Debate between Mishra and Ferguson

Published: 2019-08-28 03:05:12
604 words
2 pages
6 min to read
letter-mark
B
letter
University/College: 
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

In the debate between Niall and Mishra, Mishra argued through the London Review of Books that Niall Fergusson could be referred to as the homo atlanticus redux implying that he had been a retailer of soothing stories concerning the glorious past. Besides, this position discredited the context of these books claiming that they had little if any original scholarly contributions other than provocative and counterfactual contents. While summing up the insights of Fergusson concerning civilization, Mishra claimed that the as Fergusson references to the west and others commonly called gallimaufry, Fergusson ignored the facts that further complicates his narrations regarding western dominance including the contributions of the Muslim towards scientific innovations. In this regard, his reference on the colonial misdeed was virtually selective and had been confined to immunity from both humor and irony.

These claims were however responded to by Fergusson himself through a letter referring to the notoriously left-leaning LRBs coterie with claims that the critiques alleged by Mishra was merely a crude attempt focused on character assassination that does not represent his work appropriately but strongly implied that Fergusson was a racists. According to Fergusson, Mishra owed him an apology over the claims perpetrated through his dishonest article. With regard to the claim that Mishra referred the rise of westerns as a fabrication of the white mans history, I do not agree with this perception. For instance, in Britain, Fergussons bluster regarding the white mans burden, although principally ignored by majority of historian had a major contribution and acceptance from rightward shift in both cultural and political discourses which made it an important for agents of public opinion including but not limited to such people as Andrew Marr who treated Fergusson with severe reverence. The perception was political skewed to the rest of the world as opposed to the west and also politically motivated.

In Mishras ideal, the argument that the United States was more successful than the rest of the world and dependent on racial segregation was very useless remark. It was very wrong to believe that the US was more successful compared to other countries such as Venezuela and Brazil among others courtesy of anti-miscegenation legislations and the entire scope of color bars that maintained different races apart in schools, hospitals and workplaces among other places. The domination of the global space by European during the 1800 period was a manifestation of a changing perspective of civilization as well as its needs. With regard to development, Mishra is not justified to claim that development occurred only in the west since other communities and regions also underwent development during the same period.

The insinuation by Mishra regarding the similarity between Fergusson and the American renowned theorist, Theodore discredits his appeal for Fergussons biasness. On the contrary, Mishra should have argued based on the facts perpetrated through the book on Civilization by Fergusson as opposed to staging a personal attack on him. Besides, while disregarding Fergussons work, Mishra ends up quoting Fergusson words in his argument which creates confusion for the basis of his use of work he does not identify with. On the contrary, Fergusson also expressed sense of distrusts and plain misconception of the real idea. For instance, his reference of scientific revolution as a preserve of the west is misplaced as other contributors including the Muslims also contributed to the revolution. Both Mishra and Fergusson were arguing on the basis of racial biasness and misjudge of individual capacities based on their regions of origin. The claims that individual who had been associated with elaborate biasness with few if any tangible facts warranting the criticisms they stage against each other.

sheldon

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: