That theory is controversial at best. Not objectively proven, and there are strong reasons to doubt it.
It is entirely possible that some Chinese mariners at some point were shipwrecked in South America or Central America. However if that happened, and it's a big if, they didn't have the technology to routinely make round trips along that route, nor did they have the cultural or economic drive to try it.
Same with the Vikings, they made the trip at least once, but they didn't take. They lacked the technology to do it consistently and the economic/cultural drive to keep at it and colonize. They also weren't big on academics or exchanging that knowledge with other cultures, so their knowledge wasn't recorded in a useful form that the later European explorers could build upon.
While the Vikings and possibly the Chinese may have set foot on the New World, it was Columbus whose exploration lead directly to the continuous waves of colonization that have defined those nations modern boundaries.
And yes, the Native Americans had them all beat, though when they originally made the trip on foot, they probably didn't have a good concept of the shape of the world, that they were expanding into a whole new continent, or that the path they took was going to recede. The European colonizers had a quite different perspective on it, and there's no denying that their "discovery" had great historical significance, even if they weren't the first ones there.
It wasn't the Chinese and you are off by tens of thousands of years, maybe even hundreds of thousands.
The accepted theory "Clovis 1" suggests that the Americas were populated via a land bridge, and expansion out of Alaska occurred 16,000 years ago and was complete 11,000 years ago. So the Fez is right.
However the Clovis population was from Siberia, not China. So the Martian is right there.
Clovis 1 is in doubt due to controversial research called "Clovis Topper" which suggests a date 40,000 years ago. However there is no definitive evidence to back widespread colonisation at this date. If it was at this date then the problem becomes - how do you get across without the landbridge?
Clovis 1 is in doubt due to controversial research called "Clovis Topper" which suggests a date 40,000 years ago. However there is no definitive evidence to back widespread colonisation at this date. If it was at this date then the problem becomes - how do you get across without the landbridge?
As you say, the jury's still out on pre-Clovis occupation due to the incomplete evidence.
But the Beringian Standstill theory is looking quite good - the original Asian migration was to the Bering Straits, which was covered in ice and inaccessible to the US c25,000BCE. The population settled in tundra pockets and on the land edges until post-glacial open-water, when they could cross. That allows for the neccessary time for the genetic differences between Asian and proto-Native American to arise.
At the moment there's plant and pollen evidence for the tundra scenario, just no evidence of human habitation.
I'm surprised that this thread is still going, but since nobody else has pointed it out I'll add that Christopher Columbus (regardless of being the real 'discoverer' or not) was an Italian.
Spanish is spoken in the US, mainly in states like California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas etc. - Southern states, but it can be heard all over the country. It is heavily spoken in New York too as I when I went there I remember there being three Spanish speaking radio stations on the FM band. Plus we got Telemundo in the hotel which is Spanish speaking television.
After a lot of European occupation, and territory shifting from one tribe to another, the original 13 colonies that founded the United States were British, so therefore English as the language was a no-brainier.
Interestingly, I find that the current American accent that formed in the 20th Century is an combination of both Irish and German.
After a lot of European occupation, and territory shifting from one tribe to another, the original 13 colonies that founded the United States were British, so therefore English as the language was a no-brainier.
Interestingly, I find that the current American accent that formed in the 20th Century is an combination of both Irish and German.
That would be from the massive influx of Irish and German immigrants we had during the 19th century starting about 1820.
So why no Chinese influence from the mid-1800s on?
That would've been a fun addition ...
Speculation on my part but where the various European immigrants kept their traditions up at home but otherwise assimilated and intermarried into the larger community, Asian immigrants, through both choice on their part and intolerance by the larger society were much slower to enter the melting pot, forming tightly knit communities and seldom marrying or mixing outside of them.
Speculation on my part but where the various European immigrants kept their traditions up at home but otherwise assimilated and intermarried into the larger community, Asian immigrants, through both choice on their part and intolerance by the larger society were much slower to enter the melting pot, forming tightly knit communities and seldom marrying or mixing outside of them.
Also, the Chinese that were brought over to work on the railroads and canals were offered free passage back to China once the works were completed, which almost all of them took.
Also, the Chinese that were brought over to work on the railroads and canals were offered free passage back to China once the works were completed, which almost all of them took.
I've never seen or read that anywhere. Mostly what I have read is that the mostly male immigrants (due to the restrictions and regulations that made it beyond difficult for women to immigrate legally) drifted from one occupation to the next, forming communities that aged out due to the low birthrate. As awful as the working conditions were in the railroads and mining camps, they were far better than what had been left behind in China, where the poverty was grinding and the political climate often deadly.
I thought it was because the Spanish colonised the central/southern areas, hence there being Spanish speaking countries there. The English went for the more northern regions.
That's what playing Colonization suggested to me anyway!
France was north and central (remember the Louisiana purchase), Spain was Florida, the south and Mexico on down. England was mainly the East Coast and the colonies.
The Spanish were mainly interested in pulling out as much gold as they could, so they murdered / enslaved Latin America for that purpose. They didn't really "settle" there, other than military and religious whatnot.
English colonists settled along the east coast and brought their slaves over and killed the natives. So they stuck around.
I'm surprised that this thread is still going, but since nobody else has pointed it out I'll add that Christopher Columbus (regardless of being the real 'discoverer' or not) was an Italian.
Must admit I didn't know that. Interesting that he was responsible for Spain's colonisation of the Americas.
Also, the Chinese that were brought over to work on the railroads and canals were offered free passage back to China once the works were completed, which almost all of them took.
I do question 'almost all' as there are significant Chinese settlements across California, but I should point out that some had a good reason for accepting. Although allowed as residents, they weren't allowed to take U.S. citizenship or naturalisation. Those who stayed as residents were categorised Aliens until maybe the 1940s and fully allowed during the 1960s. Obviously, the actual history is more complex, but this is a summary.
There was a steady population of Chinese in San Francisco's Chinatown. It went from a high of 25k in the late 1800s, bottomed out to a minimum of 7k in the 1920s before growing again.
However this is a relatively small, concentrated, and insular community. There weren't nearly enough of them, and they weren't allowed to integrate with the rest of society, so their impact on the way the country as a whole spoke was minimal.
The generic US accent most closely resembles how people spoke in Northern England a few hundred years ago. The UK accent has drifted more rapidly over time since then.
Must admit I didn't know that. Interesting that he was responsible for Spain's colonisation of the Americas.
He lived in Portugal for a fair while, and Spain. The Spanish court was the only one willing to bankroll such an expedition. Can't recall whether he lived in Spain after or before the expedition though.
Comments
That theory is controversial at best. Not objectively proven, and there are strong reasons to doubt it.
It is entirely possible that some Chinese mariners at some point were shipwrecked in South America or Central America. However if that happened, and it's a big if, they didn't have the technology to routinely make round trips along that route, nor did they have the cultural or economic drive to try it.
Same with the Vikings, they made the trip at least once, but they didn't take. They lacked the technology to do it consistently and the economic/cultural drive to keep at it and colonize. They also weren't big on academics or exchanging that knowledge with other cultures, so their knowledge wasn't recorded in a useful form that the later European explorers could build upon.
While the Vikings and possibly the Chinese may have set foot on the New World, it was Columbus whose exploration lead directly to the continuous waves of colonization that have defined those nations modern boundaries.
And yes, the Native Americans had them all beat, though when they originally made the trip on foot, they probably didn't have a good concept of the shape of the world, that they were expanding into a whole new continent, or that the path they took was going to recede. The European colonizers had a quite different perspective on it, and there's no denying that their "discovery" had great historical significance, even if they weren't the first ones there.
The accepted theory "Clovis 1" suggests that the Americas were populated via a land bridge, and expansion out of Alaska occurred 16,000 years ago and was complete 11,000 years ago. So the Fez is right.
However the Clovis population was from Siberia, not China. So the Martian is right there.
Clovis 1 is in doubt due to controversial research called "Clovis Topper" which suggests a date 40,000 years ago. However there is no definitive evidence to back widespread colonisation at this date. If it was at this date then the problem becomes - how do you get across without the landbridge?
Probably not. For some reason it seems to only be people under say, 1000 posts.
But the Beringian Standstill theory is looking quite good - the original Asian migration was to the Bering Straits, which was covered in ice and inaccessible to the US c25,000BCE. The population settled in tundra pockets and on the land edges until post-glacial open-water, when they could cross. That allows for the neccessary time for the genetic differences between Asian and proto-Native American to arise.
At the moment there's plant and pollen evidence for the tundra scenario, just no evidence of human habitation.
Interestingly, I find that the current American accent that formed in the 20th Century is an combination of both Irish and German.
or Harlem, bro'
That would be from the massive influx of Irish and German immigrants we had during the 19th century starting about 1820.
That would've been a fun addition ...
Speculation on my part but where the various European immigrants kept their traditions up at home but otherwise assimilated and intermarried into the larger community, Asian immigrants, through both choice on their part and intolerance by the larger society were much slower to enter the melting pot, forming tightly knit communities and seldom marrying or mixing outside of them.
Also, the Chinese that were brought over to work on the railroads and canals were offered free passage back to China once the works were completed, which almost all of them took.
Hasta la vista, baby!!!
I've never seen or read that anywhere. Mostly what I have read is that the mostly male immigrants (due to the restrictions and regulations that made it beyond difficult for women to immigrate legally) drifted from one occupation to the next, forming communities that aged out due to the low birthrate. As awful as the working conditions were in the railroads and mining camps, they were far better than what had been left behind in China, where the poverty was grinding and the political climate often deadly.
France was north and central (remember the Louisiana purchase), Spain was Florida, the south and Mexico on down. England was mainly the East Coast and the colonies.
The Spanish were mainly interested in pulling out as much gold as they could, so they murdered / enslaved Latin America for that purpose. They didn't really "settle" there, other than military and religious whatnot.
English colonists settled along the east coast and brought their slaves over and killed the natives. So they stuck around.
Must admit I didn't know that. Interesting that he was responsible for Spain's colonisation of the Americas.
Eh, I thought it was Dutch or English. No idea where I got this idea from.
I do question 'almost all' as there are significant Chinese settlements across California, but I should point out that some had a good reason for accepting. Although allowed as residents, they weren't allowed to take U.S. citizenship or naturalisation. Those who stayed as residents were categorised Aliens until maybe the 1940s and fully allowed during the 1960s. Obviously, the actual history is more complex, but this is a summary.
However this is a relatively small, concentrated, and insular community. There weren't nearly enough of them, and they weren't allowed to integrate with the rest of society, so their impact on the way the country as a whole spoke was minimal.
The generic US accent most closely resembles how people spoke in Northern England a few hundred years ago. The UK accent has drifted more rapidly over time since then.
I'm pretty sure it was the native Indians