How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[Bereta_Eder]

they used it after a specific time, not before.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
that's necessity

It's natural, because they were part of the same civilization.

[Bereta_Eder]

rather having similar aims

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
they used it after a specific time, not before.

So?

[Bereta_Eder]

so it's made up to serve after goals.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
rather having similar aims

They didn't just have similar aims. They had many similarities. That's because they were part of the same civilization.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
so it's made up to serve after goals.

Connect the dots for me please?

[Bereta_Eder]

they had to survive and conquer. that hardly makes them the same.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Connect the dots for me please?

simplification for theory's sake is the damage

societal and political needs is the cause


it's easier to simplify to explain but to an extend that you create something that cant be historically sustained it's stupid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
they had to survive and conquer...

Other civilizations.

Right.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
simplification for theory's sake is the damage

What damage? What exactly are you getting at?

[Bereta_Eder]

natives. it's not a play of civs

but a play of newcomer versus already established

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What damage? What exactly are you getting at?

the damage to historical and even contemporary truth, the damage to the inerpratation and view of our world.

having the wrong lenses influences your real reactions to it.

[CerberusIV]

Have we reached the point where paiktis demands the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece yet?

(I assume that is where this is going - an attempt to rubbish any moral, aesthetic or historical sense countries, including Britain, thought of as being part of western civilisation may have)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by paiktis22
the damage to historical and even contemporary truth, the damage to the inerpratation and view of our world.

having the wrong lenses influences your real reactions to it.

I don't think that using the term damages our understanding of history. Not one nation has reached the achievements that Western Civilization has reached together. That is the purpose of using the term, to understand history, and why the nations, considered part of Western Civilization, are the way they are, and what similarites they have.

Western Civilization is huge and there are differences among nations and peoples. There are the same differences here in the US. Utah has a mormon heritage. California does not, but will you argue that the two states are not of the same civilization?