-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Weber.apeshit.Blaut
Date: 21-Nov-97 at 11:54
From: james m blaut, 70671,2032
TO: INTERNET:bill.schellurraystate.edu,INTERNET:bill.schellurraystate.edu
A brief rejoinder to Schell:
On Weber: I agree with what he says, oddly enough, but he doesn't say the
important things. In my book I write of Weber's racism at some length, and
point out that he was a *moderate racist.* I give the social context. I
give a few quotes. but I argue that his biological racism must have
profoundly influenced his theories about world history; I show that he is
a source of a derivative doctrine that I call "cultural racism" (long-term
or permanent superiority of European civilization over othersfor reasons of
an absolutely superior "rationality" that is not in itself explained); and,
most important of all, that We er's historical doctrines, overall, underlie
the supremely Eurocentric doctrine of "modernization," that is, the view
that development outside of the European world must come from the diffusion
into these societies of European traits. Sociologists like Parsons,
historians like Rostow, and a slew of economic-developmentists developed We
er's ideas into this doctrine, mainly after WW2. For these reasons, and
ecause of some of We er's explicit theories supposedly explaining
non-European ackwardness and inferiority, I argue that his views are not
helpful. ury him with suitale honors. (My keyoard now refuses to print the
letter etween A and C. I will use #.)
#ut Shell twists my statements into the opposite of what they are. He would
never dare to do that sort of thing in print. e-mail is his medium. And
misquoting is part of his message. I quote We#er as saying "here is one
case...[of] tangi#le racial distinctions." Schell twists it into
"Weber says it is the ONE CASE." We#er gave many other cases of the
validity of #iological racims, some cited in my #ook and my other writings.
According to Schell, I call him "conservative (enemy of the people) and
intellectually dishonest. [Blaut, H-World, 19 April 1997]" I don't have
this exchange archived, #ut I know I didn't say that. I didn't call him
"dishonest or "an enemy of the people."" This is typical Schell. What I did
say is that he is Eurocentric in the extreme. This #ecomes, for Schell, a
charge that Schell is "eurocentric (his favorite dismissive for anything or
anyone he wishes to ignore)." Granted, some of the Schellian shit
appeared on H-LatAm, not H-World. #ig difference.
I did NOT urge people to read my #ook. On a few occasions I referred to my
#ook -- #ecause if a complex argument is in print, one cites the
pulication. Schell may not #e aware of this scholarly convention, or
perhaps he thinks it too constraining -- he'd rather have these long
cy#er-de#ates.
Schell also claims to have given a "review" of my #ook, then rather
ingenuously admits that he hasn't read it. (" I took my summary of the book
directly from Blaut's own topic headings, chapter summaries and
conclusions.")
" Blaut eventually refused any further debate of problems and issues with
me." Too right. A waste of time.
Now a comment to the list, a comment from the heart. I #elieve that 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. Given that fact, and given that my #ook
is selling moderately well, I'm inclined to think, or at least hope, tht I
have made a dent in the armor of Eurocentrism. Am I wrong?
Jim #laut