Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[brianshapiro]

'Nothing more than religion+'???

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

Pre-socratic greeks also invented atomic theory and evolutionary theory.

 

[bjbrains]

Pre-socratic greeks also invented atomic theory and evolutionary theory.

Correction: They didn't 'invent' atomic/evolutionary theory. Theory (when applied to science) isn't just the 'idea', but also the bodies of evidence that make that idea the most likely(or most 'proven') one. They did hypothesize these concepts though, and definitely influenced later scientists.

 

[brianshapiro]

Correction: They didn't 'invent' atomic/evolutionary theory. Theory (when applied to science) isn't just the 'idea', but also the bodies of evidence that make that idea the most likely(or most 'proven') one. They did hypothesize these concepts though, and definitely influenced later scientists.

I was using the word loosely / And... the greeks weren't operating within a framework of modern science, nor did science invent the term 'theory'. To the satisfaction of those philosophers, they proved the ideas through a priori discourse. ie things had to be reduceable to atoms, because of the nature of how things work -- just not proven by empirical research. And to some arguments of how theories should work, a priori proofs are ok. Mathematical theories are arrived through priori proofs. I don't see the reason for being pedantic.

 

[Dachs]

Oh.... My.... God. Their philosophy was a rip-off?

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

Read it. They invented philosophy. THE WORD IS GREEK!!!

'Nothing more than religion+'???

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

The first pantheist.

And scholars are stuck in the 19th century?

Really, and this is a fact *all* people need to know. CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION.

Today there are many young, dynamic ancient scholars who give appropriate weight to other civilizations (including Babylon and Egypt), and still are drawn to Greece as the teacher of Western thought. We don't still give extreme weight towards the Hellenistic cultures any more (in fact, my early experience in American history bypassed Rome completely, and we learnt a lot of Mesopotamian history.)

Please. Research.

How much time have you spent on the internet, again?

 

[johny smith]

Well the OP is still partially right. Regardless how you view the significance of Greek philosophy it is commonly used to represent some type of Western heritage. The Greeks did take many ideas from other areas, and put their spin too just like anyone else. I am not saying the Greeks did not have an important piece in the subject. I am only saying you can link some ideas from other areas of the world, but most ideas have no way of being possible traced before Greece because there is no written document.

Persians even though usually portrayed as opposites(in pulp fiction) of Greece did influence Greek philosophy and it can obviously be assumed that Egyptians and Babylonians did. And of course many of the documents that are still around today came from being translated to Arabic later and back into Latin. So to say Greek philosophy influenced many areas is a total true statement, but some of these ideas were discovered after the time when the Greeks were debating. There are plenty of these overlooked that came from other areas but when it comes to Greek overlooked text it is somehow automatically western I am sure the Greeks did not think they were part of some greater type of European society(maybe now of course).

I am not going to trace words down from their root. But the word for alphabet came from Alphabetos from Greek. But that does not mean Greece invented it. It is thought the Phoenicians did. Correct me if I am wrong. So it is not like because you coin the term that makes you first.

Again I am not saying Greek philosophy insignificant. But I am saying it is funny how Greece equals the Western tradition versus other cultures from region being exotic(for example Egypt). It likes everyone has to pull a thin thread to date their culture identity back to the beginning of time. So I assume if you trace the word Alcohol or Algebra back to its Arabic root you would not promote you are part of some greater Middle Eastern tradition.

 

[brianshapiro]

Well the OP is still partially right. Regardless how you view the significance of Greek philosophy it is commonly used to represent some type of Western heritage. The Greeks did take many ideas from other areas, and put their spin too just like anyone else. I am not saying the Greeks did not have an important piece in the subject. I am only saying you can link some ideas from other areas of the world, but most ideas have no way of being possible traced before Greece because there is no written document.

Persians even though usually portrayed as opposites(in pulp fiction) of Greece did influence Greek philosophy and it can obviously be assumed that Egyptians and Babylonians did. And of course many of the documents that are still around today came from being translated to Arabic later and back into Latin. So to say Greek philosophy influenced many areas is a total true statement, but some of these ideas were discovered after the time when the Greeks were debating. There are plenty of these overlooked that came from other areas but when it comes to Greek overlooked text it is somehow automatically western I am sure the Greeks did not think they were part of some greater type of European society(maybe now of course).

There are connections; you're making kind of vague statements about it all though, to make it sound as if there's nothing special about the Greeks and we're all just biased to think its the case.

The Egyptians, Babylonians, etc., btw, are considered part of Western history. Western != European white people.

 

[johny smith]

There are connections; you're making kind of vague statements about it all though, to make it sound as if there's nothing special about the Greeks and we're all just biased to think its the case.

The Egyptians, Babylonians, etc., btw, are considered part of Western history. Western != European white people.

I know they all are. What I am saying there is a real effort for example today in Europe to distinguish how they are different from the Middle East. Aka the case for Turkey joining the European Union. So there is a real Proeuropean cause to say Greece is Western and the rest are not. As in showing some separation from all others. That is all. Greek is inundated everywhere in later European languages maybe even so much as Latin. It is definitely very important. I just do not buy into though that it some type of line directly only from Greece and not from any other culture as many are trying to promote to divide people. And the same groups do tend sometimes to overinflate somethings that is very important in reality but then just pushes it more in some sort of National or Regional culture identity. That is why you have backlashes from other groups anyway.

White complexion as well is very speculative when you are comparing people of Mediterranean. People somehow assume Greeks or Turks look vastly different in America. Complexion is very relative to climate. America is one place I know you can have a very paled skin person found commonly in semi tropic environment. It is has nothing to do with complexion of the skin although there are groups out there that try to promote that from every side of the issue. Which I grow tired of hearing skin complexion being a barometer of culture which is everywhere in America.

 

[brianshapiro]

I know they all are. What I am saying there is a real effort for example today in Europe to distinguish how they are different from the Middle East. Aka the case for Turkey joining the European Union. So there is a real Proeuropean cause to say Greece is Western and the rest are not. As in showing some separation from all others. That is all. Greek is inundated everywhere in later European languages maybe even so much as Latin. It is definitely very important. I just do not buy into though that it some type of line directly only from Greece and not from any other culture as many are trying to promote to divide people. And the same groups do tend sometimes to overinflate somethings that is very important in reality but then just pushes it more in some sort of National or Regional culture identity. That is why you have backlashes from other groups anyway.

White complexion as well is very speculative when you are comparing people of Mediterranean. People somehow assume Greeks or Turks look vastly different in America. Complexion is very relative to climate. America is one place I know you can have a very paled skin person found commonly in semi tropic environment. It is has nothing to do with complexion of the skin although there are groups out there that try to promote that from every side of the issue. Which I grow tired of hearing skin complexion being a barometer of culture which is everywhere in America.

But I do think it makes sense modern context to consider Turkey as culturally different. I don't know why you're assuming there are always deeper issues in these types of discussions.

We can talk about the importance of Greek culture to the West, and talk about how Turkey and Europe today have many differences -- both of which I think are true -- and make decent points while not being chauvinistic about it.

Greece, obviously, wasn't the font of all invention and culture that ever existed. The Lydians became experts in commerce and are credited with minting the first currency, and the Greeks admired them for that and adopted their innovations. Greek art in its nascency was influenced by the Egyptian Canon of Proportions. Greek mythology was influenced by surrounding cultures like the Phoenecians.

But what Greece did on their own can't be overstated. At different times in history there are countries/civilizations that become cultural centers, and thats what Greece was. Enough so, that Philip of Macedon wanted Aristotle to tutor his son Alexander, and that the Etruscans living along the Tiber wanted to take over Greece's legacy in the foundation of Rome.

And at some point in history, Western Europe and the Middle East went their own separate ways, most markedly because of differences in religion. The Islamic world rejected Greek culture while Europeans embraced it. And that's just history. More recently, Turkey has been trying to 'Westernize' and fit in with the European community, and its up to the two parties whether they think it'll work.

 

[johny smith]

But I do think it makes sense modern context to consider Turkey as culturally different. I don't know why you're assume there are always deeper issues in these types of discussions.

We can talk about the importance of Greek culture to the West, and talk about how Turkey and Europe today have many differences -- both of which I think are true -- and make decent points while not being chauvinistic about it.

Greece, obviously, wasn't the font of all invention and culture that ever existed. The Lydians became experts in commerce and are credited with minting the first currency, and the Greeks admired them for that and adopted their innovations. Greek art in its nascency was also influenced by the Egyptian Canon of Proportions. Greek mythology was influenced by surrounding cultures like the Phoenecians.

But what Greece did on their own can't be overstated. At different times in history there are countries that become cultural centers, and thats what Greece was. Enough so, that Philip of Macedon wanted Aristotle to tutor his son Alexander, and that the Etruscans living along the Tiber wanted to take over Greece's legacy in the foundation of Rome.

And at some point in history, Western Europe and the Middle East went their own separate ways, most markedly because of difference in religion. And that's just history. More recently, Turkey has been trying to 'Westernize' and fit in with the European community, and its up to the two parties whether they think it'll work.

Well what can I say the thread is about Eurocentric. You want to know things that are possibly seen as Eurocentirc. I do not debate in the European parliament nor the Turkish parliament. I just see the issues of today in relation to the game. Aristotle was alive in states that had a loose confederation at best that was near Thessaloniki. It is not to say Aristotle was not important. It just a practical statement why someone from a Greece like state came to teach Alexander. Etruscans ya ya that is some rhetoric I am sure they had plenty of influence from every culture. Rome even at one point tried to distance themselves from Greek knowledge but could not because so much more had been done in Greek versus Latin so many learned Greek in order to research. So yes Greek philosophy was very important.

But to say they went their separate ways is ok but to say it dates back to finding of Hellenistic Greece is wrong. Most of the knowledge during the enlightenment came from Arabic(usually in a form of better applied ideas from the Greek philosophies and other areas around the world). Religion is whole another topic of who is what. Many Greeks left Anatolia when Turkey was formed. Under the Ottomans they were there. Turkey is not Arabic though. Nor is Poland the same as Italy. European identity now is being promoted as Christianity by some political parties in Europe. While the majority may be...there are plenty exceptions. Albanians are usually Muslim(granted though there has not been discussions on Albania joining though at least I don't think there has been), and how many Christians in Turkey I am not sure. The point I am trying to make this is not just a given that has been decided to be true by everyone. What can I say? The topic is " Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?"

So excuse me if I do not jump on the bandwagon and repeat something that has definitely been overstated. It is like saying for the 100th time America made a Democracy because the king of England was a royal pain in the arse to the colonies and saying they were unique without looking at the influence the Dutch had on America. I remember a long discussion on the complexion Egyptians I saw on TV trying to decide if they were aka "White" European more or aka "Black" or African. I was thinking is it that hard to accept that never has been homogeneous. And the game tries to find something and amplify it.

Did you know that world sits on the back of 4 Elephants that sit on a Turtle? And scientist are trying very hard today to find the solution to greatest mystery of all time...What is the sex of the turtle. That is just like trying to find characteristics of a homogeneous Europe today.

 

[Dachs]

Well what can I say the thread is about Eurocentric. You want to know things that are possibly seen as Eurocentirc. I do not debate in the European parliament nor the Turkish parliament. I just see the issues of today in relation to the game. Aristotle was alive in states that had a loose confederation at best that was near Thessaloniki. It is not to say Aristotle was not important. It just a practical statement why someone from a Greece like state came to teach Alexander. Etruscans ya ya that is some rhetoric I am sure they had plenty of influence from every culture. Rome even at one point tried to distance themselves from Greek knowledge but could not because so much more had been done in Greek versus Latin so many learned Greek in order to research. So yes Greek philosophy was very important.

But to say they went their separate ways is ok but to say it dates back to finding of Hellenistic Greece is wrong. Most of the knowledge during the enlightenment came from Arabic(usually in a form of better applied ideas from the Greek philosophies and other areas around the world). Religion is whole another topic of who is what. Many Greeks left Anatolia when Turkey was formed. Under the Ottomans they were there. Turkey is not Arabic though. Nor is Poland the same as Italy. European identity now is being promoted as Christianity by some political parties in Europe. While the majority may be...there are plenty exceptions. Albanians are usually Muslim(granted though there has not been discussions on Albania joining though at least I don't think there has been), and how many Christians in Turkey I am not sure. The point I am trying to make this is not just a given that has been decided to be true by everyone. What can I say? The topic is " Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?"

So excuse me if I do not jump on the bandwagon and repeat something that has definitely been overstated. It is like saying for the 100th time America made a Democracy because the king of England was a royal pain in the arse to the colonies and saying they were unique without looking at the influence the Dutch had on America. I remember a long discussion on the complexion Egyptians I saw on TV trying to decide if they were aka "White" European more or aka "Black" or African. I was thinking is it that hard to accept that never has been homogeneous. And the game tries to find something and amplify it.

Did you know that world sits on the back of 4 Elephants that sit on a Turtle? And scientist are trying very hard today to find the solution to greatest mystery of all time...What is the sex of the turtle. That is just like trying to find characteristics of a homogeneous Europe today.

tl;dr: "I'm employing an esoteric interpretation of history with a liberal dose of falsehood 'just to be different and not a sheeple'."

 

[johny smith]

tl;dr: "I'm employing an esoteric interpretation of history with a liberal dose of falsehood 'just to be different and not a sheeple'."

Falsehood no. Vague yes. Decided to be false in America at least yes. But more to play devil's advocated definitely. I am just trying to point out another side of the issue. As for me I can not agree with any side of the issue. Yes I am just throwing out things to make some more thought versus hey lets say the Greeks or anyone else for that matter was the one only top dog.

P.S. Would not just be boring if everyone agreed?

 

[craig123]

P.S. Would not just be boring if everyone agreed?

Yes it would, but where is the disagreement? I can't work out what we're arguing about any more. Is it just me?

 

[Ronojoy1917]

No its not just you, me too. This thread isn't 'about' anything anymore.

 

[brianshapiro]

Yes I am just throwing out things to make some more thought versus hey lets say the Greeks or anyone else for that matter was the one only top dog.

But what I'm saying is still true. Macedonia was a different culture from Greece but Philip II respected them enough to bring in a tutor from there. The Romans adopted Greek religion and also Greek art, to the point a lot of Roman sculptures were copies of Greek sculptures. And while Greek's adopted innovations of the Lydians, like currency, Lydians adopted Greek architecture.

You just can't understand history without understanding why Greece had influence. Its not only important to know that they did, that their language is everywhere, its important to understand why.

And I don't think any of the problems with national / regional conflicts will be solved by avoiding these discussions or sidestepping them and coming up with a story about how everyone had influence equally on some level.

For our part, Western nations have been influenced by critiques of Eurocentrism for a long time already, the idea of Eurocentrism goes back to the 1920s. Our history texts are very self-critical, and focus on the harms caused to others by colonialism. In fact, the desire to turn the tables and make Europe into the villain of history has gone so far to distort a lot of the telling of history. If you ever hear about the Crusades outside of a classroom, its always in the context of it being a crime Christians committed against Muslims. Yet nobody ever talks about why the Crusades happened, about how it was a response to Muslim invasions.

If there's hatred of the West in the Muslim world, its not because we haven't been self-critical, or haven't tried to embrace multiculturalism or haven't tried to be inclusive. Because we have been all of those things. They've simply been reading the same history texts that we have, in which Europe has become the villain and everyone else has become the underdog.

But the rest of the world needs to be as honest and self-critical about their history as the West has.

The Muslim world has to be honest about the fact that they played a role in instigating the Crusades. They have to be honest about the fact that the reason they split paths with the West is because they rejected Muslim philosophers like Averroes, someone who was very well respected by Europeans. Iran needs to be honest about the fact that the only reason the British controlled their oil was because they had an alliance with the Nazis, and the British wanted to cut the supply line to Hitler's army. And stop blaming Western imperialism.

China, maybe, needs to admit culpability in the Rape of Nanking. Japan come to terms with the racism and nationalism that's present there. Africans need to overthrow demagogues who appeal to racism against whites.

By the same token, Westerners need to have a little more self-respect about their history, and have a little more understanding about what has made Europe Europe. Yes, even if you look at the world centuries ago, Copernicus did think he had a lot more in common with people in Italy than people in Anatolia.

If we take the case of Western-Muslim relations, I think its clear how this applies. If Muslims become a little more self-critical, maybe they'll overthrow fundamentalist regimes and reach out their hand more to the West. If Westerners have a little more self-respect, maybe they'll begin to appreciate Christianity a little more and be able to understand the religious perspective of Muslims, and not assume they're all nutcases.

On situations like Turkey, more complex political discussion always come down to specific issues like the state of womens rights in that country. Turkey's admission to the EU will live or die alone on those issues. If we're having these broader historical discussions, it just does no good to derail everything into a conversation about Eurocentrism... sometimes its counter-productive. Sometimes it just inflates the collective egos of countries against Europe who want to keep portraying themselves as victims

 

[craig123]

 

[Ronojoy1917]

For our part, Western nations have been influenced by critiques of Eurocentrism for a long time already, the idea of Eurocentrism goes back to the 1920s. Our history texts are very self-critical, and focus on the harms caused to others by colonialism. In fact, the desire to turn the tables and make Europe into the villain of history has gone so far to distort a lot of the telling of history. If you ever hear about the Crusades outside of a classroom, its always in the context of it being a crime Christians committed against Muslims. Yet nobody ever talks about why the Crusades happened, about how it was a response to Muslim invasions.

If there's hatred of the West in the Muslim world, its not because we haven't been self-critical, or haven't tried to embrace multiculturalism or haven't tried to be inclusive. Because we have been all of those things. They've simply been reading the same history texts that we have, in which Europe has become the villain and everyone else has become the underdog.

But the rest of the world needs to be as honest and self-critical about their history as the West has.

The Muslim world has to be honest about the fact that they played a role in instigating the Crusades.

By the same token, Westerners need to have a little more self-respect about their history, and have a little more understanding about what has made Europe Europe.
If we take the case of Western-Muslim relations, I think its clear how this applies. If Muslims become a little more self-critical, maybe they'll overthrow fundamentalist regimes and reach out their hand more to the West.

I'm sorry but what role did muslims have in instigating the Crusades? What are these invasions of which you speak?

And also which fundamentalist regimes are you talking about? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Cause nearly all the rest are secular pro-western governments.

 

[brianshapiro]

I'm sorry but what role did muslims have in instigating the Crusades? What are these invasions of which you speak?

And also which fundamentalist regimes are you talking about? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Cause nearly all the rest are secular pro-western governments.

The Moors came in through the south of Spain and the Byzantine Empire was being overrun. The Crusades started right after the Emperor of the Byzantines sent a letter to the Pope asking for help. Its impossible to not see that Europeans felt there was a threat to their security. If you have invaders coming in from all sides of Europe, you're going to be a little concerned.

We're still working with a lot of Muslim countries and many of them still have fundamentalist factions.

 

[YoHo]

In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given his blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. Pleas from the Byzantine Emperors, now threatened by the Seljuks, thus fell on ready ears. These occurred in 1074, from Emperor Michael VII to Pope Gregory VII and in 1095, from Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to Pope Urban II. One source identifies Michael VII in Chinese records as a ruler of Byzantium (Fulin) who sent an envoy to Song Dynasty China in 1081.[13][14] A Chinese scholar suggests that this and further Byzantine envoys in 1091 were pleas for China to aid in the fight against the Turks.[15]

Certainly there was more going on than this, and it would be inappropriate to judge the actions of Europeans and Muslims of centuries ago by today's standards, but it does seem on a very basic level that Muslims are at least culpable.

 

[johny smith]

The Moors came in through the south of Spain and the Byzantine Empire was being overrun. The Crusades started right after the Emperor of the Byzantines sent a letter to the Pope asking for help. Its impossible to not see that Europeans felt there was a threat to their security. If you have invaders coming in from all sides of Europe, you're going to be a little concerned.

We're still working with a lot of Muslim countries and many of them still have fundamentalist factions.

You mean when the Christians felt overrun they can call a jihad on the Muslims. But it is not ok for Muslims to the same? It is not like it had not happen before and always repeated in history with some nut leading the cause. Somewhere there is something that must go with out saying that the Middle East does not have Christians I guess. I hope you at least realize that this was a Catholic war not all of Christianity. I mean the Christian religion was so united to point that the later Crusaders sacked Constantinople.

 

[brianshapiro]

You mean when the Christians felt overrun they can call a jihad on the Muslims. But it is not ok for Muslims to the same? It is not like it had not happen before and always repeated in history with some nut leading the cause. Somewhere there is something that must go with out saying that the Middle East does not have Christians I guess. I hope you at least realize that this was a Catholic war not all of Christianity. I mean the Christian religion was so united to point that the later Crusaders sacked Constantinople.

Well what are we talking about here exactly?

There were armed invaders coming into Europe. A lot of the actions of Crusaders were wrong, like the sacking of Constantinople and the massacres in Jerusalem; I think that's condemned everywhere. The fact that they sounded a call to arms to defend Europe and went on the Crusades in the first place wasn't wrong.

The Muslim world is upset today primarily because of globalisation, the heavy handed way its being pushed by US business interests, and the fact that they see it as a threat to their culture and their national sovereignty. And that's not wrong for them to express that either.