ثمانية من مؤرخي المركزية الأوروبية

by J.M. Blaut, هبة الشايب (ترجمة), فيصل يونس (مراجعة)

يتناول هذا الكتاب بالدرس والنقد أعمال ثمانية من مؤرخي المركزية الأوروبية، الذين شكلوا أسلوب فهم كثير من الباحثين لماهية التاريخ، كما يقدم رؤية ثاقبة تساعد على إنتاج فهم بديل لأصول الحداثة ونشأتها، وهو مرجع لا غنى عنه لكل باحث في التاريخ والجغرافيا السياسية وعلم الاجتماع والأنثروبولوجيا ودراسات ما بعد الاستعمار

Genres: History, Nonfiction

289 pages, Paperback

First published August 8, 2000

Reviews

[Nicholas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is spectacular, and is also much more accessible to the lay reader than its predecessor. Blaut coolly and calmly lays waste to the untenable positions of 8 Eurocentric historians, destroying their points of view while simultaneously constructing an alternate model in the process.

[Differengenera]

A short chapter at the end of the book is called 'Thirty Reasons Europeans are Better Than Everyone Else'. It follows in full:

1. People of the white race have an inherited superiority over the people of other races. (Weber argued this way; but none of the seven contemporary historians expresses racist views.)
2. The climate of Europe, or northwest Europe, is uniquely favorable for agriculture. (Jones, Mann, Hall, Landes) Or: Europe, along with China, possesses a climate that is more favorable for agriculture than are the climates of all other regions, especially the humid tropics. (Diamond)
3. The climate of Europe is better for human comfort and productivity than are the climates of all other regions. (Jones, Landes)
4. The soils of Europe are uniquely fertile. (Jones, Mann, Hall, Landes)
5. The landform structure of Europe is uniquely favorable for communication and the diffusion of ideas. (Jones, Diamond, Landes)
6. The landforms of Europe differentiate the continent into separate ecological cores, and this explains in large part the fact that Europe has many moderate-sized states instead of an empire. (Jones, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
7. The indented coastline of Europe partly explains the linguistic, ethnic, and political differentiation of Europe. (Jones, Mann, Diamond)
8. The forest vegetation of Europe historically contributed to the development of individualistic people and small families, hence led Europe toward private property and capitalism (Weber, Mann, Hall,
Landes) and helped Europe uniquely to avoid overpopulation and Malthusian disasters. (Mann, Hall, Landes)
9. Europe's environment is less subject to natural disasters than are other regions, and this encouraged development. (Jones, Hall)
10. Europe was, historically, less disease-ridden than all other places. (Jones, Diamond, Landes)
11. Europeans, historically, were better nourished than other people. (White, Jones, Landes)
12. Europeans were uniquely inventive. (Weber, White, Brenner, Jones, Mann, Hall, Landes)
13. Europeans were uniquely rational in the practice of sexual self-restraint and so avoided overpopulation and Malthusian disasters. (Jones, Hall, Landes)
14. Europeans were uniquely innovative and progressive. (Weber, White, Brenner, Jones, Mann, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
15. Europeans were uniquely capable of creative and scientific thought. (Weber, White, Mann, Hall, Landes)
16. Europeans held uniquely democratic, ethical values. (Weber, White, Mann, Hall, Landes)
17. The development of classes and/or class struggle was most fully developed in Europe. (Weber, Brenner, Mann, Hall, Landes)
18. The Christian religion, as doctrine, led to unique European development. (Weber, White, Mann, Hall)
19. The Christian Church, as institution, led to unique European development. (Weber, White, Mann, Hall, Landes)
20. The European family was uniquely suited to development. (Also see No. 8.) (Jones, Mann, Hall, Landes)
21. Europeans uniquely, in ancient and/or medieval times, developed the concept and institution of private property. (Weber, White, Brenner, Jones, Mann, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
22. Europeans uniquely, in ancient and/or medieval times, developed the institution of the market. (Jones, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
23. Urbanization, in Europe, was more favorable for development than elsewhere; European cities were more progressive and/or more free than cities elsewhere. (Weber, Jones, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
24. The state, in Europe, developed toward modern politics more rapidly than elsewhere. (Also see Nos. 25, and 26) (Weber, Jones, Mann, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
25. The empire as a political form hobbled development in non-European regions. (Weber, Jones, Mann, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
26. Oriental despotism hobbled social and technological development in non-European regions. (Also see No. 25) (Weber, Jones, Mann, Hall, Diamond, Landes)
27. Europe was uniquely capable of avoiding Malthusian disasters for many reasons. (Also see Nos. 8 and 13) (Brenner, Jones, Mann, Hall, Landes)
28. The practice of, and dependence on, irrigation slowed or stopped development in hydraulic or irrigating societies. (Also see No. 26) (Weber, Jones, Mann, Hall, Landes)
29. The development of feudalism in Europe uniquely favored the rise of democracy and private property. (Also see No. 21) (Weber, Jones, Mann, Landes)
30. Europeans were uniquely venturesome, uniquely given to exploration and overseas expansion. (Jones, Mann, Landes)

[Greg Randel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible, read Ricardo duchesne the uniqueness of western civilization instead for both a refutation and supersession of this book.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book that dismantles many of the Eurocentric assumptions propagated in the various ‘pop history’ books of the late 20th century. Many of these arguments are still found in the 21st century pop books like Sapiens and the works of people like Steven pinker.

Blaut’s central argument is that unlike being some form of culturally or environmentally more ‘primed’ for progress, Europe’s rapid growth in the early modern period was instead solely due to its proximity to America, and potential therefore to capitalise on the sheer amount of wealth gained through the colonisation of the Americas through slavery and plantations particularly in the Carribean. Whilst this is likely an oversimplification that will be/and likely has been, added too since publication, I find it much better than the often baseless assertions made by the historians Blair critiques in this. I liked his relatively vigorous historiography and referencing and how he debunked some of the biggest names of pop history rather than just obscure academics, as it is often the former who (unfortunately) have the biggest impact on public opinion and perceptions.

Certainly not a perfect book, but a very valuable one which I will definitely be holding onto for reference.

[Nikhil · Rating 2 out of 5]

A set of rather snide and fanatical essays on historiography. I agree with some of the criticisms based on what has been better established elsewhere, but the most grating moments come when the author misses the mark in the most pompous and arrogant way. Sometimes his assertions in one part of the book run counter to assertions in another. For example, he claims that contemporary underdevelopment comes from greed and inequality in one chapter while saying in the next that the prosperity of historical Asian societies should be seen in the wealth and luxury of the elites there, and even expressly claims it's wrong to even think about the distribution of wealth to understand the general prosperity of society. This muddled and desperate thinking is a systematic issue.

It is useful in some sense to catch up with the historiography on Europe's place in history, but it's not always pleasant or sound.