Originally Posted by Winners or Errors
Um, never had colonies? What about the Philippines? And I think the poster you were responding to was referring to our spreading throughout the territory that is today the USA, but was at the time in possession of Native Americans...
"continent that became the USA?" Are you forgetting Canada, Mexico, and all the other countries north of the Panamanian isthmus?
I seriously hope your post was tongue in cheek.
first of all, this entire subject is what is known as "OFF TOPIC" to the thread.
edit: and youre right about "continent that became the USA" ... that was a misstatement. guess I should have said "land that became the USA"
boy oh boy. where did you go to school?
Let's take this point by point:
definition of colony:
1 a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.
b: the territory inhabited by such a body.
Question: In what sense does "the Philippines" fit the definition of "colony" of the USA?
edit: the term "native americans" is as inaccurate as calling the people who were living in europe at the time "native europeans." yes, they were all natives of their separate continents, but so what? the tribes of north america were living at the same time as the tribes of europe. they were many individual tribes with individual cultures and identities, some of whom were warlike and some of whom were peaceful. the europeans (roughly the area that recently became the european union) were a relaively warlike people (read the history of the roman empire sometine) with horses and guns (which the north american tribes did not have) and written languages to record everything they did. without written histories, we don't know what the tribes of north america did to each other. At any rate, the Indian Nations of the land that became USA remain sovereign nations. The same cannot be said for the indian nations of the land that became mexico and south america.