Were Dutch, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French the first countries to come to America?
375300
Asian peoples who later formed the native american tribes were the first.  hundreds of years later the vikings (anglo saxons) also arrived to explore the Americas.  Hundreds of years after that in 1492, A spanish Explorer Christopher Columbus, was paid by the Queen of Portugal to find a new route to India.  He choose to sail west rather than east and landed in what is now South America.  He then went on to India.  After Columbus returned to Portugal, he reported what he found to the Queen.  After the news of his adventures spread Spain and Portugal both began sending expiditions to the Americas and formed a few colonies in South and Central America.  \n\nIn the late 16th Century, France and Britain were exploring North America and Britain formed the James town settlement.  The first British Colony in the Americas.  France was also sending convicts to work the land in eastern Canada.  \n\nDuring the 17th century, many British and a few Dutch groups came to the New World for religious freedom.  By the early 18th century young British men were braving the new world in hopes of making their fortunes and some adventurous intellectuals also made the journey.  \n\nIt was not until the 19th century that significant numbers of non-Brits (Eastern Europeans, Italians, Germans, etc.) came to the United States.
335937
The 13 colonies were all founded by European countries. Basically, the more land you had, the richer you were. So land in the Americas was important. \n\nThe Europeans came for :\n\nGold/Wealth\nGod (to spread their religion)\nGlory of the country.\n\nThey were aslo hoping to establish trade.\n\nJamestown, the 1st colony was established in, 1609.\nThe pilgrims came in the mayflower in 1620
330112
The Phoenicians came up with the first alphabet, but it was really the Greeks who placed in the alphabet in more or less the order it is used in English.\nThe Romans really finalized the alphabet, and most of English is derived from Latin, French, German and Greek.
339787
Technically there is no such thing as a Native American.  The Native American Immigrated here too just long before the Europeans Discovered the Americas....  \n\nScience has actually traced the roots of Native Americans back to Asia.  They crossed the Land Bridge at the Berring Straight  about 3 to 4 thousand years ago.
1056877
There were actually FOUR main regional migrations during the colonial period, each mainly from a distinct part of the British Isles, and each bringing the accent (and other 'folkways') of their home area.\n\nEach of these made their own contribution to what has become known as "General American English".\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_American\n\nAn excellent study of these four groups and their distinctive folkways is David Hacket FIscher's book *Albion's Seed*.\n\nFor an overview of the distinctives of each of these four regional DIALECTS, and the contribution each dialect made to "General American English" see:\nhttp://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/AmericanDialects.htm\n\nFor a broader overview of how the various dialects of BOTH British English and American English developed, see:\nhttp://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/USdialectsoverhead.htm
272155
When I teach this subject my answer is always three fold.  FIRST-ancient peoples crossed over the land bridge between Asia and North America.  \n\nSECOND-Leif Erikson was the first known European to discover America\n\nTHRID- Columbus "rediscovered" America at a time when the knowledge caught hold and became widely known. \n\nMy personal belief is that many people discovered it independantly of others and thus were the true "first discoverer" at least in their own minds eye (and tribes or ships).
79167
Columbus didn't "discover" America. However, he first arrived in the Carribean islands (Cuba is not where he 1st landed though) in 1492. He didn't set foot onto what would become mainland American until around 1500.
957509
Social Studies\n\nAmerica began as colonies of England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands. The story of America as a nation must begin with the colonization of the East Coast.\n\nhttp://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/subjects/colonialtimes.htm\n\nJamestown and how America started.\n\nhttp://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/01_02/AH/jt/jt.htm\n\nhttp://cvesd.k12.ca.us/finney/journey/___thebeginning.html\n\nhttp://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/01_02/AH/ca_intro.htm\n\nhttp://www.apva.org/history/\n\nhttp://www.academicinfo.net/usearlycolonial.html\n\n Although there were other Europeans who had visited and even tried to establish colonies on the eastern coast of the New World, the British were the first to establish a permanent colony. They named their fort Jamestown.\n\nhttp://www.dasd-ew.org/kirk/jamestown.htm\n\nThe American Colonies\n\nThe history of the original 13 colonies is a tangled tale indeed. There are many ways to view the events and, in hind sight, it is easy to think you understand. But no one knew where they were headed at the time and it could have ended up very different.\n\nhttp://www.dasd-ew.org/history.htm#colonial\n\nhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook12.html\n\nhttp://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/index.html\n\nhttp://www.timepage.org/spl/13colony.html\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.
1157081
portuguese,spanish,and english
131709
Dutch colonists (people who emigrated from The Netherlands), who bought it from the lokal native americans.  It is said that is was bought for a handfull of beads.  It first was called the city, afterwards New Amsterdam, and new york when the english moved in.
895383
The term "native American" is sometimes used to refer to the people who were living in the land now called North America when Europeans arrived there in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
595366
Neither.  There are a number of different American dialects and a number of different British dialects.  Moreover, in some ways, (standard) American English is more "conservative" (has changed less from older forms of the language) than (standard--RP) British English.  Also, it wasn't the *British* who spread the language throughout the world; it was the *English*.  The Welsh and Scots (and Irish if you mean "British Isles" rather than "Great Britain") only started speaking English (rather than their original Celtic languages) under rule by England.
590967
Actually, at the time of the founding of the USA, I do not know that there were any Romanians, Italians or Polish among the colonists, and there were very few Spanish.\n\nBut the real point is that the 13 colonies were all BRITISH colonies, under British government (so that government affairs, the courts, etc., would have conducted business in ENGLISH) and in EACH of them the dominant group was British. In New England the colonists were overwhelmingly English or Welsh.  Yes, there were significant pockets of Germans, some Dutch, French, etc.   but NONE of these groups offered serious competition to English.\n\nHere's a chart of the overall breakdown:\nEnglish    48.7 % \nAfrican    20.0 %\nScot-Irish  7.8 %\nGerman      6.9 % \nScottish  6.6 % \nDutch  2.7 % \nFrench 1.4 % \nSwedish0.6 % \nOther  5.3 % \n\nAdd the British groups together and you get 63.1%.  Further, if you discount the Africans from the total (who would certainly have been in no position to impose their languages) you are left with 16.9% non-British.  In other words, about 75% of the white population was British, and most of that from England.   Even if were not all under British rule, there would have been NO contest!\n\n(Of special note.  German was the largest non-English speaking European group, but even they were a fraction of the size of the English population.  As for that urban legend about our "almost choosing German" for our national language... it never came close to happening.)
739344
everyone in the americas is the descendant of immigrants, unless you are a first-generation immigrant. the so-called "native americans" and "first citizens" as well as the "pre-columbian indians" migrated across a land-bridge between alaska and siberia (across what is now the Bering Strait) between 10,000 and 20,000 years ago.
1041912
Correct ... there were already lots of people in North America when Columbus got here, including the Inuit who probably crossed the Bering Sea from Asia on the ice bridge thousands of years before Columbus.
7096
In 1507, cartographer Martin Waldseemueller named the New World "America" after the Italian Amerigo Vespucci.  Amerigo navigated a couple of trips to the New World beginning 1499, but never actually founded a voyage himself.  It remains a large mystery why Waldseemueller chose Amerigo's first name as the choice for the name of the New World.  It may be that he wrote about the New World and was more widely-known for his writings, which led to the naming.  It may be that Amerigo could be easily translated into Latin, and began with "A" like many other foreign continents.  Regardless, he lives in fame to this day.
370967
America started from a pretty bland group of Protestents who came here to get away from discrimanation in England or were shipped here as slaves (endentured servents and people from debter's prisons). Hessions who stayed after serving as mercs in the revolutionary war only reinforced this make up. Then came the aquisition of French and Spanish lands as well as large imigrations of Jewish and Catholic settlers. Before these people groups like the Dutch were minorities and suffered the same treatment that the Irish, Italians, freed slaves, and so on suffered when they first broke into American society. \n\nSo the "old blood" money formed a WASP type social structure to keep out unwanted Catholics, Jews and other ethnic groups. This formed the base group which ironically forms the core today of the "liberal" leadership. \n\nThe so called conservitive movement started as a sort of Farmer's rebellion against the corruption and lack of rural representation found in the Gov around the time of the cival war. It was born of the same problems which caused the South a mostly rural area to suceed from the union. Sorry slavery was a minor issue in the cival war. Abe Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. The Whig party disapeered almost overnight. Many of them becoming either democrats or republicans. \n\nNew money had arisen during the intervening years. The railroad barons, Catholics and Jews who had struck it rich, often initially with ilegal enterprises, imigrants from other nations who came here with money. They lived a work ethic and it became the "American dream" while the Democrats remains a party of the old blood and Whites in the South who hated the Republican party for winning the cival war and dozens of other issues. \n\nThis is pretty much where things sat for most of 50 years. The Democrats eventually lured over labor to it's party. Certain ethnic groups like the Irish and Jews who worked the docks and other interests found themselves lined up with teh Democrats who's old money leadership was trying to strike down the new money. By accident alot of good things happened in the process of the two sides fighting this war. Better wages and workplace safety being a couple of those things. \n\nToday it's still a battle between old blood and new blood money. Added to it are quite a few special interests. Big corps and small biz tends to be "conservitive". The WASP churches found affinity with Republicans while the Catholic church found affinity with the Democrats. However down the road the Democrats catered to many other groups almost forcing the Catholic church into Republican boundries with an anti-Christian flavor that took hold in the 60s. \n\nSo theologically the so called "liberals" denounce religion officially but strongly favor anti-Christian religions or the lack of religion. Part of this was the failure of the US comunist party and the movement of Comunists into the Democratic party. Comunists as a fundemental plank are athiests. Comunism officially sees religion as a form of oppression. An Opiate of the masses to quote Marx. The adoption of the Democratic party and large scale conversion to Islam by many Blacks furthor added to this. \n\nRepublicans got a swelling of Christian support as a result and suddenly they became charged with protecting Christianity, especially Protestent Christianity. Republicans welcomed the Christian factions then and still do today though they are smarting from the actions of some televangilists and some of the extreme views found in the more fanatical Christian churches. \n\nAs for values. That is not a thought in the head of either party. They will run up slogans but these are purely to satisfy various factions within their party. Both liberal and conservitive have lost all sight of the meaning of the constitution. Both pretend to fight for upholding various sections of the US Constitution. For example in issu