|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Supposing that I am an idiot that never had a history class beyond high school (I am), what other major factors would you guys point towards besides geography, availability of natural resources, and germs to explain European dominance? I realize that history is big and complex and you shouldn't simplify it to X caused Y, but I just recall really liking GGS when I read it in high school because here was finally an answer to "why are white people dominant" that wasn't full of "because they're superior to everyone else," which, as a non-white person, I appreciated. They hit the break point on industrialization and exploitation first and (temporarily) kneecapped everyone else. I think part of it is we're proceeding off an assumption of 'European dominance' which is a relatively new phenomenon and probably pretty fleeting as well. Here's an example:  Look at how still that sits for thousands of years and then how quickly its swinging back. Now this is one dimension, (and one study) but it's pretty telling. Until the late 1500's China was the economy in the world and Europe bent towards it.Plus, you know, if you break people down beyond the level of skin color things get really complex. If you're a Marxist, we're looking at a multitude of rich people dominating over a multitude of poor people of various flavors.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
the JJ posted:Yes, I read the book. The latitudes thing is a gross oversimplification* the herd-animal thing a useful explanation for the spread of smallpox in the Americas. But it's a really deterministic look at a lot of circumstances that were very contingent on a lot of different factors. It still paints European supremacy as some sort of fated eventuality which really wasn't the case. Diamond's a biology PhD. applying biological techniques to a historical problem, which is interesting, but there's a lot, and I do mean a lot of cultural, economic, social, political, military etc. histories going on and being written. He takes a very generalist look at history so he's oversimplifying a lot of phenomena, and he takes his theory to the modern day but he does so because he started there and worked backwards. It's a very shaky pop hist book. It's no, say 1421, but it's still not a great theory of history, it's not taken seriously. Collapse is a much better book because he narrows his focus to isolated case studies and ecology, where his strengths really shine. I didn't at first realize you were comparing 1421 as an example of less-than-ideal history writing. Then I looked it up at Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
I originally read that as 1491 and was like, isn't that one of the better pop history books?  Thanks for the info the JJ, that's a pretty interesting map.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
the JJ posted:They hit the break point on industrialization and exploitation first and (temporarily) kneecapped everyone else. I think part of it is we're proceeding off an assumption of 'European dominance' which is a relatively new phenomenon and probably pretty fleeting as well. Why does this go above the 65th parallel north? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Why does this go above the 65th parallel north? It's probably taking the US into consideration, which is in that direction on the globe, so the centroid is pulled in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I originally read that as 1491 and was like, isn't that one of the better pop history books? Indeed, it's a shame the titles are so similar. 1491: Great. 1421: Garbage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Indeed, it's a shame the titles are so similar. 1491: Great. 1421: Garbage. 1453: alright.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Yeah I think this occurred at around the same time the British started liberalizing their international trade and reducing tariffs. But unfortunately I don't know as much economic history as I should. It's not really a big deal if this thread derails a little bit into some other aspects of history, so long as it's interesting. The only time it annoys people is when it touches a controversial issue and then we get 200 posts a day for a week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Yeah I think this occurred at around the same time the British started liberalizing their international trade and reducing tariffs. But unfortunately I don't know as much economic history as I should. "Kicking away the Ladder" does a good survey-style review of this period. On a kind of related note, Does anyone know why the LaRouchies are so big on Henry Charles Carey as their economist of choice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:I originally read that as 1491 and was like, isn't that one of the better pop history books? Yeah, sorry. I have not read 1491, though I've been told to. 1421 is awful though. Like, I still like Diamond even though GGS is kinda off, it is informational and causes thinking. 1421 was actively killing my brain cells until I put it down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Will someone please explain why is 1421 so awful? I haven't read it, it's just kind of annoying the way everyone's referring to it as an abstract concept without saying what's the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
the JJ posted:They hit the break point on industrialization and exploitation first and (temporarily) kneecapped everyone else. I think part of it is we're proceeding off an assumption of 'European dominance' which is a relatively new phenomenon and probably pretty fleeting as well. Is this the part where everyone starts declaring that China will eclipse the west and rule the world while simultaneously turning its air into dirt and lying about its GDP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:Will someone please explain why is 1421 so awful? I haven't read it, it's just kind of annoying the way everyone's referring to it as an abstract concept without saying what's the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Really? Wow, this thread keeps teaching me wonderful new things! :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Supposing that I am an idiot that never had a history class beyond high school (I am), what other major factors would you guys point towards besides geography, availability of natural resources, and germs to explain European dominance? I realize that history is big and complex and you shouldn't simplify it to X caused Y, but I just recall really liking GGS when I read it in high school because here was finally an answer to "why are white people dominant" that wasn't full of "because they're superior to everyone else," which, as a non-white person, I appreciated. I personally believe in a musical chairs theory. The fortunes of regions tend to rise and fall in response to complex global systems of trade and communication, and Europe's star was rising at a time when technology became complex enough to support global exploitation in an unprecedented way. Kind of a right place, right time thing. The Islamic world was dominant for hundreds of years, and if that dominance had extended into a time period with reliable oceanic navigation then America would be an Islamic nation. Some Guy TT posted:Will someone please explain why is 1421 so awful? I haven't read it, it's just kind of annoying the way everyone's referring to it as an abstract concept without saying what's the problem is. It's essentially historic fiction. The basic thesis of the book is that Admiral Zheng He, who sailed around southeast Asia and as far as Africa flexing the might of Imperial China, also sailed to the Americas. The author, Menzies, asserts that Chinese discoveries were censored and tossed into the memory hole by court mandarins who supported an isolationist state, but that Chinese rutters and navigational information filtered all the way over to Europe. His evidence is the similarity between American and Asian DNA, some odd archaeological finds, and his personal opinions about old maps based on his years as a submarine commander. It's been universally dismissed by academics because he has extremely little support for what is an extraordinary claim. The most basic fault I can find with this claim is that the Chinese Emperor wasn't as interested in exploration so much as expanding Chinese control of known trade routes. The Chinese knew about India, Africa, the Middle East, etc. It also knew there was a lot of trade there, and showing up in enormous loving ships to hand out gifts of porcelain and silk would be a good way to inject themselves into local commerce. It would have been stone foolish to send these huge, expensive fleets out into the Pacific just to see what's there, or to try to establish a shorter route to the insignificant and backwards European nations. Conversely, Europe was highly interested in shorter trade routes to lucrative Asian markets. the JJ posted:Yeah, sorry. I have not read 1491, though I've been told to. 1491 owns. It's a great pop summary of what we know about pre-Columbian America, and it advances the idea that cultures all over the Americas were both more complex and more populous than most people think. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Feb 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
the JJ posted:They hit the break point on industrialization and exploitation first and (temporarily) kneecapped everyone else. I think part of it is we're proceeding off an assumption of 'European dominance' which is a relatively new phenomenon and probably pretty fleeting as well. Even Diamond is a lot more focused on Eurasian dominance than specifically European dominance. Near the end of the book he tries to explain that Europe won out of China because Europe has more peninsulas, but he doesn't seem that invested in it, and the idea seems rather silly to me; European and Chinese (and Middle Eastern, for that matter) technological advancement have been close enough it the grand scheme of things that accident seems like a better explanation than geographic determinism to me. He does have some legitimate points about Eurasia versus America (particularly the disease aspect), but he's focused a grand narrative that removes human agency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Ming China discovered America in the early 15th century! See, Zheng He circumnavigated the globe at the head of a huge fleet of ships and left a bunch of artifacts in America such as these really worn stones and The same author also wrote a book that claims that the Chinese sailed to Italy and taught the Italians how to Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The same author also wrote a book that claims that the Chinese sailed to Italy and taught the Italians how to Renaissance. His third book is that Atlantis was actually the Minoans, who had a global trade empire from the Caribbean to India in the Ancient era. So yeah, uh, no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is this the part where everyone starts declaring that China will eclipse the west and rule the world while simultaneously turning its air into dirt and lying about its GDP? No, this is the bit where we point at laugh at the shattered remnants of the British Empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is this the part where everyone starts declaring that China will eclipse the west and rule the world while simultaneously turning its air into dirt and lying about its GDP? It's amusing that you can't picture a multipolar world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's amusing that you can't picture a multipolar world. I can picture it just fine. It's just not going to happen again for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I can picture it just fine. It's already happening, especially as Europe ages itself to death.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's already happening, especially as Europe ages itself to death. Holy smoke, you think that Europe has a demographic bomb incoming and China doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Holy smoke, you think that Europe has a demographic bomb incoming and China doesn't? Of course China does, but theirs is coming much later. China's is also much more artificially created. computer parts fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Feb 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
And that isn't even taking severe environmental degradation, inflated GDP, an ongoing shadow banking crisis, ideological turmoil, poor relations with all of its neighbours, slowing growth, etc. into account. China is a ticking time bomb, not a second pole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:And that isn't even taking severe environmental degradation, inflated GDP, an ongoing shadow banking crisis, ideological turmoil, poor relations with all of its neighbours, slowing growth, etc. into account. If countries couldn't survive a downturn or environmental degradation then the US never would have made it out of the 19th Century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Overpopulation with dwindling resources, a farcical education system where everyone cheats, a military that can't project power beyond its own borders, a tech industry reliant on copying American and old Soviet technology, so much corruption that Russia is proud of itself, etc. Seriously, the "Chinese century" is rubbish that makes for good clickbait headlines and little else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Overpopulation with dwindling resources, a farcical education system where everyone cheats, a military that can't project power beyond its own borders, a tech industry reliant on copying American and old Soviet technology, so much corruption that Russia is proud of itself, etc. At least 2/3 of that is applicable to 19th Century America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:At least 2/3 of that is applicable to 19th Century America. No, they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, they aren't. Farcical education? Check. Military that doesn't project power? True as of 1890. Tech industry reliant on copying? Yup. Tons of corruption? Sure, we had a president killed because he didn't give a guy a government job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Farcical education? Check. Military that doesn't project power? True as of 1890. Tech industry reliant on copying? Yup. Tons of corruption? Sure, we had a president killed because a guy didn't give him a government job. American education was farcical in some areas, but even in the 19th century still hosted some of the best schools in the world. The US military as of 1890 was fully industrialized and capable of conquering the entire North American continent if it wanted to, something that the British were so aware of that their plan in the event of a US invasion of Canada was "let them keep it," their tech industry was not reliant on copying others by any means, and a president being assassinated by a crazed gunman is not a sign of corruption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:American education was farcical in some areas, but even in the 19th century still hosted some of the best schools in the world. The US military as of 1890 was fully industrialized and capable of conquering the entire North American continent if it wanted to, something that the British were so aware of that their plan in the event of a US invasion of Canada was "let them keep it," their tech industry was not reliant on copying others by any means, and a president being assassinated by a crazed gunman is not a sign of corruption. China's top universities are also some of the best in the world right now. The US military was not completely industrialized and it was a major point in the 1890s to rebuild the Navy as it had become hilariously outdated. The tech industry was reliant on copying others, and I chose an easy example of corruption but there are plenty of others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
China is not currently the 19th Century US, it's probably closer to 19th Century Japan or Germany. Enough to be a major pole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:China's top universities are also some of the best in the world right now. The US military was not completely industrialized and it was a major point in the 1890s to rebuild the Navy as it had become hilariously outdated. The tech industry was reliant on copying others, and I chose an easy example of corruption but there are plenty of others. No, they aren't. Chinese universities are in such a sorry state that western scholars will write off any studies originating from mainland China as fabricated BS unless it can be corroborated by a more trusted source. The US military was industrialized during the Civil War 30 years earlier (and 10 years prior to that had defeated the Mexican army as well) and was able to hold its own against a European navy in two oceans. Their tech industry was not reliant on copying others, and I don't think that you know what corruption means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Farcical education? Check. Military that doesn't project power? True as of 1890. Tech industry reliant on copying? Yup. Tons of corruption? Sure, we had a president killed because he didn't give a guy a government job. You'll have to explain farcical education system. Also I'm pretty sure this counts as force projection. Tech industry copying? Initially sure, lots of industrial espionage involving people with photographic memories touring English mills and returning to the US to build them. But that's really early. Americans invented a lot of things during the 19th Century and were at least equal to European competitors in technology, and in many industries were far superior. Things like the McCormack Reaper, Deere's Steel Plow, Duke's Cigarette rolling machine, the entire Railroad sector. After 1812 the American munitions industry was quite potent and leading the field in things like interchangeable parts. Also the corruption thing is pretty dubious. You'd have to show me how the Spoils System was inherently way more corrupt than the English or French governments at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
menino posted:China is not currently the 19th Century US, it's probably closer to 19th Century Japan or Germany. Enough to be a major pole. When computer parts said "pole" I think he was referring to it in the Cold War sense of the word, which is a role China will not fulfill any time soon. China is a great power and likely will always be simply by virtue of its size, but it will not be a superpower any time this century unless a meteor hits the north atlantic or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:When computer parts said "pole" I think he was referring to it in the Cold War sense of the word, which is a role China will not fulfill any time soon. I wasn't, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:When computer parts said "pole" I think he was referring to it in the Cold War sense of the word, which is a role China will not fulfill any time soon. Multipolar systems, by definition, do not have more than one superpower. China cannot be a superpower given its per capita income and environmental conditions, but it does't have to be. E: and in regards to copying technology, that was exactly what Japan/Korea/Taiwan did. For decades. Until they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Adding to the 1421 talk, PBS did a special where they presented the Menzies' theory. It presented what Zheng He actually did explore. And then they call Menzies out for making the whole America part up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
menino posted:Multipolar systems, by definition, do not have more than one superpower. China cannot be a superpower given its per capita income and environmental conditions, but it does't have to be. I don't think "they copied technology and then they didn't" is a very good explanation for the evolution of those countries scientific capacity. All three of them have been very heavily influenced by the US and, in the case of the first two, outright occupied by the US and had most of their government crafted by the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 05:51
|
|