Getting Together: Asian American New Communist Media as Resistance

In the aftermath of World War II, as Europe rebuilt itself, the United States emerged as a global leader in democracy. They also experienced an economic boom, unlike the many European nations whose economies, infrastructure, and populations had been devastated by years of bombings and occupation. The government's appetite for expanding the scope of US control abroad increased with this postwar power. Driven by the Cold War-era fear that nations like Vietnam or Korea would ally with the Soviet Union if left outside US control, the United States' military involvement increased throughout the Cold War. Simultaneously, a growing consciousness that racism and discrimination at home and violence and militarism abroad were two interlocking systems took hold in many social movement groups. Whether students, Old Left union organizers, or merely concerned community members, the 1950s and 1960s were years when political groups, particularly in big cities, took massive strides forward. 

I Wor Kuen was one of the many radical organizations that were part of the larger New Communist Movement. They advocated for Asian American healthcare and education, as well as other community issues, but also worked closely with other communities of color to build interracial coalitions for larger political projects. In order to understand their significance and connection to other New Communist groups like the Black Panthers or the Young Lords, it's critical to contextualize how and why the movement emerged. The New Communist Movement (NCM) was not something that appeared in isolation, but materialized out of a very specific environment of political, social, and economic unrest in the 1960s — and the decades of struggle that had preceded them. 

Historical Repression of Leftist Organizing

When we think of the movement organizing of the 1960s, we might think of it as a time when government surveillance of individuals, police suppression of protests, and infiltration of political groups was at its peak. But domestically, the United States government had long taken drastic measures to suppress radical groups — socialists, communists, anarchists — from establishing a national foothold. The First Red Scare (1917-1920), in which government agents violently targeted "radicals" and "revolutionaries", set the precedent for seeing leftist organizing as a national security threat. In a moment of impending financial crisis, race riots, increased immigration to the US, and the aftermath of war, it was all too easy for those in power to use "communists" and "Bolshevism" as unifying symbols of fear. 

These specific paranoias were revived in the years following World War II, which many consider the beginning of the Second Red Scare. Executive Order 9835, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman in 1947, instituted "loyalty oaths" that questioned government employees' political allegiances. Unions were another big target: legislation like the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 amended the 1935 Wagner Act to weaken the power of labor unions, and made striking and organizing more difficult. It banned closed shops — workplaces where employers required employees to be part of certain unions prior to joining — and also required union leaders to sign papers swearing they were not communists. All of these policies sought to suppress potential communist organizing and reduce the power of organized labor.

The repression of leftist groups and the scrutiny over politically involved individuals only intensified during the McCarthy era of the 1950s. McCarthyism — the movement spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy, who led investigations against "supposed" communists in the United States — destroyed the last of the Old Left, including the Communist Party (CPUSA). McCarthy and his acolytes saw the threat of communism everywhere, from the ranks of the federal government to teachers in public schools to Hollywood writers. Through blacklisting, federal investigations, blackmailing, and surveillance, many previously-established leftist organizations were left dismantled or severely weakened.

While the United States portrayed itself as a global leader in democracy, the 1960s were a period of mass struggle for many minoritized communities as class inequality, racial violence, and imperial wars persisted. Consumer spending increased, factories expanded, and many white workers’ wages rose. But even as the federal government invested in infrastructure like housing, highways, and education, most communities of color were systemically denied the benefits of this growth as housing discrimination, job segregation, and immigration restrictions persisted. Many in the New Communist Movement believed that the Old Left, such as the Communist Party (CPUSA), struggled to respond to these contradictions of the 1960s, especially after being weakened by the McCarthy era of the 1950s. This paved the way for a new generation and style of youth activism, which consisted of groups like the IWK. 

The New Communist Movement (NCM) was a movement that grew out of WWII, shaped by lasting tensions from the First Red Scare and the perceived failures (and critiques) of the Old Left. It's necessary to differentiate between the two groups to understand why younger activists took a more radical, community-based approach. 

Old vs. New Left 

The Old Left (pre-1960s) and the New Left (1960s-onwards) differed in many ways. The Old Left focused mostly on unionization, worker’s rights, and was highly influenced by Soviet-style communism. It took a more bureaucratic approach, focusing on formal structures and economic redistribution. While the Old Left played a central role in labor organizing and civil rights advocacy, many younger people felt it was too rigid, predominately white, and focused more on economic issues than cultural issues, making the Old Left slow to address the prominent issues of the 1960s. Their political divide was also a generational divide, pitting older people who preferred stability and slower change against radical youth who wanted immediate, community-based action. These differences in strategy and style greatly shaped the NCM.

In contrast to the Old Left, the New Left was heavily shaped by young organizers of color, anti-imperialism, and critiques of culture. Students and minoritized people challenged not only America's capitalist system, but also racism, sexism, and imperialism, understanding how oppression intersected across multiple identities and systems. While the term “intersectionality” was not coined until decades later, it is clear this concept was recognized by New Communist groups through their examination of “working women” and interconnected struggles. For example, in the IWK’s bilingual newspaper, Getting Together, one student highlighted how language struggles with English were exacerbated by youths' need to support their immigrant families instead of studying.^¹ This created a systemic cycle where Chinese American young people remained in low-paying jobs, being marginalized by both their racial identity and class status. The New Left also prioritized challenging established institutions through grassroots organizing, direct action, and coalition-building. These included anti-Vietnam War protests, student activism on campus, sit-ins in the American South, and wider counterculture movements. 

The New Communist Movement also recognized how domestic challenges connected more broadly to other globally oppressed groups and anti-imperialist struggles. Maoism, sometimes associated with the NCM, emphasized global divisions between the First World (geopolitical powers like the USSR and the United States) and oppressed groups in the Third World. Adopting this lens of Maoist Third Worldism, the NCM supported national liberation movements in Cuba, China, and Vietnam, and believed them to be crucial to dismantling global imperialism. The NCM emphasized the interconnectedness of inequalities within the United States with global oppression and power imbalances abroad, driving them to stand in solidarity with movements and issues beyond domestic struggles.

Revisionist vs. Anti-Revisionist

Within the Left, debates over revisionism shaped the New Communist Movement. Revisionism described communist groups that were seen as "watering down" Marxism or "compromising" or "coexisting" with capitalism. Many younger people saw both the Old Left and the CPUSA as revisionist for aligning themselves with the Soviet Union’s communism. Some also argued that the Old Left focused too much on working within existing United States legal systems while avoiding revolutionary action. 

Anti-revisionists rejected these ideas, believing that communism should center on revolutionary organizing, solidarity with oppressed people across the globe, and direct organizing without compromise. In contrast to the Soviet Union’s more bureaucratic approach that focused on controlling state industries and culture, Maoism focused more on social change and a locally-driven, bottom-up approach, as opposed to change coming from a top-down seizure of power. Proponents of Maoism also argued that continuous revolution was necessary due to constant struggle, and was connected to wider global struggles of oppressed people. Groups like the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) and new Communist groups like I Wor Kuen (IWK) were anti-revisionist and emphasized the need for revolutionary movements that centered local communities, rather than working around larger existing systems. 

Emergence of New Communist Media

One thing many New Communist groups had in common was the production of their own New Communist media. Groups like the PLP, the Black Panther Party, and IWK published their own newspapers, newsletters, and pamphlets to educate their communities on issues, to report on both local and global struggles of oppressed people, and to challenge dominant narratives in the media. This allowed groups to strengthen coalitions between oppressed groups by reporting on shared struggles, and also facilitated the spread of revolutionary ideas that were often left out in mainstream media. The following chapters of this project will discuss these publications extensively, particularly the IWK's bilingual newspaper, Getting Together.

Asian American activism like that of the IWK had to navigate the complexities of race and racial tensions within the United States, and it's important to examine how and why they approached that project. 

Anti-Blackness has long existed within the United States across various racial and ethnic communities: one of the legacies of the United States' white supremacist roots. As the IWK was a Chinese American group, this section will specifically discuss anti-Blackness within the AAPI community. Black Americans and Asian immigrants/Asian Americans were often pitted against each other in competition for scarce housing in segregated neighborhoods and low-paying jobs in dangerous industries. As a result, the idea that Asian immigrants were "job stealers" took root in many working-class communities. In many structural ways, the two groups experienced common struggles: housing discrimination and economic exclusion, to name two major ones. But Asian Americans experienced a specific kind of racist xenophobia, while Black Americans faced violent racism that was built on the nation's legacy of anti-Blackness.  

Anti-Blackness is closely related to the idea of colorism, which perpetuates white supremacy by upholding Eurocentric beauty standards and glorifying proximity to whiteness. It places some Asian Americans “closer” to whiteness than Black Americans, perpetuating a divide between the two communities. Hence, despite certain shared experiences of oppression, proximity to whiteness (and the economic, social, and political benefits of it) often weakened ties of solidarity between Asian American and Black communities. 

Mini Case Study: Tape v. Hurley (1885)

Joseph and Mary Tape were Chinese immigrants who lived in San Francisco in the 1880s. In 1884, their daughter, Mamie, was denied admission to the local public school because she was Chinese. The Tapes sued the San Francisco Board of Education and the school's principal in the Supreme Court of California, and the Tapes won. This landmark case established that all students were entitled to a public education, even if segregated.

However, soon after this verdict, California passed a law to create separate, segregated schools for Chinese American children, which led to Mamie Tape again being rejected from her local public school. The Board of Education instead wanted her to attend the new Chinese elementary school. While their challenge was ultimately unsuccessful, the letter below is what Mamie's mother, Mary Tape, wrote to the Board of Education.

Reading this letter reveals an interesting dynamic in which, in order to assimilate and gain power in a white-dominated system, Mrs. Tape attempts to prove her proximity to whiteness. In her letter, Tape states, “My children don’t dress like the other Chinese,” and, “See if the Tape’s is not the same as other caucasians, except in features.” We might read this as her attempting to prove her children are “essentially white,” while rejecting her own Chinese culture in the process.

This illustrates how, both historically and in the present, despite other Chinese or Black students facing similar struggles within segregated systems, it is easy for one to focus on individual needs while ignoring larger systems of oppression. It is this dynamic that often reinforces internalized anti-Black sentiments and white supremacy in American history, including within modern AAPI communities. 

Post-1965 Shift

Prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, Asian Americans were often labeled as “job stealers” or “dirty,” as many Chinese Americans had immigrated in the 1850s as unskilled laborers working on infrastructure projects on the West Coast. In contrast, the 1965 Immigration Act specifically expressed a preference for highly skilled Asian immigrants. Highly skilled laborers means people trained in specific fields; for example, mechanics or engineers. The influx of these highly skilled laborers, as well as more relaxed restrictions on property and business ownership, meant that many entrepreneurs from Hong Kong and mainland China established new restaurants, garment factories, and small businesses that contributed to the growth of NYC’s Chinatown — and to a trope of Asian Americans as being the “model minority." The model minority myth suggests that if one minoritized group can succeed, then so should other oppressed groups and races. Similarly to rhetoric on "pulling oneself up by your bootstraps," this myth ignores systemic issues and places blame on the individual. In doing so, the model minority myth drives a wedge between Asian Americans and other minoritized groups, diminishing both groups' potential power, weakening cross-racial solidarity, and maintaining a status quo in which a proximity to whiteness is idealized.

Many of the working-class Asian immigrants that came to the United States in the 1960s settled in urban areas like New York City’s Chinatown. While Chinese Americans had long existed in the Lower East Side, the wave of immigrants that arrived post-1965 were drawn to a neighborhood where there were other people who spoke the same language and shared the same culture, offering mutual support.^¹  While this created space for community organizing, this also meant increased competition for jobs, housing, and resources. At times, this resulted in tensions flaring between Asian American and Black communities.

However, groups like the I Wor Kuen recognized these hierarchies as the result of structural racism and driven by white supremacy. To oppose these divisions, some groups emphasized self-determination: the ability to control their own goals, choices, and media.^¹ This autonomy encouraged Asian Americans to free themselves from the systems which disadvantaged them, and to advocate for their access to housing, healthcare, and language access. However, autonomy did not mean isolation. Groups like the IWK sought to bridge racial and cultural divides through coalition-building. They addressed the needs of the Asian American community through bilingual news coverage, community health programs, and political education, but also supported other communities of color in their organizing projects. NCM groups like the Black Panther Party, the Puerto Rican Young Lords, and I Wor Kuen fostered interracial coalitions based on shared local and global struggles. 

Coalition Building: when different groups work together around shared goals.

Solidarity: through recognizing shared struggle, different groups offer mutual support despite differences. This means groups or individuals supporting causes that may not benefit themselves, giving up one's own power to build up another's, because one recognizes shared struggle and sees the larger link.

The Black Panther Party

Some of the most prominent NCM groups included the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords. The Black Panther Party was founded in 1966 in Oakland, California, in response to escalating police brutality and racism.^¹ In contrast to groups within the Civil Rights Movement who practiced non-violent protest, the BPP believed in armed self-defense. But they also offered community “free breakfast programs,” sponsored health clinics, monitored local police forces, and facilitated education programs. Local chapters were often run by women, with two-thirds of the party being women by 1969.^¹ The Black Panthers are often overly associated with male revolutionaries and physical strength, but historian Ashley Farmer’s research speaks to the key role women played in shaping the movement.^¹ Artwork in copies of The Black Panther depicts women as revolutionaries, too, not as passive actors in the movement.^¹ 

In the FBI's archives, the Black Panthers are notably categorized under “counterterrorism,” “organized crime,” and "extremist groups” — the latter being a category that includes groups like the Ku Klux Klan. In 1968, as the BPP expanded and gained national renown, the FBI considered the group one of the greatest threats to "national security." Through infiltration of the group by agents, wiretapping, and covert raids, the FBI incarcerated (or murdered) many male members of the BPP. However, since two-thirds of the party were women by 1969, the women in the party were able to continue organizing for food security, health care, and housing in local communities, as well as for the Panthers' broader political goals.

Additionally, while much focus on the Black Panthers is often on the militant activity of their Oakland chapter, most major American cities had a BPP chapter, including New York City. The Panthers' Harlem chapter was active in organizing a boycott of schools in Harlem in 1966, calling for culturally responsive curriculum and an increase in Black staff. Their boycott did not explicitly argue for integration, but rather for self-determination — the ability to control things within their own lives — which was a key point in their 10 Point Program.

The Young Lords

Similarly, the Young Lords were a Puerto Rican group established in 1968 in Chicago, Illinois. They established a prominent chapter in NYC’s East Harlem which garnered national attention, and organized for healthcare, education, housing, and job equality.^¹ They also advocated for Puerto Rican independence and the United States' military withdrawal from Puerto Rico. In New York City, the Asian American Political Alliance at Columbia University worked closely with the Black Workers Congress and the Young Lords, often inviting them to speak at events in the early 1970s.^¹ This pattern of coalition-building continued throughout the decade, as in 1974, the Young Lords and the Black Panthers formed a coalition with members of I Wor Kuen to fight to hire Asian American construction workers to build Confucius Plaza.^¹

Revolutionary Media

Both groups strongly emphasized self-determination in their platforms, and each had their own revolutionary newspapers: The Black Panther and Palante, respectively. The Black Panther was published from 1967-1980: it reached a wide audience, including international circulation, and sold more than 100,000 copies a week at its peak.^¹ Before they could sell copies of the paper, each Panther had to read and study the newspaper, fostering critical awareness in each member.^¹ Palante, published from 1970-1976, was a bilingual newspaper that covered both Puerto Rican struggles and activist efforts of the Young Lords' New York chapter. 

Both newspapers also prioritized language and visual accessibility. Palante was bilingual, published in English and Spanish. Both papers were visually striking, employing various artistic mediums including poetry, poster-making, and letters, using various artistic mediums to impact a wider audience.^¹ While The Black Panther went to print weekly and Palante was published twice a month, both papers often covered international issues and issues beyond their own community. They used their groups' publications to build coalitions and foster solidarity against systemic oppression.

The Black Panthers and Young Lords are often the first groups cited in discussions of the Civil Rights Movements or the New Left. Yet I Wor Kuen remains largely overlooked — despite multiple projects collaborating with both groups, as well as their own successful activist efforts in Chinatown and beyond. For example, one issue of Palante noted that IWK had combatted the image that “model Chinese never protest and are happy with their plight in the United States.”^¹ The following sections re-center IWK as a change-maker within New York's activist landscape, and as a formidable partner in multi-racial coalition-building. 

I Wor Kuen (IWK), a group that primarily advocated for Chinese Americans in NYC, was founded in Manhattan’s Chinatown in 1969, growing out of the New Communist Movement. The group was inspired by the work of the Black Panthers and the Young Lords, and also collaborated with both groups on multiple occasions. IWK was originally founded by a group of second-generation high school and college students. Its members were mostly younger people, like students, working-class young people, and activists, who all believed that Chinese Americans needed their own political organizations to combat racism and violence.^¹ 

1968 was a pivotal year for Asian American activism and identity in the United States. Yuji Ichioka and Emma Gee, graduate students at UC Berkeley, coined the term "Asian American" through their formation of the Asian American Political Alliance (AAPA).^¹ The term “Asian American” rejected the derogatory and imperialist term “Oriental” and united various Asian American ethnic groups to create a unified political identity. The Third World Liberation Front (TWLF) student-led strikes at San Francisco State College and UC Berkeley led to the establishment of the first ethnic studies programs; this success showed how cross-racial coalitions of students could successfully challenge both the university administration and imperialist education structures more broadly. This success in California created a model for campus activism, and would inspire similar protests across other college campuses in the US. 

In 1968, hundreds of Columbia students initiated protests against the Vietnam War and the University’s proposed expansion into Harlem, a predominantly Black neighborhood. In this process, many students established new political and student organizations. They also joined or created coalitions between groups, like the formation of the Columbia Asian American Political Alliance. AAPA at Columbia worked closely with the Columbia Anti Imperialist Movement and the Latin American Student Organization to protest pro-South Vietnam courses. Many of the founders of IWK were Columbia students, who took lessons from campus organizing against the Vietnam War and for educational reform into their work with IWK in Chinatown.^¹ 

IWK was particularly active in Manhattan’s Chinatown, a dense urban area rife with issues of labor exploitation, housing shortages, health issues, and language barriers. Prior activist organizations were mostly of the older generation, including the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA). CCBA was more conservative and led by established Chinese businessmen; they worked within the system of New York's city government and aimed for economic growth and assimilation. When founded in 1883, the CCBA acted as the City Hall of Chinatown; its president served as the unofficial “Mayor of Chinatown,” holding much influence in the community.^¹ In contrast, radical groups like the IWK rejected assimilation through their emphasis on self-determination and Marxist ideals, challenging these older organizations for failing to represent the struggles of working-class, ordinary Chinese Americans.^¹ For example, the CCBA clashed with the IWK over the IWK's demand that youth in Chinatown have access to CCBA gym facilities since the CCBA had used community money.^¹ 

Like the Black Panthers and the Young Lords, IWK emphasized building power from within their communities through self-determination: the belief that Asian Americans should control their own institutions, media, and political choices. This perspective is clear in IWK's 12 Point Program, which emphasizes the self-determination not only of Asian Americans but also Asian people internationally, closely aligning with the NCM’s Third World solidarity. Their 12 Point Program, which was frequently included in their newspaper, was politically revolutionary, but also focused heavily on everyday survival and human rights. It is important to note that while IWK was a primarily Chinese American organization, their 12 Point Platform uses the newly coined term “Asian Amerikan”; the spelling of America with a "K" alludes to the Ku Klux Klan and references the US’s legacy of white supremacy, imperialism, and racism. 

The 12 points were as follows: 

1. WE WANT SELF-DETERMINATION FOR ALL ASIAN AMERIKANS.
2. WE WANT SELF-DETERMINATION FOR ALL ASIANS.
3. WE WANT LIBERATION OF ALL THIRD WORLD PEOPLES AND OTHER OPPRESSED PEOPLES.
4. WE WANT AN END TO MALE CHAUVINISM AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION.
5. WE WANT COMMUNITY CONTROL OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND LAND.
6. WE WANT AN EDUCATION THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE HISTORY OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM IN ASIA AND AROUND THE WORLD: WHICH TEACHES US THE HARDSHIPS AND STRUGGLES OF OUR ANCESTORS IN THIS LAND AND WHICH REVEALS THE TRULY DECADENT EXPLOITATIVE NATURE OF AMERIKAN SOCIETY.
7. WE WANT DECENT HOUSING AND HEALTH AND CHILD CARE
8. WE WANT FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS AND ALL ASIANS.
9. WE WANT AN END TO THE AMERIKAN MILITARY.
10. WE WANT AN END TO RACISM.
11. WE WANT AN END TO THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF AMERIKA.
12. WE WANT A SOCIALIST SOCIETY.

While the Young Lords demanded US military withdrawal from Puerto Rico, the IWK was by far the most drastic in its request for the US military to end. It is clear through the planks of their 12 Point Program that the IWK recognized that local struggles in Chinatown were a reflection of wider national and international power imbalances. Their demands for "an end to male chauvinism and sexual exploitation" also point to how the IWK had a clear recognition of how gender intersected with other identities. As seen in many articles in Getting Together, the IWK's bilingual newspaper, IWK organizers clearly saw how Chinese American immigrant women had lived experiences drastically different from that of a typical middle-class white woman.^¹ 

The creation of Getting Together played a major role in the success of IWK's activism by spreading local and international news to their community, while also bridging linguistic and educational gaps. In combining autonomous organizing, radical media, and community- and student-based activism, IWK demonstrated how the younger generation — which pushed harder for interracial coalition-building than older organizations — could redefine Asian American political involvement in New York City. 

The IWK’s 12 Point Program highlights the group’s critique on mainstream media: 

“We have been bombarded by the media (newspapers, television, radio and schools) with false ideas about how we should accept our position in this society. They have tried to brainwash us and have even coerced us into going overseas and fighting against our own people in S.E. Asia.” 

This exemplifies why New Communist media was so essential. To combat these issues that they identified, I Wor Kuen created their own bilingual newspaper, Getting Together. The newspaper covered local and international issues, allowing them to challenge dominant narratives which they believed traditional media enforced, educate their communities, and offer a platform for interracial coalition-building. Mainstream media like The New York Times rarely mentioned Asian Americans, and when they did, often portrayed them as apolitical and passive members of society — while failing to cover wars or loss abroad. Getting Together countered this erasure, allowing them to share about local Asian American issues as well as international issues in other Third World countries, strengthening political consciousness and community. In this way, the creation of their own media was not just a means to report news, but a way to organize and gain power.

Language accessibility was crucial to New Communist papers like Getting Together. Similar to the Young Lorde’s paper Palante, which was published in both Spanish and English, Getting Together was published bilingually in both Chinese and English. In the 1960s, prominent papers like The New York Times were published exclusively in English. It wasn’t until 1992 that The New York Times first published a foreign-language paper in Russian, and it was 2012 when The New York Times first published a Mandarin edition.^¹ Hence, a large portion of new Chinese working-class immigrants were excluded not only within the content of mainstream media, but also in their ability to read it. By publishing in multiple languages, papers like Getting Together made political ideas, local issues, and organizing accessible to a wider audience, helping bridge language divides and generational gaps between the community. While IWK was founded by second-generation Chinese American youth, a large portion of their work was focused on aiding new immigrants, as apparent through the accessibility of their newspaper.

In combatting present-day imperialism, the paper also sought to educate the public on the history of Chinese Americans. In one edition of Getting Together, the paper featured a section on “Chinese-American History.” The article discusses anti-Chinese sentiment in the 1870s, highlighting Dennis Kearny, a leader in the anti-Chinese movement in San Francisco who accused Chinese Americans of being "job stealers." It also discusses how many Chinese Americans historically lacked rights, faced disproportionate taxes, and were even extorted by a “police tax” in which Chinese Americans had to pay extra taxes for limited protection by the police. The article then explains that this history of the anti-Chinese movement culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. 

But perhaps most prominently, when the interviewee is asked to comment on the ignorance of Chinese American history, the interview states:

“The history of Chinese in America is so important for all people to learn, because not only does it reveal the nature and accomplishments of the Chinese, but it reveals a great deal about the character of America itself. It’s part of the record of racism and class conflicts and how the white ruling class tried to make the country for whites only through the slavery and exploitation of these groups. The slavery of the blacks, the exploitation of the Chicanos, the extermination of the Indians, and the expulsion of the Chinese.” ^¹

Here, it is clear that the IWK understood that Chinese American history was key in asserting the lasting systems of oppression in the United States, and also in being able to see the connections and shared struggles between the oppression of various groups.^¹ It is this recognition of historical shared struggle and of a shared oppressor that helped groups like IWK pave the way for solidarity.

The newspaper's coverage also reflected the growing reach of the Asian American Movement. In 1971, the IWK and the Red Guard Party (RGP) of San Francisco, California merged into a national IWK, forming the first national Asian American revolutionary organization. The Red Guard Party originated largely from the guidance of Black Panthers Bobby Seale and David Hilliard after experiencing extreme poverty, lack of resources, and harassment by police and upper-class Chinese businessmen. Hence, it is apparent that various New Communist groups built solidarity with one another off of a shared struggle of racial and class-based oppression. As a result of this merger, later editions of Getting Together were published from California and covered issues relevant to both New York and California, in addition to other national and international political coverage. They also briefly published a theoretical journal, seen below.

Getting Together also served as a tool for interracial coalition-building. In a 1972 edition of Getting Together (shown above), the paper describes a November 4 demonstration by a coalition that consisted of various groups including the Young Lords, the Black Workers Congress, and various other minoritized groups. In the published statement from the November 4th coalition, it reads:

“Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the high prices that correspondingly lower wages… At the same time, they have shown skill at keeping us divided and in making trouble. Division is fomented between white and oppressed people, between black and other oppressed people… between working men and working women. THIS IS THE SECRET OF THEIR POWER.”^¹ 

This excerpt demonstrates that various leftist groups in NYC were aware of the ways anti-Blackness and appeals to white institutions only weakened their potential for shared power. Statements and articles like this were common in Getting Together, and highlight how the paper served as a platform for fostering interracial coalition-building through education. 

A 1976 edition of the paper that details strikes protesting massive layoffs at the Gouverneur Hospital on the Lower East Side, which risked closure, also highlights coalition-building. The article notes, “It [Gouverneur] is the only hospital available to the New York Chinese community, whose residents have historically fought along with other oppressed nationalities in the struggle first to build and now to defend the Gouverneur Hospital.”^¹ This quote prominently highlights the coalition-building necessary to build and defend the hospital; additionally, by pointing out the related struggles between various oppressed groups, Getting Together as media is able to set and showcase examples of the power of cross-racial coalitions. 

Healthcare access was a large part of the advocacy of I Wor Kuen, the Black Panthers, and the Young Lords, with all three eventually including mentions of community health or healthcare in their programs. While the 1966 Black Panthers’ Ten Point Program, the model for other groups' point programs, did not initially include healthcare as its own point, the 1972 version includes #6: “We want completely free health care for all Black and oppressed people.” The groups' struggles for healthcare access also included demands for language accessibility. In the same edition of Getting Together, a leaflet regarding protests at the Gouverneur Hospital is reprinted, and the paper notes that “[the leaflet] was distributed by IWK to workers in Gouverneur Hospital. This leaflet was distributed in English, Chinese and Spanish to over 1,000 workers at Gouverneur.” It is notable that IWK chose to print these leaflets in Spanish as well, recognizing that the issue of language access expanded beyond their own community. To learn more about the community struggle for Gouverneur Hospital, please read fellow Youth Researcher Abby Chen's exhibit, Community Organizing and Health Access in New York City's Chinatown in the 1970s.

While most of the paper's coverage highlighted Chinese American issues or China, the newspaper also covered issues of other oppressed groups, exemplifying cross-racial solidarity. In the same volume of Getting Together as the November 4th coalition statement, the paper highlights indigenous protestors who demanded reparations from the United States government. This is just one example of how Getting Together served as a way to highlight and aid the struggles of other oppressed groups beyond New York City and San Francisco’s Chinese American community, and how it offered a real platform on which to build cross-racial solidarity.

In an introduction to an anthology of news articles published by IWK, it states that not only does the paper hope to report on Asian Americans, but also “other oppressed people in this country and around the world.” They also clearly outline their goals, stating that, “We believe that this volume will contribute to a better understanding of the Chinese-American experience and help promote the unity of all working people to gain justice and freedom.” These words reflect the beliefs of many within the New Communist Movement and the Third World Liberation Front, which recognized how the experiences of oppressed people globally were interconnected. These groups, IWK included, all knew that their struggles would not be resolved unless minority groups supported each other. 

Covering health care, the struggles of Chinese American immigrant women, international anti-imperialist efforts, and the organizing efforts of other racial groups, Getting Together produced revolutionary media which fostered interracial coalitions as well as cross-racial solidarity. The paper also challenged dominant media, which was typically published only in English and erased Asian American communities, by creating language-accessible publications which spotlighted Chinese Americans' lived experiences. 

The IWK's legacy remains relatively unknown despite many of their group's lasting successes. They played a major role in the 1970s tenant struggle, referred to as the “We Won’t Move Movement,” against the Bell Telephone Company’s plan to demolish housing to build a switching station. In their tenant organizing, they worked closely with the Black Panthers and Young Lords. The IWK also provided many healthcare resources and created a landmark TB testing program for Chinese Americans in New York's Chinatown. They also offered various community programs for Chinese youth. They were also instrumental in public health initiatives in Chinatown, including helping to organize and volunteer at the first Chinatown Health Fair in 1971. To learn more about I Wor Kuen's work in tenant and community organizing, please read fellow Youth Researcher Waemary Waeyakoh's exhibit, We Won't Move!: Housing Justice and Community Organizing in 1970s New York City.

The IWK no longer exists; the group merged with other organizations to form the League of Revolutionary Struggle in 1978, which ultimately dissolved in 1990. The IWK’s influence began to slow throughout the 1970s. The economic crises of the 1970s ultimately forced the IWK to focus more on short-term and direct issues, as opposed to longer-term structural reforms. While many older generations of organizers shied away from structural reforms due to their desire to assimilate, younger generations did the same, but because of financial pressure.

I hope that this study of the I Wor Kuen can be a reminder of the power of coalition-building, solidarity, and shared power in the present. Beyond simply working together, history shows us the importance of giving up power for the benefit of others. Groups like the Young Lords and the Black Panthers supported the IWK in issues beyond their communities, such as advocating for Asian American workers' rights in Confucius Plaza or in sharing medical testing equipment between community health clinics. More broadly, this exhibit serves as a reminder of the potential of the media as a tool for resistance, one that is capable of uniting people and democratizing narratives — even if that is not always true in the present day. Finally, because the IWK was primarily founded and led by youth activists, I hope students can see themselves in this history and draw upon these lessons to become agents of change in the systems around them.

TKTK