In discussing the meaning and definition of “world” history, Sachsenmaier and Hughes-Warrington place the conversation within the context of historical writing and historical scholarship. Each also illustrates the ways that historians throughout history have written down and interpreted historical events. Most notably, how much of history is through the lens of a Euro-centric viewpoint. In Sachsenaier’s writing, he defines “world” history as going beyond that of a single community or narrative and to understand that history isn’t a clear cut well defined dimension and that has “reached far beyond single political realms or cultural habitats” (Sachsenmaier, page 57). In other words, history cannot be defined by a single community or area but needs to be inclusive. In Hughes-Warrington’s writing, he notes how “world” history is not a simple term and is complex. Hugh-Warrington focuses on the…show more content… In Hughes-Warrington’s piece, she notes how when discussing world history, we should speak of it as ‘world histories’ rather than the term ‘world history’. The implication is that ‘world histories’ combats the Eurocentric hegemony that existed in scholarship and historical narratives throughout the world and that there are many histories of various cultures and people that have existed and whose narratives should be heard. In Sachsenmaier’s piece, he is talking about how we should increase the communication among historians around the world in order to have a more diverse conversation about world history. He sees this as a “worldwide community of letters” where historians can debate, collaborate, and challenge world views in order to move forward the discipline of history. At the end of the piece, Sachsenmaier is critical of current academic system because it is till rooted in division and international
