[monadINtop]

Technology wasn't the primary cause in the genocide of the Native Americans. The initial factor was the introduction of plagues to the Americas from the numerous intraspecies transmission that occurred in the old world as a result of the millennia of large animal domestication alongside high population density that had no analog in the new world (since there weren't the same variety of large domesticate-able fauna, apart form like alpacas or something). This is also why there was no American plague that spread in the other direction.

Western Europe was certainly not so far ahead technologically relative to the rest of the world as people so frequently give them credit for. Not until they had free reign over a new continent and purchased slaves to generate free money (*) and eventually total dominance with the advent of the industrial revolution.

(*) This also led to an arms race between rival empires and kingdoms in Africa and the stagnation of local craft and the eventual the economic collapse and political fragmentation of the wealthy empires that existed throughout antiquity and the middle ages - that have since been written out of history books. When the industrial revolution began spinning up out of the ashes and rubble of Christendom post-reformation, many other regions like the Middle East (for example the palace intrigue and power struggles within the Ottoman dynasties) and China (With the collapse of the Ming and ascendancy of the great Qing from the North) were similarly in crises - in part from indirect economic interaction with the growing powers in the west. It was then the nascent imperial powers found the world ripe for their exploitation and eventual hegemony.

[somenameforme]

The Aztecs, a millions large extremely militant civilization, were conquered by Cortez and his "army" of 500. Even if 95% of the Aztecs were sick, which they weren't, they would have outnumbered him by many orders of magnitude. The fundamental problem is that the Aztecs were armed with basic bows, and primitive melee weapons like wooden clubs. The Spaniards had rifles, plate armor, and longswords. This is what enabled a group of 500 people who didn't even speak the language to gather "allies" and single handedly destroy an entire empire with centuries of military experience.

There were also plagues that spread in the other direction - the obvious one is syphilis. And the claim that slavery is what caused Europe's success is similarly not well supported. Most of every great empire in the world had massive numbers of slaves. In fact the word "slave" itself derives from "Slav" [2] owing to their enslavement in many empires across the world. Yet these empires, for the most part, failed. While Europe thrived.

Or even take the Americas. Less than 10% of slaves taken from Africa ended up in North America, yet North America would become the dominant power in the world, extremely rapidly. Or even within America, the colonies (come states) that were most averse to slavery would be the ones that would thrive the most. I mean the idea that slavery played some key role just doesn't make any logical sense. It's just the neohistorical self loathing nonsense.

History's full of awful stuff, so is the present, and so too will be the future. Be happy it went as well as it did. There are timelines a plenty, probably the overwhelming majority, that make the terribly flawed society we have today look like a utopia.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Russia

[2] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofaf...

[monadINtop]

>were conquered by Cortez and his "army" of 500

Along with the other subjugated groups who turned on their imperial suzerain, as you briefly alluded to.

>The fundamental problem is that the Aztecs were armed with basic bows, and primitive melee weapons like wooden clubs. The Spaniards had rifles, plate armor, and longswords.

Yes that was certainly an important factor, though obviously entirely insufficient to explain how an entire continent of various empires confederations and cities fell over decades and centuries, and the vast majority of the population wiped out.

>This is what enabled a group of 500 people who didn't even speak the language to gather "allies" and single handedly destroy an entire empire with centuries of military experience

Sure in the isolated and specific context Cortez's victory over the Aztecs probably was largely influenced by their technological advantages along with their deception, ambushes, and the "suprise" of their foreign origin etc. (but not totally determined, since by their own account there was like a hundred different times they could have been slaughtered en-masse if their hosts weren't as initially hospitable).

You're gonna have to provide a bit more justification for how the rest of the continent's eventual collapse and depopulation follows immediately from that though. It takes a lot more to justify asserting that a single factor should be solely recognized as the determining historical cause for an outcome. There were many factors and any one of them must be considered carefully and in relation to all others, and my point was to show how neglected the others are in favor of "europeans conquered everything just cause they were better". There's a lot more to be learnt by recognizing and studying details over broad oversimplifications that require no more insight or nuance.

>There were also plagues that spread in the other direction - the obvious one is syphilis.

It seems likely but not entirely uncontroversial though I personally can't speak on it.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oa.802

In any case would you like to count plague for plague? There is an clear asymmetry in the scale of transmission as well as in the immunological defenses of the respective populations in the old world and new, it would seem reasonable the discrepancy could be due to the asymmetry of scale in large fauna to human proximity - which is responsible for intra-species transmission and by extension the major illness and plagues - but clearly none of these biological-historical conclusions are certain.

>Most of every great empire in the world had massive numbers of slaves.

Yes and none of them had the industrial system of slavery extraction and use on a massively depopulated continent in order to extract massive amounts of natural resources on a scale that was hitherto unparalleled historically. Note that I didn't want to talk about the unique social and economic system then emerging in western europe after the reformation since my comment was already meandering and oversimplified enough. I also agree that American slavery wasn't the sole money printing machine that led to European dominance, but a crucial factor in generating capital and material resources as well as a symptom of the more influential underlying mechanism - namely the emergence of the system of trade and economic relations that would later be recognized as capitalism, which proved far more effective in generating wealth and political power than whatever bastard form feudalism you could generally argue it superseded.

>colonies (come states) that were most averse to slavery would be the ones that would thrive the most.

Wow its almost as though financial hubs (especially ones based around centers of commerce linking a region of production with external trade) can generate profit from economic activities not in the immediate locality. Did you at least try to use your brain before you decided to insult me?

>It's just the neohistorical self loathing nonsense

Also self-loathing might be a bit of projection since I personally have no familial connection to the trans-atlantic slave trade or any nation that benefited from it. I'm sorry you suffer from such conflicted feelings on your own heritage but I'd recommend not lashing out at strangers in unrelated conversation.

>History's full of awful stuff, so is the present, and so too will be the future. Be happy it went as well as it did.

Again I'm not too sure why you've decided to read some kind of moral argument into my sweeping over-generalization of history? It's really not relevant to what was being discussed and even if it was I'm not sure that the takeaway is that we should just "happy it went as well as it did" or whatever? I'm not really sure what you think there is for people to be "happy" about or specifically what I've failed to be "happy" about since as far as I can tell I've provided a critical analysis of a historical period independent from any given moral framework. Unless of course you object to any such analysis that doesn't affirm your particular moral perspective.

>Be happy it went as well as it did.

lol for who? Wasn't too swell for the native americans... (nor my own people for that matter, if this is really the discussion you'd rather have). It might surprise you to learn that there are other people in the world with a different background to yourself.

But to be honest I couldn't be more disinterested in that useless conversation, trying to analyze history in a discrete set of "right" or "wrongs" that we must urgently assign condemnation or affirmation to at each point. History has happened and is happening, one should seek to analyze it's material basis either for its own sake or to apply it critically to the present, not paint hagiographies or interpretations to justify whatever belief systems or identities they've constructed.

[somenameforme]

You know, I'm verbose but I generally try to speak holistically and have some clear point(s) ideally with falsifiable arguments. We all want to ramble stream of consciousness style unloading all of of our own biases (which are, obviously, the right ones), but have some respect of the fact that you're expecting somebody else to read what you're writing, and clean things up.

The only sort of falsifiable content I can find in your post is a claim to justify the alleged exceptional impact of slavery in North America, in spite of the relatively small number of slaves, is that it was used to extract natural resources on a massive scale, yet that is again inaccurate. Its primary usage was in localized agriculture. Things like industrial mining were still relatively limited.

[monadINtop]

In that case it would be similarly be helpful if you focused your initial response on a key point of contention rather effusively and ineffectively allude to several. I will keep my reply as focused as possible.

You initially claimed that it was purely technological superiority that allowed Europeans to conquer America. This is not an understanding reflected in the literature. If it were the case, then why was it only much after the colonization of America, which began in the 16th century, that Asia and Africa were able to be colonized, in the middle of the 19th century? The difference between the technologies in the 16th century was not a huge jump, though its obviously true there was a discrepancy. Native Americans acquired horses after contact and incorporated them into their culture and by the 1700s some of the tribes in the great plains had fully transformed into a nomadic horse based life-style. Firearms are a similar story. One can imagine the difficulty 16th century europeans would have faced if they were to colonize an entire continent, without it being conveniently depopulated beforehand by plague.

You appear to recount that my claim was that American (US) slavery was a unique factor in the exceptional rise of Europe in the early modern period. This was a claim made by no-one. You'll recall that slavery in america refers to an entire continent - as I repeatedly pointed out - not an isolated group of states. My claim is that the depopulation and subsequent colonization of the entirety of the continent was a significant factor, along with the shift in political and economic structure that accompanied it.

Up to the 16th century you will find a wealth of european accounts of contacts with kingdoms in the Congo to East Asia, whereby they are described as equals in sophistication and size - most famously with Marco Polo's accounts though there exist many others. The change in perception of relative technological prowess in historical accounts occur much later, but certainly by the 1700s with the advent of the industrial revolution in the early modern period. This is well documented.

Why did the industrial revolution occur? It is a very large and open topic, though I lean towards the explanation that it was due in part to both the change in social structure during the reformation, as well as the colonization of america (the continent) and the development of economic networks with the extraction of resources (mercantilism, chartered trading companies etc.). This system was aided by and intensified by the trans-atlantic slave trade.

I'm sorry about the lack of "falsifiable content", or the lack of brevity. Unfortunately we are discussing history through the most sweeping lens possible, not science.

>unloading all of of our own biases

Again, what are you vaguely trying to allude to. Just say it.

[somenameforme]

The reason colonization spread to other places late is that there was real no demand for what it could offer. The Industrial Revolution changed that. It led to dramatic increase in the need of various supplies, not only from industrial processes, but also from urbanization and the rapid growth of richer middle and upper classes and their increasing consumption. The "Scramble for Africa" only really began in the 1880s, long after slavery had been banned in most places.

My description of the technological differences in the Americas was not off the cuff. Cortes' group was armed, literally, with guns (including handguns), cannons, longswords, and more. They were wearing steel cuirass for defense. And they were facing people wielding wooden clubs, primitive bows, and defending with wooden shields and basic padded armor, if that.

And the entire world, let alone the Americas, started out depopulated. In many ways it still is. Today if we spread out each person there'd be enough area for ~4 football fields per person. But back to the Americas nobody knows what the population was so there range estimates from 8 million to 53 million [1] (excluding one loony toon outlier), with an average estimate of just about 30 million. So if every person was spread out evenly, this would be an average of 273 football fields per person. But of course people, even back then, were packed into relatively densely packed settlements. So you're talking about seeing thousands of football fields of area, on average, without ever seeing a person. Clearly no major depopulation events were necessary.

And the reason the industrial revolution occurred is quite simply because technology reached a threshold enabling it. People had been trying to automate various processes for millennia, but lacked the prerequisites to succeed. It followed the development of a large number of technological breakthroughs - the steam engine, coke over coal, and so on.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...