The issue of disease is more important in all this than has often been realized and there have been a spate of books in the last several years making this point. In particular the Native American Indians left the Old World before a number of diseases appeared there, notably measles, but some others as well. This was enormously significant in making it easier for the European colonists to dominate when they arrived, but, as Jim notes, they were unable to do so in the same demographic way in the Old World, where in some places they were the ones susceptible to local diseases rather than the other way around.
The one exception that I am aware of is indeed syphilis, which, last I read, was carried back to the Old World by Columbus along with maize. The former reached China by about 1509 whereas the latter took a full century. Barkley Rosser On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:23:48 -0700 James Devine <jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu> wrote:
> In addition to what Charles Brown said in response to Blaut's very useful
> and accurate analysis, I would add that the Europeans didn't just take
> advantage of the divisions between tribes in N. and S. America. They also
> took advantage of the difference between the Aztec leaders and the
> dominated populations (Olmecs, etc.) In fact, the Spaniards initially used
> the dominated populations' opposition to the Aztecs by replacing the Aztecs
> as the dominators.
>
> Brad writes: >Consider the difference between the European colonization of
> the Americas--where relatively small groups settled and then began to
> expand into the interior--and European colonialism in Asia or Africa in the
> same period--where the typical pattern of activity was to huddle on the
> coast in your fort, trade, and leave...<
>
> There's some truth to this distinction, but part of the European pattern
> was also to exploit the differences among African tribes (and the Arab
> traders) to create the slave trade -- or to fight a war to open China to
> opium.
>
> A key difference in the history of European colonization is the relative
> density of population of the colonized areas (after being cleared by plague
> and war). In N. America (N of the Aztec empire) or S. America (outside of
> the Inca areas) or Australia (I think), the population/land ratio was
> relatively low, so the emphasis was on grabbing the land, scouring out the
> Indians (i.e., genocide a la Andrew Jackson) and Aborigines, and setting up
> settler colonies. (Density was so low that crops which were profitable due
> to the use of forced labor, like cotton, required the importation of
> slaves.) In the Aztec & Inca areas, where there was less room for the
> Europeans to set up their own farms, the emphasis was on forcing the
> Indians to work in desperate conditions. In China, the empire was too
> strong for a long time, so that the Europeans followed the pattern of
> setting up enclaves (Macao, Hong Kong). India didn't have a strong empire
> to resist the Europeans, but was too big to swallow for a long time, so
> that the enclave model was followed. Eventually, the Brits set themselves
> up as replacing the Mughuls, just as the Spaniards had replaced the Aztecs
> as rulers. More capitalist-minded than the Spaniards, the Brits remade the
> tax-farmers into capitalist landowners in order to gain support.
>
> Jungles and tropical diseases encouraged the Europeans (who came from a
> temperate climate) to follow the enclave pattern in Africa and Central
> America. In the former, the relatively dense population was utilized as a
> source of slaves.
>
> If I'm wrong about any of the above, I'd love to know.
>
> BTW, what is the current state of the debate about whether Europe got
> syphillis from the New World? or from Africa? or exported it to the world?
>
> (first message of the day)
>
> Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu