For historian Frederick Jackson Turner, writing in the 1890s, the West was not many frontiers but one, a westward-moving line he defined as "the meeting point of savagery and civilization." The frontier represented the march of progress into isolated areas of "free land." Its significance in American history—as a safety valve for unhappy easterners, as a cradle of democracy, as a fountain of American self-reliance and sense of community—could no longer be ignored.

Most historians have rejected the "Turner thesis," though not the significance of the West in American history. In the ethnocentric fashion of his age, Turner ignored the presence of rich tribal cultures beyond the point of Anglo settlement. Nor did he acknowledge the Hispanic tradition or the role of women. Where Turner saw civilization meeting savagery, social historians see a "new West" of conflict, opportunity, and cultural interplay, and ecological historians see a web of delicate environments shaping and being shaped by their human and nonhuman inhabitants.

1			Read the introduction to Frederick Jackson Turner's essay "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." How did Turner define the frontier? Why did he believe it was so important? Can you perceive any potential problems with his thesis? http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1893turner.html Now read this article on more recent developments in the history of the American West? Why do these "new" western historians generally reject Turner's thesis? With what do they replace it? How do they define the frontier? Do you find their arguments more compelling? Why or why not? Do you have any significant objections to their arguments? If so, what are they? http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/west/nugent.html