I'm honestly shocked of reading all the reviews saying that the book is not Eurocentric. It is very Eurocentric, and that's a failing the author himself recognizes in the Introduction.
In the first chapters, the author proves how our very own ideas of time and space are marked by Eurocentrism, and that the French Revolution, the traditional starting point for long 19th century narratives, didn't affect most of the world. Then he uses all these notions the same, and starts the book at the French Revolution.
130 books quoted are specifically about Africa, 99 about Latin America, 230 on the United States and Canada, 634 on Asia (of which 289 on Japan and China specifically) and a whopping 767 on Europe. 6 of the 99 books about Latin America were in Spanish, 5 in French and 7 in German, and 81 of them in English, and they were mostly published in the Global North, with 52 publications in the United States alone, 26 in England, 8 in Germany, 5 in France, 3 in Mexico, one each in Peru and Spain. Most of the books he uses from non-European writers are classics written decades ago, like Darcy Ribeiro, Domingos Sarmiento and Gilberto Freyre.
When dividing Osterhammel’s bibliography by place of publication, we discover that 1020 books were published in the United States; 1001 in England; 322 in Germany; 69 in France; 49 in the Netherlands; 17 in Canada; 11 in Austria; 10 in Italy; 8 in Japan; 6 each in Belgium and Scotland; 5 in Ireland; 4 each in China and Australia; 3 each in Mexico, Turkey and Malaysia; 2 each in Hungary, Sweden, Spain and Egypt; and only one each in Peru, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Senegal, Jamaica, Singapore, Saint Lucia, Thailand, Norway, Denmark and Poland. In addition, all the journals used are published in the so called Global North.
We should notice that only bringing writers from more countries to the fold is necessary, but not enough to make it global. Another blindspot that we could notice is that most Historians quoted are men. Also, in many former colonies white people are overrepresented in Academia in contrast to the general population, and academic production is often only recognized if written in European languages. In Peru, for instance, only now in 2019 the first academic thesis was published in Quechua, a group of languages with around 8 million speakers. Writing a history that is not based on the perspective of a white, European, male and English speaking minority may be the real challenge of Global History - and one that is worth tackling in the near future. Otherwise, the next generations of Historians will have to keep asking themselves “Why is my curriculum white?”.
After explaining the Eurocentric origin or terms such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, Osterhammel continues to use them throughout the book. He also repeatedly uses words to refer to ethnic groups that have been disavowed by members of these groups, such as “mulatto”, or “indian” referring to the natives of the Americas.
Another example would be the chapter on Knowledge, that, despite the broad name, is about the expansion of a German model of research university, and references to other forms of knowledge are done en passant. In the same chapter, he claims “Bans on the use of indigenous languages, for example, were among the most hated measures in the whole history of colonialism”, only a few pages after saying that “Some have argued that precisely because of this apolitical conception of itself, Oriental studies “objectively” played into the hands of Western world domination— a charge that would be serious indeed if the supremacy of Western knowledge had demonstrably incapacitated Asians and Africans or reduced them to silence. However, it is not easy to find evidence that colonialism suppressed the knowledge of indigenous peoples about their own civilization”. The problem is that quoting literacy rates or numbers of people who can speak English or French hide dynamics of power. The knowledge being spread was far from neutral, and that needs to be addressed. Almost a century after the period Osterhammel covers, writer Scholastique Mukasonga wrote a novel called Our Lady of the Nile about girls in an elite French-speaking boarding school in Rwanda in the beginning of the 90s, just before the Genocide. In that school, they learn that Europe has history, and Africa has only Geography. Mali writer Hampate Ba points out that the idea of knowledge imported from Europe to Africa was compartmentalized - the study of Biology, History and Religion as separate things for instance. However, in Africa the oral tradition doesn’t follow the same division, he says it was at the same time religion, art, history, science and amusement. Also it wasn’t written, leading it to be seen as non existent - Africans were called in the 19th century, like in the boarding school of Mukasonga, people without History. But they were also seen as people without science, art or even religion, or at the maximum with primitive forms of it. In other areas of knowledge, medicine still deals with the consequences of the fact that the body of white men was taken as universal. A recent report of the University of Virginia showed that 58% of white doctors in the US believe that black people have thicker skin, while 20% believed that they feel less pain. That comes from researches made in the 19th century that meant to justify slavery, and that were considered sound science for over a century after that. Similarly, a 2001 study by researchers at Maryland University found that women nowadays are less likely to receive aggressive treatment when diagnosed with pain and are more likely to have their pain dismissed. Women have also been found to be prescribed strong painkillers less often, and at lower doses than men. And equally we can trace that back to the institutionalization of medical knowledge in the 19th century, with, for instance, the new approach to the diagnosis of hysteria.
In the following chapter, on the Civilizing Mission, he has one of the most problematic quotes of the book, “In numerous cases this was used to justify aggression, violence, and plunder. Civilizational imperialism lurked within every kind of civilizing mission. On the other hand, the relative dynamism and ingenuity of Western European and neo-European societies should not be ignored. The asymmetry at the level of historical initiative was temporarily in favor of “the West,” so that others appeared to see no future for themselves except in imitating it and trying hard to catch it up”. In spite of all his attempts of not being Eurocentric, Osterhammel still puts Europe in the centre of his narrative, as a model and motor to the history being told.
One of the criticisms often levelled against Global History is that it is a History written using such broad patterns that people disappear. Using the gender perspective, Historian Judith P. Zinsser showed how analysis of cause and effect in World History seem neutral, but are actually male centered. That is a great risk with Global History, that by making it broad and disregarding people’s actual experiences, it may reinforce historical inequalities.
An example in Latin America would be his short recounting of the abolition of slavery in Brazil. He portrays it as a “the last spectacular official action of the monarchy under the princess regent, Isabel”. The economic explanation repeated by Osterhammel - that slavery had lost its finantial value - has long been seen as outdated. 5 million enslaved Africans had been taken to Brazil, abolitionist movements had been formed right away, and however only now Brazilian academia starts to see black protagonism in the abolition. The works of professors such as Angela Alonso, Ricardo Tadeu Caires Silva and Maria Helena Machado are some examples of current studies showing how little importance the princess really had in the process. In Osterhammel’s book, however, her name is the only one mentioned. Global History done without people’s experiences remains a history from above.