Sharp turns are the result of reaching some critical mass, a tipping point. Human beings fiddled around with planting seeds and trying to show up at the right place at the right time for many thousands of years before agriculture just "emerged" over night. Likewise, there were steam engines in the ancient world, but a lot of things had to come together before the Industrial Revolution seemed to appear out of nowhere. When the singularity -- that sharpest of turns -- occurs, it will also be the result of a long, slow building up.

I cannot understand the reasoning of the article's author. The point is made that powerful and provident cultures are built atop of the shoulders of others, yet in the same breath the author claims not to support the "politically correct" notion that Europeans destroyed knowledge of the achievements of the cultures located on the African continent. History is not "politically correct". Europeans did destroy most knowledge of African history, Europeans did build their cultures on the shoulders of "non-white" civilizations, most modern Europeans are descended from horse herders of the Russian steppes from 2,500 bce. Their ancestors did not build pyramids like the Americans, the Chinese and the Africans [well, maybe they did, if the Ukraine pyramid findings hold water]. Judging by the self-contradiction of the author's article, I'd guess the author is a self-described "white" person.
It's OK if you are, but I've had it up to here with "white" historians denying that their people owe alot to other "non-white" civilizations, especially Africans, and denying that during the past 1000 years Europeans have destroyed the civilizations of 4 (or 5) continents under the banner of "white Christian European civilization".
I am a multi-ethnic person living in a multi-ethnic metropolis. It's amazing how much racism I perceive amongst historians [even Afrocentric ones].

Historian --

I think that one can acknowledge that "powerful and provident cultures are built atop of the shoulders of others" without buying into a reading of history that casts white people (or anyone else) into the role of The Villains.

Pyramid-building was a great technological advance; no doubt the Greeks and then Romans learned a lot about engineering from the earlier Egyptian civilization. But the Romans then applied that knowledge to make more useful things -- aqueducts, for example, that promoted both the longevity of that particular civilization as well as further developments.

By the way, why are you surprised that "even" Afrocentric historians are racist? Would you be surprised to learn that a self-described Eurocentric historian was a racist? Neither would necessarily surprise me.

Stephen --

I would just like to echo DerHistorian on one thing -- it is perfectly okay that you are, in fact, "white." No one around here thinks any less of you for it. In fact, my wife once described you (in a very offhand way) as "one of the good ones."

DerHistorian:

Yes, I'm white. It's not a source of pride or shame. It can be an inconvenience - I just sunburned the crap out of myself this afternoon. That sort of thing happens to we pale guys on vacation. A scene from the movie "Fools Rush In" comes to mind.

Anyway, Phil nailed my point. "One can acknowledge that "powerful and provident cultures are built atop of the shoulders of others" without buying into a reading of history that casts white people (or anyone else) into the role of The Villains."

The author of Guns, Germs, and Steel was asked why the Western world was so rich by comparison to the rest of the world. "Guns" is his answer to the question. You'll have to read that book to get the full answer. I can't do it justice.

But, briefly, the success of the West is not because the people in the west are smarter, more moral, or better people. Instead, the West was the beneficiary of several things that gave them a competitive advantage to other civilizations. Part of it was an incredibly fortunate set of domestic animals for both labor and food. Plentiful metals were available to allow bronze and then iron ages. And the large horizontal landmass (spread far over the same latitude) meant that the Old World could experiment with multiple civilizations (religion, government, ect.) at the same time.

These advantages put the West a little ahead of most of the rest of the world. And when you are dealing with exponential processes like technological development, a little advantage can become a very big lead over a few hundred years.

Phil:

You married well my friend. :-)

The thing I found horribly annoying about Diamond's GG&S is how he kept returning to the "white people are smarter" theme.

Yes he addresses it once, refutes it.. and then five pages later he's back refuting it again. All the way through the book. Look, deal with it once and get one with your life, anyone who really believes that the english were genetically superior to the Chinese is probably still trying to work out how to get the book open. They certainly won't be able to read all the way past the preface.

The second point is that he was quite convincing when it came to answering why the industrial revolution started somewhere in Eurasia, but quite weak in adressing why it was Northern Europe of all places.

My view is that it was a lucky combination of a relatively free society combined with relative political stability... and a huge influx of wealth from the discovery of new trade routes (to India, the Indies and the Americas) that provided a breathing space for the capitalists while the governments were trying to adapt to work out how to capture it all for themselves.