Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Frederick Jackson Turner was an American historian who commented on the importance of the frontier in terms of the development of American culture and society. Turner believed that the American people were unique in the world and that though we might have been mostly immigrants from Europe, we had evolved into a completely different society. Turner traced this to the experience of having to settle and survive on the frontier which was moving ever westward. Others have commented on the thesis. Some believe the "frontier experience" accounts for Americans being less cultured than Europeans. Others believe it is part of the reason why our country has a higher violent crime rate than the European countries and Canada do. Some see it as a reason why politics in America are more "individualistic" than in other countries. So, I will ask:
1. Is American society totally unique from others in the world and, if so, is it because of the "frontier experience"?
2. Are we more violent and less cultured than other countries and is this because of our experiences surviving on the frontier?
3. Are our politics more "individualistic" than in other nations and is this the reason why?
I think it was an important factor in shaping the colonies. Alexis de Tocqueville certainly saw Americans that way in the 1830s, as well. But the ideology of individualism was something that colonists half-inherited from, half-stumbled on, from the disenting tradition of British political philosophy.
An interesting contrast between contemporary political philosophy in Europe and the US is that most European constitutions are based on the idea of a social contract, while in the US our rights protect us from government; they do not obligate us to government.
Is this a homework assignment? I had a grad school prof who asked similar essay questions.
Perhaps, you haven't been here on CDF long and on the history forum. I've posted here fairly regularly since I joined in 2009.
The simple answer is "No, this is not a homework assignment".
What I had hoped to do was to stimulate some discussion about something other than World War II or the Civil War which seem to be about 85% of all the posts here.
Actually, I live in the West and I would love to see more discussion about the early trappers, pioneers, explorers, miners, ranchers, railroad builders and gunfighters.
Among other people, one of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, was a historian himself and accepted the Frederick Jackson Turner thesis. A special thanks to Frihed for responding (and responding well) to my post.
I've been here five years, so about a year short of you.
I feel my question was reasonable because it had the ring of an assignment, and I don't do homework for others.
I don’t subscribe to any particular theory because I think they all are important and have a role to play in our understanding of history and who we are. I see each theory or school of thought as a piece of a puzzle and all of the pieces must be looked at together in order to create the whole. I do feel that although Turner’s “Frontier Thesis” has fallen out of favor, there is still a basis of truth in his beliefs. America’s cultural identity and the concept of rugged individualism comes from pushing back frontiers—and not just the frontiers of the Southwest—but the frontiers of the Eastern seaboard, the expansion into the Ohio Valley, the Northwest Frontier, etc., etc. Expanding frontiers is an integral part of whowe are as Americans and it can’t be dismissed or overlooked.
I am also interested in many of the things you are. When I was in grad school I would have been better able to entertain you, but I will be more than happy to chime in if I have something to contribute to the discussion
Turner's ideas certainly were influential and I think that it's true that the notion of "the Frontier" played an important part in US development. It has been a long time since I gave this any thought or research so these are only my opinions.
1. Is American society totally unique from others in the world and, if so, is it because of the "frontier experience"?
American society is not unique -- there are other countries that have experienced much of what we have. Canada and Australia certainly come to mind as English-based nations with a hefty experience with the notion of the frontier -- the one thing they didn't have was several hundred years of slavery as we experienced it. The Spanish and Portuguese colonizers seemed to have a different experience with the frontier and native populations. They started out managing the frontier differently and it didn't 'move' as ours did. In the early years in the US the frontier was always moving and settlers, farmers, miners, ranchers, etc. could vacate their old homes and follow the frontier. That is both good and bad because they sometimes left an awful mess that others had to clean up.
One unique quality is that today there might be a lack of commitment to "place" when there is the notion that one can always pack up and go rather than fix the problems.
2. Are we more violent and less cultured than other countries and is this because of our experiences surviving on the frontier?
We do have a violent culture and I think some of that is attributed to a frontier mindset. On the other hand, possibly connected to our English legal system, we also are very much into punishment and lock people up for long prison terms. Since people keep coming through the front prison door and inmates stay for long terms we have huge numbers of people locked up. Those two concepts are out of sync.
Culture is hard to define. I don't think the US is short on culture but our concept of culture might be different than other places. American Pop Culture is our biggest export.
3. Are our politics more "individualistic" than in other nations and is this the reason why?
If anything, our politics is less individualistic but more flexible. We have only two major parties and they are very much alike. They seem to be more focused on opposing each other than ever moving the country forward. They slip and slide based on issues and how they perceive the public mood and attitude. It's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. A person can move from one party to the other and back again and not see much difference. That's not true in most other places. There are still vocal ideologues on both sides but the parties seem to move as they please over time. This two-party flexibility is quite different from other countries. I can see that the fluidity and flexibility might be connected to the uncertainty of the frontier and early sectionalism. Nothing was written in stone - especially if you are moving to follow the frontier.
1. It was at one time in part because of the frontier. It is less so today for many Americans who would not choose a frontier existence. In American politics today you see this group starting to outnumber traditional Americans.
2. The frontier attracted mostly people who were willing to embrace the danger in return for the reward. There were reasons vast numbers of people chose to remain in Europe even though the most unskilled American on the frontier could carve out a quality of life in a few years that only the upper class in Europe could enjoy. The sort of daring, self reliant person who was willing to brave the frontier would also be willing to dare his fellow American if the need arose, and he would exist in a mostly likeminded society which would not bat an eye at the justifiable use of force.
I think it was an important factor in shaping the colonies. Alexis de Tocqueville certainly saw Americans that way in the 1830s, as well. But the ideology of individualism was something that colonists half-inherited from, half-stumbled on, from the disenting tradition of British political philosophy.
An interesting contrast between contemporary political philosophy in Europe and the US is that most European constitutions are based on the idea of a social contract, while in the US our rights protect us from government; they do not obligate us to government.
I have been to Europe and that's my observation as well. Europeans are far more likely to look to their governments for assistance or a solution to their problems. In America, people are still more likely to look to themselves or their communities when they experience difficulty. Its good and bad. Individuals can do some things better than government can, but they can't do everything better. One consequence is that we have a weaker social safety net than most European countries do. However, we may have higher economic growth and a higher standard of living precisely because we are more individualistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton
I've been here five years, so about a year short of you.
I feel my question was reasonable because it had the ring of an assignment, and I don't do homework for others.
I don’t subscribe to any particular theory because I think they all are important and have a role to play in our understanding of history and who we are. I see each theory or school of thought as a piece of a puzzle and all of the pieces must be looked at together in order to create the whole. I do feel that although Turner’s “Frontier Thesis†has fallen out of favor, there is still a basis of truth in his beliefs. America’s cultural identity and the concept of rugged individualism comes from pushing back frontiers—and not just the frontiers of the Southwest—but the frontiers of the Eastern seaboard, the expansion into the Ohio Valley, the Northwest Frontier, etc., etc. Expanding frontiers is an integral part of whowe are as Americans and it can’t be dismissed or overlooked.
I am also interested in many of the things you are. When I was in grad school I would have been better able to entertain you, but I will be more than happy to chime in if I have something to contribute to the discussion
There were certainly many influences that shaped American character. The massive wave of immigration that occurred from about 1890 to 1920 was one of them. I might even say that our "open borders" policy at this time had more of an influence on the development of our nation than the frontier did. The reality is that most of the US population lived in cities in the East or the Midwest. The population that resided in the Western states was comparatively small until after World War II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
Turner's ideas certainly were influential and I think that it's true that the notion of "the Frontier" played an important part in US development. It has been a long time since I gave this any thought or research so these are only my opinions.
1. Is American society totally unique from others in the world and, if so, is it because of the "frontier experience"?
American society is not unique -- there are other countries that have experienced much of what we have. Canada and Australia certainly come to mind as English-based nations with a hefty experience with the notion of the frontier -- the one thing they didn't have was several hundred years of slavery as we experienced it. The Spanish and Portuguese colonizers seemed to have a different experience with the frontier and native populations. They started out managing the frontier differently and it didn't 'move' as ours did. In the early years in the US the frontier was always moving and settlers, farmers, miners, ranchers, etc. could vacate their old homes and follow the frontier. That is both good and bad because they sometimes left an awful mess that others had to clean up.
One unique quality is that today there might be a lack of commitment to "place" when there is the notion that one can always pack up and go rather than fix the problems.
2. Are we more violent and less cultured than other countries and is this because of our experiences surviving on the frontier?
We do have a violent culture and I think some of that is attributed to a frontier mindset. On the other hand, possibly connected to our English legal system, we also are very much into punishment and lock people up for long prison terms. Since people keep coming through the front prison door and inmates stay for long terms we have huge numbers of people locked up. Those two concepts are out of sync.
Culture is hard to define. I don't think the US is short on culture but our concept of culture might be different than other places. American Pop Culture is our biggest export.
3. Are our politics more "individualistic" than in other nations and is this the reason why?
If anything, our politics is less individualistic but more flexible. We have only two major parties and they are very much alike. They seem to be more focused on opposing each other than ever moving the country forward. They slip and slide based on issues and how they perceive the public mood and attitude. It's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. A person can move from one party to the other and back again and not see much difference. That's not true in most other places. There are still vocal ideologues on both sides but the parties seem to move as they please over time. This two-party flexibility is quite different from other countries. I can see that the fluidity and flexibility might be connected to the uncertainty of the frontier and early sectionalism. Nothing was written in stone - especially if you are moving to follow the frontier.
Just some thoughts.
Actually, these were some excellent comments. Another part of Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis was that the frontier served as "outlet" or "safety valve" for American society. The concept was that young people frustrated with lack of opportunity where they resided could simply pull up stakes and move ever westward. I have always wondered what percentage of pioneers were people trying to escape debt, the criminal justice system, a bad marriage, etc. Turner hypothesized that as the frontier came to an end that this group would have no where to go and it might result in social problems. Perhaps, some of our social problems today are the result of not having a frontier that these groups can run too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL
1. It was at one time in part because of the frontier. It is less so today for many Americans who would not choose a frontier existence. In American politics today you see this group starting to outnumber traditional Americans.
2. The frontier attracted mostly people who were willing to embrace the danger in return for the reward. There were reasons vast numbers of people chose to remain in Europe even though the most unskilled American on the frontier could carve out a quality of life in a few years that only the upper class in Europe could enjoy. The sort of daring, self reliant person who was willing to brave the frontier would also be willing to dare his fellow American if the need arose, and he would exist in a mostly likeminded society which would not bat an eye at the justifiable use of force.
3. See above.
I think we like to imagine the pioneers came out West for reasons like freedom. I suspect as you suggest in #2 most came out West for money and wealth.
Interesting you bring up "the justifiable use of force". Western law tended to differ from law in the East in a number of ways. However, one that stands out is when it comes to the idea of "self defense" against others. Many Eastern states follow something called the "rule of retreat" in cases involving the use of deadly force. The concept is that someone accosted by another with a weapon is obligated to retreat to their home before using deadly force against that person. Few western states follow that rule. Instead, you are allowed to defend yourself against deadly force with deadly force wherever you are.
I cannot say they are commonly used, but many forces implying the use of firearms are in our vocabulary today. One is sometimes told to "keep his powder dry" or not to "go off half-cocked". I suspect these expressions found their way into the vocabulary from frontier days. Just another example of the influence of the frontier on our culture.
I read Turner in college. An interesting thesis he proposes, however I don't think
it has applied for a long time. I also believe that he did not thoroughly investigate
other civilizations and nations who had frontiers to the point where he is exaggerating
its singularity in the American experience to the detriment of a myriad of other factors
acting concurrently. It becomes more difficult for us to ascertain as the decades go by
and nobody alive remembers these times, or had direct family members who did,
moreover our society no longer resembles it whatsoever. All which was is gone.
Therefore I would say, in response to your questions:
1) No, American society is not totally unique from others in the world.
The frontier experience has passed away in the sands of time, not so much because
of time, but because of the rapid changes which have altered our way of life so
drastically since those days, now long ago.
2) No, we are not more violent and less cultured than other countries. In those areas
that we are, such as some crimes and other flareups, the causes have absolutely nothing
to do with the frontier experiences of some of our ancestors.
3) No, although this was true many decades ago, largely the American political landscape
has been conquered by collectivists and conformists who have succeeded in moving the
base of identity away from the family as a self-sustaining unit which controls its own destiny.
When I studied Turner, over 25 years ago, if I had to say only a couple things I
recall that I really took away from it was that America died when the frontier died.
I believe this is an important subject but also a very sad one, because once we
start thinking this way, we realize how much the changes since the late 1800s
have altered the human experience permanently, and in many ways that are not
constructive or expansive, filled with wonder, but limiting and cheapened, as to the
spirit of life and how we see the world and our places in it, and what happiness is.
Status:
"A solution in search of a problem"
(set 17 days ago)
Location: New York Area
34,490 posts, read 16,576,998 times
Reputation: 29655
[quote=markg91359;38848243]Frederick Jackson Turner was an American historian who commented on the importance of the frontier in terms of the development of American culture and society. Turner believed that the American people were unique in the world and that though we might have been mostly immigrants from Europe, we had evolved into a completely different society. Turner traced this to the experience of having to settle and survive on the frontier which was moving ever westward. Others have commented on the thesis. Some believe the "frontier experience" accounts for Americans being less cultured than Europeans. Others believe it is part of the reason why our country has a higher violent crime rate than the European countries and Canada do. Some see it as a reason why politics in America are more "individualistic" than in other countries. So, I will ask:
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
1. Is American society totally unique from others in the world and, if so, is it because of the "frontier experience"?
Canada, Austrailia and Israel have some similarities to the U.S. experience. All three have had "frontier experiences" with some differences.
In Canada the King (or Queen) had a presence, in many cases, ahead of the settlers. That is why their motto is "peace, order and good government." The British crown was a lot less controlling than the monarchs of the continent and Canada is thus more similar to the U.S. than the corporatist/statist/socialist Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
2. Are we more violent and less cultured than other countries and is this because of our experiences surviving on the frontier?
That could be part of the explanation for violence. The larger explanation in my opinion is greater mixing of disparate peoples. We are the only country that seriously attempted to integrate minorities.
We are far from perfect in that regard and it is messy. The effort is there though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
3. Are our politics more "individualistic" than in other nations and is this the reason why?
Yes. See Response to first question. We have no tradition of central planning whereas paternalistic, top down governance is the heart and sole of Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89
I think it was an important factor in shaping the colonies. Alexis de Tocqueville certainly saw Americans that way in the 1830s, as well. But the ideology of individualism was something that colonists half-inherited from, half-stumbled on, from the dissenting tradition of British political philosophy.
I have read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. I agree both with your analysis and his thesis. Volunteerism and community are far more important here than in Continental Europe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
