The Other Californians documents the practice and attitudes of racism in the state from 1770 to 1920. It makes liberal use of quotations and excerpts and provides an appendix of statements concerning discrimination against Indians, Chicanos, Blacks, and Orientals. The material is organized into seven chapters. Three of these cover the treatment of the Indian during the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods; the other four take up the racially relevant aspects of the California constitutional debate, and the Anglo treatment of Chicanos, Chinese, and Japanese.
Heizer and Almquist, both anthropologists, are at their best on the sections dealing with Indians and in the summary section. In effect, the book is a series of lengthy quotations strung together by connecting commentary. It reads like a prosecutor’s brief of indictment. Anthropologically, it is more enlightening on the backward cultural aspects of blancus Americanus aborigine than on his victims. Anthropologists often tend to quote lengthily in order to let the subject speak for itself; historians who are not simply chroniclers prefer integration and interpretation of the complex whole.
Moral judgment does have a place in historical analysis; injustice does make sane people angry. But for the reader, righteousness does not make up for lack of perspective or ahistorical assertions; both of these are weaknesses found in the book. The view of Mexican California is overly simplified. One must not uncritically accept the descriptions of early California society by Anglo travelers. Examples of the author’s explanatory comments are the following: “by the 1840’s the Mexicans who were concentrated along the coastal margin were on the defensive, and it is probable the American annexation prevented the ultimate driving out of the Mexican overlords”; “until the discovery of gold in January 1848, California was of no particular importance to the United States beyond being a portion of territory which was to be ceded by Mexico following the end of hostilities”; and, “This minority [Chicano] lacks effective political leadership, something which, historically, it did not fight to maintain or affirm after 1850. The Mexican Californian has been remarkably tractable.” Yes, ethnocentrism does create distortion, and it is endemic and continuous.
An aspect of California, past and present, is the presence of large numbers of diverse minorities. A sound general survey of the history of inter-minority relations that takes into account the development of historical cultures of the various communities is definitely needed. Though intended as a social history, this book is more a contribution toward one. The Other Californians tantalizes with possibilities, but it is suggestive rather than substantive. Since historians have turned to anthropology, why not anthropologists turning to history? It can be enriching. In this case the positive result is a definite feel for the dimension of inter-cultural conflict.
