3 ms·
Is it common to refer to ancient American civilizations as "US history"? Here in Europe, US is understood to mean United States, the country (declaration of in
by Radim 8y ago
Is it common to refer to ancient American civilizations as "US history"?
Here in Europe, US is understood to mean United States, the country (declaration of independence and all that jazz). America(s) is a separate concept.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoYes. It's the history of the territory that's the present day US.
- zaarn 8y agoI would consider it part of US history, it's simply what was there before the US as today was established. European history doesn't start where the last government was established either, it goes back all the way, regardless of who happened to think it was their country at the time. The state inherits history.
- howard941 8y agoWell said. Would only add that US history, well-taught, cannot help but entrain classical Greek and Roman history and culture.
- zaarn 8y agoI think more the Roman history. From my impression the greek lost their influence due to excessive infighting. The Roman history hits much closer to the heart of the issue, likely Volume V of V "History of the Roman Republic" and you can see the Chapter Title "End of the Republic" shining through the pages already. In the end, all those that learn history are doomed to watch history repeat itself.
- Brockenstein 8y agoI think the strictest definition of U.S. history is the history of the state. But history is a bit fluid in that it's not beholden to specific national borders. And we might study the history of the land the U.S. occupies and colloquially call it U.S. history even though most of it happened before there was a U.S. and may not always follow the current borders. And I think there is a clear distinction that can reasonably be made if someone is referring to the history of the state or the history of the land and be conscious that they're not always mutually exclusive.
- freeopinion 8y agoIt's interesting that you place the U.S. and Europe at equivalent points in a hierarchy. Perhaps it might be better to consider American history. Or perhaps North American history. But then, organizing by geology might not make the most sense, either. Then, where does European history end and Asian history begin, or African history? Where does North American history end and Mesoamerican history begin?
- zaarn 8y agoI mean, the truth is that history is horribly intertwined and you'd have to go back like 20k years or so to get a useful and true start of history. Dividing it up by geology makes it easier to categorise.
- freeopinion 8y agoGeographic context makes more sense to me than geologic. I'm not sure why we should draw history lines along tectonic plate boundaries unless we are specifically studying geology.
- jcranmer 8y agoThe first section of US history is usually a unit on Native Americans. That said, pre-Columbian Americas is a topic where we're still rewriting swathes of it as we find new evidence, and the wheels of rewriting history books grind very slowly.