Comments on Colony and Empire
Post #8, Comments on Colony and Empire (for 24 Oct seminar)
I also commented on Audrey's site and Dan's site .
Much like last week’s collection of expanded lectures, Colony and Empire is an amalgam of related essays lashed together into a single volume. This approach significantly detracted from the readability of the entire work and watered down the useful sections with non-sequiturs and annoyingly stiff arguments.
The book’s thesis, that capitalism is the root cause of all western development, is at once both insipid and Machiavellian. It is about as far as one could possibly get from Turner, and it also strips any agency at all from the actors who are actually transforming the region. While I’m sure this Orwellian view of the world warms the cold, dark recesses of his Marxist heart, I believe that Robbins has lost sight of the goal. His assertion that capitalism, and capitalism alone is the answer might be palatable if delivered in an additive manner, as in “let’s all compare our wildly different views of the elephant to try to construct a composite image that is better than the individual parts.” Instead, the combative tone I detected in this work would best be paraphrased as “I’m right and you and the other historians are dim for not having seen it sooner.”
Even this abrasive tone would have not completely turned me off if the book itself did an adequate job in supporting the point. Alas, the third and final failing of this book is that it’s scattered structure and weak conclusions did not add up to a cogent, well-supported and convincing argument. I was confused by his hopping around geographically and topically, so maybe I didn’t try hard enough to ferret out the salient connections, but should it really be so hard?
Yes, global forces matter. Yes, those who control the capital get to make decisions that victimize those who lack the capital. Yes, the myth of western independence is just that, a myth. Is that all he wanted to hear? Will he go away now and never come back? Good.
I also commented on Audrey's site and Dan's site .
Much like last week’s collection of expanded lectures, Colony and Empire is an amalgam of related essays lashed together into a single volume. This approach significantly detracted from the readability of the entire work and watered down the useful sections with non-sequiturs and annoyingly stiff arguments.
The book’s thesis, that capitalism is the root cause of all western development, is at once both insipid and Machiavellian. It is about as far as one could possibly get from Turner, and it also strips any agency at all from the actors who are actually transforming the region. While I’m sure this Orwellian view of the world warms the cold, dark recesses of his Marxist heart, I believe that Robbins has lost sight of the goal. His assertion that capitalism, and capitalism alone is the answer might be palatable if delivered in an additive manner, as in “let’s all compare our wildly different views of the elephant to try to construct a composite image that is better than the individual parts.” Instead, the combative tone I detected in this work would best be paraphrased as “I’m right and you and the other historians are dim for not having seen it sooner.”
Even this abrasive tone would have not completely turned me off if the book itself did an adequate job in supporting the point. Alas, the third and final failing of this book is that it’s scattered structure and weak conclusions did not add up to a cogent, well-supported and convincing argument. I was confused by his hopping around geographically and topically, so maybe I didn’t try hard enough to ferret out the salient connections, but should it really be so hard?
Yes, global forces matter. Yes, those who control the capital get to make decisions that victimize those who lack the capital. Yes, the myth of western independence is just that, a myth. Is that all he wanted to hear? Will he go away now and never come back? Good.
posted by john | 5:30 PM
3 Comments:
Boy, and I thought my blog was snarky! You've got levels of snark I haven't even begun to discover. :-)
Once again, I think we are on the same wavelength here. I don't discount that looking at capitalism and economics is useful. The story of anyplace...West, South, Manhattan, Smallville USA...is shaped by economics. But I get off the train when someone claims it is the Alpha and Omega of all history.
Also Robbins tries to pass himself off as sympathetic to social/"bottom up" history by finding the most outrageous quote he can find and saying he doesn't quite agree with going that far. (I'm speaking of "for attempting 'to deflect attention to the bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchens of each one's favorite victim." pg 9) This is a pretty immature and transparent way to write. If he thinks social history is a load of hooey because it doesn't take economic power struggles into account, then just say so...it isn't like we can't tell from the rest of the book that is exactly what he is thinking.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I agree with your comments for the most part. Although I am probably a litte more sympathetic to Robbin and his arguement, He clearly does go too far in trying to establish Capitalism as the "Alpha and Omega of all history" as Dan put it in his comment. I think he does provide valuable insights and reminds us that Capitalism is a theme that is often overlooked in the historiography of the West. However, in the process he focuses so much on that theme that he does seem to simply dismiss other historiographical approaches, such as social history, as valueless and small.
Post a Comment
<< Home