A great book I read last year (Ecological Imperialism) said the Europe
conquered because of its germs, bugs, weeds, etc. 


 -----Original Message-----
From:   James Sproule [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Friday, February 16, 2001 2:40 AM
Subject:        RE: Growth, Wealth, and Race

My recommendation would not be to simply measure distance from equator, but 
average of median annual temperature, for many places with the same 
latitude have widely differing temperatures.  (For instance, London, where 
I am, is parallel to the Maritimes in Canada, but the temperature is 
considerable more congenial.)

I think colonialism is a bit of a red herring.  The rise of colonialism was 
also roughly the beginning to rapid economic advance.  What some might say 
is a colonial legacy is more likely to be a failure of those societies 
being colonised to begin to match the rapid economic growth of Europe.  Why 
with at least some technology transfer, did no area of the world beginning 
to match European innovation and economic success.  Another interesting 
question is why did Europe, cold and under populated, end up conquering the 

-----Original Message-----
From:   Alexander Guerrero [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Friday, February 16, 2001 1:31 AM
Subject:        Re: Growth, Wealth, and Race

I think that Aztecs are nearer to the north than to the equator!!!
Alexander Guerrero

fabio guillermo rojas wrote:

> > Question: What would controlling for racial composition do to these
> > results?  Clearly there is high collinearity between race and latitude,
> > though modern transportation is weakening the connection.  If you do
> > both latitude and racial composition, what would happen?  Does anyone
> > have hard evidence on this?
> >                         Prof. Bryan Caplan
> Observation: A lot of cultures close to the equator seem to have been
> wealthy compared to Europe before the rise of the West aftyer 1500. The
> conquistadors compared Technotitlan to Cordoba (the wealthy Spanish
> coastal city) and various Arabic cultures close to the equator seem to
> have been wealthy.
> I think that the wealth/race/latitude thing might be artifact of
> colonialism.
> Think about it: cultures near the equator exhibit a lot of variation
> in wealth before colonialism. Then the West expands into the Americas
> and other places. A lot of wealthy cultures near the equator are wiped 
> due to conquest or disease (the Aztecs), others are just in general
> decline (the Ottomans) and some were very poor to start with (like many 
> Central Africa).
> So before regressing wealth on racial composition and then making
> sweeping conclusions, one should remember that the current concentration
> of wealth in the North is really just something that happened in the
> last 500 years.
> -f
 << File: alex102.vcf >> 

Reply via email to