Defending Turner
Oct. 1st, 2005 10:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drydemThe problem with ignoring Turner entirely is that it means that history, even laying aside
concerns of truthfulness, is meaningless to identity. Let me explain. It is fine to assume
that there is more to America than the frontier experience. Many things have happened to
Americans over the years that can easily be explained as at least equally influential to
'american identity'. Just to give a few examples, slavery, 19th century immigration, patterns
of rebellion, racism, disease and so forth. However, there has been a swing in attitude to say
that Turner is absolutely meaningless, that somehow the frontier is not influential in the
development of 'american identity'. Which is wrong.
Let us set aside the idea that history is objective fact. This has never been true and
Thucydides was an idiot for trying to pretend it was. While history may not be objective fact,
histories are subjective facts. As part of understanding who you are, where you are, you
reference a subjective history, constructed from(sometimes against) things that have been told
to you. For instance, I understand part of my history as, my ancestors came over from Europe, some in the 18th, some in the 19th century due to religious persecution and poverty. My grandfather lived in New York until WWII when he joined the navy. Afterwards, he went to North Carolina on the GI bill and went to a Quaker College, where he met my grandmother. My father also went to NC to the same college, where he met my mother, they then moved back up to Philadelphia where I am from. Just included in that notion of my history is immigration, WWII, and Quaker migration history. As part of my identity, my national identity, I understand aspects of American History as influential. This influence spreads throughout. Dismissing the frontier as a source of identity formation for Americans is irresponsible, perhaps as irresponsible as saying that the frontier tells you everything about american identity.
concerns of truthfulness, is meaningless to identity. Let me explain. It is fine to assume
that there is more to America than the frontier experience. Many things have happened to
Americans over the years that can easily be explained as at least equally influential to
'american identity'. Just to give a few examples, slavery, 19th century immigration, patterns
of rebellion, racism, disease and so forth. However, there has been a swing in attitude to say
that Turner is absolutely meaningless, that somehow the frontier is not influential in the
development of 'american identity'. Which is wrong.
Let us set aside the idea that history is objective fact. This has never been true and
Thucydides was an idiot for trying to pretend it was. While history may not be objective fact,
histories are subjective facts. As part of understanding who you are, where you are, you
reference a subjective history, constructed from(sometimes against) things that have been told
to you. For instance, I understand part of my history as, my ancestors came over from Europe, some in the 18th, some in the 19th century due to religious persecution and poverty. My grandfather lived in New York until WWII when he joined the navy. Afterwards, he went to North Carolina on the GI bill and went to a Quaker College, where he met my grandmother. My father also went to NC to the same college, where he met my mother, they then moved back up to Philadelphia where I am from. Just included in that notion of my history is immigration, WWII, and Quaker migration history. As part of my identity, my national identity, I understand aspects of American History as influential. This influence spreads throughout. Dismissing the frontier as a source of identity formation for Americans is irresponsible, perhaps as irresponsible as saying that the frontier tells you everything about american identity.
