Most wealth in most European nations depends on local production and expertise.
Why is e.g. the Norwegian fisherman richer than the Bangladeshi fisherman? It is not because he gets more money for each fish he sells.
It is because the usage of modern fishing vessels and technology allows him to fish a lot more fish. In Norway we tried to give Bangladeshi fishermen modern Norwegian fishing vessels in the 70s. If failed because they do not have the skill and infrastructure to maintain and support a modern fishing fleet.
Value lies in better both superior equipment and the knowledge of how to use it effectively. That advantage exists in Europe regardless of whether Europe gets to exploit other nations or not.
Even in colonial times, most economic activity happened locally. Tobacco, sugar and spice does not grow the core of the economy. What mattered most was intensified farming locally. The usage inanimate power, labor specialization and cheaper transport to increase production of food, clothes, tools, furniture, housing etc.
Even without actually exploiting the colonies Europeans would have benefited hugely from the maritime explorations. New crops such as potatoes benefited European agriculture greatly.
Some people seem to somehow wish that us Europeans are furious that we don't have colonies anymore and that we are deeply nostalgic about it. Now I am not from a European country that had colonies, but I think it is pretty universal in Europe that, people are not missing the colonies.
European are happy about where we are today. We are fighting less among each other than ever before. A continent of violence and become a continent of peace.
Europe tops pretty much all worlds statistics on happiness, health, well-being and prosperity.
I have no problems with the right wingers in Europe being angry about us not dominating the rest of the world. Let them be angry, it only brings me schadenfreude.
Besides I don't think Europeans honestly care that much about it. I see American fretting much more about the position in the world. They are afraid of not being number ONE anymore. I think most of us Europeans have long accepted that reality.
IMHO Europe's future is brighter than most other places. Global climate change will affect us much less than the rest. Unlike Asia, we don't have the same demographic time bomb. China, Korea and Japan will suffer major setbacks as their populations gray far too quickly.
The middle east will be screwed when the world no longer runs on oil.
I am hoping for a better future for Africa, but it will take a VERY long time for Africa to catch up with Europe.
The US has a pretty bright future as well I think, but it will likely suffer a lot from political polarization and economic inequality and social problems. Yet the US has been through the same so much of its history.
India will be a lot better off than today, but most Indians have a very long time to go to get anywhere near European levels of prosperity. That could take another 60-100 years.
I am not against a prosperous Europe. Neither do I believe in living in the past. Simply stating the facts that Europe’s wealth is because of world looting. And it would be better that everyone understands where money comes from. Everyday that passes results in less exploitation
I largely agree with what you said. But either of us don’t understand how large complex systems change
There's this strange hint of Europe doing better than everyone else in your message. I assure you, that won't be the case.
> Simply stating the facts that Europe’s wealth is because of world looting
I'd like to see some sources for those "facts". What exactly happened? Europeans came into Africa and Asia and stole all the factories, leaving Africans and Asians to revert back to agricultural societies?
Or Europeans went to Africa, Asia, and the Americas and extracted as much of the natural resources as possible at the expense of the indigenous populations and without a thought to the future sustainability of the lands. Some examples that spring to mind:
* Spanish silver mining in the Americas. 150,000 tonnes of silver were extracted between 1500-1800 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_silver_trade_from_the_1...). It isn't hard to understand who benefited from that silver, Spain or the South American colonies.
* African slave trade which exported 10-15 million people from Africa. In 1850, Africa had about 50 million people when it should have had closer to 100 million, when accounting for lack of reproduction, if it weren't for the slave trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Africa#Atl...)
> Europeans came into Africa and Asia and stole all the factories, leaving Africans and Asians to revert back to agricultural societies?
How about actively passing laws to make sure that the colonies could not survive without the mother country by restricting trade. Maybe start reading about these colonial times a bit more. What you find may surprise you
I agree, I don't think Europeans have been worse than others would have been, we simply had the means to do it. However I find it problematic that so much of the brutality gets swept under the rug.
E.g. it is typical of political propaganda how Stalins starvation of millions of Ukrainians is used to disparage socialism. However it is far less known that Britain starved quite a lot more people in India, often in the name of capitalism. Food was shipped out at gunpoint to foreign markets while people starved to death on the grounds that markets should not be disrupted.
There is also the belittling of other people, through ignorance of our own past. E.g. the Chinese with Mao is presented as somehow more barbaric and brutal. The US presents itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy despite slaughtering the native population and enslaving millions of blacks.
I don't think westerners are inherently worse than anybody else. I just dislike the smugness in particular by great powers such as the Britain and the US, who present themselves as these big civilizing forces.
Interesting read, but I want to raise some objections:
1) I don't like that one keep talking about the whole west as one unit and tainting everybody. It creates a simplified picture of oppressor and the oppressed.
It should not be forgotten that this is primarily about the major powers of Europe. Not every European country was a major power. Europe is full of smaller countries, which often had little say in this matter. Ireland e.g. has a brutal history of oppression by the British. It is not like whites were nice to each other and only cruel to others.
Big colonial powers have a different view of people. I remember reading about polar expeditions, naturally since I am Norwegian. It is hard to not notice the stark difference between how Norwegians treated Inuit people and how the British treated them. The British were full of contempt for the natives of the polar regions. They viewed them as backwards and as having nothing useful to teach them. The British assumed British sense of civilization, property law etc was universal. When an Inuit took an object belonging to a British expedition member they brutally flogged him as punishment for "stealing". Never mind that the concept of ownership was entirely different to the Inuit.
Norwegian polar explorers in contrast eagerly learned from the natives how they used their dogs and how they dressed for the cold. It is a probably the chief reason why Amundsen would beat Scott to the pole. Amundsen did not deal with the different culture of the Inuit by assuming superiority and doling out cruel punishment to anyone not following his moral code. Instead they used trickery, making the Inuit believe that if they went into their storage room, they could blow up.
I am not writing this primarily to make my fellow Norwegians look amazing. But it is easier to contrast with cultures you actually know. Anyway we were kind of dicks to our indigenous people, the Sami, but to point out that European culture varied greatly. Saying the west did this and that, is a bit like our own homogenization of Africa, as if it is just one country.
2) We must know our history to not repeat it. I DO think it is a problem that we often try to sugarcoat our past. However we should also keep perspective. Too often people get into this pattern of thinking as if the past brutality of European colonial powers is inherent in being white. That is just as racist as claiming jews are inherently money grubbing bankers and africans are lazy. Europeans are as much product of their history and upbringing as everybody else, and has the same potential for change. Nor is everybody the same. While Europeans enslaved people, there was also Europeans fighting hard against slavery. Emancipation developed further and quicker in Europe than in many other parts of the world. E.g. slavery was ended by Europeans before it was in the Arab world. I don't think that points to white superiority, but simply is a way of pointing out that every civilization is a mix of different values and ideas, both good and bad. The good can triumph over the bad.
We should however recognize that the struggles many countries face around the world is partly of our making. However we cannot take full responsibility. Africa or India would not be as modern rich or developed today as by magic if Europeans had never set their feet on shore. All of these areas were hundreds of years behind Europe in technological development. What Europe could have done is treating them better. But that does not make Europeans uniquely bad. The powerful have always through history had a tendency to exploit the weaker ones.
> I don't like that one keep talking about the whole west as one unit and tainting everybody
Best refrain from reading the Guardian, it's what they do best. Despite the fact that nobody alive today had anything to do at all with the horrors from our colonial pasts.
> Africa or India would not be as modern rich or developed today as by magic if Europeans had never set their feet on shore
Do you have some references that back this up? I don't dispute it, just curious.
No we don't have anything to do with it. But perception of our history is a strong driver of modern behaviour. This article is really about how we think about the world today, WW1 is just a proxy for that. And the world wars are still an important part of national identity.
> Best refrain from reading the Guardian, it's what they do best. Despite the fact that nobody alive today had anything to do at all with the horrors from our colonial pasts.
I don't think their writing is bad. My issue is not so much what they write, but rather how a lot of people end up interpreting it. Many will use such writing to vilify whites. OTOH there are plenty of whites who uses any writing about say coloreds to do the same. People in general are eager to create simplified narratives and blame the other guys.
> Do you have some references that back this up? I don't dispute it, just curious.
I would say it is a logical conclusion from reading history. India and Africa was already progressing at a certain pace and was several hundred years behind Europe in development.
What has been observed through most of history is that most countries progress by importing ideas from other rather than by inventing it themselves.
Africa e.g. has very little coastline and rivers relative to landmass. That makes water based transport mostly inaccessible. Labor specialization and mass production relies on that. Industrialization was thus highly unlikely to occur in Africa spontaneously. Adam Smith remarked this over 300 years ago.
The founder of modern Singapore remarked that the most important technology for their development was air condition. India, Africa, South East Asia etc are simply too hot places. It gives a lot more diseases, makes it harder to work and think. There are limits to how much heat the human body can dissipate. Cold climates are thus more practical for working as long as you have suitable means of providing heating.
Until the invention of air condition, the southern states of the US were far more backwards. Air condition led to a surge in people moving south.
In short India, Africa etc had a lot of natural barriers to development which meant they were always going to be far behind Europe. European invasion gave a way of leapfrogging many of these disadvantages.
Thank you for teaching us a valuable lesson. And thank you for bringing "civilization" to India. We have learnt our lessons well from our white Masters. We Indian slaves are forever in your debt. I am sure there will be more lessons to learn.. for all of us..
You have a very eurocentric view of technological advancement.
The technologies that bootstraped the European civilization come from the fertile crescent, aka middle east. Not only that, but what is eaten in Europe are mostly plants and animals that are not endemic to Europe. Take that away and you would have a continent full of people spending all their time trying to feed themselves, without time to innovate and with a lower population.
The European Reinassance is 99% of the time misattributed. The real causes were:
- the introduction of paper to Europe (as an alternative to parchments, made from animal skin)
- the introduction of a new numeral system
- the acceptance of secular thought
- the Latin translations of the 12th century
- the scientific method
None of those fundamental prerequisites are European merit. And yet it is hardly ever mentioned because it does not justify a messed up perspective of the world where one group of people "civilized" the rest of the world.
Before St Thomas Aquinas reformed the church through philosophy, scientific research would be considered heresy and could get you killed. St Thomas Aquinas studied from St Albert Magnus, from Latin translations made in Spain after the fall of the Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain).
Copernicus developed his theories by studying the Alphonsine tables, compilation of observations made by ancient astronomers. The Alphonsine tables were also Latin translations made in Spain.
Take away the Alphonsine tables and modern numerals and you've got no Copernicus, no Galileo, no Newton. Take away paper or secularism and you get nothing at all.
Europe continued the work of fallen civilizations, did not figure it out everything from scratch.
This line of reasoning is silly. I suppose all technology comes from Homo Australopithecus since they were the first to bang two rocks together, and they were the true origin of the Renaissance?
I'm all for acknowledging eurocentrism, but this euro-bashing is ridiculous. If these "prerequisites" were all that were needed to kickstart the Renaissance, why did it not occur in the middle east, for instance, where all of these elements were also present?
Because the Mongols destroyed them after they refused to pay tribute.
Knowledge is passed generation to generation, and if you interrupt that, it's hard to recover from. Mongols destroyed everything, including libraries and killed most scholars.
That void was filled with tribes that were not secular.
I think that's wholly simplistic. What about regions who beat off the Mongols, such as the Mameluks? Or people who weren't that affected, like the Ottomans.
For that matter, I'd be interested in your theory as to why the Ottoman empire failed to develop any intellectual tradition of note, while Europe was soaring.
Russians greatly suffered under the mongols but eventually became a superpower. China lost half its population but rebounded pretty quickly.
Edit: "Mongols destroyed libraries" afaik, they destroyed the library of Baghdad but that's about it.
Also, the Mongols were not the only ones to destroy libraries. Iirc the library of Cordoba, the biggest and most advanced of its time, was burned down by the Caliph because it was deemed too un-islamic.
I am talking about the Siege of Baghdad (1258). You are talking about a period of time after the death of Kublai Khan (1294) where the Mongols were already divided into smaller regions.
Anyways, if you want to be a eurocentric revisionist, continue doing so. I don't care.
If you study the Latin translations of the 12th century you will see how significant part of the Reinassance could be attributed to previous civilizations.
Yeah, I understood you were talking about the Siege of Baghdad. If you think that the destruction of a single city is the reason for the middle east lagging behind the west over several centuries, then I reiterate what I said before, you have an extremely simplistic view of history. I don't consider myself particularly eurocentric, but you seem to be a middle eastern chauvinist. Projection, maybe?
Where did I deny that Europeans built on previous advances by other people? It's obvious they didn't exist in a vacuum. But europeans were the first to systematize the production and diffusion of knowledge. In a sense they invented what you could call the mass intellectual tradition.
I think you are reading things between the lines which are not there.
It was never my intention to suggest that Europeans are inherently superior to others and that we have some unique ability of innovations.
Of course European advancements were built on advancements of those who came before us. Just as Chinese advancement today is built on advancements made by the west earlier.
I am merely stating a fact: European civilization was significantly ahead of the competition. And those innovations could not easily have been made elsewhere for cultural and geographic reasons:
1) Europe went through major paradigm shifts with1 the renaissance and enlightenment which was in large part possible in Europe because it was a divided continent. Many great thinkers lived on the borders between countries so they could flee to another one as soon as their ideas got unpopular with the rulers. Such a mechanism was not possible in other advance civilizations such as China, which was a big monolith. New ideas in such societies could easily be squashed.
Single rulers could easily retard progress for decades. Consider e.g. how one of the Chinese emperors forbid all sea travel and burned the fleet. The whole of Europe could never suffer such a profound setback because it had no single ruler. Any European nation engaging in such stupid policies would quickly learn of the stupidity of that as competing nations would race past them.
Europe represented a sort of semi-free market of ideas, which did not exist elsewhere to the same degree.
2) Europe had a clear advantage in geography. Using water wheels for power generation and rivers and canals for goods transport was significantly easier in Europe than China, India, Egypt etc where the waterflow varies too much through the year.
The first factories relied on inanimate power from waterwheels which was not easily constructed elsewhere in the world.
Later steam engines relied on cheap transport of large bulks of coal and ore. Britain e.g. had a geology that allowed building canals to mines to transport large bulk loads of coal cheaply. Outside of Europe there was limited possibility to do this.
I could go on, but there were simply a large number of factors that favored Europe. Hence European supremacy was not merely a fluke, and the other nations could not by random occurrence have leapfrogged Europe. The modern world relied on being brought to the rest of the world from Europe, unless it was going to happen much much later.
It does not mean what European did was morally right. It just means one should not delude oneself into thinking that without Europe all the other nations would be prosperous today.
I don't think your parent claimed that all good things were originally made in Europe. It seems pretty clear to me that Europe was technologically more advanced than the rest of the world during colonial times. Without superior (military) technology they wouldn't have been able to oppress half the world.
No, but most nations have progressed faster technologically by being invaded or influenced by other more advance nations. Without the roman empire, Britain, France, Spain, Germany etc would have taken far longer to modernize.
I not saying this as a moral statement, merely as an observation of how the world works. We don't need to like something to be true.
Of course we can strive for a better less violent way of doing things, which I think we are doing in the world we live in today. We are spreading ideas and technology through trade primarily rather than war. It is not always fair trade, but it beats colonization.
I don't think that either, but you're not making a very good argument. To counter that European influence was important for the development of former colonies you say that foreign influence was crucial to the development of Europe. To me that sounds like you support the idea that outside influence can be of critical importance.
I think there is an enormous danger in abuse of this knowledge. People simply don't understand the concepts and statistics very well.
The part about how heritability varies between countries is very important observation. A country successful at creating great opportunities for the majority of the population will measure very high heritability values because naturally most differences seen will be genetic if the environment is mostly optimal.
This hides the significance of the environment. E.g. height has a heritability of 90%, yet that is easy to misinterpret. Height in various populations have varied dramatically over time and that can primarily be explained by changes in the environment: health care and nutrition.
I think you are missing the point. I don't read this article as an argument AGAINST going to the gym, rather as a comment on the fact that if you want a healthy population, it is not gym membership which is the primary solution.
For me going to the gym is primarily about being healthy, and the does affect your happiness. Being unhealthy is bad for your own quality of life.
I have not been particularly good at going to the gym however, the last years. I remember finding it easier to get into in while living in a society which made natural exercise happen more regularly. E.g. when I lived in the Netherlands I biked about 1 hour of day, because that is often the made mode of transport and it is easy and convenient to do.
That has a positive re-enforcing circle. You feel better, which makes it easier to get to the gym as well. When your health goes down, going to the gym becomes mentally harder to do. It may be more expedient but doing almost anything benefits from feeling good and positive.
This is not just about personal choices though but also about how society is structured. E.g. when I lived in the US I found it hard to be healthy other than going to the gym because there was little opportunity for natural exercise as all of society is built around car usage and consumption of fast-food.
In contrast when I lived in the Netherlands I found it VERY easy to be healthy. Life is organized around biking there: it is safe, easy and convenient to do. I probably biked around 1 hour every day, just from doing errands, meeting friends, going to university etc.
If I wanted to grab some food, there was usually a lot more healthy options available. E.g. even in tiny stores in the Netherlands they have great vegetarian options.
A lot of this is not stuff as an individual you can decide on. It depends on zoning laws, building of bike lanes and a multitude of policies and traditions you cannon easily change without collective action.
It’s suspicious because it’s generally dangerous to walk around alone at night in large cities.
It also depends on the area, though. And I would also say just because you’re approached by the police doesn’t mean you’re being suspicious. I’ve been pulled over by police before just because they wanted to let me know it was a dangerous area (I wasn’t from the area).
Edit: I really hope that downvote came from a European or non-American. /s
As an American (and been here my entire life), what I posted above is very accurate to what I have observed.
Maybe in other parts of the country it’s different but in the cities I’m most intimate with (Atlanta, Memphis, Jackson), this is definitely the case.
"It’s suspicious because it’s generally dangerous to walk around alone at night in large cities."
I didn't downvote you, though I thought your comment really needed a citation.
However, it's also probably true, given how often people are killed by drivers at night. It depends on a lot on the city. Similarly the suburbs are pretty dangerous when you consider road deaths and not just violent crime (though in places with presumed liability, operating your car unsafely _is_ a crime).
When I lived in Santa Monica walking across Wilshire blvd. at night was especially dangerous (25 mph limit but people routinely went 45mph+), and pedestrians were (and are) killed on a regular basis. My understanding is at least one of the cities you named (Atlanta) is considered a poster child in how to design a city to be dangerous for walking.
However, if you've walked in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc. at night you'll know a large city can be a lovely place for a night stroll.
I am an American who has lived in the EU for 6 years, fwiw.
This is very accurate. I've been approached by police twice in Miami, letting me know that I am entering a dangerous nieghbourhood - which I thought it was the city center.
Another time they didn't let me drive further, when they saw that we were a bunch of clueless europeans.
This only applies to cities where walking isn't a default way to get around. Walking around most parts of NYC is perfectly safe at night in part because the presence of other pedestrians deters crime.
It depends where you are walking if you want a realistic answer. Lots of people walk around denser areas at night with commercial stores/nightlife and residential areas near transportation. Walking around the suburbs when it’s 12am and there is nothing open is probably going to raise suspicions because it’s uncommon and there’s not many places to walk home from other than a friend’s house. (Not to mention it’s dangerous with all the people speeding/not paying attention to the roads when less cars out at night). IMO, I would say the more empty an area is the more suspicious it would be to walk around at night. There’s legitimate reasons to walk around at night like going for a stroll or walking a dog, but for the most part police would stop you to let you know “you do know this is risky?” and let you go on your way as long as you don’t seem like you are planning some criminal activity or acting erratically. Plus, it lessens their chances of having to go help someone out of trouble if they just advise that person reevaluate their decision.
I have biked to university here in Denmark, and while it might be nice in the summer, it is not something I ever want to do again in winter. Instead of having two fairly broad sets of wheels I now have two thin ones and a much higher center of gravity...
It works better if your workplace has a fitness center with showers. But if not, see if there is a gym nearby that you can join just for the shower usage. You can also leave an extra half hour for your journey, and not work as hard at it. Also, wiping down with alcohol wipes before your journey can prevent bacteria which avoids the smell funk (along with putting your work clothes in your saddle bag, and changing out of your cycling gear once you get to work).
Walking 30 minutes per day 5 days per week and losing 15 lbs (for an adult male) lessens the likelihood of a pre-diabetic person becoming diabetic by 60%.
In NYC where I live which has subways with stations that mostly do not have escalators people are constantly walking and walking up and down stairs as part of their daily activity.
During the hours long rush-hours it is also much faster taking subways than automobiles (e.g 15 mins instead of 45 mins).
Cities can be designed as NYC so that there is plenty of walking and stair climbing as part of the daily activity.
There are also plenty of Citibikes (cheap rentable bicycles) and bike lanes.
That is a natural outcome of the hyper capitalist world we currently live in. I have a mother who has been a journalist for over 40 years. I've heard for years about the pressure sell. Article titles often get changed against the will of journalists to be more click-bait like to sell more.
As people pay less for good journalism, and ad revenue is shrinking, the media is getting desperate to stay afloat.
Journalists today have significantly less independence than they had 15 years ago. Everything is far more controlled and geared towards sales.
I would like to see more alternative finance models for quality journalism.
Given how social media is actually starting to destroy democracy, it may be worth considering government grants to independent media organizations as a part of national defense. A democracy cannot function if the media is utterly broken. That means citizens are no longer capable of making informed decisions.
I down voted because this is (1) whataboutism, (2) I can't see the analogy.
That increased CO2 emissions should cause a temperature increase has been proposed over 100 years ago. They did not look at climate change recently and suddenly decide "lets blame CO2".
(3) the man made climate change theory, does not rest of a single study, it rests on countless ones.
(4) There is actually a scientific model explaining why we see the measurements we get. They are not digging around at random.
Why is e.g. the Norwegian fisherman richer than the Bangladeshi fisherman? It is not because he gets more money for each fish he sells.
It is because the usage of modern fishing vessels and technology allows him to fish a lot more fish. In Norway we tried to give Bangladeshi fishermen modern Norwegian fishing vessels in the 70s. If failed because they do not have the skill and infrastructure to maintain and support a modern fishing fleet.
Value lies in better both superior equipment and the knowledge of how to use it effectively. That advantage exists in Europe regardless of whether Europe gets to exploit other nations or not.
Even in colonial times, most economic activity happened locally. Tobacco, sugar and spice does not grow the core of the economy. What mattered most was intensified farming locally. The usage inanimate power, labor specialization and cheaper transport to increase production of food, clothes, tools, furniture, housing etc.
Even without actually exploiting the colonies Europeans would have benefited hugely from the maritime explorations. New crops such as potatoes benefited European agriculture greatly.