History

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Marko — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:07:18 GMT

Torsten:

Yet SOME British subjects may have benefited from colonialism. True the the colonies may have benefited UNDER, if one summarizes the effect of colonialism.

But it is not possible to summarize the effects of colonialism. That would take judgement of value on our part. It is only possible to observe that colonialism is synonymous with force. Therefore whatever your own value judgement as what "to benefit" means we are in position to conclude that the peoples who were colonialised (who are the only ones whose value judgements of colonialism matter) were forced into trading something they valued more highly (their freedom) for something they valued less highly (whatever the benefits of being subjugated were). Else, if this were not the case there would have been no need for them to be forced into whatever empires they were made a part of, but would have instead joined them out of their own free will.

So when you say a colony can benefit from colonialism (a fancy word for overseas imperialism) you are taking a position of a paternalist, claiming that sometimes the rulers can know the interests of the subjects better than the subjects themselves and are justified in commiting force against them `for their own good`.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Torsten — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:33:36 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:
I am sorry, but western hegemony is not explained by imperialism.

Of course not, the imperialism was merely a byproduct of werstern hegemony.

Prateek Sanjay:
Their colonies may have had much misery to endure from being under British rule, but once British tried to put use protectionist means to forcefully export to them, the populations of those countries quadrupled. It's as if they benefitted a little bit more than the British did. It also increased the size of British bureaucracy, and forced them to divert funds that could have developed their own country.

...Yet SOME British subjects may have benefited from colonialism. True the the colonies may have benefited UNDER, if one summarizes the effect of colonialism.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Prateek Sanjay — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:57:43 GMT

Ansury:

I'm asking in the context of the last say, 400 years or so, since that's when Europe (and the US eventually) really started to take off.

In part I'm also asking, did imperialism give western nations a head start, or was it other factors such as economic freedom, trade, culture, etc.?

Imperialism and colonialism RUINED western nations. It did not benefit them.

Britain at one point of time was an importer nation that lived off foreign investment. Unlike France, it did not put restrictions on these things. As a nation that allowed the conduct of business relatively more freely than others, it managed to benefit.

When it was large enough to set up trading companies across the world, the British exchequer BEGGED the crown not to fund companies which intended to colonise or set themselves up abroad. He saw that it caused the wealth of their nation to run down, when it was used for investment in colonies in remote parts of the world with less return on investment. He also saw that the initial costs of setting up there were very difficult to recover, and they had to forcefully adopt a pro-export policy in order to get back that money, which ruined the wealth of their nation even further.

Their colonies may have had much misery to endure from being under British rule, but once British tried to put use protectionist means to forcefully export to them, the populations of those countries quadrupled. It's as if they benefitted a little bit more than the British did. It also increased the size of British bureaucracy, and forced them to divert funds that could have developed their own country.

I am sorry, but western hegemony is not explained by imperialism.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

G8R HED — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:24:54 GMT

Great topic!

The myriad proposals are individually topic-seeds.

One of the elements relating to the progressive 'success' of western nations - and. which I believe has been underrated, relatively unexplored, and often mis-represented - is the impact of the Reformation on the idea of liberty.

Specifically concerning the Reformation is a thesis of liberty in GRACE.

We have, in most (visible) churches and religions as well as in secular life, a rational basis for MERCY.

MERCY as a rational conception is cooperation; an extension of the division of labor; a (peaceful) means of dealing with strife, in particular, debt. Mercy acknowledges debt and substitutes a condition of reduced or no obligation for non-payment.

GRACE, however, is not rational to man. GRACE is similar to MERCY in that it is a (peaceful) means of dealing with strife/debt. GRACE differs from MERCY in the (rationally in-conceivable) sense of replacing strife/debt for a condition AS IF THE STRIFE/DEBT NEVER OCCURRED.

The condition of GRACE is a condition of pure liberty. A NEW condition embodied in the life and work of Christ Jesus.

Martin Luther re-introduced this new condition - GRACE - to the oppressed visible church and to society.

I know that such an approach is not popular amongst secular acadamia. Revealed liberty vs. evolved liberty. It is not a rational basis therefore it is discredited.

There is, however, no substitute under either oppression or liberty for a thankful heart - rational or not.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

scineram — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:51:30 GMT

Byzantine:

Because they were populated by Western European peoples, among other factors.

Which begs the question. Why are there such differences?

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

majevska — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:20:29 GMT

As far as the IQ aspect: northeast Asians have a slightly higher mean IQ but significantly lower verbal IQ than Europeans. I came across one study showing that Asians are over represented in high visuospatial IQ professions like engineering, but significantly under represented in verbal IQ professions like lawyers. This jumped out at me immediately; perhaps Western legal traditions developed as they did in the West instead of Asia due to the verbal IQ disparity.

Another thing to consider is the collectivism of the East-- could it have a genetic component? Some studies show Europeans have a slightly higher standard deviation in IQ than Asians (15 vs 13). Having more variance in IQ and thus more brilliant people as well as dullards could lead to a less collectivist culture.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Marko — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:41:13 GMT

JonBostwick:

I believe thats only partly correct. Britain did have a geographical advantage over the Continent, but continential Europe did not have any advantages over mainland China.

But taking human history as a whole China spent more time as the more advanced and prosperous of the two.

I can`t claim to know much about China`s history but after the definite end of the Great Migrations period (with the Christianisation of the Magyars) Western Europe might as well had been an island. You will note that after that time in European history invasions of Eastern Europe into Western Europe are virtualy unheard of while the invasions in the opposite direction are common (eg the sack of Constantinople). Christian East was threatened from further East and South (threats to which it irreversably lost the Near East and Asia Minor) and was therefore in no position to pick fights with the Christian West even in times when it was stil the more prosperous of the two. So Western Europe was safe even from the one direction it is geographicaly exposed in.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Bostwick — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:26:14 GMT

Marko:
The real question is really why it was that Western Europe emerged as the most economically free part of the world? I think one important factor was a coincidence of geography. It is surrounded by sea on three sides thus far less likely to be invaded by some menacing aliens. Less invasions in turn mean less destruction of wealth but more importantly less wars of necessity, thus the state is given less of a lifeline to expand and to maintain itself.

I believe thats only partly correct. Britain did have a geographical advantage over the Continent, but continential Europe did not have any advantages over mainland China.

Thomas Woods has pointed to envy as the answer. Envy was in antiquity treated nonchalantly, but in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages and Enlightenment envy was considered a vice, a deadly sin. It was during this time that Europe made the majority of its progress. Today envy has shifted from a vice to a virtue. The desire to control what belongs to others is now considered among the most noble of social virtues, and Europe shall continue to decline until respect for property returns.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

krazy kaju — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:08:52 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Marko — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:49:01 GMT

Ansury:

I'm asking in the context of the last say, 400 years or so, since that's when Europe (and the US eventually) really started to take off.

In part I'm also asking, did imperialism give western nations a head start, or was it other factors such as economic freedom, trade, culture, etc.?

Obviously enough the answer is economic freedom. Industrial revolution for example was a consequence of Classical Liberalism. Greater economic freedom makes you more prosperous, and the newly arisen wealth discrepancy then gives you the resources to do all sort of naughty things like a.) build a colonialist empire b.) imagine yourself biologically superior to the less prosperous (which in turn justifies you having a colonialist empire having taken on the white burden). Wherever aspects of economic liberalism (not to be confused with the 1990s legalized plunder in formerly communist Europe) was introduced economy made great gains in a very short time (the Asian tigers and the like).

The real question is really why it was that Western Europe emerged as the most economically free part of the world? I think one important factor was a coincidence of geography. It is surrounded by sea on three sides thus far less likely to be invaded by some menacing aliens. Less invasions in turn mean less destruction of wealth but more importantly less wars of necessity, thus the state is given less of a lifeline to expand and to maintain itself.

Historically freedoms are not expanded by enlightened rulers as gifts to the populace, but are wrestled from them by discontent subjects. For example it was the weakness of the king of England that resulted in the Magna Carta and the growing restlessness of the serfs that led to abolition of serfdom in the Habsburg Empire just after the failed Liberal revolution of 1848. (A sort of theme on the motto that freedom is when the government is afraid of the people.)

But for the rulers to be weak enough to ever contemplate lessening their power, there has to be behind the discontent and somewhere along the line a credible threat of an armed revolt. The threat of internal revolt tended to be fairly credible in Western Europe because it was secure from external threats (the likes of the Arabs, Mongols, Turks and Tartars). Western Europe fought its share of wars but they tended to be wars of choice, fought to resolve limited dynastic disputes. As such while they brought a great amount of wealth destruction they could not readily be used to ensure the growth of the state at the expense of liberties. The populace was less willing to stand for it since it very rarely saw themselves as having a stake in the war (except in wars of religion). Thus the threat of the populace revolting always remained credible to a certain degree.

In other places more exposed to invasion (not the least by Western Europeans themselves) you had more closing in of the ranks thus the threat of a domestic revolt was more distant for their rulers. For example a Hungarian contemplating a revolt against the Habsburgs always had to take into account the possibility of the Turks taking advantage of the turmoil and him ending up under sharia. In essence it was a situation similar to what you have nowadays in Iran, where no reform can be expected as long as the regime can draws legitimacy from simply standing up to foreign threats.

Ultimately it is anything but a coincidence that the weakest state in all of Europe was traditionally England - an island. As an island it was secure from external threats thus the populace did not have to take into account any foreign powers preying on a moment of weakness thus they were significantly more likely to show discontent openly.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Wanderer — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:47:38 GMT

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Amazing book that will explain everything.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Torsten — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:27:59 GMT

tacoface:
What does that have to do with what I posted? I am always interested to learn more but your reply has no relevance to what I said.

I think it nearly strikes the nail on its head.

tacoface:

tacoface:
I do remember in the Myth of National Defense a quote from Nicolas Gomez Davila that without Christianity and antiquity as their background, Europeans would be nothing but palefaced barbarians.

That's typical classicist snobbery (or maybe ignorance due to the predominance of the classical education until the XXth century). The "barbarians" had their own unique culture and indivdualistic laws (as evidenced in Anglo-Saxon law).

While I don't dispute christianities contributions towards Western Civilization, I think the myth of the "Germanic Barbarian" is also thoroughly debunked by the historical evidence at hand. Barbarian was a label the Romans assigned to all nations that were outside their political sphere of influence. Of course some of them were pretty primitive, while others were more advanced. The statist Romans performed very well on fields of civil engineering, something the ancient Germans (a more libertarian culture) were possibly capable of, but without large scale slavery and a protectionist state the effort and risk of doing something like was to high. On the other hand ancient Germans already performed well on certain fields of mechanical and metallurgical technology. This can be shown by artefacts and even linguistic evidence (wagon, iron, eisen, sword, smith etc. there are many mechanical terms in German that are very old and not borrowed from other languages) as well as from their mythology.

Ironically it was Roman Tacitus through whose writings we know about many features of ancient German culture.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

tacoface — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:36:31 GMT

Natalie:

tacoface:
I do remember in the Myth of National Defense a quote from Nicolas Gomez Davila that without Christianity and antiquity as their background, Europeans would be nothing but palefaced barbarians.

That's typical classicist snobbery (or maybe ignorance due to the predominance of the classical education until the XXth century). The "barbarians" had their own unique culture and indivdualistic laws (as evidenced in Anglo-Saxon law).

What does that have to do with what I posted? I am always interested to learn more but your reply has no relevance to what I said.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Torsten — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:43:51 GMT

filc:

Many people now days rack up 30 years of dept with a 4 year bachelor of scienc degree, say in software engineering. Only to end up as a cash register at an office depot. It's not that they are intillectually incapable of persuing that line of work, it's that their present preferences of attention was outside of the work they were currently persuing.

Many people are content with doing the bottom line, easy 9-5 do as little as possible as their TV show, video game, book waiting for them at home is more important at the time and focusing on expanding their career is less important.

Despite excellent technical skills, these people might lack certain "people skills" to advance in the job. On the other hand they just might not enjoy backstabbing office "politics" and prefer to stay out of it. It seems as if the motto goes. It's not about what you can contribute (in terms of value generation) it's about the skills that enable you to extract.

Re: Why did so called "western" nations develop faster than what are now 2nd and 3rd world nations?

Ansury — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:25:21 GMT

Dondoolee:

This question is virtually impossible to answer.

Yeah, that's why I asked!

But unified-field theory is virtually impossible to figure out too--doesn't mean we shouldn't try or research it.