The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Big History"
 All Comments / On "Big History"
    Pomeranz, Kenneth – The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (2001) Category: economy, history, world systems; Rating: 5*/5 Summary: Brad DeLong's review; The Bactra Review; Are Coal and Colonies Really Crucial? It's a rare book that not only vastly informs you on a particular issue, but in so doing...
  • You think that sugar is an appetite suppressant? Hilarious!

    But not as hilarious as this essay. I can guide anyone in how to write this in two simple steps.

    1. Pick two complicated subjects, each with many advantages and disadvantages.

    2. Highlight the advantages of subject 1 while ignoring all of the advantages of subject 2.

    and your ‘argument’ is complete…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • M says:

    AK: “China had a clear lead in irrigation, soil preservation and land management, and medicine (yields per acre in Europe only approached Chinese levels by the late 19th century).”

    China was intensive agriculture environment – IRC yields per acre were pretty low in Europe even compared with India, mainly due to climate and crops. Big fields, low intensity.
    It’s the difference between an extensive and very intensive system (soil preservation would be a concern with a more extensive system, as well).

    As for medicine… I assume their doctors killed a ratio of their patients less above 50% ;)

    Re: cheap food imports, Britain actually had Corn Laws to prevent food imports, which makes sense because landowners are protectionist. This was for a large chunk of the early 1800s. How does that square with the idea of a windfall of cheap colonial food? Likewise, per wikipedia

    “However the threat to British agriculture came about twenty five years after repeal due to the development of cheaper shipping (both sail and steam), faster and thus cheaper transport by rail and steamboat, and the modernisation of agricultural machinery. The prairie farms of North America were thus able to export vast quantities of cheap corn, as were peasant farms in the Russian Empire with simpler methods but cheaper labour.” suggests that cheaper food from colonies was pretty marginal for the period when industrialisation was actually happening.

    The problem here is that when economists have said that colonialism did not have any clear windfall economic advantage (and that the profits weren’t particularly high, nor necessary to fund industrial development, etc.), they’ve studied this in detail. It’s not just a feel good notion. People can’t just stride in and blithely assume colonialism is important (often because their countries didn’t have it and they’d *badly* like to assume that it’s advantaged the ones that did). Is there anyone other than weird ex-colonised whiners (“We wuz robbed!”) and Anglophobes, anyone actually legitimate, other than Pomeranz’s own calculations which actually has data showing this is the case?

    Another instance, China was more capitalistic? Well, I read a work a little while ago that there were major structural and regulatory issues with selling and consolidating land in the Chinese market. Land property was not alienable in the same manner. Is this more or less capitalistic? I dunno, but forces like this are surely important.

    Pomeranz seems to me to be another Needham or Menzies or Ian Morris, a man with a slight fetish for China, attempting to debunk the conventional wisdom with “That’s Amazing!” style facts on the amazing forwardness of China (catering to our era of being surprised that China finally isn’t a total basketcase). I’m very skeptical.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the biggest questions in global history is why it was Western Europe that industrialized first, and ended up colonizing most of the rest of the world. As late as 1450, the possibility of such an outcome would have been ridiculed. By almost any metric, China was well in the lead through the medieval...
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    web /google search for a history of china

    1. china was the “”” sick man of asia /century of shame. china has been going on decline for 300 years.

    china has contributed nothing to the world for last 500 years. now.

    china in 1980 has an annual income $200. Two dollars. is this nation that any can be proud.

    2. china did NOT have scientific revolution .industrial revoluton. china only to industrialize in the 1980s. this is after NO progress for 500 years.

    $200: TWO HUNDRED ANNUAL INCOME IN 1980. After 200 years of history, china has annual income of $200 dollars. or less than $20 dollars a month.

    3. Intel corporation ceo Craig Barrett went to china and said “”””80 % are Dumb Peasants””””” china is an pre-industrial . pre-science. pre-industrial nation till the take-off in 1980.

    china had NO change for 500 years till 1980.
    f
    4. Feudal emperor rule till 1911. The last emperor was Puyi in 1911 ( 3-year baby in 1911) and red -emperor /blue ants in 1949.

    5. SICK MAN OF EUROPE = TURKEY SICK MAN OF ASIA = CHINA.

    china needs to follow example of “”” republic of turkey”

    a. abolish all ugly hanzi , primative, barbaric ugly. no civilized nations uses such ugly, primative characters.

    b. free vote for National congress. Turkey has “grand national assembly. china a two -house National Assembly where all work of government can be monitored by the National congress.

    c. US has 1% of worker in farming. one percent farming /10% in factory. Hence, 90% do NOT work in either farming or manufacturing.

    All advanced nations move from Farming (1%) to Factory (80%) to Service / Information processing./cloud.

    90% of people farming to 1% farming. Farming (1 %) to to 80% service /information cloud computing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Why were dark age europians not advanced with alphabets.
    Why, after renaissnace, did industrial revolution happen?
    Why was Japan be able to industrilize it’s nation after the western influence?
    It is self-evident that without chinise letters, Japan could not traslate western books in Meiji era.
    In Asia including Japan, Korea, China, without chinise character, 3 nations could not translate western books.
    Kanji in Jananese and Korean alphabet are only used fuctional words such as preposition in English or very easy words.
    Most abstract words can be expressed only in Chinese character or the way it is pronounced in korean and japanese alphabet.
    It is like, in Eglish most abstract and conceptualized words are borrowed from Latin, Greek.

    So, whethere it is alphabet or chinese is not important. The important thing is what contains in languages.
    Among great civilazations, only ancient greek made a giant scientific leap.
    Only those who were influenced by ancient greek culture did industrilize.

    Alphabet is not a cause of industrialization, it is just one of the attributes of Greek culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @smile
    Hieroglyphic system is very different from alphabetic system.
    In hieroglyphic script, a character is usually means a phrase just like ancient chinese. To cut done the uncertain of chinese characters, it has change the one character to two characters as a words. “否”, in pinyin is "fou" means no or negative in english has changed to "不是"/“不” which in pinyin are "bushi" and "bu". The pronunciation has already changed without changing in the meaning and increase the efficiency of understanding.
    It is very hard to learn at first but after you learn plenty of characters, it is much easier than alphabetic system. Because it do not have as much grammar as alphabetic system. For example, when a action took place , the "take" need to change to "took" to shows that it is in the past time. But it is very simple in chinese. It just need to add a time without changing anything, etc. Hence, it is easier to combinate a sentence. Usually chinese students need 4000-5000 are enough to read almost all the chinese books(except the ancient chinese which the characters have different meanings). But students in alphabetic system need at least 8000 words for sure(but basic english just need 26 character LOL).
    I can't say chinese is more efficiency than english not just in mechanic side but when you search some translations between chinese and english you will find the chinese article usually shorter than english one.
    And also I found that many chinese philosophical thinking just under the chinese characters which is amazing. It is easy to find this in the common conversation.

    I agree that the chinese writing may be a reason to its industrialisation but in fact it because the philosophical thinking under the writing. For example to be filial is very important in chinese culture. This may cause children do not do what their parents not like to especally a sentence I remember: Children do not travel far away when parents are alive. Because they have the responsibility to take care of their parents. Is that might explain why ancient chinese not travel the whole world in ancient when they already have the great seamanship during Song dynasty(960-1279A.D) and also Ming Dynasty(1368-1644A.D). The size of Zhenhe's ship in 1405 A.D is about 130 meter long and 50 meter wide. The fleet have over 200 ship 27,000 staff and with over 1,000 tonnes of displacement. Sadly, after Zhenhe no one traveled again hence many of technology used to build these great wooden ship had lost.

    Most Chinese words are not made of one character but 2 or more. So if you know those 4000/5000 characters you can “read” all words but you don’t knowing the mean of all words nor can you pronounce all words. Also the fact that you claim that Chinese grammar is easier is not due to using characters but is something that is innate to the Chinese spoken languages .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    I think you're on to something.

    I was listening to an iTunes University series by the philosopher John Searle, who's been lecturing in China. Just as an aside, he said (approximately) … "Will Mandarin become the world's first language of international communication? They'll need to get an alphabet first."

    Hieroglyphic system is very different from alphabetic system.
    In hieroglyphic script, a character is usually means a phrase just like ancient chinese. To cut done the uncertain of chinese characters, it has change the one character to two characters as a words. “否”, in pinyin is “fou” means no or negative in english has changed to “不是”/“不” which in pinyin are “bushi” and “bu”. The pronunciation has already changed without changing in the meaning and increase the efficiency of understanding.
    It is very hard to learn at first but after you learn plenty of characters, it is much easier than alphabetic system. Because it do not have as much grammar as alphabetic system. For example, when a action took place , the “take” need to change to “took” to shows that it is in the past time. But it is very simple in chinese. It just need to add a time without changing anything, etc. Hence, it is easier to combinate a sentence. Usually chinese students need 4000-5000 are enough to read almost all the chinese books(except the ancient chinese which the characters have different meanings). But students in alphabetic system need at least 8000 words for sure(but basic english just need 26 character LOL).
    I can’t say chinese is more efficiency than english not just in mechanic side but when you search some translations between chinese and english you will find the chinese article usually shorter than english one.
    And also I found that many chinese philosophical thinking just under the chinese characters which is amazing. It is easy to find this in the common conversation.

    I agree that the chinese writing may be a reason to its industrialisation but in fact it because the philosophical thinking under the writing. For example to be filial is very important in chinese culture. This may cause children do not do what their parents not like to especally a sentence I remember: Children do not travel far away when parents are alive. Because they have the responsibility to take care of their parents. Is that might explain why ancient chinese not travel the whole world in ancient when they already have the great seamanship during Song dynasty(960-1279A.D) and also Ming Dynasty(1368-1644A.D). The size of Zhenhe’s ship in 1405 A.D is about 130 meter long and 50 meter wide. The fleet have over 200 ship 27,000 staff and with over 1,000 tonnes of displacement. Sadly, after Zhenhe no one traveled again hence many of technology used to build these great wooden ship had lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    Most Chinese words are not made of one character but 2 or more. So if you know those 4000/5000 characters you can "read" all words but you don't knowing the mean of all words nor can you pronounce all words. Also the fact that you claim that Chinese grammar is easier is not due to using characters but is something that is innate to the Chinese spoken languages .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:

    You’re absolutely correct with regards to the deficits forced by the Chinese script. Comparing Japan and China in the 1800s, Japan had a literacy level superior to that of many European states, and all it requires is learning / memorizing 100 or so characters. This is not for strict literacy; it doesnli’t mean that the Japanese can actually read their Kanji, but it means that they can communicate and write using their Kana systems with Furigana attached to Kanji as necessary. China, on the other hand, kept to around 10% or less of the population being literate, and this was with the traditional script, which is myriads more complicated than the simplified version promulgated by the Communists.

    As I mentioned elsewhere, there’s also Sapir-Whorf effects enforced by a character-based system; the time required to write full Chinese words (Hou 後 takes 11 strokes to write, and requires the activation of a drawing system, as opposed to a more simple writing system for “back” or “rear”, the former requiring 7 strikes and the latter requiring 5) impacts linguistic evolution and forces terseness in communication.

    ===

    By the way, the Chinese already had mass production / industrialization in the Qin dynasty, sort of how like the Romans also had a workshop system. The Qin state produced weapons in government-controlled workshops, complete with quality control inspectors, punishable by death for Q&A failures. And Chinese lacquerware was produced in stages and in batches, whereas the Japanese switched off to a simpler techinque (and innovated in their own way) because they didn’t understand how to do mass production.

    Chinese porcelain is also the result of workshop systems, not individual craftsmen producing each piece piece by piece; these things would be painted and fired in batches, not on a piece by piece basis.

    ” Expectations of output ranged from 100 per day for a man throwing small bowls and saucers to 10 per day for a man making large vessels.11 Clearly, porcelain was mass-produced by a specialized workforce engaged in a highly organized process. While not a matter of individual inspiration, porcelain production provides an impressive precedent for large-scale manufacturing.”

    http://www.seattleartmuseum.org/Exhibit/Archive/porcelainstories/process/process.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Depressingly fatalist, morbidly truthful, irresistibly Nietzschean. That's Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle" in a nutshell: a meandering trawl through disciplines such as genetics, psychology and culture that culminates in a theory of evil, purporting to explain its historical necessity, its creative potential and the possibility of it ever being vanquished. The odds do not appear...
  • Extremely interesting conversation and analysis! It would seem that all arguments pointing to our mutual destruction as a species are correct! Either from a biblical perspective or a rationalist one we are certainly doomed if we cannot shake the primitive paradigms that have shaped society for the past 10,000 years and move towards the higher planes of consciousness that promote love of our brothers as the foundational base of our existence.

    Whether it be First Century Christianity, Buddhism or what have you, if we continue to order our existence as a society to the barbaric principles of Neolithic Man then nuclear arms assure our destruction!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As today seems to be the day of cool visualizations on this blog, so on this note I'd like to highlight a really cool way of analyzing the influence of various people (philosophers, coding languages, etc) on history. One of the basic strategies is to feed the information in Wikipedia info-boxes into a computer program...
  • Haskell? Wasn’t he the neighbor in Leave It to Beaver? Eto shutka :) Fortran and Cobol are sort of like the Neanderthals and Denisovans, but I don’t want to get involved in any code wars, either :)

    Another interesting visualization would capture where and when comp languages originated. Or current use of languages. Some of the entities in the programming graph are better identified as scripting languages or markup languages (e.g., XML), though. But that’s more a question of semantics in this case, rather than influence.

    I dig Lua. E’ do Brasil :)

    And different [scripting]languages have different applications. A complex subject!

    Griff, good work :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hi, thanks for the link. You gave a pretty good wrap of the graphs though did you suggest that Bertrand Russell and Avicenna are only philosophers? They both contributed to the field of mathematics it quite significant ways. Avicenna’s Book Of Healing and Canon Of Medicine are cornerstone works of their time (especially notions involving motion and optics). Also Russell’s Principles Of Mathematics significantly contributed to the field of logic and challenged a number of ideas of the time.

    You’re right, Graph 2.0 isn’t much hey. I thought it would be a bit more insightful but it turned into a bit of a mess.

    You’re also very right – creating the databases is a very time consuming endeavor! I must return to creating a new one of academics for my next series.

    Great summary. All the best.
    Griff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the biggest questions in global history is why it was Western Europe that industrialized first, and ended up colonizing most of the rest of the world. As late as 1450, the possibility of such an outcome would have been ridiculed. By almost any metric, China was well in the lead through the medieval...
  • K says:

    Looking at it from another angle, it is not that China stagnate, it is that Europe suddenly took off with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in England. Traditionally China has technologies but not basic science. By basic science, I mean Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell equations…etc. Gun power, magnetic compass, paper making…etc. are technologies, they are not basic science. Without basic science, you cannot go very far and industrial revolution cannot happen.

    So the question is why the Europeans discovered basic science and not the Chinese? I think any civilization with a high enough cognitive abilities will eventually discover basic science. It might very well be a historical coincidence that it happened in Europe first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bee_movie
    Alphabet advantages ?
    Neighbouring India has alphabet for Hindi, plus Indian English as their second language. Nonetheless it remains in "deep" tradition and looks like to remain there forever, due to their caste system and other "traditions".
    China, with hieroglyphics, make a fastest seen progress in modernization of its economy and society.

    Corruption is a major problem in India, more so perhaps than “traditions”. For anyone from India visiting here, there is a website I Paid A Bribe which was set up by a former public servant specifically to address government corruption in India. Website address is http://www.ipaidabribe.com.

    Interesting that in recent historical times the people of southern India, in particular Tamil speakers and people in Karnataka (where the space industry and the IT industry were originally based), have been far more progressive and scientific than people in northern India yet they have some of the country’s most ancient literatures and traditions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Alphabet advantages ?
    Neighbouring India has alphabet for Hindi, plus Indian English as their second language. Nonetheless it remains in “deep” tradition and looks like to remain there forever, due to their caste system and other “traditions”.
    China, with hieroglyphics, make a fastest seen progress in modernization of its economy and society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jennifer
    Corruption is a major problem in India, more so perhaps than "traditions". For anyone from India visiting here, there is a website I Paid A Bribe which was set up by a former public servant specifically to address government corruption in India. Website address is www.ipaidabribe.com.

    Interesting that in recent historical times the people of southern India, in particular Tamil speakers and people in Karnataka (where the space industry and the IT industry were originally based), have been far more progressive and scientific than people in northern India yet they have some of the country's most ancient literatures and traditions.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jennifer
    Fascinating reading here. May I add something which I think has been overlooked? What about the nature of communications in a vast empire where since the 1200s at least, the capital has been located in the northern part of the country but the bulk of China's population lives far south in mountainous areas subject to frequent earthquakes? A country also where rivers tend to run west to east rather than on a north-south axis which makes riverine-based transport (and thus communication and the ideas that go with it) difficult for north-south trade? China did build canals linking the Huang He and Jiangzi rivers hundreds of years ago but the rivers were often subject to flooding.

    The areas in China where Mandarin is the dominant language tend to be in northern, north-central and southwestern parts (Sichuan). In the southeast you have Wu (Shanghai and surrounds), Fujianese, the Yueh dialects (Cantonese and related dialects), Hakka and others. Then there are tribal languages related to Thai, Lao, Vietnamese and some others. The existence of several languages in one fairly compact area suggests this phenomenon: difficult communications in a mountainous region, enabling the survival of communities possibly hostile to or at least indifferent to Beijing. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the Caucasus Mountain region. Is it possible that difficult communications enable the survival of communities with attitudes that have the indirect result of inhibiting the easy spread of ideas such as mass education and literacy, and so preventing China from making the leap to an Industrial Revolution?

    Today the wealthiest parts of China tend to be areas close to the sea and along the major rivers but it's surprising that apparently you don't have to go very far inland to find some very poor areas, usually in very mountainous provinces. Coastal provinces like Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang have high regional per capita GDPs but go to neighbouring Anhui and Jiangxi provinces and these areas have some of the lowest regional per capital GDPs (I'm looking at a map of China's regional GDP per capita for 2004 that I ripped out of New Scientist magazine years ago). Guangxi province is one of China's poorest and least developed yet it's right next door to Guangdong province.

    Consider also how separate elites were from the common people and whether either group cared much for the spiritual and intellectual welfare for the other. Traditional Confucianist, Buddhist and Daoist teachings may have some influence here in that they encouraged people to look out for their families and clans, and maybe for members of their social class, but not for people unrelated to them. With such attitudes prevailing in traditional Chinese society, how would concern for mass education and literacy take root? The uproar that took place when recently the little girl was run over by two cars and left for dead in Foshan tells you something about traditional Chinese attitudes towards social co-operation: you look out for your relatives and others you know but strangers take care of themselves.

    If you look at what constitutes "traditional" European cultures, you find nearly all of them emphasise peasant or "common" traditions and customs. If you look at Korean and Japanese "traditional" cultures, there is also some emphasis on the customs and traditions of farmers and artisans. Japanese traditional culture in particular is famous for having a bourgeois culture that developed durng the Tokugawa period (1603 - 1867): think of kabuki theatre, bunraku puppetry, woodblock printing and literature and art that catered for middle classes and lower classes (with a huge emphasis on pornography - a tutor on ancient Greek culture once told me ancient Greece and Tokugawa-era Japan are the only cultures outside 19th and 20th century Western cultures to have considerable pornographic literature).

    Look at what passes for "traditional" Chinese culture though and nearly all of it is the culture of the elite. This doesn't say much positive for inter-social actions within Chinese society before the 20th century. Also consider that from 1644 to 1912, China was ruled by a foreign elite. The Manchus in 1644 were originally a group related to Mongols and some Siberian groups around the Amur river. The Manchus did have their own alphabet based on the Mongolian alphabet that ultimately derives from a Semitic alphabet (I think it was Aramaic or Syriac). There's the possibility that the Chinese elites spurned the use of alphabets because people they considered inferior to them used alphabets!

    I find it funny that past linguistics experts considered Chinese ia "primitive" language because of its analytical grammar. So-called "primitive" peoples, ie those peoples following a hunter-gatherer lifestyle with simple technologies often speak languages with fiendishly complex grammars. Over time as societies acquire technology and culture from outside and develop their own, their languages tend to drop excessive grammatical baggage due to borrowing and interactions with other languages that create "interference", particularly if the other languages are related to the host society language. This is how English developed over time.

    Chinese saying about that: “The mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away.” But I don’t think it played a huge role. The reality is that China was for all that far more inter-connected (canals, roads, etc) than Europe until the 19th century.

    I have to say that since writing that post I have majorly changed my mind on the causes of Chinese historical backwardness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Fascinating reading here. May I add something which I think has been overlooked? What about the nature of communications in a vast empire where since the 1200s at least, the capital has been located in the northern part of the country but the bulk of China’s population lives far south in mountainous areas subject to frequent earthquakes? A country also where rivers tend to run west to east rather than on a north-south axis which makes riverine-based transport (and thus communication and the ideas that go with it) difficult for north-south trade? China did build canals linking the Huang He and Jiangzi rivers hundreds of years ago but the rivers were often subject to flooding.

    The areas in China where Mandarin is the dominant language tend to be in northern, north-central and southwestern parts (Sichuan). In the southeast you have Wu (Shanghai and surrounds), Fujianese, the Yueh dialects (Cantonese and related dialects), Hakka and others. Then there are tribal languages related to Thai, Lao, Vietnamese and some others. The existence of several languages in one fairly compact area suggests this phenomenon: difficult communications in a mountainous region, enabling the survival of communities possibly hostile to or at least indifferent to Beijing. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the Caucasus Mountain region. Is it possible that difficult communications enable the survival of communities with attitudes that have the indirect result of inhibiting the easy spread of ideas such as mass education and literacy, and so preventing China from making the leap to an Industrial Revolution?

    Today the wealthiest parts of China tend to be areas close to the sea and along the major rivers but it’s surprising that apparently you don’t have to go very far inland to find some very poor areas, usually in very mountainous provinces. Coastal provinces like Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang have high regional per capita GDPs but go to neighbouring Anhui and Jiangxi provinces and these areas have some of the lowest regional per capital GDPs (I’m looking at a map of China’s regional GDP per capita for 2004 that I ripped out of New Scientist magazine years ago). Guangxi province is one of China’s poorest and least developed yet it’s right next door to Guangdong province.

    Consider also how separate elites were from the common people and whether either group cared much for the spiritual and intellectual welfare for the other. Traditional Confucianist, Buddhist and Daoist teachings may have some influence here in that they encouraged people to look out for their families and clans, and maybe for members of their social class, but not for people unrelated to them. With such attitudes prevailing in traditional Chinese society, how would concern for mass education and literacy take root? The uproar that took place when recently the little girl was run over by two cars and left for dead in Foshan tells you something about traditional Chinese attitudes towards social co-operation: you look out for your relatives and others you know but strangers take care of themselves.

    If you look at what constitutes “traditional” European cultures, you find nearly all of them emphasise peasant or “common” traditions and customs. If you look at Korean and Japanese “traditional” cultures, there is also some emphasis on the customs and traditions of farmers and artisans. Japanese traditional culture in particular is famous for having a bourgeois culture that developed durng the Tokugawa period (1603 – 1867): think of kabuki theatre, bunraku puppetry, woodblock printing and literature and art that catered for middle classes and lower classes (with a huge emphasis on pornography – a tutor on ancient Greek culture once told me ancient Greece and Tokugawa-era Japan are the only cultures outside 19th and 20th century Western cultures to have considerable pornographic literature).

    Look at what passes for “traditional” Chinese culture though and nearly all of it is the culture of the elite. This doesn’t say much positive for inter-social actions within Chinese society before the 20th century. Also consider that from 1644 to 1912, China was ruled by a foreign elite. The Manchus in 1644 were originally a group related to Mongols and some Siberian groups around the Amur river. The Manchus did have their own alphabet based on the Mongolian alphabet that ultimately derives from a Semitic alphabet (I think it was Aramaic or Syriac). There’s the possibility that the Chinese elites spurned the use of alphabets because people they considered inferior to them used alphabets!

    I find it funny that past linguistics experts considered Chinese ia “primitive” language because of its analytical grammar. So-called “primitive” peoples, ie those peoples following a hunter-gatherer lifestyle with simple technologies often speak languages with fiendishly complex grammars. Over time as societies acquire technology and culture from outside and develop their own, their languages tend to drop excessive grammatical baggage due to borrowing and interactions with other languages that create “interference”, particularly if the other languages are related to the host society language. This is how English developed over time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Chinese saying about that: "The mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away." But I don't think it played a huge role. The reality is that China was for all that far more inter-connected (canals, roads, etc) than Europe until the 19th century.

    I have to say that since writing that post I have majorly changed my mind on the causes of Chinese historical backwardness.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Chinese have Western civilization to help them out greatly ). It’s God’s Providence.
    Chinese characters, as any symbols, stimulate intuition…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Doug M.
    One, you're right -- the kanji are representative, not syllabic.

    Two, yeah, I misspoke. I got "hanji" from writing too fast and crosswiring with _hanzi_, which is the Japanese word for Chinese characters.

    And three, no -- most common Japanese nouns are represented by kanji. You simply cannot read Japanese without them.


    Doug M.

    I’m glad Glossy corrected you…I was going to but shied away because of my ineptness to get in any kind of a tête-à-tête with you. After reading (with much interest) the overall subject matter leaves me in the amateur section of the peanut gallery so I’ll be content with just reading for the meanwhile.
    Yes, kanji is correct…I never heard of hanji while living in Okinawa.
    Not that it matters here, but I learned to write my name using hiragana and katakana among other short phrases. My personal opinion about learning Japanese is that it is very easy to pick up the spoken word while the writtten word is a whole new ball game. The basic sounds of ah, ka, sa, na, and a few others are mastered quite easily compared to the sing-song utterences of Chinese (Taiwan) which I gave up on. German was also difficult for me but that’s another story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I believe that the Chinese writing system is more of a handicap than a core source of China’s failure to keep up with Western expansionism. More time spent in school mastering the writing system leaves less time for learning and thinking and communicating about the academic subjects that a writing system is supposed to facilitate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • While trawling through my computer archives, I stumbled across this book review of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" from five years ago. Overall, it's a great book, better than his follow-up "Collapse", which is also interesting - especially in the psychological aspects of "collapse", like creeping normalcy and "landscape amnesia" - but far from...
  • The sole purpose of Jared Diamond’s book was to disprove racial theories of history, which to him are ‘loathsome’ and ‘abhorrent’. In other words, from the outset his book was politically motivated. This is why we have to be so careful when dealing with these ‘grand narratives’ of history like Diamond’s. Diamond wants easy answers to complicated questions because his sole intent was to rubbish racial theories of history. I really don’t know why anyway, considering few historians today even consider race as an important factor in any historical episode. It is also bizarre that an anthropologist and biologist (correct me if I’m wrong) would be so interested in denigrating the importance of biology and evolution in the formation of human societies, and vice versa.

    Gene Callahan has written an excellent critique of Guns, Germs and Steel called ‘The Diamond Fallacy’, and I suggest everybody read it. Certainly, Diamond’s work has its merits, chiefly in drawing our attention to the importance of geographical location as a (sub-)factor driving human affairs. But Diamond isn’t a historian. I don’t mean this to be libelous, but clearly when he wrote Guns he did so from a position of blithe ignorance of the nature of history. History is not a scientific discipline which can be subject to its laws. If Diamond thinks he discovered any ‘laws of history’, he is quite mistaken. Diamond’s thesis basically reduces history to a single factor of geographical determinism, and when you think of all the complicated factors operating throughout history – political, social, cultural, the decisions of individuals – many of them cumulative, you realize how absurd his theories really are.

    A book which really ought to be thrown in with all the rest of the political literature, save the history shelf for actual history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the biggest questions in global history is why it was Western Europe that industrialized first, and ended up colonizing most of the rest of the world. As late as 1450, the possibility of such an outcome would have been ridiculed. By almost any metric, China was well in the lead through the medieval...
  • However, Chinese has one major advantage in the Information Age, which is what really matters in the here and now: information density per character. I can express the same thought with 4 characters, that I knew in elementary school, that would require a paragraph in English.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I already thought that language was the culprit (or well, one of the culprits – the world is much too complex to have singular causes) for China’s relatively late industrialization.

    As a child, my family spoke Cantonese at home. In addition, I took classes in Chinese. Nevertheless, I still cannot read or write in Chinese. It’s just too hard of a language.

    Your comment about moveable type is really amusing. It is baffling how China invented something that is completely useless in the context of the Chinese language, but would revolutionize the world in terms of printing and literacy in Europe centuries later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Pomeranz, Kenneth – The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (2001) Category: economy, history, world systems; Rating: 5*/5 Summary: Brad DeLong's review; The Bactra Review; Are Coal and Colonies Really Crucial? It's a rare book that not only vastly informs you on a particular issue, but in so doing...
  • Underlying factors:
    1) pursuit/love of science, technology, trade, and exploration
    2) free and open trade
    3) free and open markets
    4) love of life (philanthropy), religion that values greatness in life (opposed to forgoing life for afterlife)
    5) invisible hand of the marketplace
    6) the Olympics
    7) freedom of mobility
    8) large populations
    9) private property
    10) rule of law
    11)….. etc

    And a great comment by user Albo —- After the fall of Constantinople, all those Byzantines/Romans went over to Western Europe. So the necessary and sufficient items to flourishing seem to lie completely in the beliefs/values/behaviors of individuals/society/culture.

    EVERY western civilization course includes Russia!

    And I can’t comprehend for one second why any Russian (that’s you Anatoly) would champion environmental circumstance as a primary reason for prosperity!! Some of the most fabulous advances in science and technology have come out of Saint Petersburg and the Russian Academy of Sciences —– a mosquito infested swamp in the summer and icebox in the winter….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The narrative on the Industrial Revolution is generally written by English observers and emphasises some sudden emergence that is different from elsewhere. However, one should note that in South Wales, where the coal/iron/steam version of the IR took place (there is a wool/cotton/factory/machine building version as well) large, export orientated ironworks had been founded by the Cistercian monks from about 1130. In particular, the Margam Abbey part of the Port Talbot iron works was in production by 1130. The same monastic estate was also a large scale producer of wool. German iron and coal companies have similarly ancient ancestry accompanied by considerable technical development.

    Sometime in the 1580′s Queen Elizabeth ordered the construction of a large copper works at Neath, which produced copper plate for protecting ships hulls, making long distance trade speedier and repeatable in the same vessel. The Agrarian Revolution of the 18th Century, aided by global warning from the sunspot cycle, was an important factor in boosting the wealth of the British population and thus the available market for industrial goods. And then came Napoleon, a huge boost to technological development (and wool production, not least for the Russian army). The industrial revolution in Europe was under way well before the days of long distance trade (it made effective long distance trade possible) and well before plantation economies. I don’t dispute the colossal impact of the Americas but the Chinese could have found Australia or done more with South East Asia or Siberia. Chinese loss of leadership was not inevitable. Cultural factors were relevant. For example, Merchants were tolerated by the bureaucrats; they were not encouraged and there was no respect for their private property so corporations could not be formed and very large concentrations of private capital were hard to create according to various “How the West won” books I’ve read. The Chinese undoubtedly had achieved technical perfection in the bronze age technologies of hydrological land management.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “This is incorrect. They did lose the ancient artistic traditions. ”
    ???

    The Byzantine empire being actually the continuation of the eastern Roman empire, and in fact the Byzantine denomination is misleading as they never called themselves other than Romans. Whereas Roman legacy was largely wiped out in the West, it continued to thrive in the East which in fact remained a powerful state for quite a long time. So the terms “lost” or even “decadence” aren’t appropriate in any ways. While what is called Byzantine Art became distinctly different from what we refer to as Greco-Roman art, the divergence took quite a long time to become apparent and especially before the iconoclast crises it’s hard to distinguish the two.

    Much antiquities were kept and looked after, and Constantinople was filled with ancient statues, columns and obelisks. Similarly, ancient skills were kept and built on.
    This is obvious with architecture and mosaic which are commonly seen as sublimated during the period, but painting and sculpture evolved as well. The differences being largely the result of trends already emerging in the late Roman Empire.

    As an illustration, consider the following : the colossal statue of Constantine, the missorium of Theodosus, then the barberini Ivory (this one in the Byzantine era proper)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Missorium_Theodosius_whole.jpgWhile Graeco-Roman is widely known for its realism and precision, most notably in sculpture, we already see here the tendancy to drift away from realism. However, these works are nonetheless masterpieces of great skill, disproving any “decadence” in the prowess of their creators.

    Most certainly a case must be made, that the kind of realistic sculptures and reliefs that we associate the Ancients with, having been done over and over thousands of times (and as I said still omnipresent in the landscape) what we see here is a change in mood and taste. To venture a comparison, although Picasso was able to create realistic paintings with talent, as shown in his early works, he nonetheless dedicated his life to the style he is best known for.
    It would be preposterous to forget how the Byzantine empire was renowned for its craftmanship and art, the products of which has been coveted all over Europe for nearly a millenium.

    http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/byzantium/image-gallery-exhibition-highlights/gallery-of-key-images-3,12,BZ.html

    Byzantine artists also, sculptors included, continually exported themselves, not only to Byzantine ruled parts of Italy but also across much of europe. And even if there were attempts to root out “images” during religious crises, which is assumed to have increased outflow of artists- they were later rehabilitated and no lasting religious interdiction existed. We aren’t aware of a religious interdiction to realistic sculptures- but probably rather than copying the old works what would have been needed to create anew was the practice of dissection, which was forbidden as well as quite universally taboo. Only dissection allowed the naked realism of Renaissance artists.

    But that Italian renaissance painting is an offshoot from the Byzantine art is undisputed. The Vasari quote, if unegrateful, is a testament to this. In fact, in matter of painting Italy was for centuries merely a studious periphery of the Eastern Romans.
    Byzantine Icone painting is originated with the funerary paintings of graeco-roman Egypt. Having been fortunately preserved by the climate, a quick googling using the word “Fayum” shows how amazing and realistic these were. The link is apparent with a 6th century byzantine icon, kept -not surprisingly- in the Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery.Yes, many Byzantine (mosaics and) paintings are very stylized, but again it’s clearly an intentional choice, not a lack of skill.

    In fact, your dislike for Byzantine art and preference for Renaissance is registered, but I doubt a lot of people actually consider the interior of St Mark basilica, almost entirely Byzantine, graceless. As for comparing Byzantine and Renaissance figuration, the Martorana Church in Palermo, where both styles coexist, provide a very good comparison. (Of course, frescoes and mosaics would always need to be seen in situ to be fully appreciated ) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89glise_de_la_Martorana_de_Palerme

    Indeed, having discussed the subject with a Greek, it’s an all time overlooked fact that western Europe as a whole has always lived in the shadow of Byzantium. Europeans didn’t quite “rediscover” ancient ideas, the Roman empire continued and passed the baton- and even this is overlooked since we put much more emphasis on what was conveyed by Arabs, but it’s the historiographic fashion of the day not the relative importance of each that explains it. And it goes further than just mentioning the Byzantine intellectuals fleeing the Turks to Italy : even the papacy is an offshoot of the byzantine pentarchy where the patriarch of Rome wasn’t supposed to have any special prominence other than honorific primacy. And without Papacy, no Christianity and no European civilization to begin with- pretty much all the barbarians rulers were illiterate and so became their subjects; well except for the clergy.

    This is very important for Russia as well as relevant to this thread about China and divergence : the third Rome theme is an essential one and Russia has every reason to cultivate it. Given that Europe still denigrate the Byzantine Empire while it owes it nearly everything and backstabbed it in 1204, this is food for thought regarding Russophobic tendancies : Western nations have no grounds to deny European legitimacy to Russia.
    And regarding China, Russia’s culture and history is intertwined with that of the longest lasting empire in history (330-1453) itself tied to the 1100 year older history of Rome- not a legacy really humbled by China ; )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    "the Byzantines, who never lost the ancient art forms..."

    This is incorrect. They did lose the ancient artistic traditions. Their art was for the most part formulaic, graceless, inelegant (well, except for the architecture), impersonal where ancient Greek and Renaissance art was variable, expressive, elegant, personal. Even if one chooses to abstain from pure judgment (and why would you? are you a man or a machine?), the fact remains that the ancient artistic traditions were lost after the 5th century AD. Something entirely new was born. Portraits of actual individuals disappeared. Attempts to convey subtle emotion in subjects' facial expressions mostly seized. Attempts to portray three-dimensional objects realistically in 2-D seized. There was a clean break in techniques, values, goals. This makes one think that perhaps the teacher-student chain itself was broken and ecclesiastic art started from scratch. This definitely happened in other areas - the writing of history, for example.

    The Yoruba figures whose pictures you posted have blank facial expressions. So the expressiveness that the Greeks strove for 1,500 years earlier isn't there. But yes, from the looks of them they could well be portraits of individuals. Good for them.

    "...who never lost the ancient art forms and techniques and taught them to Italians..."

    The Renaissance started with a rejection of Byzantine art. For example, the Wikipedia article on Giotto quotes Vasari as saying that he "made a decisive break with the crude traditional Byzantine style, and brought to life the great art of painting as we know it today, introducing the technique of drawing accurately from life..."

    Not entirely realistic but far from what most have in mind when it comes to Chinese art -

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Albo
    "He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring. A focus on the individual is a sign of deeper things, as is its lack. Is that a picture of an idealized ruler or of Pericles, of an idealized philosopher or of Aristotle? In the Western case we have portraits of actual individuals. As far as I know, in all other pre-modern cultures we only have idealized forms. If I was writing a book “systematically” comparing Western Civ. with others, I’d mention this seemingly very important difference. "

    But you'd be wrong, realistic art existed in pre-modern cultures outside of Europe.
    One example I know are the sculptures of the Yorubas, which were perfectly life-like

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_traditional_art

    and see page 15 of this doc
    http://hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/outreach/pdfs/yoruba_teaching_kit.pdf

    This is just one aspect of Yoruba culture where very stylized statues also exist, but then having realistic and stylized hand in hand is found everywhere. Anatoly cited Northern Italy as the origin of realistic art, you replied it was already found in ancient Greece, let me remind the connection between the two whichare the Byzantines, who never lost the ancient art forms and techniques and taught them to Italians- but interestingly, a lot of the byzantine art doesn't seek realism which is one of the reason it is appreciated.

    “the Byzantines, who never lost the ancient art forms…”

    This is incorrect. They did lose the ancient artistic traditions. Their art was for the most part formulaic, graceless, inelegant (well, except for the architecture), impersonal where ancient Greek and Renaissance art was variable, expressive, elegant, personal. Even if one chooses to abstain from pure judgment (and why would you? are you a man or a machine?), the fact remains that the ancient artistic traditions were lost after the 5th century AD. Something entirely new was born. Portraits of actual individuals disappeared. Attempts to convey subtle emotion in subjects’ facial expressions mostly seized. Attempts to portray three-dimensional objects realistically in 2-D seized. There was a clean break in techniques, values, goals. This makes one think that perhaps the teacher-student chain itself was broken and ecclesiastic art started from scratch. This definitely happened in other areas – the writing of history, for example.

    The Yoruba figures whose pictures you posted have blank facial expressions. So the expressiveness that the Greeks strove for 1,500 years earlier isn’t there. But yes, from the looks of them they could well be portraits of individuals. Good for them.

    “…who never lost the ancient art forms and techniques and taught them to Italians…”

    The Renaissance started with a rejection of Byzantine art. For example, the Wikipedia article on Giotto quotes Vasari as saying that he “made a decisive break with the crude traditional Byzantine style, and brought to life the great art of painting as we know it today, introducing the technique of drawing accurately from life…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spectator
    Not entirely realistic but far from what most have in mind when it comes to Chinese art - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Liao_Dynasty_-_Guan_Yin_statue.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Scowspi
    However, the Soviets put contemporary art into a straight-jacket by forcing it to conform to the ideology. Of course, over the years this waxed and waned in strictness; but the result was that films were funded (and shot) but then left on the shelf; books written and then banned (or simply not published); pictures painted but not shown; etc.

    As an interesting counterpoint to this, Poland (also not a rich place) became the cultural powerhouse of the Eastern bloc after 1956, largely because censorship was more relaxed than in the USSR and the cultural bureaucrats were less overbearing.

    This is true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    @spectator: You make another good point that funding a world-class intellectual elite can be at odds with economic democracy:

    Many are dazzled by the West’s elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don’t realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    There is a lot of truth in this. If only there were a way to have both intellectual high culture AND economic democracy too!
    Speaking as Russian: Tsarist Russia, as you know, produced a world-class intellectual and artistic elite, while masses of people were dirt poor. During Communist period, due to limited resources, Soviet Union struggled to produce “proletarian” writers, artists, etc. Some of them were pretty good, but admittedly not as great as the “bourgeois” talents who had preceded them. Western criticisms of Soviet culture are valid in this respect, albeit exagerrated and mean-spirited.
    Unable to create original culture at a world-class level, Soviet compromise was to focus on PRESERVING great culture of the past. Some might sneer at this as monkey-like “copying”, but nonetheless as a result of this policy, classical ballet, opera, symphonies, etc., were maintained better than anywhere else in the world. Also, millions of common people got access to great culture. In Soviet times (this is no myth), an average worker could purchase a ticket costing just a couple of roubles to Bolshoi or Kirov theater. [Admittedly, I am idealizing a tad… sometimes these tickets were hard to get if one did not have connections via the workplace or trade union…]
    Anyhow, once he was lucky enough to get a ticket, this ordinary worker could thus attend a world-class production of some great work from the past (let’s say, “Il Trovatore”). During the intermission, he could attend the buffet and enjoy some caviar and champagne, again for just a couple of roubles. (I am not making this up, it really was this way.) Hence, the worker could enjoy an affordable, but meaningful, cultural experience that would have been beyond his means during Tsarist times.
    In short, Soviet Union helped to preserve European classical tradition. Soviet ballet dancers, singers, etc., were among the best in the world. Also, great works of art were nourished and preserved in great museums like Tretiakov.
    There is a kind of greatness to this, no? Soviet government was not wealthy, but was able to allocate sufficient funds to preserve existing culture and, in doing so, provided intellectual stimulation to the masses, as well as valuable training and jobs for dancers and artists.

    I believe you, yalensis. I am admittedly ignorant on the subject but my take is that the Soviets did well not just for high culture but especially for science and technology.

    I don’t understand where the “copying” accusation comes from, if that were the case than everyone in Western Eurasia outside of some regions of Italy and the Middle East is also “copying”

    There is a lot of truth in this. If only there were a way to have both intellectual high culture AND economic democracy too!

    In my opinion high culture and science output depends a lot on the sheer number of people beyond some given threshold in terms of financial resources.

    In America having so many rich supported by legions of poor has pushed many elite families well into the capitalist/intellectual caste before one would expect given America’s overall financial situation.

    Based on this theory I would predict that Japan and the rest of developed East Asia is approaching a scientific and cultural golden age, as there’s a huge concentration of middle class asset-holders approaching say, $500,000 in net worth – which is a good figure for start-ups or supporting starving artist offspring.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    @spectator: You make another good point that funding a world-class intellectual elite can be at odds with economic democracy:

    Many are dazzled by the West’s elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don’t realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    There is a lot of truth in this. If only there were a way to have both intellectual high culture AND economic democracy too!
    Speaking as Russian: Tsarist Russia, as you know, produced a world-class intellectual and artistic elite, while masses of people were dirt poor. During Communist period, due to limited resources, Soviet Union struggled to produce “proletarian” writers, artists, etc. Some of them were pretty good, but admittedly not as great as the “bourgeois” talents who had preceded them. Western criticisms of Soviet culture are valid in this respect, albeit exagerrated and mean-spirited.
    Unable to create original culture at a world-class level, Soviet compromise was to focus on PRESERVING great culture of the past. Some might sneer at this as monkey-like “copying”, but nonetheless as a result of this policy, classical ballet, opera, symphonies, etc., were maintained better than anywhere else in the world. Also, millions of common people got access to great culture. In Soviet times (this is no myth), an average worker could purchase a ticket costing just a couple of roubles to Bolshoi or Kirov theater. [Admittedly, I am idealizing a tad… sometimes these tickets were hard to get if one did not have connections via the workplace or trade union…]
    Anyhow, once he was lucky enough to get a ticket, this ordinary worker could thus attend a world-class production of some great work from the past (let’s say, “Il Trovatore”). During the intermission, he could attend the buffet and enjoy some caviar and champagne, again for just a couple of roubles. (I am not making this up, it really was this way.) Hence, the worker could enjoy an affordable, but meaningful, cultural experience that would have been beyond his means during Tsarist times.
    In short, Soviet Union helped to preserve European classical tradition. Soviet ballet dancers, singers, etc., were among the best in the world. Also, great works of art were nourished and preserved in great museums like Tretiakov.
    There is a kind of greatness to this, no? Soviet government was not wealthy, but was able to allocate sufficient funds to preserve existing culture and, in doing so, provided intellectual stimulation to the masses, as well as valuable training and jobs for dancers and artists.

    However, the Soviets put contemporary art into a straight-jacket by forcing it to conform to the ideology. Of course, over the years this waxed and waned in strictness; but the result was that films were funded (and shot) but then left on the shelf; books written and then banned (or simply not published); pictures painted but not shown; etc.

    As an interesting counterpoint to this, Poland (also not a rich place) became the cultural powerhouse of the Eastern bloc after 1956, largely because censorship was more relaxed than in the USSR and the cultural bureaucrats were less overbearing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    This is true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Spectator
    The Japanese are probably some mash of "Altaic" speakers, Chinese (North and South), Austronesians and Ainuids (haplotype D). The similarity to Tibetans is y-DNA haplotype D; these people are suspected to have populated the periphery of mainland Asia and the Japanese islands tens of thousands of years ago. Their remnants were most likely absorbed by migrants from Northern China who would later become the Tibetan people.

    Note that there is a lot of internal variation within Tibet just as there is in any other macroregion of East Asia.

    As far as the pragmatism of Chinese intellectual elites, it's more a thing of necessity than anything. Being able to think casually about open-ended subjects is a luxury afforded to elite Europeans (and Indians) by the oppression of the vast majority of their own people if not others.

    Believe it or not, "wealth concentration" is more pronounced in all Western societies than China - the headline figures tend to be of income, which are of little use after you run the numbers through taxes and expenses.

    Many are dazzled by the West's elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don't realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    With 30% of the population now starving and illiterate (as per India) they'd be able to shift $4-5 trillion of $16-18 trillion total national wealth into the hands of capitalist class elites who tend to be the ones that win market share and churn out patents, artwork and Nobels.

    China would then have the brilliant Indian start-ups and some inklings of the Western high culture many disillusioned PRC nationals are so envious of. The price would be tens of millions of corpses every year. That, of course, would doom China's long-term prospects just as they doomed Greece and Rome's, but the intangible legacy would be enormous.

    As for the Great Wall, it served its purpose up until the Manchu were let through the Shanhai pass, the fact that it was able to hold them off from taking advantage of Ming's chaos and slow decline speaks of its worth.

    @spectator: You make another good point that funding a world-class intellectual elite can be at odds with economic democracy:

    Many are dazzled by the West’s elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don’t realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    There is a lot of truth in this. If only there were a way to have both intellectual high culture AND economic democracy too!
    Speaking as Russian: Tsarist Russia, as you know, produced a world-class intellectual and artistic elite, while masses of people were dirt poor. During Communist period, due to limited resources, Soviet Union struggled to produce “proletarian” writers, artists, etc. Some of them were pretty good, but admittedly not as great as the “bourgeois” talents who had preceded them. Western criticisms of Soviet culture are valid in this respect, albeit exagerrated and mean-spirited.
    Unable to create original culture at a world-class level, Soviet compromise was to focus on PRESERVING great culture of the past. Some might sneer at this as monkey-like “copying”, but nonetheless as a result of this policy, classical ballet, opera, symphonies, etc., were maintained better than anywhere else in the world. Also, millions of common people got access to great culture. In Soviet times (this is no myth), an average worker could purchase a ticket costing just a couple of roubles to Bolshoi or Kirov theater. [Admittedly, I am idealizing a tad… sometimes these tickets were hard to get if one did not have connections via the workplace or trade union…]
    Anyhow, once he was lucky enough to get a ticket, this ordinary worker could thus attend a world-class production of some great work from the past (let’s say, “Il Trovatore”). During the intermission, he could attend the buffet and enjoy some caviar and champagne, again for just a couple of roubles. (I am not making this up, it really was this way.) Hence, the worker could enjoy an affordable, but meaningful, cultural experience that would have been beyond his means during Tsarist times.
    In short, Soviet Union helped to preserve European classical tradition. Soviet ballet dancers, singers, etc., were among the best in the world. Also, great works of art were nourished and preserved in great museums like Tretiakov.
    There is a kind of greatness to this, no? Soviet government was not wealthy, but was able to allocate sufficient funds to preserve existing culture and, in doing so, provided intellectual stimulation to the masses, as well as valuable training and jobs for dancers and artists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Scowspi
    However, the Soviets put contemporary art into a straight-jacket by forcing it to conform to the ideology. Of course, over the years this waxed and waned in strictness; but the result was that films were funded (and shot) but then left on the shelf; books written and then banned (or simply not published); pictures painted but not shown; etc.

    As an interesting counterpoint to this, Poland (also not a rich place) became the cultural powerhouse of the Eastern bloc after 1956, largely because censorship was more relaxed than in the USSR and the cultural bureaucrats were less overbearing.

    , @Spectator
    I believe you, yalensis. I am admittedly ignorant on the subject but my take is that the Soviets did well not just for high culture but especially for science and technology.

    I don't understand where the "copying" accusation comes from, if that were the case than everyone in Western Eurasia outside of some regions of Italy and the Middle East is also "copying"

    There is a lot of truth in this. If only there were a way to have both intellectual high culture AND economic democracy too!

    In my opinion high culture and science output depends a lot on the sheer number of people beyond some given threshold in terms of financial resources.

    In America having so many rich supported by legions of poor has pushed many elite families well into the capitalist/intellectual caste before one would expect given America's overall financial situation.

    Based on this theory I would predict that Japan and the rest of developed East Asia is approaching a scientific and cultural golden age, as there's a huge concentration of middle class asset-holders approaching say, $500,000 in net worth - which is a good figure for start-ups or supporting starving artist offspring.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @sinotibetan
    Dear Spectator,
    Thanks for your comments! Are you a Chinese from China? I am not from China though. I belong to part of the Chinese diaspora in south east Asia. Many interesting points you brought up. Thanks for them!

    1.)Although there was a point in the past that I felt our people seemed 'inferior' to peoples in the West/Europe, that period has been gotten over with. I am at peace with who I am and my people, the Chinese. I can accept negative and positive attributes of my people, our strengths and weaknesses without any trappings of a sense of inferiority.

    2.) Regarding the Japanese, I sense that physical anthropologically-wise, they seemed to be a blend of 'two peoples'? One strand which appeared closer, in terms of physical appearances, to Northern Chinese or Korean and a great majority actually seemed similar in physical appearance to the Southern Chinese like the Fujianese or Cantonese even - this is true, in my opinion, especially with regards to Japanese ladies. Japanese men tend to have more expression of "Ainu" features(if I'm not mistaken these aboriginals are distantly related to the 'Gilyaks' in Siberia?) - wavy hair, more 'hairy' and a distinctive 'Japanese' look very rarely if ever seen in Chinese men. However, genotypically - apparently the Japanese seemed close to Tibetan in an article I read some time back. Which seems strange when these two peoples are physically quite dissimiliar.

    3.)"Elite Europeans, yes. The other 85% of them, not so much."
    I am not too sure about this. It might have been true in olden times but perhaps not so today? If we compare European elites and Chinese elites of the past and current
    European and Chinese intellectuals, we seem more pragmatic whereas the Europeans seem more idealistic in my opinion. In my country at least, when I speak to ethnic Chinese intellectuals of 'comparable stature' to ethnic Europeans, there is a tendency for Chinese to have a more limited scope of interests, a certain lack of curiosity if some thought/idea is of 'no material benefit'(especially MONEY) whereas Europeans tend to do things even if such material benefits seem dim - 'idea for idea's sake' - the ego of thinking something that's never been thought of before rather than just because such idea can benefit humanity or himself materially ONLY. It's a generalization, of course ...and times are changing as well - many Chinese intellectuals don't fit the description but I thought it is still so, in general. Perhaps it's different in China? I feel Chinese pragmatism - a positive attribute in times of crisis - is a stumbling block to challenge the status quo - or to borrow Star Trek - 'go boldly where no man has gone before'. Ingenuity requires that 'juvenile' thinking of daring to oppose fate and what the majority insist is 'impossible' or 'beyond common sense'. Pragmatic thinking would have never come up with quantum mechanics or led anyone to discover DNA! We Chinese need to learn some idealism from the Western elites! Not too much, just optimal. Pragmatism and idealism must be 'balanced'. I think the West has too much idealism and that's bad too. Ideals don't solve economic or political problems(and this is the error of 'Russian liberals' who hanker on some idealistic notions). I feel I am more 'idealistic' than most of my compatriots and sometimes their pragmatism bore me because no one among them would be interested in talking about DNA made out of L-deoxyribose rather than D-deoxyribose -( 'mirror' 'life)' and I always had to 'come down to earth' to talk very petty things, for example. Talking to a European/Western intellectual of comparable stature would, usually, have evoked a passionate discussion. But as I've said, times are changing and I've now met many Chinese intellectuals who are 'as idealistic' and to me that's a positive sign that Asians might one day achieve great heights in scientific discovery.

    4.)"The Great Wall was pragmatic"
    Indeed it was. But also an emblem of our sense of self-sufficiency and belief that our civilization is the centre of the world?
    Korea - it was a vassal state most of the time. A vassal state needed no great wall.
    Japan - it was separated by a sea. The Japanese were more often raiding our long-suffering vassal, the Koreans in later centuries. Earlier, the Japanese borrowed from us and Tang Dynasty had so much influence on Japan in those early years.
    Indochina - Vietnam was a rather rebellious and unwilling vassal of ours. They were under us for almost a thousand years! Like the Koreans, we did not need a great wall for the Vietnamese. The Koreans and Vietnamese - even at times of rebellion - were not as threatening to the Dragon Throne inasmuch as the Turkic and Mongolic people up north. Hence, the Chinese built those great walls to reduce this Turko-Mongolic threat. The rest of Indochina - they were culturally influenced by India and their 'political interests' were southwards and these barely threatened to overthrow any dynastic regimes in ancient China unlike the Huns, Turks, Jurchens, Khitans etc.
    As for Tibet I speculate that in spite of Tibetan-Mongolic threats to ancient Chinese regimes, the Mongolic ones like the Jurchens(who later morphed into Manchurians) and Mongolian proper seemed to necessitate a great wall 'encasing' the North but less so the Western frontier?

    "It worked well against intermittent nomadic raids and prevented them from escaping with loot."
    I am not so convinced. The Manchurian Aisin-Gioro Dorgon went through the Great Wall 'easily' enough! Thanks to betrayers like Wu Sangui!

    5.)"I question this. Northerners have never been afraid of death"
    I think you are quite right about this. Yes, I think my generalization fails for Northerners. My ancestors were from the south - and I think Southerners are more 'docile' compared to Northerners. Perhaps that's why most dynasties were founded by Northerners and quite a few by Mongolic tribes (Jurchens, Khitans).

    BTW...for Russian commentors here : if I am not mistaken, China is called 'Kitay' in Russian, right? The etymology of the word is Khitan - who founded the Liao Dynasty in Northern China. The archaic English term for China - Cathay - had the same root.

    sinotibetan

    The Japanese are probably some mash of “Altaic” speakers, Chinese (North and South), Austronesians and Ainuids (haplotype D). The similarity to Tibetans is y-DNA haplotype D; these people are suspected to have populated the periphery of mainland Asia and the Japanese islands tens of thousands of years ago. Their remnants were most likely absorbed by migrants from Northern China who would later become the Tibetan people.

    Note that there is a lot of internal variation within Tibet just as there is in any other macroregion of East Asia.

    As far as the pragmatism of Chinese intellectual elites, it’s more a thing of necessity than anything. Being able to think casually about open-ended subjects is a luxury afforded to elite Europeans (and Indians) by the oppression of the vast majority of their own people if not others.

    Believe it or not, “wealth concentration” is more pronounced in all Western societies than China – the headline figures tend to be of income, which are of little use after you run the numbers through taxes and expenses.

    Many are dazzled by the West’s elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don’t realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    With 30% of the population now starving and illiterate (as per India) they’d be able to shift $4-5 trillion of $16-18 trillion total national wealth into the hands of capitalist class elites who tend to be the ones that win market share and churn out patents, artwork and Nobels.

    China would then have the brilliant Indian start-ups and some inklings of the Western high culture many disillusioned PRC nationals are so envious of. The price would be tens of millions of corpses every year. That, of course, would doom China’s long-term prospects just as they doomed Greece and Rome’s, but the intangible legacy would be enormous.

    As for the Great Wall, it served its purpose up until the Manchu were let through the Shanhai pass, the fact that it was able to hold them off from taking advantage of Ming’s chaos and slow decline speaks of its worth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    @spectator: You make another good point that funding a world-class intellectual elite can be at odds with economic democracy:

    Many are dazzled by the West’s elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don’t realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    There is a lot of truth in this. If only there were a way to have both intellectual high culture AND economic democracy too!
    Speaking as Russian: Tsarist Russia, as you know, produced a world-class intellectual and artistic elite, while masses of people were dirt poor. During Communist period, due to limited resources, Soviet Union struggled to produce “proletarian” writers, artists, etc. Some of them were pretty good, but admittedly not as great as the “bourgeois” talents who had preceded them. Western criticisms of Soviet culture are valid in this respect, albeit exagerrated and mean-spirited.
    Unable to create original culture at a world-class level, Soviet compromise was to focus on PRESERVING great culture of the past. Some might sneer at this as monkey-like “copying”, but nonetheless as a result of this policy, classical ballet, opera, symphonies, etc., were maintained better than anywhere else in the world. Also, millions of common people got access to great culture. In Soviet times (this is no myth), an average worker could purchase a ticket costing just a couple of roubles to Bolshoi or Kirov theater. [Admittedly, I am idealizing a tad… sometimes these tickets were hard to get if one did not have connections via the workplace or trade union…]
    Anyhow, once he was lucky enough to get a ticket, this ordinary worker could thus attend a world-class production of some great work from the past (let’s say, “Il Trovatore”). During the intermission, he could attend the buffet and enjoy some caviar and champagne, again for just a couple of roubles. (I am not making this up, it really was this way.) Hence, the worker could enjoy an affordable, but meaningful, cultural experience that would have been beyond his means during Tsarist times.
    In short, Soviet Union helped to preserve European classical tradition. Soviet ballet dancers, singers, etc., were among the best in the world. Also, great works of art were nourished and preserved in great museums like Tretiakov.
    There is a kind of greatness to this, no? Soviet government was not wealthy, but was able to allocate sufficient funds to preserve existing culture and, in doing so, provided intellectual stimulation to the masses, as well as valuable training and jobs for dancers and artists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    Hello, @sinotibetan! Don't worry, your English is fine! Anyhow, agree with you on Chinese medicine. Like I mentioned above, I was happy to hear on the radio that Chinese government is planning to invest in stem-cell research. This area is very promising for future treatments, cures, etc. I believe stem-cell research was invented in West, but Western governments are now too cash-poor to proceed with this expensive research. So hopefully Chinese scientists (maybe Russian scientists too) can pick up the baton and make some advancements in this field.
    Chinese doctors thought the liver was on the LEFT? I am astonished. Did they never cut open a person and see with their own eyes where the liver was? What about butchers? When they butchered an animal, surely they must have noticed where the liver was?
    In Europe, the study of human anatomy was helped by two inter-related studies: medicine and representational art. Artists like Leonardo DaVinci used to pay thieves to steal corpses so he could cut them open and see how the parts worked. This satisfied his scientific curiosity, and also helped him be a better painter of the human form.
    In ancient Rome people were very aware where every organ was located. Maybe this is because the Romans were so warlike (and also had people fight to the death in the arena), so they had witnessed many gory scenes and were all too familiar what the inside of a person looked like.
    Even the ancient Greeks… I recall some passage in Homer’s Iliad, I forget the exact words, but it was something like, “… and then Hector’s sword did pierce straight through the noble Patrokles liver and came out through the back of his second vertebrae…”

    Hi yalensis,

    Thanks for the comments!

    1.) I think one thing I forgot to say is that too often the mystical gets enmeshed with all forms of knowledge and perhaps(I am speculating, I am not sure- perhaps Spectator might know more) that’s the case with ancient Chinese medicine. I think the mystical might have even superseded their own sight of where the liver is positioned in the human body even?
    I think one important development – at least amongst European intellectuals – was the ‘scientific method’ and the rise of skepticism : untying mystical/religious from ‘explaining’ every physical phenomena. Perhaps that is one important paradigm shift that helped Europe spur on to great scientific discoveries. Whereas mystical/religious explanations for natural phenomena were not challenged in other civilizations – including Chinese civilization?

    2.)Regarding stem cells – one of my interests as well. Promising indeed!

    sinotibetan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    I didn't claim that Mozart wasn't brilliant but the playing classical music is just copying. You also can't compare contemporary music with classical music without realizing that Mozart's contemporaries are long forgotten while the present not brilliant composers are still known.

    Charly,

    1.)Playing any music is ‘copying’ – to a certain extent. The musician playing any piece of work is supposed to be a ‘secondary’ musician – interpretation is supposed to be part of his skill. Not comparable with the intelligence needed to compose a piece of music. Sure just playing classical music requires more of interpretative skills and technical virtuosity rather than the kind of ‘higher’ intellect in musical composition. In that sense, I agree with you…but it’s not just consigned to classical but to all genre. Even if we were to take Jazz, the performer is in a way still ‘copying’ because chord progressions and improvisations are more ‘fuzzy’ and lack the ‘organizational’ ability in let’s say composing a symphony(I can’t stand Bruckner though and ‘avant garde’ composers are just as ‘fuzzy’) whereas in pop, I’d say a catchy memorable tune is of utmost importance. Etc. etc.

    2.) Present brilliant composers – they are brilliant in their own right if we talk about novel chord progressions and ‘tune/melody composition’ – yet none, I dare say, achieve the kind of finesse in ‘organizational compositional thought’ like those in the classical era. Brilliant but not quite match up with past masters.

    3.)I think current music(as seen in such genre as hip-hop, reggae, rap etc.) have massive dose of African influence. The focus is on rhythm and less on melody and harmony – which I’d say is distinctively ‘European’. I think nowadays, too much on rhythmic complexity but lacking in tonal/harmonic complexity. Somehow, less ‘intellectual’ music – evoking ‘party emotion’ but lacking on other ‘feelings’ such as ‘contemplation’, ‘pathos’, ‘nostalgia’, ‘joy’ etc… I don’t know whether you understand what I’m talking about!

    BTW, contemporary Chinese music has caught up with the Western trends of rap(which I have to say I dislike) and others of the like. Less composers in the Far East compose good songs based on the traditional pentatonic scale.

    sinotibetan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Spectator
    I am Chinese and have had the luxury of never feeling inferior to Europeans (or any ethnic or racial group) ever.

    The reason why Europe excelled was because, in short, it relegated almost 30% of its own population (not to mention others) to subhuman status all throughout history. This creates a lot of capital for the "smartest" people to use.

    It also gave birth to the musical and art culture which was exclusively accessible by the 1% elite, walled off from the unwashed mashes of slaves, indentured servants, commoners, etc. But music carries well over time, so this is easily overlooked.

    uncharacteristically un-East Asian ‘large’ eyes

    Many Japanese people have large eyes - larger than that of European's - because of Ainuid and Austronesian admixture. The hair dying, however, is an abomination I agree.

    European peoples are people who love ideas.

    Elite Europeans, yes. The other 85% of them, not so much.

    The Great Wall of Chine speaks of this ‘insularity’

    Then why is there no Great Wall between China and Tibet? Korea? Japan? Indochina? India (the few mountain passes, of course)?

    The Great Wall was pragmatic, not so much xenophobic. It worked well against intermittent nomadic raids and prevented them from escaping with loot.

    Whereas we Chinese are, to use a Hokkien slang – ‘kiasi’ and ‘kiasu’ = scared of death and scared of ‘losing face’.

    I question this. Northerners have never been afraid of death, and if they were, they don't really show it.

    But we never bother to ask why does water behave as it is, or question that perhaps diseases are not caused by some warlock curse.

    The writings of many a polymath statesman beg to differ.

    Dear Spectator,
    Thanks for your comments! Are you a Chinese from China? I am not from China though. I belong to part of the Chinese diaspora in south east Asia. Many interesting points you brought up. Thanks for them!

    1.)Although there was a point in the past that I felt our people seemed ‘inferior’ to peoples in the West/Europe, that period has been gotten over with. I am at peace with who I am and my people, the Chinese. I can accept negative and positive attributes of my people, our strengths and weaknesses without any trappings of a sense of inferiority.

    2.) Regarding the Japanese, I sense that physical anthropologically-wise, they seemed to be a blend of ‘two peoples’? One strand which appeared closer, in terms of physical appearances, to Northern Chinese or Korean and a great majority actually seemed similar in physical appearance to the Southern Chinese like the Fujianese or Cantonese even – this is true, in my opinion, especially with regards to Japanese ladies. Japanese men tend to have more expression of “Ainu” features(if I’m not mistaken these aboriginals are distantly related to the ‘Gilyaks’ in Siberia?) – wavy hair, more ‘hairy’ and a distinctive ‘Japanese’ look very rarely if ever seen in Chinese men. However, genotypically – apparently the Japanese seemed close to Tibetan in an article I read some time back. Which seems strange when these two peoples are physically quite dissimiliar.

    3.)”Elite Europeans, yes. The other 85% of them, not so much.”
    I am not too sure about this. It might have been true in olden times but perhaps not so today? If we compare European elites and Chinese elites of the past and current
    European and Chinese intellectuals, we seem more pragmatic whereas the Europeans seem more idealistic in my opinion. In my country at least, when I speak to ethnic Chinese intellectuals of ‘comparable stature’ to ethnic Europeans, there is a tendency for Chinese to have a more limited scope of interests, a certain lack of curiosity if some thought/idea is of ‘no material benefit’(especially MONEY) whereas Europeans tend to do things even if such material benefits seem dim – ‘idea for idea’s sake’ – the ego of thinking something that’s never been thought of before rather than just because such idea can benefit humanity or himself materially ONLY. It’s a generalization, of course …and times are changing as well – many Chinese intellectuals don’t fit the description but I thought it is still so, in general. Perhaps it’s different in China? I feel Chinese pragmatism – a positive attribute in times of crisis – is a stumbling block to challenge the status quo – or to borrow Star Trek – ‘go boldly where no man has gone before’. Ingenuity requires that ‘juvenile’ thinking of daring to oppose fate and what the majority insist is ‘impossible’ or ‘beyond common sense’. Pragmatic thinking would have never come up with quantum mechanics or led anyone to discover DNA! We Chinese need to learn some idealism from the Western elites! Not too much, just optimal. Pragmatism and idealism must be ‘balanced’. I think the West has too much idealism and that’s bad too. Ideals don’t solve economic or political problems(and this is the error of ‘Russian liberals’ who hanker on some idealistic notions). I feel I am more ‘idealistic’ than most of my compatriots and sometimes their pragmatism bore me because no one among them would be interested in talking about DNA made out of L-deoxyribose rather than D-deoxyribose -( ‘mirror’ ‘life)’ and I always had to ‘come down to earth’ to talk very petty things, for example. Talking to a European/Western intellectual of comparable stature would, usually, have evoked a passionate discussion. But as I’ve said, times are changing and I’ve now met many Chinese intellectuals who are ‘as idealistic’ and to me that’s a positive sign that Asians might one day achieve great heights in scientific discovery.

    4.)”The Great Wall was pragmatic”
    Indeed it was. But also an emblem of our sense of self-sufficiency and belief that our civilization is the centre of the world?
    Korea – it was a vassal state most of the time. A vassal state needed no great wall.
    Japan – it was separated by a sea. The Japanese were more often raiding our long-suffering vassal, the Koreans in later centuries. Earlier, the Japanese borrowed from us and Tang Dynasty had so much influence on Japan in those early years.
    Indochina – Vietnam was a rather rebellious and unwilling vassal of ours. They were under us for almost a thousand years! Like the Koreans, we did not need a great wall for the Vietnamese. The Koreans and Vietnamese – even at times of rebellion – were not as threatening to the Dragon Throne inasmuch as the Turkic and Mongolic people up north. Hence, the Chinese built those great walls to reduce this Turko-Mongolic threat. The rest of Indochina – they were culturally influenced by India and their ‘political interests’ were southwards and these barely threatened to overthrow any dynastic regimes in ancient China unlike the Huns, Turks, Jurchens, Khitans etc.
    As for Tibet I speculate that in spite of Tibetan-Mongolic threats to ancient Chinese regimes, the Mongolic ones like the Jurchens(who later morphed into Manchurians) and Mongolian proper seemed to necessitate a great wall ‘encasing’ the North but less so the Western frontier?

    “It worked well against intermittent nomadic raids and prevented them from escaping with loot.”
    I am not so convinced. The Manchurian Aisin-Gioro Dorgon went through the Great Wall ‘easily’ enough! Thanks to betrayers like Wu Sangui!

    5.)”I question this. Northerners have never been afraid of death”
    I think you are quite right about this. Yes, I think my generalization fails for Northerners. My ancestors were from the south – and I think Southerners are more ‘docile’ compared to Northerners. Perhaps that’s why most dynasties were founded by Northerners and quite a few by Mongolic tribes (Jurchens, Khitans).

    BTW…for Russian commentors here : if I am not mistaken, China is called ‘Kitay’ in Russian, right? The etymology of the word is Khitan – who founded the Liao Dynasty in Northern China. The archaic English term for China – Cathay – had the same root.

    sinotibetan

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spectator
    The Japanese are probably some mash of "Altaic" speakers, Chinese (North and South), Austronesians and Ainuids (haplotype D). The similarity to Tibetans is y-DNA haplotype D; these people are suspected to have populated the periphery of mainland Asia and the Japanese islands tens of thousands of years ago. Their remnants were most likely absorbed by migrants from Northern China who would later become the Tibetan people.

    Note that there is a lot of internal variation within Tibet just as there is in any other macroregion of East Asia.

    As far as the pragmatism of Chinese intellectual elites, it's more a thing of necessity than anything. Being able to think casually about open-ended subjects is a luxury afforded to elite Europeans (and Indians) by the oppression of the vast majority of their own people if not others.

    Believe it or not, "wealth concentration" is more pronounced in all Western societies than China - the headline figures tend to be of income, which are of little use after you run the numbers through taxes and expenses.

    Many are dazzled by the West's elite culture (classical music, fine art, haute cuisine, science) but don't realize that the cost in human lives and money to fund this high culture is exorbitant. China could create something similar if they simply denied all support to the poorest 20, 30% of their population via neoliberal economic policy.

    With 30% of the population now starving and illiterate (as per India) they'd be able to shift $4-5 trillion of $16-18 trillion total national wealth into the hands of capitalist class elites who tend to be the ones that win market share and churn out patents, artwork and Nobels.

    China would then have the brilliant Indian start-ups and some inklings of the Western high culture many disillusioned PRC nationals are so envious of. The price would be tens of millions of corpses every year. That, of course, would doom China's long-term prospects just as they doomed Greece and Rome's, but the intangible legacy would be enormous.

    As for the Great Wall, it served its purpose up until the Manchu were let through the Shanhai pass, the fact that it was able to hold them off from taking advantage of Ming's chaos and slow decline speaks of its worth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring. A focus on the individual is a sign of deeper things, as is its lack. Is that a picture of an idealized ruler or of Pericles, of an idealized philosopher or of Aristotle? In the Western case we have portraits of actual individuals. As far as I know, in all other pre-modern cultures we only have idealized forms. If I was writing a book “systematically” comparing Western Civ. with others, I’d mention this seemingly very important difference. ”

    But you’d be wrong, realistic art existed in pre-modern cultures outside of Europe.
    One example I know are the sculptures of the Yorubas, which were perfectly life-like

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_traditional_art

    and see page 15 of this doc

    http://hearstmuseum.berkeley.edu/outreach/pdfs/yoruba_teaching_kit.pdf

    This is just one aspect of Yoruba culture where very stylized statues also exist, but then having realistic and stylized hand in hand is found everywhere. Anatoly cited Northern Italy as the origin of realistic art, you replied it was already found in ancient Greece, let me remind the connection between the two whichare the Byzantines, who never lost the ancient art forms and techniques and taught them to Italians- but interestingly, a lot of the byzantine art doesn’t seek realism which is one of the reason it is appreciated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    "the Byzantines, who never lost the ancient art forms..."

    This is incorrect. They did lose the ancient artistic traditions. Their art was for the most part formulaic, graceless, inelegant (well, except for the architecture), impersonal where ancient Greek and Renaissance art was variable, expressive, elegant, personal. Even if one chooses to abstain from pure judgment (and why would you? are you a man or a machine?), the fact remains that the ancient artistic traditions were lost after the 5th century AD. Something entirely new was born. Portraits of actual individuals disappeared. Attempts to convey subtle emotion in subjects' facial expressions mostly seized. Attempts to portray three-dimensional objects realistically in 2-D seized. There was a clean break in techniques, values, goals. This makes one think that perhaps the teacher-student chain itself was broken and ecclesiastic art started from scratch. This definitely happened in other areas - the writing of history, for example.

    The Yoruba figures whose pictures you posted have blank facial expressions. So the expressiveness that the Greeks strove for 1,500 years earlier isn't there. But yes, from the looks of them they could well be portraits of individuals. Good for them.

    "...who never lost the ancient art forms and techniques and taught them to Italians..."

    The Renaissance started with a rejection of Byzantine art. For example, the Wikipedia article on Giotto quotes Vasari as saying that he "made a decisive break with the crude traditional Byzantine style, and brought to life the great art of painting as we know it today, introducing the technique of drawing accurately from life..."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @sinotibetan
    I don't know why my English is so bad today.... Hope you guys forgive me for that....

    sinotibetan

    Hello, ! Don’t worry, your English is fine! Anyhow, agree with you on Chinese medicine. Like I mentioned above, I was happy to hear on the radio that Chinese government is planning to invest in stem-cell research. This area is very promising for future treatments, cures, etc. I believe stem-cell research was invented in West, but Western governments are now too cash-poor to proceed with this expensive research. So hopefully Chinese scientists (maybe Russian scientists too) can pick up the baton and make some advancements in this field.
    Chinese doctors thought the liver was on the LEFT? I am astonished. Did they never cut open a person and see with their own eyes where the liver was? What about butchers? When they butchered an animal, surely they must have noticed where the liver was?
    In Europe, the study of human anatomy was helped by two inter-related studies: medicine and representational art. Artists like Leonardo DaVinci used to pay thieves to steal corpses so he could cut them open and see how the parts worked. This satisfied his scientific curiosity, and also helped him be a better painter of the human form.
    In ancient Rome people were very aware where every organ was located. Maybe this is because the Romans were so warlike (and also had people fight to the death in the arena), so they had witnessed many gory scenes and were all too familiar what the inside of a person looked like.
    Even the ancient Greeks… I recall some passage in Homer’s Iliad, I forget the exact words, but it was something like, “… and then Hector’s sword did pierce straight through the noble Patrokles liver and came out through the back of his second vertebrae…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @sinotibetan
    Hi yalensis,

    Thanks for the comments!

    1.) I think one thing I forgot to say is that too often the mystical gets enmeshed with all forms of knowledge and perhaps(I am speculating, I am not sure- perhaps Spectator might know more) that's the case with ancient Chinese medicine. I think the mystical might have even superseded their own sight of where the liver is positioned in the human body even?
    I think one important development - at least amongst European intellectuals - was the 'scientific method' and the rise of skepticism : untying mystical/religious from 'explaining' every physical phenomena. Perhaps that is one important paradigm shift that helped Europe spur on to great scientific discoveries. Whereas mystical/religious explanations for natural phenomena were not challenged in other civilizations - including Chinese civilization?

    2.)Regarding stem cells - one of my interests as well. Promising indeed!

    sinotibetan

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Spectator
    Also, the Tibetan name for Everest is Qomolangma. I can't be bothered to look up the Chinese name for the Pacific Ocean, but many naming conventions changed during the Qing, including Xiyu to Xinjiang.

    Likewise, when you say "their own damn mountain" I take this as an endorsement of Chinese control over all of Greater Tibet including the region around Lhasa.

    @spectator: You make a lot of good points. I believe you have successfully dispelled many stereotypes about China. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @kirill
    When it comes to pharmaceuticals, western medicine ain't so hot. Thousands of years of trial and error with plant-derived medicine is worth quite a bit. Of course tiger penis is primitive shaman "medicine" and a joke, but that is not the limit of Chinese medicine.

    Yes, that is true. Western pharmaceuticals is ultimately based on plant medicine. (Although nowadays they don’t need actual plants any more once they figure out which molecule is the active ingredient and can synthesize in the laboratory.) And also trial and error. (More error than trial sometimes, it seems…) Since earliest times humans have been empirically testing various plants and herbs (“Let’s see what this one does… Oh great, my headache went away!”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    @Randy,

    Yes, elites do have a huge survival advantage. Numerous observations attest to this.

    For instance, the whole concept of "elite overproduction." In Malthusian societies, they were the last group to start becoming impoverished during subsistence crises; hence, with higher life expectancy (in particular, more children surviving at birth) they came to constitute a bigger and bigger share of the population. Then during collapses they killed each other off in factional struggles and civil wars.

    Another example. There was once a huge famine on a remote Pacific island (I forgot the name). Almost everyone who survived was in some way related to the ruling class. Another example. On the Titanic, first-class passengers were far more likely to survive than third-class passengers.

    Even the human body militates against low-class individuals, resulting in mortality rates far beyond what can be explained by differences in access to healthy food or quality healthcare. Quite simply humans evolved as hierarchic pack animals; if you're low-rank, you're far less useful as far as the group is concerned, and - your wishes regardless - the group doesn't care that much if you die out. This explains why police brutality against the homeless is matter of course while prosecuting the likes of Khodorkovsky for (real) crimes is "unacceptable"; why the vast majority of every population claims to be middle-class or better whereas in fact many of them are not; etc.

    Yeah, I saw this nature documentary once on TV. It was about the lives of wolves. (Secretly filmed by nature cameramen.) There was this one female wolf in the pack who had low status, and the other wolves always picked on her. (I don’t know why, all wolves look pretty much the same to me, but there was something about her the other wolves didn’t like.) This low-status wolf only got to eat scraps from the catch and was skinnier than the higher-ranking wolves. During a time of extreme hunger they drove her out of the pack. The documentary showed how she roamed by herself for a season (apparently this is the origin of the term “lone wolf”, it is a wolf driven out of their pack), she even met a lone male wolf and had two cubs. You were starting to hope that this would turn out to be a real-life Wolf Cinderella story … but no… The wolf for some reason returned to her old pack, with the two cubs. Maybe she was hoping she would return in triumph and get some payback. But here is the really sad part: the pack reluctantly let her back in, but the cubs of the higher-status wolves bullied their lower-status cousins, to the point where one cub actually died from the bullying. The other cub survived but was really skinny and had to put up with a lot of crap. Eventually skinny Wolf mom and Cub were forced to leave the pack again. Very sad… Humans and wolves are not really so different, are we?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Craig Willy
    "Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn’t." Says who? Ottoman-Turkish history suffers from the same inferiority complex, brought about by real economic and material inferiority, as Russian history. What kind of nation is it that turns their back on their entire history - Islam, their own script, their multiethnic State - to become a Western European-style (French) national-secular State? The only possible answer is a nation (or rather, a political leadership under Ataturk) which is deeply insecure and hateful of its own heritage and culture, believing the only way to "catch up", is to become Western European.

    Of course Ataturk failed, after being humiliated at Europe's door for 70+ years, the Turks are only now beginning to escape their inferiority complex under Erdogan's leadership.

    In the defense of the Turks, the status quo associated with the Ottoman Empire had failed catastrophically to the tune of the death of a sizable double-digit percentage of the Ottoman Empire’s population and the near-extinction of the Turkish state. Pushing through radical reforms aimed at Europeanizing Turkey, if more extremely and thoroughly than whatever Ottoman-era reformers planned, was probably the most constructive likely move. Absent that, Turkey wouldn’t be nearly in the same relatively good shape that it is now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    @Randy,

    Yes, elites do have a huge survival advantage. Numerous observations attest to this.

    For instance, the whole concept of "elite overproduction." In Malthusian societies, they were the last group to start becoming impoverished during subsistence crises; hence, with higher life expectancy (in particular, more children surviving at birth) they came to constitute a bigger and bigger share of the population. Then during collapses they killed each other off in factional struggles and civil wars.

    Another example. There was once a huge famine on a remote Pacific island (I forgot the name). Almost everyone who survived was in some way related to the ruling class. Another example. On the Titanic, first-class passengers were far more likely to survive than third-class passengers.

    Even the human body militates against low-class individuals, resulting in mortality rates far beyond what can be explained by differences in access to healthy food or quality healthcare. Quite simply humans evolved as hierarchic pack animals; if you're low-rank, you're far less useful as far as the group is concerned, and - your wishes regardless - the group doesn't care that much if you die out. This explains why police brutality against the homeless is matter of course while prosecuting the likes of Khodorkovsky for (real) crimes is "unacceptable"; why the vast majority of every population claims to be middle-class or better whereas in fact many of them are not; etc.

    Gotcha. Thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randy McDonald
    Among other things, you're assuming that elites have a reproductive advantage over non-elites. Is this actually the case? The huge differences in every respect between the classical worlds and the modern may make the observation that the relatively highly-educated demographics have fewer children than others, but ...

    @Randy,

    Yes, elites do have a huge survival advantage. Numerous observations attest to this.

    For instance, the whole concept of “elite overproduction.” In Malthusian societies, they were the last group to start becoming impoverished during subsistence crises; hence, with higher life expectancy (in particular, more children surviving at birth) they came to constitute a bigger and bigger share of the population. Then during collapses they killed each other off in factional struggles and civil wars.

    Another example. There was once a huge famine on a remote Pacific island (I forgot the name). Almost everyone who survived was in some way related to the ruling class. Another example. On the Titanic, first-class passengers were far more likely to survive than third-class passengers.

    Even the human body militates against low-class individuals, resulting in mortality rates far beyond what can be explained by differences in access to healthy food or quality healthcare. Quite simply humans evolved as hierarchic pack animals; if you’re low-rank, you’re far less useful as far as the group is concerned, and – your wishes regardless – the group doesn’t care that much if you die out. This explains why police brutality against the homeless is matter of course while prosecuting the likes of Khodorkovsky for (real) crimes is “unacceptable”; why the vast majority of every population claims to be middle-class or better whereas in fact many of them are not; etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randy McDonald
    Gotcha. Thanks!
    , @yalensis
    Yeah, I saw this nature documentary once on TV. It was about the lives of wolves. (Secretly filmed by nature cameramen.) There was this one female wolf in the pack who had low status, and the other wolves always picked on her. (I don’t know why, all wolves look pretty much the same to me, but there was something about her the other wolves didn’t like.) This low-status wolf only got to eat scraps from the catch and was skinnier than the higher-ranking wolves. During a time of extreme hunger they drove her out of the pack. The documentary showed how she roamed by herself for a season (apparently this is the origin of the term “lone wolf”, it is a wolf driven out of their pack), she even met a lone male wolf and had two cubs. You were starting to hope that this would turn out to be a real-life Wolf Cinderella story … but no… The wolf for some reason returned to her old pack, with the two cubs. Maybe she was hoping she would return in triumph and get some payback. But here is the really sad part: the pack reluctantly let her back in, but the cubs of the higher-status wolves bullied their lower-status cousins, to the point where one cub actually died from the bullying. The other cub survived but was really skinny and had to put up with a lot of crap. Eventually skinny Wolf mom and Cub were forced to leave the pack again. Very sad… Humans and wolves are not really so different, are we?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Doug M.
    Glad you liked it. Want some follow-on reading?


    Doug M.

    Okay, sure. Let me guess – Power and Plenty?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Craig Willy
    Yalensis: And then there's homeopathy...

    Oh, please, Craig, don’t get me started on homeopathy…. !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    Have you any proof of the greatness of the Greeks or is the problem more that most of the surviving works from that time are Greek and so are heavily slanted to the Greeks.

    No, I guess I don’t really have any proof. I just feel deep in my bones that the Greeks were AWESOME!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randy McDonald
    But was Genghis Khan exceptional? One example does not a tendency identify.

    Yes, maybe Genghis was a unique individual. But I stand by my assertion that politically powerful men score the chicks. Religious leaders too. Other example: Brigham Young, co-founder of the Mormon Church. He had 100 wives and over 1000 children. Check out a Salt Lake City, Utah phonebook some day, how many pages of Youngs…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    Intellectual elites do not necessarily have a reproductive advantage, but political elites certainly do. Powerful men get all the chicks. I'm not joking -- historians believe that Genghis Khan fathered literally a thousand children and is the ancestor of millions of people alive today. That was one horny conqueror!

    But was Genghis Khan exceptional? One example does not a tendency identify.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Yes, maybe Genghis was a unique individual. But I stand by my assertion that politically powerful men score the chicks. Religious leaders too. Other example: Brigham Young, co-founder of the Mormon Church. He had 100 wives and over 1000 children. Check out a Salt Lake City, Utah phonebook some day, how many pages of Youngs...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    In other words, Columbus did not "discover" the New World? Hah! I knew it!

    From what I know the Basques didn’t recognize the Newfoundland area as northeasternmost North America, rather classifying it as just another marginal North Atlantic island–the most distant, regulatrly visited, to be sure. (Knowledge of late Viking Greenland’s trade is sparse, to say the least.) If it had been more luxurious, maybe. As things stand, I”ve come across suggestions that sailors from areas involved in the North Atlantic fisheries trade in the very very early modern era–Basques, Bretons, English from ports like Bristol–did know about Newfoundland but didn’t classify it as a “new found land”, so to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @sinotibetan
    Hello all,

    Am I the only Chinese 'here'? Very, very interesting discussion! Many of you have such persuasive arguments that I don't even know where to begin. I hope you all would bear with my 'formless' and seemingly 'directionless' comments and hope some would find them worthy to be commented upon. Some ramdom thoughts:-
    1.)In 'defence' of Western classical music:-
    @charly:
    “Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence.”
    I generally agree with yalensis' comments. SOME classical music might be 'copy and status' - perhaps some of Handel's works(doubtless his modern-day fans might strongly disagree) but to dismiss any of Bach's , Mozart's(despite earlier 'daintiness'), Chopin's, Tschaikovsky's works (for example) as 'simply nothing to do with intelligence' is untrue. For example Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues or the great second movement of Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 in B flat major , I think are beautiful and 'very intellectual' music. In composing a fugue, the composer has to come up with a theme called the 'subject' in the key intended for the fugue. The fugue is supposed to have a minimum of two 'parts' and some have up to five parts if the fugue is intended for a solo keyboardist. Each 'part' is analogous to 'a singer' if it were a choral work. Then after exposition of the 'subject', another part will state the 'answer' - which is the same theme as the 'subject' but in another key- usually the dominant key. This 'answer' will be harmonized by a 'countersubject' which would either be a 'regular countersubject' or else one-off. The 'subject' and 'answer' will occur throughout the fugue modulated into other keys -eg subdominant , median, other 'unrelated keys' etc. In between are 'episodes' where certain 'motifs' from the subject and/or countersubject would be 'used'. Or else, new 'motifs' /themes might be devised. Most of the time, these parts are 'harmonized' so as to be able to 'sound good' with two or more permutations('counterpoint'). Occasionally, a devise called 'stretto' is used in which before a subject has been completed, it is harmonized by a subject or answer and these can be in many permutations. Sometimes the 'speed'(tempo) of the subject is augmented or diminished and made to harmonize with the 'original tempo' subject/answer in stretti. Etc. etc. etc. - depending on the creativity of the composer. Nothing to do with intelligence? It requires a composer of great intellect to devise such a musical composition! I dare say that modern music(pop, rock etc.) may not be comparable('inferior'?) to some of these works. Sorry for this long, meandering comment but I am a classical music fan, hence the 'defence'.

    http://server3.pianosociety.com/protected/bach-bwv886-carnevale.mp3

    The Fugue in A flat major in the above website is a jewel of baroque contrapuntal music. The 'chromatic' countersubject is so artfully crafted!

    BTW, I think Chinese music is, even the classical ones - though I do like some contemporary Chinese pop - are 'inferior' to western classical music in terms of 'form' and 'logic'.

    2.)“Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe."
    Actually, Russia is European[culturally and for ethnic Russians, ethnically](as someone pointed out) but being 'geopolitically different' from the rest of the European states because part of the country is in Asia(ie geopolitically 'Eurasian'). I think for the most part, the other European powers were(are still?) partly fearful of Russia in terms of that massive geopolitical 'size'. I wonder if North Americans(including Americans) and other countries colonized by former European powers have inferiority complex with Europe(at least 'culturally' as these nations are 'culturally derived' from some European states). I don't know about Africans and Middle Easterners, but I think all of East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, generally have an inferiority complex with Europe or people who are ethnically Europeans. For example, the Japanese preoccupation with dyeing their hair blond or having cartoons with uncharacteristically un-East Asian 'large' eyes may be a symptom of an inner inferiority complex? I myself, in the past, felt 'inferior' to Westerners and I think that in some instances, that 'feeling' is not without justification. Most of the scientific and mathematical breakthroughs that define our modern era were accomplished by Europeans or those descended from Europeans. It's a fact that cannot be denied. I have even wondered (perhaps like glossy) that perhaps Europeans are innately smarter than us Asians(and other 'races')? How come our civilizations failed to contribute in much meaningful and positive way to humanity - especially in science and technology - how come we are backward? I don't know the answers to these but I attempt to offer some possibilities in this long comment.

    3.) Certainly 'culture' does lead to the divergence between Europe and China. Some broadbrush generalizations now. I think deep within 'European' psyche is idealism. European peoples are people who love ideas. There is something within them that stirs that restlessness to discover things and to think of 'previously unthought of' thoughts. There is some sort of a rebellious nature in them to challenge the 'status quo'. Daring. Flamboyant. Willing to chart the unknowns. I think that's 'European'. "why is it?"/"what caused it" - etc. Europeans like to know WHY things are as they are...and can that be changed/be manipulated upon if the fundamentals of things can be understood? Admittedly, this 'attitude' became even more enhanced from the Renaissance onwards- not sure why.
    Whereas we Chinese are, to use a Hokkien slang - 'kiasi' and 'kiasu' = scared of death and scared of 'losing face'. We are 'insular' in our psyche. The Great Wall of Chine speaks of this 'insularity'. We call our country till this day "The Middle Country". Until we 'met' the Europeans in the last few centuries with superior scientific and technological achievements, we thought we already had a highly developed civilization - indigeneous in development - and that the rest - north, south, west and east of us were mere 'barbarians'. The Vietnamese and Koreans were our vassals. Moreover, we created our own civilization while the Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans 'borrowed' our civilization and written language. Trade was for acquisition of stuff we do not have in our native country. But we felt self-sufficient. We did not think that we 'need' any other nation. We are a more pragmatic people. In terms of Michiavellian politics and war strategies - sure we 'progressed'. But we never bother to ask why does water behave as it is, or question that perhaps diseases are not caused by some warlock curse. We got stuck with accepting the status quo.

    Any comments?

    sinotibetan

    I didn’t claim that Mozart wasn’t brilliant but the playing classical music is just copying. You also can’t compare contemporary music with classical music without realizing that Mozart’s contemporaries are long forgotten while the present not brilliant composers are still known.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sinotibetan
    Charly,

    1.)Playing any music is 'copying' - to a certain extent. The musician playing any piece of work is supposed to be a 'secondary' musician - interpretation is supposed to be part of his skill. Not comparable with the intelligence needed to compose a piece of music. Sure just playing classical music requires more of interpretative skills and technical virtuosity rather than the kind of 'higher' intellect in musical composition. In that sense, I agree with you...but it's not just consigned to classical but to all genre. Even if we were to take Jazz, the performer is in a way still 'copying' because chord progressions and improvisations are more 'fuzzy' and lack the 'organizational' ability in let's say composing a symphony(I can't stand Bruckner though and 'avant garde' composers are just as 'fuzzy') whereas in pop, I'd say a catchy memorable tune is of utmost importance. Etc. etc.

    2.) Present brilliant composers - they are brilliant in their own right if we talk about novel chord progressions and 'tune/melody composition' - yet none, I dare say, achieve the kind of finesse in 'organizational compositional thought' like those in the classical era. Brilliant but not quite match up with past masters.

    3.)I think current music(as seen in such genre as hip-hop, reggae, rap etc.) have massive dose of African influence. The focus is on rhythm and less on melody and harmony - which I'd say is distinctively 'European'. I think nowadays, too much on rhythmic complexity but lacking in tonal/harmonic complexity. Somehow, less 'intellectual' music - evoking 'party emotion' but lacking on other 'feelings' such as 'contemplation', 'pathos', 'nostalgia', 'joy' etc... I don't know whether you understand what I'm talking about!

    BTW, contemporary Chinese music has caught up with the Western trends of rap(which I have to say I dislike) and others of the like. Less composers in the Far East compose good songs based on the traditional pentatonic scale.

    sinotibetan

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    On that note, most neurobiologists believe that the human brain has evolved as far as it can ever go. Barring a few tiny, incremental improvements, the human brain cannot really get any bigger or pack in any more neurons (because that would lead to over-heating and over-stimulation of ion channels) In other words, we're done evolving. What you see is what you get. Perfection itself! Tada!
    (I actually find this depressing news....)

    Neuroscience and genetics are very dynamic fields, so I would revisit those assertions in a few years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @sinotibetan
    Hello all,

    Am I the only Chinese 'here'? Very, very interesting discussion! Many of you have such persuasive arguments that I don't even know where to begin. I hope you all would bear with my 'formless' and seemingly 'directionless' comments and hope some would find them worthy to be commented upon. Some ramdom thoughts:-
    1.)In 'defence' of Western classical music:-
    @charly:
    “Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence.”
    I generally agree with yalensis' comments. SOME classical music might be 'copy and status' - perhaps some of Handel's works(doubtless his modern-day fans might strongly disagree) but to dismiss any of Bach's , Mozart's(despite earlier 'daintiness'), Chopin's, Tschaikovsky's works (for example) as 'simply nothing to do with intelligence' is untrue. For example Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues or the great second movement of Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 in B flat major , I think are beautiful and 'very intellectual' music. In composing a fugue, the composer has to come up with a theme called the 'subject' in the key intended for the fugue. The fugue is supposed to have a minimum of two 'parts' and some have up to five parts if the fugue is intended for a solo keyboardist. Each 'part' is analogous to 'a singer' if it were a choral work. Then after exposition of the 'subject', another part will state the 'answer' - which is the same theme as the 'subject' but in another key- usually the dominant key. This 'answer' will be harmonized by a 'countersubject' which would either be a 'regular countersubject' or else one-off. The 'subject' and 'answer' will occur throughout the fugue modulated into other keys -eg subdominant , median, other 'unrelated keys' etc. In between are 'episodes' where certain 'motifs' from the subject and/or countersubject would be 'used'. Or else, new 'motifs' /themes might be devised. Most of the time, these parts are 'harmonized' so as to be able to 'sound good' with two or more permutations('counterpoint'). Occasionally, a devise called 'stretto' is used in which before a subject has been completed, it is harmonized by a subject or answer and these can be in many permutations. Sometimes the 'speed'(tempo) of the subject is augmented or diminished and made to harmonize with the 'original tempo' subject/answer in stretti. Etc. etc. etc. - depending on the creativity of the composer. Nothing to do with intelligence? It requires a composer of great intellect to devise such a musical composition! I dare say that modern music(pop, rock etc.) may not be comparable('inferior'?) to some of these works. Sorry for this long, meandering comment but I am a classical music fan, hence the 'defence'.

    http://server3.pianosociety.com/protected/bach-bwv886-carnevale.mp3

    The Fugue in A flat major in the above website is a jewel of baroque contrapuntal music. The 'chromatic' countersubject is so artfully crafted!

    BTW, I think Chinese music is, even the classical ones - though I do like some contemporary Chinese pop - are 'inferior' to western classical music in terms of 'form' and 'logic'.

    2.)“Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe."
    Actually, Russia is European[culturally and for ethnic Russians, ethnically](as someone pointed out) but being 'geopolitically different' from the rest of the European states because part of the country is in Asia(ie geopolitically 'Eurasian'). I think for the most part, the other European powers were(are still?) partly fearful of Russia in terms of that massive geopolitical 'size'. I wonder if North Americans(including Americans) and other countries colonized by former European powers have inferiority complex with Europe(at least 'culturally' as these nations are 'culturally derived' from some European states). I don't know about Africans and Middle Easterners, but I think all of East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, generally have an inferiority complex with Europe or people who are ethnically Europeans. For example, the Japanese preoccupation with dyeing their hair blond or having cartoons with uncharacteristically un-East Asian 'large' eyes may be a symptom of an inner inferiority complex? I myself, in the past, felt 'inferior' to Westerners and I think that in some instances, that 'feeling' is not without justification. Most of the scientific and mathematical breakthroughs that define our modern era were accomplished by Europeans or those descended from Europeans. It's a fact that cannot be denied. I have even wondered (perhaps like glossy) that perhaps Europeans are innately smarter than us Asians(and other 'races')? How come our civilizations failed to contribute in much meaningful and positive way to humanity - especially in science and technology - how come we are backward? I don't know the answers to these but I attempt to offer some possibilities in this long comment.

    3.) Certainly 'culture' does lead to the divergence between Europe and China. Some broadbrush generalizations now. I think deep within 'European' psyche is idealism. European peoples are people who love ideas. There is something within them that stirs that restlessness to discover things and to think of 'previously unthought of' thoughts. There is some sort of a rebellious nature in them to challenge the 'status quo'. Daring. Flamboyant. Willing to chart the unknowns. I think that's 'European'. "why is it?"/"what caused it" - etc. Europeans like to know WHY things are as they are...and can that be changed/be manipulated upon if the fundamentals of things can be understood? Admittedly, this 'attitude' became even more enhanced from the Renaissance onwards- not sure why.
    Whereas we Chinese are, to use a Hokkien slang - 'kiasi' and 'kiasu' = scared of death and scared of 'losing face'. We are 'insular' in our psyche. The Great Wall of Chine speaks of this 'insularity'. We call our country till this day "The Middle Country". Until we 'met' the Europeans in the last few centuries with superior scientific and technological achievements, we thought we already had a highly developed civilization - indigeneous in development - and that the rest - north, south, west and east of us were mere 'barbarians'. The Vietnamese and Koreans were our vassals. Moreover, we created our own civilization while the Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans 'borrowed' our civilization and written language. Trade was for acquisition of stuff we do not have in our native country. But we felt self-sufficient. We did not think that we 'need' any other nation. We are a more pragmatic people. In terms of Michiavellian politics and war strategies - sure we 'progressed'. But we never bother to ask why does water behave as it is, or question that perhaps diseases are not caused by some warlock curse. We got stuck with accepting the status quo.

    Any comments?

    sinotibetan

    I am Chinese and have had the luxury of never feeling inferior to Europeans (or any ethnic or racial group) ever.

    The reason why Europe excelled was because, in short, it relegated almost 30% of its own population (not to mention others) to subhuman status all throughout history. This creates a lot of capital for the “smartest” people to use.

    It also gave birth to the musical and art culture which was exclusively accessible by the 1% elite, walled off from the unwashed mashes of slaves, indentured servants, commoners, etc. But music carries well over time, so this is easily overlooked.

    uncharacteristically un-East Asian ‘large’ eyes

    Many Japanese people have large eyes – larger than that of European’s – because of Ainuid and Austronesian admixture. The hair dying, however, is an abomination I agree.

    European peoples are people who love ideas.

    Elite Europeans, yes. The other 85% of them, not so much.

    The Great Wall of Chine speaks of this ‘insularity’

    Then why is there no Great Wall between China and Tibet? Korea? Japan? Indochina? India (the few mountain passes, of course)?

    The Great Wall was pragmatic, not so much xenophobic. It worked well against intermittent nomadic raids and prevented them from escaping with loot.

    Whereas we Chinese are, to use a Hokkien slang – ‘kiasi’ and ‘kiasu’ = scared of death and scared of ‘losing face’.

    I question this. Northerners have never been afraid of death, and if they were, they don’t really show it.

    But we never bother to ask why does water behave as it is, or question that perhaps diseases are not caused by some warlock curse.

    The writings of many a polymath statesman beg to differ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sinotibetan
    Dear Spectator,
    Thanks for your comments! Are you a Chinese from China? I am not from China though. I belong to part of the Chinese diaspora in south east Asia. Many interesting points you brought up. Thanks for them!

    1.)Although there was a point in the past that I felt our people seemed 'inferior' to peoples in the West/Europe, that period has been gotten over with. I am at peace with who I am and my people, the Chinese. I can accept negative and positive attributes of my people, our strengths and weaknesses without any trappings of a sense of inferiority.

    2.) Regarding the Japanese, I sense that physical anthropologically-wise, they seemed to be a blend of 'two peoples'? One strand which appeared closer, in terms of physical appearances, to Northern Chinese or Korean and a great majority actually seemed similar in physical appearance to the Southern Chinese like the Fujianese or Cantonese even - this is true, in my opinion, especially with regards to Japanese ladies. Japanese men tend to have more expression of "Ainu" features(if I'm not mistaken these aboriginals are distantly related to the 'Gilyaks' in Siberia?) - wavy hair, more 'hairy' and a distinctive 'Japanese' look very rarely if ever seen in Chinese men. However, genotypically - apparently the Japanese seemed close to Tibetan in an article I read some time back. Which seems strange when these two peoples are physically quite dissimiliar.

    3.)"Elite Europeans, yes. The other 85% of them, not so much."
    I am not too sure about this. It might have been true in olden times but perhaps not so today? If we compare European elites and Chinese elites of the past and current
    European and Chinese intellectuals, we seem more pragmatic whereas the Europeans seem more idealistic in my opinion. In my country at least, when I speak to ethnic Chinese intellectuals of 'comparable stature' to ethnic Europeans, there is a tendency for Chinese to have a more limited scope of interests, a certain lack of curiosity if some thought/idea is of 'no material benefit'(especially MONEY) whereas Europeans tend to do things even if such material benefits seem dim - 'idea for idea's sake' - the ego of thinking something that's never been thought of before rather than just because such idea can benefit humanity or himself materially ONLY. It's a generalization, of course ...and times are changing as well - many Chinese intellectuals don't fit the description but I thought it is still so, in general. Perhaps it's different in China? I feel Chinese pragmatism - a positive attribute in times of crisis - is a stumbling block to challenge the status quo - or to borrow Star Trek - 'go boldly where no man has gone before'. Ingenuity requires that 'juvenile' thinking of daring to oppose fate and what the majority insist is 'impossible' or 'beyond common sense'. Pragmatic thinking would have never come up with quantum mechanics or led anyone to discover DNA! We Chinese need to learn some idealism from the Western elites! Not too much, just optimal. Pragmatism and idealism must be 'balanced'. I think the West has too much idealism and that's bad too. Ideals don't solve economic or political problems(and this is the error of 'Russian liberals' who hanker on some idealistic notions). I feel I am more 'idealistic' than most of my compatriots and sometimes their pragmatism bore me because no one among them would be interested in talking about DNA made out of L-deoxyribose rather than D-deoxyribose -( 'mirror' 'life)' and I always had to 'come down to earth' to talk very petty things, for example. Talking to a European/Western intellectual of comparable stature would, usually, have evoked a passionate discussion. But as I've said, times are changing and I've now met many Chinese intellectuals who are 'as idealistic' and to me that's a positive sign that Asians might one day achieve great heights in scientific discovery.

    4.)"The Great Wall was pragmatic"
    Indeed it was. But also an emblem of our sense of self-sufficiency and belief that our civilization is the centre of the world?
    Korea - it was a vassal state most of the time. A vassal state needed no great wall.
    Japan - it was separated by a sea. The Japanese were more often raiding our long-suffering vassal, the Koreans in later centuries. Earlier, the Japanese borrowed from us and Tang Dynasty had so much influence on Japan in those early years.
    Indochina - Vietnam was a rather rebellious and unwilling vassal of ours. They were under us for almost a thousand years! Like the Koreans, we did not need a great wall for the Vietnamese. The Koreans and Vietnamese - even at times of rebellion - were not as threatening to the Dragon Throne inasmuch as the Turkic and Mongolic people up north. Hence, the Chinese built those great walls to reduce this Turko-Mongolic threat. The rest of Indochina - they were culturally influenced by India and their 'political interests' were southwards and these barely threatened to overthrow any dynastic regimes in ancient China unlike the Huns, Turks, Jurchens, Khitans etc.
    As for Tibet I speculate that in spite of Tibetan-Mongolic threats to ancient Chinese regimes, the Mongolic ones like the Jurchens(who later morphed into Manchurians) and Mongolian proper seemed to necessitate a great wall 'encasing' the North but less so the Western frontier?

    "It worked well against intermittent nomadic raids and prevented them from escaping with loot."
    I am not so convinced. The Manchurian Aisin-Gioro Dorgon went through the Great Wall 'easily' enough! Thanks to betrayers like Wu Sangui!

    5.)"I question this. Northerners have never been afraid of death"
    I think you are quite right about this. Yes, I think my generalization fails for Northerners. My ancestors were from the south - and I think Southerners are more 'docile' compared to Northerners. Perhaps that's why most dynasties were founded by Northerners and quite a few by Mongolic tribes (Jurchens, Khitans).

    BTW...for Russian commentors here : if I am not mistaken, China is called 'Kitay' in Russian, right? The etymology of the word is Khitan - who founded the Liao Dynasty in Northern China. The archaic English term for China - Cathay - had the same root.

    sinotibetan

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t know why my English is so bad today…. Hope you guys forgive me for that….

    sinotibetan

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Hello, @sinotibetan! Don't worry, your English is fine! Anyhow, agree with you on Chinese medicine. Like I mentioned above, I was happy to hear on the radio that Chinese government is planning to invest in stem-cell research. This area is very promising for future treatments, cures, etc. I believe stem-cell research was invented in West, but Western governments are now too cash-poor to proceed with this expensive research. So hopefully Chinese scientists (maybe Russian scientists too) can pick up the baton and make some advancements in this field.
    Chinese doctors thought the liver was on the LEFT? I am astonished. Did they never cut open a person and see with their own eyes where the liver was? What about butchers? When they butchered an animal, surely they must have noticed where the liver was?
    In Europe, the study of human anatomy was helped by two inter-related studies: medicine and representational art. Artists like Leonardo DaVinci used to pay thieves to steal corpses so he could cut them open and see how the parts worked. This satisfied his scientific curiosity, and also helped him be a better painter of the human form.
    In ancient Rome people were very aware where every organ was located. Maybe this is because the Romans were so warlike (and also had people fight to the death in the arena), so they had witnessed many gory scenes and were all too familiar what the inside of a person looked like.
    Even the ancient Greeks… I recall some passage in Homer’s Iliad, I forget the exact words, but it was something like, “… and then Hector’s sword did pierce straight through the noble Patrokles liver and came out through the back of his second vertebrae…”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?”
    Only very few examples:-
    Arsenic trioxide, found in some Chinese remedies to treat cancer, was recently discovered by Chinese researchers to be a useful agent for APML – acute promyelocytic leukaemia. It’s one of the standard treatment for relapsed APML(and in resource poor countries like India – first line).
    Acupuncture was found to be as good as anti-emetics in a randomized controlled trial of cancer patients on chemotherapy.
    Unfortunately, I think most ‘Chinese medicine’ are:
    1.) Not efficacious for serious illnesses such as cancer. Partly because the ‘basis’ of Chinese medicine is based on some faulty ‘pseudoscience’ which our ancients believed.(An anecdote I heard was that when traditional Chinese medical practitioners at the end of the 19th Century found out that the liver was on the right side of the upper abdomen, they were shocked and thought that may account for the European’s ‘conquering’ attitude. Ancient Chinese apparently thought the liver was on the left upper quadrant of the abdomen and they never bothered to question this ‘belief’! BTW, there is a condition called situs invertus in which the heart is on the right, the liver is on the left etc…)
    2.)Possibly harmful in some cases. In my part of the world, I think it is associated with a very severe condition called severe aplastic anaemia.

    Rationally and scientifically designed molecules are the way to go in medical advancement. Chinese medicinal herbs , though, might be where we might look for such molecules to be refined and embellished to be pharmacologically useful. Not with pseudoscience as basis but rational, logical , scientific basis in drug development.

    sinotibetan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    Aw, come on! The Greeks truly were exceptional. The Egyptians were not bad, and they did make some astounding discoveries in astronomy, and they also invented the technology of cutting rock, which was a huge step forward for mankind. But then what did they do with this great discovery? They wasted it on building a bunch of silly pyramid-shaped tombs for the ruling class.

    Have you any proof of the greatness of the Greeks or is the problem more that most of the surviving works from that time are Greek and so are heavily slanted to the Greeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    No, I guess I don't really have any proof. I just feel deep in my bones that the Greeks were AWESOME!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hello all,

    Am I the only Chinese ‘here’? Very, very interesting discussion! Many of you have such persuasive arguments that I don’t even know where to begin. I hope you all would bear with my ‘formless’ and seemingly ‘directionless’ comments and hope some would find them worthy to be commented upon. Some ramdom thoughts:-
    1.)In ‘defence’ of Western classical music:-
    :
    “Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence.”
    I generally agree with yalensis’ comments. SOME classical music might be ‘copy and status’ – perhaps some of Handel’s works(doubtless his modern-day fans might strongly disagree) but to dismiss any of Bach’s , Mozart’s(despite earlier ‘daintiness’), Chopin’s, Tschaikovsky’s works (for example) as ‘simply nothing to do with intelligence’ is untrue. For example Bach’s 48 Preludes and Fugues or the great second movement of Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 in B flat major , I think are beautiful and ‘very intellectual’ music. In composing a fugue, the composer has to come up with a theme called the ‘subject’ in the key intended for the fugue. The fugue is supposed to have a minimum of two ‘parts’ and some have up to five parts if the fugue is intended for a solo keyboardist. Each ‘part’ is analogous to ‘a singer’ if it were a choral work. Then after exposition of the ‘subject’, another part will state the ‘answer’ – which is the same theme as the ‘subject’ but in another key- usually the dominant key. This ‘answer’ will be harmonized by a ‘countersubject’ which would either be a ‘regular countersubject’ or else one-off. The ‘subject’ and ‘answer’ will occur throughout the fugue modulated into other keys -eg subdominant , median, other ‘unrelated keys’ etc. In between are ‘episodes’ where certain ‘motifs’ from the subject and/or countersubject would be ‘used’. Or else, new ‘motifs’ /themes might be devised. Most of the time, these parts are ‘harmonized’ so as to be able to ‘sound good’ with two or more permutations(‘counterpoint’). Occasionally, a devise called ‘stretto’ is used in which before a subject has been completed, it is harmonized by a subject or answer and these can be in many permutations. Sometimes the ‘speed’(tempo) of the subject is augmented or diminished and made to harmonize with the ‘original tempo’ subject/answer in stretti. Etc. etc. etc. – depending on the creativity of the composer. Nothing to do with intelligence? It requires a composer of great intellect to devise such a musical composition! I dare say that modern music(pop, rock etc.) may not be comparable(‘inferior’?) to some of these works. Sorry for this long, meandering comment but I am a classical music fan, hence the ‘defence’.

    The Fugue in A flat major in the above website is a jewel of baroque contrapuntal music. The ‘chromatic’ countersubject is so artfully crafted!

    BTW, I think Chinese music is, even the classical ones – though I do like some contemporary Chinese pop – are ‘inferior’ to western classical music in terms of ‘form’ and ‘logic’.

    2.)“Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe.”
    Actually, Russia is European[culturally and for ethnic Russians, ethnically](as someone pointed out) but being ‘geopolitically different’ from the rest of the European states because part of the country is in Asia(ie geopolitically ‘Eurasian’). I think for the most part, the other European powers were(are still?) partly fearful of Russia in terms of that massive geopolitical ‘size’. I wonder if North Americans(including Americans) and other countries colonized by former European powers have inferiority complex with Europe(at least ‘culturally’ as these nations are ‘culturally derived’ from some European states). I don’t know about Africans and Middle Easterners, but I think all of East Asia and the Indian subcontinent, generally have an inferiority complex with Europe or people who are ethnically Europeans. For example, the Japanese preoccupation with dyeing their hair blond or having cartoons with uncharacteristically un-East Asian ‘large’ eyes may be a symptom of an inner inferiority complex? I myself, in the past, felt ‘inferior’ to Westerners and I think that in some instances, that ‘feeling’ is not without justification. Most of the scientific and mathematical breakthroughs that define our modern era were accomplished by Europeans or those descended from Europeans. It’s a fact that cannot be denied. I have even wondered (perhaps like glossy) that perhaps Europeans are innately smarter than us Asians(and other ‘races’)? How come our civilizations failed to contribute in much meaningful and positive way to humanity – especially in science and technology – how come we are backward? I don’t know the answers to these but I attempt to offer some possibilities in this long comment.

    3.) Certainly ‘culture’ does lead to the divergence between Europe and China. Some broadbrush generalizations now. I think deep within ‘European’ psyche is idealism. European peoples are people who love ideas. There is something within them that stirs that restlessness to discover things and to think of ‘previously unthought of’ thoughts. There is some sort of a rebellious nature in them to challenge the ‘status quo’. Daring. Flamboyant. Willing to chart the unknowns. I think that’s ‘European’. “why is it?”/”what caused it” – etc. Europeans like to know WHY things are as they are…and can that be changed/be manipulated upon if the fundamentals of things can be understood? Admittedly, this ‘attitude’ became even more enhanced from the Renaissance onwards- not sure why.
    Whereas we Chinese are, to use a Hokkien slang – ‘kiasi’ and ‘kiasu’ = scared of death and scared of ‘losing face’. We are ‘insular’ in our psyche. The Great Wall of Chine speaks of this ‘insularity’. We call our country till this day “The Middle Country”. Until we ‘met’ the Europeans in the last few centuries with superior scientific and technological achievements, we thought we already had a highly developed civilization – indigeneous in development – and that the rest – north, south, west and east of us were mere ‘barbarians’. The Vietnamese and Koreans were our vassals. Moreover, we created our own civilization while the Japanese, Vietnamese and Koreans ‘borrowed’ our civilization and written language. Trade was for acquisition of stuff we do not have in our native country. But we felt self-sufficient. We did not think that we ‘need’ any other nation. We are a more pragmatic people. In terms of Michiavellian politics and war strategies – sure we ‘progressed’. But we never bother to ask why does water behave as it is, or question that perhaps diseases are not caused by some warlock curse. We got stuck with accepting the status quo.

    Any comments?

    sinotibetan

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spectator
    I am Chinese and have had the luxury of never feeling inferior to Europeans (or any ethnic or racial group) ever.

    The reason why Europe excelled was because, in short, it relegated almost 30% of its own population (not to mention others) to subhuman status all throughout history. This creates a lot of capital for the "smartest" people to use.

    It also gave birth to the musical and art culture which was exclusively accessible by the 1% elite, walled off from the unwashed mashes of slaves, indentured servants, commoners, etc. But music carries well over time, so this is easily overlooked.

    uncharacteristically un-East Asian ‘large’ eyes

    Many Japanese people have large eyes - larger than that of European's - because of Ainuid and Austronesian admixture. The hair dying, however, is an abomination I agree.

    European peoples are people who love ideas.

    Elite Europeans, yes. The other 85% of them, not so much.

    The Great Wall of Chine speaks of this ‘insularity’

    Then why is there no Great Wall between China and Tibet? Korea? Japan? Indochina? India (the few mountain passes, of course)?

    The Great Wall was pragmatic, not so much xenophobic. It worked well against intermittent nomadic raids and prevented them from escaping with loot.

    Whereas we Chinese are, to use a Hokkien slang – ‘kiasi’ and ‘kiasu’ = scared of death and scared of ‘losing face’.

    I question this. Northerners have never been afraid of death, and if they were, they don't really show it.

    But we never bother to ask why does water behave as it is, or question that perhaps diseases are not caused by some warlock curse.

    The writings of many a polymath statesman beg to differ.

    , @charly
    I didn't claim that Mozart wasn't brilliant but the playing classical music is just copying. You also can't compare contemporary music with classical music without realizing that Mozart's contemporaries are long forgotten while the present not brilliant composers are still known.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Also, the Tibetan name for Everest is Qomolangma. I can’t be bothered to look up the Chinese name for the Pacific Ocean, but many naming conventions changed during the Qing, including Xiyu to Xinjiang.

    Likewise, when you say “their own damn mountain” I take this as an endorsement of Chinese control over all of Greater Tibet including the region around Lhasa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    @spectator: You make a lot of good points. I believe you have successfully dispelled many stereotypes about China. Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Excuse me, not Temple of David but you know which one I’m talking about. And I have no idea how attractive it was at the time, I just assumed. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • AK said:
    “I don’t think the hieroglyphics system did China any good, but they certainly can’t explain The Great Divergence.”

    One thing that is often overlooked is that China wasn’t always the size it is today. The people who write with “hanzi” (or hanja, or kanji) for the most part did not speak the same language. If it weren’t for the logographic system, Chinese people from different provinces would not have been able to communicate with one another for upwards of 3,000 years. Likewise syntax and vocabulary have molded to fit with Han characters.

    Even a few decades ago it was possible to communicate with Koreans (and very simply with Japanese) using hanzi; this was more prominent in dynastic eras.

    Glossy said:
    “He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring.”

    Since time immemorial European art has generally been funded by monarchs and ecclesiasticals, for their use and their use alone. The idea of museums and “art for all” is a relatively novel concept, and the commonly held notion that the typical European had broad access is, to borrow, post hoc chauvinistic nonsense.

    China’s society (at all times up until the modern era) simply was not stratified enough (believe it or not, I will expound later) to concentrate so much money in the hands of a few; when China funded grand projects they were walls, bridges, canals or waterworks. They rarely, if ever, commissioned massive temples (Temple of David, Parthenon) which are beautiful but not particularly conducive to either the survival of the state or the benefit of the people.

    Everyone here I’m sure knows of the Great Wall, fewer of the Grand Canal, but there is another large infrastructure project that the vast majority of people haven’t heard of i.e the Turpan Water System which allowed China to secure the Silk Road and project power across Xinjiang (then called “Xiyu”) and Central Asia for thousands of years:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turfan_water_system

    This irrigation system of special connected wells originated during the Han Dynasty (206 BCE – 24 CE).[2]

    In Xinjiang, the greatest number of karez wells are in the Turpan Depression, where today there remain over 1100 karez wells and channels having a total length of over 5,000 kilometres (3,100 mi)

    This is nearly 6x the length of the famous Roman Aqueducts.

    Are people important as unique individuals or as faceless actors performing roles typical for their stations in life?

    This question logically follows: are helots and other slaves people? They were certainly not considered fit to be citizens, and thus were stripped of almost all rights. They made up anywhere from 30-90% of the population and this tradition of slavery persisted all throughout European history. China, on the other hand, saw a peak slave population of, if I recall, 0.8-1.3% of the population – most of whom were foreigners who sold themselves into slavery, invaders, or criminals.

    That is not even to speak of indentured servitude or serfdom or debt-slavery and the resultant chronic class warfare seen in Western European societies up until this very second.

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    A clear advantage – rice agriculture is labor intensive and the North required constant maintenance/building of dams and were still prone to floods and erosion. To produce a good calorie of food in China, you had to put in (I’d guess) twice the work, at least. This leaves precious little labor to do much else.

    I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    You’d be surprised. They had prototypical innoculations; artemisinin (afaik the world’s best anti-malarial) was derived from Chinese medicine as well. It’s unrefined, but was well-equipped to handle many of the problems of the time.

    Why didn’t China ever grab any colonies that weren’t next door to it already? One thing’s for sure: it wasn’t because of humanitarianism. Top contenders for an explanation: centralization, lack of curiosity.

    Are you so sure it wasn’t humanitarianism? China has a long history of not only tolerating laughably weak polities on their immediate border but aiding them when they came under military threat (see: Tocharians, Han-Xiongnu War). You can find a detailed history of the settlement of Taiwan through google, but long story short they came upon tribals using machetes and throwing weapons, and instead of slaughtering them all with the European-style muskets (or was it arquebuses) they irrigated their land for free and then *rented* it from them. The Qing court repeatedly passed laws and restrictions to reduce pressure on the aborigine population – they forbade interethnic marriage (instead demanding that the mostly male settlers bring in wives from the mainland), drew a line that could not be crossed by settlers, and arbitrated frequently on behalf of the natives.

    The Taiwanese census may reveal a 2% self-identification rate but the reality is at least 40-60% of Taiwanese have a significant amount of aboriginal blood.

    The notion that China was an inhumane dictatorship in dynastic times is nothing more than propaganda.

    it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn’t the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What’s beyond the horizon?

    As has been stated, China had no need to sail across the world – India was already close by, and they had already been trading for thousands of years. Apparently if China lacked innovative spirit and imagination, continental Europe lacked the guts and resolve to secure an Eastern land route. No Ottoman Empire was able to squat on the Chinese side of the Silk Road.

    But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    Again, not for free.

    No genetic good luck, huh? OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution

    Apparently this “genetic good luck” as a shelf life of 1870-2020, which could arguably make the Anglo-American experiment the laughing stock of history.

    Of course, the drive to climb the Everest (their own damn mountain), together with the Everest’s name, came from Brits too.

    Ignoring all those pesky Tibetans who not only took it upon themselves to climb it, but to settle the periphery for thousands of years despite the cold.

    95% of the modern sciences bear Greek names in most modern languages

    Along with 99% of modern financial collapse narratives.

    The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus

    Yes, specifically the Ainuids or Polynesians that boat-skipped over to the New World, apparently.

    People in all societies enjoy music, but not everyone’s music is equally complex.

    Likewise, people in all societies enjoy music, but taste is not evenly distributed. European nobles commissioned all of this nice music at the expense of the common Europeans, and who listens to it today? Who plays it best?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Glad you liked it. Want some follow-on reading?

    Doug M.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Okay, sure. Let me guess - Power and Plenty?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Anatoly

    I love the Tale Of Genji, & maybe it was the first novel. But there's no connective chain of influence from it to western novels and on to Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky etc. So my point still stands.

    Russia's "paying attention" wasn't just military. Have you read Ivan the Terrible's (rather rude) letter to Queen Elizabeth I? Didn't Peter The Great set out to embrace western culture (architecture, Rembrandt paintings etc), not just western armed force? The fact that Russian leaders since Ivan emulated the west culturally, rather than China or Turkey, suggests they already saw that this was the ascendant culture. Which rather contradicts Pomeranz…

    Craig Willy

    I disagree. I think Ataturk was - unassailably - the greatest political leader of the C20. In fact, if I was drawing up a list of the greatest 100 leaders of the C20, I'd leave positions 2 to 19 blank, just so there was no suggestion it was a close run thing. In his time, rather than ours, Ataturk saw that his country might be completely eaten alive by the western powers. He saw - correctly - the pressing need to emulate the qualities which made those western powers strong, rather than hold on to those qualities which made Turkey weak. Good call.

    The whole trope about Russian leaders emulating the west is tired and basically untrue. Just because the Russian royals imported some paintings does not mean there were no original painters in Russia. Western royals also bought foreign paintings, were they emulating the foreigners? The Cold War has drilled into the minds of people the notion that Russia is the unwest. Any objective analysis shows that Russia was yet another European power with nothing bizarrely decoupled about its culture from the west. Russia is not an analogue for Japan. Culture (fashion, technology) was actively adopted by all European states. There is not one European state that completely ignored its neighbours and set the trend all on its own. This is the mythical entity being labeled as “the west” in this discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    On Chinese medicine: I happened to hear a piece on the radio yesterday while driving to work. I can't source it, because I don't even know what station I was listening to; but anyhow, the narrator was talking about the fact that Chinese government is getting ready to invest HUGE $$$ in stem-cell research and modern medicine.
    I am glad to hear that Chinese are finally adopting “Western” medicine. Cultural relativists may disagree, but is fact that traditional Chinese medicine (while empirically achieving certain practical albeit limited results in areas like botanicals and acupuncture) is based on a false theory (=some kind of mystical life force called “chi”). In fact, Chinese physicians over the centuries never even figured out basic anatomical principles, and it took European medicine to finally come up with an accurate “plumbing diagram” of the blood circulation system.
    To be fair, many European people also believe in mystical voodoo medicine, for example chiropractors. In any European/American city, there are more chiropractors per square kilometer than real doctors. And these quacks (not limiting themselves to harming peoples skeletons) also base their work on a false mystical theory similar to “chi”, which they call “innate intelligence” of the nervous system, and other non-scientific concepts which cannot be proved or disproved.

    When it comes to pharmaceuticals, western medicine ain’t so hot. Thousands of years of trial and error with plant-derived medicine is worth quite a bit. Of course tiger penis is primitive shaman “medicine” and a joke, but that is not the limit of Chinese medicine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Yes, that is true. Western pharmaceuticals is ultimately based on plant medicine. (Although nowadays they don’t need actual plants any more once they figure out which molecule is the active ingredient and can synthesize in the laboratory.) And also trial and error. (More error than trial sometimes, it seems…) Since earliest times humans have been empirically testing various plants and herbs (“Let’s see what this one does… Oh great, my headache went away!”)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    On Chinese medicine: I happened to hear a piece on the radio yesterday while driving to work. I can't source it, because I don't even know what station I was listening to; but anyhow, the narrator was talking about the fact that Chinese government is getting ready to invest HUGE $$$ in stem-cell research and modern medicine.
    I am glad to hear that Chinese are finally adopting “Western” medicine. Cultural relativists may disagree, but is fact that traditional Chinese medicine (while empirically achieving certain practical albeit limited results in areas like botanicals and acupuncture) is based on a false theory (=some kind of mystical life force called “chi”). In fact, Chinese physicians over the centuries never even figured out basic anatomical principles, and it took European medicine to finally come up with an accurate “plumbing diagram” of the blood circulation system.
    To be fair, many European people also believe in mystical voodoo medicine, for example chiropractors. In any European/American city, there are more chiropractors per square kilometer than real doctors. And these quacks (not limiting themselves to harming peoples skeletons) also base their work on a false mystical theory similar to “chi”, which they call “innate intelligence” of the nervous system, and other non-scientific concepts which cannot be proved or disproved.

    Yalensis: And then there’s homeopathy…

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Oh, please, Craig, don't get me started on homeopathy.... !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Anatoly

    I love the Tale Of Genji, & maybe it was the first novel. But there's no connective chain of influence from it to western novels and on to Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky etc. So my point still stands.

    Russia's "paying attention" wasn't just military. Have you read Ivan the Terrible's (rather rude) letter to Queen Elizabeth I? Didn't Peter The Great set out to embrace western culture (architecture, Rembrandt paintings etc), not just western armed force? The fact that Russian leaders since Ivan emulated the west culturally, rather than China or Turkey, suggests they already saw that this was the ascendant culture. Which rather contradicts Pomeranz…

    Craig Willy

    I disagree. I think Ataturk was - unassailably - the greatest political leader of the C20. In fact, if I was drawing up a list of the greatest 100 leaders of the C20, I'd leave positions 2 to 19 blank, just so there was no suggestion it was a close run thing. In his time, rather than ours, Ataturk saw that his country might be completely eaten alive by the western powers. He saw - correctly - the pressing need to emulate the qualities which made those western powers strong, rather than hold on to those qualities which made Turkey weak. Good call.

    I don’t deny that Turkey needed to catch up. I deny any relationship between catching up and use of Latin script, abolition of the Caliphate and the attempt to create a mono-ethnic nation-state (eviction of the Greeks, eternal oppression of the Kurds).

    Of course we can praise Ataturk for expelling the Western forces from Turkey and securing the new nation’s borders against Western colonialist designs. This was prior to the reforms. Incidentally, Turkey DID NOT achieve anything remotely like a catch up after Ataturk’s reforms because there was, quite simply, no relationship between “hard” cultural Westernization and modernization. (I think of what the Meiji Japanese, whose elites and culture I would think were no more “Western” than that of the Ottoman Empire, probably less so.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • On Chinese medicine: I happened to hear a piece on the radio yesterday while driving to work. I can’t source it, because I don’t even know what station I was listening to; but anyhow, the narrator was talking about the fact that Chinese government is getting ready to invest HUGE $$$ in stem-cell research and modern medicine.
    I am glad to hear that Chinese are finally adopting “Western” medicine. Cultural relativists may disagree, but is fact that traditional Chinese medicine (while empirically achieving certain practical albeit limited results in areas like botanicals and acupuncture) is based on a false theory (=some kind of mystical life force called “chi”). In fact, Chinese physicians over the centuries never even figured out basic anatomical principles, and it took European medicine to finally come up with an accurate “plumbing diagram” of the blood circulation system.
    To be fair, many European people also believe in mystical voodoo medicine, for example chiropractors. In any European/American city, there are more chiropractors per square kilometer than real doctors. And these quacks (not limiting themselves to harming peoples skeletons) also base their work on a false mystical theory similar to “chi”, which they call “innate intelligence” of the nervous system, and other non-scientific concepts which cannot be proved or disproved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Craig Willy
    Yalensis: And then there's homeopathy...
    , @kirill
    When it comes to pharmaceuticals, western medicine ain't so hot. Thousands of years of trial and error with plant-derived medicine is worth quite a bit. Of course tiger penis is primitive shaman "medicine" and a joke, but that is not the limit of Chinese medicine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    The Romans found speaking Greek cool. If they have found Egyptian cool you would think that everything was invented by the Egyptians instead of the Greeks as Greek people (and not only Greek people) have the habit to claim every invention as one made by their people.

    Aw, come on! The Greeks truly were exceptional. The Egyptians were not bad, and they did make some astounding discoveries in astronomy, and they also invented the technology of cutting rock, which was a huge step forward for mankind. But then what did they do with this great discovery? They wasted it on building a bunch of silly pyramid-shaped tombs for the ruling class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    Have you any proof of the greatness of the Greeks or is the problem more that most of the surviving works from that time are Greek and so are heavily slanted to the Greeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randy McDonald
    Among other things, you're assuming that elites have a reproductive advantage over non-elites. Is this actually the case? The huge differences in every respect between the classical worlds and the modern may make the observation that the relatively highly-educated demographics have fewer children than others, but ...

    Intellectual elites do not necessarily have a reproductive advantage, but political elites certainly do. Powerful men get all the chicks. I’m not joking — historians believe that Genghis Khan fathered literally a thousand children and is the ancestor of millions of people alive today. That was one horny conqueror!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randy McDonald
    But was Genghis Khan exceptional? One example does not a tendency identify.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    Well, the Malthusian dynamic assured that a lot of people in every society were poorly fed. While Britain was the world's leading political and economic power, Dickens put hungry British children in his novels. So yes, well into the 19th century some people went hungry in the richest nations. Once that problem was solved, the mean heights and the mean IQs of the lower classes went up. The elites were unaffected. Obviously, modern British writers aren't on the whole better than Dickens's contemporaries, modern European musicians aren't better than the musicians of Beethoven's generation, but mail carriers, grave diggers, etc. of native stock are probably smarter now than they were 100 years ago. This makes intuitive sense to me.

    Was there variation among nations in the proportion of poorly-fed people before the Flynn Effect kicked in? Sure. But I have a feeling that perhaps you're exaggerating the size of that variation in your mind. I was just recently reading the Aubrey-Maturin novels, some of whose action was set in Britain in the early 19th century. There's no shortage of chronically hungry characters in those books. And again, that was in the most powerful nation on Earth. Before the 20th century no nation was entirely, from top to bottom, well-fed.

    Richard Lynn has compiled IQ data going back to the first decades of the 20th century. What the Flynn Effect failed to change is the relative standings of nations and populations. Nutrition has improved pretty much everywhere. So almost all societies went up by a roughly similar amount. This left the relative standings mostly intact. Sub-Saharan Africa is probably the only area now where nutrition could still improve. Otherwise we're done. The full potentials have mostly been reached. Both in height and in IQ (and probably in a lot of other areas) these full potentials are different for different populations. It would have been shocking if they weren't different, by the way. If these full potentials turned out to be the same for every group, then Darwinism would have been pretty much disproved by facts. The creationists would have won (in God's image = uniformly perfect, since there would have probably been only one God's image.)

    On that note, most neurobiologists believe that the human brain has evolved as far as it can ever go. Barring a few tiny, incremental improvements, the human brain cannot really get any bigger or pack in any more neurons (because that would lead to over-heating and over-stimulation of ion channels) In other words, we’re done evolving. What you see is what you get. Perfection itself! Tada!
    (I actually find this depressing news….)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spectator
    Neuroscience and genetics are very dynamic fields, so I would revisit those assertions in a few years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randy McDonald
    Actually, the Basque fisheries in the Grand Banks dated to the 15th century. (Yes, that.) Well into the New France period, a Basque-Icelandic pidgin remained spoken by some in northeasternmost North America.

    In other words, Columbus did not “discover” the New World? Hah! I knew it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randy McDonald
    From what I know the Basques didn't recognize the Newfoundland area as northeasternmost North America, rather classifying it as just another marginal North Atlantic island--the most distant, regulatrly visited, to be sure. (Knowledge of late Viking Greenland's trade is sparse, to say the least.) If it had been more luxurious, maybe. As things stand, I"ve come across suggestions that sailors from areas involved in the North Atlantic fisheries trade in the very very early modern era--Basques, Bretons, English from ports like Bristol--did know about Newfoundland but didn't classify it as a "new found land", so to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    Well, the Malthusian dynamic assured that a lot of people in every society were poorly fed. While Britain was the world's leading political and economic power, Dickens put hungry British children in his novels. So yes, well into the 19th century some people went hungry in the richest nations. Once that problem was solved, the mean heights and the mean IQs of the lower classes went up. The elites were unaffected. Obviously, modern British writers aren't on the whole better than Dickens's contemporaries, modern European musicians aren't better than the musicians of Beethoven's generation, but mail carriers, grave diggers, etc. of native stock are probably smarter now than they were 100 years ago. This makes intuitive sense to me.

    Was there variation among nations in the proportion of poorly-fed people before the Flynn Effect kicked in? Sure. But I have a feeling that perhaps you're exaggerating the size of that variation in your mind. I was just recently reading the Aubrey-Maturin novels, some of whose action was set in Britain in the early 19th century. There's no shortage of chronically hungry characters in those books. And again, that was in the most powerful nation on Earth. Before the 20th century no nation was entirely, from top to bottom, well-fed.

    Richard Lynn has compiled IQ data going back to the first decades of the 20th century. What the Flynn Effect failed to change is the relative standings of nations and populations. Nutrition has improved pretty much everywhere. So almost all societies went up by a roughly similar amount. This left the relative standings mostly intact. Sub-Saharan Africa is probably the only area now where nutrition could still improve. Otherwise we're done. The full potentials have mostly been reached. Both in height and in IQ (and probably in a lot of other areas) these full potentials are different for different populations. It would have been shocking if they weren't different, by the way. If these full potentials turned out to be the same for every group, then Darwinism would have been pretty much disproved by facts. The creationists would have won (in God's image = uniformly perfect, since there would have probably been only one God's image.)

    Your claim that height of the elite didn’t go up is simply untrue. And your claim that IQ went up everywhere with a roughly similar amount seems to me very unlikely. If you look at what happened with height than there are regions in Europe who were first known as the midgets and now known as the giants of Europe

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    So what you are saying is that the Flynn effect isn't due to better nutrition otherwise you would expect some areas to have a smaller increase than others because they were in the past already well fed .

    Well, the Malthusian dynamic assured that a lot of people in every society were poorly fed. While Britain was the world’s leading political and economic power, Dickens put hungry British children in his novels. So yes, well into the 19th century some people went hungry in the richest nations. Once that problem was solved, the mean heights and the mean IQs of the lower classes went up. The elites were unaffected. Obviously, modern British writers aren’t on the whole better than Dickens’s contemporaries, modern European musicians aren’t better than the musicians of Beethoven’s generation, but mail carriers, grave diggers, etc. of native stock are probably smarter now than they were 100 years ago. This makes intuitive sense to me.

    Was there variation among nations in the proportion of poorly-fed people before the Flynn Effect kicked in? Sure. But I have a feeling that perhaps you’re exaggerating the size of that variation in your mind. I was just recently reading the Aubrey-Maturin novels, some of whose action was set in Britain in the early 19th century. There’s no shortage of chronically hungry characters in those books. And again, that was in the most powerful nation on Earth. Before the 20th century no nation was entirely, from top to bottom, well-fed.

    Richard Lynn has compiled IQ data going back to the first decades of the 20th century. What the Flynn Effect failed to change is the relative standings of nations and populations. Nutrition has improved pretty much everywhere. So almost all societies went up by a roughly similar amount. This left the relative standings mostly intact. Sub-Saharan Africa is probably the only area now where nutrition could still improve. Otherwise we’re done. The full potentials have mostly been reached. Both in height and in IQ (and probably in a lot of other areas) these full potentials are different for different populations. It would have been shocking if they weren’t different, by the way. If these full potentials turned out to be the same for every group, then Darwinism would have been pretty much disproved by facts. The creationists would have won (in God’s image = uniformly perfect, since there would have probably been only one God’s image.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    Your claim that height of the elite didn't go up is simply untrue. And your claim that IQ went up everywhere with a roughly similar amount seems to me very unlikely. If you look at what happened with height than there are regions in Europe who were first known as the midgets and now known as the giants of Europe
    , @yalensis
    On that note, most neurobiologists believe that the human brain has evolved as far as it can ever go. Barring a few tiny, incremental improvements, the human brain cannot really get any bigger or pack in any more neurons (because that would lead to over-heating and over-stimulation of ion channels) In other words, we're done evolving. What you see is what you get. Perfection itself! Tada!
    (I actually find this depressing news....)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randy McDonald
    Glossy:

    "He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn’t the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What’s beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China. "

    Portugal was a much more marginal country than China, a small kingdom on the fringes of western Europe only recently unified as opposed to a civilization-state with the highest technology in the world and a population numbering several tens of millions. Portugal had to innovate.

    "African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn’t exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn’t a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush."

    Not really. Australia isn't a land hospitable to large-scale agricultural settlement, with even the relatively good southeast being terribly dry with not good soil. A plantation economy there would be problematic. As for Africa, the epidemological terrors of sub-Saharan Africa made the continent difficult for Europeans into the 20th century--Age of Discovery Europeans wouldn't be able to handle it.

    America was unique, a place offering substantial resources within a short distance of Europe with many areas being as non-threatening health-wise as the European homeland. Neither China nor India enjoyed those advantages. _Maybe_ a maritime Moroccan empire could have joined in, but I have my doubts.

    Also the east coast of the Americas is fertile while the west coast is only nice in Chilli and Washington. Other areas are to dry or tropical. And China didn’t need tropical America when it has Southern China (if not South East Asia)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    "And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!"

    Precious metals were also a motivation. The Chinese also found them valuable.

    "And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there?"

    Chess functioned as a Western equivalent. What would be an equivalent to a long history of development of increasingly complex music? People in all societies enjoy music, but not everyone's music is equally complex. The same can be said of games, and I guess weiqi/go is more complex than chess (I'm just judging by the fact that computers aren't beating Go masters yet), so the East has historically come out ahead on complex games, but not on complex music.

    "The realistic art originated in northern Italy..."

    And in ancient Greece before that.

    "For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India’s today."

    The Flynn Effect has not changed the relative standings of nations/ ancestry-based groups of people. It has lifted all boats equally with one exception: the elites of each group. The Flynn Effect is probably caused by better nutrition and is related to the increase in mean height. But the elites of every nation have always eaten well and have always been tall. If you extrapolate the Flynn Effect back to Archimedes's time, he will appear to have had the intelligence of a dust mite, but this was obviously not true. The elites of antiquity appear smart to us in recognizably modern ways. This can be seen from their sculpture, poetry, literature, geometry, etc. I once read most of Plutarch's lives in a Russian translation, same for Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian war. Those were smart guys. All Soviet children had to memorize Euclid's proofs in school. There was nothing average about the mind that produced them, by modern standards or, I suspect, by any others.

    I expressed myself incorrectly in yesterday's comment. The population means have risen in the 20th century. From what I've read, this increase appears to have stopped because all the benefits from better nutrition have already been maxed out in most places. But the means of the elites have probably remained stable for a long time now. The only thing that could change THOSE is natural selection, and that takes time. Pretty much every society known to us has had well-fed elites.

    Among other things, you’re assuming that elites have a reproductive advantage over non-elites. Is this actually the case? The huge differences in every respect between the classical worlds and the modern may make the observation that the relatively highly-educated demographics have fewer children than others, but …

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Intellectual elites do not necessarily have a reproductive advantage, but political elites certainly do. Powerful men get all the chicks. I'm not joking -- historians believe that Genghis Khan fathered literally a thousand children and is the ancestor of millions of people alive today. That was one horny conqueror!
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Randy,

    Yes, elites do have a huge survival advantage. Numerous observations attest to this.

    For instance, the whole concept of "elite overproduction." In Malthusian societies, they were the last group to start becoming impoverished during subsistence crises; hence, with higher life expectancy (in particular, more children surviving at birth) they came to constitute a bigger and bigger share of the population. Then during collapses they killed each other off in factional struggles and civil wars.

    Another example. There was once a huge famine on a remote Pacific island (I forgot the name). Almost everyone who survived was in some way related to the ruling class. Another example. On the Titanic, first-class passengers were far more likely to survive than third-class passengers.

    Even the human body militates against low-class individuals, resulting in mortality rates far beyond what can be explained by differences in access to healthy food or quality healthcare. Quite simply humans evolved as hierarchic pack animals; if you're low-rank, you're far less useful as far as the group is concerned, and - your wishes regardless - the group doesn't care that much if you die out. This explains why police brutality against the homeless is matter of course while prosecuting the likes of Khodorkovsky for (real) crimes is "unacceptable"; why the vast majority of every population claims to be middle-class or better whereas in fact many of them are not; etc.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    Sorry for the length of my comment. I had some free time. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, I haven't killed any trees with this, it's just dots on the screen, etc.

    "...this a truly counter-intuitive and deeply contextualizing work that overturns many of the triumphalist post hoc narratives of Western chauvinism."

    But for the average modern reader the above wouldn't be counterintuitive at all. It would be old hat, boring same-old, etc. The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page. This reminds me of watching anti-czarist movies and cartoons as a kid, stuff set to Mayakovski's poetry, for example. At that time I had never seen any defense of czarism from anyone. What were those movies being angry about? It felt like the most boring stuff on earth. The back and forth of conflict is at least interesting. One side still being angry at the other long after that other side has died, when there is no conflict anymore - that's boring. I never heard anyone at school say "did you see that malchish kibalchish cartoon? THAT was cool". That's because it wasn't. Conformism is boring. In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    "It does this by systematically comparing Europe with other leading world regions in the pre-industrial age..."

    I've only just started reading your review, but why am I so sure that biology, the Darwinian approach, must have formed exactly 0% of Mr. Pomeranz's "systematic" comparison? It's because of the conformism implied in the "triamphalist" "chauvinism" quote above. He's going to "systematically" compare every aspect of a set of entities, except for one. And, wouldn't you know it, what a shocker, who could have possibly guessed it, the particular aspect he's not going to touch is the one that's currently taboo. It wasn't taboo 100 or even 70 years ago, it's probably not going to be taboo a couple of decades from now, but it just so happened that at the exact time and place when this guy expected to get paid for his "systematic" comparison, it was taboo, so he left it out of his "system". That was NOT counterintuitive. That sort of thing one always sees coming.

    "Although Europe was technologically ahead in some spheres – most visibly, guns, clock making, optics..."

    He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring. A focus on the individual is a sign of deeper things, as is its lack. Is that a picture of an idealized ruler or of Pericles, of an idealized philosopher or of Aristotle? In the Western case we have portraits of actual individuals. As far as I know, in all other pre-modern cultures we only have idealized forms. If I was writing a book "systematically" comparing Western Civ. with others, I'd mention this seemingly very important difference. Are people important as unique individuals or as faceless actors performing roles typical for their stations in life? I would bet $100 that Mr. Pomeranz didn't mention this obvious and obviously important difference in different cultures' outlook on the world.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers:

    "In music, the lack of a tradition of named composers in non-Western civilizations means that the Western total of 522 significant figures has no real competition at all."

    Wow. Talk about de-emphasizing the individual. The Western musical canon of signed, playable-from-a-score music goes back about 1000 years.

    I could list other areas here. Linear perspective, for example. I think we owe that to early 15th century Florence and to no other place.

    "China had a clear lead in irrigation..."

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    "...and medicine"

    Really? I would guess that before... ahh, let's say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I'm not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    "China was substantially more “capitalist”..."

    Then why did all the big brains in it always wanted to become officials, not businessmen? Florence, Venice, Genoa, the Hanseatic cities, Novgorod, were run by the bourgeoisie during the middle ages. Those entire states were run for and by businessmen for centuries. I'm not saying that's actually a desired outcome, but neither am I aware of any pre-modern Chinese attempts to take capitalism that far.

    "...guilds had much less political influence than in Europe."

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term? More obvious questions that an author shackled by conformity and incuriousness would never ask. I'm not definitely saying that Mr. Pomeranz is such an author - I haven't read this book - but that's what your review implies to me.

    "First, colonies."

    Why didn't China ever grab any colonies that weren't next door to it already? One thing's for sure: it wasn't because of humanitarianism. Top contenders for an explanation: centralization, lack of curiosity.

    "...the windfall of New World silver – which was, in large part, a free gift to Europe..."

    OMG. Somebody had to come and get it. Imagine sailing into the unknown, beyond the edge of the world. Months with no land in sight, no known precedent before you, just an idea. Even small bands of illiterate, tribal Polynesians have displayed more initiative on that front than the largest, longest-lived empire on Earth. He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn't the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What's beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China.

    "...ventilation techniques would not have also helped solve the problem of transporting coal (and things in general) as the steam engines that pumped out Britain’s mines did."

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?

    "In contrast, some of Europe’s largest coal deposits were located in a much more promising area: in Britain. This placed them near excellent water transport..."

    But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    "Without such geographic good luck..."

    No genetic good luck, huh? OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I'm trying to figure out PC logic. Was there one (obviously non-genetic, this is the PC version) lucky strike that happened before the ancient Greeks came on the scene that caused all of these later favorable outcomes or did luck just strike Europe again and again, breaking all laws of probability? And if there was one ancient, pre-Greek non-genetic lucky strike, why weren't its effects lost during the period of cultural amnesia known as the Dark Ages? Jared Diamond made an attempt here. It was silly, but at least he tried. I don't get a sense from this review that Pomeranz has tried that. The 18th century is way too late to introduce the necessary lucky strike.

    "...the Atlantic is much narrower than the Pacific! "

    This reminds me - the Pacific was first crossed by a crew that came from a country (Portugal) located nowhere near the Pacific. The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn't even have a name for their own damn ocean! Magellan had to come from the other side of the world to name it for them! How is this not as striking as Madagascar being first colonized by Indonesians, not Africans? To start giving names to oceans you first have to realize that more than one of them exist, and to do that you need initiative and curiosity, among other things. Of course, the drive to climb the Everest (their own damn mountain), together with the Everest's name, came from Brits too.

    "The “rise of the West” was in large part built on systems – mercantilism, military-fiscal competition, etc. – that universal Western ideology now condemns."

    This is true. And so the West isn't rising anymore. While Putin was resisting some parts of the "universal Western ideology", Russia's standing in the world was rising. If he somehow holds on to power now, then may be it will rise some more. I'm sure this will sound simplistic to some, but I do believe that.

    (4) On Russia.

    I think it's likely that the mean IQs reported over the last 100 years have been stable for a very long time, perhaps since the Neolithic. This means that for most of its history Russia had good brains coupled with a very low population density. I think the country's population was something like 7 million under Ivan IV. In comparison, tiny Tuscany had 2 million at the same time. Good brains + low population density = not a lot of intellectual excitement. Culture comes from cities, cities come from agricultural surpluses, and in the past those surpluses were only achievable in warm climates. The unusual combination of good brains with warm climates has been intellectually explosive in the pre-modern world. Tiny Greece had 4 million people 2,500 years ago. Renaissance Tuscany was another example. Egypt had ...ahhh not as good brains as Greece, but an insanely high population density, and that wasn't intellectually explosive at all. 95% of the modern sciences bear Greek names in most modern languages, not ancient Egyptian ones, and that's for a very good reason. So pop. density by itself wasn't enough.

    The cold, endless forests occasionally broken up by towns and villages that was pre-modern Russia had to have technology, science and European art brought to it from the outside, from warmer, more densely-peopled places, but then the locals quickly picked up on all of it and started making contributions. Lomonosov was already doing new stuff in the 18th century. That's not what happened in the Ottoman Empire, for example. Technology was brought in from the West, but it wasn't fully picked up, and the contributions are meager even today. So brains matter.

    It's hard to assign either the credit or the blame for the specifics of the history of the Russian relationship with high culture to political arrangements because Finland, which didn't share a government with Russia for most of its history, had a very similar history with high culture. Nearly-empty forests for many centuries on end, then the bringing in of high culture from the outside, then quick adoption and major contributions (on the per-capita level, of course).

    "and if Columbus had found no New World and instead sunk somewhere in the middle of a globe-spanning World Ocean?"

    Well, Vasco Da Gama found India independently of Columbus. If there was no America, some of the energies poured into it by Europeans would have had to go into India, SE Asia, China, Australia. African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn't exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn't a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush.

    Glossy:

    “He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn’t the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What’s beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China. ”

    Portugal was a much more marginal country than China, a small kingdom on the fringes of western Europe only recently unified as opposed to a civilization-state with the highest technology in the world and a population numbering several tens of millions. Portugal had to innovate.

    “African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn’t exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn’t a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush.”

    Not really. Australia isn’t a land hospitable to large-scale agricultural settlement, with even the relatively good southeast being terribly dry with not good soil. A plantation economy there would be problematic. As for Africa, the epidemological terrors of sub-Saharan Africa made the continent difficult for Europeans into the 20th century–Age of Discovery Europeans wouldn’t be able to handle it.

    America was unique, a place offering substantial resources within a short distance of Europe with many areas being as non-threatening health-wise as the European homeland. Neither China nor India enjoyed those advantages. _Maybe_ a maritime Moroccan empire could have joined in, but I have my doubts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    Also the east coast of the Americas is fertile while the west coast is only nice in Chilli and Washington. Other areas are to dry or tropical. And China didn't need tropical America when it has Southern China (if not South East Asia)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @yalensis
    On narrowness of Atlantic ocean, I think you are really onto something here. Being someone who easily gets seasick I have always been astonished how easy it was to cross Atlantic even before the time of Columbus, and certainly after his time. As early as 16th century there was a flourishing cod fishing industry in which “commuter” European ships sailed to Newfoundland for cod, salted the cod on board the ship, and then returned with the catch to their home countries. In many cases, for the individual sailor this was no worse than the modern business trip; he was only away from home for a couple of weeks, and then returned to his family with some extra cash:

    In the early sixteenth century, fishermen from England, France, Spain and Portugal discovered the best places to fish for cod in the waters off Newfoundland, and how best to preserve the fish for the journey home.[4]
    The French, Spanish and Portuguese fishermen tended to fish on the Grand Banks and other banks out to sea, where fish were always available. They salted their fish on board ship and it was not dried until brought to Europe…

    Note also that that dried and salted cod, although not delicious, was cheap, highly nutritious and provided calories for growing European population.
    This speaks to Craig Willy’s question “Why did Europeans trade so much?” I believe the answer is: “Because they could.” Why not, once you discover some great and useful things out there in the world, and find that they are relatively easy to get to, all you need is a rickety boat?
    (On the issue of sugar, it does not really provide many useful calories, but I think Europeans became hooked on this substance in its later metamorphosic state of RUM.)

    Actually, the Basque fisheries in the Grand Banks dated to the 15th century. (Yes, that.) Well into the New France period, a Basque-Icelandic pidgin remained spoken by some in northeasternmost North America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    In other words, Columbus did not "discover" the New World? Hah! I knew it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    Sorry for the length of my comment. I had some free time. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, I haven't killed any trees with this, it's just dots on the screen, etc.

    "...this a truly counter-intuitive and deeply contextualizing work that overturns many of the triumphalist post hoc narratives of Western chauvinism."

    But for the average modern reader the above wouldn't be counterintuitive at all. It would be old hat, boring same-old, etc. The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page. This reminds me of watching anti-czarist movies and cartoons as a kid, stuff set to Mayakovski's poetry, for example. At that time I had never seen any defense of czarism from anyone. What were those movies being angry about? It felt like the most boring stuff on earth. The back and forth of conflict is at least interesting. One side still being angry at the other long after that other side has died, when there is no conflict anymore - that's boring. I never heard anyone at school say "did you see that malchish kibalchish cartoon? THAT was cool". That's because it wasn't. Conformism is boring. In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    "It does this by systematically comparing Europe with other leading world regions in the pre-industrial age..."

    I've only just started reading your review, but why am I so sure that biology, the Darwinian approach, must have formed exactly 0% of Mr. Pomeranz's "systematic" comparison? It's because of the conformism implied in the "triamphalist" "chauvinism" quote above. He's going to "systematically" compare every aspect of a set of entities, except for one. And, wouldn't you know it, what a shocker, who could have possibly guessed it, the particular aspect he's not going to touch is the one that's currently taboo. It wasn't taboo 100 or even 70 years ago, it's probably not going to be taboo a couple of decades from now, but it just so happened that at the exact time and place when this guy expected to get paid for his "systematic" comparison, it was taboo, so he left it out of his "system". That was NOT counterintuitive. That sort of thing one always sees coming.

    "Although Europe was technologically ahead in some spheres – most visibly, guns, clock making, optics..."

    He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring. A focus on the individual is a sign of deeper things, as is its lack. Is that a picture of an idealized ruler or of Pericles, of an idealized philosopher or of Aristotle? In the Western case we have portraits of actual individuals. As far as I know, in all other pre-modern cultures we only have idealized forms. If I was writing a book "systematically" comparing Western Civ. with others, I'd mention this seemingly very important difference. Are people important as unique individuals or as faceless actors performing roles typical for their stations in life? I would bet $100 that Mr. Pomeranz didn't mention this obvious and obviously important difference in different cultures' outlook on the world.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers:

    "In music, the lack of a tradition of named composers in non-Western civilizations means that the Western total of 522 significant figures has no real competition at all."

    Wow. Talk about de-emphasizing the individual. The Western musical canon of signed, playable-from-a-score music goes back about 1000 years.

    I could list other areas here. Linear perspective, for example. I think we owe that to early 15th century Florence and to no other place.

    "China had a clear lead in irrigation..."

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    "...and medicine"

    Really? I would guess that before... ahh, let's say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I'm not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    "China was substantially more “capitalist”..."

    Then why did all the big brains in it always wanted to become officials, not businessmen? Florence, Venice, Genoa, the Hanseatic cities, Novgorod, were run by the bourgeoisie during the middle ages. Those entire states were run for and by businessmen for centuries. I'm not saying that's actually a desired outcome, but neither am I aware of any pre-modern Chinese attempts to take capitalism that far.

    "...guilds had much less political influence than in Europe."

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term? More obvious questions that an author shackled by conformity and incuriousness would never ask. I'm not definitely saying that Mr. Pomeranz is such an author - I haven't read this book - but that's what your review implies to me.

    "First, colonies."

    Why didn't China ever grab any colonies that weren't next door to it already? One thing's for sure: it wasn't because of humanitarianism. Top contenders for an explanation: centralization, lack of curiosity.

    "...the windfall of New World silver – which was, in large part, a free gift to Europe..."

    OMG. Somebody had to come and get it. Imagine sailing into the unknown, beyond the edge of the world. Months with no land in sight, no known precedent before you, just an idea. Even small bands of illiterate, tribal Polynesians have displayed more initiative on that front than the largest, longest-lived empire on Earth. He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn't the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What's beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China.

    "...ventilation techniques would not have also helped solve the problem of transporting coal (and things in general) as the steam engines that pumped out Britain’s mines did."

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?

    "In contrast, some of Europe’s largest coal deposits were located in a much more promising area: in Britain. This placed them near excellent water transport..."

    But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    "Without such geographic good luck..."

    No genetic good luck, huh? OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I'm trying to figure out PC logic. Was there one (obviously non-genetic, this is the PC version) lucky strike that happened before the ancient Greeks came on the scene that caused all of these later favorable outcomes or did luck just strike Europe again and again, breaking all laws of probability? And if there was one ancient, pre-Greek non-genetic lucky strike, why weren't its effects lost during the period of cultural amnesia known as the Dark Ages? Jared Diamond made an attempt here. It was silly, but at least he tried. I don't get a sense from this review that Pomeranz has tried that. The 18th century is way too late to introduce the necessary lucky strike.

    "...the Atlantic is much narrower than the Pacific! "

    This reminds me - the Pacific was first crossed by a crew that came from a country (Portugal) located nowhere near the Pacific. The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn't even have a name for their own damn ocean! Magellan had to come from the other side of the world to name it for them! How is this not as striking as Madagascar being first colonized by Indonesians, not Africans? To start giving names to oceans you first have to realize that more than one of them exist, and to do that you need initiative and curiosity, among other things. Of course, the drive to climb the Everest (their own damn mountain), together with the Everest's name, came from Brits too.

    "The “rise of the West” was in large part built on systems – mercantilism, military-fiscal competition, etc. – that universal Western ideology now condemns."

    This is true. And so the West isn't rising anymore. While Putin was resisting some parts of the "universal Western ideology", Russia's standing in the world was rising. If he somehow holds on to power now, then may be it will rise some more. I'm sure this will sound simplistic to some, but I do believe that.

    (4) On Russia.

    I think it's likely that the mean IQs reported over the last 100 years have been stable for a very long time, perhaps since the Neolithic. This means that for most of its history Russia had good brains coupled with a very low population density. I think the country's population was something like 7 million under Ivan IV. In comparison, tiny Tuscany had 2 million at the same time. Good brains + low population density = not a lot of intellectual excitement. Culture comes from cities, cities come from agricultural surpluses, and in the past those surpluses were only achievable in warm climates. The unusual combination of good brains with warm climates has been intellectually explosive in the pre-modern world. Tiny Greece had 4 million people 2,500 years ago. Renaissance Tuscany was another example. Egypt had ...ahhh not as good brains as Greece, but an insanely high population density, and that wasn't intellectually explosive at all. 95% of the modern sciences bear Greek names in most modern languages, not ancient Egyptian ones, and that's for a very good reason. So pop. density by itself wasn't enough.

    The cold, endless forests occasionally broken up by towns and villages that was pre-modern Russia had to have technology, science and European art brought to it from the outside, from warmer, more densely-peopled places, but then the locals quickly picked up on all of it and started making contributions. Lomonosov was already doing new stuff in the 18th century. That's not what happened in the Ottoman Empire, for example. Technology was brought in from the West, but it wasn't fully picked up, and the contributions are meager even today. So brains matter.

    It's hard to assign either the credit or the blame for the specifics of the history of the Russian relationship with high culture to political arrangements because Finland, which didn't share a government with Russia for most of its history, had a very similar history with high culture. Nearly-empty forests for many centuries on end, then the bringing in of high culture from the outside, then quick adoption and major contributions (on the per-capita level, of course).

    "and if Columbus had found no New World and instead sunk somewhere in the middle of a globe-spanning World Ocean?"

    Well, Vasco Da Gama found India independently of Columbus. If there was no America, some of the energies poured into it by Europeans would have had to go into India, SE Asia, China, Australia. African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn't exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn't a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush.

    The Romans found speaking Greek cool. If they have found Egyptian cool you would think that everything was invented by the Egyptians instead of the Greeks as Greek people (and not only Greek people) have the habit to claim every invention as one made by their people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Aw, come on! The Greeks truly were exceptional. The Egyptians were not bad, and they did make some astounding discoveries in astronomy, and they also invented the technology of cutting rock, which was a huge step forward for mankind. But then what did they do with this great discovery? They wasted it on building a bunch of silly pyramid-shaped tombs for the ruling class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    "And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!"

    Precious metals were also a motivation. The Chinese also found them valuable.

    "And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there?"

    Chess functioned as a Western equivalent. What would be an equivalent to a long history of development of increasingly complex music? People in all societies enjoy music, but not everyone's music is equally complex. The same can be said of games, and I guess weiqi/go is more complex than chess (I'm just judging by the fact that computers aren't beating Go masters yet), so the East has historically come out ahead on complex games, but not on complex music.

    "The realistic art originated in northern Italy..."

    And in ancient Greece before that.

    "For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India’s today."

    The Flynn Effect has not changed the relative standings of nations/ ancestry-based groups of people. It has lifted all boats equally with one exception: the elites of each group. The Flynn Effect is probably caused by better nutrition and is related to the increase in mean height. But the elites of every nation have always eaten well and have always been tall. If you extrapolate the Flynn Effect back to Archimedes's time, he will appear to have had the intelligence of a dust mite, but this was obviously not true. The elites of antiquity appear smart to us in recognizably modern ways. This can be seen from their sculpture, poetry, literature, geometry, etc. I once read most of Plutarch's lives in a Russian translation, same for Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian war. Those were smart guys. All Soviet children had to memorize Euclid's proofs in school. There was nothing average about the mind that produced them, by modern standards or, I suspect, by any others.

    I expressed myself incorrectly in yesterday's comment. The population means have risen in the 20th century. From what I've read, this increase appears to have stopped because all the benefits from better nutrition have already been maxed out in most places. But the means of the elites have probably remained stable for a long time now. The only thing that could change THOSE is natural selection, and that takes time. Pretty much every society known to us has had well-fed elites.

    So what you are saying is that the Flynn effect isn’t due to better nutrition otherwise you would expect some areas to have a smaller increase than others because they were in the past already well fed .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    Well, the Malthusian dynamic assured that a lot of people in every society were poorly fed. While Britain was the world's leading political and economic power, Dickens put hungry British children in his novels. So yes, well into the 19th century some people went hungry in the richest nations. Once that problem was solved, the mean heights and the mean IQs of the lower classes went up. The elites were unaffected. Obviously, modern British writers aren't on the whole better than Dickens's contemporaries, modern European musicians aren't better than the musicians of Beethoven's generation, but mail carriers, grave diggers, etc. of native stock are probably smarter now than they were 100 years ago. This makes intuitive sense to me.

    Was there variation among nations in the proportion of poorly-fed people before the Flynn Effect kicked in? Sure. But I have a feeling that perhaps you're exaggerating the size of that variation in your mind. I was just recently reading the Aubrey-Maturin novels, some of whose action was set in Britain in the early 19th century. There's no shortage of chronically hungry characters in those books. And again, that was in the most powerful nation on Earth. Before the 20th century no nation was entirely, from top to bottom, well-fed.

    Richard Lynn has compiled IQ data going back to the first decades of the 20th century. What the Flynn Effect failed to change is the relative standings of nations and populations. Nutrition has improved pretty much everywhere. So almost all societies went up by a roughly similar amount. This left the relative standings mostly intact. Sub-Saharan Africa is probably the only area now where nutrition could still improve. Otherwise we're done. The full potentials have mostly been reached. Both in height and in IQ (and probably in a lot of other areas) these full potentials are different for different populations. It would have been shocking if they weren't different, by the way. If these full potentials turned out to be the same for every group, then Darwinism would have been pretty much disproved by facts. The creationists would have won (in God's image = uniformly perfect, since there would have probably been only one God's image.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Craig Willy
    "Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn’t." Says who? Ottoman-Turkish history suffers from the same inferiority complex, brought about by real economic and material inferiority, as Russian history. What kind of nation is it that turns their back on their entire history - Islam, their own script, their multiethnic State - to become a Western European-style (French) national-secular State? The only possible answer is a nation (or rather, a political leadership under Ataturk) which is deeply insecure and hateful of its own heritage and culture, believing the only way to "catch up", is to become Western European.

    Of course Ataturk failed, after being humiliated at Europe's door for 70+ years, the Turks are only now beginning to escape their inferiority complex under Erdogan's leadership.

    It hasn’t have the gigantic proportions of the Russians

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anatoly

    I love the Tale Of Genji, & maybe it was the first novel. But there’s no connective chain of influence from it to western novels and on to Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky etc. So my point still stands.

    Russia’s “paying attention” wasn’t just military. Have you read Ivan the Terrible’s (rather rude) letter to Queen Elizabeth I? Didn’t Peter The Great set out to embrace western culture (architecture, Rembrandt paintings etc), not just western armed force? The fact that Russian leaders since Ivan emulated the west culturally, rather than China or Turkey, suggests they already saw that this was the ascendant culture. Which rather contradicts Pomeranz…

    Craig Willy

    I disagree. I think Ataturk was – unassailably – the greatest political leader of the C20. In fact, if I was drawing up a list of the greatest 100 leaders of the C20, I’d leave positions 2 to 19 blank, just so there was no suggestion it was a close run thing. In his time, rather than ours, Ataturk saw that his country might be completely eaten alive by the western powers. He saw – correctly – the pressing need to emulate the qualities which made those western powers strong, rather than hold on to those qualities which made Turkey weak. Good call.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Craig Willy
    I don't deny that Turkey needed to catch up. I deny any relationship between catching up and use of Latin script, abolition of the Caliphate and the attempt to create a mono-ethnic nation-state (eviction of the Greeks, eternal oppression of the Kurds).

    Of course we can praise Ataturk for expelling the Western forces from Turkey and securing the new nation's borders against Western colonialist designs. This was prior to the reforms. Incidentally, Turkey DID NOT achieve anything remotely like a catch up after Ataturk's reforms because there was, quite simply, no relationship between "hard" cultural Westernization and modernization. (I think of what the Meiji Japanese, whose elites and culture I would think were no more "Western" than that of the Ottoman Empire, probably less so.)

    , @kirill
    The whole trope about Russian leaders emulating the west is tired and basically untrue. Just because the Russian royals imported some paintings does not mean there were no original painters in Russia. Western royals also bought foreign paintings, were they emulating the foreigners? The Cold War has drilled into the minds of people the notion that Russia is the unwest. Any objective analysis shows that Russia was yet another European power with nothing bizarrely decoupled about its culture from the west. Russia is not an analogue for Japan. Culture (fashion, technology) was actively adopted by all European states. There is not one European state that completely ignored its neighbours and set the trend all on its own. This is the mythical entity being labeled as "the west" in this discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    No worries, Glossy - your comments are appreciated as always. I can't hope to reply to all of this, so I'll limit myself to just a few major points.

    The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page... In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    Dude, no, no, NO! If you want Western triumphalism, there's no shortage of it. David Landes, for a start, is probably the most prominent (which is not to say incisive) historian on global comparative historical development.

    The "ranting" that you speak of exists largely in Marxist / World-Systems derived theories of global economic history; they experienced some popularity in the 70's and 80's, but they are now largely discredited.

    Mostly, Ken Pomeranz comes across as middle of the road.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers

    And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there? Western icon makers? Western calligraphers or guó huà painters? Even Western anime artists? The European musical and artistic tradition was a great cultural accomplishment, probably the most globally successful to date, but how is it essentially superior to non-European traditions?

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    Not in the summer Mediterranean... but its not just irrigation, but agricultural science in general. European crop yields wouldn't catch up to Chinese levels until the late 19th century.

    Really? I would guess that before… ahh, let’s say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    Life expectancy seems to have been higher than in most of Europe, and certainly Chinese cities were far larger than their European equivalents (which indicates better sanitation and public health). I don't know about medicine; to be fair, even the modern variety is frequently superfluous and ineffective.

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term?

    Wait... you've got it heads over tails. The Chinese allowed guilds, but they did NOT (unlike in Europe) give guilds the right to fine and intimidate non-member artisans out of business. This is more freedom, less corruption / privilege.

    Why didn’t China ever grab any colonies that weren’t next door to it already?

    There were Chinese communities and trading networks all across South East Asia. The Chinese state was involved with them to a far lesser degree than European nations.

    Why? I assume because the cost-benefit calculations didn't work out. Far too many small timers on the south-east coast were involved, so no opportunities for creating easily-taxed monopolies like the European armed trading companies.

    I'd also add that China, by dint of its location, was far better supplied with sugar, spices, etc., than Europe, to the extent that they weren't truly considered luxuries. Hence, yet another reason why there did not exist any profit motive for the state or huge companies to get involved in colonial adventures.

    And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?... But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    To do this effectively, you really need electrically driven fans. Too much of a leap. And yes, China had excellent water transport, but by the time of the Qing all the coal within reach of the Yangtze Delta was already largely depleted (transport was a huge limiting factor; in Britain, for instance, coal not within 10km of a waterway was uneconomical during the 18th century). Look at a map; most of China's coal reserves are far to the west and north. It was just far easier (and more cost effective!) to float logs down the Yangtze.

    OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I’m trying to figure out PC logic.

    The realistic art originated in northern Italy, the Age of Discovery (which had its brief analog with Zheng He's voyages) in the Iberia peninsula. Holland was for many centuries the most advanced commercial center of Europe. But the industrial revolution started in northwest England. These were all very different regions.

    The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn’t even have a name for their own damn ocean!

    Are you sure? I would imagine it was just, conceptually, part of 东海 (East Sea).

    Not going to wade into that IQ mess. Far too many things confused. For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India's today.

    “And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!”

    Precious metals were also a motivation. The Chinese also found them valuable.

    “And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there?”

    Chess functioned as a Western equivalent. What would be an equivalent to a long history of development of increasingly complex music? People in all societies enjoy music, but not everyone’s music is equally complex. The same can be said of games, and I guess weiqi/go is more complex than chess (I’m just judging by the fact that computers aren’t beating Go masters yet), so the East has historically come out ahead on complex games, but not on complex music.

    “The realistic art originated in northern Italy…”

    And in ancient Greece before that.

    “For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India’s today.”

    The Flynn Effect has not changed the relative standings of nations/ ancestry-based groups of people. It has lifted all boats equally with one exception: the elites of each group. The Flynn Effect is probably caused by better nutrition and is related to the increase in mean height. But the elites of every nation have always eaten well and have always been tall. If you extrapolate the Flynn Effect back to Archimedes’s time, he will appear to have had the intelligence of a dust mite, but this was obviously not true. The elites of antiquity appear smart to us in recognizably modern ways. This can be seen from their sculpture, poetry, literature, geometry, etc. I once read most of Plutarch’s lives in a Russian translation, same for Thucydides’s history of the Peloponnesian war. Those were smart guys. All Soviet children had to memorize Euclid’s proofs in school. There was nothing average about the mind that produced them, by modern standards or, I suspect, by any others.

    I expressed myself incorrectly in yesterday’s comment. The population means have risen in the 20th century. From what I’ve read, this increase appears to have stopped because all the benefits from better nutrition have already been maxed out in most places. But the means of the elites have probably remained stable for a long time now. The only thing that could change THOSE is natural selection, and that takes time. Pretty much every society known to us has had well-fed elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    So what you are saying is that the Flynn effect isn't due to better nutrition otherwise you would expect some areas to have a smaller increase than others because they were in the past already well fed .
    , @Randy McDonald
    Among other things, you're assuming that elites have a reproductive advantage over non-elites. Is this actually the case? The huge differences in every respect between the classical worlds and the modern may make the observation that the relatively highly-educated demographics have fewer children than others, but ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn't. Russia copies everything from the West. Turkey also develops some of its own culture. There is also the problem that Turkish is very hard to translate into a Western languages while Russia is a Western language. Your novel example is probably more due to the very small number of Turkish-Western language translators in the past than with the missing number of great Turkish novels. And the fact that there are no great Turkish novels from before Ataturk is very simple to explain. Turkish as written now did not exist before 1928


    Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence. Modern classical music, aka metal, is most popular in South America which is not noted for the IQ of its inhabitants. And the only reason a kid picks up a violin is because it is forced to.

    “Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn’t.” Says who? Ottoman-Turkish history suffers from the same inferiority complex, brought about by real economic and material inferiority, as Russian history. What kind of nation is it that turns their back on their entire history – Islam, their own script, their multiethnic State – to become a Western European-style (French) national-secular State? The only possible answer is a nation (or rather, a political leadership under Ataturk) which is deeply insecure and hateful of its own heritage and culture, believing the only way to “catch up”, is to become Western European.

    Of course Ataturk failed, after being humiliated at Europe’s door for 70+ years, the Turks are only now beginning to escape their inferiority complex under Erdogan’s leadership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    It hasn't have the gigantic proportions of the Russians
    , @Randy McDonald
    In the defense of the Turks, the status quo associated with the Ottoman Empire had failed catastrophically to the tune of the death of a sizable double-digit percentage of the Ottoman Empire's population and the near-extinction of the Turkish state. Pushing through radical reforms aimed at Europeanizing Turkey, if more extremely and thoroughly than whatever Ottoman-era reformers planned, was probably the most constructive likely move. Absent that, Turkey wouldn't be nearly in the same relatively good shape that it is now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn't. Russia copies everything from the West. Turkey also develops some of its own culture. There is also the problem that Turkish is very hard to translate into a Western languages while Russia is a Western language. Your novel example is probably more due to the very small number of Turkish-Western language translators in the past than with the missing number of great Turkish novels. And the fact that there are no great Turkish novels from before Ataturk is very simple to explain. Turkish as written now did not exist before 1928


    Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence. Modern classical music, aka metal, is most popular in South America which is not noted for the IQ of its inhabitants. And the only reason a kid picks up a violin is because it is forced to.

    This is typically western chauvinist BS. Russia did not copy the “west” like Japan. It was right there in the middle of the pack during the scientific revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Lomonosov wasn’t the only Russian scientist. Euler was based in St. Petersburg. Look up Dmitri Mendeleev, Alexander Lodygin, Alexander Popov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Nicolai Lobachevsky, Ilya Mechikov, Nicolai Pirogov, and others. I am not mentioning the 20th century when any claims about Russian being technologically and scientifically backward are hysterically ridiculous. Accusing pioneers of being parrots is grotesque and extremely petty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charly
    Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn't. Russia copies everything from the West. Turkey also develops some of its own culture. There is also the problem that Turkish is very hard to translate into a Western languages while Russia is a Western language. Your novel example is probably more due to the very small number of Turkish-Western language translators in the past than with the missing number of great Turkish novels. And the fact that there are no great Turkish novels from before Ataturk is very simple to explain. Turkish as written now did not exist before 1928


    Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence. Modern classical music, aka metal, is most popular in South America which is not noted for the IQ of its inhabitants. And the only reason a kid picks up a violin is because it is forced to.

    :
    “Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence.”
    NO NO NO NO NO!
    Coincidentally, just yesterday I was listening to a DVD lecture on Music Appreciation (Western classical music), and the instructor was explaining his theory that classical music is a way of pumping high-volume encoded information directly into the human brain, through the aural senses.
    I think this must be true, because when I am listening to a beautiful symphony by Tchaikovsky, or Brahms, or Beethoven, I do begin to feel that they are trying to say something to me that is deep and important (but unfortunately, beyond the comprehension of my tiny brain).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    No worries, Glossy - your comments are appreciated as always. I can't hope to reply to all of this, so I'll limit myself to just a few major points.

    The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page... In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    Dude, no, no, NO! If you want Western triumphalism, there's no shortage of it. David Landes, for a start, is probably the most prominent (which is not to say incisive) historian on global comparative historical development.

    The "ranting" that you speak of exists largely in Marxist / World-Systems derived theories of global economic history; they experienced some popularity in the 70's and 80's, but they are now largely discredited.

    Mostly, Ken Pomeranz comes across as middle of the road.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers

    And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there? Western icon makers? Western calligraphers or guó huà painters? Even Western anime artists? The European musical and artistic tradition was a great cultural accomplishment, probably the most globally successful to date, but how is it essentially superior to non-European traditions?

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    Not in the summer Mediterranean... but its not just irrigation, but agricultural science in general. European crop yields wouldn't catch up to Chinese levels until the late 19th century.

    Really? I would guess that before… ahh, let’s say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    Life expectancy seems to have been higher than in most of Europe, and certainly Chinese cities were far larger than their European equivalents (which indicates better sanitation and public health). I don't know about medicine; to be fair, even the modern variety is frequently superfluous and ineffective.

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term?

    Wait... you've got it heads over tails. The Chinese allowed guilds, but they did NOT (unlike in Europe) give guilds the right to fine and intimidate non-member artisans out of business. This is more freedom, less corruption / privilege.

    Why didn’t China ever grab any colonies that weren’t next door to it already?

    There were Chinese communities and trading networks all across South East Asia. The Chinese state was involved with them to a far lesser degree than European nations.

    Why? I assume because the cost-benefit calculations didn't work out. Far too many small timers on the south-east coast were involved, so no opportunities for creating easily-taxed monopolies like the European armed trading companies.

    I'd also add that China, by dint of its location, was far better supplied with sugar, spices, etc., than Europe, to the extent that they weren't truly considered luxuries. Hence, yet another reason why there did not exist any profit motive for the state or huge companies to get involved in colonial adventures.

    And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?... But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    To do this effectively, you really need electrically driven fans. Too much of a leap. And yes, China had excellent water transport, but by the time of the Qing all the coal within reach of the Yangtze Delta was already largely depleted (transport was a huge limiting factor; in Britain, for instance, coal not within 10km of a waterway was uneconomical during the 18th century). Look at a map; most of China's coal reserves are far to the west and north. It was just far easier (and more cost effective!) to float logs down the Yangtze.

    OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I’m trying to figure out PC logic.

    The realistic art originated in northern Italy, the Age of Discovery (which had its brief analog with Zheng He's voyages) in the Iberia peninsula. Holland was for many centuries the most advanced commercial center of Europe. But the industrial revolution started in northwest England. These were all very different regions.

    The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn’t even have a name for their own damn ocean!

    Are you sure? I would imagine it was just, conceptually, part of 东海 (East Sea).

    Not going to wade into that IQ mess. Far too many things confused. For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India's today.

    Quoting anatoly:
    The “ranting” that you speak of exists largely in Marxist / World-Systems derived theories of global economic history; they experienced some popularity in the 70′s and 80′s, but they are now largely discredited.
    I am not familiar with that particular political strand? My family derives from Marxist/Communist stock, but in this particular tradition that I stem from, we did not “rant” against European history. On the contrary, our Marxism was traced back to traditions of Greece, Rome, all of European history, Voltaire, French Revolution, French Commune, German socialism, plus of course huge influence of Jewish intellectual diaspora on European Enlightenment.
    Then, on Russian side of the coin, tracing a clear line from Jacobins to Decembrists, then to Belinsky, Chernyshevsky (I should say CHERNYSHEVSKY in capital letters, he is THE MAN), and from Chernyshevsky in a pretty straight line to Lenin.
    (Please do not include Bakunin in this pantheon, or you will make my ancestors angry, and you do not know to see angry ancestors….)
    In conclusion, we (Marxists) never paid any attention whatsoever to China or Eastern philosophy. (Not that those cultures are bad, just do not contribute anything to classical Marxist intellectual tradition.)
    Just saying that to refute notion that “Marxists” spit on Europe. However, I concede that some people who call themselves Marxists may have gone astray and started to hate Western history. But then they would have to explain why Marx and Engels believed that Western history would culiminate in socialist economic systems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    Sorry for the length of my comment. I had some free time. You don't have to read it if you don't want to, I haven't killed any trees with this, it's just dots on the screen, etc.

    "...this a truly counter-intuitive and deeply contextualizing work that overturns many of the triumphalist post hoc narratives of Western chauvinism."

    But for the average modern reader the above wouldn't be counterintuitive at all. It would be old hat, boring same-old, etc. The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page. This reminds me of watching anti-czarist movies and cartoons as a kid, stuff set to Mayakovski's poetry, for example. At that time I had never seen any defense of czarism from anyone. What were those movies being angry about? It felt like the most boring stuff on earth. The back and forth of conflict is at least interesting. One side still being angry at the other long after that other side has died, when there is no conflict anymore - that's boring. I never heard anyone at school say "did you see that malchish kibalchish cartoon? THAT was cool". That's because it wasn't. Conformism is boring. In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    "It does this by systematically comparing Europe with other leading world regions in the pre-industrial age..."

    I've only just started reading your review, but why am I so sure that biology, the Darwinian approach, must have formed exactly 0% of Mr. Pomeranz's "systematic" comparison? It's because of the conformism implied in the "triamphalist" "chauvinism" quote above. He's going to "systematically" compare every aspect of a set of entities, except for one. And, wouldn't you know it, what a shocker, who could have possibly guessed it, the particular aspect he's not going to touch is the one that's currently taboo. It wasn't taboo 100 or even 70 years ago, it's probably not going to be taboo a couple of decades from now, but it just so happened that at the exact time and place when this guy expected to get paid for his "systematic" comparison, it was taboo, so he left it out of his "system". That was NOT counterintuitive. That sort of thing one always sees coming.

    "Although Europe was technologically ahead in some spheres – most visibly, guns, clock making, optics..."

    He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring. A focus on the individual is a sign of deeper things, as is its lack. Is that a picture of an idealized ruler or of Pericles, of an idealized philosopher or of Aristotle? In the Western case we have portraits of actual individuals. As far as I know, in all other pre-modern cultures we only have idealized forms. If I was writing a book "systematically" comparing Western Civ. with others, I'd mention this seemingly very important difference. Are people important as unique individuals or as faceless actors performing roles typical for their stations in life? I would bet $100 that Mr. Pomeranz didn't mention this obvious and obviously important difference in different cultures' outlook on the world.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers:

    "In music, the lack of a tradition of named composers in non-Western civilizations means that the Western total of 522 significant figures has no real competition at all."

    Wow. Talk about de-emphasizing the individual. The Western musical canon of signed, playable-from-a-score music goes back about 1000 years.

    I could list other areas here. Linear perspective, for example. I think we owe that to early 15th century Florence and to no other place.

    "China had a clear lead in irrigation..."

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    "...and medicine"

    Really? I would guess that before... ahh, let's say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I'm not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    "China was substantially more “capitalist”..."

    Then why did all the big brains in it always wanted to become officials, not businessmen? Florence, Venice, Genoa, the Hanseatic cities, Novgorod, were run by the bourgeoisie during the middle ages. Those entire states were run for and by businessmen for centuries. I'm not saying that's actually a desired outcome, but neither am I aware of any pre-modern Chinese attempts to take capitalism that far.

    "...guilds had much less political influence than in Europe."

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term? More obvious questions that an author shackled by conformity and incuriousness would never ask. I'm not definitely saying that Mr. Pomeranz is such an author - I haven't read this book - but that's what your review implies to me.

    "First, colonies."

    Why didn't China ever grab any colonies that weren't next door to it already? One thing's for sure: it wasn't because of humanitarianism. Top contenders for an explanation: centralization, lack of curiosity.

    "...the windfall of New World silver – which was, in large part, a free gift to Europe..."

    OMG. Somebody had to come and get it. Imagine sailing into the unknown, beyond the edge of the world. Months with no land in sight, no known precedent before you, just an idea. Even small bands of illiterate, tribal Polynesians have displayed more initiative on that front than the largest, longest-lived empire on Earth. He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn't the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What's beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China.

    "...ventilation techniques would not have also helped solve the problem of transporting coal (and things in general) as the steam engines that pumped out Britain’s mines did."

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?

    "In contrast, some of Europe’s largest coal deposits were located in a much more promising area: in Britain. This placed them near excellent water transport..."

    But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    "Without such geographic good luck..."

    No genetic good luck, huh? OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I'm trying to figure out PC logic. Was there one (obviously non-genetic, this is the PC version) lucky strike that happened before the ancient Greeks came on the scene that caused all of these later favorable outcomes or did luck just strike Europe again and again, breaking all laws of probability? And if there was one ancient, pre-Greek non-genetic lucky strike, why weren't its effects lost during the period of cultural amnesia known as the Dark Ages? Jared Diamond made an attempt here. It was silly, but at least he tried. I don't get a sense from this review that Pomeranz has tried that. The 18th century is way too late to introduce the necessary lucky strike.

    "...the Atlantic is much narrower than the Pacific! "

    This reminds me - the Pacific was first crossed by a crew that came from a country (Portugal) located nowhere near the Pacific. The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn't even have a name for their own damn ocean! Magellan had to come from the other side of the world to name it for them! How is this not as striking as Madagascar being first colonized by Indonesians, not Africans? To start giving names to oceans you first have to realize that more than one of them exist, and to do that you need initiative and curiosity, among other things. Of course, the drive to climb the Everest (their own damn mountain), together with the Everest's name, came from Brits too.

    "The “rise of the West” was in large part built on systems – mercantilism, military-fiscal competition, etc. – that universal Western ideology now condemns."

    This is true. And so the West isn't rising anymore. While Putin was resisting some parts of the "universal Western ideology", Russia's standing in the world was rising. If he somehow holds on to power now, then may be it will rise some more. I'm sure this will sound simplistic to some, but I do believe that.

    (4) On Russia.

    I think it's likely that the mean IQs reported over the last 100 years have been stable for a very long time, perhaps since the Neolithic. This means that for most of its history Russia had good brains coupled with a very low population density. I think the country's population was something like 7 million under Ivan IV. In comparison, tiny Tuscany had 2 million at the same time. Good brains + low population density = not a lot of intellectual excitement. Culture comes from cities, cities come from agricultural surpluses, and in the past those surpluses were only achievable in warm climates. The unusual combination of good brains with warm climates has been intellectually explosive in the pre-modern world. Tiny Greece had 4 million people 2,500 years ago. Renaissance Tuscany was another example. Egypt had ...ahhh not as good brains as Greece, but an insanely high population density, and that wasn't intellectually explosive at all. 95% of the modern sciences bear Greek names in most modern languages, not ancient Egyptian ones, and that's for a very good reason. So pop. density by itself wasn't enough.

    The cold, endless forests occasionally broken up by towns and villages that was pre-modern Russia had to have technology, science and European art brought to it from the outside, from warmer, more densely-peopled places, but then the locals quickly picked up on all of it and started making contributions. Lomonosov was already doing new stuff in the 18th century. That's not what happened in the Ottoman Empire, for example. Technology was brought in from the West, but it wasn't fully picked up, and the contributions are meager even today. So brains matter.

    It's hard to assign either the credit or the blame for the specifics of the history of the Russian relationship with high culture to political arrangements because Finland, which didn't share a government with Russia for most of its history, had a very similar history with high culture. Nearly-empty forests for many centuries on end, then the bringing in of high culture from the outside, then quick adoption and major contributions (on the per-capita level, of course).

    "and if Columbus had found no New World and instead sunk somewhere in the middle of a globe-spanning World Ocean?"

    Well, Vasco Da Gama found India independently of Columbus. If there was no America, some of the energies poured into it by Europeans would have had to go into India, SE Asia, China, Australia. African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn't exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn't a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush.

    No worries, Glossy – your comments are appreciated as always. I can’t hope to reply to all of this, so I’ll limit myself to just a few major points.

    The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page… In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    Dude, no, no, NO! If you want Western triumphalism, there’s no shortage of it. David Landes, for a start, is probably the most prominent (which is not to say incisive) historian on global comparative historical development.

    The “ranting” that you speak of exists largely in Marxist / World-Systems derived theories of global economic history; they experienced some popularity in the 70′s and 80′s, but they are now largely discredited.

    Mostly, Ken Pomeranz comes across as middle of the road.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers

    And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there? Western icon makers? Western calligraphers or guó huà painters? Even Western anime artists? The European musical and artistic tradition was a great cultural accomplishment, probably the most globally successful to date, but how is it essentially superior to non-European traditions?

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    Not in the summer Mediterranean… but its not just irrigation, but agricultural science in general. European crop yields wouldn’t catch up to Chinese levels until the late 19th century.

    Really? I would guess that before… ahh, let’s say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    Life expectancy seems to have been higher than in most of Europe, and certainly Chinese cities were far larger than their European equivalents (which indicates better sanitation and public health). I don’t know about medicine; to be fair, even the modern variety is frequently superfluous and ineffective.

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term?

    Wait… you’ve got it heads over tails. The Chinese allowed guilds, but they did NOT (unlike in Europe) give guilds the right to fine and intimidate non-member artisans out of business. This is more freedom, less corruption / privilege.

    Why didn’t China ever grab any colonies that weren’t next door to it already?

    There were Chinese communities and trading networks all across South East Asia. The Chinese state was involved with them to a far lesser degree than European nations.

    Why? I assume because the cost-benefit calculations didn’t work out. Far too many small timers on the south-east coast were involved, so no opportunities for creating easily-taxed monopolies like the European armed trading companies.

    I’d also add that China, by dint of its location, was far better supplied with sugar, spices, etc., than Europe, to the extent that they weren’t truly considered luxuries. Hence, yet another reason why there did not exist any profit motive for the state or huge companies to get involved in colonial adventures.

    And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?… But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    To do this effectively, you really need electrically driven fans. Too much of a leap. And yes, China had excellent water transport, but by the time of the Qing all the coal within reach of the Yangtze Delta was already largely depleted (transport was a huge limiting factor; in Britain, for instance, coal not within 10km of a waterway was uneconomical during the 18th century). Look at a map; most of China’s coal reserves are far to the west and north. It was just far easier (and more cost effective!) to float logs down the Yangtze.

    OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I’m trying to figure out PC logic.

    The realistic art originated in northern Italy, the Age of Discovery (which had its brief analog with Zheng He’s voyages) in the Iberia peninsula. Holland was for many centuries the most advanced commercial center of Europe. But the industrial revolution started in northwest England. These were all very different regions.

    The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn’t even have a name for their own damn ocean!

    Are you sure? I would imagine it was just, conceptually, part of 东海 (East Sea).

    Not going to wade into that IQ mess. Far too many things confused. For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India’s today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    Quoting anatoly:
    The “ranting” that you speak of exists largely in Marxist / World-Systems derived theories of global economic history; they experienced some popularity in the 70′s and 80′s, but they are now largely discredited.
    I am not familiar with that particular political strand? My family derives from Marxist/Communist stock, but in this particular tradition that I stem from, we did not “rant” against European history. On the contrary, our Marxism was traced back to traditions of Greece, Rome, all of European history, Voltaire, French Revolution, French Commune, German socialism, plus of course huge influence of Jewish intellectual diaspora on European Enlightenment.
    Then, on Russian side of the coin, tracing a clear line from Jacobins to Decembrists, then to Belinsky, Chernyshevsky (I should say CHERNYSHEVSKY in capital letters, he is THE MAN), and from Chernyshevsky in a pretty straight line to Lenin.
    (Please do not include Bakunin in this pantheon, or you will make my ancestors angry, and you do not know to see angry ancestors….)
    In conclusion, we (Marxists) never paid any attention whatsoever to China or Eastern philosophy. (Not that those cultures are bad, just do not contribute anything to classical Marxist intellectual tradition.)
    Just saying that to refute notion that “Marxists” spit on Europe. However, I concede that some people who call themselves Marxists may have gone astray and started to hate Western history. But then they would have to explain why Marx and Engels believed that Western history would culiminate in socialist economic systems.
    , @Glossy
    "And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!"

    Precious metals were also a motivation. The Chinese also found them valuable.

    "And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there?"

    Chess functioned as a Western equivalent. What would be an equivalent to a long history of development of increasingly complex music? People in all societies enjoy music, but not everyone's music is equally complex. The same can be said of games, and I guess weiqi/go is more complex than chess (I'm just judging by the fact that computers aren't beating Go masters yet), so the East has historically come out ahead on complex games, but not on complex music.

    "The realistic art originated in northern Italy..."

    And in ancient Greece before that.

    "For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India’s today."

    The Flynn Effect has not changed the relative standings of nations/ ancestry-based groups of people. It has lifted all boats equally with one exception: the elites of each group. The Flynn Effect is probably caused by better nutrition and is related to the increase in mean height. But the elites of every nation have always eaten well and have always been tall. If you extrapolate the Flynn Effect back to Archimedes's time, he will appear to have had the intelligence of a dust mite, but this was obviously not true. The elites of antiquity appear smart to us in recognizably modern ways. This can be seen from their sculpture, poetry, literature, geometry, etc. I once read most of Plutarch's lives in a Russian translation, same for Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian war. Those were smart guys. All Soviet children had to memorize Euclid's proofs in school. There was nothing average about the mind that produced them, by modern standards or, I suspect, by any others.

    I expressed myself incorrectly in yesterday's comment. The population means have risen in the 20th century. From what I've read, this increase appears to have stopped because all the benefits from better nutrition have already been maxed out in most places. But the means of the elites have probably remained stable for a long time now. The only thing that could change THOSE is natural selection, and that takes time. Pretty much every society known to us has had well-fed elites.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Russia was (is?) part of Christendom - which is to say, part of spiritual Europe. It was an active participant in Europe's cultural conversation. By comparison, Ottoman Turkey was not.

    Europeans invent the novel. Very soon Tolstoy & Dostoyevsky are writing the greatest novels ever, & Chekov some of the greatest plays. The Turkish novel only gets going after Ataturk's revolution (the earliest Turkish novels anyone notices date from the 1950s). Today Turkey has Orhan Pamuk, who is, of course, a world-class novelist.

    Europeans invent the symphony. Soon Tchaikovsky is writing symphonies as great as Brahms, Mussorgsky is writing great Russian opera, & Russia overtakes France as the greatest ballet nation. In the next generation, Stravinsky, pupil of Rimsky Korsakov, is the most important composer of the C20. Even today Turkey has little in the way of a classical music culture.

    I don't know if novels & symphonies necessarily lead to industrial takeoff. That's pushing things too far. But the fact that Russia was an active part of Europe's cultural conversation must have made Russians pay attention to all the other things that were going on too.

    I think there's something about European classical music that feels very "high IQ". Look at any major metropolitan symphony orchestra. There's always a high proportion of east Asians; some, no doubt, products of Amy Chua style tiger moms who forced them to learn the violin & the piano. East Asians picked up on this quite early. Torakusu Yamaha, the founder of Yamaha, started manufacturing pianos in C19...

    Europeans invent the novel.

    Not quite.

    Today Turkey has Orhan Pamuk, who is, of course, a world-class novelist.

    I tried to read My Name is Red a few years ago. I only managed to get through a quarter of it or so before giving up. I get the impression he is mostly famous for his political stunts.

    But the fact that Russia was an active part of Europe’s cultural conversation must have made Russians pay attention to all the other things that were going on too.

    The “paying attention” part is one I certainly agree with. Muscovite rulers were preoccupied with maintaining some kind of military parity with their Western neighbors since the 16th century. And despite its meager economic base, by devoting most of its energies to the military and related industries (e.g. Russia was Europe’s premier iron producer during the 18th century, using serf labor to mine the Urals), it was able to succeed at this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @georgesdelatour
    Russia was (is?) part of Christendom - which is to say, part of spiritual Europe. It was an active participant in Europe's cultural conversation. By comparison, Ottoman Turkey was not.

    Europeans invent the novel. Very soon Tolstoy & Dostoyevsky are writing the greatest novels ever, & Chekov some of the greatest plays. The Turkish novel only gets going after Ataturk's revolution (the earliest Turkish novels anyone notices date from the 1950s). Today Turkey has Orhan Pamuk, who is, of course, a world-class novelist.

    Europeans invent the symphony. Soon Tchaikovsky is writing symphonies as great as Brahms, Mussorgsky is writing great Russian opera, & Russia overtakes France as the greatest ballet nation. In the next generation, Stravinsky, pupil of Rimsky Korsakov, is the most important composer of the C20. Even today Turkey has little in the way of a classical music culture.

    I don't know if novels & symphonies necessarily lead to industrial takeoff. That's pushing things too far. But the fact that Russia was an active part of Europe's cultural conversation must have made Russians pay attention to all the other things that were going on too.

    I think there's something about European classical music that feels very "high IQ". Look at any major metropolitan symphony orchestra. There's always a high proportion of east Asians; some, no doubt, products of Amy Chua style tiger moms who forced them to learn the violin & the piano. East Asians picked up on this quite early. Torakusu Yamaha, the founder of Yamaha, started manufacturing pianos in C19...

    Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn’t. Russia copies everything from the West. Turkey also develops some of its own culture. There is also the problem that Turkish is very hard to translate into a Western languages while Russia is a Western language. Your novel example is probably more due to the very small number of Turkish-Western language translators in the past than with the missing number of great Turkish novels. And the fact that there are no great Turkish novels from before Ataturk is very simple to explain. Turkish as written now did not exist before 1928

    Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence. Modern classical music, aka metal, is most popular in South America which is not noted for the IQ of its inhabitants. And the only reason a kid picks up a violin is because it is forced to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yalensis
    @charly:
    “Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence.”
    NO NO NO NO NO!
    Coincidentally, just yesterday I was listening to a DVD lecture on Music Appreciation (Western classical music), and the instructor was explaining his theory that classical music is a way of pumping high-volume encoded information directly into the human brain, through the aural senses.
    I think this must be true, because when I am listening to a beautiful symphony by Tchaikovsky, or Brahms, or Beethoven, I do begin to feel that they are trying to say something to me that is deep and important (but unfortunately, beyond the comprehension of my tiny brain).
    , @kirill
    This is typically western chauvinist BS. Russia did not copy the "west" like Japan. It was right there in the middle of the pack during the scientific revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Lomonosov wasn't the only Russian scientist. Euler was based in St. Petersburg. Look up Dmitri Mendeleev, Alexander Lodygin, Alexander Popov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Nicolai Lobachevsky, Ilya Mechikov, Nicolai Pirogov, and others. I am not mentioning the 20th century when any claims about Russian being technologically and scientifically backward are hysterically ridiculous. Accusing pioneers of being parrots is grotesque and extremely petty.
    , @Craig Willy
    "Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn’t." Says who? Ottoman-Turkish history suffers from the same inferiority complex, brought about by real economic and material inferiority, as Russian history. What kind of nation is it that turns their back on their entire history - Islam, their own script, their multiethnic State - to become a Western European-style (French) national-secular State? The only possible answer is a nation (or rather, a political leadership under Ataturk) which is deeply insecure and hateful of its own heritage and culture, believing the only way to "catch up", is to become Western European.

    Of course Ataturk failed, after being humiliated at Europe's door for 70+ years, the Turks are only now beginning to escape their inferiority complex under Erdogan's leadership.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Russia was (is?) part of Christendom – which is to say, part of spiritual Europe. It was an active participant in Europe’s cultural conversation. By comparison, Ottoman Turkey was not.

    Europeans invent the novel. Very soon Tolstoy & Dostoyevsky are writing the greatest novels ever, & Chekov some of the greatest plays. The Turkish novel only gets going after Ataturk’s revolution (the earliest Turkish novels anyone notices date from the 1950s). Today Turkey has Orhan Pamuk, who is, of course, a world-class novelist.

    Europeans invent the symphony. Soon Tchaikovsky is writing symphonies as great as Brahms, Mussorgsky is writing great Russian opera, & Russia overtakes France as the greatest ballet nation. In the next generation, Stravinsky, pupil of Rimsky Korsakov, is the most important composer of the C20. Even today Turkey has little in the way of a classical music culture.

    I don’t know if novels & symphonies necessarily lead to industrial takeoff. That’s pushing things too far. But the fact that Russia was an active part of Europe’s cultural conversation must have made Russians pay attention to all the other things that were going on too.

    I think there’s something about European classical music that feels very “high IQ”. Look at any major metropolitan symphony orchestra. There’s always a high proportion of east Asians; some, no doubt, products of Amy Chua style tiger moms who forced them to learn the violin & the piano. East Asians picked up on this quite early. Torakusu Yamaha, the founder of Yamaha, started manufacturing pianos in C19…

    Read More
    • Replies: @charly
    Russia has in gigantic inferiority complex with Europe. Turkey doesn't. Russia copies everything from the West. Turkey also develops some of its own culture. There is also the problem that Turkish is very hard to translate into a Western languages while Russia is a Western language. Your novel example is probably more due to the very small number of Turkish-Western language translators in the past than with the missing number of great Turkish novels. And the fact that there are no great Turkish novels from before Ataturk is very simple to explain. Turkish as written now did not exist before 1928


    Classical music is just copy and status seeking and has simply nothing to do with intelligence. Modern classical music, aka metal, is most popular in South America which is not noted for the IQ of its inhabitants. And the only reason a kid picks up a violin is because it is forced to.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Europeans invent the novel.

    Not quite.

    Today Turkey has Orhan Pamuk, who is, of course, a world-class novelist.

    I tried to read My Name is Red a few years ago. I only managed to get through a quarter of it or so before giving up. I get the impression he is mostly famous for his political stunts.

    But the fact that Russia was an active part of Europe’s cultural conversation must have made Russians pay attention to all the other things that were going on too.

    The "paying attention" part is one I certainly agree with. Muscovite rulers were preoccupied with maintaining some kind of military parity with their Western neighbors since the 16th century. And despite its meager economic base, by devoting most of its energies to the military and related industries (e.g. Russia was Europe's premier iron producer during the 18th century, using serf labor to mine the Urals), it was able to succeed at this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sorry for the length of my comment. I had some free time. You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to, I haven’t killed any trees with this, it’s just dots on the screen, etc.

    “…this a truly counter-intuitive and deeply contextualizing work that overturns many of the triumphalist post hoc narratives of Western chauvinism.”

    But for the average modern reader the above wouldn’t be counterintuitive at all. It would be old hat, boring same-old, etc. The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page. This reminds me of watching anti-czarist movies and cartoons as a kid, stuff set to Mayakovski’s poetry, for example. At that time I had never seen any defense of czarism from anyone. What were those movies being angry about? It felt like the most boring stuff on earth. The back and forth of conflict is at least interesting. One side still being angry at the other long after that other side has died, when there is no conflict anymore – that’s boring. I never heard anyone at school say “did you see that malchish kibalchish cartoon? THAT was cool”. That’s because it wasn’t. Conformism is boring. In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    “It does this by systematically comparing Europe with other leading world regions in the pre-industrial age…”

    I’ve only just started reading your review, but why am I so sure that biology, the Darwinian approach, must have formed exactly 0% of Mr. Pomeranz’s “systematic” comparison? It’s because of the conformism implied in the “triamphalist” “chauvinism” quote above. He’s going to “systematically” compare every aspect of a set of entities, except for one. And, wouldn’t you know it, what a shocker, who could have possibly guessed it, the particular aspect he’s not going to touch is the one that’s currently taboo. It wasn’t taboo 100 or even 70 years ago, it’s probably not going to be taboo a couple of decades from now, but it just so happened that at the exact time and place when this guy expected to get paid for his “systematic” comparison, it was taboo, so he left it out of his “system”. That was NOT counterintuitive. That sort of thing one always sees coming.

    “Although Europe was technologically ahead in some spheres – most visibly, guns, clock making, optics…”

    He missed realistic portrayal of the human form and of human emotion in art. Why is that important? Not just because it can be visually stirring. A focus on the individual is a sign of deeper things, as is its lack. Is that a picture of an idealized ruler or of Pericles, of an idealized philosopher or of Aristotle? In the Western case we have portraits of actual individuals. As far as I know, in all other pre-modern cultures we only have idealized forms. If I was writing a book “systematically” comparing Western Civ. with others, I’d mention this seemingly very important difference. Are people important as unique individuals or as faceless actors performing roles typical for their stations in life? I would bet $100 that Mr. Pomeranz didn’t mention this obvious and obviously important difference in different cultures’ outlook on the world.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers:

    “In music, the lack of a tradition of named composers in non-Western civilizations means that the Western total of 522 significant figures has no real competition at all.”

    Wow. Talk about de-emphasizing the individual. The Western musical canon of signed, playable-from-a-score music goes back about 1000 years.

    I could list other areas here. Linear perspective, for example. I think we owe that to early 15th century Florence and to no other place.

    “China had a clear lead in irrigation…”

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    “…and medicine”

    Really? I would guess that before… ahh, let’s say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    “China was substantially more “capitalist”…”

    Then why did all the big brains in it always wanted to become officials, not businessmen? Florence, Venice, Genoa, the Hanseatic cities, Novgorod, were run by the bourgeoisie during the middle ages. Those entire states were run for and by businessmen for centuries. I’m not saying that’s actually a desired outcome, but neither am I aware of any pre-modern Chinese attempts to take capitalism that far.

    “…guilds had much less political influence than in Europe.”

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term? More obvious questions that an author shackled by conformity and incuriousness would never ask. I’m not definitely saying that Mr. Pomeranz is such an author – I haven’t read this book – but that’s what your review implies to me.

    “First, colonies.”

    Why didn’t China ever grab any colonies that weren’t next door to it already? One thing’s for sure: it wasn’t because of humanitarianism. Top contenders for an explanation: centralization, lack of curiosity.

    “…the windfall of New World silver – which was, in large part, a free gift to Europe…”

    OMG. Somebody had to come and get it. Imagine sailing into the unknown, beyond the edge of the world. Months with no land in sight, no known precedent before you, just an idea. Even small bands of illiterate, tribal Polynesians have displayed more initiative on that front than the largest, longest-lived empire on Earth. He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn’t the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What’s beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China.

    “…ventilation techniques would not have also helped solve the problem of transporting coal (and things in general) as the steam engines that pumped out Britain’s mines did.”

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?

    “In contrast, some of Europe’s largest coal deposits were located in a much more promising area: in Britain. This placed them near excellent water transport…”

    But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    “Without such geographic good luck…”

    No genetic good luck, huh? OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I’m trying to figure out PC logic. Was there one (obviously non-genetic, this is the PC version) lucky strike that happened before the ancient Greeks came on the scene that caused all of these later favorable outcomes or did luck just strike Europe again and again, breaking all laws of probability? And if there was one ancient, pre-Greek non-genetic lucky strike, why weren’t its effects lost during the period of cultural amnesia known as the Dark Ages? Jared Diamond made an attempt here. It was silly, but at least he tried. I don’t get a sense from this review that Pomeranz has tried that. The 18th century is way too late to introduce the necessary lucky strike.

    “…the Atlantic is much narrower than the Pacific! ”

    This reminds me – the Pacific was first crossed by a crew that came from a country (Portugal) located nowhere near the Pacific. The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn’t even have a name for their own damn ocean! Magellan had to come from the other side of the world to name it for them! How is this not as striking as Madagascar being first colonized by Indonesians, not Africans? To start giving names to oceans you first have to realize that more than one of them exist, and to do that you need initiative and curiosity, among other things. Of course, the drive to climb the Everest (their own damn mountain), together with the Everest’s name, came from Brits too.

    “The “rise of the West” was in large part built on systems – mercantilism, military-fiscal competition, etc. – that universal Western ideology now condemns.”

    This is true. And so the West isn’t rising anymore. While Putin was resisting some parts of the “universal Western ideology”, Russia’s standing in the world was rising. If he somehow holds on to power now, then may be it will rise some more. I’m sure this will sound simplistic to some, but I do believe that.

    (4) On Russia.

    I think it’s likely that the mean IQs reported over the last 100 years have been stable for a very long time, perhaps since the Neolithic. This means that for most of its history Russia had good brains coupled with a very low population density. I think the country’s population was something like 7 million under Ivan IV. In comparison, tiny Tuscany had 2 million at the same time. Good brains + low population density = not a lot of intellectual excitement. Culture comes from cities, cities come from agricultural surpluses, and in the past those surpluses were only achievable in warm climates. The unusual combination of good brains with warm climates has been intellectually explosive in the pre-modern world. Tiny Greece had 4 million people 2,500 years ago. Renaissance Tuscany was another example. Egypt had …ahhh not as good brains as Greece, but an insanely high population density, and that wasn’t intellectually explosive at all. 95% of the modern sciences bear Greek names in most modern languages, not ancient Egyptian ones, and that’s for a very good reason. So pop. density by itself wasn’t enough.

    The cold, endless forests occasionally broken up by towns and villages that was pre-modern Russia had to have technology, science and European art brought to it from the outside, from warmer, more densely-peopled places, but then the locals quickly picked up on all of it and started making contributions. Lomonosov was already doing new stuff in the 18th century. That’s not what happened in the Ottoman Empire, for example. Technology was brought in from the West, but it wasn’t fully picked up, and the contributions are meager even today. So brains matter.

    It’s hard to assign either the credit or the blame for the specifics of the history of the Russian relationship with high culture to political arrangements because Finland, which didn’t share a government with Russia for most of its history, had a very similar history with high culture. Nearly-empty forests for many centuries on end, then the bringing in of high culture from the outside, then quick adoption and major contributions (on the per-capita level, of course).

    “and if Columbus had found no New World and instead sunk somewhere in the middle of a globe-spanning World Ocean?”

    Well, Vasco Da Gama found India independently of Columbus. If there was no America, some of the energies poured into it by Europeans would have had to go into India, SE Asia, China, Australia. African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn’t exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn’t a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    No worries, Glossy - your comments are appreciated as always. I can't hope to reply to all of this, so I'll limit myself to just a few major points.

    The average modern reader would have never come across any Western triumphalism in his life, certainly not on a page... In the modern West, ranting against the ghost of Western triumphalism is the most conformist position imaginable.

    Dude, no, no, NO! If you want Western triumphalism, there's no shortage of it. David Landes, for a start, is probably the most prominent (which is not to say incisive) historian on global comparative historical development.

    The "ranting" that you speak of exists largely in Marxist / World-Systems derived theories of global economic history; they experienced some popularity in the 70's and 80's, but they are now largely discredited.

    Mostly, Ken Pomeranz comes across as middle of the road.

    When Charles Murray compiled his lists of eminent figures in the arts and sciences, he was unable to produce a list of Chinese or Indian or Japanese composers

    And how many prominent Western wéiqí masters are there? Western icon makers? Western calligraphers or guó huà painters? Even Western anime artists? The European musical and artistic tradition was a great cultural accomplishment, probably the most globally successful to date, but how is it essentially superior to non-European traditions?

    Does irrigation even make sense anywhere in Europe? Most of the continent seems pretty wet as it is.

    Not in the summer Mediterranean... but its not just irrigation, but agricultural science in general. European crop yields wouldn't catch up to Chinese levels until the late 19th century.

    Really? I would guess that before… ahh, let’s say the 17th century, the score would have been pretty much 0-0 on that. I’m not a doctor, but does Chinese medicine do any good to anyone even today?

    Life expectancy seems to have been higher than in most of Europe, and certainly Chinese cities were far larger than their European equivalents (which indicates better sanitation and public health). I don't know about medicine; to be fair, even the modern variety is frequently superfluous and ineffective.

    Yeah, why should those uppity blacksmiths have any say? More generally: is democracy a bug or a feature of European life? Is the centrally-planned, vertically streamlined East Asian way of ordering society more or less efficient, more or less humane long-term?

    Wait... you've got it heads over tails. The Chinese allowed guilds, but they did NOT (unlike in Europe) give guilds the right to fine and intimidate non-member artisans out of business. This is more freedom, less corruption / privilege.

    Why didn’t China ever grab any colonies that weren’t next door to it already?

    There were Chinese communities and trading networks all across South East Asia. The Chinese state was involved with them to a far lesser degree than European nations.

    Why? I assume because the cost-benefit calculations didn't work out. Far too many small timers on the south-east coast were involved, so no opportunities for creating easily-taxed monopolies like the European armed trading companies.

    I'd also add that China, by dint of its location, was far better supplied with sugar, spices, etc., than Europe, to the extent that they weren't truly considered luxuries. Hence, yet another reason why there did not exist any profit motive for the state or huge companies to get involved in colonial adventures.

    And speaking of which, WHY did the Europeans finance their adventurers to go sail the seas? To find India. Indian spices, dyes, Chinese silks, etc., that had become blocked off by Ottoman Turkey. The Chinese had all these things at their doorstep!

    Why? Ventilation would have required power, pumping water required power. Does it matter to a steam engine where its power is being used?... But most of China had excellent water transport. It developed all those canals for irrigation.

    To do this effectively, you really need electrically driven fans. Too much of a leap. And yes, China had excellent water transport, but by the time of the Qing all the coal within reach of the Yangtze Delta was already largely depleted (transport was a huge limiting factor; in Britain, for instance, coal not within 10km of a waterway was uneconomical during the 18th century). Look at a map; most of China's coal reserves are far to the west and north. It was just far easier (and more cost effective!) to float logs down the Yangtze.

    OK, why did this particular favorable outcome (steam engines in 18th century Britain) occur in the same small corner of the world as the earlier scientific revolution, even earlier realistic art concerned with the individual, the earlier Age of Discovery? I’m trying to figure out PC logic.

    The realistic art originated in northern Italy, the Age of Discovery (which had its brief analog with Zheng He's voyages) in the Iberia peninsula. Holland was for many centuries the most advanced commercial center of Europe. But the industrial revolution started in northwest England. These were all very different regions.

    The modern Chinese term for the Pacific Ocean is 太平洋 (Peace Ocean). They didn’t even have a name for their own damn ocean!

    Are you sure? I would imagine it was just, conceptually, part of 东海 (East Sea).

    Not going to wade into that IQ mess. Far too many things confused. For a start, the average IQ of US children in 1930 was roughly equal to India's today.

    , @charly
    The Romans found speaking Greek cool. If they have found Egyptian cool you would think that everything was invented by the Egyptians instead of the Greeks as Greek people (and not only Greek people) have the habit to claim every invention as one made by their people.
    , @Randy McDonald
    Glossy:

    "He treats the Chinese failure to grab the bounties of the New World as a matter of luck, even though it can be easily interpreted as a consequence of a conformist personality, of a lack of imagination. Isn’t the latter kind of relevant to his supposed subject of technological innovation? What’s beyond the horizon? Apparently there were more people interested in that question in tiny Portugal than in all of China. "

    Portugal was a much more marginal country than China, a small kingdom on the fringes of western Europe only recently unified as opposed to a civilization-state with the highest technology in the world and a population numbering several tens of millions. Portugal had to innovate.

    "African labor could have been transported to the empty, scorching-hot parts of Australia. Or maybe it would have been East Indian or SE Asian labor. Or maybe all of those tropical crops would have reached Europe from India. The Age of Discovery started several generations before Columbus. The Portuguese started exploring Africa in the first half of the 15trh century. Tropical crops were always going to be valuable. If America didn’t exist, it would have been created somewhere else. And if it did exist, but Columbus sank, then some other subject of the Spanish or Portuguese crowns would have gotten to it in that decade. That wasn’t a one-off caprice, more like a culmination of a gold rush."

    Not really. Australia isn't a land hospitable to large-scale agricultural settlement, with even the relatively good southeast being terribly dry with not good soil. A plantation economy there would be problematic. As for Africa, the epidemological terrors of sub-Saharan Africa made the continent difficult for Europeans into the 20th century--Age of Discovery Europeans wouldn't be able to handle it.

    America was unique, a place offering substantial resources within a short distance of Europe with many areas being as non-threatening health-wise as the European homeland. Neither China nor India enjoyed those advantages. _Maybe_ a maritime Moroccan empire could have joined in, but I have my doubts.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Craig Willy
    1) I'm convinced the New World played a huge role and am always stunned when Diamond or Pomeranz, apparently, failed to notice the size the Pacific and instead explain China's failure to rise by internal factors.

    2) The penchant of Europeans for trade really needs to be explained. Even before the industrial revolutions you had great expeditions and commercial colonies run by the English, French, Portuguese and Dutch... Even small nations had a big presence overseas. You did not see Japanese or Indians setting up shop in Western Europe. I'm convinced the infrastructure and shipping needed for this and New World triangular trade was critical to Britain's later industrial success.

    Re-1) That’s not a huge criticism, just a relatively minor thing that Pomeranz left out that could have further supported his view that the rise of Europe was due to a series of fortunate conjunctures.

    So let’s say that the Pacific was narrower, and Chinese settlers occupied what is now California. Let us also assume that they’d have managed to extract primary resources from it and send it to the advanced industrial core, i.e. the Yangtze Delta.

    That still doesn’t solve the interrelated coal and steam engine problem, however. The British steam engine that formed the basis for the industrial takeoff was the result of 200 years of experimentation, observation, and learning-by-doing applied to coal fields; which happened to be situated close to big concentrations of skilled artisans, geographically close to the most advanced proto-industry on the European continent and – crucially – in damp conditions that required water to be constantly pumped out.

    Re-2) You’re right on this. However, did the Asians need anything from Western Europe? While there was plenty of demand for silks, porcelain, etc., the only major Western export eastwards was gold and silver. And much of that came from South America.

    There were a lot of Chinese trading communities scattered all across Asia, but the form Chinese trade took was far different from European. The latter relied on armed, huge capitalized trading companies; whereas in China, individual merchants bought compartments for their goods on the same junk and carried out their trades separately once they reached their destination.

    This special European corporate structure, however, was not always or even mostly commercially successful against Chinese competition in Asia. Where this structure really began to shine was when bigger industrial projects involving a lot of capital and returns spread over many years in the future (e.g. railways) got going. But that’s already well into the Industrial Revolution.

    Many of the initial steps, e.g. coal mining / steam engines, better textile production, etc., weren’t funded by such corporations, but by personal networks (i.e. what would be guanxi in China).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Excellent post and an eye opener. Even though Malthus is the whipping boy of the laissez-faire drones, this book shows convincing examples of resource constraints in action and defining history. To this day fossil fuels are ridiculously cheap and lubricate the global economy. After 2020 things are not going to be so rosy for the world due to peak oil. By 2050 agricultural constraints will be severe due to climate change and aquifer depletion. So we are head for a decline and there is no special region with superior cultural features that will somehow proceed towards utopia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • On narrowness of Atlantic ocean, I think you are really onto something here. Being someone who easily gets seasick I have always been astonished how easy it was to cross Atlantic even before the time of Columbus, and certainly after his time. As early as 16th century there was a flourishing cod fishing industry in which “commuter” European ships sailed to Newfoundland for cod, salted the cod on board the ship, and then returned with the catch to their home countries. In many cases, for the individual sailor this was no worse than the modern business trip; he was only away from home for a couple of weeks, and then returned to his family with some extra cash:

    In the early sixteenth century, fishermen from England, France, Spain and Portugal discovered the best places to fish for cod in the waters off Newfoundland, and how best to preserve the fish for the journey home.[4]
    The French, Spanish and Portuguese fishermen tended to fish on the Grand Banks and other banks out to sea, where fish were always available. They salted their fish on board ship and it was not dried until brought to Europe…

    Note also that that dried and salted cod, although not delicious, was cheap, highly nutritious and provided calories for growing European population.
    This speaks to Craig Willy’s question “Why did Europeans trade so much?” I believe the answer is: “Because they could.” Why not, once you discover some great and useful things out there in the world, and find that they are relatively easy to get to, all you need is a rickety boat?
    (On the issue of sugar, it does not really provide many useful calories, but I think Europeans became hooked on this substance in its later metamorphosic state of RUM.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randy McDonald
    Actually, the Basque fisheries in the Grand Banks dated to the 15th century. (Yes, that.) Well into the New France period, a Basque-Icelandic pidgin remained spoken by some in northeasternmost North America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 1) I’m convinced the New World played a huge role and am always stunned when Diamond or Pomeranz, apparently, failed to notice the size the Pacific and instead explain China’s failure to rise by internal factors.

    2) The penchant of Europeans for trade really needs to be explained. Even before the industrial revolutions you had great expeditions and commercial colonies run by the English, French, Portuguese and Dutch… Even small nations had a big presence overseas. You did not see Japanese or Indians setting up shop in Western Europe. I’m convinced the infrastructure and shipping needed for this and New World triangular trade was critical to Britain’s later industrial success.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Re-1) That's not a huge criticism, just a relatively minor thing that Pomeranz left out that could have further supported his view that the rise of Europe was due to a series of fortunate conjunctures.

    So let's say that the Pacific was narrower, and Chinese settlers occupied what is now California. Let us also assume that they'd have managed to extract primary resources from it and send it to the advanced industrial core, i.e. the Yangtze Delta.

    That still doesn't solve the interrelated coal and steam engine problem, however. The British steam engine that formed the basis for the industrial takeoff was the result of 200 years of experimentation, observation, and learning-by-doing applied to coal fields; which happened to be situated close to big concentrations of skilled artisans, geographically close to the most advanced proto-industry on the European continent and - crucially - in damp conditions that required water to be constantly pumped out.

    Re-2) You're right on this. However, did the Asians need anything from Western Europe? While there was plenty of demand for silks, porcelain, etc., the only major Western export eastwards was gold and silver. And much of that came from South America.

    There were a lot of Chinese trading communities scattered all across Asia, but the form Chinese trade took was far different from European. The latter relied on armed, huge capitalized trading companies; whereas in China, individual merchants bought compartments for their goods on the same junk and carried out their trades separately once they reached their destination.

    This special European corporate structure, however, was not always or even mostly commercially successful against Chinese competition in Asia. Where this structure really began to shine was when bigger industrial projects involving a lot of capital and returns spread over many years in the future (e.g. railways) got going. But that's already well into the Industrial Revolution.

    Many of the initial steps, e.g. coal mining / steam engines, better textile production, etc., weren't funded by such corporations, but by personal networks (i.e. what would be guanxi in China).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the biggest questions in global history is why it was Western Europe that industrialized first, and ended up colonizing most of the rest of the world. As late as 1450, the possibility of such an outcome would have been ridiculed. By almost any metric, China was well in the lead through the medieval...
  • @Yalensis
    Sorry, egregious typo in my previous comment: Sanskrit grammarian Panini was 4th century BC.

    Sankrit did not use syllabic script but used the the brahmi script which is abguida.A well organized system with vowels(vowels marked with diacritics)and consonants clearly divided.And panini was not asked to devise that script .Where did you get that from give some some reliable references.
    sources:brahmi script—google,wiki
    abguida:google,wiki
    Syllabry:wiki,google

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Yalensis
    No one has responded yet to a very good point made by both @scowspi and @doug regarding Japanese writing being a counter-example to the thesis that Chinese writing system kept Chinese civilization backwards. Apparently (this came as news to me), Japanese writing is just as cumbersome as Chinese, and yet the Japanese had an industrial revolution and became a super-advanced civilization. True, their nation has stagnated a bit in the past decade or so, but nobody can take away from them what they accomplished in automotive industry, electronics, robotics, etc. How could they achieve this with a crummy writing system? I don't know. It must have made everything twice as hard for them (like trying to open a tin of sardines with one hand tied behind back), but somehow they were able to tough it out and get the job done. I guess a similar example (not as dramatic) would be USA using old, archaic system of weights and measures instead of switching to metric system like the rest of the civilized world; and yet, no one would call USA technologically backwards. So I would say that this counter-example disproves the thesis that Chinese civilization was kept back (a lot) by its writing system. But I would still advise Chinese people to reform their writing system and make their language easier for foreigners to learn to read; no doubt this would also improve literacy training among their own population. And, while I'm on the subject, ENGLISH orthography is also badly in need of reform. English alphabet cannot even call itself phonemic any more, although that was the original intention. The fact that I even had to use spell-checking software on this comment is a sure sign that something is very wrong here...

    japanese have a variety of writing systems..Kanji(which is logographic chinese systems of writing).The second is the kana system introduced by buddhist priest kukai .This is a phonetic system inspired from the siddham script(sanskrit) .
    Sources:Kanji—wiki ,google
    Kana,Hiragana,Katakana–wiki,google

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • actually english is a phonetic language but it has spelling problems is no denying. What it lacks is phonemic orthography.There’s not one-to-one correspondence between graphemes and phonemes.Most indic languages,sanskrit,dutch,czeck etc do not .And whats more pathetic is shows like spelling bee actually glorify this fault.Kids wasting their time…
    Sources:Phonemic orthography–wiki,google
    English spelling reform–wiki ,google
    P.S I am not saying other languages are better or easier to learn which depends on a lot of other factors.If ther is a spelling error its not my fault :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Depressingly fatalist, morbidly truthful, irresistibly Nietzschean. That's Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle" in a nutshell: a meandering trawl through disciplines such as genetics, psychology and culture that culminates in a theory of evil, purporting to explain its historical necessity, its creative potential and the possibility of it ever being vanquished. The odds do not appear...
  • I did read the book and had the same criticisms as Kolya.

    He uses outdated and poorly presented theories (his waffling on group selection’s precise applications) to argue for a theory that is banal at best. The “superorganism” argument was completely unconvincing. No, humans are not like cells in a body. Memes cannot stand in for a mystical collective conscious. The application of group selection theory is poor and focuses on largely discredited parts. He admits to having read the Selfish Gene, but he must have read the Cliff’s Notes version because he ignores all the data and arguments that punch holes in his case.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the biggest questions in global history is why it was Western Europe that industrialized first, and ended up colonizing most of the rest of the world. As late as 1450, the possibility of such an outcome would have been ridiculed. By almost any metric, China was well in the lead through the medieval...
  • @Doug M.
    Hey, we have a racist. Oh, sorry -- a biological determinist, totally different thing don't you know.

    -- Anatoly, I don't think your thesis is obviously stupid, but it's probably not right either. This is some pretty well trodden ground. Couple things.

    One, Landes is junk, and nobody takes Diamond and geographical determinism very seriously as an answer. If you want a good, interesting read on this topic, let me recommend Kenneth Pomeranz’s _The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World_. It’s not the last word by any means, but it presents most of the major arguments in a very clear and accessible way.

    Two, written Japanese is not actually simpler than written Chinese. Japanese uses a mixture of two alphabets -- hiragana and katakana -- AND a syllabic system, the hanji. Very broadly speaking, the alphabets are used for words that are inflected or otherwise change their form, while the hanji are used for words that don't. If you read a book or a newspaper, more than half the characters are hanji. And there are around 3,000 hanji in regular use. So, I think your argument hits a stone there.

    Three, Platonic worldview -- I'm not even sure what this means. But I'll note that a whole range of societies all across Eurasia, from Mali and Songhay in Africa to the Burmese and Thais in southeast Asia, used alphabets. A claim that alphabets helped Europeans be "Platonic" needs to explain why it didn't have the same effect on societies as diverse as Achamaenid Persians, Oromo Ethiopians and 18th century Mughals.

    Three sub (a), I note in passing that up until 1700 or so, Chinese mathematics were just as advanced as European -- not as good in geometry, quite a bit better in algebra. They developed stuff like complex polynomians and infinite series all on their own. So, I'm not seeing a lack of abstraction.

    Four, you can't really have a meaningful discussion about Chinese history without noting the effects of China's interactions with the steppe nomads. Russians like to whine about how their history got derailed by the Mongols. Well, the Mongols killed off nearly half the population of China, and then ruled the rest as a combination whorehouse, theme park and game preserve for the next hundred-odd years. China didn't recover the income levels seen under the 12th century Song until well into the Ming, sometime in the 15th or early 16th century. And, hey, then came the Manchu.

    Let's pause to imagine European history if the Mongols had conquered everything all the way west to the English Channel c. 1200, leaving pyramids of skulls outside the burning ruins of cities and killing off half the population... and then, a few centuries later, the Ottomans had come in and conquered it all over again after two generations of extremely violent and bloody war. Would Europe still have had a Scientific and Industrial Revolution?

    Five, energy. You mention the old chestnut about Song coal and iron production. Correct about iron, but very misleading about coal. The Song were exploiting a handful of small surface deposits -- most notably, in northern Jiangsu, near the Grand Canal. These were abandoned under the Yuan, rediscovered by the Ming, abandoned again after the Ming-Manchu transition, then worked to exhaustion by the middle and late Manchu. Premodern China's per capita coal use never recovered its Song-era peak, and by the late 1700s coal use was declining in absolute terms as well.

    Why? Because they had only that handful of small surface deposits. Once they were exhausted, China had no easy-to-reach coal deposits. China has plenty of coal, yes... but the best beds were not accessible to premodern Chinese. They were either in deserts, or far inland out of reach of water transport, or on the wrong side of inconvenient mountain ranges, or deep underground. Basically, China had a chicken-and-egg problem: they couldn’t get their coal out without railroads, which they couldn’t build without coal. And without coal, it’s really quite difficult to start an Industrial Revolution.

    By way of comparison, Europe was blessed with some of the best, most accessible deposits of coal on the planet. In particular, Britain was overflowing with the stuff, much of it easily accessible by water. If this had not been the case, it’s very hard to see how Britain would have managed an Industrial Revolution. (If this topic interests you, let me recommend _Unmaking the West_, by Philip Tetlock, Richard Ned Lebow, and Geoffrey Parker (2004).)

    So, interesting idea -- but no, very probably not.


    Doug M.

    A very informative post, and sorry it took me so long to notice it. You certainly raise a lot of convincing arguments why the writing system is unlikely to have been the major cause of the divergence.

    Thanks for reminding me about The Great Divergence. I’ve heard good things about it and it’s stuff I’m interested, but haven’t read it to date. I’ll do so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Emil says:

    “feudalism was the dominant social structure”

    … in Walter Scott’s novels, maybe, in real Europe feudalism was a polite fiction.

    Meritocratic bureaucracy ? … is this a joke ? the Mandarin exams had “poetry tests” … how relevant for an administration job is that, and how objective could the examination be ?

    Before Mao China was not a country, but a civil war … the Uyghurs that made the news last year even had an independent state in the 1800s, recognized by most European countries.

    Economic freedom in China ? Maybe a myriad of territorial cartels, operating with the approval of and paying tribute to local warlords or bureaucrats, and doing their best to squeeze farmers that had no freedom of movement, nor any other rights besides the mercy of the “meritocratically” appointed bureaucrat.

    Europe had it’s guilds and warlords and bureaucrats, but there was no one central authority to support them, and when a region collapsed under the weight of rent seekers, other regions took advantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Doug M.
    I wrote that quickly, and at the end of the day. Frankly, I'm a bit embarrassed to have made a couple of stupid errors.

    So: if you read a Japanese text, a lot of the characters will be syllabic. A majority? I don't know. It's been over ten years since I spoke any Japanese, and I never got very far at all with reading it.

    That said, I *do* know that the majority of words in a Japanese text are going to be kanji. I know because I got as far as recognizing the syllabic characters -- and realizing that they wouldn't get me very far. I'd painfully sound out a word, maybe two -- and then, bam, kanji. A sentence like "the old dog barks backwards without getting up" would become "the old ## && backwards %% getting up."

    So "more than half the characters are kanji" may not be true; I'm sincerely unsure now. But more than half the /words/ are going to be kanji; in a typical text, kanji cover most of the nouns and over half the adjectives.

    To give a specific example, a friend of mine was fond of reciting famous first lines in Japanese. I remember "We were in the desert just outside of Barstow when the drugs began to take hold" had a particularly pleasant and musical sound, and it consisted of thirteen words exactly. Counting on my fingers, I think seven of those would probably be kanji -- but the non-kanji ones would consist of one, two, or even three graphemes. So, 7-6 if you're counting words, but something like 7-12 counting symbols.


    Doug M.

    Sorry, egregious typo in my previous comment: Sanskrit grammarian Panini was 4th century BC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rahul
    Sankrit did not use syllabic script but used the the brahmi script which is abguida.A well organized system with vowels(vowels marked with diacritics)and consonants clearly divided.And panini was not asked to devise that script .Where did you get that from give some some reliable references.
    sources:brahmi script---google,wiki
    abguida:google,wiki
    Syllabry:wiki,google
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Glossy
    I read Chinese at an intermediate level, though I don't speak it. I haven't studied Japanese, but whenever I chance to look at a Japanese text, I do recognize the kanji. I know what pretty much every one of them means. I recognize the syllabic signs as being syllabic by their very characteristic style and by their visual simplicity (relative to the kanji), but that's it. I don't know which syllabic sign represents which syllable.

    It has always seemed to me that there were more syllabic signs than kanji in the typical Japanese text. I'm pretty sure that a kanji's pronunciation can contain more than one syllable. This runs counter to Chinese practice where all characters have monosyllabic pronunciations. So it could well be that a majority of the syllables of spoken Japanese are represented by kanji in writing. But when I see a Japanese text, I do see more syllabic signs than Kanji, yes. I just looked at a few Japanese Wikipedia pages, counted a little, and that confirmed my impression.

    I also just tried Googling for statistics. I hope I don't screw up my HTML tags in what follows. First, this:

    "On average, 55% of Japanese text is Hiragana, 35% Kanji, and 10% Katakana. Arabic numerals and Roman letters are also present in Japanese text."

    On page 17 of this PDF we see this:

    For an average writing sample, one normally finds 60% Hiragana, 10% Katakana, and 30% Kanji.
    Actual percentages depend upon the nature of the text

    Syllabic writing systems may have been an improvement over hieroglyphic, but they are no treat either. Hebrew and Arabic alphabets are syllabic, no? And unnecessarily complex and difficult to learn, I might add. I mentioned in earlier comment about 6th-century grammarians Panini and his friends, who were commissioned to invent alphabet for Sanskrit language. What they came up with was an overly complex and difficult-to-learn SYLLABIC alphabet. The fact that they knew better and could have invented a PHONEMIC alphabet is proved by the fact that they then proceeded to write down a complete scientific analysis of Sanskrit phonology and morpohology, using this same crappy alphabet that they themselves created (but didn’t want the common man to be able to learn).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.