Vietnamese American Experiences of White Supremacy in New Orleans

Disasters, Settlements and the Homeland: Vietnamese American Experiences of White Supremacy in New Orleans

Hoang Vu Nguyen

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto

Disasters, Settlements and the Homeland: Vietnamese American Experiences of White Supremacy in New Orleans

Hoang Vu Nguyen

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Anthropology University of Toronto

2017

Abstract

Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans became well-known as “a community with miracles” after

Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Arriving in the United States after the Vietnam War (1975), these

Vietnamese refugees learned to adapt to life in Louisiana. After more than 35 years living in the country of settlement, Vietnamese Americans have developed experiences of living with African

Americans, the majority population in New Orleans. By engaging in the discussion of the white supremacy ideology, the dissertation points out that Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans are not only victims of both overt and covert racial discriminatory acts, but they are also complicit in it.

While they suffer from the minority status in American society, they buy into the racial hierarchy of white supremacy that denigrates low-income African Americans. From the analysis of not only their everyday life experiences but also the aftermath of disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and

BP Oil spill in 2010, the dissertation shows the politics of race in New Orleans as well as in the

United States. Vietnamese Americans’ conformity to white supremacy also confirms that the

United States has not been color-blind.

The last chapter displays the linkages of the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans with their home villages in Vietnam as well as the government of Vietnam. Engaging in a global perspective in which the nation-state has tried to embrace its overseas population as an essential part of the country, the chapter examines the effectiveness of the deterritorialization policy of the

Vietnamese government on Vietnamese Americans. It also shows that while the deterritorialization policy failed to achieve its missions, it unexpectedly became a key factor that renewed the diasporic dimension of Vietnamese Americans. In addition, when fighting against the intrusion of the communist agenda into their diasporic community, Vietnamese American community leaders strategically employed the freedom in American politics to legalize and implement their local anticommunist agenda. In this process, while the diasporic moments were reinforced, the white supremacy remained intact.

iii

Acknowledgements

The completion of my PhD study at the University of Toronto would not have been possible without generous financial support from the Harvard-Yenching Institute, the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto, the Center for the Study of the United States, the Munk School of Global Affairs, and the University of Toronto’s Doctoral Completion Award.

The field research based on which the dissertation was written owes much to the people of New Orleans, Ba Ria-Vung Tau and Binh Thuan whose lives have been affected by the Vietnam War and its long-term effects. Without their strong support and trust, I would not have been able to build rapport, participate in activities and collect information on the research localities. In New Orleans, Father Nguyen The Vien provided an introduction to the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans East by connecting me to his networks in the community, especially the Mary Queen of Vietnam-Community Development Corporation. I am also indebted to friends who work for the MQVN-CDC. This was the site where I worked at everyday as a volunteer interpreter and from which I learnt much about American society. My life in New Orleans was saturated by daily activities with Bibo, Tap, Tien, Khai, Dat, Tinh and Mai. Father Nguyen Van Nghiem opened the gate for me to learn about Vietnamese American Catholic traditions in the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church. His support also allowed me to participate in the church’s activities as a local parishioner. The Trung Duong choir of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church embraced me as a member every weekend. I also thank Mr. Quan Huynh and Mr. John Nguyen for their full support of the project and their willingness to help me to extend my social network for fieldwork.

My warmest thanks also go to people in Ba Ria-Vung Tau and Binh Thuan provinces who shared their houses with me and to people who provided me with their knowledge of their communities. The hospitality and trust of Mr. Cuong’s family and Mrs. Huong’s family made me feel at home all the time.

I would like to extend my deep gratitude to my core committee for their unceasing encouragement and support during my study. Professor Hy Luong, my supervisor, guided me iv

through the steps of academic advancement. His instruction on advanced anthropological theories helped to position my research in contemporary theoretical trends. Without his criticisms and strict deadlines, I would not have been able to finish the writing process. Professor Bonnie McElhinny helped me to enter the debate on the politics of race in the United States by offering courses on immigration, settlement and diaspora. Her comments and suggestions on my previous drafts helped me to engage my research with scholarly debates on these issues. Professor Nhung Tuyet Tran trained me in religious studies and in the analyses of multiple discourses of Vietnamese Americans. More than that, I also thank Professor Tran for her continuous attempts in connecting me and my research with other international scholars.

I would like to thank the defense committee members who helped situate my research in broader research issues. While Professor Hilary Cunningham showed me some deeper dynamics within the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans East, Professor Lisa Yoneyama helped connect my research with other Asian American studies. Special thanks to Professor Louis- Jacques Dorais, Université Laval, the external appraiser of my defense committee. His constructive criticisms and questions helped me to see some gaps and inspired me to further develop my analysis on the concept of diaspora.

As a Vietnamese citizen, I would not have been able to conduct research in the United States had I not been able to secure the institutional support provided by Professor Allison Truitt and the Department of Anthropology at Tulane University. Moreover, through occasional discussions with Professor Truitt, I gained a lot of insights from a person who was both local and scholarly. Elsewhere, I have always received support from Professor Oscar Salemink, my master’s degree supervisor, and Professor Hue-Tam Ho Tai. I am especially grateful that they recognized the importance of the research topic and trusted my research ability when I applied for a doctoral scholarship.

In Vietnam, my research institute, the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology, and the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences have strongly supported my study throughout this enduring process. I am fortunate to get support from Professor Do Hoai Nam, Professor Nguyen Xuan Thang, Professor Nguyen Quang Thuan, Professor Vo Khanh Vinh and Professor Pham Van Duc at the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences. The paperwork and introductory letters were issued

without delay and helped me keep focus on my studies. I would like extend my deep gratitude to Professor Vo Quang Trong, Dr. Luu Hung, Professor Nguyen Duy Thieu, Professor Pham Van Duong, Dr. Vi Van An, Dr. Vo Thi Thuong and all staff members of the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology who always encouraged and followed me throughout the completion of my study. In the Personnel Department of the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, I would like to thank Dr. Pham Minh Phuc for his support and understanding of the length of my doctoral program.

My personal life during this process would have been boring had I not had my friends and colleagues in Toronto, New Orleans and Hanoi. Antoine Nouvet, Duc Huynh, Petar Lachkov, Martin Degand, Hoang D. Nguyen and Hasan Raboui have made my life in the Graduate House more lively and enjoyable. I also thank TranSaigon Co. Ltd. and its staff for giving me a pleasant part-time work experience in Toronto.

Lastly, but most importantly, the completion of my dissertation brings joy and happiness to my extended family at 2 Tran Hung Dao, Hanoi. My parents, aunts, uncles, younger brother and cousins have been undoubtedly patient throughout my seven years of study. While my mother consistently fulfilled any financial request from me, my father and my two cousins, Dr. Chi Huyen Truong and Dr. Hien Kim Nguyen, have been my academic colleagues since the beginning of my career. The intellectual exchanges with them helped me overcome the impasses during the Ph.D. program. Finally, I thank my wife for her strong endurance and trust during the time I studied abroad.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vii List of Tables viii List of Figures viii List of Appendices viii Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. Theoretical Approaches 1 1.3. Methodology 21 1.4. Organization of the Dissertation 33 Chapter 2. New Orleans and the Arrival of Vietnamese Americans 35 2.1. A Brief History of New Orleans 35 2.2. The Arrivals of the Vietnamese 42 2.3. Demography of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans 58 2.4. Within the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans 66 2.5. Conclusion 76 Chapter 3. Vietnamese Americans in a Racialized New Orleans 77 3.1. Everyday Racism 78 3.2. Political Power of the Minority? The Case of Mr. Cao 113 3.3. Conclusion 122 Chapter 4. Hurricane Katrina: Disaster for many, Opportunity for others 124 4.1. Hurricane Katrina 125 4.2. Return and Recovery 132 4.3. Politics of the Landfill in New Orleans East 150 4.4. Conclusion 159 Chapter 5. “Tôi câu cá nên tôi tồn tại” [I fish, therefore I am], BP Oil Spill Disaster 162 5.1. BP Oil Spill 162 5.2. Responses to the Oil Spill 172 5.3. In Search of Fairness 178 5.4. Old Practices Make New Values 191 5.5. Conclusion 202 Chapter 6. Side Effects of the De-territorialisation Policy: Politics of the Homeland 204 6.1. Maintaining Long-Distance Relations 204 6.2. Opposing De-territorialisation Policy 225 6.3. Conclusion 245 Chapter 7. Conclusion 248 Bibliography 259 vii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Common Features of a Diaspora suggested by Robin Cohen 10 Table 2.1 Census of New Orleans in 1806 39 Table 2.2 Federal Census of New Orleans in 1820 39 Table 2.3 Population in Village de l’Est, New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1990 42 Table 2.4 Racial Proportions of the Population in Louisiana in 2010 60 Table 2.5 Racial Proportions by Administrative Parishes in 2010 61 Table 4.1 Mortgage Status of Homeowners in Village de l’Est in 2000 and 145 2010 Table 4.2 Population by Race in Village de l’Est in 2000 and 2010 147 Table 5.1 Figures of Licensed Individuals and Vessels 165 Table 5.2 Commercial fishing landing statistics of Louisiana (2009-2011) 165 Table 6.1 Statistics of Registered Foreign Visitors, Overseas Vietnamese to 233 Phuoc Tinh commune, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Map of Louisiana in the United States 36 Figure 2.2 Map of New Orleans in Louisiana 41 Figure 2.3 Map of Locations from which Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai people 45 migrated in 1954-1955 Figure 2.4 Map of three Vietnamese American Catholic Churches in New 52 Orleans Metropolitan Area Figure 2.5 Map of the Congressional District 2 of Louisiana in 2010 59 Figure 2.6 Map of Village de l’Est Neighbourhood in New Orleans 65 Figure 4.1 BP Oil Spill Community Power Map 192

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 List of Abbreviations 269 Appendix 2 List of Vietnamese Terms 269

viii

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Background

The Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans were known to the American media after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as one of the earliest groups to return to the devastated city. After the fall of Saigon in April 1975, the first wave of Vietnamese refugees arrived in New Orleans in the late 1975 under the sponsorship of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. From nearly 1,000 people of the first wave, the population of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans’ metropolitan area had grown to about 15,000 before Hurricane Katrina. Compared to the city’s population, the Vietnamese Americans contributed less than five percent of the city’s population (343,829), of which, 60.1 percent was Black American and 32.9 percent was White American (U.S Census 2010).1 Studying the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans after 35 years settling down in the city, my dissertation not only aims at documenting the experiences of different generations of Vietnamese Americans in the racialized society of the United States, but it also describes the transnational relationship with the homeland in Vietnam. While the racial issues in the everyday life of Vietnamese Americans are discussed in line with the theoretical framework of racial discrimination, white supremacy and the model minority myth, the transnational relationship is analyzed in relation to the scholarly debate on de-territorialisation and diaspora. These frameworks will help us see Vietnamese Americans not only within the settlement society of the United States but also beyond territorial boundaries.

1.2. Theoretical Approaches

1.2.1. Race and White Supremacy

In American society, immigrant groups may be seen and positioned within the racial hierarchy shaped by the white supremacy ideology. These immigrant groups are racialized according to the categories defined by the white supremacy system. Under the white supremacy system, racial

1 Throughout the dissertation, I will use “Black Americans” to refer to African Americans; and “White Americans” to refer to Caucasian Americans. It is because one of the focuses is on the racial privileges of different races. Using the binary terms of “Black-White” will help readers focus on white privileges rather than places of origin. 1 groups other than whites are considered subordinate to the whites. The history of white supremacy can be dated since the beginning of the United States in the sixteenth century when Europeans set foot on the American continent. Colonialization conquered the land of American Indians and imported thousands of enslaved Africans to the New World. With the colonial power at hand, European settlers set up a system that assured the privileged position of White people. In this system, the concept of race is constructed to rationalize the white supremacy ideology. From the end of the Civil War until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, the white supremacy system shifted from using the means of violence or coercion, such as slavery and genocide, to the power of legislation that legalized the privilege position of whites and created a legal system supporting racial discrimination against non-white people. During this period, people of color suffered from overt discriminatory acts in public places, education institutions and housing segregation. As the dissertation focuses on the Vietnamese Americans who arrived after 1975, it pays attention to the literature on race and racism in the post-civil rights era.

After the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while many people believed that this was an end of racial discrimination, scholars have proved that people of color continued to experience new types of discrimination. An approach to the studies of contemporary racial discrimination is called “color- blind racism” by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (Bonilla-Silva 2001). Many Americans believe that racism is a set of ideas or beliefs that produces and reproduces individuals’ prejudice, and develops attitudes toward an entire group of people. These prejudiced attitudes may induce individuals of the dominant race to have racial discrimination against racial minorities. Calling this perspective “the idealist view”, Bonilla-Silva argues that this view simplifies the study of racism and reduces it mostly to psychology. He instead provides a materialist interpretation of racism rooted in a substantial different reward in racialized societies. Bonilla-Silva points out that “actors in superordinate positions (dominant race) develop a set of social practices and an ideology to maintain the advantages they receive based on their racial classification, that is, they develop a structure to reproduce their systemic advantages. Therefore, the foundation of racism is not the ideas that individuals may have about others, but the social edifice erected over racial inequality. Eliminate racial inequality and the practices that maintain it and racism and even the division of people into racial categories will disappear” (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 22). According to Bonilla-Silva, the white supremacy system has shifted from overt discrimination to covert 2 discrimination, meaning that instead of using overt means such as laws and practices that discriminate against people of color, post-civil rights discriminatory acts against people of color have been subtle and difficult to recognize. Racial inequality has never ceased to exist and white supremacy continues to haunt American society. Comparing the racial structure of the Jim Crow period with the current situation in the United States, Bonilla-Silva argues that “the persistent inequality experienced by Blacks and other racial minorities in the US today is due to the continued albeit changed existence of a racial structure” (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 48). He summarizes that as opposed to race relations in the Jim Crow period, racial inequality in contemporary America are (1) reproduced by increasingly covert ways, (2) embedded in normal operations of institutions, (3) void of direct racial terminology, and (4) invisible to most whites.

Bonilla-Silva asserts that although color-blindness sounds progressive, “its theme, style, and storylines are used to explain and justify racial inequality” (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 79). According to Bonilla-Silva, Whites appear “not racist” because they support equality, fairness, and meritocracy as abstract principles while denying the existence of systematic discrimination and disregarding the enormous and multifarious implications of the massive existing racial inequality. Eventually, “the political beauty of color blindness as an ideology is that it allows Whites to state their racial views as if they were principled, even moral positions” (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 80).

In a companion volume to White Supremacy & Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era (2001), Bonilla-Silva in Racism without Racists (2010) introduces four central frames of color-blind racism, namely, abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimization of racism. He argues that these frames are central to the views of Whites and serve them as “an interpretive matrix from where to extract arguments to explain a host of racial issues” (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 47). According to the author, these frames help Whites to have “seemingly non-racial way of stating their racial views without appearing irrational or rabidly racist” (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 48). Calling this time “color-blind era”, Bonilla-Silva proves that racism has been more subtle and sophisticated compared to the Jim Crow era. While Whites claim to be color-blind, their real practice shows their almost totally White pattern of social interaction such as living in white neighbourhoods, associating primarily with Whites, choosing Whites as their mates. Bonilla- Silva argues that “the contradiction between their professed life philosophy and their real

3 practice in life is not perceived by whites as such because they do not interpret their hypersegregation and isolation from minorities as a racial outcome” (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 263). Not only analyzing the views of Whites, Bonilla-Silva also presents Blacks’ view on racial discrimination. It is interesting that the work points out while Blacks believe discrimination is real and central in shaping their life chances and that government must intervene in a number of areas to guarantee equality among the races, they are still influenced by many of the frames of color blindness, directly and indirectly. He underscores the large indirect effect of the frames of color blindness on Blacks and how this blunts the oppositional character of their perspectives on racial matters (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 264).

A weakness of Bonilla-Silva in this work is that he only focuses on the relationship between Black and White Americans regarding the new racist form. Indeed, he admits this gap, a gap that with the current data he cannot resolve. However, he proposes a preliminary answer to the question of the relationship among White-Black and other minorities in the U.S as follows. The Black-White continuum continues to be the main theme for the development of the dominant racial ideology. The practice of the new “racism” affects all minorities, but the “race effect” seems to vary by the degree of closeness to “whiteness” of the group in question. Other minority groups may find their “ranking” in the new racial hierarchy in America: Asians have views that are closer to those of Whites, Latinos’ views are less like those of Whites, and Blacks are furthest from Whites’ views. Bonilla-Silva concludes: “Therefore, because of the aforementioned trends, I believe Whites are already making important distinctions among the various racial minorities; that such distinctions have objective, subjective, and social interactional consequences for minorities themselves; and that the degree of “color blindness” among minorities correlates with their position in this new, more complex racial stratification order” (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 266).

Despite his articulated arguments on color-blind racism, it is not the only recent approach to study the white supremacy system in the Unites States. Moreover, many cases of hate crimes have been reported by the media for the recent decades, such as the killing of Vincent Chin in a Detroit bar in 1982 (Tuan 1998: 43) and the case of police brutality of Rodney King in California in 1991 or the most recent case of police brutality of Alton Sterling in April 2016 in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana.2 Other approaches to study the white supremacy system are discussed by many scholars such as Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994), Claire Jean Kim (1999), and Andrea Smith (2006, 2010). Omi and Winant’s work, built on the racial formation perspective, suggests that race is a phenomenon whose meaning is contested throughout social life. Through the racialization process, the racial meaning is extended to previously unclassified relationships, social practices, or groups… Bonilla-Silva commented that in the racial formation perspective, “race should be regarded as an organizing principle of social relationships that, at the micro level, shapes the identity of individual actors and, at the macro level, shapes all spheres of social life” (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 30). While Omi and Winant paid attention to the “racial state” to explain the factor of cohesion of any racial order, Claire Jean Kim (1999) mapped the racial positions of Whites, Blacks and Asian Americans on two axes, inferior-superior and foreigner- insider, of the racial triangulation perspective. This perspective suggests that Blacks are considered to have insider status compared to the perpetual foreigner status of Asian Americans. However, they are seen as inferior to Asian Americans. Above all, the racial triangulation perspective helps to explain how White racial power can continue to thrive in the United States. Kim shared with Omi and Winant that subordinated groups continued contesting imposed meanings through political struggle. She commented: “Racialization is clearly a reflexive as well as externally imposed process” (Kim 1999: 129). Therefore, the racial triangulation perspective is proposed to serve future research on racial resistance by both Asian Americans and Blacks as it suggests a framework to analyse how groups of color contend with white racial structure of opportunities, constraints, and possibilities.

While the scholarly work discussed above pays attention to the Black-White binary and the racial triangulation among Whites, Blacks and Asian Americans, they missed taking into account the position of Native peoples in the United States and the role of colonialism on the analysis of white supremacy. Andrea Smith (2006, 2010) suggests the three primary logics of white supremacy in the United States. The first pillar of white supremacy is the logic of slavery, the anchor of capitalism. The second one is the logic of genocide, the anchor of colonialism; and the third pillar is the logic of orientalism, which considers Asian Americans a constant threat to the wellbeing of empire. These three pillars are based on three distinct racial groups of Blacks,

2 http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/07/baton_rouge_police_brutality.html 5 indigenous peoples and Asian Americans. Smith argues that these groups’ survival strategies and resistance to white supremacy are built by the white supremacy system itself. That is because: “What keeps us trapped within our particular pillars of white supremacy is that we are seduced by the prospect of being able to participate in the other pillars” (Smith 2010: 2-3). To make her point, Smith shows that all non-Native peoples are promised the ability to settle colonized indigenous lands; all non-Black peoples are promised to have a higher position than Blacks in the racial hierarchy; and Black and Native peoples are promised that they will have better economic and political positions if they join “US wars to spread ‘democracy’” (Smith 2006: 69). Smith suggests that in this model organizing around shared victimhood, people are not only victims of white supremacy, but complicit in it as well (Smith 2010: 2). In other words, what keeps people of colour trapped within the pillars of white supremacy is that they are “seduced by the prospect of being able to participate in the other pillars”. (Smith 2010: 3). Therefore, Smith suggests that “analysing white supremacy in any context may benefit from not presuming a single logic but assessing how it might be operating through multiple logics” (Smith 2010: 3).

To maintain the white supremacy system, American society has developed the myth of the model minority to rationalize the subordinate position of Blacks. The following section will introduce how the model minority myth plays its role.

The Myth of the Model Minority

Model minority is a theoretical perspective developed since the 1960s to describe the success of Asian Americans, especially Japanese Americans. It is considered a response to the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s as Black Americans fought for equal rights and the discontinuation of racial segregation. By portraying that other minority groups such as Asian Americans could success in the United States, White America argues that instead of blaming the structure, Black Americans should focus on education and conforming to the system to raise up their communities. Therefore, through the lens of the white supremacy ideology, model minority seems to be a rational reason for other minority groups to accept the supremacy position of Whites. However, by considering a group as a model minority, it also causes racial hostility and discrimination between them and other people of colour. Moreover, it is possible to fall in the

6 trap of not seeing the painful and racial mistreatments that members of the group face in everyday life.

In her work, Mia Tuan looks at Asian American population in California and argues that “not only is racism still an issue haunting middle-class Asian ethnics, the particular strand that plagues them also involves xenophobic elements that play up the notion of being foreign. Their class status has done little to validate their authenticity as long time Americans in the eyes of the public” (Tuan 1999: 154). Moreover, Tuan points out that Asian ethnics are not obsessed with figuring out how their racialized ethnic identities play out in their daily lives. For the most part, they do not ponder daily over what it means to be Asian-American, Chinese-American, or Japanese-Americans; most keep busy with the demands of work and family. Consistently enough, however, our respondents are reminded of their conditional status in this society and that financial success does not guarantee social acceptability.” (Tuan 1999: 155)

Chou and Feagin point out that this model imagery may appear to be a compliment, but such stereotyping is oppressive and damaging. The damage is multilayered: (1) the model minority stereotype is used to insult other people of color, and as a measuring yardstick to accent their inferiority for not attaining high educational or career achievements; (2) the stereotype is another method by which Whites reinforce racial othering and differentiate themselves from people of color; (3) on a personal level, the stereotyping creates stressful and unrealistic expectations, self- and externally imposed, that Asian Americans should succeed in fitting the stereotype or be deemed failures; and (4) the model stereotype creates unrealistic expectations within, and outside, Asian American communities that negatively impact all Asian Americans (Chou & Feagin 2008: 139).

Similar to Mia Tuan, Chou and Feagin also shed light on how this stereotyping misses the discriminatory character of many U.S. institutions. The authors conclude that “being viewed individually or collectively as a ‘model minority’ does not save them from racial hostility and discrimination” (Chou & Feagin 2008: 215). While White Americans often cite Asian Americans as an example of “solution minority”, a successful minority group that helps to back white supremacy, and to serve as a model for other minorities to follow, Asian Americans often face racial hostility and discrimination from a wide range of Whites, from different ages, genders and

7 classes. It happens in every social setting, from schools, workplaces, public places, and at various degrees, from overt, subtle to covert acts.

Although both of the work of Mia Tuan (1998) and Chou and Feagin (2008) capture the hardship of Asian Americans in everyday life, they both view Asian Americans as a victim of the racial hostility and discrimination. They only see how Asian Americans suffer from being labelled “model minority” and from White Americans’ discrimination. However, the question of how Asian Americans perceive themselves in relation with other minority groups has not been addressed adequately. Indeed, if there are Asian Americans who fulfill the expectations of a model minority, the model minority position may have effects upon how these Asian Americans perceive other minority groups. Do they really conform to the White American ideology and act as if they are honorary Whites to other people of color?

These questions are relevant to the case of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans because the city’s population has a majority of Black Americans. If Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have been successful, how do they perceive Black Americans in the city? Do they suffer from racial hostility and discrimination? If yes, who makes them suffer? Moreover, the question of how Vietnamese Americans fit in the white supremacy ideology will also be discussed to depict a picture of New Orleans from the angle of Vietnamese Americans dwellers.

Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans are not situated outside of the racial hierarchy system in the United States. They have also experienced all kinds of racial mistreatments in everyday life. Since they arrived after the Civil Rights Movement, their experiences of racial discrimination include both overt and covert discriminatory acts. My dissertation follows Bonilla-Silva to uncover the particular social, economic, political, and ideological mechanisms responsible for the reproduction of racial privilege in U.S. society (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 9). Nevertheless, not limiting the data within the binary system of Blacks and Whites, my dissertation also takes into account the relationship between Black Americans and Vietnamese Americans. It tries to depict the process in which the racial ideology of Vietnamese Americans is reproduced in the daily activities in the Black-dominated city of New Orleans.

Moreover, being categorized into Asian Americans, how Vietnamese Americans have suffered from the model minority myth will also be discussed in chapters three, four and five. The

8 ethnographic materials in these chapters point out that Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans are organized around shared victimhood. However, Vietnamese Americans are not only victims of white supremacy, but they are also complicit in it. This argument will be based on Andrea Smith’s logic of slavery in which Vietnamese Americans are seduced to participate in the discourse against Black Americans. While Vietnamese Americans suffer from a minority status and daily racial stereotyping acts, they are proud of their economic success over Black Americans. Although there have been attempts of Vietnamese American leaders to challenge the model minority myth, they are individual attempts of very few intellectuals rather than a collective ideology. Toward the end, the model minority myth still haunts the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans, and they are trapped within the white supremacy ideology. The dissertation will also engage in the discussion with scholars on the model minority such as Mia Tuan (1999), Frank Wu (2002) and Rosalind Chou and Joe Feagin (2008). However, instead of analysing the relationship between Asian Americans and White Americans, my research focuses on the relationship between Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans. The switch of the focused pair will contribute to the literature that analyses the impact of the model minority myth on the relationship between these two racial minority groups.

1.2.2. Diaspora and Ethnicity

Vietnamese Americans have been seen as a part of the Vietnamese diaspora as it fits some features of a diaspora suggested by scholars such as Gabriel Sheffer (1986) and William Safran (1991). The concept of diaspora was originally used in theology or the study of religion to refer to either the Bible or to non-biblical cases of a dispersed people or group linked together by their religion (Dufoix, 2008). Until the mid-1980s, scholars used the word “diaspora” when referring to four groups of people: Jews, people of African origin, Palestinians, and Chinese. In 1986, Sheffer provided a new definition of modern diasporas as “ethnic minority groups of migrant origins residing and acting in host countries but maintaining strong sentimental and material links with their countries of origin – their homeland” (Sheffer 1986: 3). In 1991, in the first issue of the journal Diaspora, Safran (1991) proposed that “diaspora” referred to communities who had several of the six following characteristics: their or their ancestors’ dispersion from a “center” to at least two peripheral foreign regions; persistence of a collective memory concerning the homeland; conviction that their acceptance by the host society is impossible; maintenance of

9 an often idealized homeland as a place of return; belief in a collective duty to engage in the perpetuation, restoration, or security of the country of origin; and maintenance of individual or collective relations with the country of origin. This article has served as the basis for a further direction of the concept of diaspora. Robin Cohen (1997) modified Safran’s six characteristics of a diaspora by adding four more features and amending the first and the sixth characteristic.

Table 1.1. Common features of a diaspora suggested by Robin Cohen

1. Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions; 2. Alternatively, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions; 3. A collective memory and myth about the homeland, including its location, history and achievements; 4. An idealisation of the putative ancestral home and a collective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its creation; 5. The development of a return movement that gains collective approbation; 6. A strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time and based on a sense of distinctiveness, a common history and the belief in a common fate; 7. A troubled relationship with host societies, suggesting a lack of acceptance at the least or the possibility that another calamity might befall the group; 8. A sense of empathy and solidarity with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement; and 9. The possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with a tolerance for pluralism.

Robin Cohen (1997: 26)

In addition, Cohen also typologizes different diasporas into victim-, imperial-, trade-, cultural-, and labour diasporas according to their most important characteristics. Stephanie Dufoix considers Cohen’s approach, and emphasizes “a point of departure and maintenance of an identity in spite of dispersion, postmodern thought instead gives pride of place to paradoxical identity, the non-center, and hybridity” (Dufoix 2008: 24). Dufoix comments that this postmodern thought is an alternative and potentially productive way of approaching how to define a diaspora. Instead of providing a strict definition of a diaspora, Vertovec argues that it is equally important to examine diasporic phenomena’s structure (their historical conditions) and

10 agency (how social actors produce meanings and practices). By that, Vertovec provides three meanings of diasporas, that is, a social form, a type of consciousness and a mode of cultural production. According to him, these meanings assist mixed ethnicities and identities that enable people outside some place of origin to reconstruct and reproduce themselves (Vertovec 1997: 277). Sharing a perspective with Vertovec, while Khachig Tölölyan recognizes that a collective memory of an immigrant community is a fundamental element of their identity and that they maintain an ethnic boundary by regulating who may or may not belong to the community, he also points out the possibility of immigrant communities to waver between a diasporic group and an ethnic group (Tölölyan 1996). According to Tölölyan, although both groups may have symbolic and behavioral boundaries that help to preserve a collective identity, a diasporic group’s commitment to “maintain connections with its homeland and its kin communities in other states is absent, weak, at best intermittent, and manifested by individuals rather than the community as a whole” (Tölölyan 1996: 16).

Engaging in postmodern thought, Stuart Hall’s idea on diaspora stresses the recognition of a necessary heterogeneity and diversity. Hall considers cultural identity a “production” that is “never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation” (Hall 1990: 222). Using this approach to examine cultural presences of Africa, Europe, and America (the “New World”) in Caribbean cultures, Hall points out that “diaspora identities are those which are constantly producing and reproducing themselves anew, through transformation and difference” (Hall 1990: 235). In company with Hall, Paul Gilroy’s exemplary work, The Black Atlantic (1993), introduces a break between modern forms of diaspora and the new forms in which the plural status is recognized. The ‘diasporic idea’, in this sense, allows one to leave behind the simplistic view of certain oppositions (continuity/rupture, center/periphery), and move on to grasp the complex view of the joint presence of the Same and the Other, the local and the global – “the changing same” (Gilroy 1994: 211). In general, both Hall and Gilroy (1994) emphasize the constantly constitutive aspect of diasporic culture; it requires the researcher not only to recognize a necessary heterogeneity and diversity, but also to study the constantly transformative concept of homeland. As Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson have argued, dispersed people use memories of place, especially their homelands, to construct imaginatively their new lived world” (Gupta & Ferguson 1992: 11).

The literature on Vietnamese diaspora include the development of the concept of diaspora. Beginning with the ethnographic work on the dispersal and settlement of Vietnamese refugees after the fall of Saigon in 1975, these scholarly publications describe the adaptation process and change of identity of Vietnamese American refugees (Freeman 1989, 1995). Vietnamese refugees in other Western countries are also well-studied, such as Vietnamese exiles in Quebec city by Louis-Jacques Dorais, Lise Pilon-Lê, and Nguyễn Huy (1987), Parisian Vietnamese by Gisèle L. Bousquet (1991). Dorais et al. point out that the majority of the population viewed themselves as an ethnic group with a shared history and common origins. While some managed to integrate economically into the Canadian job market, many of them tried to re-establish traditional culture within the host country. Bousquet also has a similar finding in the sense that Vietnamese in Paris confined themselves in homeland politics rather than participating in the local politics of the adopted country. As these work involve studies at the early stage of settlement of the refugees in the host countries, they seem to fit in the strict definition of a formation of a Vietnamese diaspora. However, recent studies argue for the necessity to reconsider the stability of the diaspora. Dorais argues that as time went by “Vietnamese refugee communities transformed themselves into ethnic collectivities, which tried to become an integral-but unassimilated-part of mainstream Canadian, American, Australian, or European society” (Dorais 2001: 23). In a recent work, Dorais follows James Clifford and Khachig Tölöyan in approaching the study of Vietnamese in Canada and the United States. By arguing that there exists no ideal model regarding how a diaspora should be, Clifford pays attention to the historical moments and social/cultural dimension in the experiences of groups of migrants. He writes: “[a] shared, ongoing history of displacement, suffering, adaptation, or resistance may be as important as the projection of a specific origin” (Clifford 1994: 306). Following this approach of not defining the Vietnamese diaspora, Dorais investigates the constant changes of diasporic moments in the Vietnamese community in Quebec with a comparison with Vietnamese Americans in California. Documenting the greater integration of Vietnamese immigrants into Canadian mainstream society, Dorais points out the loss of diasporic moments and dimensions in the community (Dorais 2010: 101). In the meantime, he also shows that the population of Vietnamese in California has maintained the diasporic moments and dimensions because of the nature of the population who used to participate in the American involvement of Vietnam, and because the United States has to carry on its role as the champion of liberty (Dorais 2010: 102).

These historical circumstances help Vietnamese Americans to sustain the anti-communist sentiment. Therefore, although the overseas Vietnamese may not form a “diaspora” in the strict sense of the term, the collective memories of uprooting and dispossession have come out through diasporic moments. My research also finds it productive to scrutinize diasporic dimensions of the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans instead of looking for a definition for a Vietnamese diaspora. By observing daily life activities as well as the ones in the church and community- based organizations, my fieldwork materials reveal how diasporic dimensions of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have been sustained. And to what extent have these dimensions contributed to the sustainability of the community?

In his article in 2010, Dorais also argues that diasporic communities might be able to turn around their relation to their country of origin. His analysis of the Vietnamese in California reveals that instead of deploring forever the loss of the motherland, Vietnamese Californians consider Vietnamese American places to be a kind of free Vietnam with its role to reshape the homeland according to a Western-inspired democratic model. Hence, they could “become themselves social, political, and even cultural models for their nonmigrant compatriots” (Dorais 2010: 123). Similarly, my research analyses how by engaging in both local and national politics, Vietnamese American elites in New Orleans aimed to transform Vietnam through the power of the country of settlement. How they managed to do it will be explored in the cases of Congressman Cao and the Resolution to stop trading with Vietnam of the New Orleans City Council.

In dealing with the relationship between dispersed populations and their homelands, Dufoix introduces the concept of referent-origin that is helpful to understand the structuring of collective experiences abroad. The framework consists of four ideal types. The Centroperipheral mode is used to examine the institutional organization of a national community in a host country, for example embassy, cultural centers. The Enclave mode, based on shared identity rather than formal link of nationality, refers to the activities of local organization of a community within a host country. The Atopic mode indicates a way of being in the world between states that is built around a common origin, ethnicity, or religion that does not reduce individuals to being subjects of a host country. The Antagonistic mode is a transstate mode indicating a political space formed by groups that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the current regime in their country of origin, or who consider the country to be under foreign occupation (Dufoix 2008: 62-63). These four

13 structuring modes are useful for my research as it suggests me to identify the subjects that play key roles in maintaining the relationship between Vietnamese Americans and their homeland. The Centroperipheral mode helps to see how the Vietnamese government tries to approach overseas Vietnamese as well as encourages them to overcome the past and to invest in the nation-building project in Vietnam. Besides, the responses and perceptions of Vietnamese Americans to these nation-building policies will also be revealed. The Enclave mode helps to see how local organizations of Vietnamese Americans contribute to maintaining social ties with people who share their identity. I will explore the importance of places such as local markets, Catholic churches, Buddhist temples, and other local-based organizations in people’s daily life. The Atopic mode sheds light on the trans-state interactions between Vietnamese Americans and their referent-origin in Vietnam without having a physical territory. I will examine the transnational connections between Vietnamese New Orleanders and their relatives, original villages, and the Catholic Church in Vietnam. Finally, the Antagonistic mode illustrates the activities and perceptions of Vietnamese Americans who do not recognize the legitimacy of the communist government in Vietnam. This mode can be seen through their activities and programs run in local areas to oppose the Vietnamese government and its policies.

The relationship between the dispersed people and the host country is also an important dimension. Diasporic populations are often considered as minorities in settlement societies. Hence, James Clifford points out that “while there is a range of acceptance and alienation associated with ethnic and class variations, the masses of these new arrivals are kept in subordinate positions by established structures of racial exclusion” (Clifford 1994: 331). He considers that the diasporic language is used to replace or supplement minority discourse. Sharing with Clifford, Vertovec also recognizes a type of social consciousness of diasporic groups experiencing social exclusion or racial discrimination in settlement societies. He argues that diaspora consciousness is “the source of resistance through engagement with, and consequent visibility in, public space” (Vertovec 1997: 283). As discussed in the section on race, Vietnamese Americans were situated in the racialization process upon their arrival. Have Vietnamese Americans relied on diasporic consciousness to resist U.S. racial hierarchy? How have other groups from Southeast Asia responded to the racial structure in the United States? The most similar group to Vietnamese refugees was Cambodian refugees who arrived in the United States after the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge in 1979. Aihwa Ong points out that 14

Cambodians were stigmatized and put into a racial and economic underclass in the United States. However, as they passed the early phase of dealing with vulnerabilities in a fluid, low-wage economy, Cambodian Americans participated in the formation of ethnic labor structures that challenged the traditional image of Asians as victims in the labour market (Ong 2003). It is likely that Cambodian Americans do not need to rely on the language of diaspora to challenge the dominant ideology. For the case of Vietnamese Americans, Yen-Le Espiritu comments that “despite the profusion of text and talk on the Vietnam War in Vietnamese Studies, I contend that the field has yet to critically engage the war as an important historical and discursive site of Vietnamese subject formation and of the shaping and articulation of U.S. nationhood” (Espiritu 2006: 420-421). Indeed, recent Vietnamese American studies, such as Karin Aguilar-San Juan (2009) and Allison Truitt (2015), have continued to recognize the diasporic aspect in the everyday life of Vietnamese Americans. While Aguilar-San Juan argues that the place-making process of Vietnamese Americans in Little Saigon and Fields Corners helps to provide a shield against white racism, a racial safety zone, for Vietnamese Americans, Truitt points out a diasporic dimension in an annual ceremony of Buddhist pagodas that helps to bring back collective memories of the lost homeland. My research will join Aguilar-San Juan and Truitt in exploring how the diasporic language plays a role in minority discourse. Caroline Brettell points out that studies of transnationalism and diaspora “challenge unidirectional theories of assimilation, add agency and fluidity to the process of adaptation, and reinforce the theory that ethnicity is culturally constructed” (Brettell 2008: 131). My research will accordingly examine the interplay between the diasporic culture of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans and U.S. racial constructions.

Another issue that I would like to discuss is the diaspora in the eye of the second generation. Levitt and Jaworsky point out that “transnational activities will not be central to the lives of most of the second or third generation, and they will not participate with the same frequency and intensity as their parents” (Levitt & Jaworsky 2007: 134). However, given the daily interactions between parents and children, the second generation of Vietnamese Americans may be influenced by the memories of the war, political sentiments and cultural values, I will need to examine the process of generational transmission of war memory and the second generation’s struggle between “honouring the survivors’ memory and constructing their own relation to this

15 legacy” (Espiritu 2008: 424). How do the understandings of the war time and the daily-life practice help to shape the view of the second generation toward Vietnam and the United States?

1.2.3. De-territorialisation and Transnationalism

Since the 1990s, global perspectives have been introduced by several scholars such as Arjun Appadurai (1996), Linda Basch et al. (1994), Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (1999). While these perspectives are differentiated, a common point is that an ethnic group should no longer be studied within the bounded nation-state. The authors point out the necessity to analyze a phenomenon through the lenses of globalization, de-territorialisation, and transnationalism. Due to massive emigration and immigration all over the world, citizens of a nation-state can live in another country but still not be outside of the nation-state (Kearney 1995). This fact has exerted an impact on scholarly studies, requiring social scientists to formulate new perspectives on newly created transnational ties. In this sense, although people, culture, places, and nation-states remain the main subjects of recent studies, they are analyzed from a transnational point of view.

Using a global perspective, Glick Schiller et al. not only highlight the multiplicity of migrants’ involvements in both the home and the settlement society, but also question the bounded conceptualizations of race, class, ethnicity and nationalism that have been existing in social science and popular thinking (Schiller, Basch & Blanc-Szanton 1992). Basch et al. define “transnationalism as the processes by which immigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement” (Basch et al. 1994: 7). Different from a diasporic group, transnational immigrants voluntarily leave their home country and are not restrained by the myth of return. Their relationship with the home country is not antagonistic. Pursuing this perspective to describe the nation-building processes of Grenadian, Haitian, and Filipino immigrants in the United States, Basch et al. point out the significant influence of these immigrants on their countries of origin. Moreover, the authors also illustrate how the national leaders in their home countries have articulated the national discourses that claim their overseas citizens as inseparable parts of the nation-states. In other words, the various national leaders were actively engaged in nation building projects that extend the national hegemony beyond national boundaries. Other studies that utilize a transnational perspective include Nina Glick Schiller and Georges Fouron (2001)’s ethnography of the phenomenon of

16 long-distance nationalism through the experience of a Haitian in the United States; Yen-Le Espiritu (2003)’s study of Filipino Americans living across cultures and countries; Martin Manalansan IV (2003)’s Global Divas on global and transnational dimensions of gay identity among Filipino immigrants in New York and Kira Kosnick (2007)’s Migrant Media illustrating the efforts of Turk immigrants in Berlin in making themselves present in Berlin media. On the one hand, these studies affirm the intensification of border-crossing activities of transnational migrants in the globalizing world. On the other hand, they do not deny the significance of the nation-state’s borders. Instead, these transnational studies point out how nation-states reconfigure themselves to maintain the links between citizens and states across the national borders (Levitt & Jaworsky 2007).

Since the 1990s when global perspectives began to influence the social sciences, studies of overseas Vietnamese also incorporate the transnational perspective: for example, the studies of Australian Vietnamese exiles and their notions of return by Mandy Thomas (1997), Ashley Carruthers (2001); and recently studies of return migration (Koh 2015), and on remittance-gift economies (Small 2012). Studies of overseas Vietnamese have not been confined within the legacy of post-Vietnam War. But they have extended to other themes such as labour and transnational capital, transnational marriages, and policing. While Vietnamese migrant workers in the United States and Eastern Europe have caught the attention of scholars such as Tran Ngoc Angie (2003) and Christina Schwenkel (2015), transnational marriages have been documented by Hung Cam Thai (2008).

For my dissertation, since my research population is the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans who left Vietnam due to the northern communists’ taking over South Vietnam, the theoretical perspectives of the dissertation are influenced by the literature on post-war phenomena. Therefore, although I do not restrict my analysis to the antagonism between the current Vietnamese government and overseas Vietnamese, the ethnographic materials have driven me to highlight not only the transnational connections between overseas Vietnamese and their relatives in Vietnam, but also the constant anti-communism agenda among Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans. In this sense, the global perspective of Basch et al. provides a suitable framework to understand my studied population. The dissertation employs this perspective to analyze the deterritorialisation policy of the Vietnamese government toward the overseas Vietnamese,

17 particularly Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans. However, my dissertation recognizes that although the perspective on deterritorialised nation-states offered by Basch and Glick-Schiller has been useful to theorize how the nation-state has adjusted to transnational processes, this approach is challenged by a wide gap between the communist government of Vietnam and post- refugee Vietnamese New Orleanders. As Ashley Carruthers points out in his dissertation on Vietnamese Australians, the idea of deterritorialised nation-state is “particularly inappropriate in the case of the Vietnamese diaspora, where the legitimacy of the contemporary nation-state is so contested” (Carruthers 2001: 262), I also observed the difficulties of the government of Vietnam when implementing this policy in the United States. In addition, not limiting my data to the population in New Orleans, I went further to study the implementation of the policy at local levels in Vietnam. Drawing on my three-month fieldwork in the hometowns of a majority of the Vietnamese in New Orleans, the dissertation analyses the impact of the Vietnamese deterritorialisation policy in both Vietnam and the United States.

Different from Priscilla Koh’s work in which she focused merely on the return of the second generation of overseas Vietnamese in Ho Chi Minh City (Koh 2011), the largest city of Vietnam, my ethnographic materials were partially collected in two small towns in the South of Vietnam: Phuoc Tinh commune in Ba Ria-Vung Tau province and Thanh Hai commune in Phan Thiet city. The differences in location and populations lead to significantly different findings. Koh argues for the inconsistency and limited policies of the Vietnamese government toward the Vietnamese returnees. She also highlights the sense of ambivalence of returnees when they engage in the life in Vietnam. One of her outstanding arguments is that overseas Vietnamese are considered Vietnamese when it suits the government and remain foreigners when it does not (Koh 2011: 279). The deterritorialisation policy seems not to have much effects on small towns such as Phuoc Tinh commune and Thanh Hai commune. In fact, each of these communes once had an association in charge of overseas Vietnamese. However, the activities of these associations have been frozen due to the lack of interest among the returnees as well as their relatives at home. The reasons of why it has been so and how it has affected the implementation of the government’s policy will be discussed in detail toward the end of the dissertation.

Meanwhile, my dissertation also examines how the deterritorialisation policy has been implemented in the diasporic community. Moreover, I also find it interesting to see the

18 interaction between diasporan activists in New Orleans and the government of Vietnam on this issue. Unlike Vietnamese population in Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, Vietnamese Americans, particularly in this case Vietnamese New Orleanders, have seen the deterriorialisation policy as a threat to the stability of the diasporic community. This notion is similar to Carruthers’ idea when he argues that “[D]iaspora culture that has been deterritorialised by homeland affiliation” (Carruthers 2001). For my own research, I witnessed several contesting arguments among the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans on homeland issues. The conflicting ideas within the Vietnamese Americans community in New Orleans do not merely show multiple internal conflicts within a diaspora. In addition, rather than seeing the tensions as the threats to the diasporic community, I suggest that they indicate how the diaspora has redefined and adjusted their positions and strategies in reaction to the intention of the communist Vietnam. In order to analyze these transnational events, my dissertation employs the global perspective to study the triangular relationship between Vietnamese Americans, the settlement society and the homeland.

1.2.4. Homeland and the Myth of Return

When engaging in the discourses of transnationalism and diaspora, the concept of homeland emerges as one of the keys to understand the self-identification of the dispersed population. The analytical literature distinguishes two kinds of homeland images: an imaginary of the homeland and a real image of the homeland. While the former is often seen in most of dispersed populations in diasporas, the latter is made by transmigrants and people of diaspora who have overcome the politics of return in the diaspora. In 1980, George Gmelch pointed out a tendency for the coming decades of repatriation of emigrants (Gmelch 1980). The literature on return migration of the next generations is also in parallel with Gmelch’s point (Conway & Potter 2009). However, the studies of diasporas question the notion of return. Safran points out the myth of return for diasporas when stating that “although a homeland may exist, it is not a welcoming place with which they can identify politically, ideologically, or socially; or because it would be too inconvenient and disruptive, if not traumatic to leave the diaspora” (Safran 1991: 91). For Safran, the value of homeland is located in the myth of return as it “serves to solidify ethnic consciousness and solidarity when religions can no longer do so, when the cohesiveness of the local community is loosened, and when the family is threatened with disintegration”

(Safran 1991: 91). For the majority of overseas Vietnamese in the western countries who were dispersed at the end of the Vietnam War, returning to the home country that is under control of the unwanted government is undesirable. Scholars such as Dorais (2001, 2010) and Truitt (2015) describe the collective anti-communist and traumatic sentiments of Vietnamese Americans. Even with the population that has transformed themselves to become an integral part of mainstream Canada, diasporic moments could still recur in community events. By taking Safran’s approach to study Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans, my research aims to explore how the imagery of homeland may help to solidify the diasporic consciousness and solidarity.

Pricilla Koh’s research points out that the first and 1.5 generations of ethnic Vietnamese were restrained by the public matter of the diasporic community when making return decisions. However, she points out that the return of her respondents has been influenced mainly by their personal and pragmatic reasons that overcome exile politics and parental scepticism. According to Koh, the return of the second generation to Vietnam has demonstrated that “the nostalgic affiliation or connection people feel towards places and communities is not predicated on ‘ethnic origins’ alone. Rather, it is their intimate knowledge and experience of a place, culture, personal and family history in that particular setting, that have a greater bearing on an individual’s identification with and sense of connection to a culture and place” (Koh 2011: 285). Not buying into Koh’s perspective, my research will point out how the second generation of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have been influenced by their parents’ and community’s sentiment on the imaginary of Vietnam. Together with their adopted American values of democracy, the second generation of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans seem to share with their parents the anti-communist sentiment.

Another issue that bears on the notion of homeland is the connection between people of the diaspora and their relatives at home. The literature on this issue has paid attention to the practice of sending remittances from the diaspora. Mandy Thomas (1997) and Ivan Small (2012) have made extensive studies on the cultural meanings of remittances. As in many other studies, the authors re-affirm the significant role of remittances among extended family members. More importantly, they point out the different meanings for the senders and the receivers of remittances. While Thomas points out the way in which overseas Vietnamese feel compelled to represent themselves to their families back home as materially successful, Small takes into

20 account the imaginative desire of the remittance recipients to participate in the remittance- sending flows as senders (Small 2012). My research also explores the practice of remittances between Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans and their hometowns. While Ivan Small only explores the recent practice of remittances, my research goes further into the pre-Doi Moi (before the Renovation in 1986) period in the two original hometowns of the majority of Vietnamese in New Orleans. It not only explores the meanings of remittances but also points out how Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans and their relatives in the homeland have sustained the long-distance relationship. These findings will shed light on the transnational linkages not only between family members but also between the exiles and their spiritual/religious places at home.

By locating my research in two countries, I can examine the ongoing debate in the diaspora on the practice of remittances. While this practice began a long time ago, after the Vietnamese refugees resettled in the country of settlement, it has been challenged by the exile mass media which argue that sending home money would help to prolong the communist regime. Drawing together the ethnographic materials in both Vietnam and the United States, my research points out a number of contradictions among the Vietnamese in the diaspora on this issue. A striking point is the distinction between the homeland and the current regime at home. While some respondents argue for their responsibilities to help the poor relatives at home, others suggest that strategies against the Vietnamese communist regime should not be confused with assisting the people of the homeland. With the approaches adopted from the literature review, I will now move to the introduction of the fieldsites and research methods.

1.3. Methodology

1.3.1. Fieldsites

The majority of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans live in two concentrated locations: one is located in New Orleans East and the other is in the West Bank of the Mississippi. Although I did not restrict my research to the East side, I stayed in Versailles village, or Village de L’Est, in New Orleans East, and travelled back and forth to the West Bank area to conduct interviews or participant observation. By 1990, the Vietnamese population had grown to 4,600 in New Orleans

East, though some other sources state that the actual number was over 6,000 (Zhou & Bankston 1998). The population of the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East remained about 6,000 at the time of my fieldwork in 2011. In the West Bank, the population of Vietnamese Americans were about 5,000. Another phase of my research was conducted in Vietnam in two small towns: Phuoc Tinh commune in Ba Ria-Vung Tau province and Thanh Hai commune in Phan Thiet city, Binh Thuan province. These two communes are considered the hometowns of most of the first and 1.5 generations of the Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans East. Given the fact that my research questions mainly address the issues that Vietnamese New Orleanders face in the United States, I conducted field research for 11-months in New Orleans (July 2011 to January 2012, April 2012 to August 2012) and for 3 months in Vietnam (February 2012 to April 2012). The history of each locations and populations will be discussed in chapter two. In this section, I only describe the process of how I got into the fieldwork settings.

New Orleans

Although I heard some news about the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, I did not know how to approach the community and introduce myself. The only person I had met was a Vietnamese American priest of the Mary Queen of Vietnam church, Father Nguyen The Vien, who became well-known after Hurricane Katrina.3 On April 20, 2010, an explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig of British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico made the oil leak to the gulf water. This event was like a punch that pushed me into the fieldwork setting. Right after the oil spilled, local Vietnamese American fishermen were in trouble because the U.S government closed the sea gates in the coastal area of Louisiana and Mississippi. Recognizing the difficulties that the Vietnamese fishermen had to face, the Mary Queen of Viet Nam – Community Development Corporation (CDC), a non-profit organization, organized programs to provide immediate assistance to the affected people.4 Leaders of the organization worked with state agencies and BP to establish a site that provided a health consultant and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) officers.5 Besides, the

3 See more details on the impact of Hurricane Katrina in chapter 4. 4 The abbreviation of the Mary Queen of Vietnam – Community Development Corporation was MQVN CDC. However, after there was a confusion with the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church (MQVN church), the organization began to use CDC as its abbreviation. Henceforth, MQVN stands for the Church and CDC, for the Community Development Corporation. 5 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was formerly called the foodstamp program. 22

Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of New Orleans, which provided food vouchers for affected residents, also had a space at the CDC. Knowing that series of programs, and that they might be in need of volunteers, I contacted the CDC and requested a volunteer position. The day after that, I received an email stating that they welcomed me to the office and would appreciate my help. After a few email exchanges, I arrived in New Orleans in early July of 2010.

Day after day, my everyday presence at the CDC turned me from a stranger into a familiar face in the neighbourhood. I began hanging out with people and some invited me to visit their houses after one week in the field. As I did not have a car, walking on foot was the only way I could travel around Versailles in the heat of Louisiana (100 Fahrenheit degrees in day time). While suffering from the heat, I found that it created opportunities for me to meet more people as they saw me walking by their houses. They pulled me over and talked while standing outside their houses; some others invited me into their houses.

My main job as a volunteer was to register clients every morning, to help them file their SNAP applications, and to translate some documents into Vietnamese or English. I met new people every day. As I stayed, although I became familiar with almost all the CDC clients, I gradually realized that the number of people coming to the CDC was limited. Since my accent was distinguishable, people kept asking me if I just came from Vietnam. I always made it clear to everybody that I was a PhD student in anthropology at the University of Toronto, and came there to volunteer during the summer. People kept asking me if my family was rich and my parents were high-ranking officials. I had to explain again and again that I got a scholarship from the Harvard-Yenching Institute that allowed me to study at the University of Toronto. Although the explanations were made clear, I did not know whether or not local people trusted me. After this two-month preliminary fieldwork, I explored the neighbourhood of Village de l’Est and got to know a number of people, mostly the elderly and fishermen. The preliminary fieldwork in the summer of 2010 provided me an excellent entrance to the Vietnamese American village in New Orleans East.

From July 2011, when I began my dissertation fieldwork, many of the contacts built from the pilot research period became my key informants for my dissertation research. However, these contacts were too few for a dissertation research. Since 80 percent of the Vietnamese American

23 population of the neighbourhood was Catholic, I was aware that the Catholic parish must have some influence over the parishioners. By the time of my dissertation fieldwork, a new priest had been assigned to be the pastor of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church (MQVN). In order to conduct fieldwork in this Vietnamese American Catholic parish, I thought that I must seek support from the pastoral priest. Being a Vietnamese from Vietnam, I was aware of my outsider position in New Orleans. If I had conducted some interviews in the parish and a rumour had come to the pastor that a Vietcong (Vietnamese communist) was here, my research would have been in trouble; nobody would have dared to talk to me. Therefore, I decided to come and talk to the priest about myself and my research. Things turned out much easier than I thought. I came to meet the priest in the second week of my dissertation fieldwork. He seemed to be very open to me and I had an opportunity to present my research and my plan in New Orleans. Toward the end of the meeting, the priest expressed his appreciation for my work. He recognized the need to have someone to write about the community and suggested me to be careful when talking about Vietnamese politics here in New Orleans. He made it clear for me that I might face difficult situations because I was a Vietnamese from Vietnam and the elderly here were very sensitive to meeting with Vietnamese people. I thanked him and felt relieved because I passed the second entrance into the community. During the first two weeks, I was struggling with myself whether or not I should meet the priest; and what should I do if he objected to my research in his parish. However, my decision to meet the priest was the right one and it helped to open more opportunities for me to get involved in the community.

As a non-Catholic fieldworker in a Catholic parish, I felt the need to learn how to behave and how a Catholic life was. Fortunately for me, the Church organized a catechism class for newcomers, and I registered for the class. As the class aimed to provide non-Catholics the basic knowledge of Catholicism, it was perfect for my situation. Attending the class, I could not only learn about being a Catholic but also get more understanding of the organization of the community.

Everything went well with me until September 2011 when I realized that all of my interviewees were fishermen and the elderly. I started thinking about approaching other generations and different occupations. However, it was relatively difficult for me because people who were in the working age were busy in the daytime and wanted to rest and to spend time with their families in

24 the evening. I did not know how to start. Walking into a house and introducing myself for an interview were impossible because people here did not talk to strangers. There were only eight students in the catechism class and they did not come to the class as regularly as I did. Moreover, besides one young woman who had just been sponsored by her husband to the United States, the rest of the class were teenagers. Born in the United States, attending a catechism class in Vietnamese language must have been difficult to them. I tried to talk to them, but they seemed to be more interested in playing with their smartphones. It was contrary to what I had prepared before the fieldwork. The MQVN church in New Orleans was unlike other churches that I visited in Toronto or Baltimore where people came, talked and exchanged information before and after the mass. By going to church almost every day, I could understand the patterns of praying. However, it did not help me to extend my contact since people only went to church and left without much interaction with one another.

When I was reaching an impasse, the Church made an announcement in its weekly bulletin that the church choirs wanted to recruit more members and welcome everyone. The announcement was repeated for the next few weeks and caught my attention. As I was looking for a way to build my rapport in the parish, I thought that joining the church choirs might help me to engage in the parish’s activities. I decided to come and talk to one of the choirs. The MQVN church had four choirs: Bà thánh Đê (Saint Đê), Trùng Dương (the Wide and Deep Ocean), Hướng Dương (Toward the Sun), and Gloria. Each choir served one mass on Sunday. Since the main Sunday mass was at 8:00 a.m., I joined Trùng Dương choir, the first Vietnamese choir in New Orleans, established in 1978. From that point onwards, my appearance was visible at the church. I found it much more comfortable to go to church and meet people. I felt myself a community member, and I sometimes was more involved in the community’s work than other people born in New Orleans.

Vietnam

As planned in the research design, I travelled to Vietnam after seven months doing fieldwork in New Orleans. In order to conduct fieldwork in Vietnam, I had to have permission from local governments. The Vietnam Museum of Ethnology, my employer in Vietnam, provided me the paperwork to do that. I spent three months in Vietnam for the fieldwork session. Before starting

25 the fieldwork in New Orleans, through a literature review I had known that a majority of Vietnamese Americans in Versailles came from Phuoc Tinh, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province, and were originally from Northern villages in Bui Chu and Phat Diem, respectively in Nam Dinh and Ninh Binh provinces. Therefore, I chose to conduct my Vietnam fieldwork first in Phuoc Tinh commune, in Long Dien district, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province. My fieldwork in New Orleans revealed that the second majority group came from Thanh Hai commune, Phan Thiet city, and this group had also migrated from the North to the South after the Geneva Accords were signed in 1954. The second group was originally from Ba Lang, Thanh Hoa province. These two groups contributed to the majority of the first and 1.5 Vietnamese American generations in Versailles.

Studying the relationship between Vietnamese Americans and their homeland, I wanted to explore more about whether this relationship had been transnationally maintained through time. At first, I wanted to focus on one area and decided to conduct a two-month fieldwork in Phuoc Tinh commune. However, through the ethnographic materials from Phuoc Tinh, I found that it would be more interesting to see the patterns of transnational connections in both Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai communes. Therefore, I decided to stay one more month in Vietnam in order to conduct fieldwork in Thanh Hai.

I was aware that the introductory documents from the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology could only pass me through the gates of local administrative offices. In order to conduct ethnographic fieldwork, I must gain access to and the confidence of the people. The rapport built with people in New Orleans was extremely useful for me to enter both fieldwork settings in Vietnam. In both areas, I stayed in the houses of the close relatives of my key informants in New Orleans. And they all provided helpful support for my research. While a son of the house owner in Phuoc Tinh was my local key informant, the owner of the house in Phan Thiet was eager to introduce me to her acquaintances. Although I could not and did not aim to conduct a thorough/extensive fieldwork in these two areas in Vietnam, the ethnographic materials in these two areas were rich and informative for my research.

One of the ways that I prepared for the trip to Vietnam was to meet people in New Orleans and offered my help in carrying their goods to Vietnam (or back to New Orleans) for their relatives. By doing this, I could not only know whom to contact in advance but also explore the flow of

26 goods from Vietnam to New Orleans and vice versa. For the people in Vietnam, the stories about their relatives in New Orleans seemed to catch their interest.

1.3.2. Participant Observation

In New Orleans

Information from participant observation provided me with a great deal of insights and experiences as I had never lived in such a fieldwork setting before. I attended the weekly Sunday mass in the Mary Queen of Vietnam church, and observed demonstrations against the government of Vietnam, Republic of Vietnam’s flag-saluting ceremonies, as well as city hall’s meetings on issues related to Vietnamese people in New Orleans. The materials collected from participant observation covered the themes set by the research questions, that is, the religious life of Vietnamese Americans, Vietnamese American experiences in American society, and the activities related to Vietnam. Attending these local events provided me with interesting and first- hand experiences as a fieldworker from Vietnam. By participating in these events, I not only cross-checked the information obtained from interviews, but I also explored new themes and gained insights into the flow of politics within the locale. Moreover, as an outsider to the community, I also had a feeling and reflexivity of an anthropological fieldworker.

By appearing in most local events of Vietnamese Americans, I also made myself visible to local people, letting them get familiar with my presence in every event. I think the result of this method is like the two sides of a coin. While many people think that I am good because I am young and actively involved in the community’s work, other people think that I must be an undercover communist sent by the government of Vietnam in order to undermine the solidarity of the community.

In Vietnam

Since the fieldwork period in Phuoc Tinh commune and Phan Thiet commune was short, and I did not aim to have an in-depth monograph on these two communes, I chose to focus on the regular activities of the Catholic parishes and of public places such as local markets and café shops. My purpose was to sense whether these places bore relevant linkages to overseas

Vietnamese, particularly Vietnamese Americans. The chosen places for participant observation turned out to be right choices because I discovered that both of the churches were rebuilt by the remittances from overseas Vietnamese and that the café was the place for people to share the information about what happened in the commune every day. These important materials helped me to formulate field questions to ask in the interviews.

1.3.3. Interviews

In the dissertation, to protect my informants’ identities I use pseudonyms for all of the quotations except for public figures and people who provided written or oral permission for me to use their real names. Informal interviewing was used when I first met a person in any circumstance. I chose to use this method because it was easier for me to interact with that person. After introducing myself, I asked her/him to share with me her/his background. I considered the informal interviews as a way for me to exchange the information. If that person was open enough, I then proceeded to ask for an appointment for an interview. This approach was not always successful because some people while open with casual conversations felt uncomfortable with interviewing. In these circumstances, I tried to explain my research and encouraged them one more time. If they continued to say “no” to the interview request, I still thanked them and maintained the relationship as usual.

Semi-structured interviewing was mainly used after I obtained the consent from the interviewees. The interviews each lasted for about one hour to one and a half hour. Exceptionally, there were interviews that lasted for three hours when interviewees were also interested in my project. These interviewees were exile elites who longed for a communist-free Vietnam. Therefore, they wanted to provide as much information as possible in order for me to reflect on the situation in New Orleans. Most of the interviews were conducted in the interviewees’ houses because if I had conducted the interviews in café shops or restaurants around their neighbourhood, they would have been disturbed by the surrounding environment or by the presence of friends. I asked interviewees for the most convenient time and came to their houses for the interviews. By coming to their houses, I could also see their household life, locate their houses geographically in the neighbourhood, and elicit more information from the materials exhibited in the houses.

I always used the prepared interview guide for each interview. Since I used the semi-structured interview method, I flexibly focused first on the themes that kept the interview flow better. As I knew them briefly before the interview, I selected some easy-going themes in which the interviewees were interested. The starting themes could be jobs, community issues, anti- communist events. After the interview became smoother and the interviewee felt more open to share, I moved to other topics in the interview guide. This approach really helped me to break the ice and silent moments of the interview.

My research focused basically on three themes: arrivals in New Orleans, life and work in American society, and the relationship with the homeland in Vietnam. The first theme covers the information of individuals as well as the formation of the Catholic parish and other Vietnamese American associations in New Orleans. The second theme not only offers the insights on their life as Catholics in the country of settlement, but also involves information on the interactions between Vietnamese Americans and American society in workplaces, social affairs and racial issues. The third theme also provides me with information on a transnational level. While not every interviewee had traveled to Vietnam, each of them had constructed an image of Vietnam which, in turn, resulted in activities towards the country of origin. Investigating this theme helps to complete the triangular relationship of a diaspora: diasporic people, settlement society, and the homeland.

Vietnam

In the two months in Phuoc Tinh commune, I focused on the history of migration from the North to the South in 1954 as a result of Geneva Accords between the Viet Minh and the French government, life and condition during the 1954-1975 period, the crisis as a result of the end of the Vietnam war in 1975, and the contemporary triangular relationship between the Catholics in Phuoc Tinh, their overseas relatives and local authorities.6 The first interview I conducted in Phuoc Tinh was with the female owner of the house in which I stayed. She migrated from the North to the South in 1954 and remained in this commune until the time of my research. Her

6 Viet Minh is a shortened name of Việt Nam độc lập đồng minh Hội [League for the Independence of Vietnam], a political force established in 1941, aiming at seeking independence for Vietnam from the French Empire. Viet Minh led the war against the French from 1945 to 1954 and became the government of the northern region after the Geneva Accords. 29 story confirms that Phuoc Tinh was famous for the fishing industry and used to be called “the commune of millionaires”. Her family used to be a local wholesale buyer and was very successful before 1975. After the Fall of Saigon, the Northern regime took control over the means of production and forced boat owners to join the fishing co-operatives (hợp tác xã) in the period from 1976 to 1986. During such hardship time, many people fled the country and the economic situation of the commune declined (details to be provided in chapters 2 and 6).

From my interviewees in New Orleans, I traced back their relatives remaining in Phuoc Tinh. With the help from my landlord and her son, I was able to approach and to talk to most of them. Most of the people with whom I interviewed served as members of the executive board of the parish. They therefore knew clearly the history and change of Phuoc Tinh commune. Of the 30 interviews I conducted in Phuoc Tinh, most people welcomed me when I introduced myself as having come back from Versailles, New Orleans. After talking about their relatives, I asked for permission to conduct an interview about history and the relationship with their relatives abroad.

The second town in the Vietnam that I conducted fieldwork was in Thanh Hai commune in Phan Thiet city. My three-week fieldwork period in Thanh Hai parish ended with 18 interviews and a number of casual conversations. I tried to interview people on their transnational relationships. According to them, the ways to maintain family relationships between people in Vietnam and the United States became much easier than 30 years ago (in the 1980s). However, the relationship itself had become less close/intimate than in the past. Thirty-seven years had passed, most of Vietnamese Americans had sponsored their close family members to the United States, and only second cousins remained in Vietnam. People whom I interviewed often thought that the transnational relationship became less and less important. While the relationship with the religious parish in Vietnam was still maintained, most Vietnamese people thought that it could not be prolonged because the first generation were passing away and the second generation of Vietnamese Americans did not have a close relationship with people in Vietnam.

The relationship with religion was strong because what the Vietnamese American Catholics in New Orleans remembered from the past was the church. Money sent home from abroad to rebuild or to renovate their home church was visible. Besides, many cement benches bearing the names and addresses of the donors were donated to the church, and many priests also travelled

30 abroad to call for donations when necessary. In the two Catholic parishes that I visited, the money sent from abroad contributed mostly for the re-construction of the church. A person in charge of the Church in Thanh Hai told me: “while the people in Vietnam contributed labour, the overseas people contributed the money”. The transnational relationship between people in Vietnam and New Orleans will be discussed extensively in chapter six.

1.3.4. Archival Research and Text Analysis

During the fieldwork, I tried to keep a collection of local newspapers in order to analyze the discourse in the mainstream. Of the local news agencies in New Orleans, I followed the New Orleans’ Times-Picayune for local news in English, and the Free Vietnam Journal (Tạp chí Việt Nam Tự do) for Vietnamese news. I also traced back issues of the Times-Picayune for information about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath as Vietnamese people in New Orleans were seriously affected.

I also contacted the Archival Department of the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans for the materials related to the time that Archbishop Philip Hannan sponsored Vietnamese refugees from refugee camps to New Orleans in 1975-1976. However, according to the internal regulation, the information can only be released after 60 years. Therefore, I could not have many primary documents about the arrival of Vietnamese refugees in New Orleans.

In Vietnam, since the fieldwork period was so short, I did not have time to work in the National Archive. Local archival records were difficult to access because the authorities did not have that service for an individual researcher. However, I managed to obtain several annual reports on socio-economic development in both of the communes where I conducted fieldwork. In addition, the histories of the communes and of the Catholic parishes were written in the forms of brief histories of local events (kỷ yếu). These publications were also important for my analysis.

1.3.5. Research Difficulties

Regarding the terms of reference or the use of language, I was more than one time in trouble by using the contemporary terms of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV). In my pilot research in the summer of 2010, in the first meeting with my neighbours in Versailles, an old couple, who

31 had worked in a provincial security department of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), asked me about my parents. As I was thinking in a normal situation in Vietnam, I replied that “my parents worked for the government”. Immediately, I saw a change in the attitude of the husband. He said: “Alright, your parents must be in high-ranking positions, so they could send you to study abroad”. “I don’t like the way Vietnamese people call us ngụy quân, ngụy quyền”, he continued.7 And then he kept criticizing the Vietnamese government with me as if I had represented the government. As I did not prepare for such an embarrassing situation, I just kept silent and listened to his speech. Through the fieldwork, I learnt more about the terms of which the use would create the sense of communist Vietnam, and I tried not to use them when talking with Vietnamese Americans. Besides the terms above, daily-use words such as đăng ký (registration), tài trợ (sponsor/support), and hạ nghị sĩ (congressman) also bear a relation to the communist system in Vietnam. These words should be used as ghi danh (registration), bảo trợ (sponsor/support) and dân biểu (congressman). From my first meeting with neighbors in Versailles onwards, whenever asked such a question about my parents, I introduced my father as a researcher and my mother as working in the education area in Vietnam. The immediate effect was that the informant did not turn away from me, and the story stream could move on.

It was obvious that people from Vietnam were often considered related to the communist party. At the beginning of my research, I was afraid that none of them would like to talk with me, and I would not have much information. Beside the aforementioned issue with the use of terms, I also faced a problem with my Hanoian accent. Everybody recognized that I came from Hanoi only after one sentence I spoke. In one visit, an 80-year-old man sat next to his wife to control what she told me as a Hanoian guy. However, the actual fieldwork turned out completely different. I was mostly welcomed, much more than I had thought.

Another difficulty that I had to deal with was the suspicion of me being a communist spy. After I became known in the community, I heard some rumours skeptical of me from my close informants. The rumour spread in the community was that I was a son of a high ranking official in the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Central Committee and was here to break the solidarity of the community. Although I had prepared for such rumours, I was annoyed by such a make-up

7 The terms of nguỵ quân, ngụy quyền are used by the government of North Vietnam to refer to people who worked for the South Vietnamese government. They mean “puppets of the United States”. 32 story. I had no doubt that the rumours must have prevented me from approaching a few people. Later, after I got used to the rumours, in each interview, I also directly asked the interviewee about the rumours and their thoughts about me. The main answer was that there was such a rumour because people saw me actively involved in community’s activities. However, the interviewees said that as far as I did not do anything wrong to the community, they had no objection to my involvement.

In general, the entrance and the relationship with New Orleans people were good enough for me to conduct research. One of the reasons is that I obeyed the ethics protocol in keeping my profile overt and was willing to have open talk to new acquaintances. It would have been different if I had conducted a covert research because people here knew one another very well and would have spread negative rumours about a potential-communist stranger in the community.

1.4. Organization of the Dissertation

The dissertation consists of seven chapters. Chapter one introduces the objectives of the research, theoretical frameworks and the methods utilised for data collection. Chapter two presents a history of New Orleans, the arrival of Vietnamese refugees since 1975 after the end of the Vietnam War, as well as their settlement in New Orleans under the sponsorship of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Chapter three not only unpacks the concept of race and the white supremacy system in the United States, but also analyses the position of Vietnamese Americans in the U.S racial hierarchy by studying the interaction between Vietnamese Americans and other racial groups in New Orleans in everyday life. Patterns of racial prejudice between these two groups were revealed in their daily interactions. Chapter four examines the impact of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 and describes the return and recovery of residents in the city. By analysing the Vietnamese Americans’ return in parallel with that of African Americans in New Orleans East, the chapter aims at challenging the model minority myth that has haunted the relationship between these two racial groups. Moreover, the chapter also points out how Vietnamese Americans buy into the white supremacy ideology when dealing with low-income African Americans. Chapter five describes the impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 on local fishermen and other people working in the fishing industry. By focusing on how Vietnamese American fishermen perceived the compensation protocol of the British Petroleum

(BP) and the appointed claims office (the Gulf Coast Claims Facility), the chapter illustrates the imbalance of power between the people who suffered from the BP Oil spill and white supremacist institutions. Chapter seven investigates the triangular relationship between the homeland, the settlement society and the diaspora. On the one hand, it argues that the deterritorialisation policy of the government of Vietnam transcends the national boundaries between Vietnam and the United States. On the other hand, the chapter also points out the side- effects of this policy in that it not only enlarges the gap between the government of Vietnam and the Vietnamese American exiles, but also helps to solidify the diaspora. In addition, the chapter describes how the long distance relationship between Vietnamese American Catholics in New Orleans and their hometowns in Vietnam has been maintained. The dissertation ends with the concluding chapter that summarizes the findings and theoretical contributions.

Chapter 2 New Orleans and the Arrival of Vietnamese Americans

This chapter introduces New Orleans since its establishment until today. Covering the period from the French and Spanish colonisations to the Americanisation of New Orleans, the first section sheds light on the complex structure of the city. The discussion on the post-civil rights era examines the racialized context in which the Vietnamese refugees arrived after the Vietnam War in 1975. Arriving in New Orleans by different waves of exodus, Vietnamese Americans resettled mainly in two different locations in the city. The chapter then provides a glimpse into the demography of New Orleans. As the majority of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans are Catholics, the later sections of the chapter focus on the organisation of the Vietnamese American Catholic parishes and the life of their parishioners. The anti-communist sentiment among community members is also examined through the history of the community.

2.1. A Brief History of New Orleans

The land of New Orleans was formed as the delta of the Mississippi river. Before the Spanish explorers came to this area in the 1540s, the land had been inhabited by Native Americans for about 1,300 years. The Choctaws, the Chickasaws, and the Natchez Nation were among the populous American Indians in the region. Their main livelihood was hunting, fishing, gathering fruits and they had well established their agricultural land before the arrival of the colonials in the seventeenth century. The French were interested in the region from the earliest settlement of New France, but it was only on April 9, 1682, that an obsessive visionary named Robert La Salle and his Italian friend Henri de Tonti claimed the interior of North America and named it Louisiana in honor of Louis XIV (Ingersoll 1999: 4). In the late seventeenth century and the early eighteenth century, Sieur d’Iberville tried to gain control of the region by securing allies among local Indian nations and seduced down to the river other members of the Canadian gentry and some voyageurs of western Canada (Ingersoll 1999: 5). After Iberville’s death in Cuba in 1706, his younger brother, Sieur d’ Bienville, was appointed to take his position and served as a governor of the colony until 1743 when he retired to France. Under the governing of Bienville, the land was named after the Duke of Orleans, who served as Regent of the Kingdom of France

35 from 1715 to 1723. La Nouvelle-Orléans (New Orleans) was founded in 1718 and it opened a new page for the land.

Figure 2.1: Louisiana in the United States

(Source: Google Map)

2.1.1. French and Spanish Colonials (1698-1803)

Going back to 1698 when Pierre d’ Iberville, under the crown commission, established a French base at the mouth of Mississippi river, the French did not really hold the territory and were in fear of the English who would expand to the southwest toward Spain’s rich mines in Mexico. Within a few months after his settlement in the new land, Iberville made several visits to various Indian tribes, “assuring them of the French friendship and inviting them, as ‘sons of the French king,’ to become ‘one nation with the French’ ” (Johnson 1992: 31). Together with sending his persons to learn the languages and the cultures of the tribes, Iberville continued to build up friendly relations with those tribes by giving presents and trading goods. From 1717 to 1722, the colony’s population rose from 400 to over 5,400, leading to food shortage as a significant problem for the young colony. The colonists encouraged Indian allies to capture more Indian women as slaves to do the farming for the regime. In 1719, the first cargo of African slaves,

36 mostly males, arrived and provided a good number of workers for the colony. By 1722, the number of Indian female slaves was 225 (Johnson 1992: 34).

While African male slaves got married with Indian female slaves, the close association of Indians and colonists also resulted in a number of intermarriages. This practice made Bienville worried and he issued bans on marriages with Indians. The territory was divided clearly between the Indians and the French with an intention that Indians living near French settlements should be acculturated and Indians living in the interior should be protected from French intrusion (Johnson 1992: 35). However, for a decade, African slaves and Indian slaves increasingly intermarried. It caused problems for the colonists in that they had to make sure that “slaves would not again ally with Indians in revolts” (Johnson 1992: 38). Bienville and his successor, Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil, tried to do this while resolving conflicts between Indian tribes.

As to the slaves, under the regime of Bienville, the slaves received certain rights and protection in order to assimilate the African population to the community. Bienville “convincingly argues that official recognition and encouragement of such things as slave baptisms, godparenting, marriages, family units, protection for slave women against rape, and respect for slave holidays were designed to define the social rights of slaves as a group” (Johnson 1992: 40-41). St. Louis Church in New Orleans baptised 425 slaves and conducted more or less regularly sacraments to slaves. Between 1731 to the end of the French period, 330 slaves were shipped to the colony. Considering the colony “a stable slave society”, Johnson points out that the planters brought this new labour force to their plantations.

However, not many planters could afford to feed their slaves. By applying the code of slaves in the colony, they allowed the slaves to work on their own garden plots or hire themselves out for pay. They could also hunt, fish, gather fruits and sell their products in town during their day off on Sunday or other free days (Johnson 1992: 42). The slave market was kept open from the French period through the Spanish one, and after the Americans took over New Orleans in 1803, slaves still maintained their local market in the city.

After the Seven Years’ War in 1763, the Spanish took over the French territory and tried to turn New Orleans into a Spanish colony. However, Johnson points out that they never made the city become Spanish in a cultural sense due to the root of French culture throughout the city. A fact

37 that contributed to the failure of the Spanish was the influx of two major groups during their period. The first one was the refugees from the French Caribbean island of Saint Domingue, and the second group was Anglo-Americans who immigrated from British-ruled Florida and the United States (Johnson 1992: 51). During the Spanish rule, the number of free people of color increased significantly and got involved in politics. Johnson shows that the number of free Blacks increased from 165 at the end of the French period to almost 1,500 at the end of the Spanish period because of the influx of free Blacks from Saint Domingue (Johnson 1992: 52).

The increase in the number of free Blacks with their close relationship with African slaves created tensions for the Spanish colonists. The creole (French born in New Orleans) planters, who resisted the coming of the Spanish, kept making harsh treatments to their African slaves. Despite realizing that unduly harsh treatments might lead to slave revolts, the Spanish colonists could not persuade the creole planters to stop treating their slave badly. They had to keep an eye on the planters while relying on free people of color as their policing force. Many free people of color saw this as an enormous advantage not only for them but also for their brothers and relatives working in the plantations. However, in 1795, the Spanish uncovered plans for a sizable slave revolt and kept control of the situation by allying with the plantation owners and policing free people of color. In the last decade of the Spanish colonial time, free people of color suffered from the harsh policy and control until the United States purchased Louisiana in 1803.

2.1.2. Americanization of New Orleans (1803-1960s)

From 1803 onwards, the population of New Orleans increased rapidly due to waves of immigrations. While Francophones refugees from Caribbean islands were welcomed by the creole planters, American immigrants from other states found New Orleans a new destination for their careers. From 1806 to 1820 the population of New Orleans increased from 17,001 to 41,844. Strikingly, the number of free people of color and slaves was always higher than the White population.

Table 2.1. Census of New Orleans in 1806 Whites Slaves Free Blacks Males 3,530 (no information) (no information) Female 2,781 (no information) (no information) Total 6,311 (37%) 8,378 (49%) 2,312 (14%)

(Ingersoll 1999: 248)

Table 2.2. Federal Census of New Orleans in 1820 Whites Slaves Free Blacks Total Males 12,168 7,331 2,835 22,334 Female 7,569 7,615 4,326 19,510 Total 19,737 (48%) 14,946 (34%) 7,161 (18%) 41,844 (100%)

(Ingersoll 1999: 248)

From 1812 to 1815, the war between the United States and the British happened and New Orleans was chosen to be the decisive field. The battle in New Orleans lasted in 1815 even after the Treaty had been signed in December 1814. Participating in the U.S troops were not only Whites and planters but also free people of color and Native Americans. After the war, New Orleans continued to develop as a port of trading. The growth of population benefited the planter class because of more domestic demand and commercial investments (Ingersoll 1999: 249). From 1830 to 1840 New Orleans became the wealthiest city in the United States.

Opposing to President Abraham Lincoln’s idea of banning slavery in all U.S. territories, seven slave states in the South of the United States formed the Confederacy. From 1861 to 1865, New Orleans was involved in the Civil War that changed city’s fate. During the war, New Orleans was occupied by the Northern forces under General Benjamin F. Butler and the city residents suffered from his harsh policies for women and French-instructed schools. While women, especially White women, were scared of being harassed by the troops on the streets, French- instructed schools were abolished and English was the only language used in schools as well as in the government and business. The result was that many French language newspapers were discontinued and French usage faded significantly at the end of the 19th century.

After the Civil War, the slaves in New Orleans were freed as the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln in 1863. Freed from slavery, a large number of rural ex-slaves joined with the free troops of color to form the United States Colored Troops that caused violence throughout the South, especially in Memphis and New Orleans in July 1866. To resolve the riots, the U.S. Congress passed the Reconstruction Act in 1867 to extend the protection of full citizenship to freedmen and free people of color.

From 1868 to 1877, a number of violent events were organized by Whites and the Democratic Party to suppress the Black vote and run off Republican officeholders. The White League was one of the insurgent paramilitary groups that caused chaos for Louisiana. By 1876, the state legislature was under the control of the Democratic Party. The passing of Jim Crow laws established racial segregation in public facilities. Moreover, the state legislature disfranchised freedmen as well as the propertied people of color freed before the war by passing a “grandfather clause” in 1889.1 This grandfather clause resulted in reducing the eligibility of Black people to vote throughout the state of Louisiana. Unable to vote, Black Americans could not work in government offices and their political positions became low. During the Jim Crow law period (1876-1965), as in many other Southern States, Black Americans in New Orleans suffered from racial discrimination. At the same time, White Americans inhabited the high areas of the city and left the low and less natural-protected areas for the poor. While the free Black Americans who had owned houses and properties in the city were pushed out of the French Quarter, the poor had to live in the back swamp of the inland margin of the natural levee. After the city improved the pumping, levees and the drainage system in 1915, they started to settle in the Treme, or the Sixth Ward, then expanded to the Seven Ward of the city (Bullard & Wright 2009).

Blacks’ suffering from Jim Crow laws led to the emergence of the Civil Rights movements of Black Americans by the 1960s. Utilizing multiple forces, the Civil Rights Movements succeeded in gaining the federal passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These Acts restored the civil rights and the voting rights to the Black population.

1 The “grandfather clause” tied the then-current generation’s voting rights to those of their grandfathers. If his/her grandfather was eligible to vote before 1867, she/he was allowed to vote. 40

2.1.3. Modern New Orleans (Post-1960s)

Since 1965, racial segregation in public was forbidden, and the civil rights of Black Americans were protected by federal laws. However, the decades living under Jim Crow laws made the gap between the Whites and the Blacks larger not only in terms of politics but also of economics, educational attainment and many other fields. Other than that, Black Americans have also suffered from color-blind discrimination practices and a glass ceiling in professional workplaces as discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3. These barriers prevented a significant number of Black Americans from advancing into better positions in American society (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Omi & Winant 1994; Schaefer 2007). Waters and Eschbach comment: “[D]espite the gains that have been made by some middle class and working-class blacks in recent decades, there is a strong body of evidence that discrimination remains an important part of the explanation of black-white inequality” (Waters & Eschbach 1995: 428).

Figure 2.2. Map of New Orleans in Louisiana

(Source: Google Map)

In 1960, Blacks made up 32.5% and Whites, 61.8% of the population in New Orleans. In 1980, the Black population increased to 45.3%, while the White population decreased to 45.4% (Fussell 2007). It was the result of the White flight from the inner city to the newly built residential complexes in the suburb in New Orleans East and other neighbouring parishes. It left the city of New Orleans to be Black dominated.

Table 2.3. Population in Village de l’Est, New Orleans, and Louisiana, in 1990 Village de l’Est Orleans Parish Louisiana New Orleans East Total 10,607 496,938 4,219,973 Population Vietnamese (%) 43.0 1.3 0.4 Black (%) 45.8 62.1 30.8 White (%) 10.0 34.7 67.3 Other (%) 1.2 1.9 1.5

(Zhou & Bankston 1998: 80)

In 1975, New Orleans received an influx of Vietnamese refugees at the end of the Vietnam War under the sponsorship of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Most of the Vietnamese refugees were resettled in Village de l’Est neighbourhood of New Orleans East of the Orleans parish. By 1990, the Vietnamese population had grown to 4,600 out of 496,938 in the city’s population. Although this was a very small number compared to the population of the whole city, Vietnamese Americans concentrated in New Orleans East and its population was almost equal to that of Black Americans in the same neighbourhood. The next section will describe the arrivals of the Vietnamese refugees since 1975.

2.2. The Arrivals of the Vietnamese

To understand the arrival of Vietnamese Americans in the United States, one needs to look back at the history of Vietnam for more than 300 years when the French missionaries came to Vietnam. From 1624 to 1630, the Catholic missionary Alexandre de Rhodes, S.J. worked in Tonkin (northern Vietnam) and spread Catholicism in the region (Dutton 2006: 222). During his time in Vietnam, he developed the script of Vietnamese language using the Latin script. The development of Latinized Vietnamese script contributed greatly to the spread of Catholic catechism in Vietnam. From the seventeenth to the eighteenth century, the French empire kept a relationship with Vietnam through trading and diplomatic visits. In 1858, French colonials came to Vietnam and completed colonizing the territory by 1884. The development of Communism

42 from the 1920s onwards helped form the Vietminh, a political organization against the French in Vietnam. The First Indochina War between the Vietminh and the French colonials began on December 1946 and lasted until August 1, 1954, with the Geneva Accords dividing Vietnam into two parts on the 17th latitude. The North of Vietnam was in the control of the Vietminh and a general election was planned to be in 1956. However, the general election never happened because Ngo Dinh Diem, the Prime Minister of the State of Vietnam (Quốc gia Việt Nam), with the support of the United States, took over the South of Vietnam and established the Republic of Vietnam in 1955. The Vietnam War between the Northern Army (Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and the Republic of Vietnam lasted until the Northern Army took over Saigon, the capital of the Republic of Vietnam, on April 30, 1975. This launched the history of the Vietnamese refugees in the United States.

2.2.1. The 1975 Arrivals

For many Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans, the year 1975 marked another significant twist in their life. The first major change in their life was in 1954 after the Geneva Accords that divided Vietnam into two regions at the seventeenth parallel. According to the Accords, within three hundred days people were allowed to travel to whichever region they wished to live in. In the North of Vietnam, not only officials working for the French colonials migrated to the South, but also the Catholics who witnessed and experienced the hardship under Communism during the war against the French wanted to migrate to the South. Moreover, the fact that the head of the Southern regime, Ngo Dinh Diem was a Catholic was also a reason for them to migrate in order to have better living conditions. Therefore, after knowing about the Geneva Accords, the Catholics in the North of Vietnam made their own plans to travel to the South. The Northern regime, however, did not want the Catholics to migrate to the South. They used a number of ways to prevent the emigration. After a number of clashes with Northern cadres, about one million people managed to arrive in the South of Vietnam with the support of the International Control Commission (ICC) of the Accords.2 Of these successful migrants, people from the diocese of Bui Chu in Nam Dinh were eventually resettled in Phuoc Tinh commune, Long Dat district, Phuoc Tuy province.3 The people from Ba Lang parish, Tinh Gia district, Thanh Hoa

2 Members of the Commission were Canada, Poland and India. 3 Phuoc Tinh commune is currently in Long Dien district, Ba Ria-Vung Tau province. 43 province, later landed in Thanh Hai 4 commune, Phan Thiet city, Binh Thuan province. Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai were the two places that the majority of Catholics in New Orleans came from. The rest were from other areas throughout Vietnam, such as Hai Phong, Ha Noi, Hai Duong in the north, and from the South of Vietnam.

Phuoc Tinh, Phuoc Tuy province (now Ba Ria-Vung Tau province)

People from Nam Dinh arrived and established Phuoc Tinh parish on December 13, 1954. After arriving in the South of Vietnam, the migrants from the diocese of Bui Chu were resettled in Boi Loi, Tay Ninh, and Ho Nai where they could cultivate rice for livelihood. However, since most of the migrants were fishermen in the North, they asked the priest in charge, G.B.M Tran Ngoc Huong, for resettling somewhere near the coastal area. After sending his people to see around, the priest considered the land of Phuoc Tinh commune promising and he decided to resettle Bui Chu people in Phuoc Tinh in December of 1954. More than 1,200 people temporarily settled in 50 cottages. With that highly concentrated population, the priest made an order that four families shared a house. A temporary church was also built as a cottage after their settlement. Father Huong actively travelled back and forth to request government and provincial support for the community. The land was cleared and the people were provided fishing tools.

In 1955, Phuoc Tinh parish became too small to host the highly concentrated population. Therefore, the pastor asked for permission to divide the population of Phuoc Tinh and to create one more parish, namely Tan Phuoc, located next to the original parish. There were households that did not have fishing ability in Tan Phuoc and that started to clear the forest for cultivation. In 1960, father Dominic Pham Duc Su asked for permission for thirty households to establish a sub- parish near the cultivation area. After that people from elsewhere came and in 1970 the sub- parish was upgraded to parish and named Phuoc Binh (Xuân Lộc 2003).

4 Thanh Hai is a combination of two words: “Thanh” means Thanh Hoa, the original land of the migrants; and “Hai” means the sea, which provides them daily food. The previous name of that area was called Xóm Đầm (Trích kỷ yếu giáo xứ Thanh Hải) 44

Figure 2.3. Map of Locations from which Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai people migrated in 1954-1955

From 1955 to 1963 people tried to adapt to the new land, livelihood conditions and the environment. From 1963 onwards, the resettlement camp of Phuoc Tinh became a prosperous fishing village. The life of villagers was improved, many houses made of wood and cement gradually replaced the simpler cottages. On August 15, 1963, Father Huong initiated the construction of a new church. Besides the labour, each person was asked to contribute 300 dong.5

5 In 1963, 300 dong of the Republic of Vietnam equal 8.48USD according to the official exchange rate, and 3.09 USD according to the black market exchange rate. 45

The church was inaugurated on July 29, 1964 by Archbishop Paul Nguyen Van Binh (Phước Tỉnh 2004). From 1968 to 1975, the fishing industry in Phuoc Tinh reached a peak and provided a new face to the community. New motor boats were purchased, more stable houses and schools were built, and many church associations were re-established, as many as in the pre-migration period. According to Phuoc Tinh people’s memory, since the sea products were numerous, they only had to go fishing for few hours for a full boat of fish, shrimps and squids. Economic life became easier and flourished. With the advanced skills and boats, Phuoc Tinh commune was successful in fishing and was named as “the commune of millionaires” [làng tỉ phú]. Fishermen in Phuoc Tinh are still proud to date of that reputation. By April 1975, the population of the parish had grown to 4,539.

Phuoc Tinh people’s life would have continued like that if the Northern Vietnamese army had not won the war. The Northern army came near Phuoc Tinh commune around the end of April 1975. Having fishing boats, a number of people took their family members to the sea to avoid the fighting and then were rescued by American naval ships. Mrs. Sy recalled: “On April 29, 1975, I heard the sound from battles very near and my brother asked me to go fishing as well as to avoid the fight. We went out to the sea and waited there until the next morning and saw a ferry with 700 to 800 people. They let us go on to the ferry and took us to Singapore.”

From the memory of Mrs. Tam, on April 30, 1975, hearing a lot of cannons, she asked her family to go on a boat and headed out to the sea. On the way, she saw a lot of boats heading out. They were subsequently rescued by an American ship and carried to Guam. For Mr. Khoi, he was on a boat with his brothers along the coast of Vung Tau. Hearing the cannons, he drove the boat out to the sea and met an American ship. His family then was taken to the Philippines and then to a refugee camp in Arkansas, the United States.

After April 1975, a number of local people in Phuoc Tinh commune left Vietnam. Phuoc Tinh parish’s records showed that about 60 percent of the Catholic parishioners left the country. Mr. Bao, who stayed back, told me: “after April 1975, the parish got less and less people. Every day when people went to the morning church, they rumoured about who had left in the night before. The life in Phuoc Tinh parish became psychologically chaotic; villagers did not want to talk to each other.” They were worried about what would happen to their life. The same situation

46 applied to Tan Phuoc parish. Of the people who left Vietnam from Phuoc Tinh commune, a large number were resettled in Versailles, New Orleans after living in refugee camps elsewhere in Southeast Asia and the United States.

The People of Thanh Hai

While the migration of people from the diocese of Bui Chu to Phuoc Tinh seemed not to have much trouble, that of the Catholics from Ba Lang parish in Thanh Hoa province had to struggle against the Viet Minh in order to possess the paperwork to leave for the south in 1954. Hoai Quoc, a person actively involved in the struggle who was then imprisoned for five years, writes in his published memoir: “Thanks to the Geneva Accords, people had an escape although [people] had to sacrifice. [People] had to struggle, sacrificed blood and flesh, had to leave their houses, gardens, rice fields, ancestors’ tombs behind as long as [they] could be free from the authoritarianism and look for a life of freedom” (Quốc 2006: 16). With the support from the International Control Commission (ICC) of the Accords, a number of Catholics from Ba Lang were provided permission to migrate to the South. Much of the struggle was remembered until now. I once asked a Vietnamese American woman about this event, she talked to me with exciting feeling and acted as if she was fighting with the Viet Minh. Peter Hansen also documents the difficulties that people in Thanh Hoa had to face had to do with the long occupation of the Viet Minh in the region, while the dioceses of Bui Chu and Phat Diem were under control of the French (Hansen 2009: 181).

People who got resettled in Phan Thiet came not only from Ba Lang in Thanh Hoa, but also from Sam Son in Thanh Hoa, Quang Binh and Hai Phong. At the end of 1954, Father Paul Pham Ngoc took about 100 families from the temporary camps in Long An and Sai Gon to resettle in Xom Dam, which is now Thanh Hai ward of Phan Thiet city. In 1956, some families from Hai Phong came to live in the same area. Father Pham Ngoc Oanh had to request the local administrative office to help clear the land and established a new parish, namely Thanh Hai. In the word “Thanh Hai”, Thanh means Thanh Hoa – their original hometown, and Hai means the sea – where they could make their livelihood (Quốc 2006).

A wooden and thatch-roof church was built in 1956. A more stable church in the shape of the cross was built in March 1957. In the same year, the parish was re-arranged to belong to the

47 newly established Nha Trang archdiocese. As Phan Thiet started to be attacked in March 1975, many villagers went to stay in Vung Tau or Phuoc Tuy province. Only a few stayed behind in the parish. A woman told me: “When Phan Thiet city was liberated on March 19, many people had left for Vung Tau. While Thanh Hai people ran away from the Vietcong, Phan Thiet people did not.” On April 30, 1975, a majority of people who had been staying in Vung Tau left Vietnam, and the rest came back to the parish and rebuilt the area. After 1975, some people continued to leave the country on fishing boats.

Mrs. Huong told me that in April 1975, she and her family left for Phuoc Tuy and stayed there until April 30. She recalled: “When knowing that the Northern Army took over the South, my husband took the family on boat and drove to the sea. On the way, I saw a lot of people leaving too. When we saw a ship, it had been full of people and they refused to take us. As we were running out of fuel, my husband had to take the boat back to Thanh Hai and stayed there until 1978.” In the same vein, Mrs. Hue remembered clearly the moment when she and her children were taken up to an American Naval ship: “I was with three children waiting hopelessly in the crowd. People kept fighting with one another to get to the ship’s rope-stairs. Thanks God! Suddenly a white American saw us and threw the rope-stair to us, and I climbed onto the ship. During the trip, the American men treated us very well, provided us milk and bread.”

These are only some cases of people in Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai. For those who left Vietnam around April 1975 and were taken onto American naval ships, they were transported to the Philippines and Guam, then to several refugee camps in the United States such as Fort Chaffee in Arkansas, Camp Pendleton in California, Fort Indiantown Gap in Pennsylvania, where they waited for sponsorship. Of the refugees from Thanh Hai and Phuoc Tinh, the size of Catholic family was rather large. Each household used to have more than five people including parents. Therefore, many Americans and dioceses could not sponsor them. They remained living in the refugee camps for a few months.

At that time, Archbishop Philip Hannan in New Orleans decided to sponsor as many Vietnamese Catholic refugees as possible. The Archbishop recalled: “Some dioceses across the country placed limits on the size of families they would accept, but I wanted to keep the large Vietnamese fishing families together” (Hannan, Collins & Finney 2010: 305). Knowing that

48 without understanding the language the Vietnamese refugees could not understand the mass, he asked his people to sponsor some Vietnamese priests from the camps as well. Mrs. May, an informant from Phuoc Tinh, remembered that her family of 26 members arrived in New Orleans at the end of September 1975. By December 1975, the number of refugees resettled in Louisiana had reached 3,602 (Do 1999: 39). The Archbishop wanted to sponsor 6,500 Vietnamese refugees to New Orleans. In 1975, the Associated Catholic Charities settled a thousand of refugees in the Versailles Arms Apartments in New Orleans East and in the following year, two thousand Vietnamese arrived on their own (Zhou & Bankston 1998: 77). While the Catholic Charities continued sponsoring refugees, secondary migrants from other states continued to settle in New Orleans due to the information from friends and family. By 1990, according to authorities, the Vietnamese population had grown to 4,600 in New Orleans East, although local people estimated the figure to be over 6,000 (Zhou & Bankston 1998: 78). A large number of the arrivals settled in New Orleans East; another population landed in the West Bank of New Orleans.

Settling Down

Of the 300,000 Vietnamese American Catholics in the United States, New Orleans in Louisiana was ranked as the third largest concentration after other larger cities in California and Texas (Phan 2005: 99). While many other published sources mention that the first wave of refugees was highly educated and worked as officials for the Republic of Vietnam (Freeman, 1995), the Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans who arrived in the late 1975 were mainly fishermen and housewives.

Mrs. Tam remembered clearly when she and her eight family members were taken to Guam, then to Fort Chaffee camp in Arkansas to wait for a sponsor. Since she was one of the first Vietnamese families to arrive in the United States, she had to wait for a few months from June to September 1975, whenl Archbishop Philip Hannan’s people came and sponsored her family to New Orleans. Her family together with two other families of her cousins set foot on New Orleans on September 16th, 1975 and there were nine Vietnamese families settling down there. The twelve families were the first to resettle in the Versailles Arms Apartments in New Orleans East. In December 1975, a Vietnamese priest was assigned to lead the Catholic refugees.

Mrs. Sy’s family stayed one night in Singapore, then was taken to three other islands before reaching Guam where they waited for sponsors. She recalled: “On the island, they gave us a lot of foods: chicken, bread, many other foods. At that time, most of people wanted to resettle in Florida or California because there was a rumour that the weather there was warm. Therefore, the requests were over the capacity of these two states. Other countries such as Australia and Canada only wanted to sponsor small-sized families.” Then she chose to resettle in Chicago and was sponsored by an American church. The parish welcomed her and her family in October 1975. After staying in Chicago for one year, “my mother got bored because we lived far from the church and she could go to church only on Sunday. It was very cold in Chicago. I worked as a postwoman in Chicago for a year.” After one year, Mrs. Sy’s sister called her and told her that in Versailles there was a church and Vietnamese priests, then asked if Mrs. Sy wanted to move to Versailles. “In June 1976, my five-member family moved to Versailles and rented an apartment in the Versailles Arms. Then I started working as an oyster shucker with people here, $2.5 USD per 150 lbs. bag, and could shuck five to six bags of oysters per day only.6 Gradually, I could do 10 bags per day. We went to work at 2 a.m. and got home at 12 p.m. - 1 p.m. every day. My family bought this house and moved out of the apartment area in 1988”.

According to the memory of a history collector, Mr. Toan, in Versailles:

The first group of twelve families came from Fort Chaffee to New Orleans with father Tran Cao Tuong. They were taken by a school bus to Abrahamson high school. Then Archbishop Philip Hannan took them to the Versailles Arms Apartments. The owner was a white American, Merilyn Orwin. The Archdiocese helped them to buy a trailer to establish a temporary church by a trailer in November 1975. An illegal aspect was that they put the trailer on the plot of another person. Then the Archbishop helped the Vietnamese to buy a plot to build the church of Vietnamese Martyrs in 1977. At that time they already had more than twenty families. They named themselves the Vietnamese Martyrs Community [Cộng đồng Các Thánh tử đạo Việt Nam]. It was a mission church/sub-parish of the diocese of New Orleans.

In August 1983, when the population in Versailles had grown large enough, the Vietnamese American parishioners wanted to upgrade from a sub-parish to a parish, namely “Mary Queen of

6 Oyster-shucking is a regular job for women in New Orleans due to the plenty of oysters in the Gulf Coast. This occupation helps Vietnamese people to earn income not only at the beginning of their arrival but also nowadays. 50

Viet Nam”, and to build an 820-seat church with the contribution of Vietnamese parishioners. Father Mai Thanh Luong surprised the Archbishop when he presented that the Vietnamese had the money to build a new permanent church. Archbishop Hannan wrote: “To my utter surprise, Monsignor Luong replied, ‘We’ve already had the campaign. We have four hundred families, and the big church we want – without the decoration is going to cost about $400,000. We decided each family was responsible for $1,000, and every family made its donation’.” (Hannan et al. 2010: 307). He had never believed that within very few years, the Vietnamese Catholic refugees could save enough money to build their own church. And one year later, in August 1984, the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church was completed.

From many different places, people moved to Versailles. I talked with people not only from Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet but also from Ho Nai, Gia Kiem, and Bien Hoa. They worked with one another to find a way to earn income, went to church every day and shared a number of activities. One common thing that I saw in Versailles was that most of them were Catholics. The major reasons for them to come to New Orleans were a Catholic church for Vietnamese people, the similar weather to Vietnam, the presence of friends and relatives, and the fishing possibilities.

Landing in the West Bank of New Orleans

In the West Bank, there were two small areas where Vietnamese refugees lived concentrated from 1975 onwards. The first group resettled in the place called Woodlawn Street in Algiers and then they named themselves the Woodlawn community. The second group stayed near the St. Joseph the Worker parish in Marrero. These two groups and the group in Versailles were also sponsored by the Archdiocese of New Orleans. They received significant support from Archbishop Philip Hannan and his people at the beginning. Although the two West Bank groups attended American parishes, they called themselves Hung Vuong community. At that time five Vietnamese priests were assigned to lead these three Vietnamese Catholic groups: Father Vu Han, Father Tran Cao Tuong, Father Viet Chau, Father Joseph Pham Van Tue, and Father Dominic Mai Thanh Luong. Of the priests, Father Joseph Pham had studied in Rome, Italy and Father Dominic Mai had studied in the United States before 1975.

In 1983, after the Mary Queen of Viet Nam parish was established, Archbishop Philip Hannan appointed Father Dominic to be the pastoral priest.7 A distinctive point of the MQVN parish was that it consisted of all three Vietnamese Catholic groups in the New Orleans’ metropolitan area: Versailles, Marrero and Woodlawn. In spite of living far from one another, Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans were still in one parish and organized a number of activities together.

Figure 2.4. Map of Three Vietnamese American Catholic churches in New Orleans

(Source: Google Map)

In 1995, as the Vietnamese Catholic population in the West Bank was also increasing, Father Joseph Pham Van Tue made a request to the Archdiocese to upgrade the sub-parish of Marrero to a parish. He recalled: “It was also a surprise because the bishop of the diocese had not supported the idea of an ethnic-based parish. However, after witnessing the growth and positive expansion of the Vietnamese Catholics in Marrero, he changed his mind and supported us to upgrade”. From that point onwards, the Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans had the second parish called

7 According to Father Joseph Pham Van Tue, the MQVN parish was not the first Vietnamese parish in the United States. A Vietnamese parish was established earlier in Thibodaux, Houma, Louisiana 52

“St. Agnes Le Thi Thanh”. The sub-parish in Woodlawn was named họ thánh Giuse (St. Joseph the Mission) and until now remains a subdivision of the Holy Spirit parish in New Orleans.

2.2.2. The 1979-1990s Arrivals

The 1980s marked a new period of Vietnamese immigration in New Orleans. In 1979, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) negotiated with Vietnam the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) in order to facilitate the migration and permanent settlement for individuals and families who were fleeing Vietnam.8 In 1989 the Humanitarian Operation Program (HO) began to sponsor for resettlement in the United States the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) officials who were put in re-education camps for 3 years or more by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV). Vietnamese people who were eligible for either the ODP or the HO applied, got interviewed and departed. These ODP Vietnamese were accepted as either refugees under the Refugee Act of 1980 or as immigrants under the Immigrant and Nationality Act (Freeman 1995: 35). By September 30, 1989, Southeast Asian immigrants in Louisiana had grown to about 15,300 (Rutledge 1992: 39). These two types of immigrants were not involved in the project of Archbishop Philip Hannan.

For the Vietnamese New Orleanders who came not thanks to Archbishop Philip Hannan, most of them arrived as refugees/immigrants under the ODP and HO programs in other states and found it more comfortable to live in New Orleans. Of these immigrants, while many of the Catholics liked to stay near their relatives and a Vietnamese parish, others just liked the weather conditions in New Orleans. The Vietnamese Buddhists in New Orleans arrived in the city mainly through the ODP and HO programs, or as boat people.9 When telling me about the history of the Vietnamese community in New Orleans, Mr. Quoc Huynh shared with me his experiences of hardship in Vietnam after 1975. He was sent to a re-education camp and escaped from the camp in 1978. In the following year, he had to live secretly with his family and prepared for fleeing

8 “Under the ODP, Vietnamese could enter the United States if they had close relatives living in the United States who applied to bring them over: spouses, sons, daughters, parents, grandparents, and unmarried grandchildren. Others who qualified were those who had been employed by Americans or American companies in Vietnam, or officials, soldiers, and their close relatives who had been associated with the United States. Finally, those who had other ties to America might qualify, ranging from students who had studied in the United States, to Amerasians, that is, people whose mothers were Vietnamese and fathers were American citizens” (Freeman 1995: 35). 9 The term “boat people” [thuyền nhân] refers to Vietnamese refugees who left Vietnam by boats. 53

Vietnam. He and his 6-month-pregnant wife together with some family members succeeded in arriving in Pulau Bidong refugee camp, Malaysia. From there, he was sponsored to Virginia. He moved to New Orleans in 1983 because his sister could not stand the cold weather in the North.

Another case was of Mr. Thieu who lived in Rach Gia before 1975. He managed to escape Vietnam in November 1978 and arrived in New Orleans in September 1980 after staying in Honolulu, Hawaii, for two years. He then worked for an oil company for three years from 1980 to 1983. When the oil company collapsed, he changed to fishing occupation, especially shrimping. Not long after his settlement, his sister was also resettled in New Orleans East.

Mr. Hoa Nguyen arrived in New Orleans in 1975. He had earlier studied in the Grand Seminary of Dalat (Đại chủng viện Đà Lạt). On April 30, 1975 he and his family tried to flee the battle and went on a boat to the sea. On the way, his sister said: “Let’s go to the United States”. He replied: “Forget it! Why do they want to save us? We did not work for the U.S.” It was a surprise to his family that they met an American ship and they were rescued. As he had been a seminary student, he applied for resettling in New Orleans following the Archdiocese program and landed in the West Bank of New Orleans. After living in the U.S for few years, he quitted the priesthood and became a normal Catholic. He has invested in real estate for a few decades.

Mr. Pham Van Tung, a military official, had a master’s degree in economics. He served as a captain and was sent to re-education camp in Tay Ninh from 1975 to 1978. He recalled: “After finishing the re-education program, I returned to Saigon. They said: ‘Let the puppet army do the hardest job’. It was hard because I had worked in office and was not familiar with manual labour work. In June 1980, I fled from Vietnam with a group of young people. Since I knew English, they let me go with them for free as an interpreter. In June 1981, some friends sponsored me to New Orleans and I worked as an auditor for the State of Louisiana from 1984 to 2000”. He remembered at that time that the town of Harvey in the West Bank was like a forest, and that there was no road or buildings. His friend let him stay in his house. Mr. Tung later moved out after having some savings. He bought his first house in 1989. Mr. Tung was one of the core members to establish two Buddhist temples, Bo De in the West Bank and Van Hanh in New Orleans East.

Mrs. My Thien had worked for the U.S Advisory Board in Vietnam before 1975. In April 1975, she and her family fled Vietnam on a boat and were taken to the refugee camp on Guam Island. Months later, the island kept receiving more people from Vietnam and there was an announcement that people who had sponsors in the United States should contact them in order to be resettled in the United States. She contacted her American friend in the United States and got sponsored to Virginia in late 1975. Her friend later became her husband and they moved down to New Orleans in 1980. Knowing both English and Vietnamese, she then worked for the United States Catholic Charities (USCC) in New Orleans for ten years to support Vietnamese refugees to settle in New Orleans. As an employee of USCC, Mrs. Thien pointed out to me that “Archbishop Philip Hannan and his manager, Mrs. Jane Foley, worked very hard to resettle Vietnamese Catholic refugees in Versailles Arms, Woodlawn and Marrero”.

As Waters and Eschbach (Waters & Eschbach 1995: 437) pointed out the barriers for immigrants to get full inclusion in the economic activities of the host society, there were many barriers for Vietnamese refugees to enter the professional labour market. Doctor Vu, born in 1950, had a Vietnamese medical degree and worked in Vietnam as a specialist on lungs. In September 1975, he arrived in Guam, then transferred to Pennsylvania, and subsequently to Alabama. Knowing only French, Dr. Vu had to practice English with an American and improved his skills. He then moved to Louisiana and worked one year for the State government. After that, he went for training at Tulane University for three years (1978-1981), and eventually obtained a full license to practice in Louisiana. He worked in paediatrics from 1981 onwards and actively engaged in Vietnamese professional activities in New Orleans. As a Catholic, he also served in the Vietnamese parish in Marrero. When I started my fieldwork, he had recently been elected to be the President of the Council of the St. Agnes Le Thi Thanh parish.

Although each person carried his/her own story of landing in New Orleans, they all left Vietnam after the end of the Vietnam War. Several common reasons for their resettlement in New Orleans were friends, relatives, weather conditions, the fishing occupation, and the Catholic Church. Although several HO arrivals are Catholics, only some of them chose to stay in the Vietnamese Catholic parish in New Orleans East. One of the reasons was that HO people did not share the original places of Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet as people in Village de l’Est. As HO people were formerly officials or employees of the Republic of Vietnam, they had networks of professional

55 colleagues and military comrades. Many HO people stayed in the West Bank due to their networks prior to 1975.

2.2.3. Two Communities: New Orleans East and the West Bank

By comparing the two communities, I would like to highlight the differences that made the two communities distinctive. This process helps us to see how the previous lifestyles affected the current living conditions.

The two main religions of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans are Catholicism and Buddhism. Other religions that have Vietnamese American followers are Baptism and Caodaism.10 The Vietnamese Catholic population in Village de l’Est, New Orleans East, was about five thousand in 2012. Before Hurricane Katrina, it had been about six thousand people. Mr. Quoc Huynh commented in an interview with me: “This population is concentrated within an one-mile radius of the [Mary Queen of Viet Nam] church, making this area well-known as the most Vietnamese populated village in the United States”. In the meantime, in the West Bank of New Orleans, there was only one area populated by Vietnamese people, that is, the sub-parish of St. Joseph (thánh Giuse) in Woodlawn, Algiers. The Vietnamese Catholics of St. Agnes Le Thi Thanh parish in Marrero did not live as concentrated as the first two areas. Instead, their houses spread throughout the nearby neighbourhoods and intermingled with White and Black American houses.

The population of Vietnamese Catholics in Marrero and Woodlawn was about four thousand. Another difference was that the Vietnamese residents in the West Bank were more diversified than people in the East. People in Versailles came mainly from the two fishing villages Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet in Vietnam, while the majority of people in the West Bank had worked for the Republic of Vietnam before 1975. In Versailles, people from Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet managed to maintain the structure of their Catholic parishes before 1975. The presidents of the pre-1975 parishes were still respected in the land of settlement. By sponsoring their relatives to New Orleans, people from Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet increased the number of people from their

10 Caodaism is a religion in the South of Vietnam. 56 own social networks and turned Versailles into their second-home village. Their way of life was maintained by seventeen religious associations in the parish.11

There were fewer religious associations in the Vietnamese parish in the West Bank than that of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church. According to Father Joseph, it was partly because people in the former area did not live close to one another. As a result, they could not maintain the way of religious life as in the East. The Vietnamese American church in Marrero tried to maintain the fundamental associations such as the Association of the Sacred Hearts, the Association of Catholic Mothers, the Eucharistic Youth Movement, and parish’s choirs. The sub-parish of St. Joseph in Algiers similarly maintained some Vietnamese Catholic Associations: Association of the Sacred Hearts, Association of Catholic Mothers, Eucharistic Youth Movement, parish’s choirs. Analyzing these associations is important to understand how the Catholic communities functioned to maintain Vietnamese culture. I will return to discuss the role of these religious associations in section 2.4.1.

In New Orleans East, the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church was the only religious institution for Vietnamese Americans until some Buddhist people established the Van Hanh pagoda in 2000. However, since the Buddhist population in New Orleans East was very small, the board of directors for the pagoda faced a high risk of not being able to maintain the pagoda. In the most frustrating time, the donations of visitors were not enough to cover maintenance expenses, and the members of the board had to use their personal money to help out. Mr. Long said: “In many board meetings, I had to say that the total monthly maintenance cost was $300.00 USD but the donations amounted to only $200.00 USD. Each of us had to contribute to cover the shortfall”. Compared to the 6,000 Catholics of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church, the regular attenders at Van Hanh pagoda were very few, only about 40 Buddhists weekly. Only on special occasions such as the Lunar New Year, Lunar Mid-summer ceremony (Lễ Vu Lan), and the Autumn Festival (Tết Trung thu), did the number of attenders reach about 200 people.

The West Bank had one Vietnamese American Catholic parish, a sub-parish and two Buddhist pagodas for Vietnamese Americans. While the Catholic parish in Marrero, St. Agnes Le Thi Thanh parish, was established much later than the Mary Queen of Viet Nam church, Bo De

11 Details about these religious associations are in section 2.4.1 57 pagoda was the first Buddhist shrine to be built in 1980s.Lien Hoa pagoda was established just before Hurricane Katrina (2005).

2.3. Demography of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans

2.3.1. Race and Minority Status

As the chapter has presented the history of settlements of different populations in New Orleans, this section discusses the demography of the city. There are many ways to define New Orleans: by congressional districts, by parishes (county), by religious parishes/dioceses, and by the perception of New Orleans residents. My research focuses on Congressional District 2 in Louisiana as the research setting because it covers most of the regions in the New Orleans’ metropolitan area where Vietnamese Americans lived. The Second Congressional District includes the Orleans parish and a portion of the Jefferson parish.12

In 2010, New Orleans had the population of 493,352 out of 4,533,372 people in Louisiana.13 The racial breakdown of the population according to the 2010 U.S. Census can be seen in Table 2.4.

Compared to other races, in 2010, Asians ranked the third largest population in both Louisiana (state) and New Orleans (local) after Whites and Black Americans. However, in the Congressional District 2, the ranking was switched between the White and Black American populations. It reflects a long history of the redistricting map of the U.S. Congress to ensure minority voters have a chance to elect representatives of their own choice. This type of congressional district is called a majority-minority district (Jacobson 1983). This practice will be further discussed in chapter 3 on the politics of race.

12 In Louisiana, a parish is comparable to a county in other states. 13 U.S Census Bureau 2010: http://www.census.gov/2010census/ 58

Figure 2.5. Map of the Congressional District 2 of Louisiana, 2010

(Source: 2010 U.S. Census)

The demographic picture reflects a long history of migration to and in New Orleans. From the 1950s onwards, Whites began to move to the suburb in New Orleans East in order to avoid the density of population in the inner city of New Orleans. During the 1960s and 1970s, a number of first-time Black homeowners resettled in New Orleans East as the result of the development of affordable housing there. In the meantime, there was also a tendency for Whites from New Orleans East to move to subdivisions in the neighbouring Jefferson Parish in the West Bank (Tang 2011). From 1978 onwards, the White flight from the city to the suburbs in the West Bank left the inner city and New Orleans East as Black-dominated areas. The Versailles Arms Apartments of New Orleans East also experienced “white flight” because of a cutback in a local facility of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The period of vacancy of

59 the low-income housing in Versailles Arms was also the time when Vietnamese refugees were arriving in New Orleans. Therefore, the Associated Catholic Charities were able to resettle the Vietnamese Catholic refugees in the subsidized apartment complex of the Versailles Arms Apartments. Together with an influx of Black American families seeking a suburban way of life, New Orleans East turned from a predominant white middle-class area to a poor racial minority one (Zhou & Bankston 1998). In contrast to the Vietnamese immigrants in New Orleans East, those in the West Bank (Jefferson Parish) experienced a rapid increase in economic investments and residential areas (Tang 2011: 3). This led to different fortunes and lifestyles for the two Vietnamese areas in metropolitan New Orleans.

Table 2.4. Racial Proportions of the Population in Louisiana in 2010

Race Louisiana Congressional District 2 White 2,836,192 160,396 Black American 1,452,396 290,121 Asian 70,132 17,488 AIAN14 30,579 2,008 NHPI15 1,963 196 Other Races 69,227 13,833 Two or more Races 72,883 9,310 Total 4,533,372 493,352

(Source: 2010 U.S. Census)

From 1980 to 2010, the Vietnamese population in New Orleans grew from less than 8000 to 14,282. In 2010, the population of Vietnamese in Orleans Parish was 5,994, and that in Jefferson Parish was 8,288 (U.S. Census 2010). Since 2000, while the number of Vietnamese in Jefferson Parish kept growing, that in Orleans Parish was declining. Besides the fact that a number of Vietnamese chose to resettle in other states, my observation and ethnographic materials show a tendency on the part of the second generation of Vietnamese to move from Orleans Parish to Jefferson Parish, literally moving from Versailles to the West Bank.

14 AIAN: American Indian and Alaska Native 15 NHPI: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders 60

In the racial composition of two administrative parishes, while the white and black populations changed significantly, Vietnamese New Orleanders remained in the minority status in both parishes. Native Americans (AIAN) made up only a small portion of the population of New Orleans.

After Hurricane Katrina, a number of Mexicans arrived in New Orleans to work in the construction field, including the repair of collapsed buildings and houses. Although this labour force did not compete with the Vietnamese in the labour market, many Vietnamese Americans complained that the arrival of undocumented workers caused security problems for New Orleans East. There were reports of murders and robberies committed by Mexicans. To some Vietnamese people, the security of the Versailles neighbourhood became a problem because of undocumented Mexicans. Despite that fact, the Catholic diocese of New Orleans and the MQVN church recognized the growing number of these newcomers. From 2006 onwards, the MQVN church had one mass in Spanish on Sunday for about a hundred Mexican followers. In August 2012, I saw about 70 Mexicans attending a Spanish-language mass on Sunday at the MQVN church Mexicans.

Table 2.5. Racial Proportions by Administrative Parishes in 2010

Race Congressional Orleans Parish Jefferson Parish District 2

White 160,396 113,428 272,115 African American 290,121 206,871 113,887 Asian 17,488 9,970 16,683 AIAN 2,008 1,047 2,038 NHPI 196 134 179 Other Races 13,833 6,459 18,429 Two or more Races 9,310 5,920 9,221 Total 493,352 16 343,829 432,552

(Source: 2010 U.S. Census)

16 This number does not reflect the total population of Orleans and Jefferson parishes because the Congressional District 2 includes only a portion of Jefferson parish. 61

2.3.2. Occupation and Economic Situation

As a former French territory with the legacy of the colonial period, New Orleans had been famous for tourism before Vietnamese immigrants arrived. After the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, New Orleans’ Black residents received more political as well as economic opportunities. In the United States, in 1940, 92% Blacks were poor; by early 1970s the Black poverty rate had declined to 31% (Waters and Eschbach 1995). In New Orleans, the middle-class Black population also improved their economic situation and there was a tendency to move from the inner city to the suburb. The racial residential patterns in New Orleans East changed rapidly under these conditions.

From 1975 to 1980, New Orleans East received more than three thousand Vietnamese refugees. By 1990, the official census showed that the Vietnamese population had grown to 4,600, although local leaders claimed to have over 6,000 residents (Zhou & Bankston 1998: 77-78). Compared to the proportions of Whites and Black Americans in New Orleans, the Vietnamese refugees made up just a small portion. However, the influx of thousands of refugees, many of whom were in the age of employment, means that the job market for New Orleanders became shared with newly arrived immigrants. Waters and Eschbach recognize this issue when discussing “the policy question of whether the foreign-born take jobs from native minorities” (Waters and Eschbach 1995: 436). Zhou and Bankston point out that Vietnamese were concentrated in a few jobs such as cashier, waiter or waitress, cook, fisherman, and textile sewing machine operator (Zhou and Bankston 1998: 58). After a few years, some Vietnamese refugees earned professional licenses and began to work as electric welders, wood/iron-carvers, plumbers, medical doctors, and pharmacists.

A number of Vietnamese refugees came from the coastal areas of Vietnam such as Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet. They had known or worked in the fishing industry. They began to practice fishing as a means of livelihood.17 In Louisiana, the fishing industry includes fishing, shrimping, crabbing, etc. While many of the Vietnamese fishermen had fishing experiences before, they were all shocked at the laws and fishing regulations in the United States. The practicalities such as the size of nets, the amount of each kind of fish for every trip/person, and all kinds of licenses

17 More details about the fishing and seafood industry are discussed in Chapter 6. 62 more often than not caused many troubles for Vietnamese fishermen. Being new to the American fishing industry, many of them were fined by the U.S. Coast Guard, or Louisiana Wildlife Department officers. However, my informants all agreed that American fishing rules really helped maintaining the amount of fish and therefore keeping the fishing industry more sustainable.

While they were trying to conform to the U.S laws, Vietnamese fishermen also had to face American competitors. Mr. Thien shared with me: “Vietnamese people worked very hard to bring home money. While American fishermen only fished enough for their income, Vietnamese fishermen tried to fish all the time. They went fishing until the boat was full. They then came back to sell in the docks, and then re-filled the boat with gas, ice, food, water and went out to fish again”. According to my informants, American fishermen were jealous with how hard-working Vietnamese ones were. This sometimes led to physical conflicts between American and Vietnamese fishermen. Bankston and Zhou also found that “[T]he entry of Vietnamese people into the fishing industry along the Gulf Coast in the late 1970s and early 1980s provoked resentment from native-born fishermen concerned about competition” (Bankston & Zhou 1998: 37).

Louisiana had been well-known of seafood as a local speciality and was in need of seafood processing labour. Going together with the fishing industry was a list of seafood-related jobs such as oyster shuckers, shrimp-beheaders, trap-makers and employees in fast-food stores and even restaurants. The first two jobs enlisted a majority of first-generation Vietnamese women. When they first arrived in New Orleans, they had neither working experiences nor language competence. Working at seafood-processing factories provided the newcomers opportunities to earn their livelihood in the settlement society. Many Vietnamese refugees had to rely on the government’s welfare programs at the beginning, but they quickly began to work and became economically independent. According to the socioeconomic profile of Vietnamese in the United States, 57.3 percent of Vietnamese in the United States were employed in 1980 and it grew to 64.5 percent in 1990 (U.S Census 1990).

From the late 1980s onwards, the 1.5 generation of Vietnamese began to engage in more mainstream American occupations after being educated in American universities, colleges and

63 vocational schools. Many of them worked in pharmacies, hospitals and information technology fields. Very few people of 1.5 generation continued or liked to take fishing as their means of livelihood. For the second generation, fishing became a recreation rather than a means of livelihood. Fishing became a hobby of the Vietnamese in the Gulf Coast and they organized several fishing rodeos every year in the communities.

In the United States, Vietnamese’s median family income was $30,550 USD in 1989 (Waters & Eschbach 1995: 423). In New Orleans, the median household income of Vietnamese in Versailles was $12,790 USD compared to $21,949 USD for Louisiana (1990 U.S. Census, cited in Zhou and Bankston 1998). Even though the Vietnamese of Versailles Village were low- income, they were able to make down payments to buy houses under the American mortgage system. In the early 1980s, while the economic situations between Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East and the West Bank were not different, the residential patterns were distinctive. While the Vietnamese in Versailles expanded from rental units to individual houses near the newly built MQVN church, the Vietnamese in Woodlawn also expanded at a much smaller space. The Vietnamese in Marrero did not have a residential segregation pattern from the early phase: they instead spread into American residential areas. The slow but firm expansion of Vietnamese in Versailles turned the Black majority-residential neighbourhood into an area with relatively equal numbers of Vietnamese and Black Americans. In 1990, the percentage of African Americans in the neighbourhood was 42% and that of Vietnamese was 49.3% (1990 U.S. Census, cited in Zhou and Bankston 1998: 80).

The Versailles Arms section where Vietnamese people landed at the beginning gradually became a place for gangs, drug dealers, fishermen without family, and poor households (Zhou and Bankston 1998: 190-191). Until 2005, Versailles Arms Apartment complexes had been a place of danger. My informants told me: “It was so scary that Vietnamese people had to be at home and to lock the doors after 7 p.m.” While New Orleans was well-known for the number of crimes, Versailles Arms was a place of street-gang society to Vietnamese people.

“Ethnic and racial groups also differ in rates of homeownership, residential segregation, overall wealth, exposure to crime and toxic pollutants, and in access to power in the upper reaches of our society” (Waters & Eschbach 1995: 425). Versailles and Woodlawn communities experienced

64 relatively exclusive Vietnamese residential areas. Most of my informants in Versailles and Woodlawn owned their houses. However, if we look at developmental trends, Versailles had fewer advantages than other areas in the West Bank. Beside the disadvantage that it is located at the very end of New Orleans, its nearby natural reservoir area prevents any industrial activity. The rest of the West Bank, however, becomes a place of investment and development. According to Zhou and Bankston, the Vietnamese of Versailles were “low-income and low- skilled residents concentrated in the poorest part of a poor area in a poor city in a poor state, a situation that might seem hopeless” (Zhou & Bankston 1998: 81).

Figure 2.6. Map of Village de l’Est Neighbourhood in New Orleans

(Source: Google Map, with Versailles Arms area circled)

Does the poor economic status influence the advancement opportunity of Vietnamese people in American society? According to M. Corcoran, there is an association between parental economic resources and children’s adult attainments (Corcoran 1995). However, the literature on Asian population points out that their cultural resources are different from those of Americans. Zhou and Bankston (1998) indicate that the influences of Confucianism and Catholicism significantly contribute to the success of Vietnamese children in Versailles. Although Vietnamese New Orleanders had to rely on welfare programs and had poor economic status at the beginning, the

65 first generation quickly found jobs and gradually resettled in their own houses. Therefore, instead of staying in a vicious cycle of urban poverty (Wilson & Aponte 1985), Vietnamese New Orleanders utilized any opportunity to bring home money and to provide the best educational opportunity for their children.

Despite the fact that many of them have achieved successes, many Vietnamese Americans have remained in poor neighbourhoods of a poor state of the United States. Is that because of the attachment to the Vietnamese American Catholic church or because of the solidarity that people have when living together with their co-ethnics? How does the segregated Catholic parish relate to the myth of the model minority? In addition, does the achievement of the Vietnamese Americans help to protect them from white supremacy and racial discrimination in the United States? These questions will be discussed in the next chapters.

2.4. Within the Vietnamese American communities in New Orleans

2.4.1. Vietnamese American Catholicism

The Mary Queen of Vietnam parish (MQVN) established in 1983 is the first Catholic parish of the Vietnamese in the Archdiocese of New Orleans, followed by St. Agnes Lê Thị Thành parish in Marrero (1995), and the St. Joseph mission church (Họ đạo thánh Giuse) in Woodlawn, Algiers. Of the three areas, the community of MQVN is the largest and has received the most attention from researchers with geographical and sociological perspectives (e.g., Airriess & Clawson 1991; Airriess 2002; Bankston & Zhou 1996; Zhou & Bankston 1998).

Since the arrival of Vietnamese refugees in 1975, the MQVN parish received warm attention from Archbishop Philip M. Hannan of New Orleans. One of the signs was that the parish never lacked Vietnamese priests. The Archbishop understood that without knowing the language of the mass, the Catholics would feel less close to God. He wrote in a memoir:

“I made one of those snap decisions that my old Christian Brother teacher had warned me against – except that this decision turned out to be a grand slam. I wanted to invite 6,500

Vietnamese refugees to the Archdiocese of New Orleans simply because it was the right thing to do. But in order to care for so many refugees, we needed Vietnamese priests”.

(Hannan et al. 2010: 304)

And then Father Dominic Mai Thanh Luong, who had been serving in the Diocese of Buffalo, was requested to make this vital work. He managed to find some Vietnamese priests for the sponsored refugees. Since 1975, eight priests have been appointed to be the pastors of the MQVN church: Father Tran Cao Tuong, Father Viet Chau, Father Viet Hung, Father Mai Thanh Luong, Father Luke Dzung, Father Nguyen Van Nguyen, Father Nguyen The Vien, Father Dominic Nguyen Van Nghiem. All of these priests were born in Vietnam. Some were studying in the United States when the Vietnam War ended, others arrived in the United States as refugees with their families. It is the same pattern in the parish in Marrero and the mission church in Woodlawn. Being led by the Vietnamese priests, the MQVN parish has maintained several characteristics of a Vietnamese parish.

The MQVN parish had a population of six thousand parishioners in 2005. Of this population, there are very few White and Black American families. Before Hurricane Katrina in 2005, there were only two Mexican families living in the neighbourhood. After Katrina, the population of Mexicans grew to about one hundred as more Mexicans migrated to work as constructors in the city after the hurricane. Two masses were conducted every weekday: one in the morning (6:30 a.m – 7:00 a.m) and the other is in the evening (6 p.m – 6:30 p.m). Before a mass was always a self-praying time for about 30 minutes. The prayers were all chanted in Vietnamese in the weekdays. For weekend masses, there was one on Saturday evening and five on Sunday (6:30 a.m to 7:30 a.m; 8 a.m to 9 a.m; 9:30 a.m to 10:30 a.m; 11 a.m to 12 p.m; and 5:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m). Of the Sunday masses, three of them were conducted in Vietnamese, one in English (11 a.m-12 p.m) and one in Spanish (5:00 p.m-6:00 p.m.). Father Vien informed me that after Katrina, the church set up a mass in Spanish for Hispanics who resided in the area and registered with the parish.

Apart from the common sacraments and events of the American Catholic Church, the Vietnamese parish also maintained several religious associations as in Vietnam. The MQVN church had seventeen religious associations for its population. In fact, the Vietnamese American

Catholics in New Orleans maintained several more religious associations than their home parishes in Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet did.18 The church and the religious associations significantly tied Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans together. The associations served Catholics through the ages and a diversity of interests: Liên minh Thánh tâm (Association of the Sacred Hearts), Hội các bà mẹ Công giáo (Association of Catholic Mothers), Hội con Đức mẹ (Association of the Daughters of the Mother of Jesus), Thiếu nhi thánh thể (Eucharistic Youth Movement), ca đoàn (four parish choirs), Hội Thánh linh, Legio Maria, Hội Dòng Ba, Hội Cursillo (Cursillo Movement), Hội Đạo binh hồn nhỏ, Hội Kha Luân Bố (Knights of Columbus), Hội Đạo binh xanh, Hội Thăng tiến hôn nhân, Hội Thanh-Sinh-Công (Association of Catholic Youth and Students).19 Most of Vietnamese American Catholics in the MQVN parish joined at least one association in order to be more loyal to Christ. Each association had its own patron- saint who needed to be praised and commemorated once a year in a mass. It is likely that an American priest without experiences in working with parish associations like these would find it difficult to lead such a Vietnamese American Catholic parish.

In addition, the Vietnamese Catholic church was also the central place for community events such as the New Year, Lunar New Year festivals (Tet), and Mid-Autumn festivals and so on. The MQVN church bound Vietnamese Catholics together through daily mass and strengthened the sense of being Vietnamese every time it organized community events.

Under the Supervision of the Archdiocese of New Orleans

The special care of Archbishop Philip M. Hannah at the beginning helped the Vietnamese Catholics to maintain a distance rather than being fully integrated into the American Catholic Church. By resettling the Vietnamese refugees in specific areas, and allowing them to establish a Vietnamese-speaking parish, the Archbishop set a foundation for a diasporic dimension of Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans. According to Father Nguyen The Vien, a former pastor of the MQVN parish, “This is a privilege for Vietnamese Catholics in New Orleans because at that

18 After the Vietnam War, the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam attempted to intervene in the organization of the Catholic church in South Vietnam, so that the religious sub-parish associations were cut off. Nowadays, a parish in Vietnam only has four fundamental groups: Association of Fathers (Giới gia trưởng), Association of Mothers (giới hiền mẫu), the Youth (giới trẻ), and Choirs (ca đoàn). 19 Cursillo is an apostolic movement of the Roman Catholic Church. It was founded in Spain in the 1944 by a group of laymen and spread throughout the world. The Cursillo movement opens short courses on how to become effective Christian leaders. 68 time the United States’ policy was to intermingle the Vietnamese into American society. Only did Archbishop Hannan bring them to New Orleans and let them live together”.

2.4.2. Politics among Vietnamese Americans

The Vietnamese American Community in Louisiana

Besides the church and Buddhist pagodas, the New Orleans metropolitan area also has several Vietnamese American grassroots associations such as the Vietnamese American Community in Louisiana (VAC), the Vietnamese American Veterans in Louisiana, the Alumni Association of the Thu Duc Officer School in Louisiana (Hội Cựu sỹ quan Thủ Đức). Vietnamese people in New Orleans can also read the Free Vietnam News of New Orleans (Báo Việt Nam Tự Do), Ngoc Lan Times (Ngọc Lân thời báo), and listen to the local Overseas Vietnamese Radio (Đài Việt Nam Hải Ngoại). Members of these associations used to work for the Republic of Vietnam before 1975. These activities of these associations usually lean towards anti-communism. However, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have diverse views toward these associations. This section will present some of the politics within Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans.

Ngoc Lan Times and the Free Vietnam News were originally one news agency in the 1980s. After being disrupted themselves for a short time, some members of the editorial board separated and established these two different news agencies. While Ngoc Lan Times is located in the West Bank of New Orleans, the Free Vietnam News is based in Versailles with a radio station, namely, the Overseas Vietnamese Radio of New Orleans. Copies of the two newspapers are distributed to local businesses that pay for advertisements in the issues and are free for people to take away. While the radio broadcasting is free, listeners have to purchase a specific kind of radio at about $40 USD. The radio programs are broadcast for 24/24 including advertisements. According to the director of the radio, there were about 4,000 units (radios) in the Greater New Orleans region in 2011. Both of the newspapers and the radio programs share an anti-communist objective. These agencies have been the main media of local Vietnamese in New Orleans. The audience are mainly Vietnamese Americans of the first generation.

Non-profit organizations in the United States can be established by the 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue Code.20 They have the tax-exempt benefits (Truong, Small, & Vuong 2008). While the Vietnamese American Community in Louisiana (VAC) was initially founded in the early 1980s, it was only formally established by the act 501(c)3 in the 1990s. Mr. Quan, a former president of VAC, recalled: “From 1975 to 1980, Vietnamese people in New Orleans just focused on their livelihood, income and settlement. Because the majority of Vietnamese here were Catholics, they had the church as a community institution. Since 1980, boat people began to arrive in New Orleans and they came from many other regions, occupations and religions. Therefore, a group of people thought about establishing an institution that could serve a wider community, including Catholics, Buddhists, Cao Daists, and people of other interests”. For many years, from the 1980s onwards, a Council of Representatives (Hội đồng đại biểu) was the only agency to elect the president of the VAC. This council consisted of nominated representatives from other Vietnamese American associations in Louisiana. They did not use the universal suffrage voting system (phổ thông đầu phiếu) due to the lack of recognition among the Vietnamese. Mr. Quan said: “At that time, Vietnamese people in Louisiana did not know about the VAC. Therefore, it was difficult to organize a universal suffrage voting system”. According the VAC’s bylaw, the president would be elected every three years, and a person could work as president with a limit of two terms. Until the end of his second term in 2007, Mr. Quan supported the universal suffrage voting system and it was used for the next two terms (2007; 2010). In 2013, the Council of Representatives voted for going back to the previous election system (the president nominated and elected by the Council) due to the conflicts, confusion and difficulties of the popular voting system as seen in the 2010 election.21

Although those organizations functioned independently, they shared with one another the interests in preserving Vietnamese culture and an anti-Communist perspective. In July 2003, as the president of the VAC, Mr. Huynh Hong Quan succeeded in making the state of Louisiana recognize the flag of the Republic of Vietnam as a symbol representing the Vietnamese community. The achievement of the VAC made the anti-communist Vietnamese communities

20 http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes---Internal-Revenue- Code-Section-501%28c%29%283%29 21 I was told that in the 2010 election, it was unclear about the result of election due to the unmanageable polls throughout the state of Louisiana. A candidate subsequently declared to win by himself without recognition from the Council of Representatives. The last term (2010-2013) was considered ruined. 70 throughout the world happy because Louisiana was the first state to recognize the flag of the Republic of Vietnam. The following section will be devoted to this event and local people’s perceptions.

Campaign for Recognition of the Republic of Vietnam Flag

After 1975, the Republic of Vietnam flag (RVN) was still flown in the events of Vietnamese people not only in the United States but also throughout the world except in the land of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV). However, it was never officially recognized by a United States government agency. The idea of gaining an official recognition for the Republic of Vietnam flag originated with Mr. Quan during his first term (2000-2003) as the president of the VAC. After discussing with members of the executive board, he began to find a way to contact the state of Louisiana in February 2003. Serving in the RVN Army before 1975, he was an active member of many Vietnamese American associations, including serving as a former president of the Vietnamese American Voters’ Association in Louisiana. He tried to use his social relations to arrange meetings with some state representatives such as Senator Jon Johnson, who later became a city councillor of New Orleans. After the first meeting, Mr. Quan was asked to prepare a document stating the reasons for the recognition of the RVN flag. As he knew that under 501(c)(3) Code, the VAC could not be involved in politics, he had to find a way to get around this barrier. In an interview with me, he recalled the main reasons for his RVN flag recognition campaign:

The arrival of the Vietnamese in Louisiana is the result of the real war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Vietnamese refugees in Louisiana are the people of the Republic of Vietnam. Secondly, the flag, as a symbol of the Vietnamese American community, will be an official symbol to its members as well as its guests in Louisiana. It symbolizes the presence of Vietnamese in festivals and community events. The flag will help to unite 35,000 Vietnamese people in Louisiana and once we are united, we will be able to help one another better. Anybody coming across this flag will know that the people here are Vietnamese.

By having several meetings and hearings with state congresspersons and state senators, Mr. Quan managed to convince the state representatives about the necessity of the flag to the

Vietnamese in Louisiana. In an interview with me, Mr. John-Hoa, an assistant of Mr. Quan, told me more details:

The campaigns for the recognition of the RVN flag in other states had lost because they had been too politically oriented. They all wanted the states to recognize the RVN flag representing a free Vietnam country and against communism. It was impossible because there was only one Vietnam, and it was the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Secondly, the RVN flag was no longer internationally recognized. Therefore, in the hearing at the Senate in 2003, what we argued was that the flag symbolized our spirit, that of Vietnamese refugees in Louisiana dispersed by communism. We wanted to use the flag to speak out loud our desire of freedom, the freedom that 58,000 American soldiers had died for. We didn’t request that the flag represented Vietnam because Vietnam was a nation with its own flag.

State senator Jon Johnson then submitted the SB 839 Act to the Senate of Louisiana, and it was approved 90/8 in the House, and it was passed 36/0 in the Senate (Triều 2004). On 15 July 2003, Mr. Mike Foster, the governor of Louisiana, signed the Act:

“The legislature does hereby recognize that the people of the former Republic of Vietnam, also known as South Vietnam, were valiant in their resistance to the aggression of the communist North Vietnam. The legislature further finds the refugees from the former Republic of Vietnam who emigrated to the United States of America and settled in the state of Louisiana should be honored and remembered for their sacrifices. Therefore, the only flag depicting the country of Vietnam that may be displayed in any state-sponsored public function or any public institution of learning shall be the flag of the former Republic of Vietnam”

(State of Louisiana: Senate Bill No. 839, July 15, 2003)

Surprisingly, the Act clearly mentions that the only flag depicting the country of Vietnam is the flag of the former Republic of Vietnam. When I interviewed a member of the RVN flag campaign, he explained to me that using the word “depicting” was better than using the political term “representing”. Mr. Quan and many people of Louisiana felt proud of this Act. Some people stated that they were proud that the RVN flag could fly together with the American flag and the National Anthem of RVN was now sung even before that of the United States in some events. By participating in several events of local Vietnamese, I observed two different structures of the flag ceremony. While the VAC and other secular associations saluted the RVN flag and sang the 72

RVN’s national anthem before that of the United States, the religious institutions such as the MQVN church and Van Hanh pagoda saluted the U.S. flag first.

After the success of the Vietnamese American Community in Louisiana, other Vietnamese communities throughout the United States also adopted similar moves. According to Mr. Quan, Louisiana was the first state to pass an act on the RVN flag at the state level. It is considered a state law. In other areas, many communities gained the recognition of the RVN flag only by city council’s resolutions. As of 2006, the RVN flag had officially been recognized as the flag symbolizing Vietnamese Americans in nine states, five counties, and eighty-two cities (Pham 2006). The VAC then organized a large event in St. Agnes Le Thi Thanh church in the West Bank of New Orleans to celebrate the official recognition of the flag. An article on Vietbao.com reported that “more than 300 people attended the ceremony and many people cried when seeing the flag of the Republic of Vietnam flying” (Nhi 2003).

The success in having the RVN flag recognized by state authorities might be said to be the only significant thing that the VAC has done since its establishment. Although its name is the Vietnamese American Community in Louisiana, it has been widely known as an organization of and for Vietnamese American former soldiers in Louisiana. As a gathering of the veterans and former officials of the RVN, it has not received the attention of Catholics coming from rural areas such as Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet. Therefore, unlike the case of the Vietnamese population in Little Saigon in Orange County, California, VAC activities in Louisiana have only served the interests of its ex-military members. People of the 1.5 generation in Versailles village do not have the same feelings with the first generation toward the Vietnamese American Community and its programs. A 55-year-old man, Mr. Loc, told me:

“The Vietnamese American Community [VAC] here doesn’t function well because we have a Catholic parish here. The VAC doesn’t provide assistance to people in terms of news or other social issues. They do not keep us updated... They just have the organization to salute the flag. They have not had much support because the parish and the Buddhist pagoda have their own activities. In addition, their directions fail to attract local people.”

This opinion is shared among the Catholics in Versailles because while they lived under the RVN government, they had little contact and relationship with the government. If one looks back

73 to their hometown in South Vietnam, Phuoc Tinh commune is located in a peninsula that is about 130 kilometers from Ho Chi Minh City; Thanh Hai parish is located at the margin of Phan Thiet city. All the population of these two communes were Catholics engaging in the fishing industry. Therefore, although all of the first generation in New Orleans do not like the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, they do not express the same sentiment with the ones who worked for the RVN government or served in the RVN army. The reason why they salute the RVN and the flag is because these symbols represent something against the communists, cộng sản, the SRV, whose invasion of the South of Vietnam led them to flee from their homeland. Sharing with me his opinion on the recognition of the RVN flag in Louisiana, Mr. Loc said:

Loc: About the RVN flag, I think that it is a relief that Americans console the people who lost the war. I myself don’t feel happy on that issue. People keep saying that Catholics are anti- communist. But I think it is not really true because I have never been to a flag saluting ceremony. Hoang: Some people have told me that the flag stands for freedom, do you think so? Loc: Not really, we are free because of the United States. People like me lived under the communism in Vietnam. We left when we could not stand living there anymore. It was probably the flag of freedom before 1975. But after 1975, it is a new page of history.

Mr. Loc tried to say that the RVN flag had lost its meaning as a symbol of a country. Its recognition was only a relief for the Vietnamese American veterans because it helped to console Vietnamese American veterans and their families for the loss in the Vietnam War.

Regarding the second generation, I attended several community events organized by the VAC and the Vietnamese American Veterans’ association such as the flag-raising ceremonies in the Lunar New Year (2011 and 2012), the 30 April commemoration of losing the RVN, and the RVN army commemoration on June 19. In all of these events, I rarely saw any young people attending the ceremony. Even though at one event, a young Vietnamese American youth made an amazing speech, I thought it was a pre-arrangement of the organizers for having a representative of the second generation giving that speech. I was fortunate to be in a commemoration of April 30 organized by the Vietnamese American Young Leaders Association of New Orleans (VAYLA-NO) at its office. The ceremony began not with the RVN national anthem and the RVN flag. Instead, the youth introduced the self-made timeline of the journey of

Vietnamese Americans from Vietnam to New Orleans. The timeline covered the history of Vietnam from the Chinese conquest in 111 B.C to the present. After that they showed a short video clip about the chaotic situation around the Fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. Then fifteen attenders gathered to form a circle and each one spoke briefly about what they thought about that day. Mostly people expressed their gratitude to their parents who managed to come to the United States. Others also prayed for a more peaceful world. The ceremony ended after 30 minutes. During the ceremony, I did not hear even one phrase criticizing the communists/communism in Vietnam. The youth only presented the history without referring to the need to salute the RVN flag or to change the situation in Vietnam. A 28-year-old female member of VAYLA shared with me when I asked her about the RVN flag:

“Honestly, I don’t know the meaning of it. I just know it’s a Vietnam flag. I don’t really know. Oh, I know that there are two flags: a bad flag and a good one. And I know my mom has said the yellow and the red stripes is the good one. And the one with the star, I think, is the bad one. Right? My mom has said that it is the Vietcong flag, and the other one is the South. So it’s bad and good, right?”

A 25-year-old male member also thought about the RVN flag through the view of their parents. He said:

“It symbolizes for those Vietnamese Americans that freedom still exists. So it gives them hope for a better Vietnam, the one that is more democratic and more understanding of Vietnamese people. And so it gives hope to the first generation of a more democratic Vietnam.”

When I pushed him to say more about his opinion regarding the SRV flag and the RVN flag, he replied:

“The red flag is obviously communist. But more importantly, it’s a government that is not wanted by its people. A government is supposed to be a representation of its people and unfortunately that’s not what I see when I see a red flag. It is in any textbook: the yellow star and red background is the flag of the current Vietnam. But then I grew up and I see the other, you know, the yellow and red-striped one. That’s the one I remember now. I started figuring out on my own.”

In spite of being influenced by the first generation, the second generation’s opinion about the RVN flag is different from that of the first generation. The flag no longer symbolizes the lost Republic of Vietnam as the first generation remembers. Instead, it has acquired several moral values of being the good flag compared to the bad flag of the SRV; of being the flag of freedom, democracy and hope. Therefore, despite sharing a collective memory of the Republic of Vietnam, different generations and people of different backgrounds have various interpretations of a certain symbol, in this case, the RVN flag. The recognition of the RVN flag in Louisiana not only consoles the first generation for the loss of the war, but also helps the other people understand the reasons and values of being American.

2.5. Conclusion

This chapter has provided an overview of the racial politics in New Orleans. The racial composition of the city reflects the long history of French and Spanish colonialisation and Americanisation. Black population in the city suffered from the slavery period. They were disenfranchised by the grandfather clause and suffered from the racial discrimination under Jim Crow laws until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Nowadays, the city’s population is composed of Native Americans, Blacks, Creoles (French born in New Orleans), Whites, Mexican Americans, and Asian Americans. While the Black population is the largest in the city and many Blacks have achieved high positions in the political system, white supremacy ideology has remained in effect. Under such circumstances, the first Vietnamese refugees arrived in the city in the late 1975 and the Vietnamese American population continued to increase through several waves of immigration. Being a minority group in the Black-dominated city of New Orleans, many Vietnamese Americans chose to stay concentrated in two locations on the two sides of the Mississippi River. With the support from the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Vietnamese American Catholics succeeded in strengthening their community and expanding their residential areas. The next chapter will analyse the interaction of Vietnamese Americans with people of other races in the city, as well as their perceptions of people of other races. Chapter 3 will show how the white supremacy ideology influenced Vietnamese Americans.

Chapter 3 Vietnamese Americans in a Racialized New Orleans

New Orleans is well-known as a city with a majority of Black population. Similar to many areas in the south of the United States, its Black population suffered from severe racial discrimination during the slavery and the Jim Crow periods. Starting in the 1960s, after a number of activities against racist practices, especially the civil rights movement, Black population in the United States began to experience civil rights. However, living in this post-civil rights era does not assure that Black population ceases to undergo many subtle and covert forms of racism. Ten years after the peak of the Civil Rights Movement, New Orleans was one of the cities that received thousands of Vietnamese refugees in the post-Vietnam war period (1975-1980). Vietnamese refugees, once arriving in New Orleans, had to adapt to the racialized system in America.

This chapter will examine a number of racist practices in New Orleans to uncover the views of the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans towards other races. In this chapter, I agree with Bonilla-Silva that “[D]oing ideological analysis about race then is not a matter of finding “racists” but rather an attempt to uncover the frames, racetalk, and storylines that help lubricate a racial order at a particular historical juncture” (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 138). Beginning with a discussion on security issues in the neighbourhood of Village de l’Est, the first section points out how Vietnamese Americans built up racial stereotypes against Black Americans through daily activities. The chapter then extends its focus to racial issues in the school environment that Vietnamese American students experienced. As a minority group in Black/White-dominated schools, Vietnamese Americans students sometimes suffered from racial teasing and taunting acts from students of the majority group. The case studies of their schooling indicate how Vietnamese American students fit in the model minority myth. As a result, these trapped in the white supremacy ideology that denigrates Black American students. Interactions between Vietnamese Americans and people of other races in public places and workplaces are also examined in detail. The chapter ends with a discussion about political power of minority groups in the United States. Through the case of ex-congressman Cao, that section aims to show how the U.S political system reflects the white supremacy ideology. By examining the multiple arenas in

77 which Vietnamese Americans participate, the chapter argues that Vietnamese Americans have been incorporated into the racialization process. The demography of New Orleans made the case of Vietnamese different from other predominantly White cities. Despite experiencing mistreatments from Black Americans, Vietnamese Americans developed a stereotypical view against Black Americans that made them not only the victims of racial discrimination but also discriminators in the white racial frame. Hence, the daily practices of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans show a strong degree of conformity to the white supremacy ideology.

3.1. Everyday Racism

3.1.1. Everyday Racism in the Neighbourhood

Earlier Years

After Vietnamese Americans arrived in New Orleans, they learnt a number of new ideas, from daily practices such as driving, working with people of other races to the law system and the color-blind ideology. Misunderstanding was also a cause of violent acts that were viewed as racist acts. Many Vietnamese people began to fish in the Gulf of Mexico after they settled in New Orleans. Although many of them had been fishermen in the South of Vietnam, they did not know the fishing tradition and rules in the United States. Fishermen whom I interviewed often remembered that they used to fish everywhere in the Gulf coast without understanding that there were certain areas with private property signs. They did not know that these places were fish farms of other people, and kept fishing in these areas. When American fishermen discovered their loss due to Vietnamese fishermen, violent acts happened between the two groups. With a number of Vietnamese victims, Vietnamese people began to think that American fishermen were racially discriminating against Vietnamese American ones. However, they gradually understood the fishing rules and the property signs in the Gulf coast. Then fewer clashes happened.

When Vietnamese Americans arrived in New Orleans as sponsored refugees, they received support from the Catholic Charities in New Orleans and other aid from the U.S. government. Seeing the Vietnamese’s increasing of properties, assets and their expansion into the neighbourhood, some Black Americans blamed them for getting too much support from the U.S. government. They argued that “because the Vietnamese kept having financial support from the

78 government, they could accumulate money to buy houses, cars and other stuff”, said Mr. Ken Pham. Dr. Vu, a medical doctor, remembered showing some cheques with tax-deducted amounts to some Black Americans in order to prove that he did pay taxes here. After some time, Black Americans learnt that Vietnamese people also had to work and worked very hard to earn money. Then they did not make these comments again.

The influx of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans in the late 1970s also caused a job crisis for the city. While they took part in the local job market, a number of Black Americans could not get the jobs and blamed Vietnamese refugees for “stealing” the jobs from them. This perception resulted in a hostile relationship between Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans for a long time. Dr. Vu remembered: “There was a large supermarket in this area, with more than 20 check- out counters. At that time, only some White Americans worked as cashiers, Black Americans was too lazy. After some time, Vietnamese people took over the cashier positions at the supermarket. The White American owners liked to hire Vietnamese people, so they fired some Black American workers. Theses Black Americans really did not like Vietnamese Americans”. Dr. Vu’s narrative not only describes the situation in the early stage of his life in New Orleans but also shows his stereotyping against Black Americans. Nevertheless, this perception is common among Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans. Throughout this chapter, this perception will be analysed in several arenas of daily life in New Orleans.

In general, Vietnamese Americans experienced some racial discriminatory acts in the early stage of life in New Orleans. While they tried to adapt to the new life, they also had to face hostilities from the settlement society. Many of the early negative experiences above contributed to the formation of the racial perception of Vietnamese people. In the later section of this chapter, I will describe the way in which Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans perceived race in their neighbourhood, and how they conformed to the white supremacy ideology.

An Insecure Neighbourhood

Security was the first concern that I heard from local residents when I arrived in Village de l’Est in July 2010. By analysing how Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans perceived the security in their residential neighbourhood in relation to the presence of low-income Black Americans, this section points out a racial prejudice of Vietnamese Americans that is similar to that of White

Americans. In April 2010, the BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused joblessness for thousands of people. Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans were also severely affected by the Oil spill because a significant number of them had relied on the seafood industry in the Gulf Coast. During the first months of the disaster, the Catholic Charities of New Orleans managed to provide food vouchers of $100 USD per week each for only 75 families on a first-come-first- served basis. Therefore, every morning people who were seeking vouchers had to line up for hours before the office opened. I heard several Vietnamese people, both men and women, complained about the risk of getting robbed by Black American thugs if going alone in the early morning. The women also questioned the office for applying this method of voucher distribution because it was unfair for women, especially women with small children.

Many people compared the security situations before and after Hurricane Katrina in the village. The 70-year-old Mr. Doan affirmed: “About security, in the past when there were a lot of Mỹ đen (Black Americans), there were a lot of robberies, especially in the Versailles Arms apartment area. After Mỹ đen left, the situation is better. Mainly Vietnamese people, only some Black Americans and Mexicans are living here”. However, among the Vietnamese Americans, there are different perceptions of security before and after Katrina. Mrs. Van, a lady in her sixties, explained to me:

Mrs. Van: I don’t dare to go to church alone in the morning because I am afraid of Black Americans.

Hoang: Why are you afraid?

Mrs. Van: Nowadays, Black Americans in Versailles are mainly renters, not home owners. Last year, I heard some cases of people who got robbed and raped behind the small church [in Versailles]. Therefore, even when I go to local Vietnamese grocery stores, I have to look around before getting out of my car. We used to be afraid of only Black Americans, and now we are afraid of Mexican immigrants too. We can’t get close to them because we are weaker than them.

Hoang: What do you mean when saying that you are weaker than them? I think Vietnamese are predominant in Versailles.

Mrs. Van: Yes, we have more Vietnamese here, but Vietnamese are not really united. They just live for themselves [mạnh ai người nấy sống]. Therefore, we have to find ways to protect ourselves.

Hoang: When did you know about this insecurity?

Mrs. Van: It has been like this for a long time. Old people don’t know the language, so they cannot do anything. If young people see it [the robbery], they would call the police. It’s not safe in this neighbourhood. After Katrina, three cars of my family were stolen here. Before Katrina, this street was very safe because the owners stayed in their houses. White Americans have moved out completely after Katrina, and Black Americans together with Mexican immigrants have rented these houses. This area has become insecure.

During this interview, Mrs. Van did not refer to any bad Vietnamese or Vietnamese gangs. She only focused on Black Americans and later Mexican immigrants when stating the cause of fear. This conclusion of hers was drawn from both local rumours and her own assumption. Although she did not know who stole her cars, she accused Black American thugs of stealing them as “White Americans moved out completely after Katrina”. To Mrs. Van, the neighbourhood became insecure because of the white flight and the influx of Black American and Mexican renters.

Mr. Sang, a Vietnamese fisherman, also shared with Mrs. Van the insecure feelings with the newcomers. As a homeowner who had lived in Versailles for more than 30 years, he expressed his concerns about the renters. Sang: People are moving out [of the village]. Just look at my neighbours’ houses, I am fed up with living in this area. In the past, people who lived in the houses were owners. Now, they don’t want [to live here], they have sold their houses to other people. The fact that the new owners rent the houses to other people makes me feel insecure. Hoang: Who have bought the houses, Vietnamese or Americans? Sang: Vietnamese Hoang: What’s wrong with the Vietnamese new owners? Sang: Yeah, they have bought the houses and rented them out to Mexican, Black American strangers. Living here is not good any more. I think this area is insecure because the majority are renters. Renters’ areas are mostly disordered, people there are naughty, drinking and

using drugs. Meanwhile, people who live in their own houses take care of their houses and these areas are better. Hoang: Are there many renters in this area? Sang: Not in the past, but now they have been moving in, probably next month my neighbour will rent out his house. White Americans used to live here a lot. The house next to mine is owned by Black Americans, but they are good because they own the house and they have jobs. Hoang: Yes, Black Americans also have houses. Sang: In general, people who live in their houses are more cautious towards their properties. The houses for rent may be rented to many different people in one year. Some renters have jobs, some don’t, some take drugs and drink. Hoang: Have you ever talked to Black and White Americans? Sang: Yes, I meet a lot. I say “hi”, “Morning” to them. There are good and bad people. But for the renters, because the houses are not theirs, so they don’t care. They could rent a better house in another street in the neighbourhood. Something like that.

According to Mr. Sang, before Hurricane Katrina, the neighbourhood was safe because there were more homeowners regardless of whether they were Whites, Blacks or Vietnamese. His experience was that homeowners took care of their houses and had better contact with neighbours. However, after Katrina, more White Americans sold the houses to Vietnamese people, and the new owners rented out the houses to people who needed housing. Mr. Sang considered Black American and Mexican renters to be unsettled, jobless and mostly drinkers and drug-users, making the neighbourhood unsafe. In the interview, he not only compared the owners with the renters, but he expressed his nostalgia of living close by with White Americans. The phrases such as “before Katrina it was safe”, “White Americans used to live here a lot” indicate Mr. Sang’s preference for sharing the neighbourhood with homeowners and Whites.

Nevertheless, not all Black Americans living in Versailles were renters. I met several Black American homeowners in local meetings and in daily life activities. Mr. Edward Blouvin lived in Versailles from 1980 onwards. Although his house was located on a street with four Vietnamese American households, they did not know each other well. On Sunday, he went to a Catholic church for English mass because the English mass at 11 a.m. in MQVN church was too late for him. Therefore, he did not have much communication with Vietnamese people. However, he had

82 a positive view toward Vietnamese people: “Vietnamese people are nice but shy”. He could only say “hi” to his four old Vietnamese neighbours. Despite having little contact with his neighbours, Mr. Blouvin was very active in community activities. He was a member of the executive board of Village de l’Est improvement group, a group that aimed to improve the living conditions of the neighbourhood. Mr. Blouvin owned his house and it was broken into three times in 2011- 2012. In the interview, he told me that his house was located “adjacent to the houses of the thugs” and he could not do anything but “setting up more security systems in the house”.

One time, when I was at a local gas station, a Black American woman came and asked me if I saw a purse somewhere. Later, she explained to me that her car was broken into and the thief took her purse. She was looking for the purse with an idea that the thief could have thrown her bag somewhere after taking the money. Therefore, not only Vietnamese people but also Black Americans experienced robbery and theft in the neighbourhood. This was the common perception regarding local security, not merely by Vietnamese people. However, Vietnamese people seemed to attribute the problem to Black American and Mexican renters.

In order to deal with this security issue, most people set up alarm systems for their houses and chose to go by car or in group. Mrs. Phuoc: “When I go jogging around Versailles, I always go with a group of Vietnamese friends. Not only because it is more fun to go with friends, but it is also safer for us in this neighbourhood”. When I asked if she had any experience with robbery or the like, she replied: “I have not had any, but a friend of mine living in the next street just got robbed by Black Americans right in front of his house few weeks ago”. Regarding her own solution, she told me: “Since I serve in the Church’s choir, I have to practice singing with the choir every Saturday evening. I always walk to the church because my house is close. When the rehearsal is done, I go back home alone on the road. Sometimes I am afraid but I know that my friends are driving behind me, so I think that if anything happens my friends would call the police or do something”. Although Mrs. Phuoc did not have the experience of getting into trouble with robbery, the example that she cited was attributed to Black Americans.

Being nice with Black Americans was also a way to overcome the fear. Mrs. Ngoc, who was in her early 50s, shared with me her way to deal with the fear of Black Americans in the neighbourhood. For her, saying “hello” and asking about their health was a way to be treated

83 nicely. Therefore, whenever seeing some Black Americans on the road, she started smiling with them, waving her hands from far away and actively talking to them when approaching or passing them. Although this method might not save Mrs. Ngoc from actual robbers, it functioned as a psychological support for her when walking in the village.

In August 2012, the MQVN church organized a meeting about local security. According to the pastoral priest, this was the first time the parish put the security issue on the table. In the past, there were robberies in the Versailles Arms apartment area, but nobody stood up. He called for a way to make the condition in Versailles more secure for local residents as well as for visitors.

Tuoc Tran, a Vietnamese police officer who served in New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), made a crime review of Village de l’Est neighbourhood from January 2012 to August 2012 for the meeting. According to the review, 23 houses were broken into, 13 cars were stolen, 19 car glasses were broken, and there were also 6 robberies, 1 rape, and 3 murders. This detailed review received a great deal of attention from the audience. About 90 to 100 people attended, mostly elderly men and women. In this presentation, Mr. Tran did not use any specific terms referring to who were the criminals, or to their race. He played a neutral role as a knowledgeable rapporteur with Vietnamese people regarding crimes in the neighborhood. Only one time in the presentation did he mention directly: “a problem in our neighbourhood is that nowadays, less Vietnamese, but Mexicans and people of color hang out on Alcee Fortier Boulevard”. Mr. Tran explained to the audience that NOPD police officers could neither stop them from going around nor do ID checks unless people violated the law. The meeting ended up with a number of suggestions on how to enhance the solidarity of the community. In Mr. Tran’s view, “Mexicans and people of color” who hanged out on a boulevard caught Vietnamese Americans’ attention and aroused security concerns.

In general, since Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East lived in a suburban area, their lifestyle was a factor that limited interaction between Vietnamese Americans and people of other races. It greatly contributed to the shallow contact, sometimes to misunderstandings, among the people living in the same neighbourhood. For three decades, there was no time that people of different races built a close friendship, not until in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (See chapter four on the impact of Katrina).

For the second generation, the local news about criminals and crime rates contributed to their prejudice against Black Americans. Ms. Thuy, 35 years old, shared with me her perception on local safety: Ms. Thuy: “It is [not safe] for the whole city, it’s worse in certain areas. Anywhere you go in New Orleans East, it’s scary. A couple of months ago, they found a lady that was dead right there at the local market. Before that, they had found another dead lady near where my mom has always been walking. Hoang: So why do they still want to stay here, if this area is not safe? Ms. Thuy: Because of the church, that’s why they stay here. Hoang: Do you think the Westbank area is safer? Ms. Thuy: Westbank is not really safer either. I’ve heard a lot of crimes too, on news. Hoang: Which race is most mentioned? Ms. Thuy: I think more African (Americans). Hoang: Before Katrina, the security in this area was worse than now, is that true? Ms. Thuy: Now is worse. I remember when I was younger, I lived in the place down there, I always played outside. We didn’t have to worry about anything. But now, when I walk the dog, I get scared. Just because, you never know. I wasn’t scared when I was young. You know, we used to go for Halloween, walked all around in the neighbourhood. But they would do that no more. Very rare, because it’s more dangerous.

Ms. Thuy thought that the whole city was insecure, and Village de l’Est was not the worst. In her view, crimes were committed more by Black Americans than by other races. Comparing to the past, the current condition was worse because Thuy no longer dared to walk her dog far from her house as she mentioned the cases of two women found dead in the area. The negative stereotype of Black Americans was strengthened with stories of such local incidents.

I many times witnessed how out of security concerns, Vietnamese American youth took care of their friends when going back home in the evening. Hue Bui and I were waiting for some friends in front of the community center on Alcee Fortier Blvd around 6 p.m. She parked the car and we stayed inside with the engine and the headlights on. I asked her: “why do you keep the engine on? We have to wait for more than 15 minutes”. She replied: “It’s better to turn it on. It’s scary here”. I looked around and saw an empty sidewalk and a quiet boulevard. I also felt scared as I heard about robberies in the neighbourhood. Another evening when a friend drove me and a

85 female friend back home after a dinner, he stopped the car in front of that friend’s house and waited for the friend to open the gate, close the gate, and open and close the door of the house, before he continued to take me to my place. These were the first experiences of mine when I first arrived in New Orleans. Later on, I understood the reason why those friends felt they had to be that careful.

In sum, the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans expressed concerns about Black Americans in the neighbourhood. While the first and 1.5 generations of Vietnamese Americans pointed out a potential threat from Black American tenants, the second generation who grew up with Black Americans tried to maintain a neutral view toward Black American dwellers. It is revealed in the interview quotes that only low-income Black Americans caused anxiety for Vietnamese American residents. A class dimension became clearer as showed in the case of Mr. Edward Blovin. Being a homeowner in the neighbourhood, he not only kept a friendly relationship with his Vietnamese neighbours but also was an active community member. Like other Vietnamese residents, he was also concerned about his Black American “thugs” living nearby. The class dimension influenced how Vietnamese Americans positioned themselves in relation to low- income Black Americans. This is close to a white idea that considers low-income Black Americans a burden to the society and the low-income residential accommodations needing cleansing (Republican Congressman Richard Baker (1987-2008), 6th district of Louisiana). This issue will be discussed in detail in chapter four on the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the city. However, at this point, it can be argued that regarding the security issue in the neighbourhood, Vietnamese Americans seemed to hold a stereotyping view against Black Americans. The stereotyping view came from the rumours, incidents in the community as well as from their own experiences with Black Americans.

3.1.2. Learning about Race in School

Vietnamese American children went to both public and private schools in New Orleans. The choice of a school depended on the wealth of the parents, or the parents’ understanding of the school system in the United States. Chou and Feagin point out: “[I]n the public mind Asian Americans are often synonymous with academic excellence, in part because their group scores on standardized tests and their college enrollment levels often exceed those of other groups,

86 including whites” (Chou and Feagin 2008: 55). To an extent, Vietnamese American students seemed to fit this expectation. However, many of them recognized the cost of being labelled a model minority and did not want to be seen under that label. This section will analyse the schooling experiences of Vietnamese American youth in relation to students of different races. It argues that inequality was observed not only between the public and the private school systems but also between Black-dominated and White-dominated schools.

Min Zhou and Carl Bankston studied the Vietnamese American youth in New Orleans East in the 1990s. One of their findings is that children who conformed to parents’ suggestions and religious teachings often achieved good academic results. Compared to the academic results of Black Americans in the same neighbourhood, Vietnamese American youth performed better. The authors asked whether this was another model minority in the United States (Zhou & Bankston 1998). However, instead of analysing the impact of the achievement of Vietnamese American youth upon other minority groups, Zhou and Bankston focused on delineating the process of how Vietnamese American youth succeeded in school. By situating the Vietnamese American youth in the relationship to Black and White American students, this dissertation will reveal how the model minority myth did not help Vietnamese American youth not suffer from racial hostility in school.

List of Schools Mentioned in this Chapter Elementary school Middle-school High-school Public 1. Sherwood Forest 1. Sarah T Reed 2. Abramson Private 1. Lake Castle 1. Brother Martin Charter school 1. Benjamin Franklin

In New Orleans, schools were often predominantly either White or Black in terms of students’ racial composition. Asian Americans, more precisely Vietnamese Americans, in New Orleans made up only a small number in any school. Being a minority group in school, Vietnamese American students had to deal with much unpleasant teasing from classmates of other races at all levels. In each school grade, Vietnamese students faced different kinds of teasing. However, not

87 all Vietnamese American students considered it seriously racially insulting. Students would respond to the teasing in different ways.

Hue Bui, born in New Orleans, a lady in her 30s, remarked: “In my elementary school (Sherwood Forest), 75 percent was Black American students, 20-25 percent Asian Americans, the rest was Whites. And in middle school (Lake Castle Private School), we were also a minority, but this time the number was switched, 60 percent Whites, 35 Asian Americans, 5 percent Black Americans. My high school (Benjamin Franklin) was pretty much culturally diverse, 60 percent whites, 20 (percent) Black Americans, 20 (percent) Asian Americans (Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese)”. Hoang: Did you experience mistreatment in school? Hue: Yes, kids got picked on. Kids were having harmless fun, tricking on other kids. But in middle and high-school years, we were not picked on. Hoang: You were picked on by whom? Hue: by Mỹ đen (Black Americans) Hoang: How did you respond? Did you fight with them? Hue: Usually, we pretty much accepted it. And then we got a little bigger and my brothers would … stick up for us. Hoang: Do you remember them? Hue: Yes, three of them. When I left the school, I don’t see them anymore.

Although Hue Bui was teased by Black American classmates in her elementary school, she considered it “kids’ harmless fun, tricking on other kids”. Instead of teasing back the Black kids, she bore the teasing and she joined with her brothers for defense some time. In the case of Hue Bui, the teasing happened only in the elementary school. Her schooling went well in the gifted class since her third grade. In her middle and high schools, the racial composition of students was switched from predominantly Black Americans to predominantly Whites. The relative balance of population between Black American and Asian American students in her high school may have led to the end of racial teasing from Black American students. However, Hue Bui acknowledged that her school environment was better than other schools. She commented: “In the East (of New Orleans) we don’t have good schools. Seeing like, Sarah T Reed (high school) has always been a pretty bad school. Kids going there often drop out, not go to school, a lot of fights, racial discrimination. I am glad that I wasn’t put into that environment”.

Different from Hue Bui’s case, the 35-year-old Thuy Nguyen also went to the public system for her schooling and experienced some bullying at school. In her high school (Abramson), she remembered that the number of African American students was about 60 percent, about 40 percent was Asian, mainly Vietnamese Americans, and very few White American students. Hoang: Did you experience any kind of bad treatments from Black American students to Vietnamese students? Thuy: Yeah, they did. Well, not too much in high-school, more in the middle school. I tried to stay away from them because they did bullying, like sometimes you caught the bus, they always pushed us aside and got on the bus first, stuffs like that. Hoang: Did it happen in middle school only, not in high school? Thuy: It happened in every … middle school. I stepped on someone’s shoe one time and they wanted to fight me. You know, they thought that you were better than them, but I didn’t treat them differently, just they felt like that. Hoang: You have Black American friends? Thuy: I get along with them, I am not racist [raises voice], I mean I get along with people, but I don’t have personal friends, work friends, just co-workers. I don’t hang around with too many friends. I have one best friend, Vietnamese. And then the rest, either is married or having boyfriends, they don’t want to hang out, no more.

Thuy Nguyen got bullied to some extent in her middle school by Black American students. During her school time, she seemed to be a quiet student and mainly hung out with Vietnamese female friends. I noticed that in the interview, she never used the term “Blacks” or “African Americans”. Instead, the words “they” and “them” were used to refer to Black Americans. Although she claimed that she was “not racist” and she “didn’t treat them differently”, she agreed that she was “better than them”. In Thuy Nguyen’s view, Vietnamese American students had better schooling performances than Black American ones, especially in her public school. She said: Thuy: They (the high school) had honour classes. I was in honours class. A lot Vietnamese students (were) in honour class. If you had GPA 3.5 or greater, they put you in honours class. Hoang: Do you mean Vietnamese American students were better than other students? Thuy: Yes, it was a public school. They didn’t study as much as Vietnamese students. Hoang: Did you often study at home or school?

Thuy: At home. Sometimes with friends, see, they had top 20 in the class, I was the 14th in the class.

Thuy Nguyen and Hue Bui were all in the honours and gifted classes for their schooling. Since these classes were for high GPA students, the students were more focused and liked to compete with one another in grade. The fact that both of them studied in the honours and gifted classes may have separated them from some Black American students who often teased students of other minority groups.

Among the local schools, Sarah T Reed high school mentioned by Hue Bui is located right in Village de l’Est. It was known to be a “pretty bad” school. Thuy Nguyen also commented: “Sarah T Reed might be the worst, I haven’t been to Sarah T Reed, but I have heard there’re more fights. Abramson (school) is better. The education is better… not much, but a little. They are still two public schools. Just one is right here, close by, and the other one is further. But Sarah T Reed has got more bad students going to that one.” Not all Vietnamese American parents could afford to send their kids to private schools or schools located at a greater distance. Therefore, a number of Vietnamese American children went to Sarah T Reed. Xuan Lan, 30 years old, went to Sarah T Reed high school.

Hoang: How was the racial composition in your school? Xuan Lan: For the Elementary/Middle school and high school, it’s more African Americans. My parents had low income. Both of these public schools, elementary and high school, are in a walking distance. Hoang: What do you think about the quality of the schools? Xuan Lan: Terrible! For the middle school and high school, we had to go through the metal detectors every morning because they were afraid of weapons. The curriculum was terrible, the hygiene and the school were dirty. It wasn’t a school that I would put my kids into now.

The experiences that Xuan Lan had in her middle and high schools were very unpleasant. It was scary to be scanned for metal/weapons every morning when she went to school. Besides, the curriculum and the school environment were so bad that she called them “terrible”. Finally, her schooling memory seemed to be so unpleasant that she would not send her children to the same schools. Being a minority in a Black majority school, Xuan Lan also got teased by Black

Americans students. When I asked further about the teasing acts, Xuan Lan responded with a detailed account:

Hoang: Have you ever been mistreated by people of other races? Xuan Lan: Yes, you know, I went to both schools where the majority of students were Black Americans. I was personally teased before. I felt like you got treated differently if you were a minority at school or in the community. I think that’s why my parents couldn’t pull away from Versailles, because we had this Vietnamese community. We feel we belong here. It’s nice to have somewhere to go when you feel like you belong. Hoang: What did you do when you received the mistreatment? Xuan Lan: Sadly, you just had to ignore it. Because if you didn’t ignore it, it just got worse, got into a fight or an argument. So a lot of times you just ignored it because sometimes it was dangerous for yourself, for you in the situation where there were more them, only me by myself or me and my friend, for our safety reasons, we just ignored it. Hoang: Did you have a group of Vietnamese friends that could defend you? Xuan Lan: Not really because we were always (a) minority in the schools that we went to. We were always a minority. We were always of the other race [to the dominant race in the schools].

Xuan Lan found it helpless as she and her Vietnamese American friends only belonged to a minority group in school. She felt sad and could only try to ignore the teasing acts of African American students. Her childhood was full of unpleasant experiences with Black American students. In all three cases, young Vietnamese Americans relied on Vietnamese friends or relatives when they were picked on by Black Americans.

Male Vietnamese American students also fell into the minority in school. However, they might have different ways to react to racial slurs or mistreatments. Linh Tran, a 22-year old senior college student, also shared his experiences as an Asian kid in school. He claimed he did not have prejudice against other races but he hung out with more Vietnamese children than Black or white ones. For him, he felt more comfortable with Vietnamese friends.

Hoang: In terms of racial composition, what kind of friends did you have the most in school?

Linh: More Vietnamese, as people I knew from schools, we became friends, mutual friends, friends of friends. I made a couple of friends with Americans in class because I asked them for work help. That’s pretty much it. Hoang: Why did you have more Vietnamese friends? Linh: I guess it was more comfortable. But it’s kind of hard, you know, because I didn’t know what Americans would think of me. It’s easier to make friends with Black Americans, Mỹ đen (Black Americans) people, it’s a lot easier. Because we were minorities. Mỹ trắng (White Americans) people, in the back of their heads, you don’t know what they were thinking.

Linh Tran thought that being friends with Black Americans was easier than with Whites because he was a Vietnamese American and therefore he was in the same minority side with Blacks. The same starting point made him feel comfortable to trust and to hang out with Black American friends. Chou and Feagin also found this point in their research population. They point out: “Asian Americans and other friends of color usually provide them a greater sense of belonging and much less threat to self-esteem than friendship groups that are predominant white” (Chou & Feagin 2008: 199). However, Linh Tran only maintained such friendships at a shallow level, compared to his relations with Vietnamese American friends. For the White classmates, he also recognized that Whites not only discriminated against Black Americans but also had racial slurs upon Vietnamese Americans. Hoang: Mỹ trắng, you say we don’t know them? What do you mean? Linh: Some of them were fine. But I went to an all-boy school, a private school. Some of them, you know how they were, discriminating, always tried to make fun of you, called you Asian, it happened all the time. Hoang: So, Mỹ đen people didn’t do that? Linh: Mỹ đen people didn’t do that. Because they knew they were minority, they always got picked on by American people back in the days. But it’s a lot better now. Hoang: Did you get picked on by Mỹ trắng people? Linh: Yeah, high school, mainly in high school. You know bullying back in the days. I didn’t feel offended. I never reported it to teachers. But we were still cool, some guys earned our respect, and I made them respect me. Hoang: How?

Linh: If they made fun of me, I wouldn’t take it seriously, I made fun of them back. I didn’t feel offended. But like, sometimes if they did like chink chink chong, I would be mad. You know, like calling, making fun of Mỹ đen people the N word (niggers) or something, you know. Hoang: Chink chink chong, what is that? Linh: You know how Americans always put you in the field as Chinese. They don’t know if you are Chinese, but they call you Chinese anyway. That’s how they make fun of you. Hoang: You don’t like to be called Chinese? Linh: I mean Chinese doesn’t matter. But they try to make fun of you. Or they do the eyes like this [using two hands to make slits of eyes], you know. That’s what they do in high school. Hoang: Why do they make the eyes like that? Linh: Tricky eyes. Asians have tricky eyes. They stereotype you, stereotyping. It happes. It like saying Asians are good at math. But, you know, I am good at math but not all Asians.

Linh Tran got racial slurs when he was at high school. Different from Hue Bui and Thuy Nguyen, at the age of high school, he was old enough to understand the teasing of White students. According to him, only White students did that because black students “they know they are minority” and they used to be racially discriminated by White people. The term “chink chink chong” was also mentioned as a racist taunting term. Linh Tran thought that the term was comparable to the N-word used to degrade Black people. Although he was not Chinese and the term did not relate to Vietnamese people, the use of the term was to make fun of Asian Americans.

Boy students seemed to have similar reactions to racial teasing. Kevin Nguyen, 26 years old, also shared with me how he was teased in elementary school: Hoang: Did you face any mistreatment in school? Kevin: I think only from the first grade to the third grade. Hoang: By whom? Kevin: Just other people. Hoang: What was the mistreatment? Kevin: Name calling, like Chink chong, it was a long time ago. Hoang: And you don’t like it?

Kevin: I didn’t feel anything. I would make fun of them for being black. And they felt insulted ‘cause they thought I made fun of them (laugh).

Kevin and Linh were both teased in school by students of different races, both Black Americans and White Americans. They neither kept quiet nor stayed away from those students. Instead, by not taking the teasing acts as serious insults, Vietnamese American male students tried to play “cool” by making fun of the teasers in response.

Teachers’ Positions

In the work of Rosalind S. Chou and Joe R. Feagin (2008), they presented cases in which teachers could not do much to prevent racist actions of young pupils against Asian American classmates. When a white pupil of the third grade presented a classroom assignment about other people’s cultures, she unintentionally hurt a Taiwanese American girl. The teacher then played down the problem as “it was just a project” or considered it as kids’ stuff (Chou & Feagin 2008: 59-60). The authors raised a question of how white schools should make serious efforts to teach about racist stereotypes and actions.

For the case in New Orleans, was there any inequality in the teaching curriculum for students of different races? How did teachers treat students of different races in school?

In New Orleans, Hue Bui studied in the gifted class since her third grade and received a good curriculum in a public school.

Hoang: How did the teachers treat you in school? Hue: We were treated equally. I was in the gifted class. I was recommended in the third grade (to be put into the gifted class). It was just a small group of people. Hoang: Did the class have more Vietnamese? Hue: It was mixed. Hoang: Vietnamese American pupils had better result than Black Americans. Was that true? Hue: Yes, it was the influence of parents. They really wanted us to excel in school. Even the children were very competitive. They tried to outdo their peers, to make better grades.

Hue Bui thought that both parents’ care and schooling played important roles for students to excel in school. Among her siblings, she was the smartest and used to tutor her brothers and a

94 sister. Moreover, the gifted classes created a competitive learning environment that required each student to work harder for a better result. Thuy Nguyen also shared this experience in her Abramson high school:

Hoang: Do you see different qualities among the schools in New Orleans? Thuy: Yes, Sarah T Reed (school), more fights. Abramson is better, the education is better. They are still two public schools. Sarah T Reed has got bad students going to that one. Hoang: How about the teachers? Thuy: Teachers, in Abramson, I was in the honour class, so they were good. I mean, I had good teachers. I wasn’t in the regular classes, I was in the honours (class), it was harder.

Both of them went to the gifted/honour classes in public school. From that, they received a better learning environment and did not suffer from racial stereotypes. Nevertheless, gifted/honour classes were not the only chance to have a good education. Linh Tran studied at the Brother Martin High School, a private school. According to him, there were no different treatments of Black, White and Vietnamese students at all. He confirmed: “No difference, the teachers were really good. No different treatments at private school”. He was proud of his school when saying: “[I]t’s a prep school [for] standardizing tests. It teaches you how to “kill” the ACT [meaning that the school prepares students to have better results in the American College Testing program], to go to college more easily”.

In general, although certain acts of students in school may be considered racial hostilities, the experiences of Vietnamese American youth suggest that teachers treated students equally regardless of their races. Students with better grades were eligible to study in the gifted and honour classes. The cases showed in this section also suggest that many of Vietnamese American students received better teaching curricula by qualifying to study in the gifted and honour classes. In addition, students born into wealthy families were sent to private schools in the city. Those privileged students may fit in the model minority myth employed by Whites to blame Black Americans’ failure to succeed in school and to deny the critics of the inequality in the school system. Nevertheless, all of the respondents agreed that schools in New Orleans East were worse than schools in other areas. Had they not studied in the gifted and honour classes or private schools, they would have had difficulties to get to college. Therefore, while they saw no racial barriers or inequality in the individual schools in New Orleans East, Vietnamese American

95 youth expressed a desire for a better schooling system comparable to many schools in the white- dominated areas.

By studying together in school, children of any race develop perceptions about students of different races and may perform racial stereotyping acts that hurt other children. This act does not exclude students of any race. Some Vietnamese American youth recognized that White students had more advantages than Black American and Vietnamese American students. For the case of Linh Tran, he understood the minority status of Vietnamese Americans but he did not think that he should be shy. If White students had certain privileged positions, Vietnamese students also created their own position in the racial hierarchy and try to gain other people’s respect.

Like many other Asian American groups, Vietnamese American students always felt being a minority in Black-dominated schools. For Vietnamese American girls, they tried to stay away from Black American students in order to feel safer. Other times, they stuck together with their siblings or Vietnamese friends to protect themselves from racial teasing and minor discriminatory acts from Black American students. For Vietnamese American school boys, as they grew up, some learnt to protect themselves and kept the respect by means other than engaging in physical violence (the case of Linh Tran).

Finally, the cases also suggest that excelling in school did not save Vietnamese American students from everyday racial stereotypes in school. They also endured the minority status, and the status of forever foreigners. Xuan Lan remarked: “Yes, a lot of Vietnamese are in the top of the class. I really don’t see any barriers at school. But for example last year, there was a valedictorian, she made a speech and spoke in Vietnamese a little bit toward her parents. In the auditorium, people (started) yelling at her, almost made her cry on the stage, that was a part of the bullying. Even when she made it to the top of the class, because she wanted to speak in her language to her parents, some of the people just kind of stopped that, yelling at her, cursing at her. That took the pride away from her while she was on the stage. It was in a graduation, she was doing a speech, her valedictorian speech. It was in Sarah T Reed.” Xuan Lan expressed her strong disagreement with the action of the audience to the Vietnamese American girl. Xuan Lan thought that it was an act of bullying.

3.1.3. Racism in Public Places

Public places in which Vietnamese Americans conducted regular activities in American society might also contain subtle racial discrimination acts. This section investigates the participation of Vietnamese Americans in a number of places such as hospitals, police departments, entertainment centers, and even the roadside. It will help to shed light on the question of how racial stereotyping worked in New Orleans. The answer to this question also helps to expose the position of Vietnamese Americans in the U.S. racial hierarchy.

For the first generation, the language barrier not only prevented them from getting their jobs done by themselves, but it also caused mistreatment from people of other races. Xuan Lan recalled the case of her father mistreated in a local hospital.

Hoang: How did the doctor and nurses treat you? Xuan Lan: The hospitals I went to were in Slidell and Metairie, those hospitals were a little better. But my parents went to the hospital here in New Orleans East (Methodist), when it was open before the storm. My parents also had to go to Charity hospital, where the condition was not very great. Hoang: What do you mean by the physical conditions? Xuan Lan: The physical conditions, the doctors, because Charity hospital was a public hospital, they weren’t very attentive. They were just in and out, just really quick. You didn’t get the best side of the services like you would in smaller hospitals or hospitals in another parish, I guess. Hoang: Was Methodist a large hospital here? Xuan Lan: Yes, it was. I guess at that time, the employees weren’t very friendly to my parents because they didn’t speak English and we were younger. So, at that time, I just felt that they didn’t give us a fair service as everybody else would. It’s because my parents couldn’t speak English, so it, I guess, kind of caused the problems for them. Hoang: Were you with them? Xuan Lan: I didn’t intervene because I was still very young, but my sisters were there. Hoang: Do you think the problem was just because of the language? Xuan Lan: Yeah, because we were younger, I think, I think it was a little bit, I don’t know how to put in a nicer term, but I thought it was a little bit of racism in the hospital. You know, you can see how they treated the English-speaking clients, Black Americans, White

patients, you can see the service was a little bit different. Or people with insurance, I mean, I guess there were a lot of things, but I think one of the main things that we saw was that they got frustrated with us. You know, my parents couldn’t understand them. So, I felt that race was the main reason why the service wasn’t great, not great as they should have been. Hoang: How about people who spoke good English there? Would the treatment be better? Xuan Lan: I think so, because lots of time we could hold ourselves better. I felt like a lot of times they took advantages of the people that they felt couldn’t speak up for themselves. I guess if you know what you’re talking about, you speak the language well, they tend to have a little more respect for you.

The case of Xuan Lan’s parents in the hospital is a very strong evidence of how the language barrier caused mistreatment in New Orleans. Not knowing the language, Xuan Lan’s parents had to rely on their children for every instruction of the doctors and nurses. As Xuan Lan noted, she felt that “they got frustrated with us” because her “parents couldn’t understand them”. Through her experiences in other hospitals, she thought that the case could have been different if her parents had gone to hospital in another parish. By saying this, she also implied that the service quality of public hospitals in Orleans parish, especially the New Orleans East, was lower than that of hospitals in other nearby parishes.

However, not all Vietnamese Americans of the first generation got unfavourable treatments in public hospitals in New Orleans. Mrs. Sy Tran, 75 years old, felt well when she gave birth to her two boys in 1976 and 1978 in New Orleans’ public hospital. Before the interview with me, she went to a hospital for an X-ray of her belly and her back. Although she had no negative experiences with American doctors, she chose to go to a Vietnamese American doctor for the health check. She said: “Yeah, it is easier to go to Vietnamese doctors. If I went to American doctors, I would need someone to interpret for me. It would be uncomfortable and bothering. American doctors are nice, Vietnamese doctors are also the same”. From Mrs. Sy’s view, it is understandable that American doctors at Xuan Lan’s parents’ public hospital found it uneasy to work with patients through interpreters. Many other Vietnamese people of the first generation had to rely on their children and the staff at Vietnamese American non-profit organizations to help with interpretation for public services such as utility bills, water and sewerage bills, telephone bills and medical exam appointments. I was also asked to take people to hospitals for medical exams and/or surgeries. Old people did not have confidence to go by themselves, and

98 their children had to work in the daytime. Nevertheless, I never saw any sign of mistreatment of patients by the doctors/nurses in the hospitals that I took them to. Therefore, the lack of English competence was a potential barrier for the first generation of Vietnamese to receive full services by people of other races in public places such as hospitals.

In New Orleans, as well as everywhere in the United States, police cars go patrolling every now and then. Dealing with the police also shapes how Vietnamese Americans perceive American society. As I described the community meeting of the MQVN parish in the previous section, Vietnamese American elderly really cared about the local security and the infrastructure. They even criticized the local police for discriminating or not taking care of the neighbourhood. A concern of Vietnamese people was how to deal with New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) officers. Village de l’Est was often mentioned as a Vietnamese enclave in New Orleans as about 44 percent of the population was Vietnamese. In the same meeting, Mr. Tho made a comment that NOPD police discriminated against this neighbourhood when local Vietnamese called the police department. He commented: “There’s a discrimination issue here because if people in Versailles called the police, it took them a while to come to the area. However, if people, who lived on Bullard Avenue, just 3 miles away from Versailles, made a call, the police came right after. Vietnamese people here don’t call the police because they have got frustrated with the slow response of the NOPD”.

Rosalind S. Chou and Joe R. Feagin also found the same comments from their informants. They pointed out: “many Asian Americans are immigrants who distrust the police and have a limited understanding of U.S. Laws” (Chou & Feagin 2008: 29). However, more examples from other Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans point to an issue with the police department. Agreeing with Mr. Tho, Mr. Minh shared his own experiences with the NOPD officers in New Orleans East. He recalled the day when he was robbed in front of Winn Dixie, the biggest grocery supermarket in the area. After he called 911, he was then taken to the local police department and requested to stay there and to wait. After several hours of waiting, he walked upstairs and saw some police officers watching football on TV. He concluded: “Do not believe the police here, they discriminate against us!” In the same meeting, people began to question the role and efficiency of the NOPD. Some of them also moved beyond the negligence of the NOPD to that of the local government by pointing out the lack of investment in the infrastructure and in the

99 hospitals in New Orleans East. As the result of the neglect, the infrastructure became rundown, and the insurance rates of houses and cars became higher.

In daily life, different Vietnamese Americans would have different ways to treat Black/White Americans. Many of my interviewees acknowledged that Vietnamese Americans had racial slurs upon African Americans and looked up to White Americans. Mr. Tuc Nguyen, born in 1952 and arriving in the United States in 1975, affirmed that he had not been mistreated by Americans, and that only Vietnamese discriminated against Black Americans.

Hoang: Have you ever been racially mistreated in the United States? Tuc: No, never. In the United States, they obey the laws. There are many immigrants. So, they are familiar with people of color. Before Vietnamese people came, there had been Cubans, Irish and other immigrants. Hoang: Do you think the position of Vietnamese is higher than that of Black Americans in the society? Tuc: Yes. (Black) Americans don’t discriminate, but Vietnamese are the ones who discriminate (against Black Americans). Vietnamese people like to go shopping in White American areas and entertainment centers, and avoid going to Black American areas. Hoang: Why is that? Tuc: Partly because of the safety, but the main thing is that we look down on (chê) Black Americans. We discriminate against them by only going to White American areas. Good- income people also like to buy houses in White American areas for more safety. Nobody dares to go to Black-American-dominated areas in the evening/ They would kill us. If we want to find a place to entertain, we would go to White American areas even if Black Americans organize something in the weekend.

Mr. Tuc’s position is very common among the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans. As it is discussed in the previous section on security concerns, Vietnamese Americans were very concerned about security not only in their neighbourhood but also in the whole city. In this interview excerpt, Mr. Tuc also pointed out how Vietnamese Americans discriminated against Black Americans’ entertainment areas. While people would argue that it was the matter of choice that Vietnamese Americans chose to go to certain places, it indicates that Vietnamese Americans preferred to live with White lifestyles and they liked to hang out in White entertainment/shopping areas.

100

Not only discriminating against Black Americans’ areas, some Vietnamese Americans also looked down on Black Americans when they stereotyped Black Americans’ tastes in comparison to White Americans’ and Vietnamese Americans’. Tac Nguyen, who worked for a medical laboratory, had both Black American and White friends. They occasionally asked him to go out for lunch or dinner. He commented:

White Americans do not like to go to buffet restaurants because they want the service more than the quantity of foods. They think that they pay the money for what they want. Especially for their birthday, they do not want to have buffets in which people have to go back and forth. They want to have a birthday in a restaurant in which they are served by waiters/waitresses. However, Black Americans think differently. They want to go to the place that they can eat as much as possible, until (they are) full. They think that having food is happy. And the Vietnamese, we want to eat good food but it has to be cheap. Good food, but you want to pay less when you ask for the bill, some time you don’t tip the server.

These stereotypes became the basis of Mr. Tac Nguyen’s choices whenever he went out with friends of different races. He said: “I fit myself into the situation of my friends whom I hang out with”. By going out with his White American friends, he learnt about the quality of the services and highly preferred the services of American restaurants to those of Vietnamese restaurants in New Orleans.

The discriminatory behaviours of Vietnamese Americans may also be seen in daily incidents. The 70-year-old Minh Nguyen said: “White Americans are diverse, but they consider us better than blacks, especially on the security issue. We are not disordered like blacks. We live peacefully, never do anything wrong. If we did something wrong, we would be punished by the laws.” In agreement with Mr. Minh Nguyen, Mr. Tac Nguyen also thought: “White Americans like us because we (Vietnamese Americans) don’t do that many crimes or felonies”. By presenting a view of White Americans towards Vietnamese people, Mr. Minh and Mr. Tac seemed to accept the white-dominated racial hierarchy in which Vietnamese Americans were better than Black Americans. Mr. Minh’s position became clearer as he discussed an incident with two White Americans whom he met on the road:

Minh: […] I went fishing and saw two white Americans having a car stuck in the mud. I stopped the car and helped them pull up their car. They then came to say thanks to me, saying “you are so

101

nice”. I replied: “I tell you one thing, I love everybody. You don’t need to say anything, I try to help anybody.” However, if [I am] seeking help from African Americans, they would ask for money. Hoang: But would you help Black Americans? Minh: No! And then they [the two white Americans] asked me for my cell phone number, and promised to bring me some wild-pig meat if they caught a wild pig.

Although Mr. Minh said to the two White Americans that he was willing to “help anybody”, his reply to my next question revealed that he only wanted to help white people. Regarding Black people, he just answered “No”, and continued telling his narrative with the two white guys. Mr. Minh’s comments revealed a strong prejudice against Black Americans. Although he did not expect anything in return for his help, when being asked about black people, he firmly refused to help.

In sum, race was present in everyday activity that Vietnamese Americans were engaged in. From hospitals, restaurants, to the roadside, Vietnamese Americans always saw and judged people of different races. In return, they were also judged and treated on the basis of what the other perceived of them. While some Vietnamese Americans still found themselves mistreated by individual Black/White Americans in certain cases, and while they were well aware of the U.S. government’s poor investments in their neighbourhood, many Vietnamese Americans also held a prejudicial view against Black Americans. On this issue, Father John Nguyen commented:

I have a feeling that our Vietnamese people still bear the mind of slavery-colonialism. They generally respect Americans, White Americans, but only respect Black Americans who are in power. The ordinary Black Americans and low-income ones are disrespected more than what they do to us. Some people live with the other race because they have to accept it. There are no close friends between Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans, very few if it happens. But Vietnamese Americans like to be friend with White Americans, and there are a lot more.

The comments of Father John Nguyen indicate that the slavery-colonialist ideology has imprinted on Vietnamese American minds. It keeps them think of themselves as being of a higher status than Black Americans.

102

3.1.4. Racial Hierarchy in Workplaces

In the neighbourhood of Village de l’Est, Vietnamese Americans seemed not to have much direct contact with people of other races. However, at workplaces such as offices, factories, grocery stores and in the fishing industry in Louisiana, Vietnamese Americans had to find ways to get along with people of other races. This section highlights that although Vietnamese Americans advanced in every job field, white supremacy kept haunting their workplaces. Moreover, they still endured the sufferings of being an ethnic minority and being treated unequally at some point.

Racial Hierarchy

After arriving in New Orleans in 1975, the landed Vietnamese had to work to begin their new life. For the people in Village de l’Est, they were sponsored by the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and many people began with oyster-shucking and shrimp-beheading jobs at local seafood-processing factories. They went in groups to the factories in the early morning and got back home together at noon after finishing the daily seafood processing. A number of my Vietnamese American informants commented that Vietnamese people had skillful hands, and that as a result, they did a better job than Black Americans. They often finished faster and had more produces than Black Americans. Gradually, the first generation of Vietnamese people became a significant labour force in the local seafood processing industry.

Many of the local seafood-processing factories were owned by White Americans. Many of my informants worked for those factories and had good experiences with White people. Mr. Viet Nguyen, 65 years old, worked for such a factory in his early days in New Orleans. His family owned a fish-dock in Phuoc Tinh and he served in the military from 1962 to 1975. He said: “In 1975 after I was sponsored from Fort Chaffee camp, I worked for a seafood factory in Abbeville, Louisiana. The owner promoted me to be the lead of the team although I was employed not too long ago. I don’t know why. After one week, he held me warmly and gave me a paycheck with the lead’s wage while the rest got workers’ wages. There were about 20 Vietnamese workers and 30-40 American workers. But I was assigned to be the lead of the whole group. After a few months, I decided to leave the factory because I didn’t like to be mistreated due to people’s jealousy of my position”. Mr. Viet Nguyen later became a successful businessman in New

103

Orleans. He owned several seafood stores, motels and fishing boats. Living in New Orleans for more than 30 years, he considered the city to have few Americans, that means, white Americans, because “there are so many Indians, Mexicans, Black Americans, not many Americans living in this area. Workers of my hotels were Indians, Mexicans and Black Americans, only two to three Vietnamese”. According Mr. Viet Nguyen, only White Americans were truly American. Other researchers have also found that many people considered “Americans” and “whites” interchangeable (Chou & Feagin 2008: 164). He held a positive view of White Americans.

Mrs. Sy Tran, 75 years old, was one of the first Vietnamese to arrive in New Orleans in 1975. She worked as a dish cleaner, shrimp-beheader, and tailor for many stores and restaurants in the city. She also held a positive view toward White American bosses. She recalled: “When I worked for a seafood factory, there were White Americans, Black Americans and Yellow Americans, I mean, Vietnamese. My salary was so low: weekly checks were a little bit more than $90 USD. Managers in the shrimp factory were two White Americans, very good people. They paid me $5 USD per hour while paying other people only $4 USD per hour. They said that I worked very well. During the 9 years working for the seafood factory, she found it very comfortable to work with White and Black American workers. She claimed: “by working for that seafood factory, I could speak some American. Sometimes I had to communicate in English. So I was familiar with the language. But then when I worked for the garment factory, I stopped using English because there were only Vietnamese people”. Both Mr. Viet Nguyen and Mrs. Sy Tran were engaged in the low-skilled jobs and both received nice treatments from White American managers/boss. The salary and warm respect of the bosses were rewards for their hard work.

Mr. Lac Bui has worked for a wood processing company owned by a White American for about 20 years and became a project leader. Concerning his co-workers of whites, Blacks, Mexicans and Vietnamese Americans, Mr. Lac Bui asserted that Vietnamese people were more diligent than Whites and Blacks. The only concern of his was language competence. Although his English was good enough for his job in the company, he admitted: “Compared to White Americans, my English is not as good. Sometimes we have disadvantages. Therefore, in order to compete with White Americans, we have to have better working skills. If not, they would look down on us”. His point was that between a Vietnamese and a White, Vietnamese would be judged at a lower position unless he/she possessed better working skills than the White person.

104

This issue has been discussed widely in the literature on Asian Americans. Mia Tuan also depicts this challenge when discussing how Chinese and Japanese Americans confront the reality of power relations and racial dynamics in the United States. She points out that many of her interviewees were warned “they needed to work harder to achieve their goals because they were not white” (Tuan 1999: 69). In the case of Mr. Lac Bui, his idea was that possessing equal working skills did not mean that Vietnamese people were judged equal to white Americans. Only by possessing better working skills might Vietnamese workers be given equal consideration as a White worker.

In the labour market of New Orleans, besides the Vietnamese, there were Whites, Blacks, and Mexicans. Mr. Lac Bui made a comparison: “Black Americans can never do better than us because they are not only lazy but also like to sue the boss. Mexicans are ok: they are physically strong but not as smart as Vietnamese. Therefore, if the boss has to lay off one worker, they would lay off the Black American first”. In Mr. Lac Bui’s view, White Americans were positioned at a higher status, followed by Vietnamese Americans, Mexicans and Black Americans. His view was in accordance with the white supremacy ideology that considers Asian Americans a model minority. Although compared to Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans and Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans were just recent refugees and had lower economic and social achievements (Tuan 1999).

White supremacy was felt in the situation that working well and getting promotions could not guarantee Vietnamese Americans’ full acceptance of white colleagues. Mr. Tac Nguyen, who worked in a medical laboratory, experienced bad reactions of white American colleagues. He said: “The issue of discrimination is relevant everywhere, wherever we get good positions. Before Katrina, I worked as a supervisor at a department of a hospital. As a Vietnamese, I was able to ask White Americans to do whatever the job required. Although he had to do [what I requested], he did it because of the salary, not because he respected me. It was because if he hadn’t done it, he would have been fired. He just did the job because of money, not because he looked up to us. Because no matter how good we were, they [White Americans] would not look up to us. They would ask why they were not appointed to be a supervisor, why a Vietnamese got it”. Mr. Tac Nguyen’s experiences and his opinion indicate the influence of the white supremacy ideology in the workplace. The U.S. racial hierarchy underlain by this ideology positions

105

Vietnamese Americans below Whites. Tac Nguyen’s perspective shared the same point with Bonilla-Silva’s: “[W]hen Whites do not get a job or promotion, it must be because of a minority. If they are not admitted into a college, it must be because of a minority. This story line allows Whites to never consider the possibility that they are not qualified for a job, promotion, or college” (Bonilla-Silva 2010: 83). In the cases of Mr. Lac Bui and Mr. Tac Nguyen, their narratives shed light on the issue of racial barriers at work places in America. The barriers were not only set by the boss or managers, but also came from co-workers in the workplace. While some White peers unwillingly accepted the superior positions of some Vietnamese, some Black peers might see Vietnamese American workers as a threat to their employment.

Tac Nguyen continued: “It is true that discrimination happens everywhere because the United States is a racialized society. Everyone wants to advance into higher positions. It is not like Vietnam where you have no [racial] thing to discriminate against others, we are all Vietnamese there. It is more of jealousy than [racial] discrimination there. But here, it is not only about bad or good, but also skin colors”. Here, he made a comparison with the non-racialized society of Vietnam. According to him, racial discrimination just happened in racialized societies such as the United States. In Vietnam, he suggested that people could only be jealous with others because it was a non-racialized society.

With white-collar jobs, a number of Vietnamese Americans not only had to work hard to hold their positions, but they also had to endure the jealousy from many colleagues of other races. Mrs. Mary Bui, who worked in the back office of a credit union for seven years starting with Hurricane Katrina, shared her work experience with me:

Hoang: What do you do at the credit union? May: I am working as a loan/grant assessor for the credit union. One reason that I want to work here is because I can help more Vietnamese people. There are people who can’t communicate well in English when applying for loans and grants. It is my role to help them prepare the applications, to correct the mistakes and to help them explain with people of higher positions about the rationality of the applications. Hoang: Have you experienced any kind of discrimination at work? Mary: Yes, certainly, when I work better than them [my colleagues], they would treat me badly. They would despise me. But I would not be disappointed by that attitude. I would

106

show them that Vietnamese people are not easy to accept being mistreated. I would try to make them understand me by working harder and better. Once they understand me, they would need me. Hoang: So, what is the point for discrimination? Mary: It is because of jealousy. Because I have skills and capacity. Therefore, whenever I work, I always try my best for good results.

Mrs. Mary who worked in a factory for 20 years, shared: “Yes, I have experienced discrimination at the workplace. Vietnamese people want to work more and harder to earn more money while Americans only want to work enough and then take a break. In a company, the way in which Vietnamese people work makes American workers feel uncomfortable. Therefore, many of them don’t like us and mistreat us at the workplace”. When I continued to ask him why American workers did not like hardworking people, he replied: “Because they are jealous of our diligence and success.”

Members of the minority group may also experience inequality in the distribution of daily tasks at workplaces. In the service sector, Vietnamese Americans suffered from being the minority group in the subordinate position to other people of the dominant race. Vietnamese American women in Village de l’Est were hired to work as housekeepers in luxurious hotels in New Orleans. However, many of them quit their jobs after a few weeks. A woman who quit her job informed me: “After the training time, they assigned me to work as a room cleaner and kept assigning work to me. I was always tired of working too much. Then I quit the job”. A reason for her decision was that the supervisor for the cleaning service was a Black American and the latter kept the closer rooms for her Black friends and let Vietnamese workers do the farther rooms. According to her, in large hotels, going up and down and back and forth for an entire day made her very tired. She listed many Vietnamese women who were hired for the cleaning job but only few continued to work after some weeks. In conclusion, she blamed the Black supervisor for discriminating against the Vietnamese people by assigning more difficult and tiring tasks to the Vietnamese than to her Black colleagues.

In general, Vietnamese Americans who were employed in the inland job sector often confronted the resistant attitudes and reactions from both Black and White American co-workers. According to them, these reactions came from two sources: the work habit of Americans and the white

107 supremacy ideology. The work habit of both Black and White American people was different from that of Vietnamese Americans. The Vietnamese claimed that they worked harder because they saw the opportunities to have more money while American co-workers preferred having fixed working hours. These different work habits created tensions among the employees of different races. Vietnamese people were the minority in all settings in New Orleans, so they had to find different ways to deal with these tensions. One of the best strategies was to continue working hard and to be nice with everyone. This strategy was employed by Mrs. Mary and she was successful in gaining co-workers’ support. On the other hand, employers of all work settings were said to like to hire Vietnamese people because of their labour efficiency.

In work settings, the white supremacy ideology seemed to be prominent among employees. Although racial discrimination is forbidden by laws, the idea of racial hierarchy remained popular. The interview excerpts of Mr. Lac Bui and Mr. Tac Nguyen quoted above asserted that the white supremacy ideology continued to influence the Vietnamese Americans. All of them recognized that White Americans did not want to be in lower positions than Vietnamese but that many of them failed to do so because Vietnamese colleagues possessed better skills. The result was that many White workers unwillingly had to work under the supervision of Vietnamese Americans. According to Mr. Tac Nguyen, this became an implicit source of White workers’ resistance.

In comparison to Black colleagues, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans seemed to have some advantages. This fits well with the first primary pillar of white supremacy as suggested by Andrea Smith: “as long as you are not Black, you have the opportunity to escape the commodification of capitalism. Anti-Blackness enables people who are not Black to accept their lot in life because they can feel that at least they are not at the very bottom of the racial hierarchy” (Smith 2010: 02). For the case of New Orleans, many Vietnamese Americans were proud of being more hardworking and skillful than Black Americans. Such pride created an impression that Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans fit the model minority myth in the American media and dominant ideology. However, being a minority in a city with a large Black American population, Vietnamese people also faced difficulties and sometimes mistreatments in the workplace.

108

The above-mentioned work attitude and discrimination were not limited to the inland jobs. They were extended to the fishing industry in Louisiana (Tang 2011: 143). A large number of Vietnamese came to live in New Orleans because fishing had been their means of livelihood. Father John Nguyen recalled: “Of the fishermen in the 2000s, about 70 percent of the fishing boats in the Gulf Coast belonged to Vietnamese people. American fishermen felt uncomfortable with the increasing competition by Vietnamese American fishermen. It was rumoured that the U.S. government bought the boats for Vietnamese people. But actually, the boats were the shared properties of Vietnamese fisherman”. However, the facts that Vietnamese Americans kept fishing productively and that the number of Vietnamese fishing boats increased significantly endangered the domination of American fishermen in the seafood market in Louisiana. In a similar view, Father Michael Tran commented: “American fishermen felt threatened by Vietnamese fishermen because the latter kept fishing continuously. Vietnamese fishermen never saw such an enormous amount of seafood as in the Gulf Coast. Therefore, American fishermen found ways to harass Vietnamese fishermen. In fact, some fishermen were threatened or even killed with a statement, ‘you guys came to steal from us [American fishermen]’ ”. The interview excerpt with Father Tran indicates that American fishermen used to consider Vietnamese fishermen as foreigners who came to steal the fish of the United States.

Mr. Thanh, a shrimper, shared Father Tran’s view when telling his own experience of shrimping in the Gulf of Mexico: “Sometimes they [American fishermen] hated us and used their larger boat to block our way. Vietnamese fishermen like me didn’t want to be in trouble. So we just tried to find other ways to avoid any clash, partly because of the lack of English proficiency”. Not only Mr. Thanh but also a friend of him had the long-line tuna fishing tool cut and stolen in the Gulf by American fishermen. When his friend arrived, he could not communicate with that boat and he did not remember its registration number. According to Mr. Thanh, a 10-mile longline fishing tool cost about $3,000 to $4,000 USD. Therefore, his friend lost a significant asset for livelihood because of the dislike of some American fishermen.

In general, both inland and offshore job sectors in New Orleans contained racial barriers for Vietnamese Americans. Many of them managed to get over the barriers and got advanced in the workplace. However, many others could not stand the racial barriers and left their jobs. Racial

109 barriers thus remained relevant in work settings. For Vietnamese Americans, getting successful or not depended on how each individual thought about and resolved the racial barriers.

The Second Generation:

For the second generation of Vietnamese Americans, their perception of race in workplace was a little different. For the young Vietnamese Americans who had not had working experiences in American mainstream jobs, they expressed a relatively positive view regarding the labour market. Linh Tran, 23 years old, thought that the employers would look at the applicants’ qualifications rather than races. He said: “I think race doesn’t matter. It’s all your resume, your college transcripts, GPA. I don’t think race matters in finding professional jobs”. Sharing Linh Tran’s view, Thuy Nguyen, 36 years old, worked as an X-ray technician in a medical clinic for 5 years before moving to work in a hospital. Thuy Nguyen said: “When I was hired here, I didn’t see my supervisor as a racist. He’s White American, but you can tell from somebody’s personality if he/she was racist or not. He wasn’t because he looked at my resume, he saw my experience, and there were other candidates that applied for the same job as me. But he chose me because I had more experiences, and he liked my personality.” Both of my young interviewees thought that the application process was fair for everybody, and that no racial preference was set. Thuy Nguyen believed that the two jobs that she had were the result of her competitive applications.

Despite the apparent fairness in the job application and recruitment process, Thuy Nguyen also felt the racial barriers at the workplace in general. She thought that the racial hierarchy was everywhere and that Vietnamese Americans had to work harder than people of other races: Hoang: So, are Vietnamese Americans really at the bottom of the racial hierarchy? Thuy: They have a harder time getting to the top. They have to work harder. I feel like, you know, that’s how it is in this society. You have to work harder to get there. But mainly if you are Black or White Americans, you don’t need to work as hard to get where you need to be. I don’t know why, but that’s how it is. Hoang: Do you mean you have to work harder to prove yourself? Thuy: Right, work harder to prove that you can do as well what they do, maybe better [than them].

110

Some other young Vietnamese Americans also recognized certain racial barriers and tensions in workplace settings. Xuan Lan, who studied at Sarah T Reed high school and worked for a local Vietnamese American organization, presented her position: “My friends [Vietnamese Americans] in their jobs, I don’t know, there was never any proof. A friend would be doing all the work, or doing a better job than co-workers of other races in order to get a promotion. You know, in an office job, a lot of time, they [Black and White Americans] get more advantages because they know more people, they have more connections. If you don’t have connections, you would fall behind. But I think that in the small businesses run by Vietnamese, it seems like they would be more successful. I think there are more barriers in the office field. Like for us, we are in a Vietnamese American organization, we are being treated more fairly here because we are the majority here. If you work in a bigger corporation, it’s harder to move up if you don’t have connections”. According to Xuan Lan, Vietnamese Americans often had fewer connections in the office than Black/White Americans. Therefore, even if they did a better job than Black/White American co-workers, they would not be recognized because people often only recognized the work of the people to whom they were close. Another point of hers was that as Vietnamese Americans were often the minority in the white-collar job field, they would not be treated as fairly as the majority people.

Although Xuan Lan’s points might not be true for every office, her points were shared by many Vietnamese Americans of the second generation. And even for those who had their careers go smoothly, they also had a feeling of a racial barrier at the workplace. T. Phan, 36 years old, got her current job at a U.S revenue office (IRS) after receiving her MBA degree from the University of New Orleans. Before that, she had worked for the Medicaid office in Louisiana as an interpreter. According to T. Phan, a barrier at the workplace for the older generation of Vietnamese Americans was the language barrier. She continued: “I don’t know about younger people, I think it’s a bit easier. You were born here, you know the American culture more. So, it’s a little bit easier”. Working for the IRS for more than 13 years, T. Phan reported not having faced any trouble at her office. However, she felt something that she could not even express it. The following interview excerpt demonstrates that feeling: Hoang: Do you see any Vietnamese Americans working in your department? T. Phan: Yes, there are about 4 Vietnamese American colleagues out of 300 co-workers. Hoang: Do you see any racial structure in your workplace?

111

T. Phan: No racial structure in my workplace. I think that the majority of Vietnamese are siêng năng (diligent). People see it too. So they don’t discriminate against us. I think I am fortunate too, just kind of luck, too. Hoang: Luck? So, do you think there are still barriers? T. Phan: There are…I am not sure... I am not sure about that. I am thinking there is, but... I am not sure… what could that be? Hoang: So you feel it, but you can’t say it? T. Phan: I can’t describe it. I don’t feel it personally, so I can’t speak for others. I am pretty sure there are, but I can’t describe.

T. Phan had such a good experience in her career that she saw no barrier at the workplace for Vietnamese Americans. However, she indicated in the interview: “I am fortunate, too, just kind of luck, too”. And when I pushed further to the question of barriers, she was unable to recall any kind of barriers. Although she failed to describe any event that she thought of as an example of barriers at her workplace for Vietnamese Americans, she asserted: “I am pretty sure there are, but I can’t describe”. The case of T. Phan was similar to the cases discussed by Chou and Feagin in which “Asian Americans have gained some degree of acceptance into white social worlds because of their adoption of white framing and folkways” (Chou and Feagin 2008: 139). T. Phan’s life reveals great efforts to adapt to the white frame. Growing up in the United States, having a MBA degree, speaking well a second language (Vietnamese), T. Phan’s resume seemed even better than those of a great number of White Americans. Her academic and career success reinforced the white frame in her mind so that she could not even recognize that she had conformed to it. Essentially, in the interview excerpt, although she found “no racial structure” in her workplace, her sentence “the majority of Vietnamese people are diligent. People see it too, so they don’t discriminate (against) us” shows that she and her Vietnamese American colleagues were complicit in the white frame.

The perception of the Vietnamese American second-generation indicates that white supremacy is not only omnipresent in the workplace, but it also permeates Vietnamese American youth’s mind. The inequality that Vietnamese American youth may face is not at the time of job application. But this inequality surfaces, and becomes more tense, when the people of minority begin to work in a place that is dominated by people of the majority. Therefore, it forces Vietnamese Americans to work harder and better than they should. The result is that the more

112 diligent minority employees only get an equal recognition as the less diligent employees of the dominant race. Importantly, many people of the second generation see no racial hierarchy between Whites and Vietnamese Americans because they have fully conformed to the white supremacy ideology.

In sum, Vietnamese Americans have contributed to the labour force of American society for the past 35 years. Of the three generations examined in this section, each generation experiences to a different extent racial barriers in workplaces. Although Vietnamese Americans have advanced in every job field, they still hold the feeling of not being treated equally at some points. Even when not experiencing overt acts of racism in workplaces and public places, Vietnamese Americans have been trapped in the white supremacy ideology. In looking up to White Americans and looking down on Black Americans, especially the low-income ones, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans continue contributing to the model minority myth and therefore unconsciously accept the white supremacy ideology. If this section focuses on different aspects of everyday racism in New Orleans, the following section investigates the participation of the minority groups in U.S. politics. The following analysis will help to shed light on the positions of Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans within the white supremacy system.

3.2. Political Power of the Minority? The Case of Mr. Cao

This section switches the focus to the political dimension in the United States and zooms into the racial politics in New Orleans and Louisiana. By presenting the case of U.S. Congressman Cao (2009-2011), the section argues that although the color-blindness ideology has been deployed since the 1960s, skin color continues to be a variable for redistricting practice in the United States. The successful U.S. congress run of Mr. Cao in the 2008 election and his unsuccessful run in 2010 serve as an evidence that the United States has not yet been color-blind.

3.2.1. U.S. Election

The Republican and the Democratic parties are two major political parties in the United States. Members of each party have been elected to important positions in the political system. Manning Marable points out two governing rules in U.S presidential elections. The first rule is: “American presidents who run for re-election usually win, unless there is an economic recession or some

113 unusual political calamity” (Marable 1995: 63). And the second rule: “since the outbreak of the Cold War nearly half a century ago, the majority of white Americans have consistently chosen Republicans over Democratic president candidates. In over forty years, a majority of white voters have voted for a Democratic candidate only once – Lyndon Johnson in 1964” (Marable 1995: 63).

The second rule in Marable’s view is also applied to the legislative election, meaning that Republican candidates for the Senate or for the House of Representatives will be supported by the majority of Whites, while Democratic candidates will be supported by the majority of Blacks. In a matrix of four basic elements:

The Republican candidate The Democratic candidate White majority electorate Win Lose Black majority electorate Lose Win

In the same meaning, each congressional district would be in favour of the person of the majority’s race. For Louisiana, it is divided into six districts. Its current U.S representatives are as in the following table:

District Representative Party CPVI1 Incumbent’s time in office 1st Steve Scalise (R–Jefferson) Republican R+26 May 3, 2008 – present 2nd Cedric Richmond (D–New Democratic D+23 January 3, 2011 – present Orleans) 3rd Charles Boustany (R–Lafayette) Republican R+19 January 3, 2005 – present 4th John C. Fleming (R–Minden) Republican R+13 January 3, 2009 – present 5th Ralph Abraham (R–Mangham) Republican R+15 January 3, 2015 – present 6th Garret Graves (R–Baton Rouge) Republican R+21 January 3, 2015 – present

The second district is well-known for its majority of Black American voters and it has been the base of the Democratic Party for more than a century. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act

1 Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI): A measurement of how strongly a United States congressional district leans toward the Democratic or Republican Party. 114 of 1965, Black Americans have been involved in the political process and most have been affiliated with Democratic Party because its national leaders supported the civil rights movement. The second district has been redrawn as a Black-majority district since 1983. It was configured as a “Majority-Minority” district to ensure minority voters have a chance to elect representatives of their own choice to Congress, and to guard against adverse racially motivated gerrymandering. Hamilton D. Coleman was the last Republican elected to be the U.S congressman of this district (1889-1891), until Joseph Cao won it from Bill Jefferson in 2008. Mr. Cao held the seat for only one term (2009-2011). Then the seat was taken back by a Democratic party member, Cedric Richmond. Although Black Americans had been the majority in the district, Bill Jefferson was the first Black American U.S representative elected in this district, in 1991. He served as an U.S representative for 18 years.

Table No. 2.4 in Chapter 2 showing the population by race in the Congressional District 2 indicates that Black Americans have been the majority in the district. Of the population, Vietnamese Americans made up a very small percentage. However, in the 2008 election, Mr. Joseph Cao won the race over Mr. Bill Jefferson. His success became a strike to the U.S. politics and had many effects on the Vietnamese American community not only in New Orleans, but also in the United States as a whole. The question of how a candidate of the minority in the district could win in such a very racial election will be discussed through the view of Vietnamese Americans in the last section of this chapter. A tentative answer is that not all people cast their ballots in favour of people of their own race.

3.2.2. The Case of Mr. Cao

Vietnamese Americans acknowledge their racial minority status within the racial hierarchy in U.S. politics, especially for the population in the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. The previous sections have showed while they suffered from being the minority in schools and workplaces, they have managed to obtain success. This section will scrutinize how Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans perceive their position in American politics and, more specifically, in Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. I will begin by briefly depicting an overall picture of the racial politics of the city.

115

Since the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, New Orleans has gone through several racial changes regarding who hold the power of the city hall. The first Black American mayor of New Orleans was Ernest N. “Dutch” Morial (Morial I), serving from 1978 to 1986. The next three mayors were also Black Americans: Sidney Barthelemy (1986-1994), Marc Morial (Morial II, 1994-2002), and C. Ray Nagin (2002-2006). Mtangulizi Sanyika comments: “over the last thirty years, Black Americans have served as the highest municipally elected official to govern New Orleans” (Sanyika 2011: 89). The city council of New Orleans with seven members also experienced the change in political leadership from predominant White to predominant Black. However, Sanyika points out: “As the numbers would suggest, the depths of problems experienced by large segments of the Black community were not resolved by Black control of the highest municipal political offices. To be sure, Black political power in New Orleans as elsewhere has resulted in notable differences, including more Black government employees, increased contracts to Black professionals, more Black department heads, Black police chiefs and more Black police, and modest increases in Black ownership and wealth” (Sanyika 2011: 90). All four Black mayoral regimes could make these claims to varying degrees.

Vietnamese people arrived in New Orleans at the time the city began to experience this fundamental change in power. However, as newcomers in the country, the first generation had to work to earn money, while their children went to school. Not so many political engagements were carried out for the first 10 years (1975-1985). Since the first wave of Vietnamese in New Orleans was sponsored by the Archdiocese of New Orleans, the political power that they relied on was Archbishop Philip Hannan and the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese helped these Vietnamese refugees to settle in New Orleans East, to establish the first chapel in 1979, and then to build the Mary Queen of Viet Nam parish in 1985.

For the second generation, they understand clearly that Vietnamese Americans are only a minority group in the United States and in New Orleans. Many of my interviewees think of the possible barriers for Vietnamese Americans in politics. According to them, people who belong to a minority group may face difficulties if they choose to run for office. They think that voters in New Orleans would judge the race of the candidates rather than paying good attention to the candidates’ agenda. Linh Tran, 23 years old, expressed his perception of the voting system:

116

Hoang: What do you think about the position of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans? Linh: I think it’s low, as low as Black Americans, not lower. Whites are at the top. In terms of voice, we’re definitely stronger than Black Americans. We’re participating in voting. But Black Americans outnumber [Vietnamese Americans]. Hoang: Are there barriers that prevent Vietnamese people from success? Linh: I am pretty sure it’s race. I am sure that Black American guys, they wouldn’t vote for Vietnamese persons. For the city council, it’s because you are Vietnamese, they would probably think that you favour Vietnamese more than Black Americans. If I were a Black American, I would vote for my own race, it would help me more. Hoang: Do you really think that African Americans vote for people of their race? Linh: Pretty sure, 90 percent sure.

Linh Tran pointed out two interesting aspects of Black Americans in New Orleans. First, Vietnamese Americans’ voice was stronger than Black Americans because the Vietnamese participated in voting. Secondly, in an election with candidates of different races, Black Americans would vote for the candidates of their race. In Linh Tran’s view, the significant barrier for Vietnamese American people from advancing in politics in New Orleans was the minority status.

In a same vein, Xuan Lan thought that living in a Black-dominated city like New Orleans, Vietnamese Americans had to accept the domination of Black Americans. Her point bore the perspective of the subordinate in the society:

Hoang: What do you think about the racial hierarchy in New Orleans? Xuan Lan: In politics, it’s more controlled by Black Americans, I feel like with Vietnamese people when we try to step up, it is almost scary. We almost have to become kind of like them for you to fit in. In politics, the government system, you have to be like them and lose yourselves. The Vietnamese person loses what we believe in, what we think it’s right. Again, as we are a minority, our vote is less than the majority would be. Hoang: So you have to act like them? Xuan Lan: Sometimes be agreeable, sometimes I feel you have to be more agreeable to what they think would be right. I think you have to be a really strong person to kind of speak up against them. There are a few people that are Vietnamese that would be strong to speak up, really speak their mind. But I think it is a little bit harder for us. Hoang: Any barriers for Vietnamese? 117

Xuan Lan: I think the barrier would be in the voting system. It always comes down to, they vote for their own kind. So, that’s the big barrier. You have to be voted into the office. A lot of time, we would vote for our kind, but we are out-beaten by the majority. I think that’s the biggest barrier.

Similar to Linh Tran, Xuan Lan also perceived that African Americans would vote for the candidates of their race, and that Vietnamese American candidates would be “out-beaten by the majority”. Moreover, Xuan Lan argued that in order to move up in the society, Vietnamese Americans would have to accept the dominant ideology and lose their selves. In other words, Vietnamese Americans would have to act differently from what they thought if they wanted to advance in American society. However, Xuan Lan believed that there were Vietnamese Americans who were strong enough to “speak up the mind” and to challenge the dominant ideology.

In New Orleans, Vietnamese Americans were proud of having two well-known figures in the United States. In an interview with Father Michael Tran, he expressed his pride of having Bishop Dominic Mai Thanh Luong and U.S. Congressman Joseph Anh Cao (2008-2010) whose bases were in New Orleans. Bishop Dominic Mai came to the United States to study in a Catholic seminary before 1975. After 1975, Archbishop Philip Hannan assigned him to sponsor hundreds of Vietnamese refugees to New Orleans. He became the Pastoral Priest of the Mary Queen of Viet Nam in 1983 and was appointed the auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Orange, California in 2003. The contribution of Bishop Dominic Mai to the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans is discussed in the previous chapter. This section is devoted to the political phenomenon of Mr. Joseph Anh Cao who served as an U.S. Congressman from January 3, 2009 to January 3, 2011.

Joseph Anh Cao was born in the South of Vietnam and came to the United States together with thousands of refugees after the Fall of Saigon (1975). He settled in New Orleans and became a lawyer practicing in the State of Louisiana. Mr. Cao won the race for U.S. Congress over U.S. Congressman William J. Jefferson in December 2008. We have seen that Vietnamese Americans understand their minority status in the United States. Xuan Lan and Linh Tran’s perspectives also reflect the perception of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans on the political arena. The 2008 congress election result was a strike to the American politics as an Asian American won a race in Louisiana.

118

Although many Vietnamese Americans were surprised and happy for Mr. Cao, many other Vietnamese American people considered this success as his pure luck because of the scandal of his main opponent. Mr. Jefferson was the first Black American Congressman (1991-2009) from Louisiana since the Reconstruction Era (1863-1877). Having served for 18 years in the U.S House of Representatives, Mr. Jefferson was considered a strong candidate for this race. However, since 2007 he was investigated for bribery. The investigation continued until January 2009 and he was defeated by Mr. Joseph Cao in the Election in December 2008.

The winning of Mr. Cao was striking to the public media in the United States. A number of news articles and talk shows discussed this phenomenon. Vietnamese American newspapers published several articles expressing the pride of the Vietnamese American community for having a Vietnamese American Congressman. Mr. Cao also participated in a Paris by Night show numbered 99, namely “Tôi là người Việt Nam” [I am Vietnamese], of Thuy Nga Paris Incorporated. However, he served as an U.S. Congressman for only one term because Cedric Richmond won the race in 2010.

Discussing Mr. Joseph Cao’s winning, Kevin Nguyen, 26 years old, shared his understanding: “Joseph Cao might have been a weird fluctuation in the voting result. It could have been that everyone else just didn’t vote, and all the Asian people did vote for Joseph Cao because he was the first person who was on the ballot. So, I guess, they might have seen that he should be something that we should vote for”. Kevin thought that the result was “weird” because it fell into the lowest chance of the probability. As Xuan Lan and Linh Tran pointed out, Black Americans in New Orleans could have voted for their own race. However, an election exception happened because the major opponent of Mr. Cao was caught in a corruption scandal. An opportunity opened up for Mr. Cao to win the race.

In response to my question regarding his position on Mr. Cao’s case, Dr. Vu, a Vietnamese American medical doctor, said: “Mr. Cao may have high degrees, and may be knowledgeable but he didn’t have a base. While Black American politicians had their Black American base, White American politicians also had their White American base. Mr. Cao was opportunist to run the race while Mr. Jefferson was under investigation. In Vietnamese, we have an idiom of ‘chó ngáp phải ruồi’ [just by luck]”. Many middle-aged Vietnamese Americans seemed to have thought

119 about this phenomenon. Reverend John Vien Nguyen, pastoral priest of Mary Queen of Viet Nam church (2004-2010), analysed that the victory of Mr. Cao was partly because the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans had been well-known for their success after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Therefore, in the 2008 election when his opponent was under the federal investigation charges of bribery, Americans who did not know him could have probably voted for him. Father Nguyen affirmed: “If the scandal had not happened, Mr. Cao could not have won the race because he [Mr. Jefferson] had served in the U.S Congress for 18 years”.

From the view of a White American, Reverend M. Lewis told me that the success of Mr. Cao in the 2008 election proved that Vietnamese Americans were able to join the game in American politics. Moreover, he also pointed out for me two issues that in his opinion, made the case for Mr. Cao. First, the scandal of Mr. Jefferson erupted before the election. Second, the general election day for Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District (December 6, 2008) was one month after the President Election Day (November 4, 2008). Not so many Black Americans went to the polls because the race was not as important as the Presidential Election. Father Lewis’ argument suggests that, according to a White American, Black Americans in New Orleans seem not to have been interested in voting for a candidate of their own race in the U.S. Congress Election in 2008. Mr. Jefferson was still in the race and another Black American candidate from the Green Party also ran for Louisiana's 2nd congressional district seat of the U.S. House of Representatives. The result was that both of them lost to Mr. Cao. He won by three percentage points. Louisiana's 2nd congressional district election, 2008 Party Candidate Votes % Republican Joseph Cao 33,122 49.6 Democratic William J. Jefferson 31,296 46.8 Green Malik Rahim 1,880 2.8 Libertarian Gregory Kahn 548 0.8 Invalid or blank votes Total votes 66,846 100.00

Without mentioning what Mr. Cao had done during his term in the U.S House of Representatives, Reverend John Nguyen affirmed: “after he [Mr. Cao] won the race, Vietnamese

120

Americans began to run for office in many areas. We had successful candidates in Houston and Dallas, Texas, as well as in California. The success of Mr. Cao really encouraged Vietnamese Americans to go to the polls because they thought that if [a Vietnamese American] could win at the Federal level, it was also possible to win in elections in the States. Vietnamese Americans then took part in more elections because they believed in the value of their ballots.” It is interesting that the hypothesis of Xuan Lan and Linh that people vote for their own race seems to be proved among Vietnamese Americans as more Vietnamese Americans voted for Vietnamese American candidates regardless of the agendas of the opponent candidates.

In the 2010 election, Mr. Cao lost to Cedric Richmond by a significant percentage.

Louisiana's 2nd congressional district election, 2010 Party Candidate Votes % Democratic Cedric Richmond 83,705 64.59 Republican Joseph Cao 43,378 33.47 (incumbent) Independent Anthony Marquize 1,876 1.45 Independent Jack Radosta 645 0.50 Total votes 129,604 100.00

When I asked Father John Nguyen for his analysis of the 2010 election result, he replied: Father John Nguyen: In the last election [2008], Black Americans did not go to the polls as much as this time. [This time] They considered this seat one for Black American, hence they [Black Americans] had to take it back. You know, in the past, Black Americans did not have a seat. So the Federal government redrew the 2nd congressional district to be more democratic- and Black-American-dominated. Therefore, Black Americans had a chance to be in the House. Mr. Jefferson was the first Black American [from Louisiana] to be in the U.S. House of Representatives. If you look at the map of the 2nd congressional district, you will see it looks weird/funny because they want to assure a seat for Black Americans. It shouldn’t be lost [to other races]. Hoang: So, it’s really the problem of race.

121

Father John Nguyen: Yes, it is absolutely. Another issue is that President Obama stood out to support the opponent candidate. The candidate and Mr. President are both Black Americans. Therefore, a lot of Black Americans went to the polls.

Father John Nguyen pointed out that although Mr. Cao lost the race to the Democratic candidate, he still had 43,378 votes out of 129,604 ballots. With only about 4,000 Vietnamese Americans in the 2nd congressional district who were eligible to vote, what Mr. Cao gained in the election was a significant number. He received votes from not only Vietnamese Americans but also Black Americans and White Americans. Therefore, voting for people of their own race was one of the choices, but not everyone did that. Being a minority does not mean that you can not have support from people of other races. However, to win in a political election, he/she needs to consider many other factors. Dr. Vu commented: “Mr. Cao may have high degrees, and may be knowledgeable but he doesn’t have a base” as Black and White American politicians did.

3.3. Conclusion

In conclusion, I have provided a detailed account of many racial aspects in everyday life of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans. Everyday racism was observed in all settings, such as neighbourhoods, schools, public places, and workplaces. Although there was much less overt racial discrimination or acts of extreme racism, Vietnamese Americans were both racial discriminators and victims of racial discrimination. The case studies show that Vietnamese Americans were trapped within the dominant ideology of white supremacy.

A class dimension is observed in the stereotypes held by Vietnamese Americans against the Black Americans in the city, especially in their residential neighbourhood. The Vietnamese- American-concentrated neighbourhood of Village de l’Est created an environment for Vietnamese Americans to live in an ethnic enclave in New Orleans. The MQVN Catholic parish and the lifestyle allowed Vietnamese residents there to have minimum contact with their different-race neighbours. Therefore, local security incidents related to Black Americans led to the high vigilance of Vietnamese people at home or on the street. Vietnamese Americans attributed the community security problems to the low-income Black Americans who often resided in subsidized housing projects. This point indicates that Vietnamese Americans shared a view congruent with White Americans’ toward low-income Black Americans.

122

In New Orleans, Vietnamese Americans suffered from being a minority group in all social settings. While Vietnamese American youth endured racial teasing and taunting by students of other races in school, their residential neighbourhood was excluded from development and investment by the government of the majority. In workplaces, many Vietnamese Americans suffered from racial mistreatments from colleagues of different races, both Black American and White Americans. In many situations, Vietnamese Americans continued to face resistance from White colleagues. Therefore, excelling in school and being a model minority in workplaces did not assure a non-biased attitude of the people of majority toward Vietnamese Americans.

Essentially, the chapter demonstrates that Vietnamese Americans showed a degree of conformity to the white supremacy ideology. While the success in school of Vietnamese American youth is seen as fitting the expectation of a model minority, it also helped obscuring the inequality and low-standard schools from which Vietnamese American students in New Orleans East suffered. In the same vein, the achievements of Vietnamese Americans over Black American co-workers made them accept their lot in life because “at least they are not at the very bottom of the racial hierarchy” (Smith 2010: 2). In other words, by looking up to White Americans and looking down on the Black Americans, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans bought into the white frame.

In the political arena, the chapter chooses to focus only on the case of Congressman Joseph Cao as it reflects both the state and local levels of the white supremacy ideology. Although the United States has the majority of White Americans, Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district has been a district of Black American majority, thereby creating a majority-minority district in the map of United States congressional districts. The practice of gerrymandering has created opportunities in this congressional district for Black Americans. The fact that Mr. Cao won the seat over Mr. Bill Jefferson in 2008 does not mean that the United States became colour-blind. The colour- consciousness reality is seen in the 2010 election in which the seat was returned to a Black American. Hence, the case indicates that the United States is not yet colour-blind.

123

Chapter 4 Hurricane Katrina: Disaster for many, Opportunity for others

“ ‘Wake up! Wake up! Run, run, run, a hurricane is coming!’

I woke up with my body soaked! It turned out that I was sleeping on my brother’s ship, his ship survived after Hurricane Katrina, and waiting for a tow of my ship to a dock.”

(Trung 2006: 213)

This quotation is from a published memoir of a Vietnamese American fisherman, Mr. Trung Chinh, in Versailles after experiencing Hurricane Katrina sweeping through his village.

On Sunday of August 28th, 2005, the landfall of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans devastated and flooded 80 percent of the city. One of the reasons was that the levee was breached and water from Lake Pontchartrain poured into the city. Although the city authorities had made announcement for evacuation days before the hurricane, thousands of people remained in the city. This led to the immediate chaos in the aftermath of Katrina. After describing the evacuations of New Orleanians before and post-Katrina, this chapter analyzes the return and recovery of Vietnamese Americans in comparison with that of Black American residents. By doing that, it will pinpoint, first of all, the influence of the white supremacy ideology on Vietnamese Americans and shed light on the discourse of the model minority attached to Vietnamese Americans. Secondly, as victims of Katrina received financial support from the government and local enterprises in the recovery period, I suggest that governmental financial support based on homeownership highlighted the gap between the middle class and the poor as well as between Vietnamese American and Black American residents in New Orleans East. The chapter then points out the changes in the racial structure in Village de l’Est neighbourhood as a result of Katrina. Thirdly, after the return was allowed, the city had to clear huge piles of debris. From a racial perspective, the selection of dumpsites reflected the power of the dominant race in the city. One of the dumpsites was opened near the residential area of Vietnamese Americans and low-income Black Americans in New Orleans East. By documenting the struggle of these residents against the plan for a dumpsite near their neighborhood, the chapter shows not only the

124 politics of race in New Orleans but also a diversity of attitudes and generational differences among Vietnamese Americans.

4.1. Hurricane Katrina

4.1.1. Pre- and Post-Katrina Evacuations

Evacuations before the Hurricane

Vietnamese Americans in Village de l’Est

Vietnamese people in New Orleans began to evacuate a few days in advance. Since the evacuating direction was to the West and North of New Orleans, a large number of Vietnamese Americans evacuated to Baton Rouge, the capital of Louisiana, or Houston and Dallas in Texas where they had a good number of friends and relatives. Among the people who evacuated early, a common reason was that they had children and did not want to take any risk. Mr. Kinh, a pharmacist, recalled: “three to four days before the hurricane hit New Orleans, they [the media] estimated that New Orleans would be on the hurricane’s route. I have small children, so I did not want to take any risk. My family evacuated to Houston on Sunday morning”. Having evacuated in the same direction to his son’s house in Houston, Mr. Loc recalled: “The I-10 freeway was jammed, one car could just slowly move. It took us more than twenty hours to get to Houston although it was only six hours in normal conditions.” Another direction was to the North East of Louisiana such as Georgia and North Carolina. Mr. The evacuated to North Carolina on Saturday afternoon. Two days later he learnt that the levee was broken and the city was flooded. Therefore, he decided to stay in North Carolina until June 2006. For people who evacuated in advance, they could be secure in a safe place throughout the Hurricane and avoided the chaotic situation in New Orleans in the aftermath.

There were people who underestimated the strength of Katrina. Their earlier experiences showed that it had been a waste of time and money to go and return for every hurricane announcement. Mrs. Van and her family left Versailles when it was getting closer to the hurricane’s landfall. She told me: “My family did not want to evacuate because we got used to annual storms in the

125 hurricane season.1 Therefore, on that Sunday I went to church as normal (from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.), and came home to cook for lunch. When my children saw the U.S president requesting a mandatory evacuation, our family began to prepare for evacuating. My children took some blankets and an airbed onto the van and twelve people, including our parents, went onto the Interstate No. 10 (I-10) to get to Houston, Texas in the late morning.” However, since the way to get to Texas had too much traffic, the police made an order for the car line to turn to other highways and her family decided to go to Mississippi. “The wind became stronger, I saw a house-roof flying and was really scared. I kept screaming on the way!” said Mrs. Van. She continued: “then as my son was listening to a local radio, they provided information about evacuation places around the area. He called them and they instructed us how to get to the closest shelter. No sooner had we entered the shelter, the wind blew off everything. An American woman running behind us could not manage to get into the shelter. She could only hold a bush before the wind blew her off around the bush. Everybody, including some security men, saw it, but nobody dared to come out to help”.

The shelter was a building of a local school in Mississippi. During the next few days, it hosted about a thousand of people. Mr. Ky remembered: “We stayed there for a week, and the whole building was full of people. For the first few days, we were just provided half of a nutella sandwich and a glass of mixed fruit powder water per person at meal time. After that, since people began to go home, we had some more food”. When the hurricane was gone, Mrs. Van’s family moved to stay with her sister in North Carolina for a year. “On the way, it was difficult to purchase gas because gas station did not accept cards. My car tires got flat a few times. I did not bring enough money. I thought I would have died on the road. I feel scared every time talking about that situation. I think it was harder in Katrina than the escape from the enemy (chạy giặc, Northern Vietnamese army) in 1975. It was because in 1975, I was prepared. I had rice and clothes with me in 1975. But I had nothing during Hurricane Katrina. I thought I would just be away for few days”.

About more than three hundred Vietnamese Americans stayed behind in Village de l’Est through Katrina. According to my informants, the remainers were mostly people without motor-vehicles

1 In New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, the hurricane season is from August to December every year. 126 and elderly. Mr. Muoi, a fisherman, could not leave Versailles because he did not have the means of transportation. He told me: “I did not have a car and my roommate left without telling me. I was stuck in Versailles”. A friend of mine told me that he had to stay back with his mother because she was sick and needed medical equipment. Exceptionally, some people volunteered to stay behind to take care of the community and their properties. Mrs. Chinh could have left earlier with her son, but she decided to stay in Versailles to assist people in need of help. She told me: “I stayed in Versailles because I had lived here for so long, I knew many people who could not evacuate because they did not have vehicles and relatives in other cities. Many of the elderly did not speak English. If I had evacuated like other people, who would have helped them? Therefore, I decided to stay at home with my husband”.

During the hurricane, Father Nguyen The Vien, the pastor of MQVN church, used St. Thomas school as a shelter for people because it was thought to be more durable than other houses. In the night of the hurricane’s landfall, the school was the shelter for about 40 Vietnamese people, including men, women, the elderly and people with special medical equipment (Trung 2006: 19). Mr. Trung Chinh writes in his memoir about his feeling on the way home after securing his wife in the school of the MQVN parish on Sunday night:

“The wind kept howling endlessly. It was probably since the beginning of the Earth that I heard such a strong wind… Whenever it howled, I had to hold my breath, feeling my backbone extremely cold and my stomach hurt. While staying in the car, my hair seemed to be up! [Ngồi trong xe mà tóc râu muốn dựng ngược lên!]”

(Trung 2006: 28)

The strong wind made a tree fall down on the road, which took more than half an hour for him to get home while it had taken only two minutes to drive in a normal time. Too tired of travelling back and forth, he fell asleep on the couch in the living room. He woke up in the middle of the night because of the water dropping on his face. The house-roof had been blown away.

“I retreated to stay in a corner of the room and waited for the dawn. Water kept dripping from the ceiling and the sheetrock kept dropping. I felt myself useless when seeing my house being destroyed in front of me. I was enraged.”

127

(Trung 2006: 37)

The day after, the wind calmed down. Father Vien made an announcement that “the levee at the seventeenth street has been broken, and water is rising”. While he tried to contact the authorities to request support, he asked the men to go around Versailles to make this announcement and call people to gather at the school of the MQVN parish.

4.1.2. The Aftermath of Katrina

Evacuations after the Hurricane

Vietnamese Americans in Village de l’Est

After the hurricane was gone and the water rose, people began to find ways to evacuate. While people with vehicles managed to leave early, others had to find higher ground and wait for assistance from the government. Mrs. Lập and her husband stayed at home on Sunday night. On Monday, she saw the sun shining over the sky and cleaned her house. She felt lucky that the hurricane did not damage their house much. “In the evening, I saw water pouring into my house and I put everything on the table. The next day, the water level reached one foot high”, she recalled. Then she went to stay in St. Thomas school for three days until government trucks came to take them to Superdome on Thursday, 01 September 2005.

The whole city knew about the upcoming hurricane and a call for evacuation was made several days before the hit. However, thousands of people decided to stay in New Orleans. Although nobody wanted to suffer from chaos or sacrifice their life for a storm, many people had to stay back because they were low-income people, under special medical assistance or in charge of guarding the properties.

During the time waiting for government assistance, the shortage of food and fresh water was the main concerns of hurricane victims. Although many White Americans stuck in New Orleans also had to break into stores for food, the media and breaking news mainly broadcast the images of Black Americans who were in the middle of the loots. By portraying Black Americans looting stores, the media not only induced the audience to stigmatize Black Americans, but it also strengthened the dominant ideology on the criminality of Black Americans.

128

Some of the Vietnamese who stayed in Versailles also expressed a racial stereotype against Black Americans. As discussed in Chapter 3, Vietnamese Americans had always been concerned about local security and the presence of Black Americans. This issue rose up again in the chaotic situation of Katrina. After knowing that the water rose up, Mrs. Hue asked a Vietnamese American man to drive her car with her husband to Baton Rouge, the capital of Louisiana. However, when the car doors opened, four more Vietnamese men got in and asked her for a lift. The old five-seat sedan had to carry seven people all the way to Baton Rouge. She told me that the trip must have been blessed by God:

When we were passing the 99 Market in Versailles, two sides of the road were full of black Americans who did not have vehicles to evacuate. The driver asked us to lock the door and close the glass windows. After driving for a few miles, the road was flooded on the ramp of a bridge on Highway No. 90. We did not know what to do because the water might be too high for the car. Suddenly, there was a truck from elsewhere going ahead of us, and we followed it through the flooded area. What a blessing!

Mrs. Hue and her husband were then picked up by their children and resettled in Georgia for a few months. The 99 Market, a large grocery store in Village de l’Est, was located beside the Highway No. 90, the only road that led to the city of New Orleans or to Mississippi. It was no doubt that after knowing the situation was impossible to stay, everyone went out to the highway and waited for assistance. Mrs. Hue and her driver were not only nervous about the trip but also scared about the number of Black Americans outside. When telling me about the trip, her face expressed a fearful emotion.

In the same situation, Mrs. Chinh who stayed back in the village to take care of the elderly was one of the last persons to be on the last government bus. While other buses took evacuees to either the Convention Center or Superdome, her bus was heading toward Dallas, TX and she got reunited with her sister-in-law for the next month. On the bus, she felt scared while around her and her few Vietnamese co-ethnics were Black Americans. She recalled:

In such a long interstate trip, people could get robbed, killed at anytime. On the bus, the situation was frightful, black Americans were ferocious, very terrible. Later, I discovered that the drivers were undercover cops, they were there to take care of the situation.

129

Nothing actually happened on the bus, and Mrs. Chinh was safe with her relatives after the long trip. However, the fear of Black Americans was in her mind until she knew the presence of undercover police on the bus.

The Louisiana Superdome and the Convention Center served as the main shelters for city’s residents. They were the places with higher grounds and with secure roofs. The images and video clips about the chaos in New Orleans during the Hurricane made a negative imprint on the audience as well as stakeholders who had evacuated before (Wailoo, O'Neill, Dowd, & Anglin 2010). Compared to previous striking natural disasters in the U.S history, Katrina received the most attention due to its strength and the continuously updated news by modern technologies. On the media, the situation in these two centers was portrayed as violent and uncontrolled. News reports mentioned cases of murdering, raping and fighting among the evacuees. It displayed a negative imagery of Black Americans in the chaotic situation. The fear of Black Americans was also felt by Vietnamese Americans who were taken to these centers. Mrs. Lap recalled:

I went on a military truck to Superdome. Oh God, it was terribly scary. Black Americans, they looted restaurants, grocery stores to find food. Many, thousands of people. It was like black Americans were also in fear of black Americans. I didn’t see any policeman. Then military men had to have some gun shootings to take control of the situation. Some people were dead. Oh no, next hurricane, I would run far early from its landfall.

Other Vietnamese people who were taken to the Convention Center also faced some verbal tensions with Black American men over the resting places. At the height of the quarrel, a key respondent of mine was ready to pull out his gun from the jacket. However, the situation was resolved by the intervention of the police. The memory of the turbulence at the Convention Center and the Louisiana Superdome was strong to Vietnamese Americans. Mr. Loc shared with me: “I evacuated before Katrina, so I didn’t have to be in the Superdome. Many people were scared for life. Sometimes, people kept telling one another about their experiences. Some people still have nightmare about it”.

Not only were Vietnamese Americans afraid of Black Americans, Mrs. Lap pointed out in her memory: “Black Americans were also in fear of black Americans”. In such a turbulence, nobody knew what would happen to them and their family members. Everyone just wanted to take care

130 of themselves. Happening to live amidst the large population of Black Americans, Vietnamese Americans realized their minority status.

Dynes and Rodriguez criticized the media for providing information from unreliable sources, inaccurate assumptions or even rumours (Dynes & Rodriguez 2010). While the media negatively described the chaotic situations in the Superdome and the Convention Center of New Orleans, the head of the New Orleans Police Department, who stayed inside the Dome, stated that they ran down every rumour of rape and atrocity, and eventually made only two arrests for attempted sexual assault. Moreover, while the Mayor of New Orleans predicted the death toll figure of 10,000, the actual figure reported was 1,836. This inaccurate information led to poor and often unnecessarily exaggerated reactions from the authorities. (Sanyika 2011)

Hurricane season comes annually in southern Louisiana. Therefore, some Vietnamese Americans underestimated Hurricane Katrina until the announcement of mandatory evacuation. Having networks of relatives and friends in other states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Carolina, most of Vietnamese evacuees got a place to stay during the Hurricane. Others were able to stay in shelters with aid from the government or charities. There was only one casualty of a Vietnamese elderly. People said that she died of hunger after she could not get out of her flooded house in Versailles Arms apartments. Nevertheless, the damages of the hurricane were enormous and threatened the future of the whole city.

The City of New Orleans

One-third of the Vietnamese American community was foreign-born. Even so, many Black Americans and most Vietnamese Americans in the neighbourhood were middle-class homeowners. In 1999 the average household income was $20,753 for Black Americans and $32,000 for Vietnamese Americans. The median housing value for Vietnamese American households in Village de l’Est was in the mid-$80,000 range. Although the neighbourhood experienced tensions during the 1970s and 1980s, in the two decades prior to Katrina there was little public interaction, positive or negative, between the two groups (Leong et al. 2007: 772).

131

4.2. Returns and Recovery

4.2.1. Returns of the Residents

4.2.1.1. Returning with Care (Self-Returns), Patterns of Return

On October 5th, 2005, people were allowed to return to New Orleans (Thomet, 2005). Some Vietnamese Americans also returned to inspect their houses. Some people did not return because they found jobs in other settlement towns or had their children studying in the evacuated area and did not want to interrupt their school year. These people only went back to Village de l’Est to pick up their important documents and looked at their houses again. Of the returnees who wanted to restart their life in New Orleans, there were many concerns coming up in their mind.

A number of scholars who had studied the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans East also examined the residents’ return patterns after Katrina. Lung Vu and his colleagues conducted a survey of 82 Vietnamese American returnees in August and September 2006, one year after Katrina’s landfall. Although the sample is rather small, it reflects patterns of returning among the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans East. They point out that factors such as marriage status, having children, homeownership, pre-Katrina employment affected the return decisions of evacuees. For example, married couples with children below age 18 were much more likely to have retuned after one year than couples without children. In addition, people who were unemployed before Katrina were less likely to have returned than those who were employed (Vu, MJ, Mai, & Bankston 2009: 431). Leong and his colleagues analyse the return and rebuilding of this community. Their findings show the praising of the media over this community’s return and its quick recovery. Leong et al. considered that the national media portrayed the Vietnamese American community in ways that perpetuated the myth of a model minority. Although the media did not directly put Vietnamese Americans in comparison with Black Americans, readers made the comparison by themselves. Thereby, it opened a view that denigrated Black Americans in the aftermath of Katrina (Leong, Airriess, Li, Chen, & Keith 2007: 770-773). Another scholarly work that binds together the Black Americans and Vietnamese Americans is written by Eric Tang. By analysing the narratives from people of both communities, Tang argues that although Black American returnees in New Orleans East had also

132 made significant efforts to rebuild their community, they seemed to be invisible in the media compared to how the Vietnamese Americans were depicted. In addition, Tang points out that the possibility of racial solidarity of these two communities lies in their histories of resilience and their not being “prone to the class antagonisms” (Tang 2011: 120). Despite their useful analysis, none of these publications pay enough attention to the fear of crime among Vietnamese American returnees. In fact, the work of Vu et al. indicates the fear of crime as one of the difficulties that returnees had to face in the aftermath. Their survey shows that more than half of the sample (N=82) reported fear of crime. (Vu et al. 2009: 428). However, since they conducted a survey research, their quantitative data do not show enough details about whom the Vietnamese Americans feared and why they feared. The fear of crime was also racialized in the contexts of the city and the neighbourhood. The following section will present how Vietnamese Americans perceived and feared crime upon their return in the aftermath of Katrina.

Four days after the return date, on October 9th, the MQVN church organized the first Sunday mass after Katrina. The number of people who showed up was amazing since hearing that their church would open again, many Vietnamese residents of Versailles evacuating elsewhere returned to attend the mass. Father Vien Nguyen, the pastoral priest, recalled: “Just by word of mouth, some three hundred people showed up. It was an extremely touching moment” (Vollen & Ying 2008: 210). After the mass, the food ran out quickly because the church only had prepared for about a hundred people. They found two boxes of instant noodles and each person got one bowl. Next Sunday, eight hundred people showed up in the mass. In the second Sunday of November, Father Vien invited the Archbishop and other priests in New Orleans East to have a Resurrection of New Orleans East Mass at the MQVN church. By the evening, TV and local newspapers reported this event.

4.2.1.2. Security Concerns, Black Americans

After Katrina, the images of the lootings in New Orleans created hesitation and fear for people who wanted to return. Vietnamese Americans had to overcome the fear of getting robbed when returning to Village de l’Est. As described in chapter 3, the neighbourhood has never been considered safe since Vietnamese refugees arrived. This section will analyze the perspectives of Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans in New Orleans East upon their return.

133

Having experienced or heard about the insecurity in New Orleans before and after Katrina, people who returned early prepared themselves against theft and robbery. Mr. The traveled back and forth between New Orleans and North Carolina every three months. “I returned to pick up important paperwork, something useable and souvenirs because I thought I would never come back to live here again. I was afraid of being robbed”, he recalled. Staying together in the church was a choice for the returnees. Mr. Sang said: “I returned right after Katrina. My wife and children went to stay with her cousin who lived in a religious order in Little Rock, Arkansas, while I came back Versailles to repair my house. There were only about a dozen of people in the whole village, and we all slept at the church”. Other people chose to stay at home for their convenience. Mr. Loc remembered: “After my wife and daughter settled in Houston, I returned to repair my house. While I worked in the Westbank in the daytime, I did the cleanup in the evening and slept in my house despite having no electricity. My friends commented how brave I was. But I had a gun with me, I was not worried about security much”.

All of the first returnees were male and returned to repair their houses soon after they were allowed. To secure themselves, they stayed either at the church with other people or at their own houses. While Mr. Sang relied on other Vietnamese co-ethnics to sleep at night, Mr. Loc equipped himself with a gun. Mr. Kinh, a pharmacist, let me know that when he returned, he saw National Guards patrolling in the neighbourhood for about two years as an order of the Governor, Mrs. Kathleen Blanco. It helped keep the neighbourhood safe. According to Vu et al., the fear of crime continued to haunt the Vietnamese American returnees even by the first anniversary: “The three most common problems were continuing concerns about crime, difficulties in receiving medical care, and problems with insects. Significant fears of crime were widespread. Forty percent of the sample reported “a lot” or “extreme” fears. Only problems with insects outranked crime fears at the first anniversary” (Vu et al. 2009: 428).

Mrs. Blanco’s order for the Louisiana National Guardsmen to patrol in New Orleans indicated that the security issue was not only for Vietnamese Americans. The whole city was in the aftermath. Not only Vietnamese Americans were concerned of robbing and looting, but also Black Americans and White Americans were returning to the city. In fact, none of my informants reported being robbed, or their house being looted in Village de l’Est after they returned.

134

It is fair to say that the fear of Vietnamese Americans over crime in the neighbourhood after Katrina came from their fear over Black Americans in New Orleans. As discussed in chapter 3, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans held a stereotype against low-income Black Americans. This stereotype came from the rumours in the community and from the experiences of Vietnamese Americans. Mrs. Que, 75 years old, commented: “Many black Americans have moved out of the state, not so many of them are here like before Katrina. The housing apartments aren’t available anymore. They [the government] have demolished these buildings where black Americans lived. Black Americans are mostly robbers. They were good when going to school together with my children, but later they became bad/naughty”. Mrs. Que held a negative perception of Black Americans in the neighbourhood. In fact, her house got robbed by some Black American youth when her family lived in the apartment area, a subsidized housing area of Section 8 housing project.

Those kinds of experiences and rumours within the Vietnamese American community created a negative image of “Black Americans”. The daily Vietnamese term for Black Americans is “black Americans” [Mỹ đen]. While in the Vietnamese common sense, white stands for something good, nice and benevolent, black often comes with bad, ugly and malevolent. The term “Black American” may not carry a negative connotation in English, but it is used to address Black Americans with a negative connotation in Vietnamese. A hypothesis suggests that this perception of Vietnamese Americans come from their French colonial period in Vietnam when Black soldiers were imported to colonize the country.2 The imagery of black people together with their mixed-race children were often stigmatized. In the interview with Father John Nguyen, he commented that the slavery-colonialist ideology had imprinted on Vietnamese American minds. It kept them think of themselves as being closer to White Americans and better than Black Americans. The two races were never in close relationship. This notion can be seen in post- Katrina in which Vietnamese American returnees feared of Black Americans. It seems to fit in the white supremacy ideology.

However, not all residents had the same perception on Black Americans. As we see in the interview with Mrs. Lap, she commented that “even black Americans were also in fear of black

2 Personal discussion with Professor Hy Luong, University of Toronto. 135

Americans” when being in the Superdome. The comment indicates the diversity in their perception of Black Americans. In general, it reflects the notion that not all of Black Americans are bad. Eric Tang cited a quotation in his interview with Mike Tran, a Vietnamese American of the second generation, whose meat market and grocery got looted during Katrina. Tang reports Tran’s comment: “He exudes a deep ambivalence when asked about those who apparently stole from him. ‘Cash, liquor, and cigarettes-yeah, they stole everything,’ he said, appearing visibly annoyed. ‘But, you know, not everyone was there to steal. Some people were just finding a way to survive’ ” (Tang 2011: 118-119). Being a person of the second generation, Mr. Tran grew up with Vietnamese and Black American children. Therefore, he did not hold a negative stereotype against Black Americans such as people of the first generation. In addition, in the critical circumstances of Katrina, he expressed his sympathy to Black American residents for their lootings. Although none of my second generation correspondents returned right after Katrina, it is arguable that there was a diversity of perceptions on Black Americans between generations of Vietnamese Americans. While Vietnamese American elderly seemed to hold the negative imagery of low income Black Americans, many people of the second generation expressed a sympathy over the action of Black Americans in such a critical situation.

4.2.1.3. Rebuilding the houses – Who are the dependents?

Decisions to Return

While a number of research in New Orleans pay attention to a racial binary of White- Black relations and experiences, Wei Li and her colleagues chose to focus on the patterns of return in two minority groups, Black Americans and Vietnamese Americans, in New Orleans East. Their research shows different patterns of evacuation and return in these two minority groups. For return decisions, Li et al. point out that both groups “indicate their strong attachments to New Orleans, but mostly to their neighbourhood, and such place attachment contributed to their decision to return” (Li, Airriess, Chen, Leong, & Keith 2010: 116). In addition, the authors found that the vital role of the church in the Vietnamese American community only increased after Katrina. The close-knit church community of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East facilitated their return decisions. While Black American homeowners also held a strong place

136 attachment, “their attachments were tempered by less positive perceptions of the future of the community” (Li et al. 2010: 116).

Wei Li and her colleagues provide some significant findings for the patterns of evacuation and return of two minority communities in New Orleans East. A weakness of their research is that they only analyze the resources within the two racial minority groups. In the meantime, the return and rebuild processes were also influenced by other factors such as the assistance of the government as well as other private charity organizations. From a qualitative research, Eric Tang uncovers the conditions of racial solidarity possibility between Vietnamese Americans and Black American in New Orleans East. Instead of place attachments, Tang argues that the returns of both groups were accelerated by the “usable pasts” in which each group maintained a different history of resilience. For the history of resilience of Black Americans, Tang points out that Hurricane Betsy that hit New Orleans in 1965 also made the city devastated. However, only within a few years, black home-ownership rates steadily increased and black business thrived again. Forty years later, the same area was hit by another hurricane. Tang argues that the history of resilience of Black Americans played an important role in restoring the life of their neighbourhood. Therefore, in comparison with the Vietnamese Americans, who had the experience of evacuation from the Vietnamese communists in 1975, Black Americans in New Orleans were not ahistorical of return and recovery. Thereby, members of each community would rely on their own history of resilience to “explain their unlikely return and rebuilding efforts” (Tang 2011: 122). Moreover, he points out that because the two groups were “not prone to the class antagonisms that are said to provoke the well-rehearsed black-Asian conflict”, it is possible for the two groups to organize forms of cooperation (Tang 2011: 122). Tang cites a few cases in which the leaders of the MQVN church sent their young Vietnamese parishioners to help the St. Brigit parish clean its church and the surrounding environment. According to Tang, these forms of cooperation signified the solidarity of the two racial groups after Katrina. By joining together and defying the discourse of a model minority, Vietnamese Americans worked with Black Americans in New Orleans to fight against the landfill project.

While the research articles above examine the racial-historical aspects of both Vietnamese American and Black American residents in New Orleans East, my research focuses on the rational choice of them in calculating the loss and gain in the post-Katrina. The return of

137

Vietnamese people to New Orleans demonstrated the importance of the place that secured their life since their arrival in the United States. New Orleans East was not only their place of a physical home but also of livelihood and belonging. Therefore, their houses were indeed their life properties that they wanted to return to, to rebuild and to repossess. Mrs. Tam shared with me: “Of course, we thought that we would return because this is our home, we have to come back to repair to live. Where could we go then?”. Moreover, people also had other valuable properties left in Versailles during Katrina. Mrs. Tam continued: “I thought we would definitely return because our career [cơ nghiệp của mình] remained there, my husband’s boat was there. How could I abandon that hundred-thousand-dollar boat? With two houses there, I had to find a way to return. Nowhere is more comfortable than in our house, right?”. It seems that the economic account was the first reason for people to return.

More interviews reveal many other values that underlined the attachment of Vietnamese American residents to their village. In more details, Mr. Kinh, a pharmacist, said: “When the government allowed us to return, I was among the first ones to return. I wanted to inspect the damages by the hurricane. I had a feeling that I could rebuild. When knowing that my people [bà con] also wanted to rebuild, I felt that rebuilding was much easier than starting a new life in a new location. I had a feeling that I could make it. Then I decided to stay”. A sense of community really inspired evacuees to return and rebuild.

Indeed, people of the first and 1.5 generation had economic reasons to return. Mr. Loc commented: “I had a feeling that everyone wanted to return because their houses had been paid off. It would be more tiresome to restart in a new place than repairing their houses here”.

To rebuild their house, Vietnamese Americans first relied on their own network and resources. John Hoa Nguyen recalled his observance of Vietnamese Americans’ self-reliance and mutual assistance by forming groups of close friends and together repairing one house, then moving to another one. Other people repaired their house by themselves after having the electricity. The self-reliance of Vietnamese Americans was visible throughout the community.

During that time, many NGOs and corporations provided financial assistance for the basic needs to local residents in the form of gift cards, food and cleaning materials. These assistances came on time as people needed them to stay and rebuild their houses.

138

Finally, while several published articles point out the role of the MQVN church and the Vietnamese Americans’ resilience in the recovery process (Chamlee-Wright & Storr 2010; Leong et al. 2007), I think that they missed a significant point that related to the Vietnamese Americans’ long-term commitment, that is, their job market in New Orleans metropolitan area. These scholars recorded the recovery figure of businesses in Village de l’Est after one year: “By early February 2006, some 25% of the 93 pre-Katrina businesses [in Versailles] had re-opened; this is more than double the percentage of re-opened businesses in New Orleans East as a whole for the same month. By May 2006, the number of businesses re-opening increased to 59% and by December 2006, the number increased to slightly over 90%” (Airriess, Li, Leong, Chen, & Keith 2008: 1340). However, this figure only reflects a very small portion of the occupations of the residents in the neighbourhood.

The majority of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans were technical workers working in iron- carving and wood-processing factories, military and civil ship-repairing mills, hotel maintenance, as well as in the drainage system management of the City of New Orleans. On the one hand, most of these jobs were in high demand after Katrina throughout the city. On the other hand, while Hurricane Katrina severely damaged and flooded only the city of New Orleans and New Orleans East, the West Bank, Metairie and Slidell towns were ready to operate normally in pre-Katrina conditions. Therefore, a number of Vietnamese in Versailles equipped with motor- vehicles were able to return to work as normal. This fact also facilitated the return of Vietnamese in MQVN parish. Mr. Loc, who evacuated his family to Houston, returned to New Orleans after two weeks. He said: “My company asked me to return to work, because the company was not severely affected by the hurricane. It is located in the Westbank”. At the same time, the fishermen, boat owners, captains and deckhands were able to continue to fish and shrimp after their boats got fixed.

The return of the MQVN parishioners contributed to the functioning of the church itself. While Vietnamese Americans returned and continued to be the main financial resources for the church to function, the Catholic church nearby did not re-gain enough Black American parishioners. According to their research, Li et al. witnessed a number of Black Americans returning to the community. They shared a comment of a Black American in New Orleans East: “The people start coming back to my place, my street. You know, my street is full. And my subdivision is too,

139 quite a few people are back there, the majority of people are back in our subdivision so I would say that it’s a plus, and we would see the trash picked up once a week, and the mail, we’ve been receiving that” (Li et al. 2010: 115). However, with the limited number of Black American returnees in Village de l’Est neighbourhood, the St. Brigit Catholic parish was not able to reopen after Katrina. Mr. Edward Blouvin, a previous parishioner of the St. Brigit church, told me: “because of the shortage of funding for rebuilding the churches after Katrina, the Archdiocese of New Orleans decided to close the church. I now have to drive much farther to go to church on Sunday”. In 2011, the St. Brigit church became a playground for local children and the office for VIET organization. It is fair to say that the MQVN church was a pulling force that made Vietnamese American evacuees return to the neighbourhood. In return, the Vietnamese American people continued to keep the church functioning.

4.2.2. A Model Minority Myth and Financial Assistance as Welfare or Rights

After Katrina, the return and recovery of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East was praised in ways that perpetuated the model minority myth in the city. Leong et al. summarize how the national media generally presented a narrative that fit the stereotypical Asian American model-minority myth. They write: “in less than three generations the New Orleans Vietnamese refugees had seemingly mastered the political system and overcome Katrina through the self- sufficiency and hard work associated with Asian Americans in general” (Leong et al. 2007: 773). Leong et al. argue that the collective memory and history of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East “contributed to this community’s mobilization and empowerment” (Leong et al. 2007: 770). In other words, the authors consider that the shared refugee experiences of the Vietnamese Americans, the leadership role of the Catholic church and the history of the community played a role in the quick recovery of this community.

In fact, the New York Times, CNN, and NBC Nightly News repeatedly reported the achievements of the Vietnamese American community. Leong et al. point out that even though the media reports did not do the comparison between the two racial minority communities, they quoted several comments from online discussion boards that directly compared the Vietnamese American community and what the commentators called “the Black American community in New Orleans”. An online participant stated: “These Vietnamese folks are self-starters. The last

140 thing they want is more governmental interference. NOLA’s blacks, on the other hand, would rather sit around and wait for the government to save them.” (Leong et al. 2007: 774). The New Orleans Louisiana Weekly, a local Black American newspaper, in January 2006 hailed “The Miracle of Versailles: New Orleans Vietnamese Community Rebuilds” and ultimately concluded: “Perhaps the most important key to their success is that the Vietnamese community refused to place its salvation into the hands of the government. They simply came home”. Leong et al. argued that such emphasis ignored the voices of Vietnamese American members who criticized the inadequate rebuilding assistance from the state and the city (Leong et al. 2007: 774).

In a similar vein, Eric Tang points out the possibility of reproducing the model minority myth regarding the Vietnamese Americans in Village de l’Est after Katrina. He argues: “As the Vietnamese mounted their improbable return to New Orleans East-the first in the area to do so without significant government assistance-the conditions seemed ripe for the reproduction of racial discourses that underscore Asian American self-reliance in distinction to black government-dependency” (Tang 2011: 120). On the other hand, he fairly points out the achievements of the Black Americans in the city. The return of Black Americans is considered a form of political resistance to the mainstream ideology. Tang affirms: “For black community leaders such as Ron Chisom, black returns were no less than a form of resistance politics that has long defined New Orleans. By returning and rebuilding without significant support from the state, and when most standard indicators suggested that returns were economically unviable, black residents were engaged in acts of racial self-making that can be traced to previous political moments. ‘People don’t realize that we had been here before,’ Chisom said. ‘As catastrophes go, Katrina was perhaps the worst, but certainly not the first’ ” (Tang 2011: 135).

The media may have reported correctly as a number of my informants confirmed that they had returned immediately after having the permission of the city authority. Without waiting for government’s assistance, most of them began to repair their houses by themselves and restarting their lives. They had to clean up everything and set up most of the elements in their houses again. They either did it with their family members or with assistance of a group of friends. In the following months, Vietnamese American organizations throughout the United States sent a number of volunteers to help local people with the rebuilding process (Airriess et al. 2008).

141

Many scholars tend to underestimate the role of local organizations and the government in the aftermath (Norcross & Skriba 2010). Although the government was criticized for inadequate assistance in the rebuilding process of New Orleans, I would like to argue that most Vietnamese American returnees were satisfied with the government’s financial assistance for long term recovery. While it is said that Father Vien made the very first efforts to return and rebuild Versailles, the state of Louisiana and the U.S federal government, through VIET,3 directly provided financial support that significantly accelerated the return and recovery. Besides the money paid by insurance companies for the insured properties, people in New Orleans received support from a few programs after Katrina, especially from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Road Home program.

FEMA and the Road Home financial assistance may be seen as a form of public provision. Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon point out: “[M]ost Americans today still distinguish between “welfare” and “non-welfare” forms of public provision and see only the former as creating dependency. The assumptions underlying these distinctions, however, had to be constructed politically. Old people became privilege (non-welfare) recipients only through decades of militant organization and lobbying. All programs of public provision, whether they are called welfare or not, shore up some dependencies and discourage others” (Fraser & Gordon 1994: 322).

The following section points out that economic assistance, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Road Home, for homeowners is framed as more reasonable and appropriate than that for those without homes. If the return of homeowners was assured by the Road Home, and was not stigmatized, people who were not eligible for the Road Home program remained in poverty and continued to be stigmatized with welfare assistance. This inequality in distribution of economic assistance supported the rich and widened the middle class-poor gap.

FEMA was established in 1979 from many fragmented emergency and disaster response activities. Since its consolidation in 2003, it has become a federal agency under the U.S

3 VIET is the abbreviation of Vietnamese Initiatives in Economic Training, established in 2001. It is a nonprofit organization run by Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East. 142

Department of Homeland Security. Its mission remains “to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters with a vision of ‘A Nation Prepared’ " (FEMA).4

The Road Home program was designed to provide compensation to Louisiana homeowners affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for the damages to their homes. It was a part of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. The program gave eligible homeowners up to $150,000 in compensation for their losses to get back into their homes. The Road Home began accepting applications in August 2006. The amount of grants varied from case to case, depending on the damage to the house and the property value of the house of the applicant. The assessors also took into account the amount of money that the applicant’s household had received from FEMA and insurance companies (Norcross & Skriba 2010: 185).

Although both FEMA and the Road Home were criticized for slow action, these financial assistance programs played a significant role for people to return and rebuild New Orleans. Mrs. Tam received a total of $150,000.00 from the Road Home program. Regarding the money that Mrs. Lap’s family received: “We bought this house for $50,000.00 USD and after Katrina we received about more than $100,000.00 USD: $30,000.00 USD from flood insurance; $30,000.00 USD from the Road Home program; $10,000.00 USD from FEMA, and more than $30,000.00 USD from the hurricane insurance. We spent about $30,000.00 USD to repair the house. Since the house was flooded by water for months, we had to remove everything and rebuild most of things. It was smelly everywhere. However, after that we could stay in a new and cleaner house”.

While the MQVN church was a place that hosted volunteers from elsewhere in the United States coming to help cleaning and rebuilding the community, the Vietnamese Initiatives in Economic Training (VIET), the only Vietnamese American local organization in Village de l’Est, was more involved in the financial-distribution process. According to Mr. Khanh:

In 2006, I heard that there was a program called Road Home that provided assistance for homeowners. So I drove from North Carolina to Versailles and went to VIET to ask for help. After my application was processed, I received 90,000.00 USD from the Road Home program, and spent 60,000.00 USD to repair my house. Before that, I also received 10,000.00 USD from FEMA.

4 Official site: https://www.fema.gov/about-agency 143

Upon receiving the money, the Vietnamese Americans did the comparison among their friends and relatives in New Orleans. They realized that they would have received more money if they had not bought insurance. The reason is that in each application, Road Home would subtract the money that the household had received from insurance companies for their insured properties. Therefore, many Vietnamese Americans found it a pity for buying insurance for their houses. In an interview with Ms. Diem, she said: Hoang: Did you pay off your mortgage? Diem: Oh, yes, I did. Most people had their house paid off after the hurricane. If someone’s house bought insurance, they [insurance companies] just paid one time as in the contract. But if a house did not have insurance, the owner received more money than I did. Hoang: Really, why did a house without insurance receive more money? Diem: The government provided it [money] through many other programs. But my house, I had to pay insurance every year. After hurricane, I only received compensation from the insurance company. Nothing from the government. If people had known about that, we would not have bought the insurance. Let the government pay us. Hoang: But nobody knew if the hurricane came! Diem: Yes, it is. But if I had known about the hurricane, I would have bought a higher insurance.

Another informant of mine bought the house two years before Katrina and his mortgage was $115,000.00 USD. He shared with me: Hoang: After Katrina, did you receive any financial aid? Hiep: I received the flooded insurance for my house. I had a mortgage of $115,000 USD at that time. If I didn’t have a job, I would not have money to pay for the mortgage. Therefore, [with a job] I paid it off. After that, I didn’t have enough money to repair the house. Hoang: Where did the money come from? Hiep: From the insurance company. I paid off the mortgage and I only had about twenty thousand dollars left, not enough to repair this house.

Therefore, the financial assistance received from FEMA and the Road Home not only helped Vietnamese Americans to repair the damaged houses, but it also was the main resource for many households to pay off the mortgage.

144

The following table shows the increase of homeowners in Village de l’Est before and after Katrina:

Table 4.1. Mortgage Status of Homeowners in Village de l’Est in 2000 and 2010 Mortgage status 2000 2010 Owned with a mortgage/a 80.4% 46.7% loan Owned free and clear 19.6% 53.3%

(GNOCDC analysis of data from U.S. Census 2000 and 2010)

Besides the financial assistance for the damaged houses, many people, such as fishing boat owners, also received financial aid for their means of production: Mr. Sang told me: “I returned to repair my house right after Katrina. I also had to look for my fishing boat docked in Venice, Louisiana before Katrina’s landfall. Finally, I found it trapped on a hill in Venice. The government had a program to tow the boats back to the water, and I also received $20,000.00 to repair the boat, I thanked the government!”

A survey of a scholarly group from Tulane University was conducted in Village de l’Est in August and September 2006 (one year after Katrina). It indicates that more than 50 percent of the population graded FEMA from Good, Very Good and Excellent (the remaining values: Fair, Poor, Very Poor) in responding to the Hurricane (Vu et al. 2009: 430).

Therefore, it is arguable that emergency assistance (FEMA, the Road Home) is seen as a right, but other financial support programs, such as subsidized housing, food stamps are considered stigmatized welfare forms. Fraser and Gordon point out the meaning of dependency “has shifted from gaining one’s livelihood by working for someone else to relying for support on charity or welfare; wage labor now confers independence” (Fraser & Gordon 1994: 331). For the case of the aftermath of Katrina, support from charity and government aid has been shifted to be considered as a right of the victims. Although the Vietnamese Americans have been considered self-sufficient, many people thought that they deserved the compensation from the government for their damaged properties. In fact, it is reflected in a comment that I heard when I asked an

145 informant to compare being a refugee in Katrina to being a refugee after the Vietnam War (1975). He said: Compared to the evacuation in 1975, this time is very different. Being here, although we had to run away from the hurricane, we were still happy because we knew that we could not be dead. Secondly, by any chance, we knew that the government was taking care of us. It just did not arrive yet. Evacuating to other cities, we had relatives there, so we were still happy. In 1975, we fled Vietnam but we did not know where to go.

My argument here does not degrade Vietnamese Americans’ efforts to return and rebuild their community after the disaster. It only conveys the message that the meaning of financial aid can be shifted from welfare to non-welfare. By that, the recipient would not suffer from the categories of dependency and subordination.

4.2.3. Restructuring Race in the Neighbourhood

Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath not only devastated the built environment of New Orleans but also revealed the flaws in the disaster management agencies at the state and federal levels. However, if we examine the recovery process in a larger picture after a period of time, Katrina not only helped improve the disaster management system but also created opportunities for several modifications and changes. For the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans, although the Hurricane brought about chaos for a few months, government aid programs not only provided a significant amount of money for most of households but also re-organized the structure of Versailles village.

The restructuring of Village de l’Est after Katrina is an important issue for the racial discourse. Although researchers such as Li et al. (2010: 114) and Airriess et al. (2008: 1340) point out the closure of the low-income apartment complexes in Versailles, they do not discuss the racial implications of this decision. Similarly, although Eric Tang (2011) approaches the return and recovery of the two racial minority communities from a race and white ideological perspective, he only pays attention to the cooperative activities of the leaders. My ethnographic materials show that a sign of white supremacy is the closure of the apartment complexes in the neighbourhood of Vietnamese Americans. Leong et al. indicate that “[these] three apartment complexes had housed nearly 40 percent of the African American population in the

146 neighbourhood” (Leong et al. 2007: 773). I would like to argue that the closure of Versailles Arms Apartment complexes did not make the neighbourhood safer. Instead, with the discourse of making the city “cleaner”, white supremacy ideology was covertly implemented to clear a residential area of low-income Black Americans. After settling in this neighbourhood for a few decades, many Vietnamese Americans had saved enough money to buy their own houses in another section of the neighbourhood. Since a majority of Vietnamese Americans had moved out of this subsidized housing area before Katrina, their agreement to the closure of the public housing would make the neighbourhood population having less Black Americans. Thereby, it would consolidate the homeland place of Vietnamese Americans.

Before Katrina, the living conditions in low-income public housing in New Orleans had been criticised by some politicians such as Congressman Richard Baker. The three low-income apartment complexes in Village de l’Est were not reopened after Katrina. Five years after Katrina, the 2010 U.S. census showed a significant changed in the composition of race in the local demography:

Table 4.2. Population by Race in Village de l’Est Racial & Ethnic diversity 2000 2010 Black American 55.4% 7,153 43.4% 3,467 White 3.6% 465 1.5% 120 Asian 37.1% 4,790 44.7% 3,579 Other 3.9% 504 10.4% 842 Total population: 100% 12,912 100% 8,008

(GNOCDC analysis of data from U.S. Census 2000 and 2010)

The figure shows that as the population decreased from 12,912 in 2000 to 8,008 in 2010, the percentage of Asian population increased from 37.1% to 44.7% and the percentages of Black American and White residents declined in the population. Apart from the people who did not want to return to the neighbourhood, the reduction of Black Americans was the result of the closure of three low-income apartment areas. In 2000, 36.8 percent of Black Americans population lived in the apartment areas, which made up 78 percent of the renters in Village de l’Est (Li et al. 2010: 108). However, fewer than 50 percent of the Black Americans had returned

147 to Village de l’Est by spring 2007 (Leong et al. 2007: 771). On the one hand, researchers have found that Black American evacuees without homeownership, employment, and married status were unlikely returning after Katrina (Vu et al. 2009). On the other hand, the unavailability of affordable housing prevented their return. Li et al. point out that by late June 2006 “almost 40 percent of the Black American population in the study area had not returned because the apartment complexes they inhabited had yet to reopen” (Li et al. 2010: 113-114).

The collapse of low-income housing areas after Katrina came into focus as Congressman Richard Baker (R., LA) stated: “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did” (Wall Street Journal on September 9, 2005 cited in The South End Press 2007: 14)). A little more than 10 days after Hurricane Katrina, when everything was still in turbulence, the Wall Street Journal reported Baker’s controversial statement. Baker confirmed the quote and a Washington Post journalist reported his explanation one day after that:

Baker issued a lengthy statement saying he was "taken aback" by the Journal's brief item. "What I remember expressing, in a private conversation with a housing advocate and member of my staff, was that 'We have been trying for decades to clean up New Orleans public housing to provide decent housing for residents, and now it looks like God is finally making us do it,' " Baker wrote. "Obviously I have never expressed anything but the deepest concern about the suffering that this terrible catastrophe has caused for so many in our state."

(Babington, Washington Post, September 10, 2005)

Huffington Post writes that:

Baker explains later he didn't intend flippancy but has long wanted to improve low-income housing.

(Hardwood, 2005)

“Clean up public housing” implies that public housing was dirty or infested. Whatever Baker explained to the public, his former statement made many low-income people enraged. Moreover, the majority of public housing residents was Black American in New Orleans. It is likely that Baker had in mind here Black Americans in the public housing.

148

Many people were enraged by Baker’s comments. In the public comment section of Daily Kos, Patricia Taylor questioned whether Baker was racist or classist, and asked whether it mattered to him when “cleaning up public housing in New Orleans, smote 40,000 or so, let girls and women be raped and brutalized, destroyed homes and churches and schools and fire stations, drove people mad with grief and fear, tore families apart, drowned new little babies and elderly people” (Hu 2005). Taylor suggested that Baker’s constituents should demand Baker to resign for his statement. Panzer Mensch seemed to be outraged when stating: “if God did it, then what the hell is Baker taking credit for?”. Other commentators pointed out if it was a confusion of the symptom for the disease. Another commentator with the nickname of NewNWDemo suggested: “it fails to address the root causes of the endemic poverty in LA, and its surrounding states” (Hu 2005).

Baker’s comment seemed to denigrate the low-income Black Americans in New Orleans. It was complicit to white ideology that kept Black Americans at the subordinate position. Until the end of my fieldwork in 2012, the two apartment complexes in Village de l’Est remained collapsed since Katrina. Mr. Kinh, a pharmacist, said: “Mayor Ray Nagin must have planned for not rebuilding these low-income apartments. The authorities feel that it is not wise to invest in New Orleans East because it doesn’t have many businesses and doesn’t bring benefits to the city. That’s why they want to shut it down”.

For Vietnamese Americans in Village de l’Est, the closure of these three apartment complexes seemed to make people feel safer than before. Mr. X told me: “Before Katrina, I didn’t dare to go to Versailles Arms area in the evening, a lot of troubles there”; Mrs. Y said: “Versailles Arms apartments were full of criminals”. However, six years after Katrina, in 2011 when I began my extensive fieldwork, the situation in Village de l’Est did not show any sign of improvement. Mrs. Van told me: “Last year, I heard some cases of people who got robbed and raped behind the small church [in Versailles]. Therefore, even when I go to local Vietnamese grocery stores, I have to look around before getting out of my car. We used to be afraid of only Black Americans, and now we are afraid of Mexican immigrants too”. When inquired for the reason, she replied: “After Katrina, three cars of my family were stolen here. Before Katrina, this street was very safe because the owners stayed in their houses. White Americans moved out completely after Katrina, and Black Americans together with Mexican immigrants rented these houses. This area became

149 insecure.” In 2012, a friend of mine got robbed in front of his house. Mrs. Phuoc, as mentioned in chapter 3, chose to go jogging in a group, so that she would not be afraid of “black Americans”. Mr. Viet, 68 years old, commented: “I have never felt safe in the whole New Orleans both before and after Katrina although there has been less gun shooting”. Ms. Thuy Nguyen, 35 years old, shared with me: “Grading from 1 to 10, I think it’s about 6-7 [for the security of Village de l’Est]. Sometimes there are robberies, breaking into the houses, not that secure. There was a kid that was kidnapped. There was shooting in front of my house. That incident was probably 6-7 years ago, after Katrina”.

In general, the closure of Versailles Arms apartments, as well as other public housing, does not necessarily make the city “cleaner”. It also does not make the neighbourhood much safer. The argument that public housing is related to criminals and other negativities only serves as a means to implement the dominant ideology of maintaining a safe and sound environment for the dominant race. For Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East, the middle-income households had moved out of the public housing apartments before Katrina. People who remained in these apartments were mainly low-income Black Americans, Vietnamese American elderly and frequently absent single fishermen. This population was not active in church activities and played a very minor role in the religious parish. The closure of these apartments only helped the city get rid of the poorest section of the neighbourhood. Vietnamese Americans seem to be in an agreement with the white ideology. However, Vietnamese Americans there did not have to do anything, “but God did” (Richard Baker).

4.3. Politics of the Landfill in New Orleans East

In the rebuilding period, the city had to clean about seven million cubic yards of debris. “On February 14, Mayor Ray Nagin, Waste Management Incorporated, and Louisiana’s Department of Environment Quality made the decision to open a landfill one mile from where we are, one mile from the edge of my community”, said Father Vien Nguyen (Vollen & Ying 2008: 226). Threatened by the risk of living near a large dumpsite, Father Vien led Vietnamese people in Village de l’Est through the steps of petition. The struggle against a landfill project in New Orleans East was one of the major post-Katrina events that not only caught the attention of local

150 media but also showed the diversity of perceptions toward the concept of home among the Vietnamese in Versailles.

4.3.1. The Landfill Project Arrived

4.3.1.1. Landfill Project

A few months after Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin made the following announcement: “we have seven million cubic yard of debris to move, and we’ve moved about 2.2 million cubic yard. Right now we’re just stacking it up. So you gotta see a huge mountain of debris in about three to four locations throughout the city” (excerpt from the documentary ‘A Village Called Versailles’ (Chiang 2009)). At the same time, Chuck Brown, Assistant Secretary of Louisiana’s Department of Environmental Quality, explained: “If we only use one landfill, we’re talking about a year and a half to finish the debris left. Using two landfills, we’re talking about 10 months. Using three landfills, we’re talking in five months” (Chiang 2009). That was one of the reasons why the city of New Orleans opened the landfill in New Orleans East.

Father Vien recalled: “It was very ironic. We were the first community in all of New Orleans to come forth with a development plan. They’re still talking about development plans at this point. Out of our own pockets, we brought in thirty-three experts from all over the country and two architects from Vietnam to design the redevelopment of our area. We unveiled it on the third of February, and on the fourteenth of February, our Valentine’s gift was a waste dump” (Vollen & Ying 2008: 226).

Arguing against the landfill in this area, Joel Waltzer, a White attorney, was worried about toxic chemicals such as pesticides, cleaning products, and bleaches being dumped into the landfill (Chiang 2009). Mimi Nguyen expressed her concerns about the impact of the debris to the community: “Environmentalists came in and said that all this trash that came from people regarding their house and gonna sit there for so many years. And there’s not a lining underneath. It’s gonna soak through the water system that leads into the canal that you gonna water your vegetable. And that’s the vegetable you’re gonna sell to the market, that you’re gonna eat, your children’re gonna eat, your grandchildren’re gonna eat” (Chiang 2009). Mimi Nguyen was worried that the toxic waste soaked into the water canal would affect the vegetable gardens of

151 community members. For decades, Vietnamese Americans in Village de l’Est had planted herb and vegetables in their own gardens to serve their need and to sell in the local market. People were concerned about the long-term impact of the landfill to the community.

Father Vien recalled: “We met with the representatives from the Waste Management Inc. and asked them really to put synthetic lining (…) to reduce the social environmental impact. They basically said ‘no’. And so we told them ‘ok, then we’re gonna fight you every step of the way’ ” (Chiang 2009).

4.3.1.2. How Local Residents Responded

The struggle is documented carefully in the documentary “A Village Called Versailles”. The MQVN Church, its parishioners, and film director Leo Chiang must have utilized all of their efforts to compile this documentary about the impact of Katrina and its aftermath on New Orleans in general and on Versailles people in particular. It would be a giant gap if my dissertation about Village de l’Est did not examine this documentary. Therefore, I will devote this section to describe the landfill event in the documentary. This will not only show the chronological progress of the struggle but also be a part of the materials to be analyzed in this section.

Father Vien contacted Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis and discussed the request for a solution for the landfill in New Orleans East. In the city council meeting on April 6, 2006, Councilwoman Willard-Lewis bought up this issue: “The community has united and expressing its strong concerns about the impact on neighbourhood, and of safety in line of the proposed landfill project”. The question was responded by Veronica White, Director of the Sanitation Department: “It will cost the city approximately fifty thousand dollars per day if we don’t open this landfill because of the slow production [of debris removal]. C&D is not contaminated material.5 This is what will go into that landfill”. The documentary continues with the arguments of Father Luke Nguyen and Joel Waltzer. Father Luke: “The mayor did not consult with the community, deny our community a voice. Attorney Waltzer continued: “By declaring an emergency, the Mayor has cut out citizens’ participation. We are seven months post-Katrina.

5 C&D stands for “Construction and Demolition Waste” 152

There is no state of emergency that justifies stifling our democratic rights”. The episode ended with the position of Councilman Eddie Sapir: “We are not gonna go back and forth with this debate. Councilwoman Willard-Lewis has a resolution before. She doesn’t want this landfill out there. And once Mayor Nagin revoked his order, and that’s what her colleagues are gonna do”. Although all of the city councillors voted for the withdrawal of the permission for the landfill, the mayor refused to do it.

Father Vien: “The city councillors [were] calling the mayor to withdraw the permission for the landfill, and he refused. And from there we went to the federal court, we went to Louisiana Legislature, we went to the state court. And [while] the battle went on, they continued the dumping” (Chiang 2009).

Then the documentary moves to a joined activity of a group of Vietnamese youth discussing what they should do with the landfill. Knowing that the MQVN church was preparing for a protest in front of the city hall, the youth came out to help making banners’ slogans and mottos for the protesters. The slogans were mostly “No Landfill” and “Pick up trash. No landfill”. They then demonstrated in front of the city hall. After three hours, Mayor Nagin agreed to meet with protest leaders. Nobody knew what happened in the meeting, but after that the mayor came out to the crowd with Father Vien and said: “Good afternoon everyone, you know I stay before you to present a solution that we have worked out in my office. Here is what we have agreed to do, we have agreed to temporarily suspend all the dumping in the landfill. Alright, we are putting in together a team, a joint team of experts, and we’re gonna go out and test what’s going on in that landfill, so that anyone is comfortable, and C & D materials, it’s nontoxic, and if it is toxic, then we’re gonna move to the next level of permanent shutting it down, ok?” However, the landfill reopened after five days because the city and its opponents could not agree on testing methods.

With the help from attorney Waltzer, Father Vien and MQVN parishioners organized a trip to a hearing at the federal court in Baton Rouge. In order to be prepared, the MQVN church also organized a meeting with Vietnamese people and made a decision for a demonstration at the Chef Menteur landfill the next day. After the meeting, an old Vietnamese man was driving his car around Versailles and speaking in Vietnamese through microphone, and asking people to go to protest at the landfill: “Once again, please come to the rally this morning for the future of the

153 community and our parish” (Chiang 2009). Father Vien said: “That day we scored big. There were trucks pulling out and the trucks had to turn around. And then at the same time we won at the federal court. The court agreed that Waste Management could not operate the landfill beyond the emergency time. That was the end of the dumping at that point”.

Leo Chiang, the documentary director, visited New Orleans East after Katrina and made the film. The documentary used the bottom-up approach, following the development of the Vietnamese American community’s narratives. As Chiang mentioned in the statement of the film:

It took 2 ½ years to capture this story. I am grateful that the members of the Versailles community trusted me to tell their story. Before I made this film, the word “community” would come up in conversations from time to time, but making this film has taught me what “community” really means: a group of people, family or not, who always have each other’s back. I hope audiences walk away from the film as moved by this story as I have been and continue to be. I also want them to feel empowered, especially viewers who are part of any underserved and/or underrepresented group. I want them to believe that, united with their friends and family, they, too, can make a difference. Idealistic? You bet.

(Filmmaker’s statement) 6

With this approach, Chiang tried to give voice to the community members. Therefore, the issues framed in this film reflect the ideas and perceptions of Father Vien and other community leaders. These leaders made use of their knowledge on the politics of race in New Orleans to voice their demand. The struggle will be analysed in the following section.

4.3.2. Power of the Minorities

The landfill incident has been closely studied by scholars as an outstanding example that defies the myth of a model minority that national media as well as White America thought about this emerging Vietnamese American community. To do that, scholars point out the cooperative activities between two minority groups, Black Americans and Vietnamese Americans. Leong et al. describe that “neighbourhood Catholic and Protestant churches have worked together since the hurricane to forge multiracial cooperation in the rebuilding of the community” (Leong et al.

6 http://avillagecalledversailles.com/press-downloads/AVCVPressKit(04.02.10).pdf 154

2007: 778). The MQVN church sent volunteers to help neighbouring Black Americans clean up their churches after Katrina. Then in May 2006 both groups joined with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organisation, to demand the closing of the Chef Menteur landfill (Leong et al. 2007). Airriess et al. point out the participation of the MQVN church’s pastor in “numerous meetings and rallies organised by Black community groups to contest ‘right of return’ issues as well as the absence of school and health facilities serving the poor” (Airriess et al. 2008: 1343-1344). The active participation of the MQVN pastor built up a social capital network between the two minority groups. In the same vein, Tang recorded that Father Vien Nguyen, the pastor, and several second-generation Vietnamese Americans learnt a crucial lesson from local “environmental groups that for years had been organising against dumping in neighbouring black communities” (Tang 2011: 128). For many years, New Orleans East had been home to two additional landfills. Local black residents had studied about the possible long- term impact of the toxins and helped Vietnamese American community leaders “through the lengthy legal fights against the city and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality” (Tang 2011: 128). Therefore, these scholars, on the one hand, argue that self-reliance and hard work were not the core reasons for Vietnamese Americans to have a rapid recovery. Instead, the achievements of Vietnamese Americans were the result of multiple networks operating within New Orleans and beyond the state of Louisiana. On the other hand, the co-operation between these two minority groups to demand the closure of the landfill was said to signify no racial hostilities even though only one group had been praised by the media (Airriess et al. 2008: 1344).

Similarly, Eric Tang argues that if before Katrina the relationship of the two communities was at best tolerant, Hurricane Katrina and the Landfill incident really united these communities. By engaging in collective action, they not only had more understanding of each other but also together built a better future for New Orleans East. In addition, Tang points out that Vietnamese American leaders understood the impact of the myth of the model minority on the leadership of the community. Therefore, following the victory of the battle to close the landfill, while the media such as the New York Times and TV news kept running headlines about the success of an Asian American community, Vietnamese American community leaders prepared to make sure that “the political win not be cast as an exclusively Vietnamese American success story” (Tang 2011: 127). That way, they not only showcased the actual cooperation with the Black American 155 community, but they also prevented any racial hostility from the effect of a model minority myth. In contributing to the racial triangulation theory (Kim 1999), Tang argues: “If Vietnamese Americans choose to challenge discourses that valorize their efforts at the expense of blacks, such a move simultaneously alters the racial positions of blacks and whites within that field of power” (Tang 2011: 129). In other words, by denying the myth of a model minority and staying equally close to Black Americans, Vietnamese American leaders helped to challenge the racial triangulation model which positioned Vietnamese Americans higher than Black Americans but lower than Whites.

Those scholars have done enormously work to analyse the achievements of the two minority groups. Nevertheless, I think that they have talked about the two communities as if there had been no controversy within the community. As discussed in chapter 2, the Vietnamese American community was a combination of people of different backgrounds. Empirically, my research materials offer another interpretation of the landfill incident in which the 1.5 generation expressed a sympathy to the plan of the city. If Airriess et al. found out the “collective action framing” used by church-based spokespersons in their discourse against the landfill, and Eric Tang argued for the Vietnamese Americans’ challenge to the racial triangulation model of white supremacy, my ethnographic materials with the 1.5 generation of Vietnamese Americans suggest otherwise. They suggest theoretically that white supremacy remained intact. The coalition mentioned by those scholars was an ad hoc one emerging in a special condition and carried out by very few key leaders. Apart from a few key leaders who intended to build a strong coalition with Black American residents, local community members were guided by their own interests without taking into account the racial issue.

First, the 1.5 generation of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East were pre-occupied with work. In the post-Katrina period, people had to return to their workplaces or had to prepare to resume working. Therefore, they did not have time to deal with the landfill issue. Mr. Sang, a fisherman, said: “I was busy with fixing my fishing boat. The protest against the landfill was good. Without Father Vien, this village would not exist anymore”. Mr. Loc, engineer in a wood- processing factory, said: “When the protests happened, I could not join the protests because they were organized in daytime. I had to go to work. Black Americans also participated because if we (the Vietnamese) stayed, they could stay. If we left, they had to leave as well. Getting

156 cooperative when (we were) in trouble; and living for ourselves when things were fine” [Khi hoạn nạn thì mới đoàn kết, khi thanh bình thì ai sống thì cứ sống, mạnh ai người đấy sống]. It is understandable that the protests had to be organized during the weekdays and in working hours. The conflict of time between the protests and the 1.5 generation’s working hours might have prevented their participation.

However, the more I conducted interviews, the clearer view I had on the position of the 1.5 generation. One of the “collective action framing” used by the church-based spokespersons was “the green and verdant vegetable gardens” as the iconic cultural landscape of the community (Airriess et al. 2008: 1343). They argued that the local elderly used water pumped from the channel to water their plants. Therefore, the toxic chemicals from the dumpsite might go to the channel and get into the herb/plants. These herb and vegetables were then sold to local markets and chợ Chồm hỗm (Saturday local open market). Local people who consumed the vegetables would be in trouble. The church-based spokespersons utilised this practice to fight against the landfill. Nevertheless, not all community members cared about local markets and its goods. People of the 1.5 generation were all busy with earning money to secure their livelihood and schooling for their children. Moreover, local Vietnamese American grocery stores did not suit their needs anymore. On the way home from work, they often stopped at American supermarkets, such as Walmart, Winn-Dixie or Whole Foods Markets, to buy better, fresher vegetable. In an interview with Mrs. Diem:

Hoang: Do you often go to chợ Chồm hỗm on Saturday? Diem: No, I used to go, but not now Hoang: Why did you go there in the past more? Diem: In the past, we didn’t have as many markets, so I had to go to Chợ Chồm hỗm. Hoang: So, where do you go to buy grocery nowadays? Diem: I often go to buy grocery on Sunday, I go to Sam’s Club in Slidell. Hoang: Do you like chợ Chồm Hỗm? Diem: Of course, everybody likes markets. Hoang: So why don’t you go there now? Diem: Yeah, getting old, I don’t want to go there. Also, they only sell the same things all the time. Even if I want to go, I have to wake up early in the morning. I stay in bed longer on the weekend.

157

Chợ Chồm hỗm was one of the local markets that sold all kinds of local products such as vegetables, herbs, tubers, farm-raised chicken, ducks and even fish caught in the Gulf coast. It opened every Saturday morning from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. Local people who wanted to buy fresh goods had to come early at 6 a.m. As I observed this market in four fieldtrips of mine (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013), the market attracted less and less people.

In a similar view, Mrs. Lien, working at a nail salon, shared with me:

I rarely go to chợ Chồm hỗm, I remember that I have been there for 2 or 3 times because of curiosity. Actually, I don’t need anything in that market and I find everything I need in Sam’s Club or Walmart in the Westbank. I sometimes go to Winn-Dixie supermarket.

People of the second generation never woke up that early to go to chợ Chồm hỗm. Therefore, the market only served Vietnamese American people of the first generation. In a casual conversation on this market, my 40-year-old house-mate told me not to buy vegetables in local markets here unless I wanted to be sick. Therefore, the vegetables sold at local markets was not the reason for the 1.5 generation to think much about the threat of the landfill. Even in their proud documentary “A Village Called Versailles”, there is not a single voice of a local Vietnamese American of the 1.5 generation on the landfill. It only documents the voices of Vietnamese American youth and the elderly.

In addition, my interviewees of the 1.5 generation also told me their interpretation of the landfill project. While the first generation and the second generation strongly disagreed with it, the 1.5 generation expressed some sympathy for the decision of the authorities. A 1.5-generation male informant shared with me his idea about the lack of land in the city: “The city had to do the math to dispose the debris in several locations. In New Orleans, only New Orleans East division has land vacancy. If we go farther, it is the natural reserve area where nothing is allowed to be constructed”. Having a percentage of the gross revenues of the landfill returned to the city might be one of the reasons for the mayor to sign the contract with a private waste management company. Airriess et al. point out that narrative in their article: “The city signed a $30-million- dollar contract with the private company Waste Management of Louisiana and in return, the company was to return 22% of the landfill’s gross revenues to the city” (Airriess et al. 2008:

158

1342). My 1.5-generation informant continued: “The city at that time just thought about revenues because they had a percentage in the dumping project.”

While Father Luke framed the chosen dumpsite as a racial discriminatory act against Vietnamese Americans, not everybody shared the same idea. A 1.5 generation woman shared: “I don’t think it [the landfill project] had to do with discrimination here. It was just an opportunity because there was no other unoccupied land plot in New Orleans. They could not dump the debris to the areas of other parishes such as Chalmette. He [the mayor] might have thought that nobody would care about this dumpsite. So, the issue was the lack of land, not the discriminatory problem”.

Lastly, by using the term “leaders”, the authors of the cited articles (Airriess et al. 2008; Tang 2011; Leong et al. 2007) want to address the pastors of the religious parishes in New Orleans East. However, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans had a non-religious association, namely the Vietnamese American Community in Louisiana (VAC). As mentioned in chapter 2, VAC was established by 501(c)3 code and fully functioned as a non-profit organization. Its name would make people from elsewhere think that they represented the whole Vietnamese American people in Louisiana. In fact, VAC leaders did nothing to help the closure of the landfill project. Their greatest concerns were of a diaspora to the homeland of Vietnam rather than with the situation of the people in the United States. Therefore, using the term “leaders” would cause a misunderstanding for the readers and a misinterpretation of the incident in Village de l’Est neighbourhood. It was religious leaders that recognized the benefits of joining together with Black Americans. The rest of the cooperation involved Vietnamese elderly who did not have enough English competence to communicate with Black Americans; and the second generation of Vietnamese Americans, who despite being active in participation, were small in number. Therefore, although the authors who call this coalition a cooperation between Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans are not wrong, standing together in a protest organized by two to three religious leaders does not mean that people of both races fully accepted each other.

4.4. Conclusion

The chapter has documented the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Vietnamese Americans in the context of New Orleans, with a special focus on New Orleans East. It not only depicts the

159 evacuation of the Vietnamese Americans pre- and post- Katrina, but it also describes in details the return of them and their Black American neighbours. The case shows that Vietnamese Americans continued to be haunted by the white supremacy ideology. Holding a stereotype of low-income Black Americans, the first and the 1.5 generations of Vietnamese Americans continued to carry it into the aftermath of Katrina. This stereotype continued to obsess the Vietnamese Americans in the return and recovery period as they were in an agreement with the closure of the low-income apartment complexes in Village de l’Est which housed more than 40 percent of Black Americans in the neighbourhood. In fact, the apartment complexes had been the original resettlement shelters for the majority of Vietnamese American residents and many of them continued to live there until Katrina. The closure of the apartment complexes not only restructured the race map of Village de l’Est neighbourhood. The generally positive perception of Vietnamese Americans regarding this closure indicates that middle-income Vietnamese Americans, who were homeowners, shared the white supremacy ideology.

Depicted as one of the pioneer groups that returned and rebuilt their community by their own resources, Vietnamese Americans were praised by nation-wide media as “a new model minority”. However, scholars have pointed out that the media only saw the result and neglected the voices of Vietnamese Americans demanding for faster government support. By looking at the long-term recovery and financial support and at the welfare dependency discourse that differentiates the welfare and non-welfare forms of public provision, I argue that Vietnamese Americans expressed a satisfaction with the government aid through FEMA and the Road Home project. Support from charity and government aid has been shifted from welfare to a right of the victims (non-welfare). Although the Vietnamese Americans have been considered self-sufficient, many people thought that they deserved the compensation from the government for their damaged properties. This expectation of a number of Vietnamese Americans casts doubt on the image of a new and resourceful model minority for Vietnamese Americans.

While Hurricane Katrina brought about critical damages to the Vietnamese Americans and Black Americans in New Orleans East, scholars argue that its aftermath and the landfill incident offered an opportunity for the two minority groups to unite and defy the myth of the model minority. Scholars, such as Airriess et al. (2008), Leong et al. (2007) and Tang (2011), have pointed out the success in return and recovery of Black Americans in the city in parallel with the

160 success of Vietnamese Americans. They argue that Black Americans had returned right after Katrina but were made invisible by the media. Then the landfill incident was analysed with an intention to challenge the white supremacy. However, my ethnographic materials show that their arguments involve an overgeneralisation as they draw a general conclusion for a whole community by studying a small number of Vietnamese American activists. To my informants, the landfill incident suggested an ad hoc coalition between the two racial groups. Without the great efforts of very few key leaders at a very timely moment, the coalition would not have existed. Apart from the key leaders that consciously defied the white supremacy ideology, the rest of the community members just did what they were asked by the leaders. Eventually, the influence of the white supremacy ideology upon the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans East remained intact as soon as the coalition ended and the leadership dissolved.

161

Chapter 5 “Tôi câu cá nên tôi tồn tại” [I fish, therefore I am], BP Oil Spill Disaster

5.1. BP Oil Spill

5.1.1. The Oil Spilled in the Gulf of Mexico

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil drill rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded due to a failed drilling attempt. The explosion killed 11 people and injured 17 others. In the first few days, the media focused on the rescuing activities and the reunion of the family members of the victims. It soon became known that the oil well was leaking after the explosion. The leak was not fully staunched until almost three months later, on July 14, 2010 (Juhasz 2011).

The oil field was located approximately 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. The rig was owned by Transocean Ltd., and was operated under a lease by BP Exploration and Production, Inc., a subsidiary of the British Petroleum (BP). Between April 20 and July 15, an estimated 5 million barrels of oil – over 200 million gallons – spilled into Gulf waters. The Deepwater Horizon spill (“the Spill”) was thus the largest ever to have occurred in U.S. waters. People were afraid that the impact of this oil spill would be comparable to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989.1 In a report of the Harvard Law School, Professor Goldberg writes: “How much of the released oil has been removed by a combination of natural processes and human intervention is unclear, with estimates varying widely. Oil sludge and tar balls thought to be associated with the spill have been found on Gulf Coast beaches as far east as the Florida Panhandle and as far west as Texas” (Goldberg 2010).

After five months, the National Geographic magazine published a special issue on the spill, drawing attention to the impacted creatures, rescuing activities and the future sustainability of the environment as well as the fishing industry. While some fishermen expressed their concerns about the long-term effect in which larvae and eggs of maritime creatures were killed by the oil sunk on the seabed, others were worried about the possibility of a poor market that nobody would buy the seafood in the region because of the fear of poisoning (Barcott 2010).

1 According to official report, 11 million US gallons spilled into the Prince William Sound in the Gulf of Alaska. 162

This chapter not only presents the impact of the BP Oil Spill on local communities but also reveals the process by which Vietnamese fishery community searched for respect while resisting BP’s compensation protocol. To do that, the chapter briefly introduces the history of the development of the fishing network and the fishing industry in Louisiana. Then, it shows the initial impacts of the oil spill on local communities. It continues with the responses of BP and of community-based organisations, and U.S. political figures. Although the establishment of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) and its compensation protocol seemed to be a solution for the situation, it caused troubles around compensation rates for people affected by the BP Oil spill. The contending views between the affected people and the GCCF resulted in a long-term debate and lengthy litigation. Moreover, the arguments between the two sides display the fields of power in the United States. By showing the imbalance of power between claimants and the GCCF, the chapter suggests that pro-capitalist practices most dominant among White people continue to permeate throughout American society. The GCCF built on white privileges thus perpetuated white supremacy and the marginalization of the poor and people of colour. Recognizing the hardship of people, local community-based organisations got involved in the situation and provided timely assistance for affected people. Among these organisations, the Mary Queen of Vietnam – Community Development Corporation (CDC) stood out as one of the most proactive organisations in supporting not only Vietnamese Americans but also people of other races. Furthermore, the second generation of Vietnamese Americans utilised their network for community members’ benefits. Through participation in the struggle for fairer compensation rates, Vietnamese American youth helped link Vietnamese American fishermen and shrimpers with other professional groups in the American fishing industry. A positive result was the “loss of subsistence use” campaign that raised the voice of the affected people. By standing together for a shared interest, Vietnamese Americans fishermen and American ones trusted one another and founded a new grassroots organisation for the fishing communities in the Gulf Coast. It promised a long-term cooperation of the fishing communities.

163

5.1.2. Fishing Communities in Louisiana

5.1.2.1. American Fishing Networks

Louisiana is one of five states in the Gulf Coast that has a long history of engagement in the fishing industry. The fishing industry in Louisiana can be dated back to the presence of Native Americans in this region. Consisting of 0.7 percent of the population in Louisiana (U.S. Census 2010), there are Native American groups who fish and shrimp for their livelihood such as the Pointe-au-Chien Tribe and the Houma people. Under the French and Spanish colonial period in the 17th century, many colonial settlers stayed in Louisiana and turned fishing into their livelihood. Louisiana-born children of the colonial settlers, both Whites and enslaved Blacks, called themselves Creoles to distinguish those born in Louisiana and other people born elsewhere. Another group is the Cajuns who are descendants of Acadian people originally from Canada. They migrated to the South of the United States after the Treaty of Paris (1763). And then Anglo-Americans moved to Louisiana after the purchase of the territory in 1803. Vietnamese Americans arrived in Louisiana after 1975 and became a part of the fishing community.

Fishing industry has been regulated by U.S. laws and state laws in order to have a sustainable development. The United States Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries), and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries operate to monitor the fisheries resources in the Gulf federal waters and ensure the rules and regulations are enforced. Many professional organizations in the fishing industry have been established to protect rights for its members such as the Louisiana Shrimp Association and the Louisiana Charter Boat Association.

The fishing industry in Louisiana mainly includes, but not exclusively, fishermen, shrimpers, oyster harvesters, and crab harvesters (by traps). The following table displays the figures of licenses sold to the commercial individuals over a three-year period, before and after the Oil Spill in 2010. These figures are the licensed individuals and vessels in Louisiana. However, a number of people working at seafood processing factories and local stores are not counted by the state.

164

Table 5.1. Figures of Licensed Individuals and Vessels Fishermen Shrimp Oyster Crab traps Vessels Total trawls harvesters License 2009 11,283 3,782 982 3,120 9,003 28,170 2010 12,586 3,866 1,187 3,551 10,112 31,302 2011 12,324 3,811 1,208 3,664 10,080 31,087

(Source: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)

While the figures above show an increase of the licensed individuals and vessels in Louisiana in 2010, the commercial fishing production of Louisiana decreased in the same year. Compared to the years before and after the Oil spill, the production of 2010 was the lowest. The oil spill in late April 2010 and the closure of the sea gate in the Gulf coast in the following three months must have contributed to the low production in 2010.

Table 5.2. Commercial fishing landing statistics of Louisiana (2009-2011) Year Metric Tons Pounds U.S. Dollars ($) 2009 456,987.2 1,007,474,064 286,992,923 2010 359,873.4 793,376,931 233,558,563 2011 594,683.9 1,311,040,048 324,122,880 Grand Totals: 1,411,544.5 3,111,891,043 844,674,366

(Source: NOAA Fisheries – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – U.S. Department of Commerce)

Arriving in New Orleans after 1975, Vietnamese Americans gradually engaged in the fishing industry. According to experienced fishermen, the most crowded and successful time for Vietnamese fishermen in the Gulf Coast was from 1985 to 1995. Vietnamese fishing communities spread throughout coastal cities and towns in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Currently, about 30 percent of about 12,000 Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans work as fishermen and seafood-related workers. The next section will present an overall picture of the Vietnamese American fishing community in Louisiana.

165

5.1.2.2. Seafood Occupation of Vietnamese Americans

In Louisiana, there are Vietnamese fishing communities in Houma (Dulac), Empire, Venice, Morgan City, Village de l’Est (New Orleans) and Slidell. As most people have their own vehicles, there are people living at further distance as well. In spite of working in the fishing industry, Vietnamese fishermen in Louisiana come from several places in Vietnam, not simply from fishing villages along the Vietnamese coastal area. Min Zhou and Carl Bankston (1997) point out that a number of people in Versailles came from fishing villages such as Phuoc Tinh in Vietnam. However, there are fishermen, captains and boat-owners who had never fished before arriving in the United States. Many of them only learned the fishing skills after they arrived in the United States.

Of the five successive waves of Vietnamese refugees in the United States, fishermen in Louisiana mainly come from the first, second and the last waves.2 The first wave, according to several published sources such as James Freeman (1992), consists of 300,000 people many of whom worked for the Republic of Vietnam. They come from a variety of locations such as Phan Thiet, Vung Tau and Phu Quoc. Many people were northerners who migrated from the North of Vietnam after the 1954 Geneva Accords. Having earlier uneasy experiences with the Northern army, they did not want to face the same trouble again and therefore left their villages around April 30, 1975 on their own boats. Being Catholics, they were sponsored under the program of Archbishop Philip Hannan and therefore arrived in New Orleans.

The second wave was their friends, relatives and people who did not leave Vietnam in 1975 but then found it difficult to live under the communist regime. They spent a few months or even a year to prepare for the escape. From 1978 to 1980, a number of people from not only the coastal areas but also from further inland like Sai Gon [Ho Chi Minh City], Ho Nai, Long Khanh tried to flee on boats. They became what the media called “boat people”. After being sponsored to the United States, they learnt through relatives and friends that the weather condition in Louisiana was similar to Vietnam and there was a Vietnamese Catholic village in New Orleans. They then came to visit and decided to settle in Louisiana.

2 See more details in chapter 2. 166

These first two waves played a role in establishing fishing networks among the Vietnamese in Louisiana. After a few weeks receiving assistance from the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, Vietnamese people began to look for job opportunities. Some people explored that it was possible to work in shrimp-beheading, oyster-shucking factories; others began to work as busboys at local restaurants or housekeepers in hotels before engaging in the fishing industry. I will present some case studies of Vietnamese American fishermen and seafood processing workers before analyzing the impact of the BP Oil Spill.

Mr. Chinh, who came from Phuoc Tinh, was sponsored to Alabama and found a job at a wood- processing company in 1975. By chance, a friend of him who went fishing was in need of a deckhand and he was asked to go on one trip. After the trip, he recalled: “I didn’t want to rely on food stamps and just wanted to find a job. I worked for Park Plumber Co. Ltd in Alabama for some time. Then a friend of mine asked me to go on a fishing trip. Although my father was a fisherman, I had never fished in Vietnam. I was not greedy, but I was earning only $80 to $100 per week. After a 14-day fishing trip, I was paid $1,100.00 USD. It was a moment that changed my life”. In the same trip, he knew about a group of Vietnamese Catholics living in New Orleans. He then found an uncle living in Versailles and decided to move to New Orleans in 1977. After two years, he bought a fishing boat.

Mr. Thanh, another fisherman, shared with me: “I don’t know about Phan Thiet people, but about fifty percent people from Phuoc Tinh continued to fish in New Orleans. I came here [New Orleans] in 1982. At that time, a lot of Vietnamese were unemployed. I had fished for a few years in Vietnam, so I asked people to let me work as a deckhand on board. I then worked as a fisherman until now. From 1982 to 1983, I worked for people, then I borrowed some money from relatives, about $3,000 USD and shared a half of a shrimp boat with a friend. In 1988, I heard that American fishermen were successful with longline fishing [Bluefin-Tuna fishing]. I then sold my shrimp boat and shared a tuna fishing boat with another man. I am still fishing with that boat until now”.

Fishing is a work that requires collectivity. Fishing or shrimping boat-owners need to have captains and deckhands to function. Mr. Muoi, from Phan Thiet, arrived in Versailles in 1982. He worked as a helper in a supermarket in Chalmette for almost two years before turning to

167 fishing. He remembered “I earned $400.00 to $500.00 USD per week by fishing, it was a lot of money. Since I worked as fisherman in Vietnam, I had some fishing experiences”. “I can now go fishing or shrimping, depending on the available jobs”. Although Mr. Muoi has lived in the United States for 30 years, he could not afford to buy a house. He was still renting a trailer in one of the two trailer parks around Versailles. He shared: “I am so poor, so I did not dare to think about marrying a Vietnamese in the United States. When I was 40 years old, I went to Vietnam and got married there. My wife and children are still living in Vietnam and I have to send them money regularly”. Relatively similar to Mr. Muoi, Mr. Hoàng, from Nha Trang, came to New Orleans in 1981 and lived in Woodlawn, Algiers in the Westbank. He moved to Versailles 1999. He has worked as a deckhand for tuna boats since 1981 but he still has to rent an accommodation.

While Vietnamese men go fishing or shrimping, women work in seafood-processing factories. Seafood is a specialty in Louisiana, especially for tourism in New Orleans. It therefore has provided Vietnamese people job opportunities since 1975. Mrs. Tra, from Phan Thiet: “I began to shuck oysters in 1985, four times or five times per week. The busiest time of the year is October, November, December, January and February. Oysters in these months have more meat and more delicious. My husband cooked seafood, mostly crawfish, and he also delivered the products to local restaurants. We earned about $300 to $400 USD per week before the Oil Spill”.

Besides fishermen, shrimpers and oyster-shuckers, there are also a number of Vietnamese-owned restaurants in which seafood is one of the most consumed goods. For the last decade, the number of people working in fishing and fishing-related jobs have decreased as a number of people reached the age of retirement. Another reason is that the 1.5 generation and the second generation have grown up and worked in the mainstream jobs. These practices have shrunk the percentage of Versailles Vietnamese Americans working as fishermen and seafood processors. Despite no longer being the occupation of the majority of people in Versailles, fishing and seafood-related jobs have remained significant occupations for people who lack other job-skills and English competence. Since Vietnamese people came to Versailles to live and worked in the fishing network for a long period, mostly from the early 1980s to 2000s, Versailles has been called a fishing village [làng ngư phủ].

168

5.1.3. The Initial Impacts

The explosion of Deepwater Horizon drill rig in April of 2010 threatened the livelihood of Vietnamese American fishing communities in five states along the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Consisting of around 30 percent of the Vietnamese population (12,000) in New Orleans, fishermen and seafood-related workers were one of the most directly affected by the oil spill and they were helpless in this critical situation. The oil spill led to the closure of the sea gates in Louisiana for several months (from May to August). Unfortunately, the period from April to September was the most effective fishing and shrimping time in a year. Therefore, the loss of income was severe for people who relied on sea products.

Mr. Tung complained: “I didn’t fish after the oil spill in [April] 2010, I began to fish again in October 2011 after some other people had started. I was afraid that if the fish contained some poisonous materials, I might be sued in the future”. He continued “Deckhands, more precisely fishermen in the world, work mostly out the sea. Therefore, they enjoy when living on land. Having money in hand, fishermen keep spending without thinking about tomorrow. Deckhands here also have that thought. I know a lot of deckhands after the oil spill can’t find a job on land. I myself have to take care of a deckhand in my house”. What Mr. Tung said was the case for many other people involved in the seafood industry in Louisiana. Mr. Muoi told me: “You think earning $500 per week is good, but I have to eat and spend money for transportation and other expenses. Although I live out the sea most of the time, I still have to pay for things on land such as car insurance, accommodation, utility bills and meals. You know, in the U.S., low-income people just have enough to live”. In an article of the Washington Post, Dung Nguyen told a reporter “that all he knows is that his wife, their five daughters, his mother-in-law and his granddaughter -- all of whom live with him in a modest rented home in the industrial eastern edge of New Orleans -- are counting on him for survival. I don't know how I'm going to live” (Mui 2010).

In addition, some boat-owners had loans from commercial banks before the fishing season. The closure of the sea gates made them unable to pay the loans. Mr. Chinh, who came to Versailles in 1979, said: “As the owner of the boat, I always have to take care of it and prepare for every trip. This year [2010], I borrowed a few thousand US dollars to prepare for the new fishing season. However, I couldn’t go after the oil spill in April”.

169

Seafood processing workers were also significantly affected. Mrs. Sy complained: “I used to work as an oyster-shucker for P&G. Last year [2010], I was unemployed because of the oil spill. From April to July, I still had oysters to shuck, but they were much less than before, only two days a week. Until July 14 when they could not buy any more oysters, they laid me off”. Mrs. Van, whom we met in Chapter 4 (Katrina), expressed the same feeling: “After Hurricane Katrina, I was sad and depressed because my house was damaged. In 2010, the oil spill made me sad again because I lost my oyster-shucking job. I was sick for a few months after that. Now I’m planting vegetables such as mints, Thai basil, and squash in my ruined house for sale. Before Katrina, I used to earn about $300 to $400 USD per week, but now only $70-$100, and the gas and other expenses increased”.

The loss of income also caused difficulties for the families of fishermen and seafood-processing workers. Mr. Muoi had to provide financial support for his wife and children in Vietnam. Affected by the oil spill, he was not able to earn money to send to his family. Some deckhands talked to one another about their increasing drinking habit or engaging in gambling in their spare time. Mrs. Van and her husband could not afford to pay university tuition for their children. She told me: “Since the oil spill, I did not have enough money for my son and daughter to pay their tuition. Therefore, they had to decide to study in a cheaper and less-competitive college”. Not only tuition, she continued “When they went to school, they also needed a car to travel. We did not have any chance to get a car and to pay for the gas and maintenance fees. I am very upset”. Father Vien mentions “the mental health concerns -- depression, lack of sleep, tension in homes - - that need to be addressed, a task made difficult by an absence of Vietnamese-speaking therapists in a community that still stigmatizes admission of emotional trouble” (Ravitz, 2010). The School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at Tulane University has conducted a health risk assessment due to seafood consumption among Vietnamese Americans in Village de l’Est. The survey found “no unacceptable risk within these groups” (Wilson et al., 2014, p.158). However, the authors suggest that “it is unreasonable to hold the regulatory risk assessment process accountable for ignoring potential health effects within this vulnerable demographic” (Wilson et al. 2014: 158).

The oil spill also created a sense of distrust among the fishing community through the Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program. VoO is a project established by BP in order to hire local fishing

170 boats to collect oil spreading on the surface of the coastal area. The project was launched in May 2010. Vietnamese boat-owners applied to participate in the project. According to the regulations, hired people must pass a training course on oil-spill-collecting techniques and safety. There are two kinds of courses, a four-hour course and a 40-hours course. VoO only selected boat-owners to participate in the project, and then the hired boat-owners had to provide onboard deckhands by themselves. Since the payment was high, ranging from $1,200.00 USD per day for a short boat (less than 30 feet) to $3,000.00 USD per day for long boat (more than 65 feet), the number of applicants was much more than demanded.3 The tension was that, according to many people, some boat-owners who applied later got called while many others who had applied much earlier were kept waiting. Among the fishermen, there was a rumour that the boat selection process of the VoO was not transparent. Moreover, boat-owners tended to use their relatives or close friends for deckhands instead of using the people who had worked for them before the oil spill. Mr. Trung shared with me: “Boat-owners are often captains, so they just go with their family members. I passed the training course, but nobody has called me. Just have to wait.”

Nevertheless, what fishermen were really worried about the most was how severe the oil spill was going to be; and how long it would affect the fishing industry. These significant questions were always raised in local meetings. My fieldnote reads: “In 26 August 2010, in the meeting with officers from the U.S Public Health Service, the meeting room of the Mary Queen of Vietnam – Community Development Corporation was packed with over 50 Vietnamese fishermen, seafood processing workers, and reporters. A shrimper asked if the reproduction of shrimps would be affected when they lived in the oil-affected water. Then a fisherman questioned whether the bluefin-tuna would be affected if they ate the oiled fish and shrimps. No one could provide a clear answer. They all ended up with proposing the testing methods and in- progress research”.

While most people were just waiting to see the impacts, some others looked for other job opportunities called “on-land work” [làm bờ]. Most of on-land work were grass-cutting and house constructing. People who were luckier found off-shore jobs, for which they would be

3 Factsheet on BP Vessels of Opportunity Program: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/ downloads_pdfs/factsheet_bp_vessels_of_opportunity_program.pdf 171 taken to work as cleaners and painters on off-shore oil-drilling rigs. Although this job paid them as much as they went fishing, not many people got accepted.

In sum, the oil spill severely impacted Vietnamese American fishermen in Louisiana. Most of them expressed an ambiguous view toward the future of the fishing industry in the Gulf Coast. In the meantime, people had to struggle to survive while waiting for aid programs from the U.S government, charities and BP.

5.2. Responses to the Oil Spill

5.2.1. Emergency Programs

Fifteen days after the Oil spill, on May 5th, 2010 BP began to provide compensation payments for the people whose life was affected by the oil disaster. Since the affected cases varied, BP also had several categories for the payments. For the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans, the categories are mainly boat owners, deckhands and oyster-shuckers. Of my informants, boat- owners received three cheques of $5,000 USD from May to August 2010. Deckhands received three cheques of $2,500 USD and oyster-shuckers received $2,000 USD for the same period. Until the establishment of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) on 22 August 2010, BP had paid $395,619,857 USD for 154,000 claims in the Gulf Coast states (British Petroleum 2013). However, not everybody received the same amount. Parlett and Weaver considers this immediate effort of BP one of the proactive responses (Partlett and Weaver 2011: 1343).

An immediate community response to the oil spill was from the Mary Queen of Viet Nam – Community Development Corporation (CDC).4 Father Nguyen The Vien, the pastor of the Mary Queen of Vietnam church, together with a few Vietnamese community members established the CDC after Hurricane Katrina. The CDC has been an organization that provided assistance for local people, not exclusively Vietnamese Americans. Father Nguyen The Vien was both the

4 The fact that the Community Development Corporation used the name “Mary Queen of Viet Nam” was not unanimously supported by Mary Queen of Viet Nam parishioners. The name Mary Queen of Viet Nam – Community Development Corporation (MQVN CDC) was criticized for taking the name of the MQVN church, it therefore created tension and confusion between the MQVN CDC and the MQVN church after Father Vien completed his mission as the pastor of the MQVN parish in 2010. In order not to confuse the reader, henceforth I will use its official short term “CDC” for the MQVN CDC. The CDC ceased to function in September 2015. 172 pastor of the MQVN parish and the head of the board of directors of the CDC (6/2006-6/2012). As he experienced the hardship during the aftermath of Katrina, Father Vien recognized the possible impact on the local fishing community. In an attempt to get into the disaster solution mainstream, the CDC contacted BP and offered to share its office space for a BP Claims desk to provide information about the oil spill and urgent compensation. During the first few months, the office of the CDC was busy with the number of people coming in and going out. The representative desk of BP Claims moved out to a nearby place after two months (in June) for a more formal arrangement.

In the aftermath of the oil spill, the CDC was not only willing to share its limited office space with three other agencies, but also looked for other ways to help the critical situation of the fishermen. Father Vien, the head of the board of directors, said: “They are unemployed at this point. Many of them blame BP. People who don’t understand the situation will think that it’s a lot of money. But many of the fishermen are suffering. The oil spill has affected the seafood industry. [It is an] urgent situation. Lots of oysters have died because of contaminated water. We are helping people to deal with the new situation”. Father Vien was thinking about creating new job opportunities such as urban farms, fish-raising camps, and food-processing/packaging. He thought that these would be one of the long-term plans for the critical situation.

Knowing the mission of the Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans (CCANO), Father Vien sent a request to the Catholic Charities to provide support to the oil spill’s affected people. Beginning on May 19, 2010, the Catholic Charities provided two main programs for the affected fishing community in New Orleans East: food vouchers and a crisis counseling program. Of the four full-time employees of the Catholic Charities at the CDC, one is White American (in- charge), one Black American and two Vietnamese Americans. Every week, the local office issued 75 food vouchers of $100.00 USD each for local fishermen on a first-come, first-served basis. The vouchers were issued on three days a week: Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. People who came for the vouchers had to queue up in line outside of the CDC and waited for the CCANO staff to come and write their names down. Recipients must be people affected by the oil spill and currently residing in the Orleans parish. Although this was a great effort of the Catholic Charities, 75 vouchers per week for all the affected people were too few compared to the number

173 of fishermen, shrimpers and oyster-shuckers in Village de l’Est. Toward the end of the program in August 2010, the CDC and Catholic Charities had served about 400 applicants/households.

Being jobless and finding that this was one of the ways to get money for daily expenses, affected people had to come to queue up since the early morning. A person told me: “More and more people come for the limited number of food vouchers, so I have to come here early at 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. to be one of the first 25 people. Today (July 16), some people came at 2 a.m.”. He continued: “Coming here early is hard and it is not safe at night. A few weeks ago, a man was robbed in this area”. My fieldnotes read: “I walked to the CDC at 8:45 a.m. Like two days ago, more than 25 people were queuing up for food vouchers. However, there were seven new/unregistered people, so they were put in priority. Therefore, the last seven people in the line were rejected to receive the vouchers for today. They were very upset and angry because they had managed to come here early today. Being in the list, a woman told others that she had to come here at 4 a.m. to get the fifth position”.

After using this method for two months, staff of the Catholic Charities and CDC received a number of complaints from local people. Some people complained that it was not fair for everyone because the elderly, pregnant women and women with nursing babies could not come as early as men and younger women. In fact, I was told that some women brought their children to queue up in the early morning. However, since there were so many mosquitoes biting the baby, she had to go home with her child. The staff decided to change the issuing method. Instead of the first-come-first-served basis, they chose to use a lottery method. At 9 a.m. people who were present would be provided one ticket with a number to be pulled out from a pool of numbers. The Catholic Charities staff announced this information on July 12 and would begin to use the new distributing method in the coming week (July 19, 2010).

On July 19, more than 50 people had been standing outside of the CDC when I arrived. The idea of the lottery was that everyone would have an equal opportunity to get a voucher. The staff thought that this method would be fairer for people. However, the lottery method did not last very long because some people won a few times while others did not win at all. Moreover, cheating happened at times because a person could bring their family members and got one ticket for each. After almost a month, the Catholic Charities changed the method again. This time, they

174 would make an appointment for each person, for which everyone would have an amount of money until the budget ran out. Since August 16, 2010, people no longer had to come early or to wait for their fortune from the lottery. Some people said this method was fairer because everybody would receive some money. The CDC became more organized than in the previous two months.

Besides working with the Catholic Charities, the CDC also contacted Louisiana’s Department of Children and Family Services and succeeded in making a request for establishing an ad-hoc food stamp point in Village de l’Est. As Father Vien wanted to find another way to help the fishermen, he thought about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps, as an urgent financial aid for the affected people. However, not everybody was eligible to apply for food stamps. In the meantime, the CDC became a central place for any activity related to the aid to oil-spill-affected people.

In sum, the CDC did provide major help for the local fishermen and oyster-shuckers, mainly Vietnamese. Mr. Giang said about the CDC: “CDC provided helpful services, Vietnamese fishermen received many benefits from the CDC. For example, the CDC helped us pay the utility bills when we did not have income [due to the oil spill]. This is the solidarity of the Vietnamese community”. Mr. Tung commented: “I heard people in the community said negative things about the CDC, I told them that I did not know who was bad and who was good; I didn’t need to know how the CDC was, but I just wanted to know what the CDC did for the community. Did you not see that, after BP Oil spill, was there any office like the CDC that provided $100 USD for the affected people? If there had been CDC-like organizations in every community, people would not have had to worry about anything”. One of the difficulties that they faced was lacking of Vietnamese interpreters since not so many fishermen and oyster-shuckers spoke English well. I was helpful to them at that time. I not only helped people fill out food stamp applications but also interpreted at the food stamp interviews, and translated any documents from English to Vietnamese. Unlike after Hurricane Katrina when they had hundreds of volunteers from all over the country, this time there was only one more young community man coming every Monday.

175

5.2.2. The United States and the Establishment of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility

In such a critical situation, Vietnamese American fishermen and seafood-processing workers did not know whom to rely on. Congressman Joseph Cao (Republican, 2nd district of Louisiana) rose to be a promising figure for the whole fishing community. Mr. Cao was born in Vietnam in 1967 and left for the United States after the fall of Saigon in 1975. He made the U.S. political world surprised after defeating Mr. William J. Jefferson in the race for Congress in 2008, and was the first Vietnamese American to be in the House of Representatives for one two-year term from 2009-2011. Mr. Cao approached the problem of the oil spill very early. As the representative of the congressional district where the Vietnamese American fishing community was located, he quickly got involved in the situation. Two months after the spill, on 15 June 2010, Mr. Cao had an opportunity to meet Lamar McKay, the President of BP America, when he appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee as a part of a congressional testimony. “Cao, Vietnamese-American Republican, mentioned the anger among his constituents at BP's response to the Gulf oil disaster” (Tacopino 2010). Mr. Cao requested BP to process the claims faster and urged them to prepare for long-term effects of the oil spill.5

President Barack Obama, after the spill, recognized the long-term impact of the disaster and met with BP for solutions. On June 16, President Obama and BP officials agreed that BP would put $20 billion over four years into a fund that would cover spill damages, including claims. And the fund would be managed by an independent third party as Obama said. In July, BP and President Barrack Obama agreed that Mr. Kenneth Feinberg, an attorney who had worked entirely pro bono as the master of the compensation fund for the victims of the 9/11 disaster, would be in- charge of the claim process under the name Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), which had 35 Claims offices in several cities in the affected states: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas (GCCF 2010a; Reporter, 2010). The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust Agreement was issued on August 6, 2010 (British Petroleum 2010).

5 Congressman Cao was not re-elected for the second term in November 2010. Therefore, he could not continue his pressure on BP. 176

On August 18, 2010, an inaugural meeting with Kenneth Feinberg was organized at the Pontchartrain Center in Kenner, Louisiana. I was there with the staff of the CDC. In a huge meeting room of about 500 seats, all of the seats were full. Whites made up a strong majority of people in attendance, followed by about 50 to 60 Vietnamese Americans and about 20 Black Americans. Vietnamese people contributed a small portion, much less than American ones. At 2 p.m., a representative of BP came and introduced Mr. Kenneth Feinberg who would be in-charge of everything related to the BP oil spill. Feinberg presented himself as a person for the affected people. As if knowing how people had been frustrated by BP claims, Feinberg confidently said: "No more excessive delays. I'm going to do my best. I work for you" (Reyes 2010). U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (Democrat, Louisiana) also attended the public meeting in Kenner. Besides the meeting in Kenner, two more public meetings of the GCCF were organized in Houma, Louisiana and Biloxi, Mississippi for the convenience of residents.

The main information that Feinberg wanted to announce was the claim process of the GCCF: “The $20 billion BP fund will be administered in two stages. People, businesses or other groups that have been adversely affected by the spill can apply to Mr. Feinberg between Aug. 23 and Nov. 23 to see if they are eligible for emergency payments. After Nov. 23, only final settlement claims will be accepted, and the cut-off date for sending those is Aug. 23, 2013, the documents say” (Urbina 2010). For the payment, a new solution was adopted: “Instead of the month-by- month checks that BP had been handing out, Mr. Feinberg will begin authorizing emergency payments worth up to six months of loss of income compensation. Any emergency payments will be deducted from the final settlement disbursed” (Urbina 2010).

In the meeting in Kenner, LA, knowing that BP would not have interpretation, the CDC provided simultaneous interpretation for the Vietnamese audience. The CDC had equipped 40 wireless headsets by themselves in order to provide assistance to their community members. However, the number of Vietnamese Americans in the meeting exceeded the supplies. Many people did not have opportunity to listen to the interpretation. The meeting was adjourned with people’s worries and lack of understanding regarding the situation. All that they knew was to wait until August 23, 2010 to see what the GCCF would require them to do.

177

5.3. In Search of Fairness

The GCCF promised to open a new process for people affected by the oil spill disaster. The process basically had two phases: first, any affected people could file a claim at a GCCF location, online through the GCCF website, or by sending the application through U.S postal service (GCCF Protocol). They could also file for an emergency advance payment. Then the GCCF would evaluate each claim and offer an emergency advance payment for up to 6 months while waiting for the calculation of the final payment. If people accepted the final offer from the GCCF, they would waive the right to sue BP and its partners in the future. If not, they could choose to go for an appeal process or through a litigation process. According to the New York Times, “[F]ishermen, shrimpers and seafood processors as well as hotel and restaurant owners with beachfront property in areas where oil washed ashore will have the easiest time getting reimbursed” (Urbina 2010).

This new procedure began on 23 August, 2010. My journal on that day reads: “Today is an important day for Vietnamese American fishermen and seafood processing workers. A friend of mine took me to the GCCF location in New Orleans East. There were about 10 people waiting for calls in the reception room. They were discussing about the claim process and how to file a claim. There were also two security men and two receptionists, one was Vietnamese. Since the GCCF had limited Vietnamese interpreters, people who did not speak English had to wait longer. I saw a Vietnamese woman who worked as an oyster-shucker got called before the awaiting fishermen because she spoke English. Each person worked with the input-assistant for about 15 minutes to file his/her claim and was provided an individual claim number in order to access to the claim. I took a set of the Vietnamese forms and left the GCCF. People were not in a hurry as I had thought. They were probably observing the process and their friends before deciding to file their own claims.”

Although the compensation protocol of the GCCF looked fine, it caused troubles around compensation rates for people affected by BP Oil spill. It resulted in a long-term debate between the affected people and the GCCF, represented by Kenneth Feinberg. Moreover, the arguments between the two sides display the fields of power. It not only shows the imbalance between claimants and the claim facility, but also highlights the pro-capitalist/white privilege essence in

178 the United States. The following sections discuss how each party perceived what compensation should be like. It reveals the supremacy position of Kenneth Feinberg and the GCCF to the affected people.

5.3.1. Imbalance of Power on Decisions

For the Oil spill disaster, the Oil Pollution Act (1990) was applied. The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was issued in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989. Since it was enacted after the oil spill, it was not tested with the compensation process of the Exxon Valdez’s case (Perry 2011: 49). BP Oil spill was the first enormous case that the OPA was applied to. According to the Act, BP as “the responsible party is liable for the removal costs and damages” of (A) Natural Resources; (B) Real or Personal Property; (C) Subsistence Use; (D) Revenues; (E) Profits and Earning Capacity; (F) Public Services (The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, page 241, section 1002).

After having been appointed as the administrator of the GCCF, Feinberg requested Professor John Goldberg of Harvard Law School to study and provide “a closely reasoned and compelling analysis of liability that might accrue based on the OPA and the common law” (Partlett & Weaver 2011). In November 22, 2010, Professor Goldberg released a report namely “Liability for Economic Loss in Connection with the Deepwater Horizon Spill”, presenting an application of the OPA and Gulf States’ common law to the case of BP Oil spill. It concludes that: “To recover under OPA for economic loss caused by the Spill, a claimant must establish that his or her losses are due to damage or loss of property or resources, which damage or loss prevents the claimant from exercising a right to put that property or those resources to commercial use” (Goldberg 2010: 48). The report states clearly that its analysis is “not provided to establish the terms on which GCCF funds ought to be distributed” (Goldberg 2010: 6). Under the Deepwater Horizon Trust Agreements (British Petroleum, 2010), Feinberg “was not asked to make compensation payments based on the expected liability of BP and others who may have responsibility for the oil spill, but rather on the basis of criteria that he established” (Partlett & Weaver 2011: 1349). However, according to Partlett and Weaver, the report of Professor Goldberg provides a background for Feinberg to make criteria for the protocol of the GCCF.

179

From August 23 to November 23, 2010, the GCCF made emergency advance payments to 165,000 claimants out of more than 460,000 applications filed (Hammer 2010).6 After the announcement of the new claim protocol, people who were in need of money had to file the claim first. This protocol was said to be unjust and created uncertainty for claimants. Moreover, it also reflected an imbalance of power in which the GCCF holding the supremacy position to made decisions upon individuals’ cases while the affected people had been suffering from having no income and employment. In the same line, Ken Feinberg appointed by BP and President Obama to be the chief administrator in the GCCF had been implementing the compensation scheme based on his pro-capitalist white ideology. Not only were Vietnamese Americans uncertain about compensation protocol, but other people working in the fishing industry such as Native Americans, White Americans and Black Americans also found this protocol severely unjust. The reasons why this protocol was considered unjust were as follows.

Despite seeing it as unjust, many people had no choice other than coming out to a GCCF office to file a claim. Because the GCCF took over BP Claims office, all of the documents submitted to BP Claims Office were transferred to the GCCF. Therefore, each claimant just needed to provide some more information and would receive an identification number for their file. Mr. Muoi, a deckhand, told me: “I decided to file the claim and also requested an emergency advance payment for six months. If I took one month only, I would have to come here every month. And who knows what if they stop after five months!” Having the same thought with Mr. Muoi, most of the affected people first applied for the emergency advance payment and waited for an offer of final payment of their loss of income. Depending on the income of each individual and business, the GCCF sent out cheques to claimants’ addresses for emergency advance payments.

Not only fishermen, people working in seafood-processing factories/stores also came in to file their claims. Mrs. Sy shared with me: “After the oil spill, the factory where I worked didn’t receive as many oysters as before. So I was laid off. I haven’t been employed since July 2010”. Mrs. Van’s situation was also the same: “The spilled oil must have killed lots of oysters. And because many workers were laid off, they also could not afford to eat oysters. I lost my job after

6 The documentation that claimants had to submit included, not exclusively: Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, paycheck stubs and payroll records. The protocol mentioned that after November 23, 2010, the GCCF would only process two types of claims: interim payments and final payments. 180 the oil spill, I was so sick for the first few months. Then my daughter asked me to plant vegetables and I sold them at the Saturday morning market (chợ chồm hỗm) and other local Vietnamese supermarkets. BP made us lose our job. They did not give us that much”.

The case of Mrs. Sy and Mrs. Van were similar to a great number of Vietnamese seafood processing workers in Versailles. Oyster-shucking and shrimp-beheading had been their major income source for over 30 years since they arrived in New Orleans. For fishermen and shrimpers, since their catches were not consistent for every trip, their income ranged from $1,000 USD to $3,000 USD for every 20 to 30-day trip (in 2009-2010). Meanwhile, oyster-shuckers got their income relatively more consistent in the range of $300 to $400 USD per week. They bought their houses and raised their children by the money earned from this main source. Being laid off as a result of the oil spill, they faced the threat of long-term unemployment. Deckhands and oyster-shuckers were the people with limited economic independence. While the deckhands had to rely on boat owners and captains to earn money from the catch, oyster-shuckers were dependent on the amount of oysters that their factories purchased and were ordered by local restaurants. After the oil spill, their means of livelihood were severely impacted. Many of them did not know how to earn money to pay for the daily expenses of the families. Therefore, although they did not want to receive that unjust amount of compensation, they had to file for the emergency advance payment and wait for the fortune of their case.

From 23 August to November 2010, the GCCF paid nearly $2.5 billion in emergency claims to almost 165,000 claimants out of 460,000 emergency payment applications and denied 104,000 applications in Louisiana due to a total lack of documentation (Hammer 2010).

On December 13, 2010, Feinberg announced information about the second phase of the compensation process, offering an option of “quick” payments for almost 170,000 claimants who had already received emergency advance payments. Individuals were offered $5,000 USD and businesses were offered $25,000 USD on the condition of waiving their rights to sue BP and other partners in the future (Hammer 2010). Claimants who elected for this option would not have to submit any more documentation and the payments would be made quickly (Schwartz 2010; Skoloff 2010). A few days after the announcement of Feinberg, the Gulf Coast Attorneys General provided a letter responding to the quick payment option on December 16, 2010. The

181 letter “urged claimants to proceed with caution in evaluating whether to accept an offer of final payment or quick final payment from the GCCF or to sign any release”. The Attorneys General made it clear for the public that once claimants signed the release, they “can never recover any additional money from BP or other responsible party for damages resulting from the oil spill” (Attorneys General 2010). This explanation of the Gulf Coast Attorneys General highlighted the imbalance of power between Feinberg and the claimants. He just offered the same amount for everyone regardless of the differences in previous income. Moreover, local news pointed out that by offering cheap and easy payments to the claimants at the time they needed money the most, Feinberg not only aimed at clearing “the decks for more complicated claims”, but also keeping “as many spill victims as possible from seeking compensation in the court, an expensive process that can drag on for decades, but also can force the oil companies to pay expensive punitive damages of anywhere from double to five times the victim's actual losses” (Hammer 2010). In response, Feinberg countered that “the quick-pay option is not coercive. Rather, he said, it’s a no-pressure alternative for those who don’t have additional documentation of losses” (Hammer 2010).

Although the quick payment was a “no-pressure” alternative, according to Feinberg, many claimants were in need of money after six months (August 2010 to February 2011) without jobs. On January 27, 2011, Feinberg stated that “in less than two months, over 81,000 individuals and businesses located in the Gulf region, who previously received Emergency Advance Payments, had already accepted the additional “Quick Payment Option” of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for businesses. These payments total $693,710,000” (Senate 2011).

On February 2nd, 2011 the GCCF released a proposal for Payment Options, Eligibility and Substantiation Criteria and Final Payment Methodology (GCCF, 2011a). The proposal officially announced the three types of claims: Interim Claims, Final Claims and Quick Final Payment. Interim Claims permitted claimants to seek compensation for past losses without waiving the right to continue to submit additional claims in the future; Final Claims for past and future loss required claimants to waive their rights to sue BP and other potentially liable parties. People who sought Interim Claims or Final Claims had to submit further documentation proving their damages due to the Oil Spill. The Quick Payment option was said to be “always available to any claimant who received an Emergency Advance Payment or Interim Payment” (GCCF 2011: 1).

182

On February 18, 2011 the GCCF officially released a document containing final rules that governed Payment Options, Eligibility and Substantiation Criteria and Final Payment Methodology (GCCF 2011b).

In February 2011, the situation remained vague and chaotic. Many Vietnamese Americans had to elect the quick payment release. Mrs. Van had to accept the final payment of $25,000 USD for her children to pay for university tuition and fees. She cried when explaining to U.S. congressman Cedric Richmond (Democrat, Louisiana’s 2nd district) and U.S. congresswoman Judy Chu (Democrat, California’s 27th district) in a public meeting with the community and the GCCF on November 5th, 2011: “My family could not afford to pay tuition for my daughter. My son needed a car to travel to school. We also had utility bills and basic daily expenses. BP really forced us into this suffering situation, and we had to accept the offer of unfair final payment”. Mr. Muoi, a deckhand, also talked about a similar critical economic condition: “My wife and my children are in Vietnam. I did not find a way to earn money to send them. Therefore, I had to sign the quick final payment”. In fact, during an interview with me, Mr. Muoi was worried as it was approaching the rent-payment date. He said: “I have to find money to pay for the rent at the beginning of next month and for cell phone on the 25th. Da*n it, what to do now?” Mr. Thanh, a boat owner, commented: “I think that deckhands really suffered a loss if BP put pressure on them by delaying their claims. They had to sign the quick final payments to get money to live. If not, they would not have accommodation, money to pay for bills and daily expenses. I think it is unfair”. The cases of Mrs. Van and Mr. Muoi not only revealed the unfair options of the GCCF payment process, but also raised the question of power between the involved stakeholders, that means, GCCF and the affected.

Father Vien also pointed out to me the mental issue that the Oil spill caused for fishermen: “Fishermen are people who risk their life in the sea. They live with the wind and waves, and are free to go anywhere they want. Freedom has become their essence, but they now have to queue up in line for vouchers. It severely influences their mind.” What Father Vien thought is true as I heard a Vietnamese American fisherman talk in a community meeting at the CDC. The fisherman said publicly: “I do not want to bring monthly bills to the CDC, asking for handouts. It’s so annoying. I don’t know about the future, but recently the catch has been no good”. Mental illness affected not only Vietnamese Americans but also people in other fishing

183 communities. Clint Guidry, the President of Louisiana Shrimp Association, told me: “Many shrimpers in my community were so worried that they couldn’t sleep. They don’t know about how the future might be. It’s a nightmare”.

5.3.2. The Supremacy Position of the GCCF

While the quick payment offer method of the GCCF was mainly accepted by low-income people such as deckhands and seafood processors, it was not accepted by people with average income. Boat owners and captains were people with more independence thanks to their savings and means of production. They tried to go fishing after the sea gates reopened in late August 2010 (Kirkham 2010). In fact, the 2010 and 2011 fishing seasons were the lost ones for fishermen and shrimpers. Mr. Thanh, who went shrimping after the gates of the lakes had reopened 2010, commented: “After the oil spill, I saw the decrease of the amount of shrimps. I didn’t know if it was the impact of BP (oil spill) or of water resource. Last year (2011), I still went shrimping after the lake opened. I only stopped when the lake was closed for the second time. However, this year (2012), the first trip of the season was poor, the second trip was worse. It was just enough for the fuel, no more benefits. I remember that I used to bring home money after a one- week trip. I don’t know whether the shrimps were affected by the oil spill”. Mr. Giang, who was also a shrimp boat owner, said: “The compensation is not much, but the last shrimp season was a failure. In 2011, I went for several trips on the sea and the lakes, they were all lost. Only for a few trips I got enough money for the fuel. Brown shrimps were good for a few weeks then disappeared; white shrimps were also gone. The shrimps looked weirdly yellow”. The income losses were significant. And the pro-capitalist of Feinberg is reflected in the way he calculated the income loss of boat owners without understanding the fishing practices (to be discussed in section 5.4).

In the fishing industry, boat owners had to buy oil and foods in advance for each trip, and to cover with maintenance of the boat. Compared to the loss of income of the deckhands, the expenses of the boat owners were much more complex. According to the boat owners that I interviewed, the GCCF calculation of the loss was unfair. When looking at the amount of compensation money that fishermen received, people from other occupations often thought that the fishermen benefited greatly from the oil spill. Nevertheless, Father Vien realized how the oil

184 spill caused enormous impact to fishermen. He shared with me: “the impact is heavy and significant, not only fishermen, but also dock owners who had been wholesalers in the industry. The oil spill influenced people other than fishermen as well. I remember a situation when a fisherman came to apply for financial aid after the BP Claims office had paid him $5,000 USD per month. A staff said ‘you received $5,000 USD, it was much more than my salary, why you came to ask for more?’ They did not understand the fact that fishermen might earn $5,000 USD per month, but they only worked three months in a year. Meanwhile, the staff members were paid monthly. You know, they might earn $10,000 to $20,000 USD per week. But they had to pay for maintaining the boat, docking, insurance by themselves. Now, they got only $5,000 USD per month. People from outside may perceive that fishermen benefit from the oil spill. But there were boat owners who did not have money to pay for loans. That was a difficulty of fishermen”.

Regarding the boat owners and captains’ situation, they expressed a sheer disagreement with the offers of quick payments from the GCCF. Mr. Giang, a boat owner, stated: “I received a total of $116,000 USD from both BP and the emergency advance payment of the GCCF in 2010. After that I haven’t received any more money. I haven’t accepted the final offer of $25,000 USD yet because it is too little compared to what I used to earn in the past. I have enough documentation to show a proof of $500,000 USD”. In the same vein, Mr. Thanh, a captain, shared with me his opinion of fairness in an interview:

Thanh: I filed for an emergency advance payment and received $21,000 USD from the GCCF. After that they offered me $25,000 USD for a final payment. I haven’t accepted it yet because I used to earn more than that amount. Hoang: So, how would it be fair? Thanh: To be fair, they have to do re-calculation because our annual income is not the same every year. They have to compensate us the amount that we used to earn before 2010. Hoang: How much money, do you think, would satisfy you? Thanh: Satisfaction has no limit. We spend money if we have money. I think, we should be compensated for three years. For example, deckhands who used to earn $30,000 a year should receive $90,000. It is fair. Boat owners should have more. Hoang: Why do you want to have three years of compensation?

185

Thanh: Because shrimps have been killed by the spilled oil, we don’t know if next year they would still be alive, and the year after that. We don’t know whether we could continue to live in the fishing industry.

In a similar idea, Mr. Giang pointed out the problem that “The spilled oil has covered and killed the larvae. Shrimps could not have things to eat. It is a problem. The shrimps would move to other locations if they found it polluted here. Another problem is that we cannot see it until the next few years. For example, the oil of Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989 spilled 16 million gallons. After that, the herrings still returned; the second year was less; the third year they disappeared, and for the last 25 years, they have not returned to the area. But here [the amount of the spilled oil] is 270 million gallons”. This is also a common concern of fishermen and seafood processing workers. All of them were worried about the long-term impact of the oil spill to their livelihood. They also could not understand how the GCCF’s adjusters calculated their cases. The only thing they knew was the letters of offer of final payment from the GCCF.

Mr. Tung, a boat owner who had worked in the fishing industry for 30 years, expressed his disagreement with how the GCCF workers saw the loss of income: “These people live in the forest, they don’t understand the fishing work. If they had hired people who worked in the fishing occupation, these people would have given them (GCCF) useful advice, and hence no more problems. It is not that all fishermen are silly, many are very smart and experts in the field. They understand the work of the industry”.

Mr. Tung recalled one time he quarreled with a GCCF worker about the calculation method that neglected the money that he and other boat owners had to spend to maintain the good order of the boat:

Tung: In case we receive the compensation, it will last for two to three years if shrimps continue to disappear like this time. It’s not that we can just go fishing without maintaining the boat. I have to invest in it and prepare for every trip. I know that fishing earns a lot of money but it also requires many expenses. Hoàng: Do you have to spend money to maintain the boat? Tung: Yes, of course. Some staff of the GCCF called me, saying that they would pay me according to my net income of previous years. I told them if you paid me the net income

186

amount, where would I get the money for boat maintenance. They replied that if I did not go fishing, I would not have to maintain the boat. Hearing that, I was enraged and told them that they did not understand the fishing practice. If I had not gone fishing and had left the boat at the dock for two years, it would have become crap metals because shipworm teredos had riddled the boat. Maintenance would cost tens of thousands of dollars each time. Moreover, I also have to take care of the engine because it is not a new one. Every week, even if I do not go fishing, I still have to drive three hours from home to the dock to take care of the boat. Hoàng: So, how much do you often spend for boat maintenance? Tung: It is not a monthly expense because if I go fishing regularly, teredos would not stick as much as the boat stays in the dock. After one year, shipworms would cover the whole boat and begin to riddle the boat. Therefore, even if I stay at home for a year, the maintenance expense would still be tens of thousands of dollars. Hoàng: Do you have to hire people to do it? Tung: Yes, I have to take it onto the dock to repair because I don’t have tools. I know some techniques, so it costs less than hiring professionals all the time. It costs $65 USD [to hire a professional] for every hour, not to mention that I have to buy all other stuff.

Although Mr. Tung’s point is common and well recognized among the fishing communities, GCCF workers did not seem to know about this practice. The protocol of the GCCF only focuses on the documented loss of income and damages for each individual or business. Therefore, it did miss a number of practical hidden expenses on the part of boat owners.

The perception of unfairness toward the indirectly affected people was also brought up in daily conversations of fishermen. Mr. Tung continues: “I knew claimants who worked for nail salons, or hairdressers, or someone who worked for Wal-Mart and who also received compensation. I think their jobs are not related to the sea, but they still received money. He [Ken Feinberg] stated that the GCCF had paid such and such amount of money. But the people who were directly impacted by the Oil spill received less attention than the unrelated people. They [BP] caused the loss of income for fishermen, they should have paid the [directly] impacted people first!” Mr. Trong shared Mr. Tung’s idea when he said: “It was not fair because pedicurists, manicurists and

187 barbers were not affected.7 Now, while shrimpers like myself have lost income due to the disappearance of shrimps, nail salons still have customers”. However, since the compensation was income for many other people, fishermen just tried to ignore it. Mr. Trong continued: “Although the compensation for such people is not fair, we can’t say out loud because they would quarrel with us, telling us that we are jealous of their income. But in my mind, I think that it is not fair”.

The last issue that people thought unfair was that Kenneth Feinberg had not really been an independent party in the compensation process. In fact, in February 2011 U.S District Judge Carl Barbier stated that “the Court finds that BP has created a hybrid entity, rather than one that is fully independent of BP. While BP may have given independence to Mr. Feinberg and the GCCF in the evaluation and payment of individual claims, many other facts support a finding that the GCCF and Mr. Feinberg were not completely ‘neutral’ or ‘independent’ from BP” (Barbier 2011: 8-9). The Judge ordered that GCCF and Feinberg should “refrain from referring to the GCCF, Ken Feinberg, or Feinberg Rozen (or their representatives), as ‘neutral’ or completely ‘independent’ from BP” (ibid.). In response to the Court’s order, the Associated Press reported: “BP said in a statement it respects the court's decision. Feinberg did not return a call to his cell phone. A Feinberg spokeswoman said the Gulf Coast Claims Facility would have no comment on the ruling and would move forward paying claims” (Reporter 2011). Mr. Tung commented: “When working for 9/11 event, Feinberg was an independent party, but he has not been an independent in the BP Oil spill because he has worked for BP. We have a proverb in Vietnam: ‘We take care of the tree the fruits of which we want’ [Ăn cây nào rào cây ấy]. When BP pays him, he can’t be fair because he would be on BP’s side”. This was a common perception among the Vietnamese American fishing community. They were all of the opinion that the GCCF would weigh BP more than the affected people.

The Litigation

By December 2010, GCCF had paid nearly $2.5 billion in emergency claims to almost 165,000 claimants out of 460,000 emergency payment applications. Feinberg said the GCCF paid “a little

7 The GCCF allowed anybody who could prove their loss of income due to the BP Oil spill to file a claim application. 188 less than $15,000 per payment on average” (Hammer 2010). Since the announcement of the quick final payment options, $5,000 USD for individuals and $25,000 USD for businesses in December 2010, about 85,000 people and business had accepted the quick payment option as of January 27, 2011 (Senate 2011). However, as mentioned in this section, only deckhands and other affected people who could not afford to pursue a long litigation process accepted these cheap-considered offers of compensation. The boat owners and captains, while continuing to fish in the Gulf Coast, turned to assistance at local law firms.

Recognizing the hardship of their people, local organizations quickly got involved and managed to make use of their contacts to benefit their community members. On November 5, 2011, the JACL co-operated with the CDC, VAYLA-NO and Waltzer & Wiygul Law Firm, and invited the GCCF to a town hall meeting with two Congresspersons, Judy Chu and Cedric Richmond, and affected people at Sarah T. Reed high school in Village de l’Est.8 In the presence of congresspersons, the affected people freely expressed their concerns and anger about BP and the GCCF, including their worries about the long-term future of their livelihood. About 150 people attended the meeting, including the media. Vietnamese people received simultaneous interpretation by a Vietnamese American woman, a staff member of Waltzer & Wiygul Law Firm. Although the GCCF and Congresspersons tried to listen and replied to the critical questions from the audience, they simply promised to work on these issues with Feinberg. The meeting ended in the rage of the fishermen because there were no clear answers, no new information about the future of their livelihood (Marks 2012).

On February 26, 2012, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana made an order to cease GCCF’s activities and to open a Transition Program to prepare for a Court Supervised Claims Program (Barbier 2012). The GCCF ceased its missions and transferred the remaining cases to the Court Supervised Settlement Program through the Transition Program. Under this new program, the settlement of claims was administrated by the court appointed settlement administrator Patrick Juneau. Within this program, the Claims Administration Vendors appointed by the Court would evaluate and process claims in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Attorney Juneau would oversee the settlement program and report to the

8 JACL: Japanese American Citizens League 189

Court regarding the program. Until June 2012, after the Transition Program ended, the GCCF and the Transition Program had paid a total of $6,670,705,516 USD for individual and business claims (British Petroleum 2013). From June 4, 2012 onwards, Vietnamese American claimants pursuing litigation did not know much about what had been going on in the Court Supervised Claims Program. They could just wait for the result from their attorneys.

In June 2012, BDO under a request from the U.S Department of Justice issued an executive report on the GCCF and concluded: 9

The GCCF was designed to respond, and did respond, with urgency to the economic difficulties of those most likely affected by the Spill. However, because of the complexity and unprecedented nature of the task undertaken by the GCCF, it was inevitable that some claimants and stakeholders would have concerns about its operations. While hundreds of thousands of individual and business claimants received payment without litigation over the two years immediately following the Spill, many others have sought an alternative to the GCCF. We hope that all those who have been genuinely affected by the Spill ultimately receive an appropriate resolution to their claims. (BDO Consulting 2012: 88)

This section has described the imbalance of power between the GCCF and the affected people in the compensation process. While people with low income had to accept the quick payments and waived their right to sue BP for any other spill-related losses, people with more financial independence sought help from attorneys with the hope that their compensation would be better. They all suffered from the supremacy position of the GCCF and the privilege position of Kenneth Feinberg in making the rules of the unwanted game in which they were the victims.

In parallel with that mainstream progress, there was a campaign run by the CDC. While the CDC initially engaged in the BP oil spill with the desire of providing assistance for the affected people, the organization ended up in a campaign called “the Loss of Subsistence Use” claims. In this campaign, young staff members of the CDC recruited several local fishers and actively made

9 An abbreviation for Binder Dijker Otte & Co, an international firm working in the industries of Accounting, Professional Services, Tax and Consulting. 190 the Vietnamese American fishing community of Louisiana engaged in American politics. The following section will describe the stages of the battle.

5.4. Old Practices Make New Values

5.4.1. Recognizing Old Practices

Having involved in the situation since the beginning of the oil spill disaster, the CDC recognized that the oil spill aftermath would become more complicated and last for a long time. Therefore, the CDC looked for a person who could be helpful to the affected community. The CDC contacted May Nguyen, a former vice-director of the CDC, who had a master’s degree in International Relations from Johns Hopkins University and was about to begin a Juris Doctor (J.D) program at a Law School in California. Growing up in New Orleans, May Nguyen had a strong emotional attachment to the Mary Queen of Vietnam community and she decided to take one-year leave to get involved. Arriving in New Orleans in late July 2010, May quickly learnt the situation and drafted a “power map” after three days (29 July). The power map was an illustration of the whole claim process according to the newly established GCCF. It became clear for the CDC that the claim process was not really fair. Using this power map when introducing the claim process to local Vietnamese fishermen and seafood processors, May Nguyen and the CDC wanted to enhance people’s understanding of their position in the claim process.

After a few meetings, Vietnamese Americans recognized that the claim process did not include the participation of the affected people when important decisions were made. Father Vien and CDC staff also recognized that the lack of language proficiency among the affected people made their voice unheard during the communication with the GCCF. Then, May Nguyen got a grant for the CDC to be a center that provided technical assistance for people affected by the oil spill. The grant also provided budget for May Nguyen to act as a Social Justice Strategist, a consultant and community organizer. While the technical assistance program aimed to provide assistance in filing the claims and communicating between the GCCF and the claimants, May Nguyen’s role was to improve the awareness of affected people on their role and position in the oil spill aftermath and seeking fair compensation rates. To do that, May wanted to introduce the power map to local fishermen and affected people and to collect their responses by conducting about

191

500 interviews. However, it was never conducted due to the limited human resources of the CDC.

Figure 4.1. BP Oil Spill Community Power Map

Source: Courtesy of the CDC

May Nguyen and the CDC staff tried hard to introduce the power map to the fishermen and other affected people who came to wait for the Catholic Charities’ food vouchers. Born in the United States and speaking a broken Vietnamese, it was also hard for the staff to make presentations in Vietnamese. Sometimes they turned to me, as I was a volunteer, and asked me about some words that they did not know. After the first few days, they got familiar with the vocabulary and could manage it by themselves. The fishermen at the beginning did not care much about the power map because it was only taken out at the end of the Catholic Charities’ food-voucher lottery. At that 192 time, people who won the tickets were busy with the registration process, while people whose numbers were not selected were upset for that day and just wanted to leave the office. However, the staff, with diligent efforts, talked to some fishermen and convinced them to introduce the power map back to their peers. After that, as many fishermen saw their friends talking about the map, they came out to see what happened. In the following days, May talked to people who came to take food vouchers at the CDC and asked them for interviews to understand people’s situation and their perceptions of the power map. Besides working with local fishermen living around New Orleans, the CDC also contacted other fishermen in other areas such as Empire, LA and Biloxi, MS. May and the CDC staff were trying to understand the activities related to the oil spill and the responses of different communities.

By talking to fishermen and seafood processing workers, mainly women, May expressed a caution about the use of the Vietnamese term “cho”, meaning “to give handouts” for the affected people, when people described their financial situation. She told me: “I don’t know why people kept saying that ‘BP cho tiền’ [BP gives handouts]. I think that BP has to compensate [đền bù] for people’s loss of income”. From her perspective, giving and compensating carried different meanings and it really positioned the stakeholders. By taking the position of the claimer, May tried to reject the notion of a passive receiver for the affected. Instead, she tried to convince people to think and act as the claimer in the process.

While working toward a fair compensation protocol for the affected people, May came up with a new idea elicited from Vietnamese fishing community members. After spending a few months interviewing local Vietnamese fishermen and oyster-shuckers, she recalled “we think something did not smell good here. This is weird, something was not right about this [compensation protocol of the GCCF]”. What May Nguyen discovered was that Vietnamese fishermen and shrimpers had a practice of bringing home some portion of every catch. While some people ate them at home with their family, others exchanged for other goods, such as shrimp for fish/meat, or simply give them as presents to their relatives or close neighbours.

The following excerpt is from an interview of May Nguyen with a fisherman: X: Money is needed, but in the United States, there is no shortage of food, so I don’t have to sell the good part of the catch. I select good parts to bring home. I would give some to

193

my relatives or friends. Once we give presents, they should be good things, otherwise they would abuse/curse us. They would call us mean. May: To whom do you often give? X: Relatives and friends May: How did you give? X: I cut it into parts, wrap it up and go to their houses. I said this was some products that I got, I thought it was fresh and delicious. According to Vietnamese customary practice, we would share the meal with each other and enjoy it together. May: We give them and is there reciprocity? How is it? X: The returns may be fruits from their garden or if they cook something good, they call me come to eat. That is why American people were surprised when they saw the Vietnamese community in Versailles recovered most quickly. That is because we live with such sentiment, we have reciprocity, interchange and harmony. We don’t live out individually. Therefore, other communities have to look us up and come to learn from us. May: That’s good. X: You can explain to them that Vietnamese people are like that. It’s not that we don’t need to know about anybody after we return from work. We have that sentiment (tình liên đới), so that even if our neighbours are not relatives, we still give presents to the neighbours. (Courtesy of May Nguyen and the CDC)

I also experienced this practice when living near Vietnamese fishermen/shrimpers’ households. While my suitemate, who lived in Versailles for 20 years, kept getting some pounds of bluefin- tuna every two weeks, I was given fresh shrimp after the neighbour shrimpers returned from a trip. Not only using their brought-home products for exchange, fishermen also use seafood as gifts or donations. Phuong Nguyen, a fisherman, said “Every time a friend had a birthday party, instead of a gift, I'd give seafood. At weddings the same. I'd give a couple 100 pounds of crab, or when the local church has its annual fair, I might give four to five hundred pounds, at times even a thousand pounds to help the church make money” (Alexander-Bloch 2010). Alexander-Bloch reported that “[I]n the Vietnamese-American fishing community, most of their catch was sold at the docks. But many fishers saved anywhere from 5 percent to 25 percent of their catch to feed themselves, immediate and extended family members or friends, and to contribute to community 194 gatherings, such as weddings, church functions, local festivals, or to barter for other seafood, fruit or vegetables” (Alexander-Bloch 2010). Inspired by this local practice, May Nguyen and the CDC staff discussed with one another to find a solution.

5.4.2. The “Loss of Subsistence Use” Campaign

In January 2012, I interviewed May Nguyen about how she got to know the practice of bringing home portion of the catch for barter or gift-exchange:

May Nguyen: It was like, we spent the first few months, talking with a lot of people. We live in the community, and know this practice. The lawyers did not know that people were doing this. And people that have the practice did not know this is written in the law. So, they completely missed each other. As a community organization, we worked with the community members, and we were able to read about the law. Although we are not lawyers, we know the community. Hoang: What did you do then? May Nguyen: You know you lost something, but you don’t know how to fit in the legal system. Then I read the law, and recognized it. Hoang: What law is it? May Nguyen: I was reading the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. I brought it to my friend, an attorney, and other people to think about it, too.

After reading the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), May Nguyen discussed with several attorneys, including with a professor whom she knew at Yale Law School about the practice. OPA Section 1002(b)(2)(C), 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(C) states about the liability of the responsible party for the loss of subsistence use:

Damages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant who so uses natural resources which have been injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership or management of the resources. The Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (U.S. OPA1990: 241)

195

By studying the OPA, they pointed out that affected fishermen should be able to get compensation for the loss of subsistence use from the GCCF. In fact, the section on Subsistence Use of Natural Resources of the GCCF Protocol also states who may make a claim: “Any individual who uses the natural resources that have been injured, destroyed or lost as a result of the Spill to obtain food, shelter, clothing, medicine, or other subsistence uses” (GCCF, 2010b, p. 4). However, up to December 15, 2010, “[o]f the 16,858 claimants who have applied for loss of subsistence, only one so far has been accepted, according to Gulf Coast Claims Facility statistics. That claimant received $3,000” (Alexander-Bloch, 2010). Alexander-Bloch reported the word of Amy Weiss, Feinberg's spokeswoman: "A claimant needs to show documentation on their heritage, their history, their having lived off the land" (…) "The (Gulf Coast Claims Facility) will then work with the claimants to personally tailor the claim." (Alexander-Bloch 2010).

Understanding this difficulty for fishermen, May Nguyen worked with her colleagues to find a solution. On December 15, 2010, WWL-TV Channel 4 reported: “Vietnamese fishermen met this morning to discuss their repeated denials from Feinberg’s office, saying they’ve filled out proper paperwork, with the help of lawyers, and experts and still are seeing any payments. One issue in particular is an alleged refusal to pay for seafood they catch and save to eat themselves. Those helping the fishermen say the process is not working and they need the Gulf Coast Claims Facility to listen” (W. Reporter 2010). May Nguyen said in the interview: “We did their applications, we developed a template that we inform (sic) for Mr. Feinberg about (sic), and it is (sic) supported with affidavits, retail price. It's probably as comprehensive as you can get” (W. Reporter, 2010). On December 16, 2010, the CDC issued a White Paper called “Loss of Subsistence Use Claim Framework and Template for Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks and other Louisiana Fisherfolks” for this case (White Paper, 2010). The White Paper describes the background of the Vietnamese American fishing community and the practice of subsistence use in the community. Based on the OPA 1990, it asserts that the GCCF has the liability to pay for loss of subsistence use for people as stated in the OPA. The White Paper then offers the use of affidavits as proof of subsistence use and the use of local retail price in the calculation for loss of subsistence use. The Paper was submitted to Kenneth Feinberg through the State of Louisiana, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and non-profit organizations. After a few weeks, on 11th January 2011, the CDC presented directly to Kenneth Feinberg the Subsistence Use White Paper (personal communication). 196

On 13th January 2011, May Nguyen received a call from U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu's office requesting for a meeting to discuss the Loss of Subsistence Use White Paper. May Nguyen let me know that “Senator Landrieu will hold a Senate Hearing in a couple of weeks to discuss the GCCF claims process and wants to learn more about the contents of the White Paper. I will meet with her staff to defend the contents of the CDC’s White Paper with the hope that the Senators will provide some political pressure on Kenneth Feinberg to justly compensate for loss of subsistence use due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” (personal communication).

On January 27, 2011, Senator Landrieu chaired a hearing before the Ad hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate in Washington D.C (Senate 2011). Attenders included nine core presenters and several witnesses.10

In the hearing, Mr. Nguyen Ve, who represented the United Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks, presented his perception, through an interpreter, on the practice of subsistence use in the community:

After I was forced to flee my country to the United States and the United States took me in, I pledged an allegiance to the United States that includes paying my taxes. Unless I have no other choices, I do not seek government assistance. But with the oil spill, like many of my fellow fishermen, I have had to stand in line for handouts and Food Stamps.

Before the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, my wife and I would be out on the sea by 6 a.m. and return in the late evening. Like all of the other fishermen in Louisiana, we typically hold back a portion of our catch, 5 or 10 percent, to bring home for personal consumption in the family, to contribute to community events, and to barter with other fishermen for other seafood.

10 List of nine people attended the hearing: 1. Senator Richard Shelby, Republican - Alabama 2. Senator David Vitter, Republican - Louisiana 3. Kenneth R. Feinberg, Administrator, Gulf Coast Claims Facility 4. Craig Bennett, Director, National Pollution Funds Center, U.S. Coast Guard 5. Ve Nguyen, Member, United Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks 6. Rear Admiral Eric B. Broderick, D.D.S., M.P.H., Deputy Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 7. Albert L. Keller, Executive Vice President, Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, BP America, Inc. 8. Tom Costanza, Executive Director, Office of Justice and Peace, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New Orleans 9. Lori R. West, Director, of International Relief and Development and Current Chairman, South Mississippi Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters 197

I face many challenges in the Gulf Coast Claims Facility process, but I would like to take this opportunity to highlight one in particular. Mr. Kenneth Feinberg received over 16,000 emergency payment claims for subsistence use, including mine, and Mr. Feinberg only paid one claim of $3,000. Mary Queen of Vietnam Community Development Corporation (CDC), a Louisiana contracted technical assistance provider, helped me packaging my subsistence use claim. Mr. Feinberg denied my neighbor’s emergency payments, loss of subsistence use claim that was almost identical to mine.

I, therefore, would like to make our request to members of the Senate today, the United Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks, in solidarity with 14 other organizations, request that the members of this Subcommittee to clarify and reaffirm the definition of subsistence use in the OPA of 1990, fully acknowledging and recognizing the local non-taxable practice of bartering community gifts and family consumption of commercial fishing communities of all ethnic backgrounds. The definition is clearly intended by Congress in 1990 and comports fully with the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF) definition.

Moreover, the calculation of emergency compensation for the loss of subsistence use should be based on the quantity of the food that commercial fishermen subsisted on before the spill multiplied by the current retail value of the seafood. This formula has been summarized and defended by the White Paper submitted by the United Louisiana [United Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks].

(Quoted from the Senate Hearing’s transcription on January 27, 2011)

In response, Feinberg testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security that the GCCF recognized the loss of subsistence use. However, he said: “the GCCF has not yet concluded that mere statements of subsistence loss are sufficient to document these claims”. He reported that there had been thousands of individual subsistence use claims consisting of written statements such as: “I live off the Gulf and can no longer fish in order to eat. So, now I must buy fish at the grocery store. Pay me”. Feinberg argued that “these claims must be denied” (Senate, 2011). A one-year report of the Alliance for Justice on the Gulf oil spill disaster stated that “[T]he issue of subsistence use claims has proved difficult for GCCF, as it must determine what types of claims to pay (recreational fishermen in addition to claimants who depend on the fish for

198 food?), what sort of documentation to require, and how to value claims (retail or wholesale price?)” (Justice 2011: 28).

After the Senate Hearing, May Nguyen and the CDC continued following up on this issue with several meetings between fishers and the GCCF. Finally, in April 2011, Feinberg accepted the concept of subsistence use given by the CDC and Vietnamese American fishers, saying that: “The GCCF will pay documented subsistence claims for Native American tribes and commercial fishermen -- including Vietnamese fishermen and others who live off a portion of their catch” (Hammer 2011b). The GCCF said it would use scholarly studies to determine the amounts typically consumed by different groups of commercial fishers. In addition, the GCCF also agreed to pay the pre-spill retail cost of replacing that seafood. For those claiming losses for seafood they bartered, however, the price at the dock will be used (Hammer 2011b). Despite having some achievements, activists were not fully satisfied with the modifications of the loss calculation methodology. May Nguyen said, “The GCCF Revised Subsistence Methodology is vague and, depending on how they interpret some of the key concepts, could either be promising or problematic for proper interim compensation. Importantly, we defer to the court(s) for final adjudication of subsistence claims” (Hammer 2011).

When sharing with me the achievement, May Nguyen commented “It [the OPA 1990] was enacted after the Exxon Valdez 1989. They have to pay you for subsistence use. The law was never tested on a large community like this. The subsistence use is significant for cultural reason. It’s not as much as the ecological loss. It’s small money, but it’s important”.

Compared to the period before the campaign in which the GCCF had dismissed most of the Emergency Loss of Subsistence Use claims from Louisiana residents, the CDC and its partners made Feinberg recognize the loss of subsistence use and developed a new method for calculating subsistence claims. It was a positive result of the co-operation between the youth of the CDC, volunteer attorneys, White and Black American shrimping and fishing experts, and especially proactive Vietnamese American fishermen in New Orleans.

199

5.4.3. Building a Coalition

In order to achieve the recognition of subsistence use loss, the CDC could not do it by themselves. They had to rely on a network of people and institutions including local Vietnamese American fishermen, oyster-shuckers, White American, Black American, Native American shrimpers and fishers, U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu, other Congresspersons and many other professional organizations such as the Louisiana Shrimp Association. However, due to the fact that my extensive fieldwork period was much later than the time of the subsistence use campaign, I was not able to participate and track all of the relationship between the CDC and other stakeholders. It will leave a question of how these people came together for further research. For now, I will try to provide a general picture of the coalition from the materials that I have.

Obviously, the initial effort should be credited to May Nguyen as she not only recognized a flaw of the GCCF regarding the subsistence use claims, but also pioneered the “subsistence use claims” campaign for fishermen in the Gulf Coast. Being the second generation of Vietnamese Americans, May Nguyen found it necessary to do something for the community. What she learned was a daily interaction between Vietnamese fishermen and community members. This practice was also documented in the form of garden products in the research of Airriess and Clawson: “crops are frequently sold or given to family members and friends not having access to land or elderly persons who are physically unable to garden. This is another form of mutual-aid which reinforces the traditional dietary habits of the residents and strengthens the cultural distinctiveness of the entire community” (Airriess & Clawson 1991: 9). From what may be seen as trivial practices, such as gift exchanges between fishermen, shrimpers and relatives, neighbors, it reveals a right that most people did not know when it came to legal claims. Interestingly, when May Nguyen discussed with fishers and shrimpers of other ethnic groups, they all confirmed that they also had that practice. I also interviewed Mr. Clint Guidry11 and Mrs. Tracy Kuhns, both of whom also confirmed that they also had the same tradition such as exchanging fish and shrimp for fishing tools, or for labour. And they never wrote them down in a record. However, Kenneth Feinberg with his pro-capitalist white ideology required claimants to

11 President, CEO, Louisiana Shrimp Association 200 submit receipts, bills and other records for subsistence use claims. Leo Esclamado reported a case of a Vietnamese American commenting on this issue: “If I give fish to my mother-in-law, how can she document that? Do you keep your grocery receipts? No one keeps grocery receipts.” (Esclamado 2011: 33)

The campaign clearly discloses the pro-capitalist white supremacy position of Kenneth Feinberg and the GCCF to not only Vietnamese American fishermen but also Black Americans and Native Americans. There is also a degree of intersectionality in which White fishermen also suffered but found it helpless while dealing with the GCCF. Established to conform to the OPA, the GCCF was administered by a White man, Kenneth Feinberg, that had a questionable bond with BP. Therefore, instead of being an independent administrator to design a fair calculation method for the claims, Feinberg was said to be the one who only “clear the decks” and “keep as many spill victims as possible from seeking compensation in the courts, an expensive process that can drag on for decades” (Hammer 2010). During the time holding the ultimate position in the GCCF, he ignored any attempt to raise issues of compensation or calculation method unless it was addressed by Senator Mary Landrieu or the Federal Court. Moreover, the GCCF also concealed the calculation method for the claim cases. Hammer reported: “Asked Monday why he shouldn’t simply lay out his eligibility standards in Black and White to ensure fairness, Feinberg said he should probably consider it” (Hammer 2010). Therefore, all affected people regardless of race, class, genders were all frustrated with how stubborn Feinberg was. Mr. Guidry also shared with me that: “We worked with some attorneys, and put together a good settlement, a lot of things we asked them to do, a lot of statistics and numbers that they should do, but they didn’t do it”.

Feeling the power of Feinberg and the GCCF, some Vietnamese American fishermen also expressed distrust in the campaign that the CDC had been running. Mr. Tung recalled: “There were people who refused to help [in the campaign] because they did not believe that the claims would be accepted. Some people called me mad, telling that I was doing useless things. However, after Senator Landrieu took part in the process, these people came back and asked for information”. He continued: “I have to admit that May Nguyen is a good person. Now that people who received subsistence use compensations may not remember her. But without her diligent efforts, the subsistence use claims would not have existed”. The fact that the CDC made

201 the GCCF recognized the subsistence use claims affirmed that grassroots organizations could help raise the voice of powerless people.

When recalling the campaign, May Nguyen shared with me that she tried to apply the lesson learnt from Father Vien’s landfill campaign. The lesson was that the Vietnamese American community had to cooperate with other local communities when struggling for common goals. Therefore, instead of relying on merely Vietnamese fishermen’s information, May Nguyen and the young staff at the CDC managed to build relationship with other American professional associations, especially, the Louisiana Shrimp Association and Waltzer & Wiygul law firm. May Nguyen recalled in an interview with me: “We had a strategy, meaning that we wanted to make sure that White American and Black American and Native American communities were part of the subsistence use claims. A colleague of mine brought in Mr. Clint Guidry, he came and said that this affected all of us. Then we worked together. I realized I learnt from the landfill case that if we don’t prepare early, the other side gonna try to divide you”. Adopting Father Vien’s strategy, May Nguyen and CDC staff succeeded in recruiting American fishermen into their coalition, positioning Vietnamese American fishermen as part of the American fishing community. The youth and fishermen together created the campaign. On the one hand, the fishermen provided information on subsistence use. On the other hand, without the CDC’s young staff members, no coalition would have been formed.

5.5. Conclusion

Five years after Katrina, the fishermen of Louisiana faced a human-made disaster brought about by an explosion of an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. Fishing activities were banned for four months and BP, in accordance with the OPA of 1990, provided fishermen emergency compensation money through its Claims Office and, then settlements by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF). The compensation process reveals an imbalance of power between those responsible for the loss of income and the claimants.

Although the chapter limits the case study to the Vietnamese American fishing community in New Orleans, it not only presents an overall picture of how the BP oil spill impacted local fishing communities, but also reveals how fairness should be seen from each side of the claims

202 process. It also indicates that people considered the GCCF a White institution in which its administrator utilised his privilege at the expense of the affected people. The way Kenneth Feinberg exploited his position in response to the claim requests displays a power hierarchy between the supremacy position and the subordinate position. In this case, the affected people including Vietnamese Americans, Black Americans, Native Americans and Caucasian Americans of the fishing community in the Gulf Coast were of the minority and subordinate position. However, the Loss of Subsistence Use campaign affirms that diligent efforts and networking may help people of the minority and subordinate position to raise their voice. The case highlights the role of the second generation of Vietnamese Americans in supporting their older generations to build a coalition with other ethnic and occupational groups.

Moreover, through the coalition efforts, fishing communities in the Gulf Coast not only had more understanding about one another, but also formed a more stable network of fishers/shrimper. In 2011, a new grassroots organization based on the local fishing communities were established, namely GO FISH. Its founding members came from a variety of communities across the Gulf Coast: Association of Family Fishermen, Louisiana Bayoukeepers, Louisiana Oystermen Association, Louisiana Shrimp Association, Pointe-Au-Chien Indian Tribe, United Commercial Fishermen and United Vietnamese American Fisherfolks. GO FISH (Gulf Organized Fisheries in Solidarity & Hope) hopes that they can “advocate for the rights of fishermen, restore the fisheries, and preserve fishing community culture” (GO FISH Mission Statement).

In 2013 when I returned to New Orleans for a short trip, fishing had resumed and things calmed down. Although many fishermen and shrimpers continued to fish/shrimp as before the oil spill, many other had fully retired or sold their boats to change to a new occupation. The oil spill was a real disaster that brought significant changes to the fishing community in Louisiana. The claim process had been transferred to the Court Supervised Settlement Program since June 4, 2012. Affected people who had not signed the release with the GCCF were looking forward to seeing a better result which they had long waited for.

203

Chapter 6 Side Effects of the De-Territorialisation Policy: Politics of the Homeland

If the previous chapters discuss the life of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans in the country of settlement, the United States, this chapter examines transnational relationships between them and the country of origin, Vietnam. Moreover, it also illustrates the ongoing relationship with their relatives and friends who stayed behind in the homeland. By reviewing transnational flows of money, people and ideas, this chapter argues that homeland sentiments have never ceased to exist. The increasing news exchange with the homeland also leads to strengthening the consciousness of the diasporic community. As a result, homeland and diasporic population could influence each other. The chapter ends with a discussion of de-territorialisation policy showing that while the government of Vietnam wants to claim overseas Vietnamese as an inseparable part of Vietnam, their de-territorialisation policy seems to enlarge the gap between the homeland government and Vietnamese Americans. Additionally, its side effects help renew the anti- communist sentiment, and solidify the sense of a diaspora.

6.1. Maintaining Long-Distance Relations

6.1.1. The Dispersion of People and the Unification of the Country

Phan Thiet was “liberated” on April 19, 1975. However, people in Thanh Hai parish had left the village on their own fishing boats to the South since March 1975 and evacuated to Vung Tau city. The fight was hard and people wanted to avoid having troubles. Mr. Phu recalled: “We were not fleeing the country, it was just evacuating from the fighting zones. We evacuated to Vung Tau with an idea that we would return when it was over. Nobody had the idea of fleeing to the United States. However, after we evacuated to Vung Tau, the war expanded to that region. I remember I arrived in Vung Tau on Easter’s Saturday of 1975”.

People in Phuoc Tinh commune were in the same situation. Since 28 April 1975, being threatened by the sound of guns and canons, parishioners of Phuoc Tinh and Tan Phuoc parishes began going out to the sea on their own boats with family members. People evacuating from other areas also left for the sea to get away from the fighting zone. Lucky people were picked up

204 by American naval ships, others drifting on the boats until it got to an island or dying of hunger on the sea or even being robbed and murdered by pirates. After a few months, some of the first refugees from Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet were sponsored to New Orleans by the Archdiocese of New Orleans and settled down in Versailles Arms. Since the history of these two populations has been discussed in chapter 2, I will describe the situations of the parishioners of the two parishes who stayed behind after the Northern Army took over the South. This section will provide a background for the later discussion on the distance relationship between overseas Vietnamese and their homeland.

The Vietnamese Command Economy (1975-1986):

After taking over South Vietnam, the National Liberation Front planned to retain its separate administration of the south of Vietnam for a period before moving to peaceful reunification. By keeping the administration intact, the economy of South Vietnam would not be drastically changed. However, at the twenty-fourth plenary session of the Central Committee of the Vietnam Workers’ Party (currently the Communist Party of Vietnam) held in Dalat in July and August of 1975, “the Party decided to bypass a period of separate administration and move rapidly toward socialism and unification with the North” (Duiker 1990: 20). Later, the unified Assembly convened in June of 1976 and approved the formation of the new Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

From 1976 onwards, the command economy was applied to the whole country. The new government implemented the second five-year plan (1976-1980) and the third five-year plan (1981-1985).1 In order to implement the Second Five-year plan, Hanoi had to invest some 30 billion dong, equivalent to U.S $10 to $12 billion (Nguyen Van Canh 1983: 29). However, the fact that China withheld financial aid and the United States did not provide money in accordance with Section 21 of the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement turned the Second Five-year plan into a financial disaster (Nguyen Van Canh 1983: 29-30). At the same time, Le Duan, secretary-general of the Party, and Prime Minister Pham Van Dong “insisted on expanding the scale of the cooperatives in the north and doing away with the farming contracts between the peasants and the state that had been tacitly approved of during the war” (Kimura 1989: 2).

1 The first five-year plan was implemented from 1961 to 1965. 205

The command economy and the collectivization process worsened the economy of the South. Nguyen Van Canh reported that by 1981, strict food rationing had been implemented; “Ordinary citizens living in Ho Chi Minh City were allowed a quota of only 2 kg of rice and 5 kg of subsidiary crops a month; more was available, but only on the black market. Rice is the staple diet of all Vietnamese. Since 1979, however, they have also been eating sorghum, a grain previously raised only as feed for livestock. The monthly meat ration, during the same period, was down to 500g per household of six persons of less (700g for larger households). Such a diet amounts to severe malnutrition” (Nguyen Van Canh 1983: 28). In a larger picture, Huynh Kim Khanh compared that if the country produced 350kg of rice per capital in 1975, its food production was reduced to 304kg of rice per capita in 1985, and in 1987, this figure was 280 kg. At the same time, the food assistance from China and Russia was no longer available (Huynh 1989: 2), see also Beresford & Phong (2000), Beresford (1989), Luong (2003), Fforde & Vylder (1996). Only after 6th Party Congress in 1986, under the Open-door policy of Renovation [Đổi mới], the economic life of ordinary people became better.

The Open-door policy was deployed in several fields such as the country’s economic system, economic sectors and foreign affairs. One of the purposes of this policy was to replace the command economy that had caused degradation for the country’s economy. Under this new policy, the economic system changed from the centrally planned economic system to the “socialism-oriented market economic system” (nền kinh tế thị trường định hướng xã hội chủ nghĩa).2 The state-owned and collective-owned enterprises remained the major sectors. However, the economic system recognized other sectors such as private companies, households and individual enterprises. Together with the changes in the economic system, the government of Vietnam also sought to establish diplomat relations with other Western countries including the United States. This overall economic situation served as the background of the local economy in Phan Thiet and Phuoc Tinh.

1.1.1. Thanh Hai parish of Phan Thiet city

2 The concept of “socialism-oriented market economic system” has been used officially in the Communist Party’s documents. However, it is criticized by scholars for being vague and undefinable. 206

After the chaos of April 1975, Thanh Hai parishioners, who had not been picked up by American naval ships, returned to the village and continued the life as it used to be. Nevertheless, the new regime, after its consolidation, applied rigid policies on both the economic and spiritual life of local people. The model of collectivization of the North was then applied to the South’s economy. Under this model, means of production such as fishing boats, tractors, buffaloes were collectivised and the workforce had to work in co-operatives.

When the model of collectivization was implemented in Phan Thiet, Thanh Hai fishermen had to work for the local fishing co-operative; boat owners had no choice other than handing in their boats to the co-operative. However, the co-operative did not possess the fishing boats. Instead, the boats were priced by the co-operative and each local fisherman had to buy a same percentage of the boat’s value from the boat owner. The boat then became a shared property of 8 to 10 fishermen. Fishermen who did not have money were still able to be a shareholder of a boat with the condition that his fishing product of each trip would be deducted for the owed amount. Boat owners who wanted to continue to fish also had to be a shareholder of the boat. His part would be subtracted from the price of his boat.3 The catch of each trip was sold to the co-operative for money to buy rice and oil. During the collectivization period, the co-operative was the only agency that fishermen could legally sell their fishing products to for rice and oil. According to Mr. Phu, a former secretary of Thanh Hai parish, there were about 10 boats and more than 100 labourers working for the co-operative. He recalled: “Our boats, after a few years in the cooperative, became common properties. It was like we lost our boats. When we went fishing, we had to sell the catch to the cooperative in order to get oil. We were afraid of the authorities because it was just liberated, and we were considered dissidents. Therefore, we had to do what they ordered”. Moreover, “when the engines of the boats malfunctioned, only the State had replacements, or oil, we could not buy from black market. Therefore, we had to sell the catch to the cooperative. So, our boats would be listed in the cooperative for maintenance. According to the rules, only cooperatives were able to buy replacements and oil”, he continued.

3 For example: The value of Mr. A’s boat is 100 Vietnam dong. When he handles in his boat to the co-operative, it would become a shared property of 10 fishermen with a condition that each shareholder would pay 10 Vietnam dong to the boat owner. If the boat owner wants to be a shareholder, then he would receive 90 Vietnam dong because he also contributes 10 Vietnam dong to be a shareholder. 207

The life under the command economy was difficult for people who had lived in the free trade market economy in the South of Vietnam from 1954 to 1975. Mr. Phu said: “That time, before 1986, was very difficult, we had to eat sorghum (bobo), a grain formerly used only to feed livestock. Later, we were smarter, so we hid some fish when we went fishing. We only sold some portions to the cooperative. Then my wife secretly sold them to people who wanted it because nobody could sell things in the market. Nobody dared to buy it. Gradually, a black market was formed. Since then, our life got better”.

During that time, rumours about the people who left the country kept being circulated throughout the community. Some people left the country on their own boats as they could not stand living under such conditions. Mr. Phu recalled: “There were families separated because some members fled the country, very sad. Gradually, they had to overcome the loss and move on with life. After some time, there was information about the people who had left the country, information about humanitarian programs for refugees. It led to the wave of leaving the country”.

Hoang: How did they leave? Phu: People here left a lot, about one third of the population. They had boats and went out to sea to be picked up. Hoang: How did they have enough oil? Phu: They had to hide or buy from the black market with higher price and saved some oil from every fishing trip and waited until the departure to pick the saved-up oil. Some people could leave, but some others were arrested. Hoang: Did you try to go yourself? Phu: My family did not go because a brother of mine was in a re-education camp. We did not want to leave him alone. If we had gone, it would have been easy because our family had a boat. But I thought fleeing would have been risky. Staying at home was difficult but we could still manage.

The history of 45 years of Thanh Hai parish [Kỷ yếu 45 năm giáo xứ Thanh Hải] writes that in early 1975, the population of the parish was 6,300 people (Historical Sketch of Thanh Hai parish 1999). From 1975 to 1979, the number of people who fled the country by boats was high enough to catch the attention of local authorities. The church of Thanh Hai parish was ordered to be

208 closed in 1980 by a decision of the People’s Committee of Phan Thiet city.4 According to a memoir of Mr. Kham, a former president of the parish: “On February 12th 1980, Father Vu Ngoc Dang, the pastor of the parish, was arrested as a suspect for helping people to leave the country, Thanh Hai church was then closed”. From 1980 to February 7, 1988 Thanh Hai parishioners had to go to church in a nearby parish, Vinh Thuy parish. However, Mr. Kham writes, “people not only maintained the faith and dedication [sốt sắng] but also kept praying to God for the parish to be able to function again” (Memoir of Mr. Kham). After eight years, local governments saw no threats from the parish and allowed the parishioners to re-open the church. From 1988, Thanh Hai parish resumed its function and its population reached a total of 6,600 people in 2005 (Thanh Hai parish’s Historical Sketch 2005).

1.1.2. Phuoc Tinh commune

The war spread to Phuoc Tuy province (currently Ba Ria-Vung Tau province) and to Phuoc Tinh commune around 28 and 29 April, 1975. Mr. Tuc recalled: “After the Liberation in 1975, about three fifths of the Catholic population in Phuoc Tinh parish and Tan Phuoc parish got onto their boats for evacuation. Since people of these two parishes had engaged in the fishing industry, people just got onto their boats and went out to the sea. They were then picked up by American naval ships. Some people, while fishing, had seen American naval ships waiting out there, some others only went out to avoid the fights”. With a similar experience, Mr. Doc, like many other people, also went out to the sea on his own boat to avoid the battles. He commented: “It was like this: I and my family left for the sea because on April 28 and 29 most people had left on their boats. People who did not have boats also went with other people. When it was liberated, we were floating on the sea.”

Hoang: But why did you want to go out? Doc: I saw people leaving, so I also left, it was like in 1954 when we travelled [from the North to the South of Vietnam]. Hoang: I thought you were led by priests to the South in 1954? Doc: No, my family was not led by priests, I just followed the line of moving people. We left at night, we saw the ship docking outside. In 1975, I did not leave the country, I just

4 Decision No. 21/QĐ was issued on February 11, 1980 by the People’s Committee of Phan Thiet city. 209

went out to the sea. People who were afraid of the [Communist] regime left the country after the Liberation. They feared that under this regime they would be mistreated, and their next generation would also be victimized. Hoang: So how did the new authority treat you after 1975? Doc: It was normal because I served in the local militia [nghĩa quân] in the Puppet time [thời Ngụy].5 In fact, I was also afraid but nothing happened. I came out to declare that I had served in the militia, then I was educated for one week in the local office only.

Not only did people leave around April 30, 1975, a number of people also secretly fled the country in the following months and years. In Phuoc Tinh as well as in Thanh Hai, Phan Thiet, the number of Catholic population were dominant before 1975 as they were Northern migrants resettled after the Geneva Accords in 1954. The reason why Catholic population left Vietnam could be dated back to the war against the French from 1946 to 1954 in the North of Vietnam. The relationship between the Catholic population in the North of Vietnam and Ho-Chi-Minh-led Viet Minh was antagonistic during the war against the French. Especially, each of the two dioceses of Phat Diem (in Ninh Binh province) and Bui Chu (in Nam Dinh province) maintained a self-defense militia against Viet Minh forces (Hansen 2009: 179). Peter Hansen noted that “[M]any northern Catholics had fought not only for the Catholic militia but also under French command” (Hansen 2009: 179). In 1975, the threat of getting persecuted by communist forces was one of the reasons why originally-northern Catholics tried to leave the country. Other populations were also in fear of massacres like what had happened in the Tet Offensive in Hue in 1968. It led to a chaotic situation throughout South Vietnam.

Mr. Phuc, a parishioner of Phuoc Tinh parish, recalled: “At that time, I was a helper for mass. Everyday people went to church at 4 a.m., discussing who had left the night before. Nobody knew what the future would be like for these people. The whole parish was very sad. Attending the mass, we could see who had left. I was moved. I think about seventy percent of the parishioners left. In my family, six people left”.

5 “Puppet” [Ngụy] is the term used by Vietnamese communist people during and after the Vietnam War to refer to the South Vietnam regime (the Republic of Vietnam). Literally, it means the regime is the puppet of the United States. It is used with a derogatory meaning. 210

Mr. Tuc shared with me: “People began to leave in 1975, and also from 1977-1978 when people felt that they could not stand living like that. At that time, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) had a program to rescue boat people, from 1977-1978 until 1983-1984. The time from 1978 to 1985 people often left at night. In the morning when we heard about some boats had left, we felt touched. It [the departures of a large number of parishioners] motivated more people to leave, the whole parish wavered between going and staying”.

After the Reunification, the co-operative economic model was also applied to Phuoc Tinh commune. Father Liem, who was a pastor of Phuoc Tinh parish, recalled a challenging question asked by his parishioners: “At that time the authorities inspected the catch of local cooperatives. Some people asked me ‘Father, do I have to confess if I steal my own fish?’ or ‘The fish I catch belong to me or to the government?’ These questions are really true”. He explained why the parishioners raised those questions: “That was because they [Communists] forced me [parishioner] to weigh and sell the fish I catch to them, at their price. How I could survive with such a cheap price. Therefore, I had to hide some fish for my family”. Father Liem then put the question to me: “What do you think about these questions? How would you answer?” I also felt embarrassed because I could not find the answer myself. Then I agreed with the priest that these questions were tough.

In the mid-1980s, people in Phuoc Tinh resumed work as before. Father Liem mentioned two reasons, first because everyone must work to earn a livelihood, and secondly, the refugee programs stopped receiving people. However, he commented: “People in Phuoc Tinh now do not really have the desire to do business [không tha thiết làm ăn]. People from abroad send money to their family members here. I think a more precise word is lazy [lười biếng] because they have relied on financial aid from abroad. In fact, some people still work, but they have support from overseas relatives. They run the business but don’t care about whether it is successful or not because they are still backed by overseas resources”. This opinion leads me to explore the long- distance relationship between Phuoc Tinh people and their overseas relatives.

211

6.1.2. Maintaining Long-distance Connections

6.1.2.1. Relationship with Family

Thanh Hai and Phuoc Tinh are home villages of a number of people in New Orleans. This section will explore the transnational relationship between people of the diaspora and the hometowns in Vietnam. After the Unification in 1975, a significant number of people from these Catholic parishes continued fleeing the country until the early of 1980s due to the difficult economic life under the co-operative model and the command economy. During that period, there were few letters sent home from abroad. Only after the Open-door policy in 1986, people who had left Vietnam since 1975 began to send home more goods and made some return visit to their home villages.

Compared to the pre-1975 image of “the commune of millionaires” [xã tỉ phú], Phuoc Tinh commune became quiet and empty during the command economy. Mr. Tuc recalled: “After 1975, the fishing industry in Phuoc Tinh was degraded. It was because the gas supply was limited and the authority applied some strict policies”. From 1975 to 1978, people in Phuoc Tinh had no information about the parishioners who had left. After being away for few years, since 1978, people from abroad began to contact their relatives at home. Hoang: About the period from 1975 to 1980, did you keep contact with people who had left? Tuc: After 1975, there was no information about them in 1976-1977. I think since 1978 onwards, there were letters and gifts sent from abroad. Hoang: How were the letters sent? Tuc: At the time, letters were the only means of communication. We did not have telephone. A letter took about two to three months to arrive because it had to go through a third country. Vietnam and the United States did not have relationship. Hoang: What were the gifts? How were the gifts sent? Tuc: The gifts were mainly daily use stuffs. It was like relatives from abroad sending home money because most people sold the gifts for money to buy daily supplies. Those years, goods in Vietnam were very rare. So the wave of gifts was a financial aid for relatives here.

212

People in Phuoc Tinh admitted that the gifts sent from abroad during the command economy period significantly helped their financial situation. Mr. Phuc: “People in Phuoc Tinh received goods such as medicine, clothes, and electronics from their relatives living abroad. Then people had something to buy food [by selling the gifts for money]. I also needed help from my children living abroad when my fishing business failed a few times”.

Thanh Hai parishioners also experienced the same kind of financial aid. Mr. Phu recalled: “When Vietnam and the United States began to have diplomatic relationship, people who had left after the war also began to send home goods, clothes, textiles. People at home sold these goods for money to live. With foreign goods, the life of some people in Thanh Hai was better. Otherwise, economic life was difficult. You would have been arrested if you had run business. There was no free trade at that time”.

Mr. Hanh’s story: Hoang: After 1975 did you notice about the goods sent from abroad here? Hanh: Yes, from 1975 to 1979 people here were starving. Local people in Thanh Hai parish had to eat rice mixed with sorghum [bobo]. But after 1979 people from abroad began to send home, not money, but clothes and goods. Since then, life in Thanh Hai got better. To be frank, the relationship was among family members, brothers with brothers. Hoang: Do you mean people sent goods to family members? Hanh: Yes, relatives sent to relatives, like Mrs. Trung and I. Although we have lived far from each other, “a drop of blood is better than a pond of water” [Một giọt máu đào hơn ao nước lã]. The sentiments between brothers and sisters, between parents and children, are very warm.

A former president of Thanh Hai parish said: “Around 1980 people began to receive goods from abroad, goods only, not money. I think overseas people just wanted to probe whether it was possible for people at home to receive goods. The goods were extremely useful because people could sell them to pay for living expenses, for children to go to school and to repair the houses”.

It is clear that goods from abroad contributed to the life quality of people staying behind. However, what overseas people had to face during that time remained unknown for the relatives in Vietnam.

213

6.1.2.2. Relationship with Home Parishes

Not only maintaining relationship with family, people from abroad also keep a spiritual relationship with the homeland. Both case studies of Tan Phuoc parish and Thanh Hai parish show a strong sentiment of overseas parishioners toward their home parishes.

The church of Thanh Hai parish was closed in 1980 because the pastor priest was arrested for being suspected of helping parishioners to leave the country (Historical Sketch of Thanh Hai parish 1999). The government allowed it to re-open for service again in 1988. However, after eight years without maintenance, the church was in need of reconstruction. The council of the parish met and planned to rebuild the church in the following years. Knowing that the parishioners themselves could not afford to build a new church, the council composed a heart- appealing letter (tâm thư) to overseas people. Mr. Phu shared with me: “About the contribution to the reconstruction of the church, I must say that about 70 to 80 percent [of the cost] belongs to overseas Vietnamese. For example, we spent hundreds of thousand U.S. dollars to build this church. I was the general secretary of the parish, so I knew the details. While the money was from overseas parishioners, local parishioners contributed labour to build the church”.

Hoang: So how did you ask the overseas parishioners to contribute money for the parish? Phu: We launched the campaign by composing a letter and send copies to people living abroad. Of course, the parish asked families which had overseas members to call for help. Over there, Viet Kieu established a group called “Friendship Society [Nhóm ái hữu] of Ba Làng – Thanh Hóa” and organized meetings to raise the fund. People kept contributing to the society and whenever they obtained $5,000 or $10,000 USD, the organizers sent the money to the parish here. But they could not send by official ways. At that time, around 1992-1993 when there were people who visited Vietnam, they asked them to carry cash to the parish. Hoang: Where was the Friendship society located? Phu: In New Orleans. A lot of Thanh Hai parishioners live in New Orleans, a few more live in California and Texas.

A detail that not everybody knew was that Thanh Hai parish’s leaders did not send the heart- appealing letter from Phan Thiet city. Mr. Hanh told me: “We asked for contact information

214 from local parishioners. However, we did not send the letters in Phan Thiet. We had to go to the city [Ho Chi Minh City] to send the letters in 1992 to 1993”. He explained that they had to do it in order to keep it secret and to avoid any trouble with the authorities because this was an activity involving people from abroad.6

The historical sketch of Thanh Hai parish in 2005 wrote: “On December 9, 1993 the inauguration ceremony of the church was held with the presence of the Very Reverends of Phan Thiet diocese and Da Lat diocese”. This case suggests that after twenty years living aboard, former Thanh Hai parishioners still maintained a spiritual sentiment towards the home parish.

Regarding the case of Tan Phuoc parish in Phuoc Tinh commune, the church was destroyed by a storm in December 5, 2006. After that the council of the parish convinced the pastor to build a new church instead of repairing it. The reason was that the collapsed church was built a long time ago, in 1964.7 Since everything had been outdated, the storm just made the final hit for the collapse. Father Huy, the vice-pastor of Tan Phuoc parish recalled: “The roof on the center altar was blown away and the roof then collapsed. The wall had been cracked for a long time. That’s why we had to rebuild the church. After the storm, the council of the parish met and decided to rebuild the church because if we had just repaired the roof, the church would have remained the old one. So we decided to build a new one”. The problem of the parish was how to get enough money for the construction. Everyone knew that they could not merely rely on local parishioners. Mr. Thang, a former president of the parish council, said: “The parish asked each family to contribute two million Vietnam dong for the construction project.8 However, it was not worth much for the needed amount of money, and there were families that did not contribute anything”. Father Huy explained: “When we decided to rebuild the church, we knew that we couldn’t rely on local parishioners because they themselves were also affected by the storm. So we thought about overseas parishioners.”

The year 2006 was the 31th year after the first Phuoc Tinh commune parishioners left their hometown to become refugees in 1975. It was at this moment that the relationship between

6 Although the local authorities knew that the church was being rebuilt, local parishioners believed that the authorities did not know where the main source of money came from. 7 http://www.giaophanbaria.org/gioi-thieu/cac-giao-hat/giao-hat-ba-ria/12/05/giao-xu-tan-phuoc.html#.USfixlfzmP8 8 Equaled $125 USD in January 2007. 215 former parishioners and their homeland relatives emerged to be the main resource for the parish in this chaotic situation. A significant amount of the population of Tan Phuoc parish left Vietnam after 1975 by boat. After settling down in other countries such as the United States or Australia, they have contacted home and have maintained a relationship through gifts and remittances. As everyone knew that people from abroad had better financial resources than those staying in Vietnam, the priests and the council of the parish made a request that parishioners should try to contact their relatives living abroad in order to help the parish to have the money to rebuild the church. The progress was relatively fast in the sense that while the church collapsed in December 2006, Father Huy could made a fund-raising trip to Australia in June 2007 and another trip to the United States in November 2007. Father Huy recalled: “At the beginning, we thought that we only needed to ask overseas people to send back their contributions. After the initial contact, they suggested that I should go there and directly talk to the people because they had already talked everything. They said they would arrange for me to work there. That’s why I went abroad”. In Australia, Father Huy was welcomed in Sydney and taken to see several Vietnamese Tan Phuoc people. They also organized fund-raising parties for Father Huy to meet and update local people about the progress of the construction. He visited Sydney, Melbourne, Queensland, and even Perth on the Western coast. All of his expenses were paid by people in Australia although they had never met him. Father Huy commented: “I contacted the overseas Vietnamese through local parishioners because only relatives knew how to contact their overseas relatives. I went there without knowing the people who would pick me up. I just brought a picture of them with me. After I arrived at the airport, some people came to ask me, then I knew them for the first time”.

In November 2007, Father Huy visited Santa Ana, CA, Houston, TX, and New Orleans, LA for fund-raising. In New Orleans, he stayed in Village de l’Est in the house of a person originally from Tan Phuoc parish. That person organized meetings with several Tan Phuoc people for Father Huy to talk about the church-rebuilding progress. He recalled: “In the United States, they did not organize fund-raising parties like in Australia. I was taken to previous Tan Phuoc parishioners and met some people whom I had known”.

Hoang: Did you ask about their sentiment towards the homeland? Father Huy: Yes, they still maintained the love to the homeland and the home parish. A problem was that life at home was still difficult, so they had to live far away from the

216

homeland. They said although their economic conditions were better, they felt the lack of homeland sentiment. Therefore, they loved to meet people from the homeland. Their sentiment always leaned toward the homeland. Hoang: Did you meet people who had returned to Tan Phuoc? Father Huy: Yes, I met a lot. Some people had already known about the collapsed church. They told me that they had known because they had visited their homeland and seen the collapsed church. Hoang: Could you let me know about the result of the trips? Father Huy: It was good (smile). In general, we gained enough money to build the church. Therefore, the church was constructed fast.

The new church of Tan Phuoc parish was completed in 2009. Father Huy let me know that “although the estimated amount to build the church was four billion Vietnam dong9, the final expense was a bit higher”. The case suggests that people living abroad maintained relationship with their close relatives in the homeland. The relationship with the parish is spiritual and it turned out to be a responsibility as they are former parishioners and they are the people of God.

6.1.3. Discussion

Transnational Relations

Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have maintained a long-distance relationship with their family and home parish in Vietnam. It is the transnational goods that helped their relatives remaining in Vietnam overcome the economic hardship of the command economy from 1976- 1986. These findings supported Dorais’ argument that “family relations, transnational or not, play a crucial part in defining Viet Kieu culture and social life” (Dorais 2001: 15). They are also congruent with Basch et al. ‘s finding that immigrants forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement (Basch et al. 1994: 7).

Besides the relatives living in Vietnam, home parishes are the places that people of the diaspora share collective memories. Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson point out that “remembered places have often served as symbolic anchors of community for dispersed people” (Gupta & Ferguson

9 In 2006, four billion Vietnam Dong approximately equaled $260,365.81 USD. 217

1992: 11). Despite being away for more than thirty years and not even knowing the current pastors of the parish, their strong sentiment toward the home parish is showed clearly in the two cases of Thanh Hai and Tan Phuoc parishes. Contributing the majority of the budget for reconstruction of the churches, overseas Vietnamese have maintained a spiritual connection with the home parish. A factor that must have influenced them was the fact that they were Catholics. For the Catholics, the church, called God’s house, is the most sacral and respected place. Therefore, once knowing that the church at home needed reconstructing, overseas Vietnamese immediately organized fund-raising campaigns for the home parish. In fact, overseas Vietnamese Catholic churches have always referred themselves as “a part of the Vietnamese Catholic garden” [Mảnh vườn của Giáo hội Việt Nam] expelled from the homeland. I observed that this notion is repeated in most masses of the MQVN church. The priests kept asking parishioners to pray for the peace of the Catholic Congregation [Giáo hội Công giáo Việt Nam] in Vietnam. Stephanie Dufoix’s argument that “the placement of religion in the spiritual world actually tends to keep it separate from the division of territory into political units, namely, states” (Dufoix 2008: 76) seems to be applicable in these two cases. Dufoix points out that “religion can help mesh the referent-origin and the creation of a nonterritorial existence” (Dufoix 2008: 78). Nevertheless, although spiritual sentiment of overseas Vietnamese has been enduring, both cases of Thanh Hai and Tan Phuoc church rebuilding may not have been that successful without the long-distance relationship of family members.

Problems of Remittances

Remittances [kiều hối] refer to the money sent to someone in a country by people living abroad. Although overseas Vietnamese have maintained relationship with their relatives and home parishes, the practice of sending money back to Vietnam has been an on-going debate in the diaspora. Since the 1990s, remittances have gone to Vietnam through formal channels such as bankwires or international remittance services. It has become one of the major indicators for a fiscal year of Vietnam. News agencies in Vietnam reported that if the total of remittances was 1,2 billion U.S dollars in 1999, it was eight billion U.S dollars in 2010 and nine billion U.S. dollars in 2011 (Linh 2012; Tâm 2012). According to the World bank’s publication, the total

218 amount of remittances in Vietnam was 8,6 billion U.S. dollars in 2011 which is equivalent to 6.3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Vietnam in the same year.10

Nguoi Viet Online writes: “The amount grew from $1 billion dollars in 1999 to $9 billion dollars in 2011. This amount puts Vietnam on the list of top 16 remittance- receiving countries in the world. (…) It is arguable that remittances help the Communist government of Vietnam to have more foreign currency for the national reserve, reducing the shortage of national budget, and balancing the trade deficit.”

(Nguoi Viet Online: P.L. 2012)

However, these figures are only the visible part of an ice-berg. People from abroad have a number of ways to send home money. Besides sending remittances through the formal channels, people living abroad also bring along cash with them when visiting Vietnam (Carruthers 2001: 208). Although the government of Vietnam set a limit of $7,000 USD per person ($5,000 USD since 2011) for the cash-carrying amount without declaration requirement at a port of entry to Vietnam, that cash-carrying amount has remained an unknown figure. In an interview with me, a vice-president of the People’s Committee of Phuoc Tinh commune commented that:

Tuynh: Generally, our commune has a relatively large amount of overseas Vietnamese. They only return to visit their families. In terms of remittances, we don’t have the information. Hoang: Do you know which office may have this information? Tuynh: I also don’t know which one. Think like this, if they send foreign money for their family members to build houses, we won’t know how much.

Most of my respondents who had travelled to Vietnam affirmed that they had to spend about $20,000.00 USD for a three to four-week trip to Vietnam. Being seen as “Viet kieu”, they also set a financial responsibility for themselves. Mrs. Lu, who made a few visits to Vietnam, told me: “I returned to visit my nephews and nieces, and I also travelled around Vietnam. It’s not that I am rich, but I want to help the poor in Vietnam. When I was in Phan Thiet, I went out to give money to the poor, the elderly and also my relatives”. Mr. Minh, a leader of the Vietnamese

10 The GDP of Vietnam in 2011 was slightly over 135 billion USD ($135,539,487,317.00 USD) (World Bank). 219

American Community in Louisiana (VAC), recalled: “I returned once in 1992. Now I don’t have any plan yet, but in order to return I have to have money to give to my poor relatives. I brought $30,000 USD to Vietnam in 1992 and only declared at the customs that I brought $7,000 USD. But the money ran out quickly as I gave to the poor. I think my return was not like the return of a successful person, but I returned to live in the love of the family, of the poor relatives. I remember that when I exchanged $500 USD, the shop owner asked me how I wanted the banknotes. I replied that I wanted $50,000 VND banknotes to give to the poor. She was surprised and suggested me to give $1,000 to $2,000 VND only for the handouts. But I insisted on $50,000 VND banknotes”. Therefore, besides giving money to their relatives, overseas Vietnamese visiting Vietnam also spent a great deal of money for charity.

The Vietnamese American media, such as SBTN and VHN-TV, have recently had advertisements and programs encouraging Vietnamese Americans not to send money to Vietnam.11 The main reason is that the money will contribute to the prolonging of the communist regime in Vietnam. In April 2013, a petition campaign was launched among Vietnamese Americans, requesting the White House to issue an act limiting the practice of sending remittances to Vietnam due to the violation of human rights by the Vietnamese government. The Voice of America Radio (VOA) writes: “Vietnamese Americans who launched the petition campaign on April 12 argued that the annual remittances of overseas Vietnamese [kiều bào] brought to Vietnam from the visits and financial aid for relatives were so much that they were enough for the government of Vietnam to extend their violation of human rights and to pay for the national debt” (Tra Mi 2013). What they wanted was that the U.S government should establish an office surveilling overseas properties of Americans such as the one for Cuban refugees in 2004 under George W. Bush’s presidency.

In supporting this idea, a Vietnamese American man is quoted: “I totally agree with the petition. I think that Vietnamese people here (the United States) also have to work hard to have money. But they have sent home too much. In fact, when I visited Vietnam few years ago, I saw people spend that money wastefully. So, if the U.S government and President Obama issue a decree to limit this practice, I will appreciate it” (Hoa Ai 2013). A woman from the Netherlands said: “I

11 SBTN: Saigon Broadcasting Television Network; VHN-TV: Overseas Vietnamese Television. 220 support 100 percent. It is because we only see communists suppress our ordinary people when we go back to Vietnam. It makes us more painful, so visiting Vietnam is not happy at all. If we continue to send money and visit Vietnam, it will be an indirect way to lend a hand to the communists. It will be great if this petition is widely spread to many people. It can be an attack on the communists” (Hoa Ai 2013).

Although a number of overseas Vietnamese have shared the idea in the two direct quotes above, many other people have disagreed with this rigid idea. My interviews show that although Vietnamese New Orleanders dislike the Vietnamese government, people who still have relatives in Vietnam think that sending money to the relatives in Vietnam is their responsibility. This is the case with Mrs. Tap, a person of the first generation, working for a non-profit organization in New Orleans:

Hoang: I saw a debate on TV about whether we should send money to relatives in Vietnam. What do you think about this? Tap: I think, first of all, it is for our family, secondly, it helps the economic conditions of Vietnamese better. We should definitely help our family. And when our family is better, it is a kind of contribution to the homeland. Hoang: But I heard that people said sending money to Vietnam was a way to help the Vietnamese government? Tap: We have to think about our family members who are living in critical conditions. If we don’t send money to them, if we don’t help them when they need, we would lack mercy/clemency. I think it is difficult because if my parents were sick and in need of money, I would definitely send money to help them. They are my mom and dad, how I can ignore that? The people who said that did not understand that there were people whose parents, spouse or children were still in Vietnam. If something happened to them, how could I not help them? But if the money is used wastefully, it is the receivers’ fault, not the regime’s.

However, family members here are mostly understood as parents, spouse and siblings. Other relatives also receive some gifts when overseas Vietnamese visit Vietnam. I was showed some gifts, for example bottles of green oil, that people in Vietnam had received from their overseas

221 relatives. My respondents in New Orleans have spent more time taking care of their parents more than other members. Mr. Thien, born in 1961 and arriving in the United States in 1982, shared with me:

When my parents were alive, I sent money home every month. I have an opinion that my parents had raised me, so I had a responsibility to help them. I think that is common among Vietnamese people. Once I got married and had children, I understood how much difficulty my parents had had to raise me, not to mention that they had to live in a much worse condition. So I love my parents. I think that because I lived far from them, the only way I could help them was to send home money. I told my brother and sisters that you let me provide the money, and you spent time taking care of our parents.

Mr. Thien expressed his gratitude to his parents by sending home money for his siblings to take care of them. He knew that he could earn more money than his siblings in Vietnam and were willing to provide financial assistance in exchange for his absence. For him, the filial piety of children to parents should be showed when the parents were in need of help. He expressed his disagreement with the call from the media for not sending home money:

Hoang: I watched TV and noticed that there was a campaign requesting overseas Vietnamese not to visit Vietnam and not to send money to Vietnam because it would help prolong the Vietnamese government. What do you think about it? Thien: That campaign was right in a sense. But I would question that: if your parents are ill in Vietnam, do you let your parents die of hunger there? Some people keep making up such overwhelming suggestions. These people are the ones who have no close relatives in Vietnam, so they think that way. But it does not fit my situation. The money we sent home was used to take care of our parents, not used to show off. If someone asked me to do that [not to send money], I would ask them if they did the same for their parents. Hoang: How about siblings? Thien: They are my brothers and sisters. I would help the ones that are poor. If they already have stable jobs, I won’t help. I would just give them some gifts when I visit Vietnam. If they want to borrow money for investment, I would lend it to them. I would

222

tell them that this is a loan, “you have to pay me back”. But in my mind, I mean I give them for free. If they success, it’s good for them.

Similar to Mrs. Tap and Mr. Thien, Mrs. Phuoc, a person of 1.5 generation, thought that the practice of travelling and sending money to Vietnam was a personal issue. She argued that:

Phuoc: Sending money to the family in Vietnam is a personal issue. It is not common for everyone. We can help family members in Vietnam if something happens to the family. If somebody dies and people have no money, we should certainly send home money. Visiting Vietnam is also the same thing, a personal choice. It is because we have to spend money wherever we go, such as to Canada, to France, or Australia. Do we not spend money there? Hoang: Yeah, but the idea here is that people do not want to send home the money that helps prolong the communist regime. Phuoc: I think that is still a personal choice because wherever I go, I only think that I pay for the service I use. If you don’t want to visit Vietnam, you can go somewhere else. [Ok, you don’t like it, don’t go].12 This is America, so some people can’t speak for everyone.

The quotes above show that Mr. Thien and Mrs. Phuoc did not refer to the existence of the Vietnamese government. Instead, they focused more on family issues and personal choice regarding these practices. For them, responsibility, filial piety and personal choice are more important than dealing with the government of Vietnam. From the perspective of a person who had travelled and provided financial aid to people in Vietnam, Father Tran, who arrived in the United States in 1978 when he was 13 years old, shared with me:

I think that sending money to Vietnam or traveling to Vietnam is a personal issue. Each person has his own reason. If you send $1,000 USD to your family in Vietnam, your family will have the benefit, it helps the economic situation of the family. But eventually, the money (foreign currency) will remain in Vietnam and get into the system. If we didn’t go back to Vietnam, many people would die of hunger because nobody would use the services in hotels, taxi, restaurants and so on. You know, without millions of people

12 Speaking in English. 223

visiting Vietnam, people who provide the service would die of hunger! Vietnamese Americans spend about $5,000 to 10,000 USD for every visit. Communists would not die, but ordinary people would die.

The practice of sending home money created a social expectation for local people in Vietnam toward the returnees. During my fieldtrip in Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet in Vietnam, I experienced a feeling of being observed as a Viet kieu (overseas Vietnamese). In the first day when I was introduced to my respondent’s friends in a café shop as a person who had returned from New Orleans, they looked at me as if I had been a Viet kieu. I noticed their eyesight on the quality of my shirt, jeans and shoes. Later, I discovered that overseas Vietnamese men often returned to their hometown to find potential wives. Moreover, the images of Viet kieu in those locations are people who have money and are generous. My landlord in Phan Thiet told me about the conversation with her aunt who had introduced me to her: “When aunt Lu introduced you to me through telephone, she requested me not to ask you for money because you were a student. Hearing that, I was shocked because I had never thought about asking you for money”. Then she told me that Mrs. Lu often visited the parish and used to give money to her relatives. Therefore, Mrs. Lu was afraid that people would expect me to give them some money from Mrs. Lu. Moreover, this expectation of relatives in Vietnam has also become a barrier that prevents overseas Vietnamese from visiting their hometown. Most my respondents shared with me that they spent a significant amount of money when visiting Vietnam. Other respondents who had not made any trip to Vietnam explained to me that they did not have enough money to visit Vietnam. Mrs. Van, an oyster shucker, commented:

The first reason is that I don’t have enough money, I have too many children and my job pays cheap. Secondly, close relatives such as my parents, my parent-in-law, siblings are all living here. I only have cousins and relatives in Vietnam. But if I return, I would have to give them gifts. It would be uncomfortable to visit them without gifts. My parents were looked down because they sent little money, $100 to $200 USD, to their relatives in Vietnam. People there said that my parents were fake Viet kieu [Việt kiều rởm]. Hearing that comments, I was afraid of returning home. And even if I want to return, I would not have enough money.

224

In sum, the practices of sending home money and visiting Vietnam have been common in New Orleans. Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans express a close connection with their relatives remaining in Vietnam. Familial responsibility and religious piety are the two main factors that tie overseas Vietnamese to their homeland. From a diaspora perspective, overseas Vietnamese hold strong memories of the homeland. The interviews show that Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans recognize their role as people of more privilege than their relatives in Vietnam. The remittances sent by them to their close relatives are in some cases seen as an exchange for the labour that their siblings have spent in taking care of their parents. Even people without close relatives in Vietnam such as Mrs. Tap and Father Nam have maintained sentiment and support for disadvantaged people in Vietnam. It confirms their position as a diasporic group in relation with the people in Vietnam.

6.2. Opposing De-territorialisation Policy

Nation-building processes have been a major focus of transnational studies since the 1990s. The work of Linda Basch et al. (1994) set a foundation for a global perspective in this field. By looking beyond the constrained boundaries of the nation-states of Grenada, Haitian and the Philippines, the authors point out the significant influences of the immigrants on their countries of origin. Moreover, the authors also illustrate how the national leaders in their home countries have articulated the national discourses that claim their overseas nationals as inseparable parts of the nation-states. For the case of Vietnam, although overseas Vietnamese, who left Vietnam as refugees, began to visit Vietnam in the early 1990s, a significant part of the diaspora and the government of Vietnam have never got along with each other. This section will explore the processes in which Vietnamese government and Vietnamese Americans have interacted with each other.

Before analysing the relationship between the Vietnamese government and Vietnamese Americans, I would like to introduce the development of the state’s agency dealing with overseas Vietnamese affairs and the history of relationship between Vietnam and overseas Vietnamese. The relationship with overseas Vietnamese has been a concern of the Communist Party of Vietnam since its infancy. For us to see the increasing implementation of the de-territorialisation policy, this section will briefly present the history of the office in charge of affairs relating to

225 overseas Vietnamese. Published in an online article on Quê hương [Homeland] magazine, an official publication of the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese, the history of relationship with overseas Vietnamese is considered to begin with the establishment of the Communist Party in 1930 (Quê hương Online 2005). Nguyen Ai Quoc (president Ho Chi Minh) propagated networks of overseas Vietnamese living in France, China, Thailand, and received a great deal of support for his Revolutionary career. After the inauguration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) on 2nd September 1945, the president called for support from Vietnamese people living in Vietnam and abroad. Overseas Vietnamese assisted the Vietnamese government in the Fontainebleau Conference in 1946 and mobilized public opinion in France to support the independence of Vietnam. On November 23, 1959, the Central Department of Overseas Vietnamese [Ban Việt kiều Trung ương] was officially established under the government of the DRV and become a center for cooperating with overseas Vietnamese to support the cause of the war against Americans. In 1995, it was renamed to the Commission on Overseas Vietnamese [Ủy ban về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài], and in 2008, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued another directive modifying the Commission’s name to the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese [Ủy ban Nhà nước về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài] (SRV 2008).13 The term Nhà nước [State] is added to the name of the organization as it “emphasises the governmental essence of affairs relating to overseas Vietnamese, confirming the role of an advisory institution for the Party and the government in the new era” (Thấn 2008). The mission of this Commission is to manage the affairs relating to overseas Vietnamese. A deputy minister of Foreign Affairs is appointed to be the head of the Commission.

6.2.1. Resolution No. 36/NQ-TW/2004 on Overseas Vietnamese

As described at the beginning of this chapter, from 1976 to 1986, the centrally planned economy [Nền kinh tế kế hoạch hóa tập trung] with state-owned and collective-owned enterprises of Vietnam resulted in a decline in production and low life quality throughout the country (V. C.

13 Legal documents related to the name changes: Nghị quyết 08/TW "Về chính sách và công tác đối với người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài", ngày 29 tháng 11 năm 1993; Nghị định 77/CP “Về đặt Ủy ban về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài trực thuộc Bộ Ngoại giao”, ngày 06 tháng 11 năm 1995; Quyết định số 243/2006/QĐ-TTg, ngày 27/10/2006 “Quy định chức năng, nhiệm vụ, quyền hạn và cơ cấu tổ chức của Ủy ban về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài trực thuộc Bộ Ngoại giao”; Quyết định số 102/2008/QĐ-TTg ngày 18/7/2008 của Thủ tướng Chính phủ quy định chức năng, nhiệm vụ, quyền hạn và cơ cấu tổ chức của Ủy ban Nhà nước về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài trực thuộc Bộ Ngoại giao. 226

Nguyen 1983; V. H. Nguyen 2007). After 1986, when the Open-door policy of Doi Moi was applied, the economic condition gradually became better. Remittances sent by overseas Vietnamese reached the level of $700 million USD per annum by the time of Doi Moi. Ashley Carruthers in 2001 points out: “an approximate of $1-1.2 billion USD is remitted to Vietnam annually through official channels, forming 5% of the country’s GDP or 11% of export earnings, and bringing more foreign exchange than any other source bar oil exports” (Carruthers 2001: 207).

Realizing this significant resource for the economy, the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam [Bộ Chính trị] issued the Resolution No. 36 [Nghị quyết số 36] in March 26, 2004. The Resolution, namely “Affairs relating to overseas Vietnamese” [Công tác đối với người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài], aims at promoting and strengthening the relationship between Vietnam and overseas Vietnamese. It proposes four directions [Chủ trương, Phương hướng] and nine major tasks [Nhiệm vụ chủ yếu] in the policy on overseas Vietnamese. The four directions include:

(1) Affairs with overseas Vietnamese have to display fully the tradition of the nation’s solidarity [truyền thống đại đoàn kết dân tộc]. The bases for the solidarity are national consciousness, national pride, and the shared goals of clearing prejudice, bias and discrimination brought about by history or class differences; building an open-minded spirit, respecting each other and looking towards the future. Vietnamese, regardless of ethnicity, religion, origin, social status, reasons for departure, wishing to contribute to these main goals of Vietnam, are parts of the nation’s solidarity.

(2) Overseas Vietnamese are an inseparable part and a resource of the Vietnamese community, an important factor that helps strengthening the relationship between our country and other countries.

(3) Affairs with overseas Vietnamese have to be synchronous with the policy of the state and the activities both in Vietnam and outside of the country. It should be implemented in multiple forms and methods appropriate for different subjects and locations, based on people’s spontaneity, without violating laws, customs and habits of local territories.

(4) Working with overseas Vietnamese is the responsibility of the whole political system. All Party’s organizations, the government, Vietnam’s Fatherland Front and people’s associations from the central level to local levels should consider this is an important task that aims to support the solidarity of the nation for building and protecting the nation.

227

The nine major tasks of the Resolution No.36 include: (1) The government creates favourable conditions for overseas Vietnamese to have a close relationship with the homeland, and to visit the country; (2) Build a new policy to attract overseas professionals and intellectuals for developing Vietnam; (3) Build a new policy to attract overseas Vietnamese to invest in business in Vietnam; (4) Renew and diversify ways to consolidate the solidarity among overseas Vietnamese; (5) Build and deploy a curriculum for young overseas Vietnamese to learn their homeland language; (6) Renew the way to propagandize the image, situation and policy of the government of Vietnam among overseas Vietnamese; (7) Compliment overseas Vietnamese who contribute to the solidarity of the overseas community; (8) All of the agencies of Vietnam are responsible for enhancing the relationship with overseas Vietnamese; (9) the Commission on Overseas Vietnamese consolidates its organization to adapt to the new situation.

Issued in 2004, the Resolution shows a switch in the view of the Politburo on overseas Vietnamese. In contrast to the period after the Reunification in 1975, the same people were called by different names at different times. Before 1990, people who left the country by boats had been referred to by terms with negative connotations such as “boat people” [thuyền nhân], “refugees” [dân tị nạn], and “exiles” [kẻ lưu vong]. Moreover, people caught on the way to flee the country were sentenced for several years in prison or re-education camps, and their properties were confiscated. The stories of unsuccessful boat people and the traumatic experiences of the successful ones enlarged the gap between overseas Vietnamese and the current government of Vietnam. Carruthers described that prior to 1986, overseas Vietnamese were allowed to remit money and send gifts but “the regime envisage no greater economic role for them than this” (Carruthers 2001: 192). However, after 6th Party Congress in 1986, when Vietnam applied the Open-door policy, there was a change in the terminology toward the overseas Vietnamese returnees. The returnees have been called “Việt kiều” or “kiều bào ở nước ngoài” [overseas Vietnamese] with a positive connotation. Carruthers noted that “Hanoi began to look towards the post-war diaspora as a source of capital for its program of economic revitalization” (Carruthers 2001: 192).

As presented in the previous section, the two opposite views toward the practice of sending remittances among the Vietnamese Americans have been an on-going discourse within the diaspora since the early 1990s (C. T. Tran & Do 2005; Người Việt 2012). The enactment of the

228

Resolution No. 36 in 2004 renewed the discourse once again as the government of Vietnam implemented the Resolution not only in Vietnam but also in other countries that had a Vietnamese population. Not all of the overseas Vietnamese objected to this policy of the Vietnamese government. Generally, a large population who lived in Eastern and Central European countries often stayed in touch with the representative offices of the Vietnamese government. This population consisted of a large number of people who participated in labour export treaties between the Vietnamese government and the country of residence, such as Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Germany, in the 1980s. After the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, a majority of this population stayed in Europe. According to Tran Trong Dang Dan’s research, the Vietnamese population in 12 ex-Soviet Union countries was about three hundred thousand in 1994 (T. D. D. Tran 2005: 40-41). This population does not hold the same perspective towards the government of Vietnam as the people who left Vietnam because of the victory of North Vietnam in 1975. Having a good relationship with the representative office of Vietnam in the country of residence, this population benefited from the implementation of the Resolution No. 36. However, this dissertation does not aim to discuss about this population. Therefore, it will keep focusing on the diasporic group who have resided in countries outside Eastern Europe.

Although the discourse on the practice of remittance had begun much earlier, the birth of Resolution No. 36 has indirectly contributed to the renewal of the debate on remittance-sending among Vietnamese Americans. While the divergence of opinions remains intact, the anti- communist diasporans have used the Vietnamese Communist Party’s Resolution No. 36 to make their arguments more visible and meaningful. This bears upon Safran’s argument regarding whether “a ‘homeland’ government may exploit diaspora sentiments for its purpose” (Safran 1991: 93). This question will be explored in the following section.

6.2.2. The Implementation of the De-territorialisation Policy

Besides the government agency, the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese, the Association for Liaison with Overseas Vietnamese (ALOV) [Hội liên lạc với người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài]

229 was established in 2002 (ALOV 2011).14 This is a spontaneous social association that opens to everyone, and belongs to Vietnam’s Fatherland Front [Mặt trận Tổ quốc Việt Nam].15 The establishment of the ALOV was to be a bridge connecting Vietnam with overseas Vietnamese. Its mission is to achieve the goal of “a wealthy people, a strong country, a just, democratic and advanced society” [dân giàu, nước mạnh, xã hội công bằng, dân chủ, văn minh], as well as “to protect legal and appropriate rights of overseas Vietnamese” (Association’s bylaw 2007). In each province, the People’s Committee will decide whether it is necessary to have a provincial ALOV. Both Ba Ria-Vung Tau province and Phan Thiet city have provincial and city’s ALOV organizations. Phuoc Tinh commune and Thanh Hai commune in which I conducted this research also have local ALOVs at the commune level. The head of each ALOV is appointed by a decision of the local People’s Committee and the local Fatherland Front. The following narratives of each local ALOV will shed light on the policy and the practice of the SRV government on overseas Vietnamese.

Phuoc Tinh ALOV was established in 2006, working under the Fatherland Front of Phuoc Tinh commune. Until 2012, it had 369 “members”. The reason why I put it in quotation marks is because the “members” seem not to be willing to join the ALOV. Mr. Phuc, a head of the ALOV, shared with me: “To be frank, the ALOV has only the name, and no real activities” [hữu danh vô thực]. The reason is because it has to function without funding, unlike the Farmers’ Association or the Red Cross”. Although Phuoc Tinh ALOV received institutional support from the Fatherland Front and the People’s Committee, these institutions could not provide funding for the ALOV to function. Like many other spontaneous social associations whose budgets come from membership dues and fund-raising projects, Phuoc Tinh ALOV also tried to encourage local families which had overseas relatives to join the Association. However, “Many times I announced an event for families of overseas Vietnamese to come and register, nobody came!”, said Mr. Phuc.

He thought about two reasons for this difficult situation: First, before the Resolution No. 36 was implemented, all of overseas Vietnamese had had to register with the commune authority

14 Established by Decision No. 01/2002 of the Government’s Committee on Organization and Human Resources [Quyết định số 01/2002/QĐ BTC CBCP ngày 2-1-2002 của Ban Tổ chức - Cán bộ Chính phủ]. 15 A spontaneous association established by a group of people based on their shared interests, professions or origins. Its members spontaneously choose to join or leave the association. 230 through the ALOV when they returned to visit their relatives. With the implementation of the Resolution No. 36, overseas Vietnamese are no longer required to register with the ALOV at the commune level when they return to visit their relatives. Therefore, the ALOV has no means to know who is in town in order to approach. He recalled: “When they [overseas Vietnamese] had to register with us, the officials could ask for contribution on site. Then, most of them contributed. Now we have no income”. The second reason is that the Viet kieu and their families expressed a hesitation to work with the ALOV. He explained: “Every time the ALOV heard that there was a Viet kieu visiting town, the Association sent some people to visit the family. However, the family expressed a frosty reception to the ALOV delegation”. Mr. Phuc continued: “Probably, they were afraid that the ALOV would ask for contribution. But it is not really true. It is because the ALOV is also a bridge connecting the homeland with the overseas Vietnamese. Everyone has a homeland. We just want to have an opportunity to introduce more about the homeland and to make them understand more about the life of people and the country”.

A key correspondent of mine commented: “Family who has members living abroad doesn’t like this Association. Whenever they saw him [Mr. Phuc] coming, the home-visiting Viet kieu ran to hide on other floors. They said they were busy because they only visited the hometown for a few days, they wanted to enjoy time with their families, not in meetings of the ALOV”.

After more than six years, Phuoc Tinh ALOV received no credit from Viet kieu. What Mr. Phuc wanted the most was to have the ALOV funded by the district authority. He complained: “I have used my own money to work for the community [‘ăn cơm nhà, vác tù và hàng tổng’], and my wife has always complained about this. I have to pay for gas with my own money to go to the district for meetings. I have to use my own money to organize activities for the ALOV or I have to look for limited donations from local entrepreneurs. But even that, nobody come to the events. It is too difficult to run the association!”

Thanh Hai commune has experienced a similar situation. The ALOV in Thanh Hai commune was established in 1995 with 80 “members” at the beginning. Mr. Hung, a head of Thanh Hai ALOV, shared with me: “Relatives of the Viet kieu did not want to join the association because they were afraid of being asked for contribution”. He explained that “in fact the Viet kieu

231 provided financial support directly for their family in terms of fishing boats, house construction, medical/emergency aid, and also for the Catholic parish. There’s nothing for the government”.

The mission of the ALOV to assist the Viet kieu in Thanh Hai commune also failed. Mr. Hung said: “To be frank, we really want it to function, but it has not. Overseas people who visit the commune should have passed through our ALOV office first. Then we can introduce them to other organizations and offices. But they just go for the shortcut, go to register directly with the authorities. I am very sad”. In April 2012, at the time I conducted this research, Mr. Hung sadly admitted: “the ALOV has not functioned well, there are members, but they have not come to any meeting. It’s likely that the ALOV is being disbanded”.

Regarding the official source, I was surprised when seeing no information about overseas Vietnamese in the 20-year report (1991-2010) and in the 2011 report of Phuoc Tinh commune. A vice-president of Phuoc Tinh People’s Committee told me in an interview: “Regarding the policy on overseas Vietnamese, this is the general policy of the government, aiming at providing favourable conditions for overseas Vietnamese to return and invest in local business. However, there has been no foreign investment directly from Viet kieu in Phuoc Tinh. They just help their own family members. In addition, the land resource of the commune is limited, so it is difficult for us to call for new projects”. In the registration book of local police [Sổ Đăng ký tạm trú: Khách là người nước ngoài, người Việt Nam định cư ở nước ngoài] beginning in January 2007, I recorded the number of overseas Vietnamese who had visited Phuoc Tinh.

Meanwhile, the issue of overseas Vietnamese is reported briefly in the section on Homeland Security and National Defense [An ninh Quốc phòng] of the annual reports of Thanh Hai commune. The 2011 annual report of Thanh Hai commune briefly reported that “In 2011, 77 overseas Vietnamese visited the commune. All of them were legally registered with the local authorities”. The number of overseas Vietnamese who visited the commune in 2010 was 76 and in 2009 was 96 (Annual reports of 2009 and 2010). A vice-president of the People’s Committee of Thanh Hai commune said: “For the last 10 years, the remittances from Viet kieu kept declining. People of the commune earn income mainly on fish-sauce making, housekeeping at resorts in Mũi Né, and petty shops along the main road of the commune. The commune has tried to approach Viet kieu and encourage them to invest in local business, but it’s difficult”. A

232 member of the People’s Council of Thanh Hai commune shared with me: “Local government has not had a clear plan or direction toward the Viet kieu. It is the policy of higher levels. There are no Viet kieu who have made investment in business in the commune. They just visit their relatives and give money to the family and the parish. But it’s good enough because it helps improve the life quality of certain people”.

Table 6.1. Statistics of Registered Foreign Visitors, overseas Vietnamese to Phuoc Tinh commune Year From Male Female 2007 U.S.A, Australia, Germany, Norway, Canada 107 68 2008 U.S.A, Australia 61 51 2009 France, U.S.A, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, 51 17 the Philippines, Mexico 2010 U.S.A, Norway, Australia, Canada, Denmark 32 23 2011 U.S.A, Canada, Denmark, Australia, China, 49 21 Norway, Malaysia 2012 (Up U.S.A; 4 1 to March)

We can see in this case that the Vietnamese government wants to claim overseas Vietnamese as a part of Vietnamese population. It is in line with Linda Basch et al.’s argument on de- territorialisation process. However, while the immigrants in the case of Basch are voluntary migrants, Vietnamese Americans in this study are forced migrants. Moreover, as they have settled in the United States, visiting their hometowns in Vietnam is just for a short period of time. The ALVOs in both Thanh Hai and Phuoc Tinh have failed to make any achievement.

In contrast to Priscilla Koh’s and Ivan Small’s findings that there are overseas Vietnamese permanently returning to Vietnam for economic opportunities (Koh 2011; Small 2012), Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai’s ALOVs failed to be a bridge that connect overseas Vietnamese to their hometowns’ economic investments. Moreover, although the de-territorialisation policy has been applied at local level, the commune authorities as well as the local ALOVs have found it difficult to implement the policy. Ethnographic materials in these two communes suggest similarities to

233

Carruthers’ findings that regard Vietnamese discourses of de-territorialisation as “a type of damage control”. Carruthers pointed out that the attempt of the Vietnamese government to legalise contacts with the diaspora was rather tentative. Overseas Vietnamese who engage in transnationalism are more family-oriented and self-interested than patriotic. Therefore, Carruthers concludes that they do not share the state’s vision of a Socialist Republic of Vietnam- loyal transnational Vietnam (Carruthers 2001: 227-228).

6.2.3. Counter-attacks of Vietnamese Americans

Overseas Vietnamese have never ceased to observe and analyze the agendas of the Politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the government of Vietnam. The case studies in this section will depict the responses of Vietnamese Americans to the de-territorialisation policy of the SRV. It helps to see how Vietnamese Americans position themselves when dealing with the expansion of Vietnamese communists.

6.2.3.1. The Case of Congressman Joseph Anh Cao

In the congress election of 2008, Mr. Joseph Anh Cao won the race and became the first Vietnamese American congressman. During his two-year term, he served as a congressman of the second congressional district of Louisiana that covered the geographical area in which the majority of Vietnamese New Orleanders resided. Under the light of the Resolution No. 36, the Vietnamese government realized that Congressman Cao might become a key figure for them to approach the Vietnamese in the United States. In January 2010 when Mr. Cao came to Vietnam on an official visit of U.S representatives, the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese organized a meeting with him and discussed about potential cooperation. According to both of them, the meeting was successful. VNExpress News writes: “After greeting Mr. Joseph Cao as the first Vietnamese American in the House of Representatives, Vice-Minister Nguyễn Thanh Sơn expressed a belief that this visit would strengthen the relationship between the two countries” (Dũng 2010). In a later press conference in Vietnam, Mr. Cao also said: “Although there have remained disagreements on some issues, I hope that we will have better understanding and will work together for the future of our countries” (Dũng 2010).

234

As a further step in that direction, the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese sent an official letter to Congressman Joseph Cao, requesting help in approaching overseas Vietnamese in the United States. The letter writes:

The State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese is planning to visit the United States and Canada to meet and contact Vietnamese communities, including individuals and organizations which have lacked right information about Vietnam and have maintained the ideology and made speeches against the Vietnamese government. (…) We believe that with the sincerity of the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese, and with the role and position that you have in the United States as well as in the local Vietnamese communities, (…) I hope that you will cooperate with us to have an open and frank discussion in order to have real benefits, contributing to the solidarity between the homeland and the Vietnamese American community as well as overseas Vietnamese throughout the world.

(Letter dated March 31, 2010 from the Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs)16

Using the same discourse as many other governments trying to claim the overseas citizens, the Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted to take the relationship with Congressman Cao as an opportunity to deal with the cold relationship with Vietnamese Americans. However, the approach and the phrases used in the letter turned out to be more insulting than diplomatic. It had a negative effect in the relationship with Congressman Cao. He wrote in reply:

I have received your letter requesting me to host a meeting with your delegation to clear up “misunderstandings” between the Vietnamese American community and the government of Vietnam. At this point, I must decline.

The premise of a meeting to dispel so-called ‘misinformation’ is misguided and certainly not a constructive starting point for dialogue. The Vietnamese who chose to risk their lives to leave their home country have no misunderstanding of the government of Vietnam. They left because they could not live under a totalitarian

16 The exchange of letters was widely published by Radio Free Asia (RFA) as well as Vietnamese American media. 235

regime which disregards human and religious freedom rights, and punishes citizens who dare to speak up.

(…)

I, like most Vietnamese Americans, desire a strong and prosperous Vietnam. It is only natural that one would have goodwill for one’s homeland. However, I believe that when people can exercise the right to think for themselves and speak their mind, real innovations can begin and a free Vietnam will be even stronger and more prosperous. In such an environment, many capable Vietnamese Americans would enthusiastically seek to contribute to making Vietnam a better country.

(Letter dated April 29, 2010 from Congressman Joseph Anh Cao)

He then suggested seven steps that the government of Vietnam should do to protect human rights and religious freedom:  Release all prisoners of conscience such as Nguyen Van Dai, Vu Hung, Le Cong Dinh, Nguyen Tien Trung, Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, among numerous others;  Release all prisoners held on trumped-up charges such as writer Tran Khai Thanh Thuy;  Stop harassing democracy advocates such as Mr. Nguyen Thanh Giang and Dr. Pham Hong Son;  Return seized properties to religious institutions and allow religions to practice their faiths;  Stop all destruction of religious symbols and properties, and the physical and mental abuses of religious adherents;  Release all ethnic minority pastors who have been detained for years;  Additionally, paying the victims of Daewoosa human trafficking case as ruled by the High Court of American Samoa against your government will show that Vietnam will abide by the rule of law.17

17 Daewoosa human trafficking case was about the owner of the Daewoosa garment factory in Samoa who was charged in 2001 by U.S. District Court in Hawaii for illegally confining and using as forced labour over 200 Vietnamese and Chinese workers. In November 2000, the owner of the factory had ordered and carried out mass 236

The letter ended with this statement: “Only then can we begin the process of healing the many deep wounds that divide us and have frank and open dialogues on substantive issues of mutual interest”.

It is likely that this letter marked an end to the relationship between Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Congressman Cao. Nevertheless, Congressman Cao received credit from Vietnamese Americans for his written response to the Vietnamese government. In fact, his official trip to Vietnam to meet the Communist leading officials created tensions among Vietnamese Americans. In months after his trip to Vietnam in January, Vietnamese Americans kept discussing about the essence of visit. While some people thought that it was his role of a congressman to meet the government of Vietnam, others claimed that he was then with the Communists (Kim 2010; Trình 2010). Therefore, this letter is considered as a statement of Mr. Cao, confirming his loyalty to the Vietnamese American community in the front against the Communist government of Vietnam. Radio Free Asia only reported the exchange of letters as a fact with no further comments (Việt Hà 2010).

Đàn chim Việt, a public online forum, published an article about the exchange of letters between Deputy Minister Nguyen Thanh Son and Congressman Cao. The article points out the flaws and close-minded attitude of Deputy Minister Nguyen Thanh Son. It wrote: “It is clear in the letter of Vietnamese’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Deputy Minister wanted to use the homeland sentiment and the “role and position” of Congressman Cao to gain support for the propaganda of the Vietnamese government in the United States and then Canada. This event [the request of the Vietnamese’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs] has never happened in the diaspora” (Trình 2010). At the same time, the article praises Congressman Cao for his thoughtful response. The author commented: “These words [in the response of Congressman Cao] not only prove that he really loves Vietnam, but also state that he is willing to help the homeland. However, it is not likely that Deputy Minister Son could exploit Congressman Cao” (Trình 2010). As the debate on the visit of Congressman Cao became more intensified, some people realized that the debate might

beating of Vietnamese workers. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that the workers who were recruited from China and from state-owned labour export companies in Vietnam each had to pay a fee of approximately $5,000 to $8,000 USD to gain employment at the Daewoosa factory. The workers were exploited in the amount of “nothing less than modern-day slavery” (U.S. Department of Justice’s Press Release on February 21, 2003). 237 affect the position of the only Vietnamese American congressman. Another article in the same forum suggested: “Nobody denies that the voice of people such as Mr. Cao in the Congress is the most powerful and necessary for the democratization process in Vietnam. A signature of Mr. Cao in the role of a congressman has the value of thousands of ordinary people’s signatures like yours and mine in petitions. A speech of his in Congress meetings weighs much more than dozens of demonstrations and declarations. Therefore, if Mr. Cao Quang Anh is no longer in the Congress, the most affected area would be the struggle for human rights in Vietnam, for freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Eliminating Mr. Cao from the Congress would only make the Vietnamese Communists happier” (Kim 2010).

In sum, the case of Congressman Cao shows that although the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese attempted to approach the Vietnamese American community through a diplomat relation with a U.S. Congressman, it failed to co-opt Vietnamese Americans on any issue due to the conflict of interests between the two sides. However, in a meeting in November 2010, the State Commission considered that after six years of implementing the Resolution No. 36, its organized activities were successful (Nguyen Thanh Son 2010). According to his report, the successful activities were summarized in three major fields: (1) propagandizing programs in Vietnam and abroad, (2) the enactments of laws such as the Code of Citizenship in 2008, the Codes of Housing and Land, that allowed overseas Vietnamese to have dual citizenship and own houses in Vietnam; (3) Assisting overseas Vietnamese to celebrate important events such as the traditional New Year, King Hung commemoration. These activities were said to be organized in Southeast Asia, Europe and Africa. There was no single word for any organized activities in Australia and North America.

6.2.3.2. The New Orleans City Council’s Resolution on Stopping Trading Activities with Vietnam

In attempts to respond to the Resolution No. 36, Vietnamese Americans have also established a number of agendas and campaigns. Not only utilizing the strength of mass media to ask the people of the diaspora to be aware of the deception of the Vietnamese government, a number of Vietnamese Americans have also made use of the American political system for their anti- communist purpose. While the narrative of Congressman Cao in response to the request of the

238

State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese is an effort of an individual acting on behalf of a larger Vietnamese American population, Vietnamese American diasporans in New Orleans have succeeded in making the New Orleans City Council pass a resolution relating to Vietnam. The Resolution No. R-12-166 approved on July 26, 2012 “urges the city leaders to stop any business trading between the City of New Orleans and the government of Vietnam unless the human rights issue is improved” (New Orleans 2012). With this activity, these Vietnamese American activists wanted to “see the Vietnamese in Vietnam have a better life”, and expressed their feeling that “it is also sad that we have to use this vehicle to let the Vietnamese Communist government know that we do know what is going on in Vietnam, and we do care about the people in Vietnam” (Speech of Cyndi Nguyen, a Vietnamese American in New Orleans, at the City Council’s meeting on July 26, 2012). As far as I know, Mr. Peter Tran, a real estate investor and also a local activist in New Orleans, was the one who stood behind the campaign and prepared the manuscript for Cyndi Nguyen to read in the town hall meeting. In an interview with him, he said: “We have helped Councilwoman Stacy Head in her race to the City Council. We are now U.S citizens. We need Americans and Americans also need us. We are happy to contribute to American society, the new homeland. I think we do this not only for Vietnam, but it implies that we care for American society. We have to help them first and then Americans will reciprocate us. If it is one way only, no way!” When I asked him how Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans helped Stacy Head’s campaign, he replied that although the Vietnamese population was small compared to the rest of New Orleans, it made the difference when the candidates had relatively the same number of votes. Mr. Peter Tran’s point of view has helped him and his comrades to approach the mainstream society and then achieved their objectives.

Nguoi Viet Online daily news reported about the approval of the Resolution No. R-12-166:

“Mr. Le Hong Thanh, Vice-president of the Alliance for Democracy in Vietnam [Liên Minh Dân Chủ Việt Nam], shared that R-12-166 was a way to prevent Communists from intermingling into the community.”

He said: “We, the Vietnamese refugees, have fought against the Communist regime for years. They have intermingled into our community and now continued to expand. This Resolution does not allow Communists to expand the trading in our community.

239

Therefore, we think we should support the Resolution.” Mr. Thanh also considers that “Commercial activities between New Orleans and Vietnam do not bring benefits to Vietnamese people, it only benefits the communist regime”.

(Do Dzung 2012)

The case suggests that Vietnamese American activists have been able to get into the mainstream society and make use of the relationship with people of power. Moreover, not only expressing care for the homeland in Vietnam, they confirm that being Americans, they also care for and are willing to contribute to American society. In other words, Vietnamese American activists in New Orleans have integrated into American society in order to influence the relationship between Vietnam and the United States. This case also supports Robin Cohen’s idea that “they want not only the security and opportunities available in their countries of settlement, but also a continuing relationship with their country of origin and co-ethnic members in other countries” (Cohen 1996: 518). By doing this, Vietnamese Americans seemed to express that they wavered from a diasporic group to American citizens in order to achieve the goal against the current government of Vietnam.

6.2.4. Distinguishing between Homeland and the Regime at Home

As mentioned in this chapter, a number of Vietnamese Americans distinguish between homeland and the current regime at home. When I asked where their homeland or fatherland [quê hương] was, the first and 1.5 generation addressed their town of birth in Vietnam as their homeland. However, when I continued to ask where they felt more attached, they answered Versailles or New Orleans. Homeland was perceived as a birthplace, the town that they were born. For many people, the fact that their homeland has been under control of an unfavourable regime reduces their desire to return.

Mrs. Sy, a first-generation person, made her strong statement about her perception of the homeland: “I got naturalized because it was necessary. I am still Vietnamese, what else could I be? I returned to Vietnam once in 2005 after Katrina. Frankly, I had never thought about going back to Vietnam. Now my country has been taken, why should I return! [Giờ đất nước của mình nó lấy mất rồi, còn về làm chó gì] But I thought that staying here was boring, so I returned with

240 my husband”. According to her, she lost the interest in the homeland because it had been under the communist regime. Similar statements were also heard from other interviewees of mine. Mrs. Tap, who had never returned to Vietnam, said: “I want one day I can visit Vietnam, revisit my hometown. But I will not like to go back to Vietnam if there is no freedom. It is my homeland, but if they make me feel uncomfortable, I would not go back”.

Regarding the problem with the current regime, I see no differences between male and female respondents. Mr. Thien, the boat owner, expressed his opinion when I asked him whether he would return to live in Vietnam when he retired. He said: “I once thought about returning Vietnam to live after I retired. But I am worried about the authorities. Watching the news about how the Vietnamese government mistreated its citizens, I feel antipathetic to the government. I thought that I could live in Vietnam with a U.S. pension. But now I don’t have that intention any more”.

The 1.5 generation of Vietnamese Americans have been actively engaged in American society. Work hours, family issues and social networks in the United States have consumed most of their time. Vacation time is limited every year. Moreover, the holidays in the United States and those of Vietnam are in different periods. Therefore, they can hardly make a long trip to visit Vietnam. Mr. Thong Nguyen, born in 1967, shared with me: “My niece in Vietnam used to ask me through telephone why I could not visit her in Tet. You know, I had to say that I had to work in those days, so I was unable to visit her”. In a similar situation, Mrs. Phuoc Tran, born in 1966, said: “I have travelled to Vietnam two times. I saw both beautiful places and poor places there. Although my hometown is in Vietnam, I feel more attached to New Orleans because I have been living here for 36 years. I left Vietnam when I was small, and I did not remember anything”. When I ask whether she wanted to return to Vietnam, she answered: “I don’t know yet, now the economy is deteriorating, we have to work hard in the office. If we take a long vacation, we may lose the job because the boss would hire other people”.

Father Nam Tran also expressed a concern regarding the government of Vietnam: Nam: I also don’t want to return because I have seen a lot of unfairness in the society, in the system of the regime. They have used violence to make pressure on ordinary people and used power to take bribes without caring for the basic needs of the citizens. They

241

have also confiscated the land of the church, of schools and blacklisted people who had talked negatively about the government. Hoang: Yeah, I know, it is the common context of the country. But how about your own parish? Nam: Certainly, my mind is still full of sentiment and love for my community, the place that I, my parents, my siblings were born and grew up. I have participated in a number of charity programs assisting education and housing for the poor in Vietnam.

Besides the people who do not want to deal with the Vietnamese government or ignore its existence when travelling to Vietnam, a number of people want to engage in the politics of Vietnam and try to make change from a distance. Mr. Peter Tran, a local activist in New Orleans, shared with me: “My thought about Vietnam is like this: Although they are communist party members, they are still our brothers. There are good people and bad ones. But the main job is not to focus on the party members, we have to overcome that idea. The main job is how to improve our country because these people [communists] will pass away. Looking back the history of Vietnam, we see that like feudalism and the Republic of Vietnam, the Communist Vietnam will be dead. However, the nation will be eternal. Therefore, I think we have to think about the nation rather than the regimes”. Although he has never travelled to Vietnam since 1975, this point of view has helped him to be open-minded toward Vietnamese society. Although he never likes the policy of the Vietnamese government as well as its de-territorialisation campaign, Peter Tran has actively run a number of campaigns to raise funds for charity work in Vietnam. He repeatedly affirmed his motivation with me: “A regime may exist for a limited time, but the nation is everlasting”.

Regarding the second generation, born in the United States, they were influenced by the stories about Vietnam told by their parents. These narratives help to shape a worldview toward Vietnam. Lan Tran, 26 years old, told me about the image of Vietnam that she had: “An image of Vietnam that I have is a dirty place, I think it is a very cultural place. It’s like you see Vietnamese everywhere, Vietnamese food. There are certain areas that could be beautiful, but my mother never lets me forget that there are poor people over there also. So I always have that image of a poor, a little bit dirty, place. But it’s our home. Even though I have never been there, but that’s where my parents came from. That how I picture it. I picture it as being dirty but really fun,

242 festivals every day. That’s what my mom said”. I questioned her: “You said ‘homeland’, did you mean your parents’ homeland or your homeland?” She replied: “I think it’s my homeland. I would consider it as where it could have been my home. That’s why it’s our homeland”. Mai Dang, 28 years old, who have travelled a few times to Vietnam, expressed her disagreement with the Vietnamese government’s activities: “I don’t agree with some of the things like, people get persecuted when they go to Vietnam because they say something bad about the government. You know, we did not grow up in that kind of environment. You can say bad things like that to Bush or Obama, they can’t do anything unless you threaten to kill them. You have that right here. You have that right here. I appreciate that. I am happy to live in a society that allows me to do that. So in that sense I don’t agree with the Vietnamese government. That’s why I don’t’ choose to live there. I just go to visit. It’s a beautiful place, I am Vietnamese, the food is great, I don’t mind eating street food because I think it’s some of the best food. It’s gorgeous there”.

Tinh Nguyen, 33 years old, could speak good Vietnamese. He commented on his trips to Vietnam: “I have travelled to Vietnam two times. I travelled with my parents-in-law to their hometown in Binh Tuy and Nha Trang. I like to visit Vietnam, not to live. I was born and raised here, this is my homeland”. For him, travelling to Vietnam was like a tourist who went on a tour to a new place. Sean Nguyen, 24 years old, told me: “The current Vietnamese government is not wanted by its people. A government is supposed to represent its people. However, I definitely still want to go to Vietnam, to learn about the culture, to meet family members that I have never met before”.

In general, for the second generation of Vietnamese New Orleanders, since they were born and grew up in American society, there were certain things, such as the lack of freedom of speech, that they could never accept. Apart from human right issues, the second generation considers Vietnam as an exotic place, a place that is good to visit, not to live.

In sum, the de-territorialisation policy of the Vietnamese government may succeed in some ways according to the 2010 report of the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese. Nevertheless, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans would rather maintain a distance from the Vietnamese government and are not willing to participate in any activities organized by the government. While the first generation has kept the memories of the homeland in Vietnam, their future return

243 possibility has been threatened by the communist regime. Although people of the 1.5 generation and second generation like the beauty of the country, the people and culture, each of them has reasons for not making the homeland desire real. While the involvement in American society and family issues in the United States have prevented the 1.5 generation from returning to Vietnam, American values and human rights have made the second generation not to choose to live in Vietnam.

6.2.5. Discussion

The case studies in this section have showed intensifying transnational interactions between the Vietnamese government and Vietnamese Americans. Recognizing the potential resource from remittances, the Politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the government have implemented agendas that encourage the return of overseas Vietnamese. As pointed out in Koh’s and Small’s research, the purposes of the de-territorialisation policy focus mainly on foreign currency and economic investments (Koh 2011; Small 2012). While the policy has caught the interest of overseas Vietnamese who have made investments in big cities such as Ho Chi Minh City as studied by Koh, the policy has failed totally in Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai communes due to the lack of interest in investments from Vietnamese American returnees and the powerlessness of the local ALOVs. The failure of the policy should not only be blamed on the local authorities for their implementation, but more importantly it is the choice of Vietnamese people in New Orleans.

Despite not doing business with the Vietnamese government at all levels, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have maintained connections with family, parish, news, and charity work in the homeland. It is here that the Vietnamese New Orleanders affirm James Clifford’s notion that “the empowering paradox of diaspora is that dwelling here assumes a solidarity and connection there” (Clifford 1994: 322). While living in New Orleans, a number of Vietnamese Americans still express their concerns about politics in the home country, especially when there are policies directly related to their diasporic community. This type of consciousness has been formed not only by the print media as suggested by Benedict Anderson (Anderson 1990). Instead, the new information technology has shrunk distance and allowed people to remain in contact. Dufoix argues that with the development of technology, “space is needed only for the machines: the

244 people will be united in their dispersion” (Dufoix 2008: 105). As Cohen also points out, in the age of globalisation, communities are not created by place but by interest, shared opinions, ethnicities and religions (Cohen 1996: 517). Multiple forms of propaganda have been carried out in the Vietnamese diaspora to fight against the Resolution No. 36 and the approach of the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese. Although people in New Orleans do not need to know personally their counterparts in Orange County, Washington D.C, Houston, or elsewhere in the world, people of the diaspora share the feeling of being threatened by the de-territorialisation policy of the Vietnamese government.

Moreover, through analyzing the activities of Vietnamese Americans, especially from the case of Congressman Cao and the Resolution No. R-12-166 of the City Council of New Orleans, we can see that Vietnamese Americans have not only used their own media networks of the diaspora but also employed American institutions of the mainstream society for their purposes. Although there were disagreements at some points among the Vietnamese Americans, the cases confirm that the collective memories of the homeland as well as a collective myth of return have unified people of the diaspora (Safran 1991: 87). The discourse on the homeland and the regime at home not only helps set Vietnamese Americans apart from the Communist government, but also solidifies diaspora consciousness.

6.3. Conclusion

The chapter has showed a number of transnational flows of money, activities and ideologies of people in both Vietnam and the United States since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. These transnational flows confirm that Vietnamese Americans have maintained a long-distance relationship with the homeland. Familial responsibilities and collective memories of religious piety with home parish are the main resources that tie overseas Vietnamese with the homeland. Although overseas people and the current priests at home did not know each other, the spiritual sentiment of having lived in the parish played a role in bridging the stakeholders across the national territories.18 Moreover, as Dorais points out that “family relations, transnational or not,

18 A limit of this research is that I have conducted fieldwork in a Catholic community. Although I have visited the nearby Buddhist pagoda in New Orleans a few times, the number of Buddhist people who came to the pagoda was limited. This issue will need a further research. 245 play a crucial part in defining Viet Kieu culture and social life” (Dorais 2001: 15), overseas Vietnamese recognise their privileged position and try to fulfill their familial responsibilities. In return, a social expectation based on the idea that Vietnamese American returnees must be wealthier than people in Vietnam is formed among the relatives and homeland parishioners of Vietnamese Americans. Without knowing the barriers in American society such as the lack of English competence, racial discrimination and economic pressure (discussed in chapter 3-5), Vietnamese people in the homeland think of Vietnamese Americans as the ones who have fulfilled the American dream. This social expectation of the homeland has become a barrier that prevents many overseas Vietnamese from returning to visit Vietnam.

Remittances sent to Vietnam by overseas Vietnamese have long been in dispute in the diaspora. This chapter clearly shows two diverging attitudes toward this practice. The case of people in New Orleans suggests that relations with the home country are not a public matter for the whole Vietnamese diaspora. Sharing with Ashley Carruthers (2001), I would like to suggest that Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have not been constrained within a group sentiment in their negotiation of their individual relationship with Vietnam. Decisions to send remittances or to do charity work in Vietnam are made by individual choice. Vietnamese New Orleanders originally from Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet express disagreements with the discourse on stop sending money and visiting Vietnam. For them, responsibility, filial duty and personal choice are more important than caring about the anti-communist politics.

After the Đổi Mới policy of reform in 1986, recognizing the potential resource of remittances from the diaspora, the Vietnamese Communist Party engaged in the de-territorialisation process, creating more favourable conditions for overseas Vietnamese to return and invest in business. The most recent policy is the Resolution No.36/2004 of the Politburo. However, as studied by Ivan Small and Priscilla Koh, the policy seems to function well in big cities such as Ho Chi Minh City only. Small and distant communes such as Phuoc Tinh and Thanh Hai have not gained benefits from the policy. Local authorities of these communes have not had clear agenda to implement the policy from the central government. The only one institution that involved in the de-territorialisation policy is the local ALOV. Nevertheless, the lack of funding and the boycott from both local people and temporary returnees have made the missions of the local ALOVs failed ones.

246

At the central government level, the State Commission on Overseas Vietnamese has made use of every effort to approach overseas Vietnamese, especially high position people in strong countries such as the United States, Canada or Australia. The case of the letter exchange between Congressman Cao and the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs serves as a clear evidence of the clash between the diaspora and the Vietnamese government. While in this globalizing world, the nation-state cannot be confined within its physical boundaries and the nation-state wants to embrace its overseas citizens as a significant part of its economy (Basch, et al. 1994), Vietnamese Americans have strived to prevent the homeland government from benefiting from the diaspora. Therefore, the increase of anti-communist activities in the diaspora after the issuance of the Resolution No. 36 proves that instead of creating better conditions to embrace the large Vietnamese American population, the de-territorialisation policy of the Vietnamese government has helped the Vietnamese diaspora renew their anti-communist sentiment and solidify the sense of exiles.

Finally, the chapter also suggests that although the second generation did not endure the hardship under Communism in Vietnam, they shared the ideology with the first generation on the politics of Vietnam. To many young Vietnamese Americans, Vietnam is not their homeland that they feel attached to. Those Vietnamese youths think of Vietnam as an exotic place to visit as visitor. However, influenced by the political view and negative experiences of their parents, the youths also express a critical view towards the current government of Vietnam. In this sense, they share a view of the diasporic Vietnamese community.

247

Chapter 7 Conclusion

The dissertation has shown that white supremacy, a dominant ideology in the United States, continues to haunt the Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans. Being seen as neither Blacks nor Whites, Vietnamese Americans fall into the pre-designated category of Asian Americans. The ethnographic materials display a correlation with Andrea Smith’s perspective on three pillars of white supremacy, in which, while Vietnamese Americans are not at the very bottom of the racial hierarchy, they are not only victims of white supremacy, but are also complicit in it (Smith 2010). Through the cases presented, the dissertation adds to the theoretical literature on white supremacy via lively examples of how success in education and career do not save Asian Americans, in this case specifically Vietnamese Americans, from discriminatory acts. Instead, it helps reinforce the supreme position of Whites by having a model minority to blame New Orleans’ low-income Black residents for their own faults. Moreover, the dissertation points out that the model minority discourse does not only serve the white supremacy ideology as suggested by Mia Tuan (1999), Bonilla-Silva (2001) and Rosalind Chou and Feagin (2008), but it also takes part in transnational flow of ideologies. Vietnamese Americans of the first and 1.5 generations consider being a model of minorities is a pride that they, as an exilic population, can proudly show to the communist government of Vietnam. The exile elites want to emphasize that the victory of the Northern Army in South Vietnam does not put an end to the anti-communist Vietnamese. Instead, the Vietnamese diasporic community has been thriving in the United States, and that anti-communist sentiment has remained intact. Together with the discussion on the de-territorialisation policy of the Communist Party of Vietnam, the dissertation concludes that in the era of globalisation, people and ideology dwelling in one place may influence and be influenced by people and ideology in other places. Hence, it confirms James Clifford’s notion on the paradox of diaspora that “dwelling here assumes a solidarity and connection there” (Clifford 1994: 322).

Arriving in the United States when the color-blind ideology has influenced the society since the 1960s, Vietnamese Americans who landed in New Orleans experienced the predominance of Black Americans. This racial experience is significantly different from the experience of those

248 who landed in cities with predominantly White populations. The literature on the politics of race in the United States has been criticised for paying greater attention to the Black-White binary. Within the past few decades, Asian American studies scholars, such as Mia Tuan (1999), Frank Wu (2002), Aihwa Ong (2003) or Chou and Feagin (2008), have developed a number of works showing the significant racial issues of Asian American population in the larger U.S. society. Although these works focus on Asian Americans, they mainly studied Asian Americans in relation to White Americans, showing how these ethnic minorities suffered from racial discrimination from Whites. In the work of Claire Jean Kim (1999) and Andrea Smith (2010), Asian Americans are situated in either the triangulation of the U.S. racial hierarchy or three pillars of white supremacy. Therefore, Kim and Smith did not pay enough attention to daily interactions and tensions between Asian Americans and Black Americans. My dissertation contributed to this gap by pointing out daily interactions and the ideology of Vietnamese Americans regarding Black Americans in New Orleans.

Vietnamese Americans shared the neighbourhood and worked with other people in all of the workplaces. Through the lived experience of living and working along-side Black Americans, Vietnamese Americans eventually developed negative racial stereotypes against Black Americans. Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans are not only victims of racism via racial slurs, bullying, and workplace micro-aggressions, but also perpetuate racism by upholding negative stereotypes against Black Americans. The case suggests that covert forms of racism have continued to influence American society wherever there is a majority-minority difference. In places such as schools, workplace settings, or public spaces, where Vietnamese are a minority, they often receive unequal treatment from the majority population, which, in this case, are Black Americans. More importantly, the dissertation shows that Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans express a conformity to white supremacy by holding negative racial stereotypes against Black Americans, thus building their position upon the logic of slavery (Smith 2010). However, the pride of being a model minority in New Orleans has trapped Vietnamese Americans in white supremacy, that is, they accept their condition in life without questioning the inequality in the school system and economic investments in their marginalized neighbourhood of New Orleans East. It confirms Andrea Smith’s argument regarding the logic of white supremacy.

249

The complicity of Vietnamese Americans in white supremacy is also revealed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in which Vietnamese Americans were supportive of the closure of the Versailles Arms Apartment complexes, a section 8 housing project. As discussed in chapter 3, Vietnamese Americans have always felt insecure in a neighbourhood shared with a majority of low-income Black Americans. Housing more than 40 percent of the Black Americans in the neighbourhood, Versailles Arms apartment became an undesirable place for Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East. In this case, by using the discourse on the security of the neighbourhood, Vietnamese Americans avoided being blamed for discriminating against the low-income Black Americans living in the apartment complexes. Simultaneously, it showed that Vietnamese Americans were in line with white supremacy’s idea of “cleaning up the low-income housing” as spoken about by Richard Baker. While this case shares with Karin Aguilar-San Juan a sense that the Vietnamese American place-making, in Little Saigon and Fields Corner, may provide a shield against White racism via a racially safety zone for Vietnamese Americans (Aguilar-San Juan 2009: 58-59), that ultimately, the safety of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East was secured at the expense of low-income Black Americans. The case signified that Vietnamese Americans adopted a color-blindness frame in seeking their own safety. Hence, the color-blindness frame does not only serve the interest of Whiteness in maintaining the status quo, but it is also manipulated by Asian Americans for the interests of minority peoples.

To support the white supremacy ideology, U.S. national media praised the return of Vietnamese Americans after Katrina as a model minority in the devastated city. As a challenge to the myth of model minority, scholars such as Leong et al. (2007) and Eric Tang (2011) point out the negligence of the media by comparing the return and recovery of the Vietnamese Americans with that of the neighbouring Black American community. Not only did Vietnamese Americans have a shared experience of evacuation, but Black Americans in New Orleans also possessed a history of resilience and recovery after Hurricane Betsy in 1965. While these scholars made their arguments based on the immediate aftermath of Katrina, my dissertation argued that in the long- term recovery, Vietnamese American homeowners benefited from the national emergency funds such as FEMA and the Road Home project. Based on Fraser and Gordon’s perspective of a genealogy of dependency (Fraser & Gordon 1994), the dissertation points out how Vietnamese Americans shifted the understanding of economic assistance programs, FEMA and the Road Home, from the welfare form to the non-welfare form. Therefore, not only did many 250 homeowners pay off their mortgage after receiving insurance and/or the national emergency assistance, but many Vietnamese Americans also developed a tendency that saw these assistance as a source of benefits. With the satisfaction of the government’s economic-assistance programs, Vietnamese Americans are seduced by the prospect of being able to receive further assistance in future disasters. Although Hurricane Katrina caused significant changes in local politics and the federal emergency response programs as anticipated by Anthony Oliver-Smith (1996: 309), the racial criticisms for slow response of the federal government in the critical situation of the Black- predominant city of New Orleans became less tense after FEMA and the Road Home project became deployed.

The pattern of white supremacy was also revealed in the BP Oil Spill, which severely affected the fishing industry in Louisiana. In this case, white supremacy was understood as the privileged position of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) over the victims of the Oil Spill, regardless of race, sex, and class. Kenneth Feinberg, appointed by President Obama to administer the GCCF, utilised his own methodology to calculate claimants’ loss of income. While the victims of the Oil Spill were compensated, the claims process nonetheless illustrated the position of privilege of the Whites who were in the decision-making body. The voice of the victims was not heard adequately by the payer in the claim process. Claimants who disagreed with the GCCF had to hire attorneys and participate in a lengthy and costly litigation process. In the case of BP Oil Spill, the compensation calculation method of the GCCF looked fair from outsider’s perspective as it calculated each case individually based on submitted documentation. However, by rigidly applying the self-invented calculation method, the GCCF displayed a wide gap between the Whites who held the supremacy position and the poorer claimants who were in the subordinate position. Following Bonilla-Silva’s point on white supremacy (Bonilla-Silva 2001: 80), I pointed out that by supporting equality as an abstract principle but denying the existence of systematic discrimination, Mr. Feinberg and the GCCF appeared ‘not racist’. In this case, not only were Vietnamese Americans victims of the system, but White and Black fishermen/women also suffered from the claim process. Hence, though color-blindness sounds progressive, it is used to justify the inequality perpetuated by the people of privileged position.

In each case, there are generational differences within the Vietnamese Americans. The first and 1.5 generations seemed to hold a stronger stereotypical view against Black Americans due to

251 their superficial interactions and negative rumours about Black Americans. In contrast, the second generation who went to school with Black American students developed a more liberal view. Racial slurs, such as name calling, or bullying only happened in early stages in school. Many Vietnamese Americans confirmed having Black friends, although these relations were nowhere comparable to the friendships among Vietnamese Americans. This issue is not new to the literature as Mia Tuan (1998: 101-103), and Chou and Feagin (2008: 160-162) discussed this feeling of ethnic comfortability among Asian Americans. Moreover, Tuan argued that the racial composition of the community where Asian Americans grew up may have influenced how they identified themselves. For Asian Americans who grew up in pre-dominantly White communities, their racial, rather than ethnic, identity was salient. Concurrently, people who grew up in Asian- centered communities had more freedom in thinking of themselves in racial or ethnic terms (Tuan 1998: 104). Vietnamese American youth in New Orleans East could be said to have grown up in a Vietnamese-centered community of Versailles as they attended Mary Queen of Viet Nam church with their parents, ate Vietnamese food, and had regular interactions with Vietnamese people. However, they went to pre-dominantly Black schools and clearly recognized their racial differences with the majority of the Black population. Therefore, while Vietnamese American youth enjoyed the luxury of racial privilege of being “normal” within the community, they suffered from racial minority status in schools. In addition to the findings of Tuan, and Chou and Feagin on the relations between Asian Americans and White students, my research pointed out that while suffering from being a minority group among Black American students, as Vietnamese American youth got into honours classes, they fell into Vietnamese American friendship circles and “normalized” their status within the predominantly Vietnamese classes.

The more Vietnamese American students get into honours classes, the more the model minority myth is brought forward. Different from Chou and Feagin (2008)’s research, in which their Asian Americans cited several racial stereotyping acts of not only classmates, but also teachers and teaching curriculums in predominantly White schools, my Vietnamese American respondents expressed a satisfactory view towards their teachers and the honours classes. Holding an individualistic view, their success in school and career made Vietnamese American youth see no structural barriers at school and at work in terms of race. Therefore, although they deny the model minority label, their success in education and work indirectly support the status quo dominated de facto by White people. 252

After Katrina, all of the Vietnamese Americans showed a degree of rational choice when returning and rebuilding their community. Even if all Vietnamese Americans had lived up to the image of model minority, it would not have prevented Vietnamese Americans from being mistreated by the city authority’s permit to open a landfill near their residential area. The case shares with Mia Tuan (1998), Chou and Feagin (2008) that Asian Americans have been suffering from many kinds of racial discrimination despite being seen as a model minority. In this case, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East were victims of the White system that cleaned their houses by throwing the rubbish to other minority people’s area. When dealing with the landfill project, the 1.5 generation held a different viewpoint from the first and the second generations. While the latter fought against the landfill project, the former expressed a sympathy with the city authority under the emergency circumstance. While the latter group situated the incident in the discriminatory frame, the former explained the decision of the authority from a rational choice perspective, stating that the city did not have a spare land plot elsewhere for a dumpsite. Eventually, the church-led protests of the first and the second generations helped close down the dumpsite. Scholars such as Leong et al. (2007) and Eric Tang (2011) seemed not to recognize this generational divergent view among Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans East. Their research argued that the whole community co-operated with Black American neighbours in the struggle against the dumpsite. In contrast with these scholars’ arguments, my research pointed out that due to the inactiveness of the 1.5 generation in the incident, many scholars missed documenting this generational divergence in the community. Therefore, their attempts to challenge the model minority discourse and the racial triangulation theory (Kim 1999) seemed incomplete.

In the case of BP Oil spill, while the first generation and low-income fishermen unwillingly accepted the offered compensation due to their limited English language proficiency and critical financial situation, the 1.5 generation, especially boat owners, expressed disagreement with the GCCF’s calculation method. Not accepting unfair compensation, boat owners sought help from community organizations and their own professional network to claim their loss of income. In both cases, the participation of the second generation contributed to the empowerment of the Vietnamese Americans.

253

Having lived in the United States for the past 40 years, the majority of Vietnamese Americans still maintained collective memories of their homeland. This population seems to fit with the characteristics of a diaspora suggested by scholars, such as William Safran (1991) and Robin Cohen (1996). However, Louis-Jaques Dorais, in an attempt to apply the framework of Khachig Tololyan (1996), argued that overseas Vietnamese lacked collective transnational values and organisations to secure a diaspora. In the case of New Orleans, although many Vietnamese Americans of the first and 1.5 generations after Katrina confirmed that New Orleans was their second homeland, their first homeland has always been an important factor. In this field, the Vietnamese diasporic community has experienced a divergence in the ideas relating to the relationship with the homeland between not only generations but also economic class. Familial connections, collective memories, and Catholic responsibilities have played a role in connecting Vietnamese Americans of the first and 1.5 generations with Vietnam as well as their home parishes. The dissertation shared with Dorais the point that Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans missed the collective transnational values and organisations. Long-distance relationships with their relatives in Vietnam have been maintained through personal letters, phone calls, or remittances. Although political actions against Communist Vietnam have been organised annually on significant occasions, such as April 30 (Black April, the collapse of Saigon), June 19 (the Republic of Vietnam Military Forces), Lunar New Year, the actual audience is limited to the veterans of the Republic of Vietnam and their close relatives. The majority of the Vietnamese American population in New Orleans are Catholics who had lived as fishermen in Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet before the fall of Saigon in 1975. Therefore, although they share anti-communist sentiment with the exile elites, they are not included the network of veterans and therefore excluded from participating in organisations. Hence, Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans have sustained concerns for Vietnam, but, in sharing with Dorais, “it rarely translates into collective action” (Dorais 2001: 22).

The dissertation has also showed that Vietnamese Americans of the second generation think of Vietnam as a contested place in which all of the fragmented imageries of Vietnam have been transferred to them from their parents and by themselves as tourists. The second generation reconstruct and feel Vietnamese culture, society, and politics through American values of culture, democracy, and freedom. Although some of them may still consider Vietnam their homeland as influenced by their parents’ stories, the sentimental attachment to Vietnam is no 254 greater than that of Vietnamese American tourists. To them, Vietnam is not the homeland for which they have a strong desire to return, as it is for the first and 1.5 generations. It is, instead, a homeland through which people of the second generation can learn a history of why they happen to be in the United States and a place for them to feel and appreciate the values of American society.

In the country of origin, Vietnamese people consider Vietnamese Americans to have fulfilled the American dream. Many Vietnamese people have not understood how hard life has been for their counterparts in the United States. Besides having to work hard to cover the daily expenses such as groceries, utility bills, mortgages, and loans, Vietnamese Americans have also suffered from different degrees of covert discrimination in work and public places. To the Vietnamese, being American citizens and returning home are signs of success and wealth. This social expectation is built upon the visitation trips of many overseas Vietnamese. Mandy Thomas pointed out in her study of Vietnamese Australians that the deep concerns of Vietnamese in Australia were about the economic and social conditions of not only Vietnam, but also of their family members in the country of origin. Thomas also showed how Vietnamese Australians felt “compelled to represent themselves to their families back home as materially successful and thus as having imbued what is perceived to be the magic of the West” (Thomas 1997: 163). In the case of Vietnamese in New Orleans under pressure of this expectation, instead of explaining to their Vietnamese relatives that life in the United States is not easy, Vietnamese American returnees just provide money with the hope that their relatives would have better living conditions. Therefore, while they suffer from a subordinate position in the racial hierarchy in American society, Vietnamese Americans turned “Whites” when returning to their homeland. Regardless of their life in America, Vietnamese American returnees are expected to fit the imagery of the American dream. However, this social expectation has also created a barrier that prevents a number of first generation Vietnamese Americans from visiting their hometowns due to their low-income situation. Furthermore, Ivan Small pointed out that the flow of remittances also inspired Vietnamese people back in the homeland to have imaginative mobility about moving “over there” in order to be the remittance giver in the transnational flow of gift exchange (Small 2012: 176). Therefore, the transnational connections between immigrants and homeland may influence how they perceive each other.

255

In the past two decades, the government of Vietnam has implemented an agenda that aims at reaching out to overseas Vietnamese. Recognizing the economic role of overseas Vietnamese, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) issued the Resolution No. 36 in 2004 (Nghị quyết 36/2004) to promote and strengthen the relationship with overseas Vietnamese. The Resolution states that “overseas Vietnamese as an inseparable part and a resource of the Vietnamese community”. While one may question whether the de-territorialization policy of the CPV has been successful, the policy has made significant impact on the diaspora in the sense that most of exile elites have clearly understood Resolution No. 36 and interpreted many activities of the Vietnamese government as the implementation of the policy. Seeing the significant growth of remittances to Vietnam, the majority of exile activists who served the Republic of Vietnam, responded by raising awareness among overseas Vietnamese that the remittances would contribute to prolonging the communist regime. The debate on whether or not overseas Vietnamese should send home money and visit Vietnam has been popular in diasporic public media. Using the discourse against the implementation of Resolution No. 36, the Vietnamese American mass media suggest that their co-ethnic members should not send home money or visit Vietnam. However, familial as well as Catholic responsibilities have made a number of Vietnamese in New Orleans uncompliant with the public suggestion of the diasporic community. Besides the number of people who have parents or close relatives remaining in Vietnam, other people who also disagree with the suggestion are those who clearly distinguish between a nation and a regime. The case suggests that Vietnamese Americans have not been constrained within the diasporic sentiment toward Vietnam. For them, responsibility and personal choice are more important than public matters, which, in this case, are anti-communist politics. In this sense, it also affirms Dorais’ point on not considering overseas Vietnamese a diaspora (Dorais 2001, 2010) and supports Pricilla Koh’s position that overseas Vietnamese may be able to overcome the public expectation of diasporic sentiment (Koh 2011, 2015).

Although the policy of the CPV has not succeeded in embracing the Vietnamese American population in New Orleans and the temporary returnees in Phuoc Tinh and Phan Thiet, it has reached the overseas Vietnamese community and created tensions in the diasporic community. Therefore, instead of considering the de-territorialization policy a failed mission of the government, it is more important to see its transnational impact on the larger diaspora. The impact of Resolution No. 36 has indeed transcended the national border of Vietnam and reached 256 overseas Vietnamese communities around the world. As Ashley Carruthers also documented in his research, Vietnamese Australians consider media about the current Vietnam produced in Vietnam or even in the United States (Rainbow Entertainment case) as an extension of the de- territorialisation policy of Communist Vietnam. Therefore, while they expressed a negative reception to it, diasporic subjects strengthened their collective memory of Saigon (Carruthers 2008). This point is extended in the case of Vietnamese Americans in the sense that they considered the approach of the government of Vietnam to Congressman Joseph Cao as an attempt to implement the Resolution No.36 on the diasporic community. Hence, the response of Mr. Cao and Vietnamese American activists in New Orleans have reinforced the awareness of diasporic dimension, fortifying the mission of fighting for a communist-free Vietnam.

By promising strong support from the New Orleans Vietnamese American community for Stacy Head during city council elections, the Vietnamese American community in turn also received support from Stacy Head. The success in advocating for the New Orleans City Council’s Resolution on stopping trading activities (Resolution No. R-12-166 in 2012) with Vietnam also signifies a compromise between Vietnamese American activists in New Orleans and American Whites. While Vietnamese American activists in New Orleans have been happy with the success in fighting against the communist government of Vietnam, the white supremacist system has still remained intact. The case suggests that the privileged position of Whites has been maintained by satisfying the demands of the subordinate group. In addition, it supports Clifford’s point that “dwelling here assumes a solidarity and connection there” (Clifford 1994: 322).

For further research, the dissertation has not adequately assessed gender dynamics within the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans. In each setting, besides differences in class and age, the distribution of gender roles also pose important perceptions that require further research. For example, unpacking how women and men took on unexpected responsibilities in the case of Hurricane Katrina will lead to an explanation of power and division of labour within the New Orleans Vietnamese American community. In the case of the BP Oil spill, the case did not adequately analyze the agency of Vietnamese American women in the struggle against GCCF’s compensation method. Compared to numerous American women who worked in the fishing industry, e.g. fishing dock/boat owners or female shrimpers, the number of Vietnamese American women who worked in these positions were much fewer. Moreover, limited English

257 competence also made them invisible in the public realm. Therefore, more focus on female Vietnamese Americans will depict a more comprehensive picture of the fishing industry, as well as their role in the BP Oil spill disaster.

Although the dissertation has shown that Vietnamese Americans have exercised some degree of conformity to white supremacy, the young generation recognise that they have been trapped in this ideology. There are individual cases in which Vietnamese American youth tried to counter the white supremacy ideology. Therefore, further research is needed to see if it is indicative of the larger second generation of Vietnamese Americans. If so, the logic of white supremacy may be challenged by younger generations of the subordinate groups.

Finally, recent studies have showed an increase of return migration of second generation Vietnamese Americans, such as Priscilla Koh (2012), Ivan Small (2012). These overseas Vietnamese returnees are said to have overcome the public will of the Vietnamese diaspora. In these cases, individual choice and personal interest are more important as people of the second generation find it necessary to explore their parents’ country of origin. Therefore, further research in New Orleans is needed to answer the question of how return migration has been a "taboo” for the first and 1.5 generations and undesirable for the second generation of Vietnamese Americans.

258

Bibliography

Ái, Hòa. (2013). Thỉnh nguyện thư về hạn chế du lịch và gửi tiền về Việt Nam [Appeal for limiting travelling and sending remittances to Vietnam]. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from Radio Free Asia (RFA) http://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/limit-send-us-currency- to-vietnam-ha-05122013091901.html Aguilar-San Juan, Karin. (2009). Little Saigons: Staying Vietnamese in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Airriess, Christopher, & Clawson, David L. (1991). Versailles: A Vietnamese Enclave in New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of Cultural Geography, 12(1), 1-13. Airriess, Christopher, Li, Wei, Leong, Karen J., Chen, Angela Chia-Chen, & Keith, Verna M. (2008). Church-based Social Capital, Networks and Geographical Scale: Katrina Evacuation, Relocation, and Recovery in a New Orleans Vietnamese American Community. Geoforum, 39, 1333–1346. ALOV. (2011). Giới thiệu. Retrieved February 19, 2013, from Hội liên lạc với người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài http://hoilienlac.apps.vn/a/news?t=17&id=822917 Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin. (2010). Vietnamese-American fishers fight for oil spill claim approval. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from The Times-Picayune http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/vietnamese- american_fishermen.html Anderson, Benedict. (1990). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso. Anderson, R. Bentley. (2005). Black, White, and Catholic : New Orleans interracialism, 1947- 1956 (1st ed.). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Appadurai, Arjun. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Attorneys General, Gulf Coast State (2010). Notice on GCCF's quick payment. Retrieved July 2, 2013 http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JFAO- 8CDH45/$file/JointAGGCCFNotice.pdf Babington, Charles. (2005). Some GOP Legislators Hit Jarring Notes in Addressing Katrina. Retrieved March 11, 2016, from Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090901930.html Bankston, Carl L. III, & Zhou, Min. (1996). Go Fish: The Louisiana Vietnamese and Ethnic Entrepreneurship in an Extractive Industry. National Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 37-55. Basch, Linda, Schiller, Nina Glick, & Szanton-Blanc, Cristina. (1994). Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. London and New York: Routledge. Barbier, Carl J. (2011). Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010. Retrieved July 4, 2013, from United States District Court - Eastern District of Louisiana http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/Orders/222011OrderonRecDoc912.pdf Barbier, Carl J. (2012). Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010. Retrieved July 4th, 2013, from The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

259

http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/docs/2012-03- 08_First_Amended_Order_Creating_Transition_Process.pdf Barcott, Bruce. (2010). In the Battle against Oil, the Wetland aren't Giving up. National Geographic, 218(4), 62-75. BDO Consulting, a Division of BDO USA. (2012). Independent Evaluation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility - Report of Findings & Observations. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/66520126611210351178.pdf Beresford, Melanie. (1989). National Unification and Economic Development in Vietnam. New York: St. Martin's Press. Beresford, Melanie, & Phong, Dang. (2000). Economic Transition in Vietnam: Trade and Aid in the Demise of a Centrally Planned Economy. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Blassingame, John W. (1973). Black New Orleans, 1860-1880. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era. Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. (2010). Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, Third Edition. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Bousquet, Gisèle L. (1991). Behind the Bamboo Hedge: The Impact of Homeland Politics in the Parisian Vietnamese Community. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Brettell, Caroline. (2008). Theorizing Migration in Anthropology: The Social Construction of Networks, Identities, Communities, and Globalscapes. In Caroline Brettell & James Hollifield (Eds.), Migration Theory: Talking across Disciplines (pp. 113-160). New York and London: Routledge and Taylor & Francis. British Petroleum, BP. (2010). Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from British Petroleum http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_respon se/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/Trust_Agreement_Executed_Copy.pdf British Petroleum, BP. (2013). Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Claims and Other Payments Public Report - 5/31/2013. from British Petroleum, BP http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/gulf-of- mexico/Public_Report_May_2013_final.pdf Bullard, Robert D., & Wright, Beverly. (2009). Race, Place, and the Environment in Post- Katrina New Orleans. In Robert D. Bullard & Beverly Wright (Eds.), Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitaliza New Orleans and the Gulf Coast (pp. 19-48). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Carruthers, Ashley. (2001). Exile and Return: Deterritorializing National Imaginaries in Vietnam and the Diaspora. (PhD Dissertation), University of Sydney. Carruthers, Ashley. (2008). Saigon from the Diaspora. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 29, 68–86. CDC, MQVN, & Fisherfolks, United Louisiana Vietnamese American. (2010). Loss of Subsistence Use Claim Framework & Template for Louisiana Vietnamese Ameriacan Fisherfolks and Other Louisiana Fisherfolks. Retrieved from New Orleans: Chamlee-Wright, Emily, & Storr, Virgil Henry. (2010). The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in post-Katrina Community Recovery. In Emily Chamlee-Wright & Virgil Henry Storr

260

(Eds.), The Political Economy of Hurricane Katrina and Community Rebound (pp. 87- 106). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Chiang, S. Leo. (2009). A Village Called Versailles: Their Homes Destroyed. Their Voice Discovered: Walking Iris Films. Chou, Rosalind S., & Feagin, Joe R. (2008). The Myth of the Model Minority : Asian Americans Facing Racism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Clifford, James. (1994). Diasporas. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 302-338. Cohen, Robin. (1996). Diasporas and the Nation-State: From Victims to Challengers. International Affairs, 72(3), 507-520. Cohen, Robin. (1997). Global Diasporas - An Introduction. London: University College London Press. Colten, Craig E., Hay, Jenny, & Giancarlo, Alexandra. (2012). Community Resilience and Oil Spills in Coastal Louisiana. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 5. Conway, Dennis, & Potter, Robert B. (Eds.). (2009). Return Migration of the Next Generations: 21st Century Transnational Mobility. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company. Corcoran, M. (1995). Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 237-267. Dessens, Nathalie. (2015). Creole City: a Chronicle of Early American New Orleans. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. DeVore, Donald E. (2015). Defying Jim Crow : African American Community Development and the Struggle for Racial Equality in New Orleans, 1900-1960. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Do, Hien Duc. (1999). The Vietnamese Americans. Westport and London: Greenwood Press. Dorais, Louis-Jacques, Pilon-Le, Leise, & Huy, Nguyen. (1987). Exile in a Cold Land: A Vietnamese Community in Canada. New Haven: Yale Center for International and Area Studies. Dorais, Louis-Jacques. (2001). Defining the Overseas Vietnamese. Diaspora, 10(1), 3-28. Dorais, Louis-Jacques. (2010). Politics, Kinship, and Ancestors: Some Diasporic Dimensions of the Vietnamese Experience in North America. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 5(2), 91- 132. Dufoix, Stéphane. (2008). Diasporas. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press. Duiker, William J. (1990). Vietnam since the Fall of Saigon. Athens: Ohio University. Dutton, George. (2006). Crossing Oceans, Crossing Boundaries: The Remarkable Life of Philiphê Bỉnh (1759-1832). In Nhung Tuyet Tran & Anthony Reid (Eds.), Viet Nam: Borderless Histories. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Dũng, Tiến. (2010). Hạ nghị sĩ Mỹ gốc Việt đầu tiên đến Hà Nội. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from VNExpress http://vnexpress.net/gl/xa-hoi/2010/01/3ba17685/ Dzũng, Đỗ. (2012). New Orleans thông qua nghị quyết ngưng giao thương với Việt Nam Retrieved February 24, 2013, from Nguoi Viet Online http://www.nguoi- viet.com/absolutenm2/templates/viewarticlesNVO.aspx?articleid=153753&zoneid=1#.U Sqz_FeyL-s Dynes, Russell R., & Rodriguez, Havidan. (2010). Finding and Framing Katrina: The Social Construction of Disaster. In David L. Brunsma, David Overfelt, & J Steven Picou (Eds.), The Sociology of Katrina: Perspectives on a Mordern Catastrophe (pp. 25-36). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

261

Esclamado, Leo. (2011). Ensuring justice: Claiming livelihood for communities in the U.S. Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill disaster. Michigan Journal of Social Work and Social Welfare, 2(1), 24-38. Espiritu, Yen Le. (2003). Home Bound: Filipino American Lives across Cultures, Communities, and Countries. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Espiritu, Yen-Le. (2006). Toward a Critical Refugee Study: The Vietnamese Refugee Subject in US Scholarship. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 1(1-2), 410-433. Fforde, Adam, & Vylder, Stefan de. (1996). From Plan to Market: The Economic Transition in Vietnam. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc. Fraser, Nancy, & Gordon, Linda. (1994). A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State. Signs, 19(2), 309-336. Freeman, James M. (1989). Hearts of Sorrow: Vietnamese-American Lives. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Freeman, James M. (1995). Changing Identities: Vietnamese Americans, 1975-1995. Boston, London etc.: Allyn and Bacon. Fussell, Elizabeth. (2007). Constructing New Orleans, Constructing Race: A Population History of New Orleans. Journal of American History, 94(3), 846-855. GCCF. (2010a). GCCF Claim Packet: Gulf Coast Claims Facility. GCCF. (2010b). Protocol for Emergency Advance Payments: Gulf Coast Claims Facility. GCCF. (2011a). Announcement of Payment Options, Eligibility and Substantiation Criteria and Final Payment Methodology: Gulf Coast Claims Facility. GCCF. (2011b). Final Rules Governing Payment Options, Eligibility and Substantiation Criteria and Final Payment Methodology: Gulf Coast Claims Facility. Gilroy, Paul. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gilroy, Paul. (1994). Diaspora. Paragraph, 17(1), 207-212. Gmelch, George. (1980). Return Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 135-159. Goldberg, John C. P. (2010). Liability for Economic Loss in Connection with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from Harvard Law School http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4595438/Report%20on%20Economic%20Los s%20Liability%2011%2022%2010.pdf?sequence=1 Gupta, Akhil, & Ferguson, James. (1992). Beyond 'Culture': Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6-23. Hardwood, John. (2005). Repub. Rep: "We Finally Cleaned Up Public Housing In New Orleans. We Couldn't Do It, But God Did"... Retrieved March 11, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/12/repub-rep-we-finally-clea_n_7239.html Hall, Stuart. (1990). Cultural Identity and Diaspora. In Jonathan Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference (pp. 222—237.). London: Lawrence & Wishart. Hammer, David. (2010). Ken Feinberg offers third option for Gulf oil spill claims payments. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from The Times-Picayune http://www.nola.com/news/gulf- oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/ken_feinberg_offers_third_opti.html Hammer, David. (2011). Ken Feinberg reaches deal to pay subsistence claims for commercial fishermen who consume a portion of their catch. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from The Times-Picayune http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/04/post_31.html Hannan, Philip, Collins, Nancy, & Finney, Peter. (2010). From Combat, to Camelot, to Katrina: The Archbishop Wore Combat Boots. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.

262

Hansen, Peter. (2009). Bắc Di Cư: Catholic Refugees from the North of Vietnam, and Their Role in the Southern Republic, 1954-1959. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 4(3), 173-211. Hartigan, John. (2010). Race in the 21st Century: Ethnographic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. Hirsch, Arnold R., & Logsdon, Joseph (Eds.). (1992). Creole New Orleans: Race and Americanization: Louisiana State University Press. Hu, Susan. (2005). "We cleaned public housing...". Retrieved March 11, 2016 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/9/147236/- Hương, Quê. (2005). Lịch sử công tác vận động người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài [History of affairs related to overseas Vietnamese], Retrieved July 22, 2013, from Tạp chí Quê hương http://quehuongonline.vn/VietNam/Home/Uy-ban-Nha-nuoc-ve-nguoi-Viet-Nam-o-nuoc- ngoai/Gioi-thieu-chung-/2005/01/1DDCC03A/ Huynh, Kim Khanh. (1989). Revolution at an Impasse: Impressions of Vietnamese Communism Circa 1990. In Richard Stubbs (Ed.), Vietnam: Facing the 1990s (pp. 1-26). Toronto: Joint Centre for Asia Pacific Studies. Ingersoll, Thomas N. (1999). Mammon and Manon in Early New Orleans: the First Slave Society in the Deep South, 1718-1819 (1st ed.). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Jacobson, Gary C. (1983). The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little, Brown. Johnson, Jerah. (1992). Colonial New Orleans: A Fragment of the Eighteenth-Century French Ethos. In Arnold R. Hirsch & Joseph Logsdon (Eds.), Creole New Orleans: Race and Amerianization (pp. 12-57). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Juhasz, Antonia. (2011). Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Justice, Alliance for. (2011). One Year after the Gulf Oil Spill: Is Justice Being Served? Retrieved January 3, 2013, from Alliance for Justice http://www.afj.org/connect-with- the-issues/the-corporate-court/crude_justice/oneyearreport.pdf Kearney, Michael. (1995). The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 547-565. Kibria, Nazli. (2000). Not Asian, Black, or White? Reflections on South Asian American Racial Identity. In Jean Yu-Wen Shen Wu & Min Song (Eds.), Asian American Studies: A Reader (pp. 247-254). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kim, Claire Jean. (1999). The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics & Society, 27(1), 105-138. Kim, Nguyên. (2010). Joseph Cao, người cô đơn. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from Đàn chim Việt http://www.danchimviet.info/archives/4284/joseph-cao- ng%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Di-co-d%C6%A1n/2010/03 Kimura, Tetsusaburo. (1989). The Vietnamese Economy 1975-1986: Reforms and International Relations. Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies. Kirkham, Chris. (2010). NOAA reopens 4,000 square miles to fishing off western Louisiana coast. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from The Times-Picayune http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/noaa_re- opens_4000_square_mile.html Koh, Priscilla. (2011). Vietnam's Familiar Strangers: Narratives of Home, Homeland and Belonging Among Second Generation Việt Kiều in Sài Gòn. (PhD Dissertation), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

263

Koh, Priscilla. (2015). You can come home again: Narratives of home and belonging among second-generation Viet Kieu in Vietnam. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 30(1), 173-214. Kosnick, Kira. (2007). Migrant Media: Turkish Broadcasting and Multicultural Politics in Berlin. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Leong, Karen J., Airriess, Christopher A., Li, Wei, Chen, Angela Chia-Chen, & Keith, Verna M. (2007). Resilient History and the Rebuilding of a Community: The Vietnamese American Community in New Orleans East. The Journal of American History, 94(3), 770-779. Levin, Jeffrey L., Gilmore, Karen, Carruth, Ann, Nonnenmann, Matthew W., Evert, William, & King, Denae. (2010). An Interview With Vietnamese Fishermen of Louisiana in the Wake of the Oil Spill. Journal of Agromedicine, 15(4), 337-342. Levitt, Peggy, & Jaworsky, B. Nadya. (2007). Transnational Migration Studies: Past Developments and Future Trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 129-156. Li, Wei, Airriess, Christopher A. , Chen, Angela Chia-Chen, Leong, Karen J. , & Keith, Verna. (2010). Katrina and Migration: Evacuation and Return by African Americans and Vietnamese Americans in an Eastern New Orleans Suburb. The Professional Geographer, 62(1), 103-118. Light, Alfred R. (2011). The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility: the "Superfund" Myth and the Law of Unintended Consequences. Golden Gate Univeristy Environmental Law Journal, 5(1), 87-108. Linh, Thùy. (2012). Việt Nam sẽ nhận 9 tỷ USD kiều hối năm 2012. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from VNExpress http://vnexpress.net/gl/kinh-doanh/2012/11/viet-nam-se-nhan-9- ty-usd-kieu-hoi-nam-2012/ Luong, Hy (Ed.). (2003). Postwar Vietnam: Dynamics of a Tranforming Society. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Manalansan IV, Martin F. . (2003). Global Divas: Filipino Gay Men in the Diaspora. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Marable, Manning. (1995). Beyond Black and White: Transforming African-American Politics. London, New York: Verso. Marks, Brian. (2012). The Political Economy of Household Commodity Production in the Louisiana Shrimp Fishery. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(2 and 3), 227–251. McElhinny, Bonnie. (2001). See No Evil, Speak No Evil: White Police Officers' Talk about Race and Affirmative Action. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1), 65-78. Mi, Trà. (2013). Thỉnh nguyện thư yêu cầu Mỹ hạn chế du lịch, gửi tiền về Việt Nam. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from Voice of America (VOA) http://www.voatiengviet.com/content/thinh-nguyen-thu-yeu-cau-my-han-che-du-lich-goi- tien-ve-vietnam/1643228.html Mui, Ylan Q. (2010). Vietnamese Shrimpers Face Financial Ruin after Oil Spill. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062604298.html New Orleans, City Council. (2012). Resolution No. R-12-166. New Orleans City Council. Người Việt, Online. (2012). Nhật Báo Người Việt và cộng đồng Retrieved February 24, 2013, from Người Việt Online http://www.nguoi- viet.com/absolutenm2/templates/viewarticlesNVO.aspx?articleid=152744&zoneid=3#.U Sp1UFeyL-s

264

Nguyễn, Thanh Sơn. (2010). Kết quả 6 năm triển khai Nghị quyết 36/NQ-TW của Bộ Chính trị về công tác đối với người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from Tạp chí Quê hương online http://quehuongonline.vn/VietNam/Home/Uy-ban-Nha-nuoc- ve-nguoi-Viet-Nam-o-nuoc-ngoai/Bai-viet,-tra-loi-phong-van-/2010/11/3C42EAE8/ Nguyen, Van Canh. (1983). Vietnam under Communism, 1975-1982. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. Nguyen, Van Huy (Ed.). (2007). Hanoi Life under the Subsidy Economy (1975-1986) Hanoi: Vietnam Museum of Ethnology. Nhi, Trường Sơn Lê Xuân. (2003). Lễ Rước Lá Cờ Vàng Tại Giáo Xứ Lê Thị Thành, Louisiana, Hoa Kỳ Retrieved from http://vietbao.com/D_1-2_2-282_4-62246/ . Retrieved 18 December 2012. Norcross, Eileen, & Skriba, Anthony. (2010). The Road Home: Helping Homeowners in the Gulf after Katrina. In Emily Chamlee-Wright & Virgil Henry Storr (Eds.), The Political Economy of Hurricane Katrina and Community Rebound (pp. 185-214). Northampton: Edward Elgar. Oliver-Smith, Anthony. (1996). Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303-328. Omi, Michael, & Winant, Howard. (1994). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s, Second Edition. New York: Routledge. Ong, Aihwa. (2003). Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Partlett, David F, & Weaver, Russell L. (2011). BP Oil Spill: Compensation, Agency Costs, and Restitution. Washington and Lee Law Review, 68(3), 1341-1375. Perry, Ronen. (2011). The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the Limits of Civil Liability. Washington Law Review, 86(1), 1-68. Phan, Peter C. (2005). Vietnamese-American Catholics. New York: Paulist Press. Phước Tỉnh, Giáo xứ. (2004). 50 năm thành lập giáo xứ Phước Tỉnh 12/1954-12/2004. xã Phước Tỉnh, huyện Long Điền, tỉnh Bà Rịa-Vũng Tàu. Quốc, Hoài. (2006). Cuộc đấu tranh Ba Làng năm 1954. San Jose: Lương Tâm Công Giáo. Ravitz, Jessica. (2010). Vietnamese Fishermen in Gulf fight to not Get Lost in Translation. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/vietnamese.fishermen.gulf.coast/index.html?fbid= 6uiLXdMAzcB Reporter. (2010). BP to Stop Handling Claims Related to Gulf spill on Wednesday. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from The Associated Press http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil- spill/index.ssf/2010/08/bp_to_stop_handling_claims_rel.html Reporter. (2011). Ken Feinberg, Oil Spill Claims Czar, not Independent of BP, Judge Rules. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from The Associated Press http://www.nola.com/news/gulf- oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/02/ken_feinberg_oil_spill_claims.html Reporter, WWLTV. (2010). Vietnamese Fishermen Want Changes in Oil Spill Claims. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from WWLTV.com http://www.wwltv.com/home/Vietnamese-fishermen-want-changes-in-oil-spill-claims- 111939284.html Reyes, Liz. (2010). Feinberg Promises Faster Oil Spill Compensation. Retrieved August 18, 2010, from FOX 8 News http://www.fox8live.com

265

Rutledge, Paul. (1992). The Vietnamese Experience in America. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Safran, William. (1991). Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora, 1(1), 83-99. Sanyika, Mtangulizi. (2011). Katrina and the Condition of Black New Orleans. In Robert D. Bullard & Beverly Wright (Eds.), Race, Place and Environmental Justice after Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild and Reviltalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast (pp. 87-114). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Schaefer, Richard T. (2007). Race and Ethnicity in the United States, 4th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Schiller, Nina Glick, Basch, Linda, & Blanc-Szanton, Cristina. (1992). Transnationalism: A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 645(Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered), 1 - 24. Schiller, Nina Glick, & Fouron, Georges Eugene. (2001). Georges Woke up Laughing: Long- distance Nationalism and the Search for Home. Durham, London: Duke University Press. Schwartz, John. (2010). Administrator of BP Fund Offers Bonuses to Spill Victims Who Bypass Suits. Retrieved July 4, 2013, from New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/us/13fund.html?_r=0 Schwenkel, Christina. (2015). Spectacular Infrastructure and its Breakdown in Socialist Vietnam. American Ethnologist, 42(3), 520-534. Senate, U.S. (2011). Gulf Coast Recovery: An Examination of Claims and Social Services in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE). ([Senate Hearing 112-41]). from the U.S. Government Printing Office http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg66618/pdf/CHRG-112shrg66618.pdf Sheffer, Gabriel. (1986). A New Field of Study: Mordern Diasporas in International Politics. In Gabriel Sheffer (Ed.), Modern Diasporas in International Politics. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. Skinner, Elliott P. (1993). The Dialectic between Diasporas and Homelands. In Joseph E. Harry (Ed.), Global Dimension of the African Diaspora (pp. 11-40). Washington D.C.: Howard University Press. Skoloff, Brian. (2010). Kenneth Feinberg: Gulf Oil Spill Claimants Offered Quick Pay Option But Forfeit Right To Sue BP Retrieved July 4, 2013, from The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/ken-feinberg-gulf-oil-spi_n_795983.html Small, Ivan V. (2012). Embodied Economies: Vietnamese Transnational Migration and Return Regimes. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 27(2), 234-259. Small, Ivan V. (2012). “Over There”: Imaginative Displacements in Vietnamese Remittance Gift Economies. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 7(3), 157-183. Smith, Andrea. (2006). Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing. In Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. (Ed.), Color of violence : the Incite! anthology (pp. 66-73). Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Smith, Andrea. (2010). Indigeneity, Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy. Global Dialogue, 12(2). SRV, Prime Minister. (2008). Quyết định số 102/2008/QĐ-TTg ngày 18/7/2008 của Thủ tướng Chính phủ quy định chức năng, nhiệm vụ, quyền hạn và cơ cấu tổ chức của Ủy ban Nhà

266

nước về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài trực thuộc Bộ Ngoại giao. Hanoi Retrieved from http://quehuongonline.vn/VietNam/Home/Popup.aspx?module=print&id=6497 . Stokes, Curtis, Melendez, Theresa, & Rhodes-Reed, Gernice. (2001). Race in 21st century America. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Tacopino, Joe. (2010). Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao tells BP exec Lamar McKay to commit ritual suicide. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from NY Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/louisiana-rep-joseph-cao-tells-bp-exec-lamar- mckay-commit-ritual-suicide-article-1.182354 Tâm, Thành. (2012). 12 năm, kiều hối về Việt Nam tăng 8 lần [After 12 years, the amount of remittances sent to Vietnam increased eight times]. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from VnEconomy http://vneconomy.vn/tai-chinh/12-nam-kieu-hoi-ve-viet-nam-tang-8-lan- 20120109035719291.htm Tang, Eric. (2011). A Gulf Unites Us: The Vietnamese Americans of Black New Orleans East. American Quarterly, 63(1), 117-149. Thai, Hung Cam. (2008). For Better or For Worse: Vietnamese International Marriages in the New Global Economy. New Brunswick, New Jersey, London: Rutgers University Press. Thấn, Cao Xuân. (2008). Chức năng, nhiệm vụ của Ủy ban Nhà nước về người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài trong tình hình mới [Function and Task of the State Commission on overseas Vietnamese in the new situation]. Retrieved 22 July 2013, from Quê Hương Online http://quehuongonline.vn/VietNam/Home/Uy-ban-Nha-nuoc-ve-nguoi-Viet-Nam-o-nuoc- ngoai/Gioi-thieu-chung-/2008/11/30570720/ The Federal Oil Spill Pollution Act of 1990. Section 2702(b). (1990). The South End Press, Collective (Ed.) (2007). What Lies Beneath: Katrina, Race, and the State of the Nation: South End Press. Thomas, Mandy. (1997). Crossing over: The Relationship between Overseas Vietnamese and Their Homeland. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 18(2), 153-176. Thomet, Laurent. (2005). New Orleans Invites Residents Back To Wrecked City. Retrieved Jan 1, 2013, from Terradaily http://www.terradaily.com/news/hurricane-05zzzy.html Tölölyan, Khachig. (1996). Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment. Diaspora, 5(1), 3-36. Tran, Angie Ngoc. (2003). Transnational Assembly Work: Vietnamese American Electronic and Vietnamese Garment Workers. Amerasia Journal: Vietnamese Americans Creating Diasporas and Destinies, 29(1), 4-28. Tran, Cong Thien, & Do, Doan Que. (2005). Nghị Quyết 36 và Các Công Tác của Việt Cộng tại Hải Ngoại. Retrieved February 23, 2013, from Văn Hoá Giáo Dục hằng tuần, AM1120 tại San Jose, California http://www.toquocvietnam.org/NQ36-CacCongTacCuaVC.htm Tran, Trong Dang Dan. (2005). Người Việt Nam ở nước ngoài không chỉ có "Việt kiều". Hà Nội: NXB Chính trị quốc gia. Triều, Hải. (2004). Trận Chiến Cờ Vàng, Retrieved from http://vietbao.com/D_1-2_2-282_4- 165970/. Retrieved 18 December 2012. Trình, Phụng Nguyên. (2010). Dân biểu Joseph Cao đối mặt với căn bệnh trầm kha. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from Đàn chim Việt http://www.danchimviet.info/archives/8665/dan- bi%E1%BB%83u-joseph-cao-d%E1%BB%91i-m%E1%BA%B7t-v%E1%BB%9Bi-can- b%E1%BB%87nh-tr%E1%BA%A7m-kha/2010/05 Trung, Chinh. (2006). Katrina: Gió đã đổi chiều [Katrina: the Wind Has Turned]. New Orleans: Lĩnh Nam Publisher.

267

Truong, thi Kim Chuyen, Small, Ivan, & Vuong, Diep. (2008). Diaspora Philanthropy in Vietnam. In Paula Johnson (Ed.), Diaspora Giving: An Agent of Change in Asia Pacific Communities? (pp. 251-283). Manila: Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium. Truitt, Allison. (2015). Not a Day but a Vu Lan Season: Celebrating Filial Piety in the Vietnamese Diaspora. Journal of Asian American Studies, 18(3), 289-311. Tuan, Mia. (1999). Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press. Urbina, Ian. (2010). BP Settlements Likely to Shield top defendants. Retrieved January 31, 2013, from The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/us/20spill.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Vertovec, Steven. (1997). Three Meanings of 'Diaspora', Exemplified Among South Asian Religions. Diaspora, 6(3), 277-299. Việt, Long. (2010). Dân biểu Cao Quang Ánh từ chối giúp đại diện Bộ ngoại giao VN gặp gỡ người Việt ở Mỹ. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from Radio Free Asia http://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/Cao-Rejects-Vietnam-s-Request-for-Help- Arranging-Meeting-with-Vietnamese-American-Community-VLong- 05052010171301.html/ Vollen, Lola, & Ying, Chris (Eds.). (2008). Voices From the Storm: The People of New Orleans on Hurricane Katrina and its Aftermath, 2nd edition. San Francisco: McSweeney's Books. Vu, Lung, MJ, VanLandingham, Mai, Do, & Bankston, Carl L. III. (2009). Evacuation and Return of Vietnamese New Orleanians Affected by Hurricane Katrina. Organization & Environment, 22(4), 422-436. Wailoo, K., O'Neill, K. M. , Dowd, J. , & Anglin, R. (Eds.). (2010). Katrina's Imprint: Race and Vulnerability in America: Rutgers University Press. Waters, Mary C., & Eschbach, Karl. (1995). Immigration and Ethnic and Racial Inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 419-446. Wilson, Mark J , Frickel, Scott, Nguyen, Daniel, Bui, Tap, Echsner, Stephen, Simon, Bridget R, Wickliffe, Jeffrey Kirk. (2014). A Targeted Health Risk Assessment Following the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure in Vietnamese- American Shrimp Consumers. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(2), 152-159. Wilson, William Julius, & Aponte, Robert. (1985). Urban Poverty. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 231-258. Wong, Paul. (1999). Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in the United States : toward the twenty- first century. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Wu, Frank H. (2002). Yellow: Race in America beyond Black and White. New York: Basic Books. Xuân Lộc, Giáo phận. (2003). Kỷ yếu giáo phận Xuân Lộc 1965-2003 [Historical Sketch of Xuan Loc diocese 1965-2003]. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Tôn giáo. Zhou, Min, & Bankston, Carl L. III. (1998). Growing up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

268

Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations

1. ALOV: Association for Liaison with Overseas Vietnamese 2. MQVN: Mary Queen of Viet Nam church 3. MQVN-CDC (or CDC): Mary Queen of Viet Nam – Community Development Corporation 4. RVN: Republic of Vietnam (1955-1975) 5. SRV: Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1976- to date; formerly named Democratic Republic of Vietnam from 1954-1976) 6. VAYLA-NO: Vietnamese American Young Leaders Association in New Orleans 7. VIET: Vietnamese Initiative in Economic Training, an organization in New Orleans East

Appendix 2. List of Vietnamese Terms

1. Dân biểu, Hạ nghị sĩ: Congressman 2. Kỳ thị: Discrimination 3. Mỹ đen: Black American 4. Quê hương: Homeland, Fatherland 5. Tết: Lunar New Year 6. Thuyền nhân: Boat people 7. Tị nạn: Refugee 8. Việt kiều: Overseas Vietnamese

271