So what was the argument?
I am quoting it directly so having difficulty understanding the discrepancy.
> It's a cultural thing that most Americans simply don't identify with or think about history prior to British/American colonization.
That is the claim
> There are still people living in medieval-era houses in the US and ruins that make Rome look young
This is technically true but highly misleading. There is one site in the US where oral tradition maintains that some parts of two of the structures were built prior to 1400. There has been no radiocarbon dating of the structures. The closest contemporaneous account is from 1540 and doesn't describe the structures in detail, only the settlement.
The ruins are not visible to most Americans,
> but they don't occupy anyone's mindspace when it comes to how they think of age.
The claim here is that despite the existence of medieval-era home and ancient ruins, Americans don't identify with history prior to colonization.
My counter argument is that the evidence for any medieval era homes is weak, and at most there are two, both located at one site. The ruins are extremely rare and far from population centers, which explains the lack of awareness.
It's true that most Americans don't identify with history prior to European colonization, but it's true _because of_ the lack of ruins and ancient homes, not in spite of their existence.
This is all in contrast to Europe where people see and interact with medieval era homes and buildings all the time.