Just picked up this little number, what should I expect?
>>1255442
>Just picked up this little number, what should I expect?
A pop history book full of conjecture.
The truth about history
>>1255442
The completely uninformed musings of an ornithologist on the general topic of world history. A case study in the Duning-Kruger effect.
>>1255442
memes and flat out fabrications
utter ignorance of domestication, zoology, anthropology, and the very existence of sorghum
the horizontal-vertical continent thing is alright, as are much of the strictly geographic details. why do you need a summary nigga it's less than 400 pages
Can someone give me a reputable source that says this book is horseshit?
I'm sorry, but racist retards on 4chan aren't really the highest authority as far as I'm concerned.
>>1255514
How have you reached the conclusion that /his/ is racist anon?
>>1255514
There are some errors in particular details, but the general features he mentions are significant. Who denies that smallpox and other diseases were a major factor in the colonisation of the Americas for exampe?
>specifically discounts factors other than biogeographical in order to focus on that
>is criticized for focusing on biogeopgraphical factors like it said it did
You guys know it agrees with 10,000 Year Explosion on everything, right?
>>1255542
>but the general features he mentions are significant.
The general features he describes are also completely unoriginal. Just read Alfred Crosby's "The Columbian Exchange."
>>1255524
4chan is pretty racist in general. It's not at all far fetched to think that the history board would white wash a few things
>>1255442
>Just picked up this little number, what should I expect?
A very well written, briskly paced and well sourced examination of environmental influences on human society.
This book is somewhat polarizing because it really only got insanely popular after Bill Clinton listed it as one of his favorite books, so inevitably right-wingers are going to disagree with everything in the book, especially because he proves that there was nothing intrinsically superior about western culture and that it's domination of the world in the colonial era had more to do with Europe's material abundance and natural geologically varied (and therefore more defensible) terrain.
>>1255442
Decent read. Makes the error of attributing almost everything to geographic factors. Those cover a lot of aspects of the columbian exchange. People on 4Chan(myself included) discredit a lot of it because it tries too hard to make out like nothing special happened in Europe and it was just "geography." Basically a Calvinists wet dream of history. Also, the scale is retardadly huge, and Jared diamond isn't an expect on most of the shit he talks about. I personally preferred "The wealth (and poverty) of nations: why some are so rich and some are so poor" as a survey history for the wests divergence and the waste reconvergence. Author is old school Harvard economist who doesn't fuck around with correctness and just says it like it is. Why the west rules (for now) is also good. I generally don't like survey histories though. Not enough detail and easily hijacked by personal opinions.
>>1255514
>Can someone give me a reputable source that says this book is horseshit?
fuckign read it and find out. the book only makes sense to people who accept everything it says as facts
>>1256015
I have read it. As I said, give me a reputable source that disproves what the book has to say, because I don't particularly give a fuck what you have to say.
>>1255765
Define "special", the cycle of impoverished and disadvantaged yet warlike nations becoming successful and then falling to a new challenger is something that has been repeated throughout history and will continue to be repeated until the end of time. The mistake that 4chan makes it that it falsely assumes that we are now living in the last cycle and western superiority will last for all time
I have some screen-caps, for what its worth.
https://archive.org/stream/fp_Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel/Jared_Diamond-Guns_Germs_and_Steel_djvu.txt
>In case this question immediately makes you shudder at the thought that you are about to read a racist treatise, you aren't: as you will see, the answers to the question don't involve human racial differences at all.
>in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners
liberals will defend it to the death no matter how glaring the logical fallacies because they think they are sticking it to the racists by doing so, but really it is more of an embarrassment to that cause, at least in the minds of intelligent people
>>1257039
I didn't bother reading your screencap.
If this book is such horseshit, then some of repute would have pointed it out. They haven't, far as I know.
What 4chan says is of extremely little significance.
>>1257044
To be fair, refuting it would be career suicide. Especially since the entire books is one of the cornerstones of the modern church of egalitarianism. (See James Watson)
>>1257056
Well, if it comes down to it, I'll choose to believe Jared Diamond over the people here, if it's all the same to you.
>>1257044
My main issue is Diamonds point of view that is still biased towards the west. His points are valid but he still ignores things such as economic factors and technological advancements, limitations and cultural impetus to improve on the creation of another.
>>1257057
If you want to be willfully ignorant it won't bother a single person.
>>1257068
Because I value the oppinion of someone reputable over the oppinion of a group of neckbeards? Who made you an authority on this subject? Or any subject for that matter? Other than wacking it to chinese cartoons.
>>1257084
He read on stormfront that whites built pyraminds on Atlantis
>>1257087
Source?
>>1257084
Fantastic appeal to authority. I can tell from your unwillingness to even listen to anyone without credentials that you must be college-educated.
>>1257087
He read it in a published and peer reviewed book, therefore it is absolute fact.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/five-indigenous-livestock-breeds-you-have-never-heard-of/
Diamond said cattle breeding and animal domestication failed in Africa, therefore none of these animals exist.
>>1255514
it isn't horseshit, but it's outdated. It's a 1960s book written in the 2000s
Diamond just doesn't understand archaeological theory. If you want a 'scientific' approach to the past read Binford
>>1257094
>I only listen to people whose opinions match my world view even if they have no authority on the subject
>>1257107
>baseless assertion, strawman, and a roundhouse meme photo finisher
What you're saying is that the only acceptable circle-jerks are the ones that you're a part of.
>>1257094
then Diamond is an idiot
cattle were hugely important to numerous African societies, in particular the Bantu
>>1257094
>Diamond said cattle breeding and animal domestication failed in Africa
But cattle were domesticated twice, The middle east and India. I'm pretty sure African breeds would have been domestic cattle from elsewhere crossed with local aurochs.
>>1257039
>Paragraph 5
>Europe is isolated from Central Asia by the Alps
>East Asia, Central Asia, Europe
>No significant cultural exchanges took place between these region until the 15thy century
>Being complete ignorant about geography, about the migrations between Asia to Europe, about, Silk Road
It's actually quite easy to go from central Asia to Central Europe by horse, avoiding the mountains altogether. And the Urals themselves weren't impenetrable.
>Paragraph 6
>European agriculture was overwhelmingly based on wheat
And barley, oat, rye, legumes.
>Paragraph 7
>Attila the Hun, Genghis Han were great conquerors
Yes, so? Their empires didn't last long. A durable empire is based on urban civilization.
>>1257114
>>1257131
He claimed that Europeans had an advantage in that the species distributed across Eurasia were more "domesticable" than their African counterparts. (a few of the animals mentioned were, I believe, auroch vs ankole or horses vs zebra) That would be understandable, but we know that these animals were not originally like that. The arouchs were vicious animals, even the Nazi's hilarious attempts to make "Aryan" cows that resulted in Heck cattle from back-breeding was a failure because how aggressive they were. Additionally, numerous zebras have been tamed over the centuries , it was even a small fad to have them pulling your carriage in Victorian times.
Every animal is domesticable, the experiments with making the Russian Domesticated Red Fox proves that. If a concerted effort had been put forth over several generations, Africa's domestic large mammals would be just as calm as Europe's. Basically, the proto-Europeans, Asians, and Indians endeavored to, and succeeded in, their efforts to breed calmer animals, while the Africans did not. (presumably due to less environmental stresses requiring it.) These animals are what Diamond refers to as the "colonial package" and he asserts that they are what allowed Europeans to inhabit so many different places. Without a "colonial package" in South America or Africa, he argues that the natives of these regions were at enormous disadvantage compared to the "lucky' Europeans.
>>1257137
5
The Silk Road was not people travelling from Asia to Europe in one go, it was a series of circles of trade that spread across the continent. It is of course possible to avoid the mountains, but the excursions and the distances required prohibited most from making the journey. These two factors combined to ensure that the primary items transported along the silk road were small, high-value items such as silk and spices. The Europeans were not getting economic migrant from Pakistan bringing their culture in the form of Islam and doner kebab.
6
Hence the word "overwhelming." The Asians farm water caltrops and eggplants too, but guess where he majority of their energy is derived from?
7
That is irrelevant, Jared's assertion was that urbanization is a prerequisite for effective, large-scale military conquest. No argument was presented on the subject of an empire's durability, only its military competence.
>>1257175
>Sure Silk Road existed but it wasn't significant enough as a "contact"
>moving the goalpost
The point was this contact existed, and was significant.
Also that wasn't the only point. Europe was invaded by people from Asia in the Middle Ages. Not just Huns and Mongols, but also Bulgars, Avars, Pechenegs, Kumans, Khazars.
Europe was never isolated from Asia. Nor were different parts of Asia isolated from each other. Just more difficult to traverse maybe.
>>1257142
Is Diamond actually a racist? He seems to buy into the idea that Africans only ever lived in mud huts very willingly
>>1257224
Make up your minds already. Is it racist or is it AntiWhite Jew Communist SJW?
>>1257233
those aren't really mutually exclusive, there are a lot of "anti-whites" who treat non-whites like they're pets or children that need to be babied
>>1257233
You can be both very easily.
See every white SJW that takes agency away from every non-white by claiming they can't be racist or bigoted.
>>1257142
>Every animal is domesticable, the experiments with making the Russian Domesticated Red Fox proves that
I don't think you know which phyla are called animals, and why would domesticating one more species (after many other have already been domesticated) somehow prove that "every animal is domesticable"?
>>1257142
Have you ever seem someone with an exotic pet like a Serval or Ocelot? It's like owning a domesticated cat except that everything is giant hassle with a creature that is way too cunning for its own good and will scratch the fuck out of you. And get used to the smell of cat urine all over your living space.
Just because it's possible doesn't mean that it's practical or reliable. The reason "tame" Zebras never caught on is because of how insanely aggressive they are, with a kick capable of bashing a lion's skull in and a bite easily capable of ripping flesh. They have strict social hierarchies and dominate zebras had a tendency of killing other captive zebras held in close proximity. Training them is a gigantic pain in the ass and universally considered cruel and inhumane because you have to break them far more severely than you have to break a horse. Not to mention that Zebras do not have strong backs the way horses were bred to have, so its intensely dis-comfortable for a zebra to carry a rider.
>>1257009
Sorry I had a typo in my original post cause on mobile. "Wastes reconvergence" should be easts reconvergence. It was special in that European technology and curiosity of the world surpassed anything that had come before. Other states may have warred and fallen in the past, but there are none in history that ascended so relatively high above their peers or enjoyed power projection than western powers in the modern era. I don't think it's fair to attribute that all to geography. It certainly helped Britain being isolated on an island, but there are other factors, mainly societal that diamond ignores. I think the great man theory of history is stupid, but I also thing it's stupid to write off people's initiative and intelligence as well as societal structures driven by different cultures.
>>1257044
Why the fuck would you ask 4Chan what it thinks if you don't care what it thinks? Jesus
>>1255442
Poor excuses rather than proper explanations
what should I expect, pic related?
>>1255442
Two authors worked on this book, Mr State-the-obvious and Mr Hindsight
>>1255442
>what should I expect?
Diamond:
>well, here's my conclusion, now let me just cherry pick thinks that support it and ignore things that don't
>>1257590
Can you explain why the rivers are highlighted? I haven't read Diamond but I remember I read some other author a few years ago that one of the reasons Africa is underdeveloped is the lack of unnavigable rivers.
>>1257688
*navigable
>>1257531
Sometimes anons have links to respectable studies instead of just pulling shit out of their ass.
>>1257044
4chan isn't one person and shouldn't be used as a source, but you seem to forget that it's full of people
go somewhere else if you don't like different points of view and desire a narrowed perspective on things instead
>>1257719
I don't blame him for not reading all that horseshit. There's not a single fucking citation in that entire screencap.
>>1257719
As far as history and the like is concerned, I'm not about to take your shit at face value. It is reasonable for me to demand that you supply me with proof of your claims.
>>1257531
I didn't make the thread. I saw someone spew shit out of their ass, and I challenged them to justify it.
Basically, most arguments on here are "diamond was a retard, and I know better". It's literally your word against his.
>>1258093
You'll notice that most knee-jerk reactions to Jared Diamond align neatly with political orientation.
>>1258109
I'm not into politics, but the idea of judging someone based on whether they hae melanin in their body is "offensive" to me, and I do admit that it rubs me the wrong way right off the bat.
But still, if someone gave me evidence that blacks are somehow inherently less intelligent, I would have no choice but to accept it.
And before you ask, I'm white.
>>1257233
How is that not the same exact thing?
>>1258131
But like you said above: we have to consider what the consensus of professionals are telling us. We have to consider that racial supremacist theories are dismissed as pseudo-science by the consensus of professionals in their fields, so you're absolutely right in that the burden of proof lies in the people pushing these fringe theories, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence beyond 'muh conspiracy'. Current research appears to confirm that humans are unusually close genetically as a species (to the point where some scientists theorize a genetic bottleneck sometime in the distant past) and that the difference between all the 'races' are cosmetic and the result of sexual selection overtaking natural selection as the primary driver of human evolution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html
Jared Diamond's point is also accepted by a large number of professionals: that environmental factors have played a far larger role in shaping human affairs than we normally would care to admit. It's a little troubling for some to admit because it ultimately puts limits on the sort of control that humans have in shaping their own societies, when what the land and climate around them have been proven to play a far larger role than previously assumed.
As you said, if anyone has an idea outside of the bell-curve and wants to challenge this, the burden of proof is on them.
>>1255442
It's informative but make sure you don't let it influence your view of history too much. I think it raises some solid points for what it argues. I can see them being accurate to a certain degree yet I've also heard a lot of good arguments to the contrary.
>>1258225
>Jared Diamond's point is also accepted by a large number of professionals: that environmental factors have played a far larger role in shaping human affairs than we normally would care to admit. It's a little troubling for some to admit because it ultimately puts limits on the sort of control that humans have in shaping their own societies, when what the land and climate around them have been proven to play a far larger role than previously assumed.
Not really. Most Historians I know complain that most of what Diamond wrote that's actually good was already well know and generally accepted (the rest of Diamond's work gets pretty shredded.). Historical Materialsm has been academic standard for about a century now, so there's no problem there.
That's the thing most pathetic about /pol/'s fixation on 'rebutting' him. It's like watching fundamentalist try to argue with Bill Nye, except imagine if they thought Bill Nye came up with the theory of evolution, and if they can prove him wrong, anyone would care.
>>1257233
It's easy to be both.
>White people are evil because they're so superior that they keep shitting on the lesser races and keeping them down rather than using their strength and compassion to lift them up! White people are responsible for everything bad in the world because they're so superior and powerful, they must be stopped so that the lesser brown folk can flourish
Stuff like that.
>>1257688
Some anon several days ago was trying to argue that Africa had no easy way to get around ala water ways, that map came out to explain why that was wrong.
The highlighted rivers are just the major, major rivers.
>>1258109
I'm not so sure about that. The post-modern left clearly hates him, but so do avid racists and nationalist who think he wasn't chauvinist enough. The bitchy culturists that get triggered by a scientific approach to history don't evenly fit into any one political group imo.
>>1258257
>Not really. Most Historians I know complain that most of what Diamond wrote that's actually good was already well know and generally accepted
Well, there's a difference between coming up with new ideas, and communicating already existing ideas in an effective fashion to the humans around you. They're two different skillsets, and they're both necessary in their own regard.
>Historical Materialsm has been academic standard for about a century now, so there's no problem there.
Which oddly enough seems to be the cut off point where an idea has matured enough in academia for it to begin distribution to the masses.
>That's the thing most pathetic about /pol/'s fixation on 'rebutting' him. It's like watching fundamentalist try to argue with Bill Nye, except imagine if they thought Bill Nye came up with the theory of evolution, and if they can prove him wrong, anyone would care.
Its hilarious because it's true.
>>1255650
/thread
>>1257063
correct me if I'm wrong, but the economy and culture of basic civilizations is pretty much dependent on the geography of the area.
>>1258279
>. The post-modern left clearly hates him
I'm not so sure that I'm familiar with the "post-modern left" but your garden variety liberal thinks Jared Diamond is great, and its a false equivalence to suggest that the number of left-wingers who hate him is proportionate to the number of Right-wingers who hate him. Close your eyes for a moment and think about how many tree-huggers and environmental nuts are out there who believe in the "noble savage" and all that bullcrap who ate up Diamond and catapulted him to the New York Times bestsellers list. It certainly wasn't being bought by people who want to ascribe morality as the chief mover of human society, such as evangelical Christians, who are invariably right-wing to some extent.
>>1258322
>Close your eyes for a moment and think about how many tree-huggers and environmental nuts are out there who believe in the "noble savage" and all that bullcrap who ate up Diamond and catapulted him to the New York Times bestsellers list.
Which is funny, because one of my biggest problem with Diamond is, when you get down to it, he thinks the only respectable measurement of a society is how much waste they produce.
>>1258318
Pretty much. I mean, do people not realize that steppeniggers are steppeniggers because of the steppe?
>>1255514
Actual historians and academics are universal in calling this horseshit. It's an outdated premise written by someone who isn't a historian and who manages, in his quest to refute eurocentrism, ends up making something that's incredibly eurocentric.
>>1258427
Could you point these academics out to me?
>>1258427
Not a reputable source, you nigger
>>1257039
4chan is not a reputable source.
>>1257039
>6.) European technological superiority by the colonial era
Completely wrong, it wasn't until the Industrial revolution this truly happened.
There was a damn good reason that Europeans never truly conquered Africa until the 19th century and that's because supplying armies large enough to pacify African tribes who had the same cottage industry the Europeans did, simply less of it, in the field was simply not possible.
Furthermore technology was largely irrelevant in the British conquest of India where horrible generalship, bad training, and antiquated tactics completely screwed the Indians.
>>1255442
Historical determinism and Black Legend
>>1258736
*geographical determinism
>>1258736
>that fucking pic
Mexico confirmed best sudaca.
>>1258603
>>1258597
>>1258438
M8 what you're asking for is spoonfeeding, the criticisms of this book by actual historians (not people on 4chan) are widespread and pretty easy to find if you're actually interested in looking. Don't just fling shit because other people can't be bothered to have this argument for the ten millionth time.
>>1255442
Hope you like New Guinea.
>>1257382
You have managed to completely ignore literally every point made. Those "exotic" pets can be DOMESTICATED, not simply tamed, with enough time. The Russians taming of foxes was done SPECIFICALLY to prove that point.
All of the "advantageous" adaptations modern cows and horses have were not there originally. The calmness to be ridden or the strength necessary to be put in a harness and pull a plow was selected for over thousands of years, it was not a trait originally present. The reason zebras and African animals do not have the "ability" to be tamed is because no effort was ever put forth to do it. The few examples of pet zebras and other native livestock show that YES it can in fact be done, just that it never was.
>>1257223
Except it wasn't significant. A significant contact would be Islam entering Europe, or Buddhism making the same sort of headway that it had in china. Not of this happened because the only things that made it from one end of the silk road to the other were things of high value. This excludes another peoples' culture, as it was not fetishized in the pre-modern period like it is today.
>>1258803
That is the most limpdicked argument that can be made.
>b-buh-buh-but it's out there!
Admit that you're way more interested in being right in a public space.
>>1255442
(((Diamond)))
You know where it's going.
>Named Jared Diamond
Fifty dollars say this is a nigger disguised as a white man.
>>1259187
Not him but
Fuck off retard. I mean seriously, ask ANY historian in public about Diamond's book and you'll find out that GGS isn't, to say the least, very well regarded.
Source:
>My life
And now you can keep meme arrowing about muh anecdotes
>>1257528
You are simply describing the cycle of a civilization that has happened for thousands of years. If anything we are seeing an end to the "western" (which what you really mean as white) prominence in the world just as history has seen the rise and fall of various Persian empires, multiple Chinese dynasties, the fall of west and east rome, Islamic caliphates and the Ottoman empire. You are just biased as you belong to the group currently on top of its cycle but in the grand scheme of things it means nothing
>>1255442
>counter-factual history
>absolute falsehoods
>wrapped in a pretty bow of conjecture leaving you wondering how the author came to his conclusion
>>1255514
Read literally any academic book review of GGS on Jstor or any other journal database. 99% of them ream Diamond's asshole.
>>1258710
The Anon was clearly talking about direct military technology, not technolgoy that would aid in logistics. I.E weapons, armor, firearms etc.
>Completely wrong
Not at all. Metallurgy, cavalry, firearms, cannons etc were all things which the Europeans used to their advantage when subjugating the Americas. They were (military) technologically superior to the Actezs and Incas, who in the other hand had good civil technology.
>There was a damn good reason that Europeans never truly conquered Africa until the 19th century and that's because supplying armies large enough to pacify African tribes who had the same cottage industry the Europeans did, simply less of it, in the field was simply not possible.
The fact that Europeans did not posses the technology to conquer Africa does not meant that they were not technologically superior. Logistical issues were the main reason why Africa wasn't taken, not sub par military technology. As you yourself said "because supplying armies large enough".
European militaries were only slightly superior (technologically) to Asian ones during the age of colonialism, but the advantage (which was small) wasn't enough to outweigh the Asian home turf advantage (manpower etc) so Europeans were stuck with small trading cities and islands.
>>1259596
T. Diamond
I'm glad materialist factors trump all others to the point that a slight difference in muskets can outweigh a 2:1 numerical advantage.
>>1255442
It needs to be pointed out that Jared Diamond doesn't even attempt to disprove the concept of genetic differences, he literally dismisses it as wrong and racist without any argument. On top of that he then goes on to claim that he thinks PNGs are intellectually superior to the white man. Putting aside his obvious bias we can say that because he doesn't actually attempt to disprove these differences then this book can't dismiss the possibility. At best it provides a hypothesis (not a scientific explanation, there's no use of the scientific method here) for additional causes of European supremacy. Environmental factors and genetic differences are not mutually exclusive though, and the existence of one can't disprove the other. The ideas are really interesting and probably have value but the author is heavily biased and his book doesn't actually achieve its goal.
>>1259809
>he literally dismisses it as wrong and racist without any argument
No, he says that since some tribal hunters can remember things about all the plants and animals they need to know about they're just as smart if not smarter than he is.
>>1259317
You assume I am white and think that is why I think the wests emergence during the early modern period can be attributed to societal and individual factors as well as the reasons diamond says? Nice ad hominem. Yes civilization is cyclical but you have tk acknowledge the leaps and bounds the west made From 1500-1950 relative to the rest of the world. Economic output and population sky rocketed due to western scientific advances and social systems. its not debatable that the way we live was fundamentally changed on a scale never before seen in history by the west. That doesn't mean the west will always be on top or no one else could have done it. The fact is Europe did it first. I noted in my original post that I liked Why the west rules for now because it explores the wests emergence and how Asia is currently catching up. Just because non western countries are catching up doesn't mean we shouldn't care about how Europe got on top and changed the way we live. thats the point of history. Everyone acknowledges there were times non-western empires were greater than western powers. Very few people, even outside of the west would contest that the west developed a technological advantage and scale of power projection that had never been seen before in history. All those empires you named have something in common, they never built global empires. If you actually think the industrial revolution, globalization, and all of the societal changes the west made 'mean nothing' youre really saying history means nothing and there's no point for you to be making such a shitty post.
>>1259168
>A significant contact would be Islam entering Europe
>None of this happened in the Middle Ages
Are you American by any chance?
>>1257556
Hillariously, whitewashing the slave trade.
>>1261217
But Europe didn't do it first, every past great civilization all said the EXACT same shit about them being the greatest of all time that you are saying about 'western" civilizations now. The fact that you refer to "the west" shows your bias as you are trying to highlight the west by its successful states while ignoring the ones in decline or those that have fallen altogether
>>1258275
But they're not navigable. You can't just take a fucking boat from Lake Victoria to the Med.
For fucks sake, Europeans had steam ships cruising on the Nile for 20 fucking years before they discover Lake Victoria.
>>1258427
Completely ignoring environemental factors is stupid too. Just because historians can't accept that not everything done by humans is following the will of humanity. History is done by humanity, not geographical determinism. But humans are shaped by their surroundings
>>1255442
12 pages dedicated to the holocaust no doubt
>>1257084
Why ask us then?
>>1261824
There is no one thing that will make a civilization "great". It can be geographical, access to resources, relationships with neighbors that creates a societies view of themselves or it can be pure dumb luck that puts a particular people in the right place at the right time when they would be completely disadvantaged in every other circumstance
>>1261759
Spain and Portugal had the first global empires. England and Europe as whole industrialized first. Western European powers colonized the world. I didnt make any moral comments on these phenomena or subjective commentary on greatness. I just stated that you can't ascribe their success to geography and biological factors. Historical events, ideas, and societal conflicts are huge drivers. Would Portugal have invested in circumnavigating Africa to reach the indies if the ottomans hadn't threatened access to the spice trade and driven up prices artificially for instance. France's legal code is spread around the globe. All of these languages are spoken globally. You make a lot of assumptions about me based on using the term the "West." It is a lazy and ambiguous term, I'll give you that. Every prior civilization on top said the exact same shit. The difference is the other powers didn't have global force projection or the technological achievements of modern Europe. There is a reason other countries westernize, and why it's called westernizing. They take European technologies and adopt some European social structures. I think you're just trying to find an argument with me cause you're butt hurt about something. I never said "west number 1 always has been, always will be." If you want to disagree with me that Western European social structures, individuals, or historical drivers were not factors in the power imbalances of the modern era please debate that point. Don't just say states rise and fall nothing to see here, nothing special happened.
>>1259807
But i said exactly the opposite of that.
>but the advantage (which was small) wasn't enough to outweigh the Asian home turf advantage (manpower etc)
>>1255514
>>1256995
>>1258438
>>1258597
>>1258603
>>1259187
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/51
http://web.archive.org/web/20130714031430/http://videosdigitals.uab.es/cr-vet/www/40300/1_2_McNeil01_ht34_world%20according%20to%20Diamond.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20080527130118/http://www.nybooks.com:80/articles/1132
https://books.google.fi/books?id=ktn7LmLgc6oC&redir_esc=y&hl=fi
Here's a few.
>>1262173
>http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/guns-germs-and-steel/
Let's look at it.
>Real History versus
Into the trash it goes. Claiming you are doing "real" history and the other not is just stupid
>>1262195
Ok. Stay willfully ignorant then. I don't care.
>>1258803
show find one and post link
>>1262144
But where did those unique collection of "western" values come from? What if we pan out to a larger scale and wonder why Europe was a loose collection of competing nation states while the vast bulk of humanity living in the wide open spaces surrounding the Himalayan glacier were ruled by hydraulic despotisms?
Of all the great Eurasian societies the only one which didn't get completely buttfucked by the Mongols was Europe. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Europe is the only place on the continent where the terrain isn't conducive to the tactic of horse archers running circles around heavy infantry?
Could it have anything to do with Europe's combination of broken terrain making for naturally defensible borders and huge variety of domesticated plants and animals providing greater prospects for economic growth?
A place like China was unified for most of its history, but occasionally would fissure into competing independent states, but ultimately these states couldn't sustain themselves against the might of the central bureaucracy and would get reabsorbed back into the fold. This is primarily because the state maintained really tight control over the Yellow and Yangtze rivers and could strangle economic activity in a revolting state by manipulating the flow of commerce along these rivers (hence the term hydraulic despotism). Verses when the Roman Empire faced mass revolts it had to deploy the army and go to great lengths in order to reunify the land, and it eventually got to the point where it didn't make economic sense for the central state to hold onto land and told the indigenous peoples that they were on their own.
It's the classic nature/nurture argument: and all of the research is pointing to environmental factors playing a much larger role than previously assumed, and the people who seem to have a problem with it are primarily those who believe that the "morality" of a citizenry is the primary mover of society.
>>1259168
>You have managed to completely ignore literally every point made
And you're ignoring MY point. Just because they can be domesticated doesn't mean that it's practical or cost-effective to do so.
Jared Diamond's point was that because horses were that much easier to domesticate than zebras, societies which trained its riders on horses had a distinct advantage over societies which had to make due with independent minded and unpredictable zebras.
>>1257531
what is bait?
>>1255765
>Basically a Calvinists wet dream of history.
Oh boy, the lazy historian's go-to whipping boy. "Let's pick on the Calvinists, most of them were wiped out by the 18th century, so it's not like they can defend themselves."
>>1257044
> I won't think for myself, I need respectable arguments only, and you scoundrels need to find them!
>>1255442
Utter nonsense. The carrying capacity of the Americas was a few million people, about quarter each died from direct murder and disease. The "95% died from disease" is a meme spread by both sides of the political spectrum to minimize or exaggerate the actual murder count relative to population.
The only valid argument it makes is for steel, the rest is vague, flaky theorizing trying to deny the existence of race.
>>1259831
which is really weird logic. it's as if he feels guilty that he never learned to identify the trees and plants that grow in his neighborhood or how a cat and a dog are physically different
No, I'm from Papua New Guinea
>>1263003
You idiot.
The original horses--before the domestication process--would have been just as wild and difficult to tame and unsuited for labor as wild zebras.
It took hundreds of years of effort to yield animals that were manageable by nature. That effort was never expended, which is the only reason modern zebras are more wild than modern horses. Had humans who lived near zebras felt a need to tame zebras, and spent hundreds of years of breeding and training to do so, there is absolutely no reason to assume zebras would not be as hardy and manageable as modern horses.
Please read what is being written to you.
>>1258131
>i-it's just all melanin
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/sequencing-neanderthal-dna
"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes of non-African modern humans."
protip: look at the difference between albino africans & albino euroasians
>>1262976
Don't zoom out too far or you will miss the details, and the details are all the fun. The Mongols halted short of western Europe because of the death of their Khan. They had to go back for that. Western Europe is fairly easily accessible from east to west with the exception of the Iberian and Italian Penisulas, and the British Isles. In that instance Mongol tradition, a non-geographic factor gave Western Europe Respite. The Steppes were a scourge on eastern europe and asia alike until Russia and China shut it down in early 1700's iirc. How did they shut it down? Strong centralized states and advanced gunpowder armies. I don't discredit geographic factors. Part of my research was Russian industrialization. Part of the reason Russia was backwards initially was because of their proximity to the steps and their absorbtion of invaders.
Not once have I said environmental factors don't play a large role in shaping history. Not once have I said morality of a citizenry is the primary mover of society.
That being said moral beliefs of citizenry certainly do have an impact on history whether they are true is another matter. 30 Years War, Portuguese "Crusades," The actual crusades, the guy in China who thought he was Jesus' brother etc. There is some formation of history and thought by environment, but humans also have evolved to the point where history and thought form environment as well.
>>1263273
>You idiot.
Save the salty language for /b/. This is a place where we educate each other, not wave our dicks around. Here, have a pic of hot twins to help you relax
>The original horses--before the domestication process--would have been just as wild and difficult to tame and unsuited for labor as wild zebras.
But that's wrong. There were wild horses all over the world which humans hunted for their meat, but only horses from one specific region went on to father the modern horse. These horses were naturally larger than zebras and have the sturdy backs conducive to carrying around a full sized human, and lived in a region where they weren't in constant mortal fear of large predators so they have much more docile personalities. Africa is a place with an extremely robust and energetic ecosystem, so the creatures living there have to be wildly more aggressive simply to survive. That's why European bees are easy to keep and will only chase you until you're no longer an immediate threat to their hive, while African bees are much harder to keep and will chase you down the street.
Humans didn't just domesticate animals willy-nilly, they did so according to which ones lived complimentary lifestyles, which is why dogs were easily domesticated all over the planet while nobody domesticated a fox until modern times. Foxes are solitary ambush hunters and would rather be alone verses a dog which is an endurance hunter and prefers to run in packs, (just like humans.)
>>1263466
>Don't zoom out too far or you will miss the details, and the details are all the fun.
I agree, but I also know that in order to paint a picture worth sharing you have to start with broad strokes and work your way down to the details because the picture loses coherency when you work detail-by-detail.
> The Mongols halted short of western Europe because of the death of their Khan. They had to go back for that.
But that didn't stop Kublai Khan from conquering China. To quote the historian John Keegan:
>"[The Mongol armies], ferocious though they were, ultimately failed to translate their light cavalry power from the semi-temperate and desert regions where it flourished in to the high-rainfall zone of Western Europe. Whenever [they] encountered...peoples living by intensive agriculture, accumulating thereby food surpluses which enabled them to sustain campaigns longer than the foraging nomads ever could, and breeding on their rich grasslands horses which outmatched the nomad pony in battle, [they] had to admit defeat. Light cavalry conquerors were in time either forced back into the arid environment where nomadism flourished, as on the borders of Western Europe, or, as in China, corrupted by the softness of agricultural civilization and absorbed by it.",[29]
>How did they shut it down? Strong centralized states and advanced gunpowder armies
It's difficult to imagine an Isaac Newton or a Roger Bacon flourishing in an area that was continuously ravaged by steppe nomads.
>Not once have I said...
thanks for being one of the smart ones
>That being said moral beliefs of citizenry certainly do have an impact on history...
I think realpolitik considerations related to money have far more impact than identity politics.
>>1263594
I think the John Keegan quote kinda contradicts your point. China had more efficient agriculture and more manpower than Europe did. I think Kublai Khan taking China and not Europe is more due to the fact that Europe wasnt really that desirable. They may have taken it if they hadn't turned back, but I don't think it was worth the effort for them from a cost benefit analysis.
I will contend that China and Japan's inwardness prevented them from reaching their full potential. China got very close to industrializing in the 14th century, about 300 years before britain. However, the merchant class wasn't really respected under confucian traditions and it didn't happen. I don't think anyone is 100% sure why. They had the factors.
Europeans had to look outward because it couldn't easily compete in international trade. They were blocked from the spice trade by the Ottomans. I think of that scenario as a hybrid of geography, ideology, and realpolitik coming to a head. Portuguese decide to go on a "crusade" around the globe to control key trading junctures. All the eastern trading powers wanted from them was bullion. Portuguese didn't have much, so they just used their superior naval technology to force it.
>>1264333
>China had more efficient agriculture and more manpower than Europe did.
that's very true, but there is a huge geological difference between the closely knit provinces of China verses the relatively self-sufficient nation-states of Europe. China at that stage in history was ruled by an economic house of cards known as the Song dynasty, which in that period had grown withered and corrupt and completely unable to muster the kind of defense necessary to hold back the Mongols. This is a remarkable difference from the nation-states of Europe, who despite their division were individually powerful and united in the face of the Mongol onslaught.
>I will contend that China and Japan's inwardness prevented them from reaching their...
And the moral of the story is don't let rural poorly educated isolationists take over your government. Your society will be ripe for the pickings in about 200 years.
> I think of that scenario as a hybrid of geography, ideology, and realpolitik coming to a head.
I agree completely, but to what extent are the three equivalent? I tend to think of it as being something along the lines of 80% environment, 20% realpolitik, >1% ideology. The reason that the protestant reformation kicked off in the first place was because of the black death utterly destroying the legitimacy of the Catholic church, along with fueling a massive surge in economic growth as the sudden drop in labor pools caused wages to skyrocket, creating a large middle class with wealth to tax in order to pay for things that aren't the Catholic church, like Protestant churches and cannon balls.
I tend to think of ideology as the excuse that the ruling class uses to justify decisions rooted in realpolitik. Murdering jews so that you don't have to pay back your bank loans is not morally defensible. Kill them because they're evil Messiah-killers who are plotting the downfall of all things white at least sounds morally defensible. At least to idiots (and they do vote...)
