Print Page | Close Window

Europeans: what they brought to the Americas?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Americas to 1825
Forum Description:
Moderators: WH Moderators

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=126855
Printed Date: 24 Sep 2019 at 00:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Europeans: what they brought to the Americas?
Posted By: pinguin
Subject: Europeans: what they brought to the Americas?
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2011 at 23:21
What the Europeans brought to the Americas?

If somebody says they brought civilization, religion or writing it would be wrong. Those things existed already in the Americas. In the New World there were ships, bridges, stonework, metalurgy, poetry, music, empires, accounting, bells, paper, textiles, toothfillings, concave mirrors for lighting fires, and even the zero and the golden rate were known.

So, the question is, what really brought the Europeans to the Americas that was something new, and that contributed to development? I have a list on here, and let's see if you can make it longer.

(1) New vegetables, particularly wheat and rice, that made food more available. Lettuces, onions, cabbage, grapes, olives and many other produce came from the old world as well.

(2) New animals that revolutionazed farming and transport: horse, the mule (the 4WD of ancient times) which worked harder than a llama, the cow that provided lot of meat and milk (animal milk was unknown in the Americas, together with cheese, yogurt and derivatives), the sheep, that made fiber production cheaper, the goat that produced milk and meat, and the ox which was a heavy duty animal for works that requiered force.

(3) Iron. That was the single metal that impacted the most in the Americas.

(4) Cheap paper. The European methods copied from the Chinese allowed for mass producing paper. In the Americas there was amate paper in some regions of Mesoamerica, but it was produced in small scale.

(5) The alphabet. This method of writing was a lot superior to the memorizing devices of the Iroquos wampun, or the Inca quipus, and it was also a lot simpler than Maya writing. The phonetic alphabet also allowed to transcribe native languages and therefore to record theirs tought early on.

(6) The arch. The single more important invention introduced by the Europeans in architecture it was the arch, unknown in the Americas. This allowed in colonial times the development of aqueducts following the roman model.

(7) The galeon. In the Americas there were large dugout canoes and balsa rafts driven by sails, but there wasn't anything such as the European ship technology, with complex sails and rudders. A technology that took thousand of years to develop in Eurasia and that was unknown in the Americas.

(8) The wheel. The wheel was known in Mesoamerica, but was used only in toys. The Europeans spread the use of the wheel in transport.

(9) Codified law. It was unknown in the Americas.

(10) Gunpowder. Unknown in the Americas, changed war.



Replies:
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2011 at 04:18
I don't think i have much to add. Basically, it was more advanced technology that the existing one that was imported.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2011 at 10:36
Yes, Europeans had more technology, but it wasn't as advanced as today at all. Europe at the 15th century wasn't really a technological society as we imagine now, but a Middle Ages society with all its virtues and backwardeness.
Of course, things such as watches, trigonometry and printing may have been thousand of years ahead of what was known in the Americas, and in those case the cultural impact on natives would have been shocking.
By the way, Europeans also brought certain key institutions, such as the university. The first in the New World was founded in Hispaniola, today's Dominican Republic.




Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 03:59
Yeah I mean Europeans weren't doing much in the late 1400's 1500's at all besides a little thing called the Renaissance.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 04:25
Interesting oppinion but Italians stayed in Italy. Other Europeans started the colonization of the Americas with Middle Ages technology. At least at the beginnings.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 05:10
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Interesting oppinion but Italians stayed in Italy.
If all the Italians had stayed in Italy, America wouldn't be called America.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 06:29
Sure. Parts of Italy were sort of Spanish colonies at the time. But don't forget a German called it that way.


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 10:55
again you fail to see what I mean when I hinted at Renaissance. It did not just affect Italy, it affected all of Europe and created the Northern Renaissance. If you want I can list all of the contributions that the Renaissance has made to this world. I am sure most members here know what I am talking about so there is no reason to rant.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 11:15
Fellow. "Renaissance" is just  construct developed by Italians to make people believe something interesting happened in arts there at the 16th century that changed the world.
In fact, it forgets the between that 12th and the 14th century there was a more interesting technological and intellectual "renaissance" in Europe that was the basis of the age of discovery and the scientific and industrial revolution. For instance, the Mechanical clock, the rudder and Alhazen's optics appeared together with the Divine Comedy, Roger Bacon works and the Mio Cid, lot of time before a buch of lazy Italian artist sough fame in Italy.

Finally, it was the Age of Discovery what changed the world and produced subproducts such as the "renaissance"


Posted By: Harburs
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 11:22
Democracy!Big smile! Amerindians used to beat their wives and treat them like slavesConfused, now all of them live peacefully in jungle. Please stay backward, don't make more dams and save the indigenous life style.


-------------
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 22:31
Then we must not forget all the negative contributions that were brought by the europeans. Many diseases that was unheard of in the precolumbian world did wreac havoc among the native populations. War in a larger scale and with new weapons did also take its toll, as slavery in a large and devastating scale. Also forced christianisation and deculturation was gifts that destroyed native lives and lifeways.


Posted By: bagrat
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2011 at 23:45
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Then we must not forget all the negative contributions that were brought by the europeans. Many diseases that was unheard of in the precolumbian world did wreac havoc among the native populations.
 
Only too true, but there is some sweet revenge!
The Americas gave the rest of the world tobacco and tomatoes, and when the final reckoning comes on the day of judgement, we'll see what the more deadly presents were, syphillis and TB, or Cigarettes and Pizzas.
 
As for Pinguin's contributions, I don't know where even to start! Life's too short to go into all the anachronistic and simply fallacious details.
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

Fellow. "Renaissance" is just  construct developed by Italians to make people believe something interesting happened in arts there at the 16th century that changed the world.
In fact, it forgets the between that 12th and the 14th century there was a more interesting technological and intellectual "renaissance" in Europe that was the basis of the age of discovery and the scientific and industrial revolution. For instance, the Mechanical clock, the rudder and Alhazen's optics appeared together with the Divine Comedy, Roger Bacon works and the Mio Cid, lot of time before a buch of lazy Italian artist sough fame in Italy.

Finally, it was the Age of Discovery what changed the world and produced subproducts such as the "renaissance"
 
Renaissance was not just an artistic , invented by lazy Italians over an espresso and a fag, but
a cultural phenomenon, triggered by social and economical changes in Italy and the rest of Europe, that encompassed new directions in philosophical, scientific and political etc. thinking, and the new intellectual ideas got subsequently expressed in in the literary and visuell arts.
Ever heard of the scientific enterprises of a certain Leonardo da Vinci, another lazy Italian?
I leave the last word to the great Blackadder: "To you,..., the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"
 

 
 


-------------
Believe me: eternity in the company of Beelzebub, and all his hellish instruments of death, will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me... and this pencil...


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 00:31
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Then we must not forget all the negative contributions that were brought by the europeans. Many diseases that was unheard of in the precolumbian world did wreac havoc among the native populations. War in a larger scale and with new weapons did also take its toll, as slavery in a large and devastating scale. Also forced christianisation and deculturation was gifts that destroyed native lives and lifeways.
 
Sure. I never expected a possitive oppinion in this topic.
With respect to christianisation, remember that for many peoples it was something possitive. Christianisation meant to be integrated to the mainstream, to have access to writing and the european culture, and to for many societies it was the end of the bloody tradition of the human sacrifices.
So, don't be one sided. Christianisation also brought progress to the norse. Without the monks nobody would have wrote the sagas. Think about it.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 05:12
Originally posted by bagrat bagrat wrote:

Renaissance was not just an artistic , invented by lazy Italians over an espresso and a fag, but
a cultural phenomenon, triggered by social and economical changes in Italy and the rest of Europe, that encompassed new directions in philosophical, scientific and political etc. thinking, and the new intellectual ideas got subsequently expressed in in the literary and visuell arts.
Ever heard of the scientific enterprises of a certain Leonardo da Vinci, another lazy Italian?
I leave the last word to the great Blackadder: "To you,..., the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"
 
 
Sure, the renaissance has quite a prestige on the artistic biassed minds. In any case, the European booming started a lot earlier, about the 12th century, when engineering techniques and new phylosophical tendencies changed the society. From that time are most of the gear Europeans brought to the Americas, such as astrolabes, clocks, firearms, ironwork, paper and the rudder. And those practical things weren't invented by Da Vinci. This later guy was a dreammer but he created very few practical things.


Posted By: bagrat
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 05:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Sure, the renaissance has quite a prestige on the artistic biassed minds. In any case, the European booming started a lot earlier, about the 12th century, when engineering techniques and new phylosophical tendencies changed the society. From that time are most of the gear Europeans brought to the Americas, such as astrolabes, clocks, firearms, ironwork, paper and the rudder.
Indeed, that's why some historians call it the 12th century "renaissance". 
Of course, the 15th century "renaissance" didn't grow in a vacuum, but as all such periods of social, political and cultural revolutions evolved out of previous ones. Its undoubtable achievements were thus prepared by phenomena as the 12th century changes, and after a few drawbacks, finally culminated in the 15th century.


-------------
Believe me: eternity in the company of Beelzebub, and all his hellish instruments of death, will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me... and this pencil...


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2011 at 12:52
Yes, but people forgets that the renaissance was an effect of the Age of Discovery and not the other way around. The renaissance was mainly an artistic and humanistic movement, that had no much to do with the technology, which is the topic of this thread.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2011 at 00:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Sure. I never expected a possitive oppinion in this topic.
With respect to christianisation, remember that for many peoples it was something possitive. Christianisation meant to be integrated to the mainstream, to have access to writing and the european culture, and to for many societies it was the end of the bloody tradition of the human sacrifices.
 
Let us not exaggerate the positive consequences of christianization. For many peoples it also meant a desintegration of their society and lifeways, it meant a weakened psychological resistance against being displaced from their land, assimilated and in some cases brought into serfdom or enslavement. Also the western civilisation brought a lot of violence in a larger scale that replaced or enlarged older feuds and conflicts.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 So, don't be one sided. Christianisation also brought progress to the norse. Without the monks nobody would have wrote the sagas. Think about it.
 
Actually writing did exist already in pre christian Scandinavia, and noone knows if the writing down of old sagas would not  sooner or later have taken place also in a pagan context.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2011 at 04:57
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
Let us not exaggerate the positive consequences of christianization. For many peoples it also meant a desintegration of their society and lifeways, it meant a weakened psychological resistance against being displaced from their land, assimilated and in some cases brought into serfdom or enslavement. Also the western civilisation brought a lot of violence in a larger scale that replaced or enlarged older feuds and conflicts.


Let's not exagerate the negative consequences of Christianization. Just imagine if the Norse would have continue to be the savages of the Middle Ages forever.
 
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
Actually writing did exist already in pre christian Scandinavia, and noone knows if the writing down of old sagas would not  sooner or later have taken place also in a pagan context.


If you can call "writing" the runa scratching.... Yes, just imagine how scandinavia, the british islands and Northern Europe would be if the Norse, the Celts and the Germans wouldn't be domesticated by the Christian monks. God save St Patrick!




Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2011 at 21:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Let's not exagerate the negative consequences of Christianization. Just imagine if the Norse would have continue to be the savages of the Middle Ages forever.

Unfortunately the christianisation led to the demise of whole cultures in many corners of the world (especially in your own continent) and in some cases it contributed to the extinction of whole peoples. It is not an exaggeration, it actually did happen.
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

If you can call "writing" the runa scratching....

The rune scratching had the same roots as the writings of the monks.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes, just imagine how scandinavia, the british islands and Northern Europe would be if the Norse, the Celts and the Germans wouldn't be domesticated by the Christian monks. God save St Patrick!

Ofcourse Northern Europe would have changed and developed also without christianity, even if one can only speculate about the result of such a change. Nothing says that the end result had to be any more violent than the christian world became.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2011 at 04:02
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Unfortunately the christianisation led to the demise of whole cultures in many corners of the world (especially in your own continent) and in some cases it contributed to the extinction of whole peoples. It is not an exaggeration, it actually did happen.


Absolutely ridiculous. If anything the christian priests prevented a worst disaster. Your finger pointing is pathetic.

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:


Ofcourse Northern Europe would have changed and developed also without christianity, even if one can only speculate about the result of such a change. Nothing says that the end result had to be any more violent than the christian world became.


Wait for a while. Northern Europe is becomming muslim now. I bet in a couple of centuries, when all women in Europe walk under burkas,Wink you'll miss christianity.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2011 at 06:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Interesting oppinion but Italians stayed in Italy. Other Europeans started the colonization of the Americas with Middle Ages technology. At least at the beginnings.
 
Italians stayed in Italy? Given two interesting facts, 1) there was no "Italy" and 2) the names of Colombo, Vespucci, Verazzano and a long list of mercantile entrepeneurs become a bit difficult to explain, with an inescapable colophon (the principalities of the Italian peninsula were adjuncts of imperial Spain) I really wonder what all of this is really about.
 
Or have some forgotten that many a clergyman in the colonial history of the Americas were "Italians" as in the instances of Eusebio Chino and Giovanni Crespi.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2011 at 08:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes, but people forgets that the renaissance was an effect of the Age of Discovery and not the other way around. The renaissance was mainly an artistic and humanistic movement, that had no much to do with the technology, which is the topic of this thread.





Well The printing press was invented during the Renaissance, and we all know the impact that has made on the world.

people also forget that the Renaissance was not just centered in Italy, there was a Northern Renaissance as well. Renaissance was not just a thing for some so-called "Lazy Italians" to be part of, it included all of Europe.

and as the person posted above that Italians have played a very large role in the discovery of the Americas this is true. People like Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci, the very name in which the Americas gets it's name.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2011 at 08:58
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:


Well The printing press was invented during the Renaissance, and we all know the impact that has made on the world.
.


Give me a break. Printing is Chinese


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2011 at 22:07
Depends what you mean by printing.
 
The printing press developed by Gutenberg for the first time made mass production possible and therefore books much much more accessible.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 03:37
There were many models of the printing press. The Gutenberg printing press is just the most famous of them.

-------------
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 05:19
Let us not be arcane here. "Printing" fabrics has a hoary history and "movable type" as well but nowhere were several techniques with long usage brought together for the efficient dissemination of information as with the refinements perfected by Gutenberg and their consequent rapid dispersion. Quibble all you might desire, the summation found in the link below raises all of the salient points.
 
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/printpress.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/printpress.htm


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 06:06
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Depends what you mean by printing.
 
The printing press developed by Gutenberg for the first time made mass production possible and therefore books much much more accessible.


Gutenberg applied the wine press to printing, and developed the lead movable types, which isn't a small achievement. But mass produced books were printed in China and Korea long time before him.


Posted By: SPQR
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 06:40
But we are talking about Europe here aren't we... we can agree that the written word had a big impact on Europe. One example of how the printing press made a huge splash was the Protestant Reformation. All from a simple piece of paper nailed to a door listing a few grievances.

-------------
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 06:59
Indeed. We are talking about what Europe brought to the Americas, either locally invented, improved or just carried.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 07:09
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Depends what you mean by printing.
 
The printing press developed by Gutenberg for the first time made mass production possible and therefore books much much more accessible.


Gutenberg applied the wine press to printing, and developed the lead movable types, which isn't a small achievement. But mass produced books were printed in China and Korea long time before him.
 
Incorrect since the term "mass produced" is not only inapplicable but does not recognize the limitations of Chinese script with respect to production in "mass" numbers. That factor is recognized by all historians not wielding some sort of argumentative axe:
 
http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/blockprint.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/blockprint.htm


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 07:53
Irrelevant. Block printing was easier to print chinese that movable type.

Look at your own source:

888 The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, was the first dated example of block printing.
1041 Bi Sheng in China invented movable clay type
1423 Europeans use xylography (art of engraving on wood, block printing) to produce books.
1440 Gutenberg completed his wooden press which used movable metal type.

Chinese were using block printing since 888 AD, at least, to mass produce papers, books, bills, cards and everything else. This was 6 centuries before the famous Gutenberg. By 1423 Europeans were also printing books with xylography, and that was 20 years before Gutenberg, too.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 11:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Irrelevant. Block printing was easier to print chinese that movable type.

Look at your own source:

888 The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, was the first dated example of block printing.
1041 Bi Sheng in China invented movable clay type
1423 Europeans use xylography (art of engraving on wood, block printing) to produce books.
1440 Gutenberg completed his wooden press which used movable metal type.

Chinese were using block printing since 888 AD, at least, to mass produce papers, books, bills, cards and everything else. This was 6 centuries before the famous Gutenberg. By 1423 Europeans were also printing books with xylography, and that was 20 years before Gutenberg, too.
 
Either you need new reading glasses Pinguin or your reading comprehension fails you when you attempt English.
 
You obviously do not grasp the problems of incising wood with Chinese characters and then the actual numbers of copies those blocks can produce before they simply become blots; hence, cease all of this nonsense over "mass production". Further "block" printing was done in Europe on fabrics long before the 15th century. But, like a child emanoured of his rubber ducky, you are intent on having this one keep you company in that vat of ink you are splashing so as to play Peck's Bad Boy. The link I posted explains in detail why you are wrong while at the same time giving a proper historical perspective so quit all the jiggling it's not becoming until someone finally turns you into flapper's boa! 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: bagrat
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2011 at 22:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Wait for a while. Northern Europe is becomming muslim now. I bet in a couple of centuries, when all women in Europe walk under burkas,Wink you'll miss christianity.
 
Now, let me think a moment, where have I heard this dross before? Wasn't there something up in Norway, where this argument was used ... for something?
Can't remember!
 
I don't even want to talk about the demographic, I presume that was what you were referring to, impossibilities, but this whole argument proposes that 1. Isalm is a monolithic, and as you describe it, fundamentalist belief system and 2. that it will not, as other religions did, grow into a rather nominal faith, based on cultural traditions rather than on adherence to doctrinal beliefs.
Haven't the recent and current secular developments in the Arabic states demonstrated that fundamentalism is and was always nothing more than a minority view in Islam, and that it is on its way out as a political factor?
 


-------------
Believe me: eternity in the company of Beelzebub, and all his hellish instruments of death, will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me... and this pencil...


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 00:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Either you need new reading glasses Pinguin or your reading comprehension fails you when you attempt English.


No amount of retoric can hide the fact that you have a problem with logic.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


You obviously do not grasp the problems of incising wood with Chinese characters and then the actual numbers of copies those blocks can produce before they simply become blots; hence, cease all of this nonsense over "mass production".


For instance, that deduction is absurd.
You can continue with all the absurd pseudo-funny and pseudo-reasoned bashing which is yours style. But the simple fact is you, doc JUMP to conclusions.

Let me put you in evidence.

(1) Do you know HOW MANY copies of block printed books circulated in China, centuries before Gutemberg?

(2) Do you know the techniques Chinese used to mass produce books?

Yours mistake was to assume Chinese used "wood" to print large runs of books or bills. In fact, wood xerigraphy was used to print delicate things, such as on silk.

Remember, Chinese were mass printing bills at that time, and that's heavy duty work. They also had, in same temples, stones where students could put ink and press a paper on it to take a copies of the books required for the imperial exams. That's a early ancestor of the photocopy LOL

(3) For large runs, Chinese used stones! That's what you didn't know.



Just imagine how many copies of the I Ching or the Tao Te King you can print using stones!






Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 00:12
Originally posted by bagrat bagrat wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Wait for a while. Northern Europe is becomming muslim now. I bet in a couple of centuries, when all women in Europe walk under burkas,Wink you'll miss christianity.
 
Now, let me think a moment, where have I heard this dross before? Wasn't there something up in Norway, where this argument was used ... for something?
Can't remember!
 
I don't even want to talk about the demographic, I presume that was what you were referring to, impossibilities, but this whole argument proposes that 1. Isalm is a monolithic, and as you describe it, fundamentalist belief system and 2. that it will not, as other religions did, grow into a rather nominal faith, based on cultural traditions rather than on adherence to doctrinal beliefs.
Haven't the recent and current secular developments in the Arabic states demonstrated that fundamentalism is and was always nothing more than a minority view in Islam, and that it is on its way out as a political factor?


It may be, but I bet Carcha undestand the argument very well. He assumes that Christianity destroyed the pristine society of the Norse. Remember? That of the Runes, beautiful art and poetry, the Viking pirates and human sacrifices. According to him Christianity not only destroyed theirs culture, but that of the Native Americans as well, and anywhere Christianity went, it destroyed those cultures.

I know that Islam is not a monolythic culture, and I also know that certain primitive and pagan cultures were absorved into Islam, and are those what are causing problems in the West. For instance, women discrimination, Burkas and female circumcition are all of them pre-Islamic custums.
However, the muslims that migrate to Europe and that bring shocking customs come mainly from backward regions where people has low level of education, such as Afganistan or Somalia.  And certainly, mentioning them to some Europeans is likely to scare them a lot. It is the classical encouter between the civilized and the rustic, and I don't think Islam has much to do with it at all.

In fact, as Hispanic, we have a lot of knowledge about Middle Ages' Islam in Iberia, and we have learn to appreciate the possitives of it, but at the same time, we know not all the muslims have the same degree of education. It is quite difficult to compare a Westernized Turk with a Pakistani fundamentalist, or an upper class Arab with a backwards nomade of the deserts of Africa or Asia. But for Europeans, Muslims are the new menace, so I just played with Carcha.

That's why I used them to scare Carcha, trying to say: "Don't blame so much Christians that It could be worst".











Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 02:42
You are ludicrous, Pinguin, since you do not grasp what is meant by Mass Production and one must wonder how you visualize thousands of stone wielding peasants busy at printing currecy! Of course, by now everyone has to be accustomed to the hilarious hyperbole that is your hallmark. Just think "China" and then distinguish between plates...Noritake anyone?

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 03:02
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

You are ludicrous, Pinguin, since you do not grasp what is meant by Mass Production and one must wonder how you visualize thousands of stone wielding peasants busy at printing currecy! Of course, by now everyone has to be accustomed to the hilarious hyperbole that is your hallmark. Just think "China" and then distinguish between plates...Noritake anyone?


Please, try to apply logic instead of retoric. Of course, Chinese mass printed bills and books such as the I Ching centuries before Europeans. It is pathetic you try to give Gutenberg the merit of mass producing books, when it is known Chinese made it first. Of course, it is just your eurocentrism which blinds you.

What's next? Saying that Bacon invented gunpowder? LOL

I am amazed you can't understand quite simple thing. I child would do better.




Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 05:28
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

You are ludicrous, Pinguin, since you do not grasp what is meant by Mass Production and one must wonder how you visualize thousands of stone wielding peasants busy at printing currecy! Of course, by now everyone has to be accustomed to the hilarious hyperbole that is your hallmark. Just think "China" and then distinguish between plates...Noritake anyone?


Please, try to apply logic instead of retoric. Of course, Chinese mass printed bills and books such as the I Ching centuries before Europeans. It is pathetic you try to give Gutenberg the merit of mass producing books, when it is known Chinese made it first. Of course, it is just your eurocentrism which blinds you.

What's next? Saying that Bacon invented gunpowder? LOL

I am amazed you can't understand quite simple thing. I child would do better.
 
You are hopeless! It's as if you inhabit your own Wonderland and fashion definitions for the sake of pubescent stroking! Your logic is jabberwocky and boy can you jabber on and on and on over the silliest nonsense as you demand that terms with fixed meanings must conform to your absurdities.
 
Go sell the Chinese some copper they're in need of the metal for the making of photogravure plates...and while you are at it print out a few propaganda broadsides proclaiming the Death of Communism through Communications!


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 06:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
You are hopeless! It's as if you inhabit your own Wonderland and fashion definitions for the sake of pubescent stroking! Your logic is jabberwocky and boy can you jabber on and on and on over the silliest nonsense as you demand that terms with fixed meanings must conform to your absurdities.


And you never give up, Mr. Always-Right! LOL

 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
Go sell the Chinese some copper they're in need of the metal for the making of photogravure plates...and while you are at it print out a few propaganda broadsides proclaiming the Death of Communism through Communications!


Sure, when you have no arguments you start to babbling as a small child. Mature, doc. Recognize when you are wrong, that is quite often.

Fact: Chinese mass produced books centuries before Europeans. I already shown you they used stone xylography, something you didn't think about it, which is a technique that allowed to print thousand of copies without problem. You were WRONG! Live with it.




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 06:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Please, try to apply logic instead of retoric. Of course, Chinese mass printed bills and books such as the I Ching centuries before Europeans. It is pathetic you try to give Gutenberg the merit of mass producing books, when it is known Chinese made it first. Of course, it is just your eurocentrism which blinds you.
But applying rhetoric is all you ae doing there with your 'of course' and 'it is known'. At least drgonzaga supplied an authoritative - seeming chronology. If you're suggesting it is wrong you should provide some reasoning for it being wrong. In partixular you need to substantiate that 'mass production' of books in China. they cetainly didn't do it with block printing whether of wood tablets or metal ones (which afaik would have been in Korea anyway). They wear out too fast and it's way too cumberome to keep resetting them.
 
In fact China has always suffered from the diffiulty of learning to read the glyphs.
[/QUOTE]

What's next? Saying that Bacon invented gunpowder? LOL
[/QUOTE]
Probably not, but much more to the point, the English didn't invent ships, but they did invent the techinques of anaylsing a ship's construction on paper, which made it possible to make multiple copies of them. Americans didn't invent the car but they did invent the assembly line making it possible to mass produce them.
Quote
I am amazed you can't understand quite simple thing. I child would do better.
 
You don't appear to understand the point being made, or qat keast you don't have any argument to support you.


[/QUOTE]


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 06:42
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But applying rhetoric is all you ae doing there with your 'of course' and 'it is known'. At least drgonzaga supplied an authoritative - seeming chronology. If you're suggesting it is wrong you should provide some reasoning for it being wrong. In partixular you need to substantiate that 'mass production' of books in China. they cetainly didn't do it with block printing whether of wood tablets or metal ones (which afaik would have been in Korea anyway). They wear out too fast and it's way too cumberome to keep resetting them.
 
In fact China has always suffered from the diffiulty of learning to read the glyphs.


But learning ideograms is not the point. Yes, they have always suffering from the difficulties of reading, but by the 12th century millons of Chinese read.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Probably not, but much more to the point, the English didn't invent ships, but they did invent the techinques of anaylsing a ship's construction on paper, which made it possible to make multiple copies of them. Americans didn't invent the car but they did invent the assembly line making it possible to mass produce them.


Sure, but this is not the same case with printing. The doctor seemed to believe there was a relation between movable types and mass producing books. That maybe correct in the West, but not in China. The doc believed Chineses only had wood xylography, which of course is not enough to print large numbers of books. But Chinese resorted to stone xylography to print the classics and other mass produced works.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


You don't appear to understand the point being made, or qat keast you don't have any argument to support you.


I do understand.

Now, with respect to sources, you can follow this link. Here you will find out that mass produced prints were done very early in China.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab78" rel="nofollow - http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab78





Posted By: Pelantaro
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 11:19

Don’t forget that European brought to the Americas, includes: capitalism, western political ideas, (such a predatory individualism) and Christianity. Most destructive of all they brought disease that ravages the Indians, one of the main reasons of the defeat of the Indians in the America, was disease smallpox killed the native population.



-------------
Pelantaro from the Nahuelbuta


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 11:28
Yes, smallpox affected the native population, but not enough to defeat it. Mapuches, for instance, lost a large part of theirs population, but recovered and continue fighting, up to the time the invader received a kick in the butt. The irony is that the descendants of the own Spaniards that conquered Chile defeated the evil empire, ruled by the cross and the silver coin, by profit and foundamentalism.

Today savage capitalism is under control, but we still has to get rid of Christianity. That's a long way to go. Wink


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 15:22
At last we get to the crux of the matter and it is the sama yada yada, courtesy of the Penguinated iceberg that freezes all into the outre mind-set of the ideologue crystallizing his favored sugary sop. Earlier he had produced a link about his Chinese fixation that spent more time emphasizing the intricacies of Gutenberg and underscoring the major differences in his refinements with all that went before yet he used it as a substantive to his fantasy over mass production. Well he could always angle for a position in the propaganda division of the Chines embassy in Chile, were it not for the fact that the Chinese woukd be a bit queasy about his logic.
What did the "Europeans" bring to the Americas? In a brief word: Integration--a crash course on modernity and the absorption of the isolated onto the world stage. All else is but simple verbiage emphasizing current political blather expressed entirely in the languages and ideologies of the West. Pretty soon we will have the Penguin emphasizing the need to "return" to Pachamama and subsistence agrarianism...perhaps by then he will have made peace with Carch, the post above certainly provides a hint to that outcome!

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2011 at 16:35
Gutenberg refinaments could be cute, but that matters to the history of Europe only, given that China was centuries ahead of the West in mass producing printing books. You can still light candles to St. Gutenberg if you wish, but you haven't link his inventions to mass production of books, but in Europe. Anyways, that was another topic, given the fact European printing presses were very few in the Americas, for centuries, and the impact of that invention happened very late in the region.

I already mentioned a list of the things, I believe, Europeans brought to the Americas. If you didn't read it, I will copy it at the end of this post.

With respect to "integration", in a certain sense that's true. However, the price payed for that kind of integration was too high. Integration under the boot was what happened in the Americas. Anyways, that was not the topic. The contributions of the Europeans to the Americas were at least these. If you have more ideas about contributions, please extend the list.


1) New vegetables, particularly wheat and rice, that made food more available. Lettuces, onions, cabbage, grapes, olives and many other produce came from the old world as well.

(2) New animals that revolutionazed farming and transport: horse, the mule (the 4WD of ancient times) which worked harder than a llama, the cow that provided lot of meat and milk (animal milk was unknown in the Americas, together with cheese, yogurt and derivatives), the sheep, that made fiber production cheaper, the goat that produced milk and meat, and the ox which was a heavy duty animal for works that requiered force.

(3) Iron. That was the single metal that impacted the most in the Americas.

(4) Cheap paper. The European methods copied from the Chinese allowed for mass producing paper. In the Americas there was amate paper in some regions of Mesoamerica, but it was produced in small scale.

(5) The alphabet. This method of writing was a lot superior to the memorizing devices of the Iroquos wampun, or the Inca quipus, and it was also a lot simpler than Maya writing. The phonetic alphabet also allowed to transcribe native languages and therefore to record theirs tought early on.

(6) The arch. The single more important invention introduced by the Europeans in architecture it was the arch, unknown in the Americas. This allowed in colonial times the development of aqueducts following the roman model.

(7) The galeon. In the Americas there were large dugout canoes and balsa rafts driven by sails, but there wasn't anything such as the European ship technology, with complex sails and rudders. A technology that took thousand of years to develop in Eurasia and that was unknown in the Americas.

(8) The wheel. The wheel was known in Mesoamerica, but was used only in toys. The Europeans spread the use of the wheel in transport.

(9) Codified law. It was unknown in the Americas.

(10) Gunpowder. Unknown in the Americas, changed war.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2011 at 19:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Absolutely ridiculous. If anything the christian priests prevented a worst disaster. Your finger pointing is pathetic.

Unfortunately the missionaries contributed very much to the demise of native cultures and peoples. They were to a hight degree an integrated part of the colonialist enterprise and exploitation in the Americas.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 10:19
What culture do you want to save? The priests came to save souls; not to save survival lifestyles.
The areas were they had the strongest influences were usually the more backwards, and there they founded cities, churches and schools from scratch.

They didn't replace things such important as language, though. In fact, they helped to preserve many native languages and even today the Jesuit books are a source to the past of native peoples in the region. But, of course, the hunting gathering style was changed. I wouldn't miss that.






 


Posted By: UFG
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 06:46

Perhaps they imagined that stopping the culture of ritual sacrifice and cannibalism to be more important than preserving the cultures in toto.  It's fair to say the effects of the Spanish civilization were a mixed bag.

Overall, it's a template for what has transpired, in large part, with the meeting of aboriginal peoples and colonizers throughout history. That's a pretty good list imo, pinquin, derails and all.



-------------
No tats no chains, just the snub-nosed truth


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 09:26
Originally posted by UFG UFG wrote:

Perhaps they imagined that stopping the culture of ritual sacrifice and cannibalism to be more important than preserving the cultures in toto.  It's fair to say the effects of the Spanish civilization were a mixed bag.

Overall, it's a template for what has transpired, in large part, with the meeting of aboriginal peoples and colonizers throughout history. That's a pretty good list imo, pinquin, derails and all.



I can't argue against that, becouse you are right. The Spaniards buried the culture of ritual sacrifice.

In general, no matter theirs famous brutality and several crimes, the Spaniards were the Europeans that treated the Indigenous people the best. That's why Indigenous peoples are numerous in most of the Spanish Speaking countries, while in the rest they were exterminated and replaced either with Europeans or Blacks.







Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 04:04
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


In general, no matter theirs famous brutality and several crimes, the Spaniards were the Europeans that treated the Indigenous people the best. That's why Indigenous peoples are numerous in most of the Spanish Speaking countries, while in the rest they were exterminated and replaced either with Europeans or Blacks.


Indigenous peoples are more numerous in the Spanish speaking countries because they have always been more numerous there to begin with. Precolumbian population centers were Mesoamerica and the Andes, which also are the areas with the largest Indigenous population today.

Besides, the only country outside the Caribbean were the Indigenous people were completely wiped out was Uruguay.

Also the only indigenous kingdom that arose after 1492, the Miskito Kingdom on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua, did so under English protection. In fact, in that part of Nicaragua even today the people identify themselves with the English and consider the Spanish/Nicaraguans to be outsiders. Belize and Guyana aren't too fond of expansionist ambitions by their Hispanophone neighbors either.

Latin America needs to understand that imperialism is not an exclusively Anglo-Saxon thing, nor is everything Anglo-Saxons do in the Americans necessarily imperialist.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 11:40
Uruguay? Give me a break. Uruguayans do have Indigenous features and aspect, no matter than in a smaller proportion than in the rest of Spanish America. Also Cubans and Dominicans have quite a bit of indigenous ancestry, no matter than also in smaller proportion compared to the rest.

And the only people that identify with English in Spanish America are Blacks who descend from former slaves of the British. Those blacks english speaking minorities that are visible in Central America have never been integrated to the hispanic society, actually.

Latin America do understand that imperialism is not only an anglosaxon thing. But the fact is that the only people that keeps fooling around with imperialism TODAY are the anglosaxon!







Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 18:09

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  What culture do you want to save? The priests came to save souls; not to save survival lifestyles.
The areas were they had the strongest influences were usually the more backwards, and there they founded cities, churches and schools from scratch. 

The priests came as religious fanatics determined to destroy other peoples religious, ethical and cultural integrity. And much of the things they funded where in fact often nothing but glorified labor camps. That some of these slave camps developed into cities later is another matter. That often contributed even more to the demise and destruction of the indigenous population and the environment they once lived in.

And by the way, what is good with founding a church? Just some place where people are getting brainwashed into Christian superstition.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  They didn't replace things such important as language, though. In fact, they helped to preserve many native languages and even today the Jesuit books are a source to the past of native peoples in the region. But, of course, the hunting gathering style was changed. I wouldn't miss that.

Unfortunately the missionaries also destroyed such important parts of the native cultures as art, architecture, clothes (where healthy climate adapted clothes became replaced by unhealthy clothes in the name of prudery), adornment, structure of power, social relations, relations between the sexes (which were corrupted by the sexual phobias of the church) and ofcourse the original economic structures.



Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 18:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Uruguay? Give me a break. Uruguayans do have Indigenous features and aspect, no matter than in a smaller proportion than in the rest of Spanish America. Also Cubans and Dominicans have quite a bit of indigenous ancestry, no matter than also in smaller proportion compared to the rest.
 
That some traces of native DNA have survived in Uruguay do not mean that the natives have survived as a people or that their cultures have survived. For all practical purposes the natives in Uruguay actually were exterminated.
 
Just a little reminder what happened to the Charrua people of Uruguay:

Quote Following the arrival of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe" rel="nofollow - - European settlers, the Charrúa were progressively killed by or integrated into the prevailing colonial cultures.

Most of the remaining ones were massacred at Salsipuedes (literally "Get-out-if-you-can") Creek on 11 April 1831 by a group led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernab%C3%A9_Rivera" rel="nofollow - - Bernabé Rivera , nephew of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructuoso_Rivera" rel="nofollow - - Fructuoso Rivera who later became the first president of Uruguay. Bernabé Rivera had invited the Charrúa to a meeting, then ambushed them. Rivera's forces slew the men and enslaved the women and children. Only a few escaped this massacre. That massacre was followed four months later by another led by Rivera in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mataojo" rel="nofollow - - Mataojo .

Four surviving Charrúas were captured at Salsipuedes. They were Senaca, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_man" rel="nofollow - - medicine man ; Vaimaca-Piru, a warrior; and a young couple, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacuab%C3%A9" rel="nofollow - - Tacuabé and Guyunusa. All four were taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_France" rel="nofollow - - Paris, France in 1833, where they were exhibited to the public. They all soon died in France, including a baby daughter born to Tacuabé and Guyunsa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charr%C3%BAa_people#History" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charr%C3%BAa_people#History








Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 04:00
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:



Uruguay? Give me a break. Uruguayans do have Indigenous features and aspect, no matter than in a smaller proportion than in the rest of Spanish America. Also Cubans and Dominicans have quite a bit of indigenous ancestry, no matter than also in smaller proportion compared to the rest.

If Uruguayans having Charrua ancestors means Indigenous Uruguays aren't extinct then that means there are still Visigoths in Spain.

Ethnicities are rarely wiped out physically completely. So if an ethnicity is suppressed so much that a lot of their members dy and they culture, language, political organization goes extinct then for all practical purposes that ethnicity has been exterminated.

Quote And the only people that identify with English in Spanish America are Blacks who descend from former slaves of the British. Those blacks english speaking minorities that are visible in Central America have never been integrated to the hispanic society, actually.

Of course they haven't, why should they?

Quote Latin America do understand that imperialism is not only an anglosaxon thing. But the fact is that the only people that keeps fooling around with imperialism TODAY are the anglosaxon!


So, what territories did Britain imperialistically seize in Latin America after 1833?

Even if the original capture of the Falklands in 1833 was imperialist (which is pretty much irrelevant nowadays, every modern territorial demarcation is based on some kind of imperialism, conquest or occupation if you go back long enough), wanting to keep a territory you already rule, and with the overwhelming support of its inhabitants, doesn't have anything to do with imperialism. Trying to annex a territory against the will of its inhabitants is.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 04:55
Indeed, Argentina is the one being imperialist here.

-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 10:23
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

The priests came as religious fanatics determined to destroy (etc. etc. etc.... ) original economic structures.



Sorry. I don't argue with you anymore. You are a scratched vinyl Big smile




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 10:32
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


If Uruguayans having Charrua ancestors means Indigenous Uruguays aren't extinct then that means there are still Visigoths in Spain.


Indeed

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Ethnicities are rarely wiped out physically completely. So if an ethnicity is suppressed so much that a lot of their members dy and they culture, language, political organization goes extinct then for all practical purposes that ethnicity has been exterminated.


Exterminated means killed by violent means. The rest is stretching words. Not the Celts nor the Norse where exterminated when they become Christianized. The Celts again didn't change when other ethnic groups invaded the British isles.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Of course they haven't, why should they?


Theirs business. Who cares?

Quote Latin America do understand that imperialism is not only an anglosaxon thing. But the fact is that the only people that keeps fooling around with imperialism TODAY are the anglosaxon!


So, what territories did Britain imperialistically seize in Latin America after 1833?

Even if the original capture of the Falklands in 1833 was imperialist (which is pretty much irrelevant nowadays, every modern territorial demarcation is based on some kind of imperialism, conquest or occupation if you go back long enough), wanting to keep a territory you already rule, and with the overwhelming support of its inhabitants, doesn't have anything to do with imperialism. Trying to annex a territory against the will of its inhabitants is.[/QUOTE]

Sure. The British stopped in Latin America but the U.S. people followed the Anglosaxon destiny shortly after.

With respect to population, you got a point there, though, but the territory was legaly Argentinean when it was captured by Britain.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 11:29
The west coast of Canada saw an explosion of aboriginal culture ofter the first Euopean contact. The totem poles, ceremonial masks, ect, seen today were the product of iron tools, and did not exist in such form before contact. New food products also increased trade in the area (ie the Haida developed a long range trade in potatoes, something unknown before). After colonization, the continuous tribal wars of the region were brought to a halt, saving countless lives. This also meant the rule of law, meaning that one could wander outside their tribal territory, and not assume that their chances of being killed were fairly high.
 
As with all mass movements of people in history, there were both positive and negative aspects.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 11:35
I agree with you in your point. I lived in Saskatchewan, Canada, and I saw many Native Americans there, alive. I believe at least 10% of Canadian population is Native American, Mixed native American or has some Amerindian ancestry.

 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 02:21
Dose anyone know anything on the attempted Scottish colonization on Panama 


Posted By: KayKatz
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 05:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by bagrat bagrat wrote:

Renaissance was not just an artistic , invented by lazy Italians over an espresso and a fag, but
a cultural phenomenon, triggered by social and economical changes in Italy and the rest of Europe, that encompassed new directions in philosophical, scientific and political etc. thinking, and the new intellectual ideas got subsequently expressed in in the literary and visuell arts.
Ever heard of the scientific enterprises of a certain Leonardo da Vinci, another lazy Italian?
I leave the last word to the great Blackadder: "To you,..., the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?"
 
 
Sure, the renaissance has quite a prestige on the artistic biassed minds. In any case, the European booming started a lot earlier, about the 12th century, when engineering techniques and new phylosophical tendencies changed the society. From that time are most of the gear Europeans brought to the Americas, such as astrolabes, clocks, firearms, ironwork, paper and the rudder. And those practical things weren't invented by Da Vinci. This later guy was a dreammer but he created very few practical things.


Posted By: KayKatz
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 05:45
I have an artistic bias toward the Modern period of the arts (1860s onward) and still I can recognize the immense cultural changes to Europe through the Renaissance.

I find it frustrating that you continue to devalue the contribution of Europe to Western culture, even seem to take delight in so doing. Although continued bias towards Europe in scholarship I feel that it is being effectively challenged and there are many, many publications from European nations which also contest this view and seek to acknowledge the contributions of immigrants to the culture of their respective countries. It feels as though you are provoking simply to provoke, rather than state something no one has ever thought of before. I think scholarship is changing but I don't see why it necessitates dismissing all of Europe's accomplishments.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 05:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What the Europeans brought to the Americas?

If somebody says they brought civilization, religion or writing it would be wrong. Those things existed already in the Americas. In the New World there were ships, bridges, stonework, metalurgy, poetry, music, empires, accounting, bells, paper, textiles, toothfillings, concave mirrors for lighting fires, and even the zero and the golden rate were known.

So, the question is, what really brought the Europeans to the Americas that was something new, and that contributed to development? I have a list on here, and let's see if you can make it longer.

(1) New vegetables, particularly wheat and rice, that made food more available. Lettuces, onions, cabbage, grapes, olives and many other produce came from the old world as well.

(2) New animals that revolutionazed farming and transport: horse, the mule (the 4WD of ancient times) which worked harder than a llama, the cow that provided lot of meat and milk (animal milk was unknown in the Americas, together with cheese, yogurt and derivatives), the sheep, that made fiber production cheaper, the goat that produced milk and meat, and the ox which was a heavy duty animal for works that requiered force.

(3) Iron. That was the single metal that impacted the most in the Americas.

(4) Cheap paper. The European methods copied from the Chinese allowed for mass producing paper. In the Americas there was amate paper in some regions of Mesoamerica, but it was produced in small scale.

(5) The alphabet. This method of writing was a lot superior to the memorizing devices of the Iroquos wampun, or the Inca quipus, and it was also a lot simpler than Maya writing. The phonetic alphabet also allowed to transcribe native languages and therefore to record theirs tought early on.

(6) The arch. The single more important invention introduced by the Europeans in architecture it was the arch, unknown in the Americas. This allowed in colonial times the development of aqueducts following the roman model.

(7) The galeon. In the Americas there were large dugout canoes and balsa rafts driven by sails, but there wasn't anything such as the European ship technology, with complex sails and rudders. A technology that took thousand of years to develop in Eurasia and that was unknown in the Americas.

(8) The wheel. The wheel was known in Mesoamerica, but was used only in toys. The Europeans spread the use of the wheel in transport.

(9) Codified law. It was unknown in the Americas.

(10) Gunpowder. Unknown in the Americas, changed war.

What a first class post and thread starter.Clap


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 09:49
Lynn White writes about the medieval antecedents to the renaissance, the renaissance was/is amazing, but it could not have happened without several things coming together, such as the rediscovery of the ancient world.  Raphael goes tunneling in the catacombs, and sees ancient art that the medieval world couldn't do, (or was it at Herculaneum, I forget).

But, the thing that Europeans brought the most to the New World, was Europeans, and it was mainly just sheer demographic masses that overran the sparsely populated Indians, or conquered with superior firepower the civilizations already there.  Of course, the diseases of Eurasia and Africa did the lion's share of the work.  It must have seemed to the Indians like the world was ending.  And it did end, although the world goes on.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 13:54
The elephant in the room being disease, resulting in diminishing populations, starvation and death.

Indiginous Americans, having never been exposed to measles, and other minor ailments, were nevertheless devastated by them, literally dying in their millions. 

With them went the secrets of how they came to be so advanced in agriculture, architecture, astrology and many other sciences, compared to their North American counterparts, and indeed, many European populations of the time.

Whole cultures were wiped out by European massacres, enslavement and disease.

Read  http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/nativeamericanchron.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/nativeamericanchron.html


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2017 at 10:44
I think that it is part of the myth of the noble savage, to believe that the Indians were always the victims, and the settlers were always the perpetrators.  It is the same kind of belief that says that the Palestinians are noble, because they're picked on by the Israelis, or the Jews are noble, because they were picked on by the Nazis.  The fact is that being on the short end of the stick does not ennoble someone so much as often embitter them.  There is a difference between becoming ennobled and becoming weak.  Neither the ennobled or the weak take advantage of someone, but the reasons for them not doing so, are entirely different.  Weak is not the same thing as being moral, it is just being weak.  To properly be moral, one has to have the capacity to do help or harm, and the inclination or disinclination to engage in it, as the situation sees fit.  Someone who does not have the capacity, is neither moral, nor for that matter, immoral.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2017 at 13:46
You forgot to mention the dead people-massacred, murdered, killed deliberately. The vast majority of them, Indians or Native Americans.

There's not much nobility in being dead!


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2017 at 11:15
Disease killed most, disease, starvation, warfare, and then massacre, which the massacre by Indians, justified in the eyes of the Whites, the massacre of Indians.  As far as warfare is concerned, the Indians fought a loosing battle, but they generally weren't passive, until they were beat.

There might not be much nobility in being dead, but for some people they think there is nobility in dying.

But there are more Indians alive today, then there were when Columbus arrived, just a lot of other people too.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2017 at 09:45
Quote Disease killed most, disease, starvation, warfare, and then massacre.

None of which were beneficial to the indiginous people.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net