Eurocentrism

[Borachio]

Isn't that harking back to "history is written by the victors", thingy?

 

[Phrossack]

Okay.

So what do you think?

I really don't know anymore. I don't have any firm views or ideas about the value or importance of history anymore, except that I've had it drilled into my head about what it isn't good for, like learning lessons or making any kinds of predictions about the future.

I'm not even sure if I want to become a history professor anymore, since that requires long, brutal, expensive grad school (I have never heard anything good about it, anyway, only complaints), a very long, difficult path to a Ph. D., and anything you painstakingly research and write about can and will be shot to pieces by other academics, assuming that anyone hires you. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that's the impression I'm getting.

All I know is that a lot of history is fascinating, but I don't know if that alone can outweigh the huge obstacles to becoming a history professor.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Great post. Do notice that is not just nationalism history promotes, but ideologies in general. The very goal of history is to provide an apologia for certain political ideas and ideologies. This is not necessarily bad as may be able to market political views among intellectual circles, even though it can work both ways.

I think the historian can unravel mysteries, print texts, reconstruct past societies, perhaps even talk about causation. But when constructing large narratives, picking regions, dynasties, topics and so on, it's going to become myth-making. Our own narratives about grand marches towards 'democracy' and 'market capitalism' are as mythical (and 'phony' if you like) as, say, Trobriand myths about the creation of social hierarchies at the beginning of the cosmos. Accounting for the past is primarily a way of rationalizing and justifying present society.

People have an internal framework of heuristics and detailed information by which they take decisions about historians and judge things like 'merit'. The 'good historian' cannot usually be one who deinternalizes dominant ideological structures, because he will struggle to be recognized as one and gain patronage .. certainly at the level to gain access to a large audience.

This is a very fair point, but I think it mostly reflects the weight of institutional biases, rather than undermining a critical attitude towards nationalism. It demands that we treat British, French, etc. national myths firmly, not that we treat Scottish, Breton, etc. myths lightly.

You've heard everyone and their dog in Britain, ignorant of history though they might usually be, criticize the 'historical inaccuracies' in Braveheart. But when have you heard that towards similar tosh of the Anglo-British kind like Chariots of Fire or Henry V? Or actually, much more pertinently, most American movies you see that promote a worldview of US moral superiority and dominance. Such movies represent the world as it is and as it should be.

 

[Domen]

most American movies you see that promote a worldview of US moral superiority and dominance.

Especially war movies. However, there are some which don't do this. For example "The Thin Red Line".

"The Patriot" does do this, but I still liked it, because there they fought for their freedom.

I don't know why people bash "Braveheart". It is such a Scottish Robin Hood - based on a real historical person, who became a legendary person (i.e. his current image which can be found in popular culture is historically inaccurate). But such legends usually promote positive traits of character, models of behaviour.

History is full of such legends and inaccuracies. And this is true for history of each country.

The existence of such legends is not bad per se. These are idealized images, but they can promote some positive values if used properly.

But people should realize that these images are idealized and not totally accurate.

========================================

Henry V

We need a movie about Henry IV and the time when he fought for the Teutonic Order in Lithuania in years 1390 - 1392.

That was - of course - before he became the king. At that time he was "only" the Count of Northampton.

In 1390 he came to the State of the Teutonic Order as one of "Knight Guests" and then he participated in the Second Civil War in Lithuania.

He did not come alone, but he had a unit of - on average - 160 soldiers under his command in period August 1390 - April 1391:

- 13 knights
- 18 squires
- ca. 60 sergeants / armed retainers / men-at-arms
- ca. 50 armed volunteers
- 10 diggers / engineers
- 3 heralds
- 6 minstrels

It is believed that some of them were those famous longbowmen.

I suppose that very few (if any) people in England even know about this episode from Henry IV Lancaster's life.

History of Eastern Europe - and even their own participation in it - is a great mystery for people there.

 

[Tahuti]

I think this is more contentious a claim than you might realise.

Is it? Every historian's perspective is bound to be influenced by political opinions and circumstances. Even history of science or arts or whatever can seldom be free of politics, unless it approaches astrophysical territory. And even Carl Sagan made an episode about the political structure of the Dutch Republic!

I think the historian can unravel mysteries, print texts, reconstruct past societies, perhaps even talk about causation. But when constructing large narratives, picking regions, dynasties, topics and so on, it's going to become myth-making. Our own narratives about grand marches towards 'democracy' and 'market capitalism' are as mythical (and 'phony' if you like) as, say, Trobriand myths about the creation of social hierarchies at the beginning of the cosmos. Accounting for the past is primarily a way of rationalizing and justifying present society.

Basically, Hegelian nonsense. The bane and curse on every scholarship of history.

 

[History_Buff]

"The Patriot" does do this, but I still liked it, because there they fought for their freedom.

Freedom from taxes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it? Every historian's perspective is bound to be influenced by political opinions and circumstances. Even history of science or arts or whatever can seldom be free of politics, unless it approaches astrophysical territory. And even Carl Sagan made an episode about the political structure of the Dutch Republic!

That's a different claim altogether.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Basically, Hegelian nonsense. The bane and curse on every scholarship of history.

I would say Hegel was a symptom rather than a cause. All societies do the same, including those with no written tradition at all, not just those without professional historians as we would understand them.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know, did Karl Popper write a book about that? I have a hard time believing something unless Karl Popper wrote a book about it. Karl Popper was so modest and sceptical, that's why he knew everything.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Well, are you civfanatics rabid haters of eurocentrism, like me? Or maybe you think that Europe dominated the world so much, that eurocentrism is nothing ridiculous? Do you think all world cultures are equal, or some kind of White Man's Burden exists?

This thread is to discuss about eurocentrism, Europe in the world, or maybe underrated contributions of other cultures to the world heritage

http://www.whenweruled.com/articles.php?lng=en&pg=37

I don't know. Living over here in North America, I'd say American-centrism is what I feel a lot. However, I can understand there's a bit of a justification to the "White Man's Burden", since all the successful non-white countries in the world had to Westernize and incorporate Western thoughts into their daily thinking before they succeeded (i.e. China, Japan, India, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong [not a country], Singapore).

On the other hand, the developments and inventions of other countries (with possible exception of Japan) had minimal impact to countries around them (after Renaissance started).

And... this is the 2-cents from a non-white person.

 

[Domen]

Freedom from taxes.

From very high taxes.

 

[History_Buff]

From very high taxes.

Not really. The American colonies were probably the least taxed place around.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

History of Eastern Europe - and even their own participation in it - is a great mystery for people there.

Why do you think people'd be less interested in the history of Eastern Europe?

 

[Tahuti]

That's a different claim altogether.

No it isn't: History is essentially commentary by the historian on the past. That's always bound to be politically coloured in one way or another. It will always carry some political viewpoint which is defended by the comments the historian makes.

I would say Hegel was a symptom rather than a cause. All societies do the same, including those with no written tradition at all, not just those without professional historians as we would understand them.

That's true. It is however dangerous to claim you can understand the future because you know history. We might as well have a comet hit the earth and no kind of historical prediction can ever take into account what'll happen next.

 

[Gary Childress]

Not really. The American colonies were probably the least taxed place around.

They were against taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Not taxes all together.

 

[Phrossack]

They were against taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Not taxes all together.

Still not a reason to start killing people, though.

 

[Dachs]

Still not a reason to start killing people, though.

War of the Regulation, Boston Massacre, etc.

 

[Phrossack]

War of the Regulation, Boston Massacre, etc.

Wasn't talking about those. Gary and Domen brought up taxes and seemed to think that the issue of taxation without representation justified the war, and I disagreed.

 

[Gary Childress]

Wasn't talking about those. Gary and Domen brought up taxes and seemed to think that the issue of taxation without representation justified the war, and I disagreed.

You mean the American Revolution?

 

[Phrossack]

You mean the American Revolution?

Yes .