Ah, I see I was one comment too late to tell you this version of history's name :)
History in schools and hence in the general populace bears as much relationship to 'real' historical analysis as the times-table does to the sort of maths you understand.
I do think your rebuttal underplays the extent of Western cultural hegemony. Yes, non-Western scientists and thinkers are coming up with things all by themselves and would continue to do so without any further Western input, but the methodology they are working with has spread across the globe through Western influence and is irredeemably stamped with the patterns of Western thought. Yes, there is a lot of Arabic thought underneath it, and other deeper influences under that, but you can't take the West out of the equation. It will take a long time before those Western traits fade into the background sufficiently as to be the least important influence.
Further nitpicks, elaborations and possible food for thought:
1) The Roman world was not limited to Europe but extended across vast swathes of the Near East and North Africa. As such, the Arabic scholars were not inventing something brand new but continuing the traditions which were lost in the West. 'Eastern' culture was just as if not more 'Roman' than anything experienced in Britain or France. Remember that when Constantine decided to move his capital, he decided to move it eastwards, never north or west. A decision that made perfect sense at the time. The whole idea of any fundamental divide between West and East only evolved as the Roman Empire fractured and then became entrenched as first Christianity and then Islam spread. For a Roman, the distinction between northern 'barbarians' and southern civilisation would have been far more meaningful.
2) Let's not get carried away by notions of the advanced state of non-Roman Western cultures. They were iron-age farmers. In most cases they were significantly behind the Romans in technological advances and organisational ability, that's why Rome beat them. Go and stand in a reconstructed Iron Age round house. Then go and stand in a reconstructed Roman villa. There really isn't much contest.
3) The Renaissance of learning (as opposed to the arts) was about the rediscovery of Roman and Greek texts, combined with the later work the Arabs had added to them, largely reintroduced from the East following the fall of Constantinople (though some stuff came much earlier thanks to the cultural exchange during the Crusades) thus making them available again to Western thought. The fall of the monasteries was a phenomenon limited to only certain parts of Europe (the Protestant countries, and nowhere took it as far as England did) and is now considered to have had only a very limited effect on wider educational patterns.
4) Empire had both benefits and disadvantages for everyone on the planet. Anyone who denies either side of this (or the 'whole planet' part) needs to go away and study harder and come back when they are past their prejudices. Some of the disadvantages were horrendous, some of the benefits were wonderful. There really isn't much else one can say about the whole business in a DW post :D
5) Slavery wasn't the result of decadence, or for that matter what we would now recognise as racism, it was the outcome of some very hard-nosed economic realities combined with a difference of outlook as regards the nature of cruelty which is utterly foreign to us. Decadence and racism may have come about because of slavery, but they didn't cause it. The idea of 'decadence' being relevant probably comes from abolitionist propaganda which was trying to link into well known tropes about the fall of the Roman Empire.
6) That sense of 'utterly foreign to us' comes down to a revolution that occurred in Western though due to the ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment, which I mentioned earlier. You really should read up on that because it is the root of our relativistic morals as well as ideas like the common humanity of man. It should help you understand what is Western about your thought patterns.
no subject
History in schools and hence in the general populace bears as much relationship to 'real' historical analysis as the times-table does to the sort of maths you understand.
I do think your rebuttal underplays the extent of Western cultural hegemony. Yes, non-Western scientists and thinkers are coming up with things all by themselves and would continue to do so without any further Western input, but the methodology they are working with has spread across the globe through Western influence and is irredeemably stamped with the patterns of Western thought. Yes, there is a lot of Arabic thought underneath it, and other deeper influences under that, but you can't take the West out of the equation. It will take a long time before those Western traits fade into the background sufficiently as to be the least important influence.
Further nitpicks, elaborations and possible food for thought:
1) The Roman world was not limited to Europe but extended across vast swathes of the Near East and North Africa. As such, the Arabic scholars were not inventing something brand new but continuing the traditions which were lost in the West. 'Eastern' culture was just as if not more 'Roman' than anything experienced in Britain or France. Remember that when Constantine decided to move his capital, he decided to move it eastwards, never north or west. A decision that made perfect sense at the time. The whole idea of any fundamental divide between West and East only evolved as the Roman Empire fractured and then became entrenched as first Christianity and then Islam spread. For a Roman, the distinction between northern 'barbarians' and southern civilisation would have been far more meaningful.
2) Let's not get carried away by notions of the advanced state of non-Roman Western cultures. They were iron-age farmers. In most cases they were significantly behind the Romans in technological advances and organisational ability, that's why Rome beat them. Go and stand in a reconstructed Iron Age round house. Then go and stand in a reconstructed Roman villa. There really isn't much contest.
3) The Renaissance of learning (as opposed to the arts) was about the rediscovery of Roman and Greek texts, combined with the later work the Arabs had added to them, largely reintroduced from the East following the fall of Constantinople (though some stuff came much earlier thanks to the cultural exchange during the Crusades) thus making them available again to Western thought. The fall of the monasteries was a phenomenon limited to only certain parts of Europe (the Protestant countries, and nowhere took it as far as England did) and is now considered to have had only a very limited effect on wider educational patterns.
4) Empire had both benefits and disadvantages for everyone on the planet. Anyone who denies either side of this (or the 'whole planet' part) needs to go away and study harder and come back when they are past their prejudices. Some of the disadvantages were horrendous, some of the benefits were wonderful. There really isn't much else one can say about the whole business in a DW post :D
5) Slavery wasn't the result of decadence, or for that matter what we would now recognise as racism, it was the outcome of some very hard-nosed economic realities combined with a difference of outlook as regards the nature of cruelty which is utterly foreign to us. Decadence and racism may have come about because of slavery, but they didn't cause it. The idea of 'decadence' being relevant probably comes from abolitionist propaganda which was trying to link into well known tropes about the fall of the Roman Empire.
6) That sense of 'utterly foreign to us' comes down to a revolution that occurred in Western though due to the ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment, which I mentioned earlier. You really should read up on that because it is the root of our relativistic morals as well as ideas like the common humanity of man. It should help you understand what is Western about your thought patterns.