Comments by "HomerOJSimpson" (@Homer-OJ-Simpson) on "The Origins of European Imperialism" video.

Just an FYI, the video early on suggest europe was poor when they started exploring And colonizing the world. That’s not true. In 1500, Western Europe had a higher gdp per capita than China or India. By 1600, when only Spain and Portugal had any substantial colonies, Western Europe had 50% higher gdp per capita than China or India. What europe lacked in natural resources they had made up with innovation and better run economies.
5
The video early on suggest europe was poor when they started exploring And colonizing the world. That’s not true. In 1500, Western Europe had a higher gdp per capita than China or India. By 1600, when only Spain and Portugal had any substantial colonies, Western Europe had 50% higher gdp per capita than China or India. What europe lacked in natural resources they had made up with innovation and better run economies. Italy, Netherlands and that region, and UK were already doing much better than China and India on per capita basis by 1500. By 1600 almost all of Western Europe was well ahead of China and India.
4
@CJONTHEHOUSE yeah, gdp is going to be a function of mostly population size. The point is that europe relatively yo India and China weren’t poorer peasants as described in the video. You’re logic is saying Singaporeans are poorer than Indians in 2022. Would you call India a rich country and Singapore a poor country?
4
@CJONTHEHOUSE that’s LITERALLY what you suggests when argued against gdp per capita
4
@CJONTHEHOUSE but the Singaporean on average are wealthier than the US. What are you trying to suggest from the comparison? Spell it out
4
@CJONTHEHOUSE huh, of course you won’t respond. You won’t say what you tried to suggest because you did try to suggest that people of india and China were richer than Western Europe in 1500 by trying to point to total gdp
4
@zinjanthropus322 The video early on suggest europe was poor when they started exploring And colonizing the world. That’s not true. In 1500, Western Europe had a higher gdp per capita than China or India. By 1600, when only Spain and Portugal had any substantial colonies, Western Europe had 50% higher gdp per capita than China or India. What europe lacked in natural resources they had made up with innovation and better run economies. Italy, Netherlands and that region, and UK were already doing much better than China and India on per capita basis by 1500. By 1600 almost all of Western Europe was well ahead of China and India.
4
I think the Bahamas was the first island
3
@NewsGuyFred you get it. I don’t know what Carl Johnson is going on about. He won’t clarify his comment.
3
@zinjanthropus322 gdp per capita is a much better way to measure wealth of country than nothing at all — which is what you used.
3
@zinjanthropus322 europe was ahead of India and China in the 1500’s on ship building and design, weapon’s innovation, and early forms of capitalism. India and China had the natural resources but Western Europe made up for their lack of natural resources.
3
@Snipsnop260 no one is excusing colonialism mr .50 yuan. In tact, the opposite— europe was driven by being poor and just wanting to feed its people. Your link to gdp is just a population history map. Would you call India a rich country today and Singapore a poor country today? That’s what you’re suggesting by using gdp
3
@Snipsnop260 you’re using the same tactics as .50 yuan club. No one is excusing colonialism so nice strawman. You used total gdp to suggest Western Europe was Poor thus you suggest Singapore today is poor. You also ignore that Western Europeans had the innovation to build the best ships and the best weapons and the economic infrastructure (early forms of capitalism) to finance much of it. So what is your point then? No one here is defending colonialism so why spread mis -info on the rest of the facts?
3
@zinjanthropus322 “you’re measuring nothing. Against nothing”. They’d literally what you are doing. I’d rather trust academic researchers than a random guy online who says “trust me bro”. Western Europe had some of the best weapons in the world due from innovation from all the wars. They had the best ships - a the first capable for long deep sea voyages. They were innovators in banking and financing in part because of Italian city states and but also Netherlands and hansa league lead to creation of early forms of capitalism. And China did build and scrap larger ships ONE time and those ships required staying near the coast. They were not suitable for long deep sea voyages. So, why should I trust a random guy online and not the academic research?
3
@Thebreakdownshow1 hello King!
3
@CJONTHEHOUSE funny how you CCP apologist had trouble with johnnys video on China and then you come here to spread mis -info such as suggesting Singapore is poor while India is rich in order to defend the false claim by Johnny that europe was poor in 1500.
2
@Snipsnop260 china and India had lower gdp per capita than Western Europe did in 1500 and much lower than Western Europe in 1600. In 1600, only Iberian peninsula was heavily involved colonizing. Europe was indeed poorer than China during most of the Middle Ages but by late Middle Ages and early modern period Western Europe had been going through a renaissance, innovation in governments and economies, and just overall innovation such as ship designs and weapons.
2
I wonder if the thousands of users defending China in the last video will make an appearance in these comment sections? Lol. They also flooded Uptins comment section and basically any video about China these days.
2
@CJONTHEHOUSE two days later and still no clarification from you
1
@zinjanthropus322 sure, Europeans didn’t have such comparable ships when Zheng built his. But 20-30 years later, they did. And from there on europe had far better ships. Also, most of of European trade and power historically was in the Mediterranean so never any need for for ships that could sail the oceans. So from 1450 and after, europe most certainly had better ships and better weapons and better banking systems. You are way under valuing how far along Europe was by 1500 with Italian states being richest in the world, Northern Europe and the Hansa league being another spot for wealthiest in the world, innovation in weapons and ship, ability to fund such voyages through out the 1500’s and 1600’s, etc. Western Europe 1500’s was a much different and wealthier place than Western Europe 600-1200 AD. academic research is literally what I used.
1
@zinjanthropus322 your arguments hold no value in discussion. You just try to point out that someone before had done it? Well, we play that game and we end up going back to the ancient Egyptians. What value does it bring to this discussion to say Arabs had banking before when by 1500 the best banking was in Italy? What value does is bring to the discussion that China had for a 20 year period the best navy when 20 years later they were surpassed by the Europeans? No one is arguing that europe was first in everything only that by 1500ish, Western Europe had become innovators in ship designs, banking, and weapons and that several parts of Western Europe were possibly the richest area in the world — Italian city states and Netherlands plus Hansa league
1
@zinjanthropus322 Tiny little Portugal in early 1500s was able to go around Africa and to Indian Ocean and fight to Draw with the ottomans who arguably were the most powerful empire of the 1500’s. From Wikipedia: - Unable to decisively defeat the Portuguese or threaten their shipping, the Ottomans abstained from further substantial action in the near future, choosing instead to supply Portuguese enemies such as the Aceh Sultanate. The Portuguese on their part enforced their commercial and diplomatical ties with Safavid Persia, an enemy of the Ottoman Empire. A tense truce was gradually formed, wherein the Ottomans were allowed to control the overland routes into Europe, thereby keeping Basra, which the Portuguese had been eager to acquire, and the Portuguese were allowed to dominate sea trade to India and East Africa
1
@zinjanthropus322 "My argument is that the initial mapping of the known world was impressive particularly because the people who did it weren't that more advanced than the people in the places they found. " Not at all relevant to the topic and argument. The argument is against Johnny Harris calling Europe poor in 1492. Literally the the first comment that we are all replying to. Are you know in agreement that Europe was not poor in 1492? That it was at least no worse off than China and India? The academic research indicates western Europe had higher GDP per capita than China or India. And the banking mattered tremendously as that's how they were better able to finance such operations and also how Europe became wealthier per capita than India and China. What they lacked in national resources they made up with economic policies, banking infrastructure and practices, and development of new superior ships
1
@zinjanthropus322 The conquistadors defeated the natives in part because their armor and in part because of canons. Their guns played a smaller role but still a role. The Indian Ocean conquest as Europeans began colonizing or establishing trade posts in South Asia and then East Asia were almost entirely from superior ships and weapons from ships. At least initially.
1
@zinjanthropus322 You're not even answering the questions, lol!! So obvious. Even if Inter-European trade was ssmaller than Indian Coean trade, how does that mean western Europe didn't have higher GDP per capita? All you are arguing about is populations -- yes, far more people around the indian ocean. But why can't you admit the academic research shows western Europe had higher GDP per capita? Why can't you admit the banking practices of the Italian states were the most advance by 1500? Why can't you admit any of this?
1
@zinjanthropus322 let me guess, you are a w8ma0 and feel compelled to criticize Europe as a way to defend China? I can't imagine any other reason for you to not accept facts.
1
@zinjanthropus322 So you're argument that western europe wasn't on par with China and india on per capita is simply "I don't trust the academic research, only reason it appears like that is record keeping was better in Europe".? And you continue to keep making argument that are essential just based on pure population size. "The banking practices of Europe were not special at all however." Wow, getting paid to make such comments? They spurred many of the financial practices that would help shape the world banking practices. Even wikipedia says "The origins of modern banking can be traced to medieval and early Italian Renaissance, to the rich cities in the north like Florence, Lucca, Siena, Venice and Genoa. "
1
@zinjanthropus322 Just going to repeat this part since it clearly shows your bath faith arguments: "The banking practices of Europe were not special at all however." The banking practices of Europe in the 13th to 15th century spurred many of the financial practices that would help shape the world banking practices. Even wikipedia says "The origins of modern banking can be traced to medieval and early Italian Renaissance, to the rich cities in the north like Florence, Lucca, Siena, Venice and Genoa. "
1
@zinjanthropus322 "My argument isn't population alone" all your metrics point to population though. and your refusal to even recognize the great accomplishment of Italian city state banking in the late middle ages demonstrate your bad faith arguments. You also refuse to consider what the academic research says.
1
@zinjanthropus322 lol, once again unable to acknowledge facts and just resorting to weird arguments such as “well it was Jews doing the accounting” as if that’s relevant to the discussion. I’m 100% you’re a .5 yuan type since you use the same strategy.
1
@zinjanthropus322 ok? So so if was Jews doing the accounting that sounds a lot like you lost your argument that there wasn’t great banking in Italy and you’re just trying to suggest Jews weren’t European.
1
@zinjanthropus322 you get .50 RMB, right? Is this where I if bring up China in the modern day has conc c@mps you deny it?
1
@zinjanthropus322 Just testing you because you have literally followed the same exact playbook as those .50 yuan soldiers. Why can't you accept the academic research showing wester Europe had higher GDP per capita? Why can't you accept the the Italian banking of the late middle ages became the best of the world and is considered the start of modern banking?
1
@zinjanthropus322 I’m glad you agree China committing genocide, thought for a second you were a CCP worker
1
@zinjanthropus322 i want to add more info on Zheng He ships. They were very large and bulky. They would be destroyed by European ships in battle and would sink in far easier in the deep sea navigation. This is why Zheng stayed near the coast and the they were mostly useful for transportation of large number of people and not open seas fighting. They were not superior to the European ships, they were different and served different purposes.
1
@Thebreakdownshow1 Duke Homer OJ Simpson sounds nice
1
@Snipsnop260 linking no sources? YT doesn’t allow it — your vid you linked earlier can only be seen in my notification. The gdp per capita is on Wikipedia. What else do you need help on? You want a source on how the European ships were innovative? I can find you info on that if you truly just want to be educated and don’t want to waste my time.
1
@zinjanthropus322 Arab ships were indeed comparable to European ships and better than Chinese ships of that time. But throughout 1500’s, European ships became superior which is why europe won out in the Indian Ocean and later Pacific Ocean. Tiny little Portugal in early 1500s was able to go around Africa and to Indian Ocean and fight to Draw with the ottomans who arguably were the most powerful empire of the 1500’s. From Wikipedia: - Unable to decisively defeat the Portuguese or threaten their shipping, the Ottomans abstained from further substantial action in the near future, choosing instead to supply Portuguese enemies such as the Aceh Sultanate. The Portuguese on their part enforced their commercial and diplomatical ties with Safavid Persia, an enemy of the Ottoman Empire. A tense truce was gradually formed, wherein the Ottomans were allowed to control the overland routes into Europe, thereby keeping Basra, which the Portuguese had been eager to acquire, and the Portuguese were allowed to dominate sea trade to India and East Africa
1