Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 12:27:25 PM

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

I agree about the comparisons. GeekyBugle claims that in 1492, the Europeans were far superior in technology to China. I disagree, and your point here seems to agree with my view. This includes with gunpowder. In 1492, Chinese guns were roughly the equal of European guns. The Chinese had mass-produced cannons and matchlock hand cannons. For example,

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_weapons_in_the_Ming_dynasty

However, I also agree with you that two hundred years later, European gun design was vastly improved, and they then outclassed China. (Though China didn't kneel until 1830 with the Opium Wars.)

The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.


EDITED TO ADD: When I speak of "influx" I obviously don't mean that the Europeans just sat there and advancements came to them without work. (Though maybe that implication is what people object to?) The Europeans were motivated to compete with each other for New World resources - like gold, silver, sugar fields in the Caribbean, and tobacco and cotton in the Southeast. With great opportunities, they needed naval advancements to get there, military advancements to fight each other over territory there, and governmental advancements to manage a cross-oceanic empire. The discoveries and opportunities shook up everything in Europe, and motivated all peoples to capitalize on it. The Europeans accomplished a lot with the right motivation.

But I think that's true with all advancements. Environment and opportunity shape culture.

Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim, it seems like we agree. *Laughing*

That is the interesting thing about the crossroads of culture, technology, resources, and motivation. (Political motivation? Industrial motivation? Economic motivation?--most certainly an alchemical blend of all of these dynamics.)

In 1492/1500's, China was the cultured, sophisticated colossus. Yes, the Chinese had vast stores of early guns, rockets, and primitive cannon. All of this was much beyond whatever the Europeans had at the time. As Professor Michael Wood--of Manchester University, Britain, explained in his program about China--the Chinese emperor laughed at the European ambassadors and their childlike gifts. At that time, the Europeans quite literally had nothing to offer China. The Dragon Empire had conquered a vast realm, far larger and richer than the Europeans could even fully comprehend.

Just over two centuries later though, yeah, the 1700's and into the 1800's, the Chinese Empire had to bow down to the might of the British Empire, as well as other European powers, such as the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese.

Part of that harsh and grim new reality is embraced in dozens of small improvements, honed in years of constant strife, competition, and warfare amongst the Europeans--things like more reliable guns, more mobile cannon, weapons that were easier to learn and operate, and faster. In addition, most of the European governments and rulers got on top of scientists, engineers, growing corporations, and spurred them to drive for ever-greater discoveries, refinements, and efficiencies. These dynamics, again, lots of little improvements, add up to a *crushing* disparity between European forces and the forces fielded by the Chinese Empire.

When the British fleet sailed into the Chinese harbours, Chinese troops had rockets and guns, and lots of them. But they were primitive, awkward, and slow. Just like the Chinese cannon emplaced in their fortresses guarding the harbours--the Chinese cannon could not elevate, move, or turn. Thus, fast-moving British ships pushed through quickly, and unloaded devastation. Tens of thousands of casualties within days. Chinese fortresses blasted to rubble in just a few days. The entire Chinese army was nothing more than walking bags of jello for the British to annihilate.

That grim reality faced the Chinese Emperor. That is why the Chinese Emperor bowed down low, and surrendered everything to the British Empire.

The obvious question arises, "Why didn't the Chinese keep advancing their technology and knowledge?"

Simply, because they grew complacent, fat, and lazy. They had conquered everything and everyone within 3,000 miles in every direction. There was NO COMPETITOR. They were all subjugated by glorious China. There were no enemies. NONE. There was no competition, for anything. Noone crafted anything better than what was in China. Teachers, engineers, chemists, alchemists, they all got their knowledge from China. There were no new studies, no new breakthroughs, no drive to innovate, question, and strive for something different, faster, stronger, and tougher.

Contrast that environment of fat success, dominion, wealth and glory for what was going on in Europe. The Europeans were not only contending with the Ottoman Turks, but also each other. Fierce enemies were watching YOU just over the fence line, or from just down the road. Foreign armies could come marching against you to rape and conquer in a matter of days, or a few weeks. The threat was REAL, from the King and the rich elites, all down to the mud-covered peasant and urban working classes. Everyone knew that fierce enemies were always near and ready to pounce. That extreme sense of competition and danger, year after year, decade after decade, punctuated frequently by frenzies of blood and fire--made all the difference between European attitudes and what was going on in the Chinese Empire.

Muskets, field artillery, siege cannons, logistics, naval ships, and the whole system and social framework to get all this stuff going *quickly* was a constant for every European nation at the time. These European nation states thought and planned always in terms of weeks, and months, a season or two out. Always working, always studying, thinking, striving, and experimenting.

In contrast to the European ways, the Chinese Empire was like a gigantic bowl of molasses. Slow-thinking, slow-working, slow-moving. Everything mired by traditions, thoughts of family honour, permissions from the right bureaucrats, it was these kinds of dynamics that year after year, calcified in China to cause them to stagnate and wallow in complacency, decadence, and smug, self-aggrandizing arrogance.

European Kings knew they could be facing the executioner's axe next month and lose everything if they didn't get their shit together, and make sure everyone around them also got with the program. You see this sense of shrewdness, calculation, suspiciousness, and *urgency*--in every European court, whether you are talking about the Italians, the English, the Dutch, the French, the Spaniards, the Portuguese. They were all watching each other like hawks, and always had teams of assassins, commando's, and spies set up everywhere to constantly watch their competitors.

The Chinese Empire would have a very shocking encounter with the new reality, from far beyond their horizons.

That is how history goes though.

As you have mentioned, GGS has some interesting discussion, and makes some good points, but as an *argument*--Diamond has some very clear weaknesses and flaws in the work.

However, I don't think that makes the whole discussion worthless, or the entire book bad. The book presents some good information, and makes many interesting observations. I think that is ok. I don't expect any historian or scholar of whatever flavour to be entirely right on everything, nor do I expect to agree with them on everything, or whatever.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is *ONE* book in my personal library, amongst hundreds or several thousand books, perhaps. A good several hundred scholarly books for certain on history and such like. I'm glad that I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." It is an interesting book, with lots of interesting observations and snippets of lore. Thought-provoking. It contributed to my knowledge, and I have of course read many other scholars and authors, historians and so on.

I think it is good to always be reading, learning, and growing. Even if you hate an author's arguments, or you later learn that major sections of the argument were flawed, that is ok too. It sharpens the mind, and makes you embrace the arguments, the studies, the research. Grapple with it, confront it, and learn from the book. It's all good.

This book, like many, can be helpful when a GM sets out to create their game world, or is chewing on thoughts about their campaign, and how stuff within it works, and why. Why do some kingdoms rise, while others fall? Are there crossroads of crisis in time, where such moments in time are a make or break zone for the kingdom, the tribe, or culture? What kind of factors contribute to some people's success, while others fail?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 08:32:59 AM

Quote from: Naburimannu on November 28, 2023, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Every single country has had internal divides but the ability to coalesce rather than keeping up a divisions afterwards is what I'm referring to.  It wasn't a flip of the switch event but a slow change in English culture that took centuries and hit some rough patches along the way.  The build up of a merchant class and the precursors to industrialization are significant evidence that there was a willingness to work together in larger groups than the typical "monkey brain" tribal groups.  Despite having watched their fathers kill each other, there was a willingness to set the issues aside and cooperate.

That's not so say that the differences were that great between various groups.  I would say that success was had at being just slightly better than others.  All it took was a little more social cohesion to beat out the Chinese.  Otherwise, I would be of mostly Asian decent and England may well have been a quaint little island country that was once the colony of the Ming Dynasty.  One of my favorite things about learning history is those cool moments when "if it weren't for this teacup" then things would have been very different.

As far as Native American wars and the constant inter-tribal and intra-tribal warfare, we have quite a bit.  Currently existing cultural elements, oral tradition, and actual archeological evidence demonstrate this.  The Iroquois nations council was a great innovation of diplomacy but it didn't stop the small scale conflicts that were frequently flaring up between the members.  Yes, the best we have is a fuzzy image pieced together from indirect data but it holds up.

I would love to give you references but I have shit for bandwidth right now.  I also recognize that there is no crystal clear answer to such a complicated question as to "why human?"

Suffice it to say, we are looking at the crossroads of archeology, history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and social psychology.  This stuff is complicated and it cannot be both accurately and concisely expressed simultaneously.     

Greetings!

Good stuff, Badapple!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2023, 09:17:21 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to.

I think this is addressed in the book. I dispute some of your later examples, but in general, it's definitely true that there are some key ideas that get passed around.

1) A key insight in the book is that history tends to focus on metal and stone artifacts. This archeological view neglects soft technologies - especially domesticated grains, animals, and textiles.

2) Discoveries are enabled when a civilization has a food surplus such that they can invest in time-consuming other activities. Having the surplus to feed merchants, industry, and scholars is an important prerequisite.

3) Many discoveries depend on each other and on the resources to use them. Having bronze and later iron tools, for example, enables a lot of other construction that wasn't possible. Having writing depends on the food / resources to support a literate scholar class.

4) Diamond has many example of how discoveries along the Eurasian East-West axis built on each other. The sheer number of peoples working to make discoveries and passing them back and forth along that axis was far greater than the relatively isolated communities of Meso-America and South America.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to. The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and fire lances, but didn't hit upon the idea of heavy cannon, or projectile muskets. The Vikings sailed all over the place, from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, but people in Southern Europe, after the collapse of Rome, just kind of forgot how to go anywhere for a few hundred years.

I think these two are based on false premises. Just two posts ago, I cited about cannons and muskets in the Ming dynasty. Here was my quote:

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_weapons_in_the_Ming_dynasty

So the Chinese did have cannons and muskets, and in 1492, their cannons and muskets were the equal of European designs. It wasn't that there was any idea lacking, but from 1500 to 1800, China wasn't pressured to develop better gun designs the way that Europe was. Europe had many high-risk / high-reward wars over competition for the New World - like trying to plunder the Spanish gold fleets.


Likewise, medieval Italian shipbuilding was superior to Roman shipbuilding. There are some examples here:

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/medieval-ships.php

Medieval Italians had better ships and sailed the existing trade routes more effectively than the Romans could. So this was also a question of motivation - i.e. what was the payoff for bigger fleets going further? The Vikings had massive gains to be had by improving their ship designs, because southern Europe was far richer and more advanced than they were.

For centuries, while Italians improved their ships, their potential gains were limited. Sailing farther and more effectively down the coast of Africa or up to the North Sea wasn't profitable for them. So while they did get better, for a long time, there was little profit to be had for improved shipbuilding. It wasn't until they could successfully navigate around the horn of Africa and across the Atlantic that profit started to roll in and the pace accelerated.

Greetings!

Well, Jhkim, competition for resources from the New World was certainly very important. However, during this period, 1500 A.D.-1800 A.D., Europe had many other conflicts and threats to deal with, right there in their backyard. Whether such flashpoints were over religion, political ideology, territory, or other measurable resources, constant conflict and danger was present, for every European nation, quite apart from whatever they were doing--or hoped to be doing--in the New World.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 08, 2024, 03:19:23 AM

Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2023, 09:17:21 AM
Medieval Italians had better ships and sailed the existing trade routes more effectively than the Romans could. So this was also a question of motivation - i.e. what was the payoff for bigger fleets going further? The Vikings had massive gains to be had by improving their ship designs, because southern Europe was far richer and more advanced than they were.

For centuries, while Italians improved their ships, their potential gains were limited. Sailing farther and more effectively down the coast of Africa or up to the North Sea wasn't profitable for them. So while they did get better, for a long time, there was little profit to be had for improved shipbuilding. It wasn't until they could successfully navigate around the horn of Africa and across the Atlantic that profit started to roll in and the pace accelerated.

Well, Jhkim, competition for resources from the New World was certainly very important. However, during this period, 1500 A.D.-1800 A.D., Europe had many other conflicts and threats to deal with, right there in their backyard. Whether such flashpoints were over religion, political ideology, territory, or other measurable resources, constant conflict and danger was present, for every European nation, quite apart from whatever they were doing--or hoped to be doing--in the New World.

Sure, Europe had internal conflicts. Still, within history, having lots of war doesn't inherently mean a region is destined for technological achievement. Often in history, interminable war just means a region becomes a backwater hellhole.

Compare the period 1200-1500 and the period 1500-1800.

In the period from 1200 to 1500 there were plenty of internal conflicts, and many incremental advancements.

But that was nothing like the complete upheaval of society and developments from 1500 to 1800, which saw a transformation of religion and philosophy, the birth of science, and massive revolutions in industry and technology.

---

It is very clear that conquest of the New World had a huge effect on Europe. And I think it's quite plausible that without the New World, the European period 1500-1800 would look more like 1200-1500.

---

To keep this related to RPGs, this brings to mind various "what if" and alternate history scenarios. I suggested the possibility what if the Atlantic were much wider and the Pacific much narrower, such that it was more practical for Asia to colonize the Aztecs, Incas, and California. I think it could be an interesting parallel with Japan more like England with colonies in California and the Northeast, while China is growing rich from conquest of the Aztecs and Incas, but both are having trouble keeping control of their rich colonies.

There are a lot of other alternate histories in various RPG books like GURPS Alternate Earths and GURPS Alternate Earths 2. It can be a lot of fun to explore other possibilities, and it can add to the plausibility if one takes into account things like the factors in Guns, Germs, and Steel. There is a timeline called Ming-3 where China dominates Europe in the modern era, but I find it very implausible. As we agree, China grew very stagnant during the centuries of the Ming dynasty, with no threats to its dominance. But China had more dynamic and innovative periods prior to the Ming.

I know a lot more about earlier periods so I could be wrong but it seems to me New World money was wasted attacking England (Spanish Armada) and Northern Europe (30 Years War). Money was a factor but the choices and prejudices of individual leaders was a big factor as well. Imbred Hapsburgs screwed up, imagine a new crusade with all that money bankrolling a crusade to roll back Islam instead.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2024, 02:18:22 PM
I know a lot more about earlier periods so I could be wrong but it seems to me New World money was wasted attacking England (Spanish Armada) and Northern Europe (30 Years War). Money was a factor but the choices and prejudices of individual leaders was a big factor as well. Imbred Hapsburgs screwed up, imagine a new crusade with all that money bankrolling a crusade to roll back Islam instead.

It's an interesting question. The importance of individual leaders is always a big question for alternate histories. If Hitler was killed in his youth, would nazism never have arisen? I tend to think nazism would still have happened in some form - it just would have had different leaders. There were bigger social forces at work.

With the crusades, a big factor was economic. During the Islamic Golden Age (622 - 1258), the Islamic states were relatively advanced and prosperous. There were riches to be had in raiding them. But particularly with overfarming, desertification, and climate change, the center of Islam was turning barren - and raiding them slowly became less profitable. (That is, until the modern age when oil was discovered and became important.)

To get a major bankroll for a new crusade post-1492, I think there would need to be a greater economic incentive than there was in real-world history. One alternate history might be to give a temporary boost to Islamic countries, which motivates a more widespread Christian crusade against them. Maybe the Songhai Empire could have gotten involved in the conquest of America? Another option might be to bring up the importance of oil earlier in history by a technological innovation.

Quote from: jhkim on January 09, 2024, 05:35:53 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 08, 2024, 02:18:22 PM
I know a lot more about earlier periods so I could be wrong but it seems to me New World money was wasted attacking England (Spanish Armada) and Northern Europe (30 Years War). Money was a factor but the choices and prejudices of individual leaders was a big factor as well. Imbred Hapsburgs screwed up, imagine a new crusade with all that money bankrolling a crusade to roll back Islam instead.

It's an interesting question. The importance of individual leaders is always a big question for alternate histories. If Hitler was killed in his youth, would nazism never have arisen? I tend to think nazism would still have happened in some form - it just would have had different leaders. There were bigger social forces at work.

With the crusades, a big factor was economic. During the Islamic Golden Age (622 - 1258), the Islamic states were relatively advanced and prosperous. There were riches to be had in raiding them. But particularly with overfarming, desertification, and climate change, the center of Islam was turning barren - and raiding them slowly became less profitable. (That is, until the modern age when oil was discovered and became important.)

To get a major bankroll for a new crusade post-1492, I think there would need to be a greater economic incentive than there was in real-world history. One alternate history might be to give a temporary boost to Islamic countries, which motivates a more widespread Christian crusade against them. Maybe the Songhai Empire could have gotten involved in the conquest of America? Another option might be to bring up the importance of oil earlier in history by a technological innovation.

Or just bitterness among Spanish for centuries of occupation.

Greetings!

Yeah, certainly all of those ancient Christian lands, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Galatia--that were overthrown and conquered by the Muslims--as well as Spain, of course, I imagine that all was plenty motivation for launching the Crusades.

Oh, yeah, and the millions of White Europeans that were taken as slaves by the Muslims and raped and plundered, that also was a motivating factor. For centuries, entire sections of coastline throughout Spain, and Southern France, were uninhabited, or much reduced--because of Muslim marauders attacking relentlessly every year, and dragging European Christians off to absolute bondage and crushing slavery.

That fact was always on the mind of the Europeans. The Europeans were tired of being beaten down, raped, and plundered by the Muslim hordes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 09, 2024, 07:54:33 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, certainly all of those ancient Christian lands, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Galatia--that were overthrown and conquered by the Muslims--as well as Spain, of course, I imagine that all was plenty motivation for launching the Crusades.

Oh, yeah, and the millions of White Europeans that were taken as slaves by the Muslims and raped and plundered, that also was a motivating factor. For centuries, entire sections of coastline throughout Spain, and Southern France, were uninhabited, or much reduced--because of Muslim marauders attacking relentlessly every year, and dragging European Christians off to absolute bondage and crushing slavery.

That fact was always on the mind of the Europeans. The Europeans were tired of being beaten down, raped, and plundered by the Muslim hordes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hollywood reliably informs me that the Crusades were due to bigoted, ignorant Christian zealots, impotently trying to erase the advanced and civilized cultures of the Muslim world.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 09, 2024, 08:09:41 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 09, 2024, 07:54:33 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, certainly all of those ancient Christian lands, in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Cappadocia, Galatia--that were overthrown and conquered by the Muslims--as well as Spain, of course, I imagine that all was plenty motivation for launching the Crusades.

Oh, yeah, and the millions of White Europeans that were taken as slaves by the Muslims and raped and plundered, that also was a motivating factor. For centuries, entire sections of coastline throughout Spain, and Southern France, were uninhabited, or much reduced--because of Muslim marauders attacking relentlessly every year, and dragging European Christians off to absolute bondage and crushing slavery.

That fact was always on the mind of the Europeans. The Europeans were tired of being beaten down, raped, and plundered by the Muslim hordes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hollywood reliably informs me that the Crusades were due to bigoted, ignorant Christian zealots, impotently trying to erase the advanced and civilized cultures of the Muslim world.

Greetings!

*Laughing* That had me choking on my coffee from laughing, Grognard GM!

Funny! But yes, very sad, and enraging, at the same time. It highlights why people everywhere must stand and fight for the truth. Hollywood pushes that BS, but also many college professors, and academic books. When I was in college, I blasted many such college books, and the college professors that sought to push this BS in class. A few times, my resistance was well-received, and even applauded. At other times...yeah, you can imagine it was not appreciated well at all.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK