Preface: I was listening to an audiobook of Don’t Know Much About History by Kenneth C. Davis, which identifies things taught in US history classes that are frequently misinterpreted. It is a sweeping overview of his grievances against the education system, which made me think of Gayatri Spivak’s essay Can the Subaltern Speak? Spivak was a prominent postcolonial scholar, whose theory was based in a combination of Marxist and feminist theories. Simplified, her thesis of that essay was that the voices of marginalized, colonized in her paradigm, were co-opted to fit the dominant power structure, usually colonizer of the West. Similarly, Edward Said’s book Orientalism had a sort of similar thesis, that the West framed the East as inferior in order to justify colonialism among other things. Another inspiration for this editorial was a quote from an article by Celia Applegate about European regionalism, “The writing of history… in the  modern era has been closely interwoven with the making and legitimating of  nation-states.” The other 30-some-odd pages were largely dull, but I took that quotation to mean that history is often appropriated for political interests. I then decided to regurgitate all of these thoughts into this fever dream of an editorial, which is more than likely to turn into a column.

The way the Renaissance is taught is a wonderful example of curricula appropriated for political gain. The way Pre-Columbian is taught is a prime example. The Mayan, Incan, and Aztec civilizations were leaps and bounds ahead of European societies in that time. Yet, they are portrayed as slightly more primitive than their European counterparts. The Olmecs, a society later absorbed by the Mayans, had developed the concept of the number zero. Roman numerals were widely used in the Middle Ages in Europe, but they didn’t have a positional system which made arithmetic a nightmare as they had no concept of zero. They had a complex calendar, which is often considered more accurate than the widely adopted Western Gregorian and Julian calendars. The Mayans had an alphabet with hundreds of glyphs. The Incan and Aztec civilizations had great urban planning, with dikes, sewage systems, canals, advanced architecture, and vast roadways. Early Paris and London had frequent disease outbreaks due to not having a good sewage system. Meso-American societies had developed polyculture, methods of food preservation, and were generally more agriculturally advanced. Finally, the European practices of Humoral theory and bloodletting paled in comparison to Mesoamerican medicine. The arrival of Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors is taught as the catalyst for civilizational change, and that these societies were somewhat barbaric and needed to be civilized. The latter is a textbook example of Orientalism. By not delving into the subtleties of pre-Columbian histories, educators contribute to a historical erasure where indigenous knowledge systems and societal contributions are either oversimplified or dismissed.

Similarly, there is an extreme over-emphasis on the Roman civilization. It is portrayed as the proverbial crucible from which Western civilization was poured. This myth is built on the notion that Rome’s legal systems, political structures, and cultural achievements laid the sole groundwork for modern Western values and institutions. The emergence of modern Western institutions was not a straightforward linear progression from Rome but rather the result of interactions between multiple cultures and eras, including Greek philosophy, early Christian thought, and even non-Western contributions through trade and cultural exchange. This narrative serves contemporary political and cultural agendas by positioning modern Western societies as the natural heirs to Rome’s legacy. By presenting modern institutions as a direct continuation of Roman achievements, educators can inadvertently endorse the idea of Western exceptionalism, which is the belief that the West’s cultural, political, and scientific legacies are inherently superior. By focusing predominantly on Roman achievements, educators risk constructing a narrative that suggests that all significant progress in human history is an offshoot of Roman civilization. This perspective not only diminishes the rich, diverse contributions of other cultures but also reinforces the idea that the values and institutions of ancient Rome are the only viable models for understanding progress and governance.

Other early civilizations in the Middle East, Africa, and China prospered. Islamic cities like Baghdad, Cordoba, and Cairo had sewage systems, libraries, and baths while European cities struggled with basic sanitation. They also developed algebra, cameras, and windmills. The Kingdom of Kongo had a well-maintained bureaucracy and a well-organized monarchical system, unlike feudal Europe. They had trade relations with Portugal, and thriving metalworking, textile, and ivory carving industries. They also had a taxation system and well-structured economic policies. The Kingdom of Benin, in West Africa, had advanced technological and architectural skills. They constructed a defense wall approximately four times the length of the Great Wall of China, and it took about 100 times the amount of material as the pyramids! During the Han dynasty, paper was invented. In Europe at that period, they used animal skins to write which was expensive and inefficient. During the Song dynasty, they developed a moveable type print system (Bi Sheng), centuries before Gutenberg. The Song Junk ships, with multiple masts and watertight compartments, allowed them to participate in trade throughout the Indian Ocean.

The Renaissance is framed as a sudden explosion of art, science, and humanism as if Europe rediscovered rationality on its own. This implies that progress is inherently European, ignoring the fact that much of the “rediscovered” knowledge came from Islamic, Indian, Chinese, and African civilizations. The intellectual foundation of Plutarch, Michelangelo, Erasmus, and Gutenberg was set by Islamic and other scholars. It is explained and interpreted as happening because of European superiority theory, but the evidence above certainly debunks the notion that Europe was more advanced. It is taught in this way because it reinforces Western superiority, as it frames the West as a driver of progress. Also, it justifies modern interventionist policy and colonialism, as the Renaissance was one of the first events that “solidified” European moral supremacy, thus giving the West a license to be paternalistic.