This page is referenced by:

• 1 2022-04-12T14:36:28-07:00 Tuberculosis and the Plague 8 plain 2022-04-13T14:11:54-07:00 In the early 1900s, Los Angeles went through a bubonic plague epidemic, or so, health authorities believed. However, little proof exists of an actual bubonic plague epidemic, either in Los Angeles or elsewhere in California. This did not stop LA health authorities, from advice from San Francisco health authorities, to take steps to contain the plague. Many of these steps were targeted towards Chinese Angelenos, stereotyping, stigmatizing, and sticking them with ideas of dirtiness. The LA Times referred to the plague as “Asiatic scourge”, tying the plague with a Chinese origin (4). Health authorities began clean-up missions in Chinatown to contain the plague. LA Health Authorities tracked every death, Chinese and non-Chinese, due to illness to see if it was the bubonic plague; yet, when asked, health authorities only mentioned their efforts in Chinatown. Interestingly, in 1904, Los Angeles actually found no deaths in Chinatown were caused by the plague. This plague hysteria then became a way to ultimately promote Chinese exclusion, when no plague existed (1).
  
  In the mid 1920s, an actual pneumonic plague did hit Los Angeles. According to Dr. Bogen, Chinese individuals were more at risk to be infected, and when infected, more likely to die due to the illness than the white Angeleno population. In a similar manner to the bubonic plague, it became easy for health authorities to tie the plague as a “Chinese disease”, using public health to create a racial order and to police racial boundaries (5).
  
  In a similar manner to the pneumonic plague, tuberculosis was also more prevalent among the Chinese population. Dr. Bogen writes that deaths among tuberculosis were higher than the white population. The death rate itself over the early 1900s actually fell, in a similar manner to other racial groups. Some efforts to reduce tuberculosis were working in Chinatown. Dr. Bogen found that the differences in death were based on differences in being admitted to the hospital, and not some “innate characteristic.” Pointedly, this reveals that Chinese residents were delayed in accessing healthcare facilities when sick, unless they were already late in their disease. In fact, health authorities believed “Chinese residents lacked immunity to consumption,” and thus would get the disease (6). This endangered their health, and when tied to poor living conditions, increased their chances of getting tuberculosis. Bogen’s writings also reveal that even by the 1930s, individuals tied the idea of disease with Chinese Angelenos was still prevalent and required debunking (5).