Western Europe in South-West India - Essay Example

Western Europe in South-West India The issue of influencing one part of the world through learning and diffusing practices learnt, acquired, and transferred from one section of the world to the other section remains controversial to date. In fact, different authors provide different viewpoints about various places in the world using different perspectives, which might have a bias or even based on their judgment that might be true or false. Hence, different sources of information will depict a part of the world in a different light. For example, one set of authors might indicate the absence of nothing positive to learn from one part of the world. On the other hand, a different set of authors might provide a positive viewpoint of the same part of the world provided by the first set of authors. Nonetheless, the differences in the differing viewpoints are a result of the different undertakings that these authors carried out in order to build their opinions and justifications for their viewpoints. In their separate articles, Richard Grove and James D. Tracy provide two different viewpoints of Europe’s involvement in the South East Asia during the Renaissance period. In this case, the two authors use different sources to provide evidence about two differing sets of societies in South East Asia that Europeans interacted with during this period. On one hand, Grove presents a dark side of the region during the time the Dutch East India Company carried out its operations. In this regard, Grove’s article depicts a region whose leaders represented an illustration of ways not to govern territories since the authors used sources that identified the leadership of the Asian region as despotic. In effect, Grove does not identify any influential role that the region played in Europe. On the other hand, James D. Tracy's article identifies the region as influential in developing medicine and botany in Europe. In this case, Tracy’s sources outline the influential role of the South East Asia society in developing classification systems and defining contemporary medicine and botany. Hence, this expose is an analysis of these differing viewpoints and identifies the authors disagreement due to the various sources used in developing the two disagreeing articles. In a synopsis, Grove’s article is a description of what the Portuguese and Dutch learnt from their interaction with the indigenous communities in South-West India. The author indicates the simulation of an awareness of the wider world in Western Europe. In addition, the author indicates that the voyages and the explorations enabled the development of natural history and the status of government. In this case, the article seems to indicate that the Dutch and Portuguese and the entire Western Europe benefited from their interactions with South-East Asia. For example, as the first explorers, the Portuguese had earlier settled and occupied territories of the indigenous people of South-West India. In line with this, the Portuguese explorative agenda was instrumental in accelerating the renewed interest in botanic gardens and medicine, which was through the knowledge offered by the indigenous communities in South-West India.1Conversely, the author argues that the Dutch’s replacement of the Portuguese in South-West India also benefited the Dutch since they interacted with the local communities and established a relationship that contributed to modern-day medicine and classification system.2 To deliver the argument about the benefits that the Portuguese and Dutch accrued from these communities, the author argues that European and Asian constructions of nature are a result of the South-West India and the Leiden botanic gardens incorporation.3 The author identifies two texts as core in the diffusion of botanic gardens into the explorative nature of the Europeans. The first of this text is the Coloquioso by Da Orta while the other text is Hortus Malabaricus by Van Reede.4 The author identifies these two texts as not inherently Europeans, but a combination of South Asian and Middle Eastern compilations organized as precepts that were not European. The author also uses non-Brahminical epistemology and texts to depict the transformation of the European botanic science.5 In this case, the author identifies the use of this text, rather than the use of text that is Brahminical, due to its ability to impose an indigenous technical logic to explaining the diffusion of the botanic gardens. Overall, the author argues that Western Europe benefited from the interactions and engaging with the communities in South-West India. In contrast, James D. Tracy’s essay does not recognize any positive impact of South-West India to the Europeans other than the approach of not governing a nation. In line with this, Tracy dedicates the entire article to analyze the role of Asian despots on Europeans interests in the east.6To support the argument, Tracy relied on letters and reports compiled by the Dutch and the English India Company, respectively known as the VOC and EIC.7It is instrumental to point out that the Dutch forced Portuguese out of the key trading area of Moluccas by using suppressive tactics to occupy the market. Hence, Tracy uses documentation from VOC due to the early modern European writing that focused on English sources when discussing India. The author also chose the Surat factory due to its strategic position. In line with this, the factory was the best source of political information on Mughal.8 Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the two authors disagree on the benefits Western Europe accrued from its incursion in South-West India. In this regard, Tracy identifies how the Asian despots used their positions to control trade and operations of VOC. In addition, the article does not give a positive viewpoint of the local communities since Tracy identified local officials and communities as corruptible. On the other hand, Grove identifies the important role that the local communities played in diffusing botanic gardens and classification into the European setup. The disagreement arises from the various sources that each author relied upon while writing their respective articles. Grove relied on Da Orta and Van Reede’s articles to author this descriptive essay. Da Orta’s work focused on the benefits and renewed interest of the Portuguese after they explored territories in South-West Asia. It is instructive to note that these two authors dedicated their work towards botanic establishment and its diffusion to the European world.9 Da Orta was a physician while Van Reede was a Dutch administrator interested in naturalism and authored his book against the will of VOC, which required its administrators to engage in business activities that helped the company flourish.10 Hence, these two authors provided a positive outlook of the local communities in South-West India and the way they benefited Western botany and contemporary medicine. Conversely, Tracy heavily relies on memoirs written by VOC commanders, based in the Sirat factory, to provide an overview of the local communities’ involvement in the affairs of the Company. As such, Tracy identifies the local communities led by their leaders as not supportive in the Company’s affairs unless when they were benefitting from the trade opportunities offered by the company and in terms of the expected privileges. In this case, Tracy used memoirs from company Commanders, sojourners, and travelling writers who authored work regarding the VOC operations. In effect, the article authored by Tracy is an observation of the despotic leadership provided by the Emperors with the local communities responding in a similar fashion and inhibiting the operations of VOC. Conversely, the disagreement by these two authors might be based on different theories. On one hand, Tracy develops the theory of Asian despotism while the theory developed and followed by Grove identifies the prominent role played by local communities in diffusing botanic knowledge in Western Europe. Briefly, the authors’ differences appear irreconcilable due to the varying viewpoints from the different authors used to develop their work. In this case, focusing on two different aspects contributed to the conflict between these two authors. However, several questions abound regarding the way to solve this disagreement. The first question regards the failure by Da Orta’s text to analyze any negative impact of the leaders in South-West India during his time and activities. In line with this, Van Reede, as an administrator, might have faced challenges from the local leaders and the Emperor during his operations. However, his text does not indicate any inhibition. Hence, if Da Orta and Van Reede outlined any inhibiting factor that prevented them from achieving their goals, would the article by Grove agree with the article by Tracy regarding despotism in South-West India? Conversely, Grove relied heavily on memoirs by Commanders to author the article. Therefore, would have a different approach of using text from other sources have provided the benefits the Dutch accrued in South-West India? In effect, using other sources would have agreed with Grove’s article regarding the benefits of the Dutch’s engagement in South-West India. References Grove, Richard. “Indigenous knowledge and the significance of South-West India for Portuguese and Dutch Constructions of Tropical Nature.” Modern Asian Studies 30,1 (1996): 121-141. Tracy, James D. “Asian Despotism? Mughal government as seen from the Dutch East India Company factory in Surat.” Journal of Early Modern History 3,3 (1999): 256-279. Read More