The west was able to control most of the globe due to their advances in weapons, and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
Remember the colonial wars were considered small wars by the standards of the west.
Okay, but why did those developments happen in Europe in the first place?
China had gun power and printing way before the Europeans.
The Europeans were supplicants to the courts of Mughal Indian and Imperial China in the 1600s. By the late 1700s and 1800s the Europeans were stomping on everyone "due to their advances in weapons".
The question that is being asked is: what caused the change in those 150-200 years?
> and their brutal tactics
Genuine curiosity: are the tactics "brutal" merely from a contemporary stand point, or where they viewed as "brutal" at the time when they were employed, or where they viewed as 'normal' at the time? Were tactics of the other side any "better" or "worse" than those employed by the Europeans?
They were originally used by the Kingdom of Mysore and the British took samples and developed the Congreve rocket. These were used in the war of 1812
(...And the rockets red glare)
How did they secure these advanced weapons without being rich in the first place? Like the other comments defending this you're confusing cause and effect.
Note there are two other top comments making the same case as this one, so this is not adding much to the discussion and it's forcing it to be in different places.
What do you mean by “rich” exactly? This was pre-globalisation - countries would invest in building infrastructure and military by creating it for themselves, with slaves and colonisation at scale.
He has received wide criticism for his denial and excusing of multiple genocides when the aggressors were from regimes he ideologically agreed with (socialist/communist), but repeatedly refused in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary to retract his previous statements.
Would you care to provide facts supporting such a claim? Else it is nothing but an ad hominem to denigrate a person.
> he has a particular worldview
Who has not?
> any discussion of history is secondary to that
Examples? Proof? Sources?
> He has received wide criticism
Who, being a public and outspoken figure, hasn't? That doesn't say anything on the validity or quality of said criticism.
> he has a particular worldview he wants to push
Exactly what you are trying to do here.
I know nothing about Chomsky. I have not read a single line of his writing. Nor heard any interview with him. I can neither defend his ideas nor critique them. I can just see someone not arguing in good faith for the betterment of a discussion but denigrating someone to push one's own agenda (without providing any sort of support for one's claims).
> Remember the colonial wars were considered small wars by the standards of the west.
You are mixing things up. What matters for this question is not why Britain was able to defeat Sudan in late 19ths.
The question is why were tiny places like Portugal able to dominate the whole Indian ocean trade.
Not quite, the weapons the west had "developed" were developed far earlier in the middle east and east Asia. Trebuchets, cannons, guns, gunpowder, crossbows, etc.. The west just adopted them.
> and their brutal tactics, which many indigenous people decried as "too furious".
The colonial tactics were brutal but I doubt they were more brutal than what the indigenous people did. The Mayans and the Incas ritually sacrificed their enemies in public, genocided enemy tribes, and other pretty brutal behaviour. The colonial forces just had more powerful weapons.
He is so tied to his ideological commitments that he frequently denies and downplays genocides.
Chomsky doesn't discuss history to expose the truth. He lies about history to make his political side look good and his ideological opponents look bad.