it's my answer to the questions of Randy Groves on the factors of European
dominance
> From: Randy Groves <rgroves@ART01.FERRIS.EDU>
> Dear Nikolai,
> Your post concerning the various factors behind European Dominance
> was well done, and I find myself in agreement with most of it. I do
> have some questions and comments though.
>
> On the Material Factors:
>
> 1. Central Geoeconomic position: I take it your view is partly that
> of Blaut's that Europe was simply closer than Asia to the New World,
the main thing is that Europeans managed to utilize this geographical
advantage. western Africans and Arabs in Spain before Reconquista were more
close to Americas than Europeans but the fact is that they DID NOT use this
chance
> 2. Abundance of precious metals in New WOrld with dificiency in the
> East. Isn't a key factor here also the balance of trade between Europe and
> Asia? Didn't Europe use the precious metals to make up for unequal
> terms of trade?
yes, this first part of the story seems to last almost for 350 years (1500-
1850), during this period Asians needed almost NOTHING from Europeans
besides silver and gold. But in some 'point' (mid-XVII?) of the second part of
the story already began when Hollands (and later Englishmen) began utilizing
their central position for massive investments into domestic manufactories and
industry. The most intersting here is the comparison of their strategies with
typical behavior of Spanish elite - the major 'owner' of New World treasures.
Spains DID NOT invest their grand incomes into domestic production, they could
buy everything both from Europe (say from Netherlands) and from Asia (via the
same Netherlands!). One can see here that a central position only GIVES
CHANCE but does not determine geoeconomic success.
>
> Also, what is your argument concerning deficiency of labor resources
> in America? (This is merely a query of clarification)
first of all i mean cotton production and other plantations in Americas that
needed large amount of manual low-qulified labor. The demand for these
products was rather high (first from Europe then also from northern States),
but white European colonizers had already master using of slavery labor of
American natives (f.e. in Cuba and Haiti), really they migrated from Europe
in order to be rich, at least to become masters, but not for suffering
on cotton plantations!
The problem was that Indians,
especially in Northern America almost perished because of genocide and
deseases. (It seems that in any case Northern-American Indians were not
appropriate for slavery labor because of their psychical qualities of
military-barbarian nobless). In this situation the possibility to bring from
Africa masses of people shocked by violence and radical change of environment
was realized as an extremely profitable (and extremely shameful from modern
viewpoint) business.
>
> 3. Demographical overpopulation in Europe. On this one, I remember
> reading about the depopulation of Europe because of the Black Death,
> and the subsequent rise of wages having a role in the modernization
> of the European economy. How do see overpopulation factoring into the
> explanation? Does it fit with my comments about the previous
> depopulation?
every depopulation gives 'space' (free resources) for further demographical
growth (but sometimes of new ethnoses and on the base of new social and
cultural structures)
that's why i treat Black Death in XIV as an organic preface of the further
'story' of European expansion XVI-XX
the growth of European economics since XVI caused demographical growth (it
is a rather universal historical law at least for preindustrial societies),
after the definite point overpopulation causes social propblems and there are
several ways to 'solve' them (migrations, wars, genocide, decrease of wages,
seeking for new food resources etc). But in Europe overpopulation coincided
with colonization (a special version of migration), so the dynamic
strategy (the term of G.Snooks) of colonization was provided by main resourse
- colonists.
>
Social Factors:
>
> 1. Social resonance: I would add the very important role of the
> insurance industry in mitigating the great risk factor in the
> Atlantic maritime traffic.
right, this goes also for colonization in Indian Ocean. The necessity to wait
for return of transoceanic expeditions was very significant for development
not only insurance but also banking and degree of 'freedom to make decisions'
by merchants and first capitalists
>
> 4. Could you explain a bit more concerning the "multi-polarity of
> Europe," and its role in dominance of the West?
> Cultural Factors:
>
> Nikolai:
1. diversity, permanent competition between European cultures which
> causes the higher level of flexibility etc.
Randy Groves:
I take it the argument
> here was that since European nations were more competitive with each
> other, they had to be more flexible about cultural practices that
> relate to commerce than, say, the Chinese, who were more centralized
> and therefore less flexible? Correct? On the other hand, India was
> rather less centralized. Nevertheless, one could argue that the
> greater distance made them underdogs in maritime competition for the
> New World.
the multipolarity of Europe (Italy-France-Spain-Austria-Netherlands- England-
Germany) seems to be rather obvious (compare Europe with unipolar
Russia, China, Osman Imperium). Randy rightly mentioned
India as also a multi-polar oicumena and I would add here also the Islamic
world. In India multi-polarity realized mostly in traditional land military
activities, but the Islamic world had also 'the will for expansion' and
achieved grand success since at least XI (commerce from Indonesia to
Volga and Novgorod, from Samarkand to Spain and Marokko)
why so successul and strong world-economy stopped trials for expansion
since XVI- XVII, why Arabs did not compete with Europeans in the world
colonization and trade? - this is the question
>
> 2. Cultural patterns of long-distance marinbe colonization. Here
> again, your argument with China is fairly solid, but I am not so sure
> about India. Anyone have some facts on this?
as far as I know major long-distance merchants in Indian oceans were
Arabs, not Indians (Radjas were satisfied by taking customs dues)
>
> 3. European Science: you are obviously disagreeing with Gunder Frank
> and Blaut on this one. This looks like a battle royal shaping up on
> this issue. My own view is that while Euro-science had less of a role
> than previously thought in giving rise to Euro-economic dominance, it
> still played a role in solidifying the gains made by the more
> practical/technological advances.
agree
>
> 4. The Weber Thesis: So you are holding out against the critics of
> Weber. I always liked the argument myself, but I was led to question
> it by some empirical studies that showed Catholic areas of Europe
> were just as successful as the Protestant ones.
I would be very
> interested in your extended argument of this issue. Anyone who could
> resurrect the Weber thesis would be making a very important argument
> given the disfavor the thesis is in currently.
this is right only for the first part of the story - an imperial invasion
of new territories (Catholic Spain and Portugal)
but then the profit from colonization changed from pure robbery and
extracting tribute to organization of production and this process
was another side of pushing out Catholics (Spains, Portugals, Frenchmen) by
Protestants (Hollands and Englishmen)
thanks for attention and sorry for too long msg
best,
Nikolai
***********************************************************
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address: Dept.of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html
************************************************************