Return Migration and Identity: A Global Phenomenon, A Hong Kong Case

1 - A short history of two hundred years of Hong Kong migration and identity

A short history of two hundred years of Hong Kong migration and identity 1 Origins of Hong Kong identity In order to understand the experiences of return Hong Kong immigrants in 1999, one needs to examine the complexity of their Chinese identity, which began to form in 1841. The British had claimed the island of Hong Kong at the terminus of their first Opium War with the Chinese. Yet while the battles ceased more than 150 years ago, the identity turmoil continues today. To comprehend the early development of the identity of the Hong Kong Chinese, though, one must first look at Hong Kong’s location, bounded by the sea and adjacent to a vast continent. In his groundbreaking book Guns, Germs and Steel,1 Jared Diamond, a professor of physiology, develops the notion that culture (and identity) was first and foremost Figure 1.1 Henry Steiner, book cover of The Face of Hong Kong (1970). Courtesy of the designer. 12 Return Migration and Identity a consequence of geographic location, climate, and natural resources. He suggests that topography, the ratio of sun and rain, accessibility to rivers and the sea, and the ways in which a population sustains itself all shape ideas of culture and self. Hong Kong political scientist Michael DeGolyer agrees, asserting that “Hong Kong exists solely because of a gift of geography: its deep water harbor. There would be no city without that central geographic feature.”2 That feature, the sea and its harbor, has shaped the way Hong Kongers traditionally and currently craft a living as fishermen, boat workers, international global port employees; the way Hong Kong interacts with a continuous flow of seaborne invaders, travelers, traders, and immigrants; the way Hong Kong protects itself from typhoons and creates its neighborhoods; and the way in which Hong Kongers create an identity. More essential than Hong Kong’s reliance on and struggle with the sea and what it brought, was its status as an island of rocky, barren mountains with limited land on which to grow food and to house inhabitants. Hong Kongers have one of the highest population densities on earth, and they typically live in tiny, cramped dwellings. The survival of Hong Kong’s residents is due to their persistence, hard work, shrewdness, and cooperation. The land and its location shaped Hong Kong culture and identity in another way: the island’s proximity to the great landmass of China has created a complicated and evolving relationship between the two regions. Initially severed by war, and officially kept separate by first the British and then the Chinese governments, China and Hong Kong have maintained a continuous, albeit unofficial, flow between their territories. The movements of goods and information were at times reciprocal; the movement of people has historically been one-way but is increasingly bidirectional. This ever-changing relationship has also forged the culture and identity of Hong Kongers. Once located within the sea and by land, Hong Kong identity is influenced by another set of variables, connected to time and events, with four distinct historical periods shaping each of the identity layers that envelop the Hong Kong residents. These historical/identity events can be divided into the era prior to the Opium Wars; the postwar British sovereignty period; the prehandover period (1984–97), which included large-scale emigration; and the posthandover, remigration period. Before 1841, four separate Chinese indigenous communities of farmers and fishermen existed in Hong Kong, governed loosely by a 13 A short history of two hundred years of Hong Kong migration and identity fifth, landowning group, the Cantonese,3 who were former residents of the southern Chinese province of Guangdong. The indigenous and immigrating settlers brought with them to Hong Kong more than the Cantonese dialect. They brought the core Chinese values, rooted in Confucian teachings and transmitted by parents and teachers, that have recently been highlighted by social science research. One category of these values focused on relationships within the family. Individuals defined themselves according to their obligations to their families4 and limited their associations with groups outside of the family.5 Social structures and hierarchies were fixed according to factors such as age, gender, and ranking within the family, but individual behavior could be flexible,6 depending on the environment in which the interaction takes place (researchers refer to Chinese culture as “high context,” meaning that behavior varies based on the situational context). 7 A second grouping of...