Over the past three decades, the field of labor history has undergone significant transformations thanks to its dialogue with race and migration studies. This shift has largely addressed the limitations of Eurocentric labor histories and their “methodological nationalism,” broadening the scope of historical inquiry beyond national frameworks. ¹ As a result, scholars have been able to explore labor in transnational contexts and address previously overlooked themes, such as non-industrial labor, informal economies, and workers’ cultural worlds and subjectivities.  

While race has become a major theme in American labor histories, migration studies in Chinese history has catalyzed the emergence of diaspora studies, which has connected the histories of mainland China to immigrant experiences in Southeast Asia and North America. ² Scholars have found in the centrality of labor of these migratory movements a chance to explore regional and global worker mobility, cultural networks, and evolving labor markets as new themes in migration and diaspora formation. However, despite the ubiquity of racial encounters during workers’ overseas journeys, scholarship has largely refrained from placing race at the core of Chinese diaspora studies, especially when labor is the focus. In this article, I aim to introduce race in discussions of Chinese labor and its global circulation during the colonial period, from the 1850s to the 1900s.  

Migration from mainland China to Southeast Asia has a long history, dating back to China’s early dynasties when enterprising merchants integrated China into regional trade networks.³ Over time, migration continued in waves, often during periods of political upheaval or economic downturns. Whereas earlier migrations to Southeast Asia were led by merchants who established farming and mining settlements in the region, the early 19th century witnessed a shift: emigration from China expanded beyond Southeast Asia to Euro-America, with labor migration becoming the dominant pattern. This transformation was driven by rising labor demands in plantation economies, advancements in overseas shipping and passenger traffic, and the labor shortages brought about by the abolition of slavery. 

In response to these shifting labor demands, Western imperialist powers, led by Britain, turned to India and China to supply labor for their colonies through a labor recruitment system known as the coolie trade. This system relied on work contracts that defined employment terms and included penal sanctions for workers who violated those terms. In China, coolie contracts were typically signed before workers left Qing territory, often with the assistance of local recruiters and under the supervision of foreign diplomatic missions and Qing officials. The coolie trade, however, was not a uniform employment regime. It encompassed various forms, including the credit-ticket system, government-backed recruitment programs, and, in some cases, forced indenture through kidnappings.

The 19th-century coolie trade has been studied from multiple angles. The prevailing view interprets it as a continuation of slavery, whereas revisionist scholarship has reframed it as a transition to wage labor.⁴ I align with the latter perspective in viewing the coolie trade as a critical juncture in the emergence of Chinese workers as a global working class. This argument is grounded in my empirical research on French labor recruitment during the construction of the Yunnan–Indochina railway between 1898 and 1910.⁵ The difficulties the French railway company faced during its recruitment operations, particularly in southern China where the coolie trade had long been established, reveal changing dynamics in the Chinese labor market. In this new market situation, workers, by comparing the circumstances offered by different countries, demanded higher wages, improved working conditions, and official guarantees—factors indicating that Chinese workers, whether engaged in “free” wage labor or indenture, drew upon the collective experience of Chinese workers across diverse overseas contexts to operate within a globalized market. 

The flow of information between overseas Chinese workers and those in China played a crucial role in forging a global worker identity. Overseas labor experiences were communicated back to China through coolie letters, remittance bulletins, and both the official and nationalist press. These channels not only provided practical details about migration and work but also conveyed the political debates surrounding Chinese workers in Euro-America. The enactment of exclusion laws and the wide circulation of the “yellow peril” or the “Chinese question” discourses, while detrimental to the workers’ everyday interactions, contributed to the universalization of a Chinese worker identity in a highly racialized context. The global experiences of Chinese workers throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries thus informed the formation of a distinct worker identity within China, which became increasingly radicalized with the rise of anti-imperialist and communist movements in the post-imperial era.   

The 19th-century colonial competition was the primary impetus behind the expansion of Chinese emigration. As the institution of slavery began to wane and colonial exploitation shifted from a focus on plantation agriculture to industrial production, with mining and railroads at its core, overseas employment emerged as an attractive option for people in economically challenged countries such as India and China. In colonized India and Southeast Asia, British and Dutch colonial governments had the upper hand in establishing labor systems that catered to their economic needs. Conversely, in Qing China, where there was still a sovereign government, Britain took the lead in creating a labor market freed from the control of the Qing central government. The treaties signed after two “opium” wars liberated the Qing subjects who wanted to travel abroad for overseas work opportunities. Starting from the 1840s, Chinese workers, commonly referred to as “coolies,” were transported under contractual agreements to various corners of the world, spanning from Cuba and Peru to South Africa and islands in the Indian Ocean.  

Amid a world deeply divided on the issue of slavery, the working and travel conditions of Chinese coolies stirred considerable controversy. Chinese coolies found themselves in a peculiar position, as they were often employed alongside enslaved people in Spanish Cuba and subjected to conditions akin to slavery in regions such as Peru, as well as within British and French territories in Asia and the Americas. The outcome was a contentious debate regarding the nature of Chinese labor, almost as if it were the workers themselves who had willingly opted for treatment resembling that of enslaved people. 

Chinese migrants began to arrive in the US after the discovery of gold on the West Coast. Although much of this migration was voluntary and did not precisely fit within the coolie trade system in its most notorious form, American politicians and business figures framed the presence of Chinese workers in California within the context of servitude. Several factors contributed to the prevalence of anti-Chinese discourse in American society, combining elements of white racism with nascent labor activism. While the underlying message portrayed the Chinese as an inferior race and accused Chinese immigrants of bringing various vices to American society, what generated the most concern was the perceived capabilities and cost-effectiveness of Chinese labor. Numerous anti-Chinese pamphlets and publications emphasized that Chinese were not only adept at manual labor, which was perceived as not requiring high intelligence or literacy, but also proficient in acquiring technically demanding mechanical skills. Their willingness to work for long hours for lower wages, due in part to the common perception that they were accustomed to a lower standard of living, made them highly attractive to employers across various sectors, including light industries such as textile manufacturing, laundry services, and gardening, as well as more demanding occupations like road construction and mining.⁶ 

In 1860, the number of Chinese immigrants in the US surged when the Central Pacific Railroad Company recruited thousands of workers from China. By the 1870s, Chinese immigration had become a central issue in American labor agitation, led by figures such as Denis Kearney and the Workingmen’s Party of California. What began as a localized labor concern quickly evolved into a national issue, as politicians co-opted the theme of Chinese labor during election campaigns and framed it as a matter of protecting the American working class.

When congressmen supported the Chinese Exclusion Law in 1882, they explicitly cited their concern for American labor as the primary reason. During the congressional debate on the exclusion law, Senator Henry M. Teller (R- Colo.) and others echoed this sentiment, stating that they saw “no other way to protect American labor in this country.”⁷ Thus, regardless of the propaganda of a small group of labor agitators, American politicians, who were still influenced by racial biases rooted in the era of black slavery, framed Chinese immigration as a labor question. They categorized Chinese migrants as a competing group against the American working class, without attributing them any semblance of political maturity to be seen as class consciousness or worker identity.  

The anti-Chinese labor discourse that gained prominence in the US during the 1870s informed debates in other regions where white workers were regarded as the cornerstone of the labor force. During the Mineral Revolution in South Africa, Britain had to recruit Chinese workers because their earlier attempts to incentivize the natives by restricting their mobility and the locals by increasing taxes did not solve the problem of labor shortage. In South Africa, much like in the US, the anti-Chinese discourse revolved around concerns related to competition caused by low wages and labor conditions resembling servitude. However, the so-called “progressive” leaders of the anti-Chinese labor movement went a step further by directly accusing mine owners in Transvaal of deliberately pursuing policies aimed at diminishing the power of white workers. These capitalists believed that higher rates of unionization and increased political participation by white workers would disrupt the political landscape in South Africa.⁸ In both the US and South African contexts, Chinese migrant labor was perceived as a harbinger of a lower level of civilization that threatened the white working classes and local communities at large. This discourse was also the guarantee for lower wages for immigrant labor. 

The rising anti-Chinese and anti-immigration propaganda on a global scale forced Chinese migrant communities to develop mechanisms to protect their interests. In Southeast Asia, they had long relied on labor associations as a safety net against exploitative employers. However, their influence began to decline in the 19th century due to the enforced liberalization of labor markets in the region by British and Dutch colonizers.⁹

In the US, Chinese immigrants formed native-place mutual aid associations known as huiguan to counter the anti-Chinese propaganda through legal avenues and lobbying efforts. In a newspaper piece, the secretary of the Sanyi huiguan vehemently refuted accusations of coolitude, understood to be a form of slavery in American context, and proudly highlighted the diverse roles held by the Chinese community, including laborers, merchants, mechanics, gentry, and school masters.¹⁰ Simultaneously, huiguan members disseminated information to China via newspapers and personal letters, providing insights into the circumstances of Chinese immigrants in the US. Interestingly though, their main intention in propagating this type of information was to discourage further migration. 

Even if one could argue that huiguan were initially founded and led by merchants, which rendered them elite organizations, we still need to admit that they primarily served laborers who were the main targets of anti-Chinese legislation. Being Chinese in the US context was almost equal to being an enslaved wage earner. Fighting against this unified and highly racialized discourse was not possible within a decentralized organizational structure. Thus, Chinese hometown organizations merged in the late 1850s to form the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, aka the Chinese Six Companies, with the aim of resisting anti-Chinese propaganda on a national level, by using all available legal channels. 

Another conduit for circulating information about overseas work among Chinese populations was worker letters and remittance bulletins. Coolie letters, intended to perpetuate and broaden chain migration within families, included meticulous accounts of overseas journeys, recruitment logistics, reception at their destinations, procedural requirements at ports of entry, job availability, costs and wages, and strategies to overcome potential impediments to migration and settlement.¹¹ These letters did more than just inform; they helped align the experiences of migrant workers with those remaining in China, fostering a shared understanding of labor conditions across borders. This wealth of knowledge allowed new recruits to assess their position in the global labor market and make strategic decisions based on comparative information. More importantly, the widespread circulation of such detailed reports connected laborers within China to their counterparts abroad, laying the groundwork for a shared identity that extended beyond national boundaries.

The dissemination of information from overseas Chinese workers went beyond personal initiatives. In 1873–74, the Qing government dispatched a mission to Cuba to investigate the conditions of Chinese workers in response to complaints from coolies. By this time, the coolie trade had already provoked public outrage in China, with the Amoy riots in 1852 against coolie kidnappings being a notable example. The mission’s report highlighted the hardships endured by Chinese migrant workers, and its official source added credibility to these accounts. Around the same period, the Qing government also appointed Yung Wing (1828–1912), a Yale-educated diplomat, as an envoy to Peru to investigate the circumstances of Chinese workers.¹² After these reports, the Qing government took a proactive stance in safeguarding the interests of migrant Chinese workers and began formulating the issue as a matter of national sovereignty. 

The widespread circulation of accounts detailing the difficulties and risks of contract labor, which made Chinese workers increasingly selective and cautious, along with the active involvement of government agents, rendered the Chinese labor market highly competitive by the early 20th century. Agents and companies representing various colonial powers found themselves in intense competition to attract Chinese workers for employment in their colonial territories or in projects within China. A notable example is the recruitment efforts of the French railway company in 1904–05. During these operations, company representatives reached out to diplomats and private firms handling coolie recruitment in southern China for other countries, hoping to secure workers for the Yunnan–Indochina railway. However, they quickly realized that their expectations clashed with the realities of the Chinese labor market. Workers in Guangxi and Guangdong, well-informed about the demand for their labor and the competing offers from different colonial powers, displayed considerable acumen and refused to sign contracts with the French company under its initial terms. As a result, the company was forced to improve its offers, including higher wages, paid leave, and medical services. Even with these concessions, workers sought the intervention of Qing officials to ensure government backing in enforcing contract conditions.

In conclusion, at the dawn of the 20th century, a confluence of factors had given rise to a well-defined Chinese worker subjectivity that centered on the themes of labor and migration. The relentless colonial competition for Chinese labor and its racialization by Western colonizers were pivotal in shaping this narrative. It became increasingly clear that Chinese workers were not just laboring for their respective bourgeois classes but also for the global bourgeoisie. This dual role as workers and contributors to the global capitalist system brought forth the complex dynamics at play. Sun Yatsen’s assessment of China as a hypo-colony, colonized not by a single nation but by multiple countries, resonates with the multifaceted nature of the Chinese labor experience during this era. As Chinese workers continued to offer their labor in various global contexts, as in the case of the Chinese labor corps in WWI, they effectively evolved into a distinct class, not solely bound to their immediate employers, but also integrated into the broader framework of the world bourgeoisie. Their story stands as a testament to the enduring impact of migration, labor, and the ever-evolving contours of global capitalism on the construction of class identities and subjectivities in the modern world.