Then came the Conquistadors!: Why Latin America and Africa share a similar tale

[profound]

north america for example had no gold

The first significant gold rush in the United States was in Cabarrus County, North Carolina (east of Charlotte), in 1799 at today's Reed's Gold Mine.[3] Thirty years later, in 1829, the Georgia Gold Rush in the southern Appalachians occurred. It was followed by the California Gold Rush of 1848–55 in the Sierra Nevada, which captured the popular imagination. The California gold rush led directly to the settlement of California by Americans and the rapid entry of that state into the union in 1850.

Successive gold rushes occurred in western North America, moving north and east from California: Fraser Canyon, the Cariboo district and other parts of British Columbia, and the Rocky Mountains. Resurrection Creek, near Hope, Alaska was the site of Alaska's first gold rush more than a century ago, and placer mining continues today.[4] Other notable Alaska Gold Rushes were Nome and the Fortymile River.

...

guns germs and steel has some controversial theories but in terms of history its excellent

the theories arent just controversial, they're flawed. some criticism on his history

The main problem with his enterprise is that he seemingly is unaware of what sort of investigation creates the truly historical past. As a result, he proposes substituting his own "geographical past" for the genuinely historical past.

...

Diamond turns what would have been an enlightening and sound exploration of some common historical patterns into a deeply flawed attempt to reform a subject he does not really understand.

For example, in his effort to squeeze the course of real events into his conceptual scheme and thereby demonstrate his "laws," Diamond often has to put a good deal of spin on historical episodes. In attempting to explain why the Vikings did not successfully colonize the New World, while the Spaniards and the Europeans who followed in their wake did, he writes, "Spain, unlike Norway, was rich and populous enough to support exploration and subsidize colonies". But this declaration simply brushes over the fact that Norway did successfully explore the North Atlantic, and did successfully colonize the Faeroe Islands and Iceland. If Diamond were true to his project of turning history into a deductive-nomological science, he ought to proceed to formulate a quantitative law governing just how far from the mother country a colony can survive, given any particular amount of wealth and any number of residents in the colonizer. However, simply to state that requirement is to expose the attempt to stuff human history into a deductivist framework as the absurdity that it is.

Another instance of forcing the facts to fit the theory is Diamond's "law of history" asserting that agricultural societies will inevitably come to dominate their non-agricultural neighbors. He ignores the multitude of instances where settled farmers were conquered by nomadic horsemen: the Hittite conquest of the ancient Middle East, (possibly) the invasion of Greece by the Dorians, the successive movements of the Celtic and Germanic people across Europe, the Aryan migration into India, the Turkish conquest of much of the Moslem world that began in the 11th century, and the vast Mongolian conquests of the 13th and 14th centuries.

...

Diamond Does Not Comprehend the True Character of History

...Diamond declares that, since the "whole modern world has been shaped by lopsided outcomes [in clashes of different cultures] ... they must have inexorable explanations, ones more basic than mere details concerning who happened to win some battle or develop some invention on one occasion a few thousand years ago" (pg. 25). Yet he neither refutes the idea that historical contingency can offer adequate explanations in this regard, nor does he defend his insistence upon "inexorable explanations" of the human past.

...

Lacking an understanding of what real historical research consists of, Diamond winds up doing "scissors and paste" history. His approach fails him in at least the one instance he discusses with which I have the most familiarity: the story of the QWERTY keyboard. He declares "trials conducted in 1932 with an efficiently laid-out keyboard showed that it would let us double our typing speed and reduce our typing effort by 95 percent" (pg. 248). If that were really true, then the fact that no company employing large numbers of typists, and wishing to double their productivity while at the same time making their jobs much easier—surely a profitable move!—chose to break with convention and switch to this efficient keyboard layout is astonishing.

But we can contain our astonishment. It turns out that the study Diamond cites was severely flawed, showing no evidence of using a genuine control group or random sampling to choose participants.

 

[WhiteDawg3000]

subs

 

[theworldismine13]

...



the theories arent just controversial, they're flawed. some criticism on his history

yeah

The first significant gold rush in the United States was in Cabarrus County, North Carolina (east of Charlotte), in 1799

1799 was 300 years after columbus landed in 1492 and by that time spain was a dying empire after it had extracted tons of gold and millions of indians had already died and been displaced

granted saying there was no gold is not correct thats more of a relative statement, but the british never made any significant money from gold, there just wasnt as much as in south america

the point was that the english, french and dutch that settled in north america were permanent settlements, the colonists where mostly farmers and hunters and they where deliberatly trying to displace the indian population, it was deeper than gold

and europeans tried the same thing in africa, but disease and resistance and an unwelcoming environment stopped it, the white man could not infect he original man with disease they way they had done to native americans, thats the main reason why africa is still black

as far as the criticism for GGS, im not aware of anything that is in the book that is historically inaccurate, so thats why i said its an excellent history book about european colonization of the americas and africa

so regardless of the theory, its a good read just for that narrative, personally i think the first chapter in the book describing the meeting of indians and europeans is

i would still defend the theories in the book, i think the criticism you posted is pretty weak, but thats for another thread

 

[theworldismine13]

Are there any good books on the topic of the thread that ya'll would recommend in addition to these?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...=0393061310&linkCode=as2&tag=quantumdynast-20

 

[Serious]

Are there any good books on the topic of the thread that ya'll would recommend in addition to these?

I read this for a history class term. Fairly quick read.

http://www.amazon.com/Indian-Givers-Indians-Americas-Transformed/dp/0449904962

 

[Agent Mulder]

I've always felt that latinos were less interested and/or sympathetic to the conquest of their ancestors. Personally, growing up as a Latino in NYC, the Black plight has always gotten a lot more attention though. Black history month, MLK day, Rosa Parks, etc. I knew more about black history as a HS student than latin american history.

latinos don't seem to curse the "white man" or tell our children how their ancestors were kings and queens, etc either. some of us try to keep traditions through food and music but for the most part, we don't learn about our conquered past from our elders. we tend to learn it from books. i think it's because there hasn't been any significant latino americans that have fought in name of spanish speaking people in recent times. someone that would have given us the urge to "get in touch with our roots" a la Malcom X. Cesar Chavez i revered but not in the same way. and he isn't praised here on the east coast anyways. Most dudes just worship guevarra but have no clue what he's about.

point is, more latinos should study their past. seems like most are far too busy worrying about free masons though

 

[profound]

as far as the criticism for GGS, im not aware of anything that is in the book that is historically inaccurate

didnt you read the inaccuracies & omissions i posted?

i would still defend the theories in the book

why would we need a new thread for that? can you defend some of this for us?

- in Europe, the major economic and technological developments of the last 500-600 years took place in Northern and Western Europe, which is generally flat, casting doubt on Diamond's suggestion that Europe benefitted by competition among societies that developed separately due to geographic barriers, such as mountains

- The European empires of conquest in Asia, especially those of the British in India and the Dutch in Java, were not based on clear technological superiority in armaments, nor on the spread of disease

- ignored or underestimated the nutritional value of several staple crops that grow naturally outside the temperate parts of Eurasia, overestimated the difficulty of adapting crops to new conditions by selective breeding, and ignored the separation of agriculturally productive regions within Eurasia's temperate belt by deserts and mountains

- omitted almost all of the standard literature on the history of imperialism and post-colonialism, world-systems, underdevelopment or socio-economic change over the last five hundred years

- Logically it is questionable to try to explain the temporary dominance of particular societies by "permanent" features such as geography (permanent relative to historical timescales; on geological times scales geography is not permanent)

- Diamond's emphasis on the advantage of an "East-West axis" over a "North-South axis" is at best an over-simplification: parts of Eurasia at similar latitudes have very different climates

and why didnt Asia massacre the world with their gunpowder germs and steel?

 

[theworldismine13]

didnt you read the inaccuracies & omissions i posted?

none of those omissions or attacks are directly related to the actual colonization of the americas and africa

diamond takes his time to describe the colonizations and just for that alone its a good read

he then goes on to apply his theories to the colonizations

im simply separating his historical description of the colonizations which are excellent and his theories which are controversial, capish?

why would we need a new thread for that? can you defend some of this for us?

- in Europe, the major economic and technological developments of the last 500-600 years took place in Northern and Western Europe, which is generally flat, casting doubt on Diamond's suggestion that Europe benefitted by competition among societies that developed separately due to geographic barriers, such as mountains

- The European empires of conquest in Asia, especially those of the British in India and the Dutch in Java, were not based on clear technological superiority in armaments, nor on the spread of disease

- ignored or underestimated the nutritional value of several staple crops that grow naturally outside the temperate parts of Eurasia, overestimated the difficulty of adapting crops to new conditions by selective breeding, and ignored the separation of agriculturally productive regions within Eurasia's temperate belt by deserts and mountains

- omitted almost all of the standard literature on the history of imperialism and post-colonialism, world-systems, underdevelopment or socio-economic change over the last five hundred years

- Logically it is questionable to try to explain the temporary dominance of particular societies by "permanent" features such as geography (permanent relative to historical timescales; on geological times scales geography is not permanent)

- Diamond's emphasis on the advantage of an "East-West axis" over a "North-South axis" is at best an over-simplification: parts of Eurasia at similar latitudes have very different climates

and why didnt Asia massacre the world with their gunpowder germs and steel?

the problem is that essays can written about any of those points and none of those points are a knockout blow to the theory

i dont co-sign diamond 100% because i dont think geography explains everything, in fact back in KTl i use to recommend that people read GGS and The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution which basically asserts that the development of the rule of law is the reason for european prosperity and asserts that the rule of law arose because of the dual power of the state and the catholic church, which was unique compared to other continents

IMO i dont think these 2 books contradict each other, they actually complement each other and even if diamond is wrong on particular points the basic premise of looking at geography as key factors in the rise of europe is legit IMO

i would equate your points to people finding particular things wrong or omissions in Darwin's Origin of Species

but anyways we can go quickly through all those points

- in Europe, the major economic and technological developments of the last 500-600 years took place in Northern and Western Europe, which is generally flat, casting doubt on Diamond's suggestion that Europe benefitted by competition among societies that developed separately due to geographic barriers, such as mountains

why would you talk about 500-600 years when the time frames we are talking about is in the 1000s

and plus the societies that developed in western and northern europe came directly from greece and rome,

the societies of germany, spain, france, england are simply extensions of the greco roman world and the judeo christian world which came from the south and the mediterannean, for most of human history the people of northern and western europe were considered barbarians and cavemen until they were enlightened and subdued by southern europe

so i dont see how that would contradict diamond, if anything it supports diamond and answers the questions as to why northern and western europe were so backwards 1000 years ago

- ignored or underestimated the nutritional value of several staple crops that grow naturally outside the temperate parts of Eurasia, overestimated the difficulty of adapting crops to new conditions by selective breeding, and ignored the separation of agriculturally productive regions within Eurasia's temperate belt by deserts and mountains

im not an expert on agriculutre but i dont see how this would be a knock out blow

even if you had staple crops in specific areas why would that matter, it would matter if the staple crop was widespread

and the overestimating the difficulty of adapting crops part is to fuzzy for me, what crops are they talking about?

-

The European empires of conquest in Asia, especially those of the British in India and the Dutch in Java, were not based on clear technological superiority in armaments, nor on the spread of disease

i dont know what this means, the europeans where clearly technologically ahead and had superior weapons

- omitted almost all of the standard literature on the history of imperialism and post-colonialism, world-systems, underdevelopment or socio-economic change over the last five hundred years

yeah so?

- Logically it is questionable to try to explain the temporary dominance of particular societies by "permanent" features such as geography (permanent relative to historical timescales; on geological times scales geography is not permanent)

i think thats just a difference of opinion

- Diamond's emphasis on the advantage of an "East-West axis" over a "North-South axis" is at best an over-simplification: parts of Eurasia at similar latitudes have very different climates

again thats just a matter of opinion

and why didnt Asia massacre the world with their gunpowder germs and steel?

well asia did murder the world but they used horses and arrows, look up the mongols Mongol Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the mongols are definitely up there with europeans for the crown for being the most devilish, but they never developed a written language and no real culture beyond killing and conquering so they left no legacy

 

[theworldismine13]

I've always felt that latinos were less interested and/or sympathetic to the conquest of their ancestors. Personally, growing up as a Latino in NYC, the Black plight has always gotten a lot more attention though. Black history month, MLK day, Rosa Parks, etc. I knew more about black history as a HS student than latin american history.

latinos don't seem to curse the "white man" or tell our children how their ancestors were kings and queens, etc either. some of us try to keep traditions through food and music but for the most part, we don't learn about our conquered past from our elders. we tend to learn it from books. i think it's because there hasn't been any significant latino americans that have fought in name of spanish speaking people in recent times. someone that would have given us the urge to "get in touch with our roots" a la Malcom X. Cesar Chavez i revered but not in the same way. and he isn't praised here on the east coast anyways. Most dudes just worship guevarra but have no clue what he's about.

point is, more latinos should study their past. seems like most are far too busy worrying about free masons though

the reason for that is pretty simple, most latinos are white or mostly white and very few latin countries have separated culturally from spain or portugal, they still consider, and rightly so, spain to be their mother land

 

[Mr Uncle Leroy]

LOL @ colored folk liking the kkkakkk boys, they paid the price.

 

[Agent Mulder]

the reason for that is pretty simple, most latinos are white or mostly white and very few latin countries have separated culturally from spain or portugal, they still consider, and rightly so, spain to be their mother land

 

[Non Sequitur]

They only took the children of other tribes and ripped their hearts or decapitated them to appease the sun. But we don't need to bring facts in here.

We won't talk about the Japanese treatment of the Chinese. We won't talk about the Arabs and what they did. Or the Persians. Or, let's not talk about the Hindu civilizations and what they did to their surrounding communities. and the most taboo around here: let's not talk about what the Africans did to themselves.

Let's not bring facts into here.

The Europeans were the most sadistic and they were superior in their tactics and weaponry, that is the only difference.

Ah, because Africans are all the same

 

[h2o_proof]

I'd like to study the theory of Pangea a little more to understand it's relation to 'indigenous' peoples. Whether we talk about the America's or even Asia or Australia, the history of colonialism always involves lighter skinned people taking land from darker skinned people to establish governmental and economic sovereignty through exploitation. And of course if you look at a Pangea map, Africa was the center of the 'supercontinent'. If the Sun was the original 'god', what was the thought process if conquests were religiously motivated? Obviously dark= of the sun and light= lack of sun, this is what always confused me.

Something else I find interesting is the creation of 'sub-races' all over the globe of peoples who seem to procreate at very high rates like Mexicans (combination of European Spaniards and indigenous Americans), Indians (combination of Asians, Africans and Europeans) and Atlantic/Pacific Islanders & Austronesians who are basically a combination of intermixing of sub-races. These people account for the majority of the worlds unskilled labor force and are the recipients of corporate outsourcing. Was this the master plan or just a byproduct? Like a chicken vs. egg type situation.

 

[Type Username Here]

Ah, because Africans are all the same

And all Europeans are? How come that is a blanket statement that is accepted here?

I was making a point that violence, wars and atrocities have been found on every continent and by every race.

 

[theworldismine13]

I'd like to study the theory of Pangea a little more to understand it's relation to 'indigenous' peoples. Whether we talk about the America's or even Asia or Australia, the history of colonialism always involves lighter skinned people taking land from darker skinned people to establish governmental and economic sovereignty through exploitation. And of course if you look at a Pangea map, Africa was the center of the 'supercontinent'. If the Sun was the original 'god', what was the thought process if conquests were religiously motivated? Obviously dark= of the sun and light= lack of sun, this is what always confused me.

Something else I find interesting is the creation of 'sub-races' all over the globe of peoples who seem to procreate at very high rates like Mexicans (combination of European Spaniards and indigenous Americans), Indians (combination of Asians, Africans and Europeans) and Atlantic/Pacific Islanders & Austronesians who are basically a combination of intermixing of sub-races. These people account for the majority of the worlds unskilled labor force and are the recipients of corporate outsourcing. Was this the master plan or just a byproduct? Like a chicken vs. egg type situation.

nah pangea existed millions of years ago, i dont even think homo sapiens existed, humans started dividing into races about 100,000 years ago, it was actually the fact that pangea did NOT exist which caused different races to appear as humans traveled to the different continents