How did Europe become the richest part of the world?(aeon.co)
aeon.co
How did Europe become the richest part of the world?
https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-europe-become-the-richest-part-of-the-world
282 comments
I think about this a lot too. My grandmother had an interest in it as well and studied the history of the British kings for an answer (she was a teacher in India). In my own readings, it seems that at the time of the Roman conquest, Brittania was a backwater of illiterate (in the Roman conception) ugly brutes. It was only after three conquests by the first the Romans (who left), then the Anglo-Saxons, then the Normans, that the British had a chance of mattering in the world in any meaningful sense. It was only after the Normans in England became differentiated from the Normans in Normandy, marrying the locals and speaking the local language that something like Britain emerged.
I think (pardon the non-sequitor) that the key to all of this is theft. The British elite, for almost a thousand years after the Norman conquest still had their children learn French and acculturate to French norms of the elite. The Romans did much the same stealing copiously from the Greeks. So for that matter, did the Arabic civilizations. And America stole copiously from all of them. Rather, you might call it learning and extending the achievements of the past, often the achievements of those who conquered you, often of those you have conquered.
I think (pardon the non-sequitor) that the key to all of this is theft. The British elite, for almost a thousand years after the Norman conquest still had their children learn French and acculturate to French norms of the elite. The Romans did much the same stealing copiously from the Greeks. So for that matter, did the Arabic civilizations. And America stole copiously from all of them. Rather, you might call it learning and extending the achievements of the past, often the achievements of those who conquered you, often of those you have conquered.
I didn't realise until recently (either I forgot it from history lessons at school, or it was glossed over in a way to diminish the French/Norman influence) how much the Norman conquest brought technological skill to England. The list of Cathedrals built by the Normans is impressive. Something the English alone could not do.
The Norman period ended up transferring the best technology/skills from Europe to Britain.
http://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/statements-in-stone-engl...
The Norman period ended up transferring the best technology/skills from Europe to Britain.
http://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/statements-in-stone-engl...
I remember reading an interesting article that asserted that Genghis Khan, the conqueror, considered Europe as a backward, shitty place not worthy of his attention. Since he and other foreign conquerors largely ignored them, Europe didn't face much external strife and conflict and it was also able to get access to science and knowledge from the more developed countries of the period (Genghis Khan cared about science, and ensured that all knowledge was collated and shared from all conquered regions, in his empire). This helped Europe develop unnoticed, at a much faster pace than other countries.
Mongols raided Europe several times starting around the 1220s, but at that point they were overreaching. For example, they were defeated and pushed back during their campaigns in modern day Germany and Austria.
Europe also faced the Umayyad invasion starting in the 8th century.
> This helped Europe develop unnoticed, at a much faster pace than other countries.
Many of the most important trading ports at the time were in Europe. How would they be “unnoticed”?
Europe also faced the Umayyad invasion starting in the 8th century.
> This helped Europe develop unnoticed, at a much faster pace than other countries.
Many of the most important trading ports at the time were in Europe. How would they be “unnoticed”?
> Mongols raided Europe several times starting around the 1220s ..
That was Genghis Khan's son and the Mongols conquered Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary and held control of Russia and Ukraine (interestingly, Genghis Khan conquered Russia in winter, something that neither Napolean nor Hitler could do). Compared to the wealth and culture of the developed kingdoms of that period, Europe didn't fascinate even his descendants. While some of them did plan to conquer Italy, Austria and Germany (after reaching up to Hungary), they abandoned the plan after the then "Great Khan" died, and they had to withdraw to decide on the next successor. Kublai Khan (grandson of Genghis Khan), for example, was more fascinated by China's wealth (said to be the richest empire of its time) and population, and spent his focus on conquering it.
While Mongolian conquests were brutal, the peace in their empire allowed the silk road trade routes to be opened between aAsia and Europe. This allowed cultural exchanges and trade between them that led to Europe's progress. Land routes in Central Asia was instrumental in connecting Europe to Asia, and the peace in the Mongolian empire was instrumental in allowing trade to flourish. The sharing of knowledge and information was encouraged in the Mongolian empire and this also helped Europe get access to some fundamental technologies like paper making, printing, gunpowder manufacturing etc. that would have have a tremendous impact on humanity.
> How would they be “unnoticed”?
Their lack of wealth and development during that period didn't make them an attractive target for conquest.
That was Genghis Khan's son and the Mongols conquered Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary and held control of Russia and Ukraine (interestingly, Genghis Khan conquered Russia in winter, something that neither Napolean nor Hitler could do). Compared to the wealth and culture of the developed kingdoms of that period, Europe didn't fascinate even his descendants. While some of them did plan to conquer Italy, Austria and Germany (after reaching up to Hungary), they abandoned the plan after the then "Great Khan" died, and they had to withdraw to decide on the next successor. Kublai Khan (grandson of Genghis Khan), for example, was more fascinated by China's wealth (said to be the richest empire of its time) and population, and spent his focus on conquering it.
While Mongolian conquests were brutal, the peace in their empire allowed the silk road trade routes to be opened between aAsia and Europe. This allowed cultural exchanges and trade between them that led to Europe's progress. Land routes in Central Asia was instrumental in connecting Europe to Asia, and the peace in the Mongolian empire was instrumental in allowing trade to flourish. The sharing of knowledge and information was encouraged in the Mongolian empire and this also helped Europe get access to some fundamental technologies like paper making, printing, gunpowder manufacturing etc. that would have have a tremendous impact on humanity.
> How would they be “unnoticed”?
Their lack of wealth and development during that period didn't make them an attractive target for conquest.
If you look at where Mongols succeeded and failed (notably they didn't control Northern Russia directly, rather keeping them as vassals/raiding occasionally - but they also +- failed in Indochina, India, etc.), it's all about terrain. Logistics of the Mongol armies became much less tenable in non-steppe terrain... I was actually wondering what would have happened had Ogedei not died when he did, as far as Europe is concerned... but then, the Eurasian Steppe mostly ends around modern Ukraine :)
It seems that your whole proposition is based upon the notion that the hordes were unstoppable, and only retreated out of self interest. This contradicts the fact that mongols were defeated in East and Central Europe, and retreated right after. It also dismisses the historical trading routes in the Mediterranean sea, and direct access to Northern Africa and the Atlantic ocean.
Still, European powers were at a constant war of conquests with Islamic kingdoms from Northern Africa and Middle East.
Bottom line, your idea contradicts centuries of war in Europe.
Still, European powers were at a constant war of conquests with Islamic kingdoms from Northern Africa and Middle East.
Bottom line, your idea contradicts centuries of war in Europe.
You might be on to something with “stealing.” A remarkable thing about Western European culture, to me, is that it’s a fusion of a middle eastern religion with a Roman (mediterranean) civil society. The Bible, even the New Testament, is all about middle eastern people. What other culture subscribes to a religion which is centered on some other ethnic group, and their own is mentioned only peripherally?
The ethnicity of biblical people is mentioned only peripherally in European Christian practice. Actual representation of the ethnicity of people in the Levant is a trivia question, an amusing aside in Western Christianity; Jesus is blonde.
I'm just saying, don't run too far down that line of thought.
I'm just saying, don't run too far down that line of thought.
[deleted]
> Unfortunately, there is no politically correct answer to this question that allows study of what Bangladeshis could have done or could do differently.
Development economics studies this question, and the general answer is still the one Adam Smith came up with in the late 18th century: good institutions matter the most, even more than geography. There's a few easy case studies, like comparing North Korea with South Korea. Same geography, same historical heritage, same ancestry... Why do they achieve so differently? "Different institutions" is the sensible answer to that question.
Development economics studies this question, and the general answer is still the one Adam Smith came up with in the late 18th century: good institutions matter the most, even more than geography. There's a few easy case studies, like comparing North Korea with South Korea. Same geography, same historical heritage, same ancestry... Why do they achieve so differently? "Different institutions" is the sensible answer to that question.
But what creates good institutions? My dad was a university student when Bangladesh became independent. He has high hopes for a secular, constitutional social democracy. It was all there on paper. And two decades later he left the country disillusioned to raise his kids in America.
Well, if you compare Bangladesh to Pakistan it's easy to see where secularism has helped Bangladesh quite a bit. Much of Bangladesh's growth potential seems intact while it's hard to make the same case re: Pakistan.
But what creates good institutions?
I’m not personally familiar with Bangladesh, but one phrase rings in my mind: the consent of the governed
Secular social democracy only really works if people mostly believe in the institutions.
I’m not personally familiar with Bangladesh, but one phrase rings in my mind: the consent of the governed
Secular social democracy only really works if people mostly believe in the institutions.
There was also the genocide of Bangladeshi educated elite by the Pakistani military
Yes. I studied International Politics and we definitely studied the question of why some countries are more prosperous than others.
The expand on your point about institutions, removing corruption (rent seeking by public servants) is a key part of strong institutions because corruption decreases their effectiveness.
The other institution that is extremely necessary for a prosperous country is free press. Free press is critical to removing corruption and strengthening institutions by criticizing when things aren't going right.
The expand on your point about institutions, removing corruption (rent seeking by public servants) is a key part of strong institutions because corruption decreases their effectiveness.
The other institution that is extremely necessary for a prosperous country is free press. Free press is critical to removing corruption and strengthening institutions by criticizing when things aren't going right.
There is no one institution that's "most important". You're most likely right that "having a free press" helps countries at the leading frontier of development, but many countries are very far from that level. Famously, many East Asian countries managed to become fairly prosperous while being basically dictatorships from a political POV.
I just wanted to add one cent here to the conversation - European climate is harsher, and this difficulty of survival drives people to cooperate and innovate. That would be a good reason why countries where “food just jumps into your basket” did not outpace Europe. As in my thought here is that technological progress and cooperation isn’t in our human nature by itself. Discomfort could have been a big driver in that case.
> ...difficulty of survival drives people to cooperate and innovate
I can't comment about then innovation aspect that much, but Bengal (particularly East Bengal, present day Bangladesh) absolutely had/has a huge culture of sharing. People would share meals and socialize even when they themselves were barely able feed themselves (and this was mostly reciprocated). This may be more of generosity than strictly cooperation, but I would say they're quite related.
Source: The stories I've heard from my grandparents (I'm Bengali)
I can't comment about then innovation aspect that much, but Bengal (particularly East Bengal, present day Bangladesh) absolutely had/has a huge culture of sharing. People would share meals and socialize even when they themselves were barely able feed themselves (and this was mostly reciprocated). This may be more of generosity than strictly cooperation, but I would say they're quite related.
Source: The stories I've heard from my grandparents (I'm Bengali)
Sharing can also be detrimental to general well being, depending on circumstances — what is being shared, by whom, and with whom.
For example, in many non-individualistic societies, if one is to come upon some extra wealth, in manner of for example successful hunt, bountiful harvests, or good government job, one is duty-bound to share that extra wealth with others in their clan or tribe. This disincentives trying hard and increasing productivity: if, through increased labor and investment in fertilizer you can double your yield, but then only get a small fraction of that gain for yourself, why bother trying in the first place? In fact, it might be better investment to obtain higher status in your clan or tribe, so that others will be bound to share more of their wealth with you.
For example, in many non-individualistic societies, if one is to come upon some extra wealth, in manner of for example successful hunt, bountiful harvests, or good government job, one is duty-bound to share that extra wealth with others in their clan or tribe. This disincentives trying hard and increasing productivity: if, through increased labor and investment in fertilizer you can double your yield, but then only get a small fraction of that gain for yourself, why bother trying in the first place? In fact, it might be better investment to obtain higher status in your clan or tribe, so that others will be bound to share more of their wealth with you.
I speculate about exactly this comparing infrastructure across the US. It seems like the worse the weather, the better the roads & buildings.
Exactly, surmontable challenges makes one achieve. When everything is easy, why change?
yunohn(1)
The document you shared is a great example of the education system acting as a vessel for inculcating children with sterile, polite thoughts. I can imagine the room full of well-meaning adults who think they must protect children from dangerous ideas like racial superiority and end up building an edifice of useless ideas.
Maybe we shouldn't even try to explain such an overwhelmingly complex topic like "development of civilization" in grade 4? A charged topic where reasonable sounding yet deeply flawed ideas are known to dupe entire generations of adults.
Alas, our education culture still prefers a feeding tube of narratives over an actual education that equips children with a robust understanding of basics (history, economics, ...) and the ability to question content in front of them. The same sadly applies to science education I think, but with less dramatic effect.
Maybe we shouldn't even try to explain such an overwhelmingly complex topic like "development of civilization" in grade 4? A charged topic where reasonable sounding yet deeply flawed ideas are known to dupe entire generations of adults.
Alas, our education culture still prefers a feeding tube of narratives over an actual education that equips children with a robust understanding of basics (history, economics, ...) and the ability to question content in front of them. The same sadly applies to science education I think, but with less dramatic effect.
I have read a factor is populations that depend on yearly planning, were successful, so areas where winters will kill you was a requirement for this process.
However I dont understand why civilisation thus started and grew in Egypt / Babylon and not in say Norway.
If someone has any any ideas as to why specifically do let me know, I havent hard time to read the rest of the comments so please take this with a pinch of salt.
However I dont understand why civilisation thus started and grew in Egypt / Babylon and not in say Norway.
If someone has any any ideas as to why specifically do let me know, I havent hard time to read the rest of the comments so please take this with a pinch of salt.
Egypt required yearly planning based on the flooding of the nile I believe. Very hard to farm on floodplains if you aren't really planning ahead.
Civilization appeared in six (that we know of) different locations and not just in the Fertile Crescent.
The early civilizations appeared in locations/times when there was an abundance of food, allowing people the time to specialize, creating the first professions. Tradesmen seems to have gathered around various religious sites, creating the first permanent settlements. The need to defend those settlements resulted in fortifications. Fortifications, and the safety they provided, attracted more people and the first cities slowly took form.
There's a lot of nice things to say about Norway, but 9k years ago life there was harsh, and it was -- like the rest of the Arctic -- inhabited by hunter/gatherers, if at all.
The early civilizations appeared in locations/times when there was an abundance of food, allowing people the time to specialize, creating the first professions. Tradesmen seems to have gathered around various religious sites, creating the first permanent settlements. The need to defend those settlements resulted in fortifications. Fortifications, and the safety they provided, attracted more people and the first cities slowly took form.
There's a lot of nice things to say about Norway, but 9k years ago life there was harsh, and it was -- like the rest of the Arctic -- inhabited by hunter/gatherers, if at all.
Civilisation started there because they had, however limited by area, places with extremely good soil fertility that allowed agriculture to appear there first. Agriculture meant excess production, excess production meant possibility to have organised society by using that byproduct to feed priests/military/bosses, that in turn organised system of laws and their enforcement, and jumpstarted development.
Quickly they realised that flood control on rivers greatly increases availability of fertile land further improving their returns, and that required centralised control - so they had both ability, and incentives to build centralised states.
Taking the "yearly planing track". What about the yearly flooding of the Nile?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_of_the_Nile
Right, the "fertile crescent" was a cornucopia of abundance. It provide everything to support a rich food chain and allowed energy to be redirected from hunter gathering towards agriculture and domestication.
It's thought that the Sahara Desert is the result of human overgrazing and overfarming, which would create hardhsips which required problem-solving different than those in harsh climates with large seasonality.
My US education is rife with hidden biases, I'm aware the British Empire fed it's engine through exploitation, but how did it start? The BE stole from India but that was because it had the muscle power already: my original thoughts were, if people lived in harsh climates and the food didn't jump into your basket, then there was more competition to survive in general, and those who could corral people to take over other resources were granted control of their own fiefdom. Rinse and repeat over royal generations and the bigger fish swallows the smaller, until they set sail around the world.
This doesn't explain why Africa did not take a similar path in history.
It's thought that the Sahara Desert is the result of human overgrazing and overfarming, which would create hardhsips which required problem-solving different than those in harsh climates with large seasonality.
My US education is rife with hidden biases, I'm aware the British Empire fed it's engine through exploitation, but how did it start? The BE stole from India but that was because it had the muscle power already: my original thoughts were, if people lived in harsh climates and the food didn't jump into your basket, then there was more competition to survive in general, and those who could corral people to take over other resources were granted control of their own fiefdom. Rinse and repeat over royal generations and the bigger fish swallows the smaller, until they set sail around the world.
This doesn't explain why Africa did not take a similar path in history.
> However I dont understand why civilisation thus started and grew in Egypt / Babylon and not in say Norway.
Civilization is mostly defined by the presence of urban-like settlements, and the ancient Norse were not urbanized for a long time. This is not to say that they lacked complex skills, however. But we have to judge that via complex circumstantial evidence, whereas the case for the Levant is much easier to make.
Civilization is mostly defined by the presence of urban-like settlements, and the ancient Norse were not urbanized for a long time. This is not to say that they lacked complex skills, however. But we have to judge that via complex circumstantial evidence, whereas the case for the Levant is much easier to make.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>there is no politically correct answer to this question that allows study of what Bangladeshis could have done or could do differently
I think a lot of what makes the difference is cultural. Places like Singapore have a culture of hard work, rule of law, free trade and so on, mostly brought in by its founder who got a lot of that stuff from books and learning. There is hope to replicate those sort of things gradually. It's not so much about race - Singapore is quite the mix - the founder was Chinese but studied in England and the people are a mix of Chinese, Malay, Indian, Westerners and other.
I think a lot of what makes the difference is cultural. Places like Singapore have a culture of hard work, rule of law, free trade and so on, mostly brought in by its founder who got a lot of that stuff from books and learning. There is hope to replicate those sort of things gradually. It's not so much about race - Singapore is quite the mix - the founder was Chinese but studied in England and the people are a mix of Chinese, Malay, Indian, Westerners and other.
> It's not so much about race
An axiom of liberal thought these days is that culture is coextensive with race. Hence the dichotomy asserted in the curriculum materials I linked: disparities must be geographic in nature; any other theory is “racist.” (Likewise, most of what’s attributed to “whiteness” is really Western European culture. They don’t seem to distinguish the two concepts at all.) There is no room for the possibility that different societies developed different cultures for various reasons, and certain cultural traits may be better adapted to economic development than others.
Fun fact: Lee Kuan Yew’s (the founder of modern Singapore) birth name was Harry and his first language was English.
An axiom of liberal thought these days is that culture is coextensive with race. Hence the dichotomy asserted in the curriculum materials I linked: disparities must be geographic in nature; any other theory is “racist.” (Likewise, most of what’s attributed to “whiteness” is really Western European culture. They don’t seem to distinguish the two concepts at all.) There is no room for the possibility that different societies developed different cultures for various reasons, and certain cultural traits may be better adapted to economic development than others.
Fun fact: Lee Kuan Yew’s (the founder of modern Singapore) birth name was Harry and his first language was English.
Ha. I didn't know that.
Sowell used to write very well on race and culture stuff eg https://www.amazon.co.uk/Race-Culture-Sowell/dp/0465067972
He could get away with saying things that would otherwise be regarded as politically incorrect as he is black himself. It's a shame there doesn't seem to be much of that quality any more.
Sowell used to write very well on race and culture stuff eg https://www.amazon.co.uk/Race-Culture-Sowell/dp/0465067972
He could get away with saying things that would otherwise be regarded as politically incorrect as he is black himself. It's a shame there doesn't seem to be much of that quality any more.
> In Bangladesh, food just jumps into your basket. Meanwhile Europeans were hacking away at soil that freezes for large parts of the year.
What you state as a contradiction could instead be seen as the explanation.
When food "jumps into your basket", you don't need to focus as much on efficiency and on driving towards automation, which arguably was the ultimate drive of the industrial revolution, upon which most of the modern wealth of Europe was built.
The lower effort to food ratio in warm humid places also allows you to support more population, which in turn reduces the need for automation because of the plentiful labor. The spectacular populations of China and India despite their less developed past is basically due to the incredible caloric productivity of rice agriculture.
Also, there is the general stability of most of Europe with respect to weather. It is a northern climate but tempered by the gulf stream.
What you state as a contradiction could instead be seen as the explanation.
When food "jumps into your basket", you don't need to focus as much on efficiency and on driving towards automation, which arguably was the ultimate drive of the industrial revolution, upon which most of the modern wealth of Europe was built.
The lower effort to food ratio in warm humid places also allows you to support more population, which in turn reduces the need for automation because of the plentiful labor. The spectacular populations of China and India despite their less developed past is basically due to the incredible caloric productivity of rice agriculture.
Also, there is the general stability of most of Europe with respect to weather. It is a northern climate but tempered by the gulf stream.
Guns, Germs and Steel?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Which tries to answer the question:
> Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Which tries to answer the question:
> Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?
It seems that a lot of historians strongly disagree with Jared Diamond's methods and thesis in Guns, Germs, and Steel. See here for /r/AskHistorians FAQ about him:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
That's essentially a book of just-so stories/post-hoc hypotheses.
Edit: See a more specific critique here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6meq1k/a_det...
Edit: See a more specific critique here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6meq1k/a_det...
I’m all for rebuttals of just-so stories but that comment is wholly unconvincing.
He just says “actually it didn’t happen” in 5 different ways.
But, like, they speak Spanish in Lima and Mexico City and they don’t speak Aztec or Quechua in Madrid. The Europeans did in fact colonize portions of the entire world. There were German armies in Namibia and Dutch in Malaysia and Spanish in Patagonia.
That seems... notable?
I literally have no unique insight at all into why that happened. But it does seem like an interesting question.
I guess the answer could be “no reason” or “it was the result of a non-determinative complex adaptive system and the concept of why isn’t really relevant or repeatable” which are fine responses. But that comment you posted seems to just be refusing to engage with the question.
He just says “actually it didn’t happen” in 5 different ways.
But, like, they speak Spanish in Lima and Mexico City and they don’t speak Aztec or Quechua in Madrid. The Europeans did in fact colonize portions of the entire world. There were German armies in Namibia and Dutch in Malaysia and Spanish in Patagonia.
That seems... notable?
I literally have no unique insight at all into why that happened. But it does seem like an interesting question.
I guess the answer could be “no reason” or “it was the result of a non-determinative complex adaptive system and the concept of why isn’t really relevant or repeatable” which are fine responses. But that comment you posted seems to just be refusing to engage with the question.
The comment is explaining "Guns, Germs & Steel's explanation of why they speak Spanish in Patagonia is inaccurate". Did you find it unconvincing in that regard? If so, what specifically did you find to be flawed in the critique?
The comment isn't trying to explain "X is the reason why they speak Spanish in Patagonia". But I don't think that's necessary to rebut a poorly justified Grand Theory of History (tm).
The comment isn't trying to explain "X is the reason why they speak Spanish in Patagonia". But I don't think that's necessary to rebut a poorly justified Grand Theory of History (tm).
I didn’t think it was a critique at all. It was basically just saying well I have issues with how he describes the conquest. It didn’t happen like that, here are some nitpicks about how he’s describing it and now I’ll throw in some unrelated metaphor of a kid in a science class to say that disagreeing with someone’s specific takes on events that are fundamentally unknowable and hundreds of years old is the same as a little kid saying yellow is green.
The problem is that any moron can see the main observation that set off the discussion. There’s not an equal distribution of wealth and power across cultures at all.
I read guns germs and steel and it’s interesting and I didn’t remember it as being polemical or sure of its conclusions. My memory if it was basically a recounting of history that said this is all complicated and cause and effect is pretty murky but here is a grab bag of some broad ideas that could comprise a thesis for why things look the way they do.
I would expect any reasonable critique to either say actually no I think these reasons are overstated and these other ones are more important. Or they could say look human history isn’t deterministic the best way to think about this is mostly a series of butterfly effects. Or as complexity theorists would say, it’s just path dependence, aka a stochastic walk with absorbing barriers.
Those seem like reasonable alternate points of view. The critique I’m talking about here though is just like “nah didn’t happen” when confronted with a plainly observable chronology of global power and cultural expansion.
The problem is that any moron can see the main observation that set off the discussion. There’s not an equal distribution of wealth and power across cultures at all.
I read guns germs and steel and it’s interesting and I didn’t remember it as being polemical or sure of its conclusions. My memory if it was basically a recounting of history that said this is all complicated and cause and effect is pretty murky but here is a grab bag of some broad ideas that could comprise a thesis for why things look the way they do.
I would expect any reasonable critique to either say actually no I think these reasons are overstated and these other ones are more important. Or they could say look human history isn’t deterministic the best way to think about this is mostly a series of butterfly effects. Or as complexity theorists would say, it’s just path dependence, aka a stochastic walk with absorbing barriers.
Those seem like reasonable alternate points of view. The critique I’m talking about here though is just like “nah didn’t happen” when confronted with a plainly observable chronology of global power and cultural expansion.
I think if you view "Guns, Germs & Steel" as a book of hypotheses about world history, with no evidence for their factualness, then the critique isn't valuable. Essentially, you'd be viewing GGS as a fan-fic about world history.
If you think that GGS is making factual claims about the world, and if the supporting evidence provided for them isn't factual, then the claims aren't facts, they're just speculation. This is the point that the critique makes; the assumptions that GGS makes in its theories aren't true, and so the conclusions are just random ideas as opposed to truths.
If you think that GGS is making factual claims about the world, and if the supporting evidence provided for them isn't factual, then the claims aren't facts, they're just speculation. This is the point that the critique makes; the assumptions that GGS makes in its theories aren't true, and so the conclusions are just random ideas as opposed to truths.
I mean I get the concept.
But let’s start with the beginning of the critique. He sets up the GGS hypothesis #1 as saying “Europeans decisively conquered the Americas”
His rebuttal is basically no they didn’t.
Then he links to a bunch of evidence and his thesis seems to be well actually there was a lot more fighting and it lasted much longer so it wasn’t decisive.
I mean, I guess? I thought we were talking about the obvious fact that the entirety of the Americas was conquered by the Europeans and not the other way around.
Of course there’s some subtlety to that. There always is. But, again, they’re speaking Spanish at the highest reaches of the Andes and not Quechua in Spain. And the mass quantities of resources went in one direction. The Incan gold went to Spain and the British Crown Jewels didn’t go to Benin.
So like something notable happened here that’s academically interesting to explore. The critique I’m seeing here is just saying “no it didn’t” as far as I can tell.
I like a “well actually” as much as the next guy but come on.
If you’re questioning the very premise when someone is asking why European military and economic power became dominant things have gotten pretty confused.
But let’s start with the beginning of the critique. He sets up the GGS hypothesis #1 as saying “Europeans decisively conquered the Americas”
His rebuttal is basically no they didn’t.
Then he links to a bunch of evidence and his thesis seems to be well actually there was a lot more fighting and it lasted much longer so it wasn’t decisive.
I mean, I guess? I thought we were talking about the obvious fact that the entirety of the Americas was conquered by the Europeans and not the other way around.
Of course there’s some subtlety to that. There always is. But, again, they’re speaking Spanish at the highest reaches of the Andes and not Quechua in Spain. And the mass quantities of resources went in one direction. The Incan gold went to Spain and the British Crown Jewels didn’t go to Benin.
So like something notable happened here that’s academically interesting to explore. The critique I’m seeing here is just saying “no it didn’t” as far as I can tell.
I like a “well actually” as much as the next guy but come on.
If you’re questioning the very premise when someone is asking why European military and economic power became dominant things have gotten pretty confused.
> The critique I’m seeing here is just saying “no it didn’t” as far as I can tell.
The critique is: there's a difference between taking decades to colonize it (hence "decisive") and centuries to colonize it.
If your argument is: "well, the Spanish eventually succeeded", great, but that's not what GGS is saying. Otherwise it'd be a pretty boring book.
The critique is: there's a difference between taking decades to colonize it (hence "decisive") and centuries to colonize it.
If your argument is: "well, the Spanish eventually succeeded", great, but that's not what GGS is saying. Otherwise it'd be a pretty boring book.
> The critique is: there's a difference between taking decades to colonize it (hence "decisive") and centuries to colonize it.
Cool. Now tell me what the difference is.
This argument just seems silly to me. Is the argument really that it could have gone the other way?
Is there a reasonable counterfactual where the Aztec civilization successfully repelled European colonization efforts and eventually attacked and held European home countries?
Like from a vantage point of the mid 1400s when none of this had happened yet was that an equally likely outcome?
I mean that’s superficially plausible to me. Maybe it was just historical luck of the draw. If that’s what critics think then the critique should say that without hedging.
If not, the next question has to be why.
Cool. Now tell me what the difference is.
This argument just seems silly to me. Is the argument really that it could have gone the other way?
Is there a reasonable counterfactual where the Aztec civilization successfully repelled European colonization efforts and eventually attacked and held European home countries?
Like from a vantage point of the mid 1400s when none of this had happened yet was that an equally likely outcome?
I mean that’s superficially plausible to me. Maybe it was just historical luck of the draw. If that’s what critics think then the critique should say that without hedging.
If not, the next question has to be why.
Nice.
I read the book and found it quite good.
It seems at least the conquest part is wrong, but that part didn't interest me that much.
What I found most interesting was a thesis at the beginning of the book. That real innovation (revolution instead of evolutio ) is mostly accident and not facilitated by personal virtue of the innovator.
I read the book and found it quite good.
It seems at least the conquest part is wrong, but that part didn't interest me that much.
What I found most interesting was a thesis at the beginning of the book. That real innovation (revolution instead of evolutio ) is mostly accident and not facilitated by personal virtue of the innovator.
I would balance it with 'Why Nations Fail'.
I can understand the critique it received while still thinking it a good introduction for the question.
I can understand the critique it received while still thinking it a good introduction for the question.
Trade shifted to seas from land. Beyond the obvious economic impact, this highly reduced the flow of information, new knowledge, etc. to Asian societies (sans the various ports, of course).
Beyond that, Europeans, beginning with the Dutch and the English, incorporated the emerging financial and merchant classes into the governing/elite class. This both enabled scaling effective reach of central governments, and also affected the inclusion of a larger (though still minority) subset of the populations (families) to be stakeholders in the governing system. Finally, from a Marxist point of view, the transition from feudalism (which remained the norm in Asia) to capitalism was an advancement that (as we can see) hugely contributed to production power of Europe. This historic progression, in conjunction with the greater class mobility that it afforded, provided meaningful social utility to creative, productive, competent people.
[And p.s. so this couple of hundred years head start which resulted in industrialization in Europe, placed the rest of the planet behind a very steep curve. As we can see with the experiment in China, Asians/whoever can only catch up on that curve when the capitalist class in Europe (West) decides, for whatever reason, to massively transfer capital, technology, and know how (which is how China went from Maoist basket case to Superpower status in 30 years, and of course the Chinese Communist Party deserves credit for taking full and effective advantage of this completely historic opportunity).]
Beyond that, Europeans, beginning with the Dutch and the English, incorporated the emerging financial and merchant classes into the governing/elite class. This both enabled scaling effective reach of central governments, and also affected the inclusion of a larger (though still minority) subset of the populations (families) to be stakeholders in the governing system. Finally, from a Marxist point of view, the transition from feudalism (which remained the norm in Asia) to capitalism was an advancement that (as we can see) hugely contributed to production power of Europe. This historic progression, in conjunction with the greater class mobility that it afforded, provided meaningful social utility to creative, productive, competent people.
[And p.s. so this couple of hundred years head start which resulted in industrialization in Europe, placed the rest of the planet behind a very steep curve. As we can see with the experiment in China, Asians/whoever can only catch up on that curve when the capitalist class in Europe (West) decides, for whatever reason, to massively transfer capital, technology, and know how (which is how China went from Maoist basket case to Superpower status in 30 years, and of course the Chinese Communist Party deserves credit for taking full and effective advantage of this completely historic opportunity).]
"Factors outside the control of people" seems like a pretty good summary of human history, but you feel it's morally damaging in some way to think that, even if it's true?
I don’t think we know whether it’s true or not. I think the inquiry in this area is distorted by liberal assumptions that require disparities to be explainable by blaming chance (or white European people). That is damaging because if those assumptions aren’t true we are denying developing the opportunity to help themselves, and condemning them to a state of dependency.
We do know that it's true.
What your're proposing is just a form of the Just World Hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
The nations that found themselves on top of oil or coal or the fertile crescent at just the right time in history did not plan that.
It might make people feel more in control of their lives to think that bad things only happen to bad people but it's clearly not true.
What your're proposing is just a form of the Just World Hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
The nations that found themselves on top of oil or coal or the fertile crescent at just the right time in history did not plan that.
It might make people feel more in control of their lives to think that bad things only happen to bad people but it's clearly not true.
Is it a “form of the Just World Hypothesis” to say that say Google did things that are responsible for its success that other companies could study and copy?
> The nations that found themselves on top of oil or coal or the fertile crescent at just the right time in history did not plan that.
Doesn’t that undermine your point? Because Bangladesh doesn’t exactly look to Iraq, West Virginia, or Libya as the symbols of affluence and development. Conversely, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc., aren’t replete with oil and minerals.
> The nations that found themselves on top of oil or coal or the fertile crescent at just the right time in history did not plan that.
Doesn’t that undermine your point? Because Bangladesh doesn’t exactly look to Iraq, West Virginia, or Libya as the symbols of affluence and development. Conversely, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc., aren’t replete with oil and minerals.
I think you missed the 'right time in history' part of my point. If Australia found the biggest coal seam in its history today, it would be more economically wise to put solar panels on it.
So all the countries with plenty of sun are going to get lots of cheap energy independence soon. I guess we should cargo cult from whatever they did to achieve this amazing success? I know the liberals want to claim it's geography and 'hours of sunshine' or some other politically correct nonsense but really I think it's all about the wide brimmed hats they wear and avoidance of the corrupting influence of ice hockey. But they won't teach that in schools!
And close to home examples like Google should make this more obvious to HN readers. You can't separate them from the early dot com era and what their competitors at the time we're doing, notably monopolist Microsoft trying to kill the internet rather than embrace it, yet accidentally inventing AJAX.
There's the whole conversation about the 'Good to Great' book and how the business lessons from these success stories were obviously bullshit with just a tiny amount of hindsight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great
So all the countries with plenty of sun are going to get lots of cheap energy independence soon. I guess we should cargo cult from whatever they did to achieve this amazing success? I know the liberals want to claim it's geography and 'hours of sunshine' or some other politically correct nonsense but really I think it's all about the wide brimmed hats they wear and avoidance of the corrupting influence of ice hockey. But they won't teach that in schools!
And close to home examples like Google should make this more obvious to HN readers. You can't separate them from the early dot com era and what their competitors at the time we're doing, notably monopolist Microsoft trying to kill the internet rather than embrace it, yet accidentally inventing AJAX.
There's the whole conversation about the 'Good to Great' book and how the business lessons from these success stories were obviously bullshit with just a tiny amount of hindsight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great
This looks as though Jared Diamond's theories being taught as fact. I read guns germs and steel and came away unconvinced. His theory on Easter Island has been pretty much debunked too.
There's something really strange about that curriculum, it seems to have a racial agenda rather than a factual one.
There's something really strange about that curriculum, it seems to have a racial agenda rather than a factual one.
Thank you for your insights. This was really 'eye-opening' for me as someone who is sympathetic to rhetoric around colonisation.
> there is no politically correct answer to this question
I would love to hear your opinions on the true answer to this question. I hope HN is a place where we can engage in this type of discourse sensibly with open minds and hearts. Thanks again for your well-articulated thoughts.
> there is no politically correct answer to this question
I would love to hear your opinions on the true answer to this question. I hope HN is a place where we can engage in this type of discourse sensibly with open minds and hearts. Thanks again for your well-articulated thoughts.
[deleted]
Not having seen one, does magur walk or jump into one’s basket?
> I think it’s tremendously important for academia to study what factors have allowed certain countries to develop stable, prosperous democracies.
It's no mystery. You need a politically united elite. You need political stability/authoritarianism. You need a nationalistic elite that take a nation's wealth and develop it rather than fly to europe and waste it there. And you need to become rich before you become a democracy. Democracy is a luxury for the wealthy. It's not something you want as a poor or developing country. The british celebrate democracy in india/etc not because they love india. But because they hate/fear them. The relationship between britain and india has always been that of a master and a slave. Ask yourself, why do the british malign china, which has developed immensely, but praise india which has 300 million without electricity? They praise india because india is undeveloped and weak and they malign china because they are developing and getting stronger. The master never wants their slaves to usurp them. The easiest way to tell if india is on the right path is if britain and the west start denouncing india. Like we did after india developed nuclears.
> It chalks up the differences in development between countries to “geography” giving some countries a “head start.”
It's true. Geography is destiny. It's why britain was of no importance until the americas was "discovered". When mediterranean trade was dominant, it was mediterranean countries ( rome/greece/egypt/etc ) that was wealthy. When the new world became the focus, spain/britain/france/etc became the wealthiest empires for a reason compared to italy/greece/poland/etc. There are other factors involved for sure, but geography is absolutely significant.
> Yet by the time the British East India company came to India, Britain was more than twice as rich per capita as India
That's because britain had the colonies to offload most of their people. Also the british was the largest atlantic slave traders for 100 years before they arrived in south asia.
> The British will never write a $42 trillion check for what they allegedly siphoned off from India.
Not unless india conquers britain and takes it back. If you look at opportunity cost, then they siphoned far more than $42 trillion. If india was free to develop/industrialize like say japan did in the late 1800s, India today would be a $60+ trillion economy. It's mindboggling that india still hasn't gone full-throttle with their industrialization like America or Europe did in the early 1800s, japan did in the late 1800s or china did in the 80s. What is india waiting for? It seems like the indian elite prefers pat on their heads for being a democracy by the west rather than industrializing their country.
> But understanding how the British (themselves the victims of repeated invasions) came to have the economic and military advantage that allowed them to do that would be valuable.
It's not rocket science. Imagine if bangladesh finds a piece of land that is 100000000X the size of bangladesh and has infinite more resources. Imagine if bangladesh was able to send 80% of its population to that land and transport the resources of that land to bangladesh. How do you think that would affects its per capita GDP?
Geography made britain ( aka its proximity to north america ). I don't think bangladesh is going to find such luck. They should look at how japan, south korea, singapore, etc developed. Bangladesh needs a united nationalistic elite because a nation is developed by the elite.
The rise of china lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and represents the greatest humanitarian achievement to date. If south asia ( which has nearly 2 billion people, far more than china ) can get its act together, it would be the greatest humanitarian achievement for all time. No region could surpass it because no region has that many people.
It's no mystery. You need a politically united elite. You need political stability/authoritarianism. You need a nationalistic elite that take a nation's wealth and develop it rather than fly to europe and waste it there. And you need to become rich before you become a democracy. Democracy is a luxury for the wealthy. It's not something you want as a poor or developing country. The british celebrate democracy in india/etc not because they love india. But because they hate/fear them. The relationship between britain and india has always been that of a master and a slave. Ask yourself, why do the british malign china, which has developed immensely, but praise india which has 300 million without electricity? They praise india because india is undeveloped and weak and they malign china because they are developing and getting stronger. The master never wants their slaves to usurp them. The easiest way to tell if india is on the right path is if britain and the west start denouncing india. Like we did after india developed nuclears.
> It chalks up the differences in development between countries to “geography” giving some countries a “head start.”
It's true. Geography is destiny. It's why britain was of no importance until the americas was "discovered". When mediterranean trade was dominant, it was mediterranean countries ( rome/greece/egypt/etc ) that was wealthy. When the new world became the focus, spain/britain/france/etc became the wealthiest empires for a reason compared to italy/greece/poland/etc. There are other factors involved for sure, but geography is absolutely significant.
> Yet by the time the British East India company came to India, Britain was more than twice as rich per capita as India
That's because britain had the colonies to offload most of their people. Also the british was the largest atlantic slave traders for 100 years before they arrived in south asia.
> The British will never write a $42 trillion check for what they allegedly siphoned off from India.
Not unless india conquers britain and takes it back. If you look at opportunity cost, then they siphoned far more than $42 trillion. If india was free to develop/industrialize like say japan did in the late 1800s, India today would be a $60+ trillion economy. It's mindboggling that india still hasn't gone full-throttle with their industrialization like America or Europe did in the early 1800s, japan did in the late 1800s or china did in the 80s. What is india waiting for? It seems like the indian elite prefers pat on their heads for being a democracy by the west rather than industrializing their country.
> But understanding how the British (themselves the victims of repeated invasions) came to have the economic and military advantage that allowed them to do that would be valuable.
It's not rocket science. Imagine if bangladesh finds a piece of land that is 100000000X the size of bangladesh and has infinite more resources. Imagine if bangladesh was able to send 80% of its population to that land and transport the resources of that land to bangladesh. How do you think that would affects its per capita GDP?
Geography made britain ( aka its proximity to north america ). I don't think bangladesh is going to find such luck. They should look at how japan, south korea, singapore, etc developed. Bangladesh needs a united nationalistic elite because a nation is developed by the elite.
The rise of china lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and represents the greatest humanitarian achievement to date. If south asia ( which has nearly 2 billion people, far more than china ) can get its act together, it would be the greatest humanitarian achievement for all time. No region could surpass it because no region has that many people.
Differential of average IQ by country might have something to say in this regard, but also this is very controversial (even if a meaningful and true contributing factor to differential between national achievement). Of course then the question is what produces this differential? Culture and environment producing some sort of selective pressure perhaps, with both feeding back into each other. Certainly the heritability of intelligence argues this is a biological phenomenon to some degree.
Societal wealth is more delicate than you'd expect. For example, China has gone from the richest, most capable nation on earth to one of the poorest multiple times in its long history. I think it takes a special reason for a region to not be subject to the boom/bust cycle.
The reasons given seem fairly compelling: (1) multiple, competitive peer states, (2) freedom of travel for intellectuals, and (3) a shared intellectual tradition creating a marketplace of ideas, propelled by high literacy and the printing press.
My read would be that pre-Enlightenment examples are fundamentally different in that the Enlightenment wasn't a momentary advancement, as previous regional jostlings were, but a growth hack.
It permanently increased the growth rate of knowledge in Europe, which then outscaled everyone else.
I'd be curious about opinions more knowledgeable than mine opining on the above conditions vis certain periods in Chinese and Middle Eastern history. They would seem to equally qualify. And if they were equally possessed there, then the conditions must be incorrect or incomplete.
My read would be that pre-Enlightenment examples are fundamentally different in that the Enlightenment wasn't a momentary advancement, as previous regional jostlings were, but a growth hack.
It permanently increased the growth rate of knowledge in Europe, which then outscaled everyone else.
I'd be curious about opinions more knowledgeable than mine opining on the above conditions vis certain periods in Chinese and Middle Eastern history. They would seem to equally qualify. And if they were equally possessed there, then the conditions must be incorrect or incomplete.
> (1) multiple, competitive peer states, (2) freedom of travel for intellectuals, and (3) a shared intellectual tradition creating a marketplace of ideas, propelled by high literacy and the printing press.
How would this fail to apply to the area we now call China? It consistent of a bunch of different states which regularly went to war with each other, conquered each other and broke apart again, not unlike the various European states. It had a thousand year tradition of the Confucian exam system. It had block printing a thousand years before Europe.
How would this fail to apply to the area we now call China? It consistent of a bunch of different states which regularly went to war with each other, conquered each other and broke apart again, not unlike the various European states. It had a thousand year tradition of the Confucian exam system. It had block printing a thousand years before Europe.
This is at least partly explained by the Qing dynasty; the emperors and ruling class were Manchurians, who were initially outsiders.
To better rule, they assimilated themselves into Chinese culture by embracing a very traditional, conservative form of Confucianism. Unfortunately for them, this coincided with exposure to western countries expeditions, and rather than embrace your marketplace of ideas, they rejected anything that was not traditional thinking.
Feudalism, rebellions, drug trade, the opium wars and more all together helped to give china the "sick man of the east" moniker.
To better rule, they assimilated themselves into Chinese culture by embracing a very traditional, conservative form of Confucianism. Unfortunately for them, this coincided with exposure to western countries expeditions, and rather than embrace your marketplace of ideas, they rejected anything that was not traditional thinking.
Feudalism, rebellions, drug trade, the opium wars and more all together helped to give china the "sick man of the east" moniker.
> It had a thousand year tradition of the Confucian exam system. It had block printing a thousand years before Europe.
It had a rigid top-down bureaucracy where any innovation was probably stifled. The telescope was invented in 1608 and revolutionized Europe. The Jesuits brought it to Imperial China and it basically did nothing because the government didn't want anything to do with it, and so ordered the technology to ignore.
The Chinese still thought the Earth was flat until the Jesuits arrived:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ming_Dynasty_in_Chi...
It had a rigid top-down bureaucracy where any innovation was probably stifled. The telescope was invented in 1608 and revolutionized Europe. The Jesuits brought it to Imperial China and it basically did nothing because the government didn't want anything to do with it, and so ordered the technology to ignore.
The Chinese still thought the Earth was flat until the Jesuits arrived:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ming_Dynasty_in_Chi...
Sure, but now we're not saying "Europe had an intellectual tradition, thus it succeeded", but "Europe didn't have a centralized bureaucracy, thus it succeeded".
It wasn't an issue of nourishing intellectuals, which China had been doing for centuries, and it wasn't an issue of regular war against peer armies, which again, had been happening in China for centuries.
So now the question is: why did Europe care about telescopes, and China didn't?
My intuition is that telescopes didn't solve any problems for Chinese emperors/subjects, and so they didn't care about their invention. Similarly, if it were important for China to know that the Earth was round, they would've figured it out.
> The Chinese still thought the Earth was flat until the Jesuits arrived:
I think this might add some nuance to what "thinking the Earth was flat" meant: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ug0yf/coper...
It wasn't an issue of nourishing intellectuals, which China had been doing for centuries, and it wasn't an issue of regular war against peer armies, which again, had been happening in China for centuries.
So now the question is: why did Europe care about telescopes, and China didn't?
My intuition is that telescopes didn't solve any problems for Chinese emperors/subjects, and so they didn't care about their invention. Similarly, if it were important for China to know that the Earth was round, they would've figured it out.
> The Chinese still thought the Earth was flat until the Jesuits arrived:
I think this might add some nuance to what "thinking the Earth was flat" meant: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ug0yf/coper...
Did China nourish intellectuals? There is a famous Dutch 17th century painting of scientists cutting into corpses to find out how the human body works. This never happened outside Europe until centuries later for various religious and moral reasons.
Curiosity, ambition and lack of scruples to experiment.
> This never happened outside Europe until centuries later for various religious and moral reasons.
Can you point to the research you've read that indicates that this never happened outside of Europe, because of religious/moral reason?
Anatomical dissection happened in a variety of places, including a criminal in 200-300 BCE China.
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002...
Can you point to the research you've read that indicates that this never happened outside of Europe, because of religious/moral reason?
Anatomical dissection happened in a variety of places, including a criminal in 200-300 BCE China.
https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002...
> scientists cutting into corpses to find out how the human body works. This never happened outside Europe until centuries later
Egypt had been cutting corpses and doing sophisticated surgery 2000 years before that
Egypt had been cutting corpses and doing sophisticated surgery 2000 years before that
> So now the question is: why did Europe care about telescopes, and China didn't?
Copying another comment I made in this thread (much hand-waving and unsubtly/non-nuance):
----
Literacy, individualism, lack of tribalism/clans, a 'mechanistic'/logical/Aristotelian view of reality (which led to the development of science), a 'general' of separation spiritual and civil powers (Matthew 22:15–22, Mark 12:13–17, Luke 20:20–26).
Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the first people to ask this question:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
For more recent thoughts, see The WEIRDest People in the World by Heinrich:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
And Toby Huff (The Rise of Early Modern Science, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff
Intellectual Curiosity makes some interesting observations from the historical record: the telescope was invented in 1608 (where it ended up revolutionizing things), and the Europeans brought the technology to Imperial China and Mughal India. They brought it as 'supplicants' to the court to try to grant greater access to each nation; the Jesuits in China used it to show that their 'superior' knowledge of the universe and reality to help with converting folks to Christianity/Catholicism (e.g., by better predicting eclipses).
Neither country was interesting and continued, through a top-down decree, to simply do things the way they always did them.
The telescope arrived in the the Ottoman Empire by osmosis, and they didn't do much with it either.
Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet. The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans.
----
* https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=30742959
> I think this might add some nuance to what "thinking the Earth was flat" meant
To add nuance to nuance: IIRC, the only way to really "prove" or provide evidence of the Earth's motion around the sun was through parallax of stars. Things came close with Bradley and stellar aberration in ~1728:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley
Giuseppi Calandrelli finally directly measures parallax in α-Lyrae in 1806. The Earth's motion (rotation) around its axis was demonstrated by Guglielmini:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Guglielmini
And it's not like folks didn't think of the possibility, as even Aristotle wrote in De Caelo (II.14):
> Again, everything that moves with the circular movement, except the first sphere, is observed to be passed, and to move with more than one motion. The earth, then, also, whether it move about the centre or as stationary at it, must necessarily move with two motions. But if this were so, there would have to be passings and turnings of the fixed stars. Yet no such thing is observed. The same stars always rise and set in the same parts of the earth.
* http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens
Copying another comment I made in this thread (much hand-waving and unsubtly/non-nuance):
----
Literacy, individualism, lack of tribalism/clans, a 'mechanistic'/logical/Aristotelian view of reality (which led to the development of science), a 'general' of separation spiritual and civil powers (Matthew 22:15–22, Mark 12:13–17, Luke 20:20–26).
Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the first people to ask this question:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
For more recent thoughts, see The WEIRDest People in the World by Heinrich:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
And Toby Huff (The Rise of Early Modern Science, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff
Intellectual Curiosity makes some interesting observations from the historical record: the telescope was invented in 1608 (where it ended up revolutionizing things), and the Europeans brought the technology to Imperial China and Mughal India. They brought it as 'supplicants' to the court to try to grant greater access to each nation; the Jesuits in China used it to show that their 'superior' knowledge of the universe and reality to help with converting folks to Christianity/Catholicism (e.g., by better predicting eclipses).
Neither country was interesting and continued, through a top-down decree, to simply do things the way they always did them.
The telescope arrived in the the Ottoman Empire by osmosis, and they didn't do much with it either.
Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet. The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans.
----
* https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=30742959
> I think this might add some nuance to what "thinking the Earth was flat" meant
To add nuance to nuance: IIRC, the only way to really "prove" or provide evidence of the Earth's motion around the sun was through parallax of stars. Things came close with Bradley and stellar aberration in ~1728:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley
Giuseppi Calandrelli finally directly measures parallax in α-Lyrae in 1806. The Earth's motion (rotation) around its axis was demonstrated by Guglielmini:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Guglielmini
And it's not like folks didn't think of the possibility, as even Aristotle wrote in De Caelo (II.14):
> Again, everything that moves with the circular movement, except the first sphere, is observed to be passed, and to move with more than one motion. The earth, then, also, whether it move about the centre or as stationary at it, must necessarily move with two motions. But if this were so, there would have to be passings and turnings of the fixed stars. Yet no such thing is observed. The same stars always rise and set in the same parts of the earth.
* http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens
That's... a lot of handwaving. Going through this:
> lack of tribalism/clans
The government structure of European states was hereditary. A clan would lay claim to a region and support/fight other clans in their claims.
> a 'mechanistic'/logical/Aristotelian view of reality
I don't know that this is true? For example, where does the soul exist in a mechanistic view of reality?
> a 'general' of separation spiritual and civil powers
This is a better description of China than Europe. Churches were authority figures, held land, and vied with monarchs and nobles for political power. You'll need to be much more specific as to what you mean.
> Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet.
What do you mean "walk all over the rest of the planet"? Europeans were limited to small coastal trading posts until the late 19th century. When you look at a 18th century map and see "all of central America belongs to Spain", that doesn't mean that Spain could project power over all of it. It was an aspirational "we own this" combined with "other powers best not try to take this from us". It didn't mean that they had meaningful control or ownership of the region.
> The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans.
Can you define what you mean by "advanced" and "primitive"? How would one measure that?
> lack of tribalism/clans
The government structure of European states was hereditary. A clan would lay claim to a region and support/fight other clans in their claims.
> a 'mechanistic'/logical/Aristotelian view of reality
I don't know that this is true? For example, where does the soul exist in a mechanistic view of reality?
> a 'general' of separation spiritual and civil powers
This is a better description of China than Europe. Churches were authority figures, held land, and vied with monarchs and nobles for political power. You'll need to be much more specific as to what you mean.
> Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet.
What do you mean "walk all over the rest of the planet"? Europeans were limited to small coastal trading posts until the late 19th century. When you look at a 18th century map and see "all of central America belongs to Spain", that doesn't mean that Spain could project power over all of it. It was an aspirational "we own this" combined with "other powers best not try to take this from us". It didn't mean that they had meaningful control or ownership of the region.
> The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans.
Can you define what you mean by "advanced" and "primitive"? How would one measure that?
> That's... a lot of handwaving. Going through this:
Yes. This an HN comment, not an anthropological/sociological/historical analytical paper.
Weber, Tuff, Heinrich have written books on this, Needham has written volumes. The rest of us are just hand waving here.
Yes. This an HN comment, not an anthropological/sociological/historical analytical paper.
Weber, Tuff, Heinrich have written books on this, Needham has written volumes. The rest of us are just hand waving here.
I fully agree. It seems self evident that Enlightenment principles are superior to the alternatives. Free speech, democracy, the right to dissent and disagree, separation of religion and state. These principles keep the West prosperous as compared to competing ideologies. Totalitarianism, communism, monarchy, etc.; these do not maximise the wellbeing of the population - demonstrably.
It astounds me when I encounter people decrying Western values. Have they not travelled the world? Do they not understand how much worse it can be? No one argues that Enlightenment values are perfect; just that they’re the best we’ve found so far.
It astounds me when I encounter people decrying Western values. Have they not travelled the world? Do they not understand how much worse it can be? No one argues that Enlightenment values are perfect; just that they’re the best we’ve found so far.
> It astounds me when I encounter people decrying Western values.
Sure some cultures are different but we can also make judgement calls on whether it’s worse or better.
A country that deprives women of agency, for example, is different, sure, but one can also make the judgement call that’s it’s a worse culture.
A country that deprives women of agency, for example, is different, sure, but one can also make the judgement call that’s it’s a worse culture.
Your measure of better or worse is subjective. If so called agency of women results in economic gains, but at the same time puts costs on social cohesion, children growing up a good childhood, and the value of family (or so on), then you could also say it is worse.
Only if one ignores core liberal ideas of human rights.
By your logic we couldn’t say slavery was bad if society was better off when it existed.
This is false. Slavery is objectively bad.
By your logic we couldn’t say slavery was bad if society was better off when it existed.
This is false. Slavery is objectively bad.
There is no objective foundation for human rights. I personally prefer to live in a world where we all pretend they exist, but we need some other way to reach people that don’t hold the same arbitrary moral axioms than reasserting them. For a long time, that was to claim that enforcing our table of human rights made you richer, but unfortunately that’s losing currency nowadays.
I believe the word Presentism comes to mind.
The idea of human rights is constantly in flux. It is subjectively understood and applied. For example, is internet access now a human right? It is not clear what interpretation of human rights should prevail. Not to mention that ‘liberal ideas of human rights’ is a very Eurocentric framing which denies important contributions from other civilizations.
Even interpretation of historical events relative to the present can be subjected to a flux in understanding. If slavery was codified to protect the rights of slave owners and slaves, while also providing for both parties, then this arrangement could be considered better than the economic servitude many laborers find themselves in today.
In fact, most slavery in history was not like the brutality of so called American chattel slavery.
The idea of human rights is constantly in flux. It is subjectively understood and applied. For example, is internet access now a human right? It is not clear what interpretation of human rights should prevail. Not to mention that ‘liberal ideas of human rights’ is a very Eurocentric framing which denies important contributions from other civilizations.
Even interpretation of historical events relative to the present can be subjected to a flux in understanding. If slavery was codified to protect the rights of slave owners and slaves, while also providing for both parties, then this arrangement could be considered better than the economic servitude many laborers find themselves in today.
In fact, most slavery in history was not like the brutality of so called American chattel slavery.
Of course it's constantly in flux, but that doesn't mean the flux is always in a "good" direction.
I mean, the belief system of Germany in WW2 went off the rails and a good portion of the population agreed, but I think we can all admit it didn't evolve into a "better" system.
I mean, the belief system of Germany in WW2 went off the rails and a good portion of the population agreed, but I think we can all admit it didn't evolve into a "better" system.
Cultural relativism was en vogue a couple decades ago but I would like to think we have outgrown that wildly naive school of thought. Throwing gay people off roofs is bad. Murdering adulterous women is bad. Silencing political dissent is bad. These cultural values are bad, and the cultures which permit them are to blame.
I think it’s time we start being a little less apologetic about our good values and a little more critical about their bad values.
I think it’s time we start being a little less apologetic about our good values and a little more critical about their bad values.
And yet what if that apologetic attitude is part of how we out grow our bad values? Unless you think we're perfect and there's no further room for improvement?
It’s not clear that the things you mentioned are bad unless you read them with a certain bias. For example, punishment for adultery was a long staple of many groups throughout history and still today. And honestly I don’t see how this is a bad idea if implemented correctly. Perhaps by narrowing your view of acceptable values you’ve blocked out the diversity of human experience.
You know, this might be the most horrific and evil reply I've read on HN. You actually have the fucking nerve to call the murder and oppression of women and gays something that is only bad when you're 'biased'. How can a person's understanding of ethics become so warped as to actually believe that?
I think you should review hacker news guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
And punishment for adultery and homosexual activity has been something staple across many religions and cultures, which have formed the basis of great civilizations. Adultery and homosexual activity have been social evils in many moral codes and ways of life. It’s not about oppressing women or gays, it’s about justice and fairness.
Viewing things through such a narrow and dichotomous view makes you unable to cope with different ways of life except that you condemn it without understanding.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
And punishment for adultery and homosexual activity has been something staple across many religions and cultures, which have formed the basis of great civilizations. Adultery and homosexual activity have been social evils in many moral codes and ways of life. It’s not about oppressing women or gays, it’s about justice and fairness.
Viewing things through such a narrow and dichotomous view makes you unable to cope with different ways of life except that you condemn it without understanding.
Parent seems to hold individual liberty among the highest priority values.
IMHO, it'd be an uphill battle to argue it should rank lower.
IMHO, it'd be an uphill battle to argue it should rank lower.
> Parent seems to hold individual liberty among the highest priority values.
In such a society, I could imagine that adultery (potentially confusing which child belongs to which lineage of genes) and homosexuality (reducing the pool of available genes) might be dissuaded on punishment of death.
> It astounds me when I encounter Westerners decrying other cultures' values . . . Some cultures are different from Western cultures, that does not make them worse, or better. But different.
When I lived in the Middle East, I had a good Saudi couple as friends. The husband had an app so that when the wife wanted to leave the country on a trip, the border people could trigger a notification so he could approve her leaving. This was better than previously when she couldn't leave unaccompanied. Are you really trying to say that's not worse or better, just different?
I went to an Omani friend's wedding in his small village in Oman. The celebration was fascinating and fun. The men and women celebrated in two different groups. There was no alcohol. (But there was lots of dancing outside at night in the heat and spinning around with swords, which almost gave me a sort of drunken euphoria anyway!) The local mosque's call to prayer sounded and everyone in the party (except me and one other Western dude) left to the mosque and came back 15-20 minutes later. I actually admired the communal nature of it, as everyone seemed really close to each other, and could see the benefit of the requirement. On the flip side, if you didn't believe or something but were a local, you absolutely could not show it or skip.
Side note: the wife of the friend was not the secret girlfriend he loved for the years that I knew him, while constantly trying to improve his station in life to get her parents' approval. They said no when he finally did as much as he could and asked; so he ended up marrying the nice girl who his family arranged for him. They are quite happy today, though.
I taught computer science for a little while in China. They have a lot of different cultural expectations and values as well. I had some students come up after class to ask what it was like having two parties in our political system. And then living in Singapore was yet another story!
All this to say, I find your comment extremely simplistic and naive. I can't imagine living for a while in places with wildly different cultures and believing that deep cultural values don't manifest in meaningful ways.
At some level I agree that things are "just different", and that it takes a personal perspective to decry a cultural value or say something is better or worse. I think the Omani example is a good one; there's lots to like about that, and my Omani friend actually really does, even despite not marrying the woman he loved for so long. Whether something is "better" or "worse" depends on your values.
But all that said, I think you can acknowledge that and still stake a claim that, "no, what I believe is better!", and I think that is frowned upon these days and is a shame. While Oman is a lovely place in a lot of ways, I have a 1 year old daughter now, and I would not want her to grow up there. Then you have Saudi Arabia, with even less going for it... China has a much different culture, which we'll see how it works for them going forward. In the context of this article, can different cultures and cultural values really not contribute to the wealth of nations?
I think your example of "polygamy" is a good one. Is that better or worse or just different? I think it's puerile to reflexively say "it's just different". Maybe it is! But then, maybe it also contributes to cultural things; male competition, unwed males, family values, all kinds of things. Honestly, I don't know its effects, but I would be surprised if there were none. And then you could compare those effects against your values (things like "equality of men and women") and probably grade it as "worse", "just different", or "better" on the whole.
Then at a meta level, your "values" are again a cultural artifact. If someone doesn't value "equality of men and women", is that better or worse, or just different? It leads to different judgments of outcomes. How do you judge a policy like giving women the right to vote, if your values are divergent? And if large swaths of the population have one value or another, and one country ends up with women having the right to vote and others not; is that better or worse or just different? Could that have a meaningful impact on other aspects of the culture or nation, on how its politics proceed?
When I lived in the Middle East, I had a good Saudi couple as friends. The husband had an app so that when the wife wanted to leave the country on a trip, the border people could trigger a notification so he could approve her leaving. This was better than previously when she couldn't leave unaccompanied. Are you really trying to say that's not worse or better, just different?
I went to an Omani friend's wedding in his small village in Oman. The celebration was fascinating and fun. The men and women celebrated in two different groups. There was no alcohol. (But there was lots of dancing outside at night in the heat and spinning around with swords, which almost gave me a sort of drunken euphoria anyway!) The local mosque's call to prayer sounded and everyone in the party (except me and one other Western dude) left to the mosque and came back 15-20 minutes later. I actually admired the communal nature of it, as everyone seemed really close to each other, and could see the benefit of the requirement. On the flip side, if you didn't believe or something but were a local, you absolutely could not show it or skip.
Side note: the wife of the friend was not the secret girlfriend he loved for the years that I knew him, while constantly trying to improve his station in life to get her parents' approval. They said no when he finally did as much as he could and asked; so he ended up marrying the nice girl who his family arranged for him. They are quite happy today, though.
I taught computer science for a little while in China. They have a lot of different cultural expectations and values as well. I had some students come up after class to ask what it was like having two parties in our political system. And then living in Singapore was yet another story!
All this to say, I find your comment extremely simplistic and naive. I can't imagine living for a while in places with wildly different cultures and believing that deep cultural values don't manifest in meaningful ways.
At some level I agree that things are "just different", and that it takes a personal perspective to decry a cultural value or say something is better or worse. I think the Omani example is a good one; there's lots to like about that, and my Omani friend actually really does, even despite not marrying the woman he loved for so long. Whether something is "better" or "worse" depends on your values.
But all that said, I think you can acknowledge that and still stake a claim that, "no, what I believe is better!", and I think that is frowned upon these days and is a shame. While Oman is a lovely place in a lot of ways, I have a 1 year old daughter now, and I would not want her to grow up there. Then you have Saudi Arabia, with even less going for it... China has a much different culture, which we'll see how it works for them going forward. In the context of this article, can different cultures and cultural values really not contribute to the wealth of nations?
I think your example of "polygamy" is a good one. Is that better or worse or just different? I think it's puerile to reflexively say "it's just different". Maybe it is! But then, maybe it also contributes to cultural things; male competition, unwed males, family values, all kinds of things. Honestly, I don't know its effects, but I would be surprised if there were none. And then you could compare those effects against your values (things like "equality of men and women") and probably grade it as "worse", "just different", or "better" on the whole.
Then at a meta level, your "values" are again a cultural artifact. If someone doesn't value "equality of men and women", is that better or worse, or just different? It leads to different judgments of outcomes. How do you judge a policy like giving women the right to vote, if your values are divergent? And if large swaths of the population have one value or another, and one country ends up with women having the right to vote and others not; is that better or worse or just different? Could that have a meaningful impact on other aspects of the culture or nation, on how its politics proceed?
I agree. If no culture is better than another culture, in any real sense, then you're giving up the notion that a culture can ever progress. Western culture has improved in many ways over the past centuries, and it would be ludicrous to say we are not a better culture than we were two hundred years ago.
I mean, the example with the Saudi app is “just different”. It is you who are assigning a certain connotation to it. For example, Saudi culture may value keeping women safe and maintaining social cohesion, and this is a great example of fusing technology to fit a culture. Additionally, Saudi has a lot of cultural diversity that is easy to miss if you only look at the advertisements or news. Many of those in Saudi may not even find the use of such an app to fit their culture, and agree with you.
Anyways, be careful of using an example as a cultural judgement of society. It’s important to practice cultural humility. judgements may reveal more about the one doing the judging than the one being judged.
Anyways, be careful of using an example as a cultural judgement of society. It’s important to practice cultural humility. judgements may reveal more about the one doing the judging than the one being judged.
Doesn’t monogamy predate nearly all religions on every continent on earth? How is it a western ideal?
In the specific case of monogamy, I have many neighbours that don't practice it (they have two, three, or even four wives) yet when I mentioned that here I was met with disbelief, denial, and even hostility. However, these people live in a society that developed under the idea that many men would not grow to adulthood, so this is how they deal with the excess of women.
And even today, where the children do expect to grow to adulthood, they continue to have a dozen children per wife. So obtaining a wife (or more) is a goal that presses the adolescents to achieve things in life. What motivates a Western child to achieve things in life?
And even today, where the children do expect to grow to adulthood, they continue to have a dozen children per wife. So obtaining a wife (or more) is a goal that presses the adolescents to achieve things in life. What motivates a Western child to achieve things in life?
Those who decry Western values have their own agenda to keep people controlled...
Note that was china the region and the reason was most of the time war - either internal between different kingdoms or with the various steppe people and ultimately the Europeans.
> multiple times
The only one I can think of is the decline that started under the Qing.
The only one I can think of is the decline that started under the Qing.
My own European country has had its shares of booms and busts over the last 500 years. In fact if you read history books the blissful decadence and degeneracy we enjoy now must not be taken for granted.
This is a very simplistic article. Having a region with competing states is a recognized dimension in the development of Europe and China, but there are others as well which are presumably more important. As F.Fukuyama writes: rule of law, accountability, a state. And as Acemoglu and Robinson write: clear and stable laws that encourage people to invest and develop businesses. Conquering and pillaging colonies, and selling and buying slaves, must be accounted for as well.
Creating wealth requires peace and stability. Capturing wealth requires war and violence. The fastest way is to do both. The most ethical way is to do the first while appearing strong and aggressive enough to deter others from attacking you.
But why were tiny countries like the Netherlands able to conquer distant lands? Portugal was sailing around Asia trading goods from other Asian countries! Why is Brazil speaking their language and not the other way around? Ditto India and English, or Niger and French.
For Portugal the local history explains that it all started because the reconquista had nowhere to continue to. Without the reconquest of land from the Muslims of the Iberian peninsula, the local catholic kings saw themselves locked out of pillage and expansion. On one side the sea, and in the other European super powers.
Portugal started the discoveries by conquering Ceuta. I cannot find a better source than this [1] but the attack of Ceuta and thus the start of the discoveries was kind of pure pillage driven with the religious justification as a backdrop. Portugal had just recovered from the black plague and a new monarch dynasty just came into power. Things were ripe. To attack Ceuta, the portuguese needed to invest imensly in ships and ship craft. From this investment and the success of the ceutan campaign it became an obvious advantage to continue persuing naval superiority, the rest is history.
Mind you that the kingdom of Portugal was very scared of projecting itself as a threat to the other European powers and it especially needed to assuage the English that such naval power was not to be employed against them. The portuguese kings were quite aware they would not be tolerated in the great European game. So there was really not much choice than trying something new, and it paid off.
I sometimes think that we live in such a similar times regarding space exploration. Whoever gets the logistics and trade stations of asteroid mining and spaceborne manufacturing right will be a new "naval power" with access to massive amounts of resources. Leaving the local earth powers bickering with each other.
So to the first question, Portugal was around Asia because it was too small to compete with the European powers, Spain likewise. So they turned away from Europe, saw the opportunity and literally split the world in half. The territories to the west of around cape verde were to be Spanish and the ones to the east portuguese. This was defined in the treaty of Tordesilhas[2]. The reason that Brasil became a portuguese colony is by luck(dude Bartolomeu Dias expects to find the way to India and instead lands in brasil. Sheer luck and risk taking.
Finally to show the irony of history, Portugal lost its independence to Spain due to ridiculous circumstances. The first thing the Spanish did with the United portuguese and spanish armada was to use it to unsuccessfully blockade England. Exactly what the enterpreneuring kings did not want and feared. When Portugal recovered its independence it no longer had the naval power to maintain its vast trading network, barely recovering Brasil from the Dutch. Other territories in Asia, especially around the Malaca strait were no longer sustainable. Even so besides Brasil, the portuguese presence overseas was very coastal and limited Precisely because it did not have the size nor tech for full on land presence. Again brasil was special, and probably Brasílians in HN can give you a better more accurate perspective. These dudes called bandeirantes would be given lots of power over any new land discovered, so human greed and need carved one of the largest countries in earth. The inland mapping and presence of the portuguese territories, with the except of Brasil, only started around the 1800s but by then England was already a major super power and she literally would declare war if the portuguese continued claiming the Land between Angola and Mozambique, which clashed with the English ambitions of Cairo to cape Town connections.
[1]https://observador.pt/especiais/ha-600-anos-ceuta-ha-500-afo...
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas
Portugal started the discoveries by conquering Ceuta. I cannot find a better source than this [1] but the attack of Ceuta and thus the start of the discoveries was kind of pure pillage driven with the religious justification as a backdrop. Portugal had just recovered from the black plague and a new monarch dynasty just came into power. Things were ripe. To attack Ceuta, the portuguese needed to invest imensly in ships and ship craft. From this investment and the success of the ceutan campaign it became an obvious advantage to continue persuing naval superiority, the rest is history.
Mind you that the kingdom of Portugal was very scared of projecting itself as a threat to the other European powers and it especially needed to assuage the English that such naval power was not to be employed against them. The portuguese kings were quite aware they would not be tolerated in the great European game. So there was really not much choice than trying something new, and it paid off.
I sometimes think that we live in such a similar times regarding space exploration. Whoever gets the logistics and trade stations of asteroid mining and spaceborne manufacturing right will be a new "naval power" with access to massive amounts of resources. Leaving the local earth powers bickering with each other.
So to the first question, Portugal was around Asia because it was too small to compete with the European powers, Spain likewise. So they turned away from Europe, saw the opportunity and literally split the world in half. The territories to the west of around cape verde were to be Spanish and the ones to the east portuguese. This was defined in the treaty of Tordesilhas[2]. The reason that Brasil became a portuguese colony is by luck(dude Bartolomeu Dias expects to find the way to India and instead lands in brasil. Sheer luck and risk taking.
Finally to show the irony of history, Portugal lost its independence to Spain due to ridiculous circumstances. The first thing the Spanish did with the United portuguese and spanish armada was to use it to unsuccessfully blockade England. Exactly what the enterpreneuring kings did not want and feared. When Portugal recovered its independence it no longer had the naval power to maintain its vast trading network, barely recovering Brasil from the Dutch. Other territories in Asia, especially around the Malaca strait were no longer sustainable. Even so besides Brasil, the portuguese presence overseas was very coastal and limited Precisely because it did not have the size nor tech for full on land presence. Again brasil was special, and probably Brasílians in HN can give you a better more accurate perspective. These dudes called bandeirantes would be given lots of power over any new land discovered, so human greed and need carved one of the largest countries in earth. The inland mapping and presence of the portuguese territories, with the except of Brasil, only started around the 1800s but by then England was already a major super power and she literally would declare war if the portuguese continued claiming the Land between Angola and Mozambique, which clashed with the English ambitions of Cairo to cape Town connections.
[1]https://observador.pt/especiais/ha-600-anos-ceuta-ha-500-afo...
[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas
Many of the countries you mention did not have far reaching imperialist tendencies, that's in my view due to lack of scarcity, and somewhat strong moral/civilizational/religious foundations that many in Europe lacked.
It is why things like chattel slavery, non-cooperation, and extreme levels of greed were not as concentrated elsewhere but heavily relied upon in European development.
The abundance of resources, good weather, lack of famines, and access to open uninhabited land probably also played a defining role in the development of these less hostile civilizations.
When the Chinese visited Africa on trade missions, the idea of mass theft of resources never crossed their minds. The idea of selling drugs and destroying a society for profit was a confusing concept to the leaders of many groups. A great example of this is in the correspondences between the Chinese leadership and Queen Victoria.
I doubt many of these groups expected the people they traded with in good faith to turn around and attempt to destroy these relationships through force and theft.
In my opinion, this is why the last 200 years of western development was so fruitful. If Europeans had stayed in Europe they would not have been as prosperous. It is the wealth taken, industries destroyed in other countries, and trade flows re-routed that created this boom. Much of it done to fuel conflicting war machines in Europe.
We are now at a new stage of development on this planet where smash and grab is no longer as possible (due to nukes). The idea of win-win relationships still seems alien to Europeans dealing with outsiders. This is where a group like the Chinese will outperform tremendously and re-secure their position as global economic leaders in a large portion of this planet.
In many scenarios, the Chinese would rather be poor than suffer reputational damage from this kind of uncivilized activity. We are entering a world where long term reputation and thinking matters, and the Chinese approach will be heavily rewarded.
I'm not sure how long the reputational damage incurred by Europeans will affect their ability to do business around the world but I strongly believe this history will be detrimental to future European development. We can see the beginning of it with the recent rapid movement towards de-dollarization and de-euroization where energy trading and some other commodities are concerned.
I know this can be an uncomfortable truth for some in the west but I expect 90% of planet will be in agreement here, so the message should probably not be ignored.
It is why things like chattel slavery, non-cooperation, and extreme levels of greed were not as concentrated elsewhere but heavily relied upon in European development.
The abundance of resources, good weather, lack of famines, and access to open uninhabited land probably also played a defining role in the development of these less hostile civilizations.
When the Chinese visited Africa on trade missions, the idea of mass theft of resources never crossed their minds. The idea of selling drugs and destroying a society for profit was a confusing concept to the leaders of many groups. A great example of this is in the correspondences between the Chinese leadership and Queen Victoria.
I doubt many of these groups expected the people they traded with in good faith to turn around and attempt to destroy these relationships through force and theft.
In my opinion, this is why the last 200 years of western development was so fruitful. If Europeans had stayed in Europe they would not have been as prosperous. It is the wealth taken, industries destroyed in other countries, and trade flows re-routed that created this boom. Much of it done to fuel conflicting war machines in Europe.
We are now at a new stage of development on this planet where smash and grab is no longer as possible (due to nukes). The idea of win-win relationships still seems alien to Europeans dealing with outsiders. This is where a group like the Chinese will outperform tremendously and re-secure their position as global economic leaders in a large portion of this planet.
In many scenarios, the Chinese would rather be poor than suffer reputational damage from this kind of uncivilized activity. We are entering a world where long term reputation and thinking matters, and the Chinese approach will be heavily rewarded.
I'm not sure how long the reputational damage incurred by Europeans will affect their ability to do business around the world but I strongly believe this history will be detrimental to future European development. We can see the beginning of it with the recent rapid movement towards de-dollarization and de-euroization where energy trading and some other commodities are concerned.
I know this can be an uncomfortable truth for some in the west but I expect 90% of planet will be in agreement here, so the message should probably not be ignored.
I accept the analysis that the Chinese approach will likely be superior to the olden ways of Europe, but I believe you are mixing old Europe with modern China. Xxi century Europe is not fueling wars in Europe nor ruled by unbridled rulers greed like in the 1700s. Last 200 years of Europe are gone in modern Europe. For better and worse. Europe is an elderly continent.
Also even the assertion that there was a reputation loss on Europe, while plausible is actually not true. Most of the colonies still prefer to trade with their old colonial masters. This is true for the portuguese, the Spanish and the French and English. For example Portugal(ex colonial master) goes toe to toe with China as the importer source of Angola. If reputation is so important it has an inverse correlation to what you assert. No way the portuguese can have a negative reputation and still compete with the Chinese. Its the other way around. The only way the portuguese can compete is because there is a past connection and perhaps reputation.
The reason the Chinese thrive in Africa is the same why they thrive every where else: they have boatloads of goods and personnel and provide it cheaper than anyone. No reputation there, pure economics.
On the contrary, local communities are distrustful of the chinese(which is amazing and defies reason but so the human societies go). How weird are we humans that we privilege relations with our previous oppressor rather than someone who can be better but we know nothing about.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/AGO/Yea...
Also even the assertion that there was a reputation loss on Europe, while plausible is actually not true. Most of the colonies still prefer to trade with their old colonial masters. This is true for the portuguese, the Spanish and the French and English. For example Portugal(ex colonial master) goes toe to toe with China as the importer source of Angola. If reputation is so important it has an inverse correlation to what you assert. No way the portuguese can have a negative reputation and still compete with the Chinese. Its the other way around. The only way the portuguese can compete is because there is a past connection and perhaps reputation.
The reason the Chinese thrive in Africa is the same why they thrive every where else: they have boatloads of goods and personnel and provide it cheaper than anyone. No reputation there, pure economics.
On the contrary, local communities are distrustful of the chinese(which is amazing and defies reason but so the human societies go). How weird are we humans that we privilege relations with our previous oppressor rather than someone who can be better but we know nothing about.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/AGO/Yea...
After WW2 there seemed to be a lull in unbridled greed on the surface but it is only because financialization of the world was version 2 of colonialism. Europeans still harvest the wealth of a large majority of the world and where it can't there will be wars, assassinations, and coups.
The return of fuel to conflicting European war machines is also starting to occur as the harvesting of Asian and African wealth has started to marginally slow down mainly due to Chinese and some Indian activity. This greed was never really dealt with on a civilizational level in Europe, it just changed forms and still needs to be addressed.
The reason the Chinese thrive in Africa is because they have been an honest trading partner for over 1000 years. Many of China's non-western trading partners trust them more than any other group with close to similar economic scale. This is not a popular truth in western media because the ruling capital class that funds those orgs understand what this trend means in the long term.
>How weird are we humans that we privilege relations with our previous oppressor
On the contrary, on the surface it seems trade between colonized countries and their oppressors is voluntary but it's not the case. Central and South Americans violating European harvesting of wealth will still be sanctioned, couped and/or assassinated, the same is true for most African countries (For example, France by itself assassinated 22 African presidents in the last 40 or so years, they still harvest the wealth of 1/3rd of all African countries). This is the continuation through financialization I spoke of earlier and the arrangement is obviously not enjoyed by the majority of the people that regularly lose their popular liberative leaders and are kept in poverty to continue satisfying European greed. This activity is only recently being interrupted by Chinese trade expansion... De-dollarization/de-euroization and attempted re-routing of global trade are just the beginning of the chains being removed from the rest of the world.
The return of fuel to conflicting European war machines is also starting to occur as the harvesting of Asian and African wealth has started to marginally slow down mainly due to Chinese and some Indian activity. This greed was never really dealt with on a civilizational level in Europe, it just changed forms and still needs to be addressed.
The reason the Chinese thrive in Africa is because they have been an honest trading partner for over 1000 years. Many of China's non-western trading partners trust them more than any other group with close to similar economic scale. This is not a popular truth in western media because the ruling capital class that funds those orgs understand what this trend means in the long term.
>How weird are we humans that we privilege relations with our previous oppressor
On the contrary, on the surface it seems trade between colonized countries and their oppressors is voluntary but it's not the case. Central and South Americans violating European harvesting of wealth will still be sanctioned, couped and/or assassinated, the same is true for most African countries (For example, France by itself assassinated 22 African presidents in the last 40 or so years, they still harvest the wealth of 1/3rd of all African countries). This is the continuation through financialization I spoke of earlier and the arrangement is obviously not enjoyed by the majority of the people that regularly lose their popular liberative leaders and are kept in poverty to continue satisfying European greed. This activity is only recently being interrupted by Chinese trade expansion... De-dollarization/de-euroization and attempted re-routing of global trade are just the beginning of the chains being removed from the rest of the world.
Your answer stresses a lot the word greed which I normally use as an ideological canary for communist/socialist thinking (I come from a socialist country so i know the nomenclature). "the chains being removed from the rest of the world" also makes me suspicious of the answer's intellectual motives. Also you did not refute any of my data thesis.
Another commenter, asserts that language similarity seems to be the predictor for trade partner preference. I think he is right. It plays an outsize role, much bigger than reputation, like asserted in your post.
> For example, France by itself assassinated 22 African presidents in the last 40 or so years, they still harvest the wealth of 1/3rd of all African countries)
Yes France is still a very active colonial master with massive intervention in ex-colonies but you can't be serious if you think post-war France is rich and developed because they harvest natural resources. I would actually say that France's activities in Africa are actually detrimental to it's own good and are the product of an old style doctrine of influence and national prestige(again similar to Portugal). This in opposition to a doctrine of market based competition, where they already excel with highly advanced products. The main advantage i can concede is that they brain drain their ex-colonies. That is the real damage, and it was arguably the reason ex colonies have so much difficulty in getting up. Their best minds migrate to the Europe. Not by force mind you, pure market economics and convenience like the language. My master thesis advisor was a Cote-de-Ivoir dude that would have been a great asset in his country. He is black and i am ethnically Portuguese, so the racial dynamics of white over black does not apply. Of course he never left Europe after getting his degree. That is the real damage, but not really some chain or cruelty like you mention. Just people doing their best to improve their lives.
Life is full of unintended consequences and sometimes, greed is actually best, not the least because it is simple and has predictable emergent phenomena. A bounded problem like greed is better than an open world of rainbows of good feelings.
Another commenter, asserts that language similarity seems to be the predictor for trade partner preference. I think he is right. It plays an outsize role, much bigger than reputation, like asserted in your post.
> For example, France by itself assassinated 22 African presidents in the last 40 or so years, they still harvest the wealth of 1/3rd of all African countries)
Yes France is still a very active colonial master with massive intervention in ex-colonies but you can't be serious if you think post-war France is rich and developed because they harvest natural resources. I would actually say that France's activities in Africa are actually detrimental to it's own good and are the product of an old style doctrine of influence and national prestige(again similar to Portugal). This in opposition to a doctrine of market based competition, where they already excel with highly advanced products. The main advantage i can concede is that they brain drain their ex-colonies. That is the real damage, and it was arguably the reason ex colonies have so much difficulty in getting up. Their best minds migrate to the Europe. Not by force mind you, pure market economics and convenience like the language. My master thesis advisor was a Cote-de-Ivoir dude that would have been a great asset in his country. He is black and i am ethnically Portuguese, so the racial dynamics of white over black does not apply. Of course he never left Europe after getting his degree. That is the real damage, but not really some chain or cruelty like you mention. Just people doing their best to improve their lives.
Life is full of unintended consequences and sometimes, greed is actually best, not the least because it is simple and has predictable emergent phenomena. A bounded problem like greed is better than an open world of rainbows of good feelings.
>Your answer stresses a lot the word greed which I normally use as an ideological canary
There are two types of greed, zero-sum and win-win. Greed, to the point of becoming detrimental to societies around you, is objectively anti-human and this is the version (zero-sum greed) I'm discussing.
>Yes France is still a very active colonial master with massive intervention in ex-colonies but you can't be serious if you think post-war France is rich and developed because they harvest natural resources.
I mentioned France as an example but similar activity can be seen in Britain, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and other European countries.
Africa is still the largest net creditor to Europe (meaning they fund European economies, sort of a backwards charity). The natural resources extracted continent wide are some of the most valuable in the world. Take a quick look at the mining operations in the background of many African conflicts and you will see the European fingerprint. This is true from the West, Central Africa all the way down to South Africa. Most European gold, platinum, diamond, cobalt, nickle, boxite, manganese, uranium, copper etc wealth is extracted from these countries at extremely low prices or even free due to the financial colonization activity I mentioned earlier through central banks and other means.
Keeping Africa poor and underdeveloped is the only way to create a price ceiling on these valuable resources. This is why the underdevelopment of African countries was a western priority for so many decades. So much so, that the 2nd UN secretary general was assassinated over this specific issue.
>https://www.history.com/news/dag-hammarskjold-death-plane-cr...
This is also why China has suddenly become an enemy in Western media and among the western ruling class. They are violating this economic requirement that provides welfare to Western economies. Their accelerating activity over the last 10-20 years gives Africans direct access to international markets and routes around predatory European nations...this allows actual free market price discovery to occur (aka the core of capitalism).
I understand why many western commoners would want to deny this problematic history but the ruling and international banking class is very aware of these facts. They know where their bread is buttered.
There are two types of greed, zero-sum and win-win. Greed, to the point of becoming detrimental to societies around you, is objectively anti-human and this is the version (zero-sum greed) I'm discussing.
>Yes France is still a very active colonial master with massive intervention in ex-colonies but you can't be serious if you think post-war France is rich and developed because they harvest natural resources.
I mentioned France as an example but similar activity can be seen in Britain, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and other European countries.
Africa is still the largest net creditor to Europe (meaning they fund European economies, sort of a backwards charity). The natural resources extracted continent wide are some of the most valuable in the world. Take a quick look at the mining operations in the background of many African conflicts and you will see the European fingerprint. This is true from the West, Central Africa all the way down to South Africa. Most European gold, platinum, diamond, cobalt, nickle, boxite, manganese, uranium, copper etc wealth is extracted from these countries at extremely low prices or even free due to the financial colonization activity I mentioned earlier through central banks and other means.
Keeping Africa poor and underdeveloped is the only way to create a price ceiling on these valuable resources. This is why the underdevelopment of African countries was a western priority for so many decades. So much so, that the 2nd UN secretary general was assassinated over this specific issue.
>https://www.history.com/news/dag-hammarskjold-death-plane-cr...
This is also why China has suddenly become an enemy in Western media and among the western ruling class. They are violating this economic requirement that provides welfare to Western economies. Their accelerating activity over the last 10-20 years gives Africans direct access to international markets and routes around predatory European nations...this allows actual free market price discovery to occur (aka the core of capitalism).
I understand why many western commoners would want to deny this problematic history but the ruling and international banking class is very aware of these facts. They know where their bread is buttered.
Could a big part of it be simply that people prefer to trade with others who speak their language?
There is a lot in there, but my own personal view is that shape of the land has the biggest influence on what civilizations do over the long term and what they’re like in general as people.
Europe is countless rivers and coastlines. Europeans learned how to do boats, how to do sailing, and learned how to float goods all over the place. This accelerated movement of ideas, production and development of technologies. Even if it was disjointed and ridden with conflict, it was just a matter of probability.
This is what enabled the colonialism - after accelerating ahead of the rest of the world in technology, Europeans found it easier to just use that technology for slavery, conquest etc.
Europe is countless rivers and coastlines. Europeans learned how to do boats, how to do sailing, and learned how to float goods all over the place. This accelerated movement of ideas, production and development of technologies. Even if it was disjointed and ridden with conflict, it was just a matter of probability.
This is what enabled the colonialism - after accelerating ahead of the rest of the world in technology, Europeans found it easier to just use that technology for slavery, conquest etc.
Somewhat to your point, European explorers had a thing for exploring the rivers wherever they went…
Literacy, individualism, lack of tribalism/clans, a 'mechanistic'/logical/Aristotelian view of reality (which led to the development of science), a 'general' of separation spiritual and civil powers (Matthew 22:15–22, Mark 12:13–17, Luke 20:20–26).
Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the first people to ask this question:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
For more recent thoughts, see The WEIRDest People in the World by Heinrich:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
And Toby Huff (The Rise of Early Modern Science, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff
Intellectual Curiosity makes some interesting observations from the historical record: the telescope was invented in 1608 (where it ended up revolutionizing things), and the Europeans brought the technology to Imperial China and Mughal India. They brought it as 'supplicants' to the court to try to grant greater access to each nation; the Jesuits in China used it to show that their 'superior' knowledge of the universe and reality to help with converting folks to Christianity/Catholicism (e.g., by better predicting eclipses).
Neither country was interesting and continued, through a top-down decree, to simply do things the way they always did them.
The telescope arrived in the the Ottoman Empire by osmosis, and they didn't do much with it either.
Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet. The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans.
Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the first people to ask this question:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
For more recent thoughts, see The WEIRDest People in the World by Heinrich:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
And Toby Huff (The Rise of Early Modern Science, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff
Intellectual Curiosity makes some interesting observations from the historical record: the telescope was invented in 1608 (where it ended up revolutionizing things), and the Europeans brought the technology to Imperial China and Mughal India. They brought it as 'supplicants' to the court to try to grant greater access to each nation; the Jesuits in China used it to show that their 'superior' knowledge of the universe and reality to help with converting folks to Christianity/Catholicism (e.g., by better predicting eclipses).
Neither country was interesting and continued, through a top-down decree, to simply do things the way they always did them.
The telescope arrived in the the Ottoman Empire by osmosis, and they didn't do much with it either.
Fast forward 100+ years and the scientific/technological advances made through curious minds allowed by a different worldview allowed the Europeans to develop more efficient (product output per energy input) economies and then walk all over the rest of the planet. The Indians and Chinese were arguable equally (if not more) advanced in the 1600s, but by the 1700s and later they were 'primitive' in comparison to the Europeans.
Best book on this subject may be Year 501 by Noam Chomsky. It's a history of western colonisation.
The west was able to control most of the globe due to their advances in weapons, and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
Remember the colonial wars were considered small wars by the standards of the west.
The west was able to control most of the globe due to their advances in weapons, and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
Remember the colonial wars were considered small wars by the standards of the west.
> The west was able to control most of the globe due to their advances in weapons, and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
Okay, but why did those developments happen in Europe in the first place?
China had gun power and printing way before the Europeans.
The Europeans were supplicants to the courts of Mughal Indian and Imperial China in the 1600s. By the late 1700s and 1800s the Europeans were stomping on everyone "due to their advances in weapons".
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
> and their brutal tactics
Genuine curiosity: are the tactics "brutal" merely from a contemporary stand point, or where they viewed as "brutal" at the time when they were employed, or where they viewed as 'normal' at the time? Were tactics of the other side any "better" or "worse" than those employed by the Europeans?
Okay, but why did those developments happen in Europe in the first place?
China had gun power and printing way before the Europeans.
The Europeans were supplicants to the courts of Mughal Indian and Imperial China in the 1600s. By the late 1700s and 1800s the Europeans were stomping on everyone "due to their advances in weapons".
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
> and their brutal tactics
Genuine curiosity: are the tactics "brutal" merely from a contemporary stand point, or where they viewed as "brutal" at the time when they were employed, or where they viewed as 'normal' at the time? Were tactics of the other side any "better" or "worse" than those employed by the Europeans?
The British took the idea of rocketry from the Indians as well.
They were originally used by the Kingdom of Mysore and the British took samples and developed the Congreve rocket. These were used in the war of 1812
(...And the rockets red glare)
They were originally used by the Kingdom of Mysore and the British took samples and developed the Congreve rocket. These were used in the war of 1812
(...And the rockets red glare)
> The west was able to control most of the globe due to their advances in weapons
How did they secure these advanced weapons without being rich in the first place? Like the other comments defending this you're confusing cause and effect.
Note there are two other top comments making the same case as this one, so this is not adding much to the discussion and it's forcing it to be in different places.
How did they secure these advanced weapons without being rich in the first place? Like the other comments defending this you're confusing cause and effect.
Note there are two other top comments making the same case as this one, so this is not adding much to the discussion and it's forcing it to be in different places.
Moreover, the notion that their tactics were more “furious” and “brutal” than those employed by other societies seems to be based solely on claims made by those other societies.
> How did they secure these advanced weapons without being rich in the first place?
What do you mean by “rich” exactly? This was pre-globalisation - countries would invest in building infrastructure and military by creating it for themselves, with slaves and colonisation at scale.
What do you mean by “rich” exactly? This was pre-globalisation - countries would invest in building infrastructure and military by creating it for themselves, with slaves and colonisation at scale.
Chomsky is a demagogue, he has a particular worldview he wants to push and any discussion of history is secondary to that. If some historical facts support his narrative he'll happily report them, but if not he freely misstates, mischaracterizes, and selectively reports. In particular he has one (IMHO unforgivable for any serious author) habit of citing a source but stating the opposite of what the actual source says.
He has received wide criticism for his denial and excusing of multiple genocides when the aggressors were from regimes he ideologically agreed with (socialist/communist), but repeatedly refused in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to retract his previous statements.
He has received wide criticism for his denial and excusing of multiple genocides when the aggressors were from regimes he ideologically agreed with (socialist/communist), but repeatedly refused in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to retract his previous statements.
I'd love to see examples of the things that you state. Thanks.
Nah.
> Chomsky is a demagogue
Would you care to provide facts supporting such a claim? Else it is nothing but an ad hominem to denigrate a person.
> he has a particular worldview
Who has not?
> any discussion of history is secondary to that
Examples? Proof? Sources?
> He has received wide criticism
Who, being a public and outspoken figure, hasn't? That doesn't say anything on the validity or quality of said criticism.
> he has a particular worldview he wants to push
Exactly what you are trying to do here.
I know nothing about Chomsky. I have not read a single line of his writing. Nor heard any interview with him. I can neither defend his ideas nor critique them. I can just see someone not arguing in good faith for the betterment of a discussion but denigrating someone to push one's own agenda (without providing any sort of support for one's claims).
Would you care to provide facts supporting such a claim? Else it is nothing but an ad hominem to denigrate a person.
> he has a particular worldview
Who has not?
> any discussion of history is secondary to that
Examples? Proof? Sources?
> He has received wide criticism
Who, being a public and outspoken figure, hasn't? That doesn't say anything on the validity or quality of said criticism.
> he has a particular worldview he wants to push
Exactly what you are trying to do here.
I know nothing about Chomsky. I have not read a single line of his writing. Nor heard any interview with him. I can neither defend his ideas nor critique them. I can just see someone not arguing in good faith for the betterment of a discussion but denigrating someone to push one's own agenda (without providing any sort of support for one's claims).
This is so much nonsense. In fact, the West actually didn't have better weapons when most of those processes started.
> Remember the colonial wars were considered small wars by the standards of the west.
You are mixing things up. What matters for this question is not why Britain was able to defeat Sudan in late 19ths.
The question is why were tiny places like Portugal able to dominate the whole Indian ocean trade.
> Remember the colonial wars were considered small wars by the standards of the west.
You are mixing things up. What matters for this question is not why Britain was able to defeat Sudan in late 19ths.
The question is why were tiny places like Portugal able to dominate the whole Indian ocean trade.
> due to their advances in weapons
Not quite, the weapons the west had "developed" were developed far earlier in the middle east and east Asia. Trebuchets, cannons, guns, gunpowder, crossbows, etc.. The west just adopted them.
> and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
The colonial tactics were brutal but I doubt they were more brutal than what the indigenous people did. The Mayans and the Incas ritually sacrificed their enemies in public, genocided enemy tribes, and other pretty brutal behaviour. The colonial forces just had more powerful weapons.
Not quite, the weapons the west had "developed" were developed far earlier in the middle east and east Asia. Trebuchets, cannons, guns, gunpowder, crossbows, etc.. The west just adopted them.
> and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
The colonial tactics were brutal but I doubt they were more brutal than what the indigenous people did. The Mayans and the Incas ritually sacrificed their enemies in public, genocided enemy tribes, and other pretty brutal behaviour. The colonial forces just had more powerful weapons.
Chomsky should not be trusted on anything outside of linguistics.
He is so tied to his ideological commitments that he frequently denies and downplays genocides.
Chomsky doesn't discuss history to expose the truth. He lies about history to make his political side look good and his ideological opponents look bad.
He is so tied to his ideological commitments that he frequently denies and downplays genocides.
Chomsky doesn't discuss history to expose the truth. He lies about history to make his political side look good and his ideological opponents look bad.
Could you point me to something that Chomsky said that is a clear lie? Thanks.
His Cambodian genocide denial is the most striking: https://reaction.la/chomsdis.htm
[deleted]
Terrific, thank you.
For anyone interested in topics like this, I have a couple of books recommendations:
A classic: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Dimond (1997)
A more modern take: The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021)
A classic: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Dimond (1997)
A more modern take: The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow (2021)
I found this video very interesting, on the same wavelength as Dimond
Facts about Africa's Geography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fof9xZA7dpg
Facts about Africa's Geography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fof9xZA7dpg
What the article basically comes to say is exponential growth, where Europe had a slightly larger base number due to the constant wars so over the decades and centuries the difference showed up.
I have read an argument once that China was too peaceful. While every European king or duke spent considerable amount of time on the battlefield China's armies grew weak. Very few Chinese emperors ever died in battle. The Chinese court was maintaining the status quo. They were running an empire.
Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands were creating one.
I believe that the main reason why the science and technology advanced much faster in Europe than in the rest of the World, leaving the others behind and vulnerable to be conquered and exploited, was the wide availability of cheap printed books after 1450.
This coincided with the spread of the ideas that reading the Bible is not enough for who wants to acquire valuable knowledge. So initially the surviving manuscripts with the writings preserved from the Ancient Rome and Greece were printed and became known by a large number of people and then a flood of new writings was produced, diffusing quickly over Europe every advance in science and technology.
Before this method of publishing became technically possible and also fashionable, most technical advances were known only in small communities and they were frequently lost when for some reason they were not taught to some apprentices who would continue the techniques of their masters.
This coincided with the spread of the ideas that reading the Bible is not enough for who wants to acquire valuable knowledge. So initially the surviving manuscripts with the writings preserved from the Ancient Rome and Greece were printed and became known by a large number of people and then a flood of new writings was produced, diffusing quickly over Europe every advance in science and technology.
Before this method of publishing became technically possible and also fashionable, most technical advances were known only in small communities and they were frequently lost when for some reason they were not taught to some apprentices who would continue the techniques of their masters.
I believe it's reported in the book 1491 the the Chinese government abruptly changed policy to forbid global exploration. That may have something to do with it.
Good weather, seasons (e.g. also cold enough for dairy products with genetic adaptations) and the Gulf Stream. And stealing and plundering the rest of the world of course.
> And stealing and plundering the rest of the world of course.
The Europeans were supplicants to the courts of Mughal Indian and Imperial China in the 1600s. By the late 1700s and 1800s the Europeans were stomping on everyone due to their advances in weapons.
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
The Europeans were supplicants to the courts of Mughal Indian and Imperial China in the 1600s. By the late 1700s and 1800s the Europeans were stomping on everyone due to their advances in weapons.
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
Stealing, plundering... trading and sharing.
Is unfair to ignore the cross-pollination and technology transference between Europe and the rest of the planet.
Relationships based on stealing are ephemeral, not durable or stable enough to transfer knowledge. Trade relationships are.
There is a huge work of civil infrastructures developed by Europeans. India without a railway system would be much more difficult to keep united as a single country for example. A French opened a pass connecting the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans and later Europe and US work together to connect the Atlantic and Pacific, blessing the economies of India, China and Japan forever.
Is unfair to ignore the cross-pollination and technology transference between Europe and the rest of the planet.
Relationships based on stealing are ephemeral, not durable or stable enough to transfer knowledge. Trade relationships are.
There is a huge work of civil infrastructures developed by Europeans. India without a railway system would be much more difficult to keep united as a single country for example. A French opened a pass connecting the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans and later Europe and US work together to connect the Atlantic and Pacific, blessing the economies of India, China and Japan forever.
On the contrary, Europe imported the world's knowledge, weaponized it, then used it to enslave the knowledge sources.
Most European infrastracture development and knowledge transfer outside of Europe was done due to necessity not voluntary altruism. The labor being exploited needed certain knowledge to be more useful and the desired resources needed certain infrastructure to be easily and efficiently exfiltrated.
Most European infrastracture development and knowledge transfer outside of Europe was done due to necessity not voluntary altruism. The labor being exploited needed certain knowledge to be more useful and the desired resources needed certain infrastructure to be easily and efficiently exfiltrated.
yeah its called the Great Bengal Famine - 3 million dead (across the territories of what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). That's how the second world war was funded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
The financing of military escalation led to war-time inflation, as land was appropriated from thousands of peasants. Many workers received monetary wages rather than payment in kind with a portion of the harvest.[14] When prices rose sharply, their wages failed to follow suit; this drop in real wages left them less able to purchase food.[15] During the Japanese occupation of Burma, many rice imports were lost as the region's market supplies and transport systems were disrupted by British "denial policies" for rice and boats (a "scorched earth" response to the occupation). The Bengal Chamber of Commerce (composed mainly of British-owned firms),[16] with the approval of the Government of Bengal, devised a Foodstuffs Scheme to provide preferential distribution of goods and services to workers in high-priority roles such as armed forces, war industries, civil servants and other "priority classes", to prevent them from leaving their positions.[17] These factors were compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while aid from Churchill's War Cabinet was limited, ostensibly due to a wartime shortage of shipping.[18] More proximate causes included large-scale natural disasters in south-western Bengal (a cyclone, tidal waves and flooding, and rice crop disease). The relative impact of each of these factors on the death toll is a matter of debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
The financing of military escalation led to war-time inflation, as land was appropriated from thousands of peasants. Many workers received monetary wages rather than payment in kind with a portion of the harvest.[14] When prices rose sharply, their wages failed to follow suit; this drop in real wages left them less able to purchase food.[15] During the Japanese occupation of Burma, many rice imports were lost as the region's market supplies and transport systems were disrupted by British "denial policies" for rice and boats (a "scorched earth" response to the occupation). The Bengal Chamber of Commerce (composed mainly of British-owned firms),[16] with the approval of the Government of Bengal, devised a Foodstuffs Scheme to provide preferential distribution of goods and services to workers in high-priority roles such as armed forces, war industries, civil servants and other "priority classes", to prevent them from leaving their positions.[17] These factors were compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while aid from Churchill's War Cabinet was limited, ostensibly due to a wartime shortage of shipping.[18] More proximate causes included large-scale natural disasters in south-western Bengal (a cyclone, tidal waves and flooding, and rice crop disease). The relative impact of each of these factors on the death toll is a matter of debate.
The Bengal famine was, as the name suggests, in Bengal ( modern day India and Bangladesh, not Pakistan).
> That's how the second world war was funded.
That's just a propostreous claim. It's a tragedy that claimed many lives and could have been averted, but it's absolutely not how the war was funded.
> That's how the second world war was funded.
That's just a propostreous claim. It's a tragedy that claimed many lives and could have been averted, but it's absolutely not how the war was funded.
India was partitioned in 1947, the Bengal famine occured in 1943.
Indian food, labor, supplies, and soldiers did play a large role in WW2 allied countries' military successes in Asia.
Indian food, labor, supplies, and soldiers did play a large role in WW2 allied countries' military successes in Asia.
> Indian food, labor, supplies, and soldiers did play a large role in WW2 allied countries' military successes in Asia.
And Africa, and Europe, and in WW1 too! Indian contributions to the world wars cannot be understated.
However, my statement was regarding the claim that the Bengali famine is "how the second world war was funded", which is bullshit. It happened years into the war, and compared to the costs associated with waging a conflict of this size, it would have been miniscule to distribute rice to the population. It was war, bad weather, incompetence, negligence, not financing that caused the famine.
And Africa, and Europe, and in WW1 too! Indian contributions to the world wars cannot be understated.
However, my statement was regarding the claim that the Bengali famine is "how the second world war was funded", which is bullshit. It happened years into the war, and compared to the costs associated with waging a conflict of this size, it would have been miniscule to distribute rice to the population. It was war, bad weather, incompetence, negligence, not financing that caused the famine.
again - please read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_Wor...
check the contribution tables
During the war, India provided 196.7 million tonnes of coal, 6 million tonnes of iron ore and 1.12 million tonnes of steel. Approx 35 per cent of India’s annual cotton textile production, amounting to about 5,000,000,000 yards, went into creating war material.
India contributed more than Australia, Canada, New Zealand put together. And yeah - we werent even part of the war.
(oh also, Indian army had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945. with the operative word being "volunteer"!)
By the end of the war outstanding balances were equivalent to 60 per cent of British net receipts under Lend-Lease. Of the total sterling balances, about a third was accumulated by India. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ehr.12372
you can go ahead and ignore this if you want. your choice and your call.
This is fairly debated and fairly well known - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33618621
check the contribution tables
During the war, India provided 196.7 million tonnes of coal, 6 million tonnes of iron ore and 1.12 million tonnes of steel. Approx 35 per cent of India’s annual cotton textile production, amounting to about 5,000,000,000 yards, went into creating war material.
India contributed more than Australia, Canada, New Zealand put together. And yeah - we werent even part of the war.
(oh also, Indian army had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945. with the operative word being "volunteer"!)
By the end of the war outstanding balances were equivalent to 60 per cent of British net receipts under Lend-Lease. Of the total sterling balances, about a third was accumulated by India. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ehr.12372
you can go ahead and ignore this if you want. your choice and your call.
This is fairly debated and fairly well known - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33618621
You seem to be misunderstanding me.
I'm not saying India was one of the biggest contributors to both World Wars - it absolutely was. And yes, reparations would make sense, but there's no chance in hell the UK pays up, or they'll open the floodgates.
However to claim the Bengali famine had anything to do with that is misleading at best. Cotton, iron, coal wouldn't have helped the starving people, and there was enough food within India and the wider British Empire. It wasn't a choice between people in Bengal starve or we don't build enough tanks/send enough troops to North Africa. It was bad weather, the war ( the fall of Burma), incompetence, negligence that caused the famine, not a premeditated choice to sacrifice the people of Bengal for the war effort.
I'm not saying India was one of the biggest contributors to both World Wars - it absolutely was. And yes, reparations would make sense, but there's no chance in hell the UK pays up, or they'll open the floodgates.
However to claim the Bengali famine had anything to do with that is misleading at best. Cotton, iron, coal wouldn't have helped the starving people, and there was enough food within India and the wider British Empire. It wasn't a choice between people in Bengal starve or we don't build enough tanks/send enough troops to North Africa. It was bad weather, the war ( the fall of Burma), incompetence, negligence that caused the famine, not a premeditated choice to sacrifice the people of Bengal for the war effort.
It's also really irrelevant to the claim at hand. Europe was the richest part of the world long before 1943.
go and read the wikipedia article. its not my claim. its the truth.
its easy to glorify the allies.
its easy to glorify the allies.
How about rule of law? Romans invented it and the idea of rule of law rather that just rule by force, lived through Middle Ages and once conditions became right, resulted in explosion of development. There is no economic development without private property, and there is no private property without rule of law because otherwise, you can't own what you don't control, and minority stakes are impossible.
I didn't read the article but I firmly believe it's definitely colonialism but not just colonialism. EU had the luxury of being first to industrialize. World wars that led to efforts to create a new society and abandon old power structures. Stability. Decent amount of farmland. Dominance in sea based trading. Rail roads. Focus on meritocracy. Unfair foreign policies and wars. Copy right system that hurts developing nations. Using fiat currency and managing everyone else to use yours. Spirit of innovation. Abscense of class structure i.e middle class is idealized vs noblity or as in India your born in fixed class.
Basically having semi functioning government and electricity goes a long way.
Basically having semi functioning government and electricity goes a long way.
Also Mongols not fully reaching to EU
Has anyone in here read Sapiens? That book argues imagination was the differentiating factor. Basically the limited liability company unleashed people’s ambition and that started in Europe. And lead to the Dutch and British war funding
Not getting destroyed by Mongols
All I know on the subject is my college reading of guns germs and steel. Has there been any changes in common knowledge since I read that in 20 years. I think they really explained this fairly well without the usual racism.
There have been a few books attempting to justify geography it's not as fundamental as Guns germs and steels tries to prove it is.
For example: The wealth of nations defends the institutions of a country play an important role and they can be independent of geography. There's a sequence to this book: The narrow corridor that further defends this thesis.
A 10,000 year explosion makes the case genes are also important. For example being able to digest milk made the people that could wealthy and powerful and allowed them to terrorize their neighbors.
For example: The wealth of nations defends the institutions of a country play an important role and they can be independent of geography. There's a sequence to this book: The narrow corridor that further defends this thesis.
A 10,000 year explosion makes the case genes are also important. For example being able to digest milk made the people that could wealthy and powerful and allowed them to terrorize their neighbors.
People try very hard to pretend genes have zero impact on societal success, despite a century of hard data to indicate that intelligence is inherited and intelligence makes the single greatest impact to individual success. Notable examples include lactose tolerance, melanin differences, and resistance to malaria in the form of sickle cell disease. Of course certain traits result in success in different regions, and of course those traits extend past the physical.
How did milk digestion help people become more wealthy and powerful?
r/AskHistorians seems to prefer Why The West Rules: For Now by Ian Morris. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004ASNG04
There has always been a substantial doubt about that book, not that it is entirely wrong but a bit… stretched to fit.
More like how did Western Europe become the richest part of the world?
I read the article but most of those things doesn't apply to the Balkan and East Europe. And you still have the wealth difference to this day. Treating Europe as one is kinda simplistic.
I read the article but most of those things doesn't apply to the Balkan and East Europe. And you still have the wealth difference to this day. Treating Europe as one is kinda simplistic.
I've heard some don't even consider these parts Europe. Maybe don't think about our corner at all, or not in this context. The ottomans really did a number on us. 400-500 years of nothing while the rest of the continent was booming, more or less
I'd say it is more complex than this. I can recommend the book written by Marie-Janin Calic [0] which goes over the complicated history of Yugoslavia and makes it a bit clearer why the Balkans is the way it is these days.
But regarding your first sentence: definitely. If you listen closely you will often notice how Europeans mentally exclude the Balkans from whatever it is they are talking about. I think this sentiment has been especially felt when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize given that apparently there have been no wars in Europe after WWII.
[0] https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/24993
But regarding your first sentence: definitely. If you listen closely you will often notice how Europeans mentally exclude the Balkans from whatever it is they are talking about. I think this sentiment has been especially felt when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize given that apparently there have been no wars in Europe after WWII.
[0] https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/24993
>I've heard some don't even consider these parts Europe.
Absolutely. I'm from East Europe and you can really feel and notice that when the European Union address certain topics.
This is also the struggle of the former Eastern Bloc countries. Rejected by the west but culturally always closer to them (especially Germany and France) not to the slavic Russia.
Absolutely. I'm from East Europe and you can really feel and notice that when the European Union address certain topics.
This is also the struggle of the former Eastern Bloc countries. Rejected by the west but culturally always closer to them (especially Germany and France) not to the slavic Russia.
This is a funny claim considering that Russia itself is culturally closer in many areas to France and Germany and not the rest of slavic East Europe.
Tolstoi and Chaikovskiy have very little to do with Eastern European/slavic culture and clearly embrace Western European tradition.
Tolstoi and Chaikovskiy have very little to do with Eastern European/slavic culture and clearly embrace Western European tradition.
Also depends on where you define "East" to be. A lot of folks label Poland as Eastern European:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_E...
but that may not be totally accurate:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_E...
but that may not be totally accurate:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe
The lack of large scale Eastern Europe colonization of the world, the avoidance of slave trade, and avoidance of foreign slave labor utilization is a clue as to why there was a developmental difference.
Moral superiority is not rewarded in the short term but it will be in the long term. There is a reason the largest economies in the Eastern and Southern world are more responsive to Russia's needs as the western world is clamping down today. Their historical reputation as a moral outlier is being rewarded.
Moral superiority is not rewarded in the short term but it will be in the long term. There is a reason the largest economies in the Eastern and Southern world are more responsive to Russia's needs as the western world is clamping down today. Their historical reputation as a moral outlier is being rewarded.
Not really rejected by the west. They could have taken marshall plan money if stalin didnt forbid it.
The Marshall plan, no matter how much the US hypes it, is not a magical get rich pill. And the Marshall plan is certainty not why Western Europe is rich today.
In fact, places that have received less Marshall Plan money often did better then does that did.
I understand in the US the Marshall Plan is often taught as this amazing act that prevented WW3 but that a lot of propaganda.
To to say it was bad, but whenever I hear people talk about the Marshall Plan it sounds like they are talking about the second coming of Christ.
In fact, places that have received less Marshall Plan money often did better then does that did.
I understand in the US the Marshall Plan is often taught as this amazing act that prevented WW3 but that a lot of propaganda.
To to say it was bad, but whenever I hear people talk about the Marshall Plan it sounds like they are talking about the second coming of Christ.
The resulting policies from the league of nations after WW1 directly contributed to the rise of Germany as the main antagonist of the European theater of WW2.
In that context, the Marshall Plan was a complete reversal of policy, and saw the rise of allies out of the ashes. It should be small wonder, then, that the Marshall Plan gets the credit for averting future war. Certainly it was not panacea, but that is no reason to ignore the effect entirely.
In that context, the Marshall Plan was a complete reversal of policy, and saw the rise of allies out of the ashes. It should be small wonder, then, that the Marshall Plan gets the credit for averting future war. Certainly it was not panacea, but that is no reason to ignore the effect entirely.
What if I told you, the US invested more in Germany after WW1 then after WW2.
And again, I didn't say it was bad, but Americans have a majority overinflated view of the Marshall Plan that simply doesn't line up with reality.
And again, I didn't say it was bad, but Americans have a majority overinflated view of the Marshall Plan that simply doesn't line up with reality.
I would say that the US rejected both the Treaty of Versailles and league of nations, and the American contribution to post WW1 Germany couldn't undo the billions in reparations that Germany was compelled to pay after the war.
The whole point of the Marshall plan was to rehabilitate their economies under representative governments - it would have failed equally badly after WW2 had the same crippling punishments been applied as after WW1.
We have tried propping up governments and economies since, and many of the efforts have failed because the governments were either corrupt or unable to foster a culture of peaceful representation of the populace- evidence in support of the point we both agree on, at least, that the Marshall plan didn't succeed in a vacuum.
The whole point of the Marshall plan was to rehabilitate their economies under representative governments - it would have failed equally badly after WW2 had the same crippling punishments been applied as after WW1.
We have tried propping up governments and economies since, and many of the efforts have failed because the governments were either corrupt or unable to foster a culture of peaceful representation of the populace- evidence in support of the point we both agree on, at least, that the Marshall plan didn't succeed in a vacuum.
Europe was practically bankrupt after WW2, including the UK.
Add on top Germany stripping valuable factories from the countries it occupied, which was then either blown to pieces or taken back to the USSR, there weren’t a lot of options for Europe after the war.
The US taking on the much of the cost of rebuilding Western Europe was paramount in accelerating the economic recovery.
Add on top Germany stripping valuable factories from the countries it occupied, which was then either blown to pieces or taken back to the USSR, there weren’t a lot of options for Europe after the war.
The US taking on the much of the cost of rebuilding Western Europe was paramount in accelerating the economic recovery.
> The US taking on the much of the cost of rebuilding Western Europe
That's not what happened. This is what I am talking about when saying that Americans have a majority inflated view of the Marshall Plan.
The important part was reduction of debt between all the countries, the direct payments of the Marshall plan were a little sweeter to make that more palatable.
It nowhere close amounts to the 'cost or rebuilding Western Europe'.
And if you look at where Marshall Plan money was actually spent, it doesn't actually line up well with where the majority of growth happened in the next 10 years.
That's not what happened. This is what I am talking about when saying that Americans have a majority inflated view of the Marshall Plan.
The important part was reduction of debt between all the countries, the direct payments of the Marshall plan were a little sweeter to make that more palatable.
It nowhere close amounts to the 'cost or rebuilding Western Europe'.
And if you look at where Marshall Plan money was actually spent, it doesn't actually line up well with where the majority of growth happened in the next 10 years.
Relief of debt is functionally equivalent to a cash payment.
And where the money went versus where growth happen wouldn’t expect to be perfectly aligned - each region suffered differently from the war.
And where the money went versus where growth happen wouldn’t expect to be perfectly aligned - each region suffered differently from the war.
As someone from across the pond, is the territory of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth not considered Eastern Europe?
It seems to have competed well from 1385 - 1772, until the forced partitioning by surrounding states.
It seems to have competed well from 1385 - 1772, until the forced partitioning by surrounding states.
Not once the word "colonization" appeared in that text.
Europe was able to colonize because it was already rich and technologically advanced. By 1700, more than 50 years before the British East India company came to control India, the UK had more than double the per capita GDP of India, and the Netherlands had more than quadrupled the per capita GDP of India.
Note of course that India was already a colony at the time. The origin of Arabs is 8,000 miles away from where I was born, but I have an Arabic last name. Guess how that happened.
Note of course that India was already a colony at the time. The origin of Arabs is 8,000 miles away from where I was born, but I have an Arabic last name. Guess how that happened.
Is it fair to compare the very small region that is England to the very large region that is India?
A fairer comparison would be Europe vs India at the time, or England vs the most advanced region of India at the time.
"The most advanced region of Europe" vs "the average region of India" is nitpicking.
A fairer comparison would be Europe vs India at the time, or England vs the most advanced region of India at the time.
"The most advanced region of Europe" vs "the average region of India" is nitpicking.
Colonization requires advanced fleets, weaponry, and economy. Colonization is a result of Europe's explosive economic growth, not a cause.
The clickbait title is poorly worded. The actual title should be "How Europe became the most scientifically advanced part of the world" as that's what's discussed.
The weaponry and fleets were advanced. But Europe was still not wealthier or more advanced than the Middle East, or East Asia as a culture.
What does 'advanced' mean in this context?
France mostly lost money with colonisation. Sure, there were some people getting rich from it.
This is was more for the prestige than money.
I can't say the same for the UK, not having read much on the economic of colonisation for them.
How much money did France lose from its colony in Haiti?
Oh right - Haiti was forced to pay for all the property France last.
Including paying the former slave-masters whose slaves had been freed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy
I trust you aren't including that payment as part the money actually lost to France.
Did France ever pay back the damages they did to Guinea before leaving?
> In Guinea, for example, the French destroyed everything they could not take back to their country. They burned food, killed cows, and destroyed buildings and books. These outrageous actions were all because Guinea wanted independence. - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/
> In response to the vote for independence, the French settlers in Guinea were quite dramatic in severing ties with Guinea. The Washington Post observed how brutal the French were in tearing down all that they thought were their contributions to Guinea: "In reaction, and as a warning to other French-speaking territories, the French pulled out of Guinea over a two-month period, taking everything they could with them. They unscrewed lightbulbs, removed plans for sewage pipelines in Conakry, the capital, and even burned medicines rather than leave them for the Guineans." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_(1958)
How are those counted for in your bookkeeping?
Several African countries are still paying for the infrastructure France built during colonization - infrastructure that of course was forced on them. And France forced its ex-colonies to give France economic advantages that persis, like "France has the first right to purchase any natural resources discovered." and "French companies have dibs on all government procurement bids" - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ .
Are you tracking those on your balance sheet?
Finally, how much money did France lose in French Indochina, a colonie d'exploitation économique, and where did it go?
Oh right - Haiti was forced to pay for all the property France last.
Including paying the former slave-masters whose slaves had been freed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy
I trust you aren't including that payment as part the money actually lost to France.
Did France ever pay back the damages they did to Guinea before leaving?
> In Guinea, for example, the French destroyed everything they could not take back to their country. They burned food, killed cows, and destroyed buildings and books. These outrageous actions were all because Guinea wanted independence. - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/
> In response to the vote for independence, the French settlers in Guinea were quite dramatic in severing ties with Guinea. The Washington Post observed how brutal the French were in tearing down all that they thought were their contributions to Guinea: "In reaction, and as a warning to other French-speaking territories, the French pulled out of Guinea over a two-month period, taking everything they could with them. They unscrewed lightbulbs, removed plans for sewage pipelines in Conakry, the capital, and even burned medicines rather than leave them for the Guineans." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_(1958)
How are those counted for in your bookkeeping?
Several African countries are still paying for the infrastructure France built during colonization - infrastructure that of course was forced on them. And France forced its ex-colonies to give France economic advantages that persis, like "France has the first right to purchase any natural resources discovered." and "French companies have dibs on all government procurement bids" - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ .
Are you tracking those on your balance sheet?
Finally, how much money did France lose in French Indochina, a colonie d'exploitation économique, and where did it go?
[deleted]
What people don't get is at the time, the state power mattered more than companies, territorial expansion and reach was one of the prime goal.
British and Dutch colonialism were public-private joint affairs. The VOC was the first company to raise capital by selling stocks. Jamestown (first permanent English settlement in the Americas) was settled by the London Company, under Crown charter.
Compare that to the Spanish colonialism, where state power indeed mattered more than companies.
Compare that to the Spanish colonialism, where state power indeed mattered more than companies.
Yeah that's kind of the big difference I'd say between British and Dutch colonialism and French and Spanish colonialism.
On the French empire, the state had almost all the power and territorial expansion was on everybody's mind.
Not that makes it better but it's essential to bring it back in the context.
Not that makes it better but it's essential to bring it back in the context.
Any sources?
If you can read french
https://www.google.com/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualit...
Otherwise google do agood job with french translation
https://www.google.com/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualit...
Otherwise google do agood job with french translation
Which means the author has managed to look past the most superficial and simplistic answers and current political fads.
I don't think the answer is nearly as simple as "Because Colonialism!", but if it is not discussed at all, then you have to wonder if they don't have the exact same issue you are claiming they are avoiding, but only from the opposite side.
Europe is not the only continent to have been extremely wealthy, and to claim that they did not extract significant wealth from other countries via outright force as well as projection of power, then you are performing quite a lot of revisions on history.
You'll note that I am not claiming that Europe is the only culture to practice colonialism or that they are uniquely evil for doing so - war has been a universal constant in humanity no matter the geographic region. I don't think Europe is more immoral for doing it other countries than anyone doing the same to those in their own country. China has a long history of wars of secession and unification, and I doubt the fact that the people that started the wars were of what we would today call the same nationality was any comfort to those that had their lives ruined or family members killed.
But to ignore the fact that massive quantities of wealth were extracted by European colonialism is absurd. The Dutch East India Company would be worth nearly 8 trillion USD at today's rates. The British East India Company is a bit harder to figure accurately, due to how intertwined it was with the Crown, as well as how much of the earnings left the company nearly immediately for private coffers, and the outrageous level of expenditures during it's period of de facto government in British India. But it made up half of the world's trade for a period - and made quite a lot of Europeans very very rich. If this trade was fair, and not an extraction of wealth, you would have seen this create similar levels of benefits to both parties - but this is plainly not the case.
You simply can't ignore this when trying to answer the question the article claims to be tackling. It's not the sole answer - and there are certainly a multitude of questions around how it came to be that European countries were so brutally "effective" at colonizing - but even if you have decided you want to write an article that focuses on the other factors, it's the sort of thing you really should disclaim and provide at least a basic background on.
Not doing so provides a very flawed picture of the situation, regardless of whether it was done with the intent to create said picture.
Europe is not the only continent to have been extremely wealthy, and to claim that they did not extract significant wealth from other countries via outright force as well as projection of power, then you are performing quite a lot of revisions on history.
You'll note that I am not claiming that Europe is the only culture to practice colonialism or that they are uniquely evil for doing so - war has been a universal constant in humanity no matter the geographic region. I don't think Europe is more immoral for doing it other countries than anyone doing the same to those in their own country. China has a long history of wars of secession and unification, and I doubt the fact that the people that started the wars were of what we would today call the same nationality was any comfort to those that had their lives ruined or family members killed.
But to ignore the fact that massive quantities of wealth were extracted by European colonialism is absurd. The Dutch East India Company would be worth nearly 8 trillion USD at today's rates. The British East India Company is a bit harder to figure accurately, due to how intertwined it was with the Crown, as well as how much of the earnings left the company nearly immediately for private coffers, and the outrageous level of expenditures during it's period of de facto government in British India. But it made up half of the world's trade for a period - and made quite a lot of Europeans very very rich. If this trade was fair, and not an extraction of wealth, you would have seen this create similar levels of benefits to both parties - but this is plainly not the case.
You simply can't ignore this when trying to answer the question the article claims to be tackling. It's not the sole answer - and there are certainly a multitude of questions around how it came to be that European countries were so brutally "effective" at colonizing - but even if you have decided you want to write an article that focuses on the other factors, it's the sort of thing you really should disclaim and provide at least a basic background on.
Not doing so provides a very flawed picture of the situation, regardless of whether it was done with the intent to create said picture.
> If this trade was fair, and not an extraction of wealth, you would have seen this create similar levels of benefits to both parties
No, the majority of the wealth would go to the party that did the work behind the trade, ie those who ran the ships to go around the world. They could buy goods in India for local Indian prices, and then sell in Europe for European prices, that is where the money lies. Not sure how you can argue that it isn't fair to buy goods for their local market value value.
India could have done the same, realized the trade is worth more than the production of the goods and made their own ships and went around the world making much more profits, but they didn't.
No, the majority of the wealth would go to the party that did the work behind the trade, ie those who ran the ships to go around the world. They could buy goods in India for local Indian prices, and then sell in Europe for European prices, that is where the money lies. Not sure how you can argue that it isn't fair to buy goods for their local market value value.
India could have done the same, realized the trade is worth more than the production of the goods and made their own ships and went around the world making much more profits, but they didn't.
The fleets they were able to build in large quantities due to the places they had colonized providing long pine, cotton, and other materials they did not have at home?
"Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers?
Bengal was one of the richest places in the world, with community owned and driven cotton farming providing wealth for a huge chunk of the population. Then, this "fair trade" with Britain somehow reduced them to poverty and starvation.
Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them, their standards of living drop precipitously, and just general widespread exploitation. Places they colonized that had raw materials, but did not have the same level of wealth or production of goods (Generally because environmental factors, such as lack of navigable waterways or large quantities of arable land, etc.) might have seen this pick up and gained glimpses of new technologies, but again were exploited by the Europeans to extract this wealth from them, and again at rates that would have been well below what would have been natural levels of value if they were to produce and trade things under different circumstances.
The reality of the situation is that colonization is exploitative and has a track record of being universally a Bad Thing for the people being colonized. Over history colonization and conquering is hardly a uniquely European thing, but Europe was ascendant in what ended up being a window of opportunity, with the acceleration of scientific and technological progress allowing them colonize more disparate locations, capitalize on this trade, and ultimately create what is the modern world order. This isn't the first time that that story has played out, however, and I doubt it will be the last.
"Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers?
Bengal was one of the richest places in the world, with community owned and driven cotton farming providing wealth for a huge chunk of the population. Then, this "fair trade" with Britain somehow reduced them to poverty and starvation.
Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them, their standards of living drop precipitously, and just general widespread exploitation. Places they colonized that had raw materials, but did not have the same level of wealth or production of goods (Generally because environmental factors, such as lack of navigable waterways or large quantities of arable land, etc.) might have seen this pick up and gained glimpses of new technologies, but again were exploited by the Europeans to extract this wealth from them, and again at rates that would have been well below what would have been natural levels of value if they were to produce and trade things under different circumstances.
The reality of the situation is that colonization is exploitative and has a track record of being universally a Bad Thing for the people being colonized. Over history colonization and conquering is hardly a uniquely European thing, but Europe was ascendant in what ended up being a window of opportunity, with the acceleration of scientific and technological progress allowing them colonize more disparate locations, capitalize on this trade, and ultimately create what is the modern world order. This isn't the first time that that story has played out, however, and I doubt it will be the last.
> The fleets they were able to build in large quantities due to the places they had colonized providing long pine, cotton, and other materials they did not have at home?
> "Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers?
There were centuries of peaceful trade between Bengal and Europe before the invasion and exploitation you talk about happened. During this time Bengal/India could have made their own ships and gotten the same wealth from trade, but they didn't. East Indian companies grew a lot of their value during this period, and ultimately became strong enough that they could outright conquer their trade partners and therefore get the goods for free.
> Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them
I never denied that colonization was bad for the people in those areas. I just denied that the trade that happened was bad for the region or that it was unfair. When the European powers conquered the area and became rulers it was bad, but that means the conquest was bad not that the trade was bad. Before the conquest Bengal had benefited from the trade with European powers.
> "Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers?
There were centuries of peaceful trade between Bengal and Europe before the invasion and exploitation you talk about happened. During this time Bengal/India could have made their own ships and gotten the same wealth from trade, but they didn't. East Indian companies grew a lot of their value during this period, and ultimately became strong enough that they could outright conquer their trade partners and therefore get the goods for free.
> Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them
I never denied that colonization was bad for the people in those areas. I just denied that the trade that happened was bad for the region or that it was unfair. When the European powers conquered the area and became rulers it was bad, but that means the conquest was bad not that the trade was bad. Before the conquest Bengal had benefited from the trade with European powers.
But also not talking about colonialism at all is a red flag.
No small feat - first, to have the intellect to do so, and second the courage.
That's a big oversight. I guess the best way to understand why Europe is rich is to know the history of the Dutch East India company and their tactics in securing their wealth.
I think biology played a bigger part than just colonization itself. Europe went to the Americas and brought back potatos and a substantial boost in calorie production compared to wheat. Alongside corn, tomatoes, sweet potato. The Americas got smallpox, chickenpox, malaria, typhoid, and a host of other diseases. Europe was much better placed to benefit from this exchange of organisms because of better disease resistance. Northern European farms could grow potato and free up labour to work in factories.
> The Indian subcontinent and the Middle East were fragmented for much of their history, and Africa even more so, yet they did not experience a Great Enrichment.
They had an opportunity to explain why the colonised lands didn’t experience a “Great Enrichment”, but they chose to completely ignore most of history.
They had an opportunity to explain why the colonised lands didn’t experience a “Great Enrichment”, but they chose to completely ignore most of history.
Europe was a backwater of global affairs for millennia, with essentially all wealth moving through different steps further east to China. Then advances in weaponry and shipbuilding enabled it to subject others and extract vast amounts of wealth for ca 150 years (colonialism/imperialism/slavery and mercantilism), which ended about 80-100 years ago. Nothing has managed to fully destroy the advantage since then as technology builds cumulatively, but the traditional superpower china is on the way back up.
Or slavery in the Americas, which was also instituted and implemented by Europeans
Slavery existed since the dawn of civilization. The Egyptians used slave labor as did essentially all other ancient empires. Slavery existed in Africa well before 'Europeans' came along offering a market.
Well, neither Mayans, not Aztecs needed Europeans at all to introduce the concept of slaves in their societies (or help to sacrifice them to their gods).
Explaining differences between "North" and "South" through colonial exploitation is a traditional "coping mechanism" of those with inferiority complex.
The "South" benefited massively from transfers of technology from the North. The North benefited with ....?
The "South" benefited massively from transfers of technology from the North. The North benefited with ....?
postit(9)
Every rich nation on earth became rich through exploitation and genocide.
You're merely describing the history of nearly all nations (at one point or another), which doesn't properly explain why some nations develop to a radical degree when it comes to the formation of industry, wealth, high productivity, innovation, technology, etc.
Vietnam - as one prominent example - has had repeated bouts of internal exploitation and genocide throughout its history, including in the post Vietnam War era by the ruling CPV dictatorship. That treatment didn't make them richer or more developed, the opposite did: liberalized markets, increased protections for property rights, global trade, manufacturing, paid labor with rapidly increasing wages, rapidly increasing productivity, and so on. The approach of exploitation and genocide destroyed potential and held them back, as it similarly did to numerous other Communist nations.
You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation.
Vietnam - as one prominent example - has had repeated bouts of internal exploitation and genocide throughout its history, including in the post Vietnam War era by the ruling CPV dictatorship. That treatment didn't make them richer or more developed, the opposite did: liberalized markets, increased protections for property rights, global trade, manufacturing, paid labor with rapidly increasing wages, rapidly increasing productivity, and so on. The approach of exploitation and genocide destroyed potential and held them back, as it similarly did to numerous other Communist nations.
You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation.
> You have to pretend that all worker wages are inherently exploitation (that the business to worker relationship is always structured on worker exploitation), to believe that every rich nation primarily got there via exploitation.
Merely that exploitation is more common than a fair trade where both parties can afford to walk away.
How often is it historically that a person can quit on the spot without fear of becoming homeless?
A quick search finds this article that suggests that in US today 40% of people have negative net worth: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-...
Exploitation is not a good source of wealth for the country, of course. For people working minimum wage jobs their time would be more efficiently spent on education. But it's a great way to accumulate wealth that exists anyway.
Merely that exploitation is more common than a fair trade where both parties can afford to walk away.
How often is it historically that a person can quit on the spot without fear of becoming homeless?
A quick search finds this article that suggests that in US today 40% of people have negative net worth: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/the-costs-of-...
Exploitation is not a good source of wealth for the country, of course. For people working minimum wage jobs their time would be more efficiently spent on education. But it's a great way to accumulate wealth that exists anyway.
Allowing people to sell their labor, and allowing other people to buy that labor, is inherently exploitive /s
China has committed a genocide over the Uighurs and has also peacefully brought hundreds of millions out of poverty in the last fifty years. These two events are unrelated.
Every nation has committed exploitation and genocide but that that is the cause of their wealth is a stretch. Most wealth is generated peacefully.
Every nation has committed exploitation and genocide but that that is the cause of their wealth is a stretch. Most wealth is generated peacefully.
Yes, if anything the causality is reversed. Wealth enables a country to exploit others, not the other way around.
Probably "and/or".
Iceland has one of the highest GDPs per capita (in the top 12 says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... ) and high median wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... ).
That was through exploitation (power generation and fishing), but not genocide.
Iceland has one of the highest GDPs per capita (in the top 12 says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... ) and high median wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe... ).
That was through exploitation (power generation and fishing), but not genocide.
Every country on the planet is a byproduct of exploitation and genocide. Some countries where just "better" at it.
Well sure, the question is how were they able to out-exploit and out-genocide the rest of the world.
Theft, colonialism, an international legal system that supports this and never made them pay back the nations they stole resources and labor from for hundreds of years.
And how did they get all these colonies? How were they able to steal all these things? Were the other people not trying to prevent stealing?
How did Portugal go to India and manage to steal everything?
Why were the Ottoman not more successful, they had far more colonies. In fact, the countries that went from unsuccessful to successful were those that didn't have colonies. Colonies were the result of their success.
This explains literally nothing.
How did Portugal go to India and manage to steal everything?
Why were the Ottoman not more successful, they had far more colonies. In fact, the countries that went from unsuccessful to successful were those that didn't have colonies. Colonies were the result of their success.
This explains literally nothing.
Damn you Swiss, Poland, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia for colonialism.
The Austrian monarchy was heavily involved with colonialism via Spain. However, even nations that didn't directly go out and colonize benefited because the wealth that was taken from abroad was often spent back in Europe buying food, crafts, and services. The sheer amount of it also led to innovations in state institutions and financial instruments/strategies.
Sweden did try some colonialism, when it was in vogue. Not on a large scale though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies
You also kind of have to count Norway as part of the larger Dano-Norwegian colonization effort with a sprinkle of the Swedish one.
- Kalmar Union (1397 - 1523)
- Dano-Norwegian Realm (1524-1814)
- United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway (1814 - 1905)
- Independent Norway (1905 - )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_overseas_colonies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies
You also kind of have to count Norway as part of the larger Dano-Norwegian colonization effort with a sprinkle of the Swedish one.
- Kalmar Union (1397 - 1523)
- Dano-Norwegian Realm (1524-1814)
- United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway (1814 - 1905)
- Independent Norway (1905 - )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_overseas_colonies
Sweden? Their cruelty towards local populations during their "intervention" in Thirty Year's War is a stuff of legends.
That wasn't colonialism though.
What defines colonialism in your view? That it happens outside of Europe?
That's the whole problem with all this 'colonialism' talk. Colonialism is an invention of European scholars and today we somehow want to make it uniquely European.
Taking over other places around you and politically dominating it is as old as history.
You can't use colonialism as an explanation for anything because in the whole world there were wars and people taking over their neighbors.
Its a matter of linguistics and historiography when we use the term 'colony'.
Taking over other places around you and politically dominating it is as old as history.
You can't use colonialism as an explanation for anything because in the whole world there were wars and people taking over their neighbors.
Its a matter of linguistics and historiography when we use the term 'colony'.
I agree with you.
I believe it's important to acknowledge a distinction between, as you say, politically dominating a region with an intention of expanding the home country and depleting a region of its wealth, exporting it away while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population other than for the purposes of wealth extraction.
I believe it's important to acknowledge a distinction between, as you say, politically dominating a region with an intention of expanding the home country and depleting a region of its wealth, exporting it away while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population other than for the purposes of wealth extraction.
Pretty much all invasions start with taking over resources and the longer they are part of your empire, it will become more integrated it becomes. And in a time of kingship and emperors most regions never got series political representation.
And its also a limited history of colonialism to claim its only wealth extraction above and beyond what other empires would do.
> while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population
If anything Europeans because of their limited population had more intensive to do so.
The British take over of much of India was literally a vastly majority Indian affair. The war was fought by Indian troops, supplied by Indian merchants and farmers, it was financed by taking loans from Indian bankers. The amount of British people involved were almost vanishingly small given the size of India.
Did Indians have more control over involvement over India then Greeks did over Greece in the Ottoman empire?
I don't think you can make any generalization that European invasions of other countries were uniquely destructive or extractive compared to world history. There are certainty cases like Kind Leopold's regime in Congo but we can't reduce 600 years of European history to that.
And its also a limited history of colonialism to claim its only wealth extraction above and beyond what other empires would do.
> while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population
If anything Europeans because of their limited population had more intensive to do so.
The British take over of much of India was literally a vastly majority Indian affair. The war was fought by Indian troops, supplied by Indian merchants and farmers, it was financed by taking loans from Indian bankers. The amount of British people involved were almost vanishingly small given the size of India.
Did Indians have more control over involvement over India then Greeks did over Greece in the Ottoman empire?
I don't think you can make any generalization that European invasions of other countries were uniquely destructive or extractive compared to world history. There are certainty cases like Kind Leopold's regime in Congo but we can't reduce 600 years of European history to that.
That the colonial power aims to stay/settle/control in the lands conquered, and extract something from them/trade with or from them.
The Swedish in the Thirty years war didn't intend to settle or claim the lands they were fighting in - they just fought against a religious enemy and for power/influence/French money. ( Pomerania is somewhat of an exception).
The Swedish in the Thirty years war didn't intend to settle or claim the lands they were fighting in - they just fought against a religious enemy and for power/influence/French money. ( Pomerania is somewhat of an exception).
[deleted]
Some of the richest countries in Europe never engaged in colonialism or slavery.
They traded with, were allied and supported by, and now mutually benefitted by the economic and military union of Europe.
Ah, right, the proxy spoils of colonialism... I presume these nations' scientific, industrial and engineering prowess - of which none was built with slavery - had no bearing on anything. I don't understand how you can attribute so much guilt to not just the conquerors themselves but also to their neighbours, while at the same time discounting the creations and driving force of the great European minds of the past. It's a tiresome dichotomy and a sad, narrow perspective to view the world as nothing but oppressors and victims, and to always insist that the rich are rich only because they stole from the poor, and that all poor nations had been rich "if only history had been a tiny bit different".
I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense.
> the proxy spoils of colonialism
Yes, that’s a thing. Here’s an essay that I found with one Google search. It clearly illustrates exactly the kind of disillusionment in your stance.
> The Swedish Crown, merchants, and political leadership shared a Eurocentric worldview and supported the right to conquer, dominate, and civilize in the name of superiority and technological advancement. But there was also a specifically Swedish twist to colonial ideology: Swedish neutrality turned out to be a strategic position and to offer competitive advantages in relation to colonial superpowers at war. When Britain and the Netherlands were fighting, Sweden exported cannons to the Dutch and iron for weaponry to the Brits. France could, when fighting Britain, rely on Swedish shipping of smuggled slaves, weaponry and other goods in the Caribbean. Also, hundreds of US trade ships managed to avoid customs by sailing under Swedish flag—and thus Sweden could maintain the lucrative Saint Barthélemy trade traffic.
(https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
> the proxy spoils of colonialism
Yes, that’s a thing. Here’s an essay that I found with one Google search. It clearly illustrates exactly the kind of disillusionment in your stance.
> The Swedish Crown, merchants, and political leadership shared a Eurocentric worldview and supported the right to conquer, dominate, and civilize in the name of superiority and technological advancement. But there was also a specifically Swedish twist to colonial ideology: Swedish neutrality turned out to be a strategic position and to offer competitive advantages in relation to colonial superpowers at war. When Britain and the Netherlands were fighting, Sweden exported cannons to the Dutch and iron for weaponry to the Brits. France could, when fighting Britain, rely on Swedish shipping of smuggled slaves, weaponry and other goods in the Caribbean. Also, hundreds of US trade ships managed to avoid customs by sailing under Swedish flag—and thus Sweden could maintain the lucrative Saint Barthélemy trade traffic.
(https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
Why was Sweden able to make advanced cannons that were useful in modern warfare (modern at the time)? If India or China could make such cannons they wouldn't have been defeated by a handful of European ships. They didn't use colonies or trade to do it, as the iron was mined in their own mines, they made the entire thing themselves.
All of these questions are tangential to the unspoken racism in this thread.
So what if Swedes mined their own iron? Did you read the rest of the essay? My point was about overall mutual enrichment in Europe, on the back of colonialism. There is ample material outside of my link that detail it further. Arguing that the victims could’ve armed themselves better, still doesn’t prove Sweden’s “innocence”. They mined their “own” iron to make “advanced” cannons to help the colonising kingdoms kill natives and enslave them.
So what if Swedes mined their own iron? Did you read the rest of the essay? My point was about overall mutual enrichment in Europe, on the back of colonialism. There is ample material outside of my link that detail it further. Arguing that the victims could’ve armed themselves better, still doesn’t prove Sweden’s “innocence”. They mined their “own” iron to make “advanced” cannons to help the colonising kingdoms kill natives and enslave them.
This isn't about innocence but about why Europe became rich. A large part of what made Europe rich was that they had much more advanced military technology and used said technology to take over the rest of the world.
So then, how did they get so superior military technology? It wasn't colonialism, they didn't import guns from their colonies and the colonial powers weren't ahead of the rest of Europe in military technology.
So then, how did they get so superior military technology? It wasn't colonialism, they didn't import guns from their colonies and the colonial powers weren't ahead of the rest of Europe in military technology.
Most of the framing in this HN post have been thinly-veiled racism attributing Europe’s success to things like survival in colder climates, working together unlike developing countries, having higher avg IQ - all of these reasons are easily debatable and most importantly without sources.
If we focus on your post now, your core point is that Europe was better at military technology and hence could colonise better. Saying you could build weaponry doesn’t prove pre-wealth - it just means you could allocate Human Resources to weapon building whereas developing countries chose not to. And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all?
I don’t understand the wealth or GDP argument at all tbh. We’re talking about a colonial pre-globalised economy world - wealth did not have an international standard, countries created money as they needed and then our modern society adopted a worldview wherein developed countries are valued less to keep them in eternal poverty. There is no basis for an Indian vs European GDP, when neither existed in that age and all trade was through colonial exploitation.
If we focus on your post now, your core point is that Europe was better at military technology and hence could colonise better. Saying you could build weaponry doesn’t prove pre-wealth - it just means you could allocate Human Resources to weapon building whereas developing countries chose not to. And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all?
I don’t understand the wealth or GDP argument at all tbh. We’re talking about a colonial pre-globalised economy world - wealth did not have an international standard, countries created money as they needed and then our modern society adopted a worldview wherein developed countries are valued less to keep them in eternal poverty. There is no basis for an Indian vs European GDP, when neither existed in that age and all trade was through colonial exploitation.
> And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all?
What riches? Were the homes in Sweden made by materials imported from colonies? Were the food they ate imported from colonies? Cotton clothes I can give you, but wool clothes were still the most common, and I doubt the entre society of Sweden were revolutionized thanks to cotton clothes. Potatoes were from colonies, but they were still home grown, the potatoes eaten in Sweden weren't stolen from anywhere.
Precious metals aren't riches for a society, just riches for the elite, you can't eat or live in gold. England getting a lot of gold doesn't help Sweden in any way.
What riches? Were the homes in Sweden made by materials imported from colonies? Were the food they ate imported from colonies? Cotton clothes I can give you, but wool clothes were still the most common, and I doubt the entre society of Sweden were revolutionized thanks to cotton clothes. Potatoes were from colonies, but they were still home grown, the potatoes eaten in Sweden weren't stolen from anywhere.
Precious metals aren't riches for a society, just riches for the elite, you can't eat or live in gold. England getting a lot of gold doesn't help Sweden in any way.
That’s a lot of sidestepping of my entire comment.
So why was Sweden selling this advanced cannon technology and sailing slave ships for Britain et all, in exchange for metal money - which like you say wouldn’t help the average Swede? Surely, they could’ve just kept to themselves and built things for themselves. Why did the neutral Swedes even attempt their own colonies? Seems like a waste of resources.
(https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
So why was Sweden selling this advanced cannon technology and sailing slave ships for Britain et all, in exchange for metal money - which like you say wouldn’t help the average Swede? Surely, they could’ve just kept to themselves and built things for themselves. Why did the neutral Swedes even attempt their own colonies? Seems like a waste of resources.
(https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
The elites likes precious metals and will spend a lot of manpower to attain it, but precious metals doesn't make society rich. When we say that Europe was rich we don't mean they had lots of gold in their coffers, but that they had plenty of good food, housing, clothes, medicine etc, things that makes society rich.
"I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense."
No, it's your arrogant blasé finger-pointing and insinuations of racism left and right that is offensive. I'm not a native European. I migrated here.
No, it's your arrogant blasé finger-pointing and insinuations of racism left and right that is offensive. I'm not a native European. I migrated here.
The Europeans were supplicants to the courts of Mughal Indian and Imperial China in the 1600s. By the late 1700s and 1800s the Europeans were stomping on everyone due to their advances in weapons.
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
The West has more than paid back the people of those nations with the amount we've given them via social programs (immigrants and the races that were formerly slaves are the largest consumers of these by quite a margin) and foreign aid (without which many of those nations would probably cease to exist.)
Presupposing the "west" has already made reparations with money to the affected peoples via social programs and foreign is a very elitist point of view. No money could replace all the gold and silver stolen from the America's under Spanish rule. The gold was used as religious decoration. It culturally meant something; you can't just presume you can pay it off; it's non-fungible. Can money account for all the indigenous languages and cultures that have been lost because of colonialism?
In the 70s, the Ford administration and Henry Kissinger cobbled together $50,000,000.00 to go to Argentina. This "foreign aid" was given to dictator Jorge Rafael Videla to disappear communists and dissidents all over the country on the behest of the U.S.
Has "the West" truly paid their dues, or do they have even more blood on their hands?
In the 70s, the Ford administration and Henry Kissinger cobbled together $50,000,000.00 to go to Argentina. This "foreign aid" was given to dictator Jorge Rafael Videla to disappear communists and dissidents all over the country on the behest of the U.S.
Has "the West" truly paid their dues, or do they have even more blood on their hands?
Unfortunately, I think we will see no progress in this area for political reasons. I was browsing the “racial literacy” curriculum used by my daughter’s school. Most of it is fluff, but the fourth grade unit is a doozy: https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.198.70/b51.f3f.myftpupload.... It chalks up the differences in development between countries to “geography” giving some countries a “head start.” This is absurd to anyone who has studied a little history. Countries like Bangladesh had a huge head start. In Bangladesh, food just jumps into your basket. Meanwhile Europeans were hacking away at soil that freezes for large parts of the year. And that doesn’t explain why certain countries became rich in the 20th century. How about a unit on how Singapore went from poor to rich in a single generation? The effect of colonialism, etc., can’t be ignored. But Bangladesh had been rich relative to Britain in the past. Yet by the time the British East India company came to India, Britain was more than twice as rich per capita as India, and the Netherlands more than four times as rich. I want to know how that happened. The British will never write a $42 trillion check for what they allegedly siphoned off from India. But understanding how the British (themselves the victims of repeated invasions) came to have the economic and military advantage that allowed them to do that would be valuable.
Unfortunately, there is no politically correct answer to this question that allows study of what Bangladeshis could have done or could do differently. We’re raising an entire generation of kids who will be socialized to believe that the challenges facing the third world are due to factors outside the control of those people, and that the only route to development is paternalistic aid from the first world.