Kasz216 said:
tarheel91 said:
Kasz216 said:
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.
|
I think you're misunderstanding the point of this thread. It's the 10 greatest figures, not the 10 most influential figures on our time. I'd argue that the developments within one of the largest empires of all time are plenty relevant, even if their influence isn't entirely felt during our time.
Even if we are talking about influece during our time, Eastern history plays a profound role in over 4 billion people's lives today. Plus, as I pointed out, China is responsible for many of the world's inventions, inventions that weren't usually also invented by Westerns, but instead taken from the East to the West.
|
I don't see the difference. Greatness I would think would be measured by effect on the world.
|
Funny, to me greatness is seeking truth and making discoveries that will assist our species in the long term, hence my focus on Eisstein, etc. Hitler had huge effect on the world, but I wouldn't see that as a positive influence nor great nor infact anything significant long term.
Also, long term, say 10,000 years in the future, figures like Hitler, etc. will be very vague in history, just another major conflict of many as will many figures I think it's tempting to see as important now. Of crouse, it's human nature to think focused to our own time and knowledge, we only live around 80 years if lucky and in the right country.
BTW I liked your points earlier on East vs West. I think it's quite correct that overall Eastern influence was limited due to aspects of their society and expansion policies vs say the West which, emerged massively influential on the back of an almost perfect storm marrying thoery with technological capability in a way never seen before in history.
I'm not sure we (that's the Royal We of course) made the best of the opportunity to radically change the world for the better, but it did ensure the influence was massive and pervasive.
