27 Comments

Damn. This is so good. I feel like clapping for you.

Expand full comment

I'm honoured.

Expand full comment

Hmmm perhaps Thomas Sowell need to read this article also, taking a bit too seriously from Guns Germs and Steel, thanks for keeping us sharp Isaac.

Expand full comment

Thank you too.

Expand full comment

Sowell has his own general agenda. Details not fitting it are probably not welcome

Expand full comment

I'd be curious what value, if any, there is in their Nobel prize winning research. Everyone is attacking it from every angle lol. Apparently India and China (the two largest countries in the world) are outliers in their plot of "democratic institutions" vs level of development.

Expand full comment

Their theories probably have some merit in some highly specific cases, but despite their audacious attempt at formulating an all embracing and simple explanation, i think its not useful on a global scale.

Expand full comment

The value is a self-serving one - to prop up myths of European superiority in the dying days of hegemony.

Expand full comment

Their theory has the most potential value in explaining the different economic fates of various settler colonial states. Take Latin America vs the US & Canada.

It's also worth noting that their arguments around the Kingdom of Kongo and Somalia are completely tangential to their main thesis. This piece is SUPER important in correcting their unfortunate misrepresentation of pre-colonial Africa. But again, this is tangential to their thesis. The success of post-colonial Botswana is much more central to their argument. Nothing in this piece suggests that they get Botswana wrong. (Do they?)

India and China are a bit more difficult to analyse. What exactly is the problem? Chinese economic success is rooted in their liberalisation in the 80s (which btw included a lot of political liberalisation). The recent turn towards more autocratic politics in China is correlated with a slower growth rate and even worse wage growth. And what about India?What should India be doing according to their theory? Grow faster than Pakistan? (It does.)

I'm not saying their theory has all the right answers. I don't think they do. But I don't think we should overreact either.

Expand full comment

congrats, i really like the way you writes. Have a nice one

Expand full comment

Well-broken down. Now wondering whether I should still read the book or keep going through its critiques.

Expand full comment

I would advise not reading it, its many errors and falsities about pre-colonial Africa will probably do more harm than good to a casual reader.

Expand full comment

A very good article which deconstructs simplistic narratives on Africa promoted by scholars who have not done their homework and, worse, end up making their sources say the opposite they really said for the sake of their own presumptions, prejudices, and a priori.

Expand full comment

thank you. im grateful.

Expand full comment

A Great comprehensive critique, Keep up the great work.

Expand full comment

thank you

Expand full comment

Amazing article. Thank you !

Expand full comment

Damn. One the glories of Substack is all this high quality writing on sub-Saharan African history.

Expand full comment

Thank you

Expand full comment

Solid work

Expand full comment

Thank you

Expand full comment

Pretty informative, even as a stand alone work and not just a critique of other scholarship. We will be making references to this essay in further discussions in our collective. One thought this work prompts is what would grand narratives about the pre colonial era and even the future look like if Europe was de-centered?

Expand full comment

The day eurocentrism is purged from African historiography will be the day Africans seize control of their own narrative. it’s a work in progress, but we will get there.

Expand full comment

Brilliant piece, thank you!

I'd assume that wheeled vehicles must have been rare in and around the Kingdom of Kongo, not because these regions lacked innovators, nor because wheels wouldn't have been useful at times, but because those regions lacked an appropriate power source. Tsetse flies and other pathogens killed horses and other large domesticated mammals in large swaths of these lands. Tellingly, horse-mounted Western African empires, like the Songhai, extended right up to the tsetse fly zone, but not much beyond. After defeating the Songhai capital of Gao, Moroccan troops lost all their horses when they pushed too far into the tsetse zone.

https://www.academy.ac.il/SystemFiles2015/Bulletin%2027_06%20Galun.pdf

I think this is an important addition because it might also explain the failed attempts at introducing the plough -- a problem that this piece accurately described. What use is a plough or a wagon if you don't have someone pulling it?

On that note: I'm curious who was pulling those four wagons in the Battle of Kitombo? Were there beasts of burden? Or were they more like large wheelbarrows?

Expand full comment

Thanks for the great historical context and alternative interpretation. Their analysis was in relation to 'why nations fail' and the pre-colonial history and trajectory was one of the arguments...though was part of other arguments including geography, climate...etc; So what is the counterargument ?

Expand full comment

There are many counter arguments out there, the biggest issue with AJR and similar “general theories” is that they are deceptively simple, the answers to the questions they pose are incredibly complex and multivalent.

Expand full comment

Thanks - indeed - but that's part of their point as well. The more concrete critique would be to provide a counter 'theory' perhaps...?

Expand full comment