5 ms·

> while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing That's called euro-centrism isn't it. And every westerner believes wholeheartedly that

> while it might not be PC to say so, this could be a constructive thing That's called euro-centrism isn't it. And every westerner believes wholeheartedly that it is the best most constructive thing to do. So it is neither right nor wrong politically. But it does dull the world when every place you go to is Europe in microcosm. That is a true vision of dystopian hell itself.

hereforphone 5y ago
Spend a couple years in Italy. Spend a couple years in Syria. Come back and tell me which you prefer.
- ploika 5y ago
  The one not at war obviously. Being in Europe didn't save Bosnia from being a pretty awful place to be in the 90s.
  - tdsamardzhiev 5y ago
    Our part of Europe is... special.
- romwell 5y ago
  Italy wasn't the nicest place to be in during the 1940s, which would be a fair comparison as far as war-torn states go
  - shadilay 5y ago
    Most people would still pick wartime Italy to wartime Syria.
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  Why, so I can visit the Lamborghini factory and pizza restaurant? If you think my statement sounds like a shallow cliche then I would remind you that a group of people connected loosely by the idea of a state have cultural norms and traditions that make their little corner of the world unique...and Id say this surpasses the idea of materialism/unbounded consumption that undertones every conversation about "Europe Vs ...." measuring progress by how many cappucino cafes per square kilometer is a rather dull way to view the world at the very least.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    When people talk about this they simply mean that cappuccino cafes are better than landmines, and that Italy beats Syria by that good vs bad metric. It's not an argument that we should replace all culture with a European facsimile, merely that some movement towards the proven model for success is needed.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    The difference is that cultural differences can be expressed in Europe. You can't do that in those contested regions because everyone wants to violently force their own cultural difference upon the rest of the population.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  This might be relevant if world history began in 1900.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. They chose it on their own. If you're going to say that their choice was wrong, that would be rather paternalistic, don't you think?
- simonh 5y ago
  I don't think an authoritarian leader dictating cultural norms is really the same as a country 'choosing' it on it's own.
- trhway 5y ago
  >Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. history was pressuring. In both cases the more advanced, technically/militarily in particular, Europe was an existential threat - in case of Russia to make Russia (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) into a small dukedom far in the forests, and in case of Turkey - for example the post WW1 partitioning plan for Osman Empire included partitioning of what is modern Turkey territory.
  - juki 5y ago
    > (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) The Grand Duchy of Moscow existed from 1263 to 1547, but the beard tax was from 1698 (Tsardom of Russia) to 1772 (Russian Empire).
    - trhway 5y ago
      the point here is that after Mongol period Russia started to collide in 15xx with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth with the issue culminating in Polish invasion of 1610 resulting in Moscow capture and putting up Polish Prince as Tsar. It came pretty close to Russia just becoming a satellite province/vassal state of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the 16xx Swedish Empire is rising and is going south and east and firmly cutting Russia from Baltic Sea and taking a bunch of North West territories. In the second half of 16xx the slowing down Russia was no match for modern Sweden. Without Peter the Great's modernization (suppose his sister Sophia's coup succeeded) of Russia and winning the war with Sweden as a result, Russia would have most probably lost a lot of territories (including core territories like Novgorod and Moscow regions) in the next few decades to Sweden and Poland and, instead of becoming Russian Empire, would be reduced to some small dukedom(s) on the Eastern edges of Europe, and with probable forced Catholicization it would basically cease to exist as a familiar Russian state.
sandworm101 5y ago
Countries are allowed to change. A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. The leader of Turkey wanted to take his country in a particular direction. That is a valid local decision by a local leader. What is euro-centric is to dictate to those local leaders, to tell countries that they shouldn't change their culture as they see fit. Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist. Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. > Other countries are not museums needing protection from change. Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies. In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". ... > Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. This is not an accurate reading of history. Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. Not only had the Ottoman Empire been dismantled, the territory of modern Turkey had been partitioned and split amongst the victors, much like Hungary had lost land in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being dismantled (for which Hungarian nationalists still harbour resentment to this day). Large parts of Western Anatolia were ceded to Greece as part of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and Constantinople was put under Allied military administration at the end of the war. This was the cause of the Turkish War of Independence, which began shortly after the end of the First World War. Winning this war was what made Atatürk's name, in a rather literal way - it is the very reason why he's considered the father of the nation. So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won. If he had been concerned about submitting to his 'European masters', events like the Greek genocide which carried on after the founding of the Republic of Turkey would never have occurred.
nine_k 5y ago
You can remove the "euro" part from it, and pick any other successful civilization which produced a rich culture. E.g. Chinese culture influenced its neighbors to a very significant extent, and certain traits of it were consciously emulated, say, in Japan and Korea at certain times.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Well we know what happened. Europe rose to ascendancy in the 17th and 18th century. I think it is fair to say he bet on the right horse.

hereforphone 5y ago

Spend a couple years in Italy. Spend a couple years in Syria. Come back and tell me which you prefer.

ploika 5y ago
The one not at war obviously. Being in Europe didn't save Bosnia from being a pretty awful place to be in the 90s.
- tdsamardzhiev 5y ago
  Our part of Europe is... special.
romwell 5y ago
Italy wasn't the nicest place to be in during the 1940s, which would be a fair comparison as far as war-torn states go
- shadilay 5y ago
  Most people would still pick wartime Italy to wartime Syria.
vagrantJin 5y ago
Why, so I can visit the Lamborghini factory and pizza restaurant? If you think my statement sounds like a shallow cliche then I would remind you that a group of people connected loosely by the idea of a state have cultural norms and traditions that make their little corner of the world unique...and Id say this surpasses the idea of materialism/unbounded consumption that undertones every conversation about "Europe Vs ...." measuring progress by how many cappucino cafes per square kilometer is a rather dull way to view the world at the very least.
- FredPret 5y ago
  When people talk about this they simply mean that cappuccino cafes are better than landmines, and that Italy beats Syria by that good vs bad metric. It's not an argument that we should replace all culture with a European facsimile, merely that some movement towards the proven model for success is needed.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The difference is that cultural differences can be expressed in Europe. You can't do that in those contested regions because everyone wants to violently force their own cultural difference upon the rest of the population.
ceilingcorner 5y ago
This might be relevant if world history began in 1900.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. They chose it on their own. If you're going to say that their choice was wrong, that would be rather paternalistic, don't you think?

simonh 5y ago
I don't think an authoritarian leader dictating cultural norms is really the same as a country 'choosing' it on it's own.
trhway 5y ago
>Nobody pressured Turkey (or Russia, in the era of Peter the Great) into trying to become more like Europe. history was pressuring. In both cases the more advanced, technically/militarily in particular, Europe was an existential threat - in case of Russia to make Russia (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) into a small dukedom far in the forests, and in case of Turkey - for example the post WW1 partitioning plan for Osman Empire included partitioning of what is modern Turkey territory.
- juki 5y ago
  > (ie. Grand Duchy of Moscow) The Grand Duchy of Moscow existed from 1263 to 1547, but the beard tax was from 1698 (Tsardom of Russia) to 1772 (Russian Empire).
  - trhway 5y ago
    the point here is that after Mongol period Russia started to collide in 15xx with Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth with the issue culminating in Polish invasion of 1610 resulting in Moscow capture and putting up Polish Prince as Tsar. It came pretty close to Russia just becoming a satellite province/vassal state of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the 16xx Swedish Empire is rising and is going south and east and firmly cutting Russia from Baltic Sea and taking a bunch of North West territories. In the second half of 16xx the slowing down Russia was no match for modern Sweden. Without Peter the Great's modernization (suppose his sister Sophia's coup succeeded) of Russia and winning the war with Sweden as a result, Russia would have most probably lost a lot of territories (including core territories like Novgorod and Moscow regions) in the next few decades to Sweden and Poland and, instead of becoming Russian Empire, would be reduced to some small dukedom(s) on the Eastern edges of Europe, and with probable forced Catholicization it would basically cease to exist as a familiar Russian state.

sandworm101 5y ago

Countries are allowed to change. A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. The leader of Turkey wanted to take his country in a particular direction. That is a valid local decision by a local leader. What is euro-centric is to dictate to those local leaders, to tell countries that they shouldn't change their culture as they see fit. Other countries are not museums needing protection from change.

dotcommand 5y ago
> A country choosing to adopt the ways of another is only evil if it is forced upon them by outsiders. You are ignoring the fact that the ottoman empire had been invaded by european powers for hundreds of years and ultimately destroyed by european powers. And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". You are painting a rather biased picture of what the "leader of Turkey" did. It was under duress - real threat of national disintegration and even genocide. It wasn't that Ataturk wanted to take Turkey in a particular direction, it was that external forces gave him no choice. It was either submit his european masters or cease to exist. Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. > Other countries are not museums needing protection from change. Sure, but they aren't mimics either that exist to mindlessly copy or be forced to copy the world's biggest bullies. In an ideal world, countries can copy from others what they choose, but that's sadly not how the world works. The most brutal force their "values" on the weaker.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > And that european powers were threatening to destroy Turkey completely unless the turks "bent the knee". ... > Neither Ataturk nor Turkey was in a position to take their country wherever they wanted. They were essentially a vanquished nation and pretty much had no choice but to do as the europeans powers ( and later on america ) told them to. This is not an accurate reading of history. Turkey had, in fact, been destroyed at the end of the First World War. Not only had the Ottoman Empire been dismantled, the territory of modern Turkey had been partitioned and split amongst the victors, much like Hungary had lost land in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being dismantled (for which Hungarian nationalists still harbour resentment to this day). Large parts of Western Anatolia were ceded to Greece as part of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, and Constantinople was put under Allied military administration at the end of the war. This was the cause of the Turkish War of Independence, which began shortly after the end of the First World War. Winning this war was what made Atatürk's name, in a rather literal way - it is the very reason why he's considered the father of the nation. So rather than being the Western puppet you portray him as, Atatürk was quite aggressive in defending the sovereignty of the new nation in a way that very early on led to military conflict with Western powers, conflicts which he won. If he had been concerned about submitting to his 'European masters', events like the Greek genocide which carried on after the founding of the Republic of Turkey would never have occurred.

nine_k 5y ago

You can remove the "euro" part from it, and pick any other successful civilization which produced a rich culture. E.g. Chinese culture influenced its neighbors to a very significant extent, and certain traits of it were consciously emulated, say, in Japan and Korea at certain times.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Well we know what happened. Europe rose to ascendancy in the 17th and 18th century. I think it is fair to say he bet on the right horse.