How Did Europe Come to Dominate The World [Archive]

Markxxx

09-09-1999, 12:11 AM

Without using any racial or abstract theories, just how is it European culture predominated over he rest of the world.

I mean my understanding is that Native American culture was almost if not as, advanced as European when the Europeans came here. Certainly the Chinese culture was up there.

My theory is that Europe was so busy being invaded that they learned warfare better than other culture that were at peace more so. Therefore they could impose their culture on these peaceful peoples.

BobT

09-09-1999, 12:35 AM

This seems more like a Great Debate than a question.

Perhaps I should just start quoting liberally from just about every history textbook ever written which usually touches on this topic.

Coach

09-09-1999, 12:45 AM

I'll tell you what my history teacher said was the greatest contributor to European dominance of the world.... The invention of the "keel" on sailing ships. You kind of have to think about it for a second to appreciate it, but you might find it provocative. Whether that's the right answer or not, I wouldn't hazard to say, but it is something for debate. Enjoy.

E1skeptic

09-09-1999, 01:24 AM

It would be extremely impractical, if not impossible, to reply to your question in this forum. The number of circumstances surrounding the reasons for Europeans "dominating" the World are way too many and varied.

I suggest you get a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". You'll find out many interesting facts that impacted the development of the different cultures around the World, and paved the road, so to speak, for the European domination.

So, sit back, relax, and enjoy your book.

------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire

rjk

09-09-1999, 01:40 AM

This is pretty much of a WAG; I have no evidence, I don't claim it's true, but it's interesting anyway. Yes, it would be better if I had a source, but if it turns into a Great Debate does it really matter? ;)

I recall hearing the suggestion that Europe's geography offers local cultures enough isolation to develop independently (barriers like forests, mountains, and large rivers), but not so much that they can get complacent. Adequate resources for technology are there (or were), but often not where they're wanted, so there's more encouragement for trade and warfare.

Many other areas are either almost completely isolated, or dominated by a single uniform culture, so they don't get the stimulation that early Europeans did.

That gave Europeans an edge in technology that made the difference.

As I said above, WAG!

------------------
Bob the Random Expert
"If we don't have the answer, we'll make one up."

rjk

09-09-1999, 01:43 AM

"... they didn't get the stimulation ..."

Read it first, then hit Submit!

------------------
Bob the Random Expert
"If we don't have the answer, we'll make one up."

Jorge

09-09-1999, 03:17 AM

Yup, read Jared Diamond's book. Also Marvin Harris ("Who we are", if I remember correctly.) The latter's premise revolves around available resources for sustainable "cultural" existence, and the various forms of problem solving for given sets of circumstances.

BTW, check your assumptions & definitions:

...Native American culture was almost if not as advanced as European when the Europeans came here. Certainly the Chinese culture was up there.

Whaddya mean by advanced ?

...Europe was so busy being invaded that they learned warfare better than other culture that were at peace more so. Therefore they could impose their culture on these peaceful peoples...

So did the Chinese, Ottoman, Aztec, etc... Empires. And on a smaller scale (sometimes well into the 20th century) Lao, Tagalogs, Hausa, ad infinitum. Question of scale.

------------------
"Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
- T.Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.

Markxxx

09-09-1999, 03:54 AM

If you look at the history of places, China, Africa and The Americas had their odd wars and famines etc but nothing compared to constant years of warfare which the Europeans had.

It is said that for instance, medical technology in the Inca was almost as advanced as that of Europeans at the time when they "Discovered" America.

Omniscient

09-09-1999, 05:30 AM

Its pissing me off, I seem to recall reading a extremely in depth discussion of this exact topic here on the SDMB, but the search engine is monkey fucked. I just spent 45 minutes scanning all the threads with no luck. Anyone else recall the thread I'm looking for?

sunbear

09-09-1999, 06:20 AM

I've heard all the theories. We give them too much credit.They had a little technology, and a lot of people, for the period.They set sail, got to a place with less people(America), and settled. If they had landed in Asia, they wouldn't have stayed. Some even landed in South Africa and settled there, but mostly Africa was too full.The rest just follows. Plus part of the settlers were arrogant Englishmen.They think everyone else is foreigners.

Manda JO

09-09-1999, 08:21 AM

Markxxx:
"If you look at the history of places, China, Africa and The Americas had their odd wars
and famines etc but nothing compared to constant years of warfare which the Europeans had."

This is just wrong. The history of all these places are just as full of wars and atrocities as anywhere else. I can't even begin to prove it here, though, bacause we would have to go through most of world history. Go read books (reputable books, from a university library) on China and Africa and the Americas and you will soon find that Europe does not have the exclusive SOB status it wants. A few quick examples: In the last ten years, scholors have mostly deciphered the Mayan writting system. Turns out they mostly wrote about constant warfare. The Aztecs so mistreated thier subject nations that they rose immeaditly to help Cortez. If China was so peaceful, why did they build the Wall?

I don't mean to jump all over you, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Describing other people as "peaceful and good" is really a form of racism. It infantilizes them and goes back to the notion of the "noble savage". Fact is, people in genral have the same capability to be SOBs, regardless of race or ethnic group.

A quick note as to the Americas. As a life long fan of Mesoamerican cultures, I understand the temptation to dress them up to being comprably advanced to the Europeans. However, this is not really true. This is fine-- a culture should be weighed on its own merits, not measured with a European yardstick. The Aztecs and especially the Mayans did have writing and some very sophisticatd mathmatics. However, they didn't have gunpowder, the wheel, The ability to work any medal harder than silver, domesticated animals other that turkeys and dogs, ships, signifigant long distance trade (in the scope you see in Europe/Asia at the time.) As far as medicene and the Incas goes, I don't know, but their were things living on the bottem of swamps with almost as advanced medical techniques as Europe had in the 1500s. China, on the other hand, was much more comprable to Europe,as far as the sort of arbitrary standards of "advancement" europe set go.

TheIncredibleHolg

09-09-1999, 09:01 AM

Hey guys, have you checked Cecil's columns on this topic?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970620.html http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970801.html

Moonshine

09-09-1999, 10:06 AM

Before we get sidetracked with the facts of the matter I'd just like to add my WAG: could it be that European culture came to dominate the world simply because it was the most recent one? We are seeing a shift even in Europe towards more American attitudes and ways of living, perhaps the tide is turning and the next culture to be seen as standard will be North American culture?

Pickman's Model

09-09-1999, 10:11 AM

Thanks much, Manda Jo, for saying what I was going to. It's sort of like asking, "How did the British manage to hang on to Roarke's Drift in South Africa when there was only a hundred of them, whilst Cetshwayo's army numbered over 10,000 Zulu warriors?" Well......I realize it's not "P.C." to say this, but the British had advanced rifles, artillery, Gatling guns, cavalry, and an uncomparable navy, not to mention a fantastic amount of modern industrial output. The Zulus were pastoral people who tended cattle for a living and made whatever metal implements they had by hand. Plus, they were fighting with a somewhat more advanced version of sticks and stones; i.e., assegais and spears, which was fine if you were fighting the Swazis or the Pygmies, but it just wasn't going to do much for you if you were up against the 99th Regiment of Foot, the 91st Highlanders, the 17th Lancers, the 21st Royal Scots Fusiliers, the 60th Rifle Regiment, and the 1st King's Dragoon Guards.

Same thing in North America: the native people here simply did not have anything in the way of weaponry, tactics, or advanced technology that was anywhere near what the Europeans had. I have no idea where you heard that they did, or that the two cultures were roughly equal, but take it from a college history major who graduated with honors: THAT idea is total politically correct bullshit that has absolutely no basis whatsoever in reality. Anybody who tells you differently is not only full of crap, you can go back and tell them that I said they're full of crap. Look at the difference in architecture, for example: Europeans had built massive castles and huge cathedrals for centuries, while Native American peoples lived in buffalo skin tents and birchbark huts. As for the question of why the Europeans developed these things when the American, Asian, and African cultures did not, I have no idea. Ask a sociologist, if you can find one who'll be honest with you.

The only other things that I would add are that the Europeans had something else that the Native Americans did not: the horse. There were no horses in North America prior to their being introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century; and if you have an armed body on horseback with firearms fighting an armed body on foot with bows and arrows, the outcome is already decided. Secondly, I too would strongly recommend anything written by Jared Diamond, who is an excellent author on any subject he chooses to write on.

KCB615

09-09-1999, 10:35 AM

I seem to recall hearing or seeing something in the past few months that said the Europeans could conquest like they did was due to Eurasia being oriented east-west, as opposed to the Americas' and Africa's north-south orientation. The Europeans could take the agriculture, clothing, building needs, etc; with them when they went out beating up on their neighbors, and not have to worry about a drastic climatic change. As opposed to the Americas, where one could be in a place with short, mild winters, move north towards, oh, Minnestoa a couple hundred miles and be in a much colder zone where their lifestyle would have to drastically change. I could be way off base with this one, but it sounds logical to me.

------------------
Jeremy....

I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire engine - Kurt Vonnegut

John W. Kennedy

09-09-1999, 01:02 PM

Yes, I think it was in Natural History that it was recently suggested that part of the European advantage was the large extent of the Mediterranean climate type in the old world, compared to the new.

Other possibilities -- a mindset (the Crusades may have been a factor here) along the lines that even if foreigners were dirty and disgusting, they were still worth conquering -- Christianity's solid sense of linear time and long-term purpose -- a generally higher regard for the common man.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Sam Stone

09-09-1999, 01:40 PM

I think a factor in the speed of development of a culture was the climate they lived in. Hunter-gatherers in a bountiful area really had no need to improve technologically.

Lucky

09-09-1999, 03:30 PM

Pickman:

Just one small gripe. You said:
Europeans had built massive castles and huge cathedrals for centuries, while Native American peoples lived in buffalo skin tents and birchbark huts. As for the question of why the Europeans developed these things when the American, Asian, and African cultures did not, I have no idea.

I thought the Asians (or at least some of them) did a pretty fair job in the arcitechture department. The Taj Mahal, for example, was built in 1630 (well, started, anyway). And then there was that Chinese thing with the terra cotta soldiers (the name of which I've obviously forgotten). Of course, the people of these nations lived in pretty primative housing (still do).
I'm hoping you'll clarify this for me as I always enjoy reading your posts :).

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Sofa King

09-09-1999, 05:28 PM

It's because Europe is downhill from Asia.

Various tribes migrated down the steppes of Asia, often being pushed by other migratory tribes behind them. They wound up in Europe, which became a sort of septic tank of cultures, languages, inventions, products, ideas and pathogens, the combination of which allowed Europeans to branch out and spread their greatest asset: disease. Nothing facilitates conquest better than the ability to visit a place once and then return five years later to find it depopulated by smallpox.

Think I'm kidding? Have you ever tried fighting uphill? With dysentery?

09-09-1999, 05:43 PM

1-Transportation advantages. Advanced sailing ships, superior navigation techniques, horses [bred for special purposes], wheels[remember aztecs], trade routes.Later, trains et. al.
2----advanced weapons tech.
3--systematic study of tactics in formal military academies [tactics are as real as life & death, DAMMIT!]
4--playing off one faction against another, while being discounted as unimportant [this is a major factor]

This oversimplifys the issue [sp?] but it covers many of the important bases.

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

E1skeptic

09-09-1999, 06:01 PM

Add germs.

According to Pliny

09-09-1999, 07:38 PM

KCB615 has it right. Jarrod Diamond traces it all back to the East-West axis that Eurasia enjoys and Africa and the Americas lack.

Eurasia starts with two great advantages:

1. Many suitable wild species
2. An east/west axis that makes the spead of these species easy (because of consistant climate zones)

These lead to:

Many domesticated plant and animal species.

which leads to:

1) epidemic diseases

and

2) food surpluses, food storage

which leads to:

large, dence, sedentary, stratified societies

which leads to:

1) more epidemic diseases
2) political organization, writing

and

3) Technology

which leads to:

Guns, steel swords and (real important) ocean going ships

Also draw an imaginary line down from "many suitable species" to

horses, which along with the weapons, ships, and diseases helped the Eurasians conquer the World.

astorian

09-09-1999, 07:57 PM

Obviously, MANY non-European societies (the Egyptians, the Chnese, the Persians, the MAyans, etc.) were more scientifically, culturally and militarily advanced than European society at various points in history. It just so happens that Europeans were the first to

1) Turn gunpowder into an effective weapon, which gave them immense power.

2) Build ships that could go anywhere in the world, which gave them the ability to PROJECT that power around the globe.

I mean, in the year 1100, there is little doubt that the Chinese army could have annihilated any army in Europe. So, why didn't China conquer Europe? Largely because Chinese had no way to MOVE their powerful troops to Europe in a hurry! The great European powers (especially England) developed the big guns, and then built a navy that could send those big guns ANYWHERE.

Whichever society gained those abilities first was going to be in the driver's seat. It just turned out to be Europe.

Pickman's Model

09-09-1999, 09:07 PM

Lucky:
I thought the Asians (or at least some of them) did a pretty fair job in the arcitechture department. The Taj Mahal, for example, was built in 1630 (well, started, anyway). And then there was that Chinese thing with the terra cotta soldiers (the name of which I've obviously forgotten). Of course, the people of these nations lived in pretty primative housing (still do).
I'm hoping you'll clarify this for me as I always enjoy reading your posts.

Well, I used a poor choice of words.....I should have said "Native North Americans", although it would apply equally to the Africans as well. You're right in that the peoples of the Indian subcontinent have done a pretty fair job of raising some pretty impressive structures. There is, of course, always the old, tired argument that the Indians are descendants of the Irano-Aryan invaders of 1500 B.C. and are thus Caucasians, but I'm not going to try to defend that position because it's on pretty shaky ground. The Chinese have raised some pretty big buildings, too, and I will freely admit that I was partially wrong insofar as architecture goes, in Asia anyway. The South and Central Americans put up some impressive buildings, but they were primarily of the pyramid or ziggurat type, which was an architectural style developed by the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and abandoned since at least the time of the Persian Empire. The technology that went into the construction of a medieval cathedral (flying buttresses, etc.,) certainly surpassed this form. As for the North American peoples, as I said: buffalo-hide tipis and bark wigwams; certainly nothing of a permanent nature except for low, squat adobe dwellings in the Southwest, where there were no trees to build with. And in Africa, the same; grass huts and cowhide bungalows framed with tree saplings, or an occasional group of mud/dung huts. In fact, when Europeans first penetrated sub-Saharan Africa in the 16th century, they found some pretty sizable castles there, built on the rivers, but the native Africans weren't living in them. The castles were abandoned and empty, and the Africans were living in little mud/grass huts next to the castles; the castles had been built by the Phonecians, nearly 3000 years before.

Jorge

09-10-1999, 02:54 AM

I mean, in the year 1100, there is little doubt that the Chinese army could
have annihilated any army in Europe. So, why didn't China conquer
Europe? Largely because Chinese had no way to MOVE their powerful
troops to Europe in a hurry! The great European powers (especially
England) developed the big guns, and then built a navy that could send
those big guns ANYWHERE.

Not quite right. The Chinese invaded lots of areas - ask the ancestral shades of the Laotians, Annamites, Koreans... and don't forget the forced trade upon places like he Philippines. They didn't go further because the places they'd got had all the resources they needed.

See PapaBear's reply: the next [logical] inference is that the political organization was created to maintain the stored resources... hence a need for more labor. Raw materials by the time of the Middle Ages were in scant supply within Europe, hence the need to expand out.

------------------
"Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
- T.Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.

Coach

09-10-1999, 05:31 AM

I am sorry, but you all have missed the whole proportion of the "technological" aspect of this question! The invention of the "keel" allowed these ships to do what was not possible before. You allow yourselves to be inticed by other aspects, but you fail to neglect the little things that make the big things possible.

I didn't get this idea from a high school teacher in Bucksnort, Tennessee. I received it from the Honors director, who also teaches history at a major university. Take a second and firgure out what the heck would happen to a ship without a keel. If it was a canoe, I wouldn't worry to much... you're not going far. A large sized vessel??? Figure it out!

The Chinese invented the formula for gunpowder... ask Marco Polo (and ask him about pasta while you're at it).

All other inventions and strategies may have been conducive to European dominance in the 16th and 17th centuries around the world, but I give you the simple fact of the invention of the keel. Doesn't anyone at least acknowledge the fact that it might have been a factor? I feel for those who are so blighted. Thanks and good day.

According to Pliny

09-10-1999, 08:27 AM

The keel isn't going to do crap for you unless you have:

Celestrial navigation
Meteorological(sp?) knowledge
Food storage and preservation techniques
Capital and/or tax collection (Ships are expensive)
Maritime culture (you need sailors)
Sophisticated developement in sail, mast, spar, rope, and rudder technology

This doesn't even take into account that the ship itself is NOT a means of conquest unless you also have guns, soldiers (marines), horses, missionaries, traders, colonists and diseases on board.

Coach's teacher over simplifies the issue. You need more than a rocket to fly the Space Shuttle, just as you need much more than a keel to sail a ship.

According to Pliny

09-10-1999, 09:34 AM

BTW- The keel is not indispensable for ocean-going vessels. Heavy-ballast barges and outriggers are also capable of traveling anywhere in the world.

E1skeptic

09-10-1999, 11:01 AM

Coach says,"I'll tell you what my history teacher said was the greatest contributor to European dominance of the world.... The invention of the "keel" on sailing ships."

and then,

"I am sorry, but you all have missed the whole proportion of the "technological" aspect of this question! The invention of the "keel" allowed these ships to do what was not possible before. You allow yourselves to be inticed by other aspects, but you fail to neglect the little things that make the big things possible."No, no, NO, NO! It is you who's missing the whole proportion.

Your saying that ship's keels are the major contributor to European dominance is like saying that the opposable thumb is the major factor in mankind's cerebral development. Not withstanding your teacher's position. Puh-leeze!

There are just TOO MANY factors involved here, and you can not say that one single factor is THE MOST important. Maybe the keel helped, granted, but I don't think WE are "missing the whole proportion".

I suggested above the reading of Guns, Germs, and Steel which may clarify the points of this "debate", and I strongly suggest you pay attention to Jorge and PapaBear, they can teach us all something.

------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire

Akatsukami

09-10-1999, 11:20 AM

I agree with E1skeptic, Jorge, and PapaBear. I believe that the brief Ming era of expansion and exploration under the Yung Lo emperor should put paid to the notion that no non-European civilization had the material and technological[i] means to expand its influence.

It also probably worth noting in this connection that, although European nations were good at sprinkling [i]coasts with trading posts, "factories", and whatnot, their real economic and political domination did not occur (and probably could not have had occurred) until the collapse of Mogul authority in the 18th century, and Ta Ch'ing authority in the 19th.

Had the later Ming emperors not adopted the orthodox Confucian position that China neither needed nor wanted anything from beyond its borders, Ming fleets might have sailed into European ports in the middle of the 15th century, and along the coasts of the Americas in the 16th. In which case, we would probably be asking the question, "How did China come to dominate the world?" (in Mandarin, of course).

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

According to Pliny

09-10-1999, 01:49 PM

furt - "The germs thing" does not apply to Asia (part of Eurasia) but is certainly a factor in European dominance over Africa, Oceana and the Americas. There's nothing "nutty" about smallpox!

Jorge

09-10-1999, 11:06 PM

Re. sailing technology: of course other vessels can travel around without a keel. For that matter, Greeks and Romans had known of the keel - but they didn't occupy the Americas (those urns in Brazil aside).

In fact, sailing tech quite serves as one example, & proves PapaBear's point:Sophisticated developement in sail, mast, spar, rope, and rudder technology. Where did you think them materials came from ? No hemp or abaca in Europe; the mooring line materials came from MesoAmerica, Indian and the Western Pacific, making mucho dinero for plantation owners from Merida, MX to Legaspi, PH. In other words, the Europeans needed the raw materials overseas they hadn't got at home.

As for disease ? Remember: the Europeans never got a real good foothold in SE Asia until they had solved the malaria problem by 1)grabbing all natural supply in S.Am. and 2) establishing plantations in Indonesia. In fact, when Japan coopted all the plantations during the "Asian Co-prosperity Sphere" expansion just prior and during WW2, US forces had to use the military to go to Colombia and Ecuador to find more quinine for the fight. Interesting tale - a Smithsonian scientist actually bought a large supply from some disenchanted Nazis; near Leticia, IIRC.

Disease does matter, directly and indirectly.

------------------
"Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
- T.Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.