Traditional historians are expanding to the west and emphasize the results of bringing civilizations and democratic institutions into the wilderness. Historians and mass media have long celebrated the heroic efforts of hill tribes and pioneering families to overcome the harsh environment. Due to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, today's historians are more sensitive to racist language and belief than previous historians. They recognized the lack of ethnicity in political speech in the 1840s, which insisted on expansion to American Indians, Mexicans, and Central America. Some historians believe that racist motivation may even encourage a decision to withdraw rather than occupy Mexico. They point out that Americans who oppose the idea of relying on racist insistence on Mexico argue that it is not prudent to include the majority of non-British in the republic.
In an article entitled "Cultural Significance of the American Wilderness", Rodrik Nash said that the earliest colonists of the New World were not Americans at all, they were transplanted Europeans who believed that land would be absolutely necessary I pointed out. And the spirit of civilization and material emptiness. 2 Wilderness represents a place where European laws, religion, communities and agreements are not at risk because it is a strange animal, a strange topography, an unknown being with strange indigenous people. And, civilization. Early New England literature, arts and folklore regarded the wilderness as a place where rationality yielded to passion, the devil could seduce and erode even the most sacred people in the community. In other early colonies, especially in Pennsylvania and Virginia, the wilderness represented the garden - a place that is domesticated and purified for the establishment of the human community.