- This topic has 6 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Interesting document about how geography might explain historical supremacyWestern dominance? It's the history of geography[/i]http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/audioslideshow/2010/sep/17/western-dominance-history-geography
While I am not a true “determinist”, since many other things are also involved today, I do subscribed to the “influential” school of thought.Geography influences culture… culture influences history…. Geography is the stage, culture the players, history the play.
I watched/listened to the slideshow, and he doesn't really get into enough depth for me to understand his argument. From what he does state, however, I don't see how geography necessarily led to the Western advantage. Even if Chinese sailors had to travel twice as far as the British to conquer or trade, we could argue that this could have spurred the Chinese to develop their technology enough so as engage in trade with other nations. Or, we could say that Chinese isolation should have led to security, the growth of the sciences and arts, and so forth.I do think that there is something to be said for the advancement of civilizations and climate. Historically, we don't really see any superpowers in tropical or desert climates after the early ancient period.
One undeniable factor about innovation is that it generally evolves from need. Geography often determines need, which leads to innovation. If we look, for instance, at the Americas, we see that the Spanish had the countries with the best climates for agricultures, habitation and work, but it was North America which advanced. Why would places like Canada and the US gain the advantage when they faced such harsh winters? I think it has to do with their need to come up with innovative solutions to overcome the difficult conditions they had. This may be why Africa lags behind in technology. In any case, I think we can definitely say that geography influences history to a great extent. Whether it explains historical supremacy or not remains to be researched. I think we need to explore all the different elements that make up a culture to answer this question.
But if we talk about need when facing harsh conditions, how do we explain Africa, which also must have faced harsh conditions associated with drought, famine, etc.? Or even the Native Americans, who also faced the same conditions as the Colonists but didn't develop the same way as the Europeans.
geography influences history to a great extent. Whether it explains historical supremacy or not remains to be researched.
I think that statement is very true. We can say that the United States was aided by its semi-isolated location, away from the disrupting wars of Europe, and we can also say that the climate of America allowed it to produce some diverse cops and have diverse industries. But I do not think that in itself is a complete answer.
However in Mesoamerica: the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacano, the Zapotec, the Mixtec, the Aztec, and the Maya; and in South America: Norte Chico or Caral in Peru, and the Andean civilizations: Inca, Moche, Chibcha, and Ca?aris, and also the Mississippian culture of North America, which produced Cahokia (at its peak in AD 1250, the largest city north of Mexico) did develop great civilisations within a tropical environment … ???
I think that depends on your definition of “great”. Certainly, there were also significant civilizations in Africa, India, etc. But in regard to the civilizations in the Americas, did they contribute significantly to Western Civilization? Did they build institutions or contribute ideas that were enduring even after their collapse?
I think that depends on your definition of “great”. Certainly, there were also significant civilizations in Africa, India, etc. But in regard to the civilizations in the Americas, did they contribute significantly to Western Civilization? Did they build institutions or contribute ideas that were enduring even after their collapse?
Just referring to the concept of “nothing significant happened under the Tropics”. Of course a contribution's view only to the Western civilisation might seem insignificant; therefore let's just forget them ? >:(According to your post, those Mesoamerican and South American civilisations weren't great ? Tell me more.
I don't think I would agree that “nothing significant happened under the Tropics”, and I don't think I said that in any of my previous posts. It's simply that relative to one another, the areas where many technological advancements have been made, where military might has tended to be, etc. has not been in tropical or desert regions. Many of the poorer nations today lie closer to the equator than farther north of the equator. There are some exceptions to this but it generally holds true.I don't think this mean that we should “forget” warmer climate regions or that those places don't have their own histories to tell.
The Native tribes of the Americas introduce another aspect of culture that needs to be considered, which is the driving philosophy. If we look at China, we see that the culture is driven by ?face?. They seek to make money, but the overall goal is to have face. That?s why they don?t like anyone saying anything negative about them. The American culture is driven by capitalism, the European cultures by competitiveness, and the native tribes of the Americas had their different driving forces. Certainly, the ideology of being one with nature doesn?t propagate advances in technology the way some of the other driving forces do. Also, in the case of Africa, excessively relying on the supernatural to take care of problems has limited their advances. No culture is without any of these things, but we need to consider the significance they play in the different cultures. This goes along with geography and other concepts that lead to changes in history.
Themes of Geography:Location: where it's at… Absolute location = lat. and long.; Relative location, in terms of time, distance, and / or, direction from a known location.Place: what it's like there… based in “signature traits” of place: Physical traits = what nature put there (flora, fauna, topography,climatic elements, etc.); Cultural traits = man made, caused, or induced things present… crops, roads, cities, diversions of watercourses, etc.Interaction: what we do there… in terms of natural traits of place, how we interact with nature to “make a living” [used to be called human-environmental interactio] Movement: interaction between or among places… in terms of cultural traits; how “our place” (we) interacts with “other places” (them) nearby. The movement of people, ideas, goods, services, money, anything that can flow from one place to another demonstrates this concept.Region: an area that you can define… as being similar within the bounds you set or different fro that which is outside of the bounds you set. A “place can be in multiple overlapping regions. [sometimes a hard concept to grasp since the you determine the parameters of your region based on what you are studying.Hope this helps. ???
How did the US, Britain and the rest of Europe interrupt China reign of supremacy? It comes down to location.Why the West Rules – For Nowhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11721671
