Talk:History of the United States of America

Is there a better title for "The Rise of the New Right"? I'll leave it to your discretion Richard. Denis Cavanagh 13:09, 4 December 2007 (CST)

I'd also add that I'm not sure "Liberalisation" is a word. --Robert W King 13:11, 4 December 2007 (CST)

It sounds like a word! Denis Cavanagh 13:12, 4 December 2007 (CST)

"rise of new right" sounds OK to me. Keep the material coming--it's great. Richard Jensen 13:28, 4 December 2007 (CST)

periods

Richard, how detailed are you looking to build the article lists under each time period? --Todd Coles 17:41, 4 December 2007 (CST)

well this has to be a very general article. People should go to the specialty articles I think Richard Jensen 17:46, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Am I going in too much detail, or too little? Denis Cavanagh 08:50, 5 December 2007 (CST)

I think the level of detail is about right. good job. Richard Jensen 09:33, 5 December 2007 (CST)

Brits

I think using a British textbook adds perspective (good) and British spellings (bad). We should avoid Brogan-like essays here and keep the narrative and overall outline clear. Eventually we will have multiple spinoff articles, and then we can reduce some of the detail here. Richard Jensen 07:33, 28 December 2007 (CST)

A lot of the writing that I am doing is been helped along by a general work by Phillip Jenkins (Don't know if you heard of him or not) By and large, the spellings are my fault. Its the result of 19 years of education for me to spell 'color' as 'colour'. I understand this is unacceptable is a US history article and will change this as I go on. Also the latest entry on the 1990's seems to be done on a tangent. How else would I explain the whole Oklahoma bombing and such without explaining the rise of extreme militia's? Its something I'm finding hard to put down on paper but on the other hand its something I've always been fascinated by (I've always been fascinated by right wing and fundamentalist Christian extremism, probably a result of growing up on the border with Northern Ireland and Ian Paisley!) Is there any particular part of the latest entry that you think should be cut, or should it all be rewritten? Denis Cavanagh 10:30, 28 December 2007 (CST)

I will look at the 1990s--always a difficult period for the historian. I spent a day at the Oklahoma City Memorial this summer--fascinating insights. The bombing was entirely a one-person (or maybe two-person) affair, and the militias were not involved. Rather unlike the recent subway/ airport bombings in UK. Richard Jensen 12:20, 28 December 2007 (CST)

I looked and think far too much attention is paid to right wing militias (which did not engage in any of the actions mentioned), and too much attention to the attack on the Waco group and Oklahoma City. I know Jenkins is into this right-wing-conspiracy stuff but he does not represent the mainstream account. It should all be removed from this general survey (it can go into special articles on Waco etc). Richard Jensen 12:31, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Thats fair enough. I can clean it up, or if you'd prefer, you could have a look and add a much needed American voice. Also, in relation to the Oklahoma bombing, I do realise the attack was not the work of the militia movement but was certainly an interesting phenonoman in its own right - the rise of these groups, their heated language and a form of idealism alien to most Americans and Europeans is indeed relevant and important to a study of Oklahoma. You might be able to say with complete accuracy that Ian Paisley did not organise a bombing campaign against Republicans and Catholics, but the level of his rhetoric at the height of the troubles no doubt represented a larger societal fervour and in many cases, institutional discrimination which led to bother for both sides. This is the point I was trying to get across, albeit, not too well evidently! P.S- Merry Christmas Richard. Denis Cavanagh 12:37, 28 December 2007 (CST)

I think Denis should do the editing of his work first. Paisley is a good comparison--the Ulster Prots actually vote for him and he wins elections. No exremist group in the US has ever (ever?--well the Communists did win an election in Brooklyn once) won an election. A handful of extremist individuals have done so, on their own (the most recent was David Duke who won a seat in the Louisiana legislature in 1989). The group that was violent for a short while involved violent attacks on abortion clinics (that have now ended). We have had assassinations but always an individual did it, never a group (with one exception in Kentucky in 1900)--unlike say Pakistan yesterday.Richard Jensen 12:43, 28 December 2007 (CST)