Talk:Eurocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurocentrism article.
Article policies
WikiProject Europe
Europe Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] purported eurocentrism

While Europe's contribution to modernity should be "openly acknowledged" we should also openly acknowledge the contribution of other cultures (notably Arab, indirectly Asian and African) that led to Europe's renaissance in the first place. to omit that history of how Europe came out of the Dark Age is to commit Eurocentrism. 68.155.103.121 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)MB Dec. 12 2006 Oh and most importantly, why write examples of "purported" Eurocentrism? shows the author's eurocentric bias right there, doesn't it?? This article needs major revisions. 68.155.103.121 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)MB

There is no single author, but the word "purported" is there because some of these examples are disputed or disputable. No one is saying that important intellectual and technological innovations did not get made outside of Europe, but modernity as we understand it is overwhelmingly a European event that is then, as it were, "exported" or adopted. Paul B 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] judeocentrism

Why is judeocentrism linked from here? Is there a relationship between the two? If so, can someone describe it, please? If not, I'll remove the link. Martin

I remember clearly that there used to be a page called Americocentrism. If I am not mistaken, it was then turned into a redirect. Now it seems to have gone completely. Should this fact be seen as Americocentrism here at Wikipedia? 131.130.181.71 13:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] self-contradictory paragraph

Deleted text: (was 2nd paragraph)

Being subject to eurocentrist practices may lead to the perception that Western concepts are deemed universal, or superior, or at least fundamentally different from those in other cultures or civilizations.

How can a concept be considered universal if while at the same time fundamentally different? This doesn't make sense.

Is this a veiled reference to the concept which justifies or predicts the dominance of Western Civilivation as a consequence of the "uniquely Western" quest to improve itself as a whole? Toynbee (?) or other historians exalt the ancient Greeks as seeking "the good" in general terms. That is, they looked not only inward (to themeselves) but outward (to other cultures) for aspects with which they might better themselves.

Is this the aspect the sentence above deems fundamentally different: the West's anti-ethnocentric tendency to pick and choose the best elements of other civilizations?

Or is the sentence echoing the historian's exaltation of the "superiority" of Western culture as a consequence of its relentless drive to become better? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Bias

Interestingly enough, Afrocentricism, although nowhere near as damaging to the world's society as Eurocentricism has been, has been posted with more criticism than this article. I post valid critical response into the article and ALL of it is deleted. So it seems that criticism of Afrocentricism is permitted where it interferes with sound objective educational development, but criticism of Eurocentricism is avoided even though it has interfered with life libertiy and self determination, caused slavery, oligarchies, and racial division.

Another more offensive tradition in Eurocentric discourse and scholarship is for Eurocentric minded scholars to take a "European by default" approach to discussing the history of any mixed culture or ancient civilization that could possibly have had contact with European oriented peoples. By assuming that contact was made in antiquity, the Eurocentric scholar will assert that the culture or civilization was by default "European" or "Caucasoid" in antiquity, and that these characteristics were the foundations that caused civilizations like Egypt, Ethiopia, Israel, and many East Indian civilizations to flourish in history. Usually the tradition will assert a condition in stating that de-empathizes or minimizes the non-European influence by using words like "although" and "however" after facts had shown that subject matter in question is not European in nature. This conditioning is done to harmonize the psychological need of the Eurocentric minded to lay claim to everything meaningful in history. Most notably is the need to lay claim to the Biblical and ancient Egyptian histories that are in fact not Eurocentric histories.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.174.148 (Talk) (talk • contribs) .

I don't know why your additions were deleted but since you are anonymous, no one els is going to object......--AssegaiAli 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poor stuff

For such an important concept, this is a very poor quality article which barely addresses the important issues. It also contains a lot of very garbled stuff (some of it added by the indignant anonymous contributor above). It's difficult to know what to make of paragraph like this:

For example, the very definition of a continent was expanded to separate the Eurasian continent into two parts, Europe and Asia as to place Europe itself into more prominence. In addition cartesian maps have been designed throughout history to center the northwestern part of Europe (most notably Great Britain) in the map.

What is a "cartesian map": one designed by Descartes? When was the "definition of a continent" expanded to divide up Eurasia to promote Europe? The Europe/Asia distinction dates back to the ancient world, before the extent of these landmasses were known and before "Eurocentrism" was a meaningful concept or "Eurasia" known to exist. So this is wholly false, historically. Anyway, the argument makes no sense. In itself, dividing the landmass no more promotes Europe than Asia. As for world maps, they were first created by Europeans, so naturally expanded to the left and right from Europe, as more of the world became known. As a historical process this is pretty much inevitable, and conforms to the way known non-European maps developed with the map-making country in the centre. But it so happens it's virtually impossible to divide up the world any other way without chopping through a large landmass. Try it with a globe. Paul B 14:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC).

The entire paragraph "Eurocentric Activities in Public Scholarship" is extremely POV and needs to be reworked or, better, deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.87.253.69 (Talk) (talk • contribs) .

[edit] NWA

Eurocentrics, especially when they have the power to do so, will take it upon themselves to dominate discourse, or unilaterally modify the rules of an institution or service that provides information to the public. This is done usually done in order to reassert their point of view into the discourse in such a way as to ultimately veto opposing view points. This is also done by taking a surreptitious method of inserting their view in discourse, they will insert comments that contain facts, but are placed in such a way to hopefully alter the perceptions of the reader, irregardless of the overall "bigger picture" that the message conveys. Usually this method is designed to maintain a status quo viewpoint in regards to racial and historical issues. For example, when discussing the origins of Black people, a Eurocentric scholar may insist early on that Black people are not significant, or important, or numerous in some areas of the world, as to disrupt the reader from having a high view of Black history in respect to the world's overall history.

Blatant POV.

Get rid of it someone.

Your wish is my command. I've moved the comment to bottom of page - for new comments. Paul B 11:12 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A source that might be worth thinking...

[1]

interesting. the data needs to be verified though. For instance, many mathematical ideas stated (algebra, negative #s etc) came from india to middle east. I would like to remove the especially in especially Islamic mathematics from the main page. Any objections, please let me know. The scientific discoveries parah are equally applicable to India, china etc - to make this page better, I'd suggest we don't make generic statements but possibly make a short list of (verified) claims to backup the statement. --Pranathi 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The islamic world was more advanced than europe before renaissance. But the foll parah is stretching it, IMO. I will be removing shortly. Any objections, let me know: Also, it can be said that modern science can find its routes from the Islamic world, for example, almost every major breakthrough made during the rennaisance in Europe, was already advanced in the Islamic world, (examples?) usually long time before. Many of the mathematical, medical and other scientific advances that should be credited for the Islamic world, are usally claimed to be invented by Europeans.

To stay it needs to be backed up with examples. And cannot use verbiage like 'almost every'.--Pranathi 02:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add the term 'Orientalism' to the See also section, simply because the concept represents a line of thinking about biased scholarly research in a similar vein to the way Eurocentric assessments of culture and ideas operate. I would also like to add the term 'Eurocentrism' to the last line of the Orientalism article, adding it alongside the term Occidentalism, which in the context of the article has a similar definition of terms comparable to Eurocentrism. Any objections please msg me, or discuss. Peace! User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Also consider adding Postmodernism because all these cultural bias awareness 'isms' are emergent properties of the general umbrella term 'Postmodernism'. One essay that might open up this idea is The Postmodern Condition by Jean-Francois Lyotard. Anyway, I added it because I believe Eurocentrism is akin to the concept of cultural relativism. In the Postmodernism article, Eurocentrism can be seen in terms of 'cultural relativism'. User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "European Jesus" thing

It's not an example of Eurocentrism so much as an example of artistic license, and the way that historical/legendary/mythical subjects are portrayed in the arts based on when and where the painting is painted, the statue made, etc. East Asian Buddhists have Asian-looking Buddha (He was Indian). Roman soldiers in paintings of Christ on the cross made during the Renaissance often wear Renaissance-period armour. Etc. --Edward Wakelin 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How does this ignore

Erasing and ignoring of history. Isn't the trade mark of eurocentrism is to basically deny anyone and everyones history. If it couldn't be denied then it was destroyed or claimed white. You can any native american or black and they will say that at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs) .

I completely agree. I hear "America doesn't have as much history as Europe" coming from a lot of Europeans. I'm Cherokee and living in former the territory of the former Powhatan Empire. An Empire for crying out loud. We have our own written history dating back hundreds of years prior to the arrival of Europeans. But because we're not European, our history doesn't count. Only Europeans can even have civilization, everyone else is savage. 24.254.163.104 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Lucy

[edit] rewrite

This article needs a major rewrite, so it is less of a whinge and more of a balanced history. The "eurocentic" quotations are a clear example of the confusion that reigns here. The Tonybee quote is part of a long passage in which he is examining the theory that civilization is dependant on race - a theory he rejects. In doing so, he explores all the civilizations known to him around the world. In other words this passage is the opposite of Eurocentric! The comments about Hermeticism are also mostly nonsense. Greek philosophy was always central to the understanding of the achievements of the ancient world.

What we really need is a sensible account of the good reasons why Europe has been considered to be central, not to take it for granted that this is all down to prejudice and racism. The fact that the modern world as we know it is a result of the history of western Europe between c1600 and 1900 needs to be acknowledged openly. Only in that context can debates about the importance of ancient European culture be judged in relation to those of other parts of the world, and in this context the issue of the importance of the achievements of Islamic scholars, Indian mathematicians etc, becomes significant.

We should also discuss where and when "eurocentrism" is to be objected to. In Europe itself one would expect that European history would be taught rather more than that of, say, China. In China you'd expect the opposite. The role of Europe in the history of America, Australia etc. is more problematic, since the culture of these countries after colonisation was essentially a direct extension of that of Europe itself, inheriting language, culture, political systems etc.

I've started a rewrite but more needs to be done. Paul B 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the rewrite and your argument (it's not all prejudice and racism) makes sense. But I think we must take care not to project Europe as the peak of civilization even toward the last few centuries- Only Europe had achieved the last stage. It was thus uniquely responsible for the scientific, technological and cultural achievements that constitute the modern world. What do you mean by cultural acheivements and how are Europe's superior? Also it must be noted that europe colonized a large part of the world and appropriated many technologies and wealth suitable for their advancement. Their 'advancements' also curiously coincided with their colonial expansions. For example, see starting at 'Indian and Industrial revolution' in [2] &[3]. We must also be sensitive to the complaint that Europe after subjugating the rest of the world, used it's might to project itself as the peak of civilization and that it's colonizing the world was for the benefit of the subjugated. The victor's portrayal is the only one that survives and dominates. The victor can put their spin on anything. While Macaulay's statement that 'all of Indian literature is not worth a single english book' is an extreme, it is representative of the attitudes of the people that dominate definitions of history, science etc at the time.
Eurocentrism must be objected to when say european history is passed off as say 'World history' no matter where it is taught or 'Philosophy' being taught as only western philosophy. Emphasis on the country's history is appropriate in school books, but not in university courses that teach eurocentrically under misleading titles. --Pranathi 19:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The quotation you extracted was intened as a summary of the arguments of a number of 19th century writers. I intend to go on to explore the question of what it might mean to claim that cultural achieements are more important. I don't know what you mean by European "achievements curiously coincided with their colonial expansions". If you mean that colonisation helped fuel industrial expansion, that's no doubt true, but I'm not sure how scientific and technological developments were assisted by colonoisation, rather I'd have thought, the economic and miliary power given by technolgy helped to sustain imperialism. Paul B 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I may have taken that sentence out of context - as I am re-reading it now, your new edits have clarified the stance. I also like the new edits showcasing the dominance of the imperialist's version of history.
the economic and military power given by technolgy helped to sustain imperialism - not necessarily. As in the Americas example, military power was an advantage but it was mainly other circumstances (susceptability to disease) that helped them gain control. In India's case also, military power helped (not economic power as India was wealthier at the time), but the state of India at the time with it's broken up small kingdoms, weak Indian leadership in some states, british politics and the internal alliances they formed also played a big part. [4]--Pranathi 21:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I have made a bold attempt at some modifications. Hope I haven't offended anyone. This article still has a long way to go. -Halidecyphon 10:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion

An anonymous editor has been deleting the latter part of this sentence "Cartesian maps have been designed throughout known history to center the northwestern part of Europe (most notably Great Britain) in the map. (however this model does ensure that land regions are concentrated in the centre without Eurasia being split in two)." The point of this latter part is to point out that there are reasons other than "Eurocentrism" for dividing the map at the Bering strait, which puts western Europe very roughly in the middle. There are many variations, depending on the projection of course. London quite often placed to the left of centre. Yes, there are maps in which London is used as the exact central point, but that's not relevant to the statement being made here, which is simply that the Breing strait is the most obvious place to split a map irrespective of any ideas about the relative status of different regions. Indeed the London-centric maps typically slice through a bit of Russia. I don't know what is meant by the statement that "London cuts off the Iberian Peninsula". Paul B 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

(Response): OK, I see what you're trying to say. I was specifically disagreeing with the idea that using the Greenwich Meridian as a Prime Meridian was not Eurocentric. That part of London is often used as an exact central point (not just north-west Europe in general), since it is the zeroth line of longitude. Also, there seems to be no reason for this that is not historical or political: a line through Greenwich leaves the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal) in a different hemisphere from the rest of Eurasia, and even puts most of Europe (considered to be the Western world) in the Eastern hemisphere. However, I do take your point about the Bering Strait being a logical place to divide the map (shouldn't London be right of centre if it is not to divide Europe and Africa in two?), and I'm just going to make a slight edit on the article to point out that current maps do not significantly split any continents down the middle, not just Eurasia (Antarctica excluded, of course). 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

I can't speak for the rest of Europe and don't know about other parts of the UK but we spent more than a term looking at the history of "Native Americans" at the start of Secondary School, and returned to them again for GCSE... That included pre-European colonisation. - JVG 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this article about what Eurocentricism is?......or is it about the irritation and exclusion that many people feel they have suffered through it? Many of the rather simple facts are becoming steadily obscured by POV inserts over how harmful it has been. The section stating that only North American and European history is taught to students in those areas is just plain daft as well as irrelevant! Go to China, Japan, most Islamic countries (I can go on and on...) They all teach their own histories mainly and no one thinks there is anything wrong with that. In any case I have seen the exam specifications in three European countries and they are not Eurocentric as the message above supports. I am removing the offending section and replacing it with something shorter and more correct.--AssegaiAli 12:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive and Incorrect

I have deleted several lines which are unsupported and biased.

I agree with the names of many states having european names as perhaps eurocentric and the eurocentrism with regards to mapping but everything else is just heresay and anti-european. If western schools populated by mostly europeans emphasize european history that is understandable.

This article should show real examples of "alleged" eurocentrism and define what the term means. It should not make random accusations based on the belief of the author. Look at the article islamophobia . There must be actual cases in which people accuse the west of being eurocentric. --Gordon geko 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

this article is unashamedly biased, it acts like somehow eurocentrism is as ridiculous as afrocentrism, and it even gets in a few mentions of racism and yes, you guessed it, genocide!! Well once those evil white men are all gone we'll see how long civilization survives. ( apologies in advance for my eurocentric outburst)

I Agree! Where is the purported ignorance of other civilisations contribtutions? The arabs made developments in algebra (hence the name), the chinese discovered gunpowder, Mesopotania was the cradle of civilisation, the pyramids were the tallest buildings in the world until the 1300s... these are all things we learned in school. What are we ignoring? Have we neglicted to attribute electricty to the Mayans or nuclear theory to the Zulus?
Ya we learn about the Greeks, the Romans and the Renaissance, what are the problems there? European society has been modeled on Greece and Rome for years, it would be ignorant not to do so. Also I think that much of the classical knowledge was actually preserved in monasteries in Ireland during the dark ages, to be later carried back to continental Europe by monks.
Of course the maps would be based on Europe, Europeans were the first to circumnavigate the globe, and logically they would make maps going east or west of their starting point. It doesn't actually centre on Europe and the map also has the advantages as stated previously. As for the matter of Greenwich, it's absurd, it's not a point but a line, a line which runs through five African nations. Greenwich is just where it is defined.
I mean if you look at documentaries of modern day tribes in the highlands somewhere or another they were undeniably progressive. Saying so isn't wrong or racist, it's fact.
I'd never even heard of Eurocentrism until I saw it on the Afrocentrism page. The biggest problem they seemed to have was whether or not the Egyptians were Black or semitic.
Just sounds like a consipiracy theory. Nowhere in the article is there evidence. The thinking behind the "European Miracle" theory is taken to be true. So all the remains is the names of the regions. Which has previously been pointed out as having obvious reasons! Everytime 07:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Wow, this is quite a nice display of Eurocentrism: To not even realize his own ethnocentrism and to deny it even existed. Ethnocentrism is not merely attributing a small thing (like algebra or gun powder) to another culture; it is to VIEW THE WORLD THROUGH YOUR OWN CULTUR'S EYES EXCLUSIVELY. May I add TO DENY THAT THERE MAY BE ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW, IF THERE IS THEN IT SHOULDN'T EXIST.
The term "conspiracy theory" itself sounds rather ethnocentric to me actually, since the way it is used (at least by the above author) implies that it is a ridiculous thought and it is definitely not true; denying the fact that there could be another point of view that can actually be based on logic, reason and a good rationale let alone evidence.
You want proof of Eurocentrism? Look up your own books – they are packed with it. Please note that I do agree with most of your points, I don’t agree with the overall idea though, Eurocentrism is not only very very strong, it is still extremely prevalent along with Amercan-centrism (if such a term exists). --Maha Odeh 09:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What I meant by "conspiracy theory" was in reference to Afrocentrism, i.e. a conspiracy to ignore Africans! I don't deny that there shouldn't be another point of view, what I'm saying is that some of the examples have no basis.
e.g. GMT - Longtitude was developed as a result of a competition started by the British Govenment to whoever could devise an accurate way of measuring longtitude. Check the longtitude article if you like. Longtitude unlike latitude has no natural reference point, so they chose to use the Royal Observatory in London? GMT was just an extention of that. That's not Eurocentric, that's just a result of how it developed!
Also, the World map doesn't divide any major landmass and it actually puts Africa in the centre of the map! Admittedly Europe is top centred, but still I wouldn't really call it eurocentrism, it's a coincidence that Europe happens to be centred in the most convienient map layout!
I'll admit that they're are examples out there, but those two I've just mentioned aren't! Fair enough perhaps dividing Europe from Euroasia could be considered a case, but that goes back to antiquity. Europe, Asia and Africa were considered regions long before tectonic plates were discovered. Everytime 13:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
wellll.... The fact that the way it 'just developed' involved a congress in a western country, with mainly european participants- only one from japan and three from russia representing all of asia, and a few from south america, with an apology from the one african- does make it a fairly eurocentric/ western convention. I'm not saying this was deliberately racist, or that they weren't trying to do their best, that it wasn't a remarkably international group for its day, or even that the end result was a bad thing. i'm saying it looks a lot like they were viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of Europe.. A conference held in China, with asian and australian invitees, may have come up with an alternative, especially if they had an established cultural tradition, and felt strongly about keeping it. I have seen maps with the americas situated on the far right, rather than the far left, which also didn't divde any landmasses but which put asia in the middle of the map. (and, in Tasmanian tourist shops, maps with the northern hemisphere at the bottom, for that matter!) all of these could be considered 'the most convenient' to a neutral observer.
just repeating- i agree the current map layout is the best, and that this is probably not the best example of eurocentrism that exists. as noted below, i think the use of a distortionate map is a better example of eurocentrism.
i grew up believing that europe was bigger than it actually is, and far more advanced in all ways from the savages in the rest of the world. i was taught nothing about the Indigenous people of my own area. They, in turn, were taught that their culture had nothing to offer of any worth, and that no Aborigines have done anything worth learning about, with an underlying theme, IMHO, that they never would. all of these statements turn out to be based on a Eurocentric, post colonial education system. WotherspoonSmith 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get too distracted from the main issue - but some of your points are a bit way off, Wotherspoon. The very idea of the Chinese government, or scholars, setting up a conference in the mid-19th century to set an international convention for ANYTHING is just silly, and actually inviting other Asian nations or Australia to attend.....well all you have done is undermine your argument quite neatly. The whole point behind people in Europe behaving in such an apparently arrogant way is that no one else was organising things at all. Certainly the Chinese cared not the least about how to develop the world and neither did any other peoples at the time - mainly because the overwhelming majority had rather more immediate day-to-day problems to solve. But the Europeans did care about developing the world (for their material benefit obviously - they were no less human than anyone else) and they shared their knowledge with everyone else so not surprisingly they ended up choosing the conventions that sprang from that development and it seems churlish to complain that they were somehow wicked and selfish to do so.--AssegaiAli 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying this was deliberately racist, or that they weren't trying to do their best, that it wasn't a remarkably international group for its day, or even that the end result was a bad thing. i'm saying it looks a lot like they were viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of Europe ie Eurocentic. Wicked? depends on your POV. Selfish- i don't recall saying that either, although "...the Europeans did care about developing the world ..for their material benefit..." sounds a bit that way. Please read my comments again. They're mostly about Eurocentrism , not complaining about the evils/ wickedness/ selfishness of Eurocentrism.WotherspoonSmith 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but my problems about the article then are similar to many others' on this page that although Eurocentrism exists and existed, it was not nearly as remarkable as the article asserts (since other regions of the world with their own cultural bases were no different- or much more bigoted) but had some distinctly positive effects, too.--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I look forward to seeing your improvements. (On preview- you do realise that I used China as an example, to illustrate a point, don't you? I was not suggesting it was at all likely. Perhaps I should have used Tasmania instead...)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mercators projection?

I have often heard proponents of the peters projection claim that the traditional mercator projection is culturally biased in favour of the northern hemisphere, by making such landmasses disproportionately larger than southern hemisphere landmasses. Technically this is a northern-hemisphere-centric bias, not specifically European, but it feels relevant to include mention of this in the section dealing with Eurocentric maps, due to its Eurocentric roots. It feels more relevant to me than a discussion on where the latitudes stand, especially the way the article now reads, where it essentially argues that this is not so much Eurocentrism as common sense. I'd welcome any comments- I may simply be biased by living in post colonial southern hemisphere.WotherspoonSmith 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit about the projections, having read up about them in the linked articles.WotherspoonSmith 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of definition, tidying up, removal of weasel words

I have rewritten the opening paragraph, to bring the definition in line with dictionary definitions, wiktionary definitions, and the wikipedia definition of ethnocentrism. Sorry if this throws some of the article off balance, or messes with others' work too much, but it needed to be done.

I am also removing weasel words- there are many, suggesting a lot of supposition and assumptions. Let me know if i delete anything precious in my use of wp:bold to make a general tidy up over the next few weeks WotherspoonSmith 13:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i have ditched the opening paragraphs of the section on 'origins', which had little to do with the origins of eurocentrism, except to say that eurocentrism infers that cultural life began with the ancient Greeks, who in turn took little notice of earlier, ancienter (if that's a word) civilisations. It as wriiten by an anonymous contibutor- if you're still contributing, let me know if you feel strongly that it should remain.WotherspoonSmith 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have capitalised all "Euro-" words, including French and German usages in references. If this is wrong, please correct it. JohnG62 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new section?

The following, lifted directly from the sinocentric page, appears relevant. unfortunately, i can't find anything to balance this- are there similar significant encounters between Eurcentrism and afrocentricm, or equivalents from the americas or australia?

Europe The best-known official encounter between Sinocentrism and the self-assertion of 'Europeans' was the celebrated Macartney Embassy of 1792-93, which sought to establish a permanent British presence in Peking and open up trade relations. The rebuff of the Chinese Emperor to the British overtures and the British refusal to kowtow to the Emperor of China has passed into legend. In response to the British request to recognise Macartney as ambassador, the Emperor wrote:

The Celestial Empire, ruling all within the four seas, simply concentrates on carrying out the affairs of Government properly...We have never valued ingenious articles, nor do we have the slightest need of your country's manufactures, therefore O King, as regards to your request to send someone to remain at the capital, which it is not in harmony with the regulations of the Celestial Empire - we also feel very much that it is of no advantage to your country.

It was to be more than half a century before the Europe gained the upper hand thanks to their victory in the Opium War. Led by the British, one Western power after another imposed "unequal treaties" on China, including provisions of extraterritoriality that excluded Europeans from the application of local laws.

WotherspoonSmith 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The European Miracle

Europe was not more advanced than the rest of the world prior to 1492. That is laughable. The Ottoman Empire (which, unlike the Abbasid Caliphate, was completely uncultured) was still expanding westward into Europe all the way into the 17th century, and Europeans still had to ask for permission from the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire if they wanted to pass into the Ottoman Empire. The Europeans were unable to mount a legitimate stop against the Ottomans until 1683 (~200 years after the "European Miracle"). China had the most advanced navy in the world in 1492. Europe is the closest Old World region to the New World (the pacific is twice as wide). The Chinese navy had navigated all the way to North Africa before; the reason they didn't find the New World is because they never attempted such a route, not because they couldn't. Further, the Europeans had no choice but to find naval passages to South Asia because the Ottomans were an impediment to land-based trade. It's called "cultural evolution." The Europeans couldn't trade easily by land, so they needed to go by sea. How in the hell can someone legitimately say Europe was more advanced than China, India and the Middle East by the 15th century? That's a joke. The scientific revolution and, more importantly, the industrial revolution are what pushed Europe ahead. I think the article itself is full of both eurocentric and eurobashing biases. It just depends where you look. I think we ought to get this nonsense out about how Europe was more advanced in the 1400s though. Just because the Spanish pushed out the Ummayads doesn't mean they were a powerhouse yet. The Mongols, cultural arrogance, and imperial hubris were what led to the decline of the Islamic World's hegemony, not European genius. FYI, the divisions between Europe and Asia have never been quite as clear cut as we like to think. There isn't a clear cut answer as to whether or not Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia ought to be considered part of Europe or Asia. That makes additional clashes over the fact that Armenia and Azerbaijan are historically parts of Iran. Persian influence can be seen as far north as southern Russia (Islamic/Mongol influence in general can be seen all across Russia), and Greek influence can be see all the way into Syria. The ancient Greeks did not think in terms of East or West, nor did they share any kinship with other Europeans, even if they referred to their own land as Europa. Asia is the Greek word for Assyria. It never was used to refer to China, India, etc. The Greeks didn't consider Egypt to be a part of Libya/Africa or Persia/Assyria either. Divisions between East and West did not start to become noticable until the the rise of Christianity, and later, Islam. Even so, The Romans/Byzantines considered the Parthians/Sassanids to be their equals in terms of cultural refinement moreso than they considered Germans, Slavs, etc. The entire Roman navy was modelled after Carthage (Eastern civilization) and their cavalry was modelled after the Iranian Empires (Eastern civilization). These things are not quite as clear cut from antiquity as we make them now. The Greeks to this day do not practice Western Christianity, do they? Their religious practices are in fact more akin to Middle Eastern Christianity (practiced by Armenians, Assyrians, Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, etc.) than it is to most of Europe. I think we should make it more clear that these divisions, particularly when it comes to the Middle East, are primarily political. It is very common for Western civilization courses to study the Middle East before they study Greece. Generally, it isn't until after Islam that the Middle East starts to become an Other. After all, the entire Levant and North Africa were Christian and a part of the Byzantine Empire prior to Arab expansion. -68.43.58.42 00:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And the point of this is what? Paul B 09:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Many people on this talk page have been trying to reinforce nonsense. 1.) The divisions between Europe and Asia were not clear cut since antiquity. The Greeks didn't consider Egypt, for example, to be part of Asia or Africa. The Romans never considered people like the Nordic peoples and Slavs to be within their sphere. 2.) No one would ever consider Europe to have had any hope whatsoever at successfully beginning an aggressive campaign against Asia in 1492. The entire European Miracle is nonsensical and racist. It assumes cultural changes post-Renaissance are what caused European advancement, despite the fact that European advancement did not take place until over two centuries later. The cultural superiority is nonsensical. Most democratic and social reforms didn't even take place in Europe until they began colonization (which seems counterintuitive). Obviously, pivotal changes like the Magna Carta did occur before then, but such changes were isolated incidents and had no immediate affects. Britain was still close to an absolute monarchy for centuries following the Magna Carta and the kings were easily able to bully around parliament. 3.) Most of Western civilization's foundation is modelled after Eastern influence (Indian Numerals, Phoenican Alphabet, etc.), so yes, the divisions are primarily political. Ideas have been exchanged between Europe and Asia for centuries. -68.43.58.42 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No one ever said that the division between Asia and Europe was "clear cut" since antiquity. However the division certainly has existed since antiquity and was well established in the medieval period (see stylised map). This is not disputed by anyone as far as I know.

2.Who ever said that "Europe" would or could begin an 'aggressive campaign' against "Asia" before or even after 1492? This makes no sense. 'Europe' and 'Asia' are not nation states. They can't act as such. Individual European or Asian powers could battle each-other if they came into conflict and they did. The concept of the European Miracle has nothing to do with 'racism'. If race were the issue then Europe would always have been superior wouldn't it? The European Miracle is a book which attempts to explain why and how the modern world emerged in Western Europe. We all know that it did in fact emerge there, so there has to be some explanation doesn't there? Jones attempts to produce a multi-factoral argument about how that happened. He essentially argues that neither beaurocratic nor state power were strong enough to resist the rise of business culture and the mentality that went with it. Agree or disagree, there is nothing remotely 'racist' about such a view.
3. Yes, ideas have been exchanged between Europe and Asia for centuries, but it is meaningless to say that "most of Western civilisation" is based on Asia. Most of Western Civilisation comes from the early-modern period, but much of the basis of literature, art and philosophy is Greek and Roman. Yes, they also drew on the ideas of Phoenicians, Egyptians (that's Africa, not Asia) etc. People get ideas from each-other. --Paul B 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

most of the examples are completely unsourced. The cartographical stuff is silly, because it is based on mere convention, which is "Eurocentric" for historical resaons. You might as well call the Common Era Christocentric, or the Greenwich Meridian "Anglocentric". There is no reason we use 1 CE as our calendar era, or Greenwich as the zero meridian other than established convention. Any switch to another system would cost billions and end up just as arbitrary. The historical examples are highly dubious. It is an allegation that Babylonian, Chinese, Indian and Islamic contributions are under-represented in "Western accounts of history". This allegation is typically made on political blogs by people who have no idea of the topic. In my experience, histories of mathematics to give due credit to non-European mathematicians. The problem is that pre-medieval mathematics is "proto-mathematics" at best, and the history of mathematics only really begins in about the 10th century in the Islamic world. It then remains at a very low level until the 17th century, and anything deserving the name of advanced mathematics does only happen to emerge in 17th to 18th century Europe. Stating that fact has nothing at all to do with Eurocentrism. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


The Arabs commented extensivly and even critically on Greek works but nothing of great moment or magnitude was added to the truths already known. -Morris Kline Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty1980

Yeah right. His idea of "nothing" seems to inculde all of Algebra. To be fair to Kline, he mentions that "Arabs and Hindus" made contributions but rarely talks about anyone by name. He also put in a lot of effort to downplay those contributions. He never even mentions al-Khwārizmī's name in his whole history! How is that possible? The guy is the Euclid of the Algebra and father of the algorithm. futurebird 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Why? It seems ok to me. -Perry

Because it is clearly racist, and more politically and socially than factually motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.184 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The End of Eurocentrism?/Failure of NPOV

Look at the contributions of the user above and ir perspective will be immediately clear. This is one in the class of articles where Wikipedia policy fails massively, Eurocentrism is about a POV and so it both provokes reactions and stimulates the NPOV scare, in this case especially inappropriately. The fascinating thing is that in Europe itself, it is entirely possible that the next stage of European dominance¹ could be in preparation, i.e. the one in which the European peoples self-consciously recognize the objective possibilities of their historical role on this world and themselves transcend eurocentrism. Obviously this could only happen there and the retrograde reaction(s) one observes here are what is to be expected in other parts of the planet where people of European descent are in various states of dominance. ¹Or rather a co-dominance of the ancient centers of human society, ending the period in which marchland states predominate.

Lycurgus (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, wrt to the longitude that bisects Europe being the midline of the mercator projection there is another rationale for this: roughly that same longitude passes thru the place in East Africa from which homonids evolved. Lycurgus (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example in the Article

Guys...The very fact that this article is disputed despite no substantial argument is an example of Eurocentricism. Srinivasanram1 (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We have no idea of the motivations of the anonymous user who placed the 'dispute' tag, and it is important that, in all discussions regarding anything to do with racism or Eurocentrism, we do not make assumptions about the motivations of others. He/she may have a strong case. We do not know.
I think it is pertinent that the opening line of this article notes that Eurocentrism is practice of viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of European (stuff). Let's not assume that the examples given are deliberately racist or whatever.
That said, I have removed the tag, as the dispute cannot be resolved without discussion. I have invited the contributor to discuss his/her point here, and am hoping he/ she will do so. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eurocentrism in America

Makes no mention of the Jim Crow laws and the like. Zazaban (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainly becuase they are not about Eurocentrism, but racism. Paul B (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs more "citation needed"

I see many claims along the lines of "europe believed this.. europe believed that..." but there are no facts to back them up and europe is an extremely ambiguous term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.78.220 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartography

I can clearly recall being taught in high school that Eurasia is actually 2 tectonic plates(One being Europe, another Asia) colliding at Ural mountains, however i can't seem to find any images showing that. Help, anyone? -70.74.23.33 (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's the Eurasian Plate, which meets the North American Plate not at the Urals but at the Chersky Range. Also part of Asia are the Arabian Plate and the Indian Plate. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)