Colonialism and indigenous people didn't exist before capitalism. What we think of today as "Colonialism" is usually Settler Colonialism, which gained massive momentum alongside capitalism in the 16th-19th centuries.While the Romans wanted your grain and your taxes, the British, French, and Spanish (fueled by mercantilism and later industrial capitalism) wanted the land itself to produce cotton, sugar, and tobacco for a global market. This required a much more rigid and racialized hierarchy than most ancient empires ever bothered to construct.
>>18409251What's your point?
>>18409251he wasnn't that big, we would have found the craters by now
what this really denotes is the vastly differing developmental levels between regions. England etc worked on taxes and got them wherever they could from. But there was nothing but real estate in paleolithic level Canada, Australia, etc so settler colonization it was. Even slightly more advanced places like in the 13 colonies imposing taxes to pay for the 7 years war literally caused the USian independence.
>>18409251The north of italy used to be filled with millions of celts which the romans promptly raped and genocided
>>18409526>But there was nothing but real estate in paleolithic level Canada, Australia, etc so settler colonization it was.Propaganda slop. Terra Nullius was always fundamentally fraudulent and worked off of explicitly ignoring any type of presence or proof of inhabitants to "pull it off".
>>18409251>What we think of today as "Colonialism" is usually Settler ColonialismSimilar demographic shifts have happened in the past before the 16th century.
I dont care about brown people
>>18409526>>18409526>>18409526Pretty much this. Rome too ran mainly on taxes. The gobbledygook of capitalism/colonialism/whatever is just a really clumsy way to refer to different strategies empires have employed since written records if not earlier. Taxation, control of trade routes, client rulers, etc. Look how closely the situation with Afghanistan and the Raj mirrored roman period Wales and England. In both cases the only reason the powers that be were involved with the distant tribal areas was to stop raids into more valuable territory. Even though roman control in Wales was more thorough and longer lasting changes there were minimal compared to England and with roman retreat the local tribes just reasserted themselves there while England saw germanic takeover and significant population replacement.
>>18409251>pointless quibbling over definitions >with no point other than trying to push bullshit political nonsense
