>what boundaries? and who decides?

the physical/cultural boundaries that separate one region from the other. the reason why we differentiate Africa from Europe from Asia. Who decides? Well...that's a hard question..I don't know.

>you're wrong. this is a back-formation. as i said, the
>discourse on civilizing the barbarian came long after the
>initial contacts. it came after the balance of power
>shifted. same thing with arabs and east africa, once the
>power was all on one side, the contempt followed.

Well...i'm not sure I agree with that. Even today, there's a stigma of foreignness that's attached to Middle Easterners/Asians/Africans. This stigma is an extension/continuation of the past. And, peep the early texts/art of Europeans who documented distant lands...also, the west was always described as the center with all other areas defined according to its relation to the west, which explains why the East came to be known as the Far East/Orient.

Even with the first contacts, cultural chauvanism was evident.

>see, not only are you accepting a later view as an earlier
>one, you're also ignoring the history and power that "we"
>had. europe didn't sail the world to civilize anyone, they
>used the civilizing mission as an excuse to continue what
>they were doing at a point when they knew that the natives
>were getting restless.

It came more from a need to strengthen their authority. Their arrogance motivated exploration. They should have taken into the account that they might be unwelcome visitors. Some places wished to preserve autonomy but Europeans asserted their way into their lands anyways.

when "we" first encountered "them",
>the technology gap wasn't that great, and the attitudes were
>quite different.

Actually, I'm not so sure 'bout that either. The introduction of rifles began the process of westernization. And again, the attitude was that of "they're different" rather than "we're different" even when they were the guests.

>>>but i would also point out that in fact there has been a
>>>tremendous amount of western study of the non-western world.
>>> think about napoleon in egypt or richard burton or the
>>>asiatic society or max muller. i know, i know, you're going
>>>to quote edward said at me, but the point is that the
>>>respect, admiration and interest existed.

If there is admiration, why is it that Europeans don't adopt the cultural/social products of other countries in the same way that others have adopted theirs? Westernization is a mainstream process. Easternization? Never even heard of the word.

Go to any European country. There's hardly any Eastern influences in the physical environment. Whereas in Japan, Brazil, Ghana, westernization is evident.

>>But only among scholars who are a small minority of the
>>population.
>
>no, not just scholars, but the people who funded them, which
>is far more important, and the people who consumed
>popularizations of their work. the popularity of
>chinoiserie or omar khayyam was much more general.

The scholars and those who fund them are associated with higher institutions, which means that they are in the minority.

>>>and i'll also point out that today, you and i *and the local
>>>peoples* know about angkor wat, khajuraho or the cave
>>>paintings in north africa bc of western inquiry/research.

Who? On the behalf of the general American public, I have no idea who wat or khajuraho are. On the other hand, name some Europeans and I guarantee that Americans will have some idea who you're referring to.

>>Seriously tho'....you are an exception to the rule. How many
>>white Americans/Blacks/Europeans/Asians/etc know/have
>>access/have interest in those things? Very few. The general
>>population is what concerns me.
>
>
>no, what i was saying there is that the general population
>around khaj, angkor wat, etc know about them *today* bc of
>westerners.

And again, I'm saying that they are a small minority of the collective population.

>
>
>
>>Again, you're not normal...and take that as a compliment.
>>Mention "The Tale of Genji" to anyone and expect a blank
>>face.
>
>
>and these people know who botticelli is?

Yup....there was even a reference to Botticelli in "Clueless". Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Mozart, Shakespheare and other European artists/philosophers are all household names in America. America has an interest in Europe. French and German are taught in schools. Everyone wants to look European. Everyone buys European. Everyone dreams of traveling to France. Europe is romanticized.

>look, the only reason i know what the tale of the genji is
>because was on the syllabus at my university. and i could
>name exactly one botticelli painting. so that's about
>equal. in fact, i would go on to say that i think anyone
>who can name three paintings by botticelli knows who
>murasaki is.

I'd have to disagree. Even if someone cant name three titles, they still know of him. Everyone knows who Beethoven is but few can name his symphonies. And those who can name-drop are regarded as "cultured". There's a certain admiration that comes with being "cultured" in the European arts.


>no, i don't think so. how many people in China are learning
>French... or Dutch?

But China still admires the west. And, they don't have to know the language to study French literature (which comes translated).

forget about Basque. people learn the
>languages of economic power, it has little to do with
>respect or admiration.

Yes, that's a good point but also, take into the account what economic relationships are based on...the relationship between the exploited/exploiter...there's a power structure at work here, one that is based on white supremacy.


i mean, there was a tremendous boom
>in the study of japanese during the 80's, that's not bc
>everyone started admiring Endo all of a sudden.

A superficial trend right? On the other hand, westernization/interest in Europe(America) is set in stone.

and it also
>has to do with the fact that the french or the americans
>promote the study of their language in a way that the
>chinese or the ibo don't. there's an alliance francaise in
>every big city, there's no alliance ibo.

That's cause the French have more clout.

>and many an andreas has indeed learned chinese. there's a
>major center for the study of my own obscure and marginal
>language in norway, but where will you find centers for the
>study of norwegian in the third world?

Again, I'm not denying that there are *some* Europeans with interest in foreign cultures. But, I'm more interested in taking a survey of all Europeans to see if they have any interest in Africa or the Middle East.
>
>
>
>
>