kindgom = kind bear

The catholic church actually protected the native americans from the spanish and portuguese, but they didn't gave the same protection to niggers, jews or muslims.

TIL I learned! Thanks Bernd

the spaniards and portugese were in fact the ones who protected jews and nigguts by sending them to America

That’s true when talking about Bartolomé de Las Casas and redoubts, but on most cases the church supported or at least did not reported the abuses of the crown against the indios. The Viceroyalty of Peru had several census which includes racial information, and indios were on a population decline (on the way of disappearing tbh because of Spanish mit’a, general abuses, famine, poverty and general poor living conditions) until the start of the Independence. Also I do not believe in La Leyenda Negra but data are hard facts.

 

I don’t think they had authorization to do that, I think they either falsified documents or were smuggled to America. There is also rumours that many Poortuguese merchants were actually Jews, but then again, the crowns of Spain and Portugal were extremely antisemite so I doubt they would have given authorization to trade if they knew they were Jews, even execute them if discovered.

okay

 

Fuck off to reddit or some shit site like that

catholic church forbade enslavement so tricky merchant figured out the way around it and buying people who are already slaves

The racist poltards would always point out that the tribesmen were enslaved by other black people, which is true: it was much more widespread than literal white "manhunters" pillaging the African villages. However, if you look into the causality of these events, you can't deny that it was the wypipo who encouraged the black kangz to enslave their misfortunate neighbours on "industrial" scale.

Slavery is bad no matter how you look on it, it took about 1500 years of industrialization away from human history, we could've been traversing the stars by AD 1500 or 500, but it took us the black plague to takeoff at last.

Tbh slavery itself was a survival techique of first civilisations, without it humanity could have gone extinct by AD 500. Doesn't make it any better or justified though.

What? How?

Noone ever talks about Sahelian, especially Eastern Sahelian (Chadian, Sudanese) Muslim slave trade, Kanem, Darfur, etc...

the difference is that slavery in antiquity was necessary for the circumstances of production but slavery in the industrial era was unprofitable in the long run and even worse in times of peace since there is not as much human traffic as in ancient times due to wars, then they had the retarded idea of bringing them from Africa

it's just not retarded is unprofitable, poltards will do a thousand metaphysical juggling tricks to deny this and justify their racism

You don't need development when your production scale and speed is based solely on amount of workers available to process the raw resources (whose amount is also dictated just by the number of workers) and not much else.

That's a subject to discussion, one might argue it's the abundance of slaves that kept the otherwise technologically prepared Romans from making a step further, especially given that they needed industrial scale of production.

Well, what gave the conditions for the Industrial Revolution to develop on England was the Agrarian Revolution that happened there because of their Carta Magna and the Agrarian and Land reforms the English Crown had done because of it’s own reasons. There were very specific conditions, so I highly doubt it would had happened (the Industrial Revolution) in the Roman Empire, leaving the slave issue aside.

Romans didn't have any coal deposits which kinda renders Industrial Revolution impossible. And the soil was fertile enough to keep irrigation systems simple (up to the centuries when climate changed, but the Empire was already on its decline then)

Methinks you're ignoring the impact of Poor Laws. Since the 16th century, it was essentially illegal to be poor in England, and everyone found homeless or unemployed was rounded up and put into an institution where they would perform forced labour. In this way, British state was able to do planned economy long before anyone else; and it is this aspect of being able to put workforce to perform manufacturing tasks at demand, not development of agricultural surplus (parallelled elsewhere in Europe too), which kickstarted the Industrial Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse

It’s everything I said plus what you said and also this >>268484

 

The Agrarian Revolution is extremely important because of the creation of new machines and tools which required a bigger metallurgic industry which also required more mining and so on. It’s a mix or several factors.

The Agrarian Revolution spread to England from Netherlands, and the Dutch agricultural output rose faster than England's. Wallonia also holds vast coal deposits. And Rhineland, also a major coal bearing region, was not lagging behind either.

It is just the presence of a central state and a sizeable supply of forced labour that sets England apart.

Am I get this right? Do you argue that a society needs pressure from scarcity (eg. scarcity of food) to make technological/scientific advances?

Is that even a question? We could have all continue living as monke if not for the pressure

Yeah, but in practice, a lot of progress happened not because of scarcity of resources, but simply because of scarcity of pussy.

Men would do great things just to get laid. Sometimes, technological/scientific advances are a side effect.

It's a contradiction what you wrote.

If scarcity leads to progress then why Neanderthals did not land on the Moon? They should have just continue what they did - struggling for make a living - and could have discover singularity way before Rome existed, no?!

 

"Advances" happen just about any time, but real leaps and wonders are created when:

1. there is abundance

2. the society have a mindset that rewards thinking, initiative, inventions, etc.

The "cave man" come up with quite important and ingenious things, for example - the often overlooked - leather tanning was quite a feat on his behalf.

But writing, mathematics, astronomy (astrology), literature, etc was created when the society produced more than subsistence, and there weren't need for the work of a considerable amount of people, they could do nothing else all day just munch the food peasants provided, observe the world and think about it. Sumer, Egypt, India, China, they all were these.

I flip open Wikipedia at "Steam Engine". I see names: Beaumont, Savery, Newcomen, Watt. Were these serfs, or at least hunger gatherers? No. Neither of them had to be busy by providing himself to barely stay alive.

I see England mentioned, rightfully so, but I see missing one part. In England after they killed off her nobility in the War of Roses a new gentry emerged with an entrepreneurial mindset, and a new zeitgeist formed which rewarded those who had the courage to take initiative.

Rome had abundance, but they never had similar mindset. Not in the useless pleb, and not in the even more useless patricians, not in their zeitgeist. If they had a millennia more they wouldn't have invented anything.

 

I think you guys mistake competition with scarcity. Cold War produced much in technological advancement. But it's a time of abundance. Both US and SU produced way more than subsistence.

Both Incas and Egyptians had that.

Ask your (grand)parents about standards of living in Hungary while its economy was controlled by Soviets... And the US struggled with a lot of things as well, just less noticeable.

Scarcity is not enough (so there's no Neanderthals on Moon) but it is required, otherwise any breakthrough you make won't be implemented in practice. Steam engine invention did not change the world, steam engine adoption did.

Sure, but they didn't have required technology.

Side note, China also had industrial production since late Song period already, yet it was lacking mathematical knowledge that prevented them from fully capitalizing on it by developing automatization.

It’s don’t. I don’t understand why are you trying to mínimize the importante of it. It’s true that central planning and a lot to do (enclosure, new poor laws, building of arteries of commerce such as waterways and roads, etc.) but there are many fundamental points that were obtained thanks to the Agricultural Revolution:

 

- population peak that later was freed to use as industrial workforce

- rise of productivity of the agriculture which also helped the beforementioned point

- farming started being a business rather than a subsistance activity which also gave a boom to markets and banks and it helped establish Capitalism itself inside England

- the fact that farming was a business was taken advantage of by these entrepreneurs the hung aryan mentioned for investing into it, creating new technologies and entrepreneurships not only for agriculture itself but also for the different chain of productions involved directly or in directly such as mining, metallurgic, commerce and transport infrastructure, tools, machinery, etc.

 

I don’t say it was the only reason but it laid solid foundations for the Industrial Revolution to happen

The communism was a classic case of mismanagement based on authoritarianism, ideological dogmatism, and corruption.

I see you acknowledge that the SU sucked. We can use this as a premise.

You also seem to argue that more suck results in greater progress. This will be our other premise.

Based on these the question arise:

Do you argue, that the US came out of the Cold War as the winning side because it sucked more than the SU? Would the SU won instead, if it have sucked even more?

My argument works. The US won because they could create greater abundance. They used the abundance to encourage innovation (and less authoritarianism and ideological dogmatism did was in the way as obstacles for the innovators) and with innovation they created more abundance.

Also consider: brain drain works because the promise of the greater abundance attract the cream of the less prosperous countries.

 

Sidenotes:

The interwar starvation (Holodomor and co.) in the Soviet Union was generated artificially. It wasn't because they couldn't feed the population.

Hungary did not reach starvation at the early '50s because the country couldn't feed itself, but for the forced industrialization, and the mandatory surrendering of agricultural products (which were sent to the SU, and squandered in the creation of heavy industry).

Btw neither starving group of people have not came up with revolutionary ideas. Well actually Hungarians did...

While for large masses the standard of living was relatively low in the Soviet Union, but they produced way more, and could support great amount of scientists and researchers. They could create a large military, huge bureaucracy. They had many teachers and doctors. All these people did not have to do work which produced agricultural or industrial goods.

FUCK ANDEANS

Not really. I argue that no suck results in no progress. Can you see no difference?

Indeed. So the progress creates abundance (and that's its purpose) and not vice versa.

If A results in B it doesn't mean no A leads to no B, that's the logic basics.

Great, the retard is back. Do you want to get bullied and flee again?

I think Incas were on par with Romans and the fact they weren't given another 500 years of development is one of the biggest tragedies in history.

 

Change my mind.

They were not. It’s like comparing a Bronze Age civilization with an Antiquity civilization. They had many points in common like efficient system of roads, huge manpower, slaves and war slaves, efficient bureaucracy, efficient trade, polytheistic pantheon that added the gods of the conquered people, adding and improving the technology of conquered people, mission to civilize lesser people, culture of discipline, honour and war, etc. but you can’t compare the levels of technological achievements and development.

 

I’m not the Peruvian you are responding to btw, that’s a retard larper that always repeat the same things like a parrot.

as >>268712 said

I'd rather compare them with Achaemenids

Was their weird "writing" system enought for efficient bureaucracy and why do you think they never came up with actual writing??

Also are modern Andeans as much of direct descendants of Incas Inca noobs like me would think??

Such an interesting civilization with beautiful arts unlike the piss ugly mayas and aztecs tbh

But Mayas and Aztecs at least had writing systems, while Incas had none and that's a scientific fact. Stoneworks is the only thing they were good at tbh

Quipus were probably an accounting/numerical system, although some authors believe they may have worded content.

 

 

Such an ignorant statement! You should stop making bold claims that signal your obvious lack of knowledge.