Eurocentric revisionism?

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,640
Europix
Yes. I was referring to Porajmos.
Thank You.


...
Eurocentrism was also a huge thing after Gobineau's writings became popular, and actually caused the death of people like the Romani.
Nazis were Europeans, but not "Eurocentric". They were simply racist. It's why they tried to eliminate Jews (=Europeans), Gypsy/Roma (=Europeans), considered Slavs (=Europeans) inferior.

I'm sorry, I think You are confounding "Eurocentrism" and "racism". Its not the same thing.
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
Ashoka maurya, unfortunately, I would have to disagree with you about the Aryans. The theory about the destruction of the Harappan Civilization by invasion has not been supported for a while now but the Migration theory is certainly the most supported by evidence today.

Speaking of Invasion during certain time periods, I think that this is one area where Eurocentrism is most harmful. In my personal experience, whenever an invasion moved East, Western scholars seem happy to list the direction as is. However, when the Invasion moved West - something that is far more consistent and everlasting in impact during a significant portion of history - Western scholars seem very accepting of euphemisms and very reluctant to list the correct direction.

On the surface, this is a tiny mistake caused by a bias that is rather hard to avoid. What is egregious about such a mistake, however, is that it causes flagrant double-standards to become the norm. This is why the illusion that the West was always ruled by indigenous Westerners who were conquerors of the world and never replaced by Easterners is so prevalent.
Honest historians should know already how misinforming the illusion is, especially when it comes to written history: in a vast portion of written history, the West was actually more consistently conquered and ruled by groups further East. Denying the fact actually means denying the heritage of Westerners today.
You are probably right that some Western historians have a blind spot for set-backs suffered by the West generally, as I would suspect most from most parts of the world do. Unlike what I know off the rest of the world though, there is also a very strong self-critical movement in the West - my personal take on it is even that this move is dominant.

As for your historical assertion: I am not entirely convinced, at all really. Western Europe - using a very broad definition, encapsulating places like Northern Italy, (which arguably is the historic centre of what you call Western civilisation) has never been conquered by a non-Western power, unless you consider the US or Russian occupation of Germany after WW2 non-Western. Sure, there have been invasions, but the only important and *lastning* one I can see is the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium. It could be said that the centre of gravity of "Western civilisation" had shifted to Western Europe by that point, many would argue...
Or maybe I don't understand your point - are you saying that the invasion of various Germanic tribes during the age of migrations was an "Eastern invasion"? And that the subsequent result was "rule by non-westerners"? This seems like a strange case to make, as a great number of Westerners are the descendents of these very same invaders. Are the proto-Indo Europeans "non-indigenous"?

Perhaps part of the issue here is that the term "Western civilization" is a lot more nebulous than the term "Chinese civilization" (for example)? The West is not as clearly geographically demarcated, and there is not so much clear meaning in what the term "Western" means. The only way for it to be meaningful to even talk about something being "Western" to begin with is to use it as a vaguely cultural connotation (logically beginning with Charlemagne in the 800s, maybe? Or how would you define it?), and in that case I don't see how you can make the claim with a striaght face that it is some kind of euro-centric myth that the West has, taken as a whole, always been ruled by indigenous Westerners. It is no myth at all: it is patently and obviously true.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2018
43
Yopaw
Thank You.




Nazis were Europeans, but not "Eurocentric". They were simply racist. It's why they tried to eliminate Jews (=Europeans), Gypsy/Roma (=Europeans), considered Slavs (=Europeans) inferior.

I'm sorry, I think You are confounding "Eurocentrism" and "racism". Its not the same thing.
I'm not confounding anything.

Nordicism is a form of Eurocentric revisionism. In this case the extermination of the Roma was caused by revisionist ideas regarding the nature of Indo-Europeans and the eugenic conclusions that followed from them.

Afrocentric revisionism is very racist in nature too. It claims that most or all of the world's civilization were founded by original Black populations that disappeared from miscegenation, which is very similar to Eurocentric claims that you can find in books like "March of the Titans", which builds a lot upon previous Nordicist ideas. I think OP was precisely talking about this kind of Afrocentric revisionism, so putting Nordicism in parallel to that makes absolute sense, whatever your definition of "Eurocentrism" is.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,640
Europix
I'm not confounding anything.

Nordicism is a form of Eurocentric revisionism. In this case the extermination of the Roma was caused by revisionist ideas regarding the nature of Indo-Europeans and the eugenic conclusions that followed from them.

Afrocentric revisionism is very racist in nature too. It claims that most or all of the world's civilization were founded by original Black populations that disappeared from miscegenation, which is very similar to Eurocentric claims that you can find in books like "March of the Titans", which builds a lot upon previous Nordicist ideas. I think OP was precisely talking about this kind of Afrocentric revisionism, so putting Nordicism in parallel to that makes absolute sense, whatever your definition of "Eurocentrism" is.
I'm sorry again: what You are saying is basically that Tutsi's genocide is ... Afrocentrism.

It's absurd.
 
Jan 2018
43
Yopaw
I'm sorry again: what You are saying is basically that Tutsi's genocide is ... Afrocentrism.

It's absurd.
No I'm not saying that. OP was talking about Afrocentric revisionism that often claims that most or all of the world's civilization were founded by original Black populations that disappeared from miscegenation, and he was asking if there were Eurocentric equivalents. I gave the example of Nordicism and how they used their Eurocentric Nordic revisionism to support a genocidal agenda in the past

Nordicists do the exact same thing that Afrocentrists do, but instead they use Indo-European migrations in a very vicious way in order to claim the history of other people.

Your comparison with the Rwandan genocide is very disingenuous, and without offense, shows that you miss the point. As far as I know, the Interahamwe didn't use the migrations of a linguistic group in a vicious revisionist way to make claims regarding the nature of the Tutsis in comparison to theirs that they would use to "justify" the genocide. There is nothing Afrocentrist about the ideology of the Interahamwe and they never used any Afrocentrist idea to "justify" their genocide.

It seems that we are just fighting over terminology. I'm personally just using a definition of "Afrocentrism" that is congruent to OP's post.
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,050
Bulgaria
If the Gypsy/Roma killings is "Eurocentrism", then Tutsi genocide is "Afrocentrism".
Technically in both cases you are correct. The second event happened in Rwanda, a country situated in the central part of the African continent, whilst the first one idd happened mainly in central parts of European continent.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,640
Europix
Technically in both cases you are correct. The second event happened in Rwanda, a country situated in the central part of the African continent, whilst the first one idd happened mainly in central parts of European continent.

Thank You.


It's that I don't like making out of words/concepts "container words"/"container concepts" and then putting into them everything.


It seems that we are just fighting over terminology. I'm personally just using a definition of "Afrocentrism" that is congruent to OP's post.

Yes, we are.


whatever your definition of "Eurocentrism" is
It isn't "whatever", nor "mine"


"Eurocentric" is simply a composed word, composed by "European"+"Center". It simply means from an European point of view. The word is neutral. The conclusions can be un-neutral, depending on who and how uses that POV. The same goes with any similar words (Afrocentric, Sinocentric, deaftunercentric).


I can write an essay on "Influences of traditional Hindu rythms on European progressive rock". And that is Eurocentric, as I'm looking at Hindu rhythm from an European POV, for example. My essay can be revisionist, as there was another previous essay, and I'm contesting some.of its conclusions. I can be biased or not, accurate or not, that's another discussion.


So, to bring "Eurocentric" in the Nazism' genocides is as absurd as bringing "Afrocentrism" in Tutsis' genocide or "Asianocentric" in Armenian genocide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zip

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,144
Portugal
I was talking to a friend about the modern phenomenon of Afrocentrism, and how a lot of people of African descent feel the need to steal the history of other people in order to feel-good about their racial identity. Which is why you see things like the Black Egyptian propaganda, the Hebrew Israelite, the Black Olmecs, the Black Xia dynasty, and other very vicious and demonic lies...

I was telling him that no other people on this planet ever did this, and that it's a very unique phenomenon. He told me "well, in the past, Eurocentric revisionism similar to modern Afrocentrism was also a thing, and if anything, Afrocentrism is just a reaction to this Euro-centrism". I asked him to give me concrete examples of "Eurocentric revisionism similar to modern Afrocentrism", because I don't see it.

The examples he gave were not satisfying because most of the time it was in the context of the 19th century, when it was justified, by the simple fact that people arrived to those conclusions because of a lack of modern data(like DNA), and not because they were vicious, racist and narcissistic with inferiority complex. Other examples he gave were not satisfying because they were supported by very niche groups, and not on a massive scale similar to that of Afrocentrism today.

Is anyone here able to show a few concrete examples of "Eurocentric revisionism" in history?
“Eurocentric revisionism?” is this thread’s title.

I will begin with the last word: Revisionism:

When and why “Revisionism” gained such a bad reputation in history since history is a discipline, that as any other Social and Human science, or any science, needs to revisit itself, to not be based on dogmas, and to on a constant way be as certain as possible of its premises, to move on, to develop, to raise new knowledge. Some thirty years ago my teachers always thought me that the last word on history is yet to be written. That the thesis and words of the famous historians, our masters, are not a sacred book; that new ideas should be developed and new perspectives should be sought. In other words we should revisit history, that is how history changes and can be developed.

Along these years the word gained an awful connotation. But curiously, and paradoxically, when we take a look to the “history revisionism” we mostly see pseudo-history that forgets the basic premises of the historical method. In other words, that in the term “historical revisionism” the word “historical” is begin wrongly applied.

About the problem of “centrisms” (it doesn’t really matter where they are centred, leading them to an extreme is always a problem and distorts history) and still about revisionism:

I would like to recall a work from Geoffrey Barraclough, included in the collective work from the far year of 1976 entitled “Main trends of research in the social and human sciences” (available here: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000137476 and here: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000004896”, that was later published as a book simply entitled “History”.

In the chapter “NEW DIMENSIONS IN HISTORY” (p. 222 and following)

“Every historian with an alert mind must, sooner or later be curious about the history of other peoples than his own; and among European historians we can trace back interest in events outside their immediate range of vision at least as far as Voltaire.”

“What has given a new urgency to this widening of vision, and made it one of the significant contemporary trends, is the great change in the whole world-situation since 1945 and particularly since the rapid advance between 1957 and 1960 of the process of decolonization”

“Nothing is more certain in the contemporary epoch, as I. Elekec has said, than that ‘a living history demands a concrete revision of the contents of the notion of universality and a more consequential and far-reaching application of it in historical research’.(402)”

“This means not only, as Elekec also points out, a displacement of the much criticized ‘Eurocentric’ view of history”

“Important as this is, and much as has been written about it, (403) this is only one side of the problem; and it must be matched by a similar effort by historians elsewhere to transcend their national and ethnographic limitations, if it is to produce worthwhile results.”

“Not unnaturally, the work of historians in Asia - for example, in India and Indonesia (404) - since independence has been concentrated upon discovering their own past, and particularly in combating the ‘colonialist’ interpretations of European scholars of a previous generation.”

“No one would deny that this reaction was necessary and salutary, so far as it went. But it must also be recognized that, in the longer term, little is to be gained by replacing a European-centred ‘colonialist’ myth by a nationalist Indian or Indonesian myth.”

“In the words of Satish Chandra, ‘we should abandon the concept of centre and periphery’, whether the centre is located in Europe or the Middle Kingdom.(405)”


The bold in “concrete revision” on Elekec’s quote is mine.

So, in my resume, in 1976, the British historian Geoffrey Barraclough, already considered that history was gaining new dimensions, that was leaving some of its eurocentrisms, should be revisioned, was gaining naturally new centrisms, in part desirable to counterbalance the excess of eurocentrisms that the world had until those days, but sustaining the words of Satish Chandra that history should abandon centrisms and achieve a more universal approach.

I consider Satish Chandra’s words interesting even if difficult to achieve, I would be happy enough that we recognize our “centrisms” and have minds open enough to consider that the look of others “centrims” can give us a wider picture on a certain subject.

In other words, my Center, my Point of View, my perspective, the society to which I belong and that mostly influenced me, most of the books that I read are European, so it is not a surprise that I am Eurocentric. But I also try to recognize that other centers, other perspectives can give interesting inputs to improve my knowledge.

An short example: My first contact with the Abyssinian-Adal War was trough the chronicle of Miguel de Castanhoso, naturally with an Eurocentric perspective. Among other sources, after that I had the opportunity to read the Ethiopian “Cronicle of Gelawdewos” (Afrocentric – in its etymological meaning), and the Arabic “Futuh Al-Habasha” (Arabcentric, or probably more correctly Islamocentric). With these three perspectives (points of view), I think I achieved to have a much better perspective (more universal) of the conflict. And this leads me to revisit (revision) the previous knowledge that I had of the conflict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JpO