Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... or not. Acknowledging difference doesn't necessarily mean we need to separate. If we blamed mother nature for our differences, rather than each other, it should become easier to live together.
That is not what the gl9balists/communists want at all, though. Not even close. Only Europe/Europeans, in their view, need be burdened and completely have their cultures crushed by immigration/migration.
Ever since the invention of Islam there has not been a single great civilization in the Middle East or Arab world. What the Arab Muslims are proud of was usually stolen, like a lot of the scientific achievements they're proud of were stolen from the Greeks and Roman and they claim to have invented numbers but that was originally from India. Ever since the advent of Islam the Middle East has seen nothing but savagery and depridation.
Umayyad Caliphate was one of the largest empires in human history. The various Islamic civilizations were the globes leading powers for close to a thousand years rivaled only by China. There capitals Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Alhambra, Istanbul, etc were some of the wealthiest most advanced cities of their time. Sorry but you are totally wrong on this one.
Why did Europe become the most advanced around 1500 or so? In essence, two reasons: geographic and cultural.
TL;DR: Europe had a lot of geographic advantages, the cultural part is an accident of history.
Hint: if you've already read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, this is old hat for you.
Geographic- Eurasia as a whole, from Atlantic to Pacific, is a huge land mass that also has an east-west orientation. That makes for large areas with very roughly average similar temperature despite obvious differences in rainfall from point to point. That, in turn, makes it easier to move crops and animals from place to place.
Thus you can raise cattle, horses, pigs, and many crops in one long continuous strip from Ireland to Japan, or if further south, from Portugal to at least India. That allows for a larger diversity of lifestock and crops than other areas of the world, including better odds of having animals fit for a large diversity of roles and tasks whose adult weight is over 100 lbs (45.5 kg). No such other animals were present anywhere else in the world except South America's llama, which while good pack animals cannot be used fore the same tasks as horses. That alone put the rest of the world at a severe disadvantage relative to Eurasia.
Also, while travel from NW Europe to China was long and difficult, there were many other civilizations along that route: India, Persia, the Arab World, the Mediterranean world. Roman ships traveled to India frequently (lots of Roman coins found in southern India).
Climate: Tropical climates have rains that leech soils of nutrients, while Mediterranean and desert river valley climates often require irrigation, which deposits salt in the soil. NW Europe got spared from that by having even distribution of rainfall througout the year. Also, all Europe save the Eastern Slavic lands have easy access to the sea, which greatly helps bring about trade in goods and exchange of ideas. That also put Europe at a long-term advantage: more motivation to build better ships, plus easy ability to grow a wide variety of crops (save the explicitly tropical).
Geology: As discussed, Europe is exceptionally well-suited for encouraging shipping. On top of that, Europe didn't suffer from the "false blessing" of easy wealth via an abundance of precious metals. Instead, it was forced to rely on producing actual goods (foods and practical minerals) in order to maintain itself, preventing the curse of easy wealth that so tempts people go for the "quick bucks" instead of doing actually sustainable development.
Culture Simple accident of history. For some reason, Europe simply developed the notion that the present world did matter, and built on older philosophies that stated as such (whether from Greece, the Middle East, and such). The Renaissance is also one of the accidents of history. Still, China did come *this* close to discovering the all-sea route around Africa before the Europeans (at least), if not outright discover the Americas before Europe did.
In short, NW Europe lucked up by having the right portfolio of traits that enabled it to have the culture that it did. It could just as easily have been China, but after Cheng He's voyages to what's now Tanzania, their Emperor ordered the ships and journey logs destroyed. Like I said, accident of history.
Good points!
Europe had the luck of having a greater selection of domesticated animals/plants, which helped accelerate the continent's development as a whole. Africa is loaded with commodity resources(gold, salt, etc.) but is lacking in domesticated animals that can be useful in a number of ways, including implementing war on a higher level. Imagine if it was possible to domesticate a Rhino and use it in cavalry; the domesticated horse that was more readily accessible in Europe and Asia would have been mauled against such a beast.
In regards to maritime power, there was at least one other candidate besides China, and that was Mali . Many may not realize this, but the West African civilization at this time was one of the wealthiest and most educated in the world. The University of Timbuktu was a renowned institution in the Muslim world, and boosted 25,000 students out of 100,000 citizens in the city of Timbuktu. A century before Cheng He sailed out on his voyage on the Treasure Fleet that could have potentially circumnavigated the world, before Ferdinand Magellan, Mali King Abubakari II set out his journey to sail across the Atlantic with 200 ships in 1311. His intention wasn't to conquer new lands or even to establish trade and increase it tributes, as per China's goal, but was simply bored and very curious on what was one the other side of the Atlantic.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 08-15-2019 at 01:38 AM..
You don't think of the Greeks as European!? I don't know when the modern boundaries of Europe were first 'drawn' but ancient Greece was the first European superstate and that was a lot longer than 500 years ago!
Most of the City of London still uses a road system that goes back to the Romans, whilst the Roman's established settements and fortifications across the country including Hadrians Wall which was completed 128 AD.
York was one of the most important cities in the Roman Empire where the Ninth Legion and later the Sixth Legion were garrisoned.
The Emperors Hadrian, Septimius Severus and Constantius I all held court in York during their various campaigns.
Emperor Severus proclaimed York capital of the province of Britannia, and igranted York the privileges of a colonia or city.
Constantius I died during his stay in York in 306 AD, and his son Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperor of the Roman Empire in York.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
The biggest thing that harms tropical societies before modern innovations is urbanization is limited due to dealing with disease carrying insects all year. Cities are where ideas are shares. Until recently a large city in a tropical climate would be a death trap.
There seems to be confusion concerning geography and race here? People keep talking about Europe as if its a 'race' it isn't its simply a man-made border, and a recent constantly changing one at that. With regards to race then trying to claim some kind of racial 'superiority' is madness, there have been ancient powerful and successful states in all parts of the world and containing all races. The Nubians were pretty bloody advanced and powerful in their time, the Chinese, the Aztecs, India and the Middle East & yes peoples that are only now considered to be 'from Europe' the Greeks and the Romans, followed later by Charlemagne etc etc. The reason the Euro's 'stole a march' on humanity over the last few hundred years is a result of circumstances and has NOTHING to do with the race of the peoples involved, Europe is lucky, it has good 'growing' conditions & the agricultural revolution gave Europeans a head start, this of course led to the Industrial Revolution in Britain & the fact that Britain was/is an island meant it was a 'seafaring' place at a time when the world starting getting smaller, which in turn meant of course that Britain had the added advantage of world trade, all of Europe shortly followed and started to spread its wings, pure 'circumstance' really.
I really think all this debate about IQ tests is really missing the point. We really have two choices
1)Differences in human productivity between groups comes down to accident, luck, chance and we're all innately equal.
2)Differences in human productivity has a significant genetic component.
While a lot of people like to dissect the evidence that points very strongly towards 2, we always forget to step back and realize there is no evidence that points to 1, and 1 has an uphill battle to explain the pervasive differences among groups in various environments, cultures.\
If you wanted to take the scientific approach, at the very least be agnostic. But it seems some people very reflexively push 1, despite the evidence to the contrary, despite the sheer amount of "just-how" stories etc. As if they're blinded by the religion of human equality.
That is not what the gl9balists/communists want at all, though. Not even close. Only Europe/Europeans, in their view, need be burdened and completely have their cultures crushed by immigration/migration.
And it's not what conservatives want. Very, very few people of any political stripe are willing to acknowledge the reality of inherent differences between human groups.
And it's not what conservatives want. Very, very few people of any political stripe are willing to acknowledge the reality of inherent differences between human groups.
But just about everyone knows the truth. They just don't want to publicly acknowledge it because it's a career finisher. Look at what happened to an esteemed scientist James Watson. He voiced his opinion, and he was forced out of all of his positions. This is an inquisition. Scientists are wrong all the time without being forced to step down - this is how we get to the truth.
But on this issue, all the evidence points to Watson's conclusion and none to the popular narrative. Sure, they can poke holes in any evidence presented but what they can't do is provide evidence for their thesis of human equality - just perpetually trying to dismiss the evidence that counters their points.
If we were fair, we'd have to say at the weakest that we don't know if humans are equal or not. But even saying that will force the thought police to come for your job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
