Eurocentrism

[Skynstein]

Mali was one of the kingdoms that ruled the West Saharan trade. It entered decline when that commercial route became less important (after the rise of Atlantic trade).

Now, the Iberians certainly didn't pioneer the use of ships, but IIRC the compass was one of the developments that allowed them to explore further than anyone else had done.

The Norse made it to North America first, but the Columbus expedition was the first detailed account, although Columbus never intended to reach the Americas.

[Magical CC]

China had zero impact here until the late 20th century.

Pff. Without China, western people could probably...ah, never mind. Let us all forget what the Mongols brought from China to the world and the important of the Silk Road. Talking about silk, what were the hairy barbarians drink back then? Tea, perhaps? And let us of course forget who taught the Arabians how to build the ship wheel. And I wonder who invented paper, aliens?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions

Nobody gave a freak about the Europeans until they started sailing all over the world, taking colony after colony and exploit the hell out of the natives. At first, they were all friendly, content with trading. But then they all had another ideal. To be fair, they have it coming. Who enslaved people the most? Who has most colonies? Who exploited the local natural resource the most? Whose army march on others territory as if its their own land? Oh, and dont let me get on the fact that the bastard missionaries kept telling the natives that their ancestors are being burned in hell and more than happy to smash, destroy and burn the native cultures to the ground in the name of their accursed god. Even the Mongols didnt have that much fun in burning stuff. Here, behold the mighty power of white men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo

(how do you think China's borders got to their current limit)

By being conquered and merged with invading northern force for thousand years. China kept being conquered by northern and western tribes or kingdoms then the conquerors merged with China, thus increased its size. When the Manchurians conquered Ming Empire and created Qing Empire, there's virtually no one else in the north except bears and tigers. Also, they got to their current limit thank to WWII when everyone got a part of something after it. China got some parts (and lost some others). There are of course, its vassals such as Vietnam and Korea but there were no annexing.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Magical CC

[Naughx]

Well the so-called "arabic" numerals are actually indian.

The silk road was very beneficial to most empires using it.

Stop trades and the world economy would crumble.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Naughx

[Skynstein]

Nobody gave a freak about the Europeans until they started sailing all over the world

I didn't know the Greek and the Romans weren't from Europe.

[Alazen]

Who enslaved people the most?

I don't know, do the slaves taken by Arabs and Turks count?

Who has most colonies?

''Non-white'' empires have ruled larger proportions of the global population for most of the world's recorded history.

Who exploited the local natural resource the most?

Mass hunting and deforestation has been performed in ''non-white'' societies. Even ancient beasts like the Mammoth were mass hunted.

Whose army march on others territory as if its their own land?

I doubt you can name a continent with humans in it that has no history of conquest.

Oh, and dont let me get on the fact that the bastard missionaries kept telling the natives that their ancestors are being burned in hell and more than happy to smash, destroy and burn the native cultures to the ground in the name of their accursed god.

Smashing, destroying, and burning were happening in assorted human inhabited lands before Europeans visited in them noticeable numbers. I wouldn't call the human sacrifice practiced in the Central American civilizations rosy either. Don't push that noble savage junk.

Even the Mongols didnt have that much fun in burning stuff. Here, behold the mighty power of white men:

Trying to white guilt me isn't going to work.

By being conquered and merged with invading northern force for thousand years. China kept being conquered by northern and western tribes or kingdoms then the conquerors merged with China, thus increased its size. When the Manchurians conquered Ming Empire and created Qing Empire, there's virtually no one else in the north except bears and tigers. Also, they got to their current limit thank to WWII when everyone got a part of something after it. China got some parts (and lost some others). There are of course, its vassals such as Vietnam and Korea but there were no annexing.

Don't pacify China's past like the PRC propagandists and ignorant Westerners. For the majority of recorded history there wasn't a ''China'' like the living space in its current borders was some sort of 21st century, industrialized, country. The Shang dynasty had raids for targets of human sacrifices. The State of Qin conquered neighbors. The Han Dynasty successfully pursued war on the Xionghu along with seizing territory in what is now South China with North Vietnam. The Three Kingdoms speak for themselves. The Tang Dynasty had successful conquests of steppe nomads, had the enslavement of women with children, and attempted to seize territory in what is now Korea. The Mongol Horde's conquest of the Song took decades of war and collaborators. The Ming Dynasty also invaded Vietnam along with crushing the Miao Rebellion (which included a mass castration of Miao boys). The Manchus also needed collaborators and the empires' armies were by large Han, and they were the armies that forged not just China's current borders (which included colony building and ethnic cleansing) but also invaded Mongolia. By the way, go look up ''Jiaozhi'' if you're going to do some whitewashing of the relations between the dynasties and the Vietnam's states.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Alazen

[Rapier]

Oh come on! It was awesome when the Duke of Caxais bitchslapped Lopez! Or when Princess Isabel provided a feminist role model no one cares,about! Sure everything after the abolition of the monarchy is pretty dreary, but come on, you guys had a good thing going for a while.

Brazil was a pitiful colony until the king of Portugal decided to escape to here to save his ass from Napoleon, in case he were to successfully invade his country. This led to investments that improved our country and eventually made it into an empire (which... well, wasn't a literal empire, as I see it). It was then, and until the end of the monarchy, that Brazil had a good story. Everything else sucked and still sucks. A part of me wants a brazilian Napoleon to rise and set things straight, but I know I'm being foolish.

IMO the reason Columbus is famous is because of his attempt to prove the world was round

lol, Aristotle already knew that and wrote it on one of his books. How was this knowledge lost?

And yet, when we as a culture do not own up to the horrible things that we've done to other people, preferring to lie to ourselves about the extent of our damage -- "oh, they were a backwards people, it was inevitable", "they were the aggressors, we were the peaceful ones!", "we gave them religion and tried to help them acculturate, it's not our fault they didn't take it" -- that is Eurocentrism. When we belittle native societies and say that their way was not a civilized way, that is Eurocentrism. There are ways to teach history without being so overly biased in favor of the winners.

I confess I don't have much of an opinion about this, but something about this discourse feels... wrong. While it is true that horrible things were done to "natives" (well, they were once nomadic settlers, not much different from the strangers that came to the Americas much later, and they certainly did go into war and take each other's territories, not being much different than their european cousins), this is pretty much the norm on History. Countries were made through war and bloodshed and taking what "was from others" (to be honest, from an objective point of view, property rights and ownership are a mere fiction. Objectively, no one owns lands - we just suppose property rights exist because it is useful for us). I'd say it was a necessary evil. Also, it is a mistake to judge the actions from people of the past with our modern values and notions, as these didn't even exist.

About being backwards people, well, that should be obvious. Compare a society with primitive medicine, where cannibalism is considered normal, and another with modern medicine, where we are more tolerant to our neighbor and actually consider individual rights a valuable thing. Which one is objectively better and proggressive? I don't see how you can claim it is not possible to value the more developped culture over the other, less developped culture. This sounds like a poor excuse for an argument, and from my pov is a part of the noble savage myth. Anyway, the lack of contact with other cultures, which made Europe develop so much, greatly hindered their culture, so that was the turning point.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Rapier

[Sunwoo]

You... might want to rethink that a bit. The primary devastation came from disease which, while brought over, wasn't really understood at all by the people at the time as to how they functioned or spread. Heck, they even forgot the cure to scurvy! With that said... I'm fairly certain a lot of people today owe up to what happened and recognize it was a horrible thing IN HINDSIGHT! For example, the battle of Little Bighorn shows the natives as being the heroes in the right while Custard was in the wrong despite being an American. By the time people managed to start caring, though, it was already too late. People had been so overly-focused on expansion that there was little left to save in the first place.

Disease was a big factor in wiping out the natives, but the people who came to the U.S. most certainly were not innocent bystanders who watched in confused horror as disease wiped out all of the natives. They had their own hand in decreasing the native population, it's a thing that happens when a certain people don't have rights or no one cares to enforce their rights on their behalf. And even if some people managed to "start caring", they clearly don't care enough to start telling the whole truth and drop the biased language.

Because people are idiots. The vikings were the first recorded Europeans to reach America, and they actually GOT to America as opposed to Columbus. IMO the reason Columbus is famous is because of his attempt to prove the world was round (despite that discovering America wouldn't prove that. Only that the world was larger than they thought) as well as... well... being in the right place at the right time. But yea... While he isn't undeserving of acknowledgement he certainly doesn't deserve as much as he gets. And yes, a lot of people stupidly attribute inventions largely to Europe or, for some reason, China. Not saying China doesn't deserve recognition. Just weird that it seems like people only attribute it to those two places. Heck, ARABIC NUMERALS WEREN'T INVENTED IN EUROPE! It's in the freaking NAME! That's not to mention the many other things invented elsewhere. Did you know the vending machine was originally invented by Hero of Alexandria?

People are idiots, glad we got that out of the way. So clearly you agree with me that attributing non-European achievements to Europeans and retelling history to make Europeans the discoverer of everything is Eurocentric, and it's not that the other cultures didn't have anything worth telling.

[Magical CC]

Don't pacify China's past like the PRC propagandists and ignorant Westerners. For the majority of recorded history there wasn't a ''China'' like the living space in its current borders was some sort of 21st century, industrialized, country. The Shang dynasty had raids for targets of human sacrifices. The State of Qin conquered neighbors. The Han Dynasty successfully pursued war on the Xionghu along with seizing territory in what is now South China with North Vietnam. The Three Kingdoms speak for themselves. The Tang Dynasty had successful conquests of steppe nomads, had the enslavement of women with children, and attempted to seize territory in what is now Korea. The Mongol Horde's conquest of the Song took decades of war and collaborators. The Ming Dynasty also invaded Vietnam along with crushing the Miao Rebellion (which included a mass castration of Miao boys). The Manchus also needed collaborators and the empires' armies were by large Han, and they were the armies that forged not just China's current borders (which included colony building and ethnic cleansing) but also invaded Mongolia. By the way, go look up ''Jiaozhi'' if you're going to do some whitewashing of the relations between the dynasties and the Vietnam's states.

I dont have to. Because I am a Vietnamese and I hate China the most. But there's no deny that China sucks at conquering. Tang Dynasty failed to conquer the northern tribes. Ming Dynasty rarely touched Vietnam during its existence, what are you talking about? Oh, you have mistook it for the Qing Dynasty. And the rebel was on China's land, look at the map, please. And I dont think you have the right to talk about it either when Europeans were known for their habit of slaughtering Jews in mass, hundred years before Hitler made it famous.

And why bother Jiaozhi when you have the whole Conchinchina stuff right there in 18th with France and China fighting to control Vietnam. At least Qing Dynasty only demand tributes, France outright colonized the whole Vietnam. Now about human sacrifice, Shang Dynasty did it in what? 1000 BC? Compare it to the Spanish Inquisitor (oh my, these guys were hardcore). The Han Dynasty didnt size Vietnam, it vassalized Vietnam and lost control later. Man, get your fact straight. And war, oh my, do you have to right to speak about war? Do you? WWI and WWII? Crusader?

Count everything, it's the white people that enslaved the most people.

White people colonized the most. No contest. Even the Mongol couldnt match the "colonial" empire of British.

Mass hunting and deforestation? On their land, of course, everyone did that. Exploiting natural resources of "other lands", no one can compete with the white people.

I didn't know the Greek and the Romans weren't from Europe.

Of course, they were not from "Europe" as their base where on Mediterranean. In fact, comparing them to the barbaric Europeans could be an insult, especially to the Roman who found themselves murdering the barbarian tribes in France and German. In Medieval time, the Byzantine was hardly considered as an "Europe faction" and was never on good terms with the rest of Europe either. Even if you look at their skins, they were hardly white. Even the Persians were more white than the Romans.

[Snowy_One]

Disease was a big factor in wiping out the natives, but the people who came to the U.S. most certainly were not innocent bystanders who watched in confused horror as disease wiped out all of the natives. They had their own hand in decreasing the native population, it's a thing that happens when a certain people don't have rights or no one cares to enforce their rights on their behalf. And even if some people managed to "start caring", they clearly don't care enough to start telling the whole truth and drop the biased language.

Yea... I'm gonna stop you right there. Hard. No one believes that the settlers were innocent bystanders. Because that's simply not how it happened. Heck, even today it's not THAT hard to find kids aspiring to play Cowboys and Indians knowing full well that it entails violence between one and the other. That's the point of playing it after all. Old west movies and stories have plenty of battles with indians as well as alliances with them and so-forth.

And no. Biased language is BS and I will not respond to anything said with that sort of mindset. We're here to talk about what happened, not get our panties in a wad because someone said something someone might be irritated by.

People are idiots, glad we got that out of the way. So clearly you agree with me that attributing non-European achievements to Europeans and retelling history to make Europeans the discoverer of everything is Eurocentric, and it's not that the other cultures didn't have anything worth telling.

No. After all, if it was 'Euro-centric' wouldn't people be more than willing to accept that it was the Vikings who ACTUALLY landed on America that made it to America first? The cause is not 'Eurocentricism' or anything like that but 'I'm busy trying to fight off bears and sow crops into my field so I don't starve in the winter. I don't care where the numbers came from!'. Until recently people have had to spend a lot of time and effort simply keeping life running. The question of where a concept like the arabic numeral came from was simply useless knowledge to most people. If someone told them that Columbus got to America first, most probably wouldn't have cared as they had to get back to the fields, factories, and the like. It's part of why things like medical science and archaeology were under-developed until recently as well. People simply didn't have enough time to care about something like this.

Also, REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE SAYING THIS FROM THE WEST COAST! America and Canada are places HEAVILY influenced by Europe throughout history. Most of the immigrants came from Europe, most of them spoke at least one european language (usually english though french and german were far from unknown), and much of America has been sculpted BY Europe. That most of its history prior to its founding is focused ON Europe is NOT surprising at all. Go to China, or India, or wherever else and you'll notice that they'll focus a lot more on their own history. Because it's where they came from. It's not Euro-centrism. It's what happens when you throw a bunch of people from primarily one continent together and seeing how they end up defining themselves. Shockingly, they define themselves mainly according to the continent that they came from.

[eclipse]

Oh, this is about history in terms of Europe/natives? Here's the view from Hawaii and its history:

- A lot of it was oral, so the winners got to tell their story, because the losers were dead.

- Y'know who was ruling Hawaii at the time Captain Cook showed up? THE WINNERS. Y'know who got the ability to read and write? THE WINNERS.

- I think the native Hawaiians today see Americans as the bigger bad guys than the Europeans, but that's because America sort-of deserved it (go look up "Bayonet Constitution").

- Regardless, not everyone in Hawaii was a traditionalist. Iolani Palace has electric lights in it, for one.

- And the view from before then? Not pretty at all. Chiefs fought over land, the wars were brutal, the weapons were even more brutal (ever seen weapons made with human hair and teeth?), and the local religion was extremely oppressive.

Yes, there were a lot of shitty things done by both sides. However, things weren't sunshine and rainbows pre-contact, either.

[Sunwoo]

Snowy, I'm starting to get the feeling that you have absolutely no idea what the hell I am even arguing with. All of your points either strengthen my argument or you're clearly not comprehending anything that I am saying.

Yea... I'm gonna stop you right there. Hard. No one believes that the settlers were innocent bystanders. Because that's simply not how it happened. Heck, even today it's not THAT hard to find kids aspiring to play Cowboys and Indians knowing full well that it entails violence between one and the other. That's the point of playing it after all. Old west movies and stories have plenty of battles with indians as well as alliances with them and so-forth.

No duh the settlers weren't innocent bystanders. Too bad there are still many history textbooks that try to "soften" the extent of the damage the white settlers did by glossing over some of the details. What exactly is your point here?

And no. Biased language is BS and I will not respond to anything said with that sort of mindset. We're here to talk about what happened, not get our panties in a wad because someone said something someone might be irritated by.

The biased language is in the textbooks, in some of the words that have ended up being acculturated in our society and we don't even realize. What the hell are you even talking about? No one is getting their panties in a wad. The point is that there is a bias in our language today that people don't even realize is biased, some of which is Eurocentric! The word "discover" as it is used in textbooks is a good example. If we want to get technical, none of the European "discoverers" ever discovered anything in North America. The people already living there had to discover it first if they were there.

No. After all, if it was 'Euro-centric' wouldn't people be more than willing to accept that it was the Vikings who ACTUALLY landed on America that made it to America first? The cause is not 'Eurocentricism' or anything like that but 'I'm busy trying to fight off bears and sow crops into my field so I don't starve in the winter. I don't care where the numbers came from!'. Until recently people have had to spend a lot of time and effort simply keeping life running. The question of where a concept like the arabic numeral came from was simply useless knowledge to most people. If someone told them that Columbus got to America first, most probably wouldn't have cared as they had to get back to the fields, factories, and the like. It's part of why things like medical science and archaeology were under-developed until recently as well. People simply didn't have enough time to care about something like this.

Snowy, I don't think you understand Eurocentrism. Just because history chooses to gloss over this particular group of Europeans' who made it to America first in favor of this OTHER group of Europeans who made it to America later, doesn't change the fact that it's still pointing to a group of Europeans as these people who "discovered" a new continent. History classes could choose to focus on the Native Americans' side of the conflict during the colonial times. History could tell us more about the slaves, the immigrants in the late 1800s. History could tell us about the not-very-nice things the people in power have done, like exclusionist laws to keep Asians out and their prejudice against "hyphenated" Americans. But they don't really go into detail on this.

Also, REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE SAYING THIS FROM THE WEST COAST! America and Canada are places HEAVILY influenced by Europe throughout history. Most of the immigrants came from Europe, most of them spoke at least one european language (usually english though french and german were far from unknown), and much of America has been sculpted BY Europe. That most of its history prior to its founding is focused ON Europe is NOT surprising at all. Go to China, or India, or wherever else and you'll notice that they'll focus a lot more on their own history. Because it's where they came from. It's not Euro-centrism. It's what happens when you throw a bunch of people from primarily one continent together and seeing how they end up defining themselves. Shockingly, they define themselves mainly according to the continent that they came from.

Just because I'm from the West Coast doesn't mean I'm ignorant to U.S. history as it affects the entire continent. The U.S. and Canada are not like China and India. The population demographics of the U.S. and Canada are far more homogenous, with people from practically every corner of the world. Sure, many of the early immigrations came from Europe, there is no denying that. But do you know what other group came to America early? Slaves, whom we don't really hear a lot about until we get close to the Civil War. People who are not Europeans did things in U.S. history. I'm interested in learning about history from a native perspective as well. And none of this changes the fact that America had very ugly policies towards certain immigrant groups, whom America felt were not "true" Americans. And by not telling that story, or by glossing over it, that is Eurocentrism.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sunwoo

[Phoenix Wright]

i think you mean heterogeneous.

eurocentrism, i think, has come about from 2/3 things:

1. europe has more written records

2a. racism of the past caused history to be told from a european perspective

2b. 2a is no longer the reason, but tradition is now.

it's hard to kick tradition, for whatever reason. we're in the beginning of the fight against teaching history largely with only one perspective in mind.

[Alazen]

I dont have to. Because I am a Vietnamese and I hate China the most. But there's no deny that China sucks at conquering.

I doubt you can find any respectable historians who specialize in the subject while also agreeing with what you claim.

Tang Dynasty failed to conquer the northern tribes.

The Tang pursued successful campaigns against the Khitans (women and livestock were granted to Turkic forces within the Tang's military), Liang Shidu's forces (was aided by Turks), Eastern Gokturks (kept under a Ming thumb), and Xueyantuo (its leadership mass surrendered while its last Khan became a general under the Tang).

Also, the track record of West Eurasian or ''European'' powers against horse riding nomads and/or civilizations with ties to them isn't really spotless. For example, there's the Roman struggles against the Parthian and Hunnic Empires.

Ming Dynasty rarely touched Vietnam during its existence, what are you talking about?

You can't change what actually happened. The Ming Dynasty's forces invaded Dai Ngu (what is now North Vietnam) and repeatedly won out over the enemy until the land was annexed into a province called Jiaozhi. It wasn't until 1427 that the region shook off the Ming yolk.

Oh, you have mistook it for the Qing Dynasty.

The Qing had no successful invasions of Vietnam.

And the rebel was on China's land, look at the map, please.

The Miao were one of the aboriginal peoples who rebelled against the Ming.

And I dont think you have the right to talk about it either when Europeans were known for their habit of slaughtering Jews in mass, hundred years before Hitler made it famous.

Persecution of or otherwise contempt towards Jews was also performed in Islamic states. There are records of massacres, looting, confinement to ghettos, and enforced wearing of distinguishing marks on clothes.

And why bother Jiaozhi when you have the whole Conchinchina stuff right there in 18th with France and China fighting to control Vietnam. At least Qing Dynasty only demand tributes, France outright colonized the whole Vietnam.

Vietnam was used as a land of colonization by Chinese governments.

Now about human sacrifice, Shang Dynasty did it in what? 1000 BC? Compare it to the Spanish Inquisitor (oh my, these guys were hardcore).

Save the Oppression Olympics for somebody else.

The Han Dynasty didnt size Vietnam, it vassalized Vietnam and lost control later. Man, get your fact straight.

The Han's forces conquered the Nanyue Kingdom, established nine commanderies (or prefectures), and colonized it.

And war, oh my, do you have to right to speak about war? Do you? WWI and WWII? Crusader?

Last time I checked, the Ottoman Empire and Showa Japan were members of the Central Powers and Axis respectively, with only Nazi Germany being up in the running for outdoing Showa Japan when it came to war crimes. The Crusades were hardly ''Evil Oppressive White People VS Innocent Good Non-Whites'' considering how not only did both sides have their atrocities, but there were alliances between Christian and Muslim against enemies.

Count everything, it's the white people that enslaved the most people.

The Turks, Arabs, and assorted African states (such as Dahomey) took part in slavery. The Transatlantic Slave Trade was dependent on the cooperation of African governments.

White people colonized the most. No contest. Even the Mongol couldnt match the "colonial" empire of British.

The Mongol and Qing governments ruled more than the British government in proportion to each era's world population. Let's not forget the ''white people'' who were either under a yolk (such as the Greeks and Irish), or fell behind the imperialism game.

Mass hunting and deforestation? On their land, of course, everyone did that. Exploiting natural resources of "other lands", no one can compete with the white people.

So what, exploitation is only bad if ''whites'' are doing it? Even if ''non-white'' invaders conquered and sent supplies with human laborers back?

Has anything you've been claiming in this thread backed up by an academically respectable source? I know I can list sources (such as this one, or this one).

Edited December 5, 2015 by Alazen

[Snowy_One]

No duh the settlers weren't innocent bystanders. Too bad there are still many history textbooks that try to "soften" the extent of the damage the white settlers did by glossing over some of the details. What exactly is your point here?

My 'point' is that this isn't an issue of 'the evil european came and killed the indians for their lands'. It's a complex issue involving MANY factors and saying that it's all because of the settlers is simply insulting to all sides of what actually happened. The settlers had a hand in killing the indians, yes, but there was much more going on such as inter-tribal warfare that happened not because of the malice of the settlers but because tribes gained access to guns and could push rivals out (for example).

The biased language is in the textbooks, in some of the words that have ended up being acculturated in our society and we don't even realize. What the hell are you even talking about? No one is getting their panties in a wad. The point is that there is a bias in our language today that people don't even realize is biased, some of which is Eurocentric! The word "discover" as it is used in textbooks is a good example. If we want to get technical, none of the European "discoverers" ever discovered anything in North America. The people already living there had to discover it first if they were there.

And this is why it's BS. You meet a word that you don't like because you feel it's pushing a viewpoint you don't like and assume that it's all because the world wants to focus on white people. Guess you can't say firemen 'discovered' people trapped inside a burning building because said people were already there. Heck, if you want to be technical, no human 'discovered' America because the deer were here first! So stop insulting the deer by implying human beings discovered America! Or... you know... man up and realize that pretty much everyone knows the indians were here first and don't really care one way or the other about if the word 'discover' is used or not.

Snowy, I don't think you understand Eurocentrism. Just because history chooses to gloss over this particular group of Europeans' who made it to America first in favor of this OTHER group of Europeans who made it to America later, doesn't change the fact that it's still pointing to a group of Europeans as these people who "discovered" a new continent. History classes could choose to focus on the Native Americans' side of the conflict during the colonial times. History could tell us more about the slaves, the immigrants in the late 1800s. History could tell us about the not-very-nice things the people in power have done, like exclusionist laws to keep Asians out and their prejudice against "hyphenated" Americans. But they don't really go into detail on this.

I understand it perfectly. And this is why I know it's BS. Because what you're saying only makes sense on a superficial level. Firstly, yes, it matters. A lot. Because it didn't happen that way and being able to turn around and say 'yes. The vikings were here even earlier than him' when someone points out that Columbus didn't even land on the mainland along with many other flaws and problems (like how his model of the world was completely foolish and EVEN THE BIBLE states that the world is a 'sphere').

Also? You want to talk about history? Why don't we talk about the many african tribes that declared war on other tribes to capture and sell people into slavery in return for money and guns? Or the many white people enslaved throughout history due to things like conquest and the like. Or how natives would outright kill other tribes simply to take their heads, shrink them, and sell them to the Europeans simply for cash. The massive ritual human sacrifices conducted by the Aztecs for basically every occasion to the point where they declared war simply for the SAKE of sacrificing captives, the enslavement practices of the egyptians, the incest-focused Zoroastian religion, how the Mongols invented biological warfare as well are pretty much single-handedly responsible for turning the middle east into its current state due to the sheer devastation it inflicted upon their irrigation, and the Maori warriors in general.

<quote>Just because I'm from the West Coast doesn't mean I'm ignorant to U.S. history as it affects the entire continent. The U.S. and Canada are not like China and India. The population demographics of the U.S. and Canada are far more homogenous, with people from practically every corner of the world. Sure, many of the early immigrations came from Europe, there is no denying that. But do you know what other group came to America early? Slaves, whom we don't really hear a lot about until we get close to the Civil War. People who are not Europeans did things in U.S. history. I'm interested in learning about history from a native perspective as well. And none of this changes the fact that America had very ugly policies towards certain immigrant groups, whom America felt were not "true" Americans. And by not telling that story, or by glossing over it, that is Eurocentrism.</quote>

When I point out that American history is going to largely focus on American history because it is America and European history because many of the settlers were from Europe the proper counter is usually not to claim that you're 'ignorant' of American history. Also, this might shock you, but in almost every nation in the world people look down on minority groups as opposed to the 'normal'. The Zim lost its value because it got a black leader who was so against white people that he quickly expelled them and didn't even bother to try and teach the replacements how to farm properly for a modern example. Or how the Japanese tend to look down on people whose ancestors were not Japanese and 'half-breeds'.

The world is a dark and messy place and acting like the Europeans are the cause of all of it, ignoring the many positive things that they HAVE done (Magna Carta anyone?), and claiming oppression because they dared to teach their history in their nation is silly, stupid, and shows why the whole SJW mindset is a bad one. Because it is a mindset that makes itself willfully ignorant in order to let its preachers act oppressed.

[eclipse]

The world is a dark and messy place and acting like the Europeans are the cause of all of it, ignoring the many positive things that they HAVE done (Magna Carta anyone?), and claiming oppression because they dared to teach their history in their nation is silly, stupid, and shows why the whole SJW mindset is a bad one. Because it is a mindset that makes itself willfully ignorant in order to let its preachers act oppressed.

Kindly stop making idiotic generalizations about my race.

Second, arguing against a SJW mindset here, while giving them views, does not help. Most of us don't fall under that umbrella, and by giving them views, you're telling them that someone is interested in listening to them. If you well and truly despise the attitude stop going there!

[Alazen]

There's no such things as a continent wide ''White Race'' or ''East Asian Race'' when you start looking through haplogroups. Too many populations in West Eurasia and East Eurasia respectively are actually distinct from each-other .

Edited December 5, 2015 by Alazen

[Rapier]

Second, arguing against a SJW mindset here, while giving them views, does not help. Most of us don't fall under that umbrella, and by giving them views, you're telling them that someone is interested in listening to them. If you well and truly despise the attitude stop going there!

This is where you're wrong. Leaving them alone only makes them stronger and gives them more space to spout their crap. Here are examples of how SJWs exert their influence beyond their crappy social pages, and you probably know about the issue surrounding DOAX3. The only way to stop them or diminish their influence is by showing them as ridiculous and powerless, until no one is able to take them seriously. Pretending a threat doesn't exist is not the best way to solve a problem.

somewhat relevant to the topic, since it is also about SJWs distorting story.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Rapier

[Snowy_One]

This is where you're wrong. Leaving them alone only makes them stronger and gives them more space to spout their crap. Here are examples of how SJWs exert their influence beyond their crappy social pages, and you probably know about the issue surrounding DOAX3. The only way to stop them or diminish their influence is by showing them as ridiculous and powerless, until no one is able to take them seriously. Pretending a threat doesn't exist is not the best way to solve a problem.

somewhat relevant to the topic, since it is also about SJWs distorting story.

It's not just that. It's... well...

There will always be 'offensive' things because that's just how the world works. Recently an atheist family complained about a nativity scene in a school play and said that they were 'shocked' at it and demanded its removal. This... is not 'legitimate' offense. Why? Because Christmas is well known to be a Christian holiday and scenes of the nativity are very well known. You can say that the separation of church and state means the school shouldn't show it, but that's another debate. This family, whoever they were, was being offended simply for the sake of being offended and wanting to cause trouble/push religion out.

A while back I saw a comic that started off with a white guy looking at a bookshelf full of white power and pro-nazi symbols. Then a person approached him and offered him tickets around the world. The remaining panels show him slowly visiting various locations and slowly turning from a scowling, unhappy, man rejecting other people to slowly liking, and even partaking of, the various activities. The final panel shows him at home looking at the same bookcase and, instead of the white power symbols, it's instead full of various things from the nations he visited. He didn't really lose his identity but he became open to new ideas and cultures. Then someone pointed out that an SJW would have considered this 'cultural appropriation' and offensive. Do you see the problem here?

There is a certain speech in a certain movie involving puppets and... well... A lot of the SJW's have taken the role of the Film Actors Guild and need to be confronted by reality.

[Alazen]

And of course, there's how too many SJWs are either Eurocentric, insert USAish racial or ethnic definitions and dynamics where they don't fit, push noble savage junk, and whatever I didn't mention.

[Crysta]

No, ignoring the SJWs really is the best thing you can do. You can point out that they're wrong and how but I don't see how that is a productive use of your time: I don't think they're going to listen to you anyway and most sensible people don't listen to them in the first place - the people prone to sensationalism might, but those sort of people have always existed and will always exist.

If Koei Tecmo ignored them, you would get your game. I sincerely doubt that was actually the reason and it sounds more like a whiny excuse to be perfectly honest. It may not do as well as he'd like versus Japan (which may be why he doesn't want to invest in a Western release), though. I really don't know many people here who are enthralled with that franchise and it's not because they are offended by the content - it's just not worth the money.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Crysta

[eclipse]

If you have someone that's whining, and it's stupid whining, the best thing to do is deprive them of the attention they so seek. If they step into your personal bound, tell them "no", firmly. If it gets to the point where they break the law, then you give them police/lawyer attention (and if it's the latter and a dumbshit case, sue for fees). But whining is a cry for attention, and a juvenile one, and that is sadly what loud, obnoxious people do.

Unfortunately, society frowns upon hitting whiners over the head with a rolled-up newspaper or spraying their faces with water.

SOOO. . .instead of wasting your time trying to educate people whose mouths are open (and thus cannot hear what you have to say, let alone analyze it), ignore 'em. But to argue as if anyone with a shred of sanity would take that point of view means that you've wasted far too much time on them. Why not do something productive, like pick up litter in your neighborhood?

Edited December 6, 2015 by eclipse

[Skynstein]

No, ignoring the SJWs really is the best thing you can do. You can point out that they're wrong and how but I don't see how that is a productive use of your time: I don't think they're going to listen to you anyway and most sensible people don't listen to them in the first place - the people prone to sensationalism might, but those sort of people have always existed and will always exist.

If Koei Tecmo ignored them, you would get your game. I sincerely doubt that was actually the reason and it sounds more like a whiny excuse to be perfectly honest. It may not do as well as he'd like versus Japan (which may be why he doesn't want to invest in a Western release), though. I really don't know many people here who are enthralled with that franchise and it's not because they are offended by the content - it's just not worth the money.

The problem is that they're really loud minority and make it sound like there are thousands of them when in fact they're not that numerous, but due to this multiplication effect they scare game devs.

It also doesn't help that the bigger gaming sites seem to attempt to "cater" to them. And you can't even contradict their ideas because they'll bother you if you do. It's actually ironic that they want "safe space" but we who aren't SJWs can't be safe from them anywhere. :P

[Rapier]

But I don't want to educate them. I want to help demoralize them by debunking their discourses, making them seem too ridiculous to be taken seriously. This is how one silences another in a discussion, and this is what they deserve.

I don't think they're going to listen to you anyway and most sensible people don't listen to them in the first place - the people prone to sensationalism might, but those sort of people have always existed and will always exist.

If they are such a minimal threat, then how do they exert influence in some parts of the media (hi, Kotaku) and why is this not the first case where SJW whining is responsible for games not coming to the west?

[Original Alear]

Snowy, just so you know, as far as disease goes I'm pretty sure that smallpox infested blankets were given to native americans by europeans intentionally in an effort to spread disease. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the disease(s?) that wiped out tons of the aztecs were not intended. As far as disease that was spread here in general, I don't know if much of it was intentional or not.

[Alazen]

The claim that blankets were planned to be used to spread disease is a myth.