Kind of a mixed bag. It talks about a lot of stuff that's important and every so often mentions something useful and interesting but I feel that on the whole it doesn't really come across as coherent. For example, I don't really have a clear definition of his idea of Eurocentrism. Every time he seemed about to talk about it explicitly, he went on to something else. It's almost certain it's, to a large degree, down to me being a bad reader, but it was definitely frustrating. I feel some of it might be down to translation but it still leaves a lot of times when he starts talking about something and I'm confused as to what he's referring to or don't see the link. One thing that's unusual is that he talks about religion a *lot* - it's a major part of the book. Again though, it wasn't clear in what ways he thought religion relates to Eurocentrism etc - what he talks about is very interesting on its own but it doesn't mesh together well. Near the end, he starts talking about global value which is a fascinating and important topic but he says it's not relevant here and doesn't go into it. Yet the conclusion of the book as a whole is just a page saying that worldwide value is the key to everything.

Ultimately, it said a lot of valuable stuff that I think could do with being talked about more and is generally kept out of view, but didn't say it coherently enough or in enough detail to make it a valuable guide for those looking to challenge Eurocentrism by itself. I appreciated it and what I learned from it, but not enough to make it a strong recommendation. ( )