Westernization of non-western cultures?

I started a course in World Civ two days ago, and my new professor said that we would be focussing on Western and European thought after 1500 due to two things: The invention of the printing press, and the "fact" that in order to understand the present, we need to study the European influence spreading throughout the world that will completely dominate every ancient civilization in the next 5-10 years.
Does anyone else think that's a load of bullshit, or am I floating in my own boat here? The man argues some good points, and I'll agree with him on many, but he's also focussing on Christian/Muslim relations, and he says that Those are the two big power-house religions that dominate the globe. That's why there are soooo many followers of Hindu in India... one of the fastest growing populations in the world, as well as all of the native Pagan religions in Africa, South America, and even other parts of Asia that have remained underdeveloped for the most part. The man claims that Western thought has been the greatest thing to ever happen to the world, although it's sad to see the primitive cultures evolve and sell out, but somehow I simply don't agree.
Hasn't Western and European thought been responsible for all of the major problems we have with global unification on a multi-cultural level? It seems like the Western and European worlds are all open to having the rest of the world come eat at their table, but only if the two forementioned societies are respected and recognized as being "the best," which I believe is certainly a debatable point. I guess I don't hold the same truths to be self evident that my professor does, but what should I expect at a private, Christian College... especially in this day and age...

 

"It seems like the Western and European worlds are all open to having the rest of the world come eat at their table, but only if the two forementioned societies are respected and recognized as being "the best,""
yea somethin like that

 

did he talk about the spanish conquers, god,gold and glory, the forcful spread of chritianity, and the over taking and distruction of some of the greated native american culture mostly the aztec,most cilvialsions didnt have problems befor the spanish came, there was a spread of dieses which killed basicly all the aztecs,same with the maya, there was problems in china with the boxer rebellion,and opium wars, also the problems in africa with cecil roads trying to turn africa into a western containt. basicy the imperal age was the force of religion, the over taking of land,killing of hundreds or people the spread of deises,and selfishness,there realy wasnt alot of positive that went with it,it seems like a very dark time in history,i think it was said becasue western culture though it was so great it had to force other people into a way of thinking the original idea wasnt bad, to look at new lands and find better trade, but turned into something that got of control and ended up killing alot of cultures

 

Haha, Christian college, what the hell do you think you were gunna get? "The red brown and black peoples were RIGHT!" Yes, it is sad that some people still believe this way, as your professor does. Maybe if you're intelligent enough, you'll be able to agrue every single one of his points as each class passes and put him in his place. heh heh

Blessings
Francine

 

hey i resent that! (but not with force)


I too go to a private christian school, and while the administration is conservative, many of the proffesors and faculty are liberal. Even if the professor isn't liberal, debate is encouraged and both sides are given value. I find this to be a nice alternative to the, lets face it, liberal dominated education world. This is especially important in history, my area of study.

The most annoying thing in the world to me is writing a A quality paper, but receiving a C because it's written by a lconservative but graded by a liberal. or vice versa

Then again, my school is Mass. so maybe it's a lot different in a southern christian school, like the orignal posters

much love.

 

I agree with your professor.

Here is why: Western philosophy is humanistic. Not only that, the idea of equality is western. What ideal is more supreme, more just, and more right?

The fact that we say that 'all cultures are equal' is a WESTERN idea. Not only is it western, it admits that western culture is superior. All cultures think they are the best culture ever. What makes Western culture different? We evaluate our claims, we look outward and not inward.

Now i'm not saying that Jazz music is better than some hindi music or that western dance is superior to non western dance. I'm saying that because we are humanistic and that we are spreading a humanistic ideology that western culture is better.

Now, we shouldnt treat others as 'inferior,' but we shouldnt allow such things as torture, murder, and other crimes against humanity go unpunished because 'its their culture.' That is the biggest bullshit EVER. Individuals deserve equal rights. This is Western. This is happening every day. It MUST happen.

 

That's not an entirely Western Ideology though... We aren't living under a system that upholds those ideals by any means, and that is only where my arguement begins. Idea and reality are two totally different forces in the world. Yes, we all believe equality is for the best, but do we honestly practice equality... under any regime? You're kidding yourself if you seriously believe the answer is yes, and that's all there is to it. We live in a world that half-assedly yearns for equality, but we would rather do without justice and try to live on the delicate edge of morality and satisfying our personal, individual desires... That's what Western culture has taught us... Humanism is a grand idea, but in practice, it flops like Communism in practice. Neither Democracy or Socialism seem to be strong enough to survive on their own. Perhaps, if we were able to have a Socialist Democracy, we would then be able to come closer to the humanistic ideology that is what will hopefully evolve into practice as time goes on. Progressive humanities was not really a Western idea as much as it was an Asian, or Oriental idea... Look at how the Islamic and Hindu Emperors settled the Orient... They had a very progressive system around the time of Babur in India...

 

show me an ideology that predates western ideology or developed without ANY western contact to influence it.

We are human beings, thus we aren't perfect. As long as we continue to strive towards our ideals we are on the right path. Will we fail some of the time? yes, but does that mean that our ideology is wrong because we sometime fail? Look at the leaps we've made in equality in the past 150 years..heck the past 40 years. We are moving in the right direction.

umm, my indian history is weak..but babur set up the mughal empire right? that is like 1500 AD...humanist ideology dates back to ancient greek philosophers. We know that there was wide contact between the west and the east as early as herodotus/alexander and others. How can you say it is an ASIAN idea?

Humanism has flopped? in what ways?

 

sounds like your teacher's having you on. the world isn't quite as clear cut and the real story rarely gets told. if you want to know about the past present and future understand where money came from and how its used now. religion is usually the pretext to wage war against the infidel so we can steal from them with a self rightous air. the romans used to give themselves some pretty good propaganda usually written by their historians. if you want to know how this amazing transformation of the world is going to happen according to your teacher go and see a film called "starship troopers"!

 

If you want to debate the point, it would be best to find out what is meant by "Western and European thought." The historic fact that Europe has come to dominate the world shows that it is important to study European thought and culture.

 

The west got ahead because of art. Yes, that is complete bullshit. Maybe I just don't think much of humans in general?

 

You could debate the merits and flaws of Western civilization until you die without reaching a satisfactory answer. Personally I don't see the contradiction with believing that Western thought is both the best and the worst thing to ever happen to the world.

To think you can understand the rest of the world without understanding the West's influence-now that would be bullshit.

 

I think I'm going to have to agree with bluebong at this point.... That seems to sum up my point in general as of right now......

 

The Maya as a civilisation had crumbled centuries before any European set foot in the New World.

But in general, I absolutely agree with you. We're the invaders here, the nazis, who feel themselves superior in every way so it's okay to take their land. Let's bring them civilisation! Let's show them what culture really is! Let's steal their land and then let them work it for us until they die!

This attitude is NOT just common in the fifteenth, sixteenth century though. Even in the twentieth century the indigenous peoples of North America were treated like maggot-infested shit fermenting in the sun. You thought the descendents of the Africans had it bad? Seriously, whenever the US government saw even a nickel to be gained through it, they didn't care how many dead Indians it would take. Damn, I could go on about the mistreatment of all indians by the US government, ranging from the systematic sterilisation of women, the threehundredth broken treaty, to the relocation of entire tribes to reservations several states away, where they had to go on foot, surrounded by armed guards, during which lots of elderly and children simply did not survive (Trail of Tears, anyone?).

I think I'm going to make a big thread on this now.

PS, to who posted the main thread, what use is taking WORLD civilisation when all you talk about is fucking Europe and those Americans of European heritage?

 

•

first of all, there was east-west contact WAAAAAAAAY before herodotus. centuries before, actually. and I don't quite understand how humanist ideology dates back to the greek philosophers. can you give me some examples?

but anyways, even if there was, the greek philosophers started with the Ionian thinkers, the first of which was Thales who "predicted a solar eclipse" (and was most likely wrong...but whatever, he was the first "thinker") and he was widely influenced by Babylonian thought. and knowledge from the near east greatly influenced the Ionian thinkers in general.

the point is, east and west contact and influence has been going on for thousands of years, most people just don't recognize it. and in ancient times, it was probably even more prominent then it is now, because for the most part, they shared a common religion. I major in classical civilizations with a focus on greece, and I have learnt almost as much about the near east and Persian culture as I have of Greek.

oh yeah, and I also LOVE alexander because of his idea of brotherhood and all that good stuff, but there are two points to be made about that. first of all, his thought when he conquered the east was nothing at all like how the europeans conquered the americas and colonialism, so it is hardly credible to claim that the western thought of alexander is anything like modern western thought. alexander would embrace the culture and customs of the peoples he was conquering; he DID see them as equals and wanted to stress that point, much to the dismay of the greek/macedonian elite. the europeans looked upon the peoples that they were conquering as inferior...we've all heard of the "white man's burden".

secondly, alexander actually was not the first to introduce this idea of "brotherhood" and equal treatment for conquered individuals. it was Cyrus, the first Persian king. when he overthrew the Medes, he did not conquer them, but instead set up a double monarchy system where both the Medes and the Persians were equals and had their own set of customs. and when he went to Babylon he was welcomed as a liberator and also adopted Babylonian customs. so really, Alexander only expanded on Cyrus' idea, but it did originally come from the Persians.

*just a side note, the sad thing about this post is that I was taking a break from studying for a midterm in a greek history course tomorrow, and ended up talking about greek history...

 

Herodotus talks about the Trojan war, which puts it several centuries before his time. There might be some hittite records that show there was communication slightly before that, but of what kind we dont know. Also, one could point to some trade between the minoans/mycenaeans with egypt/hittites. However, neither the egyptians/hittites or other eastern powers had humanistic ideas, that we know of, during this time.

Sure. Protagoras said "man is the measure of all things." That is probably the start of the humanist ideology.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Thales was from miletus, a greek town. Thales is considered a greek philospher and scientist...

Yet we can draw such distinct lines between hittite/egyptian/persian and other eastern powers and the greeks.

not sure what this has to do with anything.

again, not really sure that has to do with what i said.

I merely mentioned herodotus/alexander to show that there was deep penetration by greeks into eastern civilization. So if someone wants to prove that humanistic ideology is NOT greek, they have to show it before the time of those at least those.

so the onus is back on you. Can you, or anyone, show with conclusive evidence, that humanistic ideology came from somewhere other than ancient greek philosophers.


p.s. kudos on the classical civs thing, i'm about to finish up a Classics major myself. Procrastinating on a bronze age test

 

I actually am not trying to proove that the humanistic ideology came from the west or east...to me it really doesn't matter. I'm just saying that both cultures influenced each other in different ways, and it's always been that way. most people look at modern times and freak out that the west is pushing its views on others and what not, but really, that type of influence has been happening for quite a looong time. that doesn't mean that I agree with what the west has done or that it's influence was necessarily beneficial. I just think that it's important to know that this kind of influence isn't exactly a new thing.

does that make sense? it's late and I've been studying for about 8 hours now.

haha, nice. my degree is basically exactly the same as classics, I just don't take the language courses. I'm not good with languages

 

Ah, i was the same. I did latin just so i could get out of my foreign language requirement(got me 40% of the creds i needed to do my classics degere) and then i decided to take up greek. I really enjoy reading the greek..latin is so bleh..but i guess i lose interest in rome after augustus.


and yeah, it does make sense

p.s. goodluck on your exam.

 

um, What is Chinese ideology Alex?

Now, I will take The Penis Mightier for $500 please.

 

The chinese have a humanistic ideology that predates the greek? Heck, i look at china today and i still wonder about their humanistic ideals.

please, please, show me an some evidence.