Why is it that white people developed so much cargo?

[liberty]

Episode One : Out of Eden

Episide One | Transcript
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A tropical rainforest in Papua New Guinea

Jared Diamond’s journey of discovery began on the island of Papua New Guinea. There, in 1974, a local named Yali asked Diamond a deceptively simple question:“Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo, but we black people had little cargo of our own?”

Diamond realized that Yali’s question penetrated the heart of a great mystery of human history -- the roots of global inequality.

Why were Europeans the ones with all the cargo? Why had they taken over so much of the world, instead of the native people of New Guinea? How did Europeans end up with what Diamond terms the agents of conquest: guns, germs and steel? It was these agents of conquest that allowed 168 Spanish conquistadors to defeat an Imperial Inca army of 80,000 in 1532, and set a pattern of European conquest which would continue right up to the present day.

Diamond knew that the answer had little to do with ingenuity or individual skill. From his own experience in the jungles of New Guinea, he had observed that native hunter-gatherers were just as intelligent as people of European descent -- and far more resourceful. Their lives were tough, and it seemed a terrible paradox of history that these extraordinary people should be the conquered, and not the conquerors.

To examine the reasons for European success, Jared realized he had to peel back the layers of history and begin his search at a time of equality – a time when all the peoples of the world lived in exactly the same way.

Time of Equality

At the end of the last Ice Age, around thirteen thousand years ago, people on all continents followed a so-called Stone Age way of life – they survived by hunting and gathering the available wild animals and plants. When resources were plentiful, this was a productive way of life.

But in times of scarcity, hunting and gathering was a precarious mode of survival. Populations remained relatively small, and the simple task of finding food occupied every waking moment.

Around eleven and a half thousand years ago, the world's climate suddenly changed. In an aftershock of the Ice Age, temperatures plummeted and global rainfall reduced. The impact of this catastrophe was felt most keenly in an area known as the Fertile Crescent, in the modern Middle East. Here, hunter-gathers had thrived on some of the most useful and plentiful flora and fauna in the world. They had even developed semi-permanent settlements to exploit the resources around them.

Now, with their food options disappearing from the menu on a daily basis, these people did something remarkable. They began to cultivate the hardiest species of surviving plants and animals, even bringing seeds back to their villages and planting new stock.

They were becoming farmers.

An Agricultural Revolution



Development of early farming in the Fertile Crescent

Diamond learns that the act of transplanting a wild plant and placing it under human control totally transforms that plant's DNA. Characteristics which aid survival in the wild, disappear in favor of qualities which suit human consumption. The plant becomes domesticated – and wholly dependent on human control for survival.

Only a handful of places in the world played host to this agricultural revolution. In most cases, plant domestication was a precursor to the development of advanced civilizations. Along with the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East, independent domestication of wild plants is believed to have occurred in Ancient China, in Central and Southern America, in sub-Tropical Africa, and in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.

So, Diamond asks, why did each of these parts of the world go on to develop advanced civilizations, while the farmers of New Guinea were apparently left behind?

The luck of the draw

Diamond discovers that the answer lies in a geographical luck of the draw – what mattered were the raw materials themselves.

Of all the plant species in the world, only a limited number are possible, or useful, to domesticate. To Diamond's astonishment, most of these species are native to Europe and Asia – species like wheat, barley and rice, which grew wild in abundance in only these parts of the world.

Two more species are native to Tropical Africa (sorghum and yams) while only one is native to the Americas (corn), and to Papua New Guinea (taro). Not a single domesticable plant grows wild in Australia.



12 of the 14 domesticable animals in the world reside in Eurasia

And that's not all. Diamond discovers a similar dramatic inequality in the distribution of domesticable animals.

Animals dramatically increase the productivity of farming, through their meat, milk, leather, dung, and as beasts of burden. Without them, farmers are trapped in a cycle of subsistence and manual labor.

Of all the animal species in the world, only 14 have ever been domesticated. 12 of these are native to Eurasia. One, the llama, is native to South America – and the farmers of New Guinea managed to domesticate the pig. But pigs can't pull plows, and until the arrival of Europeans in the 20th century, all New Guinean farming was still done by hand.

From tools to cities

Diamond realized that the development of successful and productive farming, starting nearly 12,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, was the critical turning point in the origins of global inequality. From this point on, one group of people – the natives of Eurasia – would have a head start on the path to civilization.

Successful farming provides a food surplus, and allows some people to leave the farm behind and develop specialized skills – such as metal-working, writing, trade, politics, and war-making. Plus, the simple geography of the continent of Eurasia – one coherent landmass spread on an east-west axis, with universal latitudes and climates – allowed these technologies and ideas to spread beyond the Middle East with ease.

Without the environment, or the time, to develop similar skills, the farmers of New Guinea became trapped in their highland isolation.

Diamond concludes that from the end of the Ice Age, geography ensured that different societies around the world would develop at different speeds. If Yali's people had had all the geographic advantages of Europeans, perhaps they could have conquered the world.

Epilogue

Diamond believes the blueprint for global inequality lies within the land itself, its crops and animals. But can this way of seeing the world really shed light on the great turning points of human history?

Can Jared Diamond explain how a few hundred Europeans were able to conquer the New World, and begin an age of domination: the age of guns, germs and steel?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where to next?

Read the full transcript of Episode One.

[dales]

From Wiki:

Cargo cult


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cargo cult is a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional pre-industrial tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. The cults focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture through magic and religious rituals and practices. Cult members believe that the wealth was intended for them by their deities and ancestors. Cargo cults developed primarily in remote parts of New Guinea and other Melanesian and Micronesian societies in the southwest Pacific Ocean, beginning with the first significant arrivals of Westerners in the 19th century. Similar behaviors have, however, also appeared elsewhere in the world.

Cargo cult activity in the Pacific region increased significantly during and immediately after World War II, when the residents of these regions observed the Japanese and American combatants bringing in large amounts of material. When the war ended, the military bases closed and the flow of goods and materials ceased. In an attempt to attract further deliveries of goods, followers of the cults engaged in ritualistic practices such as building crude imitation landing strips, aircraft and radio equipment, and mimicking the behavior that they had observed of the military personnel operating them.

Over the last sixty-five years, most cargo cults have disappeared. However, some cargo cults are still active including:
The John Frum cult on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
The Tom Navy cult on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
The Prince Philip Movement on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
Yali's cargo cult on Papua New Guinea (Madang-region)
The Paliau movement on Papua New Guinea (Manus island)
The Peli association on Papua New Guinea
The Pomio Kivung on Papua New Guinea [1][2]


<snip>

[Scooter]

Do cargo cult members wear cargo pants?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I recently waded through GG&S and thought it could have been half the length and twice as good. Very thought provoking in terms of the geographical distribution of domesticable animals and the effect upon agriculture as well as the ability to wage war. He does tend to say the same thing over and again to bulk up the material - likes that "view" count I guess.

"Why The West Rules (for now)" by Ian Morris is very helpfully read in conjunction with GG&S in its theme question - why is it that Europeans sailed up Chinese rivers pointing guns and not the other way around? Western 'dominance' arose from, among other factors, the ability to exploit the fertile crescent leading to the existence of city-states but Chinese development was often in advance and yet never (until now perhaps) established a clear advantage over the west.

Whatever the theory/fact, there is clearly a disadvantage that accrues to land masses interrupted by the Equator and the Tropics. Successful integration of new technology (and travel and agriculture) operates in an east/west transfer window rather than north/south. Thus southern Africa benefitted little from developments of agriculture, animal husbandry and thought in north Africa/middle East because of the climatic barrier. Diamond points to horses as an animal of multiple uses which was exploited in the north and west Europe for centuries but were unknown in southern Africa until brought there by ship. Contrarily, horses could travel east/west by land and therefore were developed more fully much earlier in both farming, war and providing transport for goods. They could not spread south through the equatorial areas and indeed had no agricultural advantage for the kind of limited farming that took place near those areas, dominated by hunter/gathering societies. (Zebras are thoroughly and completely undomesticable - even today; the occasional 'tamed' one notwithstanding).

These two books should be compulsory reading for anyone who thinks that 'the West' has 'civilization' because it is inhabited by white people. Both writers demonstrate the falsehood of that belief, more especially Ian Morris.

Meade

[Econoline]

I'll have to check out the Morris book. I have read GG&S and found it both very readable and very persuasive.

P.S. When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was probably going to be about obesity.

[dgs49]

What about climate?

In the temperate zones, especially during the last Ice Age, survival requires not only the ability to hunt and gather, but also to protect oneself from the elements. This requires creation of shelters, better clothing, food preservation, better hunting weapons and other tools, and so forth. In the tropic zones, nature generally provides natural bounty that allows a hunter-gatherer society to survive simply by being nomadic.

Was this addressed in the books?

[MajGenl.Meade]

From my recollection it is. But climate is a factor rather than a cause just as is geography. The presence or absence of wild seeds that can be domesticated is of greater significance - wheat, corn, rice, maize. Climate in South Africa is ideal for many crops - particularly corn (mealies) and sunflowers - but these had to be introduced. The equivalent African staple is/was gourds which hunter-gatherers such as the San and Koi peoples (and other tribes closer to the Equator) cultivated but are not a "mass" crop suitable for sustaining large populations and export/trade IIRC.

I think it's generally true-ish that Africa/South America/South-east Asia contained a lot more things that killed people (other than Europeans of course) - animals, insects, reptiles. One would think that the impetus for better hunting weapons existed in those places more so than in the Middle East. The Koi-San of course were displaced by the Banthu expansion which brought cattle (AD 600 or so) to Southern Africa, a breed derived from hybrids of native and Indian animals in the Ethiopian region. But in terms of time that is so recent - the Xhosa, Zulu and Basotho peoples began the process of agricultural development that would have lead to industry eventually (as it did elsewhere), but that was pre-empted by the European introduction of technologies which the native peoples could not appropriate into their own culture. That of course is now happening - it's the kind of jump-start that Asia/Europe experienced many times over thousands of years.

Fear, greed and selfishness - the big drivers.

Meade

[liberty]

It was not just the Europeans that were blessed by the Eurasian landmass. All the people of Eurasia were in a similar favorable position as compared to peoples on other continents. For example take the horse and later the donkey; both animals’ modern people of the West have difficulty understanding the usefulness of unless they ever tried to pull a heavy load by hand. Domestication of the horse started on the plains of central Asia or Eastern Europe and spread all over the landmass even into North Africa which is more a kin to Asia and Europe than Africa south of the Sahara. This exchange of ideas and foods and technologies gave Eurasians a great advantage over other peoples of the world.

And by the way General if modern geographer were describing the world, Europe and Asia would be classified as one continent.

[MajGenl.Meade]

why is it that Europeans sailed up Chinese rivers pointing guns and not the other way around? Western 'dominance' arose from, among other factors, the ability to exploit the fertile crescent leading to the existence of city-states but Chinese development was often in advance

Thus southern Africa benefitted little from developments of agriculture, animal husbandry and thought in north Africa/middle East

a breed derived from hybrids of native and Indiananimals in the Ethiopian region

it's the kind of jump-start that Asia/Europe experienced many times over thousands of years.

Thanks bru. I think I got it. People today in many places (Europe and elsewhere) may not appreciate the value of horses or a good ass but way back they certainly did. You are quite right IMO about the affinity of North Africa with Europe/Middle East (which by the way is referred to as east Asia by both writers I believe) - it amuses me here when southern Africans bang on about Egypt, Tunisia etc as being "fellow Africans" when (except for public relations efforts when it suits them) the north Africans consider themselves in a very, very different category to "fellow".


Meade

[rubato]

The new world produced corn potatos chiles squash peanuts cocoa quinoa And pineapples.

A lot more than just corn


Ov

[dales]

Coffee, anyone?

[MajGenl.Meade]

The new world produced corn potatos chiles squash peanuts cocoa quinoa And pineapples.

A lot more than just corn

Ov

Very true but the discussion was about southern Africa - unless I missed something about da new woild? That's possible

Meade

[rubato]

Try reading the orig post

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah thank yew!

[BoSoxGal]

Perhaps white people are just more emotionally repressed, thus the extra baggage?

[dgs49]

Perhaps the authors are simply grasping for some way to diminish the incredible dominance of European culture, technology, and industry (industriousness), by ascribing it to serendipity. Kinda like how the British ruled the seas and spread their culture around the world for centuries just because they had the good fortune to live on an island.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Perhaps the authors are simply grasping for some way to diminish the incredible dominance of European culture, technology, and industry (industriousness), by ascribing it to serendipity. Kinda like how the British ruled the seas and spread their culture around the world for centuries just because they had the good fortune to live on an island.

Must ... ...... ... uh....... read.... ... .. a....... uh boo...... k

[Scooter]

Kinda like how the British ruled the seas and spread their culture around the world for centuries just because they had the good fortune to live on an island.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but the likelihood that Switerland, Afghanistan or Nepal would have ever had the chance to become sea powers is exceedingly remote.

[rubato]

Perhaps the authors are simply grasping for some way to diminish the incredible dominance of European culture, technology, and industry (industriousness), by ascribing it to serendipity. Kinda like how the British ruled the seas and spread their culture around the world for centuries just because they had the good fortune to live on an island.

Jared diamond is a well-known and regarded author. You really ought to try reading.

Yea
Rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Kinda like how the British ruled the seas and spread their culture around the world for centuries just because they had the good fortune to live on an island.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but the likelihood that Switerland, Afghanistan or Nepal would have ever had the chance to become sea powers is exceedingly remote.

Scooter, I think he was being sarcastic. His faeces is that the British created an Empire by 'virtue' of being white people.

He thinks that the books (obviously not read, as rubato points out) are trying to soften the "whites rule" rationale by promoting other causes such as "Britain succeeded because it was an island and was forced to build a navy - not because the people were Caucasian".

The fallacy of cause and effect is a two-edged sword

Meade