3 ms·

Linking all of Europes success during history, up to WW1 arguably as far as sucess goes, to Christianity is at best a fringe view. What does the book have to s

by hef19898 3y ago

Linking all of Europes success during history, up to WW1 arguably as far as sucess goes, to Christianity is at best a fringe view. What does the book have to say about which kind of christianity is the source of all of that? Cathlocism, protestantism (which one?), the orthodox church (again, which one?)? And how does Enlighment fit into all of that? Edit: Focusing on the West is also extremely reductive. Up until colonialism really got started, the Mongols dominated the far east, China was a major economic and scientific power. None of which were even remotely Christian. It is true so, that the Western form of guilds is directly linked to European christianity. As the mongols and China show us so, there are more ways to prosperity than the "Christian" one.

WalterBright 3y ago
Why not take a look at the book? It's an easy read, and there's far too much of interest to quote here. The religious angle is not relevant to this discussion. It's about the emergence of free markets in the Netherlands, and the results. As for China, China invented a number of things, but failed to apply them like the West did. For one take on why, see the book "The Triumph of the West" by Roberts https://www.amazon.com/triumph-West-J-M-Roberts/dp/0760708509/ https://www.amazon.com/triumph-West-J-M-Roberts/dp/076070850... In modern times, China adopted free markets with spectacular results.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I don't know those specific books. I do know the pop-history trend of late that paints European dominance, starting in the 1500s and ending somewhere around WW1, in a certain way. Meaning Western capitalism, bonus points for including a religious angle, as the absolute superior. And that ignores a number of things: It fails to look at the medival period as different, distinct periods. It also fails to brake those down by region. That can be called cherry picking. It fails to look at all of that im context, especially by ommitting the history of the other side of Western dominance. That history is directly linked, after all Western dominance required a counter part to be dominated. So whatever happened at the other end is crucial to understand the shared history. This can be called ignorant. And last but not least, this view on history is used to drive political narratives. As is the opposite political bias that shows in other books and papers. I do not like neither, historians shoupd at least try (one cannot be fully neutral ever) to be impartial and provide an objective study of history. Late pop-history doesn't do that.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > I don't know those specific books. But you dismiss them anyway. I'm not impressed.

WalterBright 3y ago

Why not take a look at the book? It's an easy read, and there's far too much of interest to quote here. The religious angle is not relevant to this discussion. It's about the emergence of free markets in the Netherlands, and the results. As for China, China invented a number of things, but failed to apply them like the West did. For one take on why, see the book "The Triumph of the West" by Roberts https://www.amazon.com/triumph-West-J-M-Roberts/dp/0760708509/ https://www.amazon.com/triumph-West-J-M-Roberts/dp/076070850... In modern times, China adopted free markets with spectacular results.

hef19898 3y ago
I don't know those specific books. I do know the pop-history trend of late that paints European dominance, starting in the 1500s and ending somewhere around WW1, in a certain way. Meaning Western capitalism, bonus points for including a religious angle, as the absolute superior. And that ignores a number of things: It fails to look at the medival period as different, distinct periods. It also fails to brake those down by region. That can be called cherry picking. It fails to look at all of that im context, especially by ommitting the history of the other side of Western dominance. That history is directly linked, after all Western dominance required a counter part to be dominated. So whatever happened at the other end is crucial to understand the shared history. This can be called ignorant. And last but not least, this view on history is used to drive political narratives. As is the opposite political bias that shows in other books and papers. I do not like neither, historians shoupd at least try (one cannot be fully neutral ever) to be impartial and provide an objective study of history. Late pop-history doesn't do that.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > I don't know those specific books. But you dismiss them anyway. I'm not impressed.