3 ms·

I haven’t read GG&S (and I’m probably not going to; as this question gives distaste in my mouth) but is it not addressed that the Americas did indeed have domes

I haven’t read GG&S (and I’m probably not going to; as this question gives distaste in my mouth) but is it not addressed that the Americas did indeed have domesticated animals pre-contact? I mean they had (among others) llamas, alpacas, dogs, turkeys, ducks and guinea pigs. Apart from domesticated animals they also had very powerful crops like maize, and—probably the best crop of them all—the potato. I hear this myth quite often, but apart from it not being a good hypothesis, it simply isn’t true, like at all. But all that is to the side, that I really really hate the question of European domination. I honestly wished the people would stop asking that question, and instead focus on the damage and horrors Europe inflicted on the world with their colonial mania.

int_19h 3y ago
People are naturally curious; why would they stop asking questions, especially ones that are as obvious as this one? It's not like Europe is the only colonialist society in history, so what made it so successful, especially given how backwater it has been for most of recorded history compared to well-developed states in Mesopotamia, China etc? And to be clear, if you refuse to even contemplate questions like these, you just cede ground to people who will gleefully answer them for you with answers such as "because they are white, duh".
- runarberg 3y ago
  Because this particular question is based on outdated euro-centric view of history. It is kind of like asking the question “Why is the white man more intelligent than other races?”. Any answer to questions like these will not inform anybody, and at worst it will reinforce the suppositions this question makes, no matter how valid those suppositions actually are. Now to be clear, I’m not accusing Jared Diamond of being a white supremacist (he obviously isn’t), just that this particular book smells of being and outdated and misdirected view of history which happens to cater to euro-centrists (probably unintentionally). And this is a bit ironic given how he is often put in the same camp as Howard Zinn, the history legend him self.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    How is it based on "outdated euro-centric view of history"? The fact that Europeans curb-stomped every other civilization on the globe, including several other competing colonialist empires who were in the running long before, is a fact. Therefore, it must have an explanation. You can't just handwave it away as "because they tried", since they were not the only ones who tried. Sure, the answer can well be something like "blind luck at first, and then just a positive feedback loop" - but that is not the same as refusing to even consider the question, and if that is indeed the answer, then we should be able to find evidence for it and validate it. (To be clear, I don't hold high opinion of Diamond's work, either.)
    - runarberg 3y ago
      You can use the same logic to justify any pseudo-scientific believes. ”The White man has proven himself to be wildly successful in every aspect of society, therefore white supremacy deserves an explanation” > The fact that Europeans curb-stomped every other civilization on the globe This is not a historical fact. And supposing it to be true is a prototypical example of euro-centrism. Yes Europe did engage in a brutal colonial campaign, causing horrors on a scale previously unheard of. But so did the Mongol empire, the Japanese imperial army, the Huns, Alexander the Great, etc. Yes Europe colonized on a larger scale then before (but did so over a longer time period), but they didn’t colonize the entire world. There were other colonial ambitions which coexisted with Europe’s. For example, the Imperial Japan even won colonial wars against a European power, with colonial holdings (and border disputes) persisting to this day. The question of how Europe did this, attributes something unique to Europe, and ignores the times when non-european powers were equally criminal. And you can see how this line of argument starts to break down by reading other posts in this thread. When you try to find what this is that makes Europe unique (Diamond argues environmental conditions) it most likely turns out either not be unique or otherwise completely irrelevant. Euro-centrism has fallen out of favor among historians. We don’t study history anymore by presupposing there is something special about Europe.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        Colonization is not just about boots on the ground. European dominance is a truth self-evident to anyone actually living on those other countries; just go and ask them! Even large and powerful countries like China are disproportionally influenced by Western culture and economics, while influence in the other direction is much more limited. In the "third world", election results in US are front-page news, because that matters to them in a very real way; but few people in US care (or even know) of politics in other countries. All those other examples that you have listed are precisely why the question arises in the first place. E.g. Mongol Empire was a comparable project in intent, and wildly successful at the time (I hail from one of the places that were colonized by it). It also predated the European project. So, why aren't we living in a Mongol-dominated world today? Why did I have to learn English and not Mongol as my second language? Why did I have to emigrate to US and not to Mongolia to get paid more? You seem to be responding from the assumption that I'm trying to push some kind of "white Europeans are superior" agenda, but this perspective is fundamentally wrong starting with the basic premise that the ability to dominate other cultures is a mark of superiority. I don't believe that it is; quite the opposite. But that doesn't negate the question of why Europeans are so much more successful at dominating than any of their competitors.

int_19h 3y ago

People are naturally curious; why would they stop asking questions, especially ones that are as obvious as this one? It's not like Europe is the only colonialist society in history, so what made it so successful, especially given how backwater it has been for most of recorded history compared to well-developed states in Mesopotamia, China etc? And to be clear, if you refuse to even contemplate questions like these, you just cede ground to people who will gleefully answer them for you with answers such as "because they are white, duh".

runarberg 3y ago
Because this particular question is based on outdated euro-centric view of history. It is kind of like asking the question “Why is the white man more intelligent than other races?”. Any answer to questions like these will not inform anybody, and at worst it will reinforce the suppositions this question makes, no matter how valid those suppositions actually are. Now to be clear, I’m not accusing Jared Diamond of being a white supremacist (he obviously isn’t), just that this particular book smells of being and outdated and misdirected view of history which happens to cater to euro-centrists (probably unintentionally). And this is a bit ironic given how he is often put in the same camp as Howard Zinn, the history legend him self.
- int_19h 3y ago
  How is it based on "outdated euro-centric view of history"? The fact that Europeans curb-stomped every other civilization on the globe, including several other competing colonialist empires who were in the running long before, is a fact. Therefore, it must have an explanation. You can't just handwave it away as "because they tried", since they were not the only ones who tried. Sure, the answer can well be something like "blind luck at first, and then just a positive feedback loop" - but that is not the same as refusing to even consider the question, and if that is indeed the answer, then we should be able to find evidence for it and validate it. (To be clear, I don't hold high opinion of Diamond's work, either.)
  - runarberg 3y ago
    You can use the same logic to justify any pseudo-scientific believes. ”The White man has proven himself to be wildly successful in every aspect of society, therefore white supremacy deserves an explanation” > The fact that Europeans curb-stomped every other civilization on the globe This is not a historical fact. And supposing it to be true is a prototypical example of euro-centrism. Yes Europe did engage in a brutal colonial campaign, causing horrors on a scale previously unheard of. But so did the Mongol empire, the Japanese imperial army, the Huns, Alexander the Great, etc. Yes Europe colonized on a larger scale then before (but did so over a longer time period), but they didn’t colonize the entire world. There were other colonial ambitions which coexisted with Europe’s. For example, the Imperial Japan even won colonial wars against a European power, with colonial holdings (and border disputes) persisting to this day. The question of how Europe did this, attributes something unique to Europe, and ignores the times when non-european powers were equally criminal. And you can see how this line of argument starts to break down by reading other posts in this thread. When you try to find what this is that makes Europe unique (Diamond argues environmental conditions) it most likely turns out either not be unique or otherwise completely irrelevant. Euro-centrism has fallen out of favor among historians. We don’t study history anymore by presupposing there is something special about Europe.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      Colonization is not just about boots on the ground. European dominance is a truth self-evident to anyone actually living on those other countries; just go and ask them! Even large and powerful countries like China are disproportionally influenced by Western culture and economics, while influence in the other direction is much more limited. In the "third world", election results in US are front-page news, because that matters to them in a very real way; but few people in US care (or even know) of politics in other countries. All those other examples that you have listed are precisely why the question arises in the first place. E.g. Mongol Empire was a comparable project in intent, and wildly successful at the time (I hail from one of the places that were colonized by it). It also predated the European project. So, why aren't we living in a Mongol-dominated world today? Why did I have to learn English and not Mongol as my second language? Why did I have to emigrate to US and not to Mongolia to get paid more? You seem to be responding from the assumption that I'm trying to push some kind of "white Europeans are superior" agenda, but this perspective is fundamentally wrong starting with the basic premise that the ability to dominate other cultures is a mark of superiority. I don't believe that it is; quite the opposite. But that doesn't negate the question of why Europeans are so much more successful at dominating than any of their competitors.