(Youtube upload)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT), gggg gggg
<ggggg9271@gmail.com> wrote:

>(Youtube upload)

Gee! That was great!

(What was?)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT), gggg gggg wrote:

> (Youtube upload)

So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel as
the Europeans, what defeated them was money.

> SolomonW
> > gggg gggg
> >
> > (Youtube upload)
>
> So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
> as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.

My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
by those who came before them, is irrelevant.

Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
them better and more effective.

Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.

On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > SolomonW
> > > gggg gggg
> > >
> > > (Youtube upload)
> >
> > So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
> > as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
> My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
> and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
> by those who came before them, is irrelevant.
>
> Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
> happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
> cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
> them better and more effective.
>
> Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.

(Youtube upload):

Why Did Europeans Enslave Africans?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 05:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak wrote:

>> SolomonW
>>> gggg gggg
>>>
>>> (Youtube upload)
>>
>> So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
>> as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
>
> My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
> and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
> by those who came before them, is irrelevant.
>
> Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
> happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
> cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
> them better and more effective.

Often the natives had the equivalent military tech as the Europeans.
However, more important was the European's superior political, economic and
military systems. This often enabled them to field large armies over a long
period.

>
> Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.

Indeed

On 6/9/2021 10:02 AM, gggg gggg wrote:
> (Youtube upload)
>
I'm believing this is what got missed in 8 g's post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQmvRUdr3U

African History Disproves “Guns Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond
364,245 views•Oct 26, 2019

The Cynical Historian
202K subscribers
There’s a question in the history profession that if sufficiently
answered could not only reshape how we conceive ourselves, but reveal
the best course of action for politics around the world. What makes the
West strong? While there are many answers, the most popular of these
has been Jared Diamond’s "Guns Germs and Steel." You’ll see his
argument all over the place, including a NatGeo documentary. But of
course it has its detractors, to the point that some historians consider
it pseudo-history. Now I think that’s going too far, but there are
enough problems with his thesis that we can’t take it as the final
answer to these questions. So let’s talk about that.
------------------------------------------------------------
errata
10:32 - not "Blaut's theory" but "Diamond's theory" (thx PunkSci)
------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the #ProjectAfrica playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Mr. Beat's video: https://youtu.be/aEJKKuMxEQI
Cogito's video: https://youtu.be/1oQ5Jd7p2aY
------------------------------------------------------------
references:
James M. Blaut, Eight Eurocentric Historians: The Colonizer’s Model of
the World, Volume Two (New York: The Guilford Press, 2000), 149-172.
https://amzn.to/2YFt0iQ

Michael C. Campbell and Sarah A. Tishkoff, "African Genetic Diversity:
Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and
Complex Disease Mapping," Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9
(22 September 2008): 403-433.

Jared Diamond, Guns Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (New
York: WW Norton, 1997). https://amzn.to/2GK6AqI

Martin W. Lewis and Karen E. Wigen, The Myth of Continents: A Critique
of Metageography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
https://amzn.to/2H0ylv7

Richard York and Philip Mancus, “Diamond in the Rough: Reflections on
Guns, Germs, and Steel,” Human Ecology Review 14, no. 2 (2007): 157-162.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 17:57:45 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT), gggg gggg wrote:
>
>> (Youtube upload)
>
>
>So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel as
>the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
>
History seems to suggest that the population of the Americas most
undoubtedly lacked many germs which upon their arrival proceeded to
literally decimate the population. Thats why so many of the later
explorers found the country nearly empty.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 19:01:28 -0700 (PDT), gggg gggg
<ggggg9271@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> > SolomonW
>> > > gggg gggg
>> > >
>> > > (Youtube upload)
>> >
>> > So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
>> > as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
>> My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
>> and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
>> by those who came before them, is irrelevant.
>>
>> Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
>> happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
>> cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
>> them better and more effective.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.
>
>(Youtube upload):
>
>Why Did Europeans Enslave Africans?

Because the Africans in general withstood Malaria better than European
indentured labour. The slaves were dearer to buy but survived much
better.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:57:33 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 05:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
>>> SolomonW
>>>> gggg gggg
>>>>
>>>> (Youtube upload)
>>>
>>> So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
>>> as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
>>
>> My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
>> and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
>> by those who came before them, is irrelevant.
>>
>> Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
>> happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
>> cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
>> them better and more effective.
>
>Often the natives had the equivalent military tech as the Europeans.
>However, more important was the European's superior political, economic and
>military systems. This often enabled them to field large armies over a long
>period.
>
Until they encountered Genghis Khan
>
>
>>
>> Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.
>
>Indeed
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

> Eric Stevens
> > SolomonW
> >
> > So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and
> > steel as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
> >
> History seems to suggest that the population of the Americas most
> undoubtedly lacked many germs which upon their arrival proceeded to
> literally decimate the population. Thats why so many of the later
> explorers found the country nearly empty.

True, though I also believe the population numbers in the Americans
have been inflated for politically correct reasons (same as with the
Belgian colony of The Congo).

But I think SolomonW meant curry Indians, not feather Indians.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 07:01:45 -0700, a425couple wrote:

> On 6/9/2021 10:02 AM, gggg gggg wrote:
>> (Youtube upload)
>>
> I'm believing this is what got missed in 8 g's post:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQmvRUdr3U
>
> African History Disproves “Guns Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond
> 364,245 views‧Oct 26, 2019
>
> The Cynical Historian
> 202K subscribers
> There’s a question in the history profession that if sufficiently
> answered could not only reshape how we conceive ourselves, but reveal
> the best course of action for politics around the world. What makes the
> West strong? While there are many answers, the most popular of these
> has been Jared Diamond’s "Guns Germs and Steel." You’ll see his
> argument all over the place, including a NatGeo documentary. But of
> course it has its detractors, to the point that some historians consider
> it pseudo-history. Now I think that’s going too far,

Disagree its pseudo-history

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 16:55:15 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:57:33 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 05:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>
>>>> SolomonW
>>>>> gggg gggg
>>>>>
>>>>> (Youtube upload)
>>>>
>>>> So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
>>>> as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
>>>
>>> My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
>>> and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
>>> by those who came before them, is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
>>> happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
>>> cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
>>> them better and more effective.
>>
>>Often the natives had the equivalent military tech as the Europeans.
>>However, more important was the European's superior political, economic and
>>military systems. This often enabled them to field large armies over a long
>>period.
>>
>Until they encountered Genghis Khan

Even if Genghis had reached central Europe do you think he could have
successfully besieged the capitals of central and western Europe?

Because I don't think he had the siege-making potential the Turks had
either in 1529 or 1683. And Vienna was by no means the most heavily
fortified capital in Europe.

(Obviously by "Genghis" I mean the Mongols generally since nobody
lives 200+ years)

No question the Mongols could have done tremendous damage in central
and western Europe had they gotten there but they simply didn't have
the siege capability of the Ottoman Turks.

(and given I'm typing between sips of coffee yes I do know how coffee
came to be popular in western Europe and what the aforementioned
sieges had to do with that!)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 16:35:42 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>History seems to suggest that the population of the Americas most
>undoubtedly lacked many germs which upon their arrival proceeded to
>literally decimate the population. Thats why so many of the later
>explorers found the country nearly empty.

As you probably know rather more than simply decimate (e.g. reducing
the population 10%). Had it ONLY been 10% history would no doubt be
different!

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 09:26:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 16:55:15 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:57:33 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 05:57:54 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> SolomonW
>>>>>> gggg gggg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Youtube upload)
>>>>>
>>>>> So does Indian history. The Indians had the same germs, guns and steel
>>>>> as the Europeans, what defeated them was money.
>>>>
>>>> My gripe with Diamond is his conclusion that it's all geography
>>>> and nations/peoples building upon ideas and practices developed
>>>> by those who came before them, is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> Because Europeans didn't conquer the planet simply because they
>>>> happened to be in Europe, they did so because they were smart and
>>>> cunning and used the skills and tech of earlier generations and made
>>>> them better and more effective.
>>>
>>>Often the natives had the equivalent military tech as the Europeans.
>>>However, more important was the European's superior political, economic and
>>>military systems. This often enabled them to field large armies over a long
>>>period.
>>>
>>Until they encountered Genghis Khan
>
>Even if Genghis had reached central Europe do you think he could have
>successfully besieged the capitals of central and western Europe?

It's highly probable. After all he or his armies had sieged itsway
across the world including taking Baghdad.
>
>Because I don't think he had the siege-making potential the Turks had
>either in 1529 or 1683. And Vienna was by no means the most heavily
>fortified capital in Europe.
>
>(Obviously by "Genghis" I mean the Mongols generally since nobody
>lives 200+ years)
>
>No question the Mongols could have done tremendous damage in central
>and western Europe had they gotten there but they simply didn't have
>the siege capability of the Ottoman Turks.

I'm sure that has the potential to turn into an interesting
discussion, but not for me. :-)
>
>(and given I'm typing between sips of coffee yes I do know how coffee
>came to be popular in western Europe and what the aforementioned
>sieges had to do with that!)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 09:27:41 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 16:35:42 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>History seems to suggest that the population of the Americas most
>>undoubtedly lacked many germs which upon their arrival proceeded to
>>literally decimate the population. Thats why so many of the later
>>explorers found the country nearly empty.
>
>As you probably know rather more than simply decimate (e.g. reducing
>the population 10%). Had it ONLY been 10% history would no doubt be
>different!

Yes, I have it back to front.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens