Twenty facts about Eurocentrism:
1. It refers to viewing the world through a European perspective.
2. It criticizes the values of non-Europeans.
3. The term "Eurocentrism" was coined during the decolonization period after WWII.
4. It was originally called "Europe-centric" behavior.
5. It means something along the lines of "Europeans are the pinnacle of human progress."
6. It can be traced back to the European renaissance, when learning was based on Greek and Roman civilizations.
7. The assumptions that Europe was "the best" kept increasing due to influential writers.
8. The peak of the Eurocentrism point of view was in the 19th century
9. Other cultures had not reached the point Europe had - they were classified as things Europe had already been classified as before.
10. Europeans believed they provided as a model for the rest of the world
11. Eurocentrism began when Europe entered "The Age of Discovery" and shot ahead of its competitors.
12. The Age of Discovery went on from 16th to 18th century - the same time that Eurocentrism climbed.
13. European encyclopedias mentioned that Europe was predominant over others.
14. The Brockhouse Enzyklopädie states "Due to its geographical and cultural significance, Europe is clearly the most important of the five continents."
15. Many debate that Eurocentrism is "just another type of ethnocentrism," but Europe does have justification.
16. In the 19th century, anti-colonial movements argued claims of unfair trade with the British due to their high social status.
17. Early 10th century, people were trying to construct more models of world civilizations.
18. Since the end of world war 2, European culture has decolonized rapidly, therefore lowering those with the Eurocentrism worldview.
19. The most drastic lowering of the Eurocentrism worldview was in the USA due to the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s.
20. Eurocentrism STILL remains a topic in American and European culture, even after hundreds of years.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Capitalism
Capitalism is most definitely, in my opinion, a good system. It seems to work for most places; the States are doing pretty well, even with the recent crash. Also, it seems that communist places are very much failures as an economy. Monarchy's aren't fair to the people, either, and it just seems that capitalism is for the best.
Capitalism is relatively sturdy, as long as the government doesn't make any rash decisions too quickly... or constantly. The market crash that sent us into a depression was all because of the stupid decisions of the banks, lending out money without asking for credit scores or whatever. But normally, the capitalism holds the economy pretty well. I mean, Canada is doing pretty well, even though we heavily rely on the United States, who made a large mistake with the banking things a little while back. However, before all that, we were doing very well.
You know, another way to tell that capitalism is supreme is to look at many other failed economies. Communism, for instance, just doesn't work. It seems like it would on paper, but people are all just too selfish. Also, equality cannot happen when everyone works different jobs and are different people altogether. If someone works harder than another, not only to they WANT more money, but they deserve it, too. And that's why capitalism is superior. People get what they deserve - it all depends on how hard they work and on what decisions they make.
The problems with capitalism are not really that severe - the pros far outweigh the cons. The only ones I can think of are the facts that the government has little involvement, therefore it could be very close to becoming an anarchy. Another problem is that, as fair as it is to hard workers, they DO get taxed more, leaving them with some sort of equality, which isn't a fair thing. It's like Robin Hood, who was, no matter how you put it, a criminal.
Aside from all that, though, capitalism is a very good thing. It's a lot more fair than most other economies, and that's definitely a plus side. I may be biased just because we live in a mostly capitalistic society, but I truly believe that it's the best. I mean, look at our quality of life. It's pretty high, if I do say so myself - that's something you can't say for the majority of the population of un-capitalistic societies.
Capitalism is relatively sturdy, as long as the government doesn't make any rash decisions too quickly... or constantly. The market crash that sent us into a depression was all because of the stupid decisions of the banks, lending out money without asking for credit scores or whatever. But normally, the capitalism holds the economy pretty well. I mean, Canada is doing pretty well, even though we heavily rely on the United States, who made a large mistake with the banking things a little while back. However, before all that, we were doing very well.
You know, another way to tell that capitalism is supreme is to look at many other failed economies. Communism, for instance, just doesn't work. It seems like it would on paper, but people are all just too selfish. Also, equality cannot happen when everyone works different jobs and are different people altogether. If someone works harder than another, not only to they WANT more money, but they deserve it, too. And that's why capitalism is superior. People get what they deserve - it all depends on how hard they work and on what decisions they make.
The problems with capitalism are not really that severe - the pros far outweigh the cons. The only ones I can think of are the facts that the government has little involvement, therefore it could be very close to becoming an anarchy. Another problem is that, as fair as it is to hard workers, they DO get taxed more, leaving them with some sort of equality, which isn't a fair thing. It's like Robin Hood, who was, no matter how you put it, a criminal.
Aside from all that, though, capitalism is a very good thing. It's a lot more fair than most other economies, and that's definitely a plus side. I may be biased just because we live in a mostly capitalistic society, but I truly believe that it's the best. I mean, look at our quality of life. It's pretty high, if I do say so myself - that's something you can't say for the majority of the population of un-capitalistic societies.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Silk Road
The Silk Road was probably the most influential thing that's ever come to Europe. It brought knowledge, ideas, products, crime, and most importantly, disease. The Silk Road brought about good things and bad things, both of which have permanently changed our society. The knowledge that was traded and brought throughout the Silk Road brought us into the information age that we are currently living in. The Black Plague was devastating and killed an immeasurable amount of people, but it also brought about a knowledge of how to prevent and cure diseases.
Things that were unobtainable by normal means were made obtainable with the use of the Silk Road. Valuable things that were sought after by nobility were made buyable because of the Silk Road. Things like silk, ivory, jade, and glass were commonly traded goods - and all of them were needed for the advancements that we have made at this point in time. Also, it developed friendly connections between different countries, and probably created a few solid alliances.
Another extremely important aspect of the Silk Road was the information that was traded, and just brought along with the products. A fun fact here, the indoor toilet idea was brought into Europe on the Silk Road. Many people became free-thinkers and differed from the church's ways due to the ideas that the Silk Road invoked. People changed; society changed, and without that change, we would be nowhere close to where we are today. It's impossible to even imagine a life without computers, or video games, for that matter.
Disease was another factor in the Silk Road. The main one, though I'm sure there were others, was the Black Plague. It killed approximately 30% of Europe because no one knew how to fight it, or how to avoid getting it. Why? The information wasn't there. Without the Silk Road, I believe it wouldn't have stopped.
Things that were unobtainable by normal means were made obtainable with the use of the Silk Road. Valuable things that were sought after by nobility were made buyable because of the Silk Road. Things like silk, ivory, jade, and glass were commonly traded goods - and all of them were needed for the advancements that we have made at this point in time. Also, it developed friendly connections between different countries, and probably created a few solid alliances.
Another extremely important aspect of the Silk Road was the information that was traded, and just brought along with the products. A fun fact here, the indoor toilet idea was brought into Europe on the Silk Road. Many people became free-thinkers and differed from the church's ways due to the ideas that the Silk Road invoked. People changed; society changed, and without that change, we would be nowhere close to where we are today. It's impossible to even imagine a life without computers, or video games, for that matter.
Disease was another factor in the Silk Road. The main one, though I'm sure there were others, was the Black Plague. It killed approximately 30% of Europe because no one knew how to fight it, or how to avoid getting it. Why? The information wasn't there. Without the Silk Road, I believe it wouldn't have stopped.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sudan
What roles did Egypt and Great Britain play in accordance to colonialism in Sudan?
The British ruled Sudan and were running it as a colony along with their Egyptian partners. They handed power of Sudan over to the Arabs who lived in the north when they left. The sudden unification of North and South caught the southern Africans by surprise. They were left with many unanswered questions about what had become of their Closed-Door-District policy that was set in on the south by the British when they had controlled Sudan. They also wanted to know how the southerners were going to catch up technologically and socially with the Northerners - they were far less educated, as well. What if they were forced to become slaves, and could do nothing of it because the North was in so much better shape than them? South Africa was baffled.
The Egyptians persuaded the British to avoid the creation of another country on the Nile. This was really pretty selfish, and left people like "The Lost Boys of Sudan" with nowhere to be. The lack of education and developed society is what really tore down Sudan. Nobody knew what to do, and Sudan wasn't stable enough to stand on its own. On January 1st, 1956, Sudan was officially declared "independent" because the British colonial masters had left.
The British ruled Sudan and were running it as a colony along with their Egyptian partners. They handed power of Sudan over to the Arabs who lived in the north when they left. The sudden unification of North and South caught the southern Africans by surprise. They were left with many unanswered questions about what had become of their Closed-Door-District policy that was set in on the south by the British when they had controlled Sudan. They also wanted to know how the southerners were going to catch up technologically and socially with the Northerners - they were far less educated, as well. What if they were forced to become slaves, and could do nothing of it because the North was in so much better shape than them? South Africa was baffled.
The Egyptians persuaded the British to avoid the creation of another country on the Nile. This was really pretty selfish, and left people like "The Lost Boys of Sudan" with nowhere to be. The lack of education and developed society is what really tore down Sudan. Nobody knew what to do, and Sudan wasn't stable enough to stand on its own. On January 1st, 1956, Sudan was officially declared "independent" because the British colonial masters had left.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The question I will be answering is this: Is there any similarity between potlatch and our modern society?
To start off, the word "potlatch" comes from the Chinook Jargon, and means "give away" or "a gift". Now, along with those gifts and giving comes a very special and lighthearted ceremony, full of happiness and awesome things. People gave away everything they owned with confidence they would become well-liked and that they would soon retrieve back what they gave away. Many would dance, sing, play instruments, and have a gay ol' time at a potlatch.
This, however, does not seem like it exists in modern-day-society. Taking all those facts into account, it seems that nothing of this sort takes place at all. Nobodyd really gives their way into poverty, yet expects popularity and to end up with lots of things as well. It's just not realistic at this point in society. The closest thing to a potlatch today is Christmas time gift-giving. However, most people don't expect to get all that back, they're just buying friends and family gifts out of the kindness of their heart.
In conclusion, the potlatch has pretty much (at this point) been fully abandoned by society. As sad as it is that a native tradition is basically lost, we as the people need to move on at some point.
To start off, the word "potlatch" comes from the Chinook Jargon, and means "give away" or "a gift". Now, along with those gifts and giving comes a very special and lighthearted ceremony, full of happiness and awesome things. People gave away everything they owned with confidence they would become well-liked and that they would soon retrieve back what they gave away. Many would dance, sing, play instruments, and have a gay ol' time at a potlatch.
This, however, does not seem like it exists in modern-day-society. Taking all those facts into account, it seems that nothing of this sort takes place at all. Nobodyd really gives their way into poverty, yet expects popularity and to end up with lots of things as well. It's just not realistic at this point in society. The closest thing to a potlatch today is Christmas time gift-giving. However, most people don't expect to get all that back, they're just buying friends and family gifts out of the kindness of their heart.
In conclusion, the potlatch has pretty much (at this point) been fully abandoned by society. As sad as it is that a native tradition is basically lost, we as the people need to move on at some point.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Lubicon you need
There's some sort of oil crisis going around, which is why our government is being totally greedy towards the Lubicons and their land. Apparently, they have some sort of high concentration of oil on their land, and our government's all like "We want your oil!" and the Lubicons are saying "It's our land, man. You can't drill it up!" I think the government should put their time and money not into badgering minority first-nations, but into developing an alternate source of fuel.
This oil crisis has being going on for far too long. We've been scavenging and panicking and overall just freaking out about how we won't have enough very soon. What if we stopped panicking and running frantic and we made deals, looked around carefully, or consulted some people? If the government could just cool their jets for a while, we'd see the state that we were really in. Instead, we steal from people who should literally own this land. That's kind of... not cool.
The Lubicons are a perfect example. They have a high concentration of oil around their land, and because of that, the Canadian government lost their minds and decided that the oil was theirs. They drilled ravenously around the perimeter of their lands, and now they're trying to find a way in by claiming the Lubicon's land as their own. I say that we just wait it out for a year or so, just to see where we stand before we go insane again. The government just seems to be getting ahead of itself.
In the time that I say we wait, with the money we'll be saving from not drilling up Canada's rightful owner's lands, we should use the money for discovering an alternate, cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, or more common source of fuel. Oil has high emissions, it's expensive, it's heavy, and it's uncommon. If someone could one day just find out that oil was a good fuel, why can't we just find another source? I'm sure the Lubicons would be happy about that.
The oil crisis could end! We just need to stop. Just stop for one minute. Just to get a hold of ourselves and take a look around. Maybe we won't be in too bad of shape if we'll just slow down and check things out. And like I said, if we put our money into finding new fuels, we'd maybe be in better shape.
(The government's all like "give us ur oils lolz" and the Lubicons are like "its are land m8!")
Monday, March 8, 2010
Secularism in France
I think the religious secularism in French schools is a good thing. It protects minority religious groups from being so easily bullied or bigoted against. It also, however small a problem it may be, prevents awkward religious clashes or disagreements between students. Even teachers could be prejudiced in their own way towards opposing religious groups. The French government's secularism prevents all this.
This secularism prevents smaller or less popular religious groups from being discriminated against or bullied. I think that preventing religion from being displayed will do far less mental harm than if a child is bullied for his religion 5 days of the week. Being bullied, even just a minuscule amount can be extremely mentally and emotionally painful. Hiding one's religion, on the other hand, is not nearly as bad.
I don't know about most people, but I find religious talks EXTREMELY awkward. There is always some disagreement or non-belief or something that creates an obvious mental conflict between two or more people. If religious talks can be avoided, by any means necessary, I say, "Go for it." I just think it's ridiculous how big a deal this "afterlife" thing is to people. If being a part of something bigger than yourself makes you happy, be a part of it.
Teachers themselves are not (no offense) perfect. They're just normal people of Earth, just like everyone else. This being said, there is no doubt that some teachers are racist or prejudiced towards certain religions. If religious display is banned, then all students will (hopefully) be treated equally by everyone and certain students will not be favored by teachers. I am positive something unfair has happened due to a student's religion, but no more with public school's secularism.
I truly believe that the French government is most definitely doing the right thing by enforcing religious secularism in schools. Children will likely be treated more fairly; better, even. Students will not be favored nor disliked by anyone else due to religion, and if conflicts can be avoided, they should. Honestly, I think that it would even be better to have the same sort of thing in our school as well. I mean, nobody really goes around blatantly declaring their religion, but still, everything seems more at rest when religion is put aside.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Olympic Games, BOY
The highlight of the Olympic Winter Games this year would have to be the gold medal won by Alexandre Bilodeau. I watched him win Canada's first gold medal in his home country at my aunt's the day before my brother and I left for Mexico. I think this will stick with me because such a monumental Canadian event happened right before a fantastic trip for me. I also like how I witnessed this live, and didn't just hear about it and watch it on the internet. I saw it with my close family all there, and it was a special experience.
I honestly don't think Canada should put so much emphasis on the "Own the Podium" program. Yes, I'm sure it really helped us win such a monumental amount of medals, but the amount of money spent was gargantuan. To spend so much money on a physical competition just seems sort of like a waste. I think we need to find a happy balance of how much money to throw at these athletes. I understand that they helped us make a name for ourselves, but the name has been made, and I think that we should quit while we're ahead. Imagine if we poured the same amount of money into our athletes in four years in Sochi, and we only come out with 6 or 7 golds. It would be humiliating, and it would be a waste of government funding. Also, if Olympic success is not measured in terms of medals won, what is it measured in? The fun they had? No. That stopped at age eleven, and with national competition, I'm pretty sure no one cares how much fun was had.
I honestly don't think Canada should put so much emphasis on the "Own the Podium" program. Yes, I'm sure it really helped us win such a monumental amount of medals, but the amount of money spent was gargantuan. To spend so much money on a physical competition just seems sort of like a waste. I think we need to find a happy balance of how much money to throw at these athletes. I understand that they helped us make a name for ourselves, but the name has been made, and I think that we should quit while we're ahead. Imagine if we poured the same amount of money into our athletes in four years in Sochi, and we only come out with 6 or 7 golds. It would be humiliating, and it would be a waste of government funding. Also, if Olympic success is not measured in terms of medals won, what is it measured in? The fun they had? No. That stopped at age eleven, and with national competition, I'm pretty sure no one cares how much fun was had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
