Were the Chávez Ravine Evictions Racist?

WARNING!  This blog contains some statistics, data tables, charts, and graphs, along with their analyses.  So if all you want is a short answer, then here it is:

Yes.

Now you need read no further; but if you want to know why that answer is plausible, then please, read on ...

The facts presented here are just that — facts.  As such, they are incontrovertible; it is their interpretation that is subject to debate.

The notion of diversity

It is probably fair to say that, for the most part, people will say that diversity is a good thing.  Whether it is the types of food we eat, the things we read, or the ethnic makeup of our community, city, state, or country, diversity is usually considered to be positive.

Type "diversity" into Google in your Internet browser and then click on 'Images'; there are literally hundreds of photographs and images to illustrate the term.

How many people lived in Chávez Ravine in 1950?

The term "Chávez Ravine" is used here to include the communities of la Loma, Palo Verde, and Bishop, even though we know that "Chávez Ravine" is a misnomer and that the actual Chávez Ravine was far to the Northwest of those three communities.

The 1940 US Census is the last census for which data are publicly-available that was taken prior to the evictions of the 1950s.  While there certainly was growth in the barrios during the 1940s, especially following World War II, still the 1940 census provides a reasonable approximation of the population that can be extrapolated to 1950, when the evictions began.

To get an idea of the size of the population of Chávez Ravine, we simply count the number of people in the 1940 census.

If we extrapolate to 1950, then, when it is estimated that there were about 1,100 households in Chávez Ravine, the population would have been about 5,575 individuals in those 1,100 households.

NOTE:  The City Housing Authority — actually the Housing Authority of Los Angeles, which was part of a Federal agency — claimed in August of 1950 that there were 1,086 households and 3,612 people in the Chávez Ravine communities.  While the 1,086 household number seems reasonable, there were already 3,213 people living there in 1940; the number by 1950 should have been substantially more than 5,000; my extrapolation gives a figure between 4,950 and 5,575, which allows for a slight reduction in household size from 5.25 persons to 4.5 persons.  The City Housing Authority was probably simply making up the numbers.]

How diverse was the population of Chávez Ravine?

In a few words — not very diverse.

In fact, the population was more than 86% Hispanic.  Here, 'Hispanic' is defined as either having been

• born in México; or
• born somewhere else, primarily California, where either one or both parents were born in México.

By this definition, then, of the 3,213 individuals living in Chávez Ravine in 1940, only 457, or less than 14%, were not Hispanic.

Where did the non-Hispanic residents come from?

They came from 40 of the 48 states and 29 foreign countries.  The state from which 2/3 of non-Hispanics came was California, as might be expected.  The foreign countries that were most highly represented were

• Italy — 26 people
• Germany — 23 people
• England — 12 people
• Canada and Poland — 10 people each

Some residents were born in other countries, too, that included Yugoslavia, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Russia, Switzerland, Norway, and Austria.  Yet other countries were represented by one or two residents, and there was one each from such countries as widely-scattered as India, the Philipines, Portugal, and Brazil.  In fact, the non-Hispanic population was highly diverse.

But remember, the overall population was still 86% Hispanic.

(And, no, Benicio del Toro, Sonia Sotomayor, Jimmy Smits, and the other two, unnamed ladies were not residents of Chávez Ravine.)

What were the homes like in Chávez Ravine?

Homes in Chávez Ravine varied widely, from elaborate, two-story Victorians to tin shacks, with most of them falling somewhere in-between.  It is instructive to look at the number of homes that were built under a legally-issued building permit.

It is important to take a moment to understand what these permit data mean.

According to publicly-available records, more than 3 out of 4, or greater than 75%, of the homes built in Chávez Ravine by 1940 were built under a legally-issued construction permit.  Of the remainder, which is fewer than 25% of the total, the term 'No permit record' simply means that there are no data in the online database for those addresses.  This does not mean that no permit was issued; it simply means that the data are not available online.

How white Los Angeles characterized the barrios

So here was a trio of communities, living peacefully and happily in the hills above Los Angeles that was more than 86% Hispanic, living in homes, at least 75% of which were built under legally-issued construction permits, and which communities had repeatedly asked the City for civic improvements such as water, electricity, paved streets, and access to sewers, none of which were made readily available; communities that were characterized at one point by the Los Angeles Times as "... an immigrant slum ...", and which were ultimately slated for eviction through eminent domain under the guise of an 'urban renewal project' that, for a variety of reasons, never came to fruition.

In 1936, at a regular meeting of the Los Angeles City Board of Education, the Superintendent of Schools read a letter from white parents in the Northern part of the city, who complained that they did not want their children to be forced to attend schools "... with Mexican children."

In 1950, the Los Angeles Housing Authority claimed that "... present dwellings are considered 98% substandard ...".  Remember, this is in an area where more than 75% of homes were built under legally-issued construction permits.  One wonders whether 'substandard' is perhaps in the eye of the beholder?

Then, on August 9, 1950, in a 180-degree turnaround, the Times wrote that the characterization of Chávez Ravine as a 'slum' was arbitrary and was applied inappropriately, and that, due to the military buildup leading to the Korean War, the housing project should be postponed indefinitely.

Los Angeles attorney Marshall Stimson wrote in the Times two months later that the homes in Chávez Ravine should not be condemned.  Stimson writes of his personal experience with the communities and speaks well of the conditions there.

"Many of the houses have been improved.  To break up their homes is something that should not take place except for very strong reasons."

What were those "very strong reasons"?

The term 'racism' often evokes very strong feelings.  It is not a term that should be thrown about casually.  But what exactly is 'racism'?

racism:  prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

Why did white Los Angeles seek to characterize the Chávez Ravine communities of la Loma, Palo Verde, and Bishop as a 'slum area'?  Was it because the people there lived differently from themselves?  Was it because they feared the rise of gangs?  Or was it because the people who lived there, who were more than 86% Hispanic — brown people who were not like themselves, either in appearance or culture — presented some imaginary threat to their own way of life?

Whatever their reasons, their subsequent actions — that resulted in the brutal uprooting of nearly 1,100 families — belie a strong sense of racism.

So I'm going to call it like I see it from the evidence I can find:  the Chávez Ravine evictions of the 1950s were a racist act.

Take the poll and let us know what you think