The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association/huiguan (CCBA/huiguan) system was founded in the United States during the mid-nineteenth century. Over the years stories in the American news media have often thrust it into the limelight. Yet due to language and cultural barriers, the public has long misunderstood the system, and only recently have a few scholars even begun to analyze its history and role objectively.
Using information from English and Chinese language sources, this chapter attempts to provide a clearer understanding of the historical development of this system and its affiliated organizations, thereby stripping them of the mysterious aura that has surrounded them in the past. It does not deal with the secret societies (tongs) or trade and workers’ guilds, since these groups are subjects worthy of separate treatment.
The CCBA/huiguan system evolved in response to the need of the Chinese to organize for social, economic, and political reasons. The earliest formal organization, the huiguan, united people from the same region, locality, or localities. Led by the merchant class, the huiguan exercised both economic power and social control over its members. The huiguan became key components of the CCBA. The latter represents a higher level of organization that was prompted by a growing sense of community that crossed clan or regional lines and the need for an entity representing the community to respond to anti-Chinese agitation in American society. Internally, conflicts and rivalries within the huiguan system between clans or between regional groups gave rise to two types of associations: surname and subregional (shantang). Based on a more limited and closely related membership, these associations had functions parallel to those of the huiguan. Often they constituted power blocs within the huiguan and had the right to be represented within the huiguan’s leadership circle.
Some of the earliest organizations established among Chinese in America are those in which membership is determined by a common geographical origin in China. This criterion may be applied to part of a district, one or more districts, or even one or more provinces. The nearest equivalent to this type of organization in Western society would be the German Landsmannschaft (in Germany an association of students from the same country or province). A person’s eligibility for membership in these organizations is determined at birth and is thus defined as restrictive.1
The most important of these regional associations among nineteenth-century Chinese abroad was the huiguan (meeting hall), commonly known as a locality or district association. During the nineteenth century a huiguan was also known as a company. The overseas Chinese huiguan has centuries-old antecedents in China. Similar organizations already existed in the imperial capital of Peking as early as the fifteenth century.2 By the last quarter of the sixteenth century, they also began to spring up in major Chinese cities, established by sojourning merchants or artisans from the same locality in China. The aim was to protect group economic interests and to perform certain charitable and social functions for fellow Landsleute away from home. Finding themselves in a similar situation when they settled abroad, immigrants also applied the concept of the huiguan in overseas Chinese communities.3
Following the discovery of gold in 1848, the Chinese population in California increased rapidly. San Francisco, the principal port of entry, became their economic, political, and cultural center. By 1849, Chinese merchants in the city apparently had formed a community organization to maintain internal order and to facilitate dealings with the larger community.4 In that year they met to select an advisor, and in 1850 they organized Chinese participation in some civic events. However, the name of this organization still has not been found in historical documents.
As Chinese immigration increased during the early 1850s, rivalries spurred the birth of organizations representing different constituencies. Given the strong clan and village loyalties of the Guangdong peasants, who made up the bulk of the immigrants, people from the same village tended to seek each other’s company for mutual aid and comfort. However, as emigrants from any one particular village were usually limited in number, the basis for organization expanded to include a larger constituency to gain the necessary resources to function effectively. Since speakers of the same dialect or subdialect generally live in contiguous areas in China, dialect grouping became a logical common criterion for organizing. In the United States the overwhelming majority of the emigrants were from the Pearl River Delta and Siyi (Sze Yap). They established several huiguan, or companies, each enrolling as members emigrants from districts speaking closely related Cantonese subdialects. A small minority speaking Hakka, a dialect different from Cantonese, also established its separate organization.
The creation of these societies in California took place without the participation of the gentry and scholar-officials, the traditional elite in Chinese society, since opportunities for upward mobility in China were attractive enough to keep this group from emigrating outside the bounds of the empire. As a result the merchants, who were more affluent and generally more literate than their compatriots overseas, assumed the leadership role abroad.
The first two huiguan were established by 1851. Merchants from Nan-hai (Namhoi), Panyu (Punyu), and Shunde (Shuntak), three counties surrounding the present city of Guangzhou (Canton), led in the formation of Sanyi Huiguan (Sam Yup Association), or Canton Company.5 The other was Siyi Huiguan (Sze Yap Association), composed of people from Xinhui (Sunwui); Xinning (Sunning), now Taishan (Toishan); Kaiping (Hoiping); and Enping (Yanping), four districts in the Tan (Tam) River valley, located just west of the Pearl River Delta.6
In September or October 1852, Yuan Sheng (Norman Assing), Cai Libi (Lai Bik Tsoi), and Liu Zuman (Jo Man Lau) from Xiangshan (Heungshan), now Zhongshan (Chungshan) and Zhuhai including Doumen, became the leading spirits in the founding of Yanghe Huiguan (Yeong Wo Association).7 This association also included emigrants from adjacent Dongguan (Tungkun) and Zengcheng (Tsengshing). Later Boluo (Poklo) immigrants were also admitted. The same year, immigrants from Xin’an (Sunon), now Shenzhen (Shumchun) including Bao’an (Paoan), a majority of whom spoke the Hakka dialect in contrast to the Cantonese spoken in the other huiguan, formed Xin’an Huiguan (Sun On Company).8 The name of this last organization subsequently changed several times. Today it is known as Renhe Huiguan (Yan Wo Association). Its members remain overwhelmingly Hakka.
In this manner Chinese in California had become organized into four regional dialect groupings by 1853. Changes in huiguan ranks, however, did not stop at this point. As the membership continued to increase in each huiguan, ambitious leaders took advantage of clan and village loyalties to form rival power blocs. As these groups contended for status and power, they caused internal stresses and strains that sometimes flared up into intramural strife. At times this resulted in dissidents splitting from the parent organization. Conditions in Sze Yap Company, with the largest membership, fostered the development of such situations. Thus, it was the most susceptible to secession attempts.
In April 1853, a dispute within the Sze Yap Company led Xinning people, with the largest number of Siyi immigrants, to secede and form Ningyang Huiguan (Ning Yung Association). The split was accented by a bloody fight between adherents of each faction in front of a San Francisco Chinatown theater. At the time, Yee Ahtye (also known as George Athei), influential leader in Sze Yap Huiguan, persuaded fellow Yu (Yee) clansmen from Xinning not to join the exodus.9 However, this last group left with Kaiping and Enping clans when a dispute arose over the presidency of the Sze Yap Association in 1862. This coalition also established a new association, Hehe Huiguan (Hop Wo Association). Xinhui merchants representing the only one of the four founding groups remaining in Sze Yap Association, subsequently led its reorganization as Kong Chow Association, which at that time also included as members emigrants from Heshan (Hokshan) and Sihui (Szewui).10
Feelings between the rival groups remained antagonistic after these secessions. Frequent news items recounted fights between adherents of Hop Wo Company and members of both Sze Yap and Ning Yung Companies.11 The new Hop Wo Company also challenged the custody of a piece of land owned by Yee Ahtye on Pine Street in San Francisco, on which he had given permission to Sze Yap Association to build a headquarters building and temple. Yee Ahtye, who was from Xinhui, sided with Sze Yap Association, and in 1866 legally deeded the land to the new Gangzhou Huiguan (Kong Chow Association).12 However, Yee and his supporters had to organize Cuisheng Tang (Suey Sing Tong), a secret society, to ensure that his decision be respected.13 Thus Kong Chow Association fell heir to the land and building of the Sze Yap Association, including what is today known as Kong Chow Temple, which later gave rise to the widely held misconception that Kong Chow Association was the first huiguan.14
Instability did not end with the demise of the Sze Yap Association. Friction soon developed within Hop Wo Company over the Yee clan’s domineering attitude. On September 21, 1878, the San Francisco Bulletin noted that a split had occurred in the Hop Wo Company. “For some time there has been much dissatisfaction among the Chinese belonging to the Hop Wo Company regarding the management of the funds. About a year ago there was an opposition to the selection of officers for the year, and a crowd of disgusted Chinamen favored the new president, as he was going to the Company’s house, with showers of soft cheese, liver, chowchow, etc. . . . The discontented were forced to submit, but recently they have determined to form a new company and today it begins operations.” This newly formed Zhaoqing Huiguan (Sue Hing Association) included members of several Kaiping and Enping clans.
The fragmentation continued. By 1879 the original Hop Wo Association had become four groups: Yu Fengcai Tang (Yee Fung Toy Tong), Tan Yiyi Tang (Tom Yee Yee Tong), En-kai Huiguan (Yen Hoy Association), and Sue Hing Association.15 Through the mediation of Chinese Consul General Huang Zunxian the factions reconstituted Hop Wo Association around 1883. However, antagonisms remained and it is unclear from the historical record whether Sue Hing Association refused to rejoin, or whether it rejoined only to secede again after a brief sojourn.16 In 1898 the Tan (Tom, Horn) and Guan (Kwan, Quan) clans left with several Kaiping and Enping clans still in Hop Wo Company to reestablish Yen Hoy Company.17 In 1901 another thirteen Enping clans led by the Tang (Tong) clan also seceded, this time to join Sue Hing Company.18
But Yen Hoy and Sue Hing associations soon found their respective constituencies too small to be effective and initiated merger talks that were successfully completed by 1909.19 Subsequently Sue Hing Association accepted membership from members of the Sanshui (Samshui), Sihui (Szewui), Qingyuan (Tsingyuen), Gaoyao (Koyiu), and Gaoming (Koming) communities belonging to Liuyi Tongshan Tang (Look Yup Tong Sen Tong, Lak Yip Hong San Tong). Eventually it also took under its wing people from Yangjiang (Yeungkong) and Yangchun (Yeungchun) and became the second largest huiguan in membership and the one with people from the greatest number of counties; however, a majority are still emigrants from Kaiping. As for Hop Wo Company, members of the Yee clan from Taishan remained dominant in the organization, although some Kaiping clans, notably the Xie (Tse, Der), Hu (Woo), and a large part of the Deng (Tang, Dong, Ong), as well as the Zheng (Chang, Jung) clan from Enping, are also represented.
The non-Siyi huiguan had less turbulent histories, possibly because their smaller memberships precluded the growth of large rival blocs that could foster and sustain open conflicts and instability in the organizations. Even so, in 1901 five of the six districts belonging to Look Yup Tong Sen Tong left Sam Yup Association due to a dispute over the presidency.20 They joined Sue Hing Association while the sixth, Hua Xian, remained affiliated with Sam Yup Association. After World War II, when the Hua Xian community in California had grown in numbers and affluence, its leaders sought a share in the leadership role in Sam Yup Association and membership in CCBA-SF. After they were rebuffed, the Hua Xian people seceded and established Hua Xian Huiguan (Fah Yuen Association) in 1955.21 (See figure 3.1.)
Note: Geographical definitions for each Huiguan are basically in accordance with that existing during the late Qing and Republican periods.
Figure 3.1. Evolution of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association/Huiguan System of San Francisco
Figure 3.2. Counties (Pre-1949) from which Chinese in America Originated
The huiguan was the organization by which the merchant class in the Chinese community maintained social control. It influenced the lives of the nineteenth-century Chinese immigrants as soon as they arrived in San Francisco. “Each [huiguan] elects capable and worthy individuals to be director (dongsi), interpreter (chufan) to deal with the larger society, and a bookkeeper (lishumu). . . . When Chinese arrive, each huiguan sends representatives to the wharf to meet and bring them to the association building, where they are registered without charge.”22 The association building served the purpose of a caravansary, where the new immigrant was furnished a room to spread his mat and provided with water and facilities for cooking. Persons returning from inland towns en route to China, or who had finished a job and were seeking new work, could also find temporary lodgings there.
The huiguan arbitrated disputes among its members and offered rewards for the apprehension and conviction of murderers of its members. It also assessed the membership to raise funds for its operating expenses and for projects of common concern. However, one of its most important functions was to prevent the absconding of defaulting debtors. Thus, a Chinese intending to depart for China, no matter where he had lived in the United States, reported to his huiguan when he arrived in San Francisco. If the huiguan was satisfied that he had paid all debts and fulfilled all other financial obligations, he would be issued an exit permit after paying an assessment that went toward the huiguan’s operating expenses.23 According to one observer, “When the immigrant is about to return to China, [the huiguan] collects several dollars up to $10 or $20 from him. . . . The huiguan also made agreements with the steamship companies so that if huiguan had not received this assessment from the immigrant, and the huiguan had not issued an exit permit, then the steamship company will not sell him a ticket. Because of this, [in the past] no one returning to China sought to evade contributing this amount. The custom had been carried out for years and has become an accepted practice.”24
The practice of using the power of the huiguan in San Francisco to ensure payment of debts may have been developed during the early years of Chinese immigration to guarantee that those who arrived by the credit-ticket system would settle their accounts before departure. Since during the nineteenth century practically all Chinese departed for China through San Francisco, this put the huiguan in the city in a particularly strategic position to enforce this requirement. To ensure compliance, each huiguan sent an inspector to the docks to collect exit permits from departing Chinese as they boarded ship. An exception was Chinese Christians, who refused to pay the tax on the grounds that it would be used to support idolatry in the huiguan temples. After prolonged negotiations, the huiguan finally allowed Chinese missions and churches to issue exit permits and to assess members of their congregations separately.25
Each huiguan maintained a cemetery, provided medicine and burial expenses for the poor, and donated passage money to China for the infirm and indigent elderly. But they provided so few other services for their membership that Consul General Huang Zunxian wrote in disappointment: “According to my investigation each huiguan has comparatively large incomes. Yet they have not provided for the welfare of the membership with this money collected from them. None of the huiguan can escape criticism on this point. Although their reputation may not be as bad as stated by the white people, yet there are areas in which they can justly be attacked.”26
Huang Zunxian decried this lack of social services that would have “fulfilled the people’s hope” and noted that it was rooted in internal organizational weaknesses. “The huiguan operate with few established rules. The money they collect is not accountable to anyone. If the directors and interpreters are men of integrity, then the organization’s functions are carried out reasonably well. If not, then powerful individuals and large clans can entrench themselves; unscrupulous persons can purchase property, profit from it, and line their pockets.”27
The huiguan played the role of patriarchal leaders in the nineteenth-century California Chinese community. During the early 1850s they did not hesitate to use force on those who defied their leadership. For example, one Ah Ti “inflicted severe corporal punishment upon many of his more humble countrymen . . . cutting off their ears, flogging them or keeping them chained.” These harsh disciplinary measures ceased only after they were exposed in 1853 by the San Francisco County Grand Jury.28 The apparent power the huiguan exercised over the Chinese laborers also gave apparent credence to another charge that they imported emigrants from China to perform servile coolie labor. This charge was first raised during the early 1850s, when it was fueled by the notoriety of Chinese coolie trade. This impression persisted in the larger society and was used effectively by anti-Chinese agitators pushing for a ban on Chinese immigration. White missionaries and Chinese Christians, both of whom were familiar with the operations of the huiguan system and had no particular love for it, consistently denied the veracity of these accusations. However, although the huiguan themselves may not have been directly responsible for the importation of Chinese labor, they played a major role in ensuring the smooth operation of the credit-ticket system for immigration.
After a Chinese legation was established in Washington, D.C., and a consul general stationed in San Francisco, the Qing government tried to bring these powerful autonomous organizations under control and pressured the huiguan into correcting some of the more obvious abuses. In the early 1880s the huiguan began recruiting titled scholars from China to serve as presidents.29 In 1887 the Qing envoy to the United States issued orders that credentials of the president-elect be validated by the provincial governor-general having jurisdiction over his district of origin in China. After that he would be issued a diplomatic passport for himself and one personal staff member (suiyuan) to come as members of the consular staff.30
The intent for importing a titled scholar to be president was to ensure that the person be above local factional politics; however, it also resulted in a president unfamiliar with conditions in the community, at least at the beginning of his term. Obviously, the arrangement also made the huiguan in effect an extension of the Chinese diplomatic service and a channel between the Chinese government and the Chinese in America. This method for filling the huiguan presidency was used until 1925 when the U.S. Department of State objected to giving huiguan presidents diplomatic status since this was not in accordance with accepted international protocol. In 1926 the Chinese government gave in and issued tourist passports to the presidents-elect only; accompanying staff members were no longer allowed. Because of this immigration restriction, the huiguan gradually began to fill the office of president with local candidates, the earliest being Chen Jingshan of the Yeong Wo Association in 1926.31
Qing diplomats in America also pushed other reforms that were successful to some degree, and Consul General Huang Zunxian was encouraged to say that “in recent years [huiguan have issued] financial statements of income and disbursements for public examination. Except for the salaries of the directors, no abuses have arisen due to misappropriations and embezzlements. When I arrived I ordered the directors to arbitrate disputes. Since the directors had regard for the huiguan’s reputation, each has done his best in performing his duties and has thereby gained credibility among the membership. Thus the atmosphere has changed somewhat.”32
One problem Qing officials were unable to scotch completely, however, was the regional and clan antagonisms that characterized nineteenth-century Guangdong society and had been carried over into Chinese American society. Such intergroup animosity was one of the factors justifying the existence of the huiguan—namely, to protect members from external threats. The pitting of organized groups against each other, on the other hand, also tended to exacerbate these existing antagonisms. Disputes between individuals always had the potential of evolving into group conflicts because each huiguan felt obligated to support its member(s). Such was the case during the early 1850s when several disagreements escalated into violent battles, with each group backed by its huiguan with manpower and arms. One example was the “Weaverville War” of 1854, which started over a gambling quarrel and ended up with Yeong Wo Company adherents pitted against the combined forces of the Sam Yup, Sze Yap, and Ning Yung companies.33 Another fight occurred at a Chinese camp in 1856, pitting members of Sam Yup Company against Yan Wo Company in a quarrel over a mining claim.34
The number and scope of such conflicts decreased in succeeding decades, although the antagonisms remained. After a consulate was established in San Francisco, pressure brought to bear by the office helped to resolve many disputes before they escalated into violent confrontations. The consular office also may have been instrumental in the 1880s in helping to establish a system of rotating the presidency of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of San Francisco (CCBA-SF) among the various huiguan, as well as a system of rotating the presidency and other offices of each huiguan among the various affiliated shantang, or clans.35 Even though this mechanical apportioning of the offices did not eliminate the domination of powerful individuals or groups, the institutionalized rotation of power eased tensions among contending factions.
However, even the prestige of the imperial government could only maintain an uneasy truce in Chinatown. It could not eradicate existing conflicts of interests and rivalries, which tended to be aggravated even further by mistrust and prejudice between different dialect groups. Thus, one last big conflict occurred in the 1890s when huiguan of Siyi people backed a boycott by their constitituents against Sanyi businesses to protest the latter’s monopolistic domination of certain types of Chinatown businesses, especially that in the import-export area. In spite of mediation efforts by several successive consul generals, the confrontation lasted several years before a truce was reached. It was only after the growth of nationalistic feelings among Chinese during the twentieth century that such interclan and regional animosities slowly subsided.
The increasing anti-Chinese agitation in California during the 1870s ultimately led the United States Congress to pass a series of Chinese Exclusion Acts beginning in 1882. With the implementation of these laws, the influx of Chinese was abruptly throttled, and the foundation of power of the huiguan began to erode. During this period maintenance of social control became secondary to the larger problem of ensuring the survival of the Chinese community in a hostile environment. The CCBA, in which huiguan were the key components, emerged as the acknowledged leader of the Chinese community. The ascendancy of this organization marked the growth of a sense of identity among the Chinese of America as a Chinese community rather than as an assortment of Sam Yup, Sze Yap, and other groups.
Actually, the huiguan had had a long history of working together when dealing with certain matters of common concern. As early as 1853, the Chinese in San Francisco had formed a committee elected from among the Chinese merchants of San Francisco to act with the presidents of the huiguan in all public affairs involving the Chinese community.36 In succeeding years observers referred to “four great houses,” “five companies,” and so on, in accordance with the number of huiguan existing at any particular time. A gongsuo (public hall) consisting of huiguan officers and committee members was established around 1862.37 This, however, appeared to be a loosely organized federation of the huiguan, which by consensus made decisions on matters affecting the general interest of the Chinese on the Pacific Coast. It dealt with such matters as settling disputes between the people of different companies, consulting on the best means to contest or seek relief from anti-Chinese laws, devising means to bar the import of Chinese prostitutes, and entertaining public figures.38 Since at the time there were six companies (that is, Ning Yung, Hop Wo, Kong Chow, Yeong Wo, Sam Yup, and Yan Wo), this organization was known collectively as the Six Chinese Companies. Later it was referred to as the Chinese Six Companies and was recognized by white society as the representative of the entire Chinese community in America.
During the height of the anti-Chinese movement, Chinese Consul General Huang Zunxian pushed the formation of a single organization with better-defined powers, the CCBA-SF, to provide more effective leadership in the fight against anti-Chinese actions. Absorbing the earlier gongsuo, this new organization came into being on November 19, 1882.39 Zheng Zaoru, the Chinese envoy in Washington, D.C., gave the new organization its Chinese name, Jinshan Zhonghua Huiguan.40 It was later incorporated under the laws of the state of California in 1901.41 The English name as given in its bylaws is Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of the U.S.A.
Membership in the Chinese Six Companies did not always remain at six. When Sue Hing Association joined the group, the total became seven. Later, when Yen Hoy Company was accepted into CCBA-SF, the six companies were in reality eight for a few years. However, the larger society continued to call the organization Chinese Six Companies throughout these many permutations.
The office of the presidency of the Chinese Six Companies was established in 1880.42 This provision was carried over to CCBA-SF when it came into being in 1882, with the officeholder being one of the huiguan presidents who were all titled scholars from China. The first CCBA-SF president was Chen Wenquan (Chun Mun Chuen) of Kong Chow Association.43 The huiguan presidents of CCBA-SF collectively made up its shendong, or gentry-directors. Up to the end of the Qing dynasty, it was also customary for the CCBA-SF to submit to the consul general a list of candidates from which he would choose and appoint its other board members. These other board members were called shangdong, or merchant-directors, a term that reflected their class origin.44 At first, there was no limitation on the length of the president’s term; however, this soon gave rise to abuses and disputes. Therefore, in 1890 the organization set a limit of six months to each term, which was to be rotated among six huiguan, except Yan Wo, the smallest in membership. In 1900 the length of each term was further decreased to three months. In addition, the Chinese consul general assumed the right to confirm the president’s appointment. During this period no fixed number of directors was assigned to represent each organization, a situation that tended to work in favor of associations such as Sam Yup, Yeong Wo, and Kong Chow, which had small memberships but a high percent of merchants. For example, in 1907 the consul general appointed forty-one directors, out of which Ning Yung had eleven, while Sam Yup, Yeong Wo, and Kong Chow, whose combined memberships numbered less than that of Ning Yung, each had six directors, or a total of eighteen.45
This situation did not sit well with leaders in Ning Yung Association, the organization with the largest membership, who felt that their association should have a greater voice. But when CCBA-SF drafted a revision to its bylaws in 1925, out of a total of eighty directors, Ning Yung was still assigned only twenty-two, while Sam Yup, Yeong Wo, and Kong Chow each had twelve, or a total of thirty-six.
In 1928 Ning Yung Association had just begun a national boycott of the newspaper Young China over published articles alleged to be insulting to the association and its role in CCBA-SF. Using this as a pretext, Ning Yung Association withdrew from further participation in CCBA-SF meetings and demanded to be given rights commensurate with the size of its membership. In the meantime it withheld the exit permit assessments that normally would have been passed on to CCBA-SF as part of the association’s contribution toward CCBA-SF’s operating fund. As this amount constituted about half the budget, it had a serious financial impact on the remaining huiguan, which had to make up the deficit. The CCBA-SF board finally succumbed to the pressure, agreed to most of the demands, and incorporated them in its revised bylaws in 1930.
The new bylaws set the board at fifty-five members, with the number redistributed to each huiguan in proportion to the number of registered members in 1926. Accordingly, Ning Yung Association, having 48.5 percent out of 26,676 registrants, was entitled to twenty-seven directors, one less than half the board total. The number of directors for Sam Yup, Yeong Wo, and Kong Chow Associations were pared drastically to a total of thirteen. The revised bylaws also set the president’s term at two months, with the Ning Yung president filling the office every other term, while each of the other huiguan presidents except Yan Wo rotated to fill the remaining terms. (In 1988 Yan Wo Association was finally admitted into the rotation scheme to fill the presidency when CCBA-SF passed a resolution to add Yan Wo Association beginning in 1989. However, the turn for Yan Wo Association did not come until November 2, 1990, when Li Kaiming (Hoi Ming Lee) became the first Yan Wo Association president to fill the office.)46
These changes marked a significant shift in the distribution of power in CCBA-SF. Population became the sole determinant for apportioning the number of directors instead of the previously used criterion, which was weighed in favor of huiguan having a higher proportion of merchants among their members. Ning Yung Association became the dominant voice on the CCBA-SF board. Since there was little chance that the remaining huiguan could work together as a bloc against Ning Yung, a decision on any question by Ning Yung Association would determine its fate in CCBA-SF. Since this change, there has been no revision of the bylaws, nor has CCBA-SF admitted any new huiguan to its ranks.
When CCBA-SF was established in 1882, one of the main objectives was to provide more effective leadership in the Chinese community’s fight against anti-Chinese legislation. Putting its trust in the American judicial system, CCBA-SF was often successful in nullifying or modifying hostile measures. Since control of CCBA-SF and the affiliated huiguan was in the hands of the merchant class, its function as an organization working for the interest and welfare of the Chinese community must be viewed within this framework. For example, since it would work against the association’s interest to take the side of the working class against the merchants, it tended to deal only with those issues upon which all strata in society had a common interest.
Under this guiding principle, CCBA-SF provided support for a Donghua (Tung Wah) Dispensary in 190047 and was one of the fifteen founding organizations of a Chinese hospital in 1920.48 In 1909 it established the Daqing Qiaomin Xuetang, the predecessor to the present Chinese Central High School, to teach Chinese language and culture to Chinese American children.49 Many of its actions, however, were aimed toward protection of the interests of the business community. For example, before the advent of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, CCBA-SF acted as witness for changes of ownership and property sales. To protect Chinatown against nocturnal prowlers, CCBA-SF used to hire night watchmen to make the rounds.50 CCBA-SF also acted as a clearinghouse for fund-raising campaigns, and before World War II CCBA-SF approval of a fund-raising project could open many Chinese doors for donations. (See figure 3.3.)
During the early twentieth century Chinese all over the country looked to CCBA-SF for leadership in areas of common concern such as fighting laws and discriminatory actions against Chinese. These expectations extended even to Chinese in American colonies and countries in Latin America that did not have Chinese diplomatic representation. When atrocities were committed against Chinese during revolutions in Mexico in 1913 and again in 1916, Chinese in that country requested and received assistance from CCBA-SF. CCBA-SF also lent a helping hand to Chinese in Guatemala (1920), the Philippines (1921), El Salvador (1925), Ecuador (1926), Mexico (1930–1932), and the Dominican Republic (1932) when these countries promulgated anti-Chinese measures.51 The organization retained a lawyer on an annual basis to facilitate the handling of these and other legal matters.52
Figure 3.3. Relationships among Chinese Organizations in San Francisco Chinatown
However, CCBA-SF leadership in the community had many limitations. This was obvious even during its early years. The following comments by Chinese envoy Liang Cheng in 1907 perhaps express this most succinctly: “When the [Zhonghua] Huiguan was established it was entirely patterned after the traditional xiangyue system. Thus its aims and objectives as well as its powers were lacking in definition, or were described only sketchily. These simple principles are still being followed, but in reality they are irreconcilable with the structures required for autonomous rule. The organization is also obviously incongruous with the concept of a chamber of commerce, since it not only cannot unify the merchants, do research on commercial affairs and compete with outsiders for supremacy in the market place, but in the community it cannot even discharge its obligations to its fellow countrymen in passing judgment on right and wrong and helping the sick and suffering.”53
A few years earlier, Liang Qichao of the Chinese Reform Association also made the following observation: “I looked at the huiguan’s bylaws and found that by and large they were patterned after organizations in the West—very civilized and very detailed. But when I observe the implementation, then there was not a single instance where the actions were not contrary to provisions of the [bylaws]. For example, the CCBA [is to the Chinese community] as the municipal government is to the entire city. But each time a meeting is convened, less than one in ten of the so-called huiguan presidents and directors attend. Enforcement [of the bylaws] is lax, yet no one raises any questions. Sometimes because of minor differences of opinion, the various huiguan will refuse to contribute their share of the CCBA’s operating expenses and CCBA can do nothing about it.”54 Similar problems continued to plague the organization in later years. For example, Ning Yung Association boycotted proceedings of CCBA-SF during the late 1920s, as described previously. And according to a 1970 report, thirty out of the fifty-five directors, or 55 percent, attended eight or fewer of the sixteen meetings called in 1969.55 Such shortcomings led some critics to refer to CCBA-SF board members derisively as “rice buckets,” that is, those consuming much rice but accomplishing little.56
The huiguan and CCBA-SF are but the top layers of a well-defined hierarchical organizational structure that had evolved in San Francisco over many decades during the nineteenth century. A number of associations organized either on the basis of surname or regional groupings also eventually evolved under the umbrella of the huiguan. Due to the close identification of clan lineage groups with locality in the Siyi area, the Siyi-dominated group of huiguan—Ning Yung, Sue Hing, Hop Wo, and Kong Chow associations—are basically organized by using clan lineage groups associated with the particular regions from which each huiguan draws its membership as the basic building blocks. These clan lineage groups are usually part of surname association or zongqinhui (kindred club) that includes members with a common surname regardless of location. The remaining three huiguan—Yeong Wo, Sam Yup, and Yan Wo—with memberships originating from areas where the population was more heterogeneous, was organized by region, with the shantang (benevolence hall) as the basic units. Sometimes the more ambiguous terms such as gongsuo (public hall) and tongxianghui (fellow villagers club) are also used.57 Membership in one of these units qualifies a person for membership in the associated huiguan. Similar to the huiguan, both shantang and surname associations also provide mutual aid and charitable services to their membership.
A surname or clan association, more familiarly known as a clan or family association, is an extension of the concept of the ancestral hall in a single lineage village. Due to the immigrants’ needs to socialize as well as the necessity for mutual aid, they naturally tended to consort with others of the same lineage from the same village or area. Such informal groupings, known as fang (fong) have existed since the early days of Chinese settlement in California. However, in any one locality, emigrants from the same village or area were usually comparatively few. Following the same logic that motivated expansion of the district or locality associations to encompass membership beyond the local village, surname or family associations among the Chinese abroad went beyond the limits of the clan-village to enroll membership on the basis of having surnames in common. The sole criterion is descent from an alleged common ancestor, with no limitation on the locality of origin. In the United States, membership in such associations in the past has been mostly from Sze Yap because of the predominance of emigrants from that region.
The history of surname associations is obscured since they were not in the public eye as much as the huiguan. Several surname associations allegedly had their beginnings in the 1870s. Apparently their rise was spurred by the increasing necessity for collective defense against violence, which was rampant in the nineteenth-century Chinese community in America. The earlier organizations may have been those formed by the more numerous and affluent clans.
Over the years surname associations developed a system to send delegates to serve on the board of directors of their corresponding huiguan in rough proportion to their population among the constituency of the huiguan. For example, the 1970 Ning Yung Association bylaws provide for fifty-one directors on its board, with twelve from the Huang (Wong) clan and nine from the Li (Lee) clan.58 The remaining clans each elect one to four delegates to serve on the huiguan board. Within clans with large populations in America, the delegates could also be apportioned in accordance to the population of each fang. The presidency and other offices were also rotated among different clans, with the group nominating the candidate being held responsible for the officeholder’s ethical behavior during his term of office.
Each huiguan also has a scheme for rotating the offices among the clans. The formula for rotation can be very complex. For example, the order of succession adopted by Ning Yung Association stipulates that a Wong is entitled to become president once every four years and a Lee every six years, but each of the clans with the smallest populations only receives a turn once every twenty-four years.59 Within many clans there is a further rotation of officers by fang. This formula was calculated in accordance with the number of exit permits issued by each clan organization before World War II. With the decline of regional and clan feelings among Chinese Americans during the twentieth century, some organizations have begun to relax these rules. In 1954 Kong Chow Association became the first huiguan to modify requirements by electing officers from the membership without restrictions as to clan membership.60 This is not surprising in view of the fact that the patterns of settlement and economic development in Xinhui and Heshan on the western edge of the Pearl River Delta occupies an intermediate position between that of the more cosmopolitan Zhongshan and Sanyi counties to the east and more rural Siyi counties upstream in the Tan River Valley to the west.
In order to have the capability of countering the power of clans with large populations, some clans with smaller populations banded together to gain collective strength, using as rationale some alleged common ancestor or event in Chinese mythology, folklore, or history. One well-known association of this type is Longgang Qinyi Gongsuo (Lung Kong Tin Yee Association), so-called Four Brothers Association, which enrolls members from four different surnames: Liu (Lau, Lew), Guan (Kwan, Quan), Zhang (Cheung, Jeung), and Zhao (Chiu, Jew). Although such an organization did not exist in China, the concept is alleged to have originated in Kaiping, based on an anecdote from the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms.61 Immigrants took this concept with them when they went abroad, and as early as 1827 members of the four clans were known to be in alliance in Singapore.62 In San Francisco, a Longgang Temple was in existence no later than the 1880s.63
Beside the just-mentioned, major combined surname groups include Zhide Sande (Gee Tuck Sam Tuck: Wu [Ng, Eng], Zhou [Chow, Jue], Cai [Tsoi, Toy], Weng [Yung], Cao [Chow] clans), Suyuan (Soo Yuen: Lei [Lui, Louie], Fang [Fong], Kuang [Kwong, Fong] clans), Zhaolun Lianyi (Chew Lun Lin Yee: Tan [Tom, Horn], Tan [Tom], Xu [Hui], Xie [Tse, Der] clans), Fenglun (Fung Lun: Xue [Sit], Situ [Soohoo] clans), and Sanyi (Sam Yick: Jiang [Gong, Kong], Li [Lai], He [Ho, Hall] clans) associations. It should be noted that a number of clans that formed part of these combined surname associations also established their own single surname associations.64
During the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, when tong wars erupted frequently and Chinatown was a jungle where the strong preyed on the weak and unprotected, many surname associations were organized into two branches. One, administered by the elders, had jurisdiction over affairs affecting the entire clan, while the other was assigned the responsibility to defend against outside threats to clan members’ interests. In many respects this latter was akin to a secret society in behavior. It is said the formation of defense units was encouraged by the Chinese consul general to counter the threat posed by these same secret societies.65 (Similar groups enrolling members on the basis of geographic origin, also existed. For example, Kong Chow Association members formed the Bao’an Tang [Bow On Tong]; Panyu people organized Chaoyi Gongsuo [Chew Yee Association] and Zhongshan immigrants founded Junying Tang [Jan Ying Tong].)
When the frequency of tong wars dwindled after the 1920s, the need for self-defense diminished. Many of these organizations became primarily socializing centers for the membership, and a number of clan associations eventually amalgamated the two branches. Among one of the earliest was the multiple surname associations formed by the Chen (Chan, Chin, or Chun), Hu (Woo), and Yuan (Yuen) clans during a 1925 Seattle convention, when the Zhixiao Tang combined with the defense organization Duqin Tang to form Zhixiao Duqin Gongsuo (Gee How Oak Tin Association).66 Among the single surname associations, Peiguo Tang of the Zhu clan (Gee Poy Kuo Association) absorbed Zhujia Gongsuo in 1927.67
During the early years of Chinese immigration, the huiguan maintained lodgings and provided medicine for their infirm, aged, or sick. Those who were crippled or too old to work or who were destitute were given financial assistance to return China. Bones of the dead were also disinterred and shipped for reburial in China. As such needs increased with the Chinese population, their administration was soon delegated to separate organizations known as shantang.68 In 1855 people from Nanhai established Fuyin Tang (Fook Yum Benevolent Society), and then Panyu’s Changhou Tang (Chong How Benevolent Association) and Shunde’s Xing’an Tang (Hung On Tong Society) followed in 1858.69 Several shantang under Yeong Wo Company were also in existence by 1856 when they shipped remains back to China for burial.70
These charitable activities remained the primary function of shantang established for huiguan formed by people from Siyi, but in the non-Siyi associations, the functions of the shantang have expanded. Each has come to perform functions similar to the huiguan for smaller geographical subdivisions within the area represented by the huiguan. For example, there are twelve shantang under the Yeong Wo Association. Xiangshan county (now Zhongshan and Zhuhai) is divided into nine areas, each represented by a separate shantang. The other three counties, having fewer immigrants in California, are represented by one shantang each.
Over the years a system has developed wherein directors elected from these shantang served on the board of directors in non-Siyi huiguan. During the early period directors were selected from among the merchants. In recent decades, however, most associations changed their bylaws to allow election of individuals. The shantang also take turns recommending candidates to fill the huiguan presidency. The number of directors on a huiguan board assigned to each shantang reflects the size of its membership. Thus, according to the current bylaws of Yeong Wo Association, Tongshan Tang (Tung Sen Association), Zhishan Tang (Jack Sen Tong Association), and Xis-han Tang (Hee Shen Association), which represent large numbers of immigrants, each sends four directors to the board, while Boshan Tang (Bok Sen Tong) and Leshan Tang (Lok Sen Tong), representing areas with fewer immigrants, are entitled to only two directors each.71 In one huiguan, Sam Yup Association, this principle of apportionment is extended one step further in Fook Yum Society. Representation on the board is selected from three tongxianghui representing the principal emigrant areas in Nanhai roughly in proportion to the size of each community in the San Francisco Bay Area.72
Regional and clan ties were two bases for social organization in nineteenth-century China. When emigrants went abroad, they also applied these concepts when they organized to meet the needs of the new environment. The traditionist associations73 so created did not exist in China; however, they operated in accordance with traditional Chinese mores and values. They were and still are male dominated. The system as a whole was an oligarchy run by the merchant class, and until well into the twentieth century, only merchants or representatives appointed by the merchants served on the associations’ governing boards. In theory the system looked after its members in paternalistic fashion, but leaders could also be corrupt and tyrannical or misuse their powers to further personal interests.
During the early period membership was practically universal, since the huiguan filled a social need. In these organizations, the individual could mingle with people from the same area who perhaps knew mutual friends or relatives. Since an immigrant usually expected to retire to his native village or have his bones shipped back for burial in his native village some day, it was also to his interest to maintain good relations with the system, which became a link with his land of origin. Moreover, the organization gave him needed protection from threats arising due to clan and regional conflicts or due to persecution in the larger society. Thus, during this early period, the most severe punishment that could be imposed on any individual would be to ostracize him from the system and to strip him of these benefits; that is, banishment from the huiguan during his lifetime and exclusion from the huiguan-maintained cemetery after death.
After the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, the Chinese population in America declined. The membership of locality and clan associations shrank rapidly. In the meantime society in China was changing. Newer, younger immigrants increasingly tended to share a common ethnic identity as fellow Chinese, transcending regional or clan feelings. In America, a generation was also growing up for whom regional and clan loyalties were much less significant than they were to the older generation. The first half of the twentieth century saw a diminution of regional and clan antagonisms among the Chinese of America, a development that chipped away at an important raison d’etre for the huiguan system.74
Some associations attempted to modify their structure and activities to be more in step with contemporary society. As mentioned previously, many surname associations combined their organizations for self-defense with the elders-led main bodies. In San Francisco, some huiguan and shantang sponsored Chinese schools to ensure that the growing American-born generation received a proper Chinese education.75 The organizations still play a role, although diminished, serving as socializing centers and providing mutual aid, and the huiguan through the shantang still administer cemeteries for members. In spite of these measures, the influence of the associations steadily declined. The scope of operation of each huiguan contracted.
During the nineteenth century each huiguan maintained headquarters in San Francisco but established branches in other towns wherever there was a need. Thus, as early as 1855 agencies of Yeong Wo Association existed in Stockton and Sacramento,76 and at different times during the nineteenth century, Sam Yup Association had branches in eleven towns outside San Francisco.77 However, during the exclusion period many branches closed down as Chinese left the areas. Ties with other branches also became increasingly tenuous.
But huiguan and other organizations based on the region principle (which may also be named gongsuo, tang, or tongxianghui) continued to exist or were newly organized in communities outside San Francisco to fill the social needs of the local Chinese. These organizations usually maintained nominal fraternal ties with the corresponding huiguan in San Francisco and similar organizations in other Chinese communities.78 In this relationship the San Francisco huiguan was increasingly relegated to that of nominal titular head of a loose confederation.
Depending on local conditions, regional-type organizations sometimes may cover constituencies from geographical areas in China that may not coincide exactly with that of the related huiguan in San Francisco. For example, Stockton has a Zhongshan Huiguan (Zhongshan Association) instead of a Yeong Wo Association; in Fresno there is a Yen Hoy Association instead of a Sue Hing Association; in New York City there are a Heshan Gongsuo (Hok San Society) and a Xinhui Tongxianghui (Sun Wei Association) instead of a Kong Chow Association. In Hawaii, where Zhongshan immigrants predominated, separate regional associations serve people from different areas of Zhongshan instead of one overall association for all Zhongshan people. For example, a Sida Du Huiguan (See Dai Doo Society) was established by emigrants from a region in the east-central part of Zhongshan and Long Du Congshan Tang (Lung Doo Chung Sin Tong) for a region in the west-central part.
In recent decades regional associations covering areas other than the Pearl River Delta and Siyi have also appeared, reflecting the new diversity of immigrants. These groups usually use the terms huiguan or tongxianghui interchangeably. However, the name huiguan appears to be the more prestigious organization, and the term often implies the existence of a headquarters building. For example, Southeast Asian Chinese with ancestors from the Han River Delta in northeast Guangdong have established Chaozhou Tongxianghui (Chiu Chow Association) in many cities. In 1983 the group in Southern California launched a fund drive to purchase a building for a huiguan and changed its name to Chaozhou Huiguan in 1988. In 1986 the San Francisco chapter of the association also announced that it intended to change its name from tongxianghui to huiguan and expand its scope to cover northern California.79
Emigrants from Taiwan also have established regional organizations, the most widespread of which is the Taiwan Tongxianghui (Taiwanese Association), with about sixty branches throughout the country.80 Similarly, immigrants of Shandong ancestry formed the Qi-Lu Huiguan (Shandong Association) in San Francisco. There are also tongxianghui for emigrants from such areas as Fujian, Jiangxi, Guangxi, and Hunan provinces. Born out of a modern milieu, none of these newer organizations wields the same authority over its members as the nineteenth-century huiguan. They generally serve as social centers for members and provide mutual aid.
Most surname clan associations and zongqinhui are headquartered in San Francisco, but many branches have appeared in cities and towns outside of San Francisco, largely due to the widespread presence of Siyi, especially Taishan, immigrants all over the United States. Some of these clans, such as the Huang (Wong), Li (Lee), Yu (Yee), Zhu (Gee, Chu), Lin (Lam, Lum), Wu (Ng, Eng), Liang (Leung, Leong), Mei (Moy), and Deng (Tang, Ong) formed extensive nationwide networks; for example, in the 1970s the Wong and Lee family associations as well as Gee How Oak Tin Association each had eight branches outside San Francisco, while the Long Kong Tin Yee Association had fifteen. These networks have also expanded beyond the boundaries of the United States. One of the earliest was Lung Kong Tin Yee Association, which established a network of branches in the Americas in 1948, with heaquarters in San Francisco. In 1963 this expanded to become a worldwide network with headquarters in Taiwan.81 Following the example of Western organizations, many clan associations scheduled periodic national conventions to discuss problems of mutual concern. The earliest, around 1917, was called by Soo Yuen Association.82 No huiguan, shantang, or tongxianghui have been able to organize such gatherings consistently. For example, Ning Yung Association, the huiguan with the most numerous constituency, has convened only three conventions in the span of half a century in 1928, 1933, and 1980.83
Close on the heels of the founding of CCBA-SF, Chinese diplomatic officials encouraged the formation of CCBAs in other large Chinese communities to lead and represent the community. CCBAs were founded in New York City (CCBA-NY, 1883)84 and Portland (before 1887).85 These efforts on the part of Chinese diplomats stationed in America even extended across international boundaries to Honolulu in the Hawaiian Kingdom (1884),86 to Victoria, British Columbia (1884),87 and to Lima, Peru (1885).88 In Los Angeles, the community established a Weiliang Gongsuo in 1889 and around 1907–1908 reorganized as the CCBA. During the twentieth century, as Chinese in various parts of the United States developed a sense of community, many smaller Chinese communities also founded CCBAs or equivalent umbrella community organizations. Some of these communities were as follows: Chicago, Illinois (founded in 1906), Sacramento, California (founded in 1908), New England in Boston, Massachusetts (founded in 1912), Oxnard, California (founded in 1912), Bakersfield, California (founded in 1914), Fresno, California (founded in 1914), Baltimore, Maryland (founded in 1916), Stockton, California (founded in 1918), Seattle, Washington (founded in 1918), Phoenix, Arizona (founded in 1920), Mississippi-Arkansas-Tennessee in Memphis, Tennessee (founded in 1920), San Diego, California (founded in 1921), Salt Lake City, Utah (founded in 1921), Houston, Texas (founded in 1935), Oakland, California (founded in 1936), Salinas, California (founded in 1936), El Paso, Texas (founded in 1937), Watsonville, California (founded in 1938), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (founded in 1940), Augusta, Georgia (founded in 1940), Arkansas (founded in 1943; operated without permanent site for headquarters), San Antonio, Texas (founded in 1947), Washington, D.C. (founded in 1947), El Centro, California (founded in 1952), Cleveland, Ohio (founded in 1956), and Miami, Florida (founded in 1959).89 In each locality, the CCBA or its equivalent functions as the local community leader to protect the rights of the Chinese and to promote the community’s welfare.
In general, Chinese use the term “Zhonghua Huiguan” for CCBAs in the Midwest and the West, while eastern CCBAs, following the lead of CCBA-NY, tended to use the name Zhonghua Gongsuo. The name in English is usually Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association; however, in Honolulu the group is known as United Chinese Society, while Seattle Chinese named theirs Chong Wa Benevolent Association. In a few contemporary Chinese communities, names such as the Huaren Lianhehui or Chinese Federation had been used. The name Chinese Six Companies, however, is applicable only to CCBA-SF. But regardless of differences in nomenclature, the aims and functions of these organizations are similar.
Organizational structures of modern CCBAs vary widely. CCBA-SF, the oldest and one of the most influential, adheres to a highly developed hierarchical structure evolved during the nineteenth century. Membership today is limited to the seven huiguan existing during the 1900s, and conditions imposed for admission of new members are very restrictive. Newer huiguan and tongxianghui have not been admitted. Secret societies and Western-type organizations are also excluded, although their members as individuals can be part of the CCBA/huiguan system through their clan and locality affiliations. Women play only limited and subordinate roles. Many Chinese Americans feel that this structure is overly restrictive and out of step with the complexities of a modern community.
These hierarchical relationships are not as clearly defined in CCBAs outside of San Francisco. Products of a more modern era, most other CCBAs admit onto their board of directors on an equal basis many eligible Chinese community organizations, including huiguan, tongxianghui, clan associations, secret societies, Chinese political parties, and even Western-type organizations such as churches and civic clubs.90 In a few communities, such as Honolulu, membership is on an individual basis. On the whole, CCBAs outside of San Francisco have more flexible structures and are less exclusive in nature. For example, in 1958 seven women were elected to serve on Seattle’s Chong Wa Benevolent Association, and Ruby Chow became its first woman president the following year. The president in most CCBAs is usually elected to serve at least a year, instead of being rotated every two months, as in CCBA-SF. This, in theory at least, allows more time for familiarization with the office and enables the president to deal more effectively with community issues.
Due to the paramountcy of San Francisco as an economic, social, political, and cultural center for Chinese in America before World War II, CCBA-SF regarded all other CCBAs in the United States as branches and itself as the only organization entitled to be the representative for all Chinese in America. This was spelled out in the 1930 bylaws, which give the organization’s name as Zhu Mei Zhonghua Zonghuiguan [General CCBA stationed in the USA],91 and the only CCBA to make such an all-embracing claim. During this period CCBAs in other parts of the country expected and usually accepted CCBA-SF’s leadership in actions affecting the common interest of the Chinese in America. Each CCBA, however, is autonomous in attending to local issues. Thus, the role of CCBA-SF may be defined as the head of a confederation of CCBAs in the United States.
Over the years, however, as Chinese communities increased in population and affluence, some CCBAs have grown to equal CCBA-SF in influence and stature. This was especially true of CCBA-NY, which became the leading CCBA in the eastern half of the country and the principal rival of CCBA-SF for a leadership role in Chinese America. Also, since the 1960s a flood of Chinese emigrants and refugees from troubled areas of the world has settled in this country. These newcomers differ from the existing community in social backgrounds and political experiences. Some who are of Cantonese ancestry have participated in the CCBA/huiguan system. But mostly, the earlier Cantonese group and their descendants in the Chinatowns have been reluctant to share their power with the recent arrivals. Thus, the latter often established institutions outside the CCBA/huiguan system to serve their needs for mutual aid and socializing. This is especially true of the largest groups, ethnic Chinese from Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos, Taiwanese, and Fuzhouese. Since the 1980s, these groups have grown to be a significant percentage of the Chinese population; needless to say, the claim of the CCBA/huiguan system as sole representative for the Chinese in America is no longer valid. However, due to the intertwined relationship between the CCBA/huiguan system and the Chinatown business establishment that has evolved over many decades, the Chinatowns remain the system’s bastion of power. But even there, the CCBA has to share its prerogatives with the other newer civic organizations.
CCBAs and the affiliated locality and clan associations are nominally non-political organizations. But during the first half of the twentieth century, Chinese in America became increasing concerned as they saw a China divided by corrupt warlords and threatened by foreign aggression. Mounting nationalistic feelings and increasing activity by Chinese political parties, especially the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party of China), in the United States involved the CCBA/huiguan system increasingly in actions on China’s political issues. For example, CCBAs led opposition to China’s President Yuan Shikai’s intentions to declare himself emperor in 1915.92 Even more often the CCBAs provided propaganda and logistical support for the Chinese government in its struggle against foreign aggression. They backed China’s fight against turning Germany’s special privileges in Shandong over to Japan in the 1919 Versailles Treaty,93 and after the Shenyang (Mukden) incident in 1931, they mobilized the community to raise millions of dollars to support China’s resistance to Japanese invaders during the succeeding years.94
This important role played by overseas Chinese organizations in general and the CCBA/huiguan system in the United States in particular was well known to the various Chinese regimes. Chinese diplomats had always sought to channel this system into efforts beneficial to the home government. Qing envoys exerted their control after permanent missions were established in the United States, so much so that the CCBAs did not openly espouse the revolutionary cause until after the 1911 Revolution. Chinese government influence slackened during the early years of the Republic when China was embroiled in civil war. Then in 1927 the Kuomintang unified China and established a central government at Nanjing. The new regime immediately resumed efforts to reharness these organizations under its guidance. In 1933 the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission asserted its authority to supervise activities of Chinese organizations abroad.95 But even more effectively the Kuomintang in America recruited more and more association leaders into the party and began weaving a network of control. This process accelerated during the Sino–Japanese War when many Chinese were spurred by nationalistic fervor. By the war’s end, key Chinatown associations from the CCBAs on down were firmly controlled by the Kuomintang to an extent never before achieved by any previous Chinese regime.
After the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded in 1949, the CCBAs and affiliated organizations continued to profess loyalty to the Kuomintang regime, which had retreated to Taiwan. During the early 1950s Kuomintang agents pushed the formation of anti-Communist leagues as part of each CCBA. In 1957 the federal government was investigating Chinese immigration fraud and the Chinese community was threatened with mass prosecutions and deportations. Seizing this opportunity, the pro-Kuomintang CCBA-NY president, Liang Shengtai (Shing Tai Liang), promoted a conference of the Chinese of America to discuss means to support Taiwan and her foreign policy, express opposition to the PRC, promote the welfare of the Chinese of America, and push legislation on behalf of Chinese refugees. CCBA-NY, together with CCBA-SF and others, then convened in March 1957 a National American Chinese Conference in Washington, D.C., which was attended by representatives from CCBAs in the United States. With the shadow of imminent immigration cases looming over the conference, the CCBA delegates agreed to establish the National Chinese Welfare Council (NCWC). NCWC meets periodically to discuss matters of concern to the Chinese of America. The agenda generally has included the proposed revision of immigration legislation and expressions of support for the Taiwan Kuomintang regime.96
Another organization sympathetic to Taiwan Kuomintang regime is the Quan Meizhou Zhonghua Huisuo Lianyihui, or Federation of Chinese Organizations of America (FCOA). Founded originally in 1977 in San Francisco as a federation of CCBAs in the United States, its stated objective was to increase interorganization contacts. In 1980 the federation expanded its membership to include CCBAs in the Americas and gave birth to FCOA, with a membership of fifty-seven organizations. It meets annually ostensibly to exchange views and to promote greater cooperation.97 For example, in the 1986 meeting the featured keynote speaker was Zeng Guangshun (Tseng Kwang Shun), head of Taiwan’s Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission, who exhorted the delegates to continue their loyal support of the Taiwan regime.
On the conference agenda were such items as discussing methods to prevent infiltration of pro-PRC elements into the traditionist organizations, establishing Freedom Foundations to finance anti-Communist actions, and pushing for recognition of each CCBA as the leader of the local Chinese community.98 By these actions, taking advantage of the anti-Communist atmosphere in this country, the Kuomintang used the organizations in the CCBA/huiguan system, as well as umbrella groups such as NCWC and FCOA, as propaganda vehicles for the Taiwan regime. Within various associations, the Kuomintang also took steps to ensure control by excluding from the leadership circle those suspected of being sympathetic toward the PRC. This often led to intense behind-the-scenes intrigues and maneuvers in organizations before election time.99 Sometimes it resulted in confrontations that split the membership and paralyzed activities.100
The CCBAs also were faced with another critical problem in recent decades. The repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Acts during World War II and the subsequent lowering of many social and economic barriers to nonwhites have meant that Chinese have moved away from Chinatowns and reduced their participation in Chinatown activities. During the sixties and seventies the rise of social agencies and Chinese American civic and political organizations with connections to America’s mainstream further chipped away at the CCBA/huiguan system’s authority and influence in Chinese America. Interest and active participation in the system dropped precipitously.
Since the sixties, however, as the earlier immigrant leaders passed away or retired, they have gradually been replaced by a younger, generally better-educated generation of leaders in some organizations. Many of these newer leaders have deeper roots and interests in American society than their predecessors. To many, China’s political issues are not top priority items. However, the wealth of these organizations is one reason motivating their continued active interest in the associations. (Some of the larger associations are very affluent. For example, in the 1980s the Yeong Wo Association had more than $300,000 deposited in the bank and gross monthly rental receipts of over $10,000 from its building.) Often because their vital economic interests are usually not directly tied to the Chinatowns or the associations, the newer leaders express more interest in channeling the resources of their organizations into directions more responsive to the needs of the members, thus encouraging broader participation while also consolidating their own political base in the associations. They tend to take the lead in attacking those members who have taken advantage of their position as officers to advance personal economic interests. Cases involving alleged misuse of association real estate have been especially frequent. In the past few decades, major internal disputes have arisen in several associations over such issues.101
The newer generation of leaders has also been successful in introducing some innovative changes. For example, San Francisco’s Hung On Tong Society organized a youth group in 1960,102 and in the mid-sixties, the Lee Family Association formed a nationwide credit union for members.103 Other associations worked with social agencies or local governments on community projects. One example is a community grievance task force organized by Boston, Massachusetts’Office of Human Rights in 1969 under the auspices of Boston’s CCBA.104 In another case, San Francisco’s Soo Yuen Association started a senior citizens and weekend daycare program in 1970.105 An increasing number of associations regularly disbursed scholarships to members’ children to encourage scholastic excellence. A few moved toward greater involvement in American politics endorsing candidates and contributing to campaign funds. In 1984 the Ning Yung Association went one step further and established a Political Action Committee.106 The process of change has been slow. Most associations still limit their activities merely to subsidizing and organizing spring banquets and visits to the cemetery. In many organizations the old guard still present formidable obstacles to substantial reforms. But the social conditions that enabled these traditionist organizations to come into being and gave them sustenance more than a century ago no longer can play the same influential role in Chinese American society today. And looking into the future, the activities described in the preceding paragraphs may be just the type that can be undertaken to adapt the organizations to the needs of contemporary Chinese Americans and to ensure the organization’s continued survival in the modern world. After the improvement of U.S.–China relations in the 1970s followed by economic reform and relaxation of the political climate in China, the United Chinese Society of Hawaii, where the Chinese population was largely American-born, was the first to invite diplomatic representatives of both the PRC and Taiwan as guests to its centennial celebration in 1984.
On the continent, however, only a few organizations not belonging to the CCBA/huiguan systems were openly pro-PRC. By the 1990s, as increasing numbers of Chinese, including leaders in the CCBA/huiguan system, visited the Chinese mainland and some developed commercial or invested in enterprises there, hostile attitudes to the PRC gradually softened. In communities such as San Francisco, some huiguan, notably the Sam Yup and Yeong Wo associations, as well as some of the associated shantang began to host visiting delegations from their ancestral areas in China.
In the meantime, in Taiwan the ouster of the Kuomintang from the presidency by the Democratic Progressive Party’s Chen Shui-bian in the late 1990s thrusted a new factor to the fore—the possibility of Taiwan declaring its formal separation from China. Since the unity of China as a nation was of great concern to many in the CCBA/huiguan system, they rejected this apparent intended change in Taiwan’s political future. An increasing number of conservative pro-Kuomintang leaders in the CCBA/huiguan system responded favorably to overtures from the PRC on the unity issue. Huang Jinquan (Larry Wong), influential leader in the Los Angeles CCBA/huiguan system visited mainland China for the first time in 2000.
In 2000 an Office of Overseas Chinese Affairs delegation from Guangdong was invited to pay a visit to the Ning Yung Association in San Francisco, which had long been in the forefront supporting Taiwan and opposing the PRC. The following year Ning Yung Associations worldwide convened a convention in Taishan. In January 2002 Tai Pun Yook Ying Education and Welfare Association, part of the CCBA/huiguan system in New York City, hoisted the five-starred flag of the PRC. In May Fook Yum Society, a component part of the Sam Yup Association, did likewise and expressed its support for the peaceful unification of Taiwan with the mainland. Fook Yum Society was followed in short order by the Kow Kong Benevolent Association, as well as Yee Ying and Hoiping associations and several other organizations.107
In June the CCBA-SF board of directors made the unprecedented move of voting to accept an official invitation to attend a convention of Guangdongese Fellow Townsmen to be held in Guangzhou, at the end of 2002.108 Also, for the first time CCBA-SF held a farewell dinner for a vice-consul departing for China. It participated in planning sessions for the October 1 celebration of PRC’s National Day; even while also reaffirming its intention to celebrate Double Ten commemorating the 1911 Revolution as well as supporting the Republic of China.109 These seemingly contradictory stances will probably have to be resolved eventually by evolving events.
The next event came on July 4, 2002, when CCBA-SF for the first time in its history hoisted the American flag, and urged all associations in the system to do likewise.110 Chinatown was treated to the unusual sight of a sea of Stars and Stripes fluttering in the wind. Undoubtedly the patriotic fervor that swept the country after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks resulting in the collapse of New York City’s World Trade Center Twin Towers with great loss of lives played a major role in this decision. But this act was also a symbolic, albeit belated, acknowledgment of the realities in the development of Chinese American society since the end of World War II.
For many decades a heavy concentration on Chinese politics force-fed by Kuomintang partisans had caused the CCBA/huiguan system to ignore or to be oblivious to the fact that Chinese Americans were increasingly integrating into and playing roles as part of American society. Thus the system had become increasingly divorced from playing a relevant role in community affairs. As time went on a newer generation of leaders arose in the system who were products of the changing Chinese American society and who had exhibited greater awareness of the changes, but such was the inertia of practice and custom that it took the twin shocks of the political changes in Taiwan and the 911 tragedy in America to shake the lethargy and enabled the CCBA-SF to express the obvious fact that the destiny of Chinese Americans, including those in the CCBA/huiguan system, are now intricately tied to that of America.
Specificities in the destiny of the CCBA/huiguan system are, however, difficult to define. The existence of a CCBA or CCBA-like organization probably will be justified as long as there is an ethnic community with certain common interests. But whether the basic organization principles based on common locality of origin or surname, which were derived from the land of origin, can be sustained in the American environment in the distant future is an interesting question. Obviously, for the American-born whose knowledge of the Chinese language and culture is limited or nonexistent and for the many who have only a vague idea about the ancestral village, such feelings will be weak or completely lacking. There are many emigrants from Hong Kong and other regions around the world who had never been to the ancestral region and have little emotional attachment to the place or people from there. These are part of the large majority in Chinese America that have not joined the huiguan or tongxianghui. Thus these organizations have very limited constituencies even in the Chinatowns where they are based. Should immigration taper off and the immigrant generation passes on, it is difficult to see how the huiguan or tongxianghui can continue to flourish or even survive as viable institutions. This situation exists to some extent with the use of the surname as the basis of organization; however, unlike huiguan and tongxianghui, where eligibility for membership is defined by geographical boundaries, surname associations in America have the flexibility of accepting members from a diversity of regions, and it may that that will be the preferred form of organization in the future. However, it would seem that even in this sector, there has to be other bonding factors such as common economic interests or common social backgrounds.
1. Nomenclature used by L. Eve Armentrout Ma, Revolutionaries, Monarchists, and Chinatown: Chinese Politics in the Americas and the 1911 Revolution (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), 14.
2. Ping-ti Ho, Zhongguo huiguan shilun (A historical survey of Landsmannschaften in China) (Taipei: Taiwan Xuesheng Shuju, 1966), 11.
3. Some of the earliest huiguan were established in Vietnam around late Ming or early Qing dynasties. They were associated with temples dedicated to Tianhou or the Queen of Heaven, protector of seafarers. See Zhang Wenhe, Yuenan Huaqiao shihua (Historical narrative of Chinese in Vietnam) (Taipei, Taiwan: Liming Wen-hua Shiye Gongsi, 1975), 24.
4. Fu Yunlong, Youli Meilijia tujing, yuji, juan 5 [Illustrations and descriptions of travels in the United States, annals, vol. 5] (n.p., 1889), folios 4, 5. Hereafter cited as Descriptions of Travels. The derivation of the term gongsi is obscured. The term had not been used in traditional social organizations in China. The earliest gongsi appeared to have been organized in the late eighteenth century by Triad settlers who developed the frontier regions of Borneo under the nominal rule of a native sultan. The colony enjoyed a great measure of autonomy, with the gongsi administering a self-contained political system modeled after the village system in China. The concept spread to Malaya when Chinese began to settle there in large numbers during the nineteenth century. The term was also used by some early huiguan; for example, in 1822 a Ningyang Gongsi was established in Singapore. When Chinese immigrated to the United States they again found themselves in a frontier region where the governmental administrative apparatus was not yet fully developed, and they may have borrowed the concept of the gongsi from their compatriots in Southeast Asia. Since gongsi in modern Chinese is synonymous with the Western concept of “company,” that apparently was the reason the latter became the accepted English translation of the term in the United States. However, it is by no means certain that this corresponded to the original meaning of gongsi.
5. Reverend A. W. Loomis, “The Six Chinese Companies,” Overland Monthly (Sept. 1868): 221–27. Jinshan Zhengbu Sanyi changjuan jianmiao gongjin lubu [Book for recording contributions to build a temple proposed by the Sam Yup Association of San Francisco] (San Francisco, CA, 1899), in its preface soliciting donations (dated spring 1899) states that “in the year jihai (1899) the Sanyi Huiguan had been established 49 years.” Since the Western and Chinese years do not match exactly, depending on the exact date, the association could have been founded as early as 1850.
6. Loomis, “Six Chinese Companies.”
7. Loomis, “Six Chinese Companies”; Jiushan chongiian Yanghe Guan miao gongjin zhengxinlu [Record of income and disbursements for rebuilding the temple of San Francisco’s Yeong Wo Association]. Hereafter cited as Record for Rebuilding the Temple of Yeong Wo Association. The preface gives the names of the founders and the founding date of the association.
8. Li Gui, “Dongxing riji” [Diary of a trip to the East], in Wanqing haiwai bijixuan [Selection of notes by travelers abroad in late Qing] (Beijing: Haiyang Chubanshe, 1983), 110–116. Hereafter cited as “Diary.” “Diary” alleged that Xin’an immigrants, a majority of whom spoke the Hakka dialect, withdrew from Yeong Wo Company to form Xin’an Huiguan (Sun On Company). However, other sources failed to corroborate occurrence of such an event.
9. Loomis, “Six Chinese Companies”; Liu Boji (Pei Chi Liu), Meiguo Huaqiaoshi [A history of the Chinese in the United States of America] (Taipei, Taiwan: Commission for Overseas Chinese Affairs of the Legislative Yuan, 1976), 153. Hereafter cited as History 1.
10. Loomis, “Six Chinese Companies.”
11. Daily Alta California, Sept. 8, 1863; Mar. 7, 1864.
12. Deed, George Athei to Kong Chow, dated Feb. 12, 1866.
13. Eng Ying Gong and Bruce Grant, Tong War! (New York: Nicholas L. Brown, 1930), 31–32.
14. This historical error is found in William Hoy’s widely cited The Chinese Six Companies (San Francisco, CA: Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, 1942), 2. The work was published as a public relations document to present a positive image of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association of San Francisco (CCBA-SF) to the general public. Much of the information in the booklet was from interviews with former officers and older San Francisco Chinese. Some of the more readily available English-language historical sources were also utilized.
15. Huang Zunxian, “Shang Zheng Yuxuan qinshi bingwen” [Reports to Envoy Zheng Zaoru], no. 18, Jindaishi ziliao [Materials on recent history], no. 55 (Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, 1984), 32–36. Hereafter cited as “Reports to Envoy.” These were drafts of Huang Zunxian’s reports written while he was Chinese consul general in San Francisco from 1882 to 1885. They were discovered in the archives of Mei Xian, Huang’s native district, in 1980. Only reports nos. 18 through 37 were found, with no. 27 missing. The reports covered the period from Sept. 5, 1882, to Apr. 1, 1883, and gave much insight on the Chinese view of a critical period in Chinese American history. Huang Zunxian (also known as Huang Gongdu) was a supporter of the Reform movement in China. As consul general he helped to correct many abuses in the huiguan system and mediated many conflicts. Years afterward Chinese in San Francisco still remembered him and sang his praises.
16. “Anyi Tang bo Yuxing suci” [Rebuttal of Anyi Tang to the Yee clan’s complaint], advertisement in Chung Sai Yat Po, Nov. 18, 1909.
17. Liu, History 1, 164; advertisement, Chung Sai Yat Po, Oct. 11, 1900.
18. Advertisement in Chung Sai Yat Po, Mar. 26, 1901.
19. Advertisement in Chung Sai Yat Po, Dec. 14, 1909.
20. Yuk Ow, Him Mark Lai, and Philip P. Choy, A History of the Sam Yup Benevolent Association in the United States. 1850–1974 (San Francisco, CA: Sam Yup Association, 1975), 61. Hereafter cited as Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association.
21. Fah Yuen Chinese-English Monthly, no. 6 (summer 1970): 1.
22. Li, “Diary.”
23. Loomis, “Six Chinese Companies”; “Report of the Committee on Mines and Mining Interests,” Appendix: Assembly Journal (Sacramento, CA, 1853), 1–21.
24. Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” nos. 18, 32–36. When Seattle and Los Angeles became important exit ports, CCBAs in those cities also began to assess departing Chinese for exit permits in 1913 and 1933, respectively. The exit permit system was finally abolished in 1949 when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established and the flow of traffic to China dwindled. Liu Boji (Pei Chi Liu), Meiguo Huaqiaoshi, xubian [A history of the Chinese in the United States of America II] (Taipei, Taiwan: Liming Wenhua Shiye Gongsi, 1981), 2:181. Hereafter cited as History 2.
25. Reverend O. Gibson, The Chinese in America (Cincinnati, OH: Hitchcock and Walden, 1877), 341–45; Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” no. 18.
26. Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” no. 18.
27. Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” no. 18.
28. Günther Barth, Bitter Strength, A History of the Chinese in the United States, 1850–1870 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964), 92; Daily Alta California, May 31, June 7, Nov. 17, 18, 1853; San Francisco Herald, May 28, 29, 1853. A preface written by CCBA President Ou Tianji in Record for Rebuilding the Temple of Yeung Wo Association also stated that in the early years the huiguan “clothed, fed and instructed [new immigrants] like a father or teacher. If they did not obey, then they were punished by flogging.”
29. Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association, 150. According to existing records of the Sam Yup Association, the earliest titled scholar to fill its presidency arrived in 1882.
30. Zhang, Yinhuan, “Sanzhou riji” [Diary of three continents], in Wanqing haiwai bijixuan [Selection of notes by travelers abroad in late Qing], 127–56. Hereafter cited as “Diary of Three Continents.”
31. Liu, History 2, 211–12.
32. Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” no. 18.
33. Shasta Courier, Aug. 12, 1854.
34. Daily Alta California, Oct. 31, 1856.
35. Chung Sai Yat Po, Mar. 26, 1903.
36. “Report of Committee on Mines and Mining Interests.”
37. Fu, Descriptions of Travels, folios 4–5.
38. Loomis, “Six Chinese Companies.”
39. San Francisco Call, Nov. 20, 1882; Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” nos. 28, 53–54, and nos. 29, 54–57.
40. Fu, Descriptions of Travels, folios 4–5.
41. Hoy, Chinese Six Companies, 27.
42. Chung Sai Yat Po, Mar. 26, 1903.
43. San Francisco Call, Nov. 20, 1882; Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” nos. 28 and 29.
44. Liu, History 2, 157–58.
45. Chung Sai Yat Po, Mar. 26, 1903; Liu Boji (Pei Chi Liu), Meiguo Huaqiao yishi, (An Anecdotal History of the Chinese in the United States of America) (Taipei, Taiwan: Liming Wenhua Shiye Gongsi, 1984), 275–80. Cited hereafter as Anecdotal History.
46. Liu, History 2, 164–78; Mo Keng (Byron Mok), Liu Weisen (Wilson Lew), Guan Chunru (Kenneth Joe), eds. Jinshan qiaoshe liyi guifan [Standard etiquette for San Francisco Chinatown organizations] (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Chinatown Etiquette Committee, 1991), 403, 412; World Journal, Oct. 20, 1990.
47. Advertisement in Chung Sai Yat Po, Sept. 12, 1900.
48. Donghua Yiyuan sishi zhounian jinian zhuankan [Special publication commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Chinese Hospital] (San Francisco, CA, 1963), 28.
49. Biyesheng tekan [Album of graduating students] (San Francisco, CA: Chinese Central High School, 1937), 8. After the 1906 earthquake and fire destroyed San Francisco Chinatown, the Qing imperial court sent forty thousand taels of silver (twenty thousand U.S. dollars) to the Chinese Six Companies for relief of victims. Subsequently, when CCBA-SF discovered that the funds were not needed for this use, it requested permission to borrow this money for construction of a new headquarters building. The Chinese envoy vetoed the idea, stating that the organization’s functions were not related to charity. He suggested that establishing a Chinese school or expanding Tung Wah Dispensary would be acceptable alternative uses. CCBA-SF then spent the funds to construct a new school building, reserving the ground floor for use as headquarters for the CCBA-SF. Classrooms were located on the upper floors. Meiguo Jinshan Dabu zhenzai banzhen zhengxinlu [Record of income and disbursements for the campaign to relieve victims of the earthquake disaster] (San Francisco, CA: CCBA-SF, 1906), 1; Liu, Anecdotal History, 287–94.
50. Liu, Anecdotal History, 284; Liu, History 2, 162.
51. Liu, History 2, 146–53.
52. Liu, Anecdotal History, 281–85; Liu, History 2, 161–62.
53. Liu, History 1, 204. Quote from CCBA-SF minutes for twentieth day, seventh moon, thirty-second year of Guangxu (1906). The xiangyue was a post established during the early Qing dynasty wherein a person appointed in each locality was given the responsibility of lecturing periodically to the populace, urging them to practice virtue and to lead peaceful lives. In time functions not directly related to indoctrination were also assumed by the office. In some instances, especially in Guangdong, the xiangyue became arbiters of local affairs. Villagers of certain localities also developed the custom of gathering in the xiangvue offices to make decisions on matters of mutual concern. In other instances the xiangyue assumed a policing function in neighborhoods and also organized defense against external threats. See Kung-Chuan Hsiao, Rural China: Imperial Control in the Nineteenth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960), 184–205.
54. Liang, Qichao, Xindalu youji jielu (A shortened account of travels in the new world) (Shanghai: Chung Hwa Book Co., 1936), 122–23.
55. East/West, Jan. 1, 1970.
56. According to one anecdote, this term originally referred to titled scholars who came on diplomatic visas to be huiguan presidents. They were supposed to deal with the larger society in matters concerning the Chinese community in America. But since these officers did not understand English, the Chinese in America felt that they were useless; hence, the derisive nickname that later was extended to apply to all CCBA-SF directors. Chinese Pacific Weekly, Mar. 14, 1968.
57. Tongxianghui is a generic classification. The geographical area covered may equal that of a shantang (e.g., Jiaying Tongxianghui is the modern name for Yingfu Tang belonging to Yan Wo Association), or subdivisions of the area covered by a shantang (e.g., Xiqiao Tongxianghui enrolls members from one of the three principal emigration areas in Nanhai and is subordinate to Fook Yum Society, the shantang for Nanhai immigrants). In other cases it is equivalent to a county or group of counties covered by a huiguan (e.g., Xinhui Tongxianghui [Sin Wei Association], Chaozhou Tongxianghui [Chiu Chow Association]). Regional type associations also sometimes refer to themselves as gongsuo (e.g., Nanping Gongsuo [Nam Ping Association] for Enping immigrants).
58. Editorial, Chinese Times, Apr. 25, 1970.
59. Liu, History 2, 214.
60. Meizhou Gangzhou Zonghuiguan xinxia luocheng ji quanmei Gangzhou di-san jie kenqindahui kaimu dianli Gangzhou tekan [Publication commemorating dedication of the new headquarters building of Kong Chow Association of America and the opening ceremonies of the third convention of Kong Chow people in America] (San Francisco, CA: Kong Chow Benevolent Association, 1978), 38.
61. Zhao Bingkun, “Longgang zuzhi de yuanliu ji qi jiben jingshen” [The origin of the Longgang organization and its basic spirit], Lung Kong Quarterly, no. 79 (fall 1975): 5–7. According to an essay in the Guangzhao Tongzhi, a hill called Long Gang with excellent fengshui characteristics was located near a Liu clan-village in Kai-ping. This land was coveted also by nearby powerful clans. To forestall disputes over the hill, the Liu clan, using as rationale the story from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, allied itself with the Guan, Zhang, and Zhao clans to build a temple on it. Henceforth, the name Longgang was used as one of the symbols representing the alliance of the four clans.
62. Wu Hua, Xinjiabo Huazu huiguanzhi [Annals of Chinese associations in Singapore] (Singapore, China: South Seas Society, 1975), 2:20.
63. Zhao Xuting, “Mingyi Lou you choujian dao luocheng” [The history of Mingyi building from planning to dedication], Lung Kong Quarterly, no. 40 (winter 1965): 1–3.
64. Liu, History 2, 248–50.
65. Zhang, “Diary of Three Continents,” 127–56.
66. Zhixiao Duqin tekan (San Francisco, CA, 1964), 12.
67. Chung Sai Yat Po, Oct. 25, 1927.
68. Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” no. 18.
69. Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association, 78, 83, 86.
70. The Oriental (Tung-Ngai San-Luk), June 1856.
71. Bylaws, Yeong Wo Association, 1966.
72. Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association, 79.
73. This chapter adopts the nomenclature used in W. E. Willmott, The Political Structure of the Chinese Community in Cambodia (London: The Athlone Press, 1970), 85. A traditionist Chinese organization is one oriented toward traditional Chinese values, but not necessarily traditional in the sense of having existed in pre-contemporary China; that is, its orientation rather than its existence is traditional.
74. Traditionist organizations in America were originally founded as organizations for sojourning immigrants. That can still be detected in some by examining their Chinese names. For example, the Chinese name of CCBA-SF still begins with “Zhu Mei” (stationed in America), while several huiguan and tongxianghui still have the phrase “Lü Mei” (sojourning in America) associated with their names. This designation from the days when many Chinese still have a strong sojourner psychology obviously should not be taken literally today. Actually, the names of most Chinese organizations today now have names that begin with Meiguo or the name of a state or city in the United States to suit the reality that they are an integral part of American society.
75. Most schools have not been successful. Kong Chow Association operated a school from 1926 to 1936, while the Yeong Wo School had a slightly longer life, running from 1924 to 1942. From 1929 to 1933 Ning Yung Association also raised funds for a school, but the plans were never implemented. The only successful school was the Nam Kue School established by the affluent Fook Yum Society, which opened to students in 1920 and still exists in 2004.
76. The Oriental (Tung-Ngai San-Luk), Jan. 25, 1855.
77. Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association, 75.
78. Most huiguan in the United States maintain a liaison with related huiguan and regional organizations in the country and abroad. Today the Ning Yung Association has the most extensive nationwide network. It was established mainly to help enforce a nationwide boycott against the San Francisco Kuomintang newspaper Young China during the late 1920s and early 1930s. (Cf. Liu, History 2, 201–05.)
79. Bao Trung Nam, Oct. 28, Nov. 11, 1983; Feb. 28, 1986.
80. Xu Tianrong, “Yu Yang Huang Meixin yixitan” [An evening conversation with Yang Huang Meixin], Formosa Weekly, Dec. 8, 1984.
81. Liu, History 2, 248–50.
82. Liu, History 2, 250.
83. Quan Mei Taishan Ningyang Huiguan di-san jie kenqin daibiao dahui tekan [Commemorative publication for the third national convention of the Hoy Sun Ning Yung Association] (San Francisco, CA: Ning Yung Benevolent Association, 1982), 64–69.
84. CCBA of New York celebrated its centennial in 1971 (China Tribune, May 26, 1971). A community organization similar to the Chinese Six Companies was probably established in 1871; however, CCBA-NY was officially founded and registered with the Qing government in 1883.
85. Letter from CCBA, Chaoyi Gongsuo, Hetai, and Tongyuan stores of Portland to Sam Yup Association dated twenty-fourth day, fifth moon, dinghai year (1887). Quoted in Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association, 141.
86. On his way back to China in 1881, Chinese envoy Chen Lanbin donated $1,000 to the Honolulu Chinese community to build a United Chinese Society headquarters building. When envoy Zheng Zaoru arrived in the United States in 1882, he sent two representatives to Honolulu to push its formation. The society was registered with the Hawaiian government in 1884. Chinese of Hawaii (Honolulu, Hawaii: Honolulu Chinese Penman Club, 1929), 79–80; Huang, “Reports to Envoy,” no. 18.
87. In 1884 Chinese merchants of Victoria, BC, petitioned Consul General Huang Zunxian for permission to establish a CCBA. Permission was granted. He also sent Huang Xiquan (Huang Sih Chuen) to Victoria to help with the bylaws. To Commemorate Victoria’s Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (1884–1959) Chinese Public School (1899–1959) (Victoria, BC, 1959), 1–4.
88. In 1885 a Sociedad Central de Beneficencia China, or Tonghui Zhengju (Tong Huy Chung Koc), was founded in 1885 in Lima, Peru, where the Chinese community was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese legation in Washington, D.C. Ho, Ming Chung, Manual de la Colonia China en El Peru (Lima, Peru, 1967), 57.
89. Bridging the Centuries: History of Chinese Americans in Southern California (Los Angeles: Chinese Historical Society of Southern California, 2001), 203; Encyclopedia of Chinese Overseas, Volume of Organizations and Parties (Beijing: Chinese Overseas Publishing House, 1999), 258; Huaqian dacidian Huaqiao dacidian [Dictionary of Chinese overseas] (Taipei, Taiwan: Huaqiao Xiehui Zonghui [General Headquarters, Association of Chinese Overseas], 2000), 461; Liu, History 2, 192–95. Many of the CCBAs did not keep good documentation of historical events, especially as to the founding dates and the early history. Thus quite a few of the founding dates must be considered as approximate only. For example, Bridging the Centuries gave the founding date of the Los Angeles CCBA as 1907–1908, but Liu gave a date of 1911, while both the Dictionary and the Encyclopedia gave 1910.
90. In 1973, for example, delegates from the following organizations sat on the Stockton CCBA board of directors: Chungshan Association, Ning Yung Association, Sam Yup Association, Sze Yap Association, Lee Family Association, Mar Family Association, Wong Family Association, Yip Family Association, Gee How Oak Tin Association, Gee Tuck Sam Tuck Association, Lung Kong Tin Yee Association, Soo Yuen Association, Bao On Tong, Bing Kung Tong, Suey Sing Association, Ying On Association, Kuomintang, Methodist Church, Chinese Youth Club, and Cathay Club. People’s News, Jan. 20, 1973. Many cities have similar arrangements. The board structure of the CCBA-NY, however, is slightly different, with eighty-four directors selected from sixty organizations, plus eight directors each selected from Ning Yung Association, Liancheng Gongsuo (Lin Sing Association), and Chinatown merchant establishments.
91. The role CCBA-SF saw for itself was stated in a letter from President Liang Yunhuai to Chinese Consul General Ye Keliang dated Oct. 30, 1925. Quoted in Liu, History 1, 179–80.
92. Chinese World, Oct. 25, 1915.
93. Chinese World, May 17, 1919.
94. Chinese World, Sept. 29, 1931.
95. Qiaowu ershiwu nian [Twenty-five years of overseas Chinese affairs] (Taipei, Taiwan: Hawaii Chubanshe, 1957), 15–16.
96. Liu, History 2, 232–47.
97. China Daily News, May 12, 1986.
98. Young China, June 3, 1986; World Journal, June 4, 1986.
99. For example, in 1972 Joe Yuey, prominent community leader alleged to be pro-PRC, was blocked from the presidency of Sue Hing Association. San Francisco Journal, Nov. 23, 1972.
100. For example, disputes between the two political factions in the Tsung Tsin Association resulted in several lawsuits during the mid-1980s.
101. Following are two examples: A dispute in the Lung Kong Tin Yee Association over ownership of its building in San Francisco Chinatown was tried in Superior Court in 1971. Chinese Pacific Weekly, Feb. 25, 1971. In 1974 the Fah Yuen Association board became engaged in a dispute with a former officer over leases on storefronts in the association’s buildings. The latter had drawn up the leases when he was an officer. Advertisement in Sing Tao Jih Pao, Apr. 17, 1974.
102. Ow, Lai, and Choy, Sam Yup Benevolent Association, 86.
103. Chinese Times, Nov. 9, 1970.
104. Chinese Times, July 17, 1970.
105. Chinatown (Boston, MA: Boston 200 Corporation, 1976), 16.
106. World Journal, Oct. 25, 1984.
107. World Journal, Oct. 29, 2000; Taihe, “Meihua zongqin shetuan gejiu naxin” [American Chinese fellow clansmen associations eradicated the old and accepted the new], Depingxian no. 6 (June 2002), 28–29; International Daily News, May 13, 2002; Sing Tao Daily, July 14. 2002.
108. Sing Tao Daily, June 30, 2002.
109. World Journal, July 1, 2002; Chinese Times, July 16, 2002.
110. Sing Tao Daily, July 5, 2002.
This chapter was published as “Historical Development of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association/Huiguan System,” in Chinese America: History and Perspectives, 1987 (San Francisco, CA: Chinese Historical Society of America), and updated in 2003.
