by Globalization has greatly changed modern societies, altering how we view space and time. This increasing interconnectedness has expanded social interactions and created a shared understanding of time and space, which in turn has shaped the way we study history, a field that is closely tied to these concepts. Global history, at its core, examines connections between diverse historical spaces and the interplay of time periods.
Rather than being a “planetary” or “history of everything,” global history focuses on processes, connections, and integration. It invites us to broaden our perspectives, foster dialogue, and engage with the world in its “diverse colors,” as scholar Matthew Brown suggests. This approach is particularly crucial for understanding regions like Latin America, where societies have been profoundly shaped by interactions with other parts of the world.
French historian Fernand Braudel observed that historical analysis has traditionally been grounded in Eurocentric frameworks rooted in European intellectual traditions from the 15th to 18th centuries. This perspective has often depicted Latin Americans as passive victims rather than active contributors to global history, with their pre-1950s history largely overlooked. The rise of global history in the 1990s, driven by the end of the bipolar world order and accelerating globalization, sought to create a more inclusive historiography (De Lima Grecco & Schuster, 2020: 425). However, despite global history flourishing in Europe, the United States, and Asia, its presence in Latin America remains somewhat marginal.
Since the 19th and 20th centuries, Latin American historians and interdisciplinary scholars have worked to integrate the region’s history into global narratives, challenging Eurocentrism and calling for a reorientation of historical knowledge (De Lima Grecco & Schuster, 2020: 430). Despite these efforts, Latin America still occupies a peripheral position in global history. Often overshadowed by narratives focused on networks and connections, the region is treated as “a star among many in the firmament of global history,” yet its unique contributions remain underexplored.
Scholars like De Lima Grecco and Schuster argue that many categories used by global historians fail to fully capture Latin America’s diverse historical realities. This limitation arises not from academic nationalism but from the methodological and conceptual frameworks employed to understand the region’s history. Historian Jeremy Adelman critiques the global turn as often seeming like another Anglophone invention, where non-European perspectives are incorporated into inherently Eurocentric narratives. These voices are frequently filtered through English, presenting a “dubbed” version of their original context. To avoid perpetuating exclusion, global history must address its Anglocentrism by embracing greater academic openness. As Matthew Brown and Sebastian Conrad stress, English should not dominate scholarly discourse, as its hegemony marginalizes other historiographic traditions and restricts non-English speakers from fully expressing or defending their ideas.
The linguistic dominance of English has substantial implications for global history. While European and U.S. historians of Latin America have increasingly acquired Spanish and Portuguese language skills for archival research, Latin American historians have been slower to access sources in other languages, particularly English. This linguistic gap has contributed to a more regional and parochial approach to scholarship, limiting authentic intellectual exchange. Paradoxically, the globalization of academia has reinforced the Global North’s dominance in historiographical production. Nonetheless, recent efforts show progress, as Latin American historians develop language skills and engage with diverse cultural and historiographical perspectives, offering the potential for a more balanced and inclusive global history.
Latin American Historiography in Action: The Socio-Political and Cultural Contributions of Colombia, Ecuador, and Brazil
Efforts to integrate Latin America into global history have underscored the region’s profound socio-political and cultural contributions, particularly in countries like Colombia and Brazil. Historians and intellectuals such as Gilberto Freyre and Jaime Jaramillo have been instrumental in challenging Eurocentric narratives, advocating for the recognition of diverse sources, methodologies, and perspectives beyond Europe and the United States. Their work, alongside that of many other Latin American scholars, has emphasized the global significance of non-Western regions in shaping modernity and historical processes. As explored in this discussion, Latin American historiography has engaged deeply with themes such as race, cultural exchange, music, and social practices, placing the region at the center of global historical inquiry rather than at its margins.
For instance, Brazilian sociologist Gilberto Freyre revolutionized the study of ethnic and cultural hybridization with his seminal work Casa-Grande & Senzala (1933). His insights explore the intersections of European, indigenous, and African cultures in Brazil, challenging traditional historical narratives and contributing to postcolonial and global history discussions. Freyre’s work is foundational to the “microhistory of globalization,” offering a framework to understand cultural exchanges on a global scale.
By addressing topics like language, food, and housing, Freyre framed Brazil’s colonial past as a site of global interaction, illustrating how its identity was shaped through cultural exchanges. His concepts of hybridization and mestizaje enrich global history by introducing Latin American perspectives that reinterpret global phenomena.
Another valuable contribution emerges from studies on nation-building in Latin America, particularly by Colombian historians. Frederic Martínez’s Cosmopolitan Nationalism explores the relationship between Colombia and Europe, analyzing the exchange of ideas and cultural influences between the two continents. These interactions were key in shaping Colombian national identity through transnational contacts. Latin American historiography has thus cultivated a tradition of dialogue between local events and global processes, blending unity with diversity.
Many Colombian historians emphasize the importance of interpreting Colombia’s history within a globalized context. They argue that global systems can be analyzed while maintaining academic rigor, focusing on how modern concepts of identity intersect with broader social and political practices. Historians such as Juan Camilo Rodríguez and Jaime Jaramillo contribute to this approach through works like Travel literature as a historical source and The vision of others: Colombia seen by foreign observers in the 19th century. Jaramillo’s analysis of travel writings offers valuable insights into political, economic, and cultural developments in 19th-century Colombia.
Yet, despite the promise of this approach, there are significant challenges. In parts of Latin America, history departments remain focused on national perspectives in their research and curricula. A striking example of this is Ecuador’s first secular school, the Instituto Nacional Mejía, which, established in 1897, created a clear division between Historia Nacional (National History) and Historia Universal (World History)—a separation that still influences educational structures today. This divide, Brown suggests, reflects the deep influence of historians’ professional loyalties, training, and institutional affiliations (Brown, 2015). The discipline’s gradual shift from national to global perspectives highlights the difficulty in responding to the complexities of a rapidly globalizing world.
Recent trends in global history show promising progress, with historical journals increasingly exploring neighboring countries and integrating innovations from diverse linguistic and cultural contexts (Brown, 2015). The challenge, however, lies in balancing participation in global scholarly discourse with amplifying local voices in their own languages. Achieving this balance is essential for fostering an inclusive exchange of knowledge and shaping a Latin American historiography that remains globally informed yet firmly rooted in regional realities.
Crafting a more balanced history—one that neither marginalizes underrepresented voices nor glorifies dominant narratives—remains a complex but essential task. While global history has made notable progress in decentering Eurocentric perspectives, much remains to be done. The goal is to develop explanatory models that truly reflect the diversity and interconnectedness of the past. This endeavor requires continuous reflection, methodological innovation, and active engagement with perspectives often sidelined in mainstream historiographies, paving the way for a more inclusive, human-centered understanding of history.
Daniela Padilla has a M.Sc. International and Securiy Politics, Catholic University of Lille/ESPOL, France, and is a DDRN Intern
To further explore this topic and deepen your understanding of the complex interplay between global and Latin American history, here are some recommended articles and books:
