When Did the ME Go Wrong?

[garbon]

Malthus, you seem to always want to blame the Steppe Nomads.

[Malthus]

Malthus, you seem to always want to blame the Steppe Nomads.

"Blame"?

If anything, we should be celebrating. 

I believe their influence to be quite fundamental in the development of Asian & Middle-Eastern history - but this is just fact, not value judgment. I cannot see any reason for arguing otherwise, when the Turks, Manchus, and Mughals all had their origins there.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus, you seem to always want to blame the Steppe Nomads.

His tribe came from the more hilly regions of Judea.

[garbon]

If anything, we should be celebrating. 

Celebrating? You've send on multiple occasions that the influence of the mongols et al has retarded their growth.

I believe their influence to be quite fundamental in the development of Asian & Middle-Eastern history - but this is just fact, not value judgment. I cannot see any reason for arguing otherwise, when the Turks, Manchus, and Mughals all had their origins there.

That doesn't have to mean that they retarded development or progress...nor that their influence was everlasting. I'm not sure that Babur would have been entirely comfortable around his grandson.

[Malthus]

Celebrating? You've send on multiple occasions that the influence of the mongols et al has retarded their growth.

Progress, not growth ... the point being that such things are relative and (our) Euro ancestor's success is in large part due to this.

That doesn't have to mean that they retarded development or progress...nor that their influence was everlasting.

I disagree. The societies they set up tended to be very conservative.

Consider the alternatives. It is an observed fact that Euros surpassed other civilizations in reaching that mix of material and ideological progress that we label modernity. Why did that happen?

Oex and Minsky believe, it would appear, that the difference is ideological.

Others have proposed some sort of innate Western abitlity, either racial or, more persuasively, cultural (and in spite of their protestations, the latter is closer to the Oex-Minsky theory than they are confortable with admitting).

Yet others have proposed that "Islam" and "Confuianism" are to blame (again, somewhat similar to the above, only the obverse).

I am stating that the difference is rooted in the actual history of these regions.

What is your favorite explaination?

[PDH]

I blame Ranke.

[garbon]

Progress, not growth ... the point being that such things are relative and (our) Euro ancestor's success is in large part due to this.

Perhaps, I'd still be in Africa then.

I disagree. The societies they set up tended to be very conservative.

Consider the alternatives. It is an observed fact that Euros surpassed other civilizations in reaching that mix of material and ideological progress that we label modernity. Why did that happen?

Akbar setup an entirely new religion (although clearly it failed )

Besides, Europe had very conservative societies at that time as well.

I am stating that the difference is rooted in the actual history of these regions.

What is your favorite explaination?

I don't have one, as I think the whole thing is a lesson in fruitlessness.  I think speaking of the West as a whole is misleading.

[Malthus]

Perhaps, I'd still be in Africa then.

See? Should be celebrating. 

I don't have one, as I think the whole thing is a lesson in fruitlessness.  I think speaking of the West as a whole is misleading.

Well, if the question is pointless then you don't need an answer. I don't think the question is pointless.

[garbon]

Malthus, I don't see how you are escaping the cultural. Instead of the traditional argument that falls along the lines of Western culture was adapted for said gains and Middle Eastern / Asian was not, you bring the specter of it, in what you are calling "the actual history of these regions." Instead of looking at the benefits of Western culture or the deficiencies of Asian / Middle Eastern, you posit the influence of the Steppe Nomads.  That's a cultural component right there.

Also, how does India play out in all of this? Truly the mongols (and descendants) did not have a strong influence on the majority of the peninsula until the time of the Mughals. Was the central region / south just a backwater?

[Queequeg]

Malthus, you seem to always want to blame the Steppe Nomads.

I believe their influence to be quite fundamental in the development of Asian & Middle-Eastern history - but this is just fact, not value judgment.

And us Indo-Europeans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

We invented nomadic pastoralism. 

(Though as an Anglophone Jew, I'm not sure where to place you in terms of Indo-Europeanness).

[Malthus]

Malthus, you seem to always want to blame the Steppe Nomads.

I believe their influence to be quite fundamental in the development of Asian & Middle-Eastern history - but this is just fact, not value judgment.

And us Indo-Europeans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

We invented nomadic pastoralism. 

(Though as an Anglophone Jew, I'm not sure where to place you in terms of Indo-Europeanness).

Well, as Ashkenazic, some would argue that we are at least in part descended from the Khazars ... 

[Valmy]

Well, as Ashkenazic, some would argue that we are at least in part descended from the Khazars ... 

Ashkenazi are descended from Germanic converts

[Queequeg]

Also, how does India play out in all of this? Truly the mongols (and descendants) did not have a strong influence on the majority of the peninsula until the time of the Mughals. Was the central region / south just a backwater?

You clearly don't know much about Indian history.  Steppe invaders of India in Chronological order:
Indo-Aryan tribes (celebrated in the Rigveda)
Indo-Iranian invaders
Scythians (Shaka)
Kushan-Yuezhi
Hepthalites
various other Turkic groups
Pashtuns
Mughals.

If anything the Steppe influence on India is far more obvious than in China.  Hinduism a is a clear offshoot of the steppe Indo-Aryan religion, and various kshatriya groups (most clearly khatris) are clearly descended from the original Steppe conquerors of the region. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Disagree. How can the invasion of a nation by a tribe of nomadic Manchus, who then proceed to fossilize that society in its most backward and conservative form, not have a major impact on it?

So is your position that the Ming, if left alone, would have "progressed" inevitably into a modern-style society?  I seriously doubt it.  I also question your characterization of the Manchus as being unusually backward or conservative.  The Manchus could be quite flexible and adaptive.  It's not that they were unsually conservative, it is more that they were not unusually radically.

No, the whole point is that everyone is not capable of doing it. The Aztecs could not have done it. Why do I say that? Because the Aztecs lived on a planet in which, compared to other civilizations they were quite comprehensively backwards. The Aztecs were never going to be the ones spamming the world with McDonalds, no matter how much their ideology changed, because when compared to Euros and Asians, they were a bunch of stone age primitives (in spite of their impressive cities etc.).

For most of human history, northern Europeans were also "comprehensively backwards" compared to other civilizations.  This did not prevent them from ultimately being the first societies to transition to the modern.  To the extent that your point is that it is very difficult for a "backward" society to make such a transition, you are making my argument.  Modernity is the aberration, not what came before.

The one point where I would agree with you (and Diamond) is that the non-Eurasian civilizations were comparatively disadvantaged because there was less opportunity for diffusion of ideas and knowledge.  Thus, I would agree that assuming that some civilization would make a transition to modernity, it is more likely that civilization would be a Eurasian one, than a non-Eurasian one.  But I would not grant the assumption that such a transition was inevitable a priori absent some kind of adverse outside agency like malevolent steppe nomads (who inconveniently for this argument cease to be a major problem for all Eurasian societies about 200 years before the transition occurs).  The entire course of history prior to the point suggests otherwise - stable and innovative pre-modern civilizations often lasted for centuries without serious barbarian threats to the core, but also without any indication of making the ideological and social shift to a modern world-view and modern means of production.

[Queequeg]

(who inconveniently for this argument cease to be a major problem for all Eurasian societies about 200 years before the transition occurs)

Not really; the Mughals, Ottomans and Manchus all clearly had nomadic roots and had far more in common with the horse archer empires before them than native dynasties or European nation-states.