Just saw this on Twitter and it’s giving ”she’s not interested” friend. What do you think is the reason behind people writing such things? Do you think it’s a form of historical ”claim” at its early stages?

[-]

SaraJuno@reddit

He is a hotep afrocentrist. He exists only to ragebait people into arguing provable facts that he simply says “no” to. It’s pointless to engage with anyone who is only interested in attention and not in reality.

[-]

AssumptionCool5320@reddit

They are not European cause Europe as a notion didn’t even exist. They shared more common things with other middle eastern cultures than anything in Europe. If these cultures are the root of European civilization, let’s accept the truth the Europe’s roots are in Middle East

[-]

zwiegespalten_@reddit

Both the Ancient Greek civilisation and later the Roman one predate the notion of Europe. Europe was back then backwater full of unpassable bogs, swarms, heavy wooded landscapes which wouldn’t have allowed any civilisation to flourish.

Ancient Greek civilisation, on the other hand, developed as part of a wider Eastern Mediterranean/Middle Eastern civilisational milieu und wasn‘t too different than its easterly neigbours such as Phoenecian city ports, Neo-Hittite kingdoms, Egypt etc.

Seeing Rome or Ancient Greece as European or Middle Eastern solely doesn’t just make sense. These concepts didn’t exist back then. It is like saying Latin is French because French developed from it.

They both predate the division of the Mediterranean world into two halves by centuries. One might say, they laid the groundwork of a European civilisation but again, this notion of Europe as a continent with a civilisational identity different than its eastern neigbour emerges after the Germanic migrations under Germanic princes.

Yes, Ancient Greece and Rome are the foundation of Europe but they also gave birth to Middle East.

[-]

writebyhand@reddit

Makes perfect sense to me. History is a retroactive exercise. When talking about the history of the US, we refer to those that arrived on the Mayflower as the early Americans. Why? Because that's what modern Americans decided they are. But you would never say this about Cortes, you'd never refer to him as an "early Mexican" even though his actions rocked the world of the Mexicans of the time, while the Pilgrims were a nothingburger. Why? Again, because modern Mexicans resent that framing.

Naturally, this doesn't mean Americans don't know that the Pilgrims were English, just like Mexicans aren't ignorant about the insane legacy of Cortes's life. But you'd have to be crazy to go to Americans and police them on who is or who isn't a real American. And the same is true for policing Europeans on what is and isn't European. We've decided: the Middle-East, Anatolia, these are not European. Just like how eastern Europe wasn't fully European until it threw off the Turkish taint, because that made it unseemly. You can be sure that if one day Christians took back Anatolia and wiped out every trace Islam, it would be celebrated just like the Reconquista, and not only would Anatolia be reintegrated into what Europe should look like, but Byzantine history would suddenly be taught as very important and essential.

Europe is an ideological project, not a continent. There were Muslims born in Spain who lived and died there for hundreds of years, yet we do not consider them the least bit European. Yet you can have some Asian girl from the far reaches of Russia get popular, make it as celebrity, move to Europe, and she's "basically European" because she's Russian, and they count as European. HELL, she could even be MUSLIM and we'd still accept her. Just like no one blinks at Albanians being Muslim.

But you could be Turkish and Christian and still seen as an outsider. Why? Because Ottomans were civilizational rivals. Would-be usurpers. Yet one could easily imagine a counterfactual world, one in which eastern Europe doesn't really push off communism and doesn't join in the EU, in which a hyper-Kemalist Turkey is seen as an increasingly major ally, with everyone collectively de-emphasizing religion to build a secular, authoritarian anticommunist coalition. But in our world eastern Europe didn't just reintegrate with the West, it's actively at the forefront of European affairs due to the Russian invasion, and the strong pro-Christian and especially anti-Turkish sentiment (combined with anti-Russian ones) are in ascendance. By 2040, it's likely even a white and Christian Russian won't be seen as European, falling in the same position as Turks.

All of this is to say, history is a story, not a collection of facts.

[-]

zwiegespalten_@reddit

Of course, history is a narrative. Though I don’t like narratives which makes only sense retrospectively. This is also the reason why I try as long as it is possible, to find historical narratives which made sense to the people going thorough them while they happened

[-]

writebyhand@reddit

Sure, but that's ultimately a different job than a typical historian's, a very niche way of trying to understand historical times phenomenologically. A normal historian is supposed to give people a basic understanding of events in the context that it's useful for their daily life and be accurate about the information.

Like, if some complete normie asked me about Caligula, and I began to explain the details of his rule and his relationship to the Senate and the things he did and the different motives, I'm ultimately doing more of a disservice than just saying, "That's the crazy emperor who made his horse a consul."

Likewise, if a kid asked me if the Greeks and Romans were European, the answer is obviously a resounding yes. This is the cultural consensus, which is standard even in prestigious European institutions. What the average hoplite wore to battle is a factual matter. Whether Greeks were European is an ideological position.

To start telling kids that, "No, no, Greeks weren't actually European exactly, because that concept didn't even exist at the time as you and I know it..." that'd be some fifth column stuff. Obviously as a Turk you have a reason to feel the way you do, which is why I think your post above is pretty much expected, but if a European said the same, it's clear they're committed to a different ideological program than the one shared by most in his nation.

You can see this in America most obviously and how damaging it was. You had so many fifth columnists (or useful idiots) trying to "break" the myths of its history that now the average normie doesn't even remember the good stuff that they ever did, only the bad. Like, the average American is so LOST he actually thinks Americans lost the Vietnam war on the battlefield or that the Founding Fathers were JUST a bunch of slave-owners. They can't hold two ideas at the same time. It's too much for them. Trying to "correct the record" with normies doesn't work because they never had a baseline of knowledge from which to expand from in the first place.

I couldn't go to some random Romanian and say, "Hey, you know, Ceausescu was actually a relatively decent as a ruler all things considered, the only reason we even had a revolution is because he decided to prioritize paying off the national debt over feeding the starving populace, and if he had done the latter, there's a high chance Romania might've never even stopped being under his rule. Austerity is what caused his downfall." What they'd hear is, "Wow? Really? Ceausescu was an amazing leader? I knew communism worked. It was sabotaged by those Americans and the Jews and their schemes. Ceausescu was a hero."

Today it's "Greeks weren't really European," tomorrow it's, "Is there even a Europe? Is the EU legitimate?" Which again is why I'd consider such revisionism fifth columnist business. Because, fundamentally, there's nothing factual that you add by saying Greeks weren't European. It is, again, an ideological perspective, not a factual correction. Everything that would lead you to make that correct is already stuff that's well-known and accepted by mainstream historians.

[-]

zwiegespalten_@reddit

All the questions you raise are legitimate questions and can and should be open to discussion such as what is even Europe, what constitutes Europe, is it legitimate, are ancient Greeks — the emphasis is on "ancient“— Europeans and what it means to be European.

I‘d draw a line between modern and ancient Greeks in this regard though, To talk of modern Greeks‘ Europeanness is an ideological question. Modern Greeks have an opinion and identification on this topic. The same cannot be said for ancient Greeks, who didn‘t have any opinion in this regard, as this ideological position didn‘t extend back then.

So my answer to a person who would ask me this question would be „well the concept of Europeanness didn‘t exist back then and Europe proper was sparsely populated, so ancient Greeks and Romans wouldn‘t consider themselves Europeans but the European civilisation today is built on their achievements.“ This answer is free of ideology and can be a foundation for further discussion.

I don’t see how my Turkishness affects this. I would have similar approach regarding the Turkish history as well. In the end, it is not my goal to attract supporters and try to increase in-group cohesion but have a fruitful discussion in its stead. It is not my responsibility to educate masses who fail to have a more nuanced view and see everything in black and white

[-]

writebyhand@reddit

But they are open to discussion. So, what do you mean?

Also, no one cares about what the ideological position is of ancient Greeks, because they're dead. If a normal person were to ask me in a non-academic setting, "Were Greeks European?" I'm well aware that the question really translates to, "Are these our people?" When someone asks "Are Jews European?" they're not seriously questioning how much European admixture the average Jew has, but whether or not they get to treat them as outsiders and be antisemites. I feel it's disingenuous to pretend that these questions don't have different meanings depending on the setting.

Also, if you're trying to be objective, your answer is problematic, by which I mean motivated. You said that the Romans and the Greeks wouldn't consider themselves European because the concept of a Europe didn't exist back then. Well, hold on, if the concept didn't exist, then you don't know how they'd consider themselves. You're making a positive claim about a counterfactual state of mind. An actual objective thing to say is that the concept of Europe didn't exist back then, so we'd have no idea how they'd feel, but back then most of the civilized world was located around the Mediterranean.

I mean, imagine saying that in any other context. If some ancient cis male dressed in women's clothing and occasionally fucked men, does that mean they were possibly trans? The answer isn't to say, "No, because the concept didn't exist then," because that implies we have access to their internal state and it necessarily precludes feelings of womanhood. This would be illogical. It's also inaccurately pronouncing another positive claim in their stead. What we can say is, "That's not a concept that existed then and we have no access to their thoughts and feelings, but we do know they did x, y, z."

Of course you being Turkish is colors what you're saying. You were raised in a certain environment and have a ton of underlying biases you might not even be aware of. This doesn't even mean you're necessarily biased towards Turkish nationalism (indeed, you could despise Turkey and feel above it, thus the need to be above it all with a sense of objectivity). You seem to think that the language in which you present things matters, but I disagree. Objectivity is just another tool for dispersal. To me you're a Turk first, everything else secondary, and your intentions are judged by your Turkishness. And this isn't an anti-Turkish thing, if you were a world-class expert on, say, the Mayans, I'd look into your family history and political views etc. to see how that might explain why you believe what you believe and say what you say.

As for the edit, you can't possibly think I don't understand that based on what I wrote before, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to put it there. It's implicit in everything I said.

[-]

zwiegespalten_@reddit

Such questions of course, are asked with different intentions depending on the setting, but my answer to it wouldn‘t change unless I am talking to a 5 yo. If need be, I‘d add, but ey you are free to make Europeans/Martians or whatever if it makes you feel good

I don‘t see any problem with my answer. If the concept didn‘t exist, the knowledge thereof didn‘t eithe it so the identification with it could not have existed at all. However, my answer can be extended since we actually know how they considered themselves (Hellenes) and the people north of them as Barbarians and Scythians, we also know that they didn‘t extend the concept of Europe to lands north of Greece yet and in no way saw themselves as part of the same sphere as those people inhabiting those lands.

[-]

Educational_Green@reddit

I think you all are missing context on white / German nationalism.

There was an argument made by the nazis that the indo Europeans originated in modern day Germany and Scandinavia. Since that was the « original » homeland, they were the «purist » form of European.

The 2nd argument is that the indo Europeans conquered most of Europe and India because their culture was superior to the antecedent cultures.

The third argument is that Semitic and later Turkic (or maybe they would label it turkic-semetic as the ottomans were Muslims) despoiled the lands that they conquered.

4th - that the judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic perverted the « superior » indo European culture (this one is often glossed over esp regarding Christianity.

5th - since the people closest to the homeland were the purist, indo Europeans were lesser the more distant they were from the origin both in time and space.

So much of white supremecist literature is based on the idea that the “original” romans and Greeks were nearly identical to Germans and it was these people who “created” civilization and then civilization fell when Arabs / Slavs / Turks destroyed Greece / Rome and the modern day peoples are inferior because their pure “ white” identity was been tainted with “brown” culture from Asia and the Middle East.

Much of today’s right wing rhetoric is reformulations of these themes and one can probably see variations of these themes in every nation building exercise undertaken by Balkan nations over the last 150 years - we all have fascists uncles - some who stay ore in the closet than others :)

So - of course - the Mediterranean / Middle East / Iran / India / etc have been the meeting place of multiple cultures over the last 5000 years. The idea that Rome or Greece didn’t borrow or partake of other cultures is absurd.

But white nationalists want to imagine a world where for 5000 years there has been a stark divisions between the “civilized” world of Europe and the “primitive” world elsewhere - North Africa, Middle East etc.

You can see this undercurrent everywhere once you know what to look for.

[-]

writebyhand@reddit

Rome took a ton from the Etruscans who weren't Indo-European, so by that metric, of course it's crazy to say everything was Indo-European. The problem is that almost all of these things can be traced back. We know who took what from whom in the vast majority of cases.

There is no need to dissolve everything into some vague gesturing towards total connection in exchange, because then people from places which have nothing and did nothing feel invited to claim things.

It's also true that not all Europeans are white, if by white we mean purely European admixture. Many southern Italians, for example, have African admixture. I'm also not referring to skin color here, as you might find, say, a northern Italian who is just as brown as a southern one but he will be white. The problem with white nationalists is that they genuinely think it's about skin color and eye color. They will call a blonde and blue-eyed Palestinian "white" and brown-eyed, brown-haired guy with slightly dusky skin that's 100% European genetically "brown."

[-]

-Passenger-@reddit

Well to be fair, the Northern and West Europeans did sure made a lot out of nothing then, while Middle East and North Africa made not that much out of what they had

[-]

Melodic_Interview210@reddit

Basically Magrebi nationalists are conscious of the fact that the four Magrebi countries by themselves have next to no notable historical achievements except from colonial struggle for independence, so they try to claim the Roman/greek as part of a larger "mediteranean" ensemble of which they would be part, and the rest of Europe would not.

So it's mostly nationalist retardation, don't pay much mind to it.

Tunisians also claim Carthage, which has at least some basis in geography and ethnicity, even though their nowadays civilization and culture is wildly different.

[-]

CoolDude2235@reddit

The guy isn't even a north african, secondly. You don't seem much versed, the maghrebis have the numidians who formed their own independent kingdom. They also had their own kingdoms after islam came into the region.

Let me this very clear, besides being ruled by the romans. Serbia prior to that argubly had even less

[-]

Odiumhumanigeneris@reddit

Both fundamentally right and wrong at the same time. True, back then there was no such thing as a European identity that collectively put Spaniards and Nordics into the same box of cultural group. (IE: Romans and Greeks were culturally more akin to, say, Phoenicians et al than that is anything remotely Celtic or Germanic etc. ) However what such people miss or deliberately forfeit is that those cultures(or heritages, more correctly) were one of those that were the basis of modern European supra-identity.

[-]

Aggorf12345@reddit

One thing doesnt contradict the other. They are both European and Mideterranean

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

Only true because "Europe" is made up and doesn't exist.

[-]

jinawee@reddit

By that logic, countries and species don't exist either. Not even atoms exist, they are just an abstraction to understand reality (assuming reality exists, whatever "to exist" means).

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

No.

Countries exist in the real world. Europe only exists on a paper map, because someone drew a completely arbitrary line on it. It tells us nothing about reality, it is only an abstraction with no basis in the real world. If the point of an abstraction is to help understand reality, the concept of Europe fails this basic test and thus must be discarded.

[-]

jinawee@reddit

It helps a lot to chunk the world into pieces, thats why Europe is used daily, regardless of your denial.

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

It only "helps" if you base it in something real. The basis for Europe is completely arbitrary and not based in anything.

[-]

jinawee@reddit

You're delusional. It helps people all the time. Flight search filter "Europe" is more useful than "Anywhere" and there are thousands of examples.

NATO articles mentions Europe, the EU mentions Europe, the Union would sound weird...

It's ironic you claim continents are not real yet countries are, when so many people say BiH isn't a real country.

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

Even people who say BiH shouldn't exist as a country do not deny it's well defined history.

Europe has nothing to call on to define itself. The geography is arbitrary, the cultural connections don't exist and can't be separated from Asian, a history that separates it from Asia doesn't exist.. so what remains?

The EU and NATO? You are right. So once these entities cease to exist, you will agree that Europe itself doesn't exist?

[-]

jinawee@reddit

When everyone ceases to stop using the word Europe, it will cease to exist. Same way other classifications disappeared.

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

True: because Europe is just a word and nothing other than that.

Something like America or Africa, on the other hand, will never cease to exist no matter the words used, because they're actual things that exists in the real world and not just meaningless abstractions.

[-]

jinawee@reddit

Keep dreaming.

[-]

Aggorf12345@reddit

By this logic the Indian subcontinent or the Middle East should be their own continents too

[-]

jinawee@reddit

No, that cannot be derived from my statement.

It's like saying because languages exist, all languages should be the same. Or because one country decided to use red in their flag, all should.

[-]

BardhyliX@reddit

Neither does Asia or Africa, they're all one continent, but the lines have been drawn for milennia, spare me the nonsense about "technically Europe isn't a continent"

[-]

jinawee@reddit

You have over 99% of your DNA in common.

The current lines were drawn three centuries ago, Ancient Greeks had no fucking idea what the Urals were.

[-]

AntiKouk@reddit

The distinctions of Europe, Asia and Libya (what they called Africa) goes back to ancient Greece.

Have a look at this discussion for more in depth here

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

Asia and Europe are the same continent (more precisely, Europe is just a peninsula of Asia), but Africa is clearly geographically distinct.

[-]

dushmanimm@reddit

No, both Asia and Africa exist, at least geologically

[-]

Aggorf12345@reddit

I mean do you think we have less in common with them than they have with Syrians for example?

[-]

ipidov@reddit

Well Chukotka natives also have nothing in common with Yemenis even though they are both Asian. Who would've thought that continents are not a good proxy for ethnic homology.

[-]

ViscountBuggus@reddit

Europe willed itself into existence through sheer coolness

[-]

Aggorf12345@reddit

True. Europeans just wanted to distinct themselves from Asians

[-]

BRM_the_monkey_man@reddit

this

[-]

CockamouseGoesWee@reddit

Nope we are going back to the 1960's where we are exclusively Mediterranean race

[-]

tabulasomnia@reddit

the truest statement in the sub right now

[-]

Statakaka@reddit

Gee I wonder where the word "Europe" comes from

[-]

alkorisno@reddit

Nobody wants to be associated with Europe anymore, after their support for Isreal and abstaining from voting to condemn slavery in the UN

[-]

CommunicationTop8777@reddit

He is correct.

[-]

Sally2Klapz@reddit

The I <3 rape shirt is sending me

[-]

Sally2Klapz@reddit

Should have included the Americas too mezo America civs are cool af.

[-]

Ill-Warning517@reddit

What culture is that wojak suppose to represent?

[-]

Sally2Klapz@reddit

Turkik maybe?

[-]

HelloThereItsMeAndMe@reddit

Well, it is true that back then the Mediterranean was the cultural sphere, not Europe. Only when Islam came did MENA and Europe separate.

She misunderstood that and spun it into anti Europeanism.

[-]

NGluck123@reddit

The name "Europa" is literally Greek.

[-]

WorldClassChef@reddit

I wonder where the guy tweeting that lives

[-]

Sea_Gap_6569@reddit

A similar attitude also exists in Germany. Südländer is a derogatory term in Germany and it basically means Mediterranean

[-]

Mammoth-Membership34@reddit

BS, Südländer = Euphemism for MENA + Turkey

It doesn't mean a Spanish person from Barcelona

[-]

Sea_Gap_6569@reddit

I know that they also use it for Italians and Greeks

[-]

Bugatsas11@reddit

Dude. Even the word "European" is Greek

[-]

More_Ad_5142@reddit

How is that relevant? The word Balkan is Turkish, Greece is in Balkans, therefore Greeks are Turks or Vice versa?

[-]

rintzscar@reddit

The word "Balkan" is Turkic, not Turkish. There's evidence the Bulgars brought it to the area centuries before the Seljuks and Ottomans came.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

I agree the Balkan is Turkish word , but long ago when the turkish people where in Mongolia the peninsula called Aimos from the Greek mythology. You have to keep in mind that the Bulgarians, the Serbs and othe people have call the peninsula in their native language also. And no the Greek are no Turks. With honor my friend.

[-]

More_Ad_5142@reddit

Just a brief correction, “Turkish” people were never in Mongolia. “Turkic” people were.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Thank you , but what is the difference? It is first time that I hear about that. With Honor.

[-]

ananasorcu@reddit

When you say Turkish in English, you are referring to the group of Turks living in Turkey or those who belong to the same group as the Turks living in Turkey.

“Turkic” refers to all Turks

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Thanks for the clarification

[-]

Hot_Speech900@reddit

You are comparing a tiny part of history here, Greeks and the Greek Roman civilisation didn't happen yesterday.

The post tweet screams American skin ideology.

[-]

More_Ad_5142@reddit

No, the poster is a Turk and is actually ragebaiting northern and Western Europeans as larpers as a continuation of Ancient Greek democracy and civilization, even though there is neither geographical nor chronological relationship between the two. Ancient Greek Civilisation is solely Greek, not European. W and N Europeans are to put it mildly post-Renaissance larpers separated by thousands of years. “European” civilisation is a very recent construct. What does modern Sweden have anything to do with Ancient Athenians?

[-]

-MrAnderson@reddit

Supposedly, ancient Greeks developed several key elements of what we regard today as "civilization", be it theatre, mathematics, science, philosophy; in general, systematically studying stuff.

As Constantinople falls, Greek scholars flee to West, mainly to Italy, and help (with their knowledge of Greek) the renewed interest in studying of ancient literature. West invents a glorious scientific/historical past, upon which to build their modern culture combined with Christianity.

The connection might be weak, but at least western Europe did indeed make huge scientific jumps studying again the forgotten Greco-Roman literature.

[-]

More_Ad_5142@reddit

But don’t forget the Arabs, who translated so much lost Greek texts, basically resuscitated Plato from the grave a thousand years ago before Europeans. Much of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and theory was and still is Platonic.

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

How did they get their hands on those Greek texts?

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Cause the texts was there...don't forget Alexander the great and the Romans Read my comment above why the texts originally translate

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

!Wasn't asking you.!<

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Sorry my bad

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

Don't worry about it. I apologize if it came across as rude; that wasn't the intention. I just like talking with these enlightened Turks. It's my new favorite entertainment here on reddit.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Thank you 👍 can I follow you?

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

Sure; it's a free forum.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

I found my comment for you. Your nick name is fantastic 😊

The mass translation of ancient Greek texts into Arabic, primarily during the Abbasid Dynasty (8th–10th century), was not done solely out of admiration for the past, but mainly for practical and political reasons.

The main causes were: Scientific Need and Utility: The Arabs sought immediate solutions to everyday problems. Greek medicine (Galen, Hippocrates) was essential for treating diseases, astronomy and mathematics (Ptolemy, Euclid) for navigation and determining prayer times, and engineering for construction projects. Political Prestige and Caliphate Support: Caliphs like al-Ma'mun, who founded the famous "House of Wisdom" (Bayt al-Hikma) in Baghdad, generously funded translations to establish their state as the new intellectual center of the world, replacing the glory of Byzantium and Persia. Philosophy and Theology: Contact with Greek logic (Aristotle) provided Muslim scholars with the tools to organize their own theological arguments and respond to religious challenges in a rational manner. Availability of Texts and Translators: The Arabs came into contact with Syriac Christian centers that had already preserved many Greek manuscripts. Many Christians who spoke Greek, Syriac, and Arabic served as the first great translators. This effort acted as a "bridge," as Europeans later rediscovered ancient Greek literature through these Arabic translations.

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

Makes you wonder why rediscovery was needed in the first place, doesn't it?

[-]

-MrAnderson@reddit

Oh it is well known, and many manuscripts reach us through them. But I don't think this affected the European Renaissance.

[-]

More_Ad_5142@reddit

No, you are right. I just have a problem with Western and Northern Europeans pretend that they are tge descendants of Ancient Greek civilization and monopolize it. A random Turkish tourist brochure is full of Ancient Greek archeology. I wonder if Belgium has any? 🙄

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

No one's pretending anything.

The four pillars of modern Europe are Greek philosophy, Roman law, Christian morality, and the Enlightenment.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

I agree

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Cause the Greek civilization was Global my friend, do you agree with me ?

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

With all respect , did you know why Arabs translate the text? And no they are not lost by the way?

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

The mass translation of ancient Greek texts into Arabic, primarily during the Abbasid Dynasty (8th–10th century), was not done solely out of admiration for the past, but mainly for practical and political reasons.

The main causes were: Scientific Need and Utility: The Arabs sought immediate solutions to everyday problems. Greek medicine (Galen, Hippocrates) was essential for treating diseases, astronomy and mathematics (Ptolemy, Euclid) for navigation and determining prayer times, and engineering for construction projects. Political Prestige and Caliphate Support: Caliphs like al-Ma'mun, who founded the famous "House of Wisdom" (Bayt al-Hikma) in Baghdad, generously funded translations to establish their state as the new intellectual center of the world, replacing the glory of Byzantium and Persia. Philosophy and Theology: Contact with Greek logic (Aristotle) provided Muslim scholars with the tools to organize their own theological arguments and respond to religious challenges in a rational manner. Availability of Texts and Translators: The Arabs came into contact with Syriac Christian centers that had already preserved many Greek manuscripts. Many Christians who spoke Greek, Syriac, and Arabic served as the first great translators. This effort acted as a "bridge," as Europeans later rediscovered ancient Greek literature through these Arabic translations.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Well said, And that's where Renecance begin

[-]

dushmanimm@reddit

Best comment ever

[-]

Hot_Speech900@reddit

That's a good reply, for sure, as Macron will say.

[-]

Bugatsas11@reddit

No. Therefore Turkey is in Balkans

[-]

Kitsos-0@reddit

Yes, and Turkiye is part of the Balkans, geographically and culturally.

[-]

the_Unruly_Sherden@reddit

It spreads into European languages from Greek, we don't really know where it's from though.

[-]

0a_boy0@reddit

Biggest bullshit ever

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

Well said Bougatsas, I love your name !!! Πατριώτη I said to him patriot......ohhh another one word that it is Greek.

[-]

deviendrais@reddit

The etymology of Europe is unknown. Greeks gave us the word but we don’t really know where they got it from. It may originally come from Phoenician “Erub” meaning “Where the sun sets”. The mythological figure Europa is also a Phoenician princess

[-]

Mountain-Yard-928@reddit

And that also applies to Asia and Africa too so what's the point

[-]

deviendrais@reddit

It’s an etymological fallacy at best. That’s the point

[-]

Mountain-Yard-928@reddit

Oceania clearly is greek since the word ocean comes from there

[-]

Fun_Selection8699@reddit

BAN SUBSTRATAS

[-]

Substratas@reddit (OP)

Chile wtf?!?! 😲

[-]

Fun_Selection8699@reddit

[-]

Substratas@reddit (OP)

https://i.redd.it/ebj9xwka8sxg1.gif

[-]

Fun_Selection8699@reddit

gif

[-]

Substratas@reddit (OP)

What’s up with all these Albanians hating me?

https://i.redd.it/z8manjrj6sxg1.gif

[-]

RestaurantBoring417@reddit

Rome started in Rome, Italy, Europe and Greece started in Greece, Europe. How both civilizations aren't anything but European is beyond me. Because they ruled land in Africa and Asia? So Habsburg Spain was a Mesoamerican civilization because they conquered Mexico and Peru?

[-]

Lonely-Sunbed-2508@reddit

Bruh, Europe is our word…

[-]

EvilInGood@reddit

Europe comes from the Phoenician princess Europa but that's another story of the day...

[-]

Lonely-Sunbed-2508@reddit

Even more removed from modern Western Europeans then

[-]

EvilInGood@reddit

Yes, it's tied to the Greek history but not to the Western or Northern European history. I guess Europa could be technically called European since she lived in Crete for a long time.

[-]

Your___mom_@reddit

Europa is indeed a Phoenician princess and was also a figure in Greek mythology that is depicted in the 2€ coin. She was abducted by Zeus who had turned into a bull

The word Europe can both be explained through the word "Ereb", which makes the most sense considering Asia's name, but it can also be explained in Greek etymology to mean "Broad-Faced" (Eurys (Broad) + Ops (Look)), so you can understand why it can be confusing

[-]

ayayayamaria@reddit

I think it's leftist people who are shamed of being into European history, so they pretend the European stuff they like aren't really Europe. They don't actually take interest in African and Asian culture, instead they wish the culture they like was African and Asian.

[-]

TPGNutJam@reddit

I think it’s a mix, on the far right wing they often only consider European as blonde hair and blue eyes. The whole “race” thing really messed them up. At least in America, I don’t see the issue anywhere else.

[-]

Substratas@reddit (OP)

I’m a leftist and I don’t pretend any of that.

[-]

ayayayamaria@reddit

I'm talking about the sort of people in your screenshot. Performative people who want to be given society cookies for passively existing (ie enjoying ancient stuff) but won't be bothered to actually engage with African and Asian history.

[-]

New_Entertainer_4895@reddit

Europe as a real cultural concept didn't really exist until Christianization completed in the northern and eastern part of what is now Europe and the spread of Islam throughout the middle east and central asia.

Someone from Alexandria in Egypt had more in common with someone from Rome culturally and religiously than they did with a bunch of pagan slavs living out in Krakow.

You couldn't say that's the case in the 1300s obviously, but in the 500s it's for sure the case.

[-]

kredokathariko@reddit

This is not entirely incorrect. Romans or Greeks didn't think of themselves as European, in that they wouldn't treat a Celt or a Germanic as any more of a barbarian than an Egyptian or a Syrian.

[-]

merdeauxfraises@reddit

The concept of “Europe” didn’t exist in antiquity. This is not a sound argument/statement.

[-]

kredokathariko@reddit

Exactly! Romans and Greeks were European in that they were from Europe (sort of - many Ancient Greeks lived on the other side of the Aegean, after all), but not Europeans in that they did not think of themselves as part of a larger pan-European culture. Since that did not exist back then.

[-]

UsuallySus33@reddit

Is he thinking that every European is pale white? Lol..These are just uneducated people.

[-]

Next_League6403@reddit

It depends on where you draw the line and where you think everything started. My unpopular opinion is that the begining of eu should be in mesopotamia where it all began.

[-]

CataphractBunny@reddit

That idiot probably believes in Yakub as well. Afro-centrism is pure brainrot.

[-]

rededdie01@reddit

This comment has all the jealousy of the world....

[-]

Slow-Loan-9041@reddit

I mean it’s accurate. Greeks and Roman’s didn’t see Germanic people as one of them for example. There was no concept of Europe as one United continent. Germans claiming Greek culture is no different from Egyptians claiming Greek culture.

[-]

-Passenger-@reddit

Romans saw nobody as one of them except the roman citizens

and you could've been born in Rome without being considered roman, but you could've been born in Cologne and be considered as roman citizen.

[-]

Mountain-Yard-928@reddit

Yeah but they saw Phoenecians, Egyptians and Greeks in a veeeery different way compared to Germans and Celts

[-]

-Passenger-@reddit

does "veeeeery different" has some kind of definition or are you just trying to make a point by putting a lot of "e" there to signal how serious it is?

[-]

Mountain-Yard-928@reddit

Have you ever read how the considered red-haired people, for instance?

[-]

Mountain-Yard-928@reddit

u/-Passenger- why are you getting so heated up about Romans being influenced by Mediterraneans rather than Europeans that was like 2000 years ago lmao

[-]

-Passenger-@reddit

you know I never said that, you are arguing with yourself and I wont engage any longer with someone who changes his comments after I already answered to it

have a nice day

[-]

LaVeriteEstDansLeVin@reddit

This means I can say nig-?

[-]

Divisive_Ass@reddit

If that helps him feel better about himself...

[-]

Defiant-Strength2010@reddit

It's a historical reality, Greece was inspired by Ancient Egypt, Greeks ruled Egypt for centuries during the ptolemaic dynasty, Greek colonies were all over the mediterranean coast, not just in Europe. While Rome was more European and went all the way into Britain, the core of the empire was still the mediterranean coast, and eastern half of the empire (that lasted much longer) was mostly not in Europe. Alexandria in Egypt was one of the most important cultural and scientific centres for ancient Greeks, Christianity (which was the official religion of Rome) started in the middle east.

Northern Europeans are not the same "Europeans" like Rome, in fact they are the descendants of barbarians that destroyed Western Rome, and their culture only started getting seriously influenced by the Romans during renaissance.

[-]

TheHabro@reddit

Northern Europeans are not the same "Europeans" like Rome, in fact they are the descendants of barbarians that destroyed Western Rome,

The irony in this sentence. Regardless, there are subdivisions in cultures of all continents (west Asia and east Asia, India is a subcontinent for itself, North Africa and sub Saharan Africa etc).

and their culture only started getting seriously influenced by Rome and Greece during renaissance.

Untrue. Northern Europeans were baptized centuries before the renaissance.

[-]

dushmanimm@reddit

I agree. Europe back then was not interconnected, and it was barely a continent of its own. Germans, Brits, and the Dutch, etc, claiming the Ancient Greeks and Romans as part of their own heritage is dishonest. Both the Romans and Greeks were largely independent from most of the continent for most of their history. On top of that Europe as a cultural identity was something that was constructed later

[-]

cosmicdicer@reddit

It is very very funny that people are making jokes about twitter when i read is this thread europe does not exist i almost replied but i know better please tell me in which continent do you live

[-]

Substratas@reddit (OP)

Some might mean that it’s part of a larger landmass called Eurasia, while others simply try to point out that the Europe we have today, with all those different peoples & cultures, was not known as such back in time.

[-]

cosmicdicer@reddit

Why not ask them, personally do not dare because i know where this is going, or ley me say I imagine? but you as the original poster instead of replying to me with guesses and imagination, why not make sure? I only say so because you replied in a "there are excuses" way which makes me a bit suspicious to be honest

[-]

Substratas@reddit (OP)

Why not ask them, personally do not dare because i know where this is going, or ley me say I imagine? but you as the original poster instead of replying to me with guesses and imagination, why not make sure? I only say so because you replied in a "there are excuses" way which makes me a bit suspicious to be honest

[-]

deviendrais@reddit

Lmao go back 2500 years and tell ancient Greeks that they belong to the same race as the Nordics and not to the same race as Egyptians or Phoenicians

[-]

milic_srb@reddit

I mean I get what they're saying bcs Angloid Protestants often want to claim ancient Rome and Greece as their own when their culture is totally different from Mediterranean

[-]