Western historiography placed the indigenous Asia beyond the court political centers and the most commercially prominent ports-of-trade in the background of an exogenous (colonial) foreground. Western historical research from the sixteenth century onward privileged selected aspects and voices of the exogenous, focusing on the Arabic and Persian Middle East, India, China, and the West, represented from the nineteenth century onward by the terms Islamization, Indianization, Sinification, and Westernization. Today, historians who study the Indian Ocean give “agency” to things indigenous when they are juxtaposed to things exogenous. Local activities, events, beliefs, institutions, communities, individuals, and historical narratives are emphasized, given weight, and “privileged” over dependency on the exogenous. Simply taking agency away from the exogenous and giving it to the indigenous may seem to be a more realistic approach to overcoming the “from the deck of a ship” critique, but the issue of emphasis and privileging at the expense of “another” remains. Historians researching the non-West have tempered their previously held stance on this issue and now admit the depth and scale of influence that major exogenous civilizations (e.g., the Middle East, China, India, and the West) have had on some local cultures.