Print Page | Close Window

Is Latin America Western?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Description: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
Moderators: AE Moderators
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=18783
Printed Date: 21-Aug-2019 at 02:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Is Latin America Western?
Posted By: pinguin
Subject: Is Latin America Western?
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 19:48
Is Latin America part of the Western World?
 
In here we know that's correct. However, in certain anglo saxon circles, people tend to push away Latin America from the picture, perhaps ashamed that the region is not as rich as Europe, Australia or North America.
 
But the hidden truth is that Latin America is excluded because most of its people has at least a drop of Native blood. So, it is not considered "at the same level" of "pure" Europe or North America or Australia.
 
The following is the best article I have seen about the topic, writen by a smart woman that visited Colombia, and found it surprisingly familiar.
 
 Is Latin America Western?

http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/emily_monroy/default.asp - Emily Monroy

Sunday, April 22th, 2001 http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/emily_monroy/abortion.asp -

 
While surfing the Net recently, I came across a website that posed an interesting question: is Latin America Western or non-Western? Though the site did not give a definite yes or no to the question, it discussed some of the reasons why people might or might not consider Latin America part of the West.

The term West is somewhat ambiguous these days. West and Western seem to have joined the ranks of words like Creole, humanist, and liberal, whose meaning varies according to where, when and by whom they are being pronounced. Most people would agree that Canada, the United States, Australia, and Western Europe are clearly part of the West. But they might disagree on where to place East Germany, for instance, which until the fall of the Berlin Wall belonged to the Communist Eastern bloc but which has strong linguistic, historical and cultural ties to Western Europe. Latin Americas status as part of the so-called Occident is also shaky. On one hand, a writer for Canadas National Post Magazine referred to Colombia as the most dangerous country in the West. An Ecuadorian friend similarly tells me that of course his country is Western; after all, it was colonized by Europeans long before many areas of the United States were. Others, though, would hesitate to include Latin America in the Western fold. Some leftists, seeking to create a sense of Third World solidarity, lump the region together with Africa, Asia and the Middle East rather than with Europe and North America. Ironically, many right-wingers too would place Latin America outside the Western pale for the same reasons, even if not for the same purpose, not only because the region is not industrialized but because the majority of its inhabitants are not white (that is, of unmixed European descent).

My answer to the websites question is that yes, Latin America is Western. Saying that Latin Americans are not Westerners is, to my mind, a bit like saying that cats are not mammals. In other words, what else could they be? Just as cats possess all the physical features of mammals (hair, the ability to produce milk for their young, and so on), Latin American culture is largely based on that of Western Europe, more specifically Spains and, in the case of Brazil, Portugals.

The first objection to classifying the Latin American countries as Western is that they are not industrialized, at least not to the same degree as those of Europe and North America are. But industrialization is not the exclusive domain of the West. Japan is one of the most industrialized nations in the world, yet it certainly is not Western. The far less technologically developed Philippines is, due to its three hundred years under Spanish control, far more Westernized than Japan. While the wish to promote solidarity between Latin America and other Third World areas is commendable, those who do so sometimes forget (or prefer to ignore) that culturally even if not politically or technologically - the former resembles Europe more than it does Asia or Africa, for example.

Another reason often cited for not including Latin America in the West stems from the fact that most of its people are not white. However, a white population does not a Western country make. Eastern Europe nations such as Lithuania and Estonia, for example, are almost entirely white, but they have never been considered part of the Occident, least of all by Lithuanians and Estonians themselves. Others might argue that large portions of Latin America, such as Bolivia and Guatemala, are inhabited by people with no European ancestry whatsoever. But the same thing could be said of Canada, where in the most northerly areas of the country the population is mostly Aboriginal and Inuit.

Moreover, most Latin Americans have at least some European ancestry. The populations of some nations, like Argentina, Uruguay and Costa Rica are over 80% white, and many others possess substantial white minorities (including some people with no family ties to Spain; my last white boyfriend, for instance, was born in Peru to a German-Northern Italian couple). Nonetheless, even setting Latin Americas white inhabitants aside, the average mestizo  http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/emily_monroy/western.asp#1 - [1] or mulatto  http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/emily_monroy/western.asp#2 - [2] has more in common with his or her European forbears than Indian and/or African ones. He or she in all likelihood

  1. speaks a European language Spanish in most of the region and Portuguese in Brazil as his or her mother tongue;
  2. practices a religion that while not originally from Europe, took root on that continent more widely than on any other; and
  3. leads a lifestyle similar to that of Spain, Portugal and other Latin countries.

From this standpoint, its hard to claim that Latin Americans are any less Western than Americans or Australians. The difference is of course that the latter two groups derive their culture from Britain whereas the former trace theirs to Spain or Portugal.

Undoubtedly Native American and African customs have influenced Latin America. And its understandable that countries like Mexico, which broke away forcefully from their motherland, Spain, are now stressing their Indian roots over their European ones. Other nations emphasize their mestizaje the term for racial mixture in Spanish in an attempt to recognize their dual (or in the case of places like Brazil with a strong African component, triple) heritages. But the reality is that for most mixed-race Latin Americans who, by the way, form the majority of the areas population their European heritage has played a far greater role in shaping in their world views, social attitudes, and daily lives than has their non-white ancestry.

Indeed, the fact that miscegenation generally involving Europeans and other races, though individuals of mixed African and Native American descent also exist played such a major role in Latin American history is probably the principal reason for that regions status as part of the West. Its important to stress that not all Spanish and Portuguese colonies joined the ranks of the Western world. Spanish rule in the Philippines, for example, did not transform the islands into a Latin country. Though Spain did have considerable influence on the Philippines in converting most of the people to Catholicism, in providing Spanish loan words to the local languages, and in giving the people Spanish first and/or last names the Filipinos pre-colonial Asian culture remained largely intact even after three centuries of Spanish domination roughly the same amount of time Spain controlled Latin America. Interestingly, miscegenation between Spaniards and Filipinos (or should we say Filipinas, because practically all such unions involved Spanish men and Filipina women) occurred on a fairly limited scale, as very few Spaniards settled in the islands. As historian John Phelan explains, the Philippines failed to become a Latin nation as Mexico did in part because the former lacked a mixed-race population to help Hispanicize the natives and by extension the country.

A friend from Nicaragua, a man of mixed Spanish and Native American descent who would never have passed for white in the United States, admitted to me that he felt at home on a visit to Italy because Italy is a Latin country, like Spain and Portugal. Obviously Latin America is not a carbon copy of Iberia.  http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/emily_monroy/western.asp#3 - [3] But neither is the United States a replica of England. And just as no one would ever classify my three cats as fish, amphibians, reptiles or birds, Latin America cannot be anything but Western.

Notes

1. The term mestizo, though it literally means mixed in Spanish, in Latin America generally refers to people of mixed European and Native American ancestry.

2. A mulatto refers to a person of mixed European and African descent.

3. Iberia refers to Spain and Portugal.




Replies:
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 19:51

In my current opinion,it is part of the Western World.



-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 22:27
Funny, since I arrived in Mexico I have been thinking a lot about the same question and I tend to agree: Latin America is western.

Of course it is undeniable that there is also a significant native American component, and of course it is clearly different from Europe, but I don't feel things are completely strange to me here. Latin America is definately more western than most people (Latin Americans and westerners (other westerners) alike) would want to admit. I think the western character of Latin America become clear if you contrast it to cultures that are clearly nonwestern. I have talked with people who have been to China, and judging from their stories that is a country which is completely different, in which almost nothing western is recognizable.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 00:12
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

.... Latin America is definately more western than most people would want to admit...
 
Why they wouldn't want to admit?
 
As far as I know, some Latin Americans (Mexicans in particular) promote "indigenism" as a matter of national pride, more than anything else.
 
But why is so difficult for other "westerners" to admit the obvious?
 
Particularly when we know that large parts of Europe were only in the Middle Ages integrated to the West? For instance, all the Northern part of Europe was considered Barbarian territories during the Roman Empire, and outside the West. Other parts, like North Africa and the Middle East, have been part of the Western Civilization for a longer time, but now are excluded from it.
 
Curious, indeed. To say the least.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 01:47
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

.... Latin America is definately more western than most people would want to admit...
 
Why they wouldn't want to admit?

For people from Europe and the US: because Latin America is poor, so they don't want to believe they belong to the same culture.

As for Latin Americans, I have the impression that quite a lot (though not all) people associate the west with imperialism, which is something they don't want to be associated with. They rather blame their problems (justified or not) on the 'imperialist west' than consider themselves part of it.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 02:00
Curious. In southern South America, where I live, we still remember when we received the "poor" of Europe by the million. Well, I guess they want to forget us now.
 
Fortunatelly for us, our continent today is a lot less poor than in the 40s, we have a better standard of living than in the 70s and we are quite sure in some decades we will be fine.
 
Latin Americans (Not that I share it, but is what people say) see the U.S. like an imperialistic and agresive country, and Europe like a place in decline.
 
Pinguin
 
 


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 02:54
Wow, that's really tough question. What makes a nation Western?

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 03:03
i dunno, when i think of the West, i think of those countries advanced economically and politically, based on the principles of free market and the universal rights of man.

So, most of Europe, up to and including the Baltics, Poland, down south to Romania and Bulgaria, the last two being fringe members; US and Can; Japan and Korea, Aus and NZ. From Latin America, only Chile really qualifies this way for me.

politically, as a bloc, Latin America isn't there politically and economically. The thing that stands out the most isn't the difference in economies, but the concept of law isn't the same. The corruption still puts it in the same place as Africa and the Arab countries. The culture still focuses on the person, not the office. The rule of law is weak. And this is such a fundamental necessity to modern concept of democracies, and so there's a fundamental difference politically as well.

but when someone says a western country, i think in cultural terms, and sub out korea and japan, and sub in Latin America.


Posted By: JuMong
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 03:06
Interesting post, but what exactly is your point?

Calling Latin America "Western" is like calling Africa "Western."  Why do people from Latin America feel a need to glum onto something they're clearly not part of? Envy?  Does it make you feel better to be part of the "West?"  Is it more civilized to be called Western than Latin?

Unfortunately, you're buying into a racist stereotype and a pejorative that hierarchic White society have set up for themselves, with them clearly on top. I say, don't buy into it.  It's like buying into the idea that Western model for standard of beauty is ideal, but how many black people can fall under that standard?

Reading that article, I clearly sensed a sad undertone of inferiority complex at work, buying into the idea that you're clearly inferior if you are not part of the "West," or profess "Western Values," whatever that is. I personally think the whole concept of "West," or "Western" rather silly. It's usually how ethnocentric Whites like to dribble out in articles after articles whenever they feel a need to feel superior or insecure when countries like China is developing at an alarming rate and passing them by.

Stuck up Brits at BBC are especially good at this when they need to denigrate China because, although China has far surpassed them economically and militarily, they still pronounce China as not Western because  it does not practice democracy, which a Brit may claim as hallmark of developed society. I'm not too sure if democracy is working all that well at this point, but that's for another topic. Anyway, look at the sense of inferiority running through  a poster called WesternCulture as India passed Japan as having more billionaire.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1797687/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1797687/posts

Only thing West can do now is look to the past.Confused

Latin America is uniquely Latin American. It has it's own unique, vibrant culture in language, art, music and history, but clearly, it is not Western. If I had to define it technically, I would call it "Post Colonial," not much different from Africa. Latin America is uniquely Latin American, just as India is uniquely Indian.  It's not unnecessarily better or inferior. It is what it is.

Don't buy into this game of cultural envy.





Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 07:51
Yes, of course it is. There's not a single state in Latin America that wasn't created by Europeans, that is, Westerners, from Spain and Portugal. Let's do this point for point.

1. No, because it is American Indian.

Not anymore, all the present states and their borders were created by Europeans, and are still ruled by people of at least partly European descent.

2. No, because there are people of mixed race there.

Where isn't there people of mixed race? Certainly not in Europe, where different peoples have been migrating and interbreeding for milleniums.

3. No, because it is not as rich as Europe.

Saying that "Europe" is rich is a bit of an oversimplification. Some countries in Europe have among the highest GDPs per capita in the world, while some are poorer than most Latin American countries, like Romania, Albania or Moldova.

4. No, because they have an alien culture.

Alien? Nah, the Native culture might seem a alien to Europeans, but it's not very imposing.

5. No, because they speak Spanish and Portuguese and not English.

European languages, Western European even.

6. No, because they belong to the third world.

Well, an oversimplification again, although you could say certain Latin American countries do.

Originally posted by JuMong JuMong wrote:

Calling Latin America "Western" is like calling Africa "Western." Why do people from Latin America feel a need to glum onto something they're clearly not part of? Envy? Does it make you feel better to be part of the "West?" Is it more civilized to be called Western than Latin


If you read Latin American history, you will learn that they are indeed part of the European cultural universe in every respect. Latin culture is culture from Europe, it should be unnecessary to state that Latin and all the languages derived from it are European languages, Western European ones even. It almost seems as if you're trying to deny them their cultural heritage.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 08:04
Originally posted by JuMong JuMong wrote:

Interesting post, but what exactly is your point?

Calling Latin America "Western" is like calling Africa "Western."  Why do people from Latin America feel a need to glum onto something they're clearly not part of? Envy?  Does it make you feel better to be part of the "West?"  Is it more civilized to be called Western than Latin?
 
I see you don't have a clue on the topic. Latin America is "Western" because:
 
(1) Most of the people is descendent of "Westerners" or European
(2) Speak "Western" languages.
(3) Is a branch of the culture of Spain, which is in direct link with Rome. Rome is the core of the West.
(4) Follows mainly a "Western" religion called Catholicism with is (or was) the center of Western Civilization
 
I believe it is not a matter of "envy" but of saying things like the are. In the same way the U.S. hijacked the term "America" for their own use only (all the people of the Western Hemisphere are "Americans") they also use the term "West" only for the Germanic-AngloSaxon peoples, forgetting the term "West" just mean Europe. And Western mean European descendent.
 
 
Originally posted by JuMong JuMong wrote:


Latin America is uniquely Latin American. It has it's own unique, vibrant culture in language, art, music and history, but clearly, it is not Western.
 
Latin America is not Afrocuban and Charro music. That's to entertain Japanese tourists. I don't see that is so "clearly" non Western at all.
 
Latin America languages are Iberian. Music and History are directly linked to the history of Spain, Portugal and Rome, which are CLEARLY western.
 
 
Originally posted by JuMong JuMong wrote:

 If I had to define it technically, I would call it "Post Colonial," not much different from Africa. Latin America is uniquely Latin American, just as India is uniquely Indian.  It's not unnecessarily better or inferior. It is what it is.
 
Latin America is independent since the beginning of the 19th Century, almost at the time the U.S. become independent. The "Post Colonial age" thing is something that affect Africa and Asia rather than Latin America.
 
African people are not descendents of European. East Indians are not descendents of European either. Phillipines are not decendents of European either. Those are "westernized" nations, like East Asia is in certain extend.
 
Latin America is, by large, descendent of forgotten European colones. Why Australians could be called Westerners and Argentineans or Brazilians can't?
 
 
Originally posted by JuMong JuMong wrote:


Don't buy into this game of cultural envy.
 
I am afraid you did LOL
 
Pinguin
 
 


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 08:06
I would say they are western because, like Regimund said, they were founded by colonial powers, and recieved a large influx of European immigrants. 

-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 10:57
I voted it's not.  I love latin america but I see "the West" as a very specific set of rich nations that act together.

[Ed. --Although I do think that Spain and Portugal are, because they act together with Western European states.]


Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 11:13
What western institution in which the west acts together is the most important one?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 13:53
Originally posted by Dan Carkner Dan Carkner wrote:

I voted it's not.  I love latin america but I see "the West" as a very specific set of rich nations that act together.

[Ed. --Although I do think that Spain and Portugal are, because they act together with Western European states.]
 
You are confussing Western Civilization with NATO LOL.
 
Latin America never cut its links with Spain, Portugal and Italy at all, for instance.
 
Besides, how could you expect Latin America would follow freely the desires of its northern neighbour, when it was invaded or intervened 100 times since the 19th century? Besides all the problems generated by European powers like Britain and France.
 
For acting together, you could ask yourself if Canadians follow the leader. They don't Big%20smile. And Canada is a Western country no matter perhaps one fourth of its population is East Asian.
 
We are talking about heritage in here, nothing else.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 01:30
Ok, Jumong


Calling Latin America "Western" is like calling Africa "Western."  Why do people from Latin America feel a need to glum onto something they're clearly not part of? Envy?  Does it make you feel better to be part of the "West?"  Is it more civilized to be called Western than Latin?
=>i am fluent in English and Spanish, languages that originated in Western Europe. With these two languages I can speak to almost everyone in the Western Hemisphere. I also play futbol, and that covers the rest. Besides language, law and religion also unite us, as we share the basic tenets. I see corruption as the biggest difference between American and Latin American politics (yes, I know in the USA it's just more institutionalized), and along with the absence of a middle class and considerable services sector, in the realm of politics and economics, my version of the West is on the giving/dictating end, and Latin America is on the receiving end, along with the other Third World countries.
__________________________________________________________
Unfortunately, you're buying into a racist stereotype and a pejorative that hierarchic White society have set up for themselves, with them clearly on top. I say, don't buy into it.  It's like buying into the idea that Western model for standard of beauty is ideal, but how many black people can fall under that standard?
=>Really? I thought I was basing this off my life experience. How do you insinuate "pejorative" and "racist" into my statement? Did you know I happen to prefer the Latino outlook on all things but traffic laws, having tasted both sides of the Rio Grande? Btw, thanks to the efforts of Martin Luther King and people like him, America is living the dream of the Enlightenment writers, and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. Western isn't geographical, it's ideological, and that's why places like Bosnia and Albania, or more poignantly, Turkey, don't fall under the veil, even though the land of Turkey contains part of the birthplace of Western Civ.

Reading that article, I clearly sensed a sad undertone of inferiority complex at work, buying into the idea that you're clearly inferior if you are not part of the "West," or profess "Western Values," whatever that is. I personally think the whole concept of "West," or "Western" rather silly. It's usually how ethnocentric Whites like to dribble out in articles after articles whenever they feel a need to feel superior or insecure when countries like China is developing at an alarming rate and passing them by.
=>Really? Pardon me if I think you've read into it. Would you mind if I read Chinese nationalism into yours? I think I drew the distinction between culture and politics/economics clearly. Clearly, the West is the world's economic and political leaders and exercise their leadership globally. Culture is a whole different story. When you say "Western values" i'm not sure what you mean. Western society allows two polar sets of values to coexist. As a classicist, i tend to side with the traditional set, which, surprise, surprise, i share with many, many people around the world, despite all sorts of cultural differences. i embrace my values because i've examined them, and decided they were good.

Stuck up Brits at BBC are especially good at this when they need to denigrate China because, although China has far surpassed them economically and militarily, they still pronounce China as not Western because  it does not practice democracy, which a Brit may claim as hallmark of developed society. I'm not too sure if democracy is working all that well at this point, but that's for another topic. Anyway, look at the sense of inferiority running through  a poster called WesternCulture as India passed Japan as having more billionaire.
=>You got me! I do indulge in BBC news, mainly because they have a more global outlook than CNN (think Anna Nicole, Britney Spears, Naomi Campbell). If BBC pronounced China western tomorrow, nothing would change. China simply is not Western, and prolly never will be, provided no more Mao's come along. China has so much cultural richness and history, it's future depends on drawing on and building off of the good things found there. British may be a little wistful of their former glory. I don't know, I'm not British nor that poster, and neither speak for the entire Western commune.
Second, the term democracy also conveys an implied concept of constitutionality - a guarantee of certain basic individual rights; which is why certain third world countries are not considered democratic just because they go thru the ritual of voting, while they maintain censorship, don't give fair trial, and so on.

Latin America is uniquely Latin American. It has it's own unique, vibrant culture in language, art, music and history, but clearly, it is not Western. If I had to define it technically, I would call it "Post Colonial," not much different from Africa. Latin America is uniquely Latin American, just as India is uniquely Indian.  It's not unnecessarily better or inferior. It is what it is.
=>In Haiti and French Guyana, guess what they speak. And in Suriname? Latin America isn't a monolithic cultural block. Nor is Europe. Nor even is the United States. That's not what Western means. It means we all share common values, based on a common legacy (or rejection of those values).

Don't buy into this game of cultural envy.
=>can i use reason with you, or do i have to say i'm black latino who's mother is from India before you accept any endorsement of something you perceive to be white, elitist, racist?

btw, having grown up in foreign cultures outside my birthplace, my culture comes from somewhere over the Atlantic. before you accuse anyone of cultural envy again, take a good look in the mirror.


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 09:51
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
For acting together, you could ask yourself if Canadians follow the leader. They don't Big%20smile. And Canada is a Western country no matter perhaps one fourth of its population is East Asian.
 
We are talking about heritage in here, nothing else.
 
Pinguin
 
 
Are you serious? one fourth? That may be the case in the province of British Columbia, but really for Canada as a whole, more then 80% are of European descent, with a good number of African, native and south-American, East Indian and South-American descent.  Take a look here:
 
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo26a.htm - http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo26a.htm
 
You'll see that all East Asians together comprise about 2 million out of a population of 30 million...


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 10:00

In the West (Saskatchewan), East Asians were quite numerous indeed. I would bet there are lots of more East Asian than in the two million figure you have there. Anyways, that 8% or 10% of the population doesn't convert Canada in an Asian country at all. Nobody would argue that.

Then, why some people consider Latin America non-western because there is admixture with Natives, and in some regions with Africans?

That was the point
 
Pinguin


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 12:11
Yes, but the rest of the West don't agree

-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 17:29
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

Yes, but the rest of the West don't agree
 
Well I do.  The totality of Latin America is far more impacted by:  five centuries of European imigration, the influence of Christianity, and (whether they like it or not) the impact of North America, than it is anything indigenous.
 
The Western Hemisphere is part of the West.
 
 


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 18:09
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

Yes, but the rest of the West don't agree
 
Well I do.  The totality of Latin America is far more impacted by:  five centuries of European imigration, the influence of Christianity, and (whether they like it or not) the impact of North America, than it is anything indigenous.
 
The Western Hemisphere is part of the West.
 
 
 
 
And I also agree, it is Western.


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 19:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Curious. In southern South America, where I live, we still remember when we received the "poor" of Europe by the million. Well, I guess they want to forget us now.

Fortunatelly for us, our continent today is a lot less poor than in the 40s, we have a better standard of living than in the 70s and we are quite sure in some decades we will be fine.


Latin Americans (Not that I share it, but is what people say)see the U.S. like an imperialistic and agresive country, and Europe like a place in decline.


Pinguin




My parents dont see the US as Imperialistic. But then again they are enjoying the stay in the US and have been doing so for a while. Maybe they would think differently if they still lived in Peru


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 19:29
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon Ponce de Leon wrote:


My parents dont see the US as Imperialistic. But then again they are enjoying the stay in the US and have been doing so for a while. Maybe they would think differently if they still lived in Peru
 
As long as folks living in America are satisfied materially, that is OK for them(not necessarily America, that goes for all the mankind)...Human nature is like that...If you are hungry, you want food, if you get the food, you want good food, if you get good food, you look at how you burp..That cycle doesn't have an end.


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 19:33
Except the common point in religion and languages, I don't think that Latin America is similar to Western World...People's mentalities, lifestyles is different from what is called the "Western"...

-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 19:48
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

Except the common point in religion and languages, I don't think that Latin America is similar to Western World...People's mentalities, lifestyles is different from what is called the "Western"...
 
How so?
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2007 at 21:27

To which part of the West?

Everybody knows that the mentality in Northern Europe is different from Southern Europe and both are different again from Eastern Europe. The mentality of the U.S. and Canada are traced directly to Northern Europe.
 
The point is how really different is the mentality of Latin America with respect to Southern Europe. How different are Sicilians or Andalucians from Latinos? I don't think that much. Even Vitto Corleone looks familiar Wink
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 04:23
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Curious. In southern South America, where I live, we still remember when we received the "poor" of Europe by the million. Well, I guess they want to forget us now.
 
Fortunatelly for us, our continent today is a lot less poor than in the 40s, we have a better standard of living than in the 70s and we are quite sure in some decades we will be fine.
 
Latin Americans (Not that I share it, but is what people say) see the U.S. like an imperialistic and agresive country, and Europe like a place in decline.
 
Pinguin
 
 


Well pinguin,how can one of the quicklyest developing continents,that has recovered from absolute destruction in the WW2 for half a century and continue to develop quickly be declining?What is Europe declining from,when it was destroyed only 60 years ago?Latin America didn't suffer half of what Europe did and yet we became wealthier than you so quickly.The western world is not simply because you come from the west or talk western language.Western means democratic,capitalistic and CIVILIZED.You are only civilized and not every country.Maybe only Chilie,Argentina and Brazil.Until there are countries like Cuba and Venezuela in sounth America you will never be partof the wester world.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 11:35
Originally posted by Jagiello Jagiello wrote:


Well pinguin,how can one of the quicklyest developing continents,that has recovered from absolute destruction in the WW2 for half a century and continue to develop quickly be declining?
 
Europe of the 19th century had the monopoly of science, tech, creativity. Europe had a booming population that made a good percentage of mankind. Europe dominated most of the lands of the world.
What's Europe today but a region more between Europe, North America and East Asia? How long will European population exist if people don't want to have kids?
 
Originally posted by Jagiello Jagiello wrote:

What is Europe declining from,when it was destroyed only 60 years ago?Latin America didn't suffer half of what Europe did and yet we became wealthier than you so quickly.The western world is not simply because you come from the west or talk western language.Western means democratic,capitalistic and CIVILIZED.
 
Well, what more incivilized than a continent that killed 70 million people in wars during the 20th century? That continent is called EUROPE, and they behaved like Barbarians.
 
Originally posted by Jagiello Jagiello wrote:

You are only civilized and not every country.Maybe only Chilie,Argentina and Brazil.Until there are countries like Cuba and Venezuela in sounth America you will never be partof the wester world.
 
You don't have idea what you are talking about, but speaking by ignorance of a land you don't know, except by politically motivated TV reports.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 13:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

To which part of the West?

Everybody knows that the mentality in Northern Europe is different from Southern Europe and both are different again from Eastern Europe. The mentality of the U.S. and Canada are traced directly to Northern Europe.
 
The point is how really different is the mentality of Latin America with respect to Southern Europe. How different are Sicilians or Andalucians from Latinos? I don't think that much. Even Vitto Corleone looks familiar Wink
 
Pinguin
 
Heck a lot of people confuse me for Latino, and I am southern European/Mediterranean
 
In my opinion it is Western, it is a hybrid of two cultures, however, the Spanish/Portugese factors domminate in a lot of ways, music, language, culture, Simon Bolivar didn't think his treatsies for independence from Spain up himself he got them from the French Revoultionary surge of ideas that made their way into Latin America.


Posted By: think
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 03:50
Only parts of Latin America are Western. I would hardly call Brazils "favelas" Western..




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 08:51

What makes you to make such a distinction? Because Brazilian favelas and jails are packed of poor people?

During most of its history, there have been people living in those conditions in the West. Just remember the way people lived in London and other british cities during the Industrial Revolution. Otherwise, you wouldn't have books like "Oliver Twist" and a tale like "A Christmas Carol".

In Latin America, in average, 40% of people is poor. But things are improved quite a lot since half a century ago. In countries like my own, where it use to exist lots of favelas as well (places we called "champignon cities", because they appeared overnight), today they are almost gone.
 
However, during all those times, the poorest people of the favelas followed Roman Catholicism, Spoke Spanish (or Portuguese) and followed the customs and traditions inherit from the West.
 
Yes, people seem to believe the West is rich, and that's its mark. However, in many places of the United States you can find places as poor as third world, like the guettos and forgotten cities in the countryside. The same happens in Canada. And, judging for what we see on TV, it seems large parts of Eastern Europe and even certain areas of London are third world as well.
 
So, what's the difference?
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 10:58
 Pinguin:"You don't have idea what you are talking about, but speaking by ignorance of a land you don't know, except by politically motivated TV reports."
"And, judging for what we see on TV, it seems large parts of Eastern Europe and even certain areas of London are third world as well. "
 
LOL European TV reports are politically motivated and youre's are not?Obviously TOU have got absolutely no idea of Europe,as you've allready shown in other topics.If there are any poor countries in Eastern Europe it is because of 40 years communism or as we call it - "slavery". Exactly the same thing that some countries in Latin America not only still have(Cuba) but even are building at the moment (Venezuella).I don't know which country you're from but here (in Poland) we have pretty objective and independant TV stations and free media so don't tell me our or any other european and democratic country has TV propaganda-like in some Latin Countries.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 11:02
Yes, that's a pitty.
For what I recall, Spain used to be poorer than many regions of Latin America during the earliest part of the 20th century as well.
I believe poverty does not make or take away the culture of people. Poverty is an problem that has to be solve with economics and will. Culture is the heritage of any people, stating from the language we speak and the ancestors we had.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 12:06
Latin America is like Russia, in that it is part-time western, depending on the ideology of the observer, and the context in question.

-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 12:11
Originally posted by Cywr Cywr wrote:

Latin America is like Russia, in that it is part-time western, depending on the ideology of the observer, and the context in question.


A worthy observation Clap


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 13:45
And 100% true.
Latin America is very European inevitably, but moreso continetal than Anglo-Saxon. But the anglophone world has otherised it heavily, thus this schitzophrenic dual exisitence.
From the South Americans i met and knew at the international school i attended, i can't say there was much that set them apart from the various other generic Euopean kids aside from odd quirkies here and there, they fitted in perfectly, sometimes more so than the N. Americans.
More recently i discovered that a guy i figured was plain British was actualy Argintenian, it took a heated political discussion over the Falklands to bring that minor detail up.

I will say that a noticable distinction between L.A. countries and European ones is that they are more noticably internaly diverse, in this sense, N & S America have a lot in common with each other. Many people are happy to imagine a very African carnival in Rio as the stereotyped image of Brazil, but yet there are rural towns in parts of South Eestern Brazil where the people speak German most of the time, as indicative of the town's dominant immigrant character. Its very much like the US in terms of its history that way.

If you are going to make a simplistic dichiotomy, then it makes more sense IMHO to lump the US with latin America, than it does to lump it with Europe at the exclusion of Latin America.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 15:20
Well, I would think that Latin America is quite close to Iberia, and a little to Italy. The divides in Europe are the Pyrenees and in the Americas is the River Grande. But there is a divide between the Iberian and the Germanic mentality, of course there is.
 
Now, for "racial diversity", certain countries of Europe, like France today for example, are a lot more diverse that whole regions of Latin America, believe it or not.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 15:37
I think you could divide 'Germanic' up as well, maybe Central European Germanic, Scandinavian, Flemish/Dutch, Anglo-saxon, and then some. The Germans are as different from the Englis has they are from the Spanish easily, save maybe their love for beer and ssuages, but by those standards many Iberians have become partialy Germancised :p
Meh.

As for diversity, i wasn't quite thinking of that, For sure London and Paris probably contain greater diversity than anywhere in the Americas save for a handfull of cities. I was thinking of the diversity created by a different form of migration.
European migration has been defined lagely my rural to urban migration, Italians to English cities in the 1700s, and Greeks to Dutch cities in the 1900s and so on. As such you get a more melting pot diversity that remains somewhat in the cities.

In the Americas you effectivly had rural to rural migration, just over an ocean, and often distinctive patterns formed from that, in parts of Northern central US the popluation is heavily of Finnish decent for whatever reasons (maybe they like the weather), in parts of Luisiana they still speak a varient of French, and so on, and i'm taking rural areas here.
Same thing you'll find in many S. American countries. So within a country you get the kind of internal regional diversity that, to find in any European country, you'd either have to travel from one extreme to another, or more than likely, cross borders.
Its down to the very way in which the countries for Americas developed and were altered beyond recognition by mass migration.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 17:08
Well, there is something in common between Latin America and the U.S. which is the idea we are a new land. A continent that was build from zero, and where many people converged. A region of pioneers.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Emilia
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 18:02
Hi!  I'm Emilia, the girl who wrote the article "Is Latin America Western?"  Thank you first of all for posting it on this forum.  It's been some time since I first wrote it, but seeing it's still being discussed, I would just like to add a few points to it.
 
First, I admit that Indian elements do remain in Latin America.  However, the same can be said about North America.  For example, in my country, Canada, the Far North is still inhabited mainly by Indians and Inuit, who have been influenced by Western culture but still retain their own languages and customs to some degree.  So if Latin America should be called "Indian" because some Native groups keep their own traditions, so should Canada and the United States.
 
Second, I wrote another essay some time later called "Race Mixing and Westernization in Latin America and the Philippines."  In it I explained how and why Latin America (excluding Brazil) is a "cultural extension" of Spain but the Philippines is not, despite having been under Spanish rule for three centuries.  I said that if Latin America were really "Indian," it would be in a similar position as the Philippines, where yes, the population was influenced by Spain but still retained the bulk of its native traditions.  For example, almost all Latin American mestizos speak Spanish as their native language.  On the other hand, most Filipinos (the majority of whom do not have Spanish or European ancestry) still speak Tagalog or another indigenous language, not Spanish, as their mother tongue.
 
Third, it strikes me that some people do not consider Latin America "Western" because they think of the Western culture as that of Northern Europe and its cultural offshoots like the United States.  For example, a Russian friend of mine said that unlike in the West, most Russians lived with their parents until marriage.  I responded that that may be true in Anglo-Saxon countries like Britain and the States but not in Italy or Spain.  So because Latin America's culture is largely based on that of Spain, some people do not see it as Western because they think of the West as Northern European, in particular as Anglo-Saxon.
 
Anyway, that's all I wanted to add.


-------------
Emilia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 20:07
Hi Emily!!
 
It is really you, Emily Monroy in person? Oh Jesus!!!
 
For me you are really an idol, since I read your articles about Latin America. I never believe I was going to establish contact with you, though.
 
Not only I added that article in here, but the one called "Is Latin America Indian?" as well. As usual, a little bit later some smart guy started a thread called "Is Latin America Welsh?", so I was forced to show him the Welsh colonies in Argentina LOL
 
As a Chilean, an average Latin American that is the result of the mixtures between Natives and Europeans that have been going on in here for centuries, but who carry a real and deep rooted European culture, I would like to thank you very much for your intelligent and comprehensive article.
 
Best regards,
 
Omar Vega (Allias "Penguin" in this site)
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Emilia
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 20:22
Dear Omar,
 
Thank you!  I generally search under my articles to see if they have been printed elsewhere besides the sites to which I originally sent them.  But my life has gotten busier lately so I haven't had much chance to do so, and it took me about a month to find my article posted here.  By the way, where did you originally see it, because it was on a couple of sites before.
 
I also propose you might start a discussion regarding another essay I wrote, "Race Mixing and Westernization in Latin America and the Philippines."  I have gotten several responses on it.  One was from a Filipina (of part Spanish descent), who basically agreed with it.  Another was from a very nice young Filipino man who insisted that yes, the Philippines was a Latin country.  So I would be interested in what your readers thought.
 
I'm sorry; I tried to copy and paste it here but I can't, so search under "Race Mixing and Westernization in Latin America and the Philippines" or go to  http://www.analitica.com/bitbiblio/emily_monroy/race_mixing.asp - www.analitica.com/bitbiblio/emily_monroy/race_mixing.asp .
 
Emilia
 
 
 


-------------
Emilia


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 20:45
Although I have not really thought about the question, I realise now that I have never considered Latin America to be Western. Neither have I considered portugal to be western, and even Spain and the Realm of Sicily are questionable. The reason for this is entirely due to influence and industralisation. Nothing to do with geography or culture.

When Australians look for comparisions with or examples to emulate from western nations we never look toward latin america. Argentina was once seen as a country with many similarities to Aus, but still in a different cultural boat. The West actually means, "Industrialised wealthy nations that have western or northern European cultures", where as the East is "Industrialised wealthy nations that have east Asian cultures", and the rest is the third world.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 21:09
Hi Emily. The article was not in the link you posted but in Interracial Voice. I copied now:
 
 

Race Mixing and Westernization in Latin America and the Philippines
By mailto:emonroy@beachestoronto.com?subject=Interracial%20Voice%20- - Emily Monroy

E.%20Monroy 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In his book Race and Ethnicity, Belgian sociologist Pierre van den Berghe compares the impact of European colonization on Africa and the Americas. While the former largely retained its original character despite being under European rule, the latter ended up with a predominantly Western culture. As well, race mixing was widespread in the New World but occurred on a much smaller scale in Africa, with the exception of South Africa's Cape Province. The amount of acculturation and miscegenation moreover did not depend on whether the European power in question took an "assimilationist" approach, as France, Spain and Portugal did, or a "racialist" one, as did Britain and the Netherlands. At the end of the day, the Americas are a "cultural extension of Europe," whereas Africa is not.

The same observation can be made of Latin America1 and the Philippines. Though both were under Spain's control for roughly three centuries, Latin America essentially adopted a Western (Iberian) culture as a result of colonization while the Philippines remained more or less as it had been before the conquest. Similarly, miscegenation between the conquered and conquerors took place extensively in the former region but was fairly negligible in the latter. To paraphrase van den Berghe, Latin America is a cultural extension of Spain; the Philippines is not.

This is not to say that the Philippines was not influenced by three hundred years of Spanish rule. Among Spain's legacies to the islands were Castilian2 loan words to the local languages, Spanish personal names of the inhabitants, and perhaps most importantly, Roman Catholicism, today the religion of over 80% of Filipinos. (When it comes to being good Catholics, the Filipinos may have beaten their former colonial masters and the latter's overseas descendants at their own game. Several years ago the international newswires reported on Father Ener Glotario, a priest in Barranquilla, Colombia who refused to give communion to scantily clad female parishioners. I couldn't help thinking how much easier Father Glotario's life would have been if he were stationed in the Philippines, where the women, unlike their Western sisters, generally eschew miniskirts, midriff-baring tops and short shorts.) Yet the Philippines' status as an Asian country is undisputed not only geographically but also culturally.

In fact, the example of the Philippines provides a powerful counterweight to claims by left- and right-wing ideologues alike that Latin America is not Western and that its "soul" is Indian rather than European. If such were the case, the counter argument might go, why did the region not end up like the Philippines, whose people were conquered by Spain but nonetheless kept their own languages and cultural traditions?

One of the most striking differences between Latin America and the Philippines today lies in the racial composition of their inhabitants.

 
 
Mestizos3 form the bulk of Latin America's population. By contrast, most Filipinos are of indigenous Malay stock, and individuals of mixed Spanish-Malay descent are relatively rare.

What accounted for the low rate of miscegenation between Spaniards and natives in the Philippines? Certainly not a lack of desire by either party. Even clerics succumbed. Spanish chronicler Sinibaldo de Mas attempted to explain why so many Spanish priests in the Philippines broke their vows of celibacy: "The offense is most excusable, especially in young and healthy men placed in the torrid zone... The garb of the native women is very seductive; and the girls, far from being unattainable, consider themselves lucky to attract the attention of the curate, and their mother, father, and relatives share in that sentiment. What virtue and stoicism does not the friar need to possess!" (The good de Mas is perhaps a little too quick to blame the "girls" and their attire for his compatriots' lust. More likely, the women's eagerness to couple with curates stemmed from the higher social status that mixed race children in colonial -- and according to some sources, modern -- Philippines enjoyed compared to their unmixed native counterparts. In addition, I suspect Spanish priests' fall into temptation was due less to the native women's "garb" than to the fact that, as Pierre van den Berghe writes in his book Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View, "celibacy, however saintly, goes against most people's grain.")

The main reason for the dearth of Spanish-Filipino mestizos was that few Spaniards ventured to the Philippines. The voyage from Spain to the islands was considerably long. Before the construction of the Panama Canal, it involved going around the southern tip of Africa and across the Indian Ocean. The Philippines in addition lacked natural resources like gold and silver that the Americas had and that might have convinced large numbers of Spaniards to migrate there (indeed, at one point the scarcity of potential riches led Spain to consider abandoning the islands). According to de Mas, in some Philippine villages the friar and/or the mayor were the only white residents.

Whatever the cause, the low incidence of race mixing in the Philippines effectively stopped that country from going down the path of Hispanicization. The offspring of Spanish men and Filipino women4 may have adopted the culture of their fathers -- some mixed race families in the Philippines still speak Spanish among themselves, for instance -- but ultimately there were simply not enough Spanish mestizos in the country to have much of an effect on Philippine culture as a whole. Mestizos in Latin America conversely came to constitute the largest racial category in the region, so as a group they managed to maintain and promote the Spanish language and culture.

One giveaway to Latin America's "Westernness" is the fact that the majority of the population speaks Spanish, not an indigenous language or even a Creole, as their mother tongue. On the other hand, it has been estimated that even at the height of Spanish domination only 10% of Filipinos were able to speak the language of their masters, and undoubtedly fewer still learned it as a mother tongue. And while the Americans who took over the islands in 1898 were much more successful in teaching their Filipino subjects English than the Spaniards were in teaching their language, the reality is that English in the Philippines is a lingua franca and an administrative medium rather than a mother tongue. Neither the Americans nor the Spaniards managed to eradicate the islands' Asian character.

Going back to van den Berghe's argument, the example of the Philippines and Latin America shows that regions colonized by the same power may nevertheless turn out quite differently. It also shows how miscegenation can change the course of history. Despite Spain's assimilationist approach and occasional "successes" in the Philippines (such as religious conversion), the Spaniards failed to acculturate the islands to any significant degree. Spain's conquest of Latin America on the other hand transformed that region into a part of the Western world. As van den Berghe explains with regard to Africa and the Americas, differences in the Philippines and Latin America themselves rather than racial attitudes on the part of the colonizer were responsible for the different outcomes of European rule in the two regions.


(1) For the purpose of this essay, Latin America will refer only to the Spanish-speaking part of the region.

(2) The term "Castilian" refers to the official language of Spain (as opposed to regional dialects and languages like Galician and Catalan).

(3) Though the term "mestizo" literally means "mixed" in Spanish, for the purpose of this essay the term will refer to individuals of mixed Spanish and Native American descent in the Latin American context and to those of mixed Spanish and Filipino Malay origin in the Philippines.

(4) The opposite combination was virtually non-existent, as even fewer Spanish women than men traveled to the islands.


Emily Monroy is of Sicilian and Irish descent and lives in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 21:17
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Although I have not really thought about the question, I realise now that I have never considered Latin America to be Western. Neither have I considered portugal to be western, and even Spain and the Realm of Sicily are questionable. The reason for this is entirely due to influence and industralisation. Nothing to do with geography or culture.

When Australians look for comparisions with or examples to emulate from western nations we never look toward latin america. Argentina was once seen as a country with many similarities to Aus, but still in a different cultural boat. The West actually means, "Industrialised wealthy nations that have western or northern European cultures", where as the East is "Industrialised wealthy nations that have east Asian cultures", and the rest is the third world.
 
Well, that's the wrong way of seeing things. Let me illustrate you with an example.
 
Why should New Zealand, for instance, a small country that is developed but not precisely industrialized could be considered more Western than Brazil: a country that sent its own rockets to space, design and manufacture its own airplanes, and impose a style worldwide?
 
Not even the race card can be play this time. New Zealand has only 3 million white people while Brazil has more than 90 millions. Only germans in Brazil are more numerous than New Zealanders.
 
Finally, when the anglosaxon mentalities push Latin America into the third world, with the poorest nations of Asia and Africa, that really hurt us.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 22:29
I never said it was the right way, I said it was the Australian way. "Western" has different definitions depending on who you talk to. To ask, is latin america "western", you first need to ask what is "western"?

Would you call South Africa western? Or what about Singapore?

(why do you want to be considered western anyway?)

To be very strict with the definition, I think western countries are only the countries of the Western Roman Empire. Since thats where the West vs East diechotomy started.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 20-May-2007 at 22:47
As far as I learn at school which is mainstream mentality in Spain and Latin America, Western Civilization is the culture of Western Europe (Iberia included) and its colonies in the Americas and the Pacific. Not all the colonial countries are western; only those where the largest majority came from Europe, like is the case of Latin America
 
West is not synonimous of developed world because not all western countries are developed (600 million people are not) and not all the developed countries are western (consider Japan)
 
 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 00:05
I think your definition makes more sense. Ours is based on some weird definition of us & them.

Although thats not to say that people will include latin american countries when they say western, they hardly ever do I think. At least here.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 00:27
Hey Omar, read the articles of Emily Monroy. She hit the nail. She said exactly what I meant. She is of Italian descend, though, so she understand there is a divide between Northern and Southern Europe that was projected to the Americas as well.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 06:14
Hm, I never thought about it either... I think I never considered Latin America as Western before, but on the other hand, I would very defenately not consider it third world at all! Come to think of it, (and reading your posts Penguin) it is quite a lot more western than anything else...
 
I think for me the best solution would be to seperate western in two categories: North (practical, very organised, mainly Calvinist, Germanic base) and South (emotional, loose and easy organisation,  mainly Catholic, Romanised base). Latin America would be in the South, together with Spain, Italy, Portugal and southern France. Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon countries, Benelux and Germany in the other. Eastern Europe I would consider another group again altogether... the second world perhaps? LOL 
 
Anyway, the simple division in Western and Not Western is a bit silly and way too general to be fit for daily use...


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 09:23
Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

...
I think for me the best solution would be to seperate western in two categories: North (practical, very organised, mainly Calvinist, Germanic base) and South (emotional, loose and easy organisation,  mainly Catholic, Romanised base). Latin America would be in the South, together with Spain, Italy, Portugal and southern France. Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon countries, Benelux and Germany in the other. Eastern Europe I would consider another group again altogether... the second world perhaps? LOL 
... 
 
I agree. We also make that distinction between North and South. Although in some cases the barriers blur. Don't forget Irish and Germans migrated to Latin America and Italians to the U.S. LOL. Besides, the number of people that is ateist or agnostic in Southern Europe and Latin America is really high, perhaps as a reaction to catholicism. But in general is true.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: Emilia
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 12:00
It's funny; I was reading a book called No Pictures in My Grave: A Spiritual Journey in Sicily by an American woman named Susan Caperna Lloyd.  In it she states that "Sicilians don't appreciate Westerners' fascination with the island's history," as if Sicilians were not Westerners themselves.  That struck me; I always thought of Sicily (my father's homeland, by the way) as part of the West and didn't suspect anyone else did not.  In fact, Sicily was a colony of Greece in ancient times, so it was exposed to Western culture at a very early stage.
 
On the other hand, Ms.  Lloyd, though of partial Italian descent, grew up in an Anglo-Saxon culture, so I can see why she thought of Sicily as "exotic."  So if Anglo Americans like her don't even consider Sicily Western, they won't see Latin America as Western either.
 
Eastern Europe is hard to classify.  I suspect maybe one reason it's often not considered Western is political rather than cultural; they were separated from Western Europe by the iron curtain.  On the other hand, maybe even now it's easier to view Poles and Hungarians, who are Catholic, use the Latin alphabet, etcetera, as Western than it is Russians or Serbs.  Then again, my stepmother, who is Polish, doesn't consider Poland Western...


-------------
Emilia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 21-May-2007 at 12:34
Yes, it is funny.
 
The people of Nordics or Germanic ancestry, tend to see the West as a legacy of Northern Europe only. They forget, though, that the basis of the Western Civilization are in the south. In Greece, Rome, Hispania and even in Carthago and Palestine. Without forgeting Middle Ages and Renascence Italy.
 
Without that part, the Western Civilization could be a concept totally different from accepted history. It would be the history of the rise of the barbarian tribes of the North, and Greece and Rome should be excluded.
 
Strange, isn't? Perhaps, the south is remembered just when it is convenient?
 


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 04:31
Now now penguin, that is not true. Most people from Northern Europe are very much aware of the achievements of the South, and they do not try to hide it or forget it. In spite of differences in culture and language, there is still a strong sense of unity in Europe, based on the knowledge of so much common past.
 
All you are displaying is your bias on Northern Europe, not Northern Europe's bias on Southern Europe. To base such an opinion on a single US citizen's opinion is very crude.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 05:24
Originally posted by Emilia Emilia wrote:

In fact, Sicily was a colony of Greece in ancient times, so it was exposed to Western culture at a very early stage.

Now certainly Greeks are not westerners. They were one of the biggest components of the Eastern Orthodox Church, they had the most power in the Eastern Roman Empire. Mediaeval history is full of the friction between the Eastern Romans/Greeks and western latins/franks.
And if we are going to work this thing on cultural similarities, then if the Greeks are considered western, so should the Arabs and Turks. Arab and Greek culture is very similar. Since the Arabs are certainly not considered western, I don't think the Greeks should be either.

'Western' basically means 'us', and it varies in each use depended on who 'us' is in the situation. The use of the word Western to apply to Greeks is using western to mean christian. (Lebanese Christians are also sometimes called western.) The use of the word western in Anglo-Saxon communities would basically have a north european cultural bias in it, but will happily claim the ancient empires of Greece and Rome too.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: nikodemos
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 06:40
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


 Arab and Greek culture is very similar.


What do you mean?
Which similarities did you find?






Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 06:47
Food, outlook on life, music, history. Most things except religion.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: nikodemos
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 07:03
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Food, outlook on life, music, history. Most things except religion.


I don't know many things about arab cuisine so i cannot tell whether there are similarities.Possibly there are.
Regarding the outlook on life, i don't think that arabs are so similar to greeks.Greeks in my opinion are liberal in outlook while most arabs are not.
Our history is very different compared to the history of the arab states.
The greek state since the beggining (1830) has been oriented towards the west.For example many institutions were brought to Greece by the Bavarian monarchy.reading greek history you can see the steps that were made in greece towards westernisation.



Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 12:01
Greece is not a western state because of her traditional agricultural culture -which really looks eastern, Greece is a western country because she is totally westernized. Turkey is also considered as a westernized state by the West. Whereas Arabic states have their own political and cultural systems. There's no reason to call Arabs "Westerner."

I consider Latin America to be Westerner, also.


Posted By: Emilia
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 13:15
Of course Greece is Western; as the cradle of Western civilization, we wouldn't have the West as we know it without Greece.  On the other hand, I think Greece got separated in a sense from the rest of the West by embracing Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism or Protestantism and also because it was under Turkish rule for a long time.  But I definitely consider Greece Western.

-------------
Emilia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22-May-2007 at 23:49
Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

Now now penguin, that is not true. Most people from Northern Europe are very much aware of the achievements of the South, and they do not try to hide it or forget it. In spite of differences in culture and language, there is still a strong sense of unity in Europe, based on the knowledge of so much common past.
 
All you are displaying is your bias on Northern Europe, not Northern Europe's bias on Southern Europe. To base such an opinion on a single US citizen's opinion is very crude.
 
Dear friend, of course is true. The bias exist and it was not invented by me. I am just serving as a witness of that fact. It is common knowledge in Southern Europe as well. Never heared the Phrase "Europe starts at the Pyrenees" which was used in former times to express the idea that Iberia was not really a part of Europe?
 
That reality is also perceived in Latin America with respect to Angloamerica, no matter attitudes have changed a little in later times with the massive arrival of Hispanics to the U.S., but still many people believe the Rio Grande separated two worlds.
 
In both cases is the sucessful north downplaying the failled south. People forget though that history goes in cycles of up and down, and history repeat itself.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 05:16
First of all I think it is necessary to define what exactly Western Civilisation is. No easy task, given that it is something people get a feel for rather than there existing a set criteria.

I have explained in other threads that I view Western Civilisation as a concept which embraces societies who have a set of instutitons and have experienced certain historical developments in common, which I shall try as best I can to explain from my perspective.

The influence of classical Greece and the Roman Empire is one such development. From here, certain ideas on government developed and from Rome in particular Western civilisation owes much to its legal system, urbanisation, language and letters etc.

The medieval period saw the introduction of Christian value systems and institutions. It also saw the birth of modern representative democracy, born out of parliaments set up to accommodate aristrocrats wanting a say in government. This democratic franchise was later extended much more broadly to create the modern representative, liberal democratic state.

After the medieval period a number of developments occurred which truly redefined Western civilisation as distinct from the other forms of civilisation. Globalisation was one of these trends, a product of the West seeking to expand and explore. Secularisation was another taken up, as religious influence on government was minimised. The nation state was yet another institution particular to Western civilisation which became the basis for organisation at the national level. Western civilisation embraces two legal codes, Roman law of continental Europe and common law of England. Western states are also strongly affected by the ideas of the Enlightenment movement.

In the past two centuries, Western civilisation changed yet further. The civil rights movement helped improve conditions for minorities. Western states developed systems of government welfare and became liberal democratic states which sought to minimise censorship.



Anyway, that is my very rough defintion of what Western civilisation stands for today. And looking at that, I would argue that Latin America fits into Western civilisation. They are typically states influenced by the Greco/Roman tradition, are Christian, embrace a European system of law, are typically fairly secular, are outward and global in their outlook, and a great many of them embrace a democracy and are affected by the ideas of the Enlightenment.


-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 24-May-2007 at 01:31
Also, I think this topic has reached a depth that it can be relocated to a more high brow forum.

-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 01:11
Originally posted by nikodemos nikodemos wrote:

Our history is very different compared to the history of the arab states.

In the past 2500 years, Mediterrainian Arabs and Greeks have been ruled by similar/the same countries for about 1500. From Alexanders conquests and the Macedonian successor states, the Romans, and the Ottomans.

Not to mention that many of the greatest greek scientists happened to be born and raised in Egypt or Syria. (You can't say the Librarians of Alexandria weren't greek)

Thats a shared history, and probably goes a fair way to explaining the shared culture too.
Originally posted by Emilia Emilia wrote:

Of course Greece is Western; as the cradle of Western civilization, we wouldn't have the West as we know it without Greece.

You wouldn't have the west as you know it if it weren't for the North Africans or Mongols either, yet they aren't western. Are the phonecians (and therefore lebanese) western? Are the tunisians (catheginians) western? Are the moors of spain western? The western civilisation is indebted to more peoples than just the Greeks.
Quote On the other hand, I think Greece got separated in a sense from the rest of the West by embracing Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism or Protestantism and also because it was under Turkish rule for a long time.

Embracing Orthodoxy is the wrong term. Orthodoxy is Greek. They didn't intend to have a different church from the west, relations between the west (Rome) and East (Constantinople) deteriated.

Also are you implying that the Turks are not western? If we are judging this on culture, the Latin Americans get in because they have a culture derived from the south-west europeans. But on that same basis the Greeks must be excluded for not sharing a latin or germanic culture, and if we are to redefine what cultures are accepted to allow the greeks in. Then that whole cultural group - including both Arabs, Turks amoung others - must also be included as western.

With what critera are you going to decide that Greeks are western, while Lebanese and Albanians are not?
Originally posted by Constantine Constantine wrote:

They are typically states influenced by the Greco/Roman tradition, are Christian, embrace a European system of law, are typically fairly secular, are outward and global in their outlook, and a great many of them embrace a democracy and are affected by the ideas of the Enlightenment.

That could be a good definition, although I still think that the primary critiera of who is western and who isn't, is a concept of us and them. Each member is accepted into the group on different criteria and there isn't a catch all definition. Which is why sometimes the west starts at the Pyrenees, and othertimes at patagonia. Depends who is doing the talking.

-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 27-May-2007 at 02:42
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

]That could be a good definition, although I still think that the primary critiera of who is western and who isn't, is a concept of us and them. Each member is accepted into the group on different criteria and there isn't a catch all definition. Which is why sometimes the west starts at the Pyrenees, and othertimes at patagonia. Depends who is doing the talking.


Quite right, it is something which is very fluid in its definition and interpretation. This was one of the biggest problems with Clash of Civilisations, it just did not properly define what constitutes a given civilisation.

I think many nations fit the ideal of "western" as I have described, but some more than others. Russia is a good example of a civilisation which is somewhere in between. Russia drew heavily on Greek and Roman traditions of government and law, but through Byzantium rather than directly through Rome. Russia attempted to include Enlightenment ideals, but is still heavily affected by censorship and autocracy. Russia chose the path of communism over liberal democracy (which she was on the road to prior to WWI) - and only recently has made seriously flawed attempts at liberal democratic reform.

So Russia is a nation which has elements of Westernism, but has in many fundamental ways diverged.



-------------
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.



Posted By: Emilia
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 17:34
Hi!  It's me, after a long absence.  I think we also have to look at how people of various nationalities describe themselves.  For example, my impression is that most Russians do not see themselves as Western.  On the other hand, the majority of Latin Americans I know consider themselves Western.  And as I said before, why wouldn't they? Their language, culture, and political systems derive from Europe.  That the average Latin American mestizo identifies him- or herself as Western strikes me as no more bizarre than as a human I identify myself as a mammal (as I write I'm nursing a baby, ironically).
 
Just my last two cents.


-------------
Emilia


Posted By: lennel
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 17:45
Short answer:
If you view "western" in a purely geographic sense: YES
If you view it in a cultural sense: depends on the context
 
 
From a geographic standpoint Chad is as far west as Sweden.


Posted By: Emilia
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 19:11
What do you mean by "depends on the context"?

-------------
Emilia


Posted By: lennel
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 20:47
Originally posted by Emilia Emilia wrote:

What do you mean by "depends on the context"?
 
Well if we are discussing the "the west" in terms beyond geography it can enter the realm of economics, politics or even military alliances.
 
For example- traditionally NATO nations are synonymous with the west, at least in a military-political context.
 
So: "The Warsaw Pact was devised to counter efforts of the West" would apply to NATO countries
 
Or if somebody says: "The West's undue influence on the World Bank" would probably presume first world nation.
 
And, this isn't entirely without merit.  Increasingly we are seeing a homogeny amoungst first world nation cities-  clothing, business standards, English is the lingua franca, etc.
 
 
 
At the same time Latin Americans can identify culturally as Western.  Southwestern Europe is in large part the cultural hearth- Spain and Portugal their languages and customs, Rome their religion.
 
Likewise some Native groups may resent the cultural encroachment and identify strongly with their traditional background.
 
But of course it  would vary from person to person and overall context. 


Posted By: The Hidden Face
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2007 at 23:26
With Ataturk's reforms (1923-1937), Turkey has changed her Middle Eastern civilization to the Western civilization. And her presence in the Western institutions is very clear.

As for the similarities between Greeks and the middle Easterners;

Even though Greek culture has many similarities with the Middle east, It is also possible to say that there's also an aegean culture, which is different from the middle east. (I am using "Middle eastern culture" as Syrian and Lebanese culture now, not even Saudi Arabian culture for instance, which has nothing to do with Greek culture.)

Most noteworthy similarities with Greeks in the Middle east are seen in the Aegean costs of Turkey. While Central Anatolian Turks aren't even similar to Greeks culturally, It's quite safe to say that syrian culture is clearly different from aegean culture.

Also when talking about similarities with Greeks, we must clarify what part of Greece we are talking about. It's actually not that hard to show enough differences between the Greeks around Athens and Syria as well.




Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:15
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

 
 
.... Latin America is definately more western than most people would want to admit ...
 
 
 
 
Why they wouldn't want to admit ?
 
 
 

For people from Europe and the US: because Latin America is poor, so they don't want to believe they belong to the same culture.
 

 
 
My opinion ... Latin America is Western because its dominate culture is European.
 
Not as economically prosperous is a minor factor ( Ireland & Greece have been dirt poor less industrialized for much of the 20th century ),I think subtle ethnic prejudice ( due to northern Anglo-Saxon & southern Latin division ) and significant component of non-European admixture in the general Hispanic American population are 2 considerable reasons for the snub.
 
A half-Armenian and half-German acquaintance once told me,this is how American-Whites view certain races and ethnicities.
 
Asians: Arabs Russians Japanese Hindu & Pakastanis
Spanish: 1/2 White and 1/2 others
 
Because Russians have a long history of intermingling with Orientals
Spanish population has a diversed gene pool of non-European stock ( Muslim,Jews & Amerindians ) 
 
 
 


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:26
I don't think its part of the Western World, in my opinion its part of the Latin American world, which has elements from the Western and Amerindian worlds with some African elements. Depending on were you go the different influences become stronger or weaker.


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:34
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

 
 
 
I don't think its part of the Western World, in my opinion its part of the Latin American world, which has elements from the Western and Amerindian worlds with some African elements. Depending on were you go the different influences become stronger or weaker.
 

 
 
How is that different from present USA ?!
 
I and many Europeans can obviosuly see America is not Europe in cultural sense & Americans aren't Europeans culturally ( except for shared generic western values ),then why is USA a " Western nation " and leader of " the West " ?! Confused
 
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:44
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

I don't think its part of the Western World, in my opinion its part of the Latin American world, which has elements from the Western and Amerindian worlds with some African elements. Depending on were you go the different influences become stronger or weaker.
 
Applying that criteria, the U.S. is not part of the Western World, either, because they have 12 % of its population of African origin, 7% of Asian origin and 20% of Hispanic origin LOL... If you add 2% percentage Indigenous and perhaps 10% unknown, you get almost half the people IS NOT European descendent ConfusedConfused
 
Wait... Britain and France are already more than 15% non European Cry... Perhaps they are going to be erased from the Western World soon enough.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:49
Quote Pebbles
How is that different from present USA ?!


U.S.A has no regions with strong Amerindian influences or major populations.

In Latin America there are still regions were Amerindians are majority, were their languages and still alive, their culture has effected the region alot more, for example the religous syncretisms, festivals even countries like Mexico claim Aztec descendance.

Ofcourse, the influence is stronger or weaker depending on were you go, however, in comparison with the Amerindian element of Latin America and the U.S is a major difference.
 
Quote Pebbles
I and many Europeans can obviosuly see America is not Europe in cultural sense & Americans aren't Europeans culturally ( except for shared generic western values ),then why is USA a " Western nation " and leader of " the West " ?! Confused


Mainstream America is culturally European and in its foundation European, anybody looking at the issue objectively can see this.





-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
 
 
Applying that criteria, the U.S. is not part of the Western World, either, because they have 12 % of its population of African origin, 7% of Asian origin and 20% of Hispanic origin LOL... If you add 2% percentage Indigenous and perhaps 10% unknown, you get almost half the people IS NOT European descendent ConfusedConfused
 
 
 
 
Absolutely correct,the so-called " Whites " category has 5%-10% of Jews and Middle-Eastern ethnicities.
 
As the immigrant population increased in the early 1990's,local California TV news began referring non-European immigrants as " third-world Americans " not just new Americans or hyphenated Americans.
 
It's hypocrisy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 18:59
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


U.S.A has no regions with strong Amerindian influences or major populations.

In Latin America there are still regions were Amerindians are majority, were their languages and still alive, their culture has effected the region alot more, for example the religous syncretisms, festivals even countries like Mexico claim Aztec descendance.

Ofcourse, the influence is stronger or weaker depending on were you go, however, in comparison with the Amerindian element of Latin America and the U.S is a major difference.
 
The U.S. is influenced by African culture to a degree unknown in Latin America. I ask you, how many of your states are European? Not even in Washington there are a majority of Europeans.
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


Mainstream America is culturally European and in its foundation European, anybody looking at the issue objectively can see this.
 
Mainstream Latin America is also European. And very much European. Old fashioned European I would say. So? what's the point?
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:09
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


 
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

 

Mainstream America is culturally European and in its foundation European, anybody looking at the issue objectively can see this.
 

 
Mainstream Latin America is also European. And very much European. Old fashioned European I would say.
 
So ? what's the point ?
 
 
 
 
Pinquin ... exactly !
 
Ethnic snub and hypocrisy.
 
 


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:13
Quote Pinguin
The U.S. is influenced by African culture to a degree unknown in Latin America. I ask you, how many of your states are European? Not even in Washington there are a majority of Europeans.


The U.S has an Afro-American culture but they have little traces of African culture as their forefathers were forcefully made to forget their language, heritage and history. Afro-American culture is unique to America and is not an African culture.

Also what part of Latin America? places like Brazil have more direct African culture than anywere in America, there are still African Gods which are worshipped.

Quote Pinguin
Mainstream Latin America is also European. And very much European. Old fashioned European I would say. So? what's the point?


Again, it depends where in Latin America you refer to.
Places like Argentina have a heavy European culture however, in places like Bolivia, Peru, Eduador etc Amerindians have a heavy presence.

Quote Pebbles
Ethnic snub and hypocrisy.


Only if you have an inferiority complex.
Otherwise, why is it an "insult" to not be "Western", its not a snub, I admire the way Amerindians in parts of Latin America have been able to stay strong, today we have an Aymaran President Evo Morales and various indegenous rights movements.


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:31
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

....
The U.S has an Afro-American culture but they have little traces of African culture as their forefathers were forcefully made to forget their language, heritage and history. Afro-American culture is unique to America and is not an African culture.

Also what part of Latin America? places like Brazil have more direct African culture than anywere in America, there are still African Gods which are worshipped.
 
Even applying the most rigid racist criteria, Brazil is half European. Something that the U.S. hardly can say about itself. Moreover, no matter that Black Americans lost theirs languages, their music is African and almost 90% of American music is African... and not Celt, I am afraid.
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

....
Again, it depends where in Latin America you refer to.
Places like Argentina have a heavy European culture however, in places like Bolivia, Peru, Eduador etc Amerindians have a heavy presence.
 
So, the presence of Amerindians is the factor that takes regions out of the map. Be aware then that the Northern Territories, and provinces like Saskatchewan in Canada are in risk of not being part of the West. The same for Hawaii, Alabama, Washington D.C., and many others. And what California and Miami? Who are mainly Hispanic? Are they out of the West already? Confused
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

....
Quote Pebbles
Ethnic snub and hypocrisy.


Only if you have an inferiority complex.
Otherwise, why is it an "insult" to not be "Western", its not a snub, I admire the way Amerindians in parts of Latin America have been able to stay strong, today we have an Aymaran President Evo Morales and various indegenous rights movements.
 
The insult is the attitude of anglosaxons that believe they are the judges in deciding who is and who it isn't Western.
 
You know, some people in the Latin world believe blond Germanic people aren't Westerners because descend of Germans and not Romans ConfusedConfused... As you can see, inferiority complexes exist everywhere.
 
With respect to Evo Morales, ask him why he Spanish, why he carries a Spanish last name like "Morales" and not a very common Aymara last name as "Mamani", why he respect the Catholic church and why the King of Spain was a honour guest in the ceremony where he took power. LOLLOL
 
Yes, hypocresy is something very common.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:40
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

 



Only if you have an inferiority complex. Otherwise, why is it an "insult" to not be "Western"
 

 
 
Just be blunt to point out the underlying prejudices LOL in my post.Oh,a few White forumites here rejected any suggestion of Whites are seemingly more incline to racist view ( read page#3 ) in thoughts and behaviours.
 
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26737&PN=3 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26737&PN=3
 
 
Well,inferiority complex applies to Japanese ( Enter Europe Leave Asia concept ) and Koreans ( claim its language " artificially " links to Altai linguistic group,so they're part of Western race ) LOL as they have been trying hard to connect to the West in any imaginable ways possible.I know it would bother many Japanese and sinophobic Japanophile foreigners greatly if Japan is not consider a part of world-dominated West LOL.
 
For those Latin-Americans of European descent,they do have a reason to gripe because others have no rights to deny their heritage.
 
 


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:00
Quote Pinguin
The insult is the attitude of anglosaxons that believe they are the judges in deciding who is and who it isn't Western.


They are the leaders of the Western World, the powerfull get to dictate thats just the way of the world.

Today when we think of "Western" we really mean Anglosaxon countries, Australlia, New Zealand, England, Canada, America. All English speaking, Anglosaxon elite and similar economic systems etc etc

[quote
With respect to Evo Morales, ask him why he Spanish, why he carries a Spanish last name like "Morales" and not a very common Aymara last name as "Mamani", why he respect the Catholic church and why the King of Spain was a honour guest in the ceremony where he took power. LOLLOL[/quote] 
 
Evo Morales has took part in many indegenous Mayan cerenomies, look at his visit to Guatemala for example, supports indegenous rights movements and has done alot to elevate the status of his people and even calls for a utopian mayan union of states.







-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:14
I'm not trying to nitpick with you here Bulldog, but i would like too point out some facts .

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

U.S.A has no regions with strong Amerindian influences or major populations.


You might find this surprising but there are a lot of regions with a very strong indigenous influence. Like the Navajo & Apache in the Southwestern states. Blackfeet around Colorado and New Mexico border. Comanche & Cherokee in Oklahoma and Texas. These tribes still exist and if the census is correct, growing. Also, a lot of states have been heavily influenced by the history of the indigenous populations. Quite a few state names are derived from Indian words, as well for their state motto; Thousands of cities across the US whose names have been influenced by Native culture as well, Like Buffalo for example. Not too mention the countless rivers throughout the US that still have the Native names applied too them to this day. You can even find their influence in the US military, for example let's take the helicopters for instance: The Chinook transport, The Apache longbow, The Kiowa ground support helicopter (a.k.a - Little bird). I mean the list is never ending in that aspect either. This also does not apply solely to the US either. Canada had been effected nearly in the same way!

Quote
Mainstream America is culturally European and in its foundation European, anybody looking at the issue objectively can see this.


Too an extent, the US is culturally European, Colonial history you see... but not exclusively only European. Cultures from all around the world have heavily influenced the US, much more so than people realize! Europe is a given but there is also, Asia, Africa, Middle Eastern, Latin America, Oceania it does not matter where it comes from, just as long as the originator is clever enough to come up with a product that everyone will like and is flexible enough too change and morph with the times.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:20
Quote Panther

You might find this surprising but there are a lot of regions with a very strong indigenous influence. Like the Navajo & Apache in the Southwestern states.


Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:23

Well, Western means alot of different things to alot of different people.

In a historical sense, the "Western tradition" goes back to ancient Greece and Rome, and in this sense, Latin America is certainly Western.

In common usage, the term is sometimes meant to refer to the Celto-Scando-Germanic cultures, i.e. Austria, Germany, France, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian countries, and the UK + Ireland. Spain, of course, was once a major center of Celtic culture but this part of Spain's heritage was so diluted by Latin and Islamic influences that it falls outside of the above group.

No one should be offended by the second use of the term, as long as they can differentiate the two intended meanings. This cultural grouping doesn't have a convenient name like "Latin America" or "the Meditteranean cultures", so "Western" is used as a (somewhat misleading) substitute. "Northwestern" wouldn't sound right, neither would "Gallo-Scando-Germanic".

In the second meaning, I actually don't feel the USA is really Western. Parts of Canada make a pretty good case for it, especially places like Newfoundland, Quebec, and parts of Nova Scotia. But overall, the USA, Canada, and Latin America are all cultures of the Americas, first and foremost, and have more in common with each other than they do with their European parents. They are all settler states, they all have a legacy of colonialism, they all contain a very profound mix of ethnic influences and always have, and they all share unique cultural motifs (for instance, the cowboy) that are not part of European - or even native - culture.



Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:34
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:



Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.


I see, good point. The only state i understand in having more indigenous than all the others would have to be Oklahoma.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:38
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

Quote Pinguin
The insult is the attitude of anglosaxons that believe they are the judges in deciding who is and who it isn't Western.


They are the leaders of the Western World, the powerfull get to dictate thats just the way of the world.
.
 
You are wrong. Today the leader of the Western World is an African.
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


Today when we think of "Western" we really mean Anglosaxon countries, Australlia, New Zealand, England, Canada, America. All English speaking, Anglosaxon elite and similar economic systems etc etc
.
 
Well, then Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, Scandinavia, aren't part of the Western world either... Confused While Kiwi-land is in the hard core of the West Confused
 
 
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

Evo Morales has took part in many indegenous Mayan cerenomies, look at his visit to Guatemala for example, supports indegenous rights movements and has done alot to elevate the status of his people and even calls for a utopian mayan union of states.
 
So? That excludes them from the West?


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:41
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

...
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
 
Have you ever been to the Americas? I bet you imagine Latin America is like an immigrant neighbourhood in London.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:45
Many good point edgewaters, one thing that confuses the world however:

Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

and they all share unique cultural motifs (for instance, the cowboy) that are not part of European - or even native - culture.


The Cowboy itself has it's roots in Latin America and not as many believe as being unique only to the US.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:47
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:



Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.


I see, good point. The only state i understand in having more indigenous than all the others would have to be Oklahoma.
 
But there are states with African majorities. I bet New Orleans after Katrina was more Western than Guatemala Confused


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:50
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

...
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
 
Have you ever been to the Americas? I bet you imagine Latin America is like an immigrant neighbourhood in London.


I took it that he meant a mixture of European and Indigenous population? If that is what he meant, then he has a point.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:52
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

...
Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.
 
Pure Amerindian populations aren't majoritary in any country of Latin America, except in Bolivia and Guatemala. And even there, the number of mixed European descendents is very large, and the mainstream culture is Iberian.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:55
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

...
I took it that he meant a mixture of European and Indigenous population? If that is what he meant, then he has a point.
 
If he meant mixed people should be excluded from the West, then British people, who are mixed descendents of Romans and Barbarians, should be excluded from the West, too.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:



Yes but there are no states with an Amerindian majority or even close to one, however, there are countries in Latin America with majority Amerindian populations.


I see, good point. The only state i understand in having more indigenous than all the others would have to be Oklahoma.
 
But there are states with African majorities. I bet New Orleans after Katrina was more Western than Guatemala Confused


Maybe i am confusing you a little here. Indigenous can also mean to me: Amerindian or Native American.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 20:59
Quote Pinguin
You are wrong. Today the leader of the Western World is an African.


African-American, there is a difference, remember the African-Americans came to the Americas around the same time the Europeans did, they are both relatively recent to the continent. While Europeans bought their culture and language with them from Europe, the Africans didn't and had to adopt the rulers language and ways.

However, in my opinion, there is a difference when the leader of a country is an Amerindian because of their connection to the history, culture and civillisations of the land from the pre-European period. Obama has no real connection to Africa, neither linguistically or culturally, he's an American. However, Morales speaks Aymara and Quecha, grew up in this culture and its native to the land.


Quote Pinguin
Well, then Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, Scandinavia, aren't part of the Western world either... Confused While Kiwi-land is in the hard core of the West Confused


I wrote, the Anglosaxon world, or the English speaking world is thought of the West today.

The countries you listed are part of the EU, a Western club.

Quote Pinguin
So? That excludes them from the West?


In my opinion they arn't Western, there are no parrelels, to me Latin America is unique, it doesn't have to be accepted as Western to be "recognised" or "civillised".


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 21:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

...
I took it that he meant a mixture of European and Indigenous population? If that is what he meant, then he has a point.
 
If he meant mixed people should be excluded from the West, then British people, who are mixed descendents of Romans and Barbarians, should be excluded from the West, too.


I don't know? He'll have to answer that for you. What i was responding too was that there was much more mixing between European & Amerindians in Latin America than there was up North.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 21:09
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


African-American, there is a difference, remember the African-Americans came to the Americas around the same time the Europeans did, they are both relatively recent to the continent. While Europeans bought their culture and language with them from Europe, the Africans didn't and had to adopt the rulers language and ways.

So, do you believe Europeans didn't bring theirs culture, language, music and religion to Latin America? So you believe those Europeans didn't impose theirs culture upon Indians? Unbelievable, how inconsistent are your arguments.

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


However, in my opinion, there is a difference when the leader of a country is an Amerindian because of their connection to the history, culture and civillisations of the land from the pre-European period. Obama has no real connection to Africa, neither linguistically or culturally, he's an American. However, Morales speaks Aymara and Quecha, grew up in this culture and its native to the land.

Morales also speaks Spanish Confused. What do you believe there where the belief of Benito Juarez. Do you believe he believe the blood of human sacrifices fertilized the ground? Nope. He was a liberal Wink

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


Quote Pinguin
Well, then Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, Scandinavia, aren't part of the Western world either... Confused While Kiwi-land is in the hard core of the West Confused


I wrote, the Anglosaxon world, or the English speaking world is thought of the West today.

The countries you listed are part of the EU, a Western club.
[/quote]
So, you are the gatekeeper. And, of course, London must be the hub of the West LOL

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:


In my opinion they arn't Western, there are no parrelels, to me Latin America is unique, it doesn't have to be accepted as Western to be "recognised" or "civillised".
 
We know it is unique, and we love it that way. However, we are entitled to be Westerners by culture and by blood. And we won't renounce to it.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 21:14
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
We know it is unique, and we love it that way. However, we are entitled to be Westerners by culture and by blood. And we won't renounce to it.
 


Well, if it's all the same to you gentlemen, i am going to end my involvement in this thread  for the day, by adding: The concept of what makes up the West seems to be in a state of flux today! But as far as i am concerned, and i am going too keep it simple here, Latin Americans are a part of the West as i currently understand it today!


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 21:15
Quote Pinguin
Pure Amerindian populations aren't majoritary in any country of Latin America, except in Bolivia and Guatemala. And even there, the number of mixed European descendents is very large, and the mainstream culture is Iberian.


Also in Peru they are majority.
There are also countries in Latin America with less than 10% White European populations.

That's three countries with an Amerindian majority, many countries with mixed Amerindian/European/Black populations and countries with White European minorities.
White Europeans are 30-40% of population of Latin America.

There is an obvious difference between Latin America and U.S.A

Quote Pinguin
If he meant mixed people should be excluded from the West, then British people, who are mixed descendents of Romans and Barbarians, should be excluded from the West, too.


But they're all from Europe, however, Amerindian is a different world to Europe, its like comparing apples and oranges.






-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 21:19
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Well, Western means alot of different things to alot of different people.

In a historical sense, the "Western tradition" goes back to ancient Greece and Rome, and in this sense, Latin America is certainly Western.

That's the sense I am arguing here. Latin America is a part of Western Civilization.
 
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

In common usage, the term is sometimes meant to refer to the Celto-Scando-Germanic cultures, i.e. Austria, Germany, France, the Low Countries, the Scandinavian countries, and the UK + Ireland. Spain, of course, was once a major center of Celtic culture but this part of Spain's heritage was so diluted by Latin and Islamic influences that it falls outside of the above group.
.
 
That's a wrong usage of the term. In Spanish at least we call it the Nordic/ Germanic cultures, or world, to differentiate of the Latin and Slavic cultures.
 
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

No one should be offended by the second use of the term, as long as they can differentiate the two intended meanings. This cultural grouping doesn't have a convenient name like "Latin America" or "the Meditteranean cultures", so "Western" is used as a (somewhat misleading) substitute. "Northwestern" wouldn't sound right, neither would "Gallo-Scando-Germanic".
.
 
Germanic is the proper term. Just apply it.
 
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

In the second meaning
, I actually don't feel the USA is really Western. Parts of Canada make a pretty good case for it, especially places like Newfoundland, Quebec, and parts of Nova Scotia. But overall, the USA, Canada, and Latin America are all cultures of the Americas, first and foremost, and have more in common with each other than they do with their European parents. They are all settler states, they all have a legacy of colonialism, they all contain a very profound mix of ethnic influences and always have, and they all share unique cultural motifs (for instance, the cowboy) that are not part of European - or even native - culture.
 
Well, American cultures aren't really fully Western. Even the full European settler are mixed among themselves, and have another perspective of the world than the ancient Europe.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net