Talk:The European Miracle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Pathologies of Power?[edit]

This is listed as a resource, I'm skeptical of its relevance. I did a search for the Author and Title in my ebook, and couldn't find any references. I'm skeptical of its relevancy, while I'm sure that Paul Farmer has an opinion on the issue, I'd like to know if he responds directly. Otherwise, I'd recommend that we remove the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Early comments[edit]

I'm working on expanding, sourcing, and generally refurbishing this article. Progress is at User:Halidecyphon/The_European_miracle/ - Halidecyphon 13:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Halidecyphon 18:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

political fragmantation[edit]

i added paul kennedy in the english is not good enouf to tinker the article so pleas somebody add this his book he says that the political fragmentation of europe lead in a arms race in the strogel to conquer eachother,but for geographical and climatical reasons(mountains,forests,islands..unique in the holle plannette) that was extrimly dificult(and so it didn't hapen)plus when some one had a littel to much of a power every body alsse coalited against him.neutrality wasn't an option aither since they new that when his nabor would have potentialy finished with the others he would turne up on in a darwinian manner they slowly bild up technology for war but without ever be abel to have a decissive advantage(yes savage capitalism).so after centuries of war when they had the technology to go out of the continunt they did and ther technology had beacome so superior that nobody could no europeans aren't superior,in fact that mecanism is not making me any in conclusion geography and climate is to be blamed.--Ruber chiken 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add material on Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Powers, please add it in the "Critique of the european miracle and alternate hypotheses" section, it would be a very good thing to add. I don't know where you got the idea that world-systems theory is "obsolete," though, and the format of your last edit was more like notes than an article. I highly encourage you to improve on this article, though, just try to keep within the organizational structure. Thank you, and happy editing, -Halidecyphon 07:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"providing a rationale for claiming the European mind (and European religion) is inherently superior to that of all other continents" for me this is obsolite thinking of 19 century eurosupremasistes.The opsolit was refering to that.The last frase i endestould it as his theorie of world-systems,and not the theory.your suicidal haven't you notist my english,i was intend to comunicate a good theory on the sobject but i don't what to toch it my self or it would be unredable.Yes the last edit was just too atract atention here,is beter the paragraph over here then nothing.well at least you leav my change in the references.but you schould have left the title "political fragmantation" i'm puting that back to alert the reder that ther's more(intended to be temporary)--Ruber chiken 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with "political fragmentation theory" in relation to ideas of the European miracle. There is no sense in having a header on a blank paragraph. If you can explain why "political fragmentation theory" is a central aspect of the European miracle concept, please do so either on the talk page or write it into the article. You seem frustrated, but I am having trouble understanding why. For the reference, I am not "suicidal"... -Halidecyphon 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's what i'm traying to explan in the first paragraph in this section.My english is not good inuf but ... ok i'll give it a try soon.I beleave that even if an article is under construction it schould give a hinch to the reeder that ther's more,or that more is comming,is better than thinking that nothing else to find.--Ruber chiken 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

european family[edit]

that is real crap,if you add up all the dead in the wars and peopol in the colonies(for example usa) you have a huge increase in population.well i gess it's for historic reasons that it is here--Ruber chiken 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're saying that it's hard to take Eric Jones seriously, I agree with you completely. However, the purpose of the article is to objectively explain the European Miracle hypothesis, not to prove or disprove it. -Halidecyphon 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

wait the article is about jones theory of the european miracle or the theory in general.I beleav that it schould be put in the critics,you just agreed with me on this one--Ruber chiken 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept and term "European miracle" here is ascribed to Eric Jones. The article is about that theory. I do not know what you are referring to by "the theory in general." Please explain. -Halidecyphon 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jones didn't creat the controversy.It's cuite old actually.jones theory is just one theory on the subject.Is like starting an article on evolution and showing only the lamark theory.--Ruber chiken 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

this is copyrhited!!!!! Eric Jones’s European Miracle was published over twenty years ago. It was not the first, and certainly not the last work to raise the difficult questions of European exceptionalism, yet it seems to have attracted the most attention and has been made into the whipping boy of those who have resented what they viewed as historiographical triumphalism, eurocentricity, and even racism. --Ruber chiken 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right; Eric Jones certainly did not invent european exceptionalism. As detailed in the "roots of the european miracle" section, Weber, Smith, and Hegel, for example, also had similar ideas and Jones' concept comes to a large extent from those earlier ideas (such as the protestant work ethic and "spirit"). However, as far as I know, the term "european miracle" was coined, or at least, popularized first by Eric Jones. If you can provide an example of an earlier use of the term, this would be very valuable to the article. It sounds to me that you wish to expand the section on the roots of the European Miracle theory. Feel free to do so, I can proofread your english if you like. -Halidecyphon 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it whould be a modest expanssion.I'm rather convinced by the political fragmantation theory so is what i can argue for more easely.In fact i just invented the name,i don't bow what's it's oficial name is.On overal i think,european miracle theory is like the theories on roman colapse(something like 200,ofcorse 3/4 proposterous,like jones explanation,"in my view").Thers also a mineral resources theory,if you whant we can add hitler's POV too(haha) and a climate theory(from what i now).Whell i have to reseche for references,and write it down cleanly,kennedy explanes it quit thorowsly,on several pages--Ruber chiken 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys the problem here is with facts. the facts stated are utterly wrong. Untill well into the 19th century 18 would have been considered an unusually late age of marriage for girls and 20 an unusually late age of marriage for men. It's true that men seldom married before say 17, but girls married as early as 14. Keep in mind that in those days the life expectancy was much lower than today. Also a normal Catholic family in europe would have had at least 3 children if not much more. Families with 8 children for example were not uncommon. Usually, of those, 3 or 5 would die at birth or quite young due to illnesses that no longer exist today in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that some Chinese Nationalist always manages to introduce something about Zheng He?[edit]

His voyages don't purport the idea that Chinese ships were superior to those of the rest of the world and it's really quite misleading. Chinese agricultural industry of the time is a much better indicator.

yes or how some minor inventions where made in China. China had not science in the sense the west had. Nor did they have philosophy that change systems and society. The Chinese civilisation is a static one. There is no or little evidence that Chinas civilisation would have been any different now than 2000 years ago.

Lack of date[edit]

This article lacks the date when the theory was publicized. In my opinion it is vital to know whether it was conceived in the early 19th century, or late 21st, so the article should reference it at least in the introduction. I don't know it myself, so I can't write it in. 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV ?[edit]

This article does not present a neutral point of view, it seems mainly a critique and a chance to provide links to other loosely related subjects/books.

First of all, The European Miracle is not an 'idea' of Eric Jones as claimed, but a book by said author. A book that has an ISBN, a publication date and a publisher that should be mentioned just in case someone has a desire to actually read the book! (Something the authors of this entry apparently haven't done.) How about a summary of the main chapters of the book, the thesis, and then (of course) a critique of the ideas. Encyclops (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Backward Europe during the middle ages?[edit]

I don't think that Europe was backwards DURING the Middle Ages. In the Fourteen century medieval european civilization included the highest building(Lincoln cathedral)in the world as well as the highest nave(Beauvais cathedral) and the greatest bridge arch(Trezzo bridge) in the world. Europe was also home to the great Bardi bank in Florence which had affiliates all over Europe and the Levant. Great scientists like Nicola Oresme were European and inventions like glasses, plate armour and mechanical clock(in a reasonable size) were also invented here.

These are the reasons why Europe DURING(not at the beginnig of) the Middle ages should not be considered less advanced than the Islamic world and in some cases not even less than China.

I personaly presume that Europe was even more advanced in the fourteen century than the Islamic world. The fourteen century was not the age of Renaissance and therefore belongs to the Middle ages.

Isidoros47 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if you think that taking a bath every month "even when it's not necessary" as Queen Elisabeth the First most famously said she did is advanced, well, then... And take into consideration that this was in the 16th century not the 14th century. Let's what was happening at the time in say, the Ottoman empire... public baths, most famously the numerous baths of Istanbul, Smyrni (Izmir), Thessalonik (Selanik), including the very proeminent Baths of Roxelane. Not to mention the use of soap. Also in the 17th century, while Europe progressed and the Ottoman empire went into a long period of stagnation due to overextention and corruption, the Navy of the Ming Empire could still very well overwhelm the COMBINED navies of the major European nations. The thing is that due to trason, the Ming fell to the barbarian Manchu and then all things stagnated, or rather, regressed there as well. However, even so, without the industrial revolution, the European economies would have certainly collapsed under the strains of social change, while the economies of more massive states like the Ottoman Empire or china would have resisted. I'm not so sure about the Mughal Empire though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Isodoros, I have changed it to the early middle ages. Would you then say that the romans were more advanced then the Tudor England? Bathing is quite irrelevant as a measuring cause they maybe just enjoyed it and they had no clues about bacterias. The muslims were mad about cleaning them selves, they cant even to this day open a quran with out cleaning there hands, some say it have to be done under pouring water, thats quite advanced!!!(ironical) So the ottoman empire were in decline cause of corruption and overextention, thats quite right, but you forget the most important part, the lack of innovations, the ottomans were getting their cannons from a hungarian at the siege 1453. Can you back up that thing about the Ming navy in 17 th century?, I dont think so. Awakened82 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

During the Early Middle Ages, Europe was clearly lagging beind. During the High Middle Ages, Europe was beginning to catch up with the orient, and by the Late Middle Ages (14th to 15th century) was drawing even or was beginning to take the lead. It is not a coincidence that the end of the medieval period is set at the moment when Europe was taking the lead. Restricting this statement to the EMA is clearly too narrow. Tudor England is not "the middle ages", it is the very turning point at the close of the middle ages. --dab (𒁳) 22:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eric Jones[edit]

Certainly, Eric Jones is notable and should have an article. Feel free to create it, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't the full book name be used for the name (The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)