Do you think that the British had an accurate census of the populations of all the places they were conquering on their attempt at world conquest in the 1600s-1800s?

▲

AreShoesFeet000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you think they have an accurate census now? Isn’t this the very subject the author is trying to outline?

▲

anonymous908213 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, but you are the one presupposing that an accurate census is a necessary tool of colonialism and conquest, which seems not to be borne out in any way by the history of colonialism and conquest.

	▲	pixl97 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Modern data driven enterprises typically like to avoid failure and do so at an appropriate cost. They didn't have these tools at all in the past, and on occasion a misguided conquest could lead to the end of the conquesting nation.

▲

rrr_oh_man 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nope, and it didn't matter.

You need to know military, not population size (how quickly can a militia be raised, how long can it be sustained, how well they are armed, who can be persuaded to defect, etc.). This is related to population size, but not linearly.

Population counts get only interesting for military and tax potential during administration of a territory.

GP's point is valid, though, imho.

▲

AreShoesFeet000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In your honest opinion, is current colonialism in /that/ country that is doing genocide more or less effective than South African apartheid?