“Not at all” and “in some cases” aren’t generally considered synonyms, and less so sense ‘very frequently’ would be a more accurate term then “in some cases”.
A cite, please, for the existence of large-scale African slavery in any territory where the Pueblos were a major population.
[Quote=MrDibble]
And are the Mesoamerican cultures not North American?
[/quote]
And African slavery was never on the scale in Mexico as it was in what is now the United States. And in fact, the Africans who were there got along so famously with the tribes that most intermarried with them and today less than 1% of Mexicans have predominantly African ancestry.
[Quote=MrDibble]
Again, I don’t think you can be quite so pat about this - West Africa covers a huge area and many varied cultures, with way different gender roles in different cultures.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not often accused of being too concise, but I will admit that i’m going for generalizations rather then doctoral thesis length in this particular case. That said, while west Africa was indeed very diverse, because most likely to supply slaves were more focused. Never think that one African was the same as another to New World slave owners: they had very definite preferences as to what area and tribes their slaves came from, and those preferences married by region. Caribbean planters preferred Igbo, for example, while the Carolina’s and Louisiana preferred Mende from Sierra Leone- Ashanti slave merchants literally sought and segregated slaves for export based on preferences by regions and specific agricultural skills. Slave trade was FAR FAR more specialized then often realize- it wasn’t just “any African will do”.
Generations later, especially in what is now the US of course, the descendants of the original were intermarried with each other and had so much Euro (and to a lesser degree native) ancestry that they were a bit more homogenize, but by that time they were a different entity culturally and spoke whatever European language was dominant and were going back to school and whatever skills were needed locally, and the natives either occupied just scraps of their former territory or were gone altogether.
O.K., Shakester, thank you for pointing out what you should have said in the first place. So the various European diseases that killed most of the native Americans also killed a lot of the native peoples of Australia too. Why didn’t you just say that clearly in your first post? What’s the point of your being so snide about it? Do you think that just posting a link makes it clearer? It doesn’t. Try making your points as ordinary prose in the future instead of expecting people to have to figure out what point your making in the links you post.
The “not at all” is a reply to your “Period.” and the certainty in your assignment of gender roles.
What does that have to do with anything? If that was your point, you should have said " in the parts of North America where African slaves were mostly held especially it was a highly gender specific role: agriculture was women’s work. Period."
*You’re *the one who made pronouncements about all of North America.
You said “North America”, no slaveholding-related caveats. I wasn’t correcting the basic idea that for some NA men wouldn’t know how to, or care to, farm - to the extent they’d rather die. It might be sound, I don’t know. A cite would help there.
Although, again, which Southern slaveholder ever really gave a shit what slaves wanted to do.
Then you shouldn’t pepper your posts with absolutes like “Period.”
There are various definitions of the Old and New Worlds. Probably the most common one contrasts Eurasia/Africa with the Americas, without really considering Australia/Oceania. Sometimes they are considered to be equivalent to the Eastern and Western Hemispheres respectively, in which case Australia is considered part of the Old World. In some contexts Australia may be considered part of the New World, based on when it became known to Europeans, but in my experience this is infrequent (although this definition is possibly more common in Australia). Antarctica is generally disregarded, although it might be considered “New World” on the same basis as Australia.
I didn’t miss his point that Eurasian/African diseases had not spread to Oceania. However, he chose to make it in such a snarky and vague way that his point wasn’t very clear. Also, as I said, the definition he used for “New World” is not a common one, which also served to confuse the issue.