After completing, the readings for this first week of class the one that intrigued me the most was Turner’s “The Significance of the Frontier in American History”. The most fascinating idea that he brought up was this idea that the frontier created specific “American” intellectual traits that allowed us to separate our identities from Europe. These intellectual traits over time have evolved and been intertwined with the hegemonic masculine doctrine, for example the urge to be able to do your own plumbing and the notion that men should not ask for directions seems to stem from these intellectual traits that Turner is discussing. I wonder how these intellectual traits, on which we rely to differentiate ourselves from Europe, harm our current social constructions, and how they become so intertwined in how the United States defines masculinity. My first question for everyone is do you think that these intellectual traits have proven to be more valuable or harmful to the US society?
The second thing that really threw me off was when Turner was talking about composite nationality. He seems to claim that due to the frontier the current category of white or Caucasian to define all people of European decent would have never been possible. I feel like I would have to agree with Turner because to my knowledge the majority of the frontier was built on the backs of people of color. It may have been white men who owned the land and had the idea to build cities, but it was people of color who actually built the railroads and farmed the fields in the early parts of this nation’s history. Without people of color to do all this work white men could not have united under one racial banner. So my second question to the class is whether you believe that this idea of composite nationality exists or does not exist and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good post Christopher! :]
ReplyDeleteSo in reponse to your first question I'd have to say that I think those specific intellectual traits have been overall harmful to American society. It's so strange to me but before reading Turner I never realized that out typical American Man, come from this perception of the West, and the type of man that were supposed to exist on the frontier.
For the second question, yes I would have to agree with the idea composite nationality to an extent. The melting pot idea was definatly in regards to the anglo american immigrants that came to this country, and like Turner stated The Frontier did allow them to become Americanized. In regards to people of color though we were still able to function as a seperate people other than the typical "American" despite the what the frontier did for those Anglo Americans, I believe that were able to retain so much because the West was never really theirs to win in the first place.
I think that this is an excellent deconstruction Christoper. As to the first question I think it can be both harmful and helpful to US society. The intellectual traits that we created to separate ourselves from Europe were essential in creating this nation, the fact that they've become so entrenched without growing and changing as the country grew up isn't as good for us as a society. Certain traits, like the ideal of doing it for yourself are valuable and have been incorporated into US society as a whole (rather than just a part of masculinity).
ReplyDeleteFor the second question I do think that composite nationality exists. Christopher may very well be right in that the country was built on the backs of non-anglos, but the frontier provided an opportunity to make or break anybody. I think that as a whole when it comes down to it most people see themselves as American though they also see themselves as being part of an "other". Whether that other is their historical/cultural background or sexuality it doesn't matter as there is culture that they relate to that is somewhat separate from the whole. Even if that culture is a combination of several cultures. Each set of peoples have retained their own traditions and ideas. Though they may change over time or be mixed with ideas/traditions of other cultures in the end each group will retain its identity instead of melting all into one people.
~~Andrew
Chris! :-) I love your firey respons!
ReplyDeleteTo the first question, I would say that I really appreciated the overview and would have to say that although I agree with Andrew that these intellectual traits did help create a different nation; however, I also believe that the second questoin, that of composite nationality, also helped define the US differently from Europe. In still discussing intellectual traits, I believe much of America, and many Americans, do see themselves as different from Europeans, and especially more masculine (in most cases). This only could have help lead to the hegemonic power, and use of that power accross the world by the United States. I think these effects are negitive and without this idea of intellecutal traits, only heightened by the founding fathers' beliefs that the Native Americans were unintellectual and our only link to perspective within America, we still may have developed into a new country, just maybe not as dominating and sure of our own correctness.
To the idea of compostite nationality, I agree in some ways with Chris and I really would like to emphisize that he is totally correct in his analysis of how many people of color have been left out of history as well as their work and accomplishments; however, I would also argue that especially in the West, there is a poor white man that is also forgotten in much of American history. I think that these poor whites who came to the West were mosly (at least in the first wave of Englanders who came from the motherland) Scots-Irish in hertiage. These rugged individuals came from an area in England where family or clan conflect ruled between the Scots and the Irish. These conflicts carried into the new world, which created nationalistic/clan seperation for the white man to begin with. In addition there were other white folks that traveled to the west for other reasons (wealth, land grants, etc) who may have had more money or were poor without this clan sentiment in the West. These whites were then still divided from one another. Add in the information that both Chris and JP inclued, and although in much of the rest of the country the ideas and abilities of racial minorities were completly left out, there are still at least glimpses into the reality of what was acutally the West. I belive this is the concept of composite nationallity... which in the West happens to show a little more about the complexity of the creation of the United States
I believe that Americas idea of masculinity is a mixture of both positive and negative traits. The positive side of it is that people learn to take care of themselves and in some ways trickled down to independence of women. I believe in western society with out masculinity adaptations the women's role might have stayed within the kitchen even in later years. But it is also a negative idea because aggression seems to have come of this "masculinity" concept. And looking at women's rolls again, an independent woman has to act like a man to be successful (most of the time).
ReplyDeleteThat goes back to hiding the past and only telling the story from a white male prospective. You are defiantly right that Turner makes it sound like it was the white man who overcame the land, but that is the history that is taught. People of color did not really have a voice in our society back then, especially when people like Turner are translating the past for us. The bottom line is that composite nationality does exist in our histories reality but is told through the eyes of a white male during that time period. Composite nationality for these men consist of a group of different European descents who would have normally (in their own country) never would have sowed the same land together.
I also believe that the American masculinity carries positive and negative traits. Being able to be independent and surivie in the west certainly being one of the positive effects. And negatively these effects have trickled down into our society today as norms, which are hard to break and go against...if one wants to maintain the "American masculinity". Also the idea that people are generalized in all situations/cultures/places/etc makes me wonder how maculinity, and Americans in general would be if it wasn't for the western movement and the frontier expansion. (obviously westward expansion would have happend, but how could it have been different and what would have changed is my point.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second question I again agree with Chirs that these people of color contributed enormously and are relatively left thankless, also I agree that the poor white man has been left out. This separation of the idealistic white man versus the other is still intact today, although progressively society has begun to try to alter that. People of all races and color want to seperate themselves and define self and other. So I do agree in part with Chris and his analysis of composite nationality.