On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 wally@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
> So, now, we have multiple civilizational centers in the
> Afroindoeurasian ecumene, with some debatable synchronization
> until some time in the second millenium CE, debatable both in
> its extent and in the degree to which this whole enchilada can
> be called a "system."
I don't see how it is debatable whether the whole Afrasian
(though Afroindoeurasian has a nice ring) system may be called a
system. A system is a collection whose members interact, and the
fact of the interaction is established. The question, as always in
systems theory, is *what kind* of system? To engage in biological
analogy (*you've been warned*), my hunch is that the Afrasian system
was more akin to an ecosystem than to an organism. Or in Miller's
terms, while a society is certainly a Living System, the Afrasian
system may have been a more loosely organized system.
Be that as it may ...
> Then some things happen in the European peninsula, which, failing
> attempts at reconstituting itself as a self-respecting empire
> like the other biggies, turns out to become this unprecedentedly
> dynamic world-economy in large part thanks to its American
> connections and its African predations (still undertheorized).
What is undertheorized about the African predations of the
1500 - 1800 period? "New World" colonies that discovered agricultural
products that could directly buy into trade with the center, or
indirectly buy in by persuading other peninsular West Asians to
hand over some gold, then found that the conquered people were
not always suited to the task -- for instance, continued to die
from the imported Afrasian diseases (handy when conquering, not
so handy among an enslaved workforce). Western coastal Africa
was the boondocks, and the inhabitants were already in the Afrasian
disease pool, so enslaving them was a profitable as opposed to
unprofitable slaughter. And Africa is even closer to the "New
World" than West Asia. (Or is it undertheorized because there
are too many facts on hand to permit free play to theorizing? 8-)
> It seems to me that in most of this discussion to date, the
> unintended but Westphalia recognized organizational form
> of competing but diplomatically interacting strong states
> has been sorely overlooked, as has been the novel ways these
> states were linked to financiers, merchants, and organizers
> of large-scale production.
What is the connection between Westphalia and the
opening of the New World? Beyond the obvious -- the maintenance
of the Portuguese monarchy in Brasil, the logistical complexity of
conquering polities with "New Word" resources to draw upon, the
temptation after defeating an enemy to to trade away the gains in
West Asian in order to acquire "New World" possessions of the
conquered state [more interesting than West Asian conquests
because more useful to the victor as a way of buying into trade
with the Afrasian center, perhaps?]
In other words, is Westphalia an ignored aspect *in
addition to* closing the global circle, or can it be entered
under the heading of the activity in West Asia by which some
West Asian polities leveraged their role in the Westward
expansion of the Afrasian system into a transitory dominance
in the system?
> Woe unto those who throw the baby (hyphen) out with the
> bathwater.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au