This Small City Will Be a Mexican Paradise: Exploring the Origins of Mexican Culture in Los Angeles, 1821-1846

by Michael J. Gonzalez

Using archival materials that have largely escaped study, Michael J. González presents a bold new interpretation about life in Los Angeles between 1821 and 1846, the years that Mexico governed California. González goes beyond descriptions of cattle, ranchos, and aristocratic landowners who disdained Mexico--all the elements central to the romance of the "California Pastoral"--and introduces an alternative view. He argues that the people of Los Angeles, the angeleños, feared Indians. To ease their minds and find reassurance that they did not stand alone against the Indian menace, the angeleños imitated the life and ways of their compatriots in the Mexican interior. González makes his case by focusing on a petition composed in 1846 and selects particular words to trace the progress of angeleño thinking. He begins by explaining why the angeleños felt threatened by Indians. He then shows that one of the qualities the angeleños admired most about Mexican life was liberal thought. To remove the Indians, and adopt the liberal principles they coveted, the angeleños used war and violence. When they had killed or subdued the Indians, González concludes, the angeleños fashioned the identity they had long cherished and believed, as one man proclaimed, that they were now "Mexican to the four sides" of their heart.

264 pages, Paperback

First published December 15, 2005

Reviews

[Jay Fernandez · Rating 1 out of 5]

This ambitious work attempts to redefine the political and cultural identity of Alta California on the eve of the U.S. invasion, but ultimately suffers from strained interpretations and problematic historical methodology. The central narrative reexamines a critical period beginning with the failed 1833 Hijar-Padrés colonization attempt and its lasting repercussions.
The premise is intriguing: the 1833 coup, led by a newly appointed liberal Governor and an accompanying contingent of work-release prisoners, failed to seize control from Governor José Figueroa. Figueroa, however, allowed the colonists to remain due to the remote colony’s persistent labor shortage.
Questionable Interpretations of Political Motivation and Identity
The book's most significant weakness lies in its analysis of the 1846 "Good Mexican" petition. Thirteen years after the coup, a group comprising these original transplants (the ex-convicts) and the brother of the former Governor Figueroa produced a document declaring their staunch commitment to liberal Mexican policies. The author leverages this act to argue that "Californios" were not culturally distinct, but were, in fact, liberal Mexicans all along.
This interpretation appears to disregard the clear political context: in 1846, on the cusp of an American invasion, such a petition was a prudent political hedge. It likely served as a preemptive defense against potential exile by the Americans, or as a means of establishing favorable standing should they be repatriated to the Mexican interior.
The author also critically overlooks the complex social dynamics surrounding this document. The petition notably advocated for a policy of genocide against Native Americans rather than their conversion. This was submitted to Governor Pío Pico, a man of mixed Spanish, African, Italian, and Native American heritage. Furthermore, Francisco Figueroa, brother of the former Governor, was also of Native American (Aztec) ancestry. This deeply disturbing language advocating for genocide may, therefore, be interpreted as a ruthless attempt by the petitioners—who themselves were marginalized transplants—to secure future refugee assistance for themselves by distancing their identity from the Native population, rather than a genuine reflection of broad, liberal Mexican ideology.
Even more critically, the author fails to recognize that a sudden surge of political allegiance—even if genuinely felt by the few signers—does not erase decades of established cultural identity. The notion that Mexican liberalism could suddenly supplant 65 years of distinct Californio cultural development (since the founding of the Spanish Pueblos and Missions) is historically unsound. The author's insistence on an ideological rather than a pragmatic motivation, and the dismissal of long-standing regional identity, is a fundamental misreading of the period's political and social realities.
Methodological Flaws in Social History
The book's social history is further marred by unsubstantiated claims regarding the moral character of the colonists. The author repeatedly and erroneously labels numerous women—both settlers and neophytes—as prostitutes.
This damaging conclusion stems from a critical gap in historical research that plagues much of early Californio genealogy: the absence of official marriage records. This scarcity is historically documented, resulting from factors such as:
• The paucity of priests in the remote colony.
• The burning or loss of mission records during secularization and subsequent unrest.
• The high cost of fees required to officially record marriages, which affected even established Rancho owners.
To fill this archival void with a conclusion of widespread moral licentiousness is not historical analysis; it is unwarranted conjecture.
Overreliance on Circumstantial Evidence
Finally, the book suffers from a pervasive tendency towards fantastic leaps of logic. For instance, the argument that owning a single book by Voltaire automatically transformed an individual into an ardent liberal Mexican exemplifies the author's overreliance on circumstantial evidence. This kind of stretched causality makes the overall thesis too speculative to be taken seriously as rigorous history. While the book presents an important counter-narrative, its exaggerated claims and flawed evidentiary support ultimately undermine its historical credibility.

Read this more professionally researched book instead "Frontier Settlement in Mexican California" by C. Alan Hutchinson.