| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{protect|Aschlafly}}
| |
| − |
| |
| | This lecture was improved, and now the changes have been removed. Why? | | This lecture was improved, and now the changes have been removed. Why? |
| | | | |
| Line 113: |
Line 111: |
| | | | |
| | : I've unlocked the content page. What do you think is fair - perhaps 3 grammatical improvements equal one substantive edit?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | | : I've unlocked the content page. What do you think is fair - perhaps 3 grammatical improvements equal one substantive edit?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | ::Sure! Hmm... and what if someone adds to an article for this assignment, but his grammar isn't perfect. If I fix the grammar, does that count? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 11:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ==What's going on here?== |
| | + | Is this meant to be an actual lecture, or some sort of trailer for the real lectures? Currently it reads like a failed high school essay. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Leif Ericson== |
| | + | |
| | + | Leif Ericson reaching Vinland is a "liberal myth"? It seems more like a proven historical fact to me. There's even a national historic site at L'anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland where his settlement was. There has been extensive archaeological research there, and no credible historian denies it. |
| | + | [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 12:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Like CogitoErgoSum, I'm frankly staggered at this assertion. Why is it such a big deal to the author of these lectures that the first Europeans to invade America should be Christian? What next? The Romans were already Christians when they invaded Britain??? Really, this is the kind of flat-earthery that makes outsiders love to laugh at Conservapedia. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 18:53, 3 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Given that the history professor quoted was talking only about the likelihood of Viking settlements or presence in the area of New England, and the article accepts the authenticity of the find of the short-lived Viking settlement at L'anse aux Meadows, shouldn't the reference be changed from the farshores website to, "Mr. Schlafly said so."?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I think Mr Schafly should be very wary about reverting contributions which make this lecture state (correctly) that the Vikings colonised Newfoundland, for which there's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence. He has used a quote from a professor who has not published primary research in Viking studies (according to his CV on the UNH website: <ref>http://www.unh.edu/history/media/History_faculty_cvs/bolstercv1107.pdf</ref>), stating that there's no evidence that Vikings settled in New England, to support his - Mr Schafly's - personal opinion that Vikings didn't settle in ''Newfoundland''. I don't see how anyone with aspirations to objectivity can contribute to CP if the conclusions from decades of research are to be cast aside simply because Mr Schafly doesn't like them and is prepared to cherry-pick, distort and misuse scholarly articles to support his personal views. |
| | + | |
| | + | I'm now going to correct the Newfoundland references in this and related articles again and if Mr Schafly or his friends revert them or block my edit access to CP again on account of them, I think that would be pretty much definite proof that this isn't a website for conservative opinion in general but one which has no respect for scholarship and simply exists to promote Mr Schafly's personal opinions, however far they depart from reality. In which case, why would anyone trust anything else Mr Schafly says? Why, for example, should evolutionary biologists pay any attention at all to him if he himself is prepared to misuse scholarly conclusions so blatantly? |
| | + | |
| | + | I'm still utterly baffled why it matters so much to Mr Schafly that the Vikings didn't colonise North America. Why is this a 'liberal point of view'? Any clues????? [[User:Googly|Googly]] 16:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | ==Native Americans== |
| | + | |
| | + | It seems like there needs to be some more material devoted to the presence of the native Americans at the beginning of this narrative, because in the current draft it's almost an afterthought. Where did they come from? When and How did they get to the Americas, and have enough time to build cultures that spanned both continents? Where did the natives go as the colonies expand into areas long-settled by the native Americans - were they assimilated, displaced, or both? These are significant points that should be included, since a course on American History can't ignore the original Americans. The Europeans profoundly changed North American history, but they were explorers, immigrants and conquerors of settled lands, not the discoverers of barren ones. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : Good point that the lecture should have more about the Indians, but the discussion has to be factual. I'm realizing that liberal distortions exploit speculation concerning unproven origins, but I only teach demonstrable facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Columbus' Landing Site== |
| | + | |
| | + | It's incorrect to state that Columbius landed on Haiti, which is a national entity that did not exist at the time. It would be better to state that he landed on the island of Hispaniola, in the section that is now the republic of Haiti. Also, the way the section about Columbus' first voyage reads, it skips over the initial landing in San Salvador and goes right to La Natividad - why? -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:28, 14 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Triangular Trade == |
| | + | |
| | + | The third part of the trade, which was usually from England down to Africa, often carried cloth, guns, ammunition, and other trinkets (as well as some metals). The items were used to purchase slaves from traders, as well as from African kings and merchants. Hence the necessity for that third leg to bring payment from England down to Africa for the slaves. Info on the triangular trade can be found [http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/abolition/slavetrade.asp here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:01, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : There were small costs to purchase the slaves, but big ships weren't needed to carry trinkets. Also, there's no evidence that ships actually went as described. It's a myth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :: So you assume that trade ships went straight from England to America and back, and from America to Africa and back? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:23, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :::Yeah couldn't imagine why slave owners in Africa would would want finished European goods, also I'm sure the West Coastal kings wouldn't want the kind of furniture you found in European estate homes. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:29, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Actually, the England/African part was the ''first'' leg. It was an Englishman ([[John Hawkins]]) who borrowed the idea from the Portuguese. And whichever leg it is, if the 'triangular" or "circuit" trade is a myth, I have been reading the wrong textbooks and encyclopedias for the last 50 years. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:38, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :You clearly have. You can read all about it [[triangular trade|here]] without any citations. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I'm also very puzzled by Aschafly's statement. My very clear impression is that guns and textiles from Europe (especially England) were important in the Triangular Trade. I don't understand why Aschafly objects to this quite well-known fact (I think it's a fact) - what has that to do with being conservative, one way or the other? [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 20:27, 13 September 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | It was not just "guns and textiles"...horses were in demand too. |
| | + | |
| | + | Someone's right and someone's wrong. Either ''An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa'' |
| | + | By Alexander Falconbridge (a surgeon on board a slaver); and Rev. John Newton's accounts as a slave trader (published posthumously), both written in the eighteenth century are wrong...they both made it up or something and what they described on their ''trading'' voyages from England to Africa and then with slaves across the Atlantic and so on are figments of their imaginations.....or.....Andrew Schlafly knows something that no one else does. |
| | + | |
| | + | Either the dozens of Trading forts described here: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainP.html and here: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/arguin.html and here: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ghana.html don't really exist, or were built for some other reason than the protection of trade...or... Andy is wrong. |
| | + | |
| | + | If Andy can give any evidence at all that there was not a booming trade from the late 15th century on between various European nations and the various native west African kingdoms then he should do so. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:52, 14 September 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == What about vikings? == |
| | + | |
| | + | Reading over this lecture, I couldn't find any information on them. They were a successful settlement in the Americas, landing in Greenland and Icelans, which is recognized as part of North America. [[User:JohnI|JohnI]] 22:45, 2 September 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Aschafly wrote, "Debate: Did the Vikings settle in North America before Columbus?" I suggest deleting this. There's not much to debate: (a) The answer to the question as stated is 'yes'. Full stop. (b) If you ask, "Did the Vikings settle in what is now the USA?", the complete lack of any physical or literary evidence precludes a sensible, evidence-based discussion. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == References == |
| | + | |
| | + | <references/> |