And in fact that Asia was head of the world economy and reluctant to let Europe share until they were able to buy their way in after the discovery of the Americas.
This new found source of income that Europe had found in the Americas might have arguably helped Asia out more than it did Europe. Frank suggests that the money that found its way from the Americas through Europe and to Asia, did more to stimulate production and support population growth in Asia than in Europe (Frank164). This notion that Asia benefited more than Europe from the discovery of the Americas could challenge the ideas of Eurocentrism. One can argue that population only grows out of surplus. For without surplus of goods or services people are unable to supply food and shelter for a growing population. Records show that during the two hundred and fifty years following the discovery of the Americas, the population of Asia increased by approximately one hundred million people. In that same amount of time Europe increases only half that number (Frank 168). This goes to show that Asia, not Europe, reaped more of the benefits of Columbus's discovery.
Then why is it that Asia is looked at as being inferior when Europe is so caught up in the technological and scientific discoveries of the east? It would be unfair to place technological and scientific discoveries of the east aside and say that the rest of the world had nothing to do with them. Frank argues that discoveries where a thing that went both ways and that each culture learned from one another to improve on the others idea (Frank 204). Fore instance some things such as gunpowder, printing and the compass originated in east and then later improved in the west. However the Industrial Revolution started in Europe and was one of the key innovations that helped to catapult Europe ahead of Asia.
Due to the Industrial Revolution and the discovery of the Americas, Europe was finally able to surpass Asia in the world economy.
