Why does America's colonial period hardly get mentioned

New Amsterdam wasn't uptight and restricted like New England, and they accepted everyone: Jews, Catholics, Quakers etc. It was such a geostrategic and successful place for trade that the English grew anxious about it.
The English began to harrass the Dutch by saying that all Dutchfags have to trade with English ships. Didn't actually affect them that much but it gave a reason for pirates to take over Dutch ships. The Dutch made a militia and the English asserted their dominance in the sea and before you know it...the Anglo-Dutch wars in the 1650s-1670s.
The leader of the Dutch army was called Maarten Tromp btw kek.
So the English captured New Amsterdam and named it New York.

>>2680814
Because they don't want to admit the British were kind lords until they rebelled but were just less kind

You make a good point. Students should learn more about this period of history. The rush to get to the Revolution and then speed along right up to the Civil War is stupid. The foundation of English/British/French/etc///settlements and colonies should be looked at more.

Part of me wants to say "leftists are trying to erase our history", but that doesn't explain why other early history (like the Revolutionary War) receive adequate coverage.

I'm not really sure.

>>2681071
Wish 4chan had upvotes cause I'd give you one.

>>2680814
Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.