Another response to Guns, Germs, and Steel:

>> BTW, colonialism was not at all limited to Europeans. The Arabs were big at it for a while. The Chinese were, and still are. <<

One could hypothesize that colonization is a natural outgrowth of civilization. Cultures naturally seek allies, buffer zones, trading partners, sources of natural resources, etc.

But in my mind, there's a difference between local or regional colonization and continental or global colonization. The former is natural, or so I hypothesize. The latter isn't. It requires a conscious rationale for conquest, a massive dedication of state resources, and a willful disregard of others' rights. It may not be a coincidence that racism (categorizing people as inferior by race) began with the subjugation of the New World. (See When Did Racism Begin? for more on that subject.)

For whatever reason, most cultures in Asia, Africa, and pre-Columbian North America were not expansionist on a continental or global scale. The Mongols are about the only major exception. In contrast, most if not all the global colonizers (including Russia) were European in origin. The Japanese were consciously following the German model when they sought empire in the 20th century.

>> Were it not for one monsoon, the Chinese would probably have colonized Africa at the same time as the Portuguese. <<

If one monsoon can stop your imperial ambitions, they can't be that deep-seated or fundamental to your cultural worldview.

>> Zulus famous in Africa.

Maya, Aztec and Inca on this side. <<

Three empires out of, what, several thousand indigenous cultures? Not very telling, if you ask me. And the Maya, with their independent city-states, arguably weren't expansionist.

I'd say this is a case of the exceptions proving the rule.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .