Eurocentric revisionism?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,697
Portugal
#41
You seem to be equating the actions of James Breasted with self-identification today.
No. What I wrote doesn’t have much (I could almost say nothing or almost nothing) to do with self-identification today. The question of self-identification is mostly a question raised in America by the minorities and by former European colonies around the world. It is essentially a post-colonial phenomenon.

I don't think these are analogous examples.
Even if I must say again that I don’t known James Breasted, from what you wrote about him they also don’t seem analogous examples to me; referring here to “James Breasted” and “self-identification today”.

To me, it's the very epitome of white eurocentrism and cultural appropriation to travel to the Middle East and declare all the lighter-shaded people to be white.
That or it can be a question of different perceptions of what is “white” and/or “black” and/or “yellow” and/or “red” and/or any other tone of the skin colour, real or imagined by the societies.

By the way you don’t need to travel to the Middle East. So, often the Middle East travels to you. In my country, in Portugal, in the Iberian Peninsula, we have “Middle Eastern” presence since quite ancient times, with the arrival of the Phoenicians, even if not before. There are Eastern material presences since the Chalcolithic in the Iberian Peninsula. We can say “here” that they are “white”. “White” is not equal to Norse. It is a wide range of skin colours that changes at the eyes of the societies.

Your concept of “white” is probably different from mine.

In the question of Francisco Bethencourt, in his work “Racisms”: “How is it that the same person can be considered black in the United States, colored in the Caribbean or South Africa, and white in Brazil?”.

And don’t confuse this question with self-identification today. It is a question of social identification, identification by the “other”, and this occurred in much if not all of the history of the mankind.

In particular, Ancient Egyptians broadly viewed themselves and their culture as being superior to everyone else merely because they were Egyptian. There's little question they'd respond negatively to being compared to northern Europeans on any level.
Agreed. Let us also recall that skin colour was not the only way that peoples had perception of the “other”.

I could add that the Portuguese considered themselves “white” in their history and they also don’t self-identify with the paler Norse or even with the English. Still some years ago I recall hearing jokes on the beach to a paler guy that hadn’t the capacity to tan properly: He was just a red tomato burned by the sun. Inversely, again I could recall Livingstone’s comments here. Again, social perception affects the way a person sees another person skin colour.

Again quoting Bethencourt, in the beginning of the mentioned book: “[…]These works clearly identified common and divergent racial perceptions in the United States and Brazil — an example of divergence being that one drop of African blood defined black people in the United States, while in Brazil middle-class status whitened a person.”

Meaning here, as it seemed to me, that for you a single drop of African (meaning here darker skin/Egyptian or even Nubian) blood is sufficient to define Cleopatra as non-white, while for me it isn’t necessarily the case.

To be shorter, after all this too long post (sorry!), while Eurocentrism (and even Mediterraneocentrism) and Racism have relations they aren’t exactly the same thing. Declaring that a certain people/tribe is “white” in a chronicle is not necessarily a question of “Eurocentrism” or “Racism” even if it can be used as tool by both Eurocentrists and Racists.
 
Likes: Tulun
Dec 2015
3,742
USA
#43
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?
Friend its only mere words. If someone has an idea of something like there being a Africa China connection so be it. Im not btw talking about this Black Xia dynasty, Ive never heard of that. The point is though in our world we learn more about history everyday it seems, not less. In the past folks thought the world was flat, that was shown to be wrong.

IMO if you allow folks whom are Ethnocentric or Afrocentric to negatively influence you, I would say to try and disregard the views of those types of folks. Personally btw I dont see the majority of Africans of Europeans of today out there trying to steal each others history. Rather we can note statues honoring Christians and the Roman Empire in Africa, the Middle East as well as of course Europe.

The fact is that wrt Egypt and Israelite's you are talking of diverse cultures. I can not speak to this so called Black Olmecs or Black Xia idea, but certainly Ancient Egypt had a diverse looking population as its Empire stretched for many miles. The Earliest Jews have not only reported to live in modern day Israel, but also have been reported in Ancient Yemen and Ethiopia. See the Jewish Kingdom of Himyar in Yemen for example as well as the Beta Israel from Ethiopia. There is no such thing as racial identity for many, a 1951 UN Report conducted by leading Scientists show that race is a myth and that all humans form one species. If someone says that Africans may have been in China earlier then we thought, if one says Chinese may have been in America earlier then we thought its something to look deeper into but not IMO something to view as a so called demonic lie.
 
#44
and what evidences are you even talking about, i used to believe in aryan migration theory as we all read it in several colonial era history lessons on south asia in our school books, but then as one learn more and more about this scenario, common sense starts challenging this BS theory, it becomes more and more ridiculous, im sure the aryan migration believers themselves have no iota of understanding what BS they themselves believe it. Linguistic theories aside, the archaeology has completely and utterly debunked any such scenario, i hope you go and read some basic archaeological statements made by scholars such as JM kenoyer who is really active in IVC research. AMT came into being even before IVC was excavated, so there was no ''evidence'' to begin with and thats why its just a theory or infarct hypothesis at best.

regards
It is just a manner of likelihood in the same way I have dealt with the speculation of the Mauryans being vassals of the Seleucids. It is very unlikely that the Mauryans were vassals to the Seleucids, don't you agree? The speculation can still be correct, but in the same way of the hypothesis of Ancient Aliens being true.

Now, to the crux of the Aryan Migration being most likely correct, do you agree that the Iranians were Indo-Europeans? At around the same period, the Indo-Europeans were displacing, in a Westward fashion, the indigenous populations of Europe all the way to Britain. Now, we are not talking about utter annihilation, but the Indo-Europeans did appear to have military advantages over those they replaced. At the same time period, the Indus Valley Civilization seems to be collapsing from the environmental factors and the populace appear to be spreading Eastward into the Gangetic plains. Why wouldn't the Iranians (Indo-Europeans) move towards the Indus in this case? Why would the indigenous Indians be so different from the indigenous Europeans that populated the lands between Scandinavia, Britain, and Spain?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kamayani
#45
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"?
.
Assuming that the earlier Indo-European migration into Iran and India is true, then we should continue to avoid double standards. Often when the Eastern Iranians later invaded into the Iranian Plateau/Mesopotamia or the Indian Subcontinent, we seem to pertinently consider them to be non-indigenous to the places they later ruled over. Furthermore, the truth that 'We Are All Africans' seem to not be pertinent when we are discussing the achievement of much later heritages.

The Indo-European identity is considered to later become very different by virtually every scholar I have learned from. With that in mind, the Westerners today can indeed be called Easterners from the not too distant past. The Celts were displaced by the Germans from the East (leaving them only a few places left in Wales and Spain). The Normans/Danes from the Northeast then conquered and became the ruling class over the Western Germans (England and France). The Slavs came from the North-Eastern Plains of Europe to then rule all the way Westward and South-westward to the formerly forested regions of Germany and the mountainous regions of Greece. The Hungarians that once raided all the way to Spain still claim the heritage of Central Asia (the 'Magyars') today. Remember, we are indeed all Africans, but we still make distinctions when we are discussing heritages from later periods/eras.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kamayani

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,697
Portugal
#46
The Celts were displaced by the Germans from the East (leaving them only a few places left in Wales and Spain).
There are no Celts in Spain. Only Latins and pre-Indo-Europeans (the Basque, most are completely Latinized). By the way, probably the first Indo-Europeans to arrive to the Iberian Peninsula were pre-Celtic people, like the Lusitanians and the Vettones, eventually pushed by the Celts. The Celts arrived a bit later, probably around the 9th century BC (?). Naturally it is difficult to say if it was an invasion, a conquest, or a peaceful migration followed by the Celtization of the indigenous peoples, probably all the above.
 
#47
There are no Celts in Spain. Only Latins and pre-Indo-Europeans (the Basque, most are completely Latinized). By the way, probably the first Indo-Europeans to arrive to the Iberian Peninsula were pre-Celtic people, like the Lusitanians and the Vettones, eventually pushed by the Celts. The Celts arrived a bit later, probably around the 9th century BC (?). Naturally it is difficult to say if it was an invasion, a conquest, or a peaceful migration followed by the Celtization of the indigenous peoples, probably all the above.
Thanks for the info.
 
Likes: Tulius
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
#49
Assuming that the earlier Indo-European migration into Iran and India is true, then we should continue to avoid double standards. Often when the Eastern Iranians later invaded into the Iranian Plateau/Mesopotamia or the Indian Subcontinent, we seem to pertinently consider them to be non-indigenous to the places they later ruled over. Furthermore, the truth that 'We Are All Africans' seem to not be pertinent when we are discussing the achievement of much later heritages.

The Indo-European identity is considered to later become very different by virtually every scholar I have learned from. With that in mind, the Westerners today can indeed be called Easterners from the not too distant past. The Celts were displaced by the Germans from the East (leaving them only a few places left in Wales and Spain). The Normans/Danes from the Northeast then conquered and became the ruling class over the Western Germans (England and France). The Slavs came from the North-Eastern Plains of Europe to then rule all the way Westward and South-westward to the formerly forested regions of Germany and the mountainous regions of Greece. The Hungarians that once raided all the way to Spain still claim the heritage of Central Asia (the 'Magyars') today. Remember, we are indeed all Africans, but we still make distinctions when we are discussing heritages from later periods/eras.
Yes, I am aware of all of these examples... I think I mentioned or alluded to them.

I just don't see how this strengthens your original point that "Europe has not always been ruled by indigenous europeans" or what this has to do with "eurocentric revisionism". Most of your examples are either one set of westerners displacing another set of westerners or are cases of westward migrations taking place before the existence of any coherent and meaningful western identity. I don't see the point.

If your point is that some particular 19th century anthropologists cum historians had somewhat too grandiose and structural ideas of European identity, sure, I absolutely agree. But I also agree with what I wrote...
 
Likes: World Focker
#50
I just don't see how this strengthens your original point that "Europe has not always been ruled by indigenous europeans" or what this has to do with "eurocentric revisionism". Most of your examples are either one set of westerners displacing another set of westerners or are cases of westward migrations taking place before the existence of any coherent and meaningful western identity. I don't see the point.
Actually, the argument you've just made is the demonstration of why Eurocentrism (or any ethnocentrism) is dangerous. Soon (and it is already occurring), the Middle-East and beyond may be considered 'the West'. While this may look like the rectification of past racism on the surface, it could actually just be an expansion of the problem by subversive tactics and lack of accountability. Looking at the inconsistencies in this forum from the past and knowing human nature in general, the latter case of naming the Middle-Easterners/Far Eastern Europeans 'honorary Westerners' whenever it is convenient seems more likely.

Whenever people today think that Alexander represents 'the West' and/or is the greatest leader (not just general) of the world despite never facing durable states with massive populations (if not containing the most population) further East, they are applying unaccountable standards. Whenever 'Westerners' (even scholars) continue to think that Rome had the greatest and ultimately undefeatable military in pre-modern history during its existence, they are actually ignoring the conquests made by their Germanic/Slavic/Central Asian ancestors and avoiding fair comparisons with the rest of the globe. Whenever the Middle Eastern/Far Eastern European 'Westerners' were not considered representative of 'the West' after conquests made by the Turks and Mongols, one has to wonder about the motive behind the expansion of the terms.

Is categorizing some region as 'the West' so egregious. No, 'the West' is still a useful category. However, I'm just pointing out ways to be more accountably consistent and accurate with the usage. If people want to note Roman, Macedonian, and Middle Eastern conquests Eastward, then it one should also note the far more consistent and everlasting (at a certain, long era) conquests Westward*. Doing otherwise makes it look like subversive racism from Eurocentrism.

*Please realize that I am not just talking about the lack of regards for 'setbacks'.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kamayani

Similar History Discussions