The Krakatoa erupted in the 19th century I think. Definitely not 535 AD...
And it's in Indonesia, hardly in the South Pacific...
And it's in Indonesia, hardly in the South Pacific...
Beginnings of the West
- Thread starter Vrylakas
- Start date
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
Hah, I'm the only one with the "other". 
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...
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...
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
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.
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.
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
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?
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?
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
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...
Kafka2
Whale-raping abomination
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,204
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.
I wrote "thousands"???!!!
Stupid me.Prepare for another delirium message of mine. - If someone finds it stupid, than don't take it seriously.
Dear Vrylakas
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.
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
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...
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:
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".
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:
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...
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...
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.
OK....sorry, can't vouch for Knight-Dragon
BTW, I am posting the above while playing a PBEM with donsig, so I may not be thinking too coherently...
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
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.
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.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
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.
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.
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
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
Cimbri
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
i'd say wester civilization was created in the beginning of time
LionQ
Noble
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.
Similar threads
