Fuzhou Chinese Speech Group and Associations: Online Debates Over the Landmarks of Manhattan Chinatown After 9/11

Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 brill.com/jco

Fuzhou Chinese Speech Group and Associations: Online Debates over the Landmarks of Manhattan Chinatown after 9/11

Ann Shu-ju Chiu*

Abstract After the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, both the Cantonese and Fujianese immigrants in New York City’s Manhattan Chinatown felt the need for the reconstruction of their communities. Fuzhou migrants put up their hometown website, Fujianese.com, when the City Govern- ment provided a relief fund and initiated certain projects for the rebirth of Chinatown. Discussions relating to the shaping of the webscape and landscape can be gleaned from their online debates over the cultural landmarks of Manhattan Chinatown built with the 9/11 funding. In analyzing Fujianese.com, we find a sub-ethnic awareness emerging from among the Fuzhou migrants concerned about their community participation in the host society. This website has nurtured a sub-ethnic sentiment and strengthened the identity of its members. The online discourses are important sources of information for studying the issue of dialect grouping and territorial association.

Keywords Fuzhou Chinese Associations, Hometown website, New York

Analyzing the Online Discourse of the Fuzhou Chinese Speech Group

Long before the Internet age, Chinese overseas had developed their clan associations with a view to improving their social life. Anthropologists writing in the 1960s first suggested that “dialect grouping” and “territorial association” provided a major framework of organization in Chinese overseas communities. Maurice Freedman (1960) studied the immigrant associations of 19th-century Singapore and Lawrence Crissman (1967) analyzed the seg- mented structure of urban Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. Scholars of Chinese overseas working in the subsequent decades have been enlightened

* Anne Shu-ju Chiu is Assistant Librarian at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her email address is [email protected].

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/17932548-12341238 Also available online – brill.com/jco Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 233 by these pioneer works. For example, Ng Wing Chung (1992) reviewed the development of immigrant associations in Singapore, 1900-1941, Mak Lau Fong (1995) analyzed the Chinese dialect groups in early Malaya, and Him Mark Lai (2004) conducted a systematic study of the traditional Chinese associations in the United States. The emigrant villages of Fuzhou are located at the mouth of the Min River, the main artery cutting across Fujian Province and leading to the ocean. Situ- ated in east Fujian, the Fuzhou area comprises Fuzhou City and the ten coun- ties of Fuqing, Changle, Minqing, Lianjiang, Yongtai, Loyuan, Pingnan, Pingtan, Gutian and Minhou. Chinese overseas from these villages were active in Southeast Asia from the late 19th century to the 1940s. But the diasporic tradition of the new Fuzhou Chinese in New York City began only in the 1980s. Julie Chu (2010) explored the worldviews of the emigrant villagers and the goals of the aspiring potential migrants. She developed the notion of the “politics of destination.” Migration is used by the Fuzhounese as a spatial/ temporal extension strategy to be “emplaced” in the contemporary world. Kenneth Guest (2003) noted that the traditional Cantonese Chinatown since the 19th century had become predominantly occupied by a different Chinese speech group. He made a study of the physical settings, religious institutions and psychological voyage of the recent undocumented Fuzhou workers living beside the Manhattan Bridge. Through his description of flower shops cater- ing to wedding ceremonies and other rituals on East Broadway, Dale Wilson (2006) sensed that the Fuzhounese had reinvented certain rites and traditions which transformed the socio-cultural landscape of Chinatown and distinguished their own cultural identity from that of the Cantonese or Americans. However, the information communication technology which has become increasingly important in the Fuzhou emigrant villages1 and Manhattan Chinatown2 has not received adequate attention in the above mentioned scholarly works. A new wave of Fujianese immigrants has emerged since the turn of the 21st century. In late 2004 a young Fuzhou migrant put up the website, Fujianese.com. It appealed to the recent migrants and served as a social support mechanism for a peer group.3 As pointed out by Goncalo D. Santos (2008), classical anthropological studies of kinship can be placed in a wider context to examine the friendships of contemporary young persons

1 See author’s forthcoming book review: “Julie Chu’s Cosmologies of Credit” in Asian Studies Review 36(1): 125-26. 2 See Chiu, Ann Shu-ju and Wei-an Chang, “The Internet and the Fellowship Association of Fuzhou Migrants in New York,” Journal of Cyber Culture and Information Society 21 (2011): 32-35. 3 Ibid. 234 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 developed in their lineage-villages in South China. It helps to look at human altruism, cooperation and alliance expressed in kinship rhetoric and rituals like “same year siblings” in the search for social recognition. Fujianese.com is tinged with kinship rhetoric. The themes of its various mail threads are Fuzhou orientated. Its participants use the Internet to reinforce their friendships and hometown identity. Fellow townspersons find comfort in this e-forum. They also show an interest in fellowship associations with their high school class- mates. Fujianese.com was initiated by Mr. Gao, a member of the United Fujianese Association. Its appearance in September 2004 was highly praised by the Fuk- ien American Association and United Fujianese Association (Claire Chen 2004). These traditional hometown associations wanted the website to promote a positive image of Fujianese Americans, provide survival tips, and encourage the exchange of information between the immigrants and their relatives in China. These days the Fukien American Association and United Fujianese Association are the two major organizations of the Fujianese communities. Although the Fukien American Association was established in 1942 and has been an affiliated member of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA)4 since 1943, it adopts a discourse of state and culture different from that of the Cantonese. In terms of dialect and locality, it is also different from the native Taiwanese or Southeast Asian Fujianese of southern Fujian origins. Instead, it consists of a few members in eastern Fujian speaking Fuzhounese. Since the 1980s it has turned active partly due to the establish- ment of Sino-American diplomacy, but chiefly because of the increasing num- bers of new migrants from the Fuzhou area joining this community. The United Fujianese Association was established by the new Fuzhou migrants in 1990. Mr. Gao attempted to revamp the existing culture and image of his fellow Fujianese in Chinatown by setting up Fujianese.com. Its Bulletin Board System not only serves as a forum for the members’ exchanges, it also carries news on community development and announcements of activities. It provides information related to Fujianese immigrants extracted from the four major Chinese newspapers in Chinatown, viz. World Journal, Singtao Daily, Mingpao and Qiaobao. At the end of 2005 the total number of

4 Manhattan Chinatown has been a Cantonese settlement since the late 19th century. The western gold rush had ended and the construction of the Pacific Railroad was near completion. Many laborers went to New York to find jobs. They built traditional clan/hometown associations and trade associations along Mott Street and Canal Street. Since 1883 the CCBA has coordi- nated and governed these associations. It sponsored the Kuomintang in establishing the Repub- lic of China in 1911. The CCBA members celebrate the Double Ten National Holiday of the R.O.C. to reassure Taiwan that their political-diplomatic position has remained steady. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 235

Fujianese.com members was under 3,000. As of June 2007, it had grown to above 4,000. Both male and female webmasters have an equal say in adminis- trative matters. Its members include mainly restaurant workers, some students, engineers, accountants and IT professionals. Many young migrants working outside New York also share their information with dispersed fellow townspersons in this virtual community. For a long time anthropologists have studied Chinese overseas of different origins by means of interviews and participant observation. Based mostly on the memorial editions of the Chang Le American Association (1998, 2004), Xioajian Zhao (2008) analyzes the regional identity construction of the Changle people, who make up 80 percent of the Fuzhou population in New York City. The question is: Can such methods be improved by the use of the Internet? William Wells and Qimei Chen (1999) draw a parallel between American Thanksgiving and Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival. They think that personal interviews and participant observations tend to focus on desirable values. The interviewees express what they think is expected of them. Wells and Chen thus supplement their data with Chinese comedies, novels, poems and dramas to “unmask truths that tend to be concealed in ordinary social interactions” (1999: 555). They further use Internet sites in their analysis as these Internet exchanges are the manifestations of mainstream contemporary values as well as the artifacts of the parent culture. Robert Kozinets (2010) also sees the method of “netnography” as conducive to our understanding of cul- tures and communities. I would argue that certain print media of hometown associations (cf. Appendix) are written like eulogies at the expense of reality. The hometown websites of the immigrants, on the other hand, can inform us about their lived experiences in their resident countries. The present research was carried out via the Internet. Some interviews were conducted in Manhattan Chinatown in October and November 2006 and September 2007 to supplement my understanding of certain phenomena not visible on the webscape. Fujianese.com contributes rich discourses which enable us to learn about the recent history of the Fuzhou migrants in New York. Its online debates over the Chinatown reconstruction projects in the wake of 9/11 are unique materials for studying the dialect grouping and territorial association of Chinese overseas. They reveal the competitions and inner motives for community participation in their immigrant societies. I will use their experiences of the Chinatown Visitor Information Kiosk and Chinese Archway to explore the social reality that might otherwise be neglected in the existing literature, official reports and personal interviews. Through their celebrations of the Lin Ze Xu Way as a cultural landmark in Manhattan Chinatown, I will further explore how the discourse of the state and discourse of the hometown compete to shape their social development and identity formation. 236 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Online Debates over the Cultural Landmarks of Manhattan Chinatown

For the better part of the 20th century, business people preferred to stay in Manhattan Chinatown because the location was close to their potential cus- tomers, as pointed out by Bernard Wong (1979, 1988). The existing infra- structure and ethnic resources helped the new immigrants adapt to the host society, as discussed by Min Zhou (1992). New immigrants can resort to the assistance of the earlier settlers and gradually set up their own businesses. In 2001, Manhattan Chinatown, ten blocks away from the World Trade Center, was severely impacted by 9/11. The garment industry was the most badly affected business; numerous Chinese immigrants lost their jobs. Park Row Street, the major artery in the neighborhood, was sealed up to protect the Police headquarters. Impacted by blocked roads, traffic congestion and chaos, Chinatown lost many visitors. Commercial organizations and shops closed one after another. At this critical moment, the CCBA took the initiative to launch an emergency relief project thus overcoming the fierce competition which had been endemic since the 1970s among new professional organizations in this Chi- nese community and thereby restored its influence. These organizations demonstrated considerable divergence in their roles and strategies in dealing with their community members and outsiders in the 1970s and 1980s, as pointed out by Bernard Wong (1988). As the leader patron of the community, the CCBA actively participated in Chinese festivals and donated to cultural activities. Traditional Chinese values such as politeness, trust, friendship, human- ity, kinship and filial piety were emphasized in patron-client transactions. It strived to remain self-sufficient and limit contact with larger society. This dif- fered greatly from other Chinese-American social agencies and youth organizations which performed a brokerage function to bring the community into direct contact with other ethnic groups and larger society for social, economic and welfare assistance (Wong 1988: 251-92). The CCBA began as a civil authoritarian organization in 1883. But the way that it governs its Cantonese members has been undergoing transformation since 2002 when it realigned itself with Asian Americans for Equality (AAFE), a professional Chinese American association established in 1974 to provide social services in this community. In the wake of 9/11 the CCBA put itself in a better position in the realignment of social structure. It raised funds from community agencies, store own- ers and the Chinese public. Then through public appeals made on radio stations, it raised $2 million. It handed over the charity funds to the police, emergency medical staff and other medical services and the Red Cross. According Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 237 to the memorial edition of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (2004), it also generously offered its whole building to official and civilian organizations for their relief works. To cheer up the residents and visitors, the CCBA even put on performances of lion dances every week. It thus exercised its traditionally active and benevolent role in uniting the Chinese immigrants. The American government carried out its official disaster relief work in China- town by building on the efforts of the CCBA. Secretary of the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, Elaine Chao, sent her workers to the CCBA. Legal advisors also came along, followed by the Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Man- agement Agency. Everyday thousands of people came in and out of the CCBA building. Elaine Chao later visited the CCBA and gave $1 million to community agencies like the Chinatown Manpower Project, AAFE, Chinese American Planning Council etc., to provide job training services. Another $14 million from the government was distributed in the form of small business loans in the following year (Asia Society 2002). Like these active community agencies, the CCBA launched its homepage, ccbanyc.org, in the later years with a reference link to these organizations. From 2002 to 2007, several cultural projects were launched by the City Government to rebuild Chinatown. A visitor information kiosk was put up and the building of a Chinese archway was under consideration. The existing landmarks such as Confucian Plaza and Lin Ze Xu Square were highlighted to impress Chinatown visitors. With their different locality identifications, old Cantonese and new Fuzhou immigrants celebrated these cultural landmarks in different tones and moods. The cyberspace provided them with a venue for expression. From their celebrations of Chinese culture, one finds diversity among the Chinese in Manhattan Chinatown. The ethnic culture celebrated in the virtual community and the immigrants’ worldly interests narrated on the e-forum were reflections of their daily life. Min Zhou (2009) sees the Chinese-language media as a supplement to mainstream media in facilitating the immigrants’ adaptation and integration in the host society. I would argue that Fuzhou migrants have tried to use the ethnic media to negotiate a distinct Chinese category that is as respectable as that of the Cantonese immigrants in Chinatown and all other Chinese Americans in New York. Fujianese.com linked its e-forum to the online media in encouraging discussions and interactions among its members.

Chinatown Visitor Information Kiosk

The Visitor Information Kiosk was the first obvious addition to the landscape of Manhattan Chinatown after 9/11. It was financed by the Lower Manhattan 238 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Development Corporation (LMDC) and the 11 September Fund. Located at the triangular traffic island intersection of Canal Street, Baxter Street and Howard Street, this kiosk was built by NYC & Company to boost tourism. Roofed by a translucent pagoda, this red kiosk occupies a ten-meter wide plot. Inside the pagoda is a golden dragon wired with neon lights. Since its launch in December 2004, quite a few residents have expressed their doubts about the design, as reported by World Journal dated 23 February 2005. Jimmy of Fujianese.com, for example, commented, “Is the golden dragon of Chinatown Visitor Information Kiosk trapped? All geomancy talks indicate its lack of the auspicious omen of a valorous oriental dragon (華埠信息亭金龍被困? 風水說四起指欠東方猛龍吉兆).”5 He invited the readers to join in the discussion. The funding for and the design of this kiosk were criticized vehemently in the pages of comments in Fujianese.com. Initially, it was an issue of geomancy for the old immigrant community because the dragon was trapped, coiled and heading down westward. But what made the Fujianese most dissatisfied was that the kiosk was a joint project of the City government and the traditional associations like the CCBA and AAFE, without the participation of Fujianese associations. This dissatisfaction was an indication that the local identity of new Fuzhou migrants had emerged in competition with the old immigrant associations over the issue of 9/11 funding and social resources. Fujianese.com members quoted a Chinese newspaper dated 18 February 2005 which posed the question: “Two million capital to build a ten-meter wide kiosk? We don’t understand (200 萬資金建造 10 尺信息亭? 不解)?”6 Some netizens such as Dragon also questioned the LMDC over its promotion of tourism in Chinatown and its involvement in the “Explore Chinatown” projects. They then directed their criticism at the beneficiary, CCBA. Some other Fuzhou migrants, however, did not care much about the matter, as they were too busy with their own livelihood. Daxing Hongjiji explained his lack of interest as follows:

If they really want to fool the Americans, it has nothing to do with us either! The Chinese restaurant industries of Fujianese Americans have nearly come to an end. Think about our own business. It is really “Money” that matters! We come to the U.S. for money, don’t we? We are not here to meddle in others’ business. It is said that a robbery has taken place in Flushing.7 The victims are ethnic Chinese again.

5 http://bbs.fujianese.com/viewthread.php?tid=3414 accessed September 25, 2005. 6 Ibid. 7 The three major Chinese communities in New York City are Manhattan Chinatown, Flush- ing in Queens, and the Eighth Avenue in Brooklyn Borough. New migrant workers often run a risk of being robbed, beaten or slain when delivering “take-out” orders. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 239

World Journal, Singtao Daily, etc. report these things frequently. There is not one Chinese community leader who really concerns himself about these pressing affairs needing improvement.8

One of the taxpayers in this community, ckeyn, commented:

What those community leaders are most concerned about is their own reputation and social status. They make decisions among themselves every time they hold their election meetings. There is no mention at all about self reliance, ideas, needs, or academic and cultural backgrounds. Projects and planning is brewed among those who never try to elevate their own standards! Such an organization without new blood can hardly improve.

Most netizens responded to this petty kiosk in a sarcastic tone like Mr. Gao:

What a big imbalance between investment and benefit returns! You only have to think about how many years it will take Chinatown residents to recover this 2 million payment. Just take a look at how much electricity will be wasted every night.

Again, they quoted Ming Pao dated 21 March to demonstrate how harmful this kiosk would be as a gateway to Chinatown in terms of geomancy. As Tin Sun (天山居士), the old master of geomancy, pointed out:

First of all, the dragon head faces north and that drives away the fortune of Chinatown. Secondly, it is against the Chinese five elements wuxing( 五行) in the operation of Metal, Wood, Water, Fire and Earth. The color gold is Metal and the color red is Fire. Fire conquers Metal. As such the gold dragon is trapped by red wires. As Chinese are the descendants of the Dragon, this implies the development of the Chinatown and the interest of its community will be restricted. Thirdly, it is wrong for this kiosk to be located on a traffic isle. It looks like a knife with strong venom. All vehicles from Manhattan come face to face with it.

Geomancy ( fengshui 風水) is a long-established part of Chinese culture observed mostly by Cantonese speakers. Master Tin Sun based at Chatham Square is Chinatown’s most renowned fortune-teller. Cantonese Americans and Hong Kong Chinese like to consult with his Tin Sun Metaphysics Corp. to decide on the propitious and harmonious placement of a building. Jimmy of Fujianese.com used Master Tin Sun’s geomancy logic in his criticism of

8 All the citations in Fujianese.com in this paper are translated from Chinese unless otherwise indicated. 240 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 the kiosk. He also opposed the involvement of the CCBA and AAFE in the project:

Firstly, this kiosk ignores traditional Chinese customs in placing a golden dragon on the roof. We are all descendants of the dragon. The dragon should be flying to symbolize our walking out of Chinatown to enter mainstream society. . . . [A]fter much reflection on its improper geomancy, we feel that it is contrary to Chinese public opinion. Neither does it conform to traditional thinking in Chinatown. Secondly, the design is careless, dull and lacking in esthetics. Placing such a dry (wood) dragon in the middle of a pathway does not project a favorable image of Chinatown. An architectural work of a public symbol in Chinatown should present to the tourists the best of Chinese culture and tradition. A slovenly made piece is a waste of government funding and Chinatown tax-payers’ money. Thirdly, the entire engineering work was directed by a couple of Chinese associations which believed they represented the majority without widely consulting the public or holding discussions to secure public approval.

However, Cantonese immigrants also believed in the power of geomancy in turning a situation of misfortune into a favorable one. The dragon, made of wood, could be replaced by one made of marble which, being a heavy stone, might suppress miasma. Master Tin Sun suggested that the dragon above the roof be demolished, or the kiosk be changed to a hexagon or given a round shape to bring about a harmonious ambience. The designer Mr. Wong was a Hong Kong Chinese-American who wanted to blend Chinese traditional culture with modern American culture. Wong understood geomancy as an important component of ethnic Chinese culture; he promised to explore the possibility of an amendment. As the kiosk was an important gateway to Chinatown, it drew more than 3,000 tourists on Chinese New Year day. But Gao and his fellow netizens challenged the architectural undertaker by asking two questions: “1. How much will it cost to build this kiosk?” and “2. To whom, in fact, does it mean the most?” During the last week of March 2005, Fujianese.com members spent their time everyday on taking pictures in the area from Monday through Thursday, 9:00 am to 8:00-9:00 pm to collect “evidence.” They had looked up the map of Chinatown on the wall of the Visitor Information Kiosk but when they got to the place they found only some visitors. Fujian Shuixian followed up on 7 April with a summary: “It is still difficult for the trapped dragon to escape from the cage; the Kiosk has no visitors; the map is sort of popular though. Someone has put up an Information Kiosk intending to get wealthy and famous.” What they really wanted to say was that the approach of the CCBA was not in the public interest. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 241

When I interviewed Eric Ng, the director of the CCBA, in October 2006 about this architectural work, he replied that in fact his organization was neither involved in its design nor had anything to do with the kiosk. Fujianese associations were not particularly interested in this project either. I later interviewed a young Chinese American woman who worked in the old immigrant community and asked about her impression of the kiosk. She disagreed with the comment of recent Fujianese migrants and did not approve of the design of the City government:

Why didn’t they ask the American-born Chinese or Chinese professionals? The opinion of ethnic Chinese should not be stereotyped as those of the descendants of the dragon. Maybe we want something new and different instead. During the 9/11 disaster in 2001, Chinatown was in panic. The New York City government did allocate some funding for Chinatown for those in need. But to its surprise, there were no applications submitted by new Fujianese immigrants. The City government then realized that English language problems had dampened their motivation. Young migrants were usually taken to Fuzhou to be raised by their grandparents. These grown up children return to New York at the age of 19 or above, exceeding the age limit of American high school students. Even being allowed to study in bilingual high schools that permit them to answer examina- tion questions on American history in Chinese, they still have difficulty with their studies.

Such comments on the diversity of Chinese interests largely support my previous online discourse analysis. The fact is that the coalition of CCBA and AAFE became evident during the economic downturn following 9/11. The AAFE had planned a community project: to launch in 2005 a new economic development organization known as Rebuild Chinatown Initiative in the Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corporation (LDC). Chairman York Chan of the CCBA played a major role in rallying the community behind the Chinatown Partnership. Administered through the LMDC, the China- town Partnership LDC was given a grant of $7 million from the City government. It supported weekly shows put up by cultural groups on Bayard Street, the popular Taste of Chinatown events such as food festivals, and helped clean up Chinatown’s dirty streets. The Lunar Stage for traditional drama performances debuted at Columbus Park in the fall of 2006. The Chinatown Part- nership LDC studied the feasibility of creating a night market promoting products and services as well as cultural activities in this community. The CCBA was given the significant role of orchestrating the Night Market survey. Again, the CCBA and AAFE were entrusted with the task of conducting a study on parking. 242 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

But online analysis is certainly enlightening. The mail thread above is unique among existing literature or any official websites of governmental and professional organizations in showing the enthusiasm of new Fuzhou migrants for participation in their community. In late December 2004, the United Fujianese Association put up an announcement to recruit engineers and accountants for a Chinese archway building located at the intersection of East Broadway and Allen Street.9 Fuzhou associations were interested in bidding for the archway project, and Fujianese.com members supported their hometown associations in the bid. Their comments on the Chinatown Visitor Infor- mation Kiosk were a prelude to their efforts in building this arch. As the Kiosk had already been established, one could hardly ignore its existence. The sensitivity of Fujianese.com to the CCBA’s role in the Kiosk was later shifted to the pending project of the Chinese Archway. Newsgroup members resented the old immigrant communities, blaming them for their outdated thinking. They requested a revamp of a traditional ornamental archway to boost their Chinese pride and insisted that the new project was to be developed with the full participation of Fuzhou migrants. Pal Nyiri (2001) argues that the identity construction among the recent migrants is controlled by the state- promoted elites in the P.R.C. There is “no separate, officially produced discourse of “Fujianeseness” or “Cantoneseness” of the kind that has traditionally been produced among overseas Chinese” (Nyiri 2001: 650). All provincial identities are replaced with a single national discourse. It makes this case of present-day Manhattan Chinatown unique for its maintenance of traditional Chinese organizations, clanship and locality identity as well as the two Chinese state identities.

Chinese Archway

The notions of Stuart Hall (1987, 1996) regarding ethnicity, cultural identities and politics have inspired David Parker and Miri Song (2009) to review new ethnicities and the Internet. Hall thinks that the black community in Britain employs a creative variety of cultural politics to negotiate their belonging and their difference in multicultural Britain. These immigrants hold formative rather than expressive identities. As pointed out by Parker and Song, British Chinese online forums are also a place to discuss the identities of immigrants in question. Their everyday exchanges mirror the spontaneous representation of second-generation Chinese immigrants. I will argue that Fujianese.com embodies the formative identities of their netizens. Such

9 http://bbs.fujianese.com/viewthread.php?tid=666 accessed August 11, 2005. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 243 formative identities are reconfigured constantly with the development of Manhattan Chinatown and the agency of their immigrants. Schmitt, Daya- nim and Matthias (2008) see the personal homepage construction as an expression of social development. Motivated to be their own masters, people express themselves in a public domain to explore their identity formation. Like the well-established CCBA, Fuzhou grassroots also revealed a desire for political participation and civil engagement in mainstream society as shown in the case of the Chinese Archway. The community identity and changing occupations of the old Cantonese have brought in more foreign tourists in helping to restore Chinatown. They promoted the tourist industry by publicizing their cultural activities on the web. The Fuzhou migrants invited their compatriots in the U.S. to use their long-distance bus services, and to visit their Chinese Internet cafes, wedding photography salons and restaurants to boost their community business. Yet, there is the possibility that the internal ethnic market and intensive networking with Chinese officials by new Fuzhou migrants will arouse the suspicions of the American government about their political allegiance. As shown in the memorial edition of Chang Le American Association (2004), the intensive networking of hometown associations was not just with the immigrants in the host society. A large part of their effort went into working with the officials of their hometowns. For example, representatives of Fuzhou migrants also received the leaders of the P.R.C. when the latter visited New York. Such multi-layered socio-political activities partially explain why the CCBA and AAFE were well-positioned in the social structural realignment after 9/11. As of late February 2005, there were many projects in need of funding by the City government and the LMDC. These included the Chinese archway put up by the CCBA, the Chinatown cultural center set up by the Committee to Revitalize and Enrich the Arts and Tomorrow’s Economy (CREATE), a building complex for fashions promoted by those in the clothing business, a project for Chinatown reconstruction by the AAFE, etc. There was no Fujia- nese project organizer. The LMDC had around 800 million dollars left to rebuild Chinatown. York Chan of the CCBA estimated that funds would be allocated to Lower Manhattan from March to April 2005. On this subject, Fujianese.com members expressed the views contained in the above mail thread. They were trying to change the disadvantaged position that their dialect group was saddled with at the time of the last governmental fund.

As Mr. Gao put it: Canal Street is the base of old immigrants. East Broadway is the base of new immigrants, especially those from Fuzhou. These two localities have been at the 244 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

receiving end of an obvious lopsided treatment that has drastically shifted the balance. There is a saying, “Fuzhou Chinese deserve to be credited for making Chinatown prosperous (福州人繁榮華埠功不可沒).” But credit is just credit. The Fuzhounese in Chinatown are still residents of the non-mainstream community. Now the Fuzhou associations are BIDDING on the archway project in need of capital and various resources. They have almost strategized and planned every- thing on their own.

The arch project brought the Fujianese community together. According to the interviews I conducted in Manhattan Chinatown from 2006 to 2007, early Fuzhou settlers were composed of members aged 50 and above with educational levels below high school. This population was concentrated in the traditional hometown associations. Fujianese.com was represented by recent migrant members aged below 35, with educational levels above high school. One fourth of the Fujianese.com members were also affiliated with traditional associations. Netizen Meiguo ABC showed his concern for his hometown associations:

To my knowledge, the project for Chinatown reconstruction does not include one of the two major streets. East Broadway, the “Fuzhou Street,” has never spent a penny of the government funds!! . . . It’s the same with the Chinese in China- town, they are divided into new and old immigrants. Fujianese immigrants strug- gle hard in the U.S. They should receive equal respect and share equal social welfare. Don’t think that these low-cultured early Fujianese settlers can be easily bullied and cheated. Much benefit of the government funding for Chinatown is stolen and divided between the CCBA and AAFE. It seems these organizations will eat up all government funding to rebuild Chinatown. None of it has anything to do with the Fuzhou new immigrants.

Netizen Visitor criticized the CCBA and AAFE further for using their old thinking of the 1940s and 1950s in dealing with the current environment of incessant changes. Yumo wrote, “Let’s support Jimmy, and support the Amer- ican Chinese Voters Alliance10 (which is led by Fujianese). Unite the Fuzhou Chinese associations to fight for more benefits for the Fujianese community.” All Fujianese.com elites expressed their agreement with them showing solidar- ity in the face of the external pressure on them to agree to the allocation of public resources to the old Cantonese immigrants. An undaunted newcomer Xinyaobin suggested that some Fujianese associations take the initiative to contact the director of the CCBA to avoid further marginalization:

10 The social-political status of Fujianese associations has been upgraded since the establish- ment of the American Chinese Voters Alliance in 2004. The United Fujianese Association regis- tered 10,000 people eligible to vote in the 2004 American Presidential Election. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 245

I suggest that we exchange views with him about our BID project of the Chinese archway on East Broadway. Otherwise, the “Chinatown” represented by the director of the CCBA will again leave out this other half, East Broadway. It definitely will not involve the BID of East Broadway. This other half of Chinatown might possibly not be counted in New York’s “Chinatown.” Sometimes, I really don’t doubt it. I believe that New York’s Chinatown should shrink to one third its size, and let the Fuzhou migrants who have grown to two or three times their previous population size grow into two or three more communities, now that they have been squeezed out of New York’s Manhattan Chinatown.

At the same time, Fujianese.com members continued to insinuate that the project was being internally manipulated by the CCBA. Netizen Niming Fayen quoted a newspaper dated 17th May 2005 to inform everyone that the “Chinatown archway project has been accused of insider operations with no transparency (華埠興建牌樓, 被指黑箱作業).” However, the bid effort of new Fuzhou migrants should not be seen simply as a passive move to avoid being saddled with a marginalized status. It actually embodied the community’s hometown memory and locality identification. As pointed out by Julie Chu (2010), the overseas remittances of Fuzhou migrants go into the revamping of their emigrant villages with modern and cosmopoli- tan houses, temples and roads. Fuzhounese see these modern additions as a social connection to the metropolises in China. They are extensions of the social world of the emigrant villagers. To my knowledge, the new Fujianese immigrants might be more interested than the old Cantonese immigrants in this pending archway project. From downtown Changle City to Houyu township, one can see at the front entrance of every emigrant village one freshly painted ornamental Chinese archway which has been erected to reflect the wealth of the village. The grand octagonal arch and hallway of Tingjiang is even more imposing. Based on their hometown memories, the Fuzhou emi- grants must be expecting to see one installed in their immigrant community. A column webmaster of Fujianese.com, maizai, has revealed his wish on 24 September 2005: “When will New York’s Chinatown have a ‘Chinese style archway’ (紐約華埠何時才有 ‘中式牌樓’)?”.11 As pointed out by F. G. Bailey (2002), politics has its public face embodied in the normative rules and its private wisdom in the pragmatic rules. Norma- tive rules “express such ultimate and publicly acceptable values” while pragmatic rules articulate the statement about “whether or not it will be effective” (2002: 94) in getting things done. In the public space of the Visitor Informa- tion Kiosk, Fuzhou migrants enlisted the idea of traditional geomancy to

11 http://bbs.fujianese.com/viewthread.php?tid=3431 accessed September 25, 2005. As of June 2012, this website has been “temporarily unavailable.” 246 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Visitor information kiosk.

Octagonal arch and hallway in Tingjiang. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 247 denounce the old associations for being dominated by outdated thinkers when it came to architectural design. They even used this to equip themselves with an argument against the different power groups among the ethnic Chinese and to push the borders of their political participation outward in support of their Chinese archway project. They resorted to geomancy to publicly justify their course of political action. Elements of Chinese culture, such as the dragon and geomancy, are held in great esteem by the immigrants in Chinatown. But how can this traditional culture be interpreted situationally with regard to the Information Kiosk? These new immigrants articulated their own language of political wisdom with pragmatic rules. The bid project of the Fujianese associations did not succeed ultimately. The CCBA was still the major coordinator. A poll survey showed that most Chinatown residents supported the opening of a night market and hoped for an archway to be built at the intersection of Mott Street and Canal Street. As of October 2005, York Chan had raised some funds as seed money. Around this time, City mayor Michael Bloomberg was running for re-election, and he visited the CCBA to build relations with Chinese communities in the course of his campaign.12 Chan dropped a hint that there were 49,000 Chinese voters in Lower East Manhattan Chinatown. Compared to the population of 30,000 two years before, the rate of increase was high. More China- town visits would certainly be good for his political campaign. Bloomberg took this opportunity to show his concern about the archway project. After learning about the Chinese arch in Washington D.C. funded by the Chinese Consulate, Bloomberg asked why not place the same request with the Chinese Consulate in New York for help. He would also lobby the LMDC to finance it. To rebuild Manhattan Chinatown after 9/11, a series of measures were pro- posed. Mainstream society needed the participation of major political players in Chinatown like the CCBA to be engaged in these projects. On their visit to Chinatown for their election campaigns in 2005 the City Mayor and other top City Council members showed their concern about the progress of the Chinese archway project. But as my interviews conducted in the field later showed, the economic benefit that the CCBA derived from these projects might have been more apparent than real. What really matters is that this participation carried a social symbolic meaning for Chinatown leaders. It also demonstrates the political energy of the Chinese immigrant constituency in catching the attention of American mainstream society.

12 The Chinese-American Voters Federation was established by the CCBA in 2004 to encourage qualified immigrants to register and vote. Candidates of various backgrounds came to the CCBA for its support. 248 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Manhattan Chinatown can no longer be treated as a segregated community in this age of information society. What happens in this community, such as the archway project, is visible in cyberspace. The issue of 9/11 relief funding in this Chinatown is open to discussion by members of mainstream society. From April to October 2005, Chinese Americans and non-Chinese Americans in the New York metropolitan area debated the pros and cons about this archway on the BBS of Wired New York Forum.13 To them, an arch should be as stately as the Washington Square graced by the statue of America’s founding father George Washington. There has been a Washington Square Arch in lower Manhattan since 1895. The general feeling was: “It has been Chinatown all this time without an arch and there is no need to add one now.” This relief fund should be used to restore the parks, improve the traffic in Chinatown, and “create programs to better connect Chinatown to other lower Manhattan neighborhoods.” After the debate between old and new immigrants in Manhattan China- town, and the competing discourses among the intellectuals in the public sec- tor and civic associations in American mainstream society as revealed on the Internet, the LMDC informed the CCBA in March 2006 that the archway funding was not passed.14 The former governor of the City Council who had promised the funds by the end of 2005 later lost his election campaign. Although both the Chinese and Taiwanese governments were willing to fund this archway, ethnic Chinese business people preferred to raise funds on their own to avoid turning their dream into a political event. When I interviewed Eric Ng about this issue in September 2007, he explained to me why there might not be concrete results. Although the CCBA was still working hard to coordinate and facilitate this project, there were internal problems more urgent than this for the Chinatown Partnership LDC to attend to first. With a com- posite of diverse ethnicities, cultural identities, historical memories, political backgrounds and socio-economic considerations, a consensus for this archway would be difficult to achieve. Scholars of online communities have made studies of the identity of Chinese intellectual cyber activists overseas. Some focus on the discourse of the Chinese state (Chan 2005, 2006; Shu 2003; Sun 2002, 2005) and some on the discourse of Chinese culture (Lozada 1998; Wu 1999; Yang 2003). However, in placing Fujianese.com under review, we find that both the discourse of the state and the discourse of culture have influenced the Chinese identities of Fuzhou migrants. In their daily performance of Chineseness,

13 http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4786&page=2 accessed October 29, 2006. 14 http://www.singtaonet.com:82/city/NY/t20060311_162053.html accessed October 29, 2006. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 249 there are many layers of identities between these two grand discourses. In the first place, these immigrants are not members of the cyber elites. They play an agency role by negotiating for themselves a Chinese identity in their interactions with other ethnic or sub-ethnic groups. As exhibited in the following case, the perceptions of the statues of Confucius and Lin Zexu as the cultural landmarks of Manhattan Chinatown were celebrated differently by the Can- tonese and the Fujianese immigrants.

Statue of Confucius. 250 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Statue of Lin Zexu.

Statues of Confucius and Lin Zexu

East of Chatham Square on Division Street is Confucius Plaza with a statue of Confucius, a masterpiece by sculptor Liu Shih. Visitors can hardly miss it on their tour of Chinatown. Since mid-1997, a statue of Lin Zexu has stood in Chatham Square facing East Broadway. To old and new Chinese immigrants, the statues of Confucius and Lin Zexu serve as marks of their ethno-regional divisions. In Manhattan Chinatown, the competition in cultural and state discourses between old Cantonese immigrants and new Fujianese immigrants Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 251 can be illustrated in their respective promotion of the spirit of Confucius and Lin Zexu. While Confucianism covers a Chinese cultural (Tu 1994) domain, Lin Zexu weaves the modern Chinese state concept into the history of the anti-opium war against Western imperialism. As pointed out by Guest (2003: 26), the statues of Confucius and Lin Zexu symbolize the cultural and political differences between the Cantonese and Fujianese immigrants. The statue of Confucius was built to promote traditional Chinese culture which was almost destroyed by communist China especially during the Cultural Revolution. It was commissioned in 1984 by the long-time Cantonese and Hong Kong immigrants. The engineering work was largely funded by the Taiwan National Government and organized by the CCBA. This discourse of the R.O.C. state and traditional Chinese culture was challenged in 1997 by the new Fuzhou migrants who commissioned the statue of their hometown hero, Lin Zexu, to articulate a discourse of the modern state of the P.R.C. Via Fujianese.com we find the two discourses in competition in the cultural selections of the Fuzhou Chinese.

Discourse of State and Discourse of Culture

The Fuzhou-born commissioner Lin Zexu made his name in Chinese history in the mid-19th century. In 1837, 1838 and 1839 Lin confiscated and burned the opium brought to Guangzhou by the Western powers. In the late 1990s Lin’s name and heroic deeds were brought to New York’s Chinatown by new Fuzhou migrants. At first, the Fuzhou migrants had an image of him as a guardian of his fellow hometown migrants in competition with the Cantonese who valued the Confucius statue. But the figure of Lin was later invested with political rhetoric in the discourse of the Chinese state (Wise 1997). Lin was played up by the P.R.C. as a revolutionary as well as a universal anti-drug hero (Cooper 1996). In 1995 the Lin Zexu Foundation was established in Manhat- tan Chinatown and chaired by a Fujianese community leader, Steven Wong. It was no coincidence that the statue of Lin Zexu was erected in 1997, the year in which Hong Kong was handed back to Chinese sovereignty by the British colonial power. Lin’s statue was proudly presented by new Fujianese immigrants and the gesture was appreciated by the Chinese government. However, Hong Kong immigrants and Cantonese in New York looked on this event with a totally different frame of mind, according to Peter Chan, Director of the CCBA (David Chen 1997). To them, it was juxtaposed with the scholarly, learned and paternal looking statue of Confucius which they had lived with since 1984. As many of them had migrated since the 1980s before the handover of Hong Kong to Chinese communist rule, Lin’s statue reminded them of an unhappy episode in Chinese history. 252 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

I visited the Lin Zexu Memorial Museum in Fuzhou City in July 2007. I then realized that Lin’s hailed status as a national hero over-shadowed his role as Commissioner of Fuzhou. The Chairman of Communist China, Mao Zedong, said in his Quotations, “Our democratic revolution is scalping the three previous political regimes. We have been undertaking revolution for more than one hundred years since Lin Zexu” (我們的民主革命, 是革前三張皮的命, 從林則徐算起, 一直革了一百多年). One should note that Lin lost in the opium war and the Qing Court was forced to sign the unequal trea- ties with the British government. Among the many losses to China, Hong Kong became a British colony. In the midst of censure from his official col- leagues and pressure from the Western powers, Lin was demoted to the prov- inces on the western frontier. His upright character yet unhappy fate resonated with modern Chinese politicians. The subject of the statue and spirit of Lin Zexu was thus elevated to a Chinese national discourse by the Chinese Consulate and Fujianese associations in New York. And the New York City government promoted its anti-drug campaign in sympathy with Lin’s spirit. In 1999, Mayor Guiliani of New York approved the use of the space sur- rounding the Lin statue, which was to be named Lin Ze Xu Square. According to a Chinese American interviewee familiar with urban planning, the City government was eager to earn the cooperation of Fujianese immigrants in Chinatown. It had erected the Lin statue in 1997 and naming it Lin Square in 1999 was with a view to clamping down on the Fujianese youth gangs involved in the drug trade. With the help of the chairman of the Lin Ze Xu Foundation and major Fujianese community leaders, the City government managed to solve the problems with drugs and came down hard on the Fujianese youth gangs. On the other hand, Cantonese immigrants responded passively to the issue of Lin’s statue and Lin square. In 2005, the section of East Broadway facing the statue was officially renamed Lin Ze Xu Way. In the meantime a Fuzhou local group in parallel with the Cantonese community was getting ready to challenge the CCBA community. The CCBA thus sought to arouse an ethnic awareness and promote a sense of cultural identity in the old Cantonese immigrants. The Cantonese immigrants felt something should be done to protect their traditional cultural domain of Confucianism and to speak up for Confucius who, in their view, deserved to be better respected in Chinatown and all other Chinese overseas communities. The CCBA responded with the restoration of an ancient Confucius ritual. On 28 September 2006, the birthday of Confucius, the “CCBA and other educational organizations hosted the first traditional Confucius Memorial Ceremony. President Eric Ng was the principal presentation officer of the Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 253

Lin Zexu Memorial Museum in Fuzhou City.

Lin Ze Xu Way in Manhattan Chinatown. 254 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 ceremony.”15 Although memorial ceremonies had been held since 1985, this was the first official grand ritual. In 2007, the “CCBA and other educational organizations hosted the second annual traditional Confucius Memorial Ceremony.”16 This time all participants wore traditional costumes and performed a ritual dance with six formations of dancers (Liuyi 六佾). In the website of the CCBA, one can find evidence of the group’s unfailing belief in and deference to Confucius’ teachings and the ritual that was conducted on Confucius Day. On 21 November 2007, President Eric Ng, who was also the chairperson of the New York Chinese School, attended the 98th Anniversary and Thanksgiving celebrations of the School.17 On the same day, an opening ceremony was held in the New York Chinese School’s athletic court which, after renovations, was renamed “Confucius Athletic Court.”18 A huge portrait of Confucius was hanging on the wall with four characters: “Teacher for All Ages,” together with a couplet which says: “Confucius’ virtues spread afar to the West, Chinese culture reaches all countries.” Hence, Confucius is Chinese culture itself. No matter where they go, ethnic Chinese take his teachings and virtues with them to educate their descendants in foreign lands. As such, Confucianism transcends national boundaries and lives on in Chinese societies in different countries. When I interviewed Mr. Ng about the symbolic meaning of Confucius for his association, he related it instinctively to Teachers’ Day: “CCBA runs the century-old Chinese school in New York. We are expected to thank and encourage the teachers for their hard work.” He told me proudly that this school had almost 3,000 students. (He relished associating the number of students with Confucius’ three thousand disciples.) Born before 500 B.C. into a noble family, Confucius tried to eliminate the distinction between the classes and to bring education to people of all social classes. He believed in educating a person in accordance with his abilities. His 72 disciples became outstanding scholars in various kingdoms. Confucius was thus revered as the sage and teacher. In 2007, New York State Assembly Member, Ellen Young, who was a district administrator at City Councilman John Liu’s Office, encouraged the Asian American Society to adopt Confucius Day as Teachers’

15 http://ccbanyc.org/photo200609/060924%20Confucius%20Ceremony.html accessed Octo- ber 29, 2006. 16 http://ccbanyc.org/photo200609/070930%20Confucius%20.html accessed December 13, 2007. 17 http://ccbanyc.org/photo200609/071121%20Chinese%20School%20Anniversary.html accessed December 13, 2007. 18 http://ccbanyc.org/photo200609/071121%20Confucius%20Opening.html accessed Decem- ber 13, 2007. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 255

Day. Her proposal was officially accepted in 2008. Young and Liu are well received in both the Cantonese and Fujianese immigrant communities for treating old and new immigrants alike with benevolence and care in the way of ren’ai (仁愛) as taught by Confucius. In accordance with the Confucian social order, an individual should firstly cultivate himself (xiushen 修身), put his family in order (qijia 齊家), rule the country (zhiguo 治國), and finally bring peace to the world (pingtianxia 平天下). Implicitly Confucian culture as endorsed by the well-established Asian Americans can help to bring about a stable relationship between the American government and its citizens. Old Cantonese associations have not only inherited traditional Chinese culture, but also developed it in American society. By taking a leaf from Chinese national hero Lin Zexu, Fujianese associations also help to promote the anti-drug campaigns of the American government. Their discourse on the Chinese state is strong. However, my online discourse analysis finds an interesting anomaly regarding the members of Fuji- anese.com. They articulated a strong discourse of hometown. As shown in the following mail thread, their sense of locality identification was jolted when East Broadway was renamed Lin Ze Xu Way instead of Fuzhou Street.

Discourse of State and Locality Identification

On 26 June 2005 (International Anti-drug Day), East Broadway was officially named “Lin Ze Xu Way” which was considered to be appropriate for the revival of historical memory and assertion of an ethno-regional identity. This decision was met with ambivalence by the Fujianese immigrants that stood in contrast to the merry mood in 1999 when Giuliani announced the official opening of the “Lin Ze Xu Square” next to the statue of Lin Zexu. Commis- sioner Lin was remembered as a Fuzhou native and a national hero of the late Qing Dynasty who set the opium on fire to save China. The statue was pur- posely built by the Fuzhounese at two feet taller than the statue of Confucius as a competition targeting the old Cantonese immigrants (Guest 2003: 26). Lin Zexu Square was a triumph marking the recognition of their Fuzhou identity six years earlier. But the Fuzhounese were disappointed with their failed attempt to rename East Broadway as “Fuzhou Street,” which they felt would have fully-reflected the economic strength of this dialect/locality group in Manhattan Chinatown. From Fujianese.com we see that quite a number of Fuzhounese were discouraged by the final decision. After so much lobbying and donations to the city politicians, their dream did not come true. This was taken as an indication that local Americans did not fully accept the Fujianese immigrants of 256 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 somewhat illegal origins in China. The locals tried to reach a compromise between the leaders of Fujianese associations and mainstream society by choos- ing the name of a historical figure acceptable to all. One should note here that their locality identity takes precedence over their sense of modern national history. Mr. Gao quoted from an article in Qiaobao dated 29 June 2005 on the commissioning of Lin Ze Xu Way and invited his fellow netizens to discuss whether “it is enjoyable or deplorable that ‘Fuzhou Street’ has been turned into ‘Lin Ze Xu Way’ (‘福州街’ 變成 ‘林則徐路’ 可喜可悲?)”19 This mail thread is very important in helping us see how the discourse of Chinese state and the discourse of traditional culture competed to shape the locality identity of the Fuzhou migrants. The multi-faceted relationship between the Chinese government, American mainstream society, Fujianese associations and ordinary Fuzhou migrants can be gauged from their responses to this event. As pointed out by Yongming Zhou (1999), throughout the 20th century the Chinese government saw the anti-drug discourse and anti-drug measures as means to consolidate state power. Even during the Reform era in the 1990s, it believed that China had become a drug-consumption country as a result of its open door policy as the market economy brought China into contact with the international community. Drug use and drug trafficking were imported from the West. Drug suppression was regarded as a patriotic action and the campaign for suppression continued into the 21st century. In 2005 the Chinese Consulate in New York still articulated such a discourse of the Chinese state as follows:

Criminals motivated by drug dealers directly impact the economy of a nation. It has brought grave misery to the Chinese people. The opening ceremony of Lin Ze Xu Way on International Anti-drug Day is a commemoration by the Chinese people of their national hero, Lin Zexu, and a mark of their determina- tion to stamp out drugs (Qiaobao 29.6.05).

The Lin Ze Xu Foundation played the most important role in this event. It connected the Chinese government with American mainstream society. Its chairman, Steven Wong, not only articulated a discourse of the Chinese state, but also emphasized Lin’s contribution to American society:

Lin Zexu is not only the international anti-drug and drug-banning pioneer, but also a patriotic national hero who saved his country and people. The Lin spirit is not only highly valued in China, it is also applauded in the Americas. It means a lot for Americans to uproot the drug dealers and combat the drug addicts. There is a two-fold meaning to the name “Lin Ze Xu Way.” It means Lin Ze Xu Street.

19 http://bbs.fujianese.com/viewthread.php?tid=3427 accessed September 25, 2005. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 257

It also means Lin Zexu’s way to combat drugs in a determined spirit (Qiaobao 29.6.05).

The Lin Ze Xu Foundation has a pronounced political affinity with the PRC. It supports the one-China policy and stresses that its major mission at the present time is “anti-independence to facilitate unification.”20 It also actively pulls together the Fujianese associations to negotiate with the American mainstream. This foundation is well-integrated with its hometown associations. Its director performs all these roles. On 8 August 2005, Scott Stringer, presidential candidate of Manhattan Borough, paid a visit to the Fukien American Association seeking its support in the borough presidential election. Chen Qingquan, Chair of the Fukien American Association, told Stringer that the population of new Fujianese immigrants was increasing by 100,000 per year. Steve Wong, who was accompanying the Chair of the Fukien American Asso- ciation, cited the famous words of former U.S. president Kennedy: “Don’t ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”21 In this meeting, Wong nevertheless asked Stringer not to forget to do something substantial for the medical care, health and education in Chinatown if Stringer was elected. The air quality of Manhattan Chinatown was severely affected by the 9/11 terrorist attack. The residents of the Fujianese community on the East Side were especially threatened by long-term lung-related diseases. Whether they are the leaders of the old Cantonese community or the new Fujianese community, they know how to make a case for their community needs when requesting the political mainstream to return a favor. They earn for themselves more political capital through their interactions with American mainstream society. Our impression that the renaming of Lin Ze Xu Way was warmly received by all is largely derived from the Chinese and American official reports. Chi- natownBUG offers the viewpoint of an ordinary Fuzhou migrant as follows:

It has been circulated since last year that East Broadway in New York will be renamed “Fuzhou Street.” It has made numerous Fujianese excited and full of expectations because it means recognition of the Fujianese immigrant community by society. It also symbolizes the achievement of new Fujianese immigrants in New York. But unexpectedly we have gone from “Fuzhou Street” to “Lin Ze Xu Way.” No matter how things operate behind the scene, the change has made a vast difference in meaning for the Fujianese immigrant community. Does it wel- come it? Or does it deplore it? That can be read clearly from the apathy of East

20 http://bbs.fujianese.com/viewthread.php?tid=687 accessed August 12, 2005. 21 http://bbs.fujianese.com/viewthread.php?tid=678 accessed August 12, 2005. 258 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Broadway residents toward this renaming. If it were renamed “Fuzhou Street,” the happy ones would be those innumerable people instead of the handful of Chinese community leaders.

Ken echoed, “Agree!!!” But on 16 August newcomer Fuzhouren argued, “Don’t you know that it is easy to criticize but difficult to attain an objective?” Mr. Gao appreciated their community leaders had a difficult task. Their hometown was labeled as a source of illegal immigrants. They thus felt it necessary not to draw attention to their local identity and instead bring out the positive, viz. Lin Zexu. Gao then comforted ChinatownBUG:

Lin Zexu is a Fujian Chinese and is one of the most distinguished historical figures in China. In American society which is humanism oriented, Lin Ze Xu Way is more acceptable than Fuzhou Street to mainstream society. It is too difficult to name a street with a place name. Far from recognition by American mainstream society, the locality name of Fujian or Fuzhou only makes Americans headachy. As such, only when there appears on American land the place name, “Fujian” or “Fuzhou,” will the Fujianese be truly recognized, gain a firm foothold in American society, and be credited as representatives of the Chinese overseas community. Fujian or Fuzhou Chinese are still not completely accepted by mainstream society. Although some city council persons or politicians have come to raise funds and “pull relations” for a vote, all of them are just making an appearance. Everybody knows it.

New Fujianese immigrants were hoping that East Broadway would be renamed as Fuzhou Street because it meant recognition by American mainstream society. Lin Zexu is considered a Chinese national hero. Fuzhou Chinese themselves wanted to be equal to other major immigrant communities in United States society overall. Gao ended with a word of encouragement to even those who disagreed with the renaming:

In order to be recognized universally and realistically instead of individually and historically, current Fujianese migrants in the U.S. still need to work twelve times harder on this American land. ChinatownBUG hopes to see a street with the name of “Fuzhou” displayed prominently on this American land. We can understand such a sentiment. I hence support it!!! In the same way, Lin Zexu is a distinguished Fujian Chinese historical figure world renowned for his anti-drug spirit. We are also proud of him. Similarly, we are also proud of Steven Wong, Chairman of the Lin Zexu Foundation, for being the first person to courageously put up a statue of Lin Zexu in New York.

Fujianese.com members thus conducted a discourse on culture to demonstrate that Chinese fellowship is formed by a “traditional differential mode of association.” The locality identification of Fuzhou migrants is strong as can be Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 259 seen from the traditional kinship rhetoric and rituals embedded in online Chinese overseas communities. Netizens celebrate their ethnic culture and express their Chinese identification with home, hometown and homeland in their virtual social world. This cultural affinity and sense of identity may be translated as their worldview and affective attachment to their family, community and nation. In traditional Chinese society, one’s association categories are relative to the intimacy/distance with one’s ego, like a series of concentric rings extending from the center to the periphery with “self” at the center, sur- rounded by family, then community, and finally nation. An individual’s immigration history influences his/her perceptions of this Lin Ze Xu Way. For the American-born Chinese who are emotionally and intellectually attached to traditional Chinese culture, the fact that New York City has named a street after a Chinese hero22 like Lin Zexu is another story: this national hero of 19th-century China is not so familiar to them. Con- trarily, Zeng Zhe (曾喆) who sacrificed his life to save New Yorkers during 9/11 was someone more related to their daily life. Their discussions over the BBS of “China the Beautiful,”23 show their puzzlement over Lin Ze Xu Way. Alfred wrote on 8 July 2005:

“I’m wondering how the (ordinary) New Yorkers manage to pronounce this street name . . .” to which Aolung replied: I don’t know. My guess is they will shorten it to just ‘Lin Way’. The original street name of ‘East Broadway’ is confusing also, as most people [would] think of ‘Broadway’ which is on the other side of the city.

SL Lee followed up with the discussion:

There is another street named after a Chinese American, Zeng Zhe, who saved lot [sic] of people during 9/11. He gave up his life and his body was never found. This street is also in Chinatown.

Just as the website “China the Beautiful” exhibited a variety of members’ perceptions of Chinese history and culture, Eric Ng and Steven Wong were, respectively, mindful of the historical significance of Confucius and Lin Zexu. The Lin Ze Xu Foundation demonstrated its zest in hosting a photographic exhibition between 30 June and 2 July 2007 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China. A celebration was held at Lin Ze Xu

22 http://www.chinapage.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2006&sid=6b35e218c6ed . . . accessed November 12, 2007. 23 http://www.chinapage.org accessed November 12, 2007. 260 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Square where the Chinese Consul in New York made an opening speech.24 On 30 June 2007, Mr. Ng of the CCBA participated in a “Walk for Health” event hosted by the New York Downtown Hospital to raise funds for its “Chinese Community Partnership for Health Program.”25 It was also the time for a group of Cantonese American children to graduate from the New York Chinese School, equipped with the knowledge of Chinese culture and the virtues of Confucius. Yet, new Fujianese community leaders are not ordinarily at variance with old Cantonese community leaders. The two groups get along. Although they celebrate different Chinese national holidays, they respect each other as peer clans and hometown-based organizations. Fuzhou migrants performed their Chineseness in their different traditional modes of association. In Manhattan Chinatown, they support their Fujianese community and hometown associations. They hope that more government funding will come to them for community enhancement such as the archway project. Their ambivalence toward Lin Ze Xu Way reveals an affinity for hometown over homeland. This dialect group keeps its distinct locality identification. The statues of Confucius and Lin Zexu may still embody a discourse of Chinese state and political rhetoric. But to both the old Cantonese and the new Fujianese immigrants, what matters most is the cultural implications of these architectural works. Fuzhounese immigrants share with their Cantonese counterparts much traditional Chinese cultural beliefs and practices.

Conclusion

A hometown association as a kinship and clan-based organization filled with collective memories is of utmost importance for new immigrants whose chain migration depends on clan associations, hometown connections and personal relations. The dialect grouping and hometown association as a framework of organization still matter to new Fuzhou migrants in New York, bearing out the insight of Maurice Freedman (1960) and Lawrence Crissman (1967). The Internet has not reduced the significance of this social orientation of Chinese overseas held since the 19th century. Our analysis of online discourse shows that the competition and conflict between different dialect groups do exist in the contemporary world. The webscape mirrors the debate between the

24 http://www.chinaqw.com.cn/hqhr/stzx-bmz/200705/31/74493.shtml accessed September 25, 2007. 25 http://ccbanyc.org/photo200609/070630%20NYDH.html accessed October 29, 2007. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 261

well-established and the new migrants. The nature of their contention does not differ much from that of their early counterparts fighting for social and economic resources centuries ago. For the new immigrants from the Fuzhou region, friendship and kinship are intertwined. The Fuzhou area consists of numerous lineage-villages such as the Two Lius Village of Fuzhou County, the Zhang Village, and the Zheng Village of Houyu Township. To the members of friendship associations and clan/hometown associations, their social networking peers are either village relatives or friends. This largely explains why a website dedicated to hometown identification is more likely to appeal to the Fuzhou migrants than to new immigrants from other regions of China. It serves as a social support mechanism for a peer group. Throughout the Internet age since the 1990s, people have surfed the Internet only to learn that the Fuzhou migrants are associated with an illegal emigrant source. This silent group aspired to change from a position of “other’s description” to “self-representation.” Fujianese.com tries to update the development of this speech group and elevate its social profile on the Internet. Its members have lent support to their hometown associations to promote the Chinese Archway project which keeps alive their hometown memory and engages them in community participation in Manhattan Chinatown. Fuzhou residents saw the Visitor Information Kiosk in a very different way from their Cantonese counterparts. They were afraid of being excluded from LMDC and 9/11 funding due to the monopoly of the CCBA and AAFE. They mapped in their mindset a Chinatown divided into various locality/ dialect groups: the old Cantonese immigrants on Canal Street and Mott Street, the new Fujianese immigrants on East Broadway, the old-timers dominating the socio-economic resources and the newcomers who were marginalized. If East Broadway had a symbolic meaning for the Fujianese immigrants, it would be one loaded with a local and cultural identity. That explains why they preferred having it renamed by the City government in 2005 as “Fuzhou Street” rather than “Lin Ze Xu Way” which they felt carried more patriotism than emotional attachment to hometown. Psychologically Fuzhou migrants took double standards in treating the same honored subject of Lin Zexu over the issue of Lin Square and Lin Ze Xu Way. A discourse of Chinese state and a discourse of Chinese culture compete to shape the everyday life of the new immigrants. These economic migrants assess the sensitivity of the subjects in applying their normative rules and pragmatic rules (Bailey 2002: 94) accordingly. In the 1990s, Fuzhou migrants were the beneficiaries of the legacy of their national hero Lin Zexu. But they also showed a practical orientation to their strong sub-ethnic sentiments. When they gradually gained their increasing politico-economic strength in the early 262 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

21st century, they thought about their “pilot project” of identity construction. They once had a dream to build a Chinese archway in East Broadway by taking advantage of the 9/11 funding and hopefully East Broadway could be renamed “Fuzhou Street.” Fujianese.com perfectly mirrored their social development and formative identities in the era of Chinatown restoration.

Appendix. Publications of New Fuzhou Immigrant Organizations in New York

Fukien American Association Inc. (美東福建同鄉會). 2002. Fukien American 60th Anniversary Special Edition: 1942-2002 美東福建同鄉會 60 週年(1942-2002) 紀念特刊. ——. 2005. Fukien American Association 60-63 Anniversary Edition. 美國福建同鄉會 60-63 周年. United Fujianese Association of American (美國福建公所). 2003. United Fujianese Association of America 13th Anniversary Special Edition 旅美華裔聯誼懇親大會曁美國福建公所十三周年 (1990-2003) 慶典. Chang Le American Association, Inc. (美國長樂公會). 1998. The First Issue of Chang Le Amer- ican Association 長樂公會創刊號. ——. 2004. Chang Le American Association 6th Anniversary Special Edition 美國長樂公會六週年會慶特刊. Fukien Hoyu Village American Association (美國福建猴嶼聯誼會). 2002. Fukien Hoyu Amer- ican Association 17th Anniversary Special Edition 1986-2002 美國福建猴嶼聯誼會慶祝十七週年會慶專輯. Hou Yu American Association (美國猴嶼華僑聯誼會). 2005. Houyu American Association 20th Anniversary Special Edition since 1985 美國福建猴嶼華僑聯誼會成立二十週年紀念特刊. American Chang Le First High School Inc. (美國長樂一中校友會). 2001. Chang Le First High School Association, U.S.A. since 2000.9.10 美國長樂一中校友會會刊.

Author’s Note

As of June 2012, Fujianese.com has been temporarily unavailable. Quite possibly the domain owner who also ran a computer shop in Manhattan Chinatown intended to leave the shop and sell his site as well. He could not work against the gentrification policy of the New York City government: in recent years Manhattan Chinatown is becoming gentrified with more and more high-rise and high-end condos being built in this community. This has the effect of push- ing small businesses and low-income families into an economic and housing crisis. Gradually these contributing members of the community are being dis- placed from their own neighborhood. Between 2004 and 2007 the author carried out ethnographical fieldwork and visited the domain owner personally in September 2007; she also made casual visits to the website in September 2011. Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264 263

References

Asia Society. 2002. “Chinatown after September 11.” Asia Today, April 17, 2002. Also available at http://asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=77995. Bailey, F. G. 2002. “Stratagems and Spoils.” In The Anthropology of Politics: A Reader in Ethnog- raphy, Theory and Critique. Joan Vincent, ed. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 90-95. Chan, Brenda. 2005. “Imagining the Homeland: The Internet and Diasporic Discourse of Nationalism.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 29(4): 336-68. ——. 2006. “Virtual Communities and Chinese National Identity.” Journal of Chinese Overseas 2(1): 1-32. Chen, Claire. 2004. “Fujianese.com Praised for Raising Community Profile.” World Journal Dec. 29, 2004, translated by Belinda Zhao. See also http://www.indypressny.org/article.php3? ArticleID=1844. Chen, David W. 1997. “Chinatown’s Fujianese Get a Statue.” New York Times, Nov. 20, 1997. Chu, Julie Y. 2010. Cosmologies of Credit: Transnational Mobility and the Politics of Destination in China. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Chu, Shu-ju, Ann and Wei-an Chang. 2012. “Internet and the Fellowship Association of Fuzhou Migrants in New York: A Case Study of Miss Internet and Hometown Memory.” Journal of Cyber Culture and Information Society 21(2011): 32-51. Cooper, Michael. 1996. “Chinatown; New Mission for Lin Ze Xu, Hero of Old.” New York Times, June 2, 1996. Crissman, Lawrence W. 1967. “The Segmentary Structure of Urban Overseas Chinese Com- munities.” Man 2(2): 185-204. Freedman, Maurice. 1960. “Immigrants and Associations: Chinese in Nineteenth-Century Sin- gapore.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 3(1): 25-48. Guest, Kenneth J. 2003. God in Chinatown: Religion and Survival in New York’s Evolving Immi- grant Community. New York: New York University Press. Hall, Stuart. 1987. “Minimal Selves.” In Identity: The Real Me. Lisa Appignanesi, ed. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts. Document 6, pp. 25-72. ——. 1996. “Who Needs Identity?” In Stuart Hall and Paul Du Gay, eds., Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications, pp. 3-17. Kozinets, Robert V. 2010. Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Lai, Him Mark. 2004. Becoming Chinese American: A History of Communities and Institutions. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Lozada, Eriberto P. 1998. “A Hakka Community in Cyberspace: Diasporic Ethnicity and the Internet.” In Perspectives on Anthropological Research and Teaching. Sidney C. H. Cheung, ed. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, pp. 149-82. Mak, Lau-Fong. 1995. The Dynamics of Chinese Dialect Groups in Early Malaya. Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies. Ng, Wing Chung. 1992. “Urban Chinese Social Organization: Some Unexplored Aspects in Huiguan Development in Singapore, 1900-1941.” Modern Asian Studies 26(3): 469-94. Nyiri, Pal. 2001. “Expatriating Is Patriotic? The Discourse on ‘New Migrants’ in the People’s Republic of China and Identity Construction among Recent Migrants from the PRC.” Jour- nal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(4): 635-53. Parker, David and Miri Song. 2009. “New Ethnicities and the Internet: Belonging and the Negotiation of Difference in Multicultural Britain.”Cultural Studies 23(4): 583-606. Santos, Goncalo D. 2008. “On ‘Same-year Siblings’ in Rural South China.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14: 535-53. 264 Ann Shu-ju Chiu / Journal of Chinese Overseas 8 (2012) 232-264

Schmitt, Kelly L., Shoshana Dayanim, and Stacey Matthias. 2008. “Personal Homepage Con- struction as an Expression of Social Development.” Developmental Psychology 44(2): 496-506. Shu, Yuan. 2003. “Reimagining the Communities: Information Technology and Web-based Chinese Language Networks in North America.” In Asian America.Net: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Cyberspace. Rachel C. Lee and Sau-ling Cynthia Wong, eds. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 139-57. Sun, Wanning. 2002. Leaving China: Media, Migration, and Transnational Imagination. Lan- ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ——. 2005. “Media and the Chinese Diaspora: Community, Consumption, and Transnational Imagination.” Journal of Chinese Overseas 1(1): 65-86. Tu, Wei-ming. 1994. “Cultural China: The Periphery as the Center.” InThe Living Tree: the Changing Meaning of Being Chinese Today. Wei-ming Tu, ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer- sity Press, pp. 1-34. Wells, William D. and Qimei Chen. 1999. “Melodies and Counterpoints: American Thanksgiv- ing and the Chinese Moon Festival.” Advances in Consumer Research 26: 555-61. Wilson, Dale. 2006. “Fuzhou Flower Shops of East Broadway: ‘Heat and Noise’ and the Fash- ioning of New Traditions.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32(2): 291-308. Wise, Jeff. 1997. “Chinatown Enshrines Communist Hero, With a Little Help from Mayor Rudy.” The New York Observer, Dec. 14, 1997. Also available at http://www.observer.com/ node/39980. Wong, Bernard P. 1979. A Chinese American Community: Ethnicity and Survival Strategies. Singapore: Chopmen Enterprises. ——. 1988. Patronage, Brokerage, Entrepreneurship and the Chinese Community of New York. New York: AMS Press. Wu, Wei. 1999. “Cyberspace and Cultural Diversity — A Case Study of Cybercommunity of Chinese Students in the United States.” In Civic Discourse: Intercultural, International and Global Media. Michael H. Prosser and K.S. Sitaram, eds. Stamford, Conn.: Ablex Publishing, pp. 75-89. Yang, Guobin. 2003. “The Internet and the Rise of a Transnational Chinese Cultural Sphere.” Media, Culture & Society 25(4): 469-90. Zhao, Xiojian. 2008. “The Spirit of Changle: Constructing a Chinese Regional Identity in New York.” In Chinese Americans and the Politics of Race and Culture. Sucheng Chan and Madeline Y. Hsu, eds. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 219-45. Zhou, Min. 1992. Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ——. 2009. Contemporary Chinese America: Immigration, Ethnicity, and Community Transforma- tion. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Zhou, Yongming. 1999. Anti-drug Crusades in Twentieth-century China: Nationalism, History, and State Building. Lanham, M.D.: Rowman & Littlefield.