a position to extend large amounts (i.e. $500 or more) or direct aid, or long-term (interest free) loans. Secondly, this void has 318 been filled by formal financial institutions which are relatively easily accessible to middle or even lower income groups, whereas in the Philippines these were accessible only to upper-middle classes and those below them had to resort to loan sharks. ,Moreover, their im- proved financial status has given them a better position to secure loans based on their capacity to pay. Also their occupation and/or professional network afforded them access to such organizations as credit unions. The accessibility of formal financial institutions and the availability of ready funds has relieved the Pilipino of the ordeal of seeking financial assistance from nonrelatives, thus avoiding confrontation with two major traditional norms. They are the norms of "hiya" (shame) and "utang na loob" (social indebtedness). Securing assistance from outside of one's family or group is one of the interpersonal situations where an interme- diary is often used. The respondents' feelings on the issue may be illustrated by the following remarks. Why should we approach them (other Pilipinos in the area who are not relatives or “close" friends) for money. To do so would be to admit that we are not as good as they. "Na kaka hiya" (it is shameful). In the bank, whether they give you a loan or not, your need for money is confidential. We all know what our incomes and expenses are. I do not mind asking for small loans from Pilipinos, payable in a short time. But to 319 ask them for a large loan, that they may not be able to afford, would only embarrass them, since they cannot help even if they want to. When you borrow from a bank and pay it that is the end of it. But when you borrow from others on a personal basis, even if you pay for it, you will have an "utang na loob" (social indebtedness). Another behavior indirectly related to financial needs is the borrowing or asking for some material needs. This can be in the form of second hand clothes, furniture and appliances. Those who have, voluntarily offer such items to those who don't have and might find need for them. This is not done in the Philippines, except with members of the family, and on purely charitable basis. The ex- ceptions to these are deaths or misfortunes, where money is collected and given to the victim or survivors, which cuts across social-economic classes. The rich, of course, are expected to contribute, but they do not refuse con- tributions from the poor under these circumstances. Al- though charitable situations are avoided, offers of help cannot be refused, since this may reflect badly on the giver. To this researcher's knowledge, there has not yet been such a misfortune visited to any of the Pilipinos in the area. But if there would, there is no doubt that fellow Pilipinos will help. Sympathy with people and the urge to help them in midsts of misfortunes, particularly if the latter are 320 beyond the victim's control, is not an exclusive Pilipino trait. However, for the traditional Pilipino, an addi- tional motivation of this "normal" human reaction is the operation of the value of reciprocity in both the concrete and abstract forms, and perhaps more so of the latter. Note the following: Helping people in need whether they recognize it or not, is a sure guarantee that when you need help you will get it. If not from those you help, at least from others. No debt remains unpaid. Sooner or later all debts will have to be settled one way or the other. We can never be sure of what the future will be for us or our families. If we help people now, who knows that one day another will help one of our children in need. Life is like a wheel. At one time you are up, at another time you are down. If you help those who are down, you will also be helped when it is your turn to be down. The last remark reflects another traditional Pili- pino value, that of viewing life as a cylce beyond one's control, as expressed in ”gulong ny palad" (the wheel of fortune) or "bahala na" (let God's will be done). For the modern educated Pilipino, the wheel of fortune outlook is no longer prevalent. But only a few have abandoned the belief in God's ultimate will and desires for us (Manglapus 1964:89-97). Events that defy the most rational explana- tions and reasons ultimately have to be the will of God. Political graft and corruption is often also viewed with indifference with the same "wheel of fortune" attitude, 321 i.e. "let them enjoy it now ... some day they are going to get it" ... or worse, "now it's their turn, next time it will be ours." Predictably, relatives in and out of the area were the most preferred persons to approach for nonfinan- cial needs and problems. The data indicates that the family is still perceived as the major source of support, however, due to its limitations (distance, number and re- sources) in the U.S., the Pilipinos have to resort to other groups or institutions. These are: Pilipino friends in the area and friends regardless of race. In general, unlike financial needs, Midwest City Pilipinos tend to seek the assistance of fellow ethnics and/or those with whom they have gemeinschaft-type relationships for their nonfinancial needs and problems. A small proportion of the Pilipinos in Midwest City expressed willingness to approach government or non- government welfare-type agencies for assistance. Nineteen percent (19%) were willing to approach a government agency and 13% were willing to approach a nongovernment agency. The type of assistance sought were unemployment pay, subsidized housing and loans, scholarships.and work com- pensation. This information is consistent with the re- ports that among the minority groups in the U.S., the Pilipinos were the ones who used welfare agencies the 322 least, in spite of the fact that many need and are en- titled to such assistance. Ethnic pride and the fear of low esteem by fellow Pilipinos both in the U.S. and the Philippines are among the major motivations that keep them from being associated with welfare-type institutions. Seeking and extending assistance is traditionally a highly personalized type of behavior suited to gemein- schaft-type groups and relationships such as rural vil- lages or closely knit neighborhoods. While cities were and are never lacking in beggars, one rarely, if ever, encounters them even in the poorest and/or traditional villages. Seeking assistance from strangers such as begging in streets is an urban phenomenon; seeking assistance from gesellschaft-type organizations is a rela- tively modern form of sociation, associated with complex societies where the traditional forms of seeking and extending assistance are disappearing: The early Pilipino immigrants as well as the elderly new immigrants as exemplified by Midwest City Pilipinos are still constrained from seeking assistance under gessel- schaft-type transactions in spite of the fact that the latter are better educated and come from urban origins in the Philippines. Avoidance of being objects of charity is not a unique Pilipino trait. The proliferation of information 323 and rhetoric on the "welfare mess" and "welfare reforms" often becloud the issues involved in public assistance. A conservative perspective is that a good number of people on welfare are "loafers" and "cheats" who prefer to be on the dole than get employed while a few are "victims" of circumstances beyond their control and therefore should be pitied and given some charity. A liberal perspective is that people who need assistance should expect and get it as a matter of right; and that the reason why many "able-bodied" persons are unemployed and therefore should be entitled to public assistance is the failure of the system to provide meaningful employment. Moreover, in spite of the fact that there are more Whites than any other race or ethnic group on welfare, being a recipient of welfare is often associated with the non-White minori- ties (Piven and Cloward 1971; Ryan 1971). Being of middle class, the new Pilipino immigrants tend to follow the conservative perspective on welfare. They also tend to believe that avoiding welfare will mean avoiding being overtly associated with the racial minorities and therefore the racial conflict thus main- taining their racial or ethnic invisibility. However,, there is a tendency among the younger Pilipinos to take the liberal position on public assistance, just as they tend to be more overt on their empathies with the other 324 racial minorities on racial issues. In brief, the Pilipino immigrants' position on public assistance in the U.S. may be influenced by cross- cultural, social and inter-generational factors. The older Pilipinos are still constrained by the Pilipino value and norm of "hiya" (shame) associated with seeking assistance from outside one's family or "barangay". From among the younger and/or new immigrants who are or aspire to be or wish to be perceived as middle-class, some tend to take the conservative perspective on both public . assistance and racial issues. On the other hand, Pilipino values and norms may no longer have as strong an influence among the young, who are more disposed to take a liberal stance on both public assistance and racial conflict. Linkages with the Philippines Through Correspondence and Media Forty-nine (49) respondents (26 males and 23 females) or 96% expressed concern about what is happening and will happen to the Philippines. All mentioned fami- lies (siblings, parents, and other relatives) as the reason for this concern. Forty-three (43) or 84% reported maintaining direct and regular links with families, friends and former colleagues by correspondence. A majority of them also keep themselves informed about the Philippines 325 through the media. They follow news items and reports in the U.S. media, as well as those in Philippine newspapers and media published in the U.S. and through new arrivals (new immigrants, transients or, those returning from a trip to the Philippines). Financial Linkages Another way by which linkages are maintained is by remitting money to the Philippines either on a regular basis or on certain occasions such as birthdays, emer- gencies, etc. by those who intend to stay in the U.S. indefinitely. In 1973, thirteen (13) respondents or families remitted some money to the Philippines on a regular or occasional basis. Of these, ten (10) intended or could stay in the U.S. indefinitely, whereas three were either in the U.S. on temporary work visas or had no intention of staying any longer than they have to, which is to earn money to send or take back to the Philippines. The ten (10) respondents or families sent a total of $7,000 to the Philippines on a regular basis. The largest single remittance per family was $1,000 (one case) and the smallest was $200 (three cases). The average amount remitted to the Philippines on a regular basis for 1973 was $750. Eighteen (18) respondents or families sent a total of $4,450 on an occasional basis in 326 1973. The largest single amount remitted on this basis was $1,000 (one case) and the smallest was $50.00 (three cases). The average amount sent on an occasional basis in 1973 was $2,470.00. Less than twenty percent (20%) of the sample remitted money to the Philippines on either basis in 1973. In terms of amounts, these represent a small percentage of the mean or median incomes of the group. Individual or family incomes were unrelated to the amounts remitted. The only possible but inconclusive relation is marital status. Eight out of the eleven (11) single men and women included in the study remitted some money to the Philippines either on a regular or occasional basis. Other possible explanations for the small remit- tance could be that the respondents' families in the Philippines may be relatively well off and did not need assistance from their kin in the U.S., or that area Pilipinos could not afford to remit large amounts of money. These amounts are all cash remittances and they exclude the value of goods and gifts sent. Very few sent gifts or goods; money was sent instead. The major reasons are fear of the goods being lost in transit, strict customs regulations, high duties, and the facility of sending money on a bank-to-bank basis or through personal friends. 327 Among those who agreed to provide information on where they are investing or intend to invest any surplus income, 25% expressed a desire to invest or are actually investing exclusively in the Philippines, 20% in the U.S. only, and approximately 50% in both the U.S. and the Philippines, with the rest inclined to invest outside the two countries (i.e., South America). While investments preferred in the U.S. were real estate property (mostly the home where they live), stocks, bonds, and securities, the most preferred investment in the Philippines was land (agricultural and real estate). In the case of both the Philippines and the U.S., the major purpose for investment is for emergency or retirement income, rather than for supplementary current or future incomes. Social and Sentimental Linkages Fifty percent (50%) of the respondents claimed they used at least one of the Pilipino languages at home; 20% used only English and 30% used a combination of Pilipino languages, English, and Spanish.45 Almost all Midwest City Pilipinos reported serving at least one Pilipino meal a week, and about a third said they have Pilipino food at least three times a week. The material and condiemnts are obtained through local stores and from out of the area and state. 328 Desired places of retirement may be dictated by practical as well as emotional considerations. This study assumes the position that, when all practical con- siderations are met, emotional considerations become a deciding factor in the choice of a retirement place. For Pilipinos, this means proximity to one's relatives and cultural roots. Table 16 shows the respondents' reactions to the question of where they wish to retire, if they had the choice or the means. Table 16. Desired Place Of Retirement Of Midwest City Pilipinos Desired Place of Retirement Total Males Females Total (Number of Cases) 100% (51) 100% (27) 100% (24) 1) Philippines 52 (27) 40 (ll) 66 (16) 2) U.S. 11 (6) l4 (4) 8 (2) 3) Elsewhere ll (6) 7 (2) 16 (8) 4) Undecided or No Response 23 (12) 37 (10) 8 (2) NOTE: "Elsewhere" includes: Spain, South America and "any place far from civilization". The reasons for their particular choices varied and related to the choice of place, as indicated by the following remarks. 329 Philippines It's my home, that is where I was born, that is where I want to die. Relatives and friends are there. With a dollar pension or social security payments from the U.S. we can live more comfortably in the Philippines. Over here, with the same amount it will be hand-to-mouth existence; we may even depend on handouts from others to survive. People respect and take care of the old in the Philippines. There, the old are appreciated, they are useful to the young and most of all, are taken cared of. Here, if they are no longer economically productive, they are left to rot. I have worked in nursing homes and I do not want to end there. U.S. and Elsewhere It's the best place to retire, if you can afford it. It's where all medical facilities are available-(U.S.) It offers more options for people on what to do after retirement. (U.S.) It is a combination of the Philippines and the U.S. (Spain and South America). Undecided Any place where economics is not the major thing to determine how you can live your last days as a human being. Whereever we can be assured of our physical needs in our last days. A person should be free from that worry after he retires. He should concentrate on things he could not do 330 before. A person who is free from trying to survive will be more useful to society. Ten (10) respondents reported having made a total of fourteen (14) return trips to the Philippines for visits, since becoming immigrants. Three try to return to the Philippines regularly, i.e., every two years. All of Midwest City Pilipinos expressed a desire to return to the Philippines for visits, but were prevented from doing so by economic and other reasons. Familial Relations and Related Areas As Centers of Change and Conflict Like most peoole, Midwest City Pilipinos, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, experience and have to confront conflicts that are associated with changes in the social structures, values, and norms in the environ- ments in which they live. In the case of immigrants, migration may either exacerbate the conflicts or reduce it. In fact, one of the motivations behind migration is a desire to leave one's set of social structures, values, and norms for another in another culture. The aspects of the experiences and perceptions of Midwest City Pilipinos studied were: child-rearing (in the Philippines vis-a-vis the U.S.); their views on divorce, family planning (without abortion), and abortion; and their perceptions and experiences on the status of women in the U.S. vis-a-vis the Philippines. 331 Child-Rearing in the Philippines and the United States In a society that stresses strong allegiance to the extended family, the socialization of the succeeding generations to the values and norms of the family is a major concern. Within the Philippines itself, parents have been lamenting the widening gap between them and succeeding generations. For immigrants, the generational problems are compounded by cross-cultural differences. The problem of generational gaps between first and second and succeeding generations of immigrants have and conti- nue to hold the interest of Pilipinos in the U.S. From more serious scholarly studies to popularized versions in the press, stage, radio, television and motion pictures, the subject is of continuing concern to a large segment of the population, natives and immigrants alike. To justifiably examine the numerous studies on child-rearing in the Philippines and the U.S. would require several studies in themselves. What is essential however, is the manner by which child-rearing is experienced and perceived by people who are confronting the issue in their day-to- day lives, such as the Pilipinos in Midwest City. The common theme among these are the clash of values, norms, attitudes, and consequent behaviors between the generations and their identities. The intensity of 332 the civil rights movement in the 1960's has generated interest on the negative effects that race relations had on the problem of the identities of other non-White minorities such as the Blacks and the Indians (Fishman 1961; Erikson 1966:145-171; Strodtbeck 1971:305-32; Poussaint 1971:348-356 and Baratz and Baratz 1971:470-491). Early Asian (Pilipino, Chinese, and Japanese) immigrants did not have any child-rearing problems in the U.S. inasmuch as most did not have any families with them. Social barriers to socializing with the majority, anti- miscegenation laws, their own religious beliefs, ethnic pride, and negative attitudes towards other minority groups prevented them from inter-marrying and raising families (McWilliams 1939 and 1942; Lasker 1939; and Catapusan 1940). It was the Pilipinos that came just prior to World War II and since, who have had their families with them and have intermarried. Their children are now teenagers and young adults, and their parents are encountering the same problems that other immigrants with families have encountered. The problem of identity has become more acute because of their being non-White, which is being aware of one's ethnicity, but afraid of establishing it publicly in a racist society. The conflicts encountered by Pilipino immigrants in raising children in the U.S. 333 are encountered on the intra and inter-group level. Quite often, the problem is focused on parental or family control versus more individual freedom which is idealized by the host society. Thus the problem on this issue alone is not only cross-cultural but trans-generational and inter-SES as well. In a study of Southern Italian and Eastern Euro- pean Jewish immigrants, Psathas (1957:415-423) found that when ethnicity was controlled, social class became a major determinant on the issue of parental control over the children's development and behavior. Those in the lower classes were more permissive on children's age-related activities outside the home, but more authoritarian in the home. On the other hand, middle class parents allow more autonomy in judgments, but exert more control on out of the home activities. Hayner and Reynolds (1937:630- 658) report that the Chinese had attempted to adopt what they considered to be the best of the two worlds in raising their children on the assumption that, as social barriers are lifted, the faster the integration of their children would be into the mainstream. However, other barriers to integration and assimilation made the children retreat back into their own ethnic group, thus making it easier for parents to train their children in the old values. 334 For the Pilipino family, the conflicts in educating children in a new environemt is more concentrated on family control vis-a-vis demands for more autonomy by the individuals. The problems are not only intra-familial but also inter-group as well. Parents are often accused by children of not being aware of the "changing times" and children are likewise accused of disregarding parental deference and honor. Whereas older immigrants were forced to be content with the racial status quo in order to survive and encourage children not to rock the racial boat, their children (following the lead of the Blacks, Chicanos, and other racial minorities) are now more arti- culate and vocal in protesting their status. The recent rise of ethnic consciousness and pride has made the problem of making children conscious of their heritage less of a problem than it once was (Monuz 1971:49 and Morales 1974:102-111). A major concern that parents in the area have expressed is the limited interpersonal relations that their children have with other Pilipino children. The demographic characteristics and distribution of the Pilipinos in the area do not allow a matching of age, sex, and interests groups among the Pilipino youth. By and large, the children's recreational and leisure time is spent with non-Pilipino classmates and friends, in 335 addition to their own families. It is not that the Pili- pinos in the area are ethnocentric with respect to the desired friends for their children. In fact, friendships with "good American" children are encouraged, especially if these children are "raised like Pilipino children" (i.e., they show respect for parents and authority). 0n the other hand, interaction with Pilipino children (not in the area) who are "too Americanized" are discouraged. A major motivation for the inter-city and inter-state traveling and visiting is to allow their children the opportunity to meet and visit with cousins and other Pilipino children. In spite of the limited number of Pilipino children with which their own can interact with in the area, this is often preferred to other urban centers where difficulties of raising children are per- ceived to be more difficult. Another major source of anxiety of Midwest City Pilipino parents is in the area of school and related school-youth environment. Among these are: lack of respect for elders and authority; materialistic outlook in life; too much emphasis on rights and not on obliga- tions; too much emphasis on competition instead of cooperation and concern for others; "wrong type of independence" (i.e.,"doing their own thing", without regard for its consequences on the family and others); 336 and juvenile problems associated with drug addiction, alcoholism, pre-marital sex and teenage pregnancies. Some of these are not post-immigration problems since the same problems are being faced by parents in the Philip- pines. What makes them acute in the U.S. is the lack of assistance and support for the nuclear family when they are unable to cope with them. Another dimension, although not a very serious one in the area, is the ability of teenagers to be able to secure some financial independence from parents through part-time employment. The following typify the concerns of parents on these issues. No one can be sure of how our children will grow up. Outside influences are too strong sometimes. But, in the Philippines, if we (parents) cannot control them, we can always depend on a relative, who can. But here we have to do it ourselves or depend on counselors. It's hard to see the other Pilipinos, besides we do not have the same problems. The children today think they are better than us. Just because we are here in the U.S. they can earn money and do not need us very much financially, they do not have to tell us who their friends are, where they go, and what they are doing. The problems of raising children resulting from migration are resolved in favor of what is perceived to be the greater good for the family in the long run. Trade-offs have to be made between Unaold norms and those that are required by the new social structure. As the 337 same efforts are made to maintain as much of the old norms as possible, as illustrated by thefbllowing observations: At least here, the children can have a few things that we could not afford to buy them in the Philippines. In the Philippines we had to pay for almost everything hithe children's education: tuition, lunch money, bus, uniforms,and contributions. Here almost everything is free, even food if you are poor. We used to think it was good to be at a place where there are plenty of Pilipino children. But after hearing about the Pilipino youth gangs in Califnonia, we are glad we are not there. There are better school facilities here and teaching aids, whereas the public schools in the Philippines have hardly any decent class- rooms. Here we do not have to send them go private schools to get a good education.4 There is more opportunity for higher education, even if the parents cannot afford it. There are scholarships, and the children can work part-time to help defray expenses for their own education. After we arrived here, we laid down the rules. Just because we are no longer in the Philip- pines does not mean we will have to abandon some Philippine customs, like respect for parents. From the preceding, it is evident that the new Pilipino immigrants as exemplified by Midwest City Pilipinos, also experience the same problems experienced by American parents, although there are some problems that are unique to their being Pilipinos. First of all, the universal problems of Pilipino and other parents in 338 almost every generation is what is commonly known as the "international gap". However, a unique problem experienced by the respondents was the absence of the extended family which provide the moral, emotional,and other forms of support in raising children. Since there are very few families in the area, the Pilipinos are a little appre- hensive of the age-sex imbalance of Pilipino children and youth, since this would curtail their mixing more with fellow ethnics as well as their socialization in the old culture. The rearing of children and the socialization of succeeding generations is still a function of the extended family or the "barangay" even from among educated, urbanized, and middle to upper class Pilipinos. Whenever the nuclear family cannot control some of its members, some relative/s could. To seek professional help outside the extended family is avoided, since this may reflect on the inability of the family to "take care of its own" and thereby bring "hiya“ (shame), not only to the nuclear but also to the entire extended family. Consequently, the absence of the extended family in the new environment exacerbates the problem of rearing children and social- izing them in pre-immigration family customs, and tradi- tions, and modes reminiscent of the old culture. Except for a few close "family friends", Midwest City 339 Pilipinos have to resort to professional help outside the family such as the parish priest, school and commu- nity counselors, and even paid professional services whenever they encounter child-rearing problems. There is however, a consoling aspect in this manner of handling child-rearing difficulties. Problems handled by professional-type persons or institutions are usually done with more confidentiality than they would be by the traditional gemeinschaft-type networks. In addi- tion, the geographical distance from the old country reduces the chances of the families, friends and neigh- bors from knowing that the family in the U.S. has family problems and that assistance from outside the family was resorted to. This is but one phase of the host of other conflicts brought about by migration and these have to be resolved. Pilipinos rationalize that these problems are offset by the advantages of having their children in the U.S. and in the area. Among cited advantages are: the better equipped schools, better opportunities for higher education, more chances of getting higher-paying employment without a college education, and the improved economic situation of the parents that allow them to provide more for their children in the U.S., compared to what they could have, had they stayed in the Philippines. 340 Divorce, Family Planning, and Abortion The respondents were asked for their views on divorce, family planning or natural birth control, and abortion. These issues are not only potential sources of psychological and intra-familial conflicts in both societies, but are also indicative of cross-cultural implications as a result of migration. Analysis of the raw data did not indicate any trend of relationships between the respondents' Views on these issues with other variables such as income, education, length of stay in the U.S., or marital status. Table l7. Disposition 0f Midwest City Pilipinos 0n Divorce Dispositions or Attitudes Total Male Female Total (Number of Cases) l00% (51) l00% (27) l00% (24) Favorable 43 (22) 55 (ll) 29 (7) Unfavorable 35 (l8) 33 (9) 37 (9) No Response or Don't know 2l (ll) ll (3) 33 (8) Less than one-half (43%) of the respondents were favorable to divorce, men (55%) favored it more than the women (29%). From the group favoring divorce, four men 341 out of eleven and two women out of seven favored divorce only as a last resort, i.e., if continuance of the marriage would be detrimental and/or would bring shame to the families involved. Table 18. Disposition 0f Midwest City Pilipinos Towards Family Planning Without Abortion And Abortion Family Planning (Excluding Abortion) Total Male Female Total (Number of Cases) 100% (51) 100% (27) 100% (24) Favorable 82 (42) 77 (Zl) 87 (2l) Unfavorable l (2) 3 (l) - No Response l5 (8) l9 (5) l2 (3) Abortion (do) (do) (d ) Total (Number of Cases) lDO% (5l) l00% (27) l00% (24) Favorable ll (6) 15 (4) 8 (2) Unfavorable 61 (31) 55 (l5) 66 (l6) No Response 27 (14) 29 (8) 25 (6) Eighty-two percent (82%) of the respondents showed a favorable attitude towards family planning, with the women (87%) being more favorable than the men (77%). Only 342 eleven percent (ll%) of the respondents favored abortion. The men seem to favor abortion more than the women (15% versus 8%). Among those favoring abortion (four men and two women), one male and two females favored abortion only to save the health and/or life of the mother. The preceding data indicate that Midwest City Pilipinos are trying to maintain those traditional values which they find most important, but are also predisposed to change those they consider less relevant in their pursuit of a more meaningful life. Secondly, regardless of what their dispositions might be on these issues (whether liberal or conservative), they are still subject to the structural constraints on both sides of the Pacific. For instance, a society that places more emphasis on the family as the major determinant of individual and societal survival and development would be expected to go through great lengths to preserve the institutions upon which the family is founded, such as marriage. Divorce is a threat (perceived and/or real) to the viability of the family. However, close to one-half (43%) of the respondents were favorable and 2l% had no views or refused to give their views on divorce; while only one third (35%) were opposed to divorce. It was 343 not possible to determine if there were any post- immigration changes of views on the issue. There are however major structural and cultural differences between the Philippines and the U.S. on resolving marital conflicts. These are: the absence in the Philippines of a legal mechanism by which marriage can be dissolved and by which remarriage can be allowed; the wider acceptance of dissolving a marriage as an alternative to resolving marital problems in the U.S. Midwest City Pilipinos are first generation immigrants who continue to maintain strong family ties in the Philippines. A suggestive, rather than a definitive conclusion on the respondents' reaction to the issue is that a divorce obtained outside the Philippines will have social and legal repercussions with their families in the Philippines. There is still a strong commitment to the pre- servation of life, indicated by the large opposition to abortion, except to preserve the life of the mother. In the Philippines, pregnancies outside of marriage are generally allowed to run their full course. While there is some "hiya" initially attached to the unwed mother's family, the family usually takes care of the girl and her child and society tolerates the situation (or even sympathizes with the girl and condemns the man 344 responsible). Nontherapeutic abortions on the other hand are condemned outright so that regardless of how one feels about abortion, no one would dare openly espouse a liberal position on the issue. In most instances, discharged fetus by miscarriages in the advanced stage are even treated and given funerals as deceased persons. From among the Catholics, the fetus from miscarriages as well as stillbirths are given "conditional" or "emergency“ baptisms. Moreover, unlike divorce, abortion is and will continue to be a controversial issue in the U.S. If there is any one issue Midwest Pilipinos feel strongly against, it is legalized abortion. Among those who are U.S. citizens, this poses enough political importance to make them go out and vote; and those who are not U.S. citizens wish they could vote so they could make their convictions and feelings on the issue known. The respondents' liberal position on family planning or birth control without abortion supports the findings of similar studies conducted both in the U.S. and the Philippines. Generally, education is not only related to favorable attitudes towards family planning, but also to fertility; and that religion no longer has the influence it is reputed to have on people's percep- tions and behavior on the issue (Hawley l954; Pido l963: 9l-98). Moreover, attempts at introducing the concept 345 and practice of family planning in the Philippines by government and nongovernment methods such as abstinence and the "rhythm method“ indicate that the concept is gaining acceptance even from among the rural population (Flavier 1970:157-159). Status of Philippine Vis-a-Vis American Women The status of women in the Philippine social structure has already been described. The current atten- tion given to women's rights in the U.S. has therefore made it imperative for this study to examine how these are perceived and how these consequently affect the behavior of Pilipino women (and men) immigrants to the U.S. A common observation among the Pilipinos in the area is that when a woman achieves a high position in the U.S., locally, regionally, or nationally, the events make the news, which normally would be taken for granted in the Philippines, i.e., that a woman has achieved such a position. Pilipinos also expressed some amazement on how little power women have, be it in the family, organi- zational affiliations, or in the body-politic of a society that is known to cherish individual freedom and equality. In view of these, it was therefore decided to examine how these remarks and opinions stand up to more serious investigation. 346 The respondents were asked to respond to a few questions bearing on the issue. They were asked their perceptions regarding the status of Philippine vis-a-vis American women. The men were asked their reactions, views, opinions, etc., towards situations where their wives had i potentially better jobs (pay, rank, status, etc.) than they had. The women were likewise asked their own views, reactions, opinions, etc., towards their being in or getting better jobs (pay, rank, status, etc.) than their husbands. Table l9. Perceptions Of Midwest City Pilipinos On The Status Of Philippine And American Women Perceptions Total Male Female Total (Number of Cases) lOO%4(5l) lOO% (27) lOO% (24) Philippine Women have better status 54 (28) 55 (IS) 54 (l3) U.S. Women have better status '. 4 (2) 3 (l) 4 (l) Philippine and U.S. - have the same status 43 (22) 4l (ll) 4l (l0) More than half of the respondents believed that the status of women in the Philippines is better than 347 American women in the U.S. A little less than half (forty percent and over for both men and women) said that the status of women in both countries are the same. Table 20. Disposition Of Midwest City Pilipinos On Wives Having Better Occupations (Pay, Rank, Status, etc.) Than Husbands Dispositions Total Male Female Total (Number of Cases) lOO% (5l) lOO%(2Z) 100% (23) No objections if wives have better occupa- tions than husbands 78 (40) 85 (23) 7l (l7) Would object 8 (4) 7 (2) 8 (2) No response l3 (7) 7 (2) 2l (5) Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the respondents said they would not object or would not feel uncomfortable if the wives had better occupations than the husbands. It will be noted too that the men were more favorable to the situation than the women (85% versus 7l%). The data did not show any connection between these views and other variables, except that the data on occupation showed that over ninetypercent (90%) of the men had better jobs than the women.47 348 These findings are supported by the following comments: Here (in the U.S.) it is the men who hold the money and just give wives money for household expenses. If the wife works, she spends the money for herself and so do the children who earn. In the Philippines, all the earnings of all the members of the family are handled by the mother for the benefit of the entire family.(Female) In the Philippines, the wife is the treasurer, auditor, and even the disbursing officer and manager. We did not change when we came. (Male) The longer the bachelorhood, the longer the time period a man has between his mother and his wife.(Male) Most of the time we are equal in abilities with our husbands. Sometimes they are superior and sometimes we are. It is nobody's fault who is inferior. But our men in the Philippines do not feel inferior, even if they actually are, because we do not challenge them. They are even proud to proclaim our superior qualities over them. (Female) We do not compete with each other on who is better. Anyone in the family, regardless of sex, who is good and is recognized will bring honor to the family. Once we start competing, then we destroy the family and each other. (Couple) My experience with working with Pilipinos has made me realize that you cannot work with the men alone, even if they are supposed to be the head of the family. Convincing farmers to use better methods, use of fertilizer, etc., is useless unless you convince their wives and even mothers, who by the way also control the finances. (Former Peace Corps Volunteer in the Philippines). 349 Most Midwest City Pilipinos are still Philippine- oriented and they attempt to maintain the traditional egalitarian status between the sexes in their own families. In the U.S. however, there is still a long way to go before the structures extend the same rights taken for granted and enjoyed by women in the Philippines. It must be reiterated however that in spite of prevalence of sex discrimination in the U.S. (at least compared with the Philippines), the country still offers better opportuni- ties for economic and occupational advancement in those occupations or professions that are traditionally asso- ciated with women in both countries. For example, female nurses are relatively better paid in the U.S. than in the Philippines. Since nursing is a female-dominated occupa- tion in the Philippines, the few male nurses are better paid and are in fact a buyer's commodity in the labor market. However, males are still reluctant to be engaged in an occupation that is associated with femininity. Pharmacy, like nursing, is also female-dominated and associated with femininity in the Philippines, whereas it is more of a male profession in the U.S. Summary and Implications The patterns of participation by the Pilipino immigrants in Midwest City and how these were affected by 350 the pre-immigration values and norms were examined. Fellow Pilipinos were preferred co-participants in their leisure and recreational activities, although non-Pilipinos were not altogether excluded. Relatives were preferred as the first source of aid and assistance in times of need. However, the lack of relatives with the means to help them, their improved economic status, and their occupa- tional networks provide them with access to formal finan- cial institutions which in fact is preferred to other Pilipinos who are not relatives. Linkages with the Philippines are maintained through correspondence and through the media. These are manifested by their remit- ting some money and by expressed sentimental hopes and wishes of retiring in the country. Problems of rearing children are cross-cultural as well as inter-generational. They are conservative on the issue of abortion, liberal on family planning that excludes abortion, and liberal on the issue of divorce. Midwest City Pilipinos try to maintain the traditional egalitarian status between the sexes within their families. Although Pilipino women are still confronted with sex discrimination as the rest of the women in the American society, they are still better off economically and in terms of professional advancement than their sisters in the Philippines who may be in the same occupations. 351 From the preceding, it can be implied that the Pilipinos in Midwest City try to minimize the conflict between their own values and norms and the structural constraints of their new environment in order to maximize their economic and social participation in the American system. As individuals and as families, they share in the same conflicts that the rest of the population have to confront, except that as cultural transplants, these same problems take on a cross-cultural dimension. An example of these would be their perceptions and experiences in rearing children. There is some apprehension about their children's being completely acculturated in the new culture. However, part of this apprehension is inter- generational rather than cross-cultural, for they are shared with other parents in the area. On a cross- cultural perspective, there is a conscious or subconscious apprehension concerning the diminishing control of the family over the individuals. Nevertheless, the factors that precipitated their emigration from the Philippines were perceived as far greater than the perceived and experienced difficulties associated with raising children in a different environment. Their patterns of interpersonal behavior as manifested in the Spheres selected by this study is con- sistent with their perceptions and outlook as immigrants, 352 as shown elsewhere in this study. They try to balance traditional Philippine patterns of behavior with those that allow maximum participation in the system for the fulfillment of their immediate needs and future aspira- tions. This is manifested in their interpersonal behavior among themselves and their methods of interaction with the rest of the new environment. Pilipino immigrants in general want to participate in the system on their own individual merits, rather than on those that bear on the ethnic group. However, the acceleration of ethnic consciousness and the civil rights movement of the l960's have shifted their perspective towards the latter. Midwest City Pilipinos on the other hand still want to maintain a low ethnic profile and they see no reason for openly joining the racial conflict. Maintenance of their cultural heritage is per- ceived as an individual or familial problem. However, confronting the racial issue openly may invite hostilities from certain sectors of the population, and these could make their efforts at maintaining a cultural heritage more difficult, if not impossible. This pattern of behavior is not unique to Pilipinos, as other immigrant groups also resort to it. Those aspects of the traditional culture that inhibit full participation in the system and 353 maximum fulfillment of needs and goals are amended or suspended. Those that provide emotional and psychological security are retained. Although some of Midwest City Pilipinos still have the social psychological perspectives of prejudice and discrimination, many are consciously or subconsciously aware since the civil rights movement of the l960's, that the racial conflict in the U.S. has been and continues to be resolved through conflict and change rather than through consensus (Knowless and Prewitt l969; Allen l970; Tabb l970; Marx l97l; Blauner l972). Unlike the native-born racial minorities, the Pilipinos, rightly or wrongly, are likewise aware that as an immigrant racial minority, they are relatively powerlessin the conflicts affecting majority- minority relations in the U.S. To insist that they be allowed to immigrate and participate fully in the American system on their own terms, i.e., maintenance of their culture, would risk the possibility of their being made to "Americanize" altogether, at the host culture's terms. Consequently, maintaining a low ethnic or racial profile and avoiding overt association or participation in the racial conflict would allow them maximum partici- pation in the system and at the same time provide them room for acculturation at their own terms and pace. This will also make possible their maintenance of their 354 cultural identity without being perceived as a threat to the White majority and/or its institutions. In other words, being allowed to immigrate and being able to resolve the conflicts in the Philippines that precipitated their migration overrides their being right on the racial issue. The Pilipinos, like most of the immigrant minori- ties, value their cultural heritage and ethnicity, but they do not let it stand in the way of their search for a more meaningful life. PART IV CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS CHAPTER VII: RESOLVING HUMAN/SOCIAL CONFLICTS THROUGH MIGRATION CHAPTER VII RESOLVING HUMAN/SOCIAL CONFLICTS THROUGH MIGRATION This study has taken the position that although voluntary immigration is a phenomenon in which the immi- grants themselves are the ultimate actors, it occurs within structural networks of relationships and constraints over which the immigrants themselves have little or no control. It can be argued, for instance, that manipulation of national and international migratory patterns is one way by which the availability and flow of surplus labor is controlled by a capitalist system. Another perspective is that migration is the result of relationships of inequality and dependencies, and how such relationships are maintained such as in colonialism or neo-colonialism. Moreover, the structural determinants and constraints that effect immi- gration also shape the psychological, social, political, economic,and cultural environment under which the contact between the immigrants and the host peoples occur at the micro level. 355 356 Structural Conditions Related to Immigration From a historical perspective, it was determined that the Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. came from a country with a long colonial experience. The Philippines was a colony of Spain for three centuries, and later of the U.S. for more than fifty (50) years. This colonial status has linked the Philippines and Pilipinos to a posi- tion of dependency on an international network and to a prolonged state of underdevelopment. The status of dependency and underdevelopment combined with years of wars for independence, the world economic depression of the 1930's, and the destruction brought about by World War II led to the development of structures in the Country that precipitated the emigration of Pilipinos from the first decade of this Century until the l970's. In the meantime, towards the end of the l9th Century, changes were occurring in the U.S. that would eventually lead to its need for cheap alien labor. Among the major structural changes that were happening in the U.S., were the abolition of slavery, the expansion of industry and family-type farms in the North and Midwest, the expansion of the U.S. frontier to the West, and the development of large scale agro-industries. The need for cheap labor was initially met by poor, unskilled, and highly mobile males, the "hobo", and some native Americans. 357 Later, they were supplemented and supplanted by aliens, such as the Mexicans, the Chinese and the Japanese. However, no sooner were these peoples perceived as threats and competition to the White majority, their immigration had to be stopped or limited. This resulted in the first U.S. Immigration Law passed in l882 to stop or limit the immigration of non-Whites in general and the Chinese in particular. The stoppage or limitation of immigration of non-White immigrants did not contain the "Yellow peril“ however, in fact it exacerbated the need for unskilled, low-wage labor which most Whites did not want to perform. The U.S. acquisition of the Philippines from Spain, as a result of the Spanish-American War of l896 helped solve this American labor shortage. A large number of Pilipinos were willing and able to immigrate to the U.S. to fill this vacuum in the U.S. labor market. The alterna- tive to immigrating to the U.S. meant resignation to econo- mic, social, and cultural deprivation. The actual flow of immigrants to the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and other U.S. territories was also structurally determined and controlled by unilateral acts of the U.S., as well as bilateral actions between the Philippines and the U.S. Briefly then, the "voluntary" immigration of Pili- pinos to the U.S. was precipitated by structures at the 358 macro level which dictated that emigration is the only perceived or actual means towards living meaningful lives. The number of Pilipinos that could immigrate and the manner by which they could enter the U.S. was likewise determined by political, social, and economic factors over which the immigrants had little or no control. Type of Immigrants The first Pilipinos in the U.S. at the turn of the century were a few hundred students who did not have any difficulty in getting accepted by the host society. By about l920, these students were followed by thousands of workers from rural and peasant origins; they went to Hawaii first and later to the U.S. West Coast. However, both the students and workers soon realized the reasons behind their being induced to go to the U.S. They realized that these reasons were no different from those that lured the Chinese and the Japanese, namely, cheap agricultural labor and not more. This became apparent when they were no longer needed and when they were perceived as threats to the general population. In effect, just as the Pilipino immigrants were not absolutely free in deciding on whether to migrate or not, neither were they free to make decisions in the U.S. Like the other non~White minorities, they were not allowed to participate fully and freely with the host 359 society's social, economic, political and cultural insti- tutions. They were caught in a psychological and socio- logical dilemma. They were subjected to prejudice and discrimination because they were "different", and as such, were threats to the values and institutions of the host society, especially to its racial purity. At the same time, they were denied the opportunity to participate in American institutions which could have led to their partial or full integration with American society. Unlike the Chinese and Japanese who were aliens and therefore could be excluded from the U.S., the Pili- pinos could not be subjected to U.S. exclusionary laws since the Philippines was a territory of the U.S. The proponents of Philippine independence in the U.S. gained additional supporters. There were elements in the U.S., particularly organized labor, who wanted the Pilipinos deported and/or excluded from immigration to the country. They quite rightly argued that the only way to exclude Pilipinos was to make the Philippines an independent coun- try from which, as aliens, the Pilipinos could be subjected to the then racist U.S. immigration laws. Thus the early Pilipino immigrants (i.e., between l905 and l965) were subjected to the same institutional racism at the micro level of interaction. 360 The second and current wave of immigrants came as a result of the l965 Immigration Act. They outnumber the immigrants in the pre-l935 group. Moreover, they have higher qualifications and have come from social economic backgrounds better than the old immigrants. In general, partly because of these social, economic,and educational/ occupational characteristics, the new immigrants are faring better in the American system than their predeces- sors did. In addition, the new immigrants came to the U.S. at the time when the civil rights movement of the 1960's was beginning to produce some results. For instance, most of the most blatant forms of discrimination have been removed from the U.S. statutes, and the right of the racial and ethnic minorities to be different is being recognized, at least by the Government. The patterns of immigration by the early and new immigrants prevented the development of Pilipino geogra— phical settlements in the U.S., such as the Chinese China- towns and Japanese Little Tokyos. First of all, the early immigrants were mostly males who lived on the plantation camps or worked at low service occupations in the cities. Between agricultural seasons, they moved to the cities for low-skilled employment or went to work in the fish canne- ries in Alaska. Being mostly male and highly mobile, there was hardly any reason for them to establish homes in any 361 one place, even if they could have afforded or were allowed to do so. The high educational/occupational qual- ifications and higher social economic status of the new immigrants allow them to bring their families with them. These also made possible their pursuance of employment and professional opportunities throughout the U.S. without the help of family or ethnic based pre-immigration networks. While Pilipinos do not form particular neigh- borhood groupings, they are concentrated in a few areas in the United States. One such place is the state of California. Hence, since the turn of the Century when Pilipinos started immigrating to the U.S. and up to the l970's, the Pilipino community in the country is more of a community of consciousness, located in social space rather than in a definite locality-based physical phenomenon. The closest concrete manifestations of a Pilipino community are the formal organizations, which range from social clubs to professional groups, and the U.S. (and Canadian) based Pilipino media. Summigg up the Immigration Experience: The Case of the New Pilipino Immigrants It has been established that many of the macro and/or micro structures that precipitated the immigration of the early Pilipinos to the U.S. and constrained their 362 interaction with American society have since been elimi- nated or changed at the time the new immigrants started arriving in the U.S. in 1965. The latter portion of Chapter IV described in general terms how these changes were affecting the current immigration of the Pilipinos. Chapters V and VI examined and described more specifically the perceptions and experiences of a sample of Pilipino immigrants. These empirical findings will be summarized and conceptualized in response to the three general questions proposed in Chapter II of this study. Each question will be reiterated and will be followed by the responses. I. Who are the immigrants, as they define themselves? Was their leaving and coming to the U.S. prompted by conflicts in their country of origin? What levels of conflict were at play? Were they at the individual, and/or social (intra and intergroup) levels? To what extent did they perceive that the conflicts they were confronting in their own country might be resolved or minimized by their leaving it and migrating to the U.S.? Data from the Pilipinos sampled in this study indicated that most belong to post l965 immigrants and who may be classified as belonging to the Philippine "brain drain". Compared to the early immigrants, they were better informed of the conflicts they were most likely to encounter in the U.S. and they preferred these to the conflicts that precipitated their emigration. These latter conflicts were socio-cultural as well as structural. They 363 range from individual to intra and intergroup levels. The conflicts that precipitated their emigration were perceived as being beyond their ability to solve if they remained. Their perceptions of the U.S. were not always realistic; nevertheless, they knew they were not moving into a paradise. They were aware that migrating to a new society would present new forms of conflicts which they will have to confront and resolve. However, their pre- immigration perceptions were that the conflicts to be faced in the new land would be easier to confront than those they were leaving behind because they would have more control of the means of confronting them. Among these perceived conflicts were racism, prejudice, and discrimination, in addition to some struc- tural constraints which might prevent them from realizing their full professional or intellectual potentials (i.e., stringent rules for practice of medicine in the U.S., etc.). However, they still perceive that within the structure of the U.S., they would have a wider ground in which to move about, and better and more options, than those presented by the structures in their own country. Given the constraints both in the Philippines and the U.S., they believed that the U.S. gave them better chances of pursuing what they perceived to be meaningful lives as human beings, rather than as Pilipinos or Americans. This study has 364 shown that the choice for most immigrants was between control by the values, norms and the social structure of the Philippines vis-a-vis more individual autonomy else- where. Social and geographical distance from the cultural, social, and structural constraints in the Philippines, combined with their perceptions of the values and the structure in the U.S. that allow maximum individual autonomy, made them prefer the latter. Unlike the early unschooled and unskilled immi- grants from the Philippines, the new immigrants were not naive enough to believe that they would get better treat- ment in the U.S., compared with other non-White or even White minorities, because of the historical "special relations" between the U.S. and the Philippines. However, like the early immigrants, they also believed that they would fare better than other nationalities and their earlier predecessors, because of their educational and professional credentials. They found that their percep- tions, although not altogether wrong, were to some extent unrealistic. They have since readjusted their pre- immigration expectations. Although their actual immigra- tion experience did not turn out as ideal as their pre- immigration perceptions, it was still preferred than the circumstances that precipitated their emigration from the Philippines. Some have expressed a wish to return if the . 365 factors (conflicts) that made them migrate are resolved and if conditions and circumstances allow. These findings also support other studies which indicate that knowledge of Philippine conditions is a better predictor of Pilipino migration than experience in or attitudes towards the U.S. (Corts l969; Jayme l97l; Card l974). A significant difference between the early and the new Pilipino immigrants was their pre-immigration percep- tions of the U.S. and the actual situations they had to confront once in America. As noted in this study, the racial problems encountered by the early immigrants were Ireported in the Philippine media and discussed in political and academic circles. But these hardly filtered to the countryside where most of the immigrants came from. The officially projected image of the U.S., coupled with the rosy picture presented by labor recruiters, prevailed upon a people who were desperately looking for a way out of generations of economic and social bondage. Consequently, a major problem of the early immi- grants was the disparity between what they were made to believe about the U.S. and the actual situation they had to confront. In fact, this discrepancy between the the Pilipinos' image of America as painted by Americans in the Philippines and the real situation in the U.S. was one of the major themes of the writers (Pilipinos and Americans) 366 protesting the treatment of Pilipinos in the U.S. (Lasker l93l; Catapusan l940; Buaken l948; Bulusan l946). This theme is capsulized by Manuel Buaken when he asks:48 Where is the heart of America? I am one of many thousands of young men born under the American flag, raised as loyal, idealistic Americans under your promises of equality for all, enticed by glowing tales of educational oppor- tunities. Once here, we are met by exploiters, shunted into slums, greeted only by gamblers and prostitutes, taught only the worse in your civilization. America came to us with bright- winged promises of liberty, equality, fraternity. What has become of them? On the other hand, the new immigrants as exempli- fied by the respondents of this study, had a more realis- tic pre-immigration perceptions of the racial problems that they would most likely encounter in America. More- over, they were immigrating to the U.S. at a time when the racial issues in the U.S. and the civil rights movement were getting worldwide attention. In fact, since the l960's, one need not be educated or urbanized to learn what was going on in the Philippines, the U.S., and the world. Unschooled farmers in the rural areas of the Philippines had current information in their own language and/or dialect of the events in Selma, Alabama; Watts, Los Angeles; and of Martin Luther King, Jr., through the transistor radio. To summarize, current Pilipino immigrants' percep- tions of the U.S. were more realistic than the perceptions 367 of those who had preceded them. Hence, the gap between pre-immigration perception and reality was not too large and the resulting effects were not too great. II. To what extent have their perceptions of the situations they have to face in the U.S. as individuals and as members of an ethnic group changed over time? What price must they pay in terms of their cultural integrity and identity to resolve or minimize conflicts they encounter in fulfilling needs and attaining aspirations for themselves and their children? What were their perceptions of Americans before they came to to U.S.? Have these changed? How and why? The changes in the pre and post-immigration situations they had to confront were related to the pre- immigration perceptions as well as the individual reasons that made them leave the Philippines and immigrate to the U.S. 'Unlike earlier immigrants whose perceptions of America were shaped by the American school system in the Philippines and influenced by labor recruiters, the new immigrants were better informed of what to expect. Their professional credentials gave them more confidence to move into a new society; at the same time, they were sophisti- cated enough to realize that educational and professional credentials do not change the color of their skin. Some came expecting to be confronted with prejudice and discri- mination and, therefore, were disposed and prepared them- selves to confront the situation, so long as it resolved or minimized the conflicts that made them leave the 368 Philippines. Some were even embarrassed to discover that they are sometimes relatively better off than most indi- genous non-White minorities. A significant change in their perceptions about the U.S. occurred in those areas relating to racism, prejudice, and discrimination. The pre-immigration perception was that racism, prejudice, and discrimination were confined to the illiterate hillbillies of the "Deep South", so that avoiding the "Deep South" would mean avoiding situations of racial conflict. They have since learned that racism does not recognize territorial boun- daries and that it exists throughout the U.S., among both the noneducated and the educated. Many still perceive racism manifested in overt manifestations as a social- psychological-pathological state of a prejudiced person. The fact that nonsouthern and educated people are also prejudiced is explained; that racism like any pathology will "afflict" any human being. Some have begun to realize that there are no prejudiced people, but that racism is a phenomenon that can be manipulated by.the structure. The perceived and experienced overt and convert prejudice and discrimination has also made some of the Pilipinos more aware of their own conscious and subconscious prejudice and discriminatory practices against certain minority groups in the Philippines. 369 Regardless of their feelings and attitudes about the PhilippinesatLthe time of immigration, social and geographical distance from the Philippines has made them more conscious of their being Pilipinos, instead of just being members of a smaller group in the Philippines. For those whose reasons (conflicts) for leaving the Philippines were much deeper, the distance only reaffirmed the negative feelings they had about the Philippines and accentuated the positive perceptions they had of the U.S. As one "mestizo" educated in Spain and the U.S. observed: for them nothing is right in the Philip- pines and everything is okay in the U.S., or for that matter, everything will be alright anywhere else except the Philippines. They are the unhappiest of the lot, in spite of their TV sets, two cars, and aping of upper- middle class WASP lifestyles. They deny their heritage and race, but do not realize that these do not change the facts, at least as far as the Anglos are concerned. They are like the "mestizos" in the Philippines. In their struggle to deny their original heritage, they miss the chance of being first class human beings and Pilipinos. Instead, theyend up being second class Americans and third class human beings. Although not expressed as bitterly and as explicitly as the above, most Pilipinos harbor similar sentiments towards fellow-Pilipinos who for one reason or another feel very badly about their former country, at the same time conceding that there could be legitimate reasons for feeling that way. 370 This study has demonstrated that the Pilipino immigrants still identify strongly with the family. They are not faced with the same dilemma that other minority groups such as the Spanish-speaking have to confront, among which is the problem of trading off cultural inte- grity in exchange for economic or political gains (Cafferty l972:l9l-202). Their problem is one of choosing which aspects of the two worlds will allow them to live more meaningful lives. A stubborn insistence on cultural integrity at the expense of deprivation of basic necessi- ties and comforts is ridiculous; at the same time, "selling out" one's cultural integrity for purely material gains is just as bad. The more the economic security, the better the chances for individual preferences, among which is the opportunity to maintain a cultural integrity or that of acquiring a different one. All the Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. across time have had to face racial discrimi- nation and prejudice in one form or another. However, the early immigrants were at a disadvantage.. First of all, their low economic-social backgrounds and lack of educational and professional credentials made immigration more compelling. Once in the U.S., these educational, economic, and social disadvantages exacerbated their problems of adjusting to a new environment. In addition, 371 they were also immigrating to the U.S., at a time when racism was more overt and virulent. The new immigrants were in a better position (economically, educationally/professionally, and socially) to resolve their conflicts of whether to emigrate or not and under what terms. In addition, they were immigrating during a period when racism was less overt and was in fact no longer existent in most of the country's legal statutes. The early immigrants on the other hand may not have had any other option but to immigrate to the U.S., and did so, under the host society's terms. The traditional Pilipino pattern of interpersonal behavior relating to the avoidance of interpersonal friction has served the Pilipino immigrant well in adjust- ing to a new culture. This helped him balance perceived needs while maintaining some cultural integrity. Cultural integrity can be asserted when needed, but it can also be suspended when necessity demands. There have been some changes inthe pre-departure perceptions of Pilipinos about Americans after coming to the U.S. This study has shown that Pilipinos interact on a very personal level. Although the interpersonal net- works may initially have been precipitated by business or professional reasons, Pilipinos always feel that they are appreciated as persons and thus they expect to be treated 372 as such. They resent being treated and regarded as only business or professional contacts. Not to be treated as a whole person is a threat to a person's self-esteem. Therefore, interpersonal networks are regarded as poten- tial life-long commitments of friendship and reciprocal loyalties. Hence, it takes more than just a few meetings to establish such networks. Pilipinos were vaguely aware that interpersonal networks in America were utilitarian and last only for short durations; i.e., "everybody is friendly, but very few are friends". Most of their interpersonal dealings with Americans in the Philippines somehow exhibited the Pilipino characteristics on interpersonal behavior. They therefore, perceived that the so-called American "cold" short-term relationships they heard so much about, were the exceptions and those actual relationships they had were the rule. Post-immigration exposure to American society has changed Pilipino perceptions. They have come to realize that the interpersonal relations they had with Americans in the Philippines were the exceptions, rather than the rule. They now realize that being appreciated profes- sionally or well liked at work does not necessarily mean being appreciated and liked as a person. The Pilipinos have also learned that by their norms of interpersonal 373 relationships, Americans are crude and often "insulting" especially when one disagrees with them openly or in public. Rather than take the risk of having one's self- esteem assaulted with an open disagreement, they will avoid situations of potential disagreements. Many have also learned that interpersonal relationships established with Americans ("friendships") in the Philippines were not carried over across the Pacific. The social and political upheavals brought about by the Indochina war, the counter-culture movement, the civil rights and student movements, and the questioning of long-held American values and institutions in the l960% have to some extent, shaken their pre-immigration percep- tions of Americans as a happy and united people. Indeed, an observation among politicians, other leaders, and students of political science in the Philippines is that one reason such countries as Japan, Germany, the U.S., etc., are developed, is that their pe0p1es are more united as a nation, not as smaller groups such as the "barangay", ethno-linguistic, or regional sociations pursuing their own interests, often at the expense of the whole country (Araneta 1957; Manglapus 1964). 374 III. What changes and/or conflicts emerge as a result of competing identities as ethnics? Is it possible to and can they distinguish between loyalty to a nation-state (their country of origin) and loyalty to an ethnic or cultural heritage? Is this a problem? If not, why not? If so, at what levels (individual and/or social)? How do they confront each situation? How do they identify with other minorities within the context of the colonial and/or Third World perspective? This study has demonstrated that the traditional social structure in the Philippines has limited the Pilipino's identity to the family and relating alliances to kin, village, town and ethno-linguistic groups. A problem often associated with the difficulties of nation- building is this lack of identity with a nation-state. The closest concrete identification with a nation-state is the government. For over three centuries, the government was a foreign oppressor. Later, this foreign oppressor (government) was replaced by the native variety (Corpus 1965; Araneta 1967; and Bendix 1969). As noted earlier, it was only the social and geographical distance brought by migration that Pilipinos began to be conscious of being "Pilipinos“ rather than as members of a smaller group. In spite of their being deprived of full partici- pation in the system, the Pilipinos have served in the U.S. armed services, either as individuals or with Pili- pino units within the U.S. military establishment (Wingo 1942:562-563; Buaken 1943:357-359; Martin l966z3; 375 Orias 1969:l6-l7; Newsweek, November 9, 1970:32-33). Philippine political and military involvement in the cold war was on the side of the U.S. Recent events in Asia indicate some shift in alliances and involvement on cold war issues (Time, May 19, 1975:25-26; June 23, 1975:37-38). However, the possibility of direct armed conflict between the Philippines and the United States is beyond the con- ception of almost any Pilipino because of ideological, political, and practical reasons. A Pilipino colleague (and U.S. citizen) commented: Loyalty to the U.S. and the principles of the U.S. Constitution is measured by what you are willing to give up, and not the size of the American flag you can wave. We proved this together during the war with the Japanese, in spite of the fact that we were treated badly and our contributions were not appre- ciated. Would any White fight for the U.S. the way we (Pilipinos) did if they were treated the same way? The "loyalty" of the Pilipino immigrant to the Philippines is primarily based on cultural heritage rather than on the nation-state. "Things" that are Pilipino, such as literature, the arts, music and food, but most of all, those aspects of Philippine culture that give more meaning to life, are what are valued. Among these are: smooth interpersonal relationships, long-lasting and non- utilitarian interpersonal relationhisps, the value of reciprocity, and respect and concern for the old. 376 Identity concerns of the Pilipino center on how much of these values can be maintained and still allow pursuance of economic goals. (Like the Spanish-speaking minorities in the U.S., they try to maintain those cultural traits that they value most.) If they are American citizens, Pilipinos are proud of being so especially when they are in the Philippines, as are their relatives in the Philip- pines. However, they are also proud of their Philippine cultural heritage. There was and is a "community of consciousness" among the Pilipinos in the U.S., but only in the most abstract sense. However, intra-ethnic conflicts among Pilipino immigrants and the tendency to identify with smaller groups rather than with ethnicity, as well as the pre-immigration heterogeneity of the Pilipinos, is still a basic reality. The Vietnam War, the civil rights and Black move- ment of the 1960's, and the rhetoric and publicity on neo-colonialism, and U.S. and "Western" foreign policy, have all changed the perceptions of Pilipinos about them- selves, their relations with other minority groups in the U.S., and other oppressed peoples in the Third World. Pilipinos on the West Coast are already moving towards acting in common with other Asians. The rhetoric on the issues they have to confront has now shifted from 377 "Pilipino-Americans" to "Asian-Americans". Observers believe that the direction will be towards identification as disadvantaged Americans (Daniels and Kitano 1966: 29-31 and 1970:78-79 and 102—120; and Morales 1974: 127-130). However, there are no indications as yet that such changes are occurring among Midwest City Pilipinos. The immigrants were well aware that immigration to a new culture would itself precipitate new conflicts and demands; but these were often thought to be less severe than those that precipitated emigration. Unlike those of African descent and other indigenous non-Whitey minorities in the U.S., most immigrant minorities (White and non-White) in a sense had a choice of whether or not to immigrate to the American continent. However, most immigrants to the U.S. perceived the U.S. as the most preferred, and in some instances, the only country to which to immigrate. Such was the case of the Pilipino immigrants for a long while. More recent studies indicate that more and more Pilipinos are immigrating to countries where immigration restrictions_have been recently lifted such as Canada and Australia (Gupta 1973:167-l91; Byrne 1974; Card l974). There is no doubt that the improved racial atmos- phere in the U.S. since the civil rights movement of the 1960's and the higher qualifications of the new immigrants 378 contributed to the better reception they experienced when they immigrated. In addition to these however, is the fact that during the same period, the Philippines was also becoming more independent of the U.S. For instance, the three major Asian groups in the U.S., the Chinese, the Japanese,and the Pilipinos were recruited to immigrate for the same economic reasons. All have been subjected to prejudice and discrimination. Yet, among the three the Japanese had "made it" the most in the American system, while the Pilipinos the least, in terms of their social economic status in the U.S. There have been studies indicating that among the major reasons for the advancement of the Japanese immi- grants in the American system was the similarity of some Japanese cultural and personal traits with those of the dominant society in America. Among them are the "work ethic", achievement motivation, and the syndrome for com- petition and/or "getting ahead" (Nettler 1946:177-l9l; Caudil and De Vos 1971:299-355). The so-called "work ethic" and achievement motiva- tion as among the alledged reasons for the advancement and dominance of Anglo-Saxon society may be questioned in the light of some historical facts: For instance, although slavery was originally instituted in the U.S. for economic reasons, most slave owners continued to maintain the 379 institution (and their slaves) even if they were no longer becoming economically viable. One of the reasons for this persistence was the reluctance of the Whites to do hard and hazardous work under conditions similar to the slaves. The immigrants (Whites and non-Whites) were tolerated and even welcomed because they performed the work that White workers would not do and under conditions that the latter would not tolerate. Physical, social, and psychological survival against innumerable odds was the major motivation and concern of the racial minorities, rather than "achievement" or "getting ahead" in the system (Bryce- Laporte 1971:167-177; Prager 1972:117-150). Therefore, one factor that has to be considered in comparing the Asian groups is the status of their countries of origin in the international network of rela- tionships in general, and the status of their structural relationships with the U.S. in particular. As noted in this study, among the three countries of origin cited, Japan was the most independent, in addition to being an economic and military power in Asia and the Pacific. On the other hand, the Philippines was the least independent and was in fact a dependency of the U.S. for a while, and precisely at the time the Pilipinos started immigrating to the U.S. The differential relationships between China, Japan, and the Philippines with the United States and the 380 similar differential social economic status of their nationals in the U.S. is more than just coincidental. In other words, among the three groups, the Japanese had the most political, economic, and military leverage to protest the treatment of their nationals in the U.S. while the Philippines had the least (McWilliams l964z89-112; 140-169; 229-249; Blauner 1972:51-110). This study has noted that the Philippines has become more independent of the U.S. during the last two decades, and that this was partly due to the more nationalistic and Third-World (rather than pro-American) outlook of a new generation of Pilipinos. However, it takes more than just attitudes to be independent of such a country as the U.S., especially after generations of social, economic, political, and cultural dependence. It is also necessary to have some power, or at least some bargaining position in international power politics. Part of the indepen- dent stature of the Philippines is made possible by its association with the Third-World nations emerging as an international power block. The Philippines was in a better bargaining position with the U.S. in international politics, at least in that part of the world because of the emergence of China as a political, economic, and military power in Asia and the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia, except in the 381 Philippines where it is now being questioned by the Pilipinos and the leadership. Thus, the more independent the Philippines is of the U.S., and/or the better its bargaining position at the macro level, the more likely this will result in a better status of Pilipino immigrants. In other words, protests by the Pilipino nation and its leadership against the mistreatment of Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. today are less likely to be ignored than they were during the earlier history of Pilipino immigration to the U.S. (Lasker 1931:273-288; Grunder and Livezey 1951:248-275). The post-industrial era characterized by scien- tific and technological "explosion" has made migration (permanent or temporary) a more viable means of resolving conflicts, at least for certain groups of people. The new and rapid rearrangements by which interpersonal, inter-institutional, and international networks are developing has made it possible for more people to find means of resolving their conflicts in which ethnicity, cultural, national, and political boundaries are becoming less relevant (Frazier 1957; Gordon 1964:254-257; Lerner and Gorden 1969). This may well be the case of the "intellectuals"49 who may find a "third culture" as a more viable means of resolving conflicts and a better setting for their search for a meaningful life, compared .....— 382 £0 a strict choice between a first and second culture (\kseem, Donoghue, and Useem 1963:169-179; Useem and Useem 1966:130-143). The findings of this study support the sociologi- cal definition of culture as a viable and dynamic pheno- menon. The Pilipino immigrants to the U.S., as exempli- fied by the respondents of this study, were neither traditional nor modern, Pilipino nor American. Their perceptions and behavior were dictated by perceived and real situations they had to confront. When all basic necessities of life and comforts needed for physical survival are met, and/or when the conflicts that preci- pitated migration are fully or partially resolved, human beings will look to those aspects of life that give it some meaning. More likely than not, this will be identi- fication with fellow-human beings who can give them the maximum psychological, social, and emotional security. These are most likely to be their families and other people or the culture that shaped them into the kind of human beings they are. This study has shown this to be the case of the Pilipino immigrants in the U.S. Gordon contends that intellectuals who may find professional, occupational and/or intellectual networks as alternative ways to pursue their goals will in the long run find more comfort in those with whom they culturally identify and 383 share a common country of origin (Gordon 1964:224-232). Conceptual and Empirical Implications of Pilipino Immigration to the U.S. The Macro Dimension It can be argued that even if the Philippines were never colonized, it would still have fared the same in its stage of development (or underdevelopment) in the arena of international economic and power politics wherein small nations, whether independent or colonies, become the pawns and victims. And, that the same structural determinants of emigration would still have been at work. In fact, both Japan and Thailand were never colonies, but still had their own nationals immigrating to the U.S. and elsewhere. The fact is that the Philippines was a colony for almost four centuries and this experience contributed to the state of its development, which in turn created the particular structural components of emigration. There is also no doubt that U.S. participation in the.coloniza- tion of the Philippines did introduce changes in terms of educational and economic infra structures. The question however, lies in whether these transformations were bene- ficial in the long run to the Pilipinos. A case in point has to do with the products of the American-introduced educational system. Those that 384 stalled in the Philippines and were employed either in gOVernment or in private corporations no doubt contributed to the development of the country, but with an American rather than a Pilipino or Asian,perspective. Those who could not find fulfillment of their aspirations in the Philippines became the new immigrants or the "brain drain" in which case the U.S. was benefiting more directly. It is evident that colonialism contributed directly to the development of the macro structures that precipitated the immigration of Pilipinos. In addition, the colonial structural relationships were also carried over by the immigrants to their new environment. Colonialism and Immigration Neo-colonialism is generally distinguished from the classic colonialism in that the former is a less subtle form of economic, political, and cultural domina- tion, where economic exploitation is the dominant motive (Allen 1960:13-15). A crucial dimension in neo- colonialism is the real or perceived relationships between the colonizer and the colonized. Whereas in the classic colonialism, domination is often through open conflict and maintained by force, in neo-colonialism it is often carried out with the consent of the colonized. The latter can take either one or a combination of two forms. One, 385 the colonized is consciously or subconsciously aware of hiSIher subordinate status, but believes that it is preferable than being independent. An example would be the people of Gibraltar who refuses to be independent and separated from Britain and the thousands of Pilipinos who want the Philippines "returned" to the U.S., and eventually become a state of the Union. Another form is when the colonized believe that they are on an equal status with the colonizer. This is more prevalent in neo-colonialism, where the domination is not apparent to most of the colonized. Both forms of colonialism cannot be effective without the involvement of certain elements of the colonized. In the case of classic colonialism, it is almost always the middle class or the native elite, although not all of the collaboration with colonizers were generated by selfish motives. In the case of the Philippines, many of those opposing the local abuses of Spanish colonial administrators sincerely believed that the destiny of the Philippines was associated with those of the mother country. They demanded reforms to cement the ties between the Philippines and Spain. In this sense, they were "neo-colonials". However, it is when a large segment and a cross section of the population identify their aspirations with 386 8““ E)cternal dominant system that neo-colonialism becomes 0°“H31ete and effective. This was the case of the relationship between the Philippines and the U.S. For instance, in the ideological conflict between socialism and capitalism, the latter was preferred as the better option for the Philippines, so that interaction with Asian neighbors who choose the former option was not even considered for a while. Whereas other nations were developing their own native version of socialism, the Pilipinos and their American "tutors" were attempting to develop, not a native version, but as close to the American version of capitalism as possible. In his Structural Theory of Imperialism, Galtung contends, among others, that the ones that benefit the most from imperialism are the elites (or "establishment") of the center or imperial nation as well as the elites of the periphery (colonized) nations, whether actual or per- ceived, as much as or relative to those of the center nation. The rest of the population of the center may ormay not benefit from an imperialist structural relationship. However, regardless of who benefits the most from among the elites of the center and periphery nations and/or the population of the former, it is all at the expense of the rest of the population and the resources of the periphery nations or colonies (Galtung 1971:81-117). 387 In the light of the data examined by this study, the thilippine colonial experience under Spain and the United States supports Galtung's concepts on imperialism. Moreover, the immigration of large numbers of Pilipinos to the U.S. for three quarters of a century, wittingly or unwittingly resulted in a symbiotic relationship benefi- cial to segments of the elites in both countries. The emigration of Pilipinos relieved the pressure from the Philippine economic and political elite from undertaking structural economic, social and political reforms, thereby maintaining the status quo to their advantage. At the same time, certain economic interests in the U.S. were provided with a reserve pool of surplus labor to draw upon. Closely related to the phenomenon of immigration in particular, and race and ethnic relations in general, is the viability of colonialism (or neo-colonialism) across time and space. Cruse (1968:76-77) contends that the difference between the classic colonialization of Third World nations and the racial minorities in the U.S. is the situs and forms of domination and/or exploitation. Whereas the classic European colonialism exploited the natural resources and labor as well as disrupted the ecological balance in the colonized territories, U.S. "internal colonialism" involves the exploitation of the 388 labor and economic resources of the racial minorities wl thin the country. The geographical and social segregation of colonized peoples in the Third World and racial minorities in the U.S. have a similar pattern. The classical coloni- zers geographically segregated their colonized peoples either by designating areas where they can work and live, or by segregating themselves in areas where non-Whites were excluded. These patterns are replicated in the Indian reservations, racial ghettos, and White suburban enclaves in America. The immigration of non-White minorities, whether forced such as the slaves, or voluntary such as the Asians and Mexicans, merely transferred the situs of colonialism. But whether the system was practiced in the colonized own territory or in the U.S., the basic structural motivation to perpetuate the advantages and dominance of the White majority at the expense of the non-White colonized people was the same. This is demonstrated by the inconsistent attitudes and policies affecting non-White immigrants. They were tolerated and even welcomed as long as they did not threaten the dominant position of the White majority, i.e., the colonizer. In fact, the first U.S. Immigration Act in 1882 and succeeding policies and actions related to immigration to the U.S. 389 \Ne“e. directed at keeping the non-White peoples in the C°\H1try from upsetting the dominant position of the White society. The Immigration Process at the Micro Level The process of immigration involves more than just the contact and interaction of two peoples; it also involves the contact and interaction of two societal structures. Consequently, the interaction between the immigrants and the host people is to a great extent determined by the structural relationships between the immigrant's country of origin and the host country. The colonizer-immigrant, regardless of numerical superiority or inferiority, always setsthe terms by which the colonizer and the colonized interact. The involuntary immigrants such as the slaves and refugees also interact at the dominant or host society's terms. The voluntary immigrants, regardless of the structural relationships between their country of origin andthe host society and the conditions on which they were allowed to immigrate consciously or sub- consciously, also interact at the dominant (host) society's terms. However, the more homogeneous the immigrants' culture with the host culture, the less the conflict involved in adjusting to the host culture's terms. 390 This study has demonstrated that this was hardly the case of the Pilipino immigrants to the U.S. In the first place, the "free“ alternative of not immigrating would be perceived as real deprivation in the Philippines. In the second place, once the Pilipinos "freely opted" to immigrate, they were not as free to fully participate in the American system as they thought they would be. Their necessity to immigrate at the host society's terms hardly puts them on an equal status with the latter. In addition to the reasons which Pilipinos had to emigrate and the conditions under which they were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. was the structural relationships between the Philippines and the United States itself. The Philippines subordinate relations with the U.S. exacerbated the subordinate status of Pilipinos in the U.S. From the time Pilipinos started immigrating to the U.S. at the turn of the 20th Century until the late 1960's, the Philippines occupied the back seat in its "special relations'' with the U.S. If the Philippines was subordi- nate to the U.S. even to the extent where Americans had more advantages in the Philippines than the average Pilipinos, it would hardly be expected for Pilipino immigrants in the U.S. to be treated any better (McWilliams 1964:244-246; Diokno 1968:11-19; Pomeroy l974). 391 Recommendations Like most studies on human behavior, this one has uncovered more questions than the answers it sought. The questions uncovered and the directions to which possible answers could be found are as many and varied as the interest, preferences, and personal biases of those interested in the issues of majority-minority relations and migration. A few recommendations dictated by the interest of this researcher are being posited. There should be more studies that would help in determining whether an order-consensus, conflict and change or other alternative approaches will yield the most accurate descriptive, rather than normative, information. And, under what conditions, periods of time, and to what group of people, would one approach prove more useful than another. There should be more comparative studies on migration, emigration, and immigration on cross-cultural as well as inter-generational levels, not just in societal generations, but also historically, i.e., different periods of time at which migrations take place. Intra- generational studies of peoples from one culture migrating into several new cultures will provide inforamtion on the comparative receptivity of host cultures towards integra- tion, e.g., Pilipino migration to Australia, Canada, and 392 the U.S. Differentials in the reception of the U.S. and integration of various ethnic immigrant groups, most of whom had a common low educational and occupational skills, have been demonstrated and well documented. What is needed are more comparative studies on the migration of the new immigrants or "brain drain" to determine, among others, if there are any differentials in their reception and integration into the major structures of the host culture; and, if these differentials are culturally or racially determined or built into the economic and poli- tical structures of the host cultures. Examples of these would be studies of migrant Pilipino physicians in the U.S. compared with immigrant physicians from other countries (White or non-White). This study has partially provided the reasons why the Pilipinos have been the largest group of voluntary immigrants admitted to the U.S. from Asia in spite of the fact that the Philippines is not the largest country in the region, nor are the Pilipinos singularly favored (at least theoretically) by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. To reiterate, these are the long historical association between the Philippines and the U.S. which resulted in the Philippines being the most "Americanized" country in Asia and the fact that the Philippines had the highest number of college students 393 (and graduates) educated in the English language, the type of persons most favored by certain provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act. There are countries in Asia that have common historical experiences with the Philippines, in addition to their own unique experiences. For instance, the Indochina peninsula was a colony of France, Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands and Burma, Malaysia and Singapore were colonies of Britain, and Thailand (Siam) 50 Moreover, most was never colonized by a foreign power. of these countries had ancient or long pre-colonial existence as nation-states, unlike the Philippines which was born out of its colonial experience. They also had systems of higher education before the Philippines had, albeit many non-Western oriented. Comparative emigration (brain drain and non- brain drain) studies of these countries would yield a better understanding of the Philippine emigration in particular and Asian emigration and immigration in general, both at the macro and micro levels. Such studies would include examination of the immigration laws of potential (or desired) immigrant countries, such as those in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc., vis-a-vis the U.S., particularly the 1965 Immigration Act, and how these affect the international "brain drain" and 394 nonbrain drain immigration patterns of Asians. Each society assumes the position that its society, culture, values, norms and social structures are more desirable than others. Deviations from this position or assumption are perceived as threats to the existence of , I that society. The deviations can come from inside the society or externally, such as influx of large immigrant groups. The tendency to make deviants conform to what the society values most is a legitimate concern which is practiced by most, if not all, societies. The issue, therefore, lies in defining the most effective means of inducing people (immigrants) to appre- ciate what the host culture values most to effect some degree of conformity. The studies may, therefore, address the question of whether more pressure to conform vis-a vis greater cultural freedom to conform on one's own terms and time would be a more effective tool in nation building or rebuilding of a better world. Studies similar to this should be conducted using similar approaches and methodology. The gathering of qualitative and quantitative data by survey methods is useful in social research, but such methods have their limits. They cannot for instance, "measure" what people really think and feel, how they live, what they perceive, and what they aspire and hope for. Experience from this 395 study indicates that the use of a highly structured instrument of the survey type for a short period of time is inadequate in securing the type of information that this study was after. Structured instruments can be used to secure "hard data" (i.e., demographic, biographical . I data, etc.). Unscaled and short questions that produce ad hoc responses are also useful, not so much to "measure" attitudes and behavior, but more so to provide leads to pursue in gathering ethnographic-type information. A Pilipino researcher or person who is knowledge- able in the nuances of Philippine social structure, values, norms and Pilipino personality would be the ideal person to conduct studies such as this. However, regard- less of whether the researcher is a Pilipino or not, Pilipino respondents would be more cooperative and/or more candid if the researcher is not a member of the group or comuunity being studied. From the field experience in this study, it was determined that if the researcher intimately knows the Pilipinos being studied, certain elements of Pilipino interpersonal behavior patterns such as "hiya" (shame) and smooth interpersonal relations ("SIR") could affect the objectivity of the rapport, as well as the future relations between the researcher and the respondents.51 396 These recommendations are not solely based on the experiences gained from this study and other "objective" considerations. They are, to a great extent, influenced by the biases of this researcher on the goals and methods of social research. Social research should not just be , E about people, it should also be for people. It should I attempt to examine, analyze, and describe what people are and/or want to be, and not to undertake to support the 1 researcher's and the establishment's normative concepts of what people ought to be. Finally, the findings of this study tend to support some concepts of the conflict and change model, and the role that conflict plays in human and societal development. Among these key concepts are: that certain forms of conflict lead to or are by themselves forms of sociation, and that resolution of conflicts lead more to changes in structural and social relationships than consensus (Sorel 1925; Simmel 1955; Coser 1956; Dahrendorf 1958:115-127; Marx 1969:206-207). For instance, the universal conflict confronted by the inhabitants of the Philippine archipelago during the three centuries of colonization led to the develop- ment of national consciousness. It led to the formation of a nation-state out of heterogeneous linguistic and cultural peoples living in politically autonomous groups, 397 in spite of the racial and ethnic diversity of the non- White immigrant minorities in America and the efforts of the White established majority to keep them apart, there has been strong indications in the last two decades that these racially, ethnically, and culturally diversed minor- ities are now uniting their efforts in confronting the racial/ethnic barriers that prevent their full participa- tion in American society and their development as indi- viduals and/or as ethnic groups. The changeS'Hithe body-politic and in the general atmosphere recognizing the rights of the minorities and allowing them wider participation in American society were not brought about by consensus; they were results of conflicts which were played out in the courts, legisla- tures, and on the streets, often accompanied by violence and tragedy. In the case of the non-White voluntary immigrants, the conflicts transcend the political and sociological boundaries of the U.S. The conflicts asso- ciated with the rights of the minorities did not end with favorable decisions of the courts nor the passage of the laws that recognized them. Their implementations are again wrought with conflicts, as evidenced by the school busing and the more recent "reverse discrimination“ issues. 398 The historical and current field data examined by this study indicate the inadequacy of the order- consensus model and the structural/functional approach in understanding the perceptions and experiences of immi- grants, particularly the non-White immigrants in American society. The proponents of this model and approach, wittingly or unwittingly but conveniently, ignore the conflicts that the minorities had to confront in their efforts to participate in the American system. Each gain led to more conflicts, and as noted above, every single right and concession, from educational opportunities to economic participation, had to be fought for at the price of physical survival and cultural integrity. Why then should the American social science establishment be surprised if the minorities have not been "assimilated" into the American mainstream? Unless of course, if their interpretation of integration or assimilation is the minorities' acceptance of their "proper places" in a racially and economically stratified society. How con- ceptually and empirically convenient it would be if the minorities, in consensus with the majority, were willing to assimilate with American society by accepting the unfair and oppressive economic, social, political, and cultural dominance of the White majority. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Monographs Abdulgani, H. Roesland. Bandung Spirit. Djakarta, Indone- sia: Badan Pennerbit Prapantja, 1964. Achutegui, Pedro S. de, S. J. and Miguel A. Bernad, S.J. The Religious Cogp Dflgtat 1898-1901 - A Documen- tary History. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University, 1960. Adams, Walter (ed.) The Brain Drain. New York: MacMillan Company, 1968. Adorno, T. W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson and R. N. Sanford. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. The Revolt of the Masses. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press, 1956. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Oscar M. Alfonso. History of the Filipino People. Quezon City, Philippines: Malaya Books, 1960. Allen, Robert L. Black Awakening in Capitalist America. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. (Anchor Books), 1969. Araneta, Francisco, S.J. Values and Institutions for Socio- Economic Reforms. Malabon, Rizal, Philippines: Araneta University, 1957. Bendix, Reinhard. Nation Building and Citizenship. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. (Anchor Books), 1969. Berghe, Pierre L. Van Den. Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1967. 399 4OO Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. Toward and Theorypof Minority- Group Rgggtions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, nc., . Blauner, Robert. Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972. Buaken, Manuel. I Have Lived With the‘American People. ‘Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1948. Bulatao, Jaime S. J. Split-Level Christianity. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1966. Bulosan, Carlos. America is in the Heart. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946. Reprinted by University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1973. Caffrey, Kate. The Mayflower. New York: Stein and Day, 1974. Carmichael, Stokely and Charles V. Hamilton. Black Power. New York: Random House, 1967. Carrol, John J. Changing Pattern of Social Structure in the Philippines: 1896-1963. Quezon City, Philip- pines: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1968. Carroll, John J. Philippine Institutions. Manila, Philip- pines: Solidaridad Publishing House, 1970. Chaffee, Frederic H., George E. Aurell, Hellen A. Barth, Elinor C. Betters, Ann S. Cort, John H. Dombrowski, Vincent J. Fasano, and John O. Weaver. Area Handbook for the Philippines. Washington, D.C.z U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1969. Cleaver, Eldridge. Soul on Ice. New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1970. Coloma, Casiano P. A Study of the Filipino Repatriation Movement. (1939 Thesis) San Francisco: R and E Research Associates, 1974. Constantino, Renato. The Making of A Filipino. Quezon City, Philippines: Malaya Books, Inc., 1969. 401 Corpus, Onofre D. The Philippines. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. (Mentor Books series). Coser, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glen- coe: The Free Press, 1956. Cox, Oliver C. Caste. Class and Race. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970. Cruse, Harold. The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. New York: Morrow, 1967. Daniels, Roger and Harry H. Kitano. Racism in America. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Durkeim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Sociepy. New York: The MacMillan and Co., 1933. (Paperback edition by Free Press, 1964). Espiritu, Socorro C. A Study of the Treatment of the Philippines in Selected Social Studies Textbooks Published in the U.S. for Use in Elementary and Secondary Schools. (1954 Dissertation). San Francisco: R and E Research Associates, 1974. Fanon, Franz. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1968. Flavier, Juan M. Doctor to the Barrios. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers of the Christian Literature Society of the Philippines, Inc., 1970. Fragomen, Austin T., Jr. The Illegal Alien: Criminal or Economic Refugee? New York: Center for Migration Stodies, l973. Frazier, E. Franklin. Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World. New York: Alfred A. Knopi} 1957. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Beyond thg Meltin Pot. Cambridge, Massachusetts, M.I.T. Press, I970. Gluckman, Max. Custom and Conflict in Africa. Oxford: Blackwell Press, 1956. 402 Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in America. New York: Oxford University Press,il964. Green, Arnold. Sociology: An Analysis of Life in Modern Society. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952. Grunder, Garel A. and William E. Livezey. The Philippine; and the United States. Norman, Oklahoma: Univer- sity of Oklahoma Press, 1951. Hartman, Edward George. The Movement To Americanize the Immigrant. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948. Hollnsteiner, Mary R. The Dynamics of Power in a Philip- pine Municipality. Quezon City, Philippines: Community Development Research Council of the Philippines (CDRC), 1963. Hunt, Chester L., Lewis Walker with contributions from George Klein and Patricia V. Klein. Ethnic Dyna- mics. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1974. Huzar, George B. The Intellectuals: A_§ontroversial Por- trait. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Jalee, Pierre. The Pillage of the Third World. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968. Knowles, Louis L. and Kenneth Prewitt. (eds.) Institutional Racism in America. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Kroeber, Alfred L. Peoples of the Philippines. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1928. Kurokawa, Minako. (ed.) Minority Responses. New York: Random House, l970. Lasker, Bruno. Filipino Immigration to Continental United States and to Hawaii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931. Lerner, Daniel and Morton Gorden. Euratlantica. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1969. Little, Malcolm ("Malcolm X"). By Any Means Necessary. New York: Pathfinder Press, l970. 403 Little, Malcolm. ("Malcolm X"). The End of White World Supremacy. New York: Marlin House, 1971. Majul, Cesar Adib. Muslims in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press, 1973. Manglapus, Raul S. Revolt.Against Tradition. Manila, Philippines, 1964. (PuElishers not indicated). Mayer, Kurt B. Class and Society. New York: Random House, 1955. McWilliams, Carey. Factories in the Fields. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1939. (See pp. 130-33, re: Filipinos). ' McWilliams, Carey. Brothers Under the Skin. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964. Marx, Gary T. (ed.) Racial Conflict: Tension and Change In American Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, l97l. Mendoza-Guanzon, Maria Paz. The Development and Prpgress pf Filipino Women. Manila: Bureau of Printing, 928. Michels, Robert. Lectures on Political Sociology. Transla- ted by Alfred de Grazia, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949. Michels, Robert. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Demo- crac . Translated by Eden and Cedar Pail. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Monuz, Alfredo N. The Filipinos In America. Los Angeles: Mountainview PubliShers, Incorporated, 1971. Morales, Royal F. Makibaka: The Pilipino American Stru gle. Los Angeles: Mountainview Publishers, Inc., 19 4. Mosca, Gaetano. The Ruling Class. Translated by Hannah D. Kahn. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1939. 404 Mosca, Gaetano. A Short History of Political Philosophy. Translated by Sandra Z. Koff. New York: CroweTl, 1972. Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. Nance, John. The Gentle Tasadays. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovichi, Inc., 1975. Newcomb, Theodore M., Ralf H. Turner and Philip E. Converse. Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Pareto, Vilfredo. The Mind and Society. Translated by Andrew Bondiorno and Arthur Livingstone, New York: Dover Publications, 1963. Pareto, Vilfredo. Sociological Writings. Translated by Derick Meirfin. New YorkzPraegor Press, 1966. Pareto, Vilfredo. The Rise and Fall of the Elites. Edited by Hans L. Zetterberg, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1968. Park, Robert E. Race and Culture. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1951. Parsons, Talcot. The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press, 1968. Phelan, John Leddy. The Hispghization of the Philippines: Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. Regulating the Poor. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Pomeroy, William J. An American Made Tragedy. New York: International Publishers, 1974. Provido, Generso P. Oriental Immigration from An American Dependency (Philippines). (1931 Thesis). San Francisco: R and E Research Associates, 1974. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1952. 405 Reich, Michael and David M. Gordon (eds.) Problems in Political Economy: An Urban Perspective. Massa- chusetts: D. C. Heath and Company,1971. ' Romulo, Carlos P. I See the Philippines Rise. Garden City, New York: DouBleday, 1946. Rowan, Carl T. The Pitiful and the Proud. New York: Random House, 1956. Ryan, William. Blaming_the Victim. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Sawyer, Frederic H. The Inhabitants of the Philippines. London: Sampson, Low, Marston and Company, Ltd., 1900. Shibutani, Tomatsu. Society and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. Simmel, George. Conflict. Translated by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955. Sorel, George. Reflections on Violence. Translated by T. E. Hulme. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1925. Sorel, George. The Illusions of Progress. Translated by John and Charlotte Stanley. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Spero, Sterling D. and John M. Capazzola. The Urban Commu- ‘ nity and Its Unionized Bureaucracies. New York: Dunellen PubTishing Company, Inc., 1973. Stonequist, E. B. The MarginalpMan. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937. Tan, Antonio 5. The Chinese in the Philippines, 1898-1935: A Study of Their National Awakening. Quezon City, Philippines: R. P. Garcia Publishing Co., 1972. Thomas, William I. and Florian Znaniecki. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1918. Tomasi, Lydio F. The Ethnic Factor in the Future of In- equality. New York: Center for Immigration Studies, 1973. 406 Turner, Jonathan H. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1974. Weber Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcot Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. Williams, Robin M., Jr. Strangers Next Door. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:’Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Willhelm, Sidney M. Who Needs the Negro? New York: Anchor Books, 1970. Wolf, Leon. Little Brown Brother. Manila, Philippines: Erehwon (For Doubleday and Co.), 1961. Yetman, Norman and C. Hoy Steele (eds.) Majority and Minority. Boston: Allyn and Bac6n, Inc., 1971. Articles Agpalo, Remigio A. "The Philippine Political System in the Perspective of History." Siliman Journal. Vol. XIX, No. 1 (First Quarter 1972), p. 1-27. Anthony Donald Elliot. "Filipino Labor in Central Cali- fornia " Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 16, (1931-32), Pp. 149-156. Aronovici, Carol. "Americanization: Its Meaning and Func- tion." American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 25, No. 6 (Mayl920), pp. 695-730. Axelrod, Bernard. "Historical Studies of Emigration from the United States." International Migration Review. Vol. VI, No. 1 (Spring 1972),pp. 32-49. Baratz, Stephen S. and Joan C. Baratz. "Early Childhood Intervention: The Social Science Base of Institu- tional Racism " MajorityeMinority. Edited by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steéie, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971 (pp. 470-490). 407 Baran, Paul and Paul Sweezy. "The Multinational Corpora- tion and Modern Imperialism." The Capitalist S stem, ed. by Richard C. Edwards, Michael Reich and Thomas E. Weisskopf. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, pp. 345-442. Baron, Harold M. "Black Powerlessness in Chicago." Majority-Minority. Edited by Norman R. Yetman and C.]Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 97 . Bello, Walden F., Frank Lynch and Perla Q. Makil. "Brain Drain in the Philippines." Modernization: Its Impact in the Philippines IV. (IPC Papers No. 7) Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University, 1969, pp. 93-146. Bernard, Jessie. "The Conceptualization of Intergroup Re- lations with Special Reference to Conflict." in Racial Conflict: Tension and Change in Ameri- can Society. Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971, pp. 25-31. Bernard, William S. "Cultural Determinants of Naturaliza- tion." American Sociological Review. Vol. 1, No. 6, (December 1936), pp. 943-953. Berreman, Joel V. "Filipino Identification with American Minorities." Research Studies State_College of Washington. XXIC (June 1956), pp. 105-115. Bogardus, Emory 5. "Filipino Immigrant Problems." Sociol- ogy and Social Research. Vol. XIII (1928-29), pp. 472-479. Bogardus, Emory S. "American Attitudes Towards Filipinos." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 14, No. 1 (September-October 1929), pp. 59-69. Bogardus, Emory S. "Filipino Immigrant Attitudes." Sociol- ogy and Social Research. Vol. 14 (1929), pp. 469-479. Bogardus, Emory 5. "What Race are Filipinos." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 16, (1931-327, pp. 274- 79. 408 Bogardus, Emory S. "The Filipino Press in the United States." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 18, (July-August 1934), pp. 581-585. Bogardus, Emory S. "Filipino Repatriation." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 21, (September-October 1936), pp. 67171. Breed, Warren. “Group Structure and Resistance to Desegre- gation in the Deep South." Racial Conflict. Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971, pp. 147-157. Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. "The American Slave Plantation and the Heritage of Communal Deprivation." Majority-Minority. Edited by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1971, pp. 167-177. Buaken, Manuel. "Our Love for Freedom: 1200 Members of the First Filipino Infantry Takes Oath of Allegiance which Makes them U.S. Citizens." Asia. Vol. 43, No. 6, (June 1943), pp. 357-359. Bulatao, Jayme c. "Hiya." Philippine Studies. Vol. 12, No. 3, (July 1964), pp. 424-438. Burma, John H. "The Background of the Current Situation of Filipino-Americans." Social Forces. Vol. 30, No. 1 (October 1951), pp.l42:48. Cafferty, Pastora San Juan. "Spanish-Speaking Americans: Economic Assimilation or Cultural Identity."(in) Pieges of a Dream. edited by Michael Wenk, S. M. Tomasi and Geno Baroni. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1972, pp. 191-202. Carmichael, Stokely. "What We Want." Racial Conflict. Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971, pp. 186-193. Carrol, John J., S.J. "The Traditional Philippine Social Structure." :Siliman Journal. (Vol. XIX, No. 1), Dumaguete City, Philippines: Siliman Univer- sity, January-April 1972, pp. 80-88. 409 Catapusan, Benicio T. "Filipino Repatriates in the Philip- pines." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 21, (September-October 1936), pp. 72-77. Catapusan, Benicio T. "Filipino Immigrants and Public Re- lief of the United States." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 23, (July-August 1939), pp. 546-554. Catapusan, Benicio T. "Leisure-Time Problems of Filipino Immigrants." Sociology and Social Research. (July-August 1940), pp. 541-549. Caudill, William and George De Vos. "Achievement, Culture and Personality: The Case of the Japanese- Americans." Majority and Minority. ed. by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. pp. 299-305. Coser, Lewis. "Some Sociological Aspects of Conflict." (in) Racial Conflict, Tension and Change in American Societ . Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. pp. 14-20. Corpus, Severino F. "Second Generation Filipinos in Los Angeles." Sociology and Socigl Resegrch. Vol. 22, (May-June 1938), pp. 446-451. Dahrendorf, Ralf, "Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Social Analysis." .American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LXIV, No. 2 (September 1958), pp. 115-127. Diokno, Jose W. "The Issue with Americans." Solidarity. Vol. III, No. 10 (OCtober 1968), pp. ll-l9. Duff, Donald F. and Arthur Ranson, Jr. "Between Two Worlds: Filipinos in the United States Navy." American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 123, (January 1967), pp. 836-843. Eitzen, D. Stanley. "Two Minorities: The Jews of Poland and the Chinese of the Philippines.“ _ MajOv rity and Minority. Edited by Norman Yetman and Ci Hoy Steéle. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Pp. 117-138. ~410 Erikson, Erik H. "The Concept of Identity in Race Rela- tions: Notes and Queries." Daedalus. Vol. 95, No. 1, (Winter 1966), pp. 145-171. Field, Frederick V. and Elizabeth Brown Field. "Social and Economic Backgrounds of Filipino Emigrants." Appendix K to Filipino Immigration to Continen- tal United States and Hawaii. by Bruno Lasker. ChiCago: University of Chicago Press, 1931, pp. 415-439. Fishman, Joshua A. "Childhood Indoctrination for Minority Group Membership." Daedalus. Vol. 90, No. 2, Spring, 1961, pp. 329-349. Fogel, Walter. "The Effect of Low Educational Attainment on Incomes: A Comparative Study of Selected Ethnic Groups." Journal of Human Resources. Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 1966). Pp. 22:40. Fortney, Judith A. "Immigration and American Scientific Manpower." ' ;The International Migration Review. Vol. VI, No. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 50-62. Foster, Nellie. "Legal Status of Filipino Intermarriages in California." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 16 (1931-32), pp. 441-454. Fox, Robert B. and Frank Lynch, S.J. "Ritual Co-Parent- hood." .Area Handbook on the Philippines. Chicago: University of Chicago Human Relations Files, Inc., 1956, pp. 424-430. Fox, Robert B. "The Filipino Family and Kinship." Phil- ippine Quarterly. Vol. II, No. 1, (October- December 1961), pp. 6-9. Fox, Robert 8. "Men and Women in the Philippines." Women in the New Asia. ed. by Barbara E. Ward. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul- tural Organization (UNESCO), 1963. pp. 342-364. Galtung, Johan. "A Structural Theory of Imperialism." Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 2 (1971), pp. 81-117. 411 Goldberg, M. M. "A Qualification of the Marginal Man Theory." American Sociological Review. Vol. 6 No. 1 (February 1941), pp. 52-58. Gonzalo, D. F. "Social Adjustments of Filipinos in Ame- rica." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 14, (1929), Pp. 166-173. Gordon, Milton. "Social Class and American Intellectuals." American Association of University Professors Bulletin. Vol. 40, No. 4 (Winter 1954-55), pp. 518-19. Gosnell, H. F. "Non-Naturalization: A Study in Political Assimilation." American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 33, No. 6, (May 1928), pp. 930-39. Gosnell, H. F. "Characteristics of the Non-Naturalized." American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 34, No. 5, (March 1929). PP. 847-855. Green, A. M. "A Re-examination of the Marginal Man Con- cept." Social Forces. Vol. 26, No. 2 (December 1947). Pp. 167-171. Gupta, M. L. "Outflow of High-Level Manpower from the Philippines." International Labor Review. Vol. 8, (February 1973), pp. 167-191. Guthrie, George M. and Fortunata A. Azores. "Philippine Interpersonal Behavior Patterns." Moderniza- tion: Its Impact in the Philippines. IPC Pa- pers No. 6. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1968, pp. 3-63. Hawgood, John A. "The Attempt to Found a New Germany in Missouri." The Aliens. Edited by Leonard Dinnerstein and Frederic Cople Jaher. New York: Meredith Corporation, 1970, pp. 125-141. Hayner, Norman S. and Charles N. Reynolds. "Chinese Family Life in America." American Sociological Review. Vol. 2, No. 5, (October 1937), pp. 630-637. Henderson, Donald. "Minority Response and the Conflict Model." Minority Responses. Edited by Minako Kurokawa. New York: Random House, 1970, pp. 301-310. 412 Hill, Howard C. "The Americanization Movement." American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 24, No. 6 (May 1919), pp. 609-42. Hill, Robert. "Racial Inequality in Employment: The Pat- terns of Discrimination." Racial Conflict. Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. pp. 81-91. Hollnsteiner, Mary R. "Reciprocity in Lowland Philip- pines." Four Readings on Philippine Values. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila Uni- versity, 1970 (3rd ed.), pp. 22-49; 66-88. Horton, John. "Order and Conflict Theories of Social Pro- blems as Competing Ideologies." Majority and Minorit . Edited by Norman Yetman and CI Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, pp. 15-31. Hunt, Chester L. and Luis Lakar. "Social Distance and American Policy in the Philippines. ' Sociol- ogy and Social Research. Vol. 47, No. 4, ‘(July 1973), pp. 495-509. Irwin, Richard. "Changing Pttterns of American Immigra- tion." International Migration Review. Vol. VI, No. 1, (Spring 1972), pp. 18-31. Kaut, Charles. "Utang Na Loob: A System of Contractual Obligations Among Tagalogs." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. Vol. 17, No. 3, (Ahtumn 1961), pp. 256-272. Keely, Charles 8. "Effects of the Immigration Act of 1965 on Selected Population Characteristics of Immi- grants to the United States." Demo ra h . Vol. 8, No. 2, (May 1971), pp. 157-169. Keely, Charles B. "Philippine Migration: ‘Internal Move- ments and Emigration to the United States." International Migration Review. Vol. 7, No. 2, (Summer 1972), pp. 177-187. Kerckhoff, A. C. and T. C. McCormick. "Marginal Status and Marginal Personality." Social Forces. Vol. 34, No. 1, (October 1955), pp. 48-55. 413 Kitano, Harry H. "Passive Discrimination: The Normal Person." The Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 70, (1966), PP. 23-31. Konvitz, Milton R. "The Constitution and the Filipinos - Exclusion and Naturalization." Common Ground. Vol. 6, (Winter 1946), pp. 101-106. Landa-Jocano, Felipe. "Rethinking Filipino Cultural Heri- tage." Lipunan. Vol. 1, No. 1 (1965). Landa-Jocano, Felipe. "Filipino Social Structure and Value-System." .Siliman Journal. Vol. XIX, No. l, (January-April T972), pp. 59-79. Lipset, Seymor Martin. "American Intellectuals: Their Politics and Status." Daedalus (Summer 1959), pp. 470-472. Litwack, Leon F. "The Federal Government and the Free Negro, 1790-1860." Majority-Minority. Edited by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, pp. 178-192. Lynch, Frank S.J. "Social Acceptance Reconsidered." Four Readings on Philippine Values. Quezon City,"Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University, 1970 (3rd ed.), pp. 1-65. MacLeish, Kenneth and Dean Conger» "Help for Philippine Tribes in Trouble." National Geo ra hic. Vol. 140, No. 2, (August 1971), pp. 220-255. Mabini, Apolinario. "The True Decalogue." Translated by Maximo M. Kalaw. Philippine Social Science Review. Vol. IV, No. 4, (October 1932), pp. 311-313. Magdoff, Harry. "Militarism and Imperialism." The Capi- talist System. Ed. by Richard C. Edward , Michael Reich and Thomas E. Weisskopf. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Mathews, Fred H. "White Community and Yellow Peril." The Aliens. Edited by Leonard Dinnerstein and Frederic Cople Jaher. New York: Appleton-Century -Crofts, 1970, pp. 268-284. 414 Marx, Karl. "Class Cohesion Through Conflict." (in) Sociology Theory: A Book of Readingg. Edited by Lewis A. Coser and Bernard Rosenberg (3rd ed.). New York: The MacMillan Company, 1969, pp. 206-207. Nettler, Gwynn. "The Relationships Between Attitudes and Information Concerning the Japanese in America." American Sociological Review. Vol. 11, No. 2, (April 1946). Pp. 117-191. Novak, Michael. "New Ethnic Politics Vs. Old Ethnic Poli- tics." Pieces of A Dream. Edited by Michael Wenk, S.M. Tomasi and Geno Baroni. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1972. Orias, E. U. "Filipino Blue Jackets in the U.S. Navy." Action Now (Manila), No. 14, (February 8, 1969), pp. 16- 7. Osofsky, Gilbert. "The Enduring Ghetto." Majority and Minorit . Edited by Norman Yetman and C. Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Park, Robert E. "Social Assimilation." Encyglopedia of the Social Sciences. Edwin R. Al Seligan and Alvin Johnson (eds.) New York: The MacMillan Company, 1930, Vol. 2, pp. 281. Pido, Antonio J. A. "Differential Fertility in a Medium- Sized Philippine City." Philippine Sociological Review. Vol. II, Nos. 1 & 2 (January-April 1963). Manila, Philippines: Philippine Sociological Society, pp. 91-98. Poussaint, Alvin F. "A Negro Psychiatrist Explains the Negro Psychic." . Majority-Minority, Edited by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, pp. 348-358. Prager, Jeffrey. "White Racial Privilege and Social Change: An Examination of the Theories of Racism." Berkeley Journal of Sociology. Vol. XVII (1972-73), pp. 117-150. Psathas, George. ”Ethnicity, Social Class and Parental Control." American Sociological Review. Vol. 22, No. 4, (August 1957), pp. 415-423. 415 Raab, Earl and Seymour Martin Lipset. "The Prejudiced Society." Racial Conflict. Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971, pp. 31-45. Rahman, Rudolf, S.V.D. "The Negritos of the Philippines and the Early Spanish Missionaries." Studia Instituti Anthropos. Vol. 18, (1963). Redfield, Robert, Ralf Lintin and Melville J. Herskovits "Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation." American Anthropologist. Vol. 28, No. 1 (January-March 1936), pp. 149. Research Committee. "Filipinos in Chicag port." Samaralan. Oak Park, I pine Study Group, Vol. 1, No. 5 pp. 8-15. 0: A Special Re- llinois: Philip- (December 1974), Rinder, Irwin D. "Minority'Orientations: An Approach to Intergroup Relations Theory Through Social Psy- chology." Minority Responses. Edited by Minako Kurokawa. New York: Random House, 1970, pp. 43-54. Rojo, Trinidad A. "Social Maladjustments Among Filipinos in the United States." Sociology and Social Research. Vol. 21 (May 1937), pp. 447-457. Seeman, Melvin. "The Intellectual and the Language of Minorities." American Journal of Sociology Vol. 64, No. 1 (July 1958). Pp. 25-35. Simmel, George. "Conflict as Sociation." Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings. Edited by Lewis A. Coser and Bernard Rosemberg, London: The MacMillan Co., 1969. Simpson, George Eaton and L. Milton Yinger. "Prejudice as a Weapon in the Struggle for Power, Prestige and Income." Racial Conflict. Edited by Gary T. Marx. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971, pp. 142-147. Sorel, George. "The Decomposition of Marxism." Radi- calism and Revolt Against Reason. by Irving Louis Horowitz. New York: The Humanities Press, 1961. PP. 209-254. 416 Tabb, William K. "Race Relations Models and Social Change." Social Problems. Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1971), pp. 431-444. Stoodley, Bartlett H. "Normative Attitudes of Filipino Youth Compared with German and American Youth.“ American Sociological Review. Vol. 22, No. 5 (October 1957), pp. 553-560. Strodtbeck, Fred L. "Family Interaction, Values and Achievement." Majority-Minority. Edited by Norman R. Yetman and CTlHoy Steele, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, pp.305-320. Thomas, Robert K. "Powerless Politics." Majority- Minorit . Edited by Norman R. Yetman and C. Hoy Steele. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, pp. 401-412. Treudley, Mary Bosworth. "Formal Organization and Assimi- lation." American Sociological Review. Vol. 14, No. 1 (February 1949, pp. 44-53. Useem, John, John Donoghue and Ruth Hill Useem. "Men in the Middle of the Third Culture." ,Human Organization. Vol. 22, 1963, pp. 169-167. Useem, John and Ruth Hill Useem. "The Interfaces of Bina- tional Third Culture: A Study of the American Community in India." The Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 23, 1966, pp. 130-143. Weber, Arnold R. "The Role of the U.S. Department of Labor in Immigration." The International Migration Review. Vol. IV, No. 3 (Summer 1970), pp. 31-46. Weisskopf, Thomas E. "Capitalism and Underdevelopment." The Capitalist System. Edited by Richard C. Edwards, Michael Reich and Thomas B. Weisskopf. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, pp. 442-457. Wingo, James. "The First Filipino Regiment." Asia. V01. 42, No. 10 (October 1942), pp. 562-563. 417 Whitney, Philip B. "Forgotten Minority: Filipinos in the United States." Bglletin of Bibliography egg #ggazine Notes. Vol. 29, No. 3 (July-September 9 2), pp. 73-83. Other Miscellaneous Sources (Public Documents, unpublished materials, newspapers, etc.) Abad, Ricardo G. "Migration Expectations of Filipino Medi- cal Graduates: An Overview." Paper presented at the Conference of International Migration from the Philippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June 10-14, 1974. Abella, Domingo. "From 'Indio' to Filipino." Paper pre- sented at the 5th Conference on Asian History, Manila, 1971. Almirol, Edwin B. "Filipino Associations: Balancing So- cial Pressures and Ethnic Images." Paper pre- sented at the Conference on International Migra- tion from the Philippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June lO-14, 1974. Asperilla, Purita F. "The Mobility of Filipino Nurses." Paper presented at the Conference on Interna- tional Migration from the Philippines. East- West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June lO-l4, 1974. Balitaan. "The Newly Arrived Immigrants (Professionals). May 1975, p. 6. Balitaan. "Divorce Any Style Not Acceptable." July 7,1975. Bureau of the Budget. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959. Business and Industry Service Division, Office of Economic Expansion. Jobs by Industry for Michigan SMSA Counties, 1970:85. Lansing: Michigan Department of Commerce, 1973. 418 Byrne, Eamonn. "Needs, Problems, and Aspirations of Fili- pinos Abroad." Proceedings of the Conference on International Migration from the Philippines. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-Westhenter Population Institute, 1974. Catapusan, Benicio T. "The Social Adjustment of Filipinos in the United States." (Ph.D. Dissertation) Uni- versity of Southern California, 1940. Card, Josefina J. "Determinants of the Migration Inten- tions of Filipino Graduate Students in the U.S.A. Paper presented at the Conference on Internatio- nal Migration from the Philippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, June lO-14, 1974. Clark, Erlinda T. "Filipino Labor Experiences in the United States." Unpublished dissertation, Texas Technical University, 1971. Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. lg; migration and Naturalization Act. (6th revised edition). Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1969. Cortes, Josefina R. "Factors Associated with the Migra- tion of High-Level Persons from the Philippines to the U.S.A." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1969. Department of National Defense (DND). Republic of the Philippines. Advice For Officers on Temporary Duty in the U.S. Manila, Philippines, 1952. Editors & Publishers Co., 1975 Editors and Publishers Guide. New York: Editors and Publishers Co., 1975. ‘ Fox, Robert B. and Elizabeth F. Flory. The Filipino Peo- pl . Manila: National Museum of the Philippines and Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1974. Graduate School of Business Administration, Michigan State University. Michigan Statistical Abstracts. (10th ed.) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974. 419 Griffiths, Stephen. "Emigrants Investments in their Home Community." Paper presented at the Conference on International Migration from HuePhilippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June 10- 14, 1974. Hernandez, Evelyn. "The Makibaka Movement: A Filipino Protest and Struggle." Paper presented at the Conference on International Migration from the Philippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June 10-14, 1974. Jayme, Josefina Bulatao. "Demographic and Socio-Psycholo- gical Determinants of the Migration of Filipinos to the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. Disser- tation. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971. Mariano, Honorante. "The Filipino Immigrants to the Uni- ted States. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of Oregon. 1933. Martin, Beaumont. "Slaves in Uniform." Examiner (Manila). No. 230 (November 13, 1966), pp. 6 & 34. Maslog, Crispin Chio. "Filipino and Indian Students' Images of Themselves, of Each Other and of the United States." (Ph.D. Dissertation), Univer- sity of Minnesota, 1967. Munnariz, Natividad. "Acceptance of American Culture Among Students from the Philippines." Unpublished Dis- sertation, Columbia University, 1960. New Republic. "Unwanted Heroes." May 18, 1942, p. 655. Newsweek. "They Also Served." November 9, 1970, pp. 32-33. Newsweek. "The Philippines: The Slst State." July 24,1972, p. 50. Office of Economic Expansion, Michigan Department of Com- merce. 1974 Michigan Economic and Population Statistics. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Depart- ment of Commerce, 1974. Panamin, Foundation, Inc. Helping the Filipino Minorities Attain a Better Life. Makati, Rizal, Philip- pines: Private Association for National Minori- ties ("PANAMIN") Foundation, Inc. (publication is undated, probably published in 1970). 420 Parel, Cristina P. "A Survey of Foreign-Trained Profes- sionals in the Philippines." Paper presented at the Conference on International Migration from the Philippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June 10-14, 1974. Pena, George. "Those Filipino Oldtimers in USA." Weekl Nation (Manila). Vol. 2, No. 13 (November 21, 1933). pp. 20-21. Personnel Officers Association of the Philippines. The Civil Service Law and Rules. Manila, Philifipines: Personnel Officers Association of the Philip- pines, 1969. Philippine Delegation to Conference. The Philippine Si- tuation. Institute of Pacific Relations, October 1929. Philippine Chronicle. "The Philippine Medical Association in Chicago in Turmoil." April 1975, p. 8. Philippine Times.' "Fil-Am Group's Election in LA Spawns Legal Fight." February 15, 1974, pp. B-S, B-7. Philippine Times. "Fil-Am Unit Asks Alien Bill Rider." February 15, 1974, pp. B-l, B-2. Philippine Times. "Court Ruling May Grant Federal Jobs to Aliens.” February 28, 1974, pp. B-l, B-2. Philippine Times. "Three Nations Recruit Filipinos.“ March 15, 1974, p. 12. Philippine Times. "Fil-Am Task Force Formed." March 31, 1974, pp. B-S, B-6. Philippine Times. "Frisco YoUth Gangs Bared." August 16, 1974, pp. 1 & l9. Philippine Times. "The Immigrants Check." October 15,1974, p. 2. , Philippine Times. "Youth Killed, Two Hurt in Bay Area ViElence." November 30, 1974, p. 13. Philippine Times. "Doctors Organize National Council." November 30, 1974, p. 11. 421 Philippine Times. "Feud Costs Pinoys $185,000." December 31, 1974, p. 9. Philippine Times. "More Doctors Organize." January 1975, pp. ll& 11. Philippine Times. Special Report. January 1974 and February 1974 (Series). Pilipino Development Associates, Inc. The Pilipino Immi- grants. (A 32-minute color documentary film on the Filipino Immigrants to the U.S.), San JoSe, California, 1975. Pope, Jean. "The Natives Who Have Not Returned." Sunday Times Magazine. May 26, 1968, pp. 30-31. Requiza, Moreno C. "The Role of Social Networks in Fili- pino Immigration to the East Coast of the United States." Paper presented at the Conference on International Migration from the Philippines. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. June lO-14, 1974. Restivo, Sal P. "Visiting Foreign Scientists at American Universities: A Study in the Third-Culture of Science." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Saito, Shiro. "The Overseas Filipinos: A Working Biblio- graphy." Honolulu: East-West Population Insti- tute, East-West Center, June 1974 (Mimeo). Samuelson, Paul A. "The Brain Drain." Newsweek. December 16, 1968, p. 88. State of Michigan (Department of Management and Budget). Population Projections of the Counties of Michi- gan. Lansing, Michigan, October 1974. The State Journal. "Illegal Aliens 'Steal' U.S. Jobs." January 26, 1975, p. A-9. Time. "Asia. A New Tripolar Balance." June 23, 1975, p. 37-38. 422 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). National Science Policy and Organization of Research in the Philippines. (Science Policy Studies and Documents No. 22f. Paris, UNESCO, 1970. United Nations. Demographic Yearbook 1971. New York: United Nations. 1972. United Nations. 1973 Demographic Yearbook. New York: United Nations, 1974. U.S. News and World Report. "All These Refugees. Who They are, Where they are Going." May 12, 1975, pp. 21-22. United States Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Popu- lation: 1970. CENSUS OF HOUSING V01. 5} Residentiai Finance, March 1973. United States Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census ofiPopu- lation: 1970. Vol. 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULAIION. PT. L, United States Summary, June, 1973. United States Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population: 1970. Number of Inhabitants. PC (1)-A24 Michigan. Washington, D.C.: United States Printing Office, 1971. United States Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population: 1970. U.S. Summary. PC(1)-Cl: General Social and Economic Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. United States Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population: 1970. Subject Reports. PC(2)-1B. Negro Population. 1C. Persons of Spanish Origin. 1F. American Indians. 1E. Japanese, Chinese and Filipinos in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 423 United States Bureau of The Census. United States Census of Population: 1970. Vol. I. Characteristics of Population, Part 24, Michigan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. . Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1974. (95th edition), Washington, D.C., l974. . Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1975 (96th Edition), Washington, D.CI, 1975. . Congress. Congressional Record. Vol. LXXII., No. 1, January 31, 1930, pp. 2734-2739. . Congress, House. Congressman Glenn M. Anderson speak- ing for the consideration and passage of H.R. 12208, 92nd Cong., lst sess., December 13, 1971. Congressional Record, Vol. 117, Part 36, pp. 46602-46604. . Congress, House. Congressman Jerome R. Waldie, "The Myth of the Ideal Minority," addreSs before the House, 93rd Congress, lst sess. January 13, 1973. Congressional Record, Vol. 119, Part 3, pp. 3095-3096. . Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Ille- gal Aliens. Hearings before a Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law. House of Representatives, on H.R. 982 and Rela- ted Matters, 94th Congress, 1st Session, 1975. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Agri- culture. OBERS Projections. Regional Economic Activity in UHaUnited States: l929-220. Lansing; Office of Economid‘Expansion, Michigan Department of Commerce, 1972. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Annual Report(s): 1960, 1970, 1972 and 1973. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 424 U.S. Department of Labor. Immigrants and the U.S. Labor Market. (Manpower Research Monograph No. 31). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Villarba, Jo. "Disunity Plagues Filipinos in the U.S." Examiner. September 12, 1965, pp. 20 & 30. Wille, Lois. "The New Immigrant." The Chicago Daily News. October 20-24, 1974. FOOTNOTES 1For treaties on the evolution of the term "Filipino", see Abella 1971. 2In comparing China, Japan, and the Philippines, the term "China", applies more to Taiwan, Hongkong, and other areas of the world where there are overseas Chinese, rather than mainland China, since the early 1950's. 3Brothers Under the Skin was originally published in 1942. Another work by McWilliams using the same macro analysis is Factories in the Fields, published in 1939. 4America is in the Hearth was originally published in 1943 and 1946 by Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc. The current 1973 publication is by the University of Washington Press, Seattle. 5For more detailed description of the field site and respondents, see Chapter V and Appendix III. 6A copy of the instruments is included in this study as Appendix II. 7Three smaller groups, but they were included in aggregate categories, such as other Pacific peoples, "others", etc. 8The term reservation should not be equated with those of the American Indians. As used in the Philippines for its tribal minorities, it means declaring their gwp ancestral lands as reservations and off limits to anyone. 9Pronounced "bar-ran-guy". The term also applied to the large boats on which families immigrated from the Malay archipelago. 425 426 10The use of the term slaves to identify those of the lowest social class in pre-colonial Philippine society has been challenged by later scholars. It was the Spaniards who called them slaves. Agoncillo and Alfonso (1967:41-42) called them dependents, similarly situated as the serfs in feudal Europe. Phelan (1959:20) likewise contends that they are more identical with debt peonage and sharecropping rather than the accepted concept of chattel slavery. HAn interesting source of information on the Spanish racial classifications in the Philippines are the old baptismal records and certificates. This writer's mother's baptismal certificate identified her as "mestizo" (half Spanish), his father was "octoron" (one eight Spanish blood) and an uncle was "Indio Puro". Unfortunately, most of the records were destroyed in World War II. 12The strategy was to manufacture evidence that the rich were secretly supporting the movement and leak them to the Spanish authorities. Based on their experience with the Spanish authorities, the "Katipuneros" were sure that the former will not bother to examine the veracity of the alleged support by the rich for the "Katipunan". Therefore, Spanish action against the rich will leave the latter no alternative but to support the movement. As it turned out, this strategy was not even necessary, since the Spaniards struck back at all Pilipinos, rich and poor (Agoncillo 1956:112-116; 143-146). 13As noted earlier, the Philippine Islands was named after Philip II of Spain. Since its independence and until the legislature was abolished by the current martial law government, several attempts have been made to change the country's name to one that removes any foreign vestiges and reflects a nationalist character. All of these attempts never came to anything concrete. For one thing, any proposed name or title that reflects one regional-linguistic group was opposed by other regional-linguistic groups. Besides, as cynics point out, any native or nationalistic nomenclature for the Philippines would be more symbolic than real. 427 14Most of the first American public school teachers and civil servants "volunteered" for the "hazardous" job of “educating" the natives. Their service to the Philippines assume missionary dimensions. They came on the troop ship St. Thomas, hence the name Thomasites. 15Quoted from Agoncillo and Alfonso (1967:117-118). 16There are 2.4 acres to a hectare. 17Little Brown Brother was the title of the book by Leon Wolfe which describes how the United States took over the Philippines. It was originally published in 1960 by Double Day & Company, Inc., and has since been published in the Philippines by Erehwon Press in 1971. 18These typologies should not be confused with similar terms used in the American literature describing immigration to the U.S. The "old immigrants" referred to those of Anglo-Saxon origin that immigrated to the U.S. from the first settlers on the Mayflower towards the end of the 19th Century. The "New immigrants" refer to the Immigrants that came to the U.S. from Southern, Eastern, and Mediterranean Europe and Ireland towards the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. 19Most of the Pilipino plantation workers in Hawaii were better off. Many of them were able to bring their families with them for which housing was also provided. 20The quotas are just for immigrants and do not include nonimmigrants such as students, exchange visitors, tourists, etc. 2ISee also the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 and Annual Reports of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from 1966 onwards. 22The U.S. Bureau of the Census' definition of homes are limited to one-family homes on less than ten (10) acres of land. It excludes homes on farms with more than ten (10) acres or those with Business on the property (U.S. Census of Population:l970. SUBJECT REPORTS PC(2)-16, 1973:160; 164). 428 23Some of the statistics used in the U.S. Census of Population for 1970 on minority groups are based on samples of the estimated populations. They were 20% samples for the Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Pilipinos, and Native Americans, and 15% for the Spanish-speaking. There were also smaller national groups such as Indians, Malaysians, etc. However, they were reported in catego- ries such as "other Asians", or from "Pacific Regions", etc. (U.S. Census of Population: 1970. SUBJECT REPORTS PC(2)-18; -1C; -1E; -1F; -1G). 24U.S. Senate Hearing on the Philippines, 7lst Congress, Second Session, January 31, 1930 (Congressional Record 1930:2734-2739). 25As far as can be determined, the word is derived from the term "hey guy", a different version of the way Blacks were addressed, "hey boy". 26The detailed age and sex distribution of the respondents is in Table A1, Appendix II. 27A detailed distribution of the respondents' educational attainments by sex, degrees and areas of specialization is in Table A3, Appendix II. 28The Philippine peso follows a "floating" rate of exchange, which in 1974 was fluctuating between P7.00 to P7.50 to the U.S. dollar. For this stud the rate was fixed at 97.00 to the U.S. dollar ($1.00l. 29The term "own" includes those homes fully paid for or are still under mortgage. One family owned two homes in the area, one they resided in and the other (an apartment building) was being rented out. 30After 1972, there has been some clean up of graft at the low to middle level, the type that affects most people. Further, through a controlled press, less graft is reported, which may or may not be the case. 429 3lLike their American colleagues, they are in a way also exploited. No one argues that doing research or teaching is part of one's graduate education, or that it may be a fair exchange for financial aid. But the graduate assistants do perform work that would cost the University more if done by a regular staff or faculty. In fact, the hourly wage rate for students is less than half that received by a nonstudent doing the same work. 32See Table A6, Appendix I. 33See page HM or WF/l9 of Instrument on Appendix II. 34See page HM or WF/12 of Instrument in Appendix II. 35See Tables A7 and A8, Appendix I. 36What is meant by "ordinary Pilipino way of life" is the absence of modern "homemaker" conveniences, appliances, etc., in the Philippines for middle and lower classes vis-a-vis the U.S. 37There are exceptions such as the international migration of Jews where they always constituted a minority, except the migration to Israel. In which case, the shift was from minority to majority. 38The Philippine Secretary of Justice recently ruled that children of Pilipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign country do not automatically lose their Philippine citizenship, unless they or their parents take positive legal steps to do so. This com- pliments U.S. laws, which do not make children of aliens who become U.S. citizens automatically U.S. citizens, unless born in the U.S. (Philippine Times, October 15, 1974:2). Rulings, opinions and interpretations by the Philippine Secretary of Justice of the law become law unless reversed or amended by the courts. 430 39The Philippine Secretary of Justice has ruled that Pilipinos who are U.S. citizens can own residences (house and lot) in the Philippines provided they are residing in them. Otherwise, they will be treated like any other alien. This opinion was in reaction to the desire of some Pilipinos who are U.S. citizens to retire in the Philippines without giving up their U.S. citi- zenship, which may result in the loss of retirement, social security and other benefits earned in the U.S. (Philippine Times, January 31, l974:1; 3). Aliens who are on immigrant visas (Permanent Resident) have the same rights and duties as U.S. citizens, except for voting, running for public office and from employment in selected Federal positions (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Brochure on Immigrants). 40Excluding two respondents who did not reveal their educational qualifications. 4lThere were only five nuclear families that were related in the area, comprising three independent households. 42Midwest State shares a border with Canada and Midwest City is less than two hours drive to the province of Ontario. 43It is probable that the taking away of uncon- sumed food in restaurants by customers is a Chinese custom. This has been observed by this researcher and other Pilipinos at Chinese Restaurants in other cities in Asia such as Hongkong, Jakarta (Indonesia), Kula Lampur (Malaysia) and Singapore; as well as in U.S. cities such as San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Midwest City. 44At the time of the study one of the Pilipino "OT's" in the area was out of town and the other was experiencing a serious illness in the family, therefore neither of them could participate during the field work. 431 45Multi-lingual families are not unusual among middle to upper class Pilipinos in the Philippines. Most Pilipinos who have had schooling are least bi-lingual. In this writer's home several languages are used. They are four Pilipino languages, in addition to English and Spanish. 46Most public schools in the Philippines, except those in urban centers are poorly funded and equipped, compared with the private schools. Consequently, most parents exert efforts to send their children to private schools, most of which are either parochial schools or run by religious orders. 47Two of the husbands who had lower occupations than their wives, were in fact unemployed and full-time students. 48New Republic, September 23, 1940, quoted from McWilliams 1964:248. 49As defined in this study, the term is charac- terized by degree of formal education, occupation (scientists, technologists, technocrats, artists and/or professionals) and avocation. 50The countries enumerated here excludes those that are closer to the Asian mainland, such as the Indian continent, Hongkong, and the Asian Portuguese colonies of Macao and Goa. 5lDescription, critique and relevant information and recommendations on the field data gathering strate- gies as well as field work experiences from this study are presented in more detail in Appendix III. APPENDICES APPENDIX I SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS AS FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS OF A NON-WHITE IMMIGRANT MINORITY: THE CASE OF THE PILIPINOS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A. Table A1: Age and Sex Distribution of a Sample of Pilipinos in Midwest City, U.S.A. 1974 Age Groups Total (M & Fj_ Male_ Female TOTAL gg ‘11 ii 1) O to 04 years 7 4 3 2) 05 to O9 4 l 3 3) 10 to 14 13 6 7 4) 15 to 19 7 3 4 5) 20 to 24 7 4 3 6) 25 to 29 10 4 6 7) 30 to 34 11 5 6 8) 35 to 39 9 6 3 9) 40 to 44 7 4 3 10) 45 to 49 5 2 3 11) 50 to 54 4 2 2 12) 55 to 59 4 3 l 13) 60 and over - - - Mean 27.14 28.18 26.09 Median 26.9 29.5 25.8 Table A2: 433 Philippine Ethno-Lin uistic and Regional Origins of a Sample of Pilipinos in Midwest City, U.S.A., l974 Philippine Ethno-Linguistic Groups Total (In Alphabetical Order) (M & F) Male Female TOTAL (Number of Cases) i1 21 24 l) Bicolano 02 O 02 2) Cebuano O8 05 O3 3) Ilocano 06 03 O3 4) Hiligaynon (Ilongo) O4 02 02 5) Tagalog 26 14 12 6) Warray 02 01 01 7) Others (American White) 01 01 O 8) No Response . 02 01 Ol Note: 1) Not represented are Pampango and Pangasinan. For 2) a comprehensive distribution of Philippine eight major ethno-linguistic groups and hundreds of dia- lects, see: Fox, Robert B. and Elizabeth F. Flory. The Filipino People. Manila, Philippines: National Museum of’the Philippines and Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1974 (A 36" x 24" map showing the distribution of the major language groups and dialects). Two persons (one male) were born in Rome, Italy and one female was born in San Francisco, Cali- fornia, U.S.A. However, both claim the language group of their parents, which is Tagalog. 434 Table A3: Educational Attainment of a Sample of Pilipinos in Midwest City, U.S.A., 1974 Degree and Fields of Specialization Total (M & F) Male Female TOTALS .g1 g1 g5 Ph.D. or Doctorates 1) Graduates 05 02 03 2 Candidates 02 02 O 3 Master's Degrees (M.S. or M.A.) 05 Ol 04 4) Professionals (Physicians or Lawyers) 01 01 0 Completed College (8.8. or A.B./B.A.) 5) Architecture 04 03 01 6) Agricultural Economics 02 01 01 7) Aeronautical Engineering 01 01 0 8) Chemistry 02 02 O 9) Civil Engineering 02 02 O 10) Commerce (Accounting & Business Administration) 05 04 Ol 11) Education 01 O 01 12) Electrical Engineering 01 01 O 13) Food Technology and Nutrition 01 01 O 14) Liberal And Fine Arts 06 Ol 05 15) Mechanical Engineering 01 01 O 16) Nursing (8.5.) 02 O 02 Did not Complete Four Years or more of College 17) Nursing (graduate nurse, without 8.3.) 02 0 02 18) Certificates (not bachelors and less than four years of College) 03 01 02 19) Did not complete Degree but currently in College on Part-time basis 02 01 Ol 20) No response 02 01 Ol Note: In the 1960's, the Philippine Government required a two-year liberal arts education before proceeding to specialized fields. These were called: pre- engineering, pre-nursing, etc. Law and medicine required a four-year College degree in arts, com- merce or science before admittance to medical or law school. This made formerly four-year bachelor's degree to five years. 435 Table A4: Individual Incomes of A Sample of Pilipinos In Midwest City, U.S.A., for 1973 Individual Incomesl/ Total (M & F) Male Female TOTAL (Number of Cases) ng 2_2_ lg 1) Below - $ 4,000 4 2 2 2) $ 4,000 4,999 6 2 4 3) 5,000 - 5,999 2 1 1 4) 6,000 - 6,999 4 1 3 5) 7,000 - 7,999 3 1 2 6) 8,000 - 8,999 3 1 2 7) 9,000 - 9,999 4 3 1 8) 10,000 - 10,999 4 3 1 9) 11,000 - 11,999 2 2 - 10) 12,000 - 14,999 2 2 - 11y) 15,000 - 17,000 3 2 1 12) 18,000 and over 3 2 1 Mean $8,909 $10,111 $7,467-3-/ Median 8,333 10,000 6,666 l-/Incomes are based on 1973 U.S. Federal Income Tax Returns. g/Actual number of respondents was fifty-one (51), twenty- seven (27) males and twenty-four (24) females. However, eleven (11), five males and six females chose not to furnish this information. i/Mean and Median figures are rounded to the nearest dollar. 436 Table A5: Family Incomes of A Sample of Pilipinos In Midwest City, U.S.A. 1973 Family Incomesl/ Number of Cases TOTAL 113’ 1) $ 8,000 - $ 8,999 3 2) 9,000 - 9,999 l 3) 10,000 - 10,999 1 4) 11,000 - 11,999 2 5) 12,000 - 14,999 2 6) 15,000 - 17,999 1 7) 18,000 - 20,999 3 8) 22,000 - 25,999 1 9) 26,000 - 29,999 1 10) 30,000 - 49,999 2 Mean 318.146.003/ Median $14,249.00 l/Incomes are based on 1973 U.S. Federal Income Tax returns. 2-/There were actually twenty (20) family-respondents. three did not respond to this question. However, E/Mean and Median figures are rounded to the nearest dollar. c.3233 5.01%.. GS... ..Bwage 03:31:05. mm £03m .moMocgcgu 085 :93 $3 53.. mowhowmumo @8305 :9550: 437 h 3 V m... 3 V ...3 .3 V 9.. . - 1 1 .3 V .... .2133 182:3... 2 1 1 1 3 V 3.: . 1 1 - .3 V ...m .3 V 9. .3 V 9m 822... 63h... 3 3 V 9.. 3 V ...3 .... V 93 . 1 1 1 . - 1 1 .2. V 93 3295. c8205 3 3 V m... 3 V 3.: . - - .. .3 V a... .3 V 9.9 .9. V 9.. :BMLSaPAaSE 3 3 V 98 ... V 9.: 3 V 9.: .8 V ...... .3 V ....m .3: ...3 638.8... 8 9.95 cwuwgwfia 8: 9:. ... V 9.: .... V 93 .3. V 9.. .3 V 9.. 5.: ...3 65...... 8.8.3.: S 3 V 93. 3 V 93 .3: ...3 .3 V 9.. . 1 1 1 .3: ...3 63:9. ... 3 V 93 3: ...... .3: 93 .3 V 9.: .3 V a... .3: 3.. . :32 3 3: 1.... 3: ...... .3 V .3 .3 V ....H .38 92. .33 9.... 3.6.. 3 3:598 33.3.... .3 V393 .3333 .3333 383.3 9:33.. 3 633m 03.35 05 OH mamumrumdsfi can. mgmmfiscm one 1W5>03 no»: 3 V m... 3 V ...e 3 V 9m .3 V 9. .3 V 93 .2193 182.5 3 2 1 .. 1 ... V 9.: .3 V 93 .3 V .3 . 1 1 1 .... V 93 38:88 8 3 V 93 .... V 9.: .3 V 3.2 .3V 9.. .3 V 9.. .3: 93 63888.. G 3: 98 3 V 9.. .3: .2. V 9.. . 1 1 1 .8: m...” 53.39. c. 8an 0.333954 3: 98 G: 3.8 .3 V 93 .32 93 .38 ...... .33 93 .925 83335 3 2.: 9...... 3: 98 .3: ...3 .83 9.: .8: 9.: .98 98 05.58 3 33:92. 8359.; .3 V3... .3 V2.6 28:92 .3398 33.5.... 3 8m 3 Em .. . Eu: . Booom . .mfi . Em ... .533 6:3 .9... 83:2 oBBoVwE oz... do. 83363 82988 2.3.5 33th 3..th 8.90.. o6 83: .452. €833.55. ..o 9.8.8.. wmeEmVL moat: 85932.. ofilwflsov. 88.... 41.2 5.30% @055 on ow mamumewEQ cam. mQ—mflmmamgm 23 3.5%.... as: as... 88.... «.99.. :08 .86.: 5 8:82... do 60.83.3283 3.8 .9. use... .96.. ...! comm—~93 3:23:33 33:52 .83sz :moahfis‘ .31.: guhg an 33:3. .3350 .39. 835 :5: 333 3: a: 83.303338 330—530.: I \n :0 0:33 P33333323 55.» 9.9. .38 933.339.. 55... 35.3.53 .3 manganese 7533 9.3.. 6:833 £93.: .5.— 33. 1.63.5.5: 60:38 I 438 3 V 3%: 3 3 V a... .1 “an V a... 2.. V 3...» 32.” V a... 3 V 9.9 3 3 V Q6 2. V min 3 2. V ...: 2V: «.3 u :3 .....n 3: $.35 3 Ac: rig 33cc. :2 3 230:. 8d a- V 9.3: an Vmé Am Vn.m :— V 5.6 A: V n.- :n V :.~.~ . Ann V0.3 3.3133983 3.3.3.38 new \N Y... ocom .592. .30.. 8:323 933 Lari. w 9.5 .mflévvbuwfi 3:33? .55 13.3.88 .3233 .8 88ch £92.... an €55.83. . BB 3. 3:56.93 3 25 52.2: 335w . 28 12.3 . 28 £82323 £33131 3...... 9.88 «323.. .83 2.8.5 893.9. a \n 2.: 1mm 3 ....Vné. 2V V 9.: 3 V «6 Am: ad» a V N... 2. V a.» . 8 V ..... . 2 V «S . 333V =.c: . 2. V «...: 3 3: win 3 . Sc V min "Cb V 2 V :4 3:; V ...a 1 2w Voé 1 .83 V A: V ~15 "Ana V 86" N: H 3 V ¢.m "A: V 3n V can .3: V name: I. 0 L036! ”NI-i 3 3.3398.- 3 Sivaéou 3 as 32.2: ”82:99: .5 38.63: 3 museum 33.38er no 3533.33.53: mga—38.30.— 18 83:33er 3m U5 V3.3 933” M1 80:93qu HEW 33mm 80:933er BufiWfid min. 0:6 .3th \A 11 :mnzV 93059. v36 Emfifiu 3355—. 8 .3059- ?! 333233....— AemEESV 33338305 «3.. :03 9.. 130m. 3.83.3023! \3 2. V 9.. .33 V 3... . 8 V 3.3 189.8 8 a 8 V .V... . 3 V 3.3 . 2. V 3.3 932 .853. 3 222.23. .8 2. V 9.. . .3 V 3.8 . 2V V 9.. .9: o5 :3 3.8 s. 85333.. 2.. 8 V 3... . 2. V 9.: . 33 V 3.33 8333.... Va .83.: .... 85333.. 2. 8:39.235 8 V 92 . 8 V 9.3 . 33 V 3.33 23 :3 8.5... 85333.. 33 2. V ...: . 2. V 3.33 . 2.3 V 98 83333. 2am 85333.. 8 83V 9.... . 2.3V 98 . 333 V .....3. 8:882... oz 33 3835.683. 3o .355 3393 182.3. 8 a 62.333. 2.8 .932 .328 8 953.385 .30 .9: 9: :3 c835. 8:333: S .53.... 3o 8.1.33:qu 853333.. 2. 3.3.5332: ...: ..3 833... 85333.. 33 83333.... .23 .8533: 8 858.38.. oz 33 3835.35... 30 ..ng 2.38. 831.0338 .383ch www.233— 293.388; .33 Bow. uh< 33.2. 439 M I i I V" ILnNN [x \D m In N N LP I I NNN a n N m. - o N o. . - an .n .mm No mmmm mum ”.mmm “.wa ” .m.ogm nun a mmu:m_m.m.an tcN .~m. >.:O mgo+zmzmo gob " _ I I . u v N I o u. I I . "n I I n n _ I I . u n I I n u N I . n n N _ I n u n I I n u o I I o u I N v o n n o I .. u I m N N u N a n v. n I N o. _N u I N vN .n u . I N. m. n N I cm on n 44. M4 .mm .wm " MM .mm 4m m__ ANNuzv mace mgmc.mg Na mmu:®gm.ogm “ N _ _ v u w v _ n. n . I I . u n I I m n . I I _ u n I I m u N N I v u v N I o u m I . a n a _ I o. n I n. N m. u n a. v mN " a v _ n. n o. N n 0N u I m mN Om ” I m. on 0v 0 . I an mm H N I me so “ mm .mm .mm H ._ ".mm .mm mo. mom ngm u vcmrm +Mb «.m.og& cum d vgm ” va " .m. "m.ogm ugn a moucmgoNOgm" tcN .*m_ >_:o mean go; I. .. mmucmgwbogau cam .+m_ mgm+sm=oo use m:0m ngI Emu—Q33 U5. 9.0m A_m n2 V mg0:*01 tam mgmcvcm "maQm 050m .vQTCQE... «Em $m_._LmE .0_m.=5. Ucm $.06 um~CQUCOQmOL :0 movavc. \_ n . I e u . . _ n H v N . N Im.o;.o .N \N N I I N u I . I . u N . I n :o.m..om meow .mcm.m< .m;.o .o QL®£30_mm LO m . . I q n . I I . u m . I v ..m.: on. a. www.mz mm\mc=.a._.. .m co.m..om . . . m u I w I m n _ a . .. .o mmo.u_mmmm .mo\mo=_a.... .v moc.aa...ga m . N m u o I _ N n .. _ m m. o.. c. www.mm mnNIOc.a.._. .n I m o a n I n o N u I o N. a. co.m..mz meow .mc\mo=.a.... .N I I N. N. n I I a. N. u I I .n .n mo:o.m.o.¢ 0: .. N. N .N O? u o m. NN av . _N oN av om .I.mo.uco=ao.. .0 Lassaz. m..:o mgwficmzmo Lou >.:o m:0m .OLI u mgm+zmzmo a m:0m .0. _m+0h .vNucv >_:o m.o;«oz >3 moucmgowo.& Ava-giveaway w< 3A3. APPENDIX II QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS AS FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS OF A NON-WHITE IMMIGRANT MINORITY: THE CASE OF THE PILIPINOS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A. 441 0‘0 :00. 00.. .0 ... 0.0300 .0000. 300000.- 00 — .00.:000000 000 0.01 10.. 000. 00. 4030 N000 00. .00.... IIIIII.. ..mo.-.e....mI~uue.eo..v Iceman... «0.... tux..o.: 0.. $433.08 000005422 ..0 00 000.000 0. 0.00.02. .00 0.. .0000 .00 00. .01. 00200.0... 02.... ..00 000.000.3030 .00 00. £20.00: 00.... .000 00 00s .0... 9000 I000... 3.3.000... . 0.00.3.0... 0... 00100000000 000.3030... 0... 0. .00 00:0..0 0.0 000.000.0000 000..- .0 0.0.5 300000.00. 0.... Na 00.04.0n 80:00.0.0. .0 0000000 0... .0 3.0.0000 100 3:03:03280 0... 000000 0. 000.300.... 0.... 00.0. 000.. 00 00... 00. 000000 00 ‘0... ...... .000.0.00u .0 0000:0606 03. .0 23.0. 0. 100 :00: 000 .0 0— .00.0030. 00 .0. 80.0 005 .. 00 3.0 0000. 0. .0. 000 00- 00.000. 00... 00.00 0000.. a... .....z: 2...... .... .82.»: ...S .. ......a 350...... I: .2... ...... .- ...... ...... 30:05:00.. 00.0 000 :0. 30.0 00. .. 3.000.000.0- 00 .0 5.0.. 0... ...... $000 0.. 000 a. 00 {0300-00. I0... 00.330000 000 ..0» .0... ..00 0 ..000 0. 00.00.0000.- 0. 0. .0300 I......0 000 .0... 0.0..) 0. 000... 00. 00.3.0... 0. 0. 00.. 000.050.0000 00.. .000 .0000 0. 0303.000 .00 000 000.0000. 0... .0 500.0 3.0000008 .00: 0. 00. 00. 00050 00 400! 00 90.0.00... 20.. 00 00000.1 0. 0.3.. .000. 0001.00 000600000. 0:... 5000.00.00. ..00 u 5.30 0.3.0.00 00.000.0.s00.!.0..0000 0000.000 0... 00.40.1830 b. 0‘ ...: 0.: 0000....000 .00. 0| 0. 00.1.0000 100 A0... 00... 0000 .00 .3. 00... .00. .0 000.. 000 .. .000. .0 ...—0...: .0 .00 .0 00.00.0013 0.... 0. 5.0.. 000» ..00 €00.03... - N... 400000. 0. 030.00.0- 3.000.! $0.00.!- 000 00.3.3.0'. .0 .1000 04. 0. 000.200 100 0000000000 000 .0 0010.00; 0... 0. .000 ...0 a. .0... .3 .00.00..I.000 .0 0000000 0... 009.0 00...!0.0. 00.. 000 ..00 .00 ...0 .1050 1.0 .0 05.300 0... a0... .0033}. 000.. 03 0.0 05.000000. 0.00 00 00. ..u... 0... 00.0.0 .0... 00.... .3003... 0- 0. 3 .0... .040 1.... 00.0. I000 .300 ..0 000 08 00:0. 100! :04 0| :0. 0..) 000...... 000.0 ~00. 300.0320 .00. .0 .000 00. 000.. . I05 0... 0.... 0030.: 000000.... .0 ...... 0... 00001.0 004 .0... 000. 0030.0.-. 3.. 0... 0. 00-0040 0... 00 ..00 00 .00..0..¢.I. .0 000000. 0... ..00 0.00.30.0- 00000 00.00.000.- 0. .n... 0... 0. 900 .3000. 0. 0090...: 0.000 0. 00.00040 0... 000 000.0000 0. 000.00. 00.20 300000.00.- 00.u00000. .3...» .0000 0000 ...-0.2.00 .0 000000.001. 0:. 0.0.0.0 30.0.0210 000 00.... .0 0000 00 00. :00 .0... .00. . ..l ...!- 00 000...... 000 0.0000... 02.00 00 00.1000 ..000 .0 02.0.... 0 000; 001 0.0.: 30.80.00.000 000 0 0. 00:00.00 000 .3000. 0. 0.00.0.0 II. 100 00.00.00,. 0. 000...... 30...: N. 000000. 0... .0 0.00000 .3: .0 00.00 00.0 00.00 0. 0. .0000 0... .0 003.0200 .3000: 0.... .0030. .0 00.0.0 ..000 0. 03,00 . ... 003...: ...: o... 0. 02...... ... 00:31.8 0.. . .020 0 0.... 00 3 3.. ...: «.9. .= ....Nd 2.01:0... 00 00.150 .3000 40...: 00.. 2.0.3.0000» ..u...) 000. .00 000.. 02.000000- 0... .0. .0... 000.103: .0: I00 0... 00:0. .0: 0.. 0.00.23.00.- 0. 0.005.100... .0 00.25.3000 $00030: Iowa-0.0.. 000 .00. 00.03000 ..00 0.00.50.00. .0 00.130 0... .0 000.: 000. 0. .100 30.0.0095 I00. .0 .00 000 00... 0.00 00.0000 ...00. 00 00000.. 000 .0... 00.50.5000 0.0.2:.- 100 93.0300 0.0001 1.000 0. 0. 0...... 4.0000050 3.0.000 000 0.00.5500. 0.: a. .2023! 0000 000.. 00030000.. 00.0030. 0... .53: 03. .0 $0003.01 00. 01000.0. 0... 900 .0 0000300 0... .0 ...-0:000:50 .000 5.0.0000 0.... 0.0000 0.. ....09000 .00 0. 00.00 00000. .0. 10.00.0000 ...—...... 00:000. 0‘. 00.00310. .0000 00.0 0.000 0... 00: ...000000. 0. 00:0. 0... .. .3000 0...!- 0000. .000.......0 .0 .00.. .0030: 0. 00000 0.00 .. .000000: 400.0000 000.. 00.. 0.0.0000 00 001.0 ..000. 00 000000.. 0. 0.5 .000. 0.000 .00 00000.30... 0.: 08¢ «00-03-600. Cd .00 .0000 000......0 00 000300.... .2100. .000 0.0... .0 00.0....0 90.. N0... .. 00 00000 100 00.0 0.00.0 0... 0. 100000.50 0.. 00.0 1.35.0 .0321? 00 3.0.0.00 9:000:00. 000. .0006 .00I00 ..00 00.0 0.00.0 0. 00 ..00 00 .00000 $0.000 00 ......00... 0... 00 0.3.3....- 0. ... 3.22.... :1 o. 0.. ..8. 3.3.2... .233... ......Euu www.mAI: ....0 .0000 03.00 00 $0.0. as 0. E00530... 0... .0 :0. v0.50... 0.... 2:0,. 90000.. .N .2 0000 00 00030000 000... 00. 000000 .00... I00... 0. 0.00 .200 .0. 00:00.0...— 0.... .0000. an: 000... :00... 00.. a. ..00 .0... 2: 2... .3. 3.8.0... .3?! ....23: .00.... 3 fink-“15... ...: 3...}. :58... 0. $0000.23 0. 1.0 00000 .0... 0. 00.0.... 0. 0:; «00¢ Ecuum £00.00: '00 .00.. I000. 00.0 0. 10000-000 0. 000 .500 3.22.2: ...No‘i... ”Hr—.25? .0000; 0. .. .0000.- .n: 000... p.000. 00.. 000 00000 00.0 0. 00.0.0; 0. 01: Jon .0... 300.. .00.. .— .000..0. 00 0. .0000.00.00. I...» .0 00.00.00.030...- .c0=.000... 0... .0 000m .0003: 000 :3... 0... 00.. 0... 00 .00... 00.0.. .00 0.0 00.20 I0. 00060 00 .0000...) {00000.0 ...0.0..!.00 {0.0.30.0 0.00 080 00090 .30 000 000... .0000 0. 0.00.0 N0 .0010: 100 000 0.00.0 1:0 .200 00 0.... 00 20000.0. 0... 00.2.0 00.0 0. 00...!0. Na .0080) ...-0 00.0 0.....0 00 002.00. 0. $0000.33 0. .00.. ...-0000 0..— .00000 0.00.0 00 00>.) 0. $0000.20 0. 00....0 2.— .000 0.60.0 00 0001.01. 0. ..00 00.3.0 0. 000 0.5 .300 000 00 0.0.. .00.. 0.... .0001. 0). .0 90000000 0. 00.0-00.0... 0.... .0000.?.0.0. :0 .0 0.0.. 0... ...... 0.002.: 00.0.0.0. 00 00 $00: 0.. 000 a. ...0... N0... .. 00 30.3.0000- 0... .00... 0.0.. 0000 ....) 000.0000... .. 000000 000 0.00.0000 I000 .0... 0. 000:0! 0 ..000 0. $009.00... 0. .. 32.000000. .000 ...-:0 0... .0 0:00. 0... ....001. 0.. 0.03.0 000.00 ...—0.0... 00.0.... 00.9.0... 01.9.0. 000‘ 000.. 0.0.0.5010. 0... ....000 0... .0 00.00 ..0. 009.0 0... 00: 00... ......00- ...:fl.» 5:000:03 0.0.... 00.. I20... ..x0.0.00n .0 0000500000 .09... .< ... 0.0023 N... 10.03000 00.0.. ......0 0 ...... 80.00.00.000 0. $0.060... 00! 70.5.2.0. ,0.>.—0..0:00.0¢0..00?ev «0000—0000. 0..... IIIIII VIIIII l IIII'III. I'l‘! I'IIII Ill‘ 0 III 63.5030: ...—.035. 00.20.223.52333 Hamsinm orb—u. on ... ....u—mis... < ... ”8......3. a... B was. 3.; .>.._...!.... 5.4.5....— uh..§Iil. ¢ 8 ......Iu. bg—m b.4955 < 90' . 5...! . .i- and. Dclvi-I' .0 Dip:! fim£§5.§.'lfi . I III II I. I I I . I .I. I .IIIIIIIIIIIIIII b. 38.).23 .. (Pr. Z030 0... 00.8. 0.1.000 ..00 00.3.2.0. .0. 05.00 ....0 0.00:0 0.0.. 90.0.0 ...... 00.....000: 00 ...! .0!..0... 0... ... 10.0.20. 8.20.0.0. an .0000...: 0:00; 0...... 00 0.00.09.00- .0 0.300 .00. 0... .0: v3.0 .0... ......E... £0.20... ......0. 00 ..000 .00.... 0. .00.... 00: ...0102. 0.0 5.0.309. I... 00.5.0.0 >300. 00.5 ...00 00.05. .0... :0... .00. «.0000 00.. 00:0. -.....00 .0 000050.... .0. ......000 000 300:5... 00.5 £02.50. ..0... ..o 0‘.......0§.000 0... ......Z... z... .0... 0010.00. .0... 0. 0.0.0 .00 0.0... 00 0...... .00l00 .05 ...... .... .~ “40.03.... ....M... 0.0%. .I..........00. .0M:..0..0n 0I0I.>.,..........0..00m..00...~w.. £085.00. 4mm. “...... .0....F...._.._...M.m Hed...,....|.. .....M .0133. M... 1:33.. ...-......r... .I...5-Imc...!¢ ... ...}. ......GIm..:coo c .0330... .o .003 .... 08:8 9.0 00.3... 00.. 0-0.5an— .. .aunua¢uaua .0 00>.uona 000 on acaaarua 00: nzuxaauuau 0.00 .. .05.. 0.35.0000: 0.0.2.2.... ..o 0.3 .0 00.00 I 3.550.... 0.... 0283.000 .III £0,300.33 .0 3:05:38?300 0:. 0.3.5.00... III. .a 3.228938! 8 Faun ”<3 haggahaau In: a. i 50...: Satan an 5.... 59:0 . a .053... 0 .2. 0. 000...... .0502... 0 0. 0.... 300.000.. 0...... ..-. 030:... 0 .... n. 0.... .233... 0 a. 30.0.... 300.00.... 0...... ..-. .0322... 0.0 0.... 0.... 003:... 50.. .0. .333. .63.... 33.58 00.5.5. .. ...}..0... 3.23.... 0.0.... .0 ..So 03:... 3:03.580 .30 000.530... 3.333% .0: 0.05.0.0... 03.. .0 .0 0.03.... 0x0 02.... 003...... £0.00... ...-0 2.22:... ...-.0 9.0.5... .Hnm.» ... a... ... 3.07.00» .0 «000.000,... aggafin; ...... 5...... 02:3... 443 9 A PAC! Flt/O INST. NO. “1.3le STUDY Dam-um of souczoc mum on WIM) Michigan Sun mints“)! c/o mtmo J. 1.. P100 informant: (2) ' nan! F ‘ 1 I. \II ‘ I‘ (5) ma! Sun. (3) 11011111011311in (Rub-ad . nu. . Place of birth: Tova/City Province/Sun and (matey ..m m... .... a m... f m. .... I 1 (I) 30. pone—:0- ...5» 3 $3.39. 5.3—inch... ...-3:11: 52:: 5.2 Av..-’ . a: mfl> :33: 313:3 can—52.5 Joins-...... o... ..— 333325 2: lib 22!: 33333.!- Ioc 2.5.30.5: 2.39:3 .23...- 5 32.33:: bl 53559:... a: s3 ...; 22......3 o... ... 1:... 2... 95. ...... a... 79.... £2.33 {2.15:}; 0.: ... n23.21 ...an ounce 5:02.... Jet's: sol... «928.5..33 .5.) ...—...: .smur: 5- 37¢ 4.2.8: 7......- u...i 85.x. woe-...:Zf as. ... :92. 02.9: {32:25.33- o... so: :7. A6... .2...) .... «3.25:... .15: «...-vol :5» us nouianlzua A3.— ..8: a... ...s 22! ..-. "..3....:........... o... ... 3:232... .... ...:- .:.. 3.2.2.... £23.... . .8 a. .5. ... .....s 2.. .38 {23.2.52 3 2.1:... {Sm—...... 3.3.3.. .m..:.. umu tool as» 3.. :5. .no=_s.::£— 2.. 033.3 .vo_:cl = 3-. ...... mga—Ff. iaafiufl Adao .31.:ounnc... .51).}: Cauoé .. noun—...: :8» an 09.... a; Namath-I 53..» a: 0.8 A.-. .afioac..¢cuu .8338... ~25... ...—03.5 - _ 8.... .< ... 3.522 0‘9 3.53.5 33w tau—19:. sac-0.9:» a: «88.22....— 5.32 2.2.3.. 3.53.3.3: Mb... .... S ...:2. 8:: m9... ...: .5... 444 ..uou. :uu ......ts-u: no at: :55! go I. .ul..°._..e.. ... .91.... no ..u-u 55:... .ur:a£..l.. .....IIEA 45.1.... ...—t : pus—...»: ....» a... 0:5) ...!ri... .- ..Ia‘ I .30 at: 91 .5. = :7: ion-.0: :5 ve.-...: ... .21.... O...... ...: 5.2-!» ...!l .3 .5 A: .05.... .nn. 01.515 .u: ...:‘u :2: Eel $2.}. .5» a. . n17.- cflox 2.90... ...: ... 23.: I: ...... ...... 4.2.1.5.... 83... ... .... a .... ... at... o ......8 ...... :2... : 2.... .9. i- v...» . :2... ... .... 22.....3 3...}... .m... .... ... Ii . E... .3. i ... 2.. .2... El 5:. ... 65:225.... .u |.'ll|. ..r..wwwl...~.u.r._m> Ell—.... 22:... a: a. .If .u .Ilclvl . .03.: u. w... aliiqj >3! E 2 ..ll..l[|u.l lungs—2!; .31).}... 3:35. 3 via :03! .- ...m... 2. .. ...-B E...:. 2......_....: c5 .. is. u .35... so: :92... .. ...... .IiIII -I...|.ll ...oE ...r viral—nu .1. 1:... .e ......- »I...‘ nu l!‘..,I-I.1I.JI1I| !»...l .vl..o.‘2 .... .91.: Av .xl.:...i.rvinl|llll....'. 35:18... 1:- rFuxgt :25 A.” 2d: .925: $5.52.... 1:5. .523. 3.... 3.7.: ...-... :5. .o ...: 2.. ......- Tli ._ ...... ...... 2.. .6: it... .. ......— l.l.| A! II v... I! ..n=-...... '32.» 9.30.. :33...“ 0.: 5 :9: ...—:1.— »::_ .u._:€¢ all. I (I. :5. .5 ~00..— 52......5; .3..i:..=.4::.m.,_.... ....- ......8..2.\ia= . : ...... ... ... 28.1 a.» .....935. -.n.m gnu-£38 .fiszzfis... KER—m 1...... 5:3. 3:... ES. .5... 2...: ......:.:. :33; .9 .....l:!...._ 5.33. .c— 2.3:: ...-.... q...- bcxllfl 7.5.: .32. .lul. .1 .3 :- .3 Jew-u... «con-y.— ..5 o. ‘9)... :3...— .Tuvn «In: 2: ...—:1. ‘9; = ..no» II final .5 :5: 0... l2!- c—a..__.:— .....I .... nal: a: 09:: —--0— u- A......:.. Ex]... 925! 9:: I: = 3.: III pics .....rtk— :5» e. .r— .n.= 0.: I— 23- au. 5.... ...... ....i I... 9...... ...... ......x 9.3!... I: ...: 8...» ...: ...-E a... :5?!» .n.= 1: ... 2:: v:- oI-un .2: ..o. 5:. outa- ...: ...-.3 .u... 2. e. i3 :1... a... 1.: set. .7: 5:2... .2 25...} 35.6... v..- x—Exlfi— 7.59: ...-l. vililz 3. .3 .3 ... ...-s 2.....- .un..._—.:::._ use ...—...:- .:£.:. :5:— 50 «ac. u... ...... ...." .u.._».l .5— 281-9. 1.... .03.; ._:..~C «can! as. 1...... 5.3:...— tmlg—fi .uul: no.2. 5:: ...—l inll =0» : Au..- .aui col: .503 >:l.— .c 3.5:...— ......» .... 2:. 1.5.2.! ...: :5; I... ...-n .uo-u...‘ nan .x..o\..x=— Ulla 2: [—..—... ...-..pcl {Juno at... ......ci ... SIB— as I... Elusil 0.5.3.. ...—02 ......— Iy: I a. .52.! .8» 5).... ...-l: Ell 3.x. JETS—:5. ...: ....— ..a» ..I.. 0‘. 2: D. file: .6 :33; El. ...-en 19...: .5; :9... h: unfit-l 2:1 .....s ...... - sia:-179 :6» vac—v. n...— H..:......... ...—H... ...... .....E.._.,.LI....€.I.I. ...... ... ... 2.8.! a? 37.8.... 3:... ...-1.... he. tor. .a cilia-.I- EEum .8: F. .s_s.....2..s:..m.=..r.nnv.lsnz ...—.3. :5: Hz... 3.5... 445 A a ..0. ' I'll. .0 .a00............ ..00 .m... 0... .0 03...... .22.... 0.2.03.- ... ...... 0... ...... .....0...:..0 .... .. ...... .U .0... 2.. ... .... .. .....2....: ...: ... :0 .. ..000 .00.... .09....00 .0 alt... 00.0.00 .0000. 0. .000 :0. 2300 0.0..) ..0000. 0. 01.0 .0\....0 00000 03. 10‘ 000 u. .00-... [III II 2.0.0 .0000... .0005000- 0023...... .50. ..0 0.0.00 .00...:.0. .300... .05... «0.1. .000........‘ 0... 0. ......luugczuuzsc... 0......00 ... 100.... ..0 00.... :0... tan»: .- :0...— ....m... 4.4. ...2...0.:£ 0... 0. .000.00>0.\...0..0.0 0......00 0. 100.... .00 0.. :0... .0... u. .00-... mm: .0000- 0... 0.0.. :0. .. 0000 0......00 0. 000.0. 00 ..0... =0. 0‘ .000............ 0... 0. ......0..0>...\00...9.0... 0.. 000. .3. a. $0-... . :00 Ni ...0............... 0.... 0. 2.00:0»... 1.7.5.... 0... .00. 0. 100.0. .00 0.. 00.. :02: .. .51... ...—020:3... 252...... ...: 0. ....I..2.....:2r... 2.. ...... 8 05.... :0... ......r. : 20.... .9. a... II 2.3.0.20... 000.332....- 00. 0. 0.000.0000.x00...0..¢.s 0-0... ..00. 0. $00.... :0. 8 .3... .0 It; “2:22... .22.. ... 1 .000............ 0... 00.00.... .33. ”gunk... 00... 90......00 .0 .l. .0000...0..0. .1 000.0330. 0... 00.000. 00.30 00.000 0.0.00 .000.0000.\...0..0... 13.003 2 . .2725... 0... 00.000. 0.0.0.. 002.059 .... .000.¢0>0.\...0..0... 00.2.0.1 .0 ...-0.0.. 0.000.730 00 .000 00 .00.: 2.2.0700 .0... 0.0.. 00.. 700.352.... 0... 0. 3.9.0... 0 000 .3030»... ......»x .— =0... ... ...: 4 Mar .000. . ......— 0... 0. 3000.002.— .0 0.0.32.0... .00 000.. asap. :0. 0° ...-.... fer—.52.. .... ...... .....0... - ... 3.... .0 ... 0.02... 0‘0 ...0.00.1. .305 00.2.0... .....s...:£§. mga—m 00 ...—.2. .0222}. .0 2.00:1... mi... .5... .2. Am... :58 05...... a a. .030 .00. .30...) 002.005.000.037.‘ .00. 0000 00: .00-... . . 2.30 .... so. 00 ...... :0-.. .....0 000.0 0.0 50.... 00... 000... :00 00:00.. ..00l00 00.2.00 00.. on .000 .000.00 50.30 .00.a00s0....0.00..n .0000.- .00....0 300.03... p 00.... .00... 0.... 50.0 00 00 00.0....» ...-0. 01 00.... ...... 36-0. 2 III ....0000w 0.0.3.. 3 .30 .0031...qu .000.0 1.000 .0000 .0 000.3000.- .0.0....u.00 0100.... A. .000.0 .0300 0.000 0... .0 0.0.20 100 0000.300 .000....... .0 00.000.00.- .0 00. .0003... 0.000 0... .0 002.... 1.0 0000.00.00 .000.0=... A. 02000.0... 03.0.5000 0000 0.... 0. 000... ..00 a... .0050...- A. .00.... 000.600. .0 000.2000. 00.0 0... 0.0..) 000.3... .0 000.0 0.: OS¢OuIO l 0 8 I 0. t A. .00: 0... ...... 70.0 .000000: .02.!100. 090... 0000000. 0.00 0.... .0 0001...... .0 ..00.00 0.200.. 000 00... 0.0.... 00.0 0... 030.30 000.00.00 .0 £000. 00 00.00 0.000.. 000. 00.0 0..» 0.13. 00030.0. .0 HHH .000... 000. 500.00... 000 .0... 0....0... 0... 0.. tax ‘00 tax .0030 .000. .00030. 00. 000.. 0... 0. a... 000.. .0030 .000 30.0.0. 00. .0... 00:0.- 00.... 0... 0.00.9... 00.0. 00.. 000.00 0.... 0.00.0. 2.00.. 0... 0.. .30 .0033.- 0030030 .030... 7000.00 00.000030 00 0000 .00.... .00.- 000a000. 3.00. 000. .0200 00.. 00 0.... 26-0- ...000.u0.0n 00.39 ‘00 «0.0.5 3 >— ll! .38 3.0.3.0.: . ..8. 3...... 00.000 00 00000 00. 00 00 0.0 0000 000 .0.000 ...—0... 00000 000... no ..000 0 0.00.0 ...—...... ... 00000 000.0 ...) 0...h €03.50. 0'... .0 .00 0 .000 :0. 000 :00 000 0. ...00. 40.5. ..00 90. 000:0 0.00100 3.00 ....0 .00. 000.000 ...—o... ..0F00.0 ... 10.0 00.P :0» 0.0000 0... 00... .0 .0003...0 0... 0.... .0 ...... ...... 1.13.: .3... ...... ...... .0 A .000 00:00. .5030! .0030: .0000000 50.000... 33.0000 0.. 0. .... p 000.. 00 003.0 .000 000 00. 01.0000000— a0... .00-... ...0. .... ...... . «34.44.... ..zllfiflcou 000. 00.. .0 .0 0.00.00 0.0 3.0.00.0.- 0.0.u 000.00... .33....3: ”Mg..." 8 ve.—.0. 30.0.00... .0 ues-.0000 0......- U...¢.. A! .hmfl— >fl.pm 2:13.. 446 .30 ...:nloni .3153 use» one .5! 3....— ASVS—é uuwm:nw Ila—5 .2. 5P.‘u..9¢< 32.0w . a :23 It :3 .— .I- lucid—In.“ E: 0.0 ...}... ... Emma... Hula—K I31“ ...—.28....- LB I—JIDEIL "Is—.0.‘ I-Eh’-6 ugh nl—Iflduiv—u—u£‘- U-I‘dl ... ciaflll :. 2. if. a: taut—u Jung‘s—o s.- _.I.Juu I. cu..o_~v.—nu .3.qu >5 0»... 2' 1: LE: ~— .l~._- be :- 59 n..- e. ...—52......— u: xv... any-:0...- 392 sin—Ia ...: e1 .8: ...-:33: v.5... ‘5 ...u-. u: nit-5.13 P.- ..33 =9..— ~VIOUCI~ivU-.U .Ii 50‘: ‘i .II- ‘D410 9‘. aha)! h- A-th— ....ll 5.. -::.-01_ .ul.:ll he —l.:::u .—-.Y.. :1— 25.1 1.5: 5!. (fizzu swan .99.: 2...» so ...: :1 ...—u» :35 2.. ...—.1— :9..— 25913 .... 3163 is :23:— -.O.: 9.1..- —.5..u- ... T:- ...-.2 Jain—... .5335: a. .o._ .»:-u_l‘.u .... :-—un.; cuptriu‘. :_...91. 5.: ...v ...-e» .i I]. A3.)— :. ......- .8. 5.3.... ...... .... I... .8... uglizicu 25...:- uoguo 1t- —-_u°m. >— 8... .< ... 3.3.! a.» 5.33:]. :1.» gnu—5...... 315:3: “HE.” S 2...: .2313 ... salt-...: ... >1 .2. .5: 5.5 52...: 3:7»? .5 ..eT-f. 25:83.. In :3!» ..B..ul.e—:- ...-9...? :3... >1 3..»— J: ...—24... its. ‘23—. .3- ...canlaln of ...:E- 53": ...!‘u- .nnn—u £3.33: a... .... .2.) .35.}.- .a. 3.. .1: Isa-... 19.: "IS-2.3.9.; no ...—t. S. A: £5.38... 3. on»... ...-2}. .3- 1a uni—5.9. .05 .5... .... 3.. 04- :5. ...: ...: .3.— ua. :13 mil: _= ...... ...... 2i .. ......2. :3 .... 3:... ......L... s! 3...... =55: e. 9:... : a. stun. 69.1.39 :3. ...{1' .5; El non—...::f of .306- u.._.=.lcn 2.5:... .0 4.3..- a. a}: 93.. 5:22.. .59» no :- .... bi u. :7.— .u.:............. u... :5..- .xiili Beta.— 3 «no... a. nail. ... .... acct-u.- hoqcl a... on... ...:f Flo-5:5. ......» he a. 1.}.562.‘ :35 ...: "nus—.22....— o... 25.1 Inna-om .5 195‘ o. of.“ .3. 3.. Se- ...Qr. : =7: ve.: :. a. ...: an» ... no... In Anon—2...: as. 2:...- .32.!- .:=-... .9 any»: a. so... an... cit—.5 3:; no ._c ..o 3.3 13?. = :7». :2.....:=.: o... 2.....- u.._.:.ul: 2.2:...— u: 1!.- 3 9.1...- x2053 Eva [...-1:5 :5» yo =- 2. El .3... ...: an!— oa— anti. 2..»— ....u.:.....8. 23....»- .o_..o ....- ..taw . : o2. ... ... ...-...... {u .53....5. when...” .... 5:2. I. i. Hz... .9. in... EE 2...... 447 .09....K...‘ 0a. 0. inn-rev ..n... 0... I. 3.x..i ...—.33.- 1| 9......- l. 5......=_1 .0 00.52.. nae—:9. 7...- »: ues—Eco so. .... .0... 2:... .21.... .t o... :0.- .0.‘ ..n... 0‘. 2.0.5.... 5.05.. ‘cuusc :95 u. .3 .3 7:2. .04. 0.0.. 0.0: .3 ...-n a! .9... 101.0 ...: .....t....: 0... 0. 5......- o. 0:qu $033.70 .2... 00.3.40 .0 000.. ... 3:25:0— 0... =13.- 0-n_.. 7.2.1:...t 01- 6. It...» I. 0:001 0 1030...... goal—.... .5... so :0 .0 009$ ..mu-z = n...»— 68 0A. .5 ......0. 0- 9:2... 0 $030.. ...-....- .vdl ..0 .5:— 01. ...... 80.2.0! .53.: 5.0 52...... v... v . 22.2....2. ... :5» he ..0 so ...- 0>l. ...... ...-0:00»: A: 00:: ...-u 59° .3 00.... ...... 0.3 : .ln_u.~_-u 0‘. .0 0.3.0.. 0... a... ...... .13.»..19 91. ...wu»: = :70. 6.. ”up :00» :2. 0... ant—.1 1.0.:- c. 000...... iv}...- uo.............. 0... 533...: ... nae—5:: ...—0a a. 137...... :3...- 52. .51.... 50.. 5.3.5 .5... an ... ... .5 0»... 3.... 3.5.3.55: Razz... 5:2. .0}: E... .9. ....u... dwmy.._..iflala.._ .- . ...- flé. ....- #78 . : 02. .< ... 2.5.5 exv 3.2!...5 ...-G 00:50... =0_o.uam ... 223:5...- §~h i=5: 2 2:00;: 0.2.5 an Les-.0 0:103:00 «III-38.1.3- .- . .3550 0:70-0:03 ...-'97»; at in]! 33:... a... 000 .5253}. .0 I: :00 I33... ....lfau 33!... :87: :33 :21 3 ...—:5: .3332...— .1300...- .AE - 0-0.1- uuu0 .hzu-I ...-0.0.5lu .- .00.0 04.. I. 01.0.... [...—:13- .0 J... u... 4...... 6...... 21...... 2. a. 6...... 2...... .u 40...: 0.0- 00 ..II 0.0: .0050 0.: 030.50 000:0..- A. .70... n0 0.....1 ...-30‘ 0.5. .00: 0..— l. 000:}: A. .Ioa—o pl 0. O. 00; ...»- 1.0 in. ...-:0 .000 0. 0- I: 0.8 0... 3 3f. 0:: .0018333 0... an 0.00: 0..» 000"- .0. 0- .I- l.» u!.« 0:00. .0 00.3.0.0» 0-0 00—1..»«0... as": .0— 0. on :10— ulu. .0 In. 0‘ 0‘0 ...-0:03..- XAuunulounl no :00: wig—0 00002;!- .01.. .00....0-00: .Ilu—ao; .010! agg: «I 0'.» l— gamin- A. 1:00... 0.0.39 3 n.3- .u0.-.I.I £00.»: 00... a] ..lcl...»ai-000 - 00—02300 .080.:0_ol a- .V.‘ 0: 000.300 0.0.... .3 0.0.5.5 n 00.00.55 1.x.— ..gulsuupon I 00—00-000 —I0e-000.0E .- .auol — 0-0.1- uuioon ..I 0-0.0—600 $09-09...- A. .00.. 0.: ... 0100.: 0-1:...03. .0 .00..- I. 0230.0 .015.»- i....—. A. ..0-0 0... I. .01....— 0¢.a=: .0 0—0: A: l Ag... =5: 0... :0... 0090. ...030 an 5.0 ..I... .0:- 0‘. 03:50 0-5.}: 3 40...; .00- 2. use... 01°. ...—:50 so ...-0 Ella .00..- 0..u 0— 00030—0. A- .0030 :0- 0. 0- I‘ In: 1.0 In! .30:- uoul 0a 0- I6- !3 0..- .. IT 000—. .00.-o.u0~00 6...;— u—a. 0‘. 0.0.0; 0.1.0.; 0:. ..o a .30 ...} €033.12]: .0. 0. 08 :10. .1... ..0 .5- o. 0‘) 359.5..- §v '03...‘ 3.00— 00 ...-00:; .0 00!.» ... =7». . {52:}. 0.: .... 1.1-8 ...- }. ... :33 ...-:20 ...—.0030 .0 ...—0.: 00... 3.1.0.30 is 0’ ail a-nnh- 4001......3. 000:0:- uofio I: 1.00- . .— .53....533 finial... 5.5. 2.... 8.: .9. 5: as: .1 ... 0.0023 0‘0 3.0.2:... :0: 00:50:. :23!» .0 nial...“ us: 9.:—.--.— 448 . .0.00a .0—0a0. 00 a... 00. 08.03...‘ 0;. 0. «000 000000 .0.0h ..000 .2300! 00. ..000 ......00 0 0000. 0000090... 70.0 .0000.0.00.0 .3001... 000. .00.00: .0: 0005.). ..0.0 .00....30 .000050 0.0.0.0 .0052... 3.00.0... . 00.... 0. .03... .. «no-0 .0. an» ..000 .00..00..0.u .0.0......... 00 £000 000—00000 7.0000 .0. ...00 .0000..000.00000 05.00.... . 00030.0. 00 0030.00 ...00. 0.0.. 0. 000.00....3 0... 0. 5.01800 .0000 1.00 ...00. 0a. ..0 00. 0.0 ......— 00. 3.....0 "l'l‘l‘l . 0003300000... .91 001...... 70.0 ...-000.00.51.00 ....000..000- .000000 ‘00 0th... 0000.0.000 .0 0.... .06. ..00..0.0.000 0....-0.0..00 000.0000 ...... 03?. a. .20. - hi ...9... an can: 9. cu» . 0000.0.000 05.70.0200 00.0000 00.50000 0... 0.00.. 00.00 00:03.0 0 1.00..- 3...». .00000.0000..0 0... 000.- 00‘. ...... .10 .200... .. 8.-.. . . a... nil-II out Illla . .«0: 0000.0.000 0001.00.50-09. 00 2.8.0000 .0500: .30. Jen-0.0.8.000 0.0..00. 0000.0.000 00 000.. ..000 ...00. .00. .0 000000 .00 00 00. 000.. Snap. . $0002.30 000.00.... 00...: 000 7.0.3 o b. .0200 00.5.. .0007... ...: .08... .2000 0.0.6... 60.0.3 .3558. 8.3.0... .... .2 8.. ...... .0508 0.4... .0833... 0.. 08..<0...0§0 .... 0... .0... 02 00.35.8060 05. 8. =8 0.0:. . 0.000030... 00 .1000 0.... .00..- .0.0 .000.0....0 .0...0.0000 ..00..0000.... .050 .00 000.. 000 on .30 063.: - 068.2 0.02.... - 068... .23 0... 668.8 6686. o 668.... 66:... - 668.... 0.2.... - 668.. 668.3 . 6.86... 0.2.0.. .. 068.. 66:... - 6.866. 068.. - 668.. 6.86... - 668... 0.2.... - 6.86.. 062.... - 668... 066.... .. 068.. 6.3.6. - 068.... 062... . .. 668... . 0.8.... . - 068.... . 068.0 . . . . .5... A... 00. 0000... ...00. 0... 0.. 30000.0 00000 .0... 03.005 0000... 0... .00...0..:0 0000.. 40.... 5...”? 8 00¢: 09. on ....» .....bsg. 8.... 00 R...- a..h ... 8:5... ass—0.8.. ..o 30:35 0.; 550.2 9.0 30.... a: .5. ... .29.. .20. .0. 00.0.000 00000... 0... .0 000 0... 0... .000... .0. 00. 0000... 0.0.0000 00... 00.. .300. 00 0.9.0009. 0000 0... 0. 0000.00 .. ..0 $000.00.. 0000.; 00.0. 0:000 0.3.. .2000}... .04.. 00... 0000... a... .00. ... 1000—00.. 00 «:0. 00. 0.000... 5.00. 0. '00.. 00.23.00.0- 0... £90: 0.... .0. 4.00.... 000000 .0... 0... 3 0000 0.0.00.0 0000... 0.0 00.0.. $000... an..-) o ...: 00. ....00 «00000 0... 0.00300 ...? .. 36:0 60 a.» . .....rmm. ..0..l.no..302. .3... .00 3...... 00 ..000 ..000.00000 .3 .0.00.. 00.0 0.. 0 00 .2. .00....832... 01. 0. 01.0.... .0 00030.0. 0. .0000 .0 0.00000 0000 3.00 0:00.. .00» 00 :0» 9... 2°90 ....00....000. 0030...”.0. 0000003000... 02.... u 0 0.... .< ... 0.0025 0.0 3.0.00.9... 0.0.“ 000.50... 30.0.00“ .0 ...-00.22.06 25.... 92...... .55.”...353 magic...» :0 5...: ...... an}. .9. ...n... 0.... .4 ... 0.00.04 0.0 ~..0.00..... 0.0.0 001.30... u..$.u.~u..$.~fmmau.:w Ho 23.3. 5.0.0.00... .0 2.00.0003 23' 8S. .9. km... :55. 5...... 449 egg-Itch... .0-000- 0...: coco... ...mu»: = G. a: l :53... to 86:33.0 .3..- .83231 unto-=23 .939 :3 .III I: Alla.!| I '4 Ill! Illlllx'i :quotov «5...:- .220 . . a z—l.~oo.con-oo-Y:n 331-.5 .tbnl.\..o:cacc..:ou 103-alto one. so at... 08-. .5325 1"». iii. I‘ll I'll Ii]! IIIIIIII ti'1ul. il‘lll 11'“ II. I'll" vIIII Ill ill}--- A ...cou no .08. .5308» .99.: ..c... 3.....qu II 75.3. :5... ...-slow 2.x. 3: 513.31 .0 .3200 ‘09.: 5:: ll nlllll-’ I’I'IIIII‘II'I I .0: at: 0‘ :99?“ ... :1: no :42... an 39:93 :2.) .30. uni-0.... V0.0... ...-=0 :59; 180 del-Idol accouucunmo soviwm ...-on no 01...: ...—59::- 03. so a..- 192.0 a ova-L can... £3.13...- uguuouavu o . ....Km. 20...: -1933. ... .73.: 3:23 ale-1.1.01: 2.233;; 2.0.030..- 92925 ell.- III :33 ...-0.... ‘3 50 01.0: con-.9!- auo¢v~ Cog—:0- anon. #5: ...-2:59 .3:- .o§..»oi .530 .830: - .... to»: :0- s; 325.30-. 15:23 3:- .:.U\:)cn .3 095.3..- 1... :E.§l- I'll! .I;‘.I2 ‘i‘l-vlll .Oucz a... use... 20:. .ec.uol.o.=— nue—i346: n 1 09.; .¢ ... 6.60:3 9‘0 5.0-2.2:— o.c.a 60:29.: IMP—HI. mum-.1: I. :33 303—vow no okra-also: 2:53 62: .9. .hrd: Eta—n g—L-a—h no. PAR "IO! Immzmmu , o yum. mm.“ mmmt n uh u mtmu E ma. “mu min-ant or occu- mu. .9 load by your 7133‘! tumor-at all occupant: tn :M 3.8. If not. than that “a“ . Stu: with th. L6? you: tint up ”In: an the U.S., mum only the I“! thus tntludm; you: mat qlomtlocunnttn. C - talcum/Dean two latex-nun. no“. not you min-at rum pane. m tho thl; m1 lul- (ant-s.) cm“? Your hunou . £ a. O a 1 t m 1 t u l ‘6 m o. a U u u u 1 u a m a Int-(Amumu) c-Ol) an 4“ you not your mum. unplug-oat a mutton 3 (noun thod. o: m tutu-tun but). A " nouns-nal jam“. and nutm- mum. mun”. outrun with “than“ tn a. r “name Gallup“ in tho so. “manna/manna. Routtm Ind/Ct nupun triads rum: our city. town or nu. .‘tltmm {tuna mu“. m cur. tan or an. Hon-Fulfil» conunu tn thc un- octmttonlptotuuon. Koo-numb: 22mm out-u. our tam, an or an. Non-Yuan» trun- vitmn out any. tom 0: c“. Other- (nutty) a) month dunno-at 1:: out pas-ta. ”vapour“ mu. Isuzu-I. ott. 450 . . :0. .0 $00.00. .00.... .0 00.00.00... 000000 00! 0000.9. .0 000.2. 00....0 0... 5.... 000000. 0... 100 000000000030 0... ..000. 0.300.100}: :0» 0.000 .23... .— ~80 5.. 9;». n..- .vlpaoh .0 $00.00. 10.... .0 50.0.00... 00.. .00. 00... .000 ...—.3000 .030. {0.3.0.5 000. 00.0 0000000 .03. ..0. :0. 00...- 0I.. 0 0000 0.0... 00.. 30-0 39-0 - 1‘ ... ill 2...... ......8 .. ll. 0.2.0.05. .335 a x A. cast-ud-v naoav 8 I 8 8 8 8 A. .III! ..0.0:.00..0. .0 000000.-..00500 .050 0:0 000.3... a .. ... 4.0.0 .0035 00000.60. 00.000000 .0 .0302: ..0.000u 0 8 Au 0.00.. .000 00.0.0.0...5 A. .00....) .000 2.0.0.096 .0 ...000. 000 00. 00 .0. 00 0.003.050 00 50' 00 ..00..0 0000.0 ...nu»: .. .06-... .43‘ .0. may a 0.000.. .0 0040:: 0 .000 5.0.0.0000 0000 00.. .6. 0.0.... 2...... .0 000. a... ... ......— 05 0. 03:00. 0 0.0: .0... so. 0.0.. 20-0 ’|r'1x|ll-ll|‘ 1...! -1!!!...Irl: ..III au0..)v 0.0....» Av £03.00; .0 0:0. 3.0 .00 .30.. ... 00:000.. .0 .00; 00.00 .2. ...:0. 1:0 00...}... 0. 00:000.. 3 .....0. .0 00.0.09. 0.000 ...-.0 0000.00. 00.00000. .0 ‘-|ll..l’."|’l' 'lv; 1 $ | ...II' V 1:2...0... 0.... ... 3000.... 000... .0000 .. ...-000......0 00 00.000300 >00... 00 .00...) 00:00:00 5.3030. 0... .0 ..0 .0 .00 0. 00.0.00... 000A 00» 000: 0...... 2.0... 00.. 00:00:00.. 00000.; .00. ... 2.0.0.900 .00. .0 0.0-.05 0... 00...... 20-0 .DII. I'v‘xlbltnl I! 410”:|...000M :0. .l000.0. 00. .maovcxoflwunhhfl..mlnlm ..I II II \ Int! I, 00... .< .H 0.00.00 03 3.0.2.7.: 0.05 ..0:.....: uni“ aux-um I. In; 000.0.005 .0 00!..0500 2.5!. .505 .02 .52. sir—n 5......- .00..0s:000~00.000.0.s ...-10 000.000- 0.00.00. 003.055 3.0.3.0. .0 3.000....» .0 il. 11" "lll Ill]! I‘l‘ylllxlllvcll‘lllll' IIIIII I I 2 05...... :28 A. .10.“... .1! 6! I'll-III; 70.0 .000.0.......~ ..n.:. 0.0.... .00..0..:000\:0.000.0... 00.00 0.... ... 000800.30 100 0.5.0... ....) 00..00.0..l000 .00.... 000.. .0 2.08 C. .00.000~0...\00..050000 00.00 2. 0.0:.[00 .0003000000 .00000.0.€00 100.00 Au 1H! .00..00.00¢.0 .000..!.:000:000.000.00‘ 0. 3.30.1000 ...0: .0 400. 30.0.... 3.0 3.3.0 0.300... :50 00 2:. 00 102?. .30.: 00.. 0.00:): 0000.. .Aco.000.0...s:0..0s:000 .30. ... 000.0. 0... ...... ...:0. 0. .50. .0 00.00.0530 0l00 $00.02..- 00: 23?. u. .070 . .9. ...: ....0... : .2-» a! a... {II n 00:00:08 .0 00.0002... .30- c. .0000. 0... .0 5.23.30: 0. .030 ...... 000010300. .00 0.30 0.0....0l ...030. 0. 3000 Sen 0.. .0 ...: :70 a 0.0 .0... 00.... 0.0.000 .3000 00.000! :05 000 0.20.... fan»: .. ...:0 III III- A! ‘ mu- ! ~ 0020:0000 .0 00.0.0.0... .00» ... sci-00:00.00 .00. 0. 00.03000 00 0.0...1 .00 000 :0. 00 22-0 . .9. ...: ...9... 2 2.0-0 ...: mu. . 003.00.. .0...- 00. 050.000 00» 0.0 25-0 30.000000030103900 0000000 .000 0. 2.300 3.00.0300. .0 ...000. 0.000 00. .0... 003.000 .005... 0... 0. 00.5 .270 I'll; ll. 40020—0000. 00..-.N..0. 8..u:00=~..€§m film 09... .0 ... 0.00.00 0‘0 3.0.0.5.... 0.0-n 00.....0... $.35 v.53; so ...—a 30.0.00» .0 2.-....000 lin'ollflllnsn 1:5 00$. . .0: .5... :55 9.23.. 451 . .0. ...: ....0... : 20.0 as. p 00. .0....00.0 0A: ......l00 .0 .0...0.0.- ...-0.3.0.. 0.30 .0 .000' 0 00. 0.0 .0 0.0: .8 Q . :1 {0... .. 2.0-0 ... E.I.v|l. : 8.22.1.8. (0...!- 00. .- .I.0 0.. 1.000 00— .0... 1....- ..0. 01:21- 0 0.0.. :0- 10..... 0. 0‘00..I..¢0¢.0 .000..0s0.000:000.000.00n .00 .0 .03.... I0 000‘ .00 1!. 00. = .1... I ”.3010... II I! .Illu' .30. flaw ..lllfla,fl...0.l.fl.fl . ...-I 400.050. ..00- a a _ .... 11.0.0...— .0 ...—.0 ....l 0.07.... 00. .0...) ... 0... 0... ...... .... A: 0»: 00a. 0.00 .. ......Ia ...0 .... 00.0.5 .02.: .. :00 . .00 ..0. ...9... .— .34 .0. il. l mu. Iv Il— 000.....0003 0......00..0L:000:l.0.000.0.s 0 .0 .2100 0 3......00 ’0. 0.0 .0 0.0.. ...-.0 “amalzlkm ”.1 51.0.1... ulm 50.. .¢ .. 0.5.5. 0.0 5.0.1.0.. ...... £00.30... N."- I—ct.n ! «=3 urn—0.00: .0 ....I..000A Sr... .05. 5.. ...... :0... 3...... . L... 36.. .0. :- ~ 005......8- 0... 0. 00.3003... .. ...... (1.00000 00. 0.0 ‘00.. 10‘ rill. .I: ...I :2 (an... : ...... .0. n..- [.. 02......2... 04. 0. ......0. .0... a: {.01 :0... 0... 0...; :9.— ..0... 0. I: ....l-t 0... In... 0... 0. In 30» i.‘ A.00h. 30.1. :0:- 00..-.> ...-0:00 .30 .053: 17:00:...3 .0... 7.0:... 1.0.0 ..000...‘ ...—.00. ..0.... .0 000.2,. ...0.|..0v 0.00- a n . 3.0.2.0.: v0.0.3.0 04 ...I ..x. 00 .00....3...‘ 0... 0. 0s... ...-.... HEN . .000. ..00 0.0. 00 .0. .0 ...-0 .. .0»... 00.0.0. 000.»... 00... .0..— ..0..0.. 0 .03. u u — 0.5.0.2330 .330 00:00.0... .05....33 .... .svv 0....(000 In: 00 ...—0:001... .0 0'0! .30! ...-0.000. 0.00. . n u .... 13.0.3... .0 0....0 ...I 0.5 00. £021. ... .... s... ...... .... A: 0): ...... 0.0! = ..000' 0 0...! ...... £0...) ... 23:31.1... .... 0.00.0... 0.0... .320. 000.. .1271: ...—.0000 0. tau... .. ace-0 410003600. 0. l.....0..00t u .— Oat .1 nu. 0.8.: 0‘0 3.0.0.1... 0.0.» 000...... N. :m‘ ..-9. I. In; nun—0.00n ... ...,I..l0a axha N3. ache... :55 9:51... 452 .09.: .1... .a 3.1.0 o... ...-lo- uO—ul it I... .36. .I an: I: 1:... 1:- t...: ea 1::— E :1 :0... AS:- nlfia- .0: .I-.I....u . .n... I. ... ...:— 0. .1. ..i- ...-.... ...-...ou I!» o... lo. 3.5: II: .1. I: :23 u.-.-¢.2< ...}..I :3... ...... ...- a n IIHI ...-glut.- uo oil-55...: u... ... a. 0., ..n.= ! .. I. In: so 3... do. .55: .cu-C....u ..vvcs- ...-.... .-.o...°!a ...:c-l... uncalal :1: ll.>.>uau as; : ...—v.6.- .uo..ua .- p .1] :53...‘ t... .30..- II!- 1... In. fizz—.51 310...! at... .8.- .IO:.-QI1I {5:05.103 sia:! .I:.. .— 2: s: .11.:2. 2.. .... "nu-.51 gnaw-u. ...... :3. s: .. 3.1.... 23.3.31 5.3:: A. cue. ..t.‘ulu.~.o .Ioacuo:ov al.3- .-.a.ucnol newt-I3 ...-u... no unluau 1:: Au u ......— IS. .3. .III; .n-n..l. .A Jib-2:: ....- -.1|I- :1: 1:3? .1: I. 1.71.5... nal-... >1- .- .3 13.... I «Eu-.5 3. £111... Cult... ......u... .. A8.- . E: 2.... .l S. I. . 3.12:... 2. a:2 1.8. ... :2. .5- 1. 3a.. 4122....3. Inga—...: 2... ...... ova"... - n :2. .< .a .235. {u ........l. :5- ...-2:: E‘s. 59.: I. E... :33!» ... ...-5.12. ...xal ”n3. .8 .hfll. par—n 91—51..— . ...: 5:32... [...-.23.... 1.83:...- .!:o :3 2°-- I I .3 I. as. Illl A: ' A- ...—not: 9.2.5 a! A: o u . . u 1.1:: >335! Inn—u! u. I! 0.. 53..- A. I. ul .1. . . . ...... . . . A3:). 3.3... Ian-...! A; I a: u u . . . ............ . o . Eva—.5 an fill! 'I A: v . u a u . a . u . o c n u . . . . I1v-h!.l..n<= I!" .III A: . . . . . . . ......... o . tux-1-055.... A: ‘y 7qu ...—30.1- I.‘ II A: 7.1.1:...313‘ I In - ...: 8.00:!!— 0- 900.3..- .- rlIIII...I||‘1A= ........... o . a o n . . o . o -Iuli.~° A. Ill :- ......... .-.. ..... .......Iu.n .0 ..I .9 n..- = ...—.01... .3» a. .SS :0:- .zn:.¢.. o. .01.... .:on .0 5:13.?» .0 pi. AS... 5.. .lz. . ....x s In a... .II . 5.0 {IS-.6 ......3. ...II IIu..-I< it... I. gnaw—Eu ...:- uflu’ an» 2.5.. :5.- . ......ilu. 3:5..351 ...uea . u 9s... .< 4 2.3:: a? ...-...»..5 0...; £1.51: *!5 Iii-WE. I. In... ...—300" .9 .III-13 In.“ .I.¢L 2.5!— ughm 2:—.=- . ..s :1. ......333. ..XI 353:2: x .... .....l ...: 6:33. .23... 1.... :3 ...... 1:73:51 1. .3.- ..a.s..:u 2.3:... .1... .osl :3 10.1.5 :5 5!.) ....- »..u.::. ..l ....u 33...... ...-6.. a...» ..o It... on: use» I. .0230 ...:‘00 no .....l. 2.5:: I 5:»... O. 8.3-... .3» u. .1... 37‘ . ...: a... §3>231. :02..an ace-oi :5. o. lo... veil-ow... ..o 3e: 3 a: son-- 09.23:; u— 37: Ill 3.323.035- nce ..5 p 95 2:-- ..ug I. 5383!: lo ...-<33: u ...—u no .50: 2:. .50» out. 9.2.8 :0» on 8:133: 33:.- ce:eo:uvo cle- o... ...-D eoe_a..: 8— 5.3.0... o. cozy-e. .90» o. .2! =7: oi: .4 ... o-coucc 03 ...-33.5 3.3 .3529... Sin—ma Haiku I. 5:: use-e.gu no ...olzloa 2:: 5.2 .9. .52. :55 2:3: no: lit/12 9V... mmmm “VD. mmmw nun; mzno a mmo mu continued . - Social Identztv G M? 1! 1K 1: is understood the: this is vou: on Please express your first three (3} puns-ences. for second preference and "3" for thud preference. made? the 0‘ QM o Presmsod below ere possible recsu. ethmc, culture: and relicsous coubxne- pemnal ps-efomce end not necessarily you: husbeno or safe's end no: of your children. com-us "2" (sons) and "3" (daughters) and you: reuons. if my. bsndmg on you? tundra. nons much their {mm Image penises lay possess. by placing "I" for {xx-st preference. .45) This has reference to you: married childm. Or a! you do not hove my children. your preference 1! you he: or hope to hove. (1) 455 p .93 bf .83: a. u 30‘ onnure _- AAOIJ. 9. 11!... 2. i --- . : 5...... ... .....e. n: ..o ve.:zeo :01 02.9.22: o... 53.3: .o— {as-e: so. solsseez 20.: .130 Isl-oasis} can .03....» :31. .0... :32. e sou-:0 as: ...-see: welt-cue: so... .o: .o.- .v—u-oese .1 o. :5 u noses-...... o... c6250. yo. 232.0. 3.!- 1. one) no .I- .!§ :0-.. .n... o... 3 newsotwuoid w12l.&u...£ 2.9.1.3 .... 35.....- - - A: Illllunll‘ AI 23...... :15 2 ..Sc....:-e£ 1.. 8........: .3. {82:1 .851... .auoa .e nee-e; .e.6-.e&:e .eueuo.&lu .— .Io.eeouo.‘sco.ues:uoo elo- e:~ c. oeeoee_.oo 00¢;.-.s-coa .. 38.2.3-8: ecu ec¢.¢.._s co.eeo.o.s\:o¢ce;sovo oboe es. s. eo=¢eo__ou atone-m A: .co.eoo-o.5‘6o.aesacue ele- o:. :- oeanee_.ou c:.a.—- ace-e»; A: III ...: ...: ... .23.: 9.2:... .52.: C .eo:_&s—..gs o;. c. .u.. .ehoacul .euosoeoa sol-oh go ..2............ 2: ... .u.e .ee.elneo_—.c .Iu.eee_e.s‘¢o_.es:aoo olee 0:. :— eeauee—-ou sol.o- as .eee.sn—..£L 0:. c. .ee.el-c)o. .euos;x_ec .ovcouu— usl.ou Au .Aeeozeuo- .32: is. cit-9:13.: .35.- .ee..x=. ...ea -e.o .e-esuo-a .eueeueb .ceos__&u .eu$¢5e. ~_.Ie_ vsaco.no 9:- oue.sell- A. .ae.o.e.e ate one:.o.a .eucooet hasvee eons..;u .euaoae— .-.leu ueoaual e.e-vele~ go 455 I! IIHH 11H! oeuz use“ ... 2.0.2:...- aecl one .2: econ-o; _o 5.5: gen... 0. tel anti. 2. ...: to owe... .ee—ucxe.eu s... e.o—!. ace—a o...- 8 ......euot ..u... no 03:12.0 one to?! .es_.ue ...-o 200‘ .233: .90 :- :25:-- no! #259 I. .u: .eu_svo :2: .2333 be 1...... .5... .21. .3 «9:. .e: o. as... 3.9,:— uocl out do:- ge-e‘ on. out... :0: .ocecuae no euaeeel .39 .3 o. 2...: I. ve...- .eue e: .5... no useIeooeoe s... I. .92.... :3: 25 5.235.. .3 Ann-- -- I'll'n’ ll‘ll .Aaomm..uflouv so. dew-zero: .300» s o 0‘: .< ... 3.3:: o‘u nu.euos.:a eaeun ceu.;u.: Nanak. Hal—u I: nu—a mac-30.5 .o acoluuosoa 3:: 8: .8 he... :5: 922a: necocaece.s-e sofa .5 — 5.3 :71 2:5 -I. 9. .. 3- it .0...- ...d °~ {by 9- 9.0.2.9 0’... ...-I 3% ‘pg, ..U‘!.U ht£~2C BUD-I .— ..n.: e... ..— vevCotocne toe Ice; so» a...) ...-ace; .3: «Sue-ave... 2. 53:00.. :7... I! p In!!! I Ii it! p eeuuucaou neg) .snu-z u. .o~-: A! nu» - I p o... 0.3:...- o. .3352: .130 .9...- 130 ee—e so; 3.. .eoc..—._—:.t 2: 23¢. 0. 95:30:00 one) so. I... 2: 3 2.0.: . .2...:..:E 9: 2:... o. 9.2»... .5. 3!.) ..3 o: co ......9 O... .009.» :0. ...) Gael.- ..o.‘ e... no) no.5 Aecnl . :5 2o-.. A! I a» ...leisls A5: .525! one. o... ‘1. an. 3.: too so. = 05.3....- uezeiz. :30) ......e 505:.— o: no fies—0e: seen 0!. earns-.... 0... ...-so...— »ac» so. 2x33. 0... u— .00-: . E: .3-.. 9. n: - p .2553...‘ I.» 5e— :3. 2.2. at.» 3:0) .950...» 13...: I .3... :0; : .eX—etebuo no .6...- Io: 3o. .11- ....Ixi ...91 segue—:90... .o :51»...— A3:: |!sl “Novas—accuivydw... 0.: o. 5:80 1:0 ezyzuf o... Ezeeed bo- ecnewmeeu .. .m as; .C ... 01.023 0‘0 unce-olca eye-n £3.33: 53.85 Sum—In 8 Fa.) unO-O—uon a. acelauecea :3. 5: vi... § 5.1.3.: :5: 22...: 456 .. i I u . z i 3 : .n‘ ‘ n l - I- “ '3 ' E s- h. 3 . . - I 3 2 3 : z __ S . o-c 2» . z '2: .3 0:: I 6 Fa ' U6 3 1’: s u "‘ => 3 a 5 E a; u - = a a O a S a 5 i I l :, i g C " 2 § r 5' 3 5 >350 E ‘ 32'." " ‘ 0.: I 0 °::. 5 5 gcac . . ~1va ' ‘- =32“ ” = '2‘ J 90 av 9" no..- I I i u . ‘50: I § 1 5:: ~ I 3‘ hal‘ : . — g 0.: , I 530 ‘ E a 5 3:0 rmrznc STUD! mums: It. _ PAC! ""6 nun-raw: or 0001010.: m: on sun; rm mm”: sun Uninrsxty U0 Aauuo J. 0. ru- 1 - am 0'- Fuouud Prnudieo Ind/0r " 1-01) Ban you at labor. or you: {any on: uncounturod any :05 or vrojudicl or alarm- unoa. unu you m0 :0 ca. U.S. I m '0 001.“. 30- 1! '23-. try us bunny (2) 1-01 um- “ Hark at cancel, 1 0“ or '00:. Ou- mama 00 00.11001 luau); . m3! Inca. f! 457 457 . :5 2.-. . ‘I 3:8 II a: 3» l - «cg-0.8 2.53:...- o... :23..- o- 03:30.. 9.99.. .n... a... 1...: 89» on 2:... . . slit...‘ 0... 3. 2.1.23: ...-.23 23 35:99.... 0— «sult-:8 .9: I: 9.) Dec-'0.- c—' 2.. c..- aci. 3c» 0‘ .95 :6.- - upon. 0...» co .3. .0030... 503.335.: no.3. had to: a .huuhOnII Ian—oi 0.3 h. .60dodaulla . ot¢.$.::.‘ I: ..- couula..o 2.0.59 0.: Co 0.2:) anus-c as; on. .23 goon. 0.0903 g. .03. .Ofliuahos .OBOuuaclha cola-0° ooflgugo c... .323 gang: 3 I...» no. Pun-:92. a... an an .330": 0:...- 05 5:. 3:3... 5qu. no .0330...- hofio ve. anon—n a: C .033: a... .323 o» 939...:- ug 3:03:35 ...... S. coco: 2... 1.. 0.: 3...... L050 5:: a. 3.9:: 02:. ...-220 :05 93:59 ac..— .Cu: 6. toe—«up: a... .m... can ... has... _ou::on a...) .2!- »o ...: 0.: :u 0055‘. 6 Chi..- 083 300..., Dildo Onvvul hag uOh gay-n Ch. .30. 2:30—10. I 0.. so. .05...) so .23. no tun-=0 on..— . can .5» 50.325 20.. 0.00 Ghana ...-3 Cu .00.00 .0.” .0 £03. oouhoo Ga .099“ h. schoonkwou a... co soda—.33- .:qu c:- 01903 21. cannon 2F .0 '0. o , 60:33:. 9.... ...—6:. on :3..- co: tau-«hon; a. 360—.- on 9.05 3qu ~33. 5 can ......u unmo— _ 0.2 :0 ...u £05!— 59 :uool : 5.: 05 a: 3:3: 03.... 23 . v:- noaaauocau no.8. 9:- 33.: .5233 3:35 0:323- 05. .c p n A .3 3° ‘03—: 59:30.:— 05 honed c:- uaucaoua so 9. c! «up I'll n zen—:0 .0... to o. It... .III lo. 01 .29.! = 30A Ohio OICU O» I... 80:1 30... .9 50.3 0.5 On .ICIOu h. ...—auo a. . :9: 53k: 5 .3 solo: 5 95.: no 933......- lohu 25:: 3 is... 8- !..III p 8.3:: ...: 3.3.3 .3. .o ...- .o :- ..¢ 3a.. ...—a not: clo- ck. .9322:- 5950 cc. axon: 2... ...-con 2: .0 . .. .75.: an... :0». 9.. mean—3.3 $56.52.: 000: o» 0:93 on: not: al.- ve. an: 0.3 no.3 .590... on... P: a... 09 n05. 3?: at. .305 us»... 0.. »u .005 cu 00:5. 0.3 on cage;- 00: a»... .3022... .350 9c- nxouun n... ...-sou 2F 3 .. I u .0... 23 0. Sauna.- Ooui ~05. 05 8:! 003:2:- — .3 29-. no.3. c:- onoonn c0253 use.» 3:1...- 330 a. much a. :05. .c .. .. . .... [9| «.2 . ...-:5 .u... c 1 o. 1.3.: so. 8 ...9... 3 .3-— .g»... u:- couno so» 3.... 3le :3... :33. ~aiomuzd 05 o» a co .3 sho- aocso I 3.: 0:33.». 3 3- p 52:9 6.9 c I: .3 2..-. so: :33 :55 23 8a.uucolou¢»- «cu-con 3. .2- 0...- .8-8 30-. ..uflo.m.l.o~:~ 133—es .3230 u n ...: .< ... 1:35 {o 3.93.15 33.. 535:. 92.. .< .q 38:2 .3 3st. 33.... S ...... 3313a ... ace-5.338 53:03.5 Out-n .5533: 3‘. IOQL .02 Ira-3 hDaD Olnhudufi SEQ-ox: I: .23 50.0.8.5. no aeul.-!.oa 2‘: g A! ohn_ ugh” g-L-d-b 458 ......ou... .50 u. .u.5.us n. a..ocon .3. no. voooouaa. .5. ...—sue .a .u .....caluuo..c ve. coaoncugao ... ...... a... .3! ..couu...ah.. ....m 9. ...».cs.. u.s.uc ca. .0... cu ...zn ...- uos :- ...:a 5. .... .c.u¢=.l.uo..e .ccuocuaa. ... .3. ....» uesoo .... ea c:. ...: .3» ca .saoun nuanced. ..o. ..vsuoca ..sh .v—uot .3» L... «a. con-ousa. ... 9:. .u.... ... ...;F .8 .vouucouoo cc. c.~.:oc.. .... ucgu ....ca nuouocgoca .... :0». ve. ....» n... .... ..couuavcuo ...usuuao a... 1.3 ....a .3» as. ...... 3.. 0.3- a. ...:o—o. not... .... 89.:1 ...caanu-anh .su flea. nI—oc- .....uasoo wedge—c... v.n~con.. .ga u. au. 0.: ha .0..: .. ..uo. .....c:.. g... .s» 9.0auocob ....»e:.. a... e. ...uacaoo god. .. ..conu..'ca as. 0.. can ...... beau. cu ...auu 51.2. s. .m..c.>o. .... ..uouuouo. ... cacao u....:. .a .u ....ucsoo b... ca ...“... so“. u. .o:..a..pca ea. c-. v.-.ou.. .:h .u IIII. ....cunua on. huu.:c=a ...: ... .a.uu.l can... oc....a.~ ...:o u. ...»...9. .1.» ...:annunash 0:» u. ..ou:...~ u...».: .30 «dough. .a ... ..cuaa.—a:h .:u «so. .n.= cs» 5:. con... u.«.l es» can .....a .... .... 55.95.. on. a... 5.3» ...uo ...: .gu ......» .s» u. .c. nue. .u ..e. and—gs .aa ucaanofl .. . ..u. .~¢.~.:go.u 0:. no.u.uu— .:.uu..—-.—o luau uzcsohn act. c.....—~.¢:.~.. ..ccncuasa 0:. ... u~ .vcuau—puocs cc. 9h..no.a one. ..n.= 0:. ve. ...... ...aousu a. ...co—oo .... sons. ..cuna—«dza .3» acacauocu ...uuucsoo neua.~.>.c as. a. an. 0.: u. one: .C .vu... .8» a... an. 1....ucs. :..a ...: 9:. .u. .3. .m...& :o..a.a col... ea h. .... .5» c:.:».: .a ...:u a. ..os. 99......o cc. ...-.oo. cc. u——.o.au~.s .h—acoulocoo. logy ...»... .c....n.~ .5.» oz» 9.. ...uacaoo ...sa ...: .o .. ..o....¢ ~.aac.u cc. 3.... ve. ...... ....q .— ...uucaoo coco-...vuovc: c. -.p..s v....-:. a. o.....~.o ...: .gu cc. ...uocaoo ......su mg. ...... .5r .5 .u n..... v:- u-.o—a.—.s .-~.0.... a... ..s» ......a cc. .... qua. cg» ouaosc. ...:.nn. .3» nuoz .a ... ....s..~.=~ use I. cc: ...: .zu u..uca:a an. ask .. .s».. a... 0.... 3.5 ....luuu. ~mu «mom ex. .....A .1... cu: as no a... noose . .ooun .ucol I.a.u. s... cfiosca .u:.~a .1» co ..u:.l.a.». .0. as... ... I.—.n an... o... .¢ .n c.3oaeq on. ........=: o...» cox.go.: 3‘8. ....nll: I. ...... buouozon u. acoflahlaoa :2: we: .2. .3... :5... 2.23:. 7:3. 2....- .5 co .3. ...—:58... .....2... ...quucu ...... .5 30.. ......— EI 28:2...- ..Io.l.u 2.152.... x... 3...... ...... as so... ......»ca ....o .2333... ......au ...-:2... ...... ...... a. 9.1.... ... a... $2.6... no... .5322... c— .0. ‘25:. on 1.3.5. ......E:..t a... .. 5.3... 3 ...... 2... «2.7.5.2.: .... .- .3320 0.: C ...—cos .5. a... a. sec. 7:. 9... av... ...: loan: .. 5.25:. x... no 3.... :55... 33.37. ...: ...-3.32.. a..- a.» ...-.23.... I393 Slog... ..._.—.2. u... no :23... ...c .... a. 1n.- =uv== .a a... 2...... ..5 a. ...-:5... . .- sect—5.3.... .... o. 5:».- c... 3......3... .... 2x... .25.... 3.5:: o. ...... 9...... ...: .292... .m... .2..- . 0.. 3... a... ...: .25.... .2833... .3... ...—”:93: 02...... 2.1:: a. 3»... ... .. .2723 a. S ....r... .5. $525.. . o. 3...... a... ......3 . o. ...-.2 3.2:... 3.8.0:... . o. :9...— A. ........3_ 6.: .9 1x.- .1. .3 a. 3 a. use. a. ...: so 3...... ...: 2: '8. a. 3 .22....) {3.5.5 :9...- =23 v1.36. 1 Egg... 6.: 0.: -. >922. .... .0». ...... 9.53.... all 2.3.... .m... ...-:93... ... 6.: .... a. «...-...II- a. .m... o... ... 9.3— :... no... ...-on a»: :8...- .I: .7153... . ...-...: ......u...‘ stun-icy Q... ..l...£.. ...-...... {5.2.1.2. :2. .0533 can... a. ...-:3 a. 27‘... ...: 3.31. c. 53......- 3 3.5... it: .... .u ......l. .. 5:... 9... 0.3:! 3 ...... ......30 ...-28...- ...-£39... .baiau help... ..03. '01:...5 ......— ..n..— :9... .30... ...—5:2,. ...-.0— ._.=nnc._ .- ...:l a. .399... .m... .3. o. 3...»..-— n..... no ...—5:: .. .76! ...—... ”can 3:» 3.3.3.. 43. ...... .... o. ...: c. ....I ... 3... 5.3.... ..u... 9.32. ...-2 2.. .5 $2.83.... 3. I: ... so... :08 udfimmm.5udf.owm4uwa.fi|§ Mme—.....fl; $09.24.. $482...- ...98 I I .2.- .¢ ... 0.52! ex. 3.23.5 ....m ...-7...: SS..- snlwu ... 8.; 323.3 .9 sexton»: 2‘.) W25 .62 Hr:— IEhm 2.51:5 459 .....ch .... cc 5.2.3.5.. ......IQV. .....ollo. 5...... .5 A3- a 43...: ... .553... ...sls..>cu. nieces. .0 ...... o... 0.. 3.5... .. ...... ...... .6. ... so... : .... .... ...o ...I ..olo...o. ...... .5. .32.... .....a... 9.... 2...... o... a... ...-.39.... 1......— o... ... ...-... .25....- o... 2. 3:9... ...: .ou. ...e ...... .— ..»). 3...... v... ......2. ...... ...—ace. ...... c.5928. 0.. .9. 1.30... ...—605 .0939. ..0 5.3.6 A: .xaao... ...-...: A... ...o... o. 2.... .........o....:..: . :9 .....s 2. 2.5... 5......— v... ...—....s ....-. 0... 3...... «lo—.0... .. ..u... .n.... ...: .28.... .- ....IE. 1...... ... 2.6.... acct... 1... ......o...‘ 0.. 339.. 53...}...3 ...-5...}; .20.... ...-......- n..... ...........§ 23 .- 515. a... . .. ac. ... 0.. 3.... ...:o..& ...... .0 ...-3.25....- .:.. ....n ... my... .- ...... ...... .... ...... .... a... .0... uo... ...... .... a. $0.3... 0.. ...:o... ...—c!- 50550» .. .... :0 ...... a. ......E: ............I 2. 1.3:... ......t. an. $91.! ...-... ...... 1... 3...... .... ...... ...—.09. ...-.232. a. 3.... a. as $8.37.... a... 5...... ...... .3328. .2333... .32...) ...... 3.3.3273 s... .23.... . .8 0.6.. ... ...—2.... .. ...... a. ......c... .9930...— Q... 33...: .Coiol 2.5.. ...... ...-.92... ...—c. ...: .28.... Au ...... 0...... .2..- o.. o. .2. 5...... ...»... .- ve.-...... ... ...... ...-...... o . .— .....uo... 6.9.0.... 2.9.... ......couoc ...: 39.2.... €33...“ 3 ...-6... .... .... a... .:....\o...: .:-:.:.l\u:o:cn: ......x ......)u... ...... ....c.......— 2... 2 £055.23... 2.. c. ...-.3. cc ... 2. .. ...... soc—......I 0.. 1.2.... $501.. .... 3......— »a. ....I..o.. ....cobouu... a... ...-.9. £92.21 .- ..SI ...... ...u. .5. .... 3.3.3... .3. .e ..e... ... ..a... .... :.: .- ..... ...s.n..... ... ....» ... xo... ... . {ID {'9‘ II! 4...:e..cmwm;n.mmyq~.qmmyms. ......a... sumo..ao\«mro....o. .....m .k. 0.... .< ... 3.3.! .{u 5.2.3:: 0...... ...-...... ....ng3.; I. ...... 3:33.... .9 2.2.22...— .~:a H... .9. ...w... SE..." 5...... ...:oo ve.-n no case: hco an 0.50: . .oc....c ......o.... u..:. .. a... ..n-uu .. .no-. 0.. ah . 0... so. 0.0:. Ian. Duo. no ...uv ...:c: 0:. ...... .a.: o:. a. ........u us. ...: so» 00 .voa. .u .wcv. Oz . nun . ouoscnamr .....a.. I c. a:...— .oococ...u as.» I... o>.ue ..hso: c. c.:... .nucsoo no A... at... ..u. CI.- 03. s. can... ...—....u 5:. 05.: so» on ..Oau IdflqurmuOHQ— “exam 0 a p ....o .ucoloocupv. .ncch .nca hasn‘t. nan noon-n . .o ¢:.s.:g use» 3.2. ~...co.oa uoaacn . ...: so u...a.o. .— ......ua. .... ..co.c.ao ..co.uo..u ...... use» on. «.5: .m.-. . cones ccoquId a... «cu-ecu :— ..c..a.~.sn as. a. cone. .9 .5»... .5. onus... so» as so: .n.: 0:. a. scout... :o.....a.u ..cola. acouuso cg. u.c..:oo ...ou . co...on. :0 ....p .5.» ... u.:: .o... . accuquAI Deuce—o... nc.cc..a -.I.. no nouuuoo sauna no as... use» on. out: .39-: . 0...... co ...«> “you on. u.:s.coun a... .q .n o.=o.:< oxo ...-....ca ....o e...uu.: hoe—aaooa .0 9:03.. on 33E 8 E: u~xsa coca .9. .n2. moan. 0......s 460 .33. 32!: .32 A: .33 .33 8 28¢ 38:0... 9:25 ...-«5.53 8383 22 .2 on: :3 65.8... and 9823.5 8 3:62:59 :2 8. .2: 92 325.280 9.: .52 8. :2 53: I‘D! ill 35.5 ... 2.3. 3 3a... .3 3 9.3.. ...—S ...-.33.... . 3.3:. 31:32. :2: a. .3... ...? u. .8-— p a. «an... [-..-.25 .083013-‘3: ...:lo 26. a... an.“ .78-... I03 3 sad-..- 3.» 3 E8. :5. ..- .uuo .530 .coaacuvo-oc ...—5:: a up... so. u- :0..- IIIIIII a a o 0.: in. can... I:- o-ol a. 2:: 3.30.. a... as}: ....a 0..» I. 03:30- 9.. up: to. 0‘ ...Qr. = A3.— 9. an» a .2. 2.. (a... 2 .8-— p 39.039. 53!... I I. 2::- .ou¢'3:u 30— lo: 0):. 0.3.04 1.. 5...:- 2::..3 no 3.9 ...-3 0:- II. o..- .- coy-an:- uln 2.1 so. on A3-— . .l a: p 8.0 25.. 3 ca: 3!... ...9... = :6; _ ..III . a nu— .Iouu-Iu-uln «2.5 o .- . u as: .0 l5: 0:- usou I. :3. .....u {0:39.33 90.53: a 3!. 30— o: 30.— nuouo .83303050 — out; It «I: .0169 033. .0... «nova: ...—I... .l-ai .II: acct-03 .35.: Oncogene 73. Jul-09:3: .1...- .uo: 303-3. :31 0 5:03:30. 0 a. 5:030. _ .233:- acoc!‘ .633: .nua - on... I: ... 03:. acorn—5 use» o. no... as; no; 0:.- uuou = 2:33. .3. .335: ...-03.....- .oto—v use» on. a}! :7; . 37‘ at: as. 0.600.: a .3an - 958.8 9.25.. - .68.. . ...-.... 9.8.: - o 80.2 9...... . 9.8.... Idea-Inc 1:. i=2... 0‘ cos—:32. I: 3 C: no 09:: 0.: Slice 0.80.3 .. 9.08.: 9.9:; u 9.80.. a: as ...... ...: s: .. 18:... 83:1: ......3- 2.3.: 2: 3:28 2.-.. 92.... - 968.2 3:... . 9.8:... 9.8.... - .68.: 9......“ . 9.89.... 9.5.... - 968.: 9.28... o . 9.8.... o . 32.3.. ... 25.. ...... :- 3! 37a :68... a - 068.2 . e68... .. . . . to... .2: oo- llxx: uses a. “coco—v ...-3 cl: «013.3 I593 03. 0.. :3.» o - Assn-0a. ova-v... 0.35.0: :1... no debut-.9 1:: to II..- utos on. «0.5 as... on... coco—s .303... 032.8 2: 3 can :0 cacao-la clove. ...—tout; I: .2: a: .30 .0135:- .s...:¢—!.uo .0 Jun. [-025 0:33:68 33:5.qu - 0:09., C. DIG-p has on. a; as... '00.: :0 019-2: .3270! a... no 311-«I ~23. no 09895. ui no clog: 0.: en‘s-0:. a- onna- so. clout— auasu’uaeu hack 2:02-69 i.e.-:3:— o-‘h acou- It} .Avoacuutoov .uuoda—cuavmul 33:1: 38:3 83:0... _o.oo-ou lulllllllnlnllllllllllllllu 4.03.2303 engine}: :50 o .- i Auto-0:; :- oaibuo... 03. .< ... 3.8.: 03 2!. 1.. 3!. :2... one. 2!. 2: o— 3.: :5... 3.3.5.5 3:. 30:49:. a; 458-m ‘ '1‘ nue—cue. a. veils-lo. 0....— .< 4. 0.66:4 03 us}. ”is .3 gram he. inn—an. pin-93.5 occur. ecu-:3: 3‘s “HE—W g It.’ “KO-0‘00” no d3‘uh106 :2: nos. - .9. .5... 5:... 2:3: ” APPENDIX III METHODOLOGY AND FIELD NOTES* SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS AS FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS OF A NON-WHITE IMMIGRANT MINORITY: THE CASE OF THE PILIPINOS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A. * This Appendix was prepared in such a way as to allow its reproduction or use independentIy of this study. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS AS FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS OF A NON-WHITE IMMIGRANT MINORITY: THE CASE OF THE PILIPINOS IN MIDWEST CITY, U.S.A. METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGY AND FIELD NOTES By Antonio J. A. Pido1 Introduction This paper was prepared with the hope that it may be useful to other researchers who may want to conduct similar studies. It is not intended to be a manual on social investigation, nor are the offered observations and suggestions meant to be hard and fast rules and guides on how (or how not) to conduct similar studies. In fact, no text or manual on social research methods does this. Some merely lay legal and ground rules, such as maintenance of the anonimity of individual sources of information, respect for their privacy, etc. However, they also suggest some guidelines on the best possible 1This paper was originally prepared as an Appendix to the above-titled dissertation, which was submitted to Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology. 1976. 461 462 approaches to be used. Every social investigation will have its own unique problems, and the investigators will just have to "play it by ear". The experience from this study, shows this to be the case. Many of the pre-field work assumptions on the anticipated reaction of the respondents and the social and geographical topography of the selected field site were confirmed by the field work. However, there were just as many miscalculations on the pre-field work assumptions. Consequently, revisions in strategy and approaches had to be resorted to, whenever and wherever the situation demanded. In addition to gathering the data for the study itself, the researcher kept separate notes or I'log book" during the entire research where approaches, problems, and strategies were recorded in the field. Later these were examined closely and suggested solutions were like- wise recorded and tried. It is therefore, hoped that these efforts will be useful to others. Direction and Scope of the Study The study was conducted to examine selected aspects of majority-minority (or race and ethnic) rela- tions, particularly as these apply to the process of immigration, by using a conflict and change model and 463 multi-level analysis. As such, it was also intended to be a pilot study. Therefore, an open-ended or exploratory approach was used. More specifically, the study examined the following: l. The historical development of the macro structures and the transnational and/or international systems of relationships that precipitated the immigration of Pilipinos, across time and space. 2. The history of Pilipino immigration, including the types of Pilipino immigrants throughout the history of Pilipino immigration to the U.S.; the change in the societal structures and institutions in the U.S. during the periods of Pilipino immigration; and how the macro structures that precipitated the constrained Pilipino immigration to the U.S. influenced the immigration process at the micro level of interaction between the immigrants and the host majority, as well as other minority groups. 3. The general patterns of immigration of Pilipino immigrants during the last two decades who may possess “brain drain" educational/occupational creden- tials, outlooks, and lifestyles. 464 4. The perceptions and experiences of a group of Pilipino immigrants in a medium-sized, midwestern urban site in the U.S. during 1974-75.2 The empirical direction and concerns of the study were channeled at seeking answers to three general exploratory-type questions, instead of testing or measuring the data against pre-conceived hypotheses. The principal objective was to explore the data upon which generalizations may be drawn. And, from which general and specific hypotheses may be developed for testing, involving larger universe or sample. The questions are as follows: (1) Who are the immigrants as they define themselves? Was leaving their country and immigrating to the U.S. prompted by conflicts in their country of origin? What levels of conflict were at play? Were they at the macro, intermediate or personal levels? To what extent did they perceive that these conflicts could be resolved or minimized by emigrating and immigrating to another country? (2) To what extent have their perceptions of the situations they had to face in the U.S. as individuals and as members of an ethnic group changed over time? What price must they pay in terms of their cultural integrity and identity to resolve or minimize conflicts they encounter in fulfilling needs and attaining aspirations for themselves and their children? What were 2In deference to the Philippine language which does not have an "f" sound, the term "Pilipino" as the people of the Philippines call themselves, has been used in this study, instead of the common but Hispanic "Filipino". However, the English "Philippines" is retained when referring to the country, instead of the native "Pilipinas". (3) 465 their perceptions of Americans before they came to the U.S.? Have these changed, why and how? What changes and/or conflicts emerge as a result of competing identities as ethnics in a heterogeneous society? Is it possible and can they distinguish between loyalty to a nation- state (their country of origin) and loyalty to a cultural heritage? Is this a problem? If not, why not. If so, how so and at what levels (macro, micro)? How do they confront each situation or level? How do they identify with other minority groups or the majority, and at what levels? Data Gathering Strategies and Procedures Historical and current data were extensively used. In addition to published books and professional journals, unpublished materials as well as public documents both from the Philippines and the U.S. were consulted. The popular media such as newspapers and magazines published in the U.S. and the Philippines was also used. In addi- tion, information was furnished by public and private agencies and individuals in the Philippines and the U.S., in response to direct inquiries from the researcher. However, a major portion of the data for this study was gathered from the respondents in the selected field site. The Pilipinos in Midwest City The selected field site for this study was a medium-sized metropolitan area in a U.S. agricultural 466 and industrial state. The estimated population for the State in 1974 was 9,075,887, and the field site was 200,000. Aside from being a government administrative center and the site of one of the country's major indus- tries, the area is also the site of a major state uni- versity. However, it is not the largest cosmopolitan area in the State. In fact, it ranked fourth in size and population from among the State's major urban centers. Consistent with the practice of preserving the anonimity and privacy of the respondents selected for this study, the site was referred to in this study as "Midwest City, U.S.A.“, or simply "Midwest City". The respondents of the study were the Filipinos residing in Midwest City in 1974 and the middle of 1975. Initial listing of Pilipino residents was taken from the rooster of the local university-connected Pilipino Club, to which several more names were added, providing an initial tentative list of ninety-three (93) Pilipino adults eighteen (l8) years and older. However, upon field verification, a final list comprised seventy-seven (77) adults, of which thirty-six (36) were males and forty-one (4l) females, eighteen (l8) years or older. This group comprised twenty-seven (27) married couples or families, nine single males and fourteen (14) single females. The term single (male and female) in this study 467 refer to thoSe who never married, were widowed, divorced, separated, or those who did not have their families with them in the U.S. during the field work. Among the married, five were of mixed marriages. They were four Pilipino women married to five foreigners (four Americans and one Asian), and one Pilipino male married to an American. Collecting the Field Data One of the principal objectives of the field work was to collect as much meaningful information crucial to the concerns of the study, rather survey-type statistical aggregates. An instrument was designed, pre-tested, and constructed to achieve this aim. The instrument was a combination of self-administered questionnaire designed to secure biographical or demographic information, and an interview portion. The latter included "attitudinal" type question which were devoid of any measuring or scaling mechanism. The purpose was not to measure attitudes, but to provide guides on the direction to which the partici- pant-observation portion of the field work and the inter- view should be pursued. The instrument consisted of two sets. The first set was addressed to all individuals: males (printed on blue paper) and females (printed on pink paper). This set originally consisted of thirty-six (36) pages. It 468 was later modified and reduced to twenty-three (23) pages. Modifications were in style and presentation rather than in substance. For example, the size and number of spaces were reduced. In another instance, the respondents were requested to indicate only their highest educational attainment and year of graduation in the revised instrument, whereas on the original they had to identify the name and location of school/s. As will be explained later, a portion of the instrument dealing with political perceptions and behavior of the respondents was also dropped. This was the only substantial change in the instrument. It consisted of two pages but their content, or in this case, lack of information on the subject, did not affect the principal aims of the study. Except for one page where the information desired was gender-oriented, the questions and information sought in the first set was identical for both male and female. The second set, printed on white paper which consisted of twelve (l2) pages was directed at securing family-type information. Single respondents were requested to respond also to this instrument as far as the items were applicable to them. They were also encouraged to respond speculatively to family-type questions, i.e., if they had children, or future children, etc. 469 The questionnaire sets were serially numbered to keep track of these out in the field and those turned in, and to avoid providing multiple sets to one set of respondent. There was no link between the numbers on the instruments and the respondents. That is, the researcher did not know which instrument went to which respondent. Although this was made known to the respondents personally and repeated in the letter and instructions, many had to be reassured that the number on their instruments did not identify them. The respondents were furnished with the instru- ments either by mail and personally by the researcher, one week prior to calling on them to arrange for inter- views. The rationale for this approach was two-fold. First, it allowed the respondents to provide the biographic/demographic information on the questionnaire portion on their own time, thus cutting the time of the interview. Secondly, by providing them with the instru- ments prior to being interviewed, the respondents were apprised of the aims of the study and the information sought, thereby eliminating their being unprepared for the interview. It was posited that this would also help in securing more meaningful reactions and responses, rather than the quickest and most convenient answers given during unprepared interviews. Thirdly, there were 470 no "trip" or "trick" questions designed to secure informa- tion they may not want to provide. All the questions were straight-forward and only required the information needed for the study. Therefore, the longer the respon- dents had the instruments to study the information desired, the more accurate and meaningful they would be; Lastly, the instrument was designed in such a way that if the respondents so chose, they could respond to them including the interview portion by themselves or with some help (i.e., over the telephone) by the researcher. The Field Work Most of the respondents were personally acquainted with the researcher and many were personal friends. Several months prior to the release of the instruments, the researcher informed as many of the respondents as possible of the forthcoming study and sought their coope- ration and participation. Therefore, the letter accom- panying the instruments did not have to dwell too much in establishing the personal and professional credibility of the researcher. It also informed the respondents, that one week thereafter, they will be contacted to get their initial reactions and arrange for interviews. Interviewing was to be done by the researcher and other interviewers, if resources allowed. 471 Since the anticipated funds for the field work did not materialize, it became apparent that all of the interviewing would have to be done by the researcher himself. Moreover, since it could not be ascertained if time and resources would allow the researcher to inter- view all of the respondents himself, it was decided that a sample of twenty (20) respondents would be interviewed first. After which, more would be added as time and resources allowed. A set of criteria was developed in selecting those to be interviewed. Among these were length of stay in Midwest City and/or the U.S., age, and sex, as well as educational and/or professional represen- tations of the group. The instrument was in English, interpersed with a few Pilipino terms and words to emphasize certain Pilipino concepts that do not have English equivalent. Except for four, one of whom was an American married to a Pilipino woman, the interviews were conducted in four of the eight major Pilipino languages, in which the researcher 3 was also conversant. 3There are eight major Philippine ethno-linguistic groups, in addition to English which is the medium of instruction in high school and higher education. Spanish is also used by the elderly and/or among the elites. In addition, there are also several hundred dialects. For a comprehensive linguistic map of the Philippines, see Robert B. Fox and Elizabeth E. Flory, The Filipino People. Manila: National Museum and Philippine Coast and Geodetic Survey, l974. 472 Participant-observation techniques were also employed whenever and wherever occasions presented them- selves, such as at formal and informal gatherings, socials, picnics, etc. On a few occasions, the researcher attended "hen" parties such as showers and appliance- promotion social events. The female guests were told that the reason he was at the affair was that he was observing and studying the Pilipinos in the area. According to informants, there seemed to be no changes in the behavior of the women at the affairs where the re- searcher was supposed to be "studying" them. Although not initially included in the research design, several respondents became valuable informants. Granted that some of the information from these sources may be more specu- lative and/or suggestive rather than descriptive, it likewise provided additional information valuable to the concerns of the study. Respondent Reaction and Participation From a possible universe of seventy-seven (77) respondents, twenty-one (21) initially refused to parti- cipate or have anything to do with the study, and six could not since they were not in Midwest City when the field work started. Fifteen (15) were interviewed, eighteen (l8) responded to the instruments with the 473 researcher "interviewing" on the telephone, and twenty (20) said they preferred to respond to the instrument themselves and consult the researcher if they had any problems. Ten (l0) preferred to be interviewed if the interviewer were other than the researcher. Upon being informed that this could not be possible, they chose to self-administer the instrument and promised to send it back through the stamped self-addressed manila envelopes provided. After two weeks, it became apparent that not all those who said they would self-administer the instruments were doing so. Due to the precautions taken to assure the anonimity of the respondents, there was no way of telling which of them have responded and returned the instruments and which have not. A personal and telephone follow-up was conducted on all those who opted to self- administer the instruments. Twelve (12) said they have not had the time and will do so within a week and the rest claimed that they already responded and mailed the instruments. One week later ten (10) more instruments were returned, of which three contained only demographic/ biographical data. They were eliminated and counted as nonrespondents. After getting some complaints (directly and through third parties) on the persistence and impertinence 474 of the researcher, it was tentatively decided to secure additional respondents from a second supplementary site. The site contemplated was about a hundred miles from Midwest City. It had a smaller population but had some of the major characteristics of Midwest City. Among these are its not being a major urban center in the State and being the site of another major state university. It also had the agricultural and industrial economic confi- guration of Midwest City. During the preliminary survey on the supplementary site, three of the respondents who were not in Midwest City when the field work started, arrived. They agreed to and did participate in the study as respondents. At the same time two nonrespondents finally agreed to par- ticipate. With a total of fifty-one (5l) respondents, representing sixty-six percent (66%) of the universe, it was decided to abandon the use of supplementary respon- dents from another site and proceed with the analysis of the data gathered from Midwest City. The size of the universe and the number of actual respondents by sex and marital composition are as follows: 475 Size of Universe and Total Couples or Number of Respondents (M & F) Males Females Families Size of Universe 77 36 41 27 Number of Respondents Sl 27 24 20 Percent of Sample to Universe 66.2 75.0 58.5 74.0 To the extent that the respondents may be repre- sentative of Pilipinos similarly situated elsewhere in the U.S., the group can be considered a selected, purposive and nonrandom sample of new Pilipino immigrants in a medium-size midwestern U.S. city. Coding and Analysis Since the final sample was smaller than originally anticipated, electronic and hand-sorted punch cards were not used. Biographical and other quantifiable data were transferred by hand from the instruments unto 5"x8" cards. Nonquantitative and qualitative information from field observations were likewise recorded on the cards. Each individual respondent had approximately an average of five cards, in addition to which were an average of four cards per family. These information were coded and transferred to code sheets for manual tabulation. Quan- titative and aggregate data were tabulated on dummy tables for statistical analysis. To facilitate the transfer of 476 data and manual tabulation, the information on the cards and code sheets were done with multi-colored pens. Blue for males, pink for females and green for family- type information. Attempts were made to determine if such variables as education, occupation/education, income, and length of stay in the U.S., etc., correlated with selected atti- tudes and behavior patterns relevant to the concerns of the study. The data did not indicate clustering of information that suggested cause and effect relationships. They were too scattered and spread throughout the various categories without any concentration significant enough in any one category. Also, there were very few cases (often less than five) in each category or cell to suggest that any statistical analysis would produce significant or relevant information. Therefore, any indication of cause and effect relationships of certain data should be interpreted as suggestive rather than conclusive. Evaluation of the Field Work It was initially assumed that since the researcher was from the same nationality as the respondents and personally known to them, securing their cooperation would not be as difficult as most cross-cultural studies. This assumption was confirmed in the case of those who participated in the study. However, even from this group, 477 many told the researcher that it was their personal friendship and desire to help the researcher that made them participate albeit reluctantly. The major criticisms of the study, the data gathering procedures, and reasons for nonparticipation are worth noting and are summarized herein. 1) The questions and/or information sought were too personal and open-ended. The respondents did not want to do much "thinking" or expressing themselves. They preferred close- ended questions where they could respond with a minimum of effort. 2) Studies such as the one conducted never did people much good, much less those being studied, except perhaps the researcher and a few others. Furthermore, it is most likely that the results of the study will be used against them, rather than for them. 3) In spite of assurances and the precautions taken to protect the anonimity of respondents and confidentiality of the information, the nature of the questions themselves will identify the respondent, at least to the researcher. Fears were expressed that the data or any similar type data may end up in some computer or data bank. And worse, may fall into the wrong hands in both countries. 4) Some respondents claim they never participate in surveys, studies, etc., as a matter of personal or family policy, except those they are legally required to, such as the Census, etc.. 5) The less known about them as individuals and as a people, the better. 6) Some of the questions contained irrelevant details. For instance, getting information on highest educational attainment was enough, without having to get information on the years and names of schools. (This was one of adjustments made in the revised instrument.) 478 There were also some negative reaction to questions on political participation and electoral behavior patterns both in their country of origin and in the U.S. Only ten (l0) reacted to questions pertaining to politics and among them only six gave comprehensive responses. It was decided to drop political issues altogether from the study. Considering the current sus- pension of civil liberties in the Philippines and the existence of families back there, this was a legitimate concern. Among those who refused or reluctantly parti- cipated were those whose legal status in the U.S. were being considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It was their contention that the less known about them, the better. It should be noted however, that none of them were illegally in the country. It was just that as far as their status is concerned they were "on parole". This is a state of "non-status" while the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is consider- ing the final status of the alien in the U.S. This occurs when an alien enters the U.S. as a student, visitor, tourist, etc., and applies to have this visa status changed to another. By and large, the problems encountered in collecting the data were no different than those encoun- tered in similar undertakings. There were however some aspects and/or problems peculiar to this study. The 479 respondents' personal acquaintance with the researcher did provide some advantages, since this eliminated the procedure of getting entry and establishing credibility with the respondents. A person not familiar with the culture and/or social-psychology of the respondents would have missed a great deal of meaningful information from implicit and explicit responses. The tone of voice, facial expressions, colloquial and/or idiomatic expres- sions even in English but with Pilipino connotations would have been overlooked. For instance, the concept of respect and loyalty to family elders would almost mean exactly what the term connotes in American culture, but mostly applicable to immediate members of the family. To Pilipinos (or at least traditional Pilipinos), the con- cept involves a complex and multi-lateral networks of relationships. Furthermore, all elderly persons are treated with respect and deference. Among those who did not participate at all, only nine did so categorically. One, an American did so with a formal letter stating the reasons for his and his wife's nonparticipation. The rest never categorically refused. They promised to consider participating and hedged or deferred their decision to participate. It became apparent that one of the Pilipino values and norms on interpersonal relations was in operation. This is the value of "smooth interpersonal relations" or 480 "SIR". This is characterized by the manner by which Pilipinos find ways of refusing or disagreeing without doing so categorically and/or in a face-to-face situation. In other words, in interpersonal relations, there is a tacit agreement not to disagree openly regardless of how the discussants feel privately, thereby maintaining "SIR" between all the parties concerned.4 The researcher also had to operate under the same norms, to get maximum cooperation as well as maintaining "SIR“ with the community. Therefore, on a case by case basis and on experience as well as intuition, it was decided to stop pursuing some nonparticipants and consider them as nonrespondents. To have persisted in getting more participation and/or categorical refusals would have been a violation of "SIR" possibly generating consequences detrimental to the researcher and the study itself, even beyond and after its completion.5 4 Frank Lynch, "Social Acceptance Reconsidered.‘I Four Readings on Philippine Values. (Quezon City, Philip- pines: Ateneo de Manila University, 1970) pp. l-65. 5In a study of Asian-Americans', educational, health, and social problems in the Chicago area conducted by the Uni- versity of Illinois Research Laboratory, the Pilipino sample (200) were the most reluctant to cooperate and participate among the Asians included in the study. They were reported to be suspicious on how the results of the study will be used. The Philippine coordinator for the project (a Pilipina) had to appeal to the Pili- pinos in the Chicago area to participate and cooperate in the project assuring them of its confidentiality and usefulness to understanding Asian (and Pilipino) problems in the area. The appeal was made through the Chicago area Philippine newspapers (Philippine Times, May l5, 1974. pp. B-l, B-2). 481 In a sense, the personal acquaintance of the researcher (and interviewer) with the respondents and his being a member of the same community became a liability. A persistent criticism of the study and the relating methodology was that even in the guise of anonimity, the information obtained by the instrument would identify them to the researcher or anyone familiar with the res- pondents. There was also the concern that the information would be known to other Pilipinos in the community. As a Pilipino, the researcher can reasonably assume that one of the major reasons for nonparticipation was the reluctance of some Pilipinos in Midwest City to impart some personal or private family information to the researcher because he is a member of the community. A review and evaluation of the field strategies, methodology, and results indicate that better results could have been obtained if the study were pursued in a slightly different manner. They indicate errors in judgment and shortcomings on the part of the researcher in developing the strategies as well as in the construc- tion and administration of the data-gathering instrument. First of all, they were based on assumptions and/or anticipated ideal field conditions. As stated earlier, it was generally assumed that there would be a maximum or lOO percent participation due to the personal acquaintance of the researcher with the respondents. .This assumption 482 was not fully supported by the actual experience. Also, the study was conceived and instrument was constructed with the assumption and anticipation of some financial assistance. Consequently, the interview portion of the instrument was constructed towards this anticipation. The pre-test and interviews showed that completing the instrument in an interview situation would not have lasted more than one hour and a half per individual. However, when it was self-administered, it presented a formidable task, i.e., about forty (40) pages requesting family and individual information on the husband and wife. In an interview,-not all of the pages would have been used. Information or questions not applicable to particular res- pondents would have been disregarded. Although the researcher's and others' experience in social research in the Philippines had shown that Pilipinos are not prone to responding to self-administered instruments, he had assumed that since the respondents were better educated than the average Pilipino and had been "acculturated? to filling forms in the U.S., they would be different. This was of course an erroneous assumption, since most people do not voluntarily and easily fill up forms, unless they have to or gain some- thing by it. 483 Suggestions and Recommendations Any study contemplated will be dictated by the principal theoretical concerns to which the study wishes to address itself. Hence, this study was guided by the type of data needed and a corresponding manner of collection. It may be hypothesized however that regardless of the theoretical framework of the study, two general directions in data gathering will be employed. One would be a shorter and simpler instrument for a survey-type undertaking. This would allow inclusion of a larger universe or sample and the data will lend itself to more sophisticated statis- tical analysis. Another would be a study where more in- formation in depth would be needed, requiring the use of interviews. This study attempted to try to get data by combining a short-questionnaire method, in-depth interviews. and participant-observation techniques. Although the results were very satisfactory, they could have been better. From the experience earned from this study, a few recommendations are presented for consideration in similar undertakings. (1) If the universe is not too large (lOO families or less) and if-resources allow, it is advisable to include the total population rather than choosing a sample. However, some kind of pre-field survey should be conducted. This would include identi- fying the potential respondents and informing them of the study and the amount of participation required of them before they are furnished (3) 484 the instruments or confronted with an actual interview. It may even be advisable to furnish them with a copy of the instrument before they decide on participating. Respondents who do not wish to be interviewed but are willing to parti- cipate should be given the option of partici- pating without being interviewed. This would mean constructing a different instrument where the essential information is still obtained, but with the minimum of effort on the part of the respondents to furnish such information. If the universe is too large, then the field strategy can be a two-stage data gathering tech- nique. One would be to furnish the universe with a short self-administered questionnaire- type instrument to sercure general demographic or biographical information. A sample can then be selected from the universe upon whom a more complex instrument can be administered. As much as possible, the sample should be repre- sentative of the largest universe in terms of age and sex distribution, marital status, social economic status, etc. If accurate and current demographic/biographical published and unpublished information of the universe is available, then perhaps the first stage could be discarded. Ideally, the major researcher and interviewers should be from the same culture as the respon- dents, or at least familiar with the culture and social-psychology of the respondents. It may be advisable however, that the researcher and/or interviewers be not personally known or acquainted with the responeents and the rest of the community. It would even be more advisable if the study were conducted in a different community from where the researcher comes from, provided of course that the credi- bility of the study and integrity of the researcher is established. For studies such as this, participant-observation should be used whenever and wherever the occasions present themselves. Howevera,tape recorders should be avoided. People feel uneasy and sometimes annoyed when a recorder is going on while they go about whatever it is they are doing. It can only be used for direct interviews‘und 485 and with the consent of the interviewee. Some respondents will not mind furnishing information even in writing, but somehow feel uneasy talking to a recorder. If infor- mation is obtained from the participant observation that could be potentially embarrassing or dangerous to people if known, then the source of the information should be consulted on whether or not to include the information in the study. Anonimity of the source of information cannot always be assured when the group studied is small and/or closely knit. (5) If there is an intention or a possibility that the results of the study will be widely known, published and/or used for other than academic purposes (i.e., thesis, term paper, etc.), then this should be known by the respondents, even before they are asked to participate. All assurances of privacy and anonimity, especially if these are conditions for participation, should be kept. The subjects of social research are people, who are entitled to rights, respect, privacy, and dignity as human beings. They are not experimental subjects and should not be treated as such. The object of any investi- gation is to secure additional knowledge. The object of social investigations should be to secure additional knowledge that will be useful to people and not used against them.