Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by JohnT

I have quoted only part of what you quoted, and my bit does not include the word racist at all. So what the frak are you talking about?

However, China was just as advanced as Europe in the 1500's (probably more so) and had their sailing fleets ready to take over the world... until China stopped supporting their oceanic voyages in favor of more localized (SE Asia) trade. The fact that China was a monolithic state might have hindered it in the 15th century, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't do it because of a lack of GGS. They just didn't.

WHat proof do you have for that? Chinese Junks are woefully suited to plying the North Atlantic- less so then the cumbersome Spanish Galleons that floundered so notably when they tried to invade England. The Chinese were not more advanced then Western Europe in 1500- they were still living, in all ways, like the Europeans were in the 1200's.

They had no cannon on the ships and thus even the Venetians were a more powerful naval force then the Chinese. They had no guns and thus could not hope to achieve a significant landing by sea of an invasion force.

I suspect you are referring to the book that makes claims of a giant Chinese flotilla circumnavigating the globe long before Europeans- a book that even the Chinese themselves scoff at. Like GGS, that book makes fantastical claims while negating facts that are clearly in front of everyone. The Chinese did not even have plumbing in 1500- something that existed in Europe for several thousand years at that point.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Put a Bushman in NYC and see how smart he is... Put a New Yorker in the Kalahari and...you get the picture...

You get yet another 3rd worlder on refugee status welfare maybe driving a cab in the former case, you get the British Empire in the later case.

Cultural relativism has it's roots in Marxian philosophy- it has no place in science.

[Epublius Rex]

Some people here are forgetting that Europe was invaded many times over the millennia- some took a hundred years to drive out, but drive them out they did. The Turks last tried to invade Europe proper by attempting to take Vienna in the year 1683.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Which again, makes GGC a joke. He acts as if Europe were totally immune from what they "inflicted" on the rest of the world, they were not- they were just better at defending themselves against it.

Furthermore, the Europeans had long gone east in search of trade before they ever went West- as a main force. The wealth and military superiority of Western Europe was already a fact when Columbus set sail for the "New World". The so called "vast resources" that were "stolen" from the "Native Americans" already existed in other places- including Europe. The one resource that Europe ever lacked was gold- none exists there in a natural state.

[Epublius Rex]

Another note-

A major difference between the East and the West is the East's dependence upon unquestioning loyalty to tradition- never questioning why someone does something, only simplistic acceptance of it. Ancestor worship is a classic example of this.

The West, on the other hand, has taken great pride in questioning everything. That is the foundation of science and discovery.

[JohnT]

WHat proof do you have for that? Chinese Junks are woefully suited to plying the North Atlantic- less so then the cumbersome Spanish Galleons that floundered so notably when they tried to invade England. The Chinese were not more advanced then Western Europe in 1500- they were still living, in all ways, like the Europeans were in the 1200's.

They had no cannon on the ships and thus even the Venetians were a more powerful naval force then the Chinese. They had no guns and thus could not hope to achieve a significant landing by sea of an invasion force.

I suspect you are referring to the book that makes claims of a giant Chinese flotilla circumnavigating the globe long before Europeans- a book that even the Chinese themselves scoff at. Like GGS, that book makes fantastical claims while negating facts that are clearly in front of everyone. The Chinese did not even have plumbing in 1500- something that existed in Europe for several thousand years at that point.

Granting every single one of your points, the argument that it was purely external factors, to the exclusion of all other forces, that lead to the colonizing of the globe by Europeans is still poppycock and was not convincingly made by Diamond.

Given your off-handed swipe at GGS you're likely inclined to agree, but I just wanted to clarify our position regarding the book vis 'a vis each other.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex
Another note-

A major difference between the East and the West is the East's dependence upon unquestioning loyalty to tradition- never questioning why someone does something, only simplistic acceptance of it. Ancestor worship is a classic example of this.

The West, on the other hand, has taken great pride in questioning everything. That is the foundation of science and discovery.

It was precisely this sort of answer which Diamond wanted to avoid and which GePap finds so abhorrent, for it implies that ones culture has to do with your relative success or failure as played out on the historical stage.

I agree: culture matters. It's not enough to have plenty of metal, ocean-going armed ships and other assundry technologies, and a relative immunity to (say) smallpox, you have to want to use those things as well.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I first wanted to bring up the aspect that all mountain barriers are not equal impediments. I have a paticular loathing for so-called colonists, the last true human colonists on any scale were the people who crossd over the Siberian land bridge into North America at the end of the last Ice Age (and there may have been small struggling human communities in NA before them). Everything else has been conquest at best, while ethnic cleansing and genocide have hardly been rare. Colonists my a**.

I agree with that-

You see, I believe that in NA, there were small, struggling communities of neolithic peoples in 1600, when a wave colonialists bringing superior technology, education and edification showed up in NA and tried to share it with a people who were very war like and insisted upon attacking remote settlements.

Today, in Europe, there are a great many non-indegenous ethnic groups attempting to colonize it. Most of these are from the Middle East and bring with them not only a foreign culture and backward belief systems, but also a foreign religion which, as stated by the leaders, seeks to impose itself and it's morals on the people of Western Europe. I believe they seek to do this through migration as well as violent overthrow.

What do you think of that?

Oh, BTW, Hannibal proved mountains were not insurmountable. But the Romans found it easily enough to counter the threat of his Elephants with man made engines of war, rather then relying on mother nature to aid them.
javascript:smilie('')

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT
It was precisely this sort of answer which Diamond wanted to avoid and which GePap finds so abhorrent, for it implies that ones culture has to do with your relative success or failure as played out on the historical stage.

I agree: culture matters. It's not enough to have plenty of metal, ocean-going armed ships and other assundry technologies, and a relative immunity to (say) smallpox, you have to want to use those things as well.

He made the point that culture was derived signficantly from geography, IIRC.

[JohnT]

He makes the point that everything is derived from geography/biology, Kuci.

I'm really interested in how he explains the "Christian" features of Roman geography and compares their vast differences to the, er, features of that same geography that made people believe in the pantheon of Roman gods.

I'm smelling bull**** here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT
He makes the point that everything is derived from geography/biology, Kuci.

I know.

I'm really interested in how he explains the "Christian" features of Roman geography and compares their vast differences to the, er, features of that same geography that made people believe in the pantheon of Roman gods.

IIRC, the important cultural aspects he mentioned were those of capitalist-style (used very loosely) competition, which derived from the previously mentioned diversity of Europe, which was derived from the geographic barriers in Europe.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by JohnT


It was precisely this sort of answer which Diamond wanted to avoid and which GePap finds so abhorrent, for it implies that ones culture has to do with your relative success or failure as played out on the historical stage.

I agree: culture matters. It's not enough to have plenty of metal, ocean-going armed ships and other assundry technologies, and a relative immunity to (say) smallpox, you have to want to use those things as well.

Yes, I agree. His view is ultra simplistic and is nothing more then another diatribe against Western Culture.

I would also look askance at anything which suggests that China was capable of doing the same as Europe has done- it was more then a simple lack of desire. China did invade Japan many times as well as korea- China is an Empire. My view was that China spent itself long before and was content to live in isolation, with the court historians making things up to appease the Emperor's xenophobic natures. It was an order of the court for the official historians to fabricate history in order to preserve the belief that China was the center of the world and that the Chinese were the "chosen" people of intelligence and knowledge. The last thing they were going to do was admit that these strange fellows showing up with round eyes were superior- it would have meant their heads would role. Today, the Chinese even assert the notion that they invented Iron.

And, in that regard nothing has changed. China's current Stalinist taskmasters are also at great pains to silence history:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2502chinamum.html

It seems as though the ancient Chinese owe all of their rise from the neolithic period to the bronze age by a non Chinese people. This had always been surmised, as there were no "early" findings of artifacts in China as there were on the steppes of Russia and Anatolia. Instead, we find in China, a sudden jump from the stone age to the high bronze age with no finds in between. One wonders how much else they later got through trade. It is known that Alexander at "touched" them and it is known that both the Egyptians and later the Romans traded with them. But when the West was cut off from trade with China via the collapse of the Roman Empires and the spread of Islam, China stagnated and remained as such until modern times when an infusion of Western technology allowed change to once again commence.

All wonderful food for thought.

[JohnT]

Which explains the capitalistic tendencies of, say, pre-modern Japan, a country that had banks, currency, a national market with free trade in agricultural and manufactured products? Of course, it wasn't exactly as European capitalism (the merchant had a lower social standing in Japan than in Europe, for example), but it wasn't so different as to be unrecognizable for what it was.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I know.



IIRC, the important cultural aspects he mentioned were those of capitalist-style (used very loosely) competition, which derived from the previously mentioned diversity of Europe, which was derived from the geographic barriers in Europe.

The problem with that is this- the Chinese were capitalists as well- they had no problem with trade, as long as it was on their terms.

I would not call Arabs Europeans and they were great traders as well- you know, Caravans? The Indians in India and North America all liked trade too. What they lacked was the ability to control their markets. China had that ability as did Europe. Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas did not. China lost that ability when England sent a fleet up the river and took the capital and the Emperor. What is so amazing, is how easily they did it.

You know, when India had a population of 300 million, there were never more then 3 million English men, women and children there to hold down the Empire. Think about that one. There is no way that guns alone could explain that, particularly in the age of the single shot musket or breechloader.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by JohnT
Which explains the capitalistic tendencies of, say, pre-modern Japan, a country that had banks, currency, a national market with free trade in agricultural and manufactured products? Of course, it wasn't exactly as European capitalism (the merchant had a lower social standing in Japan than in Europe, for example), but it wasn't so different as to be unrecognizable for what it was.

Originally, the merchant class was also looked down upon in Europe. They were the ugly bourgeoisie of Marxian lore. They did not achieve social status until the great sociological turnover in the political spheres which involved the institution of democratic forms of government. England being amongst the first, but also some German states as well. That's why their status arrived late in places like Russia, where feudalism persisted longer.

The biggest impetus to the rise of the merchant classes in Europe was warfare. When armies were small, Kings could make war without loans. But as the armies grew ever larger, the need to borrow money grew as well. Hence, the rise in importance in the merchant class, which was the birth of the middle class. As Europe began to look beyond itself for new territories and trade routes, it again looked to the mercantilist. India is a classic example of Western capitalism in it's highest form. The East India Company was formed in a London pub, established a board directors, sold stock to raise money and hired unemployed English soldiers to go out and conquer a continent. It wasn't until nearly 400 years later that it actually came under the control of the British EMpire and it's government. The British East India Company is still considered the most successful capitalist venture of all time. Not even Microsoft or IBM comes close.

Of course military mechanization hastened all of this, as well.

[GePap]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Well, at times European states or peoples were willing to 'colonize' various non-European territories- even those seen now as marginal- and in the face of determined opposition from native inhabitants- the Normans established kingdoms in England, northern France, Sicily and attempted to seize parts of North Africa, the Middle East and southern Italy and Greece.

And the Chinese "colonized" all of southern China, and Sichuan, Yunnan, Tibet eventually then the western deserts-they colonized Taiwan, they took over parts of nothern Vietnam for a while.

The Inca took the altiplano, the Aztecs expanded their empires continually.

JohnT is trying to paint a cultural difference. Territorial expansion is NOT a dervative of culture. Otherwise one might as well say the Mongols were the pinnacle of western culture, or the Arabs.