This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
An anonymous substacker has written up a good piece on the Rise of the West. Essentially, he comes to the conclusion that the divergence began in the 1000-1500 A.D. period and that subsequent colonisation efforts by Europe of the rest of the world was simply an outgrowth of those earlier advantages.
This of course upends the familiar trope of "the West got rich by the backs of the Third World" so popular with leftists in the West and in countries like India, across the political spectrum. I bring this up because if the poor countries of the world today have any hope of catching up, they should first re-examine honestly why they fell behind in the first place. Yet I see precious little of that, except mostly moral grandstanding about the evils of the exploitative West.
This also has domestic political implications because a lot of white guilt-driven narratives are sprung from the narrative that the West got rich by exploitation and thus the logical corollary is that evil white people should repent (preferably through monetary reparations). The narrative that colonisation was simply a natural outgrowth of European pre-existing advantages that grew over time naturally undermines it. One could also note that the Barbary slave trade, or the slave auctions in the Ottoman Empire, shows that the Third World was far from innocent. But of course these historical facts don't have high political payoffs in the contemporary era, so they are ignored or underplayed.
I was reading about technology in Sub-Saharan Africa the other day. They bought up the University of Sankore which was apparently very big and prestigious, scholars from there blitzed their Islamic brethren in terms of erudition. Some fellow there had a very big library. Yet nobody seems to know specifically what they discovered or taught in any specific sense.
There was also metalworking in the Kongo, which was apparently very advanced. Apparently they had very good iron-working, competitive with 18th century Europeans:
I'm not terribly confident in the reliability of the source African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter. Eventually they explain that there was an ecological disaster and cheap, inferior European steel was imported anyway. Nevertheless, Kongolese slaves made good steel when they were taken to America!
But why were Kongo people being dispatched as slaves if their steel was so good? Why were the Portuguese coming to them as opposed to the Kongolese coming to Europe? For that matter, the Portuguese somehow took control of maritime trade routes all over the world from as soon as they showed up. A small kingdom like Portugal directly ruled half of Ceylon/Sri Lanka, various parts of India (Goa is still the richest Indian state), swathes of the African coast. They eventually had issues defending their global empire - but only from other Europeans like Britain, France and the Dutch. The natives weren't capable of beating back the Portuguese alone, they usually had to get help from the Dutch or somebody else. It's like the whole non-European world were NPCs, unable to withstand even small forces from Europe. They were usually in a passive position, regardless of whether they had better or worse technology.
Time after time, tiny European armies show up and dominate. Pizarro, Cortes, Clive... They usually exploited divisions amongst the locals - yet nobody manages to do the same against Europe. When the Ottomans attacked, half of Christendom united to fight at Lepanto. Later on the Poles launch the largest cavalry charge in history to save Vienna from the Turk. Only the perfidious French actually worked with the Ottomans and it was a fairly loose alliance.
The real answer is because, generally speaking, the natives had no reason to 'beat back' the Portugese, or any other colonial state. They benefited from colonial contact, especially in the 18th century onwards. Colonial states had legitimacy and widespread local support until the mid-20th century.
It was less the natives 'getting help from the Dutch or somebody else' but more 'Europeans getting the help from the natives' to kick out their European rivals.
But if the British or Portuguese rule a territory, it means that the locals don't. The pre-industrial world was largely a zero-sum affair, the pie was growing very slowly. This was the age of mercantilism, where you fought hard to control markets. The Europeans certainly fought hard against eachother, they invented the concept. The same competitive dynamics should apply for everyone else vs the Europeans. If the Portuguese have the trade, it meant the Muslims don't. That's taking money directly out of their pockets. And then there's a big culture clash and religious clash.
Plus, as I mentioned below, the Portuguese were on an absolute rampage in the Indian Ocean. They were directly taking on Indian principalities and the Ottoman Empire, a gigantic country with far more resources than Portugal. Most of the time the Portuguese won and they were fighting on the enemy's home turf!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu_(1538)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cannanore_(1507)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Malacca_(1511)
The vast, vast majority of people working in Indian colonial administration were native Indians, to say nothing of the local Rajas who had significant influence. This is generally true of all European colonial states in Africa and Asia in the 1800s onwards. In a large sense, the locals did rule themselves, even if guided by European thought and colonial administrators.
It's really only through the power of ideologies such as nationalism that to a native in Cochin/Kochi that rule from London (not matter how hands off) is illegitimate but rule from New Delhi is legitimate.
Colonialism in the context being discussed (that is, Africa and Asia reperations) is a mostly post-industral or at the very least a proto-industrial phenomeon. A bunch of Portugese trading posts scattered around Asia and Africa isn't really colonialism proper. Only in the latter part of the 1800s (as with most European powers, scramble for Africa) did Portugal really gained substantial control over what we would call colonial states (e.g. Mozambique and Angola).
Regardless, I also object to the claim that pre-industrial trading was zero-sum. It was obviously not zero-sum, or else the participants (e.g. Portugal and costal Indian kingdoms) wouldn't have participated in it! Portugal got their spices, the Indians got their silver. The actual participants in the trading mutually benefit. The fact that traders might seek to monopolise that trade doesn't change the fact that the people actually doing the trading are mutually benefiting. They're looking to gain an economic advantage over their trading competitor not their trading partner. This is no different to modern economics - the fact that some business try to monopolise or engage in anti-competitive behaviour today isn't evidence of economic activity being zero-sum!
But they make sure that the profiting participants are all Portuguese as opposed to Dutch or Muslim, that's the whole point! The Portuguese took control of the key ports and entrepots, they ensured that they were in control of the lucrative trade routes. They buy spices in Asia, sell them in Europe and the vast majority of the profit goes to Portuguese traders and eventually back to the state. They find ways to ensure that nobody else can challenge their control of the region. Maybe their ships go missing at sea, maybe their warehouses burn down, maybe they charge tolls and duties that render them uncompetitive.
On a strategic level, from the point of view of the state or state-like companies such as the EIC or VOC, global trade is zero sum in this period. That's why they fought wars to control it. There's a big difference between what we call anti-competitive behaviour today and companies waging full-scale war to secure monopolies on trade, to secure strategic bases and oceans. They often annexed various islands and ruled directly.
Trade itself isn't zero-sum. That is, the very act of exchanging goods and services between mutually consenting and informed parts is not zero-sum, and is in-fact mutually beneficial.
The issue is 1) rentseeking behaviour by organisations and individuals which is self explanatory, 2) goods, particularly exotic commodities are finite, so there is competiton and an incentive to monopolise. But this doesn't change the fact that trading in of itself is mutually beneficial. Preventing someone else from trading because you traded with a third party and they did not is still a net benefit overall. You and the third party trading partner benefit. The trading competitor who was muscled out of the market doesn't lose anything except the opportunity to trade and benefit themselves, destroyed and captured ships notwithstanding.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A simple potential answer - put forward in Empires of the Weak iirc is that most of Europe's alleged advantages (e.g. centuries of conflict sharpening state power and the military) were secondary to one particular one: in seafaring.
This gave Europe the strategic initiative. Europeans did lose (like the Romans they won the last battle). Did get pressed. Often couldn't really bring their full might like they did against their closer European competitors (which is allegedly where their main advantage was). But they could always choose to return and fight again. They could choose where they fought or reinforced.
I personally don't know. I think the Great Divergence question might be unanswerable, useful more as a sort of intellectual version of a barbershop question like "Jay or Biggie?" or "Lebron or Kobe?". At least for a layman like me.
More options
Context Copy link
I have tried looking into what exactly is in the manuscripts at Timbuktu myself and my conclusion was that the material within is mostly translations of works we have from elsewhere (both Greco-Roman and Islamic), with many of the original works being of dubious interest to a modern audience i.e. books about astrology and lists of magic spells. There may be some novel contributions to Islamic jurisprudence and accounts of historical events as well, but I remain unconvinced that there are brilliant philosophical insights or scientific discoveries waiting to be unearthed from this particular collection.
It was a great surprise to me the first time I realized that certain societies could be literate for centuries with relatively little to show for it in terms of great works. The literary output of classical Athens in a single century was easily better than the previous three thousand years of Egyptian writing combined. Even accounting for the difference in literacy rates (and just look at China to see what you can do without an alphabet), the contrast is stark.
When I first read the Bible, I noticed the Old Testament got way more interesting at Job, Ecclesiastes, and Songs. You can read and love these even as an Atheist. They're great. Later, I discovered these books were probably written during the Hellenistic period. There was something uniquely awesome and fertile about Greek culture at that particular moment.
Should this be surprising? Calculus might have been invented by many algebraically literate cultures for hundreds of years. Then, two separate Western Europeans invented it within a twelve year period. Along with a million other discoveries, dug up in a frenzy during the Enlightenment. It takes a special combo of cultural forces to produce amazing intellectual advancements.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really know much about this topic. But my first assumption here would be Hellenism's spread via Alexander and the Roman adoption of Greek mores would be first to blame for Greek prominence.
Alexander appeared afterwards. The Romans arrived after him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I generally agree, but have a quibble about the "Portugal directly ruled" parts of India and Sri Lanka. They had a lot of trade outposts, but they didn't conquer and rule in the way you imply. When you say " The natives weren't capable of beating back the Portuguese alone, they usually had to get help from the Dutch or somebody else" it's not really accurate. Most of the kingdoms making up India were quite capable of defeating the outnumbered Portuguese in a fight: they had good steel weapons, and guns, and cannons themselves. The Portuguese worked with the various Indian powers in order to create their trading empire, and the Dutch came in and swept them off their feet not only with sword and gun but also by making better deals and friends among the local elite.
This is in contrast to the conquistadors in the New World who genuinely had a major technological advantage in terms of steel weapons, armor, war horses, and cannons. The West dominated India and China in the end, but when the Portuguese arrived Europeans and India arguably had parity when it came to weaponry and technology. Which just makes it more incredible that within 200 years the Europeans had left them all behind.
I asked chat-GPT4 and this is what it had to say on firearms:
Late 15th century (1480s-1490s):
The Portuguese began exploring new maritime trade routes under the leadership of Prince Henry the Navigator. At this time, firearms such as hand cannons were in use in some Indian states, while the Portuguese had also started to adopt early firearms like the arquebus. The disparity between the two was minimal during this period.
Early 16th century (1500-1530):
The Portuguese, under the leadership of Vasco da Gama, reached India in 1498, and they established their first trading post in Calicut in 1500. During this period, the Portuguese had a clear advantage in firearms technology, as they were using arquebuses with a range of 100-200 meters, while most Indian states still used hand cannons with a range of 50-100 meters. This disparity in firearms technology persisted throughout this period.
Mid-16th century (1530-1560):
The Portuguese consolidated their power in Asia, establishing more fortified trading posts and securing strategic alliances with local rulers. The Indian states began to adopt matchlock guns (toradar or bandook), which were similar to the Portuguese arquebus in terms of range and accuracy (100-200 meters). The disparity in firearms technology decreased during this period, as Indian states started to adopt European-style firearms.
Late 16th century (1560-1600):
The Portuguese began to use muskets, which had a range of 200-300 meters, providing them with a renewed advantage in firearms technology. At the same time, Indian states continued to adopt and adapt European firearms, with some producing high-quality matchlock guns. The disparity in firearms technology during this period varied, depending on the specific Indian state and its capacity to produce or acquire advanced firearms.
Early 17th century (1600-1650):
The military advantage of the Portuguese began to decline as other European powers, such as the Dutch, English, and French, entered the Asian trade arena and established their own trading posts. Indian states, including the Mughal Empire and the Maratha Empire, continued to adopt and improve upon European military technology, further narrowing the disparity between Indian and Portuguese firearms.
--
In other areas the Europeans had greater advantages. In regards to firearms specifically there was a period of relative parity in the early part of the 17th century before the Europeans pulled ahead again with the introduction of flintlock firearms (and then pulling ever further ahead).
More options
Context Copy link
The Portuguese did rule Goa though, as I mentioned. They also handed over parts of Mumbai to the British as a wedding dowry. These are fairly substantial territories we're talking about:
There's stuff like this where the Portuguese withstand forces that outnumber them immensely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cannanore_(1507)
They were defending against 40,000 Indians, if not more!
Portugal managed to fend off the combined power of Gujarat and the Ottoman Empire, fighting so far from home, outnumbered by far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu_(1538)
As well as just defending against overwhelming numbers, the Portuguese had no trouble attacking against overwhelming numbers too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Malacca_(1511)
They simply attacked an enemy on the other side of the world, outnumbered 20:1 and won! Maybe they just made up the numbers to sound more impressive. Even so, Malacca is a pretty rich area, that's where the spices are. India surely had plenty of manpower. They could surely field large armies. But apparently none of them could hold a candle to Portugal when it comes to combat power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link