They were mentored by the Dutch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangaku

"Through Rangaku, Japan learned many aspects of the scientific and technological revolution occurring in Europe at that time, helping the country build up the beginnings of a theoretical and technological scientific base, which helps to explain Japan’s success in its radical and speedy modernization following the opening of the country to foreign trade in 1854."

A combination of geographic isolation, relative small size (neither of which China had), political and cultural cohesion (partly a function of the previous), strong centralization of power, relatively forward-thinking by the winning segment of the political class, and a certain amount of luck.

Are we counting Turkey as part of the Euro-sphere for this discussion? Because the Ottomans were considerably ahead of many segments of Eastern Europe during this period in terms of industrialization.

Being so American-centric I always forget about the Ottoman Turks.

because we're the first to come up with things. if it wasn't for all the military inventions and world explorations, europeans would never be as dominant as they have been in history.

in other words, we are inventive and smart. we're those damn socialists with those superb living standards that everyone is trying to become now.

The Chinese came up with a few things though eh?

This book does a pretty good job of outlining most of this stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Poverty...7661318&sr=8-1

It's eurocentric at some points but it's very insightful in the way it describes many of the world events. I will write a more accurate summary later after I get some sleep. The book does mention how Europe was behind for some long periods in history compared to the Islamic Empire/ Chinese. But Europe basically kicked it into gear after the Age of Exploration and that dominance rapidly expanded after the Industrial Revolution. Also tries to explain why some societies seemed to have regressed as time went on.

This played far less of a role than people think. Diseases and inter tribal feuds that the Spanish took advantage of had a lot more to do with it. Hugh Thomas's The Conquest of Mexico is a good book about it.

At some point, in the event I actually finish Niall Ferguson's nauseating book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, remind me to post my very negative review here. Initial impressions: Ferguson has gone full-on neocon.

as far as the Arabs go that whole Mongol thing ****ed their graph up pretty goddamn bad. The only reason ( the *only* reason) the same thing didn't happen to Europe is because that guy dropped dead and everybody had to go back to their home village in Mongolia to elect a new leader. Pure luck akin to that packet of cigars before Antietam.

have to start earlier than that if you want to play that game

Their respective societies were structured such that Carthage couldn't win and Rome couldn't lose. Like, what the **** could Hannibal possibly have done better, dude was megaelite as we $ay in SE, he did pretty much the best anybody could have possibly done every step of the way, he won crushing, titanic, civilization-altering victories, his tactics worked, his strategy worked and it *still* wasn't enough. The history of Carthaginian political leadership is just a long sick joke except for one guy and his three sons, or damn near. So you need to dig for a deeper root cause.

WAY overstating the effects of the "whole Mongol thing".

The Islamic world turned itself in the wrong direction by following one of their owns philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazali

So you're saying that having the Calipahte de facto destroyed and the greatest city in the world destroyed and maybe the agricultural underpinnings of Mesopotamia destroyed are events that can be 'WAY overstated?'

No way, not even close. al-Ghazali steered epistemology in one direction (one that didn't turn out well), but he no more changed Islamic society overnight than Thomas Aquinas changed Christian society overnight. Baghdad remained the world's most cosmopolitan city and one of the great centers of learning up to the sacking by the Mongols, which was followed by the huge influx of Turks who themselves had been disrupted by the Mongol incursions, leading to the establishment of three rival States: the Ottomans, the Safavids, and the Mughals, and they remained at least on par with Europe into the 1600s.

To say that the Islamic world's fate was set by the Mongols is an overstatement and completely ignores what was going on inside that world itself.

I never said it happened overnight. Society-wide philosophical change never happens overnight. It can take a very long time.
As you say, the major Islamic societies were indeed at least on par with Europe for a long time to come. This shows that the Mongols didn't cause Islam's downfall, but it doesn't mean that al-Ghazali's way of thinking didn't eventually take a stranglehold on their culture.
While it was taking hold over the following centuries the Muslims' decline from within was subtly apparent. By the time of the Industrial Revolution it was glaring. It was the rejection of Hellenistic philosophy that eventually led their society to value things like building mosques instead of factories and all the other voodoo nonsense currently on display that led them to where they are now. Al-Ghazali led the way.