Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Third Worldism or Globalism? Reply to James M. Blaut's Review of The Myth of Continents

Third Worldism or Globalism? Reply to James M. Blaut's Review of The Myth of Continents martin w. lewis and kären e. wigen Duke University ames M. Blaut (1999) contends that The Myth of Continents (Lewis and Wigen 1997) is not a particularly original work. He is no doubt correct in regard to the parts of the book with which he agrees. As the book's introduction clearly acknowledges, our critique of received metageography builds on the insights of many scholars, including Marshall Hodgson, Jack Goody, and Blaut himself. Nor do we profess to have the last word; our book concludes with an invitation to further dialogue on a subject that we believe has received less explicit consideration than it deserves. Owing to our respect for his own work on these issues, it is an honor to engage Professor Blaut in debate. Owing to our remaining sharp disagreements, we think that the debate may prove to be illuminating. Setting aside the many fundamental issues on which we concur with Blaut, this reply will focus on three areas of disagreement raised by his review: our overall project, our case against Afrocentrism, and the place of political economy in general--and European imperialism in particular--in our map of the world. Our purpose in writing this book was, as http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of World History University of Hawai'I Press

Third Worldism or Globalism? Reply to James M. Blaut's Review of The Myth of Continents

Lewis, Martin W.
Journal of World History , Volume 11 (1) – Mar 1, 2000
Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/third-worldism-or-globalism-reply-to-james-m-blaut-s-review-of-the-3em0hPtaLI
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-8050
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

martin w. lewis and kären e. wigen Duke University ames M. Blaut (1999) contends that The Myth of Continents (Lewis and Wigen 1997) is not a particularly original work. He is no doubt correct in regard to the parts of the book with which he agrees. As the book's introduction clearly acknowledges, our critique of received metageography builds on the insights of many scholars, including Marshall Hodgson, Jack Goody, and Blaut himself. Nor do we profess to have the last word; our book concludes with an invitation to further dialogue on a subject that we believe has received less explicit consideration than it deserves. Owing to our respect for his own work on these issues, it is an honor to engage Professor Blaut in debate. Owing to our remaining sharp disagreements, we think that the debate may prove to be illuminating. Setting aside the many fundamental issues on which we concur with Blaut, this reply will focus on three areas of disagreement raised by his review: our overall project, our case against Afrocentrism, and the place of political economy in general--and European imperialism in particular--in our map of the world. Our purpose in writing this book was, as

Journal

Journal of World History – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Mar 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.