Why or how did white people get the edge?

[R_P_A_S]

this is in NO way a racist post. I'm genuinely interested in this. I want to know when, and how white people like the Vikings, Portuguese, Spanish, British I guess even the Roman Empire if you want to call them "white" anyways.. how in the hell did they all just managed to get ahead of on the indigenous civilizations in the Americas, Chinese Dynasties, Mongolian armies, African Kingdoms and other natives across the world?

How did the white race get on top? Ok people here will say they were imperialist and some continue to be. True. but why they first? did they just thought about it? where "smarter"? their "instinct" just instructed them to go explore, search, find, conquer etc. etc?

I realize white people didn't invent everything. But they sure as hell had and have the upper hand on many things.

This is probably why the idiot Nazi's an other racist fucks are so convinced they are some sort of "master race" or that are "naturally smarter" than Indians, Blacks or other races "inferior" to them.

I hope this post comes across as what I intended it to be. A search to understand and study human civilization and how it seems that one race got a head start and has maintained it.

NOT all white people of course. I'm obviously referring to imperialist, cappie assholes.

[Comrade Rage]

All of these are various races, but I do say that the one binding thing about them is that they all come from areas where life was harsh and food and farmland was scarce, thus they had to venture far just to survive--or challenge their neighbor to survive. The same holds true for the Mongolians, who dominated--but were eventuall beaten totally.

[Devrim]

Read J.Diamonds, 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. It is not bad, and sets out from the point of answering your question.
Devrim

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:44 pm
Read J.Diamonds, 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. It is not bad, and sets out from the point of answering your question.
Devrim
thank you.

[mikelepore]

This is my hypothesis. When a species has been around for more than a million years, it doesn't take much for the people on one continent to get technologically ahead of the people on another continent by the equivalent of a few hundred years of invention. That small percentage of difference can be random noise. But then the Europeans showed up on the coast of Africa with rifles and cannons, and the technological degree turned into a controlling power.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:51 pm
This is my hypothesis. When a species has been around for more than a million years, it doesn't take much for the people on one continent to get technologically ahead of the people on another continent by the equivalent of a few hundred years of invention. That small percentage of difference can be random noise. But then the Europeans showed up on the coast of Africa with rifles and cannons, and the technological degree turned into a controlling power.
But i thought blacks were some of the first people in the entire world? what about the civilization that sprung off present day Iraq? they surely weren't white?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 05, 2007 04:41 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ December 05, 2007 04:41 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 09:51 pm
This is my hypothesis. When a species has been around for more than a million years, it doesn't take much for the people on one continent to get technologically ahead of the people on another continent by the equivalent of a few hundred years of invention. That small percentage of difference can be random noise. But then the Europeans showed up on the coast of Africa with rifles and cannons, and the technological degree turned into a controlling power.
But i thought blacks were some of the first people in the entire world? what about the civilization that sprung off present day Iraq? they surely weren't white? [/b]
They were, and they made developments on how to survive peacefully in their present cities with advances in architecture, and agriculture. Their economies, for the most, relied on trade. The Romans, et al mainly required on conquest while making only slow advancements on peaceful technology.

I believe that our current situation is the conclusion of the hundreds to thousands of years after the existence of those societies.

[spartan]

Compared to other peoples i think that the majority of white people and their various cultures never settled into a "normality" or stayed at a certain level of development like many non white cultures did (Such as the American Indian and various African people and cultures who were still hunter gatherers because to them it was a comfortable life and didnt need to be bettered).

White people only really began to get an edge over other peoples during the Renaissance and the development of Capitalism which led them to voyage over the Atlantic ocean to find a different trade route so that they could trade with the immensly rich India (And eventually discovering a whole new continet America) because the Ottoman Turks blocked and controlled the east west trade passage (So you could say that searching for an alternative trade route was why many white cultures eventually became "dominant" and this was all because of a non white and non Christian culture the Islamic Ottoman Turks!).

[Dros]

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The whole thing is basically an answer to this question.

But here is the short version. Europe gained greater technology than other people because of the crops they grew. They developed faster agriculture etc,etc,etc and hence got a massive sling-shot. This is obviously a HUGELY MASSIVE oversimplification. But seriously, read the book.

[manic expression]

Industrialization.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:33 pm
this is in NO way a racist post. I'm genuinely interested in this. I want to know when, and how white people like the Vikings, Portuguese, Spanish, British I guess even the Roman Empire if you want to call them "white" anyways.. how in the hell did they all just managed to get ahead of on the indigenous civilizations in the Americas, Chinese Dynasties, Mongolian armies, African Kingdoms and other natives across the world?
Well the important thing to remember is that for 1000s of years, white regions were far behind everyone else.

The Ancient egyptians and Carthaginians came long before The majority of the white world had got past mud huts, Africa had already had kingdoms and cities and castles before most of Europe. Ancient Myans had brain surgery and more importantly, chocolate, long before white people.


but why they first? did they just thought about it? where "smarter"? their "instinct" just instructed them to go explore, search, find, conquer etc. etc?

The white race weren't the first to go exploreing, finding and conquering. The Moors invcaded Europe before Europe had seen it's first cities! If you grant science any credibility, humanity started off in Ethiopia, and would have been "black" ...these early humans must have done a fuck of a lot of exploring!


I realize white people didn't invent everything. But they sure as hell had and have the upper hand on many things.

Yes, but not naturally, not biologically, or scientifically, it's circumstantial. At other periods in time, when humanity was far more isolated, different racial groups dominated and subjugated others in geographic areas. Over the past 100 years, since Europe industrialised, it's been white bourgeoisie who have seen the profitability of taking these early colonial traits even further.

It has been asserted that white people have done better, because they are a superior breed of human, this could have, been at one point considered a 'theory' unfortunately for some this has been disproved by scientific study.

Had a different set of historical events played out, things could be the other way round, but they're not

[manic expression]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 05, 2007 11:21 pm
Well the important thing to remember is that for 1000s of years, white regions were far behind everyone else.

The Ancient egyptians and Carthaginians came long before The majority of the white world had got past mud huts, Africa had already had kingdoms and cities and castles before most of Europe. Ancient Myans had brain surgery and more importantly, chocolate, long before white people.


but why they first? did they just thought about it? where "smarter"? their "instinct" just instructed them to go explore, search, find, conquer etc. etc?

The white race weren't the first to go exploreing, finding and conquering. The Moors invcaded Europe before Europe had seen it's first cities! If you grant science any credibility, humanity started off in Ethiopia, and would have been "black" ...these early humans must have done a fuck of a lot of exploring!
That's not completely true. The implosion of the Roman world and the loss of basically all classical knowledge threw Europe back into ignorance. The Moors invaded in the 700's IIRC, which is around 300 years or so after the Western Roman Empire fell. Don't underestimate the sophistication of Rome. Yes, they got a lot of stuff from Carthage, Egypt, Greece and elsewhere, but no civilization develops in a vacuum. Furthermore, the reason the Arabs got so incredibly sophisticated was because they absorbed learning from Byzantium, Persia and the classics.

Europe was a backwater during medieval times, but that wasn't the whole story. Even then, Europe produced some stuff that was good (namely soldiers and linen). However, medieval Europe could see the ruined wonders of Rome, and they looked up to it as something they wanted to emulate. After more trade and commerce and learning circulated throughout Europe, they would get their chance.

[dty06]

I agree with Spartan. The fact is that when a people can survive for thousands of years doing one thing, why would they ever change it? The reason that Europe advanced, in my opinion, is due to all the warfare. Most of the technological advances in history have come because of war. Iron was first used because it was superior to bronze. Gunpowder was used because it was better than catapults. Architecture changed because now there were cannons which could bring down any wall. The earlier ships were expanded to fit cannons, though many of the explorers' ships had none. The need for bigger things, more land, etc are direct causes or results of war, and this is what forced technology to advance. In remote areas, there is little need for war because each tribe or group or village has plenty of resources for all its people.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+December 05, 2007 10:41 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ December 05, 2007 10:41 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 09:51 pm
This is my hypothesis. When a species has been around for more than a million years, it doesn't take much for the people on one continent to get technologically ahead of the people on another continent by the equivalent of a few hundred years of invention. That small percentage of difference can be random noise. But then the Europeans showed up on the coast of Africa with rifles and cannons, and the technological degree turned into a controlling power.
But i thought blacks were some of the first people in the entire world? what about the civilization that sprung off present day Iraq? they surely weren't white? [/b]
The civilisations of Eurasia had more domesticable animals at their reach, and therefore were able to develop their productive powers in a better way.

I think it was the banking system which gave Europe an edge. That and the competition between the different European principalities.

Do not forget that before Europe held the edge, China held the edge for Millennia. The western dominance is probably just a parentesis in history (1840-2040).

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:33 pm
I agree with Spartan. The fact is that when a people can survive for thousands of years doing one thing, why would they ever change it? The reason that Europe advanced, in my opinion, is due to all the warfare. Most of the technological advances in history have come because of war. Iron was first used because it was superior to bronze. Gunpowder was used because it was better than catapults. Architecture changed because now there were cannons which could bring down any wall. The earlier ships were expanded to fit cannons, though many of the explorers' ships had none. The need for bigger things, more land, etc are direct causes or results of war, and this is what forced technology to advance. In remote areas, there is little need for war because each tribe or group or village has plenty of resources for all its people.
Warfare is fueled by economic changes, not the other way around. More importantly, name a civilization that wasn't involved in constant warfare. With exceptions, many tribal regions were engulfed in almost perpetual fighting at points (Polynesia jumps to mind).

[R_P_A_S]

great replies. i fukn luv u guy shaha keep it coming.

[rouchambeau]

I, too, have to recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[MarxSchmarx]

I, too, have to recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel.

The problem w/ guns germs & steel is it is probably accurate on a global scale (e.g. Eurasia versus Oceania) but doesn't answer why not the Chinese or the Indians or the Arabs WITHIN Eurasia. Diamond admits as much and speculates about the geography of Asia versus (western) Europe but it is somewhat unconvincing.

Of course, in the U$A where the book was written (and Western Europe), the "important" races people seem to care most about are "White" and "Black African," which reflects a more general "colonizer" (Han, European, Japanese) versus "native" (African, Oceanian, Amerindian) divide. So viz. racism it was this "White" v. "Black" dichotomy that Diamond grappled with.

[spartan]

But i thought blacks were some of the first people in the entire world? what about the civilization that sprung off present day Iraq? they surely weren't white?
The ancient civilizations of the middle eastern region werent white but they werent black or Arab either.

An intresting fact is that many mummified Egyptian Pharohs were discovered to have red hair and blue eyes! (A common feature of Indo-European people).

The likelyhood is that most of the ancient middle eastern civilizations were Indo-European or related (A perfect example being the modern day Iranians who are decsendants of the Persians who were a non-Arab Indo-European people who had links to the Indian people).

[blackstone]

The Black Plague


The governments of Europe had no apparent response to the crisis because no one knew its cause or how it spread. In 1348, the plague spread so rapidly that before any physicians or government authorities had time to reflect upon its origins, about a third of the European population had already perished. In crowded cities, it was not uncommon for as much as fifty percent of the population to die. Europeans living in isolated areas suffered less, and monasteries and priests were especially hard hit since they cared for the Black Death's victims. [66] Because fourteenth century healers were at a loss to explain the cause, Europeans turned to astrological forces, earthquakes, and the poisoning of wells by Jews as possible reasons for the plague's emergence. [67] No one in the fourteenth century considered rat control a way to ward off the plague, and people began to believe only God's anger could produce such horrific displays. As a result, Christians began to attack Jews to please God and end the plague. For example, in August of 1349, the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne were exterminated. In February of that same year, Christians murdered two thousand Jews in Strasbourg. [68] Where government authorities were concerned, most monarchs instituted measures that prohibited exports of foodstuffs, condemned black market speculators, set price controls on grain, and outlawed large-scale fishing. At best, they proved mostly unenforceable, and at worst they contributed to a continent-wide downward spiral. The hardest hit lands, like England, were unable to buy grain abroad: from France because of the prohibition, and from most of the rest of the grain producers because of crop failures from shortage of labour. Any grain that could be shipped was eventually taken by pirates or looters to be sold on the black market. Meanwhile, many of the largest countries, most notably England and Scotland, had been at war, using up much of their treasury and exacerbating inflation. In 1337, on the eve of the first wave of the Black Death, England and France went to war in what would become known as the Hundred Years' War. Malnutrition, poverty, disease and hunger, coupled with war, growing inflation and other economic concerns made Europe in the mid-fourteenth century ripe for tragedy.

The plague did more than just devastate the medieval population; it caused a substantial change in economy and society in all areas of the world. Economic historians like Fernand Braudel have concluded that Black Death exacerbated a recession in the European economy that had been under way since the beginning of the century. As a consequence, social and economic change greatly accelerated during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The church's power was weakened, and in some cases, the social roles it had played were taken over by secular groups. Also the plague led to peasant uprisings in many parts of Europe, such as France (the Jacquerie rebellion), Italy (the Ciompi rebellion, which swept the city of Florence), and in England (the English Peasant Revolt).

Europe had been overpopulated before the plague, and a reduction of 30% to 50% of the population could have resulted in higher wages and more available land and food for peasants because of less competition for resources. However, for reasons that are still debated, population levels declined after the Black Death's first outbreak until around 1420 and did not begin to rise again until 1470, so the initial Black Death event on its own does not entirely provide a satisfactory explanation to this extended period of decline in prosperity. See Medieval demography for a more complete treatment of this issue and current theories on why improvements in living standards took longer to evolve.

The great population loss brought economic changes based on increased social mobility, as depopulation further eroded the peasants' already weakened obligations to remain on their traditional holdings. In the wake of the drastic population decline brought on by the plague, authorities in Western Europe worked to maintain social order through instituting wage controls.[69] These governmental controls were set in place to ensure that workers received the same salary post-plague as they had before the onslaught of the Black Death.[70] Within England, for example, the Ordinance of Labourers, created in 1349, and the Statute of Labourers, created in 1351, restricted both wage increases and the relocation of workers.[71] If workers attempted to leave their current post, employers were given the right to have them imprisoned.[72] The Statute was strictly enforced in some areas. For example, 7,556 people in Essex County were fined for deviating from the Statute in 1352.[73] However, despite examples such as Essex County, the Statute quickly proved to be difficult to enforce due to the scarcity of labour.

In Western Europe, the sudden shortage of cheap labour provided an incentive for landlords to compete for peasants with wages and freedoms, an innovation that, some argue, represents the roots of capitalism, and the resulting social upheaval "caused" the Renaissance, and even the Reformation. In many ways the Black Death and its aftermath improved the situation of surviving peasants, notably by the end of the 15th century. In Western Europe, labourers gained more power and were more in demand because of the shortage of labour. In gaining more power, workers following the Black Death often moved away from annual contracts in favour of taking on successive temporary jobs that offered higher wages.[74] Workers such as servants now had the opportunity to leave their current employment to seek better-paying, more attractive positions in areas previous off limits to them.[75] Another positive aspect of the period was that there was more fertile land available to the population; however, the benefits would not be fully realized until 1470, nearly 120 years later, when overall population levels finally began to rise again.

Social mobility as result of the Black Death has been postulated as the most likely cause of the Great Vowel Shift, which is the principal reason why the spelling system in English today no longer reflects its pronunciation.

In Eastern Europe, by contrast, renewed stringency of laws tied the remaining peasant population more tightly to the land than ever before through serfdom. Sparsely populated Eastern Europe was less affected by the Black Death and so peasant revolts were less common in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, not occurring in the east until the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries. Since it is believed to have in part caused the social upheavals of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Western Europe, some see the Black Death as a factor in the Renaissance and even the Reformation in Western Europe. Therefore, historians have cited the smaller impact of the plague as a contributing factor in Eastern Europe's failure to experience either of these movements on a similar scale. Extrapolating from this, the Black Death may be seen as partly responsible for Eastern Europe's considerable lag in scientific and philosophical advances as well as in the move to liberalise government by restricting the power of the monarch and aristocracy. A common example is that England is seen to have effectively ended serfdom by 1550 while moving towards more representative government; meanwhile, Russia did not abolish serfdom until an autocratic tsar decreed so in 1861.

Furthermore, the plague's great population reduction brought cheaper land prices, more food for the average peasant, and a relatively large increase in per capita income among the peasantry, if not immediately, in the coming century. Since the plague left vast areas of farmland untended, they were made available for pasture and put more meat on the market; the consumption of meat and dairy products went up, as did the export of beef and butter from the Low Countries, Scandinavia and northern Germany. However, the upper class often attempted to stop these changes, initially in Western Europe, and more forcefully and successfully in Eastern Europe, by instituting sumptuary laws. These regulated what people (particularly of the peasant class) could wear, so that nobles could ensure that peasants did not begin to dress and act as a higher class member with their increased wealth. Another tactic was to fix prices and wages so that peasants could not demand more with increasing value. This was met with varying success depending on the amount of rebellion it inspired; such a law was one of the causes of the 1381 Peasants' Revolt in England.

[al-Ibadani]

The unique system of Western Feudalism is the reason I think. Babarians inherit the ruins of ROme. THey have a rural ruling class. This is the only system ever and since where the cities are secondary. During the entire Frankish period for example, not a single city is founded in Europe. This is the same time the Arabs and Moors establish Cordoba, Baghdad, Cairo etc.

This unique system leaves the folks in the cities to create a new economic system, virtually undisturbed: capitalism. Capitalism, being so dynamic, allowed Europe to catch up and surpass civilizations that once were centuries ahead of Europe, and eventually conquer them.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:05 am
The unique system of Western Feudalism is the reason I think. Babarians inherit the ruins of ROme. THey have a rural ruling class. This is the only system ever and since where the cities are secondary. During the entire Frankish period for example, not a single city is founded in Europe. This is the same time the Arabs and Moors establish Cordoba, Baghdad, Cairo etc.

This unique system leaves the folks in the cities to create a new economic system, virtually undisturbed: capitalism. Capitalism, being so dynamic, allowed Europe to catch up and surpass civilizations that once were centuries ahead of Europe, and eventually conquer them.
I don't agree. Feudalism was very hostile toward the development of commercial relations. The towns and the countryside never had a good relationship, whereas in other regions this was not the case and merchants were influential in politics and religion and beyond. Europe's colonization fueled its nascent bourgeoisie, and later industrialization caused the wholesale overturn of feudalist relations. So, really, feudalist relations were overturned by a strengthened bourgeoisie, not because they differed from other relations (like the Islamic world, China, etc.).

Commerce first impacted feudalism immensely. The Europe of 1600 was completely different than the Europe of 1100, and it was because of increased trade and growth in the classes of the cities. Feudalism was already weak, and Europe was more resembling its neighbors in regards to commercial relations. However, it was industrialization that truly brought about the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie; any other society that implemented industry would have gone through the same process.

[Cult of Reason]

I would say that it is almost entirely due to accident of geography: Europe, before its natural resources were depleted at least, was simply the ideal place for industrial society to develop. The Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain first partly because around Newcastle there was relatively easily accessible coal to be found, in addition to tin, iron etc. in the UK and other areas of Europe. The steam engine was developed because they had so much coal that they did not know what to do with it; the steam engine was not developed first with them then finding something to fuel it. In fact, a significant amount of coal remains in the UK, which, given the past consumption, should give you an idea of what a cornucopia it used to be.

Another reason, of course, is simply the shape of Western Europe as compared to most other significant landmasses: a huge amount of coastline. You have Britain, an elongated island; you have Europe in general, a peninsula;you have the Italian, Balkan, Scandinavian and Iberian peninsulae as well, so the fact that European powers eventually came to rule the waves and have many overseas colonies should not be a surprise.

In short, Europe was blessed with plentiful natural resources and geography well suited to sea trade.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:16 am
I would say that it is almost entirely due to accident of geography: Europe, before its natural resources were depleted at least, was simply the ideal place for industrial society to develop. The Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain first partly because around Newcastle there was relatively easily accessible coal to be found, in addition to tin, iron etc. in the UK and other areas of Europe. The steam engine was developed because they had so much coal that they did not know what to do with it; the steam engine was not developed first with them then finding something to fuel it. In fact, a significant amount of coal remains in the UK, which, given the past consumption, should give you an idea of what a cornucopia it used to be.

Another reason, of course, is simply the shape of Western Europe as compared to most other significant landmasses: a huge amount of coastline. You have Britain, an elongated island; you have Europe in general, a peninsula;you have the Italian, Balkan, Scandinavian and Iberian peninsulae as well, so the fact that European powers eventually came to rule the waves and have many overseas colonies should not be a surprise.

In short, Europe was blessed with plentiful natural resources and geography well suited to sea trade.
Good points. Also: Europe is remarkable for its abundance of waterways (it's also why the Vikings were able to ravage the entire continent for awhile). This not only aids industry, but also trade.

However, I would argue that any region had enough resources to sustain industrialization. There was tons of coal in modern-day West Virginia, but no bourgeoisie to exploit it. Anyway, good stuff.

[w0lf]

This question also gets me.

The Chinese were far more advanced the the white man. So how did the white man basically take over the world?

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by manic expression+December 08, 2007 07:23 am--> (manic expression @ December 08, 2007 07:23 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 06:16 am
I would say that it is almost entirely due to accident of geography: Europe, before its natural resources were depleted at least, was simply the ideal place for industrial society to develop. The Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain first partly because around Newcastle there was relatively easily accessible coal to be found, in addition to tin, iron etc. in the UK and other areas of Europe. The steam engine was developed because they had so much coal that they did not know what to do with it; the steam engine was not developed first with them then finding something to fuel it. In fact, a significant amount of coal remains in the UK, which, given the past consumption, should give you an idea of what a cornucopia it used to be.

Another reason, of course, is simply the shape of Western Europe as compared to most other significant landmasses: a huge amount of coastline. You have Britain, an elongated island; you have Europe in general, a peninsula;you have the Italian, Balkan, Scandinavian and Iberian peninsulae as well, so the fact that European powers eventually came to rule the waves and have many overseas colonies should not be a surprise.

In short, Europe was blessed with plentiful natural resources and geography well suited to sea trade.
Good points. Also: Europe is remarkable for its abundance of waterways (it's also why the Vikings were able to ravage the entire continent for awhile). This not only aids industry, but also trade.

However, I would argue that any region had enough resources to sustain industrialization. There was tons of coal in modern-day West Virginia, but no bourgeoisie to exploit it. Anyway, good stuff. [/b]
I am by no means educated in this subject, but my impression is that North America actually has/had even more natural resources than Europe, but that they were more difficult and required more advanced technology to extract.

So, for the North American natives, it would be a case of 'you can't get there from 'ere'!


I could be wrong, though...

[autrefois]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:14 pm
Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The whole thing is basically an answer to this question.

But here is the short version. Europe gained greater technology than other people because of the crops they grew. They developed faster agriculture etc,etc,etc and hence got a massive sling-shot. This is obviously a HUGELY MASSIVE oversimplification. But seriously, read the book.
Didnt see the movie, but I saw a documentary type thing on it. It basically does answer the question though.

My friend also picked up a fair point. The Europeans managed to turn everything into a weapon:

Rockets, originaly fireworks (I think), from China - Into... rockets (Napoleanic Warfare?)
Gunpowder from china to scare horses- Into guns
Axes into Battleaxes
Dynamite into bombs etc

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:49 am
Didnt see the movie, but I saw a documentary type thing on it. It basically does answer the question though.

My friend also picked up a fair point. The Europeans managed to turn everything into a weapon:

Rockets, originaly fireworks (I think), from China - Into... rockets (Napoleanic Warfare?)
Gunpowder from china to scare horses- Into guns
Axes into Battleaxes
Dynamite into bombs etc
Well, yeah, but for a long time, the Mongols and Turks were the big boys when it came to gunpowder weapons.

Every society tries to create bigger and better weapons with whatever they can.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am
This question also gets me.

The Chinese were far more advanced the the white man. So how did the white man basically take over the world?
The Emperors

Autocratic rule causes problems... much like the insane roman emperors (Caligula, Nero Domitian and so on) bad chinese emperors would be deposed, 1-2 years of turmoil and then after another dynasty looks weak it is replaced, its very similar to the romans, who post republic did little in the way of innovating (only two new provinces were added after Ceasers' death, Britannia and Dacia)

[Isnian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am
The Chinese were far more advanced the the white man. So how did the white man basically take over the world?
In the late 15th century China re-adopted its policy of isolationism. In 1440CE savage punishments were imposed on any Chinese who ventured abroad. In 1410CE, China had the greatest fleet in the world. By 1500CE, as Europe began venturing outward, China closed its doors.

[jaffe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am
This question also gets me.

The Chinese were far more advanced the the white man. So how did the white man basically take over the world?
The Chinese were more advanced in times when Europe wasn't expanding.
In the 16th and 17th century when Europese country's were expanding their territory, China was in wars with Russia, Mongols and Tibet.

[Jaden]

Originally posted by Isnian+December 18, 2007 07:12 pm--> (Isnian @ December 18, 2007 07:12 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am
The Chinese were far more advanced the the white man. So how did the white man basically take over the world?
In the late 15th century China re-adopted its policy of isolationism. In 1440CE savage punishments were imposed on any Chinese who ventured abroad. In 1410CE, China had the greatest fleet in the world. By 1500CE, as Europe began venturing outward, China closed its doors. [/b]
A chinese fleet actually made landings in North America. Ancient Chinese currency has been found in evidence of this. Though by the time they returned, as you said, a new Chinese emperor had taken over and decided to pull the plug on Chinese expansionism. Though it does beg to wonder what would have happened had the emperor chosen to fuel more into expansionism? I often like to wonder what would have happen.

Such as, if Europe hadn't landed in the Americas would the Aztecs have expanded so much to induct southwest and southern plains tribes into their way of life? Would there have been an increase of warfare amongst the north american native tribes or perhaps possible unity to resist the Aztec expansion? What type of technology would have developed? How quickly?

[Tower of Bebel]

Capitalism might be the clue to the question why the "whites", or better, European imperialism started to dominated the world.
And can I say that capitalism was able to develop in Europe first because of competition? Other developed regions like China or the Middle East had vast empires controlled by an enormous and conservative Bureaucracy. Europe, however, was devided and only had the sea to escape from the surrounding empires.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by Jaden+December 19, 2007 11:22 am--> (Jaden @ December 19, 2007 11:22 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:12 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 06:24 am
The Chinese were far more advanced the the white man. So how did the white man basically take over the world?
In the late 15th century China re-adopted its policy of isolationism. In 1440CE savage punishments were imposed on any Chinese who ventured abroad. In 1410CE, China had the greatest fleet in the world. By 1500CE, as Europe began venturing outward, China closed its doors.
A chinese fleet actually made landings in North America. Ancient Chinese currency has been found in evidence of this. Though by the time they returned, as you said, a new Chinese emperor had taken over and decided to pull the plug on Chinese expansionism. Though it does beg to wonder what would have happened had the emperor chosen to fuel more into expansionism? I often like to wonder what would have happen. [/b]
I assume your referring to the 1421 book, which as for the most part been debunked by real historians, the lack of real evidence for the expedition, the fact that the Chinese 'ruins' in Australia are actually European, if the Chinese did colonize the Americas, then the populace would have been resistant to Eurasian desieses, they were not.

Also if the Chinese did sail around the world, why did they not go to Europe, and if they did why are there no records?

Furthermore, if the records of this event were destroyed by the maderins, then why are there detailed accounts of it such as that of Ma Huan?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Huan)

The guy who wrote that book did not do his reasarch, it has all the historical value of the Da Vinci Code.

[synthesis]

The question of how "whites" - a fairly nebulous concept in and of itself - came into a position of domination is not a question that is easily answered, especially not with a single book. I haven't actually read Diamond's book, and I don't know a whole lot about his theses, so some of this might be mirroring what he says, but here's how I see it.

It must be remembered that for the first half of this millennium, scientific innovation and military strength were the exclusive domain of the Islamic world. The concept of "European superiority" - linking industrialization and colonialism to the imagined grandeur of antiquity - was borne in part as a coping mechanism for medieval Europeans who could not explain why the Islamic world surpassed them magnificently in terms of imperialism and technological development.

So how did the Europeans get the upper hand? Any answer will be oversimplified to the extreme, but I do find it interesting that after the seventeenth century, the most successful colonialists, as well as the most prolific innovators, came from Northern Europe - cold countries that were relatively lacking in agricultural fertility.

Conversely, before the eighteenth century, most European colonialism and scientific development came from the places most influenced by the Islamic world - Spain and Italy - which also had fertile Mediterranean climates that could produce enough surplus commodities to easily support scientific development and imperialist ventures.

From this perspective, it seems as though development and expansion would have been the exclusive objective of the then-backwards Northern Europeans who sought to compete with their neighbors to the south. All of this would, in turn, be complemented by Europe's relatively isolated geographical position, which enabled Europeans to compete and cooperate amongst themselves without much outside interference.

Of course, this could all be complete bullshit and/or have little to do with the reality behind the original question; I stress that these are only musings and not in any way an attempt to provide a definitive answer to these complicated historical developments.

[Pogue]

In contrast to what other people have said, I would have thought it was because white/European people obviously came from Europe, where the climate is more stable and suitable for habitation and farming, and so had the ability to produce food easily, get resources which thus allowed them to develop technology, militaries, etc. Thats just a basic conclusion I came to though, based on the fact that environmentally Europe is more stable and habitable than Africa (alot of deserts) and Asia (too cold, floods, etc).

So basically it'd be that some people happened to settle in Europe.

Serious question - is skin colour determined by climate? I'm ignorant of such things.

[ComradeOm]

Yes, I'm aware that this is a zombie thread...


Serious question - is skin colour determined by climate? I'm ignorant of such things.AFAIK the current accepted theory shows that there is a strong correlation between skin colour and UV radiation. Colour itself is regulated by a pigment in the skin and with the migration into cooler Europe, and beyond, this became more or less redundant


In contrast to what other people have said, I would have thought it was because white/European people obviously came from Europe, where the climate is more stable and suitable for habitation and farming, and so had the ability to produce food easily, get resources which thus allowed them to develop technology, militaries, etcUnlikely. In the first place there's no reason to suggest that Europe is any more agriculturally productive than the rest of the world (Asia and the Americas are massive food producers in their own right) and secondly the gulf between Europe and ROTW didn't begin to open up until the 16th C or so. If your theory were true then there's no reason why any supposed advantage in agriculture wouldn't have paid dividends centuries, if not millennia, earlier

[synthesis]

Wow, I don't know how I did that. I might have clicked on one of those "similar threads" at the bottom and then forgotten that it's an old one. Sorry about that.

[NecroCommie]

In order to think this question futher I encourage people to notice how advanced civilizations seemed to avoid africa south of sahara, oceania, and americas before outside intervention. I think it is due to the linked (and almous simultaneous) births of early agricultural states in eurasia (Nile, Eufrat & Tigris, Indus and then Huangho) When you take these places on a map, you will notice how they are forming a linked area of would-be high cultures. You will also notice how a line connecting these river valleys almost follows the famous silk road (propably the most important preservant of innovations in the worlds history.)

We were tought in a history class that the world is always ruled by those wih access to important trade routes. During antiquity the most important trade-area was the mediterranean. Controller of the mediterranean sea indeed always seemed to rule the western end of the silk road, take for instance Rome and Greece. During bronze age (excuse my lack of linear timeline) the trade was concentrated in the middle east, and where would the bronze age empires be? Thats right! Hittites, babylonians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Assyrians and Persians all once ruled the middle east.

Also in middle-ages trade concentrated to the middle-east (due to the collapse of western-Rome) granting muslims a grand power, but it happened that Europeans soon opened the ultimate trade route. The FU***NG ENTIRE ATLANTIC OCEAN!!! Why Europeans? They happened to be the only ones of the Silk road civilizations with direct acces to so many other less developed continents. Soon the advancement brought them the oceans of the entire world.´

I am not saying this theory is the only, or even the main reason, but sure has something to do with stuff. The world history is certainly not as white as politicians would want us to think.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think the simple answer is that white 'nations' have historically been more aggressively imperialist. I think China's comparitive success has been largely for the same reason.

Another factor is that africa has always been rampant with tribal war, meaning they have seldomly been co-operative and have divided their resources.

[Picky Bugger]

The fact that the "Arabic" kingdoms developed to a much higher standard than Western Europe has not been raised in any posts i've read. Much of the basis for modern science such as Chemistry came from the Arabic states when much of Europe was struggling in the mire of the Dark Ages. The rise of secularism in Western Europe and the simultaneous rise of a greater degree of conservatism in the Arabic states changed much of this.

It would seem that this change allowed Western Europe to develop while their closest rival stagnated. This notion seems to be the basis for at least one theory as to the dominance of Europe. This is clearly incredibly simplified but at least its a starting point.

Sorry for no references but time is... well not money but something.

[Invader Zim]

I don't think there is any one answer to this question. I initially approached this question as a purely geographical issue down to climate. However the more I thought about it the less appealing, or at least complete, that answer seemed. After all advanced civilisation has emerged in relatively harsh, at least compared to temperate Europe, enviroments. And that rather shot my first thought, that it was all down to enviroment, down in flames.

But one thing we can be sure is that there is no biological reason for this. Other than slight superficial variations there is no biological difference between people which could account for these historical developments. Indeed that thesis has also been shot down in flames.

[Picky Bugger]

Totally agree there are a myriad of factors concerned with politics, society and large doses of chance, not biology.

[ComradeOm]

Another factor is that africa has always been rampant with tribal war, meaning they have seldomly been co-operative and have divided their resources.As opposed to the peaceful and cooperative Europeans ;)

In fact one of the standard answers given to this, and its a very common question, is that Europe's myriad internal divisions only spurred its development. The benefits of competition and whatnot. In contrast its two most obvious rivals - the Ottoman and Ming/Qing dynasties - were large and relatively unified states that eventually stagnated

Like Invader Zim, I don't think that there's any one reason that Europe pulled ahead but I do think that this is an interesting factor. A divided continent is probably not conductive to progress in itself but it did allow Europe as a whole to avoid the inevitable stagnation and decline that affects all empires. If you look at European history you'll see that its essentially a series of rises and falls - as one empire fades another comes to the forefront but the overall technological momentum is maintained

Just a few thoughts of mine

[Revy]

Maybe religion had a part. We know of very rigidly totalitarian religious structures like the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps we can trace it back to Constantine and Rome becoming a Christian theocracy. Spreading Christianity is a somewhat fundamental part of the religion. Spreading religion and colonization became linked. For quite a while Europe was only called by the name "Christendom", a land of Christianity. The Crusades were motivated by religion.

[ibn Bruce]

I think one of the deciding factors was that Europe (and most other civilisations) had never been protected from the effects of large 'barbarian' migrations, in the case of Europe coming from the East. When Muslims controlled everywhere from Spain to India, it created a giant buffer zone for European development. The Muslims were not interested in Expanding further into Europe,

They were the most technologically advanced at the time, with trade routes efficiently run by the Jewish Diaspora and centres of learning in Sicily, Cordoba and Baghdad. Then the Mongols came, burning Baghdad. This was followed by the uniting of Europe under the banners of the Crusade, which led to the sacking of Cordoba, the reconquista and the attacks in the Levant. The Byzantines and the Muslims effectively sheltered Europe, allowing it a period of development (which involved them killing each other, a lot) that was unhindered by the massive outside interference that was the bane of Byzantine, Muslim, Chinese and Sub-Continental civilizations. Given that much of their development was military, this led to Europe not only stepping into the power vacuum created by the sack of the Muslim world, but also an easy expansion into the 'New World'.

[Black Dagger]

^--- Interesting theory, good post.


If you look at European history you'll see that its essentially a series of rises and falls - as one empire fades another comes to the forefront but the overall technological momentum is maintained


I think you're being a bit too kind to europe here - 'the story of europe' is not one of linear progress. As has already been mentioned, for centuries the scientific development of europe languished behind that of asia - culminating in europes intellectual 'rebirth' - the re-discovery of knowledges that had until such time only survived and thrived outside of europe (though some of these were nevertheless developed from or directly influenced by ancient european - i.e. greek and roman - work).

[Black Dagger]

The fact that the "Arabic" kingdoms developed to a much higher standard than Western Europe has not been raised in any posts i've read. Much of the basis for modern science such as Chemistry came from the Arabic states when much of Europe was struggling in the mire of the Dark Ages. The rise of secularism in Western Europe and the simultaneous rise of a greater degree of conservatism in the Arabic states changed much of this.

Sorry for no references but time is... well not money but something.

Here is some more on that point, just stumbled on this article randomly when doing a google image search today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3323462/Science-Islam%27s-forgotten-geniuses.html


Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses

Jim Al-Khalili
For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic
The untold story of Arabic brilliance should be a timely reminder of a proud heritage, says Jim Al-Khalili

Next year, we will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th of the publication of his On The Origin of Species, which revolutionised our understanding of biology. But what if Darwin was beaten to the punch? Approximately 1,000 years before the British naturalist published his theory of evolution, a scientist working in Baghdad was thinking along similar lines.

In the Book of Animals, abu Uthman al-Jahith (781-869), an intellectual of East African descent, was the first to speculate on the influence of the environment on species. He wrote: "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."
There is no doubt that it qualifies as a theory of natural selection - even though the Book of Animals appears to have been based to a large extent on folklore rather than on zoological fact. Despite the strong feelings Darwin provokes among many Muslims - many Islamic scholars see the Koran as creationist, and so at odds with evolution - it seems astounding that al-Jahith's quote has been largely ignored.

In fact, although popular accounts of the history of science typically show no major advances taking place between the Romans and the Renaissance, al-Jahith's work was part of an astonishing flowering of invention and innovation that took place in the Muslim world, and in Iraq in particular, in the Middle Ages. This world view, based on a mixture of theology and rational thinking, produced wonderful advances in philosophy, astronomy, medicine and mathematics, in particular the emergence of algebra and trigonometry.Although the Muslim world is often now seen as ill-equipped for scientific discovery, we can look back to Baghdad and see the origins of the modern scientific method, the world's first physicist and the world's first chemist; advances in surgery and anatomy, the birth of geology and anthropology; not to mention remarkable feats of engineering.

For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic; and Baghdad, the capital of the mighty Abbasid Empire, was the centre of the intellectual world. The story starts around 813, when the caliph of Baghdad, al-Ma'mun, is said to have had a vivid and life-changing dream. In it, he met the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who instructed him to "seek knowledge and enlightenment". This was the starting point for a lifelong obsession with science and philosophy. Al-Ma'mun created the famous House of Wisdom, a library, translation house and scientific academy unmatched since the glory days of Alexandria.
The caliph would then recruit some of the greatest names in Arabic science, such as the mathematician al-Khwarizmi and the philosopher al-Kindi. Although many of these thinkers were not Arabs themselves, they conducted their science and wrote their books in Arabic.
In the West, though, they were better known by their Latin names, such as Alkindus, Alhazen, Averroes and Avicenna. The most famous of all was Avicenna (or ibn Sina, to give him his correct name).

Born in Persia in 980, he was a child prodigy who grew up to become one of the world's greatest philosophers and physicians. His great work, the Canon of Medicine, was to remain the standard medical text both in the Islamic and Christian worlds until well into the 17th century.
He is credited with the discovery and explanation of contagious diseases and the first correct description of the anatomy of the human eye. As a philosopher, Avicenna is referred to as the Aristotle of Islam; as a physician, he is its Galen.
Indeed, it would not be inappropriate to refer to Aristotle and Galen as the Avicennas of the Greeks. My favourite of all the Abbasid scientists, however, is another Persian scholar by the name of al-Biruni. Here was a polymath with a free-ranging and formidable intellect: not only did he make significant breakthroughs as a philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, but he also left his mark as a theologian, encyclopaedist, linguist, historian, geographer, pharmacist and physician.
Famously, having developed the mathematics of trigonometry, he was able to measure the circumference of the Earth to within a few miles. The only other figure in history whose legacy rivals the scope of al-Biruni's scholarship would be Leonardo da Vinci.

So what went wrong?

What brought to an end this golden age of Abassid and Arabic science?

The standard answer is that the ending came suddenly, in 1258, when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad. During the occupation, a large number of the books in the House of Wisdom were destroyed. But Baghdad was by this time far from the only centre of scholarship in the Arabic speaking world - and wonderful advances continued to be made in Cairo and Cordoba right up to the European Renaissance in the 15th century.
There is also an argument that the decline was due to a change in attitude of the Islamic world towards science. This was primarily a consequence of the work of the 11th-century scholar and theologian al-Ghazali, who famously criticised Muslim scientists for their over-reliance on the philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

Yet this, too, cannot be the whole story. Al-Ghazali was primarily attacking a theological viewpoint that relied on ideas he deemed anti-Islamic. Hard science should not have been so affected by this more metaphysical dispute.
The real decline had much more to do with a weakening of the power of the caliphate as a whole, of which the Mongol invasion was merely one symptom.

By the end of the 11th century, Baghdad had lost control over much of its empire, and weaker caliphs were simply less inclined to encourage and finance scientific scholarship. But, just as the golden age of Arabic science began with the translation of the great Greek texts of Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, so was the work of the Arabic scholars transferred to Europe. For example, al-Jahith's Book of Animals was a major influence on Arab scholars of the 11th to 14th centuries, and the Latin translations of their work in turn became known to Charles Darwin's predecessors, Linnaeus, Buffon and Lamarck. By the 16th century, while scientific and technological progress continued to be made at a gentler pace in the Muslim world under Persian and Ottoman rule, the European Renaissance was well under way. The mystery is why the debt the West owed to Muslim scholars was then overlooked: acknowledged at all, the Abbasids are normally credited with nothing more than acting as the guardians of Greek science.

In a world of increasing religious tension, the untold story of Arabic science is a timely reminder of the debt the West owes to the Muslim world – and, perhaps more importantly, of the proud heritage today's Muslims should acknowledge.

 Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics and public engagement in science at the University of Surrey. Tomorrow night, he delivers the Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize lecture, which will be webcast live at 5.30pm at royalsociety.org/live (http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4110), and will then address the invite-only Telegraph/Novartis Scientists Meet The Media reception at the Royal Society in London.
ISLAM'S FORGOTTEN GENIUSES

• Ibn al-Natis, a Syrian from the late 13th century, is credited with giving the first correct description of blood circulation in the body, 400 years before the work of Thomas Harvey.
• The Polish astronomer Copernicus (1473-1543) has Arabic astronomers to thank for his calculations: indeed, there are diagrams in his books that appear to have been lifted exactly from the work of the Arab astronomer Ibn Shatir 100 years earlier.
• The modern scientific method, based on observation and measurement, is often said to have been established in the 17th century by Francis Bacon and René Descartes. But the Iraqi-born physicist Ibn al-Haythem (Alhazen), had the same idea in the 10th century.
• The word "alchemy" derives from the Arabic "alkimya", which means "chemistry". The world's first true chemist was a Yemeni Arab by the name of Jabir ibn Hayyan, born in 721.
• Al-Razi (Rhazes) was the greatest clinician of the Middle Ages. Born near Teheran in 865, he ran a psychiatric ward in Baghdad at a time when, in the Christian world, the mentally ill would have been regarded as being possessed by the devil.
• The word "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jebr", and was made famous by the great ninth-century mathematician al-Khwarizmi. But contrary to popular myth, algebra was not an Islamic invention - its rules actually go back to the Greek mathematician Diophantus.

[JimmyJazz]

this is in NO way a racist post. I'm genuinely interested in this. I want to know when, and how white people like the Vikings, Portuguese, Spanish, British I guess even the Roman Empire if you want to call them "white" anyways.. how in the hell did they all just managed to get ahead of on the indigenous civilizations in the Americas, Chinese Dynasties, Mongolian armies, African Kingdoms and other natives across the world?

How did the white race get on top? Ok people here will say they were imperialist and some continue to be. True. but why they first? did they just thought about it? where "smarter"? their "instinct" just instructed them to go explore, search, find, conquer etc. etc?

I realize white people didn't invent everything. But they sure as hell had and have the upper hand on many things.

This is probably why the idiot Nazi's an other racist fucks are so convinced they are some sort of "master race" or that are "naturally smarter" than Indians, Blacks or other races "inferior" to them.

I hope this post comes across as what I intended it to be. A search to understand and study human civilization and how it seems that one race got a head start and has maintained it.

NOT all white people of course. I'm obviously referring to imperialist, cappie assholes.

Europe has only been on top for a few hundred years. In the middle ages it was a shithole and other parts of the world had flourishing empires with culture and art and science (Asia, the Muslim world). Euro-America won't be on top forever, in fact China seems poised to take its place (although the creation of the EU may give Europe more of a fighting chance than America has).

Your post is way too vague to answer and starts from a false historical premise. Instead of throwing in lots of condemnations of Nazis and cappie assholes, I think it'd be better to question your own premises. "White" people have not been, in any sense, dominant throughout world history.

In my view there is one thing that makes the current dominance of Euro-American culture unique, rather than simply the latest out of many empires throughout history, and that is the fact that economically it was powered by the rise of capitalism. The last few hundred years of capitalism have created an increase in living standards which dwarfs anything achieved by any previous political or economic system. So given that it is powered by such a revolutionary economic system, it's not surprising if the current dominance of Euro-American culture goes somewhat farther than previous empires both in scope and duration of its influence. But it's still going to come to an end, as all major civilizations do.

[Cumannach]

I don't know if you can really call Medieval Europe a 'black hole' compared to the rest of the world. Perhaps the early period up to about 1000 CE. But after that, I don't see how Europe could be considered terribly backward, certainly not in all aspects. I mean look at the Architecture for one- the Medieval cathedrals of Europe surely compare with anything built outside Europe- in fact was there anything outside Europe that could rank with the greatest of european cathedrals? And the great sculpture and art, the large body of literature and poetry- even the music, what has survived of it. And as for military technology, as early as c.1000 CE european armies were able to conquer Byzantium and the Islamic Holy Land, and hold on for centuries before finally being driven out.

[Black Dagger]

What are you trying to suggest? The assertion that europe has always been the philosophical, cultural and technoglogical centre of the world is text-book eurocentrism and flys in the face of decades of a more enlightened view of world history. Did you read any of the stuff i posted above? I thought it was quite commonly understood by historians that for example the Islamic empire for several centuries surpassed europe in this regard. And that that this knowledge itself helped spark the renaissance.

[ComradeOm]

I think you're being a bit too kind to europe here - 'the story of europe' is not one of linear progress. As has already been mentioned, for centuries the scientific development of europe languished behind that of asia - culminating in europes intellectual 'rebirth' - the re-discovery of knowledges that had until such time only survived and thrived outside of europe (though some of these were nevertheless developed from or directly influenced by ancient european - i.e. greek and roman - work).Be careful not to swing too far in the other direction though. Europe did dig itself out of its 'intellectual blackhole' and progress did occur on an incremental scale, though obviously from a much lower base than China or the Islamic world. It wasn't simply a matter of suddenly importing all these 'lost' technologies and jumping back to the top of the technological league

But regardless, my point in the quoted post was more to do with the state of the world circa the 16th C (around the time of the pivotal shift in the continental balance). I was thinking specifically of the decline of Spain and the Habsburgs, the rise of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, USA, etc, etc. That is, the baton of technological progress passes (metaphorically of course) from one empire to the next or was held concurrently by many. In contrast both the Ottoman and Chinese empires were monolithic entities and when they stagnated economically and politically then progress came to a halt for lack of conductive environment


I mean look at the Architecture for one- the Medieval cathedrals of Europe surely compare with anything built outside Europe - in fact was there anything outside Europe that could rank with the greatest of european cathedrals?The pointed arch that is so central to Gothic architecture was directly 'borrowed' from contact with Muslims in Scilly and the Holy Land ;)

And yes, the ROTW can of course compare with European cathedrals. I'm not overly familiar with Chinese art but the Islamic world alone has dozens of splendid mosques. In the Ottoman Empire it was practice for early Sultans to devote a portion of their war loot to a new mosque. The most spectacular example of these, in my opinion of course, is probably the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Ahmed_Mosque_(Istanbul)) in Istanbul but the Selimiye Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selimiye_Mosque_(Edirne)) and Süleymaniye Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCleymaniye_Mosque) are also supposed to be magnificent. I'd love to visit them some day. This isn't even mentioning Persian or Mughal (the Taj Mahal anyone?) architecture

But, as I mentioned above, the backwardness of Europe can be overstated. Certainly one of the few areas where they were comparable to the Islamic world was in warfare. This is a logical result of the extremely violent nature of European society at the time (800-1200 AD) where the ruling feudal class was only just laying down roots and essentially still a warrior caste. Castle construction in particular was central to securing control over a fiefdom and the infamous Fulk Nerra pioneered many techniques in stone keep construction around the turn of the millennium. Of course old Fulk himself made numerous pilgrimages to the Holy Land and later crusading contact with Muslims brought additional advances in this field

Any advantage that European armies had (and lets not forget that over the centuries they encountered more defeats than victories - for ever Barbarossa there was a Conrad III) would have stemmed from organisational factors than technology. The Latins spent so much time fighting each other that they got pretty good at it. Nothing special of course - in the grand scheme of things the First Crusade was a complete fluke

[ibn Bruce]

in fact was there anything outside Europe that could rank with the greatest of European cathedrals?

Having personally visited both the great cathedrals of Europe, and some of the great Mosques of Turkey and Egypt, I can categorically say (in my own biased way) that even the height of European architecture cannot hold a candle to the beauty of the Mosques of Istanbul. I mean if you look at it (as comradeom said) the style of the Christian Cathedrals was stolen from the great Masjid of Cordoba, when it was taken over and turned into a church.

Cordoba and Baghdad both were cities that Europe could not hope to outshine until well into the 16th century of our common era. Even then European cities were constantly wracked with plague and filth. I mean if we judge 'civilisation' by personal hygiene, Muslims showered more than once a day, cleaned their teeth(with a toothbrush called a 'miswak'), washed their hands before eating and washed generally at least 5 times a day, and that was going on since 622 CE. In comparison, people were considered odd if they washed at all. Reading most chroniclers that weren't from Europe, the place was seen as dank, violent, dirty and uncivilised. Nuns and scholars that visited Cordoba described it as 'the jewel of the world'. Of course, Muslims owed a lot to the Eastern Roman Empire for much of their architecture, but lets be honest, without Muslim translations of classical texts, the rennaisance would never have occured.

Even in later times Europeans cookie cutter copied Muslim texts, Descartes
'Discourse on the Method' will be familiar to anyone who has read Imam Al-Ghazzali, but Ghazzali wrote some 500 years before hand.

[Hit The North]

The answer to this conundrum is simple: it was the emergence of rational capitalism that gave "white" Europe its edge over the rest of the world.

The reason as to why rational capitalism developed first in Europe rather than other, at one time more advanced civilisations, is an interesting question.

Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, offer a materialist account:


From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. Moreover, it is the revolutionary nature of capitalism which explains why the European nations established empires. Once established, capitalism was compelled to spread further, dominating less productive societies, ripping up their foundations and establishing markets and capitalist relations:


The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society...

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere...

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. [...]

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation... It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. Why other regions, which were more economically and culturally developed than feudal Europe (China, India) did not embark on this trajectory before Europe is also an interesting question. For Marxists the answer is to be found in the material relations of those societies, with special attention given to the status and role of private property within those formations.

Arguments which attempt to explain these historical processes on the basis of abstract (and un-testable) notions of racial/biological differences or some innate aggression, are inadequate.

[ibn Bruce]

Just a thought, for those more economically adept than me, could Interest have anything to do with it? I know interest was prohibited in many societies (especially Islamic ones) as it was seen as inherently exploitative. The Catholics banned it too, but this changed (as far as I am aware). Could that have had any impact?

[Hit The North]

Could that have had any impact?

Absolutely. A functioning capitalist economy depends upon capital investment which demands a banking system. The Catholic prohibition on usury was one of the reasons, I believe, that the early bourgeoisie in Europe turned to Protestantism. It was Protestant Britain which was the first nation to have a bourgeois revolution and, consequently, the first to industrialise.

The role played by Protestantism as a form of ideology amicable to rational capitalism can be found in the work of the German sociologist, Max Weber:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/weber/protestant-ethic/index.htm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Protestant-Ethic-Spirit-Economy-Editions/dp/048642703X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235575549&sr=1-1

[ComradeOm]

I mean if you look at it (as comradeom said) the style of the Christian Cathedrals was stolen from the great Masjid of Cordoba, when it was taken over and turned into a churchWell in fairness the Mezquita of Cordoba was originally a church that was converted to a mosque before being reconsecrated as a church. But certainly during its time as a mosque it ranked as one of the wonders of the world. Indeed the same could be said about the entire city of Cordoba which awed visitors from across the world... even the odd visiting Christian cleric

[Killfacer]

The question is wrong. It's only now, at this point in time that white westerners are the dominant culture. China is likely to be taking over fairly soon and before us there were other powers such as turkey. It's the way of the world.

I guess africa has never been able to compete the europe, the middle east, China or America because of they don't have particuarly good farmland or access to water for that matter.

[manic expression]

And yes, the ROTW can of course compare with European cathedrals. I'm not overly familiar with Chinese art but the Islamic world alone has dozens of splendid mosques. In the Ottoman Empire it was practice for early Sultans to devote a portion of their war loot to a new mosque. The most spectacular example of these, in my opinion of course, is probably the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Ahmed_Mosque_%28Istanbul%29) in Istanbul but the Selimiye Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selimiye_Mosque_%28Edirne%29) and Süleymaniye Mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCleymaniye_Mosque) are also supposed to be magnificent. I'd love to visit them some day. This isn't even mentioning Persian or Mughal (the Taj Mahal anyone?) architecture

Agreed. And yeah, Istanbul is an architectural dream. In terms of Ottoman mosques, you have to remember that they themselves were directly borrowing from Byzantine architecture. The Blue Mosque was built within a few stones' throws of the Hagia Sofia, and basically emulated it and attempted to outdo it. I went to both, and while the Blue Mosque perfects and improves the Hagia Sofia's exterior, the interior of the Hagia Sofia is just something else, it makes the Blue Mosque's interior seem kind of so-so to be honest. Anyway, the Blue Mosque was built almost a century after the Byzantine church, so it's not exactly a fair comparison. By the way, definitely get to Istanbul.

As far as gothic architecture, I think it's fair to say it ranked among the finest in the world. It's funny, though, because beginning with the Renaissance, educated Europeans saw "gothic" art as unsophisticated, crude, ugly and most of all un-Roman. However, te real point is that Europe was finally able to build stuff at this time because they weren't being constantly invaded anymore (700-1000: Vikings, Magyars, Muslim raiders) and they were at long last able to trade with the rest of the world and create the foundations of an economy (before that, it was a bunch of farmers sitting in the wilderness with no money).


Any advantage that European armies had (and lets not forget that over the centuries they encountered more defeats than victories - for ever Barbarossa there was a Conrad III) would have stemmed from organisational factors than technology. The Latins spent so much time fighting each other that they got pretty good at it. Nothing special of course - in the grand scheme of things the First Crusade was a complete fluke

Yes, definitely true. Knights were fighters first and foremost, and European heavy cavalry was probably their biggest advantage. However, it should be said that the First Crusade wasn't a complete fluke, considering how successful the Third Crusade was (and a big reason why that wasn't even more successful is because Phillip II went back to France to steal Richard's territories). Plus, the Fifth and Seventh Crusades gave Egypt a real run for their money.

[manic expression]

I find all this really interesting, and I'm bored so I'm just going to add a few comments for no particular reason.


Just a thought, for those more economically adept than me, could Interest have anything to do with it? I know interest was prohibited in many societies (especially Islamic ones) as it was seen as inherently exploitative. The Catholics banned it too, but this changed (as far as I am aware). Could that have had any impact?

Good question. Bob the Builder covered this quite well, I'll just add a few things. Even before the development of Protestantism in Europe (which did contribute heavily to the development of capitalism), they found a few ways around this. First, Jews were able to act as bankers for most of Europe and the Islamic world; they could charge interest. Needless to say, this fueled a lot of anti-Semitism. Second, in Europe, certain groups received special papal dispensations and could therefore charge interest: the Lombard banks (northern Italy) and the Cahorsian banks (southern France) were able to do so IIRC. Third, in the Islamic world, different loopholes were available to permit "riba" (usury): the Islamic definition of usury was always ambiguous and inconsistent. The law codes of India, central Asia and later the Ottoman Empire were the most tolerant, as they allowed the sale of credit when it came to weighable goods. Also, Islamic merchants developed certain agreements that took the same role as usury: credit partnerships were popular (until the Fatimids), in which both parties shared equally in the enterprise.


Cordoba and Baghdad both were cities that Europe could not hope to outshine until well into the 16th century of our common era. Even then European cities were constantly wracked with plague and filth.

Cordoba was a European city. The dichotomy between European Christianity and Asian Islam is something we need to question. Islamic Spain was no more European and no less European than France or Austria IMO. Plus, Constantinople was a European city (barely, geographically speaking, but definitely European in its history and culture), and it was definitely one of the world's greatest before 1204. Also, don't forget Rome and Venice, they weren't too shoddy themselves. However, you do have a point, European cities took awhile to get going after the fall of the Roman Empire.


Europe has had an extreme warlike culture. European nations have been massacring each other since a long time. So when they applied this ideology towards the non-European world, naturally it resulted in massacres of non-Europeans. The most important step in this process was the age of discovery when these European nations started navigating to all parts of the world looking for conquest.

Europe wasn't any more warlike than the rest of the world. To be honest, central Asian peoples were probably the most "warlike", they completely destroyed Europe (and China, and the Islamic world...) a few times over. The Ottomans were feared in all parts of Europe for their military efficiency and ruthlessness, both on land and on sea. Sure, Europeans massacred non-Europeans, but non-Europeans massacred Europeans and non-Europeans. I don't think you can say Europe was an exception in this regard.

[Cumannach]

I agree with you Blackdagger that Europe was backward in many aspects in comparison to other contemporary civilizations, especially during the 'Dark Ages' (which none the less, in the artistic sphere at least could produce something like the Book of Kells), and of course the standard euro-centric historiography is silly, ignoring all the achievements made outside Europe.

For example, the genesis of so much of mathematics in the medieval Arabic countries is obvious and undeniable- we're still using their numbers and their al-gebra. And of course I'm a huge fan of Islamic architecture and also Islamic manuscript illumination especially. I particularly like Persian architecture, although the things I have in mind are mostly from after c.1500 (e.g. Isfahan, a vision of paradise). What I meant was I just don't think that Bourges or Amiens cathedral, or the sculptures of Chartres, or Dante or Machaut or Dufay, bespeak of a Europe in every way backward and totally inferior to the other great civilizations of the time. I think the culture of Europe was of a sufficiently high level to make comparisons between say, the Taj Mahal (actually which is not medieval anyway) and Durham cathedral largely subjective and down to opinion. Incidentally, I would go with the Taj on that one. Basically like ComradeOm said, it's overstated, Europe's backwardness. I just don't like seeing Medieval Europe written off like that just because Western historians have been exaggerating the greatness of Europe for the past generations, so in reaction, we go to the other pole and Europe was a slummy smelly dump. It's not accurate. I especially wonder about the whole hygiene thing. I remember going on a tour of Trim Castle a while back, and the tour guide said something to the effect that, at the end of the day, the Lord and Lady of the castle would lay their clothes out stretched over the hole in the garderobe (the toilet) to avail of the stinking gases rising up the chute which soak into the fabric, killing off the lice which infested the clothing!- is this serious (honest question)?? I mean they had noses hadn't they. I'm open to correction on this, but I find it hard to credit. No wonder these such a trade in oriental perfumes.

Militarily, why do you think the Crusades were such a fluke? What about the medieval Spanish who were able to reconquer Spain from the Muslims?

I thought a few pictures mightn't hurt. The first three are Amiens, the last two Bourges.

72487249725072517252

just can't figure out how to embed them properly

[Cumannach]

These first two are Chartres, and the others glorious Isfahan

72537254725572567257

[Killfacer]

http://persia1.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mosque_of_cordoba_spain.jpg

Probably the most beautiful building i have every been in.

[Dean]

The unique system of Western Feudalism is the reason I think. Babarians inherit the ruins of ROme. THey have a rural ruling class. This is the only system ever and since where the cities are secondary. During the entire Frankish period for example, not a single city is founded in Europe. This is the same time the Arabs and Moors establish Cordoba, Baghdad, Cairo etc.

This unique system leaves the folks in the cities to create a new economic system, virtually undisturbed: capitalism. Capitalism, being so dynamic, allowed Europe to catch up and surpass civilizations that once were centuries ahead of Europe, and eventually conquer them.

Look at the middle east today. The fight with the Taliban, Mujahideen, etc. are all more or less fights between Rural and Urban systems. The same can probably be said for the U.S. Civil War.

[Vahanian]

I think the simple answer is that white 'nations' have historically been more aggressively imperialist. I think China's comparitive success has been largely for the same reason.

Another factor is that africa has always been rampant with tribal war, meaning they have seldomly been co-operative and have divided their resources.


white people supposedly had the advantage because we weren't only more technologically Superior. it also probably has something to do with the "White mans burden" and the belief of Anglo- saxonism

[S. Zetor]

As Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel (GGS) has been mentioned in the discussion as a good materialist analysis, it might be in order to draw some attention to certain criticisms of it. Overall, in my opinion Diamond's book is vulgar materialist, and though it obviously has good sides (as opposed to outright racist accounts), it is "materialist" to the point of sidelining the more political side of things completely. Everything supposedly flows from geographical necessity, which was there already 10 000 years ago, from which point on everyone else was basically fighting a losing battle against the predestined winners.

Louis Proyect's three-part review of the TV series based on Diamond's book is good to read.

PBS Series on “Guns, Germs and Steel”
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2005/07/13/pbs-series-on-guns-germs-and-steel-part-one/
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2005/07/28/pbs-series-on-guns-germs-and-steel-part-two/
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2005/07/29/pbs-series-on-guns-germs-and-steel-part-three-conclusion/

James Blaut is essential re critique of eurocentric history writing. The book to read is The Colonizer's Model of the World (1993). (He also has a book called Eight Eurocentric Historians, among them also Diamond, but I haven't read that one.)
"I will argue not only that European colonialism initiated the development of Europe (and the underdevelopment of non-Europe) in 1492, but that since then the wealth obtained from non-Europe, through colonialism in its many forms, including neocolonial forms, has been a necessary and very important basis for the continued development of Europe and the continued power of Europe's elite. For this reason, the development of a body of Eurocentric beliefs, justifying and assisting Europe's colonial activities, has been, and still is, of very great importance. Eurocentrism is quite simply the colonizer's model of the world". (p. 10.)
As to how the actual colonial robbery took place, see Andre Gunder Frank's World Accumulation 1492-1789 (1978). From there, just one quote: "As late as 1793, the emperor of China would inform the king of Britain, George III, 'As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures.'" (p. 27.)

Re other cultures, I've found Basil Davidson good on African cultures; see his Africa in History (1966). Diamond's claim that Europe supposedly managed to come up with all the good stuff because, partly, a mosaic of small kingdoms were constantly competing with each other (as opposed to one big and supposedly rigid Chinese Empire) doesn't quite hold water after you've read Davidson's account on African kingdoms, several of which were on the same level with, even superior to, the Portuguese and others when the latter arrived on the shores of sub-Saharan Africa. When they made it to the Eastern Coast, they didn't find a bunch of primitive tribes, but highly developed class societies that were engaged in trade across the Indian Ocean.

A final quote from another blog criticizing Diamond's book:

"As I see it, the main problem with Diamond's thesis is that he reaches too far back in history to find the roots of Euro-American dominance. He traces the current power imbalance back to the arrangement of continents and biota that prevailed at the dawn of "civilization" some 10,000 years ago. Diamond makes much of Pizarro's easy victory over the Incas, treating it as the proof in the pudding of the superiority that Europe had achieved. But even as Europe was laying the smackdown on the Americas, it was desperately trying to catch up to the much more advanced civilizations of India, China, and the Middle East. It wasn't until the the 19th century, when the industrial revolution was in full swing, that we can say with confidence that (western) Europe was the world's dominant power (see Andre Gunder Frank's ReOrient). This suggests that a historically contingent explanation is likely to be better than one positing a long-standing inevitability."

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w30/msg00222.htm

[Cumannach]

As Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel (GGS) has been mentioned in the discussion as a good materialist analysis, it might be in order to draw some attention to certain criticisms of it. Overall, in my opinion Diamond's book is vulgar materialist, and though it obviously has good sides (as opposed to outright racist accounts), it is "materialist" to the point of sidelining the more political side of things completely. Everything supposedly flows from geographical necessity, which was there already 10 000 years ago, from which point on everyone else was basically fighting a losing battle against the predestined winners.

A final quote from another blog criticizing Diamond's book:
"As I see it, the main problem with Diamond's thesis is that he reaches too far back in history to find the roots of Euro-American dominance. He traces the current power imbalance back to the arrangement of continents and biota that prevailed at the dawn of "civilization" some 10,000 years ago. Diamond makes much of Pizarro's easy victory over the Incas, treating it as the proof in the pudding of the superiority that Europe had achieved. But even as Europe was laying the smackdown on the Americas, it was desperately trying to catch up to the much more advanced civilizations of India, China, and the Middle East. It wasn't until the the 19th century, when the industrial revolution was in full swing, that we can say with confidence that (western) Europe was the world's dominant power (see Andre Gunder Frank's ReOrient). This suggests that a historically contingent explanation is likely to be better than one positing a long-standing inevitability."



Obviously Diamond is no socialist and his analysis is seriously deficient whenever it touches upon things like contemporary world poverty. I don't think he even said the word 'capitalism' once in his television series.

However, I thought some of his materialist ideas were quite good. Specifically, the greater probability that Eurasia would develop socially and technologically at a faster rate than the Americas or Australia, due to the better wild crops and wildlife available for domestication and the east-west axis that favoured faster and widespread dispersal of newly discovered agricultural crops.

[Dimentio]

I blame the Vril.