LA's History: Lost, Found, or Lost & Found?
LA's History: Lost, Found, or Lost & Found?
In Tropic of Orange, author Karen Tei Yamashita challenges the conventional fabric of time through her deliberate infusion of Los Angeles’s past into the present version of LA that her novel establishes. Tropic of Orange is a story made up of many stories, with each individual narrative offering the reader one perspective from a group of seven strikingly unique Angelenos. Out of these seven main characters, two in particular serve as present-day windows to the past: Manzanar Murakami and Arcangel. Manzanar’s connection to LA’s history (and the West Coast’s as a whole for the matter) is more explicit, wherein the name Yamashita gives him, Manzanar, is also the name of a California internment camp that Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated to during World War II. Yamashita does not treat Japanese-American internment as a relic of the past though; she sets forth that internment was not only unforgivable and impactful at the time, but also equally as unforgivable and impactful today. Manzanar, an eccentric Japanese-American homeless man, is the personification of his community’s history, the living embodiment of a seemingly distant era. Arcangel’s connection to history is developed more gradually in the novel. In the latter half of the novel, Yamashita depicts Arcangel as “seeing again,” (125). Arcangel “could see Haitian farmers burning and slashing cane, working stirring molasses into white gold, … Indians, who mined tin in the Cerro Rico and saltpeter from the Atacama desert…” (125). Yamashita describes Arcangel as someone who has an intense, almost-bodily relationship with the past, with history, and with the things that have happened maybe a long time ago.
Yesterday, in our Urban Lab exploring the Los Angeles State Historic Park, our class boarded vans and drove fifteen minutes or so to the Mission Junction area of LA, where the park is located. On the drive over, we blasted the AC, shared recent social media gems with the people sitting next to us, and maybe opened Spotify or Apple Music to listen to a favorite playlist of ours. But, from a different perspective, a lot else happened on the drive over. Driving through Pasadena was driving through orange groves born in the 19th century, through migrant Midwesterners searching for hope, through bussing and segregation, through the Climate Strike that happened several weeks ago on the steps outside City Hall. Being at the park itself and experiencing the land there was no different story. There, we were standing on what November 2019 had to offer — newly paved pathways and sprawling green fields. But we were also standing on its history — on land a mile away from Gaspar de Portolá’s landing site, on the hundred-year-old Zanja Madre pipeline, on the old terminal of the Southern Pacific Railroad. I keep finding myself experiencing my surroundings through a dual lense — one that sees things as they are in the present-day and another that sees things how they used to be, however many years ago. But sometimes I see both. Sometimes I’m caught at a crossroads where LA becomes a time-bending mix of today and yesterday, and it’s beautifully disorienting.
What I’m wondering is whether or not Los Angeles is truly a historical place. We have learned so much about Los Angeles’s history in this class so far, but in our day-to-day lives as Angelenos, do we think much about this area’s history? Do we think much about it at all? Is history alive in Los Angeles, or is the city merely living in the present? As a city, is there value to staying connected to its history? When can this be problematic? When can this be powerful, meaningful, or uplifting? Does LA sweep its history under the rug? Is there shame?
LA is in a state of seemingly-perpetual change and modernization to “keep up with the times,” but as the city continues to grow and evolve (and gentrify), what happens to the city’s history? Are we losing touch with our roots?
I’m interested in hearing the experiences that you all have had in terms of engaging with Los Angeles’s history, both before taking City of Angels and right now, in the midst of the course. What’s your relationship, if any, with this city’s history?
These questions about LA’s history and our duty --or lack thereof-- to remember it feel extremely relevant to me; this past April, I traveled to Poland to learn about the Jewish experience in the Holocaust and walk through several concentration/death camps. I spent ten long and tiring days learning about a painful part of my people’s history. A huge topic of conversation during our visit to Poland was our duty, as Jewish people, to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive. We learned that a huge percentage of Poland’s economy comes from Jewish tourism due to this exact Jewish value. We were constantly told by our families, our teachers, our friends, and our tour guides not to forget the names of the people who we learned about, not to forget about the people who we personally lost, and to continue to pass on this memory to future generations. Barker’s blog post really reminded me of the questions I asked myself while I was in Poland. I thought about how Jews now have a state and an army to protect them and how I don’t live a life constantly in fear of antisemitism while my ancestors most definitely did. Was it really necessary to learn about the Holocaust in such painful depth when the circumstances seem to have changed? Regardless of these new advancements and privileges which many Jews now have access to in society, it's still so important to remember landmarks in our history. I would apply this same logic to the history of LA. Regardless of the fleeting trends with which many Angelenos do anything to keep up, it's important to learn about LA in more contexts than just this modern lens in order to maintain some of its cultural richness as well as grow from our history.
ReplyDeleteI believe Los Angeles is a historical place, but it does not quite know what it’s history truly is. There are so many Los Angeles histories and it would be wrong to leave any of them out of Los Angeles’s story. It is crucial to learn about history and to learn about the past in order to understand the present and to make informed decisions about the future. History is alive in Los Angeles. It is present in the streets, in the people, in the environment, and in practically everything. Learning history, or at least being aware of history, is extremely important. It all starts with being taught the true history. Throughout all my years of learning about the history of California and Los Angeles, never had I been told the truth. It was always a “beat around the bush” situation, people are afraid to admit the truth. AP US History was the first class that taught the right material and showed the true story of California and Los Angeles. Even though there may be shame in parts of Los Angeles’s history, it is important that we learn about those mistakes so that they are not repeated. Before City of Angels, my interaction with the history of Los Angeles (and even Los Angeles in general) was quite limited. Olvera Street, Chinatown, Pershing Square, and a few other locations were the only places I had been to and recognized. Something I find kind of odd is that every time I go to Olvera Street, I go from Union Station. However, on our urban lab to Olvera Street and the plaza, we came from a different street. The odd part is that I almost did not recognize Olvera Street from this angle. I felt lost and even a little discombobulated. I feel like this connects to the “danger of a single story.” I had become so used to seeing one thing from one specific angle, that I almost did not recognize the same exact place from a new perspective. However, once I found the connection between the different angles, Olvera Street was once again a comfortable and easily recognizable location in Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteI feel like many Angelenos, in their day-to-day lives, don’t think much about this area’s history. I think this could be because LA, as an entertainment capital and place of innovation, seems to be constantly looking forward to the future. This mindset can blind people, specifically Angelenos, from taking time to look back to the past and learn about the history of the area. I believe it is very important to learn LA’s history because history can tell us so much about the present and why things are the way they are today. It is especially important that the history of marginalized people in LA, a history that is often overlooked, is taught in order to widen perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI think history is alive in LA because many of the themes we have learned about in our readings of historical texts, such as discrimination against people of color and the commodification of LA, are still present today. Learning from history can allow us to prevent horrible things from occurring in the future.
I think that as the city continues to evolve, specifically through gentrification, part of LA’s history can be lost. Gentrification can tear apart historic neighborhoods and culture, which in turn can attempt to destroy one’s roots in LA. Additionally, I think LA’s strong desire to be modern and futuristic can blind people and allow history to be lost.
In all honesty, I didn't think much about Los Angeles's history prior to being in this class, and I definitely didn't know much about LA's history. Not that I didn't think the city was historical but likely because LA can be so focused on the up-and-up that there is no time or space dedicated to remembering what happened five years before, let alone a whole century before. As an influential city in the country and the world, it doesn’t have room to dwell on its past, which translates to residents (like me) who don't know the history of the land they live on. LA culture is not one that is necessarily built on its true history. Of course, as with all places, past events affect the present, but the culture of LA is almost so focused on the future that I think it can forget its beginnings. I think that the lack of discussion and deep education/understanding about LA's history is in part due to the racist foundation much of the United States was built upon. History is definitely alive in the city, but people just don't pay attention to it because they don't know where to look.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that LA is a place filled with history, but history that the city does not want to brag about. A lot of LA’s old history has to do with the oppression of either Native Americans or Mexicans, so the history is not monument-worthy. Other major cities like Boston and Washington DC are considered to be filled with history because they have histories that impacted the formation of the nation. The history of Boston and Washington DC are filled with revolutions and decisions that formed our nation, so there are monuments dedicated to all the important events. In the case of LA, the city can’t/shouldn’t have monuments dedicated to the oppression of minority groups that inhabited the land before white Americans did. Also, California was added to the U.S. significantly later than other major cities, thus there is a lot less United States history regarding California. I don’t think many people think about the history of LA in their day to day life, and I think that is because it is not really taught in-depth. Before this class, I didn’t know that much about LA history and I have lived here all my life. History is important because it teaches people how to learn from the past and adjust their plans for the future. If Californians don’t know their history it is very probable that the same mistakes will be made in the future. I think history is being lost because the constant urbanization of the city (the perfect example is the metro story Sean Woods told).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore this class, I had little to no knowledge of Los Angeles and the history that lead it to be in the state that it is in today. In lower and middle school, all I remember learning about Los Angeles was a section on the Spanish Missions and a trip to Olvera street (where we didn’t learn anything). Perhaps our education system relies too heavily on students to seek out the history of their cities, but I think it’s crucial to be taught your city history in a classroom setting to improve the way you interact with your city, and most importantly, to not make the same mistakes that were made in the past. Even though the history of America and Los Angeles is relatively young, Los Angeles is certainly a historical place. However, I think many Angelenos are out of touch with our cities history. Honestly, I don’t think our history holds great importance to Angelenos besides our older population. I think we are stuck in a state of thinking about the future rather than living in the present or reflecting on the past. Although Los Angeles’s history is well documented, I believe we are losing touch with our roots. This phenomenon could be partly due to variance in how we arrived in Los Angles. We all hold our families’ stories of arriving in Los Angeles near and dear to us, but we mustn’t let the stories of others to be forgotten.
ReplyDeletethink that Los Angeles is a truly historic place. As a life-long Angeleno, I feel particularly in tune with this history as it became part of my history. In my opinion, history is very much alive in Los Angeles, it is simply a matter of whether one chooses to see it. Everything we have done in this class, for me, has not only been rooted in history, but informed by it as well. Los Angeles, in its current state, was not created in a vacuum; our history brought us to where we are today. I will concede that many people overlook the history of LA in favor of engaging with Los Angeles as a producer and consumer of pop-culture. However, I will add that Los Angeles’ constant desire to be with the times is part of its history. From what we have learned in this class, even when Los Angeles was just large swaths of land in an uninhabitable chaparral, it was marketed as a place to come to experience the best the West Coast had to offer. Los Angeles was always sold as a city that was constantly evolving and changing, so in that way, evolution and a firm hold of the present, is part of the history of Los Angeles. On the other hand however, Los Angeles does have a tendency to disregard history in the face of modernization. On a small scale, we see local businesses and life-long residents being forced out or displaced. So while Los Angeles does have a history of evolution and modernization, it is certainly not always for the benefit of the city. I believe Los Angeles is a city alive with history, though I think we, as Angelenos, could be doing more to actively protect and engage with the individuals and institutions that exist in the present and that unite us with our past.
ReplyDeleteBefore City of Angels, I thought of Los Angeles as a young city whose populations are constantly moving around and, so, are not rooted. Now I'm thinking about who is allowed to put down roots. It's often the people who have the longest, rather than the deepest, ties with Los Angeles. Anyway, a lot of smaller and poorly funded universities are eliminating their history departments and majors thanks to budget cuts while schools with larger endowments continue to offer studies of the past. Ivy League institutions, USC, Stanford, anywhere with affluent alumni, are already known for the elitist education they offer and are now sequestering people's ancestral and geographical history for their meticulously selected student body. History in education is inaccessible, particularly for minorities who can benefit from studying ancestral past to reclaim cultural traditions and identity cast off by the education system (with its textbooks and slanted professors) in the first place. My sisters and I are the first in our family to grow up in Los Angeles, so, selfishly, I had not looked too far into the city's past beyond our 4th grade California missions project and a field trip to grind corn with pestles in mortar. I didn't even begin learning about my familial history outside of California until this year, partially because that's what America demands of its immigrants. In trying to reckon with the fluidity of whiteness, the immigrant reality, etc., I am starting with the history of my ancestors, the story of their children, and displacement. Because they aren't allowed in the soil, Angeleno roots are floating above ground (telephone wires? connections?).
ReplyDeleteI couldn't count the amount of times I've heard Los Angeles's history described as shallow and limited when compared to other cities on the East Coast. Before this class, I wouldn't have been able to come with a reason why this would be a false claim; I knew barely anything about the history of my own city. As we've progressed through this class, I've realized the history of LA can be considered as just as rich as our friends on the east side. While the history of places like Boston and New York certainly have more European roots, the fact that Los Angeles's origins are Latin may play into why our roots are less commonly known or taught (the common reminder to recognize who writes the textbooks). Because of this, I think Angelenos not only don't think about our own history but also don't know about it in the first place. While it may be more convoluted than the Mayflower sailing across the pond, the history of Los Angeles is one that is necessary to know about in order to view our city in the right context. After learning about the LA State Historic Park, I can view the space not as a simple green field, but as a successful transformation from a rail yard to a place where the community can gather and bond. Knowing our own history is very valuable.
ReplyDeleteI think Los Angeles is a historical city, but, like many other places, it is selective with the history that it chooses to project. We've talked about LA's innate ability to commodify and I think that applies to its history as well. It embraces what it can sell. LA projects a variety of histories which have changed throughout time. It started with a romanticized version of Spanish colonialism (as told through the map we discussed in class), and nowadays it follows the celebrity and the scandal of the city, compressing Los Angeles into an overpriced bus tour. Those are the histories on LA's surface. It advertises stories to maintain tourism and to sell itself. My perception of LA’s history before taking this class were limited to what I mentioned above, elementary school California history, as well as the stories my grandfather told me about growing up in the orange groves. This class has taught me so much more about the various histories that contribute to the story of Los Angeles. We have visited street corners, parks, and museums which have shown us the volume of history the city has to offer. So in short, yes LA is historical, but as we have discovered in class, we have to dig past the surface to find all it has to offer.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhether or not something is “historical” is extremely subjective. History is in the eyes of the beholder. A blanket can have a historical significance to you because it was your grandmother’s. This same blanket most likely won’t be historical to anyone outside of your family. I never think of Los Angeles’s history, but this doesn’t make it a “not historical place for me”. Hollywood is historical, the Santa Monica Pier is historical, Chinatown is historical, the Metro is historical, and so many other places in Los Angeles are historical. Everything has a history, so it is hard to write something off as “not historical”. The interesting part of the question at hand is whether the city’s history is alive. I do not believe that LA’s history is dead, but it is not alive. It’s neither. The history of LA is present if someone wants to engage themselves in it, but it is not like a city such as Boston where the majority of the tourist attractions are centered around history. LA has it’s history, but it doesn’t flaunt it. LA is too new, too young, and too unstable. Also, given that LA wants to portray itself as the “progressive city of the future”, it becomes increasingly difficult for Los Angeles to share it’s darker past. Yes, there has been hate and violence in Los Angeles. There still is. Unfortunately, this history goes against everything modern-day LA has set itself up to be. Prior to City of Angels, the only history of LA that I had indulged myself in was the history of film in Hollywood. I love movies, and Los Angeles is the film capital of the world. Other than Hollywood, I was not very interested in the history of LA. I guess I thought that LA was too perfect to be interesting.
I think the history of Los Angeles is not one that is thought of as much as other major cities of the world, and at least in my perspective, LA is a very "new" city. Until this class, I had never even considered the history of the city or how it became to what it is today. However, there are so many "iconic" elements of the city that, in my opinion, define LA, and as long as those elements exist, the city will stay true to itself and maintain it's roots and history.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I think that the Hollywood industry plays a huge part in LA's identity, and even the whole idea of the Hollywood glitz and glam is one of Los Angeles's steerotypes and key elements.
I also think that anther apsect of the city that defines it is the multicultural element. As long as we maintain different ethnic groups and areas of the city such as Olvera Street, Artesia, Chinatown, etc., the descendants of those who began this city will remain, keeping its history.
So I am re writing most of this from memory since being the genius I forgot to plug in my laptop while working on this response a few days ago and it died, so here is what I recall saying:
ReplyDeleteLA is not a historical place, as with most of the US. In my opinion our country is obsessed taking our sliver of history and blowing it up way out of proportion making our tiny 500 something years more important than it actually is. But in LA I think the fact that we do have a literal history, as in people lived here, did things, left things, repeat, but I think that a very unique LA ideal is to roll over history and build something "better". When Mr. Woods talked to us about the parks history, and more importantly the history of the surrounding neighborhood Lucy pointed out the new developments and the problems that could bring to the area. Those developments are a great example of LA seeing something pretty and buying it up, consuming it, and throwing it out with the garbage. What will probably happen (in my opinion) to the chinatown area is: The land will be bought up, renters will be pushed out, new upper to middle class housing will be put in place, and a significant cultural/historical landmark to LA will be lost.
Sorry for not posting till today, the play had me wiped out and I didn't realize that my post did not go through.
I would consider Los Angeles to be a historical place if you know where to look. We see history in the pocketed communities of minority culture. An example of this is Chinatown. In present-day, Chinatown is a community that promotes tourism to experience Chinese culture. However, Chinatowns were created back in the 1800s as a safe-haven for Chinese immigrants; they were violently abused and unable to find jobs outside of their small communities as Chinese immigration was restricted through the Chinese Exclusion Act and subsequent immigration acts that were passed shortly after. I don’t think I would have noticed that history was imminent in Los Angeles prior to taking the City of Angels course. A short history of Los Angeles was provided in AP US History but not enough for me to think about LA history daily. To answer the question about the value pertaining to history, there is always value to staying connected to history. Why do you think we study history? Why are there libraries full of historical books? Why are there museums? The root of the answers to those questions is the importance of learning from one’s mistakes, reflected in the saying, “history repeats itself.” History also allows one to understand how one’s world came to be and why it is that way. Without history, one would start from scratch, and time might as well not progress. Los Angeles is a place of history, and I think a primary part of that is due to the people. Everyone in this class has their own Los Angeles story, and those stories make up Los Angeles’s history.
ReplyDelete