Some things I was taught at US public schools in the 1970s in the deep blue north-eastern US:
- Immigration is good for the country – the cosmopolitan model of US society.
- Science is good.
- Labour unions are a good thing (see below on capitalist greed).
- Democracy is the best form of government.
- Heroes: Columbus, Washington, and Lincoln are the three great heroes of history.
- Presidents are supposed to be honest and brave and do what is right for the country, like Washington and Lincoln. And not be above the law, like Nixon.
- The Founding Fathers were profoundly wise – even though their constitution had a terrible flaw (allowing slavery) that led to civil war.
- Supreme Court: its worst decisions ever: Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) and Plessy v Ferguson (1896).
- The US civil war was about slavery and “preserving the union”.
- Slavery was terrible and evil – no teacher I had ever tried to make excuses for it. They did cover some of the excuses that were made, but they were presented as self-serving Southern propaganda.
- Moral centre: The northern US is the moral centre of history and a champion of freedom, as proved by its wars against British colonial rule, the slave South, and fascist, genocidal Nazi Germany.
- Ignorant patriotism: The US in the 1970s is so great that there is no need to learn about other times and places except in so far as they led up to this one – Spotlight History.
- Freedom: The US is great not because of its wealth or power but because of its freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.
- Revolution: The US is far from perfect, but reform, not another American revolution, is all that is needed to make the US as great as it can be.
- Meritocracy: people rise or fall in the US according to their talents and hard work. Or at least should, which is why racism and sexism are bad things.
- Prejudice: Racism and sexism are prejudices. Most of the differences in society between men and women and between Blacks and Whites are caused by prejudice, not biology.
- Race is fixed and racism is universal. Like with sex and sexism.
- The two-race model: the US is mainly made up of Black people and White people. The inequality between them has driven much of US history. Indians (Native Americans) are “outside” US history.
- Indians were mostly wandering bands of hunter-gatherers, not farmers. The US stole most of their land through broken treaties.
- Vietnam War: The US had absolutely no business fighting in Vietnam. It was not yet in textbooks, but some teachers had strong opinions. Even those who did not rant would say things like, “Kennedy was not a great president because he got us into Vietnam.”
- Capitalist greed: Big companies only care about profits, so the government needs to keep them in check. Otherwise they will pay workers next to nothing to work in unsafe conditions – while destroying the environment! Just look at the robber barons and the Gilded Age!
– Abagond, 2019.
See also:
- How I was taught history:
- history textbooks: US, Texas, Japan
- James W. Loewen: Lies My Teacher Told Me
526
At least you got a better public school education than the abysmal one i received. I feel like I am playing catch up.
LikeLike
You learned a lot of stuff.
i have read so many articles over the years that I have no thought about what some bias teacher taught me!
Texas has rewritten the history books in the past few years.
Your history book had maybe 24 mores years of history than mine. Mine just barely was talking about World War I. Yours had tons of stuff!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at the world activities between 1920 and 1970. My history book may have been written in the 1930’s before the depression.I lived in a village! Where did you live.
It is the responsibility of any citizen to maintain an understanding of Current Affairs. I took a course in Civics I understand they do not teach that course anymore, the subject matter is included in other courses. We had 97 element.
I could not take the time to evaluate your list. When I was young the unions were the greatest, today maybe a lot of people do not think so.
Like you I was taught George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were great, I think they were great, maybe you do not think they were not because they owned slaves. I would suggest you study the Constitution Convention and see the difficulties the members experienced. At least they forced the end of slave transporttion by 1808. Since blacks with money owned slaves I cannot see the late 1790 -1800 situation the same as 1860 after the Abolitionist started gaining power. Most of the north did not have slavery. They had a different method of “misusing” the poor.
Great list of what you learned in the 70’s what are people learning about the “trumpster” today?
@ Mary Burrell You probably learned as much as most during your time in the place you were living under the conditions you were living. In 1961-1962 I put my kids in St Johns in Montgomery, AL because St Jude was full. At St John my kids learned all about Christianity, not so much about other thing. My understanding is that St Jude was far better at academics. The public school system was considered to be a total failure. That was about the time the Governor was standing in the door way blocking integration. The called it “separate but equal” today we call it “Charter Schools”! Same difference only we can’t see it yet.
LikeLike
@Allen Shaw: You don’t know my life. Stop assuming you know nothing, Keep your opinions to yourself.
LikeLike
Yes, I more or less learned that American Indians were at most incidental to the factors that actually shaped US or world history. I grew up in Maryland, and the history started with black slaves working on tobacco plantations while the founding fathers were setting up the country.
It gave me no context to understand the Wounded Knee incident in the 1970s.
Ethnic Chinese or Filipinos in the US and Chicano / Mexican-American people were not even incidental, but played no role whatsoever in US history, despite a 450 year record.
Has the stuff taught in school changed at all in the past 40-50 years?
LikeLike
@Mary Burrell I did not respond to you! I responded to the article. Did you see an @ Mary Burrell in my response.
No one has a clue that you are a person much less what your life is all about.
You told me you did not like me using the words “hard worker” I do not forget! or was it “working hard”?
I try not to respond to you in any negative form if i respond at all!
LikeLike
@Mary Burrell
Before you respond I see I did tell you you learned what you learned wherever you were! That is not an assumption that is a fact. If you learned nothing or you learned everything you learned it wherever you were when you learned it.
LikeLike
@Jefe “Ethnic Chinese or Filipinos in the US and Chicano / Mexican-American people were not even incidental, but played no role whatsoever in US history, despite a 450 year record.”
The reason you do not see Chinese is they were not around the east coast of the USA during the formation of our nation. Jefferson arranged the exploration of the north just south of the Canadian border to the Pacific Ocean The Spanish owned the western part of the North American continent (including California) that became the USA later. The ‘Chicano/Mexican Americans were there; but, were not part of this nation. (See Mexican History and Texas, Arizona and New Mexico History)!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
I was born in 1925 and was well aware of the Indians as they were called. We were engaged in a war with them until the late 1800’s. They changed the name to Native Americans late in my life.
When I was in school most of the students did not study very hard. History and Civics were not favorite subjects.
You might find it interesting to research the “Buffalo Soldiers” after the Civil War.
History is massive and takes a lot of time and interest. Most people know every base ball player and other sports figures and know individual who are actors and actresses. They would not miss a game. But, history is very boring and unsatisfactory.
The truth hurts! You actually have to read those books, the teachers does not tell you anything!
I have attempted to study African history, unfortunately there was no written history and their history is referred to as myth. Timbuktu, Mali has a library.
LikeLike
@AS,
You don’t have to explain to me why it is not covered. I am fully aware of why. But for me, that rationale doesn’t cut it.
It is just like my never learning about the original residents of the land where I went to High School. The history of Maryland started with the landing of the Ark and the Dove and the arrival of Lord Calvert into Southern Maryland in 1634. For some reason, there was no other history worth learning. I did not even learn the names of the original tribes (although their names are plastered all over the local geography — eg, the Potomac River). Then shortly after that, a tobacco plantation culture with slaves was established. No explanation was given how that happened. It just did.
Yet, in high school, my marching band played to commemorate the opening of the Surratts House as a historical landmark and museum, the first place John Wilkes Booth stopped after he fled the Ford’s Theatre after killing Abraham Lincoln. Now, that history was drilled into our heads and it was a mere 5 mins. walk from my High School.
Even at age 15, I knew something was screwy and I had to learn more about it myself.
You know you reveal your strong white Anglo-American biases when you use terminology such as:
“they were not around the east coast of the USA during the formation of our nation”
“We were engaged in a war with them ”
“”
If you were Chinese-American, Filipino-American or Mexican-American, would you use this terminology? If you were American Indian (Native)? Who is “they”, “we”, “our”, “them”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@jefe Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !
LikeLike
@jefe
@abagond
I suggest some of the readers of this site take a course in US History! Starting with Jamestown 1607 and the arrival of the Pilgrims 1621.
Also perhaps Abagond could cover the history of “the Americas” which hopefully would include the original people that were present when the Spanish and Portuguese arrived in 1492!
jefe’s comments are nit picking and shows a bias for one race or another in their thinking!
Did any one of the readers ever understand what Thanksgiving is all about? You do remember it was the settlers eating a meal with the local inhabitants.
It is just plain silly for any citizen to say they did not know about Indians (now known as Native Americans). Just in case you have forgotten. Columbus called the native inhabitants Indian because of his mistaken believe he had arrive in India (Rumor, myth or fact or just flat wrong) Today, we cannot even understand such a misunderstanding because we know what the world looks like.
Use of “they, we, and us, or them are expressions that imply other people then someone else are involved (?). They does not mean anti white, nor does we mean just one group only, or we against they. They and them are separate from I,we and us! Used to assist in writing for understanding.
I have never thought of such terms as “white terms”! Sometime we means the US other times it means citizens, some times it may mean different races; however never without qualification!
By the way, in 1621 when the first English people settled in this nation, if their were any Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans or Mexican-Americans present they were not identified. Maybe the readers should study the history and see when any of those mentioned actually came to the US!
The history of the Spanish and Portuguese (some of them became Mexicans) is well documented (starting in 1492) in history since they were the first from Europe to occupy the Americas (North,South and Central) and they controlled almost all of the land south of the Rio Grande, the west coast of southern North America and actually a great deal north. You will find that history when you study the history of the founding of “the Americas”. Perhaps you might remember the US (we) bought the Louisianan Territory from someone else.
Almost all of the islands in the Caribbean have a strong south west Europe (Spain and Portugal) background with the French and English joining plus the original native inhabitants
Were you reading your book or attempting to depend on what the teacher may have said?
Could someone go back to the period being discussed and find a history book that was published at that time. I am at a disadvantage, I read my history books in 1938 -1943. (81 years ago) About 62 more years of history had to be squeezed into the high school book by 1990 (29 years ago), 52 years by 1980.(39 years ago).
Same size book -data eliminated or changed.
Education in different parts of the US vary! Texas just finished rewriting their text books.
LikeLike
re: AS’s:
Are you one of those readers that you are alluding to? When was the last time that you took a course in US history or spent a serious amount of time relearning it? One of the points of this post is how Abagond found that he had to relearn US history after being taught stuff in school. I found that I had to relearn it too.
I do remember that, but have learned that it is based on pure mythology:
No it is not. I did not learn a single damn thing about the Native tribes of Washington, DC or southern Maryland. I learned scant information of Pocahontas and John Smith, but nothing about the original inhabitants where I grew up.
Now I am in close touch with the a few of the sub-tribes of the Piscataway Indians and their historians, including one that was sent to boarding school in Pennsylvania in the 50s-60s.. I learned that even they did not learn about their history (apart from family stories) until after their tribal leader, Turkey Tayac started to promote the education in the 1970s as part of the American Indian Movement (AIM). They started some education in the schools for Native children starting in the late 70s through the 80s.
They have even told me that they had scant opportunity to learn about the history of their own tribe before then! Do you expect that the other residents in the area (including myself) had any opportunity to learn about it?
So no, I was interested in learning about the native tribes in my area and learned nothing at all – ZILCH. I had to go and research myself.
Today, at least for the past 5-6 years, there is an exhibit in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American Indian (NMAI) that introduces visitors to the native tribes of the Greater Washington, DC area.
yet they are being used that way. Put yourself in the shoes of someone identified with a native tribe (who are all native born US citizen Americans, by the way), and think about what the sentence “We fought wars with them” means. So, if you see yourself as part of “we”, then that means that you have divorced your identity from the American Indians, ie, you are now part of the people who fought and killed them. If you see yourself as the “them” in the sentence, then, as a native born US citizen, you have to view yourself as somehow still not part of the country.
A new terminology needs to be developed to try explain what happened. Otherwise, they are laden with white (arguably supremacist) Anglo-American vibes, who treat the American Indians as “other” and not part of “us”.
Chinese, Filipinos, and the ancestors of the Chicanos were all already in what is now the United States well before 1621.
I already mentioned about how Filipinos were in settlements as far back as 1587! There is a monument in Morro Bay California commemorating the first landing of Filipinos in the United States.
Likewise, we need to learn and study the history and culture of the Inuit, the Hawaiians, the Chamarro, etc. as part of the history of OUR people, the components of the US mosaic.
If you are one of these “readers”, maybe you should study the history and see when any of them mentioned actually came to the US!
You just said that the English first settled in “this nation” in 1621. So which is it?
Also, there was no “this nation” in 1621 anyhow. The US did not declare independence until 1776. So, why are we studying any history that predates the formation of the United States, and calling it “US history”?
Perhaps you might remember that that territory was far from empty of human settlement, that those people became US residents (and later US citizens) and as Americans, their history is part of American history. It did not start with the Louisiana Purchase.
If you are suggesting that, as part of the study of US history, that we cannot include the history of the people living in territories prior to them becoming part of the United States, then we certainly must not study anything about John Smith, the Pilgrims, the Salem witch trials, Bacon’s Rebellion, or even the Boston Tea Party, which had absolutely nothing to do with the United States (as it did not even exist yet). If you are saying that the residents of what later became part of the US is part of US history, then certainly the residents of what later became part of the US (whether through Louisiana purchase, the war with Mexico or Spain, or the purchase from Russia or whatever), are part of US history as well.
I see that as a tremendous advantage. Someone born in 2000 has been spoonfed several years of mythology masquerading as history, and has not had much time to learn actual history. You have had 75 years to learn and digest actual history to verify or even challenge what you learned in 1938-1943. Surely you have learned something in these 75 years!
My maternal grandmother was a schoolteacher in Alabama from 1925-1938. I feel fortunate that I got to learn about what she used to teach kids in school during that time period. Then I read cover to cover the 1951 Encyclopedia that she bought for kids (ie, my mother) to use when they were in school. I read cover to cover the 1959 Encylopedia that my parents bought for us when we were small children, as well as the one in the library in the 1970s. Then of course, I learned what history I learned in school in the 70s. In the 1990s, I went to the library to read what they were teaching kids then. After that we had the internet and we can know what people learn today.
We can also learn what is NOT taught in school much more easily that we could way back when. So can you.
LikeLike
My comment is in moderation, presumably due to too many links, but I forgot to include one more link to respond to the suggestion that people should start taking a course in US history, starting with the Pilgrims:
My counterargument is that the people who believe that the history of the US began with the Pilgrims may need to relearn some US history.
LikeLike
@ Allen Shaw
“I suggest some of the readers of this site take a course in US History! Starting with Jamestown 1607 and the arrival of the Pilgrims 1621.”
I took an upper-division college course that was solely on the colonial period, and I assisted in collating an anthology on that same time period. Granted that was over 30 years ago, but it was still more recent than your coursework. I’ve also read a number of books on the colonial period since then, including some that were only about narrow time periods like Jamestown, Plymouth, King Philip’s War, and Bacon’s Rebellion.
“I am at a disadvantage, I read my history books in 1938 -1943.”
Yes, you are at a disadvantage, not just because it was so long ago but because since then there’s been almost a century’s worth of new research, new archaeological finds, the discovery of old documents, and so forth. I’ve read some of the books written in the 1920s to 1940s about the colonial era, and recent books are not mere rehashing of those older history books but incorporate new knowledge and new approaches.
So yes, you’re at a disadvantage, but if you have a library card, you can always see for yourself what’s being written now.
“About 62 more years of history had to be squeezed into the high school book by 1990”
Which is assuming no one here ever went beyond their high school history textbook.
“By the way, in 1621 when the first English people settled in this nation, if their were any Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans or Mexican-Americans present they were not identified. Maybe the readers should study the history and see when any of those mentioned actually came to the US! …. You will find that history when you study the history of the founding of “the Americas”. Perhaps you might remember the US (we) bought the Louisianan Territory from someone else.”
One of the new approaches taken by current historians of the colonial era is to include the early history of the Spanish and French colonies that eventually became part of the United States.
LikeLike
@jefe, Allen Shaw and Solitaire, … you guys are so darn funny in regards to the original inhabitants of this land we now refer to as the United States of America!
It appears that due to personally held biases, the Aboriginal; Indigenous or the Autochthonous people of this land mass are what people today would refer to as being NEGROES! Aboriginals and Natives aren’t the same thing.
Poor Jefe, he continues to push the narrative that perhaps Mexicans; perhaps Filipinos or even the Mongolian phenotype Indians are the true inhabitants of this land, … NOT!
Therefore, I challenge either one of you to prove otherwise. I’m not going to go into details but the information is out there, cheers!
LikeLike
@blakksage,
That is not at al in any way shape or form in any sense whatsoever my narrative. Kindly do not change the narrative into something completely different, insist that someone is pushing that and attack that. That is a straw man argument. There is no need to prove something that has never been proffered. There is no such narrative being pushed.
LikeLike
@abagond
It would be nice if you were to define what “stuff you learned about”!
Someone pointed out that what I learned was out of date, which I had already stated. Also including history of this nation and including Spanish and French history as a part of US history is a stretch since the history of the United States is not the history of the continent of North America.
I believe the history of the United States began in 1607 and progressed from there. I might be able to include the forming of the pilgrims in England which accounts for the religious start of the United States which really is a part of the history of the English colonies. See how easy it is to cross boundaries when there are no set goals!
i would like to say the United States began when the Constitution was signed; however no one would accept that! (No rules)
The history of the US does not actually include the Louisiana Territory until it was purchased. Before it was the history of which nation claimed a right to it and would be covered under world history. The same applies to the western part of the US.
Set the ground rules for the conversation! What did you mean by stuff?
What stuff are you referring to, what are the boundaries! I usually research what is and hardly read what was, except when needed for a specific subject.
For some who like to tell me I am behind, yes you are correct, you waste your time telling me your studies when you may be as young as my grandchildren who are nearing their 40s. I pointed out the difference in the history books.
Those that claim to have read current history and past history are much smarter then I am! My retention level cannot maintain such confusion. i grant you the award of superiority. Perhaps some may be a high level educator since they have read and retained so much “data”!
I remind all again, that Texas has just rewritten their history books which is going to impact 4 or 5 states or more that follow there lead.
By the way, Since I have been reading that the relationship between the English and the local tribe that they first encountered is true I will continue to believe the story. The daughter of the Chief went to England, she died in England, I do not believe “Thanksgiving” or whatever that dinner was called, was a myth. People have been celebrating the successful harvest for as long as they have been planting seed.
It is well known that all over the world mankind has been deceptive and will lie, cheat and steal, no one will know who made the first wrong move!
LikeLike
@Jefe
“You know you reveal your strong white Anglo-American biases when you use terminology such as:
“they were not around the east coast of the USA during the formation of our nation”
“We were engaged in a war with them ””
You are correct! I am a part of ‘we” and the Native Americans were a part of “they”! I can not rewrite history! The United States Government (we) were at war with the “Indian Nations (Native Americans – “they”) for quite some time!
You have the right to accuse me of being anything you choose, that is your basic right! So far this site has not taken any side.
You cannot bully me by some hog wash about white Anglo-American biases! Try to stick to the facts.
The fact is I have not read of any Chinese-American, Filipino-American or Mexican-American being anywhere near the East coast of the part of North America that became the United States in 1776. (13 Original states)
The Spanish had control of the western part of southern North America and the Spanish or French controlled the Louisianan Territory and the territory which is now (Texas, Arizona and New Mexico).. The French and English controlled the norther part of North America.
Do not confuse today with yesterday!
LikeLike
@ Allen Shaw
“Those that claim to have read current history and past history are much smarter then I am!”
If this is aimed at me, please understand that I was taking issue with your directive: “Take a course in US History!”
Your directives like the one above typically sound like you think no one else here has taken a basic US history course — which implies that we are all uneducated and uninformed. But when I try to correct this misimpression by stating I’ve had a history course on this specific era, then you take that as a personal insult against your own intelligence.
I don’t think I’m smarter than you or anyone else. Abagond went to a much superior college than mine, for example. If I remember correctly, Satanforce wrote somewhere about his SAT score which was astronomically better than mine. You yourself unfortunately didn’t get the same opportunities for higher education, but you have obviously taught yourself many things, and there’s nothing at all wrong with being an autodidact.
If we can’t agree on this topic, then perhaps we can agree to disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@jefe
“A new terminology needs to be developed to try explain what happened. Otherwise, they are laden with white (arguably supremacist) Anglo-American vibes, who treat the American Indians as “other” and not part of “us”.”
Well out of the discussion the above quote came it explains your point of view! The history is faulty because it was written by some white person.
I was on a site yesterday which was written by someone in England about an ex-slave who was then living in England. it was about 1853. (the author was white)
You may be interested.
https://docsouth.unc.edu/support/about/
Now what you need to do is go back to the period 1607 until 1860 and find black writers who wrote during that period. I have not found many.
Please provide a list. I believe that if you want to know about past history you will have to depend on those that either lived during that period or wrote substantial fact (documented) during that period.
Until you change my mind, my understanding that not many slaves could read or write until they were freed and many told there stories years after they were set free. Most of the narrative were once again written by white writers!.
I doubt if you will find any way to prove the past without “white (arguably supremacist) Anglo-American vibes,”! Therefore, you need to get over your current position and find a way to help better the conditions of those living today.
Telling children today to hate someone is not helpful!
LikeLike
@jefe
“Then I read cover to cover the 1951 Encyclopedia that she bought for kids (ie, my mother) to use when they were in school. I read cover to cover the 1959 Encylopedia that my parents bought for us when we were small children, as well as the one in the library in the 1970s”
My 57 Set was 20 books with 4 or 5 yearly changes before I stopped buying them. I certainly did not read any of them until years later, I found paper in them where my children had looked up different subjects.and left their page markers. Atfer I retire in the 80th I studied about Africa and used the books as a comparison to the new information being published. Much change had occurred in the knowledge about the African nations.
I admire anyone who could read one Encyclopedia much less more than one. My reading and comprehensive skills fall far short of any such achievement!.
I will not make any comment about the school system in Alabama except to say the years I lived there (61 – 63 I paid to have my children go to a private school in Montgomery, Alabama as did all of those who could afford to.They attended St John. St Jude was full!
LikeLike
Solitaire
“Which is assuming no one here ever went beyond their high school history textbook.
“By the way, in 1621 when the first English people settled in this nation, if their were any Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans or Mexican-Americans present they were not identified. Maybe the readers should study the history and see when any of those mentioned actually came to the US! …. You will find that history when you study the history of the founding of “the Americas”. Perhaps you might remember the US (we) bought the Louisianan Territory from someone else.”
One of the new approaches taken by current historians of the colonial era is to include the early history of the Spanish and French colonies that eventually became part of the United States.”
My misunderstanding Solitaire. I was left with the impression that this article was about High School. I cannot for the life of me grasp why it would include higher education which would include P.H.D.’s and other even higher levels of education.
Please forgive me!
Now, if modern historians are changing what US history is, it is bound to cause confusion. Educator do not mind doing such things, re-Texas rewriting history. it causes problems for the masses; however, it keeps the historian in business, because no one knows what they are talking about except them.
I cannot argue with the educators. after all they teach, I spent my life “doing”!
LikeLike
In the world of those who work there is an expression (probably not true) “If you can’t do teach”!
LikeLike
@ Allen Shaw
“My misunderstanding Solitaire. I was left with the impression that this article was about High School. I cannot for the life of me grasp why it would include higher education which would include P.H.D.’s and other even higher levels of education.”
Because this knowledge needs to be incorporated into the new high school textbooks. It can be written at a level for high school students to understand.
It isn’t rewriting history. It’s correcting the old narrow focus on white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. This multicultural and diverse history is what really happened from the colonial era onwards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“That is a straw man argument. There is no need to prove something that has never been proffered. There is no such narrative being pushed.” – jefe
Yeah, .. right, and thanks for the sop of a reply. You mentioned Filipinos and Mexicans (race/ethnicity) but yet, conveniently failed to mention the Aboriginal Negroe race relative to this land mass.
Now, had you mentioned Negroes from the very outset, and then I came along and mentioned Negroes again within the same context, it would then be “a straw man argument” as you put it.
I’m done with you, carry on jefe, obviously you aren’t in a truthful mode today!
LikeLike
Just to keep my hand in this game.
I misused “US” when referring to the pilgrims. it should have been “this continent”. the US of America was formed when the Constitution was approved.
I may have used “this nation” when I could have use some better reference.
Texas is writing a completely different history. Some of the readers might want to review it, because it changes the way the entire south is viewed and does not necessary include any better picture of the slaves (blacks). I read that they refer to them as immigrating to the US or this hemisphere, not sure. This is not stuff you learned in school.
I have not heard of any Negroids in this hemisphere that were on this continent before they came with the Spanish. I would like to read about them. Could someone provide some source.
I remember reading about one African (Negroid) person who traveled across the southern part of the continent with the Spanish. As I recall he became quite famous. This would be in Spanish history because it was a part of the Louisiana Territory or other territory controlled by the Spanish.
By the way, the ocean and wind currents took those who traveled to the Americas along the coast of Africa before turning west across the ocean. It was logical for those travelers to pick up African sailors as they began their journey west. I see no reason for them to make an entry that they were negroid (Central West African).
More as I review my comments!
LikeLike