I’ve posted this ruling elsewhere, but it relates to your experience, so I’m doing it again. I warn you, this is really some ugly reading so be prepared.

As the Supreme Court wrote, this ruling was designed to protect the white person from the influence of every one who is not of white blood.

You can find the full ruling here https://cite.case.law/cal-4th/60/1169/

I assure you the part regarding Christopher Columbus alone, is worth a read.

For now, a few excerpts. NOTE: In 2015, just 6 years ago, the court heard yet another case stemming from this ruling.

THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GEORGE W. HALL

The appellant, a free white citizen of this State, was convicted of murder upon the testimony of Chinese witnesses. The point involved in this case, is the admissibility of such evidence.

...the Civil Practice Act provides, “No Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action in which a White person is a party.”

...the Criminal Act provides, “No Black, or Mulatto person, or Indian shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a White man.”

In using the words “no black or mulatto person, or Indian shall be allowed to give evidence for or against a white person,” the Legislature, if any intention can be ascribed to it, adopted the most comprehensive terms to embrace every known class or shade of color, as the apparent design was to protect the white person from the influence of all testimony other than that of persons of the same caste. The use of these terms must, by every sound rule of construction, exclude every one who is not of white blood.

The appellant, a free white citizen of this State, was convicted of murder upon the testimony of Chinese witnesses . . .

For these reasons, we are of opinion that the testimony was inadmissible.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Instead of posting this again, I’m going to look up more cases.