Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course the russian elite, from Peter the great through 1914, was heavily commited to westernization. Westernization != liberalization, necessarily, if you mean political liberalization. Catherine the Great certainly WAS commited to enlightment thought, though she did not follow through politically. Certainly most Russian political and military leaders were more open to administrative and technological reform than, say, the Ottomans, or China at the time. And, IIUC, to educational reform as well.

Well, that does bring up a point, no, if westernization means only using the tools and technologies form the west, how is that really westernization as opposed to soley modernization, following those who got their first for whatever reason?

Ah, but they had lots of time, and the example of Japan. And to some extent, emulating Japan, a fellow asian, was easier. Ditto for China. The question of how Japan did it, with no local models, continues to the most interesting.

But if Japan's actions in changing, or being open to change, were cultural, then how could they be immitated? Unless Japan's actions were not "cultural" but "political and socio-economic".

Turkey is fascinating. Modernization was A. To some extent driven by religious minorities - some of the Young Turks, IIUC were either Jews, or descendants of a cryto-Jewish muslim group called the Donmeh. Turkish modernization AFTER 1918 is certainly impacted by a nationalist impulse to distance from arab culture, of which Islamic traditionalism was seen as a part.

And yet the Turks had converted long before they began their empire.

One would have to look at the details at any given moment, as well as continuities. Politics and economics are also causal, yet they two change constantly and rapidly. Obviously culture (and politics, and economics) CANT provide a broad deterministic explanation the way either geography OR race can (in theory). Im not proposing an alternative deterministic explanation - im arguing against deterministic explanations in general. Just cause things are changing, doesnt reduce them to "accident" Change is the stuff of history.

The issue is which set of these variables has the most profound influence in the outcome. I would say that Geography sets a limit on variations possible. In essence, the hand you were given at the beginning limits your possible chances. Hence, the people of New Guinea (to return to the beginning) were simply not dealt a hand that would make their accent into the formost urban civilizations possible.

Obviously these interrelate at different levels. Culture does have its own dynamics of change, I think. The political sphere can attempt to influence that, but is constrained in what mandated changes will "take"

Really? But lets return to the Chinese example- can politcal leaders simply sweep away all the cultural superstructure and implement a new one, regardless of what was there before?

After all, culture is learned. If no one teahces you "the culture", it disappears. Conevrsely, socio-economic realities exist outside the person. Even if no one teaches you about the free market you will invariably act within it.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I remember being highly annoyed by the program so far, but I only watched about half of the 1st episode, before my hippie friend showed up and whisked me off to Goshen, NY.

I'll bite.

What annoyed you about the program?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I also wonder if we're being too glib in our charecterization of 16th century Spain. It wasnt all inquisitions, torture racks, and mystics, ya know. Spain at that time still had a considerable renaissance culture, and strong cultural influences from Italy and Flanders. It was really only toward the end of the 16th century, and esp in the the 17thc, that Spain turned inward on itself. And that was also when Spain went into decline, though the direction of causality is not quite clear.

freedom, progress and so forth were not renaissance notions, they were enlightenment notions. One might have lead to the other, but general political freedom was not a huge vogue in Spain, and remember, the age of exploration and Spanish expansion begins before Spain forged such connections.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"Well, that does bring up a point, no, if westernization means only using the tools and technologies form the west, how is that really westernization as opposed to soley modernization, following those who got their first for whatever reason?"

Hmm? I think you mean to rephrase that. I think westernization means more than simply tools and technologies, but less than converting to western christianity, adopting a western language,etc. I think we're talking about concepts of individualism, the distinction of the human from nature, etc. The extent to which those have been consistent in the west from the Renaissance onward, and the extent to which they have penetrated in China, Japan, even Russia, etc is of course debatable.

Ah, but they had lots of time, and the example of Japan. And to some extent, emulating Japan, a fellow asian, was easier. Ditto for China. The question of how Japan did it, with no local models, continues to the most interesting.

"But if Japan's actions in changing, or being open to change, were cultural, then how could they be immitated? Unless Japan's actions were not "cultural" but "political and socio-economic". "

They were cultural AND political. The political elite saw the rationale for change, desired the change - but resistance to change was less than in china at the same time, BECAUSE Japan had a cultural tradition of borrowing from the outside. Japan having once done it, Taiwan and South Korea could point to Japan as an example of success, and thus lessen resistance that way. In China of course, attempts to modernize/westernize largely failed prior to 1949 (although they left their mark - abolition of footbinding, for ex) The PRC, for its own reasons, abolished the feudal land holding class, and many other institutions. When the PRC's own ideology faded, the ground was cleared. Why the Communist revolution managed to succeed in taking power is something about which much ink has been spilled, and i doubt we will add much insight here.

Turkey is fascinating. Modernization was A. To some extent driven by religious minorities - some of the Young Turks, IIUC were either Jews, or descendants of a cryto-Jewish muslim group called the Donmeh. Turkish modernization AFTER 1918 is certainly impacted by a nationalist impulse to distance from arab culture, of which Islamic traditionalism was seen as a part.

"And yet the Turks had converted long before they began their empire."

Im sorry - i was talking about the modernization of Turkey from 1908 on - in the context of Japan, etc I thought that was what you meant, which is why i mentioned the Young Turks. Were you talking about rise of the Ottomans prior to 1650? Im not to sure about that, but Id venture a few thoughts A. The turkish advance initially came at the expense of cultures in an advanced state of decline (the Arabs) or very conservative - the byzantines. When they first encountered the West, in the 1300s and earlier, that "West" was NOT yet the Renaissance west - read Barbara Tuchman "a distant mirror" on the medieval mindset, and its role in a military failure of the west vs the Turks (as to how the west emerged from the Middle ages into the renaissance, theres probably more written about that than anything else in cultural history)
The turks kept expaning on and off through the 1500s - one could argue, i suppose, that was momentum, the gains from conquering the mamelukes etc. The main thing they adopted successfully was gunpowder (from China) and that simply wasnt enough long term.

One would have to look at the details at any given moment, as well as continuities. Politics and economics are also causal, yet they two change constantly and rapidly. Obviously culture (and politics, and economics) CANT provide a broad deterministic explanation the way either geography OR race can (in theory). Im not proposing an alternative deterministic explanation - im arguing against deterministic explanations in general. Just cause things are changing, doesnt reduce them to "accident" Change is the stuff of history.

"The issue is which set of these variables has the most profound influence in the outcome. I would say that Geography sets a limit on variations possible. In essence, the hand you were given at the beginning limits your possible chances. Hence, the people of New Guinea (to return to the beginning) were simply not dealt a hand that would make their accent into the formost urban civilizations possible."

And to return to the beginning, the difference in geographical situations between ALL the Eurasian civs, and the New Guineans, is FAR greater than that AMONG the eurasian civs. In the one case geography is clearly determinitive - in the other its quite debatable.



"Really? But lets return to the Chinese example- can politcal leaders simply sweep away all the cultural superstructure and implement a new one, regardless of what was there before?

After all, culture is learned. If no one teahces you "the culture", it disappears."

they can try, and the result depends on whether they sweep away the culture, before the culture sweeps them away. That is HISTORY, in which different outcomes are possible, and which one occurs depends on the details of events, and no one class of phenomena is "superstructure" or "infrastructure" no matter how much we attempt to privilege some phenomena by so labeling them.

[lord of the mark]

One could also argue, a la Hegel, that the cultural changes the west achieved in the renaissance, and later in the enlightenment were NOT spefically western, but represented the fulfillment of certain aspects of human nature. This is an argument against Huntington and certain kinds of (Herder?) cultural determinists - its a universalist argument - but its NOT an arguement for determination outside of culture - rather certain particular cultural ideas, are able to resonate universally because of their ability to fullfill human needs for recognition. The exact sequenceing of who picks this up first may be determined by geography, OR by "culture" in the lesser sense, but is not the main story. Reason in History happened to be expressed first in the west, for reasons that are not important, but now transcends the West.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


freedom, progress and so forth were not renaissance notions, they were enlightenment notions. One might have lead to the other, but general political freedom was not a huge vogue in Spain, and remember, the age of exploration and Spanish expansion begins before Spain forged such connections.

Notions of individualism, scientific method, the utilitarian view of nature, etc WERE renaissance notions. Where did I say that nptions of freedom and progress were essential to anything in particular?

Are you saying in your final sentence that 1492 happened before Spain had connections to Ren Italy. There you are not correct, as Aragon was deeply involved in Italy even before Ferdinand and Isabella. Again, exactly how much Ferdinand in particular was influenced by Ren ideas, and how that impact Spanish expansion, is another, and huge area.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Hmm? I think you mean to rephrase that. I think westernization means more than simply tools and technologies, but less than converting to western christianity, adopting a western language,etc. I think we're talking about concepts of individualism, the distinction of the human from nature, etc. The extent to which those have been consistent in the west from the Renaissance onward, and the extent to which they have penetrated in China, Japan, even Russia, etc is of course debatable.

Yet would you claim that European culture prior to the Renaissance was headed towards these new ideas of individualism and naturalism? After all, the supposed link to the Greek ideas had been breachec centuries before, and it was thanks to the saving of such works not by Europe but by the Muslims that eventually the ideas return. At the same time, these ideals did not stop their creators from falling to barbarians, now did they?

They were cultural AND political. The political elite saw the rationale for change, desired the change - but resistance to change was less than in china

By what do you judge that? The fact there was civil warin Japan?

at the same time, BECAUSE Japan had a cultural tradition of borrowing from the outside. Japan having once done it, Taiwan and South Korea could point to Japan as an example of success, and thus lessen resistance that way. In China of course, attempts to modernize/westernize largely failed prior to 1949 (although they left their mark - abolition of footbinding, for ex) The PRC, for its own reasons, abolished the feudal land holding class, and many other institutions. When the PRC's own ideology faded, the ground was cleared.

Japan's imperialism did little to enhance modernzation anywhere else in Asia. Japan was an example for many, like the Young Turks. The question is, what was the lesson to learn?

And to return to the beginning, the difference in geographical situations between ALL the Eurasian civs, and the New Guineans, is FAR greater than that AMONG the eurasian civs. In the one case geography is clearly determinitive - in the other its quite debatable.

Already saying that it had to be a Eurasian civ that would dominate is a huge step, given that it leaves 5 continents out of the running.

And then you have the long span of Eurasian civlization. Whjo was ahead changed-after all, Eurasian history is 5000 years old and only in the last 10% of that could you state a clear European dominance.

they can try, and the result depends on whether they sweep away the culture, before the culture sweeps them away. That is HISTORY, in which different outcomes are possible, and which one occurs depends on the details of events, and no one class of phenomena is "superstructure" or "infrastructure" no matter how much we attempt to privilege some phenomena by so labeling them.

The quesqion is whether "culture" can sweep anything. What is the "power" of culture distinct from more basic human desires that are universal, or geographic limitations, that exist beyond the power of man?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Notions of individualism, scientific method, the utilitarian view of nature, etc WERE renaissance notions. Where did I say that nptions of freedom and progress were essential to anything in particular?

Because those were the notions the Japanese saw as crucial for their development according to the piece quoted, and we were talking about Japan.

Are you saying in your final sentence that 1492 happened before Spain had connections to Ren Italy. There you are not correct, as Aragon was deeply involved in Italy even before Ferdinand and Isabella. Again, exactly how much Ferdinand in particular was influenced by Ren ideas, and how that impact Spanish expansion, is another, and huge area.

Connected yes, the south, not the north, were the renaissance was happening. Just how much was reaching Spain, and France, and further, I don;t know.

[JohnT]

Don't forget:

PART TWO IS TONIGHT!

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"Yet would you claim that European culture prior to the Renaissance was headed towards these new ideas of individualism and naturalism? After all, the supposed link to the Greek ideas had been breachec centuries before, and it was thanks to the saving of such works not by Europe but by the Muslims that eventually the ideas return. At the same time, these ideals did not stop their creators from falling to barbarians, now did they?"

Like i said, how the renaissance emerged out of medieval civ is a huge question. and the question of how classical civilization faded is another huge one.

They were cultural AND political. The political elite saw the rationale for change, desired the change - but resistance to change was less than in china

"By what do you judge that? The fact there was civil warin Japan?"

The fact that in Japan the reformers won, whereas in China the late 19th c reformers were tossed out.

at the same time, BECAUSE Japan had a cultural tradition of borrowing from the outside. Japan having once done it, Taiwan and South Korea could point to Japan as an example of success, and thus lessen resistance that way. In China of course, attempts to modernize/westernize largely failed prior to 1949 (although they left their mark - abolition of footbinding, for ex) The PRC, for its own reasons, abolished the feudal land holding class, and many other institutions. When the PRC's own ideology faded, the ground was cleared.

"Japan's imperialism did little to enhance modernzation anywhere else in Asia. Japan was an example for many, like the Young Turks. The question is, what was the lesson to learn? "

I was not speaking of japanese imperialism, but of the influence of japan as a model to the asian tigers, post 1950. Im sure there were many lessons to learn, the crucial ones for my argument are that modernization was possible, desirable, and did not require "europeanization"

And to return to the beginning, the difference in geographical situations between ALL the Eurasian civs, and the New Guineans, is FAR greater than that AMONG the eurasian civs. In the one case geography is clearly determinitive - in the other its quite debatable.

"Already saying that it had to be a Eurasian civ that would dominate is a huge step, given that it leaves 5 continents out of the running. "


Like i said, i like Diamonds book.

"The quesqion is whether "culture" can sweep anything. What is the "power" of culture distinct from more basic human desires that are universal, or geographic limitations, that exist beyond the power of man? "

Well id suggest looking at the fate of early modernizing officials and intellectuals in 19th century China, 18th and 19th century Ottoman empire. If you try to modernize when the culture isnt ready for it, and there arent sufficient resources/motivations to crush the culture, the culture can inspire people to overthow you, or kill you. Or they can simply subvert the change at the local level. There is at least one interpretation of the Russian revolution that sees at as a reaction to the poorly rooted Westernization of the Czars- if thats the case, much of 20th century history is about the reaction of premodern culture. There are similar interpretations of fascism (although there the distinction you draw between pre and post enlightement culture becomes more powerful). Culture can be a very powerful force in people lives, and in how they react to change that comes from above.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Because those were the notions the Japanese saw as crucial for their development according to the piece quoted, and we were talking about Japan.

Im sure that in the 19th century when people talking about cultural borrowing, they mentioned freedom and progress, just as today they talk about globalization, interconnectedness, and the internet. Doesnt mean that whats REALLY important in the borrowing isnt the renaissance notions - its just a question of the buzzwords of the day.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Because those were the notions the Japanese saw as crucial for their development according to the piece quoted, and we were talking about Japan.




Connected yes, the south, not the north, were the renaissance was happening. Just how much was reaching Spain, and France, and further, I don;t know.

this is a matter of debate, IIUC.

See below, for ex:

"The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance 1350-1550

Helen Nader

Introduction

[1] I do not have to do anything which might prejudice my loyalty or that to which I am committed, nor anything different from what my ancestors did.(1)


"These proud and defiant words were written by the second count of Tendilla, Iñigo López de Mendoza (1442-1515) -- governor of the newly conquered kingdom of Granada; a Castilian nobleman intensely loyal to king Fernando the Catholic; a seigneurial lord with life and death jurisdiction over hundreds of tenants; a landlord dependent upon agricultural rents for his income; a man whose intellect and world-view were formed in the Mendoza family household in the provincial capital of Guadalajara, far from universities, urban society, and the royal court. Although we should expect Tendilla's attitudes to be provincial and medieval, humanist contemporaries considered him to be one of the lights of Castilian intellectual life. In an inscription sculpted in marble in imitation of the ancient Romans, he described himself as "GENERALIS GRANATENSIS REGNI. CAPITANEUS AC ILLIBERITANORUM ARCIUM PRIMUS PRAEFECTIS."(2) Tendilla thus saw himself not as a medieval knight commanding the Castilian fortress of the Alhambra but as the military governor of the ancient Roman acropolis of Illíberis -- a self-perception we would expect to find in one of his urban, republican contemporaries in Renaissance Florence.
In 1917, Elías Tormo realized the significance of this inscription and investigated all the inscriptions composed by Tendilla, as well as each of the buildings he commissioned. Tormo found that Tendilla and his uncle, cardinal Mendoza, first introduced the architectural and monumental styles of the Italian Renaissance into Spain and, with great excitement, he concluded that "to the Mendozas of the fifteenth century [2] and, more specifically, to the Tendillas, so unjustly obscured and forgotten, we are indebted for the beginning of the Renaissance in Spanish monuments."(3) This conclusion fitted neatly into the traditional interpretation that humanism was brought into Castile by Italian humanists during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs (1474-1504), in particular by Pietro Martire d'Anghiera (1457-1526) -- a Milanese humanist whom Tendilla brought from Italy in 1487 on his return from an embassy to the papacy.(4) On the basis of this evidence, Tendilla has borne for more than fifty years the distinction of being the "importer of the Renaissance" into Castile. "



More here, where she goes on to argue for an earlier date for the introduction of the Renaissance to Castile.http://libro.uca.edu/mendoza/intro.htm

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im sure that in the 19th century when people talking about cultural borrowing, they mentioned freedom and progress, just as today they talk about globalization, interconnectedness, and the internet. Doesnt mean that whats REALLY important in the borrowing isnt the renaissance notions - its just a question of the buzzwords of the day.

And yet, one has to ask whether those notions are really what drove say the great European conquests that made Spain rich, heck, the heart of the Reinassance itself did not become the world leaders of Europe, it was other elsewhere. Milan and Florence did not come to rule Europe, Spain, France and England did.

And one has to ask whether the notion of individualism ever say, made it to Russia, which was a great power.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"And yet, one has to ask whether those notions are really what drove say the great European conquests that made Spain rich, heck, the heart of the Reinassance itself did not become the world leaders of Europe, it was other elsewhere. Milan and Florence did not come to rule Europe, Spain, France and England did."


Cmon, Spain conquered the Americas on behalf of Genoese merchants. Well, thats an exagerration, yeah, but Italy was deep into everything the Spanish empire did. See Henry Kamen, "Empire"

"And one has to ask whether the notion of individualism ever say, made it to Russia, which was a great power. "

For the aristocrats sure. Ya ever read War and Peace? For the peasants nah. a VERY divided society.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap


"And yet, one has to ask whether those notions are really what drove say the great European conquests that made Spain rich, heck, the heart of the Reinassance itself did not become the world leaders of Europe, it was other elsewhere. Milan and Florence did not come to rule Europe, Spain, France and England did."


Cmon, Spain conquered the Americas on behalf of Genoese merchants. Well, thats an exagerration, yeah, but Italy was deep into everything the Spanish empire did. See Henry Kamen, "Empire"



In any case whats relevant is your first question, the relation of ren. ideas to conquest, NOT the fact that the Italian city states didnt. Their problem was A. that their culture travelled to well, at least within westen europe, and they couldnt keep their advantage after the end of the 1400s. and B. That they were divided into such small states, which situation existed prior tot he Ren.

Hell, they couldnt keep France and Spain out of the peninsula.


"And one has to ask whether the notion of individualism ever say, made it to Russia, which was a great power. "

For the aristocrats sure. Ya ever read War and Peace? For the peasants nah. a VERY divided society.