It's debatable if the British really conquered India at all in the truest sense. After all, India is still Indian, not white Anglo.
Why do you have to transform an area racially to have conquered it? That makes no sense.
It's debatable if the British really conquered India at all in the truest sense. After all, India is still Indian, not white Anglo.
Look at the Indian population vs the Aboriginal populations of Australia and the Americas...........Because if that doesn't happen, the original inhabitants population and culture still dominates and therefore it's still basically the same society.
What I'm basically saying is why was India not actually settled like North America and Australia were? Was India too advanced?
Because if that doesn't happen, the original inhabitants population and culture still dominates and therefore it's still basically the same society.
What I'm basically saying is why was India not actually settled like North America and Australia were? Was India too advanced?
Quebec was made the center of New France because the main industry was resource extraction, in this case fur. It's extreme hindsight to look at the Mississippi valley and see that it was the most important. France, at the time, made settlers a distant secondary priority, and it made sense. Sugar colonies and Fur colonies made money. Settlers cost money.
England went the other way with the American colonies. low extraction, more settlers. Neither really saw much value in the colonies until they were lost. Luckily for Britain, the US getting freedom turned out better than keeping them, but that was happenstance, not any plan. For France, it turned out that maybe they did need an outlet for overpopulation and a place to grow foods. Both realities are hindsight. Of course, IF France had gone the settler route, there probably would have been two American revolutions - one English, one French.
Quebec was made the center of New France because the main industry was resource extraction, in this case fur. It's extreme hindsight to look at the Mississippi valley and see that it was the most important. France, at the time, made settlers a distant secondary priority, and it made sense. Sugar colonies and Fur colonies made money. Settlers cost money.
I'd have to see the numbers on the fur trade in LA. my understanding is that Canada was where the fur action was. Canada made money. LA lost money, until relatively late, which is why little attention was given to LA. In the trade department, Britain was a major competitor in the Mississippi valley (east). The map is colored blue, but the trade went to both France and Britain. The Chickasaw (Miss/Tennessee) and Cherokee (Tennessee/KY/Alabama) and Creek (Georgia/Alabama) were major English allies or leaning.
on the sugar front, I've read that it took a couple of decades to adapt standard sugar growing to the climate/conditions of LA. I don't think it was a simple matter of someone smacking himself on the forehead and exclaiming 'mon dieu. we could be growing sugar here'.
I'd have to see the numbers on the fur trade in LA. my understanding is that Canada was where the fur action was. Canada made money. LA lost money, until relatively late, which is why little attention was given to LA. In the trade department, Britain was a major competitor in the Mississippi valley (east). The map is colored blue, but the trade went to both France and Britain. The Chickasaw (Miss/Tennessee) and Cherokee (Tennessee/KY/Alabama) and Creek (Georgia/Alabama) were major English allies or leaning.
on the sugar front, I've read that it took a couple of decades to adapt standard sugar growing to the climate/conditions of LA. I don't think it was a simple matter of someone smacking himself on the forehead and exclaiming 'mon dieu. we could be growing sugar here'.
It is hindsight, but we must always use that for historical analysis or then we are trapped forever in the mindset of then.
As John mentioned,the French government clearly screwed up in the 18th century.Just look at the amount of mistakes they made from foreign to domestic policies.I'd have to see the numbers on the fur trade in LA. my understanding is that Canada was where the fur action was. Canada made money. LA lost money, until relatively late, which is why little attention was given to LA. In the trade department, Britain was a major competitor in the Mississippi valley (east). The map is colored blue, but the trade went to both France and Britain. The Chickasaw (Miss/Tennessee) and Cherokee (Tennessee/KY/Alabama) and Creek (Georgia/Alabama) were major English allies or leaning.
on the sugar front, I've read that it took a couple of decades to adapt standard sugar growing to the climate/conditions of LA. I don't think it was a simple matter of someone smacking himself on the forehead and exclaiming 'mon dieu. we could be growing sugar here'.
It's debatable if the British really conquered India at all in the truest sense. After all, India is still Indian, not white Anglo.
Look at the Indian population vs the Aboriginal populations of Australia and the Americas...........
Not the same....Besides,in Africa,the Europeans were the ones who die in droves due to disease.....I am honestly surprised you didn't know about this seeing you've been here for 11 years.This is getting off-topic, but what about Africa? The situation with the natives was the same as in NA or Australia, but it wasn't settled either (except South Africa, and even there, Blacks remained a majority), and the eventual countries were decolonized in the 20th Century.
Not the same....Besides,in Africa,the Europeans were the ones who die in droves due to disease.....I am honestly surprised you didn't know about this seeing you've been here for 11 years.
What kind of fur-bearing animals were in Louisiana, and were these farmed or trapped. If they were farmed, were they based of a previously feral native population?