September, 2023.
Introduction
The rise of western civilization has been a topic that scholars from many fields have exhausted, especially in the case of history. Through engagement with these works, one can identify a strong Eurocentrist bias, in which historians place Europe as the source of most, if not all, advancement into modernity. Most employ a Eurocentric diffusionist model to explain Europe’s hegemony over the rest of the world, claiming that European values, technologies, and processes flowed throughout the world, shaping the globe into what is seen in the contemporary era. When one sheds this implicit bias of Eurocentrism, they can accurately identify the factual causality behind the West’s ascension. From the Age of Exploration commencing in the fifteenth century, Europe’s annexation of colonies has directly led to the centration of capitalism within its boundaries, further leading to the concentration of development in Western societies rather than those in the Eastern hemisphere. Furthermore, the grip Eurocentrism has held on the mental and methodological framework of the historian has been strong since the latter years of the Roman Empire through the periodization of history.
The Rise of Western Hegemony: Colonialism’s Benefits
For one to accurately portray the ascension of the West, one must understand the pluralistic world prior to 1492, which was Columbus’ discovery of the Americas. Historian J.M. Blaut explains that “the progress toward modernization and capitalism which was taking place in Europe was also taking place in parts of Asia and Africa.” [1] Thus, much of the progress prior to Columbus was centered throughout the Eastern Hemisphere, not just within Europe. These pockets of wealth and power were interconnected in a singular network of trade, and therefore benefited greatly from the advancements of every network member.
The discovery of the Americas marked the end of the pluralistic world system through the birth of Colonialism. Contrary to the standard Eurocentric argument, America was discovered and conquered by Europeans, not any other civilization, “because of Europe’s location on the globe, not because of any European superiority in level or rate of development or ‘potential’ for development.” [2] America was much more accessible from ports along the Iberian Peninsula than any port in Asia or Africa, especially when one considers the trade winds and westerlies that directed European sailors. This essentially gave European civilization a head-start in the colonial endeavors, placing them years ahead of other civilizations. Furthermore, the European conquest of the New World was a direct result of “the massive depopulation caused by the pandemics of the Eastern Hemisphere diseases that were introduced to America” – not due to superiority in any way, even firepower. [3]
Given that European countries were the first to take part in colonial endeavors, they were also the first to reap the benefits. Colonialism brought immense profit into the European markets; thus, they exploited the Americas to produce a large amount of capital. This was primarily carried out through the trade of precious minerals and metals, the production output of various types of plantations, and the slave trade. These modes of production enabled European countries to grow their markets and profits while drawing little from European resources – one must consider that “the capital accumulated from the labor of Americans went directly to the economic sectors of Europe that were building capitalism”. [4] Therefore, the currents created through the early days of colonialism set in motion the first steps of Euro-dominance.
The onset of the seventeenth century saw an important development in Western society: “a massive expansion, in location and intensity, of formal and informal colonialism in the Americas and around the coasts of Africa and Asia.” [5] This explosion in colonial enterprise spurred the death of feudalist society within the bounds of Europe, thus birthing capitalism in full. The main growth for markets in this time, “and thus the stimulus of the rise of capitalism” was outside of the European system. [6] The massive influx of capital into Europe from the American colonies, and later the Asian and African colonies, “was the one basic force” that transformed Europe into the first large-scale capitalist society. [7]
Thus, the typical Eurocentric diffusionist argument has a shaky foundation that can be toppled through unbiased scholarly analysis. By considering the world prior to Europe’s massive transition into colonialism, one can identify the many currents that were set in motion directly stemming from expansion into the Western Hemisphere. It was not a matter of moral or racial superiority – nor it was not a matter of any superiority at all. Europe simply was the first civilization to begin colonial endeavors that directly benefitted their markets, thus enabling and enhancing growth. In revealing and accepting these historical facts, scholars can attempt to move away from the antiquated bias that remains implicit in most. Without this bias, historians can accurately identify historical truth on the macro-scale.
How History Ended Up in the Hands of Europe
Jack Goody’s The Theft of History expands on the topic of Eurocentric history, detailing how history was “stolen” from the rest of the world. [8] In his analysis, he explains how Eurocentrism developed over the ages, arguing that ideas such as freedom, democracy, individualism, and love “are found over a much more widespread range of human societies” than solely Europe. [9] This thesis provides strong context for the discussion in J.M. Blaut’s text, The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History, whose analysis disproved Eurocentrism and Eurocentric diffusionism.
Goody commences his analysis by arguing that the founding of the notion of antiquity was an extremely Eurocentric process, claiming that “The Greeks were defined as different not only by themselves but by later Europeans.” [10] This definition ignores the similarities between Ancient Greeks (as well as Romans) and the rest of the world – a large omittance, if one wishes to have the full story. The creation of this periodization placed European cultural history on the linear path to modernity, using time as markers of progress, among others. This is a large development in the founding of Eurocentrism, for as Goody notes, “already in antiquity, according to many classicists, Europe was pursuing the right path in that direction, whereas Asia had gone astray.” [11] Goody’s discussion on the creation of antiquity gives a great deal of context regarding Eurocentrism – within, one can understand that historians have ignored Eastern contributions to society from the early days of their study. Thus, the roots of Eurocentrism lie in the roots of history. This is important for understanding why the bias has become implicit and widespread within the academy in contemporary times, for it resides in the framework historians utilize.
Conclusion
Contemporary historians continuously need to assess the nature of their implicit, as well as explicit, biases. The production of factual and objective historical truth rests on the need for historians to be completely removed of any partiality. Through this analysis, it is clear that the large bias of Eurocentrism has pervaded the study of history nearly since its inception. Thus, it should be evident that scholars must remain skeptical when engaging with historiography, for there is a strong chance that it holds primary focus on the Western perception of history. The field of history can rise above Eurocentrist thought as a whole, however pervasive it may be, through rigorous reflection and self-analysis. Contemporary historians, in a collective effort, have the power to reverse the damage done by the willful ignorance enacted by Eurocentrist thought.
Bibliography
Blaut, James M. The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York, New York: Guilford Press, 2000.
Goody, Jack. The Theft of History. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[1] 1. James M. Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History (New York, New York: Guilford Press, 2000). 152.
[2] Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. 152.
[3] Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. 185.
[4] Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. 195.
[5] Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. 198.
[6] Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. 200.
[7] Blaut, The Colonizer’s Model of the World. 152.
[8] Jack Goody, The Theft of History (New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
[9] Goody, The Theft of History. 1.
[10] Goody, The Theft of History. 65.
[11] Goody, The Theft of History. 67.
Dalton G. King 