Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Stree

Humphrey, Thomas J

English

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

Cleveland State University
EngagedScholarship@CSU
History Faculty Publications History Department
Spring 2006
Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History
of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S.
Street
Thomas J. Humphrey
Cleveland State University, tom.humphrey@csuohio.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clhist_facpub
Part of the History Commons
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
Publisher's Statement
Copyright 2006 University of Pennsylvania Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations
used for purposes of scholarly citation, none of this work may be reproduced in any form by any
means without written permission from the publisher. For information address the University of
Pennsylvania Press, 3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112. Available on
publisher's site at http://www.jstor.org/stable/30043398.
Repository Citation
Humphrey, Thomas J., "Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Street" (2006). History
Faculty Publications. 1.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clhist_facpub/1
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the History Department at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact
library.es@csuohio.edu.
Original Citation
Thomas J. Humphrey, "Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Street," Journal of the
Early Republic 26 no. 1 (2006): 154-157.
154 • JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Spring 2006)
their way to being published. It seems, then, that scholarly, popular, and
publisher interest in the lives and times of the Corps of Discovery is alive
and well and will continue for at least the near future.
Jacquelyn M iller is an associate professor and the chair of the his-
tory department at Seattle University. She is the author of ‘‘The Wages
of Blackness: African American Workers and Meanings of Race during
Philadelphia’s 1793 Yellow Fever Epidemic,’’ recently published in
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. Her current research
explores the themes of masculinity, race, and sickness during the era of
the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers,
1769–1913. By Richard Steven Street. (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press, 2005. Pp. xxv, 904. Illustrations. Paper, $29.95.)
Farmworkers in California play a prominent role in some of the more
noteworthy literature of the twentieth century. The Grapes of Wrath’s
Tom Joad and his family, for instance, remind us of the painful, seem-
ingly endless suffering of migrant workers. But Joad’s story also demon-
strates that he was part of a broader community of migrant workers who
lived in the Hoovervilles, shantytowns, and drainage ditches that charac-
terized rural California at the time. In Beasts of the Field, the first of his
three-volume history of farmworkers, Richard Steven Street describes
the story of agricultural migrant workers in California from roughly the
1760s through 1913 to uncover how California farmworkers became a
class before the Joads took to the road.
Street divides his narrative into six roughly chronological categories.
He begins by explaining the colonial and preindustrial infancy of the
Spanish missions throughout the region that became California to dem-
onstrate how Spanish officials relied on Indians’ labor to make the land
productive. By the early nineteenth century, officials had virtually en-
slaved these laborers by shackling and imprisoning them to keep them
in line. To gain greater control of native field hands in the 1840s, farm
owners and legislators resorted to passing oppressive laws that turned
free, native workers into indentured servants. Growers exploited these
workers horribly, fed them little, and provided insufficient housing. Not
REVIEWS • 155
surprisingly, native workers died at astonishingly high rates, forcing
growers to search for new laborers. Bindlemen, who carried their be-
longings in a bundle strapped to their backs, filled that void. For roughly
twenty years, bindlemen choked on dust and dodged hazardous ma-
chines nearly continuously from late spring through late fall to bring in
crops such as wheat, a job that grew more dangerous as growers began
mechanizing production. Bindlemen eventually sought higher wages and
safer working conditions, and Chinese immigrants began taking their
place.
Chinese workers soon dominated the labor pool, particularly after
completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 when now-unem-
ployed Chinese workers flooded the agricultural labor market. But the
influx of these workers sparked intense racism among white Californians.
While lower-sort whites attacked Chinese workers for taking low pay,
state and national officials codified anti-Chinese animosity by passing a
series of laws designed to restrict workers’ movements and to reduce
immigration. Despite these racist attacks, Chinese laborers continued to
carve out a place for themselves in the fields of California. They did so
in part because bosses and growers defended Chinese workers for work-
ing hard and accepting low wages, lower in fact than most whites. That
said, growers tried to replace Chinese workers with school-aged chil-
dren. The plan backfired, and Chinese immigrants dominated agricul-
tural labor until the early twentieth century, when their population
declined as a result of immigration restrictions and low replacement by
natural increase.
As the number of Chinese declined, Japanese immigrants filled the
open jobs. In many respects, Japanese workers faced the same hardships
faced by their Chinese and Indian predecessors—poor pay, unscrupu-
lous employers, bad food, inadequate housing, long hours, dangerous
work, and racism. But Japanese workers were the first group of farm
laborers in California to succeed at controlling some of the conditions of
their employment, and they did it by organizing farmworker unions. The
turning point for organization came in Oxnard in 1903, when a union of
roughly 1,500 Japanese and Mexican sugar beet workers shut down the
industry by walking off their jobs. The strike forced employers to raise
wages to previous highs and to eliminate growers’ attempts to strong-
arm workers into working longer hours for lower pay. The strike was
successful despite the fact that the workers acted without the support of
156 • JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Spring 2006)
the American Federation of Labor, then headed by Samuel Gompers,
which refused to admit Japanese into its ranks.
In the first ten years of the twentieth century, collective bargaining
enabled many Japanese laborers to earn enough money to obtain land
for themselves and their families. When they left the fields, bindlemen,
who now moved around by hopping trains, reappeared to take their
place. The mobility of living on the road helped them avoid the rigors
and dangers of the hardest agricultural labor, but it also inhibited their
ability to organize and to force growers to improve working conditions
and pay higher wages. Street demonstrates how these workers neverthe-
less developed their own nascent working-class radicalism, which
emerged clearly when workers tried to organize local unions in Fresno
from roughly 1909 to 1911. When workers tried to expand on that suc-
cess in San Diego, however, union organizers were beaten badly, com-
pelling activists to reevaluate their strategies before moving to the next
effort to secure workers a decent wage and humane working conditions.
Their new strategies, devised initially in Fresno and revised thereafter,
continued to shape the farmworker movement through the end of the
twentieth century, a topic Street will take up in another volume.
A relatively short review can hardly do this book justice. It is a deeply
detailed, subtly told narrative history of California farmworkers. Street
clearly sympathizes with his subjects, a perspective that leads him to
portray farmworkers rightly as active and powerful people, rather than
as oppressed laborers who endure their fate. In exquisite detail, Street
describes their strengths and shortcomings with clarity and precision,
and recounts the lives of workers and how they contributed to agricul-
tural production in California. Workers were, in fact, the basis of that
production. More broadly, Street argues that class existed in California
as a result of the group he studies, farmworkers. Their story illustrates
that class ‘‘provides a unifying meaning to the disparate experiences of
the many races and nationalities who toiled in California’s fertile valleys
from the days of Spanish missions to the second decade of the twentieth
century’’ (xix). And Street takes that broad view justifiably. His topic is
complex and changes dramatically over the course of the study, but that
broader view also allows Street to sift through, as Frank Norris wrote in
The Octopus (1986[1901]), all the ‘‘shams’’ and ‘‘wickednesses’’ of spe-
cific stories to make a point ‘‘that will, in the end, prevail,’’ and to show
REVIEWS • 157
that all things and people must ‘‘surely, inevitably, resistlessly work to-
gether for good.’’
Thomas J . Humphrey is an associate professor at Cleveland State
University. He is the author of Land and Liberty: Hudson Valley Riots in
the Age of Revolution.
The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American
Communities. By William G. Thomas and Edward L. Ayers. http://
www.vcdh.virginia.edu/AHR/. Produced by the Virginia Center for Dig-
ital History at the University of Virginia.
The Differences Slavery Made is a digital information source that demon-
strates how scholars have begun to take advantage of the World Wide
Web. The authors, University of Virginia history professors William G.
Thomas and Edward L. Ayers, describe their Web site as a ‘‘single file
of nearly 24,000 lines of text, not dozens of individual web pages with
embedded links to each other’’ (Introduction: Presentation). It was com-
posed at the Virginia Center for Digital History, and like any online
article was published as a collection of hyperlinked documents with
branching connections and layers of detail made possible by the use of
electronic media. It is divided into seven major sections: introduction,
summary, analysis, methods, evidence, historiography, and tools.
Thomas and Ayers examine the relationship between mid-nineteenth-
century American slavery and emerging forms of modernity: the nation-
state, economic development, participatory democracy, and individual
autonomy. They question whether the negotiation of these sociopolitical
influences produced new tensions that gave rise to the crisis of 1860–
1861 and conclude that the Civil War did not simply result from the
struggle over modernization. ‘‘The war was the result of two highly mo-
bilized and highly confident regions, each modern in its own way, fight-
ing over the future of slavery in a rapidly expanding United States’’
(Introduction: Overview).
The differences slavery made for white people were pervasive and
structural, part of an ongoing process, not the outcome of the struggle
between modernity and slavery. Slavery was ‘‘vitally connected’’ to mod-
ern progress. But as Thomas and Ayers point out, ‘‘the twentieth and


Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Street

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Cleveland State UniversityEngagedScholarship@CSUHistory Faculty Publications History DepartmentSpring 2006Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative Historyof California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S.StreetThomas J. HumphreyCleveland State University, tom.humphrey@csuohio.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clhist_facpubPart of the History CommonsHow does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!Publisher's StatementCopyright 2006 University of Pennsylvania Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotationsused for purposes of scholarly citation, none of this work may be reproduced in any form by anymeans without written permission from the publisher. For information address the University ofPennsylvania Press, 3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112. Available onpublisher's site at http://www.jstor.org/stable/30043398.Repository CitationHumphrey, Thomas J., "Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Street" (2006). HistoryFaculty Publications. 1.https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clhist_facpub/1This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the History Department at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted forinclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contactlibrary.es@csuohio.edu.Original CitationThomas J. Humphrey, "Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Street," Journal of theEarly Republic 26 no. 1 (2006): 154-157.154 • JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Spring 2006)their way to being published. It seems, then, that scholarly, popular, andpublisher interest in the lives and times of the Corps of Discovery is aliveand well and will continue for at least the near future.Jacquelyn M iller is an associate professor and the chair of the his-tory department at Seattle University. She is the author of ‘‘The Wagesof Blackness: African American Workers and Meanings of Race duringPhiladelphia’s 1793 Yellow Fever Epidemic,’’ recently published inPennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. Her current researchexplores the themes of masculinity, race, and sickness during the era ofthe Lewis and Clark expedition.Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers,1769–1913. By Richard Steven Street. (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-sity Press, 2005. Pp. xxv, 904. Illustrations. Paper, $29.95.)Farmworkers in California play a prominent role in some of the morenoteworthy literature of the twentieth century. The Grapes of Wrath’sTom Joad and his family, for instance, remind us of the painful, seem-ingly endless suffering of migrant workers. But Joad’s story also demon-strates that he was part of a broader community of migrant workers wholived in the Hoovervilles, shantytowns, and drainage ditches that charac-terized rural California at the time. In Beasts of the Field, the first of histhree-volume history of farmworkers, Richard Steven Street describesthe story of agricultural migrant workers in California from roughly the1760s through 1913 to uncover how California farmworkers became aclass before the Joads took to the road.Street divides his narrative into six roughly chronological categories.He begins by explaining the colonial and preindustrial infancy of theSpanish missions throughout the region that became California to dem-onstrate how Spanish officials relied on Indians’ labor to make the landproductive. By the early nineteenth century, officials had virtually en-slaved these laborers by shackling and imprisoning them to keep themin line. To gain greater control of native field hands in the 1840s, farmowners and legislators resorted to passing oppressive laws that turnedfree, native workers into indentured servants. Growers exploited theseworkers horribly, fed them little, and provided insufficient housing. NotREVIEWS • 155surprisingly, native workers died at astonishingly high rates, forcinggrowers to search for new laborers. Bindlemen, who carried their be-longings in a bundle strapped to their backs, filled that void. For roughlytwenty years, bindlemen choked on dust and dodged hazardous ma-chines nearly continuously from late spring through late fall to bring incrops such as wheat, a job that grew more dangerous as growers beganmechanizing production. Bindlemen eventually sought higher wages andsafer working conditions, and Chinese immigrants began taking theirplace.Chinese workers soon dominated the labor pool, particularly aftercompletion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 when now-unem-ployed Chinese workers flooded the agricultural labor market. But theinflux of these workers sparked intense racism among white Californians.While lower-sort whites attacked Chinese workers for taking low pay,state and national officials codified anti-Chinese animosity by passing aseries of laws designed to restrict workers’ movements and to reduceimmigration. Despite these racist attacks, Chinese laborers continued tocarve out a place for themselves in the fields of California. They did soin part because bosses and growers defended Chinese workers for work-ing hard and accepting low wages, lower in fact than most whites. Thatsaid, growers tried to replace Chinese workers with school-aged chil-dren. The plan backfired, and Chinese immigrants dominated agricul-tural labor until the early twentieth century, when their populationdeclined as a result of immigration restrictions and low replacement bynatural increase.As the number of Chinese declined, Japanese immigrants filled theopen jobs. In many respects, Japanese workers faced the same hardshipsfaced by their Chinese and Indian predecessors—poor pay, unscrupu-lous employers, bad food, inadequate housing, long hours, dangerouswork, and racism. But Japanese workers were the first group of farmlaborers in California to succeed at controlling some of the conditions oftheir employment, and they did it by organizing farmworker unions. Theturning point for organization came in Oxnard in 1903, when a union ofroughly 1,500 Japanese and Mexican sugar beet workers shut down theindustry by walking off their jobs. The strike forced employers to raisewages to previous highs and to eliminate growers’ attempts to strong-arm workers into working longer hours for lower pay. The strike wassuccessful despite the fact that the workers acted without the support of156 • JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Spring 2006)the American Federation of Labor, then headed by Samuel Gompers,which refused to admit Japanese into its ranks.In the first ten years of the twentieth century, collective bargainingenabled many Japanese laborers to earn enough money to obtain landfor themselves and their families. When they left the fields, bindlemen,who now moved around by hopping trains, reappeared to take theirplace. The mobility of living on the road helped them avoid the rigorsand dangers of the hardest agricultural labor, but it also inhibited theirability to organize and to force growers to improve working conditionsand pay higher wages. Street demonstrates how these workers neverthe-less developed their own nascent working-class radicalism, whichemerged clearly when workers tried to organize local unions in Fresnofrom roughly 1909 to 1911. When workers tried to expand on that suc-cess in San Diego, however, union organizers were beaten badly, com-pelling activists to reevaluate their strategies before moving to the nexteffort to secure workers a decent wage and humane working conditions.Their new strategies, devised initially in Fresno and revised thereafter,continued to shape the farmworker movement through the end of thetwentieth century, a topic Street will take up in another volume.A relatively short review can hardly do this book justice. It is a deeplydetailed, subtly told narrative history of California farmworkers. Streetclearly sympathizes with his subjects, a perspective that leads him toportray farmworkers rightly as active and powerful people, rather thanas oppressed laborers who endure their fate. In exquisite detail, Streetdescribes their strengths and shortcomings with clarity and precision,and recounts the lives of workers and how they contributed to agricul-tural production in California. Workers were, in fact, the basis of thatproduction. More broadly, Street argues that class existed in Californiaas a result of the group he studies, farmworkers. Their story illustratesthat class ‘‘provides a unifying meaning to the disparate experiences ofthe many races and nationalities who toiled in California’s fertile valleysfrom the days of Spanish missions to the second decade of the twentiethcentury’’ (xix). And Street takes that broad view justifiably. His topic iscomplex and changes dramatically over the course of the study, but thatbroader view also allows Street to sift through, as Frank Norris wrote inThe Octopus (1986[1901]), all the ‘‘shams’’ and ‘‘wickednesses’’ of spe-cific stories to make a point ‘‘that will, in the end, prevail,’’ and to showREVIEWS • 157that all things and people must ‘‘surely, inevitably, resistlessly work to-gether for good.’’Thomas J . Humphrey is an associate professor at Cleveland StateUniversity. He is the author of Land and Liberty: Hudson Valley Riots inthe Age of Revolution.The Differences Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two AmericanCommunities. By William G. Thomas and Edward L. Ayers. http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/AHR/. Produced by the Virginia Center for Dig-ital History at the University of Virginia.The Differences Slavery Made is a digital information source that demon-strates how scholars have begun to take advantage of the World WideWeb. The authors, University of Virginia history professors William G.Thomas and Edward L. Ayers, describe their Web site as a ‘‘single fileof nearly 24,000 lines of text, not dozens of individual web pages withembedded links to each other’’ (Introduction: Presentation). It was com-posed at the Virginia Center for Digital History, and like any onlinearticle was published as a collection of hyperlinked documents withbranching connections and layers of detail made possible by the use ofelectronic media. It is divided into seven major sections: introduction,summary, analysis, methods, evidence, historiography, and tools.Thomas and Ayers examine the relationship between mid-nineteenth-century American slavery and emerging forms of modernity: the nation-state, economic development, participatory democracy, and individualautonomy. They question whether the negotiation of these sociopoliticalinfluences produced new tensions that gave rise to the crisis of 1860–1861 and conclude that the Civil War did not simply result from thestruggle over modernization. ‘‘The war was the result of two highly mo-bilized and highly confident regions, each modern in its own way, fight-ing over the future of slavery in a rapidly expanding United States’’(Introduction: Overview).The differences slavery made for white people were pervasive andstructural, part of an ongoing process, not the outcome of the strugglebetween modernity and slavery. Slavery was ‘‘vitally connected’’ to mod-ern progress. But as Thomas and Ayers point out, ‘‘the twentieth and

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&amp;context=clhist_facpub

Review of Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farmworkers, 1769-1913, by R.S. Street

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University

Cleveland-Marshall College of Law