Comments on the article: WHY EUROPEANS CONQUERED THE WORLD
To make a comment on the article, Why Europeans Conquered The World, click on "comments" or "Post comments" near the bottom of the page. Please identify yourself, even if you have to make up a name, in case several people leave a comment. That way, others can more easily answer a specific person. I suggest you subscribe to the comments, so you will get new comments in your email inbox, with an easy way to answer them.
12 comments:
Although there were strains of bacteria that may have been related to syphilis in Europe before 1493, the common form of the disease was brought back to Europe from Native North Americans to Naples in that year.
It killed millions of Europeans, and was called the Great Pox. It was deadly and disfiguring -- giving rise to the large fluffy collar of the era, as well as the neck-tie and the "mouche".
It's in the medical history, but Diamond uses the fact that there are some deaths from bacterial infection before that date, which may have been from a similar bacterium, to toss out the entire medical history of syphilis. It killed more Europeans than there were North Americans.
But I agree with the guns and steel theories. The germs part is just nonsense, in my view. Another example: the plague came from China, likely the Guangzhou region, and wiped out millions upon millions of Europeans. When? As soon as the Europeans began increasing shipping and trade with China.
Anonymous, that's an excellent point. But it doesn't ruin Diamond's thesis about germs. The diseases Europeans gave to the Americas sent wave after wave of different plagues through the Native American population, reducing their numbers and demoralizing them. Not just one disease, but many MANY deadly diseases. But indeed, the Native Americans gave Europeans at least one disease and it killed a lot of Europeans.
China is on the Eurasian continent, and is a major contributor to the ultimate success of Europeans through their contribution of domesticated animals and plants, and yes, the diseases that went along with them, producing plagues in Europe that weeded out people with a weakness for that disease, leaving the remaining European population resistant to — but carriers for — the plagues that wiped out Native Americans by the millions.
Call me Anonymous2
What about fishing? River/bay fishing can support settlement. Also, aren't root crops good carbs that store well?
It is fascinating that the Chinese success as a pacified state limited their expansion.
It is also interesting to compare England with Japan - both island nations with good productivity, lots of internal wars and maritime culture.
Anonymous2,
Yes, fishing CAN and HAS supported settlements, but never supported a civilization unless it was augmented by cultivated crops.
Root crops, such as potatoes and sweet potatoes, have supported cultures, yes. They can't be stored for as long, but they can be stored. Potatoes supported an enormous civilization in the Andes mountains, for example.
I think you are leaving out the importance of diverse cultures and chain a reaction that one empire just feeds the next. History shows how they literaly stole idea's from previous empires. The timing of technology just happened to develope fire arms and large volume sailing vessels when white Europeans had the baton in their hands. They simply followed the example the Romans had set. Europe was successful and very crowded and so imunities were higher and so they carried diseases they were inoculated against. Americas Native population didn't stand much of a chance.
Persians, Islam, Hindus, Mongols, all had large civilizations and through their conquests established a foundation for change that left the door open for western European states to occupy.
Western Europeans did not have some special mandate, knowledge or ability... The world was laid at their feet as a result of those preceding civilizations. Western europeans were the lucky cockroaches that swept into the global kitchen from the crumbs left by succeeding civilizations.
China's unity is the reason her empire is still here while every other empire has fallen and gone.
China has historically shown a lack of interest in expansion beyond it's self defined "unified" borders but that's changing today.
And perhaps global conquest thru military force has always been temporary and fleeting.
Sun Tzu - "All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."
"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
China as it evolves seems to be manuevering itself to eventually be at the center of all global activities thus every decision made in any part of the world will be economically and politically influenced by chinese interests.
Perhaps that's the strategy to maintain a global empire indefinitely.
In 1000 years from now, we may not remember Europeans ever conquered the world for a brief period in history if chinese will be the ones writing history in the future.
While the theory concerning germs is credible i doubt that it contributed more to the domination of native peoples more than the steel and guns. From what i understand, the diminishing of many native peoples due to disease occured post-conquest (granted, soon after)but i think his emphasis on this point is overplayed.
Additionally, while it may be the case that it was blind "luck" that the conditions were right for the advancement of civilistion and therefore "luck" that separated european advancement from other groups of people, this cannot be proved. There is the possibility that similar but different peoples living in the same environment may NOT have taken the same roads as early Europeans. I'm not saying that that is the case, just that it cannot be disproved really, so shouldnt be stated as a fact.
One attribute that seems to draw a real line between different cultures is that of curiosity and exploration, and i think that it is no coincidence that all the isolated cultures rapidly fell behind and were subsequently conquered, those cultures that endeavored to expand have always been more successful, and in my view this has been of benefit to humanity as a whole - the essence of humanity is curiosity and if it is stifled then it stifles culture and civilisation itself. Granted however, that basic needs such as food must be satiated first.
I am a big fan of curiosity myself, and I also see it as a powerful force for good in this world.
About the diseases: They often preceded any actual contact with Europeans, and new evidence shows that much of what we thought we knew about the Americas was wrong. For example, those vast herds of buffalo exporers discovered had come about recently because when Europeans first touched down in the Americas, their diseases spread inland long before any European exporers themselves went inland. So by the time they explored inland, the native population had already been decimated by disease and many prey animals like buffalo had proliferated wildly without the constant thining by large populations of Native Americans.
Also, when the Incas were conquered, one of the key factors was the disease that had preceded contact. The disease killed the Inca emperor, throwing the empire into a civil war, which Europeans then exploited.
You write:
"Either they were genetically superior, or their culture was superior. Historically, that was the customary answer. Europeans were smarter or more capable. That explanation is clearly bad, but a good one has failed to take its place."
And then:
"Jared Diamond had spent enough time with the New Guineans, living among them, to know that they were intelligent and resourceful people — in Diamond's opinion, more intelligent and resourceful than people living in modern societies, both because of natural selection (unintelligent and unresourceful people don't live long in the New Guinea wilds) and because the New Guinea environment is so difficult, and the death rate is so high, that they must smarten up as they grow up, or they don't make it to adulthood."
So which is it? Can evolutionary pressure result in different degrees of intelligence between ethnic group or not? You can't have it both ways.
Someone give this guy the answer he deserves! (The guy: Anonymous, March 27 2016)
They were as intelligent and resourceful as any other people under severe survival pressure.
Post a Comment