First, when did I become a coffee snob? Has to be the influence of the espresso bar at Mosaic. Tried McDonalds' (I know, I know, but I was game...) new iced coffee this morning. An iced latte it ain't. I don't recommend the swill at all. It was thinner than water and I would question the "vanilla" flavor. But I will give it props for the lack of Starbucks overroastedness.
Second, I'm going to revisit a topic I began thinking about (well, I guess for you, who live outside my head, it's really a visit, not a revisit. Sorry.) three weeks ago. It's borderline tl;dr, but hey, this is my blog, so too bad. I was in an Educational Psychology course, and the prof gave us an interesting exercise. I think it was to illustrate the difference between convergent and divergent thinking, but the topic of the exercise itself was fascinating. Maybe I missed the point, but it was my most engaged forty minutes all week. :) It's so fun to ponder historical what-ifs! The more you consider possibilities, the more you see how one minor change affects so much else.
The prompt he gave us was simply, "How would the United States be different if it had been settled from the West Coast instead of the East Coast?" and he let us run with it. So I present my collection of thoughts...
First thing we have to do is make some basic assumptions. I assume the following:
Second, I'm going to revisit a topic I began thinking about (well, I guess for you, who live outside my head, it's really a visit, not a revisit. Sorry.) three weeks ago. It's borderline tl;dr, but hey, this is my blog, so too bad. I was in an Educational Psychology course, and the prof gave us an interesting exercise. I think it was to illustrate the difference between convergent and divergent thinking, but the topic of the exercise itself was fascinating. Maybe I missed the point, but it was my most engaged forty minutes all week. :) It's so fun to ponder historical what-ifs! The more you consider possibilities, the more you see how one minor change affects so much else.
The prompt he gave us was simply, "How would the United States be different if it had been settled from the West Coast instead of the East Coast?" and he let us run with it. So I present my collection of thoughts...
First thing we have to do is make some basic assumptions. I assume the following:
- Major settlement takes place at roughly the same time frame as did actual settlement from the east.
- Settlers arriving on the West Coast would be arriving from lands across the Pacific. Another interesting option would be to explore European settlement, but with opposite geography for whatever reason. More controlled variables. Another day, perhaps.
Okay. First off, the reasons for settlers arriving on western shores would be different from those of whom arrived from the east. Europeans had certain motives for coming to North America: expansion of empires, plunder of resources - mother Europe was beginning to get crowded, after all, and new lands offered new resources - and escape from religious persecution. I think the third (escape from religious persecution) would be virtually eliminated in the case of colonization from Asia or the Pacific. Population density was not as great as in European cities, and the drive to find more natural resources because their own were being depleted doesn't seem very strong, either. Empire-building would probably have been a decent motive for trans-Pacific exploration. Also, I think there is always a segment of any population that is going to think "it's gotta be better elsewhere," so I think you'd have people interested in going to a new world; on the whole, though, their motivations would be quite different.
Geography would definitely drive the development of any "United States", if it were to even form in the first place.
I think we'd have had much slower progression of settlers arriving on these shores, as well as slower progression of the frontier eastward. You encounter pretty rough terrain as you go east from the coast. There are fewer navigable rivers. The Pacific is a big ocean to successfully cross. Long overwater routes for news, supplies, more settlers would preclude European-style colonies. Might independence have come sooner? And under very different circumstances? Would they have arrived on the presumption that they were developing a new state with no ties to their former government? Those explorers that did indeed make it to North America would be pretty hardy and intrepid (survival of the fittest: discoverers' Darwinism). Perhaps that would serve them well in eastward expansion, what with the deserts and mountains they'd encounter.
We would certainly not have the agrarian society that we had at the outset of this country. The opportunities for subsistence farming would be limited to valleys. The Central Valley of California is used for major agribusiness now, but it is heavily dependent upon irrigation, and settlers may or may not have been equipped to deal with that. The crops that provided colonists with cash - tobacco, cotton, etc - would have been very different in the west. Would we have seen export of wine - the grapes for which grow quite successfully along the Pacific coast? Asian cultures don't have the history of viticulture that Europeans do, however, so perhaps they would not have exploited this.
The geographical distribution of settlements - and eventually cities - would be markedly different. The ability to spread out across the land is relatively limited. The eastern frontier runs up against inhospitable land pretty quickly, with relatively few freshwater sources. I think this would make for more isolated communities along the west coast. This would likely result in a less cohesive union of states, which raises the question about the existence of the United States at all. We might have a continent more like Europe with separate, independent states. Would there be a strong need for a central seat of government and unified colonies? To say nothing of the idea of democracy. More on that later. Mountains and vast areas of empty terrain would likely slow the deployment of technology like electricity, the telegraph, and railways in connecting outposts.
Lack of religious motivation for settlement would certainly color the population of the continent. We'd see far less Victorian prudishness. Would there be such an emphasis on the family unit? Women and children would have a large sea to cross, and if the point of the settlements on the continent were for the export of resources, would there be a "need" for families, or just able-bodied men? Would criminals be sent to mine the land, in similar fashion to Australia? Would they stay and settle, or would they put in some time and then return home? The education system would be quite different in that case. More apprenticeships, perhaps, with less religious-based education?
The west coast enjoys a more constant climate. Settlers would not experience the harsh eastern winters that fell so many east-coast colonists - unless they ventured into the mountains too late in the season. The growing season is much longer, too, though, so that might change the arrivers' dependence on the native population ("I know we were a bit brusque at first... but do you have any food?") (1) . How does a different race of people interact with natives? Asians are removed from the influence of John Locke and divine right. Would different settlers desire the independence from an oppressive monarchy; would they even have the oppressive monarchy controlling things from across the ocean? Again, would independence have been a foregone conclusion? Do we have African slavery? Class systems? The very idea of democracy (2) as a viable form of governance?
I run the risk here of trying to fit a presumably dominant Asian culture into the Western European model of USA-making. Settling North America with a completely different set of people changes everything. It's remarkably hard to completely remove myself from the context of the founding of this country.
While I'm digressing here, I should add that I really respect the pioneer spirit on which this country was expanded. I mean, the thought of packing up everything and leaving the life you know, hoping that life out west somewhere would be better - that's pretty incredible. I've been hiking for a few hours with just a backpack, and I can't imagine the trepidation I'd have about carting my possessions and family across unknown terrain for months on end, towards a very uncertain future. I think I'd have looked at the first major river west of New England and said, "Yep - this looks pretty good right here." But to cross 14000-foot mountain ranges, not knowing what's beyond them? Good on them.
If we presume that settlement from the eastern side of North America is inevitable and takes place simultaneously, that sets up potential conflict between parties expanding toward the center. Would there be fights over the fertile prairies for agricultural lands? How do native populations factor into this - a three-way war between west, east, and central? With nowhere else to go, would this create nations out of tribes, as opposed to relegating them to parts farther and farther west? The western settlers might have a greater motivation to gain central territory for land to grow food, and perhaps for control of rivers that drain to the Gulf or Atlantic. With silver and gold, the provenance of which is western rock, westerners would be pretty rich from what they could pull out of the ground. Would that cause easterners to have their eyes on conquering western people? Of course, that would influence the decision for independence from the European monarchy and their wealth.
(1) Eddie Izzard
(2) or, at least, a constitutional republic
Okay, that's what I have so far. And I'm just a scientist (well, one with a minor in history...), so if you have any ideas to add, critique, challenge, please do.
Geography would definitely drive the development of any "United States", if it were to even form in the first place.
I think we'd have had much slower progression of settlers arriving on these shores, as well as slower progression of the frontier eastward. You encounter pretty rough terrain as you go east from the coast. There are fewer navigable rivers. The Pacific is a big ocean to successfully cross. Long overwater routes for news, supplies, more settlers would preclude European-style colonies. Might independence have come sooner? And under very different circumstances? Would they have arrived on the presumption that they were developing a new state with no ties to their former government? Those explorers that did indeed make it to North America would be pretty hardy and intrepid (survival of the fittest: discoverers' Darwinism). Perhaps that would serve them well in eastward expansion, what with the deserts and mountains they'd encounter.
We would certainly not have the agrarian society that we had at the outset of this country. The opportunities for subsistence farming would be limited to valleys. The Central Valley of California is used for major agribusiness now, but it is heavily dependent upon irrigation, and settlers may or may not have been equipped to deal with that. The crops that provided colonists with cash - tobacco, cotton, etc - would have been very different in the west. Would we have seen export of wine - the grapes for which grow quite successfully along the Pacific coast? Asian cultures don't have the history of viticulture that Europeans do, however, so perhaps they would not have exploited this.
The geographical distribution of settlements - and eventually cities - would be markedly different. The ability to spread out across the land is relatively limited. The eastern frontier runs up against inhospitable land pretty quickly, with relatively few freshwater sources. I think this would make for more isolated communities along the west coast. This would likely result in a less cohesive union of states, which raises the question about the existence of the United States at all. We might have a continent more like Europe with separate, independent states. Would there be a strong need for a central seat of government and unified colonies? To say nothing of the idea of democracy. More on that later. Mountains and vast areas of empty terrain would likely slow the deployment of technology like electricity, the telegraph, and railways in connecting outposts.
Lack of religious motivation for settlement would certainly color the population of the continent. We'd see far less Victorian prudishness. Would there be such an emphasis on the family unit? Women and children would have a large sea to cross, and if the point of the settlements on the continent were for the export of resources, would there be a "need" for families, or just able-bodied men? Would criminals be sent to mine the land, in similar fashion to Australia? Would they stay and settle, or would they put in some time and then return home? The education system would be quite different in that case. More apprenticeships, perhaps, with less religious-based education?
The west coast enjoys a more constant climate. Settlers would not experience the harsh eastern winters that fell so many east-coast colonists - unless they ventured into the mountains too late in the season. The growing season is much longer, too, though, so that might change the arrivers' dependence on the native population ("I know we were a bit brusque at first... but do you have any food?") (1) . How does a different race of people interact with natives? Asians are removed from the influence of John Locke and divine right. Would different settlers desire the independence from an oppressive monarchy; would they even have the oppressive monarchy controlling things from across the ocean? Again, would independence have been a foregone conclusion? Do we have African slavery? Class systems? The very idea of democracy (2) as a viable form of governance?
I run the risk here of trying to fit a presumably dominant Asian culture into the Western European model of USA-making. Settling North America with a completely different set of people changes everything. It's remarkably hard to completely remove myself from the context of the founding of this country.
While I'm digressing here, I should add that I really respect the pioneer spirit on which this country was expanded. I mean, the thought of packing up everything and leaving the life you know, hoping that life out west somewhere would be better - that's pretty incredible. I've been hiking for a few hours with just a backpack, and I can't imagine the trepidation I'd have about carting my possessions and family across unknown terrain for months on end, towards a very uncertain future. I think I'd have looked at the first major river west of New England and said, "Yep - this looks pretty good right here." But to cross 14000-foot mountain ranges, not knowing what's beyond them? Good on them.
If we presume that settlement from the eastern side of North America is inevitable and takes place simultaneously, that sets up potential conflict between parties expanding toward the center. Would there be fights over the fertile prairies for agricultural lands? How do native populations factor into this - a three-way war between west, east, and central? With nowhere else to go, would this create nations out of tribes, as opposed to relegating them to parts farther and farther west? The western settlers might have a greater motivation to gain central territory for land to grow food, and perhaps for control of rivers that drain to the Gulf or Atlantic. With silver and gold, the provenance of which is western rock, westerners would be pretty rich from what they could pull out of the ground. Would that cause easterners to have their eyes on conquering western people? Of course, that would influence the decision for independence from the European monarchy and their wealth.
(1) Eddie Izzard
(2) or, at least, a constitutional republic
Okay, that's what I have so far. And I'm just a scientist (well, one with a minor in history...), so if you have any ideas to add, critique, challenge, please do.
That cartoon at the bottom is brilliant.
ReplyDelete