My professor doesn't understand why Europe is most central in history

The central thing to remember in this discussion is that it's fine for a Western country like America to look at history through a Western lens. Obviously it makes no sense to criticize a Chinese historian for being 'sinocentric', so when Europeans are accused of it, you know it's just a further attempt to deconstruct our culture, identity, and history.

Europe has objectively been the most successful and influential Continent.

If you want to understand history it's not fine. And it's especially not fine if you write about non-European cultures.

Which is irrelevant for a historian who should be more objective.

He was implying it was Racism. Global White Supremacy

>If you want to understand history it's not fine
The history of what and from what perspective? This is statement is so sweeping that it's almost meaningless.

>nearly all of Russia isnt labeled as colonized even though the Tsardom ruled it like a colonial state and were primarily non-Russian identify peoples
>contemporary European borders
>partial control over the Turks
>japan isn't in the influenced
>Korea isnt in influence despite only not being directly colonized by Russia because Japan beat them to it
this map blows and so you, user.

it is without greeks and romans polish against the otomans hungarians against the mongol all those countries wouldnt have been able to conquer the world
western european are much more indebted with thir eastern borthers than the other way around

Objectivity should be the most important thing for a historian.

Reality is that Europe is the most prominent and successful area. No Asians took half the world.

Attached: 1519920558690.jpg (628x1024, 121K)

What the hell does "eurocentrism" even mean? Can you point to an example of it?

Mongols pretty much took half of the world.

And it is Objectively true that Europe has been most influential.

>polish against the otomans hungarians against the mongol
This meme needs to die

I don't know about the other countries, but Japan wasn't influenced by any outside countries until around the Meiji Revolution

yes it is, the history of europe is the history of the world ,now with so many niggers mexicans asians and all class of mutts they want to articulate a PC version that dont hurt the feeling of this people
the social sciences are dying thanks to trash like your professsor
fuck him

He just went into a rant about CEOs, "White Rules", and Apparently Time is racist

>muh world history meme
world history is a cancerous meme field of study full of retards trying to synthesis events that are almost totally unrelated to each other and push it as a coherent narrative

from what race he is?political orientation?where do you live?

Which should be irrelevant for historians.

It's a notion that Europe is in some ways special. Eurocentrics compare other civilizations and cultures to Europe which represents the highest point of civilization.

>yes it is, the history of europe is the history of the world
Complete nonsense. History didn't start in 19th century.

Focusing only on European history. For example only studying European interactions with India instead of the history of the Indians themselves.

>It's a notion that Europe is in some ways special
I can see what that would be bad
>focussing on one area of history
I see nothing wrong with this

for like 10 years as a united entity, then flitted away leaving nothing but the black death behind, sweet.

>history of europe is the history of the world
no it isn't you fucking retard, Europeans have their own histories. What kind of jewish globalist bullshit are spouting?

not really, there were still important mongol successor states for a long time.

Europe is hardly a united entity.

Of course there's nothing wrong with focusing on one area of history. The problem is that history as a discipline can be said to focus unduly on Europe because of its dominance of the rest of the world and the fact it's where the accepted academic study of history has emerged from.

>it makes no sense to criticize a Chinese historian for being 'sinocentric'
Are you being an idiot on purpose? Or is this what extended periods of exposure to stormfront does to your brain?

>Europeans
It's not even Europeans. I doubt Westerners study East European history.

>Europeans like to study Europe
DATS HORRIBLE!!!!

no it start with aryans conquering all early civilization across the world then greeks and romans came and finally europe as whole conquering the world and spreading the light inthe darkness

Russian too, they colonized most of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia.

>Of course there's nothing wrong with focusing on one area of history. The problem is that history as a discipline can be said to focus unduly on Europe
Yeah and scholars in america focus "unduly" on american history, I don't see a problem with that unless it leads to colonial apologism, which most so called "eurocentric" stuff doesn't

cringe

Unless he's going at it like a chinese shitposter on /k/ I don't see any reason why a chinese scholar focussing on chinese history is bad.

Colonialism was bad because it was half assed. If the colonial powers had actually done what they were preaching they would do it would have been good. If they had civilized the populations, educated them, torn down old tribal systems in an organized fashion and over the course of a century or more dedicated themselves to developing those places economically, socially and politically and then afterwards dedicate themselves to eventual federalization we would be in a much better place.

Instead they acted like faggots and used their colonies to line their pockets and only built rudimentary infrastructure in the colonies save places like Canada that pretty much did their nation building on their own with a spark of pseudo-independence.

Slavic jealousy, everyone. What user is saying is that the whole continent of Europe can't lay claim to all the influence that a handful of major countries have wielded over the rest of the world.

I might have included a couple other countries, but user has something of a point. Many Europeans and Americans of European descent like to imagine that they belong to this one big group that includes everyone who was ever white & great, but as often as not they are descended from people who had their turn being colonized/conquered by a major European power...who were themselves products of more of the same. At this point it's pretty clear that it's an arbitrary racial affiliation for most people that has little to do with history or culture. Claiming credit for shit people did before you were born is retarded, anyway, so it continues to baffle me why people place such personal stake on these rhetorical contests of vicarious boasting.

History doesn't have perspectives. What you're talking about is cultural criticism, which may or may not be an interesting or serious field, but it isn't history.

>that 300 sword in the hands of the Greek
fuck you and whoever drew that

>Slavic
See

>My professor just said that Colonialism was bad
Some elaboration on that would be good.

Academic History is supposed to be a science. You can't have a health scientific community if everyone's writing about the same topic and examining evidence through one perspective.

>chinese scholar
Don't you mean "professional history rewriter?"

>it included a couple other countries
all of western europe except switzerland was involved in the business of colonialism at its height, da fuck are you talking about?

European students learning about European history
>Which is irrelevant for a historian who should be more objective.

>taking that bait

This is such a faulty narrative. For one thing, the Western powers weren't these godlike giants that could just do whatever they wanted, they can only do so much, your expectations are just too high.
>used their colonies to line their pockets and only built rudimentary infrastructure in the colonies
They built extensive infrastructure because the whole point was extracting natural resources to power industries at home, you don't even know what you're talking about lol.

>History doesn't have perspectives
lol

>Academic History is supposed to be a science.
since you can't empirically test most of the things that you're studying its not really science.
>through one perspective
What? I'f i'm writing a history of the british east india company I don't see any reason why I wouldn't focus on a british perspective of it.

>I'f i'm writing a history of the british east india company I don't see any reason why I wouldn't focus on a british perspective of it.
Because that's limiting and you're disadvantaging your audience by not giving them a complete overview of the topic and source material?

>because that's limiting
What's wrong with limiting the scope of the book?
>giving them a complete overview of the topic and source material?
I'm not trying to, I'm trying to focus my efforts on an extremely polished history of the company itself.

Eurocentrism makes sense from about 1750 to ~1945 (depending upon how you define Europe) in this time period europeans really did dominate world affairs and are central to any discussion anywhere in the world. If you go too far back beyond this it is merely an attempt to bulk up the importance of the region to match its future greatness.

Yes, because history started in Europe

>colonized most of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia.
While that's true, I'm not sure who's impressed by the conquest of North Asia, or for that matter what Russia has done with all that territory since.

Most colonies ran at a loss as the goal of having these colonies was often just to deny another power its resources. Thus the colonial powers were incentivised to cut costs where ever possible with a total focus on resource extraction to get at least some of their money back. They were never going to fix or ‘civilise’ Africa.

>that's limiting
You don't understand that this isn't a bad thing in history. Specificity and narrowness of focus is important to any study of history. If I'm going to write a book about the Hanseatic League, would you criticize me for not talking about the Italian merchant republics too because "WELL THAT'S VERY LIMITING!"? Fucking retarded criticism. Not to mention that the British record keeping was likely much much better than the locals, making it far easier to write a history from their perspective. There's that 'objective eurocentrism' again.

There’s a difference between focusing on area history and being (insert region)centric you asshat.

Right, that doesn't stop you from calling me a eurocentric because I want to write an extremely specific and polished history of the british east india company.

No, there isn't. That's why this 'eurocentrism' criticism is a disingenuous attempt at deconstruction.

How can history not be eurocentric? World history is European history. Everybody else doesn't amount to jack shit.

are you literally jewish?

Except that eurocentrism would be the wrong word to describe such a history, unless you wrote it in such a way that it framed the EITC as godly bringers of civilization to the backwards Indian savages.

For one the British East India Company, or any other historical entity or event didn't exist in a vacuum so you can't really understand it and its impact without focusing on both Western and Non-Western sources. Taking a completely Eurocentric approach to your sources because they're readily available is just bad history. And just because, for example, we have more Roman accounts of the conquest of Gaul than we have Gaulic sources doesn't mean that historians go "alright, this means I can only examine how this event affected Romans." No, instead they find alternative sources of evidence that aren't necessarily written.
Even then of course histories like this exist and there's nothing wrong with chronicling certain institutions, so your metaphor doesn't really fit. Writing about The East India Company isn't Eurocentrism. Writing a "History of India" that only focuses on the British Raj would be.

History cites perspectives. Those perspectives are part of history because what people believed and believe is relevant to what happens. History itself -- literally, what happens -- does not have a perspective.

A British history of the BEIC is obviously going to cite a lot of British people. But such a history would be laughably incomplete if it did not go to pains to include as much material from colonial sources as from the British, if it did not weigh the claims made the British objectively, and if it presents the opinions and views of people connected to the Company out of context. Any and all cases of subjectivity and perspective need to be labeled in proper history, so that it's clear that the historian is trying to be an objective observer. It may never be perfect but that's why history books and history itself are two very different things.

no from 1500 onward scientifically militarily and technologically europe was the referent in nearly all metrics and the base of this achieviments are greeks and romans that were you can call it "built importance by anticipation"

kek

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 94K)

>Writing a "History of India" that only focuses on the British Raj would be
This never happens though, you're just criticizing a strawman. Eurocentrism is just a slur to criticize any study or work that presents europeans as influential, moral, or important.
>doesn't mean that historians go "alright, this means I can only examine how this event affected Romans."
Actually it does since we have almost no knowledge of what was going on with the Gauls, that's exactly what happened. the fuck are you talking about man

Yes, that's my point, retards are throwing around the word "eurocentric" to mean "I like to focus on european history" rather than what it should be, "europe was good boys they didnu nuffin"
>didn't exist in a vacuum
Nothing exists in a vacuum, that doesn't mean you shouldn't limit your scope to make your project more focussed and manageable. If i'm examining it from an economic perspective then I absolutely would be relying almost entirely on western sources. If its not relevant to the specific phenomena that you're investigating and is more of a downstream effect of it, why include it? What specifically is wrong about focussing on one area and not synthesiszing everything into it?

>Those perspectives are part of history
Okay so history has perspectives, discussion over. Fucking jesus.
>History itself -- literally, what happens -- does not have a perspective.
You're conflating truth, the actual literal course of events, with the field of study called "history" which are not the same. History tries to determine the truth through historical perspectives.

Here, let me reduce the difference to terms even a clueless brainwashed stormshill like you can understand:
Area history: focuses on the history of a specific region, and contextualizes said history within world history.

X-region-centric history: Places its subject in the center of world history and then attempts to claim that all other regions and history outside the chosen region are irrelevant and not necessary in order to understand world history. For example, a sinocentrist would argue that China is the only country with relevant history and dismiss history of other Asian countries as irrelevant sideshows, and dismiss Europe as barbarous conquerors whose technology was easily incorporated by the Chinese, who now further refine it and will use it to dominate the globe.

>a good study of history must include everything that happened to everyone
absolute bollocks

That would all be well and good if that's how the word was ACTUALLY used, but it's not. It's just used a cudgel 99% of the time unless you're arguing with some fucking autist on an imageboard.

I see we've reached the point in the argument where you're just going to dig in and deny any point that I make as a smear campaign against the West.
Simply put, when talking about history as a general subject, a limited perspective is bad. If you can't understand that you're going to remain a wikipedia warrior.

>muh world history
nice meme

>It's just used a cudgel 99% of the time unless you're arguing with some fucking autist on an imageboard.
Post examples of this happening.

Can we all agree that teleological approaches to history are horseshit

>if we're talking about history as a general subject
Keeping history generalized is all well and good, but you personally seem to have a major problem with specificity in history.

but is not when the rest of civilizations are useless to the contruction of the modern world ,this should be local history and confined to optional class

Various criticisms of Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture"

I don't.

Attached: 1507213558443.png (328x1235, 315K)

>a limited perspective as bad
What is specificity other than "limiting"?

Read the whole sentence instead of just throwing a hissy fit over the shit you disagree with.

>History tries to determine the truth
Yes
>through historical perspectives.
No, through historical accounts. The hard part is stripping the perspective out of it and corroborating the account by way of stripping perspective away from other accounts and seeing what lines up. Perspective may be the most interesting part, but that's part of why it's also the tallest obstacle. It's fascinating but it isn't the truth.

If the field of history's goal is to seek truth, then true history is truth without perspective. And it is truth ABOUT perspective. You can't have the truth about perspective from another perspective.

Sure

You go on to say that historians don't write histories of the conquest of gaul from the roman perspective because that would be bad, without offering any justification for why it would be bad other than the fact that it doesn't directly contribute to the unified theory of everything. Your problem is clearly with specific histories of certain topics that exclude certain viewpoints because they aren't relevant to what they're investigating.
Also someone disagreeing with you on the internet is throwing a hissy fit? lol

You're still confusing the study of history with writing about history.

I am not.

>investigating specific phenomena in history is not real history
alright mate

>nearly all of Russia isnt labeled as colonized even though the Tsardom ruled it like a colonial state and were primarily non-Russian identify peoples

Here's a more accurate pic

Attached: european-colonization.jpg (995x475, 84K)

I just smoked a cigarette and did some thinking and I might be wrong. If two accounts from very different perspectives offer the same observation, that may be at least as valuable as ditching perspective altogether, if you even could.

Say in our history of the BEIC a British account says that building roads/schools/whatever was God's work and increased opportunities for Indians. Add to that an account from an Indian who despises British rule, who says that while it was not God's work the roads and schools DID increase his opportunity. Then a historian may be able to claim that this was the case, because multiple people who saw the colonial power very differently could observe the same effect.

On that pic I see a Greek, a Frenchman, a Dane and an American
Where are the other europeans?

>there's a 56%er in this picture
really makes u think

It really is not. We're not talking about Zimbabwe and Thailand filling their grade school education with roman history trivia, western educational institutions have no reason not to focus primarily on european history and culture. It's not like there isn't plenty of scholarship on non-western subjects, certainly far more both proportionally and in absolute than non-western scholarship on western subjects.