Good day

Good day.

Long story short, how accurate is pic related?
No, I`m not baiting.

About a week ago some politician in the US asked a rhethorical question about what other group of people contributed more to the rise of Western and modern civilization in general.

Found it on Twitter as reply to one of the tweets mocking his statement.

Thanks.

>tfw produced 0.00 Cultural Accomplishment Units to the collective total

sorry bros

Modern civilization was certainly built by Europeans, there should be no question to that. Every scientific advancement since the 1700s has, in general, come from the Western World, and it was the West that connected everyone in the world together (through brutal conquest and exploitation, of course). However, the non-western world helped build the modern world significantly through the contribution (unwillingly) of its vast resources into European states. Without the massive amounts of wealth flowing into Europe, the Scientific and Industrial revolutions might not have taken off.

The counter argument that I see quite often is that Muslims and Arabs in general preserved quite a lot of history, philosophy and basic physics/maths without which Europe would`ve become Africa 2.0.

Which makes sense to some degree but then one can comeback by simple saying '' if so, how come Muslims failed to ascend the same way Europe did after 1500`s?''

The graphs from the book Human Accomplishment are probably not too far from the truth although the method induces Anglo bias.

The text that was pasted onto the bottom left of your pic is complete made up bullshit forced by butthurt Brits all over the internet for years and it's incredible that there's actually anyone dumb enough to believe it.

I don't really see that as a counter-argument. The Muslim world preserved Classical knowledge and helped transfer some East Asian inventions to the West, but did little to advance the knowledge of Antiquity. Another important thing to consider is that the Muslim world was as much a barrier to the West as it was a source of enrichment. Their aggressive blocking of overland trade routes to the East and constant invasions come to mind. I suppose you could say that in preventing Europe from reaching the vast sources of wealth in the world overland encouraged them to reach those things by the trailblazing the oceans.

>I suppose you could say that in preventing Europe from reaching the vast sources of wealth in the world overland encouraged them to reach those things by the trailblazing the oceans.

I suppose you could say that in preventing Europe from reaching the vast sources of wealth in the world overland, it encouraged them to reach those things by the trailblazing of the oceans*

Sorry, user. I made a mess of that.

>The Muslim world preserved Classical knowledge and helped transfer some East Asian inventions to the West, but did little to advance the knowledge of Antiquity.

>Muh Avicenna
>Muh Al Hasan
>Muh Al Khwarizmi

The Muslim world didn't preserve Classical knowledge but for a few exceptions where no surviving version of a Greek text existed save besides its Arabic translation, but instead advanced that knowledge in novel ways, especially in ways that made sense to an Abrahamic world view.

This is why right after that we start seeing Christian and Jewish philosophers and scientists that had every reason to exist in the centuries before the High Middle Ages where Greek learning was still around, but didn't.

Also, the opposite is true when it comes to trade. The joining of the Indian Ocean and Central Asian trade routes with the Mediterranean is what substantially increased European contact with the Far East, and why Chinese products and inventions start flooding Western Europe soon after the rise of Islam and never really stopped. The Portuguese and Spanish took to the oceans not because of Muslim interference, but because the Venetians had such a monopoly on the trade with the Muslims that they couldn't compete, so they instead tried to undercut the whole thing with cash crop plantations and dominating Asian ports.

Bumping because I`m curious what others think.

Is it fair to claim that it was Europe and Western civlization in general that thrusted our species in to what we call ''modern and advanced''?
If so, how much do we - Westerners - owe to other cultures and nations?

My personal take is that without the Enlightement and Industrial Revolution, the world at large would look like Europe of 1400`s - poor, sick, uneducated...

>England above France

FUCKING KEK. This was obviously made by a fucking anglo.

We dominate them in every fucking field imaginable, we are the foundations of western civilisation. From poetry to medicine, the French have been vital.

It was made by the Japs, my slow witted French fellow.

>Is it fair to claim that it was Western civlization in general that thrusted our species in to what we call ''modern and advanced''?
Yes obviously.

Your pic is still garbage though because of that stupid pasted quote.

>Europe of 1400`s - poor, sick, uneducated...
Europe then was only sick because of the Plague, and the Hundred Years War fucking things up too.

Go back to around 1300 and the West is already pretty fucking great, and in fact that's about the time when the West starts leaping ahead of everyone else.

Not him but no it wasn't, see How deluded do you have to be to think that could possibly be true?

Not very.

Where did the Industrial Revolution happen?

>If so, how much do we - Westerners - owe to other cultures and nations?

That's the tough question here. It's clear that for the past 500 years European social and technological developments have shaped the modern world. Where the various tinder for that spark came from is a lot harder to answer, mainly because of a lack of extensive records for much of history outside of Europe, and for much of European history as well before the Late Middle Ages, but also because of Europeans of the last 500 years retroactively claiming this or that to be the source of modern institutions, innovations, and traditions, the most obvious being the Neoclassical fetish for all things Greek or Roman.

England.

But it was essentially driven by french accomplishments.

*snorts*

The Industrial Revolution has nothing to do with inventing anything, only of making commercial use of technology, primarily French, German, or American technology. That quote was made up by Brits in the 80s and keeps being repeated by Brits, MITI has never heard of the imaginary study it refers to.

The more I learn about Brits the more I realize how absolutely pathetic they are.

>The Industrial Revolution has nothing to do with inventing anything

Lol.

>lol I'm retarded
That's great Nigel.

This is a controversial issue with lots of different groups salty over colonialism and competing for "muh heritage". Some people will use this to posit that white men are superior, others will swing too far the other way and try to diminish the accomplishments of "dead white men", I really don't give a shit about this though.

Generally I agree we must avoid eurocentrism, however any reasonable means of quantifying "relevance" inevitably involves the accomplishments of mostly white men over the past 500 years. You would have to go into the depths of WEWUZ in order to claim that white men are responsible for a proportion of accomplishments more in line with their share of the population or you would have to use a normative means of quantifying relevance like the amount of suffering and labor involved. Also their achievements were due to a temporary relative advantage mostly attributable to economics and geography. So while it is accurate I take a more dry factual view of it.

>ribbit

That's great pierre.

But seriously; Moderators, delete these threads -- or at least move them to /int/.

I know you are lad. Only a true imbecile could make such a statement as "the Industrial Revolution had nothing to do with inventing anything".

I don't know what response you expect from such a statement. It's just pure shitposting.

The thing is England did contribute hugely to the development of Western civilisation, but the aggressively obnoxious way they delude themselves is just insufferable.

You retarded bongs seem to be confusing the Industrial Revolution with the Scientific Revolution, which started much earlier and not in England.

(and which made the Industrial Revolution possible in the first place)

The general shittiness of the Arab states following the 1200s can almost entirely be laid down on Mongol invaders. Most of their major cities (Cairo, Baghdad, Tehran) were sacked several times over hundreds of years, and brutally so. Timor's horde made good on their promise to stack skulls as high as the city walls. Hundreds of thousands were killed. Centuries of scientific progress and cultural achievement were rolled back. It can be argued that the modern Middle East, and that of the world over, is still suffering the repercussions of that violence.

I don't understand why people post this picture or think it's something amazing. The Industrial Revolution happened in the West and the West has been the most influential civilization on Earth for the last 500 years, so of course most inventions and important figures to us today come from the West. The pace of innovation, whether technological or intellectual, has been increasing exponentially since the dawn of civilization so of course the most recently dominant civilization is the one which innovated the most. In 600 BC most innovations had come from Mesopotamia, in 500 AD from the Mediterranean, and in 1800 from the West. Some day it will be somewhere else and the Western Golden Age will be seen as just another stepping stone to whatever is dominant in a thousand years, just as we tend to see all previous civilizations as stepping stones to the West.

No I'm not. I'm completely clear on the difference. And Britain made a massive contribution to the Scientific Revolution as well.

You don't appear to have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

It's really a graph about how little we know of history before the printing press. Naturally we attempt to understand the timeline from left to right, giving the impression that important events and significant figures didn't much happen until the last few centuries of the rise of Europe and its conquest of the world. But look at it backwards, from right to left, and you start seeing something different.

Modern communication has allowed for such an incredible rate of proliferation of arts and sciences that the immediate past, where only the more memorable events and people are remembered, pales in quantity. But that's not to say the world was any less interesting or innovative 20, 40 years ago, but that we know of and remember much less of it than we do last year. Project this even further back, before television, radio, or mass print, and it gets even more extreme.

That there's no noticeable peak in 800 BC may just as well be because everything that was happening then or before has been lost to time. That there's some significant figures around 400 BC may just as well be because that period of time was relatively well recorded, and only for a small part of the world.

Europe and some arabians was obligated by chritians culture

Scientific Revolution -> inventions -> Industrial Revolution

Now pipe down your laughable bong delusions.

>Industrial Revolution
There's that word again.

is that graph in Righteousness units or kiloHitchens?

I wouldn't blame the Mongols for everything, but along with the Crusades and Reconquista they do seem to have pushed the Islamic world into an increasing state of closed-mindedness and militant fanaticism. Look at Ibn Taymiyyah, born and raised during the Mongol invasions, seen today as a huge influence on modern Islamism. Inter-religious toleration and cooperation, largely the foundation of the Islamic world's intellectual prosperity, seems to have completely fallen apart after the invasions too.

Nah, civilisations just become stale once they've concluded their history. For the Near Eastern civilisation that happened around 1200.

>If so, how much do we - Westerners - owe to other cultures and nations?

a great place to start would be the Columbian Exchange, where the new world provided new agriculture techniques, tobacco, cocoa, maize and so on for the Old World to use.

Gunpowder and combustion-projectile weapons are obviously from China, the concept of the printing press as well as silk and spices also shaped European history from East Asia.

The Industrial Revolution involved huge numbers of inventions dumbass. James Hargreaves, Richard Arkwright, James Watts, etc etc do these names mean nothing to you? Are you this clueless about history?

As for the Scientific Revolution and Britain's involvement are you seriously claiming to have never heard of Isaac Newton or Francis Bacon?

This is just pure /int/ style shitposting. You are barely making sense and don't appear to have the slightest clue about history apart from a few phrases that you don't really understand the meaning of.

>Shitaly
>advanced

>new agriculture techniques
lol what

We don't owe tobacco or whatever to other cultures, the Indians didn't invent them, and our civilisation also isn't based on tobacco.

The printing press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in Strasbourg around 1440. The Chinese never invented the printing press.

>concluded their history
???

>The Industrial Revolution involved huge numbers of inventions dumbass.
Obviously, I already said the Industrial Revolution was only possible thanks to the inventions brought about by the Scientific Revolution.

>James Hargreaves, Richard Arkwright, James Watts, etc etc do these names mean nothing to you?
Those are businessmen, not inventors. You might as well add Steve Jobs into the mix.

>As for the Scientific Revolution
Are you seriously going to claim the Scientific Revolution is a British thing too now?

>This is just pure /int/ style shitposting.
It sure is, "54% of the world's most important inventions were British", unironically kill yourself you farcically delusional faggot.

>your nationality
>in any way better than mine

that's not my point. I'm not talking about groundbreaking technologies or wondrous inventions. I'm talking about products from other cultures that had an immense impact on how the western world works.

the irrigation techniques of the Aztecs and Incas were copied down and applied to European crops, which did yield larger harvests and aided in a general population boom. Tobacco, cocoa, maize, and Arabic coffee are foreign goods now are now commonplace in the Western World and are generally irreplaceable staples that came from outside Europe.

also printed paper has been dated at the earliest in China around 200 AD. I also forgot to add that the compass and early magnetism have their origins in china as well.

Civilisations have a lifespan of about 1200 years all in all, it never fails.

They lose their capacities of innovation in the same order they acquire them, first religion, then art, then science and politics.

Spengleroids need to be shot.

>Obviously, I already said the Industrial Revolution was only possible thanks to the inventions brought about by the Scientific Revolution.

It would be far more accurate to say the inventions of the Industrial Revolution were only possible due the scientific advancements in the Scientific Revolution.

The claim "the Industrial Revolution didn't involve inventions" is just factually wrong.

>Those were businessmen, not inventors

You proclaim your ignorance more loudly with every word.

>Are you seriously going to claim the Scientific Revolution is a British thing too now?

I was incredibly specifically clear that Britain made a massive contribution to the Scientific Revolution, which is an undeniable fact. I didn't claim it was specifically British and that other countries didn't make a massive contribution as well.

This is just childish strawmanning.

>the irrigation techniques of the Aztecs and Incas were copied down and applied to European crops, which did yield larger harvests and aided in a general population boom.
Do you have source for this? It seems very unlikely to me.

Things we owe to other cultures are things like cultural concepts that came from the Greeks or the East or Egypt or Mesopotamia. Not crops, which we only owe to our discovery of the lands they grow on.

And printing isn't the same thing as the printing press. The Chinese used stamp printing. The point of the printing press is to be able to mass print a whole page all at once after assembling it using movable types. The Chinese did not have that. The compass was also invented independently in the West, in particular the dry compass.

Don't get so triggered by reality.

>Europe
>Rest of the World
>Everywhere else
What?

>Civilisations have a lifespan of about 1200 years all in all, it never fails.

So, western european civilisation already died a few decades ago?

Oh right, muh loss of colonies right?

>>James Hargreaves, Richard Arkwright, James Watts, etc etc do these names mean nothing to you?
>Those are businessmen, not inventors. You might as well add Steve Jobs into the mix.

You've just made it clear you are either baiting or have an agenda. There's no point in even humouring the likes of you.

The reptilians are just a bunch of barbarians, controlled by the jews.

The Industrial Revolution did not bring about inventions. The technological leap that the West has achieved in the past 400 years is due to the Scientific Revolution, not the Industrial Revolution. So giving England exclusive credit for a process that started 400-700 years ago because of something that happened in England 200 years ago is fucking retarded.

>I didn't claim it was specifically British and that other countries didn't make a massive contribution as well.
>54% of the world's most important inventions were British
Refer to my earlier advice.

Rest of the West, not world.

Western civilisation was born around 900 AD. Western religion and art are already dead, but it still has about a century of life ahead in other fields, unless some kind of singularity type event breaks the cycle of civilisations and we move on to something new entirely.

So tell me, what did they invent my hilariously delusional bongistani friend?

my friend, you are retarded

And the bong crawls back into his cave. gg

I won't waste too much time on you, but here's an invention by Hargreaves.

The Spinning Jenny:

he spinning jenny is a multi-spindle spinning frame, and was one of the key developments in the industrialization of weaving during the early Industrial Revolution. It was invented in 1764 by James Hargreaves in Stanhill, Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire in England. The device reduced the amount of work needed to produce yarn, with a worker able to work eight or more spools at once. This grew to 120 as technology advanced.[1]

>The Industrial Revolution did not bring about inventions.

The Industrial Revolution isn't a person, it didn't "do stuff", inventions were a massive part of the Industrial Revolution, fact.

>The technological leap that the West has achieved in the past 400 years is due to the Scientific Revolution, not the Industrial Revolution.

It's just completely idiotic to think it has to be some binary mutually exclusive claim, it was due to both.

>So giving England exclusive credit for a process that started 400-700 years ago because of something that happened in England 200 years ago is fucking retarded.

Back to ridiculous strawman arguments I see. Clap, fucking, clap.

>Western civilisation was born around 900 AD
>Western religion and art are already dead

uhuh

>The Industrial Revolution did not bring about inventions.

It did.

>The technological leap that the West has achieved in the past 400 years is due to the Scientific Revolution, not the Industrial Revolution.

Who has claimed that?

>So giving England exclusive credit for a process that started 400-700 years ago because of something that happened in England 200 years ago is fucking retarded.

Who has done that?

>The Spinning Jenny
So, a type of spinning wheel. Which this guy did not invent, only slightly improved. This is exactly the same as Steve Jobs "inventing" the ipod.

Yes that's what I said, amazing copypasting skills.

But I'm not British, stop trying to push your identitarianist bullshit on me, you fucking uneducated scum.

I know explosuves were originally from China, but it was my understanding they never did anything practical with it until others did first. I thought they were largelyvused as fireworks.

I thought the mughals were the first to weaponize gunpowder.

Yes, non-English inventions were a massive part of the Industrial Revolution.

How you conclude from this that England invented nearly everything in the world is beyond me, but I'm sure it all makes sense in your world.

The guy I'm talking to, multiple times. Read the thread.

You can't quantify inventions, retard

Yeah and cars are just an improvement of carts.

Fuck off, it's obvious you're here just to bait or build up your insecure ego by btfoing people in epic debates. Either discuss properly, or fuck off laddo

Ok, now spin me the tale of how the Carolingian renaissance, for example, is what, Roman civilisation, Celtic civilisation? African civilisation?

>54% of the world's most important inventions were British
>oi but I'm totally not british ya bloody johnny foreigner wanker

OK m8.

>Yes, non-English inventions were a massive part of the Industrial Revolution.

British inventions were a massive part of the Industrial Revolution, which initially happened in Britain. The inventions in other countries also played a major role as it spread to other countries and they had their own industrial revolutions.

Then link me to them

Where has a guy claimed the technological leap in the past 400 years is *solely* due to the industrial revolution?

Where has someone claimed the English were *solely* responsible for the scientific revolution, and that it was only due to the industrial revolution?

I think you are making men of straw, and are retarded.

Well no, the whole point of the automobile is that it's a self-propelling vehicle. In its original form it was invented by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, a Frenchman. A significant improvement which can be considered an invention as well was when Karl Benz made an automobile propelled with an internal combustion engine. You'll notice that neither of those people is British.

However when Vauxhall releases a new Opel Corsa, that's not an invention.

It's completely Byzantine. The Carolingian Renaissance consisted in Western Europe becoming part of the Byzantine cultural periphery. In was direct imitation of Byzantine art and architecture.

>The Industrial Revolution has nothing to do with inventing anything

I see you are suffering from a bad case of Ideology.
I recommend immediate consumation of cocaine and south american beauty models

>measuring accomplishments
intothetrashitgoes.jpg

Folks, please keep it civil - I don't want this thread to die.

see
>Not very.
>Where did the Industrial Revolution happen?
(after being asked how deluded you have to be to believe that "54% of the world's most important inventions were British")

it was a meme you dip. Don't take a comment that is obviously facetious so seriously.

>A significant improvement which can be considered an invention as well was when Karl Benz made an automobile propelled with an internal combustion engine.

And the spinning jenny was a significant improvement on the spinning wheel. You'll notice that neither of those objects are human.

aha I see.
Now do tell, when did this completely Byzantine civilisation in Francia fall and was replaced by Western civilisation?

But would opening up a milk bar help him?

Not really, it wasn't anything fundamentally new the way the automobile is. Just an incremental improvement.

He didn't claim:

a) that "the technological leap that the West has achieved in the past 400 years is due to the Scientific Revolution, not the Industrial Revolution."

nor did he

b) give "England exclusive credit for a process that started 400-700 years ago because of something that happened in England 200 years ago"

Anyway you said he claimed these things multiple times, so, you have a second chance.

It's accurate but it means less thank it looks. Post industrial revolution Europe was able to invent so much, literally anything you could imagine and everything we have today.

Make the same imagine pre industrial revolution and the ratios will be very different.

I'm on about spinning wheels man, keep your gay ass automobiles to yourself