Damn, #$%^!@#!
I not only miss the chance of a lifetime to congratulate 'Tavo on his newest book but also the opportunity to meet one of my heroes who I would canonize in the name of social justice and liberation theology (Zach De La Rocha). I also missed that night's Rodrigo y Gabriela concert all in the name of pinche work! I hate myself and am jealous of all of you who enjoyed atremendous evening. Congrats to all and especially to you, Gustavo..

Gustavo RULES!

Pinche Cesar, I was looking for you all night! Go to my book signing next Thursday in Mission Viejo, cabrón! No Zach there, unfortunately!

Gustavo,

These bloggers do not link to you because they do history, not social commentary based on events of the past, and there is a difference.

If someone is not respected in the local history community, it is highly likely that A) they get their facts wrong so often on the little things that they cannot be relied upon for the bigger things or B) their personal commentary has become so abrasive that historians (who tend to be a kinder, gentler, bookish branch of society) shy away from their abusers. And sometimes, local historians avoid contact with individuals because they are both inaccurate and loutish. It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition. I do not think I have ever met an historian who was openly racist, but if that is what you want to tell yourself to cover the embarrassment of being passed over by the local history community, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

But of course that is only my observation, from the outside looking in, as I have only begun to scratch the surface of local history. Those historians whom you routinely repudiate are the same people I turn to for answers, and whose respect I would greatly covet. Not seeing myself worthy to carry their books, much less consider myself one of them, I could not accurately address motivation. But I wonder what gives you the hubris to believe yourself not only worthy of their attention, but above them to the point of publicly insulting them for not basking in your self-admiration?

Now, Colony Rabble: It's easy to dismiss my Gunkist Memories series as "social commentary," but do bother to read what I mentioned. How is poring through the FBI file of Joel Dvorman and finding him vindicated not history? Or the tale of Henry Head? Can you explain why the local history books don't mention his membership in the KKK, or why modern-day historians don't seem to care?

Where did I ever say I think local historians are racist?! That's crazy talk. To ignore the contributions of other communities isn't racist; it's just plain ignorant. For Chris not to link to our local history stories (not just mine, mind you) is telling of his own biases in what constitutes history and what doesn't. Here: read my story on Dvorman and tell me where the social commentary is. BTW, when I went to the Anaheim History Room, none of the workers present had ever heard of the case. Doesn't it make you wonder why?

Final point: no one is more bookish or nerdy than me--TRUST ME. Who else, after all, would niggle so much over history :-)!

Gus

I applaud you for having your personal story published but you seem to take great pleasure in denegrating any local authors for missing the historical events so near and dear to you. I can understand how you would rather tear down what they didn't write about. It's so much easier.

Instead of embracing the historical community (made up mainly of volunteers or people who don't get paid enough when they do get paid), you choose to try to whip them into shape with your amazing wit and debating skills. People who bring up a valid point to counter your focused argument end up looking like they're the bad guys. I guess you want us to check with the wise and powerful Gus so we miss anything that would make you unhappy and tell the history you want us to tell.

Even when a reviewer gives you a pretty positive review but points out that some of your facts were so wrong, you call his review "snarky."

Sorry, I forget. Only you write the truth and any missteps should be ignored.

Forget the man behind the curtain, just listen to the all powerful Oz. My apologies for not genuflecting enough. Rush Limbaugh watch out. We have a new hero. His name is Gus Arellano

Jersey: "Snarky" is calling me a momma's boy (an accusation, btw, that I'm TOTALLY guilty of, as is every Catholic man ever born) and taking issue with my wording on the Catholic Church sex-abuse scandal (hey: at least I didn't call Larsen "prissy" like FishbowLA!). And I pointed out my own errors in the pages of this paper (even put it in the sub-heading!), so it's not as if I'm trying to shy away from my fuck-ups.

Here's what I and other Weekly reporters have encountered in our stories about OC history (and we've done many more in-depth articles than the Register) over the years: excuses for their lack of coverage, and accusations of harboring an agenda. When Paul Brennan wrote about the death of Francisco Torres, we got criticized for criticizing the historians of the past for not revealing the individuals in the lynching mob. When he lambasted Jim Sleeper for his description of Modesta Avila as a lady who got by mostly on looks, he got smacked around by others for daring to question the historian emeritus of OC. When I talk about historians not covering the 1936 Citrus War (a point, btw, that other historians have acknowledged is grossly under-covered), I get accused of having an ax to grind. It's not an ego thing for me for acknowledgement--never has been--but rather an accurate account of our overall past, and an acceptance of the oversights of others. Because, while I might've gotten a date, two people, and a toll road number wrong in my book, the sins of omission in history are ultimately more egregious than mere typos. And it's something that historians in Orange County have been content with for far too long, so forgive me if it gets me riled up.

Final point: no Oz for me--I'm one of those howler monkeys. Didn't you read Larsen's review?

Gustavo

I agree that more of the injustices of OC history should be written about. And I appreciate OC Weekly writers for their efforts to document these and tell their stories.

But I have an issue with what appears to be a too-often denigration of those who write about history without the same focus as you have. (And by "you" I also mean the other OC Weekly writers.)

To say these historians are bigoted or short-sighted is pretty rude and self-serving.

Most historians actively support publications on issues like the barrios of Orange County, the Chinatown fire, the Mendez vs Westminster trial, etc. even though that isn't their area of expertise. We include what we can even though we don't always catch what others (such as yourself) feel we should. Maybe we should do more to include these – and often we try – or we support those who write on these subjects.

Unfortunately over time, when these stories are being told, university presses publish these types of works. But between the tone, the writing style, and the market, they sell only to academia and those searching out for those specific topics.

We need new historians to tell these stories in an everyday voice. And we welcome new voices. But do you need to tear down all the other writers while you are making your mark on the scene?

Gustavo

I agree that more of the injustices of OC history should be written about. And I appreciate OC Weekly writers for their efforts to document these and tell their stories.

But I have an issue with what appears to be a too-often denigration of those who write about history without the same focus as you have. (And by "you" I also mean the other OC Weekly writers.)

To say these historians are bigoted or short-sighted is pretty rude and self-serving.

Most historians actively support publications on issues like the barrios of Orange County, the Chinatown fire, the Mendez vs Westminster trial, etc. even though that isn't their area of expertise. We include what we can even though we don't always catch what others (such as yourself) feel we should. Maybe we should do more to include these – and often we try – or we support those who write on these subjects.

Unfortunately over time, when these stories are being told, university presses publish these types of works. But between the tone, the writing style, and the market, they sell only to academia and those searching out for those specific topics.

We need new historians to tell these stories in an everyday voice. And we welcome new voices. But do you need to tear down all the other writers while you are making your mark on the scene?

Colonel Rabble: to dismiss history from below as social commentary is an all too common denigration that is usually coupled with a mystified, supposedly pure sense of "objective" - yet establishment - history...

The stories of strikes, racist segregation, and paranoid anti-communism are important and dramatic narratives in the history of Orange County.

Anyone who is interested in telling them is simply being holistic and restoring to the discipline the nature of conflict that is inevitably in the past of all human societies. That this causes conflict should be no surprise. Social history is not the source of controversy however. It is with the whitewashed histories of the establishment, that such a need for a counter narrative arises.

We must ask, as Gustavo does, why such omissions occur in the first place. Why shy away from the drama of history and hide behind the convenient banalities of tranquilized civic facts and figures? It makes no sense to the generally inquisitive mind of the student of history...

And it goes without saying, these gazes into the past are not ends within themselves. The status quo of Orange County stems from these conflicts of the past and informs our actions in the present in order to reshape the future...we are in a sense, trying to "get over it," but not by forgetting or relegating these uncomfortable for some stories as inconsequential to today....No, they are indispensable to the work of overcoming the very real and continuing legacies they perpetuate

Ps, Larsen's review is not much of a review at all. If critical points are to be made, fine. But do them in a way that is indeed deserving of the term "interesting." Until then, it's snarky!

I don't know about us "tearing down" people so much as criticizing. Maybe our tone is ruder than it should, but that's our alt-weekly bones showing.

My problem isn't with historians individually per se as it is with the general philosophy they follow. We do need "new" historians, but for the "old" historians to wait for organizations such as the Orange County Mexican American Historical Society to pop up says a lot about the priorities of the old, and history shouldn't be about priorities. The only reason, in fact, people like myself and other subaltern historians came into the game is to rectify the blind spots of the past. We state this again and again in the hopes the "old" historians might change their way. Instead, we're the ones who are met with defensiveness.

Gustavo,

I have always supported your work, and I am especially excited to see the untold stories being finally brought to light. For too long Orange County history has been white-male-centric, because frankly those are the records that were kept. When middle class white men ran the businesses, Boards, Commissions, and Councils for over a century, it is their names and faces in the faded pages of old yellowed news clippings. Women and minorities rarely get their stories told, unless through oral histories and family diaries, and Gustavo, even you admit that families involved in Mendez did not speak of it. Yet you fault us for not knowing. You had the opportunity to work with local historians, to enlighten a broad range of people about stories that are only now coming to light. But while I applaud you for telling the stories that we all need to hear, I object to the very personal attacks that you levy upon others who might not have told the story from the same viewpoint. It is beneath you, or at least beneath the ideal I once had of who I believed you to be. You come across as mean spirited and petty, and it leaves me wondering if this is who you always were and I just missed it. But then I remember back to Gigante, and you and I were the only ones in the room that saw the Emperor had no clothes, and I cannot imagine that the young reporter back then was the same man I see ripping others to shreds. It saddens me. You pull the “this is the way an alt weekly does it” card, and then get offended because your alt weekly is not taken seriously by some folks with heavy history cred. You cannot have it both ways, and you sure are not going to be taken seriously by bagging on others who are VERY respected in their fields.

You want the respect of local historians? It is not given just because you came across a great story. It is earned, every inch of it, by checking and rechecking your facts, and accepting correction when it is warranted. And once that respect is earned, then and only then can you become the abrasive curmudgeon who is allowed to say outrageous things because everyone knows he is right. (says this Jim Sleeper groupie) Until then, you humble yourself and learn from others, and you pay your dues. That dues is far more than a 2 book deal from Scribner.

You owe some folks apologies, Gustavo.

Colony: I've never changed. I've always thrown bombs at those who deserve it, whether it's the Church, Gigante, anti-immigrant loons, or people who get mad when I call something like it is. I'll admit to being nit-picky, but not petty.

I do not mean for any of my critiques to be personal. I have very few people I have a personal animus to--really, just CCIR head Barbara Coe, and Diocese of Orange head Tod D. Brown. My barbs are aimed at the works of someone, not at the person. If some take personal offense, or if I did indeed belittle their character, then I apologize profusely--I really do. You know me. I'm not mean-spirited--I might go overboard a couple of times, but that's the impetuousness of youth. My god, I get freaked out when my mom says my Chuck Taylors are beneath her son!

Why do I criticize? Because I want to move forward. I don't dwell on the past. History for me is the map toward the future. It shows us why certain things are the way they are. I'll never forget when I was interviewing survivors of the Great Flood of 1938 for my story on it a couple years back. In going through newspaper clippings and a couple of the entries in the history books, I was astounded to see nothing from the Latino side--the very Latinos who made up the vast majority of the victims. I asked the survivors if any reporters at the time interviewed them, and they said no--even those these Mexicans spoke fluent Spanish. Because a historian might not be acquainted with those communities is not an excuse for a lack of coverage. They're there--but someone has to want to get them. And it's my contention that the reason local historians have not wanted to cover that as much as, say, the Californios or other pioneers is because it ruins our purty narrative.

Final point: I might've made some mistakes in my book, but my historical stuff for the Weekly does not contain errors. You can look them up.

Gustavo:

Thanks for your comments. I suspect many of us were reacting defensively to some of what you were saying. Most of us are generally volunteers with full-time jobs and families and we're just trying to do the right thing and document, promote, and celebrate local history. We all would like to work full-time at this but can't. So we all never feel like we're doing enough.

You made some very good points about the need for all of us to be totally aware of all the blends in the community. If I take anything away from our "discussion" here, it's to be a bit more aware and to work a little harder on what I do.

I just ask you to also look at what we do do. This includes the historical tours where we regularly feature stories on people like the Mendez family and the sugar field workers and Modesta Avila and even the burning of Chinatown. I ask that you see a mainstream historical society working with a new author to create a book on one of OC's early barrios - and help promote the heck out of it.

We don't pretend to be perfect. Many of us try hard. And I personally look at your comments as a reminder of our efforts that we need to be vigilant and keep looking beyond our immediate family environment when appropriate.

The alternative is we just give up and walk away from this all. And that's even worse. There are too few of us holding the banner of history high as it is.

Yeah, I know you throw bombs, it is what makes you you. But you use the same bombs with historians that you save for pedophile priests and it just ain’t right. So thanks for recognizing it could offend, and let’s get all OC historians together at CW’s Money Pit for tri tip and a group hug.

While digging for info on a client’s house recently, I saw an interview where they touched on the Flood, and asked if there were fatalities. The answer was something to the effect of, “Nah, just some Mexicans”, and it made my blood boil! And most frustrating is that like most others in OC, this history thing is a volunteer gig. I earn a living at architectural history, but even in cases like this where I find an item, if I am on the clock I cannot stop to chase it. I have to make a note, and come back later, after work, kids, hubby, and the House From Hell have taken their chunks from me. And then it is a pain in the arse to chase it down when, as you pointed out, nobody interviewed the folks involved. So when it comes to writing our newsletters, we do not deliberately ignore the uglier side of history, but I know I certainly reach for the lower hanging fruit when I am in a hurry. Does not make me bad, just pressed for time and a deadline.

Like JerseyLoco says, we all do the best we can with what we’ve got. (OK, knowing who JerseyLoco is, I have to ask. What is that? Is that like Cow Crazy? Or you really like Trenton?) oh look, shiny….and if we worked together to chase down these stories and write them, rather than snarking at each other, we might actually get them accurately researched, written, and distributed. Which is what we all really want in the end.

And listen to your Mami. Chuck Taylors are beneath you. 2 book deal? You can afford real shoes now Gustavo. Actually, you can probably afford real estate to go with those new shoes. Can I interest you in a slightly used Edwardian?

Sigh...for the final time:

CHUCK TAYLORS ARE PERFECTLY GOOD SHOES!!! Classics, even.

Yes, Jersey: I like to start discussions--that's the whole point of my posts here. And I'm very aware of the contributions of amateur historians--that's why I'm a member of the Orange County Mexican American Historical Society and reviewed Mary Garcia's book in the paper. Heck, that's why I interviewed ol' Huell (review of show to come, btw). Huell ain't a wannabe Carey McWilliams like me; he's just a guy in love with all the great stuff of California. If my posts can spark some improvement on all of us in terms of covering the county's past, then I would've succeeded in my efforts.

Colony: I've never been known for tact (you'll have to talk to my sis and gal for THAT), but I am known for wanting to improve myself. Consider me chastened--again, it's never my intent to personally harm with these posts. Instead of throwing bombs at history, I'll suffice with those little white balls that crack--just a jolt, nothing damaging, just a jolt. You HAVE to track down that interview for me--telling of where we came from. And you and the rest of the good people getting disgusted is telling of where we are going. We can all try harder, and we are.

That's classic that you wore the bag I gave you! I wish I was there! Thanks for all your support and keeping my dad's story alive! Alex