# Western world & Westernized societies



## motion (Oct 13, 2009)

This is very interesting I always considered the Western world as *absolutely*
Australia, NZ, UK, USA, Canada 

I dont know why I just dont consider Europe as West maybe because they are foreigners in AUS, NZ, UK, USA and Canada, whereas people from AUS NZ UK USA and CANADA are basically interchangeable.

I just cannot understand how Europe is Western when their political and law system is completely different from AUS NZ UK CANADA AND USA also their way of life. 

I think there is the western world, a european world, and eastern world. I would not consider any country in Europe including germany and france as West. Thats the absolute truth. But maybe in a politically correct world western Europe may be included but thats purely political correctness.


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

^^

I guess how it should be positioned is that there is the Anglo-American sphere and the Latin/Germanic sphere within the Western world. Because saying that France, Italy, German, Scandinavia are not part of the Western world would greatly be erroneous. Just for the simply fact that many descendants in AUS, NZ, USA have origins in those countries or the centuries old cultural/philosophical exchanges between those countries.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

isakres said:


> Western= Developed -Capitalist-Mainly Christian- Using Latin Alphabet countries + Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Non western= The rest of the world.


South Korea is also developed as well and it has it own alphabet system as well.

Most Arab countries do not use The Latin Alphabet.

On the other hand, Indonesia, Malaysia and The Philippines are developing Asian countries but use The Latin Alphabet.

Indonesia and Malaysia have its own part western influence since both were colonies with Indonesia as part of The Netherlands and Malaysia, Great Britain. But the western influence in Indonesia is less than that of Malaysia.

The Philippines with its Spanish and American influence is the most western influenced of any Asian country. Plus it is the only predominantly Christian country in Asia other than Timor Leste. But some western cultures brought to The Philippines are fused with local cultures and beliefs, thus making it taboo or exotic to some Westerners visiting the country.


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

Ulpia-Serdica said:


> I would have to disagree with you.
> 
> At the time of the Meiji Restoration, the term Western was much more broader. It compromised industrialization, economic/technological development, fashion, legal system, architecture, entertainment and other cultural influences.


At the time of the Hague Conferences just before WWI, one of the reasons the "Great Powers" didn't submit to a system of international courts was because they would have had to relinquish some authority to non-whites in Latin America and Asia. Being "western" was a concept based in no small part on racial views of the world and of history. Cultural, political and economic factors were there as well, but the importance of race in this estimation cannot be underestimated.



> Today, industrialization and economic/technological development could more difficultly be described as Western. True, the TV, the computer, the car, the cellphone are Western inventions but they aren't necessary Western peculiarities any longer. The Japanese and the South-Koreans were able to develop great products that could compete with any Western product and at the same time enhance the initial technology.
> 
> The other points on my list though are clearly much more representative of how those countries have gotten Westernized. For me, the fact that the legal system and fashion trends have been heavily influenced by Western law and Western fashion is much more representative. Japanese law is composed mainly of civil law with lesser touches of common law and old Japanese/Chinese law. Same can be applied to the dressing attire of Japan, where you would rarely see people in traditional attire in the street let alone in any formal business or political meeting.


But that's essentially my point, the standard of being "western" isn't an objective one based on pure technological advancement...it's a vestige of colonialist mentalities, one that reserves a distinguished position for certain peoples. Japan might be as _westernized_ as any other, but it will never be considered _western_...and it's about race whether or not we admit it. Of course, I very much opposite it but we have to call a spade a spade.

Just look at all the countries people are naming as "western". All countries of predominately European descent. Are we really going to tell ourselves that ethnicity plays no part in this?


----------



## Dr_Cosmo (Nov 8, 2010)

motion said:


> This is very interesting I always considered the Western world as *absolutely*
> Australia, NZ, UK, USA, Canada
> 
> I dont know why I just dont consider Europe as West maybe because they are foreigners in AUS, NZ, UK, USA and Canada, whereas people from AUS NZ UK USA and CANADA are basically interchangeable.


One hallmark of Western civilization is its emphasis on education and creativity.

I guess your level of knowledge does not compare to Western standards.


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

kaligraffi said:


> At the time of the Hague Conferences just before WWI, one of the reasons the "Great Powers" didn't submit to a system of international courts was because they would have had to relinquish some authority to non-whites in Latin America and Asia. Being "western" was a concept based in no small part on racial views of the world and of history. Cultural, political and economic factors were there as well, but the importance of race in this estimation cannot be underestimated.
> 
> But that's essentially my point, the standard of being "western" isn't an objective one based on pure technological advancement...it's a vestige of colonialist mentalities, one that reserves a distinguished position for certain peoples. Japan might be as _westernized_ as any other, but it will never be considered _western_...and it's about race whether or not we admit it. Of course, I very much opposite it but we have to call a spade a spade.
> 
> Just look at all the countries people are naming as "western". All countries of predominately European descent. Are we really going to tell ourselves that ethnicity plays no part in this?


You also need to consider that the political situation during the Hague Conference was completely different, non-European countries at that time were truly insignificant in terms of economic or political influence. So the Great Powers used their leverage to better their positions. Also at the time, the concepts of racism and nationalism were much more present in all European societies.

Today, the concept of being Western has greatly changed for the simple fact that in many instances does not include only being of European descent or partially European. There are plenty of ethnic groups especially in North-America that would not be considered Western if they would have stayed in their countries of origin but due to the fact that they have spend several generations in a Western environment have adopted cultural traits, social behaviors, fashion trends, interest that fall in line much more with the Western world than with their original countries. From Lebanese Americans, Russian-Americans, Japanese-Americans, African-Americans. Those groups would not fall within the traditional Western world countries but nonetheless the majority of the people within those groups especially the 2nd/3rd generations have much more in common with the Western world than with their ancestral land and are truly considered part of the Western world.

You are right that for now Japan is considered westernized more so than Western, but at the same time as we said with isakres, the term is changing. What was Western in the 1950s is not the same as today. Obviously for now Western does include countries with European majority or with at least some type of mixing with people of European ancestry.


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

Ulpia-Serdica said:


> You also need to consider that the political situation during the Hague Conference was completely different, non-European country at that time were truly insignificant in terms of economic or political influence. So the Great Powers used their leverage to better their positions. Also at the time, the concepts of racism and nationalism were much more present in all European societies.


I can't agree...Japan had just defeated Russia in 1905. And otherwise, non-European countries were extremely significant in economics, which is precisely why all the colonial powers were tripping over themselves to take control of them...it is, in many ways, why WWI happened (the first and last shots of that horrible conflict were fired in Africa).

It's true that racism has changed, but the concept of "the west" was coming into being at the end of the 19th Century...and so it is reasonable to say that we have inherited those prejudices inherent in that worldview.



> Today, the concept of being Western has greatly changed for the simple fact that in many instances does not include only being of European descent or partially European. There are plenty of ethnic groups especially in North-America that would not be considered Western if they would have stayed in their countries of origin but due to the fact that they have spend several generations in a Western environment have adopted cultural traits, social behaviors, fashion trends, interest that fall in line much more with the Western world than with their original countries. From Lebanese Americans, Russian-Americans, Japanese-Americans, African-Americans. Those groups would not fall within the traditional Western world countries but nonetheless the majority of the people within those groups especially the 2nd/3rd generations have much more in common with the Western world than with their ancestries native land and are truly considered part of the Western world.


Only through wholesale assimilation is this possible. As Malcolm X pointed out, Africans lost their languages, their identities, even their names when they were taken to the Americas. We're talking about a population that was literally kidnapped and forced to walk, talk and think like whites.

Japanese-Americans were thrown in prison camps because of their ethnicity, I think that's a very good example of them not being considered part of the "western" team.



> You are right that for now Japan is considered westernized more so than Western, but at the same time as we said with isakres, the term is changing. What was Western in the 1950s is not the same as today. Obviously for now Western does include countries with European majority or with at least some type of mixing with people of European ancestry.


Right, I'm just saying it's not a coincidence.


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

kaligraffi said:


> I can't agree...Japan had just defeated Russia in 1905. And otherwise, non-European countries were extremely significant in economics, which is precisely why all the colonial powers were tripping over themselves to take control of them...it is, in many ways, why WWI happened (the first and last shots of that horrible conflict were fired in Africa).
> 
> It's true that racism has changed, but the concept of "the west" was coming into being at the end of the 19th Century...and so it is reasonable to say that we have inherited those prejudices inherent in that worldview.


They were insignificant in the way that it was the Great Powers that held the military technological and financial resources to go on intensive military campaign throughout the world or the industrial technology to develop their societies. Except for Japan which had started it's industrialization, most other nations were far from it.



> Only through wholesale assimilation is this possible. As Malcolm X pointed out, Africans lost their languages, their identities, even their names when they were taken to the Americas. We're talking about a population that was literally kidnapped and forced to walk, talk and think like whites.
> 
> Japanese-Americans were thrown in prison camps because of their ethnicity, I think that's a very good example of them not being considered part of the "western" team.


Well assimilation is a natural process. It is true that the African-Americans' case is completely different since the process was done in such a really sharp way (moving from one continent to another), but we cannot change the historical events. The Berbers of the Maghreb became part of the Arabic world throughout conquest, forced conversions and assimilation. Today only a small part of the the Maghreb has Berber self-consciousness. In my own country, the Slavic population simply assimilated the local Thracian population through intermixing, war and forced conversions. From a historical perspective this is completely normal, assimilation has always happened.

Today assimilation is simply done in a much more peaceful way than back in the days.


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

Ulpia-Serdica said:


> They were insignificant in the way that it was the Great Powers that held the military technological and financial resources to go on intensive military campaign throughout the world or the industrial technology to develop their societies. Except for Japan which had started it's industrialization, most other nations were far from it.


Well both Japan and Russia (and arguably the Ottoman Empire) could go on military campaigns and were developing industry, and yet neither are counted among "the west"...and still aren't even today.

Plus, all the talk of "democracy" beforehand can go out the window because there wasn't much of it in the so-called western nations in the years before (or after) 1914.

So if it's not just about technology, military power and political form, then what is this whole "western" category about then?



> Well assimilation is a natural process. It is true that the African-Americans' case is completely different since the process was done in such a really sharp way (moving from one continent to another), but we cannot change the historical events. The Berbers of the Maghreb became part of the Arabic world throughout conquest, forced conversions and assimilation. Today only a small part of the the Maghreb has Berber self-consciousness. In my own country, the Slavic population simply assimilated the local Thracian population through intermixing, war and forced conversions. From a historical perspective this is completely normal, assimilation has always happened.
> 
> Today assimilation is simply done in a much more peaceful way than back in the days.


Yes you're right, exchange is natural and exchange often turns into assimilation, but as you said that's very different than American slavery and its effects because of the drastic nature of the crime.


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

kaligraffi said:


> Well both Japan and Russia (and arguably the Ottoman Empire) could go on military campaigns and were developing industry, and yet neither are counted among "the west"...and still aren't even today.
> 
> Plus, all the talk of "democracy" beforehand can go out the window because there wasn't much of it in the so-called western nations in the years before (or after) 1914.
> 
> So if it's not just about technology, military power and political form, then what is this whole "western" category about then?


The Ottomans would be highly doubtful since they lost the Balkan War in 1912 against smaller European countries with much fewer resources than the Great Powers, they were in clinical death by then. Russia and Japan could indeed be considered as the only possible contenders at that time, but Russia was suffering by internal problems although Japan did do their fair share of colonization of Asia. But our initial discussion was why didn't the Great Powers agree on a system of international courts during the Hague Conferences? It was because they had the military, industrial & economic leverage to counter such proposals made by some LATAM countries such as Uruguay.



> Yes you're right, exchange is natural and exchange often turns into assimilation, but as you said that's very different than American slavery and its effects because of the drastic nature of the crime.


The Atlantic slave trade was indeed different from many other assimilations during history in the way that it moved people to a completely alien environments. But your statement that exchange is natural and exchange often turns into assimilation, does not fit the two examples that I gave about the Berbers and Thracians. They were cold-blooded invasions with forced conversions, massacres and cultural destruction, just like the Atlantic slave trade except but through a longer period of time. How would you describe the campaign of Nader Shah in India? He plundered the country, killed hundreds of thousands within a few months, destroyed plenty of cultural heritage and at the end he got paid. As different as the Atlantic slave trade was, it was equally similar to any other conquest in history.


----------



## BringMe (May 7, 2011)

South America,Central America, Mexico (North America) are totally part of the western world 

BUT! there's two terms Western World And western economies the last one only includes the developed countries (EU,Canada,United States,Australia)

Western world is more cultural,religion etc 

The Western World is also considered to be the collection of nations, where Indo-European languages and cultures (primarily of Western European origin) are practiced and dominated. Ethnically speaking, it can refer to Germanic, Greek, Latin, Celtic and Baltic peoples and most of their territories. It can arguably also refer to some Slavic (Czech Republic) and non-Slavic (Hungary) territories in Central Europe.

From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from Western European cultures,Western Europe, *the Americas (North and South America), Australia, New Zealand and Israel. Together these countries constitute Western society.*


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

BringMe said:


> From a cultural and sociological approach the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from Western European cultures,Western Europe, *the Americas (North and South America), Australia, New Zealand and Israel. Together these countries constitute Western society.*


But for instance, why wouldn't you include Russia in this group. It is true that at its roots, Russian culture is not derived from Western Europe. But over the last 400 years the influence of Western European culture, legal system, fashion and entertainment have greatly been shaped Russia, as much as to make modern Russia culture more similar to Western European culture than to 1600s Russia. St. Petersburg is pretty much build by Western Europeans and all Russian craftsmanship schools built during Peter the Great and Catherine, were supervised by Western Europeans for several decades prior to them becoming truly native.


----------



## BringMe (May 7, 2011)

^^ Well I think there's just one part of russia "western" but the other part is more asian even they don't look asian at all


----------



## garum0 (Jul 26, 2010)

BringMe said:


> South America,Central America, Mexico (North America) are totally part of the western world


kay:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Western = White or White dominated for much of the history of the word. Only recently is it blurring as a few rising Latin American countries, with mixed White populations 'join the fold' (the elitist club). Japan and Turkey etc, although as contemporary and Western as say, Romania or Italy, Greece or Russia etc, with adoption and development of technologies, governing, outlook and democracies echoing other European countries through history, are not considered Western.

In short Europe and its colonies, each with their own unique histories and cultures, have one unifying factor in being considered Western - by race. Its pretty much the unsaid thing imo, the way the term has been used.


When saying oh 'Japan is so Western' (as opposed to thinking it already is the West -e.g. you wouldnt say 'oh Britain is so Western') means its culture resembles the same culture as in Europe/ America. By dint it also infers the country is rich. Unless its not, but, if it's White then it's accepted (eg Moldova, Greece, Hungary etc).


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Western = White or White dominated for much of the history of the word. Only recently is it blurring as a few rising Latin American countries, with mixed White populations 'join the fold' (the elitist club). Japan and Turkey etc, although as contemporary and Western as say, Romania or Italy, Greece or Russia etc, with adoption and development of technologies, governing, outlook and democracies echoing other European countries through history, are not considered Western.


Yes, very well said.



Ulpia-Serdica said:


> The Ottomans would be highly doubtful since they lost the Balkan War in 1912 against smaller European countries with much fewer resources than the Great Powers, they were in clinical death by then. Russia and Japan could indeed be considered as the only possible contenders at that time, but Russia was suffering by internal problems although Japan did do their fair share of colonization of Asia. But our initial discussion was why didn't the Great Powers agree on a system of international courts during the Hague Conferences? It was because they had the military, industrial & economic leverage to counter such proposals made by some LATAM countries such as Uruguay.


The Turks were able to defeat the British invasion, so those ideas of "The Sick Man of Europe" were proven wrong...the colonialists tried to carve up Turkey but they weren't able to do so. Russia might have been suffering from internal problems, but so was Austria-Hungary, so why the distinction? Why is Vienna considered "western" while St. Petersburg isn't?

And lastly, the reason they rejected the proposal of international courts was partially because they didn't want so-called "half-bred" Latino lawyers interrogating their citizens in court. Barbara Tuchman's _The Proud Tower_ illustrates this...the decision was about prejudice.



> The Atlantic slave trade was indeed different from many other assimilations during history in the way that it moved people to a completely alien environments. But your statement that exchange is natural and exchange often turns into assimilation, does not fit the two examples that I gave about the Berbers and Thracians. They were cold-blooded invasions with forced conversions, massacres and cultural destruction, just like the Atlantic slave trade except but through a longer period of time. How would you describe the campaign of Nader Shah in India? He plundered the country, killed hundreds of thousands within a few months, destroyed plenty of cultural heritage and at the end he got paid. As different as the Atlantic slave trade was, it was equally similar to any other conquest in history.


Again, each example is different and no two are the same...I wasn't saying _every_ exchange is natural.

Had Indians been kidnapped from their homes and brought in chains in large numbers to, say, California and forced to lose every last one of their identities...then that would be one thing.


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

Acosta said:


> Also the Greek alphabet. ^^


yea I recalled that after my post.

the Greeks and Hebrews are the two ancient pillars of the western civilization, (though Hebrews/Jews the pillar of Islam as well).


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

Hebrewtext said:


> yea I recalled that after my post.
> 
> the Greeks and Hebrews are the two ancient pillars of the western civilization, (though Hebrews/Jews the pillar of Islam as well).


It's not so simple as all that. "Western civilization" took a great deal from the Islamic world...while the Islamic world had previously taken a great deal primarily from the Byzantines and Sassanids (as well as the Chinese in innovations such as paper, and even the Visigoths, for example the famous arcos de herradura of Moorish architecture). In effect, the re-discovery of classical Greek thought was made possible by the Islamic world's prior re-discovery.

The only way Judaism arguably influenced western civilization is through Christianity, but Nicaean Christianity was defined far, far more by gentile philosophers and leaders than any Hebrew influence. Once the eastern centers of Christianity were taken by Muslim rulers (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria...where the Muslims were usually greeted as liberators by the people there because they were more tolerant of religious differences than the Byzantines), Christianity became a European institution first and foremost...that is until colonialism forced it upon other parts of the world after the image of Europe.

Also, IIRC the concept of a single "Hebrew identity" has its roots in the late 19th Century.


----------



## Mr_Dru (Dec 15, 2008)

In the Netherlands. At the annual foreigners count from the CBS (Centraal Bureau Statstiek). The Dutch government won't count the Japanese citizens as foreigners. Because the government qualify them as 'Western'. The government do count the east Europeans and Asians as foreigners or at least as not western. 

The Dutch qualify Japan as an Western world.




Source CBS
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?conceptid=1013


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

^^

That's wrong and pure political correctness. Think for yourself, when you see Japan, do you see a part of the western world in front of you?


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

kaligraffi said:


> The Turks were able to defeat the British invasion, so those ideas of "The Sick Man of Europe" were proven wrong...the colonialists tried to carve up Turkey but they weren't able to do so. Russia might have been suffering from internal problems, but so was Austria-Hungary, so why the distinction? Why is Vienna considered "western" while St. Petersburg isn't?


You are referring to Gallipoli Campaign which was indeed a success for the Turkish army, but up until then the Ottomans were really the "Sick Man of Europe". They had lost the Russo-Turkish war of 1828 and of 1877. Most of their territories in the Balkans were lost and this was confirmed with the First Balkan War in 1912 and the Young Turks Revolution in 1908.

Personally, as I said in previous posts I consider Russia as part of the modern Western world (or at least its closest expansion) My guess is that history could have been much more different if communism hadn't blossomed in Russia. Communism definitively changed a lot of things and for the longest time defined what Western or westernized means. 



> And lastly, the reason they rejected the proposal of international courts was partially because they didn't want so-called "half-bred" Latino lawyers interrogating their citizens in court. Barbara Tuchman's _The Proud Tower_ illustrates this...the decision was about prejudice.


Correct. And the reason they used racial prejudices towards the mestizos is because they had the military and economic leverage to do so.



> Again, each example is different and no two are the same...I wasn't saying _every_ exchange is natural.
> 
> Had Indians been kidnapped from their homes and brought in chains in large numbers to, say, California and forced to lose every last one of their identities...then that would be one thing.


Either way, history is what it is, we cannot change it. My initial point was that the African-Americans at least to me and to many people in the modern world have much more in common in terms of culture, entertainment, way of life, way of thinking, views of the world with the Western world than with Western Africa. Whether this was done through brutal ways hundreds of years ago this is a different story. Just like many other groups that are considered non-European but through assimilation eventually become part of the Western world.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

I'd say the reason Japan isn't considered western is because the place is culturally different to a large degree.

Westernised implies they've taken on many aspects of western culture and architecture, but they aren't "western" because they are different. There's no implication that their society is somehow lesser as a result, just different.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

We are living in a *global world*, age of globalization. 

One country or another will adapt certain cultures and make it part of their own. Japan may have its traditional principles but have adapted western culture especially popular culture. 

The United States or Europe will adapt certain Asian customs and principles such as Feng-Shui, way of doing business, etc.

Overall, we are all earthlings!


----------



## messicano (Sep 27, 2010)

Manila-X said:


> We are living in a *global world*, age of globalization.
> 
> One country or another will adapt certain cultures and make it part of their own. Japan may have its traditional principles but have adapted western culture especially popular culture.
> 
> ...


in USA many gringos eat tacos

the gringos of texas are VERY diferent from the english or the californication people:banana:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

messicano said:


> in USA many gringos eat tacos
> 
> the gringos of texas are VERY diferent from the english or the californication people:banana:


I'm Pinoy and I love tacos! But it is not my staple food. In fact I more eat sandwiches than rice!


----------



## kam4rade (Dec 6, 2007)

Western in general terms:

1. All Europe
2. North and South America
3. Australia and NZ
4. Israel

Westernized countries:

1.Turkey
2. South Africa and some other african countries.
3. Ex-sovietic asian countries

Not western:

1. Japan
2 Etc....


----------



## haikiller11 (Aug 11, 2009)

Japan, Singapore are more "western" than most of Eastern European nations. :lol: Deacades of communism has changed a lot whilst in Asia, Japan was strongly influenced by both western European and American for more than 100 years.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

it's a term bounced around that really means by race, and through history parallels this fact. Traditional Japanese culture is is just as 'alien' and
unique as say, traditional Greek, Romanian or Russian etc is to Western Europeans yet Japan is considered non-Western. If anything traditional Japanese
culture very much resembles our idea of Westernism (for example modernist aesthetic all round the world, from architecture to art, interiors to 
philosophy, is sourced from ascetic Japanese styles, thanks to Courbousier etc). 

450 year old Katsura Palace


















modernist interiors


















Japanese interiors



















Likewise Turkey, contemporary through history with all the European fashions, trends, governing and technologies, aswell as heavily influencing 
'Westernism' thanks to its Ottoman Empire days (for example 16th-19th century fashions, from Georgian and Victorian ballgowns to white wedding 
dresses, Tudor and Baroque era dress, came from Turkey).


Ottomans and their styles that influenced Europe:



























































traditional Ottoman house styles








































Nineteenth Century Istanbul











...obviously its not just styles, but these countries adopted and developed modern technologies, fashions, governance and arts contemporary with or
before many so-called Western, European countries, often with just as unique and 'alien' histories and traditional cultures before them. Yet Japan and
Turkey are not considered Western - Western influenced maybe, but by sheer dint of 'influenced' it excludes them from the club.

Istanbul










Tokyo - Meiji Era Edo

















the world's greatest art deco styled city arises out of the ashes of the 1923 earthquake (destroyed 1945)

Pre 1923
















note the hybrid Parisian -Japanese styles










After
































hybrid architecture

























traditional Japanese woodprints (aka the 'Floating World' due to its flattened, anti-perspective style, and use of abstract shapes)



















































flattened 'decorative' style of art deco, the tip of 'japonisme' influence, from impressionism to art nouveau



































In short both Japan and Turkey have run concurrent with Westernism, even to the point of influencing and defining many aspects of what it is to be
or look 'Western', and with 'Western' histories outpacing many European countries - yet they are not considered Western. In other words 'Western' 
heavily implies 'White' as the underlying yet defining factor.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

At the risk of over-simplification, my definition of "Western" is anything that is European or heavily Europeanized (by which I mean aspects of culture that are very deeply rooted such as language, religion, and folklore).

After all Europe is a relatively small continent, highly populated, with long established trade, scientific and cultural exchanges between its peoples for several millenia. It makes sense that as a group these people have a broadly shared culture that has been shaped over time, and where they have settled in large enough numbers in order to impose their culture as the main one, those places have de facto become Western too.

I wouldn't call Japan westernized, in fact I think it is rather insulting towards their own ancient culture and traditions which are still alive and well. Here in the West we use a lot of Japanese technology, drive their cars, read their comics and sushi is all the rage, does that mean we are Japanized? No.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

The Japanese have always been adept at adapting elements of a foreign culture and making it their own. There is nothing new in how they adapted to Westernized modes/trends during the last 150 or so years. They did the same thing with Chinese culture more than a thousand years ago: a lot of this has been completely assimilated and is now wholly Japanese.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Piltup Man said:


> At the risk of over-simplification, my definition of "Western" is anything that is European or heavily Europeanized (by which I mean aspects of culture that are very deeply rooted such as language, religion, and folklore).


Yes, which happen to be all the ethnic White countries. If it really were purely based purely on a Europeanised culture, folklore, religion etc - would Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia, Turkey etc be considered Western? What about Brazil? A country only now being included into the fold as it rises economically. 

Are the Kamlyks, a people/ former country now islanded among White European ethnicities in Russia - and by dint of their geography, very much European - considered Western?








































like the Cossacks











...and on the flip side - why is Israel, with its Asian religion and culture surrounding Judaism, considered Western if not for it's rich, majority White population?


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

> Yes, which happen to be all the ethnic White countries. If it really were purely based purely on a Europeanised culture, folklore, religion etc - would Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia, Turkey etc be considered Western? What about Brazil? A country only now being included into the fold as it rises economically.
> 
> Are the Kamlyks, a people/ former country now islanded among White European ethnicities in Russia - and by dint of their geography, very much European - considered Western?


Haiti especially is an interesting example as its language and religion are very much intertwined with distinctive French and West African influences. In any case cultures are not like borders, there isn't a point (either geographically or culturally) where one can say "this is where the Western world stops".


----------



## BringMe (May 7, 2011)

the spliff fairy said:


> Yes, which happen to be all the ethnic White countries. If it really were purely based purely on a Europeanised culture, folklore, religion etc - would Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia, Turkey etc be considered Western? What about Brazil? A country only now being included into the fold as it rises economically.


That's stupid 

Western is not about race is more a cultural meaning if you talk about white countries Colombia,Brazil even Cuba have a large European descents 

White Colombians are the Colombian descendants of European and Middle Eastern peoples. Colombia does not query for race in its census, but according to external sources, whites make up 20% to 25% of Colombia's population. Per these figures, whites constitute the second largest ethnic group in the country, after Mestizos.

*Colombia:**Antioquia (Paisa region)*

the initial founding of the Paisa population occurred through the admixture of Spanish males and Native females.Subsequently, within the emerging colonial society, marriage with individuals of Spanish ancestry was encouraged over marriage with individuals of Native ancestry, leading to the predominantly European ancestry of today's Paisa population.The mountains contributed to isolate the population until the end of the nineteenth century when it enters its own industrial revolution. The nineteenth and early twentieth century also brought European and Middle Eastern immigrants to the region notably from Spain, Italy, Germany, Lebanon, and Eastern Europe. Most of these immigrants ended up intermixing with the Paisa population.

*Basque people*

The presence of Basque ancestry in the Paisa Region has been proven especially to the proliferation of Basque surnamesand even some scholars point that it is maybe one of the regions of Hispanic America with most concentration of ancestry from that Iberian region.The Basques arrived to Antioquia during the seventeenth century.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth century Basque families from Northern Spain settled in the Aburrá Valley where Medellín and Envigado are located, as well as small towns in eastern Antioquia, such as Marinilla, El Retiro and El Santuario. This part of Antioquia reminded these families of northern Spain.

*Some famous paisas:*

*Colombian ex president Alvaro Uribe Velez*










*Fernando Botero:*










and more colombians:



















*Archiecture*

its architecture is mostly the result of adapting European models to local conditions. The country's colonial buildings reflect their Spanish (and particularly Andalusian) origin, as seen in the traditional single-story houses laid around a central patio, to be found both in colonial towns such as Santafé (Bogotá), Tunja or Cartagena, or in rural haciendas throughout the country. After gaining its independence, Colombia severed its links with Spain and looked elsewhere for new models, first England, then France,marking the beginning of what became known as Republican Architecture (Arquitectura republicana), an era that lasted well into the twentieth century, when the changes in architectural thinking in Europe brought Modern Architecture to the country during the last years before World War II.

For example: 

Typical Paisa Region town










*Medellin*





































*Bogota:*


















































































*Cartagena:*


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep, so is Colombia Western then or not?

I think this is more representative, the face of a myriad culture


----------



## BringMe (May 7, 2011)

^^ I'm telling you depends of the region white predominates more in the central part of the country and the coffee region Like Bogotá,Medellín etc blacks in the Pacific,Caribbean The indigenous people are the most lower population in the whole country you can find some in the north (Caribbean) and the south (amazon)

Everyone knows that Colombia is a multi cultural country every region is different and they are not the same


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yes, of course. But does the West consider Colombia, part of them do you think?


----------



## PadArch (Apr 1, 2010)

Japan is not part of the western world... You might call it westernised in that it was influenced in some areas by Western culture during the 20th century onwards but thats relative and does not in anyway make Japan overall Western. You might as well call the UK oriental because we prefer chinese and indian food to European food. The status of a country is contingent on its whole history.. Calling Japan western is stupid. Definition of a western country imho is a country who's dominant culture comes out of Europe. South America is a bit of a grey area in that the culture is quite a mix between indigenous and european.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^precisely, its based on race - not technology, modernism, democracy or one unifying culture.


----------



## garum0 (Jul 26, 2010)

the spliff fairy said:


> yes, of course. But does the West consider Colombia, part of them do you think?


Yes, we consider all South America part of the "West", like North America (since 1492), despite some of those countries retain some traits of amerindian culture or has been influenced by West Africa population brought there. Don't forget that european descendents created those states.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

Spliff Fairy: what is that amazing church across a gorge!?!


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

PadArch said:


> Japan is not part of the western world... You might call it westernised in that it was influenced in some areas by Western culture during the 20th century onwards but thats relative and does not in anyway make Japan overall Western. You might as well call the UK oriental because we prefer chinese and indian food to European food. The status of a country is contingent on its whole history.. Calling Japan western is stupid. Definition of a western country imho is a country who's dominant culture comes out of Europe. South America is a bit of a grey area in that the culture is quite a mix between indigenous and european.


Personally, I am agree with you that Japan is considered by most as westernized instead of Western. But your comparaison with the UK is trully not logic. Japan is much more westernized than the UK is orientalized. Whether it is in terms of legal system, dressing norms, high fashion, popular entertainment or gastronomy western presence in Japanese life is much more present than eastern presence is in the UK. Just think about it, does the British society function on the base of ancient Japanese law of before the 18th century or does Japan function on French/German civil law with a mix of Anglo-American common law? Do British people wear traditional formal Japanese attire for parliament, business meetings, formal occasion or do the Japanese wear suits for such occasions? Same can be said about the movie industry, where most top grossing movies in Japan are from Hollywood or where Western fashion brands are ominipresent.


----------

