This book derives from Deverell’s doctoral disertation for a PhD in history. It was published in 1994. 21 years later Deverell is the “Chair” of the history department at the University of Southern California. (I really do not like calling a person a “Chair”. But “Chairman” is not gender neutral, so “Chair” it is.)
The thread had evolved into a discussion of Frank Norris’ fictional novel “The Octopus”. I maintained that The Octopus was but a work of fiction and should not be regarded as a serious history. Schlimm was in disagreement. I was relying of the research and documentation of Richard Orsi, another writer with a PhD in history.
Orsi basically pointed out that the fiction novelist, Norris, had stood facts on their head regarding the sale of land grant acreage by the Southern Pacific
For more broad background to expand one’s knowledge, rather than treat scholarship as some “contest”:
Calhoun C. W. (2007). Political culture: public life and the conduct of politics. The gilded age: perspectives on the origins of modern America. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hine R. V., & Faragher J. M. (2000). Open range. The American West: a new interpretive history. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Kazin M. (2001). The righteous Commonwealth of the late nineteenth century. Major problems in the gilded age and the progressive era: documents and essays. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
For more broad background to expand one’s knowledge, rather than treat scholarship as some “contest”:
Calhoun C. W. (2007). Political culture: public life and the conduct of politics. The gilded age: perspectives on the origins of modern America. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hine R. V., & Faragher J. M. (2000). Open range. The American West: a new interpretive history. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Kazin M. (2001). The righteous Commonwealth of the late nineteenth century. Major problems in the gilded age and the progressive era: documents and essays. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
You cut and pasted a few quotes from the book you read. They are the valued opinions of a scholar, but what you posted is merely his opinion. There were no citations from primary sources. Frankly if the dismissive tone and quality of the quotes is representative of the entire opus, then it is merely a polemic. That is not historical research, just opinion. More likely you cut and paste his comments to reflect your own revisionist, anti-populist attitude.
The biblio I posted was for background of the period, only. Do with it as you please. But you already have opinions carved in stone, so it would be a waste of your time, apparently, to be exposed to anything that differs from that POV.
The problem for me is that I do not have access to history databases to search journals, where the real scholarly research resides.
Oh, I did more than cut and paste. I read the book. I’ve found that people can learn a lot from books, if they read them. Which I did.
Anyway both Orsi (I read his “Sunset Limited” too.) and Deverell agree that the portraial of the railroad’s land sale policy in the fictional novel “The Octopus” is fiction, not fact. They’re both History PhD’s.
The author of “The Octopus” needed drama. If he had to misrepresent some things, so what? He was writing fiction. Norris, the author of “The Octopus”, was a novelist writing fiction, not a historian.
If you need further proof take a look at this from Stanford University.
Check out paragraph #17. Note that SP’s land grant acreage was quickly sold and put into agricultural production. Contrast that with large parcels acquired by speculators who held the land idle looking for appreciation in value. SP, in contrast, wanted the land in production. They priced it to sell. The Stanford maps show that fact.
SP’s land policy helped a lot of folks better themselves. People got their own farms and could support their families in a decent manner.
greyhounds: The only primary sources cited on this thread were, I believe, by Wanswheel. But you apparently conclude those are myth and fiction? The quotations you cut and pasted are simply informed opinions by two historians, not documents that in any way factually refute the Muscle Slough Massacre nor the very real conflict between farmers and the SP.
