Is History Eurocentric?

Originally posted by DreamWeaver Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma Originally posted by DreamWeaver 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. I wouldn't stretch the subjective line too far. If history were indeed only subjective, terms such as Eurocentrism would lose any meaning, since the author had only the choice between any of a large number of -centrisms with equal claim to historical truth, so why not take an eurocentric view? The claim or blame of Eurocentrism makes only sense if its narrative can be measured up against some more or less objective yardstick; otherwise it would be a priori as good or as bad as any other approach making any discussion of its inherent value superfluous. Im sure the post structualists would argue that Eurocentrism has very little meaning. But History does still remain subjective, the author conciously or sub conciously will choose some -ism that their work wall fall into. Any attempts to find some objective markers to define it by is in itself a subjective act. Different historical approaches are as good or as bad as one another, its merely a question of choice and personal preference. Oh well we can all become post modernists and be happy.

You know the funny thing is that, all the while you are pointing out the all-pervasiveness of subjectiveness, the one key claim which really counts, this qualification of yours above in bold, actually pretends to be an objective statement, that is to be true. And that is the turning point which any subjectivism sooner or later has to face, namely that it has to postulate itself as objective in its criticism of subjectiveness, because otherwise it would remain subjective itself (and thus dismissable).

This proves that there can only be subjectivity, if there also exists objectivity, just like white makes only sense if black also exists and vice versa. And from recognizing that objectivity necessarily has to exist, it is only one step to recognize that history too can be written in an objective manner, although I gladly concede that the amount of truth in it can vary greatly, depending on the subject and the author's approach.

And the ultimate reason for the necessary existence of objectivity is this: We are all men, giving us similar mechanisms of recognizing what is right and wrong, true and false, and therefore there can indeed be something approaching objectiveness in historical works.


Edited by Gun Powder Ma - 10-Jun-2010 at 02:43

Yes it is.India and China have enough technology and money to change this!Cause they have scripts in libraries at home,that originated long time before,Europe ever had written official scripts.

Tiger of Kai, I ditto your remark above!

Regards,
Ron