Consistancy and Blaut (more schellian shit)
On the 18th, Blaut wrote that Weber "was a racist through and through." But
when faced with Weber's own words setting out his opposition to racism,
Blaut reconsidered: "In my book I write of Weber's racism at some length, and
point out that he was a *moderate racist.*"
Schell: So Weber was a MODERATE racist through and through. Of course, how
logical.
Blaut: I have shown that all of the arguments for pre-1500 European
superiority or priority (including intellectual potential) are
unsupporta#le. I have put forward an alternative theory for the post-1500
rise of Europe, one that does not use any of these Eurocentric arguments.
I would #e delighted if any historian were to examine any one of my own
positions and, in a scholarly manner, prove them right or wrong. No#ody as
yet has taken on this task, as far as I am aware.
Schell: And know one ever will by Blaut's lights because anyone who
criticizes his position at any point will be branded eurocentric and
her/his scholarship dismissed. A number of reviewers have engaged Blaut's
thesis (including Richard Eaton who found Blaut Eurocentric --sauce for the
gander); have they all been nobodies? Apparently so.
Blaut: My book is selling moderately well
Schell: I ordered two for our library
Blaut: I'm inclined to think, or at least hope, tht I have made a dent in
the armor of Eurocentrism. Am I wrong?
Schell: You may have done your cause harm. As David Fahey (one of many
with this opinion) observed: "I think that the manner of Blaut's book
alienated many in his audience as much as did his argument."