Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8339206" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s post about rates of social change and diffusion of technologies makes it basically unnecessary for me to post anything on that topic.When I was Googling to see if I could find a copy of Hodgson's essay online (I couldn't - hence my pasting above from a raw scan) I found a review published by a younger historian who had known him, and who (I gather from the review) works primarily on Africa - the review was published in The International Journal of African Historical Studies (v 27(2), 1994). One criticism that the review makes is of Hodgson's failure to incorporate Africa fully into his conception of world-history.Whether that criticism is sound or not is for historians to judge (and I'm not one); but it's clear that this particular reviewer did not think that including Africa would change the basic logic of Hodgson's analysis of social power, diffusion of technology, and explanation of European domination in the modern era. I think one can also readily infer from the review that the reviewer would not find the notion of &quot;primitivness&quot; at all illuminating as an analytic tool for studying African history.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8339206, member: 42582"] [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s post about rates of social change and diffusion of technologies makes it basically unnecessary for me to post anything on that topic. When I was Googling to see if I could find a copy of Hodgson's essay online (I couldn't - hence my pasting above from a raw scan) I found a review published by a younger historian who had known him, and who (I gather from the review) works primarily on Africa - the review was published in The International Journal of African Historical Studies (v 27(2), 1994). One criticism that the review makes is of Hodgson's failure to incorporate Africa fully into his conception of world-history. Whether that criticism is sound or not is for historians to judge (and I'm not one); but it's clear that this particular reviewer [I]did not[/I] think that including Africa would change the basic logic of Hodgson's analysis of social power, diffusion of technology, and explanation of European domination in the modern era. I think one can also readily infer from the review that the reviewer would [I]not[/I] find the notion of "primitivness" at all illuminating as an analytic tool for studying African history. [/QUOTE]

Verification