Roger’s answer to “Many historians have reexamined and abandoned the notion that Africa was always primitive and poor.…” > Likes and Comments

In what way are my words an "allegation of prejudice?" I'm saying his work (or at least part of his work) is inaccurate, not bigoted. Diamond argues that the interaction of climate, available farmland, domesticatable animals, and isolation make it easier for peoples in certain geographical areas to develop advanced technology, farming methods, &c than in others. I admit that "geographically disposed to poverty" may be a somewhat simplistic way of summarizing this, but it's roughly accurate. And it is in no way a "value laden allegation of prejudice."

At any rate, you haven't actually addressed my objection, which is that Diamond provides an explanation for something that may not have even happened. The work of historians like Thornton suggests that many sub-Saharan African civilizations were quite advanced technologically and economically, and arguably on a par with European ones in those respects until well into the 18th century. Needless to say that Diamond's thesis can't be true if the premise isn't true!

Diamond's research into why Native American and indigenous Australian civilizations were so easily dominated by European ones is, as you say, fascinating and well presented, though there are some problems with it. His claims about sub-Saharan Africa, China, India, and the post-Alexandrian Middle East, on the other hand, are shoddy, poorly researched, and ignorant of much historical research in that field. Such poor research warrants public criticism, which is exactly what I'm doing.

Your argument or justification here is very different to what you wrote originally and to what I responded, i.e. "How does this square with Diamond's theory that Africa was geographically predisposed to poverty and backwardness?" That is an assumption never asserted by Diamond and responding to it is not "exactly what i'm (you are) doing.