Eurocentrism vs Eastern anti-modernism
Niall Furguson’s brain dead Eurocentric intellectual thuggery
From the Ruins of Empire by Pankaj Mishra – review
What did Asia’s thinkers make of western colonialism, asks Julia Lovell
Debates about the rise of the modern west (and corresponding decline of the east) remain a fertile source of historical polemic. Such oppositional historiography – the idea of a head-on clash of civilizations, with a clear winner and loser – seems to hold a perennial appeal in terms of both its simplicity and its drama of antagonism. Last year, Niall Ferguson – in his pugnaciously titled Civilization: The Six Ways the West Beat the Rest – brought the subject back into sharp media focus. “The rise of the west,” he argued, “is the pre-eminent historical phenomenon of the second half of the second millennium after Christ. It is the story at the very heart of modern history. It is perhaps the most challenging riddle historians have to solve.”
I have discussed this kind of issue dozens of times here, and elsewhere, but the mainstream scholar-phonies refuse to snap out of their Eurocentric economic-imperial mindset. The Easter critics are also often clueless.
To be fair, it is hard to grasp the ‘eonic effect’ which sheds immense light on this confusion over the rise of the West. But there is no other way to bet past the kind of arrogant posturing of people like Ferguson.
The rise of the west is distinct from the secondary economic and imperial dominance that appeared in its wake and basically spoiled the whole of modernity.
The real modern transition moved toward a new level of civilization, beyond nationalism, empire, and economic domination.
More later on this:
go to the history-and-evolution site and study the whole eonic effect, and the way a temporary dominance tends to attempt the core areas of the transition zones.
This is not the best starting point for reading WHEE, but it contains the gist of the trap people like Ferguson fall into when trying to analyze modernity, and the West: