Why is history Eurocentric?
Why is history Eurocentric?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Why is history Eurocentric?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Because europe was revolutioning the world with trains, steam engines, electricity and computers while the rest of retards were trapped in medieval mud favela fighting
Everything important and noteworthy happened there.
Meant this post to be a reply to OP
Did Europe even invent anything except trains? America has been carrying the white race for centuries now.
The computer
The internet
The rifle
The computer is american invented
>inb4 muh leibniz and turing
Cope
No, sir. Computer was invented in India, sir.
Europeans invented exactly zero of these. Carried by Americans all the way.
History is a narrative. I'm pretty sure chinese, americans, persians and etc have their own narrative and everything european is secondary or irrelevant until the XX century or so. Europe is probably the only one that doesn't have a self-centered narrative of History, or at least not to the degree others have.
>Europe is probably the only one that doesn't have a self-centered narrative of History, or at least not to the degree others have.
Lmao fucking retard
We civilized the world. There wasn't a single country in the world that didn't go through regular food shortages and rape epidemics until we got there. We gave them agriculture, clothing, laws. What more do you want?
Europeans were (and still are) autists obsessed with record-keeping
This. The only other autists that rival is white folk is the Japanese who kept a similar detailed record of their history you can learn a bunch about Heidiyoshi and the Tokugawa shogunate in a way you can't about Chinese history.
Chinese history is all written like the Illiad or the Aeneid it's full of bullshit like a general flying over his troops on a horse and shitting out sprinkles that made them all fight better and shit. It's hard to really grasp
>t.weeb
>Um um um japanese people are white and uh uh
You will never have sex with a Japanese woman. Japanese people will never accept you as their equal.
>You will never have sex with a Japanese woman.
Already have.
>Japanese people will never accept you as their equal
Not my problem.
Pics or it didn't happen.
A lot of Chinese history is permanently lost due to Mao's sperg rage
Otherwise, yeah its often unbelievably vague; you see the same thing with India which is probably the worst offender in having horribly innacurate and fantastical "historical records".
Middle east also definitely rivals Europe in record-keeping, idk about Japan though.
>You can learn a bunch about Heidiyoshi and the Tokugawa shogunate in a way you can't about Chinese history.
It has nothing to do with superior record keeping, it's literally just that only 0.0001% of the Chinese historical corpus has even started being translated. The equivalent era of Tokugawa Japan, Qing China, is incredibly well documented in particular thanks to mass literacy and printing. It's just none of that is available in English yet.
For that matter Japanese translations are about as poor, I doubt even 1% of Japanese books are translated.
What would they even write about? It's not as if Chinks have any history of their own.
Weeb got btfo lmao
>The Siku Quanshu, variously translated as the Complete Library in Four Sections, Imperial Collection of Four, Emperor's Four Treasuries, Complete Library in Four Branches of Literature or Complete Library of the Four Treasuries, was the largest collection of books in Chinese history with 36,381 volumes (册,Cè), 79,337 volumes (卷,Juǎn), 2.3 million pages and about 997 million words.[1] The complete encyclopedia contains an annotated catalogue of 10,680 titles along with a compendiums of 3,593 titles.[2] The Siku Quanshu ended up even longer than the Ming dynasty's Yongle Encyclopedia of 1403, which had been China's largest encyclopedia until then. A complete copy of the Siku Quanshu are held with each of the following: the National Library of China in Beijing, the National Palace Museum in Taipei, the Gansu Library in Lanzhou, and the Zhejiang Library in Hangzhou.
>The Gujin Tushu Jicheng ('Complete Collection of Illustrations and Writings from the Earliest to Current Times'), also known as the Imperial Encyclopaedia, is a vast encyclopedic work written in China during the reigns of the Qing dynasty emperors Kangxi and Yongzheng. It was begun in 1700 and completed in 1725.
>The encyclopaedia contained 10,000 volumes. Sixty-four imprints were made of the first edition, known as the Wu-ying Hall edition. The encyclopaedia consisted of 6 series, 32 divisions, and 6,117 sections.[2] It contained 800,000 pages and over 100 million Chinese characters, making it the largest leishu ever printed. Topics covered included natural phenomena, geography, history, literature and government. The work was printed in 1726 using copper movable type printing. It spanned around 10 thousand rolls (卷). To illustrate the huge size of the Gujin Tushu Jicheng, it is estimated to have contained 3 to 4 times the amount of material in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.[3]
Both of these are available to read in Chinese even on wikisource.
>encyclopedia
>just random lists
>some documents
You're just proving that Chinks can't into civilization or technology.
Your mind can't even comprehend the scale of "2.3 million pages and about 997 million words" apparently.
2.3 million pages of Shushu owned this piece of land. Kaokao owned this many cows. Pingpong did this many rapes. How is that impressive?
Administrative records were a totally separate library, actually.
So what'd they write in there, retard? You're saying it's multiple times the size of Brittanica. So, they had more knowledge then than we do now? How gullible are you that you swallowed these Chink lies?
You can literally read it for yourself, it's online like most major public domain texts.
Why don't you tell me what's in it instead of coping on behalf of Chinks?
Suprisingly history isn't Eurocentric outside Europe.
it is literally the same everywhere
prehistory: ooga booga
late bronze age (old world): indo-european pastoralists invade
up to 1500: farm, warlords fight each other until there is 1 top dog, build big temples, randomly stumble across an invention or 2 like gunpowder or a better saddle, but no extensive scientific revolution like the Greeks or the renaissance with pivotal discoveries made in quick succession
1500: heckin' european imperialism and colonialism
20th century: decolonize and become westernized
Largely this. European invention is the basis for every first and second and even third world countries.
Venezuela, Nigeria, The Congo, India, Bangladesh, etcetera. None function without combustion engines, modern textiles, industrial farming, and many other facets of life that were either invented or utterly revolutionized by European inventions.
To be considered a power at all, one has to rise to the standard that was set by European nations living standards and economic output, which many nations fail utterly at causing ecological disasters, civil strife, and erasure of culture in the pursuit of a higher White-level GDP and standard of living.
Westernization really is the ultimate representation of the superiority of the European peoples; because while countries may want racial independence or institutional independence from European influences, they will take and adopt every shred of European creation they can in their own attempt to surpass the bar set by Europeans.
This is why "China/India/Rwanda SuPERpower by 2030"!!!!! is such a big deal to nonwhites in internet debates, it's because they know they haven't passed the bar that whites didn't even intend to set.
Isn’t China already a superpower
Yes but they're really struggling to maintain their fleets and the new carriers, destroyers, and aircraft they're making typically doesn't pass the set-sail-for-a-week or flying tests.
It wasn't that long ago India AND China lost a nuclear sub or two because of dumb engineering mistakes like accidentally flushing the toilet that wasn't designed to flush underwater like every other submarine since 1915 has been.
China also depends heavily on Coal to supply most people with heat whereas places like Germany and France(which are arguably second world countries now given their totalitarian regimes and shithole status) can actually operate and maintain nuclear reactors despite being too retarded to remember that Nuclear is the greenest energy.
China is not a rich country in per capita terms. It's more like Romania with a lot more people.
Cringe. Early advances came from the countries that industrialized earlier. Later advances came from the countries that industrialized later. The countries that adopted farming first also have most of the advances in farming.
The US was backward when the UK and France were scientific powerhouses, but later the US completely overshadowed both. So did the Soviet Union when they had the resources and will to do so. Not to mention Japan and more recently China. Poland will become more relevant now, while most of the European Balkans is still irrelevant.
Most of the countries that don't have contributions don't because they focus on exports to rapidly develop their economy instead of investing in novel technology. Why reinvent the wheel?
Protagonists
Aryans
Industrial revolution
why only europans complain about history being eurocentric?
Because european/western history is Kino
When you read from the Greeks/Romans to the 19 century, there is a beautiful sensation like a well written history
I'm Chinese and we don't really study anything about European history.
When Europeans want to learn history, they mostly want to learn their history.
When Chinese want to learn history, they mostly want to learn their history.
Because whites literally buck broke every single place on earth.
Cuz whites are the only humans to actually build and then keep building new and impressive shit. They literally split the atom, created biological diseases, built weapons capable of destroying the earth, left the planet, etc…
At this point whites are literally gods.
white man is the protagonist of history, duh.
because europe conquered the world duh
Because Europe is the most important continent in the past 1000 years. Have you ever read a Bronze Age textbook that was Eurocentric?
Even 1000 years would be stretching it. Let's say from the 1700s onwards.
Perhaps we can meet in the middle at 1500 AD. Beginning of the early modern era and colonialism.
That's when the seeds were sown. But dominance came later with improvements in naval technology leading to the colonial era and the invention of the steam engine leading to industrialization.
the brits were colonizing you well before the steam engine lmaooooo
I'm the guy you replied to. I said DOMINANCE began with the steam engine. Colonizing empty land in Australia and setting up trading outposts isn't dominance.
So who had this dominance before Europe?
Who deserves to have their history taught to the rest of the global population instead?
Come on don't be shy tell us all the stories of the great civilization that had "dominance" by your standards over the world prior to Europe?
Most of the world learns their entire history. Foreigners are seen entirely through the lens of their own history.
This is similar to asking what religion should be taught. Everyone will learn their own religion. History lays the foundation for political discourse and this foreign history is largely irrelevant.
Also, nobody had dominance over the world before Europe. The technology or impetus to be global didn't even exist until recently.
It's a function of population density. Europeans were the first to achieve significant population densities on a widespread scale. Just look at what the most populated countries were in the 1800s. Consider what the size of the average European country is and you'll realize Europe had population densities many times the global average. Individual European countries had higher populations than all of Africa.
>Europeans were the first to achieve significant population densities on a widespread scale.
Bullshit
China is around the same size as Europe and has always had a significantly higher population.
India is much smaller than Europe and has also had a higher population for most of history.
If anything dense populations were a problem for Europe until recently.
Rome for example relied on North African provinces for food to feed their dense urban population and in the Middle Ages it took the invention of a heavy plow pulled by 8 oxen in order for population density in central and northern Europe to be large enough to be considered urban
China was also more advanced than most of Europe for most of history. They just focused on land based empires to the West just as Russians did with Siberia. Hence, little naval technology.
I'm Canadian so you're technically correct.
>China was also more advanced than most of Europe for most of history. They just focused on land based empires to the West just as Russians did with Siberia. Hence, little naval technology.
Then why are you claiming Europe to have an intrinsic advantage (population density) over the rest of the world that allowed them to be successful when you know that they didn't?
It's not a one-factor explanation for every single historical occurrence ever. Europe had multiple states with widely variant standards of performance. China was one state with one standard of performance. Poor management was the issue here, not the density. China could also simply expand West instead of bothering with setting out to the Americas. Naval technology associated with colonialism was a primary driver of most European progress just as air power will be the driver of the next global empire. Fingers-crossed for China for obvious reasons.
>It's not a one-factor explanation for every single historical occurrence ever.
That's what it sounded like to me.
>It's a function of population density.
>China could also simply expand West instead of bothering with setting out to the Americas.
You say that as if it was a choice the Chinese made. They thought the world was flat and that china was the center of the world. They had no idea about the existence of the Americas before they were told about them along with the fact that the world was a sphere.
You can't industrialize without population density. Colonialism is also meaningless without population density.
The Chinese did not think the world is flat. The Chinese considered the world was egg shaped, which it is. The name 中国 has nothing to do with lacking in desire for naval technology.
What did the Chinese find when they set out? Some islands and various premodern societies of little interest to the Chinese.
>You can't industrialize without population density.
Nor is population density an inbuilt quality of a region determined by the amount of pixie dust in the soil. Europe struggled to develop technology that allowed their population to increase and urbanize.
>The Chinese did not think the world is flat. The Chinese considered the world was egg shaped, which it is.
Yes they did, they believed the cosmos was egg shaped and the at the earth was a flat plane located within the cosmos.
>Some islands and various premodern societies of little interest to the Chinese.
Who cares? This has nothing to do with the original point of "Europe was successful with a disproportionate impact on global history because they had magic dirt that allowed them to have higher population density than everyone else."
Both Europe and China struggled to achieve population densities. But once those densities had been achieved, very different strategies were employed. China expanded West, while Europeans settled the Americas, which they set out to discover alternate trade routes. The rest is simply a history of naval technology. All European empires were maritime empires.
Finding premodern societies does have an impact and how it shapes your worldview. Europeans were looking for routes to China and India. China wasn't looking for a route to Europe or to India.
Then why bring up population densities and not "strategies" in the first place?
>Europeans colonized the world in part due to developing naval technology in order to trade more directly with Asian economies while Asian states, such as China, had no interest in finding trade routes to Europe because Europe was a poor shithole with no resources anyone else wanted.
That is completely different from
Because you're asking specifically why China didn't dominate the world. China did dominate its local sphere on account of its higher population density. The world as a whole could only be dominated by a maritime power, which China had no interest in being.
I'm asking why you believed that population density was an immutable characteristic of a region and therefore could be considered a "cause" of Europe's success instead of something that Europeans had to work harder to achieve through technology before they could achieve densities high enough to have an urban population.
I can agree that population density can create a feedback loop of technological development, but Europe did not have any sort of advantage with regards to population density compared to the rest of the world that gave them, and only them, the opportunity to colonize the world.
I'm not trying to discount European success, but to explain it. If some other country manages persistently high population densities relative to the rest of the world for a couple of centuries, expect them to churn out achievements at a faster pace at well, assuming political stability.
Although you are wrong in saying Europe did have an advantage in terms of population density relative to the "rest of the world". The only competitors in discovering the Americas would be Morocco and West African nations who have far lower population densities than Europe.
And look at Nigeria now.
I'm not saying Europe did not have a higher population density than some regions, I'm saying Europe did not have an advantage that allowed them to have a higher density.
Population density is the result of technological development as well as a driver of that same development.
The main reason Europeans discovered the Americas was because they lacked trade goods that could be exchanged for items from Asia and therefore had a massive trade deficit and they wanted to find a more direct route to save on costs.
West Africa had massive amounts of resources and Morocco had better relations with the Muslims who controlled the trade of the silk road. They were perfectly fine with their trade arrangements and had no incentive to improve.
Nigeria is an interesting example. Perhaps African backwardness has mainly to do with their historically low population densities. We might see Africa become the next India if the population keeps expanding at this rate.
You're talking about why they discovered the Americas. But discovering the Americas wouldn't have led Europeans to global dominance without the high population densities it had. The Vikings also discovered the Americas, didn't they? In a way, even the need to trade is driven by population densities.
Wow that's crazy
Anyway, you catch the game?
why do you think it is?
Because Western people are mentioned more in Western sources?
In western sources? or in worlwide history, achievements, discoveries. Who is the african mozart? or the asian magellan? or the native american flemming?
China has plenty of music, medicine, and exploration. What are you talking about?
Even Vanuatu has. I'm talking about world changing notable people, discoveries, lead in several areas, creativity, reach first, etc etc
Mozart didn't change the world and is simply a cultural figure. Magellan might have changed Europe but I don't see how he "changed the world". Fleming extracted penicillin. Mixtures with antimicrobial properties have been known all throughout history. Extraction just makes mass production possible. Though compared to the other two, he indeed is great.
>Mozart didn't change the world and is simply a cultural figure.
It changed the culture worldwide, for sure
>Magellan might have changed Europe but I don't see how he "changed the world"
You don´t know because you are clueless, by allowing europeans to control the world since those times, from commerce to policies. But maybe americans put the men on the moon they did not changed anything too right? at least it's clear your buthurt if you had to cope this much on things that were only possible with the genious, gravery and capacity of europeans
Mozart is very specific to Western classical music. I don't see how he changed the world of music. And Magellan changed the world how exactly?
Again, Western people are mentioned in Western sources more. Hardly surprising. If anything, it's laughable to compare Europe before the 1700s to China.
meant for
Then let's debate on all the areas, let's start at chemistry, biology, economics, then astronomy, modern medicine, mathematics, aerodynamics, tecnology etc etc and see who leads or made up 95% of the knowledge into those areas, in fact in all areas
Pre-1700s? Sure, go ahead.
Who invented the automobile, the airplane, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, the electric light, telephones, radios, and cameras the motion picture camera and television, the computer, the transistor and even the sources of the computer age, the semi-conductor and integrated circuit. Who developed the math and physics and the chemical propulsion through which we have left our footprints on the moon. I could go on and on recounting the great achievements of our European :heritage.
The list is so long, quantum physics, newtonian physics, neuroscience, nanomedicine, stem cell research and space exploration..
It's a massacre
Read my post again.
what?
Not him, be he said pre 1700's
>what do you mean whites didn't have space ships in the middle ages?
Did China even have buildings pre-1700?
Surely Europe defeats China far earlier, powder, paper, printing, the compass were all employed more effectively by the Europeans, the scientific method had been described by Bacon, Newton had published his Principia, etc., etc.
>Who developed the math [...] through which we have left our footprints on the moon
Indians and Persians :^)
>Indians and Persians
sure sure
Who invented the numbers you're using right now
looking at the 1% instead of into the 99%
That 99% rests upon and is conducted by means of the 1%
No, it doesn't. You couldn't even invent toilets.
You're literally replying to my post by using Indian numbers, cope harder
If you invented numbers, why couldn't you do maths with it? Why did you even invent numbers if you didn't have maths?
They did, see Aryabhata, Mahavira, Brahmagupta, etc
Fictional characters made up after the arrival of Europeans, embellished with the achievements of native Europeans. Just because some liberal whites accept your myths doesn't mean it's true. Even your religion came from whites.
>Being BTFO so hard you start making shit up
Lmao
Yeah. Indian we wuzzers are just pathetic. They'd be running around naked in the desert if it weren't for us.
Cope
A question, how come Northern Europeans never invented logic? Why did they have to import it from the Mediterranean? At least the Indians managed to come up with it
Cope about what? I'm not Indian, retard.
Logic was literally driven by Nordics and is still driven by Nordics. What sort of logic did Meds invent, lol? If pizza, then cheese. If pasta, then sauce.
In addition to Indians, logic was also invented by the ancient Greeks, who belonged to the Mediterranean race
What logic? Modern logic is entirely driven by Nordics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_logic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy
What does Greek philosophy have to do with mathematical logic?
Read your we wuzz article. Even your fanfiction lists zero original Indian contributions to logic. Why even bother trying to we wuzz if you're just going to get laughed at?
>What does Greek philosophy have to do with mathematical logic?
This is your brain on Nordicism.
I wouldn't expect a pajeet to know what mathematical logic is. Look it up before embarrassing yourself further.
Alright I'm looking at the Wikipedia page
>Theories of logic were developed in many cultures in history, including China, India, Greece and the Islamic world
>The historian of logic John Corcoran wrote an accessible introduction to Laws of Thought and a point by point comparison of Prior Analytics by Aristotle and Laws of Thought. According to Corcoran, Boole fully accepted and endorsed Aristotle's logic. Boole's goals were “to go under, over, and beyond” Aristotle's logic by:
>Providing it with mathematical foundations involving equations;
>Extending the class of problems it could treat from assessing validity to solving equations, and;
>Expanding the range of applications it could handle — e.g. from propositions having only two terms to those having arbitrarily many.
>More specifically, Boole agreed with what Aristotle said; Boole's ‘disagreements’, if they might be called that, concern what Aristotle did not say. First, in the realm of foundations, Boole reduced the four propositional forms of Aristotle's logic to formulas in the form of equations—by itself a revolutionary idea. Second, in the realm of logic's problems, Boole's addition of equation solving to logic—another revolutionary idea—involved Boole's doctrine that Aristotle's rules of inference (the “perfect syllogisms”) must be supplemented by rules for equation solving. Third, in the realm of applications, Boole's system could handle multi-term propositions and arguments whereas Aristotle could handle only two-termed subject-predicate propositions and arguments.
(Boole cited Aristotle throughout his work, of course.)
Why is this poojeet copy-pasting Wikipedia articles on Boolean logic now?
Keep dodging.
"I venture to remark the following: That an irrational number is to be consid-
ered as fully defined by the specification just described, this conviction certainly
long before the time of Bertrand was the common property of all mathematicians
who concerned themselves with the notion of the irrational. Just this manner
of determining it is in the mind of every computer who calculates the irrational
root of an equation by approximation, and if, as Bertrand does exclusively in
his book, (the eighth edition, of the year 1885, lies before me,) one regards the
irrational number as the ratio of two measurable quantities, then is this manner
of determining it already set forth in the clearest possible way in the celebrated
definition which Euclid gives of the equality of two ratios (Elements, V., 5). This
same most ancient conviction has been the source of my theory as well as that of
Bertrand and many other more or less complete attempts to lay the foundations
for the introduction of irrational numbers into arithmetic."
-Dedekind's Essay on the Theory of Numbers
Of course I could have just pointed out that most mathematical terms are directly borrowed from Greek.
So, boole basically took the work of a incompetent philosopher and distiled it into something actually useful?
I think its similar to a piece of mud. Mud as it comes is mud, but someone smart can turn mud into a vessel. And a vessel into a capacitor or whatever.
In the oast there were only mud deposits. Anglos however are vessel makers.
Strange how such an "incompetent philosopher" was honored by the eponymous Aristotelian Society, presided by people like Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead.
Some societies were named after things like flowers.
Are flowers competent?
Are you implying flowers aren't competent?
Sorry my bad
Are you implying they named themselves after Aristotle because of his pretty face?
They are truly deluded, india was some kind of massive mud favela before anglos shed some light in their dirty hole and poos go full blown we waz. The worst part is that even their national pride is an anglo invention, they don't even known brahmins are a different genetic cluster that commoners, yet dravidians take prade on it kek
Samefag cope
Not samefag at all, is a fact that even your nation is a anglo invention. You have nothing on your own.
ASII dna is correlated with poverty and low status SPECIALLY within a region or ethnic group in india.
If i went Uttar pradesh and tested al hindu castes brahmins would be highest on steppe, and on the lowest end, the ASII rich shudras and dalits. Literally EVERYTHING of note on india was done by a group tamils for instance are not the same race.
As ridiculous as associating germans and spics, everything created by the virtue and benevolence of anglos that felt pity for dravidians
>even your nation is a anglo invention
The idea of a unified India is ancient, see Kautilya
>DNA
Not the point of the discussion
>What does Greek philosophy have to do with mathematical logic?
They were the first to come up with logic so much
>Even your fanfiction lists zero original Indian contributions to logic
It was independently devised thus wholly original
>We wuzz logicians n shieeet.
How come you don't have toilets then? You were revolutionizing the world of mathematics yet forgot to invent toilets?
Independently derived, lol. These "independently derived" contributions all conveniently started being "rediscovered" when Anglos got there. I wonder why...
>Westerners become aware of Indian writings as they conquer India
Hmm I wonder why
>Indians become aware of "Indian" writings as Europeans conquer India
Hmm I wonder why..
Do you think 18th and 19th century Britons wrote logical texts and presented them as Indian? Did they also compose the medieval Persian writings talking about Indian mathematics?
Indians wrote in Sanskrit. Muslims wrote in Persian. Both we wuzzing.
That's why you can't find any chain of development. Indian discoveries just happened to pop out of nowhere. Nothing original, just basic stuff they got from Brits.
Woah, Wikipedia accepts sources from "oppressed people" regardless of the authenticity? How surprising!
Also, keep reading. That isn't what mathematical logic is. Keep reading and embarrass yourself further.
>Indians wrote in Sanskrit. Muslims wrote in Persian.
This is relevant how
>That's why you can't find any chain of development.
Except the chain of development from India to Persia to Europe
>Woah, Wikipedia accepts sources from "oppressed people" regardless of the authenticity? How surprising!
If you know a better source for precolonial Indian philosophy and mathematics then name it
>That isn't what mathematical logic is.
That is literally from the wikipedia page for mathematical logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic#Early_history
Why'd you stop at Early History. Early History will contain your fanfiction. It's recent history you can't fake.
Anyway, I've had enough nonwhite coping for today. If you're so great, stop using a white man's language on a white man's forum developed using white man's technology. If you want to continue to do so, at least don't be a we wuzzer. You don't have to be able to build great monuments or make contributions to science. That's just not what your species was designed to do.
Loser abandons the field, thanks for corresponding with me on this forum based on Indian numerals and mathematics
>You don't have to be able to build great monuments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailasa_Temple,_Ellora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadisvara_Temple,_Thanjavur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandariya_Mahadeva_Temple
>Poojeet coping with Aryan monuments
Why do all these monuments come from when Aryans ruled your land, poojeet? How'd you suddenly forget how to build them?
Who cares whether they were built by Aryans or not, this is about Eurocentrism not race
>Aryans made their slaves build two or three buildings.
>That means we wuzzz civilized n shieeet.
The only other monuments you have come from the British period. Meaning all your monuments come from when Europeans ruled you. Other than that, you have a couple buildings built by Türks. They somewhat European so they aren't ooga booga tier but still pretty bland compared to European architecture.
>Aryans made their slaves build two or three buildings.
They built quite a large number of temples
>Meaning all your monuments come from when Europeans ruled you.
Who cares? I'm not Indian
Them building temples implies what exactly? Europeans built some temples in India. So what?
So the idea that there are no monuments outside Europe is false
They're built by Europeans. European achiements aren't just those done in Europe.
Why are you on about Greeks now? I thought you were defending pajeets?
>They're built by Europeans.
Alright, if you want, but that there are monuments and achievements outside Europe remains true
What do you think Eurocentrism means? It means focusing on Europeans, not just on the European continent.
If you want, we have no more disagreements at this point
>Europeans
Following this kind of thinking they were built by Russians, because Indo-Europeans originated in Russia. Or by ANE East Siberians, cousins of some Eskimos. Eskimo master race I guess and they should claim every achievement of Westerners. The elites probably still genetically resemble ANE eskimos from Kamchatka.
Non Russian Europeans have had their own achievements. Non Aryan Indians have more or less nothing.
Just Greekboos. Lots of them even today.
Modern titans:
>We are merely building upon the work of these ancient titans, to which we owe everything. I wish I could have lived another century just to continue delving into their works.
Mental midgets:
>no you don't, they were dumb shitskins, they didn't know shit, you're just a deluded greekaboo, reeeeeee!
You're like those whiny anticolonial losers seething that wypipo have "mentally colonized" thirdies.
Not the anon you sre quoting but people in the in the past were incompetent, which is why their achievements never went further than basic primitive stuff, some titans do see a lot of things in a grain of dust. But is a mere case of "beauty in the eye of the beholder"
Where a normal person sees mud another one sees a vessel to be built.
This is true. Some philosophers absed their entire work in fairytales. Is not that the fairytale is special. The man working it was special.
Have sex. Preferably with each other.
I'm not greek.
Not into bois
You can barely even manipulate your native language.
Not my language thoughbeit
It's not my fault Greeks were retarded. They had small states with little incentive to innovate. A lot of the Greeks came from Miletus and Sardis which were ruled by Persia for this reason.
Also, Russel didn't give a shit about Aristotle. Just paid lip service. It's like how a lot of the fags here talk about Mozart and then go listen to Drake.
That doesn't even make sense. Aryan arrival ended the first urbanization period in India. Second urbanization started some 1000 years later.
Did Aryans disappear in the intervening thousand years? They just spread out.
Brahmins still retain more aryan DNA than shudras actually.
The lowest aryan dna is found in dalits of the same region.
It seems that aryans arrived. Did all stuff in india the first 800 years. Then started mixing and by the 18th century when indians becane irrelevant they were already very mixed with abbo
Visual and literary evidence suggests that Indians were quite dark by the medieval period, see pic related
First surviving temples are from the 5th century
Yeah, the sex slaves and prostitutes were dark. So?
>Visual and literary evidence suggests that Indians were quite dark by the medieval period, see pic related
Yamnaya and WHG-EHG were dark. No reason for them to be related to the native aboriginal slave dna.
We aleady know that over time brahmins became more "abboified" despite still retaining outliers rich in aryan dna, of we go back to indian golden ages, hundred of years ago, abboification is less and less
The eltes looked like Asians. They never mixed with the natives. You are ruled by eskimos, slave man.
European elites were finnish yes.
Why history is so Northeast Siberian centric?
We're not going on genotypes, homosexual. Stop with the sophistry.
Yes. They mixed so much they stopped resembling any Europeans. It's obvious that these monuments were created by the local people, not by European Aryans who never built anything even similar.
Also, the first temples are attributed to Rashtrakuta dynasty which:
>rulers of the imperial dynasty in the 8th to 10th century made the Kannada language as important as Sanskrit.
Kannada is a Dravidian language.
Most Indo-Aryan speakers are also Dravidian. What language the oogas speak doesn't make them less booga.
>Except the chain of development from India to Persia to Europe
>pojeets believe this
Its exactly the same in quora.
Jeets are masive Wewuzers everything from their subsaharan tier shithole without tap water
I think its the fault of anglos for teaching them english. Dutch were smarter, imagine 300 Million indogs speaking ikook kek.
Thirdies genuinely ruin everything they touch
They genuinely think they wuz. Indonesians are not that annoying, SEA in general are chill. Pajeets are like neurotic trannies trying to prove they were kangs despite living in some grass tents plastered on mud and rust
Samefag still seething that his sub-species didnt invent absolutely everything
The 99% you're talking about are recent inventions. Just recency bias.
Numbers were invented by Scythian Buddhists.
All of these were invented in India. China got these inventions from Buddhists.
There's also no such thing as "worldwide history". We each have our own versions of history. As more historical research is being done, many technologies having said to be discovered by the West is being found to have been discovered by the Chinese first. It's just that the Chinese had zero need for these technologies so development didn't happen beyond just simple curiosity.
>is being found to have been discovered by the Chinese first
Cool story bro, cool story
Why wouldn't many things have been discovered beforehand in a much larger country with far more resources?
Then show me where did the chinese navigated the entire world before the europeans, or put the men on the moon before them, or created penicillin before them
Navigating the entire world was of zero interest to the Chinese. What would they gain from it?
Putting men on the moon is very particular to the political circumstances of the space race. Contemporary space agencies have very different interests.
If you just want Chinese inventions, I could mention the usual four. Paper/printing, gunpowder, and the compass, which had far greater impacts on the world than any of the things you mentioned.
Dude don´t be pathetic, because it's even laughable to compare
>invents paper/printing
>dose noting with it
>invents gunpowder
>dose nothing with it
>invents the compas
>dose nothing with it
Eurpe gets it... conqueres the world!
Not any part of the world with beyond a couple dozen savages. Except maybe Aztecs.
you are living in white mans world if you are uising anything that needs electricizy
You're living in a Chinese man's world if you ever fill out a form on paper.
Euros never conquered India.
Good morning sirs.
sheeit
history isn't eurocentric, you are eurocentric. just like a chinese man is sinocentric.
because europeans are superior
Nope. Nothing Europe produced even compares to what India achieved.
How is it our fault that nobody else managed to develop civilisation until we showed them how to do it?
Because reality is Eurocentric.
Reality is Indocentric.
Sorry, virtually every field and subfield of note was invented by Europeans.
*Indo-Aryans
Rome got big once.
Romans got all their knowledge from Iran and India. Cope.
>thread of indianwitch arguing with some stormfag
Holy gem
We invented everything important.
Nope. Black Hebrews did.
ITT: we pretend Asia doesn't exist
Ancient Greeks gave it the name. We would not even call it as Asia without ancient Greeks.
Asia is just Greeks raping the word Assuwa which is Hittite/Luwian.
>reading this thread
>euros or euro larpers literally made up shit like how the Chinese didn't record history or Indian monuments and works were totally made by europeans for some reason
For a self-
proclaimed perfect race the LULZ euros are oddly insecure
Im an aryan brown haired blue eyed pashtun tough
Just saying truths
Kys pajeet.
>I learned history in Europe.
>Why is what I learned Eurocentric?
Hmmmmm
Because Europe is the center of the world.
Schizos have really colonized this thread, didn't they
It's not.
>Opinion validation thread
Just look at the cringe history of Afrocentrists, Sinocentrists, poo centrists etc.
It's all We Wuzing, outright lies and far fetched speculation. The fact is that the only non-European civilization of note which actually produced knowledge that can be studied, the Sumerians, died out and their cities turned to dust. Europeans discovered everything, conquered everything multiple times (every single time after outsiders tried conquering them making then extra just), explored the world and wrote everything down. The histories of the Sumerians and other clusters of civilizations were lost until Westerners dug it up again as it was for Khmer, the Mayans etc. too. Therefore it exists only within the living culture of the West.
Others grasp at straws from the faintest inkling of rubbish produced by their ancestors which low both in quantity and volume, because they, too, are simply dug and assimilated into West civilization, which will now last eternally due to the internet and exponentially growing knowledge.
Bait
All 100% true. Cope more.
>read history books written by europeans
>gee i guess everything really does revolve around EVROPA...
Technology has advanced more in the past few hundred years largely because of Europeans than the rest of the past few hundred thousand years of our existence. And they buttfucked everyone too that leaves an impression.
why the FUCK is east timor green?
is TIMOR-LESTE IMPERIVMS the main character of history?
>why the FUCK is east timor green
colony of portuguese empire, same reason why africa is green too, colonies of the BIG BVLLS EVROPEAN EMPIRES
Might as well make Japan and South Korea blue. They are learning English en masse and all their insitutions are Western style.
Written by a victors
It's not. You just don't feel like reading non-European history.
>You just don't feel like reading non-European history.
True, I don't like reading fiction.
>their equal
But I'm their superior
for the same reason you don't care about someone else's kid getting getting an A on their math test
Family ties
All this cope when your countries didn't even industrialize until the white man showed you how. Pathetic.
We showed the white man how to industrialize. Why do you think they built ships just to reach us?
White people accomplished everything. Everyone else was a bystander.
Not true, some of you made alright slaves.
>/misc/ NPC opinion