So I'm not sure if this question belongs here but it deals more with the Craft of Historians, or more, how Historians write about their topics. If it doesn't belong, I apologize but I want sure where else to ask.
I have never done any formal study of history outside what was required in High School/ University but I love reading about history so I'm not sure if the problem I'm having is a valid one.
I'm making my way through a book on Maya and Aztec people and the author repeatedly references the accomplishments, actions, etc. of military and political leaders to (mostly) European counterparts. The context of the book is all pre-contact but references comparing Mexica rulers to Machiavelli or Cromwell are peppered throughout (I am only 1/4 through the book but it has happened frequently).
On the one hand I understand the author is approaching a topic that is going to be unfamiliar to most with historical figures the average population has never heard of so providing them with a reference they might be familiar with could be helpful. It just seems to be frustratingly reinforcing a White/European standard by which to judge other people/societies.
I was hoping to read a book about the history of my ancestors but it comes off as much more a 'look these brown people were just as smart/skilled as white people'. Surely there is a way to discuss/ approach the achievements of non-European societies that doesn't require using Europeans as the measure or reference point. Or does that even matter? Am I reading too much into nothing?
On top of that he has occasionally used the dichotomy of barbarian/ civilized when referring to different groups which, to me, just seems a loaded way to refer to different societies/culture, forcing a value judgement on the reader about those two groups.
So I guess all this is to get to my question: are these issues I, as a layperson, be concerned about when approaching this particular book, or are these just commonly accepted methods of writing about history and I making a big deal about nothing?
First, though I'm not a mod, I would think this question is fair game for r/askhistorians. You're literally asking historians something about their profession and how it's done.
It would help to know the name of the book and author, because context is everything.
On the one hand I understand the author is approaching a topic that is going to be unfamiliar to most with historical figures the average population has never heard of so providing them with a reference they might be familiar with could be helpful.
You're hitting the nail on the head here. Historians, especially when approaching topics that are typically not on the public school curriculum (i.e. Western History, for the most part), will dip into that well to at least give the reader something relatable.
A good comparison of this might be maps that overlay one country over another, to compare sizes and distances you might not have seen before.
Take a comparison like this: The adoption of Buddhism in the Tibetan Empire in the eighth century had an effect upon Tibetan society similar to the effects that Christianity had on Rome. (An example I used relatively recently)
I suppose there might be some argument that one might be trying to draw comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism, or the general civilizing effect of organizing religion to the denigration of local religions, or the even more general idea that Tibet is a barbarian state that needs to be organized by something more familiar, i.e. our conception of Buddhism, equated with something a reader or listener might be more aware of: Christianity and the Roman Empire.
Another example might be, "Nalanda was the place of study for Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, and Xuanzang. For medieval Buddhism, this would be equivalent to Darwin, Freud, and Marx having all studied at the same university."
Most people (certainly not in English) won't know Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, or Xuanzang, three of the most famous Buddhist monks in Mahayana history. So it's disorienting, and means pretty much nothing. But we know the effect that Marx, Freud, and Darwin had on modern history, as they are household names. So we can understand a bit more the impact that the former Buddhist monks had on Mahayana Buddhism with a comparison that we are more familiar. Otherwise, it's just a list of names, and the effect is lost.
In specialist literature, however, metaphors like this are generally discouraged because they're never precise, and always open to intense debate.
In my work, I often come across authors who try to compare the three main branches of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) with the three main branches of Christianity (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism). I've seen comparisons made between Catholicism and Theravada (being the most conservative), Protestantism with Mahayana (being the "reform" of the Theravada) and Orthodoxy with the Vajrayana (being the most mystical of the three).
I've also seen the Geluk sect of Vajrayana Buddhism itself being compared directly to both Catholicism (because it has an organized hierarchy with specific rules and a comparative god-king-like figure often asked if he is "the Pope of Buddhism") and Protestantism (mainly by Robert Thurman, who usually calls Tsong kha pa, the founder of the Geluk, the "Great Reformer" and compares him with Martin Luther).
Every one of those comparisons is riddled with problems. In context, they may become slightly more useful (i.e. for Robert Thurman who goes around telling people how great "Tibetan Buddhism" is and then pushes mostly or only Geluk texts and teachings) to understand. Using them in specialist literature, however, would be greeted with nothing but laughter because specialists would be able to identify all of the problems right away and wouldn't need the comparisons to begin with.
Basically, no, you're not making a big deal out of nothing. Part of this is the historical process: reading literature and critically assessing its contents. If you looked into the author and found out he's a Neo-Nazi of some kind, you might want to look twice at his comparisons (just for example). If you research more about those figures who are compared to Machiavelli or Cromwell, you might find the comparisons to be appropriate in context, or to be useful for initiates into the subject of Mesoamerican studies. Or you might find them ultimately confusing or self-defeating for new students.