 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
While territorial expansion is exceedingly common among many cultures it is not a universal trait, and culture has an immense amount to say about how it's done, whether it is done etc. Some cultures are forced to self-regulate because they are surrounded by terrain that limits expansion, or surrounded by cultures they cannot compete effectively with for territory (such as the Bushmen for instance). Some cultures support finding new lands to exploit, while others specialize in warfare and taking what they need as their population increases. |
MOst of those differences you imply are far more economic than cultural. For example,herding people's ususally have small populations and mobile forces- for them conquest is the obvious way to go, as they simply can;t compete evenly with others in the colonizing bit, specially since farming in the new areas would probably be more successful than a pastoral experience. To say the the lands nearby are not easy to exploit is to make a geographic and economic arguement. And the Bushmen come from such marginal lands that they never have had the resources or populations to do anything but survive.
quote:
Much of this fits into Diamond's thesis, but much does not. Some aggressive cultures have picked one fight too many and have been erased from the list of active peoples. Others such as the Japanese have proven to be so adaptable that they have been successful as insular island people, as a small counterweight to an enormous neighboring empire, as an empire in their own right and as one of the planets most successful trading people, all within the space of a few centuries. They don't seem to be a great example of geographic determinism to my mind, but rather nimble adapters of culture depending on the situation. |
Japan is not a small Island, and not that isolated either. Like Britian, it was more than large enough to develop a strong civilization, strong enough to ward of foreign invaders (helped here or there by random chance). Japan is actually a good example against "culture" as the driving force. After all, Japan followed China's example of closing itself of to the world, purging foreign influences, so forth, which put it at a horrible disadvantage by the time Perry came. Then Japan, without adopting any cultural traits from the west, but plenty of technology, made itself a world power. Japan did not become a world power by adopting western culture, only its tools to augment itself. The same culture that kept Japan isolated for 2 centuries made it leap to a great power.
quote:
I think that there is certainly some truth to Diamond's thesis, but he applies it far too broadly. He focuses solely on hardware and completely neglects software. |
The problem is this: 1. The capabilties of the software are based on the hardware. Software is designed for the hardware that exists, not the other way around. You can;t run Windows XP of a cell phone, so even before you start talking about who has what software, you have to know what software can be used.
2. Software does not make as much a difference as hardware when it comes to overall capabilties. Certainly it matters, but the huge difference between my computer today and mine 8 years ago have more to do with an 8 fold increase in RAM, a 15 fold increase in chip speed, a 40 fold increase plus is Hard drive space than the improvements between Windows 95 and XP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
Oh, poor Drakie pooh. Its the company you keep Potemkin. Next time you decide what someone like ER says is funny and declaring how much you like them, think (thought its not like you do that very much)
Now, since you are obviouly incapable of doing it (anymore than you know European geography, it seems)
Here is a nice link:
http://www.aems.uiuc.edu/HTML/Handout1.htm
Simple overview. Lets look at the most relevant quote:
quote:
In addition to admiring Western technology, the Japanese in power were very interested in Western ideals, such as progress, democracy, equality, and freedom, which they felt had made the West (particularly the United States) strong. They felt that their country could achieve its potential only if all of its people could achieve their potential. Thus, the terms, "civilization and enlightenment," referred to Japanese appreciation of Western culture and values. Japanese leaders were especially interested in Western culture and values in the early stages of the Meiji Period.
The following new social institutions appeared during the Meiji Period.They are listed in order of their appearance, which gives some indication of the priorities of the new government.
* modern educational system (1872)
* universal draft (military conscription, 1873)
* new economic institutions (land tax, banks, government offices, etc., mid-1870s to mid-1880s)
* Constitution and Diet (two-house parliament, 1889-1890)
|
This leads to the question, how are those ideas "Western Culture"? After all, " progress, democracy, equality, and freedom" were not part of the European value system in parituclar when Europe began to expand outwards. How many people would call those the values of Habsburg Spain, the European state that began the great wave of world conquest by Europeans? IN fact, those notions were the outcomes of thought in the 17th and 18th centuries, well aftyer Europe had already been set on the path to global domination.
None of those values really applied to Russia either, yet it was carving itself the largest land empire since the Mongols, and was one of the great European powers.
another quote:
quote:
As time went on, however, many intellectual and political leaders became increasingly negative about whether Western culture and values fit Japanese society. One prominent example of this questioning of Western ways was with regard to the position of women versus men. Although many Japanese women called on government leaders to grant greater freedom to women during this period of change, few prominent leaders believed that women should have rights equal to those of men. |
This gets to a deeper question: what was this "Japanese society"? Is that the true Japanese culture, with the other bits mentioned simply the technological superstructure on top of the true cultural basis?
Japan today is certainly one of the most modern states in the world when it comes to economics and technology. Its is an advanced Liberal democracy.
Is it then a Western country now?
Anyone who wants to tout the line "it is culture" that matters needs to answer that simple question- the question that has bedevilled countless modernizers since the beginning of the 20th century.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
obviously it took something different to achieve world power in the 19th/20the century, than it did in the 16th century. It would have been foolish of the Japanese to attempt to borrow the institutions of 16th c Spain, and to go out in search of Aztecs and Incas to conquer.
There are two relevant cultural questions about Japanese modernization
1. To what extent did Japan actually transform itself culturally in the process (whether we want to call this westernization, modernization, or something else)? My understanding is that real cultural change, in self perception, in ideas of innovation and technology, etc were significant, though the course was uneven, and even today Japan is still quite distinctive.
2. What was the role of pre-1870 Japanese culture in making possible the modernization, both in the sense of adopting new technologies, and being open to later cultural change? Some have said that Japan changed out of sheer necessity - though its hard to see that such changes were any less necessary for other pre-modern societies. Some have said that Japan historical receptivity to cultural influence from China made it more receptive to outside influences than other pre-modern societies - one could say that this too has geographic roots, in Japans geographic relationship to Chinese civilization - but that geographic relationship is MEDIATED by culture - it wasnt Japans geographic situaiton IN 1870 that was determinative. Alternatively, some say it was the structure of the Japanese polity that made transformation easier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
obviously it took something different to achieve world power in the 19th/20the century, than it did in the 16th century. It would have been foolish of the Japanese to attempt to borrow the institutions of 16th c Spain, and to go out in search of Aztecs and Incas to conquer. |
And yet Russia, certainly not in the Vanguard of Liberal thought, was itself one of the Great Powers.
quote:
There are two relevant cultural questions about Japanese modernization
1. To what extent did Japan actually transform itself culturally in the process (whether we want to call this westernization, modernization, or something else)? My understanding is that real cultural change, in self perception, in ideas of innovation and technology, etc were significant, though the course was uneven, and even today Japan is still quite distinctive.
2. What was the role of pre-1870 Japanese culture in making possible the modernization, both in the sense of adopting new technologies, and being open to later cultural change? Some have said that Japan changed out of sheer necessity - though its hard to see that such changes were any less necessary for other pre-modern societies. Some have said that Japan historical receptivity to cultural influence from China made it more receptive to outside influences than other pre-modern societies - one could say that this too has geographic roots, in Japans geographic relationship to Chinese civilization - but that geographic relationship is MEDIATED by culture - it wasnt Japans geographic situaiton IN 1870 that was determinative. Alternatively, some say it was the structure of the Japanese polity that made transformation easier. |
Well, you can ask that question of all the Asian Tigers and their growth lately.
Or even China. China's accent today has been incredible, yet has China really adopted any cultural change? Heck, The sauds got immensely rich and modern simply because they became fabulously wealth and could then buy anything, uncluding knowledge.
Or take Turkey, a land stepped in endless cultural exchange for the last 3000 years, a true crosswroads. The early leaders saw secularism as the great European value, and fought vs, islam as backwards. They succeeded to a certain degree, but Turkey is not today anything like the power she was in 1650.
One idea bandied about was that Europe's rise was based on its culture, but then, its culture in 1750, at least in various places, was not even its culture in 1550. So, how can we speak of "culture" when itself changes constantly, and rapidly?
And what drive these changes? Are they based on some internally decided mechanism (which is what you get into the second paragraph), or do they change because of concious political actions (Japan's change was obviously mandated top down), or economic realities?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"And yet Russia, certainly not in the Vanguard of Liberal thought, was itself one of the Great Powers. "
Of course the russian elite, from Peter the great through 1914, was heavily commited to westernization. Westernization != liberalization, necessarily, if you mean political liberalization. Catherine the Great certainly WAS commited to enlightment thought, though she did not follow through politically. Certainly most Russian political and military leaders were more open to administrative and technological reform than, say, the Ottomans, or China at the time. And, IIUC, to educational reform as well.
"well, you can ask that question of all the Asian Tigers and their growth lately. "
Ah, but they had lots of time, and the example of Japan. And to some extent, emulating Japan, a fellow asian, was easier. Ditto for China. The question of how Japan did it, with no local models, continues to the most interesting.
"Or even China. China's accent today has been incredible, yet has China really adopted any cultural change?"
Chinese have been wrestling with the question of cultural change since the 1920s and the May 4th movement, if not earlier. Certainly both the KMT regime and even more so the Communists destroyed many aspects of traditional Chinese culture, thus laying the ground work for post 1989 modernization. Where did the Confucian scholar elite go? Could Dengism had gotten under way if 80 years of revolution had not done them in?
"Or take Turkey, a land stepped in endless cultural exchange for the last 3000 years, a true crosswroads. The early leaders saw secularism as the great European value, and fought vs, islam as backwards. They succeeded to a certain degree, but Turkey is not today anything like the power she was in 1650."
Turkey is fascinating. Modernization was A. To some extent driven by religious minorities - some of the Young Turks, IIUC were either Jews, or descendants of a cryto-Jewish muslim group called the Donmeh. Turkish modernization AFTER 1918 is certainly impacted by a nationalist impulse to distance from arab culture, of which Islamic traditionalism was seen as a part.
"One idea bandied about was that Europe's rise was based on its culture, but then, its culture in 1750, at least in various places, was not even its culture in 1550. So, how can we speak of "culture" when itself changes constantly, and rapidly?"
One would have to look at the details at any given moment, as well as continuities. Politics and economics are also causal, yet they two change constantly and rapidly. Obviously culture (and politics, and economics) CANT provide a broad deterministic explanation the way either geography OR race can (in theory). Im not proposing an alternative deterministic explanation - im arguing against deterministic explanations in general. Just cause things are changing, doesnt reduce them to "accident" Change is the stuff of history.
"And what drive these changes? Are they based on some internally decided mechanism (which is what you get into the second paragraph), or do they change because of concious political actions (Japan's change was obviously mandated top down), or economic realities?"
Obviously these interrelate at different levels. Culture does have its own dynamics of change, I think. The political sphere can attempt to influence that, but is constrained in what mandated changes will "take"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course the russian elite, from Peter the great through 1914, was heavily commited to westernization. Westernization != liberalization, necessarily, if you mean political liberalization. Catherine the Great certainly WAS commited to enlightment thought, though she did not follow through politically. Certainly most Russian political and military leaders were more open to administrative and technological reform than, say, the Ottomans, or China at the time. And, IIUC, to educational reform as well. |
Well, that does bring up a point, no, if westernization means only using the tools and technologies form the west, how is that really westernization as opposed to soley modernization, following those who got their first for whatever reason?
quote:
Ah, but they had lots of time, and the example of Japan. And to some extent, emulating Japan, a fellow asian, was easier. Ditto for China. The question of how Japan did it, with no local models, continues to the most interesting. |
But if Japan's actions in changing, or being open to change, were cultural, then how could they be immitated? Unless Japan's actions were not "cultural" but "political and socio-economic".
quote:
Turkey is fascinating. Modernization was A. To some extent driven by religious minorities - some of the Young Turks, IIUC were either Jews, or descendants of a cryto-Jewish muslim group called the Donmeh. Turkish modernization AFTER 1918 is certainly impacted by a nationalist impulse to distance from arab culture, of which Islamic traditionalism was seen as a part. |
And yet the Turks had converted long before they began their empire.
quote:
One would have to look at the details at any given moment, as well as continuities. Politics and economics are also causal, yet they two change constantly and rapidly. Obviously culture (and politics, and economics) CANT provide a broad deterministic explanation the way either geography OR race can (in theory). Im not proposing an alternative deterministic explanation - im arguing against deterministic explanations in general. Just cause things are changing, doesnt reduce them to "accident" Change is the stuff of history. |
The issue is which set of these variables has the most profound influence in the outcome. I would say that Geography sets a limit on variations possible. In essence, the hand you were given at the beginning limits your possible chances. Hence, the people of New Guinea (to return to the beginning) were simply not dealt a hand that would make their accent into the formost urban civilizations possible.
quote:
Obviously these interrelate at different levels. Culture does have its own dynamics of change, I think. The political sphere can attempt to influence that, but is constrained in what mandated changes will "take" |
Really? But lets return to the Chinese example- can politcal leaders simply sweep away all the cultural superstructure and implement a new one, regardless of what was there before?
After all, culture is learned. If no one teahces you "the culture", it disappears. Conevrsely, socio-economic realities exist outside the person. Even if no one teaches you about the free market you will invariably act within it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I also wonder if we're being too glib in our charecterization of 16th century Spain. It wasnt all inquisitions, torture racks, and mystics, ya know. Spain at that time still had a considerable renaissance culture, and strong cultural influences from Italy and Flanders. It was really only toward the end of the 16th century, and esp in the the 17thc, that Spain turned inward on itself. And that was also when Spain went into decline, though the direction of causality is not quite clear. |
freedom, progress and so forth were not renaissance notions, they were enlightenment notions. One might have lead to the other, but general political freedom was not a huge vogue in Spain, and remember, the age of exploration and Spanish expansion begins before Spain forged such connections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"Well, that does bring up a point, no, if westernization means only using the tools and technologies form the west, how is that really westernization as opposed to soley modernization, following those who got their first for whatever reason?"
Hmm? I think you mean to rephrase that. I think westernization means more than simply tools and technologies, but less than converting to western christianity, adopting a western language,etc. I think we're talking about concepts of individualism, the distinction of the human from nature, etc. The extent to which those have been consistent in the west from the Renaissance onward, and the extent to which they have penetrated in China, Japan, even Russia, etc is of course debatable.
quote:
Ah, but they had lots of time, and the example of Japan. And to some extent, emulating Japan, a fellow asian, was easier. Ditto for China. The question of how Japan did it, with no local models, continues to the most interesting. |
"But if Japan's actions in changing, or being open to change, were cultural, then how could they be immitated? Unless Japan's actions were not "cultural" but "political and socio-economic". "
They were cultural AND political. The political elite saw the rationale for change, desired the change - but resistance to change was less than in china at the same time, BECAUSE Japan had a cultural tradition of borrowing from the outside. Japan having once done it, Taiwan and South Korea could point to Japan as an example of success, and thus lessen resistance that way. In China of course, attempts to modernize/westernize largely failed prior to 1949 (although they left their mark - abolition of footbinding, for ex) The PRC, for its own reasons, abolished the feudal land holding class, and many other institutions. When the PRC's own ideology faded, the ground was cleared. Why the Communist revolution managed to succeed in taking power is something about which much ink has been spilled, and i doubt we will add much insight here.
quote:
Turkey is fascinating. Modernization was A. To some extent driven by religious minorities - some of the Young Turks, IIUC were either Jews, or descendants of a cryto-Jewish muslim group called the Donmeh. Turkish modernization AFTER 1918 is certainly impacted by a nationalist impulse to distance from arab culture, of which Islamic traditionalism was seen as a part. |
"And yet the Turks had converted long before they began their empire."
Im sorry - i was talking about the modernization of Turkey from 1908 on - in the context of Japan, etc I thought that was what you meant, which is why i mentioned the Young Turks. Were you talking about rise of the Ottomans prior to 1650? Im not to sure about that, but Id venture a few thoughts A. The turkish advance initially came at the expense of cultures in an advanced state of decline (the Arabs) or very conservative - the byzantines. When they first encountered the West, in the 1300s and earlier, that "West" was NOT yet the Renaissance west - read Barbara Tuchman "a distant mirror" on the medieval mindset, and its role in a military failure of the west vs the Turks (as to how the west emerged from the Middle ages into the renaissance, theres probably more written about that than anything else in cultural history)
The turks kept expaning on and off through the 1500s - one could argue, i suppose, that was momentum, the gains from conquering the mamelukes etc. The main thing they adopted successfully was gunpowder (from China) and that simply wasnt enough long term.
quote:
One would have to look at the details at any given moment, as well as continuities. Politics and economics are also causal, yet they two change constantly and rapidly. Obviously culture (and politics, and economics) CANT provide a broad deterministic explanation the way either geography OR race can (in theory). Im not proposing an alternative deterministic explanation - im arguing against deterministic explanations in general. Just cause things are changing, doesnt reduce them to "accident" Change is the stuff of history. |
"The issue is which set of these variables has the most profound influence in the outcome. I would say that Geography sets a limit on variations possible. In essence, the hand you were given at the beginning limits your possible chances. Hence, the people of New Guinea (to return to the beginning) were simply not dealt a hand that would make their accent into the formost urban civilizations possible."
And to return to the beginning, the difference in geographical situations between ALL the Eurasian civs, and the New Guineans, is FAR greater than that AMONG the eurasian civs. In the one case geography is clearly determinitive - in the other its quite debatable.
"Really? But lets return to the Chinese example- can politcal leaders simply sweep away all the cultural superstructure and implement a new one, regardless of what was there before?
After all, culture is learned. If no one teahces you "the culture", it disappears."
they can try, and the result depends on whether they sweep away the culture, before the culture sweeps them away. That is HISTORY, in which different outcomes are possible, and which one occurs depends on the details of events, and no one class of phenomena is "superstructure" or "infrastructure" no matter how much we attempt to privilege some phenomena by so labeling them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
freedom, progress and so forth were not renaissance notions, they were enlightenment notions. One might have lead to the other, but general political freedom was not a huge vogue in Spain, and remember, the age of exploration and Spanish expansion begins before Spain forged such connections. |
Notions of individualism, scientific method, the utilitarian view of nature, etc WERE renaissance notions. Where did I say that nptions of freedom and progress were essential to anything in particular?
Are you saying in your final sentence that 1492 happened before Spain had connections to Ren Italy. There you are not correct, as Aragon was deeply involved in Italy even before Ferdinand and Isabella. Again, exactly how much Ferdinand in particular was influenced by Ren ideas, and how that impact Spanish expansion, is another, and huge area.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Hmm? I think you mean to rephrase that. I think westernization means more than simply tools and technologies, but less than converting to western christianity, adopting a western language,etc. I think we're talking about concepts of individualism, the distinction of the human from nature, etc. The extent to which those have been consistent in the west from the Renaissance onward, and the extent to which they have penetrated in China, Japan, even Russia, etc is of course debatable. |
Yet would you claim that European culture prior to the Renaissance was headed towards these new ideas of individualism and naturalism? After all, the supposed link to the Greek ideas had been breachec centuries before, and it was thanks to the saving of such works not by Europe but by the Muslims that eventually the ideas return. At the same time, these ideals did not stop their creators from falling to barbarians, now did they?
quote:
They were cultural AND political. The political elite saw the rationale for change, desired the change - but resistance to change was less than in china |
By what do you judge that? The fact there was civil warin Japan?
quote:
at the same time, BECAUSE Japan had a cultural tradition of borrowing from the outside. Japan having once done it, Taiwan and South Korea could point to Japan as an example of success, and thus lessen resistance that way. In China of course, attempts to modernize/westernize largely failed prior to 1949 (although they left their mark - abolition of footbinding, for ex) The PRC, for its own reasons, abolished the feudal land holding class, and many other institutions. When the PRC's own ideology faded, the ground was cleared. |
Japan's imperialism did little to enhance modernzation anywhere else in Asia. Japan was an example for many, like the Young Turks. The question is, what was the lesson to learn?
quote:
And to return to the beginning, the difference in geographical situations between ALL the Eurasian civs, and the New Guineans, is FAR greater than that AMONG the eurasian civs. In the one case geography is clearly determinitive - in the other its quite debatable. |
Already saying that it had to be a Eurasian civ that would dominate is a huge step, given that it leaves 5 continents out of the running.
And then you have the long span of Eurasian civlization. Whjo was ahead changed-after all, Eurasian history is 5000 years old and only in the last 10% of that could you state a clear European dominance.
quote:
they can try, and the result depends on whether they sweep away the culture, before the culture sweeps them away. That is HISTORY, in which different outcomes are possible, and which one occurs depends on the details of events, and no one class of phenomena is "superstructure" or "infrastructure" no matter how much we attempt to privilege some phenomena by so labeling them. |
The quesqion is whether "culture" can sweep anything. What is the "power" of culture distinct from more basic human desires that are universal, or geographic limitations, that exist beyond the power of man?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Notions of individualism, scientific method, the utilitarian view of nature, etc WERE renaissance notions. Where did I say that nptions of freedom and progress were essential to anything in particular? |
Because those were the notions the Japanese saw as crucial for their development according to the piece quoted, and we were talking about Japan.
quote:
Are you saying in your final sentence that 1492 happened before Spain had connections to Ren Italy. There you are not correct, as Aragon was deeply involved in Italy even before Ferdinand and Isabella. Again, exactly how much Ferdinand in particular was influenced by Ren ideas, and how that impact Spanish expansion, is another, and huge area. |
Connected yes, the south, not the north, were the renaissance was happening. Just how much was reaching Spain, and France, and further, I don;t know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"Yet would you claim that European culture prior to the Renaissance was headed towards these new ideas of individualism and naturalism? After all, the supposed link to the Greek ideas had been breachec centuries before, and it was thanks to the saving of such works not by Europe but by the Muslims that eventually the ideas return. At the same time, these ideals did not stop their creators from falling to barbarians, now did they?"
Like i said, how the renaissance emerged out of medieval civ is a huge question. and the question of how classical civilization faded is another huge one.
quote:
They were cultural AND political. The political elite saw the rationale for change, desired the change - but resistance to change was less than in china |
"By what do you judge that? The fact there was civil warin Japan?"
The fact that in Japan the reformers won, whereas in China the late 19th c reformers were tossed out.
quote:
at the same time, BECAUSE Japan had a cultural tradition of borrowing from the outside. Japan having once done it, Taiwan and South Korea could point to Japan as an example of success, and thus lessen resistance that way. In China of course, attempts to modernize/westernize largely failed prior to 1949 (although they left their mark - abolition of footbinding, for ex) The PRC, for its own reasons, abolished the feudal land holding class, and many other institutions. When the PRC's own ideology faded, the ground was cleared. |
"Japan's imperialism did little to enhance modernzation anywhere else in Asia. Japan was an example for many, like the Young Turks. The question is, what was the lesson to learn? "
I was not speaking of japanese imperialism, but of the influence of japan as a model to the asian tigers, post 1950. Im sure there were many lessons to learn, the crucial ones for my argument are that modernization was possible, desirable, and did not require "europeanization"
quote:
And to return to the beginning, the difference in geographical situations between ALL the Eurasian civs, and the New Guineans, is FAR greater than that AMONG the eurasian civs. In the one case geography is clearly determinitive - in the other its quite debatable. |
"Already saying that it had to be a Eurasian civ that would dominate is a huge step, given that it leaves 5 continents out of the running. "
Like i said, i like Diamonds book.
"The quesqion is whether "culture" can sweep anything. What is the "power" of culture distinct from more basic human desires that are universal, or geographic limitations, that exist beyond the power of man? "
Well id suggest looking at the fate of early modernizing officials and intellectuals in 19th century China, 18th and 19th century Ottoman empire. If you try to modernize when the culture isnt ready for it, and there arent sufficient resources/motivations to crush the culture, the culture can inspire people to overthow you, or kill you. Or they can simply subvert the change at the local level. There is at least one interpretation of the Russian revolution that sees at as a reaction to the poorly rooted Westernization of the Czars- if thats the case, much of 20th century history is about the reaction of premodern culture. There are similar interpretations of fascism (although there the distinction you draw between pre and post enlightement culture becomes more powerful). Culture can be a very powerful force in people lives, and in how they react to change that comes from above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Because those were the notions the Japanese saw as crucial for their development according to the piece quoted, and we were talking about Japan.
Connected yes, the south, not the north, were the renaissance was happening. Just how much was reaching Spain, and France, and further, I don;t know. |
this is a matter of debate, IIUC.
See below, for ex:
"The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance 1350-1550
Helen Nader
Introduction
[1] I do not have to do anything which might prejudice my loyalty or that to which I am committed, nor anything different from what my ancestors did.(1)
"These proud and defiant words were written by the second count of Tendilla, Iñigo López de Mendoza (1442-1515) -- governor of the newly conquered kingdom of Granada; a Castilian nobleman intensely loyal to king Fernando the Catholic; a seigneurial lord with life and death jurisdiction over hundreds of tenants; a landlord dependent upon agricultural rents for his income; a man whose intellect and world-view were formed in the Mendoza family household in the provincial capital of Guadalajara, far from universities, urban society, and the royal court. Although we should expect Tendilla's attitudes to be provincial and medieval, humanist contemporaries considered him to be one of the lights of Castilian intellectual life. In an inscription sculpted in marble in imitation of the ancient Romans, he described himself as "GENERALIS GRANATENSIS REGNI. CAPITANEUS AC ILLIBERITANORUM ARCIUM PRIMUS PRAEFECTIS."(2) Tendilla thus saw himself not as a medieval knight commanding the Castilian fortress of the Alhambra but as the military governor of the ancient Roman acropolis of Illíberis -- a self-perception we would expect to find in one of his urban, republican contemporaries in Renaissance Florence.
In 1917, Elías Tormo realized the significance of this inscription and investigated all the inscriptions composed by Tendilla, as well as each of the buildings he commissioned. Tormo found that Tendilla and his uncle, cardinal Mendoza, first introduced the architectural and monumental styles of the Italian Renaissance into Spain and, with great excitement, he concluded that "to the Mendozas of the fifteenth century [2] and, more specifically, to the Tendillas, so unjustly obscured and forgotten, we are indebted for the beginning of the Renaissance in Spanish monuments."(3) This conclusion fitted neatly into the traditional interpretation that humanism was brought into Castile by Italian humanists during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs (1474-1504), in particular by Pietro Martire d'Anghiera (1457-1526) -- a Milanese humanist whom Tendilla brought from Italy in 1487 on his return from an embassy to the papacy.(4) On the basis of this evidence, Tendilla has borne for more than fifty years the distinction of being the "importer of the Renaissance" into Castile. "
More here, where she goes on to argue for an earlier date for the introduction of the Renaissance to Castile.http://libro.uca.edu/mendoza/intro.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im sure that in the 19th century when people talking about cultural borrowing, they mentioned freedom and progress, just as today they talk about globalization, interconnectedness, and the internet. Doesnt mean that whats REALLY important in the borrowing isnt the renaissance notions - its just a question of the buzzwords of the day. |
And yet, one has to ask whether those notions are really what drove say the great European conquests that made Spain rich, heck, the heart of the Reinassance itself did not become the world leaders of Europe, it was other elsewhere. Milan and Florence did not come to rule Europe, Spain, France and England did.
And one has to ask whether the notion of individualism ever say, made it to Russia, which was a great power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"And yet, one has to ask whether those notions are really what drove say the great European conquests that made Spain rich, heck, the heart of the Reinassance itself did not become the world leaders of Europe, it was other elsewhere. Milan and Florence did not come to rule Europe, Spain, France and England did."
Cmon, Spain conquered the Americas on behalf of Genoese merchants. Well, thats an exagerration, yeah, but Italy was deep into everything the Spanish empire did. See Henry Kamen, "Empire"
"And one has to ask whether the notion of individualism ever say, made it to Russia, which was a great power. "
For the aristocrats sure. Ya ever read War and Peace? For the peasants nah. a VERY divided society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"And yet, one has to ask whether those notions are really what drove say the great European conquests that made Spain rich, heck, the heart of the Reinassance itself did not become the world leaders of Europe, it was other elsewhere. Milan and Florence did not come to rule Europe, Spain, France and England did."
Cmon, Spain conquered the Americas on behalf of Genoese merchants. Well, thats an exagerration, yeah, but Italy was deep into everything the Spanish empire did. See Henry Kamen, "Empire"
In any case whats relevant is your first question, the relation of ren. ideas to conquest, NOT the fact that the Italian city states didnt. Their problem was A. that their culture travelled to well, at least within westen europe, and they couldnt keep their advantage after the end of the 1400s. and B. That they were divided into such small states, which situation existed prior tot he Ren.
Hell, they couldnt keep France and Spain out of the peninsula.
"And one has to ask whether the notion of individualism ever say, made it to Russia, which was a great power. "
For the aristocrats sure. Ya ever read War and Peace? For the peasants nah. a VERY divided society. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-07-2005 20:09
|