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
This isn’t really an eli5, but there’s a reason the geographic determinism in Guns, Germs, and Steel has been so thoroughly attacked and debunked.
First off, geography isn’t everything or anything close to that. Saying “Africa is less developed because it spans South to North more than East to West” is so ridiculously reductive.
Africa isn’t an isolated bubble. North, West, and East Africa were and are heavily integrated into economic and cultural networks with Europe, West Asia, and South Asia.
It completely ignores that these links did exist. Trade across the Sahara and Sahel has been ongoing for millenia.
It completely ignores that institutions and social systems, you know, exist.
Geography matters, but trying to simply explain, to use the example in the book’s intro, the difference between Papua New Guinea and Europe by only looking at geography is just flat out wrong.
Latest Answers