this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
227 points (100.0% liked)

History Memes

2808 readers
740 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

  5. History referenced must be 20+ years old.

  6. Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

No shade on you, but I don't subscribe to your historical framework. I'm reminded of the old Carl Sagan joke: "to bake a pie, you must first invent the universe". Yes, it's true that events 4 billion years ago can be said to have an effect on matters today through an unbroken chain of causality, but that's generally not a useful answer to the question being asked. For example, you could answer questions about the moon landing by explaining a hypothetical planet might have collided with the proto-Earth at the dawn of the solar system. However, the asker is probably going to be a little peeved at that response, necessary pre-requisite or not. That being said, I think you and I are on the same page about that framework's use as a tool for general historical inquiry, so I'll not belabor the point.

My core issue is that he preempts his own thesis by focusing on these geographical factors. Bear in mind, the question he is setting out to answer is 'Why did European societies dominate the globe?', not How they did it. To illustrate, I'm fine with his argument about Europe's coal and iron reserves being easily accessible leading to a military competive advantage. However, demonstrating that a culture has the capacity to conquer does not, to me, answer why a society conquers.

To pick a single point out of a cloud of factors, I think a FAR more direct cause of colonialism was the economic theory of mercantilism which was all the rage in Europe in the 15th-17th centuries. In a nutshell, mercantilism said successful economies are based on reducing imports, maximizing exports, and hoarding precious metals. What do you do if you're a European nation which has largely tapped out its local market capacities? You find new markets. Hmm, but your neighbors all enjoy a similar level of technology as you, and, frankly, their local markets largely have the same shit yours do. What's this? A vast, undiscovered country to the west, full of novel goods and legends of golden cities? Well, buckle up, buttercups, we're going on a little adventure! Say, Jeeves, who are all these people? They say they live here? Well...do they have a flag?

That explanation ("if I do this I'll be rich") is far more credible for the whys of colonialism than Diamond's conclusions, even if I acknowledge that the factors he listed indirectly contributed to the end result.

I have to reiterate, though, just a schmuck in the internet, no expert claim is intended.