In fact, the concept of Eurocentricism itself ought to be split into two distinct types. One may be designated as epistemic, i.e. a Eurocentric perspective
Marx and Engels were born in Europe, but the system of analysis that they developed transcended their own ethnocentric predicament, making the Marxist conception of history and dialectical analysis truly universal. Professor Yang Geng of mainland China, comments in his 2010 book entitled ‘Defense for Marx’, that Marx, through his genius, saw through his own historical conditioning, simultaneously completing, and transcending the entire philosophical project of the West.
The simple fact of the matter is that nothing of any real relevance happened in Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989. The Western media was present at a minor demonstration that was eventually dispersed by the Chinese authorities. Contrary to Western misrepresentation, people are allowed to protest in China, and exercise this right all the time. There have been many such protests both before and after Tiananmen in China, many of which could be construed as far more significant for various reasons as that which occurred in Tiananmen in 1989, but which the Western press have completely ignored.
Hobsbawm’s work is popular throughout the bourgeois system because it undermines the very Marxism it claims to represent, through the careful and clever presentation of many small, but important misrepresentations of Marxist philosophy and its application. The over-all effect of this policy is a movement away from a correct Marxist analysis and toward a thoroughly (and for Hobsbawm a comfortable) bourgeois interpretation. His deliberate and illogical separation of the Russian Communist Revolution from that of the Chinese Revolution is bizarre in its certainty, and smirks of Eurocentric bias bordering on the racist. Whatever Hobsbawm motivation for this flawed analysis, it is obvious that he does not adhere to the Marxist principle of ‘internationalism’.
‘The body of Henning’s article may be considered a rehash of the old ‘Wudang’ vs. ‘Shaolin’ mythology, with the facts (where they can be established), presented in a logical, if not meandering fashion; dates, names of emperors and portions of lineages, etc. China’s ‘Self Strengthening’ movement is mentioned near the end, as the final impetus for the association of Zhang Sanfeng with the development of Taijiquan – but oddly enough, Henning (who has written in military journals), does not acknowledge that this movement developed in China as a response to the rampant Western Imperialist aggression typical of the time. Curiously Henning makes no reference to the pre-Song uses of the term ‘Taiji’ which are known to refer to the practice (and usage) of martial arts. It is ironic therefore, that Henning would refer to Chinese myths and legends as ‘ignorance’, when so much of his historical omissions and oversights could well attract a similar criticism.’