Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wanna go back to the Siberian tribes crossing the then intact land bridge, populating North America, Central America, finally South America??? some how many thousands and thousands of years gone by????
look, people overtake whole continents either slowly or by conquest.... most people have no idea what that Marine hymn means "to the shores of Tripoli"....at the very outset, we were inserting ourselves into foreign affairs we shouldn't have. period.
as for the erroneus statement that America only obtained colonies in the 20th century? omg. woeful. back in the early 1800's there was the AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY..... which founded a colony in Africa for manumitted slaves which immediately raised the hackles of prominent African slaves who had bought their freedom and who called it for what it was, an attempt to rid the US of black people entirely. pullllllleeeze, pulllllleeeze know your American history.... the country we now know as Liberia was an American colony, capitol city? Monrovia, named for President Monroe, for goodness sakes....and to this very day, school children in Liberia say the Pledge of Allegiance. yes. they. do.
wanna go back to the Siberian tribes crossing the then intact land bridge, populating North America, Central America, finally South America??? some how many thousands and thousands of years gone by????
look, people overtake whole continents either slowly or by conquest.... most people have no idea what that Marine hymn means "to the shores of Tripoli"....at the very outset, we were inserting ourselves into foreign affairs we shouldn't have. period.
as for the erroneus statement that America only obtained colonies in the 20th century? omg. woeful. back in the early 1800's there was the AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY..... which founded a colony in Africa for manumitted slaves which immediately raised the hackles of prominent African slaves who had bought their freedom and who called it for what it was, an attempt to rid the US of black people entirely. pullllllleeeze, pulllllleeeze know your American history.... the country we now know as Liberia was an American colony, capitol city? Monrovia, named for President Monroe, for goodness sakes....and to this very day, school children in Liberia say the Pledge of Allegiance. yes. they. do.
Liberia was a private venture and was never "ruled" by the US.
That's the revisionist history, but natives in Central and South America encountered the same European diseases and did just fine. It's the reason so many Mexican immigrants have brown skin. They are natives.
Genocide was US governmental policy throughout the entire 19th century.
Rather I see your view as the revisionist history. The US policy towards American Indians was always removal, by force if needed, and resettlement. The treatment of American Indians was cruel indeed, and there are instances of massacres, but there is no indication that the US government had a policy of extermination of Indians.
Yeah, there are websites and blogs devoted to "The US Genocide of Indians" just like there are websites and blogs devoted to UFO's and Bigfoot. Don't believe everything you read.
And South and Central American Indians died in droves from European diseases, not sure where your fact is from but you are wrong on a monumental scale. When Cortez arrived in Mexico the native population was estimated at 30 million, 50 years later it was 3 million.
The reason so many latinos have brown skin is related to the type of colonization of Spain (men only, etc...out of scope for this discussion but it has been covered in history forum before) and certainly not because "they did just fine" under Spanish rule.
as for the erroneus statement that America only obtained colonies in the 20th century? omg. woeful. back in the early 1800's there was the AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY..... which founded a colony in Africa for manumitted slaves which immediately raised the hackles of prominent African slaves who had bought their freedom and who called it for what it was, an attempt to rid the US of black people entirely. pullllllleeeze, pulllllleeeze know your American history.... the country we now know as Liberia was an American colony, capitol city? Monrovia, named for President Monroe, for goodness sakes....and to this very day, school children in Liberia say the Pledge of Allegiance. yes. they. do.
talk about off topic....
As stated, Liberia was never a US government colony and it's colonization was never funded by the government. It gained independence a few decades after settled. Ironically it has to compete with French and British ruled colonies that limited it's ability to expand.
Do you mean the westward expansion of the United States? That was not really an example of colonization as much as it was expansion and annexation. If you mean the English colonization along the Atlantic coast, it shouldn't really be seen as the settlement of one area. The development of the 13 colonies happened somewhat organically. England was overcrowded and the opportunity to own land was the draw for colonists who made the trek over. Indentured servitude and African slavery met the demands for cheap labor that supplied England with needed resources, so there was no real need to try to subjugate the native population for labor.
What you are asking isn't really clear.
The first permanent English colony was Jamestown in 1607. It was an economic venture. The Pilgrims didn’t land in Cape Cod until 1620. They were seeking religious freedom. Neither had to do with the overcrowding of England.
Ummm.....the indigenous population of America was enslaved for a period. Not sure what the OP is getting at. As others have mentioned our country also colonized other islands and used/enslaved those populations as well.
In regards to African slavery, there were African slaves taken all over the world as slaves. A large amount of indigenous Americans though died off due to disease and murder by the Europeans. On Caribbean islands though many of them were enslaved and subsequently had children with African slaves.
About 20% of blacks in America also have at least 1% native ancestry, meaning we have a very distant great grandparent - usually from the 1600s or 1700s who was an indigenous American. I have some native ancestors. They didn't show up in my DNA results but they did show up in my grandfather's DNA results. He is "closer" to them genetically and he is about 2% native. Due to him having a lot of "free" ancestry I had been able to trace his ancestry to the 1600s and he is a descendant of tribes who were native to Virginia (Nansemond, Tuscarora, Saponi). We tested to confirm my genealogical research and it was confirmed.
wanna go back to the Siberian tribes crossing the then intact land bridge, populating North America, Central America, finally South America??? some how many thousands and thousands of years gone by????
look, people overtake whole continents either slowly or by conquest.... most people have no idea what that Marine hymn means "to the shores of Tripoli"....at the very outset, we were inserting ourselves into foreign affairs we shouldn't have. period.
as for the erroneus statement that America only obtained colonies in the 20th century? omg. woeful. back in the early 1800's there was the AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY..... which founded a colony in Africa for manumitted slaves which immediately raised the hackles of prominent African slaves who had bought their freedom and who called it for what it was, an attempt to rid the US of black people entirely. pullllllleeeze, pulllllleeeze know your American history.... the country we now know as Liberia was an American colony, capitol city? Monrovia, named for President Monroe, for goodness sakes....and to this very day, school children in Liberia say the Pledge of Allegiance. yes. they. do.
America did not colonize/set up Liberia. There were some white Americans who were interested in sending manumitted slaves there and convincing the free black population to move there but it was not a government funded thing.
The ACS was private citizens, not the government.
Note, I have distant in-laws who were free blacks who did move to Liberia and who helped to build Monrovia. I've done a lot of study of the ACS and the ideas of the free black population for and against emigration there. Blacks in America who supported emigrating to a different country primarily supported moving to Canada, Haiti, or Central America (Mexico). Many of them had a negative view of Africans due to tribe's participation on the continent in the African slave trade.
Frederick Douglass himself was against ACS emigration plans and advocated that free blacks not move to Liberia due to 1 - feeling that whites wanted to use then throw away the black population now that they felt bad about enslaving them and treating them bad all these centuries, 2 - African tribes in Liberia were involved in the slave trade and so going back amonst them would be just as bad as living with whites in America, and 3 - free blacks by and large considered America their country (referred to it as "our native land" - this phrase is actually in the black national anthem - Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing - it means America, not Africa) and they weren't going to let anyone take them from their country. They primarily supported lobbying to get access to the army/military during the Civil War so they could fight for their own freedom - which black men did in very high percentages, especially in "free" states.
Liberia was not a colony of the USA. Also most of the free blacks who moved there came back to America. My in-law mentioned above died on the way back to the USA but wrote about how his 13 years in Monrovia, he could never get used to the "culture" of the natives and that they were culturally different people and this could not be resolved. So he moved himself and his family back to the USA. He died on the journey back but his wife and children moved back to Pennsylvania.
North America, Australia and to a lesser extent South Africa and Kenya are different than the other colonized areas in that those places offered less in terms of extractive mineral or agricultural wealth while at the same time provide lots of land suitable to European style farming. Because of this and other circumstances peculiar to English culture there were lots of European families willing to move and start new lives in these areas. Since they mostly wanted to continue their traditional way of life they had no need or interest in dealing with "native people" but instead saw them as nuisance and competitors who just need to be removed.
With the possible exception of Argentina the rest of South America, Africa and Asia are not appealing to lower class European families. Only single males looking for adventure settle in these other colonies and most of them probably went back home after they made their fortune.
Yeah, um.....no. Sounds like somebody made a miscalculation re: the bolded. AFAIK, England wasn't sending people to Australia to farm it. They were just getting rid of undesirables, many of whom weren't farmers.
Also, the strange thing about "European style farming" is that it was very dysfunctional. I don't know how it survived in Europe, which has such a relatively small land mass, and a population bursting at the seams. The colonists in New England would deplete the soil of the land they were allotted by the Native peoples, and had to ask for more, every few years, according to some history reports. If Europeans didn't know how to farm sustainably, how is it that farming in Europe didn't collapse? If they did have sound agricultural practices in Europe, why didn't those skills transfer to their new locations?
Also, according to some historians, the settlers did exploit their new home for resources; Europe's forests were being consumed not only for building, but for fuel for heat and for powering metallurgy and other industry of the time. At some point in the colonies' development, raw timber was being shipped back to Europe.
Yeah, um.....no. Sounds like somebody made a miscalculation re: the bolded. AFAIK, England wasn't sending people to Australia to farm it. They were just getting rid of undesirables, many of whom weren't farmers.
Also, the strange thing about "European style farming" is that it was very dysfunctional. I don't know how it survived in Europe, which has such a relatively small land mass, and a population bursting at the seams. The colonists in New England would deplete the soil of the land they were allotted by the Native peoples, and had to ask for more, every few years, according to some history reports. If Europeans didn't know how to farm sustainably, how is it that farming in Europe didn't collapse? If they did have sound agricultural practices in Europe, why didn't those skills transfer to their new locations?
Also, according to some historians, the settlers did exploit their new home for resources; Europe's forests were being consumed not only for building, but for fuel for heat and for powering metallurgy and other industry of the time. At some point in the colonies' development, raw timber was being shipped back to Europe.
By European style farming I only meant growing cereal crops that they like to eat as opposed to cassava or other more exotic tropical staples. Of course all colonizers made use of resources of the land they took over, but North America had nothing nearly as profitable as precious metals, sugar and spice and so wasn't initially suited for the type of exploitative plantation style system more common in South America.
Yeah Australia was different. I did miscalculate there. I guess the main commonality it shared with North America is that both became sparsely populated after disease wiped out 90% of the natives.
wanna go back to the Siberian tribes crossing the then intact land bridge, populating North America, Central America, finally South America??? some how many thousands and thousands of years gone by????
look, people overtake whole continents either slowly or by conquest.... most people have no idea what that Marine hymn means "to the shores of Tripoli"....at the very outset, we were inserting ourselves into foreign affairs we shouldn't have. period.
as for the erroneus statement that America only obtained colonies in the 20th century? omg. woeful. back in the early 1800's there was the AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY..... which founded a colony in Africa for manumitted slaves which immediately raised the hackles of prominent African slaves who had bought their freedom and who called it for what it was, an attempt to rid the US of black people entirely. pullllllleeeze, pulllllleeeze know your American history.... the country we now know as Liberia was an American colony, capitol city? Monrovia, named for President Monroe, for goodness sakes....and to this very day, school children in Liberia say the Pledge of Allegiance. yes. they. do.
"From the halls of Montezuma....." Yikes! Methinks it's time for a new hymn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yikes! Methinks it's time for a new hymn.
