Best us colonial period history books according to redditors
We found 326 Reddit comments discussing the best us colonial period history books. We ranked the 115 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 326 Reddit comments discussing the best us colonial period history books. We ranked the 115 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Lightweights.
Two days before the signing of the consitution in 1787, our founding fathers went on an alcoholic binge drinking that is cannot be seen as anything other than awe inspiring
The 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a tavern. According to the bill preserved from the evening, they drank...
They then spent two days finding out where they were in the gutters and sobering themselves up with coffee. That's right, they put off the whole unified government thing for partying their asses off.
EDIT: Due to request's, here's my Source
The author of that article wrote The Alcoholic Republice: An American Tradition
We're discussing present systemic oppression rooted in past systemic oppression, and also proportionally how much that past systemic oppression has contributed to the present systemic oppression.
Comparing the traffic of the Irish and of British debtors--rated around 300K tops according to the one reputable source published by an academic press--to the 12.5 million slaves of African origins--as demonstrating equivalence is downright laughable mathematically.
While conceding the point that voluntary and involuntary indentures often faced conditions exactly the same as African slaves, they are distinct from slaves in that after their terrible indenture period was ended, their holders legally had to free them and provide them land.
Additionally, the grounds on which white indentures were sent to North America--they were politically undesirable--is substantially different from the grounds on which African slaves werte sent to North America--they were seen as inherently and genetically inferior, rather than merely a political nuisance.
Fast-forward some three hundred years and ask the following questions: (1) Statistically, how do white persons of Irish descent compare to other white persons in their proportional educational attainment, income levels, and political influence? and (2) Statistically, how do black persons compare to white persons proportionally on the same measures?
The results, I venture, will be starkly different--and thus showcases the differentially systemic impact of African slavery and the admittedly terrible conditions of white indentured servitude.
Hmm, so he recommends a book written by notorious racist, Holocaust denier, and tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, Michael Hoffman II?
No ulterior motives here, guys!
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422282600&sr=8-1&keywords=white+cargo
I don't know about outright "denial" outside of fringe circles, but it's not uncommon to see folks engage in mental gymnastics to downplay the legacy of imperialism, chattel slavery, etc., or even attempt to turn it into a "good" thing. Think about it:
Some more (hidden) history:
Did you know that between 1530 and 1780 there were 1 million to as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims?
Did you also know that there were white slaves in early America?
More Reading: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain
The American Constitution itself is really considered the first of it's kind. There are many things that influenced the Constitution, and gave the Constitution it's name.
The founding of the American Republic - and the constitution - was strongly influenced by the Roman Republic. The framers studied classical history extensively and often looked at the "Constitutio" which where edicts, decrees and rescripts that governed the Roman Republic and later empire.The Roman constitution was not a single document, but rather a series of precedents and traditions that formed the structure in which the government operated. Later the Roman Emperor declared the Constitutio Antoniniana, which granted citizenship to freemen living in the Roman Republic.
I believe (and I am a American history student, not a roman history) that using the term to describe the core laws that was popularized by Livy's Ab Urbe condita which described the history of the Roman Republic. Later the term described edicts from the emperor, and the most important decrees by the Pope (Apostolic constitution) starting in the 1570s.
The idea of the constitution being a legal contract was influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. The Magna Carta, which restricted the powers of government, and the "British Constitution" which like the roman Constitution was mainly tradition based were also influential, and led to the idea that authority could be granted by agreement rather then by princely authority.
The early colonies where created on the basis of charters that granted colonies under the authority of the government of England. In 1630, the settlers of Connecticut formed their government not based off of the external charter, but instead drafted the "Fundamental Orders." When the colonies declared independence, they chose likewise to replace the defunct charters with documents, which they called "Constitutions"
Sources -
Ab Urbe condita - http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/livius/trans1.html
The Social Contract: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
The Radicalism of the American Revolution: http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883
The Creaton of the American Republic: http://www.amazon.com/The-Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0CZ9HPT323HSRGHGG1WG
Ancient Rome in America: http://shc.stanford.edu/news/research/ancient-rome-america
The Founders and the Classics
Some do lie, and feel righteous about it: anything that furthers the cause, you know.
http://www.amazon.com/Liars-For-Jesus-Religious-Alternate/dp/1419644386/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367372825&sr=8-1&keywords=liars+for+jesus
There's a fantastic book called [A Delusion of Satan by Frances Hill] (https://www.amazon.com/Delusion-Satan-Story-Salem-Trials/dp/0306811596) that studies the Witch Trials in Salem and lays it out for what I personally believe it was, a combination of greed, religious fear, a stifling Puritan lifestyle, and teenage boredom that became a perfect storm for the shit show.
Nah, it's cool. This book I highly recommend about slavic history, and this one about their slavery
Also, this page and this are some good reads.
Gumbo Tales - by Sara Roahan -- The most beautifully written book about New Orleans cuisine I've ever encountered. Hilarious, poignant, reflective, uplifting and sad. Don't read if you're hungry. Or if you're not near food because you will become hungry.
The World that Made New Orleans -- Ned Sublette -- A narrative history book that looks at all the cultures, people, government systems and all the historical events that shaped the formation of New Orleans. Great read, if only for the chapter where the author incredulously wonders why people would argue Thomas Jefferson didn't sleep with his slaves.
Nine Lives - Dan Baum -- An oral history of nine New Orleanians that lived through Hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Katrina. Includes tales from the wife of legendary Mardi Gras Indian Tootie Montana, marching band director Wilbert Rawlins (also featured in "The Whole Gritty City") and the President of the Rex Organization, among others. Beautifully composed and written.
City of Refuge - Tom Piazza -- Historical fiction following a group of people as they recover from Katrina. Looks at people from every walk of life in New Orleans and does a great job of transmitting their individual struggles in the wake of the storm.
New Orleans, Mon Amour -- A collection of writings and short stories about life in New Orleans. Probably the most romanticized of all the books I've listed but no less awesome.
I also have to second the recommendations made for Confederacy of Dunces (one of the funniest, laugh-out-loud books you'll ever read) and the Moviegoer.
(Edit: City of Refuge is fiction)
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
> Because white people didn't go through slavery.
Wrong.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
>hurr durr source is funny
now fuck off
He is absolutely right. I highly, highly recommend this book on the history of Dutch New Amsterdam and its many influences on American culture and politics.
https://www.amazon.com/Island-at-Center-World-ebook/dp/B000FCK2Z6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503297955&sr=8-1&keywords=island+at+the+center+of+the+world
>Excuse my ignorance, but I wasn't taught this in school and always assumed Blacks were the only slaves and maybe some Native Americans. ELI5.
If you'd rather have video than all the reading, here is an informative video from recent AMA guest Gavin McInnes on this topic.
Click here for moar
and
Click here for even moar, with lulz and footnote sources
and
Click here for a book you didn't know exists
and
Click here for things you didn't know about the African slave traders
Native American deforestation differs significantly from European settler deforestation, especially in the Northeastern US. Specifically, Native Americans seasonally burned underbrush, leaving the larger trees intact, to make it easier to hunt. When they cleared land for farming, it was in small parcels and only cleared for a couple of seasons, after which the plot was abandoned and regrew quite quickly.
The 'California-sized' area of deforested land is, IMO, a gross overestimate that probably does not account for the temporally fragmented nature of Native American land use patterns see Changes in the Land by William Cronan for more details. Furthermore, colonial-era deforestation followed quickly on the heels of Native American population decline and was of the clear-cut variety- completely denuding the landscape to make way for pasture, heat homes, harvest timber, and fuel paper mills.
That said, I have a hard time believing that Native American deforestation had any significant impact on global climate on the scale of the Little Ice Age.
It's an interesting idea but back-of-the-envelope calculations don't fully support their hypothesis.
You're very welcome!
Normally, I would list these books in addition to a small description and reasons why I found them particularly interesting or engaging. However, it’s getting a bit late, so I’m just going to give you a list of some books that I particularly recommend. I should have some time later this afternoon to talk about them more in depth, and to answer any questions that you might have.
Read "White Cargo" http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. You won't read about this in High School History textbooks
https://www.salon.com/2000/06/15/white_slaves/
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
Just because you didn't learn about it in school or see it on TV, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Some that I love:
I loved the dissection of Barton in Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History Vol. 1.
http://www.amazon.com/Liars-For-Jesus-Religious-ebook/dp/B002OHD23E/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1344467545&sr=8-1
This is also available for free from the LiarsforJesus.com site but Rodda needs the financial help to get volume 2 out the door.
!
Here an Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/World-That-Made-New-Orleans/dp/1556529589/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319134042&sr=1-2-fkmr0
That was a concession made by the northern states to get the southern states to ratify the Constitution. It was NOT in the original draft, and the southern states refused to sign until it was. It was a compromise.
I suggest reading "A leap in the dark, " which is a great book about the very beginnings of the US.
http://www.amazon.com/Leap-Dark-Struggle-American-Republic/dp/0195176006
Chris Rodda wrote a book called Liars for Jesus that you might find interesting.
you might want to give this a quick read. Also, look up how the States treated the Chinese post Civil War, Native Americans at really any point in time, Hispanics post WWII...
Did black people get the worst of it? Yes, although the Natives come very close. Were there black people who weren't slaves? Yes. Were there black slave owners? Yes
Full disclosure: I am part Irish.
It's time once again for the AskHistorians Book Giveaway! This month we picked two winners: Eric Hacke and Alec Barnaby! The selection of books we have available this month are:
Want a chance to get a free book? Help support the podcast via Patreon!
Honest Abe comes from his time as a lawyer riding the 8th court circuit in Illinois. He was known for his fairness and honesty in legal cases.
As to the whole white slavery thing, I call and continue to call bullshit. I have never seen a scholarly article discuss the enslavement of irish people to the US. The only book I have ever seen on the topic claims that 300,000 irish came to the US as slaves prior to the revolution. If that were true, those 300k irish would represent up to 10% of the population leading up to the revolution, and yet, no serious scholarly research has been done on them? It just doesn't add up. That is a HUGE segment of the population to ignore. That is more white slaves than black slaves during the time period.
Now I do concede that some Irish were probably deported to the US, but they were indentured servants or free when they got here, and being an indentured servant is nothing like being a slave.
Here is the book that I have found, that makes the 300k claim. I have not found any other book making the Irish slavery claim. http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1341351523&sr=8-4&keywords=irish+slaves Just read the description, it uses so many buzzwords it is ridiculous.
Sorry if I ranted, but the white slave claim makes me want to claw out my eyes when I see it.
I don't know of a single place that has compiled all of the relevant information through history, you have to look on a smaller scale and combine all of it. I guess you could start with these:
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
But you have to go so much further back before you see just how many whites were enslaved, mainly in Europe. You also have to be specific with how you define "white" people. In America, anyone with white skin is white, and if you expand on that it's pretty obvious there have been more white slaves throughout history than blacks, there are simply more white people. But if you get more specific and only include English/British people, then probably not.
It's very much a pre-Alt-Right myth, it's been banging around since the '90s
i remember reading the mayflower back in highschool and squanto pulling a dick move that screwed over both native americans in the area and the pilgrims, but completely forgot what or why.
Here're a couple of my favorite archaeology books. The first one is about modern garbage, and is based around the idea that "what people have owned--and thrown away--can speak more eloquently, informatively, and truthfully about the lives they lead than they themselves ever may."
Rubbish!
The second one is a seminal text of historical archaeology, James Deetz' In Small Things Forgotten. amazon link
More inconvenient information for the SJW/Marxists: http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/
Yes. Mainly from Ireland. It's not talked about often, and they're mainly refered to as "indentured servants" when talked about but... Yeah. Basically white slaves. There is a very good book about it called White Cargo.
I think the bot is sleeping, dreaming of electric sheeps.
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B07CN1ZLNJ
I read a great book that was required reading for one of my university classes in NOLA. Give The World That Made New Orleans a try. It's obviously not as far-reaching as Guns Germs and Steel, but New Orleans is such an interesting and culturally diverse city, and the book explores the different origins of NOLA cuisine, music, architecture, etc.
>The country wasn't founded on slavery.
Sure it was. Slavery was the very foundation of settlement patterns for half the country, and was embedded into the constitution. All of the biggest internal conflicts from 1776 on were directly or indirectly tied to slavery.
Slavery was one of, if not the primary driver of the call for revolution.
>>In 1772, the High Court in London brought about the conditions that would end slavery in England by freeing a black slave from Virginia named Somerset. This decision began a key facet of independence.
>>All of these considerations combined to make southern political lawyers anxious about their property in slaves that was threatened by the Somerset decision. Taxation might have taken some of their property; Somerset threatened to take it all.
From a review:
>>The book goes on to tell how major decisions made by the Americans-such as the agreement to break from British rule, the wording of the Declaration of Independence, and the formulation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution-were all done in a manner that protected the right of the South to maintain slavery.
>>For example: in early drafts of the Declaration of Independence, the language that said "All men are born equally free and independent" was changed by Thomas Jefferson to "All men were created equal" to prevent the implication that slaves should be free.
Now,
>It wasn't founded on fear.
Sure it was. Samuel Adams and other prominent revolutionaries used outlandish conspiracy theories to gain support for revolution.
It's one thing to have respect for the founding fathers, quite another to be willfully blind to any faults.
Crackers were poor white scottish settlers in the south during the late 1700's. Many of them were indentured servants and bond servants. Cracker culture is considered to be similar to todays ghetto culture, in that drinking was emphsized and education was looked down upon, and people labeled crackers lived in poverty in the Appalachia. The first people who used the slur crackers were wealthy slave owning planters who looked down upon poor whites. The bullwhip theory is not the only one, some have suggested that cracker came about because corn was the staple food of poor whites. So cracker does have a history of oppression and classism attached to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
Discusses indentured slavery and debt bondage among poor whites.
> But then again the Irish earned their whiteness.
Exactly. Gotta earn your stars and stripes!
As for the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony, see:
Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick.
White Cargo
William Cronon's Changes in the Land is another fantastic look at this. He focuses on New England but he goes in great detail about the various Indian cultures that were there before Europeans arrived and what happened to them as a result of disease, as well as how this affected the ecology and climate of the land.
So what's interesting is that what Akhil Reed Amar says about Madison isn't a quote. He's paraphrasing Madison's fears over a weaker Virginia presence in a popular vote -- which is true. No one is disputing that. Even the author of the Tenth Amendment Center article you cite references that. But my argument is that slavery was not the main reason the south wanted the electoral college. In fact, many northerners wanted the electoral college too!
Here's where my historian warning alarm went off when I was reading the Vox Article:
>Then there's the theory that the framers really didn't believe in democracy. But they put the Constitution to a vote, they created a House of Representatives that was directly elected, they believed in direct election of governors, and there are all sorts of other democratic features in the Constitution. So that theory isn't so explanatory.
The fact that he doesn't acknowledge that the Constitution was created to limit democracy proves that he is unfamiliar with the recent historiographical conversations of the last 15 years. Here is why I believe this. Unruly Americans and the origins of the Constitution by Woody Holton, Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution both clearly (and effectively) argue that that the Constitution was created, in part, due to the Founders' fears over unchecked Democracy happening at the state level. Similarly, The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776- 1790 by E. James Ferguson doesn't directly argue this point, but supports it by showing that it was the opinion of many of the founders that the national government was struggling primarily because of the democratic power in the states. Unruly Americans and Taming Democracy are highly praised books (as evident by their many positive reviews in academic journals) because of their effective arguments. The fact that he dismisses their arguments tells me that he's either being disingenuous or simply uninformed of the current historical discussions on this topic. But I don't condemn him for not being entirely up to date with the literature.
He's not a historian, he's a lawyer. He knows how and why the constitution should be interpreted, but he is not as fully versed on the historical method. He likely hasn't spent as much time digging into the bitterness, squabbles, and endless infighting that caused the US Constitution to come about the way that it did, as a historian would. (Likewise, he knows more about it's interpretation than historians would!) And again, I'm not saying he's entirely wrong. He's right that people like Madison saw this situation as a bonus -- but there's no way that it was the main reason. Slavery was a factor, just not the factor. Folks like Alexander Hamilton truly feared Virginian power, and if he saw it as a way of truly empowering the south, he would not have been one of the biggest proponents of the electoral college. For me, Amer's argument just doesn't work.
Tl;Dr: The professor in the Vox article isn't a historian, he's a lawyer who isn't trained like a historian. The fact that he seems unaware of the major interpretations of the history of constitution over the last decade suggests he's not as informed as historians would be on this matter.
Edit: please let me know if this makes sense? I realized it's kind of a long rant.
The First Salute by Barbara Tuchman covers both the American Revolution and piracy in the West Indies. It's a superb book and filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge of European history and mercantilism.
Mike Duncan of History of Rome fame is currently doing a podcast series called Revolutions. He's already covered the American Revolution and is in the middle of the French Revolution right now.
No not at all. The rock is very arbitrary. The Pilgrims first landed on what is Cape Cod actually (Provincetown). They stayed there for a month mostly camped out in the ship. Upon fearing retaliation from Natives after they stole some stores of corn, they decided to leave to find a better area. They sailed west from the tip of Cape Cod and immediately came to Plymouth Harbor where they anchored, stayed, and subsequently built their settlement as they thought the area was sustainable and could be best defended. Like I said, there is no mention of a rock in any of the writings from the actual pilgrims so it really has no relevance to the events.
I recommend this book! Takes you from the Mayflower and then to King Phillips War which is another fascinating subject in itself.
https://www.amazon.com/Mayflower-Story-Courage-Community-War/dp/0143111973/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526501987&sr=8-1&keywords=mayflower+book
Amazon.in
Don't know why the bot did not post it. or i am confusing subreddits.
Volgens Barbar Tuchman begonnen de betrekkingen al op Nov. 16, 1776 toen op St. Eustatius de First Salute werd gegeven. Wat maak je daarvan?
Hi op! So this is my first time really posting here, so my apologies if I mess up.
The ships were smaller than you’d likely imagine. There is currently an active reconstruction of the Mayflower, the ship known for bringing the pilgrims to first Provincetown, Cape Cod, then on to Plymouth Massachusetts. and it is only about 80-90 feet long on deck. I’d suggest Nathanial Philbrick’s ‘Mayflower’. It gives both a very good idea of the living conditions on the journey, and an in depth look at what lead to pilgrims to the new world.
I came here to suggest the same; I'm glad to see someone else recommend it. White Cargo is a pretty good read on the subject.
Here's some books you might like:
1491 by Charles C Mann.
The Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick.
The Alcoholic Republic is a good resource on American drinking habits. Rum (made cheap by slave-grown sugar cane in the Caribbean) was the most popular drink up until about 1830, when a glut of cheap corn west of the Appalachians made whiskey more prominent. Beer didn't really show up until after the Civil War, when railroads and canals meant that crops could be shipped more easily, and a larger influx of German immigrants brought with them a bigger thirst for beer.
There is some mention of geography/climate in the book: apparently it was difficult to grow grapes in the original 13 states, and corn grew better than barley most places, but I think that economic and cultural reasons outweigh the geographic/climate reasons.
Edit: as wendelgee2 says, cider was also an important American beverage, especially in rural areas with lots of orchards.
For the Revolutionary Period, I would highly suggest Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, which is a part of the fantastic Oxford History of the United States book series. You cannot go wrong with any of those books. I also second Alan Taylor's American Colonies, which is also available in a "Very Short Introduction" version in case you're short on time or you'd like a book that lends itself to shorter excerpts.
If he has any real interest in the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers and mistrusts information found on the Internet, but might actually read a book, I'd recommend the following:
I understand your perspective. The conversation would have irked me as well. I've had disagreements with a relative in the past over religion, also, but I've known the person far too long to let such arguments make me overlook all of the person's good points or disrespect the person just because we don't share the same religious viewpoint.
no, he was a deist - which is different from christian. I highly recommend this book for an in depth look at the religion of the founding fathers, showing just how non-christian they really were.
Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick. Really enjoying it, especially the section about King Philip's War.
It's a good read
The Creation of the American Republic is very comprehensive.
The Irish most likely.
Edit: There's this book
I have read dozens of books on the Revolutionary period and the creation of the Constitution so I have some understanding of the role of judicial review. It was developed mainly to prevent popular politics. (Debt relief laws being the prime target for elimination.) Indeed, the entire concept of a separate constitutional law is a tool of elites to deny the citizenry the power they had to make change through legislative sovereignty. If you are interested I can recommend some works for further reading. The place to start is with Gordon Wood. (How 'bout them apples?)
Though you are right I should have read the decision before commenting. This isn't the huge change I thought it was. The Bill of Rights has long been incorporated to cover state governments. It looks like this part of the 8th somehow missed out and is now being included. I guess I overreacted.
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
HEre's a good place to start
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot Here's another
For your convenience :)
https://www.amazon.com/Small-Things-Forgotten-Archaeology-American/dp/0385483996
>Same for people living in Louisiana and speaking French
Politics aside /u/I_value_my_shit_more you should check out The World That Made New Orleans; it does a good job at least in a small section of America of documenting how immigration has defined the culture there and helped evolve it to where it is today.
In the later chapters it focuses more on music, but the empirical historical stuff early on (starts in the 1400s) is pretty neat even if you don't give a shit about jazz.
Hence the title of Barbara Tuckman's book The First Salute
Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revolution is phenomenal, as is A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic.
1776 is a great book, and you should definitely read it, but it only covers the year 1776 (and just leading up to it).
If you can only get one book, go with Patriots (It starts in the 1750s, so it's certainly in-depth).
Oh, I've got some good books in this category. I took an Anglo-American Constitutionalism class during undergrad, which had some great readings on the American Constitution.
Plain Honest Men by Richard Beeman
Creation of the American Republic by Gordon Wood
Peripheries and Center by Jack P. Greene
The last two are awesome, awesome books that really changed the way I thought about early America and the creation of the Constitution.
As a future social studies educator, my other suggestion would be to find a history teacher at your school who is really passionate about the subject and ask them about what they read and how they read. One of the most important things in learning about history is how to read history correctly. Or, if a university is near by, e-mail professors who study a topic that you're interested in and see if you can correspond with them or talk to them. They may lend you free books, too!
I recently took a program at my college about this period, 1750-1800, and the main text we read was John Ferling's "A Leap in the Dark". It was presented in a fairly narrative format and was generally entertaining throughout, but peters off towards the end. I felt it was worth reading. (I am not a scholar of the period)
You could read a book on the subject and maybe stop arguing from ignorance: https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Let's get it started then. What would you be interested in reading? I have some options on my reading list, maybe you are interested. If not, you can also suggest some titles and then we can decide.
We need European centered diaspora equivalents to this
Black American oppression
Alongside
And this Native American suffering history
The "redneck revolt" movement is a good symbol of a cucked cancerous takeover over European history with "we wuz oppressed but we are still the oppressors" and they need to be overtaken.
It's the golden rule. If me harming others is wrong, others harming me is wrong. There are two sides to every story.
There are other countries like Japan where the native and resident ethnic conflicts are resolved and moved on from.
Thankfully for Japanese the Jewish supremacists have virtually no influence there to rewrite and destroy their history despite their obvious desire to do so.
[Japan has like virtually no Jews.](Jews.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Japan) Yet they managed to attack the states homogenity via birthrates and promoting race mixing as a 22 year old Jewish woman wrote the Japanese gender equality part of their constitution during post ww2 reconstruction.
These "Antiracist" Jews consider ethnic Japense to be "illegitimate" despite my protests;
>The "original populations" of the Japanese islands are the Ainu of the north and the okinawans of the south, that are very different from the average modern japanese person in the same way a maori is different from a white new zealander. The "average japanese" is a descendant of mongoloid groups that migrated to the isles during the last Ice Age.
Then retard lets it out;
>Nation-states are a temporary contrivance that, like monarchy/aristocracy, should be thrown into history's trash the instant we can apply something better.
Even fcking Hitler predicted something of Jewish supremacist genocidal hatred towards Japan;
>...he strives to break the Japanese national State by the power of existing similar structures, to finish off the dangerous opponent before the last State power is transformed in his hands into a despotism over defenseless beings.
>He dreads a Japanese national State in his millennial Jew empire, and therefore wishes its destruction in advance of the founding of his own dictatorship.
>Therefore, he is now inciting the nations against Japan, as against Germany, and it can happen that, while British statecraft still tries to build on the alliance with Japan, the British-Jewish press already demands struggle against the ally and prepares the destructive war under the proclama-
tion of democracy and the battle cry: Down with Japanese militarism, and imperialism.
I for one 100% cheer a strong Asia/whatever nation. Any and all "dangerous opponents" to genocidal international Jewish supremacists are fcking heroes
The founding fathers would regularly get a whole town shitfaced off of free whiskey that they bought, then send the drunk lot into the voting booth. [source] They also had a nasty habit of using language that would make Richard Nixon blush.
I know you don't want to buy and read a giant volume, but "Liars for Jesus" really is an excellent source. A while back the author made it available for free. I bought the book, but keep the link around so I can do a "ctrl +f" for specific topics.
Might come in handy when someone says, "America is a christian nation, in fact, congress recognized how important the bible is that they bought a bunch of them for its citizens during the revolution". You can do a quick search and find out that the source documents they are using leave out critical bits and that this never actually happened.
My bad, I forgot to list the 5% link.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/
"Anglo-Saxons, whose influx began around AD 450, account for 10 to 40 per cent of the DNA in half of modern-day Britons."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html
"Isotope analysis has begun to be employed to help answer the uncertainties regarding Anglo-Saxon migration. However, the number of studies is small. Strontium data in a 5th–7th-century cemetery in West Heslerston implied the presence of two groups: one of "local" and one of "nonlocal" origin. Although the study suggested that they could not define the limits of local variation and identify immigrants with confidence, they could give a useful account of the issues.[98] Oxygen and strontium isotope data in an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxfordshire, found only 5.3% of the sample originating from continental Europe, supporting the hypothesis of acculturation. Furthermore, they found that there was no change in this pattern over time, except amongst some females." - Wiki
Also on white slavery in the US:
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
send him this http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Jesus-Religious-Alternate-American/dp/1419644386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310429176&sr=1-1
Barbara Tuchman's great book The First Salute talks about this event in her history of the American Revolution.
Or this, https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466778177&sr=1-1&keywords=they+were+white+and+they+were+slaves
Modern, liberal blacks won't suffer the fact that every race have also been enslaved in this world at some point.
Anti-Irish sentiment. Irish slavery.
Keeping a culture going by participating in it is a choice. It doesn't matter where that culture came from; it matters whether it persists when there is no actual reason for it to persist. Plenty of people have abandoned that culture and done quite well for themselves. So the obvious conclusion is that if you don't act like a thug, make better choices, and stop acting like a whiny, entitled retard, you'll be just fine.
It's not genetics. I don't believe anyone is inherently more or less capable of success based on their ethnic background. It's bad choices and a lack of personal responsibility. If you can't manage those two things, don't fucking live in America. Because this is not a society that shields people from their decisions. If you fuck up, you're going to feel it.
And before you go into the whole, "rich people don't feel the consequences of their fuckups as hard" line, duh. Wealth is power. It just so happens that the people with the most wealth are the people whose cultures aren't based on being a bunch of criminal-worshiping degenerates. Racial superiority isn't a thing, but you can bet your ass cultural superiority is. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking liar.
You're not absolved of your responsibility to make sound life choices just because you don't have as many do-overs as someone else.
I don't know if these are the best and more important books I've read, but they're ones I heartily recommend:
I think it was a newpaper, online, etc. article about a proper book or academic writeup of some kind.
This was some years ago & my memory is horrible.
I found something at Amazon that sounds close:
The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition
by W. J. Rorabaugh (Paperback)
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Nation-Colonies-American-Revolution/dp/1402206976
All of the pages I can find that talk about this seem to be using this book as their primary source. I havn't been able to find any detailed reviews of this one, nor much about the authors.
I visited Salem a few years ago and I bought this at one of the tourist traps. It's the only book I've read on the subject but I liked it.
It was exactly like the Revolutionary War; a slave holding aristocracy fought to maintain their "property". Did you know that slavery was outlawed in the British Isles in 1772 and the slave holders in the Colonies could see the writing on the wall.
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Nation-Colonies-American-Revolution/dp/1402206976/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478580170&sr=1-1&keywords=slave+nation
This looks not awful: http://www.amazon.com/Delusion-Of-Satan-Story-Trials/dp/0306811596
I'm from Massachusetts so I think we likely learned a little more than most of the country most of the trials didn't actually take place in current Salem, MA if I'm not mistaken because the Township was broken up into smaller towns over time.
Based on Wikipedia: Salem Village (now Danvers), Salem Town, Ipswich and Andover
For reliable information, you'll have to go to largely offline sources. Don Jordan and Michael Walsh cover a lot of ground regarding Irish (and other) slavery in their book, White Cargo.
In all, there were some 300,000 to 500,000 Irish and poor British that were sent, or in frequent cases "spirited" (aka kidnapped), to the new colonies and Caribbean islands as slaves and indentured servants. A good part of this was the method by which the English combated Irish rebels -- the Tories. As described in White Cargo:
>One way of dealing with them was to hold four people hostage against the captures of any tory committing a crime. If within twenty-eight days the crime went unsolved and the tory had not given himself up, the four would be shipped off the colonies.
Either way, the English were satisfied.
Regarding the early numbers, they provide:
> Over the next ten years, several English privateers reportedly did arrive in the Chesapeake with Africans for sale, and men and women were brought in from the Dutch territory and from the West Indies, but Virginia continued to rely on the white servant trade. By the mid-seventeenth century, Africans numbered only 300 out of a total settler population of 11,000.
...
>Although there was no abrupt surge of Africans, the racial balance in the tobacco fields was changing. In the first quarter of the seventeenth century, white outnumbered black in the Chesapeake by more than twenty to one. By the last quarter of the century, the ratio had narrowed to three to one, with 2,000 black slaves in Virginia and 6,000 white servants.
As they also describe, it was a question of economics. White slaves and indentured servants were frequently cheaper to come by, and had higher survival rates, than African blacks. In time, this changed, and more and more blacks survived both the journey from Africa as well as the labor in the fields. And thus began the shift to African slaves instead of the largely Irish whites.
With regards to the slavery vs. indentured servitude aspect, Publisher's Weekly states:
>High school American history classes present indentured servitude as a benignly paternalistic system whereby colonial immigrants spent a few years working off their passage and went on to better things. Not so, this impassioned history argues: the indentured servitude of whites was comparable in most respects to the slavery endured by blacks.
Though many cases were time-limited (at least at the start), indentured servants were every bit as much treated like those who were bound for life.
oppressed minority is a relative term. A white man in a black ghetto is an oppressed minority. or a white in south africa. Issues such as slavery are rather funny to when you think abotu it. As an Irish American i have just as much of a right to declare myself a member of a formerly oppressed minority.
if you feel like a little light reading.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Irish-Slaves-indenture-Immigrants/dp/145630612X
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335295822&sr=1-1
Now this is a good question. However, I'm afraid I may be disappointing you again. I think it depends at least in part in where your interests lie...are you more interested in military, political, social, economic history etc. Does it matter to you if you learn American history chronologically or not? The below list includes great works in several categories....
Manhood in America: A Cultural History by Michael Kimmel
history of the united states army weigley
battle cry of freedom mcpherson
and if I were to recommend a single volume, and one volume, to start it would be...http://www.amazon.com/The-Glorious-Cause-Revolution-1763-1789/dp/019531588X
It's an Oxford History, usually a stamp of sound quality.
http://www.amazon.com/Liars-Jesus-Religious-Alternate-American/dp/1419644386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347575282&sr=1-1&keywords=liars+for+jesus+chris+rodda
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
Are you asking what the current theory is, or what was commonly believed at the time of the founding? If the founders/founding, then, according to this book, the authority of a government comes from the consent a people give by way of their representation in the government. Taxes, a big issue at the time obviously, were either a gift from the people to the government by way of their representation, or theft.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0814742963
They weren't as "pure" as other whites, and were ridiculed in America for quite some time - some even being used as slaves alongside african slaves. If you played the recent game Bioshock Infinite you may have noticed how the Irish were objectified alongside blacks in the depiction of Columbia.
Also see:
"Irish Americans were not always considered white."
and
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Edit: The marginalization of the Irish really began during the Plantation of Ulster by the English, where King James stole Irish land and gave it to wealthy brits. Also, the Potato Famine wasn't because there wasn't enough food, but because the English stole it all.
An informative read on slavery in general:
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Yes, they have, to not believe so is to delude yourself.
Here's a good book on white slavery since it apaprently never happened ever.
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
haha. Actually, i'm African-American. Why does it matter though? I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm not a trumpet here trolling, i didn't even give an opinion about slavery, just commenting that there seems to have been white slaves. It's not just Irish people either. Here's an excerpt from its page on amazon. I thought you'd want to be privy to this information since you're saying it isn't true and there is documentation that disagrees with you.
"White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface."
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
I mean, there's an entire book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Nation-Colonies-American-Revolution/dp/1402206976
The SPLC is an anti white hate organization that specializes in promoting non white victimhood. Read this book. https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Its not a myth. If you compared the documented numbers of irish slaves brought here to african slaves. There is less than a 30,000 head difference in people brought here against their will.
As for the "land" argument.
Again you are ignoring almost totally that all that land was grabbed up before most of the immigration took place at the turn of the century.
Immigrants came here to new york and developed their own communities. They had no land. No money. but they did have brutal discrimination.
Vietnamese people came here after saigon fell. They had nothing. Many of them literally coming her from a helicopter airlift. That was only about 40 years ago and vietnamese americans now own nearly 93% of nail salons.
They had no "land" to generate wealth when they got here.
The black problem is not racism and a nasty history of slavery. The people alive today never met a slave. and neither have their parents. Its a mix of low iq , high testosterone , and hyperdysgenic welfare dependency.
Yes, white Irish were involved in the slave trade as much so as black Africans.
A good book on the subject is White Cargo - by Don Jordan. Irish slave trade started when James II in 1625 made it so for political prisoners to be traded. The majority of early slaves to the New World actually were white. In part because the Irish were Catholic, which in some eyes tainted them. They were cheaper than African slaves, and Don suggests even the Africans were treated better.
Irish people were actually the first slaves in america, before black people.
The reason why it's racist for an irish person to do that though is because attitudes changed from irish people being the british people's slave to black people being white people's slave. The US was extremely against irish people even as late as the 1920s but attitudes changed! an irish person was president at a time when Obama's father couldn't even sit in the same restaurant as a white person. The fact is there is still very strong racial biases against black people from people and institutions in america