European way to world primacy.

Originally posted by fantasus Simple explanations may sometimes be recommendable, but in this case I find the "greediness tesis" a poor one - because.1: It is a big question whether europeans at large are more or less "greedy" than peoples from other parts of the world. 2: but if it is so, it does not explain their succes very well - after all not all greedy ones get what they want! 3:In addition it leaves us with more questions (if we for a moment accept it´s true):what makes this difference in greediness? So we find this "answer" is not an answer after all, but rather some "I don´t care why".

Thats a good issue to raise. Human beings are equally evil, murderous and vengeful. I tend to think we're equally greedy as well. Personally speaking I think the only thing between us (Humanity) and an Hobbesian State of Nature is government. Take that away and we'd be hacking each other to death with blood on our hands, crazed to death with power and thoughts of evil.

Well perhaps not as dramatically as that, but something like it. It is the victory of the enduring power of the nation state that ensured the Europeans rose to dominance. It was the victory of constitutionalism and Liberalism that ensured that governments and peoples arrive at a grand compromise where both some liberty and safety are proportioned so as to ensure the maintenance of both (IE, Under a supreme state with complete authority in all things we would have complete safety and no liberty, under a weak government or no government we would have complete liberty, but no safety)

Well, it seems you are European, so of course you would tend to exagerate a bit the importance of Europe for the world. It is true that Europe has been very important for everybody in the last centuries, but Europe is not the only thing that exists under the sun.

Parnell: Amen
Penguin: First:  China and Korea have never been considered Third World. China would have been "Second World" until the fall of the Soviet Union. Ditto for North Korea. South Korea would have been classed as "First World", along with Japan, as both were allied with the "West". Both China and Korea were civilized states long before the First Inca ever knotted a Quipu, or heard a tune on a chasqui. The forerunner state to the Chinese Empire may predate the Peloponnesian War, but Korea does not, though a Korean state can be traced back to 200 A.D., and perhaps 300 B.C. More importantly, only South Korea can rightly be considered First World. The DPRK must be considered "Third World" since the fall of the USSR, as there is no "Fourth World" category. 
Second, the U.S. may be geographically North American, but it is European in the cultural and philosophical sense.
Third, note that the language of choice for the rising Asian nations is English, and that the preferred accent in China,. Singapore, Taiwan, and India is "Acquired English" as opposed to American Standard.By the way, if you google "Raffles Singapore" And "Sarawak Raja" you will discover that not all European colonialism was negative as far as the descendents of the "colonized" are concerned.
JRScotia: In re:  "They were indeed greed and might based conquests and not based on some intrinsic superiority."  Wouldn't you consider superior organization skills, superior logistical projection capabilities, and a mental framework that allows one to analyze a situation and forge alliances among competing peoples as some measure of cultural superiority in that time and place? The Spanish conquest of the Americas was testimony of their military might. Indeed, even on the European continent, their land forces were invincible until 1627 (Breda?), ergo the reason the United Provinces and Britain developed into maritime powers. As for the British, their colonial wars were hardly walkovers, and just to cite the Sikhs as an example, the military technology of both sides was comparable as regarded armaments. British superiority was organizational and logistical, rather than technological. It was hardly simple might, but rather knowing how to best employ and sustain the forces they had.
Just some thoughts.

Originally posted by JRScotia Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by JRScotia There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil. This is actually totally untrue. A few examples will suffice. Immunisation was implemented during this period, resulting in smallpox vaccinations. That alone is a large improvement, never mind all the others. This is actually quite TRUE. From Wikipedia: "The process of vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner in 1796, who acted upon his observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox." Almost 50 years after the period that was specified. Didn't the Dutch republic spawn during this period? It was no modern liberal democratic state, but by the standards of the time it was a dramatic improvement over most forms of government so far as democracy is concerned. The Bill of Rights in England also was a very substantial improvement over previous standards of individual rights. Ok. You're right. It wasn't NIL. Only ALMOST nil. There were two instances in all of Europe of some small improvement. Actually my first statement was that there were tiny improvements, and that is the case. But they were very, very small. In no way can I see any dramatic improvements in those areas. Literature, sure. Art, absolutely. Some rather dramatic inventions in navigation and warfare, yes. But others that were mentioned, ethics, politics, medicine were amazingly stutified. As far as why Europe was able to dominate, it's the same reason, in my opinion, that the Mongols dominated a large part of the world (ignored by most of us of a European tradition) earlier. Military conquest--pure and simple.  Sometimes the greediest prevail. Military might was a product of other factors within the European territories (technological innovation, advances in the organisation of the nation state, economic organisation and management). The successful European empires did not succeed due to a simple greedy->military might->domination formula. This is a vast oversimplification, and is untenable. I disagree and since you offered no proof that I was wrong, I won't bother with listing the huge lists (conquering several contenents anyone?) of why I say I'm right. They were indeed greed and might based conquests and not based on some intrinsic superiority.

Originally posted by Parnell Originally posted by JRScotia Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil. Sorry, had passed over your post. Constantine pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I think it all has to be brought back to as it happened in its time. Its just pointless and counter-productive when we try and evaluate events and reform through the prism of a 21st century morality and thought process. Two ir-reconcilable divergences of thought here to be perfectly honest. And don't forget John Locke wrote his little pamphlet during this era. And this was also the preceding century to the greatest events of American and European History  -  the American and French Revolutions. The writings (Principally of the Philosophes in France) cannot be overlooked. And the greatest literary and educational achievement of all time was the original encyclopédie, first published in 1751. So to say that these years have little relevance to the modern world is, in a word, wrong. As far as why Europe was able to dominate, it's the same reason, in my opinion, that the Mongols dominated a large part of the world (ignored by most of us of a European tradition) earlier. Military conquest--pure and simple.  Sometimes the greediest prevail. Ah, but what makes a country capable of consolidation? Its one thing to blow the path in front of you, another to build roads, levy taxes and execute justice. Government administration and the advances herein (Thomas Cromwell being one of the greatest practical thinkers/doers in this regard) made this more possible than it ever was before. Colonys were a testament to the success of western administration, as unglamourous and dull as that rightly sounds

I wasn't saying they had no relevance only that there wasn't as much progress in some areas as you were indicating, Parnell.

As for road building and executing justice--are you acquainted with the history of the Americas? (Sorry, I really don't mean that to be rude) 1. The Aztecs for example had amazing architecture so I'm none too sure of European superiority or at least large superiority. 2. Justice? If you were an indigenous American or a member of say the Irish population during that period, you might question the very existence of such a thing.  (Cromwell? He was certainly a "doer" but do you really want to try to link that with JUSTICE? Rather reminds me of a recent conversation about Edward I)

Europeans did do some things very well in those things but others I don't see any superiority in. Admittedly those improvements starting to come soon after, some no doubt started during that period. But I see huge improvements in how to conquer other peoples (military) and I'm in serious doubt about the road building issue but it'll take some research on my part--not something I know off-hand. I don't see any kind of superiority of culture.


Edited by JRScotia - 31-May-2009 at 04:23

JR,

I like our little tete a tetes. You've a good tone, its full of bombast but there's a hint of reasonability to it as well. Quite fun really.

My issue wasn't necessarily anything to do with road building persé, its the administration, government administration, that made such mighty leaps and bounds in the era. Roadbuilding being one simple example of which. Along with canals. And the general provision of infrastructure.

And when I say justice I'm not passing a moral glance in that direction at all, I'm talking about the authority of the state. I'm using an essentially neutral tone to describe how the power of the state increased along with its authority, and the beginnings of a state governed by the rule of law began to emerge. The actual laws are irrelevant, the fact that they were beginning to be enforced throughout both the conquered and the homeland with some sort of regularity and uniformity is a testament to the power of the state. Which is why Europeans rose to be dominant.

The Ancient Romans built their Empire through the power of their laws and systems of justice - for their statebuilding. The ancient Greeks built it through the power of innovation and the glory of their individuality and their arts. But they didn't build an enduring Empire like the Romans. Thats were the key to understanding European supremacy comes in, I think.

Originally posted by JRScotia Originally posted by Parnell [QUOTE=JRScotia] Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil. Doesn't the discovery of the circulation of the blood count as rather a significant medical advance? [QUOTE] (Cromwell? He was certainly a "doer" but do you really want to try to link that with JUSTICE? Rather reminds me of a recent conversation about Edward I)

So he did. I had to go back and check.

I beg your pardon, Parnell. I did read rather carelessly.  THOMAS Cromwell was an interesting man but history making as to organizing government? Perhaps, but not that I see really. Certainly King Henry regretted his execution. I've read quite a bit about him and I don't recall his have done anything to improve the basic makeup of the governance. I've always been more impressed with his patronage of the humanists and there were some remarkable advances in the area of philosophy during this period.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by JRScotia Originally posted by Parnell [QUOTE=JRScotia] Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil. Doesn't the discovery of the circulation of the blood count as rather a significant medical advance? [QUOTE] (Cromwell? He was certainly a "doer" but do you really want to try to link that with JUSTICE? Rather reminds me of a recent conversation about Edward I) I think you're mixing up your Cromwells. Parnell said Thomas.

Edited by JRScotia - 01-Jun-2009 at 17:49

OK, so the term "third world" is of french origin, and I got it wrong. Still I have the impression many, also from "non-european" part of the world adopted the term.

Hello to you all