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, 01:29 PM   #21
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 965

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.
Well what you are describing isn't industrialization, it's mercantilism and while it certainly generated these countries wealth it wasn't necessary for them to industrialize. UK needed products from their colonies for consumer goods but to make mass produce iron and steel products like steam ships, guns, tanks, airplanes etc all the benchmarks of an industrialized society, the European countries were very self dependent.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:29 PM   #22

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
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.
Europe's ships weren't that much better from other civilisations (India and China for instance, also had the capacity to sail the Pacific and find Australia, Polynesia and reach America, they just didn't want to) and Europe wouldn't have been able to maintain these sailing ships and improve them had it not found America, colonise it and exploit it to absurdity.

The same goes for gunpowder technology. Sure it predates colonialism, but without colonies gunpowder weaponry wouldn't have developed at the pace it did. By the 17th century, only the Ottomans were keeping up with Europe in the weapons department, and even then only because they bought and copied these weapons, not because they produced them on their own.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:32 PM   #23

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Well what you are describing isn't industrialization, it's mercantilism and while it certainly generated these countries wealth it wasn't necessary for them to industrialize. UK needed products from their colonies for consumer goods but to make mass produce iron and steel products like steam ships, guns, tanks, airplanes etc all the benchmarks of an industrialized society, the European countries were very self dependent.
Without wealth you can't industrialise, much less at the pace Britain did. You also keep ignoring the resources extracted from colonies, again like gutta-percha and rubber, whose particular substance was used for cables, car and plane wheels, bind machinery together or build elastic bands and conveyor belts that permitted mass production.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:36 PM   #24

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullit View Post
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.
Only in part. Certainly you needed ship technology for sailing the world and invade other continents, but without colonialism, technology would have progressed more equally between nations and at a far slower pace. If Europe is the one that colonised the world, it's simply because it was lucky it had America right besides and could attack it by surprise, allowing it to sack its resources and progress that way.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:41 PM   #25
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
Europe's ships weren't that much better from other civilisations (India and China for instance, also had the capacity to sail the Pacific and find Australia, Polynesia and reach America, they just didn't want to) and Europe wouldn't have been able to maintain these sailing ships and improve them had it not found America, colonise it and exploit it to absurdity.

The same goes for gunpowder technology. Sure it predates colonialism, but without colonies gunpowder weaponry wouldn't have developed at the pace it did. By the 17th century, only the Ottomans were keeping up with Europe in the weapons department, and even then only because they bought and copied these weapons, not because they produced them on their own.
Lets say they are not that great, but the act of crossing the high seas and circumventing the globe which was akin to the way the Americans landed on the moon was an achievement of Spain which was far more superior when compared to the use of technology by the Chinese and even the rest of Western Europeans. So the technological advancement of Western Europeans the way it was used by the Spaniards and the Portuguese predates the colonization.

The Western Europeans were able to know that the New World exist because of Columbus who was able to know it in view of Spanish desire to led the navigation of the high seas and compete with the Portuguese who excelled in that field at that time.

The invention of powerful structures and military arsenal that stopped the Mongolians from further invading Western Europe was also a manifestation of technological advancement of them against these marauding horse riders.They also happened before the colonization.

The achievement of the Spaniards and other Western Europeans in defeating the Ottomans in the Battle of Lepanto showed how the former used technological ability to destroy the latter, which means how powerful the Westerners at that time. That can show that it is not true that the Westerners were not that advance against the Ottoman in terms of sea faring.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:44 PM   #26
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
Only in part. Certainly you needed ship technology for sailing the world and invade other continents, but without colonialism, technology would have progressed more equally between nations and at a far slower pace. If Europe is the one that colonised the world, it's simply because it was lucky it had America right besides and could attack it by surprise, allowing it to sack its resources and progress that way.
Crossing the Atlantic Ocean is never the result of luck. It was simply because of superior naval powers of Spain and that was in view of technological advancement of these Catholics.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:47 PM   #27
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Indus Valley, Pakistan
Posts: 1,531
Blog Entries: 1

Where are going to get mired in this thing about 'colonialism'. We must accept that variety of factors compounded Western Europe on the road to progress. That gave it the lead to be able to conquer/colonise. To be colonized was absolute proof of being backward. To be the colonizer was absolute proof of being ahead. It's that simple.

And the entire Asia [China/sub-continent/Middle East] could not match the ship making skills of Western Europeans by 1600s.
Bullit is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:49 PM   #28
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 18,030

^amen, sir.
dagul is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:51 PM   #29

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Lets say they are not that great, but the act of crossing the high seas and circumventing the globe which was akin to the way the Americans landed on the moon was an achievement of Spain which was far more superior when compared to the use of technology by the Chinese and even the rest of Western Europeans. So the technological advancement of Western Europeans the way it was used by the Spaniards and the Portuguese predates the colonization.
The Chinese and Indians were capable of the same. They sailed all the way from their Asian extreme to Africa which is a comparable distance between Europe and America. Polynesians also traded with America and Australia despite the fact that their islands are even more distant. Notice also that Europeans only circumnavigated the world until the 16th century, when the Spanish began to exploit the incredibly rich islands they found in the Caribbean to build their ships.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The invention of powerful structures and military arsenal that stopped the Mongolians from further invading Western Europe was also a manifestation of technological advancement of them against these marauding horse riders.They also happened before the colonization.
Yeah, no. Mongols stopped because of distance and the difficulty of traversing the Urals and the Caucasian mountains. European castles and other fortifications weren't any stronger than the Asian ones toppled by the Mongols.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The achievement of the Spaniards and other Western Europeans in defeating the Ottomans in the Battle of Lepanto showed how the former used technological ability to destroy the latter, which means how powerful the Westerners at that time. That can show that it is not true that the Westerners were not that advance against the Ottoman in terms of sea faring.
And the Battle of Lepanto happened after the colonisation of America when Spain had already been exploiting its American colonies for decades to build better ships and artillery.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 20th, 2017, 01:53 PM   #30

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
Crossing the Atlantic Ocean is never the result of luck. It was simply because of superior naval powers of Spain and that was in view of technological advancement of these Catholics.
Good, because I didn't say crossing the Atlantic was luck, I said finding a continent right besides Europe was luck.
Maoistic 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.