Talk:US History/Pre-Columbian

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN STRONGLY EDITED DURING A "THE GREAT EDIT OF 2008". further information about the Edit can be found in the talk page. Previous discussion material is nearly entirely irrelevant as little of the original text is left. Archival information shall be preserved below--JoliePA (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

GRAMMER AND SPELLING

 * Without doubt, grammar and spelling is rough. It was always one of my greatest weakness  of my writing styles.  Hopefully in time it will improve.

INTRODUCTION

 * Introduction is rough and not succinct.

PALEOINDIANS

 * Considerable controversy about the Bering ice bridge theory. Many professionals most espacially cultural linguists and anthropologists feel there were significant connections to early cultures, espacially by boats.  (which were known to exist in this early time).  Unfortunately evidence seems sketchy and proven.  This is Not a exhuastive account of 'models of migration into the American Continents'.  Thus NPOV, in my opinion demands that I include the well tested bering land bridge theory.  While it my not be the only (or even the primary (espacially in South America) it is nearly certain THAT some civilizations came to North America via the bering land bridge.  This was probably the Clovis people.

MAYANS AND AZTECS

 * No talk about the end of the world and the aztec calender. that is needless gibberish.  if the mayan did correctly forecast the end of the world in 2010; perhaps my book will barely be written (LOL).  The mayans (nor any other ancient civilization) did not study or understand the nature of asteroids.


 * Diminished tales of Human sacrifice which was needlessly sensational. Not exactly the most important or finest accomplishment of either Mayan or Aztec civilization. (and also not isolated to those two cultures either).


 * The tale about sacrificing 84,000 people is considered by most experts to be highly exagerated. but somehow, it says something significant about Aztec culture that they claimed to kill 84,000 when they didn't.

-- Shall I remove them? Pittsburgh Poet (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of Aztec, Incan or Mayan cultures on the development of the US. however, I am strictly following the college boards selection of topics.

NORTH AMERICAN GROUPS (disclaimer)

 * Discussions about a civilization, culture, tribe, or group all fall short in North America. frequently, authors stress that these loosely allied groups fall short of many of these definitions.  Thus the Anazani could be considered, a culture, a way of life, a civilization...but not a coherent group, Nation, Tribe, or City.  Within many of these loose groups; groups such as a Nation, tribe, city DO exist they just don't include everyone.
 * the mound builders are perhaps more frustrating to describe, because they dominate a huge area and time and are in places and at time more (and less) unified.


 * One could argue that I am excessively focused on the urban centers and buildings. these large structures are well understood cultural accomplishments that IMHO say much about the power and influence of a civilization.

NATIVE AMERICANS AFTER EUROPEAN CONTACT

 * The last section feels weak and unneccessary. The college board requires that discussions of several large cultures then includes a general blurb "American cultures at the time of European contact"- That has me puzzled having given the history of the most significant American cultures; I have already told the reader there status at "European contact" (and actually briefly discussed what happens after european contact as well).  My only guess is some kind of generalized statement about what European contact did to the native american cultures as a whole.  Its weak!  any ideas would be appreciated.

ARCHIVE: General style issues
As a teacher who is considering the use of alternative textbooks (rather than those from the traditional mainstream publishers), I was disappointed by the quality of the writing. The information may be fine, but phrases like "an isthmus made of land" and "from whence" are unacceptable in an academic text. I don't mean to be so harsh, but students need all the help with grammar they can get. "[A]n isthmus made of land" is redundant (an isthmus is *always* made of land), as is "from whence" ("whence" essentially means "from where").

You might as well write, "A strip of land made of land" and "from from where."

I plan to make a Wikibooks account for myself when I get home tonight (writing from a cafe), but wanted to drop this note as a reminder to everybody that textbooks are typically used in academic settings, so grammatical errors stick out much more than they would in a novel or a newspaper article.

Students don't read history texts because they want to learn how to write, but for anybody whose grammar is in good shape, these sloppy mistakes reflect poorly on the authors, and therefore call into question the quality of the material.

ARCHIVE: Non sequitur in this section
The paragraph copied below contains a major non sequitur, clearly the result of sloppy editing. I can't fix it because I don't know the content.

Offending paragraph:

Such evidence is made even more ambiguous by the traces of DNA that span the Pacific Ocean from Australia to Papua New Guinea, across Micronesia to east Asia. This opens the possibility of sea travel hugging the coast; unfortunately evidence of such a theory that would be left on the shores would be eliminated over time due to sustained coastal erosions and sea level changes. The DNA facts significantly negate, and arguably eliminate, the Bering Strait theory, which is not supported by any conflicting physical evidence. The flint points are used on a flatboard (like bristles on a toothbrush) on the Asian mainland, rather than mounted on spears like the Clovis points, thereby calling into question the idea of tool migration, a major source of this post-Ice-Age migration theory.

68.40.192.159 13:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The bering strait ice bridge migration theory is now known to not be supported by any real world evidence, and also is directly contradicted by DNA and archeological evidence. The second editor seems to be refuting the points made at the beginning of the chapter, and introducing the evidence.

ARCHIVE: Editorial material moved from main article
The following material was moved by this author from the main article to this discussion page since it contains commentary that, although having merit, is more appropriate for discussion (the original conclusions, however, remain in the main article): The Bearing Strait hypothesis has a number of things wrong wtih it:(1) it is a bigoted, racist 19th century European egocentrist view that aboriginees were ignorant heatherns and therefore just too dumb or stupid to construct boats to cross oceans. Contrary to this:the earliest boats have been found to date back some 30,000 years and possiblely earlier all over the world. Certainly by 20,000 years ago; boat building had reached the point that man could cross oceans. The evidence for this comes from Japan et al. (2)Climatological(Ice cores) and wood ring studies do not support the hypothesis because it assumes that humans came down what was then a great ice field blocking easy travel further south where the Alaskan Highway is today. (3) The theory ignores the fact that people could have used the Aleutians to arrive in North America and many Inuit still travel in such manner from Nome,Alaska back and forth from Little Diomede Island to Big Diomede. (4)The Bearing Strait theory has a major problem in that if true then some millions of people arrived instantly all at the same time all over North, Central and South America---something not quiet possible. Humans do not reproduce as fast as bacteria do to arrive at that population level in so short at time and would have needed modern transportation to have distributed so widely in so short of time.Lottamiata 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ARCHIVE: Redundant material.
The following material was removed because it had been mentioned earlier in the article. Also, some of the detail is too great for a treaty on United States history and Wikipedia links have been provided instead: These people intermarried with  the descendents some of the first aboriginees  who were alledgely composed of about 5 men and two women. . . . Such evidence is made even more ambiguous by the traces of DNA that span the Pacific Ocean from Australia to Papua New Guinea, across Micronesia to east Asia. This opens the possibility of sea travel hugging the coast; unfortunately evidence of such a theory that would be left on the shores would be eliminated over time due to sustained coastal erosions and sea level changes. The DNA facts significantly negate, and arguably eliminate, the Bering Strait theory, which is not supported by any conflicting physical evidence.Lottamiata 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis!!!
I'd like permission to emphasize key words, for ease of reading. Pittsburgh Poet (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)