Guns, Germs and Steel: Why Europeans Came to Dominate the World in 7 Minutes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2016
- Three hundred years ago something big happened. The western world began to look at the world with new scientific eyes. There was a problem with this, though. As scientists began to classify the world into different categories, they also began to divide the human species into sub-species. Because of this an authoritative justification of slavery and colonialism happened. People have suffered because of this for over three hundred years. And while many people back in the day argue that the dominance of Europeans was because its race was “superior” to those of Africa, China, the Americans, etc. The truth is that their power really came from luck.
Subscribe: th-cam.com/users/thoughtmonkey...
Instagram: / thoughtmonkeyhq
Script:
In 1997 a man named Jared Diamond published a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel. The book was inspired by a question that a New Guinean man named Yali asked him. One day Yali asked Diamond, “why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?” Diamond spends his book answering this question. He details evidence that points to the environment rather than biological differences between different groups of people, for their success. He goes back over 13,000 years to discover why the west rather than the east, Africa, or the Native Americans, have dominated the world. The argument he points to is the European dominance is a result of opportunity and necessity rather than any kind of particular ingenuity. That there was a chain of events that led them to the position they are in.
If we go back far enough into history we can look at these developments. The road to such inequality began when people stopped being hunter-gatherers and started farming. When this happens, people don’t have to spend all their time looking for food to eat and instead can plant, harvest, and store a surplus of food. With enough food stored, people can have free time and do stuff like build cities, develop states, and consolidate those states into empires.
It’s not quite as easy as it sounds, however. A number of factors must be in your favor in order to make the transition from hunting-gathering to farming. First you have to have crops that are high in nutrients which can also be stored. And you need a climate that is dry enough that will allow storage. You also need animals that can be domesticated by humans and used to help with the farming process. When you have control of these things, you can make extra food which can be used to feed lots of people who can grow the population, learn other things, and innovate socially and technologically. At this point societies start to become hierarchical and political structures develop that lead to nations being built.
Another key in explaining that dominance of Europe is disease. And animal domestication had a lot to do with this. Many of the diseases that have wiped out enormous populations in Europe and Asia are a consequence of people living in close proximity with animals. Diseases like smallpox, measles, and influenza all come from living close to animals. Over hundreds of years exposure to these diseases have allowed Eurasians to develop resistances toward them. As they traveled they also took these diseases wherever they went - and when they came into contact with people who have never been exposed to them, the deaths of millions resulted.
Europeans were able to adopt the animals and plants of Southwest Asia, and their agricultural techniques over thousands of years ago. By 1000 CE pretty much all of Europe had adopted the plants and methods of Southwest Asia.
Because societies in Eurasia were able to produce a crop surplus and develop cities, people were able to specialize in skills outside of basic survival. People like craftsmen and scribes made Eurasian societies grow economically and technologically much faster than hunter-gatherers. These advantages eventually led the people of one part of Eurasia - Europe - to conquer the world using technological advances like guns and steel.
Even today as the world has entered a more globalized era, the difference in wealth and power is huge between people who have descended from western Europeans and everyone else. In fact if you look at a list of the richest people in the world, the majority are people who have descended from western Europeans. Most of us don’t stop to think about it, but the consequences of geographical and environmental luck have had a lasting impact on each and every one of our lives today.
Actually it took the Europeans longer than seven minutes to dominate the world.
Haha, nice. :)
Frank, you're hilarious.
Frank Blangeard yes
You cheeky rascal
dad jokes 🤦🏻♂️
It’s obvious to me that if you take populations and spread them across the world on different landmasses, with little contact with each other, and with very different conditions and environments, then you will get varying degrees of technological and cultural advancement. Plus, there are outliers, Ethiopia is one of the oldest civilizations and was advanced enough to defeat a european invasion. It gives me satisfaction that history and anthropology tells us race is a fabricated concept, not biology, and that there is no apparent genetic inferiority or superiority between human populations.
I agree but race isn’t fabricated it is very much real
Yea, so says all the DEI of my corporate employer
@@MicahRdr Then what are the races? There are obvious differences in human populations but where we draw the lines isn’t based on biology
Just finished the book and this was a great summary. Thanks!
If any of you have ever played the board game Risk, with random troop placement then you may understand just how important of a role luck has. The topography and location of Europe gave rise to a sea-fairing race which would go on to develop advanced boat technology and in turn discover new lands. Just look at how many peninsulas Europe has. Two of the most powerful civilizations, Ancient Greece and Rome emerged from peninsulas. Western Europe is kind of distant from the rest world especially when compared to the Middle East which is well, in the middle. The great powers of the Middle East would often fall to other rising nations which is what makes the Middle East an extremely difficult region to manage. Even the Ottoman empire which was a very powerful and effective empire had difficulty managing the region. Not only were the Ottomans fighting wars against a Catholic alliance but also the Russian and Safavid empires, with the latter being located immediately east. As for China's location, being in such close proximity to nomadic tribes in the north (which were arguably more powerful than European tribes) was no breeze. The construction and maintenance of the Great Wall of China throughout different periods of Chinese history really shows how there was a near constant threat from the north. Dynasties such as the Song, which underwent a proto-industrial revolution and the Ming, which managed to keep out Western and Japanese threats were both destroyed by nomadic peoples. During the 15th century under Admiral Zheng He, China boasted the most powerful navy in the world and was capable of colonization, but it had no need to. China was throughout much of its history a world leading exporter As for Europe, the various rivers, mountain ranges, and peninsulas all condensed, resulted in there being many different cultures which frequently competed and warred with each other. Constant warfare between various European states eventually led to a depletion of resources and a need to search for them elsewhere. Not to mention the Ottoman empire's domination of the Middle East which cut off Europe from trade with rest of the world. The most sensible thing for Europeans to do would be to find an alternate route to India and China in an effort to reestablish trade. With the Atlantic Ocean being directly west of Europe and its smaller size when compared to the Pacific Ocean, it was only a matter of time before peoples of the Old World, would settle the New. The biggest advantage that the Europeans had over the Native Americans was their immunity to various Old-World diseases. It is estimated that between 70-90% of natives died due to disease. This of course would have catastrophic effects on the native population, and I also believe that this advantage which Europeans had isn't looked into as often. If that many natives died to disease alone then that would mean Europeans were basically going up against the survivors of a societies ravaged by plagues. The Natives put up a decent fight against Europe, it took hundreds of years for an early modern race to completely displace and defeat a neolithic race. The militaries of the Ottomans, Chinese, and Indians which were more advanced than the natives would have probably defeated the natives, but it was Europe and for the most part its geography which allowed it to. Europe really hit the jack pot with the Americas and from there took off and by 1914, 84% of the world was ruled by Europeans. The phrase "the winner takes all" can be applied here. Now in the 21st century the world is changing and all the wealth that Europeans had generated from the Americas won't last forever. Much of Western civilization has solidified itself in the modern age but so too are the Chinese, Turks, and Russians (which Putin has declared Russia as being a distinct civilization from the West). China does have a vendetta against the West and by 2050 plans on having a fully developed nation. Only time will tell how long Western dominance will last.
You mention that war deplete resource from europe. Europe is simply poor of natural resource.
Yes I have played risk. I am Nigerian but and even do I don’t like saying this I gotta admit that Europe just good.
@@chidoking09 the subject is not that simple
Why nations fail is a great rebuttable to this book, and while there are flaw to it, it is simply a better at understanding to why nations are the way they are.
"A number of factors must be in your favor in order to make the transition from hunting-gathering to farming." The Sioux, southeast native Americans had a combination of farming and hunting and the Sioux hunted buffalo herds.
The problem is that without a domesticated animal like a horse, ox, or the like, to pull your plough you are limited to the amount of land that you can farm. Those other animals greatly increase the amount of crops a single person can produce. The more food that one person can produce, the more people they can feed that can become specialized in other areas.
You also have the issue that nobody in North America had a written language, which means the amount of knowledge that can be passed from one generation to the next is greatly limited. Also, they were living in the stone age. Literally.
@@andyklapper8484 also i dont think that buffalos could carry stuff on their backs for long journeys
@@strongindependentblackwoma1887 Buffalo are NOT domesticated animals. They are NOT just large cows, they are wild animals that will attack and kill you if you get too close. Domestication is a long, generational, process. Its like Zebras may look like stripped horses, but you cannot ride a Zebra, or get them to pull a plough or carry stuff for you.
@@andyklapper8484 Writing is an innovation that USUALLY occurs after a society has had the privilege to progress from basic survival mode, to a more sedentary lifestyle as a result of the surplus of crops(domesticated)one is able to produce & the benefit of domesticated animals that facilitate this process, as well as provide other great necessities. As the video mentions, North America had absolutely NO animals fit for domestication. I’m saying this in reference to your comment about the Native Americans(of North America).
Necessity was the mother of all inventions. Competition and war kept us innovating. Still today most innovation starts out militarily it seems!
something we should definintely change..
@@channelkaranos Indeed but competition is in our nature for procreation and will always be with us humans until are bilology changes and competition is a bit war like but it's competition going into savagery without rules.
yh, but at the cost of human lives
@@maindepth8830 unfortunately no evolution is without cost of lives, it's nature's way of survival of the fittest
Opportunity ***
Here's my take.
Stage 1: Geography enabled Eurasia to be the first to form centralized regimes or states. They got a head start on the rest of the world.
Stage 2: The great Eurasian empires: China, Rome, India, the Muslims, they all got really, really wealthy. They rested on their laurels. Any infighting was fought over the same pie. The sciences proceeded at a comparably leisurely pace, cooped up in curios, scholar dens, and limited applications except maybe for medicine.
Stage 3: Enter the period around the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. China, India, and the Muslim world were still rich. Europe after Rome was in squalor. They knew there was a bigger pie out there. They were hungry for progress. They had every incentive to expand and to actually build upon existing science and technology. States promoted large-scale ventures that were latched onto by private business. The West arrived. Same thing happened in Meiji Japan when they saw they were at the bottom. They had the incentive to modernize.
Stage 4: The other Asian countries follow suit.
So, a strong urge to progress, plus a strong state regime, and boom. Today more or less tribal-minded societies on which a state structure was foisted rather awkwardly by colonialism do not have the latter, while dictatorships awash in oil lack the former.
Scott elaborate
Excelent video mate, thanks!
Good job. I appreciate the hard work you do to enlighten us
Great summary!!
I can't help but LOL at the commenters who came here thinking this was going to actually justify their racist ideas. Looks like y'all might need to go in search of some "alternative facts."
Very good summary. Thanks.
maybe i should follow this guide to rebuild my empire
Geopolitics plays a huge role. Great ancient civilizations start off from the plains of Eurasia that has access to vast farmlands and rivers. They usually played the key role in the silk road trade routes, which made them economically rich, but also were targets from nomadic tribes(mongolians, manchurians, huns etc.) in the north. In terms of territory, they are able to conquer vast lands to expand their empires, but this also interferes with their technological advancements to a certain degree. The frequent attacks from the nomadic tribes and the hazardous natural disasters occurring from inner Eurasia(usually sandstorms and droughts) constantly affects the political stabilization of the country. If you look at ancient empires in China and the middle east for example, they are frequently overthrown due to political instability. Theres always a common pattern in these regions where it usually goes like, civil war→reunification→peace time→invasions from outside, natural disasters or political instability→civil war. Because of this, ruling the land with military manpower and agriculture becomes their main priority instead of technological advancements. Technological advancements happens through vast social changes in terms of how the land should be ruled, but these countries were always stuck on the usual civil war→reunification→civil war pattern for thousands of years. Meanwhile, the countries that are located in the edges of Eurasia are able to have stability and minimal trades with their larger neighboring countries while being geographically isolated from getting involved in constant wars. These countries that are located in the edges of Eurasia also started to rely on sea routes rather than just on land. Because of this stability, they were able to enjoy the advancements of academics in terms of politics, science, military etc. The result of this? Industrial revolution happened in western Europe. This completely changed the power struggle of Eurasia.
Some points were good. But you seem to not know that in Europe the nations were always in war against each other. Starting from Roman empire. Wars means also competition in technology. Unlike Middle East, Europe has more softer climate for farming with no natural irregularities which helped them in develop societies in a steady way.
@@Deri_Seh I understand that Europe, just like anywhere else, had constant wars. I feel like its because their territory and population(as well as cultural clashes) were minimal compared to the vast empires in inner Eurasia, European countries were ahead in terms of solidifying their “nation states”.
Hey Great video!
Can you tell me what software you used to create this video?
Thank you for this video! I have my exams in global history tomorrow morning
you probably failed if you took this person's word for it.....unless you are in a liberal school. youll probably be asked to write a thesis at that point.
Joe Sanderson Almost a year ago now, but I got a C haha
I am currently reading this book. Very interesting and informative.
it's euro-centric ignorance.
@@chiefreficul9774 excellent book. I finished it long ago
The key to understanding any society is CONTEXTUALIZING them. This book does a great job doing that, of course from a geographical perspective. I first came into knowledge of it upon reading several books written by Philip Koslow on significant pre-colonial Sub-Saharan African empires, kingdoms, & city-states. His argument was, and as well as many other erudite scholars of pre-colonial African history, is this is what made them so utterly impressive or astonishing: the fact that despite the multiplicity of geographical challenges these states faced, mentioned in the book(Guns, Germs, & Steel) the innovators still forged them into existence.
I would argue against the statement of "Not suitable to start a Civilization", since it still implies that Civilization is a more 'advanced' form of society to those that are not agrarian or hierarchical. My issue is basically the idea that 'Civilization is what humans should strive for' is flawed and disregards/tramples all other types of societies.
Good video.
We head to read this for one of our many 2nd year Economics modules.
I wonder, European's dominance was only happened during the last few hundreds of years which is actually quite short comparing to the entire history of the world. We are living in the period of European dominance but will it last?
Good question but I don't think so. I'm german/asian
The theory about the nutrients also doesn't work. Australia and the Pacific islands had a variety of foods, not just rice and sugarcane. There was fish, meat, and there were yams, taro, chickens, noodles, fruits, vegetables, and rice, with many foods brought in at various times from the ancient Melanesian era, the Austronesian era about 5000 years ago, and the more recent trade and imported goods and foods from the Islamic, Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch, British, French etc. traders and invaders.
This just helped me out with my report thanks. 👍🙏
1:54 this guy looks like dream about empire bulding state (in New York) or Palace of Culture and Science (in Warsaw in Poland)
I have to answer a prompt would Jared be pleased with the statement " Geography determines everything in human history" pls help lol I haven't finished the book
No he wouldn’t. Jared saw geography as the primary determinant of human history but not the ONLY reason for what happens in human history.
Intresting
Lie, Rob, steal and kill in that order
You should make a video on Niall Fergusons Civilisation: the west and the rest. I find it more compelling when explaining why Europe became so dominant. The 6 killer apps > Guns, Germs & Steel (All of which china had)
I think you are largely right when explaining the last 500 or so years but Guns Germs and Steel does a good job of explaining why Australia and the Americas were so far behind the Eurasia civilisations.
Guns Germs and Steel does not explain why "Europe" became dominate but why "Eurasia" became dominate. Only a little time is left pondering (and he has not put as much though into this) about why Europe and not others in Eurasia. He points out that the Middle East was having major environmental problems since its ecology is more Fragile than Europe. And China being unified could stagnate technology when it was not popular with the Ruler (while Europe being without any central government someone was always willing to invest in subversive technology)
It's pretty weird that people get to publish all these nonsensical books.
Egyptians dominated the world.
Babylonians dominated the world.
Persians dominated the world.
Islamic civilization dominated the world.( Ayubid, ottomans, safavid and mughals)
From Spain to north India, Islamic civilization dominated for 400+ years.
Chinese dominated the world.( Read Marco polo and voyage of Zheng he)
It happens to be only last 300 years the world is dominated by anglo west. Advantage and disadvantage is a matter or perspective. A fish might look at a bird and feel like it's advantageous to be able to fly but it's disregarding it's amazing ability in water!
If Japan dominates China
He attributed the rise of Europe and the middle east or people of the fertile crescent to geographical luck not just luck. They had an advantage because of the environment and resources available to them. Also Yali's question never says black he asks "why you white men have so much cargo and us New Guineans have so little?"
J OneLife Actually no Canada isn’t a frozen wasteland. Also The vast majority of Canadians live on the edge of their country closest to the United States they live on the edge of their country pretty much
I'll address the elephant in the room... Christianity.
Christianity was one of the major things that allowed Europe to flourish. Whether you hate the religion or not, it played a massive role in building Europe's power and influence up. It's no coincidence that when the Pagan, Nordic, etc. Gods were put to rest, and Christianity took hold, that Europe while still at war often, stabilized enough to let things start developing. It essentially "tamed" the barbarians and helped build larger social structures, as well as keep monarchs in check (there was an authority higher then the monarch). And it was rather flexible (compared to other religions at the time) not promoting rituals that were harmful to society (human sacrifices, crop burning tributes, etc.) but allowing those to do as they wish so long as they followed the code of conduct (basically don't be an evil asshole). It's actually kind of ironic... that a religion condemning a majority of violence (not all, but a lot), was such a hit among the most violent population on Earth.
Yikes, you might want to relearn history.
Christianity is a joke! It wasn't luck. It was greed and wickedness!
well "individuality" for people who dont believe.
Europe bloomed and dominated once we did no longer let the church be the final and only truth...
Today we can be religious and still wide open to sciense and allow for progress. It seesm other religions are used against that, as ours was up until the enlightenment.
@@josephbach1 it was a monarchy, there is no such thing as individuality
super interesting and well made video
2:27 lol "I'm the king bitch". Funny :D thought of the 'I'm Rick James bitch' from Dave Chappelle lol
Western Europeans didnt "invent" slavery and racism after the scientific revolution. Everyone enslaved their own people for thousands of years until cargo ships were strong enough for world travel and modern medicine allowed people to survive foreign diseases in other continents. The majority of slave owners hated their slaves - it was a status thing 10,000 years before it was a racial thing - and the Slave Kings of Africa captured, tortured, and sold their own people. The British Empire fought to end slavery in Africa as the mortality rate was incredibly high. Africa did not willingly end their own slavery. Don't hustle racial lies.
I would venture to add another dimenison: our relationship with bodies of water (rivers, lakes, seas, oceans); it appears (I am not the first to highlight this - Buckminster Fuller in his Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1969) - mentions a version of this idea) that Man's relationship with the bodies of water helped him develop certain abilities based on needs: (not in any order): navigation, ability to use the wind, ability to use the tides, ability to store food, invent simple medication/medical procedures, ability to manage teams, teamwork, boat design, sail design, interaction/communication/barter with "others", and ...more. These abilities benefited those "with" over those "without"....eventually. Was this "luck"? In so far as being born at a particular geography (i.e. close to a water body) ...yes. After all is said and done, many European ancestors are probably related to those from North Africa, Middle East who lived by the waters: the Nile, Euphrates, Tigris, the Mediterrenean, etc. or at least they built upon what they learned from those...
It’s “pour la France” 😅
I can't unsee Ferb in these guys
This helped me out a lot
"First you have to have crops that are high in nutrients which can also be stored. And you need a climate that is dry enough that will allow storage. You" That couldn't explain the Mayans, Thais, Indians, Indonesians, Filipinos, Angkor Wat, Ancient China, etc..
Much much later
Indians and the Chinese were very advanced in the past, and I believe Mayans were too detached from the rest of the world, as opposed to Eurasia
the greatest powers in antiquity were india and china. to simply put it. they lost because they didn't want to expand because silk and spices were already at home. europe won because they wanted spices and silk. india and china were also vulnerable to and have been conquered numerous times by central asian horsemen. aside from the huns, europe had the luxury of being distant from central asian rulers. well, let's look at what happened when the huns actually did reach europe. roman civilization collapsed saved for the eastern roman empire that went in decline.
so you're saying that without domestication, our species would have less viruses?
Definitely.
No that’s backwards. Without domestication our species would have less immunity.
without domestication, cats would have wiped us out long time ago
Lmao so many butthurt racial supremacists in these comments. Thank you so much for this great summary; Science wins out again!
>Implying there isn't science behind race realism
@@Kruegernator123
>Implying there's science behind racis- 'race realism'.
@ThomasJefferson PimpinGame Appeal to authority much?
Especially given he's been stripped of his honours given his unscientific claims.
Nein No lmao, really triggered the troglodyte there.
@@neinno8172 he was stripped of them because he stated the inconvenient truth, the one you want to censor
What about potatoes?
good job 👍🍻
This seems partially true, but not completely true. Remember 'Guns, Germs. and Steel' is an in depth hypothesis not absolute history. It has many detractors. There are other factors involved, not due to race but due to culture as well, and yes luck plays a big part, but what the culture does with it also plays a big part.
2:57 Actually we Somalis domesticated the camel first...
Camels are more efficient than horses but then again its not what you have but how you use it
@@Wolcik3000 Lol imagine camels in war
@@justinnamuco9096 There were camels in some combat scenarios
@@justinnamuco9096 We've bred horses for combat, why not camels?
Justin Namuco I know they’re been used before but I do not know who used them
haha nice dude. you've been reading books I've read.
ia it okay to suggest some good books?
- Sapien - Yuval Harari
-the happiness Industry - forgot the name. haha
Innovation and deseases....the last one is irony
Hierarchy is present even in hunter-gatherer groups. Also, the majority of animals, including chimpanzees and other apes, live in hierarchical groups marked by unequal distribution of resources and opportunities.
i'm peruvian and let me tell you...that's true, the only most useful native animal we have in here is the llama, then the vicuña and the alpaca....which....they are very similar but less strong.
Llamas are easily stressed lol
Did that transition from hunter-gatherer to farmers happen on the African continent or when people left for Europe?
Yes..Egyptian, Nubian, Ethiopian, Malian..
@@ddkay6478 Yes what?
@@leonardu6094 lol..I just answered you
@@ddkay6478 So if what you say is true, then your answer debunks this video's argument. Unless of course, that's already what you were trying to do?
@@leonardu6094 No because the european dominance doesn't only come from this "hunters-gatherers/farmers" transition...
asumption that a smaller tribe is not hierchal is a fantasy of noble savage
I believe the book itself says the tribes were hierarchal in the sense of there being a strong man or something similar. The video is likely just oversimplifying hierarchy to mean more complex forms of governance that tend to arise post agriculture.
Just for reference the billionaire you showed is a Mexican Carlos Slim which has ties to Lebanon so yes European or Middle Eastern and Asians are wealthy.
So if competition lead to the great European powers, should Europe adopt more capitalism and abolish the EU? Thoughts?
I think competition is now guided more towards the u.s, China, Russia, and the u.n
more capitalism does not necessarily mean more competition as laissez-faire capitalism is inclined to the formation of monopolies.
The European nations are Capitalist, and the E.U. does not change that. What it does change is the competitors now that the E.U. is economically prosperous. They now, with their resources combined, compete with China and the U.S., not themselves.
Nope. Because mondialisation, weapons of mass destruction and capitalism makes this a terrible idea nowadays.
no, capitalism will lead us to death
atlas pro must have watch this b4
Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Latin America, the Pacific etc. are getting loans from the Exim Bank of China in the Belt and Road policy, and infrastructure is being built that the European colonizers never built or only built to the coast, so the places were not linked before
Well if that's luck, then everything is luck. Because everything is influenced by and dependant on its environment.
Nice video though. Thank you.
I feel like everything is a combination between luck and preparedness. If you're lucky and have an amazing environment, but don't use it in the right way - nothing positive will happen. Of course the outcome of such positivity in the eyes of the Europeans in this case, was not so positive for many groups of people around the world.
Yeah, you're right. If you were lucky enough to be lucky, you still have to build on that to be successful. And if you weren't lucky, well then you'll have to put in even more work, since you start out at a disadvantage.
I guess the "European culture" was more of a blessing for the world than a curse, though. It's not like the world was a peaceful place before the Europeans spread across it. People have been at war with each other for as long as mankind exists. Maybe we should stop blaming "the West" for all the problems in the world. Maybe it's the environment that is to blame, after all? ;-)
The guy is a white supremacist with massive white bias.
Europeans got lucky.
Right: it takes "Guns, Germs and Steel" - the title of the video...
@@jermanospetalos3823 Cope harder
Actually, your analysis of why the world was divided into to races and sub-races is incorrect off-centre. The division was heavily influenced by belief, by religion, in the tribes of Israel, the 'Great Flood' and reconciling a variety of ideas; that were 'brought to terms' with the new ideas of Darwinian-ism... implicitly this lead to the idea that, irrespective of race or sub-race we were all children of God, and this directly influenced the undermining of slavery...
that's irrelevant when white supremacists are planning to take out your entire tribe/sub race/ or whatever they believe you are different than them
@@elreytriton "white supremacy" lol - what an inaccurate characterisation; you've had too much Woke-ade for your own good... the colour of the peoples skin had nothing to do with the behaviour - just look at world history and observe the hundreds of wars etc...
@@hariseldon3786 and everything you named was made up and spread by whites ....please change your name to Robert "Bobby" Boucher Jr.
Great book. Spot on.
I found the book dry and over technical but also quite educational.
@Scott Right and the youtube videos you watch by the random layman that form your political and world view aren't at all propagated to a bias!
@@neinno8172 At least they have links to hundreds of academic sources in the case of Alt-hype, not a single book.
@@neinno8172 Very much so yes, in every one of his articles there are tens of studies included as hyperlinks, the fact that you are to lazy and/or too biased to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less the case.
@@neinno8172 That is reasonable, please feel free to nosedive into the sources alt hype has presented within his articles instead of his claims. Be warned however, some of his articles are old and have broken links so put the links, references or name of the study cited and/or named in his articles in Google and find the paper, although that probably won't be an often reoccurring problem. Either way, have a fun read!
Then why was Eurasia the only “continent” with domesticatable animals?
What about Egypt.oh I forgot, Aliens right.what about the great Simbabwe, how did they achieved tha Oh wait also aliens.
Ag Raul my friend those white supremacist are crazy. first of Africa and asia is way older thn europe itself. Egypt was the 1st civilization on 🌎.
Kameron Moffitt ancient Sumerians were black, so you have no point
Sumerians were black? You do know that Sumeria is what you call Iraq today. If you tell them they're black, they're gonna explode on you, literally.
Not the current population obviously.
In about 500 years America will be totally none white and Australia will be Chinese. At that time “someone will turn around and say Einstein was white” and some dickhead will say “have you seen Americans, they’re not white.”
Egypt and Zimbabwe had some of the same advantages Europe had, but they were both built in worlds were domestic animals weren't a big deal, so they could never compete against the European.
This is a great video! I have been thinking about getting guns, germs and steal for a while.
Socrates said all I know is I know nothing.... In my opinion are the most important words in history.... Which made people think... And question theology...
Bro good summary but fix your sound. Horrendous Ssss in right ear.
China was not colonized by any European empires, but still gave up a lot of land and abilities in unequal treaties after losing wars with European empires.
you forgot the massive amounts of drugs the british got their soldiers hooked on which is what caused them to lose the war before it started.
That's what I've been saying. Animal's simply respond to their environment. For good or bad.
They also adapt to their environment via natural selection, creating genetic differences. Just like different human groups.
Why does everyone ignore the fact that when Europeans encountered Africans and native Americans both were Stone Age people?
Did you even read the book or watch the video? If you dont have dimesticated animals or good crops it takea more time to get food and least time to unvent new things
Iron age rather
what about Aztecs, Mayans or Incas?
Stone age? A simple google search would tell you something completely different. But i guess we have to keep lying to ourselves, right.
3:00 Zebras are tamable as it has been done by Germans in XIX
The author stupidly assumed that what has not been tamed is not tamable
I think that's somewhat an oversimplification as it's not necessarily tamable vs tamable but the ease or difficulty with which a creature can be tamed. Not to mention there's a difference between taming and domestication which I believe if I remember correctly, is explained in the book. To get a horse that you can actually ride properly like we view modern horses you have to first tame the animal and then breed it for desirable traits for a long time. Some animals, for various reasons, are difficult if not impossible to breed in captivity without a complex understanding of their behavior and biology. The reason animals gave Europeans an edge was long term domestication, not simply taming wild counterparts.
Paweł Wolnicki just because you tame a animal doesn’t mean it was worth the effort and resources spent trying to tame said animal
@@hegaliandialectics4289 In comparison to what? African people not having easier way of traveling? Oh, wait they wouldn't have carriages without the wheel. Then again riding horseback is still more convenient.
@@Wolcik3000 there were chariot riding people in niger and mali.
@@lif3andthings763 well, Africa is a big place - in Europe any invention would be contributed to its nation especially if it was not shared with others.
Was the technology regressed at any point and was it developed or only imported?
I think this is a great 7 minute summary of guns, germs and steal.
The answer is of course the West isn't. Japan and South Korea are doing rather well. And China!
Says who? Go live in China or North Korea for a few years then come back to a country where TH-cam is allowed and let us know what you think.
The music distracts me from the content!
I thought South Korean and Japanese entertainment are doing rather well.
You said Africa has no domesticated animals yet in North Africa they ride Camels.
Why are Europeans so big and tall on average compared to Asians, Africans and American Natives?
Africans big and tall
This is a partially inaccurate summary of the book guns germs and steel. You have misquoted the book right at the start.
Do you care to add anything of value?
claim that european germs killed millions falls on its face when you compare america to india - the fact is that one had a high population and the other didn't, which is why america was so easy to colonise as there was so much land without any people in it
@J OneLife I am referoing to the popluation of colonize nations, as european one is irrelevant
Bruh Out of 70 Million 60 Million dies do to diseas
There is no historian who questions that germs were the most important factor in the genocide of the Native Americans. The reason why many other areas did not suffer the same fate is because they had already been in contact with some European animals, such as horses, and were therefore in less danger of the germs.
@@silentstorm5757 Didn't vikings attempt to trade with them?
Well, they wouldn't have horses with them though
Taking advantage of opportunities or seeking solutions based on a competitive environment isn’t lucky. It’s smart.
Having the highest number of wars is not smart, it is dumb.
Yeah it's smart..But the smartness comes from the lucky situation. It could have been any other civilization but it turns out to be the Europeans...
Kasunsu from a Darwinian point of view not if it improves the resources, opportunities, and safety of the winner of said war. Winners win because they are smarter and stronger.
DD KAY but it wasn’t any other civilization. It’s was Europe. Demonstrating that’s it’s not luck it’s ingenuity and intelligence not luck.
@@darbyohara it is not a démonstration 🙄
Mhmm so that's why history is distorted, so the story could be told any kind of way....what's your point of reference?
How is history distorted?
You don't conquer most of the planet with "luck".
Actually, you can, but many specific things have to happen. Like for example many Asian countries as late as 16th century began to use firearms, but for one reason or another, they discouraged that type of warfare. Meanwhile Europeans not only embraced that technology, but also made it the basics of their land and naval warfare. Giving it 200 years to advance enough, we were ready to take the world in 19th century by brute force, as there was nobody who could stop us.
you clearly did not finish the whole video.
Europeans conquered the world with luck tho.
The whole world? Again, most of that was in the Americas, which were decimated by disease which the Europeans had no idea they even carried. That is the definition of luck.
Even then, Amerindians managed to fight outgunned and out manned for centuries. Europeans did not do the same in the same position.
Mr Football You are a damn idiot.
The important thing is that we work together to create a better future for everyone, it doesnt matter who is the best in what...we are all in this together.
Thailand was never colonized.
So Ancient Africa had agriculture, steel, domesticatable draft animals, wheels, animals that could be domesticated for meat and milk, chariots, etc.. There was Ancient Egypt, Kingdom of Kongo, Ghana Empire, Songhai Empire, Kanem Bornu empire, Great Zimbabwe, Medieval Tanzania, Mali and many other empires. And the Africans had traded for guns from European powers like Portuguese traders, as well as from countries in the Americas.
exactly and china invented gun powder. however they didn't feel the need to use those things to travel around raiding peaceful ppl like barbarians
Lack of empire building thinking on their part. But in reality, they could never agree on what music channel to play so time was wasted .
This is too flat and uninspirational. European men made their own "luck."
Well think about it, how much more weight can a ox carry than a human.
India and China are two of the oldest civilizations and had a proper structure,society and scientific technology right from ancient times. I wonder why they never took advantage of their development like the Europeans did.
India, if not for petty differences between different kingdoms would never have been conquered by Britain and could have been a superpower in today's time.
It's the climate the Northern Europeans faced that is the biggest factor believe it or not. The Chinese and Indians are both in more temperate environments. In the North of Europe it's cold and it made nordic Europeans and Germanic peoples into a people of craft. Not to mention all the ships they had been building for 1500 years. Not just any ships they're engineering is unmatched even in other areas of craft Germany has the most sound and intelligent engineers and great design. Even from many years ago before Germany's unifucation. Plus the way they congregated and shared knowledge (ik thats stupid to say when the Indians and Chinese did too of course) but they are intelligent without any learning because they were always people of craft strategy and sound engineering. No body could rival something the world couldn't understand yet.
You are aware that up until 200 years ago, Northern Europeans lagged behind? Do you think Bonaparte was a German?
They were, obviously not as greedy and wicked as your ancestors.
The simple answer is that where the one constant in all of humans exhistance is war and conflict it turns out that having a bunch of nations constantly at war drives progress in that area. Europe was the place where new technological advances where most easily adapted and roughed out, China might have invented gun powder but they had no drive to develop it into a weapon to conquer when they had already conquered China. Large empires stagnate, the Mughals brought technology and rapidly took india but then they became an empire and stagnated, the ottomans too brough advancements but again stagnated. There was never any large empire in Europe to stagnate, even britain at its peak could not crush any european country by itself.
This is true. Before the United States, the only country to be the uncontested ruler of Europe was Rome. And even then, America isn’t dominating Europe by military conquest... it’s economic.
Conflict is the one constant in humans existence and it turns out that having a bunch of nations constantly at war drives progress in that area. Europe was the place where new technological advances where most easily adapted and perfected, China might have invented gunpowder but they had no drive to develop it into a weapon to conquer when they had already conquered China. Large empires stagnate, the Mughals brought technology and rapidly took india but then they became an empire and stagnated, the ottomans too brought advancements but again stagnated. There was never any large empire in Europe to stagnate, even britain at its peak could not crush any european country by itself and so never had any chance to stagnate. Now that we are in the global era, conflict has been replaced in other areas, conflict in making your country stronger, better more prosperous, conflict in idealogy and the battle for natural resources. though war is at an all time low conflict is now constantly world wide and it develops technology and progression, America is the world power yet Russia once threatened it and now china does. Race, religion, geography has nothing to do with it, they just help conflict, the african tribes enslaved each other and sold them to the arabs and then the europeans, it didnt come from false "science" or racism just pragmatism. Christianity cause the european dark ages, islam brought a golden age to the middle east and has been its crutch, not because the religion is bad but because it drives down it problems to non muslims and to muslims, stagnating countries in many ways. The key to Europe's success was conflict and in that conflict the technological and social progress that it brought.
saying that useful animals could be domesticated is like say wet raods make rain
JD Fullerton well there are very strict conditions that make animals prime for domestication. Zebras and elephants were examples of 2 that don't meet these conditions such as cattle or horses
@Jano van Pelt You must understand the diffefence between tamed and domesticated. African Elephants and Zebras have not been domesticated but can be individually tamed
@Jano van Pelt Again those Zebras were not domesticated, but tamed. There are criterion that make animals prime for Domestication. While not IMPOSSIBLE, Not meeting some of these criterion can make it logistically unfeasible to domesticate a species.
@@milesmoore8718 What happens to a species after thousands of years of taming them and selectively breeding them? Zebras are difficult to tame because they haven't been selectively bred for thousands of years, not because they can't be domesticated.
@@nw932 Perhaps they haven't been tamed for 1000's of years for a reason. I'll concede it is not IMPOSSIBLE, but logisically speaking it hasn't been done because they don't meet the factors that make them prime for domestication.
The fact that this video ignores North and East Africa is mind-boggling.
Rafael Melo North and East Africa got contact with Eurásia actually, since there is nor such the biggest sand desert neither an ocean to prevent that fact.
@@Daniel-um6vy North and East Africa was already a thing waaay before the Europeans.
4:49 You could have used the right coloured characters ar least.
Innovation.
0:19 slavery was happening long before and not because of looks. First came slavery, then came racism.
Word slave originates from roman empire, which used the word to describe people in the northern-eastern Europe: slavs, which were being enslaved by the turks and other arab populations. Quite ironotic that the word "slave" originates from describing caucasian/white slaves.
Racism was politicized in the last centuries simply to legalize slavery in the moraly changing west.
Does this also prove that capitalism is also the best form of economy for the same reason? Competition.
nope, it caused lots of deaths and enslavement of people, plus thats monarchy not capitalism, capitalism is still better than monarchies but both have the same negative effects
Taiwo Olaleye it didn't have to involve deaths and enslavement of people. Those are human decisions
@@justinnamuco9096 what sort of argument is that, how the fuck do system run without people if it is profitable to have slaves capitalism tells you to do so
@@taiwoolaleye6333 You should consider what was nature and what was capitalism.
@@taiwoolaleye6333 Social hierarchy has been brutal for the whole duration of human history, but what makes you think that social hierarchy is caused by capitalism? What makes you think it is not natural? Some people naturally have more intellect/are more motivated/are more lucky, that causes them to be more successful than others. How is that not natural?
Because we were really good at fighting.
Croatian Warmaster Black people be like "white boys cant fight”
can you then disprove the fact that around 90% of Amerindians died to disease? Because I doubt Europeans could have taken the Americas otherwise. In fact, they had trouble defeating the crippled, outgunned, outnumbered 10% that remained.
Luck was the major factor. If you can prove Europeans would have done the same in a different circumstance, I would love to hear it.
Mr Football I mean a landmass can’t really be “the truth” but everything else you said seems about right
Whites fight like no other, the west is the best
@Läski Jaakko I've never seen any data nor am I familiar with the history of the European colonization of Africa, so I can neither confirm nor deny that. Given that its coming from someone like you I assume you are either lying or a stupid piece of shit who doesn't know what he's talking about.
My initial comment was about the Amerindians, and what I said about them is a fact. Maybe stick to the fucking topic in the future.
Basically the geographic composition of Eurasia, its compass orientation, indigenous plants and animals, etc, enabled its inhabitants to conquer the world.
That’s it.
no, this book has already been debunked as euro-centric ignorance. china india and africa already had guns germs and steel.🤦🏿♂️
seriously ? just lucky ?
I have a problem with your decription of Africa as not having domesticated Animals. There were domesticated animals throughout the Nile Valley (Egypt and Sudan). Cats were domesticated on the Nile Valley. They also domesticate cattle, sheep, goat, pigs and poultry on the African continent thousands of years ago. Many precolonial West Africans nations had an equestrian tradition and domesticated the camel by the early middle ages. The area of modern Ethiopia and Eritrea had just about every domesticated animal since antiquity especially considering the fact that they at one point the Axumites/Abyssinians controlled large swaths of the Arabian peninsula directly and indirectly. By the time Europeans arrived in the African continent, most of the African continent had all of the beast of burden that came from the middle east. None of these animals would be domesticated in Europe either and thus they acquired them from the middle east the same way Africans did.
While I would't say these things had no affect, they are contributing factors at best. He's basically saying that character, intelligence, inventiveness, physicality, etc. have no bearing on the outcome.
He's not saying that. His point is that geography is the main determinant, with those other things being contributing factors that nudge things back and forth.
It wasn't luck. It was greed and wickedness!
Andrew G
Everyone was greedy and wicked back then, hell even know.
@@bodassassin6387 Yep, exactly. It's unfortunate that too many people think this is unique to Europeans. It just happens to be that we're good at structuring trade to facilitate it.
Yes, we're just so wicked .....lol. A simple mind explanation.
The Europeans became dominate because of trade and the profit motive. BTW the slave trade from Africa predated Europe and continues to this day.
Correct
@Mr Football no you dope Africa was not the beginning of civilization. Civilization started in Mesopotamia . Not Africa. Stop your uneducated idiocy
@Mr Football the out of Africa theory has been debunked many times, move along
@Mr Football the oldest homo sapiens remains weren't found in Africa, that's a fact, not a theory. And no, the continental drift affects every continent. Saying Africa doesn't float is probably the stupidest thing you can say geography-wise. Have you got any idea what are tectonic plates and what the seismic movement under them does? Just watch 1 video on Pangaea and what was happening under it to enlighten yourself. Seriously, that's like saying that the continents are kids jumping on a bouncy castle and one kid is Africa who doesn't care about it moving
Big Cup Of Shut Up Actually no the out of Africa theory is still pretty solid there hasn’t been any evidence to suggest otherwise