Post by mindovermatter on Dec 18, 2015 21:07:27 GMT -5
I know this is a redundant topic and it's been played over time and time again. But could you folks at ESR like Doug and Zaharan do an expose of the fraud of western civilization and white exceptional ism that get's played over and over again on history books and the media in general?
Like this post by Doug:
The point that should be understood is that "Western Civilization" only refers to civilizations and cultures that have arisen throughout the world from Western European cultures. Therefore America, Britain, Australia, Israel and New Zealand can be said to be "Western". However, this is a geopolitical entity not a historical entity. "Western Civilization" as a concept is only 400 years old, as Greeks, Romans, Hittites, Assyrians, Mesopotamians and Babylonians had no concept of themselves being "Western" either politically, geographically or ethnically, especially not in reference to Western Europe.
Therefore, Western European countries, while adopting the ideas of the Greeks and Romans cannot claim that these are "Western" cultures, since neither Greece nor Rome identified with the countries now considered as the core of Western Culture. The U.S.A did not exist at that time, Western Europe was considered backward and barbaric and the oldest cultures and civilizations were to the South and East. Likewise, Western Culture is NOT typified by the ideals of law, morality, freedom or justice, as MOST Western European countries have been monarchies, dictatorships or oligarchies and have been very cruel and oppressive to both their OWN people and especially those from elsewhere.
Basically Western Civilization as the ideal or best representation of all that is good and decent in the world or human civilization only can be accepted as FACT if one ignores: slavery, native american genocide, the Moorish impact on Europe, the Refirmation, Crusades, WWI, WWII, Mussolini, Tito, Hitler, Leopold and so on. The REALITY is that Western Civilization has Eastern roots and that the so-called virtues of Western Civilization have been mostly lofty philosophical goals as opposed to historical fact. Western Civilization is nothing but European propaganda that tries to sugar coat everything done by Europe and Europeans as "good" and the "standard" by which all others should be measured, when in reality it is only the LAST of the continents in the world to become civilized and create Empires in the name of god and country.
and this:
LOL! No Mr Patriot. Classical GREEK civilization was invented by the Greeks. Had nothing to do with "The West": America, Canada, Britain, Germany, Spain or France. It was a Greek civilization purely located in Greece and Turkey, which expanded EAST into Persia, Babylon and Northern India at its highest point. And the REASON they went East is because THAT is where civilization was MOST ancient and certainly that is also the reason they did NOT go WEST.
You keep talking about Greek and "Western" but you seem to forget that for most of the last 400 years Greece was ruled my MUSLIMS from Turkey and gave modern Greece most of its character which is UNLIKE ancient Greece. NON GREEKS like you are claiming Greece and building Greek architecture MORE THAN THE GREEKS. And before that Greece was dominated by the Romans and kept subject to them.
It is funny but your historical knowledge is so lacking that you don't even know that Greek Revivalism in Europe only came about since the 1830s. And with that came the wave of GREEK revival and Greek Mania, not ironically this is also the same time that Egyptomania became prevalent. Before that European art, architecture and culture had VERY LITTLE to do with Greece. It was more Romanesque, Moorish, Persian, Levantine, Turkish and Byzantine than GREEK. And this is why America is so full of Greek looking buildings and Egyptian symbolism. But that is only a FAKE connection between a culture and people that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with either ancient Greece or Egypt. It is just a way to make the NEW country of America seem ancient, when it isn't. 240 years isn't ancient by any means
and this:
Wrong. Greece was not alone in the flowering of philosophy and/or science. It was the continuation of a long tradition of philosophy and science that was developed elsewhere. The Greeks did make great achievements, but their GREATEST achievement was the fact that their works have survived the ravages of time and they were closer chronologically to us than ancient Egyptian culture. And, even during the time of the Greeks, other cultures were still thriving and providing their own advances to human knowledge, along with Egypt. Persia, Babylon and Asia were all advanced in their own right without Greece and also had philosophy and science. So ancient Greece was not UNIQUE in any respect and these other civilizations were not limited. And, for all your talk about furthering knowledge, most times knowledge was LOST as a result of the passage of time and transmission of knowledge from one place to another. Much knowledge was LOST from the ancient lands of Egypt, Mesopotamia and India due to wars and the ravages of time. Spanish culture, industry and civilization DECLINED in many ways after the expulsion of the Moors, with much knowledge and science being destroyed in the inquisition.
AND, the key point here is that WITHOUT that transmission of knowledge by the Moors, Europe would NOT be where it is today. They know this and this is WHY they RESTRICTED education of blacks and other slaves in the colonization of the "New World". They realized that knowledge and science are WEAPONS and did NOT want the cultures they destroyed to become STRONG enough and LEARN the technologies that gave the Europeans the advantage militarily.
Could you guys, if you have time, do a special post with writing like these above passages exposing the fraud and non-european foundations of Ancient Greece and European civilization in general?
Basically could you debunk that idea that Western civilization, if it actually exists is some sort of a continuation of Ancient Greece and is related to them? Also you guys explain and emphasize the heavy African and Egyptian influence on Ancient Greece and European civilization. But you briefly mention the Assyrian/Mesopotamian/Babylonian influence on Ancient Greece and some of the Persian/Indian/Chinese influence.
Could you also include in this special expose, the large Phoenician/Carthagian influence on European civilizations like the script/literacy etc, and the Ancient Indian/Chinese civilizations influence and advancement contribution to Western civilization? And then include side by side, how much more advanced Persia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria, West African Kingdoms, Egypt, Phoenicia, India/Mauryan civilizations, Ancient China were all more advanced and better off then Europe and were older and more richer then Europe and how Europe simply took/stole from all these old civilizations to build "western civilization"?
You guys repeatedly mention the Moorish/African influence on Medieval Europe, which people like and don't have a problem with, but then you guys only briefly mention the Ancient Chinese and Indian influence on Western civilization and sometimes Persian influence. I mean you guys ignore this:
You guys don't mention how whites stole stuff like this, and that even stuff like Calculas, Algebra, Trigonometry, Gemotry, Pythogorean theorem were done in Ancient India BEFORE it got to Europe; and also that light posts/street lamps and gas extracting technology was done and innovated in China BEFORE IT GOT TO EUROPE! But Europeans did not give credit to their Chinese/Indian sources due to Eurocentrism. Then there are posts like this:
historum.com/asian-history/38194-how-ancient-china-more-technologically-advanced-than-ancient-rome.html
"False. Technologically, I rate Han China and Maurya/Kushan/Gupta India well ahead of Roman Empire.
"
For starters, we have tidal docks from India almost 3 millenias before western Eurasia had the technological means to make it.
The Canal system of China is far more sophisticated by 1st century CE than anything in western Eurasia, both in terms of management of scale and gradient. As far as inventing the canal goes- it doesn't go to the sumerians, it goes to whoever dug the first ditch.
"And considering that the Roman period was the most prosperous period in Western Eurasian history before the 18th century, I would be very hard pressed to think otherwise at that point of time (i.e. that China was more advanced than western eurasia at their pre-modern zenith).
Roman Period may've been the most prosperous period for Western Eurasian history till the last 500 years ago, but that doesn't translate into rest of the world."
FYI, Angus Maddison rates India and China as the most prosperous societies of 1st millenia BCE and this is borne out in ancillary evidence as well: While Indians and Chinese had mathematics addressing compound interest, debt, dividends, etc. the Greco-Roman world lacked such sophistication and as a result, had more basic economies.
Given the fact that India and China were significantly greater industrial powers than Rome- demonstrating higher quality Ironworking (India), Ceramics (China), significantly larger food producers (both these civilizations were net food exporters, while being comparable population to Rome, yet Roman Empire couldn't feed itself) and much larger resource base- from Silk (China) to spices (India), the arguments towards Roman prosperity being higher than Indo-Chinese rests on flimsy Euro-centric grounds.
Quote:
Just compare the standards of building: Han Chinese buildings were made of wood and mud, Roman buildings were made of concrete, fired bricks and used iron clamps.
You use what you have. Roman world was poor for wood,but rich for stone, hence they used stone to build their structures. China was rich in wood, hence Han Chinese architecture was predominantly wood. Indo-Gangetic plains by 1st millenium BCE were poor in wood and stone, hence they used bricks to build their cities.
Materials used reflects materials at hand, not innately superior principles. Romans used what was the cheapest and most available material to build- stone, which happens to be the most resilient. Today the western world uses wood and drywall to build their structures, while China and India uses brick. Brick will easily outlast drywall and wood, so by your (faulty) arguments, since far more Indian/Chinese buildings would be standing 500 years from now than Western, it'd mean their construction principles are superior- yet nothing could be further from the truth.
"As result today we have many more Roman ruins than ruins from the rest of the planet dated from the same period,"
That is a combination of climate and history: Roman Ruins happen to be in a dry part of the world, where ruins are preserved well. China and India are much wetter and humid, thus things don't survive as well. Plus, the Roman world has never been genocided and razed carte blanche, yet India and China has had vast swathes of it completely irradicated several times. Obviously, if you suffer the Mongol genocide, you will leave behind less artifacts than those who didn't have such a misfortune.
"and only in the 19th century that buildings superior in terms of engineering to the Roman buildings were first constructed.
"
True for Europe. Completely ignorant statement for rest of the world. As an engineer, I can easily state that the Romans never built anything remotely as sophisticated or complicated as the Ajanta and Ellora caves, where we see flying butresses and arches, except they are hewn out of bedrock, thus requiring far greater precision (absolutely no do-overs). Until the American skyscraper age, nothing even remotely begins to challenge the engineering feat of Angkor Wat- from flying butresses, arches with far finer tolerances than anything from western Europe (to this date!), floating columns ( Europeans never built such things), interior roof drainage that was perfectly aligned to the angle of incidence of prevailing rains ( again, far more sophisticated than anything western world has to offer to this date in terms of roofing gutters) and at a scale that dwarves anything from the Greco-Roman world into insignificance.
There are plenty of buildings strewn all across the Indian subcontinent that are not only far greater degree of precision-working than anything displayed in the Greco-Roman world, its at a scale far greater (both in terms of the overall structure and the building blocks used).
"In terms of transportation technology Roman wagons were better than 18th century European wagons, which were better than 18th century Qing wagons
Eurocentric disingenuity alert: Roman technology compared to Qing, when China was at an alltime low, when the topic is about Han. The Han wheelbarrow was far superior to that of the Roman wheelbarrow.
As for Roman wagons being better than 18th century European ones, I've never seen a single paper to demonstrate such a fantasical claim.
"
"while Roman ships were as large as early 19th century European
ships.
"
Yet the Roman ships were inferior to design and construction than Viking ships.
"In terms of machinery, the Romans were capable of making machines of 30-40 gears that were the size of a shoe box while no other culture in the world managed to make machines as complex as these until the mechanical clocks in 14th century europe, and only by the 17-18th century that clockwork devices were as miniaturized to the same degree as the Roman devices.
Cheap parlour tricks notwithstanding, such 'gear-based technologies' had very little application and were mostly rich people farting around."
If we are talking about 'what one culture did that nobody else did as well', we have Indian metallurgy ( makes Roman metallurgy seem crude), Chinese pottery (Ceramic- the type and nature of glazing far superior to any other culture), Indian weaving- producing cotton and wool at a finer weave than anything west of it for most of history (till industrial revolution).
"Overall our knowledge of Roman technology still is highly incomplete thanks to the collapse that occured from the 2nd though the 8th centuries that destroyed most Roman records and resulted into the loss of a large proportion of the set of technologies used by the Romans. This is evidenced by the fact that still today we don't know how the Romans did many things that they had done. In the case of China, thanks to the lack of collapse, we have a much more complete record of the set of technologies available at the time.
"
That is the most biassed and ignorant statement yet. Collapse notwithstanding, the Roman world has been investigated far greater than the Chinese/Indian world, hence we have a far more complete picture of the Greco-Roman world than these civilizations. Plus, the Greco-Roman civilizations did not suffer a fate where regions the size of France and Germany combined have been completely flattened and razed to the ground, its population mostly butchered or scattered. As such, due to a lack of pillage and burning, far more Greco-Roman artefacts exist than Indian or Chinese.
"China was perhaps more advanced than Western Eurasia in technological terms during the Tang and Song periods. By the 14-15th centuries western eurasia regained their technological leadership."
By the 16th century, western Eurasia became a technological leader for the first time in almost 4000 years, for not since the mature Harappan phase of Indus Valley Civilization (2500 BCE) has technological and theoretical apex of science lie west of the Hindu Kush, until 16th century Europe.
Could you include stuff like the above as well? Like do a complete analysis and post about how the non-European civilizations in antiquity like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, West African Kingdoms like Timbuktu, Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient China, Phoenicia, Hebrew Kingdoms, Moorish Spain etc etc were all more advanced and wealthier then Europe and then list side by side, the influences they had on Europe and how Europeans took and stole from them without giving credit to them, by use of pictures which you have used on Egyptsearch before?
Also include how Europe financed itself and got to where it is by stealing the ideas of all these past civilizations, how they got rich by taking over African gold/ink routes and the silk routes of Asia, and how African slavery and African domestication of plants/crops like rice/beans got Europe rich financially and how European theft and stealing of African labor and Asian ideas/colonies started their industrial revolution?
Hell even include the part on how the Native Americans/Meso-Americans got Europe rich and how they influenced "western civilization" and allowed "Western civilization" to happen and exist and how their contributions are underplayed!
Alot of readers and lurkers on Egyptsearchreloaded and Egyptsearch would greatly appreciate your input and writings on all this and on the subject of exposing the fraudelent foundations of European civilizations and European culture in general. I know you have done this before on ESR already but could you do a part by part post on this more?
Like this post by Doug:
The point that should be understood is that "Western Civilization" only refers to civilizations and cultures that have arisen throughout the world from Western European cultures. Therefore America, Britain, Australia, Israel and New Zealand can be said to be "Western". However, this is a geopolitical entity not a historical entity. "Western Civilization" as a concept is only 400 years old, as Greeks, Romans, Hittites, Assyrians, Mesopotamians and Babylonians had no concept of themselves being "Western" either politically, geographically or ethnically, especially not in reference to Western Europe.
Therefore, Western European countries, while adopting the ideas of the Greeks and Romans cannot claim that these are "Western" cultures, since neither Greece nor Rome identified with the countries now considered as the core of Western Culture. The U.S.A did not exist at that time, Western Europe was considered backward and barbaric and the oldest cultures and civilizations were to the South and East. Likewise, Western Culture is NOT typified by the ideals of law, morality, freedom or justice, as MOST Western European countries have been monarchies, dictatorships or oligarchies and have been very cruel and oppressive to both their OWN people and especially those from elsewhere.
Basically Western Civilization as the ideal or best representation of all that is good and decent in the world or human civilization only can be accepted as FACT if one ignores: slavery, native american genocide, the Moorish impact on Europe, the Refirmation, Crusades, WWI, WWII, Mussolini, Tito, Hitler, Leopold and so on. The REALITY is that Western Civilization has Eastern roots and that the so-called virtues of Western Civilization have been mostly lofty philosophical goals as opposed to historical fact. Western Civilization is nothing but European propaganda that tries to sugar coat everything done by Europe and Europeans as "good" and the "standard" by which all others should be measured, when in reality it is only the LAST of the continents in the world to become civilized and create Empires in the name of god and country.
and this:
LOL! No Mr Patriot. Classical GREEK civilization was invented by the Greeks. Had nothing to do with "The West": America, Canada, Britain, Germany, Spain or France. It was a Greek civilization purely located in Greece and Turkey, which expanded EAST into Persia, Babylon and Northern India at its highest point. And the REASON they went East is because THAT is where civilization was MOST ancient and certainly that is also the reason they did NOT go WEST.
You keep talking about Greek and "Western" but you seem to forget that for most of the last 400 years Greece was ruled my MUSLIMS from Turkey and gave modern Greece most of its character which is UNLIKE ancient Greece. NON GREEKS like you are claiming Greece and building Greek architecture MORE THAN THE GREEKS. And before that Greece was dominated by the Romans and kept subject to them.
It is funny but your historical knowledge is so lacking that you don't even know that Greek Revivalism in Europe only came about since the 1830s. And with that came the wave of GREEK revival and Greek Mania, not ironically this is also the same time that Egyptomania became prevalent. Before that European art, architecture and culture had VERY LITTLE to do with Greece. It was more Romanesque, Moorish, Persian, Levantine, Turkish and Byzantine than GREEK. And this is why America is so full of Greek looking buildings and Egyptian symbolism. But that is only a FAKE connection between a culture and people that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with either ancient Greece or Egypt. It is just a way to make the NEW country of America seem ancient, when it isn't. 240 years isn't ancient by any means
Wrong. Greece was not alone in the flowering of philosophy and/or science. It was the continuation of a long tradition of philosophy and science that was developed elsewhere. The Greeks did make great achievements, but their GREATEST achievement was the fact that their works have survived the ravages of time and they were closer chronologically to us than ancient Egyptian culture. And, even during the time of the Greeks, other cultures were still thriving and providing their own advances to human knowledge, along with Egypt. Persia, Babylon and Asia were all advanced in their own right without Greece and also had philosophy and science. So ancient Greece was not UNIQUE in any respect and these other civilizations were not limited. And, for all your talk about furthering knowledge, most times knowledge was LOST as a result of the passage of time and transmission of knowledge from one place to another. Much knowledge was LOST from the ancient lands of Egypt, Mesopotamia and India due to wars and the ravages of time. Spanish culture, industry and civilization DECLINED in many ways after the expulsion of the Moors, with much knowledge and science being destroyed in the inquisition.
AND, the key point here is that WITHOUT that transmission of knowledge by the Moors, Europe would NOT be where it is today. They know this and this is WHY they RESTRICTED education of blacks and other slaves in the colonization of the "New World". They realized that knowledge and science are WEAPONS and did NOT want the cultures they destroyed to become STRONG enough and LEARN the technologies that gave the Europeans the advantage militarily.
Could you guys, if you have time, do a special post with writing like these above passages exposing the fraud and non-european foundations of Ancient Greece and European civilization in general?
Basically could you debunk that idea that Western civilization, if it actually exists is some sort of a continuation of Ancient Greece and is related to them? Also you guys explain and emphasize the heavy African and Egyptian influence on Ancient Greece and European civilization. But you briefly mention the Assyrian/Mesopotamian/Babylonian influence on Ancient Greece and some of the Persian/Indian/Chinese influence.
Could you also include in this special expose, the large Phoenician/Carthagian influence on European civilizations like the script/literacy etc, and the Ancient Indian/Chinese civilizations influence and advancement contribution to Western civilization? And then include side by side, how much more advanced Persia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria, West African Kingdoms, Egypt, Phoenicia, India/Mauryan civilizations, Ancient China were all more advanced and better off then Europe and were older and more richer then Europe and how Europe simply took/stole from all these old civilizations to build "western civilization"?
You guys repeatedly mention the Moorish/African influence on Medieval Europe, which people like and don't have a problem with, but then you guys only briefly mention the Ancient Chinese and Indian influence on Western civilization and sometimes Persian influence. I mean you guys ignore this:
You guys don't mention how whites stole stuff like this, and that even stuff like Calculas, Algebra, Trigonometry, Gemotry, Pythogorean theorem were done in Ancient India BEFORE it got to Europe; and also that light posts/street lamps and gas extracting technology was done and innovated in China BEFORE IT GOT TO EUROPE! But Europeans did not give credit to their Chinese/Indian sources due to Eurocentrism. Then there are posts like this:
historum.com/asian-history/38194-how-ancient-china-more-technologically-advanced-than-ancient-rome.html
"False. Technologically, I rate Han China and Maurya/Kushan/Gupta India well ahead of Roman Empire.
"
For starters, we have tidal docks from India almost 3 millenias before western Eurasia had the technological means to make it.
The Canal system of China is far more sophisticated by 1st century CE than anything in western Eurasia, both in terms of management of scale and gradient. As far as inventing the canal goes- it doesn't go to the sumerians, it goes to whoever dug the first ditch.
"And considering that the Roman period was the most prosperous period in Western Eurasian history before the 18th century, I would be very hard pressed to think otherwise at that point of time (i.e. that China was more advanced than western eurasia at their pre-modern zenith).
Roman Period may've been the most prosperous period for Western Eurasian history till the last 500 years ago, but that doesn't translate into rest of the world."
FYI, Angus Maddison rates India and China as the most prosperous societies of 1st millenia BCE and this is borne out in ancillary evidence as well: While Indians and Chinese had mathematics addressing compound interest, debt, dividends, etc. the Greco-Roman world lacked such sophistication and as a result, had more basic economies.
Given the fact that India and China were significantly greater industrial powers than Rome- demonstrating higher quality Ironworking (India), Ceramics (China), significantly larger food producers (both these civilizations were net food exporters, while being comparable population to Rome, yet Roman Empire couldn't feed itself) and much larger resource base- from Silk (China) to spices (India), the arguments towards Roman prosperity being higher than Indo-Chinese rests on flimsy Euro-centric grounds.
Quote:
Just compare the standards of building: Han Chinese buildings were made of wood and mud, Roman buildings were made of concrete, fired bricks and used iron clamps.
You use what you have. Roman world was poor for wood,but rich for stone, hence they used stone to build their structures. China was rich in wood, hence Han Chinese architecture was predominantly wood. Indo-Gangetic plains by 1st millenium BCE were poor in wood and stone, hence they used bricks to build their cities.
Materials used reflects materials at hand, not innately superior principles. Romans used what was the cheapest and most available material to build- stone, which happens to be the most resilient. Today the western world uses wood and drywall to build their structures, while China and India uses brick. Brick will easily outlast drywall and wood, so by your (faulty) arguments, since far more Indian/Chinese buildings would be standing 500 years from now than Western, it'd mean their construction principles are superior- yet nothing could be further from the truth.
"As result today we have many more Roman ruins than ruins from the rest of the planet dated from the same period,"
That is a combination of climate and history: Roman Ruins happen to be in a dry part of the world, where ruins are preserved well. China and India are much wetter and humid, thus things don't survive as well. Plus, the Roman world has never been genocided and razed carte blanche, yet India and China has had vast swathes of it completely irradicated several times. Obviously, if you suffer the Mongol genocide, you will leave behind less artifacts than those who didn't have such a misfortune.
"and only in the 19th century that buildings superior in terms of engineering to the Roman buildings were first constructed.
"
True for Europe. Completely ignorant statement for rest of the world. As an engineer, I can easily state that the Romans never built anything remotely as sophisticated or complicated as the Ajanta and Ellora caves, where we see flying butresses and arches, except they are hewn out of bedrock, thus requiring far greater precision (absolutely no do-overs). Until the American skyscraper age, nothing even remotely begins to challenge the engineering feat of Angkor Wat- from flying butresses, arches with far finer tolerances than anything from western Europe (to this date!), floating columns ( Europeans never built such things), interior roof drainage that was perfectly aligned to the angle of incidence of prevailing rains ( again, far more sophisticated than anything western world has to offer to this date in terms of roofing gutters) and at a scale that dwarves anything from the Greco-Roman world into insignificance.
There are plenty of buildings strewn all across the Indian subcontinent that are not only far greater degree of precision-working than anything displayed in the Greco-Roman world, its at a scale far greater (both in terms of the overall structure and the building blocks used).
"In terms of transportation technology Roman wagons were better than 18th century European wagons, which were better than 18th century Qing wagons
Eurocentric disingenuity alert: Roman technology compared to Qing, when China was at an alltime low, when the topic is about Han. The Han wheelbarrow was far superior to that of the Roman wheelbarrow.
As for Roman wagons being better than 18th century European ones, I've never seen a single paper to demonstrate such a fantasical claim.
"
"while Roman ships were as large as early 19th century European
ships.
"
Yet the Roman ships were inferior to design and construction than Viking ships.
"In terms of machinery, the Romans were capable of making machines of 30-40 gears that were the size of a shoe box while no other culture in the world managed to make machines as complex as these until the mechanical clocks in 14th century europe, and only by the 17-18th century that clockwork devices were as miniaturized to the same degree as the Roman devices.
Cheap parlour tricks notwithstanding, such 'gear-based technologies' had very little application and were mostly rich people farting around."
If we are talking about 'what one culture did that nobody else did as well', we have Indian metallurgy ( makes Roman metallurgy seem crude), Chinese pottery (Ceramic- the type and nature of glazing far superior to any other culture), Indian weaving- producing cotton and wool at a finer weave than anything west of it for most of history (till industrial revolution).
"Overall our knowledge of Roman technology still is highly incomplete thanks to the collapse that occured from the 2nd though the 8th centuries that destroyed most Roman records and resulted into the loss of a large proportion of the set of technologies used by the Romans. This is evidenced by the fact that still today we don't know how the Romans did many things that they had done. In the case of China, thanks to the lack of collapse, we have a much more complete record of the set of technologies available at the time.
"
That is the most biassed and ignorant statement yet. Collapse notwithstanding, the Roman world has been investigated far greater than the Chinese/Indian world, hence we have a far more complete picture of the Greco-Roman world than these civilizations. Plus, the Greco-Roman civilizations did not suffer a fate where regions the size of France and Germany combined have been completely flattened and razed to the ground, its population mostly butchered or scattered. As such, due to a lack of pillage and burning, far more Greco-Roman artefacts exist than Indian or Chinese.
"China was perhaps more advanced than Western Eurasia in technological terms during the Tang and Song periods. By the 14-15th centuries western eurasia regained their technological leadership."
By the 16th century, western Eurasia became a technological leader for the first time in almost 4000 years, for not since the mature Harappan phase of Indus Valley Civilization (2500 BCE) has technological and theoretical apex of science lie west of the Hindu Kush, until 16th century Europe.
Could you include stuff like the above as well? Like do a complete analysis and post about how the non-European civilizations in antiquity like Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Mesopotamia, West African Kingdoms like Timbuktu, Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient China, Phoenicia, Hebrew Kingdoms, Moorish Spain etc etc were all more advanced and wealthier then Europe and then list side by side, the influences they had on Europe and how Europeans took and stole from them without giving credit to them, by use of pictures which you have used on Egyptsearch before?
Also include how Europe financed itself and got to where it is by stealing the ideas of all these past civilizations, how they got rich by taking over African gold/ink routes and the silk routes of Asia, and how African slavery and African domestication of plants/crops like rice/beans got Europe rich financially and how European theft and stealing of African labor and Asian ideas/colonies started their industrial revolution?
Hell even include the part on how the Native Americans/Meso-Americans got Europe rich and how they influenced "western civilization" and allowed "Western civilization" to happen and exist and how their contributions are underplayed!
Alot of readers and lurkers on Egyptsearchreloaded and Egyptsearch would greatly appreciate your input and writings on all this and on the subject of exposing the fraudelent foundations of European civilizations and European culture in general. I know you have done this before on ESR already but could you do a part by part post on this more?
