Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Western U.S. does indeed have interesting historical value beyond the cities you highlight, especially in addition to the history that predates the establishment of territories and statehoods.
100% true here. There is a lot of history in the west that predates the European history in the Northeast if one is to look a little for it. I find the cliff dwellings and ancient history out that way to be hugely interesting. Toss in all the old mining towns and frontier settlements from the early days of westward expansion and it just is a fascinating area to poke around and explore. Can't stand people who think all interesting history revolves around city life or what a city has done.
I hate the western u.s sometimes because of its heat and its lack of major history. It seems like the pnly cities with any real history dating back before the 1900's are SF, seattle, denver and LA but only sf seems to have a good amount of it.
One of my pet peeves around here is that developers tend to bulldoze history. Right in my own neighborhood developers are trying to build million dollar+ homes on a known native american burial site.
100% true here. There is a lot of history in the west that predates the European history in the Northeast if one is to look a little for it. I find the cliff dwellings and ancient history out that way to be hugely interesting. Toss in all the old mining towns and frontier settlements from the early days of westward expansion and it just is a fascinating area to poke around and explore. Can't stand people who think all interesting history revolves around city life or what a city has done.
True--the Old West in general is every bit as historically relevant as the West's major coastal cities and the East's former colonies.
I live in a state that's littered with old mining and frontier towns, some of which were once amongst country's most prosperous economies during the 19th and 20th centuries, yet many of them are now, unfortunately, economically destitute in the 21st century. A lot has happened in that timeframe, no?
Some of these are now abandoned, and many of these certainly seem to have a lot of touristic appeal--could historical value possibly have something to do with this?
Of course it does. These places are like time-warps, almost to an eerie extent.
I hate the western u.s sometimes because of its heat and its lack of major history. It seems like the pnly cities with any real history dating back before the 1900's are SF, seattle, denver and LA but only sf seems to have a good amount of it.
Lol. Ignorance reigns in the heartland, it seems.
Portland was established (1845) long before Seattle (1869) even thought of coming into being. And Denver (1858)? That's that part of the country that everyone jumped over to settle the west coast. Fort Vancouver (now a suburb of Portland) was established in 1824. And as for San Francisco, are you aware that when they wanted to plat the city of San Francisco, they had to bring the plat up to Oregon City (1829) (another now suburb of Portland) and register it there, because there were no courts in San Francisco (1850), but there were in Oregon? Jews who died in San Francisco had to be brought to Portland for burial, because there were no consecrated grounds in San Francisco. Portland has the second most (behind New York City) collection of Cast Iron buildings (built generally from the 1850s to the 1880s). I live in a house in the "new" part of downtown that was built in 1890. Fort Astoria, on the Oregon coast, was established in 1811. That's near Fort Clatsop, where the Lewis and Clark Expedition spent the winter of 1805/1806.
But yeah, there's no real history. You'd think that someone living at the one end of the Oregon Trail would be a bit more aware of what's at the other end of it.
Portland was established (1845) long before Seattle (1869) even thought of coming into being. And Denver (1858)? That's that part of the country that everyone jumped over to settle the west coast. Fort Vancouver (now a suburb of Portland) was established in 1824. And as for San Francisco, are you aware that when they wanted to plat the city of San Francisco, they had to bring the plat up to Oregon City (1829) (another now suburb of Portland) and register it there, because there were no courts in San Francisco (1850), but there were in Oregon? Jews who died in San Francisco had to be brought to Portland for burial, because there were no consecrated grounds in San Francisco. Portland has the second most (behind New York City) collection of Cast Iron buildings (built generally from the 1850s to the 1880s). I live in a house in the "new" part of downtown that was built in 1890. Fort Astoria, on the Oregon coast, was established in 1811. That's near Fort Clatsop, where the Lewis and Clark Expedition spent the winter of 1805/1806.
But yeah, there's no real history. You'd think that someone living at the one end of the Oregon Trail would be a bit more aware of what's at the other end of it.
Let me put it this way: there's about as much significant U.S. history in the west as there is scenic diversity in the east.
Let me put it this way: there's about as much significant U.S. history in the west as there is scenic diversity in the east.
So, can we call this even?
Considering there's actually a fair amount of scenic diversity in the East, I think that's somewhat true.
Much of the West was sparsely settled until the late 1800s, though there's plenty of history. Spanish missions in California, Pueblo Indian villages and adobe colonial towns in New Mexico, old fur trading forts in the Northwest, Victorian-era mining villages in Colorado, and the late 19th Century streetscapes that one finds in older neighborhoods from San Francisco to Denver to Portland.
The oldest sites of American history are basically scattered --it's nothing compared to Europe and somewhere like the French Quarter or Charleston or the old parts of Phildelphia that seem amazing in the US wouldn't even be considered that exceptional in context in Latin America or Europe. Most older American cities basically date back to the later half of the 19th Century with the exception of a few preserved historic buildings or the occasional colonial or Federalist-era districts. Which is why a place like Boston or Philadelphia(or much of the surrounding area) is notable for that reason.
The East Coast has the big ticket historical sites, just like the West has the big ticket natural sites--which is why you can compare the number of National Parks in the West compared to the number of National Historic Sites in the East. But both areas have a some of each--it's just not as much a draw nationally to go the White Mountains in New Hampshire as Yellowstone or Glacier National Park though both are fine destinations, just as more people would probably get excited to go on the Freedom Trail in Boston than visit the old Spanish part of Albuquerque. But there's plenty to explore in both regions, it's just sort of a difference of scale and amount...
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Considering we are living in the 21st century we can certainly look back on the 20th century in historical terms where states like California and even cities like Seattle have made a very large impact on American history. There are other chapters in American history besides the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 02-09-2013 at 02:34 PM..
Let me put it this way: there's about as much significant U.S. history in the west as there is scenic diversity in the east.
So, can we call this even?
I fail to see what's so awesome about historical sites. Nature is awesome. Some old building isn't.
My only point was defending the historical significance of my state as opposed to the ones that the poster to whom I was responding thought were the only things of historical significance (LA, Seattle, Denver, SF---the only one that had any real history). Not defending it against the east.
But to further reply ... there is not as much scenic diversity in the east. Until the east has the vast prairies, the deserts, the towering mountains, and places like the Grand Canyon ... it's lacking the diversity the west has.
Considering we are living in the 21st century we can certainly look back on the 20th century in historical terms where states like California and even cities like Seattle have made a very large impact on American history. The are other chapters in American history besides the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.
That's a good point as well... Though I think in terms of this thread, which is basically about tourism, people get more excited about historical tourism when it's about the older eras of US history. We're raised to think in terms of the Revolutionary War or Civil War of being the foundation of our nation.
I mean at this point Hearst Castle or the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor or Grand Central Station or Wrigley Field or even the old neon sign hotels in the middle of some town on the old Route 66 can all be considered historical to some degree. Hell, even Haight Ashbury is historic on several levels for me--to both see one of the best preserved late-19th Century Victorian neighborhoods in San Francisco along with famous sites from the 1960s...
Last edited by Deezus; 02-09-2013 at 01:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
