Is History Eurocentric?

In the West, the study of history is absolutely Eurocentric.


Edited by Tiger of Kai - 17-May-2011 at 16:21

Yet is not historical 'objectivity' merely the largest consesnsus of academic historical subjectivity?



To think people manage to write such vast volumes on these matter.

DW! Dittos!

Originally posted by cavalry4ever I agree that it takes pretty self-centered vision of universe to upgrade a peninsula to a rank of a continent.

That's an unhistorical view. In fact, Europeans, or more precisely the Greeks, were the first to show awareness of their continentality, long before anyone else was realising they were living in the continent they did. Peoples on all the other continents, particularly Asia, became only aware of their continent when shown a world map by an European explorer, that is after 1500, but in case of Africa and Asia rather as late as the 20th century.

Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma For example, any concise book on world history between 1492 and 1918/1945 which does not dedicate at least 400 of its 500 pages to European history would be inherently unbalanced as it would prefer to discuss less important events and developments elsewhere over more important, European, ones. In this period, history can only be objectively written from a Eurocentric perspective because it was centered on Europe.

I disagree. History is only Eurocentric, if it is written Eurocentric. It is not inherently Eurocentric, that is the choice of the author. What events are and are not important is purely subjective. History can not be objectively written.


Its just a bothersome fact that Europeans have a habit of getting everywhere and thus a role in the history of everything. Simply couldnt stay in Europe and mind our own business.

I dont agree with your Europe being backwards comment, if they were does that not mean that other civilizations were just as equally backward ?
You cant deny there were powerful Kingdoms, the crusades could hardly have been raised by bog men. Its not like Europeans just appeared in the 19th century, there were many advanced states, some not quite as advanced yet its not like the other outside empires/civilizations dwarfed the Europeans, perhaps they did, give some examples.
I think the problem is that with regards to Euro-centrism is that people who come from areas where there may have been flourishing empires feel contempt to modern history because their achievements arent put in the limelight like for example the Greeks. Eurocentrism could be percieved as "Eurocentric" among people who arent European (or descended)


**************I havent finished my post, dont reply I will get back to it*************






Edited by von zip - 28-Jan-2010 at 00:24

Herr Zip!

You made a few good points above and a few bad ones! Will you admit to your bad ones or should one of us?

Actually, re-reading your above, I might say; Talley HO!

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 26-Jan-2010 at 20:36

History is Euro-centric due to the fact the modern world as in a vast quantity of everything we use today comes from European minds or American ones. A huge amount of thought came out of Britian, thats a fact not some Eurocentric point of view. Alot of modern culture has arisen out of Europe. The worlds largest sports  Rugby, Tennis, Golf, Soccer, Cricket originated in Britian.

Just some humble inventions that were no doubt stolen or perhaps thought up by an Arab guy.

Computers
Television
Combustible engines
Industrialisation
Steam power
Electricity
Aeroplanes. Flight,
Mining
Warfare

etc etc

I have a feeling that if India created the modern world history would be Indian-centric. But then again if they did would not that Indian-centric view be correct.

I do agree in some way history can be perhaps too Eurocentric in certain areas, yet lending appreciation to another culture also has the affect of putting that culture or perhaps individual on a pedestal when in reality that culture or individual may have had only a minor influence.

You guys speak of all this lost knowledge yet give no creadance to the men in the1500's onwards who revolutionised Europe and then the world. Instead everthing was already achieved or perhaps stolen.

So this is a discussion that has been going on for three page, and rather than attempting to involve myself in such a long discussion without knowing what the arguments are (I do not want to read through all the pages!) I will just give my two cents:

I do not believe history is Eurocentric. History may appear Eurocentric to many of us on this website because we live in the West. And living in the West means one thing, Rome and Greece, as the Western world did not have many other advanced European civilizations in Ancient times. This is why all European nations, and even North American ones, tend to glorify Rome and Greece because thats all they have, their histories were founded on the backs of Roman and Greek civilization.

So history is only Eurocentric in Europe, North America, and Australia, and this is natural, as in China I'm sure history is centered around their own civilization, and in Iran around Iranian civilization, and so on...

So it depends on where you live and where you were raised. To even suggest that history is Eurocentric or even raise the question is very Eurocentric itself.

Originally posted by cavalry4ever This is a quote from an Indian Chief speaking about celebration of Columbus day in US. "I don't understand this fuss about a white guy that got lost. We always knew where we were."

I doubt the Native American's knew where they were because they did not even know about the rest of the world. How could you know where you were if you do not know what else exists?

I understand what the chief is trying to say, but its still funny.

Posted: Oct-12-2009 at 19:32
If I may presume to interject an outsiders viewpoint, I would suggest that "certainly" history is Eurocentric! A very obvious fact, since for the last 300 years or so, most all historical writing has been done by people who called Euro-Asia as their homes. Thus most all history has been written in English, German, French, Italian, Russian,or take your pick of about a dozen other languages.

You see, I take a very different view of the so called "Indo-European" language history as is now accepted by 99.9% of modern historians and linguists! Thus, I would suggest that Persian, or Proto-Persian or Indo-European is not an East to West Phenomena, but a West to East one!

It is mostly a result of misdating of documents, coins, and the desire of etymologists to attempt the regression of language rather thas recognize that language can also "digress!" Therefore, one persons desire to show how language has "progressed" from the basic form, to a more advanced form, can also show how a "progressed form" can "regress" to a less developed one!
Early Latin is not either "early" nor is it Latin, except in the sense of a language to be used only by the "learned", and those in power, as a "common language" designed not to be either read nor understood by the masses! But, printing and religious wars caused its undoing! Greek can but be considered not as evolutionary but created!
Ron Hughes


My words from the above post, still asks questions which were not answered by any later respondands!