Final answer:
King's observations likely point to the fact that Asia and Africa were making progress distinct from the industrial and imperial progress of the United States. While the U.S. expanded industrially, Asia and Africa were developing in their own ways amidst European colonization challenges. These differences in progress also relate to how urbanization and industrialization were unfolding across the world.
Step-by-step explanation:
When comparing King's observations of progress in Asia and Africa with that in the United States, one could interpret that King noted progress in Asia and Africa in ways that were different from or not acknowledged in the United States. Countries in Asia and Africa were witnessing changes and development, particularly as they adapted and responded to European colonization and external pressures. In contrast, the United States' industrial expansion and quest for resources can be seen both as a form of progress and as a force that often imposed itself upon other regions, sometimes disrupting their traditional progress trajectories. Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that King might have been suggesting that while the U.S. saw progress mainly through an industrial and imperial lens, Asia and Africa were making strides perhaps in the face of external challenges and through different paths of modernization and development.
Considering the urbanization of a country, these observations align with the idea that industrialization facilitates urban growth. As economies grow through industrialization, urban areas tend to expand as centers of manufacturing, trade, and services. The United States experienced significant urbanization as it industrialized, and countries in Asia and Africa were also seeing their own forms of urban growth, particularly around areas where colonization had a direct impact.