What contributed to Europeans becoming dominant?

Hello to you all

 

Obviously rider you haven't heard of the inquisition, wars of religion and the anti-Catholic and anti-protestant laws that remained on the books till the 20th century in many european countries.

 

The only real reason for wars in Europe was money. Countries fought not for the pope but to enhance the bottom line. When European powers started colonizing, they began with weak and divided but emmensly rich nations. By the 17th century and for the first time in european history, the percentage of rich commoners was higher than that of the royalty or nobility. And innovation always start from the bottom up and their large wealth made them control the nobles and thus the state. But still Europe was, till 1800, pretty much on the same footing as the rest of the world. It was the spread of the industrial revolution that pretty much ensured the position europe now has. If it was the Ottomans, Chinese and the Mughals who took Africa and the Americas the story would have been exactly the opposite but china hated merchants, the mughals were already too rich to bother searching for other riches and the Ottomans, they were busy killing sultans and veziers. Europe on the other hand chose the sea route well before those nations and it was the countries with access to sea that developed first in europe.

 

Al-Jassas

1. Ming China had an isolationist policy (in 1436 the Emperor banned the construction of ocean-going ships...). This in itself contributed to their lack of development in the modern era, unable to reap the benefits of the dissemination of technology and knowledge from Europe.

2. The Turks simply tried to do too much.  Deploying troops all across the Eastern Mediterranean was too expensive, and that coupled with the lack of free trade and the centralized conservative government made progress slow.

3. Political fragmentation in Europe gave them the advantages needed to become dominant. The consequences of political fragmentation were the diversity of ideas, of economies, and the fierce military competition.  The diversity of ideas in all of the separate European states enabled the development of advanced literature, militaries, governments, and economies.  The diversity of those economies was enforced by the fact that for the earlier part of the era, there was no European hegemon.  This enabled progress in each of the separate states.  And the fierce military competition between the geographically and politically "tenuous" states forced the Europeans to develop new military technologies, strategies, and this lead to a general arms race. The competition stimulated trade and economy, which lead to more money, which lead to more weapons, which lead to more economic leverage/power, etc. It was a cycle.

 

And yes, after 1648 Europe was completely secular.  It introduced the concept of the state as sovereign, and this lead to their development as separate entities, not a tightly-constrained empire under one ruler like the Turks or Chinese.

 

In that Mr. Huntington is also wrong. He forgets that in Latin America, Indigenous people were europeized quite early. Latin America was producing barroque music with native lyrics at the time of Bach! If he were a smart guy he would had understand the difference between North America and Latin America is mainly "money" and not "race". In fact, the U.S. is more African than Latin America. The difference is also in religion: a catholic south and a protestant north.

 

In the other hand, he forgot his own history. The United States wouldn't be what is it today without the Native American contribution. Europeans couldn't even survived in the New World without the help of natives that feed them. That's the real meaning of thanksgiving, anyways.

 

Europeans dominated in both North and South America, so I do't see how the distinction between north and south is relevant to the topic.

Do some research on the Dutch Republic and the way in which both governance and finance were established and refined.  The relationship among the Provinces, the sophistication of both the "repartition system" of common finance in satisfying public policy, and the underlying importance of commerce and credit in making the system possible were crucial in the Constitution's structure.

 

What the Constitution sought to prevent was the overpowering position of importance Holland had in the political life of the United Provinces, and also the effect of Dutch confessionalism through the influence of the Reformed Church.

 

I do not see any Indian influence in the Constitution of the United States.  Concepts of the most elementary societal organization do not differ much regardless of where they are found.  The tribes were not sophisticated enough to address the issues, their customs were limited geographically, and, after the Fr. & In. War, the tribes had little influence on Anglo Americans.  The attribution to Native Americans of such influence is a politically correct fad.