This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colonial history of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Colonial history of the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
A summary of this article appears in History of the United States. |
The contents of the European colonization of the Southern United States page were merged into Colonial history of the United States. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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 Aug 2003 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 Sep 2003 (UTC)
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? Lukilus
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?
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)
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[1]," 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)
References
Some brief history about 24.102.240.75 (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)