Talk:Introduction to US History

well as the first enrolled students...I'm beginning

Thank you for the lecture. I have already read through the first chapter of the wikibook. I will be posting a discussion regarding the material today or tommarrow. Some advice for whomever joins our course; Use wikipedia. it is quite complete and you can delve into even more detail by using the references. I would be happy to make an effort to give feedback and suggestions to the person whom authored the wikibook. I am very new to wiki and am a little unsure of titles. Should I refer to you as Professer Plourde?...I have read that wikiversity does not bestow titles on people, but it seems natural to follow educational precedent. --Jolie 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not advisable, as I don't hold that title. Just refer to me by my username. Geo.plrd 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have become intrigued by the clovis people and there place in the settlement of North and South American. My research is summarized below.

Pre-historical migration to the Americas is a highly active area of research. A colonization of the America during the Pleistocene epoch during a period of glaciation known as the younger Dryas has been the prevailing theory for many years.

The basis of this theory has been remarkable similarities in many North American archaeological sites. Many South American sites of equal antiquity do not share the same consistency [1]

The Clovis culture could be considered one of the earliest American civilizations. Their nomadic trek through North American appears to be a very significant historical event throughout North and South American. It is not clear whether the clovis people were one unified tribe or whether there were many tribes related by common technology and belief. It is also not clear if their culture permeated other pre-existing peoples or whether they are the original settlers of north and south america (The clovis first theory). One characteristic of these ancient peoples is a particular arrow shape first described in Clovis NM and found in diverse sites throughout the hemispheres. Other archaeological finds include similar stone tools, similar diet and common burial practices. [2] . The Clovis culture disappears dramatically from the aracheaological record 12,900 years ago and there is widespread speculation about what caused their dissapearance. Theories range from the extinction of the mammoth to sudden environmental changes caused by a comet or the break of the massive freshwater lake, Lake Agassiz. [3]

An ancient land mass referred to beringa connected North America and Asia during the Last glacial maximum. Some genetic research indicate that many native Americans shore distinct genetic similarities with Siberians that that lived in and/or crossed Beringa. (human habitation [4] ). Beringa was flooded after 16000 BP(before present), and geological research suggest an ice free corridor through northwest Canada. how do I attach a map to this article?

There is considerable controversy about Pre-clovis settlement of America. Comparative linguistics and culture seem especially prone to connect North American peoples to other ancient human populations in Europe, Australia and Asia. Critics of these studies point to uncertainty in dating techniques, contamination of early cultures by later influence, and the lack of solid genetic proof of these theories.

It may have been that migrations of people predate the establishment of Clovis culture, and/or that some migration used coastal routes (now under water) to more efficiently travel throughout the continent (Thus predating the Clovis migration).

At any rate Clovis culture and migration could be discussed in more detail in the wikibooks as a firm example of the history of prehistoric beginnings in north America, and a people that we are much more familiar with than settlements in Monte Verde. I would also suggest that the statement

"Archaeological evidence supports the hypothesis that early man migrated to the Americas in gradual waves. These arrivals came primarily from Eurasia, Africa, etc."

Ignores the intense controversy surrounding Pre-clovis colonization. The author seems to suggest his opinion that colonization of North America came from multiple sources. This is in direct opposition to some highly touted research. Is the author suggesting that these new arrivals occurred post-clovis? I didn't see anything about that either.

That's more than my lunch hour. How am I doing?--Jolie 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Another minor point about the wikibook...

To refer to the demise of the Inca civilization and some philosophical thoughts about it, seems premature. The demise of the Incan civilization is Post-columbian and I expect there is a good deal of interesting reading once we get to the actions of the Spanish upon the Native Americans. --Jolie 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The wikibook is disappointing. I thought it was going to be good because it was supposed to be designed on the AP US History standards. Closer examination revealed that this is not the case. Feel free to add your research and suggested changes. You are hitting the nail on the head. Geo.plrd 00:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I put it in or not?

Wow. There is alot of controversy regarding the "bering land bridge theory". While inside of wikipedia it seems the accepted theory. there is this.[5]

and of course the wikibook talk page is filled to the point of bursting with Anti-bering land bridge rheteoric as well [6]

its not so very clear in the talk page, who is who. but someone (at least one) was decrying sloppy gramar and someone else went into some detail against the theory (the author?)

ok here is an interesting article about why some native americans MIGHT object to the theory, and a rather objective, pleasant tone from a Native American. [7] well still one would expect more authority from a highly esteemed researchers of the smithsonians and they say "Likely to preclovis settlement [8]" But this leaves me in a bind, some people saying one thing other people saying others. Back to wikipedia- did I misread?

one thing that confuses the whole argument is that this bickering doesn't always stick to the same question.

1. Did People move over a natural ice bridge around 11000BP? I think so.
2. Were these People the clovis? Probably, but the sultrean finds in france gets in the way
3. Did People move south along the ocean OR through the ice field gap?? -no idea.
4. Did People get to North or south american by a oceanic pacific route?
5. Did People get to North or south american by a Northern atlantic route?
6. Laslty , were the clovis First (Asian see Question 2) and the chief settlers of the continent?

the last is the boldest and the first claim of 'bering strait' proponents. Lets see if the wikipedia articles that gave me such a sense of 'the bering strait is the major scientific view' has anything hot to say in the discussian pages.

Sigh... Wikipedia is Very firm on that and on the discussion page is..

"While many claims to pre-Clovis American settlement abound, from both archaeological and genetic disciplines, none as yet have 'majority' support. The timeframe of c. 12000 yrs remains the earliest evidential date for which there is universal agreement. The evidence produced so far for earlier dates continues to be treated with caution, if not outright scepticism, by many researchers who are awaiting more concrete data before assenting. No reason not to mention a few of the more notable "early arrival" claims however, but they need to be flagged as speculative and unconfirmed.

I agree however that the article as it stands needs a good deal more of reliable cites, in any event.--cjllw | TALK 06:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)"

is a 2006 summary still relevant? I'm not sure what current researchers think and if they have changed there mind about the bering strait theory. I'm not sure I want to change it. perhaps I'll invite him to this discussion. one thing is for sure, I'm not an archeaologist.

what do you think Geo.plrd? as soon as you 'dig' into this topic, the picture gets very controversial. How do you improve a wikibook, anyway? do you have big discussions with the author or do you just be bold (then later find out that he considers you a vandal).--Jolie 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've invited him over on the wikibooks talk page. In answering my own question, I am sure you would make efforts to establish dialogue on the discussion page, before you altered anything on the main page. --Jolie 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We may just want to start a new textbook. That would eliminate any need to deal with the old one. Geo.plrd 17:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Course Update:Assignments, Textbooks

After much thought, I am amending the assignments and textbooks. The US History Wikibook is unusable by this course. We will therefore be writing our own. Called United We Stand, this work will be the standard reference for this course when it is completed. It will be a survey textbook of the United States, but will cover relevant content, thoroughly. All assignments are now going to be on this textbook. This week, we should focus on America Before Columbus. Geo.plrd 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks really belong over at Wikibooks. If amending b:US History is not acceptable for some reason, you should begin work on a parallel textbook there. Be prepared to clearly state how your book will differ from the current book in your introduction. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This textbook is headed to Wikibooks immediately after it is completed. By working on it here, students don;t need two accounts. Geo.plrd 04:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I do have a wikibooks account. Nevertheless I agree with George that it is most convenient to write and amend the textbook here and move it over when finished. I have also added a place to justify our decision to rewrite the book. --Jolie 18:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jolie, I am going to move the justification to a subpage, so everything is together. Geo.plrd 03:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you do have an account there, and even if you didn't it's trivial to get one. I fail to understand why it is preferable to begin an entirely new textbook when there is already a text on the go at Wikibooks. You'll have to merge the texts when it's complete anyways, making a lot more work for you. Wikibooks is the preferable venue for writing textbooks (which is actually our entire purpose) and there are further practical considerations for doing so. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)