Racial Frontiers: Africans, Chinese, and Mexicans in Western America, 1848-1891 [Paperback]

Under De Leon's model, the American West is not only viewed as an actual
frontier, but a "racial frontier" as well. De Leon's racial frontier is a place
where races and cultures meet. More importantly, it is a place where his three
target "races" interact with each other and what he generally presents as the
homogenous white race. De Leon sees this interaction in political, social, and
economic terms. Definitions aside, the American West offered many minorities the
opportunity to start their lives anew. African-Americans, Chinese, and Mexicans
all sought out the dream of the new frontier. In the face of racism and a
general distrust from the dominant culture, even disadvantaged groups found
advantages in the American West.

In place of celebrating obvious successes in early race relations in the
American West, De Leon attempts to place the square pegs of history in his round
multicultural holes. One of many glaring instances occurs in his description of
1880's Presidio County in Texas. He describes a community made up of whites,
blacks, and Mexicans centered around the military installation of Fort Davis.
This community lived as one, and intermarriage was not unheard of. De Leon's
explanation is presumptuous beyond belief: "Thus all three races had to modify
their imported identities to exist as part of a tricultural community" (p. 100).
What? How does De Leon know what their "imported identities" were? Could it
possibly be that these people were united by a commonality beyond their
nationalities and the color of their skin? Could it be that some "Anglo"
community leaders were not knuckle-dragging racist thugs? He even goes on to
admit that there is no historical evidence whatsoever to back up his claim, but
this seems to matter little to De Leon.

In referring to whites, or "Anglos" as Dr. De Leon sometimes calls them, he
shamelessly baits the reader into inferring that all whites held racist
attitudes: "...whites had constructed attitudes toward people of mixed ancestry
that argued unluckily for Mexicans" (p. 31). Really? Whites also "...meant to keep
the oppressed some distance from one another, lest they question white dictates
over jobs and wages" (p. 51). All whites? Additionally, whites "...saw little of
redeemable quality in the ways of Africans, Chinese, and Mexicans." (p. 68) If
not all whites, which whites is De Leon referring to? On nearly every page, De
Leon uses his broad brush to vilify and misrepresent an entire group. Isolated
acts of violence become the rule and successful interactions between groups are
downplayed by De Leon. Is he referring to native born American whites? Mexican
whites of Castilian or other European decent? Protestant or Catholic whites?

Pale, olive, or brown skinned whites? Or is it just anyone who qualifies as a
white oppressor in De Leon's scheme of things?

The author scornfully refers to Gaudalupe Vallejo as having tried to "pass
herself off" as white, but was she not? A cursory inspection of the globe
reveals that Spain is indeed located on the European continent and Spaniards are
indeed Europeans. Subtle differences in Mediterranean and Latin skin tones
aside, for the author to refer to Mexicans as a separate "race" is historically
inaccurate on nearly every level.

The author makes much of the frontier lynching of minorities and does his best
to emphasize the racist motivations behind them. Sing Lee, Chepita Rodriguez and
the legendary hanging in Downieville California are all cited as examples of
"...the victimization of helpless minorities" (p. 33). What De Leon fails to
mention is that racially motivated lynching was a relatively infrequent
occurrence in the American West, and that most of those found dangling at the
end of ropes were Caucasians. Considering that the most violent areas of the
West were populated by a generally young, male, and heavily armed population, it
is near miraculous that violence of this sort was not even more prevalent.
Regardless, as the population increased, collective violence declined markedly,
most notably because it was considered the lowest form of barbarism by the
dominant "Anglo" culture.

De Leon concentrates on the extremes in a turbulent and violent period of
American history. Rather than research the obvious unifying social factors and
cultural tolerance of millions of white Americans in the nineteenth century, De
Leon prefers to use a broad (and highly biased) brush to concretize his own
divisive and separatist views. Racial Frontiers is an unfortunate book. In the
books introduction, De Leon makes a strange disclaimer as to the accuracy of his
blanket statements regarding race: "As a matter of convenience, I have gone with
current trends..." (p. 3). But, if the current trends are wrong enough to merit
such a disclaimer, why write in such an obviously misleading fashion? While
solid in its thesis, Racial Frontiers descends into the modern politics of
collective guilt and blame.