A discussion with rich historical perspective on who/what is "American"

[tallslenderguy]

 

[hntnhole]

As always, a timely and superb topic.  

Are  you willing to accept certain ... well .... "foundational" interpretations/responses?  

1.  Given that what leaps to mind first, is the "learned" answer, by which I mean the culturally common response.  For many, that would be Caucasian Americans, simply because by now there are more of them then any other discernable group.  However, we Caucasians are merely the original conquerors of the Original Americans, that being the conquered Native Americans.  Add to that recipe the peoples of African American descent (aka Black Americans, originally imported as "property"), as well as the host of folks from other parts of the world that came to North America in search of a better life.  

2.  Thus, it becomes crystalline that any/all peoples of any other place on the face of the earth, that arrived on these shores in search of a better life, willing to put shoulder to the (wagon)wheel, do what they needed to do in order to achieve their dreams of living free of overbearing rulers elsewhere in the world.  

3.  To this very day, the definition discussed in line-item #2 is completely and fully a part of our American life.  There are less fortunate arriving daily, seeking a better life, just as out Caucasian ancestors did at Plymouth Rock.  That process, the promise of America, has been a beacon to people of every kind and description that walk on two legs for centuries, and that process has made the US prosperous, advanced in human rights (save for the anti-human tragedy in the Southern States a century+ ago), and a last, best hope for the downtrodden everywhere.  

4.  It is the chance, the opportunity to live a better life, and thereby allow the same for their generations to follow, that most Americans cherish and offer to new immigrants to this very day.  Despite the depths of selfishness some Americans have descended into, that dream of doing the best one can to uplift and welcome the new immigrants remains solid, constant, and unwavering.  I still believe that the current undercurrent of selfishness, greed, anti-human behavior is an aberration, not a permanent infection on the American psyche.  But, I'm only one of hundreds of millions of Americans. 

And now, tallsplendidboy, I'll listen to the broadcasts you've offered.  ❤️

[tobetrained]

I was able to get through this one @tallslenderguy! I didn't start to rant at my screen until the last 15 minutes of so...once the convo went out of their self-admitted depth and it became more a philosophical chat. 😀

To that part, I wish they revisited the many many schools of thought in Eastern traditions as well as ancient Greek philosophies. They completely missed Plato in the discussion and Platonism's use in the Heritage movement's thinking. The participant's view was somewhat contradictory to varied philosophies. Just from ancient Greek thought are stoicism, epicureanism, skepticism, cynicism, etc. And I've only scratched the surface with Eastern thought. The common theme among some of these ideas, the thing the linked speakers derided, was "accepting the null."

Earlier, they did talk about manifest destiny but didn't apply it to the thinking. I was unsure if that was bias. Clearly, throughout the 19th century (+/-) we shoved Natives out. We had no intention of including everybody...not that it was correct. In that, their convo smacked of modern elitism. And here, I don't think they setup the mindset of the 17th-19th century world -- and not just here but everywhere around the world. With that, different conclusions could be drawn.

If you'd like some examples as to why, there are excellent lecture series in The Great Courses Signature Series -- each series is between 20 and 50 30-minute lectures from academics around the world. I subscribe via Apple but assume it's available elsewhere. They do have a stand-alone site, which I've not used. Very good background:

• Barbarians of the Steppes -- by the end, you'll get a good understanding of why "the West" was what is was but more so how much had happened elsewhere, specifically Central Asia. We, the US, came into the world at just the right time... they even talk about how people in the 18th and 19th century talked about that. But those people didn't know by how much, as the history of the Steppes and Central Asia had been lost. Academic understanding is more modern rediscovery and still only partial.
• Eastern Civilization -- a small part of this includes a starters' guide to various Eastern thought and philosophies but mostly on why there was little migration to what is not the US from this region, therefore, people here in the 18th to 19th centuries were little burdened.
• A History of Eastern Europe -- includes the local history of Nationalism in the 19th century, it's impact missed in the video -- both in that time and place and, through implication, the modern far-right movements. It also highlights why some of these people called themselves "not white" -- as discussed in the linked video -- as well as highlights the Eastern Orthodox segment of Christianity, itself derived from Greek Orthodox/The Byzantine Empire aka Eastern Roman Empire.
• It never hurts to do a History of Western CIv class -- they have two lecture series...I think only one is available at any one time on Apple though.

The most important thing they discussed was paradoxically a bit of a null argument to the topic. That "the founders" and those in the 18th and 19th century didn't have the same conditions we have now.

Or, you can just watch the South Park episode Goobacks (from like 2003 or 2004), re: migration culminating in a big gay sex pile orgy.

[tobetrained]

...after a few days, part of this video really bothered me. For the rest of you, I reached out privately to @tallslenderguy about that yesterday. The short of it, Jon Stewart's guests provided a biased view which is making its way through left-leaning circles. But it has it's own history.

I want to be clear: I make NO negative claim about the intention of @tallslenderguy whatsoever. In fact, I fully appreciate and believe in what he continues to do on this site by providing perspectives. That's why I'm happy to spend time engaging with him (and others) in those perspectives.

Then, as if by some divine force -- none of which I believe in -- Politico posted this article just this morning.

[think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/13/woodard-immigration-00679254

The author is Colin Woodward. He wrote a book a decade ago I've mentioned on this site before, American Nations. It's a great book and the article demonstrates that.

But back to the beginning of this post and the biased view presented. Stewart asks his guests about religion's role repeated. They deflect each time. This is part of a response-movement on the left in today's culture...to the political right.

In the article, Woodward states:
"On one side are ethnonationalists who assert that only the people with the right lineage and faith can belong to America. On the other is the civic nationalist tradition where anyone who shares the universal ideas about human freedom in the Declaration of Independence is a potential American."

But, in the linked video, failure by omission or failure by selective facts are both manipulation. They -- Stewart's guests and NOT @tallslenderguy -- are participating in a form of ideological purity control  -- as are the Heritage folks. But you can't counter a manipulation of facts with one of your own.

For myself, I have no interest in religion at all. But I fully respect those that do. But the failure to acknowledge its role is bias. Simultaneously, that doesn't mean it has to continue as a driving force. After all, Christianity itself, as well as most other religions, wouldn't exist if spiritual thought had to be held stagnant.

[tallslenderguy]

I asked @tobetrained if it was okay to share my private responses publicly and he gave the okay.  i want to be clear as well, how much i value him and his thoughtful replies. To me, it's nothing but good and healthy to present views that add different perspective in these discussions. i'm not even an amateur when it comes to history, so sometimes i feel like i'm coming from a place of ignorance, i am grateful for shared knowledge and opinion.

These are my private responses, unmodified and sans @tobetrained replies, but most of the content is in the preceding entry above and hopefully this won't be confusing: 

First Response:

 

Hey, thanks for sending this and i think it's fine for you to add it to the  online discussion.  

You seem better informed about history than me.  The challenge for me is i am not a professional historian, so not unlike the discussion we have had about healthcare, i end up extending trust to authorities who do have a background.  

With science, i have enough understanding that i can look for evidence when someone makes a claim, which to me is the next layer up from "authority."  Scientists have to publish claims in journals, then other authorities get the opportunity to pic it apart. i guess historians publish papers too, and others can pic their claims and assertions apart, but the how of substantiating history is different than science. Not something that can be replicated in an independent double blind study. 

Take the bible for instance.... i'm a little familiar with that. Lots of versions, lots of debate.  

i appreciate your questioning, disputing claims that might go right over my or others heads, but how do we choose between your (or anyones) conclusions or another's? 

Second Response:

 

idk... i appreciate your questions, and oft opposing view point.  i need to re-watch with an eye towards your points.  i do not get the impression that Richardson is purposely manipulative, maybe inadvertently so due to unconscious bias? This is my first encounter with Guelzo.

When it comes to "who knows," and sources you listed. i confess i'm used to more specific citations that can be substantiated lol. When i read that in your original post, it was sort of overwhelming. my feel was, i'd have to read entire books or go through several courses that i do not have subscriptions too....

By comparison, when i am having a healthcare discussion with someone about a possible intervention, i would cite a specific study, paragraph, etc., with a link to the actual point i am making. i do not know if such a method is available in this discussion? 

i'm currently rewatching the last half hour of the video with with @tobetrained 's input about deflected question re religion.  Hopefully i'll catch what he is pointing out. i'm watching the last half hour, even though he notes it in the last 15 minutes 🙂

 

[tobetrained]

54 minutes ago, tallslenderguy said:

I'm currently rewatching the last half hour of the video with with @tobetrained 's input about deflected question re religion.  Hopefully i'll catch what he is pointing out. i'm watching the last half hour, even though he notes it in the last 15 minutes

The last 15 mins was the philosophical issue....absence of null.

I noted one omission at the 20' mark. Another in the last 30 mins, in the context of the 1924 legislation. When I watched I mentally noted others as well...Stewart's questions of role of religion being explicitly avoided. That includes one instance which he even makes a comment on their silence.

[tallslenderguy]

21 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

The last 15 mins was the philosophical issue....absence of null.

I noted one omission at the 20' mark. Another in the last 30 mins, in the context of the 1924 legislation. When I watched I mentally noted others as well...Stewart's questions of role of religion being explicitly avoided. That includes one instance which he even makes a comment on their silence.

Okay, this is gonna be longish.  i went back a half hour, presumptuously, because of your comment that your "ranting" started the last fifteen minutes... so i may have taken you too literally (though in my defense, i did go back 30 minutes lol).

 Right before writing my response though, you rescued me from my folly and i went back to the 20' mark and listed to Jons question, and the subsequent response, so i'll start there.  At ~20' mark Jon asks:

"Did they conceive of immigration. Did they see themselves as homogenous. Did they view the fissures between, let's say, Baptist and Lutheran and Calvinist and Quaker. Did they view those fissures as anything other than just disagreement civically, or did they see some of those things as more uniquely American. Did they think Protestant was American. Catholic was, well, maybe  we can teach them?" 

Guelzo responds, as you mentioned, with a reference to black in the military, citing Washington... but i think he also replies to the religion question, though not specifically using any of the four Christian sects, he uses Jewish religion... but the quote from Washington, and the point being made doesn't strike me as a deflection, maybe even more inclusive since he (Washington) included Jewish religion?  i agree that (and even wish) that there was more discussion on religion, but i think his response was less specific in maybe an attempt to include race vs exclude religion?  He answers:

"The leader of the Jewish congregation in Newport Rhode Island, write to him. They're very anxious. What's going to be our future. Are we going to be part of this American experiment? And his response, which i strongly suspect was written by Alexander Hamilton,  "this government gives to bigotry no sanction, gives to persecution, no assistance, and asks only that the members of it behave as good citizens."  It's the only standard that Washington lays out."

At the ~54' mark, Jon asks: ...what is the bias [lists nations of origin then asks]: "Who are the heritage Americans?... "is it their religion? Is it where they are from? Their complexion?" 

At ~1:03 Guelzo, i think, responds more to the whole question instead of parsing out just religion. To me, he seems to respond to Jons list as a group vs individually. While i think religion has played a far bigger role in this country than this discussion goes into, i do not get the feel the respondents were avoiding or deflecting? Guelzo responds:

"...Some say-if you're going to have a nation, it must be built out of these very solid materials, like race, or religion, or language, or culture."  So, Guelzo includes religion on a an inclusive list that he juxtaposes against building a nation on an "idea."  He goes on for a bit on the divisiveness of those "materials,"  and ends up with an all encompassing , (and hopefully less divisive?) label ("title") of "citizen" for those who would be part of the "American experiment."  I wonder if he is looking to find a way to supersede (transcend?) the former list of what "some say... a  nation must be built of"?  He concludes: "Everything else [including religion?]  is temporary. Everything else is improvisatory."  A  conclusion that would no doubt have the writers of the pledge of allegiance up in arms, not to mention those who wrote the Declaration "...all men are created equal, endowed by their creator....."  Hmm, maybe some gay influence, writing of how men are "endowed?"  Guelzo goes on to grouse that he's been labeled "...everything from a Trotskyist to a Christian Nationalist."  Which may speak more to the perception of the hearers than the state of being of Guelzo?  

At the 1:13:30' mark, Guelzo seems to depart from quoting elitists, as does Freeman. They both end by quoting a 'common?' citizen:  Guelzo quotes a Swedish immigrant writing to his family in Sweden: "....my cap is not worn out by having to take it off when a rich man rides by in his carriage."  Freeman quotes a "someone" (apparently another non elitist? "...when i'm on the street, i do not need to bow down to someone, i can actually stand up."  

If nothing else, this post is colorful?  my response to the video has been adjusted though, added too? i do think Jon's interview (and most discussions of this sort) would benefit from inclusion of someone from the proverbial 'other side.'   i wonder if he could have gotten a  history professor from Hillsdale College?

[tobetrained]

23 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

i do think Jon's interview (and most discussions of this sort) would benefit from inclusion of someone from the proverbial 'other side.'

I agree with the broader sentiment. But here, it would just be guests willing to tell the whole story and not a one-sided or selective version...they just didn't have to pick a side.

@tallslenderguy, you commented on the guest's Swedish fellow statement. The Swedish gentleman is an anecdote that's even on wikipedia. He could have rounded out the anecdote with the more-relevant statement: most Swedes who migrated did so to avoid the restrictions being placed on their religious practices -- in Sweden by the Lutheran Church of Sweden (state church). They left for the freedom of worship offered in the US along with the rest of the freedoms. This happened before and after Sweden in other countries, notably England during American colonial times, as state religious institutions (in Europe) tried to moderate practices during and after centuries of religious wars -- see: European Wars of Religion.

At least as far as Protestant states were concerned. In that, the anecdote isn't wrong but it's so incomplete as to be misleading.

Catholics were a different story...it was generally the more moderate adherents who crossed the pond but in relatively small numbers until the late 19th century. Catholic states did not try to populate the Americas (see: France, Spain, Portugal) with civilian settlements. The Americas were merely resource development / commerce. There are a whole host of reasons I won't go into to avoid a book. There's plenty "out there."

It's for similar reasons as to why China never bothered to cross the Pacific...even though ocean currents are more favorable linked to island-hoping along The Aleutians -- of which China had been aware (The Aleutians). China, in the early 15th century, had arguable the strongest navy in the world. But the Ming effectively disbanded it both do to cost and to cultural change it brought domestically. Their motives were driven by conservative Confucianism practices tied to ancestor worship -- short of it: they did not want to leave their homeland (i.e., the harm it would bring their ancestors in the afterlife) and they wanted their homeland to stay as-is.

Likewise, as China "looked" to the ancestors, Catholics look to the Vatican as a religious home. Most Christians gave up the idea of "controlling" Jerusalem centuries ago. Catholic civilian interest is moving away from that physical space was limited -- Protestants had no such physical connection to place. 

All of this is covered in Western Civ classes -- or, at least, good ones. The course I referenced above on Eastern Empires and others on China, re: The Great Courses, cover that as well as a multitude of books. I can't stress enough how great and eye-opening the course Barbarians of the Steppes is to understand the world from 200 BCE to ~1500 CE -- specifically: WHY people thought what they did -- from their vantage point and not our vantage point -- and how that culminated into the setup of more modern times. The now-retired academic did convert the course into a book, Empires of the Steppes, somewhat recently...I have not read but assume it covers the same stuff. But I'm unsure if the dryness of text is as impactful as a lecture.

[tobetrained]

Sorry to beat a dead horse. But this article came out which is both interesting for its purpose but relevant in the excerpt I'm copying below:

[think before following links] https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-of-europe-online-propaganda-social-media-memes/

The point of the article is a growing pan-Euro/Federalist Euro endeavor among the young of Europe. But a small point which indirectly discusses what I wrote above, re: Protestant migration to US and relative/proportional lack of same for Catholics. It's not the point of the article, but gets to the varied rationale people had for either migrating to what became the US as well as those that didn't.

"...Indeed, federalists are far from being a politically homogenous group. Several meme warriors told me that there is an ideological battle ongoing in the dank recesses of federalist Reddit subgroups and chatrooms between broadly centrist people who believe in boosting the power of existing Brussels institutions, and far-right people who hate Brussels but nonetheless want Europe to assert itself on the world stage. The big divider is identity politics and migration policy: far-right groups tend to envision Europe as a culturally and ethnically homogenous “empire” — read, white and Christian, preferably Catholic — that keeps foreigners out..."

But, again, regardless of the freedoms were seeking -- and WHY -- by migrating to the US so long ago, there's no directive we need to accommodate that now.

Regardless of this convo, the article is very interesting for the (different) topic it covers.

[SDCumPup]

On 12/10/2025 at 2:15 PM, hntnhole said:

As always, a timely and superb topic.  

Are  you willing to accept certain ... well .... "foundational" interpretations/responses?  

1.  Given that what leaps to mind first, is the "learned" answer, by which I mean the culturally common response.  For many, that would be Caucasian Americans, simply because by now there are more of them then any other discernable group.  However, we Caucasians are merely the original conquerors of the Original Americans, that being the conquered Native Americans.  Add to that recipe the peoples of African American descent (aka Black Americans, originally imported as "property"), as well as the host of folks from other parts of the world that came to North America in search of a better life.  

2.  Thus, it becomes crystalline that any/all peoples of any other place on the face of the earth, that arrived on these shores in search of a better life, willing to put shoulder to the (wagon)wheel, do what they needed to do in order to achieve their dreams of living free of overbearing rulers elsewhere in the world.  

3.  To this very day, the definition discussed in line-item #2 is completely and fully a part of our American life.  There are less fortunate arriving daily, seeking a better life, just as out Caucasian ancestors did at Plymouth Rock.  That process, the promise of America, has been a beacon to people of every kind and description that walk on two legs for centuries, and that process has made the US prosperous, advanced in human rights (save for the anti-human tragedy in the Southern States a century+ ago), and a last, best hope for the downtrodden everywhere.  

4.  It is the chance, the opportunity to live a better life, and thereby allow the same for their generations to follow, that most Americans cherish and offer to new immigrants to this very day.  Despite the depths of selfishness some Americans have descended into, that dream of doing the best one can to uplift and welcome the new immigrants remains solid, constant, and unwavering.  I still believe that the current undercurrent of selfishness, greed, anti-human behavior is an aberration, not a permanent infection on the American psyche.  But, I'm only one of hundreds of millions of Americans. 

And now, tallsplendidboy, I'll listen to the broadcasts you've offered.  ❤️

I would like to point out that the Louisiana Purchase which was a sizable chunk of land that is now several of the states that make up the central portion of the continental United States was purchased from France. The French, much like the Dutch, didn’t conquer when they came to the Western Hemisphere as explorers and traders. Unlike the Spanish, Portuguese, and British, they legitimately did come here strictly to explore, set up trade networks, and build colonies where the indigenous populations would permit them to. Unlike the Dutch they did not attempt to barter for land, the French simply looked for potential locations and made certain that the indigenous peoples were OK with them establishing a colony or trading location there or if it would disrupt a preexisting local agreement. I’m uncertain about what the situation in Alaska was with regarding the Russians before they sold that to the US government. Of course the worst case wasn’t actually conquering so much as an illegal overthrow of a legitimate government at the request of private business interests owned by US citizens and enabled by the use of US military personnel. That would be the annexation of the kingdom of Hawaii btw. The sugar barons, all of them US citizens, who were private citizens and private business owners requested that the US government provide them with US Sailors and Marines in order to depose Queen Lili’uokalani the last and rightful monarch of the kingdom of Hawaii, establishing the short lived Republic of Hawaii, which very quickly became the US territory of Hawaii. A few decades later, after enough White people had moved to the islands to outvote the Native Hawaiians, it became our 50th state. 
 

I should also mention that the entire concept of there being separate races of Homo sapiens with vast differences that can be scientifically detected and measured is complete nonsense. It’s totally founded in the debunked pseudoscience of eugenics and has absolutely zero scientific evidence supporting. There is only a single extant species of human today, Homo sapien, and there are no subspecies within that species. The distinctions that are detectable are quite literally only skin deep, and that’s it. They’re pretty much just limited to the amount of melanin that is present in the epidermis, the way in which the hair grows, and eye color. There are a couple of things like sickle cell anemia which is more common in people whose ancestors were from areas that had large amounts of malaria, but that’s related to the fact that malaria was present and nothing else. Since malaria was extremely widespread from Africa to the Middle East, and the entire Mediterranean basin, that’s going to include a huge number of people. A couple of other extremely location specific adaptations have arisen in particular populations, but again that’s more because of the specific location than anything else. This whole argument about immigration is nothing more than racism based on pseudoscience mixed with xenophobia and nationalism. No nationalism isn’t patriotism, and it isn’t better than patriotism either. It’s worse than patriotism, and it’s actually worse than hating your own country. 
 

Nationalism is worse than hating your own country because, when you hate your country at least you’re able to notice & acknowledge when it’s making a mistake. Nationalists are simply incapable of recognizing that their country is even capable of making mistakes in the first place, let alone recognizing that it’s making one in the moment. Thus when it’s doing exactly that there’s no one to keep it from going past the point of no return. Nationalists always doom themselves to failure and defeat, ALWAYS. They can’t see their own mistakes, so they can’t learn from them, they can’t improve themselves, and they can’t think outside of their own tiny little boxes, or I should say echo chambers. They wallow in groupthink and don’t understand that they’re stuck. That’s why they don’t understand that diversity actually is a strength. They view it as a weakness, but their ideology of having everyone assimilate into one homogeneous culture is the weakness. If everyone looks, talks, thinks, acts, and believes the same and a problem is encountered, what happens when they try everything they can think of and none of it works?

[SDCumPup]

On 12/14/2025 at 1:46 PM, tobetrained said:

I agree with the broader sentiment. But here, it would just be guests willing to tell the whole story and not a one-sided or selective version...they just didn't have to pick a side.

@tallslenderguy, you commented on the guest's Swedish fellow statement. The Swedish gentleman is an anecdote that's even on wikipedia. He could have rounded out the anecdote with the more-relevant statement: most Swedes who migrated did so to avoid the restrictions being placed on their religious practices -- in Sweden by the Lutheran Church of Sweden (state church). They left for the freedom of worship offered in the US along with the rest of the freedoms. This happened before and after Sweden in other countries, notably England during American colonial times, as state religious institutions (in Europe) tried to moderate practices during and after centuries of religious wars -- see: European Wars of Religion.

At least as far as Protestant states were concerned. In that, the anecdote isn't wrong but it's so incomplete as to be misleading.

Catholics were a different story...it was generally the more moderate adherents who crossed the pond but in relatively small numbers until the late 19th century. Catholic states did not try to populate the Americas (see: France, Spain, Portugal) with civilian settlements. The Americas were merely resource development / commerce. There are a whole host of reasons I won't go into to avoid a book. There's plenty "out there."

It's for similar reasons as to why China never bothered to cross the Pacific...even though ocean currents are more favorable linked to island-hoping along The Aleutians -- of which China had been aware (The Aleutians). China, in the early 15th century, had arguable the strongest navy in the world. But the Ming effectively disbanded it both do to cost and to cultural change it brought domestically. Their motives were driven by conservative Confucianism practices tied to ancestor worship -- short of it: they did not want to leave their homeland (i.e., the harm it would bring their ancestors in the afterlife) and they wanted their homeland to stay as-is.

Likewise, as China "looked" to the ancestors, Catholics look to the Vatican as a religious home. Most Christians gave up the idea of "controlling" Jerusalem centuries ago. Catholic civilian interest is moving away from that physical space was limited -- Protestants had no such physical connection to place. 

All of this is covered in Western Civ classes -- or, at least, good ones. The course I referenced above on Eastern Empires and others on China, re: The Great Courses, cover that as well as a multitude of books. I can't stress enough how great and eye-opening the course Barbarians of the Steppes is to understand the world from 200 BCE to ~1500 CE -- specifically: WHY people thought what they did -- from their vantage point and not our vantage point -- and how that culminated into the setup of more modern times. The now-retired academic did convert the course into a book, Empires of the Steppes, somewhat recently...I have not read but assume it covers the same stuff. But I'm unsure if the dryness of text is as impactful as a lecture.

Slight correction regarding the Catholic countries and their involvement in the Western Hemisphere, Spain, Portugal, and France all built numerous and extensive civilian colonial settlements throughout the territories they occupied. The Portuguese were limited entirely by treaty negotiated under the auspices of the pope and only had Brazil. The French, unlike the other European nations didn’t approach their venture by attempting to conquer, instead they attempted to cooperate and coordinate with the indigenous peoples which was a considerably slower process but far less costly. They were also dealings with some other issues back in Europe at the same time. The Spanish on the other hand went hog wild on the colonization of pretty much everywhere they could lay claim to. The entire state of California has a string of cities built around and named after mission churches built by the Spanish colonial powers. There’s an entire genre of architecture called Spanish Colonial Revival based on their buildings. Mexico City is a colonial city literally built on top of the previous Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. The cathedral in Mexico City is literally built right on top of the primary temple of Tenochtitlan. St Augustine, Fl is the oldest city in the United States and is a Spanish colonial city. There’s an entire string of theme parks called Six Flags which takes its name from the fact that several Southern states have had the flags of six different countries flying over them with Spain being one of them. They didn’t just come here mainly to exploit the resources. They didn’t treat the Americas like they treated subsaharan Africa. They came here deliberately for land to expand into. The Spanish conquistadors were promised land grants from the crown with titles of nobility to accompany them here.