and along comes the question of nationhood that I still dont have an answer for: “If someone just takes over a land for long enough, does it make it that person’s land?” (i.e. US).
These aggressive migrations were very common in history. It’s relatively recent that we started considering this a dick move. So yes, I do think that is how it works, the only question is how long is “long enough” and whether other nations should step in to prevent it (morally the answer would probably be “almost always”, but the logistics of that can be prohibitively difficult).
migrations may have been common but ending most of the natives to take their place was not. Even when it did happen it wasnt to the scale of what america is an example of.
as for questions about ‘when/if invaders become part of or the nation’ and ‘if and when should other nations intrude’, im not well versed enough to discuss or answer them specifically in their generalized nature.
also i dont agree with the idea of nations but unsure what word to use. ‘natives’ seems worse to be used here. nation works in the cases of french and US colonies though.
migrations may have been common but ending most of the natives to take their place was not. Even when it did happen it wasnt to the scale of what america is an example of.
Does that really make a difference for this particular question? It’s certainly worse to kill them all off and force the remaining people into tiny reservations, but the land ownership issue is pretty much the same whether you kill the previous inhabitants off, drive them away or incorporate them into your society as a lower class.
Yea I think the conversation is far drifted from the original French slave question. To conclude that, if the slaves were taken to France then they would’ve been French after a while (nuance needed but Im tired x) ). But since they were mostly colonized in place they were slaves doing coffee farming for French owners.
These aggressive migrations were very common in history. It’s relatively recent that we started considering this a dick move. So yes, I do think that is how it works, the only question is how long is “long enough” and whether other nations should step in to prevent it (morally the answer would probably be “almost always”, but the logistics of that can be prohibitively difficult).
migrations may have been common but ending most of the natives to take their place was not. Even when it did happen it wasnt to the scale of what america is an example of.
as for questions about ‘when/if invaders become part of or the nation’ and ‘if and when should other nations intrude’, im not well versed enough to discuss or answer them specifically in their generalized nature.
also i dont agree with the idea of nations but unsure what word to use. ‘natives’ seems worse to be used here. nation works in the cases of french and US colonies though.
Does that really make a difference for this particular question? It’s certainly worse to kill them all off and force the remaining people into tiny reservations, but the land ownership issue is pretty much the same whether you kill the previous inhabitants off, drive them away or incorporate them into your society as a lower class.
Yea I think the conversation is far drifted from the original French slave question. To conclude that, if the slaves were taken to France then they would’ve been French after a while (nuance needed but Im tired x) ). But since they were mostly colonized in place they were slaves doing coffee farming for French owners.
They became Martiniquian, Haitian etc. in the same way that the slaves in the US became (US-)American.