Before and during Friday’s class we had discussed what political modernity was and how it affected how we see things. The reading really focused on how bureaucracies and institutions all around the world were based off of enlightenment ideas that generally came from European philosophers.

Because of this it had really showed how when I’ve been talking about history, it’s only based and related to how Europe had done these things. It has also made me realize that as a group, we haven’t really celebrated the accomplishments of smaller, younger countries  or how major world problems have affected them.

Today in class we discussed the 20th century. The elements of each year were really interesting to me! The different views that each generation/ year brought to the table were all very different for each year. For example following the First World War people started to move away from European ideals of civilization.

Please see my blog post here:

https://lhistoire.voices.wooster.edu/2024/08/28/print-capitalism-a-double-edged-sword-of-connection-and-fragmentation/

I apologize. When I finished my post, I realized that I posted it on my Voices website and not on this one…😅

On Monday, we focused on idealizations from both the “Rise of The West” and Eurocentrism. We learned how these terms falsely display Europe as a self-built nation who has always been above everyone else (in adherence to things like capitalism, industrialization, agriculture, etc…).

More specifically, these terms seem to continuously ignore the fact that they would not be where they are today if it weren’t for the exploitation of colonized people. This belief that Europe was a self built nation fails to recognize how many other cultures and traditions are woven into European culture. For instance, the decision made by China to use silver as the monetary system. Shortly after this decision, Europe came upon large amount of silver, which they then traded for large imports of Asian goods into their country. While this appropriation can be seen in any nation or state that inhabits colonized peoples, Europe seems to outweigh them all. In all, it is important to recognize the struggles of colonized people and how those struggles shaped the European nation of today.

On Monday, we discussed the ways in which Eurocentrism presents select evidence to construct the idealized narrative of the “Rise of the West”. One of the tools Robert Marks provides to build a non-eurocentric narrative is that of contingency, identifying dependent factors in the narrative.

This tool of history is exemplified in the “European Miracle” of the discovery of the Americas. According to Marks, this event was promoted by the Islamic Empire blocking access to the manufactured Asian goods. By looking for a new trade route, Europeans happend upon a continent they weren’t aware of. This perspective gives a much more nuanced view of a network of actors which impact each other and their shared history, rather than a single european source of progress.

However, this perspective doesn’t come without hardships. For those whom eurocentrism celebrates, it might be challenging to reject what they taught to be proud of. However, I think that rejecting these narratives can bring hope. If contingency shaped the past, then it will shape the future. In this framework, we are not objects of the european subject of history, but we are agents in the complex network that shapes our own history.