U.S.S.R., Canada and American-Indian questions questions...

[Assassin X]

While I love history I never really studied much about the USSR or Canada . So I had some questions:

USSR:
1. Does anyone have a map of before it was the USSR? During and after it stopped being the USSR (today)?

2. I am curious mostly to what it was before it became the USSR. Who owned what places (what countries existed)?

3. During the time when it was the USSR what countries existed at that point in europe?

4. What led to the USSR? What made it stop?

I am sure the first 3 could be answered with those maps! I love maps!

Canada:
1. With this what I am really wanting to see is when America was discovered what led to Canada and America being two places? Why wasn't the whole place just Canada or America?

2. Like with the USSR is there maps of what Canada and USA were before they were countries? Then just as split into two countries?

I always find it fascinating how land is "divvied" up!

American-Indian:

1. Lastly is there any maps of where American-Indian tribes "lands" were? How far their tribes stretched? I always wanted to see what tribes stretched to where, what tribes were smaller....etc.

[lazserus]

I'm not real savvy on Eastern European history, but all the maps you've requested can be easily found. Since I'm a research fanatic, I'll search around for some maps and share them. You can start with this page. It has links to maps as early as the 14th Century. Infoplease has a nice brief on Russian history leading back to the 9th Century.

The Native American territories will be more of a challenge. There were hundreds of tribes and many were nomadic.

[Harry61]

On the Native American territories, are you looking for the areas before they were removed to the reservations?

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shade...cans/1maps.htm

Try this one for Native American maps. I wasn't sure if this is what you actually asked for.

[lazserus]

Those are some good maps, Harry. I found a few, but they're pretty old (at least 120 years) and they're a little tough to follow.

[Harry61]

http://www.native-languages.org/states.htm

I am a book person when it comes to maps, but I also found this one. I was researching my family tree and had to do a lot of research on Native Americans.

[AmateurGirl]

Ok...first, let me say- I am new to this, so please take it easy on me;) I have no formal education in history other than at the elementary and high school level. Because I was raised in Canada, I primarily learned Canadian history, however I did take a few American history courses in high school.
With that said, I have an explanation to "1. With this what I am really wanting to see is when America was discovered what led to Canada and America being two places? Why wasn't the whole place just Canada or America? "
The "real" answer is obviously more complicated than this, but here goes:

In 1507 Martin Waldseemüller created a map naming the new land “America” after Amerigo Vespucci (although what HE did for the discovery of America is a matter of debate). The Spanish colonized what are now parts of Latin America (Mexico, Caribbean, South America) and the Western US. The French (Cartier followed by Champlain etc) came soon after and explored what is now Quebec, Canada. Because of civil unrest at the time, England was the last to come and settle the new world, and they ended up in what is now the US eventually forming the original 13 colonies of the US (beginning with Jamestown). These were the main countries dealing with the exploration of the new world. The British won control over Canada in 1763 but most of the population at that time were French.
The United States gained independence from Britain in 1776, whereas Canada remained a full British colony until 1867. There were distinct differences in the attitudes of the people, which lived in Canada and the US. People in Canada wanted to be a colony and remained so until they gained independence peacefully, whereas The United States fought for their independence from the parent country. Thus, by the time Canada became their own independent country, the United States had already established an individual identity for almost a century. Furthermore, the US went on to become a developing colonial power themselves in the beginning of the 1900s.

[shortround]

Well historically leif Erikson (son of Erik the red)set foot in what was called vinland or wineland, around 400 years before Columbus, and did manage some small settlements along the eastern coast of Canada, and its claimed ( and debated) that vinland was the northern most parts of the continental U.S., but most see this as being further north, rough drawn maps showing this area have been debated for years, but interesting enough it has yet to be proved that Vikings did not find the Americas first or make an attempt at settling it.




Edit, dates are given as being around 990AD taken from Norsk records, but this could vary some 10 years either way.

[Traveler]

In answer to your first question about maps of the USSR.

http://map.rin.ru/index_e.html

As you can see it is a confederacy of many smaller republics

[Becks]

As far as Canada goes...

1. With this what I am really wanting to see is when America was discovered what led to Canada and America being two places? Why wasn't the whole place just Canada or America?

In the US the 13 Colonies were States that were under British occupation mainly, and when they formed they became the United States and Americans instead of British subjects.

A short decade later and after many unsuccessful attempts by the Americans to take control of areas which are now Canada, a 'junior' Canada was born. It started with what is roughly Ontario and Quebec now becoming Upper and Lower Canada, both under British rule but made up of British and French settlers. These areas existed from 1791-1841.

The Americans fought the 'Canadians' for territory during which time, as many modern American history books leave out, in 1814, the Americans invaded but the British Canadians pushed them back so far they were able to burn most of Washington to the ground including the Capitol building and the White House.

Not much American and Canadian fighting over territory happened after this period to the same extent as before and both countries focussed on pushing themselves West.

In 1841 Upper and Lower Canada became Ontario and Quebec and in 1867 they joined along with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to become The Dominion of Canada, which was the official beginning of Canada.

Over the next 62 years all of the provinces and territories which are now Canada chose to join Canada instead of the US and both countries worked on borders.

In 1846, what is now British Columbia was in hot dispute and still neither Canadian or American but rather just a British colony. They rejected the American proposal to split Vancouver Island so they were given the whole Island and the current Capital of BC runs parallel to Washington State. The Americans really ran themselves short with Point Roberts though, which is truly and oddity.

2. Like with the USSR is there maps of what Canada and USA were before they were countries? Then just as split into two countries?

They didn't just split into two countries; they started building in the East and headed West.

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by Assassin X

[/B]1. Does anyone have a map of before it was the USSR? During and after it stopped being the USSR (today)?

Good collection of maps here.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/map_s...es.html#europe

Originally Posted by Assassin X

2. I am curious mostly to what it was before it became the USSR. Who owned what places (what countries existed)?

Difficult. Depends on far back you want to go. Those were mostly nomadic groups coming out of the Lake Baikal region. That would be your Celts, Germans, Slavs, Turks, Huns, Mongols etc.

By the time you go from nomadic to semi-nomadic to sedentary clans, most of Central Asia (central and eastern Russia/USSR) was Turks and Mongols.

Originally Posted by Assassin X

3. During the time when it was the USSR what countries existed at that point in europe?

At the time the USSR was formed, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and Serbia and Montenego existed but, Austria, Magyarorszag, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Prussia and Moldova did not.

By the time WWII ends, Serbia and Montenegro are Yugoslavia, East Prussia ceases to exist, and Moldova is a territory in the USSR as are Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

Originally Posted by Assassin X

4. What led to the USSR?

Lack of a "renaissance" led Russia to stagnate. Russians saw themselves as superior to all others and failed to modernize. It was still an agrarian based feudal system with slaves working the land for nobles. They didn't think railroads were important so there were very few miles of track and all in non-standard gauges.

Alexander III tried to implement reforms but was assassinated and replaced by the turd Nicholas II who eventually was overthrown. Nicholas II claims to have abolished slavery and the fuedal system in 1905, but it was still in practice in 1917.

The US, UK and France fought over who would buy the train ticket to send Lenin from Paris to Moscow and start a revolution that would remove Russia from WWI.

Originally Posted by Assassin X

What made it stop?

Bankruptcy and corrruption. If you want to get an accurate view of communism Soviet/East Bloc style, just watch the Sopranos, or the Godfather Trilogy, or Good Fellows or Once Upon a Time in America. The communist parties in the USSR and East Bloc countries were essentially equivalent to organized crime families. They stole everything that wasn't nailed down.

On top of that, it was a command economy were all production is dictated. If you want tomatoes, you grow them yourself, because there were no tomato farms. The Ruble was worthless so in order to buy anything, the USSR had to sell items that were demanded on the world market like oil and coal and wheat so they would have hard currency like US Dollars or D-Marks to import things they couldn't make.

In East Germany when you went to buy a car, you went to an office. There were no car lots packed with cars that you could walk around and look at. You signed a contract, started making payments and a few years later you would get a post card in the mail telling you where to pick up your car. Hopefully, it was a color that you liked.

That's why 1984 was such a good year, because for the first time ever, you could choose the color of your car. You had red, blue, beige and tan (black was for communist party members only). The only problem was that if you wanted red and they didn't have red on the day they were painting the bodies you got whatever they had. Most people got the color they wanted, but not everyone.

For the few people who had TVs in Soviet/East Bloc countries, all programming was in black and white because they didn't have money to broadcast in color. And they only broadcast a few hours a day. The Soviets had a longer broadcast day than most of the other countries.

If you saw people standing in lines, you went and stood in the line because it was either something good, or it was the last of something for the month. An old woman damn near knocked me down running across Karl Marx Platz to get in line to buy the last of the vodka for the month. They'd run out of stuff and it might be days or weeks or months before they get any more.

Shopping was cool, especially if your're a guy. Ain't none of this run around to 50 different shoe stores. A pair of shoes was the same price in every single store everywhere in the country. So there's no running around wasting time bargain hunting. If you had a thing about colors, you were screwed. If you found something in your size, you bought it no matter what color it was, because there was no way of knowing if any other store had the same thing in your size or in the color you wanted and if you left and came back, it might not be there.

Originally Posted by Assassin X

American-Indian:

1. Lastly is there any maps of where American-Indian tribes "lands" were? How far their tribes stretched? I always wanted to see what tribes stretched to where, what tribes were smaller....etc.

http://www.tolatsga.org/Compacts.html

I'm not sure they have maps, but they do have lists of every tribe and band, and some histories for a lot of the tribes, including a few tribes in Canada.

[Assassin X]

Aw some post! Its like when you see a 24/7 marathon on history channel of something you love!

[Ningishiddza]

I think through DNA analysis you're going to see better maps, especially of the nightmare that was Europe from about 2,000 BCE to 1,200 CE. You'll be able to pin down exactly where people were, and their migratory pattern that brought them there, including other groups they came into contact with along the way.

Right now, we have rely heavily on language for that. It works, but it isn't very satisfactory because you really can't pin down solid dates except for certain instances where we can come close, like the Slavic language.

You have the Slavs, then the Huns sweep through to Wien cutting the Slavs in half on a north/south axis. The Slavic langauge then develops differently in the south (the Balkans - southern Slavs) than it does from the north.

Then you have Germans coming out of Scandanavia moving south along the Vistula and into the Pripet Marshes and that cuts the Slavs in half on an east/west axis.

So the langauge of the western Slavs, the Poles, Belarussians and others, develops differently from that of the eastern Slavs, the Russians and Ukranians and others.

[Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Becks

....The Americans fought the 'Canadians' for territory during which time, as many modern American history books leave out, in 1814, the Americans invaded but the British Canadians pushed them back so far they were able to burn most of Washington to the ground including the Capitol building and the White House.

So much for the passive Canadian image. This means that Canada is the only country in the world that can claim a victory over the US on US soil.

I was unaware of this, they don't teach us this in US schools.

Thanks for inspiring me to research this event.

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by Wednesday

I was unaware of this, they don't teach us this in US schools.

They most certainly do teach it. They just spin it and hide the truth. You get the "Battle of New Orleans" version.

[Smoke]

yeah did you know your whitehouse was pink before we burnt it to the ground... hahah...pink.

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by Smoke

yeah did you know your whitehouse was pink before we burnt it to the ground... hahah...pink.

Doesn't bother me, so long as none of those goofy flamingoes where stuck all over the lawn.

[liberdave]

Originally Posted by Wednesday

So much for the passive Canadian image. This means that Canada is the only country in the world that can claim a victory over the US on US soil.

Incorrect, they were led by Adm. George Cockburn who was definitely British. When the White House was razed he flew a British flag, not a Canadian one. However, I'm sure that a good portion of the troops that he led were Canadian, but it was the British that burned the White House, not Canada.

[Becks]

Originally Posted by liberdave

Incorrect, they were led by Adm. George Cockburn who was definitely British. When the White House was razed he flew a British flag, not a Canadian one. However, I'm sure that a good portion of the troops that he led were Canadian, but it was the British that burned the White House, not Canada.

The War of 1812 involved British 'Canadians'. Like I explained above, 'Canada' was two territories dividied by whether or not people were British or French. They flew the Union Jack because there was no other flag to fly and they were either British settlers or loyalists and we were a new British colony. We weren't a country so America declared war on Britain technically, and technically, Britain won. If America declred war on Canada today, they would still legally be declaring war on Britain.

After the British flag was flown in 1814, Upper Canada designed many Union Jack inspired flags and finally the whole country settled on the Maple Leaf. The 'British' who fought in the War of 1812 are the ancestors of many nouvel-Canadians so they would represent the culture and temperment of today's Canadians so technically Wednesday is right. They were 'Canadians'.

[bobcat]

ever heard of the aborigines?

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by bobcat

ever heard of the aborigines?

What difference would it make? There's a growing body of evidence proving that Caucasoids were here before Native Americans were.

Even more embarassing, there's evidence that Native Americans are themselves invaders and pushed out other peoples who were here before they were.

Somebody needs to bitch-slap the Native Americans and the politically correct congress around and tell them to STFU.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Ningishiddza

What difference would it make? There's a growing body of evidence proving that Caucasoids were here before Native Americans were.

Even more embarassing, there's evidence that Native Americans are themselves invaders and pushed out other peoples who were here before they were.

Source, please. No "Just Say Stuff."

I mean, didn't you know? It was the LEPRICHAUNS who landed in the Americas first, and the Native Americans bought it from them for the Leprichauns' lost Lucky Charms. Honestly, that's how the pyramids from south America got here- the Leprichauns and they're magically delicious Lucky Charms.

Yeah, so we won't believe you until you provide said evidence. With such a controversial claim, you gotta provide the evidence, man (are you refering to the "DNA" evidence you posted about earlier?)

[Ningishiddza]

Originally Posted by Cartesiantheater

Source, please. No "Just Say Stuff."

I mean, didn't you know? It was the LEPRICHAUNS who landed in the Americas first, and the Native Americans bought it from them for the Leprichauns' lost Lucky Charms. Honestly, that's how the pyramids from south America got here- the Leprichauns and they're magically delicious Lucky Charms.

Yeah, so we won't believe you until you provide said evidence. With such a controversial claim, you gotta provide the evidence, man (are you refering to the "DNA" evidence you posted about earlier?)

You can look at Kennewick Man and about a dozen others.

The Umatilla tribe was inhabiting Washington State 7,000 years ago? Um, no, they weren't. They're late-comers themselves.

Just because a 9,000 year old body is found doesn't automatically make it a Native American Indian, but that's what they would have you believe, and I think it was Jack-Ass John McCain that shut the door with recent legislation arising out of the Kennewick Man controversy that prohibits any future analysis.

So if 9 bodies are found in Minnesota and they're 1,000 years old or so, we're not allowed to test them to see if they're Vikings, Native Americans, or some other group.

That's one step backward for Human Kind, one giant leap into Political Correctness.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Ningishiddza

You can look at Kennewick Man and about a dozen others.

The Umatilla tribe was inhabiting Washington State 7,000 years ago? Um, no, they weren't. They're late-comers themselves.

Just because a 9,000 year old body is found doesn't automatically make it a Native American Indian, but that's what they would have you believe, and I think it was Jack-Ass John McCain that shut the door with recent legislation arising out of the Kennewick Man controversy that prohibits any future analysis.

So if 9 bodies are found in Minnesota and they're 1,000 years old or so, we're not allowed to test them to see if they're Vikings, Native Americans, or some other group.

That's one step backward for Human Kind, one giant leap into Political Correctness.

Thanks. Although I disagree with your caustic approach to this, and your over arching conclusion, sorry Native Americans, I have to side with science and NOT the Native American community on this particular one.

Apparently, some Native American groups are opposing DNA testing on Kennewick Man. This is an absolute TRAVESTY, because, frankly, knowledge should never be abandoned on account of fear or religion. The tests should be carried out, and there is NO good reason not to (because the "reasons" all relate to religion and other such trivial issues- yeah, call me an asshole for that comment, but knowledge of truth trumps ALL in my book).

Who cares if there were people here before the Native Americans? Only those who believe in fairy tales (and don't take offense- I feel that way about ALL religion, as can be gleaned from my posts). To shut the door on potential "earth shattering" knowledge because PC or religion is just horrible, IMHO.

::awaits the attacks- but you guys know how I feel about new knowledge::

EDIT- this does NOT mean I support all of Ning's comments. However, there's no reason to automatically assume that our Natives were the FIRST on this country (after all, man has been around for thousands and thousands of years), and there's no reason to get upset if one NON-Native American man is found here at a very early time. There's really no reason to try to shut the door, and religion should never impede the quest for knowledge, IMHO.

[RhymnRzn]

you guys may find this article interesting.........

Link

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by RhymnRzn

you guys may find this article interesting.........

Link

What's your point? (honestly, I don't get it- unless you're NOT refering to the last couple of posts about Kennewick Man).

There's NOTHING wrong with Tribal Soverienty, etc. I just think that some things trump all political interest groups, things such as the quest for knowledge :P