- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
When did Western Civilation start? What people started it?What is the importance of the 30 year war? Did it change the whole geopolitical structure of the world at that time?Is Africa considered part of Western Civ? If I'm not mistaken, China and the Far East are not.
I didn't think these questions would be so hard. ??? Was it the Mesopotamian or Egyptian civilizations who started it. Or maybe the Israelites?
The question spellbound us all. Ok, for practical purposes, Western Civ's true origins are in the Greek city-states when notions of democracy and politics advanced - not to mention many philosophical inquiries which we study about even today. However, I think Western Civilization could also go back to the Egyptians (Nile River) as well as the Mesopotamians (Tigris and Euphrates Rivers). The Israelites definitely played a crucial role in influencing later Western Civ ideals. I don't think that Africa is considered part of "Western Civilization", except for North Africa, and even this is not really true outside the ancient world. The reason is that the common ideals that advanced in the West largely did not take place in Africa. While Alexandria in North Africa evidently had the greatest library of the ancient world, Hannibal hailed from Carthage, and St. Augustine was from Hippo, that area eventually fell to Muslim powers and did not continue to advance along with the rest of Europe.
If one is going on the values and virtues that we take to mean Western Civilization ala the Euro-centric point of view (history as the study of old dead white guys) give the nod to the ancient Greeks; to be sure they built on what they learned from those folks out east that they fought from time to time. They also I'm certain knew a bit about the folks further east and to the southeast. However when I taught world history (modern era) the eastern civilizations were mentioned as being important alright but the flow of history as described by the roots of our democracy can out of the Judeo-Christian tradition... we were special by being creations of the Creator and had a divine spark, etc., etc. The Greeks provided direct democracy we could govern ourselves... the Romans showed us how to keep it working in long distance empires and then lost it.Post; Renaissance and Reformation picks up the ball and runs with it: no new ideas, eh?We can argue how much the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians gave us, so too the Indus Valley and ancient China... or not. I see them more as getting civilization, generally, organized... society working together beyond the hunter gather stage to urbanization: legal systems of one sort or another, written language and the like... they didn't however, give us the political institutions that are the hall mark of our western world.Just my 0.02.WallyPS: Phid's reply came in as I wrote this... I agree. We do however owe the Muslims for the libraries that preserved the info that might have otherwise been lost (save that was in Ireland... thank them too!).W
Thanks. I did do some searching and most of them mentioned North Africa as being part of Western Civ. (some even mentioned Western Civilization didn't start until Europe came into being). I always thought Africa would be considered more because of the European colonization that was happening throughout the whole continent. Can something that wasn't considered a part of WC before become part of it after this colonization occurs? So is it safe to say democracy is what starts (or identifies) Western ideology?And are you saying Muslims are not part of it? What would they be classified as? Near-eastern? Or is Islam pretty much all by itself?
We can argue how much the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians gave us, so too the Indus Valley and ancient China... or not. I see them more as getting civilization, generally, organized... society working together beyond the hunter gather stage to urbanization: legal systems of one sort or another, written language and the like... they didn't however, give us the political institutions that are the hall mark of our western world.
Isn't this just a definition (and a good one at that) of civilization? Laws, organization, etc.
Western Civilization began with the Sumerians and the Neo Babylonians who codified the first laws (Hammurabi's Code) which became the inspiration of the Mosaic Levitical code formed by the Israelites. The nation of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon became the next stop in Western Civ formation, along with the Phoenicians who created an alphabet to replace hieroglyphics. About this time the Dorians invaded the Peloponnese and created the origins of Greek civilization. So we have two streams converging into the same river….on one front we have the Judeo/Babylonian/Phoenician/Egyptian influence, and on the other the Greco….and later Roman influence. Other minor influences include Carthage, Persia, and the Gauls……whose descendants the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes helped create British culture. The question is a loaded one, and one that cannot be pinpointed down as narrowly as we would like. Western Civilization is a historian's creation designed to organize cultural and intellectual patterns into a cohesive understandable theme. Wally is correct, it is Eurocentric, and it's probably becoming more and more outdated historically, but because of the rifts in cultures separating the Occident from the Orient, it is perpetuated in the class room. Western Civilization is influenced by the Orient in countless ways.....Marco Polo went to China and brought back many of China's best kept secrets. The Arabs and Islam gave us our modern number system. The Persians gave us the concept of angels. On and on I could go. The Greeks imitated the Persians and Egyptians on many levels and were in turn imitated by the Romans. Christianity is a Jewish creation later Hellenized into a form Gentiles better understood. St. Augustine lived in Hippo a city in what is now Algeria. I personally cannot answer when Western Civilization officially began, but Sumer is probably the closest.....but anyone could argue differently.
.... Western Civilization is influenced by the Orient in countless ways..... The Greeks imitated the Persians and....
Don truly says it all; as long as one culture interacts with another there are no new ideas... we adapt and coopt modifying to our own purposes and ends. Someone else will come along and use our ideas (for better or worse) to their own ends somewhere up the road.History, geography and culture; in the words of the jingle from a 60's sitcom... "It's about time, it's about space, it's about the human race."
Western Civilization is a historian's creation designed to organize cultural and intellectual patterns into a cohesive understandable theme.
That helps me to understand it much better.
Western Civilization is a historian's creation designed to organize cultural and intellectual patterns into a cohesive understandable theme.
That helps me to understand it much better.
This topic is very similar to our discussions over the "Dark Ages." Historians cannot muddle through the epochs of time without categorizing periods and geographically dissecting distinctive cultures. Thematic history is a tool to make the complex and confusing more simpler and focused. Western historians see history through the eyes of Europe, America, and Israel.....the three most influential geographic regions that shaped our culture. However, History should not be so disjointed. Oriental Historians are just as guilty as their Western counterparts. Indian historians are notorious for trying to de-Anglonize (I made that word up ;D) India's history wherever they can....yes they acknowledge the role of British occupation, but they feel obligated to balance their narratives with odes to Asoka's Mauryan Empire or the Guptas etc.....thus removing the "taint" of Western influence on their nation's history. History is often hijacked by the historian's need to create an identity for the subject he studies. Some historians feel guilt or shame for how their ancestors behaved in history, so they seek to "punish" them in their narratives with scathing condemnations....such as those who write polemical histories that condemn Europeans for how they treated Native Americans etc....I'm not saying that historians should refrain from pointing out injustices, but they should not saddle their histories with their guilt or shame. Research suffers terribly when historians succomb to their personal feelings...albeit it cannot be avoided completely since we all write from personal social filters and mores. The field of History began with amateurs primarily. History is a Western discipline begun by Themistocles and Herodotus in Ancient Greece. Whereas before, the closest thing to the true study of History resided in the retelling of myths by the cosmogolists like Hesiod or minstrels like Homer. The Jews chronicled the reigns of their kings as did the Pharaohs, but they were not studies into the causes and effects of events. Themistocles was among the first to try such an approach. Both he and Herodotus felt that the events in their lives were of great significance and the things that led up to them needed to be analyzed for their readers. Yes their motives were not overtly scientific or even objective, but they used eye witness reports and other evidence to backup their claims, and this was something cosmologists and storytellers never bothered with since proof was not what mattered; but the explanation itself. Western Civ History is guilty of the same self indulgence I'm afraid. Western historians are preoccupied with events that matter to England, America, Israel, and Europe. They (we as I've done it myself), see History horizontally rather than vertically. By horizontally I mean we view History as beginning with us and proceeding out from us as it pertains to us specifically. It's like standing on a mountain top and viewing out all around you, but your only starting point is where you stand. Historians should instead look at History vertically, which means totally removed from any set position to such a vantage point where the interactions of all cultures can be seen simultaneously and objectively. In other words, you as the historian should not set out to write your history with the purpose of elevating your country, culture, or time period above preceding times or other countries and cultures. However, Historians cannot write the whole history of the entire world....it's too monumental a task, and most certainly important details will be left out. Instead, Historians must focus their studies down to key events, people, places, and times in order to do justice to their topic. The temptation to focus primarily on our own histories is often the result, but a good historian will refrain from over emphasizing one nation or people over another. So in conclusion, it's not a sin to "neatly package" your historical narrative, but it is wise to do so only when one must since oversimplification can lead one's readers astray. Just always remember that Rome would not have been had it not been for the likes of Hannibal's Carthage or Joseph Maccabeus or Jugurtha to stand against it. Alexander the Great would never have been magnified had he not had Darius III to joust with. Herodotus would not have had a story to tell if Xerxes hadn't taken a notion to invade his land etc....
