Eurocentrism

[Kyriakos]

^Again i assume you are joking :facepalm:

 

[sophie]

Sure it creates a unique position for the Ancient Greek man. In fact, most people who hold this position have the weird, simultaneous belief that northern Europeans in Antiquity were barbarians who didn't know how to do anything (which is also nonsense). But the whole idea of that the Renaissance created modern science is built around the assumption that the Greeks and Arabs living in the middle ages couldn't do science with Aristotle, because reasons.

The Greeks and the Arabs are just passive transmitters of knowledge to the Northern Europeans who are the only ones able to actually act on this knowledge.

It also assumes that the period was sparked by an enormous flowering and outpouring of culture and technology etc. that seemingly came from nowhere, rather than merely a continuance of the trends which had been forming for the past several centuries.

I don't really like the term "Renaissance" because it implies that first there was nothing and then snap of the fingers and you have Leonardo and Donatello and Raphael and the de'Medici and Ghiberti, and Brunelleschi, etc, when this absolutely was not the case.

 

[Luckymoose]

Renaissance is best used in the plural. There were multiple such "periods" that fit the bill of what we commonly think of as the Renaissance that enabled that period to happen at all. I would not use the term at all.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

The Greeks and the Arabs are just passive transmitters of knowledge to the Northern Europeans who are the only ones able to actually act on this knowledge.

Yes, and the question is why the Europeans acted on those knowledge. And I guess the point of discussion is that you claimed it's because of their advanced metallurgy.

 

[Kyriakos]

^And stronger beards

 

[gay_Aleks]

I guess the arabs had even crappier swords than the Greeks/Byzantines, and this is why their entire fleet was reduced to ash by the greek fire. Cause we all know that science does not matter, all that matters is having enough bearded weirdos (beardos?) working the anvil

That's probably a broad specification, but aren't Arabs more horse-archers and less hot on that whole "sword" business? At least, initially?

 

[Kyriakos]

Iirc the Turkic tribes were mainly horse-archers. The arabs (at first) probably were mostly light-infrantry (?).

 

[daft]

some of the posts included in this thread are quite simply hateful and racist, which I do not condone!

 

[daft]

I wonder, does Polonocentrism technically qualify as a sub-category of Afrocentrism?

WTH? As in Poland being an African nation? Even if it was (which it obviously is not), how is that a bad thing?

Had to delete my previous text. Perhaps I went a tad too far (with my previous comment in this post), for which I apologize.
However, I find it difficult to participate in such discussions, ones which clearly poke fun at entire nations. I respect all people, nations and civilizations, perhaps a person with such views, like myself, does not belong on this site.
I'm officially done with this forum, perhaps the website itself.

 

[daft]

No, since Poland lies in Canada.

CARE TO EXPLAIN YOUR STATEMENT?
Do you hide your hatred towards other nations by making such ridiculous statements?

 

[ArguCa]

Or maybe you think that Europe dominated the world so much

Really?

Europe ruling the world for 2 centuries. East ruled the world since the first empire in the world. and East will take her title back, soon...

 

[Ajidica]

@daft: It is relatively old forum joke. Back when Beyond the Sword was announced there was a quite large debate over whether Poland should be included, which ended up getting morphed into a "Is Poland in Central Europe or Eastern Europe" debate. Since it went on for so long and became quite astoundingly circular, the joke emerged that Poland is everywhere: Canada, Africa, Thailand, you name it. (Although the current winner is that Poland is in North Africa.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

It also assumes that the period was sparked by an enormous flowering and outpouring of culture and technology etc. that seemingly came from nowhere, rather than merely a continuance of the trends which had been forming for the past several centuries.

Oh yeah, there's that too. But it has less of the unfortunate implications then the assumption that obviously Muslims and Jews can't accomplish anything with the proper conditions for the Renaissance. Still absolutely awful from a historical perspective though.

I don't really like the term "Renaissance" because it implies that first there was nothing and then snap of the fingers and you have Leonardo and Donatello and Raphael and the de'Medici and Ghiberti, and Brunelleschi, etc, when this absolutely was not the case.

I don't like Renaissance because you can't even define what it means. If you mean an enormous flowering and outpouring of culture and technology, like you said, the Renaissance definitely didn't happen in Italy, which kind of pulls down the whole idea.

On the other hand, if you mean some sort of cultural movement, and artistic style, it's limited, and never fully takes hold, even in the best of circumstances. There's no clear geographic scope anymore (except, AFAIK it seems to always refer to somewhere in Christendom), because the term is tied to a particular narrative that's factual untrue.

But it's a popular idea about the past, so we try to invent new narratives to justify the term. It seems it's not as important what the Renaissance means, as long as it means something, so we can keep talking about it.

Yes, and the question is why the Europeans acted on those knowledge. And I guess the point of discussion is that you claimed it's because of their advanced metallurgy.

No, because that's still presupposing that this knowledge was a force that actually produced substantial change in Europe. My point is that it didn't. Europe had substantial economic and technological advantages by the 15th century, and continued to build on those advantages.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't like Renaissance because you can't even define what it means. If you mean an enormous flowering and outpouring of culture and technology, like you said, the Renaissance definitely didn't happen in Italy, which kind of pulls down the whole idea.

My understanding was that the term referred to the huge expansion in knowledge of and interest in classicism, therefore making the period a 're-birth' of the classical tradition.

 

[Traitorfish]

@daft: It is relatively old forum joke. Back when Beyond the Sword was announced there was a quite large debate over whether Poland should be included, which ended up getting morphed into a "Is Poland in Central Europe or Eastern Europe" debate. Since it went on for so long and became quite astoundingly circular, the joke emerged that Poland is everywhere: Canada, Africa, Thailand, you name it. (Although the current winner is that Poland is in North Africa.)

Why did we settle on North Africa, in the end? I never quite figured that one out.

 

[Ajidica]

Why did we settle on North Africa, in the end? I never quite figured that one out.

No idea, but it doesn't really matter because Poland is everywhere.

 

[Traitorfish]

 

[Ajidica]

Seems legit.

 

[Cutlass]

Poland is now ubiquitous?

 

[Phrossack]

Guys, guys. If we don't mention that country ever again, it'll just go away. This, in turn, will lead to lots of new beachfront property in eastern Germany, Czechia, and Slovakia, while ending Belarus's landlocked state and providing Ukraine with a guaranteed outlet to the sea. It's a win-win.

Spoiler :