I cc this to Anthony Reid in re SEAsia, and Mark Selden in re China/sea.
Yes there is not only "serious" doubt that "Europe rose to dominance post
1500 or 1600" BUT it is TOTALLY FALSE. The fact that SOME people think
Europe was the dominant in Southeast Asia does NOT make it true, and even
Khoo - thank you! - adds that the Europeans "tried". But they did NOT
succeeed! And being unbable to succeed even in the little islands of SEA,
and certainly not in the big ones and even less in continental SEA, a
forterioriu Europeans could not - and DID NOT - even aspire to do so
elsewhere in Asia. Nor did anybody even think so before about 1800.
The revisionist re-writing of history realy began in the 19th century from
a perspective of European power at that time, and even that was not allthat
it was and still is cracked up to be, as future RE-revisionist
historical work is likely to demonstrate.
Respectfully submitted
gunder frank
On Wed,
11 Dec 1996, KHOO Khay Jin wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:43:27 +0800
> From: KHOO Khay Jin <kjkhoo@pop.jaring.my>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: Eurocentric vs. Euro-dominant history (fwd)
>
>
> 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
>
>