Don't pay any attention to Jared Diamond. He is a Jewish extremist who likes to tell Europeans that race does not exist but here is what he had to say in the publication NATURAL HISTORY
" There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew. "
This guys argument may be weak, but why the hell is everyone calling him an idiot and a white supremesist? He pretty much said he partially disagrees.
As for your question: This book is a brief history covering the entire human race. What relgion developed where and how isn't dependant on geography, and he doesnt argue that.
Isn't the book about Europe AND Asia? It's a known fact that much of Europe technology came from Asia. Also the reformation would be related to stable societies, which in turn is related to guns, germs and steel, No?
lauragabriel - How is the variance between Catholics and Protestants a "major difference" in human society. Is there another example?
While the ideologies of human societies (and more importantly of their ruling classes), are important to the social history of particular peoples, they are not instrumental to the acceleration and spread of their culture and technology.
Accidents of geological and agricultural fate are what propel their success, not the quality of their ideologies.
@Noisegator Well, Max Weber would argue that the difference between Catholics and Protestants was indeed crucial. Such a difference made capitalism possible.
@lauragabriel - The rise of the merchant class has far more to do with capitalism than dogmatic variances within Christianity. The challenge to papal authority might have emboldened the mercantile class but the colonial expansion and the Renaissance were not the direct result of the Protestant Reformation.
Europe simply became more dependent on the mercantile infrastructure of traders. The ideological squabbles of the church were incidental and arbitrary, certainly not essential.
What he said is true to some extent. When you bring the concept of domination, you have to realize that someone had the mentality to conquer another. With Europeans, they believed that they were superior than everyone else instead of respecting the beauty and diversity of other cultures. Just because Eurpoeans had an advantage as far as technology didn't mean that they had to murder, steal, use divide and conquer, kill decieve, and rob the rest of the world of its natural resources.
Europeans are just of power hungry people, just look at today. Our modern society is filled with european holidays, etc. It is destroying many cultures, especially Asiatics.
Russia in the North is Orthodox Christian, not protestant. Greece and Serbia in the south are also Orthodox, not protestant. Japan in the North is Buddhist, and parts of Ecuador in the south are protestant. The trajectory of religion is the same as that of agriculture, starting in the middle east as far as Europe is concerned. But what about the rest of the world that is Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc?
So colder countries became protestant and and warmer ones stayed Catholic.
So what if geography doens't directly explain certain differences between human societies?
Diamond's argument is that geography is the main factor behind the origin of inequality between peoples, and it's a very well aegued and simple position.
In short, what's the point of this video? Can propose another explanation as to why some people dominated others?
The point of this video is, precisely as you mention, that some crucial differences between the outcome of societies is not due to geography. And, as far as I understood him, Diamond does think that most, if not all crucial differences are due to geography.
As others have pointed out, Europe's religious division does correlate to distance from Rome, a geographical factor. I'd add also emerging national distinctiveness and economic sufficiency: 13th-century Langedoc, 14th-century England or 15th-century Bohemia didn't have those in the right combination, but 16th-century England and Holland did. Religion reflected wider developments, and geography remains fundamental to why some societies broke away.
remarkable book for white people. Chinese had guns, steel and germs (well not germs) BEFORE Europeans. They never dominated Asians in ancient history.
Religion and many other factors played a major force in European conquest and marginalization of people of color. But Jared was getting to the core of how it able to be engineered.
Also...Diamond was talking about why some people are rich and others poor - not why people decided to adopt a certain religion or denomination - these surely did not have geographical factors as you have pointed out.
I don't think Diamond suggested at all that geography is the cause of all inequalities, just that a geographical difference would give a certain area a statistically significant push in the right direction. The reformation is a very small event in Diamond's terms as he is talking 10000 year histories. Diamond didn't think he had rewritten the history books...
Your question of why Diamond doesn't address religion is a non sequitur to the question of the root cause of material inequality. Religion has nothing to do with why the Aztecs, Chinese, and Egyptians became powerful civilizations.
But, if Max Weber is correct, religion does have to do with why Protestant Europe did become more prosperous than, for example, Catholic Europe. So, religion does play a major role, and Diamond does not address it.
You seem to be missing the point and that is, the root cause. Diamond only addresses the root cause, not later events. Religion might be a factor but it is not at the root of the issue.
Ok. The root cause of the inequalities between Africa and Eurasia is, I agree, geographical. But, the root cause of the inequalities between Portugal and Belgium is not merely geographical. It seems to me there are compelling religious factors, and geography can not explain them away.
But Portugal & Belgium are both predominantly Catholic. Portugal shared in Spain's "resource curse" of American treasure in the 16th-18th centuries, whereas Belgium enjoyed the benefits of English wool in the 13th century and native coal in the 19th. Religion doesn't explain Belgium's prosperity today, or 12th-century Italy's, or for that matter then-Catholic England's (relative to most of the Continent) 500 years ago.
You seem to miss the entire point of Diamond's argument: what is the root cause in of inequality between different societies. We all have the same genetic material; genetic variation between one human and another is only 0.1%. Yet why did Eurasian societies (not just Europeans) become so much more advanced compared to Aborigines for example. The ROOT cause is geographic factors, which allowed for complex socio-political factors. If you don't have to worry about food all the time, you can think.
Yes, I understand what you and Diamond mean. But, I insist, I do not think geography is the root cause of all those inequalities. Why is the Netherlands more prosperous than Spain? Most likely, because the Neatherlands was a Protestant country, whereas Spain was a Catholic country. Does geography account for such religious differences?
In such an example, religion is not doing to be the dominant factor but rather politics and military luck will be. The Catholics lost the 30 Year's War and power shifted. Catholic Spain begins to decline, the Holy Roman Empire is losing power over the German states, Prussia, Sweeden, and the UK are filling in the power vacuum. Your analysis is incorrect I think.
Religion and politics has always been closely intertwined and often religion has been the catalysis of wars. It seems to me that you're making the issue more complicated than it has to be, especially when there is a large historical event that occurred that backs up my position. Almost sounds like you're trying to say Protestants are more hard working than Catholics...
Well, yes many people have said that Protestants work harder than Catholics. That is a well-known thesis. You might want to take a look at Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. ". It is a classic of sociology and economic history.
Religion doesn't determine development. Catholic Belgium was more prosperous than Lutheran Sweden until 1940; France was likewise ahead of Norway. Northern Italy remained one of Europe's richest regions into the 18th century even after the destrucive Valois-Habsburg invasions. Religious affiliation may be influenced by some of the socio-economic characteristics that predispose a country to develop (as many had been doing long before 1517), but religion is by no means a determinant.
Northern Countries became Protestant due to their distance from the center of Roman Catholicism, Rome. As time progressed and the former provinces of the Roman Empire in the north became more distinct both in Culture and in Moral values, They changed their religious views to suit their mentalities. This type of religious offshoot is common in countries that formerly belonged to large empires. Congratulations, your entire argument has just been demolished by a 16 year old 11th grader. Cheers! :P
This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read on my youtube page. Humans share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees, whether they are black or non-black. And, in evolution theory, there are no "less-evolved" species; all organisms share common descent, and monkeys are not our ancestors, they are our collateral kin.
wow! really? Heres a fact for you. Human beings whose parents interbred often develop debilitating conditions such as Down's Syndrome or Autism among others.
geography is everything, genetics is everything, southern europe which includes france, spain, and italy, are genetically similar and believe it or not, are slightly darker than the northern europeans, germans, anglos, nordics, the lighter skinned europeans disliked the darker italian, spanish, and french followers of catholicism, the english and germans are lightly skinned and genetically similar and broke free from darker skinned catholics from southern europe
Why did the Protestant Reformation happen in Northern Europe? The distance from Rome had to be a factor. Here is geography playing a role. Why Protestantism and not another permutation of Christianity? O.K. that can't be determined by geography. But the schism itself was enabled by distance.
Think of this. Rome was the most likely candidate to split from the early church (the second being Alexandria). Why? Distance from Constantinople. Geography!
I must admit I never thought of that, and it is indeed a plausible explanation. Yet, I still wonder: why were Hebrews, and not philistines, the first monotheists? They surley lived in very similar geographic conditions.
Doctor R. Lynn "The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence"
"The races show consistent differences in both brain size and intelligence because the Caucasoids/Mongoloids colonized a new cognitively demanding niche when they migrated into the cold regions. In this harsh environment the less intelligent failed to survive this left Caucasoids/Mongoloids the two most intelligent races and the only two races that have made any significant contribution to the development of civilization
Dude i DID Read the BOGUS Book in undergrad (our entire class was FORCED to read it) and was shocked that ANYONE would consider it "scientific"
One of the BEST parts is how Mr. Diamond IGNORES that FACT that Blacks couldnt even settle the Many Islands around THEIR OWN LAND MASS
It took Europeans from the far north to figure out how to reach the West African islands and it took Asians to row across 6,000 MILES of ocean to settle the Eastern ones
Heck even the Wall Street Journal now adits the TRUTH
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics at the Unv. Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis He had found signs of evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps showing changes (in brain size/ IQ ) had taken hold in Europe but weren't common in Black/Brown Populations
If this were true, the Yanomamo population would be smarter than, say, Iowans, because the harsh Amazonian Rain Forest would have pressured for more intelligence, whereas the pleasant Iowan plains did not pressure for intelligence as much. This is simply non sense.
...You dont seem to understand that its the COLD that FORCES the Evolution of Larger Brains and Higher Intelligence in Homosapien populations.
So NO the Amazon rain forest is NOT going do that.
Whats simply NOT "non sense" is that there is a Brain size/IQ grade that runs across the planet...The SCIENTIFIC FACT is that as you travel from warm tropical regions into COLD REGIONS you find races with LARGER BRAIN AND HIGH INTELLIGENCE
Btw....The WORLDS TOP EXPERT is Doctor Richard Lynn (Harvard/Berkley/Ulster) his latest Book "The Evolution of Racial Differencs in Intelligence" is a GREAT BOOK that does far more to Answer Mr. Diamonds question
In the Book Doctor Lynn uses the research of OVER...500..DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS (from ALL OVER THE WORLD)...to show the LARGE Racial Differnencs in Brain Size/Intelligence were produced by Evolution to Adapt to COLD ENVIRONMENTS.
china had guns germs and steel b4 europe but they didnt go out colonizing other nations and stealing their gold for their own self greed. china btw had ships (junks) thats were at least 20x bigger than any european ship and smarter built too. i do agree with diamond though that the reason 'why europe and not china' is b/c that europe was seperated alot more than china so it had time to compete with other european countries. china for the most part stayed unified. which isnt a bad thing.
Your point about Catholicism and Protestantism is irrelevant. In his book, Diamond is clearly stating a series of ultimate causes for a vast majority of historical events. Besides, Diamond mentions many times in his book that he is in no way trying to advocate a theory that he believes to be perfect and all encompassing. If he got into every single detail in history the book would have been throusands of pages in length.
I do not think that my point about Protestantism and Catholicism is irrelevant. The distinction between Protestant Europe and Catholic Europe turned out to be very important, yet this distinction had nothing to do with climate. I agree that Diamond does not pretend an all encompassing theory, but he should admit that some important developments have nothing to do with geography.
PLEASE DON'T READ THIS. You will get kissed on the nearest possible Friday by the love of your life. Tomorrow will be the best day of your life. However, if you don't post this comment to at least 3 videos, you will die within 2 days. Now uv started readin dis dunt stop. This is so scary. Send this to 5 ova videos in 143 minutes. When ur done press F6 and ur crushes name will appear on the screen in big letters
Many comments and reviews of Prof. Diamond's book mistake it for an apologetics which it is NOT. He only seeks to explain why Europeans dominate the world today, Not Justify it and he makes pains to deny any racial superiority. Whit regard to Protestant vs Catholic that is immaterial to his thesis since both are European Christianity! if you care to criticize his work at least read it!
I suggest you pay closer attention to my video. I am not claiming Diamond is an apologetics of European superiority. My claim is that there are important non-geographic factors that must be taken into account regarding the outcome of societies. If Southern Europe and Northrn Europe have similar georgraphic conditions, why did Northerners become Protestants whereas Southerners remained Catholic? Climate has nothing do with this important distinction that ultimately, affected History.
Culture down the line can and is influenced by the geographic differences among our vast planet. The rise of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent allowed for non farmers to focus on things like writing, government, fighting, conquering, which can lead to cultural differences and variety. Geography can account for much more than what many people think.
I don't deny culture, in many cases, is influenced by geographic differences. But, there are many crucial cultural differences that have nothing to do with geography. For instance, Phillistines and Hebrews lived under very similar geographic conditions, but the latter developed monotheism, whereas the former remained polytheistic. Did climate have anything to do with such a crucial change in culture? I do not think so.
i admit i don't know much of anything about this and that i've only just began reading this book, but in my honest opinion religion has almost nothing to do with this. religions doesn't create the culture any more than the culture creates the religion. do you get what i'm saying?
Yes. But my point is that some non-georgraphical factors, such as religion, have determined some outcome of socities. Religion does have the power to institute great cultural differences, and yes, religion does create culture. The West was very much created by monotheism. If there had not been monotheism, the West would be very different.
Those who bring up race, religion, etc are only stating the motivations or excuses that allowed for the abuses of man against man. They are deluded into thinking that different societies are better than others because of their customs or genetics. Geography does play a role; for example the middle easts location and connection of landmasses allowed for lots of trading, also known as the silk road. The spread of technologies and ideas allowed for cultures to improve who are motivated to conquer.
I agree that geography does play a role, as you mention. However, I do believe that different societies are better than others because of their customs (NOT because of their genes). Democratic customs are better than despotic customs.
Well that can be true, a warrior culture be more successful than say a peaceful tribe but techology in the end can determine who conquers as history has proven. The only thing that puts other places at a disadvantage in modern times, imo are government or politics. Though the start of mans history, civilizations that had good resources and learned to adapt with their terrain or had the ability to travel easily with little differences had it much better than others.
You know, I sometimes wonder if Mayan civilizations or other places were never disturbed by European settlers, how much would they change or advance today? I like thinking about that kind of stuff. My heritage is Spanish and Taino (Puerto Rican) and I learned abit about the houses the natives constructed. They were giant buildings but still primitive in the sense that it was made of sticks and staw. If they advanced further, how amazingly unique would their architecture have been? lol sorry :)
i wonder that too sometimes... i want to know how the world would be if everyone modernized their own way instead of being influenced by european colonies
Heck even the WALL STREET JOURNAL now ADMITS the TRUTH
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
2006
Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the Unv. of Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold in Europe, Asia but weren't common in Africa
I shall look this up. But, as an intuition, I stll think there is no link between race and intelligence. And, I say this, not out of political correctness (I don't give a rat's ass about PC), but I must confess I have met some brilliant people of many different so-called "races"
Google some articles on the new book "Evolution of Racial differences in IQ" by the world top expert Doctor Richard Lynn.
Its a great read...Doctor Lynn shows the large racial differences in Brain Size/IQ show up over and over again in over 500 different study from around the world.
Also google up Doctor J.P. Rushtons fantastic work "Race, Evolution and IQ"...it goes far beyond just IQ showing large racial differences in a host of things from Crime leves to Hormones.
Guternberg most certainly developed his printing press from the Chinese printing technology. The Chinese Silk Road diffused many things to Europe since Roman times. Where did Gutenberg and Europe get paper from? Did Gutenberg invent paper, too?
There is good evidence that paper did indeed come from the Silk Road. There is no evidence that the Press came from the Silk Road. If there is, then provide such evidence
Where is Gutenberg's precursor invention to the Printing Press? The Moveable Type printing press was invented in China by Pi Sheng in 1040 AD (not Gutenberg).
Paper came from China = proof of diffusion. The first metal movable type printing press was invented in Korea in 1403 (50 years before Gutenberg.) Please stop trying to give Europeans credit for Asian inventions. It looks more and more racist as you continue.
Pal, you are, once again, abusing the word "racist". The fact that Europe may have achieved greater things than other civilizations does not imply that Europeans are a superior race. Diamond himself makes the claim that racial difference is no satisfactory explanation for cultural disparity.
There is good evidence to show that Chinese BLOCK printing diffued from China to Poland (1259) and Hungary (1283) under the Mongol conquests. As we also know, the Silk Road was also controlled by the Mongols. What an incredible COINCIDENCE, right?
Source: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John A Hobson (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 0521547245 (pp 183-186)
I'll check that source, but I have no reason to doubt it. Yet, evidence that the Chinese print diffused from China to Poland is not evidence that Gutemberg knew about it. And, furthermore, invention is not at stake here, but rather continued use. True enough, the Chinese invented the type, but did not keep interest in it.
I have a serious question: Why didn't ancient Greek knowledge, writing, reading spread into northern Europe before The Roman Conquest? Why did Alexander The Great reject conquering the West and instead went East? Western/Northern Europe has been backwards for a long time. It is not geographically superior for diffusion. The Greeks and Alexander proved that to be false.
Northern Europe had been protected from Greco-Latin incursions by the German Woodlands, something Montesquieu famously highlighted. Alexander rejected conquering the West and went East, precisely because there was a higher level of civilization in the Middle East, Persia and India. It is true that Northern Europe had been backwards for a long time, but that does not contradict Diamond's thesis.
it totally contradicts Diamond's thesis. Northern Europe was not ever the natural diffusion area that Diamond wants to pretend it was. Writing, cities, the round arch, money, etc were only introduced by military conquest. Europe was not ever "predetermined for greatness" by the geography or by plants.
Diamond clearly warns that China's landmass was ideal for diffusion, even more so than Europe. The key to Western success has been to have great geographical possibility for difussion, but not too much. Some mountains and deserts may be benefitial indeed. Thus, Diamond never denies that Northern Europe was isolated and backwards for some time.
Diamond has never denied that many great Western achievements were introduced by military conquest. The question is: why did Westerners succeed militarily? Why could a small Spanish army defeat a whole Inca Empire? Why did Westerners conquer Peru, and not the other way around?
The Spanish never defeated the whole Inca army. Re-read the book. He clearly qutes the Spanish as saying that it was an unarmed delegation of Nobles and Lords. "The Indians never once raised a weapon to us." It was an AMBUSH, hello? Pizzaro evens "says" so himself.
It is true that Pizarro used ambushes, but there were confrontations nevertheless, somehing well documented by most historians. At any rate, an ambush is an effective military technique, and this only pushes my question one step backward: why were Spandiards clever enough to use ambushes, and the Inca naive enough to fall for them?
Anyone who wants to read a very good demolition of Diamond's theories should check out "Eight Eurocentric Historians" by James Blaut. For those who are in love with Diamond and his pseudo-science, Blaut's book will break your heart and make you cry. You have been warned!
Ok, this is not meant as spam, but there is a really serious flaw in GGS: That China possessed Guns, Germs, and Steel BEFORE Europeans did. After all, China invented the gun and gunpowder (and compass). And China was sailing as far as Africa under Cheng He almost 100 years before Columbus. AND YET, China did not reach out to colonize, invade, enslave, and perform genocide against its neighbors. Europeans did this. Plant ecology cannot explain this away. It comes down to the CULTURE of Europeans.
China may have invented some of these, but it is not just invention what matters: DIFFUSION of technology is almost as important, and Diamond makes a good case for it (North-South Axis vs. East-West axis). The Chinese may have invented gunpowder, but they were not as successfull in the difusion of the new technology. Furthermore, you are seriously distortioning Western History: Western expansion has not only been about slavery and genocide.
East-West axis is bunk. "Eurasia" is almost as "tall as it is wide (a difference of only a couple thousand miles). Africa has a longer East-West axis than Europe. North America is almost as "tall" as it is wide. Corn and pyramid civilizations diffused North-South from Mississippi to Chile. The axis theory is pure psuedo-science.
Africa does not have a longer East-West axis than Eurasia. And, it is not just about the distance, but also about the homogenity of climate and the absence of major geographical barrers along the East-West axis. Mesoamerican civilization never spread to Andean Civilization. The Inca knew nothing about the Aztecs, and viceversa.
I will check that book, even though here in Venezuela it might be difficult to get access to it. At any rate, I think your accusation of "pseudoscience" is very unfair: Diamond has proven to be a very close follower of the scientific method. As for Eurocentrism: if arguing that Europe had geographical advantages other civilizations did not have is Eurocentrism, so be it!
You seem to be using the word "pseudo-science" very lightly. How do you definte it? I think Diamond has followed a rigorous method, and his conclusions are derived from pacient observation. Of course, social sciences (History) will never get the same degree of certainty as natural sciences, but Diamond has followed a legitimate scientific procedure.
Diamond has excellent scientific credentials. He's written something like 500 scientific articles. But Diamond is not a god. He is a human being. And it seems very clear that he has warped scientific/historical evidence to fit a Eurocentric agenda. GGS is really "scientism" which is a political agenda dressed up with scientific-sounding language.
That is not so clear to me. At any rate, I could make the same accusation against you and James Blaut: your claims are really informed by a Third World political agenda. If your Foucaultian accusation is true, then everyone has an agenda, and there is simply no possibility for objective truth. The result: nihilism.
You simpy are in love with this book. You can't admit that there is nothing special or superior about Europe's natural resources, "inventions", or geography (just ask Alexander The Great). Yali's answer is not that Europeans are superior by DNA or environment, but that they are PIRATES who employed deception and smallpox. That comes down to culture, not plants.
I certainly like this book, but am not "in love", and as I point out in the video, I do have some objections to Diamond. Even if what you claim were true (it is not), one must still wonder: why were Europeans clever enough to deceive others and why were non-Europeans naive enough to believe Europeans?
Do you also wonder to yourself why rapists are "clever enough" to deceive a woman and rape her? It reveals a lot about you that you equate deption with "clever." Sounds like you are Pro-European, no matter what.
Yes, I am pro-European, I don't see what is the big deal about it. Your rapist analogy is a persuasive one, but flawed nevertheless. Unlike the woman raped, knowledge about tactics is crucial for civilizations, and it requires a good deal of rationality and dishenchanment.
It's good to see that you are honest about being Pro-European. Now maybe you can "rationally" acknowledge that such a "commitment" can lead you into a serious conflict of interest when it comes to facts that are unflattering toward Europeans.
The fact that I may be pro-European does not imply that I believe everything great and nothing bad has come from Europe. I now ask you: are you anti-European?
Diamond fully acknowledges that Europeans used smallpox (Hello?, that is why one of the words in the title is "Germs"). The question is: why did non-Westerners died due to smallpox, whereas Europeans were not affected in the same way? Diamond's answer: the domestication of animals allowed Europeans to foster germs and eventually become immune to them.
Sorry Jared Diamond: Europeans DID NOT INVENT guns, steel, the wheel, windmills, crossbows, writing, cannons, water wheels, chariots, agriculture, magnetic compass, printing press (Korea), algebra, geometry, maps, abacus, metal armor, metal swords, books, paper, money, sundial, flags, kites, metal helmets, measuring rulers and weights, guitar, bagpipes, harps, pottery wheel, sternpost rudder, lanteen sails, square ship hulls, pulleys, written laws, candles, castles, or the escapement mechanism!
the printing press was actually invented by 2 cultures independently. The Germans and the Chinese. They both get credit. Oh, by the way, Europeans invented almost everything. Read the book Human Achievment by Charles Murray. The modern world is European whether brown skin people like it or not
I agree the modern world is European. But, race has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, the modern world is increasingly becoming brown skinned, as brown peoples are becoming part of Westen Civilization
Not true. Gutenburg was a simple jeweler. The Silk Road connected China to Eastern Europe and was controled by the Mongolians. Since the printing press was invented before Europeans, the burden of proof is actualy on Europeans to show they invented it independently. Read "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization" a new book by John Hobson. White people want to pretend they invented everything even against the evidence.
As far as I know, nobody in Europe knew about the printing press before Guttemberg, so the Chinese press never influenced Guttemberg. Furthermore, what really matters is not the invention per se, but the distribution and continuity of technology. The Chinese certainly invented the printing press, but were not all that excited about it, presumably due to the high numer of characters in Chinese script.
That's false logic. You are deliberately omitting The Silk Road and the fact that the Asian printing press (and moveable type) were invented before Gutenberg. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. It's obvious you just want to give White people credit for Asian inventions.
Again, the Chinese did invent the printing press before Gutenberg, but never developed much interest in it, probably due to the hugh number of Chinese characters (whereas Europe only used 26!). If you claim that Gutenberg imitated the Chinese, then the burden of proof is on you: provide evidence that he was in fact in contact with the Chinese. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Gutenberg knew anything about the Chinese press.
Actually, the Chinese had plenty of interest in the printing press. Just read "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization" by John Hobson. China produced massive quanitites of manuscripts with its presses. I never claimed Gutenberg knew he was imitating the Chinese, only that the evidence shows that it almost certainly diffused via the Silk Road. The burden of proof is not on the first, but on the one who came later.
So you are claiming that Gutenberg imitated an invention that was already in Europe coming from China via the Silk Road. Well, provide evidence that there were in fact printing presses in Europe before Gutenberg.
I am not denying that the Press was invented in China before Gutenberg. I am only arguing that Gutenberg invented it independently WITHOUT any knowledge of Chinese technology. If you wish to claim that Gutenberg imitated the Chinese, provide evidence that he had any contact with the Chinese or their technology.
I don't give credit to "White" people, I give credit to Westerners. The West is a civilization, not a race, and it is made up of whites and blacks. Even you (presumably brown skinned, as I am), my friend, are a Westerner. The very fact that you are writing in English and using the internet and discussing historiography, makes you part of Western Civ.
You know very well that GGS is about why EUROPEANS colonized the world. You know very well he is not referring to Black or Chinese people. You can play semantic word games al you like, but you Diamond very clearly is referring to Europeans (White people).
You are asuming that all Europeans have been white, and that is not the case. Black scholar Frank Snowden has proven the participation of Negroes in Greek and Roman cultural life. You would certainly agree that, for example, Disraeli was not really white, but brownish, wouldn't you?
You are asuming that all Europeans have been white, and that is not the case. Black scholar Frank Snowden has proven the participation of Negroes in Greek and Roman cultural life. You would certainly agree that, for example, Disraeli was not really white, but brownish, wouldn't you?
Europeans did not invent all of these, but certainly Eurasians did. Diamond's argument is not so much about Europe but about Eurasia. And, in the last chapter of GGS, he explains why China fell behind Europe, even if China had previously been ahead, as these inventions you mention show.
Diamond uses the phony term "Eurasian" to dishonestly make it seem like Europeans can share the credit for the inventions of China and The Middle East. Notice how Diamond shifts between "Eurasian" and "Europeans" in the book when it's convenient. Without this phony term of "Eurasian", Diamond's theory falls apart for the Eurocentric fraud that it is. Europeans can take ZERO credit for the inventions of China and Mesopotamia.
How do you know what Diamond's intentions on the use of the term "Eurasians" really are? If he wishes to incorporate China and the Middle East, that is perfectly honest. As far as I remember, he is very consistent in the use of the term "Eurasian".
I don't care about his intentions, but his actions. And the way he switches back and forth between "Eurasian" and "European" is always in a way that makes it convenient to imply that Europeans are responsible for the inventions of China ad the Middle East. He is inconsistent with his usage of "Eurasian".
I don't remember well if Diamond switches back and forth between "Eurasian" and "European". But even if he did, that is not necesarily an invalid procedure. Some things are generally Eurasian, and some other things are specifically European.
How do you know what Diamond's intentions on the use of the term "Eurasians" really are? If he wishes to incorporate China and the Middle East, that is perfectly honest. As far as I remember, he is very consistent in the use of the term "Eurasian".
Actually, he's very inconsistent (but with a very Eurocentric logic). He says things about "European technology" and "Spanish technology." Sorry, but most of the technology prior to 1540 was invented by The East. Diamond wants "White shared credit" for things that Europeans never invented. Imitation is not the same thing as INVENTION.
Agreed. But, once again, the core of Diamond's analysis is not so much invention, but difusion of technology. I guess Diamond would probably agree that during the Middle Ages, China was in a better position than the West. The question is, why did China fall behind, why couldn't they continue with technological advances. Diamond suggests that the abscence of geographical barrers had a lot do with it.
No, the real question is "Why didn't Europe catch up to China until after the 17th century?" Why was Europe so far behind for so many centuries? Why was China so far ahead for so many centuries. Those are the real questions.
Diamond's answer: because China had a heavily centralized power. "China's connectedness eventually became a disadvantage, because a decision by one despot could and repeatedly did halt innovation" (p. 416).
How ironic, because "heavily centralized power" is considered a good thing for Europeans (page 80). Diamond has a double standard: Europeans are always right, others are always wrong. China invented more things than Europe ever did before colonialism. Europe needed Inca gold and silver. China did not.
Diamond does not use the word "heavy", just "centralized political organization". At any rate, Diamond claims that political centralization is important, but too much of it will hurt. Again, China may have invented more things, but did not keep great interest in it, and did not seem to diffuse as much as the West did.
You seem to be under the impression that China had no provinces, just a mass of undifferentiated territory. You also seem to be under the false impression that the Romans also had heavy "centralized political organization" under an absolute Emperor. Same thing with the Hapsburgs of Europe. You operate under a double standard.
Correction: "That the Romans did NOT have heavy 'centralized power.' It extended from the Near East to Britain. Diamond gives the Romans a free pass. One standard for Europeans, a separate standard for the World.
I think the Romans were a good combination of centralization and descentralization. China had many advantages from centralization, but eventually, it lacked the dynamics of descentralization.
Modern Mexicans are one part 'those imperialists' and another part homegrown Azteca (also imperialists - for those who give a damn about factual history)
No, I am not under that impression. But, China did have a very strong centralized government, if we compare it to Europe. No, the Romans were not as centralized, quite the opposite, they allowed much autonomy in their provinces.
It's funny how having large of amounts of power is not a disadvantage for Europeans, only Asians and Incas. You seem to think that Europe operated under a Democracy. Sorry, but Europe had plenty absolute monarchs. Once again, you see only what you want to see.
Too much power was indeed a disadvantage to Europeans. In fact, that is why the French Revolution rose: in part as a reaction against absloutism. There has been no such thing in the rest of civilizations, certainly not in China, until perhaps the latter half of the XX Cent.
Too much power was indeed a disadvantage to Europeans. In fact, that is why the French Revolution rose: in part as a reaction against absloutism. There has been no such thing in the rest of civilizations, certainly not in China, until perhaps the latter half of the XX Cent.
Chinese history is full of anti-dynastic rebellions. For that matter absolutism wasn't notably disadvantageous to 17th-century France or 18th-century Russia, Prussia or Sweden. In France it failed through poor financial control - in part, through not exercising enough power effectively. It was the countries without strong central governments that tended to lag: even the US moved quickly to correct its first experiment in loose confederation.
anti dynastic? LOL... so mandate of heaven was anti-dynastic rebellions? Asian countries lagged behind because of strong neo-confucian and fear of barbarians.
I was replying to the suggestion that reactions against absolute rule had been absent outside Europe: they clearly weren't. As for neo-Confucianism, that barely applies outside China. Nor is fear of others an Asian peculiarity.
The issue isn't why Asia or anywhere else "lagged" but why some areas in Europe broke out of traditional economy beginning before the rise of the values we associate with modernity. For that Diamond's right to look to their physical characteristics and resources.
That's probably bullshit. Since the modern history, Asian countries had closed their borders just like what north korea is doing from entering these "barbarians". It started in early ming dynasty. BTW, during imperial china, trading flourished and china became the most advanced country. It has nothing to do with resources, or physical characteristics. China had them all.
China didn't close its borders: neither did India or most Asian countries. Japan did, and emerged after 1868 ready to take on the west at its own game.
China didn't have everything: it was advanced in many respects, but less fertile ground for economic revolution in others. Looking to China to explain why that revolution happened elsewhere is a pointless exercise precisely because it didn't happen in China.
China did, in ming dynasty. BTW, ur an idiot. Learn asian history before speaking to me. Prove me wrong. China, Korea, Japan were all confucian and didn't want to bother opening up their borders. That is why China is called the sleeping dragon, but it wasn't like that before 1600s.
Learn manners before speaking to me. Confucianism certainly influenced Japan and Korea, but they aren't Asia. No country anywhere wanted to open up its borders except where it suited those in control. Even Japan imported some western knowledge during its centuries of seclusion. And it was Japan, the most "closed" country in the 17th-19th centuries, that forged ahead subsequently. Again, you've explained nothing.
No, they aren't Asia. There's a lot more to Asia than China, Japan and Korea. India wasn't Confucian and wasn't closed. Neither was Persia. Or the Ottoman Empire. They're Asia too. And they didn't have an Industrial Revolution either.
Yes, I know Japan was closed.; that's what I said. Nagasaki retained some trade with the west via the Dutch. And it tells us nothing about why some other countries half-way around the world underwent economic tansformation.
Well, im talking about East Asia, specially China. The sinosphere of Asia maintained their closure from outside world. The reason why European countries were able to go through industrial revolution is the colonies that they posses, and other factors as well.
You didn't say East Asia, you said Asia. China wasn't as closed as Tokugawa Japan, indeed (like South Asia) it maintained a substantial export trade with the west. East Asian economic experience isn't unique.
Northwestern Europe was already distinctive before it had substantial colonies or modern industry or institutions. It's to "other factors" that you need to look. And they go back a long way.
UR wrong, south asia isn't part of the sinosphere. China was closed during the Ming dynasty due to years of barbarian invasion through the Qing. Go research urself, knucklehead. Industrial revolution happened because the european powers had colonies, except America.
I didn't say South Asia was part of any Sinosphere. I said it and China both traded externally. Ming & Qing rulers limited contact with the west but China remained part of a thriving regional trade network, unlike sakoku Japan.
The industrial revolution didn't happen because of colonies. Britain had few in 1785. Belgium had none. France lost most of hers. Colonial riches earlier stifled Spain's development. Learn some geography and history instead of regurgitating tired myths.
Can u give instances where China excessively traded with the West? Of course not. That was when staggnation of East Asian countries happened. China's innovative inventions were developed during the time when Silk road was implemented. Japan is on the other hand.
Europe especially Britian was going through a transition of free trade of manufactuing and exports with little help of her colonies whereas East Asia was definitely not because of this closure.
China had a substantial surplus in exports to the west, and traded extensively with other Asian countries. Tradition and selective closure explain nothing, because they are themselves reflections of socio-economic development.
Free trade came to Britain in the 19th century, not the 18th. The US was a more important trading partner after independence than as a colonial appendage. Industrialisation too reflected fundamental conditions and developments extending over centuries.
China was advanced up until that era. Europe was transforming into a world power during exploration and exploitation of colonies, that is why there are wat they have been for generations. If any asian countries had did that, today's world would be different.
You obviously did not read this book!! He is referring to the geographical advantage of the area known as the Fertile Crescent (in and around modern day Iraq). This is where civilization began. The Europeans were still barbarians at this time. READ THE BOOK!
Yes, so what is your point. I have read the book, written a review about it and referenced in various other of my articles. I do not see where the piece of information provided by you contradicts my mild objection to Diamond's thesis.
Lauragabriel, of course geography had nothing to do with the protestant reformation. It is the act of every society (indiv.) to try to figure where one came from, hence this notion of a god, and eventually, thanks to the enlightenment, science. Surely you know that their are many other religions that come to a point of reformation other than the infamous christian one (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.). Try another example other than the reformation.
Exactly. That is precisely my point. Diamond pretends everything is determined by geography. I point out the Reformation as a major historical development that had little or nothing to do with climate.
No, he states that the geographical location of different societies is the reason for the differing developments in technology, health, ect., principally guns, germs, and steel. I'm saying that the reformation has NOThing to do with his argument. Every society created delusions of how our earth was formed because every indiv. (hence, society) seeks the anwers to these type of questions.
But, then, Diamond should consider that intellectual developments do affect the overcome of societies; not just accidents of geogrpahy, as he seems to claim.
Diamond states that developments came to those societies because of the positioning they held in the world. So, yes, Eurasians were able to develop technological innovations but precisely because of the opportunity that they held in their geographic location. So that if Europeans were to have developed in New Guinea, they're society would have become exactly as that of present New Guineans. And vise-versa.
Even then, as you read in his book, the first location where sedentary farming took place was in the Fertile Crescent, thus Eurasian peoples began to adapt from them. So in a sense, no, the Reformation itself was not necessarily affected by geography, but its inceptions immensely was, given that Eurasians for centuries held a divine devotion to the Judaic god. Something they could not have aquired if they were to have been in say Meso-America.
So what does Protestant vs. Catholic have to do with which group dominated the other?
Venaloid 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't pay any attention to Jared Diamond. He is a Jewish extremist who likes to tell Europeans that race does not exist but here is what he had to say in the publication NATURAL HISTORY
" There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew. "
WHAT A HYPOCRIT !
Achilles1389 5 months ago in playlist jared diamond
It's not just the climate! It's the shape of the continents and access to domesticable plants and animals and also neighboring cultures.
Hairysteed 8 months ago 2
@Hairysteed Yes you are completely right
jemmy141991 1 month ago
This guys argument may be weak, but why the hell is everyone calling him an idiot and a white supremesist? He pretty much said he partially disagrees.
As for your question: This book is a brief history covering the entire human race. What relgion developed where and how isn't dependant on geography, and he doesnt argue that.
hoagiesupreme 8 months ago
In Soviet Russia, civilizations make geography!
niriop 8 months ago
pathetic idiot!
MBEIH 1 year ago
Sorry Laura, I was talking about those stupid dudes.
Deguello321 1 year ago
HAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa White supremacy is smash forever scum bag!
Deguello321 1 year ago
This guy is a Nazi idiot. What's the matter dude sad that Jared Diamond forever smashed your white supremacy?
Deguello321 1 year ago
@Deguello321 I'm not sure if your comment is directed towards me. If so, how am I a white supremacist?
lauragabriel 1 year ago
@lauragabriel
Isn't the book about Europe AND Asia? It's a known fact that much of Europe technology came from Asia. Also the reformation would be related to stable societies, which in turn is related to guns, germs and steel, No?
godofthisshit 1 year ago
lauragabriel - How is the variance between Catholics and Protestants a "major difference" in human society. Is there another example?
While the ideologies of human societies (and more importantly of their ruling classes), are important to the social history of particular peoples, they are not instrumental to the acceleration and spread of their culture and technology.
Accidents of geological and agricultural fate are what propel their success, not the quality of their ideologies.
Noisegator 1 year ago
@Noisegator Well, Max Weber would argue that the difference between Catholics and Protestants was indeed crucial. Such a difference made capitalism possible.
lauragabriel 1 year ago
@lauragabriel - The rise of the merchant class has far more to do with capitalism than dogmatic variances within Christianity. The challenge to papal authority might have emboldened the mercantile class but the colonial expansion and the Renaissance were not the direct result of the Protestant Reformation.
Europe simply became more dependent on the mercantile infrastructure of traders. The ideological squabbles of the church were incidental and arbitrary, certainly not essential.
Noisegator 1 year ago
stupid argument!
siddeeq5 2 years ago 2
Authors to check out: Robert Carneiro and Lewis Binford. Great to see so much passion regarding archaeology!!!
ComradeMenudo 2 years ago
What he said is true to some extent. When you bring the concept of domination, you have to realize that someone had the mentality to conquer another. With Europeans, they believed that they were superior than everyone else instead of respecting the beauty and diversity of other cultures. Just because Eurpoeans had an advantage as far as technology didn't mean that they had to murder, steal, use divide and conquer, kill decieve, and rob the rest of the world of its natural resources.
hustlaus 2 years ago
Europeans are just of power hungry people, just look at today. Our modern society is filled with european holidays, etc. It is destroying many cultures, especially Asiatics.
mekon11 2 years ago
Russia in the North is Orthodox Christian, not protestant. Greece and Serbia in the south are also Orthodox, not protestant. Japan in the North is Buddhist, and parts of Ecuador in the south are protestant. The trajectory of religion is the same as that of agriculture, starting in the middle east as far as Europe is concerned. But what about the rest of the world that is Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc?
ComradeMenudo 2 years ago
So colder countries became protestant and and warmer ones stayed Catholic.
So what if geography doens't directly explain certain differences between human societies?
Diamond's argument is that geography is the main factor behind the origin of inequality between peoples, and it's a very well aegued and simple position.
In short, what's the point of this video? Can propose another explanation as to why some people dominated others?
AmokBR 2 years ago
The point of this video is, precisely as you mention, that some crucial differences between the outcome of societies is not due to geography. And, as far as I understood him, Diamond does think that most, if not all crucial differences are due to geography.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
Then what caused these "crucial diffences between outcomes", if not geography?
AmokBR 2 years ago
As others have pointed out, Europe's religious division does correlate to distance from Rome, a geographical factor. I'd add also emerging national distinctiveness and economic sufficiency: 13th-century Langedoc, 14th-century England or 15th-century Bohemia didn't have those in the right combination, but 16th-century England and Holland did. Religion reflected wider developments, and geography remains fundamental to why some societies broke away.
davepx 2 years ago
remarkable book for white people. Chinese had guns, steel and germs (well not germs) BEFORE Europeans. They never dominated Asians in ancient history.
mekon11 2 years ago
Religion and many other factors played a major force in European conquest and marginalization of people of color. But Jared was getting to the core of how it able to be engineered.
u2hubbard 2 years ago
Also...Diamond was talking about why some people are rich and others poor - not why people decided to adopt a certain religion or denomination - these surely did not have geographical factors as you have pointed out.
KarenzaHulse 2 years ago
I don't think Diamond suggested at all that geography is the cause of all inequalities, just that a geographical difference would give a certain area a statistically significant push in the right direction. The reformation is a very small event in Diamond's terms as he is talking 10000 year histories. Diamond didn't think he had rewritten the history books...
cykolink 2 years ago
Your question of why Diamond doesn't address religion is a non sequitur to the question of the root cause of material inequality. Religion has nothing to do with why the Aztecs, Chinese, and Egyptians became powerful civilizations.
iceheart920 2 years ago
But, if Max Weber is correct, religion does have to do with why Protestant Europe did become more prosperous than, for example, Catholic Europe. So, religion does play a major role, and Diamond does not address it.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
You seem to be missing the point and that is, the root cause. Diamond only addresses the root cause, not later events. Religion might be a factor but it is not at the root of the issue.
iceheart920 2 years ago
Ok. The root cause of the inequalities between Africa and Eurasia is, I agree, geographical. But, the root cause of the inequalities between Portugal and Belgium is not merely geographical. It seems to me there are compelling religious factors, and geography can not explain them away.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
But Portugal & Belgium are both predominantly Catholic. Portugal shared in Spain's "resource curse" of American treasure in the 16th-18th centuries, whereas Belgium enjoyed the benefits of English wool in the 13th century and native coal in the 19th. Religion doesn't explain Belgium's prosperity today, or 12th-century Italy's, or for that matter then-Catholic England's (relative to most of the Continent) 500 years ago.
davepx 2 years ago
You seem to miss the entire point of Diamond's argument: what is the root cause in of inequality between different societies. We all have the same genetic material; genetic variation between one human and another is only 0.1%. Yet why did Eurasian societies (not just Europeans) become so much more advanced compared to Aborigines for example. The ROOT cause is geographic factors, which allowed for complex socio-political factors. If you don't have to worry about food all the time, you can think.
iceheart920 2 years ago
Yes, I understand what you and Diamond mean. But, I insist, I do not think geography is the root cause of all those inequalities. Why is the Netherlands more prosperous than Spain? Most likely, because the Neatherlands was a Protestant country, whereas Spain was a Catholic country. Does geography account for such religious differences?
lauragabriel 2 years ago
In such an example, religion is not doing to be the dominant factor but rather politics and military luck will be. The Catholics lost the 30 Year's War and power shifted. Catholic Spain begins to decline, the Holy Roman Empire is losing power over the German states, Prussia, Sweeden, and the UK are filling in the power vacuum. Your analysis is incorrect I think.
iceheart920 2 years ago
You seem to undermine the importance of religion in the outcome of political affairs. That is a whole discussion apart.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
Religion and politics has always been closely intertwined and often religion has been the catalysis of wars. It seems to me that you're making the issue more complicated than it has to be, especially when there is a large historical event that occurred that backs up my position. Almost sounds like you're trying to say Protestants are more hard working than Catholics...
iceheart920 2 years ago
Well, yes many people have said that Protestants work harder than Catholics. That is a well-known thesis. You might want to take a look at Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. ". It is a classic of sociology and economic history.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
You still haven't properly addressed the issue of Catholics losing a major war and the Protestants winning it with the center of power shifting.
iceheart920 2 years ago
Religion doesn't determine development. Catholic Belgium was more prosperous than Lutheran Sweden until 1940; France was likewise ahead of Norway. Northern Italy remained one of Europe's richest regions into the 18th century even after the destrucive Valois-Habsburg invasions. Religious affiliation may be influenced by some of the socio-economic characteristics that predispose a country to develop (as many had been doing long before 1517), but religion is by no means a determinant.
davepx 2 years ago
White Trash Barbarians, watch this video:
Five Major Flaws in Guns, Germs, and Steel
watch?v=QHyspkeyIfs
smartgirlfat 2 years ago
Northern Countries became Protestant due to their distance from the center of Roman Catholicism, Rome. As time progressed and the former provinces of the Roman Empire in the north became more distinct both in Culture and in Moral values, They changed their religious views to suit their mentalities. This type of religious offshoot is common in countries that formerly belonged to large empires. Congratulations, your entire argument has just been demolished by a 16 year old 11th grader. Cheers! :P
bajermann 2 years ago
Well, I really do not care about age. And, yes, I congratulate you for your eloquent argument.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
black people are less evolved. they have similiar DNA to primates such as monkeys.
tacocricket 2 years ago
This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read on my youtube page. Humans share 98% of DNA with chimpanzees, whether they are black or non-black. And, in evolution theory, there are no "less-evolved" species; all organisms share common descent, and monkeys are not our ancestors, they are our collateral kin.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
wow! really? Heres a fact for you. Human beings whose parents interbred often develop debilitating conditions such as Down's Syndrome or Autism among others.
I.E: Racist inbred dumbfucks like you.
bajermann 2 years ago
Jared Diamond's book: Guns, Germs and Steel.
DEBUNKED
watch?v=SquT6wxMIX8
AKOBADAGETHXIII 2 years ago
geography is everything, genetics is everything, southern europe which includes france, spain, and italy, are genetically similar and believe it or not, are slightly darker than the northern europeans, germans, anglos, nordics, the lighter skinned europeans disliked the darker italian, spanish, and french followers of catholicism, the english and germans are lightly skinned and genetically similar and broke free from darker skinned catholics from southern europe
thelifter2009 2 years ago
well religion has nothing to do with geography or any other enviromental factors it has to do more with cultural demographics and lingustics.
doctorw2 2 years ago
Why did the Protestant Reformation happen in Northern Europe? The distance from Rome had to be a factor. Here is geography playing a role. Why Protestantism and not another permutation of Christianity? O.K. that can't be determined by geography. But the schism itself was enabled by distance.
Think of this. Rome was the most likely candidate to split from the early church (the second being Alexandria). Why? Distance from Constantinople. Geography!
davevanfunk 2 years ago
I must admit I never thought of that, and it is indeed a plausible explanation. Yet, I still wonder: why were Hebrews, and not philistines, the first monotheists? They surley lived in very similar geographic conditions.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
Doctor R. Lynn "The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence"
"The races show consistent differences in both brain size and intelligence because the Caucasoids/Mongoloids colonized a new cognitively demanding niche when they migrated into the cold regions. In this harsh environment the less intelligent failed to survive this left Caucasoids/Mongoloids the two most intelligent races and the only two races that have made any significant contribution to the development of civilization
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
Yea it WAS GEOGRAPHY but NOT for the BOGUS "pc" "reasons" why that FAKE "scientists" Mr. Diamond pull out of his arse
WHY..ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PLANET..DIDE...NORTHERN RACES COME TO RULE OVER SOUTHERN RACES?
Or put another way..WHY DID WHITE SKINNED RACES CRUSH THE LARGER BLACK/BROWN POPULATIONS (on BOTH sides of the planet?)
I mean BLACKS had a..250,000 YEAR HEAD START ON EVERYBODY...and couldnt even invent SHOES
Japan and Germany would have invented ROBOTS 200,000 YEARS AGO KIDS!
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
if you actually read the book your BOGUS question would be answered. and the planet doesn't have two sides. shows how much you know about geography.
tactteam00 2 years ago
Dude i DID Read the BOGUS Book in undergrad (our entire class was FORCED to read it) and was shocked that ANYONE would consider it "scientific"
One of the BEST parts is how Mr. Diamond IGNORES that FACT that Blacks couldnt even settle the Many Islands around THEIR OWN LAND MASS
It took Europeans from the far north to figure out how to reach the West African islands and it took Asians to row across 6,000 MILES of ocean to settle the Eastern ones
And Blacks had a 250,000 YEAR head start
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Heck even the Wall Street Journal now adits the TRUTH
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
Bruce Lahn professor of human genetics at the Unv. Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis He had found signs of evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps showing changes (in brain size/ IQ ) had taken hold in Europe but weren't common in Black/Brown Populations
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
If this were true, the Yanomamo population would be smarter than, say, Iowans, because the harsh Amazonian Rain Forest would have pressured for more intelligence, whereas the pleasant Iowan plains did not pressure for intelligence as much. This is simply non sense.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
...You dont seem to understand that its the COLD that FORCES the Evolution of Larger Brains and Higher Intelligence in Homosapien populations.
So NO the Amazon rain forest is NOT going do that.
Whats simply NOT "non sense" is that there is a Brain size/IQ grade that runs across the planet...The SCIENTIFIC FACT is that as you travel from warm tropical regions into COLD REGIONS you find races with LARGER BRAIN AND HIGH INTELLIGENCE
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
Btw....The WORLDS TOP EXPERT is Doctor Richard Lynn (Harvard/Berkley/Ulster) his latest Book "The Evolution of Racial Differencs in Intelligence" is a GREAT BOOK that does far more to Answer Mr. Diamonds question
In the Book Doctor Lynn uses the research of OVER...500..DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS (from ALL OVER THE WORLD)...to show the LARGE Racial Differnencs in Brain Size/Intelligence were produced by Evolution to Adapt to COLD ENVIRONMENTS.
Google it.
Ooloosoon 2 years ago
china had guns germs and steel b4 europe but they didnt go out colonizing other nations and stealing their gold for their own self greed. china btw had ships (junks) thats were at least 20x bigger than any european ship and smarter built too. i do agree with diamond though that the reason 'why europe and not china' is b/c that europe was seperated alot more than china so it had time to compete with other european countries. china for the most part stayed unified. which isnt a bad thing.
BatuSmoka808 3 years ago
Your point about Catholicism and Protestantism is irrelevant. In his book, Diamond is clearly stating a series of ultimate causes for a vast majority of historical events. Besides, Diamond mentions many times in his book that he is in no way trying to advocate a theory that he believes to be perfect and all encompassing. If he got into every single detail in history the book would have been throusands of pages in length.
underarmour77 3 years ago
I do not think that my point about Protestantism and Catholicism is irrelevant. The distinction between Protestant Europe and Catholic Europe turned out to be very important, yet this distinction had nothing to do with climate. I agree that Diamond does not pretend an all encompassing theory, but he should admit that some important developments have nothing to do with geography.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DON'T READ THIS. You will get kissed on the nearest possible Friday by the love of your life. Tomorrow will be the best day of your life. However, if you don't post this comment to at least 3 videos, you will die within 2 days. Now uv started readin dis dunt stop. This is so scary. Send this to 5 ova videos in 143 minutes. When ur done press F6 and ur crushes name will appear on the screen in big letters
KillerWildman 3 years ago
Many comments and reviews of Prof. Diamond's book mistake it for an apologetics which it is NOT. He only seeks to explain why Europeans dominate the world today, Not Justify it and he makes pains to deny any racial superiority. Whit regard to Protestant vs Catholic that is immaterial to his thesis since both are European Christianity! if you care to criticize his work at least read it!
Gordo1108 3 years ago
I suggest you pay closer attention to my video. I am not claiming Diamond is an apologetics of European superiority. My claim is that there are important non-geographic factors that must be taken into account regarding the outcome of societies. If Southern Europe and Northrn Europe have similar georgraphic conditions, why did Northerners become Protestants whereas Southerners remained Catholic? Climate has nothing do with this important distinction that ultimately, affected History.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Culture down the line can and is influenced by the geographic differences among our vast planet. The rise of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent allowed for non farmers to focus on things like writing, government, fighting, conquering, which can lead to cultural differences and variety. Geography can account for much more than what many people think.
underarmour77 3 years ago
I don't deny culture, in many cases, is influenced by geographic differences. But, there are many crucial cultural differences that have nothing to do with geography. For instance, Phillistines and Hebrews lived under very similar geographic conditions, but the latter developed monotheism, whereas the former remained polytheistic. Did climate have anything to do with such a crucial change in culture? I do not think so.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
i admit i don't know much of anything about this and that i've only just began reading this book, but in my honest opinion religion has almost nothing to do with this. religions doesn't create the culture any more than the culture creates the religion. do you get what i'm saying?
MonsterMo44 3 years ago
Yes. But my point is that some non-georgraphical factors, such as religion, have determined some outcome of socities. Religion does have the power to institute great cultural differences, and yes, religion does create culture. The West was very much created by monotheism. If there had not been monotheism, the West would be very different.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
ok point taken
MonsterMo44 3 years ago
Those who bring up race, religion, etc are only stating the motivations or excuses that allowed for the abuses of man against man. They are deluded into thinking that different societies are better than others because of their customs or genetics. Geography does play a role; for example the middle easts location and connection of landmasses allowed for lots of trading, also known as the silk road. The spread of technologies and ideas allowed for cultures to improve who are motivated to conquer.
Seiku 3 years ago
I agree that geography does play a role, as you mention. However, I do believe that different societies are better than others because of their customs (NOT because of their genes). Democratic customs are better than despotic customs.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Well that can be true, a warrior culture be more successful than say a peaceful tribe but techology in the end can determine who conquers as history has proven. The only thing that puts other places at a disadvantage in modern times, imo are government or politics. Though the start of mans history, civilizations that had good resources and learned to adapt with their terrain or had the ability to travel easily with little differences had it much better than others.
Seiku 3 years ago
You know, I sometimes wonder if Mayan civilizations or other places were never disturbed by European settlers, how much would they change or advance today? I like thinking about that kind of stuff. My heritage is Spanish and Taino (Puerto Rican) and I learned abit about the houses the natives constructed. They were giant buildings but still primitive in the sense that it was made of sticks and staw. If they advanced further, how amazingly unique would their architecture have been? lol sorry :)
Seiku 3 years ago
i wonder that too sometimes... i want to know how the world would be if everyone modernized their own way instead of being influenced by european colonies
MonsterMo44 3 years ago
Agreed
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Heck even the WALL STREET JOURNAL now ADMITS the TRUTH
{"Racial Differences in IQ Genes found
The Wall Street Journal
By ANTONIO REGALADO
2006
Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the Unv. of Chicago stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others
He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold in Europe, Asia but weren't common in Africa
Ooloosoon 3 years ago
I shall look this up. But, as an intuition, I stll think there is no link between race and intelligence. And, I say this, not out of political correctness (I don't give a rat's ass about PC), but I must confess I have met some brilliant people of many different so-called "races"
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Google some articles on the new book "Evolution of Racial differences in IQ" by the world top expert Doctor Richard Lynn.
Its a great read...Doctor Lynn shows the large racial differences in Brain Size/IQ show up over and over again in over 500 different study from around the world.
Also google up Doctor J.P. Rushtons fantastic work "Race, Evolution and IQ"...it goes far beyond just IQ showing large racial differences in a host of things from Crime leves to Hormones.
Ooloosoon 3 years ago
Guternberg most certainly developed his printing press from the Chinese printing technology. The Chinese Silk Road diffused many things to Europe since Roman times. Where did Gutenberg and Europe get paper from? Did Gutenberg invent paper, too?
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
There is good evidence that paper did indeed come from the Silk Road. There is no evidence that the Press came from the Silk Road. If there is, then provide such evidence
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Where is Gutenberg's precursor invention to the Printing Press? The Moveable Type printing press was invented in China by Pi Sheng in 1040 AD (not Gutenberg).
Paper came from China = proof of diffusion. The first metal movable type printing press was invented in Korea in 1403 (50 years before Gutenberg.) Please stop trying to give Europeans credit for Asian inventions. It looks more and more racist as you continue.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Pal, you are, once again, abusing the word "racist". The fact that Europe may have achieved greater things than other civilizations does not imply that Europeans are a superior race. Diamond himself makes the claim that racial difference is no satisfactory explanation for cultural disparity.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
There is good evidence to show that Chinese BLOCK printing diffued from China to Poland (1259) and Hungary (1283) under the Mongol conquests. As we also know, the Silk Road was also controlled by the Mongols. What an incredible COINCIDENCE, right?
Source: The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization by John A Hobson (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 0521547245 (pp 183-186)
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
I'll check that source, but I have no reason to doubt it. Yet, evidence that the Chinese print diffused from China to Poland is not evidence that Gutemberg knew about it. And, furthermore, invention is not at stake here, but rather continued use. True enough, the Chinese invented the type, but did not keep interest in it.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
I have a serious question: Why didn't ancient Greek knowledge, writing, reading spread into northern Europe before The Roman Conquest? Why did Alexander The Great reject conquering the West and instead went East? Western/Northern Europe has been backwards for a long time. It is not geographically superior for diffusion. The Greeks and Alexander proved that to be false.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Northern Europe had been protected from Greco-Latin incursions by the German Woodlands, something Montesquieu famously highlighted. Alexander rejected conquering the West and went East, precisely because there was a higher level of civilization in the Middle East, Persia and India. It is true that Northern Europe had been backwards for a long time, but that does not contradict Diamond's thesis.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
it totally contradicts Diamond's thesis. Northern Europe was not ever the natural diffusion area that Diamond wants to pretend it was. Writing, cities, the round arch, money, etc were only introduced by military conquest. Europe was not ever "predetermined for greatness" by the geography or by plants.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Diamond clearly warns that China's landmass was ideal for diffusion, even more so than Europe. The key to Western success has been to have great geographical possibility for difussion, but not too much. Some mountains and deserts may be benefitial indeed. Thus, Diamond never denies that Northern Europe was isolated and backwards for some time.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Diamond has never denied that many great Western achievements were introduced by military conquest. The question is: why did Westerners succeed militarily? Why could a small Spanish army defeat a whole Inca Empire? Why did Westerners conquer Peru, and not the other way around?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
The Spanish never defeated the whole Inca army. Re-read the book. He clearly qutes the Spanish as saying that it was an unarmed delegation of Nobles and Lords. "The Indians never once raised a weapon to us." It was an AMBUSH, hello? Pizzaro evens "says" so himself.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
It is true that Pizarro used ambushes, but there were confrontations nevertheless, somehing well documented by most historians. At any rate, an ambush is an effective military technique, and this only pushes my question one step backward: why were Spandiards clever enough to use ambushes, and the Inca naive enough to fall for them?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Anyone who wants to read a very good demolition of Diamond's theories should check out "Eight Eurocentric Historians" by James Blaut. For those who are in love with Diamond and his pseudo-science, Blaut's book will break your heart and make you cry. You have been warned!
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Ok, this is not meant as spam, but there is a really serious flaw in GGS: That China possessed Guns, Germs, and Steel BEFORE Europeans did. After all, China invented the gun and gunpowder (and compass). And China was sailing as far as Africa under Cheng He almost 100 years before Columbus. AND YET, China did not reach out to colonize, invade, enslave, and perform genocide against its neighbors. Europeans did this. Plant ecology cannot explain this away. It comes down to the CULTURE of Europeans.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
China may have invented some of these, but it is not just invention what matters: DIFFUSION of technology is almost as important, and Diamond makes a good case for it (North-South Axis vs. East-West axis). The Chinese may have invented gunpowder, but they were not as successfull in the difusion of the new technology. Furthermore, you are seriously distortioning Western History: Western expansion has not only been about slavery and genocide.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
East-West axis is bunk. "Eurasia" is almost as "tall as it is wide (a difference of only a couple thousand miles). Africa has a longer East-West axis than Europe. North America is almost as "tall" as it is wide. Corn and pyramid civilizations diffused North-South from Mississippi to Chile. The axis theory is pure psuedo-science.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Africa does not have a longer East-West axis than Eurasia. And, it is not just about the distance, but also about the homogenity of climate and the absence of major geographical barrers along the East-West axis. Mesoamerican civilization never spread to Andean Civilization. The Inca knew nothing about the Aztecs, and viceversa.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
I will check that book, even though here in Venezuela it might be difficult to get access to it. At any rate, I think your accusation of "pseudoscience" is very unfair: Diamond has proven to be a very close follower of the scientific method. As for Eurocentrism: if arguing that Europe had geographical advantages other civilizations did not have is Eurocentrism, so be it!
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Search Google for "James Blaut Jared Diamond". You can find at least one sample of Blaut's analysis of how Diamond is wrong.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
You seem to be using the word "pseudo-science" very lightly. How do you definte it? I think Diamond has followed a rigorous method, and his conclusions are derived from pacient observation. Of course, social sciences (History) will never get the same degree of certainty as natural sciences, but Diamond has followed a legitimate scientific procedure.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Diamond has excellent scientific credentials. He's written something like 500 scientific articles. But Diamond is not a god. He is a human being. And it seems very clear that he has warped scientific/historical evidence to fit a Eurocentric agenda. GGS is really "scientism" which is a political agenda dressed up with scientific-sounding language.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
That is not so clear to me. At any rate, I could make the same accusation against you and James Blaut: your claims are really informed by a Third World political agenda. If your Foucaultian accusation is true, then everyone has an agenda, and there is simply no possibility for objective truth. The result: nihilism.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
You simpy are in love with this book. You can't admit that there is nothing special or superior about Europe's natural resources, "inventions", or geography (just ask Alexander The Great). Yali's answer is not that Europeans are superior by DNA or environment, but that they are PIRATES who employed deception and smallpox. That comes down to culture, not plants.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
I certainly like this book, but am not "in love", and as I point out in the video, I do have some objections to Diamond. Even if what you claim were true (it is not), one must still wonder: why were Europeans clever enough to deceive others and why were non-Europeans naive enough to believe Europeans?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Do you also wonder to yourself why rapists are "clever enough" to deceive a woman and rape her? It reveals a lot about you that you equate deption with "clever." Sounds like you are Pro-European, no matter what.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Yes, I am pro-European, I don't see what is the big deal about it. Your rapist analogy is a persuasive one, but flawed nevertheless. Unlike the woman raped, knowledge about tactics is crucial for civilizations, and it requires a good deal of rationality and dishenchanment.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
It's good to see that you are honest about being Pro-European. Now maybe you can "rationally" acknowledge that such a "commitment" can lead you into a serious conflict of interest when it comes to facts that are unflattering toward Europeans.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
The fact that I may be pro-European does not imply that I believe everything great and nothing bad has come from Europe. I now ask you: are you anti-European?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Diamond fully acknowledges that Europeans used smallpox (Hello?, that is why one of the words in the title is "Germs"). The question is: why did non-Westerners died due to smallpox, whereas Europeans were not affected in the same way? Diamond's answer: the domestication of animals allowed Europeans to foster germs and eventually become immune to them.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Sorry Jared Diamond: Europeans DID NOT INVENT guns, steel, the wheel, windmills, crossbows, writing, cannons, water wheels, chariots, agriculture, magnetic compass, printing press (Korea), algebra, geometry, maps, abacus, metal armor, metal swords, books, paper, money, sundial, flags, kites, metal helmets, measuring rulers and weights, guitar, bagpipes, harps, pottery wheel, sternpost rudder, lanteen sails, square ship hulls, pulleys, written laws, candles, castles, or the escapement mechanism!
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
the printing press was actually invented by 2 cultures independently. The Germans and the Chinese. They both get credit. Oh, by the way, Europeans invented almost everything. Read the book Human Achievment by Charles Murray. The modern world is European whether brown skin people like it or not
freeload7 3 years ago
I agree the modern world is European. But, race has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, the modern world is increasingly becoming brown skinned, as brown peoples are becoming part of Westen Civilization
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Not true. Gutenburg was a simple jeweler. The Silk Road connected China to Eastern Europe and was controled by the Mongolians. Since the printing press was invented before Europeans, the burden of proof is actualy on Europeans to show they invented it independently. Read "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization" a new book by John Hobson. White people want to pretend they invented everything even against the evidence.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
As far as I know, nobody in Europe knew about the printing press before Guttemberg, so the Chinese press never influenced Guttemberg. Furthermore, what really matters is not the invention per se, but the distribution and continuity of technology. The Chinese certainly invented the printing press, but were not all that excited about it, presumably due to the high numer of characters in Chinese script.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
That's false logic. You are deliberately omitting The Silk Road and the fact that the Asian printing press (and moveable type) were invented before Gutenberg. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. It's obvious you just want to give White people credit for Asian inventions.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Again, the Chinese did invent the printing press before Gutenberg, but never developed much interest in it, probably due to the hugh number of Chinese characters (whereas Europe only used 26!). If you claim that Gutenberg imitated the Chinese, then the burden of proof is on you: provide evidence that he was in fact in contact with the Chinese. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Gutenberg knew anything about the Chinese press.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Actually, the Chinese had plenty of interest in the printing press. Just read "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization" by John Hobson. China produced massive quanitites of manuscripts with its presses. I never claimed Gutenberg knew he was imitating the Chinese, only that the evidence shows that it almost certainly diffused via the Silk Road. The burden of proof is not on the first, but on the one who came later.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
So you are claiming that Gutenberg imitated an invention that was already in Europe coming from China via the Silk Road. Well, provide evidence that there were in fact printing presses in Europe before Gutenberg.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Gutenberg did not invent any printing press before China. Period. The burden is on you to prove otherwise.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
I am not denying that the Press was invented in China before Gutenberg. I am only arguing that Gutenberg invented it independently WITHOUT any knowledge of Chinese technology. If you wish to claim that Gutenberg imitated the Chinese, provide evidence that he had any contact with the Chinese or their technology.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
I don't give credit to "White" people, I give credit to Westerners. The West is a civilization, not a race, and it is made up of whites and blacks. Even you (presumably brown skinned, as I am), my friend, are a Westerner. The very fact that you are writing in English and using the internet and discussing historiography, makes you part of Western Civ.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
You know very well that GGS is about why EUROPEANS colonized the world. You know very well he is not referring to Black or Chinese people. You can play semantic word games al you like, but you Diamond very clearly is referring to Europeans (White people).
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
You are asuming that all Europeans have been white, and that is not the case. Black scholar Frank Snowden has proven the participation of Negroes in Greek and Roman cultural life. You would certainly agree that, for example, Disraeli was not really white, but brownish, wouldn't you?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
You are asuming that all Europeans have been white, and that is not the case. Black scholar Frank Snowden has proven the participation of Negroes in Greek and Roman cultural life. You would certainly agree that, for example, Disraeli was not really white, but brownish, wouldn't you?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Europeans did not invent all of these, but certainly Eurasians did. Diamond's argument is not so much about Europe but about Eurasia. And, in the last chapter of GGS, he explains why China fell behind Europe, even if China had previously been ahead, as these inventions you mention show.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Diamond uses the phony term "Eurasian" to dishonestly make it seem like Europeans can share the credit for the inventions of China and The Middle East. Notice how Diamond shifts between "Eurasian" and "Europeans" in the book when it's convenient. Without this phony term of "Eurasian", Diamond's theory falls apart for the Eurocentric fraud that it is. Europeans can take ZERO credit for the inventions of China and Mesopotamia.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
How do you know what Diamond's intentions on the use of the term "Eurasians" really are? If he wishes to incorporate China and the Middle East, that is perfectly honest. As far as I remember, he is very consistent in the use of the term "Eurasian".
lauragabriel 3 years ago
I don't care about his intentions, but his actions. And the way he switches back and forth between "Eurasian" and "European" is always in a way that makes it convenient to imply that Europeans are responsible for the inventions of China ad the Middle East. He is inconsistent with his usage of "Eurasian".
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
I don't remember well if Diamond switches back and forth between "Eurasian" and "European". But even if he did, that is not necesarily an invalid procedure. Some things are generally Eurasian, and some other things are specifically European.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
How do you know what Diamond's intentions on the use of the term "Eurasians" really are? If he wishes to incorporate China and the Middle East, that is perfectly honest. As far as I remember, he is very consistent in the use of the term "Eurasian".
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Actually, he's very inconsistent (but with a very Eurocentric logic). He says things about "European technology" and "Spanish technology." Sorry, but most of the technology prior to 1540 was invented by The East. Diamond wants "White shared credit" for things that Europeans never invented. Imitation is not the same thing as INVENTION.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Agreed. But, once again, the core of Diamond's analysis is not so much invention, but difusion of technology. I guess Diamond would probably agree that during the Middle Ages, China was in a better position than the West. The question is, why did China fall behind, why couldn't they continue with technological advances. Diamond suggests that the abscence of geographical barrers had a lot do with it.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
No, the real question is "Why didn't Europe catch up to China until after the 17th century?" Why was Europe so far behind for so many centuries? Why was China so far ahead for so many centuries. Those are the real questions.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Diamond's answer: because China had a heavily centralized power. "China's connectedness eventually became a disadvantage, because a decision by one despot could and repeatedly did halt innovation" (p. 416).
lauragabriel 3 years ago
How ironic, because "heavily centralized power" is considered a good thing for Europeans (page 80). Diamond has a double standard: Europeans are always right, others are always wrong. China invented more things than Europe ever did before colonialism. Europe needed Inca gold and silver. China did not.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Diamond does not use the word "heavy", just "centralized political organization". At any rate, Diamond claims that political centralization is important, but too much of it will hurt. Again, China may have invented more things, but did not keep great interest in it, and did not seem to diffuse as much as the West did.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
You seem to be under the impression that China had no provinces, just a mass of undifferentiated territory. You also seem to be under the false impression that the Romans also had heavy "centralized political organization" under an absolute Emperor. Same thing with the Hapsburgs of Europe. You operate under a double standard.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Correction: "That the Romans did NOT have heavy 'centralized power.' It extended from the Near East to Britain. Diamond gives the Romans a free pass. One standard for Europeans, a separate standard for the World.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
I think the Romans were a good combination of centralization and descentralization. China had many advantages from centralization, but eventually, it lacked the dynamics of descentralization.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Modern Mexicans are one part 'those imperialists' and another part homegrown Azteca (also imperialists - for those who give a damn about factual history)
PulSamsara 3 years ago
No, I am not under that impression. But, China did have a very strong centralized government, if we compare it to Europe. No, the Romans were not as centralized, quite the opposite, they allowed much autonomy in their provinces.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
It's funny how having large of amounts of power is not a disadvantage for Europeans, only Asians and Incas. You seem to think that Europe operated under a Democracy. Sorry, but Europe had plenty absolute monarchs. Once again, you see only what you want to see.
TheMexicaMovement 3 years ago
Too much power was indeed a disadvantage to Europeans. In fact, that is why the French Revolution rose: in part as a reaction against absloutism. There has been no such thing in the rest of civilizations, certainly not in China, until perhaps the latter half of the XX Cent.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Too much power was indeed a disadvantage to Europeans. In fact, that is why the French Revolution rose: in part as a reaction against absloutism. There has been no such thing in the rest of civilizations, certainly not in China, until perhaps the latter half of the XX Cent.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Chinese history is full of anti-dynastic rebellions. For that matter absolutism wasn't notably disadvantageous to 17th-century France or 18th-century Russia, Prussia or Sweden. In France it failed through poor financial control - in part, through not exercising enough power effectively. It was the countries without strong central governments that tended to lag: even the US moved quickly to correct its first experiment in loose confederation.
davepx 2 years ago
anti dynastic? LOL... so mandate of heaven was anti-dynastic rebellions? Asian countries lagged behind because of strong neo-confucian and fear of barbarians.
mekon11 2 years ago
I was replying to the suggestion that reactions against absolute rule had been absent outside Europe: they clearly weren't. As for neo-Confucianism, that barely applies outside China. Nor is fear of others an Asian peculiarity.
The issue isn't why Asia or anywhere else "lagged" but why some areas in Europe broke out of traditional economy beginning before the rise of the values we associate with modernity. For that Diamond's right to look to their physical characteristics and resources.
davepx 2 years ago
That's probably bullshit. Since the modern history, Asian countries had closed their borders just like what north korea is doing from entering these "barbarians". It started in early ming dynasty. BTW, during imperial china, trading flourished and china became the most advanced country. It has nothing to do with resources, or physical characteristics. China had them all.
mekon11 2 years ago
China didn't close its borders: neither did India or most Asian countries. Japan did, and emerged after 1868 ready to take on the west at its own game.
China didn't have everything: it was advanced in many respects, but less fertile ground for economic revolution in others. Looking to China to explain why that revolution happened elsewhere is a pointless exercise precisely because it didn't happen in China.
davepx 2 years ago
China did, in ming dynasty. BTW, ur an idiot. Learn asian history before speaking to me. Prove me wrong. China, Korea, Japan were all confucian and didn't want to bother opening up their borders. That is why China is called the sleeping dragon, but it wasn't like that before 1600s.
mekon11 2 years ago
@mekon11
Learn manners before speaking to me. Confucianism certainly influenced Japan and Korea, but they aren't Asia. No country anywhere wanted to open up its borders except where it suited those in control. Even Japan imported some western knowledge during its centuries of seclusion. And it was Japan, the most "closed" country in the 17th-19th centuries, that forged ahead subsequently. Again, you've explained nothing.
davepx 2 years ago
they arent Asia? ummm japan was closed and rarely open to foreginers until 18th century.
mekon11 2 years ago
@mekon11
No, they aren't Asia. There's a lot more to Asia than China, Japan and Korea. India wasn't Confucian and wasn't closed. Neither was Persia. Or the Ottoman Empire. They're Asia too. And they didn't have an Industrial Revolution either.
Yes, I know Japan was closed.; that's what I said. Nagasaki retained some trade with the west via the Dutch. And it tells us nothing about why some other countries half-way around the world underwent economic tansformation.
davepx 2 years ago
Well, im talking about East Asia, specially China. The sinosphere of Asia maintained their closure from outside world. The reason why European countries were able to go through industrial revolution is the colonies that they posses, and other factors as well.
mekon11 2 years ago
@mekon11
You didn't say East Asia, you said Asia. China wasn't as closed as Tokugawa Japan, indeed (like South Asia) it maintained a substantial export trade with the west. East Asian economic experience isn't unique.
Northwestern Europe was already distinctive before it had substantial colonies or modern industry or institutions. It's to "other factors" that you need to look. And they go back a long way.
davepx 2 years ago
UR wrong, south asia isn't part of the sinosphere. China was closed during the Ming dynasty due to years of barbarian invasion through the Qing. Go research urself, knucklehead. Industrial revolution happened because the european powers had colonies, except America.
mekon11 2 years ago
@mekon11
I didn't say South Asia was part of any Sinosphere. I said it and China both traded externally. Ming & Qing rulers limited contact with the west but China remained part of a thriving regional trade network, unlike sakoku Japan.
The industrial revolution didn't happen because of colonies. Britain had few in 1785. Belgium had none. France lost most of hers. Colonial riches earlier stifled Spain's development. Learn some geography and history instead of regurgitating tired myths.
davepx 2 years ago
Can u give instances where China excessively traded with the West? Of course not. That was when staggnation of East Asian countries happened. China's innovative inventions were developed during the time when Silk road was implemented. Japan is on the other hand.
Europe especially Britian was going through a transition of free trade of manufactuing and exports with little help of her colonies whereas East Asia was definitely not because of this closure.
mekon11 2 years ago
@mekon11
China had a substantial surplus in exports to the west, and traded extensively with other Asian countries. Tradition and selective closure explain nothing, because they are themselves reflections of socio-economic development.
Free trade came to Britain in the 19th century, not the 18th. The US was a more important trading partner after independence than as a colonial appendage. Industrialisation too reflected fundamental conditions and developments extending over centuries.
davepx 2 years ago
China was advanced up until that era. Europe was transforming into a world power during exploration and exploitation of colonies, that is why there are wat they have been for generations. If any asian countries had did that, today's world would be different.
mekon11 2 years ago
Have you actually read the book?
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Ok, your insults are quite impressive. It seems to me you have not actually read the book.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
You obviously did not read this book!! He is referring to the geographical advantage of the area known as the Fertile Crescent (in and around modern day Iraq). This is where civilization began. The Europeans were still barbarians at this time. READ THE BOOK!
dal386 3 years ago
Yes, so what is your point. I have read the book, written a review about it and referenced in various other of my articles. I do not see where the piece of information provided by you contradicts my mild objection to Diamond's thesis.
lauragabriel 3 years ago
Lauragabriel, of course geography had nothing to do with the protestant reformation. It is the act of every society (indiv.) to try to figure where one came from, hence this notion of a god, and eventually, thanks to the enlightenment, science. Surely you know that their are many other religions that come to a point of reformation other than the infamous christian one (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, ect.). Try another example other than the reformation.
ahrrivas 4 years ago
Exactly. That is precisely my point. Diamond pretends everything is determined by geography. I point out the Reformation as a major historical development that had little or nothing to do with climate.
lauragabriel 4 years ago
No, he states that the geographical location of different societies is the reason for the differing developments in technology, health, ect., principally guns, germs, and steel. I'm saying that the reformation has NOThing to do with his argument. Every society created delusions of how our earth was formed because every indiv. (hence, society) seeks the anwers to these type of questions.
ahrrivas 4 years ago
But, then, Diamond should consider that intellectual developments do affect the overcome of societies; not just accidents of geogrpahy, as he seems to claim.
lauragabriel 4 years ago
Diamond states that developments came to those societies because of the positioning they held in the world. So, yes, Eurasians were able to develop technological innovations but precisely because of the opportunity that they held in their geographic location. So that if Europeans were to have developed in New Guinea, they're society would have become exactly as that of present New Guineans. And vise-versa.
ahrrivas 4 years ago
Even then, as you read in his book, the first location where sedentary farming took place was in the Fertile Crescent, thus Eurasian peoples began to adapt from them. So in a sense, no, the Reformation itself was not necessarily affected by geography, but its inceptions immensely was, given that Eurasians for centuries held a divine devotion to the Judaic god. Something they could not have aquired if they were to have been in say Meso-America.
ahrrivas 4 years ago