This is a strange way of arguing. Race is geographical in its origin. If one makes a big deal out of the effects of high parasitic load on artificial selection of animals, the very same factor affect natural selection in humans, etc. The same geographic barriers that make centralized governing inefficient, make ethnical, cultural, and linguistic isolation possible. Racism is but organic part of geographical determinism (that is, alogically, contrasted to racism).
I think the argument is tendentious and ahistorical. China has been occupied, went through several periods of disintegration and reintegration, and changed dynasties several times. If the secret of world success is decentralization, China had it, for decades. Inwardness and lack of curiosity about the world beyond do not need geographical justification. India entered its long decline despite all of its mountain ranges and warring rajas. I do not see what is wrong with the old argument: that civilisations develop different worldviews that differ in their potential for global outreach and domination. Explaining these trajectories of thought by geography, diet, and whims of emperors is as ridiculous as reducing it to race.
Sorry, responding late because I am traveling. The race is too complicated a question to discuss here. But if we narrow down on the problem of China vs. Europe, this discussion would be beyond the point. China was good enough to report tremendous progress at the time Europe had little if any. Sure, China hade it's periods of disunion, but those were usually the times of bloody internecine conflict. Wherever it was prosperous, it was usually united and tightly centralized, there was never a question of a Portugal emerging there. So, once the emperor pronounced the policy of closed doors, it was established for centuries. In Europe, by contrast, a stagnant France or Spain was always compensated by Netherlands or Britain.
Modernity emerged in a bloody internicide conflict of the Reformation. Chinese dynasties changed twice with foreign rulers obliterating centuries of previous decisions. The New World was discovered to find a trade passage to India and spice islands. China had this trade next door. There was no real incentive to geographic curiosity. I also disagree that Europe was not making progress. Starting from the Crusades it was ceaseless upward motion. By the time of the scholastic revolution there was no question which part of the world is in the ascend and which is in a decline. Geography is no substitute for intellectual daring.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 07:04 pm (UTC)I think the argument is tendentious and ahistorical. China has been occupied, went through several periods of disintegration and reintegration, and changed dynasties several times. If the secret of world success is decentralization, China had it, for decades. Inwardness and lack of curiosity about the world beyond do not need geographical justification. India entered its long decline despite all of its mountain ranges and warring rajas. I do not see what is wrong with the old argument: that civilisations develop different worldviews that differ in their potential for global outreach and domination. Explaining these trajectories of thought by geography, diet, and whims of emperors is as ridiculous as reducing it to race.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-03 08:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-03 02:26 pm (UTC)