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

John Green introduces the topic of how history is written, challenging the idea that history is a simple recounting of facts. He humorously addresses his past self's aspiration to become a history writer, pointing out the difficulty of maintaining factual accuracy. Green emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in understanding history and introduces the concept that history is not just a series of events but involves interpretation and perspective. He sets the stage for a discussion on how historians answer questions and turn their ideas into books, touching on the subjectivity inherent in historical narratives.

This section delves into the problematic issue of 'The Rise of the West,' exploring its geographical and cultural implications. Green discusses the ambiguity of the term 'West' and the philosophical questions it raises about the nature of history. He critiques the idea of history as a linear narrative of rises and falls, suggesting instead a more complex, nuanced view. The paragraph introduces various historians and their interpretations, such as Ian Morris's focus on political and economic dominance and Victor Davis Hanson's military history perspective. It also mentions the economic and political analysis by Daron Acemoğlu and James Robinson, who argue that inclusive institutions are key to a nation's success, challenging older theories like Montesquieu's.

The paragraph examines different perspectives on what constitutes a nation's success or failure, focusing on the role of inclusive institutions. It highlights the work of Acemoğlu and Robinson, who argue that economic and political inclusiveness is crucial for a nation's prosperity. The paragraph also discusses Francis Fukuyama's view that the rule of law is the foundational institution for success, tracing its origins to the Catholic Church. Additionally, Ian Morris's data-driven approach is presented, using a social development index to measure historical progress. Green raises questions about the implications of quantifying historical success and the potential biases in such measurements, encouraging viewers to consider what might be overlooked in these analyses.

In the final paragraph, Green reflects on the purpose of analyzing historical success and the potential pitfalls of doing so. He questions whether such analysis is meant for self-congratulation or to understand and address global inequality. Green advocates for using historical understanding to inform policies for global improvement. The paragraph emphasizes the inherent bias in historical perspectives and the importance of critical examination of any claim of success or failure. Green concludes by reminding viewers of the responsibility to question the data and conclusions presented in historical narratives, including those in Crash Course and textbooks.