|
Discussion: Why are non-tropical countries more successful?
Member Since: 8/13/2012
Posts: 32,832
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Albany Guest
Everything comes "with luck". Charles Martel did not beat the Saracens because Europeans were inherently better. That the Ottomans failed twice to take Vienna had nothing to do with some inherent European superiority. And that the Mongols decided that continuing into Europe wasn't worth their while wasn't the doing of Europeans either.
The lack of immunity among the American Natives was not Europe's doing.
Historical determinism is something utterly devoid of any empirical substance. That is like claiming that winning the lottery was destiny post winning.
|
it is determinism because history is a repetition of millions of events that happen time and time again and there is no probability that those events all were resolved by luck in the same direction. History is complex and if we went back and lived it again, it would mostly follow the same path because behind every event there are root causes
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 4,059
|
Because white people have genes that make them more prone to being mean and evil. The whitest the face the darkest the nature. It's biology.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2011
Posts: 1,788
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MaRy
it is determinism because history is a repetition of millions of events that happen time and time again and there is no probability that those events all were resolved by luck in the same direction. History is complex and if we went back and lived it again, it would mostly follow the same path because behind every event there are root causes
|
Sorry, but your claim has absolutely no logical basis. And I mean, none, so I am not going to waste time with the philosophical discussion that would have to follow.
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/23/2010
Posts: 6,705
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Thirty All
I'm not even talking about slavery, but today in the modern world.
Why are all the northern countries economically successful while Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia wallow in poverty?
|
That's not true. Singapore which is just about a hundred kilometers north of the equator has the highest percentage of millionaires and is the 3rd richest country in the world, and the rest of Southeast Asia are newly industrialized countries with better economy than Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2011
Posts: 7,281
|
Quote:
WASHINGTON, October 7, 2013–Economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains strong with growth forecasted to be 4.9% in 2013. Almost a third of countries in the region are growing at 6% and more, and African countries are now routinely among the fastest-growing countries in the world, according to the World Bank’s new Africa’s Pulse, a twice-yearly analysis of the issues shaping Africa’s economic prospects.
|
Quote:
Buoyed by rising private investment in the region and remittances now worth US$33 billion a year supporting household incomes GDP growth in Africa will continue to rise and pick up to 5.3% in 2014 and 5.5% in 2015. Strong government investments and higher production in the mineral resources, agriculture and service sectors are supporting the bulk of the economic growth.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 1,123
|
Well I think being richer in resources was something that worked against South Asia.
India, for example, was very rich in resources. While it was unified, more or less, under a single empire like the Mauryan or the Mughal Empire, India was never successfully invaded. After their disintegration there were a lot of smaller and more unstable stated fighting over resources.
This strife helped European settlers like the French and the British. They basically manipulated weaker states and gained power. A very 'Divide and conquer' policy.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 2,037
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FreeBitch
|
Not to be rude, but even if Africa is improving its economy the fastest, it is still quite destitute and light years behind industrialized nations.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/25/2012
Posts: 30,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MaRy
But the question is, why were the European able to enslave all those countries and people to begin with?
|
There was nothing in Europe. It was too crowded and too small. Which is why Europeans so often left their homelands and went looking for better places to live. They tried so many times, but they always got their butts kicked in the end (the Crusades anyone).
Why were they able to enslave all those countries? Over time they learned how from more advanced people. Like the Chinese, who "gave" them guns. How in the world would the Europeans have beaten the Zulu Empire without guns? They were struggeling even with their technical advantage.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2012
Posts: 20,576
|
Historically speaking. Countries in colder climates had less resources. Because of that they were constantly looking for more things to gain. Countries in warmer climates, even great empires like China, Egypt, Rome and so on fell do to laziness and lack of interest in other areas (Rome fell due to sheer laziness and corruption including invasions from Germanic tribes who happened to inhibit colder areas). Europe rose in power because they had little space, little resources, and capitalist tendencies brought from Christianity and the Black Plague.
So really, Europe had very little while Africa, Asia, and the pre-colonial Americas had too much. The unequal distribution cause exploitation, and a need to explore. So really, the Europeans just werent lazy.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2012
Posts: 20,576
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fabbriche
That's not true. Singapore which is just about a hundred kilometers north of the equator has the highest percentage of millionaires and is the 3rd richest country in the world, and the rest of Southeast Asia are newly industrialized countries with better economy than Eastern Europe.
|
Not true. The 3rd richest country is Japan, and is above the equator and very similar to Western Europe in how they managed to dominate the world. And Eastern Europe has always been poor and behind Western Europe, since like forever. The only time of prosperity for that region was with the Polish-Lithuanian and Russian Empire and that was over 100 years ago. I mean many countries are wealthier than Belarus so thats not something to be proud of. And they aren't wealthier than Western nations like France, Sweden or Germany.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/13/2012
Posts: 32,832
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CoolestPerson12
Not true. The 3rd richest country is Japan, and is above the equator and very similar to Western Europe in how they managed to dominate the world. And Eastern Europe has always been poor and behind Western Europe, since like forever. The only time of prosperity for that region was with the Polish-Lithuanian and Russian Empire and that was over 100 years ago. I mean many countries are wealthier than Belarus so thats not something to be proud of. And they aren't wealthier than Western nations like France, Sweden or Germany.
|
Russian Empire and Poland-Lithuania were't really prosperous, they kept the serfdom system until about 200 years ago which basically was enslavement of farmers.
And yes I agree with you, usually when there is a lack of balance, things start to change, i.e. Mongols were overpopulated so started conquering, same the Vikings, etc. Even today you see the USA getting lazier because they sit on so much resources while China is growing more and more because of necessity
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/13/2012
Posts: 32,832
|
Anyways if you love history as I do and love strategy games, I suggest you to try Europa Univeralis IV, so you can learn history while having fun!
http://www.europauniversalis4.com/
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2012
Posts: 20,576
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MaRy
Anyways if you love history as I do and love strategy games, I suggest you to try Europa Univeralis IV, so you can learn history while having fun!
http://www.europauniversalis4.com/
|
Lol I play that game all the time. I actually really like history.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 2,037
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CoolestPerson12
Historically speaking. Countries in colder climates had less resources. Because of that they were constantly looking for more things to gain. Countries in warmer climates, even great empires like China, Egypt, Rome and so on fell do to laziness and lack of interest in other areas (Rome fell due to sheer laziness and corruption including invasions from Germanic tribes who happened to inhibit colder areas). Europe rose in power because they had little space, little resources, and capitalist tendencies brought from Christianity and the Black Plague.
So really, Europe had very little while Africa, Asia, and the pre-colonial Americas had too much. The unequal distribution cause exploitation, and a need to explore. So really, the Europeans just werent lazy.
|
So you're saying people in tropical places like Africa are/were lazy. Interesting 
|
|
|
|
|