Article: "On Top of the World"--Why the West's present dominance is both recent and temporary (pp. 119-120)
I chose this article because I think it fits in with our discussion of World History and how it is often taught from a Eurocentric perspective. Here are some questions we could discuss pertaining to this article (and Ian Morris's book):
1. What factors does Morris say gave certain areas of the world an advantage in developing civilization and "dominance"? Do you agree?
2. Does the fact that Chinese admiral Zheng He explored the coasts of Africa and India 80 years before Columbus's voyage surprise you (p. 119, 3rd column)? If the Atlantic Ocean was wider than the Pacific Ocean, do you think history might have unfolded differently?
3. What are Mr. Morris's predictions about the future of the West and the world in general? What is he referring to when he talks about "the hard ceiling of our own era"?
4. In the classroom: How might the assertions of Ian Morris affect our teaching of World History? What ideas do you have for presenting history from a non-Eurocentric perspective?
Feel free to address just a few of these questions--I know this is a fairly long and dense article. I look forward to seeing what you all think about Morris's book.
When reading the article about Mr. Morris's book I couldn't help but thinking that the question he tries to answer is completely outdated. To compare the rise of the west in the same terms as the rise of Roman and Chinese Empires is misleading. Moreover, warning of a collapse in the future similar to the collapse of those empires ignores the fundamental ways in which the world has changed. In both cases of China and Rome these civilizations were, for the most part, isolated from the rest of the world. In today's world the strong links between countries make it a global tragedy for countries to fail and garner cooperation between countries.
Morris points out that in antiquity advantages in military, technology, and trade were how civilizations were able to distinguish themselves and dominate others. Today this is equally true as the dominate powers of the world still posses these same advantages. I believe that these advantages are becoming increasingly obsolete as the world becomes more and more a globally linked. With that being said, it is not that that West will be overtaken and collapse; instead the rest of the world will catch up to the West.
One point that Mr. Morris makes that is certain is that there is a "hard ceiling of our own era." This ceiling is not one just for the west, but for the entire world. Military technology is at the point where war could mean the destruction of the entire earth. The other ceiling is the changes that could occur as a result of our impact on the environment. These ceilings will not effect one country but confront the entire world. Because of this I feel that the days of great civilizations replacing one another are over. At a time when technology changes in 10 years are the equivalent of technology changes over the coarse of human history, nations will simply catch up to the west instead of usurping it.
The two main factors that Morris gives are the economic/industrial (I'm grouping these together since they caused each other) gains of the West coupled with simple geography. I do have to agree to some degree, but Morris fails to cite the cultural and religious differences that also were large factors in the dominance. Simply stated, the West's religious and cultural views of conversion allowed them to get a head start.
It doesn't surprise me at all (mainly because I've taken several East Asian history and culture classes). China was the premier authority on the ocean at that time and created technologies that the West copied to allow them to travel further. China was the dominant nation for a great deal of time simply because the West had nothing they desired yet the West desired what they had. I think that geography might have had a factor but that their cultural views of Confucianism in particular largely kept their empire whole. Plus, China was already a huge mass of conflicting peoples and they could never fully commit to an colonization while still having to deal with unrest and unification back home.
Mr. Morris predicts that the West will lose their dominance if current trends hold. However, he as he stated earlier in the paper, leaders of powerful countries are often unable to influence a great deal of things that affect their nation and these unpredictable things could completely change current trends. The hard ceiling of our era is the limit to which the US and other countries can expand and rise to. There is a certain point at which no more power, no more influence can be gained.
I feel that World History needs to be taught from multiple perspectives and that it also influences the tolerant classroom. If we only teach the Western-centric views, the students only hold those views and will give little to no value to the views of others, particular non-Western ones. I think one of the easiest ways to address this is to look at two powers that have emerged from the East: China and Islam. Looking at the history of both and telling their story and looking at primary source documents as well as stories from their point of view will allow students to see things from the other side. Also, comparing the empires of the West and the East will allow students to see the differences in the philosophies of these empires. Finally, learning more about the base religions and cultural values that influence other nations views are key to understanding those nations and their people, and this needs to be included in the curriculum.
Location and technological advances play instrumental roles in the development of civilizations. Dominance is heavily influenced by available resources and utilization of skill sets that a particular power may have. I certainly agree that economic motives drive a nation’s ability to become a central player, but I think Mr. Morris fails to take account of social phenomena that may have solidified a country’s power. I agree with Max’s point that the religious and cultural views of the West profoundly influenced its ability to rise as a world region. The West was able to use its culture to appeal the masses, and still today, “western ideals” are adopted in many parts of the world.
I do not agree with Mr. Morris’ prediction about the West losing its dominance as he fails to take account of the current trend of globalization. As technology and communication continues to advance, our world is becoming highly integrated. Also, the power dynamics of the international arena is transforming into a multipolar stage in which multiple nations share the position as top global powers. Greater economic and social interdependence is being fostered, and the idea of hegemony is beginning to fade out.
When teaching World History, multiple perspectives need to be addressed. In a 21st century classroom, it is important for a teacher to instill values of multiculturalism and an appreciation of diversity. Tolerance and reverence needs to be fostered in the classroom in order for the classroom to reflect the greater society. In order to help students appreciate other perspectives, it is important to expose students to a variety of literature that present an array of religions, philosophies, and other central elements of our world’s cultures.
Call me an optimist, but, like my classmates, I think that Mr. Morris' predictions on the future "ceiling" of the West may be slightly extreme. I agree with Brian's opinion that some sort of "catch up" is more likely than a usurpation of power. With increasing social, technological, and cultural globalization, the gradual march toward an equilibrium of sorts seems much more likely than another polar shift.
Additionally, I was slightly disturbed by the author's "Morris Theorum" that "change is caused by lazy, greedy, frightened people looking for easier, more profitable and safer ways of doing things" and that these people "rarely know what they're doing." This foundation seems somewhat contradictory to the study of history in the first place. If the only change that humanity incurs in the world is "lazy" and "safe," then why do we study it at all? It is my hope that the study of history will embolden people and encourage them to see the world with fresh and inspired perspective.
Teaching World History, in particular, must consider multiple viewpoints. The Euro-centric foundation that Anna eluded to is certainly a problem in American instruction of World History. While I had heard of the naval prowess of China, this article reminded me of the biases we see in instruction. My own World History teacher was the child of a foreign diplomat and grew up in ten different countries. This life-foundation certainly helped her to give us a more dynamic view of World History. I hope that through her lessons and through the simple awareness of possible teaching bias, that I will be able to teach students from an enriched perspective.
As LaShunda wrote, the 21st century classroom should be one that encourages diversity and truly examines the world. IN order to meet these goals, a classroom must really examine world history from the perspective of the world and not just Europe or the United States.
First off, great article to choose, Anna, and excellent supporting questions! The points you all make are very well taken, particularly in regards to the 'Morris Theorem.' Excellent job relating this to the pedagogy of world history!
I think everyone has made excellent points so far in this argument. It true that the West was able to use technology and geography to their advantage. Religion and culture definitely played a factor in the extent to which western culture infiltrated the world. However it was also the inherent belief of western nations that their ideas and customs were superior to others that provided the basis for western ideals to override local customs.
In the article Morris is quoted as saying “that when the pressure is on, change takes off”. I think this is an excellent way to look at history since the events of the past were dependent on the conditions in which they occurred. By accident or purpose certain cultures/civilizations were able to dominate their surrounding and thrive while others perished. It is extremely interesting to study the case of Columbus and the Chinese, separated by years but the one with the superior technology did not get the recognition compared to Columbus’s discovery. A question to pose here however is if this is a product of Eurocentric education, it would be interesting to see how students in China learn about the Age of Exploration and which figures are highlighted.
Like many of you have already expressed it is important to teach from a multicultural perspective. In a globalized world it is important that we prepare our students with a well rounded interpretation of the past and give them the tools to inquire themselves. In my experience writing lessons in world history that paint a non-Eurocentric view of history requires the use of multiple texts and sources of information. Many of the textbooks and available material present events from the European perspective which distorts or leaves out elements crucial to the understanding of an event. I believe working with a diverse amount of sources can help students/teachers learn/present information in a non-Eurocentric way.
Interesting choice of an article Anna! Considering I have also taken quite a few East Asian history courses, I am on the same page as Max to a degree. I find Chinese history particularly interesting and was not surprised to learn about Zheng He's voyages in the article. I also think it is an the East vs. West framework is interesting to place the conversation about the rise and fall of civilization. But I could not help but think, how/where does African history fit in? What about the Ancient Egypt? What about the early West African Kingdoms? In some ways the East vs. West is a limiting view of history. I do however like that his conclusions looked at the future of the world as a whole and included the effects of climate change and technology.
In terms of teaching World History, his book may have somewhat of an impact depending on your own view of history. Personally, I like his emphasis on the East and China in particular. Early Chinese Dynasties were so advanced and often are ignored in the curriculum. While it is difficult to find ways to include all topics, teaching World History should seek to cover beyond European history. When teaching, it is often encouraged to make history relevant to your students by connecting the material to what is familiar and comfortable. I think at times this scares teachers away from teaching multicultural perspectives. By using technology teaching World History can allow students to "visit" and learn about stories and places that are on the other side of the world. World History is a great forum for teaching understanding and tolerance of new cultures and ideas.
Article: "On Top of the World"--Why the West's present dominance is both recent and temporary (pp. 119-120)
ReplyDeleteI chose this article because I think it fits in with our discussion of World History and how it is often taught from a Eurocentric perspective. Here are some questions we could discuss pertaining to this article (and Ian Morris's book):
1. What factors does Morris say gave certain areas of the world an advantage in developing civilization and "dominance"? Do you agree?
2. Does the fact that Chinese admiral Zheng He explored the coasts of Africa and India 80 years before Columbus's voyage surprise you (p. 119, 3rd column)? If the Atlantic Ocean was wider than the Pacific Ocean, do you think history might have unfolded differently?
3. What are Mr. Morris's predictions about the future of the West and the world in general? What is he referring to when he talks about "the hard ceiling of our own era"?
4. In the classroom: How might the assertions of Ian Morris affect our teaching of World History? What ideas do you have for presenting history from a non-Eurocentric perspective?
Feel free to address just a few of these questions--I know this is a fairly long and dense article. I look forward to seeing what you all think about Morris's book.
When reading the article about Mr. Morris's book I couldn't help but thinking that the question he tries to answer is completely outdated. To compare the rise of the west in the same terms as the rise of Roman and Chinese Empires is misleading. Moreover, warning of a collapse in the future similar to the collapse of those empires ignores the fundamental ways in which the world has changed. In both cases of China and Rome these civilizations were, for the most part, isolated from the rest of the world. In today's world the strong links between countries make it a global tragedy for countries to fail and garner cooperation between countries.
ReplyDeleteMorris points out that in antiquity advantages in military, technology, and trade were how civilizations were able to distinguish themselves and dominate others. Today this is equally true as the dominate powers of the world still posses these same advantages. I believe that these advantages are becoming increasingly obsolete as the world becomes more and more a globally linked. With that being said, it is not that that West will be overtaken and collapse; instead the rest of the world will catch up to the West.
One point that Mr. Morris makes that is certain is that there is a "hard ceiling of our own era." This ceiling is not one just for the west, but for the entire world. Military technology is at the point where war could mean the destruction of the entire earth. The other ceiling is the changes that could occur as a result of our impact on the environment. These ceilings will not effect one country but confront the entire world. Because of this I feel that the days of great civilizations replacing one another are over. At a time when technology changes in 10 years are the equivalent of technology changes over the coarse of human history, nations will simply catch up to the west instead of usurping it.
The two main factors that Morris gives are the economic/industrial (I'm grouping these together since they caused each other) gains of the West coupled with simple geography. I do have to agree to some degree, but Morris fails to cite the cultural and religious differences that also were large factors in the dominance. Simply stated, the West's religious and cultural views of conversion allowed them to get a head start.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't surprise me at all (mainly because I've taken several East Asian history and culture classes). China was the premier authority on the ocean at that time and created technologies that the West copied to allow them to travel further. China was the dominant nation for a great deal of time simply because the West had nothing they desired yet the West desired what they had. I think that geography might have had a factor but that their cultural views of Confucianism in particular largely kept their empire whole. Plus, China was already a huge mass of conflicting peoples and they could never fully commit to an colonization while still having to deal with unrest and unification back home.
Mr. Morris predicts that the West will lose their dominance if current trends hold. However, he as he stated earlier in the paper, leaders of powerful countries are often unable to influence a great deal of things that affect their nation and these unpredictable things could completely change current trends. The hard ceiling of our era is the limit to which the US and other countries can expand and rise to. There is a certain point at which no more power, no more influence can be gained.
I feel that World History needs to be taught from multiple perspectives and that it also influences the tolerant classroom. If we only teach the Western-centric views, the students only hold those views and will give little to no value to the views of others, particular non-Western ones. I think one of the easiest ways to address this is to look at two powers that have emerged from the East: China and Islam. Looking at the history of both and telling their story and looking at primary source documents as well as stories from their point of view will allow students to see things from the other side. Also, comparing the empires of the West and the East will allow students to see the differences in the philosophies of these empires. Finally, learning more about the base religions and cultural values that influence other nations views are key to understanding those nations and their people, and this needs to be included in the curriculum.
Location and technological advances play instrumental roles in the development of civilizations. Dominance is heavily influenced by available resources and utilization of skill sets that a particular power may have. I certainly agree that economic motives drive a nation’s ability to become a central player, but I think Mr. Morris fails to take account of social phenomena that may have solidified a country’s power. I agree with Max’s point that the religious and cultural views of the West profoundly influenced its ability to rise as a world region. The West was able to use its culture to appeal the masses, and still today, “western ideals” are adopted in many parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Mr. Morris’ prediction about the West losing its dominance as he fails to take account of the current trend of globalization. As technology and communication continues to advance, our world is becoming highly integrated. Also, the power dynamics of the international arena is transforming into a multipolar stage in which multiple nations share the position as top global powers. Greater economic and social interdependence is being fostered, and the idea of hegemony is beginning to fade out.
When teaching World History, multiple perspectives need to be addressed. In a 21st century classroom, it is important for a teacher to instill values of multiculturalism and an appreciation of diversity. Tolerance and reverence needs to be fostered in the classroom in order for the classroom to reflect the greater society. In order to help students appreciate other perspectives, it is important to expose students to a variety of literature that present an array of religions, philosophies, and other central elements of our world’s cultures.
Call me an optimist, but, like my classmates, I think that Mr. Morris' predictions on the future "ceiling" of the West may be slightly extreme. I agree with Brian's opinion that some sort of "catch up" is more likely than a usurpation of power. With increasing social, technological, and cultural globalization, the gradual march toward an equilibrium of sorts seems much more likely than another polar shift.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I was slightly disturbed by the author's "Morris Theorum" that "change is caused by lazy, greedy, frightened people looking for easier, more profitable and safer ways of doing things" and that these people "rarely know what they're doing." This foundation seems somewhat contradictory to the study of history in the first place. If the only change that humanity incurs in the world is "lazy" and "safe," then why do we study it at all? It is my hope that the study of history will embolden people and encourage them to see the world with fresh and inspired perspective.
Teaching World History, in particular, must consider multiple viewpoints. The Euro-centric foundation that Anna eluded to is certainly a problem in American instruction of World History. While I had heard of the naval prowess of China, this article reminded me of the biases we see in instruction. My own World History teacher was the child of a foreign diplomat and grew up in ten different countries. This life-foundation certainly helped her to give us a more dynamic view of World History. I hope that through her lessons and through the simple awareness of possible teaching bias, that I will be able to teach students from an enriched perspective.
As LaShunda wrote, the 21st century classroom should be one that encourages diversity and truly examines the world. IN order to meet these goals, a classroom must really examine world history from the perspective of the world and not just Europe or the United States.
First off, great article to choose, Anna, and excellent supporting questions! The points you all make are very well taken, particularly in regards to the 'Morris Theorem.' Excellent job relating this to the pedagogy of world history!
ReplyDeleteI think everyone has made excellent points so far in this argument. It true that the West was able to use technology and geography to their advantage. Religion and culture definitely played a factor in the extent to which western culture infiltrated the world. However it was also the inherent belief of western nations that their ideas and customs were superior to others that provided the basis for western ideals to override local customs.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Morris is quoted as saying “that when the pressure is on, change takes off”. I think this is an excellent way to look at history since the events of the past were dependent on the conditions in which they occurred. By accident or purpose certain cultures/civilizations were able to dominate their surrounding and thrive while others perished. It is extremely interesting to study the case of Columbus and the Chinese, separated by years but the one with the superior technology did not get the recognition compared to Columbus’s discovery. A question to pose here however is if this is a product of Eurocentric education, it would be interesting to see how students in China learn about the Age of Exploration and which figures are highlighted.
Like many of you have already expressed it is important to teach from a multicultural perspective. In a globalized world it is important that we prepare our students with a well rounded interpretation of the past and give them the tools to inquire themselves. In my experience writing lessons in world history that paint a non-Eurocentric view of history requires the use of multiple texts and sources of information. Many of the textbooks and available material present events from the European perspective which distorts or leaves out elements crucial to the understanding of an event. I believe working with a diverse amount of sources can help students/teachers learn/present information in a non-Eurocentric way.
Interesting choice of an article Anna! Considering I have also taken quite a few East Asian history courses, I am on the same page as Max to a degree. I find Chinese history particularly interesting and was not surprised to learn about Zheng He's voyages in the article. I also think it is an the East vs. West framework is interesting to place the conversation about the rise and fall of civilization. But I could not help but think, how/where does African history fit in? What about the Ancient Egypt? What about the early West African Kingdoms? In some ways the East vs. West is a limiting view of history. I do however like that his conclusions looked at the future of the world as a whole and included the effects of climate change and technology.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of teaching World History, his book may have somewhat of an impact depending on your own view of history. Personally, I like his emphasis on the East and China in particular. Early Chinese Dynasties were so advanced and often are ignored in the curriculum. While it is difficult to find ways to include all topics, teaching World History should seek to cover beyond European history. When teaching, it is often encouraged to make history relevant to your students by connecting the material to what is familiar and comfortable. I think at times this scares teachers away from teaching multicultural perspectives. By using technology teaching World History can allow students to "visit" and learn about stories and places that are on the other side of the world. World History is a great forum for teaching understanding and tolerance of new cultures and ideas.