Comment by Chathamization | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Chathamization | Hacker News Reader

As others have pointed out, this article is riddled with errors. To give just one example, the picture he posts of a supposed "temple of the Qin dynasty, circa 200 BCE" appears to actually be the Nanqiao (south bridge) in Chengdu, which seems to have been built in 1878 AD. I can give a list of some of the other errors I noticed if anyone likes (and there are probably many I missed); either way, I wouldn't recommend anyone take any of this as fact.

Beyond the factual errors, there are numerous unsubstantiated claims. I don't know how one would come up with an objective way to measure philosophy and poetry. How much philosophy and poetry from (for example) the Kushan Empire has survived? What's the background for the claim that its philosophy and poetry dwarfed the Roman Empire's?

The idea that we should pay more attention to many of the other polities in history is a valid one. But I don't think an article filled with errors and baseless claims is terribly useful.

I just read a few paragraphs and gave up when it said Rome was left out of the civilized world (referring to the middle east blocking china).

I guess he forgot the greeks and hellenization. Oh but the greeks were barbarians too.

The tone also angered me.

When Rome ascended Hellenic civilization was in descend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period

Greece became pretty much part of Rome.

> The tone also angered me

I Read the article and I understand that it's flawed in some parts. However, that's exactly how the non-western major world civilisations are called. Barbarians, mysticals and unscientific etc are the words used to describe them. I would urge you to look past the eurocenticism as I did and you'll discover that there's truth in the facts.

If we leave out the mislabeling of images, the fact remains that the eastern world was in fact more connected, advanced and globalised compared to Rome.

>> However, that's exactly how the non-western major world civilisations are called. Barbarians, mysticals and unscientific etc are the words used to describe them.

"Barbarian" though is a Greek word, used by Greeks to describe anyone speaking a language that wasn't the Greek language. I'm guessing the article either ignores this or uses "barbarian" as a translation of a similar term used in the Far Eastern world, and which I don't know. I'm pretty sure there must have been one.

May have been the origin of the term, but these days it is basically "any culture that have practices and norm we do not understand and deem inferior to our own".

> we do not understand and deem inferior to our own

Of course, those two things don't have to go together. It's perfectly reasonable to understand something and deem it inferior. And deeming it inferior isn't necessarily an indication that something isn't understood.

No they are not, that's just a lie. The school in Europe doesn't talk that much about the East compared to the West is true (and it makes perfect sense), but it holds many parts of the East to high regard and clearly points their cultural advancement in many areas.

The "Barbarians" we learn in school are exactly from Europe, not from Asia and the term is directed towards the German tribes and the Nordic ones.

"that's exactly how the non-western major world civilisations are called. "

Everyone called everyone else 'Barbarian' - that does not mean they were.

The Germanic tribes at the time were objectively, probably 'Barbarians' ... that's roughly objective.

But not the rest.

Medium is a 'cultural marxism' type website, they are 'non self aware social prog' type people there.

Some good stuff that goes of the hinges sometime.

If you look at the Roman empire in it's decline, towards the end, it did become more barbaric, corrupt and uncivilized. That's what ultimately led to it's downfall. So you have to also specify the era.

its decline

The worst part is the Medium comment section. Users are shaming anyone who dares to call out the author on his gross generalizations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com