Genocide of Indians in America
- Thread starter The Messiah
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
Yes, so according to you Poland's "scientific contribution" was as meaningless as that of Native Americans, since neither were able to save themselves?
How many times do I need to tell you that natives were NOT primitive in terms "civilizational progress". Civilization means having an urban culture with large cities, extensive agriculture to support these cities, networks of trade and production, etc. The word "civilization" itself comes from the Latin term for "city"!
"Civilization progress" is not determined by your ability to resist others militarily. Show me a single historian who defines "civilization progress" in such a way. According to this idiotic definition, the Mongols are more "civilized" than the Chinese, the Vietnamese communists are more "civilized" than Americans, and Afghans are more "civilized" than the Soviets (as @Tolaha has rightfully point out).
"Industrialized"?
Seriously, read a basic book on world history. This is like talking to a small child. Tell me which country in the world was industrialized in 1492, when Columbus discovered America.
Your ignorance of these topics is astonishing. I don't know why you continue to debate on a topic that you clearly know nothing about. If natives "had no economy", how the hell did they build cities that were larger than anything that Poland had until modern times? I already showed you solid facts, yet you continue to regurgitate nonsense.
The main reason why natives were conquered is because of disease epidemics like smallpox, which killed up to 90% of the total population. If Poland was ravaged by similar disease epidemics and lost most of its population, like Native Americans were, then they too would have conquered much earlier (they were ultimately wiped off the map anyway).
The largest of the Native American states had armies as large as those of European powers, and were also as well-organized. In fact, we have accounts from European travelers themselves talking about how organized the Inca armies were. The Spaniard Francisco Lopez de Jerez in 1534 compared the orderliness of the Inca army with that of the Ottoman Turks, who were then the most powerful state in Europe. But such organization is meaningless when millions of your people (including your troops) are dying from disease, and the authority of government is collapsing.
Another bullshit excuse from you. All of these European powers had plenty of their own enemies as well, and fought on multiple fronts. Prussia was just a small regional state in the 18th century, yet under Frederick the Great it simultaneously fought (and defeated) France, Austria, Russia, and Sweden, thanks to its superior military and institutions.The fact is that Poland was a disorganized, backwards country (as I have shown by quoting Frederick the Great) with poor political institutions and incapable of defending its own sovereignty.
Neither does producing a heliocentric theory, according to you.
Yes, Poland (the Polish state) was indeed wiped off the map in 1939. The General Government under German occupation was not officially designated as "Poland". In fact, German authorities explicitly avoided mentioning the name "Poland" at all during the occupation. There was no sovereign Polish state during that time, which is the point I was making.
Yugoslavia?
Tell me where the modern borders of Poland come from, and who decided them.
Yes, the modern nation-state of Poland is the result of the Soviet victory in WWII.
Last edited by a moderator:
TrueSpirit
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,893
- Likes
- 841
Excellent point Tolaha. How can someone miss these things in other parts of the world ....just because they were adorned with some fancy nomenclature by Western historians
@Damian should look at your post & think about it before posting yet another symptom of his desperation laced, hollow & vitriloic ad-hominem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
It seems you people are incapable to understand a simple written text. Scientific contribution was meanigless for defence, it was not meaningless scientific contribution for humanity.
It is simple difference, understandable for any sentient being.
And we Europeans were still more advanced. I know that people who hate Europeans like you and your companions here will never admitt this.
As for industrialization, it was indeed oversimplification from my end.
However Europeans were more technically advanced, we had firearms, we had ships so we could sail through oceans etc. Compared to this, natives were primitive.
Now, it only means you are idiot, who by disliking me and my view of world, starts to attack my nation.
And I am ok with that, because you are making little frustrated idiot from yourself, not me.
Yes indeed, heliocentric theory didn't helped in to building stronger military. Same for piramides, and piramides could be even considered as waste of resources, just like building any other religious place.
You do not understand history of Europe and Europeans, and especially my nation. For us there was only occupation, under which we created the whole underground state which was independent from Germans. Which means we had administration, goverment, judical system, law enforcement, army, even post services, everything in form of underground state, which actively opposed Germans. This is unique achievement in history of Europe.
Wrong, Ygoslavia didn't had the whole underground state when was under occupation.
Tough I know that people like you, will do everything to spread lies and black propaganda about nations you don't like.
It is typical for people like you to not understand reality do you?
So to explain it to you simpleton. PRL after WWII was illegaly created state with was forced on us by the Soviets. We still had legal goverment representatives in UK and some in Poland. However despite AK fight against Soviets it was a lost fight. Legal goverment decided to surrender with hope that eventually Soviets at some point will be weaker, and it started to happen in 1980's. Then nation overthrown Soviet puppets and in time, PRL disappeared and now new, legal 3rd Republic was created. However borders were not changed due to agreement with our neighbours, this was a good move that improved relationships and builded capability for further improvement of these relationships.
However I know, that such simple history description, is incomprehendal for simpletons.
No, I will not let bunch of hypocrites and frustrated jerks, to attack my nation, or any other European nation, only because they seek contribution of being former colony.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
Yes, so you agree that Native Americans did have science, and that they contributed to "humanity"?
Do I need to remind of your own arguments? You said that Native American science was useless because it did not help their defence. But in the same vein, Polish science was also useless. Why this double standard?
It depends on what you mean by "advanced". In terms of economic development, Poland certainly was not more advanced that Mexico or Peru, and neither were many other parts of Europe. In terms of military equipment and naval technology, yes Europeans had better weapons and ships, but this was primarily because of geography and not some super advanced civilization that Europeans had built. There were no horses or maritime trade routes in pre-Columbian America, so obviously natives could not have cavalry nor was there any reason to build advanced ships. Gunpowder and cannons were invented in China and had spread to Europe just a couple centuries before Columbus sailed to America. At any rate, firearms in the late 15th/early 16th century were very primitive weapons. The reasons for the Spanish conquest had comparatively little to do with advanced weapons, and much more to do with disease wiping out so many Native Americans
I know your English is not very good, but hopefully you can understand what I wrote in this paragraph. If you want, I can write smaller paragraphs and use simpler words.
So once again, you have no argument.
For God's sake, the point is that the sovereign Polish state ceased to exist following the partition of Poland in 1939. The so-called "underground state" was not a sovereign state. It was not even the official Polish government, which was in exile in London. They reason why they were in exile, is precisely because Poland - as a sovereign nation-state - no longer existed!
Yugoslavia may not had a useless "underground state", but did have a far more successful resistance movement, which resulted in a real independent state after WWII. with the pre-war borders. The Poles on the other hand got an artificial puppet state whose borders were determined by foreign powers.
But all of this is off-topic, and not related to the subject at hand.
On the contrary! What you state here is the argument in favor of institutions being the principal determinant of overall success. First,the overwhelming superiority of the Spaniards over their south American counterparts in terms of technology (transportation/ logistics/ military hardware etc.) did not exist in a vacuum. All of these advances were the direct consequence of superior economic and political institutions. It was through these institutions that the centralized governments were able to form a highly trained national military and pursue expansion by commissioning advanced engineering projects that employed vast scores of engineers and skilled labor who were trained in educational/ vocational institutions. Disease was a decisive factor in the decimation of the numerical population in the Americas (over the span of many decades after the initial invasion); but it was by no means a factor in the actual success of the conquistadors. Even prior to the epidemics a few hundred mounted conquistadors possessed the ability to obliterate indigenous militias numbering in the thousands without breaking a sweat. Militarily the native Indians stood no chance whatsoever against their invaders and this wasn't a matter of luck, it was the sheer technological and organizational superiority of the invading forces which was entirely a byproduct of the supportive institutions.
Incidentally the encomienda and repartimiento labor systems you mention are perfect examples showing how institutions serve as the primary determinants when differentiating "successful" societies from the unsuccessful ones. Inferior extractive institutions designed to enrich a few elites at the expense of the vast majority of the population are what put the indigenous states you mention at a disadvantage in the first place. The Spaniards didn't adopt preexisting political and economic institutions with which they effectively oppressed and exploited the vast peasantry (through crippling taxation and denial of property rights) because they were good/ superior, but rather because they were terrible. Colonization as a global phenomenon was based on the practice of taking inferior preexisting extractive institutions in the colonies and then turning it against the locals to extort and exploit the very people who created them**. In South America it was the indentured labor systems, in Africa it was slavery, in India it was the sophisticated social hierarchy etc. On the other hand the one common feature among the Europeans was that they had managed to heavily mitigate their own extractive institutions of serfdom by the time they became colonial powers (purely happenstance). Furthermore among the Europeans the nations which minimized their extractive institutions to a higher degree like England surpassed their counterparts who didn't like Spain, Portugal and France.
As a side note if you've noticed the states you've referred to in the Americas built impressive architectural structures which are often seen as symbols of their "advanced status." This is actually a fallacy because none of these impressive achievements were a byproduct of healthy institutions. The fact of the matter is that most of these societies were actually running on an unsustainable extractive model where an inordinate amount of resources were being diverted to building "magnificent" structures while overall productivity and social mobility was low. Some of these societies were already in decline and others like the one on Easter Island had already collapsed prior to colonization and subsequent near extinction by exogenous diseases.
There's actually a reason I left out the indigenous states in the Americas in my earlier post. Although these states may have had an edge over their nomadic/ semi nomadic counterparts in terms of centralized governance they were still inferior to their European counterparts. On the other hand some tribes had developed sophisticated egalitarian social structures that granted equal rights to the sexes and devised laws that protected the interests of all the members of the tribe... in this regard they were truly ahead of the Europeans.
Disclaimer: My arguments are based on the work of Acemoglu and Robinson who explain the "institution model" using numerous case studies including the Americas.
** This is the argument that disproves the absurd notion that colonization was somehow a savior for "backward" colonial subjects- as espoused by contemporary douchebags like Niall Ferguson and Dinesh D'Souza
Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
Since we're talking about the use of Institutions in Imperialism; excerpts from a reading :
Regards.
Virendra
The Weekend Interview With Norman Davies: The Emperor of Vanished Kingdoms - WSJ.com
Regards.
Virendra
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
@Energon Firstly I would like to say that I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts in a rational and intelligent manner. However, your posts contain many misconceptions about the workings of the indigenous states, the reasons for the successful European conquest, and the relative global position of Europeans during the time in question, which need to be cleared.
As for the statement in bold, I am really struggling to understand what you mean by this. The Spanish conquistadors were not part of a "highly trained national military". They were largely members of the lesser nobility, who as private mercenaries entered into contracts with the Spanish Crown, conquering foreign lands on their behalf. They were not directly controlled or organized by the state. It should also be mentioned that most European states in the late 15th/early 16th century had yet to develop highly centralized, modern administrations. The most highly centralized state in Europe at this time, with by far the most advanced political, military, and economic institutions, was the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Janissary Corps constituted the first modern, standing army; they wore regulated uniforms, were paid regular cash salaries, underwent extensive drill, lived in barracks, and used firearms as their primary weapons. These characteristics would later be adopted (and improved on) by European armies, but few European states in the early 16th century could claim to equal the Ottomans. In fact, at the same time that Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro were conquering Mexico and Peru, large swathes of Europe were falling under the sway of the Ottoman Empire, a process which would not be reversed until the late 17th century. It was also the success of the Ottomans in dominating the conventional Mediterranean trade routes connecting Europe with Asia, that spurred Spain and Portugal to find alternate trade routes in the first place - resulting, as we all know, in the "discovery" of the Americas.
Finally, the notion that a "few hundred mounted conquistadors possessed the ability to obliterate indigenous militias numbering in the thousands without breaking a sweat" must be one of the single biggest misconceptions/distortions in the whole study of human history. I'll try to clarify the manner in which the Spanish conquests proceeded, by region, starting with Cortes' conquest of the Aztec Empire. One major factor that enabled Cortes and his Spaniards to conquer the Aztec Empire, and which I excluded in my previous posts, was his alliance with native powers hostile to the Aztecs. In particular, the Spanish allied themselves with the state of Tlaxcala, which was traditionally an enemy of the Aztecs. There were tens of thousands of Tlaxcalan troops who joined Cortes' forces, who played a decisive role in enabling his victory. Without them, it would have been physically impossible for the Spaniards - who numbered just a few hundred men, and possessed just a dozen guns - to even hold on to the conquered territory, let alone defeat a state whose army numbered up to 300,000 men. It was also at Tlaxcala that Cortes and his men were able to take refuge after being defeated (yes, defeated) by the Aztecs on 30 June 1521, in the so-called "La Noche Triste" ("the sad night"). You are also wrong on the role that disease (namely smallpox) played during the conquest itself. When Cortes and his Tlaxcalan allies regrouped and laid siege to Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital), smallpox was already ravaging the Aztec population, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, including the Aztec emperor and much of the political leadership. It was definitely a crucial factor leading to the eventual surrender of the city and the fall of the empire, and the widespread depopulation caused by the disease also enabled the Spanish and their allies to rule Mexico with relative ease following the conquest.
The case of Pizarro's conquest of the Inca Empire is somewhat more straightforward. Pizarro, with only 168 men, knew he had no chance of defeating the Inca in a straight confrontation. So, when the Inca emperor Atahualpa met with Pizarro at Cajamarca, Pizarro simply massacred the emperor's unarmed retainers and took the emperor himself prisoner (hence the dumb luck and treachery that I mentioned as factors). Given the highly centralized nature of the Inca Empire, with the Inca emperor as their captive, the Spanish now essentially controlled the whole empire, and had at their disposal the services of tens of thousands of imperial troops. There were several rebellions after the Spanish "conquest", but they were all suppressed largely with indigenous troops, using the authority and institutions of the erstwhile Inca Empire.
It should also be noted that the Spanish struggled far more to conquer decentralized tribal societies in the Americas, than they did to conquer centralized state societies, where capturing or killing the political leadership meant that the whole state instantly fell into their hands. During the Chichimeca War in northern Mexico (1550-1590), the Spanish were defeated by a confederation of Native American tribes. These tribes of northern Mexico were never defeated militarily, and were pacified only when they were converted to Catholicism by missionaries, and peacefully assimilated into the colonial society. On the other end of America, in modern Chile, the Mapuche confederation successfully resisted three centuries of Spanish encroachment, over the course of which tens of thousands of Spanish soldiers died. These cases, and others, show that the military superiority of the Spanish in the 16th century has been greatly overstated. In fact, it was not until the 19th century that military technology evolved to a point where indigenous societies could be easily and overwhelmingly defeated by small, disciplined groups of Western soldiers (and even then, we have exceptions like the famous Battle of Little Bighorn).
Also, most monumental structures serve at least some political purpose, even if it is just to impress or overawe both domestic and foreign potentates. The Palace of Versailles in France may seem like a colossal waste of resources at first glance, but it served an important political role in Louis XIV's drive to centralize the French state. By compelling the French nobles to stay at Versailles, he effectively prevented them from forming regional centers of power to oppose the central government, while the Palace itself served as a potent symbol of the power and supremacy of the French state (which was Louis XIV himself, in his own famous words).
I also don't think "overall productivity" or social mobility was any lower in these indigenous states than in anywhere else in the world. We have good evidence that both the Aztecs and Incas invested resources in increasing the agricultural productivity of their lands, including the Aztec land reclamation projects to create "floating islands" (chinampas) and the construction of mountain terraces (andenes) for agricultural use by the Incas. Not to mention the numerous aqueducts, canals, bridges, roads, causeways, etc. built by various indigenous states, which all served to enhance the production and flow of resources.
As I explained to Damian, the relative technological superiority of the Europeans over the pre-Columbian Native Americans has much more to do with geography and specific geopolitical circumstance than with superior institutions. In Mexico and Peru, the peoples of the indigenous states lacked horses, easily accessible iron ore deposits, and maritime trade routes to serve as an impetus for developing an advanced shipbuilding industry (virtually all trade in pre-Columbian America took place overland). Gunpowder technology was not developed by the Europeans, but acquired from China not too long before Columbus set sail for India. Being completely isolated from the rest of the world, the pre-Columbian Native Americans had no means of acquiring useful technologies from other civilizations as the Europeans could.
As for the statement in bold, I am really struggling to understand what you mean by this. The Spanish conquistadors were not part of a "highly trained national military". They were largely members of the lesser nobility, who as private mercenaries entered into contracts with the Spanish Crown, conquering foreign lands on their behalf. They were not directly controlled or organized by the state. It should also be mentioned that most European states in the late 15th/early 16th century had yet to develop highly centralized, modern administrations. The most highly centralized state in Europe at this time, with by far the most advanced political, military, and economic institutions, was the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Janissary Corps constituted the first modern, standing army; they wore regulated uniforms, were paid regular cash salaries, underwent extensive drill, lived in barracks, and used firearms as their primary weapons. These characteristics would later be adopted (and improved on) by European armies, but few European states in the early 16th century could claim to equal the Ottomans. In fact, at the same time that Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro were conquering Mexico and Peru, large swathes of Europe were falling under the sway of the Ottoman Empire, a process which would not be reversed until the late 17th century. It was also the success of the Ottomans in dominating the conventional Mediterranean trade routes connecting Europe with Asia, that spurred Spain and Portugal to find alternate trade routes in the first place - resulting, as we all know, in the "discovery" of the Americas.
Finally, the notion that a "few hundred mounted conquistadors possessed the ability to obliterate indigenous militias numbering in the thousands without breaking a sweat" must be one of the single biggest misconceptions/distortions in the whole study of human history. I'll try to clarify the manner in which the Spanish conquests proceeded, by region, starting with Cortes' conquest of the Aztec Empire. One major factor that enabled Cortes and his Spaniards to conquer the Aztec Empire, and which I excluded in my previous posts, was his alliance with native powers hostile to the Aztecs. In particular, the Spanish allied themselves with the state of Tlaxcala, which was traditionally an enemy of the Aztecs. There were tens of thousands of Tlaxcalan troops who joined Cortes' forces, who played a decisive role in enabling his victory. Without them, it would have been physically impossible for the Spaniards - who numbered just a few hundred men, and possessed just a dozen guns - to even hold on to the conquered territory, let alone defeat a state whose army numbered up to 300,000 men. It was also at Tlaxcala that Cortes and his men were able to take refuge after being defeated (yes, defeated) by the Aztecs on 30 June 1521, in the so-called "La Noche Triste" ("the sad night"). You are also wrong on the role that disease (namely smallpox) played during the conquest itself. When Cortes and his Tlaxcalan allies regrouped and laid siege to Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital), smallpox was already ravaging the Aztec population, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, including the Aztec emperor and much of the political leadership. It was definitely a crucial factor leading to the eventual surrender of the city and the fall of the empire, and the widespread depopulation caused by the disease also enabled the Spanish and their allies to rule Mexico with relative ease following the conquest.
The case of Pizarro's conquest of the Inca Empire is somewhat more straightforward. Pizarro, with only 168 men, knew he had no chance of defeating the Inca in a straight confrontation. So, when the Inca emperor Atahualpa met with Pizarro at Cajamarca, Pizarro simply massacred the emperor's unarmed retainers and took the emperor himself prisoner (hence the dumb luck and treachery that I mentioned as factors). Given the highly centralized nature of the Inca Empire, with the Inca emperor as their captive, the Spanish now essentially controlled the whole empire, and had at their disposal the services of tens of thousands of imperial troops. There were several rebellions after the Spanish "conquest", but they were all suppressed largely with indigenous troops, using the authority and institutions of the erstwhile Inca Empire.
It should also be noted that the Spanish struggled far more to conquer decentralized tribal societies in the Americas, than they did to conquer centralized state societies, where capturing or killing the political leadership meant that the whole state instantly fell into their hands. During the Chichimeca War in northern Mexico (1550-1590), the Spanish were defeated by a confederation of Native American tribes. These tribes of northern Mexico were never defeated militarily, and were pacified only when they were converted to Catholicism by missionaries, and peacefully assimilated into the colonial society. On the other end of America, in modern Chile, the Mapuche confederation successfully resisted three centuries of Spanish encroachment, over the course of which tens of thousands of Spanish soldiers died. These cases, and others, show that the military superiority of the Spanish in the 16th century has been greatly overstated. In fact, it was not until the 19th century that military technology evolved to a point where indigenous societies could be easily and overwhelmingly defeated by small, disciplined groups of Western soldiers (and even then, we have exceptions like the famous Battle of Little Bighorn).
The Spanish forced labor systems were derived from the Inca mita system, but they were not synonymous. Under the Spanish, who were primarily concerned with extracting precious metals for shipment back to Spain, the Inca state machinery was greatly abused and became a highly oppressive and exploitative leviathan, resulting in numerous native deaths at forced labor camps (as well as fermenting several rebellions against Spanish rule). But there is no evidence that the Inca themselves used their state institutions in such a manner. For one thing, they had no reason to extract such large quantities of precious metals, as they were not part of a world-system where bullion was used as a means of exchange in highly profitable overseas trade. Rather, the Inca state used corvée labor for important infrastructure projects, especially the construction of the famous Inca road system, which allowed the the Inca state to exercise its political authority over such a vast region with difficult terrain. Such infrastructure projects were especially vital given the lack of horses, which meant that the Inca state had to rely on a system of relay runners (chasquis) to carry information throughout the empire. The mita was also used for a levée en masse, as Inca males were also liable for conscription into the state military (European states would not develop a comparable system of national military mobilization until much later). In fact, now that I think about it, your statement that "it was through these institutions that the centralized governments were able to form a highly trained national military and pursue expansion by commissioning advanced engineering projects", is much more true of the Inca Empire than of most European states at the time.
The existence of such monumental architecture is indicative in itself of an advanced level of political development, since only centralized, state-level societies possess the organizational ability to mobilize the resources necessary (both human and material) to build such structures. There is a reason why tribal societies never build such impressive monuments. It is also usually indicative of high levels of surplus production and a sophisticated urban culture, since such monuments are usually found in large cities.
Also, most monumental structures serve at least some political purpose, even if it is just to impress or overawe both domestic and foreign potentates. The Palace of Versailles in France may seem like a colossal waste of resources at first glance, but it served an important political role in Louis XIV's drive to centralize the French state. By compelling the French nobles to stay at Versailles, he effectively prevented them from forming regional centers of power to oppose the central government, while the Palace itself served as a potent symbol of the power and supremacy of the French state (which was Louis XIV himself, in his own famous words).
I also don't think "overall productivity" or social mobility was any lower in these indigenous states than in anywhere else in the world. We have good evidence that both the Aztecs and Incas invested resources in increasing the agricultural productivity of their lands, including the Aztec land reclamation projects to create "floating islands" (chinampas) and the construction of mountain terraces (andenes) for agricultural use by the Incas. Not to mention the numerous aqueducts, canals, bridges, roads, causeways, etc. built by various indigenous states, which all served to enhance the production and flow of resources.
All tribal societies are more egalitarian than state-level ones, whether they be in the Americas, Africa, Oceania, or anywhere else in the world. A tribal society is by definition stateless, a stateless society is by definition classless, and a classless society is by definition more egalitarian than a class or state-level society. These "sophisticated egalitarian social structures" simply reflect the lack of any state institutions. Tribal societies produce little or no surplus due to low productivity and time-intensive economic activities, such as hunting and gathering; due to this lack of surplus produce, wealth cannot be concentrated, classes and social stratification cannot emerge, and the members of the society remain naturally inclined to egalitarianism and communism.
Last edited by a moderator:
civfanatic, I like I mentioned in my last post, the critical role of institutions in the establishment of European superiority in the colonial era and it's general role in determinism of success or failure is highlighted by Acemoglu and Robinson and I would just have to refer this matter to their material since I honestly don't have time to elaborate upon this matter.
I think geographic determinants which you mention are pretty well known and I don't doubt their merit. But when it came to the advances of colonial empires it was more institution based. It's also interesting that you mentioned the Ottoman Empire... here too there are very specific reasons as to why their institutions put them at a disadvantage compared to Western Europe. The same goes for China, who as you rightly pointed out were responsible for providing European nations with the critical technology needed to master projectile warfare. Every colonial expedition by every colonial empire in every part of the world was fraught with disastrous military setbacks from time to time, but an ostensibly higher rate of adaptability eventually resulted in resounding victories for colonial empires world wide and this had little to do with dumb luck or merely geographic determinants.
I think geographic determinants which you mention are pretty well known and I don't doubt their merit. But when it came to the advances of colonial empires it was more institution based. It's also interesting that you mentioned the Ottoman Empire... here too there are very specific reasons as to why their institutions put them at a disadvantage compared to Western Europe. The same goes for China, who as you rightly pointed out were responsible for providing European nations with the critical technology needed to master projectile warfare. Every colonial expedition by every colonial empire in every part of the world was fraught with disastrous military setbacks from time to time, but an ostensibly higher rate of adaptability eventually resulted in resounding victories for colonial empires world wide and this had little to do with dumb luck or merely geographic determinants.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 84
- Likes
- 35
Do you know your Columbus was oringally looking for route to China and Zheng He discovered the "new world" many centuries before White man?
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
You are talking about the time period from the 18th century onward, during which virtually all major, non-European powers (the Ottoman Empire, Qing China, Mughal India, etc.) either declined or collapsed, with the sole exception of Japan. Yes, the reasons for the collapse/decline of these states had largely to do with institutional failure, and no one would doubt that the Europeans had superior institutions and military capabilities from this time period onward, which would enable then to bring most of the world under their influence if not direct rule. The problem arises when people see the Western-dominated world of the late 18th and 19th centuries and assume that world existed even a couple centuries before, and believe that Europeans have always had superior institutions.
Oh yes, the notion that Europe or rather "the West" has always possessed superior institutions... or that the superiority of these institutions came about due to some unique and innate "cultural" quality is a myth. The history of institutions as a global phenomenon is extremely varied with rises and falls everywhere; and barring unforeseen cataclysmic natural phenomena like volcano eruptions, earthquakes etc. the success and failures of most societies around the world coincide with the dexterity of their institutions. The reasons why certain societies end up with better institutions are highly varied, multi factorial, heavily influenced by circumstance and also involve some luck.
What constitutes good institutions is a complex mix of initial consolidation/ centralization of power to form an organized society and then subsequent devolution of power to provide broad political representation and economic incentives to a large spectrum of civilians. However centralized power can also give rise to bad institutions which are essentially controlled by a small group of elites who protect their apical positions by subverting mechanisms of upward mobility. Now mind you it's very common to see bad institutions spawn economic surges and other indicators of "success" but in the long term they are unsustainable and eventually result in stagnation and collapse. So to make my position a bit clearer: when it comes to conflicts where one party achieves resounding success over another and then goes on to forge an ostensibly wealthy/ "advanced" empire... aka the colonization narrative, it just so happens that at the time of the conflict the losing party is generally bogged down by a net negative effect of bad institutions. This does not mean all of their institutions are bad nor does it mean that the victors are devoid of bad institutions. Subsequently the first order of business for any successful colonial government was to undermine/ dismantle any good local institutions and solidify/ expand bad institutions by modifying them to suit their own needs.
European powers may have established a near comprehensive lead in political and economic institutions from 18th century onward, but this process took centuries and went through an erratic phase of ups and downs (another myth is that Europe just "woke up" established good institutions and then just had one smooth upward swing). Also success of colonization campaigns coincided with stagnation and decline in the colonies- to- be.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 14,139
- Likes
- 8,594
I'll tell you guys what is the most tragic aspect of the transgressions against Native American tribes today. No tribe can even exist as a Native American entity without the blessing of the US Government (Bureau of Indian Affairs).Excellent find @The Messiah.
However, some on DFI would find this too uncomfortable for their taste
@Energon @W.G.Ewald @lookieloo @average american @trackwhack @pmaitra
The Native American people were killing and enslaving each other for centuries before The White Man appeared in the New World. Failure to acknowledge that history is naive.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 84
- Likes
- 35
So you whites think you are correct in murdering millions to death?
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
We civilized people definetely thinks, that extermination of primitive communists like you is correct.
And to be more serious, you are not capable to read what actually W.G.Ewald wrote? Well, probably not, which is typical for people like you.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,880
- Likes
- 680
the same we had in Australia too, around 90% Indigenous people were scored to reduce their population there, to help The Civilization grow in Australia during 19th century, this way :ranger:
and the rest of the 10% were left to keep doing research on this race too, as below: :ranger:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 84
- Likes
- 35
More impotent rage from a product of an impotent country like Poland. You guys are not even a real country but a beggar nation that gave the scraps Stalin gave you. Without Soviet help, Poland would even be more primitive than now.
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
And you really believe that with such primitive insults you will do some harm to me or my country?
It only shows how intelectually impotent you are and that you have absolutely no historical knowledge.
As for Soviet "help", me and my fellow countrymen preffer to do everything on our own, we do not need such "help".
And guess what, actually without anyones help, but being free and having capitalist economy, we achieved more than being under primitive socialist regime.
You should educate yourself, because as for now, even my dogs shows higher intelectual standards than you.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 84
- Likes
- 35
Ok be proud of your banana republic of a country. A country that has contributed nothing but a Copernicus and a pope and has always been on the loosing end of just about everything until some other power bailed you out. Since when were Poles known for their intellect?
Damian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,836
- Likes
- 2,202
Well I at least have something to be proud of. My country contrary to PRC was not founded by thugs, murderers and degenerates like Mao Zedong.
Oh really, you think that there were only Copernicus and a pope. There were brilliant matematicians (Stanislaw Ulam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), chemists (Marie Curie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) etc. etc. etc.
And hey, this pope alone done more good for humanity than any of Chinese leaders, and I say it as 100% declared Atheist who does not care about any relligion.
You need to learn history.
Since for a very long time.
Ranking per Country -
Average IQ in US and 80 other nations
You see, our nation is one of the most intelligent on this planet.
Which further shows how stupid you are as a person.
We also have one of the higher HDI on this planet, higher even than PRC have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
I would seriously reconsider who lives in banana republic.
Last edited:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Genocide by Muslims | International Politics | 7 | |
|
Pak Army involved in 'genocide' of Hazara Shias in Balochistan: PoK activist after killing of 11 miners | Pakistan | 1 | |
|
Video surfaced: Gafoora taking part in Pashtun Genocide | Pakistan | 11 | |
|
PakArmy committing Genocide on Balochis | Pakistan | 0 |
