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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link