DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**xtrupoke** · 02-19-2009, 05:29 PM

Oh, the point was that while one particular culture had in a very short space of time gone from very sophisticated to not sophisticated at all most of the other cultures retained, if not outright gained, their levels of sophistication. Speaking about the Dark Ages as being somehow global is a very Eurocentric perspective.

so ghana was more advanced the the Roman empire? You do realize that Mare Nostrum was more than Europe do you not? Since Byzantium was essentially an outgrowth of the Roman Empire (emperor constantine was eastern himself), it was a continuation of knowledge on a smaller scale. the demise of the Roman Empire was more than the end to "eurocentrism" but the end of the ancient period, of which the mediterranean dominated, not Europe who, according to the Greeks and Italians (and probably the Carthaginians and Phoenicians) were a bunch of savages. Nonetheless, besides calling me Eurocentric, you haven't provided any real examples. AFAIK, large portions of the world fell into decline, which would impact population numbers, esp when things like the bubonic plague wipe out enormous numbers of people. How advanced was ghana? India? the Romans held together a world from Asia to Britain. eurocentric is a modern term. A collapse of the US into the Dark Ages could leave large power vacuums leading to war, it could leave many countries more isolated, and a decline in global trade which could lead to further unrest. The US' reach is arguably greater than that of Rome, as was the British (and perhaps that's why they were more short lived). the world, just like the economy, is extremely complex so I'm not making predictions, just pointing out that this idea has been around for centuries and the assumptions never hold true for various reasons, and another "Dark period" could certainly change the assumptions dramatically. how much aid is poured into Africa helping fight starvation?

02-19-2009, 05:29 PM	#12
xtrupoke Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 302 Senior Member	Oh, the point was that while one particular culture had in a very short space of time gone from very sophisticated to not sophisticated at all most of the other cultures retained, if not outright gained, their levels of sophistication. Speaking about the Dark Ages as being somehow global is a very Eurocentric perspective. so ghana was more advanced the the Roman empire? You do realize that Mare Nostrum was more than Europe do you not? Since Byzantium was essentially an outgrowth of the Roman Empire (emperor constantine was eastern himself), it was a continuation of knowledge on a smaller scale. the demise of the Roman Empire was more than the end to "eurocentrism" but the end of the ancient period, of which the mediterranean dominated, not Europe who, according to the Greeks and Italians (and probably the Carthaginians and Phoenicians) were a bunch of savages. Nonetheless, besides calling me Eurocentric, you haven't provided any real examples. AFAIK, large portions of the world fell into decline, which would impact population numbers, esp when things like the bubonic plague wipe out enormous numbers of people. How advanced was ghana? India? the Romans held together a world from Asia to Britain. eurocentric is a modern term. A collapse of the US into the Dark Ages could leave large power vacuums leading to war, it could leave many countries more isolated, and a decline in global trade which could lead to further unrest. The US' reach is arguably greater than that of Rome, as was the British (and perhaps that's why they were more short lived). the world, just like the economy, is extremely complex so I'm not making predictions, just pointing out that this idea has been around for centuries and the assumptions never hold true for various reasons, and another "Dark period" could certainly change the assumptions dramatically. how much aid is poured into Africa helping fight starvation?
	Quote