classifying most of Indian history as ''tribal'', debate on Indian urbanization in 1st millennium

Nov 2014
1,611
Birmingham, UK
#11
perhaps you might benefit from a better understanding of eurocentrism, seeing as you use the word so often:


Eurocentric

adjective

focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as pre-eminent.


or maybe this definition, and everyone else's, is wrong?

maybe Eurocentrism isn't about European pre-eminence at all?

it's actually about 'focussing on Muslim culture to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding Muslim culture as pre-eminent', thats why it's called Eurocentric, it makes perfect sense.
 
Likes: World Focker
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#12
really? how (and as importantly, why) so?

how, and why, would 'eurocentric' history propose that 'the muslims are credited for ''urbanizing'' india'? I'm not sure if you noticed, but Eurocentric views of history tend to be characterised by their emphasis on the, well, the 'European'. and not, really, the muslim.

I suspect actually that you simply use the word 'eurocentric' as a kneejerk response to pretty much any view of Indian history that you don't like, it certainly seems to be a word you throw around with almost no discretion or discernment whenever you take issue with anything (search: Ashok's posts and 'eurocentric', results: 3 whole pages of posts where you can't help using the word), however I'd be fascinated to hear how the eurocentric project is intended to promote the Muslim contribution towards indian urbanisation (amongst many other things, no doubt, the whole point of 'eurocentrism' being presumably that the 'European' part is actually an elaborate bluff, and its all really a plot by the multiculti lefties to promote Islam)

1564228194196.png


Memoirs of the archaeological survey of India no.30 : Chandra, Ramaprasad : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

issue is very much complicated and not as simplistic as people think,

as the above paragraph suggests, there was clear aryan migration theory which led Jhon marshal to declare buddhism as ''primitive religion'' and the religion of the ''vedas'' as higher ones who didn't support growth of arts and architecture, so indians had to borrow from the persians and the greeks. very similar notions have been suggested for islamic influence in india. Islamic influence has again been declared as perso roman influence, so the trend is pretty evident on the scholarship.

here is another quote form the user.

China - which never was in doubt, and was in fact the most advanced civilization of the time
India - again, always considered among more advanced civilizations
Roman Empire - had that status for a long time, enough for Chinese to recognize them, although Arab invasions knocked them down significantly
Caliphate - whose advancement was based largely on theft of Mediterranean (Roman, Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian) knowledge and achievements
from the maps i have posted above, the indo greek kingdom has been inflated to unusual proportions, while later medieval period is shown as ''tribal clan'' and or something, there is clear discrimination on history happening there.

regards
 

Similar History Discussions