A very typically American way of viewing the development of frontier territories. Not entirely wrong, but leaves out a whole lot.
So, it's about the urge to homestead, not profit, eh? If that is the case, then why was the flow of pioneers to set up farms in the Oregon territory miniscule compared to the human flood that descended upon California after the gold discoveries in 1849? Indeed, something 1/3 to 1/2 of the able-bodied men living in Oregon in 1849 put down their plows, abandoned their homes, and headed south to look for a quick buck in the gold fields. The speed of emmigration to Oregon increased rapidly after that, but in large part because people knew there was a huge export market for Oregon timber and foodstuffs in California, rather than a desire to become self-sufficient family famers, living in a little house on the prairie. And don't forget that the American West was explored and initially developed by fur trappers seeking a exploitable resources, not homestead sites.
Likewise, during the 16th to 18th century, overall European investment was much greater in their colonies that had high value export potential, espeically the Carribean (plantation agriculture, mostly sugar), gold-producing regions of Latin America, and Virginia for tobacco growing. The Puritans and their "city on a hill" were really the exception, though of course Europeans were fishing cod in the waters off New England well before there were significant settlements there.
The "homesteading the West" story isn't so clear because in the 19th century, about the most profitable thing a man with no special skills, connection, or capital could do was run a successful family farm -- so moving to a place where land was cheap and fertile made good economic sense. You don't see many people giving up middle management jobs at OmniCorp to go homestead Alaska or Argentina.
Even then, settlement generally didn't happen until there was a certain level of security, infrastructure, and technology necessary to make a given area economically viable. You didn't see many American or Europeans trying to set up farms in Oregon in 1800, despite the attractions of the land there. Many parts of the west weren't settled until the arrival of railroads (often via government backed construction), with land subsidized by the railroads and/or government. Many of those settlers ended up on that land due to advertising campaigns that rather nakedly appealed to the profit motive -- farm here and get rich for sure! rain follows the plow! gold under every rock! Streams flowing with oil! Don't miss out: move to Roasted Rattlesnake, Nevada today!!!
Space/Science » in reply to Frontiers and settlement
A romantic myth, not great history
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Back to the Moon, Moonrush way
- yes agreed
- Frontiers and settlement
- There are intangibles that are important in human space exploration
- re: Back to the Moon, Moonrush way
