Submitted by BrightEyEz703 t3_zwxy8a in history
I recently found the PBS series Frontier House. I’ve only watched some of it, but I’m already interested in how historically accurate it would be considered today versus when it was made (in the 2000s). One of the opening lines said something along the lines of “[some number] of American families moved to the western frontier to settle virgin land…”
“Virgin” land? I’ve only read a small portion of the book “Why You Can’t Teach United States History without American Indians,” but I’ve read enough to find that statement concerning. So far there’s basically been no mention of Native Americans in the series.
So here’s my question, given the changes in how history is addressed today versus the 2000s, what was left out in terms of historical accuracy in this series? Clearly homesteaders did not wander west to find a completely uninhabited expanse.
hutnykmc t1_j1yxftz wrote
"Virgin" land (specifically in this context) typically doesn't translate to "uninhabited" but rather "unworked", meaning all of the resources used for agriculture and construction haven't been tapped, altered, or processed in any measurable way for the advancement of whatever Western civilization influence comes into contact with it first. It's more of a matter of semantic accuracy, not necessarily historic accuracy.