Not really, according to the conclusion of this review of his Civilization: The Six Ways the West Beat the Rest:
…
Wishing that the nations of the West retain their cultural character in historic continuity with their ancestors, reproducing their own populations, with some influx from outside, but not mass migration, is not racist (4); it is conservative. A conservative idea of Western civilization would include the Enlightenment as well as the Christian tradition, the Greco-Roman principles of natural aristocracy, and the age-old ethnic character of European peoples. Conservatives don’t accept the premises of the ‘end of history’ and the unchallenged ascendancy of a liberal global system that discredits and neutralizes local loyalties, historical communities, and family life. The Liberal enlightenment did promote a radical and universalizing side of the Western heritage. But this enlightenment was nurtured by a particular historical setting, religion and community, and without these traditions the heritage of the West amounts to nothing more than a set of killer applications.
You’ll probably be surprised at the author’s, er, provenance.
I agree with Duchesne, and I think I’ll wander over to Amazon and buy his book.
Duchesne is absolutely correct in his assessment of Ferguson and his fellow intellectual travellers. The problem with neoconservatives is that they fundamentally misunderstand human history. I can forgive the American neoconservatives like Bill Kristol for this ignorance cause they have the 20th century American blinders on. Ferguson has no such excuse.
I thought the review was all over the place, inserting a plethora of the reviewer’s own perspectives and assumptions; that is, Duchesne provides the reader with his own views for the first three paragraphs! And, throughout the review, he provides the reader, heavily, with an expansion of his own views and intellectual preferences. We get very little of Ferguson.
Then, he goes on to a brief overview of Ferguson’s thesis for the reasons of the rise of the West – (decentralization, enabling of questions and dissent, property rights as a political force, etc) – all of which are valid results of the transformation of the West from a tribal to a civic mode, and from a local agriculturalism to a market and industrial economy.
Duschesne misses these points and instead, complains that Ferguson ignored the ancient Greek and Roman eras. What’s his point?
As far as I can see, Ferguson wasn’t talking about the philosophical infrastructure (and Duchesne errs in his definition of ‘universal essences as nothing more than concepts in the Mind – Aristotle would be quite upset at this statement). Ferguson’s points are societal.
Then, Duchesne defines a ‘neoconservative’ as someone who rejects the ‘end of history’ thesis (so what?) and inserts his own view of the validity of a ‘liberal global system that rejects local loyalties, historical communities and family life’. ahh – but who says these behaviours will come about, and will be functional?
I certainly disagree with all of them and consider such a view of historical evolution naive and utopian. Utopia, by the way, is an unrealistic analysis that is unable to exist outside of the seminar room. Equally, Duchesne fills this review with his own views but doesn’t really provide a conceptual frame for these views that would explain why he disagrees with Ferguson. That is, he doesn’t give us enough of Ferguson, and provides a babble of his own views, for the reader to derive a clear opinion of either Duschesne or Ferguson.
I await, with bated breath, a review of ET’s criticisms….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Just another communist who hates Christianity. Thats what the French Revolution was about after all. Getting rid of Religion.
Liberty was defined as a cut off head if you disagreed. Yup progressivism all right. Just another secularist purge. The death cult meets the Culture of death. Thats where this dudes at.
Well, Kate, you got me on that one. I am surprised by the provenance of this article. Perhaps all is not lost.
I will concede to ET her observation:
“That is, he doesn’t give us enough of Ferguson, and provides a babble of his own views, for the reader to derive a clear opinion of either Duschesne or Ferguson.”
It is common for historians to promote different analysis…..and disagree. The Durants, Will and Ariel, that husband and wife team, disagreed remarkably but by co-authoring provided a signal balance.
I personally subscibe to Victor Davis Hansen analysis:
Europeans were quite simply more efficient killers. Alexander proved this a Granicus, Issus and Gagamela against great odds. The Crusader States initally successful, later withered due to a lack of support and over-whelming numbers.
The standard complaint about Isreal being a European transplant in the ME may have some merit….if Isreal’s martial successes are observed in that light….IMHO an oversimplification.
Not so, Sasquatch. The Mongols had everyone beat, and their empire collapsed after less than a century. While not technically innovative, they were very quick to use the technology of those they conquered.
Your reference to the Crusaders is simply not correct. The 1st Crusade occurred at a time when the Seljuk Turks and the neighboring Arab “states” were all too busy quarrelling among themselves and having internal civil wars over succession crises to deal with the Westerners. Had the Arab world been united the way it was 80 years later under Saladin, the result would have been very, very different.
And it’s not simply a question of numbers. With few exceptions, the next 200 years of military history was a record of one Crusader disaster after another. Quite simply, most European feudal armies more resembled an armed mob with little resembling discipline or coherent tactics. French performance during the first half of the 100 Years War illustrates this well.
In the 16th and 17th centuries the best firearms and cannon were made in Japan. Its only aggressive venture during that time was conquering the southern half of Korea. And this at a time when China was even more divided and weak than it was in the 13th Century facing Ghengis.
By contrast, for most of the 16th-19th centuries, the British army was rather ineffective by the European standards of the day, and yet they ended up with the largest empire of all, and by European standards the most long lasting.
So there’s far more to it than merely military supremacy.
The two professors will obviously settle this in a UFC cage match.
cgh
I agree for the most part, but Britain’s plotical/economic system resulted in the military success. In fact, the British East India Company much like the Dutch East India Company for the Netherlands was primarilly responsible for the British Empire.
Ghandi hit the nerve with his campaign for Indians to wear home-spun….
Most lefties claim the european colonials prospered due to plunder. The Spanish Empire withered by failing to exploit their colonies as markets…as Britain did.
As far as the Crusader States….the fractuous political environment was also influenced by Mongol influence but muslim unity conversly coinsided with European disunity and the onset of the LIA.
Where the rubber hits the road, Cortez martial feats (with the sword) in Mexico and Clive’s staggering victory in India points to european martial superiority….The massive Mogul army was well equiped with firearms and warrior caste (professionals…not amateurs) and yet Clive although badly outnumbered prevailed.
BIB
The major factor in Romes collapse was the end of the Roman Warming….weakening Rome in the face of the Great Migrations fleeing the cooling steppes for warmer climes…..a power vacuum.
He makes two factual errors;
1) The great civil advances of the west predate 1600 – eg the Magna Carta and commonlaw rights.
2) The west gave the world Marxism which is a self loathing dogma and the antithisis of western free state affluence.
I think there are quite a few reasons for Rome’s collapse.
One, was the expansion of the infrastructure for settled, agricultural communities. Rome enabled this by its development of irrigation aquaducts, by its roads, its common currency, and, its security forces which enabled a peaceful trading economy rather than a tribal isolate and pillaging economy.
This led to an increase in settlements, in population – and the need for a decentralized governance focused around local authorities. Rome, unfortunately, reacted by attempting to centralize and turn itself into a dictatorial rather than enabling governance.
It’s similar to a biological organism which can, if it has a small ‘organic content’, run via a centralized single-authority system (amoeba). But with larger material content, it has to move into decentralization of tasks (heart, brain, etc).
But the great results of Rome’s infrastructure, its civil law, its settlements etc – all remained. A tremendous accomplishment.