first people to inhabit north america
127734
From the Wikipedia:\n\n"The Folsom Tradition is a name given by archaeologists to a sequence of Paleo-Indian archaeological cultures of central North America. Named by Jesse Figgins in 1927.\n\nThese cultures occupied the Great Plains and Great Lakes of the modern United States of America and Canada as well as adjacent areas to the west and south west. They are characterised by their use of Folsom points as projectile tips and their activities are generally known from kill sites where slaughter and butchering of bison took place and Folsom tools were left behind."
222349
The Ancient Times:\n-The first settlers were migrating Polynesians, who navigated the Pacific in voyaging canoes, believed to have first arrived from the Marquesas Islands with subsequent migrations from Tahiti, and perhaps other Pacific islands.  \n-nearly all of the habitable islands in the Pacific Ocean were settled hundreds of years before European sailors dared venture beyond the site of land \n-By the time of Cook's arrival in 1778, the population of Hawai`i had grown to something between 400,000 and 800,000 people, perhaps more.  It was a stone age society since there are no metals found in the islands, however this term might give a false impression that the society was primitive.  Hardly!  Some have estimated that the population of the islands, based on the methods of food production and the living conditions, could have exceeded one million and even approach current day population of 1.2 million\n\nThe Monarchy Years:\n- begins with the unification of the islands by Kamehameha the Great in 1810, shortly after the arrival of Captain Cook, until the overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1893. During this relatively short period of time, the people of Hawai'i would transition from a feudal society into an independent constitutional monarchy, recognized by other nations around the world.  \n-Two years after the Declaration of Independence, and while the American colonies were still fighting to be independent, Captain James Cook arrived in Hawaii. At the time, Hawaii was in the process of moving from regional monarchs, usually one per island, to a consolidated monarchy that spanned all the islands.\n-Kamehameha I (the Great) of the Island of Hawaii first consolidated his power there. He then conquered Maui and Oahu.Kamehameha then attempted to invade Kauai, but his fleet was turned back by a storm. Following several years, the ruler of Kauai decided to pledge his allegiance to Kamehameha, and the unification of the Hawaiian islands was complete.\n-Hawaii in 1778 in many ways resembled feudal Europe. The major difference, other than religion, was the absence of writing and metal. Hawaii was isolated and had no continuous contact with other civilizations. \n-What took hundreds of years to evolve in Europe, happened virtually overnight in Hawaii. American missionaries arriving in 1820 brought with them not only their religion, but their political and social views. \n-The missionaries taught reading and writing, and the Hawaiians overwhelmingly responded - many say they achieved a higher rate of literacy than that in the United States at the time. By 1840, a mere 62 years after the first European contact, Kamehameha III promulgated the first Hawaiian Constitution. Just as the Magna Charta subjected King John of England to the rule of law, the 1840 Constitution subjected Kamehameha and his heirs to the law. The 1840 Constitution established a House of Nobles and an elected House of Representatives whose assent to new laws and changes to the Constitution was required. In less than a generation Hawaii went from a hereditary despotic government based on divine right to a Constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature.\n-Subsequent Constitutions were adopted in 1852, 1864 and 1887 (the bayonet Constitution). Hawaiian Constitutional history can be viewed as decreasing the powers of the Crown, and increasing those of the people through their elected representatives.\n-The precipitating event for the overthrow of the Monarchy and Queen Lili'uokalani was her proposed new Constitution. Among other things, Queen Lili'uokalani's Constitution would have restored to her the power to appoint the House of Nobles, and to veto Constitutional amendments. \n\nTerritorial Years: 1898 - 1959\n  \n-The Territory of Hawaii was created on July 7, 1898, when Congress passed the Newlands Resolution annexing Hawai'i to the United States. The formal ceremony took place in Honolulu on August 12, 1898. The Newlands Resolution
367154
NO!!\nOMG!! S.O.S.!!(same old $h*t) The dinosaurs were here then the prehistoric man walked across the Bering Straits during the last Ice Age (15,000 to 30,000 years ago)and became the oldest KNOWN inhabitants of the North American continent. The Europeans came, saw and conquered the Native Americans (cruelly and unjustly). There were no laws on immigration at that time.  The Europeans formed a government, voted, elected leaders, passed laws, built this country from a wilderness. Those people passed a law later on immigration. That law says you must enter by legal means. Documents must be filed, legally processed, they must pass citizenship tests and be sworn in under oath before a person can be a citizen. It is an expensive, time consuming process. It is that way for a reason. People must be screened, their criminal records checked, medically checked for disease.\n\nI am a Native American. See that word "AMERICAN". That means I am a citizen of the USA. I am a natural born citizen. Those people who's ancestors came here are natural born citizens, too. They are NOT immigrants. You might be, but they aren't. Immigrants are people who were not born citizens. They are from another country. If they become citizens and have children here, their children are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, not immigrants, either. Immigrants have been welcome in the USA. But our country can not take 800,000 immigrants every year and have the resources to sustain that many people. We must reduce immigration of all kinds back to 200,000 people per year or this country will be another third world nation by 2050. I don't think even the illegals would like that.
407691
First do a search for the names of Native American Tribes.  That will give you a good start for all the information you will need.
110151
Pre-Colombian era\n\nSouth America is thought to have been first inhabited by people crossing the Bering Land Bridge, now the Bering strait, though there are also suggestions of migration across the southern Pacific Ocean. Over the course of millennia, people spread to all parts of the continent. By the first millennium CE, South America’s vast rainforests, mountains, plains and coasts were the home of tens of millions of people. Some groups formed permanent settlements. Among those groups were the Chibchas (or "Muiscas" or "Muyscas") and the Tairona. The Chibchas of Colombia, the Quechuas of Peru and the Aymaras of Bolivia were the 3 most important sedentary Indian groups in South America.\n[edit]\nChibchas\nThe Chibcha linguistic communities were the most numerous, the most territorially extended and the most socio-economically developed of the Pre-Hispanic Colombians. By the 3rd century, the Chibchas had established their civilization in the northern Andes. At one point, the Chibchas occupied part of what is now Panama, and the high plains of the Eastern Sierra of Colombia. The areas that they occupied were the Departments of Santander (North and South), Boyacá and Cundinamarca, which were also the areas where the first farms and first industries were developed, and where the independence movement originated. They are currently the richest areas in Colombia. They represented the most populous zone between the Mexican and Inca empires. Next to the Quechua of Peru and the Aymara in Bolivia, the Chibchas of the eastern and north-eastern Highlands of Colombia were the most striking of the sedentary indigenous peoples in South America. In the Oriental Andes, the Chibchas were composed of several tribes, who spoke the same language (Chibchan). Among them: Muiscas, Guanes, Laches and Chitareros.
31977
Have you ever heard about Roanoke? It was one of the very first european colonies in America. People were dropped off on an island to start a settlement, and then they had completely disappeared when another group arrived 3 years later. It's one of the USA's biggest mysteries!
632196
. The first island was San Salvador... But the Indians call it Guanahaní..." (Taino for "iguana").  and i believe he only came two times
3870
Are you asking about indigenuous/Native Americans or those who came from other countries? \nBoth groups(at different times) initially started with gathering, hunting, fishing and later on, farming.
551463
Well, I believe it was the Santa Maria that landed first, although really the first colonies date back to the 1600's.\n\nAmerica was founded, by the best minds of Europe of the time, who hated the oligarchy, and wanted to found a new nation, on different principles, to defeat the idea of "empire".  { "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created Equal, and are endowed by their Creator, with certain Inalienable Rights...."}\n\nThe United States of America, shares a common tradition and culture with all of South America, in that we do not tolerate oligarchies in this hemisphere.\n\nIt is unfortunate, that in today's modern day, that there are those in America, who forget their heritage, and who also refuse to take responsibility for creating the economic conditions of misery, in many parts of the world ("Free Trade", "globalization", NAFTA, etc, which helped to create the maquiladoras, etc. which has led to a jump in immigration from nations in South America!), which is why so many risk death, to seek a better life.
398799
Lol at babo02350, The vikings where reaching the shores of northern America in the 12:th century. That was waaay back. \n\nAbout the emigration around between 1840's and 1880's, many left the country because of famine, poverty, differences between classes (the rich were very rich, the poor were very poor) and a lot of promises that all this would change in "the new country". \n\nUnfortunately it wasn't exactly true of course, that they would turn fortunate just by migrating. but I guess that's the reason people are willing to give up old lives even in these days, a strong belief in a better life can make people do most anything. \n\nA recommendation of a good novel about this time and the situation in the old country is The emigrants by Vilhelm Moberg. Very good book. \n\nhttp://www.amazon.com/Emigrants-Vilhelm-Moberg/dp/0873513193/sr=81/qid=1162417961/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5385838-4746533?ie=UTF8&s=books\n\nOn this page there are some links that could help you with the question on contribution:\nhttp://www.migrationinstitute.fi/nordic/Links/Scandinavian%20Organizations.htm
399000
Most of my ancestors came here from Switzerland.They came here because they were being persecuted in their country because of their religion.One of my ancestors actually had his tongue cut out because he was preaching a religion not allowed.They were Mennonites.
187
Part One\n(revised 2.28.96)\n\n\n[Note: This is a single part of what will be, by my classification, about 240 compact tribal histories (contact to 1900). It is limited to the lower 48 states of the U.S. but also includes those First Nations from Canada and Mexico that had important roles (Huron, Micmac, Assiniboine, etc.).\n\nAlthough this Cherokee history is larger than most, it's content and style are representative. The normal process at this point is to circulate an almost finished product among a peer group for comment and criticism.\n\nUsing the Internet, this can be more inclusive. Feel free to comment or suggest corrections via e-mail. Working together we can end some of the historical misinformation about Native Americans. You will find the ego at this end is standard size. Thanks for stopping by. I look forward to your comments...Lee Sultzman]\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nLocation\nOriginal: \n\nThe southern Appalachian Mountains: including western North and South Carolina, northern Georgia and Alabama, southwest Virginia, and the Cumberland Basin of Tennessee, Kentucky, and northern Alabama.\nCurrent: \nDistributed across the United States, but concentrated in eastern Oklahoma. The eastern Cherokee still maintain their reservation in western North Carolina. The Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory has almost 12,000 members and has been recognized by the State of Missouri. Other groups of Cherokee, like the 2,500 members of the North Alabama Cherokee, are located in Arkansas, Georgia, and Alabama but currently do not have federal recognition.\n\nPopulation\nEuropean epidemics introduced into the southeastern United States in 1540 by the Desoto expedition are estimated to have killed at least 75% of the original native population. How much the Cherokee suffered from this disaster in unknown, but their population in 1674 was about 50,000. A series of smallpox epidemics (1729, 1738, and 1753) cut this in half, and it remained fairly stable at about 25,000 until their removal to Oklahoma during the 1830s. The American Civil War was the next disaster and cost the Cherokee 25% of their population. No other group of Americans, red or white, suffered as severely during this conflict. The 1990 census listed 308,132 persons (15,000 full-blood) who identified themselves as Cherokee. Of these, 95,435 were concentrated in eastern Oklahoma while 10,114 eastern Cherokee lived on or near the North Carolina reservation. Cherokee tribal governments have fairly liberal membership standards, and some estimates exceed 370,000, which would make the Cherokee the largest Native American group in the United States.\n\n\nName\nThe most familiar name, Cherokee, comes from a Creek word "Chelokee" meaning "people of a different speech." In their own language the Cherokee originally called themselves the Aniyunwiya (or Anniyaya) "principal people" or the Keetoowah (or Anikituaghi, Anikituhwagi) "people of Kituhwa." Although they usually accept being called Cherokee, many prefer Tsalagi from their own name for the Cherokee Nation (Tsalagihi Ayili). Other names applied to the Cherokee have been: Allegheny (or Allegewi, Talligewi) (Delaware), Baniatho (Arapaho), Caáxi (or Cayaki) (Osage and Kansa), Chalaque (Spanish), Chilukki (dog people) (Choctaw and Chickasaw), Entarironnen (mountain people) (Huron), Gatohuá (Creek), Kittuwa (or Katowá) (Algonquin), Matera (or Manteran) (coming out of the ground) ( Catawba), Nation du Chien (French), Ochietarironnon (Wyandot), Oyatageronon (or Oyaudah, Uwatayoronon) (cave people) (Iroquois), Shanaki (Caddo), Shannakiak (Fox), Tcaike (Tonkawa), and Tcerokieco (Wichita).\n\n\nLanguage\nIroquian, but Cherokee differs significantly from other Iroquian languages.\n\n\nSub-tribes\n\nThe Cherokee have been divided into three divisions depending on location and dialect (east to west): \nLower
372048
French colonization of North America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_the_Americas and Dutch colonization of North America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas#North_America\n\nGood Luck!!!
640573
I would say "C" is the closest answer to the question. I believe that people adapt their way of living to the topography, climate, tradition, social pressures and any number of other factors. Do a little research on the Anasazi of the southwestern U.S. and see what factors may have lead to their demise.
154564
Christopher Columbus (October 30, 1451? – 20 May 1506) was an explorer and trader, who crossed the Atlantic Ocean and reached the Americas on October 12, 1492 under the flag of Castile. History places great significance on his landing in America in 1492, with the entire period of the history of the Americas before this date usually known as Pre-Columbian, and the anniversary of this event, Columbus Day, being celebrated in many parts of America. Although there is evidence of Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic Ocean European contact, Columbus is commonly credited as the first European to see the Americas because of the profound impact his contact wrought on history. His voyage marked the beginning of European exploration and colonization of the Americas.\n\nIt is generally assumed he was Genoese. However there is no solid evidence of this and historians claim he could have been born in other places, from the Crown of Aragón to the Kingdoms of Galicia or Portugal, or in the Greek island of Chios, among others. His birthname is also unknown; see the section on Columbus' national origin for a discussion of his origin and names.
427967
There was a great seven-part series on PBS in 1992 for the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovering "America", or more specifically the Western Hemisphere ala Santo Domingo.  Like many discoveries it was a happy accident in the pursuit of a shorter route to Asia, the spice route, and to India, hence the term the West Indies.  \n\nOne of the more fascinating aspects is the perception of European Exploration through the years.  At the 400th anniversary in the 1890's the west's attitude was one of the white race conquering primitive lands and civilizing the uncivilized.  Here in Chicago, the Columbian Exposition in 1893 showcased the progress of America with the most perfect "White City" as a commemoration of this event.  \n\nA mere 100 years later with political correctness more prevalent(Dances with Wolves as an example) we see more of how unique cultures have been lost to European greed and conquest.  Where was the celebration?  The event became more of a chance for the world to become introspective in examining the pros and cons of this discovery, and seemed to acknowledge plenty of each.\n\nWikipedia has additional observations -- see the link below.
166775
Possibly the Clovis as you read on......\nStone-age people lived in the lands north of the Arctic Circle before the peak of the last Ice Age - much earlier than had been thought, suggests new findings.\n\nThe discovery of the site in eastern Siberia also hints that people might have moved from the Old World into the Americas at a much earlier date than believed.\n\nThe site along the Yanu River, carbon-dated as 30,000 years old, is twice the age of the oldest previously known Arctic settlement, report Vladimir Pitulko of the Institute for the History of Material Culture in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and colleagues.\n\nThe area is about 2000 kilometres from the Bering Strait. This is important as archaeologists have long suspected that some of the earliest Americans may have crossed the Bering land bridge from northeastern Asia. However, scientists had little evidence of Arctic settlements in Asia older than 14,000 years - the age of the earliest Alaskan sites. The age of the Yanu River site shows that people learned to live in the Arctic much earlier, and might have reached Alaska earlier than has been recognised.\n\n"Pitulko's find is exciting because it shows that people were living in an ecosystem that stretched continuously between Asia and North America. If they had wandered a little further eastward...bingo - they could have been the first Americans," Daniel Mann of the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks told New Scientist.\n\nReindeer bones\nRussian geologist Mikhail Dashtzeren found a rhino-horn foreshaft of a spear along the river in 1993. A foreshaft is the detachable piece between the main part of a spear and its point. Dashtzeren guided archaeologists to the site in 2001. Pitulko's team found 383 stone artefacts in the area, as well as many bones from ice-age Siberian animals including mammoths, reindeer, woolly rhino and bison.\n\nThe ancient site would have been an open meadow in the river's flood plain when occupied. It is unclear if people lived in the area all year, or only came north in summer to hunt. The abundance of reindeer bones indicates they were the most common food.\n\nThe flaked stone tools resemble those from more southerly sites at the time. However, the rhino-horn foreshaft, and two similar ones of mammoth ivory, resemble tools used by the Clovis people who spread over North America about 12,000 years ago and are believed to be among the continent's first human settlers.\n\nBut archaeologists are wary about linking the two. "It's a fabulous site," David Meltzer of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, told New Scientist. The dates look solid, and "it's tells us that people were in the far north a whole lot earlier than we ever thought."\n\nBut he cautions the new settlement and those of the Clovis are separated by 16,000 years and thousands of kilometres.\n\nJournal reference: Science (vol 303, p 52)