3 ms·
Most of the framing in this HN post have been thinly-veiled racism attributing Europe’s success to things like survival in colder climates, working together unl
by yunohn 5y ago
Most of the framing in this HN post have been thinly-veiled racism attributing Europe’s success to things like survival in colder climates, working together unlike developing countries, having higher avg IQ - all of these reasons are easily debatable and most importantly without sources.
If we focus on your post now, your core point is that Europe was better at military technology and hence could colonise better. Saying you could build weaponry doesn’t prove pre-wealth - it just means you could allocate Human Resources to weapon building whereas developing countries chose not to.
And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all?
I don’t understand the wealth or GDP argument at all tbh. We’re talking about a colonial pre-globalised economy world - wealth did not have an international standard, countries created money as they needed and then our modern society adopted a worldview wherein developed countries are valued less to keep them in eternal poverty. There is no basis for an Indian vs European GDP, when neither existed in that age and all trade was through colonial exploitation.
- Jensson 5y ago> And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all? What riches? Were the homes in Sweden made by materials imported from colonies? Were the food they ate imported from colonies? Cotton clothes I can give you, but wool clothes were still the most common, and I doubt the entre society of Sweden were revolutionized thanks to cotton clothes. Potatoes were from colonies, but they were still home grown, the potatoes eaten in Sweden weren't stolen from anywhere. Precious metals aren't riches for a society, just riches for the elite, you can't eat or live in gold. England getting a lot of gold doesn't help Sweden in any way.
- yunohn 5y agoThat’s a lot of sidestepping of my entire comment. So why was Sweden selling this advanced cannon technology and sailing slave ships for Britain et all, in exchange for metal money - which like you say wouldn’t help the average Swede? Surely, they could’ve just kept to themselves and built things for themselves. Why did the neutral Swedes even attempt their own colonies? Seems like a waste of resources. (https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrality/ https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
- Jensson 5y agoThe elites likes precious metals and will spend a lot of manpower to attain it, but precious metals doesn't make society rich. When we say that Europe was rich we don't mean they had lots of gold in their coffers, but that they had plenty of good food, housing, clothes, medicine etc, things that makes society rich.
- yunohn 5y agoWhy do you assume colonies didn’t have food, housing, clothes, or medicine? Have you read about any of their history? This is an extreme form of the typical “taming the savages” racist trope. Anyway, you’ve been ignoring most of my arguments and furthering your own Byzantine narrative. I was attempting to educate in good faith, but I shall cease to engage now.