Every historian and academic from Niall Ferguson to Henry Kissinger says the West got to its position in the 17th - 20th century because of basically an accident on the part of the Chinese because they stopped exploring, innovating and shut itself out to the rest of the world.
/pol/ whole heartedly disagrees and says all historians are kikes.
So Veeky Forums are you all just kikes or is it the truth?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
rometoolkit.com
medievalists.net
beautifulpacific.com
quora.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
zh.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
So much for the oft-repeated myth of "muh islamic golden age btfo western europe dark ages poverty n mud n shit"
China isn't the anomaly, Europe is.
Europe skyrocketed because of a combination of economic, technological, and political systems that had been brewing since the 14th century.
China never stopped exploring or innovating. Europe just had an unprecedented take-off.
>this
onyl western europe came away infrastructurally unscathed from the mongol invasions
the black death killed people, but it wasn't so nearly as apocalyptic as it was in other places
>/pol/ whole heartedly disagrees and says all historians are kikes.
Source on this? Hitler himself considered the Chinese as well as the Japanese to be honorary aryans.
Europeans were always the master race. Always. The most stable periods of China can barely hold a candle.
chinese were making better things 2000 years before that
they just skipped over the realist phase of their art fairly early on and went straight to modernism and postmodernism before 0AD
The Reformation centralized power and trading companies were supported by the king allowing the rapid growth of European influence
Ferguson and kissinger are not historians
>an accident on the part of the Chinese because they stopped exploring, innovating and shut itself out to the rest of the world.
WHY did they do that? How was it an accident? Is it really an accident or was it genetics? Was the unusual and unique marriage system of Western Europe also an accident that may have contributed to Western Europe dominance over the rest of the world?
That seems like a very dismissive way to brush over the extremely unusual circumstances that was Western Europe after 1400s. Its important to note that it was Western Europe, not all of Europe, since the rest of Europe was not particularly super special. There was something special about Western Europe.
>here's the gdp from 1000
>one country
fucking hate this stupid shit
>34.1 cm
wow really pushing the limits
western europe was the only civilized place in the world untouched by the mongols
islamic baghdad was destroyed and made unlivable for centuries
ming dynasty wasn't established until almost 1400s
when the qing took over, the manchus feared losing power to the han and held back technological progress, and they had a quota in the government where half the positions were held by manchus but 100% of the work was done by the Han
western europe was also far closer to the new world than china was (3x if you're setting sail from ireland)
i could go on and on about the most random things
but western europe was the product of lucky geography - all the progress hitherto in teh world was brought to europe by the mongols, after they had destroyed the rest of the world
the bigger stuff didn't survive
it was all melted down every time a new dynasty came to power, it's only the small stuff that got hid away that survived
In that case Muslim spain should have sailed the to the new wrold hundreds of years before the europeans did, but they didnt. So how does that fit into your theory
People who push history like this are pushing an agenda. Openess=good. Ataurky =Bad. Its basically an argument for neo liberalism.
Long live Ming dynasty isolationsim!
how exactly do you prove that?
are there actual records or is it just historians assuming?
im well aware in their woodworking skills by the way, i didnt try to make that sound baity, was just genuinely curious
> In the 15th century Morocco was hit by a financial crisis, after which the state had to stop financing the different marabouts and Sharifian families, which had previously been useful instruments in controlling the country. The political support of these marabouts and Sharifians halted, and Morocco splintered into different entities. In 1399 Tetouan was taken and its population was massacred and in 1415 the Portuguese captured Ceuta. After the sultan Abdalhaqq II (1421–1465) tried to break the power of the Wattasids, he was executed. Wikipedia: Marinid Dynasty
and
>...after the death of Sultan Abu ‘Inan Faris in the year 759/1358, the Marinid naval force was unable to defeat the Christian forces, so the Nasrid navy had to single-handedly fight the Christian forces in the Straits of Gibraltar (Musa, 1983). This situation was caused by an internal political crisis in the Marinid palace, such as the struggle for the throne and extreme dominance by the al-Wuzara’class, worsened by the spread of the ‘Black Death’ epidemic and threat of the Hafsids and the Abdalwadids, which so undermined the Marinid position that they were unable to focus on building up the naval force (al-Hariri, 1987).
>The Marinid naval force became weaker and could not seriously repel enemy strength, particularly the naval forces of Castile, Aragon and Portugal after the reign of Sultan Abu ‘Inan Faris. This decline led to the collapse of the Marinid Kingdom in the year 1465. The Marinid force during this time was unable to adopt an offensive stance and acted only in defence against enemy invasion.
to continue,
you could ask the same of Ireland and Great Britain
it was only after the area was pacified that people could turn their attentions away to other things
there was also the pressure of expansion, Europeans could only go out by sea, not by land, the Ottomans were always waiting right outside of mainland Europe
and also the pressure to find new trade routes to the orient, to bypass the Ottomans
it's really just so many external forces and really nothing intrinsic to a people or their culture
it's the same the world over, no one really fell into where they were because of romanticized ideals
the ideals are just a justification after the fact
The greatest minds in human history have always hailed from Europe.
This was apparent certainly by the age of Newton but has been true since time immemorium and further back still.
We could go back as far as the greeks, perhaps as far as the arrival of the neanderthals.
China is interesting because the mean intelligence of a Han is higher than that of a European, even a Germanic as measured by IQ.
What peoole fail to take into consideration is the discrepencies in standard deviation. Europeans can be less intelligent on average and still produce the highest propensity of geniuses - in fact thats exactly the case and it's the geniuses who drag the rest kicking and screaming into sophistication.
>Every historian
Appeal to authority fallacy, """"experts"""" can be wrong.
>basically an accident
Chine literally killed every sparrow it could find in order to increase crop production. Can you guess what happened afterwards?
>West got to its position because China fucked up
How? How did China impact Europe in virtually anyway? It's literally on the other side of the Old World.
Do you mean in terms of innovation? Or "Who's Number One?" If that's the case your 'GDP' graph is nonsense as all of these societies were mainly agrarian (i.e. 'richer' literally just means more crops are being made).
If we want to know why the West is uniquely successful, we simply need to see what is unique about the West.
there's alot of interesting being dug in china every day btw
it just doesnt' get well-publicized outside of china
what i find really interesting though is how well developed and wide-ranging the ancient chinese aesthetic was in comparison to greece or rome
they were already looking past the outward appearance of things and trying to draw out something more, and were very creative and very varied in their efforts, and were in that way thousands of years ahead of the europeans - but at no point was technique sacrificed
europe in comparison stagnated until the 19th century and wasn't really able to develop beyond realism/naturalism
europeans didn't really seem to have a unified aesthetic either, only a mish-mash, and it was, by modern standards, in very poor taste (we know that they painted their marble statues in very bright colors)
even in, say, the basilicia in rome, it's hard not to cringe
rometoolkit.com
same for the palace in versailles or the reims gothic cathedral
it just doesn;'t have the unity of aesthetics that a chinese wooden building has - but it compensates for it through height and size, like gothic cathedrals - at which point it's more a feat of engineering than aesthetics
a modern archtiect or graphic designer would take one look at it and shake their heads
mongols carried gunpowder to europe
gunpowder allowed the europeans to force multiply in the new world, on top of the disease burden, also carried by the mongols to europe
etc. etc.
and the westernmost of western europe was 3x closer to new world than china
Came here to post this. If you look at the course of European history, there was an enormous amount of luck as well as taking a lot of mulligans. Also, I'm Roman Catholic so not a Jew - though I'm sure neo-Nazi pagans would argue otherwise.
there's a very subtle aesthetic unity that pervades chinese works of art
u appreciate the work as a whole
in europe, you appreciate the individual parts
but the chinese seemed to have already gotten over that as early as the western han
Ferguson may be BLACKED but he isnt a full on kike
>/pol/ whole heartedly disagrees and says all historians are kikes.
/pol/tards and their crossboard posters in Veeky Forums also heartily say ancient Chinese and Greeks, Romans were all "Nordict Aryans". And libercucks say humans have 1678+ genders.
you didnt prove anything though. Muslim spain had been relatively untouched for almost 400 years at that point, at least relative to christian spain.
I know Christians were basically embargoed from the east, but a direct access to the east would have offered just as much of a benefit as to muslim spain as it was to Portugal or Spain.
I think it has just as much to do with the culture as it does with geography and geo-politics
oh
that was just the compass and other chinese shipbuilding technologies that first diffused in italy before being carried over to portugal in the 14th century
>Technological advancements that were important to the Age of Exploration were the adoption of the magnetic compass and advances in ship design. The compass allowed ships to sail shorter open water routes and avoid the dangers hugging of the shore, such as rocks and pirates. The compass had been used for navigation in China by the 11th century and was adopted by the Arab traders in the Indian Ocean. It spread to Europe by the late 12th or early 13th century.[9]
>The Chinese also made several important improvements in ship design, such as the sternpost rudder, multiple masts and lateen sails. These improvements gave greater maneuverability and allowed ships to sail at any time of the year. These new style ships were produced in Italian states between 1280 and 1330, resulting in boost in trade and connectivity between northern and southern Europe.[9]
i talked about this here
the mongols brought technology from all the rest of the world that they destroyed to western europe
>The researchers also conclude the economic development in Western Europe was already reaching the prosperity found in Asia during the Later Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Professor Broadberry adds, “Our research shows that the path to the Industrial Revolution began far earlier than commonly has been understood. A widely held view of economic history suggests that the Industrial Revolution of 1800 suddenly took off, in the wake of centuries without sustained economic growth or appreciable improvements in living standards in England from the days of the hunter-gatherer. By contrast, we find that the Industrial Revolution did not come out of the blue. Rather, it was the culmination of a long period of economic development stretching back as far as the late medieval period.”
Chinks btfo.
to add on
those technologies were not available to muslim spain
-----
other than that
hard to understate the role of the mongols, as they were singlehandedly responsible for the greatest premodern transfer of technology and ideas, and it was all monopolized in practicality by a specific part of europe
cartography esepcially
the idea of sailing to the orient in the opposite direction probably would not have taken off otherwise - wihtout knowledge of the roguht proportions of the world on both sides of the eurasian continent
>I don't understand context
When I said 'How did China effect Europe', I meant, how did 'China's downfall' effect Europe.
You've almost fallen into a trap of mine. Truth of the matter is, by your reasoning, Europe would be doing even better now if the Chinese had made more innovations. My argument was that China falling behind was irrelevant to Europe's rise - you've just helped my argument by showing that if they were doing better Europe would have made even more progress.
That's not what the appeal to authority fallacy is you tremendous faggot holy shit
>Henry Kissinger is an historian
it's not just that
china was absolutely ravaged by the mongols, western europe was untouched
and china wasn't in a position to use its technologies
portugal to guyana is less than half the distance from eastern china to west coast north america
ireland to newfoundland is less than a third the distance
china's technology at the time was not sufficient to even go there to begin with, let alone make a return trip
but europe's technology, adopted from the chinese, definitely was.
Not only do you use reddit spacing more reddit-tier than reddit itself, but you also use dividers to split up your paragraphs even further. Please stop.
Although you are right in that I should have separated my comment by a semi-colon in order to distinguish that the second statement was not referring to the appeal to authority fallacy.
I don't know enough about Chinese history to comment, but suffice it to say, if modern Europe could completely rebuild itself after the two most destructive wars in human history, China could at least start financing more exploration Eastward.
the positioning of hte islands in the pacific and the atlantic played a big role too
beautifulpacific.com
it's true that you could go straight form shanghai to vancouver in 9500 km
but a fleet has to make stops, has to be able to make trial runs
and the pacific island setup, IF DISCOVERED, would've taken the chinese on a 12000 km route from shanghai to mexico
from the azores to santo domingo it's only 4500 km.
from ireland to to newfoundland like 3000 km
etc etc
>I don't know enough about Chinese history to comment, but suffice it to say, if modern Europe could completely rebuild itself after the two most destructive wars in human history, China could at least start financing more exploration Eastward.
the second world war was more destructive for china than for europe and there was no marshall plan
the first world war adn napoleonic wars combined did not compare to the taiping, nian, dungar, panthay, red turban, miao, etc. rebellions whicch all took place in the same decade
and the european royalty was not divided in its aims from its own people
the manchus actively sought to repress the Han b/c they didn't want to lose power
they wanted to hold onto power even in spite of the entire country losing power
>How 'China's downfall' effect Europe
Not that user. But it doesn't effect Europe directly but indirectly, the gradual stagnation and weakening of old Chinese Empire gave a perfect opportunity for Europeans to dominate entire Asia, hence the "century of humiliation", Europeans took great advantage of this and invaded, colonized Southeast and Central Asia countries one by one(they were mostly Chinese tributary states).
and also the chinese civil war and the communist revolution and the further setbacks by "kill all the sparrows" mao zedong in the GLF
thank you Veeky Forums for providing these useful insights rather than simplistic and rather lacking explanation elsewhere
but in all honesty we all know that pinoys will be our leaders for the future
Refer to this
A very good answer on how Manchu rule contributed to the century of rebellions:
The Japanese and Thai on the other hand were able to fully modernize and present an active threat.
Well, yes, that follows - but I'm not referring to that.
I'm thinking of wealth generated, innovations made, cultural output, notable achievements and great works of art/buildings constructed, etc.
Look at pic related to understand what I'm implying.
But we're not talking about the 20th century. I just used that as an example to show that setbacks can only be used as excuses for so long. It wasn't the argument in and of itself - this isn't a 'Who's had it worse in the last 100 years' contest.
What about the islands the USA uses as military bases like those at Midway and Hawaii?
Of course, for the purpose of initial invasions, I don't think that the Chinese would have been capable of conquering the South American Empires, but North Americans were just tribes.
this kinda puts in perspective how destructive the mongols were
if you read into this
you can see how a Manchu/Mongol-model of rule all over Eurasia would've stagnated the executive power of Eurasian states
north america would've been easy to conquer, the chinese would've only had to bring their disease and burden and flash some gunpowder like the conquistadors
but getting to north america is insanely difficult
the island chains in the pacific guide you straight to western south america
the alaskan route is very fucking cold compared to the portuguese atlantic route or the southern pacific island chain route
the pacific island chain route was also only accessible after running a gauntlet through the southeast asian archipelago
and the majapahit would not have allowed the chinese to set up bases on their archipelagos like the portuguese on the azores or canaries or madeiras or cape verde
>majapahit
en.wikipedia.org
just to put in perspective what the chinese would've had to go up against
water temperature perspective
when temperature is considered, the chinese route becomes much longer than the european route by about 3-4x, and can't even begin unless you get past the majapahit
I would argue they get the when and the why wrong. The west got its position due to event that happened during the fall of the Yuan dynasty. Why?
A very large part of the educated class ( really class'es) were killed due to there loyal to the Yuan dynasty. It was a massive loss of human capital. The left overs have of those class'es were in a extremely powerful. They were tasked with rooting out foreign influence, views, and non traditional outlooks from the Chinese base of knowledge. This only got stronger over time. Almost all of the inventions of the Ming Dynasty were inside its first 90 years.
A great example of this in action is the field of military theory during the 16th century. There was a few generals who tried very hard to change the military examination curriculum (largely unchanged since the late 9th century) to be more modern. They had the support of the emperor till the academic class forced the matter against them. Those generals ended up having to retire after that because of the amount of harassment they and their families faced. Later on that Emperor's son tried to get a pair of different generals to work on a new book of theory & tactics because he did not feel the military classicals were useful. The generals agree with his view point openly but refused to put their knowledge to paper for fear of the same career ended harassment.
To let that sink in those two general felt that telling the emperor no, on a matter they openly agreed with him on, was the safer career option then pissing off the academics. That is how powerful the academic class had become.
the way the currents are set up limits the chinese to either (1) somehow conquer the majapahit and use their islands as a base, or (2) take the northern route through the freezing cold
the portuguese only had to reach teh canaries and ride on the current through warm water, and ride on the same current back
----
the adaptation to the changing stars is anther consideration, but i rest my case
interesting how the currents affected the british and the portuguese, north and south america
The reason /pol/tards disagree with the academic consensus on this is for the same reason they despise Jared Diamond's book. It debunks their whole bullshit white supremacy ideology. It implies that the West got where it is out of sheer luck and geographical advantage, and not out of cultural, or racial supremacy. It's also why you also always see them here trying to claim the success of non-white western civilizations like ancient China, ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia by saying they were somehow white. They need to push these outright lies, or they will lose the cultural war they are so fixated on currently. They need to maintain the narrative by all costs so their views aren't rejected as irrational.
Can someone explain to me how Clinton could win both white people and people of color in Iowa and Wisconsin yet lose the states overall?
The "academic consensus," sprung up a few years ago and was based largely on comparisons of estimates of GDP and living standards for common people.
I think it's bunk largely because the intellectual groundwork that made the scientific method and industrial revolution possible started in the 1400s and simply wasn't done elsewhere.
Saying "China or Islam could have done it if they just radically changed their culture and governance and invested in scholastic thought is akin to the people who think Hitler could have won WWII if he had tweeked production like Hearts of Iron.
Responsive government and the hypodeductive method isn't just shit on a tech tree civilizations can choose.
>1 AD
>1000 AD
>1500 AD
>1913 AD
>1950 AD
nice graph bro
Academics also disagree with Jared Diamond though.
The black death probably helped Europe out of the Dark Ages by massively decreasing the supply of labor that feudal lords had access to, forcing them to compete for peasants.
It was liberalism that made it all possible while china had a total control on its citizens life.
Funny how since keynesian economies and state regulations came the west is on decline.
Its a map of 2012 not 2016
>when the qing took over, the manchus feared losing power to the han and held back technological progress, and they had a quota in the government where half the positions were held by manchus but 100% of the work was done by the Han
This is utter bullshit.
The Qing weren't like the Yuan Dynasty who had a race-based Caste System. Otherwise it wouldve disappeared as fast as the Yuan did.
I hate the term people of color. It comes off as a new age Jim Crow colored people to me.
>LE LONG INDUSTRIAL AGE
Cancer.
that too, it killed just enough people to spur on economic forces whereas in China and in the Islamic World it was apocalyptic b/c of the density of the population in the places that they did live - Hebei in particular, the province that held the capital, lost 90% of its population; the Ming Dynasty census in 1393 reported 65 million people, compared to 200 million in 1200
Europe in comparison was decentralized enough that people could spread out and run away from the plague
But in the Islamic world? You can't run out into the desert, which closed in on all their major population centres.
In China? Too many people to run away from.
i'd say it was just the luck of england producing francis bacon
this user explains why the intellectual scene in china stagnated from the ming onwards
this user explains why adoptation of the scientific method was held back from the qing onwards
even if the scientific method originated in europe, it would've been adopted by the chinese fairly early on instead of well toward the end of the 19th century; japan and other countries certainly had no issues
>Keynesian period of US history produces literally the biggest economic boom in human history
>Chicago School takes over
>morass of declining living standards and squabbling
REALLY
that too, it killed just enough people in Europe to spur on economic forces whereas in China and in the Islamic World it was apocalyptic b/c of the density of the population in the places that they did live - Hebei in particular, the province that held the capital, lost 90% of its population; the Ming Dynasty census in 1393 reported 65 million people, compared to 200 million in 1200
Europe in comparison was decentralized enough that people could spread out and run away from the plague
But in the Islamic world? You can't run out into the desert, which closed in on all their major population centres.
In China? Too many people to run away from.
i'd say it was just the luck of england producing francis bacon
this user explains why the intellectual scene in china stagnated from the ming onwards
this user explains why adoptation of the scientific method was held back from the qing onwards
even if the scientific method originated in europe, it would've been adopted by the chinese fairly early on instead of well toward the end of the 19th century; japan and other countries certainly had no issues
The New Deal extended the crisis for a decade.
Which is why Germany and Japan, who were Keynesian, recovered faster than England and France, amirite.
The Qing were notorious for their race-based caste system. Even the Manchu slaves were ranked higher than Han officials who had to bow to them as they passed. Half the government positions were reserved for the Manchus as a quota, even though it was the Han officials doing all the work. All the problems affecting America regarding hiring policies and quotas nowadays as understood by the alt-right, are very applicable to the Manchu Qing.
the Yuan disappeared as fast as it did b/c of the plague
>The Black Plague in fact originated in Asia, although scholars dispute its exact location of origin. Some cite north-western China, while others cite south-western China or the steppes of Central Asia.** The first source of outbreak occurred in the Hebei province of Yuan China in 1331, and by 1334, 90% of the province's population had died. China's population was so drastically affected by the spread of this Black Plague via rats and other infected mammals that in 1393, a Ming government census reported that China's population was only 65 million people, a drop from 200 million in 1200. China's population did of course, recover, and the Plague was spread westward through trade routes across Central Asia.
it spurred on the Red Turban rebellion that founded the Ming dynasty
>muh pol
>It implies that the West got where it is out of sheer luck and geographical advantage, and not out of cultural, or racial supremacy
Stop creating straw man to support your agenda
You know that both were war economies in peace times right?
the Qing were also big on censoring books that in the least way could've been interpreted as an insult to the Qing, in particular books on military technologies like the Wubei Zhi (which are replete with references to barbarians)
en.wikipedia.org
it's better to just look at what was happening in Japan though
there was already the possibility for a Chinese Rangaku in the Ming dynasty, but the Ming squandered it, and when the Qing came along, they were completely relegated to the sideline
that was out of political expediency. he also stated that there'd be a showdown between white and yellow races
Fucking nonsene! Qing government did favor Manchu over Han and other ethnicity "at first", there were even Manchu quarters(滿城) in most major cities. BUT they never had the so-called "race-based caste system" in government nor had such laws, this is completely revisionism horseshit.
There were even “Han bannermans”(漢八旗) served in Qing military who were the major force of Qing conquest against Ming. The so-called “Manchu/Han quotas” also drastically vanished after Kangxi emperor fully adopted Chinese imperial examinations(科舉). During late Qing period(19th century) almost 80% of government officials and soldiers were Han, Qing government heavily relied on Han to suppressed all the rebellions and negotiated with Western powers in their final days.
en.wikipedia.org
zh.wikipedia.org
Also blaming all stagnation and backward of China to Qing is also unfair. Technology stagnation already happened during mid Ming period, Qing just unable to fix it.
What?
>The Qing were notorious for their race-based caste system.
Nope.jpg.
The Banners were initially was racial, but then the Qing rulers realized they needed the cooperation of the Local Han in order to succeed. Jesus they even gave away Manchu princesses to Han generals for this to happen.
>Ming defectors played a massive role in the Qing conquest of China. Han Chinese generals who defected to the Manchus were often given women from the Imperial Aisin Gioro family in marriage while the ordinary soldiers who defected were given non-royal Manchu women as wives. The Qing differentiated between Han bannermen and ordinary Han civilians. Han bannermen were made out of Han Chinese who defected to the Qing up to 1644 and joined the Eight Banners, giving them social and legal privileges in addition to being acculturated to Manchu culture. So many Han defected to the Qing and swelled up the ranks of the Eight Banners that ethnic Manchus became a minority within the Banners, making up only 16% in 1648, with Han bannermen dominating with 75% and Mongol Bannermen making up the rest.[12][13] It was this multi-ethnic force, in which Manchus were only a minority, which conquered China for the Qing.[14] Hong Taiji recognized that Ming Han Chinese defectors were needed by the Manchus in order to assist in the conquest of the Ming, explaining to other Manchus why he needed to treat the Ming defector General Hung Ch'eng-ch'ou leniently.
fanks pal
In addition, the MANCHU IDENTITY was super new. It was born when Hong Taiji united the Jurchens. There's evidence that the Aisin Gioro pretty much didn't care about race much once they got China, considering Yongzheng started addressing his country as "Dulimbai Gurun" (Middle Kingdom). And then after him, the Manchu language started to decline, with only the Emperor ever actually caring.
>fellaheen
>becoming the prometheans of modernity
Top kek m8
this