Hannah Oberlander
January 26, 2013
The main premise of Navigating Through World History that Manning
suggests is that history has evolved over time from the past patterned focus of the
Renaissance, the Reformation, European dominance, and Western civilization to a
movement pushing past the North Atlantic sphere. Modern history begins where
this old emphasis ends as world history takes into perspective the wide array of
genres that include geology, archeology, anthropology, philosophy, linguistics, art
and music, demography, gender studies, political history, literature, and economics
rather than simply politics and war.
World history is no longer being studied broadly like Western civilization as
a whole but instead has narrowed to allow various perspectives through the specific
disciplines. For example, economists have studied the impact big businesses had on
economies, which links to the slave trade and then later brought about racism and
segregation that are both topics of social history.
After reading through Manning’s arguments, I appreciate this approach
because it addresses the “dare to omit” question that world historians face, since it
targets a precise topic rather than attempting to straddle the myriads of issues that
endlessly bombard those retelling the past. Past historians who endeavored to
study world history as “a whole” were forced to generalize, because there was
simply too much to navigate through. As more information becomes available to
today’s generation of historians through the innovations of technology and the
advances in linguistics for translating previously uncharted documents, Manning’s
premise is optimal for sorting and managing world history.
My favorite chapter of this book was Analyzing World History, because it laid
out the various methods to approach history; and as a teacher, I was inspired to
create lessons for my own class based on some of the observations from this
chapter. The exploratory comparison method allows students of history to find
similarities and differences between two or more works. Then selecting a particular
discipline to analyze the case allows the students to hone in on a specific angle. As I
reflected on how to incorporate “choice of discipline,” integrating it into a guiding
question for the student to answer as he or she studies the sources is effective.
Students readily apply the “connecting subsystems” method when probed, because I
have noticed that they naturally want to hang the new information that they study
on the pegs that they already have. Students love creating those links; and quite
frankly, I do too! Confirming the analysis through verifying conclusions is an
effective way for students to practice their research and evidence-gathering skills
that many students need practice doing.
The shifting perspectives guideline is an excellent way for students to look at
the same topic and time frame from different angles—whether they are looking at it
through the lens of a different discipline than before or whether they are looking at
it from the inside out. I agree with Manning’s position that there is no one way to
present the results historians find, and historians should continue to keep an open
mind to differentiate among diverse interpretations and then weigh the advantages
and disadvantages of the various views.
Manning also really encouraged me that I made the right decision as a
teacher to get my Masters in History Education, because as I learn more as a teacher
in my history courses, I will be able to bring a whole new world to my students and
to “break past the limits of textbook-driven caution and memorization and will
reveal world history to the students as an exciting, challenging, creative, and
rewarding—though still frustrating—area of study” (p. 340).