[LordOpie]

apparently, my thread really offended people cuz the mods got several complaints quickly

Here's what I'm wondering...

What caused different regions to develop technology at such radically different paces during the time period, say, 1500 to 1800? If Africa developed at a similar pace, there's no way they'd have been the primary slave group. And what if Africa developed significantly faster... would they have taken slaves?

 

[RhinofromWA]

apparently, my thread really offended people cuz the mods got several complaints quickly

Here's what I'm wondering...

What caused different regions to develop technology at such radically different paces during the time period, say, 1500 to 1800? If Africa developed at a similar pace, there's no way they'd have been the primary slave group. And what if Africa developed significantly faster... would they have taken slaves?

I guess you all can thank me for this post.....

 

[LordOpie]

I guess you all can thank me for this post.....

oh come on, give some feedback, opinions or facts... I wanna hear both. Was there some geographic (dis)advantage that forced particular groups to develop technology to survive or gave them a change to experiment?

 

[Toshi]

jared diamond would argue that it's all geography. ("diamonds, guns, steel" or whatever it's called.)

i would argue that jared diamond is full of it.

 

[ghostrider]

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is the name of the book. I'd read it before passing any judgement. Although, I came away from it with no clearer opinion than before.

 

[Evel Monkey]

If we are talking what was their downfall, rather than technology, I would say their lack in social development led to it.

 

[wooglin]

Jared Diamond is a smart guy and I bet that book is a good read. Haven't read it myself though, because that would be work.

There's another smart guy named Marvin Harris who wrote books like Cannibals and Kings, and America Now back in the 1980s. They're also good reads. His theory, called Cultural Materialism (also one of his book titles, but less accessibly written), is that truly radical cultural changes, including technology changes, occur only when they have to but will always occur when they have to -- that's how cultural evolution works. And he further argues that a culture has to change mostly when its "modes of production" (read: economy) or "modes of reproduction" (read: ability to reproduce itself) are interrupted. Basically, in terms of the original question, Europe had to expand, technologically and geographically, because its economy could not be sustained without expansion, just as we have to expand today (a basic capitalist principle). At the same time, African cultures were still existing well within their economic means and got overtaken by events that were beyond their control.

Marvin Harris. If you liked Jared Diamond, he's worth a read as well.

 

[Clark Kent]

The way I see it...

A "lack of development" didnt have anything to do with being turned into slaves. Their culture was just as rich as ours was. As ours seemed to be more advanced than theirs in our eyes, I'm thinking they would have thought the same of ours, not as advanced as theirs. But I do think that there were great differences in priorities. The priorities we were running by were fueled by the greedy, apathy, and of course a rich history of slavery and such from the "home land" Europe. Development is fueled by the feelings of need. If a culture feels that it has all it needs, that it is in a sense blessed with a perfect world, then why invent shackles?

 

[Toshi]

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is the name of the book. I'd read it before passing any judgement. Although, I came away from it with no clearer opinion than before.

ah, yes, that was the title. i DID read it, and thought it the greatest bit of handwaving ever. he started out by basically saying "well, all objective measures such as iq are OBVIOUSLY biased beyond utility so here's my theory to fill this void" without backing his statements up. it's a feel-good book if you come into the argument already believing his viewpoint, but a load of tripe as a persuasive or scientific work imo. that better?

 

[ghostrider]

ah, yes, that was the title. i DID read it, and thought it the greatest bit of handwaving ever. he started out by basically saying "well, all objective measures such as iq are OBVIOUSLY biased beyond utility so here's my theory to fill this void" without backing his statements up. it's a feel-good book if you come into the argument already believing his viewpoint, but a load of tripe as a persuasive or scientific work imo. that better?

I hear what you are saying, but my gripe with it is not that he didn't back up his theories, which I believe he did quite well, rather, where he went wrong is what you mentioned - he set out to prove a point rather than find the answers. I believe many of his theories are valid, but they may not paint the whole picture.

 

[RhinofromWA]

The way I see it...

A "lack of development" didnt have anything to do with being turned into slaves. Their culture was just as rich as ours was. As ours seemed to be more advanced than theirs in our eyes, I'm thinking they would have thought the same of ours, not as advanced as theirs. But I do think that there were great differences in priorities. The priorities we were running by were fueled by the greedy, apathy, and of course a rich history of slavery and such from the "home land" Europe. Development is fueled by the feelings of need. If a culture feels that it has all it needs, that it is in a sense blessed with a perfect world, then why invent shackles?

Africa is known to have slavery in their own past....it isn't like slavery isn't only a Euro-trait back then.

Industrialization can fuel the greed you mentioned above.

Developement of culture is not what was being refered to....technology and the western society (on the whole) progressed much faster than that of africa.

Culture isn't really a factor. You can be making tools out of animal bones and have a "culture" you are proud of....doesn't mean that your culture is as developed as others.

Again I say I don't think it was genetic advantage or a blessing that the "white man" advanced prior to africa (back to LO original post) With any new technology...it can grow by leaps and bounds.....for thousands and thousands of years no fire, BOOM fire, now there is a whole bunch you can do with fire....fire leads to cooking, drying (preserving) food etc. but it took a couple advances to break out.

I beleive that for whatever reasons the Europeans took off with advances (maybe by luck at first) and jumped ahead of others....industrializing and growing their culture....requiring resources (slaves) to assist. Who better to help them than the "animal" african person. They are not as refined as the white man...."they will work for us like mules".

I can only wonder if the african society had a few key advances (inventions) they could have came to "power" first. Maybe things would have been much different. They were well versed in the slave trade arena....heck they sold their own to the white man. the less advanced Euro would be ripe for plucking

Timing?

 

[Vert]

Methinks...

Having a slave would be cool....think of where the world would be without the lazyman.

Vert.

 

[BurlyShirley]

ah, yes, that was the title. i DID read it, and thought it the greatest bit of handwaving ever. he started out by basically saying "well, all objective measures such as iq are OBVIOUSLY biased beyond utility so here's my theory to fill this void" without backing his statements up. it's a feel-good book if you come into the argument already believing his viewpoint, but a load of tripe as a persuasive or scientific work imo. that better?

Thats pretty much the way I viewed that book as well.

I dont think that one race is smarter than or superior to another, but my view on this is not something Id like to post publicly.

 

[Toshi]

I dont think that one race is smarter than or superior to another, but my view on this is not something Id like to post publicly.

here's my, unsolicited, view:

it is not consistent to say that both:

a) all races are equally smart
b) all cultures are equal in every sense

as it has been demonstrated amply over history, certain races/cultures (it's hard to tell which is the defining characteristic as most groups are homogenous over both traits) have performed better than others. see postwar japan and the japanese in the field of business, indians (as in the country) in mathematics and computer science, southeast asian immigrants in starting up small businesses. this is not meant to be an exhaustive list -- for those wishing that, i point you towards the census bureau and their reams of statistics.

this leads to the question: WHY does this happen? even though i have no doubt that different races would perform differently, on average, on any particular test such as iq, that doesn't answer the question in my mind, as these tests simply correlate to how well one does on other, similar tests. tests != success in life. if phrenology taught us anything, it is that measures of raw _anything_ are pretty much worthless.

this in turn leads us to culture. why is the relativistic pc party line that all cultures are great, yadda yadda, all are equally advanced? how can we collectively discount the success of southeast asian immigrants as "just because their culture stresses hard work and the value of education" while not making value judgments against cultures which don't do the same? in other words, if we can write off the achievements of group X on characteristics fostered by their culture, why isn't it kosher to blame (and take measures to "fix") opposite characteristics in other cultures when they bring about undesireable behaviors?

agh. sorry, this rant here isn't quite coherent. but i hope my point, if it exists, comes through. a lot of this is bitterness from me and my other asian and half-asian friends who have heard a million and one justifications why we have done well in school, mostly variations on "you work hard because your culture values education."

 

[ummbikes]

this leads to the question: WHY does this happen?

I thought you answered your question pretty well. I think it's pretty obvious that certain groups of people, both racial, and economic, have skills and abilities their segment of society values over others, or has developed due to circumstance.

Your example of India and post WWII Japan illustrate this well. Another example might be found in The Dominican Republic with their focus on baseball on a culture wide level. Specialization, and adaptibility seems to be quite the norm both in societies and the biological world.

This starts to get dicey politically if people, for instance think that if you are Japanese you must be good at running efficient companies, and because of that could never be a good welder or whatever...

 

[Toshi]

I thought you answered your question pretty well. I think it's pretty obvious that certain groups of people, both racial, and economic, have skills and abilities their segment of society values over others, or has developed due to circumstance.

yay, it was semi-coherent! my objection is that the PC viewpoint, at least as i perceive it, is against making value judgements of ANY kind, least of all against a culture. it's all "expression" and "valuing differences", even if the "expression" in question is the viewpoint that owning a cadillac escalade with 22" wheels on credit is somehow an admirable thing... :mumble:

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

here's my, unsolicited, view:

it is not consistent to say that both:

a) all races are equally smart
b) all cultures are equal in every sense

as it has been demonstrated amply over history, certain races/cultures (it's hard to tell which is the defining characteristic as most groups are homogenous over both traits) have performed better than others. see postwar japan and the japanese in the field of business, indians (as in the country) in mathematics and computer science, southeast asian immigrants in starting up small businesses. this is not meant to be an exhaustive list -- for those wishing that, i point you towards the census bureau and their reams of statistics.

this leads to the question: WHY does this happen? even though i have no doubt that different races would perform differently, on average, on any particular test such as iq, that doesn't answer the question in my mind, as these tests simply correlate to how well one does on other, similar tests. tests != success in life. if phrenology taught us anything, it is that measures of raw _anything_ are pretty much worthless.

this in turn leads us to culture. why is the relativistic pc party line that all cultures are great, yadda yadda, all are equally advanced? how can we collectively discount the success of southeast asian immigrants as "just because their culture stresses hard work and the value of education" while not making value judgments against cultures which don't do the same? in other words, if we can write off the achievements of group X on characteristics fostered by their culture, why isn't it kosher to blame (and take measures to "fix") opposite characteristics in other cultures when they bring about undesireable behaviors?

agh. sorry, this rant here isn't quite coherent. but i hope my point, if it exists, comes through. a lot of this is bitterness from me and my other asian and half-asian friends who have heard a million and one justifications why we have done well in school, mostly variations on "you work hard because your culture values education."

alright, BUT your universe to deduce the "strenght" or "weakness" of a race are of a neglible timeframe with respect to the whole history of said race or civilization.
alright, india is a CIS marvel now, do u truly think its because they have a CSI, or math, or whatever gene?? or because some external (nonbiological) factors gave that culture some sort of advantage over others at some given point in time????

there is definately some sort of biological advantage in somethings, but is this enough to raise a civilization? or are more important external factors???????

 

[ummbikes]

alright, BUT your universe to deduce the "strenght" or "weakness" of a race are of a neglible timeframe with respect to the whole history of said race or civilization.
alright, india is a CIS marvel now, do u truly think its because they have a CSI, or math, or whatever gene?? or because some external (nonbiological) factors gave that culture some sort of advantage over others at some given point in time????

there is definately some sort of biological advantage in somethings, but is this enough to raise a civilization? or are more important external factors???????

I will not dare put words in Toshi's mouth but I did understand his post you are discussing, according to him.

He didn't say, nor imply any of the drivel you are spouting.

What I gathered from his post was nothing more than an observation of a selected group adapting.



Damn, you are almost getting stuff. Stick around here, it will be interesting to see how more education changes your posts.

 

[Toshi]

indeed i was trying to play down the biological factor, since i don't know how we would measure that among other reasons. my point is about relativism wrt cultures and their values. which is kind of redundant i guess

 

[ito]

While I don't have much evidence to back this up I think alot of the reason cultures have advanced at different speeds can be attributed to population density and geological placement.

If you look at Europe, it's a fairly small area. It's also pretty comfortable to live in. A comfortable life means more free time, more free time means you are thinking more often about things other than survival,this would lead to more "great thinkers". Meanwhile you've got a number of small countries. Increased population means that the pop. density is going to sky rocket. This needs to be dealt with and so society adapts, more advancements in technology and thinking. They are also more interested in expanding, so they travel and explore more.

Take a look at Africa. A large country, much smaller(relatively) population, and a harsher climate. Africans are more focused on just surviving, less time to daydream and create. This means less motivation to expand their numbers, as more mouths=more work. Having a less dense population means the land sustains them longer and they do not have to go off and explore new regions. Basically, they are able to live comfortably longer with their original resources than those in Europe.

If you take a look across the world I think you could apply this in some way to most cultures. After a time it may become a cultural trait(ie. Early White Americans wanting to explore the frontier). It isn't all encompassing, but I think it makes a fairly strong argument.

One thing we have to remember in a lot of this is that history is written by the victor. There are many, many cultures that had incredible technology that was centuries ahead of others who are now considered more developed. Arabs and their math, architecture in Egypt(still can't figure out how the pyramids were made), astronomy in South America, gun powder in Asia, etc. In some cases the technology was there, but it was lost through war or over time forgotten or buried in the sands(literally in some cases). The ancients had a lot more technology than we give them credit for, why it was lost.....who knows?

I would steer away from a biological reading of this, because biologically race does not exist. It's a cultural issue, not biological.

Also, I picked Europe and Africa because they were mentioned already, no other reason.

The Ito

 

[fluff]

Time prevents me reading all the posts above but here are some thoughts:

Because a region is less technicologically advanced does not mean it is culturaly retarded. Far fewer poor people would starve to death in the Middle East 150 years ago than in the 'West'.

Also necessity is renowned as the mother of invention. Where do you need heat, light etc more than in cold wet North European countries?

 

[wooglin]

While I don't have much evidence to back this up I think alot of the reason cultures have advanced at different speeds can be attributed to population density and geological placement.

This is circumscription theory. Robert Carneiro is the author to look for, although I can't remember the title off the top of my head. He was espousing this back in the 50s.

Y'all need to read some anthropological theory. Some of the stuff you're saying is right on, and some is whacked.

 

[LordOpie]

Y'all need to read some anthropological theory. Some of the stuff you're saying is right on, and some is whacked.

I don't have the time to study every subject. If you know something, share it.


PS: I am reading all the posts, I just don't have any questions at the moment.

 

[Clark Kent]

Africa is known to have slavery in their own past....it isn't like slavery isn't only a Euro-trait back then.

I didnt say it was.They were deeply involved in it!Did you read that in my post? No? Didnt think so!

Industrialization can fuel the greed you mentioned above.

Yupper, didnt state anything to the contrary.

Developement of culture is not what was being refered to....technology and the western society (on the whole) progressed much faster than that of africa.

Culture and values and percieved need are some of the things that drive industrialzation. Like I stated.

Culture isn't really a factor. You can be making tools out of animal bones and have a "culture" you are proud of....doesn't mean that your culture is as developed as others.

Does not indicate the opposite either. And by culture I mean societal. The fabric of the community. How it relates to itself and others. And yes that is a factor. To say it has nothing to do with the indistrial drive doesnt incorrect.

Again I say I don't think it was genetic advantage or a blessing that the "white man" advanced prior to africa (back to LO original post) With any new technology...it can grow by leaps and bounds.....for thousands and thousands of years no fire, BOOM fire, now there is a whole bunch you can do with fire....fire leads to cooking, drying (preserving) food etc. but it took a couple advances to break out.

I beleive that for whatever reasons the Europeans took off with advances (maybe by luck at first) and jumped ahead of others....industrializing and growing their culture....requiring resources (slaves) to assist. Who better to help them than the "animal" african person. They are not as refined as the white man...."they will work for us like mules".

I can only wonder if the african society had a few key advances (inventions) they could have came to "power" first. Maybe things would have been much different. They were well versed in the slave trade arena....heck they sold their own to the white man. the less advanced Euro would be ripe for plucking

Power is relative, in their eyes they had come to power. They didnt suggest slavery to the west, some of the crueler greedier people in their society filled a need. If you read about some of the African culture of past and present, and their values, relating to life, earth, and how we interact with those forces, it would be hard to think that a few tech advances would motivate or create the wholsale kidnapping and trade of human beings. I dont think as a whole that they would have gone that way. But who knows.

Timing?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I will not dare put words in Toshi's mouth but I did understand his post you are discussing, according to him.

He didn't say, nor imply any of the drivel you are spouting.

What I gathered from his post was nothing more than an observation of a selected group adapting.



Damn, you are almost getting stuff. Stick around here, it will be interesting to see how more education changes your posts.

lol, my post wsa rhetorical. i was not impplying anything with my post other than the same thing as toshis.

yeah, i´ll stick around, i wanna be just like you!!! :heart:

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

there is something i used to think a lot. i just read itos post, about the harsher weather in africa.
no way!!!!!!!! europe and north america have way harsher weather than the southern hemisphere.

alright, we get volcanoes and dry seasons sometimes, but you guys have those freaking winter every single year!!!
nowadays is not a problem, but 200 years ago and back, that means at least
a few weeks a year lost to snow, ice or whatever the winters had.

in a way, i think weather played against northerners, and for southerners, after all, 100ºF heat is not as bad a being 30 below zero. still, most warm weather civilizations wage poorly nowadays.

 

[ummbikes]

yeah, i´ll stick around, i wanna be just like you!!! :heart:

So young, so naive... There is only one Ummbikes. Perhaps you could study to become N8.

 

[Clark Kent]

While I don't have much evidence to back this up I think alot of the reason cultures have advanced at different speeds can be attributed to population density and geological placement.

If you look at Europe, it's a fairly small area. It's also pretty comfortable to live in. A comfortable life means more free time, more free time means you are thinking more often about things other than survival,this would lead to more "great thinkers". Meanwhile you've got a number of small countries. Increased population means that the pop. density is going to sky rocket. This needs to be dealt with and so society adapts, more advancements in technology and thinking. They are also more interested in expanding, so they travel and explore more.

Take a look at Africa. A large country, much smaller(relatively) population, and a harsher climate. Africans are more focused on just surviving, less time to daydream and create. This means less motivation to expand their numbers, as more mouths=more work. Having a less dense population means the land sustains them longer and they do not have to go off and explore new regions. Basically, they are able to live comfortably longer with their original resources than those in Europe.

If you take a look across the world I think you could apply this in some way to most cultures. After a time it may become a cultural trait(ie. Early White Americans wanting to explore the frontier). It isn't all encompassing, but I think it makes a fairly strong argument.

One thing we have to remember in a lot of this is that history is written by the victor. There are many, many cultures that had incredible technology that was centuries ahead of others who are now considered more developed. Arabs and their math, architecture in Egypt(still can't figure out how the pyramids were made), astronomy in South America, gun powder in Asia, etc. In some cases the technology was there, but it was lost through war or over time forgotten or buried in the sands(literally in some cases). The ancients had a lot more technology than we give them credit for, why it was lost.....who knows?

I would steer away from a biological reading of this, because biologically race does not exist. It's a cultural issue, not biological.

Also, I picked Europe and Africa because they were mentioned already, no other reason.

The Ito

Great point about history being written by the victor! But I do think that genotypical differences exist between different "races".

 

[Toshi]

Great point about history being written by the victor! But I do think that genotypical differences exist between different "races".

this is well established. see africans wrt jumping ability due to differences in hip construction/geometry for one. or how japanese tend to be short and short-limbed altho the younger generation is becoming more calvin klein-esque (tall, emaciated)