From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:39:05 +0000 Subject: Re: M-I: AG Frank etc. again El 4 Feb 98 a las 17:49, Rosser Jr, John Barkley nos dice(n): > Jim B., >In short, 1492 represented a crucial acceleration, but > just as China was not stagnant prior to 1492 (or after), > neither was Europe. When elephants argue, grass suffers. I may be no more than grass, but I would like John Barkley Rosser Jr to explain us where, in Prof. Blaut's postings, has he seen any hint that Europe was (more) stagnant than China prior to 1492. I think his position is that the whole of the human species evolved more or less at the same pace everywhere, and that it was just a matter of geographical good luck for the Europeans that they were successful in hitting the Caribbean, looting American riches, enslaving millions of Africans there, etc., etc. After that stroke of luck (and luck has its place in history, since history is not made of impersonal structures at work) Europe could accelerate its growth at up to then unimagined rates. If this rendering of Prof. Blaut's ideas is correct, then it is at least puzzling to see J.B.Rossler assume that he is posing a "stagnant Europe" thesis. Why should one suppose that equating Europe with other parts of the world prior to 1492 means that Europe was more stagnant than those parts? Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005