As a Christian and pastor I found this interesting. Not being in classics academia I have no idea whether these things are misrepresented there. However the following I found very supportive of the view I hold of “western civilization/culture” which has been slowly forming in me:
“the diversity Brooks claims such a narrative encourages is not inclusive of the full range of ancient cultures (Egyptian, Persian, Carthaginian, Chinese, Nubian) that it has appropriated as “Western” along the way — ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians are fine, but not modern ones.”
To me, the cultural cross-pollinating seems to be one of the most beautiful (and prosperous) parts of “western” culture(or is that bad now-”appropriation”). It’s also very much in harmony with the biblical view of the world. Maybe it’s even a defining feature of this culture? Keep what is good, leave what is bad.
I was recalling a book I read on solutions to world poverty, “the poverty of nations,” and describing the changes that need to take place in cultures in order to lift them out of poverty. “Don’t do that thing- it’s from the infidels” was a more common response by both Muslim and Catholic nations, in comparison to protestants, when responding to the achievements of other cultures.
So does “western culture” which relies on so many non westerners (e.g. Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, Augustine)for it’s unique success, need a different name? Maybe, but I am convinced that there is the wisdom of many nations and skin colors of God’s image bearers contained in this “thing”
