The Power of Biases: Anti-Chinese Attitudes in California’s Gold Mines

Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II Volume 22 Article 6 2017 The Power of Biases: Anti-Chinese Attitudes in California’s Gold Mines Joe Curran Santa Clara Univeristy, Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Curran, Joe (2017) "The Power of Biases: Anti-Chinese Attitudes in California’s Gold Mines," Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II: Vol. 22 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol22/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact . Curran: The Power of Biases The Power of Biases: Anti-Chinese Attitudes in California’s Gold Mines Joe Curran A study conducted in 2015 found that 49 percent of Americans believe immigrants take jobs away from “true Americans,” and that 61 percent believe that immigrants take social services away. 1 These beliefs in the negative effects of immigrants, which inform immigration policy today, have deep roots. Anti-immigrant sentiments began in the United States during the first waves of immigration from Europe in the late 18th century. Various immigrant groups faced severe discrimination throughout the 19th century, but one group was the subject of the first prominent and targeted law restricting immigration to the United States in 1882: the Chinese. The anti-Chinese movement, like all anti-immigrant movements, was the result of a variety of factors. The motives that shape attitudes towards immigrants are often grounded in economic, racial, and cultural phenomena. In examining the interactions between these factors with regards to the Chinese in the gold mines of California in the 1850s, where the anti-Chinese movement first took hold, much may be learned about the American psychology regarding the treatment of immigrants. A multitude of historians have discussed attitudes towards the Chinese in various contexts: in voluminous histories on California, in works on the Gold Rush, and in books and articles specifically on the Chinese and their treatment in California. Throughout time, the historiography has evolved with regards to both the explanations for animosity and in the portrayal of the Chinese. With regards to the latter, it is necessary to note that as time progressed, historians generally gave more attention to the Chinese as active participants of history in their own right rather than as the passive subjects of history. In this way, the historiography reflects the prevailing attitudes towards the Chinese in the United States, which have become significantly more accepting in recent decades, with the late 1960s and early 1970s as a 1 Cliff Young, “Trump’s ‘America First’ in Global Context: Global Resonance of AntiImmigrant Rhetoric,” Ipsos Public Affairs (March 2016). Historical Perspectives, Series II, Volume XXII, 2017 Published by Scholar Commons, 2017 1 Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 22 [2017], Art. 6 general turning point. For the present study, however, the focus of the historiography is on the explanations for the anti-Chinese sentiments during the Gold Rush. The literature began with the first historians of California: Theodore Hittell, Hubert Howe Bancroft, Josiah Royce, and Charles Howard Shinn, who published their works in the late 19th century. 2 To explain the causes of problems during the Gold Rush, one of which was Chinese discrimination, these historians blamed immorality. The blame was placed, according to Leonard Pitt, on both “immoral foreigners” and on “otherwise moral Americans obsessed with the pursuit of wealth.”3 Moral explanations for discord were confined to these early historians, however, with the focus shifting as time progressed from the theme of morality to one of economics. The economic frustrations and threats felt by white miners exist as perhaps the most prominent lines of explanation for animosity towards the Chinese. One of the first historians to explicitly state this was Mary Roberts Coolidge in 1909. According to Coolidge, the first initial anti-Chinese sentiments came from white miners competing with the Chinese for good placers and wage jobs. She described the initial reaction to the Chinese in California as positive, which started a tradition among many historians to portray a warm welcome for the Chinese. Coolidge acknowledged that animosity as a result of racial biases existed upon the arrival of the first Chinese workers, but argued that these were outweighed by the economic benefits of a small Chinese presence. When, however, the belief that the Chinese were detracting from the economic prosperity of whites became more widespread, sentiments changed. 4 According to Sucheng Chan, the emphasis on economic reasons for negative sentiments towards the Chinese continued to manifest in the early 20th century with historians such as John 2 Theodore Henry Hittell, History of California (San Francisco, CA: Pacific Press, 1885); Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of California (New York: Bancroft Co, 1890); Josiah Royce, California: From the Conquest in 1846 to the Second Vigilance Committee in San Francisco: A Study of American Character; Charles Howard Shinn, Mining Camps: A Study in American Frontier Government, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; New York: A. A. Knopf, 1948). 3 Leonard Pitt, “The Beginnings of Nativism in California,” Pacific Historical Review 30, no.1 (February 1961): 23. 4 Mary Roberts Coolidge, Chinese Immigration (New York: Arno Press, 1969), 21–29. 7 https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol22/iss1/6 2 Curran: The Power of Biases McGroarty, Henry Norton, Zoeth Eldredge, and Gertrude Atherton. 5 Another prominent historian who approached the issue from an economic angle is Leonard Pitt, who argued in 1961 that the beginning of nativism in California was in late 1849 and early 1850 when most white miners wandered from camp to camp, fostering an “economic jealousy” of foreign miners and mining companies who took what they believed was their rightful gold as Americans. Along these lines, Pitt emphasized that the free labor preferences of whites contributed to anti-Chinese sentiments, the importance of which is echoed by Tricia Knoll.6 Throughout the historiography, economic threats and fears continued to manifest as primary explanations for animosity. 7 It is an inaccurate representation of the historiography, however, to isolate economic explanations for animosity from other factors. Historians have also acknowledged the role that race played in the anti-Chinese moveme (...truncated)