Talk:History of the Americas

Discovery
"Thousands of years after the Indians arrived, the continent was rediscovered by Europeans." Perhaps "discover" would be a better word as the word "rediscover" implies that Native Americans original discovery was somehow not valid, and the European discovery was.

Discovery of America redirects to the European colonization subsection of this article. I propose that it instead redirects to Voyages of Christopher Columbus.

Cronica universalis written by the Milanese friar Galvaneus Flamma (it. Galvano Fiamma, d. c. 1345) written in the 1340s contains a reference to a terra que dicitur Marckalada, situated west from Greenland. This land is recognizable as the Markland mentioned by some Icelandic sources and identified by scholar Paolo Chiesa as some part of the Atlantic coast of North America. The exact text: "Inde versus occidens est terra quedam que dicitur Marckalada, ubi gigantes habitant et sunt hedifitia habentia lapides saxeos tam grandes quod nullus homo posset in hedifitio collocare nisi essent gygantes maximi. Ibi sunt arbores virides et animalia et aves multe nimis. Nec umquam fuit aliquis marinarius qui de ista terra nec de eius condictionibus aliquid scire potuerit pro certo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogidoo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Mormon beliefs in article
Should the Mormons' "theory" for the history of the Americas really even be mentioned on this page? There is no evidence of any kind in support of their ideas and plenty against them. Their ideas of the matter are purely religious and it feels strange to see them mentioned almost as equals to what really happened.

I agree. I have a theory that the Americas are made of green cheese and rest on the back of a giant turtle. Why does my theory not get equal billing? This is NPOV taken to excess. I vote againt Mormon colonisation of Wikipedia. Adam 01:18, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * We should keep it. There is a lot of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon; the anti-mormons just decide to ignore that and ignore the real answers to their claims. Nothing in the Book of Mormon contradicts the history set forth here. It never claims to be the only society in America. See Jeff Lindsay's Book of Mormon Evidences page, http://farms.byu.edu, and http://www.shields-research.org.


 * The Book of Mormon part of this article should be re-worded and put into a separate section about alternative beliefs into the discovery/settlement of the Americas, or it should be removed. The archaeological "evidence" for the Book of Mormon is widely open to interpretation; it neither proves nor disproves anything about the Book of Mormon. It's a problem similar to Biblical archaeology: Just because people did something in a particular place, doesn't mean it was a Biblical event. Ultimately, the Book of Mormon presents a religious viewpoint, which is ultimately accepted on faith, like the Bible. I think readers would be better served with an edit that went something like this:


 * "Other groups have different beliefs about ancient visitors to the Americas. For example, the Book of Mormon, a religious text used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement, follows a family of Israelites who set out for the "promised land" about 600 BC."


 * I'd prefer to re-word the Mormon part and put it into a separate section than to remove it, since it presents an opportunity to include other beliefs as well (which someone will almost certainly add). I would take out the word "theory" to describe the Book of Mormon's and others' alternative explanations. Any thoughts? Lorem Ipsum 19:49, 5 Jan 2005 UTC


 * Well, I'm okay with that rewording, but I don't what you mean by placing it another section. I think it does well there at the bottom. And we should still include the link to Ancient visitors to the Americas. :) Cookiecaper 04:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans
"The history of the Americas begins with their colonization by Native Americans"   This quote seems oxymoronic to me.

Since Homo sapiens is not native to the Americas, there ought to be a more accurate term for the earlier settlers. 24.31.216.105 01:48, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The term "Native Americans" is not descriptive, it what they choose (today) to call themselves. That should be respected.

Perhaps the sentence could read: "The history of the Americas begins with their colonization by peoples from Asia, the ancestors of today's Native Americans"   Adam 03:43, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, "colonization" is not an accurate term either, since the first people in America kept no ties to their homeland in Asia. How about "settled," "peopled," or "populated?" And a perfectly acceptable academic term for Native Americans as a group is "Amerindian." This term is often seen in connection with the people when they had first migrated to America and had not developed distinct cultures yet.

where the Eskimo?

The history of the Americas split by the nationality of the "colonizers"!? This is very weird, to say the least. I mean, why not "Left-handed-people colonization of America" and "Right-handed-people colonization of the Americas"? Jorge Stolfi 04:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Civilization definition
To Rmhermen, Civilization is not the same as culture! Iroquois where no civilization, its a culture, band of tribes. If you disagree, then this article should be a NPOV. Foant 11:32, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
 * Yes I absolutely disagree with your restrivtive definition of civilization. The Iroquois were one of the most advanced "civilizations" in North America north of Mexico. They had villages, individual land ownership, religion, trade monopolies, not to mention a constitution which is often said to have inspired the U.S. constitution. I suggest you read the entire civilization article to understand the difficulties inherent in the use of this term. Rmhermen 21:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the Civilization article fully, and Culture. They where the most advanced culture and on the brink of starting a civilization, but they didnt. individual land ownsership=private property does not constitute a civilization. Neither do I belive they had a as well organized religion as real civilizations, like the Maya. Trade monopolis does not constitute a civilization either by itself, or trade for that matter. Trade has been proven to have existed in the world since like 40 000BC where sea-shells where found hundreds of kilometers inland where there was no sea, suggesting that the people had traded... A Constitution does not consittute a civilization Either. Inspiring the US does not count as being a civilization either. See the Civilization article for the definitions, I say again. If the iroquois where a civilization, then Piraha are a civilization aswell... They have a religion, traded with europeans and trade with foreginers and have a sense of personal property.... I think you want to include Iroquois just because they where in North America and it is said that they inspired the US constitution. A culture is Not established like a civilization. Please stop pushing for including Iroquois SOMEHOW, in the article. You can mention them in the See also. The comparison to the old war is being made by almost any serious books ive read on the subject, take the pyramids of maya for example, does look like those in egypt doesnt it? Foant 16:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * I have read them closely. And I find that you are ignoring parts of them like second definition given on the page and the entire "problems with the term" section as well as the quote on the culture page which equates the two terms. You seem wedded to a civilization means monumental architecture and the implication that only societies that produce are important as seen as those are the only ones you want the article lead to mention.

As for your line about new world civilization being later than old world ones it is too vague to be meaningful. Do you mean that Roman civilization was older is older than the Chavin or the Byzantine culture older than the Maya? What do you mean that it was just like the old world. I missed the maize cultivation in Greece or the iron weapons of the Inca. Rmhermen 18:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Proposing a different solution. Yet I still belive Iroqouis should not be mentioned as well as Piraha in the sense of a culture. A culture as the article on culture says came to wide use in Europe to mean the Civilized, those who cultivize, while I doubt the Iroqouis made their survival on agriculture and Piraha definetly does not cultivate the land. Piraha are a tribe, a ethnic group if you will. Iroquois is a band of tribes, a federation of tribes or ethnic groups. They have a culture, but not the the definition wich equates culture with civilization. Because of these issues, culture leaning towards cultivation, I belive it should not be mentioned, it is enough to mention those civilizations which are civilizations and cannot be disputed. Thus avoiding this issue? You have a problem with that?


 * Being later than the old world means that civilizations, in its most definitive sense, EMERGED later than the first civilizations of the old world. Do you want to dispute this? Is there any civilization in the "new world" which formed earlier than those first civilisations in the "old world"? Just like the old world, means civilizations where started just like in the old world, thru irrigation systems, contorl of water or control and so on, built pyramids/large wonders just like the old world (and agriculture, doesnt matter what crops they grew, war doesnt matter with what they killed each other). You could have asked what I meant by it instead of taking on a edit war. BTW, "You seem wedded to a civilization means monumental architecture", I told my personal definitions of a civilization, which are those written on the civilization page. I want the article to mention those civilizations which where civilizations by the definition given in the civilization article, most of the points, not only one or two. Sincerely yours. Foant 19:57, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Pre-history??
I hate to be a picky historian -- but most events in North, Central and South America would be considered prehistoric as they took place without benefit of written records. Would a change of title be more appropriate or should a discussion of the application of historic terms and perspective be included in the body of the article? WBardwin 07:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point, but adopting a literal interpretation of "history" in the title (ie, renaming to something like prehistory of the Americas) would bring its own set of problems. For eg, if requiring to demarcate by when written records appear, the account of events in Mesoamerica would have to break off sometime in the mid 1st millennium BCE, but other regions continue on up until the 16th C, even beyond. I think that the article could live with using "history" its common, non-specific sense of "account of things which have happened", since the intent of this article seems to be providing a potted overview of human events in the Americas. Indeed, the title is the least of this article's problems, it has a long way to go to reach comparable standards- IMO.--cjllw | TALK  08:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article needs a great deal of work. The scope of the title alone is intimidating. But the fact that it must use archaeology, ethnology, and linquistics to create a narrow picture of the history of the American continents needs to be clearly addressed and explained. Archaeology/anthropology and history, while brother disciplines, have differing standards for documentation and peer review. History, while undoubtedly written by the victors, searches for and contrasts primary and secondary documents with contrasting points of view. Archaeology/anthropology must create the sources of information, defend them, and ultimately be willing to alter them when new information becomes available. I am new to the article, and will have to think about alternative ways of dealing with the subject. But, certainly, a more complete examination of current controversies on dating the first wave of people would be a good place to start. Look forward to working with you, CJLL Wright. Best wishes. WBardwin 09:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, WBardwin, and I agree that given the article's near-limitless scope, it can only ever hope to serve as an umbrella article with pointers to other relevant articles which can (or should) cover the many and varied facets in the detail they deserve. That being said, I also agree that the article should be much more than a bare list, and needs some wide-ranging but succint narrative to interweave the various topics. Tackling a summary on the initial migrations to the New World is a logical place to start as you point out. Perhaps if this can be nutted out in a paragraph or two, it will be easier to see the way forward in improving the rest, and better defining the scope. As we progress, we may even find relevant areas which are currently lacking in coverage, such as a comparative discussion on the different disciplines and how they have informed present knowledge on the subject. It may also be productive to firstly compile some listing here of existing articles whose coverage can be summarised and/or linked to in this one- I'll start hunting around for these. --cjllw |  TALK  01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

European colonization section
The section is too simplistic because it puts together two models of colonization that were very different. In most of Spanish America, Native Americans or Mestizos (of Native American and European Origins) make up the basis of the population. In Mexico Native Americans and Mestizos make up 89% of the population, being the white population only 9%. Roughly the same can be said of Central America, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador etc..

On the other hand, Native Americans were virtually eliminated in the US and Canada. The present population of Native Americans in these two countries is negligible and bears no comparison with Spanish America, although they are increasing their number now under the description of Hispanic, buy immigration from Spanish America.

In short, those two extremely different situations should be dealt with in the article.
 * While every section of this article is sorely lacking in detail, the situation is not as clear cut as you claim. You have ignored the effects of disease, war and slavery in eliminating most Native Americans in Spanish American (and Portugese America) as well as the importation of 8 millions of black Africans into the area. Rmhermen 04:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Native Americans suffered death, slavery and exploitation in Spanish America, and many continue to do so, since the white elites continue to control the power and the resources of those countries at the expense of the majority of the population, but still they, along with mestizos, make up the majority of the population in that area, which means that they have not only survived, but that they have also prevailed in terms of population. That situation is very different from the one in the US where they were exterminated. It is as simple as crossing the South border of the US to see the huge difference. Both models of colonization were very different and cannot be elaborated on in the same way.

I have made a contribution in the article that has been modified a bit. I think that the change is good, but I find there 3 discrepancies.

1. Native Americans were exterminated virtually everywhere...., but make up the majority of the population in many Central American And south American countries.

2. ¨One reason for this is less European immigration¨. It should be noted that many are Mestizos, which means that there were a lot of European immigrants two, only they mixed with the Native Americans.

3. ¨The lack of white-black classification. I find this sentece a bit out of place. We are speaking of Näive Americans. Maybe it means ¨the more inclusive nature of Latin American society¨.

I think these aspects should be elaborated better.
 * Re: 1. Native Americans were exterminated virtually everywhere - correct and in some places like the Caribbean they were completely eliminated, in other places they recovered with various admixtures of European and African "bloodlines". Some few places like the deep Amazon may have had tribes untouched by the process, at least judging by disease susceptibility. Not sure what the question is.
 * 2. The numbers of Mestizos merely means that the number of acknowledged intermarriages was large. The immigration numbers found far larger numbers of Europeans immigrating (and surviving long enough to have children) to the North America. 25 million arrived from Europe just between 1866 and 1915 at a time when the total Indian population was less than 500,000.
 * 3. Could be written better - in Latin America a Native American with some black blood is one of a number of different kinds of mix but can be counted as an Indian. In the U.S. even "one drop" made a person black. On the other side, the government historically reclassified many mixed raced persons as white, to deprive them of their treaty rights and land claims. Being Indian was often not socially desirable either. This led to the practice of passing among both blacks and Indians. Rmhermen 23:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The question if simple: There is a difference between large amount of casualties everywhere and extermination. Native Americans and Mestizos were always the majority of the population in the areas mentioned, therefore extermination is a contradiction in terms. I think it is a problem of the right term to apply.
 * Indians were not entirely exterminated - I agree that is too strong a word which is why the text says virtually exterminated. There are also millions throughout North America, too. However the large majority of them died everywhere. In some locations -tribes did disappeared entirely, for instance, numerous Caribbean islands and a some East Coast North American tribes due to the combination of disease followed by war. Some other tribes were destroyed by neighboring tribes trying to expand their territory for business or just away from the new settlers. These include the Neutrals and Erie tribes. But in most cases survivors were incorporated into other tribes or communities. A recent DNA study showed that Puerto Rico, where Indian communities ceased to exist early and whose residents have traditionally been considered primarily Spanish, has a very high level of Native American DNA and significant African heritage. Rmhermen 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The numbers of intermarriages was large because there were large numbers of Europeans to take part in them. I think it is obvious.
 * Not true - the number of Europeans was small both relative to the Native population and relative to the immigrants to North America. The large number of Mestizos can also result from a relatively small number of early marriages but the social acceptablility of mixed race identification. However, mostly I object because it seems wrong to discuss the survival of culture where most of the culture carriers were in fact lost and I think you are trying to underplay the large extant of mixed race heritage - especially that of Africans.

3. The number of Native American and Mestizos with black ancestors in that area is minimal. I do not understand this part at all.
 * This is not true in many areas. A large amount of mixing occured, and for instance in Mexico, the black population primarily integrated into the Mestizo one. See mulatto, zambo, black Mexican, quadroon, octaroon, quintroon, etc. Even a small amount of mixing in a small population results in a fairly large degree of mixed race ancestry as the population progresses through time and as the population undergoes a large increase. Rmhermen 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A few long notes on one basic topic. Part of the reason for mestizo domination in Central and South America is that almost all early Spanish colonists were men.  They were either out to make their fortune and return home, or planned to establish a place for themselves in the new world.  Few women and fewer children were brought from the old world.  Almost all men took one or more native wives/mistresses and fathered children.  These children generally took their father's name and settled into the Spanish class system.  As adults, they tended to marry other mestizos.  Spanish/French colonists who arrived later followed a different pattern by bringing their extended families with them, and almost exclusively intermarrying among white families.  Today, many of these families comprise the uppercrust of Southern countries.
 * North American colonists arrived in clutches of adventurers, profiteers and religious groups. While some of them (many French) intended to immediately return to Europe, others planned to permanently settle.  They generally arrived later than the Spanish to the south, of course, and found a significantly reduced native population due to the rapid spread of old world disease.  Fewer native women were available to the white adventurers, and fewer children were born.  The settler type (more often British or Dutch) usually brought their wives and families with them, or promptly sent for them once they had established a home base.  There was very little intermarriage in this group.  French colonists in North America were more likely to follow the Spanish pattern (i.e. the Metis), than the English.  Of course, the conclusion of the French and Indian War greatly reduced French influence on future decision.
 * I have a relatively personal opinion about the effects of both racism and religion among the two groups. Spanish and Portuguese history was full of waves of invasion, conflict and cultural mixing.  Many Spaniards/Portuguese, of many classes, were of mixed heritage.  Moors/Moslems, remnants of the North African Punic colonies and some other Africans had left their imprint on the gene pool.  The Spanish crowns required many Jewish families to convert to Christianity, and so many Spaniards had Jewish genes as well.  When they met Native Americans, they made personal distinctions more on the class of the individual than her race, often taking women from the highest classes as their wives.  They sought and sometimes forced conversion of natives to the Catholic faith, which all European colonists recognized as at least a cultural standard.  Converts to the Church were immediately placed within the Spanish/Portuguese class system, often in the lower classes of course.
 * Although British colonists were pure white bread, they saw racial/ethnic distinctions within themselves due to the long history of conflicts within the island communities. The British class system of the time was very aware of families that intermarried with the Scottish or Irish barbarians.  In their view, intermarriage with these new native barbarians was even more appalling.  This view probably led to the later enthusiasm for removing tribes of natives further and further west or in exterminating them altogether.  Significant religious differences within the British colonies had an impact as well, as Catholics, Congregationalists, Church of England, Scotch/Irish Protestants and Free-Thinkers vied for supremacy.  Although some Christian missionary work was successful among the natives, it did not lead to their acceptance in the white class system or community.  Lasting French patterns of Catholic acceptance, tolerance and intermarriage can still be seen in French Canada and in the remnants of Cajan/French culture in the American South.  Opinions welcome.  WBardwin 07:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of your reasons are right, others not. One which is absolutely wrong is to imply that the British are pure Whites and the Spanish not. I know it is a popular view in the US. You could use some basic information on the subject.

1. The Berber influence in the Spanish people genetic pool was minimal.

2. In any case Berbers are also Caucasian.

3. To imply that the Jews are not white is not only ignorant, but suspicious.
 * This is was historically a widely held opinion. When discussing the past we must be careful not to impose modern opinions on the reasoning of our predecessors. Rmhermen 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3. The British Isles underwent different ways of invaders in the same way as the Spanish did. In the case of the British the Anglo-Saxons predominated at the end. In the case of the Spanish, the Romans. That is why the English are an Anglosaxon nation and the Spanish a Latin or Roman nation, like the Italian people, by the way, genetically almost identical to the Spanish.
 * Genetically, the British are not predominately Anglo-Saxon. Rmhermen 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

4. You could also have a look at Cavalli-Sforza's work, the most important Geneticist of the 20th century, to try to clarify some points in which I think you are rather confused:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg This is only an extreme summary. I would recommend that you read the entire book.

So, do not confuse European Germanic as white/European Mediterranean as not so white, especially when the European and Middle Eastern Mediterraneans are responsible for most civilizations associated with the white peoples: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, even Christian and Western civilizations in their foundations. Needless to mention the role of the Iberians (The Spanish and Portuguese) in the discovery, exploration and shaping of the modern world. Germanic peoples appeared extremely late in the picture. In any case, they all belong to different sub-groups of the same race.

So, after this important clarification, needed to confront some views held in America and stemming from pathetic Nordicist theories, let's go back to the main issue:

Obviously we can analyse in as much detail as possible these two different situations, but the bottom line is that they are absolutely different. In Spanish America, Native Americans, either in pure form or as Mestizos, have survived to become the basis of the population. In the US and Canada they were wiped off. By the way, if you analyse the models of colonisation by the English or the Dutch in other regions of the globe, you will see pretty much the same pattern.
 * When virtually all the culture carriers die, it is difficult to say that Native Americans survived. This occured equally in both North and South America. The difference is that relatively few Europeans moved to the Southern colonies, so even the remnaint Indian population formed a significant proportion of the total population, and many Europeans married Native Americans whose children remained culturally Native to some extent. This is why they make up a majority of the population today. "models of colonisation by the English or the Dutch in other regions of the globe" - not true at all - for instance it is virtually impossible to find an Englishman descended from early settlers in India today, - there was never a large base of settlers and most left after independence. Similarly with the Dutch in Indonesia. The population of Jamaica is certainly not predominately English, either. As for "do not confuse European Germanic as white/European Mediterranean as not so white," please understand that this was a long held belief in the U.S. - although less popular recently. Rmhermen 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Dutch were colonised by the Spanish for hundreds of years, the same as other European nations, and they were not wiped off either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_empire
 * There was little (although not none) permanent settlement of Spaniards in the Netherlands or of intermarriage of Dutch and Spaniards. Territories frequently shifted allegiances due to marriages and complex inheritances - it does not mean that significant colonization occured. Rmhermen 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Low Countries were a Spanish colony for long (roughly the present Holland, Belgium and Louxembourg) The Dutch have bitter memories of that past, and they fought bravely and for decades for their independence. The Netherlands were so important to the Spaniards, that in fact, the Spanish Armada never tried to invade Englad directly. Its aim was to transport the Spanish troops that were based in the Netherlands into England to invade it, something it could not do because it was destroyed.

As to your comments of long-held beliefs, we are not here to write about articles basing our information on supertition. I, myself, was told to believe that Jews were not human, and a lot of people like me thought that before. Maybe you think that we can use this argument to speak about the Jews because people believed it. Precisely the aim of an Encyclopeadia is to educate, to to perpetuate superstition.

As to the English and Dutch partterns of colonisation, it was always the same. If they did not wipe out the native population, they left, but they never mixed with them in significant numbers. If neither option was available, they set up Apartheid systems, like the one in South Africa.
 * Not really - the Netherlands was the property of Spain for less than a century, and this does not bear on the point I made above about this matter. No it is the aim of the historian to understand the past on its own terms - not to reinterpret the past based on modern conceits. Your comparison of English and Dutch parterns of colonisation gives itself the lie and is not even complete at that. Rmhermen 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. It is true that Belgium was a Spanish colony much longer than Holland, but Holland´s indepence was not recongnized for longer than a century.

In any case, the Iberian patterns of colonisation and the English or Dutch were very different. We could use many examples. The Philippines were Spanish for centuries, actually unitll 1898. There are not many Spaniards left, but an important Mestizo minority of Spanish and Filipino ancestry. Once again admituxe with the native population. You cannot find the same pattern in India or Indonesia.


 * In regard to my comments above and the following discussion (which seems to be veering off somewhere), I'm not saying that the people of the British Isles were "white" as in Caucasian, or that the Spanish penninsula genetic ancestors were "nonwhite" or "black" (I personally hold the anthropological opinion that races really do not exist) but by the time the Saniards, Portuguese, British and Northern Europeans began colonizing the Americas, there was a distinction between how the northerners and southerners viewed the world. The British had made a strong distinction between their heritage and the heritage of other parts of the world -- even those of their close neighbors, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.  The British concept (although later) of the "white man's burden" originated in the self image, the "purist" image, of the people of the British Isles.  Although Pilgrims were quick to acknowledge that the Indians they met were a "handsome people" -- they never completely saw them as human (of course they didn't see the Welsh, my ancestors, as human either).  And the "half-breed" was a social misfit in most British cultural contexts.  This was not true in Central and South America, where the class of a man's Spanish father gave him opportunities and a social position. So my overall point is -- that the survival of a larger and more prominent mestizo population to the South may be based on the assumptions and viewpoints of the European social structures of the colonies in the New World.  Sources on the viewpont will vary from century to century, with modern historians and sociologists being more revisionist, but we should be able to find sources for the article that will present a range of views. Finding the time to look them up is another thing.  Sigh!  WBardwin 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, your point is much clearer now. Sometimes things need to be explained just in sufficient detail, because otherwise they may seem to mean something else. In fact, your clarification is in perfect unison with the point that I am trying to highlight, in relation to the two different patterns of colonisation.

The present population of Native Americans in these two countries is negligible and bears no comparison with Spanish America, although they are increasing their number now under the description of Hispanic, buy immigration from Spanish America.

Hey guys, after all your conversation above can you explain what is the meaning of the above paragraph? I want to understand how the "Native American" population in the United States is "increasing" due to the immigration from Spanish America. As far as I know the majority of the population in Latin America is conformed by Latin Americans. You may like to check the Latin America Population article  where clearly explains that:

"'In Bolivia and Peru Amerindians make up the largest segment of the population, while in Ecuador, Guatemala and Mexico, they are sizable minorities. In the rest of the region, most people with a Native American lineage are admixed with one or more other ethnic lineages.'"

From the Multiracial article:

"The terms multiracial and mixed-race describe people who are not easily classified into a single race." From the same article, Words for this concept, including other languages used in English:

Mulatto and mestizo are used in Spanish and metis in French. "Half-breed" is a now old-fashioned and pejorative term used for people of partial Native American ancestry.

From the point of view of Latinamericans multiracial is a more accurate term. As you can see in the Mexico article Mestizos and Native American are classifed as different "races" despite being related by heritage:

Mestizos (those of European and Amerindian ancestry) form the largest group, comprising up to 60%–75% of the total population.[48] Amerindians called indigenous peoples (indígenas) are estimated to be between 12% (pure Amerindian)[69] and 30% (predominantly Amerindian).[48] Indigenous peoples are considered the foundation of the Mexican pluricultural nation and therefore enjoy self-determination in certain areas. Indigenous languages are also considered "national languages" and are protected by law. A full blood Native American, which I believed is the object of this article is not a Mestizo even if they are part of Latin American and regardless of how proud the Latinos feel about their Native Ancestry, Mestizos are not Native Americans.

Finally, the Definition of Whiteness in the US define almost all Mestizo or Latin American as white people:

It defines "white people" as "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa

Considering that a great majority of people in Latin America can trace their European ancestry a as far as many "white americans" then I see no further reason to say that all Mestizos are Native Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauvarca (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mormons?
I think the Mormon part absolutely out of place. I think this article should be more serious.


 * What makes you think the Mormon's aren't serious in their beliefs? We should strive for a neutral point of view, yes, but present many opinions and assertions as well.  WBardwin 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I respect the Mormon's beliefs, but they belong to religious beliefs. I think that if we want to speak about the origins of species, we should mention Darwin, or Lamark, but not what the Bible, Greek Mythology, Scandinvian Mythology etc, think about the origins of species. HCC.


 * origin of species?? I assume that you are not implying that human beings evolved in the Western hemisphere?  The Mormon's present a viewpoint, yes -- based upon their scripture -- that several groups immigrated to the western hemisphere over time.  Their "groups" are not confirmed by archaeology, but there are other theorists out there that support the concept of seperate groups influencing the genetic and cultural mix of native Americans.  Theories include people from:  the Mousterian culture of Ice Age Europe, lost sailors from Jomon era Japan, and sailors from early/medieval Brittany and Ireland.  Many other theories were popular in the 19th century, but are not discussed much today.  All of these theories were controversial in their day, some even on the fringe, and many still are, but they all deserve a NPOV mention in this article.  WBardwin 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the comment about the Origin of species is an example, I think it is clear enough. I do not agree with you. An Encyclopeadia cannot put at the same level all kind of theories. There is an argument called the argument of authority. No one would consider religious beliefs an argument of authority when speaking of science, and history is a social science. Those things could be dealt with in specific articles dealing with various beliefs about various things, but not in the main article about a subject. But I have no special interest in removing it. It can be left there, only I am afraid that this kind of contributions affect the quality standard of Wikipedia. HCC.

December 24th 2006
I find this article misrepresentative and poorly executed. It illustrates a lack of depth of historical understanding on the part of its author. Were this a traditional encyclopedic document we would have to scrap it entirely and sack its writer, and most likely sack the incompetent HR person who hired afore said writer. But herein lies the beauty, nay the glory, of Wikipedia. Anyone with a bit of quality knowledge can add it to the stock, improving and fleshing out articles like the one under discussion. I think I will touch up he North American civilization category, it's dredfully limp and lifeless, quite the opposite of the realities beheld here in the PreColumbian days. For instance, before European conact the greatest concentrated population in the New World, aside from that in Central America, was in the Pacific Northwest. One of the largest(in area) commercial empires ever was seen on the banks of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, connecting all the lands about the Great Lakes to all those about the Gulf of Mexico and everything in between. It is the failure of this article to mention these things which calls for its immediate improvement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.13.236 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Always good to get new editors involved in the Wikipedia project. I'd personally recomend creating an account before begining, & then diving in.  --mordicai. 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dating Style
I undid (talk) edit on dating styles, as this article has been BCE based since at least 5 May 2005. Although policy encourage maintaining the "original" style, editors of this article have been content with this style for some time. The BCE based style may be more appropriate here as more recent archaeology/anthropology sources are very likely to use this style. May I have some opinions, please. WBardwin 18:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that WP:MOS says that if there is a dispute, the earliest non-stub version that uses the disputed term should be used - in this case it was BC/AD. Also it was in use for two and a half years before it was changed.

What sources use is not especially relevant as far as I can see, especially as there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that is the case anyway. John Smith&#39;s 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There was not dispute until you decided to change the dating system. So what is your "good reason" for changing the established (2 years) dating standard for this article?  WBardwin 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the BC/AD format was established for longer. So if you want to go by time, that should win.
 * I personally think the BC/AD format looks better and is more homogeneous with other articles on American history. You might think that's a poor reason, but again if we have a dispute (as we do now) we revert to the earliest non-stub version. John Smith&#39;s 10:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, look - tell you what. If you really want to keep BCE/CE, I won't revert any further. I'd still prefer to discuss this a bit more - if you do please don't revert. If we can't settle this I'll let you revert back without objection. John Smith&#39;s 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear all,
 * As per the MOS:
 * "it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa)."
 * The History of America is a non-specifically Christian topic, and quite a few people naturally feel uncomfortable at BC/AD being used there. This is substantial enough a reason adopt a neutral datation system such as BCE/CE. PHG 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't wikistalk me. Also it being non-Christian is irrelevant to the use of BC/BCE. John Smith&#39;s 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with user PHG, so resolution will not be so simple. However I would urge the two of you to resolve your personal difficulties elsewhere.  Accusations of stalking are inappropriate here.  As for the dating style, I will clearly state that my opinion on dating systems reflects my university training and professional experience.  In summary, I consider changing a long standing dating system on any article, as was done here, an intrusion.  This is particularly true when the editor is new to the article and unknown to other editors.  I beleive that BC/AD as a convention should always used in Wikipedia articles on specifically Christian subjects. In non-Christian subjects, changing BCE/CE to BC/AD is a discourtesy, and is, as noted in Wikipedia policy, similar to "correcting" spelling to American or British practice.  In creating articles I follow the university standard in my field which is to never use BCE/CE for a Christian subject, or BC/AD for a secular subject.  I would prefer this article follow that standard.  I would urge other editors of this article to express their opinions as well.  WBardwin 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help with featured article candidacy
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latin_America. Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New Copy of 'America's Birth Certificate' Found ‎
http://www.newser.com/story/149448/new-copy-of-americas-birth-certificate-found.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18700489 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.12.54 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mal’ta skeleton, tracing back to Europe
I've got a problem with this. Part of it is some of the trivial quotes. It also doesn't make it clear that this is considered evidence against the Solutrean hypothesis.See which says "These findings may explain the presence of mitochondrial lineage X in Native Americans." and "the study concludes that two distinct Old World populations led to the formation of the First American gene pool: one related to modern-day East Asians, and the other a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population related to modern-day western Eurasians." and "The presence of a population related to western Eurasians further into northeast Eurasia provides a more likely explanation for the presence of non-East Asian cranial characteristics in the First Americans, rather than the Solutrean hypothesis that proposes an Atlantic route from Iberia." I'll revise the text.

There may be a bigger problem. Western Eurasia includes the Middle East, and after the Last Glacial Maximum some of the re-colonisation of Europe was from the Levant - from the Middle East. Given the dates, what we seem to see is that groups from the Middle East went into Europe as well as going west and eventually into North America. But that hasn't been discussed yet so far I can see. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Haiti
You fail to mention the second established nation in the America’s “Haiti”. Their liberation literally led to the revolutions in the Spanish colonies. They assisted Simon Bolivar in building momentum to free those countries. 142.196.38.2 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello!? WTF Is The Oldest Empire In The Americas
Is It The Inca Empire Or The 13 Colonies? 103.197.153.228 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)