Overwhelmingly, "world history" in America focuses almost exclusively on Europe, and American documentaries follow this pattern. Enough ink has been spilled on Eurocentrism in the American view of history that I don't need to discuss here. I have noticed something else in the bias in how we look at history.
It's not just that we focus on Europe, but on certain parts of Europe.
Western vs Eastern Europe
For example, at the height of its power, the Roman empire split in two. While the western Roman empire fell quickly, Byzantium lasted for around a thousand years after the fall of Rome. Here in America, we talk almost exclusively about the perspective of the western Roman empire and what happened to Western Europe immediately after the fall of Rome.
Very little mention is made of what happened in Eastern Europe as the Byzantine Empire lasted for another thousand years. The Byzantine Empire and its effect on Eastern Europe is a very significant part of European history, yet it gets glossed over in American history classes and American documentaries.
For reasons that I think are understandable, but probably should be corrected, Americans tend to focus on the history of the parts of Europe that Americans come from (the UK, Germany, Italy), or the parts of Europe that influenced the parts of the world that Americans come from (France, Spain).
The Far East vs Southeast vs Central Asia
American history classes and documentaries do not talk enough about Asian history relative to how much we talk about European history, but when we do talk about Asian history, we tend to have similar myopia to our view of history.
The first major group of Asian immigrants to arrive in America were the Chinese, followed by the Japanese (I'm half Japanese) in the 1800s and early 1900s. In the 20th century, America saw significant immigration from Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Laos, the Philipines, etc.) and the Indian subcontinent.
In the rare cases when Asian history is discussed or taught at all, it is almost exclusively the Far East: China, Japan, and Korea. Once again, the American view of world history is governed by the parts of Asia that Americans come from, except that America's view of Asia is governed by the first waves of immigrants, and has not been updated with major waves of Asian immigrants that came later.
Aside: this is why Raya and the Last Dragon is so significant for representation. We finally have a major motion picture released by Hollywood set in a part of Asia other than the Far East.
So our view of Asia and Asian history has the same distorted view as our view of Europe: we prefer to look at and talk about the parts of Asia that Americans come from, but our view has failed to update to include major groups that came to America more recently.
Exception: Africa
Think of every documentary you can think of that ever mentioned Africa. Overwhelmingly, Egypt is overwhelmingly overrepresented. Minor mention is made of east African nations or past civilizations that bordered on Egypt, largely because they traded with or went to war with Egypt. Even though very few Americans come from Egypt, this is somewhat understandable because the ancient Egyptians had a lot of interactions with nations or civilizations that heavily influenced the civilization of western Europe (e.g. Greece, the Roman empire, etc.).
The other part of Africa that deserves mention in the eyes of history textbook authors and documentary makers is Morocco because they occupied Spain and Portugal for a time. Morocco even turns up in Robin Hood movies or that one Shakespear play (Othello).
The other major mention is Shaka Zulu of South Africa, mostly because he had some military success against the British empire.
Minor mention may be made of Madagascar because the Polynesians originated there.
So when our history classes or documentaries talk about African history, we talk about eastern/northeastern Africa, northwest Africa, and southern Africa. Do you notice what is missing? That's right, we are talking about every part of Africa except the parts of Africa that Americans come from (most African-Americans trace their roots back to central or western Africa). Our view of Africa is precisely the opposite of our view of other parts of the world.
What we are glossing over is not insignificant.
Western and Central Africa
Timbuktu is slang for something really far away in several languages around the Eastern hemisphere. This is because for a time, the University of Timbuktu was one of the most prestigious schools in the world, and people traveled great distances for a chance to be educated there.
The University of Timbuktu was made up of multiple colleges that were given lots of autonomy. Students studied with multiple professors, but mostly with one teacher, much like how we teach graduate students in modern universities. Because it was not a secular institution and because of other differences, it is not considered the first modern university, but it is certainly an important ancestor of the modern university. It's not just the oldest university in Africa, it's the oldest continuously operated university in the world.
The university was founded under Mansa Musa, who was from a line of kings that influenced other parts of Africa and other parts of the world in more ways than just founding the world's longest-running university. There were wealthy, prosperous, and influential civilizations in western and central Africa, but strangely, we make almost no mention of them in American history books or American documentaries.
African-Americans have an intellectual heritage worth being proud of (one that includes a lot of math). It would be of great benefit to American children to teach them about the history of western and central Africa, including the intellectual heritage. This would be good for the self-image of African-American children who are constantly told by society that they are less than everyone else, but it would also be useful for white children from racist families to give them a different perspective from what they are taught at home.
When we talk about Europe, we mostly talk about the parts of Europe that Americans come from, so that white kids know what's important about their ancestors.
When we talk about Asia, we mostly talk about the parts of Asia that Americans come from, even if we fail to update that view to include more recent immigrant groups. While we don't discuss as much Asian history as we should, American schoolchildren of Far East descent know at least a little about what was important about their heritage and history.
But when we talk about Africa, we go in the opposite direction. If we bother to talk about Africa and African history at all, we go out of our way to avoid talking about the heritage and history of the parts of Africa that Americans come from. It is as if we are deliberately doing this to deny African-American children the basic knowledge of what their ancestors did that was worth being proud of to deliberately savage their self-image.
Comments