Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's called "The WPA Guide to California" written during the Great Depression by authors who roamed the nation documenting what they observed and paid by the government. You can get the book for cheap on the Internet; I bought a used copy for $3 on Amazon. Highly recommend this book of California when there were no freeways, citrus groves for miles, small towns and a slow way of life so unlike the way it is today.
Oh yes, I've heard about that but have never read it. Sounds like a good read. Yes, pre-freeways and BEFORE smog became an issue in the 1940's.
One thing about the 1930's New Deal was that they moved fast back then. The Civilian Conservation Corps was enacted in March 1933 and they had people working by that summer.
I don't see why we can't do something like that with the LA River. We've done a TON of studies on how to bring the river back. And we've got a ton of people out of work. So while we have the internet and life is fast paced....it seems like we move TOO slowly in other ways!
From menial labor jobs to high skilled engineering jobs we could be employing people to bring the river back, NOW. Granted we did not have environmental review laws like CEQA (Calif. Environmental Quality Act) back then. I also understand it's a complicated issue to restore the river.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that with a little imagination and thinking, we could do a project like that more quickly. We'd employ people, provide a boost to the local economy, and in the end we'd have a great public resource with bike paths, playgrounds, etc.
majoun, you mentioned this history of LA before and I find it fascinating. What exactly caused this early influx of all-white immigrants? Were they basically Midwesterners?
Midwesterners, Southerners, and Texans. Plenty of Lower Midwesterners and Texans. (That's why the now-extinct early 20th century SoCal accent sounded like it was from Central Texas, and as late as the 1980 census Texas was the 2nd largest state of origin in L.A. County - in most of the state it was #1 and in every county in the state it was in the top 5. The Okies and the Great Migration added to this - California's African-American population was originally mostly of Texan origin. ) The "upper class" tended to be more Midwestern. L.A. didn't have Klan activity on the level of OC but had a Klan backed mayor in the 1920s, John Porter. The most powerful attorney and one of the most influential men in L.A. in that era, William Gibbs McAdoo, was from Tennessee and very much a Dixiecrat.(FWIW, he was Woodrow Wilson's son in law) As a US Senator from California he accepted support from the Klan.
These "heartland whites" people who flowed in after the railroad was extended to L.A. in 1880 were a far inferior breed to those who'd come to L.A. in Old West times. While there was a problem with racism in Old West L.A. the newcomers brought an institutionalized racism that was far worse than what had previously existed, and an intolerance of "disorder", a hatred of the large cities of the east and midwest (and of San Francisco), religious fundamentalism, antisemitism, and probitionism. Old West California despite its flaws was generally tolerant and individualistic and a man could "earn his worth" in a way he couldn't once provincial heartland civilization hit the shores of the Pacific. For example, California's only Hispanic governor once it gained statehood, Romauldo Castillo, was governor in the 1870s. 20 years later he could never have been governor.
Quote:
Was Orange county's origin also this huge surge of Americans from the East Coast\ Midwest? It could very well be why Orange county is still quite conservative.
Orange County's original American settlers were farmers and oil workers from Texas and Louisiana.
Midwesterners, Southerners, and Texans. Plenty of Lower Midwesterners and Texans. (That's why the now-extinct early 20th century SoCal accent sounded like it was from Central Texas, and as late as the 1980 census Texas was the 2nd largest state of origin in L.A. County - in most of the state it was #1 and in every county in the state it was in the top 5. The Okies and the Great Migration added to this - California's African-American population was originally mostly of Texan origin. ) The "upper class" tended to be more Midwestern. L.A. didn't have Klan activity on the level of OC but had a Klan backed mayor in the 1920s, John Porter. The most powerful attorney and one of the most influential men in L.A. in that era, William Gibbs McAdoo, was from Tennessee and very much a Dixiecrat.(FWIW, he was Woodrow Wilson's son in law) As a US Senator from California he accepted support from the Klan.
These "heartland whites" people who flowed in after the railroad was extended to L.A. in 1880 were a far inferior breed to those who'd come to L.A. in Old West times. While there was a problem with racism in Old West L.A. the newcomers brought an institutionalized racism that was far worse than what had previously existed, and an intolerance of "disorder", a hatred of the large cities of the east and midwest (and of San Francisco), religious fundamentalism, antisemitism, and probitionism. Old West California despite its flaws was generally tolerant and individualistic and a man could "earn his worth" in a way he couldn't once provincial heartland civilization hit the shores of the Pacific. For example, California's only Hispanic governor once it gained statehood, Romauldo Castillo, was governor in the 1870s. 20 years later he could never have been governor.
Orange County's original American settlers were farmers and oil workers from Texas and Louisiana.
Very interesting. I think those Texans who express total animosity toward Los Angeles would be very surprised to see that many of their fellow Texan ancestors immigrated to California. What's even more amazing is how quickly Los Angeles went from a near total anglo-centric population to the incredible diversity of today. It also helps to explain why Orange county remains the odd county for conservativism compared to all other urban coastal counties in California. Thanks majoun.
I've been reading a book on the ranchos of Los Angeles county called "Historic Abobes of Los Angeles County" that gives a fascinating history of LA county from the sleepy pueblo to a major metropolitan region. Los Angeles was essentially an undiscovered farm region up until the 1920's and then blossomed overnight.
What's even more amazing is how quickly Los Angeles went from a near total anglo-centric population to the incredible diversity of today. Thanks majoun.
One important historical footnote to Majoun's post regarding the race/ethnicty of early 20th Century Los Angeles.
Yes, LA did NOT get a large share of southern and eastern European immigrants circa 1890 to 1920 when places like NYC and Chicago were teeming with them. In that sense LA was NOT diverse at all.
However, in reality by 1930 the City of Los Angeles was the 2nd MOST diverse city in the nation when looking at the population by non-hispanic whites, asians, blacks, and hispanic orgin.
My source is Robert Fogelson's "The Fragmented Metropolis: LA, 1850 - 1930", first published in 1967. Fogelson's source is the 1930 Census and he says,
"The 'minority" in Los Angeles included recently arrived Mexican and Japanese as well as Black newcomers. Unlike most eastern and midwestern metropolises, which were divided between native (white) Americans and Europeans immigrants, Los Angeles was divided between a large native (white) majority and a sizable "colored" (his word) minority. By 1930, non-whites composed 14 percent of LA's population which FAR EXCEEDED the nation's other large cities with the exception of Baltimore"
Fogelson points out that in 1930 the U.S. Census counted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans as "non-white" (reflecting nativist sentiment of the time). But based on that viewpoint ONLY Baltimore had a larger share of non-whites than Los Angeles.
The 1930 Census figures look like this:
City % Non-White Pop.
Baltimore 17.8%
LA 14.2%
St. Louis 11.6%
Philadelphia 11.4%
Detroit 8.2%
Chicago 7.6%
San Fran. 6.2%
NYC 4.9%
So the seeds of LA's present day diversity were well in place by 1930.
I thought the percentage for the city's white population were in the 90s from 1850 up until at least 1940.
LA City (white population)
1930: 94.6
1940: 93.5
1950: 89.3
1960: 83.2
But of course the Census didn't include the Hispanic option in 1950 and 1960. I wonder what those percentages were in those censuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluSpark
One important historical footnote to Majoun's post regarding the race/ethnicty of early 20th Century Los Angeles.
Yes, LA did NOT get a large share of southern and eastern European immigrants circa 1890 to 1920 when places like NYC and Chicago were teeming with them. In that sense LA was NOT diverse at all.
However, in reality by 1930 the City of Los Angeles was the 2nd MOST diverse city in the nation when looking at the population by non-hispanic whites, asians, blacks, and hispanic orgin.
My source is Robert Fogelson's "The Fragmented Metropolis: LA, 1850 - 1930", first published in 1967. Fogelson's source is the 1930 Census and he says,
"The 'minority" in Los Angeles included recently arrived Mexican and Japanese as well as Black newcomers. Unlike most eastern and midwestern metropolises, which were divided between native (white) Americans and Europeans immigrants, Los Angeles was divided between a large native (white) majority and a sizable "colored" (his word) minority. By 1930, non-whites composed 14 percent of LA's population which FAR EXCEEDED the nation's other large cities with the exception of Baltimore"
Fogelson points out that in 1930 the U.S. Census counted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans as "non-white" (reflecting nativist sentiment of the time). But based on that viewpoint ONLY Baltimore had a larger share of non-whites than Los Angeles.
The 1930 Census figures look like this:
City % Non-White Pop.
Baltimore 17.8%
LA 14.2%
St. Louis 11.6%
Philadelphia 11.4%
Detroit 8.2%
Chicago 7.6%
San Fran. 6.2%
NYC 4.9%
So the seeds of LA's present day diversity were well in place by 1930.
I thought the percentage for the city's white population were in the 90s from 1850 up until at least 1940.
LA City (white population)
1930: 94.6
1940: 93.5
1950: 89.3
1960: 83.2
But of course the Census didn't include the Hispanic option in 1950 and 1960. I wonder what those percentages were in those censuses.
Yes, I think you are correct (but those figures include Hispanic whites which in early 1900's LA was largely Mexican). The Census did not start the Hispanic option until 1970.
For some reason in 1930 Mexicans/Mexican-Americans were NOT counted as white (yet they were "white" in every Census before that to my understanding). Again, my source is historian Robert Fogelson's "Fragmented Metropolis: LA 1850 to 1930." I am GUESSING that the immigration restrictions and the nativist movements of the 1920's drove the Census Bureau to count Mexicans as "non-whites" in 1930.
Bottom line is I think your numbers are correct but those figures INCLUDE Hispanic whites.
One important historical footnote to Majoun's post regarding the race/ethnicty of early 20th Century Los Angeles.
Yes, LA did NOT get a large share of southern and eastern European immigrants circa 1890 to 1920 when places like NYC and Chicago were teeming with them.
And San Francisco also, which ethnically was more like the Eastern and Midwestern cities than like L.A. at that time. That's why the early 20th century San Francisco accent was like Chicago's - similar ethnic groups (except for more Asians).
The early 20th century NorCal Midwestern-influenced accent influenced the subsequent California accent far more than the SoCal accent of that time.
Quote:
In that sense LA was NOT diverse at all.
However, in reality by 1930 the City of Los Angeles was the 2nd MOST diverse city in the nation when looking at the population by non-hispanic whites, asians, blacks, and hispanic orgin.
The seeds of future change were already there. The film industry and the continuing growth of L.A. brought many eastern and midwestern white ethnics. WW2 and the postwar boomtown atmosphere would accelerate this.
Quote:
My source is Robert Fogelson's "The Fragmented Metropolis: LA, 1850 - 1930", first published in 1967. Fogelson's source is the 1930 Census and he says,
"The 'minority" in Los Angeles included recently arrived Mexican and Japanese as well as Black newcomers. Unlike most eastern and midwestern metropolises, which were divided between native (white) Americans and Europeans immigrants, Los Angeles was divided between a large native (white) majority and a sizable "colored" (his word) minority. By 1930, non-whites composed 14 percent of LA's population which FAR EXCEEDED the nation's other large cities with the exception of Baltimore"
Fogelson points out that in 1930 the U.S. Census counted Mexicans and Mexican-Americans as "non-white" (reflecting nativist sentiment of the time). But based on that viewpoint ONLY Baltimore had a larger share of non-whites than Los Angeles.
The 1930 Census figures look like this:
City % Non-White Pop.
Baltimore 17.8%
LA 14.2%
St. Louis 11.6%
Philadelphia 11.4%
Detroit 8.2%
Chicago 7.6%
San Fran. 6.2%
NYC 4.9%
So the seeds of LA's present day diversity were well in place by 1930.
Interesting. (I wonder what the statistics were like for the Southern and Texan cities at the time, though. )
Interesting. (I wonder what the statistics were like for the Southern and Texan cities at the time, though. )
Good point. Fogelson's data only looked at the LARGEST U.S. cities circa 1930. There were no southern or southwestern cities in the TOP 10 at that time.
San Francisco was not Top 10 but he included it for flavor.
Top 10 Cities by Population in 1930:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Detroit
5. Los Angeles
6. Cleveland
7. St. Louis
8. Baltimore
9. Boston
10. Pittsburgh
The City of Los Angeles had surpassed 1.2 million residents in 1930. By contrast, the City of Atlanta had only 270,000 residents in the same year.
No doubt, if you included New Orleans or Atltanta, the historic black populations in those cities would push them at or near the top, I think?
It should be note that Los Angeles had the fifth largest black population after New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit from the late 1950s up until the early 1990s, according to the Census. It was larger than any city in the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluSpark
Good point. Fogelson's data only looked at the LARGEST U.S. cities circa 1930. There were no southern or southwestern cities in the TOP 10 at that time.
San Francisco was not Top 10 but he included it for flavor.
Top 10 Cities by Population in 1930:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Detroit
5. Los Angeles
6. Cleveland
7. St. Louis
8. Baltimore
9. Boston
10. Pittsburgh
The City of Los Angeles had surpassed 1.2 million residents in 1930. By contrast, the City of Atlanta had only 270,000 residents in the same year.
No doubt, if you included New Orleans or Atltanta, the historic black populations in those cities would push them at or near the top, I think?
It should be note that Los Angeles had the fifth largest black population after New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit from the late 1950s up until the early 1990s, according to the Census. It was larger than any city in the South.
A New York Times article from 1995 describing the outward migration of blacks from LA County to surroundnng areas and the south. Some of the quotes are a reminder of how pessimistic people were feeling about life in LA County at the time (and that feeling was not limited just to blacks).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
