By: Evan Lee

         The United States of America has long been characterized as a melting pot, a country where hundreds of cultures amalgamate into a singular national identity. However, for many immigrants and their descendants, identity is not simply “melted” into a singular form; instead, identity represents a continuous negotiation between one’s ethnic heritage and American experience. This phenomenon, often conceptualized as the hyphenated identity, highlights the process in which ethnic groups maintain distinct cultural ties while assimilating into American society. The Sino-American experience, despite Western perceptions of homogeneity, has undergone a significant transformation. Specifically, the bifurcation of the Sino-American identity into the Taiwanese-American and the Chinese-American identities offers a case study of how political history, migration patterns, and transnational affiliations shape self-identification. Only through “defining historical moments” is there a possibility of establishing distinctions in the Sino-American identity (Arrigo, 艾琳達). Beginning with the 1848 California Gold Rush, the evolution of the Sino-American identity has been shaped by racial discrimination, shifting immigration patterns, political upheavals, and economic development, ultimately leading to the divergence of the Chinese and Taiwanese-American identities in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The aftermath of the Opium War catalyzed Chinese emigration, shaping America’s first perception of the Sino-American identity as one of inferiority. In 1848, America experienced its first substantial influx of non-Western immigrants as the California Gold Rush attracted thousands of impoverished Chinese peasants seeking to escape China. Early on, the California Gold Rush welcomed the immigration of approximately 25,000 Chinese immigrants, accounting for around 35% of California’s foreign population (Chan 42). This proportion grew exponentially; by 1858, Chinese Americans represented the largest non-White ethnic group in California, totaling 20% of its entire population (Chan 42). However, Californian gold mines were exhausted, provoking economic struggles as jobs became harder to find. Many Chinese fathers returned home, while other “sojourners” remained with intentions to continue providing for their families in China (Findlay). In contrast to many White and Black Americans’ difficulties in finding employment, most Chinese Americans found jobs in big corporations and local businesses as their cheap labor, workplace efficiency, and polite work manners attracted demand (Findlay). This infuriated the public and Americans began accusing Chinese aliens of “stealing” white jobs and shunned them for being morally “sub-human” (E. Lee, Chinese Americans 88; Findlay). Such hatred often filled the media: many newspapers like the Daily Alta San Francisco criticized Chinese Americans as “morally a far worse class to have” than all other races (Luo). The hate also manifested physically: the Chinese were subject to violence through lynching and terrorism (Findlay). As Harper’s Weekly depicts in 1879, the way to resolve the “Chinese Problem” was “driveout,” and it could only be achieved by “prohibit[ing] Chinese immigration” (Kanazawa 780; see Appendix 1).

The responding government intervention solidified the Sino-American identity as one of moral and economic inferiority leading into the subsequent decades. Initial legislature attempts to appease anti-Chinese outrage came via the institution of the foreign miners’ tax, whereby “all foreign miners were required to pay $20 per month to obtain a license to mine for gold” (Kanazawa 784). Although these taxes “comprised a major source of revenue to the State government,” anti-Chinese sentiment continued to rise, and the Chinese population continued to grow (Kanazawa 785). “The second measure” of legislation entailed direct attempts to “limit Chinese immigration” (Kanazawa 786). In 1852, the Californian legislature enacted the Commutation Tax, which imposed a $500 burden on new immigrants (California 79). Not only did this exacerbate the economic hardships of Chinese Americans, but it also failed in its mission to limit immigrants, perpetuating social unrest. The chaos accumulated in federal intervention when President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. With the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, America legally prohibited Chinese immigration, and thousands of existing Chinese sojourners were expelled from more than 160 communities (Rosalsky). Those who were not deported were trapped inside the United States, facing the horrors of racial hate and discrimination. Dehumanization of the Chinese as “rats,” “beasts,” and “swine,” ultimately reinforced the American perceptions of the Chinese as sub-human (E. Lee, Chinese Americans 75).

The next decades of Chinese destitution engendered feelings of pity amongst Americans, and political changes in the period of Chinese exclusion caused shifts in American perceptions of the Sino-American identity. Pearl S. Buck’s Pulitizer-winning novel, The Good Earth, depicts the struggles of a hardworking Chinese man who eventually finds prosperity through his connection with the land itself (Buck). This man, Wang Lung, was poignantly relatable, for his comments like “hunger mak[ing] thief of any man” aligned with ubiquitous American sentiment during the Great Depression (Buck 116). This novel’s popularity thus reflected the newfound American acceptance of Chinese Americans during the 1930s, as it “reflects the values of middle-class and working-class Americans in the decade it was first published” (Spencer). The sharing of these values, combined with the need for unity during the Great Depression, sparked friendlier ethnic interactions. 

Hopes of Chinese approval were soon destroyed when China allied with Russia in the Cold War, precipitating America’s first acknowledgment of Taiwanese Americans. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) defeated the Kuomintang (KMT), taking political control of China. Mainland China was communist, and America now perceived Chinese Americans as “subversive” to American hegemony (E. Lee, At America’s Gates 240). Anti-Chinese sentiment arose again, but it was rooted in conflicts of political ideologies rather than racism. Nevertheless, feelings of suspicion infected cities with high Chinese populations, “numb[ing]” Chinese Americans “with fear” (Brooks). In Taiwan, the island experienced an influx of approximately 2 million immigrants from the KMT (Jiang et al.). This meant that Taiwan became the refuge for wealthy and elite KMT members who aimed to reclaim control of China by overcoming the larger but poorer CCP government. Facing detrimental effects from the 1973 oil crisis, the KMT launched the “Ten Major Construction Projects,” revitalizing Taiwanese infrastructure (See Appendix 2). In doing so, the Taiwanese government laid the groundwork for the nation’s economic prosperity. As the KMT became progressively “Taiwanized,” this shift gradually split the Sino identity into distinct Chinese and Taiwanese identities (Lin 6). 

Although attempts to redefine the Sino identity in America were materially successful in the 1960s, the West continued to see Taiwanese Americans as their Chinese American counterparts. America, the land of opportunity in the 1960s and 1970s, allowed promising foreign opportunities for Taiwanese students (Arrigo, Patterns 4). Precisely, economic analysis on how “an individual possessing a certain level of skill earns more income in America than in Taiwan” proves financial incentives for mass immigration (Miyagiwa 748). These factors resulted in the Taiwanese “Brain Drain,” whereby Taiwanese academics seized “technical jobs” in America (Arrigo, Patterns 4). These jobs—whether in academia, medical research, military engineering, or civilian engineering—provided high incomes, helping to shape the Taiwanese-American identity around education and wealth (Arrigo, Patterns). Moreover, the Brain Drain was characterized by “leapfrog migration,” wherein Taiwanese Americans settled directly in affluent areas, locations where other immigrant groups typically had to work for a generation to “achieve the same kind of settlement pattern,” eliciting cultural envy (Tseng 34). Taiwanese Americans benefited the American economy as well, for Taiwanese-American businesses played a vital role in “the economic restructuring [of] Los Angeles” (Tseng 42). Yet, America continued to consider China as the “parent” of Taiwan, viewing the “Taiwanese as either unequivocally Chinese or [just] class-privileged migrants” who shared a “high per capita GNP” (Yang; Cheng 162). These mindsets, exacerbated by the removal of Taiwan from the United Nations in 1971, “render[ed] Taiwanese Americans largely invisible within [the] Asian-American” identity despite cultural differences (Wang 12).  

The later rise of Taiwanese-American activists and real-estate investment groups consolidated a distinct economic and political Taiwanese-American identity, setting itself apart from Chinese-American experiences. In addition to moving to upper-class, white neighborhoods, Taiwanese American real estate developers built “ethnoburbs away from metropolitan cities” (Wang 6). To them, this was “another method to disidentify from Chinese Americans, as Chinese Americans mainly reside in ethnic enclaves within big cities” (Wang 6). Furthermore, Taiwanese Americans collectively pursued real estate investment in supplement to their high wages. Taiwanese Americans sought a higher status than just “rich;” they sought to be “super rich” (Rogers). By the 1980s, Taiwan was deemed a leading “tiger nation” of real estate investing in America (Rogers). Politically, the American public increased its support for Taiwanese independence when President Chiang Ching-kuo lifted Taiwan’s Martial law in 1987. Taiwanese Americans continued their pursuit of recognition, and the 1980s gave rise to many active Taiwanese-American organizations. Organizations like the Taiwanese-American Citizens League (TACL), Taiwanese-American Professionals (TAP), World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI), Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA), North American Taiwanese Professors’ Association (NATPA), and North American Taiwanese-American Women’s Association (NATWA) aimed to promote the Taiwanese-American identity in political and everyday life. Then, in 1988, President Chiang died of a heart attack, and the “Father of Taiwan’s democracy,” Lee Teng-hui—who was Vice President at the time—assumed presidency (National Taiwan Normal University). Being the first president to promote national independence, Lee pursued the “new Taiwanese” identity: 

The “new Taiwanese” who will create a new Taiwan include the aboriginal people, those whose ancestors came here four hundred years ago, and those who arrived only recently. Anyone who lives in and loves Taiwan is a “new Taiwanese” (T. Lee 200).

The “new” Taiwanese-American identity thus established itself as democratic and welcoming, in addition to being educated and wealthy. 

The roles in the China-Taiwan relationship reversed in the 1990s as China intensified its efforts toward “reunification” with Taiwan. As a consequence of China’s unprecedented economic uprise during this decade, its disdain for support of Taiwanese independence became increasingly evident. China, too, sought to be considered a “super rich” nation by Americans, and Taiwan was an obstacle. Accordingly, Chinese Americans eagerly adopted Taiwanese-American real estate investment strategies as an attempt to eliminate wealth differences in the Sino-American identity. However, political advisors and academics purport this “new assertiveness” underlies many unethical practices (Johnston). For instance, studies have found that “wealthy [Chinese] private business owners are [common] participants in EB-5 [with the intent of] acquiring a U.S. green card on behalf of their young adult children” (Simons et al). This meant that by purchasing American land under the names of their American-born children, wealthy Chinese families could invest in U.S. real estate without paying foreign taxes, effectively bypassing key aspects of the American tax system. These endeavors have been successful: since 2014, the Chinese have been the single largest investment ethnicity in American real estate (Sbeih). Consequently, the Chinese have gained significant influence in the American economy, particularly on the West Coast (Sbeih). Statistical analysis has found a consistent correlation between districts “with high shares of [Chinese] homeowners” and rising living expenses in surrounding areas, highlighting the economic impact of this investment trend (Liao). Unfortunately, these costs disproportionately impact lower and middle-class American families, as once-affordable houses became increasingly out of reach. This economic strain, in turn, fueled resentment and revived anti-Chinese sentiment in many of the affected communities.

Into the 2020s, Taiwan continues to define the “new Taiwanese” identity, this time, with a particular emphasis on national independence. The Taiwanese are striving to achieve this politically and socially. The former involves newfound democratic participation: interviews with Taiwanese Americans conclude that political candidates’ views on Taiwan’s sovereignty are the most important factor behind their votes. When asked what makes Taiwan, “Taiwan,” most Taiwanese Americans proclaim Taiwan’s democracy and freedom, along with Taiwanese friendliness, to be quintessential to being a Taiwanese American (Liu, Discussion). Accounts of returning home to see dozens of family members welcoming you during the Lunar New Year, as shared in an interview with second-generation Taiwanese American Jeff Liu, emphasize the love embedded within the Taiwanese community. Socially, Taiwanese Americans are more present than they may initially seem. As a different Jeff Liu notes, there are “Taiwanese Americans everywhere, even if it does not seem so at first” (Liu, Taiwanese Americans Everywhere). Taiwanese-American organizations continue to make an impact, with non-profits like TAP supporting Taiwanese youth programs. Even subtle cultural influences, such as the widespread popularity of Boba in the United States, contribute to ethnic crossovers and highlight Taiwanese Americans’ growing influence on American culture (Santizo). Indeed, Taiwanese Americans dream of solidifying their independence—both in identity and nationhood, once and for all.

The evolution of the Sino-American identity reflects the broader complexities of hyphenated identities in the United States, where national belonging is an incessant undulation. Chinese Americans, once perceived as “sub-human” laborers, endured racial discrimination in its worst forms before gradually gaining social acceptance through economic advancement and shifting political alignments. Taiwanese Americans, by contrast, emerged later as a distinct group, shaped by elite migration patterns and an emphasis on democratic values. While both identities originate from the same ethnic lineage, their diverging historical experiences, political affiliations, personalities, and socioeconomic strategies highlight the constructed nature of identity formation. The bifurcation of the Sino-American identity into Chinese and Taiwanese-American ones exemplifies the larger patterns of hyphenation in America, reaffirming the notion that assimilation is not simply a process of “melting” into the American identity. Rather, it is the combination of dynamic reflections on historical struggles, economic aspirations, and political ideologies.

Appendix 1: Nast, Thomas. “Every Dog Has Its Day.” Harper’s Weekly, 8 Feb. 1879. Cartoon. loc.gov/item/2010644370/. Accessed 1 Apr. 2025.

Appendix 2: Executive Yuan. “Photo no. hp-0100710088.” 1974. history.ey.gov.tw/en/Items/ten-major-construction-projects-underway/. Accessed 1 Apr. 2025.

Works Cited

Arrigo, Linda Gail. “艾琳達, A Beautiful View from the Brink | American-Taiwanese | Dr. Linda Gail Arrigo | Legacy Project” Interview by Evan Lee. YouTube, 23 January 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM_zGCwvhZc. Accessed 18 Mar. 2025.

Arrigo, Linda Gail. Patterns of Personal and Political Life Among Taiwanese-Americans. 2004. Taiwan Inquiry, http://www.linda-gail-arrigo.org/Articles/Life%20Patterns%20Among%20Taiwanese-Americans.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan. 2025.

Brooks, Charlotte. “Numbed with Fear: Chinese Americans and McCarthyism.” American Experience, 20 Dec. 2019, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/mccarthy-numbed-with-fear-chinese-americans/. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Buck, Pearl S. The Good Earth. Washington Square Press, 2004. 

California. Statutes of California. Ulan Press, 2012.

Chan, Sucheng. This Bittersweet Soil: the Chinese in California Agriculture, 1860-1910. U of California P, 1986.

Chen, She-hong. Being Chinese, Becoming Chinese American. University of Illinois Press, 2002. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jj.1544788. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Cheng, Wendy. “This Contradictory but Fantastic Thing: Student Networks and Political Activism in Cold War Taiwanese/America.” Journal of Asian American Studies, vol. 20 no. 2, 2017, p. 161-191. Project MUSE, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jaas.2017.0015.

Executive Yuan. “Photo no. hp-0100710088.” 1974. history.ey.gov.tw/en/Items/ten-major-construction-projects-underway/. Accessed 1 Apr. 2025.

Findlay, John M. “Industrialization, Class, and Race; Chinese and the Anti-Chinese Movement in the Late 19th-Century Northwest.” Center of the Study of the Pacific Northwest, U of Washington, http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Classroom%20Materials/Pacific%20Northwest%20History/Lessons/Lesson%2015/15.html. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Jiang, Z. et al. “An estimation of the out-migration from mainland China to Taiwan: 1946-1949.” Chinese Journal of Population Science vol. 8,4 (1996): 403-19.

Kanazawa, Mark. “Immigration, Exclusion, and Taxation: Anti-Chinese Legislation in Gold Rush California.” The Journal of Economic History, vol. 65, no. 3, 2005, pp. 779–805. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3875017. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Johnston, Alastair Iain; “How New and Assertive Is China’s New Assertiveness?.” International Security 2013; 37 (4): 7–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00115

Lee, Erika. At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. Nachdr. ed., Chapel Hill, U. of North Carolina Press, 2007.

—. “Chapter 4: Chinese Americans.” Immigrant Struggles, Immigrant Gifts, edited by Diane Portnoy and Charlie Riggs, U of Virginia P, 2013, pp. 74-95.

Lee, Teng-hui. The Road to Democracy: Taiwan’s Pursuit of Identity. PHP Institiute, 1999.

“Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan’s Father of Democracy, Passed Away.” National Taiwan Normal University, 18 Aug. 2020, en.ntnu.edu.tw/news-show.php?id=12541. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Liao, Steven. “Chinese Foreign Real Estate Investment and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.” Social Science Research Network, 10 Aug. 2019, dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3504861. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Lin, Gang. “The Evolution of a Taiwanese National Identity.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, no. 114, Aug. 2003. PDF.

Liu, Jeffrey. “A Discussion About Being Taiwanese | The Hyphenated Identity | Jeffrey Liu | Legacy Project” Interview by Evan Lee. YouTube, 6 October 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asSJ0YLEnnc&t=32s. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Liu, Jeffrey. “There are Taiwanese Americans everywhere.” | Jeffrey Liu | Legacy Project” Interview by Jackson Liu. Videographed by Judd Ebert. YouTube, 15 January 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ow46bBzPmo&t=74s. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Luo, Michael. “The Forgotten History of the Purging of Chinese from America.” The New Yorker, 22 Apr. 2021, http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-forgotten-history-of-the-purging-of-chinese-from-america. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Ma, Xiaohua. “The Sino-American Alliance During World War II and the Lifting of the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” American Studies International, vol. 38, no. 2, 2000, pp. 39–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279769. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Miyagiwa, Kaz. “Scale Economies in Education and the Brain Drain Problem.” International Economic Review, vol. 32, no. 3, 1991, pp. 743–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2527117. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Nast, Thomas. “Every Dog Has Its Day.” Harper’s Weekly, 8 Feb. 1879. Cartoon. loc.gov/item/2010644370/. Accessed 1 Apr. 2025.

Rogers, Dallas, and Sin Yee Koh. “The Globalisation of Real Estate: The Politics and Practice of Foreign Real Estate Investment.” International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 17, no. 1, 18 Jan. 2017. Taylor and Francis, https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2016.1270618. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025. Abstract.

Rosalsky, Greg. “The Price America Paid for Its First Big Immigration Crackdown.” National Public Radio, 26 Nov. 2024, http://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/11/26/g-s1-35805/chinese-expulsion-act-railroads-immigration-crackdown. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Santizo, Natalie. Te de Boba: Food, Identity, and Race in a Multiracial Suburb. 2016. Arizona State U, MA thesis. ASU Library Keep, keep.lib.asu.edu/items/154714. Accessed 9 Jan. 2025.

Sbeih, Adham. “Foreign Investment in U.S. Real Estate – What Are the Target Markets?” Socotra Capital, 16 Nov. 2018, http://www.socotracapital.com/blog/foreign-investment-american-real-estate-markets#:~:text=Investors%20from%20China%20have%20topped,by%20Chinese%20real%20estate%20investors. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Simons, R. et al. “Chinese Investment in U.S. Real Estate Markets Using the EB-5 Program.” Economic Development Quarterly, 2016, pp. 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242415620009

Spencer, Stephen. “The Discourse of Whiteness: Chinese-American History, Pearl S. Buck, and The Good Earth.” Americana: The Journal of American Popular Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, spring 2002. null, http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2002/spencer.htm. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Tseng, Yen-Fen. “Beyond ‘Little Taipei’: The Development of Taiwanese Immigrant Businesses in Los Angeles.” The International Migration Review, vol. 29, no. 1, 1995, pp. 33–58. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2546996. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Wang, Bing. Strait to the Point: A Transnational Analysis of the Formation of a Taiwanese American Identity. 2020. UCLA, MA thesis. EScholarship, escholarship.org/content/qt67r1721s/qt67r1721s_noSplash_ebe57099e062f16428474ddf11efe184.pdf?t=qc0l92. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.

Yang, Philip Q. “Sojourners or Settlers: Post-1965 Chinese Immigrants.” Journal of Asian American Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, Feb. 1999. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/14547#bio_bio01. Accessed 24 Feb. 2025.