How did europeans develop a lot before the industrial revolution and not after?
>Murray
>>18543195America and colonialism
>>18543195sauce?We don't know a lot about "significant figures" in the east because we're not taught a lot about eastern cultures in general. I couldn't name you a single Indian ruler or Chinese Emperor that wasn't tied to a video game for example.
>>18543212>sauce? Charles Murray.>>18543208>America and colonialismDid this matter that much in 1500 when there wasn't an industrial revolution or widespread colonialism? Also europeans gave away Constantinople around that time yet they started producing a lot of significant futures at the same time.
>>18543224>Did this matter that much in 1500Yes, agricultural goods, silver, general raw resources all began to get poured into Europe via Portugal and Spain. The more resources you have the better you do, generally.
>>18543241And don't forget, they used those resources to trade for goods in the east which they circulated through Europe.
>>18543241>>18543246Was this a commodities supercycle or a stock market supercycle?
>>18543195>significant figures>China spent the cultural revolution destroying all of its shit>India got a whole lot erased by the brits>Japanese erased Korean shit>who has time to translate moonrunes and shitrunes anywayWesterners didn't burn our historical works until after we had already copied them and dispersed them around the world.
>>18543250Now we have AI to translate everything instantly to generate historical data
>>18543249Don't know the difference not going to wiki to find out. Do know:>more resources more $$>more $$ more quality of life>more quality of life more invention time>more writing time>more patronage
>>18543253We still need the prerequisite of it not having been destroyed.
>>18543250>>China spent the cultural revolution destroying all of its shitFalse narrative. More so because people constantly exagerate the CR. There was way more cultural destruction in Asia and Africa during the colonial years than during the CR.
>>18543271Not really the point but ok
The reddit answer is "colonialism" yet the great divergence began beforehand while the economic contribution of the colonies was virtually irrelevant.12th century Flanders invented a new vertical weaving loom that tripled productivity. Windmills sprung up across Europe, more efficient than early versions from Persia. Also in Flanders were the Walloon forges practicing economy of scale with low impurity ore from Sweden, water powered bellows and methods to carburize or decarburize the iron, allowing armorers to produce the hardened steel plates for knights. Architecture saw cathedrals rise higher than the pyramids. The mechanical clock evident of an understanding of physics arrived in the 13th century. The printing press in 1440.After 1492 the main imports were gold and silver, which rapidly depreciated in value due to inflation, and spices like nutmeg. These things did not enrich Europe in aggregate, just allow the rich to squander more on luxuries. The populous colonies in the Spanish Empire did not yield many scientists to cause Europe to advance faster, the Spanish fell behind France and Britain before they had their own colonies. It would not be until new machines in Europe increased the demand for cotton that a functional raw material arrived from the colonies, yet it was still a tiny fraction of the overall economy.All the evidence points towards a scientific and technological revolution taking place in Europe that outpaced the rest of the world, one borne almost entirely in the minds of white men, a cause of controversy, but no wonder. While most groups are IQ 70-90, white IQ is 100. East asians are also high IQ of course, however Europeans also possess a "liberty gene" that causes Europeans to be less conformist and more innovative.https://www.academia.edu/3620724/Chinese_Lack_of_Empathy_in_Developmenthttps://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs53576This allowed Europe to outcompete civilizations with far greater advantages like India and China.
>>18543278>12th century Flanders invented a new vertical weaving loom that tripled productivity. Windmills sprung up across Europe, more efficient than early versions from Persia. Also in Flanders were the Walloon forges practicing economy of scale with low impurity ore from Sweden, water powered bellows and methods to carburize or decarburize the iron, allowing armorers to produce the hardened steel plates for knights. Architecture saw cathedrals rise higher than the pyramids. The mechanical clock evident of an understanding of physics arrived in the 13th centuryAccording to Murray, europe did nothing before the printing press though. Then it all exploded. I think it has nothing to do with inventing but everything to do with free resources from Latin America perhaps. North America, Africa and India were just the cherry on top.
>>18543195Unironically colonialism. Before that there wasn't that much of a difference.
>>18543195Damn I guess the Islamic Golden Age was correct, it really helped them out.
>>18543278>one borne almost entirely in the minds of white menLeaving alot a lot of people and generalizing people for no real good reason.>While most groups are IQ 70-90, white IQ is 100. East asians are also high IQ of course, however Europeans also possess a "liberty gene" that causes Europeans to be less conformist and more innovative.Literal "we iz magic" slop. This is why everyone laughs at retards like you.
For anyone who isn't familiar with "Quantifying human accomplishment", what Murray did to quantify human accomplishment was select his favourite english language encyclopaedias (and only english), then write down if half or more of these encyclopaedias considers something worthy of note. And then if he considers them worthy of note, they go in.>>18543195>Murray's book report in the big 2026Embarassing.>>18543212You don't know it anon, but you just articulated the general problem with Murray's book.
>>18543318damn islamic golden age ended when it ran out of White people and their superior non-Islamic ideas.
>>18543329But it was clearly still the Islamic idea to copy white people or whatever, per the graph, and not an idea held by the previous brown retards. Browns should thank Islam for civilizing them.
>>18543195Evopsych goldilocks zone of an environment just harsh enough to select for planning and delayed gratification but still bountiful enough to support large urban populations. East Asia was similar.
>>18543329>>18543331It was very clever to start the graph at more or less end of the greek dark age. Long after the period care about Mesopotamia and Egypt for. Murray has always been a clever boy.
>>18543333And he also conveniently left out the USA's peak of contributions.
>>18543329Now Persians are white? What's up with these sudden blanching of groups to push narratives?
>>18543332>EvopsychIs a joke because it's literally mass wild guessing and head canons.>enough to select for planning and delayed gratificationExisted everywhere.>still bountiful enough to support large urban populationsExisted in many places too.>East Asia was similar.Extremely massive area and the history + development history all wildly varied even within states.
>>18543195> How did europeans develop a lot before the industrial revolution and not after?The Renaissance?Was caused by the black death and the Crusades.But the inflation which you see, in the charts was caused by Fractional Reserve Banking multiplying the monetary supply.i.e. The Medicis and their like, using techniques introduced by the Templars.
>>18543329Do we have genetic proof of Norwegians running the middle east a thousand years ago?
>>18543327Even Murray says europe was nothing before the turks took Constantinople which is weird because a lot of people say europe was actually ahead the whole time Murray they weren't.
are there any books that really deeply explain the causes and evolution of the disparity of technological advancement between europe and the rest of the world during this period of time? i mean books that aren't like "lol brown people dumb" or whatever else bullshit but give economical and social and material reasons
>>18543289The "free resources" was mostly silver mines of Potosi and anyways only helped Spain. Portugal, England, France and others did not have large empires and the Spanish wealth was not shared by those countries. The divergence is not because of Latam.
>>18543195TL;DR Absolutism. Which could only consolidate thanks to Mercantilism, athough most of the profit from this went to private companies/bourgeoisie, not the absolutist state/king, and what the mercantilists really profited doesn't come from loot (especially since that was produced under coercion via serfdom and slavery, so the only thing that was actually stolen was labor, not the product itself), but from the monopoly of trade of commodities and manufactured goods.Before the rise of Absolutism, Medieval Europe was a continent characterized by the profound political and social fragmentation of the feudal system. Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, centralized power largely vanished. Authority was dispersed among the Church/Clergy, which acted as a suprahierarchical force, the King and Nobles. In classical feudalism, particularly between the 9th and 13th centuries, the fundamental social relationship was of spiritual and temporal/secular power, suzerainty and vassalage: The high clergy, bishops, archbishops and abbots, controlled vast ecclesiastical lands and wielded spiritual and temporal authority, stood above or parallel to the secular power of the king himself. As feudal vassals to the monarch for their secular holdings, the high clergy performed homage and owed obligations such as providing military contingents from church lands (yes, knights raised from ecclesiastical estates existed besides of the Crusader's Knightly Orders, Warhammer 40k and they're greatest in that time than the secular ones), financial contributions, counsel in royal assemblies, and administrative support. In return, they received the king’s protection, confirmation of their privileges and lands, and the ability to exercise justice and collect tithes within their domains.1/?
>>18543528But the most imporant thing the clergy provide the king was divine legitimacy through the sacred rite of coronation and anointing. In this ceremony, usually performed by a high-ranking bishop or the Pope himself, the monarch was anointed with holy oil in a ritual that mirrored the biblical anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This act transformed the king from a mere secular warlord or feudal overlord into God’s chosen representative on Earth, the anointed of the Lord. It conferred upon him a sacred aura of authority that no noble, no matter how powerful, could legitimately challenge without risking accusations of sacrilege or rebellion against divine order. This divine legitimacy was the king’s greatest symbolic asset in the fragmented feudal world. It provided religious and moral justification for his rule, helped unify vassals under a common Christian loyalty, and elevated his status above that of the great suzerain nobles. Speaking of them, the suzerain nobles, also known as the high nobility, great lords, dukes, counts or magnates, were the most powerful secular group (the king was just an individual, not an entirely independent group because of their family, since them, king and high nobles, were all blood related because Germanic Tribes). They were the direct vassals of the king and swore homage and fealty to him, recognizing the monarch as their suzerain (overlord). This oath of loyalty was heavily influenced and legitimized by the clergy, who played a central role in reinforcing the idea that the king held a sacred position of authority, even if his practical power remained limited.These suzerain nobles possessed extensive fiefs that often exceeded or rivaled the king’s own domains in size and wealth. They controlled the majority of the land, private armies, castles, and judicial rights over large territories. 2/?
>>18543278Seriously, why do retards always obsess over empathy and textails? Those are such weirdly specific topics that it deserves an explanation.
>>18543557Their military support was absolutely essential, without the loyalty and armed contingents they provided, the monarch was effectively powerless, functioning more as a primus inter pares (first among equals) than a true sovereign ruler.But that’s the thing, the majority of members of the high clergy came from the nobility, especially non-firstborn sons, landless/feud-less, young/single or/and old/retiree. This allowed them to them families extend their influence without dividing the feufs through inheritance (Ecclesiastical fiefs could not be inherited, divided, or sold, since they were inalienable and legally belonged to the patrimony of the Catholic Church, which made them more powerful than the secular fiefdoms). These noble-born high clergy controlled vast ecclesiastical lands that operated as feudal domains, collecting tithes, exercising judicial power, raising troops, and managing manors. This created a powerful fusion of secular and spiritual authority that even the King himself didn't have, since it was the Church, of which they were high-ranking members, that crowned him.Below the high clergy but above in spiritual powerthe low nobility came the low clergy, parish priests, monks and minor ecclesiastical officials, who lived closer to the daily realities of the medieval peasant population, providing spiritual guidance, basic education, charity and medicine while often serving as administrators or record-keepers. They held a respected position in the social order due to their religious status, even with their theological education (I forgot to mention in past post that who that had/accessed the Universities, which emerged in the Middle Ages, it was the High Clergy. Before the Counter-Reformation, there was widespread illiteracy and superstition/heresy among the lower clergy) and material power being lower than that of the high clergy and low nobles, because local chapel or church within most fiefdoms was administered by the lower clergy.3/?
>>18543278>the economic contribution of the colonies was virtually irrelevant.This argument is made for the "New Imperialism" phase of colonialism, but it's not true for the colonialism that happened during the Age of Exploration
>>18543620Atlhough the wealth of churches belonged to the high clergy and the fiefdoms where they were located belonged to the lower nobility. But the high clergy were more concerned with taking care of their own larger ecclesiastical lands/fiefdoms, while the low nobility were with their secular careers.The noble vassals, commonly known as low nobilty, knights or vavasours, formed the essential middle layer of the feudal military and administrative structure. They received smaller fiefs from their suzerain nobles and were bound by vows of homage. While they are most famous for their role as armored cavalry, providing military service (often forty days per year) in exchange for their land, their functions extended far beyond the battlefield. They acted as local lords of the manor, managing day-to-day agricultural operations, collecting feudal dues and rents, presiding over manor courts to settle disputes among peasants, enforcing customary law, and maintaining basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, mills and granaries within their holdings. Many were also involved in hunting, tournaments, and the cultural code of chivalry, which mixed martial prowess with ideals of honor, loyalty and protection of the weak, although in practice their behavior varied widely between noble conduct and predatory exploitation.Not all commoners remained tied to the land. A growing urban population developed in cities and towns that enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy. These city-dwellers, artisans, merchants, craftsmen and traders organized in guilds, operated outside the strict rural feudal bonds and above the feudal peasent popularion. They did not need fiefdoms to survive and were not dependent on suzerainty/vassalage system. They produced goods, engaged in local and long-distance trade, and gradually accumulated wealth through commerce, so instead of appealing to military force for knights through vassalage to protect their trade routes/cities, they paid them.4/?
>>18543195Competing juristictions and a sound monetary system
>>18543636These specialized commoners didn't just sell in the cities. They also traveled a lot through the fiefdoms, both ecclesiastical and secular, since most of the supply of raw materials/purchase offer was early concentrated in the countryside, as medieval feudal society was essentially agrarian. But to buy raw materials, circulate, sell manufactured goods, and use their bridges or roads, they usually had to pay heavy tolls and taxes to the fiefdom owner. However, unlike the peasents (who paid their taxes with labor or part of the harvest), the specialized commoners usually paid these tolls in currency, which helped to reintroduce money into the economy of the time. Because of the exorbitant taxes levied on feudal estates, castles (which, it is worth remembering, belonged, along with the majority of the fiefdoms to the nobility, not the king, who had renounced them in favor of military support from nobity) being typically built in strategic locations, at the intersection of land routes, bridges, or navigable rivers, which facilitated the flow, transport, and arrival of raw materials because castles were restricted military spaces where only feudal lords (bishops or nobles), their guards, the clergy, and particular serfs lived, what caused a lack of space and the need for strict control of wealth and security by the nobility, specialized commoners from living were deprived of living within the castle walls, so they began to settle in the outskirts of the castles called burgs (from fiefdom, yep, the boroughs arose within the fiefdoms, not the great cities, but that eventually became towns/small cities and in the no so distant future, large cities than the original early medieval great cities due to this) to acess/guarantee military protection, raw material and rich purchase offer.5/?
>>18543728As trade expanded and routes became established thanks to the Crusades, specialized commoners sold long-distance imports of luxury goods such as spices, silk, salt, and precious metals, sourced from the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the Orient, that even nobles had to submit to they via payment/debt. That was the context in which them shifted King and the nobility interests beyond Europe following the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, an event that was also significant for the Renaissance (philosophical/political background for the king's Absolutism and the bourgeoisie's Republicanism), and managed state support/monopoly under Absolutism, for Age of Discovery and Colonialism.This caused the merchant class to generate its own wealth (capital) independent of the of the raw materials and and purchase offer of the fiefdoms, now towns/small cities. This created tensions, as the bourgeoisie began to demand from nobles the standardization of currencies, the removal of internal fiefdoms tolls, the creation of a permament army to protect trade routes and administrative autonomy for cities. This generated great dissatisfaction, as the noble feudal lords wanted to continue controlling their fortunes generated by raw material/manufactured goods (in addition to working in agriculture, peasants had to dedicate part of their extra time to manufacturing goods, of lower quality compared to that of the cities and burgs' specialized commoners, as shearing sheep, spinning, weaving, sewing clothes, forging tools, and making wooden objects, which, the worse detail, if they used the castle's mills or ovens, they had to pay heavy fees known as banalités, that would be all used only by the feudal lord and his court) and taxation of the bourgeoisie.6/?
>>18543195Probably the fact that you're measuring performance through metrics reflecting the values of your top performers.
>>18543767But it pleased the king, as this alliance allowed the monarch to centralize power and unify the kingdom, relying on the bourgeoisie to weaken the autonomy of the feudal lords. The advantages this alliance for the bourgeoisie with these demands clear they could use the same currency, would no longer need to pay multiple fees/tolls to pass through different parts of the same territory, centralized routes protected by a standing army and independence from feufdoms politics in the cities would make them win greater personal freedom and possibility of social mobility through skill and profit, access to more markets and the protection of abusive trade control/taxation of the nobility. Wealthy members of the bourgeoisie supplied bureaucrats, obtained titles of nobility and administrative posts, with this king gained a loyal support base since the bourgeoisie could not refuse to provide military aid to the king if he paid them (usually in the form of monopoly via Mercantilism), unlike feudal lords. This process of political centralization and financial control ultimately paved the way for what would become Absolutism and Mercantilism.At the base of the rural structure were the peasants, who formed the vast majority of the medieval population. In exchange for their labor and various obligations, the noble lords provided them with the right to cultivate portions of the manor’s land (often under the open-field system with strips allocated to individual families), access (via more taxation, even if they were hired to do it) to essential use of tools, plows, animals, mills and other basic manufacturing implements stored in granaries and warehouses located within the fortified domains of the castle or attached to churches and monasteries, which guaranteed the security of the provinces against looting, as well as protection from external threats such as bandits, raiders or rival feudal lords. 7/?
>>18543212>>18543327Do you guys think that there's like a secret Chinese Copernicus and a secret Chinese Darwin that only Chinese encyclopedias know about?
>>18543840This is a merely numerical list, given that it's purporting to be objective it rightly minimizes any value judgements, the perceived importance of figures and discoveries does not matter.So yes, I do think that if Mr. Murray read those Chinky encyclopaedias he'd find a bunch of new characters he previously didn't know about. Likewise if he did the same with other parts in the world.
>>18543386>Now Persians are white? What's up with these sudden blanching of groups to push narratives?been done since the 19th century
>>18543195European paganism, heroic values, and a dash of wildness to them
>>18543814The transition to Absolutism began to gain momentum toward the end of the Middle Ages, particularly during the 13th and 16th centuries, driven by a series of crises and transformations that weakened traditional feudal structures. The revival of international trade, fostered by the Crusades and contact with the Byzantium/East, revitalized cities and transformed guilds into powerful bourgeoisie proto-private companies, which requirements for the expansion of trade demanded centralization/support of monarch against feudal lords' decentralization/abuse. Simultaneously, the development of firearms (such as cannons and arquebuses) diminished the military significance of armored feudal knights and favoring centralized permanent armies.The intellectual and cultural shifts of the Renaissance and Humanism fueled the rise of Absolutism by shifting focus toward secular state power, individualism and rationalized government. This provided monarchs with a renewed, classical justification for supreme authority over feudal lords, often rooted in Roman law, while giving the bourgeoisie the educational tools and administrative frameworks to build efficient republican/imperial free city-states independent of feudal lords. The Black Death decimated the population, altering labor relations and undermining the feudal lords' control over the peasantry since peasants began demanding better conditions and negotiating the commutation, labor services into cash payments and migrated more to cities to provide labor for the bourgeoisie when their expectations were not met and the feudal lords lost power.Skillful monarchs began to capitalize on these changes. In France, following the Hundred Years' War, kings such as Louis, L'Universelle Araignée, employed diplomacy, marriage alliances, and force to curtail the power of great duchies. In Spain, the union of Castile and Aragon under Ferdinand and Isabella, followed by the Reconquista, enabled centralization under the Crown.8/?
>>18543390>the human brain is magically immune to selective pressure>there is no difference between a desert or place with harsh winters vs the environment homo spaiens actually evolved to survive>jungles with shit soil and deserts with no water are the same as fertile, temperate plains>if things are not 100% identical, you're not allowed to recognize patterns
>>18543930In England, the Wars of the Roses weakened the high nobility, paving the way for Tudor monarchs like Henry VII and Henry VIII to strengthen royal authority. These processes were neither linear nor uniform, England, for instance, retained a strong Parliament, yet the general trend was clear, kings sought to break the fragmented sovereignty of feudalism and build more cohesive states.Step by step, Mercantilism acted as a catalyst for absolutist centralization. First, it enabled the creation of stable and growing state revenues. By granting trade monopolies to privileged companies (such as the East India Company in England or its equivalents in France, Spain/Portugal, since Dutch was, ironically, not absolutist but a republican oligarchy with noble, similar to Northern Italy), kings gained wealthy bourgeois allies who relied on royal protection against foreign competitors. These monopolies generated customs duties, fees, and loans to the Crown, funding the construction of professional administrative bureaucracies, such as the intendants in France, which replaced local nobles in tax collection and the administration of justice.Secondly, Mercantilism funded the standing armies and naval fleets essential to Absolutism. Kings like Louis XIV, alongside his financial minister of bourgeois origin, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, implemented policies to foster manufacturing (subsidies for textile, arms, and luxury goods factories), infrastructure (roads, canals), and Colonialism to secure raw material supplies and exclusive markets. This reduced reliance on feudal troops loyal to nobles and allowed for the maintenance of armed forces loyal directly to the monarch. 9/?
>>18543884he did exactly that.do you guys know basic things about the book you hate so much?
>>18543977The accumulation of gold and silver from the America, particularly in Spain, while having negative inflationary effects because the foreign bourgeoisie found an enriching market of low Spanish manufactured goods with exorbitant/overpriced rates to keep up with inflation, flooded the Spanish market with their cheap manufactured goods, killing the chance of a Spanish strong bourgeoisie/middle class, and Spain only managed to remain without a bourgeoisie because the Hapsburg kings were really very efficient/virtuous (They weren't the greatest European dynasty for nothing) and used his great wealth to to pay foreign bourgeois like Jakob Fugger and co-opt the nobility via war, marriage and bribe, not only from Spain but also mainly from Austria, to submission and colonial administration to the centralized absolutist king. Louis XIV’s used the luxury of Versailles, where nobles were required to reside, for this after them lose once and for all the Fronde revolt.Third, Mercantilism promoted legal and cultural unification. By regulating internal and external trade, absolutist states sought to eliminate feudal barriers, standardize weights, measures, and commercial laws, and weaken local privileges. In France, Colbert codified laws and promoted uniformity, in Prussia, the Hohenzollerns used similar policies to build a strong military state. The doctrine of the divine right of kings, reinforced by theorists like Bossuet, legitimized this concentration, the monarch was God's representative on Earth, above clergymen other than the Pope himself, parliaments, and nobles. Mercantilism, therefore, was not merely economics, but a political tool that aligned the interests of the nascent merchant bourgeoisie with the strengthening of the central state, creating a provisional balance between the king and the bourgeoisie.10/?
>>18544049This absolutist consolidation through Mercantilism generated European Exceptionalism. Centralized states managed to mobilize resources on an unprecedented scale, financing maritime explorations (Portugal and Spain, followed by Dutch, France, and England), maintaining permanent diplomacy, developing sciences applied to war and navigation, and imposing internal order that allowed for demographic and economic growth. While much of the world remained fragmented under decentralized kingdoms, without a bourgeoisie and without monopoly trade policy in vast colonies, absolutist Europe created the foundations for the military, technological, and administrative superiority that would fully manifest itself in the following centuries.Absolutism, fueled by Mercantilism, transformed Europe from a chaotic feudal mosaic into a collection of powers capable of projecting global power. Even with its contradictions of Nobles and Bourgeois along with religious differences due to the Protestant Reformation, which led to later conflicts such as the Eighty Years' War, French Wars of Religion, Thirty Years' War, English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars, this represented the decisive step towards European dominance, replacing feudal dispersion with a centralized and effective sovereignty thanks to control of world trade. It was from this centralization that the conditions for the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions (Most scientists of the Scientific Revolution were bourgeois, like Isaac Newton, as were the inventors of the machines of the Industrial Revolution) and the rise of Western civilization as a hegemonic force emerged.11/11
>>18544042ONLY ONE CHINESE SOURCE
>>18543195>What made europeans outperform so much way before the industrial revolution?Scientific method how it was understood in Ancient Greece. In China, for example, science was limited by State and in India it was mystified.The scientific method as it was understood in Ancient Greece. In China, for example, science was highly mystified and restricted by the state.
>>18543212>>18543224>>18543195Murray used skewed sources that mainly talk about Europe and to a lesser extent Japan and China, so no shit his data is going to overwhelmingly highlight european achievements. Also how the fuck do you even define "significant", or measure it for regions like the Precolumbian Americas where we don't have many sources to begin with?This is data-processing 101 and it's unbelievable people fall for thisThe jannies should ban anybody posting his charts for extremely low effort posts
>>18543257>more resources more $$>more $$ more quality of lifeso trickle down is real after all?
>>18543250>>India got a whole lot erased by the britsweird how i only see evidence of the opposite the more i dig into this topic, seems like british people restored, consolidated and revived indian history, philosophy and intellectual culture.
>>18543208>it was da colonialismnotice how even before 1500 europe trumped the rest while having a much smaller population
>import shiny stuff that literally serves 0 purpose>this magically makes people invent more stuffdo people really believe this?
>>18543324>iq is scary fake magicanon ...
>>18544042>He did exactly that>Shows a bunch of ART HISTORY books written in english by non-chinese authors (except one).Wow... Is this is the true power of objectivity?
>>18544104Chinese sources are notoriously unreliable. Primary sources were prone to extraordinary exaggeration beyond even what Western sources typically did, and secondary sources have to be distorted to suit the CCP's historical narrative. It is actually better academic practice to ignore Chinese sources.
>>18544699It's unknown if they're unreliable
>>18543195Depends. Joel Morkyr said its the culture, Damon Acemoglu says its institutions and Kenneth Pomeranz says its luck.
>>18544403>while having a much smaller populationWrong. Turks had to fight hoards of europeans. Ottomans had basically no population compared to the endless whites.
>>18544802>Hoards of EuropeansThis begs the question: What mischiveous race is hoarding Europeans to throw at the Turks? Where are they being hoarded?
>>18544379You're right but you have to be willfully ignorant to believe that the vast majority of modern technology wasn't created by ethnic Europeans, it's plainly obvious.
>>18544042It's not embedding because 4chan is gay and aggressively homosexual. But basically if a book claims to talk about another part of the world and the bibliography has fuck all in the language of the part of the world it talks about, it should go in the trash. https://youtube.com/shorts/BzG3Wvv8Gv8?si=clyjtU5mBA1ZwLXO
>>18544406>The basis of all currency prior to the last 150 years serves zero pruposeImagine if you could just directly dig money out of the ground. Wouldn't that be economically beneficial?
>>18544919To the whole economic ecosystem I mean. Not just you.
>>18544883>vast majority of modern technology wasn't created by ethnic EuropeansModern technology was made in modern times and in modern times Europeans propped themselves up by enslaving the labor and resources of every other continent. So no shit they had time and money to invent things.
>>18544929I agree completely. But the fact remains.
>>18545032The fact is meaningless. It's akin to holding up Tenochtitlan as a beacon of pre-colombian social engineering for their gorgeous pristine city and ability to wipe out poverty while completely ignoring all the cities they ransacked and enslaved around them to reach that. It's a hollow triumph, because no fucking duh your city is great and the people in it happy and patting themselves on the back, you are living off the labor of everyone else.
>>18545036I mean, the Aztec empire was ironically less exploitative than the Spanish. Tenochtitlan was not significantly more developed than its juniors in the alliance (Texcoco, Tlacopan), or its subjects, the altepetl subordinated to the alliance were autonomous and only paid tribute + lip service to the God's of the Meshika.A little bit to the East, the Purepecha state was a little more centralized, however the pattern still holds. The same can be said of the Inca down South, to a lesser extent.
>>18545052>I mean,>excuses and excusesMy guy it's a city built atop the suffering of the poor everywhere else paying tribute. Excuse it all you want with your "not that bad"'isms fact remains, not that impressive and meaningless accomplishment.
>>18544929>Europeans propped themselves up by enslaving the labor and resources of every other continent.If you can't quantify this your argument is pointless. I remember reading somewhere that precious metals represented just 20% of the total budget of Philip II's realms. It's nice to have that extra income, but it's nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary.
>>18545054>My guy it's a city built atop the suffering of the poor everywhere else paying tribute. I literally said this wasn't true. But given that's an excuse you just aren't open to discussion on this.
>>18545057>saying this when the global economy almost collapsed a few weeks ago from 20% of the oil suddenly disappearing
>>18545085You are comparing apples and oranges, the world and its economies were radically different back then.
>>18545092I'm comparing "just" 20% to "just" 20%
>>18545094And I'm telling you your comparison doesn't make sense. Also, the global economy didn't "almost" collapse three months ago, the situation looked ugly but nothing particularly bad happened compared to the worst case scenario, like a 250 dollar barrel with intense supply scarcity.
>>18545101and I'm telling you 20% is not "just"
>>18545103It's just not groundbreaking or revolutionary as I said. Do you want a modern and much more extreme example? Look at Nauru, all that extra wealth lead to nothing.
>>18545036>while completely ignoring all the cities they ransacked and enslaved around themThe Mexica of Tenochtitlan didn't do that much, though. They were conquerers, but didn't usually sack their targets, they turned them into quasi-indepedent tax paying subject states that retained their own kings, laws, and political agency, see picThey were basically a more chill version of the Mongols, but actually sedentary urbanists themselves to begin with
>>18545036good thing nobody else thought of doing that eh?
>improve record keeping and literacy rates>number of "significant figures" doublesToo easy
>>18543195>EuropeansMurray is talking about jews you fucking retard.No one with a brain should be taking Murray seriously.
>>18545324>see, chud, DA JOOSThe Jews and the Whites are creative and intelligent and so are responsible for many great things.Blacks are creative but not intelligentAsiatics intelligent but uncreative
>>18545052Not at all. The Spanish at least produced value, the Aztecs caused suffering for no other reason than ignorance and stupidity trying to appease nonexistent profane anti-human fantasy creatures.
>>18544793Anything genetics right? Anything but the actual reason because the that would collapse the liberal order. No actually no amount of material conditions can turn a black White.>>18544924>>18544919No. It actually hastened Spain’s decline. Their rise to power was built on strong and vigorous men.Other races lacked such men. Gold corrupted such men.
>>18544687Art history books dedicated to China. Yes, what's the problem? Why do they need to be written by Xi-Mai Chin de Ping for it to count?
>>18544918Why exactly?
>>18543278>one borne almost entirely in the minds of white men, a cause of controversy, but no wonder. While most groups are IQ 70-90, white IQ is 100. Then how come this alleged great "minds of white men" remained asleep for millennia while other civilizations already thrived?
>>18545386I get this is probably a bit (or you're too retarded to understand this), but in case anyone else is reading this he would have very different results if he actually used chinese language sources.To put things in perspective, imagine if someone wrote a sweeping account of the past 300 years of american history... and exclusively used chinese language sources, and almost exclusively cited work from chinese scholars. Would you take this "chinese-only" expert on american history seriously?
>>18545390would you read a book about american history and take it seriously if it didn't have a single source in it that was in english?
>>18545118worst than the comparison you thought i was making
>>18545437Why do you think the books Murray cited don't have Chinese sources in them?
>>18545121Arguments about whether the Aztecs were evil are always dumb because they focus on whether or not the the murder-cannibal city-state oppressed the other murder-cannibal city-states, rather than the fact that they were all murder-cannibals.
>>18545430As long as those Chinese scholars are knowledgeable enough about American history, speak English and they cite American sources in their work then sure, why not?
This will never not piss people (non white people) off
>>18543195Before and during the Industrial Revolution you mean. White people just got fucking lazy.
>>18543278>12th century Flanders invented a new vertical weaving loom that tripled productivity. Windmills sprung up across Europe, more efficient than early versions from Persia. Also in Flanders were the Walloon forges practicing economy of scale with low impurity ore from Sweden, water powered bellows and methods to carburize or decarburize the iron, allowing armorers to produce the hardened steel plates for knights. Architecture saw cathedrals rise higher than the pyramids. The mechanical clock evident of an understanding of physics arrived in the 13th century. The printing press in 1440.CounterargumentWe have historical data that shows that some regions in Africa and Asia were competing with Europe in terms of productivity up till the mid 18th century. Japan industrialized before European nations like Spain because it had the pre-existing foundations to do so "which Spain lacked.Technological development comes as the answer for a material need, but that a specific technology doesn't mean it's going to be as effective everywhere. A full plate armour isn't going to be as practical to wear in tropical regions as it was in medieval Europe, carbonised steel was discovered in different parts of the world BC and cathedrals being taller than a piramid doesn't really mean anything, it's the layout that makes Egyptian pyramids impressive not the height Before the industrial revolution most European technologies weren't even that hard to emulate, it became impossible to do so without technical assistance from advanced nations like UK or France only after the after the event.
>>18545386The problem is that you tried to refute my point about sources on the Chinese sciences by posting a bunch of books Murray read on the arts. You are obviously not goig to find a 'chinky copernicus' in a book about Chinese painting.Besides the obvious points the other guy makes.
>>18545379Empty words.
>>18543195>no. of significant figureslmao, nice metric retard
>>18544699>Chinese sources are notoriously unreliable.Anti intellectualism also pretty funny considering that dog shit books like Why Nation Fails or Guns, Germs and Steel exist and are very popular among pop history consumers
>>18545835so the chart about significant figures in arts is accurate then? You could find Chinese da Vinci in these China-specific sources (if there ever was one) but since Europe still dwarfs everybody else there probably wasn't. And if Chinese da Vinci never existed why are you assuming Chinese Copernicus did?
>>18545953That's a log chart on a linear scale
>>18545967are you the same anon I replied to or someone else
>>18545953I don't care about your debate but the fact that you are talking about Da Vinci as if he was this amazing artist is hilarious, the guy didn't invent anything and his Mona Lisa is generally considered mediocre and overrated painting, the myth behind the painting more popular than the painting itself.David or Michelangelo would have been better examples but that would require actual knowledge that goes beyond pop history which you clearly lack.
>>18545995I see you focused on the most important part of my post. If that matters so much to you just imagine I said Michelangelo instead of Da Vinci and then reply again
>>18543250India just would have cruised along as it had been since forever. If anything the brits elevated them.
>>18546027Yup it matters because it exposes you as someone who doesn't give a fuck about history and just want to weaponize it to push an agenda
>>18545953There were Chinese Da Vincis. Da Vinci was a synthesis of Su Song and Su Shi.
>>18543278>the economic contribution of the colonies was virtually irrelevantExport of raw materials increased productivity in the factories.>But the revenue of the coloniesIt was irrelevant Britain, France and other colonial powers used their colonies as markets where they could sell back finished goods for a higher price than the cheap raw materials they exported.
>>18546027People of the future will consider Michaelangelo less important than Hidetaka Miyazaki because the former made some naked statues and the latter made dark souls which is arguably more impressive. But then again the latter is sitting on the shoulders of the former.
>>18546154>which is arguably more impressiveAre you actually fucking retarded? That’s like saying modern day electro organ music is more impressive than Bach, even though NO ONE ALIVE TODAY can replicate what Bach did as an improviser. You’d need a machine to do what he did.People of the past would make superior video games if given the means. Humans of today are genetically and cognitively inferior.
>>18546182Charles Murray argues the opposite. He says we had 1 million scientists in Britain in 1950 so Britain was superior to the ancient greece and rome.Looks like he needs to check his privilege.
>>18546185No he doesn’t. He supports it. Europeans in the last 700~ years were at the apex of human cognitive function. This is the time window for figures like Bach. Only truly exceptional brains in antiquity (like the Greeks who built truly-outrageous-shit-for-the-time like the Antikythera mechanism) like Archimedes can compare to the white man during the scientific revolution, and they were few and far between, while as a whole white culture seemed to produce more genius than any other culture, ever. The Renaissance was the beginning of true genius. That one 2013 study even points to us having lost roughly 15~ IQ points since the Victorian period. Do you not realize just how fucked that is? Genetics has gone down the shitter.
>>18546193You're completely wrong, we have yet to reach the pinnacle of roman intelligence. They didn't need music, science or technology to have a good quality of life.
>>18546193>Let's lose Constantinople to the turks in the 15th century and produce less lead than the roman empire did in the 15th century and yet we have the best culture in the world therefore we are at the pinnacle of human cognitive functionThe last 700 years are a footnote in history, not meaningless but within expected bounds, it's nothing exceptional, certainly not worth jerking off over.
>>18546182>That’s like sayingWe don't get to decide which is more impressive when viewed historically.
>>18546182>People of the past would make superior video games if given the means. Humans of today are genetically and cognitively inferior.Lmao. You really don't realize how many games were total slop and derivative copycats back in the day.
