See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880-1940 by Marguerite S. Shaffer

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States was just coming into being. The industrial revolution was on the rise, and the people of this country were just beginning to create a national identity for themselves. Perhaps the most important aspect of creating this national identity is the emergence of tourism, which is discussed extensively in See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880-1940 by Marguerite S. Shaffer.  She argued that tourism played an integral part in not only shaping national identity, but also the business sphere and the emergence of “personal freedom”. As a whole, she gets this message across in her extremely detailed and focused account of the emergence of tourism in the United States.

Travel throughout any country begins with the pleasure of seeing the nation united and flourishing and ends with a sense of pride for one’s country’s accomplishments. Shaffer encompassed this statement by telling a narrative about Samuel Bowles, editor and author of a well-received travel novel, who travelled across the United States to experience its many natural wonders. He felt immense pride for the nation he called home, and claimed that tourism was a “patriotic journey linked to the discovery of the nation” (Shaffer, p.11). In addition to this, Shaffer stated that tourism helped show the people of the United States what it meant to be American, and she claimed that to see and know America is what tourism is all about (Shaffer, p. 10). Perhaps the most important statement about national identity in this novel is one that is not made by Shaffer herself, but in a quote by Robert Sterling Yard in the beginning of chapter three. He states

“Our national park system has come definitely to mean to the people that…our flag means, namely the majesty and pride of the nation…it is the visible expression of a quality of mind and spirit which Americans believe that they possess in higher degree than other people” (Shaffer, p. 93).

In line with this quote, Shaffer claims this pride that people feel to be linked to tourism and a central exploratory point in her novel. This theme emerges throughout the entire narrative and she is able to state clearly why tourism helped to create a national identity and define what it means to be an American. Her point of view is evident throughout each chapter. It is clear that she feels that one of the driving forces for tourism was a feeling of national identity (she even put the term in the title).

Business was extremely important during this time period due to the ever growing need for investments and revenue to keep the tourism market going. A cycle was evident to Shaffer in that the most scenery and beauty was provided to tourists, the more people invested into the tourism market and so on (Shaffer, p. 37). Shaffer claimed that this money was needed in order to sustain tourism not only because these attractions needed to be funded, but because the tourism market was mostly aimed at upper-class individuals (Shaffer, p.42). She also stated that since this was the target audience of most companies during this time period, many saw the increasing amount of national parks as a promotional opportunity (Shaffer, p. 57).  Shaffer implies throughout her novel that the business sphere was perhaps linked to the emergence of national identity in that it takes much financial prowess to keep tourism going and up to par with the standards if the people (Shaffer, p. 42). Also, the more tourism there was, the more powerful America would look to other countries which was an ideal most Americans already held (Shaffer, p. 35). It is clear to the reader that the effect the business sphere had was directly linked to national identity. Americans would not get the experiences they had if it were not for the investments made by certain individuals, which Shaffer is quick to point out any chance she gets. It is clear that Shaffer feels as if without the funds from the business field, tourism would not have been what it was. This should not be taken as bias, however, because she often sees the issue from both sides of the spectrum, equally weighing both; however, her stance is clear.