Albert Manke: Chinese Migration and Exclusion Across the Americas

Welcome back to the HCIAS Blogcast! This is a series of posts on the HCIAS blog, in which we summarize some of the key points from our most recent podcast episode. This week, we report on a conversation between HCIAS Junior Prof. Dr. Yaatsil Guevara González, Professor of Migration and the Americas, and historian Dr. Albert Manke, Università Ca’ Foscari, Italy, about Chinese migration across the Americas. They discuss how policies of exclusion and discrimination in the region’s colonial and early post-colonial past continue to shape migration narratives today.

Dr. Albert Manke. (Photo Credit: University of California Berkley)

The podcast begins with Dr. Manke providing a historical overview of Chinese migration to the Americas, emphasizing that it began as part of the colonial connections between Spain, the Philippines, and the wider Pacific trade. Manila, colonized by the Spanish in the late 16th century, became a key contact zone between Spanish Colonial possesions in the Americas and Asia. Manke highlights that the Chinese, particularly those from the Fujian province, played a significant role in the trade network driven by the demand for silver in China. This led to a rise in the Chinese population in Manila, which by the end of the 16th century had grown to around 30,000 people. Despite their economic contributions, the Chinese were viewed as a threat by the Spanish colonial powers, leading to discrimination, control over mobility, and several massacres, the most notable happening in 1603, where around 25,000 Chinese were killed.

Despite the strong presence of Chinese communities in the Philippines, Dr. Manke clarifies that large-scale migration to Latin America during the colonial period was limited. Though there were some movements of Asian laborers to Mexico as part of the Manila Galleon trade, the numbers were small, and much of the migration was forced. He emphasizes that early accounts, which estimated as many as 100,000 Asians migrating to Mexico, were overstated, with more accurate figures suggesting fewer than 10,000 free Chinese migrants during this time.

Dr. Manke explains that the dynamics of Chinese migration changed in the 19th century, following the independence movements in Latin America and the decline of the Manila Galleon trade. By this point, the slave trade was being phased out, and European powers along with the newly independent nations in the Americas began looking for alternative sources of cheap labor. This led to the rise of the so-called “coolie trade,” a system of indentured servitude that brought large numbers of Chinese laborers to the Americas, primarily to Cuba and Peru. Between 1847 and 1874, about 140,000 Chinese laborers arrived in Cuba, and 90,000 in Peru, under this system.

At the same time, free Chinese migration to the United States and Canada was also taking place, particularly during the California Gold Rush in the late 1840s. This migration followed a different system known as the “credit-ticket system,” in which migrants would pay off their travel debts through labor but were otherwise free. This marked one of the first large-scale non-European free migrations to the Americas. The combination of these two migration systems—indentured servitude in Latin America and free migration in North America—led to a significant increase in the Chinese population across the Americas in a relatively short period.

Dr. Manke highlights how, in the mid-19th century, as the free Chinese population grew, so did racial tensions and exclusionary policies. In the United States, Chinese immigrants were subjected to higher taxes, denied access to economic opportunities, and often targeted in pogroms. This racial discrimination was formalized with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was the first significant federal law in the United States to restrict immigration based on ethnicity. This act set a precedent for future immigration policies that were racially motivated and aimed at limiting non-European immigration.

The discriminatory practices that took place in the United States were mirrored, to varying degrees, across Latin America. Dr. Manke notes that despite the relatively small Chinese populations in countries like Ecuador and Colombia, there were early anti-Chinese legislations. This was largely fueled by beliefs in eugenics, and the desire to “whiten” populations and minimize the presence of groups who were deemed socially or economically burdensome. This ideology was disseminated through international eugenics conferences, where policymakers and intellectuals shared strategies for creating “healthier” populations, often through the exclusion of non-European immigrants from their national projects.

Dr. Manke connects the historical exclusion of Chinese migrants to broader processes of nation-building in the Americas. As new nation-states emerged in the 19th century, they often sought to define themselves in racial terms. David Fitzgerald and David Cook-Martin have argued that the formation of modern nations in the Americas was closely linked to selective exclusion, where European immigrants were welcomed while non-white immigrants, particularly Chinese and Mexicans, were restricted. This exclusion was not only based on racial and economic factors but was also a response to fears of Chinese political influence, despite the lack of any real threat from China during this period.

He notes that while many of the most explicitly racist policies, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, have been repealed, the legacy of these policies continues to shape modern immigration systems. During World War II, Chinese exclusion policies were temporarily relaxed as China became an ally of the United States and its Latin American allies in the fight against the Axis powers. However, in the post-Cold War era, exclusionary policies have reemerged, particularly with the rise of right-wing populist governments that use migration as a political tool. This was particularly evident during the global coronavirus pandemic, when racist rhetoric, such as referring to COVID-19 as the “China virus,” fueled xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese communities in both the United States and Europe.

This HCIAS Blogcast has been just a short recap of a wide-ranging and thought-provoking discussion. If you would like to learn more about our guest and his work, you can listen to the whole episode here.