When was US history?

Does that seem like a strange question?

I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the
Battle of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do.
But what about a history of the US? When exactly was that?

I could take the average of 1776 and the present. Or I could take the
average of 1776 and the year the book was published. Or I could open
it to the middle page and see what year that covered. But those all
have drawbacks. For instance did US history begin with the founding
in 1776, with the first English colony (Virginia) in 1607, or with
some other year?

Delaware apparently thinks it began in 1787 when that state signed the
present constitution, since otherwise they wouldn't call themselves
the first state. (Ironically, Delaware is the only state to be named
for another state's governor.)

I think history can best be measured in person-years. As such there's
ten times more US history each year now then there was when the US
had a tenth of the current population. But that gives a surprising
answer: US history was, on average, in 1983, during the Reagan
administration. At least this method makes it irrelevant whether we
start in 1607, 1776, or 1787, since the population before 1800 or so
was too low to make much difference. (Of course I'm not counting
Native Americans.)

Has anyone else worked out this number for various past and present
nations, cultures, continents, and ethnicities? Or for the whole
world? Of course past population is largely guesswork, but we can
do a lot better than implicitly assuming a constant population.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:57:29 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>When was US history?
>
>Does that seem like a strange question?
>
>I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
>they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the
>Battle of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do.
>But what about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
>
>I could take the average of 1776 and the present. Or I could take the
>average of 1776 and the year the book was published. Or I could open
>it to the middle page and see what year that covered. But those all
>have drawbacks. For instance did US history begin with the founding
>in 1776, with the first English colony (Virginia) in 1607, or with
>some other year?
>
>Delaware apparently thinks it began in 1787 when that state signed the
>present constitution, since otherwise they wouldn't call themselves
>the first state. (Ironically, Delaware is the only state to be named
>for another state's governor.)
>
>I think history can best be measured in person-years. As such there's
>ten times more US history each year now then there was when the US
>had a tenth of the current population. But that gives a surprising
>answer: US history was, on average, in 1983, during the Reagan
>administration. At least this method makes it irrelevant whether we
>start in 1607, 1776, or 1787, since the population before 1800 or so
>was too low to make much difference. (Of course I'm not counting
>Native Americans.)
>
>Has anyone else worked out this number for various past and present
>nations, cultures, continents, and ethnicities? Or for the whole
>world? Of course past population is largely guesswork, but we can
>do a lot better than implicitly assuming a constant population.

Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it
predominately covers. Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before
it was published.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it
> predominately covers.

There were too many books for that to be practical.

> Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.

Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.

By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
president ever, they'll probably name either the current president
or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
someone from their lifetime. But that's mostly just because most
Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
presidents before anyone alive today was born.

Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> When was US history?
>
> Does that seem like a strange question?
>
> I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
> they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the
> Battle of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do.
> But what about a history of the US? When exactly was that?

I tend to shelve history books covering a long period at the beginning of the period.
For example, Winston Churchill's history of WWII gets shelved at the start of that era,
while books about Pearl Harbor get shelved as 1941, THE DAM BUSTERS as 1943, and so on.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

On Oct 22, 2023, Keith F. Lynch wrote
(in article <uh4k0m$lmt$1@reader2.panix.com>):

> Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> > Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it
> > predominately covers.
>
> There were too many books for that to be practical.
>
> > Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
>
> Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.
>
> By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
> president ever,

Worst ever? Buchanon. Filmore, Pierce, Trump, and Andrew Johnson fill out the
bottom five. (That’s _Andrew_, not _Lyndon_, Johnson. And Andrew _Johnson_,
not Andrew _Jackson_. LBJ and Old Hickory had their faults, but they
weren’t bottom five material.)
> they'll probably name either the current president
> or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
> someone from their lifetime.

not necessarily. Donald Trump is pretty bad, but he’s not James Buchanon or
Millard Filmore bad.
> But that's mostly just because most
> Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
> presidents before anyone alive today was born.

The worst modern prez prior to The Orange One was Boy George Bush, and he’s
a bottom third kind of guy. Bad, but not terrible. The last terrible prez was
Wilson. The bugger was more racist than actual slaveholders. He made Andie
’Trail of Tears’ Jackson look positively progressive. Almost.
>
>
> Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
> which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
> of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.

Ethelred the Unready would be a good candidate. Edward VIII, that fucking
Nazi, wasn’t that long ago, but is another. Bloody Mary kinda stands out. A
personal fav would be William Rufus.

In article <0001HW.2AE62BC2015629D8700004E7538F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

> On Oct 22, 2023, Keith F. Lynch wrote
> (in article <uh4k0m$lmt$1@reader2.panix.com>):
>
> > Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it
> > > predominately covers.
> >
> > There were too many books for that to be practical.
> >
> > > Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
> >
> > Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.
> >
> > By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
> > president ever,
>
> Worst ever? Buchanon. Filmore, Pierce, Trump, and Andrew Johnson fill out the
> bottom five. (That’s _Andrew_, not _Lyndon_, Johnson. And Andrew _Johnson_,
> not Andrew _Jackson_. LBJ and Old Hickory had their faults, but they
> weren’t bottom five material.)
> > they'll probably name either the current president
> > or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
> > someone from their lifetime.
>
> not necessarily. Donald Trump is pretty bad, but he’s not James Buchanon or
> Millard Filmore bad.
> > But that's mostly just because most
> > Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
> > presidents before anyone alive today was born.
>
> The worst modern prez prior to The Orange One was Boy George Bush, and he’s
> a bottom third kind of guy. Bad, but not terrible. The last terrible prez was
> Wilson. The bugger was more racist than actual slaveholders. He made Andie
> ’Trail of Tears’ Jackson look positively progressive. Almost.
> >
> >
> > Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
> > which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
> > of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.
>
> Ethelred the Unready would be a good candidate. Edward VIII, that fucking
> Nazi, wasn’t that long ago, but is another. Bloody Mary kinda stands out. A
> personal fav would be William Rufus.

My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III, Edward
II, Richard II, and Edward VI (note that three were minors when they
became Kings and were subjected to Regency council for years, I suspect
that this wasn't a coincidence).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 20:17:58 -0700, eleeper@optonline.net wrote:

> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> When was US history?
>>
>> Does that seem like a strange question?
>>
>> I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
>> they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle
>> of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do. But what
>> about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
>
> I tend to shelve history books covering a long period at the beginning
> of the period. For example, Winston Churchill's history of WWII gets
> shelved at the start of that era,
> while books about Pearl Harbor get shelved as 1941, THE DAM BUSTERS as
> 1943, and so on.

What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:15:31 GMT
Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 20:17:58 -0700, eleeper@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:57:31 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> >> When was US history?
> >>
> >> Does that seem like a strange question?
> >>
> >> I recently set out to sort some history books in order of the period
> >> they covered. If a book is about the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle
> >> of Bosworth, or the attack on Fr. Sumter, that's easy to do. But what
> >> about a history of the US? When exactly was that?
> >
> > I tend to shelve history books covering a long period at the beginning
> > of the period. For example, Winston Churchill's history of WWII gets
> > shelved at the start of that era,
> > while books about Pearl Harbor get shelved as 1941, THE DAM BUSTERS as
> > 1943, and so on.
>
> What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
> they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.

How much of the world had been discovered by then?

All but Antarctica would be my guess.

NZ was discovered just a bit before that c. 1280AD (says wikipedia)
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

In article <robertaw-5D6126.21410122102023@news.individual.net>,
robertaw@drizzle.com (Robert Woodward) wrote:

>
> My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III, Edward
> II, Richard II, and Edward VI (note that three were minors when they
> became Kings and were subjected to Regency council for years, I
> suspect that this wasn't a coincidence).

King Stephen is often considered a candidate. King from 1135 to 1154.
Reigned in a period called The Anarchy. Civil was with his cousin,
Empress Matilda. Curiously, his queen was also called Matilda.

Not to be confused with the Beethoven overture of that name, which
celebrates the founder of Hungary.

In article <n4pZM.170983$2fS.60319@fx16.iad>, mailbox@cpacker.org
(Charles Packer) wrote:

>
> What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
> they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.

School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone Age.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 01:58:46 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> Read, or skim, the book in question, and file it in the period it
>> predominately covers.
>
>There were too many books for that to be practical.
>
>> Which, I suspect, will likely be shortly before it was published.
>
>Not generally. They call history books "history books" for a reason.
>
>By contrast, if you ask an average American who was the worst US
>president ever, they'll probably name either the current president
>or the most recent president of the "opposite" party. Or at least
>someone from their lifetime. But that's mostly just because most
>Americans know so little history. There were some truly awful US
>presidents before anyone alive today was born.
>
>Today my brother and I watched a "Drawn of History" YouTube video
>which attempts to answer the question who was the worst ever king
>of England. It named someone who ruled a rather long time ago.

Until recently (2017 to 2021) I would have said Warren G. Harding.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Oct 23, 2023, Paul Dormer wrote
(in article<memo.20231023120935.14516C@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>):

> In article<n4pZM.170983$2fS.60319@fx16.iad>, mailbox@cpacker.org
> (Charles Packer) wrote:
>
> >
> > What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
> > they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
>
> School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone Age.

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were that important?

In article <0001HW.2AE72DE60192A9B470000A84C38F@news.supernews.com>,
akwolffan@zoho.com (WolfFan) wrote:

>
> > School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone
> > Age.
>
> Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were that important?

:-)

Actually, when I was at secondary school (age 11-18) the Rolling Stones
had only just formed. Never was into pop music, but I did eventually
hear of them.

It took a while for information to trickle into text books. One of my
school history text books had a reference to Piltdown man and that was
exposed as a hoax the year I was born.

In article <memo.20231024114901.18820A@pauldormer.cix.co.uk>,
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <0001HW.2AE72DE60192A9B470000A84C38F@news.supernews.com>,
>akwolffan@zoho.com (WolfFan) wrote:
>
>>
>> > School history textbooks in the UK tended to start with the Stone
>> > Age.
>>
>> Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were that important?
>
>:-)
>
>Actually, when I was at secondary school (age 11-18) the Rolling Stones
>had only just formed. Never was into pop music, but I did eventually
>hear of them.
>
>It took a while for information to trickle into text books. One of my
>school history text books had a reference to Piltdown man and that was
>exposed as a hoax the year I was born.

[Hal Heydt]
When I was in school, textbooks still discussed orogeny as being
caused by isostasy. That had be shown not to work some decades
earlier. Plate tectonics was a hot topic shortly after I
graduated from high school.

In article <s33BBw.1IG9@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

> [Hal Heydt]
> When I was in school, textbooks still discussed orogeny as being
> caused by isostasy. That had be shown not to work some decades
> earlier. Plate tectonics was a hot topic shortly after I
> graduated from high school.

Yes, I did an O-level geology exam in 1969, while I was still at
secondary school - I would have been 15 at the time. The exam syllabus
never mentioned tectonics. Three years later, the BBC showed a
documentary called Restless Earth which was the first I heard of it.

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> robertaw@drizzle.com (Robert Woodward) wrote:
>> My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III,
>> Edward II, Richard II, and Edward VI

But not Richard III?

>> (note that three were minors when they became Kings and were
>> subjected to Regency council for years, I suspect that this wasn't
>> a coincidence).

It's curious that "The Regency" refers only to one of several
regencies in English and British history. And that the "Edwardian
period" refers only to the rule of just one of the eleven (!) kings
named Edward -- ironically, to the only one who wasn't actually named
Edward. And that "the Civil War" refers to only one of many civil
wars in English history. "Elizabethan" refers only to Liz One, never
to Liz Two, and "Georgian" encompasses Georges one through four, but
never five or six.

This confusion spread to the early US. This weekend I'll be going
to a picnic in Loudoun County, Virginia, which is named for John
Campbell. (No, not the editor of Astounding/Analog.) Virginia, of
course, was named for Queen Elizabeth I. Prince George's County,
Maryland, and Prince George County Virginia were named for the same
person, who was not one of the six British kings of that name, but
was Danish. (The British kings of that name were of course German.)
Queens, part of New York City, was named for a Portuguese queen.

The RMS Queen Mary wasn't named for Mary I of England, for Mary I
of Scotland, or for Mary II of England (also known as Mary II of
Scotland, but based on a different Mary I).

> King Stephen is often considered a candidate. King from 1135 to
> 1154. Reigned in a period called The Anarchy.

Another bad name. Anarchy means no ruler. During that period there
were two competing rulers, which is of course *less* anarchic, hence
less pleasant, than having just one.

> Civil was with his cousin, Empress Matilda.

Confusingly also called Maude.

> Curiously, his queen was also called Matilda.

Named for Empress Matilda, her grandmother.

History is complicated and weird.

That video named John as the worst. Mostly because he made England a
vassal state of Rome, apparently just to get the pope to reverse his
excommunication (which worked).

England/Britain has almost exactly the same number of monarchs as the
US has had presidents. Not counting pre-conquest rulers most of whom
had weird names. (Dyslexics snicker at the name of the king who ruled
one thousand years ago.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>> What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
>> they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.

> How much of the world had been discovered by then?

> All but Antarctica would be my guess.

> NZ was discovered just a bit before that c. 1280AD (says wikipedia)

"Age of Discovery" refers to when people learned about the whole
world, or at least about most of it. For most of history, almost
everyone only knew about the part of the world that they lived in.
For instance New Zealanders living before 1500 had no clue that any
such places as Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas existed, or
any ocean except the Pacific. They probably didn't even know of
Australia, or that the world was round.

But thanks for reminding us that aboriginal people haven't all been
around since time immemorial. Tasman discovered (and named) New
Zealand in 1642, which means that that island group has been known
to Europe for most of the time that it was known to anyone.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article <uhceq6$6le$1@reader2.panix.com>,
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
> > robertaw@drizzle.com (Robert Woodward) wrote:
> >> My candidates (post-Norman Conquest) would be John, Henry III,
> >> Edward II, Richard II, and Edward VI
>
> But not Richard III?
>

I just realized that I meant Henry VI, not Edward VI (who never had the
chance to rule on his own).

Richard III wasn't on the throne long enough to do real damage.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

In article <uhceq6$6le$1@reader2.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
Lynch) wrote:

> "Elizabethan" refers only to Liz One, never
> to Liz Two,

There was a fashion in the fifties to refer to the new Elizabethans.

begin fnord
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> [Hal Heydt]
> When I was in school, textbooks still discussed orogeny as being
> caused by isostasy. That had be shown not to work some decades
> earlier. Plate tectonics was a hot topic shortly after I
> graduated from high school.

When I was in high school, a friend of mine insisted that humans had 48
chromosomes because that's what the biology teacher said in class.
(Don't know if he did or not; I only took hard sciences.)

--
Steve Coltrin spcoltri@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

In article <m24jide9fo.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>, spcoltri@omcl.org (Steve
Coltrin) wrote:

>
> When I was in high school, a friend of mine insisted that humans had
> 48
> chromosomes because that's what the biology teacher said in class.
> (Don't know if he did or not; I only took hard sciences.)

According to Wikipedia, it was 1956 when they finally recounted. I think
the error in counting was mentioned in the book The Andromeda Strain and
I'm sure I recall an early Heinlein novel that uses wrong count.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:53 +0100 (BST), prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul
Dormer) wrote:

>In article <uhceq6$6le$1@reader2.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
>Lynch) wrote:
>
>> "Elizabethan" refers only to Liz One, never
>> to Liz Two,
>
>There was a fashion in the fifties to refer to the new Elizabethans.

I can't swear to this, but I think the last (latest) period of British
history named for it's monarch was Edwardian, at the turn of the 20th
century. Since then there have been two Georges, another Edward
(briefly) an Elizabeth, and now a Charles.

If most of the 19th century was the Victorian period, most of the 20th
century should be the second Elizabethan period.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 01:42:42 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>>> What about our middle school American history textbooks? Where did
>>> they start? Mine started at 1500 -- the Age of Discovery.
>
>> How much of the world had been discovered by then?
>
>> All but Antarctica would be my guess.
>
>> NZ was discovered just a bit before that c. 1280AD (says wikipedia)
>
>"Age of Discovery" refers to when people learned about the whole
>world, or at least about most of it. For most of history, almost
>everyone only knew about the part of the world that they lived in.
>For instance New Zealanders living before 1500 had no clue that any
>such places as Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas existed, or
>any ocean except the Pacific. They probably didn't even know of
>Australia, or that the world was round.
>
>But thanks for reminding us that aboriginal people haven't all been
>around since time immemorial. Tasman discovered (and named) New
>Zealand in 1642, which means that that island group has been known
>to Europe for most of the time that it was known to anyone.

New Zealand was the southwestern corner of the Polynesian cultural
area, a rough triangle the other corners of which were Hawai'i and
Easter Island.

I'd be surprised if they didn't know about the Indian Ocean, I mean,
it's right there on the other side of their islands.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

begin fnord
prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) writes:

> In article <m24jide9fo.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>, spcoltri@omcl.org (Steve
> Coltrin) wrote:
>
>>
>> When I was in high school, a friend of mine insisted that humans had
>> 48 chromosomes because that's what the biology teacher said in class.
>> (Don't know if he did or not; I only took hard sciences.)
>
> According to Wikipedia, it was 1956 when they finally recounted. I think
> the error in counting was mentioned in the book The Andromeda Strain

Yep - given as "The Rule of 48: All scientists are blind".

> and I'm sure I recall an early Heinlein novel that uses wrong count.

_Beyond This Horizon_?

--
Steve Coltrin spcoltri@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

In article <lscljipf19p4k8u0caej962traj1siaisu@4ax.com>, tppm@ca.rr.com
(Tim Merrigan) wrote:

>
> I can't swear to this, but I think the last (latest) period of British
> history named for it's monarch was Edwardian, at the turn of the 20th
> century.

In fifties Britain there was a working-class youth sub-culture known as
the teddy boys, or teds. This was because they wore Edwardian influenced
styles. The name has stuck, even if the style hasn't.