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
After reading Cronon’s explanation of Turner’s “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” I am willing to cut Turner some slack. Rather than piggyback on the numerous critics of Turner, I think the most useful tactic is to consider what Turner got right. Cronon frames the issue succinctly, “the key question, then, is whether we can escape the analytical weaknesses of Turner’s ‘vanishing frontier’ and still retain his narrative strength (170). Cronon argues that instead of harping on Turner’s obvious shortcoming, we should analysis the weight of his work.
Cronon’s piece contextualizes the work of Turner. Ironically, Turner was the pioneer of a field of history that celebrates the lives of individuals that found a new place for themselves in an unfamiliar domain. As the creator of an important subgenre of American History, Turner was bound to get some things wrong. As Caldwell point out in his post, Turner created the notion of the frontier. Because of Turner’s creation of the frontier and the study of the history of the west, Turner deserves to be commended for his innovation. As is the case with all new creations, those that follow constantly point out the flaws. I believe Turner’s flaws are excusable—granted we understand both the time period of his work and his addition to the study of United State’s history.
Also, I especially enjoyed Cronon’s depiction of Turner’s legacy. Cronon contends that Turner’s narrative of the west has never been changed, “we continue to follow the Turnerian plot (167).” Besides continuing to employ Turner’s narrative of the West, historians credit Turner with creating environmental history. Environmental history came from Western History and Western History came from Turner (171).
To conclude, I find it unnecessary to continue to attack Turner’s work. I believe it is more important to document his strengths more than his weaknesses. The flaws in his argument are apparent; it seems counterintuitive to keep pointing them out. Turner’s place in history and his work must be recognized going forward.