Denver in the Gilded Age may have been an economic boomtown; but it was also a powder keg waiting to explode. When that inevitable eruption occurred—in the Anti-Chinese Riot of 1880—it was sparked by white resentment at the growing encroachment of Chinese immigrants who had crossed the Pacific Ocean and journeyed overland in response to an expanding labor market. Liping Zhu’s book provides the first detailed account of this momentous conflagration and carefully delineates the story of how anti-Chinese nativism in the nineteenth century grew from a regional political concern to a full-fledged national issue. Zhu tells a complex tale about race; class; and politics. He reconstructs the drama of the riot—with Denver’s Rocky Mountain News fanning the flames by labeling the Chinese “the pest of the Pacificâ€â€”and relates how white mobs ransacked Chinatown while other citizens took pains to protect their Asian neighbors. Occurring two days before the national election; it had a decisive impact on sectional political alignments that would undercut the nation’s promise of equal rights for all peoples made after the Civil War and would have repercussions lasting well into the next century.By examining the relationship between the anti-Chinese movement and the rise of the West; this work sheds new light on our understanding of racial politics and sectionalism in the post-Reconstruction era. As the West’s newfound political muscle threatened Republican hegemony in national politics; many Republican legislators compromised their commitment to equal rights and unfettered immigration by joining Democrats to pass the noxious 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act—which was not repealed until 1943 and only earned congressional apologies in 2011 and 2012. The Denver Anti-Chinese Riot strikes at the core of the national debate over race and region in the late nineteenth century as it demonstrates a correlation between the national retreat from the campaign for racial equality and the rise of the American West to national political prominence. Thanks to Zhu’s powerful narrative; this once overlooked event now has a place in the saga of American history—and serves as a potent reminder that in the real world of bare-knuckle politics; competing for votes often trumps fidelity to principle.
#2198419 in Books 2007-03-07Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.31 x 1.15 x 6.33l; 1.40 #File Name: 0700615067344 pages
Review
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful. The Radicalization and De-Radicalization of Nazi Polices Against Jews and Poles. Slavs Not Exterminated for Utilitarian ReasonsBy Jan PeczkisI organize my review by topics:PROTO-NAZI GERMAN CONDUCT AGAINST POLESThe main subject of this book is the once mixed German-Polish population of Wartheland (near Poznan; or Posen). Rutherford observes a close continuity between the Second-Reich's (Bismarck; von Bulow; etc.) anti-Polish policies and those of the Third Reich. He views the HAKATA movement as a proto-Nazi one (p. 25). In spite of the onerous challenge; the Poles remained indomitable: "Far from eradicating Polish national consciousness and cultural autonomy; Germany's long-standing anti-Polish stance; laced with Teutonic hubris and ethnocentric nationalism; had only reinforced the Poles' desire to shake the foreign yoke and reestablish a state of their own." (p. 32).HITLER MORE ANTI-POLISH RACIST THAN ANTI-BLACK RACISTFor all his racism; Hitler said that he preferred to rule over Negroes than Poles (p. 244). Heinrich Himmler once planned to kill 30 million Slavs as a byproduct of the upcoming Operation Barbarossa. (p. 297).REICH TO BE POLENREIN; NOT JUST JUDENREINDuring the German conquest of Poland in 1939; local Germans (the VOLKSDEUTSCHE SELBTSCHUTZ) attempted the expulsion of the Wartheland Poles on their own initiative. (p. 74). Soon this became official German policy. Owing in part to Polish resistance; the Germans fell far short of their goals. (p. 164). Poles resisted expulsion through such means as sleeping in the fields and otherwise avoiding their homes. (p. 159). The endangered Poles also engaged in economic sabotage. They slaughtered their livestock and sold the meat on the black market. (p. 278). If deported; they often returned. (p. 279).FOR A TIME; POLES AND JEWS WERE EQUAL VICTIMSFor the first year and a half of the German occupation; the Wartheland Poles and Jews were treated much the same (p. 124). In fact; for Himmler; the pursuit of lebensraum policies took precedence over dealing with the Jews (p. 128); and the extermination of the local Jews didn't begin until late 1941 at Chelmno (Kulm). (p. 172).POLES CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE GERMANIZEDHitler rejected the notion that ethnic Poles could ever become Germans. However; Polonized Germans could; and should; be re-Germanized. By spring 1941; the growing need of local Poles for forced labor had forced the Germans to discontinue their expulsion of the Wartheland Poles. (p. 193). To rationalize the continued existence of Poles in this Reich-annexed region; the Germans were forced to relax their racist policies (pp. 207-211) over Himmler's objections. (p. 210). In time; even those Wartheland Poles who simply exhibited "German characteristics" (e. g.; cleanliness; sense of order; etc.) were allowed to sign the DVL (DEUTSCHE VOLKSLISTE)! The de-Polonization of Wartheland was relegated to a decades-long postwar project. (p. 203).SLAVS NOT EXTERMINATED BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES; AND NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE ESTEEMED MORE THAN JEWSOwing to the foregoing turn of events; Rutherford's advanced the premise that; as WWII continued; Nazi policies against Poles became de-radicalized while those against Jews became radicalized. His reasoning is; at best; oversimplified. To begin with; and by his own admission; Hans Ehlich realized that the Nazis could not afford to lose seventy million Slavic workers by exterminating them; even had they won the war. (p. 219). Consequently; they de-radicalized their policies against Slavs because they were forced by circumstances to do so!In addition; radicalization and de-radicalization are relative terms; and Rutherford overlooks essential facts. Nazi actions against Jews never became so radicalized as to prevent some German full-blooded Jews (e. g.; the SCHUTZJUDEN) from being deliberately spared and re-labeled Aryans. Never did Germany invade its reluctant allies; Bulgaria and especially Finland; to kill off their Jews. At no time did Nazi policies go as far as killing Jewish Allied POWs. Nor did Hitler ever compel Sweden or Switzerland to turn over their Jews as a condition of their continued neutrality. As for "de-radicalization"; one must realize the fact that the Germans never stopped murdering Poles (notably the intelligentsia); and that Nazi cultural genocide against Poles never ceased either. In fact; German units attempted to blow up the cultural treasures of Czestochowa and Krakow in the waning hours of the German occupation of Poland.Unfortunately; Rutherford uncritically cites neo-Stalinist John Connelly; who asserted that; whereas the Germans came to see Slavs as useful; they never came to think of Jews in that way (pp. 219-220). This is patently incorrect. The Germans; realizing the usefulness of Jews; diverted a few hundred thousand of them from the gas chambers and into forced labor. (A large fraction of these ended up surviving the war). The successful Kastner-Eichmann deal; as well as attempts to release Jews in exchange for Allied payment in money or trucks; also proves that the Nazis did in fact come to see Jews as an economic commodity.
