Return to Home Page
Return to California Complaint Page
 

ERRORS IN TEXTBOOK
"OH, CALIFORNIA"
BY HOUGHTON MIFFLIN
 


       

 

CHAPTER 1

       1.  P. 15:  "The flowers of Lompoc are one of the Central Valley's many crops."  Lompoc is a coastal town north of Santa Barbara.

       2.  P. 18:  "The Deserts..Natural Features..Mono Lake".  Mono Lake is near Lake Tahoe and is not even near a desert.

       3.  P. 22:  "Thousands of years ago, great sheets of thick ice from the North Pole moved down and covered much of North America, including California."  The North Pole is in the Arctic Ocean, and no sheets of ice moved from there to cover North America, let alone all of California.  Not all of California was covered by sheets of ice during the ice ages.

       4.  P. 22:  The map shows three oil drilling platforms 50 to 100 miles off the coast.  There are none in that part of the ocean which is thousands of feet deep.

       5.  P. 22 and P. 28:  "Borax...is mined from the hot earth of Death Valley." and "5. Borax is a mineral mined from the earth in Death Valley."  Borax mining left Death Valley in the 1920s. Mining is now done in an enormous mine in the town of Boron, which is about 100 miles southwest of Death Valley.

       6.  P. 28:  "2. The border between California and Mexico follows the natural line of the Rio Grande River."  The Rio Grande is nowhere near the border of California and Mexico.  "Rio Grande River" is redundant, inasmuch as "rio" means "river".

 


CHAPTERS 2 and 3

       1.  P. 33:  On the map, the Bering Strait is indicated about 1000 miles south of its actual location.

       2.  P. 33:  "During the Ice Age, a period of time between two million and 12,000 years ago, the Bering Strait did not exist."  The Bering Strait was not geologically created 12,000 years ago.

       3.  P. 35:  "The first people in California lived in villages along the coast or by rivers or streams."  Which is it?  Does anybody know who the first people in California were?

       4.  P. 39:  "Each large (Chumash) village chose a leader, or chief…."   "The chief was usually a man who had inherited, or taken over, the position from his father."  Which is it?

       5.  P. 40:  There is discussion of a "Mojave" tribe. On page 17 there is a "Fort Mojave" tribe.  Which is it?

       6.  P. 40:  "They were one of four California tribes that raised crops along a river."  This seems like an awfully low number out of the 100 tribes in California (p. 36).

       7.  P. 42:  The chart showed that the Chumash ate only clams and crabs. There must be something else.

       8.  P. 59:  What is the "San Salvador" in the Atlantic Ocean on the map?  It’s not in the text.  (It is probably the first island that Columbus found.)

        9.  P. 59:  Why does the map show Columbus sailing from Portugal rather than Santo, Spain in 1492? 

       10.  P. 59:  The map legend states "lands claimed by Spain as of 1550”, while the map caption says "during the 1500s".  Which is it?

        11.  P. 63:  The International Date Line does not follow one meridian, i.e. 180 E/W.  It thus can’t form a circle with the prime meridian. The text should mention that the prime meridian is measured from Greenich, England.

        12.  P. 66:  The caption says, "Ships had no way of knowing the depth of the waters.”  Ships don’t know anything, but sailors had ways to determine depths.  There’s nothing unique about the rocks along the California coast that defy depth-finding.

        13.  P. 72:  In the caption, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo is mentioned, but is not on the map on p. 74.   Where is it? 

        14.  P. 79:  In the caption, the disease should be "smallpox" instead of “small pox”.

        15.  P. 79:  The text says, "By 1832 Father Serra’s dream of a chain of missions had come true."  The maps on p. 74 shows the last mission was San Francisco Solano in 1823.


CHAPTERS 4 and 5

       1.  P. 85 says, "...the arrival of trading ships twice a year."  P. 88 says.  About two dozen trading ships came to California each year..."  Which is it?

       2.  P. 88 says, "They (Californios) didn't need paper money or coins.”   This implies no paper money or coins were in circulation.  How about the "bowls of money" (P. 93)?

       3.  P. 89 gives dollar amounts of $2, $3, $4, 10 cents, and 15 cents.  These are not believable or historically correct either in actual or relative amounts.  If this is a story about barter, no money amounts should be involved anyway.

       4.  P. 90 says, "Reatas are ropes of braided horsehair."  P. 97 says, "La Reata...braised rawhide."  Which is it?

       5.  P. 91 says, “Indians did not gain freedom when the missions closed.”; and "The new government also gave each Indian on a mission some land and cattle."  Which is it?  What freedom was not gained by the members of numerous Indian tribes?

       6.  P. 91 says, "Missions are now one of California's leading tourist attractions."  Is there any visitor data to support this assertion?  Most have very few tourist visitors per day, and some have none.

       7.  P. 92 has a map titled "Rancho Land Grants 1821-1898".  Mexico ceded California to the U. S. in 1848.  Who made land grants for the next half century?

       8.  P. 96 mentions only Indians as workers at ranchos.  What about Mexican/Spanish Californios?

       9.  P. 107 time line states, "He later builds a saw mill where gold is first discovered."  Gold was first discovered in California in 1842 in Placerita Canyon, just north of Los Angeles.  Several thousand dollars were mined.  The Spanish did not publicize the find in order to prevent any "gold rush" by others.

       10. P. 109 map has several problems.  It is not clear what date it represents.

         A.  There was no boundary line between Maine and New Brunswick until 1842 with the Webster-Ashburton Treaty.

         B.  The term "Canada" in not sensible in this time.  Prior to 1837 there were Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Quebec) along with separate colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  In 1837 Upper and Lower Canada combined into “Canada", and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick joined in      1867.  The areas of modern day Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia were not part of "Canada" during this time period.

        C. Was there an actual entity called "Unorganized Territory"?

        D. Why doesn't Missouri have the small panhandle at the southeastern corner?

        E. The map legend states "present day boundary" for the gray lines.  Which of them is actually a present day boundary?  There are many discrepancies here!

       11. P. 109 suggests that Jedediah Smith was an individual traveling alone, but the picture on p. 110 shows an extensive party with him.

       12.  P. 109 mentions Jedediah Smith's "historic crossing of the Sierra Nevada.”  Was this part of his trip any more “historic” than any other part?

       13.  P. 110 says, “This outside interest in their land was not welcome.”   Who stated this opinion?

       14.  P. 124 says about some steamships, "When tickets were available they were costly.  Also, the food was bad."  Was this really typical about "costly" tickets and "bad" food?

        15.  P. 126 says, “Most of the mining land was owned by Indians.”  What system of land ownership existed at the time?  Did any Indian tribe have a land ownership system?  The term “Indians” is very vague, inasmuch as there were many tribes—each of which is different from the other. The map on P. 136 shows how extensive this area is.


CHAPTER 6

       1.  P. 135 says, "And each day, hundreds more arrived."  If this were true, in only one year- there would be 73,000 more (at 200 per day) or 109,500 more (at 300 per day).  The graph on page 137 shows a total of 82,000 in 1850 after two years of gold rush.

       2.  P. 136 says, "Worse, many miners from the United States treated the Californios badly."  The land that was to become California was already part of the United States from 1848 onward.  Maybe the writer meant to say "from other parts of the United States and other parts of the world". The statement is also an unsupportable generalization.  Most of the Californios were not even close to the gold mining areas of the Sierras, and hardly any of the gold mining areas were contained in any land grant.

        3.  P. 140 shows a graph "Indian Population in California"with 300,000 in 1830 through 5,000 in 1900.  The only explanation of the steep drop from 300,000 to 50,000 is in "Here's Why" that says, "Thousands of Indians died from disease when they moved to the missions."  However, the missions existed from 1770 to 1834—well before this graph.  The steep decline is not explained.

       4.  P. 142 shows a map "Suggested Borders for California" with a legend for the green line "Californio’s proposed Mexican boundary".  The text says this proposal was "above San Luis Obispo".  However, the line as drawn is far south of San Luis Obispo.

        5.  P. 146 discusses Joaquin Murieta and states, "Who was this Mexican bandit?"  The years were 1852-53 and the land that was to become California had already been ceded to the United State in 1848. Did Mr. Murieta maintain any Mexican citizenship, or was he an American? Also, the text states, "Finally, in the last week of July, he and his men cornered a group of Mexicans..."  Again, how do we know the citizenship of these as between Mexican and American?

        6.  P. 156 speaks of "Rancho Sante Fe".  It's "Santa".Moreover, most of these cities with "Rancho" in front of their names have nothing to do with actual ranches from the Spanish/Mexican era.  Even the three examples of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Mirage, and Rancho Santa Fe are highly suspect. How about Rancho Cucamonga?

        7.  P. 157 says, "So in the end most rancheros lost their homes.”   Does this mean more than a majority lost their ranches? Is there any good statistical basis to support this claim?  How many kept them and how much acreage?

        8.  P. 157 says, "The Californios would now have to make their living on land that belonged to others."  What about all those Californios who kept theirs?  And the Californios who bought land after this time?

        9.  P. 159 has a chart "The Price of Coffee, 1818-1850".  It is very confusing.  Is it about retail prices in the California area, or in other parts of the country—thousands of miles away? Why are there dollar amounts for the years before California became part of the U. S. in 1848?  The depiction of straight lines for prices of coffee are very misleading, since coffee prices swing widely from year to year depending on the weather and other factors in producing countries.


CHAPTER 7

        1.  P. 162: The picture caption says, "A crew of workers struggled to find a way to build a railroad through the mountains."  There's nothing in this picture to suggest that is what the workers were doing.  Actually by the time this photo was taken, the route had been determined way before, and these workers may be part of a construction crew.

       2.  P. 164: Speaking of the Pony Express, the text says, “Starting at Fort Kearney, Nebraska..."  The Pony Express actually started at St. Joseph, Missouri.

       3.  P. 164:  The text says, "In a frozen leather pouch he carried a message all of California was waiting to hear."; "Soon all of California had read Lincoln's speech."; and "The message reached Sacramento in seven days, faster than any message had ever traveled before."  It is hard to believe that ALL people in California were waiting to hear President Lincoln's inaugural address, or that ALL people in California read it.  As for this being the fastest message ever, it should be noted that the Pony Express had been in operation since April 1860 (Lincoln’s inauguration was in March 1861; and this particular trip was not necessarily any faster than any previous one).

      4.  P. 165:  The chart says, "For a letter to reach a friend in Boston.  1861--Two weeks by Pony Express.  Today—Two days by US Mail”  The Pony Express did not go to Boston; it stopped at St. Joseph, Missouri.  First class mail today does not get to Boston in two days on the average; even the expedited Priority Mail claims only an average of 2-3 days.

         The chart says, "For a birthday gift to reach your aunt in New York.  1861—Six months by ship.  Today--Seven days by US Mail.   The text says that parcels that went via the Panama isthmus took only one month. Today's Parcel Post takes longer than 7 days on average to get across country.

         The chart says, "For inauguration news to reach you from Washington, D.C.  1861—Two weeks by Pony Express. Today—Instantly by TV or radio."  The Pony Express did not go to Washington, D. C.; it stopped at St. Joseph, Missouri.  TV and radio waves do not travel instantaneously; there is a measurable length of time at the speed of light.

          The chart says, "For you and your family to move to Philadelphia.  1861—-Nine months by wagon train. Today—-Six hours by plane."  Wagon trains generally did not operate to the east of the Mississippi River.  The text says that the trip from the Mississippi River to California might take four to six months.  Travel to the east of the Mississippi was by much faster river and train travel; perhaps it would take a couple weeks or a month to get from St. Joseph to Philadelphia (if a war wasn't going on).

         5.  P. 166:  The text says about telegraph, "The signals travel instantly over a wire."  Telegraph signals do not travel instantaneously.  There is a measurable length of time at the speed of light.

         6.  P. 166:  The chart of "The Original Morse Code" is confusing. It’s not clear how long this code was used for telegraphs before the more familiar, but different "International Morse Code" took over.  For instance, the original code for the letter 0 was two dots, the international code is three dashes.  The well-known SOS is three dots, three dashes, three dots.

       7.  P. 166:  The text says, "In the summer of 1861, this dream was interrupted by important news from Fort Sumter, South Carolina…"  The clash at Fort Sumter was on April 12-14, 1861, which was in the spring.

       8.  P. 167:  The map "Union States During the Civil War" is confusing.  The area that became the state of West Virginia in 1863 was part of Virginia before then.  Nevada became a state in 1864.  The label "Canada" for everything north of the United States is not accurate—the areas west of Ontario were not part of “Canada", and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did not join “Canada" until 1867.  The map shows more than just the Union states, as its legends shows.  Was there really some entity called "Indian Territory"?

       9.  P. 169:  The text says, "Judah and Strong stopped often to survey, or measure, the height of the mountains."  A survey is a much more comprehensive mapping that mere altitude measurement.

        10. P. 169:  The map by Theodore Judah shows a proposed route for the Central Pacific Railroad that goes north of Lake Tahoe.  The map on p. 170 shows the route south of Lake Tahoe.  Which is correct?

        11. P. 175:  The photo caption says, "The Chinese were given many of the hardest and most dangerous jobs in building the railroad." Why would this be notable, given that workers from China formed a large proportion of the railroad workers from 1865 on (though the text is vague on just how much)?  How about a mention of the ethnic composition of all the workers for the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific?  It would also be informative to discuss the Chinese labor contractors who brought the Chinese workers over for the construction, and their oppressive terms of employment and repatriation.

        12. P. 177:  The photo caption says, "When the railroad was finished, the crews celebrated the driving of the golden spike.Notice which group of people is missing from this picture."  It looks like there are only about 50 persons in the picture—out of the thousands of construction workers.  Undoubtedly plenty ofother pictures were taken at the time with plenty of other workers, and obviously plenty of people were left out of these too.  The caption does not answer its own question. The review question 4 asks, "Why do you think the Chinese laborers were left out of the 'last spike’ picture?"  This photo was not the only "last spike" picture.  If the authors think that Chinese workers were being unfairly excluded from photos, they should say so.  The drawing on page 173 and the photo on page 175 show Chinese workers.


CHAPTER 8

      1.  P. 186 says, “Growing the same crop year after year drained minerals from the soil. This caused wheat production, or the total amount grown, to drop.  By the 1890s farmers had to find new crops to plant."  This is not a credible explanation of the switch from wheat production.  The chart on P. 197 shows that the dollar value of farm output dropped between 1880 to 1889 from $72 million to $69 million even when, according to the chart on p. 196, the amount of irrigated land tripled between 1880 and 1889 from 350,000 acres 1,000,000 acres.  This means that the prices for wheat (and other farm commodities) were falling very steeply, probably in competition with the mechanizing farms in the Great Plains (with probably the same "gang plows" shown on p. 184) which also had the advantage of shorter transportation to major markets; California farmers probably decided to switch to much more profitable crops that did not exist in much of the rest of the country, such as citrus.  The soil in the Central Valley id not wear out.  It's still doing very well 100 years later.

       2.  P. 190 says, "During the 1880s, as many as five thousand people a week spilled into southern California."  5000 people a week times 52 weeks equals 260,000 per year. In ten years that would be 2,600,000.  The chart on p. 311 shows the population in 1890 for the entire state at 1,213,398.

        3.  P. 191 says, “Oranges had a long history in California. The Spanish grew them on the missions in the 1700s. Those oranges were dry, seedy, and sour, but many people ate them anyway."  P. 194 repeats this: "Few farmers wanted to grow the dry, sour, and seedy oranges like the ones from the missions."  P. 200 also says, “Oranges from the missions were dry, seedy, and sour." These oranges sound like they could be Valencia oranges (named after the Valencia region of Spain).  However, though Valencia oranges do have seeds, they are not dry or sour.  Navel oranges have the advantage of being somewhat sweeter and juicier and having no seeds.  Navel oranges are more popular than Valencia for table fruits, but Valencias are the mainstays of orange juice.  There was no wholesale abandonment of Valencia production.  It shows up quite well in the orange crate label for Shamrock brand on p. 203.

        4.  P. 193. The map of “Competing Railroads 1885" has some errors.  The path of the Central Pacific is shown as going through where Lake Tahoe exists instead of 50 to 100 miles north of it.  (The same problem was on the map on p. 170.) Shouldn't the actual name of Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad be used instead of the nickname "Santa Fe Railroad"?  The text on p. 193 has the same nickname.

        5.  P. 195 has a caption, “Like the farm workers shown here, the farmers of Mussel Shoals had to struggle to make their crops grow.”  The workers in the photo don’t look like they are struggling.  The field looks well irrigated and and prosperous as far as the eye can see.

       6.  P. 195.  The discussion of Mussel Slough is not typical of the Central Valley farm situation.  The map on p. 187 shows tremendous farm developments throughout the Central Valley, including much of west Tulare County (where Mussel Slough is). The later story on p. 197 about how the railroad may have cheated some of the farmers at Mussel Slough did not have much to do with any climate hardships as mentioned on p. 195.

        7. P. 197 says, "The Southern Pacific owned one in every ten acres in the state.”  This is hard to believe, inasmuch as various levels of government owned at least 2/3 of the state.

        8. P. 197 has a very incomplete story about the confrontation at Mussel Slough.  Just what was the contract between the early farmers and the railroad about purchasing the land?

        9. P. 198 says, “The public did not support the railroad’s actions at Mussel Slough."  Which part of the public is being described, and in what way was the railroad not supported?

        10.  P. 199 says, “Farm ownership in the 1800s followed a pattern that you can still see throughout California.  Many farms are owned by large companies.”  The photo caption says, “Small family farms have always been rare in California.  Large farms owned by big businesses, like the one shown below, control much of California agriculture." Are there any statistics about farm size ownership in the 1800s and in the present day to distinguish between “large farms” and "small family farms"?  It's hard to believe that the farm settlers in the 1870s to 1890s were mostly made up large companies.  The photo does not show a particularly large farm—it appears to be about 100 to 200 acres, which can easily be run by a family.


CHAPTER 9

       1.  P. 202 has a caption, "These people from Scandinavia enjoyed a picnic in their new California home."  There's no such country as "Scandinavia".  Each of the countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark considers itself distinct from the others.  Can one tell from anything in the photo as to which country these people came from? 

      2.  P. 202 has a timeline showing "1882-- The Chinese population in California begins to drop as the United States Congress makes it harder for Chinese to move here."  Even though few more Chinese could come, why did the Chinese population drop?  The chart on p. 210 shows a decrease from 75,000 in 1890 to 30,000 in 1920.  Did they go back to China?  Did they go to other parts of the U. S. or Canada?  Did they not have children?

       3.  P. 203 has a caption, "Japanese people formed a group in Los Angeles to help each other start new lives in California."  Is this a picture of that unnamed group?  Or what?

       4.  P. 203 has a caption, "The Irish and Italians were two of California's largest group of newcomers."  What time period does this apply to?  Are there any comparative statistics on country of origin for California residents?  Ireland and Italy are not very large countries, and it's hard to believe that they would provide a top number of California inhabitants.

       5.  P. 205 says in the 1880s, "Armenia was a country in southeast Europe that is now part of the Soviet Union."  In the 1880s there was no country called Armenia.  Armenia was an area in the Ottoman/Turkish Empire until after World War I.  It straddled parts of what is now Turkey, Iraq, and the Republic of Armenia (which had been a Soviet republic).

      6.  P. 205 has a caption, "In the eastern United States the living conditions for many European immigrants were very unpleasant."  The photo does not show any unpleasant conditions for the time in history.  It's also inaccurate to imply that living conditions in California were any better than in the eastern United States.

       7.  P. 205 says, "Life was so hard in the East Coast cities that thousands of immigrants left for California.  Here they hoped to find the life they had been looking for when they first came to the United States."  Nothing has been presented to show that conditions were better in California than in eastern cities. Moreover, both new immigrants and long-term residents came to California.

        8.  P. 205 says, "Unlike many Europeans, they had not lived in an East Coast city first.  So, when Asians entered California, they found unfamiliar people and cultures."  There really is not much difference in how "unfamiliar" California was after a little while by any particular country's immigrants.  There's nothing unique to Chinese or people from other Asian countries.  People from any country can adapt to a new country—a process that is going on today.

        9.  P. 207 has a very confusing chart of "Major Immigrant Settlement Areas, 1850-1920".  What proportion of population was used for the color-coded rectangles?  Why is Mexico not in the list?  Where did all the Indians go?

       10. P. 207 says, "Smaller cities such as Sacramento and Stockton..."  These were not smaller cities.  They were major centers, and still are.

        11. P. 207 says, "Los Angeles grew into an important center in the 1900s.  Many immigrants from Japan and Korea settled here. "The people from Japan and Korea probably never constituted over 5% of the population of Los Angeles.

       12. P. 207 says, "Smaller cities...were home to immigrants from Japan, the Philippines, and other nations."  P. 208 says, "By the end of the 1800s, immigrants began arriving in California from such nations like Japan and the Philippines."  The Philippines was not a country in the late 1880s.  It was a Spanish colony, and after the Spanish-American War in 1898 it became part of the United States as a possession and remained that way until after World War II.

        13. P. 208 has a photo caption which says, "Japanese immigrant laborers wore sandals like these."  The same photo is on the title page of the book.  However, these shoes are "geta" style which is used only in formal, ceremonial or other situations with very firm pavement.  As you can see, the two wooden supports are rather precarious.  Laborers would not normally use these.  They would most likely use more conventional Japanese sandals.

        14. P. 210 says, "When settlers from the United States began arriving in California, over 100,000 Indians lived in the area." What year was this?  The area that became California became part of the United States in 1846.  The chart on p. 140 shows 300,000 in 1830, 250,000 in 1840, 100,000 in 1850.

        15. P. 210 says, "The settlers did not respect the Indian way of life.  They took Indian lands, chased the Indians away, and even killed them."  Which particular settlers are being described? There is no such thing as an "Indian way of life".  Each Indian tribe is a separate and distinct culture (for instance, Chumash are not Comanche).  Why are there hardly any historical stories of confrontations between the numerous Indian tribes and settlers from the rest of the U.S., European countries, Asian countries, and Mexico?  This would be very interesting material if it exists.

         16. P. 210 has a sketchy story about the Yahi tribe.  This tribe is so small it does not show up on p. 36.  The photo caption says, "During the gold rush, Ishi's people had been chased into the mountains."  Where were the Yahi living before?  The gold rush was in the mountains.  Did Ishi ever say what was going on for the next 60+ years until 1911 that resulted in him being the last of the Yahi?  The town of Oroville is about 70 miles north of Sacramento and is not in the mountains.  Maybe a better example of a much larger tribe should be used where there are good records.

        17. P. 210 has a graph caption that says, "Compare this graph with the population graph in Minipedia, page 311."  The graph on p. 311 uses Census data from 1850 onward, showing 92,597 inhabitants in 1850 and 379,994 in 1860.  (A) What happened to the 250,000 Indians in 1850 and the 100,000 in 1860 according to the graph on p. 140?  (B) The graph on p. 137 shows 82,000 "Newcomers to California".  This is very confusing.  Are these data points showing how many came in that year, or a cumulative amount?  In any case, are the 82,000 all in the Census figure of 92,597?  And does this mean that only 10,597 were not "newcomers"?  (C) The graph on p. 210 "Chinese Population in California" shows 26,000 in 1820, 30,000 in 1849, and 33,000 in 1860.  How did Chinese start showing up in the California area in the 1800s, 1810s, and 1820s when it was Spanish territory, such that there were 26,000 in 1820?  Is it true that the Chinese in 1849 (30,000) would have been about 1/3 of the total population of the state in 1850 (92,597)?  Weren’t most of the Chinese population contract laborers?

        18. P. 210-1 says, "The United States government even passed laws against Asian immigrants.  As the graph on page 210 shows, these laws helped keep many Asians out of the country completely." The graph mentions the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.  If it applied only to Chinese, it did not apply to any other location in Asia, such as Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Tibet, India, etc.  The term "Asian immigrants" is misleading, inasmuch as the people in any of these countries is as distinct from the people of any other as are the people of Poland as distinct from people of Spain.  Race and geographical proximity do not translate to nationhood or culture.  The graph on p. 210 does not show any other Asian countries of origin, and so we can't tell much about these many other Asian sources of immigrants.

        19. P. 210-1 has two captions, "The laws passed by the United States government caused the Chinese population in California to drop." and "As fewer Chinese moved to California, the Chinese population grew older.  The few Chinese children in California were treasured."  This is not a credible explanation of the decline of Chinese inhabitants from 75,000 in 1882 to 28,000 in 1920.  Did Chinese women stop having children?  Did the Chinese in California go back to China, to other parts of the U.S., to other parts of the Americas?  Did they die in large numbers due to illnesses?  How few were the number of children of Chinese parents compared to the number from other ethnic groups?  Finally, it’s not just Chinese who "treasured" their children.

        20. P. 211 says, "...these laws helped keep many Asians out of the country completely.  Starting in 1910, Asians who wanted to enter California had to stop at Angel Island in San Francisco Bay."  How could the exclusion be "completely" if immigration was going on regularly in 1910?  The immigration reception station at Angel Island was probably similar to Ellis Island in New York. 

       21. P. 211 says, "Questioning went on for days, weeks, sometimes for a year or more."  What was the realistic average?  This gives a distorted view of the process.  The text goes on, "Many Asian immigrants were never allowed into California."  What proportion were not allowed into the country?  What were the reasons?  Did they have visas when they arrived?  How did this compare with rates from European and Western Hemisphere origins? 

       22. P. 213 says, "They (Europeans) seemed to blend in more than the Asians did.  So they did not suffer as much discrimination as the Asians."  Also, "Give one reason why European immigrants faced less discrimination than Asians."  Is there any actual data of measures of "discrimination"?  There's no reason to believe that one ethnic group discriminated against others more or less than any other ethnic group.  It is possible that some cultures are much more self-contained and do not practice much tolerance or outgoingness, and thus would be prone to discrimination (both giving and receiving).

        23. P. 213 says, "But in the early 1900s, the United States was allowing few Japanese women into the country unless they had family here."  Was this some gender-specific exclusion law or policy?  Did it apply only to Japanese?  Were visas required for entry into this country, and was there a specific quota for married versus non-married?  How could these "picture brides" be married before they arrived in California?  It sounds to me that this practice of "picture brides" was a practice that was similar to many "mail order brides" of many ethnic groups.  Does the photo actually show "picture brides"?

        24. P. 213 says, "Through all their hardships, California's immigrants helped each other and followed their dreams."  There's no reason to think that immigrants helped all other immigrants of all other origins.  Is there any data showing that all immigrants "followed their dreams", or that they all experienced substantial hardships?


CHAPTER 10

      1.  P. 225 has a picture caption, "San Pedro Harbor is built, allowing ships to come to Los Angeles."  Small ships could always come into San Pedro Harbor, just like the ones shown in the picture.  The enlargement with dredging between 1899 and 1914 allowed large, deep draft freighters and passenger ships to enter as the Panama Canal opened.

      2.  P. 227 has a photo caption that says, "In 1909.... The world's first gas station was open for business."  How did the thousands of the automobiles in the entire world prior to 1909 get gasoline?  Moreover, a "station" stays in one place; the delivery/sales wagon was not a station.

       3.  P. 228 says , "By 1905, Los Angeles was a city of 200,000 people, with fancy homes, hotels, and beaches nearby."  The only (very small) beach in the City of Los Angeles was in San Pedro.  The rest of the beaches in southern California are in other cities or in county territory.  The map on p. 230 shows this clearly.

       4.  P. 229 has a map of the Los Angeles Aqueduct that shows a nonexistent 20-mile extension west from the Sylmar terminus.

       5.  P. 229 has a map showing the "San Fernando Valley", which erroneously indicates that it includes Malibu, Santa Monica, and West Los Angeles.

       6.  P. 229 has a map caption that says, "The San Fernando Valley, outside Los Angeles, became a major farming region."  The San Fernando Valley was part of the City of Los Angeles.  It was annexed by the City of Los Angeles in connection with the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct.  The water rights to the entire Los Angeles River were very important, and the San Fernando Valley included all the headwaters of the river. Moreover, the aqueduct terminates in Sylmar, which is in the San Fernando Valley.

       7.  P. 230 has a map showing the City of Los Angeles.  For some reason it includes the annexation of San Pedro, but does not include the annexation of the San Fernando Valley.

       8.  P. 230 says, "As you can see from the map, San Francisco has a curved coastline.  This gives it a perfect natural harbor." The quality of a harbor has nothing to do with how curved or straight the coastline is.  Moreover, it is not clear what curve is being described in the vicinity of San Francisco.

       9.  P. 231 says, "Water is even more valuable in California today than it was when William Mulholland built the Los Angeles Aqueduct."  There's nothing to support this.  Actually, the inflation-adjusted price of water today is probably lower than it was in 1914.  It costs about 2 cents per gallon from the tap today.

       10. P. 231 says, "Every day, each Californian uses about 70 gallons of water for drinking, cooking, baking, and cleaning."  This is a preposterous statistic for these household uses.  An average household of three persons would be using 210 gallons daily—many times a realistic figure.  Moreover, household usage of water is only a small fraction of water use in the state. Much larger are industrial uses and watering of golf courses and other outdoor landscaping.  And the largest use by far is for agricultural irrigation. About 2/3 of California's river water runs out to the ocean.

       11. P. 231 says, "All together the people of Los Angeles use over one billion gallons of water daily..."  With 3 million persons in Los Angeles in 1990, this means the average usage is 333 gallons per person per day.  This is almost five times the statewide average of 70 gallons that is presented in the previous sentence.

       12. P. 231 says, "All together the people of Los Angeles use over one billion gallons of water daily—60 times as many gallons as the people of Sacramento."  Sacramento in 1990 had about 300,000 people, or about 1/10 the number in Los Angeles.  It's hard to believe that people in Los Angeles use six times the amount of water per person than the people in Sacramento use.

       13. P. 232 says, "All over the city, dogs began to whine and bark.  Horses stamped and snorted.  The animals sensed something the sleeping citizens of San Francisco did not."  Who was up at 5 AM to see this asserted phenomenon?  Why would dogs and horses be awake at 5 AM?  This sounds like non-science Hollywood fantasy. From the reports of the earthquake, it burst forth in violent shaking for about a minute, but was not preceded by smaller ones that were felt by any person or animal.

       14. P. 232 says, "... as San Francisco burned."  Actually, buildings in only a portion of San Francisco burned, as the story on pp. 236-9 describes.

       15. P. 233 says, "People said the city would never be rebuilt." What "people" were these?  Why should we care about their nonsensical opinions?

       16. P. 233 has a photo caption that says, "The people of San Francisco amazed the rest of the country by quickly rebuilding their city."  Is this photo from any time close to 1906?  Again, what "rest of the country" was “amazed”?

       17. P. 233 says, "In return, they let companies like the Southern Pacific Railroad charge high prices.  This hurt many California businesses that couldn't pay such costs."  Actually, it hurt the ones which could and had to pay the excessively high prices.  How did the “businesses that couldn’t pay such costs” stay in business if they needed to transport goods?

       18. P. 234 says, "The Progressives were a group of people across the United States...."  There was not a membership group called the "Progressives" that people belonged to.  Rather it was an informal political/economic movement.  Some ideas associated with it were implemented in political action.  It would be worthwhile to mention that it was led by Theodore Roosevelt (among others) and that Roosevelt ran for president in 1911 for the National Progressive Party (nicknamed Bull Moose) with Hiram Johnson as his running mate.

        19. P. 234 says, "He (Hiram Johnson) set up new rules that kept railroad prices low and stopped the bribing."  If these were laws, the governor could not act without the Legislature.  There is no explanation of what “low” means. It's not believable that bribing was stopped.  Hiram Johnson went on to be elected to the U. S. Senate and served until 1945.

        20. P. 234 says, "Women were kept out of government."  Was there a ban on employment?  Were women prohibited from holding any government office?  Could women lobby?  Voting is only one way of involvement in the government.

        21. P. 234 says, "Still, women became a strong force for progress in California."  Some women were probably an equally strong force for things that opposed the author's idea of "progress".  There was no unanimity of thought among women—just as men have no uniform view on anything.

        22. P. 234 says, "Pay was so low that families went hungry." This was not typical.  The pay in the early 1900s was better thanin the previous century.  There was very little hunger in the United States; food was very cheap because the farm economy was so productive.

        23. P. 235 says, "One of the biggest victories was in 1911, when the Progressives passed a law that gave California women the right to vote."  The "Progressives" did not pass any law.  Perhaps the progressive Republican-majority Legislature and Governor did.  Moreover it was probably an amendment to the constitution and the public (men) would have voted on it.

       24. P. 235 says, "How did women bring change to California when they had no say in government?"  See number 20 above. 

      25. P. 235 says, "In the early 1900s, working conditions were bad not only in California, but throughout the United States."  The working conditions in the early 1900s were better than in the 1800s.  The average income continuously improved.

       26. P. 242 mentions World War I and its death toll.  The influenza epidemic of 1918 killed about 20 million people worldwide, including over 500,000 in the United States.  It deserves mention as a much larger fatal occurrence than World War I.

       27. P. 242 has a margin note, "In what ways did California grow during World I and afterward?"  It should be "World War I".

       28. P. 242 says, "New film studios were built in the growing city of Hollywood."  Hollywood was not a city.  It is part of the City of Los Angeles.  Other film studios are outside Hollywood (and outside the rest of Los Angeles), such as MGM in Culver City and Disney in Burbank.

       29. P. 243 has a map caption that says, "Families from Dust Bowl states such as Arkansas and Oklahoma...."  The map does not show the Dust Bowl extending to Arkansas.

       30. P. 243 says, "A major cause of the Dust Bowl was drought...." What other cause could there be?

       31. P. 243 has a map with four small towns in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley (Delano, Wasco, Shatter, and Arvin) with no apparent significance.

       32. P. 244 says, "The families poured into California farm towns."  They poured into the medium and large cities too and in much larger numbers.

        33. P. 245 says, "It (Golden Gate Bridge) stood as a sign of the strength that would pull the country out of the Great Depression."  The bridge had nothing to with the evolution of the Great Depression.  What is this "strength" with such a power?

       34. P. 246 has item A6 in the Reviewing Key Terms which says, "The Los Angeles Aqueduct is a giant water pipe that carries water to the city."  Only about 1/3 of the aqueduct is a pipeline; the rest is open air canal.

        35. P. 247 has an item 2a in Reviewing Skills which says, "I think Hiram Johnson did a good job as mayor of San Francisco." He was never mayor of San Francisco.  He was, however, a very successful prosecuting attorney against very corrupt San Francisco politicians, including convictions of Mayor Eugene Schmitz and political boss Abraham Ruef in 1907-8.

        36. P. 247 has an item 4 in Reviewing Skills which says, "What kind of library card would help you find another book by Doris Gates?"  Is there more than one kind of library card?  Library cards don't help find books.  Most libraries don't even require a person to have a library card to look around, find books and other materials, and so on.