Eight Eurocentric Historians

by J.M. Blaut

This volume examines and critiques the work of a diverse group of Eurocentric historians who have strongly shaped our understanding of world history. Building upon the foundations laid in his previous book, The Colonizer's Model of the World, which provided a systematic overview of the nature and evolution of Eurocentrism, Blaut focuses in depth on Max Weber, Lynn White, Jr., Robert Brenner, Eric L. Jones, Michael Mann, John A. Hall, Jared Diamond, and David Landes. The role of each of these thinkers in generating colonialist understandings of history is described, and the fallacious assumptions at the roots of their arguments are revealed. Working toward an alternative understanding of the origins of modernity, this clearly written book provides invaluable insights and tools for students and scholars of history, geography, sociology, anthropology, and postcolonialism.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

228 pages, Paperback

First published August 8, 2000

Reviews

[Nicholas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is spectacular, and is also much more accessible to the lay reader than its predecessor. Blaut coolly and calmly lays waste to the untenable positions of 8 Eurocentric historians, destroying their points of view while simultaneously constructing an alternate model in the process.

[Greg Randel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible, read Ricardo duchesne the uniqueness of western civilization instead for both a refutation and supersession of this book.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book that dismantles many of the Eurocentric assumptions propagated in the various ‘pop history’ books of the late 20th century. Many of these arguments are still found in the 21st century pop books like Sapiens and the works of people like Steven pinker.

Blaut’s central argument is that unlike being some form of culturally or environmentally more ‘primed’ for progress, Europe’s rapid growth in the early modern period was instead solely due to its proximity to America, and potential therefore to capitalise on the sheer amount of wealth gained through the colonisation of the Americas through slavery and plantations particularly in the Carribean. Whilst this is likely an oversimplification that will be/and likely has been, added too since publication, I find it much better than the often baseless assertions made by the historians Blair critiques in this. I liked his relatively vigorous historiography and referencing and how he debunked some of the biggest names of pop history rather than just obscure academics, as it is often the former who (unfortunately) have the biggest impact on public opinion and perceptions.

Certainly not a perfect book, but a very valuable one which I will definitely be holding onto for reference.

[Nikhil · Rating 2 out of 5]

A set of rather snide and fanatical essays on historiography. I agree with some of the criticisms based on what has been better established elsewhere, but the most grating moments come when the author misses the mark in the most pompous and arrogant way. Sometimes his assertions in one part of the book run counter to assertions in another. For example, he claims that contemporary underdevelopment comes from greed and inequality in one chapter while saying in the next that the prosperity of historical Asian societies should be seen in the wealth and luxury of the elites there, and even expressly claims it's wrong to even think about the distribution of wealth to understand the general prosperity of society. This muddled and desperate thinking is a systematic issue.

It is useful in some sense to catch up with the historiography on Europe's place in history, but it's not always pleasant or sound.