Truth and Lies: Finding the Falsities in NARA
Mar 6, 2013 13:16:47 GMT -5
Post by Doug 周 on Mar 6, 2013 13:16:47 GMT -5
responding to this pair of posts:
...I'm new to this whole Chinese family genealogy...I was able to learn a lot about my grandpa's village and found out the names of his brothers, father, other relatives, etc. that we never even knew existed....in the interrogations it seems like they asked a lot of questions about both the home village as well as surrounding villages/towns...it could help narrow down where your family's village is located.
...Thank you telling me this Kimmy because it may help solve the Sen family history.
On the surface, the immigration files on our ancestors at the NARA (National Archive & Record Administration) offer the Chinese American family historian a treasure trove of data. Especially precious are the numerous and well-preserved Angel Island documents from the first half of the 20th century. These transcriptions, translations, and witness reports, authenticated by the U.S. Government, provide a unique paper trail at the moment of entry into America. The stakes were high: refusal of entry was be economically disastrous and socially embarrassing. Some applicants who were not admitted into the country committed suicide rather than be forced to return to China.
So it’s easy to see how the NARA documents are tempting for nascent genealogists: an array of primary documentation depicting a particularly fraught time in the lives of our ancestors. Unfortunately, much of the NARA information is incorrect and to use it without a good amount of additional fact-checking will likely lead to significant inaccuracies in your own genealogical work.
The problems with NARA’s accuracy began with the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s, which banned Chinese immigration and, later, the destruction of immigration records by the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. These two events created motivation and opportunity to create what eventually became the paper son industry. With the official immigration documentation destroyed, the Chinese living in the US prior to the earthquake could not have their claims of citizenship legitimately challenged. These early Chinese-Americans were able to sell the title of a citizen’s offspring to non-related men desiring to come to America. These immigrants became known as paper sons.
And this creates big problems for the beginning Chinese family historian, who must now approach a portion of the NARA information with skepticism. There’s an old journalist’s creed: “If your mother says ‘I love you,’ check it out.” As this applies to NARA documentation, assume it’s inaccurate until you can independently confirm its veracity.
This isn’t to say to neglect NARA altogether, as it’s very much a repository of accessible and, in some cases, accurate information. However, it’s important to approach it cautiously—as if you were hearing a story from a person who both occasionally lies and occasionally tells the truth.
For those who have not seen their ancestor’s NARA information from the Exclusionary period, the data is divided into an objective and subjective section. The objective section contains the biometric information commonly recorded before the widespread use of fingerprinting: height, weight, distinguishing characteristics, photographs, as well as observations on English language fluency and literacy. The subjective part involves the interrogations and interviews. The interrogation was meant to discover and deport paper sons trying to illegally enter the US. If they suspected an applicant of being a paper son, they would rigorously question him about his history—details around the layout of his alleged village—and compare the paper son’s account with that of the paper father’s. At the same time, many applicants embellished the number of their offspring during the interviews, anticipating a profit from the future sale of paper son titles.
As a Chinese family historian, you should celebrate the information in the NARA files. But look at this data as family stories, but not as genealogy.
IMHO
On the surface, the immigration files on our ancestors at the NARA (National Archive & Record Administration) offer the Chinese American family historian a treasure trove of data. Especially precious are the numerous and well-preserved Angel Island documents from the first half of the 20th century. These transcriptions, translations, and witness reports, authenticated by the U.S. Government, provide a unique paper trail at the moment of entry into America. The stakes were high: refusal of entry was be economically disastrous and socially embarrassing. Some applicants who were not admitted into the country committed suicide rather than be forced to return to China.
So it’s easy to see how the NARA documents are tempting for nascent genealogists: an array of primary documentation depicting a particularly fraught time in the lives of our ancestors. Unfortunately, much of the NARA information is incorrect and to use it without a good amount of additional fact-checking will likely lead to significant inaccuracies in your own genealogical work.
The problems with NARA’s accuracy began with the Chinese Exclusion Act in the 1880s, which banned Chinese immigration and, later, the destruction of immigration records by the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. These two events created motivation and opportunity to create what eventually became the paper son industry. With the official immigration documentation destroyed, the Chinese living in the US prior to the earthquake could not have their claims of citizenship legitimately challenged. These early Chinese-Americans were able to sell the title of a citizen’s offspring to non-related men desiring to come to America. These immigrants became known as paper sons.
And this creates big problems for the beginning Chinese family historian, who must now approach a portion of the NARA information with skepticism. There’s an old journalist’s creed: “If your mother says ‘I love you,’ check it out.” As this applies to NARA documentation, assume it’s inaccurate until you can independently confirm its veracity.
This isn’t to say to neglect NARA altogether, as it’s very much a repository of accessible and, in some cases, accurate information. However, it’s important to approach it cautiously—as if you were hearing a story from a person who both occasionally lies and occasionally tells the truth.
For those who have not seen their ancestor’s NARA information from the Exclusionary period, the data is divided into an objective and subjective section. The objective section contains the biometric information commonly recorded before the widespread use of fingerprinting: height, weight, distinguishing characteristics, photographs, as well as observations on English language fluency and literacy. The subjective part involves the interrogations and interviews. The interrogation was meant to discover and deport paper sons trying to illegally enter the US. If they suspected an applicant of being a paper son, they would rigorously question him about his history—details around the layout of his alleged village—and compare the paper son’s account with that of the paper father’s. At the same time, many applicants embellished the number of their offspring during the interviews, anticipating a profit from the future sale of paper son titles.
As a Chinese family historian, you should celebrate the information in the NARA files. But look at this data as family stories, but not as genealogy.
IMHO