|
West - what, exactly, is it?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
Really, it doesn't make much sense to say there are "Western countries" in the modern world, yet people do. So, since people insist on using such vague terms, I'd like to know what exactly "the west" is.
In old Europe, when Greeks fought Persians and other civilisations situated in the East of Europe, it would make sense to call themselves "West" and the enemies, "East". Then the Roman empire came and, in its apex, it was devided between the Latin speaking "West" and the Greek speaking "East" (i.e. Byzantium).
However, things didn't stop there. America was discovered and, as any map can show, America would be the West and Europe the East, leaving Asia in a rather strange position (unless we consider Europe to be the centre, which makes more sense since our culture is mainly Eurocentric - that would leave Asia as "East", which is what actually happened). Yet, there's no "West Pole", unlike its latitudinal counterparts so, to an American, Russia, in a very absurd but obvious observation, is on the west. To an European, it's not.
So, here come the questions:
- Is Australia a western country? If so, what about Japan, South Korea and Papua Nova Guinea? They're all in the same longitude.
- Africa is right in the South of Europe. Would it as "west" as Europe?
- If "West" was to be interchangeable with "North", in an economical division, would Australia and New Zealand be left out?
- If "West" means "Culturally European countries", would Latin America be "West"? What about all the countries that wear western clothes, eat western food and watch western TV programmes?
- Could "West" be defined culturally? It can't be symbolised by democracy since totalitarism has existed there for quite a while. It can't be represented by freedom because slavery was quite common till a couple of centuries ago.
- Can the Arabs conquer a region they already belong to?
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
When i speak about "the west" i usually refered to the developed countries in the world. Which would be europe + north america + israel + australia + new zeland and sometimes japan + south korea + taiwan ... probably forgot some but you get my point :p
But yeah, indeed, it doesnt really make much sense to call those countries west, since they are not really west.. hehe |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
[*]If "West" means "Culturally European countries", would Latin America be "West"? What about all the countries that wear western clothes, eat western food and watch western TV programmes?
|
This is the one that is closest to explaining the way I voted: Any country where the majority of the population is direct descendants of only europeans is a "west"-country. So that includes Australia and New Zealand, but not Japan. And yes, I agree that the "west" term doesn't make any sense. It's hard to come up with another term, though. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| I think a more accurate grouping would be "North" and "South". At least that way, Australia and New Zealand are the only two obviously problematic nations. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| ^^^ A grouping that succeeds in differentiating between what and what?:conf: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Lira your confusing the "West" with a geographical term. Its ideological.
Its an ideological term that has its roots in history. 100-200 years back the only industrialized countries were West of the Rhine. The West started becoming synanmous with industrialized. Next, synanmous with democratic. Now synamous with USA like countries.
The West also took on another morphing during the cold war, where West meant west of the Iron curtian and was synanmous to NATO. Thereby including New Zealand and Austrilia (as commonwealth countries of the "western" UK) but not Japan.
Japan is however defintely part of the current "West" (I'd argue it has been so since pre-cold war) as it meets the modern, non-NATO definition whereby to be "western" you must be "USA-like". New Asian countries sit funny, as although they are industrialized they are not "USA like" enough, typically due to their regiemes.
Thats why I for instance voted South Korea and Japan as the west but not Taiwan. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| I went for Europe, North America, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Oz and New Zealand. Suppose thats based mainly on wealth (which I suppose is what the "West" is) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| Western Europe and the industrialized former European colonial states. |
|
|
| Lira |
Not to worry, I've read this :)
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Lira your confusing the "West" with a geographical term. Its ideological.
Its an ideological term that has its roots in history. 100-200 years back the only industrialized countries were West of the Rhine. The West started becoming synanmous with industrialized. Next, synanmous with democratic. Now synamous with USA like countries.
The West also took on another morphing during the cold war, where West meant west of the Iron curtian and was synanmous to NATO. Thereby including New Zealand and Austrilia (as commonwealth countries of the "western" UK) but not Japan.
Japan is however defintely part of the current "West" (I'd argue it has been so since pre-cold war) as it meets the modern, non-NATO definition whereby to be "western" you must be "USA-like". New Asian countries sit funny, as although they are industrialized they are not "USA like" enough, typically due to their regiemes.
Thats why I for instance voted South Korea and Japan as the west but not Taiwan. |
I was using the geographical term to make an analogy ans how that "west" is just too relative. You distinguished "West" from "East" based on wealth and industry, whereas trancaholic chose a cultural approach:
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
This is the one that is closest to explaining the way I voted: Any country where the majority of the population is direct descendants of only europeans is a "west"-country. So that includes Australia and New Zealand, but not Japan. |
An economic approach is too "simple" as to say there are "industrialised" countries (i.e. West) and "non-industrialised" countries (i.e. East). Where would Russia, Brazil and Mexico be? Despite of all the social problems, they're industrialised (often having advanced techologies).
A cultural approach is even more complicated. Latin America as a whole shares great affinity with the Iberian Peninsula, which is undoubtly, "West", and would be considered to be "West" as well. Japan, which has had a considerable influence from the US, would not.
A "mixed" definition would be even moe confusing. In fact, check how different the votes are for each region/country.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
And yes, I agree that the "west" term doesn't make any sense. It's hard to come up with another term, though. |
But there's no need for such term. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Western Europe and the industrialized former European colonial states. |
Why has South America got just one vote if we've been colonies as well? ;)
We too killed our natives and had Africans brought here and Asians wondering whether it would be nice to live here. So far, nothing different from the US, other than the economy |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Why has South America got just one vote if we've been colonies as well? ;)
We too killed our natives and had Africans brought here and Asians wondering whether it would be nice to live here. So far, nothing different from the US, other than the economy |
Because you are not wealthy nations... really it all boils down to wealth and heritage when defining "the west" today. If you are a wealthy nation built upon Europian heritage and values then you are a part of "the west".
Do you want to be considered part of "the west". If so be my guest and invite the scorn and hatred of those despise "the west". Really, we don't mind if you are hated as well, there's plenty of distain to spread around. |
|
|
|
|
