Pre-American industrial "evolution"

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I read an article in USA Today a few years ago that basically said that whoever has the most resources--most types of animals and grains and such--will get farther faster. Thus, Europe had the most, so they got farther faster.

Yeah, but...

...European wheat ain't all that awesome. In fact the world seems to be moving away from it, and plenty of other people had all the same domesticated animals and a few cool additions like elephants or camels.

Being too poor to get taken out by the Mongols was certainly a huge advantage I haven't seen anyone else discuss.

 

[Andre]

As someone who has read Guns, Germs and Steel:

Agriculture...(snip)
Livestock...(snip)
Geography...(snip)
Climate...(snip)
Politics.

This is an excellent summary of the author's argument, except that I don't remember him addressing political factors. In fact, IIRC, his whole thesis for the book was that culture and/or genetics were not the most important factors in Europe's rise to power vis-a-vis the rest of the world. In other words, Europeans developed the greatest technology and military power because they were fortunate enough to live in Europe, not because of any inherent superiority in their beliefs, government, and/or genetics.

That said, I don't believe one can really separate these issues. In Keegan's History of Warfare the author points out that many "primitive" tribes deliberately engaged in a ritualistic form of warfare, the ritual designed to limit casualties. In some conflicts, more "warriors" were injured in accidents than due to the enemy. Even possessing the advantages of the early Europeans, would such a culture develop sophisticated military technology? Probably not (in fact, the real-world examples were conquered by the cultures that did develop just such technology - the Europeans).

In a way, this is the classic nature vs. nurture argument, writ large. Each community (Europeans, China, Aztecs, etc.) possessed certain environmental advantages and disadvantages. These environmental factors provided more or less opportunity for technological advancement. But in the end, how those advantages were used - or ignored - was dependent on the cultures that developed.

 

[Orius]

Among the big reasons was that there were no good domesticable animals of suitable size to add substantial "horsepower" to their efforts. The best the Americas had to offer was the Alpacca. Not a great animal to try and hitch to a plow, particularly in the rocky terrain where they were indigenous.

I'd say that's one good explanation. The last native American horses died out at the end of the last Ice Age. Native Americans didn't have them as beast of burden. As you mentioned there was the alpacca, and the Plains Indians also used dogs as beast of burden. So not only do they not have horses as work animals, it also restricts long distance travel somewhat as well.

I think trade has something to do with things as well. Eurasian cultural development was impacted by trade across the entire continent. At least 2000 years ago or so silk was first traded from China all the way to Europe, and there were a lot of other inventions and ideas that went back and forth as well, like stirrups, crossbows, gunpowder, paper, compasses, and so on. And it wasn't just land trade as well. The Arabs traded by sea throughout the Indian Ocean, and so African cultures along the east coast were also influenced by cultural developments occuring in other parts of the world.

Now take a look at the Americas. There were no sustained contact between the Old and New Worlds until 1492. That means the Indians weren't exposed to the technology of the Old World until then. And as the old saying goes, "Necessity is the mother of invention." The Indians didn't develop things that the Old World took for granted because they didn't need them.

 

[Orius]

In most literate/literary cultures, written documents are almost never used to store technological information. We're a very exceptional society in that respect.

::nods::

In the western world, writing as we know it developed to keep track of crops, write down court records, and other similar day-to-day matters.

 

[Orius]

Actually, there were permanent settlements all across the Americas --- Plains Village cultures in the Missouri River basin, materially rich coastal villages in the Pacific Northwest, the cities of the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, and others. Many of these were complex and sometimes massive settlements. Admittedly, while in North America urban centres were not the rule, most parts of the Old World also exhibited low-density settlement.

You answered the whole matter of Indian settlements better than I could. People really need to stop getting their information about Indians from bad '50s movies, IMO. The Indians were much more diverse than any Hollywood stereotypes could ever show.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

This is an excellent summary of the author's argument, except that I don't remember him addressing political factors.

I'm pretty sure that, near the end of the book, he discussed why Europeans conquered the world, and not, for instance, the Chinese, who were more numerous.

He pointed out that China had sent out the "treasure fleets" about a thousand years ago, getting as far as the southeastern coast of Africa. Then, suddenly, the country went insular/isolationist, and believed that everything worth doing had already been done by their ancestors.

Now, what would a budding inventor do to get financing for his projects? Go to the local magistrate? The magistrate would tell them that anything worth doing has already been done, so don't bother them. This attitude was endemic to the whole political system.

If the Chinese "treasure fleets" had not pulled back, we could have seen the Chinese invading Europe, instead of the other way around...

As a contrast, he showed that, in Europe, an innovator like Columbus had a wealth of petty kingdoms from which to choose. Sure, most of them were interested in expansion solely at their neighbors' expense, but shop around long enough and you could find someone who would finance your venture.

I'm pretty sure that's part of the book. It's been about a year since I read it, but I still remember the gist of it.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Why didn't the native people of the Americas go through the armor-firearms-industrial revolution "evolutionary" steps that Europe and Asia did?

Short answer: Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

Long answer: Not as many resources (mineral, vegetable, and animal), different routes of geographical dissemination of resources (a north/south axis rather than an east/west axis), different general geographical differences, different chronological periods of development (only c.15,000 years for native Americans, as opposed to much longer "stationary" periods of dwelling for Europeans/Asians), smaller populations.

In short, tons of factors came into play. Really, read the book. Some may not like it and disagree with aspects of it, but for my money it does one of the best, most comprehensive "general" reveal of the factors involved than just about anything else I've read on the subject.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

All the evidence seems to point to agriculture as a pretty common step, but certainly not an inevitable one. And then civilized agricultural itself is probably an 'evolutionary phase' we haven't really mastered.

For that matter, it's not even necessarily an ideal step. Yes, it allowed for the larger population growth that led to the development of fields of specialization (and thus, technological development), but it also a) allowed for the development and spread of wide-scale, epidemic diseases, and b) created a lifestyle in which there is actually less leisure time than in a hunting-gathering society- not to mention it requires more energy and effort to support an agricultural society. Among other things.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is an awesome book but it's one point of view, I wouldn't stop with it.

Definitely. For generalities regarding the issues, I think it rocks. For specifics, you would do well to look elsewhere, though.

Technology helped in the conquest of Mexico, but it was culture and politics that decided the conflict.

Not just technology- disease was a major factor in the conquest of the New World. Over half the NW population was devastated by diseases the natives had no resistance to before they were even encountered by the conquerors (in North America, and to a lesser extent in South and Central America).

 

[LightPhoenix]

Not just technology- disease was a major factor in the conquest of the New World. Over half the NW population was devastated by diseases the natives had no resistance to before they were even encountered by the conquerors (in North America, and to a lesser extent in South and Central America).

I'm not an anthropologist, or a historian, so I just want to ask a question regarding this. If disease was a major factor in a take over of the Americas (and I know it was), why then wasn't Europe conquered during any number of the epidemics they picked up from Asia?

On a similar note, why was Africa protected from European and Asian invasion in large part by indigeonous diseases, but not the Americas? I would think that the lack of many domesticated animals in most American cultures would lead to a less rapid evolution of disease, however there must have been some diseases that the Europeans didn't come into contact with and thus may have been especially virulent. Was the fact that the Europeans were the invaders, and thus had a long trip back to Europe, allowing those infected to die before spreading the disease a factor?

[EDIT] Are there any good books that deal specifically with the subject of diseases and culture? I'm a biochemist, so this is a bit more interesting to me than some of the more hardcore historical-political stuff.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

It's very interesting to read how these theories tie into what I've read in "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. It becomes pretty apparent that Europe benefitted the most from contact with the Mongols, without the backlash against the advances that the Mongols brought due to occupation (being lightly occupied for the most part).