In the last 10-15 years, there have been a lot of popular accounts of Ancient and Medieval European history trying to portray it as a natural precursor to the Enlightenment. Although global politics has yet to become a clash of civilizations, the earnest belief of some Westerners that the next conflict is going to be between the West and other cultures has led to a surge in Western supremacy.
To wit, the conventional explanation of the rise of secular liberalism was based on the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Naturally, it involved a rediscovery of ancient European learning, but it emphasized the break from the feudal past.
In contrast, the new explanation typically invokes a continuity that wasn’t there. In The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington writes that the feudal state was significantly more decentralized than the Chinese or Japanese state or the Caliphate. It’s true, but it makes no sense to extrapolate from that to the Enlightenment; doing that is akin to saying the Southern US must be more liberal than the Northern US because of its tradition of decentralization.
Typically, this Western supremacist narrative is directed against Islam. It’s standard among Western conservativesto believe that in contrast to the tolerant societies of Europe, Islam was always authoritarian, even in Andalusia, where Jews and Christians were required to pay special taxes (hence the term “dhimmi”). It’s that view that’s underlying a lot of the crap that’s going on in one comment thread on Winds of Change.
In reality, Andalusia wasn’t the only Muslim empire around. The Caliphate had its periods of greater tolerance of Jews and Christians and its periods of less tolerance. In contrast, feudal Europe was uniformly authoritarian and superstitious, and it wasn’t until the 1860s that its Jews were emancipated. The reconquista led to massive persecutions of Jews that were unheard of under Muslim rule. Applying the conservative methodology, one would conclude Christendom was inherently theocratic in 1500.
The Mughal Empire was India’s most liberal regime until independence in 1947, and before the late 1930s, India’s Hindu pro-independence activism was led by the religiously fanatical Mahatma, while its Muslim activism was led by liberal Jinnah. An observer in 1930 applying the conservative methodology would conclude a Hindu country could never be really democratic; an observer in 1930 who was told there would be a partition would conclude that Pakistan would be a lot better developed than Hindu India.