Whitney Howarth, World History Center, Northeastern University, by way of
AG Frank writes:
>I hope that scholars who have denounced a Eurocentric approach to
>world history have not done so merely to adopt a Euro-dominant one. If
>such is the case, it seems likely that we are merely substituting one
>myopia for another.
Is there any serious doubt of Europe's ascent to dominance post-1500 or
1600? Which is not to say that it will remain so forever -- signs to the
contrary are quite evident. Nevertheless, it seems self-evident, even from
the vantage point of Southeast Asia, that Euro-America continues to
dominate, at least attempts to continue to do so. Why then the coyness
about it? Could this be a case of "where you stand depends on where you
sit"?
To twist Howarth: I find myself often perplexed by those who wish to
downgrade the dominance of Europe (post-1500) and am extremely wary of the
precedent, not to say myopia, they may establish.
Euro-dominance does not have to mean that only Euros are actors, imposing
their will as they please, responsible for every single event, twist and
turn -- a one-sided affair. That was the illusion of Euro-American
dependency theorists.
My viewpoint has been categorised as classical (presumably in reference to
a European intellectual tradition), although it might be pointed out that
the classical (and contemporary) viewpoint in Southeast Asia is indeed of
Euro-dominance which, happily, Southeast Asia may be in somewhat better
position than, say, Africa, to challenge and question not by
re-interpreting the facts of history but by staking out new position and
ground and, in good classical modernist fashion, the unarguable fact of
phenomenal economic growth.
Cheers.
Khay Jin