5 ms·

I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. Or what if Columbus did land on the Ameri

by spaceman_2020 4y ago

I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. Or what if Columbus did land on the American shores, but never made it back to Europe, and the native Americans got their hands on European technology and figured out how to recreate it.

mathattack 4y ago
The outcome is the same. They lacked our weapons and immunizations- it would have been hard to catch up in parallel with the Western world. Look at Japan in the 1850s. The isolation of the prior few centuries hurt them.
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  Were there any positive effects of the long isolation in the case of Japan?
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    In an indirect way. (warning: following is highly speculative) - being isolated made Japan backward. Also, Japan does not have natural resources, and is not an agricultural powerhouse. This meant Japan was not a juicy target for the colonial powers. - Still, given enough time, one of them would surely have snatched it - Japan figured out the point above, and decided to not become a colony. It industrialized at a furious pace until it became a half-decent military power - huge stroke of luck, or something else, but Japan destroys a Russian fleet at Tsushima in 1905, and leapfrogs into the ranks of Great Powers - they further gain a lot in WW1 by sitting on the sidelines, and eventually joining the winning side - this goes to their head, and they proceed to do the most foolish thing at Perl Harbor, and pick a fight with the 800 pound gorilla - this fight does not go well, predictably, so Japan ends up under US occupation for 7 years - another huge stroke of luck: US, instead of sending Japan back to the stone age in retribution, decides to help Japan rebuild, and pumps massive amounts of aid - Japan goes through a second incredibly fast bout of industrialization This story ends around 1990.
    - pasabagi 4y ago
      > huge stroke of luck, or something else .. Tsushima This is very much underselling how outclassed the Russians were on every level of this engagement, except in terms of sheer number of ships (they had more), and technology, which was roughly on par. I think the 'isolation' was pretty advantageous in the sense that they managed to preserve their governmental and cultural structures for a very long time without the disruptive influence of western money and might. I imagine if they had let the Europeans in, the eventual fall of the Shogunate, partly caused by a proxy war between the French and the British (who supported different Daimyo), partly caused by public dissatisfaction about foreign incursion, would have been much earlier. That would have put them in a much less coherent and consequently weaker postion to resist European colonization efforts in the modern era.
    - themaninthedark 4y ago
      Sister comment was made about Tsushima >- this goes to their head, and they proceed to do the most foolish thing at Perl Harbor, and pick a fight with the 800 pound gorilla We in the US knew we would be getting involved in the war and had done things like oil embargo/trade disruption. The reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because Yamamoto thought the only chance they stood against the US was to win such a decisive battle that we would not be able to fight them. He was trying this again at Midway(I believe) but we had broken their Coms so we were able to out maneuver them. Edit Add: As to if their isolation was helpful or not, I think that it allowed them to preserve and strengthen their culture both the good and bad aspects of it. I think that if a country was to close themselves off and turn inward, it could result in good things as long as they have an internal forces that prevents stagnation. Or to put it another way, progress only seems to happen when there are driving forces, such as competing groups. A strong government i.e. Dictator by nature has to wield control in order to stay in power, in doing so any competing groups must be eliminated as they a a threat to power. This brings about stagnation.
    - heywhatupboys 4y ago
      > - huge stroke of luck, or something else, but Japan destroys a Russian fleet at Tsushima in 1905, and leapfrogs into the ranks of Great Powers > - this goes to their head, and they proceed to do the most foolish thing at Perl Harbor, and pick a fight with the 800 pound gorilla This summary reeks of the nationalist tendencies of Americans when describing historical events.
- ertian 4y ago
  Japan is still and independent country full of Japanese people, who held their own against Western militaries within decades of opening. That's a very different from the apocalyptic collapse followed by replacement of the New World. Of course, there's a huge difference between the two: Japan always had some contact with the Old World, and with Old World diseases in particular. America would probably have faced the same wave of disease, even if discovery had happened much later.
- AngryData 4y ago
  More limited contact could have potentially alleviated some of the overall population loss from disease. If they only got 2 european diseases instead of a dozen, had it sweep through them, then had another 50 years before contact again, it may have made a big difference. It could have been possible to have multiple contact events over a 200 year periods to allow disease resistance to form without losing what may have been 90% of their population in one relatively large swoop.
paisawalla 4y ago
You may enjoy "The Years of Rice and Salt," by Kim Stanley Robinson.
e2le 4y ago
They would still likely suffer heavy losses due to disease and infection they have no immunity for.
pxmpxm 4y ago
> I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. (presumably unpopular opinion, people love to signal) This honestly feels like mashup of "i think colonialism/columbus is bad" signaling and that Africa is a tech hub in parallel universe pipedreaming. There's a pile of recently discovered cultures in Amazonia and they're not exactly competing with NASA... which begs the question why you'd expect anything resembling a hockey stick progress for that hypothetical, aside from doubling down on columbus bad thesis.
- ss108 4y ago
  "Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. But yeah, it's against the evidence to think native american societies could have posed any meaningful defense or offense against old world countries. Have you read 1491 and 1493. I have, and they are a couple of the most eye-opening books I have read.
  - PicassoCTs 4y ago
    They most likely would have become insular like china and stagnated similarly. Best scenario would be something like a south vs north dual empire constellation, locked into a cold war that eggs them ever onward. But we will never know, because they did not produce a culture that could compete. Even with time to prepare, alot of these cultures abandoned advanced tech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan) and supressed the "foreign" as the local elites felt there oligarchies threatened by those strange foreigners. I guess the usual attempts were made to encooperate the threat, by offering small kingdoms, slaves and positions within the ruling religion. It did not really work out, as disease crumbled the civilizations to dust. The other "prepared" culture (north american indians who met the vikings) did not take any lesson from that encounter either, because the tales of strange boats with christian raiders were not kept in writing and information was not exchanged with neighbors, with which they were locked in ritualistic inter-tribal warfare. Which is the main problem. The lack of information storage and exchange, due to a missing central culture. Africa had the longest time to acclimate to western intrusion, and did so by selling its own people as goods. The few things they did take over were weapons (used for slave trading and inter tribal warfare), the only candidates for organized resistance was the islamic world (who had writtings, a specialized labour system (industrial precursors) and centralized structures), but they were & are locked in by thee own cultural problems. Only exception were the persians, which were and are the france/us of the region. The chinese almost colonized africa, but then gave it up as a foolish endeavor, due to internal problems (starvation caused unrest) which was mostly due to there industrial revolution never reaching critical mass, which was mostly due to centralized culture/geography preventing technological competition aka harmony). There is good fiction on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt, but you need basically a geographical reactor europes eternal boiling empire pot, with a progress state saving device attached (netherlands and england, some italian states were the scientists fled towards and from), to reach the critical mass. The ingredients were omnipresent, but the permanence of the societal reaction was hard to get critical.
heywhatupboys 4y ago
> I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. there are plenty of cultures in e.g. The Amazon basin that are deliberately undisturbed. You can infer from these I suppose
zajio1am 4y ago
> I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. Reality check: pre-columbian americans did not have iron metallurgy, in this sense they were thousands years behind Europe and even Africa.
- hattmall 4y ago
  That's true, but their food production capabilities were generally far more advanced.
- somat 4y ago
  They also surprisingly did not have the wheel, or to frame it in the silliest way possible, the aztecs had the wheel, but never use it for it's mechanical properties.

mathattack 4y ago

The outcome is the same. They lacked our weapons and immunizations- it would have been hard to catch up in parallel with the Western world. Look at Japan in the 1850s. The isolation of the prior few centuries hurt them.

throw_pm23 4y ago
Were there any positive effects of the long isolation in the case of Japan?
- credit_guy 4y ago
  In an indirect way. (warning: following is highly speculative) - being isolated made Japan backward. Also, Japan does not have natural resources, and is not an agricultural powerhouse. This meant Japan was not a juicy target for the colonial powers. - Still, given enough time, one of them would surely have snatched it - Japan figured out the point above, and decided to not become a colony. It industrialized at a furious pace until it became a half-decent military power - huge stroke of luck, or something else, but Japan destroys a Russian fleet at Tsushima in 1905, and leapfrogs into the ranks of Great Powers - they further gain a lot in WW1 by sitting on the sidelines, and eventually joining the winning side - this goes to their head, and they proceed to do the most foolish thing at Perl Harbor, and pick a fight with the 800 pound gorilla - this fight does not go well, predictably, so Japan ends up under US occupation for 7 years - another huge stroke of luck: US, instead of sending Japan back to the stone age in retribution, decides to help Japan rebuild, and pumps massive amounts of aid - Japan goes through a second incredibly fast bout of industrialization This story ends around 1990.
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    > huge stroke of luck, or something else .. Tsushima This is very much underselling how outclassed the Russians were on every level of this engagement, except in terms of sheer number of ships (they had more), and technology, which was roughly on par. I think the 'isolation' was pretty advantageous in the sense that they managed to preserve their governmental and cultural structures for a very long time without the disruptive influence of western money and might. I imagine if they had let the Europeans in, the eventual fall of the Shogunate, partly caused by a proxy war between the French and the British (who supported different Daimyo), partly caused by public dissatisfaction about foreign incursion, would have been much earlier. That would have put them in a much less coherent and consequently weaker postion to resist European colonization efforts in the modern era.
  - themaninthedark 4y ago
    Sister comment was made about Tsushima >- this goes to their head, and they proceed to do the most foolish thing at Perl Harbor, and pick a fight with the 800 pound gorilla We in the US knew we would be getting involved in the war and had done things like oil embargo/trade disruption. The reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because Yamamoto thought the only chance they stood against the US was to win such a decisive battle that we would not be able to fight them. He was trying this again at Midway(I believe) but we had broken their Coms so we were able to out maneuver them. Edit Add: As to if their isolation was helpful or not, I think that it allowed them to preserve and strengthen their culture both the good and bad aspects of it. I think that if a country was to close themselves off and turn inward, it could result in good things as long as they have an internal forces that prevents stagnation. Or to put it another way, progress only seems to happen when there are driving forces, such as competing groups. A strong government i.e. Dictator by nature has to wield control in order to stay in power, in doing so any competing groups must be eliminated as they a a threat to power. This brings about stagnation.
  - heywhatupboys 4y ago
    > - huge stroke of luck, or something else, but Japan destroys a Russian fleet at Tsushima in 1905, and leapfrogs into the ranks of Great Powers > - this goes to their head, and they proceed to do the most foolish thing at Perl Harbor, and pick a fight with the 800 pound gorilla This summary reeks of the nationalist tendencies of Americans when describing historical events.
ertian 4y ago
Japan is still and independent country full of Japanese people, who held their own against Western militaries within decades of opening. That's a very different from the apocalyptic collapse followed by replacement of the New World. Of course, there's a huge difference between the two: Japan always had some contact with the Old World, and with Old World diseases in particular. America would probably have faced the same wave of disease, even if discovery had happened much later.
AngryData 4y ago
More limited contact could have potentially alleviated some of the overall population loss from disease. If they only got 2 european diseases instead of a dozen, had it sweep through them, then had another 50 years before contact again, it may have made a big difference. It could have been possible to have multiple contact events over a 200 year periods to allow disease resistance to form without losing what may have been 90% of their population in one relatively large swoop.

paisawalla 4y ago

You may enjoy "The Years of Rice and Salt," by Kim Stanley Robinson.

e2le 4y ago

They would still likely suffer heavy losses due to disease and infection they have no immunity for.

pxmpxm 4y ago

> I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. (presumably unpopular opinion, people love to signal) This honestly feels like mashup of "i think colonialism/columbus is bad" signaling and that Africa is a tech hub in parallel universe pipedreaming. There's a pile of recently discovered cultures in Amazonia and they're not exactly competing with NASA... which begs the question why you'd expect anything resembling a hockey stick progress for that hypothetical, aside from doubling down on columbus bad thesis.

ss108 4y ago
"Columbus bad" isn't really a "thesis", it's a fact. But yeah, it's against the evidence to think native american societies could have posed any meaningful defense or offense against old world countries. Have you read 1491 and 1493. I have, and they are a couple of the most eye-opening books I have read.
- PicassoCTs 4y ago
  They most likely would have become insular like china and stagnated similarly. Best scenario would be something like a south vs north dual empire constellation, locked into a cold war that eggs them ever onward. But we will never know, because they did not produce a culture that could compete. Even with time to prepare, alot of these cultures abandoned advanced tech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_of_Japan) and supressed the "foreign" as the local elites felt there oligarchies threatened by those strange foreigners. I guess the usual attempts were made to encooperate the threat, by offering small kingdoms, slaves and positions within the ruling religion. It did not really work out, as disease crumbled the civilizations to dust. The other "prepared" culture (north american indians who met the vikings) did not take any lesson from that encounter either, because the tales of strange boats with christian raiders were not kept in writing and information was not exchanged with neighbors, with which they were locked in ritualistic inter-tribal warfare. Which is the main problem. The lack of information storage and exchange, due to a missing central culture. Africa had the longest time to acclimate to western intrusion, and did so by selling its own people as goods. The few things they did take over were weapons (used for slave trading and inter tribal warfare), the only candidates for organized resistance was the islamic world (who had writtings, a specialized labour system (industrial precursors) and centralized structures), but they were & are locked in by thee own cultural problems. Only exception were the persians, which were and are the france/us of the region. The chinese almost colonized africa, but then gave it up as a foolish endeavor, due to internal problems (starvation caused unrest) which was mostly due to there industrial revolution never reaching critical mass, which was mostly due to centralized culture/geography preventing technological competition aka harmony). There is good fiction on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt, but you need basically a geographical reactor europes eternal boiling empire pot, with a progress state saving device attached (netherlands and england, some italian states were the scientists fled towards and from), to reach the critical mass. The ingredients were omnipresent, but the permanence of the societal reaction was hard to get critical.

heywhatupboys 4y ago

> I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. there are plenty of cultures in e.g. The Amazon basin that are deliberately undisturbed. You can infer from these I suppose

zajio1am 4y ago

> I keep wondering how these civilizations might have developed if we'd discovered them in, say, 1900 instead of 1500s. Reality check: pre-columbian americans did not have iron metallurgy, in this sense they were thousands years behind Europe and even Africa.

hattmall 4y ago
That's true, but their food production capabilities were generally far more advanced.
somat 4y ago
They also surprisingly did not have the wheel, or to frame it in the silliest way possible, the aztecs had the wheel, but never use it for it's mechanical properties.