by Rae Deslich/rae@retina.net
(At time of writing, student at De Anza Community College
Cupertino, California)
In the histories of US immigration, many accounts of the experiences of Italian or Russian immigrants have been written, and many of Chinese or Vietnamese immigrants. Therefore, I have chosen to study two ethnic groups, both who have a long history of oppression, occupation, and poverty in their native land, and who have experienced derision, nativism, poverty, and a loss of native culture in America. The experiences of these two ethnic groups are very similar in many important ways, and because the Croatian presence in America is a few decades ahead of the Filipino presence, it is likely that the Filipino presence will mirror the Croatian experience very closely. In presenting these two ethnographies, the parallels between their experiences will become apparent.
The Croatian people come from the area immediately to the east of Italy, south of Slovenia, west of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and forming the northern and eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. Croatia has, at various times, been part of the Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, Napoleonic French, Nazi German, or Yugoslav states, and many of the immigrants arriving to the US have therefore been incorrectly recorded as Austrian, German, Italian, or whatever else the US immigration agent presumed them to be. (Kohli, 1999). As such, I have assumed immigration figures to be wildly inaccurate and instead will use emigration records. The Austro-Hungarian empire, and various local governments in the greater Croatian area, seem to have kept very good records of emigration, and while they cannot account for people who were turned back at Ellis Island or died en route, I believe they are more accurate than most US immigration figures.
In 1815, the "Illyrian Provinces", the name given to the greater Croatian area at the time, was turned over to the Austro-Hungarian Empire from Napoleonic France. (Prpic 1971, 45) At this point, due to the oppressive political climate, many Dalmatians and Istrians began migrating to the United States. It was easier for people in these regions to do so because of their close proximity to the Adriatic coast. (Prpic 1971, 37) A primary reason for leaving was poverty; the average land ownership was only .75-1.5 acres per person, at a time when 1.5 acres were the estimated minimum for subsistence. (Kohli, 1999) In 1870, a severe depression hit Croatia as a result of several industrial advances (requiring less workers) and a virulent crop disease. (Prpic, 1971, 92) The emigration from 1870-1880 was 10,000 alone, and in 1880-1890 it was 74,000. (Prpic 1971, 134) The origin of the migration, by 1880, was mainly from the inland and largely unskilled and illiterate and remained that way for the remainder of the second immigrant stream. (Prpic 1971, 123)
Between 1900 and 1914, 329, 251 more people left Croatia for the United States before immigration was impeded by World War I and the anti-immigration legislation of the 20's. People still emigrated from Croatia (now in Yugoslavia, at this point), but the emigrants usually went to countries other than the US. (Prpic 1971, 255) Croatian immigration since World War II has been reduced and more dispersed over time; all told, 45,000 Croats have immigrated to the US since 1945, generally to escape the oppressive Yugoslav regime. In 1990, the US Census recorded 141,516 foreign-born Yugoslavs. (US Census, 1990) Most of the immigrants that arrived during the peak of the Second Great Immigrant Stream had probably already passed away by then. There are, today, one million foreign-born Croatians and their descendants living in the US.
The Croatian people, as described by foreign visitors to Dalmatia in the early 1800's, are tall (ranging from 5'9" to 6'3"), solid people, with a dark cast and broad foreheads. (Prpic 1971, 30) In my experience, Croatians also live unusually long- almost everyone in my family has lived to (or past) 80 years old. The main language is Croatian, which is only slightly removed from Slovenian and Serbian and is mutually intelligible to Russian and other northern Slavic languages. Croatian is extremely unlike English in just about every way, and it is difficult for parents to correctly transmit it to their children. Therefore, usage of the original language is dying out, with only 800,222 people reporting it as the language spoken in their home in 1990. (US Census, 1990)
Ethnic Croatians are almost exclusively Roman Catholic. (Prpic 1971, 21) They have been described as patient, stubborn, and hardworking, conservative, clannish, and patriarchal. Foreign rulers attempting to govern in Croatia have noted the people's capacity for passive resistance. (Prpic 1971, 222) These cultural qualities are likely inherited from a long history of living as impoverished peasants, and also from their devout Roman Catholicism. Croats living in the US tended to send their children to parochial schools if possible, and women were discouraged from working outside the home- not because it was considered indecent, but because it implied that her husband or father is an ineffective provider. (Prpic 1971, 30) Family organization is very loose within the group, but very tightly knit as a whole. This is probably a cultural remnant from the zadruga system in pre-1900 Croatia, where farmers would organize into small (5-30 people) family-like communes, incorporating whole families, widows, single people, and many others. Within this zadruga, all farm work was done equally, with no hierarchy, except for rigid gender roles for men and women, with men doing work outside the house, and women staying inside as much as possible. (Prpic 1971, 222) Croatians are also known for being very attached to their homes. Early-century observers noted how every immigrant Croatian house seemed to have a small garden, meticulously kept, and elderly Croatians frequently express a desire to remain living in, and even die in, the house that they were born in. (Prpic 1971, 225) A love of music, art, and dance is also a prevalent theme- there were numerous tambouritsas, or string bands, in each Croatian community, along with singing groups and frequent dances and plays presented at the neighborhood lodge (much like a community center). (Prpic 1971, 31)
Croatian immigrants generally fit into two types, usually defined by their origin. As previously mentioned, Dalmatians and Istrians, being near to the coast, emigrated earliest. Many had heard of the California Gold Rush and were lured by its promises of easy riches. Accordingly, they tended to settle in coastal areas that bore a climactic resemblance to the Adriatic coast, such as New Orleans, Los Angeles, Oregon and Washington, and San Francisco. (Wittke 1964, 429) They took up their traditional professions there, such as fruit and vegetable growers, vineyard owners, sailors, longshoremen, and shrimping, oystering or fishing, and added some new professions, such as restaurant, coffeehouse, or saloon owners. By 1875, half of all coffeehouses and one-fifth of all restaurants in San Francisco were owned by men of Dalmatian origin. (Slavonicweb.com, 2002) These immigrants were generally very successful, and some of the fruit orchards started by Dalmatian immigrants were the most prosperous in the country. (Prpic 1971, 32) Inland immigrants, on the other hand, had less access to the coast and left later in the century. They tended to be poor, unskilled, and illiterate. (Wittke 1964, 430) Manufacturers, mine companies, and steel mills often recruited just-arrived Eastern European immigrants to work in Midwest plants and mines. (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, 30) Today, the highest population concentration of Croats is in industrial regions of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. 75% of all Yugoslavs in the US are employed in coal and metal industries. (Wittke 1964, 457) Mining, mill, and factory work is often the bottom of the occupational ladder, so it is par for the course that many new Croatian immigrants would end up in those industries and stay in those regions for the next three or four generations.
Although today Croats are today considered white, and are superficially culturally indistinguishable, they were originally considered to be of a different race. In the early twentieth century, a popular sociological concept was that of the "four European races"- Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Semitic, listed in descending order of perceived intelligence, cultural achievement, and general social desirability. Intelligence tests administered to arrivals at Ellis Island reinforced the conception that Mediterranean-origin people were some of the least intelligent immigrants. Though the tests were later shown to be culturally biased and were discredited in the scientific community, American society in general continued to discriminate against Croatian immigrants and their descendants. (Prpic 1971, 219) The perception that Croats were unintelligent and uncivilized was furthered by their lifestyle. Consumption of alcohol was a cultural norm, and they were described as "intemperate" (Wittke 1964, 431), and the ethnic ghettos they lived in were frequently shabby, dirty, and disease-ridden. Although their deplorable living conditions had more to do with widespread poverty and nonexistent public health services, other Americans attributed it to the supposedly degenerate nature of the Croats. (Prpic 1971, 222) Croatian industrial workers were frequently used as "scab" workers during union strikes, and Croats usually distrusted union bosses and vice versa. Many employers considered Croats "only a little better than Negroes". (Prpic 1971, 157)
After the first generation, however, the level of cultural distinctiveness decreased significantly, and nativism accordingly decreased. Assimilation into American society happened very quickly, mainly because since the bulk of inland Croatian immigrants were poor, illiterate and uneducated, they had extreme difficulty in transmitting old-country traditions, customs, and especially language. As a result, second-generation Croatians are very nearly American in every way. However, among the third generation, there is frequently a revival of interest in Croatian culture, language, and art. (Prpic 1971, 224) Interestingly, it seems that the Croatians who have retained their culture the most throughout the generations tend to be the Dalmatians, who because of their higher level of education and greater economic success were better able to create culturally-focused associations and to transmit the culture to their children. However, with the Americanizing influence of many decades, and with many Croatians buying homes, going to college, and getting white-collar jobs, they are generally indistinguishable from the average WASP American, and incidents of ethnic prejudice and discrimination today are almost nonexistent. Croatians appear to have reached all eight levels of assimilation in Gordon's assimilation theory. (Prpic 1971, 224)
Around the same time that Croatian immigration was starting to taper off, Filipino immigration began to hit its stride. Filipinos had been immigrating in small numbers since the late 1800's, mainly on temporary student visas to attend American colleges and universities. In 1902, the Philippines, an island cluster in Southeast Asia, were turned over to the US at the end of the Spanish-American War. In what was called "the Philippine Insurrection", Filipinos tried to declare their independence, but the uprising was quashed by US forces and the Philippines were made a US protectorate against their will. (Knoll 1982, 88) At this point, many American-style primary schools were established in the Philippines that were taught in English, establishing it as a secondary language in the islands. Due to Filipino students' experience with this schooling, a greater number of upper class Filipinos were able to attend college in the US. Also, because of the Philippines' status as a part of the United States, they no longer needed visas to migrate to the mainland. (Reshmi 1998)
After Japanese laborer immigration to the US was limited by the Gentleman's Agreement in 1907, the demand for cheap labor in the West increased, and was filled by Filipino migrants. (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, 41) Some Hawaiian plantation owners even recruited for laborers in the Philippines. About 150,000 Filipinos migrated to the US from 1906-1946. In 1934 the Tydings-McDuffie Independence Act was passed, outlining plans for future Filipino independence. It also made Filipino-Americans' legal status to be "Filipino nationals" instead of simply "domestic aliens", and extended a yearly immigration quota of 50 to the Philippines (where they were previously exempt from the quotas of 1924 legislation). (Reshmi 1998) In 1935, in the height of the Depression, many civic leaders found that it would be cheaper to deport out-of-work Filipino laborers than to support them on welfare, prompting the passage of the Repatriation Act, which promised to cover the expenses of any Filipino that wanted to return to the Philippines. Many Filipinos "took the hint" and left the United States. (Knoll 1982, 104)
In 1946, the Philippines became a sovereign country, and citizenship was finally offered to Filipinos living in the United States. The immigration quota was also raised, but only to 100 people a year. (Knoll 1982, 105) Between 1946 and 1964, 30,000 Filipinos immigrated to the US. After the revision of immigration laws in 1965 and the abolishment of the national-origins principle, Filipino immigration soared to 630,000 people between 1965 and 1984. (Reshmi 1998) While earlier immigrants were rural workers, since 1965 most immigration has been a combination of professional/managerial workers and their families and family reunification with those already here. (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, 41)
While the Philippines are geographically part of Southeast Asia, Filipinos are ethnically Malay. Early Spanish colonization has caused Filipinos to be mainly (84%) Roman Catholic, with small Protestant (6%), Muslim (5%), and Buddhist (1%) minorities. The main languages of the island are Tagalog, the native language, and English and Spanish. (Atlapedia 2002) Because of their historical intermarriage with both the Spanish and Chinese, Filipinos resemble both races and are frequently mistaken for either. (Knoll 1982, 92) The lengthy colonization of the Philippines by Spain left its economy weak, so employment conditions were often unstable. Agricultural labor contractors exploited this need for stable work, and recruited for backbreaking "stoop labor" jobs there. (Knoll 1982, 90) Because of widespread poverty, families could often only afford to send one son to America, so the male to female ratio in America was usually 20 to 1. Also, anti-miscegenation laws prevented Filipinos from marrying women of other races. (Knoll 1982, 90) The work that Filipinos usually did was not conducive to forming permanent bonds; they received low pay, worked under difficult conditions, and had to move from place to place as the season and labor contracts dictated. Most Filipino immigrants were poor rural farmers, and had no marketable job skills to do anything but rural work. When they could find recreation, it was usually at dance halls, casinos, cockfights, and saloons, giving Filipinos a reputation, like many other immigrants, for degeneracy and immorality. (Knoll 1982, 94) This is, of course, a flawed assumption that the mainstream has made about every single immigrant ethnicity to enter the United States since the German and Scotch-Irish, and applies no more to Filipinos than to people of any other race.
The nature of immigration since 1965, however, has been far different. Since national quotas were removed from immigration law, elderly, children, and female Filipinos have arrived in the US, mostly families of those who moved here in the 20's. Unfortunately, these immigrant "pioneers" were usually 40 or 50 by the time they could marry, so Filipino generations have been slightly skewed towards the young side, with third and fourth generations being born unusually late. Also, homeowning, college attendance, and community forming have come relatively late for Filipino-Americans because of the early restrictions on marrying and immigration. (Knoll 1982, 105) Another important aspect of Filipino immigration has been that of educated professionals and skilled workers. In 1987, 8,512 Filipinos classified occupationally as "professionals and managers" immigrated to the United States, making the Philippines the highest contributor to this category, above even India. (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, 18) These professionals usually immigrate not for reasons of poverty, but usually because of political instability or occupational dead-ends in their career, such as their earnings and work conditions in the Philippines not being commensurate with their skills and training. These immigrants usually enter their field in the US at the bottom of their respective occupational ladders, i.e., being employed as a medical nurse rather than a specialist, or an assistant to a dentist rather than a dentist themselves. They do tend to advance, however, over time. (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, 19) Also, these Filipinos, rather than being migrant as earlier rural workers were, tend to settle almost entirely in metropolitan areas, with three major California cities- Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego- accounting for 30% of new immigrant's destinations. Other metropolitan areas made up another 59%, while only 11% on Filipino immigrants settled in non-metropolitan areas. (Portes and Rumbaut 1990, 38) They also tend to settle in predominantly Filipino areas of these cities- they are the fourth highest residentially concentrated ethnic group. (Portes and Rumbaut, 51)
It was noted before that Filipinos tend to resemble both Chicanos and Asians in appearance, and it can be said that their experience is a combination of that of the two other ethnicities. Many of the US laws that were aimed at Asians, such as anti-miscegenation laws, were also aimed at Filipinos, and the reaction of mainstream Americans toward Filipino immigration was similar to the mainstream reaction toward Chinese and Japanese immigration. (Knoll 1982, 87) But Filipinos also had many of the same environmental conditions that Chicanos had- widespread poverty, weakened family ties, and exploitation at the hands of the agriculture industry. The nativist reaction, however, was similar to both. In 1928, the American Federation of Labor voted to exclude Filipino immigrants. Frequently Filipinos were accused of "stealing white people's jobs", an accusation that has rung out throughout time. (Knoll 1982, 96) As subjects of the US protectorate, they had no chance to become US citizens, and it was not until the Tydings-McDuffie Independence Act that they were legally recognized as foreign nationals, with all the rights of that status. (Reshmi 1998) Numerous acts of violence were perpetrated against Filipino fieldworkers, and they were also excluded from many restaurants, hotels, swimming pools, and other public places. (Knoll 1982, 92) Because of this, and also because of the difficulties they experienced in the Philippines, many first-generation Filipinos made absolutely no attempt to transmit the culture to their children, or prevent them from being "Americanized". (Knoll 1982, 106) They see no problem with their children not knowing anything about Filipino culture; though their grandchildren may see it differently. Many Filipino descendants of immigrants voice their concern over the apparent invisibility of their community, and because they are so often mistaken for Chicanos or Asians, have a shaky sense of ethnic identity. (Knoll 1982, 110) Because of the mainstream's lack of understanding about Filipino culture, it is difficult for Filipinos to be accepted fully into the mainstream and, therefore, for any type of civic assimilation to occur. In fact, to use Gordon's model of assimilation, it seems that Filipinos in general have only reached the level of primary assimilation. However, if Gordon's theories about these subprocesses are correct, since Filipinos have reached the crucial point of primary assimilation, they will eventually reach all further levels of assimilation and become full members of American culture.
The Filipino people and the Croatian people have many things in common; their early exploitation by agribusiness on one hand, and the mining and metal industry on the other; both come from lands that have only recently achieved any sort of independence, and even then, both have been ruled by oppressive, tyrannical governments; and both have been struggling for an identity. Both groups of first generations also have experienced difficulty in transmitting the culture to their descendants. Croatian culture went through a renaissance back in the 1970's and 1980's, and the Croatian-American community is a prominent voice in American foreign affairs in their homeland; I expect that Filipino culture will do the same and become a similarly politically involved culture. Since Filipinos have achieved primary assimilation, civic assimilation can not be far behind. Many Croatian-Americans have found a balance between having a strong American identity and still maintaining a visible public profile as people of Croatian descent; Filipino-Americans are also developing what seems to be a balanced dual identity, and hopefully both cultures will be able to retain both native culture and host-country allegiance for many decades to come.
Prpic, George J.: The Croatian Immigrants in America. New York, New York: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1971.
Knoll, Tricia: Becoming Americans. Portland, Oregon: Coast to Coast Books, 1982.
Atlapedia Online: Countries A to Z: Philippines (accessed 6 March 2002): available from http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/philipp.htm. Internet.
Hebbar, Reshmi: Filipino American Literature (Postcolonial Studies, Emory University, 1998, accessed 6 March 2002); available from http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Filipino.html. Internet.
Wittke, Carl: We Who Built America, revised ed. Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University Press, 1964.
Marjorie P. Kohli: Immigrants to Canada and America (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Waterloo University, 1999, accessed 5 March 2002); available from http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~marj/genealogy/europesouth.html. Internet.
Slavonic Cultural Center (San Francisco, California, accessed 5 March 2002); available from http://www.slavonicweb.com. Internet.
HTML file last updated October 24, 2002; paper last revised August 4, 2002. All original writing is the property of the author. You are welcome to use the sources cited in this paper as references, or use this paper as a reference, so long as a proper citation is given for any information used.