 |
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:31
|
|
Ok, I have been muddling through my choice for my research project for my Historiography course -- I chose to research how the study of the history of the American frontier changed from Frederick Jackson Turner, to the present day, using a few representative works.
Now, I already have known about violent repression of strikers LONG before I entered graduate school. I have also long known about violent persecution of Mormons.
But one specific incident that I never learned about until now, was that on April 20, 1914 in Colorado, the state militia attacked a tent colony of white strikers and their families. Some tents caught on fire, and as a result, two women and eleven children were killed.
According to the author of the book, "The Legacy of Conquest" by Patricia Limerick, this initiated a state-wide civil war in Colorado. 
Through reading her chapter on the complexities of race and conflict in the frontier, she emphasized that past historians had simplified violent conflict as whites being the opressor, and minority race members being the monolithic, hapless victims in a misguided method of counter-attacking white ethnocentric history that minimized these conflicts or ignored them altogether.
I have known it was more complex than that, but with her concrete examples that I never knew about, I appreciate that complexity even more -- it's a simple fact that being white in the West did not guarantee you protection from violent attacks by other whites, as a result of economic, religious, and political conflicts.
And of course, let's not forget the violent attacks and acts between members of different minority groups, or within the same minority group.
Some other interesting facts that dispel myths of the history of the West:
1) The frontier was never free from outside federal government intervention -- subsidies for transportation development, control over Amerindian policies, and organizing territorial government and so on. Yet, at the same time, Western political leaders have often complained about the same interventions that sought to help develop their respective states.
2) Historical experiences (from Spanish colonial days to present) have shown the futility of humans drawing an arbitrary border between what is designated as Mexico and United States. In terms of terrain and culture, both sides of the border are of the same heritage. So why haven't we learned anything from this today??
3) The very diversity of nineteenth and twentieth century West in terms of race, ethnicity and religion strained the racial hierarchial order for whites, and challenged them to think harder (something they never did).
4) When did the frontier really "close?" In 1890 with the official Census declaration?
In the early twentieth century with implementation of mass irrigation systems and corporate agriculture?
In the 1930s with increased proliferation of federal government programs and regulations in the West?
In the 1960s and 70s with more rapid, and more widespread suburbanization?
And for the borderland between Mexico and United States -- maybe the frontier has never closed yet??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
Interesting post, Mr. Fun!  I didn't dig into Frontier history, but recently read a little bit about the history of the SW and was really stunned how all of a sudden, the relations between the Spanish and Pueblo Indians became extremely close as soon as the nomadic Navajos came. Common interests of the sedentaries led to a good harmony, if not even developping a common identity. I also thought it was funny that the Hopi Indians, before the Anglos themselves, called for Federal help against every time more intensive intrusions of Navajo Indians on their land. Being sedentary, they perfectly adapted to the "white" institutions and were not less hostile towards the Navajo than the whites (on the contrary).
Of course, the Indians were never all passive, they developped strategies and had never problems to adapt in that points where it suited them. Very often, it was them who chose what they wanted to take from the whites and what to leave.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Interesting post, Mr. Fun! I didn't dig into Frontier history, but recently read a little bit about the history of the SW and was really stunned how all of a sudden, the relations between the Spanish and Pueblo Indians became extremely close as soon as the nomadic Navajos came. Common interests of the sedentaries led to a good harmony, if not even developping a common identity. I also thought it was funny that the Hopi Indians, before the Anglos themselves, called for Federal help against every time more intensive intrusions of Navajo Indians on their land. Being sedentary, they perfectly adapted to the "white" institutions and were not less hostile towards the Navajo than the whites (on the contrary).
Of course, the Indians were never all passive, they developped strategies and had never problems to adapt in that points where it suited them. Very often, it was them who chose what they wanted to take from the whites and what to leave. |
True enough -- the older view of Amerindians being satic, and hopelessly stuck in the same way of life for thousands of years is ridiculous.
They adapted to new ways of living that in some ways, helped them preserve other aspects of their culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Interesting post, Mr. Fun! I didn't dig into Frontier history, but recently read a little bit about the history of the SW and was really stunned how all of a sudden, the relations between the Spanish and Pueblo Indians became extremely close as soon as the nomadic Navajos came. Common interests of the sedentaries led to a good harmony, if not even developping a common identity. I also thought it was funny that the Hopi Indians, before the Anglos themselves, called for Federal help against every time more intensive intrusions of Navajo Indians on their land. Being sedentary, they perfectly adapted to the "white" institutions and were not less hostile towards the Navajo than the whites (on the contrary).
Of course, the Indians were never all passive, they developped strategies and had never problems to adapt in that points where it suited them. Very often, it was them who chose what they wanted to take from the whites and what to leave. |
How did the Spanish deal with the "Indians" in Mexico, particularly, Northern Mexico?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
It was early springtime when the strike was on,
They drove us miners out of doors,
Out from the houses that the Company owned,
We moved into tents up at old Ludlow.
I was worried bad about my children,
Soldiers guarding the railroad bridge,
Every once in a while a bullet would fly,
Kick up gravel under my feet.
We were so afraid you would kill our children,
We dug us a cave that was seven foot deep,
Carried our young ones and pregnant women
Down inside the cave to sleep.
That very night your soldiers waited,
Until all us miners were asleep,
You snuck around our little tent town,
Soaked our tents with your kerosene.
You struck a match and in the blaze that started,
You pulled the triggers of your gatling guns,
I made a run for the children but the fire wall stopped me.
Thirteen children died from your guns.
I carried my blanket to a wire fence corner,
Watched the fire till the blaze died down,
I helped some people drag their belongings,
While your bullets killed us all around.
I never will forget the look on the faces
Of the men and women that awful day,
When we stood around to preach their funerals,
And lay the corpses of the dead away.
We told the Colorado Governor to call the President,
Tell him to call off his National Guard,
But the National Guard belonged to the Governor,
So he didn't try so very hard.
Our women from Trinidad they hauled some potatoes,
Up to Walsenburg in a little cart,
They sold their potatoes and brought some guns back,
And they put a gun in every hand.
The state soldiers jumped us in a wire fence corners,
They did not know we had these guns,
And the Red-neck Miners mowed down these troopers,
You should have seen those poor boys run.
We took some cement and walled that cave up,
Where you killed these thirteen children inside,
I said, "God bless the Mine Workers' Union,"
And then I hung my head and cried.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Che, I think you and other apologists for unions paint too one-sided a picture concerning strikers. I was personally involved in a strike in Minnesota in 1979. The strikers gave management like me a free pass to the plant. However, they assaulted any "scabs." They slashed tires, strew nails in front of their cars, threatened physical violence, etc.
This was 1979. I can only imagine the violence the unions offered a century earlier.
Can you say, with honesty, that unions in that era were non violent? |
Nope, but in this case they were (until the massacre, after, well, you can read Guthrie's song yourself). The Colorado NG was ordered by the govenor (after called up by Rockerfeller himself) to open fire on the strikers.
Anyway, I have no love of scabs. They get whatever evil befalls them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Che, I think you and other apologists for unions paint too one-sided a picture concerning strikers. I was personally involved in a strike in Minnesota in 1979. The strikers gave management like me a free pass to the plant. However, they assaulted any "scabs." They slashed tires, strew nails in front of their cars, threatened physical violence, etc.
This was 1979. I can only imagine the violence the unions offered a century earlier.
Can you say, with honesty, that unions in that era were non violent? |
Viollence went both ways of course -- in any economic or political conflict, that is the case.
But whichever group is in the position to use government resources, can administer violent repressions on a larger, organized scale than the other group.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
|
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
How did the Spanish deal with the "Indians" in Mexico, particularly, Northern Mexico? |
I'll limit myself to responding on how they dealt in noerhtern Mexico, as the Spanish-Indian relations in southern Mexico are too complex to even try sketch them in one post.
The first expeditions into the north were not much more than raiding parties and the way to approach the Indians was that, which a robber always takes: Gimme what you have or die.
Later, the more successful campaigns tried to do the same as in the "central" regions. Kill those native leaders who resist and partition the subjects among all who took part in the campaign in "encomiendas", which means they owed personal services to the conquerors. It was a a de facto slavery and compelled the Spanish to make sure that the Indians are doctrinated "in exchange for their services" (As if they had asked for it  ).
The problem was: While in Mexico itself the Indians were used to pay tributes (to the Aztecs) and were sedentary (couldn't run away) and had an aristocracy that profited itself from the exploit of their people, northern Mexico had none of it.
Losely organized bands continuously harrassed the Spanish and the "encomended" Indians just retreated to the mountains. The northern frontier became a perpetuous field of conflict with very lose Spanish influence.
Another approach in the 17th century was to acculturate the Indians of Sinaloa, Sonora, New Biscay and California by (most often jesuit) missionary activity. That approach worked sometimes better sometimes worse, yet without military support and lacking funds the projects were abandoned, often after smaller massacres of priests, which could always happen: Indian "authorities" who saw their influence shaken by priests or zealous priests without any sense for the (in such a case necessary) pragmatic approach could have such a situation soon explode and the priests were always the weak ones in the game...
New Mexico was a seperate situation. It was called "New Mexico" because the Spanish felt reminded of the core area for many reasons. It had a comparable climate and there too, they had to deal with organized, sedentary Indians and really: The encomienda system worked better than in other northern parts. Yet it was an isolated enclave and losely connected. The missionary activity was always resented by the Pueblo Indians who on March 20th 1681 had 21 Franciscan friars and over 100 colonists and Indian collaborators slain.
About at that time, the scene changed. The Spanish lost interest in evangelization of northern Mexico (though efforts were never completely abandoned) and too direct control over the area, but used it as a buffer for Mexico against Apache, Comanche, French (La Salle) and English. Rising pressure from Apache and Navajo made defensive cooperation of Pueblo Indians and Spanish necessary. The missions also got another character, they were less demanding, the rethorics against Indian beliefs was less repulsive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
|
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
It kind of never ended.
For one thing, the frontier area of the Mexicans in the 19th century ran through those areas which were taken from the US in the American-Mexican war, so the US "inherited" the Mexican frontier.
On the other hand, the desertous peninsula of California for example, or the mountains of Sierra Tarahumara are still retirement zones for native groups. I attended an academic speech of an ethnologist who lived among the Tarahumara (or, more correctly, Raramuri) and from what he told, it certainly had the character of a frontier. Mexican authorities calling for the Indians to accept the Mexican society on leaflets on trees: "Join us, Brother Tarahumara" And it even becomes more so, due to the rising lawlessness of the border.
Even in the south of Mexico, in such a historically important region like Oaxaca, many mountain villages of Indians got connected by roads not before the 90s, not even starting to talk about the notorious forestal southern province of Chiapas. Those areas, among others, definitely still have the character of frontiers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I'll check that out Rufus -- but does it over simplify the history by merely portraying whites as the monolithic group of oppressors and Amerindians as the monolithic group of victims??
Victims and oppressors were on both sides. |
My memory (and I read this book in grad school 15 years ago, so I may well be wrong) is that he's uninterested in "victim" or "oppressor" as categories of analysis. He definitely distiguishes between the tribes, noting different cultures, different relations and reactions to the coming of whites, etc. As I recall, he also distinguishes between whites, not by ethnicity but by reason for being on the frontier (i.e., settlres vs. entrepreneurs vs. soldiers). But, as I said, check it out for yourself. Good luck with the project!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003 02:50
.
. 
|