I just got into /his/ and am finishing guns germs and steel arm.
What are good follow ups that explain the current repartition of global power ?
I'm thinking leading objective works regarding colonization, mainly. As well as other key periods worth reading about. All suggestions welcome.
>>765406
Oh boy... prepare for a shitstorm of memeing, OP.
>>765406
>New Guineans were much smarter than whites who cheated to get everything.
>>765436
>I didn't read a pop history book
>inb4 this thread devolves into /pol/ tier discussion about race and IQ.
>>765406
Try Niall Fergusson's "Empire". It's specifically about Britain, but it covers the whole colonial period in considerable depth.
>>765601
>implying GGS is not "/leftypol/ tier memes: The Book"
How about we look at history from a contemporary historical viewpoint instead of retrospectively applying modern lenses to it like the academic Left loves so much to fit their agenda?
>>765601
But the book is shit without brining race into it.
Whenever this book is brought up /pol/ start talking about Zebras.
>>765621
Why couldn't they be domesticated?
>>765632
No particular reason, but they weren't. You may as well ask why Amerindians never domesticated the mustang, or why Europeans never domesticated the Aurochs or wolves.
>>765632
No group structure like with horses they (not /pol/) say.
Humans couldn't just replace the top horse with themselves.
>>765641
>'Europeans never domesticated the Aurochs or wolves.'
>What is a dog?
>>765632
/pol/ thinks a zebra is like an average horse and argues that people in Africa were too stupid to domesticate it.
>>765647
You think horses were tame and domesticated since first contact? Really?
>>765641
The wolf and Aurochs were domesticated and turned into modern dogs and cattle.
The Mustang started was a feralized horse that europeans brought over. It didn't exist before columbus.
>>765646
Dogs were domesticated in the middle east, not by Europeans.
>>765641
>domesticated wolves
They're called dogs
>mustang
Not as docile as zebra
>aurochs
There are similar things in Africa
>>765653
>Every species is possible to domesticate.
If zebra could be domesticated then why hasn't it been done? I'm sure someone would find a way to make money from it if it were possible.
>>765653
A Zebra isn't a beast of burden, it's altogether too gracile and fragile. The local blacks already had domesticated cattle that they used as beasts of burden, they didn't need Zebras.
>>765659
>The wolf and Aurochs were domesticated and turned into modern dogs and cattle.
Not by Europeans they weren't. Modern cattle and dogs are from middle eastern stock, those dumb Eurocucks hunted their own aurochs and wolves to extinction.
>>765664
Europeans didn't domesticate teh wolves and aurochs they lived alongside, despite having tens of thousands of years to do so.
>>765665
This, even with knowledge of domestication the Rothschild's were only able to tame a few zebra.
>>765664
>mustang
>Not as docile as zebra
uh
>>765406
Before you read anything else, please forget everything you read in that book.
Smash your head against the fridge or repeatedly hold you're breath until you pass out.
It will only do you're historical analysis skills some good.
>>765678
>everything
So environment has no influence whatsoever?
>>765670
kek, can create an intentional banking dynasty, can't even domesticate zebra.
>>765682
It does but not to the degree to which "progressives" and other social planners wish it did.
Genes=70%
Environment=30%
Sure if you maintain a certain environment for TEN THOUSAND YEARS or so, you might get "equality" but that will never happen since such an ideology only leaves an environment volnurable to domination from another organism.
>>765682
The effect of environment is unpredictable. Civilisations have thrived in deserts, in jungles, in mountains, on islands, and everywhere in between. Far more important than environment is geography, isolated people fall behind culturally and technologically no matter how pleasant their homelands are, as with south africa or much of the americas.
>>765696
You never read the book yet felt obliged to shitpost for some reason.
as an example, if wheat, goats, sheep, and many other crops were not found in the middle east, would this region still have developed the earliest agriculture and civilisation?
>>765696
I would say it largely depends.
The mayans were caught in the sti eage till europeans discovered them, and tbey still managed to creat large cities with centralized agriculture and education.
>>765699
Geography is part of environmental influences.
>>765406
"Hey guys I wrote a book about this two centuries ago"
>>765711
Not ones saying it's the only book related to the topic, it's just the particular one that /pol/ is mad about.
>>765406
Check out The Story of Civilization of Will and Ariel Durant... I'm still only one volume one, it is written through a western slant.. but I feel it attempts objectivity, so far.
>>765607
>Niall Memeguson
>>765701
>as an example, if wheat, goats, sheep, and many other crops were not found in the middle east, would this region still have developed the earliest agriculture and civilisation?
Those things were endemic across the old world. Rice and wheat are the grasses that came to dominate, but there are hundreds of species that have been cultivated at different times. Likewise, cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, these were all found from Ireland to Korea.
>>765723
But sugar cane is from Papua new guinea.
Just some random fact I picked up along the way.
I'm not even /pol/ but this book is the worst kind of horse shit.
Like others have already pointed out it isn't like dogs and cows were just wandering around and happened to be perfect for domestication. They've been bred.
The same can and have been done with several african and american animals including buffaloes.
Some european animals like reindeers aren't exactly easy to deal with but have been semi-domesticated. Elks to a lesser degree.
>>765726
Proving what, exactly? Also I believe it was native to the whole of southeast asia, not specifically PNG.
>>765720
> France = Civilization
> attempts objectivity
I really doubt it.
>>765701
We don't work with "what ifs", that's just sounds like excuses coming from people who were too lazy to make due with what they had and when another culture found ways to make it work, now use their standards upon which to excuse themselves from any survival responsibility.
Life's not fair, deal with it or die.
>>765723
Don't forget figs, olives, grapes, barley, lentil, peas, chick pea. as well as the connectivity to neighbouring regions as >>765699 mentioned. The 'fertile crescent' isn't called this for no reason.
And you completely ignored my point, if these environmental influences were so insignificant then would this regions have developed similarly if they were not present at all.
>>765732
>Proving what, exactly?
That sugar traveled a rather long way.
>>765406
>arabs literally make the hostile sunbaked desert into somewhere so nice we call it the fucking "cradle of civilization" and "fertile crescent"
>nogs in new guinea cant into farming because it's a bit hilly
>>765742
>Arabs
>Fertile crescent
m8...
>>765742
>arabs
Also, agriculture started in northern mesopotamia, in the highlands of Assyria. It only spread down the rivers into deserts after irrigation was invented.
>nogs in new guinea cant into farming because it's a bit hilly
Except those nogs DO farm, as well as breed pigs.
>>765735
>what ifs
It's attempting to understand the factors influencing the history of the region at a broad scale, if you can't understand the point of the hypothetical in bringing attention to the impact of the factors 'being excluded' then I don't know what to say to you.
>that's just sounds like excuses
Not sure were you got this from, other than you're own preconceived bias, I said nothing to do with 'excusing' anything.
>>765742
> fertile crescent
> sunbaked desert
> arabs
>>765742
>doesn't know about desertification intensifying after the end of the ice age.
>>765742
There's also the implicit bias of using middle eastern and European civilization's as a standard as if Africans could not have perhaps developed some newfound method of developing their areas but of course it's the Europeans that should feel bad for inheriting the areas they evolved and survived in.
>>765755
>but of course it's the Europeans that should feel bad
Were'd you pull this from?
>>765755
As far as I am aware east coast Africa had agriculture, cities and trade networks reaching from Egypt to India.
>>765748
You're still observing them from a western perspective, a perspective which should only be applied in the west and not in the 3rd world. There is still potential for Africans to use their resources in their own perspective which is incomprehensible to a western lens.
Stop saying "they didn't have x" and start saying "they have w,y,z"
People who seek the origins of difference are usually the ones who desire to undo them as if they were the original sin.
>>765773
>Stop saying "they didn't have x" and start saying "they have w,y,z"
I'd rather say both.
also 2/10 b8.
>>765756
>Europeans aren't special, they just had a better environment! If everyone else had this environment then we would all be the same!
Don't bullshit me, egalitarianism is the hidden motivation behind this deconstructionism of European success.
>>765779
>Europeans aren't special, they just had a better environment! If everyone else had this environment then we would all be the same!
Once again, where are you pulling this from? Identifying differences and similarities between environments and the impacts these had.
And are you actually suggesting that looking into factors leading to European success isn't a major area of investigation, you know things with big impacts tend to be studied.
>>765776
And you would rather do this just because you want to find the truth and it has nothing to do with undermining a certain culture. Look, anything can be deconstructed or excused for if you look hard enough, at the end of the day the slave will continue to be a slave because he can't get past making excuses for his situation.
>>765786
The very act of investigating such a thing illustrates your motive,not that you will ever admit it because it would make you lose face in this discussion, but as I said before, you're not fooling me.
Investigations are typically reserved for problems, which European civilization seems to be here.
>>765809
>The very act of investigating such a thing illustrates your motive
I'm a white Australian, I'm very interested in the palaeolithic and ancient history, of all periods these would arguably have the least relevance to motives related to modern politics or whatever you think my motive is. As hard as it might be for you to believe i'm just interested in the topic, nothing more.
>>765809
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=investigating+success
>>765406
>ITT muh /pol/ boogeyman
>>765779
> Egalitarianism is the hidden motivation behind this deconstructionism of European success.
Humour me, explain how the fuck the philosophical school that people ought to be be treated the same in front of the law have a hidden agenda to promote environmental determinism. I'd love your source to this.
>>765445
That's a bull
>>765687
The zebra was determined not to bend to the Jews
>>765406
>current repartition of global power
post WW2 'conferences' and partitioning, the whole cold war story, 1950-1990 economic development, decolonisation and neo-colonialism, rise of china and reconsolidation of russian power, 2001 invasion of iraq and subsequent chaos
thats what, historicaly, explains 'current repartition of global power'
shit that happened 500+ years ago has little or no relevance
