Talk:Colonial history of the United States

Colonial history of the United States / Colonial history of America

This article is one big naming quandary. As you may know, until recently it was called "Colonial history of the United States." Then someone changed the name, because back then there was no such thing as the United States. But the new name is no more appropriate, because today's United States is only a small part of America. Neither can we merge it into British colonization of the Americas, because the British had other colonies in Canada and the Caribbean. Help, anyone? -Smack 00:31, 2 August 2003 (UTC)

Why was it moved from "Colonial history of the United States"? Currently, it seems to focus on the British colonies... is it to be about the colonial era of the land that is now the USA, or the colonial era of the Americas generally? Either way, the Spanish had settlements in Florida (including St. Augustine, which is older than Jamestown and still inhabited) and the southwestern US, and the French controlled Louisiana. If we really want a thorough history of the colonies that once were what is now the USA, Russia controlled Alaska. What's the focus of this article? Kwertii 19:00, 3 August 2003 (UTC)

It was moved because there was no entity called the 'United States' during the time which this article describes. (I am not the one who moved it, btw.) I am, however, the one who wrote most of the text that is now in the article (see my profile for information as to why it's unfinished), and I did intend to cover to some extent the history of non-British colonies that were later annexed (Florida, New Netherland, Louisiana, etc.) -Smack 22:04, 3 August 2003 (UTC)

Certainly the United States of America was not formed until later, but the previous title of "Colonial history of the United States" was certainly a better reflection of the article contents than the title "Colonial America". -- Infrogmation 17:06, 24 July 2004 (UTC)

I think I have come up with a solution to the naming dilemma. We should call this article "Pre-National History of the United States." Does anyone have any objections? -Smack 06:04, 12 October 2003 (UTC) P.S: Before registering your objections, please read the discussion above. -Smack

Yes. That name is horrendous. RickK 06:06, 12 October 2003 (UTC)

That's awkward, but it's certainly much better than the article's current title. -- Infrogmation 17:06, 24 July 2004 (UTC)

Rename it British North America (1492-1776)

Rename the article "British North America (1492-1776)" and include information on Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. No offense, but I think Americans are somewhat narrow-minded in that they only focus on their own pre-revolution history, rather than look at their SHARED pre-revolution history with other British North Americans. When offering a general discussion of British American colonies of that time, there is no reason to exclude Newfoundland and Nova Scotia - it's already pointed out in the article that the British colonies differed widely in character, founding principles, etc, so why exclude these colonies? Even after the declaration of independence, two sides of the story should be told, both from the side of the colonies which participated in the revolution, and those which fought against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.234 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am American, but there is no narrow mindedness here. Although, I thought the 13 colonies were administered separately from those up in modern day Canada? I vote for "British North America", and, as well I would add in the country infobox with appx population, official flag, languages. In fact, if I get no objection I will add the infobox myself. IT would really help the article look better, although I request help from those who might have demographics information for the time period (Canadians? I think maybe you guys might know as you were all in the colonies for much longer) Pzg Ratzinger (talk · contribs) 03:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it a bit strange that this is not linked to British history in the context of all its other colonies in British America? I mean while the 13 (then 14 Colonies) and Canada and the Caribbean colonies / Central American Colonies were ruled in a non-confederate sense, they were all ruled by Great Britain. I find it a bit strange to claim this is an American history page when there was no United States of America at the time. There seems to be a huge historical disambiguation between North America and America in-terms of British rule, either way this written in a historical vacuum with no links to the other American colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.165.9 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"North America" misleading

This article is very misleading. For one thing Columbus never visited North America, and it's even possible he was unaware of its existence. He spent much of his eight years in the area bouncing between the Caribbean and South America, apparently looking for Japan (Cipangu).

Amerigo Vespucci, likewise, never set foot in North America. That honor goes to Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot), the discoverer of Newfoundland, and possibly Nova Scotia (at least he's the first we know about). sugarfish 00:12, 17 September 2003 (UTC)

I never said that Columbus discovered North America. The opening paragraph reads, as it did when I wrote it, "the lands of the Western Hemisphere." It also explains that North America was a "backwater of colonialism." -Smack 05:54, 12 October 2003 (UTC)

Possible Religious Bias

I hate American History....It seems so depressing....unlike Russian history where the bolsheviks killed a bunch of people....wait thats depressing as well....oh well...we cant have it all

In speaking about religious toleration versus religious "domination", author appears to be presenting his or her own opinion. Possible Bias. Any comments? 4.11.25.5 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

It's perfectly accurate. Pilgrims came to New England seeking to establish a society in which they could enforce their religious convictions. They weren't seeking a place where others were free to practice their own convictions. That concept would come later. It's not a disputed point of history. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

Iroquois not French

Little problem with the French and Indian war section - "The war is called the French and Indian because the Iroquois confederacy, which had been playing the British and the French against each other successfully for decades, saw that Britain was getting the upper hand and threw itself decisively into the French camp." The Iroquis were actually on the British side, whereas the Huron (among others) sided with the French. Any objections to a change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.164.160 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Northern America = New Spain

The New Spain was also known as "Northen America", also Mexico's first declaration of independece was with the name of "Northen America" and an official document was signed in 1813 called Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America see: Mexican War of Independence. -JC 26 September 2007 20:40 (PST)

Lack of recognition of Indigenous sovereignty

This article has little mention of the multiple indigenous polities that existed during the colonial era of the United States. James Merrell, an historian, explains in Second Thoughts on Colonial Histories and American Indians," there needs to be a greater consideration of Native peoples in early United States history" (Merrell 451). Native peoples made significant challenges to the dominance of European powers through governments and coalitions that existed during the same time (Merrell 479). Therefore, it is important to recognize the major influence of indigenous peoples during this time period.Digit2334 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Digit2334. There are multiple sources for this, ones that come to mind for me are specifically r/t French colonization, White's The Middle Ground and Michael Witgen's An Infinity of Nations, but the East Coast is covered by Jean O'Brien's Firsting and Lasting, the Midwest by Miles' Ties that Bind, the Southwest by Blackhawk's Violence over the Land, and the Pacific Northwest by Reid's The Sea is my Country, Cothran's Remembering the Modoc War, and Thrush's Native Seattle.

That is to say, there's a wealth of important information r/t Native sovereignty that's left out of the history on this page. Also, discussion of the destruction caused by (and continued to be caused by) the colonization discussed here, I think, should be added. --Hobomok (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Colonial Pennsylvania

Some brief history about 24.102.240.75 (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)