Talk:Atlantic World

This is just a stub for an article that should be greatly expanded. I recommend creating sections on the emergence of the Atlantic world, the environmental history of the Atlantic world, slavery and other labor systems in the Atlantic world, and the political history of the Atlantic world. Drfryer 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on Native Americans in the Atlantic world and the Atlantic world's impact on Europe and West Africa would also be helpful. Drfryer 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph needs documentation. Some of the material in it, particularly towards the end, is controversial, and it really should not be put in an encyclopedia without documentation:

Independence movements in the New World began with the American Revolutionary War and the Haitian Revolution soon followed. The Quasi-War, Louisiana Purchase, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Monroe Doctrine and American Colonization Society signified stability and aggressive autonomy on the part of Americans. The New World equalized its power to the Old, in the quagmire of vicious wars raging throughout Europe and abundance of land to expand in under Manifest Destiny. Ultimately, Americans as Age of Enlightenment successors of the English Renaissance Virginia colony and Age of Reason Virginia Company would inherit colonial economic competition and political conditions from the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the form of the violent American Civil War. Remnants of the Cavalier London Company and Roundhead Plymouth Company would resurrect in their respective forms of Confederacy and Union.

Drfryer 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you just think we Americans and our culture sprung out of nothing, or nowhere. Ask David Hackett Fischer of Brandeis University. Rhode Islander 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This response is rude and uncalled for, as well as trivial. If you can cite Fischer's work in support of your contentions, it is important that you do so in the article. I know Fischer's work reasonably well, and I'm guessing that your contentions come from Albion's Seed, but they are not part of the book's main argument, and they are not universally accepted in the historical community. Rather, they're speculative ideas that Fischer introduces to help readers who are not very knowledgeable about Americana regional cultures relate to his main thesis. A better way of handling this material would be to write, "Historian David Hackett Fischer has argued that . . .," adding a footnote at the end of the sentence, so that readers of this article understand clearly that this is one possible interpretation and know where to go for additional information. In any case, this material would fit better in an article on "colonial America," as that deals specifically with the early history of the region that eventually became the United States, whereas "Atlantic world" deals broadly with the history of all inhabited regions surrounding the Atlantic Ocean. Drfryer 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC) --[reply]

Please take care to distinguish appropriately between "Atlantic world" and "Atlantic rim" on this page. "Atlantic rim" is a geographic concept-- the territories surrounding the Atlantic Ocean. "Atlantic world" is a historical/cultural/economic concept: the community created by human interactions between Atlantic rim societies in a distinct historical era, from the 15th century to the present. When I Googled these two terms, I got 42,000 hits for "Atlantic rim" and 394,000 hits for "Atlantic world." Clearly, "Atlantic world" is the preferred term. Most major universities in North America now offer undergraduate and/or graduate courses on Atlantic world history, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to include an article on this topic under the correct title.

Drfryer 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific difference. Please don't allow such pedantry to bog Atlanticism, because there is no corresponding treatment in the Pacific realm. Why the double standard? Who cares what it is called? Why make two articles, when the Pacific is covered in one? Look at it from a broader perspective. The terminology used for the Pacific ("rim") has connotations of the Pacific Ring of Fire, but there is no real reason why not to use it for the Atlantic, or to make it into "Pacific world". For all intents and purposes, these articles speak of the same thing. Specific labels are not so problematic, but Wikipedia has a manual of style. We try to make similar articles have similar layouts and related. Transatlantic could be redirected in this article, with no problem. History and current events are not mutually exclusive, especially in Wikipedia articles. Rhode Islander 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a distinct difference between the "Atlantic World" and the "Atlantic Rim." As the previous user states, the Atlantic Rim is a geographical term that describes the coastal areas of the Americas, Europe, and Africa. The "Atlantic World" is more than a geographic term, and encompasses the area of study of the interactions of societies in the Atlantic Rim, beginning in the late fifteenth century with the discovery of the Americas and the expansion of European colonialism. Presumably, there is no such treatment of the Pacific Rim because no such area of study yet exists or there were not comparable cultural interactions to warrant this kind of distinction between geographical area and field of study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mderken (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]