MAKING OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

From the class discussion and the reading I do believe there exist another model to describe the narrative of world history.

I strongly disagree with model A has this is orientalism approach to world history which puts the East at a handicap.

If we have to decide on a narrative of world history, I believe it should not be biased towards one side. Which is why I agree with the model B ( exploitation to strategize for survival) partially. Model B still lacks a bit of information that in my opinion is a dark time for the world history. This time is somehow being ignored which is not right if we want to have fair narrative to world history. This is why I propose the Model Z.

Model Z
( Imperial power exploitation to fragmentation and distruption of the world)
I believe this is better narrative to world history as it does not divides the world.
We can see the rise of imperial powers and exploitation done by them not just a view of great but also as situational circumstances. We then need to understand how this effected the world and where we are now. We have come to a stage where we are not one Nation or even close to world Harmony in any sense. The disruption and fragmentation caused by historical events are still much prevailing and in many cases more deeper in the world.
One case I bring to my support my argument is the subcontinent of India. Where the British ruled for 200 years and exploited the region. British empire grew to heights from it’s colonies but when things came to end they left them in craves which were they had to claw back out. This was the story for the Indian subcontinent too. The region lived in harmony, though in fragmented kingdoms, but still in harmony. Through the rule of British, they created boundaries utterly out of no regard for the region. Sadly these boundaries are not being fought on heavily and has caused disruption in a high level. After British left there was biggest refugee movement seen by the world ever which was just between one border.
This case shows a deeper understanding of world history under the Model Z which does not divide the world but shows how historical events came about and how did these things were responded with.

Globalization is definitely a misused term in the modern world, where the trend in the last century has been countries having more effect over each other with every action taken between them. However, the Western world has definitely made the charge into modernity, with less-developed countries following behind, “catching up” to the rest of the world. This idea of catching up to other countries technologically or ideologically places a negative connotation on the state of the country, which Bright and Geyer respond to with the idea of an “explosive chain reaction,” which illustrates the cause and effect nations have with one another, pushing and pulling each other to the global norm, however slowly.

This is achieved through the simple breakdown of geographic and knowledge barriers between nations. Bright and Geyer explain that as distances could be traversed more quickly, culture pervaded into new areas more quickly, leading to greater interconnectedness between nations that originally remained closed-off from the global scene. They then move to explain that these countries who were originally  thinking of “a matter of whether or not to be a part of a global history and more and more a contestation over the terms of that engagement and over one’s placement in it.” This is entirely evident in the constant power struggle through the first half of the 1900s, where empires, nations, dictatorships and small countries were vying for the best seat at the metaphorical negotiation table.

I believe that Model A has glaring flaws. The West was able to industrialize so quickly largely due to the abundance of resources that were obtained from imperialized nations. However, in the acquisition of these resources, many western powers did substantial damage to the nations they occupied. Enslavement and exploitation of the native populations left a large scar for many imperialized countrys. the so-called “catching up” model is, I believe, apptly named. These nations were left no choice but to evolve to the new modern world so as to remain not only relevant but in existence. Model B could be considered a more palatable name in the current political climate of fragmentation, in which many marginalized peoples are starting to wonder why history is painting such a rosy picture of the events that set them back so far.  Model B, “Exploitation- Survival” sounds to many like a more appropriate title then.

I believe that both have elements of truth. Model A addresses the industrialization of the modern world. Europeans during this time did make many great advances in ideology and in technology. I feel as though Model A is then written form the view of a westerner, whereas Model B resonates more with countries who feel as though they were victimized during the expansion of the west. I believe that any good historian should try to find a Model C, one that then addresses both sides.

One of the main points that Bright and Geyer talk about is their dislike of the “catching up” model. They do not like the metaphor of Western Europe innovating and then the rest of the world is playing catch up. They believe that it is more exploitation and strategies for survival. Bright and Geyer’s idea/model reminds me of a book I read on globalization in another class. In the book, it talked about the outsourcing of jobs to other countries such as India. One example is call centers. Call center jobs are being outsourced to other countries because of the cheaper labor. These other countries are taking advantage of companies not wanting to spend as much on employees and these companies are exploiting these other countries for cheaper labor.

Another example is having an assistant across the world. Some employers will hire personal assistants that live half-way across the world. Why would someone do this? People do this because when they are sleeping, their assistant/employee is awake and working. If they have an assistant that works right next to them, they can’t ask them to do something for them right before they both leave for work and expect it done by the morning. But if their assistant works half-way across the world, the employer can ask the assistant to do something and when they wake up in the morning, they will have it done. This wouldn’t be possible without globalization and the innovation of the internet, email, etc. But India isn’t necessarily playing catch-up in these cases, rather America and Western Europe exploiting other countries for cheaper labor and other countries recognizing an opportunity in working while Western Europe and America sleeps.

Bright and Geyer argue that Globalization distinctly started around 150 years ago. They utilize key economic and political changes that are indicative of irreversible social and technological change within the world, during this era. They then elaborate on the dichotomy of the western world and globalization by arguing that westernization and Globalization are not synonymous. they continue by saying that westernization and the advancements that follow throughout other countries are just reactionary results based on the inevitability of globalization as a whole.

 

Through a good degree of circumlocution, Bright and Geyer produce an alternative thesis to the traditional model of the rise of the contemporary world, specifically in regards to the ostensible nexus between Westernization and globalization. Rather than concurring with the slippery slope of reducing it to terms of “innovation” by the Atlantic core (Europe and North America, with mostly white populations) and the “catching up” of the rest of the world, they propose that the real model was one of “exploitation” followed by “survival strategies” by the exploited regions, to include “resistance, appropriation, reassertion of difference,” among others, according to a summary by the esteemed Professor Bonk of the College of Wooster. This is certainly a correct interpretation at large; much of the material and human resources necessary for Atlantic technological and societal advancement were obtained at the great cost of exploiting the people and resources of existing sovereignties. They had to choose between co-opting the colonizing powers to ensure their survival or fighting back to preserve their culture and maintain their dignity. However, the most appropriate model would take the former and latter theses and hybridize them into one unified body of understanding. It was exploitation that contributed to innovation, and the exploited had to choose a survival strategy, which in the modern world has become almost universally an attempt to “catch up,” even among nations and peoples that initially resisted the forces of globalized Europeanization and industrialism.