The Chinese Diasporic Periodization between “Peak” and “Bottom” -Framework, Indicators and Determinants

Email: jackliu.media@gdufs.edu.cn Abstract: Although the research on the Chinese diasporas in the Asian Pacific is abundant, rare projects specifically focus on periodization framework. This paper aims to reveal the Chinese diasporic periodization with its indicators and determinants in Asian Pacific. Historical studies and ethnographic research into the Chinese diasporas in Australia found unusual “peak” and “bottom” experiences: In 1888, the Chinese had been the largest diasporic community in Australia, but bottomed to one of smallest groups in the 1940s and peaked at the largest diasporic group again in 2017. Investigating the “peak” and “bottom”, this paper summarizes the Chinese diasporic periodization in Australia by metaphor: “Miserable Sojourners”, “Discriminated Explorers”, “New Reterritorializers”, “Transnational Mobilers”. Further investigations show that the racialism/multiculturalism policies and the Chinese domestic political economy determine the periodization together, especially the former. Subsequently, comparisons among the Chinese diasporas in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States suggest the similar “peak” and “bottom” periodization, indicators and determinants. Furthermore, comparisons between the Korean and the Chinese diasporas in these countries reveal the homeland political impacts on the latter are more significant. Therefore, the four-periodization Chinese diasporic framework would be a particular reference for global diasporic studies.


The Chinese Diasporas at Peak and Bottom
Diasporas have been an extensive and complicated human movement from 3 BC to present, providing overt and deliberate impacts to most countries (Cohen, 1997). The word diaspora originated from the Greek word diaspeirein, which means successful conquest. However, diaspora gradually referred to the Jews and became traumatic, because the Jews had been scattered worldwide from Jerusalem since 3 AD.
After the 1960s, diasporas have also been embedded to sojourners, a group of people who exile to a new place (e.g., Africans in the United States) (Baumann, 1995). Since the late 20th century, increasingly scholars have been focusing on diasporic research because globalization has entered to a new stage. For example, (Safran, 1991) proposes six points for diaspora: "An 'expatriate minority community' sharing dispersion, homeland, margin, return, loyalty and relationships". Vertovec (1999) denotes diaspora as: "The term often used to describe practically any population which is considered 'deterritorialised' or 'transnational'".
In the early 21st century, diasporas have become the significant global phenomenon, providing various influences to both developing and developed countries. On the one hand, there is a proliferation of professionals in developing countries, especially from China and India, headed to the West. On the other hand, traumatic diasporas also frequently occur in some areas, the Middle East in particular. In addition, between North America and Western Europe, people's movements, for both business and personal reasons, have also become more common.
At the global level, the Chinese diasporas have been special since the 19th century. Beginning in the 1800s, Chinese people have been dispersed to nearly 90 countries. The 2016 Figure from the Overseas Chinese Association shows approximately 60 million Chinese living overseas permanently in more than 200 countries. This is one of the largest and most influential diasporic groups worldwide.
While they suffered from extremely negative situations before mid-20th century, the recent experiences seemed better. Thus, a number of insightful stories integrated into their "peak" and "bottom" experiences. In this case, their stories in Australia are unique at the regional and global level.
Early in 1888, the Chinese were the largest diasporic group in Australia, which was the first peak (Liu, 1989). However, in the 1940s, unfavorable situations resulted in their size to one of the smallest communities (Jupp, 2001). But in July 2017, the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that the Chinese has peaked at the largest diasporic group again in the country, which has never been occurred in the other Western countries. In this case, Australia is a suitable research site in Asian Pacific even global diasporic Chinese studies. As  state: "The Chinese in Australia, global diaspora in microfilm".
Furthermore, since early 19th century, there have been a large number of the Chinese migrants in the four Asian Pacific migration countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. This paper aims to reveal a periodization framework of the Chinese diasporas by the Australian case and attempts to make a contribution to diasporic research, political economic studies, migration policy, international relations and inter-disciplinary studies in Asian Pacific and global context.

Literature Review and Research Gap
A number of scholars completed the research into the Chinese diasporas, including those located in Australia. However, many projects focus on a specific period, or a certain geographic area, there are still two gaps in the former research: Periodization framework and comparative studies.
Former research on Chinese diasporas in Australia is abundant, but most projects mainly target historical details. For instance, the book Big White Lie written by (Fitzgerald, 2007) delineates the comprehensive experiences of Australian Chinese people from the early 19th century to the 1960s, especially the miserable experiences in the "White Australia" age. Liu (1989), the former Chinese diplomat, published a book titled The History of Chinese in Australia that contains extensive stories from the 17th century to 1989. Eric Rolls also authored two brick-thick books: Citizens: Continuing the epic story of China's centuries-old relationship with Australia (1996) and Sojourners: The epic story of China's centuries-old relationship with Australia (1992). These publications depict numerous details from the 19th century to mid-1990s.
Recent research rethinks identity transformation of overseas Chinese in a western cultural background and transnational matrix, such as On not Speaking Chinese: living between Asia and the west (Ang, 2001). Sinclair et al. (2001), through their use of media, examine the "floating living" of contemporary Chinese people in Australia. Wu (2003) summarizes how middle-class Chinese immigrants start new careers in this country. Inglis (2011) examines the transformation of Sydney's Chinatown and the Chinese communities from the 19th century to 2018, revealing that Chinatown is no longer an ethnic hub for newcomers' economic development. Nevertheless, rare researchers establish a macro framework for the Chinese diasporas, nor do they compare the similarities between the Chinese diasporas in different areas.
Broadly speaking, some scholars categorize diasporas into different periods by historical analysis. One of the typical examples is that (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006) classify the US migration history into five types by immigrants' political and economic situations: "unauthorized, legal (temporary), legal (permanent), refugees and asylees". Cohen (1997) examines the political and economic status of various global diasporic groups and periodizes human diasporas into five categories by gardening, as shown in Table 1.  Wang (2001) classifies Chinese diasporas into four periods: Hua Shang, Hua Gong, Hua Qiao and Hua Ren. Hua Shang was the commercial period that Chinese products (silk, tea, porcelain, etc.) were delivered to Southeast Asia (Macleod, 2006). This occurred prior to the 19th century when most sojourning Chinese dispersed throughout Southeast Asia. Second period, Hua Gong (i.e., coolies), spanned between the 19 th and the mid-20 th centuries. When China had been weak and backward, people had to flee overseas. The experiences of these diasporas had also become traumatic when enormous numbers of indentured workers were shipped to the United States, Europe or Australia to work as miners or plantation coolies. They suffered from negative political and economic situations and even some died in their host countries (Wang, 2001).
A new period began in the 1970s when increasingly skilled workers and business executives emigrated from Hong Kong and Taiwan to the West, especially to Australia, Canada and the United States. Later, as a consequence of China's Reforming and Opening Policy, the mainland business executives, professionals and students spread worldwide. Thus, Chinese diasporas were labeled as Hua Qiao (i.e., Chinese living overseas). Since the early 21 st century, diasporic Chinese people have become diverse and transnational. The mainland government has also paid less attention to their nationalities, considering them as "overseas Chinese" (Hua Ren) (Wang, 2001).
The above projects summarized diasporic periodization through a historical analysis based on political economic status and population, which makes their research objective and systematic. So this paper obtains their methods and skills. However, the Cohen (1997) and the Portes and Rumbaut models (2006) are unsuitable to Chinese diasporas' unique situation.
First, (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006) model rely on the US immigration and do not focus on the Chinese case. Cohen (1997) framework deals only with rare Chinese emigration that, in recent centuries, can't be regarded as imperial/colonial diaspora. Wang (2001) framework is specific to Chinese diasporas, but it might be too extensive and may not describe the cases in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. For instance, rare Hua Shang existed in these areas in first period (Liu, 1989;Zhou, 1992). More importantly, while there is no certain time limit for each period, the differences between the Hua Qiao and the Hua Ren periods are sometimes somewhat ambiguous.
Database search on Google Scholar, EBSCO and ProQuest suggests that no research specifically compares and summarizes a periodization framework on the Chinese diasporas in the Asian Pacific. Regarding the research in the Chinese language, most mainland relevant research in the academic database CNKI is impacted by politics. For example, many papers and books in the Chinese language periodize Chinese migration as "before 1949", "after 1949", "after 1978.
In this case, the paper intends to fill in this research gap and contribute to both academy and practice. Then, the investigation into Chinese diasporic periodization with their indicators and determinants has high research value. This paper not only fills the research blank, but also reveals some insightful stories, including the determinants into Diasporas, the interactions between homeland and hostland, and the impacts on local communities.

Research Questions and Methods
Based on the research gap and onsite investigation, this paper ascertains the Chinese diasporic periodization framework with its indicators and determinants by the Australian case, then compares relevant stories in the four Asian Pacific countries and concludes the paradigm. This paper summarizes three research questions and explores these questions by ethnographic research and historical analysis.
To investigate the diasporic periodization, the first step is to classify different periods. Former research (Cohen, 1997;Portes and Rumbaut, 2006) categorize them by the two indicators: Diasporic population and political economic status. So this paper will adapt this method and explore the indicators for the periodization. For example, most Australian Chinese people suffered from poverty in the 19th century, but some became affluent and "business class" in early 20th century, which indicates the two different periods in their diasporic experiences.
Second step, this paper rethinks the vital external influential factors on the framework. What driven factors do they determine the Chinese diasporic periodization? Initial research results suggest that the hostland migration policies and the homeland impacts become the two determinants. This research will further ascertain these phenomena.
Final step, are there any similarities between the Australian case and the other Asian Pacific migration countries where many Chinese live in? This paper will find out the cases between Australia and the US, New Zealand and Canada, the major three migration countries in this area. In short, this paper will explore the three research questions below: (1) what are the indicators and determinants for the Chinese diasporic periodization in Australia?
(2) what is the periodization framework of Chinese diasporas in Australia? (3) can this periodization apply to the Chinese diasporas in the three migrant countries in Asian Pacific?
The ethnographic analysis in this study was conducted by the researcher in Sydney for six years from 2010 to 2015, including interviews and observation. Different types of the Chinese people living in the country were interviewed including: Skilled immigrants, overseas students and business immigrants from the mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Some interviewees have resided in Australia for more than 30 years, while the others are relatively new comers. In addition, the 12 towns that many Chinese reside were also observed and investigated, where include Eastwood, Chatswood and Hurstvill, etc. Observations and interviews were conducted in the Chinese shops, local libraries and residents' homes.
In terms of historical analysis, this paper compares and summarizes the three types of relevant research in the Western countries where many Chinese migrants reside, especially the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The first type of references is composed of migration policy and government records. For example, the "White Australia" and Multiculturalism Policies determined the political and economic situations and the size of the Chinese immigrant population, so which records were carefully analyzed. Government records include the Australian census, for instance, the data recorded 38,258 Chinese immigrants in 1860, but only 4,709 in 1947. The above references overtly show the two stages of the Chinese diasporas in Australia.
The second type references consist of the Australian Chinese media coverage. All Australian Chinese Community News sections  in the major two Chinese dailies were reviewed in the New South Wales library, namely, the Sing Tao Daily Australian version and the Australian Chinese Daily. The two dailies are the oldest Chinese contemporary media in Australia, 1 which reported many comprehensive transformations of contemporary Chinese people and communities in the country from the 1980s to present.
The third type is extrapolated from relevant Chinese diasporic studies. These encompass many projects, such as the Australian Chinese people and their media consumption in the 1990s , the middle-class Chinese settles in Sydney (Wu, 2003) and the Chinese between the 19th century and 1989 (Liu, 1989;Rolls, 1992;.
Together with the analyses on the ethnographic and historical research, this paper summarizes peaks and bottoms of the Chinese diasporas in Australia with their influential factors and raises a "soft hypothesis" for the research questions as follows.
There are the four periodization for the Chinese diasporas in Australia, namely, "Miserable Sojourners", "Discriminated Explorers", "New Reterritorializers" and "Transnational Mobilers". The indicators for this periodization are composed of the diasporic population and their political economic status. The determinants for this periodization consist of the Australian migration policy and the Chinese domestic political economy. The next sections will test the "soft hypothesis" and analyze the periodization framework, indicators and determinants in details.

"Miserable Sojourners", "Discriminated Explorers", "New Reterritorializers"
Based on ethnographic and historical research, the paper found the three periodization in the Chinese diasporas in Australia between the 19th century and the late 20th century: Namely, "Miserable Sojourners", "Discriminated Explorers", "New Reterritorializers". The sharp increase and decrease populations with their political economic status become the significant indicators. Furthermore, the two crucial factors, the Australian racialism and multiculturalism policies and Chinese domestic political economy, provide fundamental impacts to these phenomena.

"Miserable Sojourners", Indicators and Determinants
The earliest periodization of the Chinese diasporas in Australia lasted between the mid-19th and late 19th century. Based on the two indicators, their population and political economic status, they can be identified as "Miserable Sojourners". The driven factors for that encompass the "White Australia Policy" and the Chinese domestic political economy.
In terms of population, Mak Sai Ying (also known as John Shying) who arrived at Sydney in 1818, was one of the earliest Chinese people recorded in New South Wales (Jones, 2005). In 1851, Lie San Mei from Si Yi (Sze Yip), Canton, visited Melbourne. Following him, a large number of Si Yi people rolled into Australia to pan for gold. They also engaged in other labor-intensive industries such as faming and laundry services (Liu, 1989). According to the Australian colony government's records, the Chinese population was ranked second in 1888, the largest diasporic group only after British immigrants.
Regarding political economic status, these people suffered from extreme poverty. The Chinese immigrants in both Queensland and Victoria worked as diggers and lived in very tough conditions (Rolls, 1992;. Recollections from Lee Shao Ji's 2 grandfather detail their hardships including remote wild lands, steep hills, various vipers, extreme fatigue, fatal illnesses, savage bandits and scarce food and water that caused the death of thousands of these people. Lee's grandfather also said: "Frequently meet the bodies of our compatriots whose feet have been cut off by the Aborigines". Their political status was also unfavorable as they had been marginalized in the country. Some Whites averred that Chinese immigrants threatened their interests, especially in mining and farming, so they showed profound antagonism toward them (Tavan, 2005). The Australian state and local governments held a similar attitude to them.
In addition, very few Chinese were familiar with the English language and some were illiterate. "Only one in five Chinese could read English at the turn of the century and many could not read Chinese either" (Fitzgerald, 1996). Hampered by low literacy, Chinese immigrants in Australia found it difficult to engage in the local political arena and protect their legal rights.
The two major factors led to the "Miserable Sojourners": The Chinese domestic political economy and the Australian policies.
First, since the early 19th century, the Chinese people had suffered from the corruptive Qing dynasty, which brought endless starvation, wars and chaos to them. To make a living, many Chinese people had to sojourn overseas, including Australia, especially those who lived in Southern China (Pan, 1994).
Second, in the hostland, although the "White Australia" Policy was not formed, many racialism regulations on the Chinese had been carried out. For example, the Chinese had to paid the highest tax when they entered into Australia and women were banned from entering the country, which was to prevent the establishment of families (Rolls, 1992).
In summary, as the two indicators show, these Chinese people experienced unfavorable political and economic conditions in Australia, although their population reached the first peak. This is because of the racialism policy and the corruptive Qing Dynasty. So, this first period can be aptly metaphored as "Miserable Sojourners".

"Discriminated Explorers", Indicators and Determinants
Labeled as "Discriminated Explorers", the second period of the Chinese diasporas in Australia spanned from 1901 to 1972. Significant changes occurred in this period. They were officially deprived most political rights and their population bottomed to one of the smallest groups in the country.
The first indicator for this period is the profound transformation of population quantity and constitution. Because of the "White Australia Policy", the Chinese were banned to the country, so their population constantly shrunk to 4707 in 1947, the lowest number in the country's history (Fitzgerald, 1996). In addition, their population constitution also profoundly changed, as Hong Kongese substituted the mainlanders and became the major group in the community. Before the 1950s, the major community members were from the mainland. After the "White Australia" policy began loosening in the 1950s, Hong Kongese and Southeast Asian Chinese ethnic people started to migrate to Australia and the former became the dominant group.
In terms of second indictor, political economic status, the economic conditions of some immigrants improved remarkably. The hard work and wisdom of diasporic Chinese led to successful careers. A few people had gained sufficient income and became bosses in the new land.
One of the typical examples is Mr. Quong Tart, an outstanding entrepreneur in Sydney who specialized in commerce between China and Australia, in particular silk imports. Other pioneers included Mr. Ma Ying Bo and the brother Mr. Guo Quan and Mr. Guo Le. In the late 19th century, they had set up modern department stores in Sydney, Hong Kong and Shanghai (Kuo, 2009). In the first period, most Chinese in Australia suffered from poverty. But in this period, the emergence of business class became one of the profound transformations in the area (Fitzgerald, 2007).
On the other hand, their political status suffered from more negative situations. First, the Chinese in Australia officially became the "discriminated group". After the "White Australia" policy was laid out in 1901, they had lost most social rights in the country, which situation had lasted until 1973, the termination of "White Australia Policy" and the start of Multiculturalism Policy.
Second, diasporic Chinese communities had divided into different "political camps" since this period. In the early 20th century, overseas Chinese people increasingly engaged in republic revolution against the corruptive Qing dynasty. Associations such as the Chinese Enlightenment Society, the Chinese Patriotism Association and the Chinese National Party (CNP) branch were established in Sydney and Melbourne (Fitzgerald, 1996). Since the 1920s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the CNP had become major political forces in China and then between the 1930s and the 1970s some Chinese immigrants in Australia were divided into two "camps" in favor of each of these parties (Liu, 1989).
Finally, as their political economic status and population indicated, "Miserable Sojourners" can suitably depict the Chinese Diaspora in Australia between 1901 and 1972. It is the Australian migration policies and the Chinese domestic political economy that caused these phenomena.

"New Reterritorializers", Indicators and Determinants
The third period of Chinese diasporas in Australia spanned from 1973 to 1997. Special transformations occurred in their population and political economic status. The mainlanders substituted the Hong Kong migrants and became the major group again and all Chinese migrants obtained unprecedented political rights. The reason why for these transformations consist of the Multiculturalism Policy and the homeland political forces. Because different Chinese ethnic groups all chased new living as the "reterritorializers" in the new land, which identifies of this period.
The Australian migration policies and the Chinese political influences become the crucial influential factors in this period. In 1973, the Australian Parliament officially abolished the "White Australia" Policy and started the Multiculturalism Policy. This reopened the door for the Chinese migration. On the other hand, Hong Kong had started boom since the 1970s, which resulted in increasing professionals going overseas. Together the migration policy and Hong Kong prosperity, there was a fresh migration wave to the West, especially to Australia. Later, the Hong Kong migrants became the dominant group in the Chinese diasporic community in the early 1980s.
After that, the Hong Kong Handover (in 1984 the Chinese and British governments consented to the transfer of Hong Kong sovereignty back to China on July 1, 1997) and the "1989 Tianan Men Incident" led to the profound worries of many Hong Kongese. This had triggered a surge of Hong Kong international emigration until 1997, including to Australia (Firth, 2005;Damousi, 1998).
Likewise, the "1989 Tianan Men Incident" caused worldwide emigration from mainland China, including to Australia. Many mainlanders asked for permanent residency after arriving in the country, which was called "Residency Issue of Chinese Students in Australia" (Shu and Hawthorne, 1996). In 1991, Australia's Prime Minister Bob Hawke eventually issued Permanent Resident Visas to 29,500 mainlanders in Australia (Hawke, 1994). Due to this policy, many new mainland residents then sponsored family members to come to Australia, resulting in a proliferation of Australia's mainlander population.
Except for the Hong Kongese and mainlanders, the other ethnic Chinese also headed to the country during these period, including the Taiwanese and the Chinese people from Vietnam. While the former were mainly composed of professionals, businessmen and students, the latter fled to escape domestic political prosecution. Overall, the sharp growth of diasporic population indicates a new period for the Chinese diaspora in Australia.
Regarding the indicator on political economic status, the political status of Chinese immigrants became unprecedentedly different from that in the past. Abolishment of the "White Australia Policy" and implementation of the Multiculturalism Policy enabled them to have full political rights (e.g., voting) equal to those of other Australians. This had never occurred prior to the early 19 th century. Some migrants, especially those from Hong Kong, started political careers. A typical example is John So, who was elected as the Mayor of Melbourne in the 1990s. 3 3 www.johnso.com.au The Chinese communities also displayed divergent economies. Some new immigrants, such as those from Vietnam, continued to suffer from unfavorable situations. But many others joined the middle class. For instance, some Hong Kong and Taiwan immigrants set up businesses in Australia, while others worked as professional accountants, administrators and academics.
Although diasporic Chinese groups differ greatly, most chased new careers and aimed to improve personal living conditions in this new land. While the affluent Hong Kongese and Taiwanese sought to expand their businesses, many mainlanders and other ethnic Chinese struggled for career improvement in a new land. Most Vietnamese "boat people" looked for a new society to avoid political prosecution at home. Therefore, "New Reterritorializers" captures the features of this period.

"Transnational Mobilers", Indicators and Determinants
Historical and ethnographic research results suggest, the Chinese diasporas in Australia has entered into a completely new period since 1997. While their population rank second in the country again, their political economic status raised remarkably. Compared with the past, a strong "transnational identity" behinds this phenomena, so this period can be labelled as "Transnational Mobilers". The Australian Multiculturalism policy and contemporary Chinese political economy contribute to these situations.
In terms of the indicator population, the Chinese immigrants have become an important demographic community in the country. According to Australia's 2006 national census, there were 664,090 people in the country with a Chinese background (first generation). The 2016 census further reveals that their population nearly doubled reaching 1,200,391, which is the second largest group domiciled only after the local Australians. While Table 2 presents that the mainland Chinese migrants who obtain the Australian citizenship have ranked third position, Table 3 displays that Chinese language speakers have also occupied second position only after English language speakers since 2006.
Apart from those Chinese immigrants who have become Australian residents or citizens, the students form a large potential migration group. In 2006, there were 80,631 (i.e., 54,860 from mainland China and 20,780 from Hong Kong 4 ) overseas Chinese students pursuing an education in Australia, which at 32.15 percent constituted the largest group of Australia's overseas student population. Many Chinese students applied for residency: "In 2004-05, a total of 16,485 persons transferred from student visas to be permanent residents and the largest single group were those from mainland China (3,258 persons)" (Hugo, 2007).   Barbers (razors), tailors (scissors) Diasporic Chinese engaged in heavy labor and low and cookers (kitchen knives) income industries before the 1960s "Three professionals" Accountants, engineers, doctors Many Chinese had engaged in professional vocations since the 1970s "Three experts" Entrepreneurs, scientists, More Chinese work in skilled and professional vocations in the politicians mainstream society in the early 21st century Regarding the indicator on political economy, the Chinese immigrants' political status has been improved to a new level. As more Chinese became Australian citizens, their influences grew in the political arena. In commonwealth, state and council elections, political parties frequently paid special attention to the voters with a Chinese background, promoting their policies in the Australian Chinese TV, magazine and newspapers to influence them, especially during the 2007, 2012 and 2017 general elections. This suggests the growing importance of Chinese people in Australia's political sphere.
Regarding economic level, the Chinese immigrants also occupy a more significant position in the nation. The DIAC data indicate that since 2000, there have been an increasing number of "bosses" from mainland China: Business immigrants headed to the country and established companies. Their informal business links have been metaphored as the "stateless business network" , bringing various benefits to the country. Except that, the Chinese have also brought additional income to the country, such as house purchases and student tuition fees.
Related to political economic status, the development of Chinese immigrant careers is also significant and profound, reflecting a new level of political and economic status. The metaphors "Three Knives (San Diao)", "Three Professionals (San Shi)" and "Three Experts (San Jia)" 5 vividly describe the transformation of their vocations from labor-focused to skilled workers and professionals (Table 4).
More Chinese immigrants, especially in the 21st century, have succeeded at the careers that Chinese people seldom worked in before (e.g., politicians). Two typical examples are consisted of Henry Tsang, the deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney and member of the Senate and Li Hua Lin, the of Lord Mayor of Auburn City in 2008. A young lawyer, Justin Lee, was elected into the Ryde city council in New South Wales when he was 26 years old in 2007. There is also proliferation of Chinese immigrants working in professional positions in the mainstream society such as accountants, administrators and academics (Hugo, 2010). The change of vocations clearly reflects improvement of the political and economic status of this diasporic group.
Most importantly, the transformation of political economy and population suggests a profound "transnational identity", which has never seen in the past three periods. In the past, there were two models for the Chinese diasporas in Australia: "Settle" or "leave" (Rolls, 1996;. To settle means that once a Chinese immigrated to Australia, he or she rarely returned to and resided in China again. To leave describes that once a Chinese person who lived in Australia completed his or her target (e.g., studies), he or she returned to the homeland and never back to the host country again.
But the researcher's interview results and ethnographic research show: Since the 21st century, increasingly Chinese people have been fluctuating: Live and travel back and forth between the two countries. To settle or leave is not the ultimate choice. In other words, they become more transnational (Gao, 2006).
The reason why they become transnational is that these diasporic people chase a better societal environment for their careers and families. When Australia's economy declined and could not offer sufficient or satisfied jobs, China's economy became more prosperous and was able to provide more opportunities, which has led to an increasing number of Australian Chinese people returning to live and work in China. However, if these immigrants deem that their children need a full English education, or if the democratic, liberty and justice environment deteriorate in China, they may return to Australia. Therefore, their lives became more transnational, compared with the past two diasporic models.
But a further question lies in their identity -why they are able to be more transnational? The above analysis suggests that because a large number of diasporic people in this period consist of professionals and business executives who are able to "fluctuate". Consequently, "Transnational Mobilers" summarizes the identities in this period, reflecting their political economic status and the larger hostland and homeland social environments.

Influential Factors on the Periodization Framework
A four-periodization framework with determinants and indicators is established in this study. But there are two insightful questions behind the framework: What is the ultimate factor influential on this framework? What are the interactions among these factors? Research results show: The threats and benefits to the Australian mainstream society and its interactions with the Chinese political economy deliberately shape Australian migration policies, which finally decided the diasporic framework.
The "White Australia" and the Multiculturalism Policies certainly become the divisions and determinants for this periodization. But what reason caused the government to make these policies? Ethnographic and historical research results show, the reasons depend on the perceived threats and benefits toward mainstream society.
In first period, the proliferation of Chinese population threatened some Australians' benefits, especially those held by diggers and workers. The culture, language, history and customs of the Chinese people also differ from those of the mainstream Australian society, so they held an adverse attitude toward the Chinese. Moreover, the benefits to mainstream society were limited due to weak and poor China. This is the reason why Australia passed the "White Australia" Policy.
Since the 1960s, Australia has needed more labor. This was one of the reasons why the government launched Multiculturalism Policy in 1973. After 1978, Australia has obtained many benefits from China, especially since the early 21st century. For example, the trade between the two nations have increased tremendously. The 2008 Australian Bureau of Statistic data shows, in 2007 Australia imported more goods and services from China than from any other country and China was Australia's second largest export destination. Chinese people also become a financial resource to their host country (e.g., university tuition fees and daily expenditures). Additionally, China has become one of the most influential countries worldwide, Australia has to concern its international relations when the government makes migration policies.
In this case, although both China and the diasporic Chinese community might bring some threats to the Australian mainstream societies, the benefits extremely surpass the detriments. Consequently, Australia's government has maintained its Multiculturalism Policy. Based on research results, Table 5 presents the two vital factors influential on migration policy: Benefits on Australian mainstream societies and the relations with China.   Overall, this section analyzes the insightful stories on the Chinese diasporic periodization framework and reveals influential factors. Before making policies, the mainstream societies certainly concern about their society benefits and the liaisons with China. This is the fundamental influential factor on the Chinese diasporic periodization framework.

Comparisons in the Global Diasporic Arena
Research results of this paper suggest that the comparisons on the Chinese diasporas between Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand show some similarities, as they all experienced analogous "peak" and "bottom" periodization by the same indicators and determinants. A further comparison between the Chinese and Korean Diasporas suggests this framework could become a particular reference for global diasporic studies.

Similarities on the Chinese Diasporic Periodization in Asian Pacific
In North America, the Chinese people have started to immigrate to the United States and Canada since the early 19th century. They suffered from miserable living conditions, working as coolies in heavy labor industries (e.g., Pacific Railway workers, farmers and diggers). Their working environment was dirty, tough and dangerous and their wages were very low. Some even lost their lives (Portes and Rumbaut, 2006). Although their population reached a peak, they were discriminated against and marginalized in these countries during this period, in a manner similar to the "Miserable Sojourners" period.
Since the late 19th century, the Chinese in Canada and the United States suffered from official exclusion. The US and Canadian governments representatively laid out "Immigration Restrictions" in 1888 and 1883. Until the late 1960s, the Chinese officially became an unwelcome group in these societies and were deprived of their political rights and their population sharply decreased to bottom (Fernando, 2006;Chen, 2004). These occurrences resemble the "Discriminated Explorers" period.
Since the late 1960s, the US and Canadian governments have gradually changed their attitudes of Chinese immigrants and have officially terminated their racialism policies. As a result, increasingly Chinese have immigrated to these two countries. Most came from Hong Kong, Taiwan or Southeast Asia. Similar to that experienced in Australia, the 1984 Sino-British Treaty and the "1989 Tianan Men Incident" had also caused the Hong Kong and mainland migration waves to Canada and the United States until 1997. Different from the past, more immigrants in the new period engaged in skilled and professional occupations as they chased new living in their new lands (Zhou, 2009). This is similar to the "New Reterritorializers" period.
Since the late 1990s, the Chinese diasporas in Canada and the United States have entered into a new stage. Instead of Hong Kongese, the quantity of the mainlanders soared and the diasporic population have become diverse and larger. Moreover, their political and economic status changed overtly. Similar to the "Three Experts" metaphor, more Chinese have become politicians, entrepreneurs and engaged in professional jobs in North America. Some diasporic people have also fluctuated between these countries (Lindsay, 2001;Lien, 2011;Liu, 2012;Zhao, 2010). Therefore, "transnational mobilers" would also be suitable to describe this period and the fourperiodization framework and determinants can summarize and categorize their activity from the past to more recent times.
Further analyses on the Chinese diasporas in Australia, Canada and the United States show the same driven factors. There are the two reasons why the United States and Canada both implemented discrimination policies in the late 19th century. First, Chinese immigrants to these countries threatened the local people's benefits and the mainstream societies could not gain many sakes from the Chinese people and China. This is quite similar to the Australian case. However, since the 1970s, the Greater China brought more political and economic sakes to the host countries, where each have continued their multiculturalism policies.
Regarding the "neighbor" New Zealand, it is basically same as the Australian version (Ip, 2003). In the mid-19th century, many Chinese people from Southern China headed to New Zealand for panning gold and engaged in labor-intensive industry laundry and faming later. In 1881, they had become the second largest diasporic group only next to the ethnic Maori. This is the first peak. Then, these people encountered various discriminations and eventually the government launched "White New Zealand" Policy in 1920, so the Chinese diaspora dropped to the "bottom". But after the 1940s, their population gradually increased and peaked again in the early 21st century. The influential factors, the homeland political economic impacts and hostland policies ("Sake and Threat" to the mainstream society) also resemble to the Australian case (Li, 2009).
Admittedly, the time span in each diasporic phase in different countries are not exactly the same, for example, "Discriminated Explorers", the termination of racialism policies was different in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. But the Chinese diasporas in these countries all experienced similar periods. Therefore, this framework can conclude the Chinese diasporas in terms of periodization, indicator, determinant and influential factors on the macro level.

Similarities of Diasporic Periodization Framework by the Korean Diasporas
Because of the similarities on the experiences of the Chinese Diasporas, this paper concludes a diagram to describe their relations, Diagram. 1. The graph demonstrates the four levels of diasporic periodization framework. The top level, Level 4 is the diasporic periodization (the four periods) indicated by Level 3, the two indicators. But they are actually decided by Level 2, the two determinants and the fundamental influential factor (mainstream societies' benefits)-Level 1.
In addition, this diagram can not only describe the four countries' cases, but also refer to the Chinese Diasporas in the other countries. Some Western European countries that many Chinese migrants reside in have not officially laid out "Exclusion Policy", but the Chinese diasporas have also experienced the similar four waves since the 19th century to present with the influential factors (Price, 2019;Tan, 2013).
Moreover, the Chinese diasporas in Africa, South America, Middle East have just occurred since recent decades, but the influential factors in these countries are similar. Regarding homeland political economy, most recent Chinese diasporas are driven by China's economic development. In addition, the hostland laid out the policies friendly to the Chinese, because these countries obtained economic and political benefits from China (Thunø, 2013). Overall, this diagram could be a reference for global Chinese diasporic studies.
To further explore the characteristics of the Chinese diasporic periodization in the global background, this paper conducted a comparison on the periodization framework between the Chinese and Korean Diasporas, because of the two reasons. First, these two countries are all located in East Asia with analogous cultures and experiences. For example, they all encountered the external invasions and experienced rapid development in recent decades. Second, the two countries can be labeled as the "diasporic nations". For instance, both Chinese and Korean population occupy large proportion in Australia, Canada and the US, as the Korean Immigration Services (KIS, 2011) recorded more than 6.8 million overseas Koreans living in 170 countries. So this paper takes a comparison between the two countries.
Same as the Chinese case, the Korean Diasporas can also be divided into the four periods with similar characteristics and impact factors (Yoon, 2012). This paper summarizes the relevant research (Yoon, 2012;Yu et al., 2002) into Table 6, which demonstrates the four waves of the Korean Diasporas below.
A similarity is that the hostland immigration policies are certainly a crucial factor (Bai, 2010). For example, overseas Koreans encountered discriminative policies in both Japan and the United States between the 1900s and 1950s. But the recent Korean diaspora are not significantly related to the homeland politics (Yoon, 2012). In other words, after the 1970s, the crucial driven factor to the overseas diasporic Koreans is not the domestic political economy, but their personal development. In addition, compared with the Korean case, the mainland politics has always been the most important factors influencing Chinese diasporas in Asian Pacific. As (Zhou, 2006) summarizes: "Whether at times of prosperity or depression, the Chinese state has played and has continued to play a paramount role in shaping patterns of international migration and the development of the Chinese Diaspora". Similarly, Liu (2011) also points out that because of the rising strength of China, the Chinese diplomacy might play a more active role overseas.

Conclusion for Diasporas and Mainstream in Local and Global
Answering the three research questions and testing the hypothesis, this paper concludes the Chinese diasporic periodization with indicators and determinants by the "peak" and "bottom" cases in the four Asian Pacific migration countries. Further comparisons suggest this framework could refer to the global Chinese diasporic studies.
First, this paper establishes and proves a logic academic structure: Four periodization with indicators and determinants. "Miserable Sojourners", "Discriminated Explorers", "New Reterritorializers" and "Transnational Mobilers" vividly depict each period of the Chinese diasporas in the four migration countries in Asian Pacific. The indicators (political economic status and population) deliberately reflect the periodization. Then, the two driven factors, hostland migration policy and homeland political economy, determine these phenomenon, as well as the ultimate influential factor mainstream society benefits.
Second, this project fills the research blank in the diasporic studies. As mentioned before, rare projects specifically focus on the Chinese diasporic periodization. This paper establishes an integrated framework with indicators and determinants in the major four migrant countries in Asian Pacific. Further analyses summarize similarities at the global level, especially the homeland political impacts, so this finding contributes to the global Chinese diasporic research.
Third, the research results could become an individual case for global diasporic studies. A comparison between the Korean and Chinese diasporas shows analogous and different. The diversities of homeland political economy led to the differences of their overseas migrations, which provides a large space for comparative studies.
Fourth, the framework could become the intersections for cross-disciplinary projects. This research integrates not only migration, sociological, media and political economic studies, but also policy making, civil affairs and international relations in academia and practices. Therefore, this research can be the references for various relevant subjects in social sciences.
Fifth, the Chinese diasporic periodization and determinants closely interact with both local and global. The evolution of this framework clearly demonstrates: Diasporas are not just the affairs of "marginal groups", which is certainly related to the mainstream societies. Especially in contemporary global age, diaspora and mainstream societies would really mix up in some situations. Therefore, this diasporic framework research can refer to both marginalized and mainstream, both local and global.
Finally, "the pattern of Chinese migration represents one of the world's most impressive and complex cases of the phenomenon of Diasporas" (Cunningham and Sinclair, 2001). The researcher will go further the diasporic framework research and will ascertain something new for the international academic community.