二十世記六○年代開始，美國史學家對美國社會史的研究有一種趨向，即特別側重特家族群－如婦女、黑人、勞工、印地安人、移民第一各層面的探討，亦即自基層的縱斷面和橫切面觀察分析美國社會的變遷。這種研究取向意在補正舊社會史研究的缺失及忽視各族群問的互動關係的研究，從而揭露這些向來被忽視的族群的真實情況，糾正過去只重上層社會，白人社會歷史研究的偏差，以及研究方法的僵化等等，來認知歷史的另一層面。由於六○年代是一個社會大變動的時代，種族、性別、及階層成了社會史重要的研究對象。本文擬針對此一研究趨向，以美國華僑史為例，作一分析探討。自一九六○年代以後，美國國內民權運動的興起與活躍，使美國華僑史的重新定位與評估，做了一番重要的翻案。二十世紀六○年代以後，美國國內民權運動的興起與活躍，使美國華僑史的重新定位與評估，做了一番重要的翻案。二十世紀六○年代以前，美國歷史基本上還是一部美國白人清教徒的歷史。然自六○年代以後，隨著美國人人數的增長，華人素質的提升，以及美國華人的偏見才稍趨緩和，為美國華僑史的研究與寫作提出了新的方向。更者，自六○年代以降，研究弱勢族群逐漸蔚為趨勢，並成為顯學：由於早期華僑移民出國者大是農民，不諳英語，更別說為自己的奮鬥史留下見證；再加上美國排華政策的驅使，所以早期相關華僑華人史的著作，出自於白人手中的，除了傳教士外，大多對中國華僑移民史採歧視的角度寫作，對華人的報導有所歧見。至第二次世界大戰後，尤其六○年代以降，由於美國新社會史的興起，開始重視弱勢族群的研究，再加上華人後代興起，也為自己早期移民史的不正確論述。近二十多年來，美國史學家與社會學家對美國諸弱勢族群的歷史、社會與文化的研究，日益重視，欲重新評估其在美國整體歷史文化中的地位和意義。因此，有關之論文與專著紛紛出版，漸成顯學，而美國華僑史的研究即為其中之一個重要主題。同時，美國華僑史的研究也引起學者越來越大的研究興趣。

Chinese American historiography is quite peculiar: until the early 1960s, virtually none of the books about Asians in America were written by historians. The sizable literature that exists has been authored, instead, by missionaries, diplomats, politicians, labor leaders, journalists, propagandists, and scholars trained in sociology, economics, social psychology, and political science. Only in the last fifteen years have professional historians moved to center stage in the construction of historical knowledge about Chinese Americans. The legacy causes difficulties for historians specializing in Chinese American history today: not only must they laboriously excavate widely scattered, fragmentary, “buried” evidence, but they must also correct biased interpretations and a great deal of misinformation. The writing of Chinese American history may be divided into four somewhat overlapping periods. The first, characterized by partisanship, lasted form the 1870s to the early 1920s. The second, from the late 1910s to the early 1960s, was dominated by social scientists. The third, during which eclectic, revisionist works appeared, extended form the 1960s to the early 1980s. during the fourth (present) state, which began in the early 1980s, Chinese American historiography is finally coming of age. Through involvement in community activities, within the academy itself the emerging field known as Chinese American studies has made little impact partly because several problems plagued the leftist outpourings of the 1970s. Unsympathetic critics dismissed the bulk of these writings out of hand as “mere rhetoric” and noted the lack of “fit” between the grandiose theories some authors propounded and the meager empirical evidence they used to substantiate their sweeping assertions. A great deal of the analyses of this period was indeed schematic, mechanistic, and deterministic. The emphasis on structural oppression or systemic victimization meant that Chinese American were seem as mere cogs in a capitalist, racist system. To this day, Chinese Americans remain faceless and nameless in most textbooks. When they appear at all, the tidbits of information included about them sever mainly and ornamental faction-a token nod toward the national’s “diversity.” In contrast to the militant writings, several surveys or general histories published in the 1970s were more moderate in perspective. Also penned by writers of Chinese ancestry, these overviews emphasized the contributions made by Chinese ancestry, these overviews emphasized the contributions made by Chinese to American history and society. Their cotnributionist stance helped to keep old assimilationinst assumptions alive. The assimilation model managed to continue to hold sway even during a time of profound and pervasive social upheaval because it resonates so deeply with the American sense of nationhood. As Philip Gleason has pointed out, America’s national identify has been based not so much on sum primordial sentiments as a shared ancestry, language, or religion, as on a set of political values and practices. It is a peoplehood constructed primarily upon an ideological foundation. Since ideology can be learned and is mutable, native-born Americans assume that immigrants should be able to-indeed are morally obligated to-shed the political beliefs and cultural baggage they bring with them and to adopt the values and behavior befitting Americans. The facile assumption the all immigrants can and should transform themselves political, social, and economic-wherever they have tried to enter mainstream society. Thus, before the assimilation model can be dismantled, scholars must demonstrate convincingly that American society has never been the egalitarian paradise it is said to be. A number of European American historians took up that revisionist task in the 1960s and 1970s. in place of road sociological theories or ardent convictions based on personal experience, these historians assiduously sifted through the available documentary evidence to offer fresh interpretations of why Chinese to offer fresh interpretation of why Chinese had been so maltreated in America.