Los Angeles River Whitewashing

During the second half of the 19th century and well into the 20th, the city of Los Angeles was subject to a period of what author William Deverell calls “whitewashing.” In other words, Deverell argues that after the Mexican-American War, the newly arrived white population in Los Angeles did a number of things to distance themselves from the Mexican population, as well as other ethnic groups. In his extensive work Whitewashed Adobe, Deverell forms his argument around the specific, and racist tactics elite city officials used to dissociate Mexican people from the white population. As expressed by Deverell, Los Angeles was prophesized as the city of the future. And with the use of collected ethnographies and oral histories taken by previous
The construction of the Los Angeles River was a critical dividing line, not only between east and west, north and south, but between races, classes, and neighborhoods. The river was a successful investment for Los Angeles since it was an excellent water source. Plus, houses and buildings were also being built near the river, mostly for the non-white population. However, the river was heavily polluted and treated like a sewer, and the stench of the river disgusted the white population. The river became known as a place of bad smells and bad people, a place where, Anglos expected and insisted, crooks Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese congregated. The association of ethnic populations with the flaws of the river further divided the white population with that of the non-white. On the other hand, with the addition of concrete to the river, city officials found the oral histories of elderly Mexicans imperative to its construction. Though city officials wanted to give the river a human history and add a Mexican perspective to its construction, the addition of concrete created a even broader divide between whites and
The Mission Play and La Fiesta are certainly testimonies to the disgraceful nature of whites in Los Angeles. However, his work lacks a Mexican perspective. The majority of his sources come from Anglo newspapers and attitudes, whereas the Mexican views are considerably missing. It would have given his work more edge if his readers could assess the Mexican outlook on the violation and destruction of their