Debunking the miracle of Europe
Those historians who hold a Eurocentric view of history regard the rise of Europe as a result of its own internal resources without any external influence. They term it the miracle of Europe. A miracle which occurred as a result of its people who have extraordinary talent and energy compared to other nations. David Landes, the author of Wealth and Poverty of Nations, is one of the exponents of the Eurocentric point of view of history. Analysing the rise of Europe, he argues that first of all, its climate favoured it to make its development. In countries with warm or hot climates, insects and germs multiply and create diseases and pestilence which destroy the human as well as animal population. In contrast, the climate of Europe is too cold and the bacteria and germs remain buried under ice causing no harm. According to the author, when the plague came from the east and spread throughout Europe, they made attempts to find its cure rather than just to suffer silently. This approach made them capable of control diseases.
Another difference between the East and the West was that in the Eastern countries, the state controlled water resources. As a result of this, peasants and landlords relied on the power of the state. It created the oriental despotism in which rulers became very powerful and managed the distribution of water with help of bureaucracy. In the West, there was abundant water and it was not under state-control. It made the landlords and the peasants independent. Thats why constant conflict between feudal lords and kings was witnessed. Moreover, as there was enough food for its animals, they were healthy, powerful and more productive. Another characteristic was that by marrying late, they controlled population. In the East, where there was a huge explosion of population, rulers forced them to build huge monuments like pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China.
According to Landes, the institution of private property played an important role in the rise of Europe. On the basis of the law of primogeniture, property was inherited by the eldest son. It kept the property intact and a permanent class of nobility remained in power. The other children had to work for living. Some historians point out that the second generation was responsible for exploring new venues to create their own property independently. They were the people who were involved in search of new trade routes and to conquer new colonies.
After the decline of Roman Empire, cities were abandoned. The nobility, finding cities unsafe, retired to countryside. It greatly damaged trade and commerce. Moreover, the development of culture ceased. In the 14th century, rulers again turned their attention to laying down the foundation of cities that revived trade and commerce and gave a respectable status to the trading classes.
In 1011, Europe was involved in the Crusades against the Muslims to take hold of the holy places situated in Palestine. Though it created religious frenzy, it also led to the Italian state investing capital in these wars to get the trade routes to the Middle East. The Europeans learnt a lot from this experience. They brought back to Europe the art of paper making, new medicines, new styles of architecture, use of china wares, taste of spices and sugar, cloth made of cotton, and new ideas in social and cultural fields.
Braudel, the French historian, points out that the significance of Europe is that though it is divided into a number of countries, however, there is unity which binds all these countries together. Any technological and scientific invention and cultural and philosophical development immediately spreads to all European countries and becomes a part of a greater European culture. This is unique position which is not found in any other continent. The second aspect of European civilisation which distinguishes it from other civilisations, according to certain historians, is individualism.
Satish Saberwal, an Indian sociologist, finds European civilisation different to others in one respect is that it had a tradition and culture of documentation. It was the tradition to document everything. In the medieval period, monks of monasteries used to document every event. It was also their custom to copy the manuscripts. This was what became the treasure trove for the Renaissance humanists who found classical literature in the libraries of monasteries and retrieved it for their use.
The Eurocentric point of view is challenged by a group of historians who analysed its rise with a broader perspective. According to them, the external factors played an important role in Europes rise and one must account for these on top of all the internal factors mentioned above. The major argument of these historians is that the discovery of America and its natural resources turned the fate of Europe. Otherwise before 1492, Asian and African countries were as developed as Europe. Silver and gold from the mines of Brazil provided them with the resources to pay cash for spices which they bought from India and Far East .Moreover, they shifted their excess population to the New World which reduced its social, and economic problems. Potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco from America helped their economy.
They also point out the trade with the East and its profit caused an accumulation of capital which later on resulted in Industrial Revolution which subsequently was a catalytic factor in starting the process of colonisation. Therefore, according to these revisionist histoians, rise of Europe was not a miracle but result of internal as well as external forces. Eurocentrism plagues historian and political theorists to this day and it manifests itself in the internal and foreign policies of many Western governments. The roots of this lie in this study of history where European progress is termed a miracle. It is high time that this Eurocentric perspective was revised.
The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.
