I think you should re-read the paragraph you're re-stating -- you don't seem to have understood the author's meaning, because you're replying to a straw man.

In fact, IMO, almost all of the comments here seem to have missed the actual point of the article, which I don't think was at all intended to be taken on face value...

Giving people "a different set of goggles to try on" is about as far as you can get from "inflict[ing] an ideology". The entire purpose of the former is to explicitly recognize the contingency of a particular (or even any particular) ideology.

> making bigoted assumptions about their perception of the world

I don't think the assumption that most formal education in the west is pretty Eurocentric is anything less than accurate. E.g. look at the amount of time spent on various cultures in history courses and look at how they are discussed (in their own terms vs. comparatively.)

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, either, because it's easier to learn about things that are familiar to you, and easier to learn about new things when they are compared to things you're already familiar with. However, it does motivate the need for popular writing that points out the ways in which such an education can lead you astray.

In that respect, all of the strongly negative reactions to this article were exactly the point the author was making. The flaws in Asia-centric thinking are obvious to us, and the step that the author is hoping an educated reader will be able to make on their own (perhaps with the help of a footnote) is to realize that these same flaws are also manifest in Euro-centric thinking. (Or, you know, just get pissed off and miss the point.)

I have a lot of interest in learning about historical issues that are not necessarily commonplace 'in the West' but zero interest in learning it from armchair hacks who 'spin' ideas and misrepresent facts.

"all of the strongly negative reactions to this article were exactly the point the author was making." - no - this is false. The 'strong reactions' were against his misrepresentations and 'spin' - underlying his bigoted assumption about Westerners perspectives and biases - not about the content itself. Medium readers in particular would be fond of reading up a bit on Asian antiquity.

Part of reading is understand the author's intent.

The purpose of this piece was not to document historical fact, and the author explained as much in simple and up-front language. So if you're trying to "learn about historical issues" from this, aside from issues of historiography, that's your failure as a reader.

Yes. Should we diverge into a discussion of whether that's factually accurate?

I don't even have a nuanced understanding of the perception of modern American culture vis-a-vis most modern European cultures, and I only know that because I've spent enough time living in Europe to realize how nuanced those perceptions often are.

So, I know for a fact that I don't have a anywhere close to an accurate understanding of Western cultures vis-a-vis Asia cultures, past or present. Anyone who thinks they do and hasn't spent a good half decade in Asia is probably deluding themselves.

> and admittedly and deliberately applied 'spin' - which is wrong

The "spin" here is a rhetorical device, not an actual attempt at deceit. The fact that some people have been deceived is a reflection on their careless reading, not on the author's intent.

If the actual point of the article was to rag on Rome or the West and cheer on Asian cultures, then it would be spin in the sense of deceit, and therefore wrong.

But, as I've pointed out multiple times here, the point of his article is NOT to convince you that Asian cultures were superior to Rome. That argument is only made in order to drive home a different point -- namely, that (actual) spin exists in common understandings of Asian culture vis-a-vis Roman culture. And more generally, of X culture vis-a-vis Y culture.

> no - this is false

I'll let you read through the comments here on your own. Plenty of people are complaining about historical inaccuracies and on-face bad arguments, which are very likely there on purpose.

So, that may not be your objection, but it's just an objective, observable fact that the majority of the posts in this HN thread are discussing the relative merits of the author's historical claims (surely we can agree that it's silly to spend time pointing out the existence of flaws in an INTENTIONALLY flawed argument, right?)

> underlying his bigoted assumption about Westerners perspectives and biases

Again, it's not even remotely bigoted to assume people who grew up in one culture don't understand the perspectives of other cultures.

It's just a fact that it's really difficult to understand the variety of ways in which members of one culture perceive another culture. Even after living within a culture for several years it can be really hard to get an accurate mental model of these perspectives. And this is even true about subcultures within a rather homogeneous culture, as we see here with your accusation of "spin" or in various discussions about management from the perspective of engineers (and vice versa).

Recognizing the danger of being blinded by one's cultural predispositions is a useful recognition. It helps you communicate across cultures, whether that means talking with people from different parts of the world or from different parts of the office building. It also helps you avoid making stupid decisions supported by patently bad arguments based only upon bias inherent to your culture (whether that's the culture of a corner office or a corner of the globe).

The point of the article was the obviate this by presenting an argument that is really unconvincing and hoping the reader will do the tiny bit of work that's required to notice that the same sorts of arguments are widely accepted all the time, all over the world, and in all subcultures. The fact that the subject is western vs. eastern cultures during the Roman empire, and that the likely audience comes from a western culture, is really entirely beside the point -- it's the hook/gimmick, not the thesis.