One of the things that I found most interesting about Abu-Lughod's writing was in her description of the problems that historians face when writing these types of books. I often take it for granted that behind all these different books is someone who has to sift through a great deal of information to wring out what's relevant. Even first hand descriptions are flawed by bias and simply by what the person chose to record. Her example of Marco Polo is one that I found to be extremely interesting. He wasn't the first to do anything, but by chance he was the first to have his travels recorded. The problem is that his observations are extremely European. He notices only the things that are relevant to his culture and his way life. She also describes how hard it is to write comparatively when sometimes you don't have the records necessary to do adequate comparisons. I'm also pleased to see that Abu-Lughold has chosen to trace European Hegemony to its source. To understand what made Europe so powerful we need to compare it to other regions who were in similar positions at the time. It is only then that we will be able to see what Europe did differently to set them apart from the rest of the world.
Chris N
I agree with you that her discussion of the problems she faced finding the information was interesting. Most authors and historians don't discuss things like this. It also makes a big statement toward how much of history we can believe. History is almost always written by the winner.
ReplyDeleteValid observations, certainly. Marco Polo wasn't the first traveler - but the first to write down his thoughts for posterity. As such... do those others really count?
ReplyDeleteHistory is not only written by the victors. History is also written by those who can.
This is true. It also depends greatly on how much evidence supports each historians records, but I do think all accounts should be taken into consideration.
ReplyDelete