« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
September 28, 2005
"Eurocentrism"
One of the readers of this blog and a good friend of mine, asked me to define "Eurocentism" following the previous post.
Okay, for starters, I am sure everyone is aware of the fact that Eurocentrism is a generic term that usually implies various things in different fields. As an example, allow me to quote the Wikipedia description of it here:
"Eurocentrism is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing emphasis on European (and, generally, Western) concerns, culture and values at the expense of those of other cultures. It is an instance of ethnocentrism, perhaps especially relevant because of its alignment with current and past real power structures in the world"
This is more or less also how I use the term. However, I learnt of the term and its use while studying for my masters at the LSE. In historiography, Eurocentrism has its own meaning, one that I will try to explain here.
Eurocentrism in historiography is the particular bias to consider everything only when they relate to Europe and its cultural extensions (the so called "West"). This means that history and its teaching is based around the European history, basically suggesting that history only matters when it connects to Europe.
In Eurocentric historiography, history starts with the supposed the ancestors of the European civilisation. Eurocentric historiography in its purest form is like a "westward Orient Express", starting in the Near East, continuing its way to Greece and Rome, further continuing to Western Europe and finally crossing the ocean to North America.
Terms associated with the teaching of history, those we use everyday and take for granted are essentially Eurocentric. "Ancient Times", "Classical Era", "The Medieval Ages", "The Renaissance" etc. are all refering to various eras of the European history. In many senses, the Chinese "Middle Ages" started a good 700 years before the European one. In the Near East, "feudalism" (a staple of the "Medieval Age") started 1000 years before it did in Europe. Our oldest records of settlement in Europe are from around the beginning of the common era, while we have written evidence from the Near Eastern civilisations from 3000 BCE. By the time Rome was founded, Mohenjudaro had passed its prime and was already an archaeological site.
In Eurocentric historiography, even geography reflects a certain bias: Near-, Middle-, and Far-East are all assuming that Europe is the center. Africa only matters when Europeans get to it, despite the fact that it is the place where human beings came from and should thus be the beginning of history. I don't think I need to go on the same way about the Americas.
So, in short, as far as history is concerned, Eurocentrism is the misconception that history is an essentially European thing and it can only be applied to other places when they come into contact with Europe. It is the bias that Europe wrote history, and it still continues to write other people's history as well.
Posted by Khodadad at 07:59 PM | Comments (5)
Selective History
It is interesting that the hype in the last few weeks about the cultural matters in Iran (Sivand Dam and the Exhibition in the British Museum) was all about the Achaemenid Empire (the one called the Peraian Empire by the Greeks). A few years ago, the now infamous "Mummified Queen" forgery was also an Achaemenid thing.
Seems like everyone is just interested in the Achaemenids. No one minds the defaming and abuses that is bestowed upon other eras of the Iranian history. Let's say, no one caught on the fact that in the USA Television Network's TV movie on Attila a few years back, the scene were the "Parthian" king wants to join the armies of Attila is quite stupid and historically impossible (Attila lived in the 5th century AD, the Parthians were removed from the Iranian throne in 226 AD!). No one seems to have cared about a similar incident in the BBC's "I, Claudius" series where Livia walks in and tells Augustus that the "Parthians" are requesting a statue of the Augustus to worship! Apart from the fact that Parthians had defeated the Romans a few years ago and killed their general Crassus in a famous battle, they were also a gigantic empire who was Rome's strongest and largest enemy. The whole scene was absurd, but no one wrote extensive articles about it then.
No one also seems to mind much about gross inaccuracies that are the norm in history textbooks in the colleges, particularly the ones about the Roman-Sasanian relations. Again, the Sasanians seem not to matter at all and no one gets offended about them. They are not the "Persian Empire". Many of my fellow Iranians might, however, be offended if I suggest that Eurocentrism is so strongly engrained in their subconscious that even their sensitivities towards their heritage is Eurocentric. People get offended over matters concerning the Persian Empire mainly because that is what the Western world has concentrated upon. I doubt if many Iranians know much about the Parthians and Sasanians at all!
P.S.: I am very busy: the classes are starting, I am TA-ing, I have to teach at Santa Monica College as well, my friends are back and we are catching up, and to top it all off, I dislocated my shoulder this past weekend and am basically living on painkillers now!!
Posted by Khodadad at 12:46 AM | Comments (1)
September 25, 2005
Car Accident
I always complain about car accidents and the chaotic way people drive in Iran. Everyone says that I am over sensitive and I exeggerate thing.
29 years ago, my father and my grandmother died in a car accident.
Yesterday, the brother of my good friend, Hamid Reza, also died in a car accident.
How many more deaths until people believe that they need to be more careful?
Posted by Khodadad at 12:31 AM | Comments (3)
September 21, 2005
Western Civilisation
I am again teaching two history classes at the Santa Monica College this semester. Like last year, I have been given the amazing and impossible task of teaching the history of the world from 3500 BCE to 1500 AD in eight weeks, and then use another eight weeks to teach the rest of it from 1500-present. Weird idea of dividing the history, isn't it? Anyway, I do things my own way by actually teaching the first class until 500 AD and then take the second one for teaching 500-1750. For the rest of it, they should come-up with a "contemporary events" class, and that is not my problem.
Last year, I used a standard "Western Civilisation" book to teach this. The book as usual devoted one single chapter to Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt and did not even bother mentioning the Hittites or the Mitanni. On the other hand, two chapters were devoted to Greeks and Romans, each! Well, these are the self-proclaimed ancestors of the "Western" civilisation, whatever that is!
So, in order to save myself from constant teeth grinding and anger, I decided to use a "World History" textbook. I was imagining that with the rise of World History as the standard introductory history class in colleges and all this new research and arguments about Eurocentrism, the book is going to be a better source and more balanced. Alas, the text book is basically your standard Western civilisation text book with four extra chapters in which the whole of the Indian, Chinese, "African" and "American" history are cramped. The majority of the work is devoted to Greece and Rome and Medieval Europe. Basically, it suggests that world history only matters when it comes to contact with Europe. 3000 years of ancient history is still put into one single chapter.
The Persian Empire is only mentioned when it comes to contact with Greece - and not a single map of it by the way although there are two maps of Alexander's empire. No mention of Indo-Europeans and their cultural traits. No mention that the Celtic people even existed. Russian history and the history of the Germanic tribes only come to play when the "civilised" Greeks or Romans come to contact with them. East Asia has been shortened to China. There is a single chapter on the history of Africa! Yes, the whole continent from which the human life originated!!
I guess despite all the new research and desperate attempts by people like James Blaut and Eric Wolf, nothing has changed. History is still the story of "Europe and the People Without History" and historiography is still based on "The Colonizers' Model of the World".
I am really losing patience here!
Posted by Khodadad at 11:27 PM | Comments (7)
September 17, 2005
Cyrus can rest in Peace
For anyone who might be interested in the whole Sivand Dam project controversy, here is a concise article from Dr. Ali Mousavi, an archaeologist who works on the site of Pasargadae.
I hope this calms some people down.
Posted by Khodadad at 12:56 AM | Comments (1)
September 16, 2005
Pictures
See my pictures from this Summer's trip here.
Posted by Khodadad at 04:16 PM | Comments (4)
September 15, 2005
Space
It's a good thing we have spaces between our words. Otherwise, mistakes could happen:
Have an ice day...
May I have a nice cream please?
How did the Romans manage? Latin words did not have any spaces.
Posted by Khodadad at 11:07 PM | Comments (4)
September 13, 2005
Forgotten Empire
This article is superb!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1564733,00.html#article_continue
I love how the writer has sarcasticly criticised the image of Ancient Persia in the Western sub-concious. His take on the matter is great, he has said it better than many academics. Notice these:
"For the Persians had the misfortune to be the others, the enemies - in short, the Orientals - against whom the first European civilisation defined itself."
"All western political theory is implicitly defined against the ghost of Persia - from condemnations of "tyrants" in the Atlantic republican tradition to Marx's caricature of "oriental despotism". "
Great statements!
Posted by Khodadad at 03:04 PM | Comments (2)
September 08, 2005
Damage Control!
Bush signs $51.8 bln storm relief bill
Translation: we screwed up, we ignored calls for help, we appointed an imbicile to head the Federal emergency response body, but hey, no problem, we give some money, and all should be okay? Right?
Posted by Khodadad at 07:29 PM | Comments (2)