the oxford history of the united states only starts at the american revolution, is there a recommended book that covers everything before this?
What are you looking to find?
Howard Zinn Peoples History of America
An interesting chapter in early colonial history is King Philip's War. It's the only war I am aware of where an American city was sacked and raised to the ground (this being Springfield, where Washington and Knox would later place the National Armory—hence "Springfield rifles"—which was also the later birthplace of basketball and volleyball, back when Springfield and Hartford had guys like Mark Twain and were among the richest cities; today they are post-apocalyptic ghettos). Something was in the air then because it quickly devolved into a Thirty Years War style mutual genocide. If you go to New England you'll still find landmarks like "Bloody Brook," where the Native and French forces ran down seventy plus fleeing women and children and massacred them while they tried to get across. This also roughly corresponds with the witchcraft paranoia era.New England history is pretty interesting, both the schisms that formed the colonies outside Massachusetts and Massachusetts' almost imperial ambitions (it encompassed Maine too until pretty late, but also made claims out to the Great Lakes and into Canada. Early in the Revolutionary War, when it was initially just Massachusetts at war they devised a plan to invade Canada, which they would eventually carry out with New York. They decided that a winter invasion of Canada over the mountainous northern New England terrain made sense. Which sounds insane, but since their army was mostly robust frontier volunteers they actually made it and sacked Montreal before getting turned back by the snows and walls of Quebec City.)There was also a genocide of the French Catholics in Maine when parts of it were seized, although the interior was so remote that they held on, and French is still the primary language spoken there to this day.
>>24713082wtf why does it start so late? That's like 100 years missing
>>24713813Closer to 200. Roanoke was 1585. Jamestown is 1607 and Plymouth is 1620. New York (New Amsterdam) and Boston aren't that much later.
>>24713823Roanoke was abandoned though. The "lost colonists" simply moved to Hatteras, married Chel and carried on by themselves making red children and not paying English taxes.
>>24713082>why does the american history book start when america started
I don't think there's one single book that satisfactorily covers everything, or even could for that matterI'd suggest reading about the the Massachusetts Bay colony, the French and Indian War, and the correspondence of major American figures prior to the Revolution
>>24713082The Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Eliot Morison
America 1355-1364The voyages of Madoc
>>24715138is it a new american history or a (((new))) american history
>>24713082I recommend The Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Eliot Morison
>>24713082Bernard Bailyn "Barbarous Years" read it cover to cover.
>>24715413McDougall is a Scottish or Irish name. You tell me.
>>24713911The idea predates it
Before the Revolution: America's Ancient Pasts
>>24713082I love this painting. Puritan prose is among the most beautiful. Sentences are a bit long, though.
>>24717349NTA but this looks interesting. Thanks!
>>24713811While I do agree the Philip's War is a fascinating topic, I'd look for something else before I read Lepore. Name of War is certainly an.. interesting read, but it is NOT a reconstruction of the events of the conflict. Rather, it's an examination of how the rhetoric, fears, and subsequent writings after the conflict— an analysis of HOW people thought about the war rather than WHAT actually happend.I think most /lit/izens would hate it actually. In many ways, it feels almost like a parody of academia and the turgid, post-modern drivel that spews out of most history departments. Take this quote about settlers encroaching too far into Indian territory:>In the context of King Philip’s War, concerns about the boundaries of the body became overlaid onto concerns not only about the boundaries of English property but also about the cultural boundaries separating English from Indian. Bodies were defined in relationship to houses, but houses, too, were metaphorical bodies…So much of modern history focuses on the language used in these sources than the events themselves. It's like this hypernominalist where every single word most be scrutinized individually to support the critical-theory infused theses that their trying to proclaim.
>>24717412Thanks for the warning. I really fucking hate this style.
>>24717412I like Foucault a bit so that doesn't bother me too much, its more that a writer like this wouldn't respect me for leaning towards chud-dom.
>>24713082Calm down - it’s set to be published in 2026. Contested Continent: The Struggle for North America, c.1000–1680
>>24713082If you don't mind waiting 6 months they're actually publishing a volume that covers 1000-1680.https://global.oup.com/academic/product/contested-continent-9780195372786
>>24717544>>24717549God DAMN IT, this is what I get for not reading the whole thread carefully
>>24717544Nice that this is finally getting published but I’m still more excited for the Imperial America volume covering from then to the end of the Seven Years War. I guess the only consolation is that it’s being written by the preeminent living expert on the Seven Years War in America. I do think the 60 or so years preceding it are also seriously underexplored and am curious to see what the author can unearth and interpret about it. Must be a bitch to research though because it is still early modern history which infamously people don’t give a shit about. The fact that the author writing the book on the Progressive Era though still hasn’t finished after almost 2 decades now is criminal. Unlike Anderson I think his problem is that he has an abundance of sources because arguably in that period print media in America reached its absolute apogee without competitors from any other mass media source so the amount of material to sift must be immense. Also he’s honestly covering at least 3 different eras, the “Progressive” era proper from 1896-1914, the WWI and after era from 1914-1920, and the roaring 20s, all of which had a different zeitgeist and could honestly have merited different books on their own. Must be strange for him to see that in the time it took to write that one book since 2006 America had again gone through at least 2 major cultural shifts
