Chinese people were in East Africa 2000 years ago (evidence available on request). There is evidence of Africans in the Americas (Olmec, and other evidence) pre-Columbus. Some assume contact must mean conquer. This tells a lot. Some travel without any intention of conquering or slaving, even if that is possible. mf Ajit Sinha wrote: > As far as i know, China did not need to go around the cape of good hope, > Barkley. In the earlier period, the advantage of sea rout to India was mainly on > account of 'internalizing the security cost'. Prior to Vasco da Gama, the goods > from India went to Europe through the land rout to the mouth of Red Sea. This > rout was full of small chieftains who demanded high and unpredictable "safe > passage" charges. The sea rout cut out this big cost of transportation, though > they did have to spend money on their own guns etc. to deal with the pirates, > but this internalized the security cost and so was predictable. Cheers, ajit > sinha > > J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: > > > Jim, > > Blaut argues that it was the fact that the > > Atlantic is narrower than the Pacific that accounted > > for the crucial ability of the Western Europeans to > > get to the Americas to do the exploiting before the > > Chinese (some Asians having already gotten there > > earlier but who lacked sufficient immunity or technology > > to resist a later invasion from either Europe or East Asia). > > Of course this does not answer the crucial question as > > to why the Chinese did not go around the Cape of Good > > Hope in the 1400s while the Portuguese did in 1497 with > > Vasco da Gama. Thus we had the Portuguese in Goa > > and Macau rather than the Chinese in Cadiz and Lisbon. > > Barkley Rosser > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 12:38 PM > > Subject: [PEN-L:11192] Re: Re: Re: Capitalist development > > > > >Rod writes: > > >>> .... The question is why did the Europeans burst out of their > > >>>continent from the 15th century on, and why were they able to conquer > > >>>everyone in their path. > > > > > >Bill writes: > > >>In a nutshell, if I remember Blaut correctly, they luckily stumbled > > >>upon America where they plundered with the aid of genocidal policies > > >>and germ warfare (against which the Native Americans had no defense), > > >>enriching themselves and laying the groundwork for a colossal Western > > >>Imperium. > > > > > >It's unfair to criticize Blaut on the basis of Bill's precis. (Obviously > > >such a short summary _must_ be simplistic.) But here goes. Just remember > > >that I'm not criticizing you, Bill. > > > > > >The fact that the Europeans (actually the Castilians, led by some guy from > > >what is now called Italy) stumbled upon America suggests that they had (a) > > >the means to do the stumbling, e.g., the technology for sailing across the > > >Atlantic rather than hugging the shore; (b) the opportunity to do so, e.g., > > >the finalization of the war against the Moors so that they could turn to > > >new worlds to conquer; and (c) the motive, i.e., the lust for gold and > > >power, plus the proselytism of religion. > > > > > >To my mind, the first is most crucial, since there were a lot of nascent > > >empires that have lusted after gold and power (e.g., the Arabs) before > > >Queen Isabella's and the victory over the Moors seems more a determinant of > > >the timing of the deed. Perhaps the rise of capitalism (with this > > >grow-or-die economics) had something to do with motivating Spanish > > >aggression against the world, but I doubt it -- since the Iberian peninsula > > >was hardly fully capitalist at the time. If anything, the attack on the > > >"New" world helped stimulate capitalism's rise. > > > > > >(The fact that the Norse and maybe the Irish (and maybe other Europeans) > > >stumbled on the Americas before Colombo indicates that it's important to > > >have the technology to sustain an invasion and to stumble on an area that > > >provides sufficient profit to justify sustaining it.) > > > > > >Columbo (who should rank among the biggest of criminals in history) led his > > >ships to the Americas, which unfortunately for the locals were less > > >technologically advanced and organizationally resilient than China. When > > >Cortez invade Mexico, the Aztecs were deterred by his troops' use of > > >_horses_ (which is surely a matter of historical luck) not to mention > > >rudimentary firearms. Further, my reading suggests that the Aztec empire > > >was already in trouble, so that it would have had either a revolution, a > > >take-over by another ethnic group, or a simple collapse. Cortez was lucky, > > >coming in at the time he did, so he could prevent those kinds of results, > > >which would have led to a perpetuation of rule of one sort or another by > > >native Americans. The Spaniards and their imitators then used their initial > > >advantage to destroy all Indian civilization and to widen any existing > > >technological gaps, creating haciendas and similar forced-labor mining and > > >agriculture. > > > > > >Once the Americas were conquered (along with a bunch of Portuguese and then > > >Dutch trading colonies along the coasts of Africa and south Asia) they > > >could be used as bases for invading China, etc. By building on such > > >advantages, the Europeans could either create advantages vis-a-vis China or > > >widen any that existed in 1492. (Linked to the purely military advantages > > >of position, European expansion encouraged further development of military > > >technology. If you're sailing long distances, you need better navigation, > > >etc.) Only the Japanese were lucky enough to have enough insulation from > > >the Europeans to be able to delink from the growing Eurocentric world > > >system and build their resources for creating their own version of > > >capitalism. > > > > > >While germ warfare was clearly used against the natives in the Americas (at > > >least in the area now called the US, since I don't know about other areas), > > >a lot of the deaths seem to have been simply accidental, i.e., the bringing > > >of diseases to the "New" World that people there weren't adapted to without > > >any conscious intention of using them in war. The institution of forced > > >labor (which came about mostly because of European victory) and the > > >destruction resulting from war then weakened the immune systems of the > > >native Americans, making them more susceptible to disease. (An article in > > >MONTHLY REVIEW awhile back talked about this.) Similarly, some diseases > > >from the Americas killed Europeans without it being a matter of germ > > >warfare. (I forget which way syphilis went.) > > > > > >I think that it's a mistake to talk about a "Western Imperium" until you're > > >dealing with recent history (when the US/NATO hegemony was cemented). The > > >Europeans fought tooth and nail not only against the natives of the > > >Americas but against each other (the 7 years war and all that). It makes > > >more sense to talk about "Western Imperialist countries." And part of the > > >dynamic that drove the Europeans to invade the rest of the world was > > >military/economic competition between imperial powers (just as this kind of > > >competition encourage the division of Africa at the end of the 19th > > >century). > > > > > >My reading suggests that a crucial reason why capitalism came to Europe > > >first was the decentralized and somewhat chaotic socioeconomic organization > > >of the western part of the continent that has been called "feudalism." The > > >constant wars encouraged military innovation (stuff like stirrups for > > >riding) and eventually the rise of merchant capitalism in the interstices. > > >Wars eventually led to victors, the Absolutist kings, who started the > > >process of creating nation-states which involved (among other things), the > > >creation of domestic markets and trade domination over conquered areas > > >(Mercantilism), encouraging trade. Most crucially, the battles between the > > >lords and the serfs or peasants eventually created a balance of power where > > >the former could force the latter to become proletarians in some areas like > > >England (a central part of Marx's primitive accumulation story). As Marx > > >notes, one reason motivating the enclosure movement that helped create the > > >English proletariat was the international wool trade. > > > > > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine > > > > > >
