[PEN-L:11607] Re: [Capitalist development

["James M. Blaut" <70671.2032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"At the risk of Michael's wrath I will ask Jim B. one more question. Why do
you insist on translating "different" into "superior." Is it for the
emotional charge that it gives your argument?"
Rod

Although I've said this now many times, I'll say it again. Eurocentric
views of premodern Europe argue either that Europe was more advanced in
technological and/or social, political, urban, etc., development than every
other society, or they argue that Europeans had some inner qualities that
would, later, lead Europe to rise above all others, modernize,
industrialize, conquer the world. Eurocentric scholars use the word
"superior" to mean both of these things. In some contexts I use the usual
word, "superior"; in others, the more precise word (unacceptable however to
racists) "prior."

This is not a moral judgement. It is conventional historians' assertions
about premodern Europe in relation to the rest of the world.

And Rod, you're not the first person who has jumped on the word "superior"
in critiques of Eurocentric history. It goes this way: "Oh, Europeans were
not SUPERIOR to everyone else, they were just DIFFERENT -- in ways that
JUST HAPPENED to make them richer, more powerfdul, etc. than everyone else.


I bet you get emotional charges out of making up coy questions like that.

Jim B