4 ms·

No mention of an incredibly wealthy continent, both in mineral and agricultural terms (and a temperate climate), that was largely seized by killing the people w

by vacri 9y ago

No mention of an incredibly wealthy continent, both in mineral and agricultural terms (and a temperate climate), that was largely seized by killing the people who owned it and taking their stuff. No mention of the Louisiana Purchase. without which 'Manifest Destiny' would never have occurred, nor the Mexican-American war which added Texas and California, two of the engine-rooms of American wealth today. No mention of the point that once 'manifest destiny' was complete, the US was safe on all sides - much weaker countries to the north and south, and giant ocean-sized moats to the east and west; rather than deploy military in defense, it could be used to project power in support of the economy. All of these things are pretty major additions to why the US is such an economic powerhouse today. Edit: wow, I've really touched a nerve with this one. Enough to get some revenge downmodding on past comments of mine. Wow.

saryant 9y ago
It's a book review, not the book itself.
lukas099 9y ago
I would guess and hope that the book covers those topics. Very good points.
AndrewGaspar 9y ago
Well, this is a one column review of a book that's 576 pages. :)
- vacri 9y ago
  Given the significance of the items I mentioned, if the book does cover it in sufficient detail, the review should have at least hinted at it.
meri_dian 9y ago
The fact that the US is separated from a huge chunk of the world by the oceans is tremendously important. But pretty much all nations and cultures have spread by one group dominating other groups and taking their land. That's a given. What happens after the land is taken and the nation established is more important, which is what this book seems to address. The US has huge material advantages over other nations, but it has also fostered a powerful innovative culture that is just as important to it's success.
- vacri 9y ago
  > is just as important to it's success. Yes, but this is why I said the things I mentioned were 'pretty major additions', not 'the only reasons'. The Louisiana Purchase is routinely ignored in things like this, for example - with no Purchase, there's no Mexican-American war, no Texas or California, no Great Plains, no Mississippi trade, and France as a (friendly) neighbour.
DrScump 9y ago
No mention of an incredibly wealthy continent, both in mineral and agricultural terms How is North America unusually "wealthy" in minerals? Per unit land area, probably only Australia is less gifted in initial (total value of deposits before human extraction) mineral wealth, even if you count commodities that are not presently allowed to be extracted. I would guess that South America or Africa is greatest.
- vacri 9y ago
  You're hand-waving away both ease of extraction and also the minerals that were worthwhile in the industrial and pre-industrial ages. North America had plenty of iron and coal, and it was easy to get them around, and also easy to extract and use them for most of the year (the temperate climate). Minerals you can't reach or can't use are not useful - there was not a lot of call for Tantalum in the 1800s. Compare to Brazil, which is a tropical country choked with rainforest. There's a reason why industrial powerhouses develop in temperate zones, and not in tropical ones. Or look along the Andes, where there are a lot of minerals, but there's pretty hostile geography.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    The dominance of the Spanish was based off of extracting natural wealth from SA, it's just they squandered that wealth instead of building up industry. From 1500-1800ish there was far more easily taken natural wealth in SA, only a myopic view of history isn't aware of that.
    - vacri 9y ago
      Apart from gold, which was only really useful in the advanced economy of Europe (a hammer made of gold isn't very good), what was the mineral wealth extracted from South America in this period? What minerals could be easily used to supplement agriculture and build industry in the local area? What mineral industries do you see as being far easier in SA than NA in your period? What are the mineral industries that you see SA as squandering? Don't forget either that west-coast minerals were a very long way away from advanced markets (also going via the hostile Straits of Magellan), and additionally could never benefit from the tradewinds that assisted the 'triangle trade'. Any commerce-based society there would have massive limitations.

by vacri 9y ago

saryant 9y ago

It's a book review, not the book itself.

lukas099 9y ago

I would guess and hope that the book covers those topics. Very good points.

AndrewGaspar 9y ago

Well, this is a one column review of a book that's 576 pages. :)

vacri 9y ago
Given the significance of the items I mentioned, if the book does cover it in sufficient detail, the review should have at least hinted at it.

meri_dian 9y ago

The fact that the US is separated from a huge chunk of the world by the oceans is tremendously important. But pretty much all nations and cultures have spread by one group dominating other groups and taking their land. That's a given. What happens after the land is taken and the nation established is more important, which is what this book seems to address. The US has huge material advantages over other nations, but it has also fostered a powerful innovative culture that is just as important to it's success.

vacri 9y ago
> is just as important to it's success. Yes, but this is why I said the things I mentioned were 'pretty major additions', not 'the only reasons'. The Louisiana Purchase is routinely ignored in things like this, for example - with no Purchase, there's no Mexican-American war, no Texas or California, no Great Plains, no Mississippi trade, and France as a (friendly) neighbour.

DrScump 9y ago

No mention of an incredibly wealthy continent, both in mineral and agricultural terms How is North America unusually "wealthy" in minerals? Per unit land area, probably only Australia is less gifted in initial (total value of deposits before human extraction) mineral wealth, even if you count commodities that are not presently allowed to be extracted. I would guess that South America or Africa is greatest.

vacri 9y ago
You're hand-waving away both ease of extraction and also the minerals that were worthwhile in the industrial and pre-industrial ages. North America had plenty of iron and coal, and it was easy to get them around, and also easy to extract and use them for most of the year (the temperate climate). Minerals you can't reach or can't use are not useful - there was not a lot of call for Tantalum in the 1800s. Compare to Brazil, which is a tropical country choked with rainforest. There's a reason why industrial powerhouses develop in temperate zones, and not in tropical ones. Or look along the Andes, where there are a lot of minerals, but there's pretty hostile geography.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  The dominance of the Spanish was based off of extracting natural wealth from SA, it's just they squandered that wealth instead of building up industry. From 1500-1800ish there was far more easily taken natural wealth in SA, only a myopic view of history isn't aware of that.
  - vacri 9y ago
    Apart from gold, which was only really useful in the advanced economy of Europe (a hammer made of gold isn't very good), what was the mineral wealth extracted from South America in this period? What minerals could be easily used to supplement agriculture and build industry in the local area? What mineral industries do you see as being far easier in SA than NA in your period? What are the mineral industries that you see SA as squandering? Don't forget either that west-coast minerals were a very long way away from advanced markets (also going via the hostile Straits of Magellan), and additionally could never benefit from the tradewinds that assisted the 'triangle trade'. Any commerce-based society there would have massive limitations.