Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:07 PM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Indus Valley, Pakistan
Posts: 1,531
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricster4455 View Post
How did Western Europeans invent so much in the last few centuries compared to other groups/civilizations in the past thousands of years?
A variety of geographic, economic, historical, social factors came together in a synergy that provided the dynamics behind remarkable raft of achievements only some of which you enumerated.


Quote:
I will say that most of these modern inventions were created by Western European individuals (British, German, French) and not any other group of Europeans (makes me wonder why "white" nationalists keep boasting about European accomplishments when most of these inventions were British, German and French in origin and not from any other European ethnic group, yet lump all these ethnicities into the "white" category.
Well, that is a very accurate and refined rendering of historical fact. This remarkable achievement had nothing to do with Moldavia, Bulgaria, Kosova etc etc anymore then Morocco or Algeria and as you rightly point it was not a "white" phenomenon. To deserve such a definition the achievements would have to be relatively diffuse or sufficiently correlation. That most defintely was not the case. It was restricted to British Isles, France and Germany with few other 'outliers'.


The other side of these remarkable achievements is human beings march from savagery to civilization. The achievements at the dawn of history again is restricted to river civilizations [with exception of China all were semi-arid regions] of Nile, Tigris/Euphrates, Indus and Hwang Ho*. Again we an assume geographic factors played a role in creating enabling conditions to take root at the dawn of history. In exactly same way millenias later enabling conditions precipitated Western Europe to become crucible of change.

*Although on the northern/western edge of Hwang Ho there is the semi-arid region of Takla Makan.
Bullit is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:09 PM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
I'd query pizza as similar foods, flatbread with a topping, have been around for millenia and as for football and basketball, you may wish to substitute modern organised team games (sports in Americanese)--modern being important as the Aztecs, Greeks and Romans had organised games.
But generally, the scientific revolution was a child of the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment which was unique to the "West" where no learning was "taboo" and was shared openly and the practical application of the science was largely a function of the original "Protestant work ethic" that didn't frown on the lower orders bettering themselves and making money out of invention--an attitude that led to the agricultural and industrial revolutions in Britain and later the rest of Europe and the second industrial revolution from the 1840s onwards. It was also the same "can-do" attitude that crossed the Atlantic. Naturally as most science and technology builds on a predecessor, the raft of inventions and discoveries builds one on the other and develops a natural impetus. When you get to a critical mass of scientific or technical excellence people from other countries who wish to join in will flock to where the brains and opportunities for learning are in the 19thC the best of non-European brains flocked to European universities and since WW2 to the the Americas.
I want to further state something, but these universities in Western Europe that you mentioned where people around the world flocked which is among the byproduct of the Western Civilization is truly the reason of that. Like what you stated, that is a unique phenomenon and I fully agree with you.

I also agree with you that colonization was not the reason because before that happened, the Western Europeans had been doing well against the conquered.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:11 PM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,158

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
Love the specious argument of Germany and Japan. Germany benefited from its neighbouring colonial empires and without them it could not have industrialised itself. Japan also benefited from the spoils of colonialism by trading with the Dutch, and industrialised itself because it copied European technology that was only possible through colonial exploitation.

That's not even mentioning how Germany and especially Japan did indeed require colonies to keep their industrial machinery going. The desire to surpass the industrial output of Europe is why Japan in particular required to colonise East Asia and the Pacific, otherwise it would have been impossible, as Japan didn't have any colonial empire in its vecinity, only European colonies.
Well for Germany this wasn't true Germany did not get a colonial empire out of neccessity but rather for prestige's sake. Bismarck saw colonialism as a waste of time. The German's didn't start acquiring colonization until they were well industrialized and those colonies weren't necessary for this. As a matter of fact within a few months of the start of WWI Germany lost all of it's colonies to the UK and Japan. Germany's war machine kept churning for four years. UK needed their colonies but not for industrialization's sake as they had the resources in the UK to produce ships, weapons etc. Japan needed colonies because it didn't have the resources to industrialize with solely it's own territory but the rest of Asia most certainly did. Well Japan did come into conflict with the US eventually but initially the Japanese kept running into targets whose countries were far too busy in Europe to do anything (German colonies in WWI, French Indochina, Hong Kong, Singapore). That being said by WWII even if retaking their colonies had been a British or French number one priority the Japanese would have been able to win.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; November 20th, 2017 at 01:15 PM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is online now  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:13 PM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
I love how angry people get. Things like cars, planes, telecommunications and even something as simple as the industrial conveyor belt used for factory mass production wouldn't have been possible without rubber and gutta-percha, which Europeans wouldn't have obtained without colonising America and South Asia. And that's a simplification. I can write a whole essay about how cash crops, land, surplus resources and surplus labour force, which Europe obtained only through colonisation, are what allowed the massive technological progress of Europe.

One would in fact think something like that would be obvious.

So according to you, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, alongside the states you mentioned with the exception of Armenia, weren't colonies. Then again, you probably are one of those who make the (this time actually) specious distinction between "protectorate" and "colony" to say these weren't colonies.
Wasn't better navigation to colonize which happened before the colonization was a manifestation of invention of creating naval power? Wasn't using the gun powder to the optimum level which the Chinese failed to do was an evidence of more advance civilization? They all happened before the colonization. How do you explain that?

...this has nothing to do with Protestant ethics but was done by the Catholics.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:17 PM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Well for Germany this wasn't true Germany did not get a colonial empire out of neccessity but rather for prestige's sake. Bismarck saw colonialism as a waste of time. The German's didn't start acquiring colonization until they were well industrialized and those colonies weren't necessary for this. As a matter of fact within a few months of the start of WWI Germany lost all of it's colonies to the UK and Japan. Germany's war machine kept churning for four years. UK needed their colonies but not for industrialization's sake as they had the resources in the UK to produce ships, weapons etc. Japan needed colonies because it didn't have the resources to industrialize with solely it's own territory but the rest of Asia most certainly did.
Correct, and in the 20th century the Germans competed with the British and the French by which the Portuguese and the Spaniards who the forerunners of colonization among the Western Europeans logged behind.

I must agree however that colonization gave the British Empire more wealth during the Industrial Revolution.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:17 PM   #16

Maoistic's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Commune
Posts: 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Well for Germany this wasn't true Germany did not get a colonial empire out of neccessity but rather for prestige's sake. Bismarck saw colonialism as a waste of time. The German's didn't start acquiring colonization until they were well industrialized and those colonies weren't necessary for this. As a matter of fact within a few months of the start of WWI Germany lost all of it's colonies to the UK and Japan. Germany's war machine kept churning for four years. UK needed their colonies but not for industrialization's sake as they had the resources in the UK to produce ships, weapons etc.
And again, Germany was right besides Western European colonial empires like France and Britain. And yes, Britain did need colonies to extract resources, use them as markets and exploit their labour force. Like I said, we wouldn't have things like telecommunications, for example, without gutta-percha, which was found only in the colony of Malaya and which the British wouldn't have exploited to its best without the many colonies where they could create plantations for this plant and extract the material needed for cables and so on.

Last edited by Maoistic; November 20th, 2017 at 01:24 PM.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:21 PM   #17

Maoistic's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Commune
Posts: 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Correct, and in the 20th century the Germans competed with the British and the French by which the Portuguese and the Spaniards who the forerunners of colonization among the Western Europeans logged behind.

I must agree however that colonization gave the British Empire more wealth during the Industrial Revolution.
The Spanish argument needs to die. The Spaniards made Germany rich through the Hapsburgs for one, and Britain and France wouldn't have become world powers without robbing the Spanish Empire. Spain simply decayed because, unlike France and Britain, it had to constantly fight the Ottomans while France and Britain didn't have to, taking advantage of this fact to weaken Spain.

In any case, one quick look at the Spanish Empire reveals how they were proto-industrial in their building of gunpowder weapons like cannons, massive galleons and other sailing ships, mass extraction of gold and silver mines and mass production of American cash crops and other commodities.

Last edited by Maoistic; November 20th, 2017 at 01:24 PM.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:24 PM   #18
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
And again, Germany was right besides Western European colonial empires like France and Britain.And yes, Britain did need colonies to extract resources, use them as markets and exploit their labour force. Like I said, we wouldn't have things like telecommunications, for example, without gutta-percha, which was found only in the colony of Malaya and which the British wouldn't have exploited to its best without the many colonies where they could create plantations for this plant and extract the material needed for cables and so on.
How do you know that Britain may not use other resources other than that you mentioned? Remember that when the Japanese occupied it and the rubber plantation that was the source of automobile tires then the British looked for different way and invented a different tires that is not made of rubber from Malaysia. The abaca hemp of the Philippines became irrelevant in view of the invention of nylon. Other resources can be used in the absence of the others.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:26 PM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Indus Valley, Pakistan
Posts: 1,531
Blog Entries: 1

Colonialism was by-product of the conditions that nurtured those very achievements. Meaning the achievements led to these countries gaining such advantage that they could easily conquer/subdue other peoples. That is why Bulgaria, Moldavia, Slovakia etc never were colonial nations [indeed most of them were subjects] but Britain, France etc were.

So the contention that colonialism is what premised the achievements is false. Colonialism came about because of success that also fueled the achievements.
Bullit is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:27 PM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
The Spanish argument needs to die. The Spaniards made Germany rich through the Hapsburgs for one, and Britain and France wouldn't have become world powers without robbing the Spanish Empire. Spain simply decayed because, unlike France and Britain, it had to constantly fight the Ottomans while France and Britain didn't have to, taking advantage of this fact to weaken Spain.

In any case, one quick look at the Spanish Empire reveals how they were proto-industrial in their building of gunpowder weapons like cannons, massive galleons and other sailing ships, mass extraction of gold and silver mines and mass production of American cash crops and other commodities.
Exactly, Spain was proto-industrial prior to colonization, and that is advancement in the true sense of the word.

So okay I am not arguing about how Spain decayed as that is not the subject matter of this thread, but before the colonization, Spain and Portugal excelled as great nations in navigation and used the gun powder and the shields to their advantage against the others. It was before the colonization which dismisses that colonization is the reason of European advancement. One who colonizes others must be more advanced than the conquered.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
centuries, europeans, invent, western



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did Scots invent the Union? JohnP European History 17 December 3rd, 2017 05:23 AM
Did the Romans invent Boudica?? Piccolo Ancient History 15 January 3rd, 2015 02:02 AM
Who did invent the lawn? Zheng LaiEn General History 37 December 7th, 2014 07:59 PM
Was Stone Henge Built By Old Europeans or Indo Europeans? cachibatches Ancient History 17 July 1st, 2014 09:44 PM
How did they invent Kimchi? DesertPilot Art and Cultural History 11 September 6th, 2009 11:33 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.