Comment by blueyes
4 years 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.
The 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.
Thanks 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.
How about the native Americans who settled the already settled West?
Were they friendly? (Hint: no)
Armed 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.
4 replies →
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_people
You don’t need a city to consider it a settlement, they had dominion over the outlined land, treaties, and trade. I’d consider that civilation, settling, and land management.
Chaco Canyon https://www.nps.gov/chcu/learn/historyculture/index.htm
Do you think that civilization only exists within city limits?
3 replies →
Cahokia comes to mind.
1 reply →
Do you need cities to proof settlement? What about nomads?
1 reply →