Eurocentrism

[Rapier]

So do you think that the atrocities of the Mongols and the Crusaders should be excused? It was normal for the time after all. Yes I am bringing up old shame for me here.

Try to imagine yourself being born as a Mongol, living as a Mongol, being educated as a Mongol and living in a Mongol society. I want to know if you'd still be the same person from the 21st century, with these very same human rights regards. I'd like to know if the thought that impaling your enemies, pillaging and raping would even cross your mind as something that is morally wrong. I doubt it.

Those atrocities are not excusable. I find them morally reprehensible, yet I recognize that they lacked the notions that we have and thus could not judge their actions any better.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Rapier

[Moblin Major General]

Only the nobility would have even known what the Crusades even were. The masses were so uneducated they thought books and reading were a myth, and medicine was so backward the cure was more likely to kill you than the disease. The nobles saw the Crusades as a way to unite Europe (not the Rus and the Byzantine Empire) against a common enemy. Unfortunately, it spawned such things as the Knights Templar, a French Papacy, and may have contributed to the 100 years war. It did usher in the Renaissance, which got us here. Indirectly, but it certainly did help.

[blah the Prussian]

Try to imagine yourself being born as a Mongol, living as a Mongol, being educated as a Mongol and living in a Mongol society. I want to know if you'd still be the same person from the 21st century, with these very same human rights regards. I'd like to know if the thought that impaling your enemies, pillaging and raping would even cross your mind as something that is morally wrong. I doubt it.

Those atrocities are not excusable. I find them morally reprehensible, yet I recognize that they lacked the notions that we have and thus could not judge their actions any better.

That is the case for the common grunt. But what about the leaders? The wrongdoings f the grunts can be excused because it was the society they were in, but the leaders were responsible for creating that society.

[Snowy_One]

That is the case for the common grunt. But what about the leaders? The wrongdoings f the grunts can be excused because it was the society they were in, but the leaders were responsible for creating that society.

For the leaders a sizable amount were... well... too busy being assholes. Imagine if, in WWII, one of the allied generals suddenly up and decided that Orleans was his new, private, nation and both the Axis and Allies could fuck off. I don't think either side would consider him to be in the 'moral' right. Yet that's basically how the crusader states were founded. Not to mention that the internal politics made it so that many of the lords had little choice BUT to accept if they didn't want some serious repercussions.

I'm not saying the Crusades were right. Just that they were a lot more complex than a 'paint-all' good/evil or anything like that.

[blah the Prussian]

For the leaders a sizable amount were... well... too busy being assholes. Imagine if, in WWII, one of the allied generals suddenly up and decided that Orleans was his new, private, nation and both the Axis and Allies could fuck off. I don't think either side would consider him to be in the 'moral' right. Yet that's basically how the crusader states were founded. Not to mention that the internal politics made it so that many of the lords had little choice BUT to accept if they didn't want some serious repercussions.

I'm not saying the Crusades were right. Just that they were a lot more complex than a 'paint-all' good/evil or anything like that.

No, the Crusader States were pretty clearly supported by the Crusaders. Edited December 22, 2015 by blah2127

[Tetragrammaton]

You are all right if you are the winner.

You are all wrong if you are the loser, you die and can't say I'm sorry to kill you and steal your land.

[Snowy_One]

No, the Crusader States were pretty clearly supported by the Crusaders.

Not quite. Many of them were formed by, basically, the crusades themselves splitting apart as they progressed deeper inland, often to the detriment of the crusade as a whole. Sure, AFTER everything was said and done they were a lot better off for the European's than muslim controlled lands, but during the crusades themselves? Bad thing.

Besides, what I'm trying to say here is that these were things done not by the common grunt or people answering the call of Christ, but by leaders getting greedy and wanting their own piece of the middle-east pie.

[blah the Prussian]

Not quite. Many of them were formed by, basically, the crusades themselves splitting apart as they progressed deeper inland, often to the detriment of the crusade as a whole. Sure, AFTER everything was said and done they were a lot better off for the European's than muslim controlled lands, but during the crusades themselves? Bad thing.

Besides, what I'm trying to say here is that these were things done not by the common grunt or people answering the call of Christ, but by leaders getting greedy and wanting their own piece of the middle-east pie.

Ah, I see what you mean. I agree with that..

[Duff Ostrich]

The term "eurocentrism" is used in a handful of different contexts, most often to express the frustrations of those who cannot understand how Europeans and their cultural descendants manage to see the world through through some particular perspective.

Why does the K-12 study of American History focus on European settlers? It's an easily answered question. These European settlers were the ones that built the institutions to which all Americans now live under and are subject to. These are the things that are relevant to our experience as Americans. The predominance of European philosophy, especially as it applies to the wealthy, powerful, pluralistic liberal democracies and republics that now rule the world cannot be reasonably denied. Ideas matter, and as it happens it was a collection of very important ideas that have allowed a (shrinking) minority of the world's population to live meaningful, comfortable lives free of the shackles of tyranny. If it is Eurocentric and Americentric to place greater emphasis on the accomplishments of our societies as opposed to the crimes then I will happily accept the label, and with that in mind I reject the masochism that leads people to assume European colonialism is responsible for all the world's problems.

Interestingly the word "eurocentric" was coined by a French-Egyptian Marxist who according to Wikipedia associated himself with "Maoist circles". Interesting, as I said, but not surprising.

[blah the Prussian]

No one is saying that colonialism is at fault for all the worlds problems. It is, however, the reason why much of Africa is completely fucked up, and is also half of the reason why China suffered nearly two centuries of hardship(the other half of the responsibility belongs to the incompetence of Empress Dowager Cixi). Also, we are not talking about the study of American history, we are talking about world history, and there is indeed too great an emphasis placed on European history, especially European history between the fall of Rome and the age of exploration, during which time Europe with the exception of Byzantium was a backwater relative to the rest of Eurasia.

[Duff Ostrich]

In what context are we talking about the study of world history? In academia? If so at what levels? I specifically mentioned K-12 primary education because American kids don't really study history beyond the the 400 years or so that are relevant to the relatively short period of time that the United States has existed. The average American would be hard pressed to find Poland on a map, and so I assume we're not talking about a general understanding of world history at lower levels of education.

And yet if that isn't what we're talking about then I don't know where this criticism is coming from. Where precisely have we put undue emphasis on the period of time from 500 to 1500 A.D. and how has this warped our understanding of the world?

Edited December 27, 2015 by Duff Ostrich

[Alazen]

It is, however, the reason why much of Africa is completely fucked up, and is also half of the reason why China suffered nearly two centuries of hardship(the other half of the responsibility belongs to the incompetence of Empress Dowager Cixi).

You're being Eurocentric, as they say. China's century of humiliation was also rooted in the governance of the Qing Dynasty before Cixi's mother was in her mother's womb. Africa was never Heaven on Earth, with the slave trade in particular using the cooperation of merchants and governments in Africa.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Alazen

[eclipse]

Even if things weren't peachy before the Europeans got to Asia/Africa, I'd argue that their meddling didn't help to improve the situations there.

[blah the Prussian]

You're being Eurocentric, as they say. China's century of humiliation was also rooted in the governance of the Qing Dynasty before Cixi's mother was in her mother's womb. Africa was never Heaven on Earth, with the slave trade in particular using the cooperation of merchants and governments in Africa.

That early? In any case, the reason I mention Cixi was her utter opposition to any form of modernization and reform. If China had gotten out of its own way, the Qing would have dominated Asia, but it was almost entirely Cixi's fault that they didn't.

In what context are we talking about the study of world history? In academia? If so at what levels? I specifically mentioned K-12 primary education because American kids don't really study history beyond the the 400 years or so that are relevant to the relatively short period of time that the United States has existed. The average American would be hard pressed to find Poland on a map, and so I assume we're not talking about a general understanding of world history at lower levels of education.

And yet if that isn't what we're talking about then I don't know where this criticism is coming from. Where precisely have we put undue emphasis on the period of time from 500 to 1500 A.D. and how has this warped our understanding of the world?

Regarding your first point, we are quite simply not talking just about American history, because not everyone on this forum is American. For pretty much that entire period undue emphasis was put on the Europe of the Middle Ages and not enough emphasis on the Arab Caliphate and the Chinese. Although I will admit that we have a pass with Mesoamerican civilizations because they were pretty shitty at record keeping.

[Skynstein]

The West has its share in Africa's poverty, but the various native groups fight amongst themselves a lot and these fights reflect the bigger fights happening in the world at the time they occur. Africa was no stranger to the Cold War, for example. Various countries were ruined by conflict between communists and capitalists.

[Etrurian emperor]

That early? In any case, the reason I mention Cixi was her utter opposition to any form of modernization and reform. If China had gotten out of its own way, the Qing would have dominated Asia, but it was almost entirely Cixi's fault that they didn't.

Perhaps its because the book I've picked up after getting interested in her is (a bit too) sympathetic about her but I tend to take a more charitable look on Cixi. From what I've read she didn't even seem to have that much power in the grand scene of things. She seems to me like a pretty symbol who at one point actually found people looking at her when decisions had to be made, despite her never leaving the forbidden city and having zero experience in actual administration. This led her to rely heavily on several factions to be guide her policy. This could be the faction of Prince Chun who wanted to modernize but it could also be the conservative manchu nobility which led her to throw her lot in with the boxers. I don't think the dowagers crime was being fiercely opposed to modernization, its the flip flopping between which faction she supported. Whether she did so because either faction benefited her position at the time or because she was a plaything with little option other than to cling to the strongest factions makes no difference, its still harmful.

I view her more as a symbol keeping the dynasty together rather then the cause of its fall. Not that I think she's particular great though. If she sided with the boxers on her own then its a stupid move no real statemen should have made and if she did it because a faction pushed her into it then it means she was unable to keep her court under control when it mattered most.

But...I'm getting off topic. Ahem...um history is something of a hobby of mine

Ah, yes! Eurocentrism! I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand I think its a shame that while everyone knows the Roman empire and Napoleon that equally great realms and events like the Mongol empire, the various Chinese dynasties or the modernization of Japan are pretty much unknown. On the other hand I think the current approach to European history isn't Eurocentric, its masochistic instead. Whenever we hear anything about European history after the dark ages its usually about how we were just terrible and ruined it for all those defenseless victims of imperialism. I'd welcome some more people telling the rest of the world that their progress is coming out of Europe.

[Rapier]

The West has its share in Africa's poverty, but the various native groups fight amongst themselves a lot and these fights reflect the bigger fights happening in the world at the time they occur. Africa was no stranger to the Cold War, for example. Various countries were ruined by conflict between communists and capitalists.

Some despotic statist african governments also don't help...

[blah the Prussian]

Perhaps its because the book I've picked up after getting interested in her is (a bit too) sympathetic about her but I tend to take a more charitable look on Cixi. From what I've read she didn't even seem to have that much power in the grand scene of things. She seems to me like a pretty symbol who at one point actually found people looking at her when decisions had to be made, despite her never leaving the forbidden city and having zero experience in actual administration. This led her to rely heavily on several factions to be guide her policy. This could be the faction of Prince Chun who wanted to modernize but it could also be the conservative manchu nobility which led her to throw her lot in with the boxers. I don't think the dowagers crime was being fiercely opposed to modernization, its the flip flopping between which faction she supported. Whether she did so because either faction benefited her position at the time or because she was a plaything with little option other than to cling to the strongest factions makes no difference, its still harmful.

I view her more as a symbol keeping the dynasty together rather then the cause of its fall. Not that I think she's particular great though. If she sided with the boxers on her own then its a stupid move no real statemen should have made and if she did it because a faction pushed her into it then it means she was unable to keep her court under control when it mattered most.

But...I'm getting off topic. Ahem...um history is something of a hobby of mine

Ah, yes! Eurocentrism! I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand I think its a shame that while everyone knows the Roman empire and Napoleon that equally great realms and events like the Mongol empire, the various Chinese dynasties or the modernization of Japan are pretty much unknown. On the other hand I think the current approach to European history isn't Eurocentric, its masochistic instead. Whenever we hear anything about European history after the dark ages its usually about how we were just terrible and ruined it for all those defenseless victims of imperialism. I'd welcome some more people telling the rest of the world that their progress is coming out of Europe.

As Alazen said before, though, isn't that also a kind of Eurocentrism? China wasn't ruined because of the Taiping Rebellion, the decades of feudalism when not even Tsarist Russia was feudal anymore, or the rampant corruption that meant that Chinese sailors were firing watermelons at the Japanese fleet instead of shells, it was all the fault of the evil British. Lets ignore the fact that the Aztec Empire was an evil state that needed to be destroyed and just say "oh, but look at the architecture!" Focusing too much on how Europe ruined things is still Eurocentrism.

[Snowy_One]

In what context are we talking about the study of world history? In academia? If so at what levels? I specifically mentioned K-12 primary education because American kids don't really study history beyond the the 400 years or so that are relevant to the relatively short period of time that the United States has existed. The average American would be hard pressed to find Poland on a map, and so I assume we're not talking about a general understanding of world history at lower levels of education.

And yet if that isn't what we're talking about then I don't know where this criticism is coming from. Where precisely have we put undue emphasis on the period of time from 500 to 1500 A.D. and how has this warped our understanding of the world?

*raises hand* I know about history older than 400 years ago and can find Poland on a map. Of course I'm sort of a fluke in that I actually sat down and studied my textbooks instead of just glossing over them and looking for easy passing grades. Anyways... A lot of unfair focus gets put on the Dark Ages (they were bad, yea, but not the 'everybody went stupid' level people seem to think), the Crusades (The middle ages were MORE than Crusades!), and generally how bad feudalism was. Ironically most don't even know what the Magna Carta is despite disagreeing with the notion of a king.

[blah the Prussian]

*raises hand* I know about history older than 400 years ago and can find Poland on a map. Of course I'm sort of a fluke in that I actually sat down and studied my textbooks instead of just glossing over them and looking for easy passing grades. Anyways... A lot of unfair focus gets put on the Dark Ages (they were bad, yea, but not the 'everybody went stupid' level people seem to think), the Crusades (The middle ages were MORE than Crusades!), and generally how bad feudalism was. Ironically most don't even know what the Magna Carta is despite disagreeing with the notion of a king.

The main problem with teaching the Middle Ages is too much focus being on Western Europe when there should be focus further east. One area that is very important would be the fall of the Byzantine Empire, as it is the root of a lot of the problems faced by the Balkans and the Middle East today. The Seljuk victory at Mazinkert, for example, is why Anatolia today is Turkish. So yeah, I would definitely like to see more focus on the Byzantines vs the Arabs and Turks.

[Alazen]

Ah, yes! Eurocentrism! I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand I think its a shame that while everyone knows the Roman empire and Napoleon that equally great realms and events like the Mongol empire, the various Chinese dynasties or the modernization of Japan are pretty much unknown. On the other hand I think the current approach to European history isn't Eurocentric, its masochistic instead. Whenever we hear anything about European history after the dark ages its usually about how we were just terrible and ruined it for all those defenseless victims of imperialism. I'd welcome some more people telling the rest of the world that their progress is coming out of Europe.

You left out how many of them are following Western teachings when they go on about how bad conquest is (or whatever).

Edited February 4, 2016 by Alazen