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.
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.