So recently, I have been watching this political YouTube and Twitch streamer called Vaush. He identifies as a "market socialist" and "anarchist." He primarily makes content reacting to and debating right-wing content creators. I obviously disagree with a lot of his beliefs but find him interesting to watch nonetheless because it is often good to hear counterarguments and different points of view. Recently I was watching a response video he made to Steven Crowder entitled What is White Nationalism? Steven Crowder Shows Us In this video he made several incorrect claims about history.
Vaush makes the claim that “historians and anthropologists and political scientists agree that it [Western Civilization] means nothing” Then he goes to say that “it doesn't mean anything it literally means fucking nothing and everyone has a different definition.” His first point is extremely easy to rebut, I took two classes titled “Western Civilization I” and “Western Civilization II” respectively, if that alone is not enough to prove that “Western Civilization” is in fact a term used in academia then a quick sample of my university’s library should be sufficient to prove him wrong.
After a quick pursuing, one can see that there are books and
articles from as recent as 2014 that use the term “Western Civilization” in an academic
sense. Clearly this term is still very much in use by the academic community so
his argument that the term does not mean anything is false. His next point is a
bit harder to refute since he claims that “everyone has different definition.” Yes,
oftentimes scholars will have differing definitions of academic terms, but
there are generally numerous commonalities in how they define the term in
question. In the case of “Western Civilization,” a few key commonalities in the
various definitions are terms like Christianity, Europe, and Greco-Roman, philosophy,
tradition, and culture. Despite there being various definitions of Western
Civilization, one can have a general idea of what someone else means when they
use the term.
Then Vaush goes on to ask, “Okay so
does that include the western portion of Russia does that include Turkey which
is arguably almost certainly in fact in a part of Europe does that include
those swarthy Greeks?” He goes on to say “Western Civilization has broadly
speaking always meant, hey what do I consider white culture to be at the time.
What, what can I claim white people have done, and back in the day it didn't
include Spanish people, it didn't include Germans, it didn't include the Irish,
it didn't include the fucking Welsh, it didn't include the Scottish. Back then
white people or Anglo-Saxons were British people that's it. That was what white
people were and everyone else was swarthy and French people [were considered
white] and everyone else was swarthy as fuck.[1]” Here he is trying to say that oftentimes
Conservatives and right-wingers define Western Civilization as “white civilization”
or “white culture.” He then points out the problem with defining Western
Civilization as white civilization, since that definition would exclude many nations
that at one time were not considered “white” but now are. So I can not say for
certain if when Conservatives and right-wingers use the term “Western Civilization”
if they really do just mean white civilization or white people, but academic definitions
generally do not define it as such. His claim that “Western Civilization has
broadly speaking always meant, hey what do I consider white culture to be at
the time.” is wrong. Academics almost never define Western Civilization so
narrowly precisely because the definition of who is and is not “white” has
changed dramatically over time and ancient peoples such as the Greeks and
Romans did not have the same conception of race we do. Defining “Western
Civilization” as “white civilization” or “white culture” is just simply
incorrect.
Vaush
then claims that “ye old, back in ye old Medieval Ages my friend, people didn't
give a fuck about the West, the West didn't even mean anything back then
because it was defined in opposition to the Orient.” Even if we grant that back
in the Medieval Era, the West was solely defined as being in opposition to the
Orient, it still means something. Even if you define something as in opposition
to something else, it still by definition means something. His argument is just
strange, terms cannot be defined as in opposition to something else? Even back
in Medieval times, I would not grant that the West was defined solely in
opposition to the Orient. There very much was a cultural continuity between the
former Roman Empire and the Medieval Kingdoms that replaced it. The Byzantine
Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire was still a significant presence in Medieval
Europe and the Middle East until roughly the 1400s. Additionally, what would
become Germany, France, Spain, England and Italy were all still extremely
influenced by Greco-Roman culture and philosophy. I am kind of getting ahead of myself though, his
next argument more explicitly states his belief that there was not a cultural continuity
between Medieval Europe and ancient Greece and Rome.
“There were no fourteen hundreds
English peasants who thought like ‘oh yes I am part of the Great Western
civilization which dates back to the Athenian philosophers.’ Nobody thought
that way. It was only after the Enlightenment…only after… the 1700s that people
started to think that there was an intellectual tradition being carried forward
from the ancient Greeks but even then, that didn't carry through the Holy Roman
Empire that didn't carry through the German barbarian tribes.”
Yes, it is true
that English peasants from the 1400s probably would not have thought about
being a part of the a cultural tradition which dates back to Athens, but
European nobility and the church were certainly a part of an intellectual
tradition which dated back to antiquity, whether they considered themselves a
part of this cultural tradition, or not. Many of the great Christian theologians’
writings were undeniably influenced by rhetoricians like Cicero and others. Additionally,
Dante’s Inferno which was written in the 1300s (predating the Enlightenment
and Renaissance) has multiple explicit and subtle allusions to historical figures
from antiquity and Greco-Roman mythology. Next, I am not sure if he means that
the Enlightenment did not carry over into the Holy Roman Empire, or if the
Greco-Roman cultural tradition in general did not carry through to the Germans.
Nevertheless, both claims would be wrong. Even the name “Holy Roman Empire”
implies that they thought of themselves as part of the Roman cultural
tradition. In fact, in Medieval times, and beyond being thought of as the successor
to Rome was extremely important. That is part of the reason why Charlemagne was
crowned Holy Roman Emperor, “Romanorum imperatorem” or Emperor of
the Romans and later on Holy Roman Emperors were crowned as “Rex Romanorum”
or King of the Romans (The Russians and the Ottomans, after the fall of the
Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire both claimed to be the successors to the
Eastern Roman Empire).[2] Even within the Germanic
speaking Holy Roman Empire, Latin was a lingua franca among the nobility and
elite. In fact, many titles for nobility are derived from Latin terms and many titles
of social classes were also derived from Latin terms. The German word for “king”
is “Kaiser,” which is derived from the name/title “Caesar.” There was a
social class in Holy Roman free cities called “Patrizier,” a word which
is derived from the Latin “Patricius,” or Patrician. Furthermore,
several cities in the Holy Roman Empire were known as “Free Cities” and had a
Republican form of government, which is obviously derived from Greek and Roman government
practices.
Finally, Vaush
claims that “Yes, Western Civilization and white culture are either dog
whistles or used by people who don't know they are dog whistles.” The term “Western
Civilization” is not inherently a dog whistle. Can it be used by racists as dog
whistle? Yeah sure, but it is primarily an academic term used to describe the
cultural continuity from Greco-Roman antiquity to today. A basic understanding
of history shows that there was unquestionably a cultural continuity from
Greece and Rome to Medieval Europe and beyond. Even if for some reason we grant him that Medieval Europe was not a part of that cultural tradition, and it was only with the Renaissance and Enlightenment that the West rediscovered Greco-Roman culture, it is still utterly
undeniable that the modern-day United States, Europe and many other countries
and nations are a part of a cultural tradition that goes back all the way to
antiquity. The two main forms of government today are Democracies and
Republics, which have their roots in ancient Greece and Rome. If we are not
supposed to refer to our cultural tradition which has its roots in Greece and
Rome as “Western Civilization” than what should we refer to it as?
The entirety of Vaush’s unhinged
rant about Western Civilization:
“how long that term dates back
because historians and anthropologists and political scientists agree that it
means nothing guys do you think Western civilization means anything it doesn't it
doesn't mean anything it literally means fucking nothing and everyone has a
different definition got Western culture originated in or are associated with
Europe okay so does that include the western portion of Russia does that
include Turkey which is arguably almost certainly in fact in a part of Europe
does that include those swarthy Greeks in reality what people consider to be
Western civilization is a product almost exclusively of their biases at the
time because back and ye old back in ye old medieval ages my friend people
didn't give a fuck about the West the West didn't even mean anything back then
because it was defined in opposition to the Orient but that wasn't even a
fucking thing back then the only thing that people cared about was their King
their monarchy there were feudal societies the idea of a nation-state didn't
even exist yet there were no fourteen hundreds English peasants who thought
like oh yes I am part of the Great Western civilization which dates back to the
Athenian philosophers nobody thought that way it was only after the
Enlightenment only after the only after the the 1700s that people started to
think that there was an intellectual tradition being carried forward from the
ancient Greeks but even then that didn't carry through the Holy Roman Empire
that didn't carry through the German barbarian tribes what is and is not
Western civilization has broadly speaking always meant hey what do I consider
white culture to be at the time what what can I claim white people have done
and back in the day it didn't include Spanish people it didn't include Germans
it didn't include the Irish it didn't include the fucking Welsh it didn't
include the Scottish back then white people or anglo-saxons British people
that's it that was white people and everyone else was swarthy and French people
and everyone else was swarthy as fuck these terms change so yes Western civilization
and white culture are either dog whistles or used by people who don't know
their dog whistles which is the point of a dog whistle you're not supposed to
know if it's a racist iteration or not.”
[1]
Here he is alluding to a conception of whiteness from around the 18th
century, which really only included the English, Germans, Nordic peoples (like
Swedes, Danes and Norwegians) and the French. Strangely enough he thinks that
this definition excludes the Germans, despite the Anglo-Saxons, one of the
progenitor groups of the English, being Germanic in origin.
Also, Scottish people are by definition British. His
claim that their conception of “white people” was limited to British people,
but excluded Scottish people is utter nonsense. He just does not understand the
terminology correctly.
[2]
Additionally, Charlemagne had plans to marry a Byzantine Empress in order to
fully complete the reunification of the Roman Empire, but the plan never came
to fruition because Charlemagne died on campaign in the Balkans before the
ceremony could take place.
No comments:
Post a Comment