Talk:History of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

See: Talk:History of the United States for recent talk.

Approach

Note from bleeding heart history student: Hey, I just wanted to complain a bit about what you are doing. Your approach is far off from a traditional encyclopedia or scholarly work, 1. it uses extremely subjective language in its word choices. 2. You cite no reference sources. 3. You take things that are arguable interpretations and state them as though they were facts. This is what is done in high school history books, but I happen to prefer that something that is quite arguable be left as 'some people think x and some people thiink y'. This lets the reader open up to new ideeas and exercise their own gray mellon rather than being force fed the pet peeves of some crusty old academic. 4. You tend toward the 'history is a war timeline' way of presenting our past, which is depressing as hell. is there not more to the story of mankind that who slaughtered whom?


Note from Jimbo Wales: I really like the way the following discussion is going. What I'm interested to see is whether and to what extent we might be able to achieve some consensus on a basic 3-screen history of the United States.

Anyhow, it will be very interesting to see what we might hammer out as mutually acceptable to reasonable people who disagree. So far, things don't look good.  :-) BryceHarrington is citing Noam Chomsky, who I regard as a lunatic. And TimShell is posting highly inflammatory pictures of genocide.

Will it break down into a flame war? Or does the ability of others to come in and "tone down" the discussion at will mean that flame wars can be avoided?

It sure is fun and addictive to watch to find out!

We don't want the HistoryOfUnitedStates to be a large pile of pro-American propaganda, like virtually all histories of that country are. However, we also don't want it to be a large pile of anti-American propaganda. So I think we should carefully discuss each controversial point that comes up before writing about it.

The American civil war

Bryce stated that this was not so much about racial issues as economic issues, and Tim disagreed therewith. Which of these points, exactly, are you disagreeing with? If it's the racial one - wasn't the north willing to reverse it's stance on that particular issue? Not being American, I don't really know...

The claim that emanicpation was an attempt to destroy the Southern economy is certainly false. The emancipation took effect after the war, when the Southern economy was already ruined. So I have to challenge that point. Of course, ask 10 American historians about the Civil War, and you will get 10 different theories, so it's hard to say what should be included here. - TimShell


WWII

I'm not sure why it's so important to mention the SovietUnion invading Poland, since that had nothing to with the causes of the war. Inasmuchas the allies never went to war with them.

The invasion might be worth mentioning as it was a direct consequence of the secret Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which Hitler kept until invading the Soviet Union in 1942 (Operation Barbarossa) - WojPob (Germany invaded on Sept. 1st and the SovietUnion on Sept. 17th 1939 - BTW)

...Please note I'm not saying it's not worth mentioning altogether. For a discussion of WWII, one could scarce leave it out. I just don't think that the details of how the war started are particularly relevant to the history of the US, except in so far as to give them a just casus belli.

Attitude towards NativeAmericans

Someone wrote that the Nazi FinalSolution was perhaps modelled on U.S policy towards Native American's. I think this is ludicrous on many levels. Even if it were true that some Nazis viewed it as the same thing (something I don't really know about), that view is itself ludicrous. We're talking about a serious estimate of 6,000 dead in a variety of unfortunate incidents, versus a serious estimate of how many millions dead as the result of a deliberate genocide? -- Jimbo Wales

For the record, there were deliberate attempts to annihilate the native americans. I can give you two incidents in particular. One, which happened hortly before the American revolution, was the deliberate spreading of smallpox among the Pontiac. The second is the deliberate annihilation of the Six Nations, to quote Washington:

"The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex, as possible...that the country not be merely overrun but destroyed."

This took place as punishment for their alliance with the British. But certainly it's not how they would have treated the Canadiens, and the Oneida and Tuscora were not spared for their neutrality. In short, it might not have been the coordinated and causeless hatred of the nazis, but certainly it was far from a series of incidents that devastated the natives. Please don't consider this as a specifically anti-American sentiment, since as you can see above it was a continuation of the British attitude, and common to imperialist powers in general.

I agree, the treatment of the Native Americans was ugly, but comparing it to the Nazi Holocaust is really pushing it. We are talking about a total of 6,000 dead (according to TimShell over on Indian Massacres, anyway) versus millions. --Jimbo Wales

Ok, I'm not trying to say that they're tragedies of equal magnitudes. But remember North America was populated fairly sparsely at the time (possibly a result of smallpox), except for the Aztecs and Mayans down in Mexico, whose downfall in the case of the Aztecs probably had to do as much with their own bloody subjugation of neighboring tribes than as a result of the conquistadores. (600 hundred spanish using the weapons of 1519 should have been an easy win for the Aztecs. The Mayans evidently overfarmed, and were already gone as a major political power.) I'm merely saying that though the nazis were dealing with a lot more people, so many that they had to develop all sorts of horrifyingly ingenious methods of doing so, the underlying motivations seem comparable.

There's a tendency to think of the holocaust as a singularly awful point in history. The sad thing is, it's not. It's just that the Nazis were better at what they were doing then most others who have tried, and have received a lot more publicity. But most countries that have ever been powerful, have some sort of deliberate genocide on their hands.

There is also some stuff left on Ward's wiki that probably wouldn't hurt to consider.

Chomsky seems to be applying Lenin's theory of imperialism. The competing theory, that nations grow wealthy by increasing the productivity of their labor, has the advantage over Lenin's of being supported by the evidence.

R.J. Rummel has done history's most exhaustive study on the issue of governmental mass murder. He has calculated the total number of deaths by studying each reported instance of murder and adding them all up, for all of the most destructive regimes of the 20th century (the total for the century came in around 170 million). For perspective, he has done similar research on pre-20th century political mass murder. He was able to document an estimated 6000 deaths of Native Americans at the hands of the United States government. If you wish to argue that there were more than this, please indicate when and where each incident occurred and how many people were killed in each incident. This is recent history in an area with a free press and a literate population - if these events occurred, they would have been documented. Where are the bodies? If the evidence was destroyed, where is the powerful centralized organization that systematically disposed of the evidence over thousands of miles (a powerful centralized oganization would be necessary for a task of that scale). Where are the directives from Washington (there is official documentation of all the modern genocides - why not this one)? Where are the eye-witness accounts (there are eye-witness accounts of all the modern genocides - why not this one)?

A collaborative project like this one could be a valuable tool for this kind of research. We can start of page for IndianMassacres and begin compiling an exhaustive list of incidents.

(curiously, Rummel just sent me this illustration:)

http://aristotle.bomis.com/~tshell/Bodies-Everywhere4.jpg

- TimShell

Okay, okay, I don't wish to be thought of as a lunatic, or be punching bag filler, so I'll depart.

I began with the history again. I'm not from the US, so I think I can be a bit more impartial...I haven't written anything that should cause controversy, yet.

See also : History of United States

Biased

I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American. Of course, there have been dark moments in United States history, but what about the rest? What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men? How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom? How about the United States role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in World War II? Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --Jimbo Wales

I think the article is being remarkably fair. What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application. In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected. America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism. Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.

This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par. But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like. Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.

Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on History of United States/Discussion. Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial. --JoshuaGrosse

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias. The way to achieve lack of bias is to explicitly acknowledge within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements. Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil. It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know.  :-) -- Larry Sanger

My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached. Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page. Only now we have two of those....

Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view. Especially not when the eras are so event oriented. For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history. But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age? That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars. So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.

As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work. That's pretty cool. --JG

I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made. Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history. Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things. It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed. But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person. A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things. This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States. It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights. - TimShell

Tim has excellent points. I second them. The bit about not focusing exclusively on the government is gold. I also think that you needn't feel responsible for the actions done many years before your birth by a government which you now have <<1/280,000,000th of a say in. Simplifications need to be proven helpful before they are adopted. I hold up your guilt as an example of the harm they can do. If you feel bad that some things happened in history (and are still happening), I would think anger at the perpetrators and sympathy for the victims more appropriate responses. These can motivate one to help make things better without being such a burden. Don't you show, by your recognition of the wrong, some distance from it? Sorry, I just don't think you deserve the burden of guilt, so I rambled on trying to fix your psychie or something. I appologize.

That having been said, this is a wiki. The obvious answer, and likely among the best, has been given: write a middle way account and people can link off to pessimistic (or optimistic) interpretations & elaborations as they see fit. Writing the middle way shouldn't be that hard. Let anyone add what they want, and if someone objects to something, off to another page it goes. --PhillipHankins

I have to say here that I feel that the notion that this article can be written with lack of bias or objectivity is fundamentally at fault. Ultimately you are trying to paint a picture of the actions of millions of people over 200 years in a few lines. The extraordinary degree of selectivity this requires is in itself an expression of bias. For instance I suggest that you compare the history of the US, and that which has been written about the USSR. Even their relative sizes is an expression of bias.

History is not and can never be about presenting an unbiased view point. Objectivity is not the point, its merely one tool in the telling of history. To my mind the only way to cope with this situation is to leave the front page of "history of the US" as straight forwards facts and figures (when it was formed, by who, from who, and where it is now), and then link in views from there with an expression of the opinion of the general views of the authorship. Phil Lord

Please add information on how that native peoples of the Americas were massacred in order for this country to exist. This type of massacre is common through out all human history so it not unusual but it should be mentioned. Please also mention that the early American economy and fortunes were due to the enslavement of both native Americans and native Africans. Could it not be said that this country was built on the backs of slaves? This is also not unusual in the course of human history but it should be mentioned. If it was you and your family who were uprooted, raped ,pilaged, and murdered would you want the people who did that to write you out of their history and to pretend that their history was glorious and pristine? Or would you rather they not re-write history in their favor and to remember who they stepped on to get where they are? Thank you. (Moved from /History)

Anyone interested in the issue of Indian massacres can visit out Indian_Massacres page. We are trying to compile a complete list, and add up the total. So far, we've counted about 6000. - Tim

And on a slightly less accusatory note, a quick note about the phrase "In 1776, representatives of the thirteen North American Colonies...". First, there were, at a minimum, sixteen colonies: Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were going concerns in 1776, and that's not even touching on British colonies in the Caribbean. I grant you that Quebec is a bit of a black sheep, but as currently phrased it should count in the "thirteen". In any case, Nova Scotia is definitely not an exception -- unless I'm misremembering, representatives were invited to the party but declined (I believe because of the large British naval base at Halifax). I can't find my copy, but I think Samuel Eliot Morison discusses this a bit in his "History of the American People." I'm not sure what to make of P.E.I., but I do know it came into existance in 1769.

I'd suggest a rewrite to "In 1776, representatives of a large majority of the British colonies in North America (thirteen in all), etc., etc." I'm open to suggestions from those with a little more expertise in the matter -- my interest in the American Revolution is entirely from the standpoint of British Empire history, not US History.

I did find a website that throws a little light on the matter:

http://www.alts.net/ns1625/nshist02.html

-PaulDrye

The article implies that the sinking of the Lusitania was directly responsible for the US entry into the war. Actually, the Lusitania was sunk in 1915, and the US did not enter the war until 1917.

That thing of the Lusitania is enoguh inconsistent and incredible but seems to have been a repeated myth of US historiography.

Moreover, that historic memory seems to be pretty selective, there is not a single word to be said about some of the imperial ventures oF USA:

  • 1898 invasion by USA of Spanish colonies of Cuba, Phillippines and Puerto Rico.
  • the civil wars that ensued in Cuba and Philippines after the indepedence against the American intervention.
  • 1903 intervention in Colombia to achieve the independence of Panama and to fetch the zone to build the canal.
 Perique des Palottes, 2002/07/24

Yes, the Lustiania thing is not the reason the US entered WWI. The final drop was the so-called "Zimmermann telegram", which was intercepted and decoded by the British. It contained an - outrageous - proposal by Germany to Mexico to invade the USA in trade for German arms and support, which would prevent the USA from intervening in Europe. Jheijmans 04:23 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)


The following (from United States) needs to be integrated into this article (and other appropriate articles):


The North American continent was first colonized by asian nomads that crossed the frozen Bering Strait sometime around 20,000 BC. These tribes quickly spread out, reaching Cape Horn roughly 10,000 years later. Although several large, centralized civilizations, such as the Inca in the Andes and the Aztec and Maya in Central America, developed in the western hemisphere, no comparable civilization occured in North America, due to lack of domesticable crops. Corn, which had been transmitted from Mexico, had begun to be farmed in the Mississippi valley by the 15th century AD, but the arrival of Europeans cut short any further development.

Many natives of North America as the Europeans found them were semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers; others were tribally based, more sendentary and agricultural. Many formed tribes in response to European colonization. Well-known tribes include the Huron, Mohawk, Apache, Cherokee, Sioux, Mohegan and Iroquois.

After the European discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492, many explorers from Europe explored the continent, with the Spanish, French, English, Dutch and Swedish establishing colonies. Many of the English colonists were religious refugees.

As England put more taxes and other requirements on its colonies in America, thirteen colonies decided to declare themselves independent in 1776. After a war with England (American Revolution), this culminated in the formation of the United States of America.

As the country expanded to the west, a conflict grew between the southern states and the northern states. In the north, slavery had been abolished, but this was unthinkable in the south, where the economy depended heavily on slave labor. The industrialized north also favored protectionist tariffs, while the agricultural south strongly opposed them; this conflict was arguably more important than slavery. The southern states seceded from the Union, forming the Confederate States of America (Confederacy), which led to the American Civil War. This war ended in 1865, with the Confederacy surrendering.

The country grew into a major industrial power, fed by millions of immigrants, from Europe and Asia. The United States remained neutral at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, but was drawn into the conflict. After the war ended with the Treaty of Versailles, which penalised Germany and the Ottoman Empire as the losers of the war, the USA went back to neutrality.

The United States once again remained neutral at the start of World War II, but after a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Americans declared war on Japan and joined the allied forces led by Great Britain and the Soviet Union. They succeeded in defeating the Germans by May 1945, while Japan capitulated after two atomic bombs in the same year.

After the war, Europe became divided between countries allied with the communist Soviet Union, and countries allied with the United States. These two superpowers became archenemies, leading to the so-called Cold War, which never involved in a real war between the superpowers. With the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, the United States were left as the world's only superpower.

I really don't like the waving flag. It is annoying and my eyes keep getting drawn to it when I'm trying to read the darn article. Thank God I have a browser that can turn off annoying annimations but the vast majority of our visiters can't do this. Please remove the ani gif. --mav

Here's another vote for the non-animated flag, please. --Anon
Flag replaced. --mav 22:38 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
I didn't get to see the animated flag, but I vote against it any way :). Another thing...I'm not sure what is a flag doing anyway in an article about the history of the US.

I would vote for putting a few historical flags near the places where it was adopted (like, the 13 star flag at the begining, an so on, until the 50 star flag when hawaii was granted statehood.--AN

What a great idea! Now we just need a source for the images. --mav
Maybe a reference to Flag of the United States and a rewrite there would be more appropriate? Jeronimo
Take a look at the conversation I'm having with isis on her Talkpage. They shouldn't be too hard to do. BTW, do you guys think we need some policy on multiple identical flag images or not? Scipius 22:58 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
Having multiple images doesn't seem to be too important either way, but having an annoying waving flag alongside text is a problem. --mav

-- Since you're looking for sources of some of the older US flags, here's a link: http://www.usflag.org/toc.flags.html --

I suggest include a section about history of territory composition of the U.S.A.', i.e.:

  • The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The parts of the Trust that are or are not still a territory of the U.S.A
  • Outer Continental Shelf Lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
  • Canal Zone. Did it go back to Panama with the Canal in 1999?.
I believe that the Canal Zone has been surrendered. -Smack 05:23 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article requires substantial work. So far I’ve been splitting it up and adding content. It remains a work in progress. 172

Should the Timeline of United States history be included in the boilerplate table? -Smack 05:23 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1092210402"