Talk:Eurocentrism
Why I deleted Hex4's additions[edit]
The first paragraph seemed like a rambling discourse of odds and ends of late inter-war European history. The second one, concerning the Mongol Empire as the worlds largest is simply wrong, according to WP's List of largest empires
in which the British Empire tops the Mongol on all criteria except its proportion of world population. Also, the Mongol Empire is typically mentioned alongside the British when the discussion turns to the largest empires in world history, so the claim that it's overlooked is also wrong. Not to mention that these additions simply added yet more unsourced claims to an article already tagged with the "need more sources" template. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This is honestly the worst piece of social science research I have ever read. This is actually a great example of Eurocentrism, because one of the aspects of eurocentric discourse is ignoring or dismissing historical events. All you have to do to grasp the idea of Eurocentrism is to look at historical maps and the history of colonialism and racial epistemes.
I'm going to edit this when I have some time. I came here hoping to get an idea for an example for my exam, but now I get why my prof said not to try and rely on Wikipedia.
How is "Eurocentrism" different from "being European"?[edit]
|
Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead! |
Of course everybody has a point of view and unique way in which they see the world, past and present. People of European heritage would obviously see the world with a European point of view, because they're European. I see articles for Eurocentrism and Americentrism, but I don't see "Chinacentrism" or "Africacentrism" or anything else even though they, understandably, see and teach world history through their personal points of view. It's an odd phrase and yet the article is written pejoratively like there's something wrong with the very concept. — Unsigned, by: 2600:8807:5402:5900:9F9:DAD1:2215:C8EB / talk
- Afrocentrism is absolutely a concept, and the fact that you didn't even check before complaining that it was ignored. People tend to subscribe to it actively rather than unconsciously, because, and you may not know this, the European nations that colonized africa set school curricula and also taught a eurocentric view of history in Africa. ikanreed đBleat at me 21:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a concept this particular website cares to address and demean, which is ironic in itself. The article you linked laments the fact that African nations, now willingly accepting the education brought by Europeans, don't teach enough African history. They want to take the knowledge they've been given and shape it to be more Afrocentric, exactly as I said, because they're Africans. Want to make an article about the privileging and implicit superiority of African identity? — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- You know, going through your edit history your recent IP tried to defend the Christchurch shooter. Would you be the same person? âComrade GCâMinistry of Praise 23:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Why, are you a fan of ad hominem arguments? But no, in fact I called the Christchurch shooter crazy. I made a comment on the talk page that suppressing speech and making crazy people more desperate wasn't a good idea, and ironically my comment got reverted twice (on a talk page, who does that?) and then I got blocked temporarily for "edit warring." — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- Same person, gotcha. âComrade GCâMinistry of Praise 02:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Did you have anything you wanted to add to the discussion or did you just want to drop in, post a lie about me, and hope that would settle things somehow? — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I didn't lie about you. Tough shit if you don't like how I phrased your defense of a mass murder's actions. Anyway, I was just wondering, given that you seem to be trying to defend another... Problematic concept. âComrade GCâMinistry of Praise 02:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway, any commentary on THIS "problematic topic" and what makes it "problematic"? 98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- BoN claim: [Afrocentrism] is ânot a concept this particular website cares to address and demeanâ.
- Answer 1: If you want to create such an article, feel free to do so.
- Answer 2: Before you proceed with a new article, consider that while RW does indeed not have a separate article on Afrocentrism, it does contain one on black supremacy. This article even has a section on Afrocentrism that is not characterised by any particular reverence.
- For another example, see Hindutva for the particular Indian version and nationalist pseudohistory in general, although the various âcentrismsâ may have more to do with selective historical/geographical choices and omissions than out and out pseudohistory.
- In other words, BoN, what is your point, apart from a rather trite attempt at whataboutism and the fact that you apparently couldnât be bothered to check the black supremacy article that contains exactly the stuff you were asking for? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- My point wasn't that Afrocentrism was bad, it's that "centrism" itself isn't necessarily bad, but just the view and experience of the people in question, and for this article to write about it pejoratively without even making that point clear is needlessly hostile and dehumanizing. In particular, the line "Implicit in Eurocentric practice is the claim that European culture and peoples are superior to those of other continents" could be rewritten. — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- You've had the ability to sign your posts explained to you, use it. âComrade GCâMinistry of Praise 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- My point wasn't that Afrocentrism was bad, it's that "centrism" itself isn't necessarily bad, but just the view and experience of the people in question, and for this article to write about it pejoratively without even making that point clear is needlessly hostile and dehumanizing. In particular, the line "Implicit in Eurocentric practice is the claim that European culture and peoples are superior to those of other continents" could be rewritten. — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- Anyway, any commentary on THIS "problematic topic" and what makes it "problematic"? 98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
- Did you have anything you wanted to add to the discussion or did you just want to drop in, post a lie about me, and hope that would settle things somehow? — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- Same person, gotcha. âComrade GCâMinistry of Praise 02:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Why, are you a fan of ad hominem arguments? But no, in fact I called the Christchurch shooter crazy. I made a comment on the talk page that suppressing speech and making crazy people more desperate wasn't a good idea, and ironically my comment got reverted twice (on a talk page, who does that?) and then I got blocked temporarily for "edit warring." — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
- You know, going through your edit history your recent IP tried to defend the Christchurch shooter. Would you be the same person? âComrade GCâMinistry of Praise 23:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a concept this particular website cares to address and demean, which is ironic in itself. The article you linked laments the fact that African nations, now willingly accepting the education brought by Europeans, don't teach enough African history. They want to take the knowledge they've been given and shape it to be more Afrocentric, exactly as I said, because they're Africans. Want to make an article about the privileging and implicit superiority of African identity? — Unsigned, by: 98.164.67.223 / talk
(new comment by BoN that was put in the middle of the conversation that I put in the bottom of the page)
- You did lie though, because I didn't defend him or anything he did. I called him "a crazed individual." The only thing I defended was, as per the discussion that was already underway, the idea that you can allow people to read a crazy person's motivations and discuss them without hurting anyone, which is the rational thing to do when you want to 1) logically debunk the beliefs (which when you don't, cedes credibility) and 2) prevent more people from turning into crazy mass murderers who think they've stumbled upon "forbidden truths" that they only see violence as an outlet to express. In other words, fuck Brenton Tarrant but also fuck the cowardice of censoring any given idea because you're unwilling or unable to directly address it.
- Unable to take responsibility for your comments and unable to argue against mine, you resort to deleting my responses. Good show. 98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Get back on topic. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 04:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who took it off topic. I just defended myself and don't want to see the conversation edited to cut out my responses to leave the conversation at a claim that I support a mass shooter. What you've put out of place isn't "a new comment BoN that was put in the middle of the conversation," it's a response that kept getting deleted instead of responded to by the guy who initially started the off-topic accusation in the first place. I'm currently waiting on a response to my last on-topic comment, wondering if talk pages on this website are for improving articles or just traps to find dissenters to attack. --98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's still on you and GrammarCommie (who also went on that tangent) to redirect that conversation someone else. The part that started with "You did lie though" was put in the middle of the conversation when it's more appropriate to have all your responses in one new comment. Now, wait for a response on your last comment and if GrammarCommie brings up off-topic edit history again, then I'll tell him to knock it off. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- That part was posted directly after the "I didn't lie about you" comment by GrammarCommie, before ScepticWombat's comment, was deleted by GrammarCommie several times, and then re-inserted by me several times. It should be put back where it originally was, or ideally this whole off-topic tangent started by GrammarCommie should be deleted, and hopefully somebody can respond to my opener without dropping out after one dead-end comment or posting fallacious libel against me.--98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's still on you and GrammarCommie (who also went on that tangent) to redirect that conversation someone else. The part that started with "You did lie though" was put in the middle of the conversation when it's more appropriate to have all your responses in one new comment. Now, wait for a response on your last comment and if GrammarCommie brings up off-topic edit history again, then I'll tell him to knock it off. --It's-a me,
- I'm not the one who took it off topic. I just defended myself and don't want to see the conversation edited to cut out my responses to leave the conversation at a claim that I support a mass shooter. What you've put out of place isn't "a new comment BoN that was put in the middle of the conversation," it's a response that kept getting deleted instead of responded to by the guy who initially started the off-topic accusation in the first place. I'm currently waiting on a response to my last on-topic comment, wondering if talk pages on this website are for improving articles or just traps to find dissenters to attack. --98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Get back on topic. --It's-a me,
- Unable to take responsibility for your comments and unable to argue against mine, you resort to deleting my responses. Good show. 98.164.67.223 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You did lie though, because I didn't defend him or anything he did. I called him "a crazed individual." The only thing I defended was, as per the discussion that was already underway, the idea that you can allow people to read a crazy person's motivations and discuss them without hurting anyone, which is the rational thing to do when you want to 1) logically debunk the beliefs (which when you don't, cedes credibility) and 2) prevent more people from turning into crazy mass murderers who think they've stumbled upon "forbidden truths" that they only see violence as an outlet to express. In other words, fuck Brenton Tarrant but also fuck the cowardice of censoring any given idea because you're unwilling or unable to directly address it.
