James Blaut - The Colonizers Model of the World | Why the West is Strong

Blaut destroyed modernization theory in his book, *The Colonizer's Model of the World*. Here is a brief examination of how he did so.
------------------------------------------------------------
references:
Blaut, J.M. The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York: The Guilford Press, 1993. amzn.to/2uZ359P
Blaut, J.M. Eight Eurocentric Historians. New York: The Guilford Press, 2000. amzn.to/2uTFGqr
------------------------------------------------------------
more videos:
previous:
kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWqnaJ-joNaCaas
related:
kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4KbiaiEjK2rZ6M
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
kzbin.info
contribute to my Patreon:
www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
cynicalcypher88
Cynical_History
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #History #Blaut #eurocentrism #West #Europe

[@BKPrice]

I know the answer: it was aliens.

[@janoswimpffen7305]

Nice to see this. Jim Blaut was my M.A. Thesis advisor (back in 1981 !), great mind and a wonderful man.

[@Kira-Namida]

As someone passingly familiar with Jared Diamond but not with James Blaut, this has come as an interesting counter point. My only compaint is that since finding this channel, my list of things to read is increasing exponentially.

[@BradyPostma]

I thought exponential expansion was a reading list's natural state.

[@Kira-Namida]

@@BradyPostma I can't argue with that.

[@KpopLAX]

Blaut didn't originate the idea that the discovery of the Americas was the key event in the establishment of modernity. Here is my problem: if you look at European history from circa 1300 - 1500 it certainly seems as though the trajectory of modernization was already underway. The Portuguese trade to India owes nothing to Columbus -- indeed, this goes the other way. If one assumes away the Americas -- let's hypothesize that the pre-Columbian concept of the world proved to be correct -- i don't think this would have led to China modernizing first, or even parallel to Europe. Zheng He's treasure fleets were impressive but they led to nothing, and not for reasons which had anything to do with Europe.

[@2fiafisdoafw34]

I think, obviously it's a combination of every factor identified and never identified together, but those are too materialistic disregarding ideological factors: Max Weber, Oswald Spengler and anothers that points to ideological/cultural/religious factors are correct in some way.

[@SunflowerSocialist]

Parenthetical citations?! Unacceptable! Footnotes are the only way!

[@anticarrrot]

I always assumed it was essentially a 'pass the parcel' process, in that as knowledge accumulated, someone was going to hit critical mass. Europe just got there first.

[@nubgaming1013]

The problem I see with that is that it implies that our society was inevitable. But it was one of many possibilities.

[@wyleong4326]

In recorded history with its current application to our world.

[@anticarrrot]

@@nubgaming1013 No it doesn't? The Islamic golden age could have easily beaten Europe to the punch if they hadn't turned super religious. China could have beaten them if they hadn't turned super xenophobic. Europe could have squandered its opertunity as many other had before, giving someone else a turn. It was largely luck of the draw that we didn't.

[@mishasruros7633]

Yea it's a little more complicated than that.

[@venmis137]

@@anticarrrot All societies were progressing around the time. I've heard arguments that Europe was the most inventive in the world around the High Medieval Period, but I'm not sure as to the validity of those claims. It does seem though, that following the black death & the mongol invasions, that most civilisations took a radical conservative turn. As you said, Islam went super religious, China went super xenophobic, I don't know much about the indian situation but I would not be surprised if the records show them going more isolationist. Europe only hit that "critical mass" because it didn't turn inwards as the others did (although if you look at the 16th century, European monarchs centralising power appears to be a trend, so there was still a conservative push). Perhaps a reason for that is simply that Europe did not suffer under the mongols. You could also say that because of the extreme decentralisation in Europe (Europe had many more practically independent states than the rest of the world, which could be a potential cause) there were more opportunities for the implementation of new technologies & new ideas that effectively started a snowball effect (as these experiments proved successful and were adopted by more powerful states). I'm not a historian, but the answer to this question is definitely not simple & I'm probably wrong on everything I just said. I don't think it can be summed up as "everyone else was going there and Europe got there first".

[@iammrbeat]

Mmmm....Pringles

[@ycandrewsen8851]

I'm so happy that you continue to put out videos even though you don't often get more than a few thousand views. What you have to say deserves a much bigger audience. I would love to meet up and chat in real life with you. You seem like someone I would love to exchange ideas with in my own life, not just KZbin.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Thanks! Some video will blow up eventually (I hope). At some point I want to do community meet-ups someday, if this channel ever gets popular enough

[@adrianthepagan129]

I will posit a simple but complex answer, one unrelated to Western Europe, but quite significant for the whole world. Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire. The eruption of the mongols devastated and completely traumatized the other great centers of civilization of the world to such a point that we can't imagine the incredible impact it had. We're talking millions of people in such destruction that would not be surpassed till world war 2. The intellectual and cultural heart of Islam, Central Asia, Persia, Baghdad, all of these were destroyed methodically and mercilessly with discipline gained from the advanced warfare of China and the already steely discipline in the Khan' army. Every place affected by it shows scars to this day. Even if you're Eurocentric, Russia and Eastern Europe are profoundly affected by it to this day. In simple terms, ( of course it's much more complex ) the shock of this hellish catastrophe drove all the centers it touched to become militarized, obsessed wit defense against mortal enemy from the steppes. The massive effort in this direction, not to mention the cultural, social and economical effect, essentially left a vacuum. Western Europe was simply extremely lucky to have escaped. If Ogodei lived for a few more years, then it is very doubtful if ever the west could've grown so strong. This is very simplified, but it does give in my opinion a compelling reason for the rise of the west and especially the facility of said rise ( in the old world especially ). The new World, sadly for those living there, had very bad luck with diseases, a fact caused by geography and fauna. If the Chinese had made constant massive contact with the inhabitants of the Americas, the results would have been very similar( i.e. a decimation of the population via pandemics). But due to trauma of the mongols, only western Europe was in a position to really take advantage of the huge opportunity.

[@voytek5550]

+Adrian Banateanu Honestly it feels like the mongols are the cause of everything

[@CynicalHistorian]

+Adrian Banateanu That is quite an interesting proposition, and one in which I have seen no scholarly discussion. The only problem I see is explaining how the damage raught was significant enough to outdo other catastrophes, like the 30 years war, black plague, Ottoman expansion, crusades, and so much more. Are you getting this idea from a book? If you came up with it, you may want to think about developing it a bit further.

[@adrianthepagan129]

+Cynical Historian No, i haven't seen it in a book specifically, I came up with it based on reading a bunch of books of the mongols, Timur included, Chinese history, Russian history, Central Asian History, History of Islam and so on. It's the sheer scale and the theatrical( read terrifying ) way in which the mongol armies conducted war. There are stories of cities where after they left the pyramids made of skulls outnumbered the houses. And that's not the worst of it. Entire cities and civilizations wiped out in detail, again, to a scale we won't see till WW 2. It wasn't done for it' own sake most of the time, with the very notable exception of Timur, it was meant to inspire complete obedience and used methods learned from the Chinese combined with iron discipline. I dare say Aladdin' lamp is actually the mongols since the Muslim ruler who started the war with them was called Ala ad-Din ( westernized as Aladdin). the only comparable event is the black death. But though it had a huge impact it was much more intangible, becoming a part of life in places, over time, whereas the loss of the intellectual elite of Islam led to the rise of the train of thought that eventually saw the middle east stagnate and fall behind. Ming China, after a glorious period of expansion exhausted itself with the great wall, and turned inside. India saw the merciless butchery of Timur' expedition to Delhi. What really made it last was the continuing presence of the nomads on the borders, such as the Tatars in Eastern Europe, Oghuz Khanate in China, The formation of the Moghuls in India. A class of military rulers developed and became great empires, based on these classes. But because these classes were relatively small, even in the Otoman Empire, they tended to be very conservative, thus losing the technological and in the long term economical race with a western Europe, that despite having suffered serious wars of it' own, most of it' troubles were internal, thus much less debilitating to their common mental structures. A glorious example of the effect the mongols had can be found in the common mental theme of Russian politics, the idea that they are under siege, that at any moment an enemy( read the mongols ) might come out and destroy Russia again. This could go on for ages, but I think I made my point. I'm trained as an anthropologist( mostly by myself though I have finished my masters ) but i'm a writer at heart.

[@cseijifja]

+Cynical Historian just to name something, the black plague was nothing but a miracle for europe, i would argue that at the rate they were going, overpopulation would have destroyed europe inside out, the black palgue killed off many unwanted mouths to feed, while leaving most of the upper class and clergy(who really held what european culture and structure was together), somewhat untouched. The ottoman expansion was very well kind of late, and it could be argued that without the resources spain had from the new world, suleiman would have probably steamrolled trough europe.I wouldnt really classify the 30 years wars as a "world shatering" event for the europeans, definetly not the same as the mongol empire, there's a reason why they are the exception.

[@cseijifja]

Oliver H yes , but again, germany is not europe.

[@DammitBobby]

Love rewatching these videos on these relevant times

[@disco1974ever]

I got excited thinking I'd found an old C.H. vid I hadn't seen yet. Watch it all, enthralled and go to give it a thumbs up. Just to see I already have. Brain like a sieve, probably why I never got any A's.

[@ThekaiserXD]

Kinda boring to watch or listen to if your just reading off a test. Your previous videos however have been excellent!

[@CynicalHistorian]

+Curious Zee yeah, I kinda regret it, but I decided to do that since there just aren't that many pictures to use on this because it's so meta. It was a bit of an experiment

[@ThekaiserXD]

Well its good to see you try new things. Hopefully your next experiment goes better :D

[@nukclear2741]

@@CynicalHistorian There's a reason the rest of the world didn't receive the institutions that you mention, AI Ming never colonizes. Oh wait that's EU4. Never mind.

[@redwallzyl]

Europe actually was different in a way. The commercial and distribution revolutions both play a large part in how Europe diverged. Certainly it was fueled by the new world but it was not that alone.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

IMO its a combination of things for one they are about on par with the Ottomans technologically before Columbus sailed to the New World, the situation there proved fruitful for Europe (not so much the Native Population) while the Ottomans, China and the rest kind of stagnated either out of a sense of pride, being pulled down by internal politics, lacking the necessary resources or simply being complacent, while Europe basically developed ideas to compete with each other eventually out pacing the older powers, the Europeans also tend to use Colonization to their advantage, or by pitting local states against each other like in India then conquering it. Basically Europe got lucky and was delt a good hand and played it well that made them the center of power and tech for a while, unlike in the Medieval Period where that title belongs to China and the Near East especially early on in the period. While sounding Eurocentric its basically the closest answer I can think of (also when something becomes the biggest of something its kind of unavoidable making it sound the world revolves around them and not really that they got the chance based on circumstances that are unseen and them making the most of the situation.)

[@tuesquinafilosofica502]

The paradox of this critique of eurocentrism is that it attributes the critique of eurocentrism and modernity to Blaut a white Westerner, but not to the many Latin American philosophers who've had as rich critiques of Eurocentrism and Modernity 20 years before Blaut's 1993 text.

[@emmetbrown6328]

You're so right. The Brazilian academy is a master of this kind of critique since 1930s

[@laturnich9507]

Have you read 1493 by Charles Mann? I feel it handles this subject very well

[@Trav_Can]

Yup. Blaut nailed it. Nice video. It's a shame so few views.

[@fremenchips]

This overlooks a major point in favor of Weber's cultural argument. Look at the aftermath of the voyages of Zheng He, the Chinese were able to field a huge maritime force that could have easily dominated trade in the Eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans 70 years before Columbus when the spice trade was still mostly in the hands of non-European traders. Yet the Chinese choose not to take this course and both before and after Zheng He the Ming and Qing dynasty had an on again off again policy of forbidding the building of ships called the Haijin. In the actual primary sources as to why these policy actions were taken the langauge used to justify it was a very traditionally Confucian distrust of commerce and the disruptive effects it had on society. The does seem to be something different about Europe that made it combine many of the elements that were present in earlier civilizations of the ancient world and in contemporary civilizations in China, India and the Middle East and make something radically different from what had come before. afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1000ce_mingvoyages.htm#decision afe.easia.columbia.edu/chinawh/web/help/readings.html#ming_voyages

[@merdufer]

Culture may have delayed China's adoption of Western industrialization, but if China, or a nearby culturally similar country, had their own industrial revolution at around the same time, there would have been few cultural reasons for the Chinese not to embrace it. The economy and technology of Ming and early Qing was at least comparable to the West prior to that. The cultural argument would have to show why the Industrial Revolution was uniquely a product of European culture, and I find that a difficult proposition to support.

[@ruedelta]

@@merdufer It's incredibly difficult to support given the context. The impact of the Mongols on Chinese thought and progress cannot be understated; the interactions between the Mongols and the Han Chinese not only poisoned the well for Ming thought (a bend towards isolationism and historical nostalgia), it also set the stage for Manchu rule during the Qing which was predominantly preoccupied by keeping power structures ossified to improve stability between the minority government and its majority subjects. Chinese thought on the organization of labor and state assets was not backwards either. It's wikipedia, but even this highlights some of the cultural debates at the time: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Song_dynasty#Political_partisanship_and_reform If we consider the impact of the Mongol Empire to be of importance, we also cannot dismiss the impact of the An Lushan Rebellion and the subsequent subjugation of military officials under civil offices. Unsurprisingly everything is connected in these histories and pointing to any one single event is going to create distortions when assessing downstream effects.

[@adamb2216]

man i must of misunderstood something, but i don't even necessarily disagree at all with Blaut but i also don't think the modernization thing is entirely wrong either (like i said i might of just misunderstood). I just never thought that the concepts - for instance with Niall's 6 'apps' - were more like an accident of history. NOT that China or the Islamic caliphate or other civilizations never had one or more of those 'apps' or that they were somehow genetically inferior or that the weather affected peoples temperaments. I do think geography can affect a people, but not to the extent that old imperialist types would think, atleast no more then how English society developed differently then mainland European society did.. Same with Jared Diamond's point of domestication of animals for human use, easing labor and energy expense. But none of these points do i think is to be mean a specialness to Europe. India, China, Middle East, Egypt all contributed in major ways over the centuries, but for one reason or another declined. I do agree with Blaut's point of the discovery of the new world, as well the inter-competition between the European states with a nascent mercantile societies spurred on the competition between them and in a world where empire was totally normal and acceptable led to what we ended up seeing. But again, that doesn't have to do with any specialness to white europeans, more that an accident of history charted that course. IT could of very well been the east asians had their emperors managed to find new lands/wealth to compete with each other.

[@kuroazrem5376]

Also, some historians argued China was already beginning to industrialize even before Europe, and for the most part, they were self-sufficient. China was mostly screwed by colonialism and Imperialism, but did not become a world power due to the Neo-Confucian ultra conservative and isolationist position.

[@cellophanity]

One possible 'partial' answer to 'why the west is strong' that you didn't mention would be the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. After all, most of Europe was conquered by Rome, became tributary states and were given many traditions by Rome and ideas of government and literature and civilization. After the fall of Rome, they were still under the sway of the Roman Catholic Church and the expansionist movement was encouraged by the church for the purpose of 'spreading the word' of the church to all new found lands. So, Rome had a lot to do with the modernization of Europe, starting with the Roman Empires expansionism and then the Catholic Church's subsequent influence on most European nations. It would not surprise me if the 'strength of the west' was inherited, at least partially, from the strength of the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, who in there own way had a lot of influence on most countries of the world and still do to this day, but had the MOST influence in Europe and countries colonized by Europe.

[@roccoliuzzi8394]

What do you think of Jared Diamond? This reminded me of an enjoyable conversation I had last year with a history doctoral student who made very much the same points.

[@CynicalHistorian]

did a video on that last year actually. generally liked it when he focused on the New World, but it fell apart by the end

[@daveharrison4697]

Looking at the problem from the point of view as a biologist (molecular, though I have enjoyed reading evolutionary when in the right frame of mind), the evolution of Western European culture could have been just like biological or molecular evolution- a happy accident that then triggered positive feedback that then self-selected. Evolution doesn't have a desired end-state or target. It just selects what works best from a pool of possibilities for the environment AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME. I'm an interested laymen at best historically speaking, so cannot comment on historical civilisations that may have developed traits that were the antithesis of "modernity", or may have developed some of the earlier traits but then went down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Or indeed am I able to identify what those evolutionary traits actually were...

[@robfl100]

Could inheritance of technology from the Greeks and Romans have something to do with it? I think that the idea that the west is advanced due to colonization is a little flawed, I think the west was able to colonize the rest of the world because they were more advanced and not the other way around. That argument maybe could work for Britain or France, but not all of the advanced European countries today with high living standards had colonial empires. None of the Scandinavian countries ever really got into colonies (greenland doesn't count), and they have higher living standards than anywhere else. Also after the German was the most powerful country in all europe after its formation in 1871, at least ten years before it joined the scramble for africa

[@CynicalHistorian]

+Robert Leslie a lot of historians maintain that the difference in power was Melisande until the 16th-18th century. So that inherence would've been a little long in coming. Plus, Scandinavia was untouched by either of those empires, and what would become Germany defined what was outside Rome. I don't see any possible answer there. But then again, history is supremely interconnected, so maybe there is a hidden cause there.

[@briankearney5994]

Scandinavia and the Normans did do something similar to colonization all over Europe in an earlier era. You might say that it culminated in the invasion of Byzantium and the First Crusade (although they were hardly the only force) The main problem with this inheritance theory is that the Islamic world was very proficient in Greek and Roman technology as well. Indeed, there are a few famous examples of translations in Andalusia (modern Spain) contributing to Europe's advancement.

[@robfl100]

@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan sweden technically did have an empire, but I still wouldn't consider that a colonial empire on the same level as Britain/France had.

[@h.johariabul4574]

What do you think of John M. Hobson's work?

[@nemesis962074]

How valid would you consider the theories of Jared Diamond?

[@CynicalHistorian]

+nemesis962074 I consider his explanation quite good for the Americas. But when it comes to Africa and Asia, he's got a lot of problems. Diamond was one of the 8 Eurocentric Historians that Blaut went after

[@Kira-Namida]

+Cynical Historian This is relevant to my interests. *strokes beard*

[@Kira-Namida]

+Cynical Historian This is relevant to my interests. *strokes beard*

[@kekero540]

The Cynical Historian well it explains why because most of Africa's landmass is much more distant from the ocean in America as well but Europe most of its landmass is at least 75 miles from the sea.

[@animalia5554]

What about Victor David Hanson's ideology model or a combination of the two?

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

What do you think of Lieberman's "Strange Parallels in Southeast Asia"?

[@williamchamberlain2263]

One aspect is succession paths - strongman govt and a few others have no safe way for the person/people in charge to step down, whereas most forms of democracy (and even post-Enlightenment limited monarchy, kind of) have succession built in. Another is military professionalism, and the military's agreement to-, and support of-, the separation of military and governance.

[@cadguy262]

There is something to be said that the undoing of Europe by the non European citizens of the Iberian peninsula from the eighth to the 15th century made Europe great. There is many examples that demonstrates my hypothesis that the Iberian peninsula brought Europe out of the dark ages and demonstrated their skills in art, science and architecture to name just a few that made the future of Europe possible.

[@cadguy262]

Important to note that the labour force that made the Iberian peninsula great during its domination of Western Europe from the eighth to the 15th century is the very same labour force that was successfully used in the New World that made Europe great. You do not risk your investment in a labour force if there is no prior evidence that they can function successfully and contribute significantly to your Endeavour.

[@hankthayer7425]

I'm just a knuckle dragging manufacturing engineer, but here is my theory: The Renaissance, with its explosion of rediscovery, new learning, and most of all rise of the renaissance man, who could find connections between different scientific disciplines, caused European civilization to advance rapidly. There is nothing racial about the process. When the Japanese adopted the renaissance approach, they surged ahead of their neighbors. As Korea, China, and other caught on, they began to catch up. Any civilization that adopts this approach will succeed.

[@hughshux7960]

Great video. Thanks. I always wanted to know why did the British invade Australia and not the opposite?

[@janespright]

I love these series, too bad they are so short! But it got my juices flowing and went to study the problem more in depth. Reading the history of Great Britain Empire (the colonial period) is such a nice read (and so awful from a lot of reasons) and is a good example to why Europe was so "advanced". In fact most civilized countries in Europe (by whom standards... god knows) were colonial powers. Not saying that colonialism did the job for us but i think it was a major part. After reading the GB colonial history i am amazed that we slowly evolved (it seems that as a species we always choose the hard way of learning things) to more humane societies. At the middle of the period i had the feeling that it was rather hopeless from that point of view, certainly some modern societies could be seen as utopias back then. Wonderful read, thought experiment and time spent. Cheers!

[@subitman12]

What do you think of the book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' as to why the West is strong. I believe it gives a pretty good explanation, but as I am a layman, I can't really vouch for its veracity. I like to hear your thoughts.

[@CynicalHistorian]

it's interesting until the last couple chapters, then it just goes off the rails. Blaut actually attacks Diamond fairly vigorously in _Eight Eurocentric Historians_

[@subitman12]

Agreed. The last couple of chapters were very hard to read and understand.

[@msnorringtonsims6536]

this is really interesting. I always wondered why primary and secondary (school) history focused solely on Europe and nowhere else in the world. Hell, if it wasn't for the slavery chapter in fifth grade, I probably wouldn't have even known of Africa's existence. It wasn't until adulthood and my own curiosity took over that I even got my first real grasp and understanding of world history at all.

[@nevetstrevel4711]

Im sorry but you didn't prove your argument at all. You just quoted someone talking about a guy who disagreed. How do we know that he is right?

[@CynicalHistorian]

+nevets trevel I'm quoting myself, btw. And that is a good question, which i don't think could be answered definitively

[@ChloeAriT]

Yeah, I guess we never did talk about Asia in History class...

[@markconnelly1491]

I would liked to have seen at least a little bit more evidence about the debunking of the modernization theory, but the luck that Columbus had regarding the trade winds (which I'm sure he couldn't have known about beforehand) sounds valid. Most successes in life, (IMHO) come from luck more than any other cause.

[@user-jk4yp6fh4h]

English is not my native tongue so can anyone advise me why the speaker always starts his videos with saying Hey Cyfer here, that how it sounds to me...

[@Serilkiller]

It's a short greeting, like Hey! Cyfer here. His name is Cyfer and he's telling you he's here to enlighten you on various historical subjects.

[@user-jk4yp6fh4h]

@@Serilkiller now I see, thanks for clear explanation

[@schizoidboy]

I think this is all confusing, but when it comes to history and theories one should not get married to any particular theory. Ideas on history change with every generation. What used to be accepted as historical fact one day will be denounced another day, and I'm not talking about outright revisionists or conspiracy theorists, I'm talking about genuine academic historians who do the research and study the genuine data. As to modernization I must admit I have no genuine knowledge of it. Each region has to be studied separately and disregard anything that might hint at racism, which has no real use in serious historical study. As to how and if they modernized, there can be any number or reasons that can be analyzed.

[@buddha4tw]

In Japan an issue for modernization which has sometimes been a positive and a negative has been the Japanese sense of wanting to conform to the group consensus and shunning individuality, this can hinder modernization but also when the group collectively decides to move forward, Japanese group mentality and cooperation works.

[@kylestaude4406]

Fundamentally I think the geography of Europe creates for many small states rather than one big state and lots of maritime trade. Competition is important but it was not some brilliant idea Europeans had. Just the fact it is hard to rule territory across the alps or across the English Channel.

[@kuroazrem5376]

Ideology did play a role. China had all the potential to become a world power, but squandered it during the Ming Dynasty due to the isolationist Neo-Confucian ideology. If they remained a sea borne power like they were at the beginning of the XV century, all of Asia would have fallen under China 100 years before Europeans arrived. Also, the Islamic world (or parts of it such as Morocco) could have rivaled Europe if they remained Mutazilite, meaning Rationalists, but instead, the whole Muslim world adopted more conservative and radical ideologies, which hate change in general (see Sunnism here).

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

While China got the Worst of it IMO mostly being Complicete and thinking "why should we expand or innovate when people come to us" and unlike China, Japan took the isolation route and found earlier that its better for them to innovate and modernize as fast as they can (after they found out they can do nothing against the US) by contrast China underwent a Century of humiliation to powers that were once tiny to it in comparison. The Islamic World especially the Ottomans did try to innovate but Conservative elements within pushed it back or like China they saw no reason to innovate early on because they saw no need until it was too late (the printing press was seen as redundant because they had armies of scribes already and they saw it as ruining their scribe market)

[@b.griffin317]

Erudite? There's an awful lot of boasting for Blaut in your thesis. Ad homini doth not erudition make. You can tone that down a bit, to say the least. That being said, I agree the great good luck of a vast new continent was the key the europe's rise in international influence over the past half millenium. I would credit a certain degree of cultural, institutional and technological virtues which were hardly unique to that region but in did greatly improve on europe's ability to exploit their opertunity very well in a sustained manner. One way to think of this in a broader context, and I do not recall any names of any proponents, is this. Europe at the time of Columbus was extremely precious-metal poor and what little there was was being drained off for oriental luxury goods. In fact the entire period from the later Roman era can be considered a period of flow of gold and silver eastward, all the way to China. What Columbus et. al. did was infuse a vast amount of, most silver back into global circulation giving Europe greater "buying power" than they had had since any tine since Caesar. This also had the benefitial effect of crushing the price of silver (and to a lesser extend gold) and thus comparatively impoverishing the asian powers, from the Turks all the way across eventually to China and even Japan. Thus China flourished on roman gold and silver in the "middle ages" but then become isolationist/autarchic once Europe began knocking on their doorstep in the "early modern period." Going further back, Roman became dominant in the Med. when it was able to finance endless wars agains the two major players, Carthage and the post-Alexandrian Hellistic kingdoms, with the capture Spanish gold and silver mines. Then taxation of the East sustained them until the Spanish mines dried up, at which point they collapsed. Just some things to cosider, not set in stone. I've already become tl;dr.

[@annaLee-uh1xz]

I find it difficult to gain a good critique of Blaut and this has not helped at all, Dimond's video was a excellent critique but this was lacking.

[@bobcornwell403]

In my opinion, the reason Europeans dominated the globe was their perfection of and willingness to use organized violence. Europeans lived in a part of the world that had lots of bays, gulfs, and natural harbors. For this reason, it was all but ungovernable by any one single imperial power. As soon as Rome expanded north and west of the Mediterranean, it started to sputter. And after its western part collapsed, the smaller city states and regional powers were endlessly at war with one another. This endless fighting encouraged the use of new technologies that more staid empires would disdain. So, not only did better weapons come into common use, but better tactics and strategies came about as well. The rest of the world didn't stand a chance.

[@dark_fire_ice]

My opinion is is that of luck, isolation (relative to the time for the rest of the world), and a dense population of differing and competing culture willing to do just about anything to get ahead, while the closest major power (Ottoman) would get very little from expansion and at great cost in money, men, and internal political clout

[@nachoolo]

one name: Jared Diamond

[@TheLordDai]

I'm not a historian and aren't familiar with these books at all, but this doesn't seem to be a rebuttal of the core ideas described in your previous episode on modernisation theory. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your previous episode I got the impression that modernisation theory posits that there are 6 ideas necessary to create the types of society able to dominate globally, and that the west happened to have these ideas. This seems to be a rebuttal to an argument that I did not see being made, that being that europe was the only place to have these ideas. I would say that this is blatantly false, since the east pushed forwards greatly in comparison to europe before europe's dominance started. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem incompatible with modernisation theory to say that europe took some of the ideas required for modernisation from other societies it had contact with.

[@istrychalski]

It seems to me like most historians, even when comparing Europe to the rest of the world, do so from a perspective of Eurocentrism and severely lack knowledge about how advanced other parts of the world had been in antiquity. My take is that "the West" is currently leading the world in technology and social advancement only by happenstance. A happy (or unhappy, for the rest of the world) coincidence of colonial fervor, disease, and low points in other regions caused Europe to come out on top these past, oh, 400 years. It's just luck. There is no innate difference in capacity for building great civilization between any ethnicity. You're right, that idea is bluntly racist. For example, historians would do well to understand just how advanced ancient China was. Even if China was not eglatarian in social structure, they were extremely advanced with technology and industry- they were not the regional superpower for 3000 years for nothing. When Europe was still rolling in the mud, the Middle East led the world in mathematics and thought. If you're talking about democracy, that concept has always existed in small pockets all over the world (i.e. some First Nations). We just like to focus on the Greeks nowadays. It's all just self-importance and luck.

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

Though I don't think it was All Luck, while yeah the Europeans had been lagging compared to the Near East/Islam, they were learning, The Ottomans for example had the most professional armies in the region so the Europeans adapted against them and even made innovations themselves like the Printing Press before they sailed to conquer the New World, though yes there is a lot of "white man's burden" and overemphisising the European's innovations when it comes to some of these Historians.

[@alexanderreusens7633]

Hmm, I'll try: Europe could only have become modernized because of its technological advantages against the rest of the world. By this advantage it could colonize and becoming richer and richer. The discovery of the Americas is also just a result of this technological superiority against the native people. It gained its superiority by constantly waging war with each other, getting an arms race and trading with other civilizations, so technology discovered elsewhere also reached Europe. First the middle east and the far east was the center of progress, because of farming in river valleys. Europe got its advantage over the americas and subsahara africa because of those ancient civilizations. Building things, crafting tools, etc. It was already established knowledge. Europe in general did lose some of that knowledge, but the Arabs and the far east still had it. Through trade and ordinary advancements in technology, Europe caught up. When the Europeans were "forced" into searching for new trade routes, they stumbled along the way upon land (and people), easy to take. By doing so they enriched themselves and somewhat over classed the eastern civilizations. Not that they obliterated them, just that they were more powerful. The rest is history. So in short: because Europe was quit close to the cradle of civilization it got, just like some other regions, a head start. Europe eventually overclassed the rest by conquering and colonizing.

[@gudmundursteinar]

If I had to point to anything I'd point to 4 basic ideas, each of which has either a non-western origin or were independently (often preceding the western invention) invented in other parts of the world (Persia, India and China mostly). These are; Humanism - the idea that each individual has human dignity and his own purpose - an idea stolen from the levantine religion of Jahwe worship; Materialism - the idea that all knowledge about the world can be obtained only by studying it - an idea invented during the axial age somewhere between china and Ionia and re-invented during the Song Dynasty before the west re-invented it and kicked off the Enlightenment; Rule of Law - a Roman (possibly Greek) concept originally meaning that any law or contract was had as a third party to that contract the gods themselves making everybody bound by the law or contract: and popular sovereignty - the concept that the right to rule comes from the people, this concept is almost universal and is the basis for all tribal hunter gatherer societies, the western special case is how Norse and Germanic political organization survived through to the renaissance only to re-emerge with the English civil war. What makes the west "Strong" is the synthesis of these ideas and, as the atheist heart within me cringes, the maintenance of these ideas was made possible by the church and it's specific theological views of government (not necessarily any of the churches business) and epistemology (again, not necessarily any of the churches business, but since all humans are open to the holy spirit knowledge might arise anywhere and might be more correct that what we know now, even theology).

[@tcironbear21]

I think Europe's "First Exploiter" status of the New World is pretty much the short answer to the West's dominance. Even if the New World had been approached in a humane and moral way, the Colombian exchange alone was going to double that nation's population growth rate for a century. That said, there is probably a LOT more nuance to why Europe held this advantage. And there is probably something to be said on why China, Morocco, Japan, Arab traders, and even India were not the first one's to open trade. Morocco held all the same advantages as Spain and Portugal. Why didn't they get over to the New World first? Sure they had access gold from Mali and spices & silks from Arab traders, but since when was being wealthy a barrier to wanting more wealth?

[@cv4809]

1-Their ships sucked 2-You said it yourself, they didn't need to gamble and invest their wealth into dangerous transoceanic expeditions, since they already had acces to eastern commodities

[@edgeldine3499]

Well I think if we can figure out what made greece great we can probably figure out why Eruope was so lucky.. the Hellenistic empire pretty much opened trade between east/west (im definitely a layman in history so sorry if Im ignorant lol) Greece influenced Rome which by extension influences western culture. Lets remember Rome aka Byzantium didn't fall till the 1400s. How gunpowder was used by Europeans is another reason why the West became so powerful. Also I think we need to understand that even to this day geography defines nations and this was no less true a thousand years ago. Europe is a continent of rivers which facilitates trade and the spread of ideas. I know this is a bit flimsy because many nations were isolated by culture and language to some degree after the western Roman Empire fell but I think this is still worth thinking about. One more point, china could have easily dominated the world long before the West. The polocy of isolation and the fear of "barbarians" prevented China from being the dominant power in the world.. well till reciently lol Im sure thousands of people have thought about these as reasons for why Eruope has been so influential and powerful vs the East and Africa. I think the west has been very lucky. They just had the right people at the right time with the ideas and the means to impliment them. Maybe its the continuous conflicts within Europe that created a certain mindset that in other nations were somehow prevented (my point on China). Well theres my 2 cents.

[@tovarishchmartins4999]

"Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson is the vision i most subscribe to. They argue that inclusive economic institutions are the key to the advancement of societies. Democracy, property rights and separation of power are some of those institutions, which are also found in the theory of modernity, but they dispel any geographical component. The borders between USA and Mexico and North and South Korea are studied in the book, to bring the point across.

[@Srijit1946]

Lol do you still believe this?

[@indridcole7596]

Wasn’t Marx a diffusionist

[@CynicalHistorian]

yes

[@erejnion]

Europe is much more individualistic than the rest of the world, which is in part affected by geography and climate. That alone is enough of a distinction to bring about Europe's global dominance.

[@viktorprlja4885]

I have to endores "Why Nations Fail"

[@QuantumZebra]

Well, that was boring. You're also completely wrong about these ideas being "racist," as they instead give an explanation which is completely divorced from race and is centered much more on environmental factors.

[@3BlueHaze]

Bad video doesn't say why it's wrong just calls you racist in gives other unprovable explanations