Tweet
Ok, I have been muddling through my choice for my research project for my Historiography course -- I chose to research how the study of the history of the American frontier changed from Frederick Jackson Turner, to the present day, using a few representative works.
Now, I already have known about violent repression of strikers LONG before I entered graduate school. I have also long known about violent persecution of Mormons.
But one specific incident that I never learned about until now, was that on April 20, 1914 in Colorado, the state militia attacked a tent colony of white strikers and their families. Some tents caught on fire, and as a result, two women and eleven children were killed.
According to the author of the book, "The Legacy of Conquest" by Patricia Limerick, this initiated a state-wide civil war in Colorado.
Through reading her chapter on the complexities of race and conflict in the frontier, she emphasized that past historians had simplified violent conflict as whites being the opressor, and minority race members being the monolithic, hapless victims in a misguided method of counter-attacking white ethnocentric history that minimized these conflicts or ignored them altogether.
I have known it was more complex than that, but with her concrete examples that I never knew about, I appreciate that complexity even more -- it's a simple fact that being white in the West did not guarantee you protection from violent attacks by other whites, as a result of economic, religious, and political conflicts.
And of course, let's not forget the violent attacks and acts between members of different minority groups, or within the same minority group.
Some other interesting facts that dispel myths of the history of the West:
1) The frontier was never free from outside federal government intervention -- subsidies for transportation development, control over Amerindian policies, and organizing territorial government and so on. Yet, at the same time, Western political leaders have often complained about the same interventions that sought to help develop their respective states.
2) Historical experiences (from Spanish colonial days to present) have shown the futility of humans drawing an arbitrary border between what is designated as Mexico and United States. In terms of terrain and culture, both sides of the border are of the same heritage. So why haven't we learned anything from this today??
3) The very diversity of nineteenth and twentieth century West in terms of race, ethnicity and religion strained the racial hierarchial order for whites, and challenged them to think harder (something they never did).
4) When did the frontier really "close?" In 1890 with the official Census declaration?
In the early twentieth century with implementation of mass irrigation systems and corporate agriculture?
In the 1930s with increased proliferation of federal government programs and regulations in the West?
In the 1960s and 70s with more rapid, and more widespread suburbanization?
And for the borderland between Mexico and United States -- maybe the frontier has never closed yet??
Now, I already have known about violent repression of strikers LONG before I entered graduate school. I have also long known about violent persecution of Mormons.
But one specific incident that I never learned about until now, was that on April 20, 1914 in Colorado, the state militia attacked a tent colony of white strikers and their families. Some tents caught on fire, and as a result, two women and eleven children were killed.
According to the author of the book, "The Legacy of Conquest" by Patricia Limerick, this initiated a state-wide civil war in Colorado.
Through reading her chapter on the complexities of race and conflict in the frontier, she emphasized that past historians had simplified violent conflict as whites being the opressor, and minority race members being the monolithic, hapless victims in a misguided method of counter-attacking white ethnocentric history that minimized these conflicts or ignored them altogether.
I have known it was more complex than that, but with her concrete examples that I never knew about, I appreciate that complexity even more -- it's a simple fact that being white in the West did not guarantee you protection from violent attacks by other whites, as a result of economic, religious, and political conflicts.
And of course, let's not forget the violent attacks and acts between members of different minority groups, or within the same minority group.
Some other interesting facts that dispel myths of the history of the West:
1) The frontier was never free from outside federal government intervention -- subsidies for transportation development, control over Amerindian policies, and organizing territorial government and so on. Yet, at the same time, Western political leaders have often complained about the same interventions that sought to help develop their respective states.
2) Historical experiences (from Spanish colonial days to present) have shown the futility of humans drawing an arbitrary border between what is designated as Mexico and United States. In terms of terrain and culture, both sides of the border are of the same heritage. So why haven't we learned anything from this today??
3) The very diversity of nineteenth and twentieth century West in terms of race, ethnicity and religion strained the racial hierarchial order for whites, and challenged them to think harder (something they never did).
4) When did the frontier really "close?" In 1890 with the official Census declaration?
In the early twentieth century with implementation of mass irrigation systems and corporate agriculture?
In the 1930s with increased proliferation of federal government programs and regulations in the West?
In the 1960s and 70s with more rapid, and more widespread suburbanization?
And for the borderland between Mexico and United States -- maybe the frontier has never closed yet??
I didn't dig into Frontier history, but recently read a little bit about the history of the SW and was really stunned how all of a sudden, the relations between the Spanish and Pueblo Indians became extremely close as soon as the nomadic Navajos came. Common interests of the sedentaries led to a good harmony, if not even developping a common identity. I also thought it was funny that the Hopi Indians, before the Anglos themselves, called for Federal help against every time more intensive intrusions of Navajo Indians on their land. Being sedentary, they perfectly adapted to the "white" institutions and were not less hostile towards the Navajo than the whites (on the contrary).
.
Comment