3 ms·
I agree that Guns, Germs, and Steel is an excellent book, but it does not explain modern economical disparities. It basically explains why Europeans were the on
by pedrosbmartins 6y ago
I agree that Guns, Germs, and Steel is an excellent book, but it does not explain modern economical disparities. It basically explains why Europeans were the ones to conquer the African and American continents in the 15th and 16th centuries, and not the other way around (and the arguments are solid). But it clearly does not explain why modern countries have large economical disparities today, or why some countries colonized by Europeans are highly developed economically (e.g. the US, Australia) while others are not (e.g. Brazil, South Africa).
As for the article, I believe there is more to economical success than political institutions as well, it is such a complex process that it cannot be reduced to any single factor.
- ss2f 6y agoI agree with your observation that reduction to single 'causal factor' is delusional. You may want to check chapter 1 of Lisa Lowe's _The Intimacies of Four Continents_ where a possible answer to why US and Australia v African colonies differ is presented -- that you cannot understand colonialism and imperialism as atomic parts scattered around the world. They are all intimate, organized around ideologies of hierachies.
- onyva 6y agoThe biggest power in the world at this time was the Ottoman Empire, and they controlled all land access to their markets, and had no urgent need to explore further than the outreach of their empire, unlike the Europeans, who were struggling to get access to India and China. Even though the Ottomans did poses a naval fleet, there was no real economical incentive. Ie. the Suez canal was a very old idea that the Ottomans considered but did not carry through etc.