@BretDevereaux, I'm told that you might have insight into this question?https://twitter.com/EpistemicHope/status/1382220525582307332 …
-
This isn't because the Romans were nice people. It's a cynical calculation - the Romans want to get what these folks were already producing (grain, tax revenue, whatever) and the easiest way to do that is to leave those production systems and their social structures in place.
By contrast early modern European colonization generally sought to either completely change local production systems (that is, reorganize them for export) and/or displace the local population to make room for mass settlement.
-
-
So they are destroying much more of local social structures, enforcing more religious change, moving (or killing) significant numbers of people to make way for colonial settlements - and all of this is done with lots and lots of terrible violence.
-
If I were to generalize, I'd say that the common trend here is that tributary empire (which aims to extract tax revenue or traditional agricultural products) is generally less destructive than resource-extraction-empires. Though again, and I want to be clear, both are bad.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
And this is because the "stuff" that the Europeans wanted was sufficiently different from the default products of the local production systems? ie If you want grain, may as well keep the local systems. If you want gold or cash crops, you might as well reorganize them?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.