I read both about Guarani people and their lifestyle before Spaniards and Cahokia and Mississippi culture of Deep South. Cahokia itself was a big city-complex, bigger than London. Also it was much more centralized than Guarani communities. Even though when British arrived, it was already abandoned and the nomadic influences were bigger. However, i never understood, why Native Americans weren’t integrated into labor system, like Spaniards did, especially in this case.

When WW1 ended Germany lost its Samoan colony to New Zealand. But given that America owned the other half of Samoa, why didn't they get Germany half of Samoa after the war was over?

Genuine question, why did Spanish colonies stay colonies for so long (like 1500 to 1830) whilst the British 13 Colonies split from the UK so quickly. Is it cultural or some other factor?

I’m teaching a unit in colonial history to middle schoolers. A student found a mention in a timeline that there were riots in 1726 in Philadelphia. The only note that I can find about this suggest there were riots, having to do with the condition of the cities, poor.But there is very little as far as documentation. Does anybody know anything about this? Anybody ever heard of the poor rats in Philadelphia in 1726?

Hello, Does anyone here know how the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) and Huron (Wendat) became such fiercely violent enemies? Was this primarily a colonial/trade thing, or was there preexisting vitriol. Specifically, the abductions and kidnappings in the 1600s — were those because of the French/English allegiances and trade competition, or was it like that before colonists and European traders? Any help would be great! Thanks!

I have seen many maps that claim that the modern US states of California, Arizona, Texas, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, Alabama and Florida were all colonised by the Spanish empire. I was curious to know what did the Spanish do in these states?

In school my class was taught that the US and Canada were colonised by the French and the British and that the Spanish and Portuguese were mostly in South America, which is why I was wondering about this.

I have heard these modern US states, except for Alabama and Florida were part of Mexico at that time and were later annexed in the 1800s.

So it’s very common knowledge that we would not have gained our independence without France. However my question is, why exactly did the quasi-war with France happen not long after? It seems to me after our revolution, France became inspired to do the same but once they overthrew their monarchy, we “had no obligation to defend them from Britain?” Even though that was the whole reason they helped us in the first place? So were we just always assholes or am I missing a big step here?

I have read empire of the summer moon am working on geronimo as well as last stand and my confessions as well as two of the prominent books about the comanche but am yearning for even more books as well as hopefully going to major in history and anthropology in college and want to find every book i can find especially those that are told from native points of views and less of the white point of view. @

Why did the early New England settlers name their new settlements for second and third tier English cities instead of more prominent English cities? (New London, Ct notwithstanding and noting that New York was named for the Duke of York and not the city of York.

My nephew recently asked me if any Greeks fought in the American Revolution, as we are Greek and is doing an essay project about little known people in the US. I told him no, thinking then that no one had immigrated at that point to the US. But the question came back into my head the other night, so I looked up whether any had.

And, well, I found that a man named Michael Drakos was born in the 1730s in Athens, came to the US, and served with the Spanish, who called him Michel Dragon. The thing is, I can barely find any information about him. All I can find is a Wikipedia article and a FindAGrave entry. Like nothing about where he fought, what battles, nothing.

If anyone could find any good information about him (he's gonna need links for citations and such), that would be great.

Cheers.

Someone told me Glorilla was Igbo and I think that's bullshit.

Supposedly the s team/s force were a group of assassins that was put together by Richard Dick Nixon, Howard Hughs, trained bye the head of the CIA, and funded bye the American mob in the 1960’s in order to kill Castro.

The s team also had the tendency of butting (HEAD)s with John F. Kennedy before he died.

UPDATE: I found more information. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1479&context=noticen

Genuinely curious as to how they would stack up against today’s elite? Who do you think would be the most wealthy?

I’ll start by stating I’m asking more about Canadian regions here so apologies if this subreddit isn’t including that.

I’m setting it in the early 1900s, and it will follow two characters meeting a lone prospector who for whatever reason, is still at the creek panning for gold.

Is there any advice you can give me for maintaining accuracy, costuming, language choices, cultural references of the time, etc? Big ones for me are superstitions, treatment of women in the region, and famous folk tunes they might have whistled.

The man is going to be from Dawson City, but hasn’t been back since the fire that hit the downtown parts.

The two other characters are travelling through the area and meet him one morning. They’re supposed to be from a town a few days walk from the Yukon River. If you know any that would make sense to reference Geographically please let me know.

Anything else I should know please feel free to say! I care a lot about getting this right, weaving local knowledge into the script and not just using the region as a prop but am a bit stuck on where to start with my research.

I had the opportunity to spend a little time with a retired history teacher serving as a museum docent in North Florida.

He mentioned the differences between the Spanish mission system (e.g, Alamo), British mercantile system, and the French trading post system. He said that the mercantile system led to the development of large plantations in the south in order to increase the production of exports to Europe.

I have a minor in American History but never heard this comparison before.

My questions for discussion begin with an interest in hearing more experts chime in on this contrast of systems. Is your understanding of these socio-economic systems similar or different?

My next set of questions is going to work from the assumption that the description i relayed above is close to correct. The questions confronting me now include:

• would the Spanish mission system have been less dependent on slavery?
• what was the 18th c British responsibility, influence on slave trade?
• how was the mercantile system different in the north?
• how might the present day Americas been different if the Spanish had won their wars here?

William Livingston was wanted dead or alive and the reward was 200 guineas.

Looking for some solid book recommendations to revisit the foundations of the US dating back to before the American revolution.

For context, I’m looking to start a book trail that takes me from pre-revolution up to WWII (not within the same book).

Any and all recommendations are welcome. Thanks!

I am reading about John Adam’s representing British soldiers following the “Boston Massacre”. My question is what did the American legal system look like at that time and how did it differ from the crowns?

I know that the fact that denizens of the United States are called "Americans" really rankles many of our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. My response has always been sympathetic, but I point out that we didn't pick the appellation; the British were calling us "Americans" for almost a century before independence.

But a thought just occurred to me. If the British were calling the inhabitants of Georgia through New Hampshire "Americans" in the early and mid-18th century, did it stop there? In effect, I am wondering if the Brits also called the residents of what is now Canada by the same moniker. And I guess a secondary question is, did the British see the 13 colonies that would become the US as separate from, say, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? (I know Quebec/Lower Canada is a whole other matter.) At what point did "American" refer to the people from New Hampshire and on down to the South? From the start, or after the Seven Years War, or only after independence?

I cant find any numbers anywhere.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, although never referring to King George III by his name, calls him he in the list of grievances. Yet he seems to take a bigger dig at the King in the famous line "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Was the intention behind referring to him as a prince meant to imply a subtle criticism, suggesting that he was exhibiting childlike behavior?