How the West Won

We all have a bias

I really appreciate Rodney Stark’s desire to fight back against biased history. This is my third book by Stark. God’s Battalions told the story of Crusades and the Triumph of Christianity used sociology and history to explore how Christianity grew.

In How The West Won, Stark is fighting against a pendulum that has swung too far and now can be anti-western. Earlier, pride in Western achievements was easy to see, but also easy to see was how that Western bias lead to racism and blind spots about the negatives of some of the West’s bad points.

Stark, fairly briefly attempts to re-balance the academy’s view of Western triumph. The components of how the West Won are fairly simple. Christianity had a rational worldview and a God that created and ordered the world. That orderly world gave rise to science and innovation. Christianity valued education in order to better understand the world. In addition, Capitalism and European political disunity (which kept countries vying for power and innovating in technology), while maintaining Latin for communication across Europe further developed Western strengths. (This is, of course, over simplifying Stark, his argument is rich in detail and very readable.)

Contrary to some pro-western historians, Stark repeatedly argues that Empire, especially Roman, was bad for innovation (and therefore a drain on the rise of the west) because it relied on military power for strength instead of empowering the general populace through economic and political means.

Stark also compared different parts of Europe. The political liberty of England, the geographic exploration of Vikings, the creative capitalism in Italy and later in England, are all helpful areas of comparison. Stark has no problem highlighting negatives, Spain’s colonialism was more about wealth for the monarchy and building the strength of their Spanish army than building the country’s economy or helping empower the citizens of Spain. So Spain did not fall so much as it lost the income that propped up the monarchy and overspent its resources.

More than just a positive argument for the west, Stark also makes a negative arguments against China, Islam and the Native Americans of the Western Hemisphere. China is often cited as having first discovered a number of innovations. But China often discouraged the use of those innovations, while in general the West developed the innovations. (It is impossible to know in many cases, but Stark suggests that in many cases innovators independently came up with similar solutions in different places without influence.)

Most of my complaint comes from the comparisons of Western and Eastern cultures. Necessarily because of the briefness of the book, Stark has to make generalizations and he is countering other broad generalizations. But Stark goes too far in much the same way that he charges that others go too far. For instance, he mentions Muslims that believe that natural disasters are caused by God’s judgement as reason that real science failed to develop under Islam, but fails to mentions that many Christians believed the same thing (then and now).

He gives context to slavery, genocide and human rights and shows that in context it is likely that human rights were more valued in the West and slavery ended earlier than in the Middle East or Eastern Asia, but tends to dismiss legitimate criticism of the West at the same time.

I really do recommend this both as well written and researched history and corrective to some of the over-correction in social science and the academy. But just because I think this is a helpful corrective, does not mean that I do not see that at times Stark is going too far himself.

20 of 22 people found this review helpful

Another point of view.

If you could sum up How the West Won in three words, what would they be?

How the West Won is the story of Christendom. Stark takes us through the period of Greek thought and its meeting with Christianity in what he calls: The Roman Interlude. He points out that Rome acted more like a protection racket than an actual ruling entity. Moving from uncovering the continuation of scientific thought in the Middle Ages and Renaissance to influence of Christianity in the ages of Discovery and the Enlightenment, Stark shows that Christendom's unique understanding of God and creation compelled its thinkers to keep discovering. Most importantly he shows that it was because of Christendom, rather than inspite of it, that the West was able to accomplish so much more. Key to all of this is a notion of freedom that was not extant elsewhere in the world.

What did you like best about this story?

I appreciated Stark looking at the data and asking questions of the accepted thinking. Many this day and age do a good job questioning thinking without looking at all the data.

What does Kevin Foley bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

He does a fine job and conveys the text very well.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

I appreciated the inclusion of Robert Woodberry's study about missions. I couldn't believe it myself when I heard it; but Stark isn't exaggerating when he declares it to be one of the most questioned and re-examined studies. It holds up. It says a lot about Christianity that it has led to such amazing advances far from the Western roots.

Any additional comments?

At times Stark can push his point farther than all the history might suggest. Yet, in an Aristotelian way he is trying to counteract the poor scholarship and biases shown by people who hold to a secular metanarrative. On the whole Mr. Stark's bias is only really perceived because he doesn't tow the academic line. Ultimately one should read this book (or listen in this case) in addition to other viewpoints as well.

10 of 11 people found this review helpful

A classic text for the today and the future

Where does How the West Won rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

One of the top two or three

What other book might you compare How the West Won to and why?

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

What about Kevin Foley’s performance did you like?

Everything! I was particularly impressed by his tempo and his pronunciation of foreign words (at least of those languages I know).

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

I was touched by Professor Stark's courage and lucidity. In an easily understood yet solidly supported manner, he addresses many truths most modern scholars seem afraid to consider with an open mind. I was most moved by his careful exposition of the role of medieval Christianity in laying the foundations of modern science. This point alone makes the book worth reading.

Any additional comments?

This is an amazing work. In a relatively short treatise Professor Stark summarizes centuries of Western intellectual and economic development. This should be required reading for all college freshmen in the United States.

8 of 9 people found this review helpful

pulling back the curtain on hidden history.

Finally! A book that explains the "why" of Western superiority, power, freedom and modernity. Outstanding!

2 of 2 people found this review helpful

It changed my thinking about Western history

This book was a revelation to me.
Almost everything I've been taught about western progression was wrong.

2 of 2 people found this review helpful

NEWS FLASH! Western Civilation is not EVIL!

Would you recommend this audiobook to a friend? If so, why?

We Euro-types (especially males) take a beating in popular media these days. It's a kind of sport, really, for the others, and our own masochists. If all that is getting you down, or you sense it isn't quite true, listen to this.

What did you like best about this story?

I see the rants on popular web sites, and they are okay as a quick antidote to our daily poison. Kind of a sugar rush, I suppose. This book, on the other hand, has real meat on it, and is served without flash, fanfare, or chest-beating.

What about Kevin Foley’s performance did you like?

Scholarly presentation... totally devoid of sensationalism.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

I know (knew?) nearly nothing of The Crusades. I did not realize 'The West' was so noble then.

15 of 21 people found this review helpful

Very good review of why the West triumphed

But an even better overview is in "Civilization, the West and the rest," by Niall Ferguson.

Stark gives a panoramic view of the trajectory of Western civilization from the end of the bronze age to the present. One point I take issue with is his attribution of influence to early sources in nearly every major turning point -- for example, diminishing Newton's impact because of hints decades or even centuries earlier of scientific work that anticipated some of what Newton discovered.

Nevertheless, this is an excellent survey.

1 of 1 people found this review helpful

A Needed Hyperextention to the Right

With pliant physical objects that are bent to the Left, one must hyper-extend it to the Right in order to straighten it out. So too here with history. I had problems with some of the book's claims, especially concerning Christianity's positive contributions toward knowledge and science (which, I've been led to believe, it had vigorously suppressed throughout history), but with some insight I realized it was largely in part due to my mental conditioning - I did not want to hear or accept the claims.

So the book was good medicine - hyperextending history to the Right concerning the West after it had been bent so far to the Left of late. Laudable was that the author only use the word "Leftist" once in a disdainful way, though I wondered if the narrator, when he used a disdainful tone, was reflecting the author's intent - which may have been neutral (though I would not blame him for a measure of exasperation); but those were small matters - as a whole it was 'Good Medicine' and a badly-needed dose of 'balance' - first we had the rah-rah Right, then the poo-pooh Left in reaction, now a swing toward balance. Human progress is made.

3 of 4 people found this review helpful

Dispelles the misconceptions of modern lies

Would you listen to How the West Won again? Why?

Yes, I actually do plan on listening to this book again, enjoyed the whole thing in great perspective of the facts not fiction

What was one of the most memorable moments of How the West Won?

Revealing the differences of the various religons and their views on progress

What does Kevin Foley bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

I have listened to literally hundreds of books an Mr Foley is near the top of readers

If you were to make a film of this book, what would the tag line be?

How the West overcame the rest

Any additional comments?

I am looking forward to reading more of Mr Stark's works

11 of 19 people found this review helpful

Like A Refreshing Vodka and Tonic

Where does How the West Won rank among all the audiobooks you’ve listened to so far?

In the "Must Read" List

What other book might you compare How the West Won to and why?

The West And The RestHow The English Speaking Poeples Invented FreedomGuns Germs and Steel

Which character – as performed by Kevin Foley – was your favorite?

N/A

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

Yes, and pretty much did.

Any additional comments?

All sorts of things I should have known, and some things I suspected. For instance, I have always been curious how ancient Rome fed all those legions and construction workers. And the population of Rome dropped about 90% in a very short period of time at the end. Now I might know why. Specifically, the state apparatus that confiscated all that needed food was enfebled and the residents had to go out and grow their own food. Or something. Anyway, at least in Gaul, the country people became better fed.

A LOT better fed. Skeletal autopsies and isotopic studies show this. Apparently the country people got bigger and several inches taller. The glory of rome was built on near starvation rations left over for those who provided the food. So now we might more appreciate the various rebellions.What we lost during 'the dark ages' was a vast aristocracy with leasure time to contemplate Plato and write histories of Roman Glory.

8 of 14 people found this review helpful