Wikipedia: History of United States/Talk

I think that this article, and presumably the source upon which it is based, is very biased and anti-American. Of course, there have been dark moments in United States history, but what about the rest? What about freedom? What about a nation of ideas and laws, not of men? How about the incredible wealth generated by freedom? How about the United States role in saving the world from fascist/socialist tyranny in World War II? Surely these deserve some positive treatment here... --Jimbo Wales

I think the article is being remarkably fair. What you mention above are all great theoretical traits, but have been fairly inconsistent in application. In particular I think you will find that when times are difficult, ideologies are neglected. America's record in dealing with other nations is especially poor - one of genocide and imperialism. Their involvement in WWII is praiseworthy, but like everyone else their tactics were Draconian.

This isn't to say America isn't a good country; I would say it's running on the better side of par. But I think this is fairly close to what a real, objective summary (maybe a little bit of negative propaganda but nothing compared to the positive stuff you normally get) would look like. Leaves out good things, but also bad things, being a summary.

Meanwhile, instead of going ahead and adding good and deleting bad and deleting good and adding bad, and so forth, I suggest we have a separate discussion on what is an appropriate take here on History of United States/Discussion. Leave this as is for now, and know that it is controversial. --JoshuaGrosse

Joshua, here is my view: I think we shouldn't aim for objectivity; we should aim for lack of bias. The way to achieve lack of bias is to explicitly acknowledge within the article itself points on which there is disagreement, and make sure that the body of the article does not betray any particular position on these disagreements. Thus, lack of bias is not achieved by striking a middle position between the views that the U.S. had a glorious wonderful history and that it was dark and evil. It is achieved by relating what objective facts everyone can agree on, and then making explicit what points people disagree about.

By the way, anyone is free to change this article at any time, you know. :-) -- Larry Sanger

My bad, what I meant was a treatment which is accurate rather than opinionated, not completely detached. Of course anyone can edit the article at any time, but rather than have it completely rewritten whenever some pro/anti zealot comes along, or have it completely filled with the reasons for every position, I figured the latter could be collected on a separate page. Only now we have two of those....

Perhaps the sensible thing to do here would be to create an outline covering major historical periods and topics, creating links to each subcategory, and then allowing the subcategories to be filled in over time.

I agree this should be done, but not at the expense of a decent over-view. Especially not when the eras are so event oriented. For instance, the Spanish-American war is of great importance to American history. But where does it fit into the categorization scheme - the industrial age? That topic sounds like, by default, it should be about trains and factories, not wars. So, in short, I think the page should be kept as summary first, and sub and related topics second.

As to my second comment, please neglect it - apparently I missed out on how the slashes work. That's pretty cool. --JG

I don't disagree with all of the assertions Bryce made. Some of them I do, and overall, I think the initial summary was very biased and ignored many of the essential facts of US history. Also, I do not concede that "we've" been very naughty or that "we've" done many bad things. It is certainly true that the government of the United States has done many bad things - it has, in a word, acted like every other government that has ever existed. But I did not consent to or willingly participate in these things, so I refuse to consider them in the first person. A society, and the government that rules (I might say, oppresses) it, are two very different things. This theoretical point has significance here - a history of the United States should not be merely a history of the actions of the government of the United States. It should be a history of the society as well - a history of what people do when they are free of governmental interference: invent, create, produce, experiment with different belief systems, and pursue happiness according to their own lights. - TimShell

Tim has excellent points. I second them. The bit about not focusing exclusively on the government is gold. I also think that you needn't feel responsible for the actions done many years before your birth by a government which you now have <<1/280,000,000th of a say in. Simplifications need to be proven helpful before they are adopted. I hold up your guilt as an example of the harm they can do. If you feel bad that some things happened in history (and are still happening), I would think anger at the perpetrators and sympathy for the victims more appropriate responses. These can motivate one to help make things better without being such a burden. Don't you show, by your recognition of the wrong, some distance from it? Sorry, I just don't think you deserve the burden of guilt, so I rambled on trying to fix your psychie or something. I appologize.

That having been said, this is a wiki. The obvious answer, and likely among the best, has been given: write a middle way account and people can link off to pessimistic (or optimistic) interpretations & elaborations as they see fit. Writing the middle way shouldn't be that hard. Let anyone add what they want, and if someone objects to something, off to another page it goes. --PhillipHankins

I have to say here that I feel that the notion that this article can be written with lack of bias or objectivity is fundamentally at fault. Ultimately you are trying to paint a picture of the actions of millions of people over 200 years in a few lines. The extraordinary degree of selectivity this requires is in itself an expression of bias. For instance I suggest that you compare the history of the US, and that which has been written about the USSR. Even their relative sizes is an expression of bias.

History is not and can never be about presenting an unbiased view point. Objectivity is not the point, its merely one tool in the telling of history. To my mind the only way to cope with this situation is to leave the front page of "history of the US" as straight forwards facts and figures (when it was formed, by who, from who, and where it is now), and then link in views from there with an expression of the opinion of the general views of the authorship. Phil Lord

Please add information on how that native peoples of the Americas were massacred in order for this country to exist. This type of massacre is common through out all human history so it not unusual but it should be mentioned. Please also mention that the early American economy and fortunes were due to the enslavement of both native Americans and native Africans. Could it not be said that this country was built on the backs of slaves? This is also not unusual in the course of human history but it should be mentioned. If it was you and your family who were uprooted, raped ,pilaged, and murdered would you want the people who did that to write you out of their history and to pretend that their history was glorious and pristine? Or would you rather they not re-write history in their favor and to remember who they stepped on to get where they are? Thank you. (Moved from /History?)

Anyone interested in the issue of Indian massacres can visit out Indian Massacres page. We are trying to compile a complete list, and add up the total. So far, we've counted about 6000. - Tim

And on a slightly less accusatory note, a quick note about the phrase "In 1776, representatives of the thirteen North American Colonies...". First, there were, at a minimum, sixteen colonies: Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were going concerns in 1776, and that's not even touching on British colonies in the Caribbean. I grant you that Quebec is a bit of a black sheep, but as currently phrased it should count in the "thirteen". In any case, Nova Scotia is definitely not an exception -- unless I'm misremembering, representatives were invited to the party but declined (I believe because of the large British naval base at Halifax). I can't find my copy, but I think Samuel Eliot Morison discusses this a bit in his "History of the American People." I'm not sure what to make of P.E.I., but I do know it came into existance in 1769.

I'd suggest a rewrite to "In 1776, representatives of a large majority of the British colonies in North America (thirteen in all), etc., etc." I'm open to suggestions from those with a little more expertise in the matter -- my interest in the American Revolution is entirely from the standpoint of British Empire history, not US History.

I did find a website that throws a little light on the matter:

http://www.alts.net/ns1625/nshist02.html

-PaulDrye

The article implies that the sinking of the Lusitania was directly responsible for the US entry into the war. Actually, the Lusitania was sunk in 1915, and the US did not enter the war until 1917.