Or do you believe that any culture(or set of) would have taken advantage of their opportunities just like the European powers did in the 17th and 18th centuries?


Do you believe it was human nature,or something more?

yes it is more. It is the stage of human evolution that is known as Capitalism that is to blame for imperialism.

or are u saying that
the quest for capital
lead to the imperial position?

yes, something to that effect....

is simplistic. sure it's important, but there're dozens of factors you're ignoring; geography, natural resources and the lack thereof, technology, transportation (eg the use of horses in warfare)

the industrial revolution started in europe, they had the natural resources and thus they eventually had the power. Had the industrial revolution started somewhere else the results would most likely be the similar. Like you said, it started where it did for geographical reasons just as much as cultural. Anytime there is a giant leap in technology those that cannot afford to keep up are hurt...now not affording means not having enough money when then it was not having the geographical means..

When you least expect it. While you eat your breakfast. Hot fructose corn syrup as a main ingredient to beat you senseless. Your bleeding head splits. Needlessly pulling teeth at the dentists’. I’ll get you baby, people are people: weak and defenseless. In a rat trap making you think there’s cheese at the exits. Feeding the pretentious vegetarian sneaking meat in their lettuce. You’ve got it all…upside down, hung by your feet with a necklace…especially if its made of hemp. Imma get you raising the rent while lower your paycheck. File for bankruptcy but see y’all still manage to stay in debt. That’s the American way of the World Trade train wreck. Imma get you baby, baby with a ugh rain of the tech…nology to make you obsolete like cassettes in your tape deck. Televisions used to water down your thoughts and leave your brains wet. Keep talking revolution, well aint shit changed yet. They’re vague threats, no matter how bold the print. Putting aluminum in you underarm deodorant. Fooled you into thinking breast cancer was better than body odor stink. B-B-Bad to the bone, like the Coca-Cola you sip. I’ll get you baby giving you only soda to drink. Makin you go to the shrink to control what you think. Deceptive teeth biting off the protective sheath over your dick. And even if you don’t smoke, got a second hand to choke you with. I’m old and sick and too broken to fix. Holy Shit, I’m gonna getcha.

Sage Francis.

all of those things are pieces of a particular culture.... geography, resources etc...

culture is shaped by those things, they aren't shaped by culture.

for example a people can exist with their culture outside of its place of origin (ie much of the United States).

yeah thats what im saying, geography, natural resources, transportation....those all shape the culture of the people living there....So they are DIRECTLY related....therefor, blaming it on culture is not the simplistic thing to do....

Im pretty surethat natural events outside of the people's control are not part of thier culture. They may be influences on it....

Lets not forget population density. And outside threats.

No message

there were alot of non-Europeans involved in imperialism of their own.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

province (for lack of a better word)
meaning controlling the laws,
political climate & economics
of another jurisdiction...coupled by
recruiting
from the majority that you are
ruling to be utilized as a viaduct
for the facilitating purposes of
oppressive practices, then this is
Imperialism.

Now the cultures/ethnicities & or
nationalities that you have chosen to
name, do
they fit the aforementioned template
of imperialism, or am I off base
in my thinking?

Also, are saying that those that you
have chosen to name are the initiators
of imperialism? If so, please provide
some type of verifiable data to help me
understand, I'm really intrigued by this
subject matter...Peace

Ever heard of Genghis Khan? Surely you've heard tell of him and the Mongol Empire he created. If you want to look this stuff up, wikipedia is a pretty good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols#History

"Though few in number (approximately 200,000 people at the height of their empire), Mongols were important in world history. Under the leadership of Genghis Khan, the Mongols created the largest land empire in world history, ruling 13.8 million square miles and more than 100 million people. At their height, they controlled most of China, Korea, Afghanistan , Georgia , Armenia, Russia, and Hungary, and the lands between."

>Also, are saying that those that you
>have chosen to name are the initiators
>of imperialism? If so, please provide
>some type of verifiable data to help me
>understand, I'm really intrigued by this
>subject matter...Peace

That too: "Asia, Russia, and the Middle East were either declining kingdoms, or divided city states. , the Mongols exploited this power vacuum and linked all of these areas into a mutually supporting trade network."

- and they were pretty brutal in going about it: :

1200, Northern China - Unknown number killed
1215, Yanjing China (today Beijing) - Unknown number killed
1221, Nishapur, Persia - ~1.7 million killed in assault
1221, Merv, Persia - ~1.3 million killed in assault
1221, Meru Chahjan, Persia - ~1.3 million killed in assault
1221, Rayy, Persia - ~1.6 million killed in assault
1226, Tangut Campaign - Gengis Khan launches war against the northern China people of Tangut.
1258, Baghdad - ~800,000 people. Results in destruction of Abbasid dynasty
1226-1266 (re-check dates) - ~18 million reported killed in conquest of northern Chinese territory. This number estimated by Kublai Khan himself.

- pretty nasty stuff for some non-Europeans, huh? You can look up the rest yourself if you want.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

Wow, that whole 'Rape of Nanking' thing must have been the French in SAMURAI outfits!

Warring States period of China? Just SAXON INSTIGATORS!

The Persian Empire? ACTUALLY PRE-GERMANIC OSTROGOTHS!

The Ottoman Empire? The Egyptian Empire? IN FACT ALL CONQUESTS BY ONE GROUP OVER ANOTHER, WAS IN FACT EUROPEANS IN DISGUISE.

... fuck outta here...

... until we dropped the bomb on them, and they suddenly realized that they were really pacifists.

(and yeah, I'm biting off Stephenson again...)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

YOU'VE GOT TO READ CRYPTONOMICON, GOD DAMMIT!

STOP SHAMMING!

what is it, like 800 pages or something? Man, I still need to re-read Snow Crash, I think I missed like 1/2 the stuff in there first time round, but that can wait... I'll read Cryptonomicon, don't worry. And then I'll be biting quotes off Stephenson for the rest of my life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

but no, only certain people could be capable of doing it
It's a matter of relationship with the environement ..

As most of you already know, in late 14th through late 15th centuries the kings of Spain and Portugal signed a treaty dividing the ownership of the "new (undiscovered) world" between them. This included the people, the land and all other living and non-living things.

"The Treaty of Tordesillas (signed at Tordesillas, June 7, 1494) divided the world outside of Europe in a exclusive duopoly between the Spanish and the Portuguese along a north-south meridian 370 leagues (1770 km) west of the Cape Verde Islands (off the coast of Senegal in West Africa), roughly 46° 37' W. The lands to the east would belong to Portugal and the lands to the west to Spain. The treaty was ratified by Spain, July 2, and by Portugal, September 5, 1494.
After new negotiations, the Treaty of Saragossa of April 22, 1529 decided that the line should lay 297.5 leagues west of the Moluccas. Spain got a monetary compensation in return." - http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Treaty-of-Saragossa


I think that during the Enlightenment era Europeans began to further develop the idea that the world was created for man and was to be conquered by man (the European). Thus, the idea that man would manifest it's own destiny by seeking out worlds to own conquer supported this idea of white (European) supremacy. This is the foundation for Western thought, capitalism and evolution of the human in the so-called "Great Chain", from hunter-gatherers to farmers, to the industrial and technological revolutions.

Also, I think that there was a disconnect with nature and that was what separated Europeans from so-called "primitive" peoples. The latter were seen as uncivilized because they represented all that Europeans and other Westerners had left behind. This break with nature, evolution from agriculturalist to explorer/scientist/laborer may eventually be the downfall of the planet. This is arguable, of course, because we still live on this planet and we continue to dig deeper to tap the Earth's resources and fly further in space to discover any new worlds. Western man's biggest flaw is greed and thus Western imperialism is solely responsible for the destruction of nature.

No other group of people sought to step past the boundaries of their world to take control and conquer others. Japanese and other civilizations warred but stayed within certain boundaries. Upon the arrival of the Europeans, the entire world was at the mercy of the West. The Earth is round but the explorers flatten the globe, broke it up amongst themselves, to possess and control. I do not think other cultures would have done the same.

>As most of you already know, in the late 16th and early 17th
>century the kings of Spain and Portugal signed a treaty
>dividing the ownership of the "new (undiscovered) world"
>between them. This included the people, the land and all
>other living and non-living things.

The Pope gave these kings the right in exchange with spreading the word of "God". Why do you think this was cool? Any and all non-Catholic land was at placed under the control of European imperialists. Why?

there's more to it than that.

I mean, then what about conquerors like Alexander? Xerxes? Darius? Hannibal? Read Livy's rendition of the Second Punic Wars, and you already have imperialism and pre-concieved spheres of influence - on the Roman AND Carthaginian (n. african) sides.

Imperialism and the creation of borders by mighty third-parties is not new. It's not even a particularly European concept.

Wholesale rape of the environment is a little more European - as is the demonization of nature.

I think the ways in which you expand has alot to do with the culture of the people and what means you go through to achieve your objectives. I highly doubt other people would go around plundering the world in the fashion Euros do.

Because slavery's existed since recorded history.

If you mean environmental plundering, then no, you're right; but that has to do with timing: European primacy hit overdrive around the Industrial Revolution, so...

...of human kind has a culture or a civilization decimated others in such a manner. Nothing has had such an impact as the treaties aforementioned on global affairs to date.

Every general you mentioned had a strong Western influence. For example, Hannibal Barca came up at the end of the "early replublic" or conquest of Italy. This was only after various treaties such as the Treaty of 348 BC when Carthage granted to Roman traders entry to the ports of Africa, Sardinia, Sicily...these are Western developments, during a time when the lines between the West and upper Africa began to blur or converge.

This is all still Western history and it took the Enlightenment to create the kind of exploration that would lead to the real domination (the West against the world). I think that humankind was comprised either of the people who were greedy (Westerners) and those who were so-called "primitive". The former thought they had a right to the other. Carthage and Rome/Italy (Greeks) is the foundation of the West, esp. the European "enlightenment". The premise I am writing about begins here, when man's struggle to dominate became more important that living in harmony with the Earth.

>Wholesale rape of the environment is a little more European
>- as is the demonization of nature.

Exactly but the beginnings of this can be seen early in Western history.

Ooooooooh... I don't know if I buy that. I mean, I definitely understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.

Carthage as a Western influence? Half their armies were Nubian mercenaries. They were based out of N. Africa, which would mean Kemetic and African influences on THEIR culture.

And the 'at no time else' you've mentioned- I believe there was a period called the 'Dark Ages' in Europe, the Mongol Conquests, and a few other periods that were as bad, if not worse, than today. In terms of the sheer brutality, let me put it like this: the Industrial Revolution really regimentalized Imperial policy. The cold calculating methodology of resource acquisition, capital distribution,and general fucke-upedness (Look, Ma! I invented a WORD!) might be a European invention, but even then... Confucianism put forth that everyone had their place, and if you stepped out of line, you got >ahem< bucked.

Like I said: I understand you, I just don't agree.

>Carthage as a Western influence? Half their armies were
>Nubian mercenaries.

I definately think Egypt influenced the West. There is a definate kinship between Carthage (Egypt) and Rome.

"The first form of government was therefore that of the colonizer: Mycenaean Greece first had the African model of the state, meaning the Egyptian or AMP states, with its elaborate bureaucratic apparatus; this was the period of palace royalty that was described by Homer..." - from "Civilization or Barbarism" by Cheikh Anta Diop

The rivalry between Carthage and Rome for supremacy and domination of world markets led to the destruction of entire ethnic group (Carthaginians).

>the Industrial Revolution really
>regimentalized Imperial policy. The cold calculating
>methodology of resource acquisition, capital
>distribution,and general fucke-upedness (Look, Ma! I
>invented a WORD!) might be a European invention, but even
>then...

This was just a progression of what came before, some call it evolution.

>Like I said: I understand you, I just don't agree.

That's cool.

What of Asia? India, Japan, Korea, China, the Steppe Cultures, Thailand, Siam - there is a rich history of conquest and cultural hegemony throughout the region that dosn't get factored in...

I agree that whether they believe it or not; the West is the result of an Egyptian lineage. Even the European Jesus comes off as a weird retelling of Osiris - but that's another story.

I just think it's scapegoating to blame the entire CONCEPT of Imperialism on Europe, when as a people; our only really original ideas have been scientific. I mean, culuturally, we've only exhibitied a few sparks of imagination... most of or cultural insititutions come from elsewhere.

...between Europe (pre 17th century) and other early civilizations is the scope. I think imperialism was a much more aggressive policy of "expansionism" that extended its political and economic influence around the globe. The U.S. is the current regime that is the ruling minority (descended from white anglo saxon protestant, immigrant), originally from Europe. Now it's America that has this distinction, not Europe.

By the time the European "forefathers" came to the U.S. the dominant social, political-economic interests of Europe was well underway to expropriate solely for their own benefit the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of other people.

>What of Asia? India, Japan, Korea, China, the Steppe
>Cultures, Thailand, Siam - there is a rich history of
>conquest and cultural hegemony throughout the region that
>dosn't get factored in...

None of these were as agressive and as global reaching. I guess that's where I make the distinction.

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere the Japanese had going on was definitely not that brutal. The Mongol empire wasn't the biggest in the history of the world, the Persians and Arabs didn't do the exact same shit to the Africans that the Europeans did(oh I guess its ok that they forced Islam on them and not christianity), the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans were actually just charitable organizations set to bring a better standard of living to all the peoples of central and south america, ditto on the egyptians and carthaginians regarding Africa, The ottomans? just a group of nice guys not trying to extract anything form the lands they conquered. the Hunns? just an older version of Greenpeace. you got us Nettrice. unfortunately you've got us where we always end up, covered in your bullshit. but then again your ignorance is probably just the fault of some white european somewhere along the line right? they fuck everything up.

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

hell hath frozen over

especially

"I think what I am trying to discuss is the determination of what role Europeans played in "industrial" or "super" Imperialism. This phase of civilization is what I know most about and what I think helped to destroy many of my ancestors both in Africa and the Americas until today."

get a history book, maybe a timeline, and report back to us on your findings on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

"They say big men don't cry. but they didn't say it last week — not if they watched Kobe Bryant speak publicly with a moist remorse that was almost Clintonian. "

"Eminem wants to go at Jay Z because everyone recognise Jay Z as the best in the game whether you faggots like him or not." The Source

"John Stockton, not just a great player, but one of the greatest stories of western civilization"--Bill Walton

>The Pope gave these kings the right in exchange with
>spreading the word of "God". Why do you think this was
>cool? Any and all non-Catholic land was at placed under the
>control of European imperialists. Why?

It was a power grab, unless you are hinting at something else?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

all i wanted to say was that a lot of people around here toss around the 'european' term as if people in the 14th and 15th century thought of themselves in that way. they didnt. those europeans who were out conquering were the landed elite, the aristocracy, the rich, whatever in the hell you want to call them. you think the average european of that time period was worried about conquering foreign lands? no, they were worried about makin it on their own. the only reason im sayin this is because people on these boards seem to be under the impression that every european during this time period was some racist, crackpot, bent on world domination. thats all i wanted to say. i love history. its me major.

It wasn't until way after the invention of the printing press (mass media) that poorer Europeans had a real sense of what was going on and then came all the "people's" revolutions (like France).

What has happened today is that some people are looking at some of those "non elite" people like some of the colonists and slavers who got rich off of imperialism and slavery in more recent times (17th and 18th centuries). Many of the European colonists such as the Puritans (Afrikaaners, etc.) were brutal to the native peoples in their quest to control and dominate the people who were already inhabiting the land. A lot of these folks were not wealthy and in some cases they were escaping persecution and poverty.

>all i wanted to say was that a lot of people around here
>toss around the 'european' term as if people in the 14th and
>15th century thought of themselves in that way. they didnt.

I don't agree. Why didn't the Germans rise up to stop Hitler? In general, regular folk's morale was so low and I am sure many (not all) secretely hoped that Hitler would succeed and bring the country back into the game as a world power after WWI.

>>all i wanted to say was that a lot of people around here
>>toss around the 'european' term as if people in the 14th and
>>15th century thought of themselves in that way. they didnt.
>
>I don't agree. Why didn't the Germans rise up to stop
>Hitler? In general, regular folk's morale was so low and I
>am sure many (not all) secretely hoped that Hitler would
>succeed and bring the country back into the game as a world
>power after WWI.

What does that have to do with 15th century European peasants and whether or not they had a world-view of themselves as superior "Europeans" destined to conquer the world?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>I don't agree. Why didn't the Germans rise up to stop
>Hitler? In general, regular folk's morale was so low and I
>am sure many (not all) secretely hoped that Hitler would
>succeed and bring the country back into the game as a world
>power after WWI.

so youre saying that peoples of the 14th and 15th centuries thought of themselves, collectively as europeans? whoa, i cant agree with that. if they did in fact think of themselves collectively as europeans, dont you think the turks would have been handled in a more timely fashion?

of course one of the reasons hitler rose to power was because the german people wanted to rise to the top again. after wwi, they got the shaft, big time. but i dont see how we go from 14th/15th cen to the 20th, *shrugs*.

"No other group of people sought to step past the boundaries of their world to take control and conquer others."

Read post # 13 - the Mongols spread out across the face of Eurasia and created the largest land empire in world history, conquering most of China, Korea, Afghanistan, Persia, Iraq (aka caliphate of Baghdad back in the day), Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Hungary, and all those random Central Asian countries you've either never heard of or can't spell: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, & Kyrgyzstan. And they crossed the sea and sought to conquer Japan twice, but were done in first by kamikaze typhoons and then by the samurai, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

There are plenty of other examples - the Arabs, for instance - but I like pointing out the Mongols, considering they created the largest contiguous land empire in world history and wantonly slaughtered millions of people in the process and whatnot. And I might add, the Mongols embarked on their imperial conquest across Asia and Eastern Europe almost 3 centuries before the Treaty of Tordesillas.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

... that was my point.

But I see what Nettrice is saying: the Treaty was probably the first formal, legalistic document endorsing colonial imperialism. In that regard, Europeans have a knack: justifying actions 'legally.', ie 'Jesus thinks this might be a good idea' or 'Darwin has this evolution thing on paper that kind of maybe implies Whites may be SCIENTIFICALLY better than everyone else, let's roll with that.'

yeah, the Mongols made European settlers look like gaping, spent vaginas. really.

... kinda like that joker who says that he officially staked 1st legal claim to the moon and so he legally owns it, and is selling lunar real estate with official legal title documents and whatnot... and no, this is not a joke; there is really a guy doing this - he's American, of course... (three cheers for American ingenuity!)

Or even better, you ever seen that Eddie Izzard HBO comedy special where he explains the logic used to rationalize British imperialism:

'We built an empire; we stole countries, that's how you builds an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags - just sail around the world and stick a flag in:

"I claim India for Britain!"

- and they're going "You can't claim us! We live here! There's five hundred million of us!"

..."But do you have a flag?"

- "We don't need a bloody flag, this is our country, you bastard!"

..." No flag, no country. You can't have one. That's the rules that I just made up... and I'm backing it up with this gun, that was lent to me be the National Rifle Association."'

- that dude is hilarious (and hey, by that logic, America DOES own the moon! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!)

So yeah I understand that point - my mother and I were just talking about this last week, about the proclamation from the Pope that the conquistadors took to the Americas, claiming the land and everything in it in the name of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and declaring the lives of any natives who did not accept this proclamation as forfeit. She was like, "the whole history of the church is so horrible, it's all so much bullshit - that's it, I'm officially not Catholic anymore!" ... and she was serious. Of course she hasn't been to Mass in about 10 years, so it wasn't as dramatic a gesture as it might sound, but still.

So yeah, Europeans mastered the art of rationalizing imperialism with legalistic documentation and all... but the Mongols and others didn't care about whether it had the facade of self-rationalized legality to it, they just took what they wanted and didn't give a fuck about making it sound nice and legal. So pick your poison, I guess.

>yeah, the Mongols made European settlers look like gaping,
>spent vaginas. really.

Yeah - check out the part about the Mongols' and how they used it to kick European ass... those poor crackers didn't know what hit 'em.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

BUT:

-resistance to epidemic diseases
-geographic orientation
-natural resources (namely horses, crops, and metals)

were much more important factors.

---------------------
http://sandbox.pair.com/sound/dujeous_allmcs.ram
www.beetrootnyc.com

in collaboration with the ways and means humans have obtained through culture, evolution, technology, etc.

If duckbilled platypuses had the ways and means take over the world, they undoubtedly would; it’s Darwinian instinct.


"You fasten all the triggers,
For the others to fire,
Then you sit back and watch,
As the death count gets higher"-Bob Dylan

"Maybe you'll be president,
But know right from wrong,
Or in the flood,
You'll build an Ark,
And sail us to the moon"-Thom Yorke

"I'm in heaven trying to figure out which stack they're going to stuff us atheists into,
When Peter and his monkey laugh and i laugh with them,
I'm not sure what at,
They point and say we'll keep you in the back polishing halos, baking manna and gas"-Modest Mouse

Clanic organization marks the beginning of civilization, when man ceases to no longer be just a animal. Nature was not enough, while some people choose to live in harmony with nature, others sought to master or dominate and control it. This is not by accident. I do believe that patrilineal, 'indo-aryan" people were more apt to conquer and spread out. There were many groups that organized, not for conquest, but to drive off enemies. Others developed more militaristic activities.

I do think that so-called "super imperialism" was to benefit Europe (and later the U.S.) over all others. In civilization and humanity, we are all connected but I think some have had a better time at seeking external power...global power at the expense of many people and the Earth. In general, Europeans and Asians, formerly "indo-aryan" stand out here.

But Nettrice:

'Indo-Aryans' refer to PERSIANS, as well as Indians, Dravidians, and some Mediterranean groups.

Europeans constitute a separate group, to my knowledge.

Also, Confucianism codified 'clanism' in China as 'filial piety', Japan used in their structured caste system, and India... well India's caste system still echoes to this day. And these were largely patrilineal systems, Net. Think about who wrote entire texts on conquests: Sun Tzu? The Book of Rings?

Again, I have to disagree with you. Blaming imperialism on Europeans is a cop-out. Blaming the application of Industrial Imperialism is som,ething else, entirely.

>'Indo-Aryans' refer to PERSIANS, as well as Indians,
>Dravidians, and some Mediterranean groups.

My fault. I also meant Indo-Europeans from areas near the Caspian and Black seas.

None of us were separate at the beginning. Plus, the cradle of Western thought was around the Mediterranean, from Greece (Dorians). Patriarchy became solidly established with the Indo-Europeans at the end of the "Iron Age", across Rome, Persia, India, Greece, etc. These people went from nomadic to hunter-gatherer and set off in the conquest of agricultural areas that included areas where the people were more connected to the Earth (sedentary).

>Again, I have to disagree with you. Blaming imperialism on
>Europeans is a cop-out. Blaming the application of
>Industrial Imperialism is som,ething else, entirely.

I think what I am trying to discuss is the determination of what role Europeans played in "industrial" or "super" Imperialism. This phase of civilization is what I know most about and what I think helped to destroy many of my ancestors both in Africa and the Americas until today.

Diops Two Cradle Theory of Civilization...Thumbs up

>>>>>>None of us were separate at the beginning. Plus, the cradle of Western thought was around the Mediterranean, from Greece (Dorians). Patriarchy became solidly established with the Indo-Europeans at the end of the "Iron Age", across Rome, Persia, India, Greece, etc. These people went from nomadic to hunter-gatherer and set off in the conquest of agricultural areas that included areas where the people were more connected to the Earth (sedentary).

>Diops Two Cradle Theory of Civilization...Thumbs up

More like "Civilization or Barbarism" but the same stuff, in general.

Right?

>Right?

It's very heavy in terms of info but there's a lot of truth.

On the contrary: patriarchy (which is not imperialism) was firmly established by the Bronze Age. Read up on the concept of 'oikos', early Greek Patriarchy...

...between patriarchy and imperialism, as it seemed to encourage the quest for external power...and also pre-dates the ancient Greeks.

- the notion that these native peoples lived in perfect harmony and were somehow more attuned with nature than others... it's a dangerous trap to fall into which inhibits an objective view of history.

>Clanic organization marks the beginning of civilization,
>when man ceases to no longer be just a animal.

That's different from the commonly accepted definition for the beginning of civilization, but that's besides the point...

>Nature was
>not enough, while some people choose to live in harmony with
>nature, others sought to master or dominate and control it.

What about the Polynesians of Rapa Nui, aka Easter Island? When the Polynesians arrived on the island it was densely forested and had plentiful natural resources... but by the time the first Europeans came in the 18th century, the native Polynesians had entirely wiped out the forests, driven many of the island's plants and animals to extinction, and their society had fallen into decay and chaos, decimated by tribal warfare and even devolving into cannibalism. And all this happened in the course of a few centuries. I can't think of any European society in history that was ever that self-destructive.

>This is not by accident. I do believe that patrilineal,
>'indo-aryan" people were more apt to conquer and spread out.
> There were many groups that organized, not for conquest,
>but to drive off enemies. Others developed more
>militaristic activities.

Like I said, the Mongols were as apt to conquer and spread out as any other peoples in history - not to drive off enemies, but specifically for conquest - and they were not "Indo-Aryan." Neither are the Arabs, who also spread out and conquered. And they were both patriarchial/patrilineal societies as well, so that is not unique to "Indo-Aryans" either.

>I do think that so-called "super imperialism" was to benefit
>Europe (and later the U.S.) over all others. In
>civilization and humanity, we are all connected but I think
>some have had a better time at seeking external
>power...global power at the expense of many people and the
>Earth. In general, Europeans and Asians, formerly
>"indo-aryan" stand out here.

Like Bob said, what about the Japanese and the

"The idea of Japanese cultural superiority over other Asian races had been expounded as early as the late nineteenth century... the famous Japanese educator Fukuzawa Yukichi wrote "Japan's Mission in Asia" in 1882 to support the idea of Japanese imperialism and the "manifest destiny" of Japan to be the leader of Asia... ultranationalist groups believed that the moral purity of the Yamato race and Japan's unique ancestry as descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu entitled the Japanese to such a leadership role in Asia.

Economic reasons played a large role in Japan's announcement of the Co-Prosperity Sphere in 1940. Japan required East Asian raw materials such as oil from the Dutch East Indies and rubber from Indochina in order to keep its manufacturing industry and military in China supplied... The other Asian countries in the Co-Prosperity Sphere also would provide Japan with export markets for its manufactured goods and with land for its surplus population.

...The Japanese conducted themselves with great haughtiness and disdain to the local population and imposed a program of "Japanization" on the people with little or no regard for local customs and beliefs. Many native people of these Asians countries suffered and died from forced labor, torture, and execution."

- this was "industrial" or "super" Imperialism, just as surely as with the Europeans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters." - Ghengis Khan, aka the 'Universal Ruler'

i'm pretty sure the mongols were patriarchal and matrilineal.

: Early tribal history

"Traditional society was based on blood relationship traced through the common male ancestor who gave his name to the clan, though evidence exists of a more ancient system of matrilineal descent.

Reproduced by kind permission of britannica.com"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>- the notion that these native peoples lived in perfect
>harmony and were somehow more attuned with nature than
>others...

Either you are connected to nature or you aren't. Reverence for life is not about his-story. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder but I do think that some cultures had more reverence than others.

>That's different from the commonly accepted definition for
>the beginning of civilization, but that's besides the
>point...

That is my point. I am after what is not accepted because there is some truth there, as well.

>I can't think of any European society in history
>that was ever that self-destructive.

I can but I am still at work...more later...

"Either you are connected to nature or you aren't" is overly simplistic - yes some cultures had more reverence than others, but it is alot more complicated that either/or and saying that non-Europeans were connected to nature and Europeans weren't - the Polynesians of Easter Island speak to that point.

>That is my point. I am after what is not accepted because
>there is some truth there, as well.

If you want to make up your own definition of civilization that's fine for you, just don't expect anyone else to buy it.

>I can but I am still at work...more later...

Okay, but I doubt it... remember, the operative word is *self* destuctive - destroying other societies is irrelevant in this case, unless it destroyed their own society in the process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

tell them that it's their nature
why, why
do they do it that way?

Just read this whole discussion. This isn't a topic I've read much on, can anybody give me a recomendation of books discussing this idea, other than guns germs and steel, I got that.

This thread also piqued my interest in seeking books that would enlighten me on this particular subject that I know little about.

>Just read this whole discussion. This isn't a topic I've
>read much on, can anybody give me a recomendation of books
>discussing this idea, other than guns germs and steel, I got
>that.

"Civilization or Barbarism?" by Cheikh Anta Diop
"Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn
"How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" by Walter Rodney
"Culture and Imperialism" by Edward Said

Some movies to see:
"Shogun"
"The Mission"

Thanks much.

good mini-series, but it wasn't about European imperialism. 'The Mission' is a good one on the topic; also '1492: Conquest of Paradise' - it's kinda uneven as a movie, but it presents a good depiction of the destructive effects of European imperialism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

>good mini-series, but it wasn't about European imperialism.

There was a long scene when Blackburn had to explain to the Lord Tanaka (sp?) how a treaty was signed that gave the Spanish and Portuguese rights to Japanese lands, condoned by the Catholic church. The entire movie was about imperialism, as the movie implied the corrupt underpinnings of the Catholic Church who was in cahoots with Portuguese merchants making a killing off of importing and exporting (for their own profits).

>'The Mission' is a good one on the topic; also '1492:
>Conquest of Paradise' - it's kinda uneven as a movie, but it
>presents a good depiction of the destructive effects of
>European imperialism.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not
>stand, man." - The Dude

Okay, I haven't seen it since I was a kid so I don't remember that part. But saying that the entire movie was about imperialism is quite a stretch.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude

He who controls the food controls the massess....actually began in Mesopotamia (Iraq) close to 10M years ago.

SB


"we missed a lot of church so the music is our confessional"
BB

in africa, asia, and the americas from the roman times to today.

and i do believe that it is a belief that certain individuals follow in order to become imperialists. i don't want to say it's human nature because we put so many of the worst aspects of life on human nature as if we separate godly nature from human nature.

when in my mind, human nature is positive and negative.

every society that lives immorally makes a conscious decision to do so.