Reviews for Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History

The average rating for Colonizer's Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-02-05 00:00:00 David Olmstead One of the most important assertions in this book is Blaut's observation that much of academic thought is a 'tiny amount of explicit theory in a vast body of implicit assumptions.' That idea, more than any of the other in this book chock-full of novel, fiercely argued ideas, is what The Colonizer's Model of the World is about. Blaut spends most of the book's pages attacking an entire library's worth Eurocentric beliefs, including the myth of Oriental despotism, the unique free-ness of one or another class of pre-capitalist Europe, the magically augmented inventiveness of Europeans, the poverty of African soils, and many others. The rest of the book explores Blaut's own explanation for the rise of Europe and the stagnation of non-Europe, starting with his own interpretation of the pre-1942 worldwide economy as an inter-linked, more or less technologically equivalent, proto-capitalist system built around commerce, production in large cities, and increasing accumulations of capital which would, all other things held equal, have led to capitalism emerging at more or less the same time in many different places. In Blaut's estimation, the key advantage which allowed Europe to leap ahead of the rest of the world was the discovery and exploitation of the Americas. Blaut follows gold from Spanish mines employing slave labor back to Europe and from there into the coffers of bankers and merchants whose capital would give rise to capitalism at a much faster rate than in other parts of the world. Blaut is at his best poking holes in the theories of others, and certainly his own theory makes much more sense than any of the others he discusses in the book. But it isn't exactly well-supported. Blaut gives the excuse that, since historical and economic scholarship has been permeated so thoroughly with Eurocentrist attitudes, much of the data it produces (or chooses not to produce) is tainted, and we will have to do new research operating on new assumptions in order to provide Blaut with the evidence he needs to make his argument. It's a bit too convenient. At any rate Blaut could have spent much more time on his own theory- the book becomes less detailed, less assertive, and less effective the further we go into his argument. Even with these problems Blaut's book should be a classic and anyone with even a passing interest in imperialism, the development of capitalism, or academic bias should track down a copy.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-07-29 00:00:00 Michael Smith This book is best read as a criticism of scholarship as it existed in the early 1990s. Essentially, Blaut argues that the idea of an "inner" global group (invariably Europe) and an "outer" global group (everywhere else) has done a disservice to the study of history. In the diffusionist view, the "inner" group innovates, producing new cultural, social, and political forms, while the "outer" group imitates, accepting whatever advances the "inner" group puts forth. Generally, diffusionist scholarship has been used to advance the view that Europe and the "West" has been superior to the rest of the world. In response, Blaut argues that diffusionists are outright wrong. In doing so, his goal is to pierce the super-ideology that supports Eurocentric history, allowing more nuanced approaches. This is something that he does admirably, although his writing can be a bit grating at times. Nonetheless, this work was an important advance in the historiography of world history and, for that reason, is invaluable. (In other news, this is the 500th work that I've "read"--more often skimmed or gutted--since I've started grad school!)