California History

Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

The Response of California's Chinese Populations to the Anti-Chinese Movement Author(s): R. Scott Baxter Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 42, No. 3, The Archaeology of Chinese Immigrant and

Chinese American Communities (2008), pp. 29-36 Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25617509 Accessed: 01-01-2016 23:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

29

R. Scott Baxter

The Response of California's Chinese Populations to the Anti-Chinese Movement

ABSTRACT

In the latter half of the 19th century, a strong anti-Chinese

sentiment influenced U.S politics and newspapers. Driven by a number of factors, the anti-Chinese movement expressed itself against Chinese immigrants through legislation, organized

boycotts, hostile news stories, violence, and general harass

ment. In many modern accounts, these Chinese immigrants are portrayed as passive victims who did not respond to

the actions carried out against them. Contrary to this view,

archaeological data has prompted a reassessment of contem

porary historical accounts. Together, these sources indicate an

aggressive campaign by Chinese immigrants to counter these

activities. Through organized and individual efforts, Chinese

immigrants fought back in the legislature, the courts, their

homes, places of business, and on the streets.

Introduction

California newspapers and government agen cies demonstrated a prevalent anti-Chinese sentiment throughout the latter half of the 19th

century. This attitude was also reflective of the

country's citizens at large. European American settlers expressed their prejudice and anger towards Chinese immigrants through legislation, organized boycotts, organized and random acts of violence, general harassment, and overt preju dice in day-to-day interaction with members of the Chinese community. Contemporary accounts

portray the Chinese as passive victims, deserving of the intolerance expressed against them. Par

ticularly illuminating are the many illustrations in contemporary newspapers showing caricatures of Chinese immigrants, forever running away from harassing Americans (Hoobler and Hoobler

1994:63; Farkas 1998:47). That even children felt comfortable and were, in fact, encouraged to harass and even stone adult Chinese men with out fear of reprisal underscores the perceived passivity of the Chinese (Hoobler and Hoobler

1994:64). Later historical accounts, including some recent histories, echo the stereotype that

the Chinese were inherently passive, although these accounts often deplore the prejudice that created the violent and hostile environment

(Lai and Choy 1971; Saxton 1971; Goldstein

1988; Hoobler and Hoobler 1994; Pricer 1996; Farkas 1998; Gyory 1998; Cassel 2002). Many archaeologists, the author included, have inter nalized this perspective of the downtrodden,

passive, and misunderstood Chinese immigrant of the 19th century. In recent years, a more

complex interpretation of the Chinese experi ence in America has begun to unfold. While in many instances, the Chinese did succumb to the prejudicial acts they face, several scholars have pointed out that Chinese immigrants did not always do so willingly. These authors high light mostly the legal actions taken in efforts to combat the Chinese exclusion laws (McClain 1994; Sayler 1995; Chang 2003; Lee 2003; Pfaelzer 2007). These interpretations, combined with recent archaeological and archival research, have provided some evidence that runs counter to the myth of submissive Chinese immigrants. This evidence caused the author to reassess the archival record and historical accounts and to

present a different perspective.

Anti-Chinese Movement in California

During the 1849 Gold Rush, California was transformed from a sparsely settled territory to one teeming with immigrants from around the globe, all searching for gold. Among these

immigrants were Chinese, who initially made

up only a small segment of the population. The first large influx of Chinese immigrants came at the request of the Central Pacific Railroad, which was in dire need of laborers to help build the western portions of the transcontinental railroad. Thereafter a steady stream of Chinese

immigrants came to California to fuel a labor

hungry economy. Several events took place that would irrepara

bly reshape U.S. immigration policy and the face of the Chinese American community. First, as much of the easily recoverable gold was played out, the initial gold rush ended, with more and more miners working increasingly smaller depos its. In reaction to competition at the mines, state

Historical Archaeology, 2008, 42(3):29-36. Permission to reprint required.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 42(3)

and local laws were passed that blocked immi

grants from working in many mining districts. These laws were often selectively enforced, with enforcement efforts steered toward the cultur

ally distinct and decidedly different Chinese

immigrants. Then came the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, leaving a large body of unemployed Chinese laborers in search of work. Nearly simultaneously, California hit an economic downturn. Competition for jobs became

fierce, and opportunities in the "golden state" declined. As always at times like these, people looked for someone to blame for their current

hardship. They found their target in the Chinese who were socially and physically identifiable as "different" from the rest of the population. They were often willing to work for less pay than their

European American counterparts, thereby driving down wages. Spearheaded by the labor movement and such prominent figures as Denis Kearney and

Assemblyman C. F. McGlashen, a distinct anti Chinese movement began to take shape. By the

1870s, this hostility had grown even stronger, and soon national legislation was in place to block

virtually all new immigration from China into the U.S. Table 1 below provides a short summary of just some of the laws passed to discriminate

against Chinese immigrants.

The Response

California's Chinese populations did not will

ingly accept these actions. Through the develop ment of social organizations, legal maneuvers, and other means, they fought back against the

persecution they faced in California. Evidence for this active resistance is found in both the

archaeological and historical records.

Social Organization

Chinese communities in California developed a variety of different social units to help protect themselves. Most of the early Chinese immi

grants came from 12 districts in the Kwangtung province in China. Those from similar districts soon banded together in district associations

(Hoobler and Hoobler 1994:83) that served

TABLE 1 ANTI-CHINESE LEGISLATION AND COURT DECISIONS IN CALIFORNIA

1853 State Foreign Miner's Tax disproportionately affects Chinese immigrants who are barred from pursuing U.S. citizenship.

1854 California Supreme Court decision of People v. Hall determines that Chinese people are not legally "white" and cannot

testify against "whites" in courts of law.

1855 "Act to Discourage the Immigration to this State of Persons Who Cannot Become Citizens Thereof imposed $50 entry tax on every non-white immigrant.

1858 California passes law to bar immigration of Chinese and other "Mongolians."

1862 Chinese Capitation Tax of $2.50 per month on all Chinese residing in the State, with exceptions for business owners,

those already paying Foreign Miners' License Tax, and those working in the production of sugar, rice, coffee, or tea.

1879 Constitutional revision prohibits "non-whites" from owning land.

1880 California Act prohibits aliens from fishing in State Waters.

1880 California Anti-miscegenation Law, first in United States to explicitly prohibit marriage between whites and

"Mongolians" in addition to negroes, mulattoes, or Native Americans.

1913 California alien land law prohibits those ineligible for citizenship from buying land or entering into leases longer than

three years.

1948 California Supreme Court rules that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.

Sources: Chan (1991); Takaki (1998); Hsu (2000); Chang (2003); Lee (2005). Note: See Voss and Allen, this volume:Table 1, for relevant federal legislation and court decisions.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

R. SCOTT BAXTER?The Response of California's Chinese Populations to the Anti-Chinese Movement 31

many functions. The associations provided new

arrivals with a place to stay and set them up with some form of employment. They also pro vided protection for members from both rival associations and from non-Chinese aggressors.

The number of associations grew and ultimately banded together to form what was known as the

Chinese Six Companies, later called the Chung Wah Kung Saw or Chinese Consolidated Benev

olent Association. This organization prompted several measures of civil disobedience and legal action. It encouraged immigrants not to register with the government and later hired lawyers to

battle exclusionary immigration laws.

Chinatowns

Chinatowns were another method of defense

against anti-Chinese activities. Historical accounts often seem to indicate that the Chinese were

forced to live together because no other groups wanted to live among them. By congregating together, Chinese immigrants, like other ethnic

groups, achieved several things. They could fulfill

many of their daily needs without leaving famil iar people and surroundings, thus avoiding much of the harassment they faced when interacting with non-Chinese neighbors. Most Chinatowns

were, in fact, considered by the general populace to be dirty, crime-ridden areas that were to be avoided. Contemporary newspaper accounts cer

tainly worked to portray this image, and it made Chinatowns seem both exotic and dangerous. This

may have been a benefit to the Chinese com

munities as a means of deterring outside visitors. Sometimes this perceived danger was not enough and further deterrence to outsiders was needed. An undated but clearly contemporary photograph in the collection of the Bancroft Library [1900] shows an alley in San Francisco's Chinatown,

with a Chinese man standing beneath a sign that reads in English, "These premises are private. No white person with or without guides allowed to enter." In larger Chinatowns, non-Chinese would have been quite conspicuous, adding to the

security of the situation, allowing occupants to

easily police their neighborhood against outsid ers and would-be troublemakers. A more extreme

example came from Heinlenville, one of several Chinatowns that existed in San Jose, California. Built in 1887, town residents constructed a tall board fence, topped with barbed wire, around

the perimeter of the town (Yu 1991:41). Accord

ing to the San Jose Daily Mercury (1887), the

fence would keep out the "boys," that is, local non-Chinese hecklers and ruffians. The newspaper also felt, though, that it would block the Chinese

community from view, which the writer consid ered to be a good thing.

By the 1880s, harassment of the Chinese in

San Jose had grown rather severe. The Chi natowns were repeatedly the subject of arson,

requiring successive moves, and the ultimate construction of no less than five different Chi natowns during the late 1860s to 1887. Local

European American residents were finally so

frustrated by the persistence of their Chinese

neighbors in their willingness to rebuild that

they sought legal action. Having burned down Chinatown number three, and with the Chinese

community's plans to build two new Chinatowns

(Heinlenville and Woolen Mills), the city passed an ordinance requiring all new residences to be tied into the new city sewer. Historic accounts

make it clear that local non-Chinese citizens believed that the high cost required to comply with this ordinance would dissuade San Jose's Chinese community from building within city limits. Despite this cost, the Chinese moved for

ward and built what became known as Woolen Mills Chinatown and Heinlenville.

Archaeological excavation at the Woolen Mills Chinatown revealed how the community's residents dealt with the discriminatory sewer

ordinance. Large-scale mechanical and hand excavation documented an elaborate system of wood and ceramic drains and pipes that carried waste out of the houses, flowed into a wood lined main running along the rear lot lines, and then connected into a large ceramic pipe that flowed out of the Chinatown to the main city line (Figure 1). Through this system, the Chi nese were able to meet the city's requirements, leaving no legal reason to bar the construction of the community (Baxter and Allen 2002). Woolen Mills' residents had also developed

a reasonable fear of fire after repeated arson attacks. A lackluster performance by San Jose's fire department had contributed to the destruc tion of the three previous communities. To offset this, the Chinese built their own hydrant system, linked to a well and pump, providing a reliable source of water in case of fire. Woolen

Mills' sanitation and water system were equal,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 42(3)

^^^^^^ Mt0%

FIGURE 1. View of portions of sewer system at Woolen Mills

Chinatown, San Jose, CA. (Photo by Gerald Doty.)

if not superior, to the rest of San Jose's con

temporary neighborhoods. Construction of these

systems indicates a determined community that was willing to provide the funds and labor needed to thwart prejudicial legislation.

Protest

Some Chinese sought to counter the rheto ric espoused by the anti-Chinese movement

by using the very papers that were insisting on their departure. Kwang Chang Ling sent a series of letters to the San Francisco Argonaut with detailed arguments refuting many of the anti-Chinese movement's assertions. Likewise,

Chung Sun published a letter in a Watsonville

paper decrying the treatment of the Chinese in this country (Hoobler and Hoobler 1994:65-66). In another bold move, Fong Lee of Truckee stormed into an anti-Chinese meeting and con fronted his persecutors, calling them racists

(Hagaman and Cottrell 2004:40). Surprisingly, he survived the incident!

Legal Action

Legal action was yet another option for resistance. In 1862, the case of Lin Sing v. Washburn was brought before the court, chal

lenging the Alien Poll Tax. This tax required that immigrants pay $2.50 per month for the

privilege of residing in the country. The ruling in the case found the law unconstitutional (Yu 1991:12). In 1875-1876, the Joint Committee of

Congress spent a great deal of time considering the "Chinese question." To defend themselves, the Chinese Six Companies hired lawyers Fred erick Bee and Benjamin Brooks (Yu 1991:13). Bee proved to be an especially important advocate for Chinese immigrants. He monitored the activities of anti-Chinese agitators, pursued prosecution against them, and forced employers to honor their contracts with Chinese immigrants (Hagaman and Cottrell 2004:38-39).

The passing of the Geary Act in 1892

prompted an immediate reaction from the Chi nese Six Companies. The initial response was to refuse to register as the law required. When this led to arrest and potential deportation, the

organization took the federal government to court. Although hopes ran high in the case of

Fong Yue Ting v. the United States, the court

ultimately ruled in favor of the government (Yu 1991:18).

The Spirit and the Letter of the Law

In other instances, it was easiest to legally sidestep the law. Such was the case in the construction of Heinlenville and Woolen Mills Chinatowns in 1887 in San Jose. By this time, it was illegal for persons of Chinese descent to own property. To circumvent this situation, the

proponents of the two towns found European American property owners or agents willing to rent or lease the property to them. In doing so, Chinese immigrants were able to legally build the necessary communities without violating any laws.

Similar actions were carried out in the mining districts where Chinese miners were generally denied ownership of land or claims, unless the

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

R. SCOTT BAXTER?The Response of California's Chinese Populations to the Anti-Chinese Movement 33

land was believed to be worthless. Such was the case with the teaming of Hop Sing and Company with Charles Hendel at La Porte, California.

Here, Hendel acquired the claim and operated it with Chinese labor provided by his partner at

Hop Sing and Company (Farkas 1998:47-48). Horticulture worked in a similar fashion. In

the latter half of the 19th century, the Santa Clara Valley had become a center for horticul

ture, much of it fueled by Chinese labor. Some Chinese were laborers on European American

farms, while others worked as sharecroppers, once again sidestepping the issue of land own

ership. The strength of the relationship between the landowners and their Chinese farmers was

sorely tested in 1893, when a rash of barn burn

ings occurred. These arson attacks were directed

only at those who employed Chinese workers.

Realizing they could not function without Chi nese workers, the farmers held fast, retaining their Chinese employees (Yu 1991:46).

In this respect, the relationship between the Chinese and their European American coun

terparts was symbiotic, if somewhat parasitic. The Chinese needed the European American

agent to make their business ventures legal. By having a non-Chinese agent hold the land

title, mining claim, or business, the Chinese were able to meet the letter (if not the spirit or intent) of the law. Many successful Chinese business ventures flourished under this arrange ment. Conversely, the Chinese provided cheap labor for their European American counterparts.

Knowing that the immigrants could not operate without agents, many of the agents undoubtedly took advantage of the situation, forcing the Chinese to work for substandard wages. The

exclusionary legislation passed to eliminate the Chinese from the labor force may have actually exacerbated the situation. By removing legal protection for many Chinese laborers, they lost much of their leverage when negotiating wages, resulting in generally lower pay. With a large pool of laborers forced to work for substandard

wages, the broader impact may have been the

general suppression of wages throughout the state. This situation closely parallels the current events surrounding immigrants into the U.S. from Latin America.

Some sought to counter discrimination through organized strikes. Chinese laborers carried out strikes against large companies like the

Central Pacific Rail Road, the Pacific Mail

Line, and several San Francisco cigar makers

(Yu 1991:17). In response to anti-Chinese

legislation during the 1880s, laundrymen in San Luis Obispo went on strike, leaving their

patrons with nothing but rumpled clothing. In San Jose the disgruntled laundrymen also went on strike, with some going so far as to cut the buttons from their patrons' clothing, rendering it unusable (Laffey 1993:3). It is somewhat ironic that the Chinese used the strike tactics of the American labor movement, the same group that was spearheading the anti-Chinese movement.

Open Aggression

At times, the only alternative left was out

right violence. Although not common, violent reactions did occur. Violence within California's Chinese communities was often tolerated, and even regulated, as long as it did not directly affect non-Chinese or, perhaps more directly, "white" populations. Chinese immigrants were

frequently stripped of any armaments upon step ping off the boat in San Francisco, although they were not specifically barred from pos sessing weapons once in California. This is a

surprising oversight, considering all the other

legal actions taken against various Chinese

populations across the state. This is not to say there was not concern. An 1887 newspaper account from Truckee, California, illustrated the fear that Truckee's Chinese population was

getting their hands on guns (Goldstein 1988:49; Hagaman and Cottrell 2004). During this time, anti-Chinese groups were actively trying to force the Chinese out of Truckee by any means pos sible. Apparently, some thought the Chinese had

finally had enough and were arming themselves for some planned revolt. Bee, the lawyer, and

great defender of Chinese immigrants' rights, warned that if harassment of Truckee's Chinese

community did not stop, there would most cer

tainly be bloodshed.

Archaeological data from a Chinese site adja cent to the town of Truckee provided concrete evidence that Truckee's Chinese residents were indeed armed and were regularly using firearms.

Known as the Misery Whip site, this small woodcutters' camp was occupied during the latter part of the 1880s. Numerous .38 caliber short rimfire cartridges were recovered from

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 42(3)

this site. As they were too small for hunting or other sporting purposes, these cartridges were of a type popularly chambered for pocket pis tols and would only be useful for self defense

(Baxter 2004). Bee's prediction of violence in Truckee was

fulfilled when a constable tried to serve a war rant to a resident of Truckee's Chinatown. In the words of a contemporary account, "All Chinatown arose in arms to repel the invaders, and a lively conflict ensued, during which some

forty shots were fired." During the melee several Chinese were seriously injured, and the subject of the warrant arrested (Wells 1880).

Another physical reminder of just how hard the Chinese could push back comes from the

cemetery in Jackson, California. Here a head stone bears the epitaph "M.V.B. Griswold, Assas sinated by Chinamen at the residence of Horrace Kilham in Jackson, Amador County, Cal." After

years of toiling at low-wage jobs, a group of Chinese immigrants finally decided that manual labor was not the way to riches. They killed

Mr. Griswold in order to attain the key to his

employer's safe, which contained some $8,000 to

$9,000 in gold. Their crime was so shocking at the time that a 3 5-page booklet was published by a local printer, providing a full account of the events (Figure 2). Unfortunately for the mur

derers, they were captured within a few weeks and soon held the distinction of being among the first persons to be legally executed in the State of California (Springer 1858).

Conclusions

A re-evaluation of both archaeological and historical data reveals a consistent, albeit com

plex, pattern among California's Chinese immi

grant populations that indicated anything but

passive behavior. Although seemingly anecdotal, this data reveals an adaptable and multipronged response to anti-Chinese actions.

The response was often in measure to the scale of the threat. When confronted with national or statewide legislation, California's various Chinese communities and factions banded

together, hiring lawyers and sponsoring legal maneuvers to counteract these attacks in court. On the regional level, Chinese communities that lacked the resources of statewide organizations pulled together to pool finances and figure out

.^^JM ^ M II R I) E It

?p ^ M. V. B. GRISWOLI), F 1 FIVE CHINK ASSASSINS: !

FOU SIN?THE PRINCIPAL. TOOKTIirK WITH >

TIIK LIFE OF GUISWOLI). I ASti rilK ST*rKMKVT^ <i>

l() L SIN. nine YKK ANIMOUN Y0I\

- i:\ti:\cku th i:i nr\t; at .ia? ks<?n. apish, ir.. is>

Uluslratid uitii (iirrcrt I.ikrnr.ws of the jHiirtirrrrs. ' . ? \r\

^ T A. SIMUMiKK .t CO , I'M NT S?L

fe. ... .

FIGURE 2. Booklet published by the Amador Ledger concern

ing the murder of M.V.B. Griswold. (Courtesy of Amador

County Archives.)

ways to work around the law, such as with the construction of the Heinlenville and Woolen

Mills Chinatowns in San Jose. Within these

communities, like-minded individuals often worked in unison, striking against specific ordinances, such as the laundrymen's strikes in San Jose and San Luis Obispo. On an individual

level, reactions ranged from letters of protest posted in local newspapers to violent, desperate outbursts to attain particular outcomes. The

assemblage of such incidents and data dissipates the myth of the completely passive Chinese

immigrant. The results of active measures by Chinese

immigrants were mixed. On a local level, Chinese cordwood cutters were driven from the Truckee Basin, and Chinese miners were excluded from all but the least productive mining claims. On a national level, legislation continued to bar almost all immigration from

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

R. SCOTT BAXTER?The Response of California's Chinese Populations to the Anti-Chinese Movement 35

China until well into the 20th century. Being pinched from both ends, it was at a community level in urban centers where Chinese immigrants

were most successful. By banding together in

Chinatowns, they were able to maintain a sense

of community and retain a modicum of financial success. As the Chinese population in Califor nia decreased during the latter part of the 19th

century, it simultaneously pulled itself together. The many smaller Chinatowns scattered around California gradually faded away, while those in the larger urban centers, such as San Francisco and later Los Angeles, continue to thrive as centers of Chinese culture.

References

Bancroft Library

[ 1900] Photograph, Unidentified alley, Chinatown. Bancroft

Library, University of California, Berkeley. Available

online at <http://content.cdlib.org/arki/13030/hb277

9n97x/;jsessionid=JzPVe4j35_8pJWUk?docId=hb27

79n97x&layout=printable-details>.

Baxter, R. Scott

2004 National Register Evaluation of the Misery Whip Site

(CA-PLA-1420H).ReporttotheTahoeNationalForest, Truckee, CA, from Past Forward, Inc., Jackson, CA.

Baxter, R. Scott, and Rebecca Allen

2002 Archaeological Investigations ofLife within the Woolen

Mills Chinatown. In The Chinese in America: A History

from Gold Mountain to the New Millennium, Susie Lan

Cassel, editor, pp. 381-398. AltaMira Press, Walnut

Creek, CA.

Cassel, Susie Lan (editor) 2002 The Chinese in America: A History from Gold Mountain

to the New Millennium. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Chan, Sucheng

1991 Asian Americans: An Interpretive History. Twayne Publishers, New York, NY

Farkas, Lani Ah Tye

1998 Bury My Bones in America. Carl Mautz Publishing, Nevada City, CA.

Goldstein, Michael Andrew

1988 Truckee's Chinese Community: From Coexistence to Disintegration, 1870-1890. Master's thesis,

Department of History, University of California, Los

Angeles.

Gyory, Andrew

1998 Closing the Gate: Race, Politics, and the Chinese

Exclusion Act. University of North Carolina Press,

Chapel Hill.

Hagaman, Wallace R., and Steve F. Cottrell

2004 The Chinese Must Go! The Cowboy Press, Nevada

City, CA.

Hoobler, Dorothy, and Thomas Hoobler

1994 The Chinese American Family Album. Oxford

University Press, New York, NY.

Hsu, Madeline Y.

2000 Dreaming of Gold, Dreaming of Home:

Transnationalism and Migration between the

United States and South China, 1882-1943. Stanford

University Press, Stanford CA.

Laffey, Glory Anne

1993 The Early Chinatowns of San Jose. Report to

Basin Research, San Jose, CA, from Archives and

Architecture, San Jose, CA.

Lai, H. Mark, and Phillip P. Choy

1971 Outlines: History of the Chinese in America. Chinese

American Studies Planning Group, San Francisco, CA.

Lee, Erika

2003 At Americas Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. University of North

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

2005 Orientalisms in the Americas :AHemispheric Approach to Asian American History. Journal of Asian American

Studies 8(3):235-256.

McClain, Charles J.

1994 In Search of Equality. University of California Press,

Berkeley.

Pfaelzer, Jean

2007 Driven Out: Roundups and Resistance of the Chinese

in Rural California. In Chinese America: History

Perspectives 2007, Elisabeth Beller, editor, pp. 113-114.

Chinese Historical Society of America, San Francisco, CA.

Pricer, Barbara

1996 The Chinese in Northern California. Barbara Pricer,

Quincy, CA.

San Jose Daily Mercury

1887 No title. San Jose Daily Mercury, 18 May. San Jose, CA.

Saxton, Alexander

1971 The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese

Movement. University of California Press, Berkeley.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 42(3)

Sayler, Lucy E.

1995 Laws Harsh As Tigers. University of North Carolina

Press, Chapel Hill.

Springer, T. A.

1858 Murder ofM. V.B. Griswold by Five Chinese Assassins.

T. A. Springer & Co., Jackson, CA.

Takaki, Ronald

1998 Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian

Americans. Back Bay Books/Little, Brown, and

Company, New York, NY.

Wells, Harry L.

1880 A History of Nevada County, California with illus

trations descriptive of its scenery, residences, public

buildings, fine blocks, and manufactories. Thompson & West, Oakland, CA.

Yu, Connie Young

1991 Chinatown San Jose, USA. San Jose Historical Museum

Association, San Jose, CA.

R. Scott Baxter

Past Forward, Inc.

PO Box 369 9369 Main Street Plymouth, CA 95669

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.234 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:28:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions