Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[StStutter]

Ok well maybe this matters. I thought I was not vague about examples. I don't care about the game discussion anymore I know the game is meant to be pseudo-history.

What is complex society? If a city in North America was bigger than any in Europe at the corresponding time is that complex? Read the population estimate from this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia#Ancient_city

Low Estimates are 40,000.
Here is their diet.


If you do not think this is complex society then we will disagree. I don't have much time to discuss now though because I am back to a normal schedule.

This is actually very interesting. The population was estimated between 8,000 and 40,000 though, but nevertheless, it still had an extremely large population.

I do consider this a complex society, as I consider the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans and other large American empires to have had complex societies. But this complexity is only one of the many factors that caused Eurasians to be more advanced (I use this word for a lack of a better one, but they utilized many more technologies, and had many more goods than other societies).

Re: the agricultural side, I am sure that if the Mississipian civilization had not been exterminated by Eurasian diseases, that they would have developed many of the philosophical and technical advances that Europeans had. Given a thousand years, they would probably have found steel themselves, developed gunpowder, and who knows what else.

But, Eurasians had a head start with Agriculture, and thus complex societies, and arrived at these techs first. Mesopotamia provided an ideal situation, given many readily available domesticable plants native to that region, along with fertile soil, etc. where agriculture developed in 10,000 BC. The East - West axis (according to Jared Diamond) then allowed this 'package' of domesticable plants and annimals to quickly spread to the rest of the continent within a few thousand years.

This Mississipian culture did not truly begin to flourish until 1000 AD. This was likely due to the eventual arrival of corn from mesoamerica around the year 900AD (which spread very slowly due to the north-south orientaion of the continent), and other plants from locations I cannot care to research. They were then, intentionally or unintentionally, wiped out by Europeans who had attained this level of society much earlier.

For example Babylon is believed to have reached 200,000 inhabitants in the year 1671 BC. This gave Mesopotamia a two and half millenium head start. This, including the profound effect their culture had on Europeans, places them as more influential than the Mississipian culture imho.

 

[johny smith]

This is actually very interesting. The population was estimated between 8,000 and 40,000 though, but nevertheless, it still had an extremely large population.

I do consider this a complex society, as I consider the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans and other large American empires to have had complex societies. But this complexity is only one of the many factors that caused Eurasians to be more advanced (I use this word for a lack of a better one, but they utilized many more technologies, and had many more goods than other societies).

Re: the agricultural side, I am sure that if the Mississipian civilization had not been exterminated by Eurasian diseases, that they would have developed many of the philosophical and technical advances that Europeans had. Given a thousand years, they would probably have found steel themselves, developed gunpowder, and who knows what else.

But, Eurasians had a head start with Agriculture, and thus complex societies, and arrived at these techs first. Mesopotamia provided an ideal situation, given many readily available domesticable plants native to that region, along with fertile soil, etc. where agriculture developed in 10,000 BC. The East - West axis (according to Jared Diamond) then allowed this 'package' of domesticable plants and annimals to quickly spread to the rest of the continent within a few thousand years.

This Mississipian culture did not truly begin to flourish until 1000 AD. This was likely due to the eventual arrival of corn from mesoamerica around the year 900AD (which spread very slowly due to the north-south orientaion of the continent), and other plants from locations I cannot care to research. They were then, intentionally or unintentionally, wiped out by Europeans who had attained this level of society much earlier.

For example Babylon is believed to have reached 200,000 inhabitants in the year 1671 BC. This gave Mesopotamia a two and half millenium head start. This, including the profound effect their culture had on Europeans, places them as more influential than the Mississipian culture imho.

Regardless influential again is just a term that has no scientific method of quantifying. The first Homo Sapiens Sapiens left from around Ethiopia. It is only natural that the closer you get to the area the sooner population should rise. There is no way to show that Eurasian foods are healthier. How can you? You can not show that there is not enough as much East-West in North America. Yes I know about the North-South corn spread. MesoAmerica for example used calcium rich water in making bread from Corn to make up for the calcium deficiency in corn. But I mean there is just a must as a chance that some food package could of started in North America based on his theory.

It was just that they were late arrivals versus Eurasia. So I am not arguing that Eurasia advanced faster in tool making. I am saying I think geography has less to do with it. More to do with how long someone is in a given location and having similar climate conditions in a zone the faster you have growth anywhere. And again if the Americas had figured out iron who knows. The one single important occurrence to me that separates the world is who discovers iron first not food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron#History

That is the original agreed commonly idea.

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

So I am not saying his theory in relation with East-West and North-South is wrong. I agree with that part(But that is not Europe as well I mean because of mountains)in general with when in similar conditions. I believe basically similar climate can help. But as for being only found in Eurasia well that I think is wrong.

It is not an argument about did the Eurasians conquer first. It is simple about the perspective that other continents could do the same. It was just how early someone was there in most cases. Really you have small zones of similar climate in the world that have nothing to do with total size of the continents. I would say the Sahara and Arabic Desert being one, some areas in Central Asia, and North America being large areas of similarity. Basically similar climate is not dictated by which continent. For example Egypt and the Middle East is not that much of difference just because one is Africa and the other in Asia. But Iron is a defining change when introduced that has been clearly demonstrated when it appears on sites that were previously without.

Now influence. What is influence? I mean I know the Eurasians conquered, but that does not destroy the previous culture(sometimes it does). It just mixes into a new hybrid. That does not destroy the culture influences of before completely. Just like the Germanic tribes invading Celtic territory and Roman territory you still have impact of culture from the Celts and Romans. Today is Peru an extension of Inca influence? There is no measurement for influence.

So I would say Steel or Iron is the only key ingredient not food(as long as their is some system to feed large populations). Germs come from usually interaction with animals. That is true but that could of been a limiting factor as well. You must feed these animals.

Mexico could possibly be an example of Aztecs finally removing their Spanish invaders. It is just an issue with what is Mexico for example. Mexico believes it to be. So again what is Mexico? I would consider it a hybrid of culture. Their primary staple is still corn. So summary influence is very vague. And he looks as the world as being Eurasian now. There is no line to draw on what is what culture wise.

Here is an explanation of the Mexican flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mexico

Got to run to work again.

Edit: Sorry more last things to explain.

 

[johny smith]

I got the cereals confused. Here is what I thought should be mentioned. I am referring to wild grains being found to be used. This does not equal domestication. But this does put the location of the beginning use of similar foods to question that would eventually lead to domestication.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm

And I am referring to this theory as well. For a climate around the time you are referring to.

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

The area around the Nile regardless holds a lot of importance. And obvious it would be easier to move to a similar climate in the Arabia while the Sahara and Arabia were much wetter.

Anyway regardless we can not say we are at the end of anything. There is nothing saying that the world will stay as is. Culture is different enough around the globe that I would not say that what he presents as the most important is or will be the most important. So in the long run would you consider any invasion successful? You cannot just assume every culture was wiped away. Or if even looking at Eurasia as being the "largest influence" could you not say America is example of a North American culture dominating now? It is very vague to just make an arbitrary group called Eurasians. I mean is it just going to be another wave in another form in the future from a different area?

 

[bernie14]

i will propose a very inersting "what if" at the dawn of man... what if nearly 13000 years ago the "clovis comet" would have not caused near extiction of the peoples of north america or if the comet would have impacted in europe or mideast?....could there have been a shift of power due to increased populations in the west competeing for resources and driving tech..... could that culture equal or surpass the progress being made in the east? or if eurasia would have been distroyed by the clovis comet would the "discoveries" have gone from west to east? very intresting to think about but all very very hypothetical at best...now, in my opinion,the travel in the west could have been east west AND north south secondary to the geography of central america and the carribean.....

 

[johny smith]

i will propose a very inersting "what if" at the dawn of man... what if nearly 13000 years ago the "clovis comet" would have not caused near extiction of the peoples of north america or if the comet would have impacted in europe or mideast?....could there have been a shift of power due to increased populations in the west competeing for resources and driving tech..... could that culture equal or surpass the progress being made in the east? or if eurasia would have been distroyed by the clovis comet would the "discoveries" have gone from west to east? very intresting to think about but all very very hypothetical at best...now, in my opinion,the travel in the west could have been east west AND north south secondary to the geography of central america and the carribean.....

So obviously you agree I see. Do you want to continue with this "what if"?

 

[Thormodr]

i will propose a very inersting "what if" at the dawn of man... what if nearly 13000 years ago the "clovis comet" would have not caused near extiction of the peoples of north america or if the comet would have impacted in europe or mideast?....could there have been a shift of power due to increased populations in the west competeing for resources and driving tech..... could that culture equal or surpass the progress being made in the east? or if eurasia would have been distroyed by the clovis comet would the "discoveries" have gone from west to east? very intresting to think about but all very very hypothetical at best...now, in my opinion,the travel in the west could have been east west AND north south secondary to the geography of central america and the carribean.....

Of course the "Clovis comet" is just a theory but it is an intriguing one.

I'd say, what if 90 to 95% of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas hadn't been killed by disease?

I've just finished reading a fascinating book called 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. I highly recommend it.

Here is a link to a short summary of the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus

 

[johny smith]

Ok since it is not clear as to what the hell I am saying. I will say it like this.

The crap growing in Eurasia was just as likely to grow anywhere. Nothing is healthier about the stuff being grown in Eurasia. Nor is it any better to grow there because lack of similar climates.

Apes came out of Africa eating grain. Then the apes figured out how to manipulate the grain in the Levant. Obviously because they are lazy and do not like to walk far. The apes tend to stay close to home at first. Then the apes get mad about being close and spread out farther. So the apes farthest away from home did not sit long enough make more crap. If Apes had came from America it would of been reversed.

The only thing that differed was Iron being readily available and understood of its use. Ape like shiny things that can be used to kill people. "Eurasian apes" is a term that means nothing in my ideas but some gibberish. Apes who conquer usually learn new tricks from the apes they conquer as well.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Race does exist in a way, but not in a way that average American thinks. Scientifically there are many races in Africa for eaxmple, its not about skin color (at least not mostly). Some of the races in Africa are Khoisan, Bantu and Pygmy peoples.

Different races of humans would have evolved to different species in the long run, if there had not been contact. Thats just how evolution works. Thats how Neanderthals for example were evolved.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

The term you are looking for is species, the would have evolved into different species.

 

[StStutter]

Of course the "Clovis comet" is just a theory but it is an intriguing one.

I'd say, what if 90 to 95% of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas hadn't been killed by disease?

I've just finished reading a fascinating book called 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. I highly recommend it.

Here is a link to a short summary of the book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus

Agreed, the clovis comet is certainly only a theory. Historians mostly agree that the oldest human fossils in North America were from around the year 10,000 I believe, so there isn't much evidence that a comet killed those before them.

But however, if Native Americans hadn't been wiped out by disease, the European conquest would have taken much more time and required much more resources. Possibly giving the Natives a chance to adopt European technologies and in fact repel the invasion.

 

[Inhalaattori]

The term you are looking for is species, the would have evolved into different species.

Thats right. I dont know what I was thinking when I wrote that sentence.

 

[johny smith]

Yes these people have been wiped away.

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

Not that I am arguing about whether or not germs have an effect. Just when people say wiped away they are imagining nothing is left in most cases.

I actually recommend this movie. It is quite good.

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

 

[johny smith]

And of course these guys did not adapt in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#Acculturation

Or these guys that have not survived.

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

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

Or that when you are "mixed". How it perceived that the half of European only matters to determine these world domination theories. Yup they just lost the war. There was no popular uprising against from a mostly mixed culture against the European masters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_people

I will only say the aka "Natives" did remove their European masters in some locations.

 

[MrWashington]

Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

Not me.

 

[johny smith]

 

[SalmonSoil]

Ok since it is not clear as to what the hell I am saying. I will say it like this.

The crap growing in Eurasia was just as likely to grow anywhere. Nothing is healthier about the stuff being grown in Eurasia. Nor is it any better to grow there because lack of similar climates.

Apes came out of Africa eating grain. Then the apes figured out how to manipulate the grain in the Levant. Obviously because they are lazy and do not like to walk far. The apes tend to stay close to home at first. Then the apes get mad about being close and spread out farther. So the apes farthest away from home did not sit long enough make more crap. If Apes had came from America it would of been reversed.

The only thing that differed was Iron being readily available and understood of its use. Ape like shiny things that can be used to kill people. "Eurasian apes" is a term that means nothing in my ideas but some gibberish. Apes who conquer usually learn new tricks from the apes they conquer as well.

Humans ate sorghum in Africa, in the levant they find no sorghum, but many more grasses similar to it which are useful for eating. They eventually discover ways to cultivate the plant, at first cultivating it where it is, then bringing it back to their villages. They pick mutated variants which provide higher yields and will not spread naturally. Throwing laziness in there is kind of dumb... and is more rascist than any theory based on geography.
Crops from the fertile crescent were better for cultivation because of the meditteraenean climate of the crescent, which means plants have to grow quickly and gain much higher yields in that time. The variation in altitude of the region means that there are crop types which grow at different times of the year, allowing a sustained food supply. The meditteraenean climate of the fertile crescent is the largest are of meditteraenean cliamte in the world, and has hugely varying altitudes, thus producing the widest variety of useful crop types in the world. Look at a list of the most used crops in the world and tell me how many are from the crescent.
Not only that but Eurasia contains 13 of the worlds 14 domesticatable large mammals, many of them from the crescent area. South America has one, the llama.
Your presumption that the discovery of iron caused the conquest of America is crazy, why would Mesoamericans not discover Iron for 3000 years after Eurasians? I blame geography, and the technological lag that it caused. What do you blame?
Societies conquer other societies, technology diffuses between them. It is mutual.
Also technology is quickly copied by surrounding empires who do not want to be conquered. (Not that a society makes a conscious choice to be conquered)

 

[Thormodr]

Humans ate sorghum in Africa, in the levant they find no sorghum, but many more grasses similar to it which are useful for eating. They eventually discover ways to cultivate the plant, at first cultivating it where it is, then bringing it back to their villages. They pick mutated variants which provide higher yields and will not spread naturally. Throwing laziness in there is kind of dumb... and is more rascist than any theory based on geography.
Crops from the fertile crescent were better for cultivation because of the meditteraenean climate of the crescent, which means plants have to grow quickly and gain much higher yields in that time. The variation in altitude of the region means that there are crop types which grow at different times of the year, allowing a sustained food supply. The meditteraenean climate of the fertile crescent is the largest are of meditteraenean cliamte in the world, and has hugely varying altitudes, thus producing the widest variety of useful crop types in the world. Look at a list of the most used crops in the world and tell me how many are from the crescent.
Not only that but Eurasia contains 13 of the worlds 14 domesticatable large mammals, many of them from the crescent area. South America has one, the llama.
Your presumption that the discovery of iron caused the conquest of America is crazy, why would Mesoamericans not discover Iron for 3000 years after Eurasians? I blame geography, and the technological lag that it caused. What do you blame?
Societies conquer other societies, technology diffuses between them. It is mutual.
Also technology is quickly copied by surrounding empires who do not want to be conquered. (Not that a society makes a conscious choice to be conquered)

Losing 90-95% of their numbers was really what did them in. That and quite a bit of luck on the part of the European conquerors. If the natives wouldn't have had their societies ripped apart by disease and death they more than likely would have won in my opinion.

 

[johny smith]

Humans ate sorghum in Africa, in the levant they find no sorghum, but many more grasses similar to it which are useful for eating. They eventually discover ways to cultivate the plant, at first cultivating it where it is, then bringing it back to their villages. They pick mutated variants which provide higher yields and will not spread naturally.

But they had to begin eating grain first. Why would they begin using grain if not some past instance. It does not matter about being sorghum, or any grass.

Throwing laziness in there is kind of dumb... and is more rascist than any theory based on geography.

First of all my statements on that last was more of a joke related to stupid comment before.

Crops from the fertile crescent were better for cultivation because of the meditteraenean climate of the crescent, which means plants have to grow quickly and gain much higher yields in that time.

There are other Mediterranean climates like say California. Higher yields is from flood plains.

The variation in altitude of the region means that there are crop types which grow at different times of the year, allowing a sustained food supply. The meditteraenean climate of the fertile crescent is the largest are of meditteraenean cliamte in the world, and has hugely varying altitudes, thus producing the widest variety of useful crop types in the world.

Europe has varying climate and plenty of other places in the world as well. The Levant was just the closest place that Homo Sapiens came to that had a good situation to grow.

Look at a list of the most used crops in the world and tell me how many are from the crescent.

Corn is the most used in the world. It does not matter though most grains are more likely to cause malnutrition versus fruit or meat. High populations destroy the natural resources around cities as well.

Not only that but Eurasia contains 13 of the worlds 14 domesticatable large mammals, many of them from the crescent area. South America has one, the llama.

Why do you need domesticated animals? You have to feed these animals as well. Same problem of today for people in China eating meat. They have to grow more crops to feed cows to make more meat versus just eating the plants.

Your presumption that the discovery of iron caused the conquest of America is crazy, why would Mesoamericans not discover Iron for 3000 years after Eurasians?

My presumption? So why did they not discover Iron? You can explain it by what they eat? No you need a source of iron. Why have we spent this much time with the current three age system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ferrous_metallurgy#Ancient_Near_East
It is the one requirement required to make tools to farm better. Do you think a stone hoe is efficient as an iron hoe. Stone axes versus Iron axes. There are thousands of uses of Iron tools that are better than stone tools.

I blame geography, and the technological lag that it caused. What do you blame?

There is nothing geographical to prove it. Population rose and fell. Iron is one thing that always was used.

Societies conquer other societies, technology diffuses between them. It is mutual.
Also technology is quickly copied by surrounding empires who do not want to be conquered. (Not that a society makes a conscious choice to be conquered)

I agree. It was a joke when I said it. Because somehow the Eurasian are the only group known in the Americas right?

Now the Mayans today are still in Central America. They live on culturally. Just like Greeks live on culturally from Hellenistic Greece.

There is no damn group called the Eurasians. I totally agree with the importance of the Levant. But nothing shows the entire area of Eurasia being super for agriculture. Sorry.

Again it is the same summary. To believe Guns,Germs,and Steel you must accept.. Eurasians have conquered the planet in some game and the game is over. It is just damn silly.

 

[Caeserportugal]

I don't see this as eurocentrism but rather Americancentrism.

 

[johny smith]

Losing 90-95% of their numbers was really what did them in. That and quite a bit of luck on the part of the European conquerors. If the natives wouldn't have had their societies ripped apart by disease and death they more than likely would have won in my opinion.

Is Mexico a Native American society or is it European? Mexico won that is what I will say for one example.