How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's BS. Intellectual property is a recent development. And it doesn't follow anyway, most of the world's greatest music was composed when there either wasn't IP or enforcement was lax.

And "Western Civilization" is a silly idea. The east and west weren't that different 500 years ago - so the Classical inheritance thing is a bit silly. The real explanation is probably quite mundane.

Patents were invented by the Venetions in the 1400's to protect glass making inventions. From there it spread all over Europe, but primarily in Germany and England.

Copyrights became important with the printing press.

Composers were largely employed by the Aristocracy and did not make money off their works. That came with Rock and Roll.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[Liberal democracy is based on a series of human rights which are enshrined. It isn't mob rule, but protects the minority with rights. This is the difference between liberal democracy and earlier democracies.

By what, word of God? if you get a big enough mob, you can change any law or constitution of the land. You can even define a certain group of people as enemy of the people (or something like that) and put them in concentration camps (or worse).

[Tripledoc]

It has been shown that a General Staff of elderly men is capable of sacrificing quite a lot of people. In fact a proper general staffe would only have people in their 70s to 90s.

Now, i think that the socalled East, or Third World, have as of yet, not been willing to bring the same sacrifizes to bear.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by debeest
Moreover, it's completely fallacious to state that most of the achievements of the last millennium have come from the West. But as they say, the winners write the history. Here in the West, ruling the world, we claim the achievements regardless of who actually achieved them. Think we'd be anywhere without the Arabic numeral system? Want to back up a second and consider whether you'd consider Arabs part of the Western world?

Hell, I'll back up two seconds and consider whether the Arabs actually invented the "Arabic" numeral system.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ned

Composers were largely employed by the Aristocracy and did not make money off their works. That came with Rock and Roll.

Well Scott Joplin made a fortune off of his ragtime compositions around the turn of the last century, so its at least 50 years older than Rock & Roll.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by paiktis22
BTW cerbecious, yeah I'm sure that say denmark had a huge colonial empire

that chezhs and whiterussians had huuuuge differences in any given timeframe

your theory is a bunch of bull****e for internal concumption.

you may need it, none other does (apart some inferior feeling yankees ) and thats all

Maybe, but on the other hand, taking a phrase, giving it your own definition - which no-one else apparently shares with you - and then claiming the phrase is meaningless because there is no evidence or argument to support the definition you have assigned it is not exactly reasoned debate, merely a pathetic attempt to confirm one's prejudices.

Try a proper, rational argument next time - unless, of course, you're just trolling.

[GePap]

Europeans got lucky for the most part- i that too hard to understand? people rebel against the idea that things not under their control lead to thier victory- it must be somehting deep and good and ... why?

The Europeans were stuck on a dinky part of Eurasia with little room to go- so they sailed the seas, something the big wide empires of the east had little rational reason to do (why should the Chinese spend all this time sailign about?), and found a new land full of peope unable to beat back Eurasia's bugs- and the beginning was laid.

So Europe can thank smallpox and the measels and all those disease that came out of human-animal intereactions in China and India for thier dominance.

[debeest]

Thank you, GePap.

Love your sigs, too.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GePap
Europeans got lucky for the most part- i that too hard to understand? people rebel against the idea that things not under their control lead to thier victory- it must be somehting deep and good and ... why?

I would not call that luck but rather winning something not anticipated, expected or imagined. It is not without merit since you need to be where the *something* appears. Columbus was on its way to decidedly discover something, and he discovered (unfortunately ) small isles close to America. Darwin was on a routine trip around the world, with precise directives on what he was supposed to do. He did his job and much more, taking advantage of a situation that did not result of luck, whith his own intelligence and eagerness to understand the world.
Another problem with luck, is that it leads to consider the unlucky events, which could be roughly estimated to equal in number, magnitude and effects to the lucky ones.

[Ned]

Western civilization was dominant during the time of the Romans and later after the discovery of the new world. In the case of the Romans, it was their form of government that lead to their superiority. Even the Romans understood this. In modern times, it was trade and competition that lead to the discovery and development of the new world and to contacts with India and China, etc. But that alone did not lead to dominance, as that was a byproduct of technological development that was caused by education (Martin Luther), the printing press, competition, patents and the rule of law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Western civilization was dominant during the time of the Romans and later after the discovery of the new world. In the case of the Romans, it was their form of government that lead to their superiority. Even the Romans understood this. In modern times, it was trade and competition that lead to the discovery and development of the new world and to contacts with India and China, etc. But that alone did not lead to dominance, as that was a byproduct of technological development that was caused by education (Martin Luther), the printing press, competition, patents and the rule of law.

How exactly did Rome show its superiority over the Eastern ways exactly? Rome ruled its bit of the world, just as the Persian ruled hier bit of the world ( abigger bit actually), and the Chinese.

As for education- the new wave of learning begun independent of the reformation- maybe you can argue it leads to greater literacy, but not the scientific method or technological advancement. As for "patent law" - it comes into being well after Western ominance has been laid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I would not call that luck but rather winning something not anticipated, expected or imagined. It is not without merit since you need to be where the *something* appears. Columbus was on its way to decidedly discover something, and he discovered (unfortunately ) small isles close to America.

Had Columbus crossed the ocean and gotten were he wanted to go, all he would have done is begun a new profitable trade route, like the crossing of the cape of Good hope a few years before- but trade with the East would never have yileded the unimaginable resources that Europe gained access to in the Americas.

Darwin was on a routine trip around the world, with precise directives on what he was supposed to do. He did his job and much more, taking advantage of a situation that did not result of luck, whith his own intelligence and eagerness to understand the world.

Darwin sailed when western dominance was clear and well established

Another problem with luck, is that it leads to consider the unlucky events, which could be roughly estimated to equal in number, magnitude and effects to the lucky ones.

Why certainly- Eastern states facd lot of bad luck, specially happening to be in the ay of great nomadic waves of invasion- the last and biggest one hit most of Eurasia pretty bad, except for lucky Europe. NO, bad luck is as important as good luck, which is simply saying luck (better said as random chance) has a bigger importane in life than we humans dare admit, for it throws all sorts of monkey wrenches into our meaning-filled and highly moralized universe.

[Kuciwalker]

Had Columbus crossed the ocean and gotten were he wanted to go, all he would have done is begun a new profitable trade route, like the crossing of the cape of Good hope a few years before- but trade with the East would never have yileded the unimaginable resources that Europe gained access to in the Americas.

That isn't luck, though - it's geography

Which is why GGS still holds

[GePap]

Its luck and geography-after all, a nice simple storm could have come and Columbus would be caput- or he could have been killed on shore, or any of the endless possible ways his voyage could have ended, as so many forgotten voyages have, destroyed.

And in a sense, the luck OF geography

[Kuciwalker]

Its luck and geography-after all, a nice simple storm could have come and Columbus would be caput- or he could have been killed on shore, or any of the endless possible ways his voyage could have ended, as so many forgotten voyages have, destroyed.

However, inevitably more voyages would have been sent.