「中國佬在道德上還不如黑鬼」---美國排華歷史文獻展覽

01-28

原文是載於加州阿爾塔日報（The Daily Alta California）1853年5月21日刊登的社論「Chinese Citizenship」。內容主要是反對授予華人公民權以及允許更多華人入境加州。作者認為華人「迷信、狡詐、好色、兇悍、不潔」，完全不能被美國文明所同化，道德上比黑人更低劣。既然不能給外國黑人以公民權，同理也應當拒絕華人成為美國公民。

Chinese Citizenship.

Celestials — What is there in

our naturalization laws to prevent the Asians from avowing his intention of

becoming a citizen, and then going forward and taking out his naturalization

papers, and claiming the rights of citizenship? Could he then be refused to

vote on account of color? And are the Chinese among us to be enumerated in the

census as a portion of our population? These are questions which will soon

force themselves upon us for solution.

The above is from the Sacramento Union.

The naturalization law of the United States

declares that, on certain conditions, "any alien, being a free white

person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States." The

question is, therefore, are the Chinese free white persons? From what we know

of them, and of the circumstances under which they have come to this country,

we are of the opinion that they are neither free nor white, that is, as a

class. There are doubtless some who have come here as agents or overseers of

the majority, who are free men at home — men of wealth and influence among

their own people, and who have furnished the means for their dependents and coolies

to come hither, giving them a small share of what they earn, or binding

themselves to pay them, after a certain period, a given amount, usually from

four to five dollars a month. The persons brought out under these stipulations

are not free at home. They are the depressed and servile coolies of the land,

and in coming away they leave everything they have behind them, and give their

wives and children as host ages to their masters that they will not break their

compact when they get beyond the reach of the Chinese laws. They are not to be

considered as free persons, and if there were as other objections to their

becoming free citizens, this alone would be sufficient. In regard to those who are

actually free, this objection may not hold good ; but we are to take them as a

class, and in the absence of direct proof to the contrary, we are to take the

whole for what we know the most of them to be. But there are abundant other

reasons why they should not became citizens. If they were all free at home and

came here at their own expense, and to remain here permanently, there are

reasons strong and valid why they should not be allowed to become naturalized.

They are not white persons in the sense of the law. Mary of them it is true are

nearly as white as Europeans, and so are many slaves in the Atlantic States.

The advertisements of runaway slaves often contain descriptions which skate

that the closest inspection is necessary in order to detect the trace of the

African blood. Yet the predominence of white blood is sufficient to entitle any

person to citizenship. The trace of the negro however is sufficient to

disqualify him from the principles of a citizen, and if that be just, and we

know it is law, then why should not the tawny Chinese fall under the same ban.

They are morally a far worse class to have among us than the negro. They are
idolatrous in their religion — in their disposition cunning and deceitful, and
in their habits libidinous and offensive. They have certain redeeming features

of craft, industry, and economy, and like other men in the fallen estate, 「

they have wrought out many inventions." But they are not of that kind that

Americans can ever associate or sympathize with. They are not of our people and

never will be, though they remain here forever. No American can overcome his
disgust of their rat-eating and unclean habits, so far as to put himself on an
equality with them, or have anything like intimacy with them. They do not mix

with our people, and it is undesirable that they should, for nothing but

degradation can result to us from the contact. The law in regard to

naturalization was doubtless framed with more particular reference to the

Ethiopian than to any other class. But no one will contend that other races may

not be classed with them as ineligible to the rights of citizenship. If the

Chinese may be naturalized under the law, then why not the Kanaka— and

if the Kanaka, why not the Malay— and if the

Malay, then why not the aboriginal New Hollander ? Truly, we must stop short of

the African, and what rule must be adopted? Must it not be a question of home

policy as regards who shall be adopted citizens and who shall not ? We have

sometimes heard it objected that we are bound to respect treaty stipulations,

and that according to those the Chinamen are entitled to all the privileges of

any class of aliens, and that it would be a violation of our national faith to refuse

them the privilege accorded to Europeans. But this objection has no force for

many reasons. The treaty with China is confined to defining privileges,

immunities and liabilities of Americans in the Empire of the Ta-Tsing, and

there is nothing direct or by implication in it that renders it obligatory on

our government to confer citizenship on the Chinese. There is no reason why a

treaty similar to that with China might not be made with Liberia, end no one

would pretend to say that such a treaty would give the African any greater

privileges in the United States than he now enjoys. It is therefore a question

for us to decide at home. A question of policy among ourselves, and the only

consideration of importance is, is the presence of large numbers of Chinese

desirable? We believe not. We believe that it is well to cultivate feelings of

amity and friendly intercourse with them so far as it can be done on their own

ground. But it is of no advantage to us to have them here. They can never

become like us, and they are not of that race or native character which will

ever elevate the social condition of California. If great numbers of them

should continue to be imported, the manner of treatment to be observed towards

them is destined to be an important question in our State politics. At present

there are few of them who do not design at some time to leave for their native

land. But in the course of years they may become so numerous as to form a

society of their own, and have all their native idolatries and superstitions on

this shore of the Pacific In that case there will be less inducement to return

to their homes, and the question is what will be their relative position in

respect to Americans? Will they be a

distinct clan, living by themselves, and as a consequence in a sort of semi-war

with our people, or will they become a servile class of 「hew- ers of wood and

drawers of water "to our own people? Or, again, will they amalgamate with

Americans? The last hypothesis is too disgusting to entertain. The first result

would be attended with stupendous evils, and the second will divide people into

castes, such as cannot exist in a pure republic. It is therefore unwise to encourage

them in coming hither; they cannot or ought not to become citizens, and the whole

advantage in having them here at all may be summed up in these words — it

benefit American commerce, at the expense of American civilization.