Advertisement

No minorities? No comment!

Share

Cecilia Rasmussen’s fine Nov. 11 story about the Drye family’s noble personal fight against racist post-war housing covenants in Los Angeles begs an obvious Cold Copy question: What did the L.A. Times itself editorialize about the xenophobic, racist and anti-Semitic housing restrictions that stain the conscience of modern Southern California?

To answer that, I searched on “housing” and “covenant” in the archive, and was startled to see this giant two-deck headline:

Great Negro Tide Surges Into Melting Pot of West

Advertisement

The opening paragraph feels like almost an Onion-style send-up of old-timey newspaper style mixed with clueless racism:

Peola Denham, 51, a Negro, with responsibilities more than enough to fill his great, copper hands, turned the palms outward expressively at his surroundings:

Must have been, like, before World War I or something, right? Think again — Sept. 17, 1962. In fact, the article is a mostly liberal-minded attempt to wrestle with the interesting social forces of the day. (A similar headline and story from the era: “L.A. Negroes Only Part of Over-All Minority Problem.”)

But the date suggests something more — the paper just wasn’t writing about housing covenants much until publishable sentiment in the newsroom had turned against them. As the state and federal court system wrangled over local housing restrictions, Spring Street’s editorial board, as far as I can reckon, kept strangely (and, if true, despicably) silent.

But was the board’s position that simple to assume, or dismiss? Among the many artifacts of housing racism mentioned among the archives was the 1920 Alien Property Act, preventing foreigners from owning land. Drill down into the paper’s editorial stance on just this one law, and you find...sensible opposition! From March 28, 1911:

NO ANTI-ALIEN PROPERTY LAWThe measure to prohibit ownership of California real estate by aliens, or by a corporation a majority of the stock of which is owned by aliens, is dead. It as an act which, if made a law, would do incalculable injury to Southern California. It would necessarily limit the sale of orchards, vineyards, farms, unimproved lands and city blocks and lots to American citizens. It would cause to be withdrawn from investment hundreds of millions of dollars of English, French and German capital now loaned or available for loaning on real property. It would put many banks and trust companies out of business. It would check development and paralyze progress. It would cause mortgages to be foreclosed and real property to be sacrificed upon a forced and falling market. It would be of no advantage to anybody in the world, and it would serve only to gratify the whims and prejudices of those petty-minded people who hate men and women of foreign birth and who would like to slam the door in the faces of emigrants from beyond seas.There is now no danger of its becoming a law, as the Legislature has adjourned, thank God, but its mere pendency, accompanied by even a numerically respectable support, was a disgrace to the State. We invite the world to visit the Panama Exposition and behold the productiveness of our soil, the geniality of our climate, the marvel of our growth. Shall we say to the Englishman, the Irishman, the Scotchman, the Frenchman, the German, the Italian, the Spaniard, the Portuguese, the Scandinavian, the Switzer and the Canadian — “You cannot buy or hold any of our soil. California reverses the policy which for 100 years has prevailed in other States. She welcomes only those who were born within the territorial limits of the United States.”The provisions of the proposed illiberal and outrageous law would extend to mines, to water and power properties, and to all manufacturing and commercial enterprises that necessarily include the ownership of some land. It would be a waste of time to attempt to follow the far-reaching ramifications of the anti-alien bill in their blighting effect upon the interests of the property owners, and incidentally upon non-property owners who depend upon property owners for employment.It is astonishing that such a measure should even have received respectful consideration from any mebers of a California Legislature.

Score another one for the much-maligned True Industrial Freedom board! There’s more, though the language is even more purple and the take is narrowly legalistic, in this Nov. 20, 1914 editorial inveighing against a state law restricting the property rights of Japanese:

Advertisement

Any law that may be enacted by the California Legislature attempting to make a distinction between Japanese and other resident aliens so as to inhibit the former from buying or leasing real estate in California would not only be a violation of Art. 1, Sec. 17 of the State Constitution, but it would be as inoperative as the Pope’s bull against the comet, for the President and the United States Senate could annul such a law by treaty with Japan. [...]Wherefore let the Japanese holders of ten-acre tracts on which they cultivate celery and cabbages, and the Japanese owners of town lots whose occupants clean clothing or practice the tonsorial art, be not affrighted. Gov. Johnson and his Legislature will not take away from them their little holdings at the command of Gompers and McCarthy and Job Harriman, for Uncle Sam will reach forth his arm and say to the Sacramento solons, “Thou shalt not,” and they will perforce obey, for the same reason that the tail obeys when the dog orders it to wag — because the dog is bigger than the tail.

Not only did the ed board of nine decades ago rail against racism, it also breathed a sigh of relief that the more enlightened federal government could overrule the narrow parochialism of a runaway state. I suppose in that, times really haven’t changed that much.

Matt Welch was assistant editorial page editor at the L.A. Times.

Send us your thoughts at opinionla@latimes.com.
Advertisement