To be honest, though many historians today might disagree, I still think there is something we can call “Western Civilization,” even if it is a vague family of things that cannot be strictly defined. I know they are trying to correct for certain harmful attitudes out there, but articles like these feel to me to put the social message above all.
It is especially when a certain perceived problematic attitude is the focus, without much actual teaching the wider history, that leaves me feeling disappointed. I think teaching the complete history is a far better antidote than emphasizing a bad trend. Like I’ve read many articles accusing the brothers Grimm of being masculinist, but rarely will those same articles attempt to educate the reader of the Baroness D’Aulnoy, who coined the very term fairy tale!
The ancient world was indeed complicated and interconnected, rich in so many cultures and peoples and stories. We should talk more about these other civilizations! The Phoenicians, the Celts, the Chaldeans, Akkadians, Seleucids, Numidians—-those are just a few from “the
West”, around the world offers an even broader view. There is so much more to wonder at, it is a shame that the discourse has the toxic backdrop it does.
> I still think there is something we can call “Western Civilization"
This is perhaps the least controversial statement in history. It's obviously true. Western Civilization is:
1) Greece
2) Rome, borrowing from the Greeks
3) Christianity taking over Rome
4) Germanic tribes adopting Roman law + the Christian religion
5) Protestantism
6) The Renaissance
7) The Enlightenment
You can read Plato, and it all makes sense to you, but a lot of contemporaneous Asian sources would be quite alien.
As someone from a non-western country, it's immediately obvious to me that, e.g., the bible thumper in Alabama and atheist in San Francisco have a shared vocabulary arising from western civilization that's quite distinct from what my mom and aunts raised in a Muslim asian country have. (I'm often shocked at the degree to which putative atheists in America are basically Christians under the hood without realizing it. Also, the degree to which putative Catholics in the U.S. are basically Protestants, and many putative Muslims in the U.S. as well.)
I'm not widely read in history (though I've been improving of late), but for what it's worth, my favorite book on history "beyond Greece and Rome" so far has been Charles C. Mann's 1491. In fact, it's one of the best and most illuminating books I've read, period.
It has about the information/idea density of a Neal Stephenson novel (a good one), and is about equally a pageturner.
I've also adored all of Jimmy Maher's (better known as The Digital Antiquarian) amateur history books, his Wonders of the World series - I think the one on Chinese history was especially ambitious and nice.
I enjoyed Toby Wilkinson's The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, but it's a bit one-note; still looking for the Egyptian history book I'll fall in love with, though as as a general map it's quite good.
There tends to be a knee-jerk reaction from the Western world anytime South Asians even try to say that they had grand civilisations. I see an onslaught of comments about their current economic conditions and how a call centre agent having a "bad" accent means that South Asians deserve to be criticised for every little thing.
as a ~~south asian~~ (stupid label) Indian, some knee-jerk reaction is justified because people tend to believe in exaggerated time scales (for instance, based on projected dates of astronomical events in the Hindu Epics, which predates the bronze age and the war chariot), whereas the westerners don't have a religious attachment and speak a realistic timeline for Homeric epics.
If we are speaking of the classical times: yes, India was on-par with the greco-roman and chinese world; left a cultural imprint on east and south-east asia and traded with the western world too. But the rise of pacifist religions, being in a nice position to be attacked from central asia, and internal strifes basically rendered it useless in the last millenium. Huge population, uncontrolled urbanization and a corrupt education system is the bane of this century. If we don't solve that, no amount of classical civilization is going to help. Germanic people were considered primitive by the greeks and romans, now look where they are!
I can understand some push-back from other countries, especially when the right-wing tends to embarrassingly parade past achievements as a way to suppress criticism of current conditions, but at the moment the sheer hatred and poison have blown way past what is understandable.
Oh we have some westerners who believe that the world is 6000 years old due to a particular combination of interpretations of circumstances in the Bible.
You might be overgeneralising just a little bit here as outside the US and the UK, I think few people in the Western world care about the accent of Indians when they speak English, and are not exposed to their call centers anyway.
I think most people are somewhat aware of the civilisations that occurred there.
There is this anguish to define the "West" as a real entity, while it's not. There are lots of histories, and they don't taste well when mixed into a salad. Saying that there is a "global history" is like saying that time exists, and it s more of an ideological narrative than anything useful.
> There is this anguish to define the "West" as a real entity, while it's not.
The West is the Latin Church. From the Latin Church came the Protestants. From that West meant and means anything influenced by or in protest of the Latin Church in Europe and its colonies. Very easy to understand, makes less of a difference today than it might have 100 years ago but to pretend it's hard to define or not a real thing isn't serious.
There's also an incredibly powerful urge to take our worldview and overlay it on the past - for example, assuming that Westphalian states are how the world has always operated.
It is especially when a certain perceived problematic attitude is the focus, without much actual teaching the wider history, that leaves me feeling disappointed. I think teaching the complete history is a far better antidote than emphasizing a bad trend. Like I’ve read many articles accusing the brothers Grimm of being masculinist, but rarely will those same articles attempt to educate the reader of the Baroness D’Aulnoy, who coined the very term fairy tale!
The ancient world was indeed complicated and interconnected, rich in so many cultures and peoples and stories. We should talk more about these other civilizations! The Phoenicians, the Celts, the Chaldeans, Akkadians, Seleucids, Numidians—-those are just a few from “the West”, around the world offers an even broader view. There is so much more to wonder at, it is a shame that the discourse has the toxic backdrop it does.