tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
| Snipped out to make shorter. |
Because stuff only happened in the West, right? Whatever happened in the East isn't really relevant?
No, they didn't all have to be "reinvented" in the West. A lot of them were simply taken by European explorers back to the West.
Most application, or most application that you're aware of? How much do you actually know about Eastern history? Up until the Renaissance, China was easily the most technologically advanced country in the world. From 2000 BC to ~1400 AD they really were unrivaled in terms of progression as a civilization.
Again, honestly, how much do you actually know about Eastern history? A lot of people unconsciously assume that because they don't know of anything that happened there, nothing really did. Sure, they know there were some emperors and such, whether it be China, Korea, Japan, or some other nation, but they see it as some land off to the side that really wasn't relevant. That's only because they only care about Western history. They falsely assume that because the West dominates today (something that could easily change in the next half century), they have always dominated. Only their progression was relevant to world history. That's simply not true.
I'm not trying to ridicule you or anything; it's just that often times we mistakenly assume something doesn't exist when we simply don't know about it.
|
I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about eastern history then you do.
I'm actually quite knowledgable about eastern history.
The east never "dominated" the world. When the east was superior it was nice enough to mostly keep it to themselves and didn't reign bullshit down opon the rest of the world like the West and colonialziation. There was some trade, but that was pretty much it.
As such, they ever really had quite the impact or influence the west did on the ENTIRE world.
It's not that east's progression wasn't revelant to world history. It's just not AS relevent.
|
Where did I say they dominated the world? The East and the West are called such because they remained generally isolated until the age of exploration and imperialism. The West never dominated the world until the 1800's. 200 years of domination doesn't justify downplaying the other half of the world's technical and civil superiority for almost 3500 years.
|
Sure it does. Because that 200 years of domination is has been the 200 years the world has shrank.
The east's "superiority" of the west was meaningless on the "whole" world stage because it pretty much never effected the west, nor africa, nor native Americans.
The Chinese superiority only mattered for 1/4th the world cultures.
Europeon Colonialsm effected the entire world. The eastern supreirority really only mostly mattered, for the east.
The last 200 years + combined with what put the west in position for the last 200+ effected the entire world more.
The last 200 years does downplay the first 3,500, because the first 3,500 weren't global effecting events.
If/when China takes the mainstage and starts dominating... then we can talk.
Until then... to use a more extreme example, it'd be like if we discovered the Incan's developed an anti-aging machine. It's the greatest invention ever, but it's effects only effected the Incans... who were then mostly wiped out.
