The Big Easy

UNDERSTANDING THE UNITED-STATES : THE FRONTIER HERITAGE

 

 

 

§ 1 1                       § 2 5                 § 3           10                             § 4 15                             20            § 5                 25                             § 6 30                             35                       § 7           40                                   § 8 45

To understand the uniqueness of American democracy, we must consider not only the form of government and the extent of popular participation, but the way in which the people of the United States view government and society as a whole (…) in seeking answers to these questions our concern is not what is, but what is thought to be.

In this quest, two concepts are especially important: that of “individualism” and that of “equality”. In no other nation is the equality of all men so loudly proclaimed ; in no other country is the right of individual self-assertion (within certain areas) so stoutly defended. Travelers have also noted the relationship between the two concepts. Because all men are judged to be equal, all are assured the same freedom of individual expression.

In theory individualism meant the right of every person to make his own decisions and choices without regard to their effect on the social group. In practice, this was acceptable only in the sphere of economic activity. In that realm, a sink-or-swim philosophy gained acceptance and still prevails. If a man makes a wrong decision, and a business fails or a job is lost, no one is to blame but the person himself. If his decision is correct and he does well, we believe that he should be rewarded by advancement to positions of ever higher prestige. Individualism in the economic world seems fair as long as equal and plentiful opportunity exists for all, and who can doubt its existence in a land of abundance?

Individualism in its distinctly American usage does not apply to the non-economic world. It grants no license for freedom of personal expression and respectable citizens are expected to follow the herd. “Americans,” observed Peter Ustinov, “are always attempting to run away from conformity, but unfortunately, they always start running in the same direction”. Even political behavior is regimented, as Americans dutifully cast their ballots for Democratic or Republican candidates rather than for the dozens of parties that range across the political spectrum in

Europe

. And woe unto the American who defends a belief that is currently unpopular, either of the extreme left or of the extreme right.

(…)

This myth [of American individualism and democracy as the result of the frontier experience] has been fastened on the public mind by the plausibility of logic. Nothing is more obvious than that the pioneer would resent social controls. He had, after all, fled his fellows to battle the wilderness alone. In his new home, the solitude in which he lived, the vastness of the world about him, and the assurance that he acquired as he fought nature, contributed to a spirit of self-reliance that was universal among pioneers. This was accentuated by the richness of the land, and the equally shared opportunity to exploit riches. Where all were potential millionaires, property assumed a new importance, even to the propertyless. Men on the frontier, Americans of the nineteenth century believed, were so confident of affluence that they needed no help from society and wanted no meddling by society.

This nineteenth-century image of the West perpetuated the belief that the pioneer was opposed to all governmental regulation of economic activity. If steamboats had accidents that killed hundreds of persons yearly, nothing should be done, for steamboats were the life-blood of the

Mississippi

Valley

, and a few lives were a cheap price to pay for the economic activity that they fostered. If speculators absorbed the best lands, or lumbermen stripped away the forests, the social losses were insignificant compared to the benefits when the free-enterprise spirit was unleashed amidst the West’s resources. These were the tales spread across the nation by the frontiersmen and their visitors, until they became a part of the nation’s folklore. The frontier was a land of individualism, and American individualism was its natural offspring. This was a myth accepted throughout the nineteenth century and beyond.

Actually, the legend of frontier individualism rested on what people thought should be true, rather than what was true. The West was in truth an area where cooperation was just as essential as in the East. The danger of Indian attack, the joint effort needed to clear the forests (…), the community of labor required for the variety of enterprises necessary in establishing a settlement, all this decreed that new communities be occupied by groups, and never by solitary individuals. Besides, frontiersmen were not opposed to all governmental regulations, only to the laws that threatened profits. They would favor the regulatory measures needed to attract capital or assure a healthy return on investments, while still mouthing the virtues of “rugged individualism” .

(…)

To this extent, the frontiersman was an individualist and his individualism was remarkably like that which has persisted in the

United States

as a whole.

 

Ray Allen Billington, in America’s Frontier Heritage, 1977.

 

GLOSSARY :

To range across the political spectrum (19): former un large éventail de choix politiques. Woe unto (20): malheur à. Affluence (29): wealth. To foster (33) = encourager, favoriser.  A lumberman (33): un bûcheron. To unleash (35): lâcher, déchaîner. Offspring (37) : (indénombrable à sens pluriel) progéniture, fruit, résultat. To mouth (44) : to say something insincerely or without understanding.