Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Slagle who wrote (68119)	8/26/2005 11:45:55 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 74559

USA, Canada, NZ, and OZ were mostly just an empty wilderness That's certainly not really the case except maybe for much of Canada. Australian society was the most primitive and the most easily over-run by the colonialists. In the US and NZ by contrast treaties were signed (more successfully in NZ) with the agricultural native societies. In both Aus and the Americas disease killed the majority of the population. So even though Mexico was a densely populated country with cities and a society as complex as any Old World one (though no wheels, no iron, and they had lost the art of writing previously developed to their south), 90% of the population was wiped out fairly rapidly, the temples and other institutions were destroyed and a new culture imposed. In India the colonialists worked with the existing system to govern the country to their advantage. The Indians were resistant to any disease. First trade missions appeared and gradually more of the country fell into British rule. In China it never got beyond the trade enclaves. West Africa is something similar. There were rebellions and wars between the Europeans and the indigenous culture but not a "conquest" like in the Americas. The Bantu peoples spread out of the West African hearth area over a period of 2000 years after adopting agriculture and iron etc. They over-ran the original peoples of central and southern Africa (pygmies, bushmen etc. or other more PC terms :)). They were just getting into South Africa when the Dutch showed up. In Botswana they only arrived really at the very end of the 19th century.

To: Slagle who wrote (68119)	8/26/2005 2:54:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Slag to say NZ was an empty wilderness is sort of true compared with downtown New York or London, but not true in ownership of land terms. The locals had a very clear idea of who owned what and constantly fought over it, in tribal genocide, slavery and cannibalism. The British didn't come swanning in and just set up shop anywhere they felt like in a largely vacant land. They had to buy land from Maoris. Having a library full of books on the British empire is obviously a lot different from knowing about it an understanding it. Note South Africa and Rhodesia were not exactly empty wilderness areas either but swarms of English moved there. Immigrants go to places where they can do well economically and where their cultural ways will fit in. Going to India, China etc was not so easy, as you say, because it's a cultural numbers game and the economic attraction of Egypt, India, China etc was a lot less than that of USA, Canada etc. Similary, Spanish headed to south America, along with Portugese. They could use their language and their opportunities were better. Mqurice