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make use of several historical documents and articles written by local cultural and community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

Hidayat 15

4) Santos, Bob. 2004. Interview. Conducted by Trevor Griffey and Michelle Goshorn. Seattle

Civil Rights and Labor History Project.