This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I would be careful with statements like these, if only because GDP projections into the past are based on assumptions larger than the solar system, even if how we come to these results are interesting and informative. Just to casually rebuff your assessment, I’m guessing you took these estimates from Maddison? A more recent reconstruction by Broadberry gives us quite different GDPs, with India never quite getting over Chinese GDP (both per-capita and in gross, given that the populations were relatively similar in 1700 at ~150-160m) during the 18th century, even as Qing Chinese GDP per capita fell steadily throughout the 18th century. Maddison’s reconstructions (esp. the earlier reconstructions), I believe, simply has population equating to total wealth in pre-industrial societies, due to the assumption that most everyone were subsistence farmers in pre-industrial society. Notably this Malthusian assumption isn’t really quite how things were, especially in e.g. Song China, or in the the more mercantile areas of Europe, etc.
Even without those estimates and reconstructions, I would be skeptical of the claim that India eclipsed China at the beginning of the 18th century; it would make more sense for India to have overtaken China during the 17th century, especially during the enormously destructive implosion of the Ming and its conquest by the Manchu Qing, and while the Mughals were still strong; and it makes no sense for (Mughal!) India to have overtaken China in the start of the 18th century, when the Qing had entered the High Qing golden age, and the Mughals had just decisively lost against the Marathas (and soon to disintegrate), with the 3-decade war causing/exacerbating plague and famine in India!
Edit: I didn’t even mention differences in wealth and productivity per capita, which likely had Europe leap ahead of esp. India quite early (though not all due to positive events)!
I took it from Wikipedia, but you're right the reference for this on there comes from Maddison. The early 18th century was a bit of a misnomer from me, the Wiki reference used the date 1700 (technically still the 17th century) as the time of the takeover and indeed that was the height of their territorial/cultural power. The Mughals did decline during the 18th century but equally at the same time the Marathas were growing a lot and they still count as India.
I hadn't heard of Broadberry, I'll take a look.
On a further tangent, whether China > India or India > China specifically at 1700 is kind of whatever to me, potayto potahto; but the most egregious part of the Maddison statistics I find personally is its assessment of Song dynasty China as significantly behind India during its early-mid medieval period, when Song dynasty China was pretty much unquestionably the most advanced and richest economy in the world during its existence. I think that is indicative of poor methodology or better current understanding (and my understanding is as above: Maddison, being the first to even try to do comparative historical GDP reconstructions, made an assumption that is now getting revised).
I don’t blame you for using that data since it’s most easily available, but unfortunately things can be misleading sometimes, and the truth is often so much more interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link