criticism of the frontier thesis

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Well after getting a good laugh from Caldwell’s post, which makes some very valid points on the lack of evidence and rather outlandish claims of Turner’s work, I do not want to add insult to injury and further coat Turner’s work with criticism. Yes, his work is somewhat glorified and possibly absurd; however, I do think some good came out of this work that is quickly noted in the post. I do think Turner accomplishes his goal of shining bright light on the memory of the “American frontier” and the history of the masses of those who courageously decided to pack up and head for the Great West. Yet, these points have been mentioned throughout Caldwell’s hilariously harsh historical critique so I won’t spend time on them. What I will spend a little time on is some of the interesting phrases I pulled out from Turner’s western frontier historiography.

Granted I do think many of Turner’s statements are beyond reasonable and he may have some misguided history of the west, but because I do not have much background in frontier history or of the great expansions into our new territory at the time, I am apprehensive to shoot down all of his claims. I find myself reading some of them and being intrigued to have this “frontier history” Turner wants expanded to shine some more light on his claims of significance. For example, the bold claim that, “Administratively, the frontier called out some of the highest and most vitalizing activities of the general government. The purchase of Louisiana was perhaps the constitutional turning point in the history of the Republic…” (10) This statement carries much weight with it and I would be interested to hear what past historians have to say about that as well as some men who held positions of office in the government before the time of the purchase. Besides claims such as those, I did find myself following Turner’s notions that the frontier was purely American and its Americanization began to diminish some of England’s influence on America. He states, “That fact is, that here is a new product that is American” and “Thus the advance of the frontier has meant a steady movement away from the influence of Europe, a steady growth of independence on American lines.” (2) I find this argument of Turner’s a little more evidence based than others he makes and also truly just finding it more believable and significant than his other bold claims.

With that being said, I did found Turner’s work extremely enjoyable to read one, because I don’t know much about the west and its formational significance to the greater picture and two, because of the consistent bold claims by Turner that seemed to keep me flipping the pages. Also, someone teach me how to hyperlink on this thing.

There is no God. You might think that there must be a God, who created the universe, and perhaps drives its course. You might even think that God made sure you got that parking space in Belk lot. But he doesn’t exist, because the Frontier did all of those things, or so Frederick Jackson Turner might like you to think.

Clearly, I am about to add insult to injury by further criticizing what Cronon calls the “‘blood -drenched field’ of the frontier thesis”(157). Yet, because I read “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” I must add my own two cents, which will likely follow the critiques of past historians. Clearly, Turner embraces a vision of the frontier that is heavily stereotyped, and generalizes broadly from these stereotypes. For example, Jackson argues that “the wilderness masters the colonist” and turns him into a man who “has gone to planting Indian corn and plowing with a sharp stick, he shouts the war cry and takes the scalp in orthodox Indian fashion”(2). This vision is so prejudiced and stereotyped as to be laughable, and Jackson provides no evidence that anything of the sort ever actually occurred. The multitude of examples of Jackson’s hilarity and absurdity would take a great deal of space and time to mention, but to do so would be neither interesting nor original. I will say, however, that the most glaring pattern that threw his thesis into question was that he never examined any individual, region or town to substantiate his multitude of claims; much of his evidence comes from people making generalizations, as he did.

More interesting than the opportunity to criticize Turner is Cronon’s analysis of the frontier thesis and Turner’s work. In his work, rather than in Turner’s own, I was much more sympathetic to Turner. Knowing little of western history and even less about western historiography, I can still acknowledge the truth of Cronon’s argument that Turner succeeded in establishing the idea of the frontier in the American memory, perhaps more concretely than it ever existed in the minds of frontiersmen. I also empathized with Turner’s desire, which Cronon describes, to write a history for the mass of people. Turner fails to do so, of course, in his frontier thesis, in that he ignores the native Americans, women, and others who experienced the frontier; yet, his work seems like an attempt in that direction.

I also enjoyed reading about how Turner’s work “codified the central narrative structure which has helped organize American history ever since”(166). Certainly, such an impact seems both positive and significant (high praise, considering Turner’s love of ‘significance.’). In the end, I must apologize for my rude mocking of Turner’s argument which ascribes so much to the frontier: he was a storyteller, and his efforts to contribute to history were certainly successful, even if his ideas were sometimes outlandish or unsubstantiated.

As the first poster for last week’s post, I have been widely commented on and cited, appropriately for a historian of my eminence. First, I think that Catherine’s expansion of my point (which, oddly, I don’t believe to be the point that I actually made) that disasters have archeological benefit is interesting. I am loathe to claim that any loss of human life could be considered beneficial, even if it does result in great learning for later generations. Yet, we must acknowledge the transience of human life; perhaps it is acceptable that some of the myriad fleeting lives of the past ended disastrously to teach us something.

Furthermore, I question Sarah’s argument that capitalism is not as destructive as I claim it to be. We constantly see the ways in which capitalism destroys in order to create. Think about the way that corporations, once the mightiest in the nation, fall by the wayside as others replace them: Sears fell as Walmart consumed it, and Amazon forced Walmart to adapt, and others will soon take their place. Standard Oil and its progeny, ExxonMobil being the most prominent, will die as humans shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Or look past corporations, to the ways that capitalism consumes resources: the very measurement of a nation’s wealth is GDP, which is not measured by our happiness, or the sum of items we possess, or our savings, but by what we have consumed this year. Capitalism destroys resources, though it certainly drives progress; however, a critical examination of that progress and its direction–and the associated cost–is the duty of every citizen.

In conclusion, just remember to thank the frontier when you get that parking spot next time.

Tag: criticism of the frontier thesis

A Thank You Letter to the Frontier

The Omnipotent Frontier