Name Name
Paper #1

Timing is Everything

	Perceptions only relate to the knowledge and experience supporting them. After reading both selections, the gap in time between Frederick Jackson Turner and Richard Hofstadter becomes most apparent. Though Hofstadter makes a great case for the fallacies within Turner’s essay, he writes with an external view of the situation. He even states, “In justice to Turner, his historical writing was better than his frontier thesis” (Hofstadter 531). Hofstadter also states that Turner was willing to add new concepts to his analysis as time went on. Though Hofstadter could argue from many angles why Turner did not accurately represent the American Frontier, he knew that Turner could only reflect on history based on his time of reference and perceived notions of fact. 
        I feel a connection to Turner’s piece through the way he describes the transformation from European to American. This great quest for the west is where some of the American character was shaped. He starts by talking about the “European Germ” developing in an American Environment (Turner 519). He moves into the idea of “The Wilderness mastering the colonist,” (Turner 519) and “The frontier environment being at first, too strong for the man” (Turner 520). My mind does not seem to focus on the Oregon Trail version of the frontiersman. I see disease, hypothermia, starvation, and death from unparalleled hardship. Clearly, westward settlers could not live as they once had in civilized Europe, or even in the established east coast colonies. They had to learn new methods of survival in the wilderness called America. The germ he describes begins to conquer, but it only wins by mutation and adaptation. “The fact is, that here is a new product that is American” (Turner 520).
         I also find a personal tie with Turner’s ideas about the intellectualism within the frontiersman. “Courseness,” “Strength,” “Acuteness,” “Inquisitiveness,” “Practical,” “Inventive,” “Restless,” and “Individualism” are all words Turner uses to describe the people of the frontier (Turner 525). I never thought of using the word “intellectualism” in conjunction with the westward pioneers, but I think Turner uses it as a sign of respect. Though basic as it may be, the intellectual structure of the frontiersman made the journey possible. In addition, my ideas about early Americans, as well as my introspective view on my own self, tend to incorporate these adjectives. It is also very important to see that these descriptors show the best of what America can be.
	Turner describes the growth of democracy by showing how the frontier produces and encourages individuality. He states, “The tendency was anti-social” (Turner 524). People set-up their own systems, their own means of survival. As settlements became towns, towns became cities, their ways took yet another turn. This is how our states were formed, especially the constitutions of each state. He makes a very strong point that we could not create a strong central or national government at that time because of the type of democracy the frontier created.     
	The Gap in time between the writings especially begins to widen through the fact that Turner never mentions immigration as a major topic. Hofstadter saw this as a major weakness because he writes during the boom of immigration through Ellis Island. He felt the great impact and change run through our country because of our melting-pot ideals. He also writes after the depression; a time when America became most vulnerable and our people suffered greatly. I do not feel that one idea is more important than another… the frontier or immigration… simply that they both flow as tributaries into the mighty American river. 
	Hofstadter does prove a huge flaw within Turner: He is by no means an Economist. Hofstadter disproves Turner’s “safety valve thesis,” the idea that the free land within the frontier was a refuge for the oppressed and discontented and also a way of alleviating that stress. He states, “The expression ‘free land’ is misleading” (Hofstadter 530). Turner generalizes on the issue of “free land” too much as shown by the raw facts Hofstadter produces. Hofstadter goes on to state, “The value of ‘free land’ in alleviating distress has been challenged by several writers who have pointed out that periods of depression were the very periods when it was most difficult for the Eastern Worker to move” (Hofstadter 530). Turner’s view is naïve. It’s easy to assume that the land works as the answer to the many unsolvable problems, but in truth, it may have only been a place for people with the right capital.
	In conclusion, the true spirit of America and Americans is embedded well within Frederick Jackson Turner’s paper, but he could only encompass one aspect of this spirit due to his relative perspective, his time. I believe Turner shows us what America was not by his factual accounts, but simply by his reactions to the country. His feelings are what I take away from the reading and also what I truly connect with.  Hofstadter could not disprove these feelings because they are raw emotions. Richard Hofstadter certainly creates a more realistic image of America, but only with the help of Turner’s emotion and his own relative time perspective.  Both writings serve as bookmarks within the continuous American novel.   

Works Cited

Hofstadter, Richard.  “The Thesis Disputed.”  Creating America: Reading and Writing Arguments.  3rd Edition.  Joyce Moser and Ann Watters.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.  Page # 527-31.

Turner, Frederick Jackson.  “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.”  Creating America: Reading and Writing Arguments.  3rd Edition.  Joyce Moser and Ann Watters.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.  Page # 518-26.