Analytical comparison

How do we define global history? Is it literally a linear history of the whole world with all of its happenings in each of the far reaching corners of the world since the beginning of time? Or is it the study of how we as a human population came to the present, modern day world, with our abundant global connections? This is a debate that historians have been struggling with for the past century or so. With all respect to these historians and their theories, we are still are at a point of contention about representing a truly “global history”.

Because of the very broad nature of a question like this, world historians in the past half a century or so have asked more specific questions, such as why has some history taken a very Eurocentric viewpoint? Why is it that, during the time period around 1500-1850, the west, or more specifically, Europe, seemed to lead the charge of industrialization while other parts of the world seemed to lag behind? In the past, historians such as David Landes believed that the reason Europe grew to their political and economic prominence in the world was because they had certain aspects in their culture that allowed them to rise to this status. Internal aspects, such as the protestant work ethic in England, gave the Europeans the frame of mind to develop scientifically and mechanize industrially so that they became the western culture that we know of today. Other historians have discredited Landes claims saying that he is entirely too Eurocentric. One of these historians was the well-known Gunder Frank; who claimed that the modern global world emerged from a much broader spectrum, hence his contributions to the world-systems theory. However much more recent scholarship has also tackled the sp...

... middle of paper ...

...ld, but does so in a much more linear fashion. His book, although presented with a very Eurasian tone, takes its readers on a journey to explain globalization through a broad discussion on the roots and reasons for our globalized world. It is indeed an explanation though the lens of economic relationships between historical cultures and societies in both Europe and Asia.

Marks pretty much take stance that Europe and Asia were pretty much on par with one another as far as global leaders up until, or around the year 1700, where Europe begins to take the lead. He defines the current global world as one consisting of industry, independent countries, a section on the existing gap between the wealthiest and poorest parts of the world, and, most notibly, Europes ability, and other easten cultures inability, to escape what Marks refers to as the biological old regime.