The Dangers of Euro-Centric History

[MrRant 0]

http://www.counterprotester.com/articles/e...eurocentric.htm

 

"Hey hey! Ho ho! Western Civ has got to go...!" So goes the famous battle cry of "activists" and "progressives" within America's college campuses and public school systems as they protest for and demand the reform of history curriculum that teaches the past through "dirty, eurocentric lenses." The protesters demand an end to the study of history apologetic to or ignorant of white Europe and America's brutal escapades. "Why don't we spend more time detailing the slaughter of the Indians, colonialism's devastating legacy in Africa or the racist tendencies of our nation's founders?" they ask. "Why do we treat the Jewish (European) Holocaust like it was such a terrible thing but do not spend so much time mourning the trans-Atlantic African slave trade, a holocaust in its own right?" "Why must we study all these dead white men and their white problems?" Regardless of the fact that the United States is a Western nation founded on Western principles, this is injustice, and, of course, damaging to "children of color" who feel left out.

I agree. Something has to change. Eurocentric education is damaging and unfair. Now...before you go thinking I've jumped ship, hear me out. You see, when history is taught in public schools and colleges these days, it is often either an account from a traditional non-politicized European-American/white perspective, or one of a thousand "alternative" perspectives that usually focus on some "oppressed" people as they are faced with their righteous struggle against white oppression and discrimination. This is not enough. In this particular case, I say we give the far-left what they want- a clear and accurate portrayal of the REST of the world's brutal history in order to show, once and for all, that murder, conquest, racism, and empire are not sins peculiar to Europeans and Americans.

 

It's somewhat easy to understand why there is so much attention paid to the sins of the Western world. We're at a certain point in history where Europeans (and thus, "whites") are and were the dominant powers in the world for the past couple hundred years. They've built empires, conquered the globe, exploited the land and people, and pushed their culture and religion to the far reaches of the earth. This sort of thing is nothing new however, and has been going on since the dawn of time. The English, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Aryans, the Zulus, Mali, Rome, the Arabs, and the Aztecs to name a few...all were nasty, oppressive empires, all dominated and subjugated and murdered their conquered peoples. The only difference between these older imperialists and Western imperialists is that the modern Europeans had the advantage of better and bigger weapons than their predecessors (and smallpox of course).

 

It's an impossible dream, I know, to demand that history be taught accurately and fairly at the liberal university....but imagine the consequences! When talking about the transatlantic slave trade for example, professors would describe in more detail the very important African role in a system of human trafficking that was a vibrant industry hundreds and hundreds of years before a European ever even thought about bringing an African to the new world. Furthermore, they might be more keen to discuss how a few thousand free blacks even owned slaves themselves in the south (envision the implications for reparations suits and other liberal "pet projects")! On a similar line, when talking about the "genocide" of the Native Americans, professors wouldn't "conveniently" forget that Indian tribes from the Inca to the Iroquois had been building empires and exterminating and enslaving each other for generations before colonists arrived, or that many of the tribes even formed alliances with white men to destroy rival tribes. Native Americans were war-like and genocidal too...the European was just better at it. Needless to say, this doesn't mean that what the white man did was good, or even justified really, but the blatant lies and glossing over of the rest of the world's oppressive history does nothing but exacerbate stereotypes and the culture of victimization and demonization that breeds unchecked at the university.

 

Learning about other cultures will also help remove many misconceptions American students have about the rest of the world, in particular many of the European countries that are often propped up as "superior alternatives" to the United States. In one recent interview on television a "whiteness studies" professor praised the Scandinavian countries as being much less racist and more tolerant than the United States, which, she insists, was founded on "genocide of Native Americans and slavery." Of course the Scandinavian countries have racial harmony...they are 99.5+% homogenous! Cultures clash whenever they mix in large numbers. One only has to look at France and see the increase in violence between native French and Danish citizens and their respective growing Muslim immigrant populations to see how even the most "progressive" nations have problems of prejudice and ethnic disharmony.

 

It is up to the students and American people to see that changes are implemented in the way history is taught at our schools (this is an issue that begins at the elementary level). Students should be prepared to offer their fellow classmates and instructors "lessons" in non-Eurocentric history whenever a leftist professor begins to tow the tired line of oppressive white history. Educate yourself, and look outside the university curriculum to find websites and books that offer a REAL glimpse into the history of other peoples. The information I provided in this article cannot be found in any "slave narrative" or doctoral thesis on race power-relations metaphors in early Disney movies. It takes some work, but it is very much worth it. Good luck!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, yeah, yeah Whitey sucks.

 

Everyone else is just bitter that we kicked their @ss.

 

Go up to one of these pseudo-hippies protesting and tell them the Indians had the home-field advantage and they blew it. Hilarity will ensue, or a pseudo-hippie beating when they threaten you...

[MrRant 0]

I hope for the beatings personally. Nothing gets you out of a bad mood like beating a hippie.

 

And on a serious note I got kicked out of my Washington State history class for daring to speak of these things to my liberal teacher. I told him I don't feel bad for what happened and he said why not.

 

I told him white people have done it to whites for generations so what is the difference between doing it to a white race vs another race? I explained that the whole point of this class was to make me feel like I should be ashamed and/or apologize to Indians for more or less conquering this country and it was sad to see him push his liberal agenda on us in the 10th grade.

 

This class just focused the the oppression of the Native Americans. Nothing about the European voyages here or anything like that. Only Native Americans and how they were wronged.

Edited October 28, 2003 by MrRant

[Vern Gagne 0]

Alright if they want to talk about slavery. Don't leave out the African countries who where directly involved in selling off their people into slavery.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

You know, maybe these people ought to consider that "white european history" gets studied because it is -gasp- INTERESTING? I find Canadian and American history to be generally mind-numbingly dull until the 20th century. The 2nd World War and the Holocaust are flat out far more interesting (sorry if that sounds callous) topics than stuff like colonisation, and I'd much rather learn about the Manhattan Project and the nuclear arms race than making every issue some race-based sob story.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

"Why don't we spend more time detailing the slaughter of the Indians, colonialism's devastating legacy in Africa or the racist tendencies of our nation's founders?" they ask. "Why do we treat the Jewish (European) Holocaust like it was such a terrible thing but do not spend so much time mourning the trans-Atlantic African slave trade, a holocaust in its own right?" "Why must we study all these dead white men and their white problems?"

 

 

I love racism, it's so fun to watch it in action. Speaking from the point of view from someone who is Native American: so what? Seriously some people need to get over themselves and not dwell on things that happened a few centuries ago. Stop trying to rewrite history to make a bunch of dead people look worse. Why not spend your time actually helping the currently living Native Americans by getting them into rehab and getting more colleges to get scolarships for Native Americans.

[Slayer 0]

Yeah, yeah, yeah Whitey sucks.

 

Everyone else is just bitter that we kicked their @ss.

 

Go up to one of these pseudo-hippies protesting and tell them the Indians had the home-field advantage and they blew it. Hilarity will ensue, or a pseudo-hippie beating when they threaten you...

That's pretty much how I feel

 

And even if the natives had fought off Euro-Whitey, who's to say they wouldn't have fallen to some other roaming empire later on, like if Japan decided to come over and conquer from the pacific side, for example.

 

There have always been "bitch" civilizations that fall to other more powerful civilizations. Of course, in today's feel-good revisionist history ideology, this is a very bad thing. Conquering others is bad and evil, though I find it funny no one is calling for Macedonia to apologize to the Middle East for Alexander the Great, or for Rome to apologize to Tunisia for the Punic Wars or some bullshit like that. Of course, those nations don't have any money to help "soothe victim's pain" either.

[Slayer 0]

The only difference between these older imperialists and Western imperialists is that the modern Europeans had the advantage of better and bigger weapons than their predecessors

 

Well excuse them for being smarter and more technologically advanced.

 

(and smallpox of course).

 

I also love how people act like old settlers had control over a microorganism like smallpox, as if it was some Pokemon that could be summoned...

 

"Smallpox, I choose you! Infection attack on the natives!"

"Smallpox! smallpox!"

 

And spare me the "infected blankets" scenario. There's no way that Europeans would have tried to control smallpox back in the days well before the vaccination had been found. Any attempt to create blankets would have harmed as many Euros as it would natives.

 

Besides, the natives gave Euros syphillis. Who really got the raw deal on that one?

[Slayer 0]

In conclusion, let me bring out the classic phrase

 

"History is written by the victors."

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Umm...can't you just take whatever history course you like? I mean if you are taking Europe in the 19th Century, chances are it is going to be Eurocentric. Same as if you take Feudal Japan, chances are it won't focus on the Middle East.

 

Europe (Britain, Spain & France, with Portugal, Holland & Sweden less so) are the dominant forces in American history. If you aren't talking primarily about them, then you are in a pretty piss poor US History class. And I doubt that any grade school US History course, let alone university level doesn't go into depth about things like slavery.

[Ace309 0]

Umm...can't you just take whatever history course you like? I mean if you are taking Europe in the 19th Century, chances are it is going to be Eurocentric. Same as if you take Feudal Japan, chances are it won't focus on the Middle East.

 

The gripe, I think, is generally with the general education requirements dealing with Western Civ. At many universities, all students are required to take one or more specific courses. At mine, we had a mandatory two-course sequence in World Civilization, which actually spent the majority of the time dealing OUTSIDE Europe and the Americas, and a third course in American Pluralism.

 

American Pluralism was brutal, as it dealt with concepts like whether we define someone's membership to a group, or whether they define it themselves. Doesn't sound too bad, but for a blue-eyed white guy like myself, it quickly became excruciating to hear about all the Oppressed Groups™ as well as several of the more ignorant classmates' cartoonishly ignorant opinions about said Oppressed Groups™. It was like getting it from both ends.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

One fun thing to do in these classes is to laugh out when someone is trying to put a guilt trip on all WASPs in the room by saying how much whitey sucks...

[Guest stardust]

Alright if they want to talk about slavery. Don't leave out the African countries who where directly involved in selling off their people into slavery.

I do believe that

When talking about the transatlantic slave trade for example, professors would describe in more detail the very important African role in a system of human trafficking that was a vibrant industry hundreds and hundreds of years before a European ever even thought about bringing an African to the new world.

was referring to just that. I very distinctly remember learning about this in one of my college history classes.

 

If this article were talking about high school history classes, I would agree with his opinion--it is biased, it doesn't paint the entire picture. All of the college history courses I've taken, however, haven't painted such a glossy picture.

[Guest stardust]

The gripe, I think, is generally with the general education requirements dealing with Western Civ. At many universities, all students are required to take one or more specific courses. At mine, we had a mandatory two-course sequence in World Civilization, which actually spent the majority of the time dealing OUTSIDE Europe and the Americas, and a third course in American Pluralism.

We're required to take two American History courses here--American History to 1865 and American History from 1865. The nice thing, though, is that for the American History from 1865 course we can take a junior or senior level American History course and get credit for the requirement (which is what I'm opting to do, since I would much rather take a more in-depth course than a broad course). In my first American History course, though, the professor actually didn't skim over things such as the African slave trade (and the role Africans played in that) or issues involving Native American tribes.

 

However, if a student is interested in learning the history of other countries, or studying a specific event in history, most colleges do offer a wide array of history courses on a variety of topics. And most colleges have elective requirements and such, so if someone is THAT interested they should just register for a class they want to take just for the sake of learning rather than bitching that they didn't learn anything about the Irish Potato Famine in an American History course. Then again, most college students I know wouldn't want to bog themselves down with all of the extra reading that upper level history courses entail and therefore would opt to not learn more about history outside of the required courses.

[Jingus 0]

This is equal parts real defense and devil's advocate, but still: when I took the class entitled "World History" in high school, it was almost entirely dedicated to European history, with a couple of chapters scattered throughout the book giving token lip service to covering other continents. But still, when you spend longer studying one decade of European history than you do covering an entire millenia of somewhere else, in a class labeled "World History", that is wrong.

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah, because the history of the Mblwanganu tribe of south-central Equatorial Guinea is just as important as all those dead white men.

 

Feh.

 

We study European history in detail because that's what was consequential. One decade of advancements in the West changed the world, not just once but countless times. The Magna Carta. The Industrial Revolution. The Enlightenment. Let me know when Africa or south Asia has more of an impact on mankind as a whole than a stale chapati landing in a mosquito-filled puddle with a sort of gurgly whumph.

[Slayer 0]

Yeah, because the history of the Mblwanganu tribe of south-central Equatorial Guinea is just as important as all those dead white men.

 

Feh.

 

We study European history in detail because that's what was consequential. One decade of advancements in the West changed the world, not just once but countless times. The Magna Carta. The Industrial Revolution. The Enlightenment. Let me know when Africa or south Asia has more of an impact on mankind as a whole than a stale chapati landing in a mosquito-filled puddle with a sort of gurgly whumph.

...what the hell is "chapati"?

[Firestarter 0]

Sorta flatbread they eat over there. Like a flour tortilla or something.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I assume you mean sub-Saharan Africa. Northern Africa was very important until the early 20th Century.

[Henry Spencer 0]

a stale chapati landing in a mosquito-filled puddle with a sort of gurgly whumph.

 

That's some rather odd imagery.

[Firestarter 0]

I assume you mean sub-Saharan Africa.  Northern Africa was very important until the early 20th Century.

On its own? What if the dead white men had never existed? Maybe you mean the "countries" used as early staging grounds for World War II. Wait no, Rommel was over there and he's a dead white man too. Never mind.

[Jingus 0]

What I meant was, that the foreign countries seemed to only ever be covered in their relation to Europe. Take China, for example. Here's a country with a long, rich, varied history dating back longer than most Western nations. But it got hardly a mention in the textbook at all, until the Brits colonized it. Same thing with Japan; it's like they didn't exist before Commadore Perry showed up. I don't think that India got so much as a page devoted to itself. Russia was practically ignored, while printing all the pages that recounted England's exploits probably deforested some jungles. The various empires in Africa went unmentioned, unless they were killed in some horrific manner by Western colonials. The Byzantine and Ottoman Empires got mere footnotes, while Charlemagne got his own whole chapter. The Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, etc. were all shoved into a couple of "so the Spaniards came to the Americas and killed everybody" type paragraphs.

 

Now, if this class were called European History, I wouldn't mind it at all. But it wasn't. It was called WORLD History. But damned if it didn't tell you much about most of the world.

[Firestarter 0]

Seems perfectly logical to me. How did the Incas affect the world? Their achievements would be relevant in a class on Inca history, and the African tribes in a class on African history, and the Mayans and the Aztecs in Mayan and Aztec history classes, and so on. But why on earth should their specific histories be taught in a class on world history? Let that class concentrate on the histories of the civilisations that did shape the world. Try to include every extinct tribe and every petty second-rate power for the sake of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and you'll end up teaching no one anything at all.

[Guest MikeSC]

Now, if this class were called European History, I wouldn't mind it at all. But it wasn't. It was called WORLD History. But damned if it didn't tell you much about most of the world.

What I meant was, that the foreign countries seemed to only ever be covered in their relation to Europe.  Take China, for example.  Here's a country with a long, rich, varied history dating back longer than most Western nations.  But it got hardly a mention in the textbook at all, until the Brits colonized it.  Same thing with Japan; it's like they didn't exist before Commadore Perry showed up.

 

Both countries intentionally isolated themselves from the world for great chunks of their history.

 

Thus, in WORLD HISTORY, their impact would be exceptionally minimal.

 

I don't think that India got so much as a page devoted to itself.

 

Outside of Gandhi, what exactly has anybody in India ever done that warranted considerable discourse?

 

Russia was practically ignored

 

As well it should have been.

 

, while printing all the pages that recounted England's exploits probably deforested some jungles.  The various empires in Africa went unmentioned, unless they were killed in some horrific manner by Western colonials.

 

The curse of just not much info ON those tribes existing rears its ugly head once again. And, again, if you're discussing WORLD history, what impact --- if any --- did they have on the world?

 

The Byzantine and Ottoman Empires got mere footnotes, while Charlemagne got his own whole chapter.  The Incas, Aztecs, Mayans, etc. were all shoved into a couple of "so the Spaniards came to the Americas and killed everybody" type paragraphs.

 

And that is a shame.

 

But these morons who wish to see "Western Civ" done away with as a requirement need to remember one thing:

 

If they WEREN'T in a Western society, they'd be killed for making a criticism.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

I'm suddenly very glad for my Professor's take on Western Civilization.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Incans role in shaping the world came about due to them losing to the Spanish. That's it.

 

Actual African influence is pretty much limited to the Nubians, Egyptians and the north-western civs in the Colonial Age that made the slave trade possible. But the region has played an extremely important role from the Phoenicians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs & Turks. North Africa, the Middle East & Muslim Spain were the dominant powers throughout most of the Middle Ages. The only ones that even were comparable were the Byzantines (and they were in a permanent state of decline after Manzikert), Tang China, and later the Mongol Empire. The Ottoman Empire was extremely powerful throughout the 16th & 17th Centuries. Southern Europe was important in the Ancient World, but after the Fall of Rome until Columbus, Europe wasn't that big a factor. Spain started the beginning of the modern age of European dominance in the 1500s, but until the 1600s most of Western and Northern Europe wasn't much of anything.

 

Japan didn't do much until after Perry so that's why you don't here about them, but China remains dominant to this day in Asia in a way similar to European cultural dominance in North America. At the very least you should talk about them.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Outside of Gandhi, what exactly has anybody in India ever done that warranted considerable discourse?

 

Indian's influence is Buddhism. Hinduism is huge, but never really got a foothold outside of the subcontinent. Buddhism though is probably the third most influential World Religion behind Christianity and Islam.

 

BTW, the Byzantine Empire was European.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Byzantine and Ottoman Empires got mere footnotes, while Charlemagne got his own whole chapter.

 

That's odd. The Viking Invasions going on at the same time had far more lasting implications than the Caroligian Empire. Even in my university history classes in European history we don't touch that much on Charlemagne. He wasn't like Alexander where he completely changed the world.

[Der Kommissar 0]

But why on earth should their specific histories be taught in a class on world history?

 

Well, in the cases of the Aztecs and Incas, it would be provide some balance for the students. In almost every history class I have ever taken, the Aztecs and Incas were portrayed as sympathetic characters. They were portrayed as helpless native tribes who were killed and enslaved by the heartless and greedy white man. They almost always gloss over the fact that the Aztecs and Incas were bloodthirsty conquerors themselves who were just as bad or worse than the Spanish who conquered them. It would be nice if history classes put more emphasis on the fact that Aztecs and Incas were bad guys, too.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

But why on earth should their specific histories be taught in a class on world history?

 

Well, in the cases of the Aztecs and Incas, it would be provide some balance for the students. In almost every history class I have ever taken, the Aztecs and Incas were portrayed as sympathetic characters. They were portrayed as helpless native tribes who were killed and enslaved by the heartless and greedy white man. They almost always gloss over the fact that the Aztecs and Incas were bloodthirsty conquerors themselves who were just as bad or worse than the Spanish who conquered them. It would be nice if history classes put more emphasis on the fact that Aztecs and Incas were bad guys, too.

That was a pretty bad history class you took then. One of the reasons it was so easy for the Spanish to win was because the other Mesoamericans hated the Aztecs and allied with them.