Talk:New England/Archive 1

message: Why? --AaronS 16:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected?

message: I added many subsections, with a few edits here and there. I think that it looks better this way, and is much more organized. Let me know if you don't like it.--AaronS 19:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsection additions

message: I removed that part about the small government philosophy being associated with the Confederacy. Succession did not equal small government, at least not the way implied in this paragraph, which is about the modern political situation. It's well established that the Confederacy had a strong central goverment (in a sense an illegal one formed without consent of the state legislatures), had the first income tax, and was run from a very centralized position by Jefferson Davis. The modern south has more of the philosophy of small government, but its important not to fall for the retro misconception that the Confederacy was fighting for the values of modern day libertarianism. It was much more complex than that. -- Decumanus 16:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Confederacy

message: The article said:
:The primary settlers of New England were Angles, from an area northeast from London, and not Saxons or Jutes of the Virginia land.
This seems like the result of a misunderstanding. By the time that the American colonies were established, there were no longer Angles, Saxons or Jutes in England; these tribes had, hundreds of years before, merged to form the English. So I removed it. Gdr 19:12, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
::Good job, I've been wanting to fix that.  It may be best to describe the social and geographical positions of the people before moving to the colonies.  For instance, many of those from New England had been from East Anglia and the Fens, or as it is properly called, Lincolnshire.  Generally, this does sort of mirror the settlement patterns of the Danish invaders in the 9-10th century England.  That place was called the Danelaw, on the edge of Christendom, with many heathens not exposed to Roman Christian style government.  Boston is a place in Lincolnshire, as is Stamford.  Cambridge is from Cambridgeshire.  Besides that, I have seen online descriptions of New England settlers from Eastern England, which is a general description, obviously.  Eastern England is where most of the religious dissenters were from at the time of settlement, so there's no beating around that bush.  I have also seen that some have said the Tidewater areas of the southern colonies were from the old Saxon aristocracy.  In any event, New England emerged as the north east as much as Durham and Northumbria were for England.  The Prince Bishops of Durham had real religious power and control and that is generally where the pressure for reform of the Catholic Church came from, aside from the Isle of Lindisfarne which is where much monastic treasure was developed.  In this geopolitical sense, Massachusetts was formed of the same stuff and was a theocracy without a division of Church and State.  Maine is the border region that had to define the edges of the northeast of America much as Northumbria had done for England.  In America's case, it was the border with Nova Scotia, as opposed to England's with Scotland.  This is all well understood with the arrangement of New York being less so in the north east, much as Yorkshire was to the Earldom of Northumbria.  Pennsylvania was an early location for the capital, which would mean the rebelliousness of the East Anglian areas had relocated in America, due to the acquisition of New Netherland.  There is a deep connection between British-American temporal geopolitics and if you know the data enough, you'll begin to understand why certain places in America are quite a bit remniscient to others in England on their sociopolitical level.  This includes the Civil War's division of North and South, or the Manifest Destiny's East and West, reflective of how England itself was formed.  Whether it may seem apparent to you or not, people during that time, despite modern rebellions to cast away the old, were relentlessly tied to old traditions and habits included in their settlement and formation patterns.  Kenneth Alanson 01:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What a suprise. It was Kenneth Alan who added this rubbish in the first place. See  Mintguy (T) 08:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in the mood for a fight on every topic.  I decided to leave it because I was afraid you'd revert a proper edit once again.  I was tired and didn't remember all to the subject at the time, so sue me.  I certainly have expounded upon the issue here, and to no error in my words.  You haven't been following my statements nor have you really responded to them on the whole, just been on a tirade against me.  Go away and leave me alone please.  I do not follow you around everywhere and claim fallacy wherever I see it.  I am not an ad-hominem, monomanic OCD panicker.  I am not the only person with mistakes.  I'm sick of your whining.  Go ahead, block me again for the freedom of speech when it's you who are stalking me you idiot.  Kenneth Alanson 09:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I understand what you mean; however, there was a real historic difference between those from the New England colonies and those from the Virginia colonies. Although there may be the same placenames in both places, it would only mean that those people who founded the settlements in America had held certain lands and titles, regardless of their heritage in those places, when back in England.  For instance, York Pennsylvania vs Yorktown Virginia; they may be the same derived name York of Yorkshire, but the complexities of who owned what titles and holdings back in England was not so static after the Middle Ages.  People of the middle class had already begun to shift their lands into different hands, so it may be difficult to discern just exactly what an accurate demographic should look like.  I think that solidifies the knowledge of the difference in sociopolitical style, and my intent was to show more of a tangible background shared in both groups chartered by King James I.  Without such an arrangement, we wouldn't have had the Civil War, for instance.  Of course the Dutch, Germans and Swedes got in  the middle of the two, but it was more than that, I am told-that it's roots are in time before the Tudors reigned even(although, of course they had solidified by that time into recognisable factions of society).  There obviously was something of a drift between the two groups of colonies due to their natural divide, and I believe that we must have some good description of this.  Maybe it belongs in a Civil War article, but I'm not sure if it should rather be described in both the colonial formats and the Civil War or what.  Please offer some insight as how to go about this, because the differences were real, even for Cromwell-his family was Saxon aristocracy and the authors of his history surely point that out.  How are we to deny a face to these people?  New York was founded by King James II's men, just as much as Maine had been by Gorges' family, although his was from Somerset and it had at one time been called Yorkshire due to King James II, then Duke of York's decision to have it renamed after him.  Maybe it is best to show what social class these people are from?  It is frustrating and I'm sure it seems anachronistic, but can we say that all the Mercians of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy were Angles?  Could we say that all those in the Danelaw were Danish and not English?  That's an inherent problem whenever we label a group in which the people themselves don't announce who they are to recorders and historians.  Kenneth Alanson 01:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I think that this article deserves a description of the background to these settlers in England, more than simply their location, because all these characteristics are what led to the Civil War, from this end at least.  There was a real clash with those of the Virginia colonies due to this, which was deeper than their situation in America.  Kenneth Alanson 19:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angles, Saxons and Jutes? 

message: For instance, New England apparently has fjords known as "fiards".  24.255.40.174 11:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a geography section in this article? 

message: I'm a little confused by the vandalism policy.  While it has been a few days since he or she has struck, 24.105.165.20 has made some malicious vandalism recently, forcing two reverts.  Should something be done about this?  Has something been done?
:For information: User:24.255.40.174 is an alias of the banned User:Kenneth Alan. - MPF 18:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Information in this article that does not actually apply to the region as a whole ought to be removed. So, for example, there is really nothing special about the New England region in terms of education; all but two of the colleges/universities listed are in Massachusetts, and those two are in separate states themselves, so it is more accurate to say that the high educational institutions are a feature of the state of Massachusetts rather than the entire region. There are many other sections like this, where the section spends most of its time delineating the differences between the parts of New England rather than the similarities, because there really isn't that much similarity in what it is talking about. So, with those parts removed, the article would be focused more no the historical aspects of the region as a whole, as the parts of the region continue to differentiate. - Centrx 22:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unproductive to be insulting so; your insults are baseless and your allusions inane. Simply because there are several institutions that are in the total region does not mean that those institutions represent the region or that they are a characteristic of the region. The fact remains that the concentration of these institutions is far greater when a region of Connecticut and Massachusetts is the region considered, so that it is more accurate to describe these institutions as "of Connecticut and Massachusetts" rather than "of New England". You assume what you are trying to assert, the validity of "New England" as an educational region. By your reasoning, that there are educational institutions present in an area would indicate a concentration of them in that area, so that one the same text in this article on this topic could be used for an article on "southern New England" or "Northeast U.S.". These features which you think are of New England are much more of Massachusetts or Connecticut, so that any discussion of them in this article ought to be brief and refer to the Main article of Massachusetts or Connecticut. I am not confused by the demography of New England, rather it is simply not useful to think of qualities of eastern Massachusetts as being qualities of all of New England, and the very population disparity which you think means that "New England" is somehow concentrated in the south of it means instead that the qualities which you think are of New England are in fact not at all. - Centrx 20:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of broad strokes 

message: I was looking for the population of New England and couldn't fine it so I added up the state populations and added to the population section.
-Eurytus
:Thanks! By the way, an easy way to sign and timestamp your "Talk" contributions is to just include four tildes: ~~~~. When you save your edits to the talk page, the tildes will be converted into your signature and the current timestamp.
:Atlant 11:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: "Today, although the region has attracted many Jewish and Asian-American residents, it has a far smaller proportion of African-Americans and Hispanic Americans than the rest of the country"
I disagree with this statement, especially when talking about Connecticut. While it does have a large amount of Jewish-Americans in some areas, it has a large amount of Blacks and especially Hispanics compared to the rest of the region. Connecticut has almost as much Blacks as Massachusetts and Hartford is the most Hispanic city east of the Mississippi river and south of Florida. This statement above noted probably applies to MA but not Connecticut or Rhode Island.
Also, while growing quickly, Asians are still too small in CT, RI, or MA (outside Boston area) to be considered a large amount.
:Massachusetts is as ethnically diverse as CT and RI. Boston, for instance, is 25% black, 7% Asian, and 14% Hispanic. Connecticut is only about 3-4% "less white" than Massachusetts. And, Boston has a bustling Chinatown.--AaronS 9 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
I think someone has to put an end to whoever from Boston College is putting pictures of BC and a dubious "Oxford in America" claim in every possible article they can stretch BC into.  I's getting obnoxious to see the same picture and ridiculous claim again, and again, and again.  I'm removing it with the hope that someone finds something else to feature a picture of.
: If you have reason to doubt the veracity of the "Oxford in America" title of the BC master plan, state your case. Otherwise the picture and caption are very pertinent, and offer a tangible example of New England's unique cultural contributions. --192.80.65.235 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A needed edit=

message: too many people think New England is just small colonial towns
it isn't
a good deal of the buildings are post colonial
and there are more thing that are sterotyped
Dudtz 7/23/04 11:00PM EST
In my opinion, the constant referencing back to many New Englanders having a Boston accent is not entirely accurate.  Living in New England my entire life, (Connecticut, Boston, southern Maine), it is without question that many metro regions and states all have quite distincts accents).  The New Haven region has a clearly distinct accent to Boston.  Southern Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire do as well.  Rhode Island, while it may be similar in some respects to Boston in terms of accent, clearly has its own mini-dialect and accent.  I think it would be fair to say that many areas of New England educate students in "accentless" English.  I don't mean that they are devoid of accents altogether as that is relative to other areas.  Unless you pull a person from Boston, I believe most people with little knowledge of New England would have problems placing the accent. Bbozsik 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New England Stereotypes 

message: This, I think, is a bit too much of a generalization:
:The region has remained consistently openminded towards other backgrounds, a tradition which has continued from the abolitionist days of William Lloyd Garrison and Charles Sumner to the region's recent controversial legal battle in regarding relationships between homosexual couples.
This may be how many New-Englanders view themselves, and if so we can report that as a fact.  Reporting that it is actually true as a fact, however, is more problematic: It's an opinion, and not necessarily a well-substantiated one.  The history of discrimination against the Irish, Italians, Poles, and Greeks in Boston continuing up through the 1950s would attest otherwise, to choose one example. --Delirium 03:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed, if we're keeping the statement at all, it would have to read "New Englanders consider themselves openminded..."  and even then, what makes New Englanders believe themselves to be more tolerant than any other part of the country?  I vote to remove the line altogether and maybe replace a flowery word like "open-minded" with a more factual one like "liberal" or "socially progressive" if we want to reference abolition and homosexual unions, which are specific factual examples.Loodog 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Open-minded' generalization 

message: Since when are the Boston Celtics popular? I barely hear anyhting about them, and I live in eastern Massachusetts. I mean, all I ever hear about are the big teams, like the Lakers and Utah and such, I never hear about the Celtics anymore.... years ago, when Bird was here, they were a bit more popular.--Azathar 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Celtics popular? 

message: I reverted a whole group of vandalized edits.  In the process, I'm sure i reverted some legitimate edits. Please check history when editing to make sure no vandalism carries over with you edit.--Kevin 03:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A whole big ole string of vandalism 

message: Why was Wheelwright removed from the notable New Englander's section of the article?--Azathar 05:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Wheelwright 

message: I think the Notable Persons section is getting a bit long.  I'd like to possibly put it into a sub-article, or at the very least, rearrange it into a table that would make better use of the space.  Let me know if you agree, and which option you think should be used: the sub-article or the table. --Dymero 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is way to long it shouldn't be more than a handful of them in the artical. It should be moved to a new list and link back. That is my 2 cents worth anyway. 03:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the new article. Behun 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Persons 

message: And that's all I have the say.
Oh, also, I consider myself a neutral observer, I'm not from the USA and I wasn't even aware a region called New England existed there. I came to this article from a John Tukey(the statistician) memorial site which had numerous references to New England.
::I agree that it is a bit fanboyish. It needs more references, and to cut down on the cruft. Anybody interested in helping out? --AaronS 04:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit fanboyish? 

message: "Is New York state part of New England? As its name would suggest, along with "New" Hampshire, its proximity to the rest of New England and the date of its founding, as well as the fact that parts of Manhattan are widely regarded as an essentially New England in nature, New York State is part of New England."
This really made me laugh, then I remembered this is wikipedia and not uncyclopedia... New York is definately not considered part of New England... Rangeley 00:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy.... 

message: What's really laughable is how New Englanders insist that "New" York isn't part of New England, when, obviously, it is.
:What, is "New" Mexico also part of new england now? The "new" means absolutely nothing, New York has a different heritage and history then that of new england, in addition to its different culture and background. Rangeley 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  New York has never been considered part of New England. For one thing, New York was originally a Dutch colony that was later taken by the English, while the original settlers of all the New England colonies were English. thx1138 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: Please comment here. --AaronS 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vigorous Defluffication