As others have pointed out, this article is riddled with errors. To give just one example, the picture he posts of a supposed "temple of the Qin dynasty, circa 200 BCE" appears to actually be the Nanqiao (south bridge) in Chengdu, which seems to have been built in 1878 AD. I can give a list of some of the other errors I noticed if anyone likes (and there are probably many I missed); either way, I wouldn't recommend anyone take any of this as fact.
Beyond the factual errors, there are numerous unsubstantiated claims. I don't know how one would come up with an objective way to measure philosophy and poetry. How much philosophy and poetry from (for example) the Kushan Empire has survived? What's the background for the claim that its philosophy and poetry dwarfed the Roman Empire's?
The idea that we should pay more attention to many of the other polities in history is a valid one. But I don't think an article filled with errors and baseless claims is terribly useful.
If you look at the Roman empire in it's decline, towards the end, it did become more barbaric, corrupt and uncivilized. That's what ultimately led to it's downfall. So you have to also specify the era.
I Read the article and I understand that it's flawed in some parts. However, that's exactly how the non-western major world civilisations are called. Barbarians, mysticals and unscientific etc are the words used to describe them. I would urge you to look past the eurocenticism as I did and you'll discover that there's truth in the facts.
If we leave out the mislabeling of images, the fact remains that the eastern world was in fact more connected, advanced and globalised compared to Rome.
>> However, that's exactly how the non-western major world civilisations are called. Barbarians, mysticals and unscientific etc are the words used to describe them.
"Barbarian" though is a Greek word, used by Greeks to describe anyone speaking a language that wasn't the Greek language. I'm guessing the article either ignores this or uses "barbarian" as a translation of a similar term used in the Far Eastern world, and which I don't know. I'm pretty sure there must have been one.
May have been the origin of the term, but these days it is basically "any culture that have practices and norm we do not understand and deem inferior to our own".
> we do not understand and deem inferior to our own
Of course, those two things don't have to go together. It's perfectly reasonable to understand something and deem it inferior. And deeming it inferior isn't necessarily an indication that something isn't understood.
No they are not, that's just a lie. The school in Europe doesn't talk that much about the East compared to the West is true (and it makes perfect sense), but it holds many parts of the East to high regard and clearly points their cultural advancement in many areas.
The "Barbarians" we learn in school are exactly from Europe, not from Asia and the term is directed towards the German tribes and the Nordic ones.
Beyond the factual errors, there are numerous unsubstantiated claims. I don't know how one would come up with an objective way to measure philosophy and poetry. How much philosophy and poetry from (for example) the Kushan Empire has survived? What's the background for the claim that its philosophy and poetry dwarfed the Roman Empire's?
The idea that we should pay more attention to many of the other polities in history is a valid one. But I don't think an article filled with errors and baseless claims is terribly useful.