MILD MILD WEST
 |
I wrote this article at university on American myth of the wild west. Unfortunately I lost the works cited section. Therefore I don't remember who Fink was to whose work I refer several times in the article. |
Apparently the West had some sort of wildness. It was the
region where “civilization” arrived later. It had been the direction to go.
And, in a sense, it had been what the young American nation fought for. It was
also the factor that kept the American ideals alive. They had long looked to it
for confidence, for as long as there was a west, a frontier, there was still
ground for unity and struggle, which consolidated the foundations of the
American society. So it is no surprise that “For many easterners in the late
nineteenth century, the spectacle of the Wild West served as an antidote to the
increasing routinization and bureaucratization of industrial culture.”(Fink,
70) In this case it would be safe to argue that the wildness of the West was,
this way or another, exaggerated. ‘Wild’ was how easterners thought, hoped, and
wanted the West to be. It was a projection of their hope that the American
nation still retained some of its energy and enthusiasm, which found expression
in the word ‘wild’.
“Sharp began to manufacture these rifles as fast as he could
in various lenghts and this gun, as it afterwards proved, was the cause of the
extermination of the buffalo, as before this they had increased faster than
killed out as it took too many shots to get a buffalo.”(Fink, 72) Supposedly
easterners, who admired and loved the West because it was wild, would not
imagine buffalo hunting to be like this. They would like to see it more
natural, such as men struggling more, and thus displaying more energy and
enthusiasm, and at the same time, to make it more romantic, more in
correspondence with nature. A man’s success in the West should have depended on
his own courage, strength, skill, and wildness rather than a machine. So things
out in the West were not so ‘wild’ as many easterners envisaged. The intrusion
of machinery in the West into people’s lives was having the same sort of effect
as in the East: people got more dependent on machinery.
|
Even Indians by the late-nineteenth century were not so wild
as imagined by many in the East. President Chester A. Arthur talks about
dealing with the Indians with a new policy in 1881. Until that time no need had
been felt to pursue and implement this kind of a policy. This was partly
because the conventional policy of pushing Indians further into the West as
white settlement expanded was easier, and partly because they were considered
to be “separate nationalities”(Fink, 74). The US government could afford these
policies since the conditions were suitable for that. Now conditions had
changed. The limits of the West had been reached, and there remained nowhere
else to push Indians. The government thus had to find a policy to deal with
them; one such policy the President offered in this speech. This new policy was
apparently less appealing to the easterners, who were indulging themselves in
dreams of a wild West, than the former policy. This was because Indians and the
fight against them had been one of the major elements of the wildness of the
West. But now, the President of the United States was talking about turning
them into US citizens! What a shock it must have been to those
wild-West-dreamers!
|
The frontier had usually suggested somewhere in the west.
The fact that American expansionism generally worked in that direction
corresponds to this idea. Frederick Jackson Turner pointed out in 1893 that “Up
to and including 1880 the country had a frontier of settlement, but at present
the unsettled area has been so broken into by isolated bodies of settlement
that there can hardly be said to be a frontier line.”(Fink, 82). In other
words, the limit of the frontier in the west was finally reached. Turner
worried about this because he thought the American culture owed a lot to the
traits of the frontier. He counts those traits in a long list: “that coarseness
and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical,
inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of
material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends;
that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good
and for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes from
freedom…”(Fink, 82). Even the manner in which he listed these traits sounds
very enthusiastic. These were the qualities that easterners attributed to the
wildness of the West. In other words, these qualities effectively summarize
what they meant by wild. In a sense just like the Indians, what these qualities
represented was moving/escaping westwards away from civilization, or was
forcibly moved to there, because civilization would not allow it to survive.
Now that the ultimate frontier was reached there was nowhere to run.
Civilization would absorb the West and then civilize it like the Indians. This
was what it had done previously when the line of the frontier lay further east.
And this was what easterners believed, or wanted to believe, was not and would
not be happening in the West. But, however unbelievable they might have found
it, it was happening. As Turner sadly concluded: “And now, four centuries from
the discovery of America, at the end of a hundred years of life under the
Constitution, the frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first
period of American history.”(83)
However wild the West might have been either in the past or
in the dreams of easterners it was surely getting mild at the same time as the
East. As easterners, bored and disappointed by the routinization brought by
industrialization and confined to monotonous and colorless lives, were dreaming
of a wild place out there in the West where the lively spirit of the American
nation still found expression, the West was becoming more like the East and
leaving behind whatever it had of that mythical wildness. While easterners were
seeking consolation in their dream of a wild West, “the western tableau in fact
represented a projection of the same forces of development that were
simultaneously reshaping the more densely settled areas of the country:
industrialization, migration, immigration, acculturation, and race, class, and
gender conflict.”(Fink, 70)
|