Are You For globalization or against

[Traitorfish]

False dichotomy, chief

I didn't suggest that nationality and ethnicity were not pertinent factors, simply that they were not the driving force.

 

[amadeus]

Against, of course. If anything, we need intra-national trade barriers: I don't want no damn St. Paul shoes!

 

[Dachs]

I didn't suggest that nationality and ethnicity were not pertinent factors, simply that they were not the driving force.

Then your wording was very poor.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in the idea that it's predominantly an issue of class, either, because of how radically different the effects of - snerk - globalization are on a given class within the same state, let alone globally.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then your wording was very poor.

Probably.

I'm not sure how much stock I put in the idea that it's predominantly an issue of class, either, because of how radically different the effects of - snerk - globalization are on a given class within the same state, let alone globally.

It's a process of accumulation on the part of the capitalist class, and also by the most successful elements of that class. Everything else is, at least in intent, the product of this.

 

[Theige]

Alot of Africa was pre-agricultural & pre-agricultural societies generally had better health, less malnutrition, etc. It's hard to imagine it was worse pre-1600's than during most of the 1800 & 1900's.

It's pretty common knowledge among anthropologists that hunter-gatherers were generally healthier than early agriculturalists (who nevertheless dominated them eventually due to rapid population growth), there is a study of bones of Egyptians pre & post agricultural revolution showing a marked decreased in height & weaker bones, IIRC. I'll try to look something up later or maybe someone else can help you. Until the last few hundred years Europeans were still catching up (now we're ahead thanks to modern medicine & very safe lves).

What Hygro said also

Depends how you define "industrial", Native Americans for example were exposed to globalization (guns, white people, alcohol, smallpox) before industrialization as I think of it.

"A lot" of Africa was pre-agricultural before 1600. What exactly qualifies as "a lot." The vast majority of Africa was, by this time, agricultural, fyi.

Better health and nutrition, for pre-agricultural societies, but a much much higher mortality rate.

That study applies for Egyptians, but doesn't apply for all peoples, especially Europeans.

Pretty weak criticism. "You're industrialized therefore you can't have a valid opinion", that's like saying "You have electricity so you can't have any opinion about life during the European Renaissance.

Um, what?

 

[Narz]

"A lot" of Africa was pre-agricultural before 1600. What exactly qualifies as "a lot."

Better health and nutrition, for pre-agricultural societies, but a much much higher mortality rate.

That study applies for Egyptians, but doesn't apply for all peoples, especially Europeans.

If you want to post some data, go ahead, I'm all about learning but I grow tired of listening to you repeat yourself.

Um, what?

Just because someone enjoys the benefits of something doesn't mean one can't critique it.

 

[Theige]

If you want to post some data, go ahead, I'm all about learning but I grow tired of listening to you repeat yourself.

Just because someone enjoys the benefits of something doesn't mean one can't critique it.

I'm sorry, you missed my edit, but the vast majority of Africa was "post-agricultural" by the time of the arrival of Europeans. Bantu speaking peoples were/are farmers and herders, and they had displaced, or the least agriculture and their language had diffused, to the "natives" in nearly all of sub-Saharan Africa by 1000 AD.

My point was that region is tiny and completely inconsequential.

 

[azzaman333]

I am neutral towards the concept of globalisation.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am neutral towards the concept of globalisation.

It ain't neutral towards you.

 

[Dachs]

It's a process of accumulation on the part of the capitalist class, and also by the most successful elements of that class. Everything else is, at least in intent, the product of this.

You reductionists are anathema to proper historical analysis

 

[Traitorfish]

You reductionists are anathema to proper historical analysis

It's a generalisation, not reductionism.

 

[Dachs]

Isn't that worse?

 

[Traitorfish]

Quite possibly.

Edit: Also, yeah, it probably was reductionism. I should be less defensive (and, when I am, less incompetent about it).

 

[Narz]

I'm sorry, you missed my edit, but the vast majority of Africa was "post-agricultural" by the time of the arrival of Europeans. Bantu speaking peoples were/are farmers and herders, and they had displaced, or the least agriculture and their language had diffused, to the "natives" in nearly all of sub-Saharan Africa by 1000 AD.

My point was that region is tiny and completely inconsequential.

Fair enough but they weren't dominate to the extent European agriculturists were (and probably didn't suffer as much famine & unrest (as Europe) as a result. Could be wrong, don't know much about pre-colonized Africa. I do know Europeans were clamoring to emigrate to whatever New World they could find due to poverty.

 

[Masada]

I do know Europeans were clamoring to emigrate to whatever New World they could find due to poverty.

"You reductionists are anathema to proper historical analysis"

 

[innonimatu]

I'm sorry, you missed my edit, but the vast majority of Africa was "post-agricultural" by the time of the arrival of Europeans. Bantu speaking peoples were/are farmers and herders, and they had displaced, or the least agriculture and their language had diffused, to the "natives" in nearly all of sub-Saharan Africa by 1000 AD.

Not quite. The vast majority of Africa was indeed post-agricultural by that time in the sense that they had the technology, and I don't doubt that agriculture even predated the expansion of the bantu. But that didn't meant that they forgo hunting. Animal furs were an important resource well into the 19th century, and were mostly obtained through hunting. And so was meat. Africa was still sparsely populated and had (still has in some regions) plenty of wild animals. The organization of hunting expeditions was one of the main tasks of any local ruler.

 

[RebeccaChambers]

Pro-Globalization

 

[SG-17]

Globalization under the guidance of the United States (+Canada) and the European Union, yes please.

 

[Traitorfish]

Globalization under the guidance of the United States (+Canada) and the European Union, yes please.

I'm not sure that either the US nor the EU have a history which indicates they can be trusted with anything much at all. Canada, maybe.

 

[Darth Caesar]

Capitalism also drives research and development, bringing us to a new age of awesome.

I'm against globalization. (At least until I conquer the world.)