1. I learned Colorado history because I grew up there and Mexican history because I went to a bilingual school. I'm pretty sure I granted that the Southwest had a Spanish presence, and if not, I should have. Because they were there by 1710. However, the Spanish system of colonization was sufficiently different from the English system that it's almost weird to use the same word. There was Spanish control, but not too any Spaniards. New Spain extended up through to parts of Wyoming and Idaho. In those parts, French names are far more prevelant than Spanish names because they were the ones who were there. Unlike Spain, Mexico encouraged large scale immigration to its northern areas. Though again, not so much in the North. So, maybe our mistake is taking "the West" as just one region.

2. I'm not entirely sure what I was looking for in the image search, but it looked like a standard Western town (btw, how is Claunch pronounced?). I'm sure life wasn't the easiest for your grandparents, nor the generations before them. I assume the point is they survived on 8 acres. And in some places in the West, I'll say that's possible. But again, I think maybe we make the mistake of assuming a uniform West, which we both k ow doesn't exist. Because there were no farmers near my town, because the land wouldn't support it.

3. The barbed wire fence is the exact fight that's occurring in Oregon, but with the government instead of private land owners. So, same assumption again.

4. Moving can be a luxury, not everyone can afford to. And if they continued to have access to federal lands they wouldn't need to move.

5. I know you know what your talking about, your klienbl00 for fucks sake. I just question your conclusions. I realize now that I should have started my fifth point differently, because the way it is allows it to be taken as a question of you and not your ideas. That wasn't my intention at all. We've had different experiences with the West, and those experiences have created our biases. I don't see the purpose of discussion or debate as convincing the other person, but for presenting multiple interpretations to observers, or for future reference. So, I'm sorry if it ended up being condescending.