This is wildly mistaken. Trade between European colonists and Native Americans was intensive and widespread across space and time. Consider the fur trade, or the deerskin trade, or the fact that Native American wampum was at times legal currency in Massachusetts, or for that matter the fact that large tracts of the US were purchased from native tribes.
I did think of this, that’s why inserted “didn’t trade much” here whereas I just say we didn’t trade with ants. I think that you can argue about the relative scales of trade vs theft between europeans and native americans. But the basic point still seems to stand to me that relatively to the amount of theft, the trade amount was very minor.
This is wildly mistaken. Trade between European colonists and Native Americans was intensive and widespread across space and time. Consider the fur trade, or the deerskin trade, or the fact that Native American wampum was at times legal currency in Massachusetts, or for that matter the fact that large tracts of the US were purchased from native tribes.
I did think of this, that’s why inserted “didn’t trade much” here whereas I just say we didn’t trade with ants. I think that you can argue about the relative scales of trade vs theft between europeans and native americans. But the basic point still seems to stand to me that relatively to the amount of theft, the trade amount was very minor.
‘Much’ is open to interpretation, I suppose. I think the post would be better served by a different example.