|
Whose
world history? The answer seems fairly obvious—everyone's…so long as they
honor the standards of professional historical scholarship, which includes
openness to critique from others. Almost a half-century ago, I taught world
history in an Ethiopian high school classroom, guided by an Ethiopian- and
African-centered curriculum. A different angle of vision from what I later came
to think of as World History, of course. But genuine world history, absolutely!
As
to the issue of writing world history from within the highly privileged…and
powerful…setting of American society, our touchstones should be those ancient
virtues of humility, generosity, awareness, and empathy. In that light, it
would be a very good idea to rename the WHA as the North American World History
Association, operating within the larger context of NOGWHISTO.
But
when I consider the history of the world history enterprise in this country
over the past 3–4 decades, what strikes me is the urge to celebrate rather than
criticize. Most of the people in world history movement have in fact practiced
the virtues mentioned above. Historians, mostly of European descent, have
largely slain the dragon of Euro-centrism, at least in its more obvious
manifestations. In professional historical circles, we now treat the history of
Africa, pre-Columbian America, gathering and hunting societies, pastoralists,
and much more with the same seriousness…and respect…formerly reserved for
Europeans. We have been open to "history from below," increasingly willing to
incorporate women, workers, sub-alterns of various kinds as historical agents,
not simply victims. Our posture toward the global hegemony of West generally
and the USA in particular has been critical, rather than celebratory. We have
framed that hegemony in historical context that deny its earlier absolutist
claims. We have been welcoming to perspectives that come from outside of our
own cultural frame. In short we have demonstrated the possibility of
transcending, at least in some measure, the limitations of time and place. If
we cannot affirm that possibility, the entire historical enterprise collapses.
Is
there more to do in this respect? Of course! Like the struggle with our own
egos in personal life, it is an enduring task with no final resolution. But the
nobility of the historical profession, and that of world history in particular,
lies in persisting in our "mission impossible." Like Sisyphus, we continually
push the stone of our human limitations up the hill, knowing that we will never
achieve consensus, complete clarity, or total objectivity. But world
history—even in its limited "western" or WHA version—has achieved
much in a short time. We can afford a moment of justifiable pride, before we
return to the task
Robert
Strayer is retired from the State University of New York at
Brockport and California State University at Monterey Bay. He is currently
teaching part-time at Cabrillo College. His most recent publications include Ways
of the World: A Brief Global History with Sources (Bedford, 2011); The
Communist Experiment (McGraw Hill, 2007) and Why Did the Soviet Union
Collapse? (M.E. Sharpe, 1998). He can be contacted at rstrayer@sbcglobal.net. |
|
