L.A. Times "Eternity Street" Review

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times has a nearly full-page review (click here) of John Mack Faragher's Eternity Street: Violence and Justice in Frontier Los Angeles.  The reviewer is Jill Leovy, a Times reporter whose book, Ghettoside, examines the modern crisis of black male homicide and the abysmal rate at which these crimes are solved.

It helps to know this (this blogger had to look up this information) before reading the review, because so often, book reviews are revealing about the reviewer as well as the reviewed.  Leovy's main point of analysis is that Faragher asks the right question relating to why people were, in frontier Los Angeles 140 and more years ago, murdered with impunity and protection.

This question of justice denied is crucial for Leovy as she eloquently and passionately discusses why Faragher's excellent book does so many things well--to the point where she repeats at the beginning and end the positive affirmation: "Now we're talking."

What is interesting to this blogger in Leovy's review is what might be termed a variation on a common theme; that is, the attempt to directly, concretely and specifically link violence and criminal justice issues from frontier Los Angeles to later periods and events.

This has been done, for example, by historians in comparing the Chinese Massacre of 1871 to mob violence in Los Angeles in 1943 (Zoot Suit Riots), 1965 (Watts Riots) and 1992 (the civil unrest in the aftermath of the trial involving officers from the Rodney King beating).

In Leovy's review, she links frontier Los Angeles to the modern Gaza Strip, South Africa and Compton and suggests Faragher's analysis might help "dissect" such issues as gang and drug violence, honor and witch killings, and counter-insurgency and state-building.

Without trying to review a review, a core question is: how readily can we compare and contrast types of violence in modern places to those of frontier Los Angeles?

This blogger has, in the twenty years studying and writing on this topic, been very wary of making ready connections between that era and later ones, except in broad brush with broadly-sweeping strokes.

If you've read Faragher's book and Leovy's very interesting review, leave a comment here about what you think!