8 ms·
> One animal [the horse] was so decisive in shaping human history... What a Western-centric view. Entire human civilizations developed for centuries or millen
by bambax 9y ago
> One animal [the horse] was so decisive in shaping human history...
What a Western-centric view.
Entire human civilizations developed for centuries or millennia, without horses -- they really don't conform to the phases of "pre-horse, horse and post-horse" because they were never "horse".
It's possible (although ill-conceived and wrong) to argue that there is no history and no culture outside of Western civilization; but then one should make an argument about it, not simply ignoring immense parts of the human adventure.
- xkcd-sucks 9y agoMongols are considered "western civilization?"
- bambax 9y agoYou seem to be inferring that I said that no non-western civilization ever used the horse? I said no such thing. I said that a great number of civilization and cultures, that lasted for many centuries, developed without ever using horses, and that therefore, the horse cannot be considered to define all of human civilization.
- toasterlovin 9y agoDomestication of the horse shaped human history pretty much everywhere except Africa and Southeast Asia.
- tacomonstrous 9y agoAlso, the Americas till the Europeans showed up.
- toasterlovin 9y agoThe Europeans showing up is part of history. And the horse is one of the things which gave Europeans a huge advantage over the native populations here. Hence, I, a descendant of Europeans, am writing this to you from the Americas.
- samastur 9y agoNot nearly as much as germs and muskets.
- jessaustin 9y agoEveryone has germs, but they wouldn't have had the muskets and more notably the boats to get here without the horse.
- philwelch 9y agoIf it wasn't for germs and muskets, the Comanche would have conquered North America just like the Mongols conquered Eurasia.
- bambax 9y agoAnd America(s) before the Europeans. And all the brillant cultures of the Pacific islands. Etc. So, really not "everywhere".
- toasterlovin 9y agoYeah, but the Europeans showing up is part of history in the Americas. Thus, the horse influenced human history throughout most of the world. And the cultures of the pacific islands aren't really capable of proving or disproving any broad generalizations about human history. The pacific islands are separated from the mainland by thousands of miles and constitute a tiny land mass.
- muninn_ 9y agoIt’s ok to have Western-centric views when your an English-speaking person from a Western country.
- jerf 9y agoOne way in which horses shaped the world is precisely that they only existed in certain places: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo Absence vs. presence is an effect too!
- mathgeek 9y ago"[H]uman history" is generally considered to be the sum, rather than the individual cultural parts. For a non-Western chunk of data, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_East_Asian_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_East_Asian_warfare
- Spooky23 9y agoPretty much all of the horseless civilizations got rolled over by people with horses. The quote wasn't that "no civilization existed without horses", it was that the horse was "decisive in shaping human history". When you consider what happened to advanced civilizations like the Aztec and Inca when they interfaced with horseborne civilizations, the point makes sense, and isn't doing so by marginalizing people who didn't have horses.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- woodandsteel 9y agoYou're absolutely correct. The West is entirely evil, and non-Westerners are entirely good. If I am misrepresenting your political philosophy, then you should say specifically what it is.