Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Rise of the West
Now that we have learned a lot about the possible causes of the rise of the west, what do you think was truly the distinguishing factor that allowed Europe to conquer most of the world? Was it by accident or chance, or were there certain European values/innovations that made the "rise of the west" inevitable? For example, China had the largest navy in the world during the Ming Dynasty, but they stopped their voyages because they really weren't interested in conquering. Europeans colonized nations before they even knew what resources they could find there. In other words, do you think there were truly different European values/innovations that made Europe able to conquer the world, or could other cultures have spread their influence had they been granted the same luck as Europeans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it was mostly luck that made possible for the Europeans to conquer the world, however, I also think that European values and their Christian beliefs contributed to the rise of the west as well. Christopher Columbus got lucky when he discovered the Americas; he didn't even know they existed, he thought he had sailed around the world and landed in India. I think the discovery of the new world, sparked particular interest in Europe because of their Christian beliefs - they felt that it was their duty to spread Christianity and save humanity. I think colonization started out as a humanitarian/religious mission, but then became more focused on wealth and profit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lindsey in that luck was involved. However, I think that Europe did have values and/or aspects of their culture that allowed them to conquer (colonize might be a better word) the rest of the world. One in particular would be their military technology. If you think about it, Europe has had a looong history of wars and fighting so you would think that this routine of violence would cause them to develop more sufficient weapons and fighting tactics. While Europe was creating weaponry, other countries like China were more focused on literacy and art. So, I would say that although they did have luck on their side, they wouldn't have been able to accomplish their colonization without a strong military force.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone has stated above. In some aspects luck played a big part in Europe dominating the colonizing scene. As Lindsey said I think the discover of the new world was an important factor because it supplied Europe with the triangle trade, allowing them to bring back many resources back from the New World, especially silver which allowed them to finally trade with China. Also like Evan said their military advancement helped them conquer because no one had the means to fight back against them. The only value that gave the Europeans an advantage was capitalism.They were the first culture to really embody capitalism and it drove their country. They were always looking for a way to make profit.
ReplyDeleteI am going to disagree with what was stated above. I do not think that luck was the main cause of European colonization; however, I do believe that Christopher Colombus's discovery was luck because, like Lindsey said, he was planning to go to India and just came upon a undiscovered land. I believe that one of the main factors that allowed Europe to conquer most of the world, as opposed to China, was their separation or non-unity (don't know if thats a word!). As we know, Europe did not have one ruler, instead they had many different countries and cultures making up their overall population. This may have benefitted Europe because, each country's ruler/king decided what would be best for that specific country. Moreover, Europe did not have to decide as a whole to conquer the world, each country of Europe decided for themselves and often times, they competed against each other for a foreign land. I also think Europe wound up conquering most of the world because, like Emily stated, the emperor of China at the time decided to cancel all exploration of the Ming Voyages because he felt that it was unnecessary to keep conquering foreign places. Europe also had the best technology during its time, which helped them, and a pretty good geographical location. Overall, I think that Europe was bound to conquer a lot of the world at some point because of their advantages on military forces, location, technology, and most importantly, independence between different European countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Treazure, capitalism was definitely a factor. Although capitalism already existed in India and China before Europe, the Europeans sort of took capitalism to an extreme. Making profit became the goal in life while the Chinese had strong Confucian values that kept them from letting greed govern their actions.
ReplyDeleteTo Nicki:
I think competition in Europe was a factor but I don't think that Europeans conquering the world was bound to happen or inevitable. During the Early Ming Dynasty, the Chinese could have easily taken over the world. Imagine what would have happened if the Chinese decided to sail east instead of west in the 1400s. I think China's disinterest in and xenophobia of other countries and the lucky discovery of the new world gave Europe a chance to catch up to the Chinese. And, I think that Europeans naturally think of themselves as better than other countries and feel more inclined to conquer natives and make them submissive while the Chinese are curious and open-minded about other countries.
Also to Nicki:
DeleteI'm not sure if disunity was a factor...I think it would have helped with competition but would have made it harder for small kingdoms to conquer and colonize a new land. I think it would have been hard for a kingdom to protect itself from it's surrounding countries and colonize/explore the new world at the same time.
I think circumstance (not luck) and European values are what allowed Europe to rise to power. China could have conquered the world a thousand times if they wanted to, but because they had a self-sufficient economy, they didn't really need to. Europe, on the other hand, was pretty poor on their own, so colonizing/using other countries was the only way to make themselves rich. Therefore, circumstance is pretty important, but their values were even more important. They desired profit above all, and because they were under the impression that they were superior to everyone else, they thought it was right and natural to conquer anyone who could be useful to them. Europe had means and lots of motive, which is why they did what they did.
ReplyDeleteI too agree that both the capitalist values that dominated Europe, and the xenophobic and cultural acceptance of the Chinese were what lead to lucky rise of European power. Europe's drive to make more and more profit mixed with their closed minded view on religion really allowed them to, in some cases, barbarically conquer nations and peoples who the Europeans themselves considered to be savages. Their hypocritical actions were seen as their "righteous duty" (White Man's Burden). I think the biggest factor was that the Europeans thought as themselves as God's chosen people, giving them the opportunity or even right to seize power. I do think that it was merely luck that the Americas were discovered but this discovery sparked a movement towards capitalism and large scale global trade. Creating greater sources of profit, leading up to the creation and adoption of the capitalist values in Europe.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the overall thing that gave England the upper hand, was the fact that they had been colonized and established for such a longer period of time and they also had a lot more experience. Another factor would be the economy and wealth of the nation from trade. This would have been a huge pro that lured all the people such as Indians, that advanced England's population, experience, culture and knowledge, giving them the upper hand. This in my opinion was what made England so successful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone above who mentioned Europe's idea of a "civilizing mission". They believed they were superior and wanted to spread their values to other civilizations. This raises another question to me.China believed they were superior to other nations as well, and in their country, it lead to xenophobia. What do you think was the difference between Europeans and Chinese in this sense? Do we know enough to speculate why these different civilizations treated colonization in such different ways.
ReplyDeleteIt was probably the difference in beliefs and religion. China had Confucianism which emphasized the 5 relationships and that the family was a microcosm of the state. I think these relationships influenced the Chinese to treat foreigners with respect if not equally (foreigners weren't allowed to live inside the imperial city-special section for foreigners). The Chinese didn't really worship a god so I guess they didn't feel the need to spread their beliefs? Or maybe they thought of themselves as the best civilization and didn't want to be tainted by other cultures and their beliefs so they kept to themselves. In the Bible, Jesus and his 12 apostles traveled to teach and spread Christianity, so I guess that's why Europeans thought that converting natives to Christianity was their duty and a positive thing.
ReplyDelete