Ricardo writes:
>I dont know if this is a work of "total genius" but it is certainly a
>masterful explanation for the differing patterns of development of
>the continents of the world. But what is so troubling for many in the left
>about this book is that it proves beyond a doubt that Africa's
>backwardness was a result of its ecology - i.e., lack of domesticable
>animals among other things - and not some mythical
>"underdevelopment" process.
I don't see Diamond's book as contradicting the "underdevelopment of
underdevelopment" theory. He only deals with the issue of why Eurasia got
the initial advantage over Africa. After that advantage arises, then the "U
of U" process takes place. Wallerstein and Diamond can reach a compromise,
though I doubt that A.G. Frank and Diamond could do so.
>I dont think one has to take this remark about the superiority of New
>Guiineans literally; Diamond is just playing with the idea: 'if
>you want to argue that Europeans are superior because of this and that
>trait or achievement, well, let me tell you that New Guineans look pretty
>smart when you consider this and that trait behavior of theirs' but
>that's all, nothing serious.
I didn't take it seriously. I thought he was "bending the stick" to
contradict the bias of his readers.
>Yes, Diamand explains well why Euroasia developed faster than every other
>continent of the world, but once he gets to the question
>of why Europe was the only area within Eurasia that industrialized, his
>argument starts to breakdown. Which is understandable since this is not
>his area, it also covers only a chapter or two of the book. The
>ecological approach works better for pre-1500 world history, but not after
>that date.
yup. The rise of industrialization is treated simply as a "natural" outcome
of the rise of farming (food production).
I wrote:
> > This is the beginning of his incomplete discussion of why Europe won
> out in the competition amongst all the Eurasian subregions. Within the
> context of his framework, however, one could easily say that Europe just
> happened to be _lucky_, to conquer most of Eurasia before some part of
> the rest of Eurasian conquered it, especially given the advantage of
> being relatively close to the New World (which in his framework was
> destined to be conquered by _some_ part of Eurasia). If Europe had been
> further from the Americas, perhaps a continent-wide empire could have
> been solidified which ended intra-European competition, so that
> non-Europeans could have won.<
Ricardo:
>A major problem with Diamond is the lack of attention given to the massive
>literature that already exists on this subject. He
>wrongly thinks that a natural scientific focus will also work to explain
>continental differences after 1500 (actually his explanation
>of the rise of civilization is also limited for the same reason, including
>other logical flaws - like his argument that competition among
>chiefdoms eventually led to the rise of state/civilization, which fails
>to address the fact that in many areas of the world chiefdoms
>were competing endlessly with no state ever coming into shape.) Again, I
>think a major flaw in his book is his refusal to learn/acknowldge the many
>other scholars who have investigated this set of questions and from whom
>he could have learned a lot more, but he really wants to say that
>everything he says is uniquely his own.
I think it was a good idea for him to limit the scope of his book. If he'd
tried to get farther beyond 1500, the book would have been much much
longer, to its detriment.
BTW, he talks a lot about the persistence of "backward" situations (here,
the existence of chiefdoms) even though full-scale states had arisen. He
doesn't posit some sort of theory of automatic "progress." In fact, one of
the strong points of this theory is that he explains
"regression." Isolated areas can remain "backward."
>... really never tells us why individuals engage in war; in fact, war is a
>crucial dynamic in his whole explanation of the rise of states (and of
>many other questins he tries to answer like how Africa became black, and
>China became Chinese).
This is where his tacit Malthusianism comes in.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
