Why the West Won

[Chris]

[/I][/COLOR]They can criticize, but as in Wolf's case, a Marxist btw, none can pinpoint why. The above is exactly what Diamond describes with respect to western expansion. Economics and trade came after consolidation from northern migrations.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humaniti...estern-culture




[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

That's funny. In the end, you cite a source who disagrees with Diamond and agrees with Ferguson!


Let everyone also note that you have failed to address the fourth criticism of Diamond. You have been presented with 4 reasonable criticisms of Diamond and you have failed to reasonably address a single one.

Thereby proving you do not give what you get.

[jet57]

That's funny. In the end, you cite a source who disagrees with Diamond and agrees with Ferguson!


Let everyone also note that you have failed to address the fourth criticism of Diamond. You have been presented with 4 reasonable criticisms of Diamond and you have failed to reasonably address a single one.

Thereby proving you do not give what you get.

In the end, I sourced a proof that validates everything I said. Furgeson's theory comes late in the game does not prov e Diamond wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

If you take the time to read more, I have faith that one day you'll catch on.

[Chris]

In the end, I sourced a proof that validates everything I said. Furgeson's theory comes late in the game does not prov e Diamond wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

If you take the time to read more, I have faith that one day you'll catch on.

You sourced a proof? State the proof. Don't just say you did, don't just repeat your opinion, actually state the proof.

That will be hard to do when your source cites, like Ferguson, "political and economic" factors.

I'll also point out that you're still confusing the Near East with the Far East when your source speaks of Mesopotamia. Ferguson's argument with Diamond has to to with how Diamond's geographic thesis cannot account for differences in Europe and the Far East, i.e., China.

[jet57]

You sourced a proof? State the proof. Don't just say you did, don't just repeat your opinion, actually state the proof.

That will be hard to do when your source cites, like Ferguson, "political and economic" factors.

I'll also point out that you're still confusing the Near East with the Far East when your source speaks of Mesopotamia. Ferguson's argument with Diamond has to to with how Diamond's geographic thesis cannot account for differences in Europe and the Far East, i.e., China.

I'm not confusing anything. Diamond's book was about Western European growth and expansion. You're tangling everything up in knots because you don't know what you're talking about. All the proofs have shown exactly what I stated about said growth and early migration patterns prove it. Furguson's points come in at 1400 AD, long after Diamond's thesis begins and shows the roots of Western European advancements leading up to world trade and exploration and expansion. So if you don't get it by now, then I cant hep you; nor will I.

/

[Chris]

I'm not confusing anything. Diamond's book was about Western European growth and expansion. You're tangling everything up in knots because you don't know what you're talking about. All the proofs have shown exactly what I stated about said growth and early migration patterns prove it. Furguson's points come in at 1400 AD, long after Diamond's thesis begins and shows the roots of Western European advancements leading up to world trade and exploration and expansion. So if you don't get it by now, then I cant hep you; nor will I.

/

Diamond's thesis was that geography is determinant in accounting for success. Yet while Europe and China and India share similar geographies, Europe has been successful while China and India have not. Diamond's thesis fails.

I'm tangling things up? LOL, you're the one confusing the Near East (Mesopotamia) with the Far East (China, India), twice now in this thread.