Non-"Eurocentric" explanation of why Europe became the world power.

Hi.



I saw this long tract:



http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm



critiquing one argument as to why Europe became the dominant power in (relatively) recent history. The criticism is long and complex, but the main theme is that the arguments given are too "Eurocentric". What is a non-Eurocentric explanation for this phenomenon? Although, what would that be, considering that to explain the rise of, erm, Europe, wouldn't that require Europe-specific things be considered?



Also, the conclusion is:

Quote:

Guns, Germs, and Steel is influential in part because its Eurocentric arguments seem, to the general reader, to be so compellingly "scientific." Diamond is a natural scientist (a bio-ecologist), and essentially all of the reasons he gives for the historical supremacy of Eurasia and, within Eurasia, of Europe, are taken from natural science. I suppose environmental determinism has always had this scientistic cachet. I dispute Diamond's argument not because he tries to use scientific data and scientific reasoning to solve the problems of human history. That is laudable. But he claims to produce reliable, scientific answers to these problems when in fact he does not have such answers, and he resolutely ignores the findings of social science while advancing old and discredited theories of environmental determinism. That is bad science.

So what is good science on the problem?

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=263008&goto=newpost