back
11 comments
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachappa_Camp):

> The Pachappa Camp site consisted of a community center duplex along with approximately twenty single-story living spaces. These buildings were originally constructed in the 1880s for Chinese workers who built the Santa Fe railroad and were maintained in poor condition thereafter. The houses were not equipped with gas, water, or electricity, thus the residents used shared outdoor water pumps and outhouses.

So it was more of a worker's camp than something like "Chinatown", "Little Italy" etc. (city neighborhoods dominated by a certain nationality)...

For an academic journal, it doesn't feel very scholarly to presume the audience is American and that American Koreantowns are the only Koreatowns. Obviously its clarified in the article, but the title is borderline click-baity.
One overseas example is in the UK, between Wimbledon and Kingston. https://www.kingstonlibdems.org/new-malden_londons_little-ko...
Great restaurants in New Malden, and H Mart is incredible if you're willing to walk 15 minutes from the station. The restaurant/ karaoke bar Han (right next to the station) was featured in Killing Eve as the restaurant that Sandra Oh's character works at in series 3.
Confirmed! It was a recent discovery of ours and have been going there more frequently. Very good quality food and goods. Makes it much more reachable than places in central London if you're based near south border of greater London
"JSTOR Daily" isn't an academic journal, it's the same kind of thing as, say, Quanta (I'm old and out of touch and don't know what they're called).

Turns out if you click through to the actual article in the actual journal: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26499159?mag=the-first-koreatow... you'll see that the original title is "Pachappa Camp: The First Koreatown in the United States".

Definitely don’t read the leading Sociology, Economics or Political Science journals then. That’s completely standard.
The thing with the "dismal science" part of economics is that it was at least in part, just maths. Maybe you don't like the conclusions, but if we put the various "monkey or student given a jar of peanuts what happens" papers on motivational economics (my term) to one side -its maths.

Sociology and Political Science feel a lot more like opinions than science. And, I say that as a computer scientist who is pretty sure computer science isn't a science, its an art. Like maths.

"Dismal science" is half-correct: the dismal part.
Economics is known as the dismal science because it supports the dismal conclusion that people are basically the same. People want similar things and should similarly be treated with dignity.

> Everyone knows that economics is the dismal science. And almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus’s gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship.

> While this story is well-known, it is also wrong, so wrong that it is hard to imagine a story that is farther from the truth. At the most trivial level, Carlyle’s target was not Malthus, but economists such as John Stuart Mill, who argued that it was institutions, not race, that explained why some nations were rich and others poor. Carlyle attacked Mill, not for supporting Malthus’s predictions about the dire consequences of population growth, but for supporting the emancipation of slaves. It was this fact–that economics assumed that people were basically all the same, and thus all entitled to liberty–that led Carlyle to label economics “the dismal science.”

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/07/the_origins_of_1.ht...

Ouch. Thanks for informing me the person who coined that phrase was an asshole.