Compared to having to choose between being murdered, enslaving or moving to Oklahoma (slightly different periods I know..) that's not necessarily that awful.
e.g there were thousands and thousands of Native American refugees fleeing to Spanish Florida from the Carolinas after the British got there. When Florida was captured some were lucky enough to be evacuated to Cuba and other Spanish colonies (in the few ships they were willing and able to send). The rest? Well...
Emigration from Spain to their new world was relatively low. The estimate seems to be that only around 0.42 million people moved from Spain to the Americas between 1492 and 1820. Considering the massive amount of territory they controlled that's very low. In contrast over 1.2 million people from Great Britain emigrated to their colonies which were many times smaller geographically.
Also before modern medicine and other stuff the climate outside of mountainous areas (which besides some exceptions weren't necessarily able to sustain high population density) wasn't great. e.g New England was a much nicer place to live and therefore natural population growth was relatively low.
Combine those things with there being way less Native Americans in the North (due to various reasons) to begin with, very different colonial policies and treatment of the native people and the result is not that surprising.
And it's not like there is much to find, most of the things people in Doggerland made were out of wood, there are no ancient stone ruins or lost treasures.
There may be no grand objects to be found, but that does not mean there isn't much to find. The thing that we will find is more knowledge about those societies.
I think it’s more about the cost and complexity of finding anything than trying to somehow imply that the societies living there were inferior.
We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe despite there being major cities there that rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population. Yet we hardly know anything about them in comparison because they used perishable materials for almost everything (and it’s not only because of writing). Finding anything useful underwater makes that many times harder.
> We already know relatively little about Neolithic Europe despite there being major cities there that rivaled or eclipsed those in Mesopotamia in population.
What are you referring to? I could certainly imagine such a thing but I can't say I've ever heard of someone finding evidence of a city that matches this description.
You want to find ancient marvels? Start digging literally anywhere in or around Rome. Or half of amazon jungle. Or around London. And so on. You can get much more 'value' in form of artifacts and knowledge from there for given money.
Submerged places... imagine how complex and slow archaeologic excavations look on the ground. Now move it 50m underwater in endless mud. Good luck looking for literal needle in the muddy haystack of 40,000km2. To find what... some fossilized wood or few arrow heads? That culture was very similar to ones on neighboring lands, no atlantis there.
One day, robots can scan and dig through there but there are so many better ways to spending money, any money, that it makes perfect sense nobody is doing it.
It's a question of timelines. While I agree with Amazon, we know pretty well the periods in which Rome and London have been inhabited, but the question is more about understanding pre ice-age human settlements, of which we know nothing about because these are more likely submerged now.
Treasures are small and rare enough so you can never rule them out completely, but if there were significant amounts of rocks there, we would know because Doggerland has been fairly thoroughly “ploughed” by fishing trawlers and mapped for research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland#Discovery_and_inves...)
The geology of the North Sea also indicates “sand” more than “rocks”.
Because it's highly unlikely given the evidence we have? Is there any reason to believe that material culture in Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the time?
There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being built and our days so it's hardly relevant.
>Is there any reason to believe that material culture in Doggerland could have been fundamentally different to that of other hunter gatherer societies in Europe at the time?
>There is a 4000-5000 year gap between Doggerland sinking and Stonehenge i.e. similar to that of Stonehenge being built and our days so it's hardly relevant
Göbeklitepe was built 5000 years before Stonehenge so I think it is very relevant. It is absurd to suggest that we know for certain what is there without even looking.
It's not if we base it on evidence that we have. It's silly to assume otherwise until any evidence at all is discovered. Why would Doggerland be fundamentally different to the surrounding areas which are at a higher altitude?
> Göbeklitepe
If there were major stone structures at the bottom of the sea we would have very likely found them already.
Also.. I'm not even trying to imply that there weren't any complex societies in Doggerland (of course it's extremely likely that there weren't) but they would have likely primarily used wood to construct structures due to obvious reasons and any remains would have been very unlikely to survive.
That's Russia, not China. Russia is a petrostate run owned by corrupt dictator and his oligarch cronies. It really has nothing going for it whatsoever besides its natural resources.
China is in a very different spot. They did what the USSR failed, showed a an authoritarian/totalitarian state can keep up with Western democracies or even innovate much faster than them.
He can only enact these tariffs because he declared a national emergency. Otherwise he'd need the congress to confirm them. The illegal immigrants/fentanyl pretext seems absurd and flimsy...
I do hope this is sarcasm? It's more than obvious that this was just a pretext since US government was not able to clearly formulate any specific coherent demands that they had from Canada.
> sane leadership
Well clearly sane people seem to have issues communicating or comprehended the current US government. So maybe the opposite would work better?
Anyway.. If anyone can save the Liberal party in Canada from defeat it's probably Trump (by antagonizing Canadians to such a degree that they would vote for anyone opposed to him).
Except the way Trump imposed clearly seemed like an attempt at exhortation.
Of course those demands to Canada and Mexico were so absurd and vague that they turned out to just be a pretext.
Trump can't enact these tariffs legally without the approval from congress unless they are related to some national [economic] emergency.
So he came up with the fentanyl from Canada nonsense to somehow workaround that. Hopefully they will be challenged in court and the congress will refuse to confirm them.
He basically used the same mechanism used by presidents to impose sanctions on Russia and other countries to introduce tariffs on American allies...
Of course total revenue will decrease. Possibly very significantly so only a fraction of that estimated will be collected.
> a weighted mean of 2.8%.
Can you explain where are you getting that? I'm not saying it's false but ~45% of all use imports come from China, Canada and Mexico. If they are all taxes at 10%/25% the mean would be significantly above 2.8%?
Are you aware that the US did this before (weighted mean tariffs >doubled in Trump’s first term) and it worked well enough that the Biden administration kept the tariffs and even increased some?
You may want to take a look at a graph of US imports by year or tariff revenue by year to see your “very significant” decrease in revenue (hint: it kept going up…) I don’t claim that it is entirely independent of tariff rates forever, but it is certainly nowhere near as dependent as people imagine.
>Can you explain where are you getting that?
Sure, there are various organizations that study US tax policy and they generally publish estimates of revenue generated by a proposed tariff. I took a look at a few and found estimates around 90-100B first year. The reason that it’s not simple to calculate these tariffs is because tariff law is complex and real world behavior shifts. With the last Trump tariffs there was a huge shift out of China for several industries. Companies also lie about the value of things: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/did-...
No because it wasn't even remotely the same. In 2022 the average tariff on Chinese imports was 2.86%, 0.01% on Mexican goods and 0.12% on Canadian goods.
Besides that the first term tariffs were targeted and not applied universally to all imports. That "great/fantastic deal"(USMCA) that Trump "negotiated" back in his first term kept most trade with Mexico and Canada more or less tariff free.
TBH it's hard to tell if you're being purposefully obtuse or not...
> The reason that it’s not simple to calculate
Yes and while I very well might be wrong I just don't see how is the 2.8% figure arithmetically possible.
had different calculations (of course it assumes 60% on China and 10% on all other countries besides Mexico/Canada so it would be well below 21% but not 2.8% either).
I think everyone can agree that in both 2018 and 2025: 1) Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on major trade partners - among which China, Mexico and Canada; 2) most media predicted a large-scale disaster; 3) large parts of the tariffs were later cancelled entirely, delayed, or scaled back.
I'm not sure what part of that "isn't even remotely the same." You highlight the low average tariff rates by country despite the (large) first Trump tariffs. This is _exactly_ my point: when you account for all exemptions, changes, agreements, rerouting of trade etc, the marquee double-digit numbers shrink dramatically.
---
As for the exact number, obviously it is impossible to know, and there are many ways to measure it. It's not uncommon for two estimates of tariff revenue, both calculated in honest ways, to be widely at odds. This is one reason why I qualified my numbers as "very rough", but I did lay out my reasoning above. To make it simple: most groups (CRFB, Tax Foundation, etc) estimated the tariffs we were discussing (China +10, Canada/Mexico +25) to sit - very roughly - at 100B of revenue raised plus or minus a few tens of billions. Current US tariff revenue is approximately 100B. So, in other words, we're talking about an approximate doubling of mean tariffs, which stand at around 1.5-2% today depending on who you ask and how it is measured.
Well... an European company controlled > 50% of the commercial orbital launch market back in the late 80s and 80s.
That might have been tricky to achieve without developing the tech first.