Executive Order 8802 - Birth of the Civil Rights Movement

   In 1940, two decades before the 1963 March on Washington where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I have a Dream” speech, the seeds of the civil rights movement were planted by Asa Philip Randolph when he induced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to sign Executive Order 8802 on June 25, 1941which “encouraged the full participation in the national defense program by all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color or national origin, in the firm belief that the democratic way of life within the Nation can be defended successfully only with the help and support of all groups within its borders.”

   This seminal but almost forgotten leader is considered by some as the true father of the civil rights movement in the United States.  Today his deeds are not known by many, his name outside the labor movement, does not elicit recognition.  And yet, millions of colored people, minorities and even women owe a great debt to this man.

   But the road to Executive Order 8802 was long in the making.  In January 1917, William White, President of the Headwaiters and Side Waiters Society of Greater New York asked A. Philip Randolph to edit the monthly magazine “Hotel Messenger”.  Later, the “Hotel” was dropped and in November 1917, the first issue of The Messenger was published.   The following quotation from the August 1919 issue gives an inkling of the future civil rights movement.

“First, as workers, black and white, we all have one common interest, the getting of more wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions.

Black and white workers should combine for no other reason than that for which individual workers should combine, to increase their bargaining power, which will enable them to get their demands.”

   In June 1925, the Pullman porters, an all-black service staff of the Pullman Sleeping Cars asked Randolph to lead their new organization, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP).  For ten years, Randolph organized the Pullman porters and the BSCP became the exclusive bargaining agent of the Pullman porters.  In 1935, the BSCP was granted its charter by the American Federation of Labor (AFL). 

   The war in Europe starting in 1939 created a boom in the defense industry but Government-instituted training programs still excluded blacks.  More than 250,000 new defense jobs were closed to blacks.  In the aircraft industry, only 240 of 107,000 workers were blacks.  The same situation was experienced in other industries like construction.  In the armed forces, even after the passage of the Selective Training and Service Act in 1940 which was the first peace time draft of men between 21 and 35, the blacks and other minorities like the Filipinos still could not secure their right to fight. 

   On September 1940 during a Porters’ meeting in New York City where Randolph spoke about these two problems, there was a distinguished guest who opened doors for him at the highest level - First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.  Upon meeting with Randolph and other black leaders, she realized that the President’s secretaries had not responded to numerous requests from Randolph for a meeting with the President.  Eleanor Roosevelt then addressed the convention and pledged her strong support to “make America a place where everyone, Negro and white, could live in equality and opportunity.”

   On September 27, 1940, Randolph with Walter White, head of the NAACP and T. Arnold Hill, an administrator for the Urban League met with President Roosevelt.  They spoke of the many injustices in the hiring practices particularly in the defense industry and the discriminatory practices in the army.  The President tried to assuage their complaints by telling them that progress was being made by putting blacks into combat services proportionately.  But Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, who was present at the meeting, stated that this was almost impossible particularly in the Navy where men live aboard ships.  But the President promised them that he will consult with the cabinet and military leadership about these problems.  Randolph and the other leaders were greatly encouraged by the meeting.

   Unfortunately, the cabinet and the military leadership including Army Chief of Staff George Marshall were against these changes.  Marshall stated that “there is no time for critical experiments which could have a highly destructive effect on morale.”

   Randolph and the rest did not hear from the President regarding his meeting with the cabinet.  They learned of the War Department’s position through a press briefing stating that it would not intermingle colored and white enlisted personnel in the same regiments.  It further stated that all parties agreed to the report.  Randolph and White asked for another meeting with the President but the meeting was not made nor did the Press Secretary Stephen Early clarify the statement in the press briefing.  En route to a Pullman conference in several major cities, Randolph and Milton Webster, a Pullman porter planned a strategy to get 10,000 Negroes to march down Pennsylvania Avenue.  This was the birth of the March on Washington movement, a non-violent civil disobedience campaign that was proposed in speeches to the Pullman porters.  By late 1940, Randolph set up the National March on Washington Committee with branches in eighteen cities.  The proposed march set on July 1, 1941 was publicized in Black newspapers, through the NAACP, the Urban League and by the porters.  It called for jobs in national defense and equal integration in the fighting forces of the United States.

   By January 1941, President Roosevelt was alerted of the Washington March plan and refused to have another meeting with Randolph in the spring.   Randolph sent letters to the president and to government officials to ask them to make speeches at the Lincoln Memorial where the marchers intended to gather. 

   With the growing momentum for the march, Randolph revised his estimate of the marchers to 100,000, leaving President Roosevelt in a quandary.   Aside from the possible repercussions of the march, the president was clearly worried about the Southerners in Congress who already opposed him in many issues.  Randolph became the target of many including Congressman Arthur Miller of Nebraska who called him “the most dangerous Negro in America.”

   Roosevelt asked Eleanor to write to Randolph urging him not to follow through with the march, citing that people may get hurt in the process.  But this did not deter Randolph from proceeding with the march.   Eleanor asked Randolph on the logistics of the marchers, to which he replied that they would stay in Washington hotels and eat in the city’s restaurants, a situation that would have created riots.  Privately, he asked the March in Washington Committee to request the support of black churches and schools in the capital.  Eleanor later met with Randolph in New York and subsequently advised the president to meet with Randolph at the White House to prevent the march.  The meeting with the President, Randolph and White took place on June 18, 1941.  Roosevelt remained firm about the status of the armed forces being segregated.  But he promised to set up a committee to investigate cases of discrimination.  Randolph was adamant about his demand for an executive order desegregating the defense industry and the president insisted that nothing can be done until the march is called off.  Randolph did not budge.  The President asked Randolph how many people he planned to bring and his reply was one hundred thousand.  When asked the same question, White replied the same answer without a blink.  The President folded his cards when he finally agreed that a committee would draft an executive order.  But Randolph did not stop at that.  He helped draft the document with officials of the Cabinet and edited subsequent versions to his satisfaction. 

   On June 25, 1941, Executive Order 8802 was signed.  Under the order, the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FPEC) was set up to investigate discrimination in the work place.  Although FPEC proved inadequate to the task, the Executive order paved the way for thousands of blacks and other minorities including women to become employed in the defense industry.  1.2 million Southern blacks moved to Western and Northern cities for industrial defense jobs.  More than 46,000 blacks moved to the Bay area between 1941 and 1945.  Kaiser Shipyards which owned four in Richmond employed 90,000 people, a third of whom were women. 

   However, prejudice did not end with the executive order.  The movement of black workers to industrial cities resulted in race riots with the worst in 1943 in Detroit where more than thirty people, twenty-five of whom were black, died in two days.  

   Although Executive Order 8802 did not lead to the integration of the armed forces, it led the way to the formation of the 99th Pursuit Squadron, the first black flying squadron (part of the Tuskegee Airmen) in September 1941.  In April 1942, the 382nd Platoon of the U.S. Marines or the Navajo code talkers and the First Filipino Battalion were activated (later became the First Filipino Regiment in July 1942).  More troops of color followed.

   In 1947, Randolph reignited his demand for integration of the armed forces by founding the League for Non-violent Civil Disobedience against Military Segregation.  With the impending Cold war and in recognition of the contributions of the African American men and women during WWII, President Truman ordered the end of military discrimination by signing Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948, ending 170 years of military segregation.

   Randolph became the Chair of the 1963 March on Washington and Martin Luther King heeded his advice of non-violence and the rest is history.  Randolph was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Johnson in 1964. 

   Seventy years after the signing of Executive Order 8802 we have a black president in the White House.  I am sure that Asa Philip Randolph is smiling wherever he is.  His dream is finally a reality. 

                                                                      Cecilia I. Gaerlan
                                                                     Executive Director                                                                     Bataan Legacy Historical Society


          1. Executive Orders – Primary Documents:  The President and African Americans                                         A Lesson Plan from the Education Department of the National WWII Museum.

         2. FDR, A. Philip Randolph and the Desegregation of the Defense Industries.  The White House                          Historical Association.

         3. Immigration Indigestion – A. Philip Randolph, Radical & Restrictionist by Daryl Scott, June 1999.

         4. Our Reason for Being by A. Philip Randolph.  The Messenger, Aug. 1919, pp11-12.

         5. Asa Philip Randolph Biography from AFLCIO..ORG

         6. More than Race Relations: A. Philip Randolph & the African American Research for Empowerment                by Paula Pfeffer.  Reviews in American History June 1991.

         7. Randolph, Asa Philip – American National Biography Online

The Philippine Indepenence Act

(Tydings-MeDuffie Act)

   Also known as the Tydings-McDuffie Act (24 March 1934), the Philippine Independence Act 1 was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). Its authors were Senator Millard Evelyn Tydings of Maryland and Representative John McDuffie of Alabama. Both were Democrats in the 73d United States Congress.2

   The Act which offered Philippine independence from the United States after a period of ten years ultimately created the path for self-government of the Philippines. On 1 May 1934, the Philippine Senate approved the Tydings-McDuffie Act. Under the provisions of the act, the Constitution of the Philippines was drafted and became law upon approval by FDR on 23 March 1935, thereupon establishing the Commonwealth of the Philippines.3

   Besides the road to independence, there were other provisions in place, pending the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippine Islands.

   Sec.2. (a) (12): The Philippine recognizes … upon order of the President, to call into the service of such armed forces all military forces organized by the Philippine government. Another provision, Sec.10. (a) & (b), allowed the United States President to discuss matters in regards to letting U.S. naval reservations and fueling stations placed in the Philippines after two years of independence.

   Sec.8. (a) (1) & (2): For the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917, the Immigration Act of 1924  (except section 13 (c) ), … citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens….shall have a quota of fifty. An exception was provided to meet the needs of the industry of the Territory of Hawaii. Of note, the allocation of fifty is half the minimum quota that the 1924 Immigration Act established for all other non-Asian nationalities.4


   Various factions confronted the United States Congress with regards to the Philippines (e.g., labor unions, business, the marketplace, as well as economic and military benefits, and anti-immigrant and racists sentiments). Underlying the above was the traditional American value of self-determination as fundamental to policy. It was recognized in the Schurman Commission established 3 January 1899. Citing Thomas Jefferson’s precedent in the Louisiana Purchase on unorganized territories, the end goal is “complete self-government.”5

   President Theodore Roosevelt echoed the sentiment to Congress in 1901, envisioning “self-government after the fashion of really free nations.” In 1902, the Philippine Organic Act prohibited any sizeable U.S. investment in agriculture, banking, or money. And in 1916, Congress went further and passed the Philippine Autonomy Act, which established a legislature, extended the vote to all literate adult males, and announced plans to grant independence as soon as possible.6

   In conflict with ideal American values were the racial discriminatory practices encountered by Philippine immigrants and other ethnic groups. Following the 1875, 1882, Chinese exclusion laws of 1902 and 1904, voluntary restrictions on Japanese immigration of the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907-1908, the 1917 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (the National Origins Act), virtually all immigrations, save from the Philippines, from the region of Asia were denied.7

  Decades of racist sentiments manifested itself in social control of space through restricted immigration laws. In the words of Senator Tydings McDuffie, “It is absolutely illogical to have an immigration policy to exclude Japanese and Chinese and permit Filipinos en masse to come into the country … they will come in conflict with white labor … and increase the opportunity for more racial prejudice and bad feelings of all kinds.” It did not matter that it was the United States, following Spain that colonized the Philippines; it did not matter that it was American companies that initially recruited and employed Philippine workers.8

   In coalition with the anti-immigration forces but for a different reason, the nationalists of the Philippines had sent from 1919 to 1933 twelve Independence Missions to the United States campaigning for recognition of Philippine Independence. To that objective, the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act of 1933 (HHC) was passed over the veto of President Herbert Clark Hoover. Brought home by the Os-Roxas Mission (Senate President pro tempore Sergio Osmeña, Jr. and House Speaker Manuel Acuña. Roxas), it was rejected by the Philippine Legislature in October 1933. The Act permitted the United States to retain too much political and military power, and restrictions placed on Filipino agricultural products and immigrant labor.9

   In November, 1933, Manuel Luis Quezon y Molina, President of the Philippine Senate, successfully led the twelfth mission to Washington, D.C., securing in the process a better independence act than the HHC. The timing was historically on point. In the milieu of the Great Depression, the anti-immigrants sentiments forged in a coalition of ethnic, cultural, and economic protectionists and by Philippine Nationalists, the Philippine Independence Act became a reality.10

   In many respect debate over the “Philippine problem” had been as divided over granting independence to the Philippines as it had been in debating whether to colonize the islands three decades earlier. One solution to the exclusion of Philippine immigrants lay in the passing of Philippine independence. This concern readily dovetailed with the pressure of U.S. industry and labor unions. To give it credibility, the decision by the policy-makers provided ostensibly a sense of reasoned scientific authority, in a geopolitically informed eugenic discourse.11

   The Tydings-McDuffie Act was a “significant attempt to uniformly ban Asian immigration and redefine America’s notion of ‘Asia.”12 In its development and rationale, the provisions reflect the design to balance labor considerations, nation-building, white supremacy, racial ideology, the pragmatic economic and military benefits derived from the Philippines,13 as well as  ideals of American democracy.

 In the final analysis, an unlikely coalition of exclusionists, anti-colonialists, and Filipino nationalists managed to band together to promote the passage of the Act.14 Thus, on 8 July 1946, President Harry S. Truman signed Proclamation 2695 on the Independence of the Philippines.15

                                                                                                 ---Ian Crueldad and Kaibigan


(1) Philippine Independence Act (24 March 1934), Pub. L. 73-127, Sess. 2, ch. 84, 48 Stat. 456.

(2) Larry A. Grant, “Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934,” edited by Kathleen R. Arnold, Anti-Immigration on the United States: Historical Encyclopedia, rpt. (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2011), 473-4.

(3) Grant, Ibid.; G. L. Lamborn, Arms of Little Value: The Challenge of Insurgency and Global Instability in the Twenty-First Century (Havertown, PA: Casmate Pubs., 2012), 154.

(4) The immigration quota for the Philippines was less than that for Monaco, a country whose total populations was only 2,030. Sid Amores Valledor, The Original Writings of Philip Vera Cruz, foreword by Joaquin L. Gonzalez III, Ph. D. and afterword by E. San Juan, Jr., Ph. D. ( Indianapolis: Dog Ear Pub., 2006), 37-8.

(5) Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman, American Umpire (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2013), 175.

(6) Ibid.

(7) James Tyner, Oriental Bodies: Discourse and Discipline in U.S. Immigration Policy, 1875 – 1942, annotated edition (Lanham, MD: Lexington Bks., 2006), 84; Grant, Ibid.

(8) Tyner, Ibid.

(9) Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act (17 January 1933), Pub. L. 72-311, 47 Stat. 761; Maria Christine N. Halili, Philippine History, rpt. (Manila: Rex Bookstore, Inc., 2004), 186-7; Grant, Ibid.

(10) Halili, Ibid.; Grant, Ibid; Tyner, Ibid.

(11) Tyner, Ibid., 77, 83.

(12) Tyner, Ibid., 85.

(13) Ibid., 83

(14) Bill Ong Hing, Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy: 1850 – 1990 (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1994), 35

(15) A.P. Sames Blaustein, Jay Adrian Sigler and Benjamin R. Beede, Independence documents of the world, v. 2 (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Pub., 1977), 571.

Images (from left to right);

     * Library of Congress: Herbert Clark Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt

     * Library of Congress: Millard Evelyn Tydings

     * Library of Congress: John McDuffie

     * Library of Congress: Manuel Luis Quezon y Molina

     * Library of Congress: Harry S. Truman

The Greatest Legacy*

   As we approach September 8, 2015, we celebrate a great moment in history.

   Manongs Larry Itliong, Bob Armington, Pete Velasco, Ben Gines, and Philip Vera Cruz were seasoned labor organizers who led 1500 farmworkers off the fields of Delano, California. They were poised and well organized.

   Their struggle for justice in the fields of California began many years before that historic date. When their generation came to the United States in the1920’s as young men, many heard of “streets paved with gold.” Quickly, as day follows night, their evening dreams in the stark reality of the blazing sunlight left them without respite in the agricultural fields as exploited cheap labor.

   Founding fraternal orders in the tradition of the masonic lodges of their parents in the Philippines in the 1890s were the Gran Oriente Filipino, Caballeros Dimas Alang, and the Legionarios De Trabajos. These social systems were environments of home away from home, of meeting places to celebrate, and of mutual aid and self-help. As with the numerous fraternal orders and secret lodges in the United States they were also centers of liberal and progressive principles—their common roots being the free masons of Europe and their ideals of equality, religious tolerance, fraternity, and liberty.

   The fraternal orders, community organizations, labor associations and unions founded by our pioneers provided the needed support in their struggle for a better life. In their brotherhood they stood and protected each other in their fight for better pay and working conditions. This is how they survived America’s ugliness. Shunted into the bowels of towns and cities, they claimed the streets of Kearney, Temple, and El Dorado. In the slum-infested neighborhoods they built their communities in Watsonville, Stockton, El Centro, Delano, Santa Maria, San Jose, Salinas, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. 

   Working as farmworkers, domestic servants and seamen, overcoming all odds, their sweat and bent backs paved the way for the brothers, sisters, and families that followed. Visionary thinkers for a better life in America, their self-respect and the steadfastness of their self-determination opened the door for a brighter future for their children and succeeding generations. We owe much gratitude to our first generation.

   Remembering Carlos Bulason, Stanley Garibay, Severino Ruste, Joaquin Legaspi …. America is in their heart. We honor their illustrious legacy.

   Through the generations advancing their Legacy Forward … Al Robles, Royale Morales, Fred Cordova, Dorothy Cordova, Marge Talaugon, Joe Talaugon, Sid Valledor, etc., andthe generations oftoday and tomorrow , they will always be remembered and serve as a source of inspiration.

                                                                                    --- Steven A. Arevalo

                                                                                         20 August 2015



*Images (left to right)


.        Walter P. Reuther Library:       Larry Dulay Itliong

          Wayne State University


.        Walter P. Reuther Library:       Benjamin C. Gines

         Wayne State University


.        Walter P. Reuther Library:        Philip Villamin Vera Cruz

         Wayne State University


.        The Original Writings of                   Peter Gines Velasco

         Philip Vera Cruz


.        FANHS Central Coast              Joe Pina Talaugon &

         Chapter                                  Margie Cabatuan Talaugon

Our Farm Workers Labor Organizing Legacy*

  Today, we celebrate the proclamation of independence of June 12, 1898 as the “Day of Freedom.” It represents the courageous spirit and moral intellect of leadership that brings forth a united social force.

  To Dr. José Rizal, his quest for equality in time transformed to an advocacy for nationhood as a justification to restore the dignity of his people. On 10 October 1889, at the Paris Exposition Universelle, in the letter, “To Our Dear Mother Country Spain,” Rizal and a group of illustrados declared their uniqueness as a people when they signed themselves as “The Filipinos.” More than a geographical origin it pronounced a national loyalty. To Andrés Bonifacio, the dream for independence became a possibility. The “soul of the revolution” established the revolutionary government that was democratic in its constituency. To Emilio Aguinaldo, the collage of the 42 documented rebellions which led to the Cavite Mutiny and national identity required the Filipino people to transcend oppression and formally proclaim Acta de la Proclamation de la Independencia del Pueblo Filipino.

  To the children of the generation of Rizal, Bonifacio, and Aguinaldo, the legacies of humanism, the enlightenment, and classical liberalism had been bestowed upon them. Those who went abroad invested themselves with the same zeal in the plantations of Hawaii, the canneries of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and the agricultural fields of America. As with their parents they understood well the meaning of liberty and the dignity of each individual. Denied under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (5 July 1935), they would strive undaunted against all odds for the legal protection to organize, engage in collective bargain, and elect representatives of their choosing.

  In the bastion of agriculture, then the fifth largest economy in the world, it would take four decades to overcome the institutional subordination barrier, culminating in the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act (5 June 1975). In no small measure the Filipino American agriculture labor movement had played a significant role. Organizing had been in a state of moribund for years when the multi-ethnic Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) of the AFL-CIO, led by its Filipino American members was victorious on 14 May 1965 in the Coachella Valley.

   The ending was quick and stunning. The action taken was heard and felt up north in the fields, towns and hamlets of the Central Valley. It was as if a bolt of hope, a harbinger of things to come, had been hurled across the sky and planted itself at the workers’ feet. The swift, dramatic, successful strike was the major source of inspiration at that point in time. It resounded throughout the farm belt, so loud and clear it raised to great heights the buoyed hope of farm workers everywhere.

   On 7 September 1965, at the Filipino Community Hall in Delano, AWOC, led by its de facto union representative leader, Larry Itliong, voted to strike, and strike they did next day. The National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) of Cesar Chavez voted to strike on September 16, followed suit on the twentieth. Together, on 22 August 1966 they joined as one into the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) of the AFL-CIO. On 29 July 1970, 26 growers, representing 42% of the California table grapes signed contracts with UFWOC at Forty Acres. The first signature to appear was that of Larry Itliong, followed by Cesar Chavez, and John Guimarra, Sr. of the growers. UFWOC was succeeded on 19 February 1972, by the United Farm Workers of America (UFWA, technically on 17 October 1973), chartered by the AFL-CIO, with it the vision of agricultural workers finally became a reality.


   Philip Vera Cruz, the philosopher, in his writings and many speeches, more than anyone else among the farmworkers, articulated and related the plight and strivings of the agricultural field workers as part and parcel of the same struggle of all people to live as people should live. To Larry Itliong much is owed. At the time when all of AWOC’s dozen and a half union representatives—Caucasians, Mexican Americans, and Filipino Americans—left the union in protest of what they perceived as Chavez and his group’s takeover, only Itliong stayed. Larry Itliong, the national & international director of the UFWOC boycott and President of the state and national Filipino American Political Association was a man for all seasons. Always among the workers, the endless rounds in the fields, dealing with their everyday problems, leading the charge in battle, Itliong, the warrior, epitomizes the legacy of that generation we commemorate.

   In the scheme and drama of history, the shape of the country has been chiseled by the pioneers in whose hearts beat the undying belief and faith in the truthfulness of their dreams. As with the masters of destiny on whose historic shoulders they stand, Philip Vera Cruz and Larry Itliong, in the righteousness of their cause, their actions have inspired others and spawn new energies elsewhere. Lost in the fog of history were the bold actions of Larry Itliong that touched, inspired, and added to the self-esteem of individuals. The oration of Philip Vera Cruz that raised the hopes of the listeners and quickened the rhythm of their hearts, lifted the burden of despair from their chests, and brought joy and rejuvenation to them can no longer be heard. But, we have not forgotten. They will be heard, for we will always remember.

                                                                                    ---Sid A. Valledor

                                                                                        May 30 & 31, 2015


*Presented at the Filipino American Community of Cerritos’ Second Annual Celebration of Philippine Independence in commemoration of the 117th Anniversary of Philippine Independence: “The Fighting Legacy of Philippine Independence in America,” hosted by the Honorable & Mrs. Mark E. Pulido at the Heritage Park, Cerritos, California.



Images (from left to right)

.           Library of Congress: José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda

.           Ilustración Española y Americana (1897): Andrés Bonifacio y de Castro

.           Library of Congress: Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy

.           The Filipino American Community of Cerritos

The Alien Land Act of 1913

The ability to possess and own land is one of the fundamental ways a human being is able to climb the socioeconomic ladder and create a nurturing stable environment for the family.

Generally, in the legal system a person in possession of land or goods, even as a wrongdoer, is entitled to take action against anyone interfering with the possession unless the person interfering is able to demonstrate a superior right to do so.1

Ownership in the legal system is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, real estate, or intellectual property. The California Alien Land Law (19 May 1913) or Webb-Haney Act summarily state all aliens not eligible for citizenship cannot own nor possess land, property, etc. Due to the wording, the Act includes white European in ownership and possession but not others of different ethnicity.2

This law follows the tradition of many others that were made to halt the immigration of the Chinese and Japanese, who were deemed a threat by the labor unions supporting the Act. Essentially, this racist policy represented the oppression felt by minorities in general that had the law against them. Using the definitions of ownership and possession stated early with the Act, one can imagine their experience.

Lack of possession rights meant aliens would not be protected from unjust actions of their landlord. Lack of ownership meant they do not have a chance in obtaining their own real estate to build a home and business.

The effects of the Alien Land Law of 1913 also go beyond financial detriment. Aliens illegible for citizenship would probably feel insecure and inferior due to their limited access to resources and opportunities. These self-perceived insecurity and inferiority can set the conditions of depression because despair as well as hopelessness detrimentally impact ones socioeconomic mobility. The ability of parents to adequately provide for the family would be at risk, placing undue strain in a marriage, lowering aspirations for a better future.

The Webb-Haney Act is an example of a policy instituted to hurt and impair certain groups for the benefit, more often than not, of dominant members of a society. It was part of a larger trend of attempted discrimination against “aliens ineligible for citizenship.” The California Alien Land Law of 1920 continued the 1913 law by filling much of the loopholes. It was further amended in 1923 to fill wording-related loopholes.3

Eight other states passed restrictive land-ownership laws from 1913 to 1925: Arizona, Washington, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. As in Terrace v. Thompson (1923), these alien land laws were upheld by the United States Supreme Court as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution. Not surprisingly, during the World War II years, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah, and Wyoming followed suit.4

A case in point, one of the individuals targeted was Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese immigrant. He had purchased six acres of land in Chula Vista, California in 1934. The land was deeded to his son Fred. Ordered to leave the West Coast in 1942, the family went to Utah forbidden to return home. The State of California filed a petition to declare the Oyama land as forfeited to the possession of the state, because purchase had been made with the intent to evade the Alien Land Act.5

On 31 October 1946, in People v. Oyama the State of California Supreme Court reaffirmed its alien land laws with a judgment for the State and citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling as a controlling factor.6

Circumstances, however, can change, bringing about termination or modification resulting in a policy beneficial to those once placed in a subordinate status. Such a change began via a writ of certiorari of the Oyama case. The case was taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) before the United States Supreme Court, where Dean Acheson, the Secretary of Sate under President Harry S Truman, presented the case for the Oyamas.7

The grounds for reversal were predicated against three charges: (1) It deprived Fred Oyama of the equal protection of the laws and of his privileges as an American citizen; (2) It denied Kajiro Oyama equal protection of the law, and (3) It violated the due process clause by sanctioning a taking of property after an appropriate period of limitation had expired.8

The Supreme Court agreed by a vote of 8 to 1 with the ACLU’s contention that Fred Oyama ahd been deprived of federal and sae equal protection guarantees. But, because the decision alone was grounds for reversing the California Supreme Court decision the Court did not address the other two contentions.9

Though Oyama did not strike down California’s Alien Land Laws, it did prove to be an important precedent. Four years later, a step further was taken, albeit symbolically, on 17 April 1952 in the Sei Fujii v. State of California case. Qualifying that in light of the Oyama and Takahashi decisions the 1923 ruling could no longer be considered as controlling precedent. With that perspective, the California Supreme Court declared the Alien Land Laws as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.10

More importantly, on 27 June 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran –Walter Act) eliminated the legal category of “immigrant ineligible to citizenship” on which the Alien Land Laws had been passed.11

---Daniel Boayes Lumbang and Kaibigan                          


1. The Just Call Me Charley Blog–WordPress.com


2.    The Statutes of California and Amendments to the Codes Passed at the Fortieth Session of      the Legislature, 1933. Sacramento: Superintendent of State Printing, 1913; Franklin Odo, ed.,   The Columbia Documentary History of the Asian American Experience (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2002), 160; Roger Daniels, Asian American: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850 (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1988), 141-2. The bill, co-written by private attorney Francis Joseph Heney and California State Attorney General Ulysses Sigel Webb (R) at the behest of Governor Hiram Warren Johnson (R), passed the Legislature overwhelmingly—35 to 2.        

3.    Shelley Sang-Hee Lee, A New History of Asian America (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Grp., 2014), 133.

4.    Sang-Hee Lee, Ibid.; Terrace v. Thompson 263 U.S. 197 (1923), Porterfield v. Webb 263 U.S. 225 (1923), Webb v. O’Brien 263 U.S. 313 (1923), Frick v. Webb 263 U.S. 326 (1923), Cockrill v. California 268 U.S. 258 (1925); Edwin E. Ferguson, 1947, “The California Alien Land Law and the Fourteenth Amendment,” California Law Review 35(1):61; Masao Suzuki, “Important or Impotent? Taking another Look at the 1920 California Alien Land Law,” Journal of Economic History (2004) 64(1) 125.

5.    ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, “Oyama v. California: US Supreme Court RulesCalifornia’s Alien Land Act Unconstitutional” (2 Nov. 2006)https://www.aclusandiego.org/ (hereinafter ACLU)

6.    People v. Oyama, 29 Cal.2d 164 (1945)

7.    ACLU, Ibid.

8.    Ibid.

9.    Fred Oyama et. al v. California 332 U.S. 633 (1948)

10.  Sei Fujii v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 718 (1952), in the Takahashi v. Fish & Game Com., 334 U.S. 410 (1948), the California sttute which denied commercial fishing licenses to “aliens ineligible for citizenship” was invalidaed on the grounds that it violated the “equal protection clause.”

11.  Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. McCarran-Walter Act, (27 June 1952), Pub. L. 82-414, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. ch.

12. The bill was co-written by Senator Patrick Anthony McCarran (D-NV) and Representative Francis Eugene Walter (D-PA)

Images (from left to right):· 

     Library of Congress: Hiram Warren Johnson·

     San Diego Journal (23 Aug. 1945) : Kajira Oyajma·

     Library of Congress: Patrick Anthony McCarran· 

     Library of Congress: Francis Eugene Walter

Contest #2 - Name the New Section

TheNewCastle.org officially launches its Second Contest! The logo below is for our newest section. Can you name it? Please leave your guess, along with your name and email address (when you sign in to leave your guess), in the COMMENTS section at the bottom of this post's page. As we did in our previous contest, we will provide clues every month if we don't get a winner, so keep coming back and guess again if no winner has been found!


Like Contest #1, if you correctly guess the name of our new section based on the logo below, the award is $100 and $100 for the charity of your choice! Good luck!

Contest #1 - Name The Website

In March of 2014, The New Castle launched its first contest (http://futureishistory.org/). The contest was open to the public to guess the name of this website from a logo designed by Conrad Panganiban. The winner of the contest would win $100 and have $100 donated to that person's charity of choice. Every month a new clue would be given until the winner was found.


Clue #1 (posted 03/29/2014): Take-off from a Franz Kafka novel.

Clue #2 (posted 04/30/2014): Defying any Kafkaesque vision of human fate, logo symbolizes transcendence.

Clue #3 (posted 06/02/2014): The logo symbolizes the vision of that ideal state.

Clue #4 (posted 07/01/2014): The name of the logo/website contains 3 words.

Clue #5 (posted 07/15/2014): The name of the logo/website is: The [blank] Castle. Fill in the Blank.


March 14, 2014 by Josh Torres: Circle Tree

March 17, 2014 by Cynthia Bonta wrote: Intriguing logo. I see edifice of civilization, family trees, intertwined roots, the world, the continents: Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa. Guess: Global Family

March 17, 2014 by Carmencita Choy wrote: Her-story denotes history from a woman’s perspective, rather than his-story. Guess: Herstory

March 30, 2014 by Marq Bautista wrote: If that is Kafka’s Castle, I would guess Fortress Filipino, though that is rather defensive.

March 31, 2014 by Marq Bautista wrote: I assume the fortified tower in the background is a reference to Kafka’s Castle, and that the vegetation, being pretty, is meant to portray sn idealized Filipino plant, I will guess, Fortress Phillipines.

March 31, 2014 by Denzell Sabado: The Castle

April 3, 2014 by Estella Habal: Metamorphoses

April 6, 2014 by Elizabeth wrote: I see Franz Kafka’s The Castle referenced (society), as well as roots (heritage), and my final answer is Philippine Heritage Society!

April 6, 2014 by Oscar Peñaranda: Bamboo Citadel

April 26, 2014 by Steve Arevalo: Connecting Together

May 31, 2014 by Cecilia Gaerlan wrote: I concur w Elizabeth except the last word Phil Heritage Foundation

July 10, 2014 by Uncle Anton: The New Castle (Winner)

July 22, 2014 by Daz Lamparas: The Grand Castle

For information about the Winner, please visit The Winner of the Name the Website Contest blog post.

Labor's Struggle for Legitimacy

The capitalist can protect himself, but the wage earner is practically defenseless.
                                                                                         ---United States President
                                                                                             Stephen Grover Cleveland (1)


Since the birth of the United States, for many Americans, overcoming and breaking down institutional subordination barriers has been the story of American democracy. Granted more formidable have been the obstacles placed before nonwhites, still, the historical commonality experienced by each new wave of immigrants, in part, probably explains the common bond of empathy that unites people of like mind, though they be different in so many ways. A case in point has been the organizing labor movement.

Before the development of labor unions employees had almost no voice in determining their wages, hours, or working conditions. If there was an abundance of job-seeking workers available employers could easily replace employees not performing to their satisfaction as well as to those threatening to quit. Hence, the competition for jobs forced laborers to toil under almost any condition.

From the beginning, employees found that to tip the imbalance scale to a more equitable level when dealing with their work related problems they had to form a union. The underlying assumption was that collectively as a group they would be able to enhance their bargaining power. And, whenever the symptom of discontent was deep and widespread, workers then took to strike as a last resort.

In American history, even before the ratification of the United States Constitution, the earliest genuine labor strike probably occurred in 1786 when the Philadelphia printers struck for an increase in minimum wage.(2)

But in the nascent stage of the formation of unions the onrush of heavy opposition from employers, who refused to recognize unions as the representatives of employees, and from the courts regarding the attempts at collective bargaining as illegal, necessitated the development of a greater labor movement, beyond the individual union, to bring to bear the aspirations of the workers before the table of mutual benefit. This began to develop at sunrise in the midst of the expanding Age of Industrialism.

In the Progressive Movement

At the onset of that period in American history of social activism and political reform the labor movement made headway with the sweeping social changes brought about by the Progressive movement. Organized labor served notice of the coming picture of the future, one in which the balance of power between labor and the employer would be less titled towards the latter. Under the preview of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the legitimate concerns of organized labor would to an extent be recognized in the Clayton Act of 1914 which “immunized” certain  activities of labor organizations. Two years later, the Adamson Act established the eight-hour day for interstate railroad workers.(3)

Though having benefitted from the tide organized labor had not yet become an integral part of the social reform movement. This changed during an accentuation of the business cycle, an interval markedly deep. 


The Great Depression proved to be the turning point in the organized labor movement. As the nation attempted to cope with the enormity of the depression organized labor became a major force, a participant, and a key player in helping to bring about a slew of political activities and legislation in the nation’s effort to come to grips with the woes of the country. In some respect, the new found political power was recognition of a segment of the populace bringing to the stage the principle of fairness(4) while seeking and advancing solutions to unemployment related concerns. The labor movement’s moment in time had now arrived.

In the last year of President Herbert Clark Hoover’s administration, Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, stating the right to organize as fully sanctioned.(5) On 16 June 1933, in the first year of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) administration, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was signed into law. It was “An attempt to encourage national industrial recovery, to foster fair competition, and to provide for the construction of certain useful public works, and for other purposes …”(6)

Incorporated in the NIRA was section 7(a) which stated labor’s “right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.”7 William Green, president of the AFL and other labor leaders and liberals had demanded its inclusion. The Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) had in fact publicly stated that it would not endorse the NIRA without guarantee of collective bargaining. In its development and passage credit must also be given to the leadership provided by Senator Robert F. Wagner and the support of Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins.(8) 

The inclusion of section 7(a) in the NIRA inspired the mounting of massive organizing drives. With the new found freedom unleashed strikes became widespread. Hundreds took place nation-wide. In California alone, 47,575 agricultural laborers went on strike in 1933.(9)

Success occurred in some industries, especially those in which the companies were small or the workers were organized into one industry-wide union that included many different types of craft workers as well as unskilled workers.(10)

Twenty-three months after the passage of the NIRA, on 27 May 1935 the United States Supreme Court, however, declared the Act as unconstitutional because it was both an impermissible delegation of congressional power to the president and overreach on the power that Congress had to regulate commerce when there was a direct impact on interstate commerce.(11)


Led by Senator Wagner, the general welfare clause of the Constitution was omitted, and instead a focus on the fact that the failure of employers to recognize and bargain with unions was a major cause for strikes, which did stop production of goods intended for interstate commerce, and therefore had a very direct effect on the flow of the goods beyond single states.(12)

In attempting to restore the nation’s economy, two broad approaches had been developed: one for industry, the other for agriculture. Industry-wise the organized labor/liberal members of Congress and moderate Republicans were responsive to the demands and influence of organized labor. Not so in agriculture which was devoid of any provisions for labor. 

The National Association of Manufacturers, the steel and automobile industries, and the Southern Democrats pushed for exclusion.  The latter in particular being opposed to any concept of unionism and collective bargaining.(13)

The basis for non-inclusion may be traced during the course of drafting the bill when FDR re-assigned it from Wagner to the Massachusetts Democratic Senator David I. Walsh of the Committee on Education and Labor. In the House, Democrat William Patrick Connery, Jr., of Massachusetts and Chairman of the Labor Committee opposed inclusion. When the bill was reported out of committee on May 26, farm workers were excluded.(14)

With the background of turbulence as by-product of the fiery labor organizing movement, on 5 July 1935 the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, a.k.a. Wagner Act) was signed into law.(15) 
Sec. 7.(a) Every code of fair competition, agreement, and license approved, prescribed, or issued under this title shall contain the following conditions: (1) That employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual and or protection. (2) That no employee and not one seeking employment shall be required as a condition of employment to join any company union or to refrain from joining, organizing, or assisting a labor organization of his own choosing, and (3) That employers shall comply with the maximum hours of labor, minimum rates of pay, and other conditions of employment, approved or prescribed by the President.

Although section 7(a) of the NIRA was incorporated intact in the NLRA, clearly excluded in the latter were the agricultural laborers. As set forth in Section 2(3) they are not protected by the Act.(16)

Sec. 2(3) The term “employee” shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer,  unless the Act [this subchapter] explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. §151 et. seq.] as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.

In excluding agricultural labor from the NLRA, Congress had overlooked its own national policy, which was to eliminate “the cause of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.”

[1] the denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining [which] lead to strikes … obstructing commerce … [1] the inequality of bargaining power between employees … and employers … [which] burdens … commerce … by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.(17)

Significant was the administrative policy that precluded farmworkers from coverage. According to Secretary Perkins, inclusion did not appeal to FDR and not part of his program.(18) 

Consider also the extent of unionization among agricultural workers was in effect weak, ineffective, and without contact with labor representation by organized labor.(19) The perspective in this regard is a testament to the attitude of organized labor, particularly the crafts unions of the AFL. 

Many union organizers were under the jurisdiction of numerous craft unions that, in keeping with the principles that had led to the original success of the AFL, had little interest in organizing the growing number of industrial workers.(20) Has in the past, they continued to reject the idea of organizing workers into industrial unions. Their attitude was even more negative towards the unskilled, migratory, racial and ethnic minorities. 

This lack of advocacy on behalf of agricultural workers is evident from their exclusion in the Social Security Act of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.(21)

The Future as History

Geopolitically, the republic nature of American democracy had made it impossible for national legislation to occur on behalf of the agricultural field workers on a nationwide basis. The leverage to affect the levers of the policy planning-decision making apparatus of government would have to take place potentially within a very limited number of states and territories in which the politicos see it in their self-interest to ameliorate the impact of the Wagner Act as it relates to agricultural workers. 

Not having the legal “right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” has been the fundamental problem—the heart of the matter. The bane of Filipino and American Filipinos and other employees, Section 2(3) underscores that exclusion from federal labor relations law. Still, upon closer examination there appeared an implied escape from the iron-clad grip of denial. Away from the preview of the NLRA lay the option to each individual state or territory. Henceforth, in whatever way they could, the quest of the agricultural labor organizing movement would be to behold the “holy grail” denied them.

The next three decades from 1935 would make clear a farm workers organization, even if fully supported by all of labor, cannot succeed outside the context of a larger societal movement. It would take another social movement, one deeper and more universal in its commitment, with a strategy surgical in nature for an organization of agricultural field workers to pry-open the window of opportunity.

As with the social reform movement that left giant footprints during the Great Depression, the agricultural field workers organizing efforts must also be part and parcel of a larger and wider societal movement, at least in its inception, to have a chance of succeeding in the United States.

An exception, due to a monumental cataclysmic event, would occur a decade later in a territory of the country. Whereas World War II impeded progress in the agricultural workers organizing movement stateside, its impact would prove to be to the benefit of the plantation workers.

The vision materialized in The Territory of Hawaii with its Employment Relations Act of 21 May 1945. Stateside, from the expiration of Public Law 78 sprang forth a clarion call that would last a decade. In then the fifth largest economy in the world, after forty years of struggle, exodus from the arid shackles of entrapment finally took place with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 5 June 1975. With the C change, labor’s organizing movement came to fruition in the Golden State.

Today, over three-quarters of a century since 5 July 1935, and still, only two members of the United States can boast of a “little NLRA.” But, in those two states Jean-François Millet’s L’homme à la houe no longer is bent over and thirsty but with san gréal to quench the thirst long denied.

In the trilogy of Hawaii, Washington-Alaska, and California, inspirational and by example, Americans of Philippine heritage have been embedded in participatory democracy. They, as with all immigrants, have invested their struggle in their new country with their sweat and blood. In so doing they too have brought closer to more people the true meaning of American democracy. In their journey credence to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution advances.

In remembrance of labor’s struggle and that of Americans with a Philippine heritage for legitimacy and full acceptance, The New Castle for the 21st century strives for accuracy in pursuit of the truth, thereby contributing in the process to making the future a better world.



(1) Alyn Brodsky, Grover Cleveland: A Study in Character, 1st ed., illus. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 166.
(2) David J. Saposs, “Part I: Colonial and Federal Beginnings (to 1827),” in John Rogers Commons, David Joseph Saposs, et al., History of Labour in the United States, with an introduction note by Henry W. Farnam (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1921), 25.
(3) Sherman Act (2 July 1890), ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7; Clayton Act (15 Oct. 1914), Pub. L. 63-212, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52-53; Adamson Act (3, 5 Sept. 1916), Pub. L. 64-252, ch. 436, 39 Stat. 721, 45 U.S.C. § 65 et seq.
(4) “June 28, 1934: Answering the Critics,” in FDR’s Fireside Chats, edited by Russell D. Buhite and David W. Levy (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1992), 48.
(5) Norris-LaGuardia Act [Anti-Injunction Bill] (23 March 1932), Pub. L. 72-65, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70.
(6) The National Industrial Recovery Act (16 June 1933), Pub. L. 73-67, ch. 90, 48 Stat. 195, 15 U.S.C. § 703.
(7) Section 7(a) of the NIRA (as drafted by Gen. Hugh Johnson, an administrator under FDR, per the urging of William Green, president of the AFL) in Art Preis, Labor’s Great Step: The First Twenty Years of the CIO: 1936 – 1953 (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1992), 12.
(8) Adam Cohen, Nothing to Fear: FDR’’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America (New York: Penguin Grp., 2009), 240.
(9) U.S., Cong., Senate, Subcommittee of Committee on Education and Labor: “The Supply of Agricultural Labor as a Factor in the Evolution of Farm Organization in California,” by Varden Fuller, Pt. 54: Agricultural Labor in California—San Joaquin Valley Cotton Strike, 1933; Labor Conditions in the Imperial Valley, and Wheatland Hop-field Riot of 1913. 76th Cong., 2d sess. 1939, pursuant to Senate Resolution 255, 74th Cong. (Washington: GPO, 1940), 19948.
(10) G. Domhoff and Michael J. Webber, Class and Power in the New Deal: Corporate Moderates, Southern Democrats, and the Liberal-Labor Coalition (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2011), 106, 115.
(11) A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (27 May 1935); Domhoff, Ibid., 115, 120, 126.
(12) Domhoff, Ibid., 136.
(13) Austin P. Morris, Agricultural Labor and National Labor Legislation, 54 Cal. L. Review 1939 (1966).
Available at http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californiareview/vol54/iss5/2.
(14) Michael J. Webber, New Deal Fat Cats: Business, Labor … (New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 2000), 132.
(15) National Labor Relations Act, a.k.a. Wagner Act (5 July 1935), Pub. L. 74-198, ch. 372, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169: to Diminish the Causes of Labor Disputes Burdening or Obstructing Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to Create a National Labor Relations Board and for Other Purposes (long title).
(16) Devra Weber, Dark Sweat, White Gold: California Farm Workers, Cotton, and the New Deal (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1994), 123.
(17) NLRA, Section 1. [§151.].
(18) Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Know (New York: Viking Press, 1946), 199 – 200.
(19) Morris, Ibid.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Social Security Act (14 August 1935), Pub. L. 74-271, , ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620; Fair Labor Standards Act [Wages and Hours Bill] (25 June 1938), Pub. 75-718, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060. 29 U.S.C. ch. 8.

Images (from left to right):

  • Library of Congress: Stephen Grover Cleveland
  • Library of Congress: William Green, Frances Perkins and John Llewellyn Lewis
  • Library of Congress: David L. Walsh and Robert F. Wagner
  • Library of Congress: Robert F. Wagner and William Patrick Connery, Jr.

The Winner of the Name the Website Contest

The Tree of Knowledge logo for The New Castle Society is represented by a bamboo plant. Its roots are interwoven to the outer circle's braids to symbolize that as our collective knowledge grows, the stronger our Society becomes and continues to cycle infinitely.

The Tree of Knowledge logo for The New Castle Society is represented by a bamboo plant. Its roots are interwoven to the outer circle's braids to symbolize that as our collective knowledge grows, the stronger our Society becomes and continues to cycle infinitely.

The winner of the Guess the Logo Contest is...

Anton S. from Oakland, CA.

Anton's process for arriving at his answer: "As I am a chess player, when I first looked at the logo, I saw a rook, but then I saw the clue that it was a take-off from a Kafka novel, so I figured, okay it's not "Rook" but "The Castle" ("Das Schloss"). Now to the plant, I thought. Maybe grapevines, but the leaves didn't seem that way, so I figured there's no chance I can be certain what it is, so I'll assume it's a visual metaphor--Knowing that Kaibigan deeply values improving the lives of people, it seemed like the idea of a new society jibed with I saw: growth, and the braid representing strength through working together/helping each other out, and an emphasis on the roots which I thought represented things such as solid grounding, nourishment, connectedness to history. Then I thought that this sounded familiar, like something I'd see referenced in "The Original Writings of Philip Vera Cruz" by Sid Amores Valledor, but I couldn't quite remember, so I looked in the notes section of the book and found a reference to "The New Castle: Reaching for the Ultimate" by Malachi Martin which said "...with its liberating and transcendent power, the New Castle is a metaphor for a new vision of knowing and living." I said, "That's got to be it: The New Castle.""

For correctly guessing the name of the logo, $100 was awarded to him as well as $100 was donated, in his name, to Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Alameda County. Congratulations, Anton!

Guess the Logo Contest Background

Beginning in March 2014, a website (thefutureishistory.org) was launched as a way to bring interest to the The New Castle Society. This was accomplished by having people guess the name of the logo above. Monthly clues were added to the site between the months of  March to July and the guesses were posted to the site. 

Clue #1 (posted 03/29/2014): Take-off from a Franz Kafka novel.

Clue #2 (posted 04/30/2014): Defying any Kafkaesque vision of human fate, logo symbolizes transcendence.

Clue #3 (posted 06/02/2014): The logo symbolizes the vision of that ideal state.

Clue #4 (posted 07/01/2014): The name of the logo/website contains 3 words.

Clue #5 (posted 07/15/2014): The name of the logo/website is: The [blank] Castle. Fill in the Blank.

Welcome to The New Castle Society's Website

Thank you for coming to our space on the internet!

Over time, please come back to this page to see engaging articles about Filipino American history. 

Some of the Articles you'll find are writings that will hopefully engage you to find out more about the truth behind the exciting milestones in Filipino American life in the United States. We'll also comment and provide references to where to find more information about these milestones. 

In the end, The New Castle Society's main objective to to project Intersubjective verifiable facts in order to maintain our commitment to the truth.

We'll see you soon!