6 ms·
What this highlights for me was the loneliness of the homestead-era West, and the many attempts by people to connect with each other across the empty acres. It
by blueyes 5y ago
What this highlights for me was the loneliness of the homestead-era West, and the many attempts by people to connect with each other across the empty acres.
It is an under-appreciated fact in America, and generally obscured by the Marlboro cowboy LARPing among certain cultural factions, that those who settled the West itself tried very hard to congregate, communicate and help each other in the face of harsh conditions. The loners didn't make it; the cowboys themselves were usually the hired help.
Settlements in the west tended to congregate more densely, when they could, than what you see in rural New England. I believe this is partially because much of the west is a desert or semi-arid desert, and communities formed near the scarce sources of water; whereas the northeast didn't face those constraints.
- yardie 5y agoThe west was already settled. The "settlers" weren't interested in befriending or communicating with the indigenous population. In fact they were down right hostile towards them.
- refurb 5y agoHow about the native Americans who settled the already settled West? Were they friendly? (Hint: no)
- yardie 5y agoArmed people show up and saying my land is now their land I probably wouldn't be friendly either. The point is the west wasn't unsettled. But US History books would have you believe otherwise.
- refurb 5y agoWhen one native American tribe uses weapons to take another's resources, they probably weren't friendly either.
- pessimizer 5y agoYou're right, that one nameless group you made up has no more reason to complain any more about the settlers than they have to complain about that other nameless group you made up. "What's the big deal about me hitting you? I'm sure you've been bitten by a dog before, and I never heard you complain."
- refurb 5y agoIt’s the old adage “those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. If you attack and take someone else’s land that’s bad… whether you’re white or not. Right?
- 8bitsrule 5y agoAll supported by Chief Justice John Marshall, et.al., based on several Papal Bulls way back in the 1400s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine
- blueyes 5y agoThanks for the history PSA. That wasn't the point of my comment. North America has been settled and re-settled for thousands of years, much like Europe, the Middle East and most of Asia. It's called immigration. It's happening in North America even as we speak by people who are not "from here." Who cares? There are no natives. Just a bunch of people who need to learn to live with each other. Of course, the Americas were quite densely settled before their first contact with Europeans. By the 15th century, they had produced civilizations, notably those we know as the Aztecs, that were arguably more advanced than any of their contemporaries. But the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mound People of the Mississippi Valley and the various warring tribes of New England were all decimated by diseases that the Spaniards brought with them unwittingly. Small pox and other diseases wiped them out as part of the Columbian Exchange. While the Europeans did all the usual things that conquering peoples do, they cannot be blamed for that, because the disease ran ahead of them by decades and wiped out tribes that had never seen a white man. They had no idea how diseases propagated themselves, and fell equal victim to some of them (yellow fever, malaria). If you want to reflect on what actually happened in the European settlement of the Americas, read 1491 and 1493. And then maybe we can talk about what it was like to be a homesteader in the late 19th century.
- alar44 5y ago
- serf 5y agoCahokia comes to mind.
- earleybird 5y agohttps://news.berkeley.edu/2020/01/27/new-study-debunks-myth-of-cahokias-native-american-lost-civilization/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/01/27/new-study-debunks-myth-...
- mplewis 5y agoDo you think that civilization only exists within city limits?
- dmurray 5y agoThe etymologists among us would say, yes. The anthropologists among us would also say yes. The alternative worldview that some peoples are civilized (thinking, organized, philosophical) and others are barbaric (violent, disorganized, brutal, militant, uncaring) is reductive and obsolete. If "civilized" is to mean anything, it refers to populations that can form the large permanent population centres we call cities.
- Retric 5y agoWhat we call cities are vastly beyond the scale of most civilizations with writing, philosophy, etc. As recently as 1500 all it took was 5,000+ people to be considered a city in Europe. Many Native American tribes reached that standard before Europeans first reached America. They where considered barbarians simply on religious grounds.
- alar44 5y agoIn this context, that's exactly what we're talking about. To say the native Americans already settled the western US is being obtuse.