3 ms·
Some fair points but you’re really downplaying the inhospitality of much of sub-Saharan Africa wrt productive agriculture. The tsetse fly lays waste to livestoc
by jahewson 3y ago
Some fair points but you’re really downplaying the inhospitality of much of sub-Saharan Africa wrt productive agriculture. The tsetse fly lays waste to livestock and the thin soils make ploughs useless.
> Colonial holdings in Africa often produced a good chunk of the grain for their empires as a whole.
Only Egypt, nowhere else.
- bookaway 3y agoYeah, when I was reading the booking at the time I thought it was pretty clear Diamond's arguments applied to sub-Saharan Africa. > Africa, which was in constant contact with Europe does the parent believe this was the case for Sub-Saharan Africa, BC? from the parent: >Romans explored into Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1st century BC; Turks and Arabs >had established trade routes deep into Africa by the 6th century AD; the Indian >Ocean, including the coast of Africa was continually interconnected through >trade going back to the bronze age at least, and trade caravans across the >Sahara have been recorded in ancient Egyptian records. >This is covered well in Diamond in the Rough: Reflections on Guns, Germs, and >Steel https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707701 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707701 Unless my search is broken, I found no mention of Romans, Turks, or Arabs in the article the parent referenced. Also the initial contact dates the parent mentions seem to be too late for the argument being made. from the parent: >You could fill a book disproving his theories, How about we start with a comment doing the same first? Let's try to strive for a little modesty, um, CSMastermind.