Talk:British America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so what did "they" call it?[edit]

The article doesn't really say - so people at the time called actually it "British America" at least in a formal sense? I am curious, say if I was French or something not English and wanted to talk about "British America", what would I call it? Zantorzi (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think in a formal sense, "British America" was never used by the Colonists. "British America" is simply a time period to seperate British colonization of North America starting in 1607 up until when the Thirteen Colonies had their independence recognized by Great Britain in 1783. "British North America," the remaining five colonies which chose to remain loyal to Great Britain, would then become the successor known as "British North America", beginning in 1783 at the time of American independence up until 1867 when Canadian Confederation would finally occur. I hope that this helps you. --Yoganate79 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was just called America. 173.59.70.22 (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never seen the term "British America" before seeing this page. I think most Americans and history books would refer to it as "Colonial America," which has its own Wiki page. MylesCallum (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion, since at this point the British North American Colonies were just that one unit, why does the page omit other import events in British North America just because they occurred in the territory in what would become the nation-state of Canada? Did the 13 Atlantic colonies exist independent of the others, at this time no. I understand this is US history but it did not start in a vacuum. Furthermore, the Atlantic Colonies themselves existed in rather isolation from one another up until and durin the Rev. including a large amount of self-sov. and autonomy. My suggestion is that they should be listed under on category as British North American Colonial History until the Am. Revolution or War of Independence and 1782. currently it is very Americentric and does not serve good history well. Thanks from a "worldly" Yank!
In addition it would be great to have insight on what again the place was called and if there was any sense of common cultural or linguistic or economic bond between the various English colonies. My basic point is that Canada and the USA have the same roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.14.142 (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and appreciate the fact that there is a historical context regarding the term and use of North. This is very important to note. However, I wonder why this page is not linked to US history. Again this kind of proves my point that somehow the majority of Americans write their history from a perspective that ignores their common British heritge which makes for culturally bias history something we strive to avoid here. Can. on the otherhand celebrates or at least a good portion of the pop. is very warm to the idea of its "Britishness". looks like the term itself changed in use and I've never seen it used in American textbooks. Its the "Colonies" and then magically the USA. This is such a inward looking sense of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.70.66.12 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British America 1607-1783 (Includes both the original 13 Colonies which eventually created the first 13 states of United States AS WELL AS present-day Canada)
British North America 1783-1901 (ONLY includes the present-day country of Canada)
The key word here is "North". In order to highlight that there were still British colonies in North America after American independence was recognized in 1783, the term "British North America" supplanted the phrase "British America" which comprised of ALL of North America before 1783. Eventually, the term British North America became phased out as the present-day country of Canada gained dominion status in 1867. Likewise, the Westminster Statute of 1931 further gave Canada more independent powers and finally, the Constitution Act of 1982 terminated all political ties to the U.K. Parliament and thus, Canada achieved complete and total self-autonomy.
Simply put, The United States of America was NEVER part of "British North America" (1783-1901). The United States and its connection to its former 13 Colonies were ONLY a part of "British America" (1607-1783).--Yoganate79 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what Thomas Jefferson called it: Resolved that it be an instruction to the said deputies when assembled in General Congress with the deputies from the other states of BRITISH AMERICA to propose to the said Congress [ . . . ] to quiet the minds of your subjects in BRITISH AMERICA against any apprehensions of future incroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony thro' the whole empire, and that that may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all BRITISH AMERICA. --- Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, July 1774, Papers 1:121--35 [1] Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Affected Projects[edit]

I have added banner templates for Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America & Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean & Wikipedia:WikiProject South America. Updates to projects are offline since 8 April 2011 per [2]. When the update issue is fixed, I'll come back to remove the nowiki and add yes to all the Caribbean States, Central America, and South America banners. Argolin (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in infobox[edit]

Considering Puritans and other dissenters (or non-conformists I believe is the historical term) founded many of the colonies, the infobox needs changing. Hot Stop (c) 15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anachronistic term"[edit]

Is British America any more of an anachronistic term than, say, Roman Empire? Is it not just a defunct political entity? --BDD (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term appears in legislation that continues in force, but would not be used if the legislation were re-written, for example the Colonial Debts Act 1732. TFD (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start date of 1607?[edit]

The infobox lists British America as having started in 1607. How can this be, as the United Kingdom didn't exist back then? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English America?[edit]

The lede states that "British America" used to be called "English America". I've never heard of the term "English America". Any ref for such a thing? If not, I'll remove it from lede, leaving just "British America" per WP:COMMONNAME. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree—no such term used in common parlance. Hence, I have already made the corrections. —Dilidor (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge with British North America[edit]

I know why the two pages have been kept separate, please don’t misunderstand me. But I cannot shake the firm belief that such a decision arose more as a convenience of organisation, rather than out of fidelity to actual history -- simply put, the hard distinction between 'British North America' and 'British America' doesn’t exist outside of Wikipedia. If someone can find a contemporary source describing said distinction I will eat my tricorn hat.

Concatenating adjectives with nouns in novel ways does not instantiate new histories; similarly, if the only difference between so-called BA and BNA is the subtraction of the 13 colonies, that does not warrant separate articles because there's no evidence of any intrinsic internal change to the remaining colonies. It does not follow that New Hampshire’s destiny predefines Nova Scotia’s any more than would the inverse.— Muckapedia (talk) 9e juin 2018 23h08 (−4h)

British Empire[edit]

Dilidor, Since the colonies were English and British and this article's purpose is to discuss this part of the British Empire, it only makes the article more informative to put this part in "British" context, and use and link to British Empire in the first sentence. `You have identified no substantive objection to doing so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: My contention is that the entire article expounds upon the topic of "British possessions in North America." Linking to a separate article on the same topic merely lures the reader away from this article, without offering any further insight. I'm trying to reduce the over-linking on the article so that the links are helpful rather than distracting. Here is what the manual of style says not to link to: "This generally includes major examples of: … locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia)…." The article itself expounds sufficiently on "the first British empire" without the need to send a reader elsewhere. —Dilidor (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection makes no sense. The article section linked First British Empire gives the added context for the totality of the First British Empire, of which this article is a part. The First British Empire is far more than a location it is a political, historical, system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute[edit]

The article is at present heavily skewed towards an American conception of history. To wit:

1) The thesis of the existence of the article itself is that a) A thing called "British America" existed, b) a thing called "British North America" existed, and c) there is a clear separation between both those things -- a separation which existed cleanly in time and space. Unfortunately there is no documented proof of a) b) or c).

2) The provinces/colonies are listed according to a USA understanding, despite the fact that such an understanding did not exist when the dubious "British America" existed. For example, there is no justifiable reason to split Quebec in the listing.

There is a lot of fiction in this article which needs to be addressed. I suspect the only evidence-supported way to conceptualise the article would be to have it stand as "British America" meaning the British colonies of North America, which grew from first settlement, shrank some in 1785, and then grew again until Confederation. This meaning would include Newfoundland on/off until 1949, and Bermuda to this day.

If anyone has a better idea please share. — Muckapedia (talk) 2e déc. 2019 10h45 (−4h)

As with most such matters, probably the best idea is for you to start by looking at sources: (eg type in "British America" in your web browser, google books, google scholar, etc.) and then share what you find. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your assertion here is incomprehensible. "The provinces/colonies are listed according to a USA understanding"... what other understanding is there? The "provinces/colonies" became the United States. "such an understanding did not exist"... an understanding of what?? The 13 colonies? Did they not exist?? What on earth are you saying? —Dilidor (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this article would benefit from some significant work. British colonization of the Americas is more developed (but has serious issues, I've worked on it a little). Perhaps this article is redundant and should be redirected to this article (this would be my current opinion, but there may be value here I'm not seeing). If it is of value, I think this article would be improved if it were structured as a series of broad topical sections (concise 3-4 paragraphs each) that naturally lead the reader into other detailed articles. An example of the structure could be (titles are not actual titles but intended to convey topics)
 Background to English/British colonization in the Americas
 British proto-Canada
 British proto-United States area
 British Carribean and Central American area
 British South America
 A good select secondary source Bibliography

Offered with the best of intentions for your consideration   // Timothy::talk 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting suggestions, but off-topic. The assertion is that there is no NPOV in this article, which strikes me as absurd. Perhaps the original poster could explain his concerns more clearly. —Dilidor (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour Grace, Newfoundland[edit]

Before I start making major edits, it appears that Harbour Grace, Newfoundland was the first permanent English settlement overseas, in 1583. Does anyone disagree or have anything else to say? Esszet (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only to ask what citation are you going to use to support that. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source given there is the town's official website, which should be reliable (they should know when they were founded). After looking around, however, it isn't that clear-cut; the Canadian Encyclopedia, for example, gives the date as about 1618. I'll just leave it for now. Esszet (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A town website is unlikely to have met our reliable source requirement because generally it won’t be evidence editorial rigour and fact-checking. Something like that would need to be cited to an academic work of scholarship. DeCausa (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope they fact-checked the article (in their own archives, if necessary). Curiously, our reliable source policy doesn't say anything about government websites and other government publications; I'm assuming they are effectively considered reliable. The size of the town is an issue, however; the fact that Mr. Pike appears to have been little more than a local historian is a serious issue. As I said, I'm leaving it for now; I also started a discussion over at the town's article to try to have it cleared up. Esszet (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_America&oldid=1204776640"