Your ignorance of pre-contact Native Americans is showing - firstly, the Moundbuilders were mostly in the Great Lakes and Ohio & Mississippi Valleys, not East Coast. Second, they weren’t the only agriculturalists before 1492, most NA inhabitants were agriculturalists.
Great point, well put.
Yes, but all of this was also true of Europeans before 1492, except that it was a different range of diseases to which they had no defences.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think. Are you saying that if Europeans had not the Americas in the way they did, socially and economically the Americas would now be very much as they were in 1492? 'Cause, you know, that’s not a position I could take seriously.
Can you say “false dichotomy”?
They weren’t British, so how can they be rebellious?
Sorry, those weren’t meant as “scare quotes” . I meant to emphasise that the Boers didn’t have a european metropole. They were Dutch stettlers with no real remaining ties to the Netherlands.
That is not a criterium for being a Volkswanderer. Hardly ever have new populations completely wiped out the previous ones. The typical case is exactly that they just replace the ruling elite and maybe military caste.
We do what we must because we can
For the good of all of us
(Except the ones who are dead).
Hell, I wouldn’t want to be a lady in Spain in 1491!
They were citizens of a British colony, and had been for at least an entire generation.
No, the metropole in this case was London. There’s even a term of art forcolonialism that uses foreign colonists. They may not have wanted it that way, but that was the reality, as the failures of their attempted breakaways showed. South African colonies existed for the ultimate benefit of the British - whether that be the Cape harbours or Witwatersrand gold.
Yet that seems to be exactly what the Bantu did (well, displaced, not wiped out) and the Celts in Britain. But I agree I was too prescriptive there as to what constitutes Volkerwanderung. I was mostly trying to highlight the difference between what the Boers did, and what the Bantu did.
Which the Boers did not do. They did not in any way integrate with the locals and replace their hierarchies, they just ruled over them while leaving them largely intact. That’s much more imperial hegemony a-la Rome than Volkerwanderung.
I adore you.
I dunno you get a pretty neat Royal Navy sea shanty out of that deal.
In another thread we’re discussing this topic. The consensus is that merely stating something is nonsense is an insufficient response. If you say something is nonsense, you should go on to explain why it is.
Can’t be bothered to, other than to say - if any Europeans made South Africa great, it was the British, and the Boers are responsible for holding it back.
Just a little example - we only got TV in South Africa in 1976. Not because we didn’t have the tech, but purely because the Boers in charge were backwards fuckheads.
Which other thread is that?
East of the Mississippi.
I like that “ignorance” thing, it really brings the level of the debate up. :rolleyes:
Of course, that’s not what I said. And it seems to be your usual level of reasoned discourse here.
Well, if the Europeans had never visited the America’s can you say they would have advanced any? They failed to do so for centuries.
They would have advanced some. There, I said it.
You did say “East Coast”, not “East of the Mississippi”. If you mis-spoke, just say so.
There was some level of Mound Builder settlement in Georgia, which can be considered “East Coast”. But these weren’t large empires run on slavery. The original assertion was bogus, though, and trying to wriggle out of it on a highly questionable technicality is rather pathetic.
Maybe. What indicators do you have that would show this? I see no advances in technology. In fact North America was largely in a decline just before Columbus.
I*ndigenous Traditions of Slavery
The period from 900 to 1700 CE in the southeast is known as the Mississippian period. During this time, people lived primarily in provinces composed of towns that paid tribute to a mico, or chief, who inherited his position through the maternal line. Power was established through deeds of war, so provinces frequently fought with one another. As a part of this, captives were often taken, although frequently in earlier times even women and children were killed rather than taken captive. These war captives were given to wealthy people in the provinces for workers. Being a slave was defined by being not a part of the kinship system, which was essential to society. Lacking kinship connections, slaves were isolated. However, by adoption or marriage they could become part of a clan and thus leave their state of slavery by entering the kinship system.*