European colonization of the world

[Lik3]

From what I have read, much of Europe was poor during the Middle Ages up until the Renaissance. How did the Europeans (and also the Arabs) manage to conquer most of the world and mistreat other people during colonization?

Why didn't the Native Americans, black Africans, or say, the Japanese colonize the world? Why did it have to be the Europeans? Why did white supremacy exist instead of other forms of racial superiority? I know that people have been colonizing the known world ever since time began, but I have wondered this since it is interesting that a few countries within a few hundred years manage to conquer the known and unknown (at the time) world.

It wasn't until later that the Ethiopians were conquered largely by the Italians. How did the Europeans manage to colonize the world; nowadays there are many who speak a European (or Arabic) language? Did European (and Arabic) colonization produce anything positive? How did much of Europe manage to become more advance in terms of technology?

 

[Chesterton]

I don't know. I'm just glad the Aztecs didn't build big ships and conquer Europe.

 

[Isiaih]

European advances particularly in technology outpaced much of the rest of the world and naturally many countries expanded. Many less advanced civilizations were pushed aside or simply steam rolled over, thus was the march of economic and technological progress that marked this period of world history. Cruel yes, but cruelty was an everyday part of life for many of the countries invaded anyway. The world was a cruel place. You either expanded your domain or another domain expanded into yours.

There was no concept of working or middle class back then. Europe was feudal which meant that the royals, aristocracy and merchant class were incredibly rich and had access to the means and manpower to make massive undertakings such as colonization of another land possible. In fact having tens of thousands of uneducated poor people made it easier for the rich and powerful to organise large armies.

Propaganda was used to convince the peasant soldiers that they were killing savages rather than people. Propaganda has always been used by those in power to make otherwise good people do bad things to other people. However the propaganda was fickle depending on who your allies were.

The Europeans did not conquer because they were white supremacists, this is a relatively modern concept. They conquered because they had the power, the means and the need. If telling the peasants that they were killing ungodly savages made it easier to get them to do it, then those in power were more than willing to propagate this myth.

When people start looking at foreign people as God created humans, then it becomes more difficult for the government to convince them to go to war with those people.
To quote the bible - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

As for positive things to come out of colonization ? Well this is like the old Monty Python joke " What have the Romans done for us?". I for one enjoy living in a modern technologically advanced society where I am free to worship and speak as I choose.

God works in mysterious ways and the powers of this world are set in place by God (Romans 13:1), sometimes nations must rise and fall in order to ensure certain future events occur. Remember that the events of the world are working towards the prophecies of the bible and preparing for the return of our Lord and King Jesus Christ.

 

[The Lone Ranger]

You mean the Roman Empire. Daniel's vision in Bible prophecy, Daniel 7. It has very little to do with skin color, but rather the Bible/Jehova's plan.

 

[HarvestTheFields]

I took a class in college about westernization, and a part of the course had to do with the reasoning for why Europe ended up colonizing.

Most developed civilizations sprouted near river valleys. These areas often innovated agriculture, which put an end to prior hunter/gatherer societies. Most American cultures did not integrate agriculture into their lifestyles, and the ones that did most likely started farming thousands of years after nations in the old world. Without transitioning from hunting to farming, the chances of colonization are nill. People in Eurasia could share ideas with each other, while the people in the Americas, Oceania, and Southern Africa were essential cut off.

China did make a slight effort to explore the world. Ming had a number of voyages that abruptly ended. China essentially explored the wrong way. They mainly sailed west. Japan was not unified for most of the last millennium, and colonization requires a wealthy unified nation. However, Japan, Korea, and debatably China, were too advanced and powerful to be colonized by European powers. The same could be said for much of the middle east (eg. Persia). For most of history, the Chinese did see themselves as racially superior to foreign peoples. Ethnocentrism was almost universal throughout history.

Another thing to consider is geography. The Americas are considerably closer to Europe than they are to Asia. In my opinion, geography does have a substantial impact technology, culture, and even religions. Eurasian diseases put a huge dent on native powers the during the colonial periods. The effect of these illnesses can not be understated.

If Europe had not colonized much of the world, it is likely that the number of Christians in the world would be far lower. This might be something to consider. If China had colonized the Americas, it is possible that they could have been powerful and wealthy enough to conquer the world (barring major rebellions and independence movements). This is interesting to think about.

Globalization is most a result of technological advances, and it causes certain languages to become more universal. In order for effective multinational business to take place, there has to be a number of congruent cultural factors that allow for smooth negotiation.

I would argue that European colonization did have its positives. North and South America, along with Australia, are relatively rich in comparison to most of the world. South America may not be rich, but they are definitely ahead of Africa, Southeast Asia, and even Eastern Europe in terms of economic development. The British passed on their scientific strengths to their colonies, and as a result, worldwide technologies have bloomed much more than it could have.

Europe was quite a bit more advanced than the rest of the world by the end of the industrial revolution. But it did not take countries like Japan long to modernize during the Meiji Restoration. Again, the Europeans were not so far ahead that a country like Portugal could conquer all of China. Colonization was not quite as fast as many people think it was. Places like Cuba were colonized roughly 500 years before countries like Ethiopia (their capture was very brief). Comparatively, the Mongolians conquered everything from Korea to Poland to modern Palestine in about 100 years in the 1200s.

 

[ScottA]

From what I have read, much of Europe was poor during the Middle Ages up until the Renaissance. How did the Europeans (and also the Arabs) manage to conquer most of the world and mistreat other people during colonization?

Why didn't the Native Americans, black Africans, or say, the Japanese colonize the world? Why did it have to be the Europeans? Why did white supremacy exist instead of other forms of racial superiority? I know that people have been colonizing the known world ever since time began, but I have wondered this since it is interesting that a few countries within a few hundred years manage to conquer the known and unknown (at the time) world.

It wasn't until later that the Ethiopians were conquered largely by the Italians. How did the Europeans manage to colonize the world; nowadays there are many who speak a European (or Arabic) language? Did European (and Arabic) colonization produce anything positive? How did much of Europe manage to become more advance in terms of technology?

Everywhere in nature, power begets power...by design.

 

[Isiaih]

"South America may not be rich, but they are definitely ahead of Africa, Southeast Asia, and even Eastern Europe in terms of economic development."

I agree with just about everything you said HarvestTheFields, however the above statement is a little incorrect. Eastern Europe is way ahead of South America in economic development. I would go one further and add technological development.

 

[HarvestTheFields]

"South America may not be rich, but they are definitely ahead of Africa, Southeast Asia, and even Eastern Europe in terms of economic development."

I agree with just about everything you said HarvestTheFields, however the above statement is a little incorrect. Eastern Europe is way ahead of South America in economic development. I would go one further and add technological development.

Actually, yeah, you're right. It's probably pretty to see the differences in development between a countries like Poland and Bolivia.

But it's great that both areas have improved so much in the last 50 years or so.

 

[JackRT]

Almost all of the questions raised in the OP are well answered in the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It all boils down to geographic anthropology.

 

[Isiaih]

Actually, yeah, you're right. It's probably pretty to see the differences in development between a countries like Poland and Bolivia.

But it's great that both areas have improved so much in the last 50 years or so.

I agree, in particular much of Eastern Europe and Russia's return to Christianity after the fall of the athiest soviet union is encouraging. For a long time Religion was illegal in the USSR, but people still practised in secret. Nowadays it's completely acceptable to be Christian. I say this as much of Western Europe becomes more and more secular and even atheist.

 

[HarvestTheFields]

I agree, in particular much of Eastern Europe and Russia's return to Christianity after the fall of the athiest soviet union is encouraging. For a long time Religion was illegal in the USSR, but people still practised in secret. Nowadays it's completely acceptable to be Christian. I say this as much of Western Europe becomes more and more secular and even atheist.

Yeah, it's great to see Christianity doing well there nowadays. It kind of reminds me of the growth of Christianity in China. By 2030, China might pass the USA in terms of churchgoers. Just like in Roman times, recently suppressed believers seemed to do very well.

Do you think Eastern Orthodox practices/beliefs are effective at avoiding secularization? Most orthodox countries seem to be doing pretty well. Greece, Serbia, Russia, etc. are all quite religious.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Almost all of the questions raised in the OP are well answered in the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It all boils down to geographic anthropology.

Mr Diamond's book is a good starting point and he makes good points, but what he says would be equally applicable to any point on the Europe-Asia axis. The point is why Europe came out on top and not Asia or the mid-east. He makes an attempt based on rivers and geographic divisions, but this is simplistic. Another book which seeks to answer the question is Niall Ferguson's Civilization: the West and the rest.
There are multiple reasons which all worked together to bring in Western hegemony. This is geography, culture, intelectual mileau, climate fluctuations, competition etc. Any attempt to pinpoint just a few causes is bound to come up short.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yeah, it's great to see Christianity doing well there nowadays. It kind of reminds me of the growth of Christianity in China. By 2030, China might pass the USA in terms of churchgoers. Just like in Roman times, recently suppressed believers seemed to do very well.

Do you think Eastern Orthodox practices/beliefs are effective at avoiding secularization? Most orthodox countries seem to be doing pretty well. Greece, Serbia, Russia, etc. are all quite religious.

Orthodoxy tends to have a close relationship with the secular rulers. Since Roman times the Patriarch of Constantinople was essentially a partner of the Emperor. This caused friction when the Eastern Empire needed to follow a different course for its survival (such as the council of Florence just before the fall of Constantinople).
Likewise in states that based themselves on the Byzantine, the historically Orthodox, a similar close relationship was present with a clear state interest in Religious affairs.

In the West an early division between the Ecclesiastical polity and the Secular was established as the Pope gained more and more authority in the middle-ages. While the relationship was also close, they were more often in competition in such things as the investiture controversy etc.
in the west this caused attempts by the state to take over appointments of bishops and later creating national churches during the Reformation. This meant that the western states had less incentive to maintain church control which allowed the development of non-conformist traditions and libertine intelectual views. This was then fertile ground for Atheism to sprout once we allowed the teaching of philosophy, classics etc to fall away and be replaced with a single simplistic modern philosophic view, Scientific method.

The Orthodox tradition in my opinion maintains religiousity better because it stayed closer to its roots as a church. In the west the church became too mired in worldly affairs (not that the orthodox did not as well, mind you) seeking wealth etc. that caused reformation and further splitting of Christianity.

 

[JackRT]

The point is why Europe came out on top and not Asia or the mid-east.

He also made the point that in the 14th century China was the most technologically advanced country in the world but that a fit of paranoia and xenophobia set it back. Same thing happened in Japan in the sixteenth century.