Eurocentrism

[Absolution]

This is hilarious. Fantastic joke.

Well you can not argue with how the world looks like toady:

African borders were drawn by Europeans.
Different cultures around the world use the European concept of "surname" and "given name"
Most states follow the nationalistic European concept of a state - with a national anthem, a flag, an emblem, a moto, and such.

So you can't argue that in the past ~250 years Europe actually rules the world.

But in previous centuries-
It is true that civilizations in the Indian subcontinent and in China produced great culture, architecture, religion, law, armies and more.
But Indians and other southern/central Asians were brought down quite easily in their first clash with Europeans.
Chinese, as much as I know, beside trading, didn't have much political interface with far away cultures, compared to Europeans / western/southern Asians. I might be wrong though.

And the rest of the world - most of Africa, Native Americans, and most of Central Asian history, are not much of a contest to Europeans...

*when I write about Eurocentrism, Ottomans are included.

And if we talk about pre-1300~ AD, than indeed we can divide it into several distinct centres of civilization, each one with its dominant cultures.

 

[Smellincoffee]

See, it's precisely because I was raised in the West that I find it kinda boring. Been there, done that. Learned about it in school and life for years. It's old. That's one of the reasons I find places like the Caucasus, Persia, Central Asia, and occasionally modern Africa so interesting.

It's true that familiarity breeds contempt. I had started to take the western heritage for granted, and preferred studying other, more interesting cultures, until I realized how much of mine was being lost to modernity. I still enjoy experiencing other cultures, but I find the deepest satisfaction in understanding the west more fully. Every culture has so many layers it's impossible to know them all; just this week, for instance, I've been reading a play I know well, Romeo and Juliet, but a guide book is opening my eyes to all of the mythic references interwoven into it.

What special claim does Europe have to the Greek inheritance that cannot equally be claimed by Arabia ("Arabia")?

The Arabic world has long forsaken the zealous study of science, and never built on its political principles. There's also the fact that modern Europeans are closer genetically to the Greeks than are the Arabs.

So, while we're all patting ourselves on the back about belonging to western culture, how many people here are practicing orthodox Christians?

I began an association with the Anglican church precisely for its historical roots. I also have a sympathy for Catholicism, but my own religious views are closer to deism than orthodoxy. Besides, I like the solid English connection.

That is a beautiful piece of text. I agree.

Thank you.

 

[Krajzen]

Well you can not argue with how the world looks like toady:

African borders were drawn by Europeans.
Different cultures around the world use the European concept of "surname" and "given name"
Most states follow the nationalistic European concept of a state - with a national anthem, a flag, an emblem, a moto, and such.

So you can't argue that in the past ~250 years Europe actually rules the world.

Well, in terms of culture and science it is obvious that Western Europe has dominated the world in last... 250 years. Although last decades see such big contributions of Japanese/Korean/Chinese/Indian science that saying 'science is only in Europe' is definitely not fair.

But saying it actually rules the world for last 250 years is technically wrong

In terms of actual imperial domination Europe (...including Latin America) was dominating the world approximately between half of 19th and half of 20th century.

On one hand, influence of Europe on Orient:
- law and politics
- modern science
- parts of European culture (tuxedos, golf etc )
- economic solutions

On another hand, influence of Orient on Europe:
- before 16th century: really many technological and scientific solutions which, along Greek and Arabian science, begun scientific revolution
- pretty huge spiritual, philosophical and religious influences
- parts of Oriental culture (kung fu, oriental arts etc )

But Indians and other southern/central Asians were brought down quite easily in their first clash with Europeans.

It depends on which country you are talking about

India was brought down because it was extremely fragmented on countless factions which were manipulated by British Empire and falling in its sphere o influence one by one (British also had enormous advantage in global trade and naval tradition).

Afghanistan, on the other hand, completely annihilated the British expedition sent to it - but hey this is Afghanistan

Siam, Persia, Ethiopia, Arabia and Japan managed to avoid colonialism.

China and Ottoman Empire were simply too big for European empires to annex (as you can see, united India rather wouldn't be conquered by British)

Some areas were slowly dominated using various economic or military means (India, Indochina), some were dominated as some kind of semi independent protectorates, some were conquered by military means relatively easily (most of Africa - Zulu are very overrated...) and some were conquered but after strong resistance and heavy European losses (from what I remember, Ashanti and Sikh were very hard to conquer by British empire).

Chinese, as much as I know, beside trading, didn't have much political interface with far away cultures, compared to Europeans / western/southern Asians. I might be wrong though.

You are rather right although I wouldn't underrate Chinese trade

And the rest of the world - most of Africa, Native Americans, and most of Central Asian history, are not much of a contest to Europeans...

I definitely wouldn't count Central Asia as not a historical contest to Europe. I mean, of course Europe was more developed, but man when steppe hordes were angry Europe was terrified If I remember properly, Moscow was last time burned by some Horde in late 16th century

Native Americans had extremely bad luck and much worse geographical conditions. Although world still seems to be impressed by pre - Columbian culture and architecture

Personally I am annoyed by the fact that everyone knows Aztec and Incan empire were massacred by very small force of Europeans, but for some reason following facts are usually unknown:
1) Epidemies brought by Europeans didn't exactly weakened Native America as almost completely annihilated it and Europeans were conquering the ruins of former glory
Come on, show me a civilisation which performs good in war when 93% of its populaton is wiped out by a plague.
2) Aztec Empire was brought down not by 500 Spaniards but by 500 Spaniards and dozens of thousands of natives allied with them to destroy Aztec regime
3) Incan Empire was indeed conquered by group of Spaniards... During a massive civil war
4) Native Americans weren't dominated by Europeans as much as we tend to assume - it annoys me that while everyone knows about complete fail of Aztec/Inca, only few people know for example about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War


----------------------------

On the other hand, yeah, I have to agree that most of Africa was ages behind Europe Europe. The same with pre - European Canada, Brasil, Australia, Oceania, Siberia and so on. I guess these areas were bad for the rise of civilisations.

 

[Tahuti]

There's also the fact that modern Europeans are closer genetically to the Greeks than are the Arabs.

Arabs and Greeks are genetically more similar to each other than Greeks are to Englishmen. The Eastern Mediterranean in general shows a vastly different genetic make up than language types would seem to suggest, though they are very correlative to geography.

I began an association with the Anglican church precisely for its historical roots. I also have a sympathy for Catholicism, but my own religious views are closer to deism than orthodoxy. Besides, I like the solid English connection.

I have a similar problem. I have sympathy for this and sympathy for that, including Catholicism. I was initiated to Orthodox Judaism as an infant, though haven't had a connection with it since my mum lapsed in her practice, other than my ethnic background.

I find Orthodox Christianity highly appealing, but neither side of family has a connection with that, my father being Jewish, my mother having converted to Judaism from Calvinism. I might have converted nevertheless had I agreed fully with its theology.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Arabic world has long forsaken the zealous study of science

Is that particularly characteristic of Classical Greece? There were individuals who studied what we'd now call science, yes, but were they typical or even representative in their interests?

...and never built on its political principles.

Which principles are those? Please don't say "democracy", because that whole silly mythology has been discredited a thousand times over.

There's also the fact that modern Europeans are closer genetically to the Greeks than are the Arabs.

...Even assuming for purposes of argument that this is true (it isn't, it really, really isn't), what does it have to do with anything?

 

[Absolution]

Krajzen, I really enjoyed reading your post.

Unlike several others here; who overrate every godforsaken proto-urban culture that is not European, for the sake showing off their anti-Eurocentrsim; your post was honest

But still, I'd like to add add some:

Well, in terms of culture and science it is obvious that Western Europe has dominated the world in last... 250 years. Although last decades see such big contributions of Japanese/Korean/Chinese/Indian science that saying 'science is only in Europe' is definitely not fair.

But saying it actually rules the world for last 250 yearsis technically wrong

In terms of actual imperial domination Europe (...including Latin America) was dominating the world approximately between half of 19th and half of 20th century.

On one hand, influence of Europe on Orient:
- law and politics
- modern science
- parts of European culture (tuxedos, golf etc )
- economic solutions

On another hand, influence of Orient on Europe:
- before 16th century: really many technological and scientific solutions which, along Greek and Arabian science, begun scientific revolution
- pretty huge spiritual, philosophical and religious influences
- parts of Oriental culture (kung fu, oriental arts etc )

As much as I know, the first two of the Oriental(?) influences are much earlier, not more than the 13th century.
And the third is... you know... no that important...

Siam, Persia, Ethiopia, Arabia and Japan managed to avoid colonialism.

China and Ottoman Empire were simply too big for European empires to annex (as you can see, united India rather wouldn't be conquered by British)

As I have mentioned before, I don't see the Ottomans as protectors of Arabia from foreign imperialism, but rather as foreign imperialists themselves
The Arab culture was in a deep decline since the Ottoman occupation, and most (if not all) of their contribution to global culture and technology ended with the Central Asiatic invasions (and particularly the Ottomans...).
Much of the characteristics of a colonialized civilization can be seen in the Arab culture during and after the Ottoman dominance.
But that's not for the Eurocentrism discussion...

In the context, my point is, that I don't think that Europeans viewed the Ottomans as a "less developed culture" or as a distant land to colonize, but rather as another one of their "equal" continental enemies (or allies).

Some areas were slowly dominated using various economic or military means (India, Indochina), some were dominated as some kind of semi independent protectorates, some were conquered by military means relatively easily (most of Africa - Zulu are very overrated...) and some were conquered but after strong resistance and heavy European losses (from what I remember, Ashanti and Sikh were very hard to conquer by British empire).

The fact that we use to point out the occasions in which other civilizations could resist the Europeans, shows that in general, Europe was the dominant force in those times.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Arabs and Greeks are genetically more similar to each other than Greeks are to Englishmen. The Eastern Mediterranean in general shows a vastly different genetic make up than language types would seem to suggest, though they are very correlative to geography.

Is that particularly characteristic of Classical Greece? There were individuals who studied what we'd now call science, yes, but were they typical or even representative in their interests?


Which principles are those? Please don't say "democracy", because that whole silly mythology has been discredited a thousand times over.


...Even assuming for purposes of argument that this is true (it isn't, it really, really isn't), what does it have to do with anything?

Regarding Greek ethnicity, I wasn't aware of any close link between the Arabs and Greeks, but I'll happily concede error on my part if both sides are indicating it. All of the Greek people I have known have had mixed family histories, so far as I knew Greeks look like most western Europeans. As for its relevance, Traitorfish, you asked what greater claim on the Greeks the Europeans could make than the Arabs. If one cannot claim blood, what can you claim?

As for democracy, I am not aware of Athens' experience being revealed as fraud on Mythbusters. To be sure, the Athenian way was not representative of the Greeks as a whole, but when we say Greeks, we meant Athenians, unless we mean Spartans. What other city-state in Hellas contributed as much? If you wish to dismiss its claims of democracy as fraud because not everyone participated, or because their society and inequalities, then we are as fraudulent as they. Genuine democracy has never seen the light of day, and we will never see it so long as the means of production are not distributed wide and far, to every household, so that everyone can stand and vote for himself, and not as a member of an elite or a victimized caste. This is a Greek ideal, one of self-reliance, of a man having his own farm to sustain him, his own voice in the assembly, and his own duty and place in the ranks to defend it. There are other virtues of the Greeks, but this is not the thread for them.

As for silly mythologies -- no mythology is silly, except to materialists who wage war on human nature. Mythologies need not be factually true to speak truth to the spirit.

 

[Takhisis]

So, while we're all patting ourselves on the back about belonging to western culture, how many people here are practicing orthodox Christians?

Define 'orthodox'.

Is that particularly characteristic of Classical Greece? There were individuals who studied what we'd now call science, yes, but were they typical or even representative in their interests?

I recommend that you rea Robert Flacelière's Daily life in Athens in the time of Pericles, but, having read it, my answer would be an emphatic no, with exceptions.

 

[Traitorfish]

Regarding Greek ethnicity, I wasn't aware of any close link between the Arabs and Greeks, but I'll happily concede error on my part if both sides are indicating it. All of the Greek people I have known have had mixed family histories, so far as I knew Greeks look like most western Europeans. As for its relevance, Traitorfish, you asked what greater claim on the Greeks the Europeans could make than the Arabs. If one cannot claim blood, what can you claim?

Racist gibberish.

(That is to say, your post is racist gibberish, not that Greeks and Western Europeans can claim a shared affection for racist gibberish. Although given the popularity of the Golden Dawn, that might also be true so far as you personally are concerned.)

 

[Phrossack]

Regarding Greek ethnicity, I wasn't aware of any close link between the Arabs and Greeks, but I'll happily concede error on my part if both sides are indicating it. All of the Greek people I have known have had mixed family histories, so far as I knew Greeks look like most western Europeans. As for its relevance, Traitorfish, you asked what greater claim on the Greeks the Europeans could make than the Arabs. If one cannot claim blood, what can you claim?

As for democracy, I am not aware of Athens' experience being revealed as fraud on Mythbusters. To be sure, the Athenian way was not representative of the Greeks as a whole, but when we say Greeks, we meant Athenians, unless we mean Spartans. What other city-state in Hellas contributed as much? If you wish to dismiss its claims of democracy as fraud because not everyone participated, or because their society and inequalities, then we are as fraudulent as they. Genuine democracy has never seen the light of day, and we will never see it so long as the means of production are not distributed wide and far, to every household, so that everyone can stand and vote for himself, and not as a member of an elite or a victimized caste. This is a Greek ideal, one of self-reliance, of a man having his own farm to sustain him, his own voice in the assembly, and his own duty and place in the ranks to defend it. There are other virtues of the Greeks, but this is not the thread for them.

As for silly mythologies -- no mythology is silly, except to materialists who wage war on human nature. Mythologies need not be factually true to speak truth to the spirit.

Now, I'm not going to accuse you of being a Klansman just for buying into outdated, idealized, Philhellenic myth. But that's what it is- a myth.

Ancient Greece was a lot more than just Athens, and Athenian democracy was actually quite a bit less democratic than modern American democracy, and much more comparable to the American system in the late 18th century. As in, you can vote, if you're not a slave, or don't meet property requirements, or are a woman, or are considered too "foreign," and aren't isolated by your rural life enough to be kept from voting. Considering that a lot of the Athenian population would have been female, enslaved, poor, or rural, that leaves out a lot of people. Quite the majority of them. Let's not kid ourselves, Athens was hardly a model of egalitarianism. You can't seriously suggest that the alleged Greek ideal of free, enfranchised farmer-citizens actually existed when most Athenians were denied freedom or enfranchisement.

Second, the influence of Athens on modern "Western culture" has been greatly exaggerated. To hear the Philhellenes and old high school textbook authors talk, you'd think the Athenians invented breathing, thinking, culture, and civilization, and that everyone else was just a dumb, insignificant barbarian who was just waiting for the touch of Greek enlightenment, and who had no effect on Western culture (which, by the way, is difficult to define. Like, really difficult. Try to define it, and see your definition get picked apart). The American political and legal systems were largely based on the British systems, which had evolved over the centuries with input from a lot of different sources. It wasn't directly based off of Athenian law. Our dress drew little if anything from the Greeks. I'm not aware of any Greek influence on Western European or American musical styles. Quite a bit of American and European culture was influenced by Christianity, which came well after Athens' time and appeared somewhere else.

Third, the Greeks, like most people, are a mixed bunch in terms of genetics and appearance, and while some may appear Western European, others are a little darker-skinned and dark-haired, like other people from around the Mediterranean. The same can be said of the Lebanese, Syrians, some Berbers, and so on.

 

[timtofly]

Did the Ottoman empire put a kibosh on the mixing of Arab and Greek blood? There sure seems to be a fierce blood feud between current Turkey and Greece.

 

[History_Buff]

Not at all. The Turks aren't really Arabs either. But I'm pretty sure modern Greek and Turkish people are almost identical genetically, it's almost entirely a religious divide.

 

[Kyriakos]

Regarding Greek ethnicity, I wasn't aware of any close link between the Arabs and Greeks, but I'll happily concede error on my part if both sides are indicating it. All of the Greek people I have known have had mixed family histories, so far as I knew Greeks look like most western Europeans. As for its relevance, Traitorfish, you asked what greater claim on the Greeks the Europeans could make than the Arabs. If one cannot claim blood, what can you claim?

As for democracy, I am not aware of Athens' experience being revealed as fraud on Mythbusters. To be sure, the Athenian way was not representative of the Greeks as a whole, but when we say Greeks, we meant Athenians, unless we mean Spartans. What other city-state in Hellas contributed as much? If you wish to dismiss its claims of democracy as fraud because not everyone participated, or because their society and inequalities, then we are as fraudulent as they. Genuine democracy has never seen the light of day, and we will never see it so long as the means of production are not distributed wide and far, to every household, so that everyone can stand and vote for himself, and not as a member of an elite or a victimized caste. This is a Greek ideal, one of self-reliance, of a man having his own farm to sustain him, his own voice in the assembly, and his own duty and place in the ranks to defend it. There are other virtues of the Greeks, but this is not the thread for them.

As for silly mythologies -- no mythology is silly, except to materialists who wage war on human nature. Mythologies need not be factually true to speak truth to the spirit.

Don't mind TFish, he is on a anti-crusading guilt type Crusade against anything he may myopically identify as negative in his own limited point of view Greek culture of the past eras is very obviously the basis for later western euro culture and science. You can care for run of the mill views in current times with the climate of cheap reactionism, or you can continue to care about the works of significant members of western/northern european art and science instead.

Or, yeah, nothing of importance globally was created in ancient Greece at all. Democracy doesn't have much to do with Democracy now, don't worry about the term used- merely by chance. Neither do math or literature, i mean some random mountain area in northern europe surely produced pretty much the same

 

[Masada]

You know, I'm pretty sure when the founding fathers were looking at ancient democratic models, Athens was usually used as a cautionary tale about the dangers of demagogues and poor people while the Roman Republic was held up as a model of good democracy in which the great and the good were at the top with the mob held, more or less, in check. Athens, in short, was an awful model that no sane rich white dude would have wanted. Granted, they totally got their read of Athenian Democracy wrong but they had limited sources to go by.

Greek culture of the past eras is very obviously the basis for later western euro culture and science. You can care for run of the mill views in current times with the climate of cheap reactionism, or you can continue to care about the works of significant members of western/northern european art and science instead.

This seems rather like a set of assertions and bold claims to me rather than an argument.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Not at all. The Turks aren't really Arabs either. But I'm pretty sure modern Greek and Turkish people are almost identical genetically, it's almost entirely a religious divide.

Also, let's not forget some events that happened some 600 years ago, and some sultans which might have accidentally ended the Byzantine empire...

 

[Kyriakos]

^Although you know I don't agree with you, Masada, i am surely of the view you are intelligent enough to realise very well that one would not be in the mood of arguing at length when met with near-blind antipathy of something by the other side Does tend to make it crucially more pointless than even the usual pointlessness of discussing online.

 

[History_Buff]

Also, let's not forget some events that happened some 600 years ago, and some sultans which might have accidentally ended the Byzantine empire...

Oh I'm sure both sides have their complaints. My point was merely that the main thing that separated an ethnic Greek from an ethnic Turk was their religion. In the Great People Swap of 1923, it was primarily Orthodox Christians to Greece, Muslims to Turkey. There's still villages in Anatolia that are Greek speaking, but were allowed to stay because they practiced Islam.

 

[Masada]

^Although you know I don't agree with you, Masada, i am surely of the view you are intelligent enough to realise very well that one would not be in the mood of arguing at length when met with near-blind antipathy of something by the other side Does tend to make it crucially more pointless than even the usual pointlessness of discussing online.

In other words, no you can't actually argue your point.

 

[Kyriakos]

^You provide your own iteration of what i alluded to Moreover you sound a bit on the hateful side of things..

 

[Masada]

All I want is for you to make an argument rather than attacking Traitorfish's character.