4 ms·

My first reading of Sapiens was like reading a story. I got pulled into the story telling. On a more detailed reading, I felt Harari is a western apologist. He

by vaidhy 3y ago

My first reading of Sapiens was like reading a story. I got pulled into the story telling. On a more detailed reading, I felt Harari is a western apologist. He credits the western civilization and the colonization for all the "good things" as if they never existed in places colonized by the european powers. Here are a few choice quotes - "European imperialism was entirely unlike all other imperial projects in history. Previous seekers of empire tended to assume that they already understood the world. Conquest merely utilised and spread their view of the world. The Arabs, to name one example, did not conquer Egypt, Spain or India in order to discover something they did not know. The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge. In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories." Really??? Conquest for knowledge and everyone else just did it for money? "During the twentieth century, local groups that had adopted Western values claimed equality with their European conquerors in the name of these very values. Many anti-colonial struggles were waged under the banners of self-determination, socialism and human rights, all of which are Western legacies. Just as Egyptians, Iranians and Turks adopted and adapted the imperial culture that they inherited from the original Arab conquerors, so today's Indians, Africans and Chinese have accepted much of the imperial culture of their former Western overlords, while seeking to mould it in accordance with their needs and traditions." self-determination, socialism and human rights, all of which are Western legacies - Really?? The rest of world was just hunter-gatherers before western civilizations? There are many, many more - but this idea that western civilization is manifest destiny bothers me a lot.

simpletone 3y ago
> The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge. The romans conquered greece and nearly adopted ancient greek knowledge and culture wholesale. The mongols were reknown for invading china, persia, etc and taking their best scholars with them. The mongol empire is responsible for much of the cross-eurasian transfer of knowledge. Along with the preservation of much knowledge and culture as they were multireligious and multiculturalists. It's why people in china still speak chinese and arabs still worship as they do. The mongols didn't wipe out entire cultures like 'european imperialists'. > In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories." So wiping out entire continents of people ( their histories, language, culture, knowledge ) was in hopes of obtaining new knowledge. We can't even ascertain the etymology of many of the names of towns, cities, lakes, etc because we killed off entire native language families.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests. They killed millions of people. In some cases languages would have been wiped out. You just don't hear much about them these days because dithering over the genocide of peoples we know little about back in 13th-14th century is not in the zeitgeist the way modern colonialism is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E... It's not surprising, and in fact quite obvious, that any historical event has "good" impacts as well as "bad" ones. But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. I suppose they could have done more to wipe such things out, and didn't, but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. Certainly you could make the argument the colonization of the Americas really did not in any way resemble Mongol extermination campaigns.
  - simpletone 3y ago
    > The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests. They didn't. I checked. The fact that you write 'undoubtedly wiped out' without being able to name a single ethnic group, language, religion, culture that got wiped out says something. No? > They killed millions of people. They did kill people and were destructive as all empires are. But they weren't genocidal. And most of the 'brutality' is exaggerated for the benefit of oddly enough the conquering mongols and subjugated peoples. > But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. They preserved it because they merged into local populations. Hence mughal persia, mughal india and the various khanates throughout central asia and china. As I said, they were multicultural and multiracial empire. They didn't force their language, customs, religions, etc on the conquered people. They did the oppposite. They adopted the local language, religions, customs. All the way from eastern europe to china to persia and the middle east. Now juxtapose that with what happened to european imperialism? > but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. It isn't a coincidence that marco polo went to china during the rule of the mongols. The mongols deserve credit for much of the modern world. Starting with the italian renaissance ( it isn't a coincidence that the italian renaissance, medicis, etc ) occurred during the mongol empire, to the rise of russian empire, the rise of china, the rise of the ottomans, etc. It's remarkable how the mongols were so bloodthirsty and genocidal but the peoples they conquered are the most numerous in the world? Now compare the mongols to the european imperialists who wiped out an entire hemisphere and more. Here is a list of regions the mongols and their descendents conquered - china, india, persia, middle east, eastern europe, russia, central asia, etc. Tell me which of these people were wiped out. I'll wait.

by vaidhy 3y ago

simpletone 3y ago

> The Romans, Mongols and Aztecs voraciously conquered new lands in search of power and wealth - not of knowledge. The romans conquered greece and nearly adopted ancient greek knowledge and culture wholesale. The mongols were reknown for invading china, persia, etc and taking their best scholars with them. The mongol empire is responsible for much of the cross-eurasian transfer of knowledge. Along with the preservation of much knowledge and culture as they were multireligious and multiculturalists. It's why people in china still speak chinese and arabs still worship as they do. The mongols didn't wipe out entire cultures like 'european imperialists'. > In contrast, European imperialists set out to distant shores in the hope of obtaining new knowledge along with new territories." So wiping out entire continents of people ( their histories, language, culture, knowledge ) was in hopes of obtaining new knowledge. We can't even ascertain the etymology of many of the names of towns, cities, lakes, etc because we killed off entire native language families.

Amezarak 3y ago
The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests. They killed millions of people. In some cases languages would have been wiped out. You just don't hear much about them these days because dithering over the genocide of peoples we know little about back in 13th-14th century is not in the zeitgeist the way modern colonialism is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E... It's not surprising, and in fact quite obvious, that any historical event has "good" impacts as well as "bad" ones. But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. I suppose they could have done more to wipe such things out, and didn't, but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. Certainly you could make the argument the colonization of the Americas really did not in any way resemble Mongol extermination campaigns.
- simpletone 3y ago
  > The Mongols undoubtedly wiped out entire ethnic groups during their conquests. They didn't. I checked. The fact that you write 'undoubtedly wiped out' without being able to name a single ethnic group, language, religion, culture that got wiped out says something. No? > They killed millions of people. They did kill people and were destructive as all empires are. But they weren't genocidal. And most of the 'brutality' is exaggerated for the benefit of oddly enough the conquering mongols and subjugated peoples. > But to speak of the Mongols as "preservers of knowledge and culture" is silly. They preserved it because they merged into local populations. Hence mughal persia, mughal india and the various khanates throughout central asia and china. As I said, they were multicultural and multiracial empire. They didn't force their language, customs, religions, etc on the conquered people. They did the oppposite. They adopted the local language, religions, customs. All the way from eastern europe to china to persia and the middle east. Now juxtapose that with what happened to european imperialism? > but it hardly seems like something they deserve credit for. It isn't a coincidence that marco polo went to china during the rule of the mongols. The mongols deserve credit for much of the modern world. Starting with the italian renaissance ( it isn't a coincidence that the italian renaissance, medicis, etc ) occurred during the mongol empire, to the rise of russian empire, the rise of china, the rise of the ottomans, etc. It's remarkable how the mongols were so bloodthirsty and genocidal but the peoples they conquered are the most numerous in the world? Now compare the mongols to the european imperialists who wiped out an entire hemisphere and more. Here is a list of regions the mongols and their descendents conquered - china, india, persia, middle east, eastern europe, russia, central asia, etc. Tell me which of these people were wiped out. I'll wait.