>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/10/00 03:22PM >>>
>I was a little unclear. At first it seemed you were saying that the author
>was explaining the conquests of the last 500 years. Then there seems to be
>discussion going back to the origin of agriculture , which is 7,000 years
>ago or so. Anyway, this list had a very rich debate on the cause of
>European conquest over the last 500 years, as you know. It would be hard
>to explain it as geographical. But I may not have understood the author's
>argument in the book.
To Diamond, the conquests of the last 500 years ago arose because Eurasia
(especially Europe) gained its advantage in the previous 7,000 years or so.
So Europe could then accumulate advantages at Africa's expense (the
development of underdevelopment).
_________
CB: There's something wrong with Diamond's reasoning here. Who had the advantage
during the previous 7000 years ? Or was there no advantage ? For most of the 7000
years, Africa, in Egypt, had the "higher" civilization ( and it was higher in part
because they didn't have as much of an urge to conquer, i.e. were more peaceful). Then
they were about "even".
As to "Asia" , Africa and Asia were about "even" through most of the 7000 years. Asia
never conquered Africa or vice versa.
But at any rate, for most of the time the ecology of Europe was not an advantage. So,
the "accumulation" based on ecology and geography idea seems flawed. Accumulating
ecological and geographical advantages isn't logical
_________
>Geographical determinism is a bit tricky. It gets tricky to make a
>causal link between geography and a "conquering" mentality or cultural
>value. You probably know that there have been ecological schools in
>anthropology and archeology for a long time ( You mention Childe and
>Carneiro ;See the reader _Prehistoric Agriculture_ edited by Stuart
>Struever, or Ecological Anthropology edited by Yehudi Cohen).
>Anthropologists/Archeologists might be defending their turf , as you
>mention, but on the other hand , as you say, the topic you summarize is
>not at all a new subject for anthro/archeo.
right. Marvin Harris, one of my favorite reads in the subject, is an
ecological anthro-type (with a much greater emphasis on culture than
Diamond).
________
CB: Yes, I must admit though that even Harris is vulgar materialist in my schema now,
though _ The Rise and Fall of Anthropological Theory_ was one of my first theory book.
So, Diamond's thesis is really vulgar, ecological/geographical determinism.
_________
I don't think Diamond explains the "conquering mentality." The expansionary
drive is _assumed_ as part of his tacit Malthusianism, i.e., that a
successful society tends to have too many children, so that it looks for
new lands to conquer (along with improvements in technology and organization).
To me, Malthusianism goes out the window as even a partly valid theory with
the agricultural revolutions that preceded the industrial revolutions of
the 19th century in Europe. But the establishment of capitalism in Western
Europe created a new kind of expansionary -- conquering -- drive.
_________
CB: Yes, Diamond is really getting tangled here. For, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 000 years ago,
there were plenty of places for successful populaton growing societies to migrate to
without conquering other people ( and I believe you say Diamond is not focussed on the
last 500 years as that is the reason he doesn't contradict Wallerstein). So, a
conquering mentality does not automatically follow even from population growth. Also,
conquering other peoples increases your population more, as opposed to spinning off
groups to unoccupied land.
Seems to me conquest mentality is a byproduct of a society with exploiting classes.
Getting people, not land. Even the ancients new that humans, not nature , is the
source of surplus values. (Marx got the distinction between use-value and
exchange-value from Aristotle).
_________
>Why does he say "Eurasians" and not "Europeans" conquered the Western
>Hemisphere ? ... And before the last 500 years the Europeans were not dominant.
His theory only explains the Eurasian ascendancy.
_________
CB: But there is no fact of "Eurasian" ascendancy. In the period, before 500 years
ago, Africa was on top as much as Asia and more than Europe. He is empirically wrong.
After 500 years ago it is just Europe , not Asia that ascends. His "Eurasian" category
seems to be an ideological ( not scientific) anti-Africanism.
___________
He has a very incomplete
explanation of why the Europeans were on the cutting edge of that
ascendancy in 1500. That's not really what his book is about. The
discussion of Europe comes only in the epilogue.
_________
CB: So, it seems the main period of his book is based on a gross historical
inaccuracy. There is no "Eurasian" unit superior to Africa before 1500.
>The fact that the Europeans conquered Africa and Asia ( which had had
>agriculture and the diseases you mention), as well as America ( the
>Central Americans and Peruvian/Colombian etc. Indians had agriculture too)
>seems to imply that there was something beyond agriculture and diseases
>that differentiated the Europeans from all the rest in the last 500 years.
He argues that because of the ecological/geographical disunity of the
Americas (mostly because of the North-South axis),
________
CB: Better said, because the "Americans" had no conquering mentality despite growing
populations.
________
the opportunities for
developing a variety of different seeds was higher in Eurasia. Having more
variety, there's a better chance of getting really good crops. This
disunity also meant that maize took a really long time to spread from
Mexico to what is now the Eastern U.S.
________
CB: Lets see, do the "Eurasian" populations grow because of better crops and then
start conquering because of growing populations, or do they go around conquering
thereby mixing more different seeds and get better crops causing the population to
grow ?
________
More fundamentally, the Americas had fewer animals that were useful. And
communication was hard going North to South: as he said, the Aztecs had
wheels, but they remained toys because they had no animals to pull the
carts. The Incas had such animals (llamas, alpacas), but didn't communicate
at all with the Aztecs. Even so, llamas seem inferior as beasts of burden
to horses or oxen.
_______
CB: I don't discount the difference in domesticated animals between the Hemispheres.
But it does occur to me that the Aztecs migrated from New Mexico/Arizona to the Valley
of Mexico (Legend has it they settled where a eagle had a snake in its mouth, which
happened to be in the middle of a lake).
And before that the whole Continent was populated by a migration.
But it seems his thesis comes down to the Eurasians had more rapidly growing
populations ( than the Americans) and did more conquering because they had better
transportation; and sorta vice versa.
But what about the Africans ? They had the wheel and beasts of burden too, no ? Maybe
it was because they were Black :>) .
___________
Europe didn't totally conquer Asia (cf. China, Thailand, Japan). And it
only conquered the central part of Africa after the rise of modern
medicine, which created a way to fight tropical diseases.
_________
CB Which is somewhat consistent for Diamond, except the disease part in Africa is the
opposite of his thesis. By the disease part , it should have been the Africans
conquering the Europeans.
CB
