The Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History

Rating:
Summary: The most stimulating reading I have done in a long time...
Review: ... and I believe I am a seeker of engrossing, intellectual reading!

With strong, stimulating, engrossing, logical and brilliantly vivid arguments, this book deserves to be a recommended study at all schools wishing to nurture a socially analytical intellect. (But you do not have to go to school to read it... I didn't!)

The book does not assume prior social studies from the reader, in fact one of the main plus points of the book is that it takes pains to explain (in an extremely engrossing style) any complex concepts that are required for the analyses the author presents. The book is worth many times the money/ time spent on it just for the social science concepts illustrated.

One of the rare books that helps you broaden your vision and understanding of this world via a huge, well directed beam of light.

Though the book is an argument against a belief system (of European superiority and "priority"), Blaut takes care not to make it an argument against people holding those beliefs. Instead he delves deep into social and psychological theories to explain how the beliefs came about. It illustrates human-nature more than argue against the views held by a section.

I could go on trying to express the plus points of the book, but indeed, the material, handling and subject of the book are so well dealt with that I prefer to just suggest that you go out and read it. Trust me, the first few pages will hook you ...

Rating:
Summary: Orientalism-lite: a weak and poorly grounded book...
Review: It is difficult to critique Blaut's book without falling into the trap of expounding the 'Eurocentric diffusion' theory oneself. If he was making the point that many historical thinkers at many points in time were guilty of over-estimating the uniqueness and impact of any 'European miracle', then I would have some sympathy with his argument. However, his aims are much grander. He wishes to prove that the success of 'Western' civilisation was a geographical happenstance, and that the whole canon of European historiography is built on the basis of 'Eurocentric diffusion', and he, of course, is the only person to have spotted this.

Of course, Edward Said's Orientalism of 1979 had preceded Blaut's work by some 14 years, but despite the similarity of tone and approach, Blaut disregards Said's work in one sentence with a quick nod of approval - colonial activity in the Orient obviously being unimportant to his central thesis of the importance of the Americas in European growth. This is typical of Blaut's lack of interest in Asian, African or Middle-Eastern colonialism - for example, colonial India does not figure in his exposition at all. Blaut may not have been aware of the historical academic community's attacks on Said's thesis - these seem to me even more apparent in Blaut's thesis than in Said's. John MacKenzie's incisive critique of Said's Orientalism resonates with flaws I perceive in Blaut's book.

Firstly Blaut does not provide any evidence of linkage between 'representation' of the 'outside' world, as he calls it, in the 'Colonizer's Model of the World' and the application of that 'representation' in the colonialisation 'project'. So what philosophical and historical texts existed in the critical 16th and 17th centuries that exhibited this Euro-chauvinism, and how were they harnessed by the colonisers in their supposed domination of the world? He only provides a brief survey of books from 1850 onwards in an extended footnote. Secondly, he creates a form of Euro-centrism himself in his argument painting a caricature of "the imperial mugger and unresisting victim" Thirdly, he essentialises 'european intellectual history' as if it is one body of consistent opinion. An example of his writing shows this: "All scholarship is diffusionist insofar as it axiomatically accepts the Inside-Outside world". Also, he is highly selective about the examples he cites, and those that he cites as examples of 'current thinking' are often archaic. An example can be seen in his argument against the 'Malthusian Theory' of overcrowding "being propagated today", where he attacks books by Lawrence Stone and Robert Brenner, both published in 1977. He only admits in a footnote that an extensive exegesis criticising these works was penned in the 1980s. His selectivity also extends to his bold statement that all world regions were using the sea as effectively as each other prior to 1492. However, he cannot ignore the evidence of the prowess of the Portuguese in sailing techniques, but he hides this in another footnote. What of Bartolomeu Dias's rounding of the Cape of Good Hope which predated Columbus's voyage by four years? Surely the epic voyage of Da Gama's to Kenya and India in 1497/8 shows that Columbus's route was not a one-off freak happenstance?

John Thornton's book published the previous year gives a much more convincing historical and geographic explanation of European maritime Atlantic successes over the riverine African sailors, arguing that Europe (and the Middle-East) did have world-beating technical advantages in sailing technology and know-how by the mid 15th century.

The final 'Saidian' streak in the book is its ahistoricism. Like Said, Blaut is not a historian. He is a geography professor. But how is this book ahistorical? Firstly, it ignores specific causality. What exactly was the flow of precious metals when they arrived back in Europe? Many historians believe that much of the bullion was respent on purchasing china, silk and tea. Surely this would have enriched Asia not Europe, and especially encouraged Asian industrialisation? Also, the countries which reaped the bullion rewards of South America (Spain and Portugal) patently did not defeudalise at the same rate as Britain and the Low Countries. And some areas, such as Italy and Germany did not gain directly from such colonies - and yet they lie within Blaut's uniform definition of 'Europe'.

To conclude, Blaut fails to harness his idea of a 'Coloniser's Model' to any practical instances of colonialist hegemony, or instances of underdevelopment in the colonies. William Coffey describes Blaut's approach as "spending a great deal of effort constructing a 'straw man' which he heroically topples...but his approach may be more properly likened to an attack of (German) panzer divisions." He fails to convince that there is one unitary Europe with one Colonial Model of exploitation for capitalist development. Some analysis of the divisions within Europe is surely required to understand how capitalism developed, and where it found nourishment. The book argues against Weber's ideas of the 'oriental despot', the cyclical rather than modernising nature of Asian societies and Weber's racist undertones. But it fails to address Weber's ideas on the famous 'Protestant Work Ethic' and the Marx's and Weber's 'spirit of the true man'. One year after the publication of Blaut's book. Francis Fukuyama published the highly successful and controversial End of History and the Last Man which investigated these issues - coming to very different conclusions from Blaut.

It is worth noting that Blaut's final book, entitled Eight Eurocentric historians was published in 2000, in the year of his death. It may be that this new edition may address some of the criticisms I level at his 1993 work.

Rating:
Summary: Orientalism-lite: a weak and poorly grounded book...
Review: It is difficult to critique Blaut's book without falling into the trap of expounding the `Eurocentric diffusion' theory oneself. If he was making the point that many historical thinkers at many points in time were guilty of over-estimating the uniqueness and impact of any `European miracle', then I would have some sympathy with his argument. However, his aims are much grander. He wishes to prove that the success of `Western' civilisation was a geographical happenstance, and that the whole canon of European historiography is built on the basis of `Eurocentric diffusion', and he, of course, is the only person to have spotted this.

Of course, Edward Said's Orientalism of 1979 had preceded Blaut's work by some 14 years, but despite the similarity of tone and approach, Blaut disregards Said's work in one sentence with a quick nod of approval - colonial activity in the Orient obviously being unimportant to his central thesis of the importance of the Americas in European growth. This is typical of Blaut's lack of interest in Asian, African or Middle-Eastern colonialism - for example, colonial India does not figure in his exposition at all. Blaut may not have been aware of the historical academic community's attacks on Said's thesis - these seem to me even more apparent in Blaut's thesis than in Said's. John MacKenzie's incisive critique of Said's Orientalism resonates with flaws I perceive in Blaut's book.

Firstly Blaut does not provide any evidence of linkage between `representation' of the `outside' world, as he calls it, in the `Colonizer's Model of the World' and the application of that `representation' in the colonialisation `project'. So what philosophical and historical texts existed in the critical 16th and 17th centuries that exhibited this Euro-chauvinism, and how were they harnessed by the colonisers in their supposed domination of the world? He only provides a brief survey of books from 1850 onwards in an extended footnote. Secondly, he creates a form of Euro-centrism himself in his argument painting a caricature of "the imperial mugger and unresisting victim" Thirdly, he essentialises `european intellectual history' as if it is one body of consistent opinion. An example of his writing shows this: "All scholarship is diffusionist insofar as it axiomatically accepts the Inside-Outside world". Also, he is highly selective about the examples he cites, and those that he cites as examples of `current thinking' are often archaic. An example can be seen in his argument against the `Malthusian Theory' of overcrowding "being propagated today", where he attacks books by Lawrence Stone and Robert Brenner, both published in 1977. He only admits in a footnote that an extensive exegesis criticising these works was penned in the 1980s. His selectivity also extends to his bold statement that all world regions were using the sea as effectively as each other prior to 1492. However, he cannot ignore the evidence of the prowess of the Portuguese in sailing techniques, but he hides this in another footnote. What of Bartolomeu Dias's rounding of the Cape of Good Hope which predated Columbus's voyage by four years? Surely the epic voyage of Da Gama's to Kenya and India in 1497/8 shows that Columbus's route was not a one-off freak happenstance?

John Thornton's book published the previous year gives a much more convincing historical and geographic explanation of European maritime Atlantic successes over the riverine African sailors, arguing that Europe (and the Middle-East) did have world-beating technical advantages in sailing technology and know-how by the mid 15th century.

The final `Saidian' streak in the book is its ahistoricism. Like Said, Blaut is not a historian. He is a geography professor. But how is this book ahistorical? Firstly, it ignores specific causality. What exactly was the flow of precious metals when they arrived back in Europe? Many historians believe that much of the bullion was respent on purchasing china, silk and tea. Surely this would have enriched Asia not Europe, and especially encouraged Asian industrialisation? Also, the countries which reaped the bullion rewards of South America (Spain and Portugal) patently did not defeudalise at the same rate as Britain and the Low Countries. And some areas, such as Italy and Germany did not gain directly from such colonies - and yet they lie within Blaut's uniform definition of `Europe'.

To conclude, Blaut fails to harness his idea of a `Coloniser's Model' to any practical instances of colonialist hegemony, or instances of underdevelopment in the colonies. William Coffey describes Blaut's approach as "spending a great deal of effort constructing a `straw man' which he heroically topples...but his approach may be more properly likened to an attack of (German) panzer divisions." He fails to convince that there is one unitary Europe with one Colonial Model of exploitation for capitalist development. Some analysis of the divisions within Europe is surely required to understand how capitalism developed, and where it found nourishment. The book argues against Weber's ideas of the `oriental despot', the cyclical rather than modernising nature of Asian societies and Weber's racist undertones. But it fails to address Weber's ideas on the famous `Protestant Work Ethic' and the Marx's and Weber's `spirit of the true man'. One year after the publication of Blaut's book. Francis Fukuyama published the highly successful and controversial End of History and the Last Man which investigated these issues - coming to very different conclusions from Blaut.

It is worth noting that Blaut's final book, entitled Eight Eurocentric historians was published in 2000, in the year of his death. It may be that this new edition may address some of the criticisms I level at his 1993 work.

Rating:
Summary: Hammerblow to Eurocentrism
Review: James Blaut's book "The Colonizer's Model of the World" attacks most of the common assumptions and beliefs about why the West "rose" to dominate much of the globe by the 19th century. Blaut systematically dismantles idea after idea, many of which have been taken for granted by historians and laymen alike for years. For example, the idea that Europe's climate and soils are inherently better suited for agriculture than elsewhere. In the end, however, Blaut still has to explain Europe's rise, so his answer is that since Europe was geographically closer to the Americas and had the benefit of favorable winds and currents, these factors made the "discovery" of America possible. The resulting flood of bullion from America into Europe allowed the Europeans to eventually pull ahead of the rest of the world. Blaut is surely on to something, but his explanation is a little thin. Why didn't Africans discover Brazil? Nonetheless, this is an excellent book that will challenge your thinking and shake your Eurocentrism (if you suffer from it) to the foundations. If you want a more detailed critique of individual historians such as Jared Diamond and David Landes, check out Blaut's "Eight Eurocentric Historians."

Rating:
Summary: Enlightening view of world history since Columbus
Review: The author contends that prior to 1492 most of the sea-faring cultures of the "Old World" (Europe, Africa & Asia) were, for the most part, equal in technological, political and economic status. It was only geographic proximity (and luck) that allowed the Europeans to "discover" America, which had advanced cultures, too. This "discovery" allowed the Europeans to be the first to exploit the natural and human resources of America and therefore position itself as the world powerhouse, that still exists today. Colonization and capitalism followed from the silver trade, then eventually the fur, rum and slave trades. The rest is history. Along the way, Mr. Blaut easily dismisses the notion that it was European culture or character (either good or evil) that led to their "advancements." But it is that main point that really opened my eyes: that other cultures, in all hemispheres, were equally advanced as Europe in 1492, and that Europe's colonization of America was just luck and their "advancement" truly sprung from just that. It is a good complement to "Indian Givers," by Jack Weatherford.

Rating:
Summary: Pops a Few European Balloons
Review: This is a good critique of the assumptions made by Eurocentric historians over the years about the superiority of Europe as compared to the inferiority of the rest of the world. Blaut effectively examines and explodes each theory dispassionately but thoroughly. Finally he comes up with his own explanation for European success since 1492: America. Europe's "discovery" of and exploitation of North and South America gave it the wherewithall it needed to overtake and surpass the rest of the world. A well written, well documented assessment which deserves a place beside The Great Divergence and ReOrient, among others.

Rating:
Summary: Pops a Few European Balloons
Review: This is a good critique of the assumptions made by Eurocentric historians over the years about the superiority of Europe as compared to the inferiority of the rest of the world. Blaut effectively examines and explodes each theory dispassionately but thoroughly. Finally he comes up with his own explanation for European success since 1492: America. Europe's "discovery" of and exploitation of North and South America gave it the wherewithall it needed to overtake and surpass the rest of the world. A well written, well documented assessment which deserves a place beside The Great Divergence and ReOrient, among others.

Rating:
Summary: More a "swat" than a "hammerblow" to Western hegemony.
Review: To call this book a hammerblow is to fall for a weak, almost emotional rather than academic analysis. While Blaut makes some excellent arguments about Europe's lack of credit to other cultures, especially during it's early expansion, in the end the facts don't stand up to his argument.

He overlooks that overwhelming riches did little to stop Spain's rapid decline as a power (it may have even accelerated it to some extent). Blaut seems to have discounted the fall of Constantinople and the subsequent fleeing of teachers and artists to the West as a factor.

What subsequent events does Blaut either overlook or underevaluate? For starters there are the beginnings of the scientific method in the West. Then there are things that muck up his argument like the advancement of western medicine (so much that even the Chinese would ask for western doctors in the 16th century, military improvements and numerous advancements in technology.

And so on and so on. I'm all for the remembering of contributions and influences from non-european societies, civilizations and cultures, but this "mea culpa" Western guilt has reached a bit of a height in Blaut's work. It also seems to reflect an emotional analysis rather than any unbiased academic approach.

In addition to technical, scientific, medical, and management advancement, he leaves out the social/philisophical advancement of the West.

The basic concept of the freedom and dignity of the individual, while not perfectly practised were almost unique in being applied to Western society. In fact the West is the first to look at itself and realize to this day it's failings vis a vis slavery, sexism, etc., in a sustained and critical way that other societies have yet to approach...Read this, but keep your wits about you as you do.