Interesting colonial map - I never knew the extent of French territiory in North America (c. 1750)

[palemale]

What about Boston?

Are you kidding? The bars close at 1:00 in Boston. It was founded by the English, which is why it isn't a particularly distinct, atypical or interesting city.

 

[palemale]

New York and San Francisco were tiny spots before they became English speaking. Most importantly, they, and Boston and others, were large natural harbors, which meant that it was inevitable that they would become important and large ports. Their tiny foreign seeds were irrelevant, and not the reason for their growth or distinctiveness. New Orleans, of course, was larger and, thus, more thoroughly French before it became English speaking, and has been able to retain some of its French culture.

I'm afraid you are wrong about that. Culturally, the New York metropolitan region is very distinct, and anyone with any knowledge of our history understands it is because of the Dutch influence, which is huge. Of course, the influence of Irish, and later Italian and Jewish immigration also had a huge impact on our politics and culture.

San Francisco's population may have been small when we stole it from Mexico. Nevertheless, it was founded by the Spaniards, and thereafter was a Mexican city. Whatever the reason for its distinctness, it still was not founded by the English.

 

[Alnitak]

I find it interesting that the least typical, most distinct and interesting American cities were not established by the English, but rather by other European countries. New York was settled by the Dutch, New Orleans by the French, and San Francisco by the Spanish.

You got a point there mate. Baltimore is boring as fuck.

 

[Benvolio]

I'm afraid you are wrong about that. Culturally, the New York metropolitan region is very distinct, and anyone with any knowledge of our history understands it is because of the Dutch influence, which is huge. Of course, the influence of Irish, and later Italian and Jewish immigration also had a huge impact on our politics and culture.

San Francisco's population may have been small when we stole it from Mexico. Nevertheless, it was founded by the Spaniards, and thereafter was a Mexican city. Whatever the reason for its distinctness, it still was not founded by the English.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Sausy]

I think Philadelphia is a pretty awesome city in its own right, founded by William Penn. Penn was a British subject last time I checked.

 

[opinterph]

Though slavery was initially banned in the Georgia colony, some slaves were later brought in illicitly. The ban itself was gradually, but formally overturned several decades before the American Revolution. It is noteworthy that after many South Carolina planters relocated into coastal areas of the colony, Georgia’s slave code came to mirror the harsh South Carolina code.

“Thrasherville” originally grew around the site of Fort Peachtree, which was built during the War of 1812 to help control the Creek Indians, who were allied with the British. The fort was situated south of the river that separated Creek land from Cherokee land to the north.

The town was later renamed “Terminus” to indicate its position on the newly formed Western & Atlantic Railroad line. This same time period included discovery of gold on the Cherokee land, federal passage of the Indian Removal Act, and the Trail of Tears. As more railroads began servicing the town, it was eventually renamed in recognition of the Western & Atlantic by employing a feminized version of “Atlantic.”

In Atlanta’s first mayoral election, the Free and Rowdy Party candidate prevailed over the Moral Party candidate. (All 215 voters lived within one mile of the city’s single polling place.)

Other than slaves and native populations, initial residents to the area consisted primarily of colonial settlers who moved from the Carolinas and Virginia or new arrivals directly from England and Scotland.

 

[palemale]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Benvolio]

― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"distinct ....because of the Dutch influence..." is an opinion, not a fact. You need to learn the difference.

 

[palemale]

"distinct ....because of the Dutch influence..." is an opinion, not a fact. You need to learn the difference.

I'm very aware of the difference between facts and opinions. That New York City is distinct is a fact. The Dutch influence is not the only reason, but a major reason. I suspect most historians and students of New York history would consider it a factual statement to say the Dutch colonial experience shaped New York City and the metro area and that that influence carries forward to this day.

 

[Sausy]

I think palemale is right on this one. Manhattan's Dutch history was no mere thing but an important component of its identity, along with the eventual British takeover. My own hometown next door in Jersey City also has a substantial Dutch heritage, and your underplaying the Dutch contribution rather dismissively does not do justice to the vibrant, epic history of New York City nor its neighbors with similar Dutch origins and influence.

 

[maxpowr9]

I'm very aware of the difference between facts and opinions. That New York City is distinct is a fact. The Dutch influence is not the only reason, but a major reason. I suspect most historians and students of New York history would consider it a factual statement to say the Dutch colonial experience shaped New York City and the metro area and that that influence carries forward to this day.

The irony being, the original settlers in MA in were English and despite living in the Netherlands for a decade or so, they were anti-Dutch. Then you wonder where the rivalry started LMAO.

Check out the clip starting at 4:37...

 

[Benvolio]

Why do you say the a Pilgrims were anti-Dutch?

 

[Alnitak]

Why do you say the a Pilgrims were anti-Dutch?

They were anti-everyone not like themselves.

Sound like anyone you know?

 

[palemale]

Journalist Colin Woodard wrote a recent article positing that the United States is actually made up of 11 different nations. The smallest nation on his map, geographically, is the New York City Metropolitan Area, which he calls New Netherland. Of course, the description about New York and what makes it distinct is all about our Dutch origins. It's an interesting article and worth a read.

http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

 

[kallipolis]

It is noteworthy that it was an English ship's captain, and explorer Henry Hudson who claimed then New Netherland, for the Dutch way back in 1609.

By 1664 when the English assumed control of New Netherland half the population was already English, the rest either Dutch, or French Huguenots.

That the residents of New York city, and state speak a version of the English language, and the United States Constitution has as its inspiration The Magna Carta I suspect that apart from the Bronx family, waffles, and donuts the Dutch influence on New York might well be considered minimal compared with that of the British....apart from all the other ethnic groups settling in that city, and state who have also contributed significantly to the development of New York city, and state.

 

[Alnitak]

That the residents of New York city, and state speak a version of the English language, and the United States Constitution has as its inspiration The Magna Carta I suspect that apart from the Bronx family, waffles, and donuts the Dutch influence on New York might well be considered minimal compared with that of the British....apart from all the other ethnic groups settling in that city, and state who have also contributed significantly to the development of New York city, and state.

Democracy is not in the Magna Carta, nor is the concept of balanced branches of government a feature of the unwritten British Constitution, which has parliamentary supremacy.

 

[Benvolio]

Journalist Colin Woodard wrote a recent article positing that the United States is actually made up of 11 different nations. The smallest nation on his map, geographically, is the New York City Metropolitan Area, which he calls New Netherland. Of course, the description about New York and what makes it distinct is all about our Dutch origins. It's an interesting article and worth a read.

http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html

It is an unpersuasive series of exaggerations. For example, he asserts that the Midwest area was founded by Quakers. Actually, they were never more than a small minority, and almost non existent in much of the area. The English in the area are of overwhelmingly New England Puritan ancestry. Genealogy has been a lifelong hobby, and it is largely a study of the movement of people. My ancestry is mostly NE Puritan, but with several lines of New Amsterdam Dutch, all moving into the Midwest.
The Duch influence is apparent in the place names of New York, making it easy to exaggerate the influence. Culturally, the Dutch people assimilated quickly into the larger English-American culture. The Dutch and English cultures were never far apart. Both were Protestant people with a history of Democratc government. The Frisian language from the Netherlands is said to be the closest to English.

 

[Alnitak]

Rye bread, butter, and green cheese.

 

[kallipolis]

Democracy is not in the Magna Carta, nor is the concept of balanced branches of government a feature of the unwritten British Constitution, which has parliamentary supremacy.

I'm not one to obsess....I leave that to others, but it was the English settlerframers of the United States Constitution who drew their inspiration from The Magna Carta, when speaking to the freedoms that were granted by King John...with that other fine English (born, and raised) radical, Thomas Paine not arriving in the colonies until he was 37 years of age, who also drew his inspiration from The Magna Carta and contributing so much to the struggle for the independence of the New England colonies....but, of course you already knew that.

 

[kallipolis]

It is an unpersuasive series of exaggerations. For example, he asserts that the Midwest area was founded by Quakers. Actually, they were never more than a small minority, and almost non existent in much of the area. The English in the area are of overwhelmingly New England Puritan ancestry. Genealogy has been a lifelong hobby, and it is largely a study of the movement of people. My ancestry is mostly NE Puritan, but with several lines of New Amsterdam Dutch, all moving into the Midwest.
The Duch influence is apparent in the place names of New York, making it easy to exaggerate the influence. Culturally, the Dutch people assimilated quickly into the larger English-American culture. The Dutch and English cultures were never far apart. Both were Protestant people with a history of Democratc government. The Frisian language from the Netherlands is said to be the closest to English.

Well noted.....for along with English Common Law I'm surprised that Palemale has chosen to place so much emphasis on the Dutch influence in New York State, a small colony that survived some fifty years before the English assumed full control....while also noting that apart from African slaves, the majority of the white European population in New Netherland were English colonists making assimilation by the English crown that much easier.....

That later migration brought in Middle, and East Europeans, Italians, Irish etc. brings back happy memories of my visits to NYC where the melting pot is a joy to experience.