I don't know, West Africa was "more advanced" than Europe during the European Middle
Ages, the 500 years before 1500. The ecology didn't change in the interim.
I tend to think of Europe's leap forward over the rest of the world (not just Africa)
in the last 500 years, as an expression of a sort of law of evolutionary potential (
"the last shall be first"). The idea is that the area that is most backward in one
period has the most potential to leap forward in the next period because when you at
the bottom of the heap you are more open to change, whereas when you are on top you
cling to the status quo.
CB
>>> Brad De Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/10/00 12:34PM >>>>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.
Diamond's argument is that ecology and distance explain Africans'
relatively poor command over technology as of 1500. The
underdevelopment comes later, with the triangle trade and its effect
on west Africa.
And this has always been the part of Diamond's argument that I have
had the most doubts about. East Africa seems to me at least to have
been part of the Eurasian ekumene--why else would the largest city on
the east African coast, the House of Peace, have a name from a
language whose heartland is two thousand miles north?
Brad DeLong
