alia hidayat honors 232 · alia hidayat honors 232 the rise of pan-asia: the role of kingdome in...
TRANSCRIPT
Hidayat 1
Alia Hidayat
Honors 232
The Rise of Pan-Asia: The Role of Kingdome in Shaping the Trajectory of Asian-American
Activism in the International District
Introduction and Methods
An essential part of the Seattle, the Chinatown/International District is an extremely
important site of culture and history for many Asian-Americans in the Pacific Northwest.
Located in South Seattle, the International District houses over 6,000 people and thriving
Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino communities. Approved in 1973, the construction of Kingdome
was a major disruption to the lives of the residents and businesses in International District. Billed
for construction on land for low-income housing, the building of Kingdome and the
commercialization of King Street was seen as an apocalyptic threat to the livelihoods of working
class Asian community. Even more than that, Kingdome was portrayed as a threat to Asian
identity itself. What sprung from this impending threat to the International District was a massive
mobilization of the concept of “Asian American identity” in protest of the Kingdome
construction - which was aligned with the looming white, modern, corporate figure. The activism
following the approval of the Kingdome and after its construction saw the creation of a Pan-
Asian identity that unified communities that had been ethnically stratified previously in the face
of an external, “colonizing” threat. Even after the construction of Kingdome, the trajectory of
activism and community building in the International District would be significantly changed by
the atmosphere created by this event.
Hidayat 2
In this paper, I hope to investigate the impact of the construction of Kingdome on the
activism emerging out of the International District. I will report on the physical impacts of the
Kingdome construction, with regards to rising property values, displacement of the local
community, and impacts on businesses. I will make use of governmental and locally-written
articles for perspectives on not just what the physical ramifications were, but also on what people
feared the impact would be on the International District community. This foreseen impact leads
into the brunt of my paper, which is the response to Kingdome by the local community. In order
to investigate the kinds of rhetoric and concepts constructed in response to the stadium, I will
make use of several historical documents and articles written by local cultural and community
leaders. On particularly important source that I have been using for this project is the Asian
Family Affair, a newspaper revolving around Asian-American cultural politics that I accessed
through the archives on the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History website. It gives several
excellent examples of the types of rhetoric regarding Asian traditionalism and opposition to
Kingdome that I hope to analyze. Lastly, throughout my paper I will reference ideas brought up
by the scholarship on the International District as a place of identity construction and political
mobilization. Particularly important scholars that I will be referencing include Jeffrey Hou, Brian
Kalthoff, and Andrew San Aung Cho.
Background
The International District was first called home by a wave of Chinese sawmill workers in
1891, who were followed by a large number of Japanese immigrants, who thrived in the
International District up until internment during WWII. The International District hosts large
Filipino and Vietnamese populations as well. A movement was made to designate the area as a
historical district in 1986, which proposed a King Street Historical District surrounding
Hidayat 3
Chinatown. After having the name revised to the Chinatown Historic District, it was listed in the
National Register as a protected Historic District. Later, the area was legally designated the
“International District” in 1998 as a gesture to recognize the multi-ethnic nature of the area
(Crowley, 1999). Today, the area is seen as a hub of Asian-American commerce and culture, and
stands as a symbol to the Pacific Northwest community.
As a high-density home to such diverse communities, the International District plays an
extremely important role as a space for identity-making. More than just providing a physical
home/business space to the communities that reside there, the geographical aspect of a
community is the physical manifestation of the community’s heritage, an identity contingent
upon the existence of a historic space to which to tie a communal memory. In his article
Constructed Identities and Contested Space in Seattle’s Chinatown-International District,
International District scholar Jeffrey Hou writes,
“Settled over time by predominantly Chinese, Japanese, Filipino and Vietnamese
immigrants, the Chinatown-International District is one of Seattle’s richest cultural
landscapes. Bisected by Interstate Highway 5 (I-5) and sandwiched between hulking
sports stadiums and encroaching downtown skyscrapers, the District is also a symbol of a
community’s fight against urban renewal and gentrification. Since the 1880s, the
neighborhood has served as a reception area for multiple waves of Asian immigrants. As
a multicultural community, the Chinatown-International District has been a place where
multiple cultural identities are forged and compete for expression and power” (Hou,
2002).
As Hou writes, the International District exemplifies how space and a feeling of ownership of it
is intimately tied in with how different communities and cultures create their sense of identity. It
designates a space for imagining of racial identity, constitutes a “physical memory” of the Asian
identity for a multitude of ethnicities. Its role as a “historic” city also aids in the construction of a
sense of tradition, of an identity confirmed through many generations of ownership.
Hidayat 4
Just as important, however, is the competitive nature of identity, as Hou points out. As
mentioned before, the title of “International District” was given as an attempt to represent the
multi-ethnic nature of the area. However, it didn’t come without much conflict and opposition.
The Chinese community was especially vocal about changing the name from “Chinatown” to
“International District,” arguing that the area was first and foremost an area of Chinese
inhabitance, and the name should reflect that. In opposition, community leaders from other
ethnicities argued that to keep the name “Chinatown” would alienate the multitude of other
populations living there. It can be argued that, despite the multi-ethnic portrayal of the area, the
International District was in some ways still very stratified up to the 70’s, as represented by
ethnic conflicts such as this. (Abramson, 2006). The International District is roughly split into
ethnic enclaves – Chinatown, Japantown, Little Saigon, etc. – where ethnicities cluster with their
own neighborhoods and businesses. As a result of this stratification, early activism in the
International District was often charged with ethnic competition. In one example, the
construction of the Japanese supermarket Uwajimaya in the International District drew great
opposition from the Chinese community, as an urban redevelopment project which threatened
Chinese economic prospects (Abramson, 2006). Pre-Kingdome, management of housing and
land often fell upon family groups (Kang, 2010). These family groups conformed to the existing
ethnic separation, tending to favor those of their own ethnicity when conducting business. The
International District space was seen first and foremost as an economic zone, and other
ethnicities were seen primarily as economic competition. There was no sense of a unified
“Asian” identity, rather, the International District divided itself up based on these business-
oriented family groups or ethnicities. For this reason, the multi-ethnic movements that we see
appearing later on were rarely present at this time, as any parties outside of one’s ethnicity were
Hidayat 5
often seen as competitors. Activism when it appeared in the International District was often a
subtle form of economic competition between ethnicities. However, we see this trend in activism
changing greatly, beginning with the construction of Kingdome.
In November 2nd, 1972, ground was first broken for the construction of Kingdome, a
multi-usage stadium which would be the home of the Seattle Seahawks, Mariners, SuperSonics,
and Sounders. Its construction was approved by public vote in 1968, after failing to pass twice
before. Kingdome was constructed in the hope that it would bring in revenue and improve the
city’s attraction through appeal to mainstream sports. This is a prime example of the “Urban
Growth Machine” a concept coined by Logan and Molotch, which describes the increasing
tendency to view cities as tools for the production and accumulation of capital. Attractions like
Kingdome act as excellent attractions, creating a favorable business climate. Often, these
attractions function by selling a certain type of lifestyle or community image, in this case, the
image of Seattle as intimately engaged in the sporting habits of the rest of the nation. However,
at the same time as Kingdome was embraced, some worried that the construction and marketing
of this lifestyle would come at the cost of another.
Kingdome was built in the neighborhood which is currently
known as SoDo, directly adjacent to the International District, on
land which was intended to be low-income housing (Kalthoff,
2012). The first responses to this construction echoed much of the
existing concerns brought up by traditional activism in the
International District. As seen in the cover of an editorial of Asian
Family Affair, wittily entitled “Is Chinatown Do(o)med?” (pictured
to the right) Kingdome is portrayed as a looming corporate threat,
Hidayat 6
threatening the International District. At the time, there was a very large fear that the influx of
high-tech consumer offerings and the attraction of a stadium would beat out the Asian-American
merchants, and that increasing traffic and property values would drive local small businesses to
failure. Much of the conversation surrounding Kingdome framed the stadium as taking
advantage of working class Asian neighborhoods. This strikes a familiar vein to the anxieties
surrounding redevelopment we saw before: just like Uwajimaya or any other ethnically-
associated redevelopment before Kingdome, the stadium was seen as a threat because of the
economic superiority it could command.
At the same time as we see similar threads of economic-oriented activism as seen before
Kingdome, we start to see a novel rhetoric being assumed in the protests against Kingdome. The
stadium caused immediate panic not just because of the economic threat it posed, but also due to
the fact that it was being built on top of land which had been planned for the development of
affordable housing units, as reported by the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project.
Furthermore, the units that would be made available as part of the housing development were
primarily planned for the elderly residents of the International District. Thus, the construction of
Kingdome became not only an economic issue, but a moral one. The protests that sprang up
advocated fiercely for the low-income populations that would be victimized by Kingdome. The
stadium was seen as an attack on the most vulnerable members of the Asian-American
population. Even more importantly, with the threat Kingdome constituted to the elderly Asian-
American population, it was also seen as an impending threat to the tradition that they were
emblematic of. At the construction of Kingdome, we start seeing a concern about the culture or
tradition of the International District coming under threat. It can be argued that, for International
District activists, the disproportionate victimization of the elderly residents of the International
Hidayat 7
District represented the efforts to get rid of a sense of Asian culture, fueling the backlash against
the stadium.
In another edition of the Asian Family Affair, entitled “Big Business vs. The People,
Again” we see this same rhetoric being emphatically applied. Just from the title, we can see the
confirmation of the duality of the issue. The construction of Kingdome was not just a
redevelopment project, but rather, it was framed as the penultimate struggle between Western
corporations and the Asian community – “The people.” In this piece written by Sabino Cabildo,
Roy Flores, and Vic Pineda, a very strong plea to Asian-Americans living in the Northwest is
made for the preservation of the International District, and very clear throughout is the use of the
dichotomy that we have illustrated. On the topic of displacement of Asian residents and shop-
operators, they write,
“Do you still think you will see the Asian shop-operators peddling their small business?
For one thing, most of them do not even presently own the buildings on which their
business activity heavily depends. Do you see, as we do, great, huge buildings rising up?
Do you envisage in a place of Wa-Sang, Kokusal, or Manila Cafe, world-wide,
monstrous, modern and wealthy facilities like a "Chinatown" Hilton, a "Chinatown"
Sheraton Inn, and the like... Do you still think our Asian peoples will still be in their
present situations once the stadium is in full operation?.... Chances are, if you don't own
the building in which you operate in Chinatown, you will be elsewhere by this time. If
you are wealthy and self-supportive, if you own the building in which you operate your
shop, your chances of financial gain and future existence in Chinatown are far healthier
than you can imagine.”
As made extremely clear in this quote, one of the reasons why Kingdome garnered so much
outrage in addition to the fact that it eliminated a lot of housing was the fact that it had the
potential to displace many small-business owners in the area. Cabildo, Flores, and Pineda point
out that, like the elderly residents of International District, this displacement effect was greatly
varied between income groups. The kind of “poor become poorer, rich become richer” rhetoric
employed here really highlights how Kingdome threatened to make the International District into
Hidayat 8
an area that was not accessible by a good portion of the working class population there. Though
at first glance it might appear that the influx of visitors and the attraction of the stadium would
cause a boom in the local economy, the authors argue a much more sinister conclusion: the laws
of urban growth and redevelopment are designed to benefit a select few. The juxtaposition
between the small, traditional shops and the huge “Chinatown Hiltons” really illustrate this,
creating the idea that the construction of Kingdome would directly contribute to the
“Westernizing” of the International District. The description
of the new landscape that Kingdome would bring about is
purposefully terrifying. The authors describe the battle
between the local businesses and the “monstrous, modern
and wealthy” Western groups. It is interesting then, how,
normally seen as a greatly positive trait, modernity becomes
something monstrous once aligned with corporatism.
Modernity in the International District becomes a symbol of
excess wealth and the greed to increase it, and it is placed in
direct conflict with the traditions of the Asian American population.
What is particularly striking about this conception of Asian-American identity is that,
around the time of Kingdome, it does not have any clear ethnic affiliation. References to the
nebulous concept of “Asians” as a tangible component in activism begin to appear at this point.
In a quote from the Asian Family Affair, Cabildo, Flores, and Pineda beseech their Asian readers
both living in and outside of the International District to protest the construction of the
Kingdome. The main argument they make use of is fiercely racial – to them, the International
District represents one of the “last remaining hosts of Asian immigrant identity.” They write,
Hidayat 9
"To those Asians away from Chinatown who think that this conflict of values will still
not affect them, consider the traditions and cultures Chinatown presents: They are
endangered! Chinatown might virtually be extinct! Can one blame the International
District residents for feeling that Chinatown manifests a slice of their lives? They have
kept it alive so far… for us!”
As mentioned earlier, we can really see the role of International District as a space for identity
construction – what distinguishes this particular movement from those previous is that the
identity directly being referenced is “Asian-American,” rather than Chinese, Japanese,
Vietnamese, Filipino, or any other specific ethnicity (though we do see “Chinatown” being used
interchangeably with the International District.) Rather, we see reference to a distinctly “Pan-
Asian” identity, one that incorporates all ethnicities without favor, a form of identity which was
rarely seen in previous protests to redevelopment. The entire concept of a Pan-Asian identity
emerges out of the general threat to a traditional “Asian” identity – one mediated through the
efforts of redevelopment and gentrification.
To understand this why this occurred, we must investigate the discourse surrounding
Kingdome in popular activism. As we noted before, much of the backlash in response to
Kingdome argued that it threatened the International District and the essential role it played in
the formation of Pan-Asian identity. When looking at specific portrayals of the entities behind
Kingdome and the “enemy” that the Pan-Asian movement faced, we can see some very specific
trends. In particular, we see a very distinct portrayal of the enemy as a corporatized, “Western”
ideal. The Kingdome is portrayed as a symbol of the encroachment of the irreplaceable “Asian
culture” that is integral to the International District. As discussed before, the International
District is heavily tied into concepts of ownership and identity location. For the Asian
populations of Seattle, the International District is often seen as an irreplaceable site of history
and culture. This rhetoric is explicitly invoked in much of the activism surrounding Kingdome,
Hidayat 10
as it perpetuates a very specific conception of Asian culture being absolutely inextricable from
the physical space of the International District. Therefore, when framed in the terms of culture
and identity, the redevelopment of the District becomes not just a matter of economic
competition, it becomes an assault on Asian culture itself, and in response, a distinctly “Pan-
Asian” resistance movement is created.
The creation of this “Pan-Asian” identity can be seen very explicitly in another political
cartoon by the Asian Family Affair. It depicts a humbow - representing the international district
and its residents - beating a hotdog representing the force of Western corporatization that is
empowering Kingdome. It shows the redevelopment and controversy of Kingdome as a stark
battle between new and old values, and aligns them with cultural figures - the “traditional”
humbao v. the modern corporate (and white) hot dog.
This particularly highlights the rhetoric of ownership
over space that I bring up earlier in my paper regarding
the importance of International District as a place that
allows for the creation of an Asian-American identity.
The fact that the battle is depicted physically underlines
the image of the International District as its own separate
area – “still Asian territory!” – that needs to defend itself
against the economically focused Western influx of
businesses. The “stadium hot dog businessman” is caricatured, focused on the capital that could
be brought in by the stadium. We see a hyperawareness of the “Urban Growth Machine” logic
backing the construction of Kingdome; the redevelopment of the International District that the
hot dog represents is portrayed as disruptive and relentlessly chasing profits. Interestingly
Hidayat 11
enough, by equating redevelopment and corporate interests to Western modernity, the
International District activists not only oppose themselves to the Kingdome rhetoric based on
race, but temporally as well. The image highly emphasizes culture and history as an integral part
of the International District, and by making use of this tradition v. progress dichotomy, the
movement greatly polarizes the relationship between the two groups. The image figuratively and
physically recreates the activist movement in the International District as a battle between two
wholly opposite groups.
What is particularly striking about this image is the identity of the other side of the battle.
Though the humbow can be argued to be specifically a reference to Chinese cuisine, the usage of
the term “Asian territory” to describe the International District is striking. It is here where we
start to see the creation of a nebulous reference to a distinctly “Asian” identity as occupying a
particular space. Things comes in direct opposition to the trends observed earlier on in the area
where inter-ethnic usage of the community was mainly economically competitive, and where a
constructed “Asian” identity was nigh nonexistent. In comparison to earlier periods of time
where there was no conception of a unified, ethnicity-less Asian group of people, this particular
rhetoric becomes extremely important in framing the controversy surrounding the construction of
Kingdome. As we saw earlier in the Asian Family Affair article, we see a very strong
construction of a concept of heritage that unifies the Pan-Asian community. This appears to
transcend ethnic boundaries and competition for a conception of AA identity that directly
juxtaposes with the white corporate entity.
Despite the valiant efforts by the Asian American community, Kingdome continued with
construction, only to be torn down 25 years later. However, the effect its construction had on the
residents of the International District had a permanent impact on Asian American activism in the
Hidayat 12
Pacific Northwest. We can see the influences on activism particularly in Asian youth activism
groups today. Emerging after the construction of Kingdome, much of the activism surrounding
the ID was oriented towards protecting “traditional” land, protecting historic buildings. An
excellent example of this valuation of space –particularly the International District and
surrounding areas – as historically and culturally important is seen in the 1986 proposal to
designate ID as a historic district. We can see the remnants of the Kingdome project here,
primarily, the need to protect International District and Asian American homes and workplaces,
but also the manifestation of the culture in the area. Many currently active groups in the
International District and surrounding are oriented at protecting a sense of culture. Also echoing
Kingdome, this often comes in creating housing for the elderly who represent the historic culture
as housed in people.
Currently, the International District is home to strong activist movements which advocate
for the preservation of heritage for the next generation. In an interview with Bob Santos, a key
community figure in the response to Kingdome and the aftermath, conducted in 2004 by Trevor
Griffey and Michelle Goshorn, Santos discusses the impact of Kingdome on future activism. He
says,
“Once the Kingdome was built, as I say, this was a very fragile community and we were
concerned that the big money and the large franchise food chains would target pioneer
square and international district to open up [franchises] and we decided we better get very
involved politically, and not only learn the political process but get involved in the
political process” (Santos, 2004).
Santos’ words mirror many of the points made by the original Kingdome resistance movement.
Immediately afterwards, in this interview and many of the participants in movements following
the Kingdome construction, we can see the invocation of familial or inheritable sense of tradition
that is inherently tied in to public land and the physical space that is the International District.
Hidayat 13
Along with Santos, many modern-day activists cite Kingdome as the event that really triggered a
lot of the mentalities that characterize the current state of Asian-American activism in the Pacific
Northwest. In particular, the usage of a nationalistic rhetoric regarding the International District
as a beacon of culture is extremely prominent after Kingdome.
After Kingdome, we can see the large-scale mobilization of all aspects of the community
towards keeping out the “Western” industrializing efforts. In an article by scholar Andrew San
Aung Cho, Not in My ‘Hood: Social Control, Ethnicity, and Crime in Seattle’s International
District, again we can see the continuing importance of youth activism in this event. He also
discusses the changing of the trajectory of activism during the Kingdome construction and its
current face in the International District. He argues that, as seen in Kingdome, activism in the
International District community has become motivated by a protectionist stance on “cultural
tradition” that resides in the District (Aung Cho, 2008). As suggested by the title “Not in My
‘Hood” he investigates in particular how this tradition is intimately tied in with the space this
community inhabits, and how social protection becomes a hugely cultural and very personal
issue for many residents. To show this, he cites an example of this during an attempt to make a
McDonald’s branch in the International District. To residents, this was a blatant symbol of the
Western corporatism that they had wanted to avoid and to get rid of. In response, the
International District community –primarily represented by youth movements again – fiercely
protested its construction and the construction was eventually cancelled.
The building of Kingdome facilitated a widescale shift in the social anxieties and
priorities of the residents of the International District. By creating a tangible threat of the
“western corporate empire” and juxtaposing it with traditional Asian values – a move which was
reaffirmed by the fact that most of the displaced during the construction were elderly – the
Hidayat 14
Kingdome created a new face of Asian American activism. This new form of activism would
continue to have a lasting impact on the form, rhetoric, and participants of activism today.
Secondary Source Annotations:
1) Abramson, Dan (2006). From Ethnic Enclave to Multi-Ethnic Translocal Communit:
Contested Identities nd Urban Design in Seattle’s Chinatown-International District.” Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research. 23(4): 341-360
2) Aung Cho, A. (2008). “Not in My ‘Hood: Social Control, Ethnicity, and Crime in Seattle’s
International District.” Dissertation. University of Washington.
3) Hou, J. (2002). “Constructed Identities and Contested Space in Seattle’s Chinatown-
International District.” Selected Conference Papers: Annual Meeting of the Council of Educators
in Landscape Architecture. 33-38.
4) Kalthoff, B. (2012). “An Analysis of Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing Incentives
in Seattle’s Chinatown – International District.” Thesis. University of Washington.
5) Kang, H. 2010. Cultural Citizenship and Immigrant Community Identity: Constructing a
Multi-Ethnic Asian American Community. The New Americans.
Primary Source Annotations:
1) Eugene Tagawa, 1974. “Humbow v. Hotdog.” Asian Family Affair.
2) Kuniyuki, YK. 1975. “March on Spellman's Office, February 3, 1975.” Photos. Seattle Civil
Rights and Labor History Project. University of Washington.
3) Sabino Cabildo, Roy Flores, and Vic Pineda, 1972. “Is Chinatown Do(o)med?.” Asian Family
Affair. A6