Only the chapter on change and continuity can really convince: the 19th century was not as revolutionary as it is assumed! But strikingly: several times the military-technological argument is put forward as decisive in Western dominance. There's limited attention to culture, the focus is on economic and above all institutional factors (the development of the Nation-state). For instance: the thesis of the Western lead is systematically undermined but then suddenly put forward as a conclusion. But at the same time it's the major weakness of the book: the interaction is pushed forward as the innovative element, but not convincingly demonstrated.Īlmost every chapter begins with a rather radical critique on earlier historical studies about this period, a reference to recent literature that indicates a shift in view, an elaboration of a new look on things, but not very convincing, to end up with curiously relativist remarks. Impressive study by its erudition and its global view on the very extended 19th century: there's a lot of attention to the evolutions on different continents and their interaction, so this is indeed a global history.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |