The White Man Cometh

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

I disagree with climate etc. effecting Western Agressiveness. I think that it mostly comes down to a lack of Ingrained culture.

   The Western Societies after Roman times could be opressive at times. but they highly rewarded individual achievement, especially in the merchant class.

     No matter how little you had, you could always improve your station with a little money. The Eastern cultures were alot more rigid, and the African culturues(sub Saharan) never really developed that way.

     And also the Industrial Revolution played a big part, but it wasn't necessarily the new machines that drove conquest and expansion, it was the desire for new MARKETS and CONSUMERS, like Britain and India, along with the need for cheap labor and supplies.(Like America and the Internet today)

I think it ultimately came down to the rest of the world having to much COUTH to act like the Westerners, crack heads basically, More, More, More, that left them in the dust

2

A link to Cecil’s column is appreciated. It is How come Europeans dominated the rest of the world and not vice versa?

3

I think the point they make is that the reason Western culture was more fluid was due to necessity. Excluding your kingdom from the world just couldn’t work as in the case of China or Japan.
Diamond is a very interesting author. I definitely recommend his Guns, Germs, and Steel as well.

4

Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).

Cecil’s column can be found on-line at the link provided by the book-eater.

moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»

5

Mmmm. Never really thought about this before, but some good arguements for and against Cecil’s statement. I think the political and ethnic diversity of Europe during the last half of the 2nd millenium was a factor, but the unifying influences of that diversity played a big role as well. Countries unified ethnic groups, and the church along with the monarchies unified countries. I mean just look at Columbus. Didn’t he have the freedom to go to several different heads of state in order to sell his plan to cross the ocean? This would suggest a strong case for a federation with much power residing with individual states. Something like we have in the USA today.

6

“… I mean just look at Columbus. Didn’t he have the freedom to go to several different heads of state in order to sell his plan to cross the ocean? This would suggest a strong case for a federation with much power residing with individual states. Something like we have in the USA today…”

         Actually, it would be more an example for NAFTA or GATT, allowing the free trade of Goods and Ideas  between different countries, without undue interference.

And there was no “Federation” involved with the European countries in Columbus’ time, each ruler had almost absolute authority. The USA is nothing like that really, and was never intended to be.

One of these days the Republicans will see the light of TRUE Democracy.

Exion

7

Fair enough, but why was this? If the Europeans had less couth then other cultures around the world, persumably there are reasons so to why they developed differently.

8

I think that it ultimately comes down to Greed. Kind of.

And a more open Government, economy. Kind of.

But mostly, the rest of the world was very insular, and provincial, Even China. The rulers tended to be happy being big fish in small ponds.

The best example I can think of is Japan before wwII was a power, but they didn’t roam too far from home, and they really didn’t want to integrate with other cultures, so their growth was severely limited.

As opposed to the Roman Empire, that had no problem with foreign cultures, as long as they paid their taxes, which grew to be one of the largest, and set the tone for, the rest of the Western world.

I also think that the Idea of the REPUBLIC that the Romans started was very important for Western Conquest also. Most other countries are not republics, they are seen as extensions of one particular person or another. But in the West, along with personal greed, the idea of taking new land and peoples for the republic was a major influence.

The best example for that is Germany. out of all of the Western Countries, Germany was about the only one that never got itself together, and developed alot of colonization(Like the British, French, Dutch, Spanish, Etc.) And it wasn’t that they didn’t have the power, it was that they remained a collection of Dukedoms and Baronies, while the rest of Europe was turning to King and Country. As soon as Germany DID get itself unioted, they made up for it by taking over, temporarily, half of the Western World. Kind of like Japan turned itself into a massive trading power, after they let go of the EMPEROR, and got with the program.

Anyway, I forgot what I was talking about…

Exion

9

??? How about big fish in big ponds. Chinese imperial rule covered major territory.

This statement reflects a great degree of provincialism, assuming as it does that neighboring Asian countries which Japan conquered, were not too far from home. It also leaves aside the fact the Japanese were working under a number of binding constraints such as the presence of American military power in the region etc. Quite the contrary to your analysis, the Japanese were fairly aggressive in terms of ‘growth’. However they ran into the ‘facts on the ground’

however, the insularity of the japanese may have something going for it, yet they proved remarkably adaptable when confronted with European habits and technology – e.g. the Japanese creation of a modern fleet in time to beat the Russians in 1905.

I fail to see how this works. Romans were relatively tolerant of conquered peoples who didn’t give them any guff and were fundamentally uninterested in their culture. Post-Roman political culture in Europe displays pitifully little of this somewhat limited idea of tolerance. At least until recent times. I don’t see how Roman rule set the tone for the rest of the Western world, which in any event is a concept emerging a millenium later. I’m don’t think the rest of the analysis is very clear to be frank.

10

It just occured to me following a previous comment on european colonial success that marine expertise in shipbuilding and nautical knowhow has been a major factor in the preeminance of Europe. The Netherlands developed a major role in the world before they were even a country, due to their sailors. Every power of any significance since Columbus had a major and viable marine industry and navy.Europe’s landlocked countries played no role whatsover except culturally within Europe. What would have happened if China beat Europe to the New World? Perhaps there would be a billion people living in Europe today!

11

Another important factor is Christianity’s basic assumption that History Makes Sense and Has a Purpose. Most Westerners today, even if not themselves Christians, take this so much for granted that they don’t realize how unique it is.

12

"??? How about big fish in big ponds. Chinese imperial rule covered major territory. "

Chinese rule still DOES cover major territory. But it wasn’t until recently when they started opening their doors to world trade, like they are doing now, that they developed much long term relevance to the rest of the.
By big fish in small ponds, I mean the RULERS of the aforementioned insular communities were pretty happy holding their own. There was a few conflicts here and there, but not the world devouring outlook of the West.

"This statement reflects a great degree of provincialism, assuming as it does that neighboring Asian countries which Japan conquered, were not too far from home. It also leaves aside the fact the Japanese were working under a number of binding constraints such as the presence of American military power in the region etc. Quite the contrary to your analysis, the Japanese were fairly aggressive in terms of ‘growth’. However they ran into the ‘facts on the ground’ "

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny… Please read what I posted. Japan took a bit of Korea, and did stop the Russians, for all of thír vaunted power, that’s not a big deal really. Rome, smaller than Japan, conquered the ENTIRE Western world. The point I was really trying to make, was that starting with Rome, you seethe attitude of "Eat the World"come into play. Japan never did really stray too far from it’s borders.

"I fail to see how this works. Romans were relatively tolerant of conquered peoples who didn’t give them any guff and were fundamentally uninterested in their culture. Post-Roman political culture in Europe displays pitifully little of this somewhat limited idea of tolerance. At least until recent times. I don’t see how Roman rule set the tone for the rest of the Western world, which in any event is a concept emerging a millenium later. I’m don’t think the rest of the analysis is very clear to be frank. "

America is a prime example of the Roman Influence. President, Senate, One man one vote(Yeah I know they had a much more limited version of who a “man” was), massive cosmopolitanism and foreign trade etc. In fact, almost all of the Western countries aren’t too far removed from The early Roman stylings.

To elucidate, for those that are unclear:

  1. The west had a stronger idea of the “Republic” that helped them to unify themselves and go conquer for God and Country. The previous example of Germany, that did NOT ever really expand and conquer, because they did NOT have a unified “Republic”, but a group of Dukes, Barons, and the Holy Roman Emperor all squabbling for power.

  2. Western Society has always felt that it was their “Duty” (the White Mans Burden) to illuminate those that weren’t fortunate enough to believe in what they believed in. Be it Religion(the Encomienda), or Government, or Trade. The other countries never really seemed to care all that much what other people though about their religions and Governments etc. I’m sure they all thought that they were superior, but they didn’t feel that they had to go MAKE everyone else believe also. That’s what I originally meantby a lack of COUTH on the part of the Westerers, they were like the World’s worst Jehova’s Witnesses. No one else had “Missionaries” like we did.

  3. And finally, Trade was a bigger deal in the West than in the rest of the World. Especially after the Industrial Revolution, Europe needed alot more supplies and CONSUMERS after they greatly increased their production. Thats why you hear about the British trying to make the Indians(from India) wear cotton and wool type clothes. It wasn’t to keep the poor people warm, India is F*ing hot enough already. It was so that they could sell more to them. And in the process, get alot of cheap labor to supply the factories back home. And that’s what I mean about going far from home. Britain is small and far away, but they still had the zeal to float all of the way to India, enslave a jillion people so that they would have more customers and workers, and then be pissed when they didn’t want the goods anyway. Nobody else had that kind of gall.

Anyway, thought you’d like to know

Exion

13

Germans (or at least a goodly number of them) would argue that it was the political machinations of the other European powers that KEPT them weak and divided into duchies, baronies, etc., until Bismark came along.

14

I can’t agree with Exion that non-Westerners lack the same hunger for land and wealth as white folks. China, in fact, started out its existence as a cluster of mini-states that were unified by a series of conquests. The rulers have kept pressing on, as the Tibetans well know. We only think of China as non-expansionist because we define it as a country rather than an empire. If the Roman Empire had managed to hang together for another 1500 years, that’s probably what it would look like.

Or how about Genghis Khan? Or the medieval Arabs or the Ottoman Turks? These folks don’t seem to me to have shown less desire for conquest than Europeans, even without capitalism. I am sure they did want to take over the world. But these empires ran into roadblocks and fell, just as the European ones did. The Euros just managed to cover more of it before they collapsed.

15

It does not strike me that China was per se insular throughout its history. Quite the contrary. I think the statement is a gross-overgeneralization based on recent (relatively) Chinese history.

No, Big fish in big ponds by any standard valid at the time.

I did read what you wrote, but your viewpoint is provincal. Japan attempted to conquer most of the eastern Pacific basin. That’s what WWII in the Pacific was all about. An area every bit as large as the old Roman empire, larger in fact. The fact that Japan was running up against already established powers meant the facts on the ground, European powers, hindered their expansion. And of course, Rome was not conquered in day, you’re telescoping history in these comparisions.

What is the “Western World”? Rome did not conquer territories much above the Rhine, which would normally be called the modern Western World. Your comparisions are false on their face.

(1) Mixing terms outside of their historical periods creates a false sense of continuity

(2) telescoping developments, a form of fallacy of composition. X was true at date Y regarding Rome so we may characterize all of the period as being characterized by X. Fallacious thinking and poor history.

Frankly, your last statement is nonesensical (and provincial) – that the Japanese had not yet managed to break out of the eastern Pacific Basin --Asia-- says nothing about them being stay at homes. You seem to be mistaking Asia for a more homogenous and perhaps smaller place than it actually is.

Names and antiquarian influence. I see little Romanness (in terms of actual government) as continual influence. Genuine influence that is.

Roman influences? Please, this is absurd. Structual similarities such as foreign trade and cosmopolitanism reflect similarity of circumstances (to an extent, although I would argue the content is fundamentally different so that the comparision is false) not influence.

Only if one places excessive emphasis on window dressing such as borrowed names and telescopes a good thousand years of history away.

You are utterly ignoring non-Western history in deriving this conclusion.

This gross over-generalization also fails for the above reason. I would point to Islamic history as a rebuttal.

All in all, I don’t think we learn much from these kind of over-generalizations.

16

Exion claims:

To claim that the Romans, even in republican times, held to the principle of “one man, one vote”, even taking into account a very different definition of “man”, is to seriously misread history. The comitiae (assemblies) were organized on the principle of one unit, one vote. In earlier times, the unit was the clan (comitia curiata), in later times the military/economic group (comitia centuriata).

The Greeks may be credited with inventing, and usually adhering, to something close to the notion of “one man, one vote” (actually, the working idea seems to have been “one sword, one vote”; democrats and aristocrats disagreed largely on who could wield swords, and where they should come from).

I agree with Collounsbury that American constitutional practice, whilst borrowing a few terms from the Roman Republic, is very little like it otherwise. Indeed, the writers of the Constitution were well-educated men (granted that there was less to know then :)) who certainly knew Roman constitutional methods, and appear to have deliberately eschewed them in favor of English ones.

17

It strikes me that the best explanation for the fairly global dominance of few European states is a combination of

(1) highly competitive state structure in Europe due to
(a)geographic and (b)cultural reasons. While not absent from other regions, the geographic constellation of Europe helped promote this over a long period of time.

(2) the happy coincidence of technologies (some localy developed, some imported) coming to a head at the right moment in history, with the above factor (highly competitive state structure) driving further developments

(3) to a lesser extent some aspects of elite Western European society or intellectual society which helped push forward and sustain innovation. (I doubt this is inherent per se in Western European culture, but rather is the partial product of points 1 and 2 plus a bit of luck that it did not get snuffed out.)

I’m sure we could arrive at a constellation of specific factors for a number of different countries.

What I would reject are explanations which pretend the Western Europe was a totally different beast from the get go. Rather, it strikes me that a historically rooted explanation needs to acknowledge that at the start of the process --which probably continues to this day-- differences between Western European states and the rest of the world were a matter of degree, not kind. A happy constellation of chance and inherent characteristics helped push this, over several centuries to be sure, into an absolute advantage.

Attempting to push explanations like this back to Roman times, or in fact very deep into the Middle Ages strikes me as fundamentally ahistorical.

18

I knew that someone would mention these people

"Or how about Genghis Khan? Or the medieval Arabs or the Ottoman Turks? "

I agree that the Mongols had the desire to eat the world. But they lacked the Machinery. Rome , again, had the Republic, wherein the INDIVIDUAL wasn’t as relevant, as with the Mongols. After Genghis was gone, so was alot of the Barbarian threat.

For those that don’t understand the importance of this, I’m not sure what to say. Without the Idea of a Government as more Important than the peoples, none of the Western Countries would ?ave endured as long as they have. It’s kind of like Walmart moving in to your small town. They crush the local competition, usually, and the individual store managers tend to not be so penny ante, as it isn’t their own personal money. Ultimately, I think that Rome brought in the Idea of Managers running a nation, as opposed to Individual despots.

China still is a small pond really. It has a lot of land, and a lot of people. But it isn’t vey efficiently utilized. Until it is, and they become more open, they will continue to be a backwater country. The same goes for India, Russia, and alot of the other Eastern and Middle Eastern Countries.

And As for the West not being Roman, If you can’t see the overwhelming similarities, especially as in America, you should go back to Hi Skool

19

I’ll first off agree with Collounsbury on the likely causes of modern European dominance.

Exion: I understand your points, but one should be careful not to overgeneralize.

In relation to China - 1.) T’ang China ( 7th to 10th centuries ) and some of their predecessors were actively expansionist. The T’ang conquered a large chunk of Central Asia where they eventually came into conflict with the Arabs.

2.) Ming China was as well in it’s early period ( and we won’t go into “foreign” dynaties like Yuan, Chin and Ch’ing(Manchu), who were also very aggressive ).

3.) Sung China ( especially the Southern Sung ) was without a doubt the pre-eminent mercantile and naval power of their day.

4.) Modern Chinese isolationism has it’s roots in the disastrous experiences stemming from the Mongol conquests ( not discounting pre-existing differences in Chinese vs. Western Philosophy and world view, but that didn’t stop them earlier ) and the enormous internal wealth of Ming and Manchu China that made trade virtually irrelevant.

5.) I would disagree somewhat with the idea that China isn’t efficiently utilizing their land. They do maintain population densities on a par with the Netherlands across a vastly larger space, after all. And much of China, particularly in the West, isn’t of use for much outside of pastoralism.

6.) China is a HUGE pond :slight_smile: . Always has been. It’s influence has almost always been wider than Rome’s at its height.

On Germany - The statement on the internal disunity of Germany is again overgeneralizing a bit. The early Holy Roman Empire was certainly Western Europe’s strongest state. And remember they colonized and conquered ( in a quite organized fashion ) most of what is today East Germany, from various Slavic tribes. Germany disintegrated slowly over time. With the extinction of dynasties, the Investiture Contest, the lack of universal primogeniture, and finally the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, all playing a part.

On the Mongols - Expansion of the Mongol State as a unified whole continued through the reign of Ghenghis Khan’s grandson Mangku. The conquest of Russia and Persia came well after Ghenghis’ death. The expansion ( or in some cases maintainence ) of the Mongol States as separate appanages continued for another 75 years or so after that. The Mongols didn’t start to contract until almost a century and a half after his death.

On the Islamic Powers - The Arabs didn’t conquer Europe mainly because they ran out of steam as distance conspired against them. Rome had the same problems ( North Britain, for example ). The Ottomans were vastly better organized as a state than any contemporary European power pre-mid 17th century. And they ( as well as every other major “Oriental” powers of any lasting significance ) all had very intricate and, for their time, efficient systems of managers to run their empire. Rome’s use of managers was not even remotely unique.

On Rome - Again oversimplifications. The Romans could be quite xenophobic. Remember Roman citizenship was not granted to ALL citizens of the State until 212 C.E. under Caracalla, over 200 years AFTER the demise of the Republic. And except in the earliest periods I wouldn’t really agree that the individual was subordinated to the State. Otherwise you would never have had the rise of the Empire.

I tend to agree with Akatsukami ( I think ) that ancient Greek philosophy ( partially transmitted through Rome ) is of greater significance to our modern political system.

You make some good points about the heritage of the Roman Republic. I don’t dismiss it’s importance. But I don’t agree we can lay the causes of Modern European dominance at it’s feet. At best it is one ( smallish ) factor among many more important ones. And frankly your assertion that Western powers wouldn’t have “lasted” as long without the idea of the individual subordinated to the State confuses me. What Western powers? When? And why do you think this is the case?

And at the risk of sounding like a yes-man ( :wink: ) I also will agree with Collounsbury, Domina, and others, that saying that the idea that A.) Europeans always had a desire to impose their will on others, and B.) That Non-Europeans did not, is simply false. I’ve seen no evidence of such a stark dichotomy in any of my readings.

Enough for now, I have to head off to work. Sorry about the rambliness of my post :slight_smile: .

20

As everyone agrees with Mr C., I’m off to the BBQ pit

However

“(1) highly competitive state structure in Europe due to
(a)geographic and (b)cultural reasons. While not absent from other regions, the geographic constellation of Europe helped promote this over a long period of time.”

Geographic? I don’t even know what that means. Truly, Britain is an isolated Island, like Japan.

Cultural Reasons? that sounds like a Fundamental difference in Mentality to mean lol

“(2) the happy coincidence of technologies (some localy developed, some imported) coming to a head at the right moment in history, with the above factor (highly competitive state structure) driving further developments”

Which ones? The crusades were before the Industrial Revoluion. I don’t see Inventions as all that important, as even was said before. Even the Mongols were Expansionistic.

“(3) to a lesser extent some aspects of elite Western European society or intellectual society which helped push forward and sustain innovation. (I doubt this is inherent per se in Western European culture, but rather is the partial product of points 1 and 2 plus a bit of luck that it did not get snuffed out.)”

Elite Western Society? There were serious thinkers and inventors and scolars in the East also (The Arabs n the Chines for example).

Capitalism is at the root of it all.With a management run STATE overseeing the exploits of the thousands of Entrepeneurs who were scouring the world for goods and services( whereas the rest of the world had a single despot and one man can only do so much), backed by the Wests Idea of Divine Right, coupled with Religions push for more souls to save, and their desire to save those souls by any means necessary is how it played out.

Have Fun

Exion