There's something I've been thinking about for a long time. If human life started in Africa, and then humans migrated to Europe, how did Europeans develop as the dominant technological power. Europeans became the dominant race because they got themselves there. If a person works his way to the top shouldn't he get to enjoy the rewards? Would it be the same for a race?
Not my opinion. I know it leans towards racism but I've been thinking about it for a long time.
[ October 21, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> If a person works his way to the top shouldn't he get to enjoy the rewards? <<
Not to the point where it hurts or hinders others, which is where the analogy breaks down.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not really able to give you an answer to that, but I highly suggest Guns Germs and Steel.
As Hobbes suggested.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ryan, your argument can be restated this way:
A person or people who have something must have done something to deserve it.
Do you believe this?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Dammit! I was gonna suggest Guns, Germs and Steel and two other people beat me to it. Curses!
What Tom D said, including a discussion about inheritance...
I must say, the post that began this thread sure sounded like someone trolling for an argument...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Gah! Three people recommended Diamond's book before I did!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hey, there's this book you should read. It's called Guns, Germs, and...oh.
Actually, I've been meaning to read this book ever since I saw it mentioned in OSC's forward to Shadow of the Hegemon. (that's where it is, isn't it?) Thanks everyone for reminding me.
By the way, to whom much is given, much is demanded. In other words, if white people are actually better than members of other races, more should be expected of them, not less.
Oh, and what about Asians? Given the sheer number of things the Chinese invented, I'd say they might have accomplished more than the Europeans. I suppose it depends on what yardstick you're using. If it's power (especially political power), then the Europeans might win. If it's technology, then I'd say the Asians are doing pretty well. Abstract thought? Probably the Greeks, although if I recall correctly, Muslims made huge contributions to mathematics.
Really though, I think it's stilly to worry too much about what race did what. The important thing is what individuals can accomplish now. Looking at someone's race to determine their potential is ridiculous.
[ October 22, 2003, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Actually, Diamond -- if I recall correctly -- addresses a similar question. While Ryan's question seems to be more about the might-makes-right philosophy than actual racial superiority, Diamond addresses a not-so-rare belief that since Europeans and their descendants have conquered and held most of the world for hundreds of years, their brains must be stronger through continuous invention (i.e., if you're strong, and prove it by lifting heavier and heavier weights, your arm must be stronger than one who doesn't lift weights; apply the same logic to the brain). He offers several pages in dissecting the theory -- somewhere in the first hundred pages or so, I believe.
Sorry I can't be more exact. It's been quite some time since I read it last.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I add my vote in for Guns, Germs and Steel. I read it because I saw it recommended so many times here at Hatrack and it was well worth the time.
The only problem I had was that Diamond seemed to be really long-winded at points explaining the same points over and over.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'd just like to point out that there is no such thing as race in terms of humans. The subtle differences between people from different parts of the world are biologically insignificant and do not justify a classification into different races.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Or to use the oft cited example, 55 chimpanzees living on one side of a single mountain in CentralAfrica have greater genetic differences/distance amongst themselves than all of humanity.
[ October 22, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:how did Europeans develop as the dominant technological power.
Because Europeans had more conflicts with eachother, they had to develop more technology for killing eachother off; because Europeans were able to sustain a greater population in a smaller area (due to better soil, etc), they had more diseases, and developed stronger immune systems than other nations more sparsely populted.
Really-- Guns, Germs, and Steel should be required reading to post on this site.
[ October 22, 2003, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Inheritance of resources really is antithetical to a merit-based philosophy of economics.
Odd that so many who profess an allegiance to pure merit will defend inheritance policy so rigorously.
[Scott: Yep. GGS should be required for all, IMHO.]
[ October 22, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Don't forget the availability of animals well suited to domestication Scott--that's a big one too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Noemon-- theorhetically, the Africans had a greater resource of domesticatable (is that a word?) animals. Don't quote me on it, but the variety of animal life in Africa beats Europe's hands down.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The variety of life may be greater in some parts of Africa, but nonetheless, Europe had more animals that were domesticatable, I think. Doesn't Diamond talk about this, citing the zebra as an example of an animal that looks like it would be domesticatable on paper, but in practice is way too viscious? It's been 5 or 6 years since I've read GGS, though, so I could be remembering incorrectly.
Come to think of it though, wasn't there a very early iron using civilization in West Africa?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I think you're right, Noemon. There is a large variety of animals in Africa, but few that are domesticable.
I don't think it was discussed in the book, but what about elephants? I know they are used for travel, pulling things, etc. I guess they're a bit large for plowing a field though.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Were Arican elephants used for this to the same extent that Asian elephants were/are? Carthage used them as war mounts, I know, but were they used for other purposes? I honestly have no idea.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There are many theories of why Europeans mastered the world.
This assumes that Europeans mastered the world.
China has one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and except for about 150 years, was undisputed master of all of Asia. Today, they are the 2nd super power, and striving to be number 1.
Japan is one of the great economic forces in the world, and Korea is right on its trail.
Europe had several advantages which were more accidents of history than any special inbred ability.
When the European's landed in the America's the Aztec capital was a larger city, with many better technologies, than any city in Euope accept decaying Rome. It was the diseases we brought, and the internal wars of the natives that allowed us to conquer.
While Rome was burning and torturing people for trying to understand scientific principles, the Caliph's of Arabia were creating the math and science that later Enlightened European's stole from them.
If you believe that those who have proven their mastery of the world should be the genetic supermen, chosen by destiny to be rulers of the world, then we would all be speaking Egyptian, or Chinese, or Sumerian.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It was the diseases we brought, and the internal wars of the natives that allowed us to conquer.
I don't disagree-- but I think you'll find that superior technology played a HUGE part as well, and should not be discounted.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: While Rome was burning and torturing people for trying to understand scientific principles, the Caliph's of Arabia were creating the math and science that later Enlightened European's stole from them.
Sure, the Caliphs were torturing and burning people for different reasons. You go too far when you attempt to paint one culture as superiour to another, as you are here.
Why do you consider the spreading of knowledge to be stealing? Did the Arabs STEAL knowledge of the printing press? I don't think so.
Edit: added last paragraph
[ October 22, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I believe he talked about elephants and why they are not so great for many things as well. Although I do not quite buy his theory on zebras- I am sure the factors he listed would make it quite a bit harder to domesticate the zebra than the horse, but that does not mean it could not be done if one was determined to do it. It seems to me it could be more of a much higher barrier to entry for the zebra than the horse, and it might be (well I suppose is, or it would have happened) high enough for it not to be immediately worth it, or even worth it in a few generations.
I do not have the book handy right now, so if someone who does would kindly list the basic differences between taming and domesticating I would greatly appreciate. I seem to recall that there was an assumption that taming/domesticating was basically a binary rather than a linear question, but I could be wrong. And if that assumption is there, then I cannot remember any actual support he gave for it, or even if it was explicitly stated.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Robes, I was trying to fight the idea of comparing cultures by showing that other cultures besides European had great thinkers and scientists.
The spreading of knowledge is great, and went many ways. However, when you try to claim moral superiority by virtue of the technology that came to you by way of those you deem inferior, then I claim that is theft.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: their brains must be stronger through continuous invention
I find this ridiculous.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Teshi: Haven't you heard of aquired charicteristics?
Tom: From a Secular point of view yes. (However as I am a Christian I think God often grants people what they get.) Unless it is in perspective of inherited wealth, however someone must've had to do something to get it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"From a Secular point of view yes. (However as I am a Christian I think God often grants people what they get.)"
Ryan, if you honestly believe that all people deserve what they have -- either by having worked to earn it or having had their fortune bestowed upon them by God by virtue of their merits -- then there's nothing wrong with concluding that the people who are in power in any given situation are only there because they're better than the ones who aren't.
I will say that it is hard for me to understand how someone can actually believe this, but you're entitled to both your premise and your conclusion.
[ October 22, 2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
THE INDUS RIVER (AND THE INDUS RIVER VALLEY) IS NOT LOCATED IN AFRICA.
Really, kids. Civilization learned the very wise lesson of centralization in Africa—a lesson still in use today—but civilization started elsewhere.
Also, Ryan, by what criteria are you judging Europe and Africa? If it were not for Northern Africa and the Middle East (and the sciences and social lessons therein, among other things), Europe would still be a land of knuckle-dragging, inbred savages.
Some would say they still are.
I find the recent trends regarding race and racism slightly disturbing. More white suburbanites need to be transplanted south of the Sahara for a year or two. Maybe an exchange program as a social study on how comfortable couches and television affect human perception of how the world works.
[edit to add] Make that exchange program compulsory. And yes, I mean for me too.
[ October 22, 2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Leto II ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Proof that western culture is indeed dominant in the modern world: In order for a man of any nationality to be taken seriously by the international community, he must wear a tie.
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
Proof that Mid-Eastern culture is dominant: Algebra is still a large component in mathematics; both the dome and the arch are architecturally superior to alternatives to this day; at least 90% of the entire world prays to a god that was borne out of the region (in a fixed religion).
Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
We can thank Africa for the idea of an afterlife, for honor to the dead, for early astronomical study, for some of the first universities, and for a girl's best friend—the diamond.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I hope you weren't taking my comment seriously Posted by Leto II (Member # 2659) on :
Nah, you're just gonna be on the first boat in the exchange program (sitting right next to me). Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Tom I missunderstood. I don't necessarily think people deserve what they get, but cause and effect. Europeans do something, they become dominant.
Leto: I didn't say civilization, I said humanity. Our species evolved in Africa. And your post makes claims that cannot be discussed or disputed. What lessons of science and society? As for Algebra, someone else would have discovered it eventually. Two people working from the same body of facts often come to the same conclusion (Newton and Leibnez, Darwin and the other guy who's name I can't remember). On that note Calculus, Evolution, Nuclear Theory, Atomic Theory, Riflery all came out of Europe. European culture is dominant becasue as Geoff said do modernized Africans resemble us in dress or vice versa?
It seems to me that Europe is on top.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Yay Europe!!!
WOOOOOO!!!!!
Posted by Dreamwalker (Member # 4189) on :
quote:It seems to me that Europe is on top.
ohh the missionary position Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't necessarily think people deserve what they get, but cause and effect. Europeans do something, they become dominant."
How is this different from deserving what you get, in practice?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
The Europeans may have been terrible mean people, but they did something and then something occured. In this case dominance.
Causality. (I just watched Matrix:Reloaded forgive the cliche.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*blinks* Ryan, that's a correlation. Which may or may not imply causality.
It's hard to prove what might have happened had the Europeans acted differently. Might things have turned out much the same? Radically different? It's a question that fuels many books.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Interesting you should say that about inheritance, Claudia. I've been quietly questioning whether inheritance is really proper for a couple of years now, and the best reasons I can come up with for keeping it are 1) cheating and massive social disruption as people resist the change and 2) the danger of the massive government controls needed to take the money and redistribute it every time someone dies. Good reasons, but nothing really fundamental.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)