William Cronon, author of “A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narratives,” attempts to explore various works and presentations of the history of the Great Plains. In his attempt, however, William Cronon has also offered his own possible historic interpretation of the Great Plains. Cronon suggests that the environment, human interaction with the environment and interaction with each other and human invention have all helped to shape the past and future of the Plains.
Cronon tells a story of the changes in perspective and interpretation of the Great Plains. Starting with a small sample of his own, he continues with an example of how the same collection of data can be interpreted in at least two completely different ways. The emergence of a more positive view could be due to examining documents with a progressive thought process as opposed to a more romantic reactionism with negative overtones.
Over time, the stories told by historians about specific regions evolved from a linear progression with little or no reference to the Native American Indians, to a broader view of how civilization affected the land. For example, Walter Prescott wrote of human invention and environmental factors, mentioning little of the native’s role in the development of the Mid-West. In another example, Bishop William Robert Hare’s 1880s account of the Dakota area concentrates on the new settlers and their struggles, and ultimately, their success on the land. In contrast, Frederick Jackson Turner tells a story that is more a continuation of European exploration and progress, leading to a democratic society.
During the Dust Bowl and New Deal era, FDR and his staff worked to find a cause for the decline and failure of the farmlands. In the end, they determined that the settlers had expected too much from the land, and had not tended to it properly. The narrative became more about society rather than individual groups of migrants.
In addition to all of these different interpretations and methods of presenting data, the beginnings and endings of the story are just as important. These two fixed times set the amount of data that is review, and thus what is taken or not taken into consideration by the historian. Perhaps this is a most important factor, because it determines evidence is examined. If a perceved piece of key evidence is overlooked or excluded, the resulting story and conclusions will reflect it.