My history teacher says “geography is destiny” and made us watch guns germs and steel. I think bad empanada said this narrative promotes a lack of remorse for colonization because it’s characterized as inevitable. He didn’t explain why it was wrong though iirc. My teacher (who likes orwell) says it’s just material conditions. It could be argued that geography is created the original conditions that led to class society before class forced largely took over, though this could be taken to the extent of class being secondary. Anyone know about this?
Building up on Neptium comment, different geographical conditions lead to different variables but it is not the chief determinant force in development.
In Engels book on the origin of private property and the state it is mentioned how the “old world” had an advantage over america, it had almost all of the domesticable animals. This lead to the development of animal husbandry and a very easy and plentiful source of food. In contrast, america had to develop agriculture to produce more food since it had only the turkey and the llamas. The civilizations in america had a much better understanding of farming than in the old world, even tho they lacked in the tools department.
Another fun fact is how much more developed hygiene was in america.
Yes, that’s what they say.
Yeah, that’s probably part of why they spread so much disease so fast.
Not really, disease came more from domesticated animals, since a lot of the deadliest diseases known to man and the Old World came from zoonotic sources, or were spread through insects and animals such as fleas, ticks, mice, rats, or birds.
I know, so domesticated animals countributed doubly to colonization.
Not on its own, though. The colonisers had to look at the damage caused and think, ‘Now would be a good time to take advantage of a weakened enemy’.