Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Las Vegas has very interesting history especially pertaining to the mob.
I would say places like Charlotte, Atlanta, San Diego, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, etc. have the least interesting history.
Atlanta has history going back to prior to the Civil War, reconstruction, the development of the "New South", a lot of pivotal people and events in the Civil Rights movement, etc...
San Diego has a history of exploration by the Spanish and colonial missions(the first real settlement in what would become California), Mexican settlement, then grew up as a naval boomtown.
Portland and Seattle were frontier settlements and grew up in the shadow of several gold rushes--both had reputations as real rough port towns(lots of "shanghaiing" to fill ships going out to sea) and Portland had a big local organized crime and vice element before it was cleaned up in the mid-20th Century.
I've never really researched much of Phoenix and Charlotte so I can't comment on them.
But interesting is just subjective to begin with, so I don't know what people find interesting.
I think part of thread like this is that a lot of Americans know fairly little about their own regional history, let alone other cities history outside of the famous events that are taught in junior high US history classes. I don't know why people are so ready to start threads about what cities have the least interesting history when they can't be bothered to provide examples of "interesting history".
Las Vegas has very interesting history especially pertaining to the mob.
I would say places like Charlotte, Atlanta, San Diego, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, etc. have the least interesting history.
I'm not sure how anyone can say Atlanta is not interesting with all of it's Civil War, New South, and Civil Rights history.
San Diego is kind of where European based history in CA began with the Missions. It's definitely likely more of a regional interest as far as history I guess, at least compared to Atlanta.
Las Vegas has very interesting history especially pertaining to the mob.
I would say places like Charlotte, Atlanta, San Diego, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, etc. have the least interesting history.
Of all places, Atlanta?! Hell, the city got burned to the ground. San Diego has Native American, Spanish, and Mexican history; can't forget about the missions. Phoenix has Native American and Mexican history. Seattle has the Klondike Gold Rush. Portland has history of British trapping and Native Americans.
All major cities have interesting history if you take the time to learn about it. I think people are twisting the thread topic to mean "What U.S. city that I don't care about has little or no interesting history"?
Considering how the OP is framed, it's probably asking what cities don't have much or any Colonial American history since according to some of this forum that's the only type of history that is interesting or matters.
Phoenix may have a rich Native American history, but it's not immediately evident when walking —*I mean, driving — the streets. Philadelphia, Boston, New York — you don't have to look to feel the traditions of those who have preceded you. Philly still has cobblestone streets and plaques on older homes telling you who lived there and what year they were built.
In Phoenix, acres upon acres of stucco strip malls cover the ground, and even in downtown, from what I understand, many historic buildings have been torn down. Phoenicians don't value history the way people in other cities do. People move here precisely because everything is new and easily navigable by car.
This is kind of changing with trendy adaptive reuse — a fancy name for retrofitting older buildings for new uses — but in older, more established cities, this isn't trendy or new.
This I completely understand and agree with. Native American culture, while extremely interesting, is normally not visible in cities, and I can understand why people would say that Native American history doesn't count as prominent history for a city.
Of all places, Atlanta?! Hell, the city got burned to the ground. San Diego has Native American, Spanish, and Mexican history; can't forget about the missions. Phoenix has Native American and Mexican history. Seattle has the Klondike Gold Rush. Portland has history of British trapping and Native Americans.
All major cities have interesting history if you take the time to learn about it. I think people are twisting the thread topic to mean "What U.S. city that I don't care about has little or no interesting history"?
I think, rather, that it is "What U.S. city has little to no interesting history (that is easy to shallowly understand in a short amount of time)?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
