Lest we not forget, and as far as we currently know....... the first persons of "colour" to arrive in North America were "white" and entered a world where the skin colour varied from "tan" through "yellowish"to "red" depending which part of the Native American population you frequented. It is only the extreme difference that made the ski…
Lest we not forget, and as far as we currently know....... the first persons of "colour" to arrive in North America were "white" and entered a world where the skin colour varied from "tan" through "yellowish"to "red" depending which part of the Native American population you frequented. It is only the extreme difference that made the skin colour an issue. The attitude of those white arrivals to the human life that they discovered in this "New World" was something else......although it would seem that many of the locals were not necessarily too shocked by their brutality if you consider the prevalence of human sacrifice in some cultures.
The arrival of Afro-American slaves and their treatment continued a tradition that the White invaders had established over a century previously....even with some of their own being subjected to the same treatment. The Blacks were then, for the Native Americans....who were already somewhat diminished by the incoming diseases and bellicose attitude by this time...were the second "people of colour" to arrive on their shores.
The history of America dates from, on current research, from well over 20,000 years ago and should be taught as such. The Republic, as a political organization, dates from its foundation on July 4th, 1776. Regimes change, some bad, some good....but Nations go beyond the political names and structures that we give them as they change and not the Nation. The Nation is a sum total of all its history and not just that which the interests, ideologies and values of a particular time dictate.
Our fixation on compartmentalizing a land mass for the benefit of some seems to be the core issue here. My coffee table book, "Before Columbus: The Americas of 1491," by Charles C. Mann, challenges the reader to: "Prepare yourself to unlearn much of what you have learned" It doesn't go back as far as 20,000 years ago, Stuart, but I find it a good start!
Indeed...and for a little more respect for the history of the land in its entirety and for those who were here from the start. Building a bridge to the whole of the past would give a firmer base to our perspective of who we are, what it means to be an American and where we go from here.
Morning Lynell!! In Europe around 1800, if someone said that an American was coming to dinner, people assumed that s/he was a Spanish speaker. My, how times have changed.
True but there used to be 13 colonies too. Lines on the map that the white Europeans invaders' dreams of conquest have imposed on an existing, none fully delineated fabric....for the time being!
And why stop there? The presence of human beings is a mere blink of time’s eye. The dinosaurs ruled for millions of years before us and lasted far far longer than we can ever hope to survive. So why not the dinosaur project (which fits neatly with the attitude of the Trump republicans)?
"When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 to debate what form of government the United States should have, there were no contemporary democracies in Europe from which they could draw inspiration. The most democratic forms of government that any of the convention members had personally encountered were those of Native American nations. Of particular interest was the Iroquois Confederacy, which historians have argued wielded a significant influence on the U.S. Constitution."
Stuart, As the fields covering this subject are archeology, geography, science, history and more, a small bite for 10 to 14 year olds would be fascinating. For in-depth learning, however, it is more appropriate for HS, college and graduate students.
'Geneticists now calculate, based on mutation rates in human DNA, that the ancestors of the Native Americans parted from their kin in their East Asian homeland sometime between 25,000 and 15,000 years ago—a difficult time for a great northern migration. Huge glaciers capped the mountain valleys of northeastern Asia, at the same time massive ice sheets mantled most of Canada, New England and several northern states. Indeed, reconstructions of past climate based on data preserved in ice cores from Greenland and on measurements of past global sea levels show that these ice sheets reached their maximum extent in the last glacial period between at least 22,000 and 19,000 years ago. “But these folks were extraordinarily adept at moving over the landscape,” says David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University. “Their entire existence—and the existence of everyone they knew and the existence of their ancestors—was about adapting. They had a toolbox of tactics and strategies.” (First Americans, Scientific American)
Of course, White settlers', soldiers', politicians', business owners', etc., relationships with Indigenous Americans is one at the defining aspects of the USA. The conflicts of White people and the 'Others' that's at least a few bibles.
'Native Americans, also known as American Indians, First Americans, Indigenous Americans and other terms, are the indigenous peoples of the United States; sometimes including Hawaii and territories of the United States, and other times limited to the mainland. There are 574 federally recognized tribes living within the US, about half of which are associated with Indian reservations. "Native Americans" (as defined by the United States Census) are indigenous tribes that are originally from the contiguous United States, along with Alaska Natives...'
For the 20,000 BC reference: "A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe", J. Krause, T. Trappe. A fascinating book on a new science-archaeogenetics. All about what genomes are telling us about immigration, among other things. Mostly about movement of peoples in Europe but they talk about the movement from the northwest into what became the Americas. " Europeans and indigenous Americans seem to have drawn a lot of their genetic material from Eastern Europe and Siberia" (P 100 Kindle). They mention in another place that for a long time European ancestors were all what we would today call "dark skinned". (Paled out later.) SO, it strikes me that the colonizing Europeans encountered, drove out and killed their own rather close genetic relatives in the indigenous peoples they found in the "new" world----"new" only to the colonizers, of course!!!! A fascinating read, accessibly written and underlining how theories about pre-written history are shifting due to new knowledge.
From memory, the only fly in that ointment is the discovery of human remains and atifacts in the Amazon Basin which effectively predated know human populations of Europe...Nearer to 40,000 BC.
Would not be surprised. The subtext of this book is that archaeogenetics is "correcting" or at least adjusting some carbon dating- based theories. I am not a scientist but I am in awe of what the DNA of.the finger or teeth or small bone fragment remains of a 40,000 year old ancestor tells us. The book is not dogmatic. It deals in the realms of scientific method and theories.
Stuart, the indigenous people of America regarded Europeans as barbarians. The phrase "many of the locals were not necessarily too shocked by their brutality if you consider the prevalence of human sacrifice in some cultures" is awfully general and broad in application. It implies something that has very limited application as if it were widespread. It was not. Keep in mind that there were thousands of indigenous cultures in the Americas, and still are hundreds.
Lest we not forget, and as far as we currently know....... the first persons of "colour" to arrive in North America were "white" and entered a world where the skin colour varied from "tan" through "yellowish"to "red" depending which part of the Native American population you frequented. It is only the extreme difference that made the skin colour an issue. The attitude of those white arrivals to the human life that they discovered in this "New World" was something else......although it would seem that many of the locals were not necessarily too shocked by their brutality if you consider the prevalence of human sacrifice in some cultures.
The arrival of Afro-American slaves and their treatment continued a tradition that the White invaders had established over a century previously....even with some of their own being subjected to the same treatment. The Blacks were then, for the Native Americans....who were already somewhat diminished by the incoming diseases and bellicose attitude by this time...were the second "people of colour" to arrive on their shores.
The history of America dates from, on current research, from well over 20,000 years ago and should be taught as such. The Republic, as a political organization, dates from its foundation on July 4th, 1776. Regimes change, some bad, some good....but Nations go beyond the political names and structures that we give them as they change and not the Nation. The Nation is a sum total of all its history and not just that which the interests, ideologies and values of a particular time dictate.
Our fixation on compartmentalizing a land mass for the benefit of some seems to be the core issue here. My coffee table book, "Before Columbus: The Americas of 1491," by Charles C. Mann, challenges the reader to: "Prepare yourself to unlearn much of what you have learned" It doesn't go back as far as 20,000 years ago, Stuart, but I find it a good start!
Great book. I need to buy an updated version.
Agree
I will find it. Thank you.
So we are looking for the 20,000 BC Project.
Indeed...and for a little more respect for the history of the land in its entirety and for those who were here from the start. Building a bridge to the whole of the past would give a firmer base to our perspective of who we are, what it means to be an American and where we go from here.
"American," which reminds me that in fact there are two entire continents of America comprised of 42 different countries. Bit of bothersome hegemony.
I often cringe when I hear "America" as a descriptor to include only those who are a part of the USA
Which is why I frequently use the term US Americans or US rather than America.
Morning, Daria!! Yes, I try to stay cognizant as I write along.
Morning Lynell!! In Europe around 1800, if someone said that an American was coming to dinner, people assumed that s/he was a Spanish speaker. My, how times have changed.
Afternoon, TPJ!! It'd be easier if we were all mutts!
Lynell, you mean we aren’t? 😯
You're probably right, Camilla, but some would argue their pedigree to the nth degree!
A breed is just a breed. Mutts are unique.
Or used as if somehow the USA (or the land it occupies) is representative of the entire western hemisphere. That rankles too.
Plus all the First Nations.
True but there used to be 13 colonies too. Lines on the map that the white Europeans invaders' dreams of conquest have imposed on an existing, none fully delineated fabric....for the time being!
You're on fire today, Stuart! I'm with you about the "Lines" we people draw.
Even colonies had colonies. Cf. Maine, Vermont, the Western Reserve.
Oh, wait! Who coined the term "America" anyway?
Amerigo Vespucci and his accounts of his travels seems to have the best claim.
Martin Waldseemuller, a German geographer living in what is now France, with his 1507 map of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Waldseem%C3%BCller
Try this pronunciation with everyone you see this week: (ǎmerícō)
Okie Doke, David!
And why stop there? The presence of human beings is a mere blink of time’s eye. The dinosaurs ruled for millions of years before us and lasted far far longer than we can ever hope to survive. So why not the dinosaur project (which fits neatly with the attitude of the Trump republicans)?
Carl Sagan once said that if you really want to make an apple pie from scratch, you have to start by creating the universe.
Aim high, Ellie. The Big Bang Project.
You writing?
Um . . . It's all I can do to finish a one-paragraph review. And submitting on time? Once in a blue moon.
Big History is a burgeoning field. It takes the story from the Big Bang up to the future. Cf. David Christian and Cynthia Stokes Brown.
"When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787 to debate what form of government the United States should have, there were no contemporary democracies in Europe from which they could draw inspiration. The most democratic forms of government that any of the convention members had personally encountered were those of Native American nations. Of particular interest was the Iroquois Confederacy, which historians have argued wielded a significant influence on the U.S. Constitution."
https://www.history.com/news/iroquois-confederacy-influence-us-constitution
Thanks for reminding us of that important perspective.
This is a full embrace of the latest Republican attempt to turn teaching history into a culture war.
It's just reality, Sandy...obviously disliked by ideology.
Stuart, As the fields covering this subject are archeology, geography, science, history and more, a small bite for 10 to 14 year olds would be fascinating. For in-depth learning, however, it is more appropriate for HS, college and graduate students.
'Geneticists now calculate, based on mutation rates in human DNA, that the ancestors of the Native Americans parted from their kin in their East Asian homeland sometime between 25,000 and 15,000 years ago—a difficult time for a great northern migration. Huge glaciers capped the mountain valleys of northeastern Asia, at the same time massive ice sheets mantled most of Canada, New England and several northern states. Indeed, reconstructions of past climate based on data preserved in ice cores from Greenland and on measurements of past global sea levels show that these ice sheets reached their maximum extent in the last glacial period between at least 22,000 and 19,000 years ago. “But these folks were extraordinarily adept at moving over the landscape,” says David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University. “Their entire existence—and the existence of everyone they knew and the existence of their ancestors—was about adapting. They had a toolbox of tactics and strategies.” (First Americans, Scientific American)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-americans/
Of course, White settlers', soldiers', politicians', business owners', etc., relationships with Indigenous Americans is one at the defining aspects of the USA. The conflicts of White people and the 'Others' that's at least a few bibles.
'Native Americans, also known as American Indians, First Americans, Indigenous Americans and other terms, are the indigenous peoples of the United States; sometimes including Hawaii and territories of the United States, and other times limited to the mainland. There are 574 federally recognized tribes living within the US, about half of which are associated with Indian reservations. "Native Americans" (as defined by the United States Census) are indigenous tribes that are originally from the contiguous United States, along with Alaska Natives...'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
Indeed.
For the 20,000 BC reference: "A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe", J. Krause, T. Trappe. A fascinating book on a new science-archaeogenetics. All about what genomes are telling us about immigration, among other things. Mostly about movement of peoples in Europe but they talk about the movement from the northwest into what became the Americas. " Europeans and indigenous Americans seem to have drawn a lot of their genetic material from Eastern Europe and Siberia" (P 100 Kindle). They mention in another place that for a long time European ancestors were all what we would today call "dark skinned". (Paled out later.) SO, it strikes me that the colonizing Europeans encountered, drove out and killed their own rather close genetic relatives in the indigenous peoples they found in the "new" world----"new" only to the colonizers, of course!!!! A fascinating read, accessibly written and underlining how theories about pre-written history are shifting due to new knowledge.
From memory, the only fly in that ointment is the discovery of human remains and atifacts in the Amazon Basin which effectively predated know human populations of Europe...Nearer to 40,000 BC.
Would not be surprised. The subtext of this book is that archaeogenetics is "correcting" or at least adjusting some carbon dating- based theories. I am not a scientist but I am in awe of what the DNA of.the finger or teeth or small bone fragment remains of a 40,000 year old ancestor tells us. The book is not dogmatic. It deals in the realms of scientific method and theories.
Just as we've claimed all along.
Stuart, the indigenous people of America regarded Europeans as barbarians. The phrase "many of the locals were not necessarily too shocked by their brutality if you consider the prevalence of human sacrifice in some cultures" is awfully general and broad in application. It implies something that has very limited application as if it were widespread. It was not. Keep in mind that there were thousands of indigenous cultures in the Americas, and still are hundreds.
Very true, Annie. Very much an intellectual short cut on my part as i just didn't want necessarily to emphasize the Spanish behaviour.
First time I have Ever read Anything like THIS Stuart.
THANK YOU!!!❣