Book Review: Gonzales-Day, K. (2006). Lynching in the West: 1850-1935. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. xii, 299 pp

• Author: Frank Morn
• Date: 01 June 2009
• Published date: 01 June 2009
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016808326482
• Subject Matter: Articles

Book Reviews 301

Gonzales-Day, K. (2006). Lynching in the West: 1850-1935. Durham, NC: Duke University

Press. xii, 299 pp.

DOI: 10.1177/0734016808326482

The early history of criminal justice education and scholarship was dominated by the

interdisciplinary approach. Departments were filled with a variety of disciplines: sociology,

psychology, political science, economics, education administration, law, and history to

name a few. Students were expected to bring together these various perspectives and forge

a new liberally educated bureaucrat. The use of as many lenses as possible could help col-

lege students who were on their way to becoming practitioners to see more clearly, went

the mantra. Whether or not that succeeded is not the point here. With increasing numbers

of doctoral programs in criminal justice, the reality of interdisciplinary departments seems

less important. Intellectually it still has a prominent place, but the professorate has changed

dramatically in the last decade. As a trained historian who has worked in criminal justice

departments for 30 years, I can appreciate the promises and problems of interdisciplinary

studies in criminal justice education and scholarship.

Ken Gonzales-Day’s book, Lynching in the West, 1850-1935, highlights the Janus-

like nature of the issue. This book shows the refreshing nature of interdisciplinary work and

also some of its problems. Gonzales-Day is interested in lynching in California from when

it became a state to the last reported incident in 1935. This is a history book on a criminal

justice topic written by a professor of studio art. Besides his ethnic agenda, the author

began his project fascinated with the gaze of images, particularly of California’s hanging

trees that he set out to photograph. Archival work brought to his attention other macabre

pictures and postcards. Through such images and archival data, particularly a large case list

of 352 people lynched in California after it became a state in 1850, Gonzales-day uncovers

a lost aspect of California history: the predominance of Mexican and Mexican Americans

(derogatorily referred to as greasers) as victims of frontier justice. One-hundred thirty two

of the total were Spanish speaking victims. I must admit, having grown up in California in

the 1940s (Zoot Suit riots) and 50s, I am surprised at how low that number was. But quite

correctly, the history of lynching in California, and across the country, has neglected the

place of Latinos and given us the “false binary of black against white in the national

consciousness,” the author contends (p. 202).

Lynching was propelled by anti-immigration attitudes, fears of miscegenation, frustrations

with the judicial system, and feelings of White supremacy. Scientific and popular paradigms,

such as positivism and physiognomy, were part of the intellectual baggage of the era. Even

language such as desperado and the above-mentioned greasers were western xenophobic

inventions capturing what the author feels to be a lost history of California lynching.

Legal executions, and there is another case list of those, was not as racially biased as

vigilante actions were. That is a neglected and interesting point needing further discussion

by the author. Indeed, the areas with the strongest and most stable criminal justice system

were those having the most lynching, a paradox needing further exploration, it seems. As

increasingly obvious, lynching was a political and populous affront to the system of crimi-

nal justice. In an important insight, the author looks at the image and logo of the California

vigilance committee. It was a disembodied eye circled with the words: no creed, no party,

no sectional issues. Besides the obvious message of some cosmic ever-present gaze, the