In the Land of the Free

Lae Choo, the mother of the family, is the protagonist in “In the Land of the Free.” The reader experiences the loss of Little One most acutely from her perspective. For her, being separated from her son becomes unbearable to the point of melancholy and physical distress. Hom Hing explains to James Clancy that he believes that the Little One’s absence will kill her: “If the boy not come home, I lose my wife sure” (8).

As a Chinese woman, Lae Choo has less power in the US and, therefore, less faith in the rule of law than her husband. She instinctually refuses to give up Little One and must be coaxed by her husband to trust the customs officials. Her maternal instincts are correct and foreshadow the pending 10-month separation. Lae Choo also sacrifices the most for her family, first when she leaves her home in the United States and returns to China for the sole purpose of birthing her son. She also freely gives up her jewels and other precious items, including a bracelet given to her by her parents, to secure Little One’s return. She is a round character but is static, single-mindedly determined to get her child back.

As the suffering, self-sacrificing mother figure, Lae Choo plays a sentimental fiction archetypal role and evokes sympathy. She demonstrates the particular oppressions faced by Chinese women in America at the time. Lae Choo is “accustomed to being obedient” to her husband while she is also marginalized and taken advantage of by individuals like Clancy because of her race (5). She also cannot claim or aspire to white femininity, which is viewed by this society as the ideal form of motherhood.

Although James Clancy appears only briefly in the story, his presence is significant, as he represents the exploitative nature of the US legal and immigration system. The narrator establishes Clancy as a self-serving figure almost immediately, writing, “The young man eyed the Chinese merchant furtively. He had a proposition to make and was pondering whether or not the time is opportune” (8). While he demonstrates outrage at Hom Hing and Lae Choo’s situation and genuine concern when Hom Hing mentions Lae Choo’s failing health, he is subtly characterized as selfish. In his eyes, Hom Hing is a “Chinese merchant,” someone who can pay a lot of money. When asking for $500 to go to Washington, he explains, “You can’t get fellows to hurry the Government for you without gold in your pocket” (8). This demonstrates how the freedom promised by American society is not free for nonwhite individuals. With this, Clancy is not just a selfish individual but represents racist and exploitative US laws and policies.

Furthermore, as a member of the dominant white society, Clancy can be seen as a stand-in for the audience. Even though he is appalled at the injustice that Hom Hing and Lae Choo have endured, he is not willing to selflessly intervene or inconvenience himself. While he does show some reluctance and even embarrassment upon receiving Lae Choo’s heirloom jewelry as payment, he nonetheless accepts what they have to offer. As such, Eaton points out the limits of sentimentality, even as she uses sentimental style and form in her story. Clancy feels sympathy for Hom Hing and Lae Choo, and in this way, his feelings about the situation are correct. However, without selfless action, his sympathy does not amount to any noteworthy solution or change.