The Rise of the West and Historical Methodology: Crash Course World History #212

Summary

In this Crash Course World History episode, John Green explores the complexities of writing history, challenging the notion of history as a purely factual account. He delves into the concept of 'The Rise of the West,' questioning its geographical and cultural implications. Green discusses various historians' perspectives, including Ian Morris's focus on political and economic dominance, Victor Davis Hanson's military history approach, and Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson's institutional analysis in 'Why Nations Fail.' He also touches on Francis Fukuyama's view on the rule of law and its religious origins. Green emphasizes the importance of critical examination, the influence of one's academic training on historical interpretation, and the limitations of quantification in assessing historical success.

Takeaways

• 📚 The video discusses the complex process of writing history and the subjective choices historians make when turning their ideas into books.
• 🌍 The term 'The West' is examined, highlighting its geographical and cultural dimensions, and how it is often associated with certain ideas and philosophies.
• 🔍 The concept of 'rise' in 'The Rise of the West' is explored, questioning whether history is a series of rises and falls or a cyclical pattern.
• 🏛️ Different historians have varying approaches to explaining the dominance of the West, with some focusing on political, military, and economic dominance.
• 🤔 The video challenges the idea that history is purely factual, arguing that it is as interpretive as literature, and that critical examination is key.
• 🏛️ Acemoğlu and Robinson's book 'Why Nations Fail' is mentioned, which posits that inclusive economic and political institutions are the keys to a nation's success.
• 📊 Ian Morris's book 'Why the West Rules -- For Now' is discussed, which uses a mathematical formula to analyze historical development across various dimensions.
• 🏛️ Francis Fukuyama's perspective is presented, arguing that the rule of law, rooted in religion, is the foundation of successful institutions.
• 🌐 The video points out the bias inherent in historical analysis and the importance of questioning the data and perspectives presented.
• 🌟 It emphasizes the importance of understanding historical perspectives not just to congratulate the West but to inform policies for global improvement.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the Crash Course World History episode discussed in the transcript?

The main theme of the episode is the examination of how history gets written, focusing on the different perspectives and approaches historians use to answer questions and turn their ideas into books.

What does John Green suggest about the nature of history in relation to facts and opinions?

John Green suggests that the traditional view of history as purely factual and literature as purely opinionated is flawed. He argues that literature contains facts and that math, often seen as fact-based, involves opinions. He encourages thinking critically about the world instead of relying on this false dichotomy.

What does the term 'The West' encompass according to the transcript?

The term 'The West' refers to a geographical area, including Western Europe, North America, and Australia, but it also represents a cultural set of ideas influenced by Judeo-Christian thought, Greek philosophy, Enlightenment rationalism, and Adam Smith's economics.

What is the philosophical question John Green raises about the nature of history itself?

John Green raises the philosophical question of whether history is a series of rises and falls, like the story of the Roman Empire, or if it is cyclical, similar to the Mandate of Heaven narrative in early Chinese history.

How does Ian Morris define the concept of 'Why the West Rules' in his book?

Ian Morris defines 'Why the West Rules' by casting the question in terms of political, military, and economic dominance, suggesting that the West's success can be attributed to its ability to win a lot of wars.

What are the two main ideas proposed by Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson in their book 'Why Nations Fail'?

The two main ideas proposed by Acemoğlu and Robinson are that success can be defined by wealth and political power, and that the focus should be on nation-states rather than individuals, communities, or continents when examining historical success and failure.

What is the significance of inclusive institutions according to Acemoğlu and Robinson?

Inclusive institutions, as defined by Acemoğlu and Robinson, are economic and political institutions that enforce property rights, create a level playing field, encourage investments, and include a variety of political perspectives. They argue that nations are successful when they have such inclusive institutions.

How does Francis Fukuyama's view on the origins of successful institutions differ from Acemoğlu and Robinson's?

While Acemoğlu and Robinson focus on inclusive economic and political institutions, Fukuyama identifies the rule of law as the key underlying institution for a nation's success. He traces the origins of this rule of law in Europe back to the Catholic Church, which established the idea of law binding even to kings.

What method does Ian Morris use to analyze the historical development of the West and the East?

Ian Morris uses a mathematical formula based on four dimensions: energy capture, social organization, information technology, and war-making capacity. He combines these to develop a social development index that describes the West and the East at various points in history.

What is the critique John Green offers regarding the quantification of human social development?

John Green critiques the quantification of human social development by pointing out that reducing it to a number can dehumanize individuals. He argues that while numbers are useful for comparisons, they are incomplete and should not be mistaken for what is truly important.

What is the role of bias in historical writing according to the transcript?

The transcript suggests that bias is inherent in the experience of writing and telling the story of history. It emphasizes the importance of questioning the information that goes into historical conclusions and recognizing what might have been ignored or missed due to the inherent bias in historical perspectives.