While We Wait: Boredom Strikes Back

[spryllino]

A penguin empire! That's what I'll put out of sight in South America where no-one can see it in that projected NES of mine!

 

[Lord of Elves]

A penguin empire! That's what I'll put out of sight in South America where no-one can see it in that projected NES of mine!

All hail our lord and master!

 

[Lord_Iggy]

You are all free to join my cult- I've got brochures.

 

[Lord of Elves]

You are all free to join my cult- I've got brochures.

That has to be one of the funniest pics I've seen in a while.

 

[Masada]

Let's deconstruct the passage I cited.

Eurocentrism, as you call it, is mostly the result of a cultural memory that the migration of mass chunks of humanity created, as well as colonialism by European nations. Eurocentrism, is at best, a flawed cultural memory that carries back to a long-dead era of civilization, in which Europe was identified with civilization by European colonists.

Now look at the conclusion of this paragraph in isolation it begs two questions (1) what migrations (2) and what long dead civilizations are we talking about. The first part of the paragraph seems to answer that question:

Both the Germanic peoples, and the Celts, if history is to be believed originated in the Caucasus, and either migrated to there from Africa or Mesopatamia sometime before the dawn of organized, civilization, in a nomadic period of existence.

Seemingly Germanic peoples, Celts and the Caucasus mountains. And thus was Masada's confusion born. Even if I accept that the two sections of the paragraph shouldn't be read concurrently, I still end up with the same fundamental problem. What does Euro-centrism have to do with population movements? The only rational answer I could come up with is that Europeanness is somehow defined by a quasi-mystical bloodlink to Caucasian people. Lord of Elves refused to deal with any of the substantive criticisms I tendered, the key one of which is here:

I don't think you get it. The implication of racism had nothing to with the dry theoretical explanation of Caucasian migration which wasn't really relevant in the first instance. Instead, it was principally concerned to your explicit linking of race to culture through 'cultural memory' which apparently in your narrative is the direct result of migrations which happened umpteen thousand of years in the past. Quite how that implanted a 'cultural memory' and how it inexorably led to Western culture and Euro-centrism is a mystery to me or even how that exists as a satisfactory means of explains it. You even seem to have doubts about the veracity of your own suppositions.

Apparently I was concerned with denying the existence of Caucasians or something. And not with the frankly weird implications of his argument and the fuzzy logic that he used to arrive at it.

*

Now to the public!

Well I have to say that's one argument I haven't heard before...

Faithful reader, I'll admit I sat on NESchat lost for words except the occasional "people believe this" for a good half hour. And I wasn't the only one Kraznaya didn't know what to make of it either. And seemingly, neither do you!

I think the whole argument is moot, and has little at all to do with any NES period, and I have ended my involvement in the discussion. The last thing I am going to say about it is that in my opinion Eurocentrism is the product of European colonialism, and the belief by European colonists that they were dealing with inherently inferior cultures and civilizations.

Less-than-capable-reader, I know you think that's what you were arguing (or more precisely what your arguing now) but the passage I cited above and the whole thrust of your argument seems to indicate anything but.

And yes, it is quite as surreal. More than half of the time you played my words back to me, but it is moot, I have discontinued my involvement. It was turning into a text fight, and I have better things to do on the forum than try to verbally beat things.

Less-than-capable-reader, that might just because your an incompetent stylist or simply couldn't keep up? If that's the case. I apologize.

I could make a better argument if I wanted, but I question whether the conversation belongs in any thread on this forum.

Less-than-capable-reader, is that an admission that your argument is frankly difficult to parse in addition to being nonsensical?

lol. My point was essentially that Eurocentrism is the belief that all things European are inherently superior, as propagated by the colonialism of the 1600's-1800's, and the effect it created of European nations trying to stretch their control over larger parts of the world, both militarily as well as culturally, and a conscious effort (particularly in Australia, if you've ever read some of the sordid chapters of history that occurred there) to rob indigenous societies of their culture and castrate their ability to rule themselves.

Less-than-capable-reader, yet you didn't say jack about that. And for the love of all the Saints that Thlayli holds dear look up the meaning of Euro-centrism. If at this stage, having repeated myself about a half dozen times, you still can't be bothered to look up the definition or just don't have the mental faculty to internalize it; then just admit it.

For cripes sakes people, Eurocentrism is not the belief in european superiority, thats Euro-chauvinism. Eurocentrism is the belief that Europe is the most important part of the world or the centre of the world system, being less aware of/ignoring events outside of Europe (or european descended states), and asserting that the European system of values is the only way to view events.

One can extoll the virtues of the Islamic Renaissance, and still be Eurocentric in how you do it.

Perfectly lucid reader, thank you. This is entirely correct, something I've repeated numerous times to no avail.

wow Dis injected some awesome reality into that discussion

Perfectly lucid reader II and he still didn't listen. There's rolling in ignorance despite every indication and being just plain ignorant. This is the latter which isn't forgivable and not the later which is.

Is it about Srivijaya?

EDIT: your paper, Masada

Yes, an 8000 word discussion on the evolution of thought by Srivijayan scholars. Incidentally about 5000 words of it are specifically concerned with Euro-centrism. So, yes. One would expect I know something about euro-centrism. Apparently, not.

It'd probably be best to ask Plotinus about the Rules on turning academic material into history articles, since none of us here in the NES forum is a published historian.

Probably, I did have a look last night. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room

 

[Adrogans]

Actually if you read the whole map of nesers thread I believe Penguins played quite a role.

 

[~Darkening~]

Krazzy, despite that harsh rejection, know that my offer always stands. Anytime you want that hug, just let me know. Anytime.

Anytime.



Oh, and you're pretty......'uncool'(?) to boot people for saying things you don't like .

 

[Dachs]

Perfectly lucid reader II and he still didn't listen. There's rolling in ignorance despite every indication and being just plain ignorant. This is the latter which isn't forgivable and not the later which is.

Didn't listen to what? If you mean "didn't read most of that discussion" then yes, I didn't.

 

[Masada]

Didn't listen to what? If you mean "didn't read most of that discussion" then yes, I didn't.

No, notice the and he [i.e. that other fellow, not you] still didn't listen part

 

[Kraznaya]

PROTIP: If everybody but you is insane, you're the one who's insane.

 

[Abaddon]

So what happens if you put two insane people in a room?

 

[flyingchicken]

So what happens if you put two insane people in a room?

Great TV.

 

[Karalysia]

So what happens if you put two insane people in a room?

Obama-Nethanyahu meeting.

 

[Lord of Elves]

No, notice the and he [i.e. that other fellow, not you] still didn't listen part

Masada, the discussion was concluded, but if you were aiming to bring it back just to complete the aim of insulting people, you succeeded.

Finally, if you wanted to actually address my points, you would have. Now I'm going to have to ask you -- What is this little crusade about, your belief of what the word Eurocentrism means?

 

[Bill3000]

Thlayli wants me.

 

[Masada]

Masada, the discussion was concluded, but if you were aiming to bring it back just to complete the aim of insulting people, you succeeded.

People, where are these people? Name them. I'll also reiterate the simple point that if you didn't want to continue you didn't have to. I didn't ask you to. In-fact I did quite the opposite:

The nesing community is going to try and explain to me the twisted skein of logic that is Lord of Elves explanation for the euro-centrism.

Did I mention you? Did I ask you to continue? Wait, I didn't! So please, before you act like a martyr at least reflect on how inane your defense is.

Finally, if you wanted to actually address my points, you would have.

You repeatedly refused to answer any of the points I raised, despite my repeated attempts to bring them to your attention. Let me re-quote myself for the third time:

I don't think you get it. The implication of racism had nothing to with the dry theoretical explanation of Caucasian migration which wasn't really relevant in the first instance. Instead, it was principally concerned to your explicit linking of race to culture through 'cultural memory' which apparently in your narrative is the direct result of migrations which happened umpteen thousand of years in the past. Quite how that implanted a 'cultural memory' and how it inexorably led to Western culture and Euro-centrism is a mystery to me or even how that exists as a satisfactory means of explains it. You even seem to have doubts about the veracity of your own suppositions.

I even took the time to deconstruct the passage I had issues with repeatedly in vain and in doing so I presented a critique of your whole argument. You never once addressed that or any of my substantive criticisms instead you argued ad nauseum about banalities of migrations, which were not in the least bit interesting or contentious. The contentious part is linking population migrations, events which happened in the distant past, with Euro-centrism when the two as you described them cannot logically, factually or historically be related. I also questioned repeatedly your evidentiary basis for supposing that cultural memories have anything to do with the Euro-centrism. That's putting to the side for the moment the simple fact that you don't know what the hell Euro-centrism is and have repeatedly been told you were wrong, not just by me now but by Dis and Dachs now as well. All of these points I repeated again and again.

Now I'm going to have to ask you -- What is this little crusade about, your belief of what the word Eurocentrism means?

At this point I stopped writing. This was never a question of what Euro-centrism means. It was question of how you explained the existence of Euro-centrism. I even charitably ignored the simple fact that you didn't even and still seemingly don't understand what the word means. I literally cannot comprehend how ignorant of my position you still are. It simply beggars belief.

 

[Kraznaya]

Finally, if you wanted to actually address my points, you would have. Now I'm going to have to ask you -- What is this little crusade about, your belief of what the word Eurocentrism means?

Both the Germanic peoples, and the Celts, if history is to be believed originated in the Caucasus, and either migrated to there from Africa or Mesopatamia sometime before the dawn of organized, civilization, in a nomadic period of existence. Eurocentrism, as you call it, is mostly the result of a cultural memory that the migration of mass chunks of humanity created, as well as colonialism by European nations. Eurocentrism, is at best, a flawed cultural memory that carries back to a long-dead era of civilization, in which Europe was identified with civilization by European colonists.

Let's follow the logical progression of your statements so far. Basically, you grounded your idea of "cultural memory" and "Eurocentrism" (which by the way, you incorrectly defined) from ancient migration patterns of Indo-Europeans. How are these ideas that relevant to each other in any way? Even ignoring your pseudo-intellectual theory of "cultural memory," or your incorrectly defined "Eurocentrism," how did the historical movement of people lead to this "cultural memory" or innate sense of superiority? In that vein, what historical migration do you propose that China's inherent sense of superiority as the "Middle Kingdom" was borne from? If this isn't making any sense, it's because it doesn't. Have you considered that people are annoyed you just because of the fact that your (il)logical progression has no grounding whatsoever?

Or were you merely trying to lecture? Because the community honestly doesn't take kindly to lecturers who have no idea what they're talking about, and throws Wikipedia links at people to try to prove a point. This isn't middle school, your pompous and condescending attitude when talking to people who know far more than you is ingratiating, and your elementary understanding of history isn't going to get you anywhere soon. I suggest you educate yourself, beginning from learning what "Eurocentrism" actually is.

 

[Oruc]

Or were you merely trying to lecture? Because the community honestly doesn't take kindly to lecturers who have no idea what they're talking about, and throws Wikipedia links at people to try to prove a point. This isn't middle school, your pompous and condescending attitude when talking to people who know far more than you is ingratiating, and your elementary understanding of history isn't going to get you anywhere soon. I suggest you educate yourself, beginning from learning what "Eurocentrism" actually is.

Who the hell put you in charge.

 

[Lord of Elves]

[Moved]

 

[Thlayli]

I'd say, the only one of Elfie's points that does make sense is that eurocentricism, whatever it is, gained global exposure due to colonialism. The idea that this attitude gained a larger sphere of influence than it might have had without colonialism is perfectly legitimate.

Unfortunately, that's not the aspect of his argument that half the forum is tearing into, it's the weird explanation of what migration from the Caucasus mountains has to do with thinking that one's culture is superior.

Another key error that Elves makes is his assumption that colonialism created Eurocentricism, which he does say on several occasions, though this conflicts with his initial Caucasus thing. I personally think he got a little confused and is now feverishly backtracking to protect some kind of argument, but that's just me.