Unless someone is willing to go back and listen to the entire interview we don’t know what we are arguing against. It was probably a 2 hour discussion edited down to a couple of seconds. NDT will purposely be hyperbolic to make a point. Reading between the lines I’m willing to bet he was talking about human evolution. He didn’t say Columbus was the only one who could have done it or it wouldn’t have been done without him. From the clip he was emphasizing that there was a 10,000 year separation between the two peoples and that interbreeding happened immediately. I bet he’s saying if left alone for thousands of more years the two groups of humans would have eventually evolved separately enough to be categorized as distinct species.
Again that’s a very colonial attitude. The idea that the only thing that matters about the colonized people is the oppression of the colonizers. Yeah that’s important, but its not the only thing that matters and everything else is quibbling over details.
Also remember the British and Dutch colonization of North America was separated by about two centuries from the Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires (there were colonies before that but they were generally either unsuccessful or too desperately clinging to life to oppress anyone), and in that time there was a military revolution in Europe (as well as a big population increase). We tend to lump the two conquests into one in our histories, but from the point of view of the native Americans that is a huge difference.
If a Dutch, British, or French “Columbus” and the “conquistadors” that followed him attempted to do what the Spanish did IRL (who remember had just finished a decades long reconquest of the Iberian peninsula when Columbus arrived in America, so had huge military advantages over the other powers of Europe), there is a good chance they’d have failed, even with all the European diseases reeking havoc.
To interpret the clip into English from Tyson-speak you have to hear how he emphasizes the word “thing.” He’s emphasizing it because for the purposes of this discussion he’s defining it in a very specific way. In a way that probably disqualifies many of the suggestions in this thread. Don’t forget, in this clip he’s talking to the audience but specifically he’s trying to make a point to someone who is stoned out of his gourd. He’s not writing a scientific paper.
Not really necessary, I was merely using his statement as a jumping off point to query, “What do you think is the most significant thing to happen in our species?”, which is the thrust of this thread.
Even if he meant something else in a bigger context or he was being hyperbolic, I think I would still disagree with him on this point. But again, outside the parameters of this thread, as far as I’m concerned.
Certainly you are correct about this thread. Some are just stating he was wrong. It really depends on what he meant by “thing.” You can define it as you like but to agree or disagree with Neil you would have to know the context
Then what about Australia? That separation’s currently thought to be more like 50,000 years. While the dates of original settlement of the Americas are I believe uncertain but almost certainly considerably further back than 10,000 BCE, I don’t think they’re thought to be anywhere near as far back as 50,000.
So it seems massively unlikely to me that Columbus, or Europeans in general,by showing up then or even within a few hundred or thousand years of that time, prevented a speciation event.
Ha ha ha.
No. It’s the attitude of an actual colonized person.
Straw. Man.
The Spanish had already killed the majority of the inhabitants of Far North America by then. That matters more.
What does their European advantage matter? The conquistadors were small groups of adventurers, not overwhelming military forces. Any other European power would have fared the same.
They were hundreds strong armies, without the weapons, armor and training of post-reconquista Spain it’s absolutely not a foregone conclusion that they would have beaten the Aztecs and the Incas, even with the devastation of European diseases.
Francis Drake, in the region decades later, was still heavily reliant on archers for example.
…what an utterly bizarre thing to say. There is a reason why indigenous people stand in solidarity with each other the world over. It’s because “the overall effect of colonization was nevertheless significantly the same - oppression, exploitation and misery.”
Wait, do you think the rest of Europe in the late 1400s was a peaceful backwater compared to Spain? Do you know what was happening in England at the time the Reconquista was winding down?
Nothing wrong with archers. Especially English archers. Just ask the French.
Yeah they were in the hundred years war, which while definitely not peaceful was absolutely a backwater where both sides were stuck in Medieval styles of warfare, while the Spaniards were pushing military technology forward.
by which I mean the War of Roses, not the 100 years war
You think they were fighting the same way at Bosworth as they were at St. Albans, one entire generation of sustained conflict later ? Or that there weren’t significant Continental mercenary forces involved in the War?
Sure, the Spanish were pioneering the tercio-style of pike+shot that was to shape European warfare for the next centuries. But the rest of Europe was watching (or learning on the job against the Spanish) and wasn’t as far behind as you seem to think. By the time the mainland Americas were actually being conquered, they had learned well the lessons of the Italian Wars. Hell, the English were Spanish allies for a chunk of that time.
I agree the discovery and colonization of the North American continent was a pivotal time in history. The natural resources were so plentiful. People like Ben Franklin had enough leisure time to perform experiments and learn science
Others have pointed out that colonization would have happened eventually. Columbus and the Spanish explorers came at a time that ships and navigation supported the long journey.
I struggling to find your point here. Franklin’s heyday was like 250 years after the “discovery” of the Americas. The time between that and Franklin is not much different than the time between us and Franklin. He had the leisure time because he was wealthy. Just like the wealthy people in Europe in the same era.
I know the early colonies struggled. Roanoke failed and many died. The Puritains almost starved.
I was making the point that eventually the established colonies used the natural resources for strong trade. A upper class emerged that studied science. Washington experimented with agriculture methods at Mt Vernon.
“Columbus discovered America, and then a couple of centuries later some wealthy people existed who did big things”. That doesn’t really sound like Columbus’s discovery was the significant event.
How is this different than the upper class in Europe at the same time?
While true that plant life dies off at less than 150 ppm, at the time of the industrial revolution the CO2 was at 280 PPM, and was not declining. It was at about those levels for at least 6,000 years. So, no, the industrial revolution didn’t save the environment and plant life.
Check back with me in 20,000 years. As of today we are reaping the benefits. The next dip in CO2 could have easily been the one that wiped out life on earth. Quite a long time from now but whatever life is around then will certainly appreciate it.