Cultural Myopia (America, churches, catholic, Christianity, Christian)

[Booko]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Rome, and the fall of Rome tends to outshine the Byzantine Empire? Not because one is more important than the other, but that it's just a more/less popular topic for historians?

Does the fall of Rome really outshine the Byzantine Empire, or is that just cultural myopia of a different sort? I really don't know, but it's possible.

We're from a Western European culture. Of course we focus on Rome. We also memorize that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

What we are *never* taught is that in 1492 Constantinople fell to the Turks.

If our culture were primarily based in Eastern Europe, our view might be different and we might be more aware of the doings in Byzantium, and think Rome is a distraction.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by eudaimonia

I'm not particularly happy about the results of the new "Seven Wonders". Why wasn't the Statue of Liberty accepted as one? Surely that is more of a wonder than the statue of Christ the Redeemer? It seems that it wasn't favored mainly due to political reaction against the U.S., instead of any objective standards.

I hadn't thought of that, eudamonia, but now I wonder if there isn't something to this.

I don't think this should ever have been a public poll. This should have been left up to knowledgable experts who could have judged these candidates for wonders using some sort of educated criteria. The public will tend to vote based on familiarity and sympathies, including religious and cultural sympathies.

I agree. Some historians and architects at least could've formed a panel.

Personally, I'd like to see the 7 wonders of the MODERN world -- anything built in the past century, say.[/quote]

We know the old stuff is there, and it's fine to be reminded of it, but looking at recent works of humanity would do more to reveal what sort of progress we might (or might not) be making.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by eudaimonia

I can't think of any reason why that would be so. At the very least, they could rank the Wonders, and one could simply look at the top seven.

At the very least, some panel might present their wonders, and there could be a public poll to compare results.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Booko

Does the fall of Rome really outshine the Byzantine Empire, or is that just cultural myopia of a different sort? I really don't know, but it's possible.

It's the exact cultural myopia that so winds me up. Rome the city fell. Rome the Empire did not, even if some French historians in the 19th century chose to rename it 'Byzantine'. Why is it that Constantine is considered a Roman Emperor, even though his capital was Constantinople (and the fact that this was a nickname later imposed on the official name of New Rome is something westerners rarely seem aware of either), but his successors that ruled after Old Rome fell are Byzantine? They were rulers of the same Empire in the same capital, they'd just lost their western territories.

We're from a Western European culture. Of course we focus on Rome. We also memorize that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

I think that's more of an American thing - we tend not to care as much about Columbus as you do, though he is, of course, part of the history we are taught at school. I just can't imagine the date of his voyage being something to memorise here.

What we are *never* taught is that in 1492 Constantinople fell to the Turks.

Actually, that happened in 1453 - we weren't taught that on this side of the pond either, though. In fact the only time I recall the east being mentioned in any way at school at all was in Religious Education, and then they got it wrong (claiming that we split with Rome because we were iconoclasts, for goodness sakes!) We also were never taught about the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople despite the other Crusades featuring strongly. I wonder why?

If our culture were primarily based in Eastern Europe, our view might be different and we might be more aware of the doings in Byzantium, and think Rome is a distraction.

No, you wouldn't think Rome was a distraction. Old Rome is important even to the Orthodox. You would, though, be much more aware of New Rome. There is a clear and deliberate tendency in the west to downplay the so-called Byzantine Empire that started with the Franks calling them Greeks (which was intended as an insult as that implied pagan), continued with French historians coining the term Byzantine and the creation of Greece in the 19th century and continues to this day to a degree, though now the ignorance appears to have become habitual. Nonetheless, in Greek, the way you ask if someone is Orthodox remains to ask 'Are you Roman?' and the ethnic Greeks in Turkey are known as Rum. It's the 'Byzantines' that Muslim histories refer to by that name, not the legions of Old Rome.

James

[Booko]

Originally Posted by James the Persian

It's the exact cultural myopia that so winds me up. Rome the city fell. Rome the Empire did not, even if some French historians in the 19th century chose to rename it 'Byzantine'. Why is it that Constantine is considered a Roman Emperor, even though his capital was Constantinople (and the fact that this was a nickname later imposed on the official name of New Rome is something westerners rarely seem aware of either), but his successors that ruled after Old Rome fell are Byzantine? They were rulers of the same Empire in the same capital, they'd just lost their western territories.

I was secretly hoping you'd chime in here, James.

I think that's more of an American thing - we tend not to care as much about Columbus as you do, though he is, of course, part of the history we are taught at school. I just can't imagine the date of his voyage being something to memorise here.

True enough -- 1066 is probably more popular your way. Well, chalk that up to a bit of cultural myopia on my part, eh?

Actually, that happened in 1453 - we weren't taught that on this side of the pond either, though.

Whoops! My bad. And to think I actually used to remember that accurately. Well well, if you don't exercise some brain cells, that's what happens.

In fact the only time I recall the east being mentioned in any way at school at all was in Religious Education, and then they got it wrong (claiming that we split with Rome because we were iconoclasts, for goodness sakes!) We also were never taught about the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople despite the other Crusades featuring strongly. I wonder why?

Oh seriously, the Orthodox as iconoclasts? The Church decided on that issue ages ago. The iconoclasts lost. wow.

Heck, here if you say "iconoclast" all you'll get is a dumb look. And we're pretty iconoclastic, with so many Protestants running about.

Oh, we were never taught any of the warts about the Crusades, and certainly not the sack of Constantinople (even though it would've reflected badly on Rome...go figure). It was all a glorious struggle against those backwards Saracens who were trying to take over Europe. Um hm.

No, you wouldn't think Rome was a distraction. Old Rome is important even to the Orthodox. You would, though, be much more aware of New Rome. There is a clear and deliberate tendency in the west to downplay the so-called Byzantine Empire that started with the Franks calling them Greeks (which was intended as an insult as that implied pagan), continued with French historians coining the term Byzantine and the creation of Greece in the 19th century and continues to this day to a degree, though now the ignorance appears to have become habitual. Nonetheless, in Greek, the way you ask if someone is Orthodox remains to ask 'Are you Roman?' and the ethnic Greeks in Turkey are known as Rum. It's the 'Byzantines' that Muslim histories refer to by that name, not the legions of Old Rome.

Thanks, James! As always, you're such a good source of history and perspectives that are new to me.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Booko

I was secretly hoping you'd chime in here, James.

Glad to oblige, though you really knew i'd chime in, didn't you? It was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

True enough -- 1066 is probably more popular your way. Well, chalk that up to a bit of cultural myopia on my part, eh?

No, I'd just call that a difference of emphasis, which is always going to happen. Cultural myopia is rather more than that. After all, I still know about Columbus and you about the Battle of Hastings, but many people in the west seem completely oblivious to the fact that the Roman Empire didn't actually fall until 1453 - it being referred to as Byzantine by westerners does not alter the fact that it was one political entity, continuously existing (though not necessarily with the same capital) from the Republic to the fall of Constantinople.

Whoops! My bad. And to think I actually used to remember that accurately. Well well, if you don't exercise some brain cells, that's what happens.

I always muck it up by confusing it with the year my son's patron saint came to power (1454). Which reminds me of an interesting bit of Russian myopia. You know that they call Moscow the Third Rome because supposedly Moscow became the protector of Orthodoxy after Constantinople fell? Well by my reckoning their count is out. When Constantinople fell, they were actually ruled by the Tartars and it wasn't until after the death of Stefan cel Mare that they became free. It was Stefan cel Mare's Moldova (the only free Orthodox nation at the time) that became the defender of Orthodoxy for over 50 years, but try finding many Orthodox who are aware of that (apart from the monks at a monastery on Athos who happen to have the icon of St. George he rode to battle behind in their church). I so want to confuse a Russian by referring to Suceava as the Third Rome and Moscow as fourth, but I've never yet had the opportunity.

Oh seriously, the Orthodox as iconoclasts? The Church decided on that issue ages ago. The iconoclasts lost. wow.

Yes, the irony escaped me at the time, but nobody could ever accuse us of iconoclasm. Ironically, the only people who did reject the 7th Ecumenical Council's defeat of iconoclasm were the, decidedly western, Franks.

Heck, here if you say "iconoclast" all you'll get is a dumb look. And we're pretty iconoclastic, with so many Protestants running about.

True, but people don't exactly need to know the meaning of a word to be accurately described by it.

Oh, we were never taught any of the warts about the Crusades, and certainly not the sack of Constantinople (even though it would've reflected badly on Rome...go figure). It was all a glorious struggle against those backwards Saracens who were trying to take over Europe. Um hm.

We were. I remember learning about the sack of Jerusalem (though they made out as though the population was predominantly Muslim rather than Christians ruled by a Muslim minority, which was actually the case), but no mention of the sack of Constantionple - I guess because it would have been impossible to pretend that the inhabitants weren't Christian.

Thanks, James! As always, you're such a good source of history and perspectives that are new to me.

I'm glad to be of service. I have rather made it my aim in life to try to open peoples' eyes to the rather neglected history of the east. I was actually charged, by a Romanian museum curator, with making Stefan cel Mare known to the west - not sure I'll manage that but I'll happily give it a try.

James

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by eudaimonia

Is there any objective reason why the statue of Christ the Redeemer is a greater accomplishment than the Statue of Liberty?

Objective? No. But then again, neither is there any objective reason why the Statue of Liberty is a greater accomplishment than Christ the Redeemer. Even if the decisions were made by a team of "experts" like you want, the criteria that they use would still just be reflecting their perspective.

I remember watching a reality show called "Project Runway" a while back where the judges (the so-called experts) were criticizing one contestant's design as being "low-class," and I was thinking, so why should their "high-class" perspective be privileged? The short answer is because they're the ones with the money and power. But there is nothing objective about their perspective. They have learned one sense of aesthetic that is favored by those in power; that's all.

I like the fact that this was a vote.