20
Response to the “geography is destiny” arguement?
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)
GenZhou
928 readers
1 users here now
GenZhou is GenZedong without the shitposts
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space (shared with GenZedong). See this thread for more information.
Rules:
- This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
- No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
- No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
- No dogmatism/idealism
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
- Shitposts will be removed (please post them to /c/GenZedong or elsewhere instead)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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'.