Talk:The United States in the sixteenth century: los años perdidos

Could we consider a less awkward name for this page? Say, removing "los años perdidos." Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Nooooo that's the best part! Eira made it up for me. (I was just gonna call it "The lost century" or some such crap). I know, it will be tough to link to, but I already fed it some goat so it's not lonely. ħψℳ₦ 19:20, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Why don't we set up a redirect from "Lost century" or something easier like that? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:35, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Sounds good, although I was also thinking originally that it would just be a header under the United States article. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:36, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

A redirect to it sounds good, if only for ease of linking (will anyone, ever?). I usually just go to "all files" and grub around when I get red links for things I know are there, though. As far as a header, oh well, now it stands on its own glory! I see your point as far as the title, though - it would have made a great header. ħψℳ₦ 19:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm ignorant as to early US history - where do the Dutch figure in the narrative?PFoster 19:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

17th century, I suspect. NYC was "Founded as a commercial trading post by the Dutch in 1625", for instance. ħψℳ₦ 19:55, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

That's pretty close to the Mayflower. Interesting...PFoster 20:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

There was (apparently) a huge wave of colonisation in the early 17th century. Most (all?) of the towns in coastal NH were incorporated before 1640. And remember, the reason we all know of the mayflower is it made a nice myth of settlement (religious "freedom") to tell teh kittehs. ħψℳ₦ 22:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

An teh tanksgifin too!!!!! --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, teh tanksgifin too. Verrie much teh sotoree prittie. ħψℳ₦ 01:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Even Sweden had a colony on the Delaware River, in modern day NY, in 1638. It was quickly taken over by the Dutch. Researcher 05:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Southwestern United States

I have a pretty keen grasp over much of this information (having grown up where this history is actually TAUGHT), although there will probably need to be someone else who can do the French stuff. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I made it for you, darling, knock yourself out. I freaked a bit when I read that the Spanish owned the LA terr. from like 196x to 1803 though! Nappy only had it back a few days before he flipped it for a quick profit to that sucker, Jefferson! Jefferson, the accidental imperialist... ħψℳ₦ 01:41, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Title change

Was stupid and lazy. Did not do homework. ħuman 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um...

What exactly is the point of this article? Maybe move to fun or something? Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just anti-US grudgewank. Also, you can't trust someone that decides to quote Carlos Mencia.--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

True that. Sam ^Tally-ho! 07:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Um... anti-US? Mencia quote aside (and I'm not inclined to leave it there), facts is facts. EVDebs (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is really dumb

The US was formed in the 18th century. History books in the US cover colonization by the Spanish and the French. US history books also typically start with Jamestown, and make mention of Santo Domingo. Really, this is embarrassing. Move to essay space or delete.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is probably salvageable with more references, as well as a bit of editing to emphasize that such a gap is possible only in histories of the North American continent, rather than histories of the U.S. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Salvageable? Salvage what? The point of the page is to say that the US doesn't follow history between Columbus and Jamestown. That isn't true. I don't see how references could make this any better, except to show that whoever originally wrote this is flat-out wrong.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The name is bad. You wouldn't create an article about "The Soviet Union in the 17th century." The US is a specific geopolitical entity, one that doesn't extend into the 16th century. How about "Early European colonization of the Americas." Blue (is useful) 04:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

But why?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How about just "Los Años Perdidos" for the page title? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was called that once, LX. It's been bastardized too many times. ħuman 01:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say yes but that doesn't change the fact that I actually don't buy the premise of the article. I'm a recent product of the American public school system, and I learned all about the Spanish and French colonization (including the St. Augustine factoid). Blue (pester) 04:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I prefer deleting this nonsense article with an asinine premise.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We didn't; maybe in AP US hist. but i took AP Euro instead. Afai can tell, most people dont know much about the non english part because it isnt taught beyond "well the spanish were there and the french were there..." --il'Dictator Mikal 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC²) True, as far as school textbooks go this is badly outdated; but as far as the popular narrative goes, I only learned about what happened on the continent prior to the Pilgrims' arrival at Plymouth when I started reading my school textbooks. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I took AP US History and AP US and Comparative Government and Politics, so yes, I got an extensive introduction to the non-British presence in America. (I took AP Euro too. And AP Econ. And AP Bio. And AP Music Theory. And AP Spanish Language. And AP Calculus AB. And AP Stats... I suppose I'm a bit atypical.) Blue (pester) 04:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit atypical? Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 21:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You took all those classes, and you're still frittering around on PodunkWiki? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're all missing the point. This article is incorrect and devoid of information. The premise is incorrect. Attempting to rebrand and rewrite the article into a basic history of colonizing North America would be off-mission.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal experience, no,m it isnt wrong, atleast for the majority of the country where education sucks unless you get lucky--il'Dictator Mikal 05:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So... anecdotal evidence, no references? --"Shut up, Brx." 05:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How much did you search, dear brx?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I would say there is a kernel of truth in it, although not enough to justify saving the article. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish settlements are mentioned briefly in United States #Settling. If anything is worth adding, merge it to there & delete this. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If I learned this in the Louisiana public school system... Delete. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 21:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's not a lot to report for this period in a country that did not exist in the 16th century. I guess you can call it the "lost years." More like "the years in which there was a tiny number of Spaniards exploring what would become the US." More happened in Mexico and the Caribbean. St. Augustine is among very few permanent Spanish settlements from this period, and it's even late. It's simply not true that there are "Numerous settlements which exist to this day were founded by the French, and more notably, the Spanish" that date from this period. The French were in Canada and they didn't do particularly well. The Spanish mission system was late 1600s. That said, why not actually report on what little there is to say about these 100 years? It's not false that they're "forgotten." So there are some problems with it, but it's not a bad story to tell when you're talking about Spanish imperialism. They slaughtered the shit out of North American native people and Incas in this period. 21:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So if there aren't any objections, I'll delete this tomorrow. There's no content worth saving here.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you delete this again, over objections and unilaterally, I will delete you from the internet limb by limb, you fucking useless troll. ħuman 01:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm objecting. Yes, it needs to be expanded greatly, but it's still relevant in light of things like the anti-Mexican studies crap in Arizona, not to mention the US's dodgy history with Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. EVDebs (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I live in Arizona. I grew up in Arizona. My curriculum covered all that. All of it.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't anymore in Tucson. Do you pay much attention to the news? EVDebs (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's meaningless. What are they going to to do, say that Arizona appeared out of thin air shortly after the Mexican-American War? That bill was fluff.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least change the name, which is both unwieldy and in category error? Blue (pester) 03:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The name is awful, not sure how it ended up where it is. It should be "los años perdidos". ħuman 03:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How about we delete it because what little is currently contained in the article isn't on-mission at all? If you want to have an article about how certain state governments are sending certain historical topics down the memory hole, then either do that or put it in the relevant state article. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So, like, Seth, did you read it? Did you think of improving it? I doubt it. I see you are fairly active here, that is a good thing. ħuman 03:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You people are assholes

I came here to link the page to friend.

You idiots deleted it.

You are fucking complete losers with massive ego problems.

ħuman 00:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it was just bricks acting on his own. Remedied. Bricks, keep your hands to yourself, you nasty little troll. ħuman 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This article was nonsense, and the wiki is better off without it. And I was hardly the only person to think so.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing says "constructive criticism" like blanket insults toward the whole website. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing says "constructive criticism" like unilateral deletions. ħuman 01:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete or keep

I'm not minded either way, but some people hate it and some don't mind it. Have at. Sophie^Wilder 10:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So, are we getting rid of this or what?--"Shut up, Brx." 10:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete

1. Stubby, uninformative, poorly titled, not analysing anything. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
2. incorrect in so many ways--"Shut up, Brx." 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. The most this article could accomplish would be to tell someone that there were other colonists in North America in the sixteenth century, which Wikipedia would be much better at explaining. And again, the title is godawful. (Which could be changed of course, but then why haven't the article's supporters done so?) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
4. This seems like someone's pet cause, and is definitely off-mission. And it's a low-quality article, even aside from that. Kimberly (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
5. It's a bad Wikipedia article. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
6. Not even vaguely on-mission. Delete, or move to the one person who claims to use it's user space. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 11:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep

1. It informed me about something which I had never really considered. Would it come under pseudo-history in some way?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Maybe needs work, but considering the current law in Arizona, an article on the subject is a necessity. EVDebs (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. --Damo^Hi 03:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Goat

1. Sophie^Wilder 10:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
2. This should be an essay. I saw the title of the page and assumed it was a book title. I assume the point of this article is that few yanks care about the history of non-anglophones in North America, and this gap in the curriculum is exhibit A? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, EVD...

There's room somewhere for waht you're talking about, probably in an article on First Nations stuff; to do the topic justice would swamp the small thing that this article is talking about; I don't think most people who talk about the anos perdidos are talking about First Nations history -- the idea is that the 16th century buggers up our take on European settlement. (Which is why the link to the English-only thing...)The bus came by/and I got on. 01:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I kind of think the distinction is somewhat artificial. You're correct that the 16th century is important but incompletely studied. However, there is definitely more to be stated. Here's my full addition below -- what do you think? EVDebs (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I really like the second pgph, and it's completely germane. I think my problem with bringing Native history in is that either we do it properly, which means a whole article on native history, or it's a token, empty, half-assed shout-out to the Indians. Can you say anything specifically about First Nations activities/settlements of new areas/expansions in the 16th? The bus came by/and I got on. 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a whole lot, I don't think. There's lots of back-and-forth between the Spanish and the Natives all over the South and Southwest in that period but as important as it should be, I don't know much about it. I do know that this would have been the period that horses spread among the Plains Indians and started to create the great nomadic cultures of more recent history, and it was also the period where "Puerto Rican" became an ethnicity with an influx of African genes into European and Native American cultures. EVDebs (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

edit paste

This isn't the only thing that US history courses ignore. Even before that, there is a long history of Native American cultures; much of this is unwritten, but Taos Pueblo in New Mexico is among the oldest continuously established urban settlements in North America, and pueblos in general date to much earlier times, with large urban groupings and even roads connecting them dotting the US southwest and northern Mexico.

Giovanni da Verrazzano was the first European confirmed to have visited what is now New York City in the 1520s, and it's been speculated that Portuguese explorer Miguel de Corte-Real may, in search of his brother Gaspar, have found his way as far south as the South Coast of Massachusetts and was somehow related to the creation of Dighton Rock in Berkely (although this is far from universally accepted). And the lost Roanoke colony in what is now North Carolina was founded by Sir Walter Raleigh in 1580.

"The sixteenth century is often referred to as los años perdidos"

Umm, how often? A google search for the term brings up some Spanish language TV series. A google search for the term + "US history" brings up ... this article. The bus came by/and I got on. 01:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

True. I also found some results related to the life of Jesus, but the only result I found relating to American history was RW. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article restored, but twice and many people voted to delete it than to keep it.

Okay. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, four to two. What an overwhelming verdict! As in, no one cares much. Every time I try to link to this page on FB it has been deleted, renamed, etc.

Leave it the fuck alone, or better yet,make it better. Delete it again and I will get out my magic sword. Jesus Christ on an Easter Stick, who are you haters and why do you try to delete rather than add? Brx, especially. Show me one article you wrote, you little piece of shit. ħuman 02:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I said "okay." Chill the fuck out, old man. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1. This article is terrible
2. Most people on this page agree
3. Don't threaten users

This wiki does not belong to you. Stop acting like it does--"Shut up, Brx." 02:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The "most people" are a 4 to 2 poll with 2 abstentions. What have you written on this wiki, useless person? ħuman 03:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as Human seems to be the only one who uses this page, how about moving it into his user space? That way he can still link to it and this badly written turd is moved out of mainspace. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 03:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, calling it "badly written" is everybody's responsibility - it's on the wiki, fix it. Second, that is a really desperate try. Fix the writing if you don't like it. Fix the title, since it sucks. Fix the concept? Do you even get the idea? OK. At least if you "people" stuff it into my user space, leave the fucking redirects so I can find it and link it every few months on FB (think about that for an hour or two before you kill this page once more). ħuman 03:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

here's a novel thought - seeing as the last time a few people were even bothered to look at it, and they decided to delete it, and as you're the only one who seems to find some use for it, how about you fix it, instead of stamping you feet and issuing demands? Just because something is on the wiki does not mean it deserves to be on the wiki. And it's really easy to put a link to it from your userpage, rather than leaving useless redirects all over the place. PsyGremlin^Parlez! 03:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This article may be bullshit, and here's why.

I took it on faith that whomever wrote this thing/was so invested in it knew what they were talking about and tried to improve the article. Here's the problem, though, a quick search on JSTOR tells me that there are some 22,581 academic articles and books that deal with the history of the United States in the 16th century. Whether or not that transfers to the classroom, I can't say, but anecdotal evidence, ie the American history freshman survey class that Mrs. PSaL is teaching at a well-ranked, big-deal US university, suggests that the 16th century gets "at least two full lectures." Not quite as "perdidos" as one may think. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 01:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is bullshit. That's why it should either be deleted or moved to Human's user space. Regardless of whether he whines about it--"Shut up, Brx." 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As nobody has presented any sort of argument against my call on this article being fundamentally flawed, I shall delete it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)