Started reading Guns, Germ, and Steel, and debated about this with my friend. I do understand that Africa’s North/South orientation adds a lot of climate diversity, which makes it difficult for people to collaborate. To what extent did this actually affect Africa’s economic development? Like for example, are there other countries that may have pulled off thriving under this orientation, or is this a red herring to distract away from the serious impact of European colonization? I do understand this is not a simple question, but let’s try!
In: 192
I know you are asking about geography and I see everyone is shitting on geography determinance BUT the point of the book is that MULTIPLE factors shaped nations as they are today. Geography is one of the multiple. Arguably the biggest but not the ONLY.
You talk about a red herring to mask colonial pillaging. The only reason Europe could pillage africa and americas is because geography in Europe was easier to work with in kickstarting agriculture to have enough food for specialists.
The North South band affected collaboration tremendously, not just in terms of agriculture. Africa also seems like a bit of a nightmare to try and farm without modern technology. Technology spread through trade routes and contact with other civs. To get a new farming technology or innovation such as iron tools from Cairo to Cape Town 4000 years ago, you’d haveto not get killed by the desert, then you’d haveto not get killed by dense, merciless jungle, then you’d haveto not get killed by vicious tropical diseases or fierce animals.
Then of course, WHERE would you farm? The Sahara dessert? The dense tropical rainforest of Africa? How would you clear even a few trees with hand tools?
There are definitely prime arable locations but the continent is hostile to found a budding civilization. Great empires of Africa did of course form but the geography of Africa has always been a difficult one.
Geography is destiny. BUT, as outlined in the book, its not the only factor at play
Latest Answers