A Spatial Comparison of Historic Filipinotown and Its Cultural

Home , Koreatown, Little Manila

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

The Invisible Town: A Spatial Comparison of Historic Filipinotown and its Cultural

Symbols

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Science in

Geographic Information Science

Kenneth Banares

August 2018

This thesis of Kenneth Banares is approved:

______Dr. Steve Graves Date

______Dr. James Craine Date

______Dr. Ron Davidson, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the California State University, Northridge Department of Geography and Environmental Studies for allowing me to follow my passion and love for Geography. Without you, I would be nowhere. Dr. Steve Graves and Dr.

James Craine, thank you for agreeing to be a part of my thesis committee. Also, I would like to give a special thanks to my chair, Dr. Ron Davidson for helping me find a thesis topic that not only interests me, but also taught me a lot about myself.

To my friends and family that was there for me, your loving support and encouragement gave me the strength to go on and pursue a degree that I was born to complete.

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to all my friends and family. Also, I dedicate this thesis to my late grandma, Carolina Panlilio Lingat. Without her, I would not have been the man I am today. No words can express how much I miss you. You were the foundation to our whole family. Love you Lola.

Table of Contents

Signature Page ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Dedication ...... v

List of Figures ...... viii

List of Tables ...... ix

Abstract ...... x

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Significance of Study ...... 2 1.3 Research Question and Hypothesis ...... 3 1.4 Study Area ...... 4

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 10 2.1 Religion and Language of Filipinos ...... 10 2.2 Filipino Immigration to the United States ...... 11 2.3 Filipinos by the Numbers ...... 15 2.4 History of Historic Filipinotown and Other Filipino Enclaves ...... 17 2.5 Invisibleness of Filipino Americans ...... 21

Chapter 3: Data and Methods ...... 25 3.1 Data ...... 25 3.2 Methods/Analysis ...... 26 3.2.1 Descriptive Statistics ...... 27 3.2.2 Determining Symbols by Language...... 27 3.2.3 Determining Symbols by Type...... 27 3.2.4 Chi-Square ...... 28 3.2.5 Kernel Density ...... 30

Chapter 4: Results ...... 31 4.1 General Statistics of All Enclaves ...... 31 4.2 Cultural Symbols by the Numbers ...... 34 4.2.1 Cultural Symbols by Language ...... 35 4.2.2 Cultural Symbols by Type ...... 38 4.2.3 Cultural Symbols by Language and Type ...... 43 4.3 Equality of Cultural Symbols within Ethnic Enclaves ...... 48 4.4 Distribution of Cultural Symbols ...... 48 4.4.1 Symbol Distribution in Historic Filipinotown ...... 48 4.4.2 Symbol Distribution in Chinatown ...... 50

4.4.3 Symbol Distribution in Koreatown ...... 51

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 53 5.1 Historic Filipinotown as a Failed Ethnic Enclave ...... 53 5.2 Limitations ...... 60

Chapter 6: Conclusion ...... 62

References ...... 64

Appendix A – Examples of Cultural Symbols by Language and Enclave ...... 68

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Study Area – Historic Filipinotown, Chinatown, and Koreatown ...... 6

Figure 2: Study Area #1 – Historic Filipinotown ...... 7

Figure 3: Study Area #2 - Chinatown ...... 8

Figure 4: Study Area #3 - Koreatown ...... 9

Figure 5: Examples of Cultural Symbols’ Type when a Place has Multiple Signs ...... 28

Figure 6: Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test ...... 29

Figure 7: Kernel Density Formula ...... 30

Figure 8: Cultural Symbols in Historic Filipinotown ...... 32

Figure 9: Cultural Symbols in Chinatown ...... 33

Figure 10: Cultural Symbols in Koreatown ...... 34

Figure 11: Examples of Cultural Symbols in Historic Filipinotown ...... 41

Figure 12: Examples of Cultural Symbols in Chinatown ...... 42

Figure 13: Examples of Cultural Symbols in Koreatown ...... 43

Figure 14: Promotion of Chinatown by Banners ...... 46

Figure 15: Kernel Density of Historic Filipinotown‘s Cultural Symbols ...... 49

Figure 16: Chinatown’s Street Sign ...... 50

Figure 17: Kernel Density of Chinatown’s Cultural Symbols ...... 51

Figure 18: Koreatown Sign ...... 52

Figure 19: Kernel Denisty of Koreatown’s Cultural Symbols ...... 52

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: 2010 Filipino/Filipino American Population in the United States ...... 15

Table 2: 2010 Filipino/Filipino American Population in California Counties ...... 16

Table 3: General Statistics of All Enclaves ...... 31

Table 4: Numbers and Percentages of Cultural Symbols by Language ...... 35

Table 5: Numbers and Percentages of Cultural Symbols by Type ...... 39

Table 6: Numbers and Perenctages of Cultural Symbols by Language and Type (All

Enclaves) ...... 44

Table 7: Numbers and Perenctages of Cultural Symbols by Language and Type

(Separated by Enclave) ...... 45

Table 8: Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test on All Cultural Symbols ...... 48

Abstract

The Invisible Town: A Spatial Comparison of Historic Filipinotown and its Cultural

Symbols

Kenneth Banares

Master of Science in Geographic Information Science

Historic Filipinotown became an official District of the City of Los Angeles in

2002, in remembrance of the history and culture of the Filipino-Americans who lived there in the past and the present. This area was meant to commemorate the Filipino-

American identity within the City of Los Angeles, but it lacks widespread recognition as a tourist district caused by the way cultural symbols (objects with significance towards specific groups like flags, buildings, signs, pictures, etc.) are distributed and presented in space, making the area ‘invisible’ to the public. This study analyzes cultural symbols of

Historic Filipinotown with two other Asian enclaves within Los Angeles, Chinatown and

Koreatown. By way of data collection and use of Geographic Information Science (GIS)

x applications, cultural symbols were observed cataloged, classified, mapped, and then analyzed by language and type, in order to analyze the percentages of cultural symbols within different language and/or type combinations. Mapping cultural symbols demonstrated how each enclave and its symbols were distributed within the landscape. It appeared that Chinatown had the most cultural symbols, while Historic Filipinotown had the least. Multiple statistics suggest that Historic Filipinotown, as an ethnic enclave, is in practice ‘invisible’ or the most ‘Americanized’ because a high percentage of its cultural symbols are in English and are owned by the City of Los Angeles. An effort to make

Historic Filipinotown more recognizable as a distinct community can be started by changing the City of Los Angeles’ approach to promoting the area by using various signages displayed in Filipino or by using notable symbols of the Philippines, and by encouraging Filipino owned restaurants and businesses to open.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

As of 2013, Filipinos made up about 4.5 percent of the 41.3 million first generation immigrants in the United States. In 2010, Filipino/Filipino Americans living in California accounted for 43 percent of all Filipinos in the United States. Los Angeles

County has about 374,000 Filipino/Filipino Americans, which is about 25 percent of all

Filipinos in California. Filipinos are the largest Asian/Asian American group in Los

Angeles County, just beating out the Chinese and Vietnamese.

The early-20th century settlement of Filipinos in Los Angeles presented an opportunity for Filipinos to mark their territory within the city and establish an area that would accommodate their needs. In the early 1900’s, Filipinos settled in the area that was formerly known as Little Manila, which is present day Little Tokyo. The area was created to give Filipinos in the United States a place where they would feel comfortable as they would meet and create new relationships with other Filipino immigrants waiting to create their own American Dream. Present day Historic Filipinotown (“Hi-Fi”), half a mile west of Downtown Los Angeles, represented the rich history and culture of Filipino/Filipino

Americans in Los Angeles. In 2002, Filipino advocacy groups wanted to preserve and commemorate the history of the past Filipinos in Los Angeles, so Historic Filipinotown became an official District of the City of Los Angeles.

Filipinos are the most populous Asian minority in California; they have built various distinct communities in Los Angeles, but despite all that, many articles related to

Filipinos and their presence in the city consider them strangely invisible to outsiders. One would think that such a large minority would influence the Asian community in this 1

country or state, but that does not seem to be the case. Filipinos are known to be a

‘forgotten’ minority and are often called an ‘invisible minority’ (Bernardo 2014). This term suggests that Filipinos are an unrecognized and misunderstood minority that go through challenges and discrimination that others do not recognize. The Filipino people certainly go unnoticed and are often mistaken for other Asian or Latino/Hispanic people in Los Angeles. Historic Filipinotown as an ethnic concentration was built from the hard work of past immigrants, yet its young existence as an official District of Los Angeles, its low Filipino population percentage, and the lack of display of the Filipino language and culture are likely to be blamed for this area’s imperceptibility.

Historic Filipinotown as an ethnic concentration does not have a high percentage of its own people compared to other ethnic enclaves, such as Chinatown and Koreatown.

Also, the location of signs with the Filipino language, Filipino restaurants and stores, and

Catholic churches were influenced and created by the Filipino’s history within the area.

With these areas, Historic Filipinotown may have inherited its people’s ‘invisibleness’.

Although Filipino-American health, education, jobs, and other aspects of social life have been researched before, no attempts have previously been made to evaluate or analyze the distinctiveness of Historic Filipinotown.

1.2 Significance of Study

Quantifying ‘invisibility’ of Historic Filipinotown can be achieved using various variables derived from the area’s history such as its resident population and the multiple relocations of the ethnic enclave, yet, one specific datum is of particular use in describing

Historic Filipinotown’s presences within Los Angeles: cultural symbols (objects with 2

meaning to specific groups like churches, flags, buildings, signs, etc.) The language and type of a cultural symbol was investigated to see if they play a crucial part of Historic

Filipinotown’s ‘invisibleness’. Also, comparisons of cultural symbols in two other Asian ethnic enclaves in Los Angeles, Chinatown and Koreatown, was done to see if these areas or more ‘visible’ than Historic Filipinotown. By collecting cultural symbols within each enclave and using Geographic Information Science (GIS) applications and its analysis functions, other ethnic concentrations were compared against Historic Filipinotown.

1.3 Research Questions and Hypothesis

This study investigates how the role of cultural symbols within Historic

Filipinotown affects its visibility within Los Angeles and how it compares to Chinatown and Koreatown. This thesis will address the following questions:

- How do cultural experiences and the ‘invisible minority’ status of

Filipino/Filipino Americans affect Historic Filipinotown’s sense of place?

- Do all three Asian enclaves, Historic Filipinotown, Chinatown, and Koreatown,

have equivalent numbers of cultural symbols within their neighborhoods?

- What type of cultural symbols are the most prevalent within each ethnic enclave?

What type is the least prevalent?

- What specific cultural symbol are found most often within each enclave?

- Where do cultural symbols cluster in each ethnic enclave? Are they spread around

the whole neighborhood? Are they concentrated along various main streets, or just

one main street? Or are they somewhere else? 3

- Are there equal population-to-cultural symbol ratios in each of the three enclaves?

- What makes Historic Filipinotown different than Chinatown and Koreatown?

The answers to these questions paint a portrait of Historic Filipinotown’s cultural characteristics and demonstrate how this neighborhood is different from other Asian enclaves. It was hypothesized that Historic Filipinotown is different from Chinatown and

Koreatown since it contained fewer cultural symbols than they do, and thus have a less developed cultural identity. Also, an X square (chi square) test suggested that the symbolic density is different in Historic Filipinotown than its counterparts.

1.4. Study Area

The City of Los Angeles is one of the most diverse cities in the world. According to the United States Census Bureau, out of about 4 million people, only 28.5 percent of the population was categorized as Non-Hispanic Whites (it is nearly 77 percent nationally), 9 percent Black or African American, 48.6 percent Hispanic or Latino, and

11.6 percent Asian (2017). The prominent Asian enclaves of Historic Filipinotown,

Chinatown, and Koreatown (Figure 1) are the study areas for this thesis. The City of Los

Angeles is well-known for containing such a dense and populous Asian population that enabled this study to analyze such Asian enclaves. The largest Asian ethnic groups are the Filipinos (3.2 percent of the City of Los Angeles’s population) and Koreans (2.9 percent), while the Chinese comprised of 1.9 percent of people in Los Angeles (United

States Census Bureau 2017).

Historic Filipinotown is located north of the community of Westlake, east of

Rampart Village, south of Echo Park, and west of Downtown Los Angeles. It is bounded by the 101 Freeway to the north and Beverly Boulevard to the south, while Hoover Street and Glendale Boulevard make up the west and east boundary of the area and has a population of about 45,500 (14 percent of people were Filipino) (Figure 2). Chinatown’s borders are shaped almost like a triangle and is made up of about 37,100 people (26 percent were Chinese). Communities bordering it consisted of Elysian Park to the north,

Lincoln Heights to the east, Downtown Los Angeles to the south, and Westlake to the west. The Los Angeles River and Cesar Chavez Avenue confine the east and south side of Chinatown. The north side is restricted by Broadway and Stadium Way, though

Beaudry Avenue made up the west side (Figure 3). Koreatown is limited to 3rd Street and

Olympic Boulevard from north to south and Western and Vermont Avenue from west to east. Approximately 117,000 people call Koreatown home and 27 percent of its population are Korean (Figure 4). Communities surrounding the area include East

Hollywood to the north, Westlake to the east, Pico-Union and Harvard Heights to the south, and Windsor Square to the west. Each census block within these communities was included in the study.

Figure 1: Study Area – Historic Filipinotown, Chinatown, and Koreatown

***Study Area Boundaries for Historic Filipinotown and Koreatown were verified by Google Maps. Chinatown boundaries were set by LA Dept. of City Planning.

Figure 2: Study Area #1 – Historic Filipinotown

Figure 3: Study Area #2 – Chinatown

Figure 4: Study Area #3 – Koreatown

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Religion and Language of Filipinos

Cultural symbols vary by space and population. Ethnic enclaves contain such symbols as high concentrations of ethnic minorities, cultural identity, and distinctive arrays of economic activities exist (Hummon 1996). Since Historic Filipinotown was built by Filipinos in the early 20th century, high rates of cultural symbols of Filipinos should be found there. Cultural symbols will comprise the language of Tagalog (Filipino) most of the time, but also emblematic Filipino symbols like the Filipino flag, sun, and etc. exist as well.

Since the colonization of the Philippines by Spain, the Philippine culture has inherited their cultural influences. The first instances of Christianizing the Philippines happened in the early 1500’s. The Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the world on a boat (technically he did not make it; a few of his crew did), was ordered by Spain to find a new western route to the East Indies to be a part of the spice trade. He and his men ended up in central Philippines and landed in Cebu

Island. During his stay, Magellan and/or his men were able to convince the locals to get baptized in a Christian Mass. (Russell n.d.). Since most tribes or groups were clustered in smaller numbers and were less likely to be organized and centralized, Spaniards could convert them easily to Roman Catholicism rather than larger groups. Larger groups, such as the Muslim Filipinos, resisted the Spanish. If the Spanish never came into the

Philippines, the country would have probably been a Muslim country (Russell n.d.).

In 2010, the Philippines had the fifth highest number of Christians in the world

(about four percent of all Christians in the world) and had the highest number of 10

Christians in Asia. Only the United States, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia had more

Christians than the Philippines. About 92 percent of Filipinos or 93.3 million Filipinos were Christian; about 81 percent of Filipinos or 74 million Filipinos were Catholic (De

Guzman 2011). The other dominant religions in the country were Islam, Evangelicals

Protestants, and Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) (Philippine Statistics Authority

2015). In a recent survey about the religion of Asian Americans in the United States, 65 percent of Filipino respondents were Catholic, 21 percent were Protestant, eight percent were unaffiliated, and one percent were Muslim (Pew Research Center 2012).

There are two primary languages of the Philippines: Tagalog (standardized form is called Filipino) and English. Tagalog is the most commonly spoken language in the

Philippines, primarily in Southern Luzon (one of three island groups in the country), and in the Metro Manila area. English was implemented into the government, schools, business industry etc. and became widely used. Spanish used to be the primary language of the country for three centuries as Spain occupied the Philippines, but the language was replaced by English when the United States claimed the Philippines in 1898. Yet, a percentage of people in the country speak Spanish or another form of Spanish influenced dialect (Ethnic Council of Shepparton and Distirct Inc. 2016). Language and religion from other countries molded the Filipino people and was introduced to the United States once they immigrated to their new home country.

2.2 Filipino Immigration to the United States

Filipinos have the highest Asian population in Los Angeles County. Some of the first Filipinos who came to the United States during the early 1900’s were children of 11

prominent families who supported the colonial regime of United States in the Philippines.

Under a government funded program, the first hundred Filipino students were sent from

Manila to the United States to study in U.S colleges and universities and were called pensionados. By the 1920’s, most of the pensionados went back to the Philippines and were able to get well-paying jobs within the agriculture, business, government sector, etc.

(Le Espiritu 1995).

In the 1920’s, about 45,000 Filipinos migrating to the Pacific Coast were able to land jobs. The labor shortages created by the prohibiting of Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and South Asians gave farmers a reason to hire Filipinos as their new laborers. About

5,700 Filipinos lived in the United States during 1920, with 3,300 of them living in

California. By 1930, as many as 45,000 Filipinos lived in the United States.

Approximately 30,000 of them lived in California, and the population was growing at a rate of 4,100 Filipinos per year (Le Espiritu 1995) (The Philippine History Site n.d.).

Other Filipinos worked in large urban areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco working in restaurants, hotels, private homes, and more. Most Filipinos came to America with little to no education and came from the Ilocano (Northwest region of the Island of

Luzon) and Visayan (Middle section of the Philippines that make up a geographical division of Visayas) regions of the Philippines. Single men without families were most immigrant Filipinos in the United States (Jackson 2006). Out of every hundred Filipinos immigrating to the United States, 93 were males, with 80 of them aged between 16 and

30 years old. Numerous Filipinos saved up money to immigrate back into the Philippines so that they would be able to live a lavish life back home, but others saved up to attend high school and/or college. That dream shattered countless amounts of Filipinos during 12

the 1930’s as the Great Depression halted their expansion of education and left many without jobs and forced them to find different ways of earning money (Le Espiritu 1995).

Filipinos in the early half of the decade came to the United States to find jobs that would help them financially for their future, yet they were unable to easily obtain citizenship in the United States. The status of the Philippines as a U.S. territory allowed Filipinos to travel to the United States as non-aliens (person who is not a national of a given country), yet they were not able to obtain citizenship and were not allowed to own a property or create businesses in America (Le Espiritu 1995). By 1934, the Philippine Independence

Act restricted immigration of Filipinos to the U.S. to 50 people per year (Jackson 2006).

As one of the most liberal reforms in immigration policy, the Immigration Act of

1965 was a huge turning point for immigrants wanting to come to the United States for a new life as it eliminated the quota system that once limited the number of immigrants entering the United States. After World War II, a growing demand for high skilled workers influenced the immigration policy. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 assigned high priority towards immigrants with skills that were short in supply in the

American workforce. Jobs in the education, defense, aerospace, and industrial fields were low in jobs, so immigrants with skills pertaining to those certain industries were prioritized (C.-S. Lee 2011). Also, since the Civil Rights Movement began in 1957, immigration reform was becoming evident as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting

Rights of 1965 eliminated many important, legal forms of racial discrimination. It was clear and apparent that people wanted immigration policies to become more substantial as the abolishment of the quota system enabled various immigrants like the Filipinos to immigrate to the United States so that they could live a better life than before. The 13

preference system allowed United States citizens to reunify them with their beloved ones from abroad, which was as about 64 percent of immigrants arriving in this country

(Bryce-Laporte 1979). The Immigration Act of 1965 changed the lives of countless immigrants yearning to live a new life and changed their lives economically, socially, and ethically. Filipinos could immigrate to the United States easily as they were a relatively well accepted ethnicity by others and had an easier time adapting to their culture since they came into the country knowing English (the Philippines’ second official language).

Under the third preference of the Immigration Act of 1965, which was people with exceptional ability who work as professionals, scientist, and artists, about 10 percent of all immigrants were able to come to the United States with that preference. Most

Filipinos coming to America were a part of a big movement of highly trained personnel

(physicians, teachers, sailors, mechanics, engineers, nurses etc.) moving from developing countries to industrialized countries and that movement was called the ‘brain drain’.

Since the United States needed people to fill in understaffed jobs, Filipinos could immigrate here and find jobs easily because of their needed skillsets (Alburo and Abella

2002). The Philippines had the second highest rate of immigrants moving into the United

States, right behind Mexico. Meanwhile in the Philippines, the ‘brain drain’ heavily affected the Philippine workforce because of the significant loss of healthcare professionals.

2.3 Filipinos by the Numbers

As of 2010, about 3.43 million Filipino/Filipino Americans resided in the United

States. About 1.48 million Filipinos live in California, which is about 43 percent of all

Filipinos who live in the United States (The Filipino American Center of SFPL 2014).

The high number of Filipinos in California is because in the past Filipino laborers worked on the fields of California and many wanted to reunify with their families. The

Immigration Act of 1965 allowed them to do so and led to a huge flow of Filipinos living in California. In total, California had the most Filipinos residing in the United States,

with 1,474,707 in 2010 (Table Table 1 – 2010 Filipino/Filipino American Population in the United States. Source: (The 1); about 43 percent of all Filipino American Center of SFPL 2014) Filipinos in the United States.

Table 1 shows the combined

population of Filipinos in states

ranked from 2nd to 9th and when

combined together, they account

for less than California’s

Filipino population. The other

ranked states totaled to about 37 percent of all Filipinos in the United States and with California in the mix, they all result to about 80 percent of all Filipinos (The Filipino American Center of SFPL 2014).

In the 1970’s, the United States Census confirmed that 32,018 Filipinos lived within the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (Los Angeles – Long Beach Metro Area)

(United States Bureau of Census 1973). Today, Filipinos/Filipino Americans account for

463,626 of the current Los Angeles Metropolitan Area population (now the metro area includes Los Angeles and Orange County). Filipinos comprised of 219,653 of the population in Los Angeles County in the 1980’s. In 2010, the Census indicated that

374,285 Filipinos resided in Los Angeles County, which is the most of any county in

California and in the United States (Table 2). Los Angeles County comprises of about 25 percent of all Filipinos in Table 2: 2010 Filipino/Filipino American Population in California and 10 percent California Counties. Source: (The Filipino American Center of SFPL 2014) of all Filipinos in the county (The Filipino

American Center of

SFPL 2014). Five of the main Southern

Californian Counties, Los

Angeles, San Diego,

Orange, Riverside, and

San Bernardino, *Counties Highlighted in Green are in Southern (highlighted in green in California

Table 2) make up about

22 percent of all Filipinos in the country. Los Angeles County almost had the same number of Filipinos as the other four leading Southern California Counties (389,519). It 16

is obvious that Filipinos in Los Angeles County make this area home because Filipinos have a rich history of living within the confines of this enormous fortress. Los Angeles

County contains the most Filipinos in the United States and clearly is a desirable place to live since about 1.48 million Filipinos reside there.

2.4 History of Historic Filipinotown and Other Filipino Enclaves

About 5,600 Filipinos were living the United States in the 1920’s. Most Filipinos were coming into the country because of labor shortages so most immigrants, typically unmarried young men, came to Los Angeles for new opportunities. As more Filipinos began to settle in Los Angeles, an enclave of Filipino housing started to develop between

Main and Los Angeles and Second and Commercial Street in Downtown Los Angeles in

1924 (Maram 2006). The zone in Downtown Los Angeles was soon called Little Manila and contained various Filipino owned restaurants, shops, and bars, such as the Manila

Restaurant, Manila Portrait Studio, the Philippine Importing Company, and the Filipino

Recreation Hall where Filipinos were able to hang out, socialize, and interact with one another. Other places like the Filipino Christian Fellowship (1928) and the Filipino

Christian Church (1933) were places where Filipinos were able to congregate after

Sunday worship (Survey LA 2018). Talent scouts from Hollywood studios would drive to

First and Main Street to Little Manila to get ethnic-type extras for their films and would compensate them with low wages (Montoya 2009). The area grew and expanded its boundaries from San Pedro and Figueroa Street to the east and west and Sunset

Boulevard and Sixth Street from north and south (Survey LA 2018). This area was considered a ‘safe haven’ to them as other Filipino compatriots resided within the area 17

and created a sense of belonging, security, and community. Also, they settled there because the area had low rent and it was the only area that would not discriminate against them (Koerner 2007). Housing such as apartment complexes, boarding houses, and houses for rent were places were Filipinos lived while in Little Manila. Even hotels and apartments where Filipinos worked as bell hops, custodians, and service workers allowed them to live there as compensation. The California Alien Land Law Act of 1913 prevented Filipinos and other Asian refugees from owning property within certain areas of Los Angeles, thus restricting their options on where to live. Manuel Buaken, the author of I Have Lived with the American People, had trouble finding places to live in outside of

Little Manila. He remembered being rejected in 20 places when trying to find an apartment, house, and etc. and was told once by a realtor that many other Filipinos,

Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans came to him and he rejected them all (Buaken 1948).

Another example of property discrimination towards Filipinos occurred in 1930 when seven lawsuits against them were filed by white residents, led by William E. Wintermute, a resident of area northeast of downtown, now called City Terrace. Between 1929 and

1930, a total of 21 incidents against Filipinos occurred in California, with five major clashes or riots. Furthermore, various signs that stated, “No Filipinos or Dogs Allowed” and “Positively No Filipinos Allowed” were found throughout the area (Survey LA

2018). These types of hardships led to Little Manila’s significance towards Filipino life as newly immigrated Filipinos adjust to their new life in the United States.

Little Manila’s first movement out of the downtown area, the area now known as

Little Tokyo, occurred during the 1940’s. At the time, the original Little Tokyo was located east of Little Manila, around First Street and Central Avenue. When World War 18

II occurred, Japanese Americans were forced to move into internment camps shortly after

Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt; about

110,000 mainland United States Japanese Americans, while only 1,200 to 1,800 from

Hawaii were put into camps (National Park Service 2018) (Daniels, et al. 1991). With this displacement, the opportunity for African Americans to move into Little Tokyo led to racial tensions with the Filipinos. The arrival of their new neighbors pitted the Filipinos and African Americans against each other as they both try to escape from poverty, insufficient living standards, and land new jobs to survive. Then soon after, Little Manila was pushed out west into the Bunker Hill area as the City of Los Angeles’ redevelopment of the area resulted in the destruction of numerous buildings, hotels, and apartments

(Maram 2006).

They soon reestablished businesses and found housing in Bunker Hill but were forced to move again in the late 1940’s because of the city’s redevelopment projects that would tear down city infrastructures, like what happened before. This time they moved to the Temple-Beverly corridor in the late 1940’s and enabled Filipinos to mark their territory in Los Angeles soil as they were able to purchase land and homes for their families (Montoya 2009). During the Post World War II era, much of Little Manila was destroyed in part by the City of Los Angeles and led to the suburbanization of Filipinos.

During the 1960’s-1980’s, the failed attempt to promote the Temple-Beverly area as a predominantly Filipino area, the attempt to create a Filipinotown, and the deficiency of a

Filipino community in Los Angeles produced Filipinos to become ‘invisible’ to mainstream society (Bernardo 2014).

Subsequently, after years of failed attempts to claim the old Little Manila as a historic designation, Historic Filipinotown became an official district of Los Angeles in

2002. Then-13th District of Los Angeles City Council member, Eric Garcetti, pledged to commemorate the area with an official Historic Filipinotown title as a symbol and place of Filipino history that was once persecuted by discrimination (W. Lee 2005). Within close proximity to Downtown Los Angeles, Historic Filipinotown is bounded by Benton

Way to the west, Glendale Boulevard to the east, Beverly Boulevard to the south, and the

101 Freeway to the north. The district was home to various Filipinos, but a decline in recent decades now leaves it home to Filipinos who are older, less educated, and poorer than most Filipinos in Los Angeles County (Allen and Turner 2002). The district contains about 7,000 Filipinos (about 6 percent of the population) and contains 21,000 people of

Asian descent (18 percent of the population) in the year 2000. The rest of the population of Historic Filipinotown consisted of Latino/Chicano people (Semics, LCC 2007).

Other areas, including the city of Long Beach and Oxnard, from the 1940’s to

1990’s, used to have significant Filipino populations like Historic Filipinotown, but many moved to more affluent and higher-priced neighborhoods within the next few decades

(Allen and Turner 2002). Cities like Carson, Cerritos, Artesia, and Walnut in Los

Angeles County had at least 10 percent of their populations with Filipino backgrounds in

2010. Carson had the highest percentage of Filipinos in their city with about 19.69 percent, which is about 16,000 Filipinos out of 81,000 citizens of the city (ZipAtlas

2017). Carson has been a popular city to move to because Filipinos emigrating out of the navy-based community of Long Beach were in search for a new community to live in so

Carson, which is a neighboring city of Long Beach, was able to take in the new Filipino 20

residents. Other areas such as Eagle Rock (17 percent of population are of Filipino background) and Panorama City (8 percent), all within the City of Los Angeles, contain highly significant clusters (Loc 2017) (ZipAtlas 2017).

2.5 Invisibleness of Filipino Americans

From their first settlement within Little Manila in the 1920’s, Filipinos were marginalized and segregated and were considered ‘unassimilable’ and a ‘racial problem’.

Filipinos were deemed ‘unassimilable’ because of their dark skin, which relegated them to become ‘inferior human species’ like other people of such skin color (Lowe 2006).

Also, Filipinos were disliked as they took jobs away from Caucasian people, since they would work for lower wages and were considered more ideal to work labor intensive jobs

(The Philippine History Site n.d., The Philippine History Site n.d.). They did not fit in within the rest of society and were unable to blend in with other people and other Asian groups. Yet, within the next few decades, Little Manila was destroyed and moved several of times by the City of Los Angeles. It caused various Filipinos to move to what is presently known as Historic Filipinotown, or to move out of the city and into suburban neighborhoods. With the shift, White Americans found Filipinos in their city as ‘loyal’

Americans worthy of an American citizenship. As noted before, during the 1960-80’s, the

United States wanted more globalization and multiculturalism, but a current Filipino enclave in Los Angeles barely existed and turned Filipinos to an ‘invisible’ minority.

Shifts to become ‘visible’ in the United States through campaigning to gain state recognition failed and were not able to address such a problem (Bernardo 2014).

Filipinos are the second biggest Asian population in the United States, but the biggest Asian ethnic group in Los Angeles (3.2 percent of the population) (World

Population Review 2018). With their high rates, Filipinos should have a dominant presence within the Asian community in Los Angeles, but they do not and are considered

‘invisible’. The role of United States’ colonization of the Philippines from 1898 to 1946 led to the ‘pampering’ or assimilation of Filipinos to American ideals and concepts, which prepared them for future immigration into the United States (Bernardo 2014). As stated in above, the language change from Spanish to English gave Filipinos right of way to socialize with the American people occupying the Philippines at the time. Also, the

United States was the number one Christian country with 246.8 million people, giving

Filipinos an easier time to find places of worship since most of them come from a

Christian faith (De Guzman 2011). Other cases such as the establishment of western ideas into the Philippine government, education and health system assisted Filipinos to become more prepared as a nation in the future. Once the Treaty of Manila in 1946 was signed, it allowed the Philippines to self-govern itself and establish independence from the United

States.

According to Jonathan Peterson, a Los Angeles Times journalist, he claimed that

Filipinos are the largest Asian ethnic group in Southern California, yet people outside of such a community will not realize it. Moreover, he stated “Filipinos often have Spanish last names, speak English and blend into the mainstream (Peterson 1989).” People only recognize other Asian groups such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, but they failed to recognize the Filipino people and did not consider them as a main Asian group. It is true, most Filipinos have Spanish last names, but others have Chinese or Malay 22

influenced last names, which would confuse people additionally. Historically, Filipinos are racially mixed people of Spanish, Chinese, and Filipino indigenous decent. They come off looking like other ethnicities and are usually to be confused with whatever dominant Asian group is consisted within an area that is why Filipino people are one of the most perplexing ethnicities to determine and are ‘invisible’ minorities of the United

States. These factors contributed to Filipino/Filipino American’s ‘invisibleness’.

Considered the “King of Comedy” in the Philippines, Rodolfo Quizon or primary known as ‘Dolphy’, once exclaimed to the Filipino American community during the First

Annual Filipino American Visionary Awards in Hollywood, California that they need to unite in the American Society. Often confused by the large Filipino community in

Southern California, he stated in Filipino, “Why is there a Chinatown, Japantown, and

Koreatown here in Los Angeles, but no Filipinotown here or elsewhere? We are invisible here. (Bernardo 2014, 1).” His call to action explained the problems of Filipino presence in Los Angeles and that something needs to be done to become known to the mainstream society. The ‘invisibility’ of Filipinos in Los Angeles throughout the years led to Historic

Filipinotown’s low representation as an ethnic enclave. The induction of Historic

Filipinotown as a District of Los Angeles in 2002 was only one step towards becoming an ethnic enclave with rich history, yet the ‘invisibleness’ of the area caused it to become just another community just like the rest of the others within the City of Los Angeles.

Language, religion, and Spanish, Chinese, and American ties from the past enabled

Filipinos in the United States to become ‘unseen’ from the general public. The observations of people of other races and the statements from prominent Filipinos

towards the Filipino community help understand the trials and tribulations of Filipinos and its ethnic enclave.

Chapter 3: Data and Methods

3.1 Data

Cultural symbols are physical objects or concepts that constitute meaning.

Symbols might include religious artifacts like Stars of David, images of the Quran, etc. or signage in different languages (Beer 2017). Cultures associate different symbols to various experiences and lessons made from their ancestors. Language is the most important part of all cultural symbols as it is a system of verbal and written communication to which a linguistic society adheres (Eifring and Theil 2005). Cultural symbol data was obtained through field collection. Cultural symbols and their latitude and longitude coordinates were collected by way of Garmin GPS, a Global Positioning

System (GPS) that can collect field data like points, lines, or polygons and provide coordinates of those features while on the field. Google Maps, a web mapping service developed by Google LLC, was also used to collect cultural symbols as its Google Maps’

StreetView services enabled the virtual visualization of a 360-degree panoramic view of street locations. Its regular 2D maps allowed data collection of cultural symbols by providing latitude and longitude coordinates of locations of cultural symbols.

Additionally, Google Maps’ interactive web features allowed movement of different positions within a street view, which enabled the process of observing and inspecting cultural symbols within an area at a faster rate than the Garmin GPS. The Los Angeles

County GIS Data Portal provided a shapefile of Los Angeles County census tracts and roads. Los Angeles County census tract population information, specifically Filipino,

Chinese, Korean, and total population were obtained through the American Factfinder website. These specific data were used to analyze the qualities of each ethnic enclave. 25

3.2 Methods/Analysis

Cultural symbols were collected throughout Historic Filipinotown, Chinatown, and Koreatown. For example, using Historic Filipinotown as the first area of data collection, any artifact appearing in public that displayed the Filipino language or referenced a place from the Philippines was considered a cultural symbol and its location was recorded. If a church sign displayed Filipino language in the front of the church, then it was recorded. Street signs, restaurant names in display, and any places with Filipino language or city names in the Philippines within their plazas, etc. were recorded as well.

Cultural geographer Wilbur Zelinsky influenced this method of data collection (1984).

He observed and recorded the American flag, flagpoles, eagle symbols, etc. in various parts of the United States’ Midwest and Northeast, such as Ohio, New York, Virginia,

North Carolina, etc. to find out their prevalence from two different years, in 1875 and

1981 (1984). Zelinsky’s purpose was to analyze which year and region had more

American pride by examining the number of ‘American’ symbols displayed on the landscape. In the current study, the primary purpose is to find the strength of ethnic identity based off the cultural landscape of each enclave and to test the hypothesis that

Historic Filipinotown has fewer ethnic markers than either Chinatown or Koreatown. In addition, the exposure of cultural symbols, Asian ethnic minorities, and their daily conversations in their language planted a general idea of how strong the ethnic identity of each enclave was. When the data was collected, cultural symbols were sorted based off the language it was written in and what type of entity it was used for.

3.2.1 Descriptive Statistics

To quantify each ethnic enclaves’ cultural symbols and their ethnic populations, basic descriptive statistics were calculated. Statistics provided details about each enclave such as the ethnic population-to-cultural symbol ratio, ethnic symbols per square miles, average number of cultural symbols per census tract, etc. Executing such ratios and statistics gave insight to the three primary Asian languages and ethnic enclaves in the study and how they compare to one another.

3.2.2 Determining Symbols by Language

Four different languages classes were set for each ethnic enclave to find basic counts and percentages of all cultural symbols and where they are located:

Filipino/Chinese/Korean, English, both, or not applicable (N/A) (Refer to Appendix A on page 68).

3.2.3 Determining Symbols by Type

Eleven different types of places and signs with corresponding numbers were assigned to cultural symbols to find out where each type where located within each enclave: 1 - City of Los Angeles’ signs or property, 2 - restaurants, 3 - churches, 4 – markets, 5 – healthcare facilities (medical centers/health centers/pharmacies/doctor’s offices/dentist offices/ optometrists), 6 - schools, 7 - shops/stores, 8 – personal wellness centers (salons/spas/massage parlors/barber shops/acupuncture centers), 9 - banks, 10 – location signs (if a restaurant had multiple signs, then one cultural symbol would be marked under the restaurant type because one of the signs would designate an actual 27

restaurant location, while the others would be considered location signs since they promote the restaurant from other locations of the building; Figure 5), and 11 – other

(cultural symbols such as apartment complexes, auto shops, flowers shops, and etc.).

Figure 5 - Examples of Cultural Symbols’ Type when a Place has Multiple Signs

Bahay Kubo Restaurant in Historic Filipinotown contains three cultural symbols. The image above shows two cultural symbols, and both would be assigned the language class of “BOTH” since Bahay Kubo Restaurant contains Filipino (“BUHAY KUBO”) and English (“RESTAURANT”) language. Symbol #1 would be assigned place type number ‘two’ since it is the main sign for the restaurant, while symbol #2 would be assigned a number ‘10’ since it is an extra sign for the restaurant. If the sign was given a ‘two’ instead of a ‘10’ then it would mean two restaurants with the same names would ‘exist’ when truly it does not. That is why a designation for location signs was made.

3.2.4 Chi-Square

A Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test was conducted in Microsoft Excel upon all enclaves to figure out how many cultural symbols are expected to be present within each area versus an observed number. Also, it determines if the sample data (cultural symbols)

2 matches its original population (Glen 2017). The formula was Σ (Oi-Ei) /Ei (Figure 6).

‘O’ is the number of observed symbols, while ‘E’ is the number of expected symbols (the sum of all cultural symbols from each enclave divided by the number of enclaves). Sigma

(Σ) is the total of all nth values (Glen 2017). After the chi-square formula was computed to all enclaves, their outcomes were added together to make a chi-square statistic or probability, which determined if the data supported either the null or the alternate hypothesis. For this study, the significance level was at 0.05. If the chi-square statistic or probability was above 0.05, then the null hypothesis (H0) must be taken into consideration. If the statistic was below 0.05, then the alternate hypothesis (H1) was accepted instead of the null hypothesis (Stat Trek 2018). The null hypothesis of this test assumes that the density of cultural symbols on the landscape in all three enclaves are equal, while the alternate hypothesis suggests that all cultural symbols in all enclaves are not equal.

Figure 6: Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test Formula. Source: Glen 2017

2 Chi-Square Statistic = Σ (Oi-Ei) /Ei Where: O - Observed Value E – Expected Value Σ = Summation Operator (Addition of a sequence of numbers)

3.2.5 Kernel Density

A kernel density analysis was conducted to find out where cultural symbols cluster in each of the three ethnic enclaves. This method created a map of the density of features (whether it is a group of points, lines, or polygons) within an area (Figure 7). A default search radius or bandwidth algorithm was applied to find out the bandwidth of all points (Xie and Yan 2008). Standard distance (SD) is the measure in which all features are concentrated or dispersed around the geometric mean. Median distance (D) is the measure of all features concentrated or dispersed around a geometric median or median center. It does not consider outliers like the standard distance does. ‘N’ is the number of points, lines, or features being used in a certain equation or formula. Once the following formula was computed to all points to the nth time, a heat map was made to visually see clusters within an area (Xie and Yan 2008).

Figure 7: Kernel Density Formula. Source: Xie and Yan 2008

Search Radius = 0.9 * min (SD, sq. root

Where: Dm - Median Distance n - Number of Features

Chapter 4: Results

4.1 General Statistics of All Enclaves

By using Google Maps’ StreetView feature, cultural symbols found from

February 2017 through December 2017 were mapped. Other cultural symbols were found by way of Garmin GPS in January 2018. A total of 2,093 cultural symbols were identified from the three ethnic enclaves. Historic Filipinotown had 146 cultural symbols

(Figure 8), Koreatown had 823 symbols (Figure 9), and Chinatown had 1,124 symbols

(Figure 10).

Cultural symbols were located across 53 census tracts of the City of Los Angeles

(Table 3). Koreatown is the largest enclave, with 1.4 square miles (33 census tracts), followed by Chinatown with 0.95 square miles (eight tracts), and followed by Historic

Filipinotown with 0.67 square mile (12 tracts). Koreatown had the highest total population in its census tracts (116,951), total population of own ethnic group (31,849), and highest percentage of own ethnic group (27 percent). Historic Filipinotown had almost the same total population of its own ethnic group (6,335) as Chinatown (6,976), but Chinatown had about 26 percent of its people of Chinese descent while Filipinos

Table 3 – General Statistics of All Enclaves

made up 14 percent of Historic Filipinotown. Chinatown had the highest symbol-per- square-mile ratio with 1,183 symbols per square mile. Koreatown had 588 symbols per square mile, while Historic Filipinotown had the lowest with 218 symbols per square mile. For every 43 Filipinos in Historic Filipinotown, there was one cultural symbol.

Koreatown was again in the middle of the pack with one symbol per 39 Koreans.

Chinatown had the lowest ratio with one cultural symbol for every six Chinese people in the area. Overall, Historic Filipinotown had the lowest numbers from each category, consequently exposing its weak cultural distinctiveness compared to the other two.

Figure 8 – Cultural Symbols in Historic Filipinotown

Figure 9 – Cultural Symbols in Chinatown

Figure 10 – Cultural Symbols in Koreatown

4.2 Cultural Symbols by the Numbers

From section 4.1, it was concluded that Historic Filipinotown has 146 cultural symbols, while Chinatown has 1124 and Koreatown has 823. All language and type categories were explained through percentages rather than actual numbers themselves in order to reduce bias towards specific categories and numbers. Obviously Chinatown has about a thousand more cultural symbols than Historic Filipinotown, but when comparing them by categories using percentages, it will help understand how some percentages of

Historic Filipinotown’s cultural symbols fare better than Chinatown and vice versa with

Koreatown. 34

4.2.1 Cultural Symbols by Language

The most common language or language combination in all three areas were cultural symbols in an Asian language (Filipino/Chinese/Korean) and in English (Table

4). With 2,093 cultural symbols in all ethnic enclaves, there were 1,613 symbols with both an Asian language and English (77 percent of all symbols). Filipino/Chinese/

Korean-only markers had only 230 symbols or 11 percent of all cultural symbols in all ethnic enclaves. English only signs accounted for 131 cultural symbols (six percent) and not applicable or ‘N/A’ signs with no language or writing had 119 symbols in the field.

Another calculation containing the number of cultural symbols in each enclave with no location signs was simply made to eliminate extra signs that promoted certain cultural symbols in the same location. For example, like the Buhay Kubo Restaurant

Table 4 – Numbers and Percentages of Cultural Symbols by Language

The top table represents the number of cultural symbols by language and ethnic enclave. The number of cultural symbols based on the language type were divided by the total number of symbols of each enclave to create a new corresponding percentage table to reduce bias towards high numbers of cultural symbols of each enclave (bottom table). Cells highlighted in red represent the highest number or percentages of cultural symbols, while blue represents the lowest number or percentages of cultural symbols within each enclave based off language.

example (page 28), three cultural symbols were within it, but one actual symbol was counted as the restaurant type, while the others were considered location signs. When removing the location signs of that restaurant, one symbol representing that restaurant would remain, while the others would be removed to eliminate duplicates. Without location signs, 1,361 cultural symbols remained in the database. Symbols with both an

Asian language and English were found 1,046 times (77 percent). The rest of the language types were under 10 percent of all cultural symbols in all the areas combined, as not applicable (N/A) had nine percent, Asian languages had eight percent, and English only signs has seven percent; refer to Table 5 for numbers and percentages of cultural symbols by language. Symbols with both an Asian language and English were the most common cultural symbols throughout the areas as they are a source of mutual communication among Los Angeles residents, outsiders, and each ethnic enclaves’ prominent Asian population.

The most prominent language type from each ethnic enclave was the combination of both an Asian language and English. Cultural symbols with both Filipino and English appeared 124 times within Historic Filipinotown (85 percent of all cultural symbols in the area). Chinatown had 801 symbols both in Chinese and English (71 percent), while

Koreatown had 688 symbols both in Korean and English (84 percent). Historic

Filipinotown had the highest number of English only symbols out of all three enclaves. It had about 13 percent of its symbols in English, while Chinatown and Koreatown had seven and three percent respectively. Of all the enclaves, Historic Filipinotown had the highest combined percentage of 98 percent of all cultural symbols that contained at least

English; Koreatown had a combined total of 87 percent, though Chinatown had the 36

lowest with 78 percent. It was not surprising to find out that Historic Filipinotown had the highest total percentage of all symbols with at least the English language because English is one of the primary languages of the Philippines. Also, of the three countries with significant Asian populations in the enclaves, the Philippines was the only one to ever be colonized by the United States.

Symbols with the highest percentage of the other two language types, Asian languages and not applicable ‘N/A’, typically occurred in Chinatown. Chinese-only and

Korean-only symbols had the best percentage of cultural symbols within each individual area. Chinese-only symbols were 12 percent of all symbols in Chinatown, while Korean- only symbols were 11 percent of all it symbols in Koreatown. Historic Filipinotown only had one percent of its symbols be in Filipino (1/146 symbols). When dealing with symbols with no language on it (not applicable type or N/A), Chinatown topped the charts with 9 percent (102/1124) of all symbols in its area, while Koreatown and Historic

Filipinotown had two and one percent each (15/823 and 2/146). Chinese artifacts such as the Chinese lanterns made up most of the not applicable (N/A) type in Chinatown.

Originally there were more than 100 Chinese lanterns in that specific area, but for study purposes each row of lanterns (3-10 lanterns per row) were aggregated together to make one central lantern point (Refer to Appendix A, under the ‘N/A’ section to find examples of this certain type). Traditional Korean lights made up most of Koreatown’s ‘N/A’ type, although a Filipino sun figure located at the top of the Larry Itliong Village Building on the corner of Glendale Boulevard and Rockwood Street, and a Filipino flag in the

Filipino American Community of Los Angeles Inc.’s parking lot on Temple Street and

Burlington Avenue were the only two ‘N/A’ symbols in Historic Filipinotown. Both 37

Historic Filipinotown and Chinatown topped the tables with two language types each, though Koreatown did not lead any of them.

4.2.2 Cultural Symbols by Type

Eleven different types of cultural symbols that were specified in section 3.2.3.

Whether a symbol was public property of the City of Los Angeles, a restaurant, market, store, etc., all were taken into consideration to find out what type of symbol was most dominant in all enclaves. Out of all 2,093 cultural symbols, the most prevalent in all enclaves was the location signs type with 731 (35 percent or about 1/3 of all symbols in all enclaves) (Table 5). The City of Los Angeles’ signs or property came in second with

563 symbols (27 percent or about ¼ of all symbols), while the ‘other’ type came in third with 297 symbols (14 percent). Without the location signs type, 1,361 symbols still existed. The only exception that changed from removing that specific type was the percentage of each symbol’s type. The City of Los Angeles’ property rose to 41 percent, a 24 percent increase when removing the location signs type. The ‘other’ type rose from

14 percent to 22 percent as well. All other types either increased or decreased by up to four percent of its original number. Obviously from a previous section, the reasoning for calculating cultural symbols without location signs type was to eliminate redundant data that would represent a cultural symbols’ location such as two extra signs for a restaurant.

Both location signs and the City of Los Angeles types were the most dominant types when merging all ethnic enclave’s cultural symbols (about 62 percent of all cultural symbols), while the City of Los Angeles and ‘other’ type signified about 41 percent of

Table 5 – Numbers and Percentages of Cultural Symbols by Type

Both tables above represent all the cultural symbols within each enclave but are divided based on their type. Like before, cells in red represent the highest number or percentages, while cells in blue represent low numbers or percentages of cultural symbols based off type. Historic Filipinotown only had six different types of cultural symbols, while Chinatown and Koreatown had 11 different types.

symbols without the location signs type.

Notably, Historic Filipinotown had the highest percentage of City of Los Angeles owned properties. The city owned 87 percent of all cultural symbols in the area (127/146 symbols), which were a combination of banners, light poles, and Historic Filipinotown signs (Figure 11). Each Historic Filipinotown banner on the streetlight read the following,

“Historic Filipinotown” and in the middle of it a phrase in Filipino saying “Bayang magiliw, perlas ng silanganan”, which in English translates to “Land of the morning, child of the sun returning” (Osias and Lane 1971). Also, three light posts on each Metro stop on Temple Avenue came equipped with symbols that highlight Filipino culture and values. The three symbols that represent the Filipino culture on these lights were Kapwa, in Filipino meaning “shared humanity” (a symbol formed by the stacking of hands to create the Filipino sun), Lakbay, meaning “journey” (a symbol formed with two figures holding hands), and Kapayapaan, meaning “peace” (a symbol formed in the shape of a parol, a Filipino star shaped lantern) (KPCC 2016). The City of Los Angeles owned 35 percent of Chinatown’s symbols (389/1124) and only six percent of Koreatown’s

(47/823). The rest of Historic Filipinotown’s other 19 cultural symbols were either restaurants, churches, stores, or locations signs. Only four symbols in the Historic

Filipinotown were restaurants (three percent). The Filipino Christian Church on Court

Street and Union Avenue, Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ) on Union Ave. and

Beverly Boulevard, and Praise Christian Fellowship on Rosemont Avenue and Beverly

Boulevard were the only three churches in the area (two percent). Only one market existed on Hoover Street and Beverly Boulevard called the Beverly Store (one percent).

Additionally, five location signs and six ‘other’ symbols, like apartment complexes, 40

Filipino Community Centers, plazas, etc. existed too (three and four percent respectively).

Figure 11: Examples of Cultural Symbols in Historic Filipinotown

Most of Historic Filipinotown’s cultural symbols were owned by the City of Los Angeles. The banner (left picture) was found on a lot of the streetlight poles in the area and contained the area’s name and the first sentence of the Philippines’ National Anthem in Filipino. The light post with the Filipino Sun (middle) is a noticeable symbol in the Philippines and contains eight rays, which was meant for the first eight provinces of the Philippines. Also, the sun contains eight hands to make the eight rays, a symbolism which the plaque in the picture on the right explains.

On the other hand, Chinatown and Koreatown’s most common type of cultural symbols were location signs. This type made up 39 percent (437/1124) and 35 percent

(290/823) of all cultural symbols in Chinatown and Koreatown. Chinatown’s second leading type was the City of Los Angeles’ property with 35 percent (389/1124) (Figure

12). All other categories combined had a total of 298 cultural symbols; 114 of them of the

‘other’ type, which comprised places such as apartment complexes, wholesale warehouses, and Chinese-American Associations. Only one school existed within the landscape that was deemed a cultural symbol and it is called the Chinese Consolidated

Figure 12: Examples of Cultural Symbols in Chinatown

Figure 4 – Chinatown’s top two cultural symbol types were location signs and public property. Many Chinatown signs were distributed across the city like the one pictured on the left and was under the public property type. On the northeast side of the area, many factories and wholesale distribution centers made Chinatown their home, like Fu-Yuan International, Inc. (right), which was under the ‘other’ type.

School on Yale and Alpine Street, next to Castelar Elementary School. Overall, all other types had at least eight cultural symbols, except for school type.

In Koreatown, the ‘other’ and restaurant types had the second and third highest percentages of cultural symbols, behind location signs, with 21 percent and 16 percent of

cultural symbols in the landscape (176 and 133 out of 823 symbols). Places like art galleries, auto repair shops, billiards halls, etc. were featured in the ‘other’ type.

Restaurants had an unusually high occurrence in the area as many Korean and Korean

BBQ (KBBQ) restaurants attract a lot of Koreans/Korean Americans, other Los Angeles residents, and outsiders to the areas (Figure 13). Comparable to Chinatown, Koreatown’s lowest type was the school type (one percent). The rest of the types included 13 or more symbols each. Location signs occurred the most throughout Koreatown, thus endorsing

its cultural identity to the public like Chinatown. This is something Historic Filipinotown lacks.

Figure 13 – Examples of Cultural Symbols in Koreatown

(Left) Korean BBQ restaurants attract many Los Angeles residents because of its ‘all you can eat’ style of food, where people can grill their favorite meats with multiple sides to choose from. (Right) various places under the ‘other’ type, like an autoshop shows how Koreatown is less of a tourist attraction and more of a secret food capital with blue collar shops like the rest of the cities in Los Angeles.

4.2.3 Cultural Symbols by Language and Type

Language and type were combined to find out the most frequent combination of cultural symbols from all enclaves together and per enclave. The top three combinations of cultural symbols from all enclaves were all in an Asian language

(Filipino/Chinese/Korean) and in English. The language type of both an Asian language and English with the location signs type consisted of 27 percent of all symbols

(567/2093) in all areas, while that language type combo with the City of Los Angeles’ public property made up 18 percent (371). The ‘other’ type in both an Asian language and English was at 12 percent (242) (Table 6).

Table 6 – Numbers and Percentages of Cultural Symbols by Language and Type (All Enclaves)

Table 7 – Numbers and Percentages of Cultural Types by Language and Type (Separated by Enclave)

The most noteworthy language-type combination in Historic Filipinotown were cultural symbols owned by the City of Los Angeles in both Filipino and English. These accounted for 79 percent of all cultural symbols in the landscape (116/146 symbols) (Table 7). Such cultural symbols consisted of Historic Filipinotown signs, banners, and short light poles with Filipino-inspired symbols and descriptions (Figure 11). The second most common combination, though far less plentiful, was of objects owned by the City of Los Angeles and only in English with a percentage of seven percent (10/146). The rest of the language-type combos were less than four percent of all cultural symbols in Historic

Filipinotown.

Location signs had the highest overall ratio of language-type grouping in

Chinatown. They accounted for 29 percent of all symbols in the area (324/1124 symbols).

Los Angeles owned property in

Chinese and English took 20 percent of symbols (223/1124), while the same type but with no language (N/A) took 9 percent

(102). Like Historic

Filipinotown, most of the cultural symbols in Chinatown Figure 14 - Promotion of Chinatown by Banners

Chinatown banners from 2017 (left) promoted the were owned by the City of Los Year of the Rooster and were recorded as cultural symbols for this project since the most recent Google Map images were Angeles, except they were from February to October of 2017. Banners from 2018 (right) promoted the Year of the Dragon and were not used for this specific to the area as they were project. Every year a new banner is usually placed within the same locations as the previous, but sometimes they are not replaced with new one and are left without a banner. either Chinese Zodiac banners 46

or Chinatown Signs (Figure 14). Chinese Zodiac banners are installed around December to January every year to parallel the year’s zodiac sign (an animal). For this year, when referencing Chinatown’s 2018 Zodiac banners, some of the 2017 banners were either removed and replaced with the present banner or were just removed completely, thus enabling the collection of more cultural symbols than expected during the 2017 year than

2018. Other important numbers were cultural symbols under the ‘other’ type in Chinese and English, which was at 9 percent (102) and location signs only in Chinese with 8 percent (87). Chinatown’s top two combinations made up about 49 percent of all the cultural symbols in the area, suggesting its diversity in cultural symbols.

In Koreatown, the three highest language-type groupings were all in Korean and

English. The highest was in the form of location signs (29 percent or 241/823 symbols), the second being in the ‘other’ type (17 percent or 139 symbols), and the third being restaurants (14 percent or 118 symbols). The mixture of Korean and English symbols that were restaurants was surprising since its counterparts had low percentages of that particular combination. Also stated before, Korean restaurants’ unusually high occurrence made its mark within its territory as they are a huge reason as to why people come to places like Koreatown.

4.3 Equality of Cultural Symbols within Ethnic Enclaves

As stated before, the three study areas contain dissimilar numbers of cultural symbols, thus assuming their unlikelihood of ever being equally distributed. The expected number of cultural symbols per area was about 698 (Table 8). The Chi-Square probability of all the ethnic enclaves was 1.3976E-155 or basically 0.000. With this, we rejected the null hypothesis suggesting that each enclave did not have an equal number of cultural symbols. There was a 0.00 percent chance that both the observed and the expected were the same. Also, there was a 0.00 percent chance of making a type one error, meaning the chance we would accept the null hypothesis, when it was truly false.

Table 8 – Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test of Cultural Symbols in Ethnic Enclaves

(Left) Observed and expected number of cultural symbols of each enclave. (Right) Chi-square Test on all enclaves. In green, the chi-square probability determines if all enclaves have an equal number of cultural symbols but was too low to prove it did.

4.4 Distribution of Cultural Symbols

4.4.1 Symbol Distribution in Historic Filipinotown

The areas with the densest (or most significant) clustering of cultural symbols within Historic Filipinotown were on Temple Street and Alvarado Street and two streets southeast of that same intersection (Figure 15, next page). Most cultural symbols were located either on Temple or on Alvarado Street since each block or every other block had 48

one or two tall streetlights with the Historic Filipinotown banner and three shorter light posts with Filipino symbols on them. Beverly Boulevard contained a few of the banners and light post symbols as well for being a major street of the neighborhood. Most of the clustering occurred on the eastside of Temple Street because almost every block was shorter, and every block had the streetlights with banners and symbols on it. The west side had every other block containing the City of Los Angeles’ properties and signs.

Areas in dark red, signified high clusters of cultural symbols in Historic Filipinotown.

The western cluster on Alvarado and Temple Streets contained only nine cultural symbols, while the east cluster had 24 cultural symbols within it.

Figure 15 – Kernel Density of Historic Filipinotown’s Cultural Symbols

4.4.2 Symbol Distribution in Chinatown

There was only one significant cluster within Chinatown, which was located around the Chinatown Central Plaza on Hill Street and north of College Street, where tourists visit Chinatown the most (Figure 17). Within the dark red area, 64 cultural symbols were present. Most of the area consisted of the City of Los Angeles’s property or signs, like Chinese lanterns, Chinese gift shops, restaurants, etc. Areas west of Spring

Street in Chinatown contained street signs in English and Chinese. 124 cultural symbols were street signs and catered to tourists, visiting Angelenos, and Chinese residents (11 percent of all cultural symbols in Chinatown; Figure 16). Most Chinatown banners with the current zodiac sign were distributed on or west of Spring Street. With 215 banners within the area, it accounted for about 19 percent of symbols in Chinatown. Only five cultural symbols existed east of Main Street, since most of the area consists of mostly industrial and City of Los Angeles property like the Los Angeles Men’s Central Jail and

Twin Towers Figure 16 – Chinatown’s Street Signs Image Source: Kai Ryssdal of YourClassical.com Correctional Facility.

That area was probably

about 33 percent of all

of Chinatown, thus

concentrating most of

the cultural symbols of

Chinatown within the Most street signs in Chinatown were presented in both English and Chinese. It was unusual to have such a street sign like this because other 67 percent of the the other enclaves do not have Filipino or Korean translated streets signs, unlike Chinatown’s Chinese street signs. area.

Figure 17 – Kernel Density of Chinatown’s Cultural Symbols

4.4.3 Symbol Distribution in Koreatown In Koreatown, four areas of cluster activity existed (Figure 19, page 53). One cluster existed on 4th Street and Western Avenue and it contained nine cultural symbols.

Another cluster developed on Harvard Boulevard and 8th Street containing 30 symbols.

Two more other clusters on Olympic Boulevard existed as well as the one on Normandie

Avenue had 21 symbols, while the New Hampshire and Vermont Avenues cluster had 36 symbols. Most symbols were located on the main streets of Koreatown, which were on

Western and Vermont Avenue, 6th and 8th Street, and Olympic Boulevard. The

Koreatown Signs were the most prominent cultural symbol within the area with 22 of

them existing (Figure 18). With that, it Figure 18: Koreatown Sign Image Source: Loftway.com shows how one cultural symbol does not dominate an area. A vast mix of symbols carry within the Korean ethnic enclave and show symbol diversity rather than a standard uniform symbol dominating an

Koreatown signs were distributed within area like Historic Filipinotown and the main streets and intersections of the area. It was surprising to see that this was the most Chinatown. Also, multiple clusters in prominent cultural symbol of all of Koreatown.

Koreatown show the spread of cultural symbols in the area, which is more spread out than the other two areas.

Figure 19 – Kernel Density of Koreatown’s Cultural Symbols

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 Historic Filipinotown as a Failed Ethnic Enclave

Historic Filipinotown is invisible. With an area of 0.67 square miles and 146 cultural symbols, Historic Filipinotown lacks visibility Chinatown and Koreatown have.

Both contain more than 800 different cultural symbols and have more than 500 symbols per square mile, less than half of what Historic Filipinotown has with 218 cultural symbols per square mile. The paucity and placement of cultural symbols in Historic

Filipinotown has caused the area to be less known than Chinatown and Koreatown. The reasons for this are the following: the history and development of each enclave, the most featured language and type of each cultural symbols’ enclave, and their distribution and clustering of the cultural symbols.

All three enclaves were made differently from one another. Historic Filipinotown

(Little Manila) and Koreatown was a result of racism, housing discrimination, and affordable housing, while Chinatown was developed though a masterplan to attract tourists. The current Chinatown was built in the 1930’s with the guidance of Peter Soo

Hoo Sr., a Chinese American-born employee of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and an Engineering graduate from University of Southern California (USC).

Though the help of the Los Angeles Chinatown Project Association, Chinese Americans were able to fund this project without bank financing and loans (Luong 2008). The

Association was able to acquire the land with the help of Herbert Lapham, a land agent for Santa Fe Railway, which owned the area of where the New Chinatown would be built

(Chinatown Los Angeles n.d.). Soo Hoo’s idea of a New Chinatown, after the downfall of the Old Chinatown via the construction of Union Station, led to the development of an 53

area which would serve as a tourist attraction led by multiple Chinese owned businesses and various structures with Chinese architecture that created the Chinese-American identity (Luong 2008). Today, Chinatown still boasts the same types of businesses and landscape it once had from the beginnings of the New Chinatown and still live on to be an ethnic enclave rich in tradition.

Koreatown came from the decline of a once vibrant Mid-Wilshire area in the

1960’s. The area attracted many South Korean immigrants to live there since housing and affordable vacant commercial and office space was cheap (Hawthorne 2014). Before the

1948 Shelley v. Kraemer ruling, which enforced racially restrictive housing policies,

Koreans lived in south central Los Angeles, particularly between Western and Vermont

Avenue and Adams Boulevard and Slauson Avenue (Kim and Yu 1996). By the time

Koreans migrated north to the current Koreatown location in the 1970’s, many Korean owned businesses and community organizations existed throughout 8th Street and

Olympic Blvd. (Park and Kim 2008). The area’s most infamous event occurred during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots as many Korean owned businesses, buildings, and streets were damaged as a result of the acquittal of four officers of the Los Angeles Police

Department over the beating and arrest of Rodney King. This event also pitted minorities against each other, specifically Koreans and African Americans, fueled by mass media.

Law enforcement abandoned the situation and led to Korean business owners to defend their businesses with the use of firearms. About half of 3,100 businesses were destroyed, but among those that were left, about ¼ of them opened again. The lesson of what happened to Koreatown during the riots left them not to fight against other minorities, but to unite with them and to help each other (Hayoun 2017) (Lah 2017). This event was a 54

huge wake up call, especially for the Korean-American community, which orchestrated the revival and the beginnings of new Korean owned stores, coalitions, and advocacy groups that created the Korean-American identity in Koreatown.

As mentioned from sections 2.4 and 2.5, the current Historic Filipinotown was built in the 1940’s from its various migrations west of its old Downtown Los Angeles locations called Little Manilas. The site of a new Filipino enclave produced new Filipino owned businesses, establishments, and organizations as a product of the abolishment of the California Alien Land Law Act of 1913 (Montoya 2009). During the 1960’s-1980’s, the ‘Filipino Flight’ to suburban areas and the approval of White Americans of Filipinos as ‘trustworthy’ Americans, created the demise of Little Manila. The lack of Filipino presence and access to state funding to regain Little Manila as a Filipino enclave produced the stigma of Filipinos as an ‘invisible’ minority (Bernardo 2014). Today, even though multiple Historic Filipinotown signs are designated within various part of the area to honor pasts Filipinos and their history within the area, it has done little to create an ethnic identity Chinatown and Koreatown has for its own Asian ethnic groups. The area known as Historic Filipinotown is deemed ‘invisible’ compared to its Asian enclave neighbors. Each area’s past played a crucial part to as why each enclave is unique from one another. An official comparison of cultural symbols from each area can prove such travesties.

When cultural symbols were separated by language and type, several statistics pointed to Historic Filipinotown to be unlike Chinatown and Koreatown. Historic

Filipinotown claimed the highest percentage of symbols in both an Asian language

(Filipino/Chinese/Korean) and in English with 87 percent of all symbols in the area. 55

Chinatown’s symbols both in Chinese and English accounted for 71 percent of all symbols in its area, while Koreatown had 84 percent of all symbols be in Korean and

English. As specified before, the reasoning for stating enclaves’ symbols in percentages instead of by actual numbers is to eliminate bias towards a single category. When combining all symbols with at least English on it, Historic Filipinotown took a whopping

97 percent of all cultural symbols, while Chinatown had 78 percent and Koreatown had

87 percent. For Historic Filipinotown to have that high of a percentage of symbols be in

English was not surprising because of the United States’ influence on the Philippines.

Previously, the Philippines was colonized by the United States in 1898 from Spain and administered English within the government, schools, businesses and more as the way of instruction (Chavez 2014). Today, Filipino and English are both official languages of the

Philippines. It helped Filipinos from the past and future comfortably communicate to the

American people. It may seem that inducing English to the Philippine society helped

Filipinos adapt to the language and culture of the United States, but it did not help a

Filipino enclave like Historic Filipinotown become an exotic and different enclave like

Chinatown and Koreatown. Michelle Magalong, an executive director of the advocacy group called the Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation, claims that when she first visited the Historic Filipinotown area, it did not look like a

Filipinotown; unlike Chinatown and Little Tokyo, the signs in the area are different

(Swann 2018). It is true, Historic Filipinotown’s signs and symbols are completely different than Chinatown and our other enclave of study, Koreatown. The Chinese and

Korean languages have their own set of alphabets or characters (Standard Chinese -

Hanzi and Korean - Hangul) in which they communicate. They can furthermore be 56

translated into the Latin alphabet system, which the Filipino and English language use

(Does Chinese have an Alphabet? n.d.) (Kim-Renaud 1997). Specific symbols in Chinese and Korean separate them from Historic Filipinotown’s since they are incomprehensible to the American public. Roughly 12 percent of Chinatown’s symbols are only in Chinese and 11 percent of Koreatown’s are in Korean. Historic Filipinotown only had one percent of all symbols be in Filipino. These statistics help define how Chinatown and Koreatown are unlike Historic Filipinotown. They are more structured as an ethnic enclave than

Historic Filipinotown. The Filipino language uses the same alphabet as English, so it is easier to read Filipino and to confuse its language as gibberish within the English-filled landscape than Chinese and Korean. As Magalong (quoted in Swann 2018, 7) explains,

“Because we were stuck in this legacy of being colonized by the Spanish and by the

United States, it’s shown in how we build our communities. The names of our businesses are in English, and you wouldn’t really think its Filipino”. Her statement truly signifies the problem Historic Filipinotown has as an ethnic enclave. There is nothing ‘ethnic’ about the Filipino language compared to the Chinese and Korean languages in their respective enclaves. Historic Filipinotown’s past history as an ‘invisible’ area often mistakes people into thinking that the area is just another Los Angeles community. The promotion of Los Angeles’ public property tries to increase the knowledge and history of the area’s past and present yet fails to do so since it does not stimulate the Filipino-

American identity of the area.

The City of Los Angeles’ public property in Historic Filipinotown, which consisted of Historic Filipinotown signs, banners, light posts for metro stops, murals,

Filipino-American WWII Memorial, and the Philippine flag, comprise of 87 percent of 57

all cultural symbols in the landscape, for a total of 127 symbols. All these symbols listed contributed to the culture and history of past and present Filipinos of Historic

Filipinotown, yet they are not sufficient to make the area legible as an ethnic enclave to residents and visitors passing by the area. These cultural symbols are far too small and out of public view. About 87 percent of all cultural symbols in Historic Filipinotown are owned by the City of Los Angeles (127/146). The rest of the 13 percent of symbols in the area, which is 19 out of 146 symbols, is too low of a percentage to even help relieve the slack that the City of Los Angeles’ public property lacks. Chinatown’s City owned property accounted for 35 percent of all symbols in the area, yet other symbols like location signs for featured stores, restaurants, banks and, churches helped the place become the tourist destination people know about. Koreatown lacks City-owned cultural symbols, but the presence of Korean specific restaurants, markets, personal wellness centers, and location signs helped the area become a hole-in-a-wall area that locals know and visit. As Elson Trinidad, from KCET Network, stated about Historic Filipinotown,

“Koreatown and Thai Town have late-night dining and entertainment, Chinatown and

Little Tokyo have their retail districts and cultural monuments. What will Historic

Filipinotown boast?” (2012). Historic Filipinotown does not have a lot to offer compared to Chinatown, Koreatown, and the other ethnic enclaves. The cultural identity is strong in these two places while the Filipino enclave still searches for its own. The role of language and type of all cultural symbols within the ethnic enclaves are a huge factor as to why

Historic Filipinotown is ‘unseen’ to the public eye.

Chinatown obtained something both Historic Filipinotown and Koreatown have not: a central core. As noted before, Chinatown was a planned community created by 58

Peter Soo Hoo Sr. His idea of an area that would represent the Chinese people in Los

Angeles paved the way to create this current tourist attraction (Luong 2008). Based on the Kernel Density Test, Chinatown has one specific hotspot, which is located around

Hill and College Street. It contains 64 cultural symbols in a 0.03 square miles area; also, it is the location of the current Chinatown Central Plaza, where the beginning of

Chinatown was formed. That area is famous for its Chinese architecture, decorations, restaurants, gift shops, and etc. On the other hand, Historic Filipinotown and Koreatown were not built based off a set plan. The areas were built in relation with Filipino/Koreans trying to build businesses, living in affordable housing, and congregate in an area where they could meet with their peers. Both places carry multiple hotspots, but not at a central or specific location. Historic Filipinotown’s two hotspots carry 33 cultural symbols, which consist of mostly City of Los Angeles’ owned property in a 0.14 square mile area.

The hotspots are located east of Temple and Alvarado Street, east of the ‘center’ of

Historic Filipinotown. Koreatown has four hotspots that have 96 cultural symbols combined in an area of 0.18 square miles. Three out of four hot spots are located within the peripheries of Koreatown, on Western Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, but one hotspot was located on Harvard Boulevard and 8th Street. When comparing four of

Koreatown’s, two of Historic Filipinotown’s, and one of Chinatown’s hotspots,

Chinatown had the highest cultural symbol per square mile of a hot spot with 2,133 symbols per square mile, whereas Koreatown had 533 and Historic Filipinotown had 236 symbols per square mile of a hot spot. Chinatown’s central core district set that area apart from Historic Filipinotown and Koreatown, since Chinatown has the densest cultural symbol hotspot of all three enclaves. Also, to keep in mind, Chinatown was the only 59

enclave to contain street signs that were read in both Chinese and English (most street signs west of Main Street). Historic Filipinotown and Koreatown had no street signs labeled in Filipino or Korean. Chinatown as a tourist destination distinctly separates itself as the most ethnic enclave out of all three areas. Historic Filipinotown and Koreatown’s deficiency of a cultural center did not allow them to become a famous tourist destination, unlike Chinatown.

5.2 Limitations

The use of Google Maps as a primary source of data collection of cultural symbols made the field work for this project efficient. However, I could have missed a number of cultural symbols that did not show up within Google Maps, but that did exist in the field.

Also, conducting a survey-based method could have helped promote how different ethnic enclaves are similar or different from one other, but surveying only the ethnic people of such areas, for example Filipinos in Historic Filipinotown, Chinese in Chinatown, and

Koreans in Koreatown. This type of data could have been tricky to collect because language barriers between a participant and myself would have set the study back and would have taken a longer time to collect surveys. Or I would need to hire an interpreter for each enclave that would help me inscribe their answers to me. Additionally, obtaining the right sample size for each enclave by way of surveying people would be time consuming and lengthy since it would be hard to interview at least 10-20 people per enclave. Finally, lack of time prevented me from distinguishing Chinese characters from

Vietnamese characters in Chinatown. Many Vietnamese businesses reside in Chinatown but being able to separate them by decoding and comparing their language would have 60

been too much to do. Their language characters on the field are closely similar to each other, so the number and percentages of Chinatown’s cultural symbols may contain additional and unwanted Vietnamese cultural symbols.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

Filipinos are an ‘invisible minority’ to society and are camouflaged into the landscape, even though they make up the highest concentration of Asians in California and constitute about 43 percent of all Filipinos in the United States in 2010. About 25 percent of all Filipinos in California reside in Los Angeles County, which is about

374,000 Filipinos. In the City of Los Angeles, Filipinos make up the largest minority of

Asians in the city, while Koreans and Chinese makeup the second and third highest minorities, respectively. Each minority group boasts an ethnic enclave. Chinatown and

Koreatown maintain rich cultural identities with multiple signages, businesses, stores, and etc. that promote and attract cultural investment to the community. On the other hand, Historic Filipinotown once had a significant wealth of Filipino culture and history by way of various Filipino-owned businesses, organizations, traditions, and etc., but has become an ‘invisible’ enclave despite its recent designation as a District of Los Angeles.

The City tried to promote the area by way of additional Historic Filipinotown signs, banners, light posts, murals, and etc., but they have had little effect. Most of Historic

Filipinotown’s cultural symbols are in both Filipino and English, but since the Filipino language uses the same Latin alphabet as English, Filipino words can blend into English and hence become ‘invisible’ as ethnic markers. Chinese and Korean languages have their own sets of alphabet or characters within cultural symbols that are spread out within their communities making their areas stand out as ethnic enclave. Historic Filipinotown blends in within the City of Los Angeles and is considered ‘invisible’, compared to its counterparts. Also, the Filipino enclave’s most distinct cultural symbol type was symbols owned by the City. This can be a cause for concern because if the City owns most of the 62

symbols in Historic Filipinotown, which was at 87 percent (127 out of 146 symbols in the area), how will the other symbols present itself to the community when only 19 other symbols exist? The City of Los Angeles needs to design a better plan to promote the

Filipino culture and history of Historic Filipinotown by making more symbols visible to the public’s eye and by encouraging Filipino-owned businesses throughout the area.

Advocacy groups and other concerned citizens of Historic Filipinotown should be more aggressive with the City council on how they should invest their time and effort towards promoting the community.

References

Alburo, Florian A., and Danilo I. Abella. 2002. "Skilled Labour Migration from Developing Countires: Study on the Philippines." Geneva, 1-29.

Allen, James P., and Eugene Turner. 2002. Changing Faces, Changing Places. Los Angeles: Center for Geographic Studies, California State University, Northridge.

Beer, Todd. 2017. Cultural Symbols: Teaching the Confederate Flag. June 14. Accessed April 15, 2018. https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/cultural-symbols/.

Bernardo, Joseph A. 2014. "From “Little Brown Brothers” to “Forgotten Asian Americans”: Race, Space, and Empire in Filipino Los Angeles." Seattle, Washinton, 7-27.

Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1979. Sourcebook on the New Immigration: Implications for the United States and the International Community. Vol. 75. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Buaken, Manuel. 1948. I Have Lived with the American People. Caldwell: The Claxton Printers Ltd.

Chavez, Amy. 2014. What Asia can Learn from Philippines about English Education. January 10. Accessed July 3, 2018. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy- chavez/what-asia-can-learn-from-_b_4572991.html.

Chinatown Los Angeles. n.d. A New Beginning. Accessed July 1, 2018. http://chinatownla.com/wp1/history/a-new-beginning/.

Daniels, Roger, Snadra C. Taylor, Harry H. L. Kitano, and Leonard J. Arlington. 1991. Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.

De Guzman, Lawrence. 2011. Philippines Still Top Christian Country in Asia, 5th in World. December 21. Accessed June 29, 2018. http://globalnation.inquirer.net/21233/philippines-still-top-christian-country-in- asia-5th-in-world. n.d. Does Chinese have an Alphabet? Accessed July 3, 2018. http://www.zhongwen.com/x/faq14.htm.

Eifring, Halvor, and Rolf Theil. 2005. "What is Language?" In Lingustics for Students of Asian and African Languages, 1-2.

Ethnic Council of Shepparton and Distirct Inc. 2016. "Filipino Community Profile."

Glen, Stephanie. 2017. Chi-Square Statistic: How to Calculate It / Distribution. June 25. Accessed June 29, 2018. http://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and- statistics/chi-square/.

Hawthorne, Christopher. 2014. Koreatown's Cool Old Buildings Point to L.A.'s Future. November 29. Accessed June 2018, 2018. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-koreatown-immigration- architecture-20141130s-story.html.

Hayoun, Massoud. 2017. Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown. April 4. Accessed June 29, 2018. https://explorepartsunknown.com/koreatown-la/koreatown-riots-equality/.

Hummon, David M. 1996. "Urban Enclaves: Identity and Place in America." Contemporary Sociology (American Sociological Association) 25 (6): 781-782.

Jackson, Yo. 2006. Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kim, Elaine H., and Eui-Young Yu. 1996. East to America: Korean American Life Stories. New York: New Press.

Kim-Renaud, Young-Key. 1997. The Korean Alphabet: Its History and Stucture. University of Hawaii Press.

Koerner, Mae Respicio. 2007. Filipinos in Los Angeles. Arcadia Publishing.

KPCC. 2016. Historic Filipinotwn Brightens Up with 54 New Light Fixtures. October 27. Accessed June 25, 2018. https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/10/27/65799/historic- filipinotown-lights-up-with-54-new-cultur/.

Lah, Kyung. 2017. The L.A. Riots were a Rude Awakening for Korean-Americans. April 29. Accessed July 1, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean- americans/index.html?no-st=1530479925.

Le Espiritu, Yen. 1995. Filipino American Lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lee, Chang-Shin. 2011. U.S. Immigration Act of 1965 and Asian Brain Drain. 311. Vol. 25.

Lee, Wendy. 2005. Filipinotown Searching for Its Center. Septemeber 13. Accessed June 26, 2018. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/13/local/me-filipinotown13.

Loc, Tim. 2017. Ten Things You May Not Know About Eagle Rock. March 16. Accessed August 5, 2018. http://www.laist.com/2017/03/16/ten_things_eagle_rock.php.

Lowe, Lisa. 2006. Positively No Filipinos Allowed: Building Communities and Discourse. Philadelphia: Temple university Press. 65

Luong, Annie. 2008. Introduction to New Chinatown. Chinese Historical Society of Southern California.

Maram, Linda Espana. 2006. Creating Masculinity in Los Angeles’s Little Manila: Working-Class Filipinos and Popular Culture, 1920s-1950s. . New York: Colombia University Press.

Montoya, Carina Monica. 2009. Los Angeles's Historic Filipinotown. Arcadia Publishing.

National Park Service. 2018. One Camp, Ten Thousand Lives; One Camp, Ten Thousand Stories . June 12. Accessed June 29, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/manz/index.htm.

Osias, Camilo, and M.A.L. Lane. 1971. The Philippine National Anthem. Manlapaz Publishing Co.

Park, Kyeyoung, and Jessica Kim. 2008. "The Contested Nexus of Los Angeles Koreatown: Capital Restructuring, Gentrification, and Displacement." Amerasia Journal 34 (3): 126-150.

Peterson, Jonathan. 1989. Filipinos – A Search for Community. May 24. Accessed May 15, 2018.

Pew Research Center. 2012. Asian Americans: A Mosaic of Faiths. July 19. Accessed October 3, 2016. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/19/asian-americans-a- mosaic-of-faiths-overview/.

Philippine Statistics Authority. 2015. 2015 Philippine Statistical Yearbook. Quezon City: Philippine Statistics Authority.

Russell, Susan. n.d. Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. Accessed June 29, 2018. http://www.seasite.niu.edu/crossroads/russell/christianity.htm.

Semics, LCC. 2007. Culture and Health Among Filipinos and Filipino-Americans in Centeral Los Angeles. Los Angeles: The Historic Filipinotown Health Network.

Stat Trek. 2018. Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test. Accessed April 15, 2018. https://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=chi- square%20goodness%20of%20fit%20test.

Survey LA. 2018. "Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context Filipino Americans in Los Angeles, 1903-1980 ." Los Angeles.

Swann, Jennifer. 2018. The Future of Historic Filipinotown. February 2. Accessed June 25, 2018. https://la.curbed.com/2018/2/2/16961240/westlake-historic- filipinotown-gentrification-design.

The Filipino American Center of SFPL. 2014. 2010 Census-Filipino Population in the United States, California and San Francisco County. January 5. Accessed June 29, 2018. http://filipinoamericancenter.blogspot.com/2014/01/filipino-population- in-united-states.html.

The Philippine History Site. n.d. Filipino Migrant Workers in California. Accessed June 29, 2018. http://opmanong.ssc.hawaii.edu/filipino/cali.html.

—. n.d. Racial Discrimination. Accessed June 29, 2018. http://opmanong.ssc.hawaii.edu/filipino/discrimination.html.

Trinidad, Elson. 2012. L.A.'s Historic Filipinotown Turns Ten: What's Changed. August 2. Accessed June 29, 2018. https://www.kcet.org/socal-focus/las-historic- filipinotown-turns-ten-whats-changed.

United States Bureau of Census. 1973. 1970 Census of population. Subject reports. Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos in the United States. Washinton D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

United States Census Bureau. 2017. Los Angeles City, California. July 1. Accessed June 29, 2018. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescitycalifornia#viewtop.

World Population Review. 2018. Los Angeles , California Population 2018. Accessed October 23, 2017. http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/los-angeles- population/.

Xie, Zhixiao, and Jun Yan. 2008. "Kernel Density Estimation of Traffic Accidents in a." Western Kentucky University Top Scholar 1-9.

Zelinsky, Wilbur. 1984. O Say Can You See?: Nationalistic Emblems in the Landscape. Vol. 19. 4 vols. Winterthur Portfolio.

ZipAtlas. 2017. Cities with the Highest Percentage of Filipinos in California. Accessed May 17, 2017. http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/city-comparison/percentage-filipino- population.htm.

Appendix A – Examples of Cultural Symbols by Language and Enclave