Turner’s frontier theory proposes that by 1890, the frontier was closed. Turner explained the frontier as a continuous process of the wilderness transforming man (white man), turning him into something new and American. He refers to the frontier as “on the edge of free land” and the “meeting point between savagery and civilization.”1 He is saying that these Native lands are free to white settlers and that they bring civilization to them with settlement. This reinforces the idea of Manifest Destiny. These kinds of ideas and actions did not end in 1890, which is why his theory is contradictory. For example, Hawaii was annexed in 1898, and Native land was taken and settled by Euro-Americans. Native land in Oklahoma was also opened to settlement in 1889.2 Following Turner’s reasoning, these acts are a continuation of the frontier. In general, his theory is also just problematic as it describes Native lands as free and open to white settlers and calls Native Americans uncivilized and savage. Turner also leaves out the violence committed against Native Americans for the sake of the frontier, which might also be a reason why Native Americans don’t get enough mention in U.S. history.
I think that by closing the date for the frontier, events beyond 1890 are ignored in Native American history, which means that Turner’s theory still has a large effect on the ways we view Native history today in America. By saying that by 1890 there was no frontier, it is suggested that there was no more Native resistance to settlement, as all U.S. land was settled and ‘civilized’ by white people. I think Wounded Knee is sort of framed as the last violent struggle for the frontier, and the last major act of Native resistance to settlement. This is probably why most history classes don’t mention Native Americans beyond Wounded Knee, as it is assumed that all Native land was already taken and that Native Americans have stopped resistance to white settlement and assimilation. It kind of treats the matter as resolved and suggests that Native Americans don’t continue to have any significance in American history. The frontier, and the conflicts that come with it, are assumed to have ended. I guess once all of their land was defined as settled, it was assumed that Native Americans had no more role in the shaping of the American nation. (Turner also thinks that only white settlers had a role in shaping American democracy.)
(As a side note, it seems that Turner only defines the frontier in terms of white settlement. He constantly refers to an East to West movement, which ignores the West to East settlement of Chinese people. I don’t think that he would frame the movement of Chinese immigrants to California as part of this larger framing of the frontier.)