On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, A. Gunder Frank wrote:
> ...
> Therefore, it is much better to cut [out] the Gordian knot of
> "capitalism" altogether. That was already my argument in Frank
> (1991), Frank and Gills (1992, 1993), and Frank (1994,1995); and it
> is well put by Chaudhuri (1990:84) writing under the title Asia
> Before Europe: "The ceaseless quest of modern historians looking
> for the 'origins' and roots of capitalism is not much better than
> the alchemist's search for the philosopher's stone that transforms
> base metal into gold." Indeed, that is the case not only for the
> origins and roots, but the very existence and meaning of
> "capitalism." So, best just forget about it, and get on with our
> inquiry into the reality of "universal history, wie es eigentlich
> gewesen ist."
Which of the following is an aspect of that universal history?
In the period before 1500:
(1) there was a continuity of contact across Asia and Africa;
(2) the regularities of this contact may be termed a system;
(3) this contact extended to peninsular West Asia;
(4) peninsular West Asia[*] was a peripheral area in the system;
(5) this contact did not extend to North and South America;
(6) this contact did not extend to Australia and Oceania.
In the period following 1500:
(7) Polities in PWA developed and maintained contact with North
and South America;
(8) PWA societies had significant technological and epidemiological
advantages over North and South American civilizations;
(9) PWA societies used their technological advantages to obtain
commodities in demand in central areas of the Afrasian system;
(10) PWA societies acquired enhanced technological capabilities in
agriculture from their contact with the Americas.
In the period following 1500:
(11) Polities in PWA established footholds at a number of sites
geographically closer to central areas of the system;
(12) These sites were susceptible to assault by maritime military
technologies;
(13) These sites were used to gain improved terms of trade in
imports from the rest of the system.
In the period following 1700:
(14) A technological system developed which relied extensively on
supplementing human (and other animal) effort with mechanisms drawing
power from other sources;
(15) Successful development and adoption of this technology tends
to be located in geographic areas which have experienced sustained
increases in agricultural productivity;
(16) Successful development and adoption of this technology tends
to be located in geographic areas which possess a dense network of market
towns catering to the surrounding rural areas.
What does this mean to European exceptionalism? If the
fundamental shock of the system that led to the transitory European
hegemony was the transition from an axial Afrasian system to a global
system, then the coincidence that peninsular West Asia was *both* on the
side with the narrowest ocean, *and* at the furthest remove from the
center made it one of the more likely geographical locations for the
temporary beneficiary of closing the Afrasian axis into a global circle.
And doesn't it's particular geography help explain the relative advantage
in maritime technology of North Atlantic societies over societies of
Western and Central Africa? So along this line of argument, the
exceptionalism is geographic, but with geography relative to the Afrasian
system more important than absolute geographic characteristics.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
[*] AKA "Europe". But why "Eurasia" rather than "Indasia"? Are the Urals
really more persuasive as a subcontinental boundary line than the
Himalayas?