You're arguing from the quote that 'it's other than disease' and then two sentences later that it was, but due to 'persistent contact needed for conquest'.
None of this adds up to a coherent argument.
If Aboriginals weren't dying en mass from disease, then what from? Because we have crude records of interaction. There were very few violent fights between Aboriginals and newcomers in Canada, for example.
And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa?
I'm all for more nuanced history, we're learning stuff every day, but I think a lot of it is also speculative, and ideologically driven.
> And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa?
In Africa, Europeans died off rapidly due to local diseases. Consequently, the early slave trade was centered in the islands off of Africa itself, and mediated by a mulatto class who were less susceptible.
You're arguing from the quote that 'it's other than disease' and then two sentences later that it was, but due to 'persistent contact needed for conquest'.
None of this adds up to a coherent argument.
If Aboriginals weren't dying en mass from disease, then what from? Because we have crude records of interaction. There were very few violent fights between Aboriginals and newcomers in Canada, for example.
And where is the evidence that Colonialists had 'consistent, closer contact' in hew New World, than in Africa?
I'm all for more nuanced history, we're learning stuff every day, but I think a lot of it is also speculative, and ideologically driven.