History 616, First Posting

2005-09-11T11:50:00.000-07:00

First Entry, 12 Sep 05
Ray Swider

Limerick, Patricia Nelson, The Legacy of Conquest
Hine, Robert V. and John Mack Faragher, The American West

These two books provide a broad overview of the history of the American West. Both examine multiple themes, narratives, and counter narratives, starting from the Frederick Jackson Turner thesis of 1893 which declared an end to the American frontier. The authors examine Turner’s thesis about the “frontier” as a process, which took place within the American West rather than considering “frontier” as a place, but the terms “frontier” and “West” (as places rather than processes) have been readily conflated and confused. Limerick criticizes Turner’s thesis as reasoning from the present to the past. Turner used the circumstances of 1893 to fashion a theory to explain the settlement of the West. Turner’s “frontier” described a process of collision between cultures: Anglo-American and Indian; Anglo-American and Mexican-Hispanic; Anglo-American and Asian; etc. Turner’s thesis was also agrarian in nature – his frontiersmen pushed westward in search of land for agricultural settlement. The authors also examine the roots of Turner’s thesis in the “heliotropic myth” (following the rising and setting sun), a process whereby civilization advanced from East to West across the arc of history. Concepts like the heliotropic myth resulted in American justification for exploration and settlement of the North American continent in the name of American “Manifest Destiny” – the right and duty to bring civilization to savage lands and people. The authors offer counter narratives to the Turner thesis. They examine the other cultures of America (Indian, Mexican, Asian, etc.) and how those cultures developed. For example, Spanish settlement in the Southwest involved intermarriage and racial mixing, resulting in a “frontier of inclusion” as opposed to the Anglo-American “frontier of exclusion” that kept races and cultures separate. Limerick develops the thesis that American settlement was actually a “process of conquest” as cultures collided. Spanish and French colonists also conquered, but it was Anglo-American culture that overwhelmed all others. The authors develop other counter narratives that emerge from a complex Western history: the development of mining and extractive industries; labor movements that resulted from these industries; business development in transport (railroads), city boosterism, and manufacturing; land and resource management; Mormonism as a departure from more traditional Anglo-American culture; and the role of Government as a distributor of land, manager of resources, and organizer/purveyor of conquest.

The authors take issue with Turner’s thesis and expose its limitations. They seek to expand on the knowledge of events in western history and reveal the facts, stories, and narratives that shaped the region. These narratives lend richness to that history and force the reader to reexamine historical theories (like Turner’s frontier thesis) and seek other historical patterns and trends. Although Limerick wrote in the mid-1980’s and Hine and Faragher published more recently, both of these volumes are revisionist in style. Their counter narratives reveal a degree of “presentism” in reasoning (Limerick admits as much), but that presentism is reminiscent of 1960s-1970s activism spawned by the civil rights movement and a questioning of American foreign policy. In fact, Turner’s “closing of the frontier” was a useful premise for revisionist historians who saw American imperialism as a product of externalization of America’s quest for land and resources. As such, the authors have advanced beyond 1960s revisionism, but retain its basic dynamic, which seeks to question more traditional historical theses and theories.

There is utility in probing the inadequacies of mainstream work, if for no other reason than to build on the existing body of knowledge. A dialectical approach to historical study would also demand that counter narratives be explored because the synthesis of narrative and counter narrative produces a new thesis. However, I believe that an iterative approach to historical study is necessary because of its practical implications. I also have no issue with “presentism”. It would be next to impossible to ignore the context of contemporary events. In fact, presentism gives value to historical inquiry because it gives that inquiry utility in the formation of public policy. Public policy is best served when the electorate and elected are well-informed. Policy problems can be better defined and solutions better designed when policymakers and citizens understand the true nature of problems and what has and hasn’t worked before (and why). For example, the issue of Mexican immigration has a long history. The features and elements of immigration policy are not new and solutions to present problems may not be new either. Ecological problems in the West also have a long history and previous solutions must be understood for their relevancy, effectiveness, and unintended consequences. Finally economic patterns in the American West have resulted in regional approaches to government, politics, and Federalism. These approaches all have historical precedents that can shed light on solutions to contemporary problems. Therefore, I find value in works like these if they are used to inform and educate for practical purposes and if they go beyond the sterile pursuit of scholarship for scholarship’s sake.

Test

2005-08-30T17:21:00.000-07:00

Test

Ray Swider's Site

History 616, First Posting

Test