Talk:Western world

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western world article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

The discussion page for "Western World" is as flawed as the source article which it criticises. Several faceless editors, whose authority cannot be verified, make the claim that they "removed unsubstantiated claims" (see below), amongst other edits, yet we do not know who the person claiming editorial authority actually is. It would appear appropriate for the author/editor of this article to substantiate and authorise their edits where he/she makes them, rather than criticise others for their 'unsubstatiated, counterfactual' (but partially obvious) claims. It is somewhat ironic to criticise others for lack of citation, but then to do the same. "I did this/ I did that" does not give credence to any facts, nor does any status within the framework of Wikipedia. More sources are badly needed. (ms).

This comes back to the whole stupid mess that mis-constitutes the whole empiricist-rationalist debate.

In any subject. Let me give you the benefit of my intelligence so you can criticize it and say something deeply retarded.

Empiricism is not reliable. Rationalism is. Citing sources is irrelevant. Making SENSE is far more important. Sourcing statements is an exercise in popularity, not veracity.

But presumably you won't believe this until I source it to Haroldlikespotatoes.com ?

80.65.242.154 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Western world/Archive 1

Citations needed for the unsubstantiated, counterfactual claims I removed.

In the final section I removed a paragraph that claimed totalitarianism was invented in the west, since this is an obvious inaccuracy and wasn't backed up by any facts. I also removed an implication that slavery was somehow a specific guilt of Western Civilization, since slave trades have been far longer enduring and more cruel outside of the West. Only in the West, furthermore, has slavery been questioned. And finally, the West was the only culture to eliminate slavery, a totally amazing act in itself. Obviously the very idea of slavery being wrong comes from the Western mind, so we should add a section explaining that. I suggest some quotes from Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." -Isabella's Knight.

Certain cultures, like Australian Aboriginal people never had slaveryin the first place. To say that Western Culture eliminated slavery is not strictly true. Slaves were considered prisoners. With the privatisation of prisons in the USA and the hiring out of unpayed prison labour to Multinational Corporations, slavery has been reintroduced in this country.

LOL, nice "facts". Listen, pal - if you want to state your personal opinions, don't do it on wikipedia. We deal with facts here. You aren't even a member; while nothing's stopping you, you shouldn't edit anything. I'm also not a member, which is why I don't edit anything - I just post in the Discussion area. Moreoever, I question the "slavery has been a lot longer enduring and more cruel outside of the West." Neither statement is true. Your position seems to be "We're still evil, but at least we're less evil than they are." Sure, yeah, but you're still evil. :) ---concerned Filipino---

"THE CRISIS In the past twenty years, the prison and police systems in the U.S. have expanded to a size and scope never before seen in this country. From 1980 to 2002, the number of people imprisoned in the nation’s prisons, jails, juvenile facilities and detention centers quadrupled in size--from roughly 500,000 to 2.1 million people. The U.S. now has the largest prison system in the world and its impact influences the social, economic and political life of all regions and sectors in the U.S. Along with the United States’ 2.1 million people behind bars, 2.2 million individuals are now employed in policing, corrections and courts, overshadowing the 1.7 million Americans employed in higher education, and the 600,000 employed in public welfare. With 6.6 million people in prison and jail, or on probation and parole, there are now 8.8 million people either under the control of the correctional system or working in the criminal justice sector in the U.S. The zeal to lock people in cages does not affect crime rates, however. West Virginia had one of the largest increases in its rate of imprisonment during the 1990s, and also saw an increase in the state’s violent crime rate. Alabama’s violent crime rate dropped 77% more than Georgia, even though Georgia’s rate of imprisonment rose at a rate 47% higher than Alabama’s. A comparison of the Southern states to New York and Massachusetts reveals an even starker contrast: The two Northern states experienced larger crime drops with much more modest increases in incarceration than most of the states in the South.

While prisons have multiplied across the U.S., the results have been particularly striking in the South. The South’s history of slavery, convict leasing, and Jim Crow segregation created the context for the use of imprisonment and the especially brutal definition of justice delivered in the South.

Today, the prison industrial complex (PIC) fills the role previously played by slavery, convict leasing and the Black Codes. We describe the prison industrial complex as a multifaceted system, maintained through cooperation between government and industry that designates prisons as a solution to social, political, and economic problems. Like the systems of brutality that preceded it, today’s prison industrial complex criminalizes a target population based on race and class, providing a means of social control of those deemed undesirable, and provides a source of cheap labor for the state. The prison industrial complex represents thegovernment’s primary “answer” to the problems created by slavery’s historical legacies: social, economic and political problems, such as poverty, drug addiction, under education, racism, unemployment and dissent, bringing with it under-funded educational systems, lack of quality healthcare and inadequate affordable housing as its byproducts."

John D. Croft

I guess the former slaves now in prison didn't do the crime. Hmm...... Please leave your opinion on how to fix problems if you are unsatisfied with the current systems in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.108.66 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Response: It's good to put convicted criminals to work. They should repay their debt to society.

And just why should multinationals be the ones to benefit from their labor? Shouldn't it be a community service program or something?

Wouldn't the term "the west" or "western world" be at its very nature racist? I post here to spur discussion and not just start throwing stuff up on the page. Or certainly "the west" being superior, perhaps that is racist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2005 24.164.254.78 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 8 October (UTC)

At the same time, there is no doubt that Western Civilization is far superior to all others, so how can advocating that truth be racist? And besides, what's wrose, risking so-called "racism" or failing to aknowledge and protect our most precious possession that is Western Civilization? -Isabella's Knight.

Isabella, to claim that Western Civilisation is superior, you need to choose the criteria on which this statement is made. People in Western civilisation are no happier than people in earlier times. We are certainly destroying life much faster than any earlier civilisation.

John D. Croft

A pointless argument, since the same can be said of the Eastern World. For a Western World to exist, then there is a Eastern World. 08:16, 7 November 2005 172.191.111.143

This is a matter of defining a civilization, commonly known as Western Civilization to avoid religious overtones, and is hardly a debate for racism, which existed in all civilizations since the beginning of time anyway. Keep it civil. But as a general rule, WC (Western Civlization) has indeed proven to be unique in history; the lack of depedency on slavery, the virues of freedom and property rights, and equality under the law (even for women) inherited from the Celts, the rule of law inherited from the Greeks and Romans, and the moral code to keep it all together inherited from the Hebrews. The Eastern World is defined quite different with its utter and complete dependency on slavery, its disregard for individual freedom and women's rights, its preferrence for absolute power, all things that define the modern Islamic, Slavic, or Asian state (from wench the Hebrews and Jews fled from to the West) None of these issues have anything to do with race. Jcchat66 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the moral code to keep it all together inherited from the Hebrews." You mean stoning adulterers and disobedient sons? Macgreco 17:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(...) the lack of depedency on slavery, equality under the law (...) inherited from the Celts, moral code???? This must be a joke... Do you really think slavery and lust for absolut power are monopolies of the Eastern countries? Do you really think that any heritage from Celts, Romans, Greek and Hebrews, if any, make the West better by its own? For sure it has anything to do with race, and that´s why your arguments are racists. Because you have prejudice, and lack of knowledge, of different cultures, and face them as stereotypes. Tonyjeff 03:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"West" is a cardinal direction - not a race. No, "Western World" is not racist.

While I'd have to agree thyat the term 'Western World' in itself may not be racist, some of th things said up here are. I for one would like to assure any wiki-newbees, and anyone else who hasnt liked what theyve read so far,that these views are not shared by all of us in this wonderfully diverse community we share. By this i mean wikipedia, to be clear! Also I defend your right to your views wholeheartedly, but do not portray them as 'truth' or fact when they are questionably neither. Many have argued that the freedom of the masses of the west has in fact been replaced by consumption and pacification by their governments. How can we all be seen as equal under the law when the police employ age and race related stop and search tactics or when inner city councils erect devices which emit an high pitched whine, within the hearing range of those under a certain age only, with the intent to make crowds of 'youths' disperse. All the things you say the western world are true, but they do not apply to those who have different ideas to those in charge. *killerpsychobunny* 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC) And I'm aware that 'folks like Foucault, Said and probably Chomsky have, possibly, said' is almost as weasle-wordy as the 'many have argued' thing, but at least i have been able to criticize and chastise myself for this, saving whoever just read that valuable time and effort! *killerpsychobunny* 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Isabella's Knight and jcchat66. Maybe you ought to check your facts before you insult us non-Western people? "There is no doubt" that the west is superior? I don't think so - that fact proves you wrong already, since that means that there is doubt. You're the only one who thinks so, which doesn't make you right immediately. Ah - it's so easy to just make controversial and offensive statements like that and not back it up, isn't it? That's the mark of a true troll. And jcchat66? I like how you first said "keep it civil", then followed it up with some of the most un-civil things I've ever heard. Not to mention untrue. "Lack of dependence on slavery", you say. But ah, I see that the Greeks kept slaves. The Romans kept slaves. The Europeans and Americans enslaved blacks. And you have the nerve to say that? And the Celts? You mean the people who sacrificed humans in burning wicker cages? The Greeks? The homosexual, limited-democracy Greeks? The Romans? The decadent, infanticide-and-divorce-practicing Romans? And the Hebrews - they're not a Western people, they're Semitic, and therefore Eastern. You had to make an excuse to turn them into a Western people. But the West persecuted them for centuries. And now you suddenly like them so much? And, someone like you who is ignorant of the facts shouldn't generalize the East like that. Let's see - slavery. The Australian aborigines and other tribes in the East didn't keep slaves, and even where there were slaves, it should be understood that slavery did not always hold the status of inferiority it did in the West. Women's rights - the West didn't even grant universal suffrage until the 19th Century at earliest. On the other hand, women in the Philippines have historically enjoyed relatively high status, compared to other parts of the world. The status of Filipino women actually decreased when Europeans arrived. And as for a prefence for absolute power - divine right monarchies were the norm in the West until the Enlightenment. Even after, there was fascism and communism, which are both Western ideas (Karl Marx was German, not Russian, and he developed his ideas in Britain.) On the other hand, the village council-based government system of the Iroquois League actually served as a model for America's Founding Fathers, rather than the other way around. Lastly, the West did do something that the East never did - colonized and subjugated practically the entire "rest of the world". Now maybe you don't think that's wrong, but that's your problem. After all, there is "no doubt" about it. And, a wench is a term, usually offensive, for a young woman. English is a Western language, and you don't know it? So, get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off, eh? Who do you think you're embarrassing, us non-Westerners? Nah. Good day to you. ---Concerned Filipino---

Ahh yes, the "superior" west with its high AIDs rate, incest, crime rates, bestiality, murder rate, child molestation, Christian lies, high rates of mental retardation, 400 year slavery, colonization, genocide of native Americans, Holocaust, etc. IMO these should be included in the article.

Well, this is probably too late as I did not have this on my watchlist, but here is a response to "Concerned Philipino." History backs up all claims I made above, but I've made none of the claims you've stated above. When I say Western Civilization INHERITED certain aspects of other cultures, that does not mean that are a PART of those other cultures. Wicker cages??? That's a hollywood movie, nothing I've come across in Celtic history at all. But none of the cultures I mentioned are superior, and nor is Western culture perfect. If Filipinas enjoyed equal rights and freedoms before it happened in the West, GREAT!!!! The problem is, they obviously were unable to spread that good idea beyond their islands. Sharing a good idea can sometimes be miscontrued as imperialism or aggression, but oh well. The West did not liberate its women because of the Filipinos, we did it because we could not justify liberty and freedom without eventually coming to the conclusion that liberty is a joke unless everyone has a right to it. Liberty undermines the very notion of racism and sexism, which is why the USA had to abandon both. We inherited certain laws from the Greco-Romans, but by far their cultures were cesspools of oppression and racism surpassed only by the Germans, who is not considered (usually) a part of the West, as they have a different culture (thus, WWI and WWII). We inherited morals from the Hebrews via Christianity, primarily above all else free will. That does not mean we did not inherite bad things as well. The West also persecuted the Jews, a horrible offense of Western culture. Marx was no Westerner, nor Freud or Neitzche, which is obvious for their demoniztion of the West at every turn. It was easy for them to demonize what they don't understand. If you want a good reference to how ALL civilizations come and go and evolve over time, and why the West is unique, then I refer you to Carrol Quigley and his book, Evolution of Civilizations. You accuse me of making controversial and offensive statements? Because I could of sworn you just called the entire Greco-Roman world homosexual! Nice! I would hate to hear what you have to say about the Polynesians, Phoenicians, or the Tamil! You've completely undermined any argument you may have had by pushing steotypes! I have checked my facts, as best as history allows since we don't always have hard evidence. I've made no statement not backed up by history, or that are very controversial or offenseive for that matter, unless, of course, the one offended is already biased against the West. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting the edits about China being in the Non-aligned movement. Because it may have been a member of the organisation but it was still the largest communist nation, and an active member of the communist block[1]. Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the communist bloc? Perhaps so before the Sino-Soviet Split, but not so after the Split.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is only if you think that the Soviet sphere of influence and the communist block was the same thing. Philip Baird Shearer 19:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bloc is "a group of nations, parties, or persons united for common action". The USSR and China only belongs in the same bloc if you think all communist nations have only one singular purpose.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They did world domination leading to a paradise on earth :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Realpolitik.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get our definitions clear. A "bloc" refers to an alliance of countries. If you want to refer to all communist countries, then you should not use the word "bloc", because not all communist countries were allied. If you insist on using the word "bloc", then there is no such bloc that includes both USSR and China after the Sino-Soviet split, as "bloc" refers to an alliance of countries.

As such, referring to the USSR and China being in the same bloc is wrong, pure and simple. -- ran (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your definion of Block is alliance of countries" which is a very woolly term. However that is not directly relevent as the section is about Worlds and China was a member of the Second World. Philip Baird Shearer 01:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge the mainstream English speaking press etc talked of the Communist Block but they rarely to never used the term "Capitalist Block" (although I was never an avid reader of the Morning Star). The English speaking press talked that the Communists were bent on world domination but never that the capitalists were an evil empire bent on world domination. As this is an English language encyclopaedia we should go with English language meanings for words: China was a major communist player, a member of the communist block and a major member of the Second World. Now one can argue that with the split between the two largest communist countries the monolithic communist block ceased to exist, but that is a matter of semantics as the term block does not have a precise meaning in English, however China never stopped being a member of the second world. Philip Baird Shearer

China was non-aligned. It was a bitter rival of the USSR, boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. As such, it was part of the Third World, like India and Yugoslavia.

Of course, there's also the interpretation whereby China is in the Second World because it was communist. If you want, you can include both interpretations. -- ran (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon did not think it such a big deal to visit Britain and GB went to the 1980 Olympics. A nuclear county with one of the biggest armies in the world, with a perceived attitude problem was never non-aligned. A small country like Yugoslavia could become non-aligned, but a major communist player like China could not. That is not to say that it was an ally of the USSR. The Second World was just a much to do with ideology as it was to do with political alignment. There is no real equivalent split in the First World during the Cold War to give as an example, but during that period did France cease to be a First World country because it withdrew from the command structure of NATO? More recently "Old Europe" and the Coalition supporers fell out over Iran. Does that mean that Germany and France are no longer members of the West? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale being "China remained in the communist block". Well, it wasn't. I fail to see why China has to be in a bloc because it was big. What exactly prevents a large country from being non-aligned? India was almost as big and as populous as China. It had no problems being non-aligned. You are right that there is no equivalent in the First World, since China was never in the Soviet bloc. They had vastly differing agendas that sometimes took them dangerously close to war. Doesn't sound like they're in the same bloc, or even "world". And just to be nitpicky, France withdrew from the military aspect of NATO, not the political. As such it was still fully in the NATO though limited in participation. As for the recent fall out in the coalition, since there is no more second world, there is no more first world either. The first world effectively disintegrated along with the second world. But I digress. The west is not equivalent to the first world, or Western Europe, or the NATO, or the American-led coalition. The west is not only a political concept but a geographical and cultural one as well.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You and I agree about France: I said "withdrew from the command structure of NATO" not that they withdrew from NATO! Under the Domino theory the communist block was perceived by the First World as a block. You may disagree with the theory, but at the time the phrase Second World was in vogue the concept of the domino theory did not differentiate between reds under the beds being of different ethnic backgrounds. It was not possible for a major communist player to be "non-aligned". By definition and ideological stance they were perceived to be aligned with other communists against the First World by the First World establisment, certainly by most in the US establishment until Nixon went to China, by many until the end of the Cold War, and by some to this day. Philip Baird Shearer 14:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By definition and ideological stance they were perceived to be aligned with other communists against the First World by the First World establisment. This perception is wrong. Throughout the Cultural Revolution, "American Imperialism" (美帝) and "Soviet Revisionism" (苏修) were deemed equally evil. (Albania was in fact dubbed "a great socialist light in the darkness of Europe" because it was the only pro-China European country in the Sino-Soviet split.)

Much of the wartime hysteria during the Cultural Revolution, of moving factories into the mountains of the southwest, of advocating military training for the entire citizenry, of educating people about how to survive a nuclear attack, etc. had to do with the constant fear of Soviet invasion. To this day, a strong anti-Russian suspicion continues to survive in China, a suspicion that is as strong as, if not stronger than anti-American sentiment in China.

If Westerners feel that China and the Soviet Union were somehow "aligned" with each other through the 60's, 70's, and 80's, it's their freedom to have their own perception. From a Chinese perspective, however, such a perception is really rather ridiculous. -- ran (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been rather silly, but from the western perspective Trotsky did not stop being a communist because he fell out with Stalin. China supported communist movements in Asia during the Cold War and they are sill perceived to be supporting regimes in the area which the West does not perceived as on side. Just because they did not follow Soviet orders, it did not make them any less communist and part of the Second World. Philip Baird Shearer 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China and the Soviet Union were supporting different regimes. How would you explain China's support of Pol Pot, Vietnam's invasion of Democratic Kampuchea, and the Sino-Vietnamese War, then? Your statement of "Just because they did not follow Soviet orders" is also very weird. China wasn't following American orders either. What makes you think that China would follow the orders of either one of its archenemies?

All of this seems to stem from an "us-vs-them" mentality. "If we have more than one enemy, then they must be allied to each other!" China also had more than one enemy -- the US and the USSR -- but China wasn't assuming that they were allied to each other. The entire situation was a three-way fight — which means the weakest of the three could choose either one of the two stronger ones to side with. And this is exactly what China did.

So far I've been talking about realpolitik rather than ideology. If we want to talk about "blocs" and alliances, then the realpolitik perspective alone should be enough. But even ideologically, China viewed the Soviet Union as an enemy of communism, no better than the overt capitalism followed by the U.S. -- ran (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's bring this debate back on track. We're arguing about the definition of the "Second World", right? So if we define the Second World as:

• Communist countries, consisting of the Soviet Union and its allies, plus the People's Republic of China and its allies

Then yes, the Second World did include China, as long as we note that the "Second World" was not one bloc but two, and in fact the two blocs participated separately in the later part of the Cold War, with the smaller one going over to the "enemy";

But if we define the Second World as:

• The Soviet bloc (or "sphere of influence"), opposed to the United States during the Cold War

Then China was outside. -- ran (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree lets talk second world. As I said before "That is only if you think that the Soviet sphere of influence and the communist block was the same thing." If during the Cold war the Asian communist movements had been seen as separate from the Soviet communists then presumably there would have been a "fourth world" to describe those countries. There was not, there were only three worlds. The terms were never precisely defined, but in general and particularly until Nixon visited China the term second world in English covered all communist nations as one block grouping.

There is another point to this description as well. The fundamental economic ideas underpinning the accountancy systems of the First and Second worlds were so different that it made trade between them difficult, even when during a thaw in relations there were less ideological reasons not to trade. It was for example next to impossible for private investors to invest in a communist country until those countries were willing to except standard First World methods of calculation profit and loss and after the failure of Breton Woods to let their currencies float on the foreign exchanges. So not only were there political polarisations into First and Second worlds there was also economic polarisation between those two systems.

So I think the wording for should revert to what it was upto 2 October 2005 "The Second World was the Eastern bloc in the Communist sphere of influence, such as the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, etc." Change the word "block" if it upsets you to "countries" althought I think block is a better word in this case --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, "Eastern Bloc" is not synonymous with "communist world"; it simply means those countries that were controlled from Moscow. In the same way, "Western bloc" did not equate with "free world". (The Western bloc included such military dictatorships as Portugal, Greece and Turkey, while India, though a democracy, was aligned with the Soviets for most of the Cold War). The terms "East and West" in the context of Cold War politics refer to geopolitical alliances which don't necessarily match up with specific ideologies or systems of government).

"Eastern Bloc"/"Second World" therefore included the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and, for a time Albania, but it broke away fairly quickly. China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Yugoslavia and Albania post-1960s were all communist regimes that were allied with Moscow at some point in their existence, but for the most part maintained their own independence and reserved the right to disagree with Moscow when they so chose.

Starting in the sixties there were not one but two communist blocs - one, the Eastern Bloc proper, controlled from Moscow, the other, the Maoist "bloc", aligned with Beijing. Of the aforementioned countries, North Vietnam aligned with the Soviets; Cambodia and Albania, with the Chinese; North Korea and Yugoslavia effectively played the two off against each other; to a lesser extent, so did Cuba, though it was always much closer to the Kremlin than the first two; and third world revolutionary factions were evenly split (they were usually closer to the Chinese in ideology, but had a lot more to gain from the more powerful Soviet Union).

Hope this helps clear up the argument about "Second World (s)". It's kind of a moot point in any case since communism's now dead and buried and notions of First, Second and Third Worlds no longer apply. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Monotheism is an Oriental ideology and invention. It is an Asian influence in Western culture. So I will remove Monotheism from Western thought chapter. Even Christianity is not monotheistic from Asian point of view and least monotheistic among Abrahamic religions. Monotheism is anti-liberal model, constructed like absolute, asiatic monarchy, oposing to any form of pluralism. Islam is an ideal monotheistic religion, so Monotheism is essential part of Eastern culture.--Nixer 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the creed "I believer in one God", I think makes Christianity monotheistic as is its origins in Judaism. A monotheistic religion is not an anti-liberal model. The enforcement of only one "true" religion is an anti-liberal model. Just because an idea came from another geographic locaton does not make that idea any less western if it has been assimulated and is a part of the canon of Western interlectual ideas. Philip Baird Shearer 16:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the Judaists dont think so.--Nixer 19:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesent Christianity proclaim the Christianity the only true religion?--Nixer 19:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides I meant, the absolute authocratic monarchy was the basis for monotheistic model of the Universe.--Nixer 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then Monotheism both Western and Eastern canon, so it is not specific for Western ideology.--Nixer 19:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered any points I understood that you have made and I do not understand what you mean by "Besides I meant, the absolute authocratic monarchy was the basis for monotheistic model of the Universe". Philip Baird Shearer 23:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.Monotheism is not specific for Western thought.

2.There are many Western scholars that are atheists

3.The Western culture before Christian&Judaic (Eastern) influence was polytheistic.--Nixer 11:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes (but some as a %age, not many), yes. BUT in all western countries the majority of the population are christian. In some (like the UK) christianity is the established religion. Christianity has had, and continues to have, a profound influence on Western societies. What is more this is not a new affectation but one which has been part of the West for 1000 years or more. Further in most West European countries (with the possible exception of England), if a seizable immigrant population exists which is not Christian they are Muslim which is also a monotheism Philip Baird Shearer 12:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think, Muslim immigrants in Europe are not subjects of Western thought. Next, why not to point that Christianity is a part of Western thought for more than 1000 years explicitely? Next there was no rule of law and deductive law system in Europe for many centuries - especially after adoption of Christianity. Why we then point these issues?--Nixer 13:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have real problems following your arguments what do you mean by "Next there was no rule of law and deductive law system in Europe for many centuries - especially after adoption of Christianit" --Philip Baird Shearer 15:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the period after the fall of Western Rome (shortly after adoption of Christianity) until the reception of Roman law, also known as Dark Ages. All that centuries there was no actual deductive law system. Even later we can see practical absence of dedective practice especially in inquisition courts. Absence of deductive philosophy lasted even later. But in spite the fact there were no deductive law and philosophy in Europe for at least 5-6 centuries, we still say these all the parts of the Western thought. Why? Because we mention fundamental, earliest properties of European mentality, even if they disappeared for some time because of Christianity, eastern influence and related causes. So, if we say "pluralism is the essential part of the Western thought", we would be right, even though there was dominance of the one religion and one god for centuries.--Nixer 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not fully follow your argument. Usually if such a thing as Western thought exists one would construct the argument from the renaissance on thought the reformation and the enlightenment. In that several strands emerge among which "deductive reasoning", the "rule of law", and "monotheism" (I would use the word Christianity but who ever wrote the list used monotheism presumably because they think that Judaism is an important part of Western thought). I would add Double-entry book-keeping to the list as well.

First, why we should use Renaissance era, not 19th century, not 3th century? Second. There were very popular atheistic ideas during renaissance and enlightenment, especially, materialism. Of course, Judaism is NOT a Western cult.--Nixer 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the English texts, and this is an English language Encyclopaedia, the modern era and hence modern western thought is taken as starting with the Tudor dynasty and the English Renaissance, blame it on Shakespeare. The day before the Battle of Bosworth Field people went around saying gee I'm tired of living in the middle ages, I wish we could move into the modern era, and the day the battle they walked around saying isn't it wonderful to be living in the modern era :-) -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the classical civilisations of ancient Greece and ancient Rome influenced this process, just as Arabic arithmetic did, but few would argue that Western civilisation is only an outgrowth of the classical civilisations. For example the Witan which grew out of north German tribal traditions (along with common law) is much more of an influence on Parliamentary democracy in the English speaking world than the tracts by Plato. If one reads the Blackheath sermon by John Ball one can clearly read a strand of thought which has resonated down the centuries and had influenced both the C17th English and C18th American radicals. Bulls inspirations were Christianity and the old Anglo-Saxon ideas which underpinned their society (See also Norman Yoke). But just as Plato ideas do not define modern westrn thought, nor do John Bull's, they are however both strands of moden western thought. Philip Baird Shearer 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, may be western world uses some inventions of Chinese, India, Babylon, Arabic world or even American indians, we do not talk here about inventions, but about thought.

Of course, I know, some Christian fundamentalists believe that European civilisation started along with adoption of Christianity in the ancient Rome. --Nixer 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, rename the article to "Christian thought", place in monotheism, trinitarism, immortality of soul and apostle's creed and feel happy.--Nixer 19:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Western world and the content of the section we are talking about is "western thought". That includes such things as deductive reasoning, rule of law and monotheism. None of those things are exclusively Western ideas, it is just that those ideas form part of what is the western canon of thought. But I've already said this so we seem to be arguing in circles. Philip Baird Shearer 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the history of the article user:Miborovsky wrote:

I fail to see how zoroastrianism is considered either hellenic or christian.

No one is claiming that zoroastrianism is either Hellenic or Christian. What is bing stated is that belief in Monotheism is a cornerstone of western thought. As the first sentance says in the Christianity article "Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament writings of his early followers." I fail to see why you think that Monotheism and zoroastrianism are one and the same thing. Philip Baird Shearer 01:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer has already explained why monotheism should not be included here. But I don't want to war with you over this rather insignificant nitpick.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If yo want to include monotheism, why not to include trinitarism?--Nixer 07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism is the belief in one God, and the idea has been around for a long time. It is believed to have originated with the Jewish faith all the way back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--the declared founders of the Jewish faith. Monotheism is a religious belief, and nations, kingdoms, and governments have existed in their forms surrounded by religious belief. Monotheism practices is part of the Western Civilization especially after the founding of the Holy Roman Empire at the fall of the classical Roman Empire when a Hun took Italy as a kingdom. Like many things, Monotheism is part of the development of Western Civilization, but is one story among many including the invasions of the West by the barbarian kingdoms of the East. It would be better said that Christianity had a profound influence on Western Civilization instead of the broad term Monotheism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.191.111.143 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this matters but IMO the Western world is a fusion of the scientific process and logic with the morals fundamental in Christianity. Keeping the two seperate as much as possible. Ideally. I don't know man.

See Wikipedia:Talk page and See Help:Editing: "When adding a comment to a Talk page, you should sign it. You can do this by adding four tildes for user name plus date/time: ~~~~"

The term "western world" seems rather inadequate when used to qualify the countries that were once called "developed", "industrialised" or "first world" countries. Quite a few large countries (geographically, economically, culturally) cannot be qualified in terms of eastern or western. According to this definition, where should we place countries like Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc.? The differences between Europe and the United States are often understated with this simplist definition. This kind of terminology is, possibly, even more euphemistic than saying "developed countries" and "countries in development". ˜˜˜˜

Whoa, hold on there man! "Japan, South Africa and Brazil"? You don't really wanna compare figures here do you? Japan is developed and sure IS NOT a western country. in fact, for many people, it is another word for "east" whereas Brazil, well, sure it is not a developed country like the US or Canada but doubtlessly it is a western country, much more than south africa (yes, RSA is a western country). The freaking country was colonized by europe, they speak a romance language and are proud of being a part of the west! I mean, if that's not being western, then the US, Argentina, Canada, Australia and NZ are not western either!

Hi, just to say the first section of this article is FAR better written than most on the subject. It is written carefully, with intelligent phrases such as "It is thought that" and "is believed to be", rather than the infinitely stupid "Greece is European" statements I have grown to expect. So, although not completely correct in that respect, still, not bad! Good work. 80.65.242.154 (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Philippines considered part of the Western World? Compared with Iberoamerica, the Philippines also has a significant Western heritige. If Iberoamerica is sometimes considered part of the West, how about the Philippines? Qrfqr 07:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Philippines must be mentioned in this article. Jordz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The level of western heritage in the Phillippines is far lower than in Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted European-derived "ethnic identity" as a quinessential trait of Western society and retained "culture," since, of course Western societies are multi-ethnic. It is true that Western societies have their deepest cultural roots in western Europe, but to define the contemporary West as necesarily European ignores the multiethnic presence, inheritance, internalization, reproduction and alteration of the traits of Western societies. No one would deny that the United States in part of the West, but no one can honestly assert that its essential cultural and societal natures are exclusively European-derived as the opening section implied. Kemet 19 February 2006. Ireland is an ancient multi ethnic societies probably the first due to its strong oceanic seafaring and trade routes and links from North Africa, Spain and the med. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.133.240 (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general principle for the below (largely idiotic) debate, that I realized about the Hellenic Republic ("Greece"):

If the population wants to be western, it's usually because it isn't. Use this reverse psychology and things become clearer. "Western" people want to be exotic. Eastern people want to live in the West. So if non-Anglosphere/Northern Hemisphere people want to jump on the western bandwagon, you've gotta question their motives. Because I think most actual "westerners" would agree, being "western" certainly isn't a proud claim these days.

common sense brought to you by: 80.65.242.154 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To consider Latin America as not part of the western world is silly and completely racist.

The latin-americans were colonized by european settlers, just like the U.S. and Canada, and inherited the western traditional culture as any other region in the Americas.

The latin countries speak western languages, they are (for the most part) Christian, and were involved in western politics for last two centuries.

So why is latin america not western any more? Because it is a poor region? Because its citizens do not speak english? Huntington makes me sick.

I can't see any reason why not to include Latin America as a member of the western world. In most aspects it is even more "european" than it's northern neighbour. But yes, off course europeans and anglo-saxon americans won't consider it to be so, since most of them have no idea what they are talking about because they have never been to Latin America and their only source is what they read about it.

Why do you think the racial arguments should not be considered? If any country in the Black Africa becomes Christian and speaks English - it does not make the country "western".--Nixer 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of the concept is clearly racial based, therefore it lacks any form of scientific legitimacy, as you made it clear. o what do we do? the concept of "west" is a dominant one nowadays and wikipedia should try to explain it. Problem is: how do we explain such a phony abstraction on this website?--native_earthian 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article here defines Latin America as part of the west: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

The thing as is viewed from here (Chile):

• Latin American peoples speak mostly a Romance language. There are group that speak another languages (e.g. Quechua) but Spanish and Portuguese are the commonly used in most places. (On the other hand, New Zealand recognises Maori language and no one doubts its condition of western country).
• From their very independence, Latinamerican nations organised themselves following the western model of country and state. From the begining, there were a western law system, based on Roman and Napoleonic tradition. In Chile, armed forces were organised following British (Navy) and French (Army) systems. (When the Army went into reform, Prussian model was adopted).
• Latin America plays an important role on spanish culture (which is part of western culture). Neruda and Borges are 100% Western-literature!

Just take a newspaper of any Latinamerican country and look what kind of news are covered in the "World News" section.!

baloo_rch 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It seems there are different definitions of "western". You consider "western" as "derived from European culture". On the other hand I saw for example one research which considered Tuvalu, Vanuatu and other such countries "western" while Poland was considered "semi-western" and other east-European countries "non-western". From this point of view, western countries = NATO members and their colonies.--Nixer 10:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is such a variations on the same topic, I think in a general context the most inclusive definition should be used.

If the most inclusive definition is used, then we shall consider "Western" nearly any country - from Mexico to Korea and from Papua to Belarus.--Nixer 21:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, if the US is a part of the west, there is no reason why Latin America shouldn't be too. If someone thinks South Korea and Papua should be considered a part of the west, one should create another topic, since SK and Papua don't share the same historical conditions that L.America and the US and Canada share. The only diference between Latin America and it's northern brothers is that these are richer (and have north european ancestry).

Look, if Japan considered western, why not S.Korea then? If Tuvalu and Vanuatu considered western, why not Papua and Philippines then? They have much more chances to be called western than L.America and even East Europe. The main difference between Latin and North America is that there is mixed race population in the former, with indigenious population beiing dominant component. So, Latin America cannot consider Europe its ancestry, rather it should be considered as a number of liberated colonies, nothing more western then Kongo or Zimbabwe.--Nixer 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should look at the figures of Argentina and Chile before saying that (you've never been to Latin America, have you?)

Even if Latin American countries didn't have any european ancestry at all, that wouldn't mean anything. Latin American societies were founded over an european basis and it's cultures have, in most cases, suffered less influence from indigenous (if they have at all) than from european sources, but probably because the US is closer to Mexico (a country clearly more influenced from indigenous than from foreign culture) anglo-saxon americans don't realize that. Maybe the best would be not to consider the region as a whole, but specific coutries like Argentina, Chile, Uruguai, Brazil, Venezuela, Panama and Cuba

You are right, the particular countries should be considered. In modern sense of the word "western" is a political term and means allies of the USA. For example, Saudi Arabia is more western than Belarus. It is an ally of the USA, many western companies have divisions there, it has developed system of financial services, you can see advertisings in English there. Just the opposite in Belarus: there is no developed system of financial services, no big4, you will not see ads in English in Minsk and even the word "the West" has negative connotation in Belarus, especially when used on TV. So, speaking about America, for example Chile would be "Western" while Cuba - not.--Nixer 06:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i think we reached a consensus here. But still, when it comes to having european ancestry, there's something that should be said: if having european ancestry defines being western, then neither Los Angeles (majority of latinos) nor Israel (majority of non-european people)could be considered western. you can imagine how dangerous it could be to make this pattern of evaluation official.

In Israel the majority of Jewish population came from Europe where they lived since Julius Caesar's times and probably earlier. But did you read what I wrote? European ancestry does not make any sence: Belarus never was considered western while it is developed industrial European country with advanced science and technology and even the geographical center of Europe is situated in this republic. So, yes, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South Korea, Chile are western. China, Belarus, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Argentina are not western.--Nixer 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina? why not?

Is there pro-USA government there?--Nixer 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I guess all the non-western countries (whatever that is) in Latin America are Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela then. I guess there's a difference between the western world and the western civilization. But this is just another definition for "the west": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Westerncultures_map.png

Just for the record, I wan to add one more considerations:

• South American nations are pretty good playing the most popular western sport. Even more, there are two national teams there are two permanent candidates to win the World Cup. (:-D)

baloo_rch 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Latin_America#Western_World

Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, a Brazilian antropologist, affirms that even the Iberic countries, which originated the now so-called Latin America, were not exactly European countries. They were between different cultures, at the edge betwen Europe and Africa, West and East, and it was transmitted to the societies of the New World. Latin America may be or not included among Western countries depending upon the context -- may it be one from Samuel Hutington or not. It barelly has to do with etnicity, language, geographic position or cultural aspects, but do with political positions. That´s why it´s so hard to determine which of them are Western so categorically. The notion of Western world is a builded ideology much like the notion of nation, according to Hobsbawm.

And about Latin America be more European than North America, well, according to José Guilherme Merquior, another Brazilian anthropologist, it may be more European than even Europe itself! Because it was idealized an image of Europe, and the romantic notion of nation - a great influence to American countries - requires a revival of our ancestries. Meanwhile people of South America tried to be European during the last two centuries, Germans were trying to be Germans, Italians to be Italians and English to be English...

Personally, I do agree whith these authors, and do not consider Latin American countries - any of them - to be totally included or not in Western world... By the way, I think that Argentina was most of the time extremely pro-Western politics, maybe excluding a lapse of time during the ´40s and the ´80s. Alas, perhaps that´s why they reached such a precarious economic situation by the begging of the ´2000s... Tonyjeff 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Latin America sure isn't part of the eastern world...

My only question is why is Latin America "the West" but the former Soviet Union is not?

Both of them are distinct from the West in geopolitical and historical terms. Neither was a part of the Western alliance system; both of them have had and still have political conflicts with Europe and North America (the Cold War and present tensions for the FSU, Europe and America's colonial past and exploitation of resources for LA), and both of them could be seen as geographically distinct.

However, all three of them are originally from the same cultural stock. The dominant religions in both regions are shared with the West (Catholicism in LA, Eastern Orthodoxy and especially atheism in the FSU). The dominant political ideologies are definitely Western (communism, socialism, capitalism, Christian democracy, nationalism). And both their languages are either Western or derived from the West (LA speaks Spanish, Portugese, and French or English in a few isolated cases, while Russian and other languages in the FSU are distantly based in Greek).

As I see it you can include neither of them, or both. Admitting Latin America into "the West" but not the former Soviet Union makes no sense. 147.9.201.209 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a difference between Western World and Western Civilization. If you click on any link in Wiki for Western Civ it comes here. Why is this being confused with political matters like alliances with the USA? Communism, socialism, capitalism, are NOT Western by any historical sense whatsoever, but merely reactions to Western liberalism from Eastern European culture (German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Austrian, etc.) Western European cultural stems from England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, Dutch, Belgium, and all regions predominately Celtic and Nordic, not Germanic or Slavic which is Eastern. You gentlemen above are totally confusing utterly different cultures that have bene at odds with each other for more than two thousand years. Latin America's social, legal (civil law, not common law dominates), and religious history puts them outside of Western culture. Influenced perhaps, and with attempts to break away from Eastern-style society and government, but none the less culturally bound to it. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so first of all, we agree in that case that Latin America is not the West, anymore than the Slavic East. Case closed. I don't know how to edit that map though...

Related points; capitalism and socialism are not "reactions to Western liberalism from Eastern European culture" even by your standards and you should know that. The first theorist to set the basis for capitalism was Adam Smith, a Scot; socialism emerged in France and Britain, inspired by Robert Owen or Pierre Leroux. Communism could be considered a reaction, if you count the Germans as "eastern." They themselves would disagree. The best you can say is that they're their own group, stuck between West and East, which historically has been how they view themselves. But today, you'd find very few Germans who think they're not a part of the Western world.

If it's true that civil law and not common law dominates in Latin America, you should also know that civil law has its roots in Roman law, Catholic canon law and Enlightenment philosophy, and has been practiced in indisputably Western nations like France since - well, since those countries first started having laws. And Latin America inherited it from the Spanish, another Western country.

Finally as far as religious history goes it's hard to get more western than Catholicism. 147.9.201.240 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many common falcies to even begin. Adam Smith never once used the word "capitalism", which was first primarily used by Marx. Adam Smith was not in favor of any such aristocratic control over economic affairs, which is what capitalism is, as defined by Marx anyway. (Others do define is very differently.) Smith was against mercantilism, a form of capitalism run by the merchant class empowered by royal charters. The East India Company is a classic historical example of mercantilism and big business gone wrong. That kind of economics belongs to no civilization, for it was practiced by all, especially the ancients. As for socialism, Robert Owen was no more a socialist than Adam Smith a capitalist, again words applied to people that evidently did not understand them, or only agreed with a part, by the the whole, of they believed. By that logic, one could call Plato a socialist, or Washington even, for both promoted some form of classless society ... but classless society comes in many flavors. Though Western Civ may be the first civilization ever to have brought classless society to reality, in did not do this by concentrating power into the hands of the few as most socialists pursue. Adam Smith set the basis for liberal economics, not capitalism, completely different ideas. Only recently could the USA or Australia be regarded as capitalist countries. In the 1800's, before the advent of the railroad companies, those countries were far from it. This may be confusion to Europeans, however, who have never experienced the kind of economics Adam Smith promoted. It took revolutionaries like Washington to finally impliment such economic policies.

No, the ideals behind socialism and communism are very Easterm (where rigid Roman social structure remained intact) or, that is to say, very Roman. It was the responsibility of the imperator, the head of the oligarchic intellectual rhetoric class to plan all aspects of society, economics, relegion, etc. Ancient peoples generally so no seperation of church and state (strictly a Western ideal), let alone a seperation of state and economics (state-controlled economic planning collapsed utterly during the Dark Ages.) Karl Marx is a reaction to the Greco-Roman Caste System, which ironically has been far more rigid than anything experienced in India. Owen is a reaction to emerging capitalism (mercantilism) in England and entities like the East India Company, also inspired by Roman ideals. As I said before, Western Civ has always been at odds with Roman ideals, and reacted negatively to them, while Eastern countries embraced them. England was the first country to throw off feudalism, a throw-back to Roman social society reinforced briefly by the Norman conquest. The Normans heroicaly endorsed Roman social structure, which was forced upon England, not embraced. It took the Golden Age to finally turn the tide, and even then Eastern countries (not literally in the East, remember) like Spain attempted to halt this, and failed.

And thus, that is the point of my mentioning civil law and its dominion over Spain, which evolved from Roman law, further emphasizing my point. Spain is quite thoroughly non-Western, as seven centuries of Islamic rule attest in their history. Islamic Civilization, like Eastern Orthodox Civilization, leans heavily on the Greco-Roman ideal of society, of which theocracy is only one aspect. Spain get's a double dose of Romanization, Catholic and Muslim, which their Inquisition and bad behavior in America attest to as well. Now, if the Germans consider themselves Western, well of course, they lost both wars and were assimilated. The ancient Germanians and the Medieval Germans are no more. Perhaps they've been Westernized, but their society as a whole is still predominately Romanized. After all, the Medieval Germans had a special relationship with the Romans defending their borders, of which no Western people were apart of.

Just as many people like to claim to be Western, Westerners like to claim many events not their own, like the Renaissiance. Perhaps the Templars helped influence this event, but rather, the rare benefit of gathering the sciences of three entirely different civilizations were at play here, since they are right at the center of Western, Eastern, and Islamic. No one civilization can claim it for themselves, to be fair. If you really want to compare civilizations, than look at Phoencian Civilization, which has far more in common socially than with Roman society and law. The Romans, in fact, copied the Carthiginian form of constitutional republic, and learned from them maritime law, most likely from Rhodos, a Phoenician island before it became Greek. Carthage, the last stronghold of Phoenician Civilization, had no love for tyrants, no famous Caesars, no desire for rigid social controls. And since they had a colony in Cornwall for the tin mines, where the Pretani Celts learned how to use chariots and build roads (paved over by the Romans much later) then there is a direct influence. But, like most egalitarian societies that have contempt for rigid social classes, Carthage was wiped out, and its records burned, and to the victor goes the writing of history. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adam Smith was not in favor of any such aristocratic control over economic affairs."

There's nothing "aristocratic" about capitalism. The dictionary definition is "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." Private ownership is exactly what Adam Smith advocated, and he condemned most forms of government interference in the marketplace ("state-owned means of wealth.")

Then the definition keeps changing, but traditionally means corporate control over investments, not private individuals. Corporate and individual ownership are entirely different, just as land owned by an individual family is managed differently than if a corporation owned that land. A corporate officer is a creature of the state, it is protected by the state, it is chartered (created) by the state. Adam Smith new this very well in his criticism of companies like the British East India Company, and other such joint-stock companies given givernment preference. A corporation is a private company given legal benefit, rather than a small business owner (Adam Smith ideal) that enjoys no such advantage. However, if you define capitalism as most libertarian, or how Ayn Rand used it, then we are speaking of another ideal of capitalism never put into practice in history, except maybe around the late 1800's. The bottom line is this, Adam Smith did not use the word capitalism, which meant at first the merchant or investor class elite (capital, from Latin, top, cap, etc.) As far as I know, it was Carl Marx that first began using the word in its present context, and his enemies foolishly defended a word they perceived appropriate at the time to defend themselves from Marxism. But just as Marx's idea of middle-class is total alien to American history (which never had the same kind of middle-class Europe did), Marx's idea of capitalism was also totally different than we perceive today. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As I said before, Western Civ has always been at odds with Roman ideals, and reacted negatively to them, while Eastern countries embraced them."

And this fantasy is based on? What we call "the West" in this article is the civilization that "originated in the northern and eastern Mediterranean with ancient Greece and ancient Rome," see the opening paragraph of this article. West Celtic and Norse but not Roman or Greek? What are you talking about? 147.9.167.183 (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy? No, from years and years of academic researchers such as Carroll Quigley. See Evolution of Civilization that defines quite well the differences between Classical Greco-Roman and Western Civilizations, as well as Orthodox Civilization of Eastern Europe. This article needs a lot of work, and this is only the beginning. The Romans and Greeks are given entirely too much credit for modern society, of which we share very little today. Their brightless has blinded us to the contributions of other civilizations, like Phoenicia and Carthage. If one wants to speak of the origin of civilizations, you have to go back much further than the Greeks and Romans, to Mesopotamia and Canaan and Old Kingdom Egypt (which was much different from the New Kingdom before the Greek invasion.) What about Thrace or Scythian influences? The Greeks get their due credit, after all, Celtic druids all spoke Greek back then anyway. The Celts also used chariots, had roads, and built walls around their cities, long before the myth of "All Roads Lead to Rome." Carthage had running hot and cold water centuries before Rome did. The Greeks did not become important until they started using the Phoenician alphabet. Despite all their cleverness, they never really understood democracy in Athens, or took advantage of the steam engine invented by Heron of Alexandria. They had too many slaves to make use of those things, were Western Civilization is the ONLY civilization that learned all on its own how to work without slaves. So give credit were credit is due and don't be so narrow-minded. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that according to your anal attention to detail we're not allowed to call U.S. citizens "Americans" because they're originally from Europe... Wikipedia is concerned with words as they are used in a modern context, not whether it's fair or entirely accurate that these words are now used as such. "The West", today, refers to Europe and North America; in history, it refers to most of the civilizations of Europe (Greco-Roman culture in the south, Celtic and Germanic in the north). With apologies to the Carthaginians and their Phoenician relatives, they aren't what we mean when we talk about the West. If you don't like it, well, change the English language. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the reference to South Korea as not being a wealthy, non-industrial country. It's certainly wealthy, with a per capital GDP of over US$20,000 (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html) and one of the world's industrial powerhouses. Gerry Lynch 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the key to the mpa provided on this page?

We are not talking about "rich countries" versus "poor" ones, this article is not about that. We are talking about Western culture. A country can belong to Western world, understood as Western civilization, or some form of it, and not being rich or poor. Besides, a country's echonomy can be rich, and people be poor, or there can be poor people in the country, as it's typical from capitalist system, which is based on a disproportional, jerarchic distribution of richness and benefits, and that's a fact. DeepQuasar 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "There are also Bible Belts in Europe and Canada." As there was nothing backing it up , bible belt links straight to the southern USA and as a European have never heard the term used over here. On the other hand something like it does exist - Catholic conservative is a major force in Poland, Portugal and Southern Italy for example. So if someone knows enough to write something about this it's probably for the best. Also really don't know about Canada.A Geek Tragedy 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

I think the cultural aspects of this page should be moved to Western culture. See for the discussion: Talk: Western culture. Sijo Ripa 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that someone who's not a big fan of Western Civilisation has been editing the Criticisms section. I removed some gibberish about Post-Modernism being a symptom of Western decay and decadence. Right. Anyway, it's filled with weasel words and no sources to back up pretty random statements. But i love the Western World, bring on Girls Gone Wild and Plato's Republic, so i don't want to help anyone criticize those gems. Live long and prosper Qa Plar.

This section is filled with delirium of drunk punk.--Nixer 18:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the paragraph about Islamic influence on the Western World is removed from this section. Perhaps a more considered and better sourced version could be added to one of the earlier sections about the historical evolution of the Western World? Hoos-foos

I suggest to revome the entire section in its present state.--Nixer 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Belarus is not called western, even though it is a developed Eurupean country", if we exclude the fact that they are one of the poorest countries in Europe, with a medium level of HDI and the only one that still has death penalty and effectivelly uses it.

What is your point exactly? In fact Belarus was the most industrially developed republic in the USSR. Most Soviet computers (especially mainframes) were built in Belarus. Now it exports military machinery, agriculture machinery, carrier mining equipment etc. It also held first place in printing books. --Nixer 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, its HDI is medium-leveled, and it is not a democracy. BTW, Belarus is a creation of the 19th century; its language was invented (based on the "old bielorussian", it was constructed actually) as well as pretty much anything about it. it's a buffer, artificial state. Still, it is a western state and has the right to be called so.

Belarus never been called western in any sense.--Nixer 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the "modern sense", for the better I hope (Saudi Arabia is a western nation? What?). But if someone could clean up the Russia bit, I'd appreciate it, I feel like my explanation was a bit shaky.--Elcocinero 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and this includes Aus Nz South Africa japan russia china and brazil(debatable) amonst other.... its makes much more sense than this western nonsense which is really just a meadia buzzwordOwwmykneecap 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the map of linguistic split in Proto-Indo-European language circa 6000-8000 years ago.--Nixer 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem in this section is that the term "Western" has become fairly context sensitive and fluid in its meaning. The way this section comes across is as if to say "here's a simple way of describing how everybody sees it" which is not really valid. As others have indicated the meaning of the term today is actually relatively vague. One thing that tends to be true is that the "average American" (including most American newcasters) tends to consider a "Western" country as being the U.S., any of the more recent economic powerhouses of western Europe (England, Germany, France), or any countries whose populous originated or is perceived to have originated from one of these other countries (Canada, Australia). Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. are usually (but not always) included as "Western" because of their perceived cultural affiliation. The nations of South America are frequently excluded today because their perceived poverty makes them seem too far removed from the "Great Western nations." As has been mentioned this is largely a matter of cultural bigotry and racism.

I believe truthfully the "right" way to define this term is based on its origins. That is, the term was originally used in Europe (ignoring separate pre-Roman definitions) to refer to the Western and Eastern Roman Empire and to refer to the nations/cultures that inherited from each. This is where the modern use of the word comes from (although it is sometimes hard to tell because of how much the term's meaning has morphed). As history has progressed, of course, the lines between these two cultural groups have become blurred and today the terms are often abused to justify preconceptions. So in a general sense the "right" thing to say is really that the term has little concrete meaning when referring to modern nations. --MCorazao 14:54, 10 Aug 2006 (CDT)

I really agree with you Mcorazao. I persnally think the way the term "western" has evoluted that today it doesn't mean nothing anymore. As a French person although I consider myself Westerner in the original meaning, I tend to not recognise in most of its modern conotations.

I tend to think that the whole point of view of the so-called "western culture" seems very confusing and oriented in a American-centred point of view.

The basic confusion is, in my opinion, as it is made in usual language between "western culture" as refering to European christian cultures (with the huge cultural differences, like beetween latin/catholic-based cultures and Anglo/Protestant-based cultures for exemple) with "modernity" (social modernity, technological modernity, fashions, etc.) and with "American civilisation". I think that in the USA these three concepts overlap and make the American society. The consequence of this overlaping is that from an American point of view (in this article) a lot of characteristics which are basically American, or caracteristics which are modern societies caracteristics are all put in this whole "western culture" group. As if all of these elements were basically common traditional elements of all western countries; Which is completly wrong. A lot of these caracteristics (such as consumerism, lost of honor codes, society oriented to personal development and material improvement, nuclear-family based society, etc. Are things that were completly inexistant in most western European countries only 40 years ago. I'm from France, my parents were born in a society which was part of the western civilisation since thousands of years, but without a lot of these tipical things of the "modern civilisation". It was before the modernization/Americanisation of the sixties (and excuse me also the tem "americanisation", because it was also in big part made with cultural things of American origins, musics, fashions, etc.)

I thing that calling these "modern global culture of American origin" "western culture" can be very confusing because it is not basically a caracteristic of all countries of western culture (even in western Europe a lot of people continue to live following a more "traditional way of life (which is western by the way)".

This confusion with of the two different concepts can lead some "sociologists" such as huttington to draw maps of "civilisation" made on an exclusive USA's point of view, in which "western" means more or less "in the sphere of influence of the modern American civilisation and way of life". which would mean that to be "western" a country is supposed to be rich, democratic, consumerist, practicing all these modern values, enjoying "international" fashion such as hip-hop culture or fast foods and leisure parks, etc. Which would mean that all the countries that does not share these "modern" caracteristics are not supposed to be of "western culture", which is of course wrong. Myself I am shoked to see that latin-America is excluded from huntington's "western civilisation", since these countries, despite being generally poor, share much more of lot of traditional values and cultural caracteristics that are present in my own western country than in the USA, through the latin herency and the catholic values.

I am also disturbed with the confusion wich is made between "modern civilisation" and the Greco-Roman civilisation. If Grego-Roman was one the the foundations (bringing christianity with it) of the European civilisation, it was not the only one. Germanic civilisation for exemple is another, especially important for northen European civilisation, which have developped their own version of christianity, quite different from the Roman catholic one. But put Greek and Roman civilisation as the fathers of the "modern consumerist civilisation" is just wrong; These civilisations have influenced much more the mediterranean Europe (which curiously is less "westernized" (in the "modern" meaning), or is since less time. Which is the symbol of western civillisation and which has more link to greco-roman world: the modern the "fast-food", or the Italian "slow-food" ? The problem is, with all the confusion with the term "western culture", when thinking of westernization most people would think more "fast-food" than the traditional family social meal of the mediterranean regions. Another point is that linking the "modern western culture" with "greek" herency, is too forget that greek civilisation can be as much a point of reference for European culture than for eastern mediterranean cultures. Especially for the arabo-muslim civilisation who took a lot in greek (and Roman too) culture, wich was present ont he mediterranean regions before the arrival of the Arabs. Greek philosophy, Greek science astronomy, poetry, mathematics have been one of the main foundations of the Islamic civilisation. The Greco-roman urbanity and architecture (introverted patio-based architecture, baths, etc) had also much more influence on islamic cities than on European ones (especially on north American and northern European ones). we could find much more other exemples.

I dont agree with the last passage. Yes, Arabs received something from Classical Antiquity, especially some inventions, but it did not change their culture. Islam has nothing in common with Greco-Roman world.--Nixer 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I'm not sure I agree depending on what you mean. Speaking of the culture of the groups and not their religious beliefs, I believe it is certainly true that the traditionally Islamic countries inherited a lot from the Romans (i.e. the "Greco-Roman" world). This can be easily seen in the similarities in architectures between many predominantly Muslim countries and many slavic countries. The primary reason for this, of course, would be that for a long time the "Islamic World" was predominantly the Ottoman Empire which had taken over the Roman Empire and incorporated a lot of its knowledge and even traditions (as reflected in the Sultan's refering to himself as Caesar). Indeed, it is worth noting that the crescent moon and star, used in the flags of many predominantly Muslim nations, was the symbol for New Rome (i.e. Constantinople) which the Sultan adopted when he conquered the city (the cresent moon portion of it was a pagan symbol for the original city of Byzantium). Certainly the Arabs did not adopt as much as the Slavs and Greeks but the fact that the modern Islamic countries are very different from Russia, Greece, and Western Europe has more to do with the fact that all these countries have changed substantially since the collapse of the Roman Empire than how much they inherited from the Romans. --Mcorazao 05:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole concept of "western" has become too much incaccurate in its modern meaning that the role of an encyclopedia (especially an international and global one) is precisely to stop the confusion and should be less American-centred. This article should avoid to use the word "western" in the cold-war political meaning and in the same time put the accent just in the historical meaning that include European cultures, and explain why it is hasardous to use "western" as synomym of "modern societies".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_culture"

Can anybody create a map with Roman Empire and Parthia depicted at the same time and Rome and Ctesiphon also pointed?--Nixer 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the following section, on the Centum-Satem split:

"A linguistic split occurred with Indo-Europeans circa 6000-4000 BC. A satemization process developed in the East part of the Indo-European areal. Those dialects of Proto-Indo-European language that occurred in the Western part evolved later into Germanic, Celtic, Italic and Greek languages, situated mostly in Western Europe. Those occurred in the Eastern part later evolved into Slavic, Baltic, Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Albanian and Armenian languages. This split pre-determined differences in cultures of the peoples of the both parts."

Apart from being terrible English, it's completely OR speculation. Not of course the fact that the centum-satem split exists. But the idea that it is in any way related to the modern concept of the West is, well, preposterous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it is related to historical division. I am restoring the section, you welcome to inprove it of course.--Nixer 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your saying so doesn't make it so. The centum-satem split is normally not described as a cultural or ethnic split. Even if it was, it would be a far cry to claim it was related in any way to the emergence of the notion of "the West" millenia later. "Pre-determined differences"? Nonsense. If someone in the literature has claimed so, then by all means bring forward the references. Until then, it's OR in the very worst sense. I'll give you an opportunity to respond here before I remove it again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notion of pre-determined differences. In fact the C-S split is well supported theory in scientific community. In fact it is also related to differences between language families in I-E culture, such as differences between Germanic, Italic and Slavic cultures. We can of course include even earlier split of PIE in a number of families, the split which actual nothing less even now, since it predetermined the split of Europe into Germanic, Romance and Slavic worlds. It is also related to the religious split, because the common Slavic alphabet was developed by Byzantine shcolars and since most Slavs became culturally tied to Byzantine Empire.--Nixer 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you didn't get my point. Nobody denies the existence of the C-S split. What is being questioned is whether it is causally related to the later developments. Do you seriously believe that the fact that the Slavic word for '100' starts with "s" and not "k" plays any role in the perception of cultural differences today?? Even your argument about the religious division actually contradicts your claim, because the split between Western and Eastern christianity cross-cuts with the C-S isogloss (Slavic is S as you say, Greek and Armenian are C). But it's no use arguing here, just bring those references and be done with it. Of course, references not for the C-S split as such, but for its relatedness to the later concepts. Until then, I'm removing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree that the split into Germanic, Italic and Slavic language families (which historically became dominant in Europe) related to the modern sence of the West? The three cultures, which later expanded their influence outside Europe, whth Germanic peoples took N. America, Romance peoples took S. America and Slavic peoples took North Asia, determining in general the modrn worlwide boundaries between the East and the West. The C-S split is also related to the palatalization ("softenization") process, developed with most satem languages, the reason why we even now unable properly transliterate Russian in Wikipedia using Latin alphabet. BTW, Armenian is a Satem language.--Nixer 10:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected as to Armenian being Satem (but there is a hypothesis that it's only secondary and not part of the original Satem split, see Graeco-Armenian, that's why I had Centum in mind). As for the rest, my argument stands. Stop speculating, bring sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify first which fact do you contest? First, do you disagree that the split into Germanic, Italic and Slavic language families (which historically became dominant in Europe) related to the modern sence of the West?--Nixer 10:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the notion of "Original research" really that difficult to understand? If you want to talk about language families in relation to "The West", then get sources doing that. I'm not disputing any "facts", I'm disputing the legitimacy of freely associating topics with each other based on your fancy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that Western European countries are primarily Germanic and Romance. Do you need sources?--Nixer 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing this on RfC. I had planned to do the same in case you couldn't be convinced. On the matter itself, I have nothing more to say at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from RfC: The Centum-Satum "split" is now usually seen as an areal feature, not a dialectal split, and both the article section and the reasons for it here consist mainly of unsourced speculation or irrelevancies. I agree that the section should be removed. Ergative rlt 16:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says it is not areal feature. Did you read the section?--Nixer 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording in both the original and on this page suggests that the split is the basis for the various listed families, a view not widely held today. The satem innovation spread to the Slavic etc. families, but this is irrelevant to whether these families are considered part of the cultural/historical "Western world." Ergative rlt 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says "the split is basis"? In fact Italic, Germanic and Celtic languages evolved from centum languages, and Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, Armenian, Iranian - fron those which experienced the satemization. This is a fact and it stated in the section. No further assumptions made (I have removed the sentence that this split predetermined differences in cultures of those peoples).--Nixer 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the claim, for the purpose of this article, is a trivial one. Satem/centum is only one of many isoglosses, without more relevance than the others, and is not a valid east/west distinction: the resemblance between the isogloss and nations of the Eastern and Western world is a coincidence, and the resemblance breaks down entirely when Hittite and Tocharian are considered. It might not even be a single innovation, but a series of independent ones, the sound changes involved being quite unremarkable. In any event it is not significant for a definition of "Western world", and your attempts to make it seem so in some of your earlier statements are quite frankly irrelevant or incorrect. If you feel that it is significant, please provide reliable sources that point to satem/centum as a meaningful part of the concept of the Western world. Ergative rlt 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC I agree that the section needs to be sourced to a reliable reference work if it is to stay. Seems like a matter of slight importance to this article...I lean toward deletion. Durova 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the picture itself might be brought back just as an illustration as to how far back potential divisions into Orient and Occident can be traced in (proto-)history. Since those arguing that its overlapping with later notions is a mere coincidence didn't cite any sources either, I think the two opinions are at even. After all, language and culture are often closely interwoven, and the Centum-Satem isogloss laid the foundation for the Germanic and the Illyric/Hellenic/Romanic languages, cultures which are generally regarded as the fundament of Western civilization. One might regard the Centum-Satem split as a preformation that would evolve into notions of "Europe" and "Asia" that seem to be all set by the time of Homer's writings already, or of the Greco-Persian Wars at the latest. --TlatoSMD, 15:40, 19 September 2006 (CEST)

One of the first sentences read "The term Western World or "the West" can have Robbie B multiple meanings depending on its context." I don't know why Robbie B was there, so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.35.231 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for spotting it. That was just a piece of silly everyday vandalism that hadn't been reverted yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still unclear and hard to know from this article where exactly in the continent of Europe goes the borderline which separates the so called "Western World" from the rest of the world which lies eastwards. This article suggests that the sharp line of separation is exactly what used to be the former Iron Curtain - then it could be as easy and clear as black and white. But that still brings some problems escpecial from American point of view not so familiar with intricate situation in European history - for example the Germany case - from 1945 to 1989 divided by the Iron Curtain - according to that theory eastern part of Germany (German Democratic Republic aka Eastern Germany) except West Berlin enclave would be clearly in the Eastern Europe and therefore outside of Western World and once being out in Soviet Bloc forever lost in east until now. Other case is The Czech Republic - without any doubt in American eyes it clearly lies in the Eastern Europe - so outside western world ... but when you go to that country which is EU and NATO member - for example its capital - city of Prague - you can suprisingly see so many signs of the evidently classic "western" culture that are even medieval - older than the leading core of the western world - U.S.A. - Detailed look at history of The Czech Republic shows area of the nowadays Czech Republic was already "westernized" thousand years ago - by the western christianity since 10th century AD. In other words the result is that many examples of traditional classic western culture are located actually outside western world in places which were "westernized" in medieval ages before America was discovered back in 1492. Then I suggest that there shoud be thorough discussion especially in thr U.S.A. to change superficial and simplistic view that there is no other Europe than Western and Eastern, while completely ignoring Central Europe and puting it in the East and outside Western World ...and then suddenly being surprised that in fact that area was "westernized" long before America. Any suggestions of solution? --Bluewind 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean saying "westernized"? Was Gallia westernized by July Caesar? Was Russia westernized by Greek missionairs? Was Judea westernized by Titus? Was Bactria and Egypt westernized by Alexander the Great? I think there are some places which were "westernized" long before Eastern, Central and North Europe... Or do you mean only Western Christianity (catholicism)?--Nixer 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Nixer - IMHO Judea and Egypt are not the suitable case - I just meant for exaple the comparison between Vienna, Austria vs. Prague, Czech Republic, these two cities has so much common in long history, politics and architecture so that I really don´t understand why Vienna is undoubtely part of the Western World while Prague is placed beyond frontier of Western World and excluded from it and labeled as part of Non-western civilization. And by the way - Prague is geographicaly located more westwards than Vienna. That is why I still have serious doubts about eastern frontiers of Western World in Europe as they are defined in this wiki article. --Bluewind 12:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody excludes Prague from European civilization. And as the common meaning of Western world are the allies of the USA, Prague is also a part of the Western World (along with for example, Japan and South Korea).--Nixer 16:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer - It would be fine if it was true that "Nobody excludes Prague from European civilization.", but every day the vast majority of Americans is told at US schools and by the US media that Europe is simply and clearly divided by the exact line (former Iron Curtain) to Western Europe and Eastern Europe and nothing lies between and that only Western Europe is part of the Western World & Civilization, and what lies on the other side of that line (such as Prague, Czech Republic) is part of world that is yet to be westernized. Prague mentioned above was part of the Western World for thousand years and just because only of a few last recent decades of rule of Communist government during Cold War (even in Eastern Germany was ruled by communist government) majority of Americans therefore think that thousand years long history process was destined to that artificial division which will be kept sticked and frozen forever. I know this is "English Wikipedia" then I expect that the Americans here will not agree with me just because they were never told about it that way at their schools and colleges. --Bluewind 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand years ego were no USA and since the present-day definition cannot be applied backwards. As you rightfully pointed, the communist rule means nothing in the modern division (as the GDR was ruled by communists). The Chech Republic probably not a part of Western Europe becuse it is inhabited by Slavs, not by Germans (see above section). And it is not a part of Western World because it still has small percentage of foreign capital in its economy.--Nixer 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the Czech Republic is not geographicaly part of Western Europe, but I think that "Western World" spreads far beyond former iron curtain into geographic and cultural area of so called "Central Europe" which (unfortunately) the Americans do not know much about, except that some communism once was there. Truly the Czechs are the Slavonic nation, but mostly roman catholic, always using latin alphabet, EU, NATO, OECD member, end except of some decades of communism the Czechs are sharing common political, economic and religious history with Germany and Austria and not with Russia which is different being based on orthodox christianity and cyrillic alphabet (azbuka). And as for foreign investment in the Czech Republic - 90 percent GDP ($19.000 per capita/PPP purchasing power parity) is made by industry, commerce and retail which was privatised in 1990s into hands of mostly german, french, dutch, british, swiss, swedish, austrian and even american companies, and influx of foreign investmenst (very high per capita) continues recently especialy into car and transport equipment industry. I think a phenomenon of rapidly changing Central Europe should be precisely considered when defining frontiers of Western World.--Bluewind 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should include Cote d'Ivoire, Sudan, and Malawi as U.S. allies. And why isn't India labeled as a Soviet ally?

Also, Mozambique had an anticommunist guerrilla movement (RENAMO), so should be labeled accordingly. And Panama in 1980 was not a U.S. ally.

Here's my version of the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cold_War_map.PNG

Feedback, whether positive or negative, is welcome. Josh 09:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map key: Dark blue = NATO Blue = Allied to West Maroon = Warsaw Pact Red = Allied to East (but not necessarily Communist) Josh 14:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also forgot - mine is the world in 1980 Josh 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, El Salvador and South Africa should be marked as having communist guerrillas. Josh (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Though I can read several modern and Western languages, I only write well in a non Western Spanish: I am from Argentina and I teach Spanish and Latin. In the section in Spanish my question is more clear.

When and where, and by who, the expression Western Chistianity was replaced by Western World, Culture or Civilization? If the process, as I presume, was that.

I'm asking not only for its first use in English, of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.244.222.3 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I tried rewording some fo the "Western life and thought" section for POV but there is still a lot of statements in there that at best are not cited and at worst are highly biased. I added a POV citation so hopefully somebody with more time and energy can clean this up. --Mcorazao 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be cited as a part of the "West" --Ludvikus 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i know that western people don't consider Argentina as western culture or western world because of ignorance of because it's not a totally developed country, but i think at least it deserves a special mention in the article... in terms of "european culture", Argentina is the most european country in America, just take a look at Buenos Aires architecture, their people their costumes; it also has the biggest welsh colonia outside wales, more basque population than the basque country itself ... And what about this paragraph..."Culturally, many Latin Americans, particularly Argentines, Uruguayans, Chileans and Brazilians, firmly consider themselves Westerners, especially the ruling classes, although some Western Europeans and North Americans would probably not include these Latin Americans in their concept of Western. This happens mainly due to racist misconceptions and due to the fact that in Latin America, Europeans mixed with aboriginal populations" In Argentina mixed people only represent 15% or 20% of the polulation, 75% or more of the population is white.

I think that most people do consider Latin-America culturally mainly Western (religion, tradition, architecture, history, labguage, values, etc.) but not politically (NATO, ANZUS, NAFTA, EU). Sijo Ripa 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is Latin-America and specially South Conus (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, specially) coloured in purple, as a separate block, and not in the same dark-blue colour for the rest of Western Christendom, in Hungtinton's map? Latin-America is majoritarily (not completely) Catholic. By the way, I thing it's a bit silly separating blocks according to its religion, and not to its culture as a whole. Western world is not monolitic, and of course, not catholic or protestan christian as its whole, there are many atheans or agnostics, as well as in Islamic there are important christian, zoroastran and jewish communities. That should be looked. I propose a modifiation of that map, in order for it to be more just and exact, and less stereotypized, less prejudized. Russia is as Western culture as Britain, France, Germany or Spain. And Spain is not less Hispanic, nor Italy or Portugal are less Latin, than Latin America as its whole. And by the way, Buddhist world should include northern India and Tibet (that are put into Hindu or Sinic block, respectively, what it's not very exact at all). I propose such a modifiation, or an alternative map which is more exact. DeepQuasar 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---Western means industrialized 1st world countries. Argentina is only partly industrialized.

Western is a cultural (and political) concept, not an economic one. As any economist would point out: most European economies are deindustrializing (gradually (but not completely) shifting to a service economy). An economic definition would be too narrow: e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, etc. were Western before they became rich/industrialized. Western world also predates the 20th century. E.g. Hellinic and Roman and Medieval times. Sijo Ripa 00:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile are all industrialized, against common belief. Argentina is about 85% European, a much higher percentage than the U.S. Uruguay has no American Indians in the population, but instead has a small amount of Africans and Asians, with a total of about 94% European. Chile itself is more mixed European and American Indian. These three countries have just recently, within the last 5 years, crossed the industrialization line, and are part of the 1st world. These three countries exhibit democracy to its fullest as well. Just because the average American thinks all Latin Americans are "poor nearly fully Native American Mexicans" does not mean the whole of Latin America is the same. There are many people of blond hair-blue eyes (part of Hitler's Aryan race) in Latin America. Latin America is just as much as a melting pot as the US and Canada, maybe even less so than the US. Casey14 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Crossed the industrialization line"? Are you insane? By no conceivable economic benchmark could you consider any of these countries on par with Western Europe/North America/Japan. If you are talking about industrialization in an industrial (as opposed to development) perspective, then most large Latin American countries including Mexico and Brazil are also industrialized and they have been not from the past 5 years but since the 1960s and 70s. One can make the case that Chile is ever closer to achieving first world standards of prosperity but I dare you to argue with facts that Argentina and Uruguay are in the same league. Please people, if you don't know what you're talking about... don't talk. --201.141.249.26 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina reached fourth richest echonomy during a part of XX century. There was a time, most of poor Spanish and Italian people, like Galicians, Canarians, Napolians, Sicilians, etc., where seeking to migrate there, and that's since XIX. But by then, it was "the granary of the world" or "of Europe". During XX century, it reached a high and growing industrial rate, anyway. And Chile, well... Do you know some late modern history? Remember about 70s, when Salvador Allende... how people started taking factories, against their boss' purpose, when these wanted to collapse echonomy, by stopping production, and so defeat Allende's reformist and collectivist policies, against high burgeoise, neo-liberal and US interests for the area, but most workers started taking factories, and directing them collectively, they even ended up trading, exchanging or directly distributing their products themselves. This way, they supported a goveirn of a rich, industrialized echonomy, but where most workers enjoyed of humble standards (ridicoulous salaries, many hours), that favoured them by adopting certain collectivist laws, when, for exemple, a boss was exploiting workers, or payed them few, or wanted to stop production to press goveirning left, or when some latifund lands were unproductive and landless peasants took them, divided them, and made them product, and this way could survive, and country's aboundance and so people's standards increased. This communist/socialist-like process, even into a capitalist country and echonomy, would have been no possible in an undistrialized or poorly industrialized country, as for exemple, Russia was in 1917. People were about to achieve a revolution, but then CIA and US pression, and the high burgeoise and the right or extreme right inside, supported a militar Estate strike, with ultra-rightist generals like Pinochet (generals and high commanders are usually related to high burgeoise, high Estate, rich peasants, etc., that's why they seek so much for the Estate, that they call "fatherland", instead seeking for people living into it, that would be the real "fatherland"). This wouldn't have been possible, between 69 and 73, in an undustrialized country. This happened in Chile in early 70s, and got US administration's really worried for their rich men with investions there, and they geoestrategical neo-liberal policies. This is Chile. One of most European countries in South Conus, as well as Argentina and Uruguay (that are even more). By the way, Native Amerindian people there are a minority, there're not even many mestizoes, there, most were and are Hispanic and European descents. Not many Amerindians are left in South Conus, partly for its low demographical density or rate, and strong European migrations, and partly for "land struggles", as in US, during XIX, or before. South Conus is as Western as Canada. US is less western, to my opinion, except maybe for the coastals, and the old East. And of course, Chile or Argentina are today MORE EUROPEAN THAN SPAIN, or southern Italy. DeepQuasar 16:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such bollocks. First, let me say that original research has no place on wikipedia. Now for my own opinion and original research. Latin America would love to be in the Western world but it clearly is not. And I do know what I'm talking about, I lived and worked in Argentina for two years. There is as much difference between Europe/US with Argentina as with India. We simply do not see the world with the same eyes. This contributed to making my stay especially interesting (I love the "make people happy" culture). I do also know that the Argentineans are obsessed about looking like Europeans, but that is yet another cultural division. Looking like something does not make it so in the West. Hiring builders from Paris to build your house does not make you French. Yes, there was a lot of immigration from Europe, but there was also a lot of immigration from elsewhere (Syria and Lebanon were the third and fourth source of immigration in Argentina for instance). Most of these immigrants were men who had to mary native women, hence the huge native culture influence as well. Mix that with the fact that the royal colonial lifestyle which was something of its own, and everything is ready for a new culture to emerge. In any event, I do not know the cause for sure, but there certainly is a huge cultural divide. I think it's a shame that Argentineans are not prepared to embrace their culture and would rather pretend to be something they are not. 193.132.242.1 (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can consider Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and other Eastern European countries as "Western" just because they have joined the EU. This is not an article about the EU. The Western world is: United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe. That's it. It is not only a political, but a cultural term, too. People in Eastern Europe have different values and traditions than those in Western Europe. Standards of living are also different. So are their histories and cultures... Western Europe's eastern border ends at Finland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Greece.--Sir Edgar 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not! Russia is culturally more western than Spain, or Italy, and of course Britain or Ireland! Romania is a neo-latin-speaking country! People there are blonde, if you considere that's a stereotype of "western" to you. Eastern Europe is majoritarily Christian. Poland is even Roman Catholic, and they use latin alphabet! Many Polish speak German! You are very mistaken. You are confusing "ex-soviet" with "non-western" and "oligarchic democracy" or "parliamentarism" with "western". That's not. Western world is, more or less in this order "westernization" degree: Central Europe (Germany, France, Holland), Northern (Escandinavia) and Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech, Slav Russia (not Skimos, Uralic ethnies, far Siberia, etc., or just partly), Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain), Balcans (first of all Romania, then Albania or Yugoslavia), Israel and South Conus (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and the European Brazil), then Britain and former Brittish britishized or europized colonies like Canada, Australia, New Zealand..., then the rest of Hispanic America (not Amerindian America), including Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican Republic (Saint Domingo) and the US, then the African-Brasilian, African-Caribbean, African-USan (which is not only "race", but the cultural substract, a lot of which is assimilated, today, many blacks in US or in Cuba are culturally as Europeans as the whites), except Haiti and partly Guyana, Jamaica or Surinam, unless we considere Haiti as Western as Nigeria, etc. Because, western cultures... also have a distinctive local cultural factor. As this local cultural factor increase, we'd sort of find they are less pan-western and more of that culture, but this is a wide term, and, yet, this western pan-cultural factor is very strong in countries like Russia, like Poland, like Czec. I think you are just leading by stereotypes, supported by that ignorance and arrogance typical from US and British people, being US, couriously one of the regions of western culture with less identy and less "culture", that have just not been able to develop their own one, but to partly plagiarize it from others. DeepQuasar 17:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not western on any account. Just as Belarus for example. This is not a matter of religion or race. Russaians are Cristian and white and European etc. But not western of course. "The West" is somewhat prejorative term in Russia.--Dojarca 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also the US, Australia or Canada have nothing to do in terms of culture with Spain, France or Italy. So what i think this is not an encyclopedic article, it is just the point of view of some people that have no idea how the world is...201.231.40.99 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite understand what you meant. The US, Australia, and Canada are Anglophone countries. That doesn't mean they don't share a Western culture with Spain, France, and Italy.--Sir Edgar 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way on earth is Romania, Hungary, Poland or Bulgaria anything to do with the "Western World". It makes the map look ridiculous by including these countries with the actual ones. - Gennarous (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im what sense?! USA is in the Western world?! But Argentina is not? If any European transplant is Western or somehow belongs to the Western world, then Argentina is as much a part of the Western world as is United States, and so are Brazil, Chile or Venezuela. To claim otherwise would to suggest that Spain is less Western or European than is England while certainly the opposite is true.

How come Austria is Western but Czech Republic (Bohemia), formerly more developed part of the empire, 10 minutes away by car for God's sake, is or may be not.

Christian Orthodox Greece is West, CHristian Orthodox Russia (far more developed through most of modern history but linked to Greece though culture and religion) is not.

This is not an encyclopedic article but a bigotted point of view held by ignorant people (as usual, it seems largely Americans) who have their own distorted picture of the world and they present it as if this is actual truth, something that would merit an own encyclopaedic entry. The article is yet another illustration of what is wrong with Wikipedia. It is becoming a vast repository of politicized nonsense, outlandish statements, and ideological BS - a veritable anti-encyclopedia. Roobit 20:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

". . .a bigotted point of view held by ignorant people (as usual, it seems largely Americans). . ."

Who's bigoted? JamesMcCloud129 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed a link to this nonsense from the entry on Montreal (itself found through a Google search), instead of saying that Montreal is the second largest French speaking city outside of Europe, the author wrote "in the Western world" - which - unlike Europe - is today a fantastic ideological construct that has no real meaning. Roobit 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked when one of the greatest western empires of all time, gets only a few sentences concerning the topic of the "Western world". Also, the sentence was a rushed statement and in no one way informative on the understanding of Rome. And the map used previously was poor. I sometimes wonder, if there is anti-Roman sentiments in western countries? But to deny or dismiss Rome in a rushed paragraph, the incredible superpower for over 700 years, is simply wrong. So I have added a far more informative and accurate article on Rome. Thanks for reading.--User:JMG 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the emphasis of the earlier version on the differences between the Western and Eastern part of the Roman empire before and after the split, because this was one of the early differences between Western European and Eastern European culture. Can you put this emphasis in the new text? Sijo Ripa 11:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why??? This article is about the Western World, not the difference between West and East. This article has nothing to do with that. Lets keep this in context with what it is about...the Western World. AND besides the next topic below, "Christian Schism" discuss that issue in full. If you want to learn more about Eastern world, read about Constantine, Eastern Rome, E.Europe, or Byzantine.

Also Western Rome(Italy) was a powerhouse from the 3rd century BC to the 5th century AD, whereas the Eastern part did not become as significant until Diocletian and Constantine in the 4th Century AD. So why would I add in my article(not to mention it is covered in the NEXT topic below)about the east in a Western World article???? Lets stay on topic, Not to mention out of the 800 years of Roman-Italian Empire only a 100 were strongly rooted in the East. This has no place in this article and It saddens me to see my cultural heritage under atack from both Western and Eastern peoples. Why are there so many anti-roman sentiments? We can't change history or at least we shouldn't...

Also this has little to do with Eastern European cultural development, besides Orthodox Religion spreading to Russia. The Eastern Roman Empire was a Mediterranean/Balkans Empire, it went no further North than the Danube River.....And even then, the Arabs, and then the Turks and other Central Asian tribes gobbled it up in a few centuries after its great rise.--User:JMG 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis is relevant because the (Roman) West gradually lost a part of its territory and population to Eastern cultures. So the Western world became smaller. Seem quite relevant, don't you think? Sijo Ripa 20:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the WESTERN WORLD. Stay in the context of the Article. And besides what you are asking for about the East is described in more than full detail in both my post and "Christian Schism". I did mention East Rome several times in the second paragraph and I have links for more information...what more can POSSIBLY be done in a few paragraphs covering a Roman history of over a 1,000 years!! Since the Eastern part was only significant for a 100 years or so, It was given its proper treatment due to the relevancy and context of the article. If this article was about East vs. West or if I refused to mention the Eastern Roman Empire then I could see reasons for your argument, other than that they can only be seen as biased and petty.

Besides, West Rome never lost it's territory to Eastern Culture. Rome was split into two parts by Diocletian in 284 AD to manage the provinces more effectively. Constantine made the division permanent in mid 300's AD. Rome lost its territory to Germanic tribes in 476 AD, NOT to the East! It lost political power to the East. Besides the East had peace with Persia, whereas the West was facing constant invasions from the germanic tribes of the Goths(both Visigoths and OstroGoths), Vandals, Sueves, Alans, Franks, Burgundians, Saxons, Alemanni, etc...

I am giving an accurate, descriptive, factual overview of Rome...why do you want me to change it so much, if not for your own bias...like I said read the topic, "Christian Schism" below for more info on the shift of power to the East. The actual history of the Eastern Roman Empire rose to promince in 350 AD, unless you start rewriting history...this is what it is, nothing more nothing less! Only 100 years out of millenia, so in a short paragraph, the topic of the East is only going to get a few sentences, WHICH I DID do so I can explain the whole complex Roman Empire in a few paragraphs.

And Besides there is enough information in my article anyways on the East and links for more info. On an Article on India's empire, I wouldn't think it necessary to only focus on the British occupation since that was for only 200 years. What is there that needs changing? This is a factaul overview of Rome.--User:JMG 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new map to show the Eastern split--User:JMG 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and assume good faith, JMG. I don't ask to describe the East, I never did. What I mean is that the whole of the Roman empire is considered part of the Western world... until the split. The emphasis on the split is important, because the Western world shrunk considerable. That's what I meant: the West didn't lose territory to the East literally (i.e. by conquest), but they gradually did culturally, as the Eastern Roman Empire started to develop a distinct culture - this division is still notable for the current concept of the Western world which often does not include Eastern European and Western Asian cultures. I just ask to put more emphasis on this split. Sijo Ripa 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound upset, but to be honest I feel that between what I wrote in the second paragraph and the next topic down, Christian Schism, is more than sufficient. Do you at least see the fact that it is difficult to cover a 1000 year empire in a few paragraphs and since the East was significant for only a 1/10th of that time, I more than address what you are asking for in the 2nd paragraph. At least re-read my article combined with Christian schism again to see that it flows so much better. What I wrote is far more accurate and informative than the previous run-on sentence before my current article. I am sorry you don't feel it is sufficient, but once again based on the fact the whole article is the "Western World", I feel I gave it it's just due. And that is all I have to say any further about this.--User:JMG 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the history section I added a small mention of the influence of the Germanic tribes. I think this should be expanded upon with an additional section in the history.

The traditional attitude, of course, is that we Westerners are all children of the Christian/Roman/Greek heritage and that pretty much sums up our culture. This, of course, is a false attitude deriving from Medieval prejudices. Our culture was heavily influenced by the "barbaric" Germanic tribes (the Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc.) which took over the West as the Roman Empire fell. We are descendants of them both genetically and culturally. The only reason that we can claim cultural descendency from the Romans and Greeks at all is because those Germanic ancestors adopted a lot of the culture of the peoples they conquered (in particular adopting many of their languages). A major reason there was such a cultural separation best East and West (both of which inherited from the Chistrian/Roman/Greek traditions) was because of the German heritage in the West.

This point needs to be brought out more, IMHO. --Mcorazao 16:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Celtic, and Slavic, and also Arab substracts are also part of a part of Western civilization. I don't agree Eastern world is "Eastern Europe", taht's not right. Eastern Europe, as Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzance) is another part of Western world. I don't agree with reducing Western world to Western Europe, and just Catholic/Christian, Greek/Roman, and Germanic, forgetting rest. Besides, another big amount of influence and part of the basis of Western culture is due to Arabics (and Ottomans, in East), that retransmitted to us a big amount of classic lost heritage, specially Greek one. And southern Europe (southern Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Marseille), received a very important Easternizing influence from Arabs. That's another part of Western culture too, isn't it?. Isn't Christianism and Semitic, Biblic tradition, an Easternizing influence itself? Didn't we recive a lot of Jews communities and didn't they mean important cultural apportations? That's part of Western culture. As is African influence in Americas, in US, in Caribbean, in Colombia, in Brasil, another important influence and heritaged, that has then widespread to Europe, for exemple, through popular music. DeepQuasar 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: Westerners, especially the ruling classes, although some Western Europeans and North Americans would probably not include these Latin Americans in their concept of Western because they emphasize (or also include) political or economic criteria..

Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and to a lesser extent Brazil, are democratic nations very similar to the US, politically. Economically these countries are stable, and in the case of Brazil and Chile powerful economically. This article is biased and changes need to be made. Casey14 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US is not democratic, it's congressional or pressidentialist, but that's doesn't necessarily mean democratic. Democratic means "people's ruling". Do you encounter that in US, and South Conus? I think this is a shoddy ideologized, non-objective argument from the ruling class, that an objective encyclopedia should not give so much voice to, and spread, except by quoting, or maybe contrasting it, as an opinion, with others. DeepQuasar 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More attention needs to be given to how the West is defined, especially as a cultural identity. Many scholars would argue that although the Classical Civilization (Greeks and Romans) originates from the same homeland as the West, it is not a part of the West (see Spengler's Decline of the West).

The article needs to include more on Western cultural history in general, it is not enough to just put a link to another article.

Then I refer you to Carrol Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations, which makes it very clear academically that Western Civilization is very distinct from the Greco-Roman world. For one example, the Greeks and Romans did not consider economics, religion, and government seperate components of society. During the Middle Ages the West learned that they were very different aspects of society and could work independently of each other. This did not ultimately bear fruit until the Renaissiance and Enlightenment, and when it finally blossomed, slavery could no longer be justified in any quarter. The Greeks, on the other hand, though they had notions of liberty and democracy, still had this all bound up with religion and economics, and it never was extended to women and slaves. That is Quigley's argument anyway. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to this unlearned person that Edward Said's "Orientalism" might fit in under the "Other Views" section. As well as others whose views might be that "the west" is an artificial creation.

"The West" in my opinion is much more vague a concept than the article currently seems to suggest. It is probably an "artificial creation" in so far as it is thought of as a concrete concept. It is more a cultural concept than a literal space on a map, in my opinion. For example in "History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, "the West" means the culture(s) of Ancient Greece and Rome, Medieval (Western) Europe (including the Arabs), Renaissance and Modern (Western) Europe and then (a little) the USA. It is a concept that is useful in opposition to Eastern cultures and philosophies, but also in a more vague sense perhaps. Nickyfann (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is true because for me the concept of “Western World” is not synonym with “Developed World” or “Countries with White-Christian Majorities”.

In civilizational and cultural terms, most of the culture of Latin America was ever much more linked tp the culture of Western Europe (and Latin Europe in particular, due to cultural and religious affiliations and immigration) than to the Pre-Columbian cultures.

And in terms of evolution of the cultural movements, mainly during 19th and 20th centuries, Latin America was very aligned with other parts of the West — for example, jazz, rock n'roll, Hollywood movies and American TV series had spread a great influence over Latin America, as the same way that movements like the Sexual Revolution and enviromentalist movement also happened at the countries bellow Rio Grande.

Most Latin Americans, the whites and the non-white mestizos (miscegenation in Latin America is extremely high), always considered themselves as part of the Western World.

The cultural definition of the West can be found here: Western_world#Cultural. This definition includes the whole of Latin-America. Sijo Ripa 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get from glancing over this article is that it asserts that there is such an entity as the "Western world". My personal point of view is that a term that the term is widely used, but weakly defined, meaning different things for different speakers.

I see as valid an article on the history of the term, its origins and usage over time. I don't see a detailed descriptions of what people asserts to be "western" as appropriate. I therefore wish to cut down considerably on the article (From what I've read here on the talk I can see that that might not be a popular idea).

I'm happy to be swayed if someone can provide a (or better multiple concurring) definitions of what makes up the "Western world". Sean Heron (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As I've been giving the term quite some thought over the last weeks, I was a bit surprised at the article I found here. P.P.S. I roughly agree with the first paragraph in this section: Other countries

You are willing to claim that Western Civilization is not reality? The article definately needs work, but not as you propose. It is a civilization and culture seperate and apart from other civilizations. How is that not reality? How is a term not reality?

Term: 4 a: a word or expression that has a precise meaning in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or subject <legal terms> bplural : expression of a specified kind <described in glowing terms>

Even as a term, it is very much a reality. Please clarify your argument here before you potentially butcher the article worse than it is. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I guess I was not quite clear: While of course the term is a reality (I'd sai d I think a history of it is warranted), I find it difficult to give anything than a quite vague description of what it corresponds too (edit:Sorry, what it corresponds to today. I'm not contending that it might not have existed in the past, but for me the lines are now too blurred as to give the phrase any meaning). I'm interested in how you see "Western Civilization" as separate and apart from other "civilizations". If you've stated so elsewhere, or its in the article (which I admit I have not read in full), I'm happy to be pointed there. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best and comprehensive academic research was done by Carroll Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations, defining what a civilization is, how it forms, how it grows, and how it falls. Of the 22 known civilizations identified in all of history, they all followed a common pattern of rising and falling in the same way, much like the life-cycle of any organism. Three civilizations were born from the fall of Greco-Roman Civilization, Western, Eastern Orthodox (Russian and German) and Muslim. Unrelated were several other civilizations, Chinese, Japanese, Mayan (of which the Aztecs are members of), Incas, and Tamil. It is shared experiences and common culture that create these different civilizations, as the West experienced the Dark Ages (total collaspe of government, economics, and relgion) while the Russians and Muslims did not. The West includes only those nations with Celtic heritages; Britannia, Gaul, Belgium, Spain, and Northern Italy. Easterm Othodox is most notible for its attempt to retain the old Imperium of Rome, thus Holy Roman Empire (kaisers), Russian (czars, heavily influenced by Byzantium) and preponderance for aristocratic society. And so on and so forth, all civilizations have their own unique causality for coming into existence. It is not blurred at all once you see the larger picture. Jcchat66 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly have a look at Quigley's book, if I stumbled over it (it sounds interesting). However that his research is the the best and most comprehensive is certainly your opinion (even if I haven't seen it yet).

I would like to reiterate that I do not contend that a western world/civilisation existed in the past. My point is that I do not see that it is still in existence, or perhaps better, has any clear boundries today. I've looked around a bit, and the introductory paragraph of Muslim world is a definition of the sort I'm looking for. It expresses common criteria for what is seen as belonging to the "Muslim world". I guess what you stated above "The West includes only those nations with Celtic heritages; Britannia, Gaul, Belgium, Spain, and Northern Italy." would actually pretty much fit that mark. Why isn't it in the article then though (I may have missed it, I have yet to read it in entirety)? Regards Sean Heron (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also had a look at Civilization, and saw it had quite a few different definitions itself. Which do you find most fitting for what you mean by the term? Thanks.

P.P.S. Just found this (Westernization), thought it might be interesting (as it tries to define "the West" along the way). Sean Heron (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the article yet, but perhaps I might have time to work on it some day. I just put this article recently on my watch list, despairing at the total lack of cohesion of thought. Any in-depth study in European history at any university (English and Spanish) speaks of Western Civilization more or less as Quigley's defines it, as he taught history after all in some of the most influencial universities. and even tutored President William Clinton as a boy. Even Tolkien, arthur of Lord of the Rings, discussed the matter in this same context. As for it not existing, that is just absurd. It's practically dominated the entire world! Though the Muslims and Russian civilizations contributed in the past to the West, both are now in decline as a cohesive entity while the West has exploded over the whole planet ... so perhaps that is why you don't think it exists anymore ... its all around you! Same thing happened to the ancient Gauls, when a century after their conquest by Caesar, they found themselves a part of the Empire, completely integrated into it. Every nation today now has a constitition based on some Western priciple, even China. The very existence of so many constitional democracies in the world is a direct result of Western Civilization.

What makes a civilization? A cohesive system of economics, transportation, and communication, shared by more than one culture, in ADDITION to an existing moral code. Many cultures have a moral code of some kind, but without the three things mentioned above, it cannot grow into something more. There must be some kind of monetary system, some kind of transportation system safe enough not to be constantly disrupted by bandits, and some kind of means of communication between peoples, also without constant disruption. This means several different nations or cultures must act together to stop bandits, pirates, etc, and usually because of some shared moral code will they do this (aka Judeo-Christian moral code in the case of the West.) In this way you can see how the West emerged around 500AD after the total collapse of Greco-Roman Civ in western Europe, and the painfully long evolution of improving the three things needed. The Muslim world got this going long before the West did, and thrives as a full-blown civilization while the West was still in its gestation period, establishing trade routes, the Silk Road, etc. Now, ironically, Muslim terrorists (or any terrorist group) know how to disrupt the heart of any civilization ... attack transportation, economics, and communications. The Germans did the same with Rome, destroying its aqueducts (transport of water.) Genghis Khan brought the Muslim world to their knees when he avoided the Persian armies and attackd only the farmers and agricultural systems (part of the transporation of food.)

NO civilization can exist with those three things, but that is not to say culture and nations cannot. But even cultures would be hard pressed to survive without the three things in one form or another. For example, the Mayan Civilization did very well, but its lack of speedy transport of resources and communications made it unusually vulnerable to Spanish invasion. Had the Aztecs had horses and the wheel, history would have been very different. In turn, the Spanish dependence on using only gold and silver as a medium of exchange made them very vulnerable later to superior mediums like paper. China's use of paper made them very strong indeed at an early date, resulting in a superior understanding of medium of exchanges that overshadowed all civilizations contemporary to it and in the past. unfortunately, they lacked in transporation technology when it came to ships, and were unable to compete against the West in that regard. So, as you can clearly see, the three aspects that make up a civilization is critical to its very existence and degree of health. It may be hard to see in Western Civilization, but the core moral code of Western Civilization is still the same. What that moral code exactly is remains another topic of discussion altogether.

Quigley and others are probably able to write about this far better than I can. If civilization is defined any other way, then I have no idea what its based upon beyond the traditional meaning as stated above. If you are interested in Quigley's books, any public library should be able to get it, last time I needed it for referrence. It's also available on Amazon.com. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can see us coming to agreement on this :). Thank you for your detailed description of "civilisation" (and the nice exemplifications), that was very helpful for me.

To be honest I had been holding back my true opinion, as I have absolutely nothing I can source it on, and didn't want to strech my neck out too early. Sorry about that, I realize its not a very fair tactic in an argument, but I saw myself in a bit of a weak position :/.

I'm taking the risk of saying what I believe now, because you basically stated what I think: that what was historically the western civilisation has streched to encompass the greater part of the world. Where I might beg to differ is that I still don't think you can clearly delineate the western and other civilisations. Otherwise, what would you say happened to the Muslim or Chinese civilisations? My notion (again, more or less my own thoughts, so I can't source this [which of course doesn't mean there's nothing to be found]), is that these have become fused with, and part of a global "western" civilisation (I'm still not sure on calling it western, as I think its been very influenced itself).

This belief, then, is what lead me to my statement that while the term "the western world" exists, there is no longer a corresponding entity, as it refers to almost the same thing as saying "the world". And I'm pretty sure that when they say "the west/ western world", a lot of people don't mean "the world" (perhaps minus any isolationist authoritarian regimes).

As I reckon we're generally in agreement, I'd like to go forward with two things (realizing there are still points that I may disagree with you on):

• refactor this discussion, as I don't believe a lot of people will read it at its current length.
• Use the summary/refactor of this discussion as introduction to a new section, "Concept of the article", where I'd like to discuss a rough structure for the article, and what we think belongs in or out.

As it would be hardly fair to refactor before you answer, I'm starting a draft refactor on a subpage of mine. So after answering here, I'd invite you to head there, amend it as you see fit, and then post it here. Many kind regards Sean Heron (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough academic resources to make this article worthwhile. Muslim and Eastern Orthodox civilizations still exist, as far as I can tell, as they both have dramatically different cultures. It does not matter who invents superior forms of the three things needed, economics, transportation, and communications, so just because most of these new technology were born from one civilization, does not mean others cannot use them to keep their own civilization, as all other civilizations have done. Western influence in them should not be confused with Western dominance. As long as there exists Muslim nations, there will exist Muslim civilization, and likewise for Eastern Orthodox, though I don't see this as very cohesive as it once was in history. As for Chinese and Japanese and Indian, I'm just not sure there exists any cohesive independent civilizations there at all, as all of these nations use either Western or Eastern doctrines of government, rather than their own native forms of ancestor-honor imperialism. Japan is very Western now, and it's constitution reflects this, and its ideals of individualism. China is very Eastern Orthodox, where ideals of collectivism. India appears to be a mix of BOTH. Perhaps they are more like proto-civilizations that centuries from now might blossom into new ones entirely, especially after the fall of the Western Civ and Eastern Orthodox. The fall of Greco-Roman Civ made it possible for three new civs to emerge, and that cycle and recycling will most likely continue.

So remake the article, I will help and offer advise in the spirit of Wikipedia. I wish I had the time to rewrite it entirely. I guess one will have to identify the core ideology of all these different civilizations to truly recognize their differences, and that is a daunting and controversial issue. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Historically, the West originated in the northern and eastern Mediterranean with ancient Greece and ancient Rome." (This is what the article says.) Is that correct? What about what Greece and Rome derived from Egypt and Mesopotamia and elsewhere? The Greek alphabet is Pheonician in origin.Nickyfann (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definately need a citation for this. Western Civilization may have inherited a few things from the Greco-Roman world, but it is NOT an extension of it. The West is more Celtic than it is in Roman, as the Dark Age proved with a total collapse of the imperium, unlike in the East. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? How are our social mores and cultural values Celtic? What the Celtic people preserved for the West was the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Xtian patrimony, that is, ancient texts, translations, bibles, etc... The West may have "reinherited" their own values which were maintained by the Celts, but they didn't overwhelming retain Celtic views on society, religion, or law. C'mon, just because there's a book called How Irish Saved Civilization, doesn't mean it's completely true. Moreover, they weren't saving THEIR Civilization they were saving someone else's, there's had already been fundamentally altered by a Western one. 64.191.211.54 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read How Irish Saved Civilization, that's interesting. I assume it's about how the monks maintained so much literature during the Dark Ages? But you make the above statement as if you know what Celtic values were. What was their view on society, religion, or law, assuming it was not twisted by Roman propoganda? I only speak generally of what little we do know. Regardless, the Celts were a semi-pastorial, semi-nomadic people uninsterested in empire-building and creating labor-intensive industries. Even the Germanians called them lazy in constrast to themselves, because the Celts didn't like working for anyone but themselves. They used soap, were clean-shaven, prone to family life and ranching when not trying to be champions and heroes in the petty battles they engaged in (their epic battles usually only had a few hundred men and women!). They respected their women more than most Eastern cultures (Rome included with its strong Greek influence, who had NO respect for women). And like other semi-pastorial, semi-nomadic peoples like the Hebrews, Germanians, Scythians, Numidians, Achaeans (the early nomadic maritime Greeks), etc ... they did not build huge cities or engage in the massive taking of slaves to support labor-intensive non-mechanized industrial civilizations like Rome, Egypt, Persia or Mesopotamia.

Unlike their fellow semi-pastorial, semi-nomadic neighbors and contemporaries, they despised hairiness, uncleaniness, liked to steam themselves, and respected women on a higher level then their Germanian enemies, which except for soap, had none of these qualities. They had a little more in common with the Scythians, but we know even less about them than the Celts. Over all, the Celts resemble the most advanced and civilized (and most underestimated) semi-pastorial, semi-nomidic civilization of all, the Phoenicians and their Carthaginian descendants. Only they ahd DIRECT influence over Britannian (Pretani) Celts through their tin mines in Cornwall, which is why those Celts had chariots and roads unlike their Gallic counterparts. Even the same of their gods share striking resemblences.

In other words, Western Civilization historically, until recently, had more in common with those nomadic, maritime cultures like Phoenicia and the Celts, than Rome or Egypt, which is not to say it did not adapt anything from them. Even Rome had adapted many "barbarian" ways as farmer-soldiers before their descent into imperium. Just as Colonial Americans adapted many Indian ways before their transformation towards mercantile world hegemony. Remember, Western Civilization had no large cities until recently, and countless small villages and towns, making it more Celtic or Carthaginian like than Greco-Roman. Of course, with a thousand years of Catholic dogma being forced upon a culture, it's bound to show an outward appearance of Greco-Roman influence. But as the West has moved far away from that influence, to Australia and the Americas, its true cultural heritage of semi-nomadism (and barbarity perahps) came out. Whether that is good or bad is another topic altogether, I only mean to identiy uniquely Western cultural influence, and give credit where credit is due ... and that credit goes not to Rome and Greece (as the Ivory Tower class claims), but to Phoenicia, Carthage, and Pretani Celts.

But please, enlighten us with your own research and study of history. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Origins of "The West": Not to mention that a great deal of the content of the religion most associated with "The West", namely Chrisitianity, originated in the Middle East, not normally thought of as part of "The West". Or at least not according to the map, currently on show next to the main article, that shows which countries are in "The West" and which are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyfann (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a copy of an entry in the discussion for Talk:western culture#redirect from civlisation, western civilization, and western civilisation for anyone who wants to respond.Grapeguy (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Entering civilisation redirects you to civilization which entry begins with the statement, "A civilization or civilisation is..." This statement says to me that the two words are alternative spellings for a common term. The article goes on to use both spellings throughout without any differentiation of their meaning. In fact the contexts of the different spellings reinforce the implication that they are simply alternate spellings. I'm guessing that the variations reflect multiple contributors from US and British commonwealth editing the article.

O.K. So why then when I enter western civilization am I redirected to western culture while western civilisation redirects me to western world. The fourth paragraph of the western culture entry then goes on to make a statement, "The concept of western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of Western world." The reference to "classical definition of Western world" is a link to a curently non-existent section of the western world entry. I am now left wondering whether western civilisation actually is not a variant spelling of western civilization, but rather does actually refer to western world, whereas western civilization refers only to the western culture. Grapeguy (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on the other talk page. Sean Heron (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite new to this, so forgive me if my formatting skills aren't up-to-snuff.

I'm somewhat disappointed by this article. Though it admits that the term "western world" has many differing definitions based on the context of usage, and points to some problematics of the term within the interior of the article, the introduction is lengthy and confusing. The problem seems to be that, by nature of the term, no remotely cohesive definition of it exists. Vastly depending on the author and the context of usage, what constitutes the "western world" can't actually be pinned down to any logical geography. Despite this, the article does not seem to recognize that the "Western World" is merely a simplistic term of convenience, that on any close examination falls apart. Consistently the article makes reference to the "western world" not as what it is - a historical term - but as an actual material reality. Essentially, the article repeats the exact mistake the authors who rely on the term as evidence do. For example, from the Colonialism section:

Though the overt colonial era has certainly passed, Western nations, as comparatively rich, well-armed, and culturally powerful states, still wield a large degree of influence throughout the world, and often take actions that are either intended or are perceived as being intended to interfere in the internal affairs of nations in the non-Western world; this is often resented by non-Western peoples, especially those in non-Western democracies.

Now, what exactly is meant by "West" here is completely unclear. The section is a total wash of history into vague terms. No attempt was made to define what countries constituted the "west" at this point. Only four are named (Spain, Portugal, France, Britain), with half-credit given for "Dutch East India Company". Are those countries, then, the "west" in this period? But the concluding sentences of this section seem to present a much more contemporary worldview, where the west includes the United States, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Lebanon, etc. What is meant by "non-west" is also never defined. What constitute "non-western democracies", for example? Even if we defined that term (maybe lumping together countries like Ukraine, India, Singapore) we're left with proving that "people" in those countries "feel" a certain way about the same topic. There's certainly no reference given there. These are vast, stupid generalizations (though I'm sure the author meant well), that have no place in any even vaguely academic work.

Let me illustrate what a quick close reading of this article yields: Geographically, "the west" includes

• The western hemisphere, except for Africa South America, North America until ~1776, and "Eastern Europe" (itself starting somewhere midway through Germany, or Poland, or the Ukraine, or Russia, depending on the author's preference).
• Greece (specifically Athens), but only in the Hellenistic period - and then only as a vague reference to a selection of its social ideals, and perhaps again in contemporary times
• The Roman Empire, until it was split into two; parts of the Holy Roman Empire until feudalism, and Italy after 1945
• Former colonies of "western nations" (I assume the author means western European here), such as New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia, but not any Spanish colonies, any of Africa, or India.
• Japan, since 1890, or 1945, or 1980
• South Korea since 1980 or so
• Western Europe, except for Ireland (sometimes), and Switzerland (sometimes)
• Israel and Lebanon, recently
• Not Lebanon (as per Huntington)
• Turkey,sometimes
• All Catholic countries after the Great Schism
• Any Christian nation, except for Orthodox nations. And Catholic nations, sometimes.
• etc., etc., etc.

I hope you see the problem here. The term is absolute gibberish. Yet the article, despite all evidence pointing to the inconsistency, and even admitting the fluid nature of the term, constantly makes claims (tempered or not) concerning certain concepts related to West and non-west. The article has to be drastically reorganized. This article should not be a history of the "western world" - what is ultimately a vague, inconsistent, and simplistic historical vantage point that suits particular contexts but fails at any coherent vision of history. Rather, this article should be a detailed history of the term "western world" as it has been used throughout social, historical, and geopolitical discourse.

I will leave this warning up for anyone watching the page, and (when I have a bit more time), start reworking it. I will also put up a disputed tag on the actual article.

I'm interested to hear what people have to say. I will drop a few references here for those that either want to start doing some work, or wish me to back up some claims. Criticism of the term "west" is extensive. Edward Said's book "orientalism" is an obvious example (but one I haven't read). What I would also suggest are the works of Gerard Toal (Gearoid O Tuathail); and John Agnew. Even better, for a very specific examination of the term, I suggest Lewis & Wigen, (1997), The Myth of Continents the second chapter, "The Spatial Constructs of Orient and Occident, East and West" is available in part on google scholar. It is basically an example of what this article should be. It includes an excellent little map charting the unstable boundaries of what constitute "the west", which is unfortunately not available online.

--Skyesepp (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sean Heron from above has already gotten the ball rolling on this, I believe. As think myself and Sean will agree with you, more or less. You appear to have even more academic resources available than most to achieve production of a decent article on the subject. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ah yes. I skimmed but didn't fully read the talk page before posting, and I misinterpreted the direction of what you guys were saying. I'll also post on Sean Heron's talk wall to see how we should proceed. Sorry if I came off sounding harsh! --Skyesepp (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

West by some definitions is made up of Hellenic, Latinate and Germanic Judaeo-Christian cultures built on Graeco-Roman foundations, and then later highly influenced by the late antiquity/early Middle Ages Germanic hierarchy, Italian Renaissance, Revolutionary France, and Anglo-American views of democracy and capitalism, the last three of which are influenced by ancient Greece and Rome. Russia and the former eastern Eastern bloc countries can be Western in some respects, though not the ultimate examples of the West because of they lack the latter four, they aren't EASTERN as in Asia but Oriental in the mediaeval sense. Romania has culturally been pushing west since the 19th Century, but it's iffy particularly if the Slavic countries are excluded. Politically Israel is western, and it is definitively Mediterranean, but culturally, I think Jewish culture has maintained some isolation from European culture in the face of assimilation, though politically it's rather Western. This term is iffy in the newly democratic and predominantly Catholic and German-influeced interlopers like Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, etc. Ultimately this term is constantly changing, and it's more theoretical. I say, scratch that map because it looks overly definitive and doesn't really define the political (Democratic) West, the cultural (European west) and the Religous (Catholic/Protest OR Christian) West. They are all different things, ya know? What a Muslim, a Russian, and a Chinese person mean when they say the West isn't identical, and neither will it be the same as what an American, and South African, or a Spaniard say. I can only imagine what those people in Cook Islands think is the West? Arthurian Legend (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Western world, or a civilization, is defined by its cultural history, not the map. Democracy and capitalism have nothing to do with cultural identity, as neither existed throughout most of Western history. And to what degree one civilization is influenced by other civilizations varies considerably, and is often exagerated or confused. Much of what we admire the Romans for in law they learned from Carthage, whose cities had running water in their homes while Rome was being burned down by the Gauls. Greek democracy has nothing to do with modern democracy, for only in recent times have we been able to translate much of our knowledge about the Greeks the West knew nothing of, thus the Dark Ages. Often the culture of one is forced upon another, such as the Catholic experience, which in and of itself is not part of Western culture, but has forced its way into by brute force for many centuries.

The cultures you speak of already have their own identities, which at least one historian calls the Eastern Orthodox Civilization, which would include Poland despite its Catholic influence. Orthodox Civ inherited its cultural identity from Byzantine, Slavic, Scythian, and Armenian cultures, and Roman culture is deeply rooted in it to the point that the title Caesar was still used until modern times, thus czar or kaiser. In the West, this kind of Roman influence was not only absent, but not tolerated. As shared religion is NOT a shared civilization or world view. Though the Holy Roman Empire was not considered part of the Orthodox Civilization for religious reasons, it was predominately more Eastern Orthodox, not Western. Italy was not noticeably Western until much later, just as in Spain, both of which enjoyed the trials and tribulations of three distinct civilizations, while being a memeber of none. Being on the fringes of civilizations can be beneficial, for in Italy, the sciences came together to contribute to the Renaissance. But the Renaissance cannot be claimed as part of Western Civilization, though that may cause venomous disagreement. But neither can Germans today claim to be part of the Western World, for they had always been atogonistic towards Western ideals ... which they expressed quite clearly in World War II. (There was no German Revolution, no liberal movement equal in measure to those in France or England, and certainly no Enlightenment.) In fact, but World Wars were truly wars between seperate and distinct civilizations, Western and Eastern Orthodox, and Western and Japanese. It is easy to get this confused since, after all, the Germans invaded Russia, and have never gotten along. But being members of a civilization does not imply all members are allies or part of the same nation. It is the cultural influences they share throughout history, in which case, Germans and Russians have far more in common ... both used ancient Rome as their model societies ... and both were invaded by nomadic peoples contemptous of Roman society, which strengthened their resolve to create strong, aristocratic nation-states, and rigid class divisions.

The West, on the other hand, was invaded by Roman society itself, and then later by the Normans that modeled themselves on the Roman social class system, and then again on a religious and moral front by the Catholics. Emnity towards this Roman influence, not acceptance, is what has shaped Western culture, and made it the perfect environment for the liberal revolutions that swept away the nations-states propped up by Normans and Catholics, and largely removed class distinctions. But in Eastern Europe, they clearly accepted and even embraced the Roman social system, taking them down a different path that is noticeable to this day. Jcchat66 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Bloc's of Eastern Europe are vastly ditatched from western Europe, still. Not all of Europe is up to the standard of Western, the countries where Socialism and Communism has reigned are far different. Only East Germany has been "retaken" in the general consensus as Western. - Gennarous (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's specious to exclude Romania and Bulgaria from the map, despite Gennarous, who modified it, saying only East Germany's been "retaken." Then why did you leave Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the other former Eastern bloc countries in the "Western" world? Clearly an erroneous judgment: either the map is restored to what it was prior to May 2nd, or all former Eastern bloc countries are deleted. Frankly, I believe all current EU members should be considered inside the Western world. Also, the justification for deletion is very vague and not sufficiently explained by Gennarous. For instance, out of the multitude of arguments that could be made that Romania and Bulgaria belong in the "Western" World, a few follow: Romanian is a Romance language, and both Bulgaria and Romania have had kings from German dynasties from the 19th century up to the late 1940s, and were de facto Westernized democracies; also, their populaces like to identify with a "Western" lifestyle and values, and this desire was recognized by the EU Commission when they were admitted to the EU. So now that both countries are in NATO and the EU, they are not Western societies? Someone could discriminate according to religion: namely because Romania and Bulgaria are not Roman Catholic, they can't be Western... At the same time, Greece is included in the Western World despite having spent nearly as much time in the Ottoman Empire as Romania and Bulgaria, not to mention that Greece is also an Orthodox country. Cbaltar2 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why this article is so torn up. Western Civilization proper is the study of Western European culture that developed in Britannia and Gaul after the collaspse of the Western Roman Empire. In this context, Greece nor Catholicism are members of the Western World. The European Union has nothing to do with it at all, for that is strictly a political entity. But in the context of Greek usage in ancient times, in which the Greeks were "West" of Persia, they too called themselves Westerners (or so it is alleged.) The ancient civilizations and modern Western Civilization are very far removed culturally, philosphically, and historically. Eastern European countries are not cultural members of that experience, but have their own unique experiences which shaped their own civilization, which still exists today. Germany is just caught in the middle, but now conquered by the West thanks to WWII. Eastern Europe has its own unique culture shaped by the Eastern Roman Empire which they embraced, Viking colonisation, and Slavic migrations. The West only experienced one of these three influxes, the Vikings, which were eventually repelled. In the East, the Vikings actually dominated Russia and traded with Constantinople for centuries. It is not necessarilly relegion that divides the two cultures, but how they seemed to react to the Roman experience. The West rejected it socially, because it totally failed, but embraced it artistically. The East embraced it socially and artistically, where the Empire flourished for another thousand years. Do this day those cultural differences are very strong ... regardless of the EU's expansion eastward. Jcchat66 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to put the whole Africa on either side of the East/West divide, except for a few countries which are "specifically African. In any case, it is absurd to put South Africa in the West and, for instance, their neighbour Mozambique in the "Non-West". There is absolutely no criterion for that, except for an unencyclopedic Anglo-bias.
If there can be any reasonable criterion for the distinction between East and West, it should go along the four historically continentally spread-out "cultures", namely Europe (the West), Islam, India and China (the East).
Every African non-Muslim country that keeps a European official language should be placed in the West, except for some special understandable reason. Or take RSA out.
Velho (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking a Western language is not enough to make a country Western. It entails a long list of cultural qualifications, those distinct to the civilization of origin. Colonization of Africa was very short-lived, beginning around the 1800's, and primarily as a response to Barbary pirates taking Christian slaves. Only then did the British and French descend upon Africa, which turned into am insane race of conquest that Eastern Orthodox Civilization attempted as well (which is not at all part of Western Civ, they have their own culture, just as Indonesia is not a part of Islamic Civ, despite being Muslim.)

Two centuries is hardly enough time to assimilate the cultural aspects of a civilization. Islamic Civilization by far dominates Africa. Africa is simply not Western, and for the most part, most African nations have rejected Western colonialism, and all Western nations pulled out long ago. So how is it Western? Jcchat66 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple. If you visit the cities such as Harare, Luanda, Gabarone etc, you will see blatant influence in the shape of the towns and cities where-by the former overlords have left their permanent mark. And besides, there is no requirement to dissimilate a local population to "westernise" them. The purpose of a nation's self-determination is precisely to exert ones own identity. Apart from the fact that there is nothing which the majority population and their respective countries all share in common across the "western world", Africa is not the only part of the world subjected to the stereotypes which some people hide behind to try to make out that they are different to the nations whom they dislike. Scientificly, north and south are polar, and remain fixed; the Earth spins. A superficially unstraight "dateline" runs from north to south splitting the Pacific Ocean and when you wake up in the morning, you are all in the west. Otherwise, you draw a line down the Greenwich Meridian, and one hemisphere is permanently west. The biggest problem with this whole article is that it is fine to talk of the western world and what its properties are; but apart from the fact that they are ill-defined, wholly disagreeable and far from universally accepted, nowehere does it say what the alternative or even an alternative is. The eastern world? Are there really similarities of culture and consciousness existing between Senegal and Bhutan? or Samoa and Azerbaijan? Firstly, the whole concept is imaginary; it is not as if Western World is a trade bloc, or a party of affiliates. And if it were, it still would probably be open to expansion. There is no constitution within it, and a clause to say that "Saudi Arabia cannot join because of its Sharia program, but countries to its east before the international dateline are welcome to join because they have a market economy although they are Buddists; well, women can wear short skirts on nights out, so that is good enough." That's what I mean by ill-defined and irrelevant. The truth is that it is not that simple. Ancient Rome is on something of a western base, it reached out, it influenced, it came into contact with other civilisations, then they spread their germs too; the whole world is in unison and nowhere has been completely isolated from everywhere else. So initially, once "western value" is described, we simply state where it is, then as one moves further and further away from it, its influence dims but becomes something else, like a continuum. But it seems that hundreds of things contribute to western value when it comes to sucking in desirable nations with good names, and inconsistent footnotes and technicalities are used to keep others out, but even that can only stretch so far. Africa was colonised, so was South America. Both continents are rich in indigenous culture and both continents have populations descending from the colonials. Furthermore, we Orhodox Christians asides religion do not have a "common culture", we're not even linked by a continuum either, we don't even all use the same calendar. Bulgaria went to celebrating Christmas on December 25, and I await anyone to tell me what Brazilian Portuguese people have in common with Finns and discludes Bulgaria and Bulgarians. Evlekis (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not help the article at all when it comes to understanding cultural identity. A common cultural origin does not suggest nations that are apart of that culture get along, or do not have there own national cultural identity. The study of such matters comes under the scientific scrutiny of social evolution, and thanks to Darwin and many others, we can see patterns that show such evolution, just as in languages that have spread and changed over many thousands of years to become seperate languages. Like the so-called Indo-European Lagnuage Family, of which Ireland and India are a part of, does mean Ireland and India have much in common. There merely have a common language ORIGIN. Civilizations progress over time much the same way, and can be cataloged and understood in the same manner, and it is ill-advised to say that academics that have put much thought and time into this for centuries are all wrong because its all relative and useless, as your statement above seems to contend. This kind of discussion and would contend evolved from the Sophists of ancient Greece, who were experts at using words to undermine any kind of progress towards finding simple truths. And yet, one of the Greeks best contributions to all other civilizations is the least respected today ... using the scientific method for finding truth (aka, realism as opposed to idealism) ... not wishy-washy ideals and sophist intellectualism. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]