• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
some people tell the king that he is naked




The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, written by John M. Hobson in 2004, is a book that argues against the historical theory of the rise of the West after 1492 as a "virgin birth",[1] but rather as a product of Western interactions with more technically and socially advanced Eastern civilization.

The text reinterprets Eurocentric ideas of Europe's contributions to world development. For example, it provides evidence that a complex system of global trade existed long before Mercantilist Europe, that social and economic theories in the Enlightenment came from encounters with new cultures rather than with Greek and Roman heritage, and that modern European hegemony resulted from situational advantages rather than from inherent superior traits.




The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an important book of comparative and historical sociology. It is both a punchy polemic against Eurocentrism and an impressive gathering of evidence on the historical development of Europe and Asia. Hobson argues that the many inventions which supposedly enabled Europe to dominate the world were actually diffused to Europe from Asia (usually from China) and that Asia/China remained as developed as Europe until the 19th century--and mostly he convinces." Michael Mann, author of Sources of Social Power (2 volumes)

Eastern Origins Western Civilisation :: Political sociology :: Cambridge University Press

...................................
the westerner always has to claim their civilisation have their roots in greek culture .why ? because they couldnt develop their own civilisation for hundreds of years in the history .whats more the dark middle age period dominated by abusive catholic church proves why they had to exploit teh rest of the world in order not to die of hunger.

their geographic discoveries had to start because they needed to find other ways to reach the famous silk and spice routes which were beign controlled by ottomans.

then they got rich and rich that created a bourgeoisie class in europe which will open to a door to teh period of renaissance.
 
Last edited:
the westerner always has to claim their civilisation have their roots in greek culture .why ? because they couldnt develop their own civilisation for hundreds of years in the history .whats more the dark middle age period dominated by abusive catholic church proves why they had to exploit teh rest of the world in order not to die of hunger.

their geographic discoveries had to start because they needed to find other ways to reach the famous silk and spice routes which were being controlled by ottomans.

then they got rich and rich through the colonization of those eastern nations that built the earliest civilisations which were the basis of all other cultures in the world.


and this period created a bourgeoisie class in europe which will open to a door to teh period of renaissance and reform .

the new rich social class developed an aesthetical understanding of life which helped the rise of art in europe that will be named " renaissance "


they also learned the printing from the east and it led to the reform period

they got rid of the catholic pressure on their lives and it created another period called enlightenment

first colonization ( by using the east's raw materials and natural sources needed for industrial production ) and the enlightenment period helped them start the industrial revolution through lots of other inventions they made during this period.
 
I'm not sure what your point is.

It is always true that the mixing two things produces a third.

When societies mix, there is usually a symbiotic result. When East met West as you describe there was a changing that occurred. When the two societies are about equal as they were in this case, there is usually a pretty nice outcome. When a Renaissance culture meets a Stone Age Culture, not so much.

The ancient Egyptian culture rose when the desert people met the Nile people and the result was dynamic.

Rome for all of its conquering usually left the locals in charge of the day to day. Alexander left democracies wherever he went and did okay. When one society tries to impose itself on another to the obliteration of the conquered, it seems that that is the point at which the trouble begins.

We are all being treated to the attempts at obliteration in the Middle East right now.
 
I'm not sure what your point is.

It is always true that the mixing two things produces a third.

When societies mix, there is usually a symbiotic result. When East met West as you describe there was a changing that occurred. When the two societies are about equal as they were in this case, there is usually a pretty nice outcome. When a Renaissance culture meets a Stone Age Culture, not so much.

The ancient Egyptian culture rose when the desert people met the Nile people and the result was dynamic.

Rome for all of its conquering usually left the locals in charge of the day to day. Alexander left democracies wherever he went and did okay. When one society tries to impose itself on another to the obliteration of the conquered, it seems that that is the point at which the trouble begins.

We are all being treated to the attempts at obliteration in the Middle East right now.

my point is quite clear for the ones who hate to ignore teh fact ,code
 
What might that point be?


the westerner always has to claim their civilisation have their roots in greek culture .why ? because they couldnt develop their own civilisation for hundreds of years in the history .whats more the dark middle age period dominated by abusive catholic church proves why they had to exploit teh rest of the world in order not to die of hunger.

their geographic discoveries had to start because they needed to find other ways to reach the famous silk and spice routes which were being controlled by ottomans.

then they got rich and rich through the colonization of those eastern nations that built the earliest civilisations which were the basis of all other cultures in the world.


and this period created a bourgeoisie class in europe which will open to a door to teh period of renaissance and reform .

the new rich social class developed an aesthetical understanding of life which helped the rise of art in europe that will be named " renaissance "


they also learned the printing from the east and it led to the reform period

they got rid of the catholic pressure on their lives and it created another period called enlightenment

first colonization ( by using the east's raw materials and natural sources needed for industrial production ) and the enlightenment period helped them start the industrial revolution through lots of other inventions they made during this period.

everyone can see teh point
 
Well I would like to read it. Hobson you say? Year 2004 is the year of publication?
 
some people tell the king that he is naked




The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, written by John M. Hobson in 2004, is a book that argues against the historical theory of the rise of the West after 1492 as a "virgin birth",[1] but rather as a product of Western interactions with more technically and socially advanced Eastern civilization.

The text reinterprets Eurocentric ideas of Europe's contributions to world development. For example, it provides evidence that a complex system of global trade existed long before Mercantilist Europe, that social and economic theories in the Enlightenment came from encounters with new cultures rather than with Greek and Roman heritage, and that modern European hegemony resulted from situational advantages rather than from inherent superior traits.




The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an important book of comparative and historical sociology. It is both a punchy polemic against Eurocentrism and an impressive gathering of evidence on the historical development of Europe and Asia. Hobson argues that the many inventions which supposedly enabled Europe to dominate the world were actually diffused to Europe from Asia (usually from China) and that Asia/China remained as developed as Europe until the 19th century--and mostly he convinces." Michael Mann, author of Sources of Social Power (2 volumes)

Eastern Origins Western Civilisation :: Political sociology :: Cambridge University Press

...................................
the westerner always has to claim their civilisation have their roots in greek culture .why ? because they couldnt develop their own civilisation for hundreds of years in the history .whats more the dark middle age period dominated by abusive catholic church proves why they had to exploit teh rest of the world in order not to die of hunger.

their geographic discoveries had to start because they needed to find other ways to reach the famous silk and spice routes which were beign controlled by ottomans.

then they got rich and rich that created a bourgeoisie class in europe which will open to a door to teh period of renaissance.

Having basic skills, knowledge and technology does not mean that it will actually be put to good use. We see what is happening in Egypt today, in order to "advance" one must get over the "my religion is best so I will burn your churches down" syndrome. As you pointed out, it is often the churches that are the most resistant to accept progress (change), freeing the people from the religious idealogs allows progress (change) to occur more rapidly. Educating women, for example, allows twice as many folks to fully contribute to society - not a small thing by any means.
 
Having basic skills, knowledge and technology does not mean that it will actually be put to good use. We see what is happening in Egypt today, in order to "advance" one must get over the "my religion is best so I will burn your churches down" syndrome. As you pointed out, it is often the churches that are the most resistant to accept progress (change), freeing the people from the religious idealogs allows progress (change) to occur more rapidly. Educating women, for example, allows twice as many folks to fully contribute to society - not a small thing by any means.

where did l made such a comparison ?
 
where did l made such a comparison ?

You made references to the Catholic church in Europe. I am simply pointing out that eastern religions, to this day, are involved in many counterprodcutive activities such as trying to suppress all other religions and abusing the rights of women.
 
Interesting. On the list of things to read.
 
You made references to the Catholic church in Europe. I am simply pointing out that eastern religions, to this day, are involved in many counterprodcutive activities such as trying to suppress all other religions and abusing the rights of women.

did l say anything about christianity ?

sorry but the church institution doesnt represent the real christianity
 
Interesting. On the list of things to read.

l started it for some ignorant snob westerners who claim the western civilisation is superior

thx for your care
 
did l say anything about christianity ?

sorry but the church institution doesnt represent the real christianity

Sure - just like the MB does not represent "real" Islam. I am not talking about theory, I am simply pointing out reality.
 
l started it for some ignorant snob westerners who claim the western civilisation is superior

thx for your care

I don't believe that anyone here has indicated that western culture is superior. We actually want to understand what the point of your op is. Are you trying to initiate a dialogue, and if so, what is the subject of said dialogue?
 
I don't believe that anyone here has indicated that western culture is superior. We actually want to understand what the point of your op is. Are you trying to initiate a dialogue, and if so, what is the subject of said dialogue?

Actually, I did say that western culture is superior to cultures based on fundamentalist Islam. Not in this thread, but I remember saying it in some other thread. The OP doesn't change my mind one iota, though. I'm not sure what her point is either or what she actually wants to discuss. All cultures go through dark periods. At this point in history, regardless of how we got to this point, I still maintain that western culture is superior to islamic culture.
 
Actually, I did say that western culture is superior to cultures based on fundamentalist Islam. Not in this thread, but I remember saying it in some other thread. The OP doesn't change my mind one iota, though. I'm not sure what her point is either or what she actually wants to discuss. All cultures go through dark periods. At this point in history, regardless of how we got to this point, I still maintain that western culture is superior to islamic culture.

I was referring to this thread with my statement. Basically all culture goes back to Africa, and as humans spread around the globe, they took remnants of their ancient past with them, as well as components of other regions along the way. I just couldn't figure out what the point of the OP was, besides maybe an attempt to start a mudslinging contest, which is not only unproductive, but silly as well.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure I get the point either. I mean, I understand the propositions in the OP. They seem to be without context, or, more seriously, coherence.

However, I would like to address one point made in the OP, which seems to be something to the effect that it's disingenuous to claim that western culture has its roots in ancient Greece. I must seriously ask: WTF? The outstanding characteristics of western culture are undeniably founded in classical Greek culture. The tendency toward competition and the emphasis on the individual, the general tendency towards waging war, the notion of state-owned justice, the overweening emphasis on reason, etc. etc. are all owed to the Greeks. The Romans largely adopted Greek culture and myth, and in turn bequeathed that culture to Europe. The Roman legal system, for example, was largely based on that of Athens, and Roman laws ruled the dark ages. It wasn't until Alcuin of York reformed legal practice that anyone in Europe had any different ideas at all. The Church fathers preserved ancient Greek philosophy in the theology of Christianity. I could go on and on about this. Anyone who claims that western culture is not based in that of ancient Greece has a very large burden of proof to meet.
 
the westerner always has to claim their civilisation have their roots in greek culture .why ?

This westerner has never claimed his perspective has anything to do with Greece or Greek culture. I claim to be civilized on the basis of my understanding of gender equality, human rights, and civil liberties.

because they couldnt develop their own civilisation for hundreds of years in the history .whats more the dark middle age period dominated by abusive catholic church proves why they had to exploit teh rest of the world in order not to die of hunger.

I wasn't alive during the period you speak of. You weren't alive during the period you speak of. So, what exactly did you have to do with the development of civilization? Never mind, I'll answer my own question -- nothing. So you couldn't develop your own civilization either -- you had to resort to benefiting from what someone else had laid out for you.

Ergo, you're as much a thief of civilization as you think we are. :lol:
 
where did l made such a comparison ?



This and three or more subsequent posts are in the same quandry as i.

That is why I asked you to clearly state the point you are trying to make.
 
Last edited:
It's been factually found that commerce between the East and West has been occurring through time immemorial. So much so that artifacts found in South American sites indicate that there was trade between the mid East and South American civilization.
Grecian tribes historically were known to trade with Asian. Remember the Silk road to China through what we know as Egypt today.
Romans and Asians continually traded and exchanged technologies.

So what's new?
 
Well, it's really no secret that the west was more inclined to seek out trade with China and borrow their technologies because they needed that trade and technology more.

The incorrect assumption is that Greek-Roman philosophy isn't a lynchpin for western civilisation, both Christian and Muslim. The Eastern civilation arose on the Yangtze and Western civilisation arose on the Euphrates. What's happening in the ME for the past few centuries and the supposed "clash of civilisations" is a western civil war.

Does this disprove the idea of superior civilisations? No, otherwise all westerners would be looking to modern Greece for further cultural enlightenment.
 
Back
Top Bottom