OF THE
TIMES
In Norwegian textbooks, Europeans are systematically portrayed as abusers, imperialists, and exploiters. By contrast, non-whites are ascribed the role of victims, signalling an anti-Western bias, a new study has claimed.I suppose it depends what history you're looking at, but this is generally true for the modern era.
To quantify this finding, the author listed 25 instances of massacres, mass killings and genocides depicted in history books, all of which were carried out by Europeans. By contrast, Muslims and Jews are exclusively given the role of victim.Well, they DID at one point or another over the last few centuries invade and/or occupy every livable piece of land on Earth, so it's inevitable that western Europeans would be number one in the killing stakes.
In one textbook, "cruelty and greed" were called "typical European characteristics" . Furthermore, Western prosperity was attributed to "gross exploitation of other peoples".Sounds about right - though those weren't their only characteristics of course.
While European immigration to America "wiped out millions of Indians", non-European conquests are portrayed in a much more peaceful way, such as "the Arabs spread out over a vast area".This is an as yet unsolved riddle of history, made all the more difficult to solve by its having taken place as the planet emerged from the Dark Age. Did the Arabs 'invade', or 'migrate' into relatively empty, post-apocalypse spaces? The western Europeans' expansion, on the other hand, took place much more recently, so it's known what they did or did not do to other civilizations.
Similarly, trade in the Indian Ocean, which included millions of slaves, is portrayed as a "flourishing enterprise and a multifaceted contact across cultures, religions and languages". Such a description for the Atlantic trade carried out by Europeans is hardly imaginable.There's nothing controversial here. Yes, slaves were traded in the Indian Ocean in the era preceding the Europeans' 'discovery' of the world, but no one did it on an industrial scale quite like the western Europeans in the Atlantic - especially the English.
According to Høisæther, in several comparisons between the West and the Islamic world, the former appears clearly inferior. The Islamic world is claimed to be "distinctly democratic", whereas the Europeans excelled "in strength and rage". In another instance, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were allegedly founded on knowledge preserved by Islam.All essentially accurate. The Islamic world was more civilized (materially and culturally) than the European world in the Middle Ages, just as the Chinese was more civilized still. The inflection point begins roughly after the Black Death, as western Europe begins its ascent to number one by colonizing 'the new world'.
While Christianity is portrayed as a brutal and merciless religion, with compulsory conversion and mass executions, the Islamic world, especially the Ottoman Empire, which led expansionist wars for hundreds of years, is praised for its religious tolerance. No attention is devoted to the persecution of non-Muslims in the Middle Ages. Spain under its 700-year Muslim rule is thus portrayed as a peaceful place with various confessions happily co-existing.Pretty much.
What has been said of the European/white-man, that isn't or wasn't true?
I anxiously look forward to any sensible response. I have history!
Shalom