Taiwanese Americans are people in the US whose families come from Taiwan. As many as a fourth of all Chinese Americans are Taiwanese. Most of the Chinese who came to the US in the 1960s and 1970s came from Taiwan.
- Population: 230,000 to 919,000 in 2010.
- Languages: English, Mandarin, Taiwanese, Hakka.
- Location: Half live in California, many others live in New York and Texas.
- Nobel Prizes:
- 1976: Samuel Ting, Physics;
- 1986: Yuan Tseh Lee, Chemistry;
- 1997: Steven Chu, Physics.
- Helped to found: Yahoo!, YouTube, Garmin, Nautica, Panda Express.
- Some famous Taiwanese Americans:
- Lucy Liu, actress;
- Jeremy Lin, NBA;
- Lisa Ling, journalist (pictured above);
- Connie Chung, journalist;
- Jerry Yang, billionaire, co-founder of Yahoo!;
- Steve Chen, designer of Cray supercomputers;
- Wen Ho Lee, nuclear physicist, falsely accused of spying for communist China;
- Ang Lee, film director, “Eat Drink Man Woman” (1994), “Sense and Sensibility” (1995), “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000), “Brokeback Mountain” (2005), “Life of Pi” (2012). First Asian American to win an Oscar.
- Alexander Wang, fashion designer;
- Iris Chang, writer, “The Rape of Nanking” (1997).
History: In 1949, when mainland China fell to the communists, Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT fled to Taiwan as a government in exile. So did more than a million others, many of them middle and upper-class Chinese who lost everything to the communists.
The KMT was an ally of the US during the Second World War. The US protected Taiwan militarily from communist China and pumped money into it. An economic miracle followed: Taiwan went from farming to making Barbie dolls to building computers, all in less than 50 years.
That miracle was paid for in part by the billions that the US poured into the science and engineering departments of its own universities. Taiwan benefited because it sent its best and brightest, especially those good at mathematics and science, to the US for graduate studies. They made Taiwan into a technological powerhouse.
Brain drain: But the US benefited even more: three in four Taiwanese students stayed in the US, becoming an American ethnic group with one of the highest levels of education. Many became professors and engineers. They helped to make the US into a technological powerhouse.
America in the late 1960s: It was amazingly free (Taiwan was a dictatorship, the US was going countercultural), had terrible food (even the “Chinese” food was fake!), most people looked alike at first with pale skin and big noses, and their English was full of slang and strange expressions not found in books.
America in the 1970s: Nixon visits China. Saigon falls. Fears that the US at some point will become unwilling or unable to protect Taiwan from communist China. The US is seen as a safe haven.
The bamboo ceiling: You have to be twice as good. Less educated Whites get promoted over you. Whites stereotype you as a worker bee uninterested in management. At best they see you as an honorary white, not a fully equal fellow American.
Taiwanese Americans mostly live in suburbia, not Chinatowns. The Chinese of Chinatown mostly come from Guangdong province: the food and language is different. Taiwanese Americans have their own shops and restaurants at suburban shopping centres.
– Abagond, 2014, 2016.
Source: Mainly “The Chinese in America” (2003) by Iris Chang.
See also:
- Wen Ho Lee
- Yahoo!
- YouTube
- Asian Americans
- Notes on the American Empire
- American ethnic groups: a brief history: 1492 to 2100
- The Third Enlargement of American Whiteness
[…] Taiwanese Americans are people in the US whose families come from Taiwan. As many as a fourth of all Chinese Americans are Taiwanese. Most Chinese who came to the US in the 1960s and 1970s came from Taiwan or Hong KongLocation: Half live in California, many others live in New York and Texas.Nobel Prizes:1976: Samuel Ting, Physics;1986: Yuan Tseh Lee, Chemistry;1997: Steven Chu, Physics.Helped to found: Yahoo!, YouTube, Garmin, Nautica, Panda Express.Click through to read more. […]
LikeLike
Abagond, this post is pretty light on the white bashing, so you might want to edit it to add more, e.g., about the quotas to hold back Asian American students because white Americans don’t study hard enough (Blacks and Hispanics would study more of course, but the standardized tests and grading are racist, so why bother).
Also, you wrote “Fears that the US at some point will become unwilling or unable to protect Taiwan from communist China.” This is garbage. Of course, Chinese in Taiwan wanted (and still want) to be reunited with China and to be a part of the revolution and the cultural renewal taking place in the Mainland. It was only the puppet government (still) supported by the U.S. that prevented this. This is another example of white American oppression. Also, Ho Chi Minh City (fka Saigon) did not “fall”. It was liberated. You should be careful about not using American imperialist terminology.
LikeLike
@biff: I only have a small sample of Taiwanese, mostly graduate student. For what it is worth, none of them want to be reunited to mainland china.
I do not know for sure what the nation think as a whole, but the person I spoke to were pretty clear.
On the other hand, the only time I discussed with a graduate student from mainland china on the subject, he told me that the official news repeat that Taiwan wants to be reunited, and it was clear that he did believe it…
So who do you listen to?
LikeLike
Kiwi:
I will admit to being “dumb” if we can agree that the definition of “dumb” is not agreeing with you.
I was one of the 2,500 straight up (i.e., not college sponsored) National Merit Scholars my year. Less than .1% of people in the U.S. get that distinction, and they are a small minority at every ivy league school. The NMSC at least says they try to look for “the strongest combination of accomplishments, skills, and potential for success in rigorous college studies” and that they don’t consider race as a factor. I was not a legacy or athletic prospect. I also graduated Summa from my undergrad ivy if that matters. However, please feel free to continue to believe that I stole a place that rightfully belonged to a more qualified Asian American, such as yourself.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Good point about the bamboo ceiling. I corrected the post. Thanks.
LikeLike
I have known thousands of Taiwanese-Americans in the USA and have been to Taiwan over 25 times between 1980 and 2012, adding up to at least 1 year of my life – meeting thousands of people there too.
I read some Taiwanese publications, and follow some discussion on social media.
I have never EVER met or heard of a single Taiwanese in Taiwan, HK, USA, Canada, South America, etc. say that they *willingly* want to be reunited with China. And just look at the sit-in of the students this year at the Legislative Yuan to block legislation to open the markets to each other to gauge the mood there. The only ones who really think they want it are a few with certain personal business or political interests.
Watching how China has clamped down on Hong Kong only strengthens Taiwanese trepidation about reuniting with the Mainland.
Of course, some Taiwanese acknowledge that it may eventually happen. But they are not rushing to the altar so fast. If Taiwanese wanted it so much, it would have already happened decades ago.
LikeLike
guys, so sometimes I use satire to prove a point.
jefe, the sentence you spent a whole comment responding to was one of those times. I’m sorry you didn’t get it.
Seems I need to have a satire notice. Did you guys really think I wanted Abagond to add in more “white bashing” and to “avoid using American imperialist terminology?”
LikeLike
To Kiwi:
Ironically, white Americans resort to quotas in order to hold back the competition from Asian students.
According to the study that demonstrates that Asian admissions are suppressed at elite private schools, if all affirmative action were eliminated the percentage of white students would increase more than Asian students. The hand is tipped to whites over Asians because of legacy preferences and preferences for sports (the latter includes sports like lacrosse..) so basically the white elites have figured out how to game the system.
If you have information or data to the contrary, I would like to see it…
LikeLike
I think the issue about the history, status and future of Affirmative Action and the relationship of people, eg, Taiwanese Americans and other Asian Americans, as well as whites,blacks, Latinos, etc. would, in theory, be an interesting discussion, but it would draw the trolls out of the woodwork.
LikeLike
Jefe:
in theory, be an interesting discussion, but it would draw the trolls out of the woodwork…
Fair enough.. perhaps you or Abagond could do a post on the subject. I found plenty of contradictory and convoluted data on the subject (including data that contradicted part of my post…).
LikeLike
This “Asian quota” is a favorite topic here. Have you people read the Myth of American Meritocracy by Ron Unz (he’s a Jewish Harvard grad)? (google it).
Yes, the Asian quota absolutely exists, but in terms of numerical impact, white non-Jews are by far the most disfavored by the current sytem (looking at enrollment at ivies). From Unz’s article:
“Once we begin separating out the Jewish portion of Ivy League enrollment, our picture of the overall demographics of the student bodies is completely transformed… In fact, Harvard reported that 45.0 percent of its undergraduates in 2011 were white Americans, but since Jews were 25 percent of the student body, the enrollment of non-Jewish whites might have been as low as 20 percent, though the true figure was probably somewhat higher. The Jewish levels for Yale and Columbia were also around 25 percent, while white Gentiles were 22 percent at the former and just 15 percent at the latter. The remainder of the Ivy League followed this same general pattern.
This overrepresentation of Jews is really quite extraordinary, since the group currently constitutes just 2.1 percent of the general population and about 1.8 percent of college-age Americans.”
Unz persuasively argues that Jewish representation is far above what one would expect to see, even in light of their high IQs.
So, currently, representation of Jews at elite institutions is about 12-15x their number in the U.S. population.
Representation of Asians is around 3-4x their number in the U.S. population.
Representation of non-Jewish whites is around 0.4x of their number in the U.S. population.
Representation of non-Asian minorities (NAMs) may be around 0.8x of their number in the U.S. population.
In light of these figures, what can we conclude? According to the geniuses here, we need to just admit more Asians, while keeping quotas for NAMs, so maybe representation of non-Jewish whites can drop to perhaps 0.3x their numbers in the U.S. population, while Asians have 5-6x their number in the U.S. population.
Non-Jewish whites are clearly the most underrepresented group at elite colleges, but who cares because they are evil.
And Uncle Milton said “so basically the white elites have figured out how to game the system.” Hmmmm… who could those “white elites” be? we can’t say because… we can’t talk about that…
LikeLike
Just about every successful black blog has at least one or two full-time white followers who attempt to bring “balance” to nearly every discussion that’s not unfailingly favorable to white society. No matter how painful those attempts are.
LikeLike
@Kiwi
“you’re the one who keeps following nonwhites in real life and on blogs like this”
Real life and blogS (plural)? How do you know that?
LikeLike
I am a huge fan of Ang Lee. In my dive into Asian culture I have actually found that America has ripped off quite a few of Asian films. The Asian films are always better in my opinion, but hey you can’t beat the original.
In regards to the brain drain I have always wonder about this. Every time they name a new inventor or invention I always wonder why only one guy is getting credit when there was probably a room full of individuals that did the work.
LikeLike
Kiwi:
Now you’re trying to say I should follow the example set by DJ? Really? This blog tries to address issues of perceived injustice, but non-Jewish whites should just not even notice or mention if 3% of the population of whites will consistently receive more seats at very elite schools than the other 97%? Even if this clearly isn’t due to pure academic achievement/merit? It’s OK to complain about “white elites”, but we can’t identify by far the most powerful group by name (because once we start even mentioning these facts it’s immediately genocide all over again)?
You seem to have very limited reading comp. I don’t follow non-whites on “blogS” and never said I did. This is my one non-white blog (until I’m banned). Other blogs I follow may have some have non-white readers, but seem to have a primarily white readership. At other blogs, I’m usually the one sticking up for East Asians. On traditionalist sites, there’s a fair amount of labeling of all Asians as more prone to cheating, fraud, corruption and nepotism, such as hit pieces when an individual Japanese researcher fakes results or when an individual Korean American makes a bomb threat to avoid finals. I don’t think the hit pieces are useful, unless they are well researched and can tie an incident into a larger demonstrable trend, and I don’t think all “Asians” are the same at all, and this designation can cover more than half the world’s population. Anyway, please don’t try to make assumptions about me, because, more often than not, you are wrong.
LikeLike
Kiwi:
Um, not “nonwhite” blogs. I have had comments deleted or not posted on a couple more “progressive” sites (but I think run by whites), so I generally don’t bother posting, or even following, such “progressive” sites/echo chambers. I certainly don’t go looking for non-white blogs, which is what you implied.
I never said Jews, at least the Ashkenazi variety. are not “white”. Not all “Asians” are the same, why would all “whites” necessarily be the same?
LikeLike
Kiwi, that “study harder” part is a tough sell to me. When my gf was at Stevens Point, I saw a bunch of slacking Chinese or possibly Taiwanese students. Some things can make a very good valid argument but that’s ridiculous and only gives real racism a run for its money. These overseas transported students were not only on the wealthier side but go lower tuition than what stateside students got. My gf, who is a Hmong American, came from background of 13+ siblings so she needed all the assistance she could get but barely got any.
LikeLike
@biff
So telling history is white bashing? LOL More like a sociopathic clown such as yourself avoids and even showcases his own history to keep yourself on top.
LikeLike
Question:
I believe the first sentence, but find the 2nd sentence hard to believe. It was always my understanding that at least half of the immigration in the first decade following the 1965 Immigration law revision was due to family reunification, or connected to the pre-1965 immigrants somehow (the vast majority of which came from the area immediately west of the West River in Guangdong). There was a long backlog buildup from the miniscule pre-1965 quota in 1965, and there were a lot of people who finally entered in that first decade. It was also the time of the Cultural Revolution, and a lot of people were fleeing.
If you told me that it was about 30-35%, I might believe it. OR if you told me that it was the majority who came on student visas (Yes, I believe over half of those were from Taiwan.) Was that what Iris Chang said in her book, or did it come from some Govt census statistics or something?
Also, from the mid-1970s, there was a huge increase in ethnic Chinese immigrants from Vietnam and Cambodia (until the early 80s). Or are they not counted as “Chinese Americans”?
1980s, the landscape changed again. There were more coming from other regions in China (e.g., Fujian or Zhejiang) or from Hong Kong (who were preparing for the 1997 handover). Although, I would still believe if someone told me that 30% were from Taiwan.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
It comes from Iris Chang. She said:
It does not count ethnic Chinese from Vietnam, etc.
LikeLike
^ Ah, that explains it. 😛
Those slots did not include the slots for family reunification, which fall into a different category not subject to that 20,000 quota. I suspect that those numbers most probably exceeded those slots for Taiwanese, at least in the first several years after the 1965 reform. Remember that most families had relatives with whom they had been separated from for decades due to the prior exclusion or strict quota policies.
They also do not count any ethnic Chinese not coming from Taiwan, HK or China (e.g., from Vietnam or, say, from Latin America, eg, Cuba). The Exclusion Act excluded ethnic Chinese from any country. After 1965, they were counted under their last country of origin, not by ethnicity.
Most of the people that I know who came 1965-1970 came from Hong Kong or Guangdong province and were related by blood or marriage to people already in the USA. I would bet my life that they exceeded Taiwanese immigrants. In the 1970s, many were still coming for family reunification, but were trailing off, with Taiwanese catching up. That explains why 60-80% of Chinese-Americans traced their origin to one of 2 counties in Guangdong as late as the late 1980s. Then there were many refugees from mid-1970s to early 80s from places like Vietnam and Cambodia, many of whom became more socially integrated into ethnic Chinese communities than with, say, Vietnamese communities.
So, I would say that “Most of the Chinese who came to the US in the 1960s and 1970s came from Taiwan.” is most likely not a correct statement.
I have to think what needs to be changed to make it a correct statement. Those slots were new immigrants for Taiwan and China (excluding HK and ethnic Chinese from other countries) not counting those entering under other categories, such as refugee or family reunification. Most of those slots from China and Taiwan went to Taiwan until the USA formalized diplomatic ties with Mainland China.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Living in Anglo-America.
LikeLike
Commentary points:
Kiwi: 5,000 points
Biff: 25 points
LikeLike
Just came across this richly detailed article by Taiwanese-American foodwriter, Clarissa Wei, on Vice.com. “The Struggles of Writing About Chinese Food as a Chinese Person” ranges over popular cuisine and who profits from it, geography, world history and American history.
Wei describes her own food history and the frustrations of being a Taiwanese food writer who wants to write about a cuisine she knows and loves. Wei notes:
https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/yp7bx5/the-struggles-of-writing-about-chinese-food-as-a-chinese-person
It is a long read, but worth the time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Afrofem
Good observations in your comment and the cited article.
It’s quite similar to the fact that in mankind the half that usually spends more (much more!) time in the kitchen are women but when it comes to good paying and well famed jobs related to food who comes first are members of the other half, men, the chefs!
Maybe in the creation of literature about food and cuisine men also make more money than women, who knows?
LikeLike
@ munubantu
…in mankind the half that usually spends more (much more!) time in the kitchen are women but when it comes to good paying and well famed jobs related to food who comes first are members of the other half, men, the chefs!
Yes, my mother pointed this fact out to me when I was ten years old.
I would wager that your second observation is true, too.
LikeLike