Eurocentrism of Hegel, Marx, Mueller, Monier Williams, Husserl
by Rajiv Malhotra

Copyright 2001 The Infinity Foundation

Hegel:

During the colonial era, the naïve assumption of Western superiority was given authority by thinkers such as Hegel, who developed a "universal" theory of history, which was, in essence, a theory of European history in which the rest of the World was taken to be objects rather than subjects. For Hegel, as Said has pointed out, Asia and Africa were "static, despotic, and irrelevant to world history."1 Hegel's view of history was highly influential, on both Marxist and humanist historiography. His rather extreme ethnocentrism should thus not be swept under the rug, but analyzed as a central aspect of his thought. Since Hegel, Ethnocentrism has often blinded the West to the parochialism of its supposed "universals".

Particularly egregious are the attempts by thinkers such as Hegel to define as universal features that are, in fact, quite culturally specific. This includes his "universal history", which saw Europe and America as the pinnacles of human evolution. Hegel wrote, for example, "universal history goes from East to West. Europe is absolutely the end of universal history. Asia is the beginning."2

This idea was clearly a justification of Western colonial exploitation. But Hegel took the idea even further. Since his "history" is solely defined in Eurocentric terms, any act committed by the Europeans, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable as a necessary step in human evolution. Hegel wrote that:

"Because history is the configuration of the Spirit in the form of event, the people which receives the Spirit as its natural principle…is the one that dominates in that epoch of world history…Against the absolute right of that people who actually are the carriers of the world Spirit, the spirit of other peoples has no other right."3
Hegel saw the evolution of human history as a unified totality, proceeding via the evolution of the "world spirit". The "world spirit", for Hegel, was Western, with other cultures subsumed to the dustbin of history, forced either to adapt to the West or be trampled underfoot by this "world spirit", which in Hegel's writing appears as a complex metaphor for the reality of Western aggression. Even within the West, Germany occupies a special destiny. Hegel writes4:

"The Germanic Spirit (germanische Geist) is the Spirit of the New World (neuen Welt), whose end is the realization of the absolute truth, as the infinite self-determination of liberty that has for its content its proper absolute form. The principle of the German Empire ought to accommodate the Christian religion. The destiny of the Germanic peoples is that of serving as the bearer of the Christian principle."
All non-Europeans are mere objects in the hands of the Europeans, under this theory of history. When applying his theories to Africans, Hegel arrived at the following blatantly racist conclusions5:

"It is characteristic of the blacks that their consciousness has not yet even arrived at the intuition of any objectivity, as for example, of God or the law, in which humanity relates to the world and intuits its essence. ...He [the black person] is a human being in the rough."
Colonialization was the teleological imperative by which consciousness in the form of the superior Europeans must appropriate the others. He wrote6:

"By a dialectic which is appropriate for surpassing itself, in the first place, such a society is driven to look beyond itself to new consumers. Therefore it seeks its means of subsistence among other peoples which are inferior to it with respect to the resources which it has in excess, such as those of industry. This expansion of relations also makes possible that colonization to which, under systematic or sporadic form, a fully established civil society is impelled. Colonization permits it that one part of its population, located on the new territory, returns to the principle of family property and, at the same time, procures for itself a new possibility and field of labor."
Hegel also applied this "logic" specifically to his analysis of India. He depicted the British colonialization of India as an inevitable stage in his process of "evolution". He wrote:

"The British, or rather the East India Company, are the masters of India because it is the fatal destiny of Asian empires to subject themselves to the Europeans."7
Reading through Hegel's works, it is apparent that he based conclusions such as this on the rather warped assumption that India has no history. His clearest statement to this effect occurs as follows:

"If we had formerly the satisfaction of believing in the antiquity of the Indian wisdom and holding it in respect, we now have ascertained through being acquainted with the great astronomical works of the Indians, the inaccuracy of all figures quoted. Nothing can be more confused, nothing more imperfect than the chronology of the Indians; no people which attained to culture in astronomy, mathematics, &c., is as incapable for history; in it they have neither stability nor coherence. It was believed that such was to be had at the time of Wikramaditya, who was supposed to have lived about 50 B.C., and under whose reign the poet Kalidasa, author of Sakontala, lived. But further research discovered half a dozen Wikramadityas and careful investigation has placed this epoch in our eleventh century. The Indians have lines of kings and an enormous quantity of names, but everything is vague."8
This is an important passage for two reasons. First, this assumption has been very influential, and its consequences continue to be felt today. Secondly, Hegel gives this as the reason why he had lost respect for India's cultural heritage. Yet his conclusion is baseless, and can be critiqued on several points. Classical Indian astronomy was no more inaccurate than the classical Greek Ptolemaic system, which Europe followed until the seventeenth century, and in many respects the former was more accurate. Regarding the Vikramaditya era, it is true that there were several kings with that name in Europe (just as there were many kings named Louis, Charles, etc. in Europe), but it does not follow from this that the Indians confused them. There in fact never was confusion concerning the Vikramaditya era, starting 57 BCE, and Hegel is absolutely wrong that this era begins in the eleventh century. One might argue that there never was a king of that name who lived at that time, but one could also argue that there was no Christ born at the year zero, but such a critique would not "prove" that the West has no history; the history based on such a chronology would still be sound, regardless of the status of the legendary founder of the era. It is interesting that he takes this rather inconsequential reason for carte blanche dismissal of Indian wisdom, as if the contents of a text are false merely because it is misdated!

Such mistaken views concerning Indian history (or lack thereof) are at the root of much of the dismissal of India and things Indian. Also, once it is established in the minds of an oppressed people that they have no history of their own, other than what has been gifted to them by the oppressors, then it also legitimizes (and glorifies) historical scholarship by the oppressors. In fact, many a Macaulayite today is grateful to the colonialists for having given him a sense of his own history which, the Macaulayites were programmed to believe, they never had of their own. As goes history, so go identity and values. This re-engineering is how Indians were conditioned to believe that their tradition requires them to be world negating, to leave materialistic progress to Europeans as it was against their own ethos. In fact, since giving up wealth could be seen as very pious, why bother if colonialists took it over?

Karl Marx:

The false perception that India was a stagnant, ahistorical land was further perpetuated by Karl Marx. Marx described India as being caught in what he called the "Asiatic Mode of Production". He posited that India was trapped in a stagnant, unhistorical economic state in which "Oriental despots" wielding absolute power governed unchanging, stratified villages. His analysis was flawed by a serious ignorance of the actual economic history of India, and of the numerous underlying causes of decline. (This is why to this day, Marxists do not wish to encourage scholarship on India's Traditional Knowledge Systems, as the historical record clearly refutes the belief that there was no progress on the materialistic front from within the indigenous culture.) From a certain perspective, the greatest despots in India were not Oriental but Occidental, i.e., the British.

These words were written in "The Future Results of British Rule in India' on August 8, 1853 in the concluding of a series of articles on India, that were published in the 'New York Daily Tribune'. In a letter to Engels, Marx claimed that he had written these casual pieces primarily for financial reasons and that India was "not his department"9:

"India, then, could not escape the fate of being conquered, and the whole of her past history, if anything, is the history of the successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the basis of that unresisting and unchanging society… From the Indian natives, reluctantly and sparingly educated at Calcutta, under English superintendence, a fresh class is spring up, endowed with the requirements for government and imbued with European science. Steam has brought India into regular and rapid communication with Europe, has connected its chief ports with the whole south-eastern ocean, and has re-vindicated it from the isolated position which was the prime law of its stagnation."
Max Mueller:

The predator-prey mentality of foreign rulers and scholars working on the ancient texts of India did not fail to influence the famous Max Mueller. This is reflected in one of the letters by Prof. Mueller addressed to the Duke of Orgoil, the then Secretary of State for India. Mueller wrote on 16th Dec. 1868:

"The ancient religion of India is totally doomed and if Christianity doesn't step in whose fault will it be."
Furthermore, in a letter addressed to his wife in 1868, Prof. Max Mueller wrote:

"I hope I shall finish that work and feel convinced that though I shall not live to see it, yet this edition of mine and translation of Vedas will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of the souls in this country."
In the same letter, he further observes:

"It [Veda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has been sprung from it during the last three thousand years."
The text of his letters is self-explanatory to the fact that scholars like Max Mueller often started studying Sanskrit with ulterior motives. The modern condition demonstrates that he was more or less successful in his vision.

Monier Williams:

Monier Williams another important European scholar who was hard pressed by the Church. He wrote10:

"When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined and finally stormed by the soldiers of cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete."
In his preface to his famous Sanskrit-English Dictionary, as the Professor of the prestigious Boden Chair at Oxford, Monier Williams reveals the objective of founding the Chair for Sanskrit studies by Col. Boden as to convert the natives of India into Christianity. He writes thus11:

"I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its founder, Col. Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated Aug. 15,1811) that special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of the scriptures into Sanskrit; so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion."
Husserl

The prevalent view of most modern Western scholars is that European tradition is not simply one cultural tradition among others. The European self identity is predicated upon its distinct achievements in philosophy and pure theory, and as such, has a unique global mission to fulfill.

Husserl claimed: "Europe alone can provide other traditions with a universal framework of meaning and understanding. They will have to Europeanize themselves, whereas we, if we understand ourselves properly, will never, for example, Indianize ourselves. The Europeanization of all foreign parts of mankind is the destiny of the earth."

Eurocentrism Today:

Enrique Dussel has written a remarkable book on Eurocentrism, focusing on the European conquest of America and the subsequent 'construction' of history to depict it as the miracle of European triumph. He writes12:

"The traditional Eurocentric thesis, flourishing in the United States, modernity's culmination, is that modernity expanded to the barbarian cultures of the South undoubtedly in need of modernization. One can only explain this new-sounding but age-old thesis by returning to medieval Europe to discover the motives which produced modernity and permitted its dissemination. Max Weber first posed the question of world history Eurocentrically13:

"Which chain of circumstances has resulted in the fact that on Western soil and only there, cultural phenomena have been produced which, as we represent it, show signs of evolutionary advance and universal validity?"

Weber continues14:

"Neither scientific, artistic, governmental, nor economic evolution has led to the modes of rationalization proper to the Occident."
Europe possessed, according to this paradigm, exceptional internal characteristics which permitted it to surpass all other cultures in rationality. This thesis, which adopts a Eurocentric (as opposed to world) paradigm, reigns not only in Europe and the United States, but also among intellectuals in the peripheral world. The pseudo-scientific periodization of history into Antiquity, the Middle (preparatory) Ages, and finally the Modern (European) Age is an ideological construct which deforms world history. One must break with this reductionist horizon to open to a world and planetary perspective - and there is an ethical obligation toward other cultures to do so.

Chronology reflects geopolitics. According to the Eurocentric paradigm, modern subjectivity especially developed between the times of the Italian Renaissance and the Reformation and of the Enlightenment in Germany and the French Revolution. Everything occurred in Europe."

References Cited:

1. Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), p. 168.

2. Hegel, Samtliche Werke. J. Hoffmeister and F. Meiner, eds. (Hamburg, 1955), appendix 2, p. 243; op cit. Enrique Dussel, The Invention of the Americas (New York: Continuum, 1995), p. 20.

3. Hegel, Samtliche Werke. J. Hoffmeister and F. Meiner, eds. (Hamburg, 1955), appendix 2, p. 243; op cit. Enrique Dussel, The Invention of the Americas (New York: Continuum, 1995), p. 20.

4. Hegel, "The Philosophy of History", rev. ed., trans. J. Sibree (New York: Colonial Press, 1900), p.341.

5. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Introduction: Reason in History, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge University Press, 1975), p.138.

6. Enzyklopadie, #248, English translation: "Hegel's Philosophy of Right", trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), p. 151.

7. From Hegel's Einleitung in die Geschichte der Philosophie (J. Hoffmeister, ed., Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1962), op. cit. Roger-Pol Droit, L'Oubli de L'Inde, Une Amnésie Philosophique, Presses Universitaires de France, 1989, p. 189.

8. From Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. E. S. Haldane, trans. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 125-126.

9. Halbfass, Wilhelm: "India and Europe, An Essay in Understanding". State University of New York Press, Albany (New York), 1988, pp. 137-138.

10. Monier Williams, 'Modern India and Indians', p. 247.

11. Monier William, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1899, Preface, p. ix.

12. Enrique Dussel, "The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of "the Other" and the Myth of Modernity", Translated by Michael D. Barber, pp. 9- 2.

13. Max Weber, "Soziologie, weltgeschichtliche Analyzen, Politik (Stuttgart: Kroner, 1956), p.340.

14. ibid., p.351.

15. Wilhelm Halbfass, "India and Europe: An Essay in Philosophical Understanding". Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1990:167. The English version from original German was published by SUNY Press, Albany, N.Y. in 1988.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_malho_euro_frameset.htm

The claim that China--much more than India which is still mired in intense poverty--is making progess on acount of its adoption of Western economic methods is exaggerated.

The essence of economics is the production of goods and services which if not consumed by the producer are exchangeable--either through barter or some neutral medium of exchange. China--and many parts of the non-Western world(Africa North of the Equator specifically and other parts of Africa) have always done exactly that--long before any contacts with the West.
Even the concept of "interest" long debated for its ethical acceptability has a long non-Western history.

The modern West, of course, centres its economics on this very problematic concept, with all its attendant immoral results. And that's why there are laws in the West against usury.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

What's different, of course, is the technology that China employs today. Although much of it is of Western origin it should be borne in mind that China is merely readapting what was introduced to the barbarian West by non-Westerners just a few centuries.[/B]

---

Oh, well. This is the cycle of life: Europe got the wisdom from Al-Andalus and the fire-weapons from China, used them to change its economic base, then its culture change too and finally spred it all around the world. And now, China is re-taking on it and starting a new cycle of life.
Dar al Islam is still sleeping and dreaming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Since 1500 non Euro- American areas have been objects and to a great extent they still are. Only China and india are showing any signs of altering that reality and they are doing it with [b]adopted western economics...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
TopDog, you have to excuse super car. His education is so limited you cannot have a reasonable conversation with him. When you combine ignorance with arrogance you usually get a disaster and that in the case with SC. I have had 18 year on students who have a better grasp of the basics and the reason is, they care. If someone does not care about history the chances are they will not learn it.

---

Never having answers, and denying anything that goes against your nazi-centric values, no matter how that denial makes no sense, is what you call reasoning. We've talked about the crucial middle ages quite a bit now, and you have offered nothing as usual, but simply resorting to denials with the intent of distortion; you cannot distort and expect to come out of it sensibly. This is what trollers fail to understand. As a troll, horemheb, you simply cannot be reasoned with, but just constantly be humiliated!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
All ramblings of a man who does not have his basics down. You simply have to get the basics down in order to have any framework to work off of. That is the problem we see most often and it leads to these silly ideas. Calling egypt monotheistic, not understanding the development of western civilization, misreading the development of Greek history and thought, not even understanding the most elementary aspects of early europe, all of these things can happen when a person simply lacks their basics.
This is why we have survey classes. They lay out the basics on which a person can develop sound views and a level of understanding. i strongly recommend a basic western Civ class. many of our schools offer them on line and they will clear up all of these questions.

---

For a person without the basics, boy do I sweat you down, with your unability to come up with answers to the subject at hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
again, a survey class in western civ is very helpful and is enjoyable to take.

---

If your answers are anything to go by, this attempt of a recommendation must severely be taken with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

horemheb:
It will give you a solid foundation on which to build.

---

You mean one, which you have been unable to build from.

quote:

---

horemheb:
If you can't find one you like let me know and I will send you in the right direction.

---

What direction would that be...in circles? I'll bet whatever it is, it will only lead to a...DEAD END!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
What direction would that be...in circles? I'll bet whatever it is, it will only lead to a...DEAD END!

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 22 April 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
It is the effort of the 'losers' in histroy to 'graft' their civilization onto that of the winners.

---

If this is the case what about this:
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/fowles/500/hwr8.htm

Now attempt to deny that this is a case of of a loser grafting himself onto winners. And who's to say Africans are the losers in history when you just admitted that Europe, mostly Western Europe, just rose to prominence within the last 500 years? What happened before that and even during that time? Civilizations and empires fall and rise so in theory there are no losers and winners. Napolean said it best when he remarked that history is a set of lies agreed upon and European has written numerous sets of agreed upon lies[James Henry Breasted for example, stating that all civilizations from Nubia to India were created by the Great White Race], the lies about Great Zimbabwe, the Benin Bronzes, etc, I can name so many examples, only a fool would say "This is not a 'eurocentric' viewpoint, it is a 'correct' viewpoint", when confroned with those examples I provided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
TopDog, The question you asked is too general. Just exactly what so called 'european' view are you refering to. What are they saying that you think is wrong?

---

The 'euroview' that I'm referring to is the myth that any and everything of value in Africa **ever**, came via diffusion from the Middle East and or Europe and that indigenous Africans created nothing. By the way, I'm African American and though the culture of African Americans is not the same as Africans it is not ultra 'westernised' in the sense meaning European-loke or white like.

Sole Superpower?

ON THE MILITARY FRONT:
Russia has more nuclear punch than the U.S. And no power on this earth can invade China, occupy it and live to talk about it. China is also bulging with nuclear weapons.

ON THE ECONOMIC FRONT:
The U.S. is indebted--with no easy exit--Japan, Taiwan and China. If they choose to act "cussed" they can just pull the feeding tube and the patient will just convulse and die.

ON THE TECNOLOGY FRONT:
The idea that modern technology has some roots in the West is no big deal for 2 reasons: 1)The scientific base of the West derives from non-Western sources and 2)whatever was developed in the West--in fact just 4 countries--has been easily reproduced and refined by non-Westerners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Super car...think about what the guy said...just crap. It either is or it isn't...western civilization had dominated and created the modern world. Regardless of what you guys say you know full well that is the case.

---

Russia's nukes are still well-oiled and can be launched accurately by any Russian engineer--even soaking with Vodka.

The UK is a joke; the only thing of nostalgic note it has is its mothballed, but still ridiculous, feudal class that attracts bunches of tourists.

That 300 pound monster about which you write is "surprisingly" having some problems with a few desert urchins armed with a few home-made devices. It might just have to shed some weight to become more mobile.

"Projecting military power around the world"--to what end? Even toothless dogs bark!

East Asians sell their goods world-wide but with an internal market of 2 billion and a regional market of 3 billion(to include India and Pakistan) why bother with West?

The idea that "showing the flag" gurantees stability is outdated 18th a nd 19th century thinking. What's the point of having stockpiles of weaponry that cannot be used because the conditions don't permit and the repercussions would defeat the original purpose. Recall that the huge fangs of the sabre tooth tiger became outmoded and not fit for survival purposes after a while. Their modern descendants have much shorter and less lethal looking fangs.

On being Western

I doubt very much that the Chinese and Japanese see themselves as Western. To be Western means to adhere to and embrace some Western religion(the metaphysical side), carry a Western name and feel part of the West in the sense of identifying with Bethoven, Bach, Moliere, Goethe, etc., and to be ethnically Western in the sense of having easily identifiable origins in some geographical region of Europe(the identity side), and to prefer Western cuisine and aesthetic tastes over all other kinds(the taste factor).

Sure, Tokyo is a modern city; but its inhabitants are East Asian--not Western. The same for China: Westerners are invariably seen as "people of European origin with a specific phenotype". The Japanese, Chinese and Saudi Arabians may visit local MacDonalds regularly but they would not agree that they have become Western as a result--anymore than Europeans enjoying Indian and Chinese food and adopting Native American foods such as the potato, carrot, etc.would agree that such tastes make then Indian, Chinese or Native American.

Hope you don't include opium. China has its own way of doing things. Anyone who goes to China and talks otherwise would be laughed back on to the plane. Sure they have adapted aspects of modern technology to their society and have maintained elememts of Communist theory and practice but such concepts have been adapted to Chinese conditions. Note that the Chinese had a very efficient government bureaucracy for centuries so they simply had to transfer such skills to the running of their central government.

The Chinese invented paper and gun powder--2 very important elements of modern life. The West borrowed and adapted paper and gunpowder from China but that didn't make Westerners Chinese.

Again, note that to be Western one has to be recognised as being unmistakeably of European origin. Speaking and writing European languages don't make one Western at all--anymore than a Westerner speaking and writing Mandarin or Japanese fluently makes that person Asian. For the Japanese it will always be "the gaijin knows and speaks our language well".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
super car.....

www.glencoe.com

---

horemheb.....

quote:

---

It depends by what you mean when you say 'created nothing.' Certainly there were some colorful and interesting cultures in Africa and they did a good job of dealing with the enviorment they lived in.

---

Africans created more than just "colorful" cultures. Horemheb, you may be surprised to know that Africa has many complex cultures, in fact Africa has independently created more civilizations than Europe!!

It would be more accurate to classify the various civilizations by geographic position than by political-cultural terms, thus it's more precise to call Greek civilization Mediterranean than 'Western', since as I've explained before the description 'Western' came about during when the Holy Roman Empire was divided into East and West. Greece was part of the Eastern empire and yet historically we call it Western!

Europe's earliest civilizations all orginated along the Mediterranean basin which is why they are also called Mediterranean and they originated from three main areas: Greece, Italy, and Spain, all in that order, which is just a few.
On the other hand, the African continent has produced various other civilizations besides those of the Nile Vally e.g. Egypt and Nubia. Africans created civilizations in the Horn in Ethiopia which is that of Axum and probably an earlier pre-Axumite culture (the legendary Punt?); in the Sahara like the Garamantes and Kanem; the Sahel like Ghana, Mali, Songhay etc; there were a myriad of kingdoms in the Guinea region of West Africa (created by the very ancestors of the blacks of the Americas!); there were even kingdoms in the very heart of Africa, deep in the equatorial forests of Central Africa; and lastly but not least, there was the civilization of Great Zimbabwe in Southern Africa.

All of these are hardly the simple hut-dwelling, spear-chucking, hunters that you and unfortunately many others, no doubt envision.

And as far as your beliefs that Africans had nothing to do with world history and the global economy, this too is false. During the Middle Ages, East Africans as well as the people of Great Zimbabwe conducted trade and had close economic ties not only the Arabia and the Near-East but nations farther east like India, Southeast Asia and even China long before Europeans! Heck, even your belief that Africans had nothing to do with the development of the 'West' is also a farse. A perfect point is the fact that before the advent of Columbus, over 80% of wealth in gold for all of Europe came from "Sub-Saharan" Africa!! This means that essentially it were Africans who funded Europe's economy!!! Before then the European economy was pretty poor and broke since the fall of the Roman Empire. You actually thought that Africans were never involved in global economy, when not only were Africans involved in the very beginning of it, but were also in the very center of it, with significant economic relations with Asia to the East and Europe to the north!! Africa probably had the wealthiest economy in history. Africa's wealth, especially that in gold was considered legendary to Europeans who thought Africa was not only a land of black people but a land of gold. Athough gold was the main export, there were as always other African products that were considered "exotic" by the peoples who bought them, items like woods such as ebony, ostrich feathers, animal furs and skins from leopards and such, sometimes whole animals, and a variety of precious stones. There was also salt, and even slaves were traded. Africa's system of slavery was different from the more debased chattel slavery that you are more familiar with.

All of this changed during the time of European imperialism. I remember you saying that "European colonialism was the best thing that has ever happened to Africa." I fail to see how this was so! Almost all the indigenous nations and states lost all economic and political independence. Many native rulers became puppets of the governments of the European power that conquered them, and most of the economic profit that native Africans made went to the European nations that conquered them. Many native cultures and customs were degraded and the peoples were taught that those of Europe were "better." The education systems that Africans already had were altered to teach from a European standpoint. Thus, instead of the people learning about their own history, they mostly learned about that of their colonizers, and that their own history only started when they were colonized. This same process of was used on India and many areas of Southeast Asia. Africans were not as primitive and feckless as you think, since many European explorers all reported back to their homes about the many kingdoms and civilized societies they found. Unfortunately these reports were quickly obscured by those about the more primitive societies that were so used to seeing and hearing about. Primitive peoples were more interesting to Europeans, plus it gave them an excuse to conquer them. I too once held the same misconceptions and stereotypes about Africa and it's history and cultures until I read more and educated myself more about it, and I suggest you do the same. The truth is my people had a strikingly similar history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

we call Greece western because the contient of Europe evolved from its philosophy, political institutions, drama , and military concepts just to name a few.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
we call Greece western because the contient of Europe evolved from its philosophy, political institutions, drama , and military concepts just to name a few. without Greece western civilization as we know it could not exist.

---

There lies in the big flaw. The Greeks saw themselves very distant from northern Europeans of western Europe, and so, this is no more than western Europeans desire to have a civilization of their own.

Like I have pointed out elsewhere ( which you clearly failed to address), another big flaw in the ideology of Eurocentrists, is the notion that without Greek knowledge, western Europe wouldn't have become modern. Greek knowledge was available in Europe even during the so-called dark ages. It was the significant progress the Arab-Muslim world made in science and technology during this period, that the Europeans adopted, allowing them to reach the stage that they are now in. This explains why, despite Latin and Greek versions of classical Greek work available in Europe, the Europeans chose to translate Arabic works. Arabic science was far more practical and advanced than Greek science, and you would have a hard time proving that the Arabic science and know how that was utilized by Europeans, was exactly what the ancient Greeks left behind.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Keep in mind the classical scholars speak of the Roman- Greco period. In terms of cultural development it was all one system.

---

Eurocentric folks speak of Greco-Roman period, rather than the crucial transfer of 'foreign' knowledge from 'foreign conquerors' in the middle ages, because they want to play the psychological game of the 'superior' race. After all, one cannot proclaim him/herself 'superior', and yet claim that much of what he/she knows, came from the very people that he/she is supposed to be superior to.

"For centuries before Alexander's conquest the Greeks had looked up to Egypt and admired its religion, arts and society. Greeks such as the historian Herodotus regarded the Egyptians as the cleanest, most religious and most 'civilised of peoples. The word 'civilised' is of Greek origin. In general terms, and the way it is used here, it refers to an organised society in which people can practise their arts and culture and live together in harmony.(It is within this general meaning of the word that 'civilisation' is used with reference to Ancient Egypt in Chapter 2, p. 18). In recent times the word has fallen into disrepute as European colonisers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries used it to suit their racist ideologies. In their view only people of their own culture could be called 'civilised'. All other cultures they regarded as 'uncivilised', by which they meant 'inferior'.

Greek colonisation brought Egypt more thoroughly into the Mediterranean world. But in doing so the Ptolemies exploited the Egyptian peoples and hastened the decline of the distinctive Egyptian civilisation which had persisted for three thousand years. Nevertheless the debt to the Ancient Egyptians remained and many of Ancient Egypt's ideas and achievements lived on in the arts, sciences, and religion of the Greek and Roman world."

Charlie Bass comments:

I guess excerpt is a form of Afrocentrism, correct Horemheb? Notice how the definition of the word civilised was used by the ancient Greeks as opposed to the modern Eurocentric use of the word, as noted with candor by Shillington. You can't be so thick as to think that Eurocentrism does not exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
TopDog, I have no idea where you come up with these things. Obviously Ancient Egypt was civilized by the standard of the day.
Secondly, 90% of the historians who have ever lived were and are Euro-Americans. They all have what you would call a 'European or modern'outlook. Where you make a mistake is assuming that they lack objectivity. The main problem is that they have reached conclusions you do not like.

---

Wrong, its quite the other way around, you do not like the conclusions reached by those whom you randomly call Afrocentrists and political racists and since they do not fit your standard you automatically assume they have no objectivity. Modern to you equals European and if it isn't European it automatically wrong correct?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The same old song. Horemheb, you continue to criticize African history when it is obvious you know little to nothing about the subject

Africans created more than just "colorful" cultures. Horemheb, you may be surprised to know that Africa has many complex cultures, in fact Africa has independently created more civilizations than Europe!!

It would be more accurate to classify the various civilizations by geographic position than by political-cultural terms, thus it's more precise to call Greek civilization Mediterranean than 'Western', since as I've explained before the description 'Western' came about during when the Holy Roman Empire was divided into East and West. Greece was part of the Eastern empire and yet historically we call it Western!

Europe's earliest civilizations all orginated along the Mediterranean basin which is why they are also called Mediterranean and they originated from three main areas: Greece, Italy, and Spain, all in that order, which is just a few.
On the other hand, the African continent has produced various other civilizations besides those of the Nile Vally e.g. Egypt and Nubia. Africans created civilizations in the Horn in Ethiopia which is that of Axum and probably an earlier pre-Axumite culture (the legendary Punt?); in the Sahara like the Garamantes and Kanem; the Sahel like Ghana, Mali, Songhay etc; there were a myriad of kingdoms in the Guinea region of West Africa (created by the very ancestors of the blacks of the Americas!); there were even kingdoms in the very heart of Africa, deep in the equatorial forests of Central Africa; and lastly but not least, there was the civilization of Great Zimbabwe in Southern Africa.

All of these are hardly the simple hut-dwelling, spear-chucking, hunters that you and unfortunately many others, no doubt envision.

And as far as your beliefs that Africans had nothing to do with world history and the global economy, this too is false. During the Middle Ages, East Africans as well as the people of Great Zimbabwe conducted trade and had close economic ties not only the Arabia and the Near-East but nations farther east like India, Southeast Asia and even China long before Europeans! Heck, even your belief that Africans had nothing to do with the development of the 'West' is also a farse. A perfect point is the fact that before the advent of Columbus, over 80% of wealth in gold for all of Europe came from "Sub-Saharan" Africa!! This means that essentially it were Africans who funded Europe's economy!!! Before then the European economy was pretty poor and broke since the fall of the Roman Empire. You actually thought that Africans were never involved in global economy, when not only were Africans involved in the very beginning of it, but were also in the very center of it, with significant economic relations with Asia to the East and Europe to the north!! Africa probably had the wealthiest economy in history. Africa's wealth, especially that in gold was considered legendary to Europeans who thought Africa was not only a land of black people but a land of gold. Athough gold was the main export, there were as always other African products that were considered "exotic" by the peoples who bought them, items like woods such as ebony, ostrich feathers, animal furs and skins from leopards and such, sometimes whole animals, and a variety of precious stones. There was also salt, and even slaves were traded. Africa's system of slavery was different from the more debased chattel slavery that you are more familiar with.

All of this changed during the time of European imperialism. I remember you saying that "European colonialism was the best thing that has ever happened to Africa." I fail to see how this was so! Almost all the indigenous nations and states lost all economic and political independence. Many native rulers became puppets of the governments of the European power that conquered them, and most of the economic profit that native Africans made went to the European nations that conquered them. Many native cultures and customs were degraded and the peoples were taught that those of Europe were "better." The education systems that Africans already had were altered to teach from a European standpoint. Thus, instead of the people learning about their own history, they mostly learned about that of their colonizers, and that their own history only started when they were colonized. This same process of was used on India and many areas of Southeast Asia. Africans were not as primitive and feckless as you think, since many European explorers all reported back to their homes about the many kingdoms and civilized societies they found. Unfortunately these reports were quickly obscured by those about the more primitive societies that were so used to seeing and hearing about. Primitive peoples were more interesting to Europeans, plus it gave them an excuse to conquer them. I too once held the same misconceptions and stereotypes about Africa and it's history and cultures until I read more and educated myself more about it, and I suggest you do the same. The truth is my people had a strikingly similar history.

As far as the modern world today, there are various reasons why Africa still not up to par with the West. Things like disease and famines as well as government corruption and wars the likely culprits. I doubt it's because of that ridiculous racist notion that Africans have lower IQs, considering they advance and excel more and recieve more professional jobs in the West than many Westerners, even in Europe! To think, just centuries ago Westerners were relying on Africa for its physical labor, and now its relying on her for intellectual labor! In my workplace I actually see more and more Africans scientists than Asian ones and definitely more than Europeans. Western economists and industrialists are already worried, especially the U.S. The U.S. knows the main reason why it is the wealthiest nation in the world is because of the 3rd world countries. Unfortunately without these countries being poor the other countries especially those in the West wouldn't be so rich. Before the only major competition they had in the global arena was the Jokota Triangle-(Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan), but now China is quickly catching up especially now that it has possession of Hong Kong. China is improving their steel and military industries. India is also rapidly gaining power with its specialty in computer science and technology. India has become wise to try to keep as many computer engineers and specialists letting them go to the U.S. or some other Western country. The U.S. and other Western powers know that as long as the nations of Africa still have their political problems they pose no threat. Despite so many years of colonial exploitation, Africa's lands are still rich and wealthy in natural resources. The lands still have plenty of gold, and other valuable and precious metals and minerals, and even countries in West Africa have oil. If all the political strife were ended and the infrastructure rebuilt and organized, it could spell trouble for the West.

---

and africa is rebuilding,like the au,the west africans states and sadc-the southern african region.the region that is building and more effective infrastruture and technology is southern africa for the time being,so things are happening,and you are right there were so many advance civilizations in africa in the past(nubia- the greeks and romans in some of their writings saying the were clearly black(negriod) and the most civilized and most advance folks they knew in ancient times and later times arabs wrote about this too saying they had the most advanced culture and technology and one of the best learning in the world)the west went mostly to the dark ages.

good post by the way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
TopDog, the modern world is a product of euro-American culture, that is just a fact. i don't know where you are living but everything you have has come out of euro-American culture. You are upset because you cannot morph a bunch of bush jumpers in Africa into anything substantial. Anything of value in the third world was either brought there by the British Empire or American business.

---

africa from my point of view is really the first world since it was first.europe is one of the last regions to become civilized,but that is what happens when europe writes history,they and folks like you change things upside down so you could be the main focus.