Eurocentrism Essay

Eurocentrism can be defined as the idea that the Roman and Grecian gardenings gave rise to the modern explosion of ideas and learning. Within this idea is contained the notion that the origins of Greek culture lie strictly within the borders of what is currently considered westward europium, making the ancestors of Western Europeans responsible for either the progress of the modern cosmos (Dussel, 465). This idea is considered by modern historians to be false and based not on factual accounts precisely rather on the distortion of taradiddle by colonizers (Blaut, 10).This distortion of history is based on the Inside-Outside or Center-Periphery models of civilisation which pinpoint an area of the knowledge base as the peak of nuance, and the areas outside of it as barbaric. This model depicts Greater Europe as the insider area which contained the civilized culture, and it posits a gradual diffusion of that culture to the other separate of the world border it. Yet this model presents an erroneous view of the worlds process of civilisation. The ideas that are based on the models above tend to describe Europe on the one hand as being civilized and making strides in scientific and technological advancement.On the other hand, this view places the world outside of Europe in a position of stagnancy, with knowledge remaining static unless ideas were learned from Europe. This idea also commits rise to an ethnocentric idea of European noeticism as being the reason for the centralization of knowledge within that area. It also gives rise to the antipathetic idea of non-West European culture as necessarily consisting of low-level ideas which might be described as savage, atavistic, uncivilized and evil (Blaut, 16).The truth is very different, however, as the Greek and Roman cultures that contributed to the civilization of Europe must give attribution for its ideas to a wide array of cultural influences whose origins span areas as far as Africa and Asia (Dussel , 465-468). According to Dussel, Europe cannot claim Greece as a sort out of its earliest origins. Furthermore, during the height of Greek cultural dominance, awareness existed in the Greek world of the progressive nature of the Egyptian (African) and Turkish (Asian) civilizations (Dussel, 465 Yurco, 1).Yet, while this Greek centerfield civilization was aware of the existence of civilized Africans and Asians, their knowledge of what is now Modern Europe was minimal and the area considered to be populated by the uncivilized, the non-political and the non-human (465). The idea that Greece bequeathed civilization to Rome and to Europe is false. Rather, a dichotomy existed between the Latin (West) and Greek (East) cultures, and this configuration did not include a strict conception of Europe. The Greek culture was dominate in classical times as much by the Arab (Muslim) culture as it was by the Byzantine (Christian) culture.Therefore, the Aristotelian basis of civilization was histor ically strongly connected to the Middle Eastern and even Asian (Turk) civilizations (466). What actually occurred to lead to the development of civilization in Europe is based on an interplay of cultures from all over the continents of Africa and Eurasia. Such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus relied heavily on the ideas that came from the Turkish-derived Aristotelian ideas (Dussel, 466). The ideas generated by Aristotle were actually studied in what is now modern-day Iraq (Baghdad) beforehand Aquinas became exposed to them.Indeed, Aquinas exposure came only after the Muslims in Spain translated these works into the Latin vernacular. The arrival of these works in Paris during the late 1100s B. C. attach the initial period in which differentiation occurs between Europe and Africa/Asia (466). The Crusades, which followed during this era, therefore may be seen as the first attempt made by Europe to become dominant in the newly differentiated territories of Africa and the Eastand these campaigns might be considered failures (466).Eurocentric ideas concerning the Old World can therefore be seen to be a myth based on the colonially driven histories that have been passed down in the recent past. The failure of the Crusades might be seen as a focussing in which Europe itself was kept out of the civilization encompassed by the Turkish and Muslim regions, which spread their dominance from Morocco to India and even to the Philippine island of Mindanao. Even the Roman Empire, which dominated Europe for centuries, never penetrated to become the center of civilization in the African and Asian worlds (Dussel, 466).Before this time, the only empire that came close to being dominant and of Eurasiatic origin are the Hellenistic empires. Yet these empires are not one and the same as Europe, and never gained as large a dominance as the Muslims had after them (467). In contrast to the Eurocentric model of civilization is the strong Turkish (Muslim) civilizationhis torically represented by the term Asia (Blaut, 20). This area, which later became know as the Ottoman Empire, was dominant within its region.It even began conquering territory into south-eastern Europe, and this idea falsifies the theory of all civilization issuing from Europe. Even in the ordinal to eighteenth centuries, European presence in the African and Asian continents was merely a matter of trade rather than dominance. The idea of a Eurocentric world actually found root only during the nineteenth century when colonization occurred in areas of the Old World (India, Asia, African and China). During this period, the multifaceted Greek culture was select and re-classified as European.The Greek culture is then identified with that of the Romans and then the two are placed at the center of the worlds historical civilization. It is at this point that Europe is able to emerge as the worlds intellectual benefactor. However, the fact that at this point no united world history existed and their location made it impossible for them to be central in providing for the surrounding territories an impetus toward civilization (468). Colonization in the nineteenth century can be seen as the chief mechanism through which Eurocentrism has been able to become dominant in global thinking.In order to maintain the colonial thrust, European colonizers were prompted to earn ideologies that support the dominance that European countries had gained in their respective colonies. Religious, social, and scientific ideas that were spawned during that time gave rise to the Eurocentric ideas that are extant even in modernity. According to Blaut, A Christian missionary might have great love and respect for the people among whom he or she worked, but could not be expected to believe that the culture and mind of these non-Christians was on par with that of Christian Europeans (24).The social and legal theories being fashioned at the time were created by those who were in charge of making t he policies that the theories should support. Therefore, intellectual history became biased in its outlook regarding the comparative price of the cultures that stand alongside the European culture. However, in the disciplines of economics and anthropology ideas and truths were discovered which did not fit intimately with the tendency toward Eurocentrism.Such ideas as equipoise and stasis developed in Keynesian economics. In geography, stasis was found to be a natural occurrence in regionalism. Theories of equilibrium and stability were embodied in such anthropological ideas as functionalism, while cultural relativism declared in essence that each culture has indispensable worth (Blaut, 27). However, within the discipline of Anthropology, political motives can be found for publicizing the fact of cultural relativism, though tempered with a Eurocentric overtone.The notion of the intrinsic worth of the culture would have the effect of discouraging unrest, while the Eurocentric overt ones would have the complementary effect of evoking gratitude in the heart of the colonists toward the colonizers (27). Overall, however, colonial indoctrination has been characterized by a teleological view of the Wests advancement, which is responsible for the benefits accorded Latin American, Asian, and African nations. Many other cultures outside of Europe experienced great progress and civilization throughout history.Yet, the result of inattention to the civilization status of Europe and other regions at other time periods has given rise to contemporary confusion surrounding these cultures. One such problem can be found in the misunderstood racial composition of Egyptians. In fact, the analysis of the racial composition of the Egyptian royalty gives credence to the idea that multiculturalism existed in the Egyptian civilizations of the past. Peoples from lands traditionally connected with Europe became traders and settlers in Egyptand this underscores the centrality of this civ ilization during the ancient times.Such centrality naturally rebuts the idea quarter Eurocentrism. However, the fact that interbreeding led to the Europeanized features of many of the Egyptian drawings and mummies has helped fuel the myth that European cultures played all the dominant roles in the civilizations of the past (Yurco, 2). Eurocentrism involves the idea that civilization was generated from a European center and somehow diffused to the other areas of the world. This idea finds its strength in the recent dominance that Europeans have had in the several continents of the world.Colonialism needful justification, and the method by which this was done involved the creation of ideas and systems that placed Europeans at the forefront of history. It involved the Europeanization of the Greek cultures and the oversimplification of the factors leading up to the current socio-political recount of the world. Furthermore, the fact that world history has been written down and propaga ted mainly during the period European dominance has facilitated the Eurocentrism that can now be seen in the historical judgement of the world.