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
In Fugitive Landscapes, Samuel Truett’s main argument intertwined the American and Mexican history of the Southwestern copper borderlands. Previous historiography has treated these countries as separate entities and usually in a regional sense. Truett explained that the borderlands influenced each other so much that they should be viewed together in history. Even as United States and Mexico worked to modernize and dominate this land, it remained a fugitive landscape with frontier characteristics (6-9, 180). Truett specifically mentioned that historians have marginalized the transnational significance of the Mexican Revolution in the early twentieth century while they tended to focus on World War One. Instead, Truett considered this Mexican period a “key turning point” because it led to the American idea that a border signified “differences” on each side and the Mexican idea of a border to be crossed (174-177).
Truett used diaries, government and company reports, eyewitness narratives, maps, photographs, and other sources to reconstruct the complex transnational status of the borderlands. A diverse group of people adapted to and moved around in the Arizona-Sonora area. Yet, governments and elites attempted to control local frontiers. Beyond the local level, these borderlands were not so much a desert wasteland as they were a “crossroads” for commerce and migration across the United States and Mexico border (60, 106). By identifying the borderlands as a crossroads, it can be added to a group of other significant locations throughout the world where economic, political, and cultural interaction have occurred together.
Truett did not give as much agency to the Indians as Hamalainen had done in Comanche Empire. Rather, the book focused on American imperial dreams, the Mexican state’s search for power, and the agency of Mexican laborers and other immigrants. Truett did highlight the theme of creating alliances, networks, and relationships to survive in the borderlands. Fugitive Landscapes could also be in conversation with the authors of Slavery’s Capitalism. Before this, history has not always acknowledged industrialization found in the American South or the Southwestern borderlands. While both places lacked identical Northern-looking factories, they did have developments that suggested industrial progress, such as technological advances or transportation improvements.
I would agree with Dave that Truett did a good job arguing that the borderlands still had a “frontier identity” by the end of the book (dshanebeck). I liked how Truett focused on the ordinary inhabitants of the borderlands and their ability to survive a variety of natural, political, and economic obstacles. Overall, I think that Fugitive Landscapes contained useful history and background, especially considering Truett’s comment that the borderlands are often forgotten. However, the book ends without really saying what can be done with this remembered history. If people should know more about this history how can it be presented to an audience in a non-academic setting? I think the book can be developed further by explaining how the content can be applied today. Current discussions about borderland concerns, diversity, and cultural developments can be connected to historical trends detailed in Truett’s book. For instance, the mixing of American and Mexican cultures, such as in Truett’s mining towns, is still occurring in America today (ex. Mexican food). Perhaps borderlands historians can engage the public’s attention by starting with relevant and applicable connections between the past and the present.