Greetings,

With the recent expansion plans for NATO and the European Union, the concept of what constitutes the West is changing - happily - but it provokes some questions about how we define the West and when it all started. I have some strong thoughts on this but I'm interested in hearing others' first.

I've laid out a poll for the question "When did the West truly begin?" but please explain your answers and define if you could what the West is as well - in other words, what distinguishes the West from, say, the Middle East or China? Can other countries or peoples "join" the West? Some countries can be said to have "left" the West (depending on your definition of course) like Bulgaria and Serbia, who both at different time in their early histories accepted Roman, "Latin" Christianity before succumbing to Byzantine Orthodox Christianity. Syria and Algeria were once Christian states; were they "Western"?

It is my conviction that the Western civilization has its roots back in the old ancient Greek days. The moral codes, basic philosophy, our fondness of democracy, culture etc., derives from the Greeks. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that we'll find the real origins of most of our societies in Greece. Overall, the Romans also influenced our modern day society in a way you cannot possibly cover today. Also, imagine the influence the Romans had on our architecture. Without those two civilizations, the West wouldn't have shaped in the way we know it today.

Even though you put some care into the poll, it is flawed Vrylakas.

The Greeks are the answer, but the "Ancient" part is to vague, and it's really Athens that is the center of what we call today "Western thought", and it's the Athens from the era of the Persian wars.

The Ancient Greeks could be considered to be the Myceneans of the Bronze age, and they were a people of Kings and despots.

The earliest civilizations, the Sumerians and Eygptians are really "Oreintal" in appraoch, empires with expanstion, absolute heraditary rulers, warrior kings, followed by long periods of stagnation untill finally being absorbed by younger, more vigorus empires.

The ideas of the Athenians are with us to this day, what we consider "western" really means represenative government elected by the people, and this began in Athens.

Greeks, democracy and rationalism, both corner stones of the west

I agree with AoA,without the Greeks of the Classical Era Western civilization wouldn't exist.Basic Western characteristics like Democracy,Individualism or Rule of Law emerged in this era.Of course these haven't been into affect all the time in the West,but I can't think of another culture combining these elements and really trying to enforce it.
The Judeo-Christian faith is the 2nd keystone (so I also believe a non-Christian nation can't belong to the west).The Orthodox nations are somewhat in the Middle,but they certainly belong more to the West than to an 'oriental' civilization.

This should really be a multi-option poll,both without Christianity and Ancient Greece the West wouldn't exist.

Not a lot of disagreement here. Between Greek philosophy and Roman monotheism the groundings of the Reneissance was laid. I am less sanguine about the roll of Greek democracy. Perhaps that would have arisen in Italy anyway. Necessity is the mother of invention after all, and just about every conceivable means was tried somewhere in Italy in the 12th-14th centuries.

J

PS Does this make Plato, or perhaps Aristotle, the most important secular writer in history?

Clearly the Greeks and the Romans have an overwhelming majority of the votes so far, but I'll throw a wrench in the works for devil's advocacy sake:

The Greeks and Romans certainly contributed immensely to the basic fabric of Western civilization, but can they be called Westerners? The Classicist Edith Hamilton once wrote that "modern Western man lives in a Jewish house filled with Greco-Roman furniture" ; this says much of Western philosophical origins but can we really call the Greeks or Romans Westerners? Did Western civilization begin with them, or was it born of their ideas, ex post facto? Were they really even Europeans? They belonged to a Mediterranean world and their focus was southward to that sea. Northward lay barren wastes and barbarian tribes. Did they really see anything inherently different about themselves from their neighbors around the Mediterranean, aside from the usual cultural arrogance all peoples have? It is a dangerous consideration because often modern histories impose our modern weltanschauung onto past worlds, so that for instance the Greek-Persian wars are sometimes portrayed as an epic struggle between the nascent West and a powerful and despotic East. Was it really that simple? Was there already an East and a West?

AofA wrote:

Even though you put some care into the poll, it is flawed Vrylakas.

The Greeks are the answer, but the "Ancient" part is to vague, and it's really Athens that is the center of what we call today "Western thought", and it's the Athens from the era of the Persian wars.

The Ancient Greeks could be considered to be the Myceneans of the Bronze age, and they were a people of Kings and despots.

Point well taken. I should have been more specific; I of course was refering to the golden age of Athens, and not the Doric invasions.

The earliest civilizations, the Sumerians and Eygptians are really "Oreintal" in appraoch, empires with expanstion, absolute heraditary rulers, warrior kings, followed by long periods of stagnation untill finally being absorbed by younger, more vigorus empires.

Agreed, that Egypt, Sumeria, etc. were not Western societies but I included them because there are some who believe the West truly began with these most ancient of empires. I concede that they did indirectly make contributions to Western thought and culture - increasingly we are learning how much the Egyptians may have impacted early Greek society in terms of architecture and technology - but calling them Western is a far stretch indeed. However, I wanted to give others a chance to decide.

I am less convinced at these early dates of a distinctive oriental or occidental cultural tradition; I suspect that only arose when more stable empires (Persia, Rome) could impose control over significant regions and even then they did not comply with modern concepts of "East" and "West".

The ideas of the Athenians are with us to this day, what we consider "western" really means represenative government elected by the people, and this began in Athens.

A major and critical contribution indeed, but could the Athenians truly be called "westerners"? Did the West begin there?

In my opinion, yes.

Athenian Greece is the first culture that believed in Science for Sciene's sake (they rarely made practical use of what they discovered), Greek thinkers began what he refer to today as the "Scientific method", attempting to discribe the world around them not through Gods, but through cause and effect.
The first real attempts at the arts of medicene also began with the Greeks (With Hypocrates).

The Athenians also came up with the concept of elected rulers who could be replaced when ineffective or no longer needed (A tyrant had different meaning to them) by legislative methods, up to that point rulers were usually removed in more violent ways.

The Greeks also were the first society to be heavily concerned with leasure activity of the common man, not just nobilty, through Dramas and Comedies, as well as music and the great tradgedies of Greek literature.

All of this is reflected in what we call the "Western spirt".

The Western world always looks to science, in the hope of improving the human condition, and avoids the stagnation and backwardness that is seen in so many places on our planet.
This is a trait of the Greeks, they thought of the human condition as the most important matter in their dailey lives.

All of us who call ourselves western need look to the rocky shores of a small nation, where the foundation of our civilizationn was laid, and that place is Greece.

Why the Greeks of course

Ok, which had the biggest influence on Western Civilization as we know it?
The Greeks or the Romans?
Thought i'd make an Add-on question to the thread ;)

I'd rather say "with the renaissance".

Of course people in this thread made good arguments in favour of the Greeks and Romans, but I don't agree based on the following thoughts.
What is the Western civilization? Isn't it more or less a term used to describe a common culture group that is not geographically connected (so that saying "Europe" for example is not possible)?

Now of course most of our philosophical ideas have their roots in both the Greek/Roman philosophies as well as Judeo-Christian religion. But we shouldn't overlook the fundamental backdrop that Europe faced after the downfall of Athens and Rome (which in my opinion is "Christianity's fault", but that's subject for another discussion).
Another thing is the undeniable influence of culture(s) that certainly don't fall under any characterization of "Western", particularly the Arabs.

So altogether I conclude that the modern "West" began with the Renaissance, when those influences were absorbed and people began to reinact the ancient thinking.
Of course that means that Athens and Rome laid (part of) the foundation of it, but that could well have been lost forever. I see their role more as an influence for the later beginning and not a starting point.

July 4, 1776

Actually, the West is a Greek thing

I'd say the ancient Greeks,inventors of politics and philosophy.
Minoans were quite awesome.They were not indo-european and a "leisure society".Women were equal to men.Minoans adopted their script from Phoenicians.
It is believed that Indo-european Greeks who came around 2000 BC adopted Minoan customs but they were very different from em(war-like like any indo-european,had powerful kings and women had no great place in public life).Those myceneans adopted the minoan script.

Our latin script is derived from Phoenician script.(Phoenicians were Canaanites who fled from the Sea Peoples who stormed into the ME around 1200 but Minoan civilization is older than that...I don't understand how Minoans could adopt their script from a younger civ).

Our alphabet was pictographic at the beginning.The letter A stems from an aramean word for ox beginning with the sound A and A was used to represent a horn representing an ox.

Didn't Jesus speak aramean?

Semites adopted much sumerian culture and customs.
Sumerians were neither indo-european nor semite.Some believe that they were Dravidian(just like people from the Indus Valley before the Aryan invasion).

Now,who were Aryans?Aryans were a group of immigrants who called themselves Arya(noble ones) and intermarried with Dravidians(nowadays N India speaks indo-european languages and S India speaks Dravidian languages but practises hinduism,the religion of the Aryans).

Aryans were immigrants from Iran(the word Iran stems from Aryan)who disagreed with mazdeism,the religion practised by Persians.
Hindus burn dead people and fire represents deities whereas mazdeans thought that fire represented Evil,that's why they let dead people be eaten by vultures outta cities.
This oppsition can be seen in languages.Dev=devil in persian and deva=god in sanskrit ; ahoura=god in persian and asoura=devil in sanskrit.

Persians and Aryans were indo-european and stemmed from the region around the Caspian Sea.Some bring precisions and believe that Indo-europeans stem from Armenia.
In Armenia there's the mountain on which Noe is believed to have landed after the flood.
And guess what?Sumerians were the 1st ones to talk about a Great Flood.Others,including Hebrews, would adopt that myth.

Abraham stemmed from Ur,where the Ubeidian culture flourished before the arrival of Sumerians in the 4th millenium.

Mesopotamia is where agriculture flourished.As women gathered and then worked in the fields,it is believed that they developped agriculture,the desire to challenge nature in oder to be sure to have food that would lead to cities,civilization and kings(Hebrew judges would btw tell their people that kings are a sign of disobediance to Yawhe).

Could Mesopotamia be the Eden and agriculture be the knowledge's tree? :)

I would have said the Greeks because that was what I was taught in schools but right now I am reading a History of the Arab Peoples and I have learned that Greek Culture and Ideas were important in the Arab world far before something like the renassance. Greek Culture really was not confined to the west and did not create a distinction. Greek Philosophy was doing very well in places like Iraq, Iran and Syria in around the 9th century. I voted on christianity instead because it was this that really made the distinction of the west, that seperated them from the rest of the world.

The west began with Billy the kid, and Jesse James :)

Well, the Greeks are still ahead. However, I come much closer to Hitro with my opinion; I think that while the Classical and Judeo-Christian worlds had an immense impact in shaping the West, they were not of the West. There are many core attributes and experiences unique to the modern West that the Classical world just didn't have, even if they were laying some of the philosophical foundations the West would build its "Jewish house with Greco-Roman furniture" on. Neither the Greeks nor Romans had any of the experiences that would shape the West, like the Renaissance, the subsequent Enlightenment, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, secularism, capitalism, the Industrial Revolution - and so much more. It's not just a matter of time, that the Greek and Roman societies simply didn't survive long enough to experience these events; it's a matter of the social tensions and composition that created these events in Western history - such elements were absent from the Classical world. The Classical world made immense contributions to Western society but I believe Plato and Plutarch had much more in common with Xerxes or Ramses than they did Martel or Rousseau. (For my definition of these attributes and experiences, check out this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9109) old thread. Gosh, I'm lazy!)

The first time in my opinion the beginning of these attributes can be traced is when Pope Stephen II crossed the Alps in the mid-8th century to desperately request military aid from the Franks against the Lombards and Moslems in southern Italy. A deal was struck wedding old Mediterranean religious and legal traditions with Northern European (barbarian) power. The West was born, and with that first collusion on Christmas Day in A.D. 800 when Pope Leo III placed a crown on Charlemagne's head came the first attempts to rectify the Classical world's traditions with the post-Classical world. Almost immediately some very familiar Western themes arose - tensions between church and state, questions on legitimacy and governance, individual versus corporate rights, etc. that would play out in Western history, sometimes peacefully and sometimes violently. Charlemagne was the first true Westerner.

BTW, I didn't include all the candidates I've come across over the years; I just listed 10 and called it quits. (Refer to the "lazy" statement above...) I've read a theory that claims the West wasn't truly born until the Renaissance when an extremely dogmatic Christianized barbarian Europe (re)discovered its Classical heritage. Others have claimed that the beginning came with the Protestant Reformation, some the Age of Exploration, one even said the Treaty of Utrecht in 1714 (the first official document to refer to Europeans as Europeans instead of "Christians"). There is no absolute right answer; there is no signpost that states "YOU ARE NOW THE WEST".

I have waited a few days before chiming in, and my opinion (not that it counts or anything :)) is more in line with Hitro's and Vrylakas'. I see the modern West's true emergence when the modern nations of England, France, Germany, Spain etc arose admidst the ruins of the Dark Ages...

The modern West receives as much inheritance fr the Classical world, as well as fr the other civilisations like Egypt, Babylonia, India, the Arabs, China etc etc. ;)

Besides I don't expect the Romans and Greeks to see themselves as part of the 'West'; they probably think more of themselves as the crown of humanity and the rulers of the world, rather than as only a recognizable portion of the known world.

Originally posted by Damien
I'd say the ancient Greeks,inventors of politics and philosophy.
Minoans were quite awesome.They were not indo-european and a "leisure society".Women were equal to men.Minoans adopted their script from Phoenicians.The Minoans used a script coded Linear A & B. Linear B had been decoded I think and it showed Mycanean influence. The earlier Linear A is still a mystery. The Minoans did not get their script fr the Phoenicians I think...

It is believed that Indo-european Greeks who came around 2000 BC adopted Minoan customs but they were very different from em(war-like like any indo-european,had powerful kings and women had no great place in public life).Those myceneans adopted the minoan script.More like they wiped out the Minoans and forced their script (Linear B) on them. The Minoans probably lost due to natural disasters striking Thera and the main island (remember Atlantis?).

Anyway, after this, the whole region entered a Dark Age and when the Greeks reemerged, they had forgotten both scripts and adopted the Phoenician alphabet I think...

Our latin script is derived from Phoenician script.(Phoenicians were Canaanites who fled from the Sea Peoples who stormed into the ME around 1200 but Minoan civilization is older than that...I don't understand how Minoans could adopt their script from a younger civ).I thought the Phoenicians are native to Phoenicia...

It was believed part of the Sea Peoples were Canaanites... and their main target was Egypt...

Now,who were Aryans?Aryans were a group of immigrants who called themselves Arya(noble ones) and intermarried with Dravidians(nowadays N India speaks indo-european languages and S India speaks Dravidian languages but practises hinduism,the religion of the Aryans).

Aryans were immigrants from Iran(the word Iran stems from Aryan)who disagreed with mazdeism,the religion practised by Persians.No, the Aryans came fr further north, fr a proposed Indo-European 'homeland' probably somewhere in South Russia/Ukraine etc. One branch invaded India; another Persia.

Hindus burn dead people and fire represents deities whereas mazdeans thought that fire represented Evil,that's why they let dead people be eaten by vultures outta cities.
This oppsition can be seen in languages.Dev=devil in persian and deva=god in sanskrit ; ahoura=god in persian and asoura=devil in sanskrit.Mazdeans??? I thought you're describing Zorocrastrians and their belief in dualism (good and evil).

The Hindus believed in a pantheon. No relation betw the two.

Persians and Aryans were indo-european and stemmed from the region around the Caspian Sea.Some bring precisions and believe that Indo-europeans stem from Armenia.The Persians are the later-day descendants of the Aryan invaders of Iran.

In Armenia there's the mountain on which Noe is believed to have landed after the flood.Mt Ararat...

Abraham stemmed from Ur,where the Ubeidian culture flourished before the arrival of Sumerians in the 4th millenium.I thought the Ubaidians (sp?) were from after the Sumerian city-states had been conquered by Semitic-speaking tribes...

Mesopotamia is where agriculture flourished.As women gathered and then worked in the fields,it is believed that they developped agriculture,the desire to challenge nature in oder to be sure to have food that would lead to cities,civilization and kings(Hebrew judges would btw tell their people that kings are a sign of disobediance to Yawhe).Not just Mesopotamia; agriculture seemed to have arisen stimultaneously in many place, incl Egypt, parts of Europe, China, the New World, India etc... As for the rest of the paragraph,....

Could Mesopotamia be the Eden and agriculture be the knowledge's tree? :)I think this is speculation... :) Read a book once; they located it further north, around Lake Van where the modern borders of Iraq, Iran and Turkey meet. Quite a convincing argument but forgotten name of book...

535 AD, with the eruption of Krakatoa. That's where modern history starts if you subscribe to Catastrophe theory.

Why would an eruption in the South Pacific set off the modern world?

The Krakatoa erupted in the 19th century I think. Definitely not 535 AD...

And it's in Indonesia, hardly in the South Pacific... :)

Hah, I'm the only one with the "other". :p
I guess the West as we conceptualize it today began with the Enlightenment since whatever happened in Greece, it was followed by a long break and the rediscovery of "science" with laws over superfictions came with the 17th century. Also this was the era when capitalism started. The West is now a particular philosophy AND economic system and these two were connected around the 17th century.
And if you accept the Weberian argument, the age of the 'protestant ethic' would also be a good candidate. At least where more sociologists are running around... :)

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Why would an eruption in the South Pacific set off the modern world?

It was a monster. Krakatoa has erupted many times, including one really big one in the 19th century, but the 535AD bang was colossal. It blew out the Straits of Sunda, separating the islands of Java and Sumatra and blowing an estimated 100,000 cubic miles of gas, hydro-volcanic ash and water vapour into the upper atmosphere. The eruption is chronicled in the Pustaka Raja Purwa (an Indonesian chronicle) and corresponds with the Chinese Nan Shi chronicle.

Here's where it gets interesting. The effect of such eruption would be climactic changes on a global scale- and this has been verified by Dendrochronological records as far afield as Ireland and Canada, and also by ice-core analysis in Greenland and Antarctica which all indicate a fall in global mean temperatures and an increase in volcanic deposits around 535- 540 AD.

In effect, you've got something like a mild nuclear winter. Over the next 50-100 years, this causes the **** to hit the fan all over the world. Here we go....

In Mongolia, the Turks are vassals of the Avars. However the climactic changes cause a terrible drought. The Turks, who relied mainly on cattle, were hit less hard than the Avars who relied on horses. The Avar culture weakens causing years of conflict, and by 552AD it's overthrown by the Turks ending their 150-year enslavement. Driven out of the Steppes, the Avars migrate west, driving other people before them as their power returns. In 557AD they encounter.....

The Roman Empire. Now the Romans were well-organised, but the climactic changes had hit them hard too. Facing food shortages in Europe, their trading networks swiftly shifted south into Africa. That helped with the food crisis, but it brought plague to Constantinople in 541AD, and millions died. On top of that, the food shortages caused massive upheaval in the provinces as major conflict with the Slavs, and an influx of refugee people fleeing ahead of the advancing Avar. The history of the Roman Empire is well-documented- just check the carnage between 540 and 610 AD. It was never the same again. This caused terrible problems for their trading partners such as....

The Britons. They were a another well-organised bunch, combining Romanic discipline with Celtic stroppiness. Why did they fold so easily before the Saxon English? Because their trade with the Romans brought them into contact with the plague, and the associated shortfalls. Meanwhile, the English (who traded primarily with Northern Europe and Scandinavia) were relatively unscathed. That's how England grew dominant and forced the Britons to the Celtic fringes in the 6th century.

Meanwhile, the **** was also hitting the fan in the Middle East. The dominant Yemeni Empire was hit by the plague in 539AD. This was bad news, but not as bad as the flooding caused by climactic changes in the 30 years following 535AD. These progressively weakened and destroyed the mighty Marib Dam (which should have been one of the 7 wonders of the world) and ruined the Yemeni's highly sophisticated irrigation network. The Yemeni Empire started to collapse, leaving a power vacuum. In that time, thousands of people around Mecca were saved from the faminesby the work of Amr, making him one of the most powerful and popular men in the Middle East. And his family. Incidentally, he was the Great-Grandfather of Mohammed....

Meanwhile in China. "Yellow dust fell like snow".Snows in August, and terrible famine in 536AD. Provinces started falling like dominoes north of the Yellow River. The Vietnamese rebelled in 541AD. In 546AD, the currency was devalued. Years of rebellion and war followed as the North seceded from the ailing South forming the ascendant Sui dynasty. Finally, 50 years after 535AD, China was re-united under the Sui into it's proto-modern form....

Meanwhile in Peru, the Moche civilisation collapsed in a 30-year drought, exacerbated by the 556AD El Nino flooding. In the resultant power vacuum, the Huari Empire arose, building the powerbase and infrastructure that the Incas were reliant on in their later rise....

Astonishingly, that's just a small selection of what happened around the world. For the real story, try "Catastrophe" by David Keys. It's an extraordinary book.

I disagree with nearly everything that was said before.
My option is 'other'
West began approximately 40 thousands years ago.
To my mind, western country is a country of freedom + state-for-people structure - as simple as that. Everything is included in the word 'freedom' - market economy, freedom of press/expression/etc, laws that regulate rights of every citizen to give them enough freedom and to protect them; state-for-people means that a state must be wellfare and every citizen has real power, in fact.

Science doesn't make some country democratic. To my mind science is not connected with democracy at all. Whether fundamental science appeared in "democratic" Greece it doesn't mean that rise of science began when Greece became democratic. Btw, 'modern' medicine began with ancient Egypt - the oldest surgeon instruments were founded there.

Well, why do I think west began 40000 year ago?
A desire to be free appeared with mankind simultaneously. For a very short period of time, everyone was really free - people formed some primitive societies, where they chose the leaders, defined the functions of each member. Certainly, there were various tabu, but no one wanted to violate them, because it would contradict their own morality - the members of a tribe created tabu system in the way they wanted. I didn't mean that the ideal western state was formed by cromagnons, I just wanted to say that the desire to be free is natural for a human being, and, as you know, every action begins with desire. West began with democracy, democracy began with man, than democracy appeared 40 thousand yars ago. Everything except - state structure, sciences, care of citizens appeared later and each civilization made a modest contribution - Babylon - laws, Greece - culture, Israel and India - morality and religion, renaissance - humanism, etc....; everything except freedom is just a facade, just a decoration of the main idea.

well, he's probably in to that "a butterfly in europe can set a typhoon in asia" thing...

Klazlo wrote:

The West is now a particular philosophy AND economic system and these two were connected around the 17th century.

This is a very convincing argument, Laci. I suspect for instance that the birth of the nation-state through the processes of the Protestant-Catholic wars from the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 to the celebrated Treaty of Westphalia is somehow tied to the true foundation of a "West".

And if you accept the Weberian argument, the age of the 'protestant ethic' would also be a good candidate. At least where more sociologists are running around...

Didn't Fichte write something about sociologists being the doom of Western Civilization...? ;)

Knight-Dragon wrote:

The modern West receives as much inheritance fr the Classical world, as well as fr the other civilisations like Egypt, Babylonia, India, the Arabs, China etc etc.

This is also a critical point, and one I think that undermines the "Greeks-as-Westerners" argument. All great civilizations absorb and assimilate cultural, technological and philosophical aspects of foreign cultures but the West went above and beyond the call of duty in this regard. There is a particular historical reason behind much of this (the ages of Discovery and Imperialism, colonialism) but the West has been infused with huge infusions of foreign cultural concepts and has usually been very ready to absorb them. Ancient Egyptian and Classical Greek concepts did heavily impact the West, obtusely in the same way that 6th century Slavs could not be called "Poles" or "Czechs".

Kafka2 wrote:

535 AD, with the eruption of Krakatoa. That's where modern history starts if you subscribe to Catastrophe theory.

You've clearly done your homework on this one, Kafka, but I'm not sold on the idea of weather determining history. Climate and weather certainly do have an impact on history (note the "Little Ice Age" of 1300-1700 in Europe) but the idea of an entire civilization being created - an extremely complex process - by the eruption of a volcano, no matter how catastrophic, is a bit far-fetched. The West is, more than anything else, a civilization of ideas, ideas that developed in some cases over millennia. They coalesced into a unique civilization at some point (which is the question of this thread) but "one point" is a rough time period, not something like "last Tuesday". A volcanic eruption is something like "last Tuesday". I'm open to the possibility though. Can you show us more?

BiFrost wrote:

I disagree with nearly everything that was said before.
My option is 'other'
West began approximately 40 thousands years ago.

Well, that's an extreme opinion. I'm going to play Devil's advocate for you, Brother BiFrost: If Freedom, which is clearly a critical ideological component of the modern West, is so important in human affairs and has always been, why haven't other civilizations become as obsessed with it as the West? The West (by my reckoning) is a fairly new civilization and was preceded by many civilizations that had achieved very considerable material and philosophical levels long before any English king signed any Great Charter, or before any bloated French king proclaimed "L'etat c'est moi!". Why didn't the Chinese, Indians, Mayans, or Akkadians develop an interest in the individual as a political and economic autonomous unit?

I don;t think we can say one of these answers is the right one. They're all true. If not for Egypt and Mesopotamia, the western civilization would be very different, especially when it comes to religion. The dualism (good-->evil) from the Persians (ok, ok, that's more Iran), the "afterlife", law, stories in the bible, koran and tora...so much. And similar things vcan be said of every option i think...

Originally posted by Bifrost
Well, why do I think west began 40000 year ago?
A desire to be free appeared with mankind simultaneously. For a very short period of time, everyone was really free - people formed some primitive societies, where they chose the leaders, defined the functions of each member..........everything except freedom is just a facade, just a decoration of the main idea.

I don't agree. I think that, at a very primitive and primal level, we're pack animals and would relinquish "freedom" for the security of belonging in the pack, even in a subservient role.

I also suspect that even 40,000 years ago, in every proto-society you'd still find someone carving out the tripes of anyone not following his rules.

BiFrost wrote:

I disagree with nearly everything that was said before.
My option is 'other'
West began approximately 40 thousands years ago.

Well, that's an extreme opinion. I'm going to play Devil's advocate for you, Brother BiFrost: If Freedom, which is clearly a critical ideological component of the modern West, is so important in human affairs and has always been, why haven't other civilizations become as obsessed with it as the West? The West (by my reckoning) is a fairly new civilization and was preceded by many civilizations that had achieved very considerable material and philosophical levels long before any English king signed any Great Charter, or before any bloated French king proclaimed "L'etat c'est moi!". Why didn't the Chinese, Indians, Mayans, or Akkadians develop an interest in the individual as a political and economic autonomous unit?


I wrote "thousands"???!!! :eek: Stupid me.

Prepare for another delirium message of mine. - If someone finds it stupid, than don't take it seriously.

Dear Vrylakas:D
I deleted some part of my previos message, because it had numerous mistakes and I was bored correcting them. So there's an "add-on" to my message.
The appeareance, the face of western civilization has always been changing, and it still changes. Every civilization makes its contribution and that's why the definition of western civilization must be flexible (so, I've chosen the most flexible option "freedom" - it includes many sides and is able to spawn some more in future). Is it possible to say that dirty England of XII century couldn't be considered to be a western country? Is it possible to say that ancient Rome couldn't be considered a western country either? As I can feel your attitude to what is a western country, you can neither answer "no' nor "yes", because from some points of view those countries were western without any doubt, but from another POV they weren't. So, my answer ( now it will express my attitude more correctly) is:
1. Whether we consider western country to be identical to USA and EU (these countries have everything to make some state democratic, even science, culture, etc...) then western countries appear now. They appear every second, and the USA that existed a minute ago can't be considered a western country, because it doesn't have everything that a modern USA has. Well, to simplify all that **** I've said, just imagine that all the qualities (not sure about this word) of modern western country are united with"and" operator.;)
2. If we define a country as 'western' is the one that has some of these qualities (the "or" operator ;) ) - (stupid, I know, but it's the most simple explanation I can find) than my previous message is right - 40000 years ago - the first signs of west appeared in that time.
3. And the last point of view, which is certainly a commonplace, but is a rather reasonable commonplace :). We cannot find the date when the first western-type country appeared, because
a) we cannot value the contribution of all the states there were: is it possible to say whether it is Greece culture or renaissance that moved the world closer to 'west' as we define it today? to my mind, it's not.
b) the certain part of the world has been turning into 'West' gradually.

I've got an Idea that the best way to answer this question is the following: 1) To draw a time scale beginning with 40.000 B.C. and ending with 2002 A.D. 2) To draw a rectangle over it, it must have the same length the scale has. 3) To fill the white rectangle with dots of some colour with the concentration changing along the time axis according to the level of "westernness or westernity" (or just divide the rectangle on some sectors and fill them with tones of some colour - lighter if the period was less 'western' for some country, darker if the country became more western). 4) To create such diagrams for each country or a group of countries or even regions/continents, and for the entire world - (average 'westernity' world rate). Everyone will make it in his special way, because some people consider one events to be more significant and other - less significant: some will have light-pink over XVII century, and some will have dark-red at that very place.

So my answer is that we can't find the certain date and state that may be considered the first western country. All we can do is to compare some countries to say which was more western.

We have no rights to overpraise the contribution to the world development of one countries and to neglect the contributions other countries made. The western country is a result of centuries of evolution and development.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Klazlo wrote:

The West is now a particular philosophy AND economic system and these two were connected around the 17th century.

This is a very convincing argument, Laci. I suspect for instance that the birth of the nation-state through the processes of the Protestant-Catholic wars from the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 to the celebrated Treaty of Westphalia is somehow tied to the true foundation of a "West".

And if you accept the Weberian argument, the age of the 'protestant ethic' would also be a good candidate. At least where more sociologists are running around...

Didn't Fichte write something about sociologists being the doom of Western Civilization...? ;)


Actually I found the argument around the Westphalian treaty a bit easy. There were chages later and especially the creation of nation states like Germany and Italy did change the picture, right? Sometimes it seems that Western scholars tend to pick events like the W. treaty and write history around it.
How do you see it as a historian? Maybe it's the internal bias of sociologists not to tie anything to one particular event. :)

And sociologists are doom for all civilization that's for sure... :lol: They are never satisfied and always preach about contingencies...

Klazlo wrote:

Actually I found the argument around the Westphalian treaty a bit easy. There were chages later and especially the creation of nation states like Germany and Italy did change the picture, right? Sometimes it seems that Western scholars tend to pick events like the W. treaty and write history around it.
How do you see it as a historian? Maybe it's the internal bias of sociologists not to tie anything to one particular event.

History is indeed very event-based (and event-biased); we like to hang our stories on events like coat pegs. This is why political and military history have so dominated historical studies, while the more "boring" social and economic histories have until recently languished in the backrooms. Rarely are the participants in those events aware that they are doing something historically significant; usually they're more concerned with immediate issues. The signers of the Treaty of Westphalia had no idea they were radically changing the nature of states. Only centuries later would we become aware that the singers at Westphalia had altered the course of European history. When we say 'The Treaty of Westphalia' we really mean the long process in Western history whereby the relationship between individuals and their states would be scrutinized and specifically defined, leading ultimately to our modern nation-states and perhaps to supra-national states like the EU. E.H. Carr wrote about how historians pull events out of nothing as examples of larger processes and trends. He used the example of one historian writing about a bar fight that took place in 1860s London, where we know the names of the main antagonists and the reasons behind the brawl. This has become a historical event, but it is really a symbol describing a facet of mid-19th century life in London.

And sociologists are doom for all civilization that's for sure... They are never satisfied and always preach about contingencies...

Actually Fichte never said any such thing, but he might have... ;) A biased old history professor of mine once described sociology as a "painful elaboration of the obvious." Not that there's any rivalry in the humanities...

BiFrost wrote:

I wrote "thousands"???!!! Stupid me.

Eh, to nic.

Prepare for another delirium message of mine. - If someone finds it stupid, than don't take it seriously.

If you don't want to be taken seriously, then get married. (Just kidding on that one; married life is actually great.)

The appeareance, the face of western civilization has always been changing, and it still changes. Every civilization makes its contribution and that's why the definition of western civilization must be flexible (so, I've chosen the most flexible option "freedom" - it includes many sides and is able to spawn some more in future).

Absolutely true. Some of the values of the West of 1890 were repugnant to many in the West only a few decades later.

Is it possible to say that dirty England of XII century couldn't be considered to be a western country? Is it possible to say that ancient Rome couldn't be considered a western country either? As I can feel your attitude to what is a western country, you can neither answer "no' nor "yes", because from some points of view those countries were western without any doubt, but from another POV they weren't.

I would argue that Rome wasn't a Western country, though it spawned many ideas and innovations the West would adapt. If Charlemagne and the Ottos had their way, the Roman Empire in its entirety would have been re-established in the 9th and 10th centuries. Their failure (Thank you, Friedrich Barbarossa) opened the door for other influences, both Classical and native, to begin to take root - separation of church and state, etc.
I would argue that Anglo-Saxon and Danish England was not Western either; it only entered the Western fold when conquered by (ironically) Latinified Vikings fom Normandy. True, Christianity had already taken root in England prior to William the Conquerer but the West is not only about Christianity. William brought "Western" feudal relationships and also far-reaching trade routes to the East to England, trade routes that had been cut since Roman times.

Which raises another question that I do not have a ready answer for: Do you think Russia, Romania and Bulgaria ever were, or are "Western"? Is the old Latin-Byzantine Christian divide truly a Western border? Once when visiting the old Saxon and Hungarian city of Brasov in southern-most Transylvania (in modern Romania), a Hungarian colleague pointed to a famous Saxon church there and said aloud, "There is the last outpost of the West in the East." Now, there was definitely a bit of an anti-Romanian bias in his statement but might there be something to his statement?

So, my answer ( now it will express my attitude more correctly) is:

[b]1. Whether we consider western country to be identical to USA and EU (these countries have everything to make some state democratic, even science, culture, etc...) then western countries appear now. They appear every second, and the USA that existed a minute ago can't be considered a western country, because it doesn't have everything that a modern USA has. Well, to simplify all that **** I've said, just imagine that all the qualities (not sure about this word) of modern western country are united with"and" operator.

This is very abstract but I get your point. What is Western today may not have been in the 14th century, and may not be a 30 years. Defining "Western" is dangerously time-bound.

2. If we define a country as 'western' is the one that has some of these qualities (the "or" operator ) - (stupid, I know, but it's the most simple explanation I can find) than my previous message is right - 40000 years ago - the first signs of west appeared in that time.

But again, I would have to ask why the (modern) qualities that we define as Western developed exclusively in Europe?

3. And the last point of view, which is certainly a commonplace, but is a rather reasonable commonplace . We cannot find the date when the first western-type country appeared, because
a) we cannot value the contribution of all the states there were: is it possible to say whether it is Greece culture or renaissance that moved the world closer to 'west' as we define it today? to my mind, it's not.
b) the certain part of the world has been turning into 'West' gradually.

But why that part of the world?

I've got an Idea that the best way to answer this question is the following: 1) To draw a time scale beginning with 40.000 B.C. and ending with 2002 A.D. 2) To draw a rectangle over it, it must have the same length the scale has. 3) To fill the white rectangle with dots of some colour with the concentration changing along the time axis according to the level of "westernness or westernity" (or just divide the rectangle on some sectors and fill them with tones of some colour - lighter if the period was less 'western' for some country, darker if the country became more western). 4) To create such diagrams for each country or a group of countries or even regions/continents, and for the entire world - (average 'westernity' world rate). Everyone will make it in his special way, because some people consider one events to be more significant and other - less significant: some will have light-pink over XVII century, and some will have dark-red at that very place.

If I understand you correctly then I agree thus far, that when France became Western will be different from when England, Italy or Poland became Western. For some, like Poland, there is a definite date - A.D. 966 - where we can comfortably say the country took on Western values but for others like Spain or England, the processes are far more diffuse and less easily defined or pinpointed.

So my answer is that we can't find the certain date and state that may be considered the first western country. All we can do is to compare some countries to say which was more western.

We have no rights to overpraise the contribution to the world development of one countries and to neglect the contributions other countries made. The western country is a result of centuries of evolution and development.

Agreed, but surely there are periods and examples where certain societies made extraordinary contributions. The Italian city-states of the 13th-16th centuries had a massive cultural impact on most of Europe, obliterating much else culturally that stood in their path. Poland also made important contributions (which few other Westerners are aware of) but nothing to compare to the Renaissance Italians. There are some in this Western club who are "first among equals".

BTW, this is almost off-topic but something struck me as I was re-reading the results so far in the responses on this thread, namely that some cultural differences might be showing themselves.

The English-speaking peoples have a peculiar history that is steeped like no other people in Europe in ideology, especially the Americans. The idea of something like an "Un-American Activities" committee in Poland or Germany is preposterous but it happened in the U.S. How does one not act Polish? By not being born Polish, I suppose. Americanness is derived from a belief system, not any innate qualities like a Continental European relies on. The English are inbetween on this, but certainly a staunch part of Englishness is a belief in the traditions of the British system. I'm not poking fun or criticizing, just observing.

With that in mind, I noticed that many of the native English-speakers looked to the Greeks for the origins of the West, while the Continental Europeans - sorry, can't vouch for Knight-Dragon ;) - looked for the statist origins of the West. The English-speakers looked for the origins of the ideas, while Europeans reached for the organic origins?

Anyone else see this or am I simply in great need of sleep? This is hardly a scientific sample, but I just noticed it...

Originally posted by Vrylakas
The English-speaking peoples have a peculiar history that is steeped like no other people in Europe in ideology, especially the Americans. The idea of something like an "Un-American Activities" committee in Poland or Germany is preposterous but it happened in the U.S. How does one not act Polish? By not being born Polish, I suppose. Americanness is derived from a belief system, not any innate qualities like a Continental European relies on. The English are inbetween on this, but certainly a staunch part of Englishness is a belief in the traditions of the British system. I'm not poking fun or criticizing, just observing.Probably because America has a shorter history and Americans had originally come fr all over Europe and the world. They need something to tie the whole nation together; something beyond ethicity and only a short common history. 'American values' filled this need I think.

Whereas the old established nations of the Old World had been around for awhile; hard to explain but let's just say the peoples of the Old World are more confident of themselves as a people and nation due to history, culture and stuff. Like the Chinese - you're Chinese so long as you're born one, having a Chinese name and subscribe to Chinese 'cultural values', or a mixture of those. I have schoolmates who can't speak Chinese at all, who are Christians and have taken up Christian names, but who still consider themselves bona fide Chinese. ;)

Many modern nations in Africa and Asia are also searching for this elusive national identity stuff. Like my home country, they're trying to reach back to their Islamic background to bolster their uniqueness. ;)

sorry, can't vouch for Knight-Dragon ;)OK.... :)

BTW, I am posting the above while playing a PBEM with donsig, so I may not be thinking too coherently... :)

The concept of "Americanism" you mention is based on the fact that the United States doesn't have a "native" race, like your example of Poland Vrylakas.
The belief system of the US revolves around a unique set of ideals that were virtually untested when the US was formed, yet have stood for over two centuries basically unchanged.

You can be Polish and yet still be an American, whereas that duality is almost impossible elsewhere.

BTW, I stand behind my statements, I consider the Greek model to be the begining of western thought, the renansance merely was a rebirth of the Greek method, IE the desire to learn for learning's sake.
Many of the former barbarian states were actually a set back in what we today consider western, as they included things such as absolute monarchies and Religious faiths having considerable control of governments (both of which the Athenians as well as the Americans rejected).

The Church (The Vatican actually) is at varience with what we today consider western thought, as it requires a slavish dogma that cannot be questioned (We all know the stories of what the church tried to do to modern science), this is at odds to the Athenians, who did not consult the gods as the final arbiter of fate, as well as the American concept of seperation of church and state.

I tend to agree that the Western world began in Greece, but you can also say that the West has changed significantly since then.

Another pivotal moment in time, that I think sparked the "modern west", was the Reformation. The Catholic Church, according to the Western ideals we live by today, was a very un-Western institution. In order for the Western world to truly bloom, it needed Christianity. Christ's message of salvation within the individual was trampled on by the Papacy, and until the Papacy's grip on religion was ultimately broken by Luther, human progress was held in check by Catholic dogma.

Once people had freedom to worship, other freedoms followed.

Greece wrote the blueprint, Rome learned from Greece, and everyone else learned from Rome....eventually.

but the Greek learned a lot from f.e. the Hittities

Many, many factors. Modern Europe was created when the Western Roman Empire disintegrated. WW1 and WW2 were the final major steps in the creation of Europe, from the days of the Franks to now. But Europe will never stop changing.

Cimbri

i'd say wester civilization was created in the beginning of time

I'm not sure that the Western Civilization began in Greece, but it's obvious that the base of it depends on the Greeks and their way of thinking.

I would like to add a few points to the discussion.

Though being Western European, I live in Japan and am wondering if Japan wouldn't fit better in the Western country group. The political and economic system were 99% copied on Western ones and, cultural differences notwithstanding, life is pretty much the same as in the West, given the big gaps that exist between countries like Sweden, Greece, France, the US or Poland, for example. Every Western country has its own culture and its no need to say that Italian and English mentality or food are probably as different as Italian and Japanese, French and Chinese or English and Indian. You can always find similarities between 2 countries.

I believe that the question in this thread is not to know which ethny, language or culture is Western (that is pretty straight-forward), but rather what nation follows Western socio-politico-economic system and values.

During the cold war, there was a clear division between West and East, but that meant capitalist West Vs Communist East. The division was geographical because the USSR and China were East, the US West and Europe divided East and West.

However, this has nothing to do with cultural difference. Russia is European, but China and North Korea aren't. Likewise, a country like Singapore is probably more Western because its system and even official language (English) are the same as in the US, UK or Australia. If reasoning for its own sake and science are what describes Western mentallty, then most developped countries are. Japan has lots of Nobel prize winners.

Religion is probably not that important either. No need to be Christian to be Western. I am an atheist, but purely Western. Greeks and Romans (till the 3-4th c.) weren't Christians. About 10% of the French or British population are now Muslims.

Originally posted by Julien
Though being Western European, I live in Japan and am wondering if Japan wouldn't fit better in the Western country group. The political and economic system were 99% copied on Western ones and, cultural differences notwithstanding, life is pretty much the same as in the West, given the big gaps that exist between countries like Sweden, Greece, France, the US or Poland, for example. Every Western country has its own culture and its no need to say that Italian and English mentality or food are probably as different as Italian and Japanese, French and Chinese or English and Indian. You can always find similarities between 2 countries.

Well, if you would ask a Dutchman (like me) this question, he'll answer that Japan is a Western country. The Japanese people is already fully accepted a Western civilization and a member of the G7/G8 (I don't know what it is today). Maybe, it's everywhere in the world like that, I don't know.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Julien
I believe that the question in this thread is not to know which ethny, language or culture is Western (that is pretty straight-forward), but rather what nation follows Western socio-politico-economic system and values.[QUOTE]

Well, make nation => nations. At least the USA is the symbol of the Western world.

Japan is a Westernized country, but not a Western country. Tell any Japanese they're now part of the West, they'll probably think you're bonkers. Despite outward modernity, the Japanese still cling to their traditions and customs, esp on festive days. ;)

Much the same with other more advanced countries in Asia like Taiwan, HK, Singapore, S Korea, parts of China etc.

When Australia or NZ will have a larger Asian population than European, will it still be considered a Western country ? That might not be so far in the future. New Zealand only has 2,5millions inhabitants and immigration is high. In 50 years it will be dominantly Asian.

Then, countries like the Philippines, Peru and Bolivia which are very Westernized, catholics, etc. are they Western or not ? So we go back to our question, is it ethny, culture, development or socio-politico-economic system that makes a country Western ?

The Phillippines have all characteristics, except the ethny and the development (so far). Culturally, they are as westerns as Brazilans or Mexicans.

Peru and Bolivia have about 70% of their population that is indigenous (Quechua or other). On the other hand, the rest is mainly from Spanish descent and speaks only Spanish. They are hybrid for sure, but are usually considered as Western, like the rest of America.

Some Eastern European countries like Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania or Bulgaria can't be considered economically developped. Ethnically, they are Westerners, but have a radically different culture from Western Europeans and Americans.

So, what come first, development, system, ethny or culture ?

Japan meets 2 criteria
Singapore meets almost 3, as culturally they are as Western as Americans or Canadians (that is mixed culture and English-speaking)
The Philippines meets 2.

Most Eastern European countries meet 3 (not development yet), but used to be 2 during communism. Technically, Hungary is not ethnically and culturally European, so during communism, you could say it didn't meet any criteria to be a Western country. It's still true for some ex-USSR countries like Kazaksthan, Uzbekistan, etc.

That brings us to Turkey, which is historically Western both for ethnically and culturally, but has been mixed for the last 500 years. It's as developped as Eastern Europe and economico-politically more Western than, say, Romania. So, it qualifies on the 4 criteria, but only partially for all of them. That is what is causing trouble to the EU to decide whether to accept it as a new member or not (+ the geographical issue, as most of it is in Asia).


Peru and Bolivia meet 3, but only partially.
Mexico has the Latin culture, but its development and political system are only partially Western. Ethically they are mainly non-Western. So 1 + 2 halves = 2
Cuba only has the Latin culture that is Western (90% of the population is black), so 1.

South Africa is mixed on all the line, except maybe the very Western politico-economic system.

We see that most of these countries are thought of as Western by some people, but not by others. I have to agree that Japan is usually seen as a Western country by Europeans, but not by Japanese themselves. It's strange as Japanese think of the whole of South America as Western, eventhough a great number of the people living there are either native Americans, blacks or mestizo. Less than 15% of Bolivians and Peruvians are from European descent. It's undeniable that Japan or Singapore qualifie much more, even culturally, as Western countries than Bolivia and Peru. It's just that Japanese prefer to see differences between them and the rest of the world and claim their uniqueness, while South Americans try to profit from an appartenance to the Western world (or because they were colonies). Singapore is even more clear. It was founded by the English, so was a real part of the UK. Nowadays, its only claim for non Westernness is its mixed Asian ethies. Nothing more (I hope you agree Knight-Dragon).

Originally posted by Julien
When Australia or NZ will have a larger Asian population than European, will it still be considered a Western country ? That might not be so far in the future. New Zealand only has 2,5millions inhabitants and immigration is high. In 50 years it will be dominantly Asian.Immigration may not be sustained forever; it's still fairly conjectural at this point to say that both these countries will 'go Asian'. In the case of NZ, it's no longer as attractive an immigration destination as in the past, due to present economic doldrums.

The Phillippines have all characteristics, except the ethny and the development (so far). Culturally, they are as westerns as Brazilans or Mexicans.The Filipinos may be Catholics but to categorize them as Western is a bit too far... Ethically, they're entirely Asian; most being Malay or other aboriginals originally.

Singapore meets almost 3, as culturally they are as Western as Americans or Canadians (that is mixed culture and English-speaking)That's news to me - the people being as Western as Americans or Canadians. :p I must check with my neighbours, who're still burning paper money during the Chinese Ghost Month, or going to mosques, or speaking Mandarin Chinese in the home, or burning incense for Hindu deities - that's a very unWestern thing to do. :)

Singapore is even more clear. It was founded by the English, so was a real part of the UK. Nowadays, its only claim for non Westernness is its mixed Asian ethies. Nothing more (I hope you agree Knight-Dragon).You cannot be more wrong. S'pore (and M'sia) had shed their Britishness long ago, except for some sentimental stuff. If anything, S'pore is more American, than English nowadays.

And a majority of the peoples of Singapore are still practising much the same beliefs and customs as their forefathers do; and still firmly consider themselves to be in the Asian camp. Outwardly, S'poreans might speak better English than the Japanese and subscribe more to Western norms; but that's modernity, not Westerness... There's a difference.

The tag 'Western' still holds strong memories (both good and bad) in most parts of the world. ;) Maybe using the term 'modernity' will be more appropriate.

That's news to me - the people being as Western as Americans or Canadians. I must check with my neighbours, who're still burning paper money during the Chinese Ghost Month, or going to mosques, or speaking Mandarin Chinese in the home, or burning incense for Hindu deities - that's a very unWestern thing to do.

That's exactly what I meant. Immigration countries like the US, Canada, Australia or NZ boast cultural groups from all over the world. In New York alone (6 times the population of Singapore, so maybe shall we just take half of Manhatan...), there is a Chinatown where people might not speak English, a little Italy that has conserved all its Italianness, Jewish people going to synagogues with orthodox clothes and hair-style, and many mores. It's more cosmopolitan than Singapore, and it shows it at least as much. In New Orleans, Afro-Americans are still practising voodoo, while in San Diego, you'd find more Spanish-speaking Mexicans than other Americans. Same for Canada. French-speakers are prouder of their French culture and roots than French themselves, and that's not an euphemism. Vancouver is now more Asian (especially Japanese) than European. Needless to say that the Hindu and Muslim communities are also important in both countries. That is maybe more evident in the UK, where you can find Hindu temples (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A458976) or mosques as big as cathedrals and maybe more beautiful than in their original country. The town of Leicester in England count now more Indians than English. There are more Indians in London than Malays and Indians combined in Singapore. Actually 20% of UK's population is from foreign origin. Not bad, considered it's not an immigration land like the US.

This said, are the UK and the US really Western thenselves ?

The discussion is veering in an interesting direction. What constitutes Westerness, as opposed to modernity? Japan is by heritage certainly not a Western society but has in its recent history adopted and developed many values in common with the West. Former European colonies also have at least the veneer of Westerness. Is modernity exclusively a Western domain? Can a country modernize today without "Westernizing"? This of course is a question the Arab countries in particular would like an answer for, but many are struggling with it. There clearly is a Japanese way of democracy and capitalism, just as there is a Singaporese way, A Bahrainian way, etc. But did these societies have to imbibe a significant amount of Westernness before they could begin molding these institutions themselves?

Originally posted by Julien
That's exactly what I meant. Immigration countries like the US, Canada, Australia or NZ boast cultural groups from all over the world. In New York alone (6 times the population of Singapore, so maybe shall we just take half of Manhatan...), there is a Chinatown where people might not speak English, a little Italy that has conserved all its Italianness, Jewish people going to synagogues with orthodox clothes and hair-style, and many mores.S'pore has 4 million people; I don't think NY has 24 million people - seems too high a figure... Anyway...

It's more cosmopolitan than Singapore, and it shows it at least as much. In New Orleans, Afro-Americans are still practising voodoo, while in San Diego, you'd find more Spanish-speaking Mexicans than other Americans. Same for Canada. French-speakers are prouder of their French culture and roots than French themselves, and that's not an euphemism. Vancouver is now more Asian (especially Japanese) than European. Needless to say that the Hindu and Muslim communities are also important in both countries. That is maybe more evident in the UK, where you can find Hindu temples (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A458976) or mosques as big as cathedrals and maybe more beautiful than in their original country. The town of Leicester in England count now more Indians than English. There are more Indians in London than Malays and Indians combined in Singapore. Actually 20% of UK's population is from foreign origin. Not bad, considered it's not an immigration land like the US.But NY or Vancouver or London are not city-states in themselves; they're still a part of the country and nation they're subjected to. Overall, the US and the UK are Western, fr a historical, cultural point of view. These countries have a long history and a proud heritage as a part of the West. The Caucasians/Westerners still form the vast majority of the population.

This said, are the UK and the US really Western thenselves ?As Western as Western can be... :)

Originally posted by Vrylakas
The discussion is veering in an interesting direction. What constitutes Westerness, as opposed to modernity? Japan is by heritage certainly not a Western society but has in its recent history adopted and developed many values in common with the West. Former European colonies also have at least the veneer of Westerness. Is modernity exclusively a Western domain? Can a country modernize today without "Westernizing"? This of course is a question the Arab countries in particular would like an answer for, but many are struggling with it. There clearly is a Japanese way of democracy and capitalism, just as there is a Singaporese way, A Bahrainian way, etc. But did these societies have to imbibe a significant amount of Westernness before they could begin molding these institutions themselves?This is the very theme which runs thru ALL non-Western countries - how to adopt the technology, social norms etc of the West w/o the associated 'Westerness' cultural baggage.

It has been asked by the Chinese reformists who tried to reform Imperial Qing China into a Western-style country in the last century and this one; by the Japanese samurai who headed the Meiji Reformation; by all the ex-colonial newly independent nations in their search for a new national identity (separated fr 'Westerness' which is identified with colonialism); by the Young Turks who tried reforming the Porte; and so on.

There's no easy answer.

Originally posted by Julien

Some Eastern European countries like Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania or Bulgaria can't be considered economically developped. Ethnically, they are Westerners, but have a radically different culture from Western Europeans and Americans.

Technically, Hungary is not ethnically and culturally European, so during communism, you could say it didn't meet any criteria to be a Western country.

Based on your statement it seems that you don't know anything about Hungary (and as being a Western European it's a :nono: ).
Let me enlighten you: Hungary with Poland and the Czech Republic is way more "Westerner" and/or "European" (whatever those terms mean) than the countries you cited above.

The only reason for this is that these three countries had long enough independent statehood to incorporate many of the positive and negative components of being "European", which identity was gradually developed in the West. It has nothing to do with nationalism, ethnicity, religion and the false feeling of cultural supriority.

And FYI Eastern Europe was under "socialism", not "communism" because there is a significant difference (except for the CNN) - get more familiar with the theoretical background of the Second World and the history of Eastern Europe.
Or just don't engage into arguments about them. :p

Originally posted by Vrylakas
There clearly is a Japanese way of democracy and capitalism, just as there is a Singaporese way, A Bahrainian way, etc. But did these societies have to imbibe a significant amount of Westernness before they could begin molding these institutions themselves?

What I don't like with this argument is that it presuppose that all Western countries are the same or are one big culture. I realise that this is often how native English-speakers see the West. Unfortunately for them, the mentality of each linguistic group (in Europe especially) an the way they see democracy, economics or moral values can be as different between France and the US, Sweden and Portugal, Germany and Greece or Italy and Finland then with any of these compared to Japan, Singapore, etc.
That is why more French people usually ctiticise US politics and mentality while they almost admire Japan (well, depends who and for what , of course). I, for example think that Italians and Japanese (for having lived in both countries) are impressively similar - but I am not going to develop that here now. Italians and Germans are almost opposite in way of thinking. Consequently, don't simplify too quickly by seeing differences between Japan and Western countries before having seen differences between Westerners themselves.

Originally posted by klazlo


Based on your statement it seems that you don't know anything about Hungary (and as being a Western European it's a :nono: ).
Let me enlighten you: Hungary with Poland and the Czech Republic is way more "Westerner" and/or "European" (whatever those terms mean) than the countries you cited above.

The only reason for this is that these three countries had long enough independent statehood to incorporate many of the positive and negative components of being "European", which identity was gradually developed in the West. It has nothing to do with nationalism, ethnicity, religion and the false feeling of cultural supriority.

Well I don't know what you know about Hungary, but you visibly haven't understood the obvious reason why I was saying that Hungary is not strictly speaking European. Hungarians descent from the Huns, a central Asian tribe culturally and linguistically related to the Mongols. The Huns invaded Europe in the 5th century AD and sped up the end of the Western Roman Empire. In fact, there were two groups of Huns. One settle in the plain that later became Hungary, while the other settle in present-day Finland and Estonia.

Nowadays, even after 15 centuries of separation, Finnish (Suomi) and Hungarian (Magyar) languages are still thouroughly un-European and keep strong similarities together. These language are part of the Ural-Altaic family, not Indo-European. The Ural family is basically composed of Suomi, Magyar, Estonian and a few Siberian languages. The Altaic group is made of Turkish, Turkmen, Kazhak, Mongolian, and more remotely Korean and Japanese. If you want to learn more about it, check these sites : http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_uralic.html
http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_altaic.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Yukon_2/language2.html

As language is the decisive element in a culture, it only seems logical that Hungarians and Finns should be very different from the European neighbours. Maybe as much as Japanese or Singaporian are from Americans, Germans...

When you say It has nothing to do with nationalism, ethnicity, religion and the false feeling of cultural supriority I think you misunderstand me. I have never raised the issue of nationalism or feeling of cultural superiority. As for religion, that's almost the only cultural element that binds Hungarian with other Europeans, like it does between Germans and Italians or Spanish.
Of course, Hungary does have the same socio-politico-economic system as other European countries, because of it's comon history (Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc.).

And FYI Eastern Europe was under "socialism", not "communism" because there is a significant difference (except for the CNN) - get more familiar with the theoretical background of the Second World and the history of Eastern Europe.
Or just don't engage into arguments about them. :p

This was a very personal a biased opinion, if I can allow myself. Socialism is, apparently, something that American people have difficulty understanding because it doesn't seem to exist there (Democrats and Republican are both right-wing). Nevertheless, most of Western Europe is governed by socialist parties today. That's a fact. Or at least that what these parties call themselves. If you disagree with what should be called socialism, up to you to go and tell them. But what is dead certain is that Western Europe is not communist, and Eastern Europe was until 1990. I've lived 5 months in a German family in East Berlin that have experience communism. There was only one political party allowed (which called itslef "Communist Party", not "Socialist party"). Everybody lived in paerfectly standanrdised blok appartments, got paid by the government. You could have big problem for no being a Party member or criticising the Party. It was the same in all Eastern Europe. What you meant was maybe that there were different styles of communism (Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist...). China had a much harsher approach of communism than the USSR, but that's another matter.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
S'pore has 4 million people; I don't think NY has 24 million people - seems too high a figure... Anyway...

Sorry about this, I thought Singapore had only 3 million people. Mea culpa. Central NY has 7,5 million (only double and less than Hong Kong, so suitable for comparison), but the greater NY has about 16 to 20 million, depending on how you count.


But NY or Vancouver or London are not city-states in themselves; they're still a part of the country and nation they're subjected to. Overall, the US and the UK are Western, fr a historical, cultural point of view. These countries have a long history and a proud heritage as a part of the West. The Caucasians/Westerners still form the vast majority of the population.


The US, Canada or Australia don't have a long history. Singapore was settled before Australia and NZ. The concept of city state is ot very important for me. Actually, NY is a city-state, as there is a NY state with its parliament and laws. Would you consider it differntly if it became fully independant from the US, as a nation ?
After all, S'pore and Malaysia were still a single country not so long ago.

When you say "The Caucasians/Westerners still form the vast majority of the population" , you are admitting that the most important factor is the ethny, what I suspected was also the case with Japanese. But we have a serious problem; where do we put non-Caucasians living in Europe, the Americas, Australia and NZ ? Fair enough, a Chinese looking American or Canadian will still be complimented on their English in their own country, because there is a general belief that if you live in an Western country you must be Caucasian. That is increasingly a problem as Canada or Australia's population are getting less and less Caucasian (especially in big cities). Then what with black Americans ? What with American-Indians ? Are they Westerners ?

Originally posted by Julien
Well I don't know what you know about Hungary, but you visibly haven't understood the obvious reason why I was saying that Hungary is not strictly speaking European. Hungarians descent from the Huns, a central Asian tribe culturally and linguistically related to the Mongols. The Huns invaded Europe in the 5th century AD and sped up the end of the Western Roman Empire. In fact, there were two groups of Huns. One settle in the plain that later became Hungary, while the other settle in present-day Finland and Estonia.Magyars I believed, rather than Huns, although undoubtably some Huns did settle into the region earlier on. The Magyars are yet another nomadic tribe fr the steppes.

The Hungarian lands are part of the steppes stretching all the way to China - hence the nomadic tribes found it suitable to their own lifestyles.

But I think the Finns are not that closely related to the Magyars - they appear to the part of the Altaic/Tungusic tribes who had spread out fr northern Siberia. Not really nomadic pastoralists. But still very broadly speaking, part of the same linguistic group.

Originally posted by Julien
The US, Canada or Australia don't have a long history. Singapore was settled before Australia and NZ. The concept of city state is ot very important for me. Actually, NY is a city-state, as there is a NY state with its parliament and laws. Would you consider it differntly if it became fully independant from the US, as a nation ?
After all, S'pore and Malaysia were still a single country not so long ago.S'pore was only founded in 1819 and modern S'pore only began to take form in the 1960s (after separation fr M'sia). I think Australia was settled before that, at least.

The second point... But NY is still subject to US Federal laws. It doesn't have an army. Can it collect income taxes, conduct diplo relations with foreign countries etc? ;) S'pore is a fully independent nation with all the attached rights.

When you say "The Caucasians/Westerners still form the vast majority of the population" , you are admitting that the most important factor is the ethny, what I suspected was also the case with Japanese. But we have a serious problem; where do we put non-Caucasians living in Europe, the Americas, Australia and NZ ? Fair enough, a Chinese looking American or Canadian will still be complimented on their English in their own country, because there is a general belief that if you live in an Western country you must be Caucasian. That is increasingly a problem as Canada or Australia's population are getting less and less Caucasian (especially in big cities). Then what with black Americans ? What with American-Indians ? Are they Westerners ?Then in which case, we'll have to go back to basics. Pls define your concept of Westerness, as I think our definitions of Westerness probably differ. ;)

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
S'pore was only founded in 1819 and modern S'pore only began to take form in the 1960s (after separation fr M'sia). I think Australia was settled before that, at least.

That's interesting because, having checked the dates again, I realise that Singapore, Oz and NZ have been colonised, developped and gained their independance at very similar times.
Australia wasn't settled until the lat 18th century (Cook arrived in 1769) and NZ even later (nothing substantial until the mid-19th century). Australia only became a real nation in 1901. NZ was granted independance in 1947, but still has less inhabitants tha S'pore. Both still consider the Queen of England as the head of state. What I meant is that Singapore was part of a Muslim kingdom before being settled by the British, then was part of Malaysia. I guess you won't deny the similarities between M'sia and S'pore. Both are composed of the 3 same mixed ethies : Malay, Chinese and Indian, though in different proportions. Kuala Lumpur, which has a very large Chinese and Indian community could be compared to S'pore. Regarding the issue of Westerness, it's really not important that an country or city should be independant or have an army. Singaporian weren't more or less Western when they were with Malaysia. People over 50 weren't born Singaporians. That brings us to the next point :

The second point... But NY is still subject to US Federal laws. It doesn't have an army. Can it collect income taxes, conduct diplo relations with foreign countries etc? ;) S'pore is a fully independent nation with all the attached rights.

Would New Yorkers be less Westerners if NY became fully independant with an army ? Some European countries don't have any army and with the European Union, none of the 15 EU countries are fully independant, politically, economically or militarily. Just take the case of Belgium (10 million people, that is the 7th most populous EU country, though it's small). It's a federal country with 2x 3 states (actually regions and communnities, whih have different political power). The federal state's only power left is a part of the finance and the defence. With the EU, the Belgian army is unimportant and the country can frankly relly on its neighbours. Brussels, the capital, is officially bilingual Dutch-French, but is also a state, the EU capital (for the politics), NATO headquarters (for the defence ;-) ). Historically, Belgium exist since 1830, but has been part of almsot all European countries before. Lots of Belgian people feel either European or from their region (Flanders, Brussels or Wallonia). The nationality, language, political system, culture, history, army, etc. are all unimportant, as nobody really knows where they belong to (because things have been changing so much). What is sure is that they are Westerners, and this won't change because the country split, is attached to another or else.

Add to this that 10% of people in Belgium are foreigners (mostly from African origin). Where do they fit ? A 3rd generation Moroccan born and raised in Belgium with Belgian nationality, knowing no Arabic at all or not much about Morocco, is he Belgian, or at least Westerner ? That's a very contemporary problem for which opinions are still clearly divided.

Then in which case, we'll have to go back to basics. Pls define your concept of Westerness, as I think our definitions of Westerness probably differ. ;)

Maybe we'll end up defining it as being Caucasian (even if that person was adoted by an Iraqi family and their mother-tongue is Arabic and don't speak anything else). That may cause serious racial problem, as all non-Caucasians living in Europe, America, etc. (tens of millions of people) will be marginalised and will always find it difficult to feel part of the society. That create violence and a lot of problems for the society. Maybe even the cause of terrorism nowadays. I was trying to look deeper at what might characterise Westerness outside the physical appereance, but it seems that only Caucasians are preocupied by this issue. :(
Whatever.

If Sinaporians aren't Westerners, are Caucasians Singaporian Westerners ? I mean those born and raised there with Singaporian nationality. Same question for Hong Kong, Japan (like a friend of mine, born of French parents but raised and educated in Japanese), and any non-Western country where Caucasians could live, especially those being integrated to the native culture (best of all if they can't speak English or any European languages).

For some reasons, it's almost always the opposite that happens; Africans or Asians that move to a Western country, then after a few generations, children lose all roots of their ancestors culture and language. Most black Americans have nothing to do with Africa, if there ancestors were brought at slaves 300 or 400 years ago. But I am sure there are exceptions. If for some reasons, a disproportionate number of Caucasians (even Russians) migrated to Japan or Singapore for economical reasons, then went totally native, would they be Westerners (given that Japanese and Singaporian don't consider themselves as such) ?

the romans...

Originally posted by Julien

Well I don't know what you know about Hungary, but you visibly haven't understood the obvious reason why I was saying that Hungary is not strictly speaking European. Hungarians descent from the Huns, a central Asian tribe culturally and linguistically related to the Mongols. The Huns invaded Europe in the 5th century AD and sped up the end of the Western Roman Empire. In fact, there were two groups of Huns. One settle in the plain that later became Hungary, while the other settle in present-day Finland and Estonia.

Nowadays, even after 15 centuries of separation, Finnish (Suomi) and Hungarian (Magyar) languages are still thouroughly un-European and keep strong similarities together. These language are part of the Ural-Altaic family, not Indo-European. The Ural family is basically composed of Suomi, Magyar, Estonian and a few Siberian languages. The Altaic group is made of Turkish, Turkmen, Kazhak, Mongolian, and more remotely Korean and Japanese. If you want to learn more about it, check these sites : http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_uralic.html
http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_altaic.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Yukon_2/language2.html

As language is the decisive element in a culture, it only seems logical that Hungarians and Finns should be very different from the European neighbours. Maybe as much as Japanese or Singaporian are from Americans, Germans...


I am Hungarian so I know a little about the country. (But I'm not a nationalist so it's not why I picked up this issue.) The connection with the Huns is a bit forced, although the name "Hungary" refers to it. But the Hungarians don't have a word for themeselves with the part "hun", they are "magyar" and they have the "hun" only for the Huns.
There was a period in the Hungarian history when education emphasized the connection since the Huns were considered a mighty tribe, but it's over now.
But thanks for the links.


When you say It has nothing[I] to do with nationalism, ethnicity, religion and the false feeling of cultural supriority I think you misunderstand me. I have never raised the issue of nationalism or feeling of cultural superiority. As for religion, that's almost the only cultural element that binds Hungarian with other Europeans, like it does between Germans and Italians or Spanish.
Of course, Hungary [i]does have the same socio-politico-economic system as other European countries, because of it's comon history (Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc.).


I said that nationalism, religion etc (including language) have nothing to do with the classification of being "European" or "Westerner". (Maybe ethnicity has some role in being European, since in the public opinion European brings up automatically a Caucasian type.) These terms rather refer to a particular socio-politico-economic system.
What I was argued that the Slavic countries in your letter absolutely not more Europeans whatsoever then Hungary, Poland and the Czechs. Those ones did not have enough time in the European history as an independent state to learn the means of European political system (I'm not saying that HU, PL and CZ are as democratic as the West but they cannot be compared to Slovakia or Romania for instance). But what is the most important, Eastern Europe lagged behind the West in economic performance since the 17th century (and socialism added a couple of decades), so regardless of the Eastern European countries' ethnicity etc. they are all Europeans or they are not Europeans at all.


This was a very personal a biased opinion, if I can allow myself. Socialism is, apparently, something that American people have difficulty understanding because it doesn't seem to exist there (Democrats and Republican are both right-wing). Nevertheless, most of Western Europe is governed by socialist parties today. That's a fact. Or at least that what these parties call themselves. If you disagree with what should be called socialism, up to you to go and tell them. But what is dead certain is that Western Europe is not communist, and Eastern Europe was until 1990. I've lived 5 months in a German family in East Berlin that have experience communism. There was only one political party allowed (which called itslef "Communist Party", not "Socialist party"). Everybody lived in paerfectly standanrdised blok appartments, got paid by the government. You could have big problem for no being a Party member or criticising the Party. It was the same in all Eastern Europe. What you meant was maybe that there were different styles of communism (Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist...). China had a much harsher approach of communism than the USSR, but that's another matter.

I was living under the socialist system until 1990 when it fell, which means 20 years for me. ;) I agree, socialism is something that most Westerners don't understand because their media used the term "communist" for everything. This is the reason why they use communist for Eastern Europe. Several elements of the system of the East Block was communist (for example the parties), but the system itself was never called communism, since communism is the final stage of historic development in the Marxist argument - if they would declare themselves communism they should have explained the fact that it is not a promise land what you see around you.
And there were several serious differences within the East Block so it was not the same everywhere. The different styles you mentioned were the different reinterpretations of the original Marxist theory (but only in Europe, China, North Korea, Cuba is way different).
As for the Western socialist parties and the system they run - that's something completely different. Socialism in its Marxist form involves a lot of economic characteristics, which are not in the economic agenda of the West. They claim to be socialist parties, but it's more of a social-democratic wing with emphasis on the welfare state and other social issues.

Sorry if I was harsh, I just saw several very common Western misunderstanding about socialism and communism.

I'll be away for two weeks so if we keep up the debate it is the reason why I don't answer.

Happy New Year to all of you guys!!!

Julien wrote:

Well I don't know what you know about Hungary, but you visibly haven't understood the obvious reason why I was saying that Hungary is not strictly speaking European. Hungarians descent from the Huns, a central Asian tribe culturally and linguistically related to the Mongols. The Huns invaded Europe in the 5th century AD and sped up the end of the Western Roman Empire. In fact, there were two groups of Huns. One settle in the plain that later became Hungary, while the other settle in present-day Finland and Estonia.

This is not true. As a Pole I studied in Hungary for 4 years, and my "majors" in university were history and ethnography/cultural anthropology. This is right up my alley. Hungarians have nothing to do with the Huns, although Westerners who first experienced the marauding Magyars in the late 9th and 10th centuries thought they looked like Huns and they came from the formerly Hunnic lands - but remember that the Huns existed in the 5th century, and had long since ceased to exist. I recall once reading about Christianized Hunnic settlements in the Italian Alps a century or so after Attila's defeat but they didn't last long. The Carpathian Basin where the Huns had operated had long since been cleaned of Huns by the 9th century as it had since been overrun by Goths, Gepids, Avars and Slavs by the time the Hungarians showed up. Chronicles at the time the Hungarians seized the Carpathian Basin from Svatopluk's Moravia Magna mention a mixed population of Avars and Slavs. There was a 14th century Hungarian chronicle that fabricated the link between the Hungarians and Huns because the author wanted to create a heroic origins myth (in Hungarian, the myth of the brothers “Hunor” and “Magyar” and the golden stag) but this has been proven a fabrication. As Laci mentioned, the name "Hungary" likely comes from the Western confusion of the Huns with the Magyars - although there are other theories relative to a Turkic tribal alliance the Magyars neighbored with in southern Russia called Onogur ("Land of the Ten Tents") that may have played a role. The problem with the Hungarian-name-derived-from-Huns theory is that the northeastern Slavic tribes, who had few connections to Western Europe in the 10th century, also called the Hungarians a variation of “Hungarian” (Vengierskij) while having an entirely different name for the Huns. (Hungarians have always called themselves Magyars, possibly derived from the Hungarian word "to speak" [mondanni].) The Huns, the Hsiong-gnu of Chinese history, were Turkic/Altaic speakers, while the Hungarians' language derives from the Finno-Ugric language family. The Ural-Altaic and Finno-Ugric language families may have been united at some point more than 3000 years ago, but that relationship would mean modern Japanese, Korean and Hungarian are all distantly related. It also means that modern Bulgarian, a Slavic language but one derived from a fusion of a Turkic language (Old Bulgar) with Slavic, is only partially “European” while modern Serb and Croat – both old Iranian hybrids that were Slavicized – are closer to the “Indo” side of Indo-European. Even Polish had rumors of ancient Sarmatian (i.e., Iranian) origins – and don’t forget that the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic languages only recently separated from one another, relatively-speaking.

Nowadays, even after 15 centuries of separation, Finnish (Suomi) and Hungarian (Magyar) languages are still thouroughly un-European and keep strong similarities together. These language are part of the Ural-Altaic family, not Indo-European.

This also isn't true. As a native speaker of an Indo-European language (Polish) and someone who can speak fairly fluent Hungarian, as well as having taken several philology classes for Hungarian, the Slavic languages and English, I would say that Hungarian is quite Europeanized. Only about 1000 core root words in modern Hungarian are actually derived from the old Finno-Ugric Magyar; the rest have derived from a massive lexical infusion from medieval German, Latin, and the Slavic languages. For instance, nearly all the names for the surrounding peoples in Hungarian are from the Slavic: Germans - Német (Polish - Niemiec), Italians - Olasz (Polish - Wlochy), Poles – Lengyel (Lithuanian – Lenkija), etc. Modern Hungarian has also been heavily influenced grammatically by medieval German and Latin. Here’s an indication of how Europeanized Hungarians have become: The first Western chronicles to mention the Hungarians in the 9th and 10th centuries described them as Asiatic, Mongoloid-faced people with jet black hair and short, stout bodies. Modern Hungarians are still generally dark haired but have fully Caucasoid facial features and, in western Hungary especially (the old Roman Pannonia), many blondes can be found. In central Hungary there is an area called the Kúnság (Cumania) dating from the 13th century when the Hungarian kingdom allowed Cumanians, Pechenegs and Iasians to settle within its borders, and there is a general facial type in this region that is a bit darker and the faces are a little rounder than elsewhere in Hungary.

I think the problem is that you define a "European" language narrowly as strictly from the Indo-European language family. By this definition, Armenian, Iranian (Farsi), Urdu and Georgian (Gruzy) are "European" languages because they are linguistically related while Hungarian, the language of a country that played an active role in the Renaissance and modern European history, is not "European". As linguistics repeatedly emphasizes, languages and peoples do not always match up evenly. In fact, they often do not. For instance, English is the native language for most Americans today but fewer than one-fifth of them have an English ethnic background; there are more German-, Irish- and Italian-Americans today than Anglo-Americans. I might suggest you take a look at Colin Renfrew's writings on the Indo-European language family, in which he makes clear the distinction between a language family and the people who speak it. If you take a look at my posts in the recent Celtic thread you'll see some of the ideas on ethnicity and languages that have been circulating over the past few decades that increasingly dis-associate our modern ideas of ethnicity from some of the linguistic and material evidence we've been finding. I think it is absurd to assume that the speakers of a language automatically subscribe to any given set of cultural beliefs, like those of the West.

The Hungarians have maintained a state in Europe since the early 10th century, meaning for more than a thousand years. How long does one have to live in Europe before being called European? There was a Hungarian state in place centuries before Guillome/William conquered England, before the beginning of the Spanish Reconquista, before the formation of the Holy Roman Empire (Remember that Otto I used his victory over the Hungarians at Augsburg/Lechfeld in 955 to begin his empire), before Burgundia joined France, before any Papal states were formed. This Hungarian state adopted Christianity under its first Western-recognized king, István (Stephen) in A.D. 1000, and today still Hungary is fairly evenly divided between Roman Catholics and Calvinist-Protestants (“Reformists”).

When you say It has nothing to do with nationalism, ethnicity, religion and the false feeling of cultural supriority I think you misunderstand me. I have never raised the issue of nationalism or feeling of cultural superiority. As for religion, that's almost the only cultural element that binds Hungarian with other Europeans, like it does between Germans and Italians or Spanish. Of course, Hungary does have the same socio-politico-economic system as other European countries, because of it's comon history (Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc.).

So you assume that people cannot be changed, that throughout the 10,000 years of human civilization humans cannot change values or civilizational characteristics? This is absurd. This means that, as all hominids ultimately derive from African ancestors, we all today only carry African cultural values and therefore there is no cultural difference between any two groups of humans. Do Babylonian, Assyrian and Chaldean cultural values still dominate in modern Iraq? How did the various societies of the Americas, all heavily-laden with foreign immigrants, ever form with all those innate cultural differences? And of course most Europeans are really just Asian immigrants – the Germanic peoples, the Slavs, the Celts, all migrated from the East. So there’s really no such thing as a European, or perhaps maybe the Basques are the only “true” Europeans. The rest of us are just Asian squatters.

Laci reacted with a certain sensitivity that is common among Eastern Europeans, because Westerners often like to pretend they are the only ones in Europe. Numerous books on “European History” today only talk about Germany, England, Spain, Italy and maybe the Netherlands. The British historian Norman Davies describes this phenomenon in his introduction to his 2000 book Europe: A History. For as much as Europeans like to complain about how Americans know so little about European history, Western Europeans have proven in my experience (with a few exceptions) to have an equally ignorant understanding of the history of anything east of the Elbe River, save perhaps modern Russia. Kraków (the medieval Polish capital), Buda (medieval Hungarian capital and half of modern Budapest) and Prague/Vysehrad (medieval Bohemian capital) are all centuries older than Vienna, Berlin or Madrid. (Prague is also west of Vienna.) Medieval Prague was once for Europe what Brussels is today, an informal European capital. The “common history” that has fashioned Hungarian, Polish and Czech social, political and economic institutions goes back much farther than the 19th century; these countries were fully integrated into the Western feudal order by the 11th century. Polish town development is the same as French or German until 16th or 17th centuries, when wealth from the Age of Exploration catapulted Spanish, Dutch, English and French development past Polish – and German. Western Europe left Central Europe in the dust. Poland and Hungary were continental powers in medieval Europe, intervening in state affairs regularly; for instance Poland allied with the Austrians to halt the Ottoman Turkish advance on Vienna in 1683 while the Hungarians decided who would be Holy Roman Emperor in the late 15th century, even taking Vienna as their capital. The largest Renaissance library in 15th century Europe was the Hungarian king’s, while Prague and Kraków (14th century) both had universities before most German cities did. Hungary and Poland generated as much wealth as the Western countries did in medieval times, and in Hungary’s case briefly it was among the wealthiest states in Europe. A century before Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door in Worms, the Czechs launched a mini-Reformation of their own when a local Czech priest Jan (John) Hus challenged Catholic church corruption. Hus was murdered by the local bishops but his followers (led by Jan Zizka, who is credited with inventing the tank and is rated among the top ten medieval European generals) forced the authorities in Bohemia to accept the autonomy of the Czech church and it remained free until German Catholics destroyed it in 1618-1620 in the opening battles of the Thirty Years War.

To argue that these countries are not European is absurd; they are as fully European as the Portuguese or French. I would argue they are just as Western, but that requires defining what “Western” means – and that’s the point of this thread. You don’t seem to be drawing any distinctions between “European” and “Western”, which is a fatal error – Bulgaria is a fully European country, but one only mildly touched by the West. When you travel today between Hungary and Romania, you can feel a dramatic difference in values between Western and Eastern “Orthodox” societies. (I’ve done ethnographic projects among Hungarians, Germans and Romanians in Transylvania.)

As for communism and socialism, both Laci and I have lived in Eastern European communist societies and are not likely to learn much from a Westerner who has never experienced one first-hand. Before you berate the East for its recent era as a Soviet communist colony though, you should remember that modern communist theories are Western in origin, principally deriving from a German who wrote while studying English industrialism.

That was extremely interesting, Vrylakas. Actually, I can't remember reading such an fascinating post on this forum (even on others).

I apologise for my confusion between the Huns and the Magyars. I have read somewhere that Hungarian and Finnish language shared virtuallt nothing with other European languages. They probably meant common words with Latin and Germanic languages or weren't well informed.

As for the difference between a language and the athnical origin of the people that speak it, I am fully aware of it. That's why I have been asking Knight-Dragon if he would consider a Caucasian born and raised in an Asian country (and not speaking any European languages) if this person would be a Westerner or not. In my opinion, no, as "Western" describes one's mentality (values,system,culture...), not the ethny. For me an person of Asian or African ancestors, having lived only in the US and knowing nothing of their origin can only be an American, therefore, a Westerner. That's why I was wondering if non-Caucasian Singaporian or Hong-Konger having English as a mother-tongue were also Westerners or not.

That is the reason why I wanted to stress the cultural difference between Hungarians and other Europeans. I certainly believe that Hungarians are Europeans. I know they don't look mongoloid physically and have been completely integrated to Europe for such a long time. The argument was about the ehntic and linguistic origin as defining one's Westerness. My aim was to prove it was wrong to think like this (as I said earlier, Japanese could be considered as Westerners, eventhough they are ethnically and culturally totally non European).

I am sometimes playing the devil's advocate to stirr up opinions and make the discussion progress. I've been very happy to read you post, as I've learned more about Hungary and Eastern Europe than I even dreamed of in a single post.

So, what is"Westerness" at the end ? Europeans are people living in Europe. Americans in America (whatever their ethny). Americans and Europeans are Westerners, Chinese, Iraqi or Kenyan are not. Why ?

Originally posted by Julien
As for the difference between a language and the athnical origin of the people that speak it, I am fully aware of it. That's why I have been asking Knight-Dragon if he would consider a Caucasian born and raised in an Asian country (and not speaking any European languages) if this person would be a Westerner or not. In my opinion, no, as "Western" describes one's mentality (values,system,culture...), not the ethny. For me an person of Asian or African ancestors, having lived only in the US and knowing nothing of their origin can only be an American, therefore, a Westerner. That's why I was wondering if non-Caucasian Singaporian or Hong-Konger having English as a mother-tongue were also Westerners or not.On a macro basis, easier to categorize. America, West Europe etc are Western. Singapore, Japan etc are not.

On an individual basis, as to whether a person can be a Westerner by virtue of education and upbringing, I don't know... As far as I'm concerned, you're what you want to be, I guess. :)

I am sometimes playing the devil's advocate to stirr up opinions and make the discussion progress. I've been very happy to read you post, as I've learned more about Hungary and Eastern Europe than I even dreamed of in a single post.Vrylakas' posts are always interesting. :goodjob:

So, what is"Westerness" at the end ? Europeans are people living in Europe. Americans in America (whatever their ethny). Americans and Europeans are Westerners, Chinese, Iraqi or Kenyan are not. Why ?See above. I think the definition differs from person to person...

Originally posted by Julien
So, what is"Westerness" at the end ? Europeans are people living in Europe. Americans in America (whatever their ethny). Americans and Europeans are Westerners, Chinese, Iraqi or Kenyan are not. Why ?
Well, I guess everyone has to decide that one for him/herself.
I guess Communist is per definition not Western, so that's the reason why China is not Western, imo. But if I look to their plans, they might become a Western country at the end.
Imo much people think Muslem is per definition not Western, so that's Iraq is not Western.
Kenyan is Third World Country, and I think lots of people think, that the Third World is per definition not Western.

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity

Well, I guess everyone has to decide that one for him/herself.
I guess Communist is per definition not Western, so that's the reason why China is not Western, imo. But if I look to their plans, they might become a Western country at the end.
So Westerness depends on one's political opinions ?
But there are communist in France, Italy or Germany as well (still now). Do you mean that a part of their population isn't Western just on basis of their political inclination ? I'm pretty sure they won't agree as I know some of them.


Imo much people think Muslem is per definition not Western, so that's Iraq is not Western.
Go and tell Turkish people that they aren't Westerners because they are muslim and therefore cannot join the EU. What about the hundreds of thousands of Christian Arabic in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria Jordan/Palestine or Egypt ?

Kenyan is Third World Country, and I think lots of people think, that the Third World is per definition not Western.

Then Bolivia, Peru, Nicaragua, Honduras, and lots of other Latin American nations aren't Western countries. Are Romania and Bulgaria (likely to join the EU within 5 years) not Western as well because they are poorer ?

Originally posted by Julien
So Westerness depends on one's political opinions ?
But there are communist in France, Italy or Germany as well (still now). Do you mean that a part of their population isn't Western just on basis of their political inclination ? I'm pretty sure they won't agree as I know some of them.

I guess you misunderstood: Iself am not exactly sure what Westerness is. I just telled what most people think of it. But I'll join the discussion: Westerness is related with democracy, imo. I think Communist countries are automatically not Western. With "Communist countries" I mean countries like China, North Corea, etc. Where the Communists rule the land. I my own country, Holland, there are also Communist, but that doesn't make The Netherlands a Communist country.

Originally posted by Julien
Go and tell Turkish people that they aren't Westerners because they are muslim and therefore cannot join the EU. What about the hundreds of thousands of Christian Arabic in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria Jordan/Palestine or Egypt ?

I said much people think Muslem is per definition not Western. But I think it is absolutely possible that a Muslem country is Western. As soon as Turkey will join the EU, I'll call Turkey Western.

Originally posted by Julien
Then Bolivia, Peru, Nicaragua, Honduras, and lots of other Latin American nations aren't Western countries. Are Romania and Bulgaria (likely to join the EU within 5 years) not Western as well because they are poorer?
Since the were "partners" of the USSR, I don't think that I'll call them Western now. But as soon as they join the EU, I think I'll call them Western. Richdom isn't related to Westerness. Belgium, for instance, is not a that rich country :D

Richdom isn't related to Westerness. Belgium, for instance, is not a that rich country

What makes you believe that ? My stats show me that the GDP per capita in Belgium (US$26,946 at PPP, source The Economist) is the 4th highest of EU countries after Luxemburg (world's highest GDP per capita), Denmark ($29,792) and the Netherlands. Belgium's GDP per capita is 3 times like that of Greece, Portugal or Czech Republic. It is even slightly higher than Japan's (at PPP).

Sorry. The people are not earning less there. They earn well with their jobs. But the economy is just poor and not so good. In fact, I didn't say Belgium was poor, but only that Belgium is not so rich, and that is so. I have only to travel 100 km to the south from my homecity and I can see it.

That's strange because Brussels is the city with the highest salaries in Europe, after London. Where do you live in the Netherlands ? Regional disparities are high in every country. Check this site : http://www.demographia.co