20
   

Why the west was the first to industrialize?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:46 am
@hingehead,
I can't help you if you need to ask when the statement I posted is complete.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 11:03 am
@cicerone imposter,
"You didn't do that." President Obama.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 02:28 pm
@TimeTravel ,
TimeTravel wrote:

I think you got your education in comic books and by reading the bathroom walls. The English built Stonehenge accurately moving colossal stones 300 miles and uphill, to accurately chart the positions of stars and planets, using nothing but deer antlers and their massively intelligent brains. Now this is a great honor also to the Norsemen they traded ideas, and DNA with, like wave after wave of Germanic Tribes. Have you heard of German Engineering? A German is just a Brit who has not yet gone to Ireland to get some strange stuff. Furthermore, peewee, did you ever hear of the Roman Empire that rose from the Greek Empire. Rome took over England for 100 years, injecting into them, literally, brilliant minds. By that time concrete a Greek technology was reinvented, and war technology arrived from China via Rome, and the Arabic Number system arrived, and the English assimilated all knowledge and technology so GOD ( Elohim or Allah to you ) decided to let England breed
with the entire planet, so they did, and the sun never sets on the British
Empire, because they are so smart they control all diamonds on the planet, because they love to breed. Women like diamonds, so the English keep a 50 year supply in vaults, so they can always westernize any nation, or industrialize it ... or reduce it to dust, depending on their mood.


With all due respect, the "English" had nothing whatever to do with building Stonehenge. That was the work of the Britons, a Celtic people who inhabited the island they called Pridaiin long before the Romans got there and renamed it Britania. The Britons practiced a Druidic tradition (about which we, frankly, know ****-all). The so-called "English" were not exactly welcomed to the island which now bears their name -- England. A Celtic chieftain (a dux bellorum or 'warlord' in Latin), whom we are plased to call King Arthur today fought the "English" with an iron will. He didn't succeed, but that's another story.
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 03:37 pm
TimeTravel does write a lot of bollocks, doesn't he?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 04:31 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
TimeTravel does write a lot of bollocks, doesn't he?


If he was able to see this and readjust he just might be the great thinker he wishes he was. Wink Wink
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 04:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Hi CI - so the industrial revolution started with Henry Ford? Hmmm. I'm throwing away my textbooks Wink
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 04:44 pm
@hingehead,
no kidding ? you are joking me ? did he said that, for real ? this world is lost...

PS...it seams he did...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 04:52 pm
@hingehead,
If you follow the concept of the title of this thread, it's "Why the west was the first to industrialize?"

You're talking about the "industrial revolution" that most people date back to the early 18th century.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:00 pm
Where are the democrats not thumbing my last post up to 6?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If you follow the concept of the title of this thread


I thought I was - and the posts under that title all made the same 'mistake'. Henry Ford is the best known implementer of the assembly line - but he didn't invent it, and much of the world was already industrialized by the time he used it (1905) - in fact Adam Smith noted this form of production in 1750ish according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line

Wasn't trying to rag you, I just wasn't sure what you meant to say, now I see you just got the wrong end of the stick.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:03 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
With all due respect, the "English" had nothing whatever to do with building Stonehenge. That was the work of the Britons, a Celtic people who inhabited the island they called Pridaiin long before the Romans got there and renamed it Britania. The Britons practiced a Druidic tradition (about which we, frankly, know ****-all). The so-called "English" were not exactly welcomed to the island which now bears their name -- England. A Celtic chieftain (a dux bellorum or 'warlord' in Latin), whom we are plased to call King Arthur today fought the "English" with an iron will. He didn't succeed, but that's another story.


And what conclusions are we supposed to come to after that ridiculous sermon?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:16 pm
@hingehead,
Inventing something in literature is much different than in practice. Most people understand that Henry Ford was the one who put it into practice, and mass production grew from there.

Sorry that I mistook your question as a "rag," but I respond to posts as I perceive them.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Not Cyc, Ford just refined the method which was crude...mostly he created real working conditions and smartly organized the processes to increase productivity...England used to do the opposite with its oppressive Victorian style...
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If you read the wikipedia article you'll see actual assembly lines predate Adam Smiths 'literature'. Post Smith, pre Ford we have:

Quote:
Probably the first linear and continuous assembly process of post-Renaissance times were the Portsmouth Block Mills built between 1801 and 1803. Marc Isambard Brunel (father of Isambard Kingdom Brunel), with the help of Henry Maudslay and others, designed 22 types of machine tools to make the parts for the blocks used by the Royal Navy. This factory was so successful it remained in use until the 1960s, with the workshop still visible at HM Dockyard in Portsmouth, and still containing some of the original machinery.


CI wrote:
but I respond to posts as I perceive them


I wouldn't have it any other way!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 05:40 pm
@hingehead,
That's one of the reasons why I love a2k; it's educational, and we can learn something we never knew before. Thanks for that bit of history. Now, if I can only remember it. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 06:02 pm
@Setanta,
That was damn interesting too Set - I had a 'net-like' understanding of this stuff but you've certainly made the holes the net smaller.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 06:28 pm
@hingehead,
The non formal most correct answer is that "industry" always existed where there was an emergent demanding wealthy middle class mostly grown out successful agriculture commerce and security which are the 3 critical mass points for it to spontaneously emerge...I guess that can apply both in West as in East in different times of History...Setanta brilliant and detailed answer has a more narrowed scope in mind, but in general loosened terms "Industry" can be traced wherever Civilizations grew...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 04:26 am
@hingehead,
Reading Setanta's effort was like watching a conscientious kid play with a Lego kit all afternoon. It was ridiculous in the extreme as a dissertation on the subject of the thread.

I for one am grateful that he saved us from the details of the "40 year crusade". I'm sure it would have severely taxed our patience to have been exposed to those. The details of the last 40 minutes in the industrial world would be enough to exhaust a university department dedicated to the subject.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 04:51 am
@spendius,
That is a bit over the top Spendius, after all he just posted a couple of lines on the matter...given the basic lack of knowledge on the Industrial revolution I think it was far more useful then harmful...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2012 05:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
It gave the impression that it is respectable to talk about history in such a grotesquely superficial manner and it isn't. It begged question after question on a gargantuan scale.

Such things, when not slapped down, encourage others to approach history like that and it misleads them when they respond approvingly to the example. It's a history ignoramus addressing other history ignoramuses and emboldens them to remain ignoramuses in order that he can continue in the genre without anyone noticing how ignorant the spiel was.

It presents no feel for the rolling becomings of western life since about AD 1000 as the so called Dark Ages foundered with the last rasping gasp of Cervantes.

It's a load of disconnected facts, if they are facts, with no coherence.

One advantage is the ease.

Why, and how, the West was the first to industrialise is an exceedingly complex question. The "why" and "how" of evolution are never discussed by evolutionists for the same reason I give above for history.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/15/2024 at 10:04:34