Where does /his/ stand on the debate between Frontier Thesis and New Western History?>The Frontier Thesis, formulated by Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893, argues that the existence of a moving western frontier was the central force shaping American democracy, culture, and national identity. Turner claimed that as settlers moved westward, they encountered wilderness conditions that fostered individualism, self-reliance, innovation, and egalitarian social structures, distinguishing the United States from European societies. He emphasized that the frontier acted as a “safety valve” for economic and social tensions in the East, continually renewing American vitality. The thesis concludes that the closing of the frontier around 1890 marked a turning point, raising concerns about the future development of these uniquely American traits.>The New Western History, emerging in the late 20th century through historians such as Patricia Nelson Limerick, challenges Turner’s interpretation by reframing the American West as a place of ongoing conflict rather than a simple story of progress and expansion. It emphasizes the perspectives of diverse groups—Native Americans, Hispanics, women, and others—highlighting issues of conquest, environmental impact, economic exploitation, and cultural interaction. Rather than viewing the frontier as a closed chapter, New Western historians argue that the dynamics of the West—federal power, resource competition, and cultural diversity—persist into the present, making the region central to understanding modern American history.
well the frontier theory obviously isn't accurate, people didn't keep moving west just for fun.
>>18423233It never said they did dumbass
>>18423235>1893, argues that the existence of a moving western frontier was the central force shaping American democracythis implies people kept moving west regardless.it just doesn't make sense, the frontier grew and shrank and wasn't just a linear outward growth.
>>18423244They've moved west for all sorts of reason To farm, to ranch, mining, to run from the law, to get their own slice of land, etc. It's not like they just said "lol let's go this unsettled area full of angry natives just for fun"
>>18423254that's what I mean, that perspective supports the new western hypothesis much better.
>>18423254Some were just on adventures tho.
How come you only hear how bad the anglo settlers were to the natives? It was Mexican for years before anglos came Were the Mexicans not bad?
>>18423263anon..
>>18423269Yes I know the Mexicans are natives mixed with Spaniards but they were Spanish speaking Catholics by that point
>>18423263Mexicans had very little control of their northern territories. New Mexico was basically a vassal state of whatever indigenous horde was passing by, California had a population of five on a good day, and Tejas might as well have been a non-entity. Hispanic settlement in the region was sparse, not very centralized, etc.This is without mentioning that in post-independence Mexico individual states were de facto independent.
>>18423298Ironic that people pretend that the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was the most evil brutal oppressive thing ever because of all the poor Mexicans in that area
Frontier Thesis is bullshit.All values were consider american come from its anglo pioneers and were around long before the american frontier ever existed
>>18423233>>18423235>>18423244When they reached the ocean, they got on boats and took Hawaii and the Philippines.
>>18423338Faustian Spirit knows no bounds
>>18423263Mexico very tenuously controlled the land, and had very few actual settlers in the region.There were plenty of abuses in Catholic missions under the Spanish rule of that land, but in general the land-stealing and war crimes that come to mind when we think of American westward expansion were not done by the Spanish or the Mexicans.A big difference between Spanish colonialism and English colonialism, and this tracks to early Mexico and the US, is that the US was a settler colony which millions would flock to from all across Europe. Expansion was driven by people looking for new land.Meanwhile Spain mostly just conquered what was already there, and set up only limited bases of non-indigenous population spread across the region.This is also why Latin America is much more ethnically indigenous than Anglo-America
>>18423229I think the frontier thesis massively overstates the importance of rugged individualism in American culture, and the importance of the west in American culture.I mean in the west itself, in the mountain west where things are still a bit reminiscent of the frontier days, there is a bit of what the frontier thesis talks about, but everywhere else?The frontier is not where most Americans ever lived and wasn't even where most economic growth in the US came from.Most immigrants moved to the big cities where industrialization (which rarely used western materials) drove the changes of the economy. The idea that the westward expansion was pivotal to the development of the American character doesn't logically track when must Americans had no connection to it.
>>18423229Did Walter Prescott Webb contribute to it in his works "The Great Plains" and "Texas Rangers" or am I just imagining things? I know about William Cronon's "Changes In The Land" and have read it despite considerable "noble savage" hand wringing peppered throughout the book.
>>18423434By the time of the frontier the east was already hella established and the culture cemented
Why was the wild west do cool bros?
