How does modern Historiography explain the creation of the scientific, economical and military advantage of the Europeans over the rest of the world that paved the way to the subjugation/conquest of it?( As this map properly illustrates).
Different paradigms and perspective are welcome but I'm particularly interested in analysis and criticism of Jarred Diamond (GGS) and Rodney Stark's (How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity) works.
I think the historiography that you are looking at is a topic called the "Great Divergence. It's concerning the question of why the West rose in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, while the rest of the world fell behind. There are a lot of great debabtes surrounding these topics. Considering that the Middle East and Asia were leading the world in production and trade. In terms of trying to answer this question you kind ofnhave to focus on different regions. On the topic of the Middle East some good books include:
Roger Owen and Sevket Pamuk, A History of the Middle East economies in the Twentieth Century, Harvard University Press, 1999
Issawi, Charles, Ph. An economic history of the Middle East and North Africa,
I could attach some additional articles aswell, but they are a bit more academic. These books specficially look towards the economic reasons for the decline of the Middle East, while also criticizing books that make the case that Islam hindered growth.
I personally have not read Starks book, however, I'm a bit critical about his lack of background in history. Not saying that sociologists can't write history, but his past research has not looked into political or economic history. To this day historians who have a deep background in history are still debating the rise of the west.