When Men Became Human

[Chris]

The 'greatness' of European civilization was built on the exploitation of the poor - their own and those of other nations. Throughout most of Europe's history, they were fixated on stealing from one another, intermarriages of nobility to create alliances and basically a constant state of warfare. Europe was the continent but that was in no way considered a unifying factor except among the nobility and wealthy, until after WWII.

The invention of gunpowder, cannons and other explosive devices, by the Chinese, eventually became known to Europeans by the 14th century which made it possible for European nations to further exploit one another and most particularly non-European nations i.e. through the creation of colonies by the most aggressive European nations. Europe basically appropriated mathematics, chemistry, engineering, moveable type printing, advanced military strategy and so much more from the middle east, North Africa and Asia.

Christianity did little to rein in their thirst for acquisition. It may have promoted institutions of higher learning, but for most of its history, education was a privilege conferred upon the nobility, religious and merchant classes.

In the early 19th century, history began to be rewritten to extol the virtues of Europeans at the expense of all other peoples, to make it seem like people of European extraction were inherently more intelligent and more civilized than the rest of mankind. This was an ill disguised propaganda campaign to cover up the rampant exploitation of conquered peoples around the world, from whom immense resources were stolen at gunpoint in a capitalistic feeding frenzy from which many third world nations have yet to recover because it has since turned from occupation to aggressive political and economic manipulation which continues to support corruption and bribery to extract cheap resources and manufactured goods for the benefit of the west.

Where Christianity made real inroads into civilized behavior in Europe was only at the point where people were no longer scratching at the dirt to survive and where education was extended to the masses. Ironically, it was not so much direct Christianity that made the change, but the liberalism that evolved from Christianity and the free time of people to contemplate more than their own circumstances as a result of the evolution of science, mandatory education and labor laws that really civilized Europe.

I'm puzzling where anything was said about greatness of any culture.

The OP makes it clear that the first great moment in history, emergence of the worship of the divine, was distinctive to each group of people, but that "The second greatest moment in human history, Dawson argued, arrived around 500BC throughout the entire civilized world—in the Mediterranean, in India, and in China. If the first great movement was the Age of the Gods, the second great movement was an age of the “humane” or of “humanism,” as Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and Greek embraced a vision of what would become a common humanity that transcends nations, races, and religions. Amazingly enough, each form of humanism—whether in China, Indian, or Ionia—developed within mere years of the others."

[Mister D]

I'm puzzling where anything was said about greatness of any culture.

The OP makes it clear that the first great moment in history, emergence of the worship of the divine, was distinctive to each group of people, but that "The second greatest moment in human history, Dawson argued, arrived around 500BC throughout the entire civilized world—in the Mediterranean, in India, and in China. If the first great movement was the Age of the Gods, the second great movement was an age of the “humane” or of “humanism,” as Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and Greek embraced a vision of what would become a common humanity that transcends nations, races, and religions. Amazingly enough, each form of humanism—whether in China, Indian, or Ionia—developed within mere years of the others."

Late night rant. Shrug.

[Chris]

Late night rant. Shrug.

Against the liberalism that Who embraces.

I mean, I see a pattern here. Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism, describes primitive religion based on ancestor worship, keeping the hearth fire going. That emerges as the ancient religions Dawson describes as still tied to group and place, followed by in 500BC the emergence of humanistic religion. And returning to Siedentop the birth of Christianity and liberal individualism, whic, if I'm not mistaken is what Who castigated but, as we all know, firmly embraces politically.

[Chris]

Another Bradley J. Birzer piece @ The Imaginative Conservative comments on What the West Has Given the World.

In the OP piece he also mentions 500 BC as a turning point.

...Sometime within a generation of either side of 500 BC, a recognition about the uniqueness of each individual person—yet tied to a whole—arose among Ionians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians. Each of the four great civilizations began to ask if an ethic might be universal. All peoples keep a certain set of rules—such as no murder, no adultery, no theft—for their own communities, but around 500 BC these four beginnings of civilization began to wonder whether or not ethics applied to those not in the in-group. Perhaps, such ethics might apply to action toward, to, and with one’s neighbors, near and far.

In Miletus, now sadly under water in the Aegean, several profound thinkers took such ethics seriously and asked the first questions that would soon be called “philosophy,” that is, a love of wisdom. If there was a universal ethic, these Greeks asked, what tied all peoples—regardless of time, soil, ethnicity, etc.—together? Was there a universal principle that held all together? Perhaps some primal element, such as earth, wind, water, or fire?

While this topic deserves an essay or two of its own, for now, it is worth noting that through the Stoics and early Christians, the West adopted its primal element as fire (logos). What matters most for this essay is that the entire discipline of philosophy began in the West, and it began as a way to find the universal that holds all humans together so that there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, black nor white—but all made one through the Logos. When I see modern conservative claims that digging into the idea of universals is succumbing to the madness of political correctness, I only shake my head in disbelief, as they know not what they are trying to conserve. Since its beginning, the West has sought—more successfully than not—to find a way to balance the individual manifestations of universalism with the universalism itself. It is a difficult thing to do. Too readily, one can focus on the universals at the expense of the individual. This, of course, results in tyranny, pure and simple. One, however, can equally focus too much on the individual. Our modern world sees this is in the absurdity, “Well, that’s your ideology, and this is my ideology.” In the end, of course, no matter how much chaos might arise from such an unsustainable view, it will end in nothing less than might is right. This, I fear, is the greatest danger that comes from our loss of tradition and our loss of the understanding of the true West. By losing any anchor or pride in our purpose as citizens of the West, we also risk everything that makes the West special and gives us particular freedoms.

...