Welcome to POSC240-012!
This is where you will be posting 10 blogs throughout the semester; 4 blogs in September, 3 in October, & 3 in November. Your entries should tackle current events, reactions to lectures and readings, & comments & questions about the class.
Make sure you write substantial and thought-provoking entries & write your full name at the end of each post!
Start blogging!
Nick & Sara
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Eurocentrism and its Critics
An interesting dicussion has been taking place about Marks' opinion not to adopt a Eurocentric view of history and IR. What are your thought on the matter?
19 comments:
Anonymous
said...
When reading the preface of the "Origins of the Modern World" book, I found myself rather disturbed by the determination of the author to present a "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint of the modern world. The author's argument that focusing on Europe implies that "Europeans are the only active makers of history" is complete nonsense. For better or for worse, it is European thought and activity that has shaped the modern world to the greatest degree, and while the contributions of other geographic areas (i.e. China) are important, it is quite apparent that they weren't significant enough to alter the development of European dominance. Now yes, I realize that, had Zheng He been allowed to continue his explorations in the early 1400s, China would have had the opportunity to dominate the world in the same manner as Europeans. But it is, at best, a delusion to say that European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa. If anything, the eventual rise of Europeans can be seen at the collapse of the Imperial Roman system; with numerous tiny, dynamic states in fierce competition with each other, as opposed to the ponderous empires of Ming China or Mughal India, Europeans were given impetus to develop and improve. There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans; I believe that the primary factor has more to do with the aforementioned Balkanization of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, rather than on long-reaching "influences" from China and India.
I suppose the implication that got me "up in arms" about the author's "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint is the recent trend denigrating white European achievements and culture. More is said about the evils of slavery, the brutality of colonization, and of the belief in "racial superiority" by the European man.
To begin, let me state that these arguments have some merit. However, one must put things in perspective. While colonization was a uniquely European phenomenon, slavery and belief in the superiority of one's own race most certainly wasn't. Indeed, slavery was widespread throughout Africa and the Middle East as well as the New World, and almost every group of people in history have had xenephobic leanings (consider the Chinese, for example, and their view of the "round-eyed barbarians").
But this is not meant to be an excuse for the behavior of Europeans, by any means. However, together with these darker deeds, there is the brilliance of European ideals and theory. Liberalism, democracy, the rights of the individual; these are European ideas, and belong to no one else. So while Europeans may have ruthlessly conquered and exploited, they also developed the very values that we hold dear today.
This post is a response to the first post in this section.
First, I would recommend reading more than the introduction before making such criticisms. After all, the author provides quite a few examples for his point of view. He notes that European exploration of the New World would have done far less than it did had there not been a strong demand for silver in China.
I do not know that the author ever said that "European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa." His point is that a Eurocentric view of history distorts what actually happened. The Eurocentric view, like an Asian-centered view, is much less objective than a view that takes the whole world into account. The author is simply trying to make the point that the regions of the world are connected, that Europe and America did not get where they are today solely based on their democratic values. Activities in China and Africa have ramifications that extend to Europe (like the Black Death, for example). Perhaps if Europeans bathed regularly at the time, then the native populations of the Americas would not have been wiped out by disease. Perhaps if horses had been native to the Americas, the native populations would have been more difficult to conquer.
I am not certain that I understand why you think European culture achieved its dominance due to the fall of Rome. Yes, this resulted in a fractured Europe with warring states, but this is hardly unique to Europe. Chinese history is just full of fragmentation and warring states. But as the author points out on page 12, sometimes developments occur accidentally.
You say "There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans." Do you think that America, which is culturally European, would have turned out the same if the founders had banned slavery? Do you think the slave states would have joined the Union at that point? The "racial spirit" is very much incorporated into America's founding, as the Constitution was in part a compromise between slave states and free states (slaves counting as three-fifths of a person).
In summary, the author's point is that Eurocentrism is too subjective a viewpoint to be very useful in obtaining accurate history. Robert Marks is not knocking European culture. He is demonstrating how the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. are linked. I am certain he would be just as opposed to a viewpoint centered around Asia or Africa.
I actually found Marks' anti-Eurocentric take interesting. I think that the point he is trying to make is that the world's current dominating cultures were not built purely from the ground up on the ideas of Europeans. He mentions that the larger powers of India and China had just as many resources and advanced cultures as Europe up to a point. As he notes, the problem is that our European/Western view of history suggests that the "Rise of the West" was inevitable. It doesn't take into account the accidents and contingencies, such as major coal deposits being in Britain instead of China (who would have used them to the same advantage), or the chance finding of native peoples to use as slaves and improve the economy. In reality, it's not as if Europe decided in the 1400s to pursue slavery in order to advance their situation-- it was really more of an accident according to where the explorers ended up.
The other thing that caught my attention on this issue was Marks' suggestion to get outside the "European matrix". If you look in most American or European textbooks, of course you'll only find accounts that make the West look heroic and innovative. What he's saying is that you have to look from outside-in, from other cultures' point of view, in order to fully see the contingencies of Europe's rise to power. He's not disregarding all their accomplishments, but he's reminding us that they are not the only driving force in the global story.
I do not believe that the author is intending to degrade or downplay the achievements of Europe in any way; in fact, he even states that Europe did make many advancements. The author does not deny the fact that Europe became the "dominating" power. The author is instead referring to the idea that Europeans are somehow inherently better than people from China, India, etc. He states that although many believe this to be the case, there is a multitude of evidence to support the idea that the other countries had similar characteristics and very well could have risen above Europe. Marks speaks about accident, conjuncture, and contingency; he says many different factors contributed to the rise of Europe. His main point seems to be that a combination of accident, events around the world, and events that rely upon the actions of non-European nations, all combined to bring about the rise of Europe. He shows that other countries had more influence, more power, more stable economies (Ex: Ming China) than Europe in "Pre-Modern" history, yet Europe came to "dominate" history because of a mix of factors having absolutely nothing to do with any inherent qualities it has been suggested that Europe possesses. Marks does not deny European dominance but instead seeks to show that the other countries (India, China, etc.) could have been just as successful.
It is important to read the text as a whole, not as an introduction, a section of information, and a review. Marks takes the time to point out that Europeans are, as primarily viewed by themselves, a group of people who were revolutionary and influential in the shaping of the world. However, Marks also explains that the Eurocentric view of the world is flawed in the larger sense. In no way does he ever suggest that to learn history based solely on Europeans and their achievements is wrong, he just asks that as intellectuals we consider all aspects of world development. One area of the world cannot determine the success of the world as a whole. Similarly, one country in Europe cannot solely be the reason of European success. As we have learned up to this point, Europe’s success was based on several varying factors, just as the reason as to “Why not China” is addressed with concrete evidences and reasons. Marks says “…taking a global perspective does not imply that the world has always been an interconnected one with a single center from which development and progress spread to less developed regions” (page 15). A Eurocentric view of the world is merely a conceived, limited perspective view on world history and development. To clarify that notion, the first post in this section asserts “For better or for worse, it is European thought and activity that has shaped the modern world to the greatest degree, and while the contributions of other geographic areas (i.e. China) are important, it is quite apparent that they weren't significant enough to alter the development of European dominance.” The statement is of course, in many ways true – but it is stated with such finality that there is no wonder the author was upset by “the determination” of Marks to present a non-Eurocentric view of the world. Personally, I enjoyed learning about aspects of world development, which being an American student, I had not been privileged to be taught before. Certainly I knew of other countries successes and failures, but they have never been presented in a way that almost takes Europe out of the picture—at least for a little while.
I am agree that we should not downplay the advancements of other areas of the world and their apparent contributions to every facet of international society, but we can safely remain Euro-centric. It was European countries, no matter which one you believe went first, that found the Western continent now called the Americas. European languages are dominant in the largest number of countries. European art is the majority of art that is studied in any institutions. The entire base for music theory came from Europeans. It doesn't seem fair to say that Europe is solely responsible for most of the world's advancements and for the beginnings of international relations, but they certainly have a very good case going for them.
I felt that later on in "Origins of the Modern World" the author still referred back to the idea of eurocentrism quite frequently. What really opened my eyes to the idea of eurocentrism was the end of chapter 5 when the author was describing the concept of Social Darwinism. This concept during the late 1800's basically states that Europeans were a superior race to all others based on genetics. The support for this argument was that they were technologically advanced in both warfare and industry in general, their way of living was more efficient(millions were dying in Asia from famine), and that they continued to prosper while other races began to fall behind in economical terms. It was in a way a reason for those at the top of the world to explain why races such as the Asians, Africans, and Native Americans were facing terrible hardships. Had they used better judgement, Social Darwinists would have found that it was because of their own exploitations of these races which put Europeans in the wealthy category and the rest of the world in a "backwards"(as they called it) society. The underlying cause of whether or not one would be prosperous in the world was one's skin color. Even in "backwards" countries such as Mexico and Brazil European immigrants were invited to their countries for breeding based on the idea that if their offspring inherited a lighter skin, they would in turn be more successful. This is an outrageous and completely irrelevant finding.
Marks’s view of Eurocentrism is very interesting because it makes the reader think. One such comment is when he argues that “If Eurocentric ideas, if the rise of the West, are wrong, how would be know it?”
While I don’t support of disagree with his views entirely I do think that Mark’s views are important to look at more closely.
Some of his views make me think while other comments I find slightly offensive. Marks says that “Eurocentrism also emphasizes the superiority of Western culture- all that is good, progressive, and innovative starts only in Europe.” This definition he provides is accurate for the reader. Indeed, a person who is Eurocentric would believe this. However, when Marks states that most westerners believe “Europe makes history; the rest of the world has none until it is brought into contact with Europe,” (Marks 8) I think this is a little bold of a comment for Marks to make. I think that some people in our society are Eurocentric. For example, I would support the idea that many people and children are taught to believe that Columbus was one of the most important events in history. Sure there are people who will believe this but what about the rest of the people? I think there are many people who recognize other countries contributions to our modern day world. There are many educated people who realize some of the arguments Marks makes. Thus, I think that Eurocentrism does exist but not with every single person in the West.
I found it rather refreshing that in our text book "Origins of the Modern World" the author took an extremely non-Eurocentric idea. It is not that I agree with him completely it is just that his approach and style of writing is in such contrast to most of the other historical text books that I have read. I especially like his point with regards to the explorations of Zheng He and his large Chinese fleet of ships. Had he decided to continue around the tip of aferican and enter the Atlantic ocean he would have undoubtedly encountered naval fleets from both Portugal and Spain. This could have greatly effected the history of the next several hundred years as nautical wars would have surly ensued and it is not unrealistic to think that China would have been victourise due simply to how huge and advanced Zheng He's fleet was at the time. The fact that china didn't explore further west draws light to simply how different their motives were from the motives of the western European countries. I feel that European countries desire to break into the regions of china and India show that the later two countries were the cultural and economical centers of the world at this time, and that explains why the book is so non-Eurocentric because it reflects the way the world was during the time it was written about.
I really like the viewpoint the author takes in "The Origins of the Modern World." I like his writing style and the way he presents his ideas. Marks brings up some interesting points such as; "The point is that the rise of the West was not inevitable, but was highly contingent." I believe in Eurocentrism to a degree, but I find the other side of the argument interesting and enlightening. He highlights many educated points that present an alternate view to Eurocentrism. He talks about how the "economic engine driving global trade" was actually Asia, not Europe as early as 1000 B.C. It's interesting how he explains that the "American history is often presented as the pinnacle, the purest and best expression, of Western civilization," when there were already inhabitants here when the United States was discovered. Although I don't think Marks has enough evidence to dismiss the accurateness of Eurocentrism, I think it's educating to look at it from a different perspective. -Katy Johnson
It seems Eurocentrism is inherent in all people of European dissent including and ecspecially people of the United States. It is virtually impossible to have an unbiased opinion. It begins with what is taught in grammar school about the history of Europe and United States. The curriculum seems to focus on how great Europeans are while refusing to acknowledge significant accomplishments of other cultures. There is no doubt that the world is the way it is today mainly because of Europe. However this is not necessarily an all-good thing. Europe was very close to being totally dominated by Ghengis Kahn in the mid thirteenth century. People forget that his empire alone reached further than the Holy Roman Empire ever did. Also if Zheng He were to travel a bit bit further East Asian dominance would have certainly been established. Another valid point is that Europe exploited the people of every continent aside from Antartica to gain their glory. Therefore when examining history it is important to include these things and not be subjected to one that has been written primarily by the winnners (Europeans). A song comes to mind when discussing Eurocentrism. This song is "Take the Power Back" by Rage Against the Machine. Although the song conveys its message in a more militant manner than I do the thought that Eurocentrism is wrong reamins constant. "Europe ain't my rope to swing on, can't learn a thing from it, but we swing from it."
19 comments:
When reading the preface of the "Origins of the Modern World" book, I found myself rather disturbed by the determination of the author to present a "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint of the modern world. The author's argument that focusing on Europe implies that "Europeans are the only active makers of history" is complete nonsense. For better or for worse, it is European thought and activity that has shaped the modern world to the greatest degree, and while the contributions of other geographic areas (i.e. China) are important, it is quite apparent that they weren't significant enough to alter the development of European dominance. Now yes, I realize that, had Zheng He been allowed to continue his explorations in the early 1400s, China would have had the opportunity to dominate the world in the same manner as Europeans. But it is, at best, a delusion to say that European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa. If anything, the eventual rise of Europeans can be seen at the collapse of the Imperial Roman system; with numerous tiny, dynamic states in fierce competition with each other, as opposed to the ponderous empires of Ming China or Mughal India, Europeans were given impetus to develop and improve. There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans; I believe that the primary factor has more to do with the aforementioned Balkanization of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, rather than on long-reaching "influences" from China and India.
- Luke Kaczmarek
I suppose the implication that got me "up in arms" about the author's "non-Eurocentric" viewpoint is the recent trend denigrating white European achievements and culture. More is said about the evils of slavery, the brutality of colonization, and of the belief in "racial superiority" by the European man.
To begin, let me state that these arguments have some merit. However, one must put things in perspective. While colonization was a uniquely European phenomenon, slavery and belief in the superiority of one's own race most certainly wasn't. Indeed, slavery was widespread throughout Africa and the Middle East as well as the New World, and almost every group of people in history have had xenephobic leanings (consider the Chinese, for example, and their view of the "round-eyed barbarians").
But this is not meant to be an excuse for the behavior of Europeans, by any means. However, together with these darker deeds, there is the brilliance of European ideals and theory. Liberalism, democracy, the rights of the individual; these are European ideas, and belong to no one else. So while Europeans may have ruthlessly conquered and exploited, they also developed the very values that we hold dear today.
-Luke Kaczmarek
This post is a response to the first post in this section.
First, I would recommend reading more than the introduction before making such criticisms. After all, the author provides quite a few examples for his point of view. He notes that European exploration of the New World would have done far less than it did had there not been a strong demand for silver in China.
I do not know that the author ever said that "European developments were primarily the result of regions like China, India, and Africa." His point is that a Eurocentric view of history distorts what actually happened. The Eurocentric view, like an Asian-centered view, is much less objective than a view that takes the whole world into account. The author is simply trying to make the point that the regions of the world are connected, that Europe and America did not get where they are today solely based on their democratic values. Activities in China and Africa have ramifications that extend to Europe (like the Black Death, for example). Perhaps if Europeans bathed regularly at the time, then the native populations of the Americas would not have been wiped out by disease. Perhaps if horses had been native to the Americas, the native populations would have been more difficult to conquer.
I am not certain that I understand why you think European culture achieved its dominance due to the fall of Rome. Yes, this resulted in a fractured Europe with warring states, but this is hardly unique to Europe. Chinese history is just full of fragmentation and warring states. But as the author points out on page 12, sometimes developments occur accidentally.
You say "There is no "racial spirit" or such that determined the eventual rise of Europeans."
Do you think that America, which is culturally European, would have turned out the same if the founders had banned slavery? Do you think the slave states would have joined the Union at that point? The "racial spirit" is very much incorporated into America's founding, as the Constitution was in part a compromise between slave states and free states (slaves counting as three-fifths of a person).
In summary, the author's point is that Eurocentrism is too subjective a viewpoint to be very useful in obtaining accurate history. Robert Marks is not knocking European culture. He is demonstrating how the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. are linked. I am certain he would be just as opposed to a viewpoint centered around Asia or Africa.
Andrew Lewis
I actually found Marks' anti-Eurocentric take interesting. I think that the point he is trying to make is that the world's current dominating cultures were not built purely from the ground up on the ideas of Europeans. He mentions that the larger powers of India and China had just as many resources and advanced cultures as Europe up to a point. As he notes, the problem is that our European/Western view of history suggests that the "Rise of the West" was inevitable. It doesn't take into account the accidents and contingencies, such as major coal deposits being in Britain instead of China (who would have used them to the same advantage), or the chance finding of native peoples to use as slaves and improve the economy. In reality, it's not as if Europe decided in the 1400s to pursue slavery in order to advance their situation-- it was really more of an accident according to where the explorers ended up.
The other thing that caught my attention on this issue was Marks' suggestion to get outside the "European matrix". If you look in most American or European textbooks, of course you'll only find accounts that make the West look heroic and innovative. What he's saying is that you have to look from outside-in, from other cultures' point of view, in order to fully see the contingencies of Europe's rise to power. He's not disregarding all their accomplishments, but he's reminding us that they are not the only driving force in the global story.
Katie Head
I do not believe that the author is intending to degrade or downplay the achievements of Europe in any way; in fact, he even states that Europe did make many advancements. The author does not deny the fact that Europe became the "dominating" power. The author is instead referring to the idea that Europeans are somehow inherently better than people from China, India, etc. He states that although many believe this to be the case, there is a multitude of evidence to support the idea that the other countries had similar characteristics and very well could have risen above Europe. Marks speaks about accident, conjuncture, and contingency; he says many different factors contributed to the rise of Europe. His main point seems to be that a combination of accident, events around the world, and events that rely upon the actions of non-European nations, all combined to bring about the rise of Europe. He shows that other countries had more influence, more power, more stable economies (Ex: Ming China) than Europe in "Pre-Modern" history, yet Europe came to "dominate" history because of a mix of factors having absolutely nothing to do with any inherent qualities it has been suggested that Europe possesses. Marks does not deny European dominance but instead seeks to show that the other countries (India, China, etc.) could have been just as successful.
C. Faith Woodworth
It is important to read the text as a whole, not as an introduction, a section of information, and a review. Marks takes the time to point out that Europeans are, as primarily viewed by themselves, a group of people who were revolutionary and influential in the shaping of the world. However, Marks also explains that the Eurocentric view of the world is flawed in the larger sense. In no way does he ever suggest that to learn history based solely on Europeans and their achievements is wrong, he just asks that as intellectuals we consider all aspects of world development.
One area of the world cannot determine the success of the world as a whole. Similarly, one country in Europe cannot solely be the reason of European success. As we have learned up to this point, Europe’s success was based on several varying factors, just as the reason as to “Why not China” is addressed with concrete evidences and reasons.
Marks says “…taking a global perspective does not imply that the world has always been an interconnected one with a single center from which development and progress spread to less developed regions” (page 15). A Eurocentric view of the world is merely a conceived, limited perspective view on world history and development. To clarify that notion, the first post in this section asserts “For better or for worse, it is European thought and activity that has shaped the modern world to the greatest degree, and while the contributions of other geographic areas (i.e. China) are important, it is quite apparent that they weren't significant enough to alter the development of European dominance.” The statement is of course, in many ways true – but it is stated with such finality that there is no wonder the author was upset by “the determination” of Marks to present a non-Eurocentric view of the world.
Personally, I enjoyed learning about aspects of world development, which being an American student, I had not been privileged to be taught before. Certainly I knew of other countries successes and failures, but they have never been presented in a way that almost takes Europe out of the picture—at least for a little while.
Megan D. Pettingill
I am agree that we should not downplay the advancements of other areas of the world and their apparent contributions to every facet of international society, but we can safely remain Euro-centric. It was European countries, no matter which one you believe went first, that found the Western continent now called the Americas. European languages are dominant in the largest number of countries. European art is the majority of art that is studied in any institutions. The entire base for music theory came from Europeans. It doesn't seem fair to say that Europe is solely responsible for most of the world's advancements and for the beginnings of international relations, but they certainly have a very good case going for them.
I felt that later on in "Origins of the Modern World" the author still referred back to the idea of eurocentrism quite frequently. What really opened my eyes to the idea of eurocentrism was the end of chapter 5 when the author was describing the concept of Social Darwinism. This concept during the late 1800's basically states that Europeans were a superior race to all others based on genetics. The support for this argument was that they were technologically advanced in both warfare and industry in general, their way of living was more efficient(millions were dying in Asia from famine), and that they continued to prosper while other races began to fall behind in economical terms. It was in a way a reason for those at the top of the world to explain why races such as the Asians, Africans, and Native Americans were facing terrible hardships. Had they used better judgement, Social Darwinists would have found that it was because of their own exploitations of these races which put Europeans in the wealthy category and the rest of the world in a "backwards"(as they called it) society. The underlying cause of whether or not one would be prosperous in the world was one's skin color. Even in "backwards" countries such as Mexico and Brazil European immigrants were invited to their countries for breeding based on the idea that if their offspring inherited a lighter skin, they would in turn be more successful. This is an outrageous and completely irrelevant finding.
Jordan Naftzinger
Marks’s view of Eurocentrism is very interesting because it makes the reader think. One such comment is when he argues that “If Eurocentric ideas, if the rise of the West, are wrong, how would be know it?”
While I don’t support of disagree with his views entirely I do think that Mark’s views are important to look at more closely.
Some of his views make me think while other comments I find slightly offensive.
Marks says that “Eurocentrism also emphasizes the superiority of Western culture- all that is good, progressive, and innovative starts only in Europe.” This definition he provides is accurate for the reader. Indeed, a person who is Eurocentric would believe this. However, when Marks states that most westerners believe “Europe makes history; the rest of the world has none until it is brought into contact with Europe,” (Marks 8) I think this is a little bold of a comment for Marks to make. I think that some people in our society are Eurocentric. For example, I would support the idea that many people and children are taught to believe that Columbus was one of the most important events in history. Sure there are people who will believe this but what about the rest of the people? I think there are many people who recognize other countries contributions to our modern day world. There are many educated people who realize some of the arguments Marks makes. Thus, I think that Eurocentrism does exist but not with every single person in the West.
-Erin Donahue
I found it rather refreshing that in our text book "Origins of the Modern World" the author took an extremely non-Eurocentric idea. It is not that I agree with him completely it is just that his approach and style of writing is in such contrast to most of the other historical text books that I have read. I especially like his point with regards to the explorations of Zheng He and his large Chinese fleet of ships. Had he decided to continue around the tip of aferican and enter the Atlantic ocean he would have undoubtedly encountered naval fleets from both Portugal and Spain. This could have greatly effected the history of the next several hundred years as nautical wars would have surly ensued and it is not unrealistic to think that China would have been victourise due simply to how huge and advanced Zheng He's fleet was at the time.
The fact that china didn't explore further west draws light to simply how different their motives were from the motives of the western European countries. I feel that European countries desire to break into the regions of china and India show that the later two countries were the cultural and economical centers of the world at this time, and that explains why the book is so non-Eurocentric because it reflects the way the world was during the time it was written about.
-Dan Shainker
I really like the viewpoint the author takes in "The Origins of the Modern World." I like his writing style and the way he presents his ideas. Marks brings up some interesting points such as; "The point is that the rise of the West was not inevitable, but was highly contingent." I believe in Eurocentrism to a degree, but I find the other side of the argument interesting and enlightening. He highlights many educated points that present an alternate view to Eurocentrism. He talks about how the "economic engine driving global trade" was actually Asia, not Europe as early as 1000 B.C. It's interesting how he explains that the "American history is often presented as the pinnacle, the purest and best expression, of Western civilization," when there were already inhabitants here when the United States was discovered. Although I don't think Marks has enough evidence to dismiss the accurateness of Eurocentrism, I think it's educating to look at it from a different perspective.
-Katy Johnson
It seems Eurocentrism is inherent in all people of European dissent including and ecspecially people of the United States. It is virtually impossible to have an unbiased opinion. It begins with what is taught in grammar school about the history of Europe and United States. The curriculum seems to focus on how great Europeans are while refusing to acknowledge significant accomplishments of other cultures. There is no doubt that the world is the way it is today mainly because of Europe. However this is not necessarily an all-good thing. Europe was very close to being totally dominated by Ghengis Kahn in the mid thirteenth century. People forget that his empire alone reached further than the Holy Roman Empire ever did. Also if Zheng He were to travel a bit bit further East Asian dominance would have certainly been established. Another valid point is that Europe exploited the people of every continent aside from Antartica to gain their glory. Therefore when examining history it is important to include these things and not be subjected to one that has been written primarily by the winnners (Europeans). A song comes to mind when discussing Eurocentrism. This song is "Take the Power Back" by Rage Against the Machine. Although the song conveys its message in a more militant manner than I do the thought that Eurocentrism is wrong reamins constant. "Europe ain't my rope to swing on, can't learn a thing from it, but we swing from it."
---Ryan Shaw
This piece of writing is in fact a fastidious one it assists new net people, who are wishing for blogging.
Also visit my weblog: auto loans for bad credit
My web page - how to buy a car,buying a car,buy a car,how to buy a car bad credit,buying a car bad credit,buy a car bad credit,how to buy a car with bad credit,buying a car with bad credit,buy a car with bad credit,bad credit car loans,car loans bad credit,auto loans bad credit,bad credit auto loans,buying a car bad credit loans,bad credit loans cars,buying a car and bad credit,how to buy a car on bad credit,buying a car on bad credit,loans for cars with bad credit,auto loans for bad credit,buying a car with bad credit,how to buy a car with bad credit
Ѕo much fоr attempting this myself, Ι won't be able to do it. I'll just
leaгn about it.
Also vіѕit mу website: fast payday loan
Good read, esρecіally pοster #five I think it was.
Worth гemembering.
Viѕit mу web blog :: get fast cash
I've read so many comments on this that I couldn't bе much more befuddled.
Revіew my weblog ... fast cash today loans
I'm sure there was a video put on here, with some extra information covering this. I can't find
the link.
mу web-ѕitе small personal loans
Haven't yet looked into this matter until now, I should do so soon.
My homepage small personal loans
Post a Comment