DarlBundren wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:55 am
Do you agree with Jared Diamond when he says that
Europe’s colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves [...]rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography—in particular, to the continents’ different areas, axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species.
?
Hmm, here's what I know -
The Atlantic Slave Trade happened because Europeans discovered the New World and wanted to exploit it economically (the monarchs wanted to become rich). So, they originally enslaved the Natives, because they were easily at their disposal. They treated the Natives so poorly, however, that they were dying out faster than reproducing. So the Europeans needed a new group to enslave. They enslaved Africans through process of elimination - they no longer had a supply of slavic slaves (the world slave comes from "slav", btw) due to the Ottomans conquering Constantinople (Byzantine empire) and ending that trade circuit with Russia (supplier of slavic slaves) and the west (Russia was trading w/ Byzantine). They couldn't obtain slaves from the Eastern hemisphere due to mostly developed societies there. Only Africa was left.
However, Europeans wouldn't have found the Americas first to begin with if the Ming dynasty hadn't halted Zheng He's explorations. After the Mongols were kicked out of China by the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese wanted to prevent any group from conquering China again (because the Mongols treated them like second class citizens). They also wanted to reestablish their dominance as the power of Asia and reestablish their tributary relationship with the surrounding countries. So, they had Zheng He embark on expeditions. These expeditions reached extremely far, as far out as Africa, until they suddenly stopped because China wanted to focus inward. They wanted to focus inward to rebuild after the Mongols, and also because they were ethnocentric, and they were ethnocentric because they were very historically isolated due to geography. They developed a unique Chinese culture and saw themselves as the "Middle Kingdom", or the center of the world. If these expeditions hadn't stopped, China may have discovered the New World long before Europe, and Europe wouldn't have ended up enslaving the Africans in colonies in the New World. So, they wouldn't have risen to such power, and the Berlin Conference may never have happened (where Europe carved up Africa)/may not have been enforceable with their power compared to Africa given the different situation.
I think your question may have been more about how Europe vs. Africa's development militarily and politically were impacted by geography, not sure if I answered it completely, but I hope you found that interesting.
Maybe this will more directly answer that question -
Europe developed politically and militarily quicker than the rest of the world during the Renaissance, which happened as a result of the Crusades, when Europeans came into contact with Islamic culture in the Middle East and retrieved ancient Greco-Roman culture that was preserved in this area during the European Dark Ages. Africa didn't experience the Renaissance because of their location.
Fun fact - During this time, Russia was controlled by the Mongols, isolating them from the rest of the world. So, Russia never experienced the Renaissance either, creating a unique Russian culture distinct from western Europe and severing their connection with western Europe long after the Mongols left. Russia was pretty backward for awhile compared to Europe, still having serfdom when western Europe (or, what was western Europe during this time period, the country makeup has obviously changed a lot) was colonizing in the New World.
