posted
I think the concept of "Western Civilization" is a farce and inherently racist.
Western Europe is not a singular cultural entity that developed a society that can be compared to a nation.
It has many nations, ethnic groups and cultures who have both traded and fought wars with each other.
Traditionally "Western Civilization" is thought of as a cultural complex with a common root.
But look at where that root supposedly begins. In Greece which is in Southeastern Europe.
Any suggestions of the cultural influence Greece recieved, just as it influenced Rome, from the older civilizations in the Nile Valley and Mesopatamia are met with extreme skepticism because they threaten the racial integrity of "Western Culture" (which = Western European culture).
I think it is more correct to identify an ethnic and national culture than an imaginery civilization.
Many of the ideas and themes in "Western Civilization" did not even evolve in Europe, they were influenced by others just as those nations influenced cultures around the world.
So when someone asks me about "Western Civilization" I ask them what it is.
Usually European mostly English speaking countries like England.
Usually it's the countries that put this part of the world "on the map" so-to-speak--America and Great Britain.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is essentially a "slogan" for "European imperialism and capitalism" and its outgrowths like the U.S., whereby the ruling elite should ideally [from the Eurocentric perspective] be 'white', and largely of Christian following. Take note that not every European country is considered part of "the west", and these are largely 'East European' nations.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Arwa: How do you define Western civilization?
In my opinion as has been quite for long time, is that western civilizations foundation is a little bit flawed and corrupt since it bases itself as the strict inherent of the greco-roman history. Even though greece is today located at the european continent and so is Rome but the reality is that the romans and certainly greeks were more a near-eastern/levant oriented people. Everything points at them being more of a people in the mental leval of ancient syrians, jordanians, palestinians and even egyptians than anything near to British, German and other contemporary statea that were at that time only Roman sattelite states. The Greeks themselves didn't even bother looking north,and were more interested in afghanistan than france, if we follow alexanders trail.
This is further testified by how romans buildt their greatest monuments in whole of north africa coasts and levant regions, but almost none in northern, eastern ond western europe. And also how romans early adopted christianity and latter was spread through out their empire in the south and east, but quite late on the northern and western part of its empire, even at the late medevil time the Byzantine empire was at the south eastern end of the roman territory. But today we are supposed to believe that the european foundation is unique and not connected outside of europe.
Europeans have taken upon the ancient knowledge and exeled on taking it to a whole new level, and thus should get all the credit and applauds, which they absolutly deserve. But this whole "we were always the best" attitude which is reflected through how they try to make themselves the originators of all great things can sometimes become a bit to much.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the "classical definition" Western Civilization: Civilizations, both ancient and pre-modern, that were centered around the mediterranean sea, Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia, Syria, hell even Egypt, although it was African instead of middle-eastern like Syria or European like Greece, however Egypt influenced the latter so profoundly it can be considered the starting point of "Western Civilization". Yep, on African soil folks.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
To me it has no racist connotations at all and is the entire shebang of technology and civilization as based on the Magna Carta. I look at it as a late 19th century British scientist would think of it.
It really includes regions not based on the Magna carta in recent years because many countries abide by international law and have a lot of high tech. This seems sufficient to get almost all countries as being a part of "western civilization".
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Western Civilization" is an artificial creation of the intellectual classes of the indigenous peoples of Europe who first adopted Christianity then subjected it and everything else to the Greek episteme. What this meant for these post-Greek classes of thinkers is that every idea is up for grabs and can be subjected to intellectual scrutiny. Thus for the West--and I think this is its defining characteristic --no idea is sacred--whether in religion or science. The result is the Western belief that "European man is the measure of all things".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol: As the next ws.tpropaganda/lie "entertainment" spectacle [300] sets itself to further brainwash Africans, here is a reality check with regards to the Slavic/Slave society that was Sparta:
Sparta was traditionally the great land power of the Greek world and controlled many neighboring territories whose populations were tied to the land as slaves.
Slaves had no rights, and an owner could kill a slave.
Helots (serfs descended from those peoples who had resisted subjugation by Sparta and who were constantly rebelling. They were treated like slaves and gave 1/2 of their produce to the Spartiate citizens who owned the land.
The Spartan women were community property and spent their whole time bearing and raising children. The slaves did all the work.
In Sparta men citizens were warriors. The other men were slaves.
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: I think the concept of "Western Civilization" is a farce and inherently racist.
But of course.
Western civilisation, as a rheotrical device has a primary purpose, which is to facilitate theft of the non European world, by Europe.
Thru the magic of this inanity - The Pyramids of the Nile Valley, reading and writing, agriculture, the Judaic and Christian faiths....all become "western civilisation".
My favorite loony claim for Western Civilisation though stems from Ian Smith, former prime minister of Apartheid Rhodesia....
He claimed that Southern Africa was not a part of Africa, but rather....was a part of 'western' civilisation.
You have to like a vampire who brazenly shows his fangs rather than hide them, in the manner of practicsed liberal racism, which continues to fool too many Africans.
Smith basically admits that Western is denoted by whatever white people can claim or control, via murder, theft, deceit or any other method.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note how Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and Palestine are NOT part of this map, even though they are claimed as the "home" of Western Culture!
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Note how Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and Palestine are NOT part of this map, even though they are claimed as the "home" of Western Culture!
Talk about gratitude Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, thank you all for your replies, and specially thanks go to the senior members
So what is the conclusion here? Western civilization constitutes a set of values which all have roots in the middle east and part of Nile valley.
We can't say either Western civilization represents Christanity, because Christanity itself is rooted from Middle East.
Can we define Western civilization to certain type of skin color? That is best and only suggestion I have.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Interesting perspective, but true to the bone marrow!
quote: Mozart + Beethoven may be lovely--but allll, I mean allll of that came from the IMMENSE wealth that was generated by the "New World". All of which was "extracted" by Black slaves. The Rennaisance, The Enlightenment--they wouldn't/couldn't have bought solid silver chairs and wall to wall mirrors painted with gold leaf --without slavery. That isn't what you call "the spirit".
quote: "Classical period"...100,000,000 population. Estimates are around 20,000,000 slaves were brought to the New World. Of course a high percentage were thrown into the sea because of smallpox. Still, 15,000,000 Africans slaving to produce the luxuries for Europe-- with a population of what??
Thats a lot of sugar, tobacco, gold, ivory. Wealth creates an opportunity to indulge in art and so on. The slaves deserve the credit. Not the paintings and the palaces everyone goes to see. If we were half "civilized" reparation would definitely be planned instead of prisons. Which brings us back to the idea of the brutality of a people who set this in motion--they traded the fabrics to African chieftains in return for slaves and ivory... nowdays, collect rents on their ghettos.
quote: I did not say that the African slave trade "created" European "civilization". Whatever that means.
The thing that Some People refer to as "civilization" is a host of luxuries and lavish living which could only be produced in a society that used slaves.
BTW, the writer of the quote is white middle-aged American.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats a lot of sugar, tobacco, gold, ivory. Wealth creates an opportunity to indulge in art and so on. The slaves deserve the credit.
There is a very good book by Eric Williams, "Capitalism and Slavery", that gives a very indepth econometric analysis of the role profits from slavery played in financing Europe's development.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point that should be understood is that "Western Civilization" only refers to civilizations and cultures that have arisen throughout the world from Western European cultures. Therefore America, Britain, Australia, Israel and New Zealand can be said to be "Western". However, this is a geopolitical entity not a historical entity. "Western Civilization" as a concept is only 400 years old, as Greeks, Romans, Hittites, Assyrians, Mesopotamians and Babylonians had no concept of themselves being "Western" either politically, geographically or ethnically, especially not in reference to Western Europe. Therefore, Western European countries, while adopting the ideas of the Greeks and Romans cannot claim that these are "Western" cultures, since neither Greece nor Rome identified with the countries now considered as the core of Western Culture. The U.S.A did not exist at that time, Western Europe was considered backward and barbaric and the oldest cultures and civilizations were to the South and East. Likewise, Western Culture is NOT typified by the ideals of law, morality, freedom or justice, as MOST Western European countries have been monarchies, dictatorships or oligarchies and have been very cruel and oppressive to both their OWN people and especially those from elsewhere. Basically Western Civilization as the ideal or best representation of all that is good and decent in the world or human civilization only can be accepted as FACT if one ignores: slavery, native american genocide, the Moorish impact on Europe, the Refirmation, Crusades, WWI, WWII, Mussolini, Tito, Hitler, Leopold and so on. The REALITY is that Western Civilization has Eastern roots and that the so-called virtues of Western Civilization have been mostly lofty philosophical goals as opposed to historical fact. Western Civilization is nothing but European propaganda that tries to sugar coat everything done by Europe and Europeans as "good" and the "standard" by which all others should be measured, when in reality it is only the LAST of the continents in the world to become civilized and create Empires in the name of god and country.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats a lot of sugar, tobacco, gold, ivory. Wealth creates an opportunity to indulge in art and so on. The slaves deserve the credit.
There is a very good book by Eric Williams, "Capitalism and Slavery", that gives a very indepth econometric analysis of the role profits from slavery played in financing Europe's development.
Thanks for the reference, Calypso. I was actually looking this type of book.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You're welcome Arwa. The book was written in the 1940's but the information is still current.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The topic is interesting but can be confusing. Here are some questions:
Is Western civilization to be seen as synonymous with European civilization?
When non-Western nations say that modernization is not the same as Westernization what do they mean?
Western intellectuals claim that what sets Western civilization apart from others is that there has always been a struggle in the West over issues of intellectual and political freedoms and rights--things that other cultures consider anathema. They support this with the claim that the rest of world sees the West as the headquarters of political and econmic freedom--a place to which all and sundry want to migrate to or flee to. How justified are they in making thse claims?
Some Westerners claim that the key characteristics of Western civilization are "rule of law, market economies, respect for individual rights, upholding of intellectual freedoms and respect for property rights. They claim that non-Western societies never have meet those 4 conditions. And these are the conditions that places like Turkey should meet if they it is to be admitted to the EU. How justified is this claim?
Western intellectuals love to claim that it is only in the West that free intellectual inquiry is valued and that it is only in the West that questions and conversations about the human condition are tolerated. True or false?
Implicit in all these assumptions is the key underlying assumption that Western civilization is the most advanced and successful civilization--with its intellectual freedoms and rights of the individual--to date with inspiration taken from Euro-Christianity and Greek and Roman ideas. True or False?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The topic is interesting but can be confusing. Here are some questions:
Is Western civilization to be seen as synonymous with European civilization?
Yes, as it is specifically defined as Western European civilization.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: When non-Western nations say that modernization is not the same as Westernization what do they mean?
Modernization means adopting modern practices within the daily lives of the people. Westernization means adopting the cultural practices of the "West", ie. hip hop, fast food, skimpy clothes, club culture, materialist lifestyle, Wal Mart and so on.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Western intellectuals claim that what sets Western civilization apart from others is that there has always been a struggle in the West over issues of intellectual and political freedoms and rights--things that other cultures consider anathema. They support this with the claim that the rest of world sees the West as the headquarters of political and econmic freedom--a place to which all and sundry want to migrate to or flee to. How justified are they in making thse claims?
Which is obviously propaganda. The struggle over freedoms and rights is not new by any long shot or unique to "Western" civilization. Freedom versus non Freedom are theoretical philosophical arguments that rarely, if ever, get manifested in real life. Every civilization has a notion of 'freedom' which is relative to the principles and ideals of the culture it exists in. For example, in "Western" societies, freedom has ALWAYS been reserved PRIMARILY for white European male landowners and wealthy patrons over white European females and everyone else. The 'freedom' aspired to by these countries is for Western Europe and those descended from Western Europeans to be free to benefit off the land, wealth and labor of EVERYONE ELSE. It is a selfish freedom,not freedom in an absolute sense, meaning freedom and equality for ALL people, nationalities and ethnicities. What separates the West from other cultures is the fact that they SAY one thing while MEAINING and DOING something totally different. They TALK about freedom, but regularly TAKE freedoms from everyone else. Therefore, the STRUGGLE is to ACTUALLY gain economic, political and social power for all the people who have been subjugated BY the West, which does not make the West the epitome of freedom or justice. It makes the West the epitome of freedoms and justice lost in the name of progress for Western Europeans, which has created a modern struggle for people OUTSIDE the inner circle of Western European elites to GAIN true freedom and justice for themselves. Just remember, Western Europe has only really become democratic in the last 150 years or so. Before that, it was mostly a set of monarchies. And of course, the U.S. only REALLY became democratic in the last 50 years or so, but still has a ways to go. Therefore, the West is not and has never been the epitome of freedom and justice for ALL people.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Some Westerners claim that the key characteristics of Western civilization are "rule of law, market economies, respect for individual rights, upholding of intellectual freedoms and respect for property rights. They claim that non-Western societies never have meet those 4 conditions. And these are the conditions that places like Turkey should meet if they it is to be admitted to the EU. How justified is this claim?
All civilizations have laws. Laws are the basis of what MAKES a civilization and laws have been around since the beginning of civilization. This idea of Western civilization being based on laws is another form of propaganda to force everyone ELSE to abide by the laws of the West when it comes to economics, political and military power. It has nothing to with Western European civilizations being the first to use laws in society, but Western European s having the power to FORCE everyone else to abide by the RULES of Western Europe. Market economies is just another way of saying greedy materialist capitalist objectives for dominating the economies of the world. It does not mean that the Western European countries invented concepts of trading, commerce, industry and money before everyone else. What it does mean is that they FORCED everyone else to accept rules to benefit Western Europe in trade, commerce, industry and money over everyone else.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Western intellectuals love to claim that it is only in the West that free intellectual inquiry is valued and that it is only in the West that questions and conversations about the human condition are tolerated. True or false?
False. As any of the thousands of dissidents and people killed in European torture chambers and dungeons over the last 800 years will tell you. The only intellectual activity that was traditionally free was that which supported the goals of the elites in Western Europe.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Implicit in all these assumptions is the key underlying assumption that Western civilization is the most advanced and successful civilization--with its intellectual freedoms and rights of the individual--to date with inspiration taken from Euro-Christianity and Greek and Roman ideas. True or False?
All of which is a bunch of nonsense. The Romans and their blood thirsty battles for power had nothing to do with intellect, civility, peace or freedom. Greece was a slave state based around an elite who were also blood thirsty for power. Everything mentioned here is a bunch of propaganda, as NO civilization has EVER been perfect, respected the rights of ALL people or not been subject to the manipulations of ambitious people with a desire for power. The only difference here is that the West is the wolf in sheeps clothing, who tries to lull you to sleep for the kill. For example, during slavery, senators and politicians felt that their DEBATES over the virtues and sins of slavery were an EXAMPLE of what made the West different and better than everyone else in following rule of law and the practice of intellectual freedom. How is that? This line of argument only justifies the acts of the West within a framework of law which SUPPORTS Western imperialist and capitalist goals, without ANY true freedom or rights for those being oppressed. Arguing over slavery does NOT constitute freedom, intellectual or otherwise, it constitutes TALK and HYPOCRISY, pure and simple. The con game being that slaves and former slaves are supposed to feel better because these white politicians got together and TALKED about freedom..... So slavery wasnt slavery, it was a struggle of intellectual ideals concerning freedom and justice, which is a high pillar of Western culture. Reword it and you get slavery was a high pillar of Western culture, where the struggle of ideals concernig freedom and justice could not overcome the baser desires for power and wealth among wealthy white male elites.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the obstacles confronting me in attaining a BA was that I took apart the false claim of a so called western civilization everytime I attended class for a course entitled "Western Civilization."
Although taught chronologically from ancient times to the modern day, actually the concept of wc is totally anachronistic and based on colour.
19th century Americans/western Europeans invented the phrase to describe their belated advent onto the world stage. Starting from the 19th century, they went backward in time and southward and eastward in space to claim everything everywhere by everybody that was responsible for them getting to be where they found themselves.
And we mustn't forget for a moment that even after the 15th century, non-Europeans continued to contribute to all the advances in science and culture claimed by white Euro-America as its western civilization.
So, though thought to be the creation of the whites of Europe, western civilization today is but a codeword for modern civilization and modern civilization is the creation of all humanity's diverse continental contributors.
And that's really what it always was except for a brief interlude of stifling Euro military dominance in many places around the globe.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
"rule of law, market economies, respect for individual rights, upholding of intellectual freedoms and respect for property rights."
Sounds too good to be true. Let me quote for you Baffour Ankomah:
quote: I have also learned how deceived we all are in Africa about the so-called “free press” in the West. It is a myth! It doesn’t exist. Sorry, it exists only in textbooks. So when you next meet journalists from the BBC or CNN or The New York Times or Le Monde, Newsweek, The Economist, The Guardian, and the rest of them, don’t let them bamboozle you ever again with any highfalutin claims of their “freedom” to publish whatever is the truth without fear or favour. They have no such freedom! They all serve various agendas dressed up as freedom and objectivity. The New York Times even put the icing on the cake by priding itself on being “the paper of record” that “prints all the news fi t to print”. So, some news is not fi t to print.
After all, the Western media accept that they are the “Fourth Estate of the Realm”, which means they are the fourth arm of the State or Establishment (the three others being the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary). You, therefore, want to ask yourself what role has the State or Establishment assigned to the Fourth Estate? We all know the roles assigned to the three other estates. Or are they saying the Fourth Estate is an estate without a role? You bet!
In fact I like the sound of it – Fourth Estate and Establishment. Remember the Queen telling Princess Diana’s butler, Paul Burrell: “Be careful, Paul; nobody has ever been as close to a member of my family as you were to Diana. There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.”
Since the Daily Mirror published this extraordinary admission on 6 November 2002, I have often told myself that if the Queen has no knowledge of the powers at work in her own country, of which she is head of state and supposedly the supreme being in the land, then God save the Queen and us all, including the media!
What else have I learned in these past 18 years at New African? That the Western media have a cosy relationship with their governments. Governments make the most news in the West, and without them the media cannot survive.
Last year, Piers Morgan, the sacked editor of the Daily Mirror published his dairies, in which he made another extraordinary revelation:
that in the eight years (1996-2004) that he was editor, he met Tony Blair, more than 58 times! These are his exact words: “The most overriding sense I had in re-living my career in [this book], was the staggering degree of access I enjoyed for so long to the corridors of power and infl uence in this country. At the time it seemed [b]perfectly normal to be having breakfast with a tycoon like Philip Green, lunching with the prime minister, and dining with George Michael. Sometimes all on the same day…
“Bored one evening, I counted up all the times I had met Tony Blair. And the result was astonishing really, or slightly shocking – depending on your viewpoint. I had 22 lunches, 6 dinners, 6 interviews, 24 further one-to-one chats over tea and biscuits [that makes 58, and Piers Morgan is not fi nished], and numerous phone calls with him. That’s a lot of face time with arguably Britain’s most important person.”
And it is not only Blair that he met so many times; he met a good deal of Blair’s ministers and offi cials too, from Gordon Brown down, and sometimes their wives and husbands. If Piers Morgan can have such time and space with Blair and his officials, you can imagine how many times Blair & Co have met the other editors of Britain’s “free press”. And I can bet my bottom dollar that they don’t meet to have only tea and biscuits.
If a Ghanaian or Zimbabwean editor meets his president 58 times in seven years (not counting the “numerous phone calls”), they would say he has been bought. But it happens in Britain and nobody butts an eyelid – because, as Piers Morgan says, it is “perfectly normal” .
As you can see Lamin, it only exists on textbooks.
BTW, was it not until 1971 Swiss women got the right to vote, and you want to teach Turkey what?
Here is a lesson for the so called "Western civilization".
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, especially when their "civilization" is based on mythsPosts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug: "Western Civilization" as a concept is only 400 years old, as Greeks, Romans, Hittites, Assyrians, Mesopotamians and Babylonians had no concept of themselves being "Western" either politically, geographically or ethnically, especially not in reference to Western Europe. Therefore, Western European countries, while adopting the ideas of the Greeks and Romans cannot claim that these are "Western" cultures, since neither Greece nor Rome identified with the countries now considered as the core of Western Culture. The U.S.A did not exist at that time, Western Europe was considered backward and barbaric and the oldest cultures and civilizations were to the South and East. Likewise, Western Culture is NOT typified by the ideals of law, morality, freedom or justice, as MOST Western European countries have been monarchies, dictatorships or oligarchies and have been very cruel and oppressive to both their OWN people and especially those from elsewhere.
Who hasn't? Seriously? You do have to give them credit for their thought of democracy and equality.
posted
I DONT have to give them credit for anything. Especially when for MOST of America's history, freedom and democracy was NOT extended to MOST of the population. Europe and the WEST are NOT the home of freedom and democracy. If they were, then WHY did so many flee religious persecution to come to America? Why did they then revolt against the taxation of the King? If things were so good and democratic then why did they leave? Likewise, if America was founded on freedom and democracy, then why did most of the founding fathers own slaves then? I call B.S. for what it is, B.S. America was founded on slavery, opression and the near extermination of the native people of the North American continent, who did nothing to the European settlers, other than being in the way of the Europeans claiming America as their "promised land" as a result of fleeing persecution in Europe. The founding fathers knew that everyone, meaning the dupes that make up the masses, will always take a good story over the TRUTH any day of the week. Glorious fantasy makes for big ticket sales at the box office, not the hard facts of reality. Therefore, the ONLY thing this country gets credit for is creating a mythic fantasy fable of Western Europe and America being all that is good and decent in the world, with everyone else being barbaric, superstitious savages. NOTHING that America or Western Europe has done for the last 500 years has been good or noble and their desire to elevate the pursuit of material gain to a level of religious devotion is sickening. The persuit of material wealth has NEVER led to godliness, holiness or righteousness and is NOT the same as being good, righteous or holy. I call things like they are, not like the P.R. people want me to see it.
Democracy is a word, a concept, but in reality has NOTHING to do with the governments of this world today. The U.S. democracy is actually controlled by people with money and power, hardly something that really lives by the virtues of following the will of the people. There are as many corrupt and crooked politicians in America as any other country on earth, yet that is not what we are led to believe. The difference is that because of the WEALTH in America, there is so much more money available for people who live and work here to live a decent life and not have to really CARE about the issues. Very few people who vote can really say that their candidate represents them or their issues, unless they are FOLLOWING the party line. ALL civilizations are defined by their belief that THEIR way is the RIGHT way, THEIR gods are the RIGHT gods and THIER people are the BEST people and that ALL these things give them the RIGHT to rule the world in one way or other. Western civilization is NO DIFFERENT in this respect, the only difference being that they have put a substantial amount of time and effort into making a FAKE historic geopolitical camouflage for themselves as being the people who are all about freedom and justice.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Can we define Western civilization to certain type of skin color? That is best and only suggestion I have.
If it were that simple, why not consider a number of East-European countries, including Russia, as part of "West"? The people who live in those countries fall well within the ranges found elsewhere in Europe, don't you think?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it were that simple, why not consider a number of East-European countries, including Russia, as part of "West"? The people who live in those countries fall well within the ranges found elsewhere in Europe, don't you think?
That would be reasonable to say [if you were to add "just" in there, to say "just" a racial thing], which is why I'll repost my earlier post, with a slight modification [italicized] to say that in its modern connotation, the ideology behind "West" can be summed up as,...
...essentially a "slogan" for "west European imperialism and capitalism" and its outgrowths like the U.S., whereby the ruling elite should ideally [from the Eurocentric perspective] be 'white', and largely of Christian following. Take note that not every European country is considered part of "the west", and these are largely 'East European' nations. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
* I am aware at how things are portrayed, and I'm also aware that every civilization (at least that I know of) thinks they are the geatest.
Originally posted by Doug: "The founding fathers knew that everyone, meaning the dupes that make up the masses, will always take a good story over the TRUTH any day of the week."
This may be, but I am not talking about the flaws of democracy, or the flaws of America/West Europe.
I do think about how christianity had to be introduced as a stabilizing force to a war-like and maybe even barbarous people.
How Europe went into a dark-age and had to be helped AGAIN by outside influence (muslim arabs and african) before finally putting the assistance to good use.
How there had to be an en-lightenment in order for Europeans to stop being scared of Literacy and Science LOL. Then they could finally bring the world out of their barbaric darkness. ^
I know that America's politicians are not the saints of the Earth as you pointed out, infact I just wrote a thesis on the subject! Basically an analysis centered on democracy:
An original definition of what a government is in general, and common element of governments.
Purpose of Democracy (which is balance, to spread power and control so that no one gains too much control)
Democratic Government in the United States of America
The purpose of the two-party system
Public opinion and political parties, and their compications
How Democracy's previously defined purpose of balance is slowly being altered.
Some issues of today and of relevance to today, like Democracies in times of war and the resulting complications(, and some wisdom on the part of the fore-fathers in respect to some of their laws). Also, the P.a.T.r.I.O.t. act is mentioned.
While this system definitely has its purpose, it seems that we are still in need of great ideas from great minds.
I was just saying that you have to give the Europeans credit. Ofcourse, I am obviously grouping the Greeks and Romans with other Europeans. This is not to say that Western europe and american aren't to be given credit.
I'm sure you've heard of The Renaisance and Enlightenment of France, partly involving England and Spain.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Europe and the WEST are NOT the home of freedom and democracy.
WHaT is this? I've never heard of this, unless you don't iclude Greece. Is it because the home of democracy is south-eastern europe? It's still Europe, Doug. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I still stand by what I wrote. Your view on East and West Europe is misleading. Many influential European thinkers from 1800 AD came from Eastern Europe (Prussia), and the political idealogy dominated the last century in Eastern Europe arise from Western metropolitans. We should consider these two larg group as one family, and as every family there are disagreements.
BTW, who do you think came to rescue Russo-Japanese war? That is right, big brother from the West.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Alright then, it is plain and simple: Demonstrate to us how "all" of Europe is considered to be part of "West".
quote:Arwa:
Many influential European thinkers from 1800 AD came from Eastern Europe (Prussia), and the political idealogy dominated the last century in Eastern Europe arise from Western metropolitans. We should consider these two larg group as one family, and as every family there are disagreements.
BTW, who do you think came to rescue Russo-Japanese war? That is right, big brother from the West.
And?...the relevance of all this to what embodies "West"? Elaborate!
quote:Originally posted by Africa:
quote:Many influential European thinkers from 1800 AD came from Eastern Europe (Prussia)
Here is a map of Prussia, and its capital was Berlin by the way, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say...that Germans are Eastern Europeans?...
Indeed; or she could be saying that Russia is considered a "Western nation"(?)
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker): Doug:
You had some good points, but:
* I am aware at how things are portrayed, and I'm also aware that every civilization (at least that I know of) thinks they are the geatest.
Originally posted by Doug: "The founding fathers knew that everyone, meaning the dupes that make up the masses, will always take a good story over the TRUTH any day of the week."
This may be, but I am not talking about the flaws of democracy, or the flaws of America/West Europe.
And I am talking about how Western Europe and the West are NOT built on democratic ideals and freedom. The West and Europe were built on slavery, genocide, oppression and colonial subjugation. ANYONE who tries to put the Western World as the epitome of peace and democracy after 400 years of oppression, slavery and genocide is FALSIFYING history.
quote:
I do think about how christianity had to be introduced as a stabilizing force to a war-like and maybe even barbarous people.
It was NOT a stabilizing force. If anything it was as destructive and destabilizing as anything else. Remember the crusades, the refirmations and the revolt of Luther?
quote:
How Europe went into a dark-age and had to be helped AGAIN by outside influence (muslim arabs and african) before finally putting the assistance to good use.
How about was in a dark age all along as MOST of Europe did not have an ancient advanced civilization outside of Greece and Rome.
quote:
How there had to be an en-lightenment in order for Europeans to stop being scared of Literacy and Science LOL. Then they could finally bring the world out of their barbaric darkness. ^
The point being? Obviously they cannot be the originators of Western culture if it did not ORIGINATE in the West.
quote: [QBI know that America's politicians are not the saints of the Earth as you pointed out, infact I just wrote a thesis on the subject! Basically an analysis centered on democracy:
An original definition of what a government is in general, and common element of governments.
Purpose of Democracy (which is balance, to spread power and control so that no one gains too much control)
Democratic Government in the United States of America
The purpose of the two-party system
Public opinion and political parties, and their compications
How Democracy's previously defined purpose of balance is slowly being altered.
Some issues of today and of relevance to today, like Democracies in times of war and the resulting complications(, and some wisdom on the part of the fore-fathers in respect to some of their laws). Also, the P.a.T.r.I.O.t. act is mentioned.
While this system definitely has its purpose, it seems that we are still in need of great ideas from great minds.
I was just saying that you have to give the Europeans credit. Ofcourse, I am obviously grouping the Greeks and Romans with other Europeans. This is not to say that Western europe and american aren't to be given credit.
I'm sure you've heard of The Renaisance and Enlightenment of France, partly involving England and Spain. [/QB]
And I am saying that for most of Europe's history they have NOT promoted neither freedom or democracy. It is one thing to say that the IDEA of democracy started in Greece, but totally another to say that the PRACTICE of democracy and the preservation of freedom for all was a hallmark or central tenet of Western Civilization. Sorry, but Western Europe has been anything BUT the epitome of freedom, democracy or human rights. America, for MOST of its history has been a democracy in name only. THAT is the point I am getting at.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Alright then, it is plain and simple: Demonstrate to us how "all" of Europe is considered to be part of "West".
It's not, atleast I don't think it is.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M.: The point being? Obviously they cannot be the originators of Western culture if it did not ORIGINATE in the West.
O I know that they aren't the originators of all of western culture. That's my argument for why they should go back past Greece.
I was just letting you know what I know.
quote:Doug M.: And I am saying that for most of Europe's history they have NOT promoted neither FREEDOM or DEMOCRACY. It is one thing to say that the IDEA of democracy started in Greece, but totally another to say that the PRACTICE of democracy and the preservation of FREEDOM for ALL was a HALLMARK or CENTRAL TENET of Western Civilization. Sorry, but Western Europe has been anything BUT the epitome of FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY or HUMAN RIGHTS. America, for MOST of its history has been a democracy in NAME ONLY. THAT is the point I am getting at.
I was just saying the 'idea' started in Europe.
I mis-understood you. For a second, it sounded as if you were trying to say that there were other democratic nations in the past which were uninfluenced by Europe.
quote:Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker):
quote:Doug M.:
And I am saying that for most of Europe's history they have NOT promoted neither FREEDOM or DEMOCRACY. It is one thing to say that the IDEA of democracy started in Greece, but totally another to say that the PRACTICE of democracy and the preservation of FREEDOM for ALL was a HALLMARK or CENTRAL TENET of Western Civilization. Sorry, but Western Europe has been anything BUT the epitome of FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY or HUMAN RIGHTS. America, for MOST of its history has been a democracy in NAME ONLY. THAT is the point I am getting at.
I was just saying the 'idea' started in Europe.
I mis-understood you. For a second, it sounded as if you were trying to say that there were other democratic nations in the past which were uninfluenced by Europe.
That's what my inquirey was over.
Well, if you mean "democrary" as in the "European" style, then perhaps. But there have been systems in place elsewhere, whereby the 'democratic' element of their governing systems have been noted, as this author does:
It must be made clear that just because a practice is Western does not necessarily make it an anathema on African soil.
Democracy is not alien to **pre-colonial** African culture despite enduring parodies by Western apologists, but Western-style democracy certainly was; and why not? The Igbo pre-colonial village democracy, arguably one of the most egalitarian in the world, and, the Yoruba monarchical-divine pre-colonial have amply demonstrated this fact. The key difference between these two and the Western concept of democracy is that they did not cast paper ballot (in the Yoruba example non-paper ballot was a regular feature with oracular intervention) because they were not based on written cultures.
They respected democratic rights **in principle** and observed dos and don't of citizenship. In fact, American **plutocratic** neo-monarchical style of rulership came to several African countries as a result of what I referred to as neo-Berlinism(to regress beyond Ali Mazrui's 1914 cut-off point in his analysis on Nigeria). - Yinka Agbetuyi
The "ideas" of democracy in Europe may well be such in principle on paper, but not practiced. What you have in these countries, including where there is traditional monarchy as in the UK, is a plutocratic system, designed to ensure only a thin layer of the industrial-military complex elite rule, who are not necessarily representative of the real interests of the ordinary general public from the lower social strata, but that of their own. As such, you have the "Founding Fathers" of the U.S. writing on paper that "all men are equal" (or something along those lines) in principle, all the while they were owning "slaves" who didn't have the right to vote, as was the case with women, whom while never blatantly said, were obviously taken for granted as being of lesser-beings, whose primary existence was to cater to the needs of males.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
This group was basal to those who become known as the IndoEuropeans though their origins were neither Europe nor India. They began dwelling with the African phenotyped Maikop culture (I have figurine showing this) which existed on the Steppes from near 4500 BC to maybe 2100 BC. Other African pheontype groups were the initial stages of the Sarmatian, the Scythians, the Parthinians, and others. In later phases they were white and recorded history starts with their white phase over-looking the African.
They travelled in all directions and became a part of Anatolia when it was in the African phase and entered Bulgaria, Dacia (Romania), Greece, Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, China, Finland.
Linguists never clearly tell the point, but I think it can be proven that African populations spoke what would be characterized as Germanic languages in Anatolia and this was learned and carried on by the Andronovo people later to be called by history Anatolians. There is some interesting proof that Africans spoke the initial and highly developed form of this Germanic, Indo-European language as the Tokarians spoke Indo-European but the earliest figurine of Tokarians shows they are African - although history calls them a white people (and they were in their later phase but not earliest phase).
In each place whites eventually supplanted the indigenous populations and recorded history is blind to the populations predating them and attributes the features of those indigenous populations to the incursive groups that supplanted them and adopted their language, culture, and ways.
I'm sorry, but what we consider Western civilization I think is best characterized as borrowed civilization. Later I will make a web page showing the extensive, prehistoric African populations on the Russian Steppes, Iran, and such places where early recorded history took place. If you follow the path of whites into history, at one point you will find immense and often total destruction to the villages, towns, and cities wherever they went and indigenous people enslaved wherever their people travelled. They get a lot of undue credit for harnessing civilization.
That Western civilization is borrowed I think can find support in the fact that, yes, philosophy rests with Socrates who is typically portrayed white but is likely of African phenotype and I'd say orientation. You might consider this page:
posted
Marc, or anyone else, since indo-european is a language what are some actual names actually used for some of these groups or *a* name I could use to describe them? Europeans? I think I'll just call them Asiatics/North Asiatics/Central Asiatics. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by What Box (Willing Thinker): Marc, or anyone else, since indo-european is a language what are some actual names actually used for some of these groups or *a* name I could use to describe them? Europeans? I think I'll just call them Asiatics/North Asiatics/Central Asiatics.
Indo-european is a language family, not a language. And people speaking any of these languages are not necesserily related, so you should describe them according to their ethnicity/nation rather than "Asiatics/North Asiatics/Central Asiatics". Same with all other language families.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indo-european is a language family, not a language.
I ment that.
quote:And people speaking any of these languages are not necesserily related, so you should describe them according to their ethnicity/nation rather than "Asiatics/North Asiatics/Central Asiatics". Same with all other language families.
posted
Any linguists aboard. I am curious about the "root language" of Indo-European and when and where was it spoken before it produced other language branches. In other w ords what does the Indo-European language tree look like?
And if its root language can be located(time and place) then when and where was that root formed by a previous branch?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Willing Thinker. As there are three pictures about 300 KB each (not a picture appears here for every link, though) I put them on three separate pages in the event some don’t use ADSL and they’d load so damn slowly.
QUESTION: Where did modern languages begin and are Africans the people who spoke them?
[ A ] LANGUAGE CAN BE TRACED TO THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC GRAVETTIAN PEOPLE – BUT GRAVETTIANS WERE AFRICAN
Our first orientation to this subject comes in the form of research of which a) David Reich reports that today’s Northern Europeans and Nigerians share the same alleles dating to 50,000 years. At that time, a people related to them both lived in Northern Europe. Keep in mind, however, that the Caucasian enters history most clearly through the Andronovo people of 2300 BC. There is no history for the Caucasian 25,000 years ago. But, a look at the first web page below shows that there was abundant evidence that the people of 25,000 years ago were like the San, the Bushman.
a) REICH QUOTE: David Reich et. al., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411, 199 – 204, issue of 10 May 2001.
“We next studied 96 Yorubans (from Nigeria), believed to share common ancestry with northern Europeans about 100,000 years ago18. At short distances, the Nigerian and European-derived populations typically show the same allelic combinations…”
[Continued on next page]
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
“The physical types appear to be depicted which may reflect the two dolicocephalic races recognized by the late Professor M. Senyurek in the skeletons from Hacilar; the robust Eurafrican race and the more gracile Proto-Mediterranean race. These naturalistic statues serve as a link between those of Catal Huyuk and the later, larger and more conventional group from Hacilar V-II.”
James Mellaart, Earliest civilizations of the Near East, (Thames and Hudson, London, 1965), p. 8.
[ MARC CONTINUES]
To see more images on [ I ] from the post preceding this, look at section [ A ] at the link below. To see more images on the African population spoken on in [ II ] see [C ] in the link below.
Valery Pavlovich Alexeev, the Russian anthropologist speaking of skeletal remains found in Sungir and other Paleolithic sites near Moscow, in his Harvard lectures, wrote of the remains found from 25,000 years ago: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
IN: Geraldine Reinhart-Waller, The Alekseev 1990 Harvard Manuscript: Peoples and Cultures of the Soviet Union and Archaeology of the USSR)
MARC’S CLOSING COMMENT: Both human remains and figurine from Upper Paleolithic Northern Europe are unequivocally African. Scientists claim that today’s languages can be traced to Upper Paleolithic Europe that the proto-Nostratic language, the Mother Tongue, was dispersed from Anatolia. But, Anatolia was African. There is no proto-language identified with the Caucasian. They did enter Anatolia, however, as descendents of the Andronovo people and soon after, the indigenous population vanished. However, its agro-pastoralism and language passed entered history as Indo-European. Consider:
quote:Arwa: How do you define Western civilization?
In my opinion as has been quite for long time, is that western civilizations foundation is a little bit flawed and corrupt since it bases itself as the strict inherent of the greco-roman history. Even though greece is today located at the european continent and so is Rome but the reality is that the romans and certainly greeks were more a near-eastern/levant oriented people. Everything points at them being more of a people in the mental leval of ancient syrians, jordanians, palestinians and even egyptians than anything near to British, German and other contemporary statea that were at that time only Roman sattelite states. The Greeks themselves didn't even bother looking north,and were more interested in afghanistan than france, if we follow alexanders trail.
This is further testified by how romans buildt their greatest monuments in whole of north africa coasts and levant regions, but almost none in northern, eastern ond western europe. And also how romans early adopted christianity and latter was spread through out their empire in the south and east, but quite late on the northern and western part of its empire, even at the late medevil time the Byzantine empire was at the south eastern end of the roman territory. But today we are supposed to believe that the european foundation is unique and not connected outside of europe.
Europeans have taken upon the ancient knowledge and exeled on taking it to a whole new level, and thus should get all the credit and applauds, which they absolutly deserve. But this whole "we were always the best" attitude which is reflected through how they try to make themselves the originators of all great things can sometimes become a bit to much.
I don't know that White people try to say they created all great things, I mean...many admit to the creations of the Chinese and Muslims. But yes, Western Civilization has firm roots in the Levant and Egypt. Which is why there's such a debate over Eastern and Southern influences on the Meditarranean (places like Crete, Greece, etc). Because the whole idea of Western Civilization has roots in superiority theories...mainly the idea that "Western Culture" sprout up out of nowhere.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
by outside influence (muslim arabs and african) before finally putting the assistance to good use.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic