|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 24 2016 07:19 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Ah, GGS. The most popular and thoroughly reviled (amongst academia) piece of pop-science of the past fifty years at least. Diamond gets to champion geographic determinism, the century-old discredited theory and basis of European imperialism to explain European superiority without trying to sound racist. Lovely. I'll just link you this and this, because I come across people who aren't aware just how much he's reviled in the fields he's writing in. EDIT: Specifically regarding the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and the Andes, it should be noted that Guns, Germs, and Steel really had little to no impact on the actual conquest. Native allies in both instances were significantly more vital to the success thereof, and the manner of the local political and social structures involved. For instance, the Aztecs ran a large, decentralized tributary empire based on militarism; there were enough powerful tributaries and rivals in the region that hated the Aztecs, with the Spanish merely the catalyst for the overthrow of the system. If you read first-hand accounts of the Conquest like Bernal Diaz, you'll note that the Spanish THREW AWAY their steel armors and weapons for native ones. Neither was gunpowder a significant factor outside a few early engagements: early arquebuses are equivalent, or worse, than bows when faced with non-heavily armored targets, and the shock and awe factor of firearms wore out quickly. Disease was much more impactful on the outlook of native demographics AFTER the Conquest, and was not the decisive factor. In the Andes in particular, demographic decline due to disease was slow and gradual over the decades to the relative isolation of different communities of different and even the same altitude. And it should be noted that native societies like the Mapuche resisted encroachment despite consistent attempts by the Spanish and later Chileans and Argentines over the centuries until the late 19th century and the advent of machine guns. Thus, the complete ignorance and rejection of the decisive political and social factors in favor of JUST technology, coupled with bad/terrible research and generalizations and support for a LONG DEAD theory of imperialism, is why the book is hated amongst anthropological and other social science circles. I skimmed the reddit thread. Sounds like they want the title renamed to "Guns, Germs, Steel, and Cunning Brutality". Everyone knows Cortez (and other conquistadors) had native allies. Organization, dealmaking, and language were keys to to the conquest. Laying into Diamond because he didn't upsell native corn domestication is a pretty weak criticism.
Err, no, they'd probably rather it be titled "Pseudo-intellectual Bullshit Anthropology Discarded a Century Ago". In regards to corn domestication, as that's what you've noted, the main argument isn't that he bases a calculation on a 3,000 BC date of maize domestication instead of 8,000 BC date of maize domestication, or 800 BC for a stable crop, it's that the whole calculation he's basing his argument on is utterly meaningless to anything of relevance.
I recommend going the permalinked posts carefully; the first post in particular links basically enough academic and anthropological reviews to get you started on the boiling rage you will incite amongst anthropologists and political scientists, or really any non-European focused historian. The latter is just a quick summarization of the academic angst.
On March 24 2016 07:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 07:12 cLutZ wrote:On March 24 2016 06:52 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2016 06:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On March 24 2016 06:42 KwarK wrote:The criticism against GGS (apart from all the ones regarding lack of citations and skipping counterevidence) is not that the argument of "factors that lead to technology -> having technology -> winning in wars against people dying of smallpox" is wrong, it's that it's obvious and that it misses the point. Geographic determinism makes the case that Europeans were destined to have the technological advantages and then one thing led to another and now they have all the money. It's a somewhat simplistic view which ignores human agency entirely and assumes that conquest is the inevitable result of opportunity. When you get right down to it the book is once upon a time there was a horizontal axis on a continent, one thing led to another and white men ruled the world Still a fun read though. Would recommend. What about the heaps and heaps of dead from disease? Pretty easy to conquer land when everyone is dead. Well done, you have correctly identified one part of the straw man the book successfully knocks down. Exactly. I have no quarrel with the premise "If you are equipped with better guns, and you have the bonus of a better immune system and sometimes carry diseases that kill your enemies you will probably win a war". That seems fairly obvious. The reason the book is BS is it goes much further and says, essentially, that European/Asian peoples got those guns and germs by pure coincidence and the poor Africans and Americans could not possibly make do with Zebras, Bison, Water Buffalo, Wildebeest, and Turkeys. Plus what LT says. I prefer the "History of War" explanation for European conquests. The European powers (and the big East and South Asian powers) had a long history of politically organized warfare + Guns/Germs/Steel coming out of those wars. The Aztecs had politically organized warfare and dominated their neighbors, but lacked the Guns/Germs/Steel.
...but neither Steel nor Germs nor Guns proved to be decisive in any part of, for instance, the Conquest of Mexico. I've already gone over why. The advantage of a few guns were meaningless both in a tactical and morale sense after a few early engagements. Conquistadors discarded steel armors for cloth-based armors. Germs was not a major aspect of the conquest until afterwards. So in your overly-simplistic outline of it, it's basically politically organized warfare+small advantages vs politically organized warfare. How does that allow a few hundred to conquer an empire of millions?
Also large state bureaucracies and legal systems to back up wealth, thereby motivating and organizing the conquest. The conquistadors were legally charged pirates.
I will first note that this is an expressly political factor that Jared Diamond hates. But how does that allow the Conquistadors conquer the Aztec Empire, exactly? After all, early Spanish expeditions into Mexico and the Yucatan proved disastrous for the would-be Conquistadors.
Also it doesn't explain why Spain was the country to launch aggressive conquests of the native empires. Other countries in the Age of Exploration didn't, so why were they the ones to do so...?
On March 24 2016 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 07:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If you actually read guns, germs and steel, the author basically includes Europe, the Mediterrean (including Morroco and Egypt), Middle East and Asia as one connected unit that had advantages that the other locations (rest of Africa, the American continent, South east Asia, Oceania) could not match. It actually had very little to do with Europe specifically. That doesn't address the criticism of geographic determinism. China had all the advantages that defined Europe, and had them earlier. It was the technologically superior area and by far the most populous, politically unified and socially complex. Guns, germs and steel does not adequately explain why it was Europeans, and not the Chinese, who conquered the world. Hell, gunpowder, steel and the plague all come from China and reached Europe through the silk road.
Indeed.
Look, it's not that military technology (guns and steel) and disease (germs) DIDN'T play a role (no one argues that environment and geography are a factor), and he does highlight some of the reasons that the Europeans had them when they made contact with the natives. But to ignore the VAST majority of factors in favor of a few in order to pin it all on "geography and environment" to satiate your need to feel good about past imperialism? I'll just quote Sluyter (an environmental anthropologist/geographer, who, unlike Diamond, spent his life studying and researching this topic).
To demonstrate the causal significance of that association, [Diamond] needs to explicate the historical process through which his environmental categories actually caused his social categories. Otherwise, his claim that Eurasians, “especially those still living in Europe and eastern Asia [viz Japan], plus those transplanted to North America, dominate the modern world in wealth and power” (p 15) because Eurasia is the only largelatitudinal continent relies entirely on circular reasoning: Eurasia’s unique environment has caused the G-8’s dominance, the proof being Eurasia’s unique environment and the G-8’s dominance.
Yet, despite being well aware that he must fully explicate the processes—what he calls “chains of causation”—through which, over thousands of years of inexorable cause and effect, environment supposedly determined the dominance of the G-8, Diamond never does (pp 86–87). Instead, he leaves a glaring gap of five centuries between the initial European invasion of the Americas and the phenomenon he claims to explain, apparently finding colonization and (post)- colonization processes irrelevant to understanding the current global map of wealth and power.
|
War. Corruption. Religion. Is what determined Europe to become the master of the world at the time. Anyways...
Republican voters appear to agree with Donald Trump: Whoever has the most delegates should win the GOP nomination — never mind if he racks up a majority.
Sixty-three percent of Republican voters said the candidate with the most delegates should win the party's nomination, even if he does not get an outright majority before the Republican National Convention in July, according to a new Bloomberg Politics poll out Wednesday. Just 33 percent said the delegates should decide who is the nominee with no restriction on who they could select.
"While I believe I will clinch before Cleveland and get more than 1237 delegates, it is unfair in that there have been so many in the race!" Trump tweeted shortly after the poll's release.
Continuing a long-running streak, Trump still tops the Republican field among voters nationwide, earning the support of 40 percent of the 366 people who said they are likely to vote in their state's Republican primary or caucus or who have already done so, followed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz with 31 percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich with 25 percent, with 5 percent not sure. Kasich's share of support is up seven points from his Real Clear Politics average nationally over the last week.
Voters also indicated that they would support Trump over both Cruz and Kasich in a head-to-head matchup, with Trump leading Cruz 48 percent to 44 percent and ahead of Kasich 51 percent to 43 percent.
Source
|
War. Corruption. Religion. Is what determined Europe to become the master of the world at the time. Anyways...
Hahah. Nope.
Nothing is determined. You could say there are factors which improve the odds for Europe to dominate the world as opposed to other centers of civilization, like China, of which those may be among them, but those factors are myriad and complex.
|
On March 24 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Ah, GGS. The most popular and thoroughly reviled (amongst academia) piece of pop-science of the past fifty years at least. Diamond gets to champion geographic determinism, the century-old discredited theory and basis of European imperialism to explain European superiority without trying to sound racist. Lovely. I'll just link you this and this, because I come across people who aren't aware just how much he's reviled in the fields he's writing in. EDIT: Specifically regarding the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and the Andes, it should be noted that Guns, Germs, and Steel really had little to no impact on the actual conquest. Native allies in both instances were significantly more vital to the success thereof, and the manner of the local political and social structures involved. For instance, the Aztecs ran a large, decentralized tributary empire based on militarism; there were enough powerful tributaries and rivals in the region that hated the Aztecs, with the Spanish merely the catalyst for the overthrow of the system. If you read first-hand accounts of the Conquest like Bernal Diaz, you'll note that the Spanish THREW AWAY their steel armors and weapons for native ones. Neither was gunpowder a significant factor outside a few early engagements: early arquebuses are equivalent, or worse, than bows when faced with non-heavily armored targets, and the shock and awe factor of firearms wore out quickly. Disease was much more impactful on the outlook of native demographics AFTER the Conquest, and was not the decisive factor. In the Andes in particular, demographic decline due to disease was slow and gradual over the decades to the relative isolation of different communities of different and even the same altitude. And it should be noted that native societies like the Mapuche resisted encroachment despite consistent attempts by the Spanish and later Chileans and Argentines over the centuries until the late 19th century and the advent of machine guns. Thus, the complete ignorance and rejection of the decisive political and social factors in favor of JUST technology, coupled with bad/terrible research and generalizations and support for a LONG DEAD theory of imperialism, is why the book is hated amongst anthropological and other social science circles.
Yea the Andes was basically the Spanish coming in at the right time and taking advantage of unrest already going on. The Aztecs also had to consistently deal with uprisings because they never fully "put down" any of the conquered territories because it would mean less tribute plus long term military campaigns were a logistical nightmare and very costly. The Spanish also got their asses kicked in some of the initial fights and relied heavily on indigenous allies + they manufactured a "riot" during some kind of party that was attended by a good chunk of the Aztec capital political and military elite that they massacred. Germs did play a part there but mostly in the form of making the speed of conquest much faster, as the basin of Mexico endured several epidemics in a row that killed off a lot of the Aztec population, making clean up of the other major cities and kings much easier since their armies were decimated. Hell even when Cortez and his indigenous allies assaulted the Aztec capital they were in the middle of I think a small pox outbreak, which greatly helped them out.
But yea all of his books get a lot of criticism and every one he seems to go farther off the deep end is the impression I get from some of the anthropologists and archaeologists I have talked to. He has an idea and just sells it hard and ignores everything else basically. I remember in particular his book on collapse ruffled the feathers of many archaeologists I know.
|
Man can Sanders lose a single state with out the bernie bots insisting it has to be because of voter fruad? This is only going to get worse as it becomes more obvious hes not going to win.
|
Being a fan of anthropology I find this discussion rather amusing. Various degrees of relation with the concept of the Eurocentric foundation on which much of anthropology was built until recently.
It reminds me when people on TL talk about the genetic basis of race...
On March 24 2016 08:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man can Sanders lose a single state with out the bernie bots insisting it has to be because of voter fruad? This is only going to get worse as it becomes more obvious hes not going to win.
There's a difference between pointing out there was election fraud and saying "BERNIE ONLY LOST CUZ CHEATING DURR"
There was obviously election fraud. We can't really know how the outcome was impacted, especially with the inexplicable lack of exit polling.
I'd add they haven't added any votes at all today...
|
On March 24 2016 07:57 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Ah, GGS. The most popular and thoroughly reviled (amongst academia) piece of pop-science of the past fifty years at least. Diamond gets to champion geographic determinism, the century-old discredited theory and basis of European imperialism to explain European superiority without trying to sound racist. Lovely. I'll just link you this and this, because I come across people who aren't aware just how much he's reviled in the fields he's writing in. EDIT: Specifically regarding the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and the Andes, it should be noted that Guns, Germs, and Steel really had little to no impact on the actual conquest. Native allies in both instances were significantly more vital to the success thereof, and the manner of the local political and social structures involved. For instance, the Aztecs ran a large, decentralized tributary empire based on militarism; there were enough powerful tributaries and rivals in the region that hated the Aztecs, with the Spanish merely the catalyst for the overthrow of the system. If you read first-hand accounts of the Conquest like Bernal Diaz, you'll note that the Spanish THREW AWAY their steel armors and weapons for native ones. Neither was gunpowder a significant factor outside a few early engagements: early arquebuses are equivalent, or worse, than bows when faced with non-heavily armored targets, and the shock and awe factor of firearms wore out quickly. Disease was much more impactful on the outlook of native demographics AFTER the Conquest, and was not the decisive factor. In the Andes in particular, demographic decline due to disease was slow and gradual over the decades to the relative isolation of different communities of different and even the same altitude. And it should be noted that native societies like the Mapuche resisted encroachment despite consistent attempts by the Spanish and later Chileans and Argentines over the centuries until the late 19th century and the advent of machine guns. Thus, the complete ignorance and rejection of the decisive political and social factors in favor of JUST technology, coupled with bad/terrible research and generalizations and support for a LONG DEAD theory of imperialism, is why the book is hated amongst anthropological and other social science circles. Yea the Andes was basically the Spanish coming in at the right time and taking advantage of unrest already going on. The Aztecs also had to consistently deal with uprisings because they never fully "put down" any of the conquered territories because it would mean less tribute plus long term military campaigns were a logistical nightmare and very costly. The Spanish also got their asses kicked in some of the initial fights and relied heavily on indigenous allies + they manufactured a "riot" during some kind of party that was attended by a good chunk of the Aztec capital political and military elite that they massacred. Germs did play a part there but mostly in the form of making the speed of conquest much faster, as the basin of Mexico endured several epidemics in a row that killed off a lot of the Aztec population, making clean up of the other major cities and kings much easier since their armies were decimated. Hell even when Cortez and his indigenous allies assaulted the Aztec capital they were in the middle of I think a small pox outbreak, which greatly helped them out. But yea all of his books get a lot of criticism and every one he seems to go farther off the deep end is the impression I get from some of the anthropologists and archaeologists I have talked to. He has an idea and just sells it hard and ignores everything else basically. I remember in particular his book on collapse ruffled the feathers of many archaeologists I know.
Yet at the same time, disease also afflicted the conquistador's native allies, which meant the net outcome in terms of military degradation was somewhat of a wash. But in any event, the main decisive advantage that facilitated the conquest of Mexico was native allies, not this ridiculous notion that (early) guns and steel made you an invincible superman able to take on many times your number of brown natives, or that germs made the Aztecs so weak that it was possible. That's just thinly-veiled racism right there.
And yes, the fact the Inca had just finished a round of expansion (and many of their new territories hadn't been integrated for more than a generation) and was in the midst of a civil war/succession crisis would certainly help explain how Pizarro achieved his conquest of the Inca. Not some ludicrous idea that because the Inca were all illiterate savages that they'd never heard of a surprise attack (which is literally what Diamond argues in GGS, even though the Inca had their own form of non-written language and knot-based communication system [which the Spanish subsequently destroyed entirely]). Had first contact been made at any different time, Pizarro would never have achieved what he did.
Essentially, the importance of socio-political factors, and the importance of luck and the small individual events and butterflies that history hinges upon.
In both cases too, the post-Conquest management was equally important: in neither case did the native allies seek Spanish domination and colonization in the manner they did: they had different plans for the aftermath of the conquests. That too cannot be explained away with just geography and environment.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On March 24 2016 08:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man can Sanders lose a single state with out the bernie bots insisting it has to be because of voter fruad? This is only going to get worse as it becomes more obvious hes not going to win.
It's stupid to say Sanders lost Arizona because of voter fraud, but Arizona is the only state so far where 'voter fraud' can be a legitimate concern. They're half-right, this once 
|
GGS is the biggest example anyone can point at when talking about eurocentric history writing. Germs Guns Steel and large numbers of local allies was too long to fit in the title I guess.
|
Canada2764 Posts
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy.
|
On March 24 2016 08:09 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:06 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Man can Sanders lose a single state with out the bernie bots insisting it has to be because of voter fruad? This is only going to get worse as it becomes more obvious hes not going to win. It's stupid to say Sanders lost Arizona because of voter fraud, but Arizona is the only state so far where 'voter fraud' can be a legitimate concern. They're half-right, this once
Perhaps voting rights, like heroin deaths, will become a bigger issue now that middle-class white men are affected.
|
On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy.
Well Hillary had a pep rally in a high school gym last night meanwhile Bernie is coming to Seattle on Friday to a 50k+ baseball stadium. If that's any indication it should at least be 60-40, 70-30 is a real possibility.
She's got a pretty big ground game though, so we'll see.
As for the election fraud, this will have nothing on NY, I sincerely doubt any of the Dems are going to do anything to prepare for what they know will be record turnout. Wouldn't be surprised for lots of new voters to mysteriously not end up on the roles.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2016 07:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 07:26 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2016 07:14 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2016 06:14 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2016 04:08 IgnE wrote:On March 24 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2016 01:17 IgnE wrote:
Wait so TPP is going to rein in international capital? Let's get this down for posterity. for your lack of reading ability? im talking about international taxation. no nation state can tax international capital on its own, even the u.s. it requires cooperative structure by eu and us mostly. tpp is going to help with regulation arbitrage. it will bring environmental and labor rights into places that do not recognize them. TPP is going to help international capital be more international. If the international taxation regimes are so important to advancing your policy goals you would want to have them as part of the TPP. Otherwise the result is that you've made the problem worse and can't push through your global government tax plans later. TPP threatens EU's long term economic prospects but EU is going to be happy to cooperatively tamper down capital flight? Are you envisioning some kind of blackmail scenario? The US playing EU off of its TPP trade partners? TPP is a vain attempt to keep the good times rolling for as long as possible by the governing liberals. It's a dice throw that consolidates and insulates international capital from democratic forces at home. uh tpp is not touching europe. eu is pushing for the ttip. as far as making it easier to global ur production tpp has to be compared to current structure which is high on trade flow but low on regulation due to nature of bilateral deals+mfn conditions in the wto. if you see absolute trade flow as a problem tpp would not even do much. the most optimistic peterson numbers is less than 2% on inbound flow. reason is simple we already have liberal goods and services markets, and the liberalization overseas is in our most competitive services so there should be little import pressure. trade is also a tool to break down local monopolies made by govt power. the investment chapter is in the same dynamic, with current u.s. standard of protection already stronger than what tpp obtains for signatory partners. it will make investment environment better overseas if you are worried about that, but it will be a big net plus for us equity owners at not much 'cost' of inversion style relocation of u.s. companies. if anything it would reduce incentive to adopt such structures however the horizontal effect of diverting flow from china to other partner nations is enough to generate some buy-in for various regulatory standard raising Tpp doesn't touch Europe? No trade diversion? Greater integration of supply chains and consumer markets in Pacific has no bearing? Edit: you also have a tendency to focus on "trade" numbers, the higher the better. This isn't about a simple trade calculus, it also involves americanized arbitration and ip regimes that protect large businesses while disempowering the people in democratic countries that they would do business in. It's an uncritical plan. And your argument that international taxation can provide a counterbalance is like taking down the fence in your backyard and arguing that you can start training your dog not to leave the property. That dog is already gone before you can begin the process. no it doesnt touch europe. the stuff you list is either low impact or beneficial for eu interests given similar position to us in terms of the value chain. if you are afraid tpp would displease eu this is far from the case. ill answer rest later but basically in ur analogy the dog is already far gone. are you under the impression that we do not currently have free trade in the sense of globalized production chain? we just have bilateral deals with the multilateral mechanism (gatt) dead in terms of institutional momentum What "displeases" the EU's governing bodies and what would have a long term impact on the economic interests of Europe aren't entirely identical. EU and its capitalists can want TPP for a variety of reasons but that doesn't mean that TPP won't be diverting trade without further trade agreement action by EU. TPP helps negotiators foist TTIP on Europe of course. If dog is gone then why does the dog demand so many concessions? No one is denying the reality of free trade here. But you also can't deny that TTP is removing barriers for a lot of huge companies to consolidate grip on global markets. i edited my post to include bilateral treaties eu is working on in the tpp region that would let them have some of the goodies including ip. the tpp is basically setting a higher standard that would have momentum in future deals including ttip and eu-pacific deals that are in the works. this tpp led standard would be beneficial for eu due to similar market position with the u.s.
the dog is mostly demanding ip stuff. the major loser would be consumers in the tpp region(sans u.s.). but this is somewhat fair as the u.s. could not subsidize them with r&d forever. distinguishing copyrights vs patents, the former is way more aggressive. it is also a bit of a mixed bag for a developing nation. on one hand consumers would lose free movies. but developmentally it is beneficial for media services industry, which makes producing media worthwhile. basically needing money for dvds makes platform services a viable business. the media platforms can then foster more domestic media enterprises.
and isds is a case of improving investment protection, a necessary move. the tpp is actually more pro state than earlier deals such as the wto structure because of more explicit protection of state regulatory interests. see eg https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds
but this stuff will be evolving with the case law.
another thing with tpp is that services and finance are high growth areas that are liberalized. this is where we have a competitive advantage. it would be important for the u.s. to be first to land in these areas before the yuros know whats up
|
Canada2764 Posts
I wish the news networks would stop calling states before people were done voting. Even if the state turns out 80-20 and is a surefire win, it's just undemocratic and biases people towards making the state even more one-sided.
|
On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy.
There is no chance in hell Clinton takes either Oregon or Washington. I will bet my own mother on it. I'll even pay for shipping. I think I've met like 3 people who intend to vote for Clinton.
|
On March 24 2016 08:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy. There is no chance in hell Clinton takes either Oregon or Washington. I will bet my own mother on it. I'll even pay for shipping. I think I've met like 3 people who intend to vote for Clinton.
Lol. It's true.
I'm curious if Clinton will try and hit back on Ex-Im and Boeing though. She's got the facts on her side 100%, but it's not really considered great strategy for the frontrunner to do so.
Also, the Bernie emails have titles like YUGE WINS. My goodness, the campaign is officially a meme.
|
On March 24 2016 08:18 Soularion wrote:
I wish the news networks would stop calling states before people were done voting. Even if the state turns out 80-20 and is a surefire win, it's just undemocratic and biases people towards making the state even more one-sided.
I just wish they would at least own up to the deceptive way they presented the results too.
On March 24 2016 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 08:18 Mohdoo wrote:On March 24 2016 08:10 Soularion wrote:
I think if Sanders wants to be favored, he needs to come out huge in Washington. He should win it - if he doesn't he's out instantly - but if he comes out and wins it by thirty, forty, fifty points like Idaho/Utah.. whew boy. There is no chance in hell Clinton takes either Oregon or Washington. I will bet my own mother on it. I'll even pay for shipping. I think I've met like 3 people who intend to vote for Clinton. Lol. It's true. I'm curious if Clinton will try and hit back on Ex-Im and Boeing though. She's got the facts on her side 100%, but it's not really considered great strategy for the frontrunner to do so. Also, the Bernie emails have titles like YUGE WINS. My goodness, the campaign is officially a meme.
Is this really what Hillco has been reduced to?
|
Better chance of Hillary winning in the NW than Sanders winning in NY.
|
On March 24 2016 08:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Better chance of Hillary winning in the NW than Sanders winning in NY.
Have you been to the NW? I don't think there is any percentage lower than the percentage of Clinton winning in the NW, even counting 0.
|
On March 24 2016 08:08 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 07:57 Slaughter wrote:On March 24 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:Ah, GGS. The most popular and thoroughly reviled (amongst academia) piece of pop-science of the past fifty years at least. Diamond gets to champion geographic determinism, the century-old discredited theory and basis of European imperialism to explain European superiority without trying to sound racist. Lovely. I'll just link you this and this, because I come across people who aren't aware just how much he's reviled in the fields he's writing in. EDIT: Specifically regarding the Spanish Conquest of Mexico and the Andes, it should be noted that Guns, Germs, and Steel really had little to no impact on the actual conquest. Native allies in both instances were significantly more vital to the success thereof, and the manner of the local political and social structures involved. For instance, the Aztecs ran a large, decentralized tributary empire based on militarism; there were enough powerful tributaries and rivals in the region that hated the Aztecs, with the Spanish merely the catalyst for the overthrow of the system. If you read first-hand accounts of the Conquest like Bernal Diaz, you'll note that the Spanish THREW AWAY their steel armors and weapons for native ones. Neither was gunpowder a significant factor outside a few early engagements: early arquebuses are equivalent, or worse, than bows when faced with non-heavily armored targets, and the shock and awe factor of firearms wore out quickly. Disease was much more impactful on the outlook of native demographics AFTER the Conquest, and was not the decisive factor. In the Andes in particular, demographic decline due to disease was slow and gradual over the decades to the relative isolation of different communities of different and even the same altitude. And it should be noted that native societies like the Mapuche resisted encroachment despite consistent attempts by the Spanish and later Chileans and Argentines over the centuries until the late 19th century and the advent of machine guns. Thus, the complete ignorance and rejection of the decisive political and social factors in favor of JUST technology, coupled with bad/terrible research and generalizations and support for a LONG DEAD theory of imperialism, is why the book is hated amongst anthropological and other social science circles. Yea the Andes was basically the Spanish coming in at the right time and taking advantage of unrest already going on. The Aztecs also had to consistently deal with uprisings because they never fully "put down" any of the conquered territories because it would mean less tribute plus long term military campaigns were a logistical nightmare and very costly. The Spanish also got their asses kicked in some of the initial fights and relied heavily on indigenous allies + they manufactured a "riot" during some kind of party that was attended by a good chunk of the Aztec capital political and military elite that they massacred. Germs did play a part there but mostly in the form of making the speed of conquest much faster, as the basin of Mexico endured several epidemics in a row that killed off a lot of the Aztec population, making clean up of the other major cities and kings much easier since their armies were decimated. Hell even when Cortez and his indigenous allies assaulted the Aztec capital they were in the middle of I think a small pox outbreak, which greatly helped them out. But yea all of his books get a lot of criticism and every one he seems to go farther off the deep end is the impression I get from some of the anthropologists and archaeologists I have talked to. He has an idea and just sells it hard and ignores everything else basically. I remember in particular his book on collapse ruffled the feathers of many archaeologists I know. Yet at the same time, disease also afflicted the conquistador's native allies, which meant the net outcome in terms of military degradation was somewhat of a wash. But in any event, the main decisive advantage that facilitated the conquest of Mexico was native allies, not this ridiculous notion that (early) guns and steel made you an invincible superman able to take on many times your number of brown natives, or that germs made the Aztecs so weak that it was possible. That's just thinly-veiled racism right there. And yes, the fact the Inca had just finished a round of expansion (and many of their new territories hadn't been integrated for more than a generation) and was in the midst of a civil war/succession crisis would certainly help explain how Pizarro achieved his conquest of the Inca. Not some ludicrous idea that because the Inca were all illiterate savages that they'd never heard of a surprise attack (which is literally what Diamond argues in GGS, even though the Inca had their own form of non-written language and knot-based communication system [which the Spanish subsequently destroyed entirely]). Had first contact been made at any different time, Pizarro would never have achieved what he did. Essentially, the importance of socio-political factors, and the importance of luck and the small individual events and butterflies that history hinges upon. In both cases too, the post-Conquest management was equally important: in neither case did the native allies seek Spanish domination and colonization in the manner they did: they had different plans for the aftermath of the conquests. That too cannot be explained away with just geography and environment.
The disease affecting their allies as well also helped them cement themselves as the dominant power by the time the dust settled :\ Europeans played the natives off each other for many many years. Disease probably did play a bigger role in North America though, killed off so many people before they started to colonize (and even then they struggled a lot and even had desertion problems as people were likely to abandon a lot of the early colonies for indigenous groups). Hell even most of the initial settlements were built on the remains of where old villages that were abandoned due to disease were. They were surprised as hell at how "convenient" the land was set up for them lol.
Its been a while since I have read GGS but your criticisms of it are pretty much what academia has to say about Diamond and his work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
