So if full on imperialism, complete with semi-permanent colonial governance is politically unacceptable (and in my view it should be) then you have to accept that only a very limited range of objectives - mostly just picking which pre-existing local elites rule - are possible.
-
-
The Welsh might fairly argue that England is a colonial state, for either 954 years or c. 1500 years depending on how one views the Normans as reflecting a major discontinuation or not.
-
There are examples like this all over the place. The people of Languedoc in France could fairly view themselves as having been colonized by the Northern French in the 1200s and as continuing to languish under a colonial rule which first suppressed their religion (Catharism)...
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
That's gotten interesting down here, especially in Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru where the indigenous populations are pushing back. Spain and France had more complex relationships with NA people than did the Anglos. The Spanish married into Aztec royal families.
-
I read a book as a child that was predicting that the American Indians in the US would be vanished by the 1960s (think the book may have been from the 1940s. The British actually got better with indigenous people when they tried to wipe out the Spanish in Nicaragua.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.