The Triumph of The West

Rating:
Summary: Another great book by Roberts
Review: J. M. Roberts is probably the best person writing popular histories in the world today. His "History of the World" and "A History of Europe" are more recent examples of his good writing skills.

But, this book is from earlier. It shows how good of a writer of history Roberts is. It is much more of an anylasis of what makes up Western Civilization, and what the author thinks is the reason it was able to fling itself outward at the world world, and basically subdue it all for a time. Sometimes which was basically umprecentented in the history of the world.

He critizes at times, but mainly he believes there is more good in Western Civilization than bad. Which, of course, is the truth.

Rating:
Summary: Another great book by Roberts
Review: J. M. Roberts is probably the best person writing popular histories in the world today. His "History of the World" and "A History of Europe" are more recent examples of his good writing skills.

But, this book is from earlier. It shows how good of a writer of history Roberts is. It is much more of an anylasis of what makes up Western Civilization, and what the author thinks is the reason it was able to fling itself outward at the world world, and basically subdue it all for a time. Sometimes which was basically umprecentented in the history of the world.

He critizes at times, but mainly he believes there is more good in Western Civilization than bad. Which, of course, is the truth.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: William H. McNeill emphasizes the importance of cultural interchange in the rise and fall of great civilizations. I think Roberts goes wrong here when he neglects to point out the critical role played by the Mongols in disseminating Chinese technology to Europe - things such as the compass, paper, printing and gunpowder, which quickly enabled Europeans to circumnavigate and settle the globe.

Certainly both McNeill and Joseph Needham, the distinguished British historian of science, would dispute one of Roberts's main points: that Europe owed nothing to the rest of the world for its subsequent "triumph". At the very least Roberts presents a one-sided view.

Historically China has been the richest and the most powerful civilization in the world. The last few centuries saw the rise and dominance of Europeans, who not only created the scientific and industrial revolutions but who aggressively explored and settled the whole world. It remains to be seen whether China will be able to catch up. Even if it resumes its former position as the leading civilization, it remains a question whether it can reverse Western dominance everywhere. The sinologist John K. Fairbank despairs of this possibility. Others aren't so sure. Roberts himself has doubts about the "triumph" of the West; hence the chapters entitled "A Sense of Decline", and "A Post-Western World?"

I think we must be clear about what time-frame we're talking about when discussing what the future holds for world history. The triumph of the West is not likely to be a mere afterthought even two or three hundred years from now. But all bets are off if our time-frame is extended to over a thousand years.

What is a thousand years? Roberts's own analogy is excellent when discussing relative timespans in his "History of the World". If "one minute" is compared to a hundred years, then mankind began to evolve from apelike creatures about "two or three weeks" ago, developed writing much less than "an hour" ago, and Christianity was born about "twenty minutes" ago, while Europeans began to settle in the Americas about "five minutes" ago, and of course both the two world wars and the cold war happened within the last "60 seconds".

To a paleontologist, the appearance of apelike creatures would itself seem like a mere instant ago because the dinosaurs only died about "450 days" ago and life first appeared on Earth as early as "60 YEARS" ago. To an astronomer even this is short: the Universe is over "two and a half centuries" old. And if Sir Martin Rees of Cambridge is correct then "our" Universe is only the latest in an endless series - itself one series among countless others - stretching back to infinity.

So, using our analogy, what is the shape of the world to come "ten minutes" from now? Will the West still be the dominant civilization? I think China can afford to take its time, having existed as an independent civilization for at least "half an hour" by now. After all "ten minutes" ago even England was under foreign rule (first by the Danes and then by the French).

But will the Earth still be habitable in the fourth millennium? That's much harder to say. Of course, not even a nuclear war or a giant asteroid can wipe out all life on Earth; evolution will start all over again much as it did when the dinosaurs died. Only when the Sun dies or if our solar system gets sucked into a giant black hole will life disappear from Earth. So there's always hope and cause for optimism.

This is an excellent book. I'd love to see Roberts bring it up to date and speculate a bit on the future.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: William H. McNeill emphasizes the importance of cultural interchange in the rise and fall of great civilizations. I think Roberts goes wrong here when he neglects to point out the critical role played by the Mongols in disseminating Chinese technology to Europe - things such as the compass, paper, printing and gunpowder, which quickly enabled Europeans to circumnavigate and settle the globe.

Certainly both McNeill and Joseph Needham, the distinguished British historian of science, would dispute one of Roberts's main points: that Europe owed nothing to the rest of the world for its subsequent "triumph". At the very least Roberts presents a one-sided view.

Historically China has been the richest and the most powerful civilization in the world. The last few centuries saw the rise and dominance of Europeans, who not only created the scientific and industrial revolutions but who aggressively explored and settled the whole world. It remains to be seen whether China will be able to catch up. Even if it resumes its former position as the leading civilization, it remains a question whether it can reverse Western dominance everywhere. The sinologist John K. Fairbank despairs of this possibility. Others aren't so sure. Roberts himself has doubts about the "triumph" of the West; hence the chapters entitled "A Sense of Decline", and "A Post-Western World?"

I think we must be clear about what time-frame we're talking about when discussing what the future holds for world history. The triumph of the West is not likely to be a mere afterthought even two or three hundred years from now. But all bets are off if our time-frame is extended to over a thousand years.

What is a thousand years? Roberts's own analogy is excellent when discussing relative timespans in his "History of the World". If "one minute" is compared to a hundred years, then mankind began to evolve from apelike creatures about "two or three weeks" ago, developed writing much less than "an hour" ago, and Christianity was born about "twenty minutes" ago, while Europeans began to settle in the Americas about "five minutes" ago, and of course both the two world wars and the cold war happened within the last "60 seconds".

To a paleontologist, the appearance of apelike creatures would itself seem like a mere instant ago because the dinosaurs only died about "450 days" ago and life first appeared on Earth as early as "60 YEARS" ago. To an astronomer even this is short: the Universe is over "two and a half centuries" old. And if Sir Martin Rees of Cambridge is correct then "our" Universe is only the latest in an endless series - itself one series among countless others - stretching back to infinity.

So, using our analogy, what is the shape of the world to come "ten minutes" from now? Will the West still be the dominant civilization? I think China can afford to take its time, having existed as an independent civilization for at least "half an hour" by now. After all "ten minutes" ago even England was under foreign rule (first by the Danes and then by the French).

But will the Earth still be habitable in the fourth millennium? That's much harder to say. Of course, not even a nuclear war or a giant asteroid can wipe out all life on Earth; evolution will start all over again much as it did when the dinosaurs died. Only when the Sun dies or if our solar system gets sucked into a giant black hole will life disappear from Earth. So there's always hope and cause for optimism.

This is an excellent book. I'd love to see Roberts bring it up to date and speculate a bit on the future.