Japanese migration to Peru was part and parcel of the mass migrations of the mid to late 19th Century. As with any other migration during this time, it can’t be taken out of the global context of the time. Global migration to the Americas this time goes far beyond the images of Ellis Island, or the Atlantic crossing; they traverse both Pacific and Atlantic (and Indian in other migrations such as from India to Africa).
Japanese migration to the Americas is mostly concentrated in the US and Canada in the north and Peru and Brazil in the south. And, as I mentioned above, they are intimately connected and interconnected. As the author mentions, it was when the US began to curtail and try to stop migrations from Asia, as well as the need for cheap manual labour (due to the end of slavery) that Peru became an attractive geography.
Since Peruvian landowners kept the same prejudices as they did with the Chinese “Coolie” trade between 1849-1874, the reasons for migration, as Takenaka argues were guided by the Japanese government’s expansionist ideas, along with some form of population control (even though this argument does not hold water as the author notes). Yet, its true intentions of industrialization, Westernization, and profiting from remittances ring true of many of the reasons or arguments for contemporary migration today. Not much has changed it seems.
Another aspect also rings true; a majority of migrants were male. However, unlike Chinese migrants to Latin America, the majority of Japanese migrants practiced endogamy. Part of this, could probably be attributed to the fact that only the eldest son inherited any form of land, while younger brothers, usually had to migrate to urban centres, or other regions to make a livelihood.
Another aspect that the author touches on is the importance of networks. The study on network migration is still in its infancy, we still need to dive deeper into the strength of such networks. Much of the reason for this lack ofinformation is that migration studies since the 1920s has regarded migration as an individual form of mobility, and just like female migration, network building was also ignored when looking at human mobilities.
Peruvian farm owners and governments once again looked east as a possible source of migration since, just as it happened before Chinese migration began, the country could not attract enough Europeans to its shores since it could not compete ith Argentina, Brazil, the US, and Canada.
As with other minority populations, many Japanese became middlemen within different industries around urban centres such as Lima. And just like other minorities that thrived, they became targets because they charged too little, or gave out credit, or simply opened longer than their competitors.
Japanese communities in Peru had to endure a similar fate to that of Chinese migrants a few years earlier. Legal restrictions preventing further migration (unless you were already in the country) were aimed at keeping a European Peru (whatever that may mean).
What do you guys think?
Die
Am 22. November 2016 um 18:19 Uhr
First of all, I think the article gives a very interesting and good overview on Japanese migration to Peru, which sheds light on similarities with Chinese Migration to Latin America – most of all when it comes to exclusion through migrant policies and discrimination for every day practices that are labeled as “weird” or very different from own cultural values. Also the way Japanese business practices are described in the article and the disregard of success leading to suspicion of the Peruvian society are very often reflected in articles on Chinese migration. In fact in Argentina I was very surprised by all the prejudice people had about Chinese supermarket-owners, which were expressed very freely and in spite of shopping in those stores all the time because they’re cheaper than other stores.
The historical dimension of identification of the Peruvian society (or better the Peruvian criollos) with Europe as a key to understand racialization and discrimination of Africans, Indigenous and also Asians is very important to have in mind investigating entangled inequalities and migration to/within Latin America. I am currently investigating Bolivian migration to Argentina and this is also a key factor in this context.
Takenaka describes the entanglement of the historical development of the Japanese community and global such as local factors very well. Further the way policies, prejudice, discrimination and racialization influence one another and form a somehow publicly accepted image (which does not correspond to statistical data) is very interesting. Looking closely at narratives produced by the media or prevailing prejudice within the host society is crucial to understand this dynamic, I think.
Although the view on networks the author offers remains rather from an outside perspective, she makes clear that the development of the community itself and the way it is seen depends on developments in both Peru and Japan and additionally on global occurrences as the example of WWII and the US intervention in Peru clearly show. I had no idea about deportations of Japanese immigrants from Peru by the US. How terrible!
Am 25. November 2016 um 15:05 Uhr
The article described pretty good the historical evolution of the Japanese migration to Peru. I think it is really interesting that this form of migration arose out of the need to control the rapidly growing population in Japan. Nevertheless, there are also other reasons for the governmental supported migration. As Takenaka described the Meiji “government viewed emigration as a vital tool for gaining economic benefits, particularly as a means to increase capital by way of remittances.” (p.79) Here we can see the commonality with other migration countries like Mexico. But besides the economic benefit I think it is interesting that the Japanese government wanted to promote a “Westernization” (p.79) by sending mostly poor farmers to other western countries to acquire western labour discipline and ethics.
One fact which really surprised me, was the Peruvian migration policy “white preference laws” in the 19th century to “improve [the peruvian] race” (p. 82). I already heard about the Brazilian idea of “branqueamento da raça” which also promoted immigration of white European immigrants. In the 19th and 20th century Brazilian intellectuals had the idea that the “white race” dominated other races in terms of healthiness, appearance and civilizational competence. They proposed to promote the European migration to Brazil so that within one or two generations the black race is going to disappear. But I didn’t know that similar ideas existed in other Latin American countries like Peru.
Takenaka mentioned the networks and their relevance for the Japanese migration to Peru. With the Peruvian law in 1927 which prohibited new waves of Japanese immigrations the only way to get to Peru was by the invitation of family members who already lived in Peru. Like we have seen in Wilsons article the networks created by marriage play an essential role. In this context marriage with someone with family members in Peru would facilitate the migration. So I think network building is really important in the research about migration and surely should be focused more in further studies.
Am 25. November 2016 um 16:38 Uhr
The British Historian Niall Ferguson introduced his documentary “War of the Worlds” with the following statement: “It wasn´t class, but race, that was the dominant idea of the 20th century”. Such a broad statement, although debatable, might be relevant to understand migration processes in Latin America during the 19th and 20th centennials. Regarding the Japanese migration to Perú, it is quite remarkable how the race-factor played a significant role both as a trigger of the whole process, and as a defensive-reactionary ideology that served the purposes of nativist Peruvian sectors.
It would not be out of place to consider race as one of the key factors that impelled Japanese migration initiatives to the American continent, since the Japanese Government saw in the copious stream of migrants an opportunity to establish and/or invigorate commercial ties between the Empire of the Rising Sun and the receptor countries, not to mention the imperialistic motives expressed by certain Governmental official in regard to the expansion of the Yamato race.
Yet, the aforementioned expansionist and racist ideology clashed with local racisms that privileged European migration, culture and exchange, over any sort of contributions coming from “Asians”. Hence, the Nippon settlers were confronted by the hostility of a racially hierarchical society in which sectors of the “white” elites, mestizos and indians rejected the “yellow” settlers on the basis of their prejudices, which were inspired by, and ingrained in, the pseudo-scientific principles of Social Darwinism and Social Engineering. The apex of such racial frictions was the riot of 1940, in which the Japanese migrants were victims of an angry mob that plundered their businesses.
Today, Perú remains a racially hierarchized society, but the social role and position of the Japanese minority within this hierarchy seem to have changed for good, though the wounds of past troubles and controversies have not healed completely.
Am 25. November 2016 um 23:48 Uhr
I can’t help wondering which historical phenomena of immigration would have served as example for Japanese Policy makers hoping to ‘colonize’ Peru through of an influx of presumably not very wealthy farmers. Also, to what extent was this merely rhetorical? Given that immigrants were also considered abandoned people (kimin). It strikes me as more plausible that this discourse was floated as justification for clearing out unwanted surplus labour.
As an Irish passport holder myself, it’s interesting to read that the Irish were targeted as potential immigrants in 1851, coinciding with the Irish (potato) famine of of 1845 to 1852. In terms of explaining why this wasn’t more successful, I imagine the lack of any substantial previous Irish immigration and the resulting lack of any familial or amical network is central. Indeed I agree this study of networks seems of fundamental relevance. Crucial also, I gather, was the impossibility of land ownership. It seems that divergent land tenure policies persisted in how ‘entrepreneurship’ occurred in the US as compared with Latin American countries enacting policies of latifundismo.
Am 27. November 2016 um 12:33 Uhr
The author gives a very interesting insight in the process of migration from Japan to Peru.
I was also surprised to read of the expansionist / colonialist “agenda” of the Japanese government, wanting to create a “New Japan” in the West.
What seems more plausible, is the intention of the Japanese to gain economic benefits in the form of remittances. In encouraging emigration of poor farmers to the West, Japan not only rid itself of – as says the text – a potential national threat, but could also count on the influx of capital, which would be sent by these emigrants. Moreover, I think it’s interesting that Japan aimed at a “Westernization” of its people. Thus, it was not only economic capital that the state was aiming for.
What strikes me as ridiculous is the “fear” of white Peruvians that migrants from Asia could threaten the “racial and national integration” (87). With white Peruvians being the actual minority – and not indigenous to the country – their arguing of a possible threat to the Peruvian race seems (and is) simply paradoxical.
I was surprised to read that Peru and other Latin American countries took part in the deportation of the Japanese. Moreover, the overt racism that was displayed against Asians and especially Japanese people, because of the success of their small businesses, reminds me of the discrimination Jewish people faced in Europe because of their economic success. Both were regarded as “stringy” and “cunning”, simply because – as a minority – they managed to establish successful (small) businesses. The rhetoric is always the same, and in my opinion, in many instances, envy underlies hatred against many minorities.
As the author mentions, the consequences of the riots seem quite paradoxical, because they led to the opening of the Japanese community to the host society. However, I understand that – on the part of the older Peruvian-Japanese generation – there still is a sort of “suspicion” vis-à-vis the Peruvian society. The fact that – out of fear of another riot – they preferred not to vote for Fujimori in the 1990s, is quite telling.
Am 30. November 2016 um 08:32 Uhr
This was a very interesting and surprising text that highlighted the struggles of the Japanese community in Peru, I had no idea they faced such a reluctance from the Peruvian society.
What was the most relevant fact to me is that their cultural differences were used as means of rejection from the host society. I mean they hoped for better wages, which is a fair reason to emigrate, but they arrive and face a life of misery and hardship, plus discrimination! No wonder it reinforced the solidarity amongst their community.
Also, the nationalism they’ve been facing rings a bell with the Jews’ persecusions in Europe happening at the same time (before and during WW2). Same for the 1940 riot that echoes with anti-semitic pogroms against jewish businesses in Eastern Europe.
But there is one thing I don’t really get is why Peruvian nationalism kept focusing and persecuting them first. Because, I quote, “The nationalists attributed Peru’s growing economic and societal problems to the penetration of foreign capital” but Japanese were said to contribute to Peru more in labor than in capital, so this way it seems paradoxical that they be target number one of nationalist criticisms.
I was also quite satisfied when I read the US had smth to do with these exclusion laws, they always are involved somehow in discrimination processes abroad, otherwise it would have been surprising. For me, this is another example of american imperialism in the world.
Am 6. December 2016 um 18:05 Uhr
Takenaka brings up some very interesting facts about Japanese immigration to Peru as well as their emigration from Japan.
What first caught my eye was the fact that Meiji’s government by supporting people to emigrate wanted to achieve the status of a colonial power and positive economic impulses, however, at the same time they thought that the people who should be sent abroad were “low-class citizens” in need of being “civilized”. Isn’t that somewhat of a risk to send people to carry out such an “important” and demanding task of building a colony who you think aren’t capable of building their lives in their own country. (I wonder how the strategy worked out regarding poverty in Japan.)
Very interesting also the fact that people who emigrated from Japan therefore were also discriminated against by their own countrymen. So in the end due to the image their own supporting government gave the emigrates, they became completely lost, as they couldn’t find acceptance in the immigration countries either.
Of course, with the obvious preference of white immigraion and them being second best from the beginning Japanese immigrants couldn’t have an easy standing in Peru. Also, there is the fact that really Peru also wasn’t Japanese’s first choice. So the reluctance and feeling of being forced to live in the same country on both sides must have made things very dificult.
As we have read before in case of Chinese immigrants, this article also states the importance of the evolving networks between immigrants, not only for being successful in the immigration country, but also for the genesis of ethnic solidarity. Reinforced by the growing discrimination by jealous Peruvians this is a very interesting point in the identity building of a diaspora group.
What was also catching my attention was that, although the people of Japanese origin living in Peru today actively distinguish themselves from the rest of the population, they experience only little racial discrimination. The motives for the discrimination, as I understood, were especially their economical welfare, which still remains distinct to the Peruvian majority. Isn’t it curious that nevertheless there has been a president of Japanese origin and acceptance of Japanese in Peru is high today?
Am 11. December 2016 um 15:39 Uhr
In all my naivety, I didn’t know that the Japanese migration to Peru was implemented and fostered as a co-decision between Japan, Peru and the United States according to economic and ideologic considerations…
Japan itself favoured the emigration of its own population to
– increase its capital thanks to the remittances
– exclude poverty within the national territory
– westernised and industrialised the country
Japanese migrants are rejected both in Japan and in the receiving countries, they are only accepted for the economic benefit they provide. Those migrants seem to be non (in Peru) or under-citizens (in Japan). The discrimination and the racialisation of this population fostered the sense of community which seem to be translated in endogamous marriages.
The election of Alberto Fujimori may have been a symbol of integration in the past time but I don’t think his action as a “president” of Peru benefit to Japanese migrants’ image in Peru…
If we think about his “presidency” what is striking is that Fujimori, going further, used the same radical ideology against poor and non-white populations in Peru than Japan did in the 1880-90:
– By fostering the emigration of its poor citizens Japan segregated and selected who was worth to live in Japan and who needed to be ejected.
– In Peru, Alberto Fujimori also selected the Peruvian citizens, not through emigration but thought sterilisation. Indeed in 1995, under the assumption of implementing a national public wealth plan more than 300 000 women, mostly indigenous, where sterilised without knowing it. The government came to the poor areas with so-called “vaccination” syringes which were actually injections aimed at sterilising people and abortions were also practiced in really bad conditions.
This example of the Japanese migration in Peru made me consider the process migration and, above all, of emigration as a factor of counter-development in some situations …
Am 7. January 2017 um 12:55 Uhr
I found the text really interesting and personally I only knew about Japanese emigration to Mexico or to Brazil, but I wasn’t informed at all about the one to Peru and the discrimination against Japanese immigrants there that even ended up with deportation programs (!).
Reading the text I was thinking about the fact that immigration/emigration have really a lot of reasons in their background, some of them connected to the people that emigrate and some as a policy strategy like in the case with Japanese emigration, were this process was seen not only as a colonization and westernization of the country, but also as a way to solve the “problem of poor farmers” and “civilize the low-class citizens” (Takenaka, 79); the way that emigration was seen during the 20th century like a way to put out some part of the population is a really shocking and a horrible way.
According to the text Japanese immigrants had to deal with a very racist and discriminating country, especially in the period of Peruvian nationalist wave. So to me it is quite normal that, in this anti-Japanese environment, immigrants treated the country as the country treated them and considered their immigration only as a way to “earn, save, and send money home” (88).
The text made me also think about the feeling of fear that Japanese people had and have to deal with in Peru nowadays that It’s for sure really not easy to solve after the riot and all its sufferings, as the text mentioned “Do you think you can trust those people who once attacked us and confiscated all of our properties?” (93). We are used to speak about the fear that we are feeling against people that are coming in our country, but we are not used to deal with the fear that they have and the consequences that this kind of feeling generates in them.
Am 8. February 2017 um 00:11 Uhr
I agree with Jesus that the kinship aspect of the paper is of particular interest. Though it is most pertinent to consider which are the differences in kinship relations in the ‘host’ country and the country of origin, it is worth noting that in neither context are these necessarily homogeneous. In other words, there are many who canvas for changes (juridicial or otherwise) in hegemonic suppositions of what can be considered valid kinship relations, both in Latin America and in Europe.
I found this paper to be one of the most interesting we’ve read thus far as a lot presumptions inherent in discourses on development, kinship and nation are brought to light. Both the information available on Spain’s Ministry for Work and Immigration website as well as the opinion of Flora (whose name is not mentioned earlier) attest to a presumption about the unidirectional enrichment of Peru through an individual’s learning in Spain.
What I find interesting is that the paper touches on a notion of debt. Particularly at the bottom of page 392. In mentioning the U.S mother of two Peruvian children “She hoped that the daughters would one day appreciate everything their parents had done for them, and would treat their parents as well as they deserve.” Further, on the next page “the assumption that adopted children should feel grateful is set primarily within a political-economic context in which nations and the associated opportunities are ranked hierarchically.” Individuals are thus presumed to owe something to their (biological/adoptive) parents and/or to the nation-state which receives them. Is this justified? They no less chose this than they did to migrate.
One final interesting point is that made by the adoptive mother mentioned on page 393:
“ ’we have a greater social responsibility.’ As parents of racially different children, she meant, adoptive parents must commit to antiracism and must actively respond when their child or others are harassed on the basis of racial difference.”
As parents who have adopted, and perhaps to some extent contributed to a degree of racial diversity, is their responsibility really greater than that of other parents with regards to racial tolerance? Are they thereby responsible for disrupting racial homogeneity and therefore causing friction?