Talk:European colonization of the Americas/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

1

i thought that norse colonizatiwtf? was not "generally accepted" 204.95.67.49 03:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the "History of" prepended to all the pages linked from here completely redundant and unnecessary? French colonization of the Americas would make a lot more sense than History of French colonization of the Americas. Brion VIBBER, Sunday, May 19, 2002

I agree - it is far more likely that somebody would make a natural link to X's colonization of the Americas the the History of X's colonization of the Americas.

For example, one could say that sugar cane production was an integral part of X's colonization of the Americas. But having "History of" before that is just too wordy and a bit redundent: Of course colonization is the "history of", you really can't give a physical description of it like you can for a nation or area ("history of" is appropriate when talking at length about just the history of an area. Colonization is inherently a part of history and it is redundant to have "history of" as part of the title), --maveric149, Sunday, May 19, 2002

Okay, done. --Brion VIBBER

Does anyone know wjy the vikings abandoned their colonization? I heard the Native Americans chased them away. But I think its a myth, as I can't imagine big bulky Vikings being chased by Native Americans. -fonzy

this is a stupid question. Native American Indians were as bulky and probably more selvatic.

Perhaps the majority of the people of most of the SPanish speaking nations are Native American and/or part Native American, but those countries are dominated by whites, and Native peoples are still massacred (Chiapas, Guatemala, Colombia). Its sort of a "leyenda rosa" that the Spanish were more benevolent to the Indians than those dirty "Sajones".

I can't find my references for this, Fonzy, so bear with me while I do this from memory. The Viking colonisation of the Americas was small-scale and not backed by any great resolve or wealth. It took place at a time when unusually warm climatic conditions in the North Atlantic were giving way to a period of relative cold: they had colonised Iceland some time previously, then Greenland, in both cases, using the new-found lands for things that would soon be quite out of the question - in particular, running cattle. In the first few years of the Greenland settlement, the summmers were warm and the colony prospered. As time went by, however, life became more and more difficult. In addition, the Vikings had a lifesyle that they were firmly wedded to: no self-respecting Viking would lower himself by learning from the "wretches" or "rascals" (as they called the native Greenlanders), let alone give up his beloved cattle in order to eat seals.

In the case of the American colony, there were just a few ships sent, and as private ventures. The settlement of America wasn't a determined plan, it was just a few Viking warlords and a handful of their followers cruising around looking for the easiest place to make a living (and, if I remember correctly, looking for a place to escape from their enemies - in today's terms, you would probably call them "fugitives from justice"). So they stuck it out for a short while, but on discovering that the native Americans were no pushover, that the climate was still far from ideal, and doubtless also because they felt that the heat had gone out of the murder charges (murder was not so bad a crime in those days), they wrote it off as a bad idea and pushed off for home. Tannin 10:17 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

ok thankyou, never known much about the vikings in America. -fonzy

It would be nice if someone covered the reasons of the colonization. - CaptainWoodman

Since Christopher Columbus is believed to be Italian, shouldn't he be called with his original name like the other people in the same article? - Straficchio

Since you want a technicality applied to the name, it should be further noted that Columbus was not Italian (Unified in 1861) He was from Genoa (Genova in Italian, Zena in Genoese, which is a Ligurian language). I only mention this because it seems non-sensical to write His name in 'Italian' this is after all an English language wikipedia. There is also "Columbus: Secrets from the Grave", Discovery Channel documentary, about a possible Catalan origin of Columbus. It is in the end splitting hairs. Will any Spanish people or Latin-Americans complain of the 'italianization' of Columbus, He was under the employ of the Castillians at the time. See what I mean? The artice is also about the 'European colonization of the Americas' not CC, why dwell on his name when there is so much to focus on in this article. Omar

Legality

Some discussion of the legal mechanisms surrounding the invasion of America by Europeans, and their rationalization of dispossessing the inhabitants, would surely be helpful to readers.

The ingines couldn't do anything about it. Finders keepers. There's your legal background.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.32.127 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

In today’s terms it was an invasion, followed by an occupation and the subjugation of the indigenous population. However, at the time, this was seen to be perfectly acceptable behaviour, by the winners at least. Markb (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a specific legal framework that allowed colonization of non-christians in the legislation of many European countries, for example Spain. Such a discussion would be extremely interesting here.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - was that some sort of edict from the Catholic Church or similar body?Markb (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There was the Treaty of Tordesillas and Papal bulls like Aeterni regis, Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex - and the Spanish conquistadors were always careful to comply with their own strange legislation - such as reading a legal statement (in spanish) called a requerimiento, encouraging natives to accept the christian faith or perish before attacking villages. There is also the entire Valladolid debate between Bartolome de las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda where the Spanish legal system tried to establish whether indians were in fact human beings - with he rights of human subjects of the spanish crown.I'll go to work on this soon.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish colonization

Christopher Columbus voyage was not an attempt to "copy the Spanish Empire" in the Americas. First of all, prior to the "discovery" of the New World there was no such thing called "Spanish Empire"; but a "Spanish Kingdom", limited to the Iberian peninsula. Secondly, the purpose of Columbus's voyage was to create a new route to India and China, never to "create an Empire"; the creation of the Empire came as a result of the "discovery" of "new" land, but was never the intention of Columbus trips. --J.Alonso 00:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC) This is no help:(

A few corrections. There was no spanish kingdom at the time of columbus voyages. There was two kingdoms of Castile and Aragon conjoined by marriage. And secondly there is a good reason to think that the ruling couple were interested in starting a process of colonization since they were lagging behind the colonization efforts of the portuguese who had already been colonizing in Africa and the atlantic islands for nearly 50 years. Columbus may not have intended to be a colonizer - but that doesn't mean that those who financed his voyages didn't have that objective.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For Consideration

"Slavery existed in America, prior to the presence of Europeans, as the Natives often captured and held other tribe members as captives. Some of these captives were even forced to under go human sacrifices under some tibes like the Aztecs. The Spanish followed by the enslavement of local aborigines in the Caribbean. As the native populations declined through disease, they were often replaced by Africans imported through a large slave trade. By the 18th century, the overwhelming number of black slaves was such that Native American slavery was less common. In the case of the Africans who were taken aboard slave ships to the Americas, they were primarily obtained from their African homelands by coastal tribes who captured them. The high incidence of nearly always fatal disease, to Europenas, kept nearly all slave capture activities confined to native tribes."

This entire paragraph needs to be re-written. There are both spelling and factual errors. The forms of slavery that existed in Africa and the pre-colonial Americas were extremely different from the system of slavery employed by the Europeans. Centuries of contact between Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans due to the Islamic Slave trade and expansive African Empires such as the Kanem-Bornu and Mali, gave Africans immunity against the fatal European diseases that killed off most of the Amerindian population. It seems that the author wrote this paragraph with the intent of lessening the role of Europeans in the slave trade.

Exactly!!!! That's what I was thinking as soon as I read the first line of that paragraph..... T_T This one is one of my reasons for not trusting Wikipedia so much anymore....--71.36.176.174 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Pre-colonial slavery was much more humanitarian. In fact, it was great for the slaves. They liked it. C'mon, you lot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.35.2 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discovered to Rediscovered

Am I the only one who has noticed that Columbus did not discover the Americas! They were already inhabited by Native American tribes who in some cases had fixated permanent settlements along with in certain areas. I quote from your own article "Native Americans in the United States" which states "Columbus did not discover a "New World" or new peoples. The place and people already existed and the people already had names for the place, themselves, and each other." This is also true for many islands in the Caribbean that were REDISCOVERED during this time period. I find it rather insulting that an encyclopedia would propogate such a eurocentric myth given the fact that I was taught the truth about Columbus' "discovery" in secondary school. How do you disclaim the discoveries made by the Native Americans? You can't discover something that was never lost just pointing out a common sense fact.

--Mandar_Pips. 10th May 2006. 12:14am

Sounds reasonable, but without an indigenous written language there is no primary source to support the conclusion that the Native Americans "discovered" America. Linguistic and genetic experts have been unable to source a common origin, suggesting--or at least not contradicting--waves of migrations. Possibly the first were supplanted by later invasions. Maybe they arrived concurrent with the dawn of homo sapiens, denying them the opportunity to discover what--to humanity--always was. If a wiki editor were to unilaterally ascribe the feat of discovery to the natives, they would be committing original research. Tafinucane 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Columbus did discover America because HE didn't know anything about it before. Plus he made Europeans discover America because they didn't know anythig about it either. It WAS a discovery. It doesn't mean others hadn't discovered America before.--200.125.49.75 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that saying rediscovery is sensible at all (Also, Maya's wrote Maya_script. The term 'discovery' is subjective to who is making the discovery. See post below, it makes sense. And the one above as well. Omar

I agree. I've heard this nonsensical criticism before from people who seem to have some kind of chip on their shoulder. How would they feel if NASA announced that they has discovered intelligent life on some other planet? Would these people insist that NASA had discovered nothing, since the aliens knew that they and their planet already existed?

Technically, the initial comment is correct, but not in the way the writer intended. Columbus thought he'd reached Asia, not a new continent, so he really didn't discover the New World. But someone else (Amerigo Vespucci?) discovered it for Europe. Funnyhat 21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

European colonization of Africa

It would be interesting if a similar set up was made for European colonization of Africa, and similar articles to the ones in this, like English colonization of Africa, Brandenburg colonization of Africa, etc. --Andrelvis 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Empire Map

I like the map of the Spanish Empire, but I think we need a date on it. Does anyone know what date to put on it?

On another note, I've heard rumor that the Chinese "discovered" America well before the Europeans as well (possibly predating the Viking's even). Can someone confirm this? Should it be mentioned here?

--Mr Minchin 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the 1421 hypothesis by Gavin Menzies. However, it is still a subject of controversey, and is not widely accepted as historical fact by historians b/c of the lack of solid evidence. I do not know of any possible large scale expeditions by the Chinese Empire that pre-dates the Vikings though. 24630 04:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

th== Subjective Tone ==

This article should be written objectively, and not toss subtle hints of moral or ethical opinions.

I agree under "Religious Immigration you find the following header "Major religious groups immigrating to the New World included:" The list is obviously American (USA) biased and secondly I hardly would quantify the Quakers as a 'Major religious group'. Omar

Quaker's are a fairly modest religious group today, but were much more widespread during the colonial period. Land in what is today Pennsylvania and parts of the Ohio valley was granted to the Quakers by the British crown, and people of Quaker affiliation were a significant component in the Continental Congress. I vote the Quakers stay. But I don't refute that the list is US based -- how about adding material on Canada and Central and South America? WBardwin 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the greatest imigration wave of Catholics to Americas was in the 19th century. Catholic religion has been far more spread than Protestantism in Americas since the 16th century.

Map request: Greenland

Could someone please tweak the map to reflect that Denmark-Norway had claimed Greenland and was resettling it at the beginning of the 18th century? See Danish colonization of the Americas for details. And yes, Greenland is part of the Americas, and no, it should not have been cut off on the original map. My copy of Gimp is a bit crashy at the moment. Grrr... samwaltz 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Color Scheme

This might just be a technical issue on my end, but the vast majority of the links in this article are coming up a kind of orange- not the "you've been here" color or the "dead wikilink" color. I can't suss out why. --mordicai. 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guianas

I love the map, but I notice that the Guianas are strangely gray. That region had been colonized by 1750. British Guyana had not been established yet, but French Guiana and Dutch Suriname were in existence. Funnyhat 23:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Me 2! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.15 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of Norse Greenland Colony

ClovisPt has amended the sentence on the collapse of the Greenland colony to read "By the mid-15th century, the Norse Greenland settlements had collapsed". As you can see in the History of Greenland article, one respectable scholar, Kirsten Seaver, disagrees. She thinks it was not as weak as Diamond suggests (and I have seen a lot of criticisms of Diamond, in particular his claim of a taboo against fish eating). In her book Maps, Myths, and Men: The Story of the Vínland Map (which holds that the map is a hoax) she suggests that English sailors were exploiting the cod in the Newfound-Labrador banks. She further suggests (and admits it is speculation) that either the English or a joint Anglo-Portuguese enterprise offered the Norse Greenlanders the chance to "to relocate as skilled fishermen-farmers in a sheltered area along the Newfoundland/Labrador coast, far enough north and east to avoid clashes with the Spanish over the 1494 Tordesillas line..." and that they accepted. In any case, there seems to be a good chance that the last Norse in Greenland were there in the late 15th century and hadn't disappeared in the middle of the century.--Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no archaeological or historical evidence to support the existence of culturally-Norse (i.e., non-Inuit) populations extant in Greenland past the early 1400s. The exploits of English/Portuguese/Basque fishermen sound exciting, but I feel are lacking in supporting evidence. ClovisPt (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've restored my edit with a reference now. Although there is no hard evidence, Kirsten does (let's ignore the relocation business) tell a convincing story indicating that the Norse Greenlanders may have held on until around the end of the century. I don't think we can categorically say they collapsed around 1450.--Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Greenland says "The Greenland colony survived for some 450-500 years (985 to 1450-1500 AD)", so my edit brings this article into line with it I believe.--Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

African rediscovery

The trans atlantic voyage is shorter and more temperate in the lesser latitudes and a number of people claim to have uncovered arhceological evidence that Africans had sailed to the Western Hemisphere long before any Europeans did (by hundreds of years).

Some books on the subject:

The Lost Treasure of King Juba: The Evidence of Africans in America before Columbus by Frank Joseph [http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Treasure-King-Juba-Evidence/dp/1591430062/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1]
A History of the African-Olmecs: Black Civilizations of America from Prehistoric Times to the Present Era by Paul Alfred Barton [http://www.amazon.com/History-African-Olmecs-Civilizations-America-Prehistoric/dp/0759644691/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_cs_1]
Africa and the Discovery of America by Leo Weiner with an introduction by Dr. John Henrik Clarke [http://www.amazon.com/Africa-Discovery-America-Leo-Wiener/dp/1881316025]

Economic immigrants

The "Economic Immigrants" part of this article has no real sources. The only citation is #19 ("Many immigrants to the American colonies came for economic reasons.19"), which only details the health around that era. Since the whole of this section is entirely without sources, it's wise they be added.

Granted, it might be common sense to most Americans, but not everyone reading this is American. 71.215.214.8 (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vikings

Shouldn't we add the vikings to the list? Mister721972 (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm's changes

The boldface expression in the article's first sentence should match the title of the article, and the line established by the Treaty of Tordesillas most certainly was not "roughly similar to the present border between Brazil and the rest of South American countries" (see map at linked article). In addition, I suggest that Whoffmannm peruse the archives of Talk:Americas, where the question of "America" versus "Americas", and that of whether North America and South America constitute two continents or one, has been discussed extensively and a consensus has been established. Deor (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

help??

i need to know what happened atfer the european colonization; how did both culture groups of Latin America change.?

-thanks.

Jade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.109.129 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic reasons

In case someone cares, I removed a sentence that claimed immigrants came to America for economic reasons. That's definitely true in some cases, but there were many colonists who came here for religious reasons. The sentence contradicts the article's next section and the supposed reference doesn't support the claim. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 07:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

assimilation and genocide?

why are the words assimilation and genocide nowhere to be found in this article??--Sonjaaa (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help with featured article candidacy

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latin_America#South_America_in_1705. Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

The material below was removed from the article for discussion. There is a huge difference in the estimated number of dead due to disease between this source and the source in the article. This one, if I'm not mistaken, is the more controversial. WBardwin (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

....killing between 10 million and 100 million^[1] people, up to 95% of the indigenous population of the Americas.

Removed animations, changed to links

These are both wonderful and very helpful animations. However, with slower CPUs and low-speed internet connection they stop users from being able to download, read and navigate the article. The "printable version" is also unusable for "slow" users. I think a good non-animated gif and description with a link to the animations would be the best solution to this problem, in my humble opinion anyway. Perhaps it would also be nice for the link to open the animations in a new window or tab. For slower CPU and internet users there should be a control to start the animations and the large file downloads. Again, these are great animations. I removed the animations, assuming someone can fix this problem and put them back. Perhaps I should not have been so bold.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.48.81 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Links to the 3 animations:

Image:Non-Native-American-Nations-Territorial-Claims-over-NAFTA-countries-1750-2008.gif|thumb|300px|North America: Territorial Sovereignty, 1750-present
Image:Non-Native American Nations Control over South America 1700 and on.gif|thumb|300px|South America: Territorial Sovereignty, 1700-present
File:Political Evolution of Central America and the Caribbean 1700 and on.gif|thumb|300px|Caribbean and Central America: Territorial Sovereignty 1700-present

172.140.252.233 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Map Shows Falkland Islands as Spanish colony. This is disputable.

Not sure what is the best way to show that as a colony/territory it has changed hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Bianco (talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across probable vandalism

This post was extremely erroneous. Selling or exacting land/peace from or to the European and Asian forces counters the idea of the Old World "controlling" this continent. This complete discussion is as follows:

I fail to see your logic the the article European colonization of the Americas. The word control or influence is rather incorrect---at best. The Indian nations were in complete control until the invention of the airplane and armored vehicle. The War of 1812 saw the greatest pan-Indian movement ever established in the Northern theatre with some 10,000 natives fighting for the Canadians. Without these people, Canada would have easily fallen. Thereafter produced what I call "ambivalence." See: [7] for a complete breakdown of the American conflicts. May I ask you why us Cree---with some 20,000 warriors (we are not Algonquian [Huron/Iroquois] btw) at our disposal---were NEVER needed during the "control" of the American theatre? May I ask something else of you? What would the Europeans have done if we weren't so peaceful at LET you stay on this continent? What would the Europeans have done if we fought with all our power until the Chinese and Indians (from India) started immigrating here? I doubt you have any answers to these questions. BTW, 40,000 U.S. troops were succesfully repulsed by 1,500 warriors during the Second Seminole War: the Seminole were granted a seat in parliament for their work. Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just a new user who decided to vandalise this article. Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was someone who knows what the word ambivalence is. I've removed it again because it simply made no sense. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we hae a problem then. InternetHero (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What problem? How do you justify the use of the word? And please don't mark your edits 'minor' when they aren't formatting, spelling, etc. edits. And please use edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You see, the Huron were with the French: the Iroquois were with the English. The Cree and Cherokee were neutral with the latter being just so until the "thirteen colonies" revolutionized. Even when Sullivan attacked the Iroquois cornfields, they weren't defeated. As a person, who's name escapes me, said, "The bird has lost the nest, but the wings are in full flight." The Irquois therein recieved help from non-Huron Algonquians. InternetHero (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You may as well give me a recipe for chocolate cupcakes (not trying to be rude, I simply have no idea what point you are trying to make - that Indians helped Europeans in their colonisation of the Americas? What does this have to do with adding the word ambivalence to the article - it means "having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone" and you can't come 'under the ambivalence' of anything. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you're getting into placeholders here. You can become under ambivalence the same way the coureurs des boix are called coureur du boix or coureur de boix. "Du" means from, "de" means to. They both make sense when writing in English (I'm part French, btw). It goes to the concept of a opst-synaptic and pre-synaptic neuron. Yuo can become under the ambivalence because you recieve emotions 'from' the limbic system; hence, coureur du boix.

I hate to get all mushy but let me add an ndn proverb to the mix: "True wisdom isn't knowing the life the Creator intended for you; true wisom is 'living' the life the creator intended for you. Unfortunately, we're never gonig to be fast as light, hence we're not the placeholder of this universe---dark matter is the fastest. Therefor, in my mind, I can become 'under' the ambivalence of this world; hence, I'm under the ambivalence (and my ancestors) of the past. pfheww InternetHero (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many English speakers would understand the use of the word ambivalence in the context you want to use it. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your perogative---plain and simple, yes? InternetHero (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be best if you stop adding your point of view or original research to articles pls see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For as long as you live (not you, you seem nice). Don't ever forget what I did here. I've contributed to Wikipeda with 1,250 edits and I'm being bullied by Admins coz I outwitted some1 who's older (smarter) than me. So, to be exact, don't ever forget what you are (Valenzuela) ---and look into the eyes of the Great Spirit with shame or malice: your choice. InternetHero (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

MAUAHAHA! [8]. You'll never defeate some1 whos pretecting thermselves and the land. InternetHero (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for one week by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable map

The main map used in this article, File:Colonization of the Americas 1750.PNG, seems questionable to me in several ways. First, it's description page cites no sources whatsoever. Second, regarding its caption, "Territories in the Americas colonized or claimed by a European great power in 1750": there are a number of problems with the phrase "colonized or claimed". Take the "Spanish Territory" as colored on the map, for example--Spain claimed but did not colonized Patagonia, which is depicted as "Spanish Territory"; and Spain also claimed but did not colonized the western parts of North America, including Alaska, and made significant efforts to make these claims good, yet on the map "Spanish Territory" is depicted as vaguely conforming to colonization instead of claims. So which is it? Since the caption says "colonized or claimed" I don't see why western North America and Alaska should not be colored as Spanish claims. And these are only some of the map's problems with "Spanish Territory". Similar problems can be pointed out for the other European "great powers". Russian "territory" is shown extending down the coast to what's now the US-Canada border, but not Vancouver Island. Yet Russian did not colonize the coast south of Sitka, *except* for Fort Ross, California. So I can't see why Russian Territory is being shown like this. It's neither claims nor colonization. Furthermore, both claims and colonization by Russia were much much more limited in 1750. After all, 1750 is barely a decade after the voyages of Vitus Bering. Russian activity in 1750 was limited to the westernmost Aleutian Islands and no colonization had occurred. No Europeans of any nationality had even explored the coast between the Aleutian Islands and Mexico. California was still unexplored at the time! There are similar problems with the rest of the map. I realize that maps like this are nearly impossible to make without taking some liberties. But this one seems particularly confusing. Its total lack of source citations and obvious mistakes are especially troubling. Pfly (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Which seems a good reason to remove it. Could you put your comments on the talk page of the map please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

late 1630's

What European countries did the colonists immigrate from in Maryland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.8.48 (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See British colonization of the Americas, and next time remember, this is an encylopedia, not a reference desk to do your research for you. He iro 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Solutrean theory

The theory, called by one Wiki user, a "fringe theory" (maybe it is so- I'm not trying to say the other user is wrong- though I would care to disagree), states that a group of people from the continent of Europe long ago made their way into the vast lands of the continent of North America, and for at least a long enough time to have an unmistakable influence on the Clovis people, stayed in the area. As they are Europeans, and settled in the area, they were European colonizers, just as in the sense of any others. This theory, should not be considered to be a "fringe theory" in this case, as it does not in any way go against the mainstream view of European colonization of the Americas, it only adds an evidenced theory, that suggests that Europeans did in fact have some amount of colonization long before what is known by most people (which admittedly, does not seem to be even half of the things in this Wiki page, anyways). What shall be the consensus on the adding of a link, and possibly a small section about the theory, onto this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.32.254 (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

what do the scholarly journals say about the theory, and the textbooks? Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"We are profoundly skeptical of this claim; we believe that the many diﬀerences between Solutrean and Clovis are far more signiﬁcant than the few similarities, the latter being readily explained by the well-known phenomenon of technological convergence or parallelism. The origin and arrival time of the ﬁrst Americans remain uncertain, but not so uncertain that we need to look elsewhere other than north-east Asia." taken from here.

"It is well accepted that the Americas were the last continents reached by modern humans, most likely through Beringia. However, the precise time and mode of the colonization of the New World remain hotly disputed issues. Native American populations exhibit almost exclusively five mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups (A–D and X). Haplogroups A–D are also frequent in Asia, suggesting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages. However, the differential pattern of distribution and frequency of haplogroup X led some to suggest that it may represent an independent migration to the Americas. Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models. A detailed demographic history of the mtDNA sequences estimated with a Bayesian coalescent method indicates a complex model for the peopling of the Americas, in which the initial differentiation from Asian populations ended with a moderate bottleneck in Beringia during the last glacial maximum (LGM), around 23,000 to 19,000 years ago. Toward the end of the LGM, a strong population expansion started 18,000 and finished 15,000 years ago. These results support a pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, suggesting a rapid settlement of the continent along a Pacific coastal route." from here

I'm sure if I looked hard, I could find even more. Its a fringe theory. He iro 00:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"This particular story I wouldn't ordinarily have commented on, but I'm covering New World origins in my genetics course this week. Which is, of course, the most inconvenient problem with the Solutrean scenario. That is, not "Gee, why did they lose the creative urge?", but "Gee, how did they suddenly get all those Asian genes?"

The sad part, is that by ignoring this aspect the news story really doesn't give the Solutrean side a chance to show off an ingenious interpretation of the genetics. Which has a lot in common with the recent LDS interpretations: early Solutrean genes got swamped by later Asian immigrants.

Or maybe Polynesians. Or Australians." John Hawkes

"Straus has long opposed the idea that Clovis technology at 11,000 BC is "related" to Solutrean technology in Spain and France, from which it is separated by not only 5-6000 years, but also by 5000 km of the North Atlantic. Straus claims there is no evidence that Solutrean people had deep-sea navigation knowledge or equipment and that the superficial similarities in point shape are the result of technological convergence. In 2000, Straus wrote a detailed article for the American Antiquity journal debunking the theory of a Transatlantic Solutrean migration."Lawrence Straus

Not to many ever though is was a good theory. The predominate theory for haplogroup X (subclade X2a) appearance in North America is migration along with A,B,C, and D mtDNA groups; from a matrilineal ancestral source, originating in the Altai Region of central Asia Moxy (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume then, that none of the people interested enough in the subject to say yes, or no to my proposal, are going to be in favor of it. Thank you fellow Wiki users for taking the time to do your counter-argument. If it's not understood, that means I surrender.

Oh, we understood. Look at the responses and the links that were provided showing how the mainstream doesn't give the idea any credence and the actual science at this point argues strongly against it. He iro 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian Trade, colonization, maps, etc.

The scholarly concensus on the subject of pre-Columbian visits to the Americas is kind of frightening. I don't know if it is stubbornness or something else, but this sort of thing is precisely why conspiracy theories are made. Wikipedia relies on reliably sourced information appropriate for an encyclopedia, and that obviously makes sense. But there are certain subjects, such as this, where the scholars and historians should be considered unreliable sources because they can be proven to be following a dead end of incestuous material, Western propaganda likely created by the church needing a hero and a holiday. Columbus' own journals prove that not only were they using pre-drawn maps of the Americas to navigate, but that West Africans had been visiting for centuries in large ships and even colonized Haiti. It was not the descendants of post-Columbia slaves living in the Caribbean. This information is well sourced and scholars avoid it like the plague. Jesuits wrote the people in Chile spoke a dialect of Basque. The Spanish wrote of encountering white natives who claimed to have shipwrecked ancestors who were sea traders. Artifacts written in Phoenician have been found and have not been debunked as hoaxes. There is some less reliable info about Jewish and Muslim traders and their religious and cultural influence on native populations. In light of everything else which is well-sourced, this is at least worth researching yet because it is inconvenient to established history it gets filed under fringe. The Asian and Arab knowledge of the Americas is too well sourced to be ignored forever (it's kinda where the Viking thing was at a few decades back).

So why does truth need to be established by a scholarly opinion? Opinions are not facts, and their opinions are ignoring facts in the source material itself not unlike what a conspiracy theorist does. It's great that public schools place less emphasis on Columbus these days. It's great that they even teach those taboo truths about his rather genocidal side to the natives. So maybe progress is really being made. But we have a long way to go before people accept that Christopher Columbus is more of a fictional modern creation than his historical self. And speaking of fringe, you might be interested in reading what people say about his statue pointing East. Yeah he thought he found the Indies. But when the statue was erected they knew he didn't. Seems like an odd direction to point.

Fringe is cryptozoology, holographic 9/11 planes, UFOs, ghosts, etc. Fringe is not verifyiable facts at the source that debunk a scholar's opinion. 15th and 16th century cartography alone (what survived) proves that there were people in Europe aware of details they should not have known giving what we are told in school. And if you spend enough time examining facts (facts, not theories, and nothing fringe) you would know that the Americas were known of and explored. Y Europeans before Columbus was even born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.96.37 (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This would require a change in basic Wikipedia policies, and that's not going to happen. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, if there were "verifyiable" facts that could debunk scholars' opinions,

other scholars would beat them over the head with it. That's what they're there for. If anything, the anti-European prejudice of postmodern scholarship would love to embrace an African Columbus... if one could be proven to exist. Columbus's preëxtant maps may have been real but they would've been Norse or Portuguese, not Mandinka. Your "true" and "verifiable" and "well-sourced" sources that everyone else says are fringe... Yeah, they're right and you're wrong.
If you can find actual scholarly discussion, feel free to include it. If it is well-done and respected enough, it would deserve inclusion, even if under a "controversy" subsection.
If the truth is out there and isn't in any well-done or respectable articles, save up and get yourself into grad school. You'd have your career made.

But of course, you have it backwards – your "sources" about Chilean natives speaking "Basque" (e.g.) are the incestuous old Spanish stories full of misunderstandings, exaggerations, and full-throated self-serving lies that modern scholarship has already worked through.

If you're really going to go the route of blind credulity, you should realize those Africans weren't in "Haiti" at all, but China. After all, Columbus carefully recorded in his journals that the Indians told him he was quite near Japan and the Great Khan was right around the corner. Obviously, rogue ocean currents must have propelled him (and his African forebears) past Cape Horn and back in the time in took later explorers just to reach America. That would explain why the Book of Mormon is so clear that Native Americans are not African or Asian but Hebrews and also why Cantonese and Thai are so much darker-skinned than more northerly Chinese... — LlywelynII 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Courland

Article on Polish colonization has a bit about this:

A final Courish attempt to establish a Caribbean colony involved a settlement near modern Toco on Trinidad.

But the source

Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz. Mówią wieki. "CZY RZECZPOSPOLITA MIAŁA KOLONIE W AFRYCE I AMERYCE?".

is in (in Polish). Anyone know how accurate or inclusion-worthy this other settlement was? — LlywelynII 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Norse or Norwegian?

An SPA who sole purpose seems to be change instances of "Norse" to "Norwegian" has went across multiple articles including this one and made said changes. Whjat is the consensus on this change? Anyone else have an opinion? He iro 00:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Norse Colonization

I added the following sentence to the lead:

The European Norse established colonies in Greenland and Canada as early as AD 986, but these colonies did not last.

But someone subsequently deleted it. I think it belongs in this article, as an example of Europeans colonizing the Americas. Subsequent statements in the article that the Spanish had the first European colony in North America are not actually true, which I see as a problem. Anyone agree/disagree?UnvoicedConsonant (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, totally uncited. Even if it is common knowledge and 1000% accurate, WP:CITE it per policy. Second, you just plopped it down as the first sentence of the lede, the lede is supposed to be a preview of the entire article. I'm not opposed to it, just do it correctly. He iro 04:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the material, with citation, and reworded the paragraph so it flows smoothly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnvoicedConsonant (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is Scottish colonisation separate from Britain, but not English?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 so technically all colonies founded after that date should be British and all colonies founded before that date should be listed as either English or Scottish depending on which state founded them.

To do otherwise is historically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.44.230.211 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish Empire (1580-1640)

Elizium23, your protest has no place, because the images are quite different. One speaks about a Union Iberica (point of view Portugal-centric) and the other image is about the Spanish Empire, beacuse Phillips II of Spain sends Fernando Álvarez de Toledo as Viceroy of Portugal in 1580... These views are quite different. From the point of the Spanish historiography, Portugal was part of Spain, so we had a vicerreinato, ie, a viceroy who was cut from Madrid, not having the power to choose their own head of government , like the Spanish Netherlands, the Spanish Naples, or the rest of the Spanish colonies.--LTblb (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replied at the ongoing discussion at Talk:Spain#Spanish Empire (1580-1640) Elizium23 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Description of colonization following epidemics

Another editor has expressed disagreement about the language "acquire control" (versus "seize") in the Disease and indigenous population loss section of the article that characterizes the colonization of the Americas following the devastation of the Native American population due to epidemics of smallpox, measles, typhus, etc. Because colonization and hegemony of European colonists over the Americas happened gradually, and because much of the land that eventually came under their control had been severely or entirely depopulated by Native Americans (due to the aforementioned epidemics), it is altogether more neutral, encompassing, and appropriate to describe acquisition and control of the land and resources via "acquire control" rather than "seize", the latter generally being seen as a more loaded term that does not necessarily accurately describe the colonization process in all, or even most, of its instances. JordanGero (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

JordanGero Is mixing up the high death rate, and the Spanish seizure of gold, cities, land, and all other forms of wealth by the use of military force. That hegemony did not "happen gradually", it was done very quickly especially in the Caribbean islands, Mexico, and Peru. What do the RS say? 1) "The conquistadors' seizure of land, people and resources in their predations on New Spain during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" (Nik Heynen, ‎James McCarthy, ‎Scott Prudham - 2007); 2) "Carlos I's reign saw ruthless but brilliant Spanish conquistadors seize vast tracts of the American mainland." *Damien Simonis - 2007); 3) " Conquistadors like Velasquez and Ponce de Leon had achieved their ends with the seizure and outrageous ..." (John Pohl - 2012); 4) "Conquistador custom, however, was to initiate a diplomatic encounter that would then treacherously turn into a violent taking of hostages—preferably the seizure of the king. In November 1532, in a surprise attack at a diplomatic meeting..." (The Conquistadors: A Very Short Introduction (2012) - Page 32; 5) ""Again, I demanded that they submit themselves: that otherwise I would make war on them and take their possessions and kill as many as I could seize and would take them and sell them as slaves." (Balboa: Conquistador (1971). Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen is categorically incorrect; the argument has nothing to do with specific instances of "seizing" gold, land, or any other resources. The description of "acquired control" follows immediately after the explanation of massive depopulation of the Native Americans due to epidemics that *swept ahead* of European colonization. Even at the height of the Native American population, much of North and South America was not populated. "Acquired control" is a more accurate term because it encompasses not only those instances of forcible seizure of land and resources, but also gradual expansion into Native American territory, including relocation, and is additionally a more neutral term. "Seize" or "seizure" does not accurately reflect European settlements on land or use of resources that were either abandoned or left without use on account of the severe depopulation of the indigenous population prior to European arrival. The central message of the paragraph in question (excerpted below) is that due to this population decimation prior to mass European colonization, such control of territory and resources came much easier to the European colonists; the central message is not to describe methods of how such control of territory and resources came about, which is why it is at best insufficiently described with the verb "seize", and at worst completely inaccurately, on account of an implication of the word "seize" that such control always came forcibly and with direct confrontation. This is not so, and to declare that such control of land came about "very fast" is an unabashed misunderstanding of the history of European colonization of the Americas, and a grouping of truncation of land control and resource acquisition to the initial conquest period, particularly in what is today South America; the excerpts cited by Rjensen only serve to confirm my point that although certain instances of land control can be accurately described with the verb "seize", it altogether does not follow the logic or facts of the epidemics that depopulated the Americas and left large areas of land mostly or entirely uninhabited, implicating European hegemony coming about both on account of forcible taking/conquest and due to most (up to 95%) of the indigenous population no longer existing in the areas newly settled by the colonists.

This is how the article reads now:

Epidemics of smallpox (1518, 1521, 1525, 1558, 1589), typhus (1546), influenza (1558), diphtheria (1614) and measles (1618) swept ahead of initial European contact,^[2]^[3] killing between 10 million and 20 million^[4] people, up to 95% of the indigenous population of the Americas.^[5] The cultural and political instability attending these losses appears to have been of substantial aid in the efforts of various colonists to acquire control over the great wealth in land and resources of which indigenous societies had customarily made use.^[6]

References

^ David Stannard, American Holocaust
^ American Indian Epidemics^{[dead link]}
^ "Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourge". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
^ Mann, Charles C. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-3205-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ "The Story Of... Smallpox". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
^ 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (ISBN 1-4000-4006-X), Charles C. Mann, Knopf, 2005.

Coming into possession and control of the land and resources of the Americas, and consolidation of such possession and control, did not happen immediately in many circumstances; moreover, because of the severe depopulation, areas of land in Americas, particularly in North America, were left open and vulnerable to an already superior force, where change of possession is more accurately described with the neutral "acquired control", as opposed to "seize" which immediately evokes direct and quick force. As mentioned above, this is at best an insufficient description of how land and resources were acquired by the European colonists. The argument, unlike what Rjensen is implying, is not whether or not there were violent conquests of Native American territories by European colonists and conquistadors; the specific section where the disagreement is taking place is "Disease and indigenous population loss", and directly follows mention of mass epidemics that resulted in the death of up to 95% of the Native American population. "Acquired control" is meant to convey the meaning that because of such losses, it was much easier for European colonists to take over and settle the land, regardless of whether a specific circumstance of settling was forcible or peaceful. Rjensen is essentially introducing red herrings with the examples he cites in his response above, given that the point here is to communicate that European hegemony came much easier due to the devastation caused by the epidemics, not that some of that hegemony came through violent conquest.

JordanGero (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Indians all died off and left the Spanish in possession of Mexico & Peru?? Let's see the RS JordanGero is using to deny the statements of the RS quoted here. Rjensen (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another red herring; where have I or anyone else stated that the "Indians all died off"? The point is that because of the epidemics, taking control of land and resources became undeniably easier and not ubiquitously or even centrally described by the verb "seize." Please stop inserting deflections and red herrings and reread my response to you above and reconsider. JordanGero (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

let's talk about Mexico and Peru. When did the Spanish take over (around 1519-22) when were the epidemics? afterwards. JordanGero lacks RS. . Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point. Listing incidents which can alone be accurately described through the words "seize" or "seizure" does not make such words appropriate for categorical description of the greater ease that European colonists had in establishing control over land and resources in the New World. Colonization continued well into the 1700s, far after the epidemics had run the worst of their course. That is what the paragraph cited above is trying to convey, and it is better conveyed with the more neutral and encompassing words "acquired control" than with "seize"; the sources are already given. You are inserting red herrings about RS and purposefully trying to quarantine the discussion to incidents of direct conquest, as evident from your initial reply to my post here. The argument is not about whether direct and violent conquest occurred; it certainly did, and is well described in other parts of the article. The point being made here is that hegemony and control over the New World came about much easier for the Europeans on account of the epidemics; that is what was already written and sourced; I've merely changed the verbiage to better reflect the logic of the statements and increase neutrality and accuracy. JordanGero (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

the point is the RS say "seize" and you don't read or cite any of them. When exactly do you think the conquest happened--like 1620? Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so first off, even though I already went through them once, I checked all of the sources in that paragraph again and could not find which one you are referring to as describing the Europeans as "seizing" land and resources on account of the epidemics devastating the Native American population (even if one did, there are four sources for that paragraph, not one). Second, since we are on the topic of conquest, the very first source (source 23) clearly states that waves of smallpox infection commenced well before the dates you cited for conquest of present-day Mexico/Peru (which I am not sure are correct, but I'll trust you on that one), therefore weakening your argument regarding conquest (which was already weak to begin with on account of the fact that colonization was distinct and separate from conquest, and often, as I've been trying to tell you, did not happen via mass bloodshed). Actual possession and use of the land and resources in question often did not come about until colonization had taken effect, whereupon it would have been significantly easier, as it was during direct conquest, to come into possession and control of such land and resources due to the Native American population being weakened and/or decimated by that point from disease. This is why "acquired control" is the more accurate and neutral term, not "seize" or "seized." JordanGero (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

when did the conquest happen of Mexico & Peru? was it gradual? what % of population had died off by then? RS please. You misunderstand "neutral" -- it means neutral regarding the RS, not the Spanish or Aztecs. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not providing you sources for something that is not necessary for my argument (you can look up the | Spanish Conquest of the Inca Empire for yourself and plainly see that the dates cited for first contact and conquest are significantly after the dates cited for the first waves of smallpox and other epidemics by source 23 in the paragraph in question, not to mention significantly off from the dates you provided; and as far as numbers, source 23 in the article provides plenty of numbers and percentages which support the argument that, even during the conquest periods, many Native Americans had already perished). The point of the paragraph in question is not simply about the direct conquest, but the overall effect of the epidemics on the colonization of the New World by the Europeans. The article is chiefly about the colonization of the Americas, in case you did not know; there are separate articles about specific conquests, such as the Spanish Conquest of the Inca Empire listed above, that deal with conquest specifically. And my use of the word "neutral" was in regards to the comparison of "acquired control" and "seize", not about any RS. Also, you stated that one of RS' cited in that paragraph says "seize", yet have not provided me with evidence of this. JordanGero (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that you have used about the conquest as opposed to the epidemics themselves? and you realize you're incorrect about the issue of neutrality? There is no rule that says Wikipedia has to being "neutral" on this issue. Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The issue is regarding proper verbiage. The sources already provided make plain that "seize" is an inaccurate descriptor for the greater ease with which European colonization (including conquest) progressed following the epidemics cited. Source 23 alone states that mass losses due to disease in the Native American populations occurred significantly before the central periods of conquest that are cited in the Spanish Conquest of the Inca article. I do not realize I am incorrect about the issue of neutrality for the simple reason that I am not incorrect; "seize" in this context is a non-neutral, and more problematically, inaccurate descriptor. On top of that, contrary to what you've stated, it does not appear in any of the sources provided for that paragraph in that section of the article. You said the word "seize" appears in those sources. Where? Why are you not answering this question? Also, I am not citing a rule for neutrality. I am improving the article by increasing its accuracy while simultaneously increasing its neutrality. Where did I cite a rule? But on the topic of rules, there is indeed a rule regarding neutrality: WP: NPOV, and I now proceed, thanks to your suggestion, to proffer an additional argument that the word "seize" so used in the article is in violation of WP: NPOV JordanGero (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

here are some of my sources: 1) "The conquistadors' seizure of land, people and resources in their predations on New Spain during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries" (Nik Heynen, ‎James McCarthy, ‎Scott Prudham - 2007); 2) "Carlos I's reign saw ruthless but brilliant Spanish conquistadors seize vast tracts of the American mainland." *Damien Simonis - 2007); 3) " Conquistadors like Velasquez and Ponce de Leon had achieved their ends with the seizure and outrageous ..." (John Pohl - 2012); 4) "Conquistador custom, however, was to initiate a diplomatic encounter that would then treacherously turn into a violent taking of hostages—preferably the seizure of the king. In November 1532, in a surprise attack at a diplomatic meeting..." (The Conquistadors: A Very Short Introduction (2012) - Page 32; 5) ""Again, I demanded that they submit themselves: that otherwise I would make war on them and take their possessions and kill as many as I could seize and would take them and sell them as slaves." (Balboa: Conquistador (1971). Now name some of yours please. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You've already listed these same Google search results above, and I've already explained to you that the paragraph in question is a characterization of the overall greater ease of colonization and conquest occurring on account of the epidemics. "Seize" means to take forcibly and suddenly, which is contrary to the message being communicated by the paragraph, that being to indicate that because of the depopulation, land and resources came into the possession and use of Europeans more easily because there were less Native Americans there to resist or protest. "Seizure" is only one such way of acquisition, and no source you've provided states that the word "seizure" accurately describes the general process of land and resource acquisition beyond those specific instances of conquest; the sources in the paragraph, however, clearly indicate that massive portions of the Native American population were killed by epidemics in the Old World prior to and continuing during the central period of conquest. Here is a direct source regarding this; it deals with one of the early English colonies, Plymouth, which benefited greatly from a reduction in Native American numbers, encountering significantly less resistance in their use of resources and settlement of land in modern-day Massachusetts. Land and resources that these colonists made use of cannot accurately be described through the use of the word "seize", or variations thereof, but they are accurately described via "acquired control."

I'll do you the courtesy of quoting directly from the featured Wikipedia article on Plymouth Colony:

Frenchman Samuel de Champlain had explored the area extensively in 1605. He had specifically explored Plymouth Harbor, which he called "Port St. Louis", and made an extensive and detailed map of it and the surrounding lands. Patuxet, the native village upon which the town of Plymouth would soon be built, was shown by Champlain as a thriving settlement. ^[1] However, in 1617–1619, before the arrival of the Mayflower, an epidemic wiped out up to 90% of the Native Americans along the Massachusetts coast, including Patuxet. Although generally thought to be smallpox,^[2] a recent analysis has concluded it may have been a lesser-known disease, leptospirosis.^[3] The absence of any serious native opposition to settlement by the Pilgrims may have been a pivotal event to their success and to English colonization in the Americas.

References

^ Deetz and Deetz (2000), pp. 55–56
^ Koplow, David A. (2003). "Smallpox The Fight to Eradicate a Global Scourge". University of California Press. Retrieved 2009-02-22.
^ Marr, JS; Cathey, JT. "New hypothesis for cause of an epidemic among Native Americans, New England, 1616–1619". Emerg Infect Dis. 16 (2): 281. doi:10.3201/edi1602.090276.

Note that the paragraph in this featured article concludes by stating that lack of resistance may have been pivotal to not only the Plymouth colony, but English colonization in the Americas in general. I expect this settles the matter. Please don't revert this edit again without a source supporting such revision. JordanGero (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're only talking about Massachusetts? Better say so. Rjensen (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Again: note that the paragraph in this featured article concludes by stating that lack of resistance may have been pivotal to not only the Plymouth colony, but English colonization in the Americas in general. Your sources only speak of the conquistadors, but again, the presence of the word "seize" is used in a different context and different purpose in your Google search results than it was in the paragraph in question. JordanGero (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can agree on "New England" . Rjensen (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Mann is not a reliable source. And there are of course no reliable sources for the view point that the Natives died from epidemics before the conquistadors arrived and that no conquest or violence was necessary. That is a non-existant viewpoint within the field of history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Maunus- no one in this conversation has ever argued that no violence or conquest was necessary in taking over land and resources from the Native Americans. Your statement is utterly irrelevant to the conversation at hand, asides from your contention that Charles Mann is not a reliable source. If you care to expand on this, it would be great.

And Rjensen, you still seem to not understand that "acquire control" encompasses "seize", but the reverse is not true. Because you've only provided sources for the direct conquest of parts of the New World by Spanish conquistadors, it is inaccurate and misleading to use the word "seize" to categorically describe European acquisition of land and resources in the New World, especially given the sources I've provided recently.JordanGero (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tiny Plymouth with a few hundred settlers in 100 sq miles stands for all of Western Hemisphere? Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

His book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, has its own Wikipedia page, and a New York Times review of the book appears to have praised him for the cogency of his conclusions. You can take it up there and add sources disputing his conclusions, assuming you can find such sources. JordanGero (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Seize" is an entirely appropriate and accurate term to describe the vast majority of encounters through which colonists acquired land in the new world, from the conquest of the Andes, Mesoamerica, Amazon to the US Indian Removal Policy and the Indian wars. Seize is the accurate word. "Acquire" is a euphemism, bordering untruth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was confusing Mann with Gavin Menzies who has written a book with a slightly similar title. Mann is probably an ok source, but since he is a popular author and the work presents novel arguments care should of course be taken not to represent his own novel arguments as fact if they are not generally accepted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, with bold this time: The absence of any serious native opposition to settlement by the Pilgrims may have been a pivotal event to their success and to English colonization in the Americas. This was a critical landing point and settlement for English colonists that paved the way for future mass colonization- not really so "tiny". Your sources regarding "seize" and "seized" are entirely of the Conquistadors, whose greatest hits were in Central and South America, and that's only the conquest, not the actual colonization. JordanGero (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is one mans interpretation of the tiny area called the Plymouth colony. Not a generally accepted interpretation of the process of colonization in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Seize" is not an appropriate characterization of the greater ease with which Europeans colonized the New World on account of the epidemics that devastated the Native American population. It describes certain instances well, but not the fact that, because up to 95% perished due to those epidemics, significantly less bloodshed was spent in acquiring control over land and resources. As in the case of settlement in English colonies, many areas had been significantly depopulated, making such settlement categorically inappropriately described with "seize". Therefore, "seize" is not the accurate word; it is a loaded and sweeping generalization, implying that all colonization occurred through violent bloodshed, and is thus misleading and, at worst, patently untrue. "Acquire control" is a more fitting description for the context of the paragraph; it is not at all a euphemism, since it means to communicate that the epidemics made the Europeans coming into possession of the land and resources which were at the disposal of the Native Americans much easier. JordanGero (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is a generally accepted interpretation of the process of colonization in general; "acquire control" does not signify a lack of violence. It merely encompasses settlements and expansions into the New World by European colonists that did not result from forcible and sudden violent taking ("seizure") of land and resources. This is why Rjensen's sources regarding the use of the word "seizure" are of the Conquistadors direct conquests of lands occupied by Native Americans, and do not mention non-military colonization in general. JordanGero (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No it is not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. Read the paragraph in question. It is about the epidemics, not about the conquests directly. JordanGero (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And Rjensen, just to reiterate, all your Google search results regard Conquistadors; the paragraph in question regards colonists, and is furthermore not specific to the direct conquest by the Conquistadors that your sources mention. Seizure indicates a sudden and violent taking; that may accurately describe the Conquistadors' actions, but not the colonists in general. "Acquire control" is a catch-all term, not loaded like the word "seize", that includes "seizure" as well.JordanGero (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, ·maunus and Rjensen, how would you feel about the term "seize" being replaced not with "acquire control of" but rather "take control of"? JordanGero (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on European colonization of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150214060648/http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/articles/disease.html to http://www.kporterfield.com/aicttw/articles/disease.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the RFC. The comments are good, but they are to evenly split. One argument is that seize is generally descriptive of the taking of land. The other is that while seize is descriptive of some of the way land was acquired, it isn't applicable to every instance. AlbinoFerret 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This RfC asks whether the word "seize (control of)" should be considered a loaded term and therefore avoided in descriptions of the way that Europeans came to colonize and dominate the American continent, and if it should be substituted with the term "acquire (control of)"?

Survey

No, Seize is a perfectly fitting an neutral description of the many cases in which colonization was made possible by the use of force in removing control of territory from Native populations. The contention that in some cases lands had been largely depopulated through epidemics is not relevant for this fact since it accounts for a small proportion of the cases. Scholarly consensus is that native populations were generally weakened by epidemics to the point of not offering adequate resistance to colonization, but it is not generally considered that depopulation was so extreme that the use of forcible seizures was negligible. The use of "acquire" would be a euphemism that would obscure rather than clarify how hisorians view the process of colonization today.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No I agree with Maunus. Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes As already stated above, the sources provided in support of "seize" are specifically in regards to the Conquistador's conquest of the Americas, and are not meant to contemplate the colonial spread throughout the Americas in general, including settlement of land and acquisition of resources in areas largely depopulated, as well as mass land cessions by the Native Americans to the United States and other countries. These constitute significant methods of land acquisition by European colonists, and the above editor, ·maunus, does not provide sources to support his contention that "seizure" or "seize" accurately describes all but a "small proportion of the cases." Given the sources listed below, this contention is unconvincing.

Some sources regarding such land cessions by Native American nations and tribes, as well as general depopulation of Native Americans in areas centrally occupied by European colonists: ^[1], regarding smallpox epidemic decimating the Native American population in New England circa 1616; ^[2], regarding the treaty of 1701 between New France and the First Nations which "allowed the province (New France) to expand both South and West"; ^[3], regarding land cessions by the Six Nations and the Cherokee; ^[4], regarding land cessions by the Seven Nations of Canada; ^[5], regarding land cessions by the Sioux; ^[6], regarding earlier land cessions by the Cherokee; these are just a few selections of treaties with the Native American populations and entirely not exhaustive.

Asides from the contradicting the editor ·maunus's contention that the epidemics resulted only in a "small proportion" of cases of land and acquisition being acquired by the colonists via methods not involving direct and sudden violence ("seizure"), it should be noted that the same editor is attempting to introduce a red herring in the argumentation: no one has argued that seizure of land by the European colonists was "negligible" or even "minor". The point being made in the paragraph in question in the article means to communicate that the decimation of the Native American populations due to naturally-spreading epidemics, asides from reducing such populations by as much as 95%, destabilized the Native American communities "culturally and politically", which in turn made general resistance to colonial influx, including their agreement to unfavorable treaties that ceded mass land tracts to the colonists. This is why the term "seizure" does not accurately or neutrally describe the gradual hegemony that European colonists eventually established in the New World, and why ·maunus is attempting to either pretend that his opponents are arguing that "no seizure" took place (categorically false), or to minimize the amount of land acquired by the colonists not by seizure. JordanGero (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanGero (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]

No in most cases --eg all of Spanish conquests--it was a violent seizure. The English fought and won major wars in New England, Virginia & S Carolina to force out the Indians. The land cessions in American treaties generally followed wars in which the Indians were defeated, including the French and Indian war, the American Revolution, The war of 1812, and the Sioux wars. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No - "'Seize" is by far the better option here. The alternatives ("take control" or "acquire") make it sound as though we're talking about a transaction or a handover, which is emphatically not the case in most instances. In most cases, what we're really talking about here is conquest - so "seize" is the obvious choice. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No - "Seize" is not even enough, see Echo-Hawk's In the Courts of the Conqueror. GregJackP Boomer! 09:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No as per maunus and Rjensen. "Seize" is clearly the most accurate term in the majority of cases. Edward321 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes The premise is begging the question and overly simplistic: "RfC: Should the word 'seize' or 'acquire' be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas?" The more accurate answer is that the land was obtained through various instruments, including, but not limited to, forced seizure, "legal" acquirement following native abandonment, and direct purchase via treaties, some of which were upheld long-term. But not all of the land was seized outright. For example, Manhattan Island was sold by the natives, not taken by the whites. So the best answer here is that neither word fully explains the complex process of native dispossession and white procurement of lands in the Americas. If these two words really are our only options, which of course they are not, at least acquired implies more than one process; whereas seized implies that all the land was taken by force, which just isn't true. RO ^(talk) 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with the explanation put forth by Rationalobserver. LavaBaron (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. History is complicated, especially when the topic in question spans many centuries and multiple continents. This RfC oversimplifies the issues at hand. Brustopher (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes The use of the word "seize" should be limited to specific instances in which a seizure took place and not as a general catchall. In the case of the earliest New England settlements, in Massachusetts, a colonial presence existed for 17 years until conflict broke-out in the form of the Pequot War and it was then another 50 years until the Metacomet War. In both conflicts, Mohegan and Massachusett tribes participated on the colonial side. Use of the word "seize," therefore, juvenilizes Native peoples by portraying them as a single-minded, uni-cultural monolith instead of a complex cross-section of socio-political systems each with unique and competing economic and political agendas (which is the mature method we treat the political and military history of Europe and East Asia). I agree "acquire" is an undesirably tame term, however, and would be open to an alternate one, but in the absence of that and for purposes of this RfC am registering my opinion as "yes." LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. To me "seize" is a very loaded word. "Acquire" is about as neutral as you can get. And please note that to say that something was "acquired" does not necessarily imply that it was not seized.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes "Seize" is too narrow to adequately encompass the diverse ways that the diverse groups of settlers and others acquired land from all the various different tribes, as well as from the various European-led governments who had conflicting claims. "Seize" doesn't include purchasing of land. It doesn't include purchasing of land from people that do not understand ownership in the same way. It doesn't include purchasing land under a treaty that sets out other land for the tribes, only to violate that treaty and take the land, and then sign another treaty...you know the story. "Seize" is too narrow a term to summarize hundreds of years, millions of people, and millions of square kilometers. "Acquire" is passive but is at least a broader term that encompasses more of the sweep of history. It also has the added benefit of being kind of wishy-washy, sounding like a euphemism, that will hopefully lead readers to read more in depth. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Fyddlestix, similar to the logical error made by the users above, you misunderstand the point of the paragraph in question. It means to state that because there were much less Native Americans on account of the epidemics, it was overall easier for the colonists to spread into what is now North and South America. It does not specifically regard the violent conquests, which are surely accurately described with the word "seize", but the overall effect of up to 95% depopulation of the indigenous people on European colonial expansion and settlements. The sources I've provided above specifically state instances of greater ease of settlement on account of the absence of Native Americans where, prior to epidemics in those areas, the indigenous numbers were much higher. I seem to be in the minority thus far, so I'll accept whatever decision is reached through this Rfc for now, but the arguments in favor of keeping the word "seize" are nevertheless on shaky ground. Thank you for your contribution to this Rfc, by the way. JordanGero (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem though - they didn't "spread into" empty land, and the epidemics did not completely decimate any area of North America. The fact that epidemics lowered the population of these areas does not matter here - the significant/important thing is that people already living there, and that Europeans had to conquer and/or push those people out in order to - as you would put it - "take control." More often than not, this was a violent, coercive process. We should not be shying away from that. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be operating from a preconceived scenario that is based entirely or almost entirely on the conquest period, most notably the Conquistadors (given that the sources provided in favor of using the word "seize" are exclusively in the context of the Conquistadors). Several of the sources I've cited above regard precisely moving into empty or nearly empty land, specifically on account of the devastation caused by the epidemics. It is simply wholly unreasonable to classify the spread of European colonialism and hegemony over the New World through the word "seizure" when upwards of 95% of the indigenous population had already perished when the central thrust of this colonization was taking place. No one is arguing that the epidemics completely decimated all Native Americans, but some areas were indeed left close to or even entirely depopulated (most notably the Plymouth Colony source I've cited above). You and the others seem to purposefully be refusing to acknowledge that "seize" or "seizure" most accurately describes the conquest period, and not necessarily all or even most of the colonialism that followed, which included occupation of territory that had only a fraction of the people it holds today, not to mention that the land treaties struck with many of the Native Americans would likely not have been reached, or at least not reached on such unfavorable terms if the epidemics had not devastated the preexisting indigenous population. Again, the logic of describing the effect of the epidemics had on the ease with which colonization progressed is not accurately described solely by the words "seize" or "seizure"; you can attempt to quarantine the argument to simply the conquest period, but that doesn't change the fact that the article is about the colonization in general. The logic of using the word "seizure" or "seize" is on shaky ground and unsupported as a wholesale descriptor beyond the initial conquest period; of course there were plenty battles and skirmishes between the colonists and the Native Americans following settlement, but much of the land was already depopulated, and more came into the possession of the settlers later via treaties ceding large tracts; these conditions are not accurately described by the word "seizure" or "seize", and they are certainly not insignificant or in the minority, especially when one considers, alongside the battles, the sheer number of alliances and treaties actually struck between the Native Americans and colonists over use of land and resources. I've stated this before, but it bears repeating: it is simply wholly unreasonable to classify the spread of European colonialism and hegemony over the New World through the word "seizure" when upwards of 95% of the indigenous population had already perished when the central thrust of colonization and expansion was taking place. I will accept the decision of the majority, but the logic does not support this decision, which leads me to suspect that there is a deep-seated bias in favor of resolving ambiguity in favor of those seen as victims, which is generally in line with the western thought process of granting implied moral superiority to victimhood. Understandable, but not logically defensible. JordanGero (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the sources you've linked are of poor quality - primary documents, random websites, etc. You also seem to be interpreting them in a somewhat odd way - yes, a lot of these sources say that the population of native peoples had been decimated by disease. It does not follow from that that there was empty land for Europeans to "take control" of. High quality, academic sources like this one and this one (among others) acknowledge that disease upset the balance of power between Europeans and indigenous people's, but they also make it abundantly clear that the dispossession of native peoples was still a conflict; it was a coercive, often violent, and imperialistic process. The academic literature is crystal clear on this. We cannot sugar-coat that with weasel-words. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems I'll have to agree to disagree on this. The sources I’ve linked provide documentation of mass numbers of treaties and alliances between the colonists and the Native Americans, as well as evidence that in certain areas of settlement, there were indeed large tracts of land that had been left entirely depopulated, whereas previous expeditions to such areas recorded numerous indigenous inhabitants; the explication can of course be improved in the sources I’ve cited, but for the purposes of the words in contention here, they are sufficient. It is a curious phenomenon I’ve noticed when being in the minority of a contention on Wikipedia, that being that the minority’s sources are all of a sudden scrutinized well beyond how they would normally be, so as to strengthen the argument of the majority and make it appear that not only consensus but logic and fact are on there side, when here it is at best ambiguous if that is so (which counsels in favor of using my broader terminology, and not the more charged and focused "seize). Even if you are correct, and my sources are lacking, there is insufficient evidence to make “seize” an accurate wholesale descriptor of colonial hegemony in the New World; it is appropriate for the conquest period, and of course for battles and skirmishes between the colonists and the natives that resulted in the takeover of land, but that entirely ignores the fact that these incidents do not describe all or even most of how the New World came to be almost entirely in the possession and control of European powers. Furthermore, I am not interpreting the sources I’ve cited that the epidemics left the New World an “empty land” for the Europeans to take over; this is a red herring introduced by supporters of your position, and again by you in your recent reply, to confuse the argument at hand. The argument is whether “seize” accurately describes how colonial hegemony over the Americas came to be following depopulation of the indigenous people due to widespread epidemics. Nowhere have I or anyone else argued that this left all of the New World an empty land, though some of the sources I’ve cited above, including those from the featured Plymouth Colony article, do state precisely that large areas of settlements, previously with heavy indigenous concentrations, were left entirely or almost entirely depopulated, concluding that this almost certainly helped the colonists establish successful and permanent colonies all over New England. That, along with the fact that upwards of 95% of the indigenous population perished due to the epidemics prior to the main thrust of colonization, and the numerous alliances and treaties struck with the Native Americans, alliances and treaties that are unlikely to have been reached, or reached on the same terms, if such massive depopulation due to epidemics had not occurred, makes the description of the rise of colonial hegemony with the word “seize” inaccurate. Your counter here is a red herring regarding my argument, and a focus on the conquest period of colonialism (all of the sources that have been cited for the word “seize” by the editor Rjensen above are relative to the Conquistadors). Again, I do not contest that “seize” accurately describes that conquest period and the direct battles that took place between the natives and colonists, but you and those of your persuasion have failed to supply sources that make it appropriate to describe the overall colonial hegemony of the New World with that word, and that is precisely what the paragraph in question is about: the overall colonial hegemony, and not simply the conquest periods, and how it was easier for the colonists to come into possession of the abundance of land and resources in the New World due to the epidemics devastating the indigenous populations. I am neither sugar-coating nor injecting weasel words into the mix, though by accusing me of doing such, you've strengthened by belief that you are resolving ambiguity by favoring the side of history that has been established as its victim, which, again, is in line with the general western idea of implying moral superiority to victim-hood. My version of the paragraph (with "take over" or "acquire control over" versus "seize) is simply a more encompassing and accurate description of the rise of colonial hegemony in the New World following the devastation of indigenous populations due to epidemics; if one is discussing just the conquests and direct battles with the natives, then "seize" is perfectly fine, but you have provided no sources that demonstrates that what is today North and South America came mostly or entirely into the possession of the colonists through direct and sudden violence, which is what "seize" means and implies. It is simply an unbelievable conclusion, given the 95% decimation of the Native American population, the numerous treaties and alliances with the Natives, along with subsequent relocation and reservation establishments. There are close to a billion people living in what is today North and South America, but estimates of indigenous population numbers following the toll taken on them from the epidemics are at most in the 10 million range (that's the high of the range). That's 10 million people, estimated, in what is today territory that holds almost 100 times that, and your contention is that all this territory came into possession of the European colonists and settlers over the years via "seizure"? Really? Again, I will accept the majority’s conclusion, but the argument for such a conclusion, which seems to be in favor of the word “seize”, is weak and lacking. I JordanGero (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'm not really interested in debating this with you further, I am comfortable with my own argument and what the reliable sources say about the subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I just edited my last reply and changed some substance in there, fyi (couldn't save it right away because of the edit conflict). JordanGero (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

JordanGero is less convincing because of his very narrow range of sources--does he not know that peaceful Plymouth fought a major war with the Indians 1676? Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, you miss the point of my contentions; Plymouth Colony is simply one example I've cited, and I've never made a contention that such a colony had no violent conflicts with indigenous inhabitants. You continue to misunderstand the point that was being made by replacing "seize" with "acquire/take over control" of "land and resources". In the paragraph in question, it is meant to communicate that decimation of the Native American population allowed European colonial hegemony to proceed much easier than it likely otherwise would have, and neither you nor others have provided sources that make it reasonable to conclude that all or even most of such hegemony is accurately described via the word "seize" (which is why all of your sources in support above of the word "seize" were from the conquest period). Again, countless treaties ceding land, along with alliances and non-aggression agreements between the colonists and Native Americans, as well as the fact that territories that now hold close to 1 billion people held less than 10 million (maximum estimate) during the time of European colonization, make "seize" an unreasonable wholesale descriptor in this context. JordanGero (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, Rjensen, here is Giovanni de Verazzanno, as recounted by Charles Mann in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus describing the Eastern Seaboard of what is today the United States in 1523: "[h]e observed the coastline everywhere was densely populated, smoky with Indian bonfires; he could sometimes smell the burning hundreds of miles away."^[1] Contrast that with the Plymouth Colony source above of settlers colonizing a virtually uninhabited region, including its surrounding regions, in the same area described by Verazzanno, as well as the PBS report citing the following: "[W]ithin just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas."^[2] There are plenty of other sources that can make this argument stronger yet, but why do I get the feeling that I would be wasting my time if I continued to pursue it? You, and those of your persuasion, like GregJackP, already have your mythos and worldview nice and comfortable regarding the colonization of the Americas, and I wouldn't want to disturb that much further with more interjections of reality. "Seize" describes the conquest period perfectly; it does not accurately describe how colonists and settlers came into possession of virtually all of the land and resources of the New World afterward, when the effect of the epidemics described in the article had already taken their toll. I've never denied that battles and skirmishes for land occurred after the initial period of conquest, but neither you nor anyone else has provided a source that shows that such battles and skirmishes following the initial period of conquest resulted in all or most of the land and resources in the New World being "seized" by the non-indigenous colonists and settlers. What sources I have already provided you demonstrate the unreasonableness of this position, which again leads me to believe that, when historical ambiguity is encountered by many in the West, especially when there is a moral element involved, that ambiguity is unequivocally (or usually) resolved in favor of the party that has been or is perceived to have been the victim of history, regardless of the abstract reasonableness of such a resolution. Thus, the racial sensitivities that dominate social interaction in places like the United States, along with an implied grant of, all else being equal, moral superiority for the minority, can remain in place and placate the uneasy burden of history carried by all those who are unfortunate enough to have been socialized into it. JordanGero (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree Jordan. Seize isn't the right word. "Stolen," "taken by force or fraud," and several other phrases seem much more appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are inaccurate as well, given the context of the sentence in question (you have read it, yes?). Again, land taken directly during periods of conquest is surely accurately described via "seize", but the point being made here is that decimation of up to 95% of the indigenous population makes European hegemony over the entirety of the New World poorly characterized wholesale through that word, which is why I suggested a replacement with a broader term (the paragraph in question is not simply about the conquest era). Moreover, during those periods of conquest, there's little room for arguing about "stealing" land, given that the majority of large land exchanges prior to the modern era occurred via war and conquest: it belonged to whomever had the greater force to take it, and that happened to be the Europeans, especially given that the epidemics had devastated the defensive capabilities of the indigenous people, not to mention their societal and political integrity. Europeans "stole" land from other Europeans all the time, by your loaded definition. As I've mentioned about the comments of others above, your comment is in line with the general western idea of granting implied moral superiority to those in history seen as the victims, which is why you inaccurately use the word "steal" here: so you can feel morally superior in either your racial identity or in your philosophy at present. Understandable, but either way, it doesn't change the substance of my position. It never fails to amuse me the lengths individuals will go to to apply modern ethical sensibilities to the distant past; the anachronism is palpable, as is, perhaps, the insecurity that propels it? I cannot say for sure. JordanGero (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: given your statement, you also seem to misunderstand the point being made by the paragraph in question. Although your argument that land taken during conquest times can be appropriately characterized as "stolen" is weak at best (given that, in that era, the owners of land in the world were, for the most part, those who could take it by force), you do have a point regarding land that was later taken from the Native Americans that was contrary to existing treaties or covenants between the Natives and European settlers/the descendants of European settlers. The point being made, however, is whether hegemony over what is now North and South America, the entirety of the New World, can accurately be described via the word "seize": at the time of the main thrust of colonization, the ravages of the epidemics had left, at maximum estimates, about 10 million people of indigenous stock on what is today North and South America (if you have a source contrary to this, please let me know so I can reevaluate). North and South America today hold close to 1 billion people, therefore it is simply unreasonable to believe that the entirety of the two continents, or even most, from the beginning of conquest, came into the possession of colonists and their descendants via "seizure." You're purposefully interjecting loaded words that, although accurately describing a good part of how Native Americans were treated, do not regard what the paragraph in question is specifically about. Again, if you have not done so, please read it. JordanGero (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Second follow-up: I feel I should mention here also something I've noticed of individuals who make comments such as yours, GregJackP. You have no problem whatsoever applying modern ethical sensibilities to the past to reach the result you desire in the present (moral superiority based on race or culture, which is a form of racism/bigotry), but you apply such sensibilities with heightened discrimination (what we attorneys might term heightened or strict scrutiny). Never mind the fact that the Americas were developed into what they are today on account of European colonization; never mind the fact of the violent tribal warfare, cannibalism, and human sacrifices practiced by a large amount of the indigenous population (no moral problem there whatsoever, right?); never mind the fact that almost 1 billion people live in territory where fewer than 10 million were living prior to the start of European colonization. Never mind all that- let's just make ourselves feel morally superior by saying the Europeans "stole" all "our" land and call it a day, shall we? Truly marvelous, work, good sir. Truly. JordanGero (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My people didn't try to eliminate all of your people. I'm pretty sure I know more about American Indian culture, history, and heritage than you. I live it. My father was born on the rez, as was his father and his father before him. My grandfather was taken from his family and tribe and sent to an Indian School, where the motto was "Kill the Indian, Save the Man."

You can post your wall of text and all the other BS that you want. I know what happened. It's what we attorneys might term genocide. Attorneys who are familiar with Indian law often note that the United States does not believe in pacta sunt servanda, at least as far as Indian treaties are concerned. See Siegfried Wiessner, American Indian Treaties and Modern International Law, 7 St. Thomas L. Rev. 567 (1995); see also Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903); United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886). All of these show that if you are NDN (that's tribal shorthand BTW), you cannot trust the white government.

That was true when the Europeans first showed up, it was true when Amherst waged biological warfare, it was true at Wounded Knee, and it remains true today. Spread your revisionist BS elsewhere, and read WP:1AM. You're the only one arguing for your position.

That's what we attorneys call a loser case, and we try not to accept those cases. GregJackP Boomer! 05:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Break

I suggest editing around this. Once race becomes part of an argument, name calling seems to take the place of logic. Please take no inference from my choice to hat at this position. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wow. Just wow. “My people didn’t try to eliminate all of your people.” Do you have any idea how racist that statement is? Do you know who I am, what my cultural or racial background is? How dare you group me with anyone given that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about? Even if you knew with 100% certainty that I am a Caucasian, that does not make the inappropriateness and racism of your statement any less: there is no “my people”, sir- I am an individual who makes decisions for myself and doesn’t behave in accordance to a “type”. Just because you dislike what someone else has done who has the same skin color as me doesn't make it all right for you to engage in racism against me. When you say “my people” and “your people” you are committing an act of indirect ‘’’racism’’’.

Moreover, your commentary regarding your life experiences, although wholly unfortunate and tragic, have little to nothing to do with the argument at hand. You’ve only confirmed what I suspected in my posts above: your words and ideas are entirely racially motivated, likely stemming from extreme racial animosity and/or insecurity against those of the white race. You don’t care what is supported by logic or facts; you only care about what sounds like it supports your position, which is why you prefer the word “seize”: it is a welcome sound byte for your narrative. Most credible and reputable historians dispute the categorization of what happened to the Native Americans as genocide, and your clichéd and hollow song of “don’t trust the white man” is more evidence of a deep-seated racism that is extremely disparaging and offensive (more on that in a bit). And no, "we attorneys" do not call that "genocide"; I've represented individuals wishing to make such arguments in court, and the very suggestion of it, given the evidence that exists, only serves to very sharply divide judges and jurors. Rather, it’s what we attorneys call “skew”, and in a court of law, your statements can easily result in a mistrial on account of biasing and corrupting a jury (assuming it is not a bench trial, of course). Wounded Knee is called a massacre and not a genocide for a reason: it was motivated by a desire to disarm the Lakotas, during which act a battle broke out between the Lakota warriors and the US soldiers. And as far as the comments by Lt. Amherst of smallpox blankets, the evidence only shows that this was a discussion, not that it actually took place. More recently, an academic from the University of Colorado named Ward Churchill fabricated stories about the distribution of smallpox blankets to the Mankan Indians, stories which have been categorically disproven [| here].

You can rail on with irrelevant caselaw to this discussion (that only demonstrates racist policy, not genocide), regale me with unfortunate stories of your familial history, and demonstrate your unabashed racism that is emboldened by your borderline psychotic belief that as a minority your words are judged in a more morally permissive light. It does not change the fact that you are a racist, and that you are wrong about the wording of this article. The only reason the survey is in your favor is because, as I’ve stated above, the general approach in the West is to resolve moral ambiguities in favor of those who have been or have been perceived to be victimized by history.

But go ahead- tell yourself whatever you need to sleep better at night, whether that is racist crap like “my people vs. your people”, making up stories about genocide and essentially redefining the word to get more sympathy for yourself, or just being an overall jerk and demonstrating your absolute incompetence as an attorney (which altogether denigrates our profession). Nothing I've stated has anything to do with revisionism, though I understand why you would like to think so, given that the reality and logic of my position fully contradicts your racist worldview where you see yourself as perpetually victimized, and thus interpret every historical fact with extreme bias, and even assuming facts wherever your racist worldview is best served. Truly marvelous, sir.

By the way, I am reporting you for racism and name-calling.

P.S. When all you have to defend your position are ad hominems, sensationalism, and racism, I suggest not engaging in argumentation about which you are obviously quite passionate. It only serves to denigrate our profession and to demonstrate your handsome degrees of racism. JordanGero (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple of points.

Amherst wasn't a lieutenant, it was Lord General Jeffrey Amherst, and there is documentation that infected blankets were taken from the hospital and given to the Indians, remarkably coinciding with a smallpox epidemic among the Lenape and Shawnee tribes. Nice try at revisionism.

Churchill was a white wannabe, not an Indian. In other words, one of yours, not ours. He's also an idiot who has done more to hurt tribes than to help. I also didn't bring him up, but find it fascinating that a white would bring up the lies of a white man who is pretending to be Indian in an attempt to discredit Indians. Absolutely fascinating approach.

You may want to look up the definition of genocide and then look at what the U.S. has done over the last 200 years.

Good luck with your revisionist history here (again, you may want to read WP:1AM), and your report at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 06:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty disappointing to see you continue your racism against me after you just issued an "apology" for assuming my race on the Admin Noticeboard page. Either way, you've got your facts wrong. Firstly, the evidence regarding Amherst supports he made statements regarding smallpox blankets, but there is no evidence of actually taking action on such statements; [| read].

Secondly, regarding your point on Churchill, I only brought him up to suggest that because of the influence of his fabrications about smallpox blankets, the story of smallpox blankets has unjustifiably has grown in popularity over the last few decades, despite the existence of considerable academic debate over it (not the least of which are some of the points in the link I provided to you above). You persist with racially charged statements that are irrelevant to the discussion, including assuming my race and gender. Again, I brought up Churchill to demonstrate damage done in this area of study, but you've managed to pervert it into a "white man" bringing up "white lies." Lovely- truly marvelous "approach."

And the definition of genocide is mass, systematic extermination of a distinct group of people. That is not what occurred to the Native Americans: there was never a systematic and mass decision and action to exterminate them- please educate yourself before airing your racist viewpoints (they are quite apparent, given your interpretation of history and racially charged terminology). No one here is revising history- nice try indeed in trying to pigeonhole your opponent like that. You, however, are interpreting history with extreme racial bias. So far, you've not managed to provide any actual support for the original argument regarding the word "seize", choosing instead to hurl racist insults and purposefully imply mischaracterizations of the definition of the word "genocide." Marvelous- truly marvelous.JordanGero (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me know when you want to learn how to actually edit WP. I'm willing to mentor you. GregJackP Boomer! 07:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly busy in my profession for that, not to mention that it would have been more appropriate for you to suggest this on my talk page, not here where it can easily be interpreted as condescension (which is not altogether surprising, given your racially charged statements above). Either way, I am learning at my own pace, and my ability to edit Wikipedia has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The points you've brought up to defend your position are at the very least hotly debated, but you cite them as fact. On top of that, this debate was never about genocide to begin with. JordanGero (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Also, you do realize that the Amherst smallpox blanket incident, even if true, is documented during the Pontiac War when Native Americans were performing a siege on Fort Pitt, and the people trapped inside during the siege transferred several blankets and a handkerchief to the Native Americans in hopes of ending the siege/combating the Native Americans? Please don't tell me you define this as genocide- has nothing to do with it. Biological warfare when you're under siege and running out of options is something far removed from a mass and systematic extermination, regardless of whether the plan was effective or not.JordanGero (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on European colonization of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080317092614/http://www.millersville.edu:80/~columbus/data/art/AXTELL01.ART to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/AXTELL01.ART

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Augsburg

klein venedig was a german colony run by augsburg in the americas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.200.191 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European colonization of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European colonization of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Mention of Alternative Theories?

I know this may be a controversial topic, but it has picked up traction in the media, with growing scientific evidence. The alternative theory(ies) suggest that Europeans may have visited the America's much earlier than previously believed. Some are suggesting, then, that Stone Age European people were the first in the Americas thousands of years before anyone crossed from Siberia. This theory is by no means the popular consensus, but it is certainly a substantial minority at this point. Is it worth considering a brief section mentioning this? DaltonCastle (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

it's rare that newspaper articles make good sources for archaeology and the four year old sources aren't adequate .and have largely been debunked. The book is about the Solutrean hypothesis which has its own article and is mentioned in others. It has little mainstream support and the genetic information pretty much invalidates what was a weak case anyway. There's also a difference between settlement, which is what the Solutrean hypothesis claims, and colonisation, "a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components. What you are talking about isn't colonisation. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Racist editors deleting all my comments. I am making movies to prove this

I've been attempting to edit out racist articles. To those of you deleting my posts, I've been capturing video footage of my changes and the subsequent racist removals of my edits. I shall have sufficient evidence to provide several anti racism sites plus the news media with this evidence. Thanks for providing the evidence needed to end the racism on Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll delete this, but that will give added evidence of your bigotry. Goodbye and here's to changing the world and ending your racism on Wikipedia, and elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:3867:2C1A:3095:89DB (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to any actual constructive edits you have tried to make? Or is all you do is just post nonsense like the above on the comments page? If you have valid sourced cited edits to make, bring them with your WP:CITEs. If you can show a valid edit of yours that was removed for no valid reason, it can be fixed, show us some diffs. Otherwise I will just keep assuming you are here to pontificate instead of build the encyclopedia per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTHERE. He iro 20:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Heironymous Rowe. The fact that the poster merely talked negative about editors and had absolutely zero about any specific content, edits or proposed content is very indicative. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Discoverers

Well I think that if you mention Columbus, Cabot and all the others in the first paragraph I think Pedro Alvares Cabral (Brazil) and Corte-Real (Newfoundland) as well as João Lavrador (Labrador) are worth mentioning

Is there any way we could use this material that was deleted from Immigration to the United States?

Everything under the heading of "Colonization of North America" was deleted from Immigration to the United States... see the old version [9]. Can we use any of that in this article? It cites a source, "The Source: A Guidebook of American Genealogy by Kory L. Meyerink and Loretto Dennis Szucs", which is better than the complete lack of sources for our current page here.

help??

i need to know what happened after the European colonization; how did both culture groups of Latin America change.?

-thanks.

Jade.

The sources

Due to the necessity of having up to date information, some of the sources may need to be updated as many of them are from the 1960's. Are there any sources that can be added to supplement these articles with newer information? Maybe more from this decade and from more experienced researchers. And if there are, can they be added in directly to the article the way it is, or will there need to be more editing in addition to adding the newer information? Emily Quist (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Various European powers"

There are 50 countries in Europe and only handful of these countries had colonies. The introduction should list the countries that had colonies in Americas. Saying that "various European powers" gives an image that Ukraine, Romania, Finland and Poland had colonies in Americas. It's vague, unnecessary and even insulting to even refer that poor and smaller countries of Europe had any colonies in Americas. If the article wants to have a neutral point of view then it shouldn't make such generalizations about whole continent of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.139.118 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased it. there is a map and a list so no one will be misled. Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedia being anti-India

Wikipedia is known as anti-India. Another example of this was that Columbus was going to India. It is a known fact that Colombus set out to find India to trade. But, on this page, it does not say India but the east. 2605:E000:2483:AF00:9DED:73:3169:A0F9 (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2017

Note: Old unsigned post was refactored May 10 2019 also unsigned North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Irish colonization of the Americas

There are two different claims that the Irish discovered the Americas long before the Vikings.

The first is a Spanish report from the 1520s, talking about the Duhare tribe, found in modern South Carolina and Georgia in the United States. They are described as having "red hair" and several cave paintings were almost identical to those found in Ireland. Also, an ancient Gaelic lullaby was found written there.

The second is the Norse saga talking about a place known as Great Ireland, believed by historians to be located in modern Vinland. The story says Norse sailors became lost while sailing around Iceland, and ended up stranded in a strange land, where the people seemed to speak the Irish langauge and look like Irish people.

During the period 400-800 AD, a time sometimes known as the Irish Golden Age, Irish explorers were said to have discovered and possible invaded and established colonies in Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and the evidence above suggests they also discovered the Americas.

For further information on this you can see the Papar monks (Irish missionaries said to have been found on Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes by the Vikings), St.Brendan (6th century Irish explorer) and Niall of the Nine Hostages (High King of Ireland during the 5th century), said to have invaded and established colonies all over western Great Britain during the end of the Roman Britain era, and possibly invaded France as well. He is said to have been killed on the English channel while invading Brittany, and one of his sons fought the Romans and pushed them back as far as the Alps.

I know a lot of this information is not verifiable, but I think considering the evidence it is worth mentioning. Iamdmonah (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about some of those links. Here:Brendan,Papar, Roman Britain, Irish Iamdmonah (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You might find Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories is a more appropriate place to discuss any of that to any depth (though maybe that page should get linked from here). Wily D 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Information that is not verifiable is not evidence. It wont be added to this page because it is considered WP:FRINGE pseudohistory by mainstream academia. Also, all our information, per our policies on WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:VERIFY, must be cited to reliable sources for verification. He iro 13:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

All of the information I have mentioned can be found in sources I have found, but I don't want to be the judge of whether or not the sources are reliable, but I think most of the information is verifiable. But perhaps WilyD is correct in stating that the article he has linked is probably a better place for this information. Iamdmonah (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably a bit of an exaggeration when I said "a lot of it is not verifiable". What I meant was whether the stories are fact or fiction is debated among historians, or at least which parts are true and which aren't. Or whether stories were twisted or romanticized to some extent. But based on the evidence I would say that it is worth mentioning, as a possibility rather than a definite statement– in this article or the other article mentioned. Iamdmonah (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is debated by fringe pseudohistorians, no serious academic or mainstream author gives it any credence. If you have evidence to the contrary sourced to a WP:RELIABLE non WP:FRINGE source, please provide it and we can discuss it's merits. He iro 17:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And yes, as WilyD noted, this is already covered at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories#Irish and Welsh legends. He iro 17:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I viewed the topic as discussed on the page Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, but felt it was incomplete. Iamdmonah (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll fetch some sources now.

Great Ireland: https://archive.org/details/eirikredssagaat00sephgoog, https://archive.org/details/eyrbyggjasaga00herm
St. Brendan: https://books.google.ie/books?id=7RGlz9a4wVYC&pg=PA16&dq=saint+brendan+the+navigator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o7dWVfq8M8OdyATKl4GYAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=saint%20brendan%20the%20navigator&f=false
Ogham stones in South Carolina: https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/irish-colony-south-carolina-christopher-columbus - Both Barry Fell and David.H.Kelley agreed that there was sufficient evidence to show that there was Ogham Stones in North America.

Other sources you can find on the page mentioned, Pre-Columbian trans-atlantic contact theories#Irish and Welsh legends. Do there sources seem reliable in your view? Iamdmonah (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Irishcentral is not a WP:RS. Also, Richard Thornton is noted crank and fantasist.see here in "Bullspotting: Finding Facts in the Age of Misinformation"
Barry Fell is not a WP:RS, as he is "best known for his pseudoarchaeological work in New World epigraphy", actual archaeologists does not consider him credible, he's an invertebrate zoologist.
North American Exploration, edited by John Logan Allen that you linked above also disagrees, page 18 : "There is actual evidence of actual maritime experience in Navigatio, but a cautious interpretation is that it refers to the coast of the British Isles and Brittany".
"Eirik the Red's Saga: A Translation by John Sephton" is not a WP:RS for the Irish colonizing North America.He iro 18:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you feel I'm incorrect in the assessment of any of those, feel free to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. He iro 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the question of whether it is fringe or not, this particular article is about colonization, not "maybe visited" or "maybe discovered". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A source written by an Irish monk in the 9th century I believe, although obviously a secondary source, documents Brendan's voyage. It states Brendan found "great demons threw down fiery slag... great rivers of golden fire" and "great crystal pillars" believed to refer to volcanoes and icebergs respectively, suggesting Brendan almost certainly discovered Iceland anyway, so therefore it is not beyond belief that he discovered America. And in regards to Barry Fell, although his work was often criticised by David.H.Kelley, Kelley agreed that there was substantial evidence to show that Ogham stones existed in America.

Anyway, if these in your view are not WP:RS,I accept your judgement, and thank you.

User:North8000 fair point sir. Iamdmonah (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I flag this page for bias?

I edited out the very biased opening of the article but it still needs to be edited for bias. This article is based on an ideology not facts and needs to be flagged for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 23:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You might want to explain further, and more specifically, especially before deleting large swaths of the page that contained information from peer-reviewed sources. —Hobomok (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Certain parts of that section do have problems but blanking the whole section is not the way to work on it and so I restored it. Has many value-laden uninformative characterization type words. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix it a bit. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I did a bit, but this will take some deeper work. The lead should be a summary of the article. Parts of it are a POV / OR fest that is not from the article but also bundled with material which might be useful but which is not in the article. So the latter elements really need to get built into the body of the article (or least reviewed for the possibility) before the problematic material is removed from the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

My work got undone as a byproduct of a larger reversion. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

North8000 I agree with and thank you for the work you started doing here, removing unbalanced wording and the like. As you point out, there are many good sources here that should be represented, but the wording and structure for introducing them could be changed. Cbinetti, you need to stop wholesale deleting the information on this page, though. This is not the way to go about editing. You've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors and you've been warned on your talk page. --Hobomok (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I too think north8000 was on the right track to improving this article. Masterhatch (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This page is biased and noone will tell me how to flag it for bias. The summary in the beginning is biased and the fact is that academia is biased on this issue so it is hard to cite "reliable sources" that contradict the systemic bias in academia. Being reverted by random biased people should not be counted against me. This page needs to flagged for bias. The settler-colonialism and genocide stuff needs to be edited out. There is no comparative perspective here or in the academic literature. When other cultures conquer they are not held to the same standards as the Europeans. Also, the concept of settler-colonialism is a flawed concept and should not be cited or quoted unproblematized in an encyclopedia. Also, the structuralist view here shows bias and is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging User:North8000 and User:Masterhatch for discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article, especially the lead, has an anti-colonial pov in the way it's written but simply deleting out chunks like Cbinett is doing is not the answer. Other than that, I'm not sure why I was pinged. Masterhatch (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the idea that settler colonialism and genocide should not be discussed because an editor believes academia to be “biased” is not sufficient reason to delete large swaths of the article. Language could indeed be tempered, and the research in the lead pared down to a summary while more in-depth discussion is added to the article’s body, as North8000 attempted to do.

However, peer-reviewed sources from experts clearly and robustly discuss these topics in the context of colonization of the Americas and those expert voices must be included. This is not the place for you, user:Cbinetti, to debate or call into question the merits of academic research like settler colonial theory. The sources say what the sources say, and that’s what an encyclopedia represents.—Hobomok (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a few serious bias and soapbox problems with this article which should be fixed. I don't intend to spend the time here in a big debate prior to each fix but I'll try a few as edits, putting the rationales in edit summaries. If reverted, those reverts should also provide a rationale and then that would at least provide something more specific here to discuss. There is probably a mild bias to the overall article in addition to that but IMO the latter is not serious and it is an informative article. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO the main overall mild bias of this article is what it is missing which is the development of the colonies themselves. For a typical colony, it typically covers only the factoids from the European country's government's perspective, and interactions with and impacts on the indigenous peoples and nothing else. So the "fix" would be more content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone tell how to flag that page for bias. Noone is telling me how to do it. I have every right to have a problem with settler colonial theory, which has no basis in fact and is simply ideology. Academia has a serious bias and we need to be careful in calling out biased sources. Cbinetti (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Cbinetti, take a gander here to see if you see the right template to mark this page as bias: [10] or [11]. Of course, you can always edit the article yourself. Masterhatch (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cbinetti if you do, you MUST be explicit about what changes you make and link them to our policy at WP:NNPOV. Claims of "bias" are irrelevant as bias is not a bad thing in itself. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I am asking technically how to post a warning for bias. How is bias not a bad thing? 69.127.44.36 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to log in. Why is bias not a bad thing? How do I flag an article for bias using the warning box system? It is a technical question. Cbinetti (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cbinetti Wikipedia is biased towards mainstream science. Is that bad? Doug Weller talk 18:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

To some degree, yes. Academia has unfair biases within it, especially in the social sciences. Cbinetti (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that there is any need for bias tag. Wikipedia is beholden to academic sources and your subjective opinion of knowledge production in academia and ills thereof is irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cbinetti: you may have misunderstood how Wikipedia works and it may help if you read this piece: WP:RGW. The point is that our policies require us to reflect mainstream “reliable sources” including mainstream academia, for good or ill. You may regard those sources as “biased” but that doesn’t affect our requirement to reflect them in articles. A minority view, for example, which you may support must not get as much prominence as the majority view which you may personally think is biased. In other words if “academia has unfair biases within it” we must mirror those “unfair biases” in articles. This is explained here: WP:NPOV. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Keeping in-line with policy and what the user above me outlined, I’ve re-added the term “settler colonial” to the lede, as that is what the cited sources say. I’ve kept the “in many cases” qualifier around genocide of Indigenous peoples, as the idea that all European colonization of the Americas resulted in the genocide of all Indigenous peoples is a more contentious idea than settler colonialism.—Hobomok (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You do not have to add in a bad concept just because of a bias in academia. Settler colonialism is an ahistorical concept. Cbinetti (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes we do if that’s the WP:DUEWEIGHT in reliable sources. What we can’t do is impose our personal perspective as you want to do. Your approach is contrary to a fundamental principle of the way Wikipedia works. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What looks like pov vandalism on this article since Dec 11 last year. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The two of you are tag--teaming against me to protect the biased content of this article. Rather than accusing me of pov vandalism, let us acknowledge the ufndamental pov bias of the article. Cbinetti (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually know the subject matter? I do. Settler colonialism is an unsound, ahistorical social theory with no place in a history article. Removing one word is all that I ask. Cbinetti (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's go for being informative. I don't buy the "bias is good as long as it aligns with current/ fashionable orthodoxy" (= wp:"reliable" sources) Let's just find expert sources on this historical article and inform readers on what they have to say. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Who said that? DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You are doing that. You will not let me make the article better because that reduce your biased influence in the article. Cbinetti (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not let me, after the 24 hours have passed, let me just get rid of the word settler and leave everything else? Cbinetti (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa and Doug Weller are trying to scheme to get me blocked because I am trying to edit out bad theoretical stuff in the European Colonization of the Americas. I am a political scientist PhD who uses his real name. I have every right to be part of the consensus but Italian academics are always excluded for the scholarly consensus. Two or three people should not be able to make this fundamental article their private thing. They like picking on me because they can tell that I am less advanced in terms of Wikipedia. But the joke is on them- most of the behavior they dislike is because of my disabilities. They have been bullying a disabled Italian Catholic man this whole time, not some white conservative guy. Cbinetti (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I am going to add a NPOV tag on this article tomorrow. This is not a neutral point of view. This biased article is defended by a small number of ideological defenders. I am going to add a tag. I cannot do it today because Doug Weller and DeCausa set me up for that I edited three times today. I only reverted twice but they are lying and saying I reverted three times. I fear them so I am not going to put the tag up today. But I will put it up tomorrow. This is not a neutral article and if I am not allowed to edit it, because I am an Itlaian ethnic in an Wikipedia that hates and fears my people, then at least I can put on a tag that warns kids that the article they are about to read is a false encyclopedic article with limited merit. All I wanted to do was make this piece an actual historical article instread of the ideology-fest that it is. I want to get rid of one word today "settler" as in "settler colonial" and that is what is getting DeCausa and Doug Weller ready to block me. I do not even go on Columbus or Columbus Day articles, even though as an Italian academic, I am an expert on these, because I do not want to get in trouble. Italian American academics are discriminated against on Wikipeida jsut like in regular academia. Cbinetti (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to check your talk page. You’ve already been indefinitely blocked from editing this article. DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What part of Italy is Piscataway in? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And I knew nothing about your religion, nationality or health, why you think I did is puzzling and the accusations here and on your talk page unfounded. Doug Weller talk 00:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

What Doug Weller said. Serious accusations such as Italian American academics are discriminated against on Wikipeida just like in regular academia and I am an Itlaian ethnic in a Wikipedia that hates and fears my people and They have been bullying a disabled Italian Catholic man this whole time, require rock solid evidence which is entirely lacking in this case. Cbinetti, you need to abandon this disruptive behavior or you are at risk of being blocked from all of Wikipedia. Furnish persuasive evidence or drop it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions settler colonies twice in the lead and points to Settler colonialism in the see also section. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] David Stannard, American Holocaust

[2] American Indian Epidemics^{[dead link]}

[3] "Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourge". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

[4] Mann, Charles C. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-3205-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[5] "The Story Of... Smallpox". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

[6] 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (ISBN 1-4000-4006-X), Charles C. Mann, Knopf, 2005.

[7] Deetz and Deetz (2000), pp. 55–56

[8] Koplow, David A. (2003). "Smallpox The Fight to Eradicate a Global Scourge". University of California Press. Retrieved 2009-02-22.

[9] Marr, JS; Cathey, JT. "New hypothesis for cause of an epidemic among Native Americans, New England, 1616–1619". Emerg Infect Dis. 16 (2): 281. doi:10.3201/edi1602.090276.

[10] [1]

[11] [2]

[12] [3]

[13] [4]

[14] [5]

[15] [6]

[16] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=vSCra8jUI2EC&pg=PA50&dq=giovanni+verrazzano+smoky+bonfires&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yT6xT9vDEOqriQLSheiHBA#v=onepage&q=giovanni%20verrazzano%20smoky%20bonfires&f=false

[17] ttp://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]