ELEVEN: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE ROLE OF MODERN EUROPE
Part 3 examines human achievements globally from 800 to 1950, focusing largely on Europe. It highlights a significant concentration of accomplishments in Europe, especially from 1400 to 1950, with most notable figures appearing after 1800. By the 1890s, 81% of significant contributors were European, leading to a perception of European dominance. However, this viewpoint can be challenged as a Eurocentric bias, where Western historians might overlook important contributions from non-Western cultures due to ingrained standards and ignorance. The analysis suggests the need to reassess the global narrative of human accomplishment.
Testing for Eurocentrism in the Arts Inventories
The analysis suggests that combining different types of inventories, like arts and sciences, may skew the results, giving too much weight to the European influence in the last five centuries. To clarify this influence, the data should be separated to focus only on the arts. This allows for a more accurate representation of European contributions specifically in the arts, without the impact of sciences affecting the overall findings.
Does Taking Eminence Into Account Make a Difference?
The discussion focuses on how we measure cultural contributions and argues that the number of important figures isn't the only thing that matters—it's also about the impact of key individuals like Plato and Aristotle. History shows that times with many great figures also have many lesser-known contributors. Data indicates that European achievements, especially from after 1400, are much larger than those from other regions, even when only considering the arts.
When counting contributions from places like India, China, and Japan, it's clear these regions made important contributions, but they still do not match Europe's accomplishments in the last five centuries. The way figures are counted can make non-Western contributions seem more important. For example, a history of American art might highlight local artists, which could inflate their significance compared to a broader inventory of Western art.
This pattern is seen in various countries, showing that compilations based on a single country's sources often result in a higher count of notable figures. Overall, the evidence suggests that Europe's dominance in the arts is even stronger than originally thought when using consistent methods across different regions.
Testing for Eurocentrism in the Scientific Inventories
Research shows that 97 percent of important scientific achievements come from Europe and North America, with Europe accounting for about 78 percent. North America is also becoming significant but only recently reached that level. This has led to a debate about whether this focus on Europe is Eurocentric, meaning that it gives too much credit to Europe while ignoring contributions from other cultures.
Some historians argue that the traditional view of science has overlooked valuable contributions from places like the Islamic world, India, and China, which had their own strong scientific traditions. Others believe that, despite these interactions, modern science mostly developed in Europe. They argue that before modern times, many ideas came from civilizations like China, but once Europe developed its science, the influence flowed mainly from Europe back to other cultures.
The disagreement might seem complicated, but it really centers on two ideas: one that focuses on Eurocentrism and another that emphasizes global contributions. Some recent history books discuss non-Western scientific achievements and challenge the Eurocentric view. However, a closer look at these books shows that they still largely recognize European contributions.
Over the 20th century, knowledge about non-European contributions to science has increased. Many European scholars have worked to record important advancements from non-Western cultures. Their research has highlighted the achievements of civilizations in the Arab world and Asia, which played roles in the history of science.
To examine any bias in how science is presented, it is useful to compare different sources and see how well they include contributions from non-European cultures. The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (DoSB) is a respected reference guide that includes contributions from experts around the world and has been carefully checked to correct any past omissions regarding gender and race.
When researchers compare the DoSB with other lists of scientists, they find that roughly 81 percent of entries are from Europe, indicating that many sources may have similar Eurocentric tendencies. Critics of Eurocentrism must then identify significant Asian and Arabic scientists and contributions that are not included.
In conclusion, while there is growing recognition of contributions from around the world in science and technology, the overwhelming presence of European figures in history remains a point of debate. This situation highlights both the important achievements of non-European civilizations and the lasting influence of Europe on modern science.
A Challenge
There is a claim that there is no significant body of non-European accomplishments from the period of 800 to 1950. The argument suggests that 97 percent of scientific achievements can be attributed to Europe and North America, and it challenges others to find enough non-European accomplishments to change this percentage. Any new non-European events must be discoveries or inventions that are truly unique. Additionally, when including non-European achievements, the same level of scrutiny must be applied to European accomplishments to ensure fairness.
In the arts, 74 percent of significant contributors are from the West, and the methods used to measure accomplishments tend to inflate non-Western numbers. In music, the absence of well-known composers in non-Western cultures adds to the imbalance. While exploring lost works from both Western and non-Western cultures, it becomes evident that Western cultures also have many lost masterpieces. The inclusion of anonymous works from both sides does not resolve the disparity, as Europe has many similar traditions.
Expanding definitions of artistic accomplishments to include architecture and decorative arts shows that European contributions likely remain far greater. Popular music, too, has rich traditions in Europe that contribute to this imbalance. Overall, any effort to increase recognition of non-European contributions seems likely to only highlight and intensify the existing dominance of European achievements in both arts and sciences.
Codicil: The Moving Finger Writes
Human achievements are spread out across different times and places, and it’s important to be careful when looking at these patterns. In the United States, many people often think of the Western world as being the same as Europe. However, historically, America has not contributed as much to science and the arts as Europe. Even though America is seen as a leader in science today, many influential figures appeared before 1400, and many of these figures came from non-European cultures, such as Confucius and Buddha.
Also, important advancements in places like China show that they had great technology and complex urban life long before Europe improved after the Dark Ages. Most studies start counting significant achievements from 800 BCE, which leaves out many earlier civilizations and inventions. Even with these points in mind, it is clear that modern Europe has had a huge impact on the arts and sciences. In the future, another part of the world may take the lead in significant achievements, demonstrating how civilization continues to change over time.
Part 3 examines human achievements globally from 800 to 1950, focusing largely on Europe. It highlights a significant concentration of accomplishments in Europe, especially from 1400 to 1950, with most notable figures appearing after 1800. By the 1890s, 81% of significant contributors were European, leading to a perception of European dominance. However, this viewpoint can be challenged as a Eurocentric bias, where Western historians might overlook important contributions from non-Western cultures due to ingrained standards and ignorance. The analysis suggests the need to reassess the global narrative of human accomplishment.
Testing for Eurocentrism in the Arts Inventories
The analysis suggests that combining different types of inventories, like arts and sciences, may skew the results, giving too much weight to the European influence in the last five centuries. To clarify this influence, the data should be separated to focus only on the arts. This allows for a more accurate representation of European contributions specifically in the arts, without the impact of sciences affecting the overall findings.
Does Taking Eminence Into Account Make a Difference?
The discussion focuses on how we measure cultural contributions and argues that the number of important figures isn't the only thing that matters—it's also about the impact of key individuals like Plato and Aristotle. History shows that times with many great figures also have many lesser-known contributors. Data indicates that European achievements, especially from after 1400, are much larger than those from other regions, even when only considering the arts.
When counting contributions from places like India, China, and Japan, it's clear these regions made important contributions, but they still do not match Europe's accomplishments in the last five centuries. The way figures are counted can make non-Western contributions seem more important. For example, a history of American art might highlight local artists, which could inflate their significance compared to a broader inventory of Western art.
This pattern is seen in various countries, showing that compilations based on a single country's sources often result in a higher count of notable figures. Overall, the evidence suggests that Europe's dominance in the arts is even stronger than originally thought when using consistent methods across different regions.
Testing for Eurocentrism in the Scientific Inventories
Research shows that 97 percent of important scientific achievements come from Europe and North America, with Europe accounting for about 78 percent. North America is also becoming significant but only recently reached that level. This has led to a debate about whether this focus on Europe is Eurocentric, meaning that it gives too much credit to Europe while ignoring contributions from other cultures.
Some historians argue that the traditional view of science has overlooked valuable contributions from places like the Islamic world, India, and China, which had their own strong scientific traditions. Others believe that, despite these interactions, modern science mostly developed in Europe. They argue that before modern times, many ideas came from civilizations like China, but once Europe developed its science, the influence flowed mainly from Europe back to other cultures.
The disagreement might seem complicated, but it really centers on two ideas: one that focuses on Eurocentrism and another that emphasizes global contributions. Some recent history books discuss non-Western scientific achievements and challenge the Eurocentric view. However, a closer look at these books shows that they still largely recognize European contributions.
Over the 20th century, knowledge about non-European contributions to science has increased. Many European scholars have worked to record important advancements from non-Western cultures. Their research has highlighted the achievements of civilizations in the Arab world and Asia, which played roles in the history of science.
To examine any bias in how science is presented, it is useful to compare different sources and see how well they include contributions from non-European cultures. The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (DoSB) is a respected reference guide that includes contributions from experts around the world and has been carefully checked to correct any past omissions regarding gender and race.
When researchers compare the DoSB with other lists of scientists, they find that roughly 81 percent of entries are from Europe, indicating that many sources may have similar Eurocentric tendencies. Critics of Eurocentrism must then identify significant Asian and Arabic scientists and contributions that are not included.
In conclusion, while there is growing recognition of contributions from around the world in science and technology, the overwhelming presence of European figures in history remains a point of debate. This situation highlights both the important achievements of non-European civilizations and the lasting influence of Europe on modern science.
A Challenge
There is a claim that there is no significant body of non-European accomplishments from the period of 800 to 1950. The argument suggests that 97 percent of scientific achievements can be attributed to Europe and North America, and it challenges others to find enough non-European accomplishments to change this percentage. Any new non-European events must be discoveries or inventions that are truly unique. Additionally, when including non-European achievements, the same level of scrutiny must be applied to European accomplishments to ensure fairness.
In the arts, 74 percent of significant contributors are from the West, and the methods used to measure accomplishments tend to inflate non-Western numbers. In music, the absence of well-known composers in non-Western cultures adds to the imbalance. While exploring lost works from both Western and non-Western cultures, it becomes evident that Western cultures also have many lost masterpieces. The inclusion of anonymous works from both sides does not resolve the disparity, as Europe has many similar traditions.
Expanding definitions of artistic accomplishments to include architecture and decorative arts shows that European contributions likely remain far greater. Popular music, too, has rich traditions in Europe that contribute to this imbalance. Overall, any effort to increase recognition of non-European contributions seems likely to only highlight and intensify the existing dominance of European achievements in both arts and sciences.
Codicil: The Moving Finger Writes
Human achievements are spread out across different times and places, and it’s important to be careful when looking at these patterns. In the United States, many people often think of the Western world as being the same as Europe. However, historically, America has not contributed as much to science and the arts as Europe. Even though America is seen as a leader in science today, many influential figures appeared before 1400, and many of these figures came from non-European cultures, such as Confucius and Buddha.
Also, important advancements in places like China show that they had great technology and complex urban life long before Europe improved after the Dark Ages. Most studies start counting significant achievements from 800 BCE, which leaves out many earlier civilizations and inventions. Even with these points in mind, it is clear that modern Europe has had a huge impact on the arts and sciences. In the future, another part of the world may take the lead in significant achievements, demonstrating how civilization continues to change over time.