Ethnographic studies that preside over Flushing are intrinsically tied to the population. A population that is predominantly Asian. Through the context of Weishan Huang’s “The Making Of A Promised Land” we will be focusing particularly on Chinese immigrants from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Before this discussion begins, I would like to make note of peculiarities I noticed while reading. While Huang references demographics offered by Nancy Foner’s book From Ellis Island to JFK, it has come to my attention that the described Chinese population is all-inclusive. By this I am referring to the “Chinese” population growth, which is representative of both the Taiwanese and Chinese populace. Although I am partial towards Taiwan, I am not trying to breed unnecessary discussion, I simply found it interesting that that there was little or no distinction made between the population of two, [arguably] distinct, ethnic groups (Perhaps I am assuming too much from Huang’s paraphrasing).
When we delve deeper into the writing we see that Huang is arguing against the conclusion drawn by sociologist Jan Lin, which is Flushing described as a “satellite city” of traditional Chinatown (Manhattan). In addition, Huang is making a case that the development of Flushing’s various religions was instead, a response to the needs of Chinese immigrants and the growth of Taiwanese capital. This is not to say that the Chinese were the only ones who spurred religious growth in Flushing.
At large, Huang’s premise was based on a case-study done on Brown Street Community Church, which was formed in response to the decline of membership in two separate congregations. Huang writes, “The history of the church itself reflects the change of its neighborhood in the late 1970s and 1980s” (447). This statement is soon followed by transitional facts, which are used to describe Flushing’s growing Asian community. For example: The members of the church were mostly Taiwanese immigrants but were later replaced with Chinese immigrants. Realistically speaking, this correctly emulates the change in demographics—Flushing was becoming more ethnically diverse.
Later we are introduced to other growing Asian orientated organizations; some of them are service oriented and provide help to the Chinese community (I am referring to the Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation).
It is justifiable for Huang to argue that much of Flushing’s development [as a whole] was a result of the growing needs of Chinese immigrants. The conclusion reaffirms her findings and states the growing relation between the need for social service and the development of community-oriented buildings, in particular, churches, such as the CCHC (A Cantonese opera house was referenced as well).
Lastly, I would like to mention that although I agree with many of the conclusions drawn, it is primarily because I have visited many of the heavily populated Taiwanese areas of Flushing, including the Ci Hang Jing She. I speculate that eventually the Taiwanese population will remain constant as waves of immigration will consist mostly of Chinese and other ethnic groups.
