The West vs. the Rest. When and why?

[Yakman]

I'd like to point out that actually it was not Europeans who got the silver, but the Spanish.

A few days ago I've read somebody stating that 30% of American silver ended in China. I find it quite possible.

as you yourself point out, China was a primary (if not THE primary) destination of American silver. The Acupulco/Lima->Manilla Trade was a big concern.

 

[Dewirix]

I have to agree with this, though. Taiwan and the Philliphines were witih arms reach of China or Japan, but it was Spain, Netherlands, France and Britain who battled each other, and not China or Japan, over the posession and control of it.

The Dutch were expelled from Taiwan by the Sino-Japanese Ming loyalist Koxinga (who also raided the Philippines). Koxinga's grandson was in turn ejected by the Qing, who ran the place until it was taken by the Japanese in 1895. France tried to invade in 1884, but got beaten. Definitely not a case of neglect there.

On the wider point, I think the maritime superiority of the European powers is evident much earlier than in any other field of technology. It's certainly worth pursuing in terms of explaining the West's rise to prominence. In fact, some historians - and I'm particularly thinking of Glete here - have argued that the need for strong navies among the European powers provided an impetus to the formation of strong centralised states.

 

[viale]

I have to agree with this, though. Taiwan and the Philliphines were witih arms reach of China or Japan, but it was Spain, Netherlands, France and Britain who battled each other, and not China or Japan, over the posession and control of it.

If I should hesitate a guess based on my (limited) knowledge of those to states history, I would say it was them being in a state of almost perpetual civil war, either openly or within the halls of the emperor(s) involving both the aristocracy and the bureaucracy. I know this is probably an extremely limited and poor understanding, but my impression of both Chinese and Japanese history is that they were a lot more fragmented than contemporary states.

My thinking is mostly based on how China through its history keeps disintegrating into huge cataclysmic civil wars until emerging with a new ruling family and then the cycle continues. Regarding Japan, my thinking is based on how all the clans keep fighting each other, while the emperor sits as a powerless figurehead at the top. Basically I view these states as two other "Europes" - meaning lots of nations/entities competing with each other for more power over their neighbors.

Also, I believe the Chinese were very aware of what they considered China and therefore of interest and not China and therefore meaningless. I'm less sure about Japanese territorial ambitions, but if they all fight each other on the home islands then it doesn't leave much wealth for exploration - Maybe they did explore different parts of the pacific but those in power couldn't be bothered to "waste" precious resources that could be used to beat up their neighbor instead.

If my "theory"(maybe idea is a better word) above holds up to any scrutiny it would make sense why they didn't attempt to colonize anything. Everything was focused on preserving internal stability or attain more power.

Another possibility is that they didn't have any wants they couldn't produce or easily trade for themselves. That seems to make exploration and colonization quite pointless and an actual waste of money.

 

[viale]

The Dutch were expelled from Taiwan by the Sino-Japanese Ming loyalist Koxinga (who also raided the Philippines). Koxinga's grandson was in turn ejected by the Qing, who ran the place until it was taken by the Japanese in 1895. France tried to invade in 1884, but got beaten. Definitely not a case of neglect there.

On the wider point, I think the maritime superiority of the European powers is evident much earlier than in any other field of technology. It's certainly worth pursuing in terms of explaining the West's rise to prominence. In fact, some historians - and I'm particularly thinking of Glete here - have argued that the need for strong navies among the European powers provided an impetus to the formation of strong centralised states.

Interesting, we have forests here in Denmark that started out as replanting projects initiated by earlier kings to be able to maintain a strong navy in the future.


I hope I'm not misconstruing Chinese/Japanese history too much, in light of your reply regarding Taiwan?

 

[Maq]

one example of European crimes abroad? surely you can find one on your own.

You named "genocide". I wonder what case you had in mind?

 

[Maq]

If I should hesitate a guess based on my (limited) knowledge of those to states history, I would say it was them being in a state of almost perpetual civil war, either openly or within the halls of the emperor(s) involving both the aristocracy and the bureaucracy. I know this is probably an extremely limited and poor understanding, but my impression of both Chinese and Japanese history is that they were a lot more fragmented than contemporary states.

My thinking is mostly based on how China through its history keeps disintegrating into huge cataclysmic civil wars until emerging with a new ruling family and then the cycle continues. Regarding Japan, my thinking is based on how all the clans keep fighting each other, while the emperor sits as a powerless figurehead at the top. Basically I view these states as two other "Europes" - meaning lots of nations/entities competing with each other for more power over their neighbors.

Also, I believe the Chinese were very aware of what they considered China and therefore of interest and not China and therefore meaningless. I'm less sure about Japanese territorial ambitions, but if they all fight each other on the home islands then it doesn't leave much wealth for exploration - Maybe they did explore different parts of the pacific but those in power couldn't be bothered to "waste" precious resources that could be used to beat up their neighbor instead.

If my "theory"(maybe idea is a better word) above holds up to any scrutiny it would make sense why they didn't attempt to colonize anything. Everything was focused on preserving internal stability or attain more power.

Another possibility is that they didn't have any wants they couldn't produce or easily trade for themselves. That seems to make exploration and colonization quite pointless and an actual waste of money.

You comment REASONS why they did not explore, and I quite agree with your observations. But the point at stake is that they HAD an opportunity, they were not deprived of it by Europeans, they COULD follow example, they could take part in global trade, and some of them - China in the first place - could have become a major participant.
It is not fair to argue that Europeans took all the world's cream for themselves and deprived other nations of an opportunity to enrich themselves and develop in the same way. The truth is that they missed the opportunity, did not grasp what was going right before their eyes.
===
And, by the way, I believe that Confucian ideology stands at the core of Chinese backwardness. The whole philosophy was focused on maintaining harmony. It sounds nicely, but you can commit the greatest mistakes in pursuing such goal. (And also crimes.)
In Europe, on the other hand, we could observe anything but "harmony". Harmony is just another word for "stagnation".

 

[Eusebio]

Second. Of course Muslims knew and cultivated sugar cane from medieval times. They learned it from the Indians, and passed the knowledge on Europeans.
But wait a minute. During all that time sugar remained precious, rare, and very expensive. It used to be sold in the pharmacies. From today's point of view, it was merely a matter of time till someone asks the question: "If sugar is in so high demand, if it's so precious, why not establish large specialized plantations, why not improve the refining process, why not make big money in sugar?"

Have you not heard of the large, specialised Arab sugar plantations in Sicily?

The only reason it was possible to grow sugar in Spain and Portugal in the first place was Arab innovations in the production process.

 

[Yakman]

You named "genocide". I wonder what case you had in mind?

plenty. the question is: where to start and where to end?

 

[Maq]

Have you not heard of the large, specialised Arab sugar plantations in Sicily?

The only reason it was possible to grow sugar in Spain and Portugal in the first place was Arab innovations in the production process.

Do not underestimate me that much, please. Yes, I've read on Arab sugarcane plantations in Sicily and elsewhere. But it does not change my point: The Arabs were unable for many centuries to increase sugar production, in spite of more than obvious profitability of such move. Why?

 

[Maq]

plenty. the question is: where to start and where to end?

You have repeatedly stated that there were many instances of European genocide. Please, name at least one of them, so that we could get a bit further. Please.

 

[Eusebio]

Do not underestimate me that much, please. Yes, I've read on Arab sugarcane plantations in Sicily and elsewhere. But it does not change my point: The Arabs were unable for many centuries to increase sugar production, in spite of more than obvious profitability of such move. Why?

1) Who said they didn't increase sugar production?

2) This debate is a question of economics. I tentatively suggest that it is likely not to be the case that Arabs had a cultural bias against increasing the profitability of their businesses, though. Maybe @Abdul Goatherd has an opinion?

 

[Yakman]

You have repeatedly stated that there were many instances of European genocide. Please, name at least one of them, so that we could get a bit further. Please.

the Herrero. The Arawak. The Carib. The Sioux. The Wampanoag. Every native in California. The Yaqui. We can go on.

I fail to see where you are aiming here. All of this is common knowledge.

 

[Maq]

1) Who said they didn't increase sugar production?

2) This debate is a question of economics. I tentatively suggest that it is likely not to be the case that Arabs had a cultural bias against increasing the profitability of their businesses, though. Maybe @Abdul Goatherd has an opinion?

Maybe they did (but I'm quite sure that it actually declined from 11th century onwards). But the truth remains that until Europeans entered the sugar business, sugar remained in short supply and a precious good rather than a matter of everyday use. And we all know that Arabs and Turks love their coffee and tea sweet.

 

[Maq]

the Herrero. The Arawak. The Carib. The Sioux. The Wampanoag. Every native in California. The Yaqui. We can go on.

I fail to see where you are aiming here. All of this is common knowledge.

I have thought of Herrero before, being one of very few (and limited in scale and time) examples of European genocidal practice (in 20th century, though). Albeit some may argue that the goal of the Germans was not to exterminate Herreros, but to force them into submission, and the target were not Herreros as a whole nation, but merely a rebelling group of Herreros (Herreros still live in large numbers in today's Namibia). Never mind, it was a crime against humanity, an act of genocide, and a point for you.
As for the others, all of them Amerindians, we should clarify something first. Some of them actually extinguished after European conquest, others decreased in numbers significantly. The question is: Was there ever any intention to exterminate them, or was it rather the diseases that took their toll? I think the latter is the truth. There's no denial that Europeans treated those people violently, but why? I believe it's clear they wanted to subjugate (and Christianize) them, and did not want them dead. They would prefer them being labourers on their estates. But, unfortunately, Arawaks extinguished completely and only very few Caribs survived (on islands, more of them still live on mainland).
Then there are cases which are represented by Wampanoag in your list. These were very small nations, often decimated by a single outbreak of disease. These things happen without any conscious human action. I could name some Slavic small ethnographic groups in present east Germany who disappeared at about the same time. There was no urge to extinguish them, yet they got assimilated within the prevailing society. And that was also the fate of Wampanoag. They live until today, it's only their culture they lost (incl. language).

So, we have found one example of European genocide, which occured very late from the point of our discussion. It did not contribute to European superiority in the least. It was an exemption to general rule that Europeans did not seek extermination of subjugated nations.

 

[Yakman]

umm...

when you work someone to death, they still die. When you capture a land, and put everyone in it to work and they die, that's genocide, whether you "wanted" to do that or not. the Spanish don't get a pass because of their "intent" to Christianize them (it was about their labor, as Las Casas correctly pointed out 450 years ago). There were an estimated quarter of a million or so people living on Hispaniola in 1492. All but traces of the locals were gone in a generation.

The Wampanoag were not wiped out by a single disease outbreak, but by a sustained, directed campaign to exterminate them and all natives from New England. Their villages were subject to massacre and terror, they were expelled from their lands, starved, enslaved, and erased from this world. Read up on King Philips' War (and all the wars before it (and after)). You can take the Wampanoag example and extend it (to varying degrees of horror) across North America.

 

[Wektor]

- They could not melt even tin.
- Their pictograms represented the lowest possible level of written report. It's still miles away from an alphabet.
- Their agriculture was primitive, they knew no plough nor any other means of breaking up soil, nor use of fertilizers.
- Their water management constructions look impressive only as long as we don't realize they knew no pumps.
- Their religions were primitive, with human sacrifices and ritual cannibalism.
- They built roads but did not know wheeled carriages.
- Their vessels remained on the most primitive level.
- Their political organization was primitive and based solely on brutal violence.
BUT! They did build some impressive stone buildings. Thanks to slave and forced labour. (So it's not that Europeans were the first who enslaved them.)
It's hard to argue that they were "sophisticated" because they were actually less sophisticated than about every known civilizations except some Australian and Siberian tribes, and of course other Amerindians.

I have to strongly protest against such assesment of those civilizations. I will quote myself from my earlier post (which was a reply to Eusebio): Their supposed "backwardness" in terms of technology was a result of envirnmental issues - lack of such productive crops like wheat,rise or sorghum. Process of selective breeding of maize and potato to make them what they are today was much more difficult than with Old Wolrd crops. Archeaologists found very ancient, few thousand old maize, which was more similar to grass than to what we now know as maize. It took millennia of selective (or rather intuitive in case of prehistoric societies) breeding to get there. Also - total luck of animals similar to cows and horses - it all made life more difficult for them. As I've said - they didn't develop steel weapons or guns because their development was slower for objective reasons, and probably nothing could have been done about it.

To add to that - Civilizations and cultures grow mostly because of interconnections and learning from each other. Europeans did not have to discover farming, wheel, agriculture, pottery, horse riding, cow breeding, bow and arrows, writing and alphabet, metallurgy and many other important discoveries, because they adopted them from other, neighboring civilizations - mostly ancient Middle East (Mesopotamia, Syria etc.). Mesoamericans and Andeans had to discover all of that alone - and they managed to discover some, others they did not.. You say Aztecs did not know the plough - but they simply did not have the use for it, because they had no horses or even mules or cows to drag the plough. That's also the way for wheeled carriages - it's not that useful when you have to drag a carriage behind yourself, and not use animals. And also remember - technological progress is not linear. Let's compare for a second Mayans in 7th century with their Slavic contemporaries. Slavs were far, far better advanced when it comes to metallurgy (iron vs. stones tools) and agriculture, but Mayans knew how to write (for a millenium already) and Slavs were illiterate, Mayans knew how to build stone buildings, Slavs used only wooden huts, Mayans were politically organised in city-states, Slavs were still mostly tribal confederations....So it's not that simple.

Yo mention Aboriginal Australians - they were one of the least developed groups. And for a reason - there is just no way to develop agriculture independenlty in Australia. Heck, it's hard to farm there even today. There is no denying that achievent of Europeans were astonishing, but I fail to see why we should not measure other's achievemnts highly, using fair scales for that - if you excel is something beyond reasonable expectations, in unfavourable environment, that is still an achievemnt.

 

[Wektor]

I have thought of Herrero before, being one of very few (and limited in scale and time) examples of European genocidal practice (in 20th century, though). Albeit some may argue that the goal of the Germans was not to exterminate Herreros, but to force them into submission, and the target were not Herreros as a whole nation, but merely a rebelling group of Herreros (Herreros still live in large numbers in today's Namibia). Never mind, it was a crime against humanity, an act of genocide, and a point for you.
As for the others, all of them Amerindians, we should clarify something first. Some of them actually extinguished after European conquest, others decreased in numbers significantly. The question is: Was there ever any intention to exterminate them, or was it rather the diseases that took their toll? I think the latter is the truth. There's no denial that Europeans treated those people violently, but why? I believe it's clear they wanted to subjugate (and Christianize) them, and did not want them dead. They would prefer them being labourers on their estates. But, unfortunately, Arawaks extinguished completely and only very few Caribs survived (on islands, more of them still live on mainland).
Then there are cases which are represented by Wampanoag in your list. These were very small nations, often decimated by a single outbreak of disease. These things happen without any conscious human action. I could name some Slavic small ethnographic groups in present east Germany who disappeared at about the same time. There was no urge to extinguish them, yet they got assimilated within the prevailing society. And that was also the fate of Wampanoag. They live until today, it's only their culture they lost (incl. language).

So, we have found one example of European genocide, which occured very late from the point of our discussion. It did not contribute to European superiority in the least. It was an exemption to general rule that Europeans did not seek extermination of subjugated nations.

I always thought that to properly assess and admire a culture, nation or a country, one has to be truthful and objective also when it comes to bad things. I think that there is overwhelming evidence for repression, killings, enslavement and overall mistreatment of Tainos on Santo Domingo and Cuba - from writing of Las Casas (of course, he stronlgy exaggerated, but was truthful in essence, because he himself was not only an eye witness, but in his youth also participated in killing natives) to historical sources on Enriquillo urpising and quite horrible deeds of Christpher Columbus' brother, I think it fits the term of genocide.

As for the Herero- I've read the commander of German forces (von Trotha ?) gave an order to kill every Herero who comes from the desert to German settlements.

Also, there is no other term that could describe actions of Belgians in Congo during Leopold II reign.
Also, Russian mass murdered Chukchis and Koryaks of Kamchatka in late XVIII century.
Other examples could be given - like XIX century rubber industry in Peruvian Amazon (horrible atrocities), or deaths that occured during trhe Trail of Tears after The Indian Removal Act....

All in all, for me it is obvious that because of civilization, rule of law and humanitarianism slowly, but surely, the level of everyday violence and cruelty in various societies decreased, and nowadays it is at it's all time low, especially in European societies. However, that doesn't make those "more civilized"
peoples incapable of occasional extreme cruelty and we have to admit that Europeans exploited weaknesses of others. And still XVI and XVII cenury was a time when cruelty was MUCH more acceptabnle that today, so it's not surprising that atrocities happened, given the general lawlessness of colonial areas. That's also European past and that has to be admitted. Not to forget about millions of Europeans who were genocided by other Europeans....And that all does not make European achievements any less important - it just makes thing more true and objective.

 

[Arilou]

- They could not melt even tin.

The Tarascan made bronze items, since bronze is a mixture of tin and copper...

- Their pictograms represented the lowest possible level of written report. It's still miles away from an alphabet.

The Aztec pictograms were fairly simplistic, but the Maya ones were a combination of pictograms and syllabic logograms, very similar to japanese.

- Their agriculture was primitive, they knew no plough nor any other means of breaking up soil, nor use of fertilizers.

In terms of yield mesoamerican civilizations were probably higher than europeans. Maize cultivation was very sophisticated and required a good deal of organization, types of planting, etc. Both the plough and the fertilizers stem from the same problem: No livestock. Without anything to pull the plough or anything that provides decent amounts of dung there's not really much you can do.

- They built roads but did not know wheeled carriages.

Again, there was nothing to pull it. We know of wheeled toys, so they knew the principle, it's just that trying to pull a wagon solely by human power through tropical rainforest (for large parts of mesoamerica) or massive mountains (for the incas) is pretty much useless.

- Their vessels remained on the most primitive level.

Eh, not quite, there was sufficient trade by seas for there to be actual port-cities with proper docks and such, they were relatively simple, but they weren't just hallowed out logs.

- Their political organization was primitive and based solely on brutal violence.

Their political systems varied, from republican to monarchical, from despotic to conciliar. Many Maya cities had once been monarchies but had gradually been replaced by various councils, the Aztecs had gone the other way, with the magistrate/tlateoani gradually expanding his power (including crushing rival power-centres like merchant's guild, not so different from european monarchs...) The incas were a bureucratic territorial empire.

 

[Arilou]

that's genocide, whether you "wanted" to do that or not[/quot€]

Actually, no. Genocide requires the intent to destroy. Now, in most cases working someone to death would happen under indirect intent, but still.

I tend to state it as "There was no Genocide of The Native Americans, but there were genocides of native americans."

 

[Arilou]

The Tarascans had a well-developed metal-working culture, including the use of copper hoes, axes, needles and fish hooks (see The Political Economy of Prehispanic Tarascan Metallurgy), and even produced some bronze alloys (see Sound, color and meaning in the metallurgy of Ancient West Mexico).

Metal-working was not just confined to Mexico - the Mochicas and their successors in northwestern Peru also manufactured copper alloys (see this Scientific American article from 1991.

Note that copper's melting point is over four times that of tin. The Scientific American article references a replica of a 14th-century Chimú furnace that could heat a small charge of copper ore mixed with haematite to 1150 centigrade (tin melts at 232 centigrade).

I'll note that the Tarascan precursor cultures bear signs of south american influence, so it's quite possible it was a transmission and not two isolated developments.