- Jun 8, 2019
Hello Patine, how is you doing? I remember you when I argue if Haiti can be or not can be considered as an Empire.
If you want to speak about racial issues let's do it at this link. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/historical-argument-that-was-in-the-wrong-forum.659194/
You literally just bundled a bunch of people together as Mongolish and included Indians as Caucasian to reach the conclusion that most leaders in Civ are Caucasian. It's like you're going out of your way to not be taken seriously.
It's the New, New.
Not sure if it is going to be a fad or not.
This thread is Evil.
I've learned to stay away from these topics.
I already regret posting in this thread but what is done is done.
History is often written from the perspective of the victors. Even the most scrupulous Historians are bound to see the world through their cultural lens. It's not as if they dropped on Earth from outer space. The period of colonisation was a period of Western domination, and unsurprisingly Histories written in that period by Europeans for Europeans are going to be written from an European perspective. A great many people, likely the majority, still fall for the millennia old view sold by the Romans that northern Europe was populated by a bunch of barbarians with hardly any culture. European Historians of the last two centuries aren't immune to cultural, emotional and ideological considerations which might cloud their findings and interpretation of events. And certainly not the European Historians which lived through the Romantic period, many of whom of liberal political affiliations who were often all too eager to push their "fresh-out-of-the-oven-with-a-sprinkle-of-fact" national histories.
I don't see how that would apply to Britannica, it sounds like he just dismissed it because the name resembles Britain and in his mind Britain = white = untrustworthy, which seems a rather judgemental and careless way to go about things, but your whimpering is hardly any better.