A non-Eurocentric periodization of global history is needed to account for the crucial intercontinental circulation of humans, ideas, resources, practices, and goods as part of the contributions of the non-Western world to modernity. Non-European influences should also be reflected on and expanded into existing institutions. On the one hand, if the concrete material conditions in the “Global South” do not radically change, non-Eurocentric approaches will not have a wide-ranging societal impact. On the other, anti-Eurocentric and postcolonial thought contain the pitfalls of Asio- and Afrocentrism, and are equally ahistorical. Both Eurocentrism and reverse-Orientalism bear the risk of misconstruing Asio-African, Latin American, and Caribbean dynamics between the 8th and 18th centuries (in the case of Eurocentrics) and Euro-American empires and nations from the 16th to the 21st century (in the case of anti-Eurocentrics). Moreover, the postmodern and postcolonial overemphasis on contingency and suspicion towards terms such as “pre-capitalist,” “backward,” and “progress” misrepresents historical realities and power relations, and, thus, abets the idea of cultural relativism. Connected and comparative methodologies are necessary if we want to understand the global co-production of historical processes, to discern similarities and differences, to comprehend the reasons behind disparate levels of development, and to capture asymmetrical power relations.