> Date sent: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:01:13 -0600 (CST)
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: correction
> On Thu, January 29, 1998 at 07:23:19 (EST) PJM0930 writes:
>
What this suggests for the Native
> >Americans is that, given the fact they produced a number of
> >agricultural civilizations, is that they were on the same trajectory
> >as the rest of humanity but, for whatever reason, had a later start at
> >it.
>
Numerous hunting and gathering societies over the world adopted
agriculture beginning about 10,000 years ago. Only a few, however,
became civilizations. Much controversy surrounds this issue. Some say
12, 10, 6, or as low as 4 were truly "pristine" civilizations. I
think we can include in this list the Olmec (if not the Maya later)
and the pre-Inca Mochica civilization (if not the Incas later)
although these civilization lacked certain properties associated with
this term. Many "secondary" civilizations evolved later, of which
only Western Europe became capitalist-industrial.
This is a contentious issue which brings me to Blaut and Frank:
> Jim Blaut's book *The Colonizer's Model of the World* argues that
> there is "psychic unity" among human cultures, i.e., there are no
> "races" of "inferior" or "superior" people, and that humans everywhere
> have more or less the same basic capacities (if I remember him
> correctly, it's been quite a few years). This entirely reasonable
> observation is different from claiming the various Indian societies
> "were on the same trajectory as the rest of humanity".
The Colonizer's Model challenges the notion there was something
"unique" to the rise of Europe, by arguing that capitalist development
was spread around many areas of the world, and that not much else
differentiated Europe from the rest. The problem here is with the
"much else", and the assumption that capitalism and its rise can be
explained in strictly economic-class terms. (I will elaborate upon
this point later once I read the summaries of Frank's recent
book provided by Proyect).
Now consider the dilemma Blaut finds himself: why did
Europe came to dominate the rest of the Wrodl? Answer: geographical
proximity of Europe to the Americas(!) gave it access to its
metals and labor leading to the industrial revolution. Oviously the
notion that European capitalism developed as a result of the
exploitation of the Third World has been so roundly refuted I need
not elaborate this here. Just a handy, if incomplete, stats: At
most 2% of Europe's GNP at the end of 18th century took the form of
profits derived from commerce with Americas, Asia, Africa! (I think
source is K.O'Brien).
ricardo
> Since I think the shared trajectory part is questionable, I also see
> the conclusion as questionable. I also question the claim that states
> arose because of some sort of "demographic instability". Furthermore,
> I question the "natural trajectory" assumption as well.
>
> States were not imposed by necessity. They came about by human
> choice, a choice made differently by different peoples. The "natural
> trajectory" to ecological destruction chosen by many of today's
> societies is not inevitable. It is a choice made largely by a handful
> of powerful people arrayed into still fewer dominant social
> institutions.
>
> Also, please sign your name on your posts. I dislike discussions with
> mailboxes.
>
>
> Bill
>
