why the differance?

[Azul]

To the best of my knowledge, when America was discovered, the entire continents inhabitants were for the most part all tribes, with little technology or organization. I believe also for the most part that Austrialia was in the same condition. I was wondering what it was that kept these lands from advancing as much as europe and asia?

The native americans came over from asia, so they didn't have that much time for the cultures and beliefs to change into wanting that advancement.

I dont really know how to ask it that well, but just wondering if anyone had an idea as to why differant parts of the world turned out so differantly.


Thanks for sharing any thoughts or information.

[Rasenna]

I've often wondered that myself. Not as aware of natural resources? Larger area?

[Laisrean]

The answer is because they were isolated. Put some people on an island and they'll remain primitive because they aren't communicating with other groups and sharing ideas and discoveries.

The native americans were isolated from old world ideas, and sub-sahara Africa was isolated from old world ideas because of the vast Sahara desert. Same is true with Australian aborigines who were isolated on an island continent.

That said, the Incas and Aztecs were more advanced than many people today realize. The Inca, for example, had just begun to master metal working and were using copper headed maces in warfare.

[Azul]

The answer is because they were isolated. Put some people on an island and they'll remain primitive because they aren't communicating with other groups and sharing ideas and discoveries.

The native americans were isolated from old world ideas, and sub-sahara Africa was isolated from old world ideas because of the vast Sahara desert. Same is true with Australian aborigines who were isolated on an island continent.

That said, the Incas and Aztecs were more advanced than many people today realize. The Inca, for example, had just begun to master metal working and were using copper headed maces in warfare.

I figured it was along those lines, and i never knew that about the Incas or Aztecs. But i also figured that in a way all the other countries were still isolated, just isolated with a much larger diverse population.

[Laisrean]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs_and_Steel

Here is a wikipedia article on a book which you may want to look into as it addresses your question.


According to the author, an alternative title would be: "A short history about everyone for the last 13,000 years". But the book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilization, as a whole, has survived and conquered others, while refuting the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual or moral superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies do not reflect cultural or racial differences, but rather originate in environmental differences powerfully amplified by various positive feedback loops. He also, most explicitly in the epilogue, argues that societies with food surpluses and high-to-moderate degrees of interaction with outsiders are more likely to encourage great people to realize their full potential and to adopt new inventions.

[Zibblsnrt]

Everyone needs to read Guns, Germs and Steel at least once. (Insert blatant recommendation here.)

[Azul]

Everyone needs to read Guns, Germs and Steel at least once. (Insert blatant recommendation here.)


hehe i already ordered a copy via barnes and nobles website! 8O

[David19]

I agree with what others have said, they weren't really aware of other people and new ideas (although that said, i think they did know about other Native American tribes, since they would go to war with them, etc), i think it may have been due to the fact that they couldn't trade with other nations that had technology to extract natural resources.

Although, like someone said, the Inca's and Aztec's were kind of 'technological' (e.g. the Aztec's (and Inca's?) managed to build those 'pyramid' type things in South America, etc), plus in Africa, when European's first 'discovered' it, the 'explorer's' found statues carved out of mountain's and other amazing things, and though that they 'must have been created by 'white people''.

I hope that helps :).

[Cain]

Everyone needs to read Guns, Germs and Steel at least once. (Insert blatant recommendation here.)

True, its a very interesting book.

[Of10Rot10]

hehe i already ordered a copy via barnes and nobles website! 8O

While you are waiting on the book you might want to check out the PBS site: Guns, Germs and Steel (http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/show/index.html)

Transcripts from each show of the three part series can be found there and like with any other PBS program a great deal of additional information.

[Zibblsnrt]

hehe i already ordered a copy via barnes and nobles website! 8O

You have officially failed to waste your money. ;)

[Toby Stimpson]

I dont think you can lump all the peoples of the A,ericas together like that. Really...I think the question should more be why did they not progress at the same speed that europeans and asians progressed. The answer is, well isolation as others have said...but they were not primitive. The Inca's managed to build a road system perhaps rivalling the road system the ancient Romans developed. I think what is key in this discussion is to get out of this idea of 'modernity and advancement vs primitive'. The reason so called advancement came about in europe and the rest of the world before the Americas is merely becasue they were all connected. Archeological evidence suggestes that American Native groups developed agriculture at the same time as the Sumerians 4000 years ago, but that it was mostly a wild domestication and agricultural system rather than completly controlled. Its also important to note the mindsets of these societies. In Societies that view the world as a resource, there is little holding them back with the right means from domesticating and controlling their world. this is for the most part not found in most Native American societies as their viewpoint was and is still a far more ancient mindset of partnorship. Now some scholars and archeologists believe that if left alone, the Native peopels would have advanced further and would right now be in a kind of mass civilization base that Europe was in 2000 years ago. Its very important here though to remember that as Europe and Asia and Africa were all connected, there was more trade in both tecnology and ideas...and as the the earliest mass settlements of the Sumerians, Indus valley, Chinese etc,. developed mass agricultural the populations began to rapidly grow, which ofcourse led to cycles of urban/civilized build up that was soemwhat lacking in the Americas. The most pwoerful civilizations though were quite advanced for their time and level, so they were civilized and not primitive...just were a few thousand years behind. Blah this was a jumble of stuff, but meh...one more thing, it's been postulated that if the Incas and Aztecs were left alone...and America as a whole as left alone...Europe would have remained pirmitive and the Incas would have developed a large trading empire...and you would have seen a somewhat similar georgraphic dynamic similar to the Roman Empire and the Persians. Very interesting stuff.

Namaste

Tobias

[Piney Boy]

To the best of my knowledge, when America was discovered, the entire continents inhabitants were for the most part all tribes, with little technology or organization. I believe also for the most part that Austrialia was in the same condition. I was wondering what it was that kept these lands from advancing as much as europe and asia?

The native americans came over from asia, so they didn't have that much time for the cultures and beliefs to change into wanting that advancement.

I dont really know how to ask it that well, but just wondering if anyone had an idea as to why differant parts of the world turned out so differantly.


Thanks for sharing any thoughts or information.

Interesting question, although I don't think the term advancement is a fair one to use in culture comparison. If by advancement you mean technology, then yes, western culture did make huge advances that tribal cultures of the Americas did not. On a spiritual level it could be argued that the tribes of America lived in a tight knit communal arrangement that was quite advanced as well as harmonious with the land. I would have to say they outreached their western counterparts in this area.
European culture was constantly barraged with foreign concepts, attitudes, and ideals, this in turn led them to incorporate all of these into the "advancement" in technolgy. Its safe to say natural and cultural stimuli are the main factors of change, and when you add seperate groups from a variety of areas the changes will be more pronounced. Cultures that grew up in isolated pockets generally kept the same ethos of their forefathers with them, because no need existed for change. Outside of the Americas we can see like minded isolated growth in Egypt, Japan (until contact with the west), the Hawaian Islands, Alaskan tribal peoples, just to name a few.

[Meabh23]

To the best of my knowledge, when America was discovered, the entire continents inhabitants were for the most part all tribes, with little technology or organization. I believe also for the most part that Austrialia was in the same condition. I was wondering what it was that kept these lands from advancing as much as europe and asia?

The native americans came over from asia, so they didn't have that much time for the cultures and beliefs to change into wanting that advancement.

I dont really know how to ask it that well, but just wondering if anyone had an idea as to why differant parts of the world turned out so differantly.


Thanks for sharing any thoughts or information.

Not true.

The Incas were heirs of an Andean civilization that spanned thousands of years, the latest social epoch of which started around 800AD. (According to Andean myth, this latest epoch was the foundation of the native ayllu society. Before then there were other patterns.) The Aztecs were also the latest ruling party in a long standing civilization. The Incas and the Aztecs were also aware of much of the Americas, as native graphic art and mapwork that surivives attests. To say that Native groups and nations in the Americas were isolated is to assume. There are some studies being done now with Andean mythology and history which may show that they had links to classical Europe and others. But this is tentative and yet to be proven.

However, it is highly arrogant and ethnocentric to assume that Native nations were isolated or that they were not "advanced" like Europeans. This is considering that modern Europe and Western Civilization was only able to become so advanced after it ripped apart both the Inca and Aztec dynasties and plundered both of their civilizations. Without such stolen or plundered wealth, Europe would still be as it has been for hundreds of years before the 1500's...an impoverished 'third world' type region with religious fanatics in control of its society. Consider not just the material wealth but also the agricultural knowledge. American Native cultivated plants are now used in food throughout the globe.

It is also arrogant to assume that other groups that are more nomadic are less advanced. Consider two modern cases, one the American great plains, the other in Northern Tibet. In both cases, the nomads have been slaughtered or forced to settle into agriculture. Now in both areas there is concern over the destruction of the environment that such settled life causes in the regions. In the American plains, many areas are bankrupt and the settler descended population is dying off. In Northern Tibet, the land has gotten so destroyed that people are forced to import their food. So perhaps the nomads in both of these cases were onto something.

You can't just equate "advanced" with being able to cut down trees by the thousands or with building cities in areas that have no water. The measure of being advanced is knowing one's balance.

Please do more research with more up to date sources. For both the Andean and Aztec there is much online.

[Zibblsnrt]

You can't just equate "advanced" with being able to cut down trees by the thousands or with building cities in areas that have no water. The measure of being advanced is knowing one's balance.

With such a drastically unbalanced view of modern people, what does that make you?

Myself, I'm going to go on equating "advanced" with having the understanding of things like metallurgy, electricity, and germ theory.

[Toby Stimpson]

With such a drastically unbalanced view of modern people, what does that make you?

Myself, I'm going to go on equating "advanced" with having the understanding of things like metallurgy, electricity, and germ theory.

I sort of see what you mean...but then again, electricity we only really began to use about two hundred years ago...metallurgy has been around for a few thousand years and germ theory, well...there was an idea about germs but not really a proven form that they existed. To claim one people is primitive in comparison to others, when especially the two are uncomparable is quite frankyl elitist and dangerous. I mean, compared to other civilizations of similar form some of the Native peopels were quite advanced...it was merely the time frame. By comparison yes they were lesser advanced than us, but hardly primitive. At the time of the Explorers coming to the new world, there were nations of Native peoples...and good systems of government! In fact so good that Canadian Democracy was modelled in part off of the Iraquois Nation's municipal council system. So, in amny ways I dont think it's right to label Native peopels as primitive.

[Laisrean]

However, it is highly arrogant and ethnocentric to assume that Native nations were isolated or that they were not "advanced" like Europeans.

Um, no it isn't. The facts prove otherwise.

[Laisrean]

With such a drastically unbalanced view of modern people, what does that make you?

Myself, I'm going to go on equating "advanced" with having the understanding of things like metallurgy, electricity, and germ theory.

Plus Native Americans are likely responsible for the wiping out of almost all the mega-fauna of the New World. Where was their balance then?

No ethnic group/race is more in balance in nature than any other. Native Americans may not have dumped chemicals into the ocean or logged and mined forests into oblivion, but lets not kid ourselves... if they had the technology they would have done it.

[Little Billy]

To the best of my knowledge, when America was discovered, the entire continents inhabitants were for the most part all tribes, with little technology or organization. I believe also for the most part that Austrialia was in the same condition. I was wondering what it was that kept these lands from advancing as much as europe and asia?

The native americans came over from asia, so they didn't have that much time for the cultures and beliefs to change into wanting that advancement.

I dont really know how to ask it that well, but just wondering if anyone had an idea as to why differant parts of the world turned out so differantly.


Thanks for sharing any thoughts or information.

The Meso-Americans came over before the agricultural revolution was complete, and missed the boat, technology-wise.

As a result, they weren't a couple of thousand years behind the Europeans, they were about 5-6000 years behind. They weren't pre-Roman, they were pre-Babylonian.

[Little Billy]

So, in amny ways I dont think it's right to label Native peopels as primitive.

Um, they were, by any anthropologist's standards.

That's not an insult - nobody is calling them savages (well, most of them, anyway) - It's just a simple statement of fact.

[Little Billy]

Plus Native Americans are likely responsible for the wiping out of almost all the mega-fauna of the New World. Where was their balance then?


Actually, that hypothesis is widely contested. Most of the American megafauna seem to have died off due to climate change (with a few exceptions, such as the mastodon), as the last vestiges of the last ice age ended.

[Cerulean_damselfly]

I actually was very interested in the ideas presented, as I was interested in finding supplemental information on the net that validated a book that I was reading about local tribes to the Pacific Northwest.

Some of the information in the link below, such as a comment of the re-introduction of the horse in the New World by Europeans, was interesting. Some of information--such as handing out infected blankets and items by Europeans to Natives--was heartbreaking.

Actually I was looking for more information to substantiate an out-of-print text that I have on small tribal communities with farming and more settled lifestyle than the nomadic ones that followed animals such as caribou and deer...I'll post if they are of interest.

The above link might provide a general overview, but may not be specific enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Best regards,

Cerulean_Damselfly

[Greybird]

I think if you looked, you'd find that great advances came from a few nations who then spread those advances to other civilizations. All of Europe wasn't advanced - a very few nations were, and spread their technology to the others. It is also worth noting that it wasn't unusual for those cultures who were responsible for developing and spreading technology lived in areas that had great natural support for agriculture. Given time, it is possible that the mesoamerican tribes would have similarly spread their technology northward.

[Of10Rot10]

Plus Native Americans are likely responsible for the wiping out of almost all the mega-fauna of the New World. Where was their balance then?

No ethnic group/race is more in balance in nature than any other. Native Americans may not have dumped chemicals into the ocean or logged and mined forests into oblivion, but lets not kid ourselves... if they had the technology they would have done it.

Well... yes and no.

"Native American" applies to all indigenous people of the Americas; Central, North and South. Trade routes between the three were centuries old extending thousands of miles. There were Hunter/Gathers, Agricultual and Advanced societies co-existing, sometimes peacefully sometimes not, long before Europeans ever appeared in the Americas.

South and Central Native Americans were famous for logging. It took millions and millions of cubic square feet of green timber to produce the plaster used in covering every square inch of their cities and temple complexes. They would carry rich soil from distant rivers, lakes, swamps to replenish soil in their terraces. Once they had exhausted the resources in that area they would repeat the process some where else.

In North America most groups West of the Mississippi were Hunter/Gathers while most East of the Mississippi were Agricultual, as were my people the Tsalagi, Cherokee. We did our fair share of logging but no where near the scale of our brothers to the South. We trusted the Earth to replenish herself and she never failed us as did our brothers to the West. Our nomanic ways gave the Earth time to heal between our takings, a primative understanding crop rotation if you will. Much like the understanding the Ancient Egyptian had about cell division. For them it was a reilgious concept not a scienitific one.

We did have more than enough technology available to foul up the environment completely, it takes surprisingly little, but our beliefs kept us from making this entire hemosphere unihabitable. It was the Europeans to brought us all to a crashing halt over 'tears of the Moon and sweat of the Sun'.

[MoonDragn]

I think it's really just due to the fact that most of the tribes were nomadic, they basically were peaceful with each other and never really fought. Most of the time is spent on hunting and staying alive, so there really was no time left to make inventions.

As for the incans and the mayans, I think they were too knee deep in religion to care about anything else.

Religion really stagnate scientific discoveries.

[Zibblsnrt]

As for the incans and the mayans, I think they were too knee deep in religion to care about anything else.

Religion really stagnate scientific discoveries.

That certainly explains their total lack of architectural, astronomical and nation-building feats compared to their neighbors.

[Toby Stimpson]

Um, they were, by any anthropologist's standards.

That's not an insult - nobody is calling them savages (well, most of them, anyway) - It's just a simple statement of fact.

Oh I know...well, I dont think anthropologists use the word primitive. They were less advanced, that we can all be certain of...but they werent primitive. They had knowledge of medicine, politics and statecraft. They knew very well how to build boats and how to wage war affectivly. It was merely that as a group of similar cultures...their mindset, cultural norms and view of the world was so different from Europeans that

Azul, you meantioend that they had little organization...actually that is quite false. They were very organized and had distinct territories and nations. Theres even evidence to say that there was a major trading route on the Mississipi conntecting atleast a dozen Tribal nations from the Carribean all the way up to Southern Ontario.

This is turning goood, I love the arguments that have been made so far :)

[Brightshores]

As for the incans and the mayans, I think they were too knee deep in religion to care about anything else.

Religion really stagnate scientific discoveries.

While I agree with you that in many cases religion hinders science - I think one could make an argument that the Europeans in general, and the Spanish in particular, could have been considered "knee deep in religion" during the 15th-17th centuries when all the exploration and conquest was going on. Consider the Reconquista, the Spanish Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, etc. In many cases, colonization of the New World itself was driven by religious intolerance back in Europe.

Personally, I have always found it interesting that many people/societies today seem to pursue Scientific Advances almost as a form of religion.

Anyway - the original question. I think it was probably a combination of environmental factors with the simple fact that the Eurasian land mass was simply much, much bigger, with many more different cultures in closer proximity to each other. I think a lot of technological advancements occur when different cultures come into contact and share ideas and problem-solving methods. Once nautical technology developed sufficiently (between 4000-2000 BC), the Mediterranean Sea, in many cases, formed a huge superhighway connecting all sorts of different people (in ancient times, long-distance travel was far easier when done via sea). When the Silk Road developed around 400 BC, well... you have the ingredients for a huge explosion of technological development. People learn best from each other - it's much, much harder to develop technology in isolation. This could also apply to Sub-Saharan Africa - technology took a long time to filter across the Sahara Desert, which until relatively recent times formed almost as formidable a barrier as any ocean.

As for the question that seems to be quite controversial - whether technological advancement is the same thing as advancement of civilization in general - I think that's a spiritual and moral issue quite different from a historical explanation of why things happened the way they did. Personally - I think the world would have been better off had some discoveries not been made (e.g. nuclear weapons), but I'm quite happy that people discovered things like antibiotics, without which I personally would be dead right now. (Lots of strep throat as a kid.) That being said, absolutely, I agree that we should be taking far better care of the environment than we are or have been, and focusing far less on blowing each other into itty bitty pieces.
:rant:

Wow - I talk too much. :-) Great thread!

[David19]

Oh I know...well, I dont think anthropologists use the word primitive. They were less advanced, that we can all be certain of...but they werent primitive. They had knowledge of medicine, politics and statecraft. They knew very well how to build boats and how to wage war affectivly. It was merely that as a group of similar cultures...their mindset, cultural norms and view of the world was so different from Europeans that

I also think that they may not have been as 'technologically advanced' as European's, but i agree they weren't 'primitive' as that 'conjures' up images of people who 'don't know any better' or 'cavemen', when the South American's, like you said had a knowledge of herbs, medicine, boats (i think they used to travel up the rivers, etc), and the Aztec's were an urban people (they lived in cities, not the country side), i also think they had some great mystical practices and, from what i've read, their sorcererers and shamans were very powerful.

Although it's funny, when people call the 'primitive', it wasn't Native American's who invaded another land and killed lots, that falls to Europe (but i guess that's for another topic, Lol).

[SSanf]

I read that it has to do with resources. If you have three people per square mile of aerobe animal infested land, it does not require much technology or inventiveness to survive. If you have 3000 people per square mile of aerobe land with a shortage of animals, you invent technology to survive.

Humans are as inventive as they need to be.