Rather than Columbus finding America, and English people populatiing it.... What do you think would be different, if Chinese or any Asian Country Populated America?
Can anyone please respond to this. I am working on a class project. It seems that the Sciforums community is dropping significantly in population. Just a year ago, people would respond within minutes, now it takes several days... Perhaps, I should join a different scientific community, does anybody know of any?
This is in the wrong subforum, for one. Also, the "school project" thread typically attracts little interest... more often open disdain. What motivated you to pick such an off-the-wall topic for a project, anyhow?
Under the rule of Kublai Khan, its possible that China could have discovered America. Kublai was a Mongol, with the Mongol ideals of conquest, rather than the protectionist attitude of the Chinese. The Chinese had the biggest fleet in the world at the time of Kublai (when Marco Polo supposedly went to China). Unfortunately, earthquakes, floods and plagues hit the Khan dynasty's peasant population hard. Peasant revolt, Khans were overthrown, and a far more consrvative Chinese dynasty was installed. The great imperial fleets rotted. If China had populated America, I don't think they would have been so hard on the natives. After the traditional Mongol slaughter and butchery and rivers of baby blood invasion, they would have been content to tax the survivors, rather than subjagate and convert the natives. The Aztec empire may still exist, and the New World would have been introduced to horses 400 years earlier, as well as new types of grain. The Indians of North America would at first be devestated by Old World diesease, just was they were when Westerners colonized it. However, with 400 extra years, they would be able to build resistances as well as an empire. An agrarian scociety of Indians and Chinese would probably result in the new world. Under the superior technology and governance techniques of the Chinese, coupled with the Khan's tolerance of diversity, the Aztecs (the most bloodthirsty and warlike people of the New World), would probably thrive, and in time, be able to break away from China. It's assumable that China would lose its colonies in the New World, as colonial empires never succeed in controlling old empires. After the Aztec empire was kept dominion over many other Mexican tribes, all bitter enemies. It would be likely that the other tribes would help overthrow the Aztecs, just as the conquistadores used them in the Conquista. However, Mexican Indians would probably tire of paying taxes to the Khan across the sea, and over several 100 years together would begin to see that they had more in common with eachother than the yellow skins. Revolt would be likely, and probably successful. After introduction to horses and guns, as well as the compass and navigation techniques, it's likely that the Aztecs could attempt to conquer Europe. All in all, the Native people of America would still be around, be strengthened by Chinese tech, and be able to resist a European invasion. There would be no United States of America, but possibly a Federation of Plains Indians, an Aztec Monarchy, and an Incan Monacrh, too.
Don't forget about environmental impacts. The environment would most likely be better due to the fact that native americans and Aztecs where less damaging to the natural world and work with instead of against nature. There would still be some environmental problems but not as much as today.
So you think they would have pretty much just remained as stone age/bronze age societies and not advanced? More speculation
The book "1451" makes such a claim, but the documentary recently on THC seriously challenged the author's claims. His problem is the same as Afrocentricists have, which is nothing really tangible to substantiate such claims. It's sort of like saying, "I'm pretty sure that aliens have visited Earth before, because we've found some pretty strange markings on the tops of plateaus that look like symbols from space. Now prove me wrong."
The Chinese were (and still are, even after half a century of mouldering under communism) merchants and traders. They would surely have brought steel to the Aztecs and Incas. Perhaps gunpowder too; the Indians would have quickly figured out its potential for weaponry. Add horses to that, and by the time the Europeans got here the locals would have been ready for them.
The Chinese did come to American, read 1421, they had little colonies, Chinese DNA has been found in Natives of Venezuela, and in California. The Chinese were here, Ming vases were found in Georgia, and Chinese cannons were found in the Western sea board, also Chinese chickens are found in Central America. Read the book it is very well substantiated.
I wouldn't say 1421 is substantiated. That's been the criticism of Menzie's book to date, no solid proof, simply theories. Even Chinese historians are skeptical of it. It's an interesting theory, but that's all it is at this point.
No doubt a possibility I was really refering to this part of his post If you are going to advance away from being a stone/bronze age culture then you are also going to get further away from the simple life, and get into some level of manufacture and production. I think a more interesting scenario would have been if the vikings had managed to remain in the new world and blend with the natives. The vikings though their weaponry was more advanced were not so much more advanced that they could just disregard the native americans(witness what happened to them when they did). If they had been able to stay they would have needed to be more accomodating with the natives thus opening a possibility for a real blending of cultures where they could develop side by side.
Spyke is hardly the only one casting doubts on 1421. From Publisher's Weekly: It's on my "to read" list, but I may not get to it for a while. The list is rather long. (hehe)
I read maybe the first half of it a few months ago, never finished it, although I found it extremely intriguing in the beginning, however, a friend of mine who is in that field was extremely critical of it. I watched the recent 2 hour documentary on THC, the first hour dedicated to Menzies theories, and the second hour dedicated to rather effectively dismissing them, and began to lose interest in his claims. There is nothing substantiated in the book, only conclusions Menzies himself draws. On the idea of Chinese being in New Amsterdam (New York City), based on what some early European visitors stated: in a visitor's writings he stated that some of the locals physically acted like Chinese people he had seen when on an expedition into the East, and Menzies makes the leap from that that it means that there were actually Chinese in New Amsterdam in the early 1600s, which is the similar problem that Afrocentricists have when they claim that Africans came to the New World, basing it on European explorers writings that some of the indigenous natives 'acted like Africans', and thus claiming that as proof that Africans were here before Europeans. Another such claim was that Olmec statues had features 'similar to Africans'. Menzies makes many such leaps. He simply takes a lot of leaps in his book without any solid evidence, and uses a lot of old maps to draw his conclusions even though these maps have been heavily contested for years. Menzies had to concede as much, because, according to the documentary, there are no tangible accounts of Conti's voyage with the Chinese. Personally, if it is proven that the Chinese indeed were the first to discover the Americas, then great. I'm an historian, I love new discoveries, and this is not my field, so a discovery such as this would not destroy years of research for me, as it might for others, but I do recognize that Menzies has done little more at this point than produce a theory. Nothing more. He may very well be right, but he is going to have to provide some real evidence at some point to be taken seriously in the field.
I see there's a lot of controversy over these points. I don't know, haven't read up on that stuff. What I have tried to keep up with is the results of the recent DNA analysis of dogs, that has turned some of our conventional wisdom on its head. The chihuahuas that the Spaniards found in Mexico are an interesting anomaly. When the Athabascan migration to the Western hemisphere occurred sometime before 13,000BCE, dogs had not yet been domesticated, so the ancestors of the Inca, Maya, Aztec, and all the other native peoples who today live south of the Rio Grande and/or east of the Rockies did not bring dogs with them. And... the Athabascan tribes did not domesticate the native wolves and breed them down into Chihuahuas. (Actually wolves domesticated themselves, but that's a different topic that's been posted on several other threads.) All the dogs in the world are descended from a wolf population whose genetic markers are still found in the wolves in one location: an area in what is now China. Dogs spread throughout the world in the company of their humans, via exploration and trade. So the Na-Dene people who migrated to the New World in 4,000BCE had dogs by then and brought them with them. Perhaps they traded with their southern neighbors and the chihuahua is descended from their dogs? No. It turns out that the chihuahua is descended from much more contemporary Chinese stock. Chihuahua DNA is related to the Shi-zi (Shih-tzu in the old spelling), Lhasa Apso, Pekinese, Crested, and other modern Chinese breeds. Chihuahuas (or their ancestors, they might be descended from Chinese Crested) were brought to Mexico from China, before any Europeans were making that trip. The Aztecs didn't have seaworthy ships, so the voyage must have started in China. What bothers me is that throughout recorded history the Chinese have never been an ocean-going people. To this day, the modern Chinese navy does not have a blue-water fleet. They could not fight a naval battle on the open ocean. Chinese sailors have always stayed within sight of the coastline, sailing in shallow water. If Chinese sailors came to the Americas, they came the long way, hugging the coastline of Russia, Alaska, and Canada. There have been plenty of warm spells throughout history when such a voyage would have been reasonably safe. The only ocean-going people in the Pacific region were the Polynesians. They were sailin' fools, able to navigate rafts between Tahiti and Hawaii, and I guess it's pretty well agreed that Polynesians built those giant heads on Easter Island, even if we can't figure out how. Maybe they were the trans-oceanic link between ancient Asia and pre-Columbian America. The only problem is, as far as I know, the Polynesians weren't major dog fanciers and they certainly didn't have any pedigreed Chihuahuas. Other Malayo-Polynesian people, even in very recent times, considered dogs to be food animals. I don't want to explore that line of inquiry any further, but nobody would bother breeding tiny dogs if their goal was to eat them. So my money is still on Chinese sailors in their not-so-sturdy craft following the coastline of the North Pacific. Must have been quite a voyage.
I'm not sure you don't mean China vs. Erikson but anyway, The prevailing wisdom has been the land bridge theory where peoples of Asian stock migrated over the bering straight, and began the population of the Americas. A similar theory of a nomadic fishing people that survived on the coasts and moved inland when the glacier receeded. These people were also to be of asia stock. The Chinese Star-Fleet colonization theory is nearly completly refuted, however romantic and interesting it may be. The Chinese Junk was not an inferior ship, quite the contrary. In the 1400's it was the greatest ship of the era. Both in size, construction, tonnage there is simply no inferiority about it. A political decision was made to cease exploration but technologically the Chinese were at the forefront of colonial capability.
Fraggle it is said in the book that the Chinese ships actually did not up the coast of Russia to America, but took the long route down Africa, then the currents took them across the Africa coast until they were pushed downward towards Brazil, from there one went north, one went south. Also there is a lot about Patagonia and a specific animal a mylodon (on which if you have the book is discussed on page 152-153): Also he discusses the travels of Chinese breeds overseas on page 156-57. IMO there is little doubt due to Chinese animals and their descriptions and since they cannot transverse the Pacific alone it must have been the Chinese.
