"First White Child" tradition

There's a difference between building North America and building the United States of America.

Originally posted by drgonzaga Originally posted by Parnell It doesn't offend me in the slightist. But sometimes antiquarianism appeals to many - without having any significant historical importance. Finding a 200 year old coin in your back garden for example. Unfortunately for you not everyone (thankfully) is constantly trying to get at the 'interconnectedness of the human experience.' I'm afraid that you suck history's life blood right out with thinking like that.   Despite my supposed tendencies toward vampirism (shades of the vampire Lestat  ), Parnell, the folderol over Virginia Dare is a symptom of history in the service of propaganda and relevant solely as examples of just how far some individuals and groups will go to close their eyes to transcendant events in the story of mankind. Interestingly enough, the Virginia Dare narrative is but a footnote in the larger orgy of imperial puffery that affected historical narrative and interpretation at the close of the 19th century and gained wide circulation as part of the Columbian Quadricentennial of 1893-1894. If you read the pamphlet on Dare that I cited that relationship becomes obvious. There the true historical significance and why the "First White Child" tradition is inextricably linked to the darker sides of European nationalism and rivalries. Interestingly enough, the question would not have even appeared relevant to the earliest Spanish and Portuguese "adventurers" in the New World.  Yes, they had children with Amerindian women and normally legitimized these descendants [e.g. Don Martin Cortez, made a Knight of Santiago in 1529].   By the way, personally, I have gotten over the urge to antiquarianism several times in my lifetime first in philately and numismatics [believe it or not as a child in New Orleans of the early 50s, Spanish doublons and reales were still in general circulation as dollars and dimes--so I didn't have to rummage through the garden for a 200 year old coin] and finally in incunabula and manuscripts, all of which I donated to relevant institutions when I retired.. Albeit, I must admit that I still will pick up rare books and Americana despite my better sense. Just this week I could not resist obtaining a pristine copy of Harry Franck's Vagabonding Down the Andes from 1907. Nevertheless, collecting and possessing objects or being overly-preoccupied with them does not History make. In any event, Virginia Dare does not constitute history but is simply a name in the process of myth-making on a par with that Philadelphia lady, Betsy what's-her-name, tied to the attitudes and perspectives of a completely different time.

Originally posted by Carcharodon gcle2003  "There's a difference between building North America and building the United States of America."   You can´t build a continent, it was already there when when the first people arrived.

Locke, I would presume, but that doesn't change the fact that French thinking also had its part.

Well, it's nice that everyone now gets the credit for building the US of A. It was, as pointed out, the endeavor of multitides. Yet its foundation was laid on English history, law, and custom. Those who set out to people the northern reaches of the North American continent, and create its wealth and governing institutions, did so within the framework of the constitution. Spanish contributions were negligible, but some Spanish legal concepts, principally touching upon real property and community (i.e., marriage) property, survived in Texas, Nex Mexico, Arizona, and California. The French and Canadians made much greater contributions, primarily as explorers and settlers of what later became American territory, and many signers of the Constitution had likely read at least translations of the Philosophes, but Anglo-American common law became the basis of their state legal systems, as they quickly became Americanized. Because of its population, Louisiana was the exception. If memory serves, the 1875 Civil Code was the last printed in French. But while Louisiana state law retained French civil law terms, it quickly borrowed from Anglo-American jurisprudence. I base this judgment on a thesis I submitted years ago which traced civil law temporary alimony payments (paid while divorce proceedings are in progress) from the original Napoleonic Code down through Spain to Puerto Rico and in Quebec and Louisiana. In Louisiana, the Civil Code was merely referenced, while Anglo-American principles governing alimony were applied. I did not look at the Commerce codes, but suspect that the former was French based in Louisiana, as it took the Federal Courts longer to extend the reach into commerce that they have today.

Some may question that Spanish contributions were negligible, particularly in light of the obvious fact that the American cattle industry grew out of the Texas experience. The fact is that the only territory successfully colonized by Spain (Mexicans) in North America was that portion of the Upper Rio Grande valley above El Paso. Spanish efforts to find colonists to settle Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California resulted in very few takers. These areas were remote, viewed as desert, and home to hostile semi-nomadic tribes. By the time of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), only 75,000 Mexican citizens inhabited the Southwest, and most of those were in New Mexico. The waves of immigration that gave the U.S. the Mexican-American population it has today started during the Reforma, continued during the "Porfiriato", and reached its early apex during the Mexican Revolution. It continued because the average Mexican immigrant had more opportunity, and protection under the law, on this side of the border than they did back "home". The fact that some modern Americans with names like Ramirez or Gonzalez can now trace at least one ancestor back to the Mayflower, or Jamestown, does not a "Spanish contribution" make.  

Edited by drgonzaga - 15-Jun-2009 at 18:13

As they say, Lirelou, the devil  is in the details, so let us get satanic here:

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga   We will not go into Cook's studies on the decline of the Amerindians between 1776 and 1876 during the 1970s