Talk:Hometown association

The changes I made, and why

I have deleted the reference that sometimes HTA's are also known as Hometown Societies, because I've read the blogs which are linked as references, and these groups do not call themselves 'Societies'. Evidence provided shows that Hometown Associations is more than adequate.

This is not a social group, so I have deleted references to HTA's being social. I have termed 'community groups' over the original 'social alliances', as it seems to me - from the readings provided - that this is a more accurate description. HTA's have more in common with Rotary and Lion's clubs, than a freeform social gathering.

I have deleted anything that has not been cited, even by something as biased as a blog post. This article also contained direct quotes which were not properly referenced as such.

I have deleted much of the Chinese history because the author originally wrote that the Chinese had voluntarily segregated themselves in US society, when this is not true. Historically, the US has legislated segregation of the Chinese.

And, although it is very true that many migrant workers only come to a new host country only to make their fortune and return home, the author had made it seem that this was the habit of the Chinese only. And implied that HTA's are only doing the same. I find this racist on the basis that the author chose to racially link it to the Chinese (only) and did not specify that this is common practice even by today's work force. e.g.: how many white middle class American citizens are au pairs/teaching English/learning at universities/learning work trades overseas, saving their money for when they come home?

I had to stop when the author went on about Mexicans.

I find that there is Soo MUCH that is simply repeating itself when it doesn't have to. The author really, really wants everyone to know that every migrant group in America is sending money out into the world.

Pennypretty (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

why I reverted, @Pennypretty: I reverted your changes not because not what you wrote, but because of what you did not, although you used the edit summary major rewrite, what you did was less a rewrite and more a redaction of elements that you disagreed with. I'm not saying the article is perfect, far from it, I was the author of the Chinese history segment, and if you read it, it was trying to encompass hometown societies in China itself, not just America and the wider Chinese diaspora, and it was also trying to encompass the history of such societies which predate the immigration of Chinese labour abroad. The recruiters of the work gangs that went abroad to work in the mines, plantations and railroads of South East Asia, Australia and the US, tapped into pre-existing pools of itinerent labour used for construction projects in China itself, and this culture followed the labourers abroad. This was clearer the way I originally wrote it, check the diffs to read that version. You are no doubt correct about legal segregation of immigrant Chinese labour in the US, however this does not mean that these labourers did not self segregate, as much because of language difficulties as anything else, nor, a point you seemed to miss, self segregate amongst themselves according to clan and hometown affiliations, and at the cost of repeating myself, this was true not just in America but in the plantations of Malaya and Indonesia, see for example Larut War. Far better than simply removing sentences you disagreed with would be deleting the entire section as unsourced, an option I left to every editor, when I wrote it by tagging it as unsourced, the way you edited left it disjointed and full of non sequiturs, what are we really talking about Chinese trade caravans in America?

One of my major complaints about this article is US-centrism and recentism. Hometown societies have existed for centuries if not millenium, there are other countries in the world apart from the United States with immigrant populations who band together. And there are other varieties of English that prefer to use the word society rather than association.--KTo288 (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I copyedited the article, no big changes, just a general tidying. I also looked at some of the earlier versions. I feel Pennypretty had a point about condensing the lead, and went with some of those changes. I also feel that KTo288 is correct about the section organization (particularly keeping the US-specific content in its own section) and preserving the section on Chinese HTAs. Although the Chinese section is presently unsourced, it is supported by the hatnoted parent articles (which are far more controversial, BTW). If it is felt that this is unbalanced, I would suggest expanding the article with other viewpoints and examples.

The Mexican-American context is important for the recent transnational sociopolitical example, and probably covered widely in sources, but much of that information could be updated.

For the rest, it would be nice to see broader and more historical coverage. If it is true that HTAs serve "every immigrant ethnic group" then there's a lot more to be mentioned. Also, some of the material in the lead isn't supported in the body of the article.

If you have any questions or comments on this or my copyedit, feel free to post here. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)