7. California and Reconstruction
D. Michael Bottoms skillfully engages
readers in California's racial turmoil in An
Aristocracy of Color, Race and Reconstruction in California and the West, 1850
- 1890 (2013). Nineteenth-century white
Californians expended tremendous energy to 1) keep their various racial
prejudices straight and 2) design multiple campaigns against specific non-white
groups according to complex reasoning, rationalizations and lies.
African Americans seemed to come out
marginally ahead of other minorities in California, thanks to the Thirteenth through
Fifteenth Amendments, resulting from the sufferings of the black
race and grudgingly acknowledged (though not ratified) by Californians. Human nature can be wicked: California's
blacks were unwilling to share the fruits of their long-fought battle with
fellow minorities. Instead, they adopted
whites' sense of superiority. Whites had
systematically crushed California's Native Americans before the Civil War,
leaving Indians in the unwanted position of being, to use a Pacific Northwest
analogy, last men on the totem pole. White
Californians rated their bias against the Chinese between blacks and Indians,
creating a mythology about Asians that rivaled the inventiveness of Aesop's Fables. They labeled "Chinamen" subhuman,
dirty and infectious. But the
resourceful Chinese fought back,
employing American law to their advantage, riding on the coattails of
Reconstruction legislation. Nevertheless,
California mirrored the nation well into the mid-twentieth century as they
strived desperately to maintain white supremacy, regardless of the color or
race of its minorities.
Because of my surname, I would be remiss
not to mention Bottoms' Chapter 2, "The Apostasy of Henry Huntly
Haight." (I checked with my
husband's Aunt Ladonna, our family genealogist, who assures me that HHH and we perch on different
branches of the family tree.). Haight
became governor of California as the Civil War segued into Reconstruction. He vocalized the belief, as Bottoms explains,
that "black suffrage was . . . the first step in the inevitable elevation
of all nonwhites" (59). Under his
leadership, California refused to ratify the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Constitutional
Amendments, realizing they would pave the way to full citizenship not only for blacks
but also for Indians and Chinese. It was
Haight who unwrapped California's "simple binary racial hierarchy" of whites versus nonwhites to reveal "a
more complicated and more ambiguous hierarchy . . . along three, or even four,
axes" (59). Haight brought already-roiling
prejudices into open controversies. By
then, there was no stopping the downward-spiraling process.
The question of the way African Americans battled for their rights at the expense of the Chinese and Indians strikes me as a difficult one. Were they deliberately hateful, or was it more likely they would achieve their goals by maintaining their different-ness from the other groups. By attempting to maintain solidarity with other minorities, mightn't they have irreparably endangered their own prospects? I think they might.
ReplyDeleteDiane, When the subordinated becomes the subordinator is always an interesting study, and one that I think is always difficult to fully explain. Yes, maintaining different-ness, as Carol says, might reassure white California that some concessions to blacks would not open the floodgates of racial equality. But then I think we also must ask if black's vitriol towards Chinese was necessary to maintain different-ness. I think we would have to examine black-Chinese relationships in California more closely to really begin to understand why blacks distanced themselves from other nonwhite minorities who were fighting for the same recognition. But I think this is a great point to bring up, Diane.
ReplyDelete