[quote=“SuchAFob”]Not all western cultures prefer tan. In the south of the US, light is in. Also in Mexico, light it is. But yes, the pale skin shows a) youth and b) wealth.
The musclelessness also.[/quote]
Is Mexico western ?
Not a piss take I really don’t know. What is Western, i though EU North America Aussie land etc
Yes, dear , we Latinos are Western. We have the same Greco-Roman cultural base, even if it is imposed. Ours was wiped out.
Depends what you mean. When we speak of “The West” I’m not sure Latin America is part of that meaning. Outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, I think South Africa, Chile and Argentina are perhaps included in a limited context.
If you wanted to include countries like Cuba, Mexico or Guatemala etc I don’t think most would agree with that assessment.
Geographically, one could argue that Australia and New Zealand aren’t western countries and Latin America is.
Yes but you wiped out others in the process too. Thats just History now.
Depends what you mean. When we speak of “The West” I’m not sure Latin America is part of that meaning. Outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, I think South Africa, Chile and Argentina are perhaps included in a limited context.
If you wanted to include countries like Cuba, Mexico or Guatemala etc I don’t think most would agree with that assessment.
Geographically, one could argue that Australia and New Zealand aren’t western countries and Latin America is.[/quote]
I’d largely agree with your definition of the West, though I think it really has little to do with geography. It’s about ideas, and how man regarded himself in the world. Basically, the British Isles, Low Countries and France make up historic Western Europe because they drove the Age of Englightenment and Industrial Revolution. They were also protestant (or in France’s case, heavily enshrined secularism in their political and public life). Their colonies that ended up being predominantly of the same cultural base/ethnicity are also included, hence why South Africa is marginal at best and why I wouldn’t include any part of Latin America, including Argentina, as Western in the truest sense because even though Argentina is very European, Spain and Italy themselves aren’t part of the West. The Nordic countries could probably be included for cultural factors, but they didn’t really drive the Age of Englightenment or the Industrial Revolution, and were mostly on the periphery of Europe. The Mediterranean and what today is considered eastern Europe, and by extension, their colonies, fall outside the strictest definition of the West basically because they were so underdeveloped by comparison and drew on a completely different set of religious/philosophical leanings during the 17th- early 20th Centuries. That’s why although Greece is one of the cradles of Western Civilisation, it’s hardly considered Western simply because it’s such a ballsup, even to this day. Actually, prior to the two World Wars, even the lands under Germany and Austria-Hungary were considered “Middle Europe” and quite distinct from “The West” despite the fact that a lot of culture (especially musical) and academic work (especially in things like the social sciences and also archaeology) originated in, amongst other places, Vienna. Today, I think they’re quite firmly Western, though I’d still be unsure if I’d class any Mediterranean countries (other than France) or any Latin countries as Western. Anyway, historically, Middle Europe was far less industrialised than Western countries, contained significant ethnic/cultural minorities that were often incredibly backward (if I remember correctly, Slovak didn’t have a written form until the mid-19th Century), and also didn’t have democratic governments or didn’t appear to be moving towards them at any significant pace. Things changed to an extent after WW2 when Europe was re-constituted depending upon which side of the Iron Curtain it was on, but the Mediterranean was still pretty backward well after WW2 (and from what I saw of Spain, I’d say it’s still not all there yet). Of course, the lands ruled by Russia (Imperial or Soviet) were a whole different entity entirely.
Depends what you mean. When we speak of “The West” I’m not sure Latin America is part of that meaning. Outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, I think South Africa, Chile and Argentina are perhaps included in a limited context.
If you wanted to include countries like Cuba, Mexico or Guatemala etc I don’t think most would agree with that assessment.
Geographically, one could argue that Australia and New Zealand aren’t western countries and Latin America is.[/quote]
West is the White Man’s world right?? Is that what you’re saying??? White may go to NZ and OZ but he stays in west. SA, Chile and Argentina have a good ‘white’ populace so they can be included in a limited context- limited to the white population that is. Mexico, Cuba etc. may be in the West but we not include you when we refer to the west coz what we really mean is White Man west and that reference extends to the white wizard of oz but not to the red/brown man of the west. Something like tha?
divea: Everywhere is west, east, south or north of somewhere else. It has nothing to do with points on a compass. It has to do with a European vs European reference system as according to the Western vs Middle European vs Mediterranean conception of pre-WW2 Europe, with the Russian Empire/Soviet Union often being considered a non-European civilisation. The Russians themselves, despite Peter the Great’s and Catherine the Great’s best efforts, still don’t entirely consider themselves European.
Yes, basically those countries that had a majority white, or more specifically, majority white, Western European, ancestry (both genetic and cultural) were also considered Western, which is why, as I’ve pointed out, South Africa was always in a different class to Australia and why Argentina was always in a different class to Canada (the English speaking part or the French speaking part).
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]divea: Everywhere is west, east, south or north of somewhere else. It has nothing to do with points on a compass. It has to do with a European vs European reference system as according to the Western vs Middle European vs Mediterranean conception of pre-WW2 Europe, with the Russian Empire/Soviet Union often being considered a non-European civilisation. The Russians themselves, despite Peter the Great’s and Catherine the Great’s best efforts, still don’t entirely consider themselves European.
Yes, basically those countries that had a majority white, or more specifically, majority white, Western European, ancestry (both genetic and cultural) were also considered Western, which is why, as I’ve pointed out, South Africa was always in a different class to Australia and why Argentina was always in a different class to Canada (the English speaking part or the French speaking part).[/quote]
well yah that was pretty much my interpretation of the meaning.
[wikipedia]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world[/wikipedia]
Your version of the enlightenment is highly Anglocentric. France was not secular until the French Revolution although there was a degree of religious tolerance there. The world ‘Enlightenment’ comes to English from a German word, and as you might expect from that, Germany played an extremely important, indeed probably central role in the Enlightenment. Northern Italy was very much affected by the enlightenment as were Scandinavia, Hungary, Switzerland, and to a lesser extent Poland. As for the industrial revolution, it clearly began in and reached its first full expression in Britain, but there were also industrial revolutions in Germany, Northern Italy, and Japan.
The Latin American revolutions at the beginning of the 19th century were all very much founded on enlightenment principles.
You seem to be very close to saying that on the one hand being western has to do with certain ideas from the enlightenment but on the other that only white people of Anglo-Saxon stock really believe in or practice those ideas.
[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]
Geographically, one could argue that Australia and New Zealand aren’t western countries and Latin America is.[/quote]
I’d largely agree with your definition of the West, though I think it really has little to do with geography. It’s about ideas, and how man regarded himself in the world. Basically, the British Isles, Low Countries and France make up historic Western Europe because they drove the Age of Englightenment and Industrial Revolution. They were also protestant (or in France’s case, heavily enshrined secularism in their political and public life). Their colonies that ended up being predominantly of the same cultural base/ethnicity are also included, hence why South Africa is marginal at best and why I wouldn’t include any part of Latin America, including Argentina, as Western in the truest sense because even though Argentina is very European, Spain and Italy themselves aren’t part of the West. [/quote]
[quote=“Feiren”]Your version of the enlightenment is highly Anglocentric. France was not secular until the French Revolution although there was a degree of religious tolerance there. The world ‘Enlightenment’ comes to English from a German word, and as you might expect from that, Germany played an extremely important, indeed probably central role in the Enlightenment. Northern Italy was very much affected by the enlightenment as were Scandinavia, Hungary, Switzerland, and to a lesser extent Poland. As for the industrial revolution, it clearly began in and reached its first full expression in Britain, but there were also industrial revolutions in Germany, Northern Italy, and Japan.
The Latin American revolutions at the beginning of the 19th century were all very much founded on enlightenment principles.
You seem to be very close to saying that on the one hand being western has to do with certain ideas from the enlightenment but on the other that only white people of Anglo-Saxon stock really believe in or practice those ideas.[/quote]
You’re right that I should have included Switzerland in the West. I actually thought about that yesterday after I’d written this, but didn’t go back to change it.
Your last paragraph is the most important one. It’s all very well to say that other parts of Europe were affected by Enlightenment ideas, but they didn’t put them into practice until the 20th Century, often after losing a war or two.
It’s all very well to say “Latin America…” and then forget that the difference, to this day is that the words hyper-inflation, military junta and para-military hit squad are associated with Latin America and not the former British colonies of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Even India, a former British colony without anything remotely close to a population of mainly European descent seems to be more stable politically than most of Latin America. Indeed, Argentina hasn’t had any of the above for what, five minutes now? It’s also telling that from basically Day 1 of independence, Latin America has gone about kicking the shit out of itself. Interestingly, Australia and New Zealand have never gone to war over Tasmania, the Cook Islands or Fiji (indeed, interestingly, Australia and New Zealand have never had political assassinations, military governments (or fascism or communism), the kind of economic instability that plagues Latin America, or wars of any kind on their soil, and were two of the very first places in the world to give women the vote).
As for the idea of north-western Europe vs the Mediterranean vs Middle Europe (and on a side note, at the end of the eighteenth Century, Poland was partitioned three times such that except briefly under Napoleon, it didn’t exist until the 20th Century, and Hungary was part of Austria until 1848 when they shared the crown), that is someone else’s idea. I can’t take credit for it. However, it’s largely true. From the end of the 18th Century onwards (the period I’m talking about), the Mediterranean was a backward mess. Need I remind you that Spain was still under Franco until 1976 I think? When Spain, Portugal and Greece joined the predecessor of the E.U., the West had to pour huge amounts of money into them to bring them even remotely up to speed. The Italian Lira was an extremely unstable currency, and Italians changed governments about every year on average after WW2. Middle Europe was, until the Second Reich, a backward mess (and even beyond – the Polish Army rode out to meet the Nazi Panzer divisions on horseback in WW2) except in the German speaking West of Middle Europe. The two big wacky ideologies of the 20th Century, fascism and communism, gained enormous ground in Middle and southern Europe (and also Latin America), but not in the West. Why do you think that was? Why did European nations one after the other embrace insane political ideologies, yet despite being ravaged by the Great Depression also, the U.S.A., Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand (not to mention the other Western nations in Europe) never ended up with an insane dictator? In the 1930s, a guy with a funny moustache or hat at the top was practically the must have fashion item in much of Europe. Latin America keeps holding the torch for guys in white military uniforms with too much bling or combat fatigues to this day.
If I have a very Anglo-centric view it’s because the Anglo world got it right because it actually put Age of Englightenment principles into practice. I don’t buy into this PC-love fest that we’re all the same. This is about culture, not race, as some might think I’m trying to argue. Some cultures got it right. Some didn’t. To put an even finer point on it, some cultures were advanced and some were arse-backwards. Australia has had independence for a little over a century now. In that incredibly short period of time, it has transitioned from being a series of colonies incredibly peacefully and has built one of the most stable political and economic systems in the world to this day precisely because of the institutions it enshrined at the centre of its public life. Latin American countries have had independence for well over one hundred and fifty years in most cases and continue to be a 50-50 shot for fucked up shit within the next decade or so. Honestly, does anyone here really think Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica or any of the other current poster boys aren’t one economic crisis away from “electoral discrepancies” a.k.a. mass graves of political opponents?
We’ve seen this time and time again – poorly thought out categorizations based on artificial and shallow dichotimization, with people treating the categories as if they were some how real or valuable, resulting in arguments ad nauseam over whether this or that example belongs in category A or B.
The question shouldn’t be whether, say, Mexico, IS in some real category of “Western” or not. The question should instead be whether such a poorly thought out, artificial, abstract category is valuable and deserves continued use.
Hear, hear. It’s also extremely important that elites in places like Taiwan and elsewhere share a commitment to enlightenment ideals.
And the idea that Middle Europe was a “backward mess” until the Second Reich is just plain silly. Vienna, Berlin, Budapest etc. in the 19th and early 20th centuries were incredibly wealthy, advanced, and making great contributions to what a whig would call progress.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]We’ve seen this time and time again – poorly thought out categorizations based on artificial and shallow dichotimization, with people treating the categories as if they were some how real or valuable, resulting in arguments ad nauseam over whether this or that example belongs in category A or B.
The question shouldn’t be whether, say, Mexico, IS in some real category of “Western” or not. The question should instead be whether such a poorly thought out, artificial, abstract category is valuable and deserves continued use.[/quote]
It is if you’re one of the elite. If membership were given away to just anyone, well, next thing you know, Mali would be considered Western. While you’re at it, run along and get my pith helmet. :raspberry:
Feiren: Yes, I’ve already pointed that out myself, but overall, Middle Europe was not on a par with the West. That’s why the Hun lost the War, that and the fact that he didn’t know when to have morning tea.
WTF? I guess you didn’t study history then? Sweden was one of the first countries to adopt protestantism after the UK, mostly because we could get rid of the rich Catholic church and the king could get his hands on their gold. We were involved in most of the big wars up until WW1 and Sweden was one of the major European powers at one stage and ruled most of Scandinavia and then some. We were paid tribute by France after we helped kick their ass and ended up with an island in the Caribbean as a result of it (although we later sold it back). I’m even sorry to say that Sweden was involved in the slave trade in Africa, we had a colony in the US until the Dutch kicked us out of both places and we had a very successful East India company. On top of that Sweden had several great inventors that were among the best in Europe and many technical advances wouldn’t have been made without them. You might want to read up a bit on your history first before making stupid statements that the “Nordic countries” wasn’t part of the something when you don’t seem to know the facts…
‘The West’ refers to all of Europe and its derivative cultures, including those in Latin America. The definition is based on a cultural heritage which includes the ancient Graeco-Roman and renaissance values. It’s not based on late modern concepts of ‘progress’, industrialisation, etc.
On the Eurasian continent, Europe is ‘the West’, Turkey is ‘Near East’, Persia, Mesopotamia, etc are ‘Middle East’, China and Japan are ‘Far East’.
The concept of ‘Western Europe’ is a separate and unrelated idea.
Western people give names to dogs, take hats off to women, and go marching into battle – left-right left-right – with rifles on their shoulders.
(What movie is that from? 10 points.)
the man who would be king???
Yes. I love that movie.
Charlie: No, the West is based upon late modern concepts of progress and industrialisation otherwise the Caribbean, nations in the Pacific, and even certain parts of Asia could lay as much claim to the title as many parts of Europe or Latin America.
The LostSwede: I know about Sweden’s imperial ambitions (how’d the Great Northern War work out for you guys?), its involvement in the Thirty Years’ War, Seven Years’ War and Napoleonic Wars and that there were famous inventors from Sweden and that the north went protestant fairly early on. Never the less, it still didn’t drive the Industrial Revolution or the spread of democracy (or check the spread of communism or fascism), and it’s left no colonial legacy (because it lost its colonies). It was a player, but one on the periphery, as I mentioned. The obvious fact might escape you, but Swedish isn’t a world language. I like Sweden. I think it’s a great country and the people are awesome, but let’s be honest about what it is/was and isn’t/wasn’t. After Peter the Great, it was a bit of a backwater for quite some time.