The Americans hasn't been discovered as yet. Ask anyone about the 15.000 of cultures and civilizations that existed in here before Columbus, and people won't know!

 

Columbus didn't discovered the Americas, he though he was in Asia. Leif Ericson didn't discovered the Americas, he though he was somewhere in Greenland!

With respect to Zeng He, the chinese guy, he didn't even reach the Americas

 

Are you sure? prove it he realize where he was

 

I am really amazed at how I have been misquoted recently. Yes, I know, my mother language is Spanish and I lack a good english. Even so, it seems I made my point clear.

 

How someone can "discover" a place if they have no idea that place was unknown for the rest of the world, or that it was extraordinary?

 

It is modern people that attributes Leif Ericsson with the "discovery" or the Americas. For him, Vinland was nothing more than a new post in an island that followed the logical chain of artic islands called Iceland, Greenland and "Vinland". Just the last "Thule".

 

The same with Columbus that believed he discovered "a route to India", and never imagined he was in a new hemisphere.

 

Americo Vespucci was the man that discovered the Americas, I am afraid, because he realized those recent geographical discoveries belonged all to a new hemisphere, that was literally, the New World of the profecy of Seneca.

 

 

 

 

Yes. However, that's nothing extraordinary. After all, during 15.000 years man lived in the Americas, before the "barbarian" arrived . For recent contacts, Inuits did it 1.500 years  before Leif Ericsson. With respect to the name "Newfoundland", I bet it was a strategy of "tourism Canada"

Originally posted by Sun Tzu Amerigo is why America is named America but he never set foot in the Americas.

 

He set foot in South America, if I am not wrong. By the way, America is the name of South America, and not North America. Weird, isn't? 

Also the Norse didn't own a hemisphere nor anyone discovered a new hemisphere (hemisphere means half of globe, in case you are not familiar with the term - as long as the Earth was known to be round it always had two hemispheres based on any given reference, only that they thought the globe to be smaller than it actually is), please stop raising straw men.

 

I don't think you're misunderstood or misquoted, rather your biased campaigns against Europeans are repeatedly pointed out. You continuously downplay the achievements of Europeans and attempt various kinds of revisionism in a mythical battle between "native Europeans" and "native Americans".

 

Originally posted by Sun Tzu Amerigo is why America is named America but he never set foot in the Americas.

He did.

 

I disagree

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios ... Also the Norse didn't own a hemisphere nor anyone discovered a new hemisphere (hemisphere means half of globe, in case you are not familiar with the term - as long as the Earth was known to be round it always had two hemispheres based on any given reference, only that they thought the globe to be smaller than it actually is), please stop raising straw men.

 

I know hemisphere mean half the globe. What it seems to me you are not aware is that the term "Western Hemisphere" is used as a synonim of "the Americas" and "the New World". Just terminology. In that sense, Vikings had no clue they were in such a magnificent place like the Americas

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios ... I don't think you're misunderstood or misquoted, rather your biased campaigns against Europeans are repeatedly pointed out. You continuously downplay the achievements of Europeans and attempt various kinds of revisionism in a mythical battle between "native Europeans" and "native Americans".

 

I don't have anything against Eupeans. I just have tried to take a little bit of gas out of theirs egos inflated like baloons

 

With respect to the achievements of "Europeans", I wonder which Europeans. The term European as an identity is very recent. Each nation of Europe has contributed to the progress of mankind one way or the other. However, believing Europe is some sort of special place, or that had the monopoly in progress, culture or intelligence, is simply outdated.

 

With respect of the "mythical battle", the genocide that Northern Europeans practised agains American Indians, I believe it is just a proof there was nothing mythical in those encounters fueled by greed. I wish Spaniards would return the silver they robbed in the Americas as well, and that French could receive in Paris all the Haitians they brough to the Americas to live like hell in Haiti.

 

Yes, Europe has a long debt with the Americas, I am afraid.

 

Originally posted by Pinguin I disagree

Oh, so you believe Newfoundland is an arctic island following "logically" after Greenland (or "somewhere in Greenland" as you said in your first mention on Leif)?  

 

I know hemisphere mean half the globe. What it seems to me you are not aware is that the term "Western Hemisphere" is used as a synonim of "the Americas" and "the New World". Just terminology. In that sense, Vikings had no clue they were in such a magnificent place like the Americas

You said previously:

"Otherwise, it doesn't make sense Norse abandoned an hemisphere just because a little trouble."

and

"The same with Columbus that believed he discovered "a route to India", and never imagined he was in a new hemisphere."

In none of the above replacing "hemisphere" with "Western Hemisphere" makes sense. Nice try, but the fault was yours not mine.

 

I don't have anything against Eupeans. I just have tried to take a little bit of gas out of theirs egos inflated like baloons   With respect to the achievements of "Europeans", I wonder which Europeans. The term European as an identity is very recent. Each nation of Europe has contributed to the progress of mankind one way or the other. However, believing Europe is some sort of special place, or that had the monopoly in progress, culture or intelligence, is simply outdated.   With respect of the "mythical battle", the genocide that Northern Europeans practised agains American Indians, I believe it is just a proof there was nothing mythical in those encounters fueled by greed. I wish Spaniards would return the silver they robbed in the Americas as well, and that French could receive in Paris all the Haitians they brough to the Americas to live like hell in Haiti.   Yes, Europe has a long debt with the Americas, I am afraid.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. Norse didn't know what they had found. Period.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios You said previously: "Otherwise, it doesn't make sense Norse abandoned an hemisphere just because a little trouble." and "The same with Columbus that believed he discovered "a route to India", and never imagined he was in a new hemisphere." In none of the above replacing "hemisphere" with "Western Hemisphere" makes sense. Nice try, but the fault was yours not mine.

  

 

What doesn't make sense is to say "Leif Ericsson discovered the Americas" . That's the wild claim. The guy didn't realize he wasn't in Europe .

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by Pinguin Yes, Europe has a long debt with the Americas, I am afraid. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Amen

 

 

Did they settled? All that has been found of the Norse in New Foundland was a small post. Something like the bases in the Antartic that some modern nations have. Places were people lived part time. I wouldn't call that a "settlement"

 

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy Then soon after Columbus set out to discover a quicker trade route to east Asia and mistakenly found the Caribbean. So over time he rapes and committed genocide to the Caribs.

 

Please, show evidence that Columbus personally commited rapes. With respect to genocide, you could find quite a bit of Amerindian genetics in the Caribbean and the historical records show admixture, rather than extermination of natives at the North American style, I am afraid. 

 

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The the true first powers of Europe came to claim the Americas...than the four of the mightiest one were  England, France, Holland and Spain.

 

You forgot Portugal, a lot more important than Holland, I am afraid. Portugal was the largest slave trader and also got Brazil, which is half of South America.

 

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy  The Spanish controlled most of the Caribbean,

 

Spaniards controlled more of the Western Hemisphere, from Florida and most of the South West of the United States, Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and Half South America. That makes the largest chunk of the Americas, and still today the former Spanish colonies have the largest territories and populations of this side of the world. Spanish is also the language more spoken in the Americas.

 

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy the French controlled most of Canada, the English most the the USA

 

Not really, French controlled Quebec and Louisiana, besides Haiti and a Guyana. The English controlled just a coastal part of Eastern North America and some small spots in the Caribbean, South and Central America.

 

Originally posted by The Canadian Guy and Holland had trade ports form New York to the Caribbean.

 

Small territories, indeed.

 

 

By the way, Greenland is considered apart of North America by geogrophy. Due to the inhabitants though, they are closer to Europe. So in that regard, the Norse did discover North America for Europe. And the idea of Vinland never disappeared from what I understand, even though the Norse left it.

 

The Norse discovered Greenland and Newfoundland for Europe. They hardly discovered North America at all.

 

Erik the Red and his father fled Norway to settle in Iceland, from which he was then Outlawed and heard a rumor of Greenland. So obviously, it was NOT for Europe, but to escape it if anything.

 

Yes, Europe has a long debt with the Americas, I am afraid.

I don't own you sh*t, so cut this nonsense.
The descendants of those who raped, stole and conquered the Americas still live in the Americas.

Amen

Funny, first you prove his point that "you continuously downplay the achievements of Europeans and attempt various kinds of revisionism in a mythical battle between 'native Europeans' and 'native Americans'" and then you agree that you proved him right.

What doesn't make sense is to say "Leif Ericsson discovered the Americas" . That's the wild claim. The guy didn't realize he wasn't in Europe .

 Leif Eriksson is the first European to have been reasonably proven to have discovered land belonging to the Americas, so obviously he discovered the place. No one discovered all of it. You're bending the meaning of words to diminish people.

And he knew fully well that he wasn't in Europe, or in Greenland.

Did they settled? All that has been found of the Norse in New Foundland was a small post. Something like the bases in the Antartic that some modern nations have. Places were people lived part time. I wouldn't call that a "settlement"

*Sigh* I already proved you wrong on this one in another thread. Not only have you obviously neverstudied the topic at all,  since you throw around one incorrect statemeant after another, but you can't even learn from your mistakes. It was a settlement. They brought their women, their tools, built houses and a smithy. They did eventually leave, because of various reasons, but their intention was clearly that of permanent settlement.

"Leif Ericson didn't discovered the Americas, he though he was somewhere in Greenland!"

"For him, Vinland was nothing more than a new post in an island that followed the logical chain of artic islands called Iceland, Greenland and "Vinland".

Since you refuse to concede (or fail to see what your mistakes are) I consider that your knowledge both in history and geography are under the standards by which your contribution here could mean something.

Plus, the Norse obviously knew they found a new land, since they used a new name for it (and you were told that over and over). It was not Greenland, it was not Thule. It was not a modern name either because they chose to name that place differently.

 

What doesn't make sense is to say "Leif Ericsson discovered the Americas"

 If you bother to read what many of us say is that his journey brought him to a new land which was recognized as such. In a way he discovered the Americas too, but only a small part of it and under a different name. Columbus did the same actually, since he didn't realize neither the extent of these new lands, nor named them America.

 

That's the wild claim. The guy didn't realize he wasn't in Europe

Of course not, he sailed for weeks and he thought he ended up on the same mainland he started from. Quit this trolling, please!

So, giving to Ericsson the glory of Columbus, or the merit of Vespucci, is nosense.

The glory of Columbus, no, but the merit of Columbus yes, because they did a similar task and the Vikings perhaps in less fortunate conditions.

 

Don't be arrogant, please. Your rethorical tricks won't do the job. You haven't found mistakes on my arguments. Only ideas that you don't like. Sorry for that.

You're mistaking true knowledge for arrogance and rhetorical tricks. Is not that I don't like Newfoundland to be part of Greenland or to be an arctic island - it is not. Is not that I don't like the Vikings to discover other lands than Greenland, they did and they called those Markland, Vinland. Is not that I don't like Viking archaeological traces in Newfoundland, they were found. Your denial of these cannot mean anything else but what I already said and pointed out - flawed arguments (from ignorance, illwill or both). It is not acceptable for someone to debate the discovery of Americas without accepting these trivial facts related to its geography and history.

http://www.northvegr.org/lore/flatey/001.php - http://www.northvegr.org/lore/flatey/001.php

But it's worrying you make such conclusive statements about what Leif thought he discovered without knowing the text.

 

I admire Norse, indeed. I don't like, though, the idea of using them to put Columbus in the shadow.

Like I said, "mythical battles" ....

 

Similar task? By no means. Perhaps for people living in Newfoundland the achievement is the same. Our friend that lives there would say so, I bet.

Both sailed accross the Atlantic, both found some new lands. I was talking about the task, not about the impact on people's minds.

But Columbus task was to cross the Ocean Sea to the unknown, during months, in search of India.... Leif Ericsson just found Labrador by casuality, in the same way that Inuits discovered Alaska and North America .

Norse explorers sailed into unknown, too, and also searching for new lands.

 

If anything, Perhaps you should compare Eric the Red to Columbus, rather than Ericsson. Because Eric the Red went west in search of new lands, and his discovery (Greenland) was magnificent, because the courage he had. No accidents were involved there.

 You're making a confusion. Leif sailed west following the story of a man. But after he found land, he continued searching for new lands.

 

I don't deny what Norse did.

Saying they didn't realize they discovered something else than Europe or that Leif thought that the new lands were part of Greenland is a blatant denial and you did not concede on any of these. When I told you to, you called me an arrogant.

 

And I am not saying you are ignorant, either, no matter you speak like a bus driver, sometimes

You can't say I'm one since you didn't prove I'm one. However, you on the other hand made some very dubious claims.

 

As for my language, I didn't use any profanity, so your characterisation is misplaced. I take it as final concession for your lack of arguments in this discussion.

 

 

 

If anything, Perhaps you should compare Eric the Red to Columbus, rather than Ericsson. Because Eric the Red went west in search of new lands, and his discovery (Greenland) was magnificent, because the courage he had. No accidents were involved there

Same with his son, Leif, like I mentioned above.

 

 

That's great. Thanks.

 

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios  I take it as final concession for your lack of arguments in this discussion.

 

Please, just don't assume things. Particularly my ignorace on Norse, which is not such.

 

For instance, in the "magic realistic" thread about "Amerindians and Norse in Europe", right besides this thread in this section, I argue that Columbus went to Greenland and there got information about the New World. Curiosly enough, many people is skeptical to that possibility, although is documented by Columbus son, Ferdinand, himself.

 

I see. So, Norses discovered the Americas by the same method Americans reached Europe in pre-Columbian times... By accident

 

Thread locked.

 

 

 

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reconstruction of L'Anse au Meadows, New Foundland.   There were 8 main structures plus a number of smaller ones.  Population has been put at about 75.  From what's known about the expedition, this may have been only an outpost.

 

 

Now, I started to wonder about the name Greenland. Perhaps that land got that name because its proximity with Labrador. Perhaps Greenland was not only the island itself but also the American territories close to it, and dependent of it. That's the only way, I believe, the name "Green" would have sense.

 

Now, it made sense to put the colony in Greenland, because it was closer to Iceland and Europe, from which supplies would come. So Greenland lived from the resources of the Americas such as timber, the local fishing in greenland, cow milking. and the trade with Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, it made sense to put the colony in Greenland, because it was closer to Iceland and Europe, from which supplies would come. So Greenland lived from the resources of the Americas such as timber, the local fishing in greenland, cow milking. and the trade with Europe.

Yes. The last trip to the Americas to collect lumber was made in the 14th century iirc, just before the settlement vanished.

 

 

 

Actually I follow the theory that this was part of a larger colony, with the main settlement farther south.  Maybe as far south as Massachusetts.

As far as anyone knows, there was no trade with Europe or Iceland.

 

There is a point in that, though. If Vinland really meant the "land of wine", then the most likely place to be is in the U.S., rather than in New Foundland, because the American grapes growth in North Eastern U.S.

 

Absolutely agree!

 

Perhaps. But the argument wasn't with you, I am afraid.

 

Originally posted by Slayertplsko ... The urheimat of Inuit (actually, this is the plural, there's no need for an 's', the singular is Inuk) is in western Alaska, not Siberia. Before you make any statements...look up the word 'urheimat'.

 

There is no need to explain here that Inuits migrated from Alaska. However, the entered the Americas from Siberia in recent times.

 

Originally posted by Slayertplsko ... AND...we don't owe you a shit. It's you who owes and (possibly) is owed.

 

Please, before swering in this forum, or against me, wash your mouth with soap. Otherwise I'll warn the moderator.

 

 

 

Humanity had discovered the Americas long before all these recent claims.

Must be Aliens ( see Erich von Däniken;Gods from Outer Space 1972)  and Hugo Chaves is a direct offspring of them.....

 

 

False.

My country existed already. It was called Tawantinsuyo: the empire of four kingdoms.

 

.... The haplogroup X is the process to become the greatest myth of these times! Something not even Van Daniken imagined.

 

Absolutely agree.

Originally posted by ehecatzin .... Dont get this the wrong way, surelly for an american its easy to say that if they stayed home your contry or X country wouldnt exist, hence it should be a good thing they crossed over the Atlantic. but for many latin Americans and indigenous peoples of the continent, it only meant dead, vasallage, conversion and destruction of their cultures. things that unfortunadly still happen nowdays all the time.

 

Absolutely. Americans and Europeans have a different vision of the world.

 

They don't imagine that in Latin America we see Europe as an  abusive continent that become rich thanks to the invasion of the Americas, the robbing of gold, silver, etc., the explotation of African slaves, the robbing of lands, genocide and abuses of all kind. On the other hand, Americans don't realize we see them just like the inheritors of abusive Europe.

 

Yes, it is a different way of seen history. That's why in this forum and everywhere else Latinos always clash with "westerners" on these topics.

 

For Latinos, in general, the European invasion was an invasion and period. No matter than we also are mixed descendents of Europeans.

 

 

Originally posted by ehecatzin .... As a interesting exaple is the conmemoration of the discovery of America by Columbus, a day of naitonal holiday institionalized since colonial times by Spain, in which the celebration pretty much revolved around this romantic idea of Columbus bringing order andcivilization along with the one true faith to the barbaric indians, now days there's a lot of controersy about even celebrating the day in many latin american countries, and some have switched from celebrating "being discovered" to a celebration of the meztizo culture that was born out of it. so no, its not as simple as pretending people will be ok with it just because if they havent history would be diferent and many countries wouldnt exist.

 

You bet.

 

In Chile Octuber 12 is a very pathetic hollyday. Mapuches protest the invasion, the Spanish immigrants dance Flamenco and other Spanish dances. Average Chileans left the city and forget about poor Columbus and et al.

 

 

 

Yes, you are right that Europe as a whole didn't invade the Americas.  We can't blame Albania, Sweeden, Switzerland or Greece for actions other people did. These are the countries that invaded and commited all the crimes already mentioned:

 

Portugal (Brazil)

Spain (Hispanic America, south west of the U.S. and Florida)

Britain (North America and, West Indies, Guyana, Belize)

France (Quebec, Louisiana, Haiti, French Guyana)

Neetherlands (West Indies, Suriname)

 

However, many of the worst criminals weren't even from those countries but third parties.

 

For instance, Columbus was Italian. And the "hunter" of the Onas in Land of Fire was a Romanian!

 

Originally posted by Styrbiorn ... And what you don't realize is that you, the nations of Chile, Peru, Ecuador, etc, are the inheritors of the invaders, not us. Inheritors of the Inca, right? You conquered the Incas. That's the same as people saying Turkey is the inheritor of the Roman Empire. Or USA of the Iroquis Conferedation.

 

Inheritors of Spain. Sure. But that doesn't force us to hide the crimes of Spain. Spain very well be our mother land, but that doesn't mean we have a "pure" and "caste" mother

 

In fact, the most important nationaly hollyday in most of the Hispanic countries is the day when we defeated Spain and forced her to go back to Europe.

 

 

Originally posted by Styrbiorn ... Latinos doesn't clash with westerners; everybody clashes with you. I've met very very few Latinos who share your opinions and of the 3 Chileans I know, they all agree with me and they consider themselves the invaders.

 

Yes, there are many Chileans that believe they are pure Spaniard descendents, particularly when living abroad and want to forget they ever had feathers in theirs lives.

The other fellow in the list I was answering, before you intervine, is Mexican. We agree in this topic. And I will say he is a lot more representative of Hispanic mentality that the fellow chilean country people you mentioned.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. We see history in a different way, and there are also regional differences that are funny. In Chile, for instance, we are all mestizos BY DEFINITION. However, if you cross to Argentina, there all people is white BY DEFINITION, too.  That's no matter than most times you can pick away Chileans and Argentineans from a crowd.

 

In my country, also, the history of Chile doesn't start with the Spanish invasion anymore, but usually with the Inca invasion by Tupac Yupanqui, that happened a century before the Spaniards arrived!

 

I don't believe we are going to forget Spain, though. There is a hate-love relation with that country that persist even today. And the tragic personality of the Spanish looser, like Don Quijote, or an hero like the Cid, reflect us so well what we are, that hardly we are going to forget it. But at the same time, we are proud about the Native past in our local countries, here in the Americas.

 

Portugal (Brazil)

Spain (Hispanic America, south west of the U.S. and Florida)

Britain (North America and, West Indies, Guyana, Belize)

France (Quebec, Louisiana, Haiti, French Guyana)

Neetherlands (West Indies, Suriname)
Canada was Upper and Lower Canada(which was Ontario and Quebec) The French has both these areas. As for Louisiana, I do not know much of that states history. When the British had taken Upper and Lower Canada the colonist started to revolt. and then the American Revolution started. Back to the French...Canada was also called New France. The French were the First to permanently colonize "in Canada". So the first actual  Nation to permanently colonize the America's was the Spanish. But now discovered.....many nation can say that. the first European nation was from Scandinavia. China was also a discoverer of the Americas, but my ancestors where the first to discover this land by migration and food. So everyone should stop arguing this...because it is the Amerindians who discovered here first.

 

Of course. Amerindians were the first, the Inuit the second, the Norse just came for a little to make tourism so I wouldn't count them as settlers. China never "discovered" the Americas. It is interesting your observation on Canada as a French colony, including Ontario, and indeed you are right. Canada was a country colonized twice. The Brits simply colonized a country that already existed.

 

 

 

Agree!

 

Spain is the land of a subset of our ancestors. Ours lands are in the Americas, and our roots are here, finally.

 

It is interesting that our attitude with respect to our lands is very similar to the Amerindians. In certain way, our love for the Mother Land, the Pachamama, our Mapu, it is exactly the same.  In my country, for instance, our ancient ancestors revered the mountains, where you can find old sacrifices. Chileans also dream on theirs mountains. Poems, songs and literature all speak about them. I have seen Chileans emigrants that cry when they cross the Andes by plane after ten or twenty years without seeing them. Those mountains are still sacred for us, and define us more than just blood or tradtions: they are our spirit

 

 

 

Yes. But those nords came with the Brits in gallions and not with the Norse in longships

 

 

 

 

 

                                   

                       Teotijuacan, 150 bce-  400 ad

 

                     

                      Geurraro,  300 bce-  200 ad

 

 

 

 

             Oaxaca, 150-500ad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Art is not enough as evidence of "visitors", you well know it. 

 

 

http://100swallows.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/greek-vase2.jpg -  

And the most important holiday in the USA is when the British colonists rose up and forced the British out. In Canada it's Canada Day, when the country got autonomy for the first time. Where's the difference?

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_the_Americas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization_of_the_Americas

There is some debate over whether or not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_America - Anglo America and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America - Latin America can be considered decolonized, as it was the colonist and their descendants who revolted and declared their independence instead of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas - indigenous peoples , as is usually the case.

 

There are similarities in the attitudes of the people of the New World (including Australia and New Zeland on them) with respect to  independence. However, the historical circumstances were different. In other words, the protagonist of independence were not the same ethnic groups.

 

Let's consider the following from the former English colonies.

 

Canada: the independence was won mainly from pacific means. It was a legalistic process and a long history of compromisses between Indians, Metis, French, British and immigrants. A complex history of a country that still doesn't have an unified identity.

 

The United States: Independence was fought and won in the battle fields, but the people that won it were mainly British settlers. In many case those people that defeated the Brits own a plantation full of African slaves and were pushing Indians to the West. Nothing change much after 1776 and the problems with "minorities" extended up to the 1960s!

 

Haiti: African people enslaved in that caribbean island revolt and won theirs independence. Like many other peoples of the west indies, they really feel they belong somewhere else to Africa, and the legends of return are part of theirs culture. In Jamaica, for example, the Rastafari culture links them to a mythical "ethiopia" beyond the ocean. In Haiti itself, Voodoo is an official religion, that made that link with the past, for a people that feels they live an ethernal exile.

 

Brazil: Independence happened when the King of Portugal decided Brazil had a better wheather and moved there.

 

In Hispanic America, though, Independence was different. It is true that it was lead by the rich upper classes criollos. The same that owned the haciendas. However, it was not only the reaction of a particular group but from all the people, independent of theirs ethnic backgrounds or race. Moreover, it was a revolution embraced by the mestizo masses, on which everyone was welcome. They were massive popular revolts. After Independence, few Hispanic American countries kept institutions like slavery. In Mexico, for instance, very early they have a pure Native president: Benito Juarez.

 

Perhaps the difference was just the following: Spanish colonies were three hundred years under the Spanish Empire, having enough time to build a stable melting pot and a criollo identity. By comparison, the U.S. was only one century old when broke free.

 

Now, if you compare all these cases, the Hispanics have some native ancestors and also european settlers that "conquered" these lands, so they feel they belong here, not somewhere else.

 

By contrast both in Haiti-Jamainca case and the United States people many times have a romantic vision of an overseas mother land. In the first case a mythical Africa, and in the second a romantic Europe. In both case those and not the Americas are considered the "land of the ancestors".

 

Indeed, in many places of the Americas there are still people that suffers the "immigrant syndrome". It is not the case of people born in Hispanic America where we know we live at home.

 

 

Art is not enough as evidence of "visitors", you well know it. 

 

 

Omar,  Remember you are addressing someone who holds 2 degrees in Art.  Your statement has to be the most ridiculous, empty and desparate  I've seen you come up with yet.

 

And by the way,  those pieces aren't attributed to visitors, they have been identified with established cultures that inhabited certain areas in Central and North Cenral SA.  And they are by no means isolated finds.

 

I have lots more coming soon.