Talk:Eurocentrism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

European Exceptionalism section

I think the European exceptionalism section needs a huge rework, or at least a trimming. Most of this section doesn't actually contribute to a reader's understanding of Eurocentrism. It's mostly just quoting sources that talk uncritically about "European Exceptionalism" without discussing how it relates to Eurocentrism. I Feel Tired (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

An understanding of European Exceptionalism is votal to an understanding of Eurocentrism. Please do not make any changes without having a consensus to do so from the editors on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but the "European Exceptionalism" section of the article doesn't really contribute to a good understanding of European Exceptionalism. Most of that section is dedicated to either quoting or summarizing various authors' European Exceptionalist views. There's very little material actually analyzing it, looking at it critically, or putting it in a greater context. Charitably, you could say the section spends eight paragraphs establishing that there were authors who held who held European Exceptionalist views. Less charitably, you could say the section tries to justify those views by refusing to engage with them in a critical way. The section could easily take several major cuts while still contributing to the overall article. Without cuts, I would say it needs a major rework to make its contents flow better and actually put it in context. I Feel Tired (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If no one objects, I propose we trim down the section. I would say we cut out the passages on Johann Heinrich Zedler, the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Max Weber. None of those passages critically analyze Eurocentrism or the idea of European exceptionalism. I also propose we edit the paragraphs beginning "European exceptionalism thus grew out of" and "The European miracle, a term coined by Eric Jones in 1981" to make them more cohesive and tie them better into the overall narrative of the section. Does anyone have any other suggestions? I Feel Tired (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So your suggestion is to make all the changes you complained about with your first comment, for which you have no consensus. No, I object, and will restore those changes if you make them, as edits made without a consensus to do so. I suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get consensus. Why don't you like those suggestions? I Feel Tired (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read my first comment? That. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I did. And it doesn't really address any of the things I've brought up. The European Exceptionalism section doesn't critically address or analyze the ideas of European exceptionalism. It doesn't frame how ideas of European exceptionalism contribute to Eurocentrism. It's structured in such a way that it reads like several unconnected ideas, none of which connect to the others. Because the ideas are largely from European authors trying to justify their own superiority, and are presented without comment or analysis, the section seems to be implicitly agreeing with them.

I think it needs to be improved, and would love to work with some of the other editors of this page to improve it. So, why do you disagree? I Feel Tired (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've explained that, and you've ignored it, so I won't bother explaining again. WP:DROPTHESTICK, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You haven't! All you did was say "An understanding of European Exceptionalism is votal to an understanding of Eurocentrism." And I don't disagree! But I think the section doesn't actually contribute to the reader's understanding of European Exceptionalism. I want to improve it, but you haven't actually replied to the points I've made at all. All you've tried to do is shut down discussion and obstruct any attempt at change. I Feel Tired (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please take a close look at this discussion. Has anyone come along to agree with your position? No, nobody has, you are the only editor arguing for your stance. There is no WP:CONSENSUS here. Please do not institute disputed changes to the article when there is no consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No one has come to agree with you either. Since we can't seem to come to a compromise, I've submitted a request for a third opinion. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I don't think it's appropriate to frame this section (and much less the entire article) with a "Boasian"-style critical narrative. The reader can make up their own mind. While I think most editors would do well to exercise their critical thinking skills on talk pages and in general, no article should read like an editorial or narrative. AP295 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC) AP295 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: While I agree that those changes should not be made, your replies are a bit curt. A more thoughtful discussion would likely be appreciated. AP295 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Eurocentrists had their best times - the world doesn't sleep and changes constantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.168.158 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Eurocentrism in the historiography of the French Revolution

I have opened a topic on the Eurocentrism of Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia#Eurocentrism_on_Wikipedia

Eurocentrism is the way in which the historiography of the French Revolution has been written.

Robert R. Palmer's conception of Western history, for example, with the American and French Revolutions presented as the two most important events leading to modernity, has been considered by David Armitage to be “guilty of almost every current scholarly sin—Eurocentrism, essentialism, teleology, diffusionism...” (Foreword to The Age of the Democratic Revolution) Wordyhs (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

And I removed your thread as being off topic for that talk page. Meters (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

South Korean Beauty Standards

There is no reason for the paragraph on South Korea to be included in this article. The paragraph starts off by pointing out that South Korean beauty standards are not based on Caucasians, then states some completely irrelevant factoids about South Korean plastic surgery. This leaves the reader wondering why the paragraph is in this article to begin with.

The idea that South Korean beauty standards are based on Caucasians is itself a very Eurocentric viewpoint that is overwhelmingly rejected in Asia and outside the West. Even in the West, most people immediately recognize that South Korean celebrities obviously don't look European. The idea that South Korean celebrities look European isn't a view that exists due to observations of reality, it's more of a view that exists because some people desire it to be true for different reasons. If this paragraph was ironically trying to argue that Eurocentric view originally, it has been debunked already in this article. There seems to be no reason for the paragraph to still exist. Biosaurt (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This article should highlight how wikipedia is wallowing in eurocentricism

Yes, wikipedia is free and is helping many thruout the world, but its mostly an anglophone world undertaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree - and actually, that is acknowledged on Wikipedia itself - Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#English-speaking_editors_from_Anglophone_countries_dominate , and discussed in this article Criticism_of_Wikipedia#American_and_corporate_bias. But I think it might make sense to point it out here as well. There is the danger though, of pointing at Wikipedia too much in articles here at the Wikipedia - that is not what you would expect of an Encyclopedia (that is - the Encyclopedia Britannica did not point out things about itself, say in its article on "books"). Sean Heron (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica did not point out things about itself because it was of limited size. Wikipedia has numerous articles that refer to Wikipedia as well as several dozen articles about various aspects of Wikipedia (listed at Category:Wikipedia).

The problem here is original research. Wikipedia reports only what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Your observations and opinions do not belong in articles. In order for this article to discuss Wikipedia, we would need independent reliable sources about Eurocentrism that discuss Wikipedia.

Sources about Wikipedia that discuss Eurocentrism would belong in Wikipedia and/or Criticism of Wikipedia and/or Academic studies about Wikipedia and/or List of Wikipedia controversies and/or one or more of the articles in Category:Critics of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia controversies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The current section on "Eurocentrism in Wikipedia" cited two sources (Hube and Samoilenko) without any bibliographical details. I have just expanded these to proper citations. Samoilenko turned out to be merely a PhD thesis. However, as the same author has published other peer-reviewed articles about Wikipedia, I suppose the thesis may be OK to cite here per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Muzilon (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

More Bias

Interestingly enough, Afrocentricism, although nowhere near as damaging to the world's society as Eurocentricism has been, has been posted with more criticism than this article. I post valid critical response into the article and ALL of it is deleted. So it seems that criticism of Afrocentricism is permitted where it interferes with sound objective educational development, but criticism of Eurocentricism is avoided even though it has interfered with life libertiy and self determination, caused slavery, oligarchies, and racial division.

Another more offensive tradition in Eurocentric discourse and scholarship is for Eurocentric minded scholars to take a "European by default" approach to discussing the history of any mixed culture or ancient civilization that could possibly have had contact with European oriented peoples. By assuming that contact was made in antiquity, the Eurocentric scholar will assert that the culture or civilization was by default "European" or "Caucasoid" in antiquity, and that these characteristics were the foundations that caused civilizations like Egypt, Ethiopia, Israel, and many East Indian civilizations to flourish in history. Usually the tradition will assert a condition in stating that de-empathizes or minimizes the non-European influence by using words like "although" and "however" after facts had shown that subject matter in question is not European in nature. This conditioning is done to harmonize the psychological need of the Eurocentric minded to lay claim to everything meaningful in history. Most notably is the need to lay claim to the Biblical and ancient Egyptian histories that are in fact not Eurocentric histories.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.174.148 (Talk) (talk • contribs) .

I don't know why your additions were deleted but since you are anonymous, no one els is going to object......--AssegaiAli 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because Eurocentrism is actually justified on a certain level. You can't deny that the Europeans were largely responsible for what the world as it is now. On the other hand, Afrocentrism has no justification. It seemed to be more likely to be more motivated by racism than anything historical. 67.85.190.202 (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No they are not responsible at all and that is the point. Your Eurocentric teachings believe that they are. The countless distortions by Eurocentrics and the harm caused is nowhere near Afrocentrism. Eurocentrism only justification was to cause harm and suppress history 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:B0C5:2131:7EEF:380A (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe your arguement about Afrocentricism not being justified would be valid if Eurocentrism was not the direct cause of Afrocentrism existing in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.59 (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the comment by the IP two posts up, have you taken a look at some of Europe's former colonies? They're not doing so great. Taking pride in responsibility for the way the world is now isn't something I would profess. Nor can Europeans claim all of the technology they utilized as uniquely theirs. Mathematics, astronomy, and most other "European" sciences were imported from the Muslim world. Gunpowder was invented in China, which also professed advanced naval technology.Many of the indigenous cultures of Africa and the Americas were also quite sophisticated prior to the onset of colonialism. Take a look at the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, Ashanti, Mali Empire, and Kingdom of Kongo for just a few civilizations that were doing just fine before white people showed up to "save them" with modernization. Snickeringshadow (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Maya were doing fine that's rather strange, since Mayan civilisation was extinct. The Aztecs were doing fine systematically despoiling and murdering their neighbours. In fact modern mathematics and astronomy are almost wholly European developments. No one denies that some of the basic ideas and technologies had developed elsewhere. So what? No one claims that Europeans invented everything. No one ever has. As for "Europe's former colonies" some are douing great and some aren't. Has it occurred to you that America and India are both former colonies? Paul B (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Maya weren't "extinct", they were still around at the conquest. Their collapse after the classic period applied to a specific geographic region. The last maya city didn't fall until over 100 years after the Aztecs, and their descendants are still alive today. I think you're presenting a rather overly-simplistic view of things that could be countered by a more comprehensive explanation of the region's history. This book does a really good job of explaining what the New World was like before Europeans arrived. As for India and the US, the extreme poverty that exists in India today was not generally present before Europeans arrived; their economy was forcefully reworked to primarily export raw materials to England (Indians were forbidden by law to manufacture their own textiles). The Native Americans that used to live in the US are almost completely gone except for a few reservations. Colonialism has not been 'good' for these people. I'm not arguing that Europeans stole most of the technologies that they used. Clearly that isn't true. I was specifically responding to the claim that Eurocentrism is "justified". By definition, eurocentrism ignores the achievements of other cultures and presents european military expansion towards the rest of the world in an apologetic light. Now regardless of your position (or mine for that matter), arguing against the existence of a criticism section in an article because it's subject matter is "justified" is just plain silly. This is something that is heavily criticized in real life, and the article should explain that. Snickeringshadow (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

IT SHOULD BE ADDED: that Eurocentrism also seeks to justify white history and present europeans as friends instead of enemies to other cultures. It also tends to attempt to sanitize history so that white children will not be filled with horror and remorse, such as in the disney movie pocohontas. There is no tradition in which what white people did was forgivable, but eurocentrism seeks to twist facts around. 01000100 14:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckeggsoup (talk • contribs)

Rewriting the article or creating a new - Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Eurole

The article in the present form is confusing. Europocentrism is treated throughout the article as colonial and dominating other parts of the world. It clearly means Western Europe. It cannot mean Central Europe or Eastern Europe. I don't understand how a Czech, a Belarusian, a Montenegrian or a Serbian can be put into the same category of colonising and dominating powers of Eurocentrism. Itself it is racist and mmm Eurocentric - Western-Centric towards non-Western parts of Europe. 45.93.75.81 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Misleading NPOV

Eurocentrism is the dominant point of view on Wikipedia, in particular the English Wikipedia.

The above was removed from the article on 13 February 2024. See edit 1206872510. The rationale was given:

In the context of this article, "Eurocentrism" is defined as the belief that European cultures are superior to non-European ones, and that western imperialism is justified on the basis of the inferiority of the latter. That as not the same thing as Hube's "pro-western bias" (he never says Eurocentrism), and Samoilenko uses the term "Eurocentric bias" (page 6) to refer to the numeric under-representstion of non-European topics on Wikipedia. Not cultural bias.

On 26 April 2024, Myconix restored the contested content. See edit 1220918775. The rationale was given:

WP:GOODFAITH, but it seems to me that this edit is selecting a very narrow definition of "Eurocentrism" that excludes these accusations of bias

I disagree. The WP:SCOPE of this article is clearly about Eurocentrism in the form of European cultural or historical supremacy. The sources that Myconix has restored do not argue that this is the main viewpoint on Wikipedia. Samoilenko (p. 6) says that there is an under-representation of non-Western content on the English Wikipedia; a phenomenon he refers to as "Eurocentrism" -- but this is his own irregular parlance. This is clearly not the common understanding of the term as reflected by the sources.

Hube does not even use the word "Eurocentrism" but rather "pro-Western bias"; which is not necessarily the same thing as Eurocentrism.

This content misleads the reader in to assuming that Wikipedia's POV is Eurocentric in the sense that it assumes or promotes European supremacy. That is not what these authors argue, and it is not a mainstream idea, either.

Wikipedia has been analyzed over and over again by respectable sources for bias. None of thess sources have identified a Eurocentric bias. They have identified gender bias, for example. But not a dominant Eurocentric viewpoint. If this were the case, one would be able to cite more prominent, peer-reviewed sources to support this notion. Instead, this is a mis-representation of a conference essay and a university thesis.

Per WP:SCOPE, WP:NPOV, the best course of action to my mind is to relocate this content to the more general scope of ideological bias on wikipedia. 2600:100C:B024:227D:5D60:7D45:783E:9415 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References

"Islamic world" section needs a rewrite

As written, this section is difficult to comprehend, being full of misused words, ungrammatical constructions, and unnecessarily complex sentence structures. One recent IP editor, upon trying to read it, could only say "HUH?!" and I think that accurately summarizes its current encyclopedic value. According to the article history, this section was expressly written for a college undergraduate's assignment in November 2019 and, aside from the deletion of a paragraph, has not been rewritten since. However, although their execution was poor, the student was honestly attempting to summarize and synthesize information from scholarly sources, so it should be possible to recover much of the passage's intended meaning by reference:

• Amin, Samir (1989). Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press. pp. 124–125. ISBN 9781583672075. (Samir Amin on Wikipedia)
• Burney, Shehla (2012). "Erasing Eurocentrism: Using the Other as the Supplement of Knowledge". PEDAGOGY of the Other: Edward Said, Postcolonial Theory, and Strategies for Critique. 417: 143 – via JSTOR.
• Heraclides, Alexis (2015). Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century: Setting the Precedent. Manchester, United Kingdom: Manchester University Press. pp. 31, 37. ISBN 9781526133823. (Alexis Heraclides on Wikipedia)
• Said, Edward (2000). Orientalism. New York, New York: New York University Press. pp. 111–112. ISBN 9780394740676. (Edward Said on Wikipedia)
• Lockman, Zachary (2009). Contending Visions of the Middle East: the History and Politics of Orientalism. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780521133074.

Huntthetroll (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)