3 ms·

What is the consensus answer to why Europe conquered the Americas and not vice versa? If technological development is "heavily adapted to the context of its cu

What is the consensus answer to why Europe conquered the Americas and not vice versa? If technological development is "heavily adapted to the context of its culture", and that context is mostly geography ("mountainous environments") then isn't Diamond right? Seems like the alternative is, "That's just the way it turned out," which is not very satisfying.

rjtavares 3y ago
The interesting question really is "why did Europe conquered the Americans instead of China conquering the Americas"? And I'm pretty sure that's just the way it turned out.
- brabel 3y ago
  China could probably have done so if their huge fleets (with hundreds of ships) of exploration of the 13th and 14th centuries didn't suddenly stop for likely political reasons. They went at least as far as the Roman Empire and Africa. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chinese-exploration-voyages-cheng-ho-1405-1433 https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-... > The difference between the experiences of Europe and China were economic and cultural rather than technological. As the voyages of Cheng Ho demonstrate, the Chinese certainly possessed the maritime technology and expertise to undertake long voyages of discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages > In 1435, when the Xuande Emperor died, the civil officials started to gain power as the new emperor, the Zhengtong Emperor, was only eight years old when he ascended the throne and could be influenced.[186] They seized this opportunity to permanently dismantle the voyages.
- JohnL4 3y ago
  Ocean currents + cost-effectiveness, according to Ian Morris. By his telling, Chinese bureaucrats buried the knowledge of large fleets because it was a more expensive way to project power than simply going over land.
throw4847285 3y ago
Unfortunately the unsatisfying alternative is correct. Counterfactuals are fun but have little value in serious study of history.
- allturtles 3y ago
  That's the kind of thing "serious" historians like to say but that makes no sense on closer inspection. Any causal historical claim can necessarily be rephrased as a counterfactual claim. e.g. "Slavery caused the U.S. Civil War" -> "If there had been no slavery, there would have been no U.S. Civil War." To give up counterfactuals is to surrender causality and to truly make the past "one damn thing after another," i.e. chronicle rather than history. The historical profession as we know it is all about making arguments, not merely cataloging events, so it would cease to exist without counterfactuals.
  - throw4847285 3y ago
    But there are arguments and there are arguments. I read a great book about the Reformation that was a comprehensive history but whose final chapter makes a very compelling case for the Enlightenment being a direct result of the Reformation. He even makes the stronger argument that the Enlightenment unconsciously carried on several of the preoccupations of the Protestant Reformers into a secular context. And that America being a nation founded by Protestants has shaped the entire world. This chapter is preceded, though, by 800 pages of detailed history. You have to earn your big conclusions. And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence.
    - allturtles 3y ago
      > And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence. Sure, but I feel many academic historians have a bit of a double standard here. Did Foucault muster up mounds of evidence for his totalizing theories of power and social structure? Not really, he gestured at a few facts and then built an elaborate structure of theory on that very wobbly foundation. Yet he continues to be taken seriously in academia, whereas Diamond never has been. I think that's partly because he was a "serious thinker" and Diamond is an "airport read," and also partly because theories like Focuault's are so flexible that it becomes a fun hammer you can apply to any nail ("social media is a panopticon!"), whereas Diamond's argument is specific to a particular historical arc, and partly because Foucault accords with the prejudices of the academy (there are hidden structures of power woven throughout society that oppress the weak) and Diamond doesn't (X determinism is bad, everything is "contingent.").

rjtavares 3y ago

The interesting question really is "why did Europe conquered the Americans instead of China conquering the Americas"? And I'm pretty sure that's just the way it turned out.

brabel 3y ago
China could probably have done so if their huge fleets (with hundreds of ships) of exploration of the 13th and 14th centuries didn't suddenly stop for likely political reasons. They went at least as far as the Roman Empire and Africa. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chinese-exploration-voyages-cheng-ho-1405-1433 https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-... > The difference between the experiences of Europe and China were economic and cultural rather than technological. As the voyages of Cheng Ho demonstrate, the Chinese certainly possessed the maritime technology and expertise to undertake long voyages of discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages > In 1435, when the Xuande Emperor died, the civil officials started to gain power as the new emperor, the Zhengtong Emperor, was only eight years old when he ascended the throne and could be influenced.[186] They seized this opportunity to permanently dismantle the voyages.
JohnL4 3y ago
Ocean currents + cost-effectiveness, according to Ian Morris. By his telling, Chinese bureaucrats buried the knowledge of large fleets because it was a more expensive way to project power than simply going over land.

throw4847285 3y ago

Unfortunately the unsatisfying alternative is correct. Counterfactuals are fun but have little value in serious study of history.

allturtles 3y ago
That's the kind of thing "serious" historians like to say but that makes no sense on closer inspection. Any causal historical claim can necessarily be rephrased as a counterfactual claim. e.g. "Slavery caused the U.S. Civil War" -> "If there had been no slavery, there would have been no U.S. Civil War." To give up counterfactuals is to surrender causality and to truly make the past "one damn thing after another," i.e. chronicle rather than history. The historical profession as we know it is all about making arguments, not merely cataloging events, so it would cease to exist without counterfactuals.
- throw4847285 3y ago
  But there are arguments and there are arguments. I read a great book about the Reformation that was a comprehensive history but whose final chapter makes a very compelling case for the Enlightenment being a direct result of the Reformation. He even makes the stronger argument that the Enlightenment unconsciously carried on several of the preoccupations of the Protestant Reformers into a secular context. And that America being a nation founded by Protestants has shaped the entire world. This chapter is preceded, though, by 800 pages of detailed history. You have to earn your big conclusions. And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence.
  - allturtles 3y ago
    > And the bigger your conclusion is (say, here is why/how Europe colonized the world) you'd better have a lot of evidence. Sure, but I feel many academic historians have a bit of a double standard here. Did Foucault muster up mounds of evidence for his totalizing theories of power and social structure? Not really, he gestured at a few facts and then built an elaborate structure of theory on that very wobbly foundation. Yet he continues to be taken seriously in academia, whereas Diamond never has been. I think that's partly because he was a "serious thinker" and Diamond is an "airport read," and also partly because theories like Focuault's are so flexible that it becomes a fun hammer you can apply to any nail ("social media is a panopticon!"), whereas Diamond's argument is specific to a particular historical arc, and partly because Foucault accords with the prejudices of the academy (there are hidden structures of power woven throughout society that oppress the weak) and Diamond doesn't (X determinism is bad, everything is "contingent.").