Can someone help me define Western Civilization?

[aronnax]

I never you said the people of these nations were "Westerners." But they are Westernized

To be a civilized, rich and developed nation is to be Westernized

Now you make it sound as if the 'West' whatever that maybe is the economic standard and the rest of the world is playing catch up to it.

Further more, don't use the word "civilised" this isn't a game of Victoria and it is clearly insulting to the otherwise "unwestenised" nations.

If "Western Civilisation" was meant to have economic criteria than why not just replace that archaic phrase with "developed nations"

 

[Cashie]

I never you said the people of these nations were "Westerners." But they are Westernized

To be a civilized, rich and developed nation is to be Westernized

These societies are somewhat westernised and not western.
The topic under investigation is Western Civilisation; not modern developed economies.
Western Civilisation would be partially defined as having a modern, developed economy: it's part of the criteria, not the criteria.

 

[Pokurcz]

I would also add that as a term it has only been relevent since the end of the cold war. Trying to apply it to the medieval era or even earlier makes no sense whatsoever. For this reason, Poland has been part of the Western World since they became democratic and/or joined the EU, not when they embraced Christianity.

Members of the EU are part of the Western world because the entry requirements of the EU corrolate quite strongly with many aspects of what makes a country ''western.''

In my opinion the ''western world'' started in the UK with the Industrial Revolution, and spread from there. The ''most'' western countries are all fully industrialised and comparitively wealthy, with good standard of living, a strong democracy and a white, Christian background and a culture with a high level of Individualism.

Emerging countries such as those in South America are not western. Neither is Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea or Singapore (these are western influenced only). Turkey and Israel also fail the criteria.

Now I would claim that Poland (and Lithuania) has been "democratic" roughly since the middle of the 16th century, when it was a Republic and had freedom of religion, up untill those despotic barbarians Prussia, Austria and Russia tore her asunder, because they hated the Poles rights and freedom and feared that it would spread!

Poland was the first country in Europe to adopt a modern codified constitution (1791).
The Jagellonian university in Krakow is one of the oldest in Europe (1364), and the noblemen used Latin as a second language up untill the 19th century.

 

[Shekwan]

Now you make it sound as if the 'West' whatever that maybe is the economic standard and the rest of the world is playing catch up to it.

Further more, don't use the word "civilised" this isn't a game of Victoria and it is clearly insulting to the otherwise "unwestenised" nations.

If "Western Civilisation" was meant to have economic criteria than why not just replace that archaic phrase with "developed nations"

I agree. What has economics got to do with whether a country is western or not?

I would say that the main factor is whether they have cultural, legal and political roots in the Roman Empire. I wouldn't even say that true democracy is necessary, but merely the idea of citizenship.

 

[aronnax]

I agree. What has economics got to do with whether a country is western or not?

I would say that the main factor is whether they have cultural, legal and political roots in the Roman Empire. I wouldn't even say that true democracy is necessary, but merely the idea of citizenship.

Honestly, I find the Roman Empire Criteria quite silly. Firstly, which Roman Empire are we talking about?
If we are talking about the one that ruled from Rome til the 5th Century, that clearly rules out all the nations that have been influenced by the Orthodox Church which is Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Macedonia.

If we are talking about the one that ruled all the way til 1453, then you would have to include these nations in your definition and that is just weird because there is a clear cultural division between the Eastern Roman Empire/Orthodox Christian influenced Europe and the Western Roman Empire/Catholic & Protestant influenced Europe.

And then, you have to add in all the other countries influenced by the 'Roman Empire'. Which if you think about it, includes not only the US and Canada, but the whole of the American Continent (maybe not Guyana or Suriname and a couple of Caribbean Islands) and East Timor and the Phillippines. Both East Timor and the Phillippines especially are incredibly "Europeanised". Old Manila is a lot like any colonial city in Latin America and Urban Philippines culture is either Spanish-traditional or American-Modern mixed with a lot of Filipino. Then there are a number of African Nations that will also fit the bill.

I think, it is time, we abolish the term 'Western Civilisation' which just doesn't make any sense as it seems to incorporate half the planet.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Arronax why not Guyana and Suriname? Suriname was a Dutch colony, with a large helping of Indian descended people (originally from the Raj) thrown in too. And Guyana is a former British colony still in the Commonwealth.

 

[aronnax]

Precisely because there is a large Indian-descent population.
I think its more in Guyana than Suriname, but because of all the Indic-population, obviously Indic culture will be most dominant there making it more Indian than it is European.

Though I am unfamiliar with the two countries so I can't judge that well.

 

[Shekwan]

Honestly, I find the Roman Empire Criteria quite silly. Firstly, which Roman Empire are we talking about?

Western. Catholic.

If we are talking about the one that ruled from Rome til the 5th Century, that clearly rules out all the nations that have been influenced by the Orthodox Church which is Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Macedonia.

Yeah, rule those f'ers right out.

Apart from Greece. I guess they're ok since Roman culture shared a lot with Greece.

If we are talking about the one that ruled all the way til 1453, then you would have to include these nations in your definition and that is just weird because there is a clear cultural division between the Eastern Roman Empire/Orthodox Christian influenced Europe and the Western Roman Empire/Catholic & Protestant influenced Europe.

No, only western and Catholic/Protestant.

And then, you have to add in all the other countries influenced by the 'Roman Empire'. Which if you think about it, includes not only the US and Canada, but the whole of the American Continent (maybe not Guyana or Suriname and a couple of Caribbean Islands) and East Timor and the Phillippines. Both East Timor and the Phillippines especially are incredibly "Europeanised". Old Manila is a lot like any colonial city in Latin America and Urban Philippines culture is either Spanish-traditional or American-Modern mixed with a lot of Filipino. Then there are a number of African Nations that will also fit the bill.

I would include only European colonies that were colonised by Europeans, and where the local culture was largely eliminated.

So US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, perhaps Argentina/Chile/Uruguay, I know they're mostly western European too.

I think, it is time, we abolish the term 'Western Civilisation' which just doesn't make any sense as it seems to incorporate half the planet.

Never! Will we get rid of the term Asia too?

 

[aronnax]

Western. Catholic.



Yeah, rule those f'ers right out.

Apart from Greece. I guess they're ok since Roman culture shared a lot with Greece.

Modern Greece has very little in common with Ancient Greece.

I would include only European colonies that were colonised by Europeans, and where the local culture was largely eliminated.

So US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, perhaps Argentina/Chile/Uruguay, I know they're mostly western European too.

Honestly, with the exception of Bolivia Guatemala and Peru, the rest of Latin America is overwhelmingly European. Most non-African Latin Americans (outside from the three mention) can trace back to at least one white ancestors. Many blacks can to as well and those that can't are already so assimilated into national culture.

Go to any Urban Center in Philippines and you will swear you landed yourself somewhere in colonial Spain if it wasn't for their browner skin and non-Ibero Language.

Never! Will we get rid of the term Asia too?

Well Asia is an actual physical entity.
Western Civilisation is not.

 

[Pokurcz]

I agree. What has economics got to do with whether a country is western or not?

I would say that the main factor is whether they have cultural, legal and political roots in the Roman Empire. I wouldn't even say that true democracy is necessary, but merely the idea of citizenship.

From what I understand, Swedish law does not stem from Roman law.
Does this disqualify Sweden?

 

[Lillefix]

From what I understand, Swedish law does not stem from Roman law.
Does this disqualify Sweden?

Here's from wiki:

"Civil law (legal system), a system of law based on Roman Law"

And Sweden has a civil law system as far as I know.

If there are any jurists around, please clarify because I don't know know anything about this.

 

[Pokurcz]

Here's from wiki:

"Civil law (legal system), a system of law based on Roman Law"

And Sweden has a civil law system as far as I know.

If there are any jurists around, please clarify because I don't know know anything about this.

THe Swedish legal system might have borrowed parts from Roman law, but it is not based on it. THis is what I remember from junior high and what a friend studying law later confirmed. But I am not 100% sure if my memory is correct. I am 90 % sure.

 

[Dachs]

If we are talking about the one that ruled from Rome til the 5th Century, that clearly rules out all the nations that have been influenced by the Orthodox Church which is Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Macedonia.

Why?

 

[Ekolite]

Now I would claim that Poland (and Lithuania) has been "democratic" roughly since the middle of the 16th century, when it was a Republic and had freedom of religion, up untill those despotic barbarians Prussia, Austria and Russia tore her asunder, because they hated the Poles rights and freedom and feared that it would spread!

Poland was the first country in Europe to adopt a modern codified constitution (1791).
The Jagellonian university in Krakow is one of the oldest in Europe (1364), and the noblemen used Latin as a second language up untill the 19th century.

Well sure, but democracy is not the only criteria that needs to be met before a country meets my interpretation of being ''western''. Western Civilization definitely didn't start in Poland.

 

[Pokurcz]

Well sure, but democracy is not the only criteria that needs to be met before a country meets my interpretation of being ''western''. Western Civilization definitely didn't start in Poland.

I have never claimed that Western Civilization "started" in Poland.
Neither is democracy the only "criteria" I have given.

Western Civilization is clearly an amalgam of different achievements and mistakes made all through out Europe and North America and not something that one nation has achieved or started.

As many claim, Greece or Rome are good candidates for "Starting points", but would hardly be recognized as "Western" today. A lot has changed since then.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Is South Africa still Western even after apartheid was stopped?

 

[SKILORD]

Is South Africa still Western even after apartheid was stopped?

And I understand what you're saying, that a large influx of ethnically native Africans to the democracy might have undermined traditionally European values in the country.

And I am sure that is what you meant, but the way it is phrased could be confusing in that it seems to imply that racism is a fundamental Western value and a pillar of Western society. I'm not laughing because there is or is not a case to be made regarding that, what makes me laugh is that a large number of people would take great offense to the insinuation, although you clearly made it innocently.

If your qualification for Western nations is liberal political philosophy deriving from European thinkers then you could argue that it became more Western. If that qualification is based on phenotype then it is a harder case to make.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Is South Africa still Western even after apartheid was stopped?

Probably more-so, as equal rights under the law is one of the basic aspirations (but not unique to mind) of Western Civilisation.

 

[Cashie]

Arronax why not Guyana and Suriname? Suriname was a Dutch colony, with a large helping of Indian descended people (originally from the Raj) thrown in too. And Guyana is a former British colony still in the Commonwealth.

Guyana is ethnically split between Afro-Guyanese and 'Indians,' with a minority Amerindian population. The nation is descended from slaves and indentured workers. They speak English and serve Kool-Aid (sorry), I'm not sure if I'd classify them as Western, but then again - I wouldn't be so quick to dissmiss them.

I met a Guyanese guy a few years ago, I just thought he was American.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Guyana is ethnically split between Afro-Guyanese and 'Indians,' with a minority Amerindian population. The nation is descended from slaves and indentured workers. They speak English and serve Kool-Aid (sorry), I'm not sure if I'd classify them as Western, but then again - I wouldn't be so quick to dissmiss them.

I met a Guyanese guy a few years ago, I just thought he was American.

My view too, that is why I was mystified at arronax's original assertion (and still am by the way).