Let me begin by agreeing with AJ\u2019s <\/a>comments about reading through Eli\u2019s post.<\/a>\u00a0 Bringing in the Belk parking spot certainly made me laugh and made Turner\u2019s article seem even more far-fetched, stereotyped, and prejudice.\u00a0 While I shared many of the same initial thoughts that Eli describes, Conon\u2019s historiography almost justified Turner\u2019s paper into making \u201cTHE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY\u201d seem accurate and almost skillfully neglectful.\u00a0 Maybe I have fallen into Cronon\u2019s trap, yet after reading the historiography Turner\u2019s general thesis seems much more accurate, so long as you avoid the problems about democracy, national character, theological problems, and his stereotyping of frontier \u201ctypes\u201d.\u00a0 (171)<\/p>\n During my initial reading of Turner, I had many of the same feelings that Eli referenced and noted many of the critiques that Cronon brought up.\u00a0 I thought Turner lacked detail, failed to acknowledge many of the underlying factors of western expansion, and his \u201canalytical shortcomings.\u201d (170) \u00a0Nevertheless, I was slowly persuaded to acknowledge Turner\u2019s entire thesis after I finished Cronon.\u00a0 Regardless by how much historians reject the structure and thesis of Turner\u2019s work, we are still reliant on the work today.\u00a0 As noted throughout Cronon, we acknowledge the article predominantly for the academic ingenuity to understand history through narrative.\u00a0 If one consider Turner\u2019s article as more of a narrative for history as a whole, using the broad theme of the American frontier, than maybe his piece has merit.\u00a0 Regardless of whether Turner though of this piece as a story or strict scholarly writing is insignificant.\u00a0 \u00a0If Turner was trying to explain why he believed the course of American history was going to take a drastic turn in the years after 1893, than his paper narrates a plausible story behind his reasoning.<\/p>\n As I re-read the last portions of Turner\u2019s article (after reading Cronon who caused me to ignore some of the obvious flaws) the general ideas seemed to make sense.\u00a0 If we ignore some of details, the American frontier has a unique and possibly accurate parallel with the Mediterranean. Maybe, in 1893 when Turner wrote the article, the idea of expansion had been lost.\u00a0 Without the idea of free land and the frontier, maybe Americans felt forced to modernize.\u00a0 Without the possibility of horizontal expansion, was the vertical expansion (urbanization and industrialization) the next logical chapter in American history?\u00a0 Certainly, I do not agree with everything that Turner is saying, but his thesis, at the most basic level, is hard to ignore.\u00a0 As Cronon points out, a logical story is hard to ignore.\u00a0 If we compare the expansion of American history to various country histories and the interaction with American landscape, maybe Turner was right.<\/p>\n My biggest take away from these two reading\u2019s lies in my drastic openness to Turner\u2019s argument.\u00a0 Can a good historiography like Cronon\u2019s change your mind on even the most farfetched ideas?\u00a0 Certainly this will not be true for every article, but I was struck by how logical Cronon\u2019s approach was to an article I had nearly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Let me begin by agreeing with AJ\u2019s comments about reading through Eli\u2019s post.\u00a0 Bringing in the Belk parking spot certainly made me laugh and made Turner\u2019s article seem even more far-fetched, stereotyped, and prejudice.\u00a0 While I shared many of the same initial thoughts that Eli describes, Conon\u2019s historiography almost justified Turner\u2019s paper into making \u201cTHE … <\/p>\n